ne 541.820.3605 prairie@oregonvos.net City of Prairie City P.O. Box 370 Prairie City, Oregon 97869 March 31, 2009 Department of Land Conservation & Development 635 Capitol Street, NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2540 ATTENTION: Plan Amendment Specialist Please find enclosed two copies of the approved "1998" Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Prairie City. The document was adopted by Prairie City on September 24, 2008 by Ordinance No. 2008-923 and approved by the Grant County Court on February 4, 2009 by Order No. 09-01. Note of explanation: In early 2008, Prairie City found that due to a simple procedural oversight ten years prior, their Comprehensive Plan had never formally been approved by the County or the State. Totally unaware, Prairie City had for ten years, been using a document that was not recognized by the County or the State. A meeting was scheduled late in 2008 with Grant Young, Northeastern Regional Representative for LCDC, Boyd Britton of the Grant County Court, Hiliary McNary, Grant County Planning Director, Stan Horrell, Mayor of Prairie City and Lyn McDonald, Planning Secretary for Prairie City to consider Prairie City's options to resolve the matter. The County and the State agreed that time restraints and funding made it prohibitive to require Prairie City to revise their document prior to re-submitting it to the County for approval. Not to mention, that in the interim, Prairie City would be bound to operate under the guidelines of a thirty year old document leaving three Urban Growth Boundaries hanging in limbo. Grant Young discussed the matter with the director of LCDC in Salem and she too agreed that it would be in the best interest of Prairie City to allow them to re-submit their 1998 Comprehensive Plan for approval without revision. The appropriate hearings were held by the City and the County, the document approved and I now submit it to you for review and approval. It has been a long time in coming! Sincerely, Lyn McDonald, Secretary Prairie City Planning Commission (2) Binders Enclosed Please list all affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Local Contact: Lyn McDonald Address: P.O. Box 37 0 City: Prairie City Zip: 97869 P h o n e : $ 4 1 ) 8 2 9 - 3 6 0 5 E x t e n s i o n : F a x N u m b e r : 5 4 1 - 8 2 0 - 3 5 6 6 E-mail Address: pchall2@ortelco .net ADOPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision perORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18. 1. Send this Form and TWO Complete Copies ("documents and maps) of the Adopted Amendment to: ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150 SALEM, OREGON 97301-2540 2. Electronic Submittals: At least one hard copy must be sent by mail or in person, but you may also submit an electronic copy, by either email or FTP. You may connect to this address to FTP proposals and adoptions: webserver.lcd.state.or.us. To obtain our Username and password for FTP, call Mara Ulloa at 503-373-0050 extension 238, or by emailing mara.ulloa@state.or.us. 3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than FIVE (5) working days following the date of the final decision on the amendment. 4. Submittal of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted findings and supplementary information. 5. The deadline to appeal will not be extended if you submit this notice of adoption within five working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date, the Notice of Adoption is sent to DLCD. 6. In addition to sending the Notice of Adoption to DLCD, you must notify persons who participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision. 7. Need More Copies? You can now access these forms online at http://www.lcd.state.or.us/. Please print on 8-1/2x11 green paper only. You may also call the DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to: (503) 378-5518; or Email your request to mara.ulloa@state.or.us - ATTENTION: PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIALIST. http://www.lcd.state.or.us/LCD/forms.shtml Updated November 27, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY, OREGON February 1998 AS AN AMENDMENT AND UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 1979 PREPARED BY COMMUNITY SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WITH INPUT FROM DICK BROWN CONSULTING IN RESPONSE TO THE APPLICABLE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENTS OF OAR 660-19 AS SET FORTH BY THE STATE LAND CONSERVARTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Financed in part through planning assistance funds from the State Department of Land Conservation & Development AMENDED JUNE 1999 TO INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) REQUIRED LANGUAGE AND THE ADDITION OF PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS Amendments Prepared by S&J Enterprises Funded by ODOT and LCDC SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ARE GIVEN FOR THE ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE CITY STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE CITIZEN'S INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL. ReAdopted by Prairie City Ordinance No. 2008-923, September 24, 2008 Adopted by Grant County Court Order No. 09-01, February 4, 2009 0 0 2 1 4 S IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGC FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT 0 0 2 * 3 ^ IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION ZC-08-02 FILED BY THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY REQUESTING OFFICIAL ADOPTION OF THE PRAIRIE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 1998 R E C E I V E D A N D F I L E D ORDER NO. 09-01 FEB 1 3 2009 ¥] KATHY MCKINNON, County Clerk py Deputy Deputy Subject to the provisions set forth in Article 47 of the Grant County Land Development Code, this matter came before the Grant County Court for a Public Hearing on January 28, 2009. Members of the Court present were County Judge Mark R. Webb, Commissioner Scott W. Myers and Commissioner Boyd Britton; their presence constituted a quorum. The hearing was declared open to public testimony. Public testimony was received. This testimony and the resulting County Court discussion is summarized in the duly approved minutes of January 28, 2009, which are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the record of the hearing. Commissioner Boyd Britton made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve application ZC-08-02 for official adoption of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998, due to a procedural error which occurred in 1998. It is clearly evident f rom the record that the intention was to adopt the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, and the adoption only failed f rom miscommunication and a procedural error. Commissioner Scott W. Myers seconded the motion. The vote passed with a quorum of the County Court voting in favor. By this action, the County Court will cause the appropriate planning maps to be amended to reflect the new boundaries of the Prairie City Urban Growth Boundary. Signed this 4,h day of February 2009. Judge Mark R. Webb Commissioner Boyd Britton pmir t Se^fet^ry Mary Ferrioli 0 0 2 1 4 6 City of Prairie City ORDINANCE NO. 2008-923 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE AMENDED 1998 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has found there to be a procedural oversight in the approval process of the amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998, rendering it unapproved by Grant County and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has met with Grant County and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and they are in agreement that it is in the best interest of the City of Prairie City to receive the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and Zoning Map as Prairie City's current document of record; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has sent the required Notice of Legislative Land Use Action and conducted the necessary Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City wishes to be in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and realizes the adverse impact to the City in the withholding of State Shared Revenues should they be found to be non-compliant; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY that the City of Prairie City does hereby adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and all amendments, attachments and updates therein as set forth in "Attachment A" hereto; said attachment hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. The City Council of the City of Prairie City does hereby find and declare there exists an urgent necessity that this Ordinance take effect as soon as possible for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare and safety of the City. An emergency is hereby declared to exist and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by unanimous vote of the City Council members present at the meeting wherein this ordinance is enacted. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Prairie City this day of September, 2008 and filed with the City of Prairie City this same day. Stan Horrell, Mayor PLAN ELEMENT NO. PART I. PART II. PART III. PART IV. PARTV. PART VI. PART VII. PART VIII. 0 0 2 1 4 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAN ELEMENT TITLE PAGE INTRODUCTION CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT GENERAL LAND USE Section 2. Existing UGB Section 3. Revised UGB Section 4. General Land Use Classes Section 5. Population Projections Section 6. Goals & Policies Section 7. Exceptions OPEN SPACE, SCENIC, HISTORIC, NATURAL Section 2. Goals & Objectives Section 3. Inventory of Resources Section 4. Policies AIR, WATER & LAND RESOURCE QUALITY Section 2. Goals & Objectives Section 3. Resource Inventory/Qualities Section 4. Policies NATURAL HAZARD AREAS Section 2. Goal Section 3. Natural Hazards Inventory Section 4. Policies RECREATION NEEDS Section 2. Planning Requirements Section 3. Goal Section 4. Resource Inventory Section 5. Findings & Conclusions Section 6. Policies ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Section 2. Goal & Objectives Section 3. Planning Requirements Section 4. "SWOT" Analysis Section 5. Lands Inventory Section 6. State & National Data 0 0 2 1 4 9 Table of Contents, continued. PLAN ELEMENT NO. PLAN ELEMENT TITLE PAGE Section 7. Findings & Recommendations 40 Section 8. Policies 41 PART IX. HOUSING 43 Section 2. Goal & Objectives 43 Section 3. Planning Requirements 43 Section 4. Buildable Lands 44 Section 5. Housing Inv., Trends, Needs 44 Section 6. Bldable Lands-Housi ng Needs 46 Section 7. Policies 47 PART X. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 48 Section 2. Goal & Objectives 48 Section 3. Planning Requirements 48 Section 4. Facilities Inventoiy 49 Section 5. Planning, Timing & Financing 50 Section 6. Policies 50 PART XI. TRANSPORTATION 52 Section 2. Findings and Conclusions 52 Section 3. Goal & Objectives 52 Section 4. Planning Requirements 52 Section 5. Policies 53 PART XII. ENERGY CONSERVATION 56 Section 2. Goal & Objectives 56 Section 3. Resource Inventory 56 Section 4. Policies 57 PART XIII. URBANIZATION 58 Section 2. Goal & Objectives 58 Section 3. Planning Requirements 58 Section 4. Findings & Conclusions 59 Section 5. Policies 60 PARTI. INTRODUCTION SECTION 1. PURPOSE As required on a "periodic" basis, the Comprehensive Plan of a City or a County must be amended and updated to comply with the applicable "Periodic Review" requirements of OAR 660-19 as set forth by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Such Plans must also be amended and updated periodically to maintain a continuing compliance with ever changing Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS's), Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR's), State and Federal Agency inventories, programs and policies,, Statewide Planning Goals, and the needs and desires of the affected jurisdiction itself. It is the purpose of this "amended and updated" Land Use Plan for Prairie City, Oregon, to carry out the "LCDC Periodic Review" requirements, and to bring the City's Plan into compliance with applicable current ORS's, OAR's, Statewide Planning Goals, State and Federal Agency programs and policies, to reflect the most recent available inventory data, and to respond to the changing needs and desires of the community. SECTION 2. SCOPE & OBJECTIVES This particular edition of the City of Prairie City's Comprehensive Plan is a document representing a continuing planning effort by the City that takes into consideration City services, housing and population trends, the economy and the quality of life for residents of the community. This Plan reflects a number of changes from the previous Plan of 1984, and the Plan is supported by background material found in the various Sections of the Plan and in supporting documents. The objectives of the Plan are basically four-fold: (1) to guide future development and land use decisions by the City and its citizens; (2) to guide the City in planning and developing city services and facilities; (3) to provide a basis for implementing zoning and other land development regulations; and , (4) to meet the statutory and other mandated requirements for land use planning. The geographic area encompassed by the Plan includes all of the incorporated area of the City and those adjoining areas under County jurisdiction that make up the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area for the City. This Plan represent a joint and cooperative planning effort on behalf of the City and Grant County, with land use decisions within the UGB area subject to approval in accordance with an adopted UGB Management Agreement between the City and the County. 1 SECTION 3. PLANNING BACKGROUND Although Zoning and Subdivision Partitioning regulations had existed prior to 1976, the first "comprehensive land use planning" process was initiated for the City in 1976. As a result of that process, the City adopted a revised Subdivision Ordinance in 1979 (City Ordinance No. 332), adopted revised Zoning regulations in 1982 (City Ordinance No. 351), and adopted its first Land Use Plan by Resolution in 1982. Together with an adopted urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with Grant County (adopted by County Ordinance No. 82-7), the City submitted these documents to LCDC for acknowledgment in 1982. As a result of the LCDC review, and following a voter repeal of Grant County's Plan and implementing Ordinances in 1982 and subsequent Plan and ordinance amendments by the City and the County in 1983 and 1984, the City's Plan and implementing ordinances were acknowledge by LCDC in December of 1984 subject to certain specified amendments to the City's Plan and Zoning regulations. Such amendments to the City's Plan and Zoning regulations as required by LCDC were adopted by the City in April of 1985 (City Ordinance No. 363). One major planning effort has been completed by the City since Acknowledgment; i.e. the completion of a Downtown Development Plan in 1986. The resulting document has been adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein, and is set forth as an integral part of the economic land use elements of this Plan. SECTION 4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION & GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION Prairie City, with a reported population of 1,160 in 1994 (Center of Population Research & Census, PSU), was incorporated in 1891. The City is the second largest city within Grant County, and is located in the eastern corner of Grant County in the northeastern part of the State. At an elevation of 3,539 feet, and bordering an expansive agricultural meadow type terrain with high mountain pine forests on the horizon in all directions, the name of the City is an accurate descriptive name thereof. Such attributes clearly establish the dominate industries of the City which are agriculture dominated by livestock operations, forest products manufacturing and recreation-tourism. SECTION 5. GOVERNING AUTHORITY Prairie City is governed by a mayor and a six-member City Council who have those ordinance authorities and mandates set forth by Oregon Revised Statutes and City Charter, including Comprehensive Planning, Zoning and Subdivision Control. ORS's of particular emphasis include Chapters 92, 197 and 227. 2 SECTION 6. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS There are a number of planning and facility Documents pertaining to the City that are identified as "Supporting Documents" to this overall Comprehensive Plan Document for the City, and are hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. Such documents include the following: 1) Downtown development Plan of 1986; 2) City Sewer System Facility Plan; and 3) City Water System Facility Plan. Other documents which have been reviewed and referenced herein as containing specific data relating to the City's overall Comprehensive Plan include, but are certainly not limited to, the following: 1) 1995-1998 Three-Year Transportation Improvement Plan by the Oregon Department of Transportation; 2) OEDD 1991 Survey on Industrial Sites - West Prairie City Site; 3) ODFW Fish & Wildlife Habitat Plan for Grant County; 4) National Flood Insurance Program Report and FIRM Map Community Panel No. 410082 0001 B dated February 17, 1988; 5) Access management Manual of 1991 by Oregon Department of Transportation; 6) ODFW Fish & Wildlife Mitigation Policy; 7) Riparian Area Protection Handbook of 1984 by Barbara J. Taylor in cooperation with ODFW; 8) Business & Employment Outlook Reports by the Oregon State Employment Division; 9) Highway Functional "Classification Handbook 6FT97 4 by the Federal Highway Administration; 10) Grant County Inventory of Historic Resources of 1976 by SHPO; 11) Grant County Comprehensive Plan of 1984 as amended; and, 12) Grant County Assessor's 1994 Assessment Report. 13) Transportation Systems Plan 1997 3 \JKJ0C, JLO/C PART II. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT SECTION 1. COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The City's Planning Commission has been previously approved by LCDC as the City's "Committee for Citizen Involvement" (CCI), and was so acknowledged in 1984. Although the Planning Commission has continued to serve as the primary CCI for the City, the City has provided additional citizen involvement opportunities and this Plan Update was formulated through input from a Citizen's Involvement Committee in addition to the Planning Commission. The City has, therefore more than met its previously approved CCI requirements. SECTION 2. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT POLICIES Statewide Planning Goal No. 1 - Citizen Involvement sets forth that the basic goal thereof is "to develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process" as is appropriate relative to the scale of the planning effort. The citizen involvement program utilized by the local jurisdiction shall provide for the continuity of citizen participation and of information that enables citizens to identify and comprehend the issues. To meet these basic goals, the City sets forth the following policies concerning citizen involvement in planning activities and efforts. 1. That notification of planning activities shall be made by a variety of means to make residents and concerned citizens aware of upcoming decisions which may affect them. 2. That citizens shall be encouraged to attend public planning meetings, and assist and participate in determining problem solutions and other planning decisions. 3. That citizen involvement shall be a continuing goal of the City's planning processes, and that citizen shall continue to have opportunities to be involved in all phases of the overall planning process. 4. At a minimum, opportunities shall be provided for involvement in the planning process at all decision making levels, including but not limited to the Preparation and Adoption of Plans and Implementing Measures, Periodic Plan Evaluation, and in Plan and Ordinance Updating and Revisions including both minor and major changes. 5. That the information necessary to reach policy decisions shall be made available in a simplified, understandable form, and assistance shall be provided to interpret and effectively use such technical information. 5 0 0 2 1 5 3 6. Required plan and program coordination activities between the City and federal and state agencies shall provide opportunities for citizen involvement and input at the local level. 7. Citizen involvement programs shall provide for two-way communications between citizens and local officials. Citizens who participate in decision-making processes shall receive a response from the decision-makers. 8. Within local fiscal limitations, adequate human, financial and information resources shall be allocated for citizen involvement programs to insure such programs are responsive to citizen needs. 9. At a minimum, notice of all decision-making activities shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of State Law or City Charter, and, in accordance therewith, proper notice shall be given to all clearly identifiable affected and participating parties. 10. Decision-making processes shall be established by City Ordinance, and minimum notice requirements as set forth by applicable state statutes shall be set forth as a part of such provisions. 11. Those provisions regarding quasi-judicial land use hearings set forth in ORS 197.763 shall be incorporated into the City's implementing land use regulations, and the City shall prescribe one or more procedures for the conduct of hearings on land use permits and zone changes. 12. No quasi-judicial land use decision shall be made by the City without at least providing the opportunity for a hearing to be requested by affected or participating parties. 13. Approval or denial of a permit application shall be based upon and accompanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, states the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explains the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards and facts set forth. Written notice of the approval or denial shall be given to all parties to the proceedings. 6 vvkn&r PART III. GENERAL LAND USE SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION As stipulated to by Statewide Planning Goal No. 2 - Land Use Planning, the basic goal of this Plan Element is "to establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions relating to the use of land, and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions." This Goal also requires that all County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use within the boundaries of the affected jurisdictions shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan thereof as adopted and acknowledged under ORS 197. The basic requirements of this plan Element is that all land use plans shall include an identification of issues and problems, inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal, an evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic, energy and environmental needs. The required information to accomplish these tasks is to be contained in the Plan document or in supporting documents. The "Plan" itself shall be the basis for specific implementation measures such as Zoning, Subdivision, Partitioning and other land use or development regulations, and these implementing measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the "Plan." SECTION 2. EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AREA As acknowledged by LCDC in 1985, the City's Comprehensive Plan of 1979 as amended reported that the City encompassed a total land area of approximately 727 acres. With the addition of 90 acres of unincorporated lands adjacent to the City to the west (i.e., the West Industrial Area), the acknowledged UGB area of the City encompassed a total area of approximately 817 acres. Although absolute figures were not available relative to "actual" developed land uses by major classification, the plan did present an inventory of land areas by major land use classification as set forth on the following page: 7 00215S LAND USE INVENTORY - 1979 PLAN (Amended) Land Use Designation Total Acres %of Total Acres Developed Acres Vacant Estimated Acres Needed Residential 620 75.9% 275 345 114 Commercial 48 5.9% 21 27 9 Industrial 111 13.6% 75 36 33 Public 38 4.6% 32 6 NR TOTALS: 817 100.0% 403 414. 1/ 156 1/ The reported "Vacant" acreage were somewhat misleading because an estimated 197 acres were reported to be adversely affected by steep slopes in excess of 30%, and 103 acres were reported to be adversely affected by location within duly designated Flood Hazard Areas. The amended 1979 Plan further estimated that approximately 50% of the steep slope areas were buildable, but at much lower densities than normally associated with or desirable for "urban" type development, and that the development of such land would be more costly due to the need for appropriate safeguards associated with the development of such lands. It is also noted that the land use inventory set forth in the amended 1979 Plan did not take into account the amount of land developed for and committed to the transportation facilities and system of the subject UGB area, and therefore, the reported acreage for primary use designations does not accurately report lands actually developed for such uses. In order for the City's Plan to more accurately report the actual land uses occurring within the subject UGB area as a basis for decision-making, an updated land use inventory has been conducted utilizing the 1994 Assessment Roll and associated Assessor's maps as provided by the Grant County Assessor. The results of this updated inventory are set forth on the following page and includes a "Buildable Lands" inventoiy. <• 8 LAND USE/BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY- PRAIRIE CITY UGB - 1995 ASSESSOR MAP NO. DEVELOPED/COMMITTED (acres) UNDEVELOPED (acres) RES ID C O M M INDUST PUBLIC STREETS Buildabie Non-Buildable TOTAL ACRES Acres Unils* 13-3 2.0 I I .88 4 10.0** 23.88 13-33-2 51.94 5.94 -0- 23.00 4e -0- 80.88 13-33-2BC 29.58 6.28 0.43 2 14.65c 50.94 13-33-2CA 28.78 4.12 0.48 6.90 0.60 1 1.09a 41.97 13-33-2CB 14.71 0.9.3 22.88 ' 0.57 3e 7.78b 46.87 13-33-2CC 5.58 6.46 1.57 13.86 0.94 le 3.3 lac 31.72 13-33-2CD 16.44 2.42 1.94 9.25 -0- -0- ,59a 30.64 13-33-2DC 6.86 4.96 4.37 17e -0- 16.19 13-33-10 8.88 88.50 33.11 .22 30.35 Ind. 161.06 13-33-11 20.88 5.33 6.87 7.57 8e 27.54 68.19 13-33-11BA 15.08 3.96 4.47 0.78 3 6.73d 31.02 13-33-11BC 13.58 10.11 10.20 1.22 4e 5.14d 40.25 13-33-11BD 13.54 .44 11.21 16.59 1.75 9e 0.15d 43.68 13-33-11CA 7.13 7.99 9.48 24.60 13-33-11CB 20.73 19.61 7.20 43 5.85d 53.39 13-33-1 ID 2.07 3.21 15.69 24 e 20.97 TOTALS: 255.78 13.44 88.50 84.57 134.78 106.35 123 82.83 766.25 Footnotes for foregoing table: a Commercial ' b Severe building limitations due to excessive slopes (30%+). c Severe building limitations due to excessive slopes "and" flood hazards, d Severe building limitations due to flood hazards and stream setback requirements. e Number of residential units based on existing lot sizes, configurations, existing development patterns, ownership, physical limitations, and other relevant factors ***************************************************************<****(***«******************* Based on the foregoing "detailed" inventoi7 of lands within the currently acknowledged UGB, and taking into account other relevant statistical data, the following fincfings are set forth: 9 The total UGB area "actually" encompasses a total area of 766+acres of which 577 acres (75%) are fully developed land and committed to urban uses, and of which 595 acres (78%) is located within the incorporated limits of the City and 171+acres (22%) is outside the City under County jurisdiction (i.e., the West Prairie City Industrial Area). Of the 577+ acres that are fully developed and committed to urban uses, 44% are committed to residential uses, 2% are committed to commercial uses, 15% are committed to industrial uses, 15% are committed to public uses, and 24% are committed to streets and alleys. Of the total 189+ acres identified as "Vacant," 30.35 acres are zoned industrial (identified as buildable) and 4.99 acres has been identified as "non-buildable" due to commercial zoning (representing 19% of the vacant lands), thus only 40% of the vacant lands are considered buildable, and 44% as non-buildable due to extreme limitations such as steep slopes, flood hazards, and stream setback requirements. The maximum residential development potential of "buildable" Vacant lands, taking into consideration a number of factors, is 123 units. Such development potential does not, however, take into account that nearly 18% of the vacant lots listed as buildable are in absentee ownership and development thereof may be limited by such owners' desires for some "unknown" date of future occupancy, nor does this development potential take into account that an additional 45% of the identified vacant lands are in a single ownership and currently devoted to a commercial agriculture operation and declared not available for development by the owner. Therefore, the ' actual" vacant lands considered "readily" and "reasonably" available is estimated to only be capable of accommodating approximately 52 dwelling units. Based on building permit records maintained by the City since Acknowledgment of the City's Plan in 1985, the City had issued a total of 34 single-family dwelling unit permits through March of 1995, or an average of 3.4 units per year. This growth indicator though considered low and only the beginning of the rebound to normal growth rates, is substantiated by a growth in school enrollment for this same period of 35 students, and a reported population increase from 1,080 to 1,171 or an annual average increase of approximately .08%. Based on City water account records for 1995, there were a total of 399 single- family dwelling units in the subject UGB area for an average density of approximately 2 units per acre; however, taking into account areas developed and committed to public uses including streets, commercial zind industrial uses, the average overall density of residentially developed areas is much less than 2 units per acre and is actually nearer to 1.17 units per acre. f Based on a comparison of the "actual" available development potential from in filling and developing of vacant lands, and the growth patterns since Acknowledgment, the current UGB area is only capable of accommodating the growth of tne City for a period of approximately 11 years or to the year 2006. Relative thereto, it is proposed that tnis edition of the City's Plan be designed to accommodate the City's growth needs through the year 2015 to a projected population of 1,429 or annual growth rate of only 1%. This population projection is substantially less than the lowest projection or 1,757 for the year 2000 set forth in the 1985 Acknowledged Plan of 1984, and is considered a more accurate reflection of the actual growth that has occurred and is expected to continue to occur. Approximately 260 persons in the remainder of the planning period. 0 0 2 1 5 8 8) SECTION 3. Based on the findings set forth in Section 2 hereinbefore, on the findings set forth in Part XI- Housing Element and Part XV-Urbanization Element, on the Policies set forth in this Element, and Parts XI and XV, and on the basis of the Exceptions set forth in this Element of the Plan, the revised UGB area for the City encompasses a total area of 966 acres which represents an addition of 200 acres to the previously Acknowledged UGB area of 766+ acres (However, it must be noted that the previously Acknowledged UGB area was reported to encompass a total area of 817 acres. The revised UGB area actually represents only a 15U acre expansion); such additional lands are all designated for residential development, the majority of which is designated (zoned) for lower density, higher valued housing which reflects a current demand not presently provided for within the existing UGB area, although higher density, townhouse type development is permitted (and projected) to occur on a portion of such lands; such a lower density development projection is directly reflective of the physical limitations of a majority of the added lands due to slope factors. Those lands added to the UGB area are summarized below and set forth in detail in the Exceptions Section of this "Part" of the Plan. EXCEPTIONS AREA NO. TOTAL ACRES DVLPD. ACRES VACANT LANDS BUILD ABLE UNITS NON-BUILDABLE 1 30.29 17.16 13.13 28 2 129.5 97.5 50 32.0 (slope) 3 40.40 5.7 15.0 8 *19.7 (f/s) TOTALS: 200.19 - 22.86 125.63 86 1/ 51.7 2/ 1/ Number of residential unit potential based on area land use patterns and/or development limits. 2/ Lands considered non-buildable or severely limited due to excessive slopes or flood hazards. As revised, primary land use designations (set forth in detail hereinafter in this Plan Element) are as follows: i) Residential: 610 acres or 63%; 2) Commercial: 18 acres or 2%; and 3) Industrial: 119 acres or 12% 4) Public: 219 acres or 23%. Primarily a single zoning designation applies to those areas designated Commercial and Industrial, and two (2) residential zoning designations apply to those areas designated for Residential uses. Thes<; three (3) primary land use designations are described hereinafter in Section 4. The Urban Growth Boundary established by this Plan represents a "boundary" agreed to by both the City Council and the County that identifies and separates "urbani?.ed ana urbanizable" and "rural or resource" lands. "Urbanized and urbanizable" lands are those lands which the City and the County have determined are: The projected growth through the year 2015 set forth above, less the estimated "actual growth potential of52 units within the existing UGB area at an average household size of 2.5 persons, will require an additional 52 household units. At an average density of 1.17 units per acre, such growth will require an absolute minimum additional area of approximately 45 acres, and the addition of such an "absolute minimal" area will not provide for any reasonable options within the market place, nor provide for any vacancy rates, displacements or conversions, or public use expansions whatsoever. Ideally, to maintain the quality of living currently available within the community, as well as to accommodate necessary commercial expansion and public facility development, and the desire for small parcel building lots it is estimated that an additional minimum of 120 acres of clearly identifiable "buildabie" lands should be added to the UGB area. REVISED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AREA 11 0 0 2 1 5 9 1) Those lands currently committed to and/or developed for urban uses; 2) Those lands determined necessary, suitable and most desirable for future expansion of the City and its urban uses; 3) Those lands which can be most readily or economically served by urban services and facilities; and, 4) Those lands which can be converted to urban uses to meet projected needs with the minimum impact on and conflicts with "prime" resource lands and uses. SECTION 4. GENERAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS The total are encompassed by the Prairie City UGB area is assigned five(5) general land use classifications: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public ancfUGB. Tne term "suitable" in these classification definitions take into account existing uses and use patterns, and those social, economical, environmental, and service conditions in each general area; i.e., those factor which make that identified area more or less "suited" for the uses designated or permitted. The term "desirable" refers to area social, economical, and political characteristics which ave been taken into account in establishing the need or demand for various uses on alternative sites. This Plan combines these suitability and desirability consideration in order to provide a single but generalized land use designation. The following summaries describe the three (3) general land use classifications found within the UGB area of Prairie City: Residential: Those areas found to be suitable and desirable for predominately residential uses, including single-family, multi-family, and manufactured homes. The primary purpose of this designation is to identify those areas where residential development is to be encouraged that are either served by or can be served by City services and facilities, commercial and educational support facilities, and employment opportunities. The areas designated residential on the Plan Map encompass the existing predominately residentially developed areas of the City located adjacent to, and north ana south of, the downtown commercial area, and that area to the northeast of the central core of the City that has been identified as necessary and most desirable for future growth and development. In total, such areas encompass a total area of approximately 610 acres or 78% of the total UGB area, and are subject to two (2) residential zones: f) Limited Residential R- l ; 2) General Residential R-2. Commercial: Thpse areas found most suitable and desirable for those retail, service, tourist and other similar commercial activities found and deemed most desirable within the community, the primary purpose of this classification is to encourage a relatively concentrated and compatible commercial center to maintain and improve commercial returns by maximizing local and visitor customer interaction wiih businesses and minimizing fhe cost of providing the highest level of City services possible as deemed necessary for such uses. The area designated as commercial encompasses the vast majority of existing commercial establishments in the City, while providing for a minimum of immediately adjacent expansion areas. The area designated as commercial in this Plan is based on the City's Downtown Development Plan of 1986 and encompasses a total area of approximately 18 acres or 2% of the total UGB area. The commercial area is encompassed into two (2) commercial zoning designations: 1) Central Commercial C-1; and 2) General Commercial C-2. Industrial: That area located in the western portion of the UG£l area that is currently committed to and found to be the most suitable and desirable for continued and future industrial type development necessary to maintain and improve the area's economy and employment base. The principle purpose of the limited area designation for such uses is 12 002160 to encourage and "limit" such development to that area where use conflicts are minimized while still maintaining proximity to utility and transportation facilities, and other City services necessary therefor. This area encompasses a total area of 119 acres or approximately 12% of the total UGB area, of which at least 12 acres is considered buildable for the uses designated. This area is subject to a single industrial zoning: General Industrial M-1. Public: Such uses may include streets, alleys, schools, parks, open space, a golf course, cemeteries, and similar uses. These remaining lands currently total 219 acres or approximately 23% of the total UGB area. Relative thereto, the City is desirous of completing a parks, recreation, and open space &lan for the total UGB area, with emphasis on those areas bordering the John Day River, ^pon the completion of such a Plan, the application of such a designation to certain areas may well be warranted and deemed in the public interest. Urban Growth Boundary: To provide a line that can be agreed upon by both the City and County that identifies and separates rural lands from those lands that: (1) are determined necessary and suitable for future expansion of the Town; and (2) can, or may in the future, be served by Town services and facilities. It is a mechanism that can be used to assure the Town/County coordination in the planned and orderly growth of these unincorporated areas which are anticipated to become part of the City in the future. Prairie City's UGB encompasses a total area of 966 acres of which 79% or approximately 766 acres are currently within the incorporated limits of the City. SECTION 5. POPULATION Population projections set forth in the amended 1984 Plan that was Acknowledged by LCDC projected that the City's population would grow by an estimated 2% annually from an estimated" population base of 1,168 in 1980 to a population of 1,424 by 1990 and to a population of 1,757 in the year 2000. In fact, the population of the City was actually "certified" in 1980 as being only 1,080. while in 1990 the actual "certified" population was 1,117 compared to an initial projection of 1,423 in 1990 and 1,757 by the year 2000. The differences between the 1984 Plan projections and actual populations for reported corresponding years is concluded to be based on the following factors: 1) The initial beginning population was less than estimated and/or stated; 2) The actual growth rate has only been 1% annually versus the projected 2%; and 3) The entire area was subjected to' a severe recessionary period in the early 1980's. Because of these reasons, and based on actual growth patterns averaging 1% annually, including a 5-year recessionary period during the initial ye^rs of the 1984 Plan projections, and basecfon recent building permit records and projections set forth by the PSU Center for Population Research & Census, tne following "revised population projections are set forth for the Prairie City UGB area: 13 002161 YEAR POPULATION 1984 Plan Revised 1990 1,423 1,117 1995 N.R. 1,171 2000 1,757 1,230 2005 N.R. 1,294 2010 N.R. 1,360 2015 N.R. 1,429 1/ Includes the addition of five (5) residences existing on additional lands added to the UGB area. SECTION 6. GOALS AND POLICIES Goal: To establish a land use policy framework and planning process as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land within the subject UGB area, and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. Policies: (1) That development in accordance with the implementing regulations applicable to the respective General Land Use Plan designations willl>e encouraged providing it does not unduly diminish employment opportunities and the living environment of the affected area. (2) That existing uses and developments will be protected from incompatible uses that might adversely impact their value or utilization to the extent reasonably feasible. (3) That public services and facilities will be protected from development that might likely exhaust or exceed their capacities and/or require additional capital improvements unless reasonable and equitable provisions are made by the demanding development for the costs of required improvements and/or expansions. (4) As a condition of Plan changes, it will be determined that community attitudes and/or physical, social, economical, or environmental changes or needs have occurred in the affected area since Plan adoption, or that the original Plan was incorrect or deficient relative thereto. (5) Planning decisions will be coordinated with other affected local, State, and Federal agencies and special districts. (6) Land use decisions will take into account capacities an availability of public services an facilities, resource carrying capacities, and other considerations. (7) Citizens and residents of the affected area shall be given an opportunity to review and comment prior to any changes in the Plan and implementing ordinance. At least one public hearing with advance notice shall be held on any such changes. 14 Q0216Z (8) Major Plan revisions include land use changes that have widespread and significant impact beyond an immediate area, such as quantitative changes producing large volumes of traffic, a qualitative change in the character of land use itselfsuch as conversation of residential to industrial use, or a spatial change that affects large areas; such major Plan revisions should not be made more frequently than every two years, if at all. (9) Minor Plan changes (i.e., those which do not have significant effect beyond the immediate area of the change) should be based on special studies or other information.which will serve as the factual basis to support the change. The public need and justification for the particular change should be established. (10) Plan changes may be initiated by the City Planning Commission or the City Council, and by resident petition. (11) Findings made in the course of land use planning decisions shall be related to specific Plan policies, implementing ordinance provisions, and/or background information where applicable and appropriate. (12) approval or denial of a land use permit application shall be based upon and acconnpanied by a brief statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and explain the justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. (13) The following types of implementing measures should be considered for carrying out the Plan; (A) Management Implementation Measures: (a) Ordinances controlling the use and construction on the land, including building codes, sign ordinances, subdivision and zoning ordinances: such ordinances shall conform to the Plan. flri Public facility plans and capital improvement budgets. (cj State and Federal regulations affecting land use. (d) Annexations, consolidations, mergers, and other reorganization measures. (B) Site and Area Specific Implementation Measures: (a) Building permits, septic tank permits, driveway permits, etc; the review of subdivisions and land partitioning applications; the changing of zones and granting of conditional uses. (b) Construction of public facilities such as schools, roads, water & sewer lines, etc. (c) Awarding of State and Federal grants to provide public facilities and services. i (d) Leasing of public lands. (14) An official copy of this Plan and all implementing ordinances shall be kept on file at City Hall, a second copy of each shall be maintained available for public review, and copies of each shall be available to the public at a reasonable cost for assembly and copying. SECTION 7. EXCEPTIONS The amendment of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by the addition of lands outside the incorporated limits and most recent information available concerning resource use capabilities and values, population and growth trends, ESEE analysis of various alternatives, and the most logical and economical growth patterns for the City. Specific data references have included USDA SCS Soil Surveys, USGS Topographic Maps, Grant County Assessor's records, Building Permit records maintained by the City and the County, and locai resident input and knowledge. Additional and future Exceptions to Goal 3, and policies related to agricultural lands as impacted by the UGB are as follows: 1) The conversion of agricultural lands to non-resource urban uses and inclusion within the City's UGB will be based on the following factors: a) That there is a need for such lands consistent with related City and County plan objectives and policies, and applicable LCDC policies for the required Exceptions Statement. b) That the resulting uses will not create undue conflicts or interference with accepted farming practices on adjoining and area agricultural lands. c) That the non-resource development of such lands- will only be approved after an analysis of alternative sites and/or the determination that alternative sites are not available. d) That needed public services and facilities exist or can be planned to accommodate the projected development of such lands. e) That the conversion of such lands will provide for retention of the most productive lands in the area in resource use. f) That the approval for the conversion of such lands shall be approved by both the City and the County, and that the process shall be a cooperative and coordinated effort. 2) The rural character of the City, will be preserved to the extent possible and reasonable in order to protect the scenic attractiveness of the area and the economic, social and physical living conditions of the area. 3) Agricultural uses within the UGB will not be discouraged nor limited, except to the extent necessary to prevent detrimental impacts on planned and existing non- resource uses. EXCEPTIONS T O GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS: Based on the forest inventory information for Grant County as provided by the Oregon State Forestry and other resource managing agencies, there are no identified "Forest Lands" located within the UGB of Prairie City. Therefore, Goal 4 is not applicable to the City, nor the UGB area thereof. 23 0 0 2 1 7 1 PART IV. OPEN SPACE, SCENIC, HISTORIC & NA TURsiL RESOURCES SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION This Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan is intended to fulfill those requirements related to Goal 5 Resources as mandated by Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-16-000 to 660-16- 020. Relative thereto, this Plan Element sets forth an inventory of all known Goal 5 Resources within the UGB area of the City, identifies the conflicting uses related to each resource class, and sets forth policies as the basis for implementing regulations designed to comply with the applicable provisions of Goal 5. SECTION 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Goal: The basic Goal of this Plan Element is "To provide for the identification and conservation of significant open space, scenic, historic, and natural resources found within the UGB area of Prairie City." Objectives: The basic Objective identified as necessary to accomplish the relevant Goal is to provide for a planning program that will: A. Insure open space within the affected UGB area; B. Protect significant scenic, historic, and natural resources within the affected UGB area for future generations' C. Promote healthy and visually attractive environments in harmony with the natural landscape character and existing development patterns. SECTION 3. INVENTORY OF RESOURCES Basic Requirements: The basic requirements of the inventory 3f Goal 5 Resources is to identify the location ,quality and quantity of the following resources; A. Land needed or desirable for open space; B. Mineral and aggregate resources; C. Energy sources; D. Fish and wildlife areas and habitats; E. Ecologically and scientifically significant natural areas; F. Outstanding scenic views ana sites; G. Water areas, wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources; H. Wilderness areas; I. Cultural lands; J. Potential and approved Oregon recreation trails; K. Potential and approvedfederal wild and scenic waterways and stat^ scenic waterways. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES: Open space resources, within the subject UGB area, are identified as any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use: A. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; B. Protect air or streams or water supply; C. Promote conservation of soils, stream banks, wetlands or marshes; D. Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses or parks, that reduce air pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring properties; E. Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space; F. Enhance recreation opportunities; and\ G. Promote orderly and environmentally desirable development. 24 0 0 2 1 7 2 Current Development Patterns & Densities: Although not identifiable by specific sites, the current development patterns and relative low densities resulting therefrom are considered an attribute to the community from an "open space" type perspective. Such development patterns provide opportunities for individual households to have and maintain attractive landscaped and yard (lawn) areas which collectively add to the "open space" atmosphere and resources of the overall community. John Day River Greenway: Although specifically listed as a "waterway-riparian habitat" Goal 5 Resource, there is some open space value assigned to the "Greenway" area along the John Day River as it passes through the southern portion of the City's UGB area. This area currently possesses considerable riparian vegetation which provides for certain open space qualities; however, the primary qualities are riparian in nature. Relative thereto, specific recommendations and provisions to preserve a reasonable level of this habitat are set forth both in this Plan and in the implementing Zoning regulations as such relates to riparian habitat. These provisions are considered adequate to preserve the open space values of this resource. City Park and Depot Park: The City has two park areas that also contribute to the open space resources of the subject UGB area. The City Park located near City Hall between McHaley Avenue and South Bridge Street is a maintained open space area dominated by grass and tree vegetation with a minimum of developed activity facilities. Depot Park is another open space resource with the City that is dominated by ihe historic Railroad Depot ana recreational vehicle camping facilities. Both areas are said to be preserved in their current status, with additional park areas near Depot Park being a goal of the City. School Facilities: Those open areas of the area's school facilities, including open grass areas and outdoor sports areas, are also identified as an open space resource within the subject UGB area. Such areas are protected in their current status by the respective needs of the School District. Analysis & Classification: With the exception of the open space values represented by the current development and density patterns of the subject UGB which are relatively uniform throughout current developed areas and are not. therefore, identifiable on a site specific basis, the other open space resources inventoried herein are assigned a (5)(c) classification under OAR 660-16-000; the development/density pattern is classified (5)(a), but the continuance of such patterns are considered desirable and are reflected in the appropriate assigned residential zoning. Those resources including the City Park. Depot Park and the School Facilities shall be protected pursuant to the provisions of OAR 660-16-010(3). The remaining open space resources, and the John Day River Greenway, shall be preserved to the maximum extent reasonable pursuant to the provisions of OAR 660-16- 010(3). Conflicting Uses: Uses identified as conflicting with the preservation of open space resources include the following: A. Any use involving a structure, except those accessory to a park type use, or necessary for a park type use, andfinished in natural (ones; B. Unnecessary vegetation removal or destruction; C. Any use or activity adversely altering the open space value of the resource; D. Wrecking or junk yard. MINERAL AND AGGREGATE RESOURCES: Such resources, as identified within the subject UGB area, include those mineral and aggregate resources which are currently developed and active, or which are identified as necessary for future mineral and aggregate needs. 25 0 0 2 1 7 3 Only one such resource is identified; i.e., a currently developed State Highway mineral and aggregate resource site (Tax Lot 600 of Map 13-33- 10)located within the designated Industrial Area of the subject UGB area with a current permit is sued for such use pursuant to the implementing zoning applicable thereto. The zoning does provide for such use as a Conditional Use, and np existing or future conflicting uses within the industrially designated area are identified. Analysis & Classification: Although a decision has been made to classify the one mineral and aggregate resource as a (5)(a) resource, there is insufficient data to fully complete the Groal5 process. Additional data concerning quality and quantity of the resource is necessary to fully carry out the Goal 5 process. Conflicting Uses: Any use that prevents the use of the subject resource for its inventoried use, or any use that would be in such conflict as to prevent the reasonable use of the resource as intended. A. Any permanent use which reasonably precludes the development and use ofthe resource for the intended use. B. Residential uses. C. Public recreation use or development except as a part of the reclamation ofthe site upon the completion of mining. ENERGY RESOURCES: There is only one energy resource located within the subject UGB area, and in actuality, the resources for the energy source (i.e., the existing waste wood fired Co-Generation Plant) come from outside the subject UGB area. This facility, located within the duly designated Industrial Area of the subject UGB area, is in existence and is operatingunder an existing permit authorized pursuant to the subject applicable industrial zoning. TTiere are no other energy resources identifiable within the UGB area. Analysis & Classification: This facility is classified as a Goal 5 (5)(c) resource pursuant to OAR 660-16-000, and future uses in the immediate vicinity thereof shall be analyzed as to the conflicts therewith. Conflicting Uses: Any permanent use which reasonably precludes the continued operation and use of the subject facility for the use designed anc. intended. Residential uses most certainly are identified as a conflicting use; commercial uses may be conflicting depending upon the type and intensity of such use; and, most heavy industrial uses would not be conflicting, certainly not those related to wood products manufacturing. FISH AND WILDLIFE AREAS AND HABITATS: < Although wildlife, including deer and mountain quail, occur throughout the subject UGB area, the only identified specific fish and wildlife area and habitat is the riparian area along the Jonn Day River and the river itself. This area is to be protected to the extent feasible and reasonable by applicable riparian habitat protection measures. Analysis & Classification: Because o f the numherjof Goal 5 resources represented-by the John Day River, this resource demands maximum permissible protection and is therefore classified as a (5)(c) resource pursuant to OAR 660-16-000; however, because certain uses vyith special design features may be possible, and certain developments such as street or utility crossings may be necessary in the public interest and for tne orderly development of the subject UGB area, the resource shall be protected pursuant to the provisions of OAR 660-16-010(3). ConfIicting| Uses: The following uses are identified as conflicting uses, but may be approved when authorized in accordance with a coordinated review process with the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife as noted: A. Removal of vegetation except when associated with habitat improvement or as approved by ODFW. 26 , 0 0 2 1 7 4 B. Residential uses except those with special designs to maximize preservation of such habitat pursuant to ODFWreview. C. Commercial and industrial uses. D. Any other use involving a structure unless approved pursuant to a plan approved by ODFW. ECOLOGICALLY & SCIENTIFICALLY SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS: Includes land and water that has substantially retained its natural character, and land and water that, although altered in character, is important as habitats for plant, animal or marine life, for the study of its natural, historical, scientific or paleontological features, or for the appreciation of its natural features. With the possible exception of the John Day River waterway through the subject UGB area that is to be preserved through a number of other natural rei^urce protection measures, there are no other such natural resources or areas identified within the subject UGB area. WATER AREAS. WETLANDS. WATERSHEDS AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES^ Such resources, within the subject UGB area, are identified as those involving water areas., wetlands, watersheds and groundwater resources, as well as those contributing to the air quality of the area. The only such resource identified as significant within the subject UGB area at the present time (i.e., wetland inventories for the area are not currently available) is the waterway of the John Day River. Although there are two other stream ways within the area (i.e.. Dixie Creek and Strawberry Creek), both are only intermittent streams and are not considered significant water resources. The John Day River is an important water source for municipal, industrial, and agricultural use, and to maintain in-stream values (i.e., as fish habitat). Withdrawals thereof are regulated by the State Department of Water Resources, and any additional withdrawals are unlikely. An intensive interagency study is currently underway to compile an information base for a basin-wide management program. At this point, however, sufficient information is not available to complete the process required by Goal 5. Information is also currently unavailable on the significance pf groundwater resources and wetlands in the subject UGB area. As the relevant studies progress, information should become available to enable the City to complete this element of the Goal 5 process. Analysis & Classification: Due to the lack of sufficient information to complete the Goal "5 process at this time, the John Day River shall be classified pursuant to OAR 660- 16-000(5)(b), and due to the intermittent status of Dixie Creek ana Strawberry Creek, these resources shall not be included within the subject UGB Goal 5 resource inventory pursuant to OAR 660-16-000(5)(a). Conflicting Uses: Although the final determination as to the classification of the John Day River under this resource status cannot be finalized at this point, the following are identified as conflicting uses relative to the resources included within this category of Goal 5 resources: A. Water Areas, both Ground & Surface: a. Development that depletes the groundwater aquii'er below acceptable levels. b. Development that may pollute ground and/or surface water resources. c. Development in areas of high groundwater tables or frequent flooding by surface waters. 27 002175 B. Wetlands: a. Ditching, draining or diking, usually but not necessarily in conjunction with farm use, building, ana road construction. b. Fill for any purpose, usually but not necessarily in conjunction with building ana road construction and sighting. c. Water withdrawals or impoundments. WILDERNESS AREAS: An area of undeveloped land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation, that is protected and managed so as tp preserve its natural conditions. No current or potential Wilderness Areas exist within the UGB area. HISTORIC AREAS. SITES. STRUCTURES AND OBJECTS: Includes sites, structures, and objects that have local, regional, statewide, or national historical significance. Following is a summary listing ofthe historic resources located within the subject UGB area: HISTORIC NAME LOCATION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION . l.O.O.F. Hall 206 Front Street 1902 Masonic Temple 109 Front Street 1911 Kight Carriage House West of323 Washington Street Prior to 1901 Flageollet House 323 Washington Street Prior to 1888 Parsons Store E. side 3rd St. west of Washington St. Approx. 1900 Methodist Church SW corner 6th and Bridge 1885 Taylor Grocery 152-154 Front Street Approx. 1902 Sumpter RR Depot Depot Park (relocated) 1909 Durkheimer General Store Front Street (Clover Market) 1901 Kight Butcher Shop North side Front Street 1902 Prairie Hotel 108 Front Street 1910 Kirchheiner Building 132 Front Street 1901 Seven (7) of the above inventoried historic resources are in use at the current time and are lpcated within the primary commercial area of the City, all with frontage on Front Street (i.e., State Highway 26 which is the primary east-west route through the City). This concentration of such structures within the commercial core area or the City, and the fact that in a survey done in conjunction with the Downtown Development Plan of 1986, 73% of those responding supported an Architectural Theme or at least preservation of the historic structures in the area, provides the primary basis for the consideration of an Historical District for the City. 28 002176 Analysis & Classification: All of the inventoried historic resources are considered significant, and the City, in part, derives much of its character from them (at least the downtown commercial core area does). Any alteration or demolition of these resources, except for public safety purposes, might very well adversely affect the overall character, attractiveness and stability of the downtown area. Therefore, all of those resources identified herein shall be classified pursuant to the provisions of OAR 660-16-000(5)(c). Conflicting Uses: Although all of the identified historic resources are included within the historic resource inventory of the subject UGB area, classification as OAR 660-16- 010(1) sites is not reasonable due to the fact that complete protection eration with the Cities is currently implementing the comprehensive solid waste management plan prepared by CH2M Hill which includes consideration of the waste disposal needs ofthe subject UGB area. SECTION 4. POLICIES (1) No development or use shall be permitted that is not in compliance with applicable state and federal pollution standards, including those applicable to air, noise, waste disposal, sewage disposal, and water. (2) A primary consideration in the review and approval of a'l developments shall be the carrying capacity of affected air, land, ana water resources. (3) Permit processes for all developments requiring air, noise, waste disposal and other pollution related activities shall be coordinated with the respective permit regulating agency or agencies. 31 0 0 2 1 7 9 Development within the UGB area shall provide, to the extent feasible, buffers and/or separations of those land uses which create or lead to conflicting requirements and impacts upon air, water, and land resources. All planning actions affecting waste and process discharges shall be coordinated with the applicable State environmental quality statutes, rules, standards, and implementation plans. As deemed necessary, this Plan shall be updated and/or revised to designate alternative areas suitable for use in controlling pollution, including but not limited to waste water treatment plants, solid waste disposal sites, and sludge disposal sites. Implementing regulations shall be designed to manage hind conservation and development activities in a manner that reflects the community's desires for a quality environment and a healthy economy and is consistent with State and Federal environmental quality rules and standards. 32 00.2180 PART VI. NATURAL HAZARD AREAS SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION In any planning area there are specific areas that are subject to natural events that are known to result in death or endanger the works of man. Such natural events include stream flooding, high ground water, erosion and deposition, landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils, wildfire, and other hazards unique to a specific area. Development in areas subjcct to such hazards should not be planned, or at least not planned without appropriate safeguards. All planning must be based on an inventory of known areas of natural hazards. SECTION 2. GOAL To insure that development will occur within the subject UGB area with a maximum level of protection of life and property from natural disasters and hazards. SECTION 3. NATURAL HAZARDS INVENTORY The following is a summary inventory of those natural hazard areas known and identifiable within the subject UGB area: Flood Hazards: Three (3) areas of potential flooding hazards are identified with the subject UGB area: 1) that area located along the Dixie Creek sireamwav in the northwest area of the UGB area; 2) that area along the Strawberry Creek streamway in the southeast area' and, 3) that area along the John Day River in the south-central S>rtion of the UGB area. All of these flood hazard areas are identified and mapped by e Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Flood Insurance Program ana set forth on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 410082 0001 B with an effective date of February 11, 1988. The map, and the accompanying Report Document, are hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. Steep Slopes & Slide Hazards: Two (2) general areas of steep slopes and associated slide'hazards are identified: 1) the steeply sloping (30-45%+) area in the northwestern boundary area of the UGB area: and, 2) the moderately steep sloping (25-35%) area in the northeastern portion of the UGB area. Although neither area is identified as an "active" landslide area, the hazards of such occurring can be increased by potential development thereon; such is particularly evident in the more steeply sloping areas (in excess of 30%) in the northwestern area. Some development (with appropriate design applications) has occurred in the northeastern area without any adverse affects to this Weak Foundation, Fragile & Erositm Hazardous Soils: Although no areas can be identified that comprises a concentration of such soils, there are isolated occurrences of soils within the subject UGB area that are identified as possessing such characteristics. Information concerning such soil characteristics is set forth in the USDA Soil Conservation Service ^>oil Survey Report for the Central Part of Grant County;" This Report is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 4. POLICIES (1) In the review of developments in flood hazard areas, uses that will not require protection through dams, dikes and levies shall be preferred over uses thai will require such protection; all development in flood hazard areas shall only be approved in accordance with implementing regulations in compliance with standards set forth by FEMA. 33 , 002181 (2) Low density and open space uses that are least subject tc loss of life or property damage such as open storage, agriculture and recreation shall be preferred uses in flood nazard areas, especially the floodway portions; d e v e l o p m e n t in the floodway portions that is likely to cause an impediment :o the flow of flood waters should be avoided. (3) When approving developments in areas of known natural hazards, the density or intensity of the development shall be limited by the degree of the hazard, and the design of the development shall be such as to minimize the hazard. (4) Natural hazards that could result form new developments, such as runoff from paved surfaces, soil slippage due to weak foundation soils, and increased erosion hazards shall be considered, evaluated, and safeguards and/or specific facilities to minimize such impacts provided for in the design of the development. (5) Development designs and densities in known areas of natural hazards shall consider as a major determinant factor, the carrying capa city of the air, land, and water resources of the area affected, and such carrying capacities shall not be exceeded. 34 002±82 PAR T VII. RECREA TION NEEDS SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The requirement for meeting the recreational needs, both for local residents and visitors, now and in the niture, is a necessary planning function of all government entities having responsibility for recreation areas, facilities and opportunities. Planning for such needs should be carried out in coordination with private enterprise and other public entities, in appropriate proportions, and in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of affected resources to meet the identified requirements. SECTION 2. R E C R E A T I O N NEEDS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS / In the planning and provision of recreation facilities and opportunities, the following factors shoulcl be considered: (1) An inventory of recreation needs based on public wants and desires, and an inventory of recreation opportunities based on the resources in the planning area. (2) The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan should be used as a guide when planning, acquiring, and developing recreation resources, areas, and facilities. (3) When developing recreation plans, energy consequences should be considered, and to the extent possible, non-motorizeatypes of recreational activities should be preferred over motorized. (4) The planning and provision for recreation facilities and opportunities should give priority to areas, facilities, and uses that: a. meet recreational needs for the affected urban area; b. meet recreational needs of persons of limited mobility and finances; c. meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum conservation of energy resources; d minimize environmental deterioration; e. are available to the public at nominal costs; and, f . meet needs of visitors to the area. (5) Unique areas or resources capable of meeting one or more specific recreational needs requirements should be inventoried ana protected or acquiredi (6) Recreation plans should be designed to give a high priority to enhancing recreation opportunities to public waters of the State and State Recreation Trails. SECTION 3. G O A L The Goal of this Element of the Plan is to provide the basis for identifying and providing for the recreational needs of the residents of the subject UGB area, residents o f the neighboring County areas and visitors. It is also the intent of this Plan element to provide the basis, where appropriate, for the siting and development of necessary recreational facilities and resources, including destination resorts and other tourist accommodations. 35 0 0 2 1 8 3 SECTION 4. RESOURCE INVENTORY The community fully recognizes that parks and recreation facilities, recreation opportunities and open space enhance the overall quality of life within the affected UGB area by providing areas and opportunities by which people, both local and visitors, may enjoy their leisure time. The demand for such continues to increase, particularly due to an ever increasing mobile society and additional leisure time. At the current time actual developed recreational facilities within the subject planning area are somewhat limited, but the recreational opportunities that are afforded local residents and visitors are extensive due to the nearby resources afforded by National Forests, Wilderness Areas, and other publicly managed areas and resources. City Park: The City owns and maintains one (1) small City Pa-k immediately across the street from the City Hall less than one block from the central co-e of the City. The park encompasses a total area of approximately 1/4 acre (10,500 square feet), and is improved with playground equipment, a surfaced basketball facility, and a limited number of picnic tables. Depot Park: This park is a County-owned facility that is maintained and managed by the City. The park comprises approximately four (4) acres and is develpped with the historic Sumpter Railroad Depot ana a number of recreational vehicle overnight camping spaces. School Facilities: The outdoor recreation facilities at the Prairie City School District Complex in the southern area of the subject UGB area are considered vital components of the overall recreation facilities in the area. Such facilities include grade school playground areas and facilities, a football field with track, a baseball field, and other open and developed play areas. Open Space Resources: Open space resources abound throughout the planning area, somewhat represented by the overall low development density and wide streets, but more so by the number of undeveloped portions of larger parcels located alone, the John Day River and Dixie Creek due to flood hazard restrictions and limitations. The extreme amount of large tree vegetation throughout the City, and more specifically, along the John Day River, also enhances the open space amenities. Trans America Bikeway & Local Bike/Pedestrian Ways: The TransAmerica Bikeway (State Highway 26) that passes through the City in an east-west direction is considered an important recreation resource. This international bikeway has been enhanced in recent times by the fact that the City has been incorporating bike and/or pedestrian ways into the majority of local street improvement projects, particularly those involving local arterials and collectors; of special emphasis is the recent improvement project to Bridge Street which provided such facilities that basically interconnects the existing City Park, Depot Park, and School Facilities. Continuance of this practice will continue to contribute to the minimization of public safety and energy consequences in the area. John Day River: The John Day River, passing through the southern portion of the subject UGB area in an east-west direction, is a State public waterway and is considered an important recreation resource of the planning area. The vast majority of the shoreline area and accompanying riparian habitat areas are undeveloped at the current time, and are classified as flood hazard areas. Significant areas along the river should be maintained as open space-recreation resource areas. "Area" Public Resources: Within a distance of not more than 5-6 miles in any direction, area recreation resources and opportunities area basically unlimited. Vast areas of National Forests and Wilderness Areas provide unlimited opportunities for big game hunting, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, camping, picnicking, etc., :he most notable of which are the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area and the Logan Valley scenic loop. "Area" Private Resources: Although there are limited private resources except for hunting and fishing opportunities, there is a potential for some level of destination 36 0 0 2 1 8 4 "resort" or other travelers' accommodation facilities in the general area, the most notable of which is the Blue Mountain Hot Springs. Other private and/or non-profit area developments, existing or potential, noted in the area include the historic town site of Austin, the Lake Creek Youth Camp, the Fireside Lodge, and the Dixie Mountain Ski Area. Historic Resources: Historic resources in the general area that warrant mention relative to related recreational values are the Dixie Creek Mining Area, lhe Camp Logan site, the Austin town site, the old Sumpter Valley Railroad Route, and the large number of historic sites in the downtown commercial area of the City. Visitor-Travelers' Accommodations: With the exception of the RV camping facilities at Depot Park within the subject UGB area, and the overnight camping facilities found at campgrounds within the area National Forests, there is a notable absence of travelers' accommodations, specifically motel/hotel lodging facilities, bot i within the UGB area and the immediate area (closest facilities are located in the City of John Day, 13 miles to the west). This is one component of the area's recreation facilities that is considered needed that is not being provided a the current time. SECTION 5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing inventory, as compared to the identified needs 2nd desires of the community, the following findings and conclusions are set forth in regard to the "recreation needs" of the subject UGB area: (1) Current City Park and School Facilities are adequate to accommodate the current and immediate future outdoor active recreational needs of the subject urban area; however, one additional park with tennis courts, a covered picnic facility, and other active recreational facilities is desirable. (2) There is a definite lack of overnight lodging facilities for visitors and travelers, specifically motel/hotel facilities in the UGB area; relative thereto, the private sector is encouraged to develop such facilities. (3) The City should continue recent practices of including bike/pedestrian facilities as an integral part of street improvement projects, particularly on arterial and collector streets. (4) There is a need for bikeway facilities outside the UGB a -ea (i.e., in addition to the TransAmerica Bikeway) on major transportation routes vhat interconnect the UGB area with area recreation resources. (5) A minimum area of not less than 50 feet (100 feet desirable) along the John Day River is identified as a major recreation and open space resource and should be preserved. (6) There is real potential for more private and non-profit type recreation facility development within the UGB area and within the surrounding area. (7) The City, the County, other recreational managing agencies, and the private sector are encouraged to work cooperatively to improve ana expand the recreation facilities ana resources of the general area, particularly those related to visitors and travelers. SECTION 6. POLICIES (1) All other agencies including the County, State, and Federal agencies controlling, managing, and developing recreation resources and plan; within the general area 37 0 0 2 1 8 5 (i.e., within a 20-mile radius) are encouraged to allow for review of such plans by the City. The needs for recreational facilities and opportunities within all developments, as well as surrounding areas, shall be a major design consideration, the provision of such identified needs may be a condition of approval, and the City shall utilize any number of development incentives to insure the p r o v i s i o n of such facilities while insuring that the private investor maximizes the development potential of a particular site. The City and the School District shall continue to cooperate and coprdinate plans and activities to insure the maximum benefit of public ir. vestments in recreation facilities and resources within the UGB area. The City shall encourage private investments in recreation facilities and resources, and shall endeavor to provide assistance thereto as feasible. Development along the John Day River shall be so designed and developed as to preserve the maximum amount (a minimum of 50 feet; TOO feet preferred) of open space and recreational resources present there, and incentives for such protection such as density transfers, development right transfers, cluster developments, tax incentives, public donations, ana similar techniques shall be considered to maintain, improve, and develop this area for public recreation purposes. Future recreation resource developments shall attempt tc maintain a balance between passive and active recreation opportunities. In all recreational developments, the needs of local residents as well as visitors, the needs of the disadvantaged and the disabled, and the needs for energy conservation shall be considered. In the development of recreation resources, non-motorized types of fecreational activities should be preferred over motorized activities. All plans which provide for satisfying of recreation needs of persons in the planning area shall consider as a major determinant, the carrying capacities of affectecfair, land, and water resources, and such carrying capacities shall not be exceeded. Plans and provisions for recreation facilities and opportunities shall give priority to areas, facilities, and uses that: a. meet the recreational needs of both residents and visitors; < b. meet recreational needs while providing maximum conservation of energy, both in the transportation of persons to and from the facility or area and in the recreational use itself; c. meet the needs of all segments of the area's population; d. minimize environmental deterioration; and, e. are available to the public at nominal public investments and user costs. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan will be utilized as a guide when planning, acquiring, and developing recreation resources, areas, and facilities. 38 002186 PART VIII. ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The scope of this Element of the plan is to set forth base inventoiy data and policies that will contribute to a stable and healthy economy for the subject planning area. Relative thereto, existing and areas suitable for expansion for commercial and industrial development are identified, and the basic policies supporting future commercial and industrial development are set forth. As an integral component of this element, a "SWOT" (Strengths.. Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis Report prepared by the Oregon Economic Development Department (OEDD) is hereby referenced. SECTION 2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The Goal that is set forth for this Element of the Plan is To provide adequate opportunities within the planning area for a variety of economic activities considered vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the subject UGB area, the surrounding area, and the residents thereof." The objectives of this overall Goal are as follows: (1) To maintain and strengthen existing commercial and industrial development; (2) To recognize and promote recreation-tourism as an important component of the overall economy; and, (3) To diversify the overall economy of the area. SECTION 3. BASIC PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The basic planning requirements for this Element of the overall Comprehensive Plan for the subject UGB area are set forth within Statewide Planning Goal 9 and OAR 660-09-00, and include the following: (1) An analysis of the area's economic patterns, potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends; (2) Policies concerning the economic development opporturities in the subject planning area; (3) Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses; arid, (4) Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are most compatible with proposed uses. SECTION 4. "SWOT" ANALYSIS The "SWOT" Analysis Report prepared by OEDD in June of 1990 referenced hereinbefore, even though prepared for what is identified as the upper John Day Valley to include the cities of John Day, Canyon City Mt. Vernon, and Prairie City, provides the basic "analysis" required for compliance with this planning requirement. The Report is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein; however, a summary of the Report findings are as follows: (1) Strengths: Ja) The remoteness of the area is both a strength and a weakness, (b) The area boasts year-round diverse recreation resources providing outstanding opportunities for residents and visitors. 39 0 0 2 1 8 7 (c) The area has a strong resource-dependent industrial base in agriculture and forest products. (d) There is an active core of community leadership. (e) Retail and commercial sectors provide most of the goods and services necessary for residents to shop locally. ( f ) Public employment will likely continue to provide a strong base to the economy. The subject UGB area has an attractive downtown core area. The subject UGB area has an added amenity relating to the spectacular view of 'he Strawberry Mountains. (I) The area exhibits strong commitments to quality K-12 education, and the schools are a focal point of the community, (j) The area has medial and long-term elderly health care services not overly common to rural areas, (k) The area has a low property tax rate. (2) Weaknesses: ~(a) The small population base and isolated location area the biggest detriments to future economic growth. (b) The current inventory of industrial land is inadeuuate. (c) The availability of water is an issue potentially impeding growth. (d) County leadership is not presently effective enough in dealing with the complex issues confronting the area. (e) There seems to be a shortage of rental housing and limited building sites. ( f ) There is no post secondary educational institution in the area. (g) There are few cultural amenities in the area. (h) There seems to be a lack of entrepreneurial activity in the area. (3) Opportunities (a) The most immediate opportunity is for increased tourism. (b) The subject UGB area s future is closely tied to being a gateway for the dispersed recreation opportunities in that (east) tnaof the valley. (c) The area will become of increasing interest to the retiree population, as well as some new residents. (d) As the area opens up due to road improvements and publicity, there should be an opportunity to attract some cottage industries. (4) Threats: (a) Continued reliance on resource-based industries will put the area at risk as a continued boom-bust economy. (b) The "brain drain" that occurs when students leave the area after high school and cannot find opportunities that encourage them to return. (c) National and state regulatory concerns that hinder future development and limit alternative economic opportunities. (d) The external threat from the impact of reduced timber receipts on local government finances, particularly schools. SECTION S. INVENTORY OF COMMERCIAL-INDUSTRIAL LANDS Commercial and industrial lands within the subject UGB area are currently confined to two (2) areas respectively: 1) commercial lands are limited to the downtown commercial area along Highway 26; and, 2) industrial lands are limited to the western industrial area. As summarized in the General Land Use Element of this Plan (Part III), previously developed and designated commercial lands (i.e., as set forth in the 1979 Plan) comprised a total of 48 acres (5.9% ofthe total UGB area), of which 21 acres were developed and/or committed to commercial uses. As set forth in this Plan, the commercial designated area encompasses a total of 57 acres or 6% ofthe total UGB area. A detailed inventory of commercially designated lands is set forth in the Downtown Development Plan of 1986 which is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein; the Plan does, in summary however, shew that there is some 40 0 0 2 1 - 8 8 opportunity for commercial expansion, improvement and/or redevelopment to occur as the economy warrants. Industrially designated lands in the 1979 and this Plan have remained the same; i.e., the western industrial area comprising a total area of 154 acres or 17% ofthe total UGB area, of which only 12 acres is considered suitable for development without major limitations; however, conflicting uses is not considered one of the limitations. Development options for industrial development are somewhat limited, but no alternative sites have been identifiable at this point that can be justified under the Exceptions requirements. The most desirable locations for additional industrial use are considered areas outside the UGB to the south and to the north, which are areas that can most readily and economically be served by required public services and facilities, but area areas which require an Exception to Goal 3. SECTION 6. STATE & NATIONAL TREND DATA As required by the applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 9 and OAR 660-09- 010(3)(a), a review or State and national economic trend data has been completed. The results of that review are non-conclusive due to the fact that such data is of such general nature as to be nonadaptable to the specific UGB area. Information provided by the State Employment Service as a part of the North-Central Regions Regional Economic Development Strategy does, however, project that employment in the area's major agricultural and wood products industries will continue to decline moderately over time as a reflection of national trends and due to environmental and market constraints. Such information further substantiates the need for the area to emphasize stabilization of existing economies and economic diversification. SECTION 7. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the SWOT Report Analysis information, on the inventory and analysis data set forth herein, on the context or the Downtown Development Plan of 1986, and on data prepared by the State Employment Service, the following findings and recommendations are set forth: (1) The existing basic industries of agricultural and wood products are unlikely to expand, ana even if they stabilize, will continue to decrease in economic importance from an employment standpoint. It is vitally important that economic diversification be recognized as a primary goal of the area. (2) Economic development planning needs to be emphasized as an "ongoing" program, and the area needs to specifically continue efforts to identify and justify (pursuant to Exceptions requirements) additional alternative sites for commercial and industrial development. (3) Whereas many of the area's economic amenities and opportunities relate to the recreation-tourism industry, the area should emphasize and promote that industry as a primary component or economic diversification efforts, and become more directly involved in "external" planning and resource managing decisions that effect the base resources. (4) Whereas there appears to be a nucleus of community leaders emphasizing economic development, local government leadership in the area needs tobecome more active and effective in support thereof. (5) Legislatively and politically, local leaders need to continue to work aggressively at modifying those state and national regulatory limitations adversely impacting economic and other development in the area. (6) Local leaders, and the area as a whole, need to become more aware of and active in the expanding evolvement of environmental and other resource constraints that further limit development and resource use options. 41 0 0 2 1 6 9 (7) The City and community leaders should continue efforts to develop an economic development management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those private and governmental entities that operate in the planning area and that have interests in carrying out the goal and objectives of this Plan Element and in coordinating regional, area, and loc.il economic development plans and programs. (8) Any economic development plans formulated for the area should take into account all identifiable methods and devices for overcoming area conditions and deficiencies for implementing the goal and objectives of this Plan Element, including but not limited to: (a} tax incentives and disincentives; (b) land use controls and ordinances; (c) preferential assessments; id) capital improvements programming' and, (ej fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques. SECTION 8. POLICIES (1) Economic stabilization and diversification shall be a dominant consideration in all future planning programs affecting the subject UGB area. (2) The City shall provide whatever assistance is reasonably and fiscally possible to economic development activities and efforts in the area, including but not limited to: a) support services; b) financial support; c) development incentives; d) tax and preferential assessment incentives; e) capital improvements programming; and, f) leadership. (3) The City shall continue planning efforts to identify and designate alternative sites for industrial development and diversification, and land use implementing regulations shall limit incompatible uses within and adjacent to industrially designated areas. (4) Industrial uses and development shall be encouraged and provided for; however, such uses with undesirable pollution impacts and other objectionable or environmental deteriorating characteristics may be prohibited, and no such development shall be permitted that does not comply wi':h applicable environmental standards and/or exceeds the affected resource carrying capacities. (5) Federal and State agency plans, programs, rules, and policies relating to or affecting economic development or the resources shall be coordinated with the City ana an opportunity for review as related to the economic stability, custom ana culture of the subject UGB area provided. (6) The City shall endeavor, within fiscal limitations, to insure that adequate public services and facilities are available to designated commercial and industrial sites to maximize development potentials thereof. (7) Federal and state resources supporting the agriculture, wood products, and recreation-tourism industries of the area shall continue to be managed for multiple-use purposes, and single-use purpose designations shall be discouraged. (8) The City shall coordinate with the support state and federal planning and development programs that increase and diversify the recreation ana tourism opportunities in the area. (9) The designation of State Highway 26 as either an Acces:; Oregon Highway or a Principal/Primary State Highway route shall be continued, ana the continued improvement of such route shall continue to be a priority. 42 0 0 2 1 9 0 State and federal plans, programs, and actions such as the designation and development of the Logan Valley Scenic Loop and the conversion of the historic Sumpter Valley Railroad route under the Rails-to-Trails program are considered important to the recreation-tourism industry ofthe area and shall be supported by 43 0 0 2 1 9 1 PARTIX. HOUSING SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The Housing Elements of local Plans are required to be in compliance with the applicable provisions oTStatewide Planning Goal 10, ORS 197.303 and OAR 660-08-000. These requirements are intended to assure: 1) an opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units within the affected planning area; 2) the efficient use of buildable land within the affected UGB area; and, 3) to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs. Even though full compliance with these requirements is not required for UGB areas with a population less than 2,500 [ORS 197.303(2)(a)J, this Plan Element is intended to achieve at least a partial compliance therewith. SECTION 2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The basic Goal of this Plan Element is "To provide for the housing needs of the subject UGB area." In general, the objectives thereof are to provide for and encourag e the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of area households, and to allow for flexibility of housing location, type, and density. In summary, the objectives of this Plan Element are as follows: (1) To insure the provision of appropriate types and amounts of buildable lands for residential uses within the affected UGB area; (2) To insure that such lands are necessary and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs of households of all income levels; (3) To provide for the appropriate type, location, and phasing of public facilities and services sufficient to support needed housing; and, (4) In providing for housing needs, that, as a major determinant factor, consideration is given to the carrying capacities of affectecf air, land, and water resources of the subject UGB area, ana to insure that such carrying capacities are not exceeded by such development. > SECTION 3. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The general planning requirements of this Plan Element for compliance with the afore-referenced state bousing planning provisions are as follows: i (1) An inventory of buildable designated residential lands within the subject UGB area; (2) A comparison ofthe distribution of existing population by income with the distribution of available housing units by costs; (3) A determination of vacancy rates, both overall and at varying rent ranges and cost levels; (4) A determination of expected housing demand at varying rent ranges and cost levels- (5) An allowance for a variety of densities and types oj residences in the affected UGB area; and. (6) An inventory of sound housing in the affected UGB area including units capable of being rehabilitated. 44 0 0 2 1 9 2 SECTION 4. BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY Whereas there is a detailed buildabie lands inventory for the overall subject UGB area set forth on page 7 in Part III.2 of this Plan, the following is only a summary of ;;uch information as it applies specifically to the residentially designated areas, uses, and needs ofthe subject planning area. ASSESSOR'S MAP NO. DEVELOPED NON BUILDABLE BUILDABLE NUMBER OF UNITS ZONING 13-3 3-index 10.00 11.88 4 R-l 13-33-2 51.94 23.00 '4 ; R-l/R-2 13-33-2BC 29.58 14.65 .43 2 R-l/R-2 13-33-2CA 28.78 1.09 0.60 / R-2 I3-33-2CB 14.71 7.78 0.57 3 R-2 13-33-2CC 5.58 3.31 .94 1 R-2 13-33-2CD 16.44 .59 R-2 13-33-2DC 6.86 4.37 17 R-2 13-33-11 20.88 27.54 7.57 8 R-2 13-33-11BA 15.08 6.73 .78 R-2 13-33-11BC 13.58 5.14 1.22 4 R-2 13-33-1IBD 13.54 .15 1.75 9 R-2 13-33-11CA 7.13 R-2 13-33-1ICB 20.73 5.85 7.20 43 R-2 13-33-1 ID 2.07 15.69 24 R-2 TOTALS: 246.90 82.83 76.00 123 **' * * Based only on th6se considerations concerning physical site limitat ons and zoning density allowances, the "absolute maximum" number of housing units that <;ould potentially be developed on current vacant/buildable lands within the previously existing UC B area was 123. However, additionally taking into account current overall densities, ownership patterns, known availability of vacant lands, and recent development patterns, it is estimated that a more realistic projection is for the development of only approximately 52 housing units withir the previously existing UGB. SECTION 5. HOUSING INVENTORY. TRENDS & NEEDS PROJECTIONS Current Inventory: Available U.S. Census data does not separate detailed housing data for the subject UGB area from data for the County as a whole. Therefore, housing units within the planning area have been inventoried by utilizing 199 data from the County Assessor's records- these records reported a total of 459 single-f imily dwelling units within the subject UGB area in 1991. In addition, there were a lotal of an additional 36 units within the UGB classified as multi-family units and contained within mobile home parks and apartment complexes for a total of 495 housing units. With a reported population of 1,160, the average household size is calculated to be 2.4 persons. 45 0 0 2 1 9 3 The breakdown of total housing units by type is as follows: Of the total number of 459 single-family dwelling units representing 93% of the total housing units, 358 or 78% are conventional housing units, ana 101 or 22% are mobile home units. This breakdown by major housing type is somewhat different than recent housing trends, in that of the total of 56 permits issued for dwelling units during the period from 1984 to 1990, 46 or 82% were for single-family units of which 32 or 70% were conventional dwelling units and 14 or 30% were mobile homes; the remainder of total permits for dwelling units (i.e., 10) were multi-family conventional units (9 or 90% of multi-family units and 16% ofthe total housing units) and mobile home units in mobile home parks accounted for only one (1) unit or less than 2% of the total. Although such information is not available from the most receni Census data, it is estimated (from previous Census data) that at least 40% (i.e., 180 units) of the housing units existing within the subject UGB area are 30 or more years of age. Therefore, each year it is estimated that 5-10% of these units will need to be rep aced or to at least undergo major rehabilitation. Information from the County Assessor's records reveal that the average existing housing unit values tend to range from only $30,000 to $40,000. On an overall basis, existing housing in general within the subject UGB area is considered available to most income levels at corresponding reasonable costs. Housing unit values reported by building permit records indicate that recent housing units are of considerably higher values ranging in costs from $65,000+ for conventional units and $24,000+ for mobile home units. The overall density derived from a comparison of 495 housing units encompassing a total of 360 acres of developed residential lands is 1.375 units per acre. Such includes areas within such areas committed to public uses including streets and alleys. Recent Trends: As reported briefly in the foregoing data, recent housing trends differ slightly from the previously existing housing base. Recent trends derived from building permit records since 1984 show that developing housing consists of 57% conventional single-family dwelling units, 25% single-family mobile home uiits, 16% cpnventional multi-family units, ana 2% mobile home park units. Therefore, single-family units accounted for 82% of new housing units, and multi-family type units accounted for 18%. These recent trends compare to a previously existing housing base consisting of 78% conventional units and 22% mobile home units. The records also show that the average number of housing unit permits issued annually was nine (9), ard this reporting period included the recessionary period of the middle to late 1980's. Housing Needs Projections: Based on the foregoing existing housing base inventory data recent housing trends data, estimated housing replacement needs, and overall residential density factors, as compared to a population projection of 1,429 by the year 2012 (as set forth on page 13, Pan III.5 of t his Plan), the following housing needs are projected through the year 2012. Year Sgl. Fam. Com. Sgl. Fam. MH Mult. Fam. Conv. Mult. Fam. MHPk. iiplcmt. Units Total Units 1995 5 3 0 0 1 12 2000 10 4 3 0 2 21 2005 15 6 5 1 4 30 2010 19 8 5 I 5 36 2012 20 9 6 I 6 40 TOTALS: 69 30 19 3 18 139 46 0 0 2 1 9 4 A comparative study analysis ofthe foregoing housing needs projections and the average residential density of the subject UGB area snows that an "absolute minimum of 120 acres of unrestricted, buildabie lands are necessary to accommodate the projected housing needs of the area. Previous analysis data indicates that the previously existing UGB area had the potential of accommodating only approximately 52 units' therefore, the additional lands set forth in the Exceptions for inclusion within the subject UGB area are necessary to provide for the identified housing needs of the area in such a manner as to provide for a "variety" of housing types, price ranges, and development patterns while still retaining the ' rural," "open, and other amenities necessary to continue the excellent residential environments of the community. » Needs Projections by Income Levels: Information relative to household income level categories is not available for the subject UGB area; i.e., such census data is only available for the County as a whole. Projection of housing needs by price range and cost levels is not possible at this time. However, because of the reported housing evaluation levels set forth by the County Assessor's records for the subject UGB area, it is concluded that housing is available at levels commensurate with even the lower income level households. The fact that implementing zoning for residential areas also allows.for a broad range of housing types and densities, also supports a conclusion that the provision of housing at various price and cost range levels is possible and will be a direct reflection of the market needs of the area. SECTION 6. BUILDABLE LANDS FOR HOUSING NEEDS Previous UGB Area: As reported in Section 4 of this Plan Element, the previously existing UGB area comprised a total of 107+ acres of residentiary designated lands that were available for housing at various development levels. In fact, the analysis set forth in that section estimated that a total of 107 housing units could be developed on currently available residentially designated lands. Therefore, the previously existing UGB area would have been adequate to provide the land base for 78% of t ie total estimated housing needs of 139 units by the year 2015. Current UGB Area: Those lands added to the UGB area by the Exceptions Areas set forth in Section 7, Part III, of this Plan has been determined"^ to provide sufficient area for an additional 86 housing units. Therefore, the revised UGB area should be adequate to provide for a total of 193 units compared to an "absolute minimum" needs projection of 139 units. There is an apparent area "surplus" capable of accommodating an excess of 54 units; the City does, however, feel that such a "surplus" of area is necessary and justified for the following reasons: i (1) Such provides for a maximum level of choice in the market place for housing development thereby reducing the possibility of land value manipulation through land availability constraints, ana therefore housing should be develop able at the most reasonable costs possible; (2) Such allows the City to develop at densities and designs most compatible with existing development patterns, and to maximize the preservation of the "open space-like" amenities of the area; (3) Such will allow housing developments to occur utilizing exceptional design features enabling the separation of differing housing types such as conventional and manufactured homes; (4) Population projections are conservative, as are the needs projections for replacement housing units, and therefore the area designatedfor residential uses wilt enable the area to accommodate additional growth and replacement needs without major amendments over the planning 47 0 0 2 1 9 5 period; thereby increasing the certainty of private investments which is a Plan Element objective; and, (5) Such will permit the City to preserve a maximum amount ofthe open space and other natural resources along the John Day River for public purposes through the utilization of a variety of "incentive options" identifiedfor such preservation without adversely impacting the housing needs ofthe area. SECTION 7. POLICIES (1) The review of housing needs shall be an ongoing planning process, and this Plan shall be amended as necessary to insure that a variety of housing types, price and cost levels, and design environments are being provided as the needs require. (2) The City shall cooperate with and support rehabilitation efforts of existing housing, particularly those of lower income households. (3) Residential developments that show excellence in design, and that provide for a variety of housing types and costs shall be .preferred over standard grid type and single purpose developments. (4) Zoning regulations, other development standards, and development/permit review processes shall not be implemented in such a manner as to discriminate against or otherwise prohibit new housing of a particular type or cost. 48 0 0 2 1 9 6 PARTX. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SER VICES SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION Statewide Planning Goal 11 OAR 660-11-000, and ORS 197.712(2)(e) requires that a City shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within a UGB. However, even though such a requirement is not applicable to a UGB area of less than 2,500 persons, it is the intent of this Plan Element to at least achieve "partial" compliance with such requirement;;. SECTION 2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The basic Goal of this Plan Element is "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for the development of the subject urban area." The Objectives of this Goal are to: (1) Help assure that urban development within the subject UGB area is guided and supported by types and levels of urban facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requirements ofthe subject UGB area; and. (2) Assure that those facilities and services are provided for in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement. SECTION 3. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS Public Facilities Plan: A public facility plan is a support document or documents to a major components (1) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all significant public facility systems; (2) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the Plan; (3) Cost estimates of each public facility project; (4) Map or written description of each public facility project's general location or service area; (5) Policy statement(s) or UGB management agreement identifying the provider of each public facility system; (6) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and, (7) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system. Planning Guidelines: (1) Public facilities and services in urban and urbanizable areas should be provided at levels necessary and suitable for urbzin uses. (2) A public facility or service should not be provided in an urbanizable area unless there is provision for the coordinated deve lopment of all other urban facilities and services appropriate to that area. 49 0 0 2 1 9 ? (3) All utility lines and facilities should be located 01 or adjacent to existing public or private rights-of-way to avoid dividing existing laud units. (4) Plans providing for public facilities and services should consider as a major determinant the carrying capacity ofthe air, land, and water resources of the planning area, ana such plans should not exceed such carrying capacities. SECTION 4. PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES INVENTORY Sewage Disposal System: The City has a comprehensive Sewage Disposal System Plan that provided the basis for the current system construction and operation. This system currently serves existing development within the UGB area, and has been operating without major deficiencies. The design capacity of the system is more than sufficient to accornmodate the projected growth levels of the subject UGB aiea throughout the current planning period. Currently a new Wastewater Systems Plan is being developed by Anderson * Perry & Assoc. Inc. The new plan in addition to the referenced System Plan is hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. Municipal Water System: There is also a comprehensive system plan for the City's municipal water system, and major improvements have been made to that system in recent years. Source supply is identified as a component of sorre concern, particularly as impacted in recent years by the prolonged drought. The system has, however, continued to provide sufficient supplies to meet current and projected neec s. The City is, however, continuing to evaluate current supply sources and continues to explore new and additional supplies, and to this end, contracted with Anderson * Perry & Assoc. Inc. to develop a new Water System Master Plan. The current existing municipal water system plan and the new plan are hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. Transportation Systems: This component of the public facilities planning element is dealt with in much greater detail in Part XI of this Plan; however, in summary, the system is adequate to serve the existing urbanized areas, is being improved on an annual basis, and a transportation plan is currently being finalized. It is expected that this Transportation Systems Plan will be reviewed and accepted by DLCD prior to completion of this planning process so therefore the transportation plan is hereby adopted by reference as a component of this Comprehensive LandUse Plan. Solid Waste Disposal & Management Facilities: The City and the County have historically worked cooperatively in the area of solid waste disposal and management. At the current time, solid wastes within the subject UGB area have been collecteaand disposed of by a private commercial operator. The City is currently working on the implementation of a new solid waste management and disposal plan for the community landfill north of the City. It is expected that the present solid w;iste site can safely contain the waste generated by the city and the surrounding collections area for a minimum of 40 years. Parks & Recreation Facilities & Services: These facilities and services were addressed in some detail in Part VII of this Plan. Such facilities and servic es are considered adequate at the present time, and the City has identified additional needs. Although the City does not have a comprehensive plan for such facilities and services at the present time, the development of such a plan has been set forth as a priority, and upon completion thereof, the plan will be adopted oy reference as an update to this Plan. Police Protection: Police protection within the subject UGB area and the surrounding area isprovided on a cooperative effort by the Oregon State Police, the Grant County Sheriffs Department, ana the City Police Department. Current iervice is considered minimal, but adequate under fiscal limitations. 50 002198 ire Protection: Fire protection in the area is provided by a cooperative City and Rural ire District operation that is based at the City Fire Hall. The Department is operated on a volunteer basis, but is considered adequate. Education Facilities: The area School District provides an excellent program and facilities for grades fC-12. The system is considered excellent for those education levels served, but there is an identified need for more higher educational opportunities in the area. SECTION 5. FACILITY P R O J E C T PLANNING, TIMING & FINANCING Facility Project Planning: It is fully recognized by the City that the expansion of all existing public facilities required for urban expansion will have to be provided at the time that such development occurs. To meet such a requirement, p la is for such expansions will be required as a part of the overall development plans of such development. To minimize the financial burden thereof on development, the City will cooperate to the extent fiscally reasonable. Facility Project Timing: The provision of all required public facilities and services for urbanizing areas o f the subject UGB area will be set forth as a prerequisite to final approval and construction of such development. Required public facilities and services will be provided at the time that the need occurs. Prior to such development needs mandates, the City shall continue efforts to improve existing water supply sources and transportation systems, and shall continue efforts to expand and improve existing parks and recreation facilities. Facility Project Financing: The City has, in the past, utilized a combination of local bonding authority, government loans, and government grants to provide the public facilities currently existing and the expansion thereof as needed ror urban development. The development of public facility projects in the future, however, undoubtedly will require a combination of various funding alternatives due to funding limits presented by State Ballot Measure No. 5 and cutbacks in state and federal funding assistance programs. Future funding of such facilities may, in fact, require more commitments on behalf of the private investment sector, and such a requirement may adversely affect the capabilities to provide sufficient low and moderate income housing units. In any case, the City is committed to providing public facilities and services as needed, and is committed to using every funding alternative available to insure the completion of such as appropriate for development within the UGB area. SECTION 6. POLICIES (1) The City has identified a number of public facility planning components as priorities, and upon completion thereof, such componenis shall be incorporated as a part of this Plan Element. (2) Capital improvements programming and budgeting shall be utilized to achieve desired types and levels of public facilities to all areas within the UGB. (3) Public facilities and serves shall be provided at appropriate levels to support sufficient amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing market and to maintain the economy of the area. (4) The level of key facilities that can be provided shall be considered as a principle factor in planning for various densities, designs, and development types within the UGB area. 51 0 0 2 1 9 9 (5) A wide range of methods and devices for providing desired types and levels of public facilities and services shall be considered and utilized as appropriate and/or available, including but not limited to the following: a) local bonding authorities; b) state and federalgrant and loan assistance programs; c) tax incentives and disincentives; d) land use controls and ordinances; e) rrultiple use and joint development practices; f) fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques; and, g) enforcement of health ana safety codes. (6) In the case of those public facilities and services, such as solid waste management and fire protection, that are provided on an "area" basis (i.e., also providing services to rural areas outside the UGB), plans shall provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those government agencies operating n the service area. (7) No development shall be approved that will exceed the carrying capacities of required public facilities and services unless provisions ;ire made for and financing assured for the expansion and/or improvement of those facilities and/or services needing capacity expansions to serve the proposed development. (8) The provision of all required public facilities and service s shall be coordinated in such a manner that the type, locations and delivery thereof best supports existing and proposed development and land use. (9) A public facility or service shall not be provided to a developing area unless there is provision for the coordinated development of all other facilities and services deemed appropriate to the area. (10) Utility lines and facilities shall be located on or adjacent to existing public or private rights-of-way whenever possible, or unless an alternative location is considered more environmentally preferential and/or the resulting cost factors are less; in such cases, adequate public utility easements shall be provided. 52 0 0 2 2 0 0 PARTXI. TRANSPORTATION SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Plan Element is to implement the applicable provisions of Statewide Planning Goal 12 and OAR 660-12-000. It is also the intent of this Plan Element to assure that the planned transportation system for the subject UGB area supports a pattern of travel and land use in the area that will avoid or at least minimize the air pollution, traffic, and liveabilitv problems faced by other areas of the country. The City has a "Transportation Systems Plan" that was completed in 1997 by David Evans & Associates, Inc. that provide? the basis for transportation system construction and operation. The referenced Transportation Systems Plan is hereby adopted oy reference as though set forth in full herein. SECTION 2. FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS The "Findings and Conclusions" are located in the Transportation Systems Plan that was completed by David Evans & Associates, Inc. SECTION 3. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES It is the Goal of this Plan Element "To provide for and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system," both to and from the area, ana within the UGB area. The Objectives of this Plan Element are as follows: (1) To establish a coordinated network of transportation facilities adequate to serve state, regional, and local transportation needs; (2) To plan for, develop, and maintain a transportation system that is coordinated in such a manner as to supply continuity of movement between modes, and within and between the subject UGB area ana other areas of the county, state, and region; (3) To identify and provide for the transportation needs oftne transportation disadvantaged; (4) To facilitate the flow of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy; < (5) To avoid or minimize the reliance upon any one mode oj transportation, and, more particularly, to reduce the reliance upon automobile transportation within the UGB area; (6) To classify local streets and roads according to the func 'ions served or intended; and, (7) To minimize adverse economic, social, environmental, and energy consequences associated with the transportation and the systems therefore. SECTION 4. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS The basic planning requirements for this Plan Element are set forth by OAR 660-12-015(3) which requires that Cities prepare and adopt a Transportation System'Plan fTSP) for that area within the respective UGB. The required TSP is to include the following elements: 53 0.02201 (1) A determination of transportation needs for: (a} State, regional, and local transportation needs, fb) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged. (cj Needs for the movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial development. (2) A road plan for a network of arterials and collectors; i.e. a functional classification of the local road network. (3) A public transportation plan for the transportation disadvantaged, including a mass transit plan, if feasible. (4) A bicycle and pedestrian plan. (5) An air, rail, water, and pipeline transportation plan, where feasible. (6) A parking plan as applicable. SECTION 5. POLICIES The City has a "Transportation Systems Plan" that was completed in 1997 by David Evans & Associates, Inc. that provides the basis for transportation system construction and operation. (1) APPROVAL PROCESS (A) The Transportation System Plan is an element of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan. It identifies the general location of transportation i mprovements. Changes in the specific alignment of proposed public road and highway projects that shall be permitted without plan amendment if the new alignment falls within a transportation corridor identified in the Transportation System Plan. (B) Operation, maintenance, repair, and preservation of existing transportation facilities shall be allowed without land use review, except where specifically regulated. (C) Dedication of right-of-way, authorization of construction and the construction of facilities and improvements, for improvements designated in the Transportation System Plan, the classification of the roadway and approved road standards shall be allowed without land use review. ( (D) For State projects that require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), the draft EIS or ETA shall serve as the documentation for local land use review, if local review is required. (2) PROTECTION of TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES (A) Prairie City shall protect the function of existing and planned roadways as identified in the Transportation System Plan. (B) Prairie City shall include a consideration of a proposal's impact on existing or planned transportation facilities in all land use decisions (C) Prairie City shall protect the function of existing or planned roadways or roadway corridors through the application of appropriate land use regulations. (D) Prairie City shall consider the potential to establish or maintain accessways, paths, or trails prior to the vacation or any public easement or right-of-way. 54 QOZZOZ (E) Prairie City shall preserve right-of-way for planned transportation facilities through exactions, voluntary dedication, or setbacks. f31 COORDINATED REVIEW of LAND USE DECISIONS (A) Prairie City shall coordinate with the Department of Transportation to implement the highway improvements listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIPJ that are consistent with the Transportation System Plan and comprehensive plan. (B) Prairie City shall provide notice to ODOT of land use applications and development permits for properties that have frontage or access onto Highway (C) Prairie City shall consider the findings of ODOTs draft Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments as integral parts of the land use decision-making procedures. Other actions required, such as a goal exception or plan amendment, will be combined with review of the draft EA or EIS and land use approval process. (4) AMENDMENTS CONSISTENT WITH TRANSPORTATION PL,AN (A) All development proposals, plan amendments, or zone changes shall conform with the adopted Transportation System Plan. (B) Changes in the specific alignment of proposed public road and highway projects shall be permitted without plan amendment if the new alignment falls within the transportation corridor identified in the Transportation System Plan. (C) Public road and highway projects involving the operation, maintenance, repair, and preservation or existing facilities that are consistent with the TSP the classification of that roadway and approved road standards shall be allowed without land use review, except where specifically regulated (i.e., within a floodplain). (D) Dedication of right-of-way authorization of construction and the construction of facilities improvements, wnere the improvements are consistent with the TSP, the classification of the roadway and approved road standards shall be allowed without land use review. (E) When uses permitted outright under ORS 215.213(l)(m; throughfp) and ORS 215.283(l)(k) through (n) are consistent with the TSP, the classification of the roadway and approved road standards, they shall be allowed without land use review. (F) Where changes in the frequency of transit, rail and airport services are consistent with the TSP, they shall be allowed without land use review. (G) For State projects that require an EIS or EA, the draft EIS or EA shall serve as the documentation for local land use review, if required. The appropriate procedure shall be followed: (a) Where the project is consistent with the 1SP, formal review of the draft EIS or EA (b) Where the project is consistent with the T SP, formal review of the draft EIS or EA and concurrent or subsequent compliance with applicable development standards or conditions 55 0 0 2 2 0 3 (c) Where the project is not consistent with the TSP, formal review of the draft ElS or EA and concurrent comp etion of necessary goal exceptions or plan amendments. (5) PEDESTRIAN and BICYCLE CIRCULATION (A) It is the policy of Prairie City to plan and develop a network of streets, accessways, and other improvements, including bikeways, walkways, and safe street crossings to promote safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the community. (B) Prairie City shall require streets and accessways where appropriate to provide direct and convenient access to major activity centers, including downtown, schools, shopping areas, and community centers. (C) In areas of new development Prairie City shall investigate the existing and future opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian accessways. M;iny existing accessways such as user trails establishedl>y school children distinguish areas of need ana should be incorporated into the transportation system. (D) Bikeways shall be included on new arterials and major collectors within the Urban Growth Boundary, as identified in the TSP. Walkways shall be included on new streets within the city, as identified in the TSP. (E) Retrofitting existing streets with walkways and bikeway? shall proceed on a prioritized schedule, as identified in the TSP. (F) Design and construction of walkways and bikeways shal I follow the guidelines established by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. (G) Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at all new residential multifamily developments of four units or more, commercial, indusuial, recreational, and institutional facilities. 56 0 0 2 2 0 4 PARTXII. ENERGYCONSERVATION SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION As required by Statewide Planning Goal 13, priority consideration in land use planning should be given to methods of analysis and implementation measures that vyill assure achievement of maximum efficiency in energy utilization. This Plan Element is intended to comply with this Goal requirement. SECTION 2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The primary Goal of this Plan Element is "To conserve energy." The Objectives to meeting this Goaf are as follows. (1) To allocate land uses in such a manner as to minimize depletion of non-renewable resources; (2) To seek, to the maximum extent possible, to recycle and re-use vacant land and those uses which are not energy efficient; (3) To the maximum extent possible, to combine increasing density gradients along higher capacity transportation corridors to achieve greater energy efficiency; and (4) To promote energy conservation practices in development designs, construction methods, and transportation system modes. SECTION 3. ; INVF :NTOR^ IF OF ENERGY RESOURCES & CONSERVATION PRA< 1TICES i Energy Resources: Alternative energy resources in the area are somewhat limited by the isolation and distances to major population centers. Electrical power is the primary and only major energy source uniformly available to all users, with wood products being the second most available resource. Tnere is an electrical generation plant within the subject UGB, and that is the waste wood-fired Co-Generation Plant located within the western industrial area. Solar and wind generated alternatives are not widely used or economically feasible at the current time. Conservation Practices: Conservation practices most prevalent in the area include those instituted by recent building code requirements. Alternate transportation modes contributing to energy conservation are minimal due to the distances that must be traveled for goods and services, employment and other necessities. Existing development patterns utilize maximum allowable energy efficiencies and are currently limited to concentrations within less than Vi mile of major transportation routes. Renewable Resource Use: One of the objectives of the applicable Statewide Planning Goal 13 is to maximize the use of renewable resources. Relative thereto, energy uses within the subject UGB area are primarily limited to energy consumption derived from renewable resources such as hydro-electric power, waste wood- :ireaco-generation power, and wood products. The one primary exception is the use of oil products for major transportation modes. 57 0 0 2 2 0 5 SECTION 4. POLfCrRS (1) Plans directed toward energy conservation in the area shall consider as a major determinant the existing andpotential capacity of the renewable energy sources to yield useful energy output. Renewable energy sources include water, sunshine, wind, geothermal neat and municipal, forest, and farm wastes. (2) Plans for continued development of the UGB area shall be based on utilization of the following techniques and implementation devices which can have an impact on energy efficiency: Lot size, dimension, and siting controls; Building height, bulk, and surface area; Density of uses, particularly those which relate to housing densities; Availability of light, wind, and air- Compatibility ofana competition between land use activities; and, Systems and incentives for the collection, re-use and recycling of metallic and non-metallic waste. (3) All practical energy conservation measures in development designs, construction standards and land use patterns shall be encouraged and a primary consideration in development reviews and approval. (4) The City shall continue to improve upon and provide alternative transportation modes designed to conserve energy as is feasible and economically reasonable. 58 002206 PARTXIII. URBANIZATION SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this Plan Element, as provided by Statewide Planning Goal 14, is for the establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural lands. Establishment of the UGB must, therefore, be a cooperative process between the affected City and the County that surrounds it. Once established, the lands within the UGB are then considered available over time for urban uses. SECTION 2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The basic Goal of this Plan Element is "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The primary Objectives to meeting this Goal aire as follows: (1) To establish and adopt an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that identifies and separates urbanizable land from surrounding rural lanas; (2) To insure that the establishment and change of a UGB ir based on certain considerations; (3) To insure that the establishment and change of a UGB it a cooperative process between the affected City and County; (4) To provide for sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accommodate the needs for further urban expansion of the affected City; (5) To maximize the utility ofthe land resource within the urbanizing area and enable the logical and efficient extension of urban services thereto; ana, (6) To insure that plans providing for the transition from rwal to urban land uses consider as a major determinant the carrying capacities ofthe air, land, and water resources ofthe affected planning area. SECTION 3. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS Establishment and Change of UGB: The establishment and chang'e'of an UGB shall be based upon consideration of the following factors: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements; (2) Needfor housing, employment opportunities and livability; (3) Orderly and economic provision for public jacili'ies and services; (4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on tne fringe ofthe existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultural lands with Classes I-IV being the highest priority for retention and Classes VI + the lowest priority: and. (7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. 59 Conversion of Urbanizable Land to Urban Uses: Once the UGB is established, the urbanizable lands within that area shall be considered available over time for urban uses. Conversion of ubanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of: (1) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services; (2) Availability of sufficient landfor the various use:: to insure choices in the market place; (3) Compliance with the applicable provisions of this Plan; and, (4) Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas. SECTION 4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (1) The population projection (set forth on page 13, Part III.5) at an annual growth rate of only 1% Tor a total increase of only 269 persons over the planning period to the year 2015 is concluded to be reasonable and conse rvative. (2) A comparative analysis of the projected population, the resulting housing needs (set forth on pages 65 & 66 of Part IX), and the buildabie lands inventories and analyses (set forth on pages 6 thru 11, Part III.2 & 3; page 59, Part VIII, and pages 64 & 67-68, Part IX.4 & 6) provides sufficient needs analysis to support the UGB as revised in this Plan. (3) The foregoing data and analyses, together with provisions set forth in Parts X and XI of this plan provide the basis for the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services to the established UGB area. (4) The location of all areas added to the existing urban area as a result of the Exceptions set forth in Part III.7 of this Plan (pages 16 tliru 22) provide for the maximization of land use efficiencies within the existing urban area. (5) The ESEE consequences of all considerations concernin g the urbanization of the area set forth within the established UGB have been sufficiently addressed throughout all of the elements of this Plan. (6) The retention of priority agricultural lands and the compatibility of proposed urbanizable areas with nearby agricultural activities is specifically addressed in each of the Exceptions Statements set forth in Part III.7 of this Plan, and it is concluded that the alternative sites chosen for inclusion within the UGB are those that best satisfy these requirements. In fact, a review of available USDA SCS Soils Survey information clearly shows that, with the exception of those rural lands adjoining the subject urban area on the northwest boundary, adjoining lands not included within the established UGB are lands of Capability Classes I-lV with assigned irrigation rights. (7) The established UGB is further justified by the fact that each of the Exceptions Areas added to the existing urban area have been analyzed and shown to comply with the seven factors set forth in Statewide Planning Goal 14 as summarized^ hereinbefore in Section 3. (8) Although the UGB as established does provide for a nominal amount of "surplus" urbanizable lands, such has been justified as necessary to meet the Goal 14 requirement of insuring choices in the market place for the various urban land uses within the subjectUGB area. (9) The industrial area to the west of the existing urban area is served by public sewer and water. The vacant land within the designated industrial area can be served 60 002208 economically by the City. Although this area appears to be higher class agricultural bottom land; the area was dredged for gold in the T940's. This process displaced nearly all of the top-soil,leaving the land with just a thin layer that does not adequately support agricultural use. Turthcr, is the fact that it is predominately developed for industrial uses at the current time, and is adjacent to the only major arterial serving the area (i.e.. Highway 2t). The consequences of selecting this site west of the City have to do with the environmental, economic, and social benefits of concentrating industrial development in one area, and the energy savings from being located adjacent to Highway 26. (10) The areas selected for residential expansionprovide for natural extensions to existing development patterns and provide for the most leasonable and economic extensions of public facilities and services. The northern and northeastern areas are predominately Class VII+ agricultural lands, and are of the lowest priority for retention as agricultural lands. The consequences of selecting these two residential areas include the potential for higher development costs on some steeply sloping areas which is addressed by a Natural Hazards Zone to minimize environmentafimpacts. These areas, however, are preferred over other alternative sites of higher agricultural value, and in addition, the views afforded by this northeastern area make it more desirable for residential purposes. (11) The areas selected for commercial expansion are all adjacent to existing commercial areas and are the most reasonable, logical, and economically feasible areas for such development. Such development in the aieas designated will also serve to strengthen the continuity of the existing commercial area. SECTION 5. POLICIES (1) Any change in the established UGB shall be a cooperative process between the affected City and the County. (2) Any change in the established UGB. and the conversion of urbanizable lands to urban uses, shall be based on those factors set forth in Statewide Planning Goal 14 as summarized hereinbefore in Section 3 of this Plan Element. (3) The transition of rural to urban uses, and the conversion of urbanizable to urban uses, shall take into consideration as a major determinant the carrying capacities o f the air, land, and water resources of the subject planning area, and no such transitions or conversions shall be permitted if such capacities are exceeded. (4) The conversion of urbanizable lands to urban uses shall ake into account the carrying capacities of public facilities and services, and no such conversion shall be permitted that exceeds such capacities. (5) The type, location, and phasing of public facilities and services are factors which shall be utilized to direct urban expansion. (6) Local land use controls and implementing ordinances shall be mutually supporting, adopted and enforced to integrate the type, timing, and location of public facilities and services in a manner to accommodate increased demands as urban development occurs. (7) Additional methods and devices for guiding urban land use should include but not be limited to the following: (a) tax incentives and disincentives; (b) multiple use and joint development practices; (c) fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques; and, (d) capital improvement programming. i 61 I 1 DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment S j I fc w A v^o e^dv^c^-J C l j 5 . S f M ^ ^ ,< . .7.3.6 J POSTAL CUSTOM! Keeptfils receipt For I Access Internet web st www.usps.com • or call 1-600-222-1811 THIS F O R M M U S T B E R E C E I V E D BY D L C D A T L E A S T 45 D A Y S P R I O R T O T H E F I R S T E V I D E N T I A R Y H E A R I N G PER ORS 197.610, O A R C H A P T E R 660, DIVISION 18 jD Priority Mall'Servl First-Class MalP pi Co ^ ^ Qpaafcage Senrfces F HP""""**' Local file number: 2 0 0 8 - 0 6 - PA - 9 8 Date of Final Hearing: 08-27-08 Jurisdiction: c i t Y o f Prairie City Date First Evidentiary hearing: 08-20-08 Is this a revision to a previously submitted proposal? OYes Date submitted: J/T/Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment k0 /Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment /J7J Land Use Regulation Amendment v^Tzoning Map Amendment • New Land Use Regulation • Other: Briefly Summarize Proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached" (limit of 500 characters): R E A D O P T I O N O F C O M P R E H E N S I V E L A N D U S E P L A N , F E B R U A R Y 1 9 9 8 . Document never completed the approval process. Simple language changes were requested at the County level. Changes were made and document reapproved at local level by motion only. County requested approval by ordinance. Process failed to move forward. Has sufficient information been included to advise DLCD of the effect of proposal? Select one Plan map changed from: EFU TO: Urbanization Zone map changed from: EFU To: U G B Location of property (do not use Tax Lot): N E & S E o f E x i s t i n g UGB Previous density: Rural New density: i du /2 ac Acres involved: < Applicable statewide planning goals: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 1 0 / \ \ Y Y L A ^ 1 4 / 1 5 16 17 18 19 • • • • • • • • 0 ^ 0 0 0 D 0 ™ • • • / Is an exception to a statewide planning goal proposed? • YES 0 N O Goals: Affected slate or federal agencies, local governments or special districts (It is jurisdiction's responsibility to notify these agencies. DLCD only reports this information.): PRAT notified Local Contact: Lyn McDonald Phone: ( 54^ 820-3605 Extension: Address: PO BOX 370 Fax Number: 54^ 820-3566 City: Prairie City Zip: 97869 E-mail Address: p c h a l l 2 @ o r t e l c o . n e t DLCD file No. City of Prairie City ORDINANCE NO. 2008-923 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE AMENDED 1998 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has found there to be a procedural oversight in the approval process of the amended Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998, rendering it unapproved by Grant County and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has met with Grant County and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development and they are in agreement that it is in the best interest of the City of Prairie City to receive the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and Zoning Map as Prairie City's current document of record; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City has sent the required Notice of Legislative Land Use Action and conducted the necessary Public Hearings; and WHEREAS, the City of Prairie City wishes to be in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and realizes the adverse impact to the City in the withholding of State Shared Revenues should they be found to be non-compliant; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY that the City of Prairie City does hereby adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and all amendments, attachments and updates therein as set forth in "Attachment A" hereto; said attachment hereby adopted by reference as though set forth in full herein. The City Council of the City of Prairie City does hereby find and declare there exists an urgent necessity that this Ordinance take effect as soon as possible for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare and safety of the City. An emergency is hereby declared to exist and therefore this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by unanimous vote of the City Council members present at the meeting wherein this ordinance is enacted. ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Prairie City this day of September, 2008 and filed with the City of Prairie City this same day. Attest: Diane Clingman, City~&ecorder Stan Horrell, Mayor City o 0.3605 vos.net P.O. Box 370 Prairie City, Oregon 97869 DATE: August 22, 2008 TO: Blue Mountain Eagle FROM: Lyn McDonald PLEASE PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING NOTICE IN THE AUGUST 27™ ISSUE OF THE BLUE MOUNTAIN EAGLE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY Notice is hereby given that the City of Prairie City will conduct the first of two Public Hearings on September 10th at 6:00 P.M. at the City Hall in Prairie City, Oregon. The second hearing will be September 17th at the same time and location. Both Public Hearings are to address a procedural oversight in the approval process of Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan & Zoning Map of February, 1998 and amended June of 1999 to include Transportation System Plan language. There have been no revisions to the document since the amendment of 1999. The document and Zoning Map are available for review at Prairie City Hall, 133 Bridge Street, Prairie City, Oregon, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. and 1:00 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATf FOR GRANT COUNTY AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OREGON County of GRANT} SS Notice is hereby given that the City of Prairie City will con- duct the first of two Public Hearings on September 10th at 6:00 P.M. at the City Hall in Prairie City, Oregon. The second hearing will be September 17th at the same time and location. Both Public Hearings are to address a procedural oversight in the approval process of Prairie City's Comprehensive Land use Plan & Zoning Map of February, 1998 and amended J u n e of 1999 to include Transportation System Plan language. There have been no revisions to the document since the amendment of 1999. The document and Zoning Map are available for review at Prairie City Hall, 133 Bridge Street, Prairie City, Oregon, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. and 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. Trista Cox being duly sworn, depose and I, say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the Blue Mountain Eagle, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at John Day in the aforesaid county and state; that the City of Prairie City - Notice of Public Hearing a printed copy of which is here to annexed; was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive issues in the following issues: August 27, 2008 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 9th day of September, 2008. of Oregon OFFICIAL s e a l v J S K S S M R j ^ S f f i ^ S f f i L CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY PUBLIC HEARING September 10, 2008 6:00 P.M. Those Present: Stan Horrell, Mayor Jim Munyon, Councilor Fran Primozic, Councilor Bill Harrington, Councilor Carole Garrison, Councilor Tim Coe, Councilor Diane Clingman, City Recorder Georgia Patterson, Public Works Lyn McDonald, Planning Commission Secretary David Wildman, Anderson Perry & Associates Lynn Findley, Anderson Perry & Associates Judy Jacobs, Resident Kim Jacobs, Resident Storie Mooser, Resident Scott Nunns, Resident The hearing was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Stan Horrell. Roll Call was taken and the flag salute recited. Mayor Horrell stated the purpose of the hearing was to receive public testimony regarding Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and Zoning Map. He asked for testimony from the audience and there was no testimony offered. The Mayor stated that the hearing would be held open for ten minutes to allow anyone coming in late to offer testimony. No one appeared and no testimony was received. The hearing was closed at 6:10 p.m. Date: < j - l Z - 0 ? CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY PUBLIC HEARING September 17/2008 6:00 P.M. Those Present: Stan Horrell, Mayor Fran Primozic, Councilor Carole Garrison, Councilor Tim Coe, Councilor Diane Clingman, City Recorder Georgia Patterson, Public Works Lyn McDonald, Planning Commission Secretary Judy Jacobs, Resident Polly Horrell, Resident The hearing was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Stan Horrell. Roll Call was taken. Mayor Horrell stated the purpose ofthe hearing was to receive public testimony regarding Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 and Zoning Map. He asked for testimony from the audience and there was no testimony offered. The Mayor stated that the hearing would be held open for ten minutes to allow anyone coming in late to offer testimony. No one appeared and no testimony was received. The hearing was closed at 6:10 p.m. Stan Horrell, Mayor Date: q-1%-0% ^ . . . . ^ J X J I C J Uv>Hi> R e c e i p POSTAL SERVICE® M o n e y o r S e r v Post Office ( • V C , W K cr» Station Receipt Number 44 ( ^ P.O. Receipt for Money Finance Number ifo-LHtf Unit ID AIC Number i z . l , Receipt for: (indicate purposo) Amount S^ ' . (!S?C°) Received from: (show address only when receipt Is mated) 0 ' v-\ c Permit Number or SSN(Empt&yees ' Information on your PS Form 1093, Application for Post Office Box or Catter Service, • P . O . Box/Cal ler S e r v i c e F e e s be updated if it Is changed. For regulations pertaining to P.O. Boxes, see rules for us< Post Office Boxes and Caller Service on PS Form 1093. Customer name: Amount $ AIC Number Box/Caller Numbers) • For one semiannual payment period (AIC 158) • For annual payment period (AIC 115) • Reserved Number Fee (AIC 115) ^ (Ending date / f* ) ) (mnWd/yyyy) \ \ ) l Certifying Signature S\ II I ) f S PS Fcxm 3544, Jufy 2004 (PSN: 7530-03-000-3768) Distribution: Original - Customer; Duplicate - FHe with PS Form ****Measure 55 Notice was sent to all property owners on August 20, 2008**** CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY NOTICE OF LEGISLATIVE LAND USE ACTION IF YOU ARE A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE INCORPORATED LIMITS OF THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY OR THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY, THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY HAS PROPOSED A LAND USE REGULATION THAT MAY AFFECT THE PERMISSIBLE USES OF YOUR PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES; AND, IF YOU ARE AN AGENCY, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION, OR OTHERWISE STAND TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION, ALL ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT AND BECOME A PARTY TO THIS ACTION. On September 10, 2008, the City of Prairie City will hold the first of two public hearings on the action explained below. The second public hearing will be held on September 17, 2008. Both hearings will be held at 6:00 P.M., in the Prairie City Council Chambers at City Hall, 133 Bridge Street, Prairie City, Oregon 97869. PRAIRIE CITY LAND USE ACTION #2008-09-CP-98, ORDINANCE #025 Prairie City has a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Planning Document that direct development within the City and the Urban Growth Boundary or UGB. The UGB are those lands designated by the local government for management of future expansion. In 1998 there was a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Map to expand Prairie City's UGB by a total of 200.19 acres with the majority of that land lying to the north of Prairie City and a small portion to the southeast. The approval process for such an amendment requires not only approval by the local government, but approval by the County and the State Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Comprehensive Plan along with the amended Zoning Map was approved by the local government in June of 1997 by Ordinance #405 and was submitted to the County for review and approval. The County reviewed the document and map, held the required public hearings and requested that Prairie City make a few simple language changes prior to final approval. The City agreed to the language changes, passing them by motion only rather than the required ordinance. That procedural oversight from back in 1998 needs to be rectified and requires this notice be made available to all property owners in Prairie City. THIS IS A PROCEDURAL MATTER ONLY. There have been no revisions to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan since the 1998 amendment to include the expanded UGB. As a property owner located within the area affected by this amendment, or as a person, agency or organization, which may be affected by this action, you must receive notice as required by Ballot Measure 56, approved by the voters on November 3, 1998, in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 215, 503 and 227.186, because your property is located within the area affected by this amendment, or you are a person, agency or organization, which may be affected by this action. THE AFFECTED AREA AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL IS AS FOLLOWS: All property within the City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary Areas ofthe City of Prairie City in Grant County, Oregon. ****Measure 56 Notice was sent to all property owners on August 20, 2008**** Comments on this matter may be submitted in writing to the City of Prairie City at the address noted below up until 5:00 P.M. on the date of the hearings, or submitted in writing or by oral testimony at either ofthe hearings. Oral comments made in person, at any location or time other than at the hearings, will not be considered by the decision-makers or State Law to be a basis for any standing or appeal. Failure to raise an issue in person at a hearing, or in writing prior to or at the hearing, with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) If special accommodations for the physically challenged are required at the hearing or should you have questions regarding this notice, please contact the City office at 820-3605. Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan dated February 1998 and Zoning Map are available for review at the City Office, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon and 1:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. City of Prairie City P.O. Box 370 Prairie City, OR 97869 Ph: (541) 820-3605 Fax: (541) 820-3566 rcA/cX e@oregonvos.net 0 3 . \0\X]' P.O. Box 370 Prairie City, Oregon 97869 October 16, 2008 Grant County Planning C/O Shannon Springer 200 S Canyon Blvd. Canyon City, OR 97820 RE: Procedural Oversight in the matter of Prairie City's 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Enclosed please find thirteen copies of Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan dated February, 1998, three large maps of Prairie City and the Urban Growth Boundary and some related materials for your review. As you are aware, it came to light some time ago that Prairie City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1998 (that we have been operating under for the past ten years) never completed the approval process and is not recognized by Grant County or the State of Oregon, Dept. of Land Conservation and Development as our current document. The document and zoning map in question, dated February 1998, were originally adopted by ordinance in June of 1997. The document was submitted to the county and the required public hearings held on September 25th and October 29th, 1997. From testimony received at those hearings came a request from the court that Prairie City consider specific language changes to their document. The language changes were approved by the City Council, passed by motion only on February, 1998 and the document resubmitted to the court in March, 1998. The changes were acknowledged by the court, but Prairie City was notified that they would have to readopt the document by ordinance rather than motion only. For whatever reason, the ball was dropped, the ordinance was never adopted and the document never returned to the court for final approval. The matter was not addressed by the City or the County until March of 2000 when Blair Carpenter, County Planner, attended a Planning Commission meeting questioning whether our Comprehensive Plan had ever completed the approval process. The Planning Commission by that time was, of course, unaware and unfamiliar with what had taken place years prior and having an ordinance in place that said the document was approved by the City of Prairie City, dropped the ball again. It would be years later when a property owner within what everyone thought to be the UGB would approach the county about selling his property and discover they did not recognize it as UGB. Since that time, it has been an uphill battle to fix what was nothing more than a procedural oversight. Several months ago, the City Planning Secretary, Lyn McDonald and Prairie City Mayor Stan Horrell met with Grant Young, the region representative from DLCD, Boyd Britton from the County Court and Hiliary McNary, the Grant County Planning Director, to discuss the situation and what options were available. Although the document is now ten years old, both the county and the state agreed that asking Prairie City to revise the plan prior to submitting it for approval was not feasible. It could take several years to find grant funding and a consultant willing to take on the task and complete the work. Meanwhile, Prairie City would be bound to operate under the guidelines of their thirty year old Comprehensive Plan. Grant Young advised that he had been in contact with the director of LCDC in Salem and discussed Prairie City's particular situation. After giving the matter consideration, she agreed to accept the 1998 document if approved at the county level. The consensus among the three entities was that Prairie City should adopt the 1998 Comprehensive Plan by ordinance as previously requested and resubmit it to the county asking for special consideration in approving the document. There are three Urban Growth areas identified in this 1998 document that now stand in limbo until the document is approved. Exception area #1, east ofthe cemetery, is under new ownership and the owners are anxious to move forward with development and annexation. Although, they were aware at the time of purchase that the property was not recognized by the county or the state as UGB, I feel the City holds some responsibility to make things right as soon as possible to allow them to move forward with their plans. I want to thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please keep me updated on the review process and if I can be of any further assistance give me a call. City of Prairie City CC: Grant County Assessor Mike Springer, County Surveyor Grant County Sheriff Prairie City Fire Dept. Sincerely, City of Prairie City Fax 541.820.3566 P.O. Box 370 Prairie City, Oregon 97869 DATE: October 23, 2008 TO: Grant County Planning ATTN: Shannon Springer FROM: City of Prairie City Lyn McDonald, Planning Secretary Please find attached the following documents relating to the approval process of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan: 1) Ordinance No. 2008-923 dated September 24, 2008. 2) Minutes of the first Public Hearing dated September 10, 2008. 3) Minutes of the second Public Hearing dated September 17, 2008. 4) Affidavit of publication of Public Hearing notice. < 5) Copy of the "Notice of Legislative Land Use Action" mailed to all property owners in Prairie City and the UBG along with proof of mailing. 6) Notice to DLCD "Notice of Proposed Amendment" dated June 26, 2008. CC: Grant County Assessor * Mike Spring, County Surveyor Grant County Sheriff / / Prairie Gty Fire Dept. i / I 1 DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment THIS FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY DLCD AT LEAST 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRST EVIDENTIARY HEARING PER ORS 197.610, OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 18 D A T E S T A M P in p e r s o n O e l e c t r o n i c Q m a i l e d O Tor DLCD Use Only Jurisdiction: Grant County Date of First Evidentiary Hearing : 01/15/2009 Local File Number: ZC-08-02 Date of Final Hearing: 02/11/2009 Is this a REVISION to a previously submitted proposal? D Y e s £><]No Date submitted: K l Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment • New Land Use Regulation Urban Growth Boundary Amendment • Transportation System Plan Amendment • Other: Briefly Summarize Proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached"(limit 500 characters): Readoption of Prairie City Comprehensive Land Use Plan from February 1998. Document never completed the approval process with the City/County. Simple language changes were requested by the County Court. Changes were made and adopted at the City level only, never sent to County. Process failed to move forward. Has sufficient information been included to advise D L C D of the effect of proposal? J^Ye s , text is included For Map Changes: Include 8!4"x11" maps of Current and Proposed designation. ^ Yes, Maps included P lan map changed from: E F U To: Prairie C i ty Urban Growth Zone map changed f rom:EFU To: PC UGB Location of property (do not use Tax Lot): N E and SE of exising Prairie C i ty UGB Previous density:Rural New density: 1 du/2 ac Acres involved: Appl icable statewide planning goals: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • • • • • • • • K K K K D Is an exception to a statewide planning goal proposed? • Y E S [X] NO Goals: Affected state or federal agencies, local governments or special districts (It is jurisdiction's responsibility to notify these agencies. DLCD only records this information): Local Contact: Hilary McNary Address: 201 S Humbolt, Ste 170 Fax Number: 541-575-2276 D L C D f i le No. Phone: 541-575-1519 Extension: City: Canyon City Zip: 97820- E-mai l Address: mcnaryh@grantcounty-or.gov GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 201 S. Humbolt, Suite 170 Canyon City, Oregon 97820 Phone: (541) 575-1519 Fax: (541)575-2276 To: From: Subject: Public participation at County Planning Commission and County Court Hearings The Grant County Planning Commission heard a request from Prairie City to update the comprehensive plan on January 15, 2009. The request is file number ZC-08-02. There was no public participation at the planning commission hearing. The Grant County Court heard the request from prairie city to update the comprehensive plan on January 28, 2009. There was no public participation at the County Court Hearing. MEMORANDUM Prairie City File ZC-08-02 Shannon Springer, Assistant Planner , iV\ \ jS-A/ ' A-wejflAeG 0 0 2 1 4 S o o e i 3 Q IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREG0 FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT ' RECEIVED AND FILED m y f m 1 KAJtff Kjc^ QNNON u^nty Clerk Deputy IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION ZC-08-02 FILED BY THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY REQUESTING OFFICIAL ADOPTION OF THE PRAIRIE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 1998 ORDER NO. 09-01 RECEIVED A N D FILED FEB 1 j 2009 KATHY MciONNC By- M, Co'-r.ty Clerk . Deputy Subject to the provisions set forth in Article 47 of the Grant County Land Development Code, this matter came before the Grant County Court for a Public Hearing on January 28, 2009. Members of the Court present were County Judge Mark R. Webb, Commissioner Scott W. Myers and Commissioner Boyd Britton; their presence constituted a quorum. The hearing was declared open to public testimony. Public testimony was received. This testimony and the resulting County Court discussion is summarized in the duly approved minutes of January 28, 2009, which are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the record of the hearing. Commissioner Boyd Britton made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve application ZC-08-02 for official adoption of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998, due to a procedural error which occurred in 1998. It is clearly evident from the record that the intention was to adopt the Comprehensive Plan in 1998, and the adoption only failed from miscommunication and a procedural error. Commissioner Scott W. Myers seconded the motion. The vote passed with a quorum of the County Court voting in favor. By this action, the County Court will cause the appropriate planning maps to be amended to reflect the new boundaries of the Prairie City Urban Growth Boundary. Signed this 4"1 day of February 2009. Judge Mark R. Webb U/- Commissioner Scott W. Myers Commissioner Boyd Britton COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT JANUARY 28, 2009 Pursuant to notice made to the newspaper of general circulation throughout Grant County, the radio station in Grant County, and to interested persons on the Grant County e-mail list, a regular meeting of the County Court was held at the County Courthouse in Canyon City OR. 9:10 am — Called to Order. Present were Judge Mark R. Webb and Commissioners Scott W. Myers and Boyd Britton, and Secretary Mary Ferrioli. The Pledge of Allegiance was given to the United States flag. An opening prayer was given by Commissioner Britton. PROGRAM. MSP: Webb/Myers- to accept the program as presented. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Britton reported on the monthly Southeast Rural Alliance board meeting that he attended on January 26th in Canyon City. Myers reported on the Community Connections of Northeast Oregon Inc. quarterly board meeting that he attended on January 27th in La Grande. Britton reported on a Farm Bureau meeting that he attended on January 26th and a conversation he had with the Grant Soil & Water Conservation District about the weed control program. Ferrioli updated the court regarding occupancy at the former Road Dept by Potelco, their variance application with the Town of Canyon City, plus recycling old library books stored there. Webb updated the court on his conversation with Blue Mountain Hospital Administrator Bob Houser about a proposed rental rate for occupancy at 530 E. Main, Suite 10. MINUTES. MSP: Britton/Webb - to approve the January 21 Minutes as amended. EXECUTIVE SESSION. At 9:30 am court members held an Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(b) to consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. Webb recited the State Attorney General's Sample Script to Announce the Start of Executive Session. At 10:30 am the court returned to General Session. No motions were made. 10:30 am - Dana Brooks, Kathy Smith and local citizen Bryan Wolf entered. MINUTES OF THE GRANT COUNTY COURT JANUARY 28, 2009 1 APPROVED HAND CHECK. Commission on Children & Families Director Dana Brooks appeared in court to request approval of a hand check for a claim that should have been submitted last week. It would pay for hotel costs for an upcoming trip to Washington D.C. Brooks explained that she prefers to reserve the credit card for meals and other expenses. The Treasurer said she was willing to issue a hand check. MSP: Myers/Webb - so moved. CRAMER FISH SCIENCES. The court reviewed and discussed a 2009 Personal Services Contract with S.P. Cramer and Associates dba Cramer Fish Sciences, of Gresham OR, as provided by legal counsel Ron Yockim. The Scope of Work included the identification of land-use protocols that protect steelhead habitat and populations and would preserve opportunity for other watershed uses in the John Day Basin. Payment, not exceeding $5,000, for Phase I of the research would be made upon completion of work. Webb asked for permission to sign the agreement after receiving an answer from counsel to one other question. MSP: Britton/Myers - to authorize Judge Webb to sign after he receives an answer from legal counsel. HUDDLESTON SNOW PARK. Roadmaster Mark Hensley previously recommended signature on a Modification to Challenge cost Share Agreement with the Malheur NF for performing snow plowing at Huddleston Parking Area. Forest Service funding the 08-09 winter season would be $2,000 with a non-cash contribution of $9,143. Grant County's non-cash contribution of equipment and labor would be $35,456. MSP: Britton/Myers - to authorize Judge Webb to sign the agreement as presented. 10:40 am - News Reporter Scotta Callister entered. DEPARTMENT LIASION PROGRAM. General review and discussion took place regarding this year's proposed County Court member designations for the department liaison program. Webb pointed out that some departments have expressed interest in having a County Court member visit with them from time to time. Myers and Webb agreed to share the Library. Britton suggested that he be responsible for the DA and Personnel. MSP: Webb/Britton - to accept the proposed designation list with those changes. LGPI PLACEMENT. At the court's request Local Government Personnel Institute had conducted an evaluation and assessment to place the following job descriptions on the county wage scale. Both positions would perform work under the general supervision of the Public Health Administrator. Dental Clinic Coordinator within Category L-5 (non-exempt) Tobacco Prevention Coordinator-within Category M-4 (non-exempt) Treasurer Smith explained her conversations with LGPI and Dental Clinic representatives about removing unnecessary certification requirements. She felt some changes may be necessary in the future so recommended that the Dental Clinic job description be reviewed in one year. Britton obtained further clarification about the state-mandated Tobacco Prevention Coordinator program. MINUTES OF THE GRANT COUNTY COURT JANUARY 28, 2009 2 APPROVED MSP: Webb/ Myers - to accept the wage scale placements for the Dental Clinic Coordinator and Tobacco Program Coordinator as recommended by LGPI. 200 S. HUMBOLt. Treasurer Kathy Smith previously provided the following cost quotes associated with remodeling activities for available rental space at 200 S. Humbolt Street. The Scope of Work could include tearing out and relaying subfloor throughout and the installation of either all vinyl flooring with cove base or vinyl flooring with industrial carpet in offices. Mosier's Home Furnishings quoted $7,853 for the all vinyl option and $5,459 for the vinyl with three carpeted offices option. The Floor Store quoted $9,619 for the all vinyl option and $8,528 for the vinyl / carpet option. Information received on lighting replacement included a recycling quote from Red's Electric in the amount of $93 (with tubes) plus approximately $400 in labor, and Oregon Trail Electric's rebate program tax credit would be approximately $30 per fixture. Other quotes had been obtained from Maintenance Worker Nick Miller for Utilitech Energy Star commercial grade 4 light wrap (no tubes) at $64.98 each, or $54.98 each for residential grade. The court was asked to decide whether they would like all vinyl or vinyl with carpeted offices. Discussion took place about whether or not to take up the tile and remove the subfloor for the vinyl replacement area. Webb felt, if the vinyl overlay would be guaranteed, without removing the old floor, it would be OK. Britton suggested carpeting the entire space which was less expensive. That idea was discouraged because carpet wouldn't hold up to heavy traffic in the main area. Carpeting also would require more maintenance for up keep. Some discussion followed about the flooring quality and warranty for the quotes provided. MSP: Myers/Webb— to accept the vinyl with carpet in three offices option presented by Mosier's. Smith coordinated with the court about asking Mosier's about either leaving or taking up the existing vinyl, and making a future decision on the lighting rebate program. Lighting would be discussed when further information is available. 10:55 am - Lynn Mc Donald, JudyJacobs, Stan Horrell, Hilary McNary and Shannon Springer entered. PUBLIC HEARING. At 11:00 am a public hearing was opened to address application ZC-08-02 filed by the City of Prairie City for final adoption of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998. Planning Director Hilary McNary and Assistant Planner Shannon Springer were present. At Webb's request, McNary established that a quorum of the County Court was present and that no ex parte contact or conflict of interest exists at this time. McNary recited her staff report containing background information and Springer displayed a map of the subject area. Based on the Planning Commission's review of the application and testimony heard on January 19, 2009, the Commission recommended that the plan be approved to correct a procedural error that occurred in 1998. At that time, the court's recommended changes to the Comp Plan were not re-submitted MINUTES OF THE GRANT COUNTY COURT JANUARY 28, 2009 3 APPROVED to the county for final approval. Therefore the plan hasn't been formally recognized by Grant County or the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). It was noted that DLCD had approved re-submission to the court at this time. McNary recommended official adoption of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998, recognizing it is out of date and does not meet today's standards, but adoption being necessary to correct a procedural error that is ten years old. Adoption would allow Prairie City to continue operations as they have been for the past ten years, and move forward with the plan's necessary updating. Proponent and Opponent testimony were requested, but none was offered. Britton recommended dispensing with further requests for testimony. Court members were in agreement about the need to officially adopt the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998 at this time. MSP: Britton/Webb - that the County Court officially adopt the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998. McNary reported that she could have the Decision and Order document ready for signature next week. 11:20 am ~ Adjourned Respectfully Submitted, Mary R. Ferrioli County Court Secretary MINUTES OF THE GRANT COUNTY COURT JANUARY 28, 2009 4 APPROVED GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, OR 97820 Phone: (541) 575-1519 Fax:(541) 575-2276 E-mail: gcplan@grantcounty-or.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Grant County Court will conduct a Public Hearing on January 28, 2009, beginning at 11:00 a.m. at the Grant County Court, Court Room, 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 280, Canyon City, Oregon on the following Land Use matters: 1. Public Hearing to address application ZC-08-02, submitted by Prairie City to adopt comprehensive plan for Prairie City. The property is identified as Prairie City and surrounding areas. Persons or parties interested or concerned with this subject matter may appear in person before the Grant County Court on January 28, 2009, beginning at 11:00 a.m. at the Grant County Court, Court Room, 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 280, Canyon City, Oregon. Written comments must be received in the Planning Department Office, 201 South Humbolt Street, Suite 170, Canyon City, Oregon by 5:00 p.m. January 26, 2009 to be included in the record of the public hearing. Failure of an issue to be raised at the hearing or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) based on that issue. Copies of the application are available for public review at the Grant County Planning Department not less than seven (7) days prior to said hearing. Public Hearing Notice County Court to paper.doc Page 1 o f 1 Phone (541) 575-1519 Fax (541) 575-2276 Grant County Planning Department 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, Oregon 97820 Date: January 8, 2009 To: Blue Mountain Eagle From: Shannon - Planning Department Fax #: 575-1244 Number of Pages: Comments: Please publish the attached notice in the January 14th edition and run one time. A copy will also be sent via email. Please send the original affidavit of publication with a copy ofthe published notice to the Grant County Clerk at 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 290, Canyon City, OR 97820. They need the original and will provide a copy to us for our files. Grant County Planning Commission IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION ZC-08-02 FILED BY THE CITY OF PRAIRIE CITY REQUESTING ADOPTION OF THE PRAIRIE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 1998 ) ) ) RECOMMENDATION The City of Prairie City made application ZC-08-02 for official adoption of the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998. The Grant County Planning Commission reviewed this application and heard testimony on January 19, 2009, subject meeting being duly noticed and published as required. As a result of the information presented, including the public input received, it was moved, seconded and approved that the Grant County Planning Commission forward this application to the Grant County Court for a final decision, in accordance with Section 47.040 of the Grant Count Land Development Code. Therefore, the Grant County Planning Commission respectfully submits this application to the County Court with their recommendation that it be approved to correct a procedural error that occurred in 1998. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of January 2009. GRANT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 16 GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Minutes of January 15, 2009 Approved by Planning Commission Marge Walton opened the meeting at 4:01 p.m. The meeting was held at the Grant County Health Department, Skills Room, 528 East Main Street, John Day, Oregon. Planning Commission members present were: Chairperson Marge Walton, Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Commission members absent were: Rick Henslee, Keith Dougharity and Sue Porter. Staff members present were: Planning Director Hilary McNary and Secretary Shannon Springer. The following people signed the attendance sheet: Rick Page, Steve Walker, Stan & Polly Horrell, Lyn McDonald, Judy Jacobs and Steve Turner Nominations were opened for the position of Chairperson for 2009. Carolyn Mullin nominated Marge Walton for chairperson. Ron Burnette seconded the nomination. Nominations were closed. Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Nominations were opened for the position of vice-chairperson for 2009. Planning Director Hilary McNary stated that the process for signing Planning Commission decisions would be different than the past, in compliance with the Grant County Land Development Code. From now on the decisions will be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval from the full Commission before being signed by the chairperson. / Carolyn Mullin nominated Ron Burnette for vice chairperson. Kelly McGirr seconded the nomination. Nominations were closed. Votes in favor were Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Carolyn Mullin moved to accept the minutes from November 20, 2008 as presented. Kelly McGirr seconded the motion. Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Chairperson Marge Walton opened the Public Hearing to address application ZC-08-02, submitted by Prairie City to officially adopt the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan. The area affected includes portions of land close to Prairie City, which will be added to the Urban Growth Boundary. Maps are available at City Hall in Prairie City and the Grant County Planning Department. Chairperson Marge Walton reviewed the procedure for the hearing. 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chairperson Marge Walton established that there was a quorum present. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if any planning commission members wanted to abstain from the hearing. None were indicated. Chairperson Marge Walton asked of there were any ex parte contact. None were indicated. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there were any conflict of interest to declare. None were declared. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there was any objection to the planning commission's jurisdiction to hear the matter. None were expressed. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there were any objections to the planning commission having jurisdiction in this matter. Planning Director Hilary McNary presented the staff report. Chairperson Marge Walton called for proponent testimony from the applicant. Lynn McDonald indicated that the staff report was a good summary of the request. Stan Horrell stated hat he would like to see the plan passed. Chairperson Marge Walton called for opponent testimony. None was presented. Chairperson Marge Walton Called for neutral testimony. None was presented. Chairperson Marge Walton called for rebuttal testimony. None was presented < Chairperson Marge Walton asked for summary statements. None were presented. Chairperson Marge Walton opened the hearing to questions from the planning commission members. Rod Kuhn asked if the map had changed from the maps submitted in 1997/1998. Chairperson Marge Walton stated that the original maps from 1997/1998 had some UGB out west of town up by the covered wagon. Planning Secretary Shannon Springer stated that this came to light because of a discrepancy between the County and City map of the UGB. Ron Burnette moved that the planning commission recommend approval of ZC-08-02 to the Grant County Court. Les Zaitz seconded the motion. The court should recognize that the plan is 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 (6 outdated, but needs to be approved to correct a procedural error from the past. Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. The recommendation will be ready for signature on the 23rd. The County Court hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2009 at 11:00 am. A break in the hearing was taken from 4:20 pm to 4:25 pm. Chairperson Marge Walton opened the Public Hearing to address Public Hearing to address application PAR-08-13, submitted by Richard Page to partition to create three parcels of 1341, 365 & 240 acres. The property is identified as tax lot 108, located at Township 7 South, Range 29 East, Section 27, 28 & 34, W.M. consisting of 1946.89 acres located in the Primary Forest Zone. Chairperson Marge Walton dispensed with review of the procedure for the hearing since no new participants had entered the hearing. Chairperson Marge Walton established that there was a quorum present. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if any planning commission members wanted to abstain from the hearing. None were indicated. Chairperson Marge Walton asked of there were any ex parte contact. None were indicated. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there were any conflict of interest to declare. Ron Burnette indicated that he is related to Janice Rehder and is related to Rick's ex-wife. Rick Page stated that he does not have a problem with Ron Burnette participating in the hearing. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there was any objection to the planning commissibn's jurisdiction to hear the matter. None were expressed. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there were any objections to the planning commission having jurisdiction in this matter. Planning Director Hilary McNary presented a summary of the staff report. Keith Dougharity arrived at 4:30 pm. Chairperson Marge Walton called for proponent testimony from the applicant. Chairperson Marge Walton asked Keith Dougharity if he wanted to abstain from the hearing. He did not. She asked if he had ex parte contact related to the request. He did not. She asked if he had a conflict of interest related to the request. He did not. 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chairperson Marge Walton asked if there were any objections from the audience to Keith participating in the hearing. None were expressed. Chairperson Marge Walton asked for proponent testimony from the applicant. Rick Page indicated that he would like to rebut the information provided in the letter when that was allowed. No other proponent testimony was provided. Chairperson Marge Walton called for opponent testimony. None was provided. Chairperson Marge Walton called for neutral testimony. None was provided. Chairperson Marge Walton called for proponent rebuttal. Rick Page referred to the pictures that were provided to the planning department. He indicated that the areas that were heavily used were on the neighbor property. When the Rehders had leased his property it had been used harder that the areas in the pictures. Rehders had rented part of his property and used 4-wheelers and ran the game off just before hunting season. They overused the ground and were disrespectful. Kelly Morris rented the area by the road last year and He has a verbal agreement to rent the entire place this year. He indicated that he is concerned about agriculture. He showed a tax lot map to the planning commission that showed parcel ownership. The Rehders letter indicated that they had an easement through this property. He contacted an attorney and circuit court and neither show that she has any access through the property. He will let her go through the property with permission. Last year they moved cattle through the property the day before elk season without permission. No other rebuttal testimony was provided. Rick Page stated that he appreciated the planning commission ad the planning department. Chairperson Marge Walton opened the hearing to questions from the planning commission. Les Zaitz asked how partitioning the property would make it more manageable. Rick Page stated that the cattle will stay in the places where shade water and grazing are easy. Splitting it up will force the cattle to move around. Chairperson Marge Walton asked if any of the proposed parcels could be split further. Planning Director Hilary McNary indicated that 80 acres is the minimum parcel size for the zone. Hailey Boethin asked if he intended to divide the proposed parcels further. Plahning Director Hilary McNary told Hailey that questions about future plans for the property are not really allowed. We need to base a decision on the application at hand and not make projections 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 16 about what might happen in the future. She indicated that the request must be evaluated on its face value. If he decides to divide it further in the future that request may end up before the planning commission. Rod Kuhn asked if the property is currently fenced like he proposed to divide it. Rick Page indicated that the 365 acre proposed parcel is divided by a fence and there are springs in the area. The one on the east would benefit by being divided since there are springs in the area and the cattle hang around the springs. Rod Kuhn said there is no guarantee that a future owner would want no more cows on the property. Rick Page indicated that the property owner by Hill is used very heavily. You could risk that with any property. 33 of the tax lot are owned by people who live out of the area. 12 of the 66 parcels have local addresses. There are a lot of out of area owners. Keith Dougharity moved to approve PAR-08-13 with conditions suggested in the staff report. The request met the criteria in the staff report. Kelly McGirr seconded the motion. Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Planning Director Hilary McNary stated that the decision would be prepared for review by the planning commission at the February hearing. One the decision is mailed there is a 12 day appeal period. Parties with standing are: Rick Page, Janice Rehder and Robert Armstrong. Chairperson Marge Walton called for other business. Planning Director Hilary McNary indicated that the code update would be pushed out to March since we will be hearing 3 non-farm dwelling applications for Martin in February. '• Planning staff asked if the third Thursday was still a good day for meetings to be scheduled? Hilary asked if starting meetings at 4:00pm was ok for winter, but did they want to start later during the summer. The planning commission agreed with the scheduling except February meeting should be on the 26th. Planning Director Hilary McNary said she had planned to have a work session on the code and the send the notice to DLCD for the first evidentiary hearing. The planning commission members wanted to notice DLCD and do the legislative updates without having a work session. Planning Director Hilary McNary stated she would try to get the notice to DLCD for the March meeting. 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Rod Kuhn asked if we had received notification from LUBA about Steve Walker appealing the County Court Decision. Planning Director Hilary McNary indicated that we have not received notice from LUBA, but Walkers may reapply. Ron Burnette asked if Hilary was aware of a study group formed by Wallowa County planning commission. He stated that the Code directs to protect farmland. He is curious how to handle the discrepancy of the code requirement and development. Planning Director Hilary McNary was not aware of such a group. Ron Burnette indicated that they go through the same thing we do. Planning Director Hilary McNary indicated she would contact Wallowa County and see what they have done. Ron Burnette asked if a work session could be arrange with the County Court to talk about the philosophy of how to protect resource land and still allow placement of dwellings. Planning Director Hilary McNary indicated she would present it to the Court. Ron Burnette indicated he would like to identify some common ground to protect agricultural land and place dwellings. Planning Director Hilary McNary asked if he was looking for a round table discussion. Chairperson Marge Walton thought that Wallowa County might be looking for other counties to join them for a discussion Planning Director Hilary McNary stated that she would get in touch with other counti6s to see what they are doing. Keith Dougharity moved to adjourn the hearing. Carolyn Mullin seconded the motion. Votes in favor were Carolyn Mullin, Ron Burnette, Rod Kuhn, Kelly McGirr, Les Zaitz and Hailey Boethin. Chairperson Marge Walton did not vote. Chairperson Marge Walton adjourned the meeting at 5:05 pm. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of January 2009. Shannon N. Springer Planning Secretary 01-15-09 Public Hearing Minutes.doc Page 6 of 6 2008 B7 WIMW^^. P ub l i c " f e l M B p GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT : 26.1 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, OR 97820 Phone:(541)575-1519 Fax:(541)575-2276 E-mail: gcplan@grantcounty-or.gov •• v • =-=-.= Jj-.-i'-'-f • * ,ij£fi V."\ • •-. ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ; , J - j i iv • ;, ' - " : "" ' "• ;>• . .Notice Is hereby given that the Grant County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on January 15,2009, beginning at'4:00 ' p.m. at the Grarit County Health Department, Skills Room, 528 East Main Street, John Day, Oregon on the following Land Use matters: i to address application ZC-08-02, sub- •City"'' t o -officially adopt the Prairie "-'City 'CompirehensivaF^lan. The area affected includes portions of land M f l M I B l i ^ w ' " ' 3 e ac 'c 'e<^ t 0 Urban" Growth i ^ r i l S ^ P S l ^ t f i a i i E i '"Mailable at City Hall In Prairie City and the [Grant <&i3n!y^Plannlng Department. j ; , . I . 2. sjfSb'lic Hearing to address application PAR-08-13, sub- jmitted by. Richard Page to partition to create three parcels of 1341, 1365 ^ .240 acres. The property is identified a s tax lot 108, located at ^Township 7 South, Range 29 East, Section 27, 28 & 34, W.M. con- jsistjng of 1946.89 acres located in the Primary Forest Zone. , Persons or parties interested or concerned with this subject matter [may a p p e a r / | n ' pe r son before the Grant County Planning s.Corlimissidri ori January 15, 2009, beginning at 4:00 pm at the Grant |County ? Healtti^Department, Conference Room, 528 East Main1 fStreet, John: Day, Oregon. Written comments must be received in the Planning Department Office, 201 South Humbolt Street, Suite 170, Canyon City, Oregon by 12:00 p.m. January 15, 2009 to be jincluded In the record of the public hearing. Failure of an issue to be i raised :at the,|jearing or by letter, or|ailure to provide sufficient speci- |ficity to afforq the"decisi6n maker an opportunity to respond to the •issue precludes a local or Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) appeal based on that issue. Copies of the application and staff report are ^available' for. public review at the Grant County Planning Department 4not less than seven (7) days prior to said hearing. GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, OR 97820 Phone: (541) 575-1519 Fax: (541) 575-2276 E-mail: gcplan@grantcountv-or.gov NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Grant County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on January 15, 2009, beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the Grant County Health Department, Skills Room, 528 East Main Street, John Day, Oregon on the following Land Use matters: 1. Public Hearing to address application ZC-08-02, submitted by Prairie City to officially adopt the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan. The area affected includes portions of land close to Prairie City, which will be added to the Urban Growth Boundary. Maps are available at City Hall in Prairie City and the Grant County Planning Department. 2. Public Hearing to address application PAR-08-13, submitted by Richard Page to partition to create three parcels of 1341, 365 & 240 acres. The property is identified as tax lot 108, located at Township 7 South, Range 29 East, Section 27, 28 & 34, W.M. consisting of 1946.89 acres located in the Primary Forest Zone. Persons or parties interested or concerned with this subject matter may appear in person before the Grant County Planning Commission on January 15, 2009, beginning at 4:00 pm at the Grant County Health Department, Conference Room, 528 East Main Street, John Day, Oregon. Written comments must be received in the Planning Department Office, 201 South Humbolt Street, Suite 170, Canyon City, Oregon by 12:00 p.nft. January 15, 2009 to be included in the record of the public hearing. Failure of an issue to be raised at the hearing or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes a local or Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) appeal based on that issue. Copies of the application and staff report are available for public review at the Grant County Planning Department not less than seven (7) days prior to said hearing. Public Hearing Notice to paper.doc Page 1 o f 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR GRANT COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION S T A T E O F O R E G O N County of G R A NT} S S Trista Cox being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the Blue Mountain Eagle, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at John Day in the aforesaid county and state; that the Grant County Planning Department - Notice of Public Hearing a printed copy of which is here to annexed; was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for 1_successive and consecutive issues in the following issues: December 31,2008 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 6th day of January, 2009 Phone (541) 575-1519 Fax (541) 575-2276 Grant County Planning Department 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, Oregon 97820 Date: December 23, 2008 To: Blue Mountain Eagle - legals From: Shannon at Planning Department Fax #: 575-1244 Number of Pages: 2 Comments: Please run the attached legal in the December 31, 2008 edition. Run it for one week. u Please send an original affidavit of publication with the original published legal attached to Brenda Percy at the Grant County Courthouse, 201 S. Humbolt, Suite 290 , Canyon City, OR 97820. GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 201 SOUTH HUMBOLT, SUITE 170 CANYON CITY, OREGON 97820 PHONE 541-575-1519 FAX: 541-575-2276 December 29, 2008 STAFF REPORT ZONE CHANGE - ZC-08-02 Applicant: City of Prairie City PO Box 370 Prairie City, OR 97869 Background: Within the past year, it has come to light that the current Comprehensive Plan of Prairie City, which was put in place in 1998, was never officially adopted by the County. In 1997 and 1998, the City worked with the Department of Land Conservation and Development to update their Comprehensive Plan. They prepared the final document and held the necessary hearings related to the adoption of the plan. They then forwarded the plan to the County, where appropriate Planning Commission and County Court hearings were held. All of these bodies approved the proposed plan, but Judge Reynolds requested some wording changes in the document before the Court would officially adopt it. The City of Prairie City never finished making these changes and forwarding the appropriate documentation to the Court, leaving their comprehensive plan in a state of limbo. The City continued to use the Comprehensive Plan of 1998 as though it had been adopted, because they were unaware that it had not been. The error in adoption only came to light when a property owner who was included in the Urban Growth Boundary under the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update approached the County, and was told by the County they were not in the Urban Growth Boundary. The City of Prairie City contacted the Department of Land Conservation and Development earlier this year, seeking advice on how to proceed with a plan that was not officially adopted. In a meeting between Prairie City, Grant County, and DLCD representatives, it was decided the best way to proceed was to officially adopt the Comprehensive Plan of 1998 so the ZC-08-02 Prairie City Page 1 of 2 City could continue under that plan until such time they are able to update it again. The Comprehensive Plan of 1998 does not meet the standards that are in place today for an Urban Growth Boundary Expansion/Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That fact is recognized by Prairie City, Grant County, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. For this reason, it was difficult for me to even review this plan against the criteria set forth by the County. However, we must recognize that the City is in a hard position, as it would take many years and a huge monetary investment to update the plan to current standards. Meanwhile, the City would be held to operating under the last adopted Comprehensive Plan, which is more than 30 years old. After consulting with Grant Young at the meeting between the County, Prairie City, and DLCD, it seems the best course of action is to officially adopt the plan of 1998 in its current form, and allow the City of Prairie City to continue operating under that plan. At that meeting, everyone involved agreed that it was clear from documentation the intent of Prairie City, the Grant County Planning Commission, and the Grant County Court was to adopt the Comprehensive Plan of 1998 in its entirety. The wording changes requested by Judge Reynolds were not substantive, but more grammatical/clarifying in nature. The final adoption was lacking due to a procedural error, with the Prairie City Council adopting the changes by motion instead of ordinance, and never rectifying that error. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff would recommend in light of the muddled situation, that the Grant County Planning Commission recommend to the County Court that they officially adopt the Prairie City Comprehensive Plan of 1998, recognizing that it is already out of date, but adoption being necessary to correct a procedural error that is ten years old. The Planning Commission may also want to include in their recommendation that it would appear that the intent of the jurisdictions 10 years ago was to adopt the plan as it stands. Adoption of this Plan will also allow Prairie City to continue operations as they have been for the past ten years. Respectfully submitted this 29,h day of December 2008. Hilary E. McNary, Planning Director Grant County Planning Department ZC-08-02 Prairie City Page 2 of 2 GRANT COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170 Canyon City, OR 97820 Phone: (541) 575-1519 Fax: (541) 575-2276 E-mail: gcplan@grantcounty-or.gov NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. NO TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING December 24, 2008 Dear Property Owner, Notice is hereby given that Grant County is considering the following request: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION Application Number: Applicant: Subject Property: Requested Action ZC-08-02 Prairie City Prairie City - please see map at the Planning Department or Prairie City Hall re-adoption ofthe Prairie City Comprehensive plan. Grant County will be completing the process to officially recognize and adopt Prairie City's Comprehensive Plan. There will be two public hearings scheduled. One with the Planning Commission and one with the County Court. < HEARING #1: Grant County Planning Commission The Grant County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on January 15, 2009, beginning at 4:00 pm at the Grant County Health Department, 528 East Main Street, John Day, Oregon. HEARING #2: Grant County Court The Grant County Court will conduct a Public Hearing on January 28, 2009, beginning at 11:00 am at the Grant County Courthouse, 201 South Humbolt, Canyon City, Oregon. Applicable Criteria: The request will be evaluated under Statewide Planning Goals 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14. Public Hearing Notice to neighbors 20 days PC.doc Page 1 o f 2 Notice Requirements: This notice will be mailed to the applicant, all property owners within the city of Prairie City and appropriate agencies prior to the Planning Commission and County Court holding hearings on this request. If you would like to respond: Written comments must be received in the Planning Department Office, 201 South Humbolt Street, Suite 170, Canyon City, Oregon by 5:00 p.m. the Monday before the hearing to be included in the record of the public hearing. Written comments may also be presented in person at the hearing. Comments received will be considered in rendering a decision. Issues must be addressed with sufficient specificity based on criteria within the Grant County Land Development Code, upon which the Planning Commission must base its decision. Failure to raise an issue in writing or in person precludes a local or Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) appeal based on that issue. Available Resources: A copy of the application, a map of the request area and other information is available for inspection in the Planning Department located in the Grant County Courthouse, 201 S. Humbolt Street, Suite 170, Canyon City, Oregon. The Staff report will be available for inspection at least seven days prior to the hearing. Copies will be provided upon request at a reasonable cost. If you have any questions about this application, please call the Grant County Planning Department at (541) 575-1519. Respectfully submitted this the 24th day of December 2008, Shannon Springer Grant County Planning Department cc: Prairie City, applicant Prairie City residents ODOT Planning, Cheryl Jarvis-Smith ODOT, District 14 Manager ODOT, District 12 Manager Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Bureau of Land Management Division of State Lands O.T.E.C. Grant County Road Department Watermaster xc: File copy Public Hearing Notice to neighbors 20 days PC.doc Page 2 o f 2 DEFT OF APR 0 8 2009 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Dept. of Land Conservation & Develop 635 Capitol Street N E , Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 ATTN; Plan Amendment Specialist