CITY OF LEXINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT June, 1979 City Council Members; Mayor - Lee Padberg Lois M. Allyn Bill Smith ~~~ Charlene Papineau Bill Sheirbon City Staff: Secretary-Treasurer - Lois Allyn Maintenance Superintendent - Floyd Borman Fire Chief - Ed Baker City Plannin9 Staff: Marie Hall. Comprehensive Planner East Central Oregon Association of Counties Ker; Stratton &David Wheeler, Cartographers Umatilla County Planning Department Jean Simpson, Secretary East Central Oregon Association of Counties The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). 'm .DOCUMENTS LOCAL I~)p. @z -:,,:,:- ~ .::: ::: cEJ ::.",,,, lIlJ';nl .-:, '-:.:.:: UU .... @ .U:<) @ : r~'1~0 : ~I ~:~c::! '~~.:::>::.'. ".. ,. , .. 0-::"" ..'~.•~___ I' :. ..':: -:.; '~--=--... .: . ..' --~..~-:-:,,~-r: \: .. ;;S:;~ .•••:~.:. :.... :·:<:;k ..........,. •... '.'.' ,., ',- ,_.:...:.. ' .. . ,-" .:.:: ; .:.,' ... -.... .-.' . ' '.' -.'.'. ,': IIlOtlE: s__ _ 1101 ,-• ..ehllo _.:::u'•.•a ,,-CII,L._ ._,. .~ ' , _ .,lcoolh 11 f'" 10 _ ' ........._ ) ..... .".n Lu , __ , 00'''' ........ duo",_to .... Cit _ " .... no. z ' atc~ - . .o.ll,.. -.C .. C,..lI I U,." II,. __~-t•••~• ..... ij LEGEND ~ RESIDENTIALIIiiII PUBLIC ~ INDUSTRIAL _ COMMERCIAL ." FARM .__ CITY LIMITS '" Church~ URBAII GRO' .. Schoolo FLOOD WAY WTH BOUNDARY . STEEP SLOPES>_ 12% • t r D' ""C, ,.. Department of Transportation HIGHWAY DIVISION TRANSPORTATION BUILDING; SALEM, OREGON 97310VICTOR ATlYEH -- Augus t 24, 1979 In Reply Refer toFile No.: Mayor Lee Padberg City of Lexington City Hall Lexington, OR 97839 Dear Mayor Padberg: We would like to commend your community for completion of its comprehensive plan and ordinances. Our staff has reviewed them in light of our Department's programs and we will be supporting LCDC acknowledgment. We would also like to express our appreciation for the excellent cooperation we have received from Marie Hall. Our Department would like to be involved in future updates of the plan· and ordinances. It will be helpful if you direct informa- tion on future plan updates to George Strawn, our Transportation Planning Representative and Cindy Murphy, Parks Planning Representa- tive. We would also appreciate your sending George notice of appli- cations for zone changes and subdivisions along state highways. Addresses and phone numbers for George and Cindy are enclosed. , Form 734-3122 We do· have a comment concerning the Morrow County Airport for your future consideration. Page 2.4 of the plan notes that "At such time as the Aeronautics Division ... calculates and maps a clear zone for the cross wind rum~ay Lexington and Morrow County will evaluate comprehensive plan designations for affected property." The Aero- nautics Division will be putting together this information and looks· forward to working with you to address their concerns. In the mean- time we request that before any development occurs in the area around the airport, the City contact George Strawn so that our Department may have the opportunity to comment on the impact of such development on . the airport. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to the Department of Land Conservation and Development in support of your acknowledgment request. Sincerely, Oi'fIGlf\jAL SIGNED BY R.E. ROYER Robert E. Royer, Ass't Director Policy and Program Development Enclosure cc: Jim Kennedy Wes Kvarsten/Greg W;nterowd - Jeri Cohen George Stral~n Cindy Murphy c~ /.1 DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION Afl.lr) f1~\lr:'1 ("\"'. "-'IT A. Aho Services Representative SE~VING tlREtlS IN MORROW. u",ATlLLtl. wHfiELe~.SHE~"'ANANO GILLIAM COUNTIES BOX 398 ' .-lEPPNER, ORE.GON 97836 Pho"" b7b_qI4b July 25. 1979 cc: Mayor Linda LaRue, City of lone Mayor Lee Padberg, City of Lexington JUL 30 -1979 7 -9- 33C901umbia 'Basin Glectric C9o-op. Inc. SALEM Sincerely, To whom it may concern: It is our understanding that new subdivisions in either town are likely to lie on rocky hillside, due to recent flood-plain growth restrictions. The emplacement of underground facilities in rocky terrain greatly adds to the cost of installation of electric service. Unfortunately, the added expense of installing these expensive underground facilities would have to be borne by rate payers in Lexington and lone, and therefore any advan- tage which ftuuld conceivably be realized by requiring underground facilities might be negated through increased rates. Hence, the requirement for man- dntory underground installations could in fact prove to be counterproductive. We are concerned about the requireoent in both Pla~s which mandates us to install a~derground electrical facilities throughout new subdivisions or partitions. (lone Ordinances No. 157 and 159; Lexington OrdL~ances No. 79-2 and 79-3.) We suggest that alternative wording of the ordinances be considered such that the emplacement of. electrical facilities underground in subdivisions or partitions be done at the option of CoI~~bia Basin Electric Cooperative, rather than at the option of the city councils involved. We believe that all concerned will be better served by such an arrangement. Land Conservation and Development Coomission 1175 Court Street N.E. Salem, Oregon 97310 As requested in your mernorandU!:! "Request for Acknowledgment of Compliance" (July 17, 1979), we have reviewed the Comprehensive Plans for the cities of LexL~gton a~d lone. 2oth'of these cities are served by Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative under franchise agreements. :jT. VictOR ATlYEH """''''''''' JUL 2519 Department of Economic Development 921 S.w. WASHINGTON STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 PHONE (503) 229-5535 July 23, 1979 Mr. Wes Kvarsten, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 Subject: Acknowledgement of Comprehensive Plan, City of Lexington Dear Mr. Kvarsten: We have reviewed the Lexington Comprehensive Plan for compliance with Goal 9. The Department is concerned that Lexington have realistic economic development goals and a plan that will help the community reach those goals. Recommendations: The Department of Economic Development does not object to the acknowledgement of Lexington's Plan. The community's economic goals are expressed. Public facilities policies and land designations support those economic development goals. The plan can be refined with more detailed policies to guide public decision making, as new problems and opportunities arise. The Department also recommends that as part of the review and update process, the City accomplish the following: 1. Continue discussion with the Aeronautics Division, Dept. of Transportation, to determine how·the future viability of the County Ai rport can best be assured. Incl ude in the plan and/or zone amendments strategies to protect this valuable economic resource. 2. Determine how the community will implement its very general economic objectives. Programs should be developed to provide answers to the following questions: - Are the designated industrial sites ready for deve1opment? Wi 11 the City take an acti ve role in seeking a potential employer? If so, how? - Are restrictions necessary on lands adjacent to the County Airport? Cable Address-oRECONDEV ,Mr. Wes Kvarsten, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development July 23, 1979 Page 2 Will the City take an active role in planning for the regional economy through membership in ECOAC? Has water level in City Well #3 continued stable? If not, what alternate sources are realistic? Further comments: 1. The City, planner Marie Hall and ECOAC are to be complemented on the technical report and summaries which describe the nature of Lexington's problems and opportunities in a straight- forward. understandable way. 2. Although objectives are very general, they appear realistic. Those who would w~sh to encourage a more diverse economy can use the data and engineering studies to provide the public facilities necessary for expansion of job and investment opportunities. 3. Productive agricultural lands are preserved by zoning and Joint Management Agreement, until such time as growth, from one of the sources mentioned, occurs. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, ~~ Roger Eiss Deputy Director mb cc City of Lexington Don Farnum .... ,-- ......... ~ ~\ '-,~ . ~_ .. ' ". \ DEPhi-n-;'Ji:::NT 01- LAND COi'JS:'::MVATIO~J f:\'1f\ ......-. , . ,..... -_. ,,~-. 1-;- " .'. : . .1 ~ ~79 REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE LOCAL COORDINATION BODY RECOMMENDATION ...,.------ ..... , City of:Lexington', '-----.:_-j Summary of Local Coordination Body Recommendations The Morrow County Court recommends that the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan be acknowledged as being in compliance with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goa1s. The Morrow County Court further recommends that the MorrO\'J County Com- . prehensive Plan for the area between the Lexington city limits and Urban Growth Boundary be acknowledged as being in compliance with the Orego1 State- wide Planning Goals. Background I. Important Dates Fa11, 1976 . October, 1977 October 18, 1977 January, 1978 Januat~ 24, 1978 January 30, 1978 February 7, 1978 April 17, 1~78 Apri 1 19, 1978 Community Attitude Survey circulated Draft Goals and Objectives mailed to city post office box rolders,governmental agencies, and other interested persons Public hearing to discuss Draft Goals and Objectives, Sket~h' Plan, and UGB Draft Sketch Plan mailed to city post office box holders City Council hearing on Draft Comprehensive Plan ~lorrow County Planning Commission infor- mational meeting on Draft Comprehensive Plan City Council adoption of Draft Comprehensive Plan Map Morrow County Planning Commission revie\'1 of Draft Comprehensive Plan MorrO\'1 County Court review of Draft Comprehensive Plan ·. Apri 1, 1978 May 1, 1978 May 30, 1978 June 30, 1978 June 26, 1978 July 11, 1978 AU9ust 16, 1978 September, 1978 May 22, 1979 June 5, 1979 June 25, 1979 June 27, 1979 II. Discussion Draft Technical Report printed and circulated to governmental agencies. elected officials, and other interested persons Draft Comprehensive Plan mailed to govern- mental agencies, elected officials, and other interested persons Public hearing on Model Urban Growth Area Management Agreement and Model Subdivision, Zoning, and Mobile Home Park Ordinances Morrow County Planning Commission review of Comprehensive Plan City Council adoption of Comprehensive Plan and Joint Management Agreement Morrow County Court co-adoption of Compre- hensive Plan and Joint Management Agreement Release of new flood hazard information by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Zoning SubdiVision, and Mobile Home Park Ordinances City Council adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments and Zoning, SUbdivision, and Mobile Home Park Ordinances Morrow County Planning Commission review of Comprehensive Plan amendments Morrow County Court co-adoption of Compre- hensive Plan amendments The City of lexington lies at the confluence of Black Horse and Willow Creeks in an area subject to flooding. The gently sloping valley floor is composed of Class III and IV soils ~,;th general.ly moderate development limitations. The steeply rolling hills surrounding lexington are composed of Class III, IV,~ and VII soils with moderate to severe development limitations. At the present time, land inside the Lexington Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is either used for grazing or the production of dry land wheat and is zoned for exlusive farm use. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Joint r'1anagement Agreement provide for the continuation of such zoning until the land is ac tua11y needed and ava il ab1e for deve1oprnen t. .,:' - -," : . . '~. " , '. " ,'. ",::- . ...... ".:",- . . , t, " ¥' "',;:'. ," • ,1\" ". .,! , . . '....~', .....~ '/1:; ,,' ' .. - ; .~ - ~ '; .'• • 'i'. .... First, the fact that LeXington does not plan to provide a central sewage system indicate~.that the urban' growth area will never develop to urban densities. Pratically speaking. this fact leads to the conclusion that the Lexington UGB may be very conservativ.e ly drawn. In additi on, the absence of .a,·:sewer, S:ystem precludes developmentA:Q,f,:;1'~'many-·vatent·'·,.lotsinside city limits due to their. sma 11 size .. ' ..: . Second. five persons own,all the ,growth area land,and two of these 'property "owners hold about 10 acres· which are .almost entirely unsuitabl.e for: develop- 'ment. Thus'consideration of the UGB location included a concern for provid- : ing some flexibil ity in· order to accommodate both .projected· growth and diverse 'attitudes toward that growth. 'lexington's water supply and storage is generally adequate to meet present and future needs,but some improvement in the distribution system will be' necessary. :The City does not have sewerage facilities other than individual . septic tanks' and ,does not plan to develop a'central sewage system. ' " While Lexington's urban density residential acreage requirement (four dwellings per acre at an occupancy rate of two and one half persons per dwelling = 10 persons per acre) projected to the year 2,000 is only 16 acres (Lexington's . popUlation increase projected to the year 2,000 is 155 persons; 155 persons/ 10 persons per acre = '16 acres), a number of factors justify the 50 acre: . (37 of which are buildable) UGB .. These factors are d.iscussed below.. ...... .'" - ",,: ': .." -..; . , ',' " -':.~: . '. '.... '> . ~ ~ ~;... . " '. '~l:' ',- .. ....:- . .'.. ~. " . ",,; ••\. '''. . (4 , ". ~ . ' . . :"''''.' <' . " ~ ... ~" ' .. .. ~. ,. .', ." C"!:':': .. ,Third, recently'released floodhaiard infonnation has resulted in extrerisive:· . development restrictions throughout much of the CHy. While the iljlpact . ',',.: ...: of such limitations is.·not as broad as that experienced,in lone, it is' :.::.~.·i;.·,~·,:.·.., '; > significant ..:. - :,., ::' .' . .,' .'" . :'.... .", :-o!." ,. _ ':~'.. . ~. :/ ' . l -,.";" 'C';! . '. . Finally. pennanent professional p'lanning assistanceis'not avai1able to Lexington. ",Therefore ,an attempt was made to address. long range needs .. in the Comprehensive Plan .. In this way, incremental'amendedment wtll;···· hopefully, be avoided. '. . ,:,:-.'. . . '~L ~.~;- .;, 'j .' .', ":" ., j , I " • ,'1" .; In conclusion~' we 'of the Morrow County Court believe both the'Cityof" Lex i ngton Comprehens i ve Pl an and the Morrow County Comprehens ive Pl an <. for the Lexington Growth Area are in compliance with the Oregon Statewide ',''';'. . Planning Goals and should be so acknowledged by the Land Conservation '; .:'. and Development Commission.'. " . '. ·r:".',. i . ••......{.•.',t.'.'...:.~.•.)::.:.....~.. :·· .~ate.d thiS'6'.,,~'.· d~; ··~,',f.....~.< <\ J ~.:" . 1979, .. ->< ',.~.:. c;ti':>·DL~'~ (.2uPk )j/t;1&U?~··J( 2cz~" d!l": .'if;,} " qo. Nelson, Judge' . Warren McCoy,' commissio~~: . .~ ·~;'~:.1·· .... ; ';: ~,~:• .,. oJ .' " .~'" !~. '" " '. , '". . .... ~ .. " " .:.~..~~~.i',:f~~\·.:~· ;"..:,;., .".,:...)"~: :i, ~>,. .. - .~~. '. ~...J)-~~.::-~"';~~:.~~~. '" ....~~...:~ :rt'~ ~ ';'U.); CIIAm~IAN r-I;I~llr Fo",!('r Odol1l ViCE nlAIitMAN Judge U. O. ,'Jetson SECnETAItY·THE,\SURER ~la)'or C.ordon Chapman E:n:elITlvE IHUECTOU \\:JyllC L. Sdll~;lI\dt June 29, 1979 W, J. Kvarsten, Director Department of Land Conservation & Development 1175 Court Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 Dear Mr. Kvarsten. East Central Oregon Association of Counties 920 S. W. Frazer, P. O. Dox 1207 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Phone (503) 276·6732 JUL 2 1979 Enclosed are six copies of the lone and Lexington Comprehensive Plan technical reports. The cities hereby request review for com- pliance with the land Conservation and Development Commission's Goals. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Plan maps have been delayed at the printers office. They will, however, be completed and forwarded to you during the dirst week of July. Six copies of a list of affected agencies and special districts and their addresses are also enclosed. The Mayors of the two cities will represent the city and receive notice of Commission consideration. Their addresses are: Mayor LaRue PO Box 367 lone, Oregon 97843 Mayor Padber9 Lexinyton, Oregon 97839 If any further infonnation is needed, please contact me, I apologize for the delay in sending the Comprehensive Plan Maps. Sincerely, '-nl o.A~'Sf jaiL Marie Hall Comprehensive Planner ~lH:js Enclosures cc: Mayor LaRue Nayor Padberg Jim Kennedy Jeri Cohen A \"lunt .. r) ;;. .....rn-Jalion of the foll'l\ndlelon, !'ilol Hock, Stanfield, Ukiah, Um '\e~l\ln: \\ IH,U.EI<: Fo!'>~Jl, :'htc!wlJ, ~pray. AFFECTED AGENCIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS Mr. Ji m Kennedy Field Representative Department of Land Conservation and Development Eastern Oregon State College La Grande, OR 97850 Cindy Murphy OOOT P.O. Box 850 La Grande, OR 97850 George Strawn Transportation Planner Region 5 P.O. Box 850 La Grande, OR 97850 Matt Doherty, Superintendent Morrow County School District PO. Box 368 Lexington, OR 97839 Jeri Cohen Planning Coordinator ECOAC P.O. Box 1207 Pendleton, OR 97801 Mr. Dean Seegar Morrow County Planning Department Morrow County Courthouse Heppner. OR 97836 Judge Nelson Morrow County Court Morrow County Courthouse Heppner, OR 97836 Morrow County Library Heppner, OR 97836 Ms. Doris Graves, Chairperson Morrow County Planning Commission Hardman Route H~ppner, OR 97836 Mr. Steve Gardels Department of Environmental Quality 245 S. E. Fourth Pendleton, OR 97801 Federal Insurance Administration Mr. Chuck Steele 1321 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Mr. Ron Barrett Chief, Flood Plain Section Corps of Engineers Building 602, City-County Airport Walla Walla, WA 99362 Mr. Rob Byrnes, Administrator Pioneer Memorial Hospital 564 E. Pioneer Drive Heppner, OR 97836 Mr. Glen lIard Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 284 Heppner, OR 97836 Ms. Jean Robinette Department of Economic Development 921 S.W. Washington, Suite 425 Portland, OR 97205 Mr. Harold Kerr OSU Extension Service Gilliam and Bisbee Building P.O. Box 397 Heppner, OR 97B36 Mr. Robert Adelman Soil Conservation Service Gilliam and Bisbee Building P.O. Box 127 Heppner·, OR 97836 Morrow County Assessor Morrow County Assessor's Office Morrow County Courthouse Heppner, OR 97B36 Ms. Judy Bushke Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service ·P.0.Box786 Heppner, OR 97836 Mr. Buddy Toadvin, Manager Port of r~orrow Boardman, OR 97818 Oregon Department of Commerce P.O. Box 157 Boardman, OR 97818 Genera 1 Hanager Colu~ia Basin Electric Coop 171 West Linden Way Heppner, OR 97836 Department of Land Conservation and Development 1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926 MEMORANDUM July 17,1979 TO: State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts, Other Local Reviewers and Citizens FROM: W. J. Kvarsten, Director SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE City of Newber9 City of Lexington City of lone Ci ty of Dunes Ci ty Conments Due: Tentative Oate for Commission Action: City of Astoria City of Cannon Beach City of Stanfield City of Madras September 5, 1979 October 11-12, 1979 in a location to be announced Newberg Lexington rone Dunes City Astoria Cannon Beach Stanfield Madras Field Representati ve Craig Greenleaf Jim Kennedy J;m Kennedy Glen Hale Gary Gustafson Gary Gustafson Jim Kennedy Brent Lake Lead Reviewer Greg Winterowd Greg Winterowd Greg Wi nterowd Don Oswalt Don Oswalt Don Oswal t Claire Puchy Ll oyd Cha pma n The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has received requests from the above jurisdictions asking that their comprehensive plans and ordinances be acknowledged to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals, This notice is to afford your agency a review opportunity before the Commission1s action to make sure the comprehensive plans and ordinances have been properly coordinated with your plans and projects for those areas. State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts, Other Local Reviewers and Citizens 3 July 17, 1979 Dunes City, Astoria, Cannon Beach LCDC Newport Office 313 SW 2nd, Suite B Newport, OR 97365 Contact: Glen Hale (Dunes City) Gary Gustafson (Astoria) (Cannon Beach) Phone: 265-8869 City of Dunes City P.O. Box 97 West Lake, OR 97493 City of Astoria City Hall Astoria, OR 97103 Contact: Jean Hallaux Phone: 325-5821, x-29 CTIC Cannon Beach City Offices Cannon Beach, OR 97110 Contact: Mike Morgan Phone: 436-1156 (Astoria, Cannon Beach) fladras LCOC Bend Office 1012 NW Wall, Suite 203 Bend, OR 97701 Contact: Brent Lake Phone: 389-2253 Lane Council of Governments (L-COG) Lane County Planning Dept. 125 8th Avenue E. Eugene, OR 97401 Contact: Gary Darnielle Phone: 687-4283 (Dunes City Only) City of Cannon Beach City Hall Cannon Beach, OR 97110 Clatsop County Planning Dept. Courthouse Astoria, OR 97103 (Astoria, Cannon Beach) Ci ty of Madras City Hall Madras, OR 97741 Jefferson County Planning Courthouse Madras, OR 97741 Contact: Robert Martin Phone: 475-3147 Oept. NOTE: Please note that copies of this notice have also been sent to local offices of state and federal agencies identified by the jurisdictions. WJK:JBK:tw If you respond to this notice, please distinguish clearly between information or a comment presented for the Commission's consideration as opposed to an objection to the Commission's acknowledgment of the comprehensive plans or ordinances. If the Commission does not receive an objection from a notified agency, it will conclude that the agency will follow the comprehensive plans and ordinances. Comments and objections should be sent to the Department's central office in Salem. iI(' I State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts, Other Local Reviewers and Citizens 2 July 17, 1979 ... Complete copies of the comprehensive plans and ordinances are available for review in the following locations: Copies of all plans LCDC Central Office 1175 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97310 Contact: Lead Reviewer Craig Greenleaf (Field Rep. for Newberg) Phone: 378-4926 Newberg Ci ty of Newberg City Hall Newberg, OR 97132 (LCDC Field Office in Salem Central Office) Lexington, lone, Stanfield LCDC La Grande Office Rm. 135 Classroom Bldg. Eastern Oregon State College La Grande, OR 97850 Contact: Jim Kennedy Phone: 963-2918 City of Lexington City Hall Lexington, OR 97839 Morrow County Planning Dept. Courthouse Heppner, OR 97836 (Lexington, lone only) LCDC Portland Office 320 SW Stark, Rm. 530 Portland, OR 97204 Contact: Linda Macpherson Phone: 229-6068 Yamhill County Planning Dept. Courthouse Mc~innvi11e, OR 97128 Contact: Roberta Young Phone: 472-9371, x-20l City of lone City Hall lone, OR 97843 Umatilla County Planning Dept. Courthouse Pendleton, OR 97801 (Stanfield only) ECOAC P.O. Box 1207 Pendleton, OR 97801 Contact: Jeri Cohen Phone: 276-6732 (Lexington, lone, Stanfield) 1. . ., - . ~tl~.\!··!!·l·.!ll!lillil!l!.·,. 1\111)111 ~,,<.,.·.,.·.,.·.·.·.·.·.·.· .... IN ~~j;j~:}}mTI~;1j~~1[;~~j:::' . ' '. '..::::~)/?\F~\{rj~1 j...•••,·::.il:·· ",; ,;), ,';,," .11<'. :E~!§@ ::::::::::::::::::.'. .................... COll~TY ;::.:.:.::;.::;:::.:.:-:.... ,:;::;::-:::?:;:::;::::::<::::::::::::'" i\I••••i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i.,,::;:,~:i!: :'. .... LEGEND 'M - - INDUSTRIAL FARM Church "-SA ) o •• .. rUT o toO '00 URBAN RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC COMMERCIAL -\"·:-:·:-:1, - CITY LIMITS .. School GROWTH BOUNDARY FIII":"1 FLOOD WAY D STEEP SLOPES"" 12% CJ - NOTIII: s...... t..... , b?~".cr/:.. , 19..2J..r , .. ~:",.'.0.,.:~.6fcl·f . Notary Public for Oregon M C .. E' ;;~-.r'/-;' ty omnUSSlOn Xplres: : _ . (SEAL) Lexington City Council a public hearing to comments on the Lex- . Draft Comprehensive Tuesday. January 24, at 1:30 p.m. at the lon Cily Hall. Copies of fl Comprchensh"c Plan ailed to all residents of ton on Friday. January Lexington Draft Plan . al Report ....'ill be ble for review beginning January. 1978, at ton City Hall, lhe East Oregon Association of office in Pendleton, W County Planning . '.. Department in Heppner, and the Department of Land._ Conservation and Develop- ment office in Salem. Material will be added to the technical report as developed through May, 1978. The draft plan objectives will be re\'ised, after review and comment. to be adopted as city policy. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the draft plan or technical report may cor.tact Marie Hall, East Central Oregon Association of Counties, Post Office Box 339. Pendleton, Oregon 9i801, or may telephone toll free 1·800- 452·8112. Published Jan. 12, 19,1978 a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for t\!i9..__ successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues: .J:!lX\, ~g.•....+.9.•. ...) ..9.!'.@,..... _ _ . 3,9 IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity Law }Noo _ STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla }ss. Connie FordI, _ being first duly sworn. depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Oregonian. a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by ORS 193.010 _.~--~... EO·]3' PUBLIC NOTICE The Lexington City Council wlll hold a public nearing to obtaIn comments on the Lexington Draft Comprehensive Plan on Tuesday. January 2A, 1978. at 7:30 p.m. at • the Lexington City Hall. Copies of ' the Draft Comprehensive Plan were mailed to all residents of • Lexington on Friday, January 6. : 1978. The Lexington Draft Plan' Technical Report will be available -: . for review beginning in late' January, 1978, at Lexington City' Hall, the East Central Oregon Association of Counties office in Pendleton. the Morrow County ; Planning Department in Heppner, and the Department of Land Con· ; servation and Development office in Salem. Material will be added to the technical report as developed through May, 1978. The draft plan objectives will be revised, after review and comment, to be adopt- ed as city policy. Anyone who has questions or comments concerning the draft plan or technical report may con· tact Marie Hall, E",st Central Oregon Association of Counties, Post Office Box 339, Pendleton, Oregon 91801, or may felep~one toll free 1·900-.(52,9112. January 13,23,1978 ~. ,,--,::--,/./_/~ before me this --'2=-.;.4-=t-'.h-=-- day of M'( C::. ..•~5 ~ ._. 3.10 IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity lLaw No. _ STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla I. Beverly Krostin,,9'- being first duly sworn. d~pos~ and say that I am th~ principal d~rk of th~ publisher of th~ East 0tfi0nian. a newspapu of g~nual circulation. as defined by DRS 193.010 IJId 193.020; printed and publisb~d at Pendl~con in th~ aforesaid county and state: that th~ (0- 589 Public i:otice I Printed copy of which is b~r~to anne.x~d. was publish~d in t:h~ entire i.ssn~ 2 ins9rticns01 said n~wspapu for . -'-__ succe.ssiv~ and consecutive lD ~ follOWing issues: Subscribed and sworn to before m~ this 18 th day of ~o.n' 'UILIC ""OTICE T!'>e MorrCToN cOM· d'Y. A~"l :.,,, 10'00, '" ~'!I'" Men"",,, Coun'y COU....I"....,w in I'<"~,,r To tn.~" ""O''''l' _fKO"'''''''ncl''_' on 'M or.1I c.....:>r.........,y.. 01.,.. ot t<...,...-. 1_, Ir..,""", anOt'I. A\Or- ._ C_1v P'.nr••~~ o.."~'f"'~"f. H~ Or"9011 '11,...... ECOAC. ,,,.. Oll,e.. 80. 139, P"no'''on,0.__1101, ......... Ult fOlll,e. 1"00 ~t~,jLJc~e,--__~ _ I IEO"1~PUBLIC "lOTicer", Lu,ngt,,,, ("V (ou'I<;;1 W,IIMid. PUllli, ",.,ing on TU~W"v, )UIIl! 27, "i'oo p m," 'ne Lu,ng· 'CII'l (,ry H.II to ,on~,dtr "<100'ioo 01 • lintl como'enenS1vt pla~ "'''~ • .n u'lO.n grQWTn are. ;o·nt man· .gemen! .gr~~men' MOC:~1 ~ut"". ""ron .nd ,on,ng ord_n.""es will .1$0 tle diocU~"d'ndwilltle ,.vi~. ~d t$ nee.narv 10 m",l In~ "".d. or LUingfoo. All ,M~''''led ~r$on~ art in' ""Pel '0 .1I~nd .nd up, In.i, views AnVOfl. wno n.~ Qu lion~ 01" comm.nl' m.y 'O<'Ilael . H,n. £.e.O.A.( .. P 0 eo~ 3J'/. pe""I.lon, O'egon 9/1101. .... Clil 10111," , lOO.t5i illi. Luinglon (,IV (ouncir JU", 16. 26, 191i I/ Subscri~ and sworn to before me this ---'2~7~t~h"__ day of June 16th & 26th of said newspaper [or 2f... successive and consecutiv~sertions in the folloWing issues: ________.:::J.:::un:.;.e::-. 19 78 . -, dTu'd -' t: L __",),,, ft." - Notary Public of Orego~ - . -. .......S~PT. O. 1:::'SO 3.17 Published in the Heppner Gazette Times Heppner, Oregon 'f "".-" LEGAL NOTICE . The Morrow' County Court will hold a public hearing on August 16,1978at 10:00 a.m. in the 1\lorrow County Court House, Heppner, Oregon. Purpose of this heacing is to consider adoption of an Ordi- nance which will adopt the_ comprehensive plans and joint urban growth area manage- ment agreemen'ts of .the cities of Heppner, Lexington, lone and Irrigon as an amendment to the 1\lorrow county Compre- hensive Plan. .A11 interested parties are urged to attend and present their views_ Written comments will' be accepted by writing to: .Morrow County Planning De- Pi';:ment P,O. Box 541 He.lubljc roue,,,,\! on WHl""""'ey. "'lJ9v.t 1&. 191', .' 10.00 t'e,'. Cem- e ~ ....'''.. Pl... .nd J",..,M _m..... "'9''''''''''''''_ T c"I1"~ 1'1",,"9 w,1I .,,,, in. ""~e cOl'l •• ~.'eIiOC•• '0 .co," U~l'I city·S 0'.1'1 !'or 'he "e. "" ...a. city li",,;',.:,><: ;"..ee ,ne U'O'" ""'-'1'1 -""""'" U '''''e'''''''''''''' '0 ,.... M:>rrcw Coun- ty C","~e....I'1"". P'e... Ao:>p""" 0-. ':"e C"'"d' i........1'1., "'e" "e'o'e 'eo;ue.ling "'~_'t'C;"'."'•• 01 come".""e I,,,", 1..,,<: C"",..",.,_ .oMO.".IOQrn."" COI'I""" ....""_ ",n ....I.'....'.., pe",on• • r.. •n"••I'·,(j,~el}~leton,.•: Oregon"97801~Phone H0G-452· _: · ')12 - ';"1''''l\.'''t-@"''~,a-1l,,,,".• ,\ }'~li: ~ ••....·l\:,"ji\OV:.Ji~ :! ,?c.. ~ ~"W ;r_."..-~_~x.wa~:~!Y~CounC~I_ , --, .::-?..;c;..~;~,.~.-"t,,-,.,;..,.....-.._ ')'"". ',:' ,- "I'J:';':IF.'I:'?"" .t").~~",,,.{/ ' .• ,' P,ublished MaYl10;;17:,~'I979.i~: . ~ -"":f!;;~":t:;;r>};{;i:t iii'" : ·~v· AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON l County of Morrow ) ss: I Terry M. RafTer, _ -.. _.. _-~.._ --- -_ _ -_ -.-_ _ - being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the ~~::~.~.i!'.~..llc< ~:;'.,\lly·i:,·~C.i);:~,~~~fde'r{\~il9~ . 841!:l'~'o( !\,lari<;,;Halr. E<;oAc" , P,O.. Box'1207;:Pendleton ::OR t . . • ...~ .. ...~ ~"r' '.~' ,.97801 U>8oo-452r8lJ2l<·',:.:.,.,'O",: '" •• , •• /' . -\ _,;,.t;) .• " : "l:.exington,CjIY·C:olllicil~ \~~: -. . ':...t~~ Published MaY-'31, 1979-. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON} County of Morrow ss: I, '!'.P:.~~y. .. !:'.~ ~~~.~.~ . being first duly sworn, depose and say that am the ..1:·:fj.r;.'!!.g~f).Q.. ..SQj,.tQ.:r _._ of the REP NER GAZETTE-TIMES, a newspaper of g eral circula.tion, as defined by O.R.S. 193.0 and 193.020; printed and published at Reppn Oregon: that the .~:-!.'-?}.~~..!:J.i?~~~~J ~.~.~~.~.g.!~ J::.it\t..Gnllnc.iloo _ _ : ~ a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, W published in the entire issue of said newspa for .........C?~P:....,......,.. successive and consecuti weeks in the follo'\Ying issues: .t·18-Y.. .3.1,. ...lS7.S_ 3.22 IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATilLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity law INo.. _ STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla I" Beverly ~rostin9I. _-,,-,~~--,,_...:..:....:..::c_-.;: being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Oregonian. a newspaptt of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and ~_ EO- b78 PUblic Notice~?t~ that the _ 19~.. May 25th 't:r,0C 6 i -'- 's b 31stu scribed and sworn to before me lhis -'--=-'-- day of the follOWing issues: 1---------- la printed c.opy of which is he;~t;annexed. was published in th.e entice ~ue of said newspaper for .:II successive and consecutive 1 nSlilr tl Oft 3.23 ~ PUBLlC:NOTICE . ", ; .: The Morro'; ' cciunt)l Plan:' ning Commission wpl hold a public hearing' 'on Mond-Plan ~;:and _ Joint Manag~~ent,< Agree~:' ~._ "; ::.:;:. !~-"';;:_::-".': e .. .. ment :~"'; "~' ':1~&;>1~';'~ ,-" ,,> _\., 2. The City of, Lexington's . COI?prehensiv:;;':;j»I~~;;_:an4 . Joint .. Ma,n.~ge?I.~')s.;,:.I-f>g,~~,e;·: menL - !.-:I;/:~~~~;t;:l}~~." 3. ~he };¥l:'it.,'?.t~H.~~p;~e~_:s,. ·. J ComprehenSlve ' _. Plan " •. and ·! ",', , ' /1-;."",_ " '.', '" ' Joint , ··ManagemE;nF-<.Agree-!.l . . ment . '. '...; .... _~.IJ.;:;~;~.:;~:: .j;Ji~-;:~~~' J . . ... ,'~~." ..... -'. " ~- , . ,The public ,hearing will also include corisi,!~~a~i~'.l~ of .ordi;'. .nances to adopt. ~ea~h city's 'plan' for the: area :'outside- city limits and ," 'rn~id~'th~ " Urban ' - .-. ,,' ..... ) . Growth Boundary, :as·, arriend·~ ments' to: Ui~ MOrTow ~County : Comprehensfve' Plan.: All in· ' , terest~ persori~'~re i'nvited to ' attend ~· .7.'~Ni!0_~~i.i:;:q-J;;"r,~S ' " • - •. <~-.. -',' . . ',' " .,..t·tMorrow-County ' , " .' ,-, .-, . " P lan~ing_ Com mission -, Published J~ne)~, ' 21; . 1~79 ,'. 3.24 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON t County of lIlorrow ) ss: I, ..... ~ :E!.:.: I. .. :~' . ~ .. :: .C:.~.~.:. __ .. _ ... __ ._. ___ ........... __ . ____ .. being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the .... .f~.?!:.~Q~.I)£ ... ~.9.g.9.L ......... of the HEPP. NER GAZETTE-TIMES, a newspaper of gen- eral circulation, as defined by O.R.S. 193.010 and 193.020 ; printed and published at Heppner, Oregon: that the ..... :.:!~~.~;: .. ~.~.~.~~~ ............... _ ..... . . ...................... , ............................................................. . ..•..•.................................. ___ .n .. _. __ _ .. _ ..•.•..•.•.... _____ ._ . . . . . ___ . . ...... _ .. -.... ----.. __ .... ---_ .... -_ ... _ ..... -_.-_ .. _- .. -._- --. -........ ----....... . a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said new"paper f two . d t · I or ............ ___ . ____ ._ ... _._ succeSSlve an consecu lye weeks in the following issues: _:-!J-.!D.e.._t4-_ •.• 2.1.._ .... 19 79 .-..................... __ . -..... ---... --.-........ -... _--_ ... _ .. --................ ... . :::::~ :::·:::::::·····::·1:::~:::::;,:::1··:::~::::::::.::::.::.: .... ~~ . ....... t.I ......... '!!i! ................... . ."-- ,.yi-';;:· , ,.- Subscribed and s\ om befor{ me this ............... . ; d a) 'I .... -)11 . /1/ . / 'l'Cl ..02. ... = day of ··(;7;;f'ryH;:·:·::.····, C·L ;. , .... rb~.J{.::,..u4 Notary Public for O~egon lily Commission Expires: '1l(f-.. ';;.s:. . .!.'l..f.J. (SEAL) IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY STATE OF OREGON. County of Umatilla l" AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity l Law No., _ _ _ _ _ Beverly Krosting I. _____ .-"-_ ___ -=-__ ---:-_______ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am th e principal clerk of the publisher of th~ East Orl':gooiao. a newspaper of genual circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 afon:said county and and 193.020; printed and .published at Pendleton in the (O- -7~5 Public NotiCQ ,slate; that the _--'::.:_-'--:..:::_-'--=-=.::.:::..:.-'.:-'--"-::..::_~ ___ ___ _ :a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire iss!'!!!: . . 1 insertion 'of said newspaper for successive and consecutive in , the follOWing issues: , June 14, 7'l 19 __ ~"\ wL ~a~e. , j-- ---- 3.25 IN THE COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION OF Equity lLaw SNo. _ STATE OF OREGON, County of Umatilla Beverly KrostingI, '- ~ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Oregonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and EO- 744 PUblic Notice state; that the :-:..:: . -- . . "- ; a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue '0£ said newspaper for ], successive and consecutivi nserti on in : the following issues: June 14th 7~ ___________~.......-----_=__---=" 19__ _ ~(Dl~l• 1/'--Q...<6Q~.!,\ kD4~T:~'~ }I~ 1 J.5th Subscribed and sworn to before me this -,- day of Juna 79 (;30/~;aJ 0 ~-~JG/:'?7 .i>-1 Notary Public of o'regon 3.26 {jOAL8 LAND POUCIE8 CHAPTER IV Plan Goals and Policies The following statement of Goals and Policies provides a general long range basis for decision making relative to the future growth and development of the City. The goals are patterned after and are in direct response to ap- plicable Oregon Statewide Plunning Goals. The policy statements set forth a guide to courses of action which are intended to carry out the goals of the plan. The policy statements present a clear picture of the City's posi- tion on matters pertaining to physical improvements and development. i. CiTIZEN INVOLVEMENT GOAL: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures opportunity for citizens to participate in all phases of the planning process. Objectives To conduct periodic community surveys to ascertain public oplnl0n and collect information; survey results should be distributed . . To encourage people to attend and participate in City Council meetings and hearings. To make the draft comprehensive plan and technical report available for public review and comment. To distribute the adopted comprehensive plan to the public for use as a reference in making future land use decisions. 2. LAND USE PLANNING GOAL: To estabZiBh a land use pZanning process and poZicy framework as a basis for alZ decisions and actions reZated to use of Zand and to as- sur~ an adequate factuaZ base for such decisions and actions. Objectives To prepare data inventories on natural resources, man made structures and utilities, population and economic characteristics, and the roles and responsibilities of affected governmental units. To identify lands suitable for development and areas where development should be restricted. To develop economic and population projections. To determine the land requirements for projected economic development and population growth. To prepare a comprehensive plan and establish an urban growth boundary 4,1 based on the above informotion, citizen input, coordination with af- fected governmental units, and the goals and objectives adopted herein. To establish policies for the implementation of the comprehensive plan. To develop zoning and subdivision ordinances and a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan. To establish a policy for revising or amending the comprehensive plan. 3. AGRICULTURAL LANDS GOAL: To preserve and maintain agricuZtura'l 'lands. Objectives To identify agricultural lands which should be preserved and protected from urban development. To encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development within. the urban growth boundary. To encourage the Morrow County. Planning Department and County Court to restrict residential, commercial, and industrial development outside the urban growth boundary. Land zoned agricultural shall Dwner requests a zone change. with the comprehensive plan. remain so until such time as the property At :that time the zone change shall comply 4. OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORICAL AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES GOAL: To conserve open space and protect natura'l and scenic resources. Objectives To identify open spaces, scenic and historical areas, and natural resources which should be preserved from urban development. To examine any publicly owned lands including street rights-of-way for their potential open space use before their disposition. To protect archaeological and historic sites, structures, and artifacts. To conserve the ·area's natural resources. 5. AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY GOAL: To maintain and improve the qua'lity of the air, water, and 'land resources of Lexington. 4,2 .. Objectives To limit all discharges from existing and future development to meet ap- plicable state or federal environmental quality statutes? rules, and standards. To discourage industries which would have a significant detrimental effect on the environmental resources of the area. 6. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL OISASTERS AND HAZARDS GOAL: To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Objectives To administer areas of flood hazard according to the City's Flood Area Management Ordinance to be adopted by the City upon completion of the final plain study. To require site specific information clearly determining the degree of hazard present from applicants who seek approval to develop residential, commercial, of industrial uses within known areas of natural disasters and hazard. 7. RECREATIONAL NEEDS GOAL: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of Lexington and visitors. Objectives To develop public meeting places and indoor recreational facilities for a11 age groups. To develop neighborhood parks and outdoor recreational facilities in order to meet the needs of residents and visitors as the community grows. B. ECONDMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL: To diversify and improve the economy of Lexington. Objectives To encourage commercial development to meet the needs of residents and visitors. To encourage diversified, non-polluting industrial development in order to provide a stable job market. To maximize the utilization of local manpower as job opportunities increase. 9. HOUSING GOAL: To inCl'ease the supply of housing to allouJ fol' population orowth and to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of Lexington~ 4.3 Objectives To allow for a moderate rate of growth. To allow for residential development which provides prospective buyers with a variety of residential lot sizes, a diversity of housing types, and a range in prices. 10. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES GOAL: To plan and develop a timely, orderly, a~~ efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban development. Objectives To develop, maintain, update, or expand police and fire services, streets, water and sewer systems, and storm drains as necessary to provide ade- quate facilities and services to the community. To cooperate with agencies involved in providing and coordinating,social services to the community. To work with Morrow County to insure adequate provision for and control of solid waste disposal sites. To plan public facilities, services, and utilities to be maintained by the City of Lexington in cooperation with private companies to meet ex- pected demand. To provide City water and sewer services when available only after the area to be served has been annexed to the City or at the discretion of the City Council. 11. TRANSPORTATION GOAL: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economical trans- portation system. Objectives To encourage good transportation linkages (pedestrian, vehicular, bi- cycle, etc.) between residential areas and major activity centers. To encourage industry to locate in areas which are or can be served by the railroad. To prioritize the sequence for the paving of City streets. To contract with Morrow County or the State of Oregon or private con- tractors to pave streets within the City when they are doing other work in the area. 4,4 12. ENERGY CONSERVATION GOAL: To eonseMJe energy and develop and use renewable energy resources. Objectives To develop a zoning ordinance which protects sun rights. To develop subdivision regulations which require that the orientation of streets and buildings allow for utilization of solar energy and require landscaping to reduce summer cooling needs. To design the extension and upgrading of water and sewer lines when avail- able and facilities to minimize energy use. 13. URBANIZATION GOAL: To provide for an orderZy and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Objectives To establish an urban growth b9undary to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. To develop a cooperative process between Lexington and Morrow County for the establishment and change of the urban growth boundary. To establish a policy for revising or amending the urban growth boundary. 4,5 8VATURAL CENVIRONMEl(T CHAPTER V Natural Environment A. C1 imate The City of Lexington is 1,410 feet above sea level and has a semi-arid climate. Total precipitation averages about 12.9 inches per year and temper- atures are moderate. The average annual temperature is 50°. with an average temperature of about 68° in July and 32°. in January. Temperature extremes range from highs in the 1000l s in the summer to lows around zero and below in the ltd nter. The growing season averages 168 days and there are about 78 days annually with 1/100 inch or more precipitation. Most precipitation occurs in October through December with nearly as much occuring in April through June. The area is subject to endemic cloudbursts tnat may drop several inches of water in a few hours. B. Geolo9Y Lexington lies within the Columbia River Plateau. a vast geological region covering parts of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. It is noted for large amounts of Miocene and early Pliocene flood basalts. The Columbia River Plateau was divided by Fenneman in 1931 into two subprovinces - the topo- graphically lower Walla Walla Plateau. which includes the Lexington area, and the elevated Blue Mountain subprovince. The Walla Walla Plateau is characterized by rolling upland surfaces with young incised valleys. More specific dissection of the Walla Walla Plateau to the Lexington area is related to the Willow Creek drainage system, a tributary of the Columbia River. Underlying the Walla Walla Plateau are hundreds to several thousand feet of basalt flows of the Columbia River Group. These flows are exposed in nearly all stream drainages and in many highway cuts. The basalt flows errupted from fissures apparently lying to the east in Wallowa and Union Counties and blanketed almost the entire Pendleton quadrangle. . Pliocene and younger sedimentary deposits of fluviatile, lacustrine, eolian, and glacial origin veneer intervening upland surfaces. They are generally less than 100 feet thick and in some places are only a few feet thick. Deposits of these clastic sediments are found in structural and physiographic depressions in the area around Lexington. These sediments particularly the wind-deposited loessial soil. support extensive wheat farming, with the many rocky slopes where deposits are thin or discontinuous providing grazing for cattle. Mineral Deposits. Minor coal prospects are present south of Heppner in the Eocene sedimentary sequence (Mendenhall, 1909, Collier, 1914). A1thou9h lenses and thin beds of pure, good-grade bituminous· coal are present locally, they are apparently too thin, intermixed with carbonaceous shale. and structurally.deformed to be of commercial interest. 5.1 fSmall quantities of gem opal have been recovered from amygdaloidal flows of Eocene age in southern Morrow County. The flows are considered to be part of the Clarno Formation (Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 1941, page 154). There are a few rock and gravel quaries in the Lexington area. They are primarily state and county owned and do not support any major excavations. No other minerals of significance have been identified in the Lexington area. General Engineering Features. The Basalt of the Columbia River Group varies in degree of fracturing and alteration and thus also varies in degree of slope stability. However, in general the basalt is hard and strong, affording foundation strength capable of supporting heavy loads and also furnishing an excellent source of crushed rock for concrete aggregate, previous fill, and road surfacing material. The high bearing strength is a characteristic of the basalt except where scoriaceous, and brecciated (broken into sharp fragments embedded in sand or clay) zones between flows or where local sedimentary interbeds are present. Such zones should be avoided in obtaining basalt for use as concrete aggregate according to the "Reconnaissance Geologic Map for the Pendleton Quadrangle Oregon and Washington". C. Topography The City of Lexington lies within the Willow Creek Basin, an elongated 890 square mile area located in Northcentral Oregon. The Basin is about 60 miles long and is 23 miles wide at its maximum width. At Lexington, the valley is about 1/2 mile wide and is surrounded by rolling hills with elev~­ tions to 1,800 feet above sea level within a mile from the valley floor. Ground surface within the city limits is relatively level with a gradual slope from the center of town to the city limits. The surrounding hills rise steeply to the north, southwest, and east of town. 5.2 seILSo.~ Soi 1s cond it ions are one of the most important fea tures related to 1and use p1anni ng Soils concerns are basically twofold: (1) Land use capability \'ihich includes productivity pot~nti~l and (2) limitations and suit~biliti~s related to develo~ment. Oft~n times .these liml tatlons can be overcome, although 1n many Tflstances, substantl a1 expend, tures wl11 be requi red. U. S. Department of Agri culture, Soil Conservati on Servi ce definiti ons for the various soils capabilities are indicated below: .. Capability Classes. Capability classes show the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops including soil limitations, risk of soil damage, and soil response to various treatments. Roman numerals I through VIII indicate capability classes with progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. They are defined as follows: Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation pract~ces. Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful ,management, or both. Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impracti- cable to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture, range, wood- land, or wildlife. Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. Class VIII soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plants and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, water supply, or to esthetic purposes. Letter designations are often added to the capability numerals, and indicate the following: (e) Shows that the main limitation is risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained; (s) Shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; (w) Shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artifi- cial drainage). (c) Shows chief limitation is climate that is too' cold, too dry, or too cloudy for production of many crops. 5.3 Tne soil mappi ng unit boundari es (see soil s map, page 5.7) are determi ned by soil scientists digging pits and auger holes into the soil, studying road cuts, measuring slopes and soil depths, estimating percent gravel, cobbles, sand, silt and clay and considering any limiting or enhancing features of the various soils. A combination of stereoscopic study, aerial photograph interpretation and walking over the land is used to determine kinds of land forms and soils present. Each soil mapping unit has definite limitations for specific uses. The limitations are rated as follows: Limitation Rating Slight soil limitation is the rating given soils that have properties favorable for the rated use. This degree of limitation is minor and can be overcome easily. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected. Moderate soil limitation is the rating given soils that have properties moderately favorable for the rated use. This degree of limitation can be overcome or modified by special planning, design, or maintenance. During some part of the year the per- formance of the structure or other planned use is somewhat less desirable than for soils rated slight. Some soils rated moderate require treatment such as artificial drainage, runoff control to reduce erosion, extended sewage absorption fields, extra excavation, or some modification of .certain features through manipulation of the soil. For these soils, modification is needed for those construction plans generally used for soils of slight limitation. Modification may include special foundations, extra reinforcements, sump pumps, and the like. Severe soil limitation is the rating given soils that have one or more properties unfavorable for the rated used, such as steep slopes, bedrock near the surface, flooding hazard, high shrink-swell potential, a seasonal high water table, or low bearing strength. This degree of limitation generally requires major soil recla- mation, special design or intensive maintenance. Some of these soils, however, can be improved by reducing or removing the soil feature that limits use, but in many situations, it is difficult and costly to alter the soil or to design a structure to compensate for a severe degree of limitation. Boundaries delineated by the soil mapping units (see soils map, page 5.?) are seldom sharp or clearcut. Since soil type boundaries are transitional or grade into each other, the map delineations shown may include up to 15 percent other soil types. Careful examination of the soils information presented here will aid in general decision making, but does not preclude the need for specific on-site investigations· Information included here will: 1. Provide preliminary estimates of soil limitations for general planning of building sites, highways, drainage systems, and other community developments. 2. Indicate potential sources of topsoil, sand or gravel. 3. Aid in developing land use regulations. 4. Aid in planning locations for developments. 5. Indicate areas particularly susceptible to erosion or flooding. 5.4 6. Supplement the information obtained from other published maps and reports. The soil survey summary, page5.6shows restrictive features for drainfields, founda- tions, and roads as well as so11 capability for each mapping unit designated on the soils map, page 5.7. More detailed information is available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service or from the report, "Soil Survey Interpre- tations for land Use Planning and Community Development for the lexington Area, Oregon" by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service that is on file at the East Central Oregon Association of Counties office, Pendleton, Oregon. 5.5 SO IL SU RV EY DA TA - LE XI NG TO N AR EA HA P SO IL SO IL CA PA BI LI TY RE ST RI CT IV E FE AT UR ES RE ST RI CT IV E FE AT UR ES RE ST RI CT IV E FE AT UR ES ~ HA PP IN G UN IT SL OP E NI RR IR R FO R DR AI N FI EL DS I RA TI NG FO R FO UN DA TI ON S I RA TI NG FO R RO AD S I RA TI NG 47 E L ic k. ki ll et v e ry . to n y lo am 7- 40 7. V II . - D ep th to r o c k, Se ve re D ep th to r o c k , Se ve re D ep th to Se ve re s lo p e, s to n es s lo p e, s to n es r o c k, s lo p e, a to n es 64 F N an se ne s il t lo am 35 -7 0- /. V II s - Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re 13 8A E nd er sb y fi n e sa n dy l o ~ 0- 37 . II Ie II Ie F lo od s M od er at e F lo od s M od er at e F lo od s, lo w M ad er at e s tr en gt h 17 6A Pe di go s il t lo am 0- 37 . IV w lI s W et Se ve re Fl oo ds Se ve re W et , lo w M od er at e s tr en gt h (,T 1 31 28 R it zv il le s il t lo am 2- 77 . II Ic lI e D ep th to r o c k M od er at e Lo w St re ng th M od er at e - - - Sl ig ht O l 31 3e R it zv il le s il t lo am 7- 12 7. II Ie II Ie Sl op e. de pt h M od er at e Sl op e, lo w M od er o. te Sl op e M od er at e to r o c k G tr on gt h 31 4D R it zv il le s il t lo am 12 -2 0% IV e II Ie Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re N or th 31 6E R it zv il le s il t lo am 20 -4 0'1 ., IV e - Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re 45 18 W il li s s il t lo am 2- 57 . IV e - C em en te d pa n Se ve re Lo w s tr en gr h S li gh t - - - Sl ig ht 45 3e W il li • • il t lo am 5- 12 % IV e - Ce m en te d pa n Se ve re S lo p e, lo w M od er at e Sl op e M od er at e s tr en gt h 45 4D W il li s s il t lo am 12 -2 07 . IV e - S lo p e, c e m e n te d Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re pa n 50 18 H ik ks lo . il t lo am 2- 7"1 . II Ic II Ic D ep th to r o c k Se ve re D ep th , lo w M od er 4t e D ep th , lo w M od er at e s tr en gt h s tr en gt h , fr oa t a c ti on 50 2e M ik ka lo s il t lo am 7.. . 12 -/_ II Ic II Ie D ep th to r o c k Se ve re Sl op e, de pt h to M od er at e D ep th , s lo p e, H od er at e r o c k , lo w s tr en gt h lo w 8 tr en g th , fr os t a c ti on 50 3D M ik ka lo . il t lo am 12 -2 0% IV e IV e Sl op e, de pt h to Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re Sl op e Se ve re r o c k ~ © ~[!!ill @5 © ~ Z© 00= -~~~ ~=a:~ o [!!ill LL d Zllib -© ~~ -0=0= U>© 'rIl! i . '.'~.! , " -c " .5 ea~ .... "Olo.~ "c'" 'uoo~ '.,~:;; U'ia)' c.J,:; 00_ .. ~ "'uU .;: 0::", ~< 0_ 000 c z '" "'"-' III ~ o CO / 12 IIle IIle 2"1 In 211 1.6/ ;? .----/ 502C IIle • 5030 I ~ IVe ~ VIis " eI 'c "~ " ~'- .~503[r ,~ 451 B IVe IVe 313C \ II .~~ 47E VIIs III e ,,~ "'If '011' --- Jl3e ~III. 0;: - 312B \IIler-('" ,3140 IVe Ille 453C IVe 31&E Ilv. ., 501B ". ". - -~ --lj .~ ...~ .. 138A 313C IIle ~~~."~~~~ 3~ ~ 2S 12"7 5030 IVe ---"';~~~!t---_502C IIle 501B IIle 313C lIIe "". E. Natural Hazards Flood Plain The floodway and flood plain map for the City of Lexington is shown on page 5.10. This map is taken from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration's flood hazard map of the city. The map may contain some inaccuracies due to enlargement and reproduction processes. For site specific delineation, see the Federal Insurance Administration map of most recent issue that is available from the FIA Seattle office, lenders and insurance salesmen in the area and city officials. The Corps of Engineers is finalizing a more extensive study of the flood area than has been completed to date. The study will take into consideration construction of several miles of diversion ditching, and terracing as well as catch water pond con- struction done by the Heppner Water Control District on Shobe, Hinton, Balm Fork, and Willow Creeks in the area south and west of Heppner. The report is scheduled for completion in late 1979. lexington is now participating in the FIA emergency flood insurance program. Upon completion of the current Corps of Engineers study and provision of necessary floodway data, Lexington may choose to participate in the regular flood insurance program. If the city chooses not to participate, flood insurance will not be available for city residences and businesses. Under present FIA regulations in effect in Lexington, the minimum land use and control measures adopted by the community for the flood plain must: II (b) When the Administrator has designated areas of special flood hazards (A zones) by the publication of a community's FHBM, but has neither produced water surface elevation data nor identified a flood- way or coastal high hazard area, the community shall: (1) Require permits for all proposed construction and other developments including the placement of mobile homes, within Zone A on the community's FHBM; (2) Require the application of the standards in paragraphs 12 % SO UR CE S Fl oo dp la in : D ep t. o f H ou si ng & U rb an D ev el op m en t, Fl oo d In su ra nc e A dm in is tra tio n. Fe br ua ry , 19 79 St ee p Sl op es : U. S. G eo lo gi ca l Se rv ic e. 19 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :- ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :l: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RO AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • <- ' N ~ ~ : ~:::~ 11111 1jj~~ ggo :: :: :: 0 . ::: ::3 • • • • • • • 0 :: :' ,. . :: :: :: : . :: . . :: :: :: :> 0 : :: . . :: :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: :: ,0 :: : :: :: :: :: :: : :: :: "" .)0 . : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ogg : : : : : ' • : : : : : : : : : ' J, J 0 ~.L; ~::; ;::H Hnn I'~g g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '0 ° : : . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : J ~ ~l:; c-- --- --- --- --- =~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 0~ 11H jjj1j ,,:c ~nn: :::::: ::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO UN TY N A TU R A L ©D uW @ [f H A ZA R D S [L ~~ D~ @u @~ (8) Require that all mobile homes to be placed within Zone A on a community's FHBM shall be anchored to resist flotation~ collapse, or lateral movement by providing over-the-top and frame ties to ground anchors. Specific requirements shall be that (i) over-the-top ties be provided at each of the four corners of the mobile horne, with two additional ties per side at intermediate locations and mobile homes less than 50 feet long requiring one additional tie per side; (ii) frame ties be provided at each corner of the home with five addi- tional ties per side at intermediate points and mobile homes less than 50 feet long requiring four additional ties per side; (iii) all components of the anchoring system be capable of carrying a force of 4,800 pounds; and (iv) any additions to the mobile home be similar- ly anchored; (9) Require that an evacuation plan indicating alternate vehic- lar access and escape routes be filed with appropriate Disaster Pre- paredness Authorities for mobile home parks and mobile home subdivi- sions located within Zone A on the community's FHBM. (From Chapter X-Federal Insurance Administration, Subchapter B- National Flood Insurance Program, Part 1910.3 [b].) As more current flood plain maps and elevations are available, lenders, insurance salesmen, and city officials will be notified. City flood area management ordinances and regUlations will need to be implemented if the city wishes to participate in the regular flood insurance program. Earthguake Faults There are no identified earthquake faults near the City of LeXington according to the U.S. Geologic Survey. There is a concealed fault about 10 miles north of Lexington that runs in a northwesterly direction from Taylor Spring to Well Spring. Another concealed fault lies about 8 miles to the northeast of Lexington. It extends from a point north of the Beacon power transformer to a point about 5 miles east of Cecil. Steep Slopes Delineation of slopes greater than 12 percent is shown on the map on page 5.10. Building is not prohibited on slopes greater than 12 percent, but these areas are identified as having a higher degree of hazard than areas of less slope. The City of Lexingon, in its comprehensive plan Goals and Objectives (Goal 6, second Objective) seeks site specific information from applicants seeking approval to develop residential, commercial, or industrical sites in areas of known hazard. This information will allow the city to see that the applicant has taken the degree of hazard into consideration for con- struction of buildings, roads, and other facilities. If engineering require- ments are met to assure safe building conditions, then construction should be allowed. 5.11 F. FISH AND WILDLIFE ---- Fish and viildlife are valuable economic and aesthetic resources of Morrow County. Information from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in- dicates that wildlife resources contributed about $2,484,000 to the County's economy in 1977. Specific values attached to the various spe- cies are shown in Tables F-1 and F-2. Because information on ''!ildl ife in the area immediately surrounding Lexington is not -available, it is necessary to rely on data for Morrow County; All but the extreme southern portion of Morrow County lies within the Umatilla Basin, designated by the Oregon State Game Commis- sion in their report, "Environmental Investigations", February, 1973. Lexington's fisheries resource is located primarily in 'Willow Creek. Rain- bow Trout are the only game fish now found in Willow Creek. Rhea Creek, a tributary of Willow Creek, also supports Rainbow Trout. No Steel head presently spawn in Willow Creek because of e~tensive water use for irri- gation, unladdered dams and unscreened diversions. Potential does exist for Salmon and increased steel head spawning in the Willow Creek system if habitat and flow improvements could. be achieved; Non-game fish found in Willow Creek include Squawfishand Suckers. Their incidence is enhanced by low summer flows and high water temper- atures. Also, the filling of the reservoir behind the John Day Dam has allowed these fish to extend farther into Willow .Creek. These species are considered undesirable' as they compete with game fish for food and living space. There is great diversity of wildlife and wildlife habitat in Morrow County. Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer are the w~st common bi; game . animals. Both are found .in higher elevation forests during the summer months and on the lower elevation bench lands, in central and southern Morrow County, during the winter'. Black Bear and Cougar are also pr~:;ent. Wil dl ife in some instances is 1imi ted by 1 'l.ck of ~Iater. or by shortages resulting from water use practices. Other problems,' such as maintaining ade~~ate cover and browse provide a continuing challenge to the Fish and Game Department and Forest Service. With increased 'logging and recre- ational activity in the area, additional stress on wildlife resources can be expected. A list of wildlife species found in Morrow County is shown below. Game Birds Ring-Necked Pheasant - irrigated fields and pastures Chukar Partridge - rimrock areas Hungarian Partridge - grainfield/sagebrush boundaries Valley Quail - water and cover at 101'/ elevations Bobwhite Quail - water and cover at low elevations Mountain Quail - water and cover at higher elevations Blue Grouse - high elevation forests Ruffled Grouse - high elevation forests Morning Dove - lowlands throughout summer and early fall Merria~ Turkey - limited numbers in north Morrow County 5.12 Waterfowl Ma11 ard Pintail Widgeon Scaup Greenwinged Teal Canada Goose Shoe11 er BUffle-head Ruddy Duck Snow Goose Furbearers Beaver Muskrat Mink Weasel Otter Raccoon Bobcat Coyote Opossum Skunk Badger Rare and Endangered Spec; es The Bald Eagle and Prairie Falcon are found in low numbers and both probably nest .in the basin. Some indication of the value of wildlife resources to Morrow County is provided by figures from the Department of Fish and Game shown in Tables F-1 and F-2. Table F-1 1977 Wil dl ife Inventory Total Recreation Value per Total Species Population Harvest Visitor-Days Rec. Day Rec. Value Mule Deer 19,000' 3,631 23,957 $47.52 $1,138,437 Rocky Mtn. El k 2,775' 846 27,315 $34.70 $ 947,831 Upland Game Birds N/A 7,322 27,004 $11.38 $ 307,306 Waterfowl Dur.ks 170,000** 2,400 6,221 $14.54 $ 90,453 Geese 95,000** 428 *population prior to hunting season **peak winter populations Source: Preliminary figures from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Morrow County Office, Heppner, Oregon, September, 1978. The three wildlife management areas in Morrow County provide valuable habitat for wildlife and a valuable resource for County residents. Table F-2 sunmarizes these areas. It is apparent that wildlife re- sources are an integral part of Morrow County reside~tsl lifestyle and are a viable economic concern. 5,13 Table F-2 Recreational Visitor Days Umatilla National Irrigon Wildlife Coyote Springs Wildl ife Refuge Management Area Wildlife Man. Area 1977 1976 1976 Waterfowl Hunting 2,157 1,600 Upland Game Bird rlunting 855 825 Angling 5,700* 1,200 Non-Consumptive Wildl ife1 6,000 655 Non-Wil dl ife2 1,500 Trapping • 20 Total Recreational 2003Visitor Days 16,212 4,300 *One visitor day for warm water angling has a value of $9.70 Source: . Oregon Department of Fi sh and Wil dl i fe, Morrow County Office, Heppner, Oregon, September, 1978. 1. Photography, viewing 2. Picnicing, boating ·3. Primarily upland game bird hunting • G. AIR, WATER, AND LAND QU,ll,LITY There is very little information available on the quality of these three resources in Morrow County. The information included here is from the Pendleton office of the Department of Environmental Quality. Air quality is good at Lexington. Seasonally, there may be some dust in the air from hauling and transferring grain at the elevator in town and on nearby farms. Strong winds, usually from the west and southwest, cause top- soil and dust to blow occasionally. . Water quality at Lexington is good. No wells have been found contaminated. See Chapter VI for detailed discussion of sewer and water facilities. Lexington has a metal storage solid waste site that serves all of Morrow County. Old car bodies and other large metal objects are stored here and picked up periodically by junk dealers. The site is owned by the City of Lexington and operated by Morrow County. Other solid waste services are provided by the facilities at Heppner. 5.14 H. Unique Scientific and Cultural Resources Approximately 70 percent of Oregon has been surveyed by historians to identify sites and buildings of importance in Oregon's histor~. Only ~bo~t. 3 percent of the state has been surveyed for archaeological sltes of slgnlfl- cance. The results of these surveys indicate that there are about 2,500 historic sites worthy of inclusion in the Statewide Inventory and possibly as many as 120,000 archaeological sites. A map showing density of archaeo- logical sites in Oregon is included (see page 5.16).It shows a high density of archaeological sites in northern Morrow County along the Columbla Rlver. The DreaOn Trail, an important migration route, crosses Morrow County. It was use from 1843-1857. The Emigrant Graveyard/Stage Station Ruin is located on the Oregon Trail and is known for military and Indian affairs. It is located on the southern boundary of the Boardman Bombing Range. The Willow Creek Campground, also on the Oregon Trail, is located north of Cecil. Five miles east of Upper Well Spring, the Cayuse War Battlefield of 1848 has been identified. The Abigua Trail, another trail crossing Morrow County, is recognized for prehistory-anthropology significance. lexington has b,o buildings that are included in the 1l0regon Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings" .. The Barnett Hotel (Del's Grocery Store) on Hain Street was constructed prior to 1902. It was an important stage coach stop at the turn of the twentieth century. The second building, the I.O.O.F. Hall, is located on C Street. It is uncer- tain when the Hall was constructed. According to Morrow County history, lexington did not have an I.D.D.F. Lodge in 1902. However, if this building dates from that time, it is possible it was one of two halls W. S. Shiach \>/rote of. "There were a1so two ha 11 s, the Armory, in whi ch school was rna i n- tained and a large hall over McFarland IS store." Morrow County has an outstanding museum located at Heppner. The museum is funded by Morrow County. Exhibits include paleontol09ical finds from the area, (others are on display at the Oregon Museum of-Natural History at the University of Oregon), Indian artifacts, early American displays, and displays of early Oregon history. Six of the museum rooms are deco- rated in period furnishings. A costume collection is also included. During winter months the museum is open from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday and on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The hours are extended during the summer. Public libraries are located at Heppner and lone. The library at Heppner is experiencing serious financial hardship. The library receives limited support from the city of Heppner and is now operating primarily upon private donations and with volunteer workers. The library is the largest in the county with about 15,000 books. It \'1orks closely \'Jith the state library. The lone library, though smaller, receives much use~ The Topic Club at lone works to maintain the library. 5.15 , M al hc ur '1': :: · . . . , · . . . . · . . . . . ,. . . . , , . . , . , . , . . . , . . . ' " 't' :: . . . . : : U rn ae lll s , H ar ne y G ra nt C ro ok -5 ii e ' D en si ty - - :::: :t!f/ :::' . JC ff C ¥ o D es ch ut es K la m at n Ar ~h eo ~o gi 1c aI Ja ck so n la rg el y u n su rv ey ed hi gh de ns ity m ed ium de ns ity llillll ll::I: l:';!' U 1 . . . . . . O 'l SO UR CE ~ St at ew id e In ve nt or y o f H is to ri c Si te s an d B ui ld in gs . M or ro w Co un ~ n a Q ,a 't' t_ nt 0" 1: J: .a nJ ,p 'o rt at 1o n. _1 97 6. I. Energy Resources The Umatilla Plateau contains very little in the way of carbonaceous fuels. There are some noncommercial coal deposits located south of Heppner in the Clarno Formation. Although lenses and thin beds of pure good-grade bituminous coal are present, they are apparently too thin, intermixed with carbonaceous shale, and structurally deformed to be of commercial interest at the present time. There have been small amounts of methane gas found in a few of the water wells in the Columbia River basalt. Morrow County residents may be able to utilize solar and wind resources to provide pOrler in the future. National Weather Records for the period from'1941 - 1970 indicate that the Pendleton area averages 107 clear days per year and 88 partly cloudy days per year. Mean wind speed at the Pendleton airport for the same period was 9.2 m.p.h. Occasional gusts to 60 and 70 m.p.h. are also recorded. An illustration of wind frequency and direction at the PGE Carty Site in Morrow County is included on the following page. More specific·solar and wind information is not available for the cities in southern Morrow County. There are no identified geothermal sites in Morrow County. Willow Creek may someday provide water for power generation, though it is not anticipated at this time. The stream is a tributary of the Columbia River and consequently contributes to the Columbia power generation pool. Increased power production may occur on the Columbia River. 5.17 N7::---'::'''\"--_JENE WI--- sw ssw s SSE SE ANNUAL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF WIND DIRECTION AT THE 3D-FOOT LEVEL OF THE PGE BOARDMAN METEOROLOGICAL TOWER. THE DIRECTIONS ARE THE DIRECTIONS TOWARD WICH THE WIND IS BLOWING, AND THE PERCENTAGE FREQUENCY SCALE IS AT THE LEFT CENTER OF THE FIGURE. SOURCE: H.E. CRAMER CO., ALUMAX EMISSION AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT WIND DIRECTION 5.18 ~OCIO·CECONOMIC CENVIRONMEIVI CHAPTER VI Socia-Economic Environment A. Resource Base and Economic Development Background Before white settlement. the native Cayuse and Umatilla Indians of Morrow County pl~acticed a subsistence economy based on fi.shing, hunting, and root- and berry-gathering. Deer, elk, and bear hides. Blue Mountain pine and fir bark and Columbia Basin sage provided construction materials. Around 1700, the arrival of wild horses, descended from runaway Southwestern domestic stock" greatly increased Indian mobility, extending their hunting range into the buffalo country beyond the Rockies. The first phase of white settlement by-passed Morrow County, as had the early nineteenth century trappers and ty:.aders. It was not until shortly before the discovery of gold in the John Day country in 1862 that white stockmen were attracted to the grass of southern Morrow County. Permanent settlements were established in the canyons of Willow and Butter Creek before 1870. After their last uprising in 1878, the local Indians were con- fined to reservations outside what would (in 1885) become the boundaries of Morrow County. Their chief economic legacy was the Cayuse pony, which they had bred for hardiness, endurance, and intelligence. (FollmoJing pages rely on Homesteads and Heritages: !l History of !·lorrow County, Oregon, by Gi 1es French, Bi nfords, and "lort, Portland, 1971.) There was no commercial farming in the Lexington area in 1870, and still not much in 1880, since it was a long haul down Willow Creek to the Columbia, where produce could be transshipped to Portland. Even when the railroad running east out of Portland was completed in 1883, it did not come close enough to Lexington to alleviate this problem. Lexington began as a sheep camp in the 1860's primarily as a result of Bill Penland's sheep and wool enterprizes located at the mouth of Slack Horse Canyon. In 1885, when MorrOloJ County was carved out of "'/estern Umatilla County, there was a blacksmith shop, eating house and warehouse for Penland Wool located at Lexington. At that time Bill Penland, a man of iron \oJill. determined to get the county seat located at Lexington. The struggle between Heppner and Lexington was fierce, but when the votes were counted: Heppner won, 691 - 658. The economic basis of the lexington area continued to be livestock production throughout the 1880's with sheep predominating. An important stimulus to sheep production was the development of that industry in Montana. For fifteen years, Oregon sheep ",/ere trailed across the mountains to that terri tory. Cattle and horses had been the chief products of the Willow Creek and Butter Creek stockmen in the late 60's and 70's, to serve the needs of the John Day country mining settlements. After 1880, and well into the twent.ieth century, sheep were the chief product of f·lorrow County rangelands. After all other Columbia Plateau counties had switched from a livestock - 6.1 to a grain-based economy, :1orrow County continued to rely on the export of wool for the majority of its agricultural cash income. The establishment on National Forest lands of grazing restrictions, the spread of sagebrush onto the grasslands due to overgrazing and the end of intinerant graziers under the Taylor Act all led to a decl.ine in wool production before 1930's Depression era prices finally finished off all but the largest operators. The first wheat was grown for export in Morrow County by John Royse on a homestead west of Hardman in 1880. A big impetus was given to commercial grain production by the construction of a railroad spur up Willow Creek from the mainline near the Columbia in 1888. By that time much of the lower elevation native bunchgrass was gone, and more homesteads were being taken up for wheat farming. Since about 1885, Swedes had been arriving in southwest and west central Morrow County, most of whom took up farming. IrisH immigration increased during the last twenty years of the nineteenth century as well, but the Irish gravitated more toward sheep raising. In 1886, a fire destroyed three blocks of businesses including the Reaney Livery stable in Lexington. More bad luck followed in 1888 when a cyclone struck the town, wrecking homesteaders' cabins, school houses and barns, The Depression of 1893 ended the first exuberant development of cash crop farming in Morrow County. Before the turn of the century, a system of dry- land summer fallow farming had evolved on the Columbia Plateau between 1,000 and 2,500 feet in elevation that would remain virtually unchanged for a lifetime. Yields would increase due to new cultivation techniques, seed varieties and fertilizers, and acreages per farm would increase due to increasing me~hanization, but the crops to grow in each region were well known and unvarying after 1900. There were 4,205 Morrow County residents in 1890 and 4,465 in 1970. Though Lexington began as a sheep camp, it became important as a wheat center as roads were built into the Black Horse and Social Ridge areas and farmers began to haul wheat to Lexington for storage and rail shipment. Lexington was incorporated in 1903 and grew slowly through the following years to achieve a population of 264 in 1920. Combined harvester-threshers appeared in Morrow County fields around 1901. Horses provided the original motive power for these machines, to be replaced by the gas engine after the first World War. During the second decade of the twentieth century, Morrow County began constructing graded and graveled roads to accommodate the spread of automobiles and motor trucks. With the advent of good roads, Morrow County would never again sustain the same variety of businesses as it had in the self-sufficient years, 1870 - 1920, when the county grew much more of what it needed, and had thriving poultry and dairy industries and flour mills. World War I provided good markets for Morrow County agricultural products, but the twenties failed to live up to expectations. Production exceeded sales for most agricultural commodities. Farms were consolidated as smaller operations were sold to larger ones .. Land prices increased. The 1924-25 crop was frozen out, but production recovered by 1927. In general, compared with the big wartime expansion, the twenties were drab, but people had gotten into the habit of living on credit. 6.2 This tendency complicated the shortage of money during the Great Depression beginning in 1929. Another problem was the universally bad wheat crops of the thirties. The worst year was 1934, when the crop was both low in quantity and poor in quality, selling for'18 lj2¢ per bushel, compared with the $2 a bushel price of twenty years before. Banks closed during the Depression decade, and Morrow County gained some notoriety as the place where the local Lions Club issued homemade scrip to spend in the county's stores. The idea caught on in other Oregon communities. New Deal agricultural policies and the creation of state soil and water con- servation districts helped to alleviate the worsening condition of Morrow County's land resource as the low rainfall and high winds of the mid- thirties persisted. In 1940, Morrow County Grain Growers began taking over storage and warehousing functions in the ccunty and Lexington became the cooperative's headquarters. Lexington has always been recognized as the wheat 9rowing center of the county. The Columbia Basin Electric Power Company, an REA affiliate, began merchandizing Bonneville Power Administra- tion electricity to rural and city customers. Despite wartime rationing and price controls, Morrow County farmers made money again in the forties, land prices soared, and elderly or inefficient operators sold out, reducing the number able to enjoy the increased income. Continued government controls on production and subsidies during the fifties and sixties assured stable prices above production costs, so the Morrow County economy neither declined nor expanded during these years, Few major developments occurred in production technolugy, except the continual introduction of new seed varieties promising higher yields. Rainfall was adequate and the county prospered, though most of its young people were forced to look for work elsewhere if they ~id not become farmers, The forties saw the last decline of sheep production, which had been 322,000 in 1900, but fell to 110,000 in 1940 and 50,000 in 1950. The slide continued until there were officially only 10,000 sheep grazing Morrow County hillsides and meadows in 1970, though this discounts the Krebs Brothers bands that travel to Montana in the spring. Following the war, Morrow County decided to accommodate growing interest in flying by building an airport on the level hilltop north of Lexington. The landing strip still provides good private air access to central and southern Morrow County. Lexington and Heppner high schools consolidated in 1959, ending 80 years of rivalry. The headquarters of the Morrow County School District were moved into the old school building in Lexington and a new high school was built in Heppner in 1961. The sixties were stagnant in Morrow County, even though income increased. PopUlation fell 400 in the county and 200 in Heppner. Important develop- ments such as the John Day Dam and 1-80 constructions occurred without substantially altering the prosperity or patterns of economic activity of the county. By 1969, however, significant additions to the agricultural patterns of seventy or eighty years had begun, On the D. O. Nelson property north of Lexington, five center-pivot irrigation circles of 130 acres each were producing potatoes that year. Irrigation was not new in Morrow County. In 6.3 the Irrigon area, return flows through canals within the Cold Springs Reser- voir system had been used by West Extens·ion District farmers to grow a variety of field crops since 1916. In 1944, Orville Cutsforth drilled the first farm well for irrigation to increase hay production of his land north- east of Lexington. The big breakthrough, however, came with the develop- ment of center-pivot systems, which were especially well adapted to the level, low elevation, sandy soils of the Columbia Basin in the north end of Morrow County. With this technology, the previously unproductive sagelands could produce specialty or high-value per acre crops such as potatoes and sugar beets. This had potential spin-off value for processing. By 1975, the Port of Morrow at Boardman was profiting from the location there of potato plants and farm supply companies to take advantage of expanded irrigation. By 1975, some problems to further expansion of irrigated agriculture had also presented themselves. One was the critical groundwater problem. Draw- down from the proliferation of wells in the Columbia Basin area had threatened irrigators with shutoffs of their water supply. The water being pumped was 20 - 40,000 years old and the aquifer was· not recharging. The irrigators looked to the Columbia for replacement water. Another obstacle was the presence in the middle of the North End irrigation zone of the U.S. Navy Bombing Range, land bought in 1940 by the government from Hynd Brothers at $1.42 per acre. The western part of the tract had been purchased by the state with veteran's funds and leased to Boeing Company in hopes of Oregon's cashing in on aero-space industry expansion in the early sixties. Boeing recognized the true potential of the land and started growing potatoes on it. The eastern portion was retained by the Navy. As of 1978, the land was still being used for target practice by planes from Whidby Island in Puget Sound, despite strenuous efforts by the local leaders to get the Range moved to Washington State. The fate of these 48,000 acres will be settle in Washington, D.C. and not in Morrow County. Boeing is not the only large company active in northern Morrow County. The amount of capital required to finance center-pivot irrigation on a big scale makes it difficult for some smaller family farmers to practice this form of agriculture. Among North End corporate farms are Sim-Tag, a consortium between long-time potatoe irrigators from Idaho and Washington; Eastern Oregon Farms, Sabre Farms, and Oregon Potatoe, Inc., ownee by C. Brewer and Company of Hawaii. The increased irrigation and truck cropping has made it possible for such food processing firms to locate in the county as Morrow Produce and Gourmet Foods. Two other major areas of expansion in northern Morrow County have been in transportation and energy. With the construction of the John Day Dam below Arlington on the Columbia in the sixties, Boardman was forced to relocate on higher land to avoid inundation by slackwater. Interstate 80 passes through the city limits of the new Boardman, providing the opportunity for tourist commercial development., which the city has grasped. In the last ten years, a number of motels, restaurants and gas stations have added to the processing expansion of the Port of Morrow to keep Boardman busy. In the seventies, a consortium of power companies led by PGE developed a plan to construct a complex of coal and nuclear power plants in the Boardman area. In 1975, work began on the first of these, a thermal plant using Mountana coal to be shipped by rail to the site called Carty (after an 1890 6.4 Irish sheepman)~ nine miles south of Boardman and a few miles east of the Bombing Range. The reservoir for the plant will provide additional irriga- tion water by damming the runoff from the usually dry reaches of upper Sixmile Canyon. Whether any of the additional projected Morrow County plants will be constructed~ or the nuclear plants planned nearby in Gilliam County or the aluminum reduction facility at the Port of Umatilla. remains to be seen. Delays occasioned by environmental impact statement requirements. court cases and financial considerations make the future of energy develop- ment in Morrow County uncertain. Possible construction of a Willow Creek Dam as been talked of for several years. In 1965. a multi-purpose Dam was discussed and approved by Congress but was never funded. Then in 1974. a dam designed primarily for flood control was approved and funded by Congress but vetoed by President Ford. Recently. support of the dam construction has increased in the hope that it would significantly decrease the National Flood Insurance Administration's flood plain delineation for Heppner. The Heppner City Council. Chamber of Commerce and Morrow County Court have all gone one record as supporting construction of the dam if it is constructed so as significantly to decrease the flood plain area in Heppner. It is unclear what effect construction of the dam would have on the total projected flood flow and resulting floodway and flood plain at Lexington. If the dam were constructed,the 100 year flood flow of Willow Creek would be lessened and thus flood elevations and possibly flood areas would de- crease. However. flood elevations have not been calculated and Congres- sional approval and funding of the Willow Creek Dam are uncertain at this ti~. Equally uncertain is what the effect of these developments would be on Lexington. The city has known stability for a lifetime. with the expansion and modernization of agriculture and to some degree. the Kinzua mill at Heppner, the only major changes in the local economy during the last 60 or 70 years. A too rapid expansion of the North End economy may strain the traditional structure of county services beyond the resident citizen's ability to pay. Lexington residents should make sure the lag between development of any new facilities and the payment of revenues they produce is not too long. Prepared by John Tillman, Economic Intern, East Central Oregon Association of Counties. March. 1978. 6.5 B. Community Survey Description During the summer and fall of 1976, a community attitude survey was con- ducted in Lexington. It was designed to gather public input on the adequacy of present city services, recognized need for improvements, and demographic information about the residents of the city. A copy of the survey is included with a summary of the results .in the appendix of the report. The survey was compiled by Don Burns, former comprehensive planner for lone, Irrigon, Lexington, and Heppner. Planning Commission members were responsible for distributing the surveys in Heppner and copies were also available at City Hall. Due to the low response percentage (20%) and possible skewing of results based on the potentially dissimilar response rates of different age and occupational groups, the survey may not accurately reflect reality. Con- clusions based on the survey should, therefore, be evaluated in conjunc- tion with more general data available for Morrow County to develop an accurate community profile. If the survey is skewed, it is probably toward medium tOhigher income groups, toward people of long residence in the cities, and toward retired persons, all of whom may be more inclined to fill out the survey forms due to greater leisure or familiar- ity with paperwork. C. Population Lexington has experienced very slow growth since 1930 with the city losing population in the decade from 1960-1970. (See table Page.~.) This loss of 10 persons (or 4%) was probably due to emigration of young adults seeking jobs. The only decade in which Lexington has experienced rapid growth was from 1930 to 1940, when the town gained 43 people. From 1970 to 1977, the city had the lowest growth rate of any of the Morrow County cities with a gain of only 15 people or one percent growth per year. The age structure of Lexington's population obtained from the community survey is found in table ~, page~. Information from the city survey indicates that there are proportionately fewer children age zero to nine in Lexington than in the other Morrow County cities. Thirty-six percent of the survey respondents have lived in Lexington for 20 years or longer, while 32% had lived there for 5 years or less. 6.6 rTA BL E C- I PO PU LA TIO N TR EN DS 19 30 19 40 19 50 19 60 19 70 19 77 ' He pp ne r 11 90 11 40 16 48 16 61 14 29 17 00 lo ne 28 3 26 2 26 2 35 0 35 5 41 7 '". ... . . Ir rig on 23 2 26 1 41 5 - - - - - - - - - Le xi ng to n 18 0 22 3 23 7 24 0 23 0 24 5 Bo ar dm an 10 0 11 0 12 0 15 3 19 2 10 20 M or ro w Co un ty 49 41 43 37 47 83 48 71 44 65 55 50 So ur ce s: U. S. Ce ns us Da ta * Po rt la nd St at e U ni ve rs ity c e r ti fi ed po pu la tio n es tim at es , 19 77 , TA GL E C- 2 PO PU LA TIO N- AG E DI ST RI BU TI ON Ag e 0- 9 10 -1 9 '" 20 -2 4 00 25 -3 4 35 -4 9 50 -6 4 65 + . TO TA LS ! 19 70 Ce ns us ! H ou sin g Su rv ey D ata - 19 76 j t~ or ro w Co un ty H ep pn er lo ne Ir riQ on Le xi ng to n To ta l, 4 C iti es R ur al , No n- Fa rm J I % If % 1/ % . 11. ~ . it j . it . % . . It. - 17 45 3 20 35 15 31 14 9 6 4 15 79 21 68 0 I 13 24 17 36 7 5 24 15 16 80 I 4 13 0 5 9 7 15 2 1 10 6 6 31 11 35 6 22 39 15 31 6 4 6 · 4 15 78 16 51 8 15 26 19 40 20 13 24 15 18 94 16 51 8 16 29 11 ?i l ?3 15 19 12 16 no 15 48 6 9 16 16 32 ?B 1B 11 7 14 73 10 0 32 33 I 10 0 17 8 10 0 20 9 10 0 65 10 0 63 10 0 S1 5 I So ur ce s: 19 70 U. S. Ce ns us D ata an d Co mm un ity A tti tu de Su rv ey s co n du ct ed in ea ch co m m un ity in 19 76 . N ot e: Ru ra l n o n -fa rm in cl ud es H ep pn er , Ir ri go n, lo ne , Le xi ng to n, [3 oa rd l~ la n, an d u n in co rp or at ed pl ac es . Information on the educational attainment and ethnicity of the popula- tion in Morrow County is not available by city. County information from the 1970 census and in some areas from more current sources is available. According to the 1977 edition of the Socia-Economic Indicators of Oregon, Morrow County had the highest percentage of 9th grade enrollment gradu- ating from high school in the class of 1976 (92%) in the state. The five year average of 9th grade enrollment graduating from high school (87.1%) also ranked first among the counties in Oregon. However, about 1.6% of the Morrow County adult population has attained a fourth grade education or less. This percentage is among the 10 highest in the state. Twelve percent (12%) of the county's adult population has acheived an eighth grade education or less, while 22.3% has not finished high school. These percentages are among the twelve lowest in Oregon. Information from the 1970 census on educational attainment by sex is included below. TABLE C-3 Years of School Completed by Population 25 Years & Over, r'!orrO\'J County Education Total, 25 years and over . No. school years completed . Elementary: 1-4 years '. 4-7 years . 8 years . High School: 1-3 years . 4 years . College: 1-3 years . 4 years or more .. Median years completed . % high school graduates . Number t'la1es 1,2e3 4 40 71 184 271 424 185 104 12.2 55.6 Number Females 1,299 3 24 51 161 232 551 178 99 12.3 63.7 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970 General Social & Economic Characteristics, Final Report PCH - C39 Oregon, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1971. About 2.0% of Morrm'J County's population is composed of minorities. The two largest groups are those of Spanish heritage and those of American Indian descent. A breakdown is shown on the following page. 6.9 TJl.BLE C-4 Number of Persons by Raci a1 Group, Morrm·/ County, 1972 Raci a1 Group . Total . Caucas i an . Spanish Language . Black . American Indian .. Other . . Number 4,800 4,695 69 1 29 6 Percent 100.00 98.00 1.43 .02 .60 .13 SOURCE: OSU Cooperative Extension Service, Income &Poverty Data for Racial Groups, A Compilation for Oregon Census County Divisions, Special Report 367, September, 1972. 1972 Estimated Population, E.C.O.A.C. Population Projections Two sets of population projections that provide a reasonable population range at five year intervals are shown on Table C-5. The E.C.O.A.C. projections are from the Draft Population and Labor Force Projections for Morrow and Umatilla Counties prepared in October, 1977. These pro-jections are based on Scenario C assumptions that agriculture, food processing and light industry will continue to grow, at or near 1970-75 levels; that there is continued construction of all energy-generating facilities now projected in the area; that industrial expansion occurs at the Ports of Morrow and Umatilla, Hinkle and Pendleton, and that other ser.tors (including forestry and wood products) continue the economic trends of 1970-75. (See appendix for more detailed descrip- tion.) E.C.O.A.C. projections presently provide the highest available population forecast for Morrow County, primarily because they are based on economic activity and growth occuring in the county and not on historic trends suitable for forecasting in more stable areas. The trended projections for Lexington are derived from projecting future growth at the 1970-77 Lexington growth rate. They provide an indication of population if the talked of economic activity does not occur to the fullest extent possible. Another population estimate can be obtained if it is assumed that Lexington would retain its present share of Morrow County population (4.4%) in the year 2000. With projected county population of 13,300, Lexington's popula- tion would be about 590, an increase of 245. About 25 acres would be needed for additional residential use if the relatively low density of 10 persons per acre is used. (2.5 persons per household; 4 houses per acre) It is very unlikely that Lexington will retain its present share of county population, however, since the economic expansion is occuring in the. northern end of the county. 6.10 TA BL E C- 5 PO PU LA TIO N PR OJ EC TIO NS 19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 He pp ne r lo ne 0" 1 Ir ri go n ~ . .. .. . Le x, n gt or , Na rr ow Co . Tr en de d EC OA C Tr en de d EC OA C Tr en de d (CO AC I Tr en de d EC OA C Tr en de d EC OA C 18 40 18 00 18 50 18 50 23 00 18 90 25 30 19 20 27 60 19 50 45 0 50 0 50 0 60 0 55 0 68 0 60 0 75 0 65 0 78 0 52 0 11 40 69 0 14 40 87 0 16 00 10 40 17 50 12 20 19 70 25 0 29 0 26 0 33 0 28 0 37 0 29 0 39 0 30 0 40 0 61 20 99 10 70 70 10 65 0 80 30 11 67 0 89 80 12 48 0 99 30 13 30 0 Tr en de d pr oj ec tio ns ar e ca lc ul at ed a t 19 70 -7 7 ra te o f in cr ea se an d ar e n o t co m po un de d. NO TE : (CO AC pr el im in ar y pr oje cti on s, O ct ob er , 19 77 , in cl ud e sp ec if ic se ts o f a ss u m pt io ns fo r 3 di ff er en t sc e n a r io s. Se e a pp en di x fo r de ta il ed de sc ri pt io n. A ll pr oj ec tio ns a re ro u n de d to th e n e a r e st te n. A summary of population projections and corresponding land requirements is shown. Density 2000 Persons Add. Res. Add~ Comm. ~ Per Ac. Land (Ac t Land (Ac) l. ECOAC, Scenario C 400 10 16 5 2. Increase at 70-77 rate 300 10 -6 2 3. 4.4% County pop.** 590 10 25 8 4. 4.4% County pop.** 590 15 16 8 TOTAL Land (Acres) 21 8 33 24 *Commercial Land based on same ratio as present commercially used land to present population (8 acres/245 population = 0.327 ac. commercial per capita) **From E.C.O.A.C. Scenario C projection of Morrow County population of 13,300 in 2000. It seems reasonable that projections 3 and 4 won't occur unless unforseen development occurs in the Lexington area and the city obtains a sewage system. Projecton 4 assumes a density of 15 persons/acre which could be achieved through the use of single family residences (2.5 person/household) on lots of 7260 square feet or through some combination of multi-family and single fami ly housing. The city has adequate land to meet future residential and commercial needs in the city limits and urban growth area. 6.12 City of Lexington Projected Land Requirements Max. projected popn in 2000 PSU certified popn estimate in ~BX. projected popn increase = 400 1977 = 245 = 155 Assumpti ons: Occupancy rate of 2.5 persons/dwelling Dwelling density of 4 dwellings/acre Therefore. land requirement of 1 acre/10 persons Additional residential land required to 2000 : 16 acres Acreage Calculations City Limits UGB Total Land (including streets) 273 60 Ac. (res.) Buildable Land * 50 (res. and/ or ag.) 37 Ac. (res.) *Buildable land as used here refers to land not included in the flood plain or steep slope areas and is unimproved and/or unpl atted. 6.13 . D. Income Table 0-1 shows the distribution of household incomes in Lexington, based on the communi ty survey of September, 1976, in whi ch only about 14;;; of the households answered the questions on family income. TABLE 0-1 Household Income in Lexington, 1976 Income Level, $ o - 3,999 4,000 - 5,999 6,000 - 9,999 10,000 - 14,999 15,00G - 19,999 20,000 + TOTALS Number of Households 1 3 o 5 4 1 14 Percent of Households 7 21 o 36 29 7 100 SOURCE: Community Needs Survey, October, 1976 Table 0-2 displays comparable data for Morrow County and the State of Oregon in 1974, the latest comparable figures. TABLE 0-2 Household Income, Morrow County and Oregon, 1974 Morrow County Oregon Income Level, $ # Households %Households # Households % Househol o - 2,999 235 13.8 103,282 12.6 3,000 - 4,999 187 11.0 77,052 9.4 5,000 - 7,999 265 15.6 109,020 13.3 8,000 - 7,999 236 13.9 82,790 10.1 10,000 - 14,999 360 21.2 212,302 25.9 15,000 + 417 24.5 235,254 28.7 TOTALS 1,700 100.0 819,700 lOO.O SOURCE: Oregon Department of Economic Development 6.14 The difference in income distribution categories between the two sources makes direct comparison difficult, and the problems of incomplete sampling and possible skewing of the survey data discussed above further compli- cate the picture. If we assume reasonable reliability for the survey data, however, it is possible directly to compare the income categories of $10,000 - $14,999 and over $15,000 in Lexington with those for Morrow County and the State. Table 0-3 makes this comparison. TABLE 0-3 Comparison of Income Distribution Income Category Percent of Household in Each Category Lexington* Morrow County Oregon $10,000 - $14,999 $15,000 + 36 (29)** 36 (29)** 21.2 24.5 25.9 28.7 SOURCES: *Community Survey, 1976 Oregon Department of Economic Development, 1974 **Adjusted for inflation There are three possible explanations for the observed larger share of Lexington households in these high income categories than for Morrow County at large or Oregon. One is the possible skewing for survey data toward higher income groups and the statistical sampling error margin that accompanies so small a response. Second, the rate of inflation during the two year interval between the two study dates would account for much of the observed difference. The third possible explanation is that relatively more people in Lexington earn incomes higher than $15,DOO than in the state at large. This is the least likely interpreation. It is possible, however, that Lexington has a higher proportion of population in the S10,000 - $14,999 income group than Morrow County due to the number of mill workers living in the city. A check on the reliability of the survey - based figures is offered by another housing survey conducted door-to-door in Lexington by Columbia Basin College students in 1975. The results of that study are displayed in Table 0-4 below, and are for heads of households only, not overall household income. 6.15 TABLE 0-4 Head of Household Income Distribution, 1975 Survey Income Level $ Numbers of Households Percent o - 3,999 No Response 0 4,000 - 5,999 13 15 6,000 - 9,999 No Response 0 10,000 - 14,999 57 66 15,000 + No Response 0 Number of No Responses 16 18.6 TOTAL 86 SOURCE: CBS Student Survey, 1975 The total of 86 responses in a nearly complete (100%) sampling of households, but the 16% of households contacted but not responding introduces a potential element of skewing into the data, although not so great as in the 1976 survey. The 66% share of household heads earning $10,000 - $14,999 is so out of line" with other city, county and state data as to be almost assuredly false, whether from recorders' or respondents' tnaccuracies is unknwon. We will have to wait until either a new survey is conducted or results of the 1980 census are published to draw any firm conclusion about the general level of income in Lexington relative to other jurisdictions in Oregon. We do know that Morrow County ranked 22 of 36 Oregon Counties in median income as computed by the State Housing Division in 1978, and ninth of 18 in Eastern Oregon. (See Table 0-5) What this ranking means in terms of buying power and living standard is not clear. The general cost of living in morrow County is probably similar to elsewhere in Oregon, with rents and taxes being lower and consumer goods being higher than west of the Cascade Range. To what extent this situation may be mitigated by proximity to recreation, sporting and food production sites is not readily determined. Data are presently unavailable on income adequacy. The number of older people living on fixed incomes in Heppner would have to be determined by a new survey. In 1977, the number of persons below proverty level in the Ione- Lexington County Division (Cities of lone and Lexington and central rural Morrow County) was 185, most of whom would be expected to live in the cities. This number constitutes one third of all Morrow County residents (513) under the Federally-established poverty level guidelines. While Morrow County ranks ninth among the eighteen Eastern Oregon Counties in median family income in 1978, and twenty-second out of 36 in the state, it is first among its four neighboring counties. (See Table 0-5) 6.16 TABLE D-5 Eastern Oregon Counties by 1978 Median Family Income Rank In Median Rank In Oregon Eastern Oregon County Family Income (36 Counties) 1 Klamath 16,122 9 2 Harney 15,910 12 3 Wasco 15,860 13 4 Union 15,821 14 5 Deschutes 15,779 15 6 Lake 15,395 17 7 Sherman 15,066 20 8 Crook 15,012 21 9 MORROW 14,910 22 10 Umati 11 a 14,903 23 II Hood River 14,662 25 12 Jefferson 14,263 27 13 Grant 14,192 28 14 Malheur 13,4II 30 15 Gilliam 13,317 32 16 \~all owa 13,203 33 17 Baker 12,893 35 18 Wheeler 12,735 36 STATE 16,768 SOURCE: State of Oregon Housing Division When this overall median income is broken down into decile categories (groups of ten percentiles), an interesting pattern emerges. Morrow County has the highest median family and renter income of all the five Oregon Administrative District 12 counties in every decile except the lowest. In this percent of households, Morrow County ranks lowest of the five counties. Thus, it has both the greatest incidence of high income households, and the lowest median income among all lowest 10 percent incomes by county. That is, it has the greatest income dispari- ties. See Table 0-6 on the following page. Another striking feature of Table 0-6 is that the median income of the 5% of families in Morrow County is $12,000 greater than for the compar- able 5% of families in the state'as a whole. To what extent this pattern persists in Lexington is not know, but one may assume that pattern is most strongly evinced in the rural areas l where both farm and ranch miners with high before tax incomes (which are often net losses after production costs and taxes are subtracted) and migratory farm laborers live. 6.17 TA BL E 0- 6 M ed ian In co m e in D ol la rs Be fo re Ta xe s by D ec i1 es , fo r N or th Ce nt ra l Ea st er n Or eg on C ou nt ie s, 19 78 Co un ty St at e MO RR OW UI 1A TIL LA GR AN T GI LL IA I~ WH EE LE R Pe rc en til e Fa m ili es Fa m ili es Fa m ili es Fa m ili es Fa m ili es Fa m ili es Fi rs t 10 % 4, 50 8 5, 04 9 5, 73 6 5, 58 6 4, 57 9 5, 66 8 0' 1 Se co nd "10 % 8, 84 3 8, 17 4 7, 65 7 8, 43 2 8, 45 9 9, 09 7 . . . . . . . co Th ir d 10 % 11 ,06 2 10 ,6 31 9, 78 6 10 ,2 24 10 ,1 75 12 ,0 92 Fo ur th 10 % 13 ,0 67 12 ,88 1 12 ,3 29 11 ,7 65 11 ,60 6 14 ,49 "8 Fi ft h 10 % 14 ,9 10 14 ,9 03 14 ,1 92 13 ,3 17 12 ,7 35 16 ,7 68 Si xt h 10 % 18 ,5 54 17 ,0 53 16 ,1 08 14 ,3 57 13 ,6 45 19 ,21 1 Se ve nt h 10 % 21 ,17 1 19 ,63 1 18 ,4 82 17 ,0 30 16 ,21 1 21 ,98 1 Ei gh th 10 % 26 ,3 03 23 ,8 50 21 ,7 80 21 ,5 85 18 ,9 52 26 ,5 85 N in th 10 % 38 ,3 93 31 ,0 43 26 ,8 15 28 ,7 75 22 ,35 1 36 ,4 70 La st 5% 55 ,4 24 39 ,1 77 38 ,0 69 35 ,6 87 32 ,1 74 43 ,0 53 St at e Ra nk o f O ve ra ll M ed ian Fa mi 1y In co m e 22 nd 23 rd 28 th 32 nd 36 th Average family incorr.e fluctuates considerably for ~lorrO\'1 County residents, depending primarily on crop prices and yields. 1970 census data (1969 incomes) is the most current information available. At that time Morrow County's mean family income \'laS $9361 and ranked 13th in the state. Comparable 1970 census figures for several other Eastern Oregon counties are listed b1eow. 1969 1969 County Mean Fami ly Income Median Fami ly Income Baker $7,008 $6,980 Crook $8,846 $8,149 Deschutes $9,639 $8,537 Gilliam $8,731 $8,158 Harney. $8,970 $8,353 Hood Ri ver $8,741 $7,859 Jefferson $9,293 $8,528 Kl amath $8,691 $7,951 Lake $9,008 $8,903 11a1heur $7,824 $7,373 MorroN $9,361 $8,386 Sherman $9,206 $9,081 Umati 11 a $9,011 $8,296 Union $9,329 $8,314 Wasco $9,064 $8,864 Ha 11 owa $8,955 $7,731 Hheeler $8,073 $7,481 Deschutes and Harney Counties are the only Eastern Oregon Counties with higher mean family incomes that Morrow County. Mean (arithmetic mean or average) family incorre represents the total of all family incomes divided by the number of families in the sample. Median family income represents the family income that is the midpoint - that is - half the families have incomes greater than the median income and half have incomes less than the median. 6,19 E. Employment Employment figures present a problem of comparabil ity of reporting cate- gories between the housing survey results and official county data similar to that observed in comparing income data. The survey questionnaire did not distinquish clearly between economic sector employment, e.g. finance or trade, and employment class, e.g. blue collar or white collar. The residen- tial survey results then are not directly comparable with Oregon Employment Division figures reported by sector employment on a place of work basis. The residential survey data are displayed in Table E-1 below, which gives the number and percent of respondents classifying themselves in each cate- gory in 1976. TABLE E-1 Employment ~ Lexington, 1976 Types of Employment: Lexington City Residents For purposes of comparison, Table E-2 gives the October. 1976 county employ- ment figures by place of work. TABLE E-2 Morrow County Employment Ql Sector, October, 1976 Category Number Percentage Lumber and Wood Processing 330 B.2 Food Processing 420 10.4 Other Manufacturing 20 .5 Contract Construction 330 8.2 Transport, Communications, and Utilities 120 3.0 Trade 420 10.4 Finance, Insurance, and Rea1 Estate 50 1.2 Service and Mi sce11 aneous 130 3.2 Government 440 10.9 Unemployment 190 4.7 TOTAL* 4030 100.00 Source: Oregon State Employment Division * Includes agricultural and self-employed. One may reasonably conclude from this comparison that unemployment is less serious a problem in lexington than in the county as a whole. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Morrow County in October. 1976, was 5.1 and the yearly average \'las 6.5, \'fhich information reaffirms this belief. Skewing of the survey data may have worked either for or against this con- clusion, depending on the likelihood of unemployed persons in Lexington to fill out the survey relative to other citizens. 6.21 The only points at which the two tables are directly comparable are for lumber and construction employment. In these categories the percentages for the surv and for county data, respectively, 23% compared with 8.2% and 0% compared to 8.2%. It is possible that Lexington has more persons employed by the lumber industry than the county as a whole, but 23% is higher than seems reasonable. The lack of any respondents employed in construction is surprizing and it is unlikely that no city residents are employed in construction. However, given the preponderance of construction activity in the North End, it is not impossible. Although not directly comparable ~o county data categories, some conclusions can be drawn from the remaining figures. The 14% employment in agriculture seems reasonable given Lexington's location and the importance of agriculture to the county. About 11% of those completing the survey, indicated they are employed professionally or managerially, which probably includes government and service related positions in Heppner. In 1977, Lexington had one restaurant-tavern, one grocery store, five service stations or repair shops, one trucking firm, and one distributorship. Morrow County Grain Growers' main office is located in Lexington and is the largest employer in the city. Total employment is 26 full time employers, with 20 of those working in Lexington. Figures from the cooperative indicate only 5 employees live in Lexington, however, with most (17) residing in Heppner. Information from the community survey indicates that most Lexington residents are employed in Heppner with over one third employed in Lexington. About 8% of respondents are employed in lone and no respondents worked in Boardman or other North End cities. Table E-3 shows the results of the community survey. TABLE E-3 Place of Employment of Lexington Residents October, 1976 Place of Head of Household Second Waoe Earner TOTAL Em 10 ment Number Percent Number Percent Number Percen Lexington 8 47 1 3 Heppner 7 41 7 87 14 56 lone 2 12 0 0 2 8 Boardman-Irrigon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hermiston-Umatilla 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ordnance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 17 100 8 100 25 100 6.22 Table E-4 shows the trade and service location preferences of lone, Lexington and Heppner residents. TABLE E-4 Purchases of Heppner Residents by Place and Kind Article Place of Purchase Heppner lone-Lexi ngton Hermi ston Pendleton Other TOTAL Clothes 42% -0- 5% 25% 28% 100% Gasoline 78% 11% 5% 3% 3% 100% Groceries 60% 1% 15% 21% 3% 100% Furn; ture 57% -0- -0- 15% 28% 100% Automobiles 38% 5% 4% 22% 31% 100% Hardware and Buildin9 Supplies 71% 12% 2% 6% 9% 100% Purchases of lone Res; dents by Place and Kind Article Place of Purchase lone Heppner Hermiston Tri -City Other TOTAL Clothes -0- 28% 13":: 16% 43% 100% Gasoline 74% 5% 3~ -0- 18% 100% Groceries 53% 9% 17% 2% 19% 100% Furniture -0- 17% 14% 6% 63% 100% Automobiles -0- 17% 7% 3% 73% 100% Hardware and Buildin9 Supplies 60% 15% 4% 1% 20% 100% Farm Suppl ies 29% 29% 2% 5% 35% 100% Purchases of Lexington Residents by Pl ace and Ki nd Article Place of Purchase Lexington Heppner Hemi stan Pendleton Other TOTAL Clothes -0- 17% 11% 39% 33% 100% Gasoline 90% 10% -0- -0- -0- 100% Groceries 19% 15% 48% 15% 3% 100% Furniture -0- 25% 50% 6% 19% 100% Hardware and Buildin9 Supplies 59% 27% 9% -0- 5% 100% Automobiles 6% 29% 18% 1B% 29% 100% SOURCE: Conmunity Survey, E.C.O.A.C., October, 1976 6.23 These survey results indicate that Lexington residents shop for gasoline, hardware and building supplies in Lexington. Most other purchases such as groceries, furniture, automobiles and clothes are made in other cities incliding Hermiston, Pendleton and Portland though some are made in Heppner. Another survey, conducted by the Morrow County Chamber of Commerce and Extension Service, provies information about where urban rural residents of Southern Morrow County shop for various goods. The sur- vey was conducted by mail about 1972. Southern Morrow County was di- vided into the three geographic areas shwon below: Area 1 - included Heppner, Lexington, and farms and ranches with- in 10 miles of Heppner. Area 2 - included lone and farms and ranches from 10 to 30 miles --- from Heppner. Area 1 - included Spray, Monument, Kimberly, Fossil, Kinzua, and farms and ranches over 30 miles from Heppner. Of the 1,548 questionnaires mailed to households, 485 or 31% were re- turned. Of those processed, 298 came from Area 1, 96 from Area 2, and 82 from Area 3. The results of the survey are shown in Table E-5. TABLE E-5 Percentage of Shopping DOllars Spent in South Morrow County Average! of Dollars Area 1 Area 2 Residents Residents Spent Area 3 Residents Clothes 37% 33% 3% Groceries 69% 71% 12% Furniture 38% 13% .5% Automobiles 31% 25% 5% Hardware, Lumber & Building Supplies 70% 69% 21% Jewelry 58% 50% 5% Drugs & Veterinary Supplies 73% 66% 15% Heavy Appliances 47% 36% 8% Machine & Equipment Repairs 45% 54% 4% Sporting Goods & Rec rea t ion Equ i pment 43'; 30'; 2e' " ~hite Goods 20% 16% .3% Source: "Communi ty Survey for South Morrow County" , approx. 1972. Conducted by Morrow County Chamber of Commerce, Extens ion Economist, Stanley Miles, and Extension Agent, Harold Kerr. 6.2~ Though this survey was conducted about 4 years before the community survey, it is doubtful that shopping habits changed significantly for residents of Southern ~lorrow County during these years. Assuming that shopping habits have not changed substantially, it is possible to compare the t,·/O tables for the categories of clothes, groceries, furniture. automobiles. hardware, and building supplies. The results of the two surveys correspond fairly closely when purchases of Area 1 residents are cOOloared with those of Heppner residents. Rural resi- dents apparently do slightly more grocery shopping in Southern Morrow County than do Heppner residents (69% compared with 61%). but do somewhat less shopping for clothes (31: compared with 42%), furniture (38~ compared with 57%), and automcbiles (31% compared with 38%). Hardware and bUilding sup- plies were purchased as often in Southern Morrow County by Area 1 residents as by Heppner residents (70: and 71% respectively). When purchases of Area 2 residents are compared with those of Lexington residents, the differences are more pronounced. Area 2 residents purchase considerably more clothes and groceries in the south end than do Lexington residents (33% compared with I7~ and 7It compared with 34~). However. fur- niture. hardware. building supplies, and automobiles are all purchased more often in the Heppner/Lexington area by Lexington residents than by Area 2 residents. The survey indicates Area 3 residents shop for all listed goods less often in the southern part of the county than do lone residents. Apparently. most county residents living over 30 miles from Heppner trade in Hermis:Jn. Pendleton. and other cities for most goods. It should also be noted that southern Morrow County retains over 50% of the trade in a 30 mile radius for such purchases as jewelry. drugs. and veterinary supplies, aQd nearly that percentage of heavy appliances, ma- chinery and equipment repair purchases. Thus, it seems that Heppner. and to some degree Lexington; are important trade and service centers for many rural Morrow County residents. Table E-6 presents a confusing situation. While the number of retail es- tablishments and value of retail sales have declined in Morrow County. the value per firm has increased, although not much in real terms (adjusted to inflation). This is not surprising. given the observed trend toward driv- ing long distance to shop among South End Morl"'ow County residents. Hermis- ton. Pendleton. and Tri-Cities and Portland all get trade that was reserved for local businesses in the fifties and before. TABLE E-6 Wholesale and Retail Trade and Selected Services* in Morrow County Retail Sales, SOOONumber of Establishments Total Year Retai I Services Wholesale Retail 1963 80 27 11 ,. 0""0, ... 00 1967 75 32 11 6,803 1972 59 36 20 5,789 Services 357 471 1,293 l..Jholesale - C""I ,~"'..:: 5,050 3,453 ~Hotels. laundries. beauty shops. repair shops. theaters. etc. 6.25 Wholesale trade, on the other hand, decreased between 1963 and 1967, then increased in both number of firms and value of sales. The 20 firms operating in Morrow County in 1972 shared total sales that were less in real terms than those of 1963. The increase in wholesale firms is probably attributable to construction, irrigations, and processing activity in the North End. Lexington and other Southern Morrow Counties Cities' trade has not benefited noticeably from these developments, al- though increased County Court business and expansion of county services to meet North End growth demands will inevitably have their effect on commerce. One can only conjecture as to the location of the nine net new service establishments and the source of the significant increase in the dollar value of services. Probably much of the new money and many of the new firms are associated with freeway traffic in the Boardman area .. How much service activity in Lexington has grown is unknown. One may conclude that Lexington's economy primarily benefits from its ability to capture most of the local trade for farm and household nec- essities, while most of the residents' needs are met in other larger towns. It appears that Lexington is not receiving much of the money or trade associated with the economic expansion in Northern Morrow County. Economic Development Lexington has designated land along the Union Pacific Railroad for in- dustrial development. No other large tracts have been set aside for development for several reasons. The city believes it does not have adequate resources such as sewer system, suitable land type, good trans- portation and freight linkages to realistically set aside land for in- dustrial use at this time. Responses to the community survey indicated most Lexington residents did not desire to attract industry. A majority (55 percent) also felt non-industrial employment opportunities were needed "not much". Responses to survey questions 23/27 and 24/28 (top of page 2 in all four surveys) are tabulated in Table .~-7 and E-8 TABLE E-7 Responses to Question 23/27* "How badly do we need new industry and the jobs it brings?" %of %of %of %of Percent Great City Quite City Not City City Total of Total City Deal Totals a Bit Totals Much Totals None Totals Responses Sample - Heppner 10 17.9 15 26.8 22 39.3 9 16.1 56 33.9 lone 23 33.3 22 31. 9 10 14.5 14 20.3 69 41.8 Irrigon 8 33.3 7 29.2 2 8.3 7 29.2 24 14.5 Lexington 2 12.5 3 18.8 8 50.0 3 18.'8 16 9.7 TOTAL 43 26.1 47 28.5 42 25.5 33 20.0 165 100.0 --- * Excluding "Don't Knows". 6.26 TABLE E-8 Responses to Question 24/28* "How badly do we need new non-industrial employment opportunities?1I %of %of %of %of Percent Great City Quite City Not City City Total of Total City Deal Totals aSH Totals Huch Totals None Totals Responses Sample = HePpner 15 26.8 27 48.2 9 16.1 5 8.9 56 35.7 lone 20 31.7 29 46.0 10 15.9 4 6.3 63 40.1 Irr; gon 10 43.5 8 34.8 4 17.4 1 4.3 23 14.6 Lex; ngton 2 13.3 5 33.3 8 55.3 0 15 9.6 TOTAL 47 29.9 69 43.9 31 19.7 10 6.4 157 100.0 * Excluding "Don't Knows". "Don't Knows u totaled 12 and 16 responses respectively. Though the response rate was not high in Lexington (about 17 percent). the information seems to indicate that a sign; ficant number of residents do not 1'1; sh to attract industry to the city. If the city were to obtain a sel'ler system, uncertainties about the flood plain and available land are resolved. and city residents decide to encourage economic development. the comprehensive plan should be revised to reflect those circumstances. 6.27 F. City Financial Base Some indication of current area economic conditions is provided by assessed valuations, tax rates and bonded indebtedness figures. Table F-1 shows the assessed valuation of Morrow County and its' five cities for several years after 1971. The table points up the large amount of growth that has occurred in the two North End cities, Irrigon and Boardman. If it is assumed that i nfl ati on and i ncreas i ng property values account for at 1east 1O~; of the annual increase, it becomes even more apparent that southern Morlow County cities have experienced a lesser degree of growth than Irrigon and Boardman. TABLE F-1 VALUATION Year as of Januar 1 -OTAL VALUE 1971 1972 1974 1975 1976 19 orrow County $ 88,583,105 $ 91,970,828 $126,753,380 $193,125,965 $236,334,552 $285,9 eppner 7,274,332 7,470,083 8,398,521 11 ,619,769 13,212,988 14,9 :me 1,430,563 1,511,182 1,749,444 2,151,539 2,286,844 2,9 exington 1,316,040 1,512,097 1,699,326 2,028,183 2,316,529 2,6 ~;-i gon 711 ,814 806,221 1,245,077 1,706,540 2,482,873 3,6 oardman 2,389,086 3,542,298 4,083,452 5,193,512 6,754,540 12, VALUATION sur1~1ARY $ Increase, 1971-77 % Increase, 1971-77 % Increase Po ulation, 19 Jrrow County $197,393,798 222% 24.3% ~ppner 7,696,856 106% 23.0% lne 1,509,079 105% 20.0% !xi ngton 1,358,157 103% 7.0% -rigon 2,986,767 420% 59.0% 'ardman 9,668,300 405% 431.0% SOURCE: Assessment and Tax Roll Summaries, Morrow County, Oregon, January 1, 1971, through 1977. 6.28 It should also be noted that though the southern t40rrOl'1 cities have increased tremendously in total valuation. their share of the total county valuation has decreased since 1971. Heppner's total value was about 8~ of the total county assessment in 1971, and about 5% "in 1977. lone and Lexington's share of total county value has also decreased from 1.6% to 1.0% and from 1.5% to .9% respectively. Irrigon and Boardman have realized an increase in their share of total county value from .8% to 1.3% and from 2.7% to 4.2% respectively. All in all, the five cities combined valuation has decreased as a share of total county value from about 14.8% in 1971 to about 12.7% in 1977. The corresponding increase in the rural share of total county value beginning in 1975 can be attributed primarily to construction of the Carty Electrical Generation Plant. A comparison of city tax rates and the base rate for rural Horro\'1 County (tax district 0-1) is shown in Table F-2. Generally. as assessed valuation has increased, tax rates have declined. This was particularly true during 1975 and 1976, \'/hen the Carty coal-fired electrical generation plant \'Ias under construction and \'faS contributing to total county valuation. In the blO year period betloJeen January 1. 1975 and January 1, 1977, total county valuation rose over $92 million. r·lost of this increase (about 79 million) occurred outside of the five cities. HEPPNER lONE TABLE F-2 TAX RATE BY COOE LEXINGTON IRRIGON t·10RROH COUNTY .l . Tax Avg Annual Tax AV9 Annual Tax AV9 Annual Tax Avg Annua 1 Tax Jwg Annual Rate %ChanQe Rate % Chanoe Rate %Chanoe Rate %Chanoe Rate %Chanoe 27.56 --- 26.80 --- 22.39 --- 25.14 --- 16.57 --- 29.78 + 8 26.91 + 4 22.44 + 2 24.50 - 3 12.66 -24 24.64 - 9 23.26 - 7 19.10 - 8 21. 76 - 6 14.23 + 6 25.90 + 5 18.38 -21 14.55 -24 17 .03 -22 13.66 - 4 23.78 - 8 17.38 - 5 13.62 - 6 18.85 +11 12.74 - 7 IB.82 -21 16.56 - 5 11. 90 -13 15.46 -18 11.13 -13 SOURCE: Assessment and Tax Roll Summaries, 14orrOl'! County, Oregon, January 1, 1971 through 1977. _. 6.29 1A breakdown of the City of Lexington's tax per $1000 is included in Table F-3. The percentage of total city taxes allocated for schools has remained fairly constant in this decade, though the total tax per $1000 has decreased by nearly 50 percent. TABLE F-3 TAX RATE BREAKDOWN CITY OF LEXINGTON 1971 1972 1975 1976 1977 h-ax $ %Total Tax $ %Total Tax $ %Total Tax $ %Total Tax $ %To Rate Tax Rate Rate Tax Rate Rate Tax Rate Rate Tax Rate Rate Tax Morrow County 4.18 19% 4.12 18% 2.39 16% 2.02 15% 1.55 1 County School 14.46 64% 14.73 66% 9.19 63% 8.82 65% 7.58 61 Port of Morrow .33 1% .32 - 1% .17 1% .14 1% .13 1 School R-1 B&I .66 3% .61 3% ---- --- ---- --- --- -- ,:, t~. Ed. District 1.69 8% 1.71 8% 1. 91 13% 1. 76 13% 1. 87 1 City .83 4% .74 3% .67 5% .62 4% .57 ~ Other Spec. Di st. .24 1% .21 1% .22 2% .26 2% .20 1 TOTAL 22.39 100% 22.44 100% 14.55 100% 13.62 100% 11.90 IOC SOURCE: Assessment and Tax Roll Summaries, Morrow County, Oregon, January 1, 1971 through January 1, 1977 . Total bonded indebtedness of the City of Lexington was $141,863 as of December 31, 1977. This deb~ is the result of water system improvements completed in 1974. - The total debt 1S about 5.3% of the assessed value of the city. 6.30 - J. G. Housing A housing condition survey was conducted in Lexington in May of 1977. General condition of typical houses and mobile homes was assessed on the basis of structural condition as viewed from the street. The criteria used for classification in the three categories above average, average, and below average are given below. above average - houses generally in excellent condition and with no apparent structural deficiencies. average - houses generally in good condition with Possible minor work needed, but no major structural defi ci ency. below average - houses generally in deteriorated or dilapidated condition, often with apparent structural deficiency. While the survey criteria are scmewhat sUbjective and the "running board II method of surveying is superficial. at best, the survey gives some indication of the number, type. and condition of housing units in the city. Results of the survey are found in Table 6-1, page 6.33. Questions about housing were also included in the community survey----- conducted in 1976. These surveys indicated that Lexington had about 67 single-family houses and 19 mobile homes for 86 total households in the city. There is an average of 3.3 persons per household in Lexington which is somewhat higher than other cities in the county. All respondents to the community survey indicated they owned their homes and none rented. Most respondents also felt there was little or almost no choice of housing for· new resi- dents. The lack of housing stock in Lexington seems to result from at least two factors. First, Morrow County is experiencing rapid growth pri- marily because of agri-business expansion and energy developments in the northern part of the county. Lexington is receiving a small portion of this growth and consequently is feeling more pressures of growth than in prior years. Second, the initial growth pressure has occurred during a time of tight money and high inflation which has limited the construction of an adequate housing stock. Several types of housing are needed in Lexington according to responses received from the community survey. Most survey participants indicated need of low and moderately priced homes to buy. homes to rent. and mobile homes. Recognized need of apartments, more expensive homes to buy. and duplexes was significantly less than for the other types of housing men- tioned. Lexington1s 1977 population is estimated at 245 by Portland State Univer- sity. The maximum population projections now available for Lexington were prepared by E.C.G.A.C. The projections are in draft form and may be revised as they are reviewed and more information on economic develop- ment in the area is available. These projections allow for considerately 6.31 t iiiiiii.l greater growth in the county than do projections made by Portland State University and Pacific Northwest Bell. These projections are in the process of being updated, however. At any rate, the maximum population forecast for Lexington in the year 2000 is 400 (see Table C-5, page 6.11). This projection is based on the general assumptions that agriculture-,--- food processing and light industry will continue to grow at or near 1970-75 levels; that there is continued construction of all energy facilities now projected in the area; that industrial expansion occurs at the Ports of Morrow and Umatilla, Hinkle, and Pendleton, and that other sectors (including forestry and wood products) continue the eco- nomic trends of 1970-75. See the appendix of this report for a more detailed description of the projections. With a projected population of 400 and a present population 245, it appears that Lexington can reasonably plan for a population growth of about 155 persons by 2000. With an occupancy rate of 2.5 persons per dwelling and a dwelling density of 4 dwellings per acre, Lexington would require 16 acres of land to accomodate forecasted residential needs. The same assumptions indicate that the city will requ.ire 62 additional housing units. If any apartment units or mobile home park area are con- structed, the need for additional single-family housing would be lessened. Other factors affecting growth and therefore housing needs include con- struction (or lack of) a sewage system, extension of city \~ater services to urban growth areas outside of existing city limits and city policies regarding annexations, zoning, etc.· These factors and the general community attitude toward growth have a significant impact on growth in the community and therefore on housing necessary to accomodate increased. population. Responses to the community survey suggest that about 53% of the population view additional growth as not desirable while 47% favor it. Similarly, most respondents (69%) also indicated new industry and the new jobs it brings are needed "not much" or "none" and only 47% feH new non-industrial employment opportunities were needed. Community voltersresoundingly defeated a ballot question that would have directed the city to issue $225,000.in general obligation bonds for the construction of a sewer system and treatment plant in November, 1977. The vote was 112 opposed and 33 in favor with 83% of the registered voters casting ballots. This action and the attitudes expressed indicate the community is di vided in its opi ni on about the des i rabil i ty of growth and generally wants to keep the community as it is. If city policies also enforce this concept then· major growth in the city is unlikely and housing needs and availability are likely to remain minimal. 6.32 r TA BL E G -l H O U S IN G ll. Q . C O N D IT IO N S M O R R O W C O U N T Y C IT IE S - ~- -l '" w w TY PIC AL HO US ES MO BIL E HO ~, ES TO TA L D' .IE lllH GS AB OV E BE LO W TO TA L M OV E BE LO W TO TA L M OV E BE LO w TO Tf ,l AV ER AG E AV ER AG E AV ER AG E HO US ES AV ER AG E AV ER AG E AV ER I\G E M OB IL E AV ER AG E AV EM GE AV ER AG E m "E Ll IIl GS HO t1E S l , l , I , I , I l , l , I , I , I , , I , HE PP NE R 33 7 68 11 7 23 " 9 49 8 10 0 36 86 • 10 2 • 42 10 0 37 3 69 12 1 " 46 9 54 0 10 0 IO IIE 54 54 3. 3' 12 12 10 0 10 0 " , 85 • 15 - 26 10 0 76 60 38 30 12 10 12 6 10 0 IR RI GO N 61 " " 24 10 10 93 10 0 70 " 93 6 7 . 8. 10 0 13 9 10 26 16 10 6 17 7 10 0 l[ XI NG ro ~ 73 " 39 08 5 B 67 10 0 13 60 5 26 1 6 19 10 0 J6 42 .. 51 6 7 eo 10 0 • In cl ud es 7 IO Ob llc ho me s 1n pa rk s. • • In cl ud es 45 n~ bl lc ho me s in pa rk s. fto us in g su rv c ys we rt ~ co n du ct .ed du ri ng t·la y o f 19 77 . Ab o~ c A ve ra ge - \lo us es 9(m Cr oll 1y 1n ex ec 11 c n l co n dt t1 on an d w ith no a rp ar cn t s tr u ct u ra l d~ rj cl cn cy . A ve ra ge - lIo us es ql. !!l cl" i11 1y 1n go od ta nd it Io n w ith po ss 1b 1e n lin or ~I or k n ee de d, bu t no m ajo rs tr u ct u f/l l dd ic ir nc y. Be low A ve ra ge - Ilo us cs qc nc ra ll y In c1 ct cr ;o r< ltc d o r di l" pl d" tc d c o n di tio n. o fl en w ith " IlP dr Cl ll sl ru cl ~I ·" l de fi ci en cy . H. Community Services Schools Lexington is a part of the Morrow County School District with administra- tive offices located at Lexington in what was formerly (before consolida- tion in 1960) the Lexington school building. Lexington students presently have the option of attending school in Heppner or in lone. This system has caused somewhat of an imbalance in utilization of facilities. One example is at Heppner Elementary where students are over capacity enrollment while at lone Elementary enrollment is well below facility capacity. Some sort of assignment policy based on available student space may be implemented to help correct the unbalanced situation. An inventory of facilities and school enrollment is given below. 1978 SCHOOL INVENTORY Current Enrollment - 1647 Total SCHOOL lone Elementary lone High School Heppner Elementary Heppner Jr. High Heppner High School Riverside Jr.-Sr~ High School Irrigon Elementary CURRENT ENROLLMENT 108 100 196 272 216 330 425 CAPACITY 140 130 180 273 280 420 Gathered by E.C.O.A.C. Staff, 1979. Law Enforcement There is no city police department in Lexington. Law enforcement services are presently provided by the Morrow County Sheriff's Department, head- quartered in Heppner. Most respondents to the community attitude survey indicated that law enforcement traffic control services were below average or poor, while 15% indicated the services were average or good. Interest- ingly, 40% of respondents indicated other enforcement activities were good or average while 60% found them below average or poor. Most respondents saw either a "great need" or "some need" for improvement of all services. The Morrow County Sheriff's Department is comprised of a sheriff, three deputies, support staff, and a posse of 25 members, that function pri- marily in search and rescue operations. The department has four patrol cars. 6.34 In July, 1978, Lexington will be served by a 911 emergency central access system. The 911 telephone number will connect the calling party with police, fire, or ambulance service through the HorrO\'1 County Sheriff's office. The 911 number is easily remembered and dialed in emergencies and should be of special value to children and elderly persons. It is estimated that about 70% of emer~ency calls are for police assistance or a combination of police-fire or police-medical assistance. The system is funded in part by the city of Lexington. Fi re Protecti on Fire protection services are provided by the Lexington volunteer fire department to properties within the city limits. Lexington has one fire truck and six volunteers. The city has a protection class rating of 8. This rating indicates the amount of fire risk (and adequacy of community protection services) that insurance premiums are based on. The rating is based on a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being the highest risk category. The class rating of 8 in Lexington appl ies only to properties llwithin 500 feet of a standard public fire hydrant on a four inch water main," according to the "Insurance Services of Oregon Bulletin No. 2-63." The Lexington community survey- indicated that 70% of the respondents felt fire protection was "average" to "good" \'/hile 66% recognized "some" or a "great" need for improvement. Social and Health Services Lexington has a variety of social and health services available either within the city or in nearby cities, State agencies include the Adult and Family Services Division (State Welfare Division) and the Children's Services Division with offices in Heppner. Legal Aid is available to residents of Morrow County through the Umatilla- Morrow County Legal Aid Service. In the past, an attorney was in Heppner one day per month on a regular basis. Because legal services were generally urgently needed on relatively short notice, and because attorneys in Heppner were willing to provide low cost services, the monthly schedule was not very effective. As a result, legal aid attorneys have discontinued the monthly office day in Heppner. An attorney is available twice weekly (Tuesday morning and Wednesday evening) at Hermis- ton. Residents of northern 110rrm'l County do make use of these opportuni- ties for assistance. Legal Aid is also available at the legal aid office in Pendleton at any time. Attorneys there try to conduct as much business over the telephone and through the mail as possible, and do travel to Morrow County for specific appointments. The Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) is very active in ~~rrow County. This program is made up of retired persons over age 60 who want to provide volunteer service to non-profit organizations including service providing agencies. Volunteers assist in setting up and serving w.eals to senior citizens, a~swering information and referal phone calls, and other projects. 6.35 _. ="- A meal site is not provided for senior citizens in Lexington. Homemaker services are provided through the Oregon Project Independence (OPI) program. This program is designed to provide senior citizens with the services necessary to keep them in their homes. Workers will do such things as light housekeeping, bathing, menu planning, and shopping for participants. A limited escort (transportation) program is in effect in Morrow County. Through it, mileage is paid to volunteers who take seniors to doctor appointments, on shopping trips, etc. The Morrow County juvenile Department is headquartered in the Courthouse in Heppner. The Blue Mountain Economic Development Council serves Morrow County.' They have assisted with childrens programs (4 C's) and in the past have helped support the Day Care Center at Heppner. The center is no longer operating. Other programs include winterization, youth food and nutrition projects, a small emergency loan program, head start, foster grandparent program, and support of a grocery store in Pendleton for persons with low incomes to shop at. Council programs are designed to provide assistance to low income groups including the elderly. Health care is provided ,to the Lexington area by four practicing medical doctors and two dentists with offices in Heppner, the Morrow County Health Department, and Pioneer Memorial Hospital located in Heppner. The County Health Department is staffed by a full time Registered Nurse, a part time health officer and a part time clerk-typist. The department maintains an office at Lexington and visits other communities _ and schools periodically. Services most often provided include teaching, surveillance, and follow up care The Home Health Agency, operating under the Tri-County Health Program (Morrow, Wheeler and Gilliam Counties) provides skilled nursing care for home bound patients with supervision of a physician or osteopath. The program serves primarily senior citizens who receive Medicare and it enables patients to obtain health care without being admitted to a nursing home or hospital. In Morrow County, staff nurses are located at Boardman and Heppner who provide services in 20 mile radius. Pioneer Memorial Hospital has 20 beds available for acute care and has experienced an occupancy rate of about 37% in 1977. Twenty-four beds are also available for long-term nursing care. These facilities had an occupancy rate of about 94% in 1977. Four medical doctors and two dentists are on the staff of the hospital with a radiologist, pathologist, and cardiologist available on a consultant basis. Eight Registered Nurses are employed full time in addition to five full time Licensed Practical Nurses. Other medical facilities (including ambulance services) are available at Hermiston, Umatilla, and Pendleton. A new clinic is also being built in Boardman. 6.36 --- Most Lexington residents who responded to the community survey indicated present medical and health facilities are average to excellent while about half indicated a need for improvement. Parks and Recreation lexington has a park located across Highway 74 from the old school building. It is developed as an athletic field. About half of the respondents to the community survey indicated Lexington park and picnic areas were average to good and slightly more than half saw no need of improvement. Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated public meeting places and recreation facilities were below average or poor and most (66%) recognized some need for improvement. About 88% of the respondents recognized a need for improvement of meeting places and recreation facilities for teen- agers. Some improvement of recreation facilities and meeting places for adults and senior citizens was indicated by about half of the survey participants. Nearby mountains and forest land provide lexington residents with opportunities for hunting. fishing, camping, hiking, cross-county skiing, and snow mobiling. Golf courses are located at Heppner and Boardman. Theaters are found at Hermiston and Pendleton. Morrow County Airport is located just north of Lexington and provides a paved runway and plane servicing facilities for persons wishing to fly for pleasure or business. There are several parks located in Morrow County. Anson Uright Park and Cutsforth Park are south of Heppner. Cutsfurth Park and Chapin Creek Park are maintained by the county. Penland Lake, located above Heppner on the Willow Creek Drainage. has a Forest Service recreation site as well as privately owned cabins and camp a~eas. Some boatin~ is allowed on the lake. ·Winter sports, including cross country skiino and snowmobiling are also popular in the forests South of Heppner. In northern Morrow County, the Columbia River provides opportunities for motor-boating, water skiing, and fishing. A boat launch is located at Irrigon. A riverside park with picnic facilities is also maintained there .. No specific goals or projects have been planned by the Department of Transportation, Parks and Recreation Branch for f1orrow County in the period form 1979 to 1985. Historic Preservation Historic sites and buildings of Lexington that are included in the Oregon inventory are discussed in Chapter V(H). Another building that Lexington residents who responded to the community survey recognized as of histori- cal importance was the old school house. The Morrow County Historical Society works with the museum at Heppner and is involved in other related acitivities in the area. 6.37 - Communications Morrow County has one weekly newspaper, The Heppner Gazette Times, pub- lished in Heppner. It has a circulation of about 2500. The Lexin~ton area is served daily by the East Ore~onia~, published in Pendleton, the Tri-City Herald, Tri-Cities, and The Ore~onian and The Oregon Journal from Portland. Lexington is served by Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company. Tele- graph service is provided by Western Union. There are no locally owned television stations in Morrow or Umatilla Counties; however, there are three in the Tri-Cities area. Networks ABC, CBS, and NBC are received in Lexington by cable and antennae. Portland, Eugene, and Salem, Oregon stations serve the area also. Four radio stations located in Hermiston and Pendleton serve the area. They are KTIX, KUMA, and KRBM-FM in Pendlton and KOHU in Hermiston. Stations in the Tri-Cities, The Dalles, and at times Spokane can also be received. 6.38 I. Community Facilities Sewage Facilities The sewage disposal system is an integral part of lexington's infra- structure because of its essential role in public health and welfare. An adequate sewage collection and disposal system is necessary to allow future economic and housing development. A definate plan for sewage collection and treatment should insure the fulfillment of the following objecti ves: a. To create a sewage system which is current, flexible, and coordinated with the comprehensive plan of the community. b. Permit orderly and tiley expansion of the sewage system on a sound fi nancia1 basi s, without costly "crash" programs. c. To insure a safe, efficient means for the transport of sewage from source to treatment. d. To provide adequate and complete treatment of sewage in order to preserve and protect environmental quality. e. To continually improve and maintain the sewage system in a manner tha t wi 11 all 0\" it to ca rry out its intended functi ons. Present Conditions The City of Lexington's present sewage facilities consist of individual septic tanks and drainfields, and in some instances, cess pools. There are a few areas within Lexington where the addition of new septic tank systems will be restricted by the DEQ, due to poor soil conditions and small lot sizes, but on the whole most of the area within the City is acceptable for septic tanks. There is currently no present danger of harmful effects caused by the effluent from the septic tank systems in Lexington, although some minor groundwater and surface water contamination has been documented in areas which may have been caused by subsurface sewage disposal. In 1977, a wastewater facilities plan was completed and submitted to the City by a consulting engineer representing Lexington. This facility plan investigated present and future sewage needs for the area and compared various alternatives for handling those needs. The most environmentally sound and economically feasible method of handling Lexington1s wastewater flows was determined to consist of the construction of a centrally located municipal sewage treatment plant, in the form of a stabilization lagoon facility, and a sewerage system for the area. On November 29, 1977, a ballot question that would allow the City of Lexington to issue $125,000 in general obligation bonds for the construction of the sewage facility was defeated. Therefore, the plan for insta11inq a new sewage facility has been rejected and the city does not expect to' persue any future development in that area. 6.39 Future Needs With the adoption of the "State-~Iide ~Jatei" Quality Mana'lement Plan" in 1977, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has defined water quality standards not to be exceeded and minimum design criteria for treatment and control of wastes pertaining to separate Oregon drainage basins. Lexington is situated inthe Umatilla Drainage basin and all future waste treatment and controls must meet requirements set by DEQ, and must also meet or exceed any more stringent standards required by any other state or federal agency. Current population projections for the City of Lexington estimate future populations for the year 2,000 to range between 360 and 400 people. To accommodate this growth and insure future environmental and health pro- tection, the addition of a public sewage facility could be advantageous and may, at some point, be required. Water System The water system in a community plays an essential role in economic and population growth. A definite plan for provision of water should insure the fulfillment of the following objectives: a. To create a water system which is current, flexible and coordinated with the comprehensive plan of the community. b. Permit orderly and timely expansion of the water system on a sound financial basis to accommodate growth. c. To provide potable water of sufficient quality and quantity for domestic, industrial, commercial, and institutional use which con- forms to the Federal Safety of Public Water Systems Act of 1974. d. To insure adequate quantities of water at sufficient pressures to accommodate required fire protection. e. To continually improve and maintain the water system in a manner that will allow it to carry out its intended functions. Present System 1. Source The City of Lexington presently owns three wells, one of which currently produces all the water used by the area. City Well Number One was con- demned and City Well Number Two has a high level of contaminants in the water and requires treatment; therefore, neither of these wells are used for water supply purposes. Well Number Three was installed in 1974 and has pumping equipment which is capable of producing 300 'lallons per minute. The pump and apurtenances at Well Number Three are relatively new and in 'load con- dition. The water table located at well site #3 has been observed to be stable for as long as it has been in use. 6.40 2. Storage Currently, the City of Lexington has two existing elevated reservoirs. Only one of these reservoirs is presently being used. This reservoir consists of a 300,000 gallon capacity above ground, steel tank, which was constructed in 1971. This reservoir is relatively new and in good condition. 3. Distribution The water distribution system contained within Lexington was originally installed in 1939. Since then. two major renovations have taken place to update and expand that original systeM. The first improvements were accomplished in 1964, and the second most recent improvements were completed in 1974. The existing piping in the distribution system consists mainly of six and four inch diameter main and distribution lines. These are made up of Asbestos Cement (AC), Cast Iron and Polyvinylchloride (PVC) materials. Three short sections of two inch diameter galvanized iron, and PVC minor distribution lines are contained within this system. An eight inch diameter Asbestos Cement pipe serves as a water transmission and supply main for the Lexington distribution facilities. The fire protection capacity of Lexington's water system is adequate, although some fire hydrants are located on raUl' inch rliameter pipino and the Oregon Health Division and Insurance Services Office recommend them to be hooked into a minimum of six inch lines. Hydrant placement blankets the existing areas very well. water flows and pressures are adequate to insure sufficient firefighting capabilities. Future Needs 1. Hater Source The ex;'sting well \'Iith its present pumping capacity (300 gpm), ",muld be capable of supplying an adequate amount of water to serve an approximate population of 1,300 people. assuming an average daily \'Iater consumption of 200 gallons per capita and that the pumping equipment at the well would not be used more than 60% of the time. Current population projections for the area within the existinq city limits of lexington estimate future populations to range fran 360 to 400 people for the year 2,000. Therefore. all future residential and commercial water requirements should be satisfied by the pl'esent water source and pumping capabilities if existing water production conditions are maintained at the well. 2. Storage The Oregon State Health Division requires that storage facilities. along with Source of supoly, shall be sufficient to adequately serve all intend~d users through peak de~and periods. Lexington's storage tank is capable of meetin9 these requirements for all oresent and projected future demands. Therefore, the addition of new storage facilities for 6.41 ... / .''o' .t., <" ".~.....,..,.'.",_. ./ H.i ':.:'ri'~""""~"... 'lOA_elileliSlIeM(:ii) lue'p.(HIIUlllfXlII "'11.eleM.l':IIUIlIfX)---'- "'11.eleM.tIIUIl"IX)--_. "'11'eleM.9IIUIlIIXlI- ....,,eleM.8IIUllI,X)__ aN1I!)1I1 , ·8L.~A,en,qe,:j lelluno::>10uOlle,oollY uo4Ie'O.e'lue::>I") )::>lInos Lexington cannot be foreseen at this time. 3. Distribution The existing distribution system is adequate for the present service area. Future growth will have to be supplied through the extension of mein lines in the direction of development. Storm Drainage The development of sewage and water serivce has taken precedence in small cOl11T1uni ti es whi 1e storm dra i nage has often been neg1ected. At present. Lexington has no storm drainage system. This situation does not alleviate the problems associated with flooding and excessive storm runnoff. The benefits of a storm drainag~ system are: a. reduction of street maintenance b. aesthetics improvement c. reduction of health hazards d. improvement of land value e. rate reduction or elimination of flood insurance f. reduced soil erosion and non-point source pollution Future Needs A storm drainage system would be advantageous in the Lexington area. All new subdivisions should be required to incorporate a storm sewer system into their infrastructure improvements. A storm drainage system should be implemented in the presently populated areas and design consideration given to future expansion to accomnodate growth. Transportation A well planned transportation system is essential to serve people and COITlllerCe of a corrrnunity. A transportation system should be planned around the fulfillment of the following objectives: a. To provide an integrated transportation system that will link the city with regional prOduction, distribution and marketing centers. b. To incorporate safety and efficiency factors in transportation system design. to a11O\'1 people and goods to travel conveniently. ~. To create a transportation system which is current, flexible, and coordinated with the comprehensive plan. 6.43 /: : . - ,. ,, ",, ,. ".. .. " • • - I- - . - r: -- -- -- -- ~I '::: S t, ta H ig hw ay M ap a. Su pp le m an ta l St r• • t Su rv ey . E. C. O .A .c. 19 77 . L E G E N D (3) 1 ST AT E H IG H W A Y _ PA VE D C IT Y ST R EE TS & CO UN TY RO AD S • • _ , U N PA VE D C IT Y S TR E E TS & C O U N TY R O AD S PL A TT ED ST R EE TS SO UR CE Ii ;: 0 • • n 0 • c - , z • < • "• 0 "• I. '1 1' >0 0 _ 0 d. Permit orderly and timely expansion of the transportation system in an economically feasible manner. e. To maintain and improve the transportation system to allow it to carry out its intended function. Present Conditions 1. Highways and Streets The major road access provided to Lexington is through two state highways and various county roads which link the area to regional production dis- tribution and marketing centers. The highways serving the city are Oregon State Highway Numbers 207 and 74. Approximately 60% of Lexington's platted streets are open to traffic and about 85-90% of these streets have been paved. There are virtually no curbs or sidewalks on any of the improved streets within the city. 2. Rail, Air and Bus The Union Pacific Railroad owns a ·rail line which passes through Lexington. This rail line provides fY\eight transport for the city. Passenger rail service is provided through Amtrak at the Hinkle rail station located approximately 40 miles to the ·north of Lexington. There is no bus service in the Lexington area, but a Greyhound bus stop is provided in Hermiston, 40 miles north of Lexington. . The Morrow County airport is located just outside the present city limits of Lexington and serves the area with private and minor commercial air facilties. Major air services are available at the Pendleton Airport 50 miles northeast of Lexington. . During the~revision of Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, it was verbally suggested to the City Planner by the Oregon Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division personnel that the City shouJd consider measures to preclude development between the Lexington City. limits and Morrow County airport's cross wind runway. Notice was mailed to the two affected pro- perty owners and the City Council held a public hearing on June 5, 1979 to consider policy~and plan map revisions. The matter was tabled after considerable discussion. The major points of disucssion are summarized here. 1. The cross wind runway is seldom used as prevailing winds are from the wes t. 2. When improvements to the primary runway are completed, there will be a difference in grade between the primary and cross wind runways rendering the cross wind runway esentially useless. 3. The land breaks off sharply at the airport's southern property line providing a natural vertical clearance zone between the airport and 'land along its southern coundary. 6.45 4. The slope of land would preclude development on most of the property irregardless of comp plan designation. 5. Land located north of the airport could be utilized for future expansion or improvement of the cross wind runway and clear zones. 6. Neither property owner expected to develop his property in the near future though neither wished to forego that option for the entire parcel. They felt that at least portions of the property could be utilized without interfering with airport operations. 7. Insufficient information had been given to the City to justify comprehensive plan changes. 8. Upon calculation, mapping and on site determination of necessary clear zones by the Aeronautics Division, Lexington and Morrow County may reconsider comprehensive plan designation for affected property. Future Needs 1. Streets The City of Lexington should accumulate funds and provide for continued maintenance and expansion of their public streets. 2. Bus Lexington might benefit from an intra-city bus service especially to serve senior citizens, though most respondents to the community survey indicated they would not support bus service if it was provided. 6.46 Utilities Columbia Basin Electric Cooperative provides electrical service to Heppner, lone, Lexington, and the surrounding rural area. The cooperative is a Bonneville Power Administration preference customer and currently serves the area with six electrical schedules. Rates vary according to usage and minimum charges are in effect for most schedules. Schedule I - Residential Town and Farm Service. Available for single phase use to all residential rural consumers and available to all resl~denUal town consumers, and for farm building and equipment seasonal service. Monthly rate I.O¢ to 1.25¢ per KWH. Schedule 2 - General Servlce. Available and applicable to non-residential customers whose entire reqU1~rements are supplied hereunder . . Single phase or three phase service is to be supplied at one point of delivery to any municipality, business, or commercial enterprise, institution, or organization . to be used for all purposes. Monthly Rate, Energy Charge: 0.7t to 3.0¢ per KWH. Schedule 3 - Large General Service. Available to all consumers for service to loads of lOOkw or over, for lighting, heating, and power requirements. Monthly Rate, Energy Charge: .0036¢ to .0125¢ per KHH· Schedule 4 - frrigation Pumping. Available for power for agriculture irrigation pumping from April to September, inclusive. Pumping service shall be available during the balance of the year but may be interrupted at the discretion of the cooperative. Rate, Energy Charge: .5¢ to I. 75¢ per KWH per HP per season. Schedule 5 - Recreational Field Lighting-Restricted. Available to schools, governmental agencies and non- profit organizations. Net Monthly Rate: 2.5¢ per KWH for all KWH. Schedule 6 - General Service Water Heating. Available to present non-residential consumers. Next Monthly Rate, Energy Charge: 1.2¢ per ~~H. Morrow County is not served with natural gas. Propane is available in Heppner from Heppner Nor-Gas. Rates are controlled by FEA regulations and average $.50 per gallon for most orders. 6.47 Several oil companys supply Morrow County residents with fuel oil. Included are Chevron-Standard Oil of California, Mobile Oil, Shell Oil, and Morrow Grain Growers. Portland General Electric has several projects planned in Morrow County that will add to the energy pool upon completion. Carty, a coal fired power generation facility, is scheduled for operation to begin in 1980. At least two nuclear power plants are also in the planning stages. Construction is not expected to begin until after 1980. Solar and wind resources in the county may also provide the means for energy production in the future. 6.48 J. EXISTING LAND USE. ZONING. AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT Existing Land Use Most of the land within the Lexington City limits is used for agricul- tural purposes (58 percent or 99 acres) according to 1976 tax records. All of this land is classified as rural tracts and is held in eleven ownerships. About 50 acres are platted for residential use. though about twelve acres are unimproved. About 27 acres are designated commercial property (14 percent of total land) with nine acres unimproved. Three acres are used industrially along the railroad tracks. Acreage estimates are given in Table J-l. The existing land use pattern provides a basis for determining the location and extent of future land use and zoning designations. A survey of existing land uses was made by the East Central Oregon As- sociation of Counties in the Fall, 1976, and the resulting map is included on page 6.51. Existing Zoning and Growth Management Existing zoning designations were also mapped (see map. page 6.53). Most of the land in lexington is zoned farm residential (74 percent). About eighteen acres are zoned residential or 9 percent of the land 1n the city. Twenty-five acres are zoned commercial. Table J-2 shows acreage calculation of zoning classifications. Zoning is the primary means of implementing a comprehensive plan and future zone changes must be in agreement with the plan. Zoning should also be used to further break down general plan designations, such as "residential" where there is a need to do so. It is apparent that most of the land within the city is unplatted-and several of the rural tracts are unimproved. Though this land may be- come available for urban uses at some time in the future, most owners do not foresee development at this time. By nature, lexington is a very small rural town where many residents own tracts allowing them to raise some livestock, horses, or practice more intensive agricultural enterprises such as worm farming and gardening. The city is not undergoing great development pressures and most resi- dents do not wish to change the nature of the town. In November, 1977, community voters resoundingly defeated a ballot question that would have directed the city to issue $225,000 in general obligation bonds for construction of a sewer system and treatment plant. The vote was 112 opposed and 33 in favor with 83 percent of the registered voters casting ballots. This action, responses to the community survey, and residents' views expressed at recent public hearings, indicate the community generally wants to keep the city as it is. 6.49 The city council adopted subdivision, zoning, and mobile home park ordinances on June 5, 1979. These ordinances included recent changes in legal requirements and established criteria for issuing discretionary permits. The procedure for revising the urban growth boundary and for making other changes is described in Appendix E, the Plan Ordinance and the:. Growth Mangement Agreement, Appendix F. . 6.50 Table J-l CITY OF LEXINGTON Existing Land Use Pa ree15 with Parcel s without Improvements Improvements %of Total %of Land %of Land land Use atal Acres Land Acres Use Designation Acres Use Designation Residential 50 2 38 76 12 24 COl11i1erc i a1 27 14 18 67 9 33 Industrial 3 2 ~ 100 0 0 Agricultural. 105 54(12)' 51(4)' 52 54(J0) 48Rura1 Tracts Pub1 ic Property 10 '5 -- -- -- -- TOTAL 1~5 *l )Number of ownerships land is held in according to tax records. NOTE: All acreages are rounded and do not include street areas. SOURCE: Land Use Site Survey, ECOAC, Fall, 1976. 6.51 , : " , : : : : ' [ 1 AG RI CU LT UR E SO UR CE La nd Us e Si te Su rv ey , E, C. o.A .G ., Fa ll 19 76 PR ES EN T LA ND US E ©~ uw @ [F [b~ lA~ [r! ]@u @[r !]~ @[ ff i~ @@ [r !] " ff o zo o 40 0 _ 1 0 0 0 - - - - - . o . . . . I..... . " . . . TO ". .. Table J-2 CITY OF LEXINGTON Existing Zoning Classifications Zoning Classification Acres Percent of Land Residential 18 9 Corrme rc i a1 25 13 Industrial 7 4 Farm Resident~al 145 74 TOTAL ACRES 195 100 NOTE: All acreages are rounded and do not include street areas. SOURCE: Calculations by East Central Oregon Association of Counties from "Lexington Current Zoning Hap". November. 1977. 6.53 un IIII ·SL6a.'uAlnrjOIUeW88J6\f luewe6euewlU!OreaJ\f4lMOJbueqJn....unoOMOJJOW !UOI6u!x•.,841U!pe!Jl:>adsS8puel6UIU02ulaso-Jo, AlunoOMOJJOn01UOnepu8WW0008J8588AJ8S•E: :UOneX8uueuodn .(Jepunog'HMOJ9ueqJO.unUllUIMpuel0tAldde'l: :AII:>8q,Aq uondopeuodnSI'W!1AI!::::>8tHUlltliMpuel01Aldde... :1I8l1S'80U8J8,8J Aq8:lueUIPJO6U!UOZ,(luno:')MOJJOWe"..0lulpeleJodJoou!pue UOI6U!X81,0ABOaLn.(qpelaOpeU84M'dew6u!uozS!lI.!:3.LON ~ HIOd~I't'J..!Nno:)MOI:HlOW o "".~"."~~---, ~.." ~NINOZW~V~A.LNnO:> " 0, .. •0 • •0 •• < I,.'of,~.,f'4 I,~..,f",i'.J,' ".,,'"'J.). ".",~,,'" I8II ~.0' m "• .. C')r.""'0C')G> ;:;: G> :I>c:0m '<:D '" ~z " :z:~r~m " .... 1'i:D c.m C')C1I:D:D:I>r ggZmc:C')rm 0C1IC1IG> ":Dc:m,. :Dm -C')0rmz ':I>m .ll rrz .... ~:I> " r "'0.. ..u / "n 00 •I • ~f§~ 'J I iI ©N=0 =:JZ ~- ©Z "iJi]G> u= [M] ~= ~ @) =:J ,© ~ ©2§J [M] @) © ~ GJJIBLIOGI{APHY ~~rrow County Chamber of Com- Extension Agent Harold Kerr, CONTRIBUTORS Don Burns, Comprehensive Planner, completed the inventory of resources and initial coordination that provided the basis for Lexington's Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report. Steve Gardels, Department of Environmental Quality. Pendleton. Oregon, con- tributed information on air, water, and land quality in Lexington. Bob Krein, Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Heppner. con- tributed inventory and economic data for Morrow County's Wildlife Resources. Ron Stillmaker. Civil Engineer. East Central Oregon Association of Counties. Pendleton, Oregon, prepared an evaluation of sewer, water, and transportation facilities in Lexington. John Tillman, Economist, East Central Oregon Association of Counties, Pendleton, Oregon, prepared resource base, population, income, and employment sections of Chapter VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY "Corrmmity Survey for South Morrow County, II erce, Extension Economist, Stanley Miles and Oregon State University, Approximately 1972. "Ora ft Pre1imi na ry Popu1at ion and Labor Force Project ions, Morrow and Umatilla Counties". Prepared by John Tillman, East Central Oregon Associ- ation of Counties, Pendleton, Oregon. October 1977. "Electric Rate Schedule", in effect on March 1, 1978. Columbia Basin Elec- tric Cooperative, Heppner, Oregon. Environmental Analysis Proposed Participation 1Q Portland General Electric Company's Boardman Coal Plant, October 1976. Prepared by USOA Rural Electri- fication Administration, Washington, D. C. 20250. Oregon State Game Commission, Environmental Assessment Report, Alumax Pacific Corporation. Oregon, May 1976. Prepared by Alumax Pacific Corporation for Power Administration, by CH2MHill. Environmental Investigations, Umatilla Basin. Portland, Ore90n, February 1973. Umati 11 a, the Bonneville "Flood Plain Information", Hinton, Shobe, and Willow Creeks, Heppner, Oregon. Department of the Army, Walla Walla District, Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington, June 1974. uHealth Systems Data Profile", Eastern Oregon Health Systems Agency. Sep:em- ber, 1977. Redmond, Ore90n. 7.1 Homesteads and Heritages, ~ History of Morrow County, Oregon. Giles, French, Binfords,and Mort, Portland, Oregon, 1971. Mineral and \~ater Resources of Oregon. Prepared by the U.S. Geological Sur- vey, Bulletin 64, 1969. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. "Morrow County, Oregon", informational pamphlet distributed by the Morrow County Extension Office, Heppner, Oregon. "Morrow County - Overall Economi c Development Program", November 1971. "Oregon Climates", condensed from U.S. Weather Bureau records and reports. Published by the Travel Information Section, Oregon State Highway Division, Salem, Oregon. "Population Estimates; Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities", July 1, 1977. Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. "Program Regulations", Department of Housing and Urban Development, Chapter X - Federal Insurance Administration, Subchapter B - National Flood Insurance Program. October 26, 1976. "Reconnaissance Geological Map of the Pendleton Quadrangle, Oregon and Wash- ington", by George W. Walker, 1973. Published by the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. Map I-727~ "Resource Atlas, Morrow County, Oregon", O.S.U. Extension Service, April 1973. Corvallis, Oregon. Social Accounting for Oregon 1977, Socio-Economic Indicators. State Community Services Program, Department of Human Resources, Salem, Oregon 97310. Soil Survey Interpretations for Land Use Planning and Community Development for Lexington Area, Oregon. By USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Morrow County Soil and Water Conservation District. March 1976. Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings, Morrow County. By the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Parks and Recreation Branch, Depart- ment of Transportation, 1976. Salem, Oregon 97310. "State Parks System Plan, Citizen Participation Report", 1977. Parks and Recreation Branch, Department of Transportation. Umatilla National Forest Map - Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pendleton, Oregon USDA Report on Water and Related Land Resources, Umatilla Drainage Basin, Oregon. Economic Research Service, Forest Service, Soil Conservatlon Service. December 1963. "U.S. Geological Survey MilP, Lexington, Oregon". Denver, Colorado, 1968. 7.2 e-APPENDICES ,.. I flease l.-ni:c r.s~ll t C:". tyI . ~r other Local ,ol'e rr:J:lcn tal !ttvLccs -~ .. " " " 0 ", ~ _.• 0 "~ '" _. ~ .. , "• '0 '" 0 " c, o 0 . ~ 0 , 0 '>1 0 0 !'~;:.l'-' i «( Q ,. •. 6 10 3 1 1 7 5 4 2 4 9 4 5 4, 6 8 2 51 4 8 1 1 5 111 1 I 5 7 1 2 6 2' 1 6 3" 7 4 , 1 7 6 I,l~ ...l. 1 1 2 _4 f..-t, .2Jl 4, 1 1 5 4 t. 2 2 8 5 2 1 8 5 1 2 51 4 2 ,. ,,1...1. 1 21 7 1 -- 1 5 3 6 1 4 1 14 _1 21 41 1 9 3 - l' 21 21$ --!...1L!. _" 4I ' I~i 3, 1 3,31 i I .i 1 4! 8!.2..U.L2 ""---- lexington Community Survey Thi:; 5Ul....(,)' :.ill ta:,e h.lt ~_ fa,,-' mi lU::~:'S of :;~ur til,e; y~., if ar!~il<'l"cd '.Ji~.: :t little tl-o'':C::t) it car, i.'l! ... C;:'~G AVA.tLADILI'?Y \,'ATER $UPFL '( )0 you h.:lVe~ city \later, 2 a 'le111 SEl-!/~,:;r: DIS?CSAL :>0 you tave cit)' .:c..1l'::r; 14 ~ep':ic tsnk? STOllll {.lATER DRAINAGE (S'.:'C F.' ! SE\li::-';!;' ( CULVERT~) GARJAG3 CCi~ECrrO~ GPEf:..'l.Tlu!\ CF CITY COV3R~\1:Etll' LIB ft~.R·{ FAe:. LITIE.~ CITt' PA!({S AND ~'lC(~IC AilE/-';; FUO LIC HEI:.~r:.:t.;G P!.i\CES &. Rf ~~rEATION rA::::I L::TIES r,\)R ':;111 tDREN PUBLIC HEET:NG PLACZS & P.E~.;r.r:ATI(ltl f'A:::::;:UTIES feR TEF.~I\GERS PLiB LlC HZl::r:al; P)'.i\\.:ES & RE:::r·.EATI0N !"A:I LIT IES roCR ADUr..fS pun LIe 1I3ET:'.h'G PI.ACES &. I{r.:REATIOIi rA::LITtE~ ?OR S:ChL eR Cl1'!ZE~S FIR.::: PiWrECrION (F::'~'.E ngpM:r:·IEm) LAI.J SI,iOi\CHENr (POi-ICE DEP:U.I'''IEIii) t S PLED <5. 7~\:7IC COl-lTROL U.W E!J?ORClEN! (POLlCE DEP"'.Y.i"~lENr)t ALL ar::!EF.. .\CI'l'/ITIES C:IG CO~CROL ur':ER cor;TkOL JCNKf,D CAR !{EtfOVAL ~;UISAI1CE CRnINAUCE EI:FORC~f.:rrr ".,\.::"( '11" l-')~:(:,~'J' :'::':r / .. ~CiX: 5, Ill: ~"·c '.dlo01 d:!:l:'::ct {:lC:::':":!', ~I~":.-·::·::'c.: :(;0;> ·.s)? 9 I~;}ld p··:ct.. II;' It:V':!lr? 4 cit;- cr'~.3se 'services (CO;:ltS)? HED1CAf.. MID llEALTU ?ACIJ.:i:!O:E'i A-I See attached sheet on back for more specific responses to questions. F1~nse rate t.c e Need to ll:'pl:ove City 01 Other Local Gevernmental $( rvices -- r-~~-c 1;<. ..,<, • 1: :5:c: (J '"• c w({ () z _ , 8 "I, o 0 <;'" Z C> - 2 13 2 1 7 6, 2 _3_ ~ 5 1 5 2 -. - 1) 1 1 - I I-- I 7 2 2 {- 1 .2_ f-'F9 .2_ 1- -t-~ _L i [ -tIl7 9 1 - 1-- 6 3 - 4 6 31 - ..2- ~- " 1 4 8 2;r;- 2 8_).;; 3 I 4 I 7 3 1 . 4- 6- 3 dTT~- --"3 I 4-------_. other YC U 1;:::-',] lli,S::DE? 4 lJ.-20 ye"i:S a7mC5~ no choice • i .-:~ O??O~TUNI~IE3 (SERVICES~ 6 HHERE yc~.rs 3 nor.e none! mobi l,~ hO~H~ 7 7 . HI';pf'i!.er H:3r::r;i,s!:.on Pendlet.on Other. 3 2 7 6 -T -'O·l.- -n° '-4~- -,,- __.3._ 8 1 -3- 6 ~2~ '-1- 5 -~-j~' -'y- -5- - ~ duplex 8 not iIEtCn -_.~_._.._---_._"- ------------ ...JL 1 15 12 PIJ.\.N TO Itf.i-iAIN I~ Tlrs ]}~l-;EDINt';~ AR.Fj..? __1 ].·~2 Y'~[~TS 3~5 ye~n:-s __._ 6 ... 10 Y2azs BCUSlE':; IS THERE FOR irEii n.ESID":~ITS? mc·dcrntc 4 15.-;':;:1c. 15 3 quite B bit 8 not O'cJ. -----._---_._------.. _.---_.__.,--._-,..--. -.~'" .~. . ~;j.-G':;' 4 NM'Y Y;:i\.:tS HidE YOU LIVED :':n OR ;;jO:ii.R THE CrTY J.(~SS than Z yeG:::-s 5 2- 5 ye.nrti 3 6-10 over 20 ye{:i:'s iype _l _~ large pnTl~:3 _2 neighbor~10cd pr:.r.ks Qth~ctJ.c fields tol 10'=.3 senior citizen canters 3-' :recr€ut1.OIi cente::s -1~ oth~r (specify) 20 (j";·Tle:- ::en'~er clotnes g~~soline gl'occj:i~s iu ~t!~_ i:urc hardwnre & building suppliES ~utc-:":",obiles HOI·; 2 8 HOt·! E~':J)LY DO LTE :lliED r~TAI:~T&\DE, ETC .. )? _! a G~e~t deal 5 nOH BADLY DO HE ....£ a :!,1':~~a t deal )_~~c UL''':' t.-:~ 1.\.1 ::£,-50 15 y' 28. 27. I. 32. Sn,liLI: THE CITY .\CQUlRE t·WRE LA'im FOR i?'LKS Ai·jD I;ECRr~ATIm; FA.CILITIES? no yoc -~ If ye3, HHAT KIEl) OF PAF1Z-S OR FACJ:LITIZS, ittID \~HEn£ SriOUIL 'I HEY BJ.;? 30. ';3. III \oiIU.r CITY DO 'nU BUY NOST OF THE FJLLO!·JI~";: L/2,::-:iugton HOt-: t·tt"i-N YEARS DO YOU le~s thsn 1 yecT:19 1.nderlnitel.y 36. If YOU ~·lOV;;:D TO '..":lUR PRESE;,f AI:f:A 0:.:' ~<"'SIDEt·;:::E :L:~ Tn" IK'i. 5 YEARS, lillY DID YOU CQ·~? De~c~ibe: 35. HOi·! t-H..'C!! CE')ICE qn7.te u let:. don1 t l.;nc1-.T I 31, \mAT !~ID OF IiOUSING IS HOST m:EDED IN TOI-lN? (CHECK ALL 'mAT APClI.Y) 14 hC::fl~S to buy undc:-:- $20~OOO 4 r.H.~:i!8S to buy fi.."cn $20,,000 to $~O~COO -1 11>1.,1es to buy ever $30,000 'J.Z- lW'll'C5 \:0 i'ent 2 duplexes -~ :Jl-'t~:ct;:i1e'i1ts -17·... me-01.loB hc~nes -~r-' <':on't know A-2 ,:;:. ~: i .....d\.\st·.;: ,_f,j::.,~IJ ltur.e .>( m:J,tion ..'( t:.:. :red I:AGE-EA:\I;m IN '!.'II~ HCU,;,EiiGW, l!i-tAT ::~; HISi lJ~R :')~.ESENi' -:;(.~!~,: ~" l,~ ~0: tH' 11·0r. (.;::- :. ':" :.l/~:: 1(\:, : l'i to. J. ,J~lj:;~ \,ll;.~r. ,.ol:!.a:c 1 ':)~.hel." b ltl~ ulL.~r --2" )l:of€~$:.ol1al!;:';'l'l.ag-!ri.e1 t~t.·ic.· oth~l ...hit,? ccl1.:lr i!ll.r.':,"ll<-:fc,j :::. :..::i Ci\ 1/ I.~ tai 1 J1Ql..!s2",'if~ C01.3truct:'.o:--. -1- t:r. =:r!~ !0j":d c~ ,,=i.:~.l;::~ ,;.ai i -" h'usew,f, .. JC.lL\!~f 'X;'~l.'?itTIC;l c: fl'E IIU.J O~ '..:Ll; UO]3r:. ;,,:~t·:~'i' ...•<, 't;!E Pi:.l:~~;r.:;::J)- ..L -4 ...,.-1 -,- ~ .. Ii' 'filE!'=: IS A SECO;-;n paI:1A.1 OCCU?ATIOi'l? 3 lUi1.ber i.neusc:!}'- -1 :::p:i..::t:ltu:rc ~ ~e:.:c.:::.;::'.on 1- rc.ti.rcd_... I~ ~;!J1CH AIU::,A D03S T!lE lIEA~ OF THE HCU5Ei-lGLD \J{RK? J L,~:;.:ington ...1- :~Lppr_e:- .__z. !:)I"~ __ r·o.:.rcnz.r:MX.::r:.t;on G:c~tl O::dnB.nc~ li.;Haistc..n-Ul:I'!tilla (Ith~J: (:"I'~cHy) _._~ ~_. -!y '~'JlEP'=: IS A SECQ?;}) \.AGE-EARt~~R IN TtlS HCUSEH(lIJ), llilEI:!: !lOES 1!.~/SLJ:: I1C!L~1 J L.~>::f.!lgtO!l _1_ l:cppr:.er .._._ Ior.,~ .~ __ f)oci;d:n~;I"l~::·i.gon a"!"~3 Ordnance 1i.:u:I:!..ston-li:r!;:l.tille __ O~h2r (~;pxify} _ -~;tA? \lAS YOUR 'l'CTAL Af~ijTJhL 1!(,i.LiE!IOID r:;CCY.-1E U15T "(EAR?(r.I~1: i.1CC:U,I!) 1. lq~s than $ll,OOO :l ~lO,OOO - $lJ.,9O;Q ..1_ :;4,000 .. $5~999~_ .::15~OQO··$i9J999 ~ 6,OOC - $9,999-.1-. ~:W.CG~ &"ln~r . IS ,tDDl':'Iot~4.L CRmrl'l! CF TII'Z eLY DES::!lATILE JJL 1.(. ....J_ yl!':; If :rc'l _~}_ ed<:!cd ?CI?ul:ltictl _.. _ :dci<:d ac!:eag(~ m I:HAT D!I~Ecr!O;'(S) co 'feu 1'l:::N:, TiH. Tel!!': cr;' 12Y.Hr:fCtI ~'.:'.Y Gf01.J HE l:ESIf.i\l:~·E TO 'C;);JSTI:tGC A .:;t:L""-.:R SY5TEN? 2 t.:nG<2c.ided3 nJ 50. DO YOU FEEL THAT 6 LEXI~X:rO:l, 1 l:.r- COU:JiY, _-!:_ IIJ..'ll Si:C.;JLD :O:F::DZR COLL-Eel'riG A DE..... SLOP:-iENi.' FEI: AT TU: ·fI:·~E l.A~m IS SUilDIV:'j;;I) TO IIC:LL' ceiER TIlE INCREASED COST 0,,- SERViCES \']~iH:ll U1.Y BE.Sl"~T FRO;l TllS SUllDFDIll~? 8 110 If yes .. indicatt~ 2foj~ "..Jhic11 :;e::-;/i 1 c2fi ..~_ ,·:~t HE'l T1S1)S OF PAynC FOil i·;i\JOR ;!.:\'TEH AIID SE\olERAC:', SERVICI: mnOVE~lE:-rrS? IUDI('.'TS PREERS;;CSS : (l l:igh ~ 3 IO;l) FeR .,::l,Ci: SERVICE. water t.:lXes monthly :-ates h:)ol:-up LeGS se17p.r tx~es ;:IcnLhly rate0 ~~__ hool~-~up fees 1,9, RECCX;~:(ZINC TlIAT Si·;j,LLER ACI,:;p.:;ES l,;.t:i' CREATE ~luRE DE!·~;·;" 70R L(;·::"-\.L ,l:RIJIC:':S (WAT.SR. SE\iER, SC!i(YJL, ETC.: 1·J!iAT DO '{OU FU:L IS TI:E !-l):lr:llJ:l DES'UABLE ACRi:'t(;E FOR ):AND PARCEL:'::,C CuTSIDG TilE C:CTY? .12 1·5 Heres 2 5..<~O C.Ci:~S :~O nC::2.G or mOl·.a 52. nfuICA.TE A~.EAS \lHERl: CITY W.TER Aiill SEh'SR.'..GS SERVICES SEOULD [,L A~;nCIPATED. __~2 alrea:iy pi.!;\:ted S;:(:[l$ 10 u~subdivid{~d areas in cit~r ~l~1~S=3 outside ci ty limi t:; in ~hat .1rc.:! ...__~. . (sac quest5.on no .. q/.. ) 53. LIST S:'REET EIPROVEm:m HOrJ'. NEEDED OESIGNATE prUOf~lTY Y.), i.: 2, 3, et.c,) None of stre;;:t, ~.:ltching _io!.e5 G:::ade &. 6::'~-;el ?.sY~ng --_._--- 54. ARE THI:P~ A~ri DUILDli'~::;S I~J TE~ TO:itJ UT r..EXIH:;·::C:~ l:!I:CH \'-:.. J COr~~,IDEjt TO tiE O? HISTOn.::Ci'..L D'IPO:UA~~CE HHI·:n Slh}UL0 ul': PPE:::Er'~1;.~lj .t'..s LAti)t·::i. {:~? 12 no ._~__ yes (sp(!c:ify) _._" ~ ,,,,_. ..... . 55. \lOU1O YOU S:JPPORT CITY ;:;XPr.tDI'l'UPES F'2·i{ ThE FOTLO\·.Ii;C: -:"10 }'E.,"i / !i ~/eG j lr:cic:nte ~up~Jort level minii.l;":I:'1 rl1 I jd:-:l'C;':C S-j s':.:lnti-11 ---------- old :Jchool playgr.(Jund imp::oVClT.ent COOlbined city haE/f.l.re !l[\:i.I ci ty hall bui Iding only tenn::s courts ball field othez- (n;:me) 10 --b" 8 8 ··Io _·-S 5 1 6 1 -~_. 5&. SHOULD TllE~E DE AIIT' ClIA1';CZ :eN rilE P!lE:;~NI' 30 1·1rIl SPD~D I;~?lIT '11IRJl;(;!! L.T:.xn:C"L'om _llno _---2. yes~ as folloNS _-......_ .... . .... ,....._ ..._ .._.__ ~ ..... _ 57, 5.3. \lOULD YOU ~UPPOR', H1PRCi!I:HE1IT'S IN 51.':.:'!:: I!IC!II'.\.YS AS ~OLL)';S-: 5 '_,~-;' :. t:c;: ". ", "."2:: 8. " - 10 \Y~_ll.I)~v C:::·~e~~ ~i.n ::!~"·.on '~lO~ T ';.n"~ .. n:-: ':(" i-E:(' "'li.:'I.• : \JOvLD '~OU .:~PPC?:.l JUS S7::P:ll.C·~ IF P~).(). l~ED? 12 110 7 yC5 i:: yes, ~nticip<,:,.tec. tri.p~i pe:: y~.:;r __.__ A-4 SPECIFIC RESPONSES 26. Teach better reading and basics 2 32. A.) Hhere there are trees, grass, space especially by the creek 1 B.) Fix what we have 1 36. A.) Employment 4 B.) Interested in rentals 1 C.) Right opportunity at the right time 1 D.) Wanted to move 1 E.) Like the country 1 F.~ Improve the quality of our environment 1 38. Grain, Hachinery, Petrolewn 1 44. A.) Towards lone 2 45. A.) T.V. cable 1 47c. No Government interference 2 48. t"ater SeHer Preference 1 2 I 3 Preference I 1 I 2 3 Tax 5 1 I 6 To, I 8 1 5 No. Rates II 3 1 :10. Rates I 9 I 3 3 nook-up 1 7 I 4 J-1ook-u I 1 I 8 I J 50. Fire protection 1 52. A.) 8.) Airport hill - owned by city 1 In areas of anticipated growth 1 53. Street Arcade Street Bridge A Street West Street Blackhorse Bridge H Street Water Street Patch Holes Grade & Gravel Paving 2 1 1 1 1 1 54. A.) 8. ) 56. A.) B.) c. ) D.) 58.' A.) B. ) C,) D.) Lodge Hall 2 School House 4 Enforce the current speed 3 Slower to reduce noise 25 or 20 mph 2 Better posting of current speed so trips t 30 trips 1 2 trips 4 6 trips 1 A-5 1 I . , Appendix B SECOND DRAFT PRELIMINARY P9PULATION .~~D LABOR FORCE PROJECTIO~S NORROH Mo'D m!ATILLA COUNTIES Prepared by: EAST C~VTRAL OREGO~ ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES October~ 1977 B-1 . III. HOW·THESE PROJECTIONS ~~RE DERIVED The basic procedure for developing these figures is fairly straight-forward although it requires some co:~lex subroutines and a computer. A simplified out- line of the procedure follows. For a more detailed explanation of all the ·steps, assumptions and base data involved, please contact the economic planning staff of ECOAC before next summer, or a~ait publication of the final report for inclusion in the Morrow and Umatilla Comprehensive Plans. 1. Estimation of Natural Increase The male and female resident populations of each County in 1970 were divided into five-year age groups known as "cohorts". Age- and sex- specific fertility and mortality rates were applied to these cohorts, yielding the number of births and deaths for ·the interval 1970-75 . . (The survival and fertility rates were based on county and state records. The computer program was "calibrated" by comparing the 1975 population derived this way with officialiy certified data.) This procedure was repeated for the intervals 1975-80 and 1980-85, given the resident pop- ulation developed by the .computer for the beginning year. This process is knmm as the "cohort-survival technique" and is the basj ~ for all econorric model population projections conducted in the Pacific Northwest in recent years. It yields the number of people expected to reside in an area if there were no net in- or out~~igration during the forecast interval. Since its development at the University of Oregon in the early 1960's, it has been refined and applied to a wide range of economic and political units by a variety of forecasting firms and agencies with notable success. 2. Estimate of Migration There are two commonly practiced means of estimating the number of people moving into or out of an area. One of these is the so-called "historical trend" method, which simply increases or decreases the population of an area by a previously observed or reasonable rate of in- or out-migration. It is most appropriate when dealing with large, stable economic units, and requires constant monitoring and updates. Portland State University uses this technique to supply the State of Oregon with projections for cities, counties, and the state, referring whenever possible to actual censuS data in order to keep track of current trends. The second method· of estimating migration is an economic modeling pro- cedure based on labor force projections independent of the computer program itself. This technique assumes that the main factor controlling migration is job availability, and.that people move from areas where jobs are scarce to places ~herc cr.ey are ~ore ?~entiful. -his 2oc~1 is ~os~ appropriate tp a region eA~eriencing rapid economic growth, such as ours today: B-2 .. 3. This technique of population projection requires the forecaster to estimate future grpwth in each employment category such as construction. manufacturing, agriculture, etc. This procedure yields future total labor force figures. Local labor force participation rates are applied to the resident population derived in the first half of the program to yield the resident labor force. Subtracting the resident labor force from the expected total labor force demand gives an estimate ~f how many jobs are available to non-residents. Estimation of Labor Force in 1980 and 1985 In order to estimate future labor force figures for Morrow and Umatilla Count+es. it was necessary to make assumptions about general economic growth in this area and about specific new projects planned here. This entailed an analysis of each employment category, based on Oreg~n State Employment Division records. studies conducted for Alumax and Portland G~neral Electric and other studies by various government agencies and private firms. Almost as important as whether "these projects are undertaken is the consider- ation of when construction on them begins. Attention should therefore be paid to the dates assumed for onset of construction and operation of each of the proposed new facilities. (See list of assucptions below.) The total for 1980 would be substantially less if construction were to start on Alumax. say in 1979 rather than 1978. Another important consideration is the percent of county labor force living outside the county. Estimates of this figure were based on studies conducted for Alumax Corporation and Portland General Electric. 4. Summation of Estimated Resident and Migratory Populations The final seep in the program adds the expected resident population due to natural increase with the expected io- or out migration due to labor force demand. (If there are fewer jobs than residents. we expect net out- migration.) This total gives the resident population for the next forecast interval. Economic Assumptions The assumptions listed here are not all-inclusive." A more detailed accounting would include projected labor force participation rates and a sector-by sector breakdown of projected e~ployment. The final report will contain this information. Until then, any questions or suggestions will be welcomed and answered promptly whenever possible. Due to the high level of uncertainty concerning future projections in this county and neighboring counties, it was necessary to base employment estimates on three different development scenarios. The specific assumptions ~de about new projects and growth in established categories for each separate scenario follo\7: B-3 -, '.' Scenario A 1. Agriculture Continued growth in new'acreage under irrigation at or near 1970-75 rates until irrigable land (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation data) is consumed. No housing pressure on irrigable land. Agricultural productivity .high (no. shortages of petroleum-based products); employment growing proportional to new acreage. No shortage of water. 2. Food Processing and Light Industry - Continued growth in food processing and light industry at or near 1970-75 levels. 3. Energy-generation Facilities and Construction - No new electrical-generatin plants in area after completion of Carty facility. Construction of second powerhouse at McNary Dam and of 1-82 Freeway in Umatilla County to begin in 1980. (Freeway may not be constructed until 1983. Presently uncertain). 4. Other Sectors - Continuation of trends in other sectors of economy at or near 1970-75 rates, including forestry and wood products • .:5. Unemployment - See Appendix A 6. Heavy Industry - No new heavy industry in area during forecast interval. Alumax aluminum reduction plant not built, nor Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant (as in 3). Scenario B 1. Same as A. 2. Same as A. 3. In addition to A, construction of two nuclear reactors at Pebble Springs site in Gilliam County beginning in second quarter of 1978. Construction of second pl!mt to begin in 1982. (See aI,pendix C) 4. Same as A. 5. Differing as shown in Appendix A. 6. Construction of Alumax plant to begin in second quarter of 1978. New road north from lone constructed after 1980. Scenario C * 1~ Same as A and B. 2. Same as A and B. 3. Assumes continued construction of all energy-generating facilities currently projected bv Portland General Electric in ~orrow and Gilli2c Coe~ties and by Pacific Power and Light at Roosevelt, Washington. (See Appendix C) 4. Same as A and B. 8-4 . ',.' , 5. Differing as 1n Appendix A. 6. Same as B, plus industrial expansion at Ports of Morrow and Umatilla, Hinkle, and in Pendleton and Pilot Rock area throughout forecast period at pea~ (early 1980' s). level. *~.NOTE: Scenerio Band C are identical for 1980. We would like to emphasize that these assumptions were designed to yield the highest reasonable result ~n each case. The generally high trend of the resulting figures may be ~cen by consulting Table 1 and 2 which reports out findings and compares them with recent projections of other agencies and companies. These assumptions and others regarding commuting, working spouces, and incidence of singleness among in-migrators were tested on this first computer run. Alternations that seem called for in these or any other parameters affecting the final total can be made before the second run in nine months or any time before the final report is issued next year. Special Population Assumptions 1. Construction population defined as temporary (i.e.~ specifically associated with major new physical plant or Federal Construction and not hired locally) computed separately from main program due to different age- and sex- structure. 2. Non-employcent motivated in-migration (i.e.~ non-local retirees and re- creation motivated movers) calculated and distributed separately from main program. (Primarily Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains Enumeration Districts). \ B-5 ~------ CITY OF HEPPNER POPULATION FORECASTS TO 1995 Various methods of population projection exist, allowing the forecasting firm 0 agency to choose the most appropriate technique for its own conditions. For instance, if the population of Heppner were extrapolated at its general 1970-75 five-year percentage growth rate of 11.9 percent, its population in 1980 would be 1,790 and 2,000 in 1985, without annual compounding. If the population increase is extrapolated a~ its strictly numerical gain of 170 for 1970-75, the figures for 1980 would be 1,770 and 1,940 in 1985..Neither of these procedures takes into account physical or economic limitations on growth. Under contract to Morrow County to prepare the economic element of its state- mandated comprehensive plan, the staff of the East Central Oregon Association of Counties has developed a computer program to project future county and muni- cipal populations as a basis for other economic forecasting. The program is based on county and enumeration district employment data and cross-checked with state and federal census data and other economic.studies. It does take into account physical and economic constraints on growth. Some of the physical limits include the floodplain location and steepness of Willow Creek Canyon and the location of good agricultural land near the city limits. The economic constraints are less clearcut, since growth in the North End of Morrow County could mean increased government, cowmercial and service employment in Heppner, as county seat and potential trade center. On the"other hand, this growth could. be offset by a possible decline in wood products employment. Each of these assumed strengths and weaknesses of Heppner were considered in projecting future employment. The figures below are all the medians of ranges of possible future population, based on favorable or unfavorable alternatives within each general scenario. (For an outline of the assumptions for each scenario, see the attached report on county employment.) We hope these various methods of population projection will be of some use to city officials in planning extentions of ser,;ces and housing. John Tillman Staff Demographer B-6 8-7 MORRO!·I COUNTY City Population Projections, 1970-2000 (Revised 10.13.77) -r;" oLE 2. U.S. and Oregon (ens'..:: ECOAC Es t i rna tes 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 I, County A 4,470 5,190 7,290 8,480 9,550 10,OSO 10,590 I 8 -- -- 9 ;91 0 10,550 10,610 11 ,030 11 ,590 C " _. -- -- 10,650 11 ,670 12,~SO 13 ,300 i Boardman A 190 700 1,280 1, no 2,080 2,230 2,370 I, 8 2,620 2,590 2,500 2,670 2,900 ,.- -- , , C -- -- -- 2,600 2,930 3,180 3,410 II Heppner A 1,430 1,600 . 1,770 1,790 1 ,810 1,830 I 1 ,850 i, , 8 • 1 ,800 1,840 1,870 1,890 , 1,900 I-- IC ~- -- .. 1,850 1,890 1,920 1,950·!I " -- I Ilone A 360 410 460 510 560 590 600 !8 -- -- 500 600 630 650 , 650 I , C -- -- .- 600 680 750 , 780, I Irrigon A 260 370 620 840 1,030 1 ,100 1 ,250 I 8 -- -- 1,140 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,600 C -- -- .- 1,440 1,600 1,750 1,970 lexington A 230 250 270 290 310 350 360 8 -- -- 290 330 350 360 370 IC -- -- -- 330 370 390 400 Rural A 2,000 1,860 2,870* 3,340+ 3,760 3,950 I 4,160 I 8 -- -- 3,560*' 3,790 3,810 3,960 ! 4,160 IC -- -- .- 3,830 4,200 4,490 4,790 * n'ended at 1975-77 rate of increase in rural residential and adjusted by 1970-75 decreases in farmstead population. ** Trended at 1975-77 rate '..iithout adjusti;;2nt. + Extrapolated at general county ra.te. Thi s distribution is entirely sup~ositional. Rural share of county grm'/th may reasonably be expected to decrease '.'1i th tirr:e, there- fore, ci ty tota 1s may be greater than shmm after 1985, especi a11y for S::Ja rd;J2.n and Irrigon. ~ .. , " MORROW COUNTY POPULATION' PROJECTIONS TABLE 1 *** Year Source 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Portland State University* February, 1976 5,200 5,100 5,400 5,600 5,900 6,000 Pacific Northwest Bell** Apri 1, 1976 5,200 5,200 5,300 5,400 -- -- Bonneville pO\~er Administration*** . December, 1976 5,175 7,175 8,475 9,475 10,100 -- I ECOAC; Scenario A August, 1977 -- 7,285 8,477 9,550 10,053 10,593 ECOAC, Scenario B August, 1977 -- '9,907 10,550 10,608* 11 ,027 11 ,587 ECOAC, Scenario C August, 1977 -- 9,907 10,650 11,674 12,482 13 ,297 * Portland State University recognizes that its figures are too low and is in t~e process of updating them on the basis of present kno\~ledge, such as city hou~ing surveys. The rapid growth and changing economic composition of Morrow County and its labor force render the usual Portland State University "historical trend" technique inappropriate, though it has served other parts of the state well. The latest updated county figure (1976) is 5,350, which is still lower than the _ current population, according to our model. ** Pacific Northwest Beil also admits the inadequa(y of its figures for planning purposes, in as much as it is developed on a hOu3ehold basis; and therefore, inappropriate for a rapidly changing area \~ith a significant construction population. Bonneville Power Administration is the first agency to conduct forecasts for ~lorrow County taking recent and expected growth fully into account. Its fi gures differ from mine mostly in the treatment of the construction force and assump- tions about commuting ("household" vs. "establishment" data). + This small increase is due to assumption of no new energy-facility construction after 1987, and consequent departure of previously (1975-1937) semi-permanent construction labor force. Scenario C assumes fairly stable level of this force throughout the fJrecast period. (See list of assumptions.) This further assumes successful coordination of construction projects among the major contractors. B-8 .. .', . Revie\'1 and ~pl;cation of the City Projections After review by the counties and cities during the next nine months, the computer program for the counties ~·lill be rerun using the hopefully more reliable informa- tion about ne\'1 projects in the area avai1able then. If the results differ signif- icantly fl~om those contained in this preliminary report, it \·;i11 be necessary to run the distribution program again as \·/e11. At that time all the comments from local elected officals and planners can be consid~red ;n G2veloping a distribution model. An important point for municipal officials and planners to consider in reviewing and using these figures is that a certain amount of the grO\'/th shm·Jn in the Rural categories, may reasonably be transferred to the cities. Due fo the inability to foresee future annexations and to the present uncertcinty about urban grm·/th boundaries in the area. it \'/as deemed \·!iser not to attach expected population growth in presently rural but urbanizing enumeration districts to neighbol"ing . cities. Such a pl"ocedure would have involved conc;octing an arbitrary annexation schedule for each larger city. In general then, the Cities of Boardman, Irrigon, Hemiston. Stanfield, Umatilla, Milton-Freewater, Pendleton, and Pilot Rock may argu=aly regard the listed figures as bases for each forecast year. -Should city officials 01" interested citizens ~lish to knovi an apPl"oximation of hm'l many more people \'Iould likely be residing within a city boundary ,in a given forecast year than shO\'in on the chart, all they need do is provide ECOAC \'Jith a map displaying projected annexations up to that year An estimate of additional population to be transferred from an urbanizable rural area to the city could then be made. For the other cities the listed figures indicate hO','J many people \'/ould be likely to want to 1ive, therE~ according to the distribution r..ode1 and under each econom~c development scenari o. and if the present resi dents Here \'Ii 11 i ng to bond themsel yes or find other \1ays und means to remove those physical limitations on grm'lth subject to remedy. For instance, scenarios Band C assume that Echo builds a nei1 water system and that lone benefits from the construction of the proposed new north-south road in western f~orrm1 County, and that both cQf<,munities decid,.> to encourage expansion. City officials and interested citizens are encouraged to co~ment and request further information on thi s series of projections during the next nine months. The city figures will probably not be included in the county comprehensive plans, but it is still advisable for officials to revie\'/ ther:1 to promote greater reliability for planning purposes. . . B-9 .'.. .'. API~E~I)/,>( A: CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS Morrow and Umatilla Counties, 1975 - 2000 19951990198519801975COUNTY/SCENARIO "._ .. -:::: Ut·1ATILLA - A I II Civil ian Labor Force * 21,470 25,600 28,220 '30,160 32,010 ! 33,900 I, Total Employment 19,950 23,940 26,530 28,410 I 30,250 i 32,2::J0Unemployed 1,520 1,660 1,690 1,750 1,760 I 1,700 Percent 7.1 6.5 6.0 5.8 5.3 i 5.0I ! , i - IUMATl l..',..". - B I ..---- I !I !C; ,'i 1ian Labor Force 21 ,470 27,700 30,030 . 32,150 34,820 I 36,540Tota) Employment 19,950 25,980 28,290 30,380 32,970 i 34,7EI Unemployed 1,520 1,720 1,740 1,770 1,850 I 1,830IPercent 7.1 6.2 5.8 . 5.5 5.3 I 5.0 , , , -_. I IUMATILLA - C I i ! , Civil ian Labor FC1'ce 21 ,470 27,700 31 ,80r) 33,990 36,42J , 39,200 , Total Emp 1oYllle:'. c 19,950 2..5)SSJ 30,053 32,190 , 34,610 37,320 Unemployed 1,520 \ ,728 1,7~() 1,800 1 )820 1 ,880 Percent 7.1 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.0 : 4.8 I .' ,.. . .. ,. . . .- MORRQ\ol - A i Ii I, Civilian Labor Force 3,310 4,410 5,080 5,240 5,400 ! 5,610 : Total Employment 3,130 4,140 4,790 4,950 . 5,110 i S,330 Unempl-oyed 180 270 290 290 290 I 280IPercent 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.3 I 5.0 . MORRO\ lo rk er s th us de ri ve d w e re di st ri bu te d to c o u n ti es on th e ba si s o f th e C1 I 2 1-1 H il l gr av ity flo w m od el an d lo ca l jud gem en ta s to th e pa tt er n o f fu tu re gr ow th in co m m er cia l an d . se rv ic e e s ta b1 is hm en ts . . . , . . A PfE:ISD{X c..: Portland General Electric, A1umax Pacific Corporation, and Federal Construction Projects Morrow, Gilliam, and Umatilla Counties 1975 - 1995 Yearly Average Employment Project 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Portland General Electric 20 1,350 1,600 1 ,700 1,870 ICarty 20 330 100 100 100 Construction (20) (230 ) -- -- -- Operational -- (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) (100 ) Pebble Springs I * 0 1,020 240 170 170 ; . '1 . i Construction -- (l ,020) (90) -- -- I Operational -- -- (150 ) (170) (170) Pebble Springs II + 0 0 1,260 170 170 Construction -- -- (1,260) -- -- Operatic'.lal -- -- -- (170 ) (J70) Other (post '85) ++ 0 0 0 1 ,550 1,720 Construction -- -- -- (1,400) (1 ,~OO) Opera ti ona1 -- -- -- (150 ) (320) Alumax * 0 1 ,750 800 800 800 Construction -- (l,·130) -- -- -- IOperational -- (620) (800) (800) (800) IFedera1 0 500 40 40 40 I 1-82 ** 0 250 20 20 20 Construction -- (250) -- -- -- maintenance & patrol -- -- (20) (20) (20) McNary Powerhouse ** 0 250 20 20 20 Construction -- (250) -- -- -- Operational -- -- (20) (20) (20) I I - * Assuming c6nstruction to begin. second quarter, 1978. ** Assuming construction to begin, second quarter, 1980. + Assuming construction to begin, second quarter, 1982. ++ Assumi ng cons tructi on to begi n on thi rd and fourth nuc1ear p1ants in area, second quarters of 1986 and 1990. B-12 CIIAIR~lAN Judge Andrew F. Leckie VlCE CHAIRMAN Commissioner Barbara Lynch SECRETARY·TREASURER Mayor Lloyd A. Waid EXECUTIVE OffiECTOR 'Wa)'ne L. Schwandt Appendix C \ !::cst Cen~ral I Oregon ""-,-~~L Association of Counties 920 S. W. Frazer. P. O. Box 339 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 Phone (503) 276-6732 .. Re: Planning Programs of Jurisdictions in ~orrow and Umatilla Counties/ Planning Coordination Process Dear Sir: This is to introduce you and your agency to the jurisdictions of r·lorrO\.,r and Umatilla Counties. to inform you of their comprehensive planning programs and of their interest in participating in your agency1s planning program. and to request your cooperation and assistance in the planning coordination process. THE JURISDICTIONS All jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties are participating in the planning coordination process. These jurisdictions are general purpose units of local government and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Morrow County Boardman Heppner lone Irri gon Lexington Morrow Coun ty Umatilla County Adams Athe:1~ Echo Helix Henniston Mi 1ton-Free~'1ater Pend1 etan Pilot Rock Stanfield Ukiah Umati 11a Weston Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Peservat;1n Umatilla County ~~Oluntary association o( the (ollowing COUNTIES and cYtlet GILLIAM: Arlington. Condon, Lonerock; GRAI\,.: Canyon City. >-.ville, Granite. John DOl)·. Long Creek, Monument. Mt. Vernon. Prairie City. Seneea; MORROW: Boardman. Heppner. lone. Irrigon. t:!ngton; U~lATI.LlA:A~'lms.. Atheoa. Echo, Helix. Hermiston. Milton·Freewater. Pendleton, Pilot Rock. Stanfield. Ukiah, Umatilla. January, 1977 Page 2 .. PLANNING PROGRAMS OF THE JURISDICTIONS Each city and county in Oregon is required by state law to: I'(a) Prepare and ~jopt comprehensive plans consistent with state- wide planning goals and guidelines; and (b) Enact zoning, subdivision and other ordinances or regulations to implement their comprehensive plans." ORS 197.175 Each jurisdiction in Morrow and Umatilla Counties is presently in the process of developing or revising its comprehensive plan to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, Each jurisdiction will be requesting assistance from your agency in any and possibly all of the following planning phases; 1. Provision of available data, reports, maps, and/or other informa- tion on the jurisdiction and environs, or notification of surveys or other data acquisition activities in process (see Attachment A - ~omprehensive ~lan Data Requirements). 2. Review of the jurisdiction's base data and projections. 3. Review of the jurisdiction's draft plan. 4. Review of the jurisdiction's adopted Comprehensive Plan prior to Acknowledgement of Compliance with Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals by Oregon's Land Conservation and Development Commission. Specific timeframes for your agency~s involvement in the above functions are specified in each jurisdiction's Compliance Schedule, which the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has already provided you for your review and comment. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Opportunity for agency involvement in the planning programs of these cities and counties is especially important in light of Statewide Planning Goal #2, which requires that: "City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the com- prehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS 197.705 through 197.795. Each plan and related irr.olementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. C-2 January, 1977 Page 3 AFFECTEO GOVERNMENTAL UNITS -- are those local governments, state and federal agencies and special districts which have programs, land ownerships or responsibilities within the area included in the plan." (Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, adopted by the Ore90n land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to DRS 197.040 on Oecember 27, 1974, operative January 1, 1975.) State agencies are required by law to: "... carry out their planning duties. powers and responsibilities and take actions that are authorized by law with respect to programs affecting land use in accordance with statewide planning goals and guidelines ... II ORS 197.180 Since so many federal programs are implemented and managed by state agencies, effective coordination between local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies is essential. The Oregon land Conservation and Development Commission is required by statute to: "Review comprehensive plans for conformance with statewide planning goals'(and) ... . . . coordinate planning efforts of state agencies to assure conformance with statewide planning goals and compatibility with city and county comprehensive plans." ORS 197.040 COUNTY COORDINATION AND REVIEW Under Oregon law: " for the and the . each county through its governing body. shall be responsible coordinating all planning activities affecting land uses within county, including those of the county, cities, special districts state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for entire area of the county." ORS 197.190 I Each county governing body is also required by statute to: 10 •• ", reviel'/ all comprehensive plans for land conservation and development within the county, both those adopted and those being prepared. The county governing body shall advise the state agency. city. county or special district preparing the comprehensive plans C-3 January, 1977 Page 4 whether or not the comprehensive, plans are in conformity with the st~tewide planning goals." DRS 197.255 For the purposes of coordination of planning activiti~s (DRS 197.190) and review of comprehensive plans for compliance with Statewide Planning Goals (ORS 197.255), the Morrow County Court and the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners have retained the East Central Oregon Association of Count~es (ECOAC). ' I am the lead ECOAC staff person working with the Morrow County Court and the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners providing staff support for their statutory review and coordination functions. My title is Planning Coordinator. . CONTACT PERSONS FOR THE JURISDICTIONS Attached please find a listing of contact persons for each city, county, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 'Reservation (Attach- ment B - List of Contact Persons and Planning Coordinator). These contact persons have been designated by each jurisdiction for agency coordination. Your agency or organization will be notified of any change in contact p'rsonnel. It is to be noted that, while the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation are not obligated to coordinate with state agencies, special districts, and local jurisdictions, the Tribal DevelopmentOffice has expressed an interest in being involved in the coordination process. Please ~nsure that a copy of all written communication between your agency and a contact person from a local jurisdiction concerning the land use planning program is sent to the Planning Coordinator. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE AND INVOLVEMENT Your organization is receiving this letter because it has been identified by at least one jurisdiction in f1orrow or Umatilla County either in the jurisdiction's Compliance Schedule which has been adopted by both the jurisdiction's governing body and the Oregon Land Conservation and Develop- ment Commission, or by the jurisdiction's contact person. If your organization is: 1. a FEDERAL or STATE AGENCY, please see ATTACHMENT C. 2. a SPECIAL DISTRICT, please see ATTACHMENT,D. 3. a LOCAL AGENCY or OR3A::IZATIOII having programs, land o~nerships, or responsibilities vlithin O::LY O:lE JURISDICTION (e.g. the Athena Police Department, the Irrigon Chamber of Commerce), please see ATTACHMENT E. C-4 January, 1977 Page 5 A number of governmental units, while not coming within the definition of "Affected Governmental Units" in Statewide Planning Goal #2 (i.e. "having programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities within the area included in the phn"), may be impacted by land use decisions of some or all of the jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties. Your city, county, and/or state may be one of those governmental units, examples of which are ·contiguous units (e.g. the State of Hashington, ·Union County, Halla Halla County) and neighboring governmental units (e.g. Echo, Stanfield. Hermiston Umatilla, Irrigon). Because coordination among these units Vlould prove mutually advantageous, your organization might be interested in becoming involved in the planning programs of some or all of the jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties, and inviting them to become involved inyours. If so, please notify the contact person for the jurisdiction, and please send the Planning Coordinator a copy of your. communication with each con- tact person you notify. INVOLVEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS IN INITIATION OF THE PLANNING COORDINATION PROCESS. The twenty jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties are in varying stages of developing or revising their comprehensive plans. Some are pre- paring to adopt their plans and are ready to submit them for Acknowledge- ment of Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals. Some are now starting to acquire data and their contact person~ may have already contacted your agency. All contact persons have been involved in the preparation of this 1etter. In addition, all contact persons have been given the opportunity to attach to this letter any explanation, plan schedule, request for information, or other statement. The following attachments have been submitted: 1. Attachment F 2: Attachment G Umatilla County Planning Program Pendleton. Agency Review of Third Draft of Comprehensive Plan. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLANNfNG COORDINATION PROCESS. This letter, with appropriate enclosures, is being sent to the below listed individuals, who represent jurisdictions, special districts. and local, state, and federal agencies (See Attachwent H -- Distribution list). It will be sent to other affected governmental units, as iden~ified. The jurisdictions of MOtTOW and Umatilla Counties are looking forward to working with your agency in the development of their comprehensive plans. An effective land use planning coordination process will prove mutually beneficial to j~risdicticns. soecial ~is~ric~s. an~ local, s~a~e and federal agencies. Please for\'lara to l':1e any recorr.rendations you have for the· further development and improvewent of the coordination process. C-5 January, 1977 Page 6 I am anxious to explore with you the potential benefits and future development of the planning coordination process, ar.rl I very much appreciate your cooperation and assistance. Sin,cerely, Robert J. Beltramo ',Planning Coordinator RJB:vp Enclosures: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I Comprehensive Plan Data Requirements List of Contact Persons and Planning Coordinator for Jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties Requests of Federal and State Agencies Requests of Special Districts Requests of Local Agencies and Organizations havir,; Programs, Land Ownerships, and Responsibilities within only one jurisdiction Umatilla County Planning Program Pendleton, Agency Review of Third Draft of Comprehensive Plan Distribution List Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines C-6 ATTACHMENT A Compreh~~sive Plan Data Requirements Provision of available data. reports, maps, and/or other infor- mation on each jurisdiction and environs. or notification of surveys or other data acquisition 3Gtivities in process. Natural Environment Geology Topography Soil s Mineral and Aggregate Earthquake Faults Agricultural. Forest Suitability Energy Resources Unique Scientific. Ecological Areas Archaeological Sites Intrinsic Suitability * Existing Land Use Socioeconomic Environment Housing Characteristi~s Schools Pol ice Fire Social and Health Services Parks and Recreation Transportation Facilities and Servi ces Climate Hydrology Flood Plains·and Wetlands Vegeta ticn Fi sh and Wil dl ife Landslide/Erosion Potential Septic Tank/Foundation Suitability Scenic Areas Air/Water/Land Quality Conflicts and Constraints Lands Suitable for Urban Uses Historic Preservation Sewer Water Storm Ora i nage Solid \laste Electricity and Natural Gas Corrrnuni ca t ions Economic Activity and Resource Base Employment and Population Characteristics Growth Factors and Constraints * liThe basic proposition employed is that any place is the sum of historical , physical and biological processes, that these are dynamic, that they constitute social values, that each area has an intrinsic suitability for certa i n 1and uses and fi na11y, tha t certa ina reas 1end themse1ves to multiple coexisting land uses. Arecognition of these social values, in- herent in natural processes, must precede prescription for the utiliza- ti on of na tura1 resources. Once it has been accep ted tha t the place is a sumof natural processes and that these processes constitute social val ues, inferences can be drawn regarding uti 1ization to ensure optimum use and en- hancement of social values. This.h its intrinsic suitability." Design With Nature, I. L. McHarg, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969, page 104. Prepared by: • Oon Burns, Henry l·larkus, Sarah Salazar Local Contact Persons ATTACH~1ENT B CONTACT PERSONS FOR AGENCY COORDINATION All JURISDICTIONS IN MORROW AND UMATIllA COUNT~ES flanning Coordinator Mr. Wayne l. Schwandt, Acting Coordinator .East Central Oregon Association of Counties Post Office Box 339 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 276-67 :,~ * Pendleton Mr. Edd Rhodes, Planning Direct~r City of Pendleton Post Office Box 190 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 276-1811 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Umatilla ~lorrow County * Morrow County Mr. 'David R. Moon, Planning Director Morrow County Planning Department Morrow County Court House Heppner, Oregon 97836 676-5030 * Heppner, lone, Irrigon, lexington Mr. Donald G. Burns, Associate Planner Morrow County Planning Department Morrow County Court House Heppner, Oregon 97826 676-5030 * Boardman Mr. Jim Thompson, Administrator City of Boardman 206 Main Street, North Boardman, Oregon 97818 481-9252 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Umatilla County * Umatilla County Mr. J. K. Palmer, Administrator City of Umatilla Post Office Box 130 Umatilla, Oregon 97882 922-3226 cc: Mr. Ron Johnson, Consultant DMJM/Hilton 1111 Commonwealth Building 421 S.W. Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 222-3621 * Adams, Athena, Helix, Weston M~. Sarah M. Salazar, Comprehensive Planner Umatilla .County Planning Department Umatilla County Court House Pendleton, Oregon 97801 276-7111 ext. 314 * Hermis'ton Mr. l. T. Harper, City Manager City of Hermiston 295 East Main Street Hermiston, Oregon 97838 567-5521 * Milton-Freewater Mr. Dave Bishop, Planning Director Umatilla County Planning Department Umatilla County Court House Pendleton, Oregon 97801' 276-7111 ext. 314 Mr. Del McNerney, City Planner City of Mi Hon-Freel'later Post Office Box 108 Milton-Freewater, Oregon 97862 938-5531 * The Confedera ted Tri bes of the Uma ti l1i Indian Reservation '·lr. Henry S. j'1arkus, Comprehensive Planner East Central Oregon Association of Counties Post Office Box 339 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 276-6732 * Echo, Pilot Rock, Stanfield, Ukiah Mr. Tom Hampson, Planning Director Tribal Development Office Post Office Box 638 Pendleton, Oregon 97801 276-3165 C-8"~-----------------~ ATTACHNENT C Requests of Federal and State Agencies Please forward within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter to the contact person for each jurisdiction affected and to the Planning Coordinator the following information: A. General Infonnation 1. The name of the director and the authorized agency contact person with whom the jurisdiction should deal. If different, please indicate which person will be signing off on the jurisdictions' comprehensive plans during the LCDC Acknowledgement of Compliance Process. Please include mailing addresses, office locations, and telephone numbers. 2. The enabling legislation for the agency with current amendments. Please include a summary. if available. with footnotes to the legislation. ~ 3. Legislation the agency is charged with administering. Please include a sUllll1ary. if available,-with footnotes to the legislation. 4. Grants and/or loans - under Statewide Planning Goal #2. liThe plan shall be the basis for specific implementation measures ll • ~/hich include IIgran ts for construction". Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plal1 will thus be used as a basis for grant and loan applications. Please sc:nd: a. A list of grants and/or loans the agency is charged with admi ni s.teri ng. . b... The criteria by which the agency will evaluate grant and/or loan applications from jurisdictions, and the administrative regulations and statutes on which the criteria are based. c. If your agency has already developed grant and/or loan criteria, please indicate how developed and when officially promulgated. If none have yet been developed, please specify the process by which local jurisdictions will review them prior to adoption. 5. Permits - under Statewide Planning Goal #2, "the plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures", which include "permits". Please send: a. A list of permits the agency is charged with administering, which may apply to the jurisdictions or applicants in the jurisdictions. b. The criteria which the agency will use tq evaluate permit applica- tions. and the administrative regulations and statutes on which the criteria are based. c. ·If your agency has already developed permit issuance criteria. please indicate how developed and \'1hen officially promulgated. If none have yet been developed, please specify the process by which local jurisdictions will review them prior to adoption. C-9 6. The administrative appeals procedures of the agency. 7. If available, a concise statement or pamphlet outlining the general activities of the agency. B. Planning Programs of the Jurisdictions. 1. A listing of data inventories the agency has on file for each jurisdic- tion. (Please refer to Attachment A - Comprehe~~ive Plan Data Requirements.) 2. Technical assistance the agency can provide to each jurisdiction. 3. An indication of the coordination method preferred by' the agency for use during the planning process (e.g. telephone calls, letters, in- person visit). 4. Agency evaluation of the comprehensive p1ans of jurisdictions. a. The criteria the agency will use to evaluate each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and the administra- tive regulations and statutes upon which the criteria are based. Please categorize these criteria according to Statewide Planning Goal. b . .If your agency' has already developed criteria for plan evaluation, please indicate how developed and when officially promulgated. If non~ have yet been developed, please specify the process by which local jurisdictions will review them prior to adoption. 5. For federal agencies, please comment on whether your agency will be willing to work with the Northwest Federal Regional Council to develop a coordinated federal review process. 6. FOI' state agencies and federal agencies with statewide representatives in Oregon, please comment on whether your agency will be willing tu work through the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission office in Salem to develop a coordinated review process. 7. A listing of problems which may hinder your agency involvement in the planning programs of the jurisdictions (e.g. insufficient agency budget to assist in tasks specified on jurisdiction's compliance schedule, inadequate agency staffing to provide personnel necessary to do in- house data compilation, analysis, and reproduction for the jurisdiction to put the data into a usable form). . C. Plans, Programs, and Activities of the Agency 1. Agency's Plan a. Current plans the agency has which may directly impact the juris- diction's area. Please include a statement of how the plan was developed and when it was officially adopted. C-I0 A b. If no plan now exists or if the present plan :s undergoing revision, please specify: 1. The process by which each jurisdiction can be involved in the development of the agency plan. 2. The process by which each jurisdiction will review the plan prior to adoption. 2. Areas of interest the agency has within the jur~~rliction, to include any current programs, land ownerships, or planning or management responsibilities impacting upon the jurisdiction or its surrounding area. 3. Current or potential land use problems or conflicts the agency recognizes. O. Continuing Requests 1. Please insure that a copy of all written communications between your agency and a contact person from any jurisdiction, concerning the land use planning program, is sent to the Planning Coordinator. 2. For materials (e.g. agency plans, proposed regu.lations) the agency is submitting to jurisdictions for review and comment, please send a copy to the Planning Coordinator, with a distribution 1ist of jurisdictions receiving the material for information purposes. 3. Please inform both the contact person from each jurisdiction and the Planning Coordinator of: a. Any change in agency contact person in the future (your agency will be informed of any changes in jurisdiction contact personnel or Planning Coordinator). b. Any changes in the enabling legislation for the agency. or in the legislation the agency is charged with administering. c. Any modifications in the criteria for evaluation of grant applica- tions, loan applications, and permit applications. d. Any additional information relevant to the Comprehensive Planning Program of the jurisdictions or planning program of the agency. 4. Please recommend to the Planning Coordinator any improvements that can be made in the planning coordination process we are developing pursuant to DRS Chapter 197. C-11 ATTACHMENT D Requests of Special Districts Please respond wi thin thirty (30) days of recei.pt of this letter to the contact person for each jurisdiction with1n which your 'district has programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities. The contact person will be interested in the activities of your dis- trict, the planning program of your district, and the develop- ment of a coordination process between the district and the jurisdiction where one does not presently exist. Pl ease send the Pl anni ng Coordi nator a copy o-f your communi ca ti on with each contact person to whom you respond . . . C-12 I..------------~------=-~~.~._-----~----. ATTACHMENT E Request of Local Agencies and Organizations Having Programs, land Owerships. or Responsibilities Within Only One Jurisdiction Please respond to the contact person for your jurisdiction. Your juris- diction's contact person will perform coordination work with your agency or organization. Because such coordination will be intra-jurisdictional, there is no need to notify the Planning Coordinator. C-13 Umatilla Planning County Commission County Cour thou\~ P"nd leton, 0'''9_ 97801 Phone 276 - 7111 h._ 314 UMATILLA COUNTY Through August 1977, Urratilla Cotmty's planning efforts are directed toward updating the existing county-Hide comprehensive plan by developing a sub-area frarrework plan for the western portion of the county--the "Vlest End." Basically, the plan will identify four land use categories, with policies to match, includ:ine urban, urbanizing, :rural-,residential and natural resource areas. 'The cities in the planning .' . _..:..... . '. ~--~.. ,-~~-_-um-t either have a specific city plan or are in the process of developing one in coordination with cOtmty planning programs. Attached is a IJEeting schedule of our advisory group. Agencies are invited to attend the neetings and Fay be asked to provide information on subj ects dis- cussed. Phor,e 276-7111, extension 314, the Planning Departrr.ent,. for specific tke and place of rreetings. UMATILIA COUNIY - "(,]ESTERN PlANNING lJNIT:~ WEST END CITIZENS ADVISORY CCM--Ul'IEE -- -- '--~ PIlINNING MEETING WPICS November 11 - -,----- .- - ---'- - _ C" __" __ ....... _". _ Decerrber 9 ~ ".. _----_._- Discussion of ~rk schedule and overall county planning program. Election of officers, organization committee report on subcOIIIl'ittee structure, review existing ~rehensive Plan and Map. Discussion of how to survey cOlIIJ!llI1ity needs and problems, discussion of SOlf.e natural hazard inventory prepared by staff, possibly hold a town neeting to identify (survey) west end problems. Discussion of criteria for identifying agricultural lands, revie-.-J public facilities inventory prepared by staff. . * Includes greater Umatilla, Hermiston, Stanfield, and Echo areas of the county· C-14 Umatilla County: cont'd page 2 January 13 Discussion of urban growth boundary, review of interim botmdaries of cities. revievl and discuss open space inventory; continue survey of corrnumity needs and problems . February 10 .I'.ay 12 i' 26 '.' June 9 23 July 14 August .. U,rch April 24 14 28 . ·Discuss recreation needs. review state parks plan 5lld inventory of recreation areas, evaluate results of ~ty needs sUlVey. RevieN Echo-Stanfield economic data, revietv cou:1tv pOpulation-eI!?loyt!E1t projection, discuss economic developtreIlt. identify ern;>lo)'ll""nt centers, Review and discuss 'V.'est end L3.nd use inventory. Review transportation inventory, discussion of county road conditions, review agricultural lands invent;ory, Review Ciry of Liratilla draft plan, discuss all inventories needed to identify frarr.ev.urk land uses."' discuss housing data. Discussion and review air-~yater-landquality problems and inventories, review projections of . land use needs-employm:mt-population-desired density-financial ability to serve. RerleN nap projecting future frarre....-ork land areas, discuss conflicts with present oicture. discuss energy conservation conSideratiOns. Continue discussion of conflict areas. discuss alternative land uses and policies, begin formulation of alternative plans. Continue discussion of cOllIJl.lI1i.t;y goals. Form..tlation of plans to achieve goals and policies; Discussion of plan rough draft. Continued "",rk on plan draft; Review Echo and Stanfield Draft Plans prepared by cit;y planner, Attend Echo and Stanfield hearings on cit;y plans; Continue work on county plan draft . . Present draft of West-End Plan (text and map) to Count;y Planning Ccurni.ssion. C-15 THE CITY OF PENDLETON THe WOlLD'S ROUND.UP CITY P. O. sox 190 PENDI.ETON, OREGON 97801 January 5, 1977 Dear Coordinating Agency: Copies of the City of Pendl~ton's Third Draft of its Comprehensive Plan are available for review and comment by you at the offices of the Land Conservation and' Development Commission, Salem, Oregon, the East Central Oregon Associa- tion. of Counties, Pendleton, Oregon, or City Hall in Pendleton. Sincerely, t'?1 () /' -'"'7? EfiutO-Ju:J/...- L I f.js~~([bA!-/ Edward A. Rhodes :;:. Jf Director of Planning & Building EAR:clf C-16 ATTACHMENT H RECIPIENTS OF PLANNING COORDINATION LETTEn Federal Agencies I!t. Certified loIail Ms. Mary Mundell Mr. D. Craig Ahlberg Rural Development Service ~.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. Lou; s Baxter Mr. Kenneth K. Keudell Mr. Ken Durre11 Farmers Home Administration U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. Jack Sainsbury Mr. David Mcleod Mr. George Potter Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service Ms. Laura Jean White Federal Crop Insurance Corporation U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. Thomas W. Thompson Mr. Jim Pease Mr. Gera Id Brog Mr. Darrell loIaxwell Mr. Myron L. Dunning Mr. Harold Kerr Oregon State Extension Service U.S. Department of Agriculture IoIr. Al Oard Mr. H. B. Rudolph Mr. Warren Post Mr. Gordon George forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. William L. Dugan Mr. Guy W. Nutt Mr. Robert Adelman Mr. Dale Boner Soil Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Mr. Tom Current Mr. Ronald R. Hall Ik. r·la rk Hus ton Nr. C. r'iark Smith' Economic Development Administration U.S. Department of Commerce C-17 Umatilla Army Depot Department of the Army Mr. Dave Geiger Mr. Ron' Barrett Mr. Frank Parsons Mr. Gordon D. Richardson Mr. larry Sogas Planning Branch. Portland Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Mr. Stan 'Dumas 13th Naval District Western Naval Facilities Lt. Brian Quandeck Naval Weapons Systems Training Facilities Mr. Gary Gillespy Mr. Cliff Safranski U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De'/elopment Mr. Charles Polityca Mr. Chuck Hoyt Office of land Use and Water Planning U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Don Rogers Mr. John Kincheloe Mr. larry Rasmussen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Oepartment of Interior Mr. Ernest J. Borgman Mr. Edwin L. Arnold National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Mr. \/a Iter Lewi s Bureau of t·1i nes U.S. Department of Interior Mr. A. R. Leonard Geological Survey U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Roy Sampsel Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of Interior Federal Agencies (continued) Mr. Tom Hampson Mr. John Hughes Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Bureau of Indian Affairs U.~. Department of Interior Mr. Bob Coffman Baker Office Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of Interior Mr. James Norris Mr. James Habermehl Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Dale Gooch Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Emmett Willard Mr. Harold M. Cantrell Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Interior Land and Natural Resources Division Washington, D.C. . U.S. Department of Justice Mr. Richard Arnold U.S. Department of frarlsportati Gn Mr. Hans Sperber Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Region 10 Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Portland Office Federal Railroad Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Cecil Quellette Mr. John Vlastelica U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. (Office of Public Information) Mr. Frank Thomas Federal Power Commission Mr. J. Don Chapman Small Business Administration Mr. Andy Ekman Federcl Energy Administration Seattle Office U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration Mr. Jim Hanchett Mr. Robert Ryan Mr. Robert Engelken Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. George Van Santan Mr. Donel J. Lane Mr. Larry Vinton Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission Pendleton Office Heppner Office lone Office U.S. Postal Service Salt Lake.City Office U.S. Weather Bureau C-18 State ~oencies ~ Certified ~Iail Mr. Don McKinnis Agricultural Development Department of Agriculture Ms. Lois Bohlender ~r. Trever Jacobson j,jr. Dave Bassett Building Codes Division Department of Commerce Mr..Ooug1as Stevie Housing Division Department of Commerce Mr. Gene Osborne Real Estate Division Department of Commerce Mr. Daniel Goldy Department of Economic Development Mr. Floyd Shelton Ports Department of Economic Development Mr. John Groupe Eastern Oregon Regional Office Department of Economic_Development Mr. William G. Wilmot, Jr. Department of Education Mr. David E. Piper Department of Energy Mr. Mi ke Downs Mr. Steve Garde1s Mr. Robert Jackman Mr. Bill Young Department of Environmental Quality Mr. M;~hael Burton Mr. David Hupp Ms. leslie Lehmann Intergovernmental Relations Division Executive Department Mr. James Lauman Mr. Jack E. /oIelland Mr. Glen F. Ward 11r. Will ia.. C. Ha 11 Mr. James V. Phelps Depa rtment of .Fi sh and Wi 1dl i fe M". Phillip Brogan Mr. Bill Ho1stc1aw Division Management. Plans and Programming Oregon State Department of Forestry Mr. John D. Beaulieu Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Mr. Standley L. Ausmus Mined Land Reclamation Division Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Mr. Jack I. Hinderup Office of Facilities Planning Oregon State Board of Higher Education Mr. Richard A. Davis Mr. Darrel Buttice Department of Human Resources Mr. Oon Steward Employment Division Department of Human Resources Mr. Bert Worl ey Mr. laverne Miller Mr. Jack Wright Mr. Willard S. Titus Oregon State Health Division Department of Human Resources J. O. Bray, M.D. Mr. J. E. Murray E. C. Brunette, Ph.D. Mental Health Division Department of Human Resources Mr. Harold Brauner Mr. Ronald Eber Mr. Bob Bailey Mr. Mike Fleschner Mr. Herb Ril ey Department of Land Conservation and Development Mr. Stanley Hamilton Mr. leona rd \1i 1kerson Hr. Burton P. Le'..d s Division of State Lands State Agencies (continued) Mr. Keith Stubblefield Mr. Buck Costar Oregon Law Enforcement Council State Planning Agency M~. James A. Hadley Ol~gon State Marine Soard Mr. Robert R. Fisher District No.4 Headquarters, Baker Oregqn State Police Department Mr. Paul Bettiol Mr. Leonard Skinner Board on Police Standards and Training Mr. James E. Weiss Center for Population Research and Census Mr. Dave Astle Mr. Gale Spinning Public Utility Commission Mr. Charles Liles State Soil and Water Conservation Commission Mr. Robert A. Burco Mr. Robert Bensley Mr. Robert Schroeder Mr. George Strawn Department of Tran$~ortation Mr. Fred Klaboe Mr. Bill Beckner Highway Division Department of Transportation Mr. David G. Talbot Mr. Ted Dethlefs Mr. Ted Long Parks and Recreation Branch Highway Division Department of Transportation Salem Office Department of Veterans Affairs C-20 Mr. Darrell Learn Mr: William Porfily Mr. Douglas Bennett Mr. Joseph Szramek Department of Water Resources Mr. Jeffrey Kleinman Mr. Stephen Kafoury Joint Legislative Committee on Lanrl Use Mr. Henry R. Richmond 1000 Friends of Oregon Mr. David Cole Museum of Natural History University of Oregon Mr. Kenneth C. Tollenaar Bureau of Governmental Research University of Oregon Mr. Glen Juday Naturai .Area Preserves Advisory Cow~ittee Mr. Ben Mouchett 208 Water Quality Project ------------_.~~~,,~..~~~.._.._ ....p Other Agencies (County, City, Local, etc.) ~ Certified Mail league of Oregon. Cities Salem Association of Oregon Counties Salem Mr. Wayne Ri fer The Nature Conservancy Umatilla County Board of Commissioners Morrow County Commissioners Mr. Jim Ellis Blue Mountain Economic Development Counei 1 Mr. Ed Hoeft fir. Oa1e Boner Columbia Blue Mountain Resource: Conservation, and Development Mr. Ronald R. Hall East Central Oregon Association of Counties Umatilla County Assessor Umatilla County Fair Board Hermiston Umatilla County Housing Authority Henniston Mr. Tom Munck Umatilla County Intergovernmental Counei 1 Ms·. Jul ia Murray Umatilla County League of Woman Voters Mr. Bruce Barnes, MSW, ACSW Umatilla-Morrow County Mental Health Program Reverend Dirk Rinehart Umatilla-Morrow County Mental Health Program Advisory Board Nr. Art Sa rrm'I$· Umatilla County Parks Commission Umatilla County Planning Commission C-21 Mr. Carlos Van Elsberg Umatilla County Road Oepartment Mr. G1 en Thorne Umatilla County Road Advisory Commission Mr. Henry KopacL Umatilla County Water and Soil Conservation District Morrow County Assessor Ms. Ruth 11cCabe Morrow County Historical Society Morrow County Road Department Mr. William Penney Port of Umatilla Mr. Rupert Kennedy Port of Morrow Heppner Chamber of Commerce C; ty Council s Adams Athena Boardman Echo Helix Heppner Hermiston lone Irrigon lexington Milton-Freewater Pendleton Pilot Rock Stanfield Ukiah Umatilla ****** Mr. Pat Gordon '·lr. Dick Grant Eas tern Oregon Hea 1th Sys terns Agency. Inc. Ot~er Agencies (continued) Schools Blue Mountain Community College Pendleton Athena School District No. 29 Athena Echo School District No. 5 Echo Ferndale Scnool District No. 1 Milton-Freewater Helix School District No. 1 Helix Hermiston School District No. 8 Hermiston McLoughl in Union t:igh District No.3 Milton-Freewater Milton-Freewater School District No. 31 Milton Freewater Morrow County School District No. 1 Lexington Pendleton School District No. 16 Pendleton Pilot Rock School District No. 2 Pilot Rock Stanfield School District No. 61 Stanfield Tum-A-Lum School District No. 4 Milton-Freewater Ukiah School District No. 80 Ukiah Umapine School District No. 13 Milton-Freewater Umatilla School District No.6 Umati 11 a Umatilla County Intermediate Education'District Pendleton C-22 ,.. en Weston School District No. 19 Weston Irrigon Park District Hermiston Irrigation District Stanfield-Westland Irrigation District Heppner Flood Control District Lexington-lone Cemetary District Heppner Cemetary District Irrigon Cemetary District Athena Police Department Boardman Fire District Echo Fire Department Helix Fire Department Heppner Rural Fire District Hermiston Fire Department Irrigon Rural Fire Protection Pendleton Fire Department #1 Pendleton Fire Department #2 Pilot Rock Fire Department Stanfield Fire Department Umatilla Fire Department Pioneer Memorial Hospital St. Anthony Hospital -Other Agencies (continued) Morrow County Grain Growers lone Heppner Lexington Grain Growers. Inc. Athena Echo Helix Henniston Pendleton Pilot Rock Greyhound Bus Lines Pendleton Burlington Northern. Inc. Helix Pendleton Portland (Regional Office) Union Pacific Railroad Heppner lone Pendleton Weston Mr. Don Nielson Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation Pacific Northwest Bell Pendl eton Eastern Oregon Telephone Company Pilot Rock Columbia Cable Television Henniston Heppner Television, Inc. Heppner Lexington City.Television Lexington Pendleton C~mmunity Television System Pendleton C-23 Weston/Athena Community Television Company Athena Pacific Power and Light Pendleton Portland General Electric Company Portland Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association Hermis ton Columbia Basin Electric Co-op Heppner' Cascade Natural Gas Hennis ton Cascade Natural Gas Pendleton Heppner Nor-Gas Company Heppner McCall Gas Company Stanfield Pacific Gas Transmission Company San Francisco Contact Persons Mr. Jim Thompson City Administrator City of Boardman Mr. David R. Moon Planning Director Morrow County Planning Departc.2nt Mr. Donald G. Burns Associate Planner Morrow County Planning Department Mr. Cecil Thompson Chairman West-End Citizens Advisory Committee Mr. L. T. Harper City Administrator City of Hermiston Mr: Del McNerney City Planner City of Milton-Freewater. Neighboring Jurisdictions Benton County Court House Prosser, Washington Gilliam County Board of Commissioners Condon, Oregon Grant County Board of Commissioners Canyon City, Oregon Klickitat County Court House Goldendale, Washington C-24 Mr. Edd Rhodes Planning Director City of Pendleton Mr. Henry Markus Comprehensive Planner East Central Oregon Association of Counties Mr. Dave Bishop Planning Director Umatilla County Planning Department Ms. Sarah M. Salazar Comprehensive Planner Umatilla .County Planning Department Mr. J. K. Palmer City Administrator City of ,Umatilla Mr. Ron Johnson, Consultant DMJM/Hilton, Portland Union County Board of Commissioners La Grande, Oregon Wall~ Walla County Court House Walla Walla, Washington Wallowa County Board of Commissioners Enterprise, Oregon Wheeler County Board of Commissioners Fossil, Oregon Recipients of Informational Copies President Jimmy Carter Mr. Jack H. Watson Governor Robert Straub Sta te of Oregon U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Senator Bob Packwood U.S. Representative Al Ullman Senator Mike Thorne Senator Kenneth Jernstedt Senator Robert Smith Representative Max Simpson Representative Jac~ Sumner Representative Ed Patterson Representative Jack Duff Governor Dixie Lee Ray State of Washington U.S. Senator Wat:~zn G. Magnuson U.S. Senator Henry M. Jackson U.S. Representative Thomas S. Foley U.S. Representative Mike McCormick Senator Jeanette Hayner . Senator Max Benitz Senator Al Henry Representative Eugene Struthers Representative Charles Kilbury Representative Claude Oliver Representative Gene Laughlin Representative James Boldt ************************************* Mr. Di ck Porn Economic Development Administration . . C-25 Federal Agencies ~ Certified Mail Cabinet Level Mr. James Schlesinger Assistant to the President Energy Affairs Mr. Robert Bergeland Secretary of Agriculture Ms. Juanita'M. Kreps Secretary of Commerce Mr. Harold Brown Secretary of Defense Mr. Joseph A. Califano, Jr. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Ms. Patricia R. Harris Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mr. Cecil Andrus Secretary of Interior C-26 Attorney General Griffin Bell Department of Ju,tice Mr. Ray Marshall Secretary of Labor Mr. Thomas B. Lance Director, Office of Management and Budget Mr. Cyrus Vance Secretary of State Mr. Brockman Adams Secretary of Transportation Mr. W. Michael Blumentahl Secretary of Treasury ADDENDUM TD ATTACHMENT H Second Certi fied Nail iog Federal Agencies Mr. Herle Storm~ Director Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Maurice H. Lundy, Director Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Rod Vissia. Regional Director Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Donald P. Hodel, Administrator Bonneville Power Administration Mr. Christian Walk, Director , Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Earl Anderson, Acting Administrator Federal Railroad Administration Mr. Jack Robertson, Regional Director Federal Energy Administration Mr. Tab Seahorn, Acting Director Agricultural Stabilization and Conservatfon Service Mr. H. A. Wadsworth Coop. Extension Service Oregon State University Mr. Theodore A. Schlapfer Forest Service U.S. Department o~ Agriculture Colonel Harvey Arnold, Jr. Army Corps of Engineers C-27 .... Mr. J. D. Murray, Jr., Admiral U.S. Navy Mr. Nile B. Paul, Acting Director Department of Housing and Urban Development Mr. Russell E. Dickenson National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Mr. Francis Briscoe Area Director of the Bureau of Indians Affairs Mr. George F. Wager Federal Communications Commission Mr. John H. Jewhurst, Lt. Colonel U.S. Air Force Mr. Lloyd R. Porter, District Director U.S. Department of Commerce Or. 'red Cleaver NOAA National Marine Fisheries Mr. David Head, Regional Administrator U.S. General Services Administration Mr. James Wakefield National Weather Service Mr. Bernard E. Kelly, Regional Director Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Rear Admiral C. A. Richmond, Jr. U.S. Coast Guard State Agencies Mr. Leonard Kunzman, Director Department of Agriculture Mr. Clarence Parker Department of Economic Development Dr. Verne Duncan Department of Education Mr. Fred Miller Department of Energy Mr. Jack Carter Intergovernmental Relations Division Executive Department Mr. John R. Donaldson Department of Fish and Wildl ife Mr. Ed Schroeder Department of Forestry Mr. Raymond Corcor::1l1 Department of Geology and Mineral Industries C-28 Mr. Dennis Murphy Department of Human Resources Mr. Keith Putman Oregon ~tate Health Division Mr. William S. Cox Division of State Lands Mr. Laurence Sprecher, Director Department of General Services Mr. Lon Topaz Mr. Charlie Davis Publ;c Utility Commission Mr. Jim Sexson, Director Water Resources Department Mr. Richard A. Miller, Major General Oregon Military Department Mr. Jim Ross Department of Lan·d Conservati on and Development . BEFORE THE MORROW COUNTY COURT , , ) ~n the matter of the Development) and Adoption of Procedures and ) Standards for County Review of ) City Comprehensive Plans. ) ) Resolution and Order WHEREAS. DRS 197.175 requi res each c Hy and county ; n the Sta te of Oreqan to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans consistent with Statewide Planning Goals, and WHEREAS. CRS 197.190 requires each county to coordinate all planning activities affectino land use within the county, includinq those of the county, cities. special districts. and state agencies; to assure an integrated comprehen- sive plan for the entire area of the county, and WHEREAS, DRS 197.255 requires each cCJnty to review all comprehensive plans in th~ county for the purpose of advising local jurisdictions as to their conformity with Statewide Planning Goals, and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal =14 requires that the establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process between cities and the county, and WHEREAS. Morrow County's Plannina Coordinator met on December 6, 1976. and February 14. March 21, April I!, April 22. flay 9. and flay 27.1977, with local planners or contact persons to develop the process for establishing urban growth boundaries, and WHEREAS, local planners following the direction ~rovided by the Morrow County Court have developed an overall process necessary to meet the statutory and county requirements for the establishment of urban arowth boundaries and activities related thereto, and . WHEREAS, the Morrow County Court has requested each city in the county to review and COmIT.ent on the proposed process. and WHEREAS, adoption of this process wi11 provide a form for cooperative establishment of urban n:owth ~oundaries, review of city comprehensive plans including areas within urban gro~th boundaries, and wi}l provirle the basis for developinQ joint ci:y/c:ounty manc::::er:-ent policies for land within ur~=n arm.th boundaries. - 0-1 .. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Morrow County Court adopts: 1. The process for county review of city comprehensive plans and urban growth boundaries as given in Attachment A; and 2. The form of review as given in Attachment B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Morrow County Planning Department and Planning Comnlssion are directed to use: 1. The process adopted herein for review of city comprehensive plans and urban growth boundaries; and 2. The form of review adopted herein and the Statewide Planning Goals as the basis for revie\~ing city comprehensive plans and urban growth boundaries, establishing findings of fact, and making recommendations on adoption of or concurrence with a city's compre- hensive plan and urban growth boundary. Dated this ~ay of August, 1977. Morrow County Court ~tP.~ o:o:NeiSOn, Judge Warren H. ~1cCoy, Com'SlonerJ"l. Objectives To identify agricultural lands which should be preserved and protected from urban development. To encourage residential, commercial, and industrial development within the urban growth boundary. To encourage the Morrow County Planning Department and County Court to restrict residential, commercial, and industrial development outside the urban growth boundary. Land zoned agricultural shall remain so until such time as the property owner requests a zone change. At the time the zone change shall comply with the comprehensive plan. 4. OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORICAL AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES GOAL' To COIU>eJr.ve open apace and plWtect natuItal and acen.ic. Jt...OuJI.C.... Objectives To identify open spaces, scenic and historical areas, and natural resources which should be preserved from urban development. To examine any publicly-owned lands including street rights-of-way for their potential open space use before their disposition. To protect archaeological and historic sites, structures, and artifacts. To conserve the area1s natural resources. 5. AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY GOAL' To~ and .impIWve the qUJ1ldy 06 the alA, lOOteJr., and loJuf. Jt... OuJI.C... 06 Lex.. E-3 Objectives To administer areas of flood hazard according to the City's Flood Area Management Ordinance to be adopted by the City upon completion of the final flood plain study. To require site specific information clearly determining the degree of hazard present from applicants who seek approval to develop residential, co~ercial, or industrial uses within known areas of natural disasters and hazard. 7. RECREATIONAL NEEDS GOAL: To ~a.:ti..66Y :the lLec.Jte.a.t.i.ona£. need6 06 :the e.Ui.ZeM 06 Lexing:ton and v~UOM. Objectives To develop public meeting places and indoor recreational facilities for all age groups. To develop neighborhood parks and outdoor recreational. facilities in order to meet the needs of residents and visitors as the community grows. 8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I r, GOAL: To cU.vvu,i6y and imptWve :the ec.onomy 06 Lexing:ton. Objectives To encourage commercial development to meet the needs of residents and visitors. To encourage diversified, non-polluting industrial development in order to provide a stable job.market. To maximize .the util ization of local manpower as job. opportunities increase . . 9. HOUSING GOAL: To inc.JteMe :the ~uppiy 06 hOr.L6ing :to a.ilOW60lL popuhLtion glWwth and :to ptWvide 60Jt :the hOMing need6 06 :the c..U<.zeM 06 Lexing:ton. Objectives To allow for.a moderate rate of growth. To allow for residential development which provides prospective buyers with a variety of residential lot sizes, a diversity of housing types, and a , range in prices. 10. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES GOAL: To pian and deveiop a timeiy, olLdeAfy, and e66ic.ien:t a.,'z}z.a.ng emen:t 06 public. 6ac..U.i.ti.u and ~eJtvic.u :to .6eJtve a..6 a 6lLa.mWOlLk. 60lL UlLban deveiopmen:t. E-4 •----.---- Objectives To develop, maintain, update, or expand police and fire services, streets, water and sewer systems, and storm drains as necessary to provide adequate facilities and services to the community . . To cooperate with agencies involved in providing and coordinating social services to the community. To work with Morrow County to insure adequate provision for and control of solid waste disposal sites. To plan public facilities, services, and utilities to be maintained by the City of Lexington in cooperation with private companies to meet expected demand. To provide City water and sewer services when available only after the area to be served has been annexed to the City or at the discretion of the City Counci 1. 11. TRANSPORTATION GOAL' To pItOv-i.de and eneouMge a .a6e, eonvenien-t and eeonomieat :I:JulMpo"-ta-fun .y.tem. Objectives To encourage good transportation linkages {pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, etc.} between residential areas and major activity centers. To encourage industry to locate in areas which are or can be served by the railroad. To prioritize the sequence for the paving of city streets. To contract with Morrow County or the State of Oregon or private contractors to pave streets within the City when they are doing other work in the area. )2. ENERGY CONSERVATION Objectives· To develop a zoning ordinance which protects sun rights . • To develop subdivision regulations which require that the orientation of streets and buildings allow for utilization of solar energy and require land- scaping to reduce summer cooling needs. To design the extension and upgrading of water and sewer lines when available and facilities to minimize energy use. E-5 I. I 13. URBANIZATION GOAL: To pJlov.i.de n0lt an oltdeJli.y and enMc.i.ent .tJr.o.ru,..U;.[orr. nltOm Jtu/la.l :to wr.ban land Me. Objectives To establish an urban growth boundary to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. To develop a cooperative process between Lexington and Morrow County for the establishment and change of the urban growth boundary. To establish a policy for revising or amending the urban growth boundary. SECTION 6. PLAN AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE REVIEW 1. The City Comprehensive Plan and implementation measures shall be reviewed at least annually to determine conformity with changes in: a. Requirements of the City; b. Needs of residents or landowners within the.City urban growth. area; c. Concerns of affected governmental units; and 4. County administration of land use regulation within urban growth areas 2. The City Comprehensive Plan and implementation measures shall be reviewed as the City Council determines necessary for conformity with changes in: a. The Oregon Revised Statutes; b, Oregon Case La'.~; c. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 3. If the City Comprehensive Plan, implementation measures, or both fail to conform to any or all of the above-mentioned criteria, the non-conforming document(s) shall be amended as soon as practicable. SECTION 7. PLAN AMENDMENT After the Planning Commission and City Council determine that proposed amend- ments should be considered, amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be based on the following procedure and requirements. 1. The City Council shall set a public hearing date and give notice thereof through a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. 2. Copies of proposed amendments shall be made available for pubi,c review at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing and if applicable, not shall be mailed to: (a) Property owners within 250 feet of a proposed amendment to the plan map; and . (b) Affected governmental units which may be impacted by or who have requested opportunity to review and·comment on proposed amendments. E-6 3. Within ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing, the City Council shall make findings of fact and adopt, adopt with changes, or deny the proposed amendments. Adoption is conditioned upon: A. City adoption is final in the case of amendment of the plan map for the area within the city limits. B. County adoption in the case of amendment of plan policies or the plan map for the urban growth area; and C. County adoption and lCOC approval in the case of amendment of plan goals or urban growth boundary location. 4. Copies of plan amendments adopted by the City shall be sent to Morrow County and the lCOC within ten (10) days after adoption. APPROVED AND ADOTPED by the lexington City Council on this 11th day of July, 1978. Mayor EST: ~:A"-d/7' Amendments to the Lexington Comprehensive Plan and are hereby approved and adopted this 5th ATTEST: E-7 policies are incorporated herein day of June ,1979. ~ Mayor .' BEFORE THE COUNTY COURT FOR MORROW COUNTY In Re the Adoption of the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan as an Amendment to the Horrow County Comprehensive Plan. ) l) Ordinance No. WHEREAS, the City of Lexington, Ore~on, has adopted as part of its Compreh~nsive Plan an ~rban Growth Boundary enco~pas~ing.land lying outside ", corporate city limits, and WHEREAS, that land within the Urban Growth Boundary is presently under the jurisdiction of Narrow County, ,Oregon, and included \·tithin the Morrow County Compreh~nsive ~lan, and WHEREAS, the City of Lexington and Morrow County, on August 16, 1978, entered into ~n_ag,eement known as the City of Lexington Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan was held before the Morrml County Planning Commission on July 31, 1978, and notice of the hearing was published in The Heppner Gazette on July 20, 1978, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on this ordinance was held before the Morrow County Court on August 16, 1978, and notice of the hearing was published in The Heppner Gazette on August 3 and August 10, 1978. The County Court for Morrow County, Oregon, hereby ordain as follows: The Morrow County Comprehensive Plan, originally adopted in December, 1971. is amended to adopt the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lexington, Oregon. for that land designated as being within the City of Lexington Urban Growth Boundary but outsice corporate city limits as referenced and mapped in the City of Lexington Co~~rehensive Plan and as ado~ted by the lexing~cn City Council on July 11 ,1978. The substan~i'le provi.sions of the City of lexington Subdivision and Zoning· Ordinances as cgreed upon in the above n:entioned Joint Hanagement Agreement are also adopted by reference. E-8 DATED this -.,!.,It~{;,L)__ day of -----'.~~~""""""=!J~<'\----, 1978. MORRO\oJ COUNTY COURT D~, O. Nelson, Judge I,Ii .. ; , JrCU7A''?-rL- Jf.2;-/~ .Ik--/ - S-adi e Parri sh • RE: Adoption of the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan E-9 Page -2- BEFORE THE COUNTY COURT FOR MORROW COUNTY In Re the Adoption of the Policies Amending the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan as an Amendment to the Morrow Countl Comprehensive Plan ) ) ) ) ) Ordinance No. ;27 WHEREAS, the City of Lexington, Oregon, has adopted as part of its Comprehensive Plan amended policies which affect lenad outside corporate City limits but within its Urban Growth Boundary, and WHEREAS, that land with the Urban Growth Boundary, is presently under the jurisdiction of Morrow County, Oregon, and included within the Morrow County Comprehensive Plan, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the amended City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan policies was held before the Morrow County Planning Commission on June 25, 1979, and notice of the hearing was published in The Heppner Gazette-Times and The East Oregonian on June 14 and June 21, 1979, and WHEREAS, a public hearing on this ordinance was held before the Morrow County Court on June 27, 1979, and notice of the hearing was published in The Heppner Gazette-Times and The East Oregonian on June 14 and 21, 1979, The CountY,Court for Morrow County, Oregon, hereby ordains as follows: The County Court for Morrow County Comprehensive Plan originally adopted in December, 1971, and amended to adopt the City of Lexington Comprehensive Plan for the Urban Growth on August 16, 1978, is further amended to adopt amended policies adopted by the Lexington City Council on June 5, 1979, .' Cp. Q1DATED this :/7 day of C/&rf • 1979 MORROW COUNTY COURT , /70: , Warren McCoy, sioner omm~ss~oner ai:eParr~8 ATTEST, County Clerk ~ . ~ , /.:d/~ " , Appendix F URBAN GROWTH AREA JOINT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT The parties to this Joint Management Agreement shall be the City of Lexington, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the City. and Morrow County. Oregon, herein- after referred to as the Coun~y. The terms of this Joint Management Agreement shall be applicable to the City's urban growth area. For the purposes of this Agreement, the urban growth area shall be defined as that area of land extending from the City's corporated limits to the City·s urban growth boundary as referenced and mapped in the City's Comprehensive Plan on July 11, 1978 and herebyincorporatedinto ~a"nd:r-:m'f.a:Od"'e~a!;-;p;:;a"'r:i:t""'o"'f""t"hTis::-:d"'o"'c"'um"e"'n"t"(~se"'e"A"t·ta"'c"h"me=n·t""'A""')'. This Joint Management Agreement is entered into pursuant to DRS Chapter 190 and 197 and the Oregon State Planning Goals for the purpose of facilitating the orderly transition from rural to urban land uses within the Cityls urban growth area. Words and phrases used in this Joint Management Agreement shall be construed in accordance with DRS Chapters 92, 197, 215, and 227 and applicable Oregon Statewide Planning Goals unless otherwise specified. In the event two or more definitions are provided for a single word or phrase. the most restrictive definition shall be utilized in construing this Agreement. I. Introductory Information A. This Joint Management Agreement is the culmination of a series of actions intended, in part, to facilitate the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urbanizab1e to urban land uses within tIle urban growth area. Such actions include the preparation of a city comprehensive olan, the cooperative establishment of an urban growth area (see Attachments A, B-1, and B-2), coordination with affected governmental units, and county review of the city compre- hensive plan. 8. The City Council has adopted by ordinance a comprehensive plan which includes an urban growth boundary and planning goals, objectives, and policies (see Attachment A). II. General Comprehensive Plan Provisions A. The County shall retain responsibility for land use decisions and actions affecting the City's urban growth area, such responsibility to be relinquished over any land within this area upon its annexa- tion to the City subject to provisions of DRS 215.130(2)(a). B. The City's urban gro\tth area has been identified as urbanizab1e and is considered to be available over time for urban expansion. In order to promote consistency between the City's planning effort and County land use decisions and actions affecting the urban growth area, the County shall incorporate that portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan which addresses the urban growth area into the County Comprehensive Plan. F-l Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement Page 2 C. After the City's Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by the County and after County concurrence with and approval of the Plan for the area within corporate city limits and adoption of the Plan for the urban growth area, all public sector actions which fall within the scope of the City's Comprehensive Plan shall be consistent with the Plan. o. Land within the urban growth area presently zoned for Agricultural Use shall remain in Agricultural Use until rezoning is requested, and such rezoning shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. E.. It is the policy an the City and County to maintain a rapid exchange of information relating to their respective land use decisions which affect the City's urban growth area. III. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances A. The Substantive, as opposed to procedural, portions of the City's - Zoni ng and Subdi vi si·orr'1lr"dihances (see Attachments C~ 1 and C-2) shall be incorporated by reference into and made a part of the County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances with exceptions as necessary and as agreed upon in writing by both parties to this Joint Management Agreement no later than thirty (30) days after this agreement is signed by both the City and the County. B. For the purposes of this Joint Management Agreement: 1. Substantive provisions of a zoning ordinance shall be those sections of the ordinance which establish outright uses, conditional uses, and zone requirements (e.g., minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, etc.) and the zoning map; and 2. Substantive provisions of a subdivision ordinance shall be those sections of the ordinance which establish design standards for required improvements. C. The City Zoning Map, when adopted as part of the City Zoning Ordinance, shall include the urban growth area and shall: 1. Apply to land within the city limits upon adoption by the City; 2. Apply to land within the urban growth area upon annexation to the City; 3. Be a recommendation to the County for rezoning all lands within the urban growth area where existing zoning is inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan by type of use allowed except; a. Land zoned for Agricultural Use pursuant to Section 11(0) above; and b. Land may be rezoned to a lesser density or intensity of use (i.e., low-density versus medium-density residential). F-2 Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement Page 3 4. After action is taken by the County pursuant to Section III(C)(3) above all subsequent rezoning by the County shall be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map except that: a. Adequate findings for the need to rezone land shall be required, and; b. land may be rezoned to a lesser density or intensity of use (i.e., low-density versus medium-density residential). D. The above mentioned incorporated Ordinances shall only be applied to zone change, conditional use, variance, subdivision, major partition. minor partition, and outright use permit requests within or affecting the City's urban growth area. VI. Referred Applications/Situations A. The County Planning Department shall refer each request affecting the City urban growth area to the City for its review and comment within three days of the date the request ~as filed with the County Planning Department. B. The City shall review the request and submit its recommendation to the County Planning Department within thirty (3D) days of the date the request was received by the City. C. It is agreed that the County will refer any proposed discretionary action back to the city for its review and comment in the event such action was not addressed in the original request for review. The same time limitations imposed by Section IV A and B above shall be applicable. D. The County shall retain final decision-making responsibility for all land use actions affecting the City urban growth area, but such decisions shall only be made after the receipt of timely recommendations from the City. E. Should no recommendations be forthcoming within established response times, absent a request for an extension, the City shall be presumed to have no negative comment regarding the application. F. After the County makes a decision on the application, the City shall be promptly informed of the action taken by the County. V. City Services A. The City may extend city services to any site or subdivision located within the City urban growth area at the affected property owner's request and expense. Such extension of city services to sites outside of the City's corporate limits shall be conditioned upon annexation, or upon an unlimited agreement signed by the affected property owner that the site may be annexed by City Council aetton as soon as the site becomes contiguous to the city, or upon discretionary action of the City Council. B. For the purposes of this Joint Management Agreement. expenses to be incurred by the affected property owner shall be in accordance with City Policy. F-3 -- ~~_~ ._._.,"""_"""."""",.,,._'..., ....-..................- .........>\0'.......__~........._·..............,,"....• ..'"__...' ...H·...." ...· ...' ..........._'...,:....... Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement Page 4 C. Services and hook-on charges shall be established by the City Council. VI. Annexation A. Annexation of sites within the City urban growth area shall be in accordance with relevant annexation procedures contained in the Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon case law, and City Ordinances (see Attachment E) and shall not occur until such sites become contiguous to the City as required by the Oregon Revised Statutes. B. For the purpose of this Joint Management Agreement, contiguous shall be defined as touching or adjoining, or adjacent to the City. If the area to be annexed is bordered by a county road, then the property must be contiguous to the corporate City Limits for a minimum distance of 100 feet. A. The circumstances under which the City will assume ownership of and maintenance responsibility for County Roads within the corporate limits. VI I. Roads The County and City shall cooperatively develop an implementation regarding streets and roads within the City urban growth area and ate limits which is consistent with' the City Comprehensive Plan. policy shall include, but not be limited to, the following. policy corpor- Such B. The conditions under which new steeets and roads will be developed in conjunction with subJivisions within the City urban growth area. C. The conditions under which new public steeets and roads will be developed within the City urban growth area. D. The conditions under which existing roads designated as future arterials in the City Comprehensive Plan will be improved. E. See Attachments F-l and F-2 for existing county roads within the corprate limits ·and the City urban growth area. VIII. Appeals A. As the County retains responsibility for land use decisions and actions affecting the urban growth area, appeals from such decisions and actions shall be in accordance with the appeals process specified in the County Zoning or Subdivision Ordinances, applicable state statute or adminis- trative rule. B. In the event that ei ther the County Pl anni ng Corruni ss i on or the County Court disagrees with the City comment and recommendation provided for in Secti on II I of thi s Joi nt Management Agreement, the City shall have standing to appeal as provided in Section VIII A above. F-4 .. Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement ]>age 5 IX. Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Measure Review and Amendment A. The City Comprehensive Plan, including this Joint Management Agreement, and the zoning, subdivision, and other implementation ordinances or measures shall be reviewed at least annually to determine conformity with changes in: I. Requirements of the City; 2. Needs of residents or landowners within the City urban growth area; 3. Concerns of affected governmental units; and 4. County administration of land use regulation within urban growth areas B. The City Comprehensive Plan, including this Joint Management Agreement, and the zoning, subdivision, and other implementation ordinances or measures shall be reviewed as the City Council determines necessary for conformity with changes in: 1. The Oregon Revised Statutes; 2, Oregon Case Law; 3. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals; C. If the City Corrprehensive Plan, implementation rreasures, or both fail to conform to any or all of the above-mentioned criteria, the non-conforming document shall be amended as soon as practicalbe. Such amendments shall be adopted: Be a majority of both the full City Council and the County Court after recommendations have been received from the planning commission· of the County, X. Severability The provisions of this Joint Management Agreement are severable. If any article, sentence, clause or phrase shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement is signed and executed this 11th day of July , 19 78 CITY COUNCIL tL¥,J?e, ik·;;,e/' ? F-5 - --_._-_.-~_. ATTACHMENTS A * City Comprehensive Plan Map (including growth area). B-1 * City ordinance adopting the City Comprehensive Plan, including the urban growth boundary. B-2 * County ordinance amending the City Comprehensive Plan by its adoption of the City Comprehensive Plan for the urban growth area. C-l * Substantive portion of the City Zoning Ordinance (# 79-1 ). C-2 * Substantive portion of the City Subdivision Ordinance (# 79-2 ). D * City ordinance relating to the extension of city services (# 74-1 ). E * City ordinance relating to the annexation (none) F-l * List of existing County roads within the City urban growth boundary. F-2 * Map of existing County roads within the City urban growth boundary. Amendments to the Lexington Comprehensive Plan policies are incorporated in City Ordinance No. l g -..2 and the Lexington Comprehens i ve Pl an Techni ca1 Report and are hereby approved and co-adopted this 5th day of June, 1979. F-6 CITY OF LEXINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 79-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 Tit1 e . . . • . Purposes . . . Scope • . . • . Zoning .of Areas Definitions .. . . . . to be Annexed 1 1 1 1 1 1 . ARTICLE 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES 2.10 Classification of Zones 2.20 Zone Boundaries • 2.30 Location of Zones ARTICLE 3. USE ZONES • • • • • 3.10 Genera] Residential Zone, R 3.20 Farm Residential Zone, FR • 3.30 Commercial Zone, C .... 3.40 Light Industrial Zone, M . 3.50 Permanent Open Space Zone, 0 3.60 Additional Requirements • 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 10 11 12 12 4.10 Definition .'•••••.••....•....• 4.20 Circumstances for.A110wing a Non-conforming Use ARTICLE 4. NON-CONFORMING USES •.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13 14 ARTICLE 5. CONDITIONAL USES ••••••...•...... 5.10 Authorization .to Grant or Deny Conditional Uses 5.20 Placing Conditions.on a Permit . 5.30 Application for a Conditional Use ..•.... 5.40 Procedure for Taking Action on a Conditional Use Application .•.....••...... 5.50 Time Limit on a Permit for a Conditional Use .. 5.60 Time Limit on Reapplication ..•.•...... 14 14 15 16 16 17 17 ARTICLE 6. VARIANCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.10 Authorization to Grant or Deny Variances 17 6.20 Circumstances for Granting a Variance. . .. .. 17 6.30 Procedure for Taking Action on a Variance Application 18 6.40 Time Limit on a Permit for a Variance. . . . . . . . 18 G-- i ARTICLE 7. MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS .•...••.••.• 7.10 General Requirements for Siting Mobile Homes 7.20 Installation Requirements ••..••.••. 18 18 19 ARTICLE 8. (RESERVED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ..••...•.•.. 19 "j,. ARTICLE 9. OFF STREET. PARKING AND.LOADING .. 9.10 Genera1 Provi si ons • • . • . . . 9.20 Off Street Parking.Specifications 9.30 Joint Parking ••• 9.40 Off Street Loading 9.50· Nonlisted Uses 9.60 Surfacing 9.70 Access •. • • ARTICLE 10 SIGNS. • 10.10 Sign Requirements ARTICLE 11. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 11. 10 Exceptions. • • • • • 11.20 Accessory.Uses and Facilities 11.30 Pets .••• • ••• 11.40 Water Source •••••• .. 19 19 20 22 22 22 22 22 · 22 22 23 23 24 • 24 25 ARTICLE 12. ADMINISTRATIVE. PROVISIONS 12.10 Form of Petitions, .Applications and Appeals 12.20 Notice of Public Hearings . . . . • • • . . • . 12.30 Application for Building/Mobile Home Zoning Signoff 12.40 Temporary Use Permits 12. 50 Appea1 • • .'. . • • . . 12.60 Amendments •••••••.. ARTICLE 13. INTERPRETATION AND. ENFORCEMENT 13.10 Interpretation . 13.20 Authorization of Similar Uses 13.30 Penalty ... 13.40 Severabi 1ity • . . . . . . . &- i i • 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 pCITY OF LEXINGTON ZONING OROINANCE An Ord;nance Prov;d;ng for the Estab1;shment of Zon;ng Regulat;ons for the City of Lexington, Oregon, and for the Repeal;ng of Ord;nance No. 79-1. ARTICLE 1. INTROOUCTORY PROVISIONS 1.10 T;t1e. Th;s ordinance together with the zoning map attached hereto as Appendix A shall be known as the zon;n9 ordinance of the City of Lexington l Oregon. 1.20 Purposes. This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of promoting ~he public health, safety, and welfare; to encourage the most appropriate use of property w;th;n the city; to stab;];ze and protect the value of property; to prov;de adequate light cnd air; to prevent overcrowding; to lessen traffic congestion; to facil- itate adequate and economical provisions for public improvements, all to implement the comprehens;ve plan of the C;ty of Lex;ngton; to provide a method of administration and to prescribe penalties for violations of the prov;s;ons here;n. 1.30 Scope. No structure Of. lot shall hereinafter be used or .occupied, and no structure or ·part thereof shall be erected, moved, re- constructed, extended, enlarged or otherwise altered except as permitted by th;s ordinance. 1.40 Zones of Areas to be Annexed. Pr;or to the annexat;on of any land to the City of Lexington the C;ty Council shall determ;ne, by ref- erence to the comprehensive plan, the appropriate zoning for the property to be arinexed. The zon;ng of the property to be annexed shall be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. o 1.50 Definitions. 1. Accessory Use or Structure. A use or structure incidental and subordinate to the perm;tted ma;n use of the property, located on the same lot with the main use. A home occupation is an accessory use. 2. Alley. A narrow street through a block pr;mar;ly for veh;cu1ar access to the back of property otherwise abutting on another . street. 3. Billboard. A sign which has a surface space upon which adver- tising may be posted, painted, or affixed and which is primarily designed for the rental or lease of such sign space for adver- tising not related to the use of the property upon which the sign exists. G·1 4~ Building. Any structure having a roof intended for the support, shelter or enclosure of any persons, animals, property or business activity. 5. Building permit. A permit issued by the State of Oregon to construct, extend, or remodel a building. 6. Child Care Center or Foster Group Home. A dwelling unit which is licensed by the State of Oregon asa child care center or foster group home in which three or more children, under the age of eighteen and not related to the owner or occupant of the unit by blood, marriage or adoption, are cared for either part-time or full-time for a fee or charge paid by the parents or guardian of said children. 7. City. The City of Lexington, Oregon. 8. City Council. The city council of the City of Lexington, Oregon. 9. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Lexington, Oregon. 10. Conditional use. A use which requires a hearing before the· city council. The council may attach conditions in approving the use to insure that the use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the neighbor- hood .and property where the use is proposed. 11. Domestic well. A water well for the use of humans. 12. Dwelling unit. One or. more rooms designed for occupancy by one family, containing complete housekeeping facilities. For the purposes of this ordinance, dwelling unit includes mobile homes and modular homes, but does not include recrea- tional vehicles. 13. Dwelling, single-family. A building containing one dwelling unit. 14. Dwelling, two-familY or duplex. A building containing two dwelling units. 15. Dwelling, multi-family. A building containing three or more dwell ing units. 16. Family. An individual or two or more persons related by marriage, blood, legal adoption or guardianship, and/or not more than three unrelated persons living together in one dwell- ing unit. G-- 2 17. Farming! Farm use. The use of land for raising and harvesting crops, or for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock, or for dairying, or for any other agricultural or horticultural use, or any combination thereof, including disposal of such products by marketing or otherwise. Farming also includes the use and construction of buildings customarily used in the above activities. 18. Floor area. The total area of all floors of a building as measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, includ- ing.halls, stairways, elevator shafts, attached porches and balconies, excluding open court yards and vent shafts. 19. Grade. The average elevation of the finished ground eleva- tion at the centers of all walls of a building, except that if a wall is parallel to and within five feet of a sidewalk, the sidewalk elevation nearest the center· of the wall shall constitute the ground elevation. 20. Height of building. The vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of. the coping of a flat roof. to the deck line of a mansard roof, to the mean point between the eaves and highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. 21. Home occupation. Accessory use of a dwelling, employing only the inhabitants of the dwelling, wherein the residential characte~ of the dwelling is maintained. The occupation must be lawful and must be conducted in such manner that storage or display of merchandise, equipment or machinery is not visible from off the property on which the occupation is located, and the occupation may not infringe upon the right of.neighboring residents to enjoy t~e peaceful occupation af their dwellings. 22. Junk yard. The use of more than 200 square feet.of the area of any lot •. or the use of any portion of .that half of any lot (but not exceeding.a depth ar width, as the case may be, af 100 feet) which adjoins any street, for the storage, keeping or abandonment.of junk, including scrap metals or other scrap material, or the use of any area for the dismantling, demo- lition, or abandonment of automobiles or other vehicles or machinery or parts thereof; provided, however, that this definition shall not be deemed to include uses conducted entirely within an enclosed building. 23. Kennel. Any premises, building, or structure in or on which four or more dogs or cats over the age of 3 months are kept. 24. livestock feed yard. Any land or building used for the rais- ing or keeping of more than six head of cattle or similar livestoc~ for the purpose of conditioning same for market or slaughter. c:;;. 3 25. Lot. A parcel of land having sufficient area to meet the minimum lot requirements in the zone in which it is located and having its principal frontage on, or permanent access to a street. 26. Lot area. The total area within the boundary lines of a lot. 27. Lot, corner. A lot with at least two adjacent sides abutting streets other than alleys, provided the angle of intersection of the adjacent streets does not exceed 135 degrees. 28. Lot coverage. That portion of a lot occupied by the principal building and its accessory buildings, expressed as a percent- age of the total lot area. 29. Lot depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line. 30. Lot line. The boundary line of a lot. 31. Lot, interior. A lot other than a corner lot. 32. Lot line, front. The line separating the lot from the street other than an alley, or the nearest line to the public street. In the case of a corner lot, the shortest lot line along a street other than an alley. 33. Lot line. rear. The lot line which is opposite and most dis- tant from the front lot line. 34. Lot line, side. Any lot line not a front or rear lot line. 35. Lot width. The mean horizontal distance between the side lot lines, ordinarily measured parallel to the front lot line. 36. Mobile home. A structure designed or used for residential occupancy dependent upon external utility connections and built upon a frame or chassis to which wheels may be attached by which it.may be moved upon a highway, irrespective of whether or. not ·such, structure has, at any given. time, such wheels attached, or is supported upon posts, footings or a foundation. 37. Mobile home park. A place where four or more mobile homes are located within 500 feet of one another on a lot, tract or parcel of land under the same o~mership, the primary purpose of which is to rent space or keep space for rent to any person for a charge or fee paid or to be paid for the rental or use of facilities or to offer space free in con- nection with securing the trade or patronage of such person. 9-4 38. Modular home. A sectional or factory built house built to meet the housing standards of Oregon Department of Commerce~ designed to be affixed to real property on a permanent foundation. 39. Motel. A building or group of buildings on the same lot containing guest units with automobile storage or standing space provided in connection therewith and consisting of individual sleeping quarters, with or without cooking facilities, intended primarily for the accommodation of automobile travelers, including facilities designated as auto cabins, auto court, motor lodge, and the like, but not including "trailer park". 40. Nonconforming" structure or use. A structure or use of a structure or land that does not conform to the regulations for the zone in which it is situated. 41. Parking space, automobile. A rectangle not less than 20 feet long and 9 feet wide accessible for use for the parking of one standard American automobile without the necessity of moving any other vehicle. 42. Person. Every natural person, firm. partnership, association, or corporati on. 43. Property owner. The owner of record in the Morrow County Assessor's.Office. 44. Public use. 8ui1ding·or use such as a city hall, fire station, city shop, school, community center, park, or similar uses. 45. Recreation vehicle. A vacation trailer or other vehicular or portable unit which is either self-propelled or toed or is carried ,by a motor vehicle, which is intended for human occupancy.and is designed for vacation or recreation purposes but not residential use. 46. Recreation vehicle park. A lot which is operated on.a fee or other basis as a place for the parking of occupied recreation vehicles. 47. Semi-public use. Building or use such as a church, hospital, sanitarium, rest home, nursing or convalescent home, utility structure, and similar uses. 48. Sign. An identification, description or device which directs attention to a product, place, activity, person, institution or business, and which is affixed to or represented upon a building, structure or land. Each display surface or a sign structure shall be considered a separate sign. &-5 II 49. Sight obscuring fence. A solid fence or a slat fence at least six feet in height that completely obscures vision. 50. Sight obscuring planting. A dense perennial evergreen planting with sufficient foliage to obscure vision and which will reach an average height of at least six feet within thirty months after planting. 51. Story. That portion of a building between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above. except.that the top story shall be. that portion between the upper surface of the highest floor and the ceiling above. A basement or cellar shall be considered a story if the finished floor.level directly above is more than six feet above grade. 52. Street. A public right-of-way for the use of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The street embraces the entire width between.its outer property lines. 53. Structure. Anything constructed or erected which requires . location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the.ground. 54. Use .. The purpose for which land or a building thereon is designed. arranged. or intended or for which it is or may be occupied or maintained. 55. Variance. A modification of the requirements of this ordinance when authorized by the COl:ncil after it finds that the literal application.of the provisions of this ordinance would cause undue hardship in view ·of the certain facts and conditions applying to the specific parcel of· property. 56. Yard. An open space on a lot which is unobstructed from the ground upward. 57. Yard. front. That yard lying between a .building and a lot line which adjoins a street. 58. Yard. rear. That yard lying between.the rear· lot line and the rear of the building. 59. Yard, side. That yard lying between abuilding and a side lot line which does not adjoin ·a street. 60. Urban growth area. That land between the incorporated limits of the city and the Urban Growth Boundary. 61. Urban Growth Boundary. The Boundary designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan which identifies and separates urbanizable land from rural land. 62. Zone. A portion of the city within which certain uses of land arrur-buildings are permitted and certain otber uses of land and buildings are prohibited and within which certain other specifications are established, all as set forth and specified in this ordinance. 63. Zoning Map Amendment. A zone change is an amendment to the zoning designation of the Zoning Map of Lexington. 64. Zoning permit. A permit, signed by the Mayor of Lexington, approving a planned use and construction by an applicant. ARTICLE 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES 2.10 Classification of Zones. For the purpose of this ordinance the following zones are hereby established. ZONE DESIGNATION 1- General .Residentia1 R 2. Farm Residential FR 3. Comnerci a1 C 4. Light Industrial M 2.20 Zone Boundaries. Unless otherwise provided in this ordinance, zone boundaries are section lines. subdivision lines, lot lines, center lines of streets or railroad rights of "way, or such lines extended. 2.30 Location of Zones. A zoning map showing boundaries of the zones as hereby established shall be adopted and made part of this ordinance and attached hereto as Appendix A. Said map and all notations, references or.amendments thereto shall be and remain on file with the City Recorder. ARTICLE 3. USE ZONES 3.10 Residential Zone. R. In an R zone_the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. 1. Single-family dwelling 2. Mobil e home 3. Crop cultivation, truck gardening or plant nursery. 6--7 I, 3.11 Conditional Uses Permitted in an R Zone. In an R zone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq. 1. Multi-family dwelling 2. Two-family dwelling 3. Child care center or foster group home 4. Mobile home park 5. Public or semi-public use 3.12 Dimensional Standards in an R Zone. In an R zone the following dimensional standards shall apply. 1. The front yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 2.· Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten feet, except that on a.comer lot the side yard on the street side shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 3. The rear yard shall be a minimum of 35 feet. 4. The lot area shall be a minimum of 7,500 square feet and and shall exceed the minimum by 2,000 square feet for each dwelling.unit over one. 5. The lot.width at the ~ront building line shall be a mini- mum of 62·feet. 6. The lot depth shall be a minimum of 100 feet. 7. Building height shall be a maximum of 25 feet. 8. Not more than 30 percent of the lot area shall be covered by.buildings. 9. The minimum street frontage shall be 62 feet except on a cul-de-sac where the minimum shall be 30 feet. 3.20 Farm Residential Zone, FR. In anFR zone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. 1. Single-family dwelling 2. Mobil e home 3. Farming, not including intensive livestock or poultry opera- tions such as a commercial feed lot or poultry plant. Gr· 8 •,. 3.21 Conditional Uses Permitted in an FR Zone. In an FR zone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq. 1. Mobile home 2. Public or Semi-public use 3. Child care center or foster group home 3.22 Dimensional Standards in an FR Zone. In an FR zone the following dimensional standards shall apply. 1. The front yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 2. Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten feet, except that on a corner lot the side yard on the street side shall be a minimum of 20 feet. 3. The rear.yard shall be a minimum of 35 feet. 4. The lot area shall be a minimum of one acre. 5. The lot width at the front building line shall be a minimum of 150 feet. 6. The lot depth shall be a minimum of 200 feet. 7. Building height shall be a maximum of. 25 feet. B. Not more than 10 percent of the lot area shall be covered by buildings. 9. The minimum street frontage shall be 50 feet. 3.23 Limitations on Use. In an FR zone, the following limitations ,and conditions shall apply: 1. The number of cows, horses, or similar livestock over the age of six months shall not exceed one for each 10,000 square feet of lot area. 2. The number of sheep, goats, or similar livestock over the age of six months shall not exceed one for each 5,000 square feet of lot area. 3. The number of fowl or rabbits over the age of six months shall not exceed one for each 250 square feet of lot area. ~·9 4. Any hog pen must be 200 feet from a residence not owned by the owner of the hog pen. No more than three hogs over the age of three months may be kept inside the city 1iml'ts. 5. Animals and fowl shall be properly restrained and not permitted to run at large. 6. Structures housing livestock shall be set back at least 40 feet from any street. Sale of products of the farm on the premises upon which such products are produced, including signs advertising the sale of such products, is permitted, but on each premises not more than two·such signs having an area of not more than six square feet each are allowed. 3.30 Commercial Zone, C. In a C zone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. 1. Retail or whole sale trade establishment 2. Repair or maintenance establishment 3. Eating or drinking establishment 4. Office 5. Financial institution 6. Plant nursery 7. Amusement establishment 3.31 Conditional. Uses Permitted in a C Zone. In a C zone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq. 1. Single family dwelling 2. Two-family dwelling 3. Recreational vehicle park 4. Veterinary clinic 5. Multiple dwelling including hotel and motel 6. Public or semi-public use C;. 10 -3.32 Dimensional Standards in a C Zone. In a C zone the following dimensional standards shall apply. 1. In a C zone the dimensional standards of the R zone apply to a lot or structure whose primary use is for a dwelling. 2. The lot-area shall be adequate to meet the needs of the establishment, the septic tank drainfie1d requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality, the requirements of the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code, the requirements of the City's fire zones and shall provide adequate space for parking and loading pursuant to Article g of this ordinance. 3.40 Light Industrial Zone, M. In an Mzone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright. 1. Manufactur}ng, repairing, compounding, processing, and storage. 2. Wholesale distributing facility or warehouse. 3. Farming, not including intensive livestock or poultry operations such as commercial feed lot or poultry plant. 3.41 Conditional Uses Permitted in an MZone. In an Mzone the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted when authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq. 1. Commercial livestock sales yard 2. Conmercial .grain elevator 3. Wreck;ng yard 4. Public building or use such _as a fire station or shop 5. Utility structure 6. Surface mining, rock crushing,_ asphalt plant 7. Any other industrial use except those uses which are designated as nuisance industries by the city council. 8. Dwelling for use by caretaker or watchman. 3.42 Dimensional Standards in an MZone. In an Mzone the following dimensional standards shall apply. The lot area shall be adequate to meet the needs of the establishment, the septic tank .drainfield requirements of G--11 II , I' the Department of Environmental Quality, the requirements of the Oregon State Structural Specialty Code and Fire-and Life Safety Code, the requirements of the City's fire zones and shall provide adequate space for parking and loading pursuant to Article 9 of this ordinance. 3.43 Limitations on Use. In an Mzone, the following limitations and conditions shall apply. 1. A use which creates a nuisance because of noise, smoke, odor, dust, or gas is prohibited. 2. Materials shall be stored and grounds shall be maintained in a manner which will not attract or aid-the propagation of insects or rodents or otherwise create a health hazard. 3. Any use of property within 100 feet of a lot in a resi- dential zone shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council. The City Council may impose such limitations as may be required to ~educe conflicts be- between uses. 3.50 Permanent Open Space Zone, O. No permanent structures may be built. The following uses are permitted outright in a permanent open space zone. 1. Farming, including crop cultivation, truck gardening or plant nursery enterprises and livestock grazing. 2. Natural- areas, including wildlife refuges. 3. Outdoor recreational facilities. No use shall be allowed which would create a hazard to public health, life, or property at-the site or in a floodplain area either upstream or downstream from the site and in addition all uses must be in accordance with the U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Federal Insurance Administration's flood plain regulations. 3.60 .Additional Requirements. 3.61 Clear Vision Areas. A clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. 1. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area, two sides of which are lot lines measured from the corner intersection of the street lot lines for a distance speci- fied in this regulation, o~ where the lot lines have G-12 rounded corners, the lot lines extended in a straight line to a point of intersection and so measured, and the third side of which is a line across the corner of the lot joining the non-intersecting ends of the other two sides. 2. A clear vision area shall contain no planting. fence, wall, structure or temporary of permanent obstruction exceeding two and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists. from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area. pro- vided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. 3. The following measurements shall establish clear-vision areas: a. In a residential zone, the minimum distance shall be 20 feet. or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. b. In all other zones where yards are required, the minimum distance shall be 20 feet, or at intersec- tions including an alley ten feet, except that when the angle of intersection between streets other than an alley,.is less than 30 degrees, the distance shall be 25 feet. c. Where no yards are required, the minimum. distance shall be as in (b) above and buildings may be construc- ted within the clear-vision area, providing that any portion of the structure within the clear-vision area is more than eight feet above the top of the curb or street centerline grade and is supported by not more than two col~mns not more than eight inches in diameter. 3.62 Ground Cover Reguirements. Any property in an R, FR or C zone shall be planted with ground cover, trees and bushes or land- scaped so as to prevent any dust blowing from the property; such plantings shall be in place within six months after com- pletion of the structure. ARTICLE 4. NON-CONFORMING USES 4.10 Definition. A structure or use lawfully in existance at the time this ordinance or any amendment thereto becomes effective, which does not conform to the requirements of the zone in which it is located. G--13 =~~-_ _- -----=~=~=-=- 4.20 Circumstances for Allowing a Non-conforming Use. 4.21 Continuation and Improvements. A non-conforming use may be continued although not in conformity with the regulations for the zone in which the use is located and improvements to the property or structure or both may be made when necessary to continue but not expand the use. 4.22 Changes and Alterations of Use. A non-conforming use or structure may not be replaced, changed, or altered to another use unless the change or alteration is to the same use classi- fication as permitted in the ordinance, or to a classification that more nearly conforms to the regulations for the zone in which the use is located. 4.23 Discontinuation of Use. If the non-conforming use is dis- continued for a period of one year further use of the property shall conform to this ordinance. 4.24 Destruction of Structure. If a non conforming structure or a structure containing non-conforming use is destroyed by any casue to an extent exceeding 80 percent of its valuation as determined by the County Assessor the non-conforming lise or structure shall not be reestablished. A future structure or use on the site shall conform to this ordinance. 4.25 Pre-existing Permits. Nothing contained in this ordinance shall require any change in the plans, contruction, altera- tion or designated use of a structure for which a permit has been issued or approved by the city and construction has com- menced prior to the adoption of this ordinance, provided the structure, if non-conforming or intended for a non-conforming use, is completed and in use within two years from the time the permit was issued. ARTICLE 5. CONDITIONAL USES 5.10 Authorization to Grant or Deny Conditional Uses. A·conditional use listed in this ordinanace shall be permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this article. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance and classified in this ordinance as a conditional use. A conditional use shall be approved by the City-Council, if the following criteria are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable. 1. The use will be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the city. 2. Taking into account location, size, design, and operating characteristics, the use shall not unreasonably interfere with continuation of existing outright uses of the zone. <;- 14 3; The location and design of the site and structures for the use will be as attractive as the nature of the use its setting warrents. 4. The design shall retain trees or other natural or manmade features which provide recreational assets, shade or windbreak resources, a measure of safety to city residents such as special lighting or fencing, features of historical significance. 5. The use will not have a significant adverse impact on public facilities, such as traffic generated by the use" surpassing the capacity of the street serving the area. 5.20 Placing Conditions on a Permit. In permitting a new conditional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use, the City Council may impose conditions which it finds necessary and reason- able to minimize conflict between the proposed use and existing uses or uses permitted outright. These conditions may include the following: 1. Limiting the manner in which the use is conducted, including restricting the time an activity may take plAce and restraints to minimize such environmental effects as noise, vibration, air pollution, glare and odor. 2. Establ ishing a special yard or other open space or lot area or dimension. 3. Limiting the height, size or location of a building or other structure. 4. Designating the size, number, location and nature of vehicle access points and off street parking spaces. S. Increasing the amount of street dedication, roadway width or improvement within the street right-of-way. 6. Designating the size, location, screening, "drainage, surfacing or other improvement of a parking area or truck loading area. G-IS 10. Designating the size, height, location and materials for a fence. 11. Protecting and preserving existing trees" vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or another significant natural resource. " 7. Limiting or otherwise designating the number, size, location, height and l,ighting of signs. 8. Umtting the location and intensity of outdoor lighting and requiring its shielding. 9. Requiring diking, screenin~, landscaping or another facility to 'protect adjacent or nearby property and designating standards for its installation and maintenance. 12. Imposing other conditions to permit the development of the city in conformity with the intent and purpose of the conditional classification of uses. 5.30 Application for a Conditional Use 1. A request for a conditional use or modification of an'existing conditional ·use may be initiated by a property owner or the authorized agent of the owner by filing an application with the City Recorder in accordance with Article 12. In addition to the requirements of Article 12 the applicant must show that the proposed ,conditional use reasonably meets the need recognized by the ordinance. 2. In addition to filing an application the City Council may require the applicant to post bond up to the amount of the cost of meeting conditions and standards specified by this ordinance or ,the City Council. The bond shall be returned upon proof,by the applicant that the conditions and standards have been met. If conditions and standards required are not met within one year, the bond shall be forfeit and the city , may institute proceedings under Article 13 of this ordinance. 5.40 Procedure for Taking Action on a Conditional Use Application.' The procedure for taking action on a conditional use 'application shall be as follows. 5.41 ,Public Hearing Requirements. Before the City Council may act on an application for conditional use a public hearing shall be held as provided in Article 12. 5.42 Application Review. Upon receipt of the application the city recorder shall provide information concerning the application material to the City Council members. G-16 5_43 Notice to Applicant of Action Taken. Following the close of the hearing the City Recorder shall provide the appl icant with written notice.of the action taken as provided in Article 12. 5.50 Time Limit on a Permit for a Conditional Use. Authorization of a conditional use shall be.void after one year or such time as the authorization may specify unless all requirements of this ordinance and of the City Council have been met. The City Council may extend such authorization for a period not to exceed one additional year. 5.60 Time Limit on Reapplication. No application for a conditional use permit shall be considered by the City Council within one year of the denial of the request, unless in the opinion of the City Council new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. ARTICLE 6. VARIANCES 6.10 Authorization to Grant or Deny Variances. The City Council may authorize variances from the requirements of this ordinance where it can be shown that owing to special and unusual circumstances relating to a speci-fic piece of property~ strict application of the ordinance would cause an undue or. unnecessary hardship. No variance sha.l1 be granted to allow the use of the property for a purpose not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located. In granting variances~ the City Council may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or vicinity and otherwise achieve the purpose of this ordinance. 6.20 Circumstances for Granting a Variance. A variance may be granted only:in the event that ALL of the following circumstances exist: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the pro- perty which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and which result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owner of the property, since the enactment of this ordinance, has no control. 2. The variance "is necessary for the preservation of a pro- perty right of the applicant SUbstantially the same as owners of other property in the zone or vicinity possess. 3. There is a public need for the purpose to be achieved by the variance. 4. The pub 1ic need is reasonably met by the va ri anee. G-17 5. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this ordinance, or to property in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located, and the variance is tn compliance with and is not a deviation from the comprehensive plan for the city. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which ~~uld alleviate the hardship. 6.30 Procedure for Taking Action on a Variance Application. The procedure for taking action on an application for a variance shall be as follows: 1. A property owner may initiate a request for a variance by filing an application as provided in Article 12. 2. Before the City Council may act on a variance application, it shall hold a public hearing thereon. following the pro- cedure prescribed in Article 12. 6.40 Time Limit on a Permit for a Variance. Authorization for a variance shall be void after one year unless substantial con- struction has taken place. However the City Council may extend authorization for a period not to exceed one additional year on request. ARTICLE 7. MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS (;.-18 7.10 General Requirements for Siting Mobile Homes. 7.11 Dimensions. Mobile homes sited on individual lots shall be at least 8 feet in width and 30 feet in length or shall have at least 240 square feet of floor area. '7.12 Insigne of Compliance. The mobile home shall have the Oregon "Insigne of Compliance" as provided for by ORS 446.170. How- ever. upon. submission of evidence indicating substantial com- pliance with the standards required for an "Insigne of Compliance". the city may waive the "Insigne of Compliance" requirement for units manufactured prior to September 1969. 7.13 Ownership. The owner of a lot upon which a mobile home is located shall agree in writing prior to installation, that if the mobile home is removed from its foundation. the lot owner shall remove the foundation and all additions to the home and disconnect and secure all utilities and shall dis- connect and secure water and sewer lines at ground level. This agreement shall authorize the city to perform the work above described and place a lien against the property for the cost of the work in the event the owner fails to accomplish the work within 6 months from the date the mobile home is re~oved. This condition shall not apply in the event that another mobile home is placed on the original foundation within 6 ~onths of the removal of the original mobile home. I,. 7.20 Installation Requirements. 7.21 Stand Requirement. The mobile home shall be situated on a stand, which has been improved to allow adequate drainage, constructed on soil with a minimum bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot. 7.22 Installation and Tie-down Requirements. The mobile home shall be installed, tied down and anchored in accordance with rules established by the Oregon Department of Commerce, or in accord- ance with the instructions of the manufacturer which have been approved by the Department of Commerce. Such requirements must be met within 30 days after the mobile home has been placed on the lot. 7.23 Footings or Foundation Requirements. The mobile home shall be installed in accordance with one of the following methods. 1. The mobile home shall be placed upon pieces and footings in accordance with state approved instructions provided by the manufacturer. . 2. The mobile home shall be placed oo·a cement or concrete block foundation, in accordance with Department of Com- merce Regulations and accepted engineering standards. 7.24 Tonque Removal. The tongue of the mobile home shall be removed if detachable. 7.25 Skirting. . Unless the foundation is continuous, the unit shall have 3- continuous skirting of non- decaying, non-corroding material extending.at least six inches into the ground or extending to an impervious surface. The skirting or continuous foundation shall have openings which shall be secured against entry of animals under the mobile home. ARTICLE 8... (RESERVED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ARTICLE 9. DFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING 9.10 General Provisions. 9.11 Provision of Facilities. At the time of erection of a new structure, or at the time of enlargement or change of use of an existing structure; off-street parking and loading shall be provided as specified in this section, unless greater requirements are otherwise established. 9.12 Parking Space Maintenance. The provision and maintenance of off-street parking and loading spaces are continuing obliga~ tions of the property OI'lner. No building or othel' perr.lit G-19 9.20 Parking Spaces are required as follows: 9.15 Parking Space Use. Required parking spaces.shall be avail- able for the parking of passenger. automobiles of customers and employees.only, and shall not be used for storage of mat- erials or the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or use. 2 spaces per dwelling unit. 2 spaces per dwelling unit and 1 bicycle space per two dwellf 1 space per dwelling unit STANDARDUSE Residential Parking for: trucks used in a business shall be provided on.the residential lot. One or two.family dwellings Multi-family dwellings Hotel or Motel ·shall be issued until plans are presented to the city that show.property that is and will remain available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading space. The subsequent use of the property shall be conditional upon the continuing availability of the amount of parking and loading space re- quired by this ordinance. 9.13 Total Requirements. If several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-street parking shall.be the sum of the requirements of the several uses computed separately. 9.14 Parking Space Location. Required parking spaces shall be located not more. than 500 feet from the building or use they serve. 9.20 Off Street .Parking Specifications. Where floor area is specified, that area shall be gross floor area of the structure exclusive of any area devoted to off-street parking or loading. Where the number of employees is used to determine parking requirements. persons counted shall be those intended to be working on the pre- mises, including proprietors during the largest shift in peak season. Fractional requirements shall be counted as a whole space.II Institutional Hospital Nursing home, home for aged Preschool or kindergarten Elementary or junior high school Theater, Auditorium, church, stadium or other assembly area High School 1 space per two beds 1 space per two beds 2 spaces per teacher 1 space per classroom plus 1 space per administrative employee and 1 bicycle s per four students. 1 space for each four seats o~ if not fixed seats than 1 space for each 72 square of floor area. 6 spaces per classroom plus 1 space for each employee a 1 bicycle space per four G-- 20 Clubs or Meeting Halls Conrnerc i a1 Parking for trucks and mach- inery used in a business shall be provided on the commercial lot. Retail stores Service or repair shop Doctors and dentists (medical and dental clinics) Bank or professional office offices (except medical or dental) Eating or drinking establish- ments Bowling alley Industrial Parking for trucks and mach- inery used in a business shall be provided on the industrial lot. Storage warehouse, manufacturing establishments, freight terminal, food processing.· Wholesale establishment STANDARD 1 sp~ce per 100 square feet of floor area. 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 2 employees and 1 bicycle space per 600 feet of floor area. 1 space per 600 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 2 employees. 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area and 1 space per employee. 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per employee. 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area plus 1 space per 2 employees. 3 spaces per lane plus 1 space per employee. 1 space per employee r space per employee plus 1 space per 700 square feet of patron serving area. 9.22 School Bus Loading Areas. Each school having a capacity of over twenty-five pupils shall have a driveway designed for a continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading children. 9.23 Residential Parking. In a residential area no parking shall be allowed in the front yards of the dwelling units other than on a driveway. Parking space must be on the same lot as the dwell- ing unit. {;- 21 1,-------------------_ , r .- 9.24 Bicycle Racks in Commercial and Light Industrial Zones. Bicycle spaces shall be racks anchored so that they cannot be easily removed. Racks shall be designed 'so that at least one wheel and the frame of a bicycle can be locked securely to it with a heavy chain, cable or padlock. Bicycle racks shall be clearly labeled as.available·for bicycles and shall be located to be at least as convenient as the most convenient car parking, and as close to the desired entrances as possible without interfering with pedestrian traffic. Bicycle and auto parking areas should be separated by some form of barrier to eliminate the possibility of a bike being hit by a car. 9.30 Joint.Parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loading spaces when the hours of operation do not overlap, providing that the owners present to the City Council legal evidence of such arrangement in the form of a lease, deed or contract. 9.40 Off-street Loading. Any off-street loading other than schools shall be located such that there is no interference with traffic on any street other .than an alley. 9.50 Nonlisted Uses. Requirements for types of buildings and uses not specifically listed herein shall be determined by the City Council, based upon the requirements of comparable uses listed. 9.60 Surfacing. All off-street parking spaces and driveways, except those for single family residences, shall be ha·rd surfaced I-lith concrete, asphalt, cement, oil mat or similar surface which is resistant to dust and mud. Type and thickness of this hard sur- face must be approved by the City Council. The City Council may approve the use of gravel for temporary or permanent use. 9.70 Access. Groups of more than four off-street parking spaces shall be served by a.driveway or aisle so that. no backing movements or other maneuveri ng withi n a street other than an all ey \'Iill be . required. Driveways or aisles shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of bumper rails, fences, painting, .walls or other appropriate markers and shall not be considered as parking spaces. ARTICLE 10. SIGNS 10.10 Sign Requirements 10.11 Residential Zone Requirements. In a residential zone the following regulations shall apply. 1. No sign shall be illuminated in any manner. 2. One name plate or home occupation sign shall be allowed and shall not exceed four square feet in area. G- 22 3. One stgn shall be allowed per lot advertising the pro- perty for sale, lease or rent and the sign shall not ex- ceed six square feet. A "for sale" sign shall not be allowed to remain on the property after the property is sold. 4. One sign shall be allowed per subdivision advertising lots or homes for sale. Such sign shall not exceed fifty square feet in area and shall be set back at least twenty feet from the nearest street. 10.12 Commercial Zone Requirements. In a commercial zone the following regulations shall apply. 1. Signs shall be set back at least ten feet from any residential property. 2. Moving or flashing signs are prohibited. 3. Total area of all signs shall not exceed one square foot per 100 square· feet of the building's ground floor area. 4. No sign shall project above the roof edge of the building containing the business which the sign identifies. 5. Signs visible from residential properties shall be shielded or directed so as not to constitute a nuisance to resi1ential property owners and shall not interfere with. confuse, or.mis- lead a vehicle operator. 10.13 Industrial Zone Reguirements. In an industrial zone the regulations shall apply. 1. Signs shall be set back at least ten .feet from any resi- dential property. 2. Moving or flashing signs are.prohibited. 3. Signs visible from residential. proper-ties shall be shielded or directed so as not·to constitute a nuisance to residential property owners and shall not interfere with. confuse. or mislead a vehicle operator. ARTICLE 11. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 11.10 Exceptions. 11.11 Projections from Buildings. Cornices. eaves. canopies. sun- shades. gutters, chimneys, flues and other architectural features may project not more than two feet into a required yard (or setback) as established by this ordinance. .~I ,I • " i , 11.12 Height Exceptions. The following types of structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of this ordinance: chimneys,' church spires, belfries, radio and television antennae, 'flagpoles, smoke stacks and other similar projections. . 11.20 Accessory Uses and Facilities, Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject tothe provisions of this section. 11.21 Accessory Uses and Facilities. Accessory uses and facilities shall meet the following requirements. 1. Shall be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively. 2. Shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or n~cessity.of the occupants or the activities of a principal use. or the function of a principal structure. 3. Shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served. 4. Shall not violate setback requirements or maximum lot coverage standards provided for in Article 3. 11.22 Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following examples. 1. Ahome occupation is an accessory use in a residence. 2. A residence is an accessory, use .in a business. 11.23 Continuation of Allowable Accessory Use. No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or.facility pursuant to this 'section shall be construed to.be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional ·use in the district. in which it shall.be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditional upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. 11. 30 Pets. 1. The keeping, in connnection with each permitted dwelling, of not to exceed a total of three .dogs exclusive of animals under the age of three months, and exclusive of other pets which at all times are kept within a fully enclosed building and which do not create odor or sound which is detectable on an adjoin- i ng lot, is permitted. G- 24 2. The keeping of wild or exotic animals, including snakes, is permitted if confined and any necessary permits must be obtained from the Oregon Fish. and Wildlife Commission. 11.40 Water source. A.dwelling unit or other structure intended for human occupancy or use must be connected to the Lexington municipal water system rather than to a privately-owned domestic well, unless exampted by the Council. ARTICLE 12. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 12.10 Form of Petitions t Applications and Appeals. Petitions, applications and appeals provided for in this ordinance shall be made by written application to the city. Applications shall be accompanied by plans and specifications~ drawn to scale, showing actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon; the size and locations of existing and proposed structures; the intended use of such struc- tures; the number of families, if any, to be accommodated thereon; the relationship of the lot to the surrounding property; the legal description of the lot; the location of any off-street parking; the names and addresses of owners of property within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the lot; and such other information as is needed to determine conformance with this ordinance. Applications shall be accompanied by a filing fee in an amount established by the city council. 12.20 Notice of Public Hearings. 12.21 Published and Posted Public Notice. Notice of public hearing on a proposed application, petition, amendment to the text of this ordinance or appeal shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. In the alternative, if there is no newspaper of general circulation, each notice of hearing authorized by this ordinance shall be posted in at least two conspicuous places within the city.continuously beginning at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. 12.22 First Class Mailed Notice. In addition, a notice of a hearing on a conditional use, a variance or an amendment to the zoning map which would change boundaries, classification or uses shall be sent by first class mail to owners of property within 500 feet of the property for which the conditional use, variance or amend- ment has been requested. Such notice shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. 12.23 Failure to Receive Notice. Failure of a person to receive notice as prescribed in this article shall not impair. the validity of the hearing. ,,- 25 12.24 Purpose of Public Hearing. The hearing shall allow interested property owners the opportunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence. 12.25 Recess of Hearing. The City Council may recess a hearing in order to obtain additional information .or·to serve further notice upon other property owners or persons 'it decides may be interested in the proposal being considered. Upon recessing the time and date when the hearing is to be resumed shall be announced. 12.26 Notice to Applicant of Action. Within ten days following the close of a hearing the city recorder shall provide the appli- cant with a written notice of the City Council's action on the .app1ication, the findings of fact on which the action is based, and any conditions imposed, signed by the mayor and city recorder. 12.30 Application for Building/Mobile Home Zoning Signoff. No permit shall be approved by the city for the construction, reconstruction, alteration or change of use of a structure or lot that does not conform to the requirements of this ordinance. If the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration or change of use of a structure or lot meets the requirements of this ordinance, the mayor is authorized to approve and sign the zoning permit. At the mayor's discretion, he may refer any zoning permit to the City Council for their review and recommendation. 12.40 Temporary Use Permits. The City Council may issue a temporary use permit to allow the short term use of a site by a mobile or tem- porary structure or.activity. Such structures or activities may not be ordinarily allowed in the particular zone, but are necessary for some useful purpose, and, because of the temporary nature, will not adversely impact the neighborhood or city. The City Council may require that certain' measures be taken to protect neighboring . uses or the city as a whole. Application for a temporary use permit shall be made on forms provided by the city. Temporary use permits may be granted for.any period of time up to one year, subject to renewal if necessary. 12.50 Appeal. An action .or ruling of the City Council authorized by this ordinance may.be appealed to the Morrow County Court within 15 days after the commission has mailed notice of its decision by filing 'written notice with the city recorder. If no appeal is taken within the 15 day period, the decision of the City Council is final. 12.60 Amendments. 12.51 Authorization to Initiate Amendments. An amendment to the text of this ordinance or to a zone boundary may be initiated by the city council, an affected governmental unit, or by application G- 26 of a property owner. The request by a property owner for an amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application with the city recorder. 12.52 Public Hearings on a Proposed Amendment. A public hearing shall be held by the City Council with the public notice given as provided in Article 12.20, on any proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, at its earliest practicable meeting after the amendment is proposed. The City Council shall, within 40 days after the hearing, approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the proposed amendment. 12.53 Record of Amendments. The city shall maintain a record of amendments to the text and maps of this ordinance in a form convenient for use by the public. 12.54 limitation on Reapplications. No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of this .ordinance or to a zone boundary shall be considered by the City Council within the one-year period immediately following a previous denial of such'request, except the City Council may permit a new application if i.o the opinion of the City Council new evidence or a change of circumstances warrants it. ARTICLE 13. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT 13.10 Interpretation. Words used in the present tense include the future, the singular form includes the plural, the plural includes the singular. Where a provision of this ordinance is less restrictive than a provision.of another ordinance or requirement of the city, the provision which is more restrictive shall govern. 13.20 Authorization of Similar Uses. The City Council may rule that a use not specifically listed among the allowed uses in a zone shall be permitted as an allowed use, if it is similar to the allowed uses in the-zone, if its effect on adjacent properties is sub- stantially the same as that of allowed uses, and if it is not specifically"listed as an allowed use in another zone. "13.30 Penalty. A person violating a provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. A violation of this ordinance shall be considered a separate offense for each day that the violation continues. In the alternative, where a use exists or is proposed to be located, constructed, repaired, altered or used in-violation of this ordinance the city may institute injunction, abatement or other appropriate proceedings to prevent, abate or remove such use. G- 27 , ', 13.40 Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If an article, sentence, clause or phrase shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. APPROVED THIS __---"~_:..~-...:dz.,:;;;{:::<.-!-'" DAY OF _-h0!....L."-//..:'.A-i''-=- 1979.C/ Mayor ATTEST: t1' " r; - 28 Ordinance No. 79-2 City of lexington, Oregon SUBOIVISION OROINANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 2. SUBDIVISION AND PARTITION PROCEDURE #ID APPROVAL SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2. 1 Subdivisions 2. 2 Major Partitions 1. 3 Minor Partitions 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 8 1. S 1.10 1.11 1. 12 1. 13 Title .... Purposes . . Authority . . Jurisdiction Enactment . . Severabil ity Amendments • Variances . . . . ..... Exception in Case of a Planned Unit Appeal ••••...• Violation and Penalties . Schedule of Fees . . . . . . . . • Definitions . . . . Deve1opment .. • • 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 7 7 12 12 SECTION 3. ASSURANCE FOR COMPLETIDN AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS 14 3. 1 Improvements and Guarantees of Financial Security 3. 2 Inspection of Improvements ", 3. 3 Ma i ntenance of Impro'vements . . . . . . . . . . 3. 4 Deferral or Waiver of Required Improvements .. 14 15 15 16 SECTION 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, PRESERVATION. AND DESIGN 16 • 4. 1 4. 2 4. 3 4. 4 4. 5 4. 6 4. 7 4. 8 4. 9 4.10 General Improvements .. Streets . . . . . . . . . Drainage and Storm Sewers Water Facilities Sewerage Facilities .. Sidewalks ....•.. Utilities ...•... Public Uses. • . . . . . . .. . Preservation of Natural Features and Amenities Nonresidential Subdivisions . H 16 17 20 22 23 24 24 25 26 . 27 SECTION 5. SPECIFICATIONS FOR DOCUMENTS TO BE SUB1UTTED 5. 1 Sketch Plan • 5. 2 Tentative Plan 5. 3 Final Plat .. 30 30 31 34 Ordinance No. 79-2 City of lexington. Oregon SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1 Title. These regulations shall hereafter be known, cited and referred to as the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Lexington. Oregon. 1.2 Purposes. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the public health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City by estab- lishing uniform procedures and standards for the partitioning and sub- dividing of land within the City. These regulations are necessary to: (1) guide the future development of the City in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; (2) insure that public facilities, including but not limited to sanitation systems, water supply systems. streets and fire protection, are adequate to serve the subdivided or parti- tioned area; and (3) protect and conserve land throughout the City by providing for' its most beneficial use and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 1.3 Authority. By authority of ordinance of the Council of the City adopt- ed pursuant to the powers and jurisdiction vested by Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 92, and other applicable laws of the State of Oregon, the City shall review, approve and dIsapprove plans, plats, and maps for the subdivision and partitioning of land within the corporate limits of the City. 1.4 Jurisdiction. (1) These subdivision regulations shall apply to all subdivision and partition of lands, as defined herein, located within the cor- porate limits of the City. (2) The City shall review and comment on plans, plats, or maps for subdivisions or partitions beyond the corporate limits of the City and within the urban growth boundary. 1.5 Enactment. In order that land may be subdivided and partitioned in accordance with these purposes and policy, the~e regulations are here- by adopted. H - 1 - 1.6 Severability. Where any word, phrase, clause. sentence, paragraph or section, or other part of these regulations is held invalid by court of competent jurisdiction, this judgment shall affect only that part held invalid. and shall not impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations. 1.7 Amendments. An amendment to this ordinance w~y be initiated by the City Council, an affected governmental unit, or by application of a property owner or resident in the City. The procedure to be followed for adoption of the proposed amendment shall be that prescribed by ORS 92.048. 1.8 Variances. (1) The City Council may authorize variances, with conditions, to the requirements of this ordinance. Application for a variance shall be made by a petition of the land divider, stating fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. The petition shall be filed with the tentative plan or map. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: (a) Exceptional or extraordinary circuw~tances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other pr6perties in the same vicinity, and result from tract size or sh~pe. topography or other circumstances over which the owners of property have no control; (b) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a prop- erty right of the applicant substantially the same as pos- sessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity; and (c) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance, or to property in the same vicinity in which the property is located or otherwise conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) In granting or denying a variance, the City Council shall make a written record of its findings and the facts in connection therewith, and shall describe the variance granted and the con- ditions designated. The City shall keep the findings on file as a matter of public record. 1.9 Exceptions in Case of a Planned Unit Developsent. (Reserved for Planned Unit Development) 1.10 Appeal. A person may appeal to the City Council from any decision or requirement made by the City Engineer pursuant to this ordinance. Written notice of the appeal must be filed ~Iith the City within thirty II- -2- ... (30) days after the decision or requirement ;s made in the case of subdivision or major partition and ten (10) days in the case of a minor partition, pursuant to DRS 92.044 (2) and 92.046 (3). 1.11 Violation and Penalties. (1) Every final subdivision plat and partition map must be approved pursuant to this ordinance and the provisions of Chapter 92) Oregon Revised Statutes, before title to the subdivided land can be sold contrary to the provisions of this Ordinance, the City Attorney shall commence action to enjoin further sales or trans- fers and to compel compliance with its provisions. The costs of maintaining this suit shall be imposed against the person trans- ferring or selling the property to be subdivided or partitioned. (2) In addition to penalties provided by state law, any person vio- lating or failing to comply with a provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $500.00 or by imprisonment for not more than 100 days, or both. Every sale or transfer of a parcel of land in violation of this Ordinance shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. In add; ti on, the City will 'not gi va zon; n9 approval on any app1i- cation for a building permit to be issued by the State of Oregon as to any piece of property owned by a person in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance. 1.12 Schedule of Fees. (l) Any application or submission required by this Ordinance shall be accompanied by a filing fee based on the fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (2) No application required by this Ordinance shall be accepted un- less accompanied by all applicable fees. 1.13 Definitions. As used in this Ordinance, the following words and phrases shall mean: (ll APPROVAL. (a) TENTATIVE: The official action taken by the City Council after a public hearing on the proposed subdivision or par- tition. (b) FINAL: The final official action taken by the City Council on the proposed subdivision or partition which had previously received tentative approval. (2) BUILDING LINE. A line on a plat or map indicating the limit beyond which buildings or structures may not be erected subject to setback requirements in the City's Zoning Ordinance. (3) CITY. The City of Lexington, Oregon. /-/-3- (4) CITY ENGINEER. A registered professional engineer as defined by ORS 672.002 (6), who is legally contracted to represent the City. (5) . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the City that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of land, and adopted pursuant to ORS 197. (6) DEDICATION. A deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for some public use and accepted for such use by or on behalf of the public. (7) EASEMENT •. The right of a person to go onto the land in possession of another for a specific purpose or purposes. (8) LOT. A unit of land that is created by a subdivision of land. (a) CORNER LOT. A lot situated at the intersection of two streets, provided the interior angle of such intersections does.not exceed 1350 . (b) REVERSED CORNER LOT. A corner lot, the side street line of which is substantially a continuation of the front line of the first lot to its rear. . (c) THROUGH LOT. A lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets other than alleys. (9) LOT LINE. (a) LOT FRONT LINE. The line abutting a street. For corner lots the front line is that with the narrowest street frontage. For double frontage lots the lot front line is that having frontage on a street which is so designated by the developer and approved as part of a final plat vi map as provided for in this Ordinance. (b) LOT REAR LINE. The lot line that is opposite to and most distant from the front lot line. (c) LOT SIDE LINE. Any lot line that is not a lot front or rear line. (10) MAP, PARTITION. A final diagram, drawing or other writing contain- ·ing all the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information required by this Ordinance concerning a partition. (11) PARCEL. A unit of land that is created by a partitioning of land. (12) PARTITION. An area or tract of land divided into tI'/O or three parcels within a calendar year, when this area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single owner- ship at the beginning of that year. H - 4 - (a) MAJOR PARTITION. A partition·which includes the creation of a street. (b) MINOR PARTITION. A partition that does not include the creation of a street. but· which is subject to approval of the City under this Ordinance. (13) PARTITION LAND. To divide an area or tract of land Into two (2) or three (3) parcels within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of that year. "Partition land" does not include: (a) divisions of land resulting from lien foreclosures. (b) divisions of land resulting from the creation of cemetery lots. (e) divisions of land made pursuant to a court order, including but not limited to court orders in proceedings involving te- state and intestate succession, or (d) any adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional parcel is not crea'ted and where the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Ordi- nance. - (14) PEDESTRIAN WAY. A right-of-way for pedestrian traffic. (15) PERSON. A natural person, firm, partnership, association, social or fraternal organization, corporation, trust, estate, receiver, syndicate, branch of government, or any other group or combination acting as a unit. (16) PLAT, SUBDIVISION. The final map, diagram, drawing, replat or other writing ·containing all the descriptions, location, spec- ifications, dedications, provisions and information required by this Ordinance concerning a subdivision. (17) RIGHT-OF-WAY. A strip of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a street, crosswalk, railroad, road, electric transmission line, water main, oil or gas pipeline, sanitary or sewer main, shade trees, or by another special use. (18) ROADWAY. The portion of a street right-of-way developed for vehicular traffic. (19) SIDEWALK. A pedestrian walkway with permanent surfacing. (20) SKETCH PLAN. A sketch preparatory to thE preparation of the ten- tative subdivision plan to enable the subdivider to same time and expense in reaching general agreement with the City as to the form of the plan and the objectives of these regulations. H - 5 - (21) STREET. A public or private right-of-way for the use of pedes- trian or vehicular traffic, including the terms "road", "high- way", "lane", "avenue", "alley" or similar designations. (a) ALLEY. A narrow street through a block primarily for vehicular service access to the back or side of properties otherwise abutting on another street. (b) ARTERIAL. A street of considerable continuity which is primarily a traffic artery for travel between large areas. (c) COLLECTOR. A street supplementary to the arterial street system and a means of travel between this system and smaller areas, used to some extent for through traffic and to some extent for access to abutting properties. (d) CUL-DE-SAC. A short street having one end open to traffic and being terminated by a vehicle turn-around. (e)' HALF STREET. A'portion of the width of a street, usually along the edge of a subdivision, where the remaining portion of the street could be provided in another subdivision. (f) , MARGINAL ACCESS STREET. A minor street parallel and adja- cent to a major arterial street providing access to abutting properties, but protected from through traffic. (g) MINOR STREET. A street intended primarily for acces~ t.o abutting properties. (22) SUBDIVIDE, LAND. To divide an area or tract of land into four or more lots within a calendar year when this area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single own- ership at the beginning of that year. ' (23) SUBDIVISION. An area or tract of land divided into four or more lots within a calendar year, when this area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of that year. (24) TENTATIVE PLAN. A preliminary map, drawing or chart of the sub- division, dedication, or portion thereof, containing the elements and requirements set forth within this Ordinance and which the subdivider submits for tentative approval at a public hearing. (25) URBAN GROWTH AREA. Land between the corporate limits of the City and the Urban Growth Boundary. (26) URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. The boundary designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan identifying and separating urbanizable land from rural land. H - 6- SECTION 2. SUBOIVISION ANO PARTITION APPLICATION PROCEOURE ANO APPROVAL PROCESS 2.1 Subdivisions. Before any permit for the erection of any structure in a proposed subdivision ;s granted~ and before any contract for sale of any part thereof is made, the subdividing owner or his authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of the proposed subdivision in accordance with the following procedure: (1) DISCUSSION OF REQUIREMENTS: Before preparing the sketch plan· as required in Section 2.1 (2) below, the applicant shall discuss with the City Engineer the procedure for adoption of a subdivision plat and the improvement requirements provided for in this Ordi- nance. (2) SKETCH PLAN: Prior to subdividing land, an owner of land or his representative shall file an application for approval of a sketch plan. (a) The application shall: (1) be made on forms available from the City, (2) include all contiguous holdings of the owner, with an indication of the portion which is proposed to be sub- divided. It shall also be accompanied by an affidavit of ownership, which shall include the dates the respec- tive holdings of land were acquired, together with the book and page of each conveyance to the present owner as recorded in the County Clerk's office. The affidavit shall list the legal owner of the property, the contract owner of the property, the date contract of sale was executed and, if any corporations are involved, a com- plete list of all directors, officers and stockholders of.each corporation ,owning more than 5% of any class of stock, (3) be accompanied by a minimum of seven (7) copies of the sketch plan as described in" these regulations and comply- ing in all respects with these regulations. (4) be accompanied by the appropriate fee, based on the fee schedule adopted by the City Council, and (5) if the applicant is not a resident of foIorrow County, the application shall include an address and telephone number of an agent located within Morrow County who shall be authorized to receive all notices required by this Ordinance. (b) City Council review of sketch plan: At its next regular meet- ing, the City Council shall study the sketch plan, taking in- to consideration the requirements of the su~division regula- tions and the best use of the land being subdivided. Particular "==~===~-------...._--------...;,------- attention must be given to the arrangement, location and width of streets, their relation to the topography of the land, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the further development of adjoin- ing lands as yet unsubdivided, and the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. (c) Approval of sketch plan: Within forty-five (45) days after the City Council reviews the sketch plan, it shall advise the applicant of the specific changes or additions, if any, it will require in the layout, and the character and extent of required improvements and reservations which it will require as a prerequisite to the approval of the tentative subdivision plan. The City Council may require additional changes as a result of further study of the sub- division in final form. This approval authorizes the ap- plicant to submit a tentative plan. (d) Notice to governmental units: All affected governmental units shall be notified of the approval of the sketch plan and shall be given a reasonable period of time to review the plan and to suggest revisions in the public interest prior to the public hearing on the tentative plan. (3) TENTATIVE PLAN: (a) Application procedure and requirements: . Based upon the approval of the sketch plan, the applicant shall file in duplicate an application for approval of a tentative plan. The application shall: (1) be accompanied by a minimum of five (5) copies of the tentative plan, as described in Section 5.2 of this Ordinance, and submitted to the City Recorder at least fifteen (15) days prior to a regular City Council meet- ir.g; (2) be made on forms available from the City, together with the appropriate fee, based on the fee schedule adopted by the City Council; (3) include all land which the applicant proposes to sub- divide, and if the subdivision pertains to only a part of the tract owned or controlled by the subdivider, then the applicant shall also include a sketch of a tentative layout for streets in the unsubdivided por- . tion; and (4) comply in all respects with the sketch plan, as approved. (b) Review by City Engineer: Upon receipt of the application for tentative plan approval, the City Recorder shall furnish one copy of the application to the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the tentative plan and prepare his re- port to present to the City Council at the public hearing on the tentative plan. H - 8 - (c) City Council review: The City Council shall hold a public hearing to review the tentative plan and the City Engineer's report. (d) Notice and opportunity to be heard: (1) NOTICE: (a) Procedure: The City Recorder shall give notice of the public hearing in the following manner: (1) NEWSPAPER: Notice shall be published in at least two issues of a newspaper of gen- eral circulation within the city, the first at least ten (10) days in advance of the public hearing, and the second at least one (1) day in advance of the public hearing. (2) MAIL: At least ten (10) days prior to the pUblic hearing. notice of the hearing shall be sent by first class mail to: (a) The applicant and all record owners and contract purchasers of real property with- in 250 feet of the property which is the subject of the proposed action, and (b) All affected governmental units which have an interest in the proposed subdivision. (3) POSTING: at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, a notice of such public hear- ing shall be posted on the closest public streets in visible locations surrounding the proposed subdivision or property to be par- titioned. (b) Content: The pUblic notices shall contain the following: (1) Date. time and place of public hearing. (2) General description of the action proposed on the subdivision application, (3) Address. including lot and block number, if any. of the property to be subdivided. (.4) Notice by mail and posting shall also include an 8 1/2" x 11" diagram of the property to be subdivided. to be provided by the applicant, indicating its location relative to adjacent property owners within 250 feet and at least two clearly marked public streets. Ii -9- (2) PUBLIC HEARING: (a) The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the tentative plan within forty-give (45) days following submission of the tentative plan. (b) The public hearing shall be ~onducted in ac- cordance with the requirements governing the conduct of quasi-judicial hearings on land use matters pursuant to ORS 215.412 and 227.170. (c) If necessary. the City Council may resolve to continue the public hearing giving the date. time. and place the hearing will be continued. (e) Action.on tentative plan: (1) Within fifteen (15) days following the close of the public hearing. the City Council shall give written notice to the applicant of approval. disapproval or conditional approval of the tentative· plan. Approval shall be/indicated by the signature of the Mayor on the plan. (2) One copy of the tentative plan shall be returned to the developer with the date of approval. conditional approv- al or disapproval and the findings and conclusions upon which the City Council's decision was based accompanying the plan. (f) Effective period of tentative approval: (1) The approval of a tentative plan for a subdivision shall be effective for one year. (2) Any plan not receiving final approval within one year shall be null and void. and the developer must submit a new tentative plan for approval. subject to all cur- rent zoning restrictions and land division regulations. (4) FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT: (a) Application procedure and requirements: Within one year of the approval .of the tentative plan. the applicant. in order to receive final approval of the subdivision plat. shall file with the City Council an application which shall: (1) Be made on forms supplied by the City together with the appropriate fee. based on the fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (2) Include the entire subdivision or section thereof. access to which is via an existing state. county or local govern- ment highway. /-I - 10 >{3} Be accompanied by a minimum of ten (10) copies of the subdivision plat, as described in Section 5.3 of this ordinance. {4} Comply in all respects with the tentative plan, as approved. {5} Be presented to the City Recorder, who shall then refer the application to the City Council prior to the next regular meeting of the City Council at which consideration is desired. "-{6} Be accompanied by all formal irrevocable offers of dedication to the public of all streets, local govern- ment uses, utilities, parks and easements, without any reservation other than reversionary rights upon vaca- tion of any such street or road and easements for public utilities, pursuant to ORS 92.090 {3}. {7} Be accompanied by a performance bond for completion and maintenance of improvements, as specified in Section 3 .of this Ordinance, and which includes a provision that the principal of the bond or other guarantee of finan- cial security shall comply with all the terms specified by the City Council as a condition of approval of the final subdivision plat. {8} Be accompanied by written assurance from public utility companies and improvement districts that necessary util- ities will be 'installed and by proof that the applicant has submitted petitions in writing fo~ the creation or extension of any improvement districts as required by the City Council upon tentative plan approval. {b} Review of application: (1) The City Council shall review the application at the next regular City Council meeting following submission of the application for final plat approval. In order to be considered at the next meeting, the application must be submitted at least ten {l0} >larking days before the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. (2) The application for final plat approval and accompany- ing documents shall be reviewed by the City Engineer and affected governmental units to determine whether . it substantially conforms to the tentative plan, the requirements of law and this Ordinance. The City En- gineer may make such checks in the field as are desir- able to verify that the subdivision plat is sufficiently correct on the ground and he or his representatives may enter the property for this purpose. If the City En- gineer determines that the final subdivision plat does not so conform to the tentative plan, the requirements H - 11 - of law and this Ordinance, then he shall advise the applicant of the changes that must be made and shall afford the applicant an opportunity to make the changes or additions. (3) Upon receipt of the plat ~Iith the approval of the City Engineer, the City Council shall consider the applica- tion at a scheduled meeting. Within ten (10) days of the meeting, the City Council shall approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the application setting forth in detail any conditions of approval or reasons for disapproval. (4) The final resolution of the City Council approving the application shall stipulate the period of time when the performance bond or other guarantee of financial securi- ty shall be filed or the required improvements installed, whichever is applicable. It shall also contain the written findings of fact and conclusions of law which it relied upon in reaching its decision. One copy of the final sub- division plat or major partition map signed by the Mayor, - shall be returned to the developer with the date of ap- proval, conditional approval or disapproval noted there- on, and the reasons therefore accompanying the plat or map. (5) Filing of Plat: Without delay, the subdivider shall submit the final plat for signatures of other public officials required by the law. Approval of the plat shall be null and void if the plat is not recorded within ninety (90) days after the date the last re- quired approving signature has been obtained, 0r with- in one year of approval of the final plat or map. Which- ever is sooner. 2.2 Major Partitions. The procedure for approval by the City of a major partition shall be the same as provided for in Section 2.1 pertaining to subdivision. except that the applicant need not file and obtain ap- proval of a sketch plan. procedures for which are specified in Section 2.1 (2) of this Ordinance. 2.3 Minor Partitions. 12 -H (1) Application procedure and requirements. Prior to creating a minor land partition, an owner of land or his representative shall file with the City Recorder an application for approval of a sketch plan. The application shall: (a) be made on forms available from the City, (b) include all contiguous holdings of the owner, with an in- dication of the portion which is proposed to be partitioned. It shall also be accompanied by an affidavit of ownership, which shall include the dates the respective holdings of land were-acquired together with the book and page of each conveyance to the present owner as recorded in the County Clerk's office. The affidavit shall list the legal owner of the property, the contract owner of the property, the date contract of sale was executed and, if any corporations are involved, a complete list of all directors, officers and stockholders of each corporation owning more than 5% of any class of stock, (c) be accompanied by a minimum of five (5) copies of the sketch plan, as described in Section 5.1 of this Ordinance, and com- plying in all respects with this Ordinance, and (d) be accompanied by the appropriate fee. based on the fee schedule adopted by the City Council. (2) Review by City Engineer: The City Recorder. within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the application. shall refer the application to the City Engineer, who shall determine if dedication of. land, ease- ments or conditions for approval of the sketch plan are required. (3) Hearing by City Council: The public hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements governing the conduct of quasi-judicial hearings on land-use matters, and notice shall be given in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.1 (3) (d) of this Ordinance. (4) Action on application: The City Council shall approve. condition- ally approve, or deny the application for creation of a minor land partition and state the reasons therefore within fourteen (14) days after close of the hearing. H - 13 - 3.1 Improvements and Guarantees of Financial Security, (1) Completion of improvements. Before the final subdivision plat or major partition map is signed by the Mayor, all applicants shall be required to complete, in accordance with the City Council's decision and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all the street, sanitary and other improvements, as required in these regulations, specified in the final subdivision plat, and as approved by the City Council and to dedicate same to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances on the property and public improvements thus dedicated. (2) The City Council in its discretion may waive the requirement that the applicant complete and dedicate all public improvements prior to the signing of. the subdivision plat, and that, as an alternative, the applicant shall .provide assurance of financial security at the time of application for final subdivision ap- proval in an amount estimated by the applicant and determined by the City Engineer as sufficient to secure to the City the satisfactory construction, installation and dedication of the incomp1eted portion of required improvements. The guarantee of financial security shall also secure all lot improvements on the individual lots of the subdivision as required in these regulations. and shall take the form of the following: ta) Surety Performance Bond: The bond shall be executed by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Oregon and acceptable as a surety to the City Council and countersigned by an Oregon agent. The bond shall ·be pay~ able to the City and shall be in effect until the com- pleted improvements are accepted by the City Council. (3) Cost of Improvements. All required improvements shall be made by the applicant, at his expense, without reimbursement by the City. SECTION 3. ASSURANCE FOR COMPLETION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS (4) Failure to.Comp1ete Improvements: For subdivisions or major partitions for which guarantees of performance have not been made, if the improvements are not completed within the period specified by the City Council in the resolution approving the plat, the approval shall be deemed to have expired. In those cases where a guarantee of financial security has been made and required improvements have not been installed within the stated period of time, the City may declare the subdivider or major land partitioner to be in default and require that all the improvements be installed regardless of the extent of the building development at the time that default is declared. (5) Acceptance of Dedication Offers. Acceptance of formal offers of dedication of streets, public areas, easements, and parks shall be by ordinance of the City Council. /I - 14 - 3.2 Inspection of Improvements. (1) General Procedure and Fees. The City Council shall provide for inspection of required improvements during construction and in-· sure their satisfactory completion. The applicant shall pay to the City a fee to cover the actual cost of inspection of required improvements, and the subdivision plat or major partition map shall not be signed by the Mayor unless this fee has been paid at the time of the application. These fees shall be due and payable upon demand of the City, and the City will not give zoning approval on the developer's application for a building permit issued by the State of Oregon until all fees are paid. If the City Engineer finds upon.inspection that any of the required improvements have not been constructed in accordance with the City·s construction standards and specifications, the applicant shall be responsible for completing the improvements. (2l Certificate of Satisfactory Completion: The City Council will not accept dedication of required improvements. nor release or direct the release of property or money held in escrow, or the surety performance bond or letter of credit, until the City Engineer has submitted a certificate stating that all required improvements have been satisfactorily completed and until the applicant 1 s engineer or surveyor has certified to the City En- gineer, through submission of detailed lOas-built ll survey plat of the subdivision, indicating location, dimensions, materials, and other information required by the City, that the layout of the line and grade of all public improvements ;s in accordance with construction plans for the subdivision or major partition, and that a title insurance policy has been furnished to and approved by the City Attorney indicating that the improvements shall have been completed, are ready for dedication to the local government and are free and clear of. any and all liens and en- cumbrances. Upon such approval and recommendation, the City Council shall thereafter accept the improvements for dedication in accordance with the established procedure, and shall release .al1 performance guarantees posted by the developer, as provided for in Section 3.1 (2l. 3.3 Maintenance of Improvements. (1) The applicant shall be required to maintain all improvements on the individual subdivided lot~ until acceptance of said improve- ments by the City Council. (2l The applicant shall be required to file a maintenance bond with the City Council, prior to dedication) in an amount considered adequate by the City Engineer and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, in order to assure the satisfactory condition of the required improvements, including all lot improvements on the individual subdivided lots for a period of one (1) year after the date of their acceptance by the City Council and dedication of same to the City. Ii - 15 - 3.4 Deferral or Waiver of Required Improvements. (1) The City Council giving its reasons therefore. may defer or waive at the time of tentative plan approval the provision of one or more improvements as. in its judgment. are not requisite in the interests of the public health. safety. and general welfare. or which are inappropriate because of lack of connecting facilities. (2) Whenever it is deemed necessary by the City Council to defer the construction of any improvement required herein because of in- compatible grades. future planning. inadequate or lack of connect- ing facilities. or for other reasons. the applicant shall pay his share of the costs of the future improvements to the City prior to signing of the final subdivision plat. or the applicant may post a bond insuring the completion of said improvements upon demand of the City. SECTION 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS. RESERVATIONS AND DESIGN 4.1 General Improvements. (1) CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS. In addition to the requirements established herein. all subdivision or major partitions shall comply with the following laws. rules. and reg- ulations: (a) The City's Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance. Capital Improvement Program and other applicable city ordinances. (b) All applicable Oregon Statutes and administrative rules. ·(c) The requirements of the State Highway Division if the subdivision or partition or any lot contained therein abuts a.state highway or connecting street. (d) The requirements. guides and standards of the Morrow County Roadmaster if the subdivision or partition or any lot contained therein abuts or substantially affects the usage of a county road. and (e) Plat approval may be withheld if a subdivision or par- tition is not in conformity with the above guides or policy and purposes of these regulations established in Section 1.4 herein. (2) SELF-IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS. If the owner places restrictions on any of the land contained in the subdivision or partition greater than those required by the Zoning Ordinance or these regulations. such restrictions or reference thereto m~y be required to be in- dicated on the subdivision plat or partition map, or the City Council may require that restrictive covenants be recorded with the County Clerk in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. 1-1 - 16 - r (3) MONUMENTS. The applicant shall have perwanent reference mon- ments placed in the subdivision or partition as required by ORS 92.050 to 92.070. (4) CHARACTER OF LANO. Land unsuitable for subdivision, partition or development due to flooding, improper drainage, steep slopes, rock formations~ adverse earth formations or topography. utility easements or other features which will reasonably be harmful to the safety, health, and general welfare of the present or future inhabitants of the subdivision and/or its surrounding areas, shall not be subdivided or developed unless adequate methods are formulated by the developer and approved by the City Council, up- on recommendation of the City Engineer. to solve the problems created by the unsuitable land conditions. This land shall be set aside for uses as shall not involve such a danger. (5) SUBDIVISION NAME. . The proposed name of the subdivision shall not duplicate, or too closely approxiwate phonetically, the name of any other subdivision in the area covered by these regulations. The City Council shall have final authority to designate· the name of the subdivision rlhich shall be determined at the time of tentative plan approval. 4.2 Streets. (1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. (a) Frontage on Improved Streets. No subdivision or major partition shall be approved unless the area to be sub- divided shall have frontage on and access from an exist- ing street. This street or highway must be suitably im- proved as required by appropriate county, city. or state rules. regulations. specification or orders. or be secured by a performance bond required under these regulations, with the width and right-of-way required by these regulations. (b) Grading and Improvement Plan. Streets shall be paved and improved and conform to the City construction stan- dards and specifications and shall be approved as to de- sign by the City Engineer, in accordance with the con- struction plans required to be submitted prior to final plat approval. (c) Topography and Arrangement. (1) Roads shall be related appropriately to the topo- graphy. Local roads shall be curved wherever possible to avoid conformity of lot appearance. All streets shall be arranged so as to obtain as many as possible of the building sites at, or above the grades of the streets. Grades of streets shall conform as closely as possible to the original topo- graphy. A combination of steep grades and curves shall be avoided. Specific standards are contained in the design standards of these regulations. !t:-17- ,.. (2) All streets shall be properly integrated ~/ith the existing and proposed system of thoroughfares and dedicated rights-of-way as established by the Com- prehensive Plan. (d) Road Names. The sketch plan as submitted shall not in- dicate any names upon proposed streets. The City Council shall name all streets at the time of tentative plan ap- proval. in the case of a major partition. Names shall be sufficiently different in sound and spelling from other street names in the City so as not to cause confusion. A street which is or is planned as a continuation of an existing road shall bear the same name. (e) Road Regulatory Signs. Road signs shall be purchased and installed by the developer in accordance with design and specification standards approved.by the City Engineer. (f) Street Lights. Street lights shall be installed by the developer in accordance with design and specification standards.approved by the City Engineer. (2) DESIGN STANDARDS (a) General. In order to provide for streets of suitable 1ocati on. wi dth. and improvement to· accommodate prospec- tive traffic and afford satisfactory access to police. firefighting. snow removal. sanitation. and road main- tenance equipment. and to coordinate roads so as to compose a convenient system and avoid undue hardships to adjoining properties. the fol1o\~ing design standards for roads are hereby required as given in Table I and as follows: (b) Road Surfacing and Improvements. After sewer. water. and other· required utilities have been installed by the devel- oper. the applicant shall construct curbs and gutters and shall surface roadways to the widths prescribed in these regulations. The roadways shall be paved. Types of pavement shall be determined by the City Engineer. Adeq- uate provision shall be made for culverts. drains and bridges. All road pavements, shoulders, drainage improvements and structures. curbs. turnarounds, and sidewalks shall conform to all construction standards·and specifications adopted by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Engineer, and shall be incorporated into the construction plans re- quired to be submitted by the developer for plat approval. (c) Excess Right-of-way. Right-of-way widths in excess of the standards designated in these regulations shall be required H - 18 - whenever, due to topography, additional width is necessary to provide adequate earth slopes. Such slope shall not be in excess of three to one. (d) Intersections. (1) Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two (2) new streets at an angle of less than seventy- five (75) degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least one hundred (100) feet therefrom. Not more than two (2) streets shall intersect at anyone point. (2) Proposed new intersections along one side of an existing street shall. wherever practicable. co- incide with any existing intersections on the opposite side of such street. Street jogs with center-line offsets of less than 150 feet shall not be permitted. except where the intersected street has separated dual drives without median breaks at either intersection. Where streets in- tersect major streets. their alignment shall be at least 800 feet apart. (3) Minimum curb radius at the intersection of two (2) local streets shall be at least twenty (20) feet; and minimum curb radius at an intersection involving a collector street shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. Alley intersections and abrupt changes in align- ment within a block shall have the corners cut off in accordance with standard engineering practice to per- mit safe vehicular movement. (4) Intersections shall be designed with a flat grade wherever practical. In hilly or rolling areas, at the approach to an intersection, a leveling area shall be provided having not greater than a two per- cent (2%) rate at a distance of sixty (60) feet, measured from the nearest right-of-way line of the intersecting street. (5) Where any street intersection will involve earth banks or existing vegetation inside any lot corner that would . create a traffic hazard by limiting visibility, the developer shall cut such ground and/or vegetation (in- cluding trees) in connection with the grading of the public right-of-way to the extent necessary to provide an adequate sight distance. H. - 19 - 4.3 Drainage and Storm Sewers. (1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. All subdivision or major partitions shall have adequate provision for storm or flood water runoff channels or basins. The storm water drainage system shall be separate and independent of any sanitary sewer system. Storm sewers, where required, shall be designed by the Rational Method, or other meth- ods as approved by the City Council and a copy of the design com- putations shall be submitted along with the plans. Inlets shall be provided so that surface water is not carried across or around any intersection, nor for a distance of more than 600 feet in the gutter. When calculations indicate that curb capacities are ex- ceeded at a point, no further allowance shall be made for flow beyond that point, and basins shall be used to intercept flow at that point. Surface water drainage patterns shall be shown for each and every lot and block. (2) NATURE OF STORM WATER FACILITIES. (a) location. The applicant may be required to carry away by pipe or open ditch any spring or surface water that may exist either previously to, or as a result of the sub- division or partition. Such drainage facilities shall be located in the road right-of-way where feasible, or in per- petual unobstructed easements of appropriate width, and shall be constructed in accordance with the construction standards and specifications recommended by the City Engi- neer and adopted by the City Council. (b) Accessibility to Public Storm Sewers (l) Where a public storm sewer is accessible, the appli- cant shall install storm sewer facilities, or if no outlets are within a reasonable distance, adequate provision shall be made for the disposal of storm waters, subject to the specifications of the City En9'(- neer. However, in subdivision or partitions containing lots less than 15,000 square feet in area and in business and industrial districts, underground storm sewer systems shall be constructed throughout the subdivision or par- tition and shall be conducted to an approved fall-out. Inspection of facilities shall be conducted by the City Engineer. (2) If a connection to a public storm sewer will be provided eventually, the developer shall make arrangements for future storm water disposal at the time the plat receives final approval. Provision for such connection shall be incorporated by inclusion in the performance bond required for the subdivision plat or partition map. I-f - 20 - po {el Accommodation of Upstream Drainage Areas. A culvert or other drainage facility shall in each case be large enough to ac- commodate potential runoff from its entire upstream drainage area, whether inside or outside the subdivision or partition. The City Engineer shall determine the necessary size of the facility, based on the provisions of the construction stan- dards and specifications assuming conditions of maximum po- tential watershed development permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. (d) Effect on Downstream Drainage Areas. The City Engineer shall also study the effect of each subdivision or partition on ex- isting downstream drainage facilities outside the area of the subdivision or partition. City drainage studies together with such other studies as shall be appropriate, shall serve as a guide to needed improvements. Where it is anticipated that the additional runoff incident to the development of the sub- division or partition will overload an existing downstream drainage facility, the Cith Council may withhold approval of the subdivision or partition until provision has been made for the improvement of said potential condition in such sum as the City Council shall determine. No subdivision or par- tition shall be approved unless adequate drainage will be pro- vided to an adequate drainage watercourse or facility. (e) Areas of Poor Drainage. Whenever a plan, plat or map is submitted for an area which is subject to flooding, the City Council may approve such subdivision or partition provided that the applicant fills the affected area of the subdivision or partition to an elevation sufficient to place the elevation of streets and lots at a minimum of twelve (12) inches above the elevation of the maximum probable flood, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan, plat or map of the subdivision or partition shall provide for an overflow zone along the bank of any stream or watercourse, in a width which shall be sufficient in time of high water to contain or move the water, and no fill shall be p1aced1n the overflow zone nor shall any structure be erected or placed therein. The boundaries of the overflow zone shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. Development will be discouraged in areas of extremely poor drainage. (f) Flood Plain Areas. The City Council, when it deems nec- essary for the health, safety, or welfare of the present and future population of the area and necessary to the conservation of water, drainage, and sanitary facilities may prohibit the subdivision or partition of any portion of the property which lies within the flood plain of any stream or drainage course. All floodway and flood plain areas shall be administered and utilized according to the National Flood Insurance Administration regulations and the City's flood plain management ordinances and policies. /-I - 21 - (3) DEDICATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS (a) General Requirements. Where a subdivision or partition is traversed by a watercourse, drainageway, channel or stream, there shall be provided a storm water easement or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the lines of such watercourse, and of such width and construc- tion or both as will be adequate for the purpose. Where- ever possible, it is desirable that the drainage be main- tained by an open channel with landscaped banks and adequate width for maximum potential volume of flow. (b) Drainage Easements (1) Where topography or other conditions are such as to make impractical the inclusion of drainage facilities within road rights-of-way, perpetual unobstructed ease- ments at least fifteen (15) feet in width for such drain·, age facilities shall.be provided across property outside the road lines and with satisfactory access to the road . . Easements shall be indicated on the plat. Drainage ease- ments shall be carried from the road to a natural water- course or to.other drainage facilities, (2) When a proposed drainage system will carry water across private land outside the subdivision or partition, ap- propriate drainage rights must be secured and indicated on the plat. (3) The applicant shall dedicate, either in fee or by drain- age or conservation easement of land on both sides of existing watercourses, to a'distance to be aet ~ined by the City Council. (4) Low-lying lands along watercourses subject to flooding or overflowing during storm periods, whether or not included in areas for dedication, shall be preserved and retained in their natural state' as drainage ways. Such land or lands subject .to periodic flooding shall not be computed in determining the number of lots to be utilized for average density procedure nor for com- puting the area requirement of any lot. 4.4 Water Facilities. (1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (a) Necessary action shall be taken by the appl icant to provide a water-supply system capable of adequately meeting domestic water use and fire protection requirements. (b) Where a public water main is accessible, the applicant shall install adequate water facilities subject to the specifica- tions of city and state law. All water mains shall be at least six (6) inches in diameter. fI - 22 - ,(c) All water improvements shall conform to the construction standards and specifications adopted by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Engineer, and shall be incorporated into the construction plans required to be submitted by the developer for plan approval. (d) The location of all fire hydrants and all water supply improvements shall be shown on the tentative plan. and the cost of installing same shall be included in the performance bond or other appropriate guarantee of fi- nancial security furnished by the developer. (2) FIRE HYDRANTS. Fire hydrants shall be required for all sub- divisions and partitions. Fire hydrants shall be located no more than SOD feet apart and within 500 feet of any structure. The City Council and fire district may require fire hydrants to be located less than 500 feet apart and closer than 500 feet to any structure. All fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the City and appropriate fire district. To eliminate future street openings, all underground utilities for fire hydrants together with fire hydrants themselves and all other supply improvements shall be installed before any final paving of a street shown on the subdivision plat or partition map. 4.5 Sewerage Facilities. (1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall install sanitary sewer facilities in a manner prescribed by this Ordinance. All plans shall be designed in accordance with the rules. regulations and standards of the City and appropriate state and federal agencies. Plans shall be approved by such agencies. Necessary action shall be taken by the applicant to provide sewerage facilities to the subdivision. (2) INDIVIDUAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. If public sewer facili- ties are not available and individual disposal systems are pro- posed, minimum lot areas shall conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and those of the Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon. The individual disposal system, including the size of the septic tanks and size of the tile ·fields or other secondary treatment device. shall also be approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. (3) MANDATORY CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEI·IER SYSTEI·1. If a public sani- tary sewer is accessible and a sanitary sewer is placed in a street or.alley abutting upon property, the owner thereof shall be required to connect to said sewer for the purpose of dispos- ing of waste. and it shall be unlawful for any such owner or occupant to maintain upon any such property an individual sewage disposal system. H - 23 - 4.6 Sidewalks. (1) REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS (a) Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated non- pavement right-of-way of all roads. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of four (4) feet wide. (b) Concrete curbs are required for all roads I·there sidewalks are required by these regulations or where required in the discretion of the City Council. (2) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. The City Council may require, in order to facilitate pedestrian access from the roads to schools, parks, playgrounds. or other nearby roads, perpetual unobstructed ease- ments at least twenty (20) feet in width. Easements shall be indicated on the plan, plat or map. 4.7 Utilities. (1) LOCATION. All utility facilities, including but not limited to, gas, electric power, telephone and CATV cables, shall be located underground throughout the subdivision or partition. Where- ever existing utility facilities are located aboveground, except where existing on public roads and rights-of-way, they shall be removed and placed underground. All utility facilities existing and proposed throughout the subdivision or partition shall be shown on the tentative plan or map. Underground ser- vice connections to the street property line of each platted lot shall be installed at the developer's expense. At the discretion of the-City Council the requirements for service connections to each lot may be waived in the case of adjoin- ing lots to be retained in single ownership and intended to be developed for the same primary use. (2) EASEMENTS (a) Easements centered on rear lot line shall be provided for utilities (private and municipal); such easements shall be at least sixteen (16) feet wide. Proper coordination shall be established between the developer and the appropriate utility companies for the establishment of utility easements established in adjoining properties. (b) Where topographical or other conditions are such as to make impractical the inclusion of utilities within the rear lot lines, perpetual unobstructed easements of a width designated by the City Council, shall be provided along side lot lines with satisfactory access to the road or rear lot lines. Ease- ments shall be indicated on the plan, plat, or map. )f - 24 - 4.8 Public Uses. (1) PARKS. PLAYGROUNDS AND RECREATION AREAS (a) Recreation Standards. Land shall be reserved for parks and playgrounds or other recreation purposes. Each reser- vation shall be of suitable size, dimension. topography, and general character and shall have adequate road access for the particular purposes envisioned by the City. The number of acres to be reserved shall be determined on the basis of providing one (1) acre of recreation area for every thirty (30) dwelling units. The developer shall dedicate all such recreation areas to the City as a condi- tion of final subdivision or partition approval. (b) Minimum Size of Park and Playground Reservations. In general, land reserved for recreation purposes shall have an area of at least two (2) acres. When the size of the subdivision would indicate less than two (2) acres be set aside for recreation. the City Council may require that the recreation area be located at the edge of the subdivi- sion so that additional land may be added in the future. or the City Council may require the provisions of Section 4.8 (1) (d) be applied. (c) Recreation Sites. land reserved for recreation purposes shall be of a character and location suitable for use as a playground, playfield, or for other recreation purposes, and shall be relatively level and dry; and shall be improved by the developer to the standards required by the City Council. Such improvements shall be included in the per- formance bond. The dimensions of the recreation site shall be determined by the City Council. All land to be reserved for dedication to the City for park purposes shall have prior approval of the City Council and shall be shown marked on the plat or map, "Reserved for Park and/or Recreation Purposes." (d) Alternative Procedure: Money in Lieu of Land. Where, with respect to a particular subdivision or partition, the reser- vation of land required pursuant to this section does not equal two acres. the app1icant.sha1l deposit with the City Council a cash payment in lieu of land reservation prior to the final approval of the subdivision plat or partition map. Such deposit shall be placed in a Neighborhood Park and Recreation Improvement Fund to be established by the City Council. Such deposit shall be used by the City for improve- ment of a neighborhood park, playground, or recreation area including the acquisition of property. The City Council shall determine the amount to be deposited, based on the following formula: two hundred dollars ($200) multiplied by the number of lots in the subdivision. I-{ - 25 - (e) Other Recreation Reservations. The provlslons of this section are minimum standards. None of the above shall be construed as prohibiting a developer from reserving other land for recreation purposes in addition to the requirements of this section. . (2) OTHER PUBLIC USES (a) Plat to Provide for Public Uses. Whenever a tract to be subdivided includes a school. recreation uses or other public uses as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan. such space shall be suitably incorporated by the applicant into his sketch plan. After proper determination of its neces- sity by the City Council and the appropriate local govern- ment official or other pUblic agency involved in the acqu- isition and use of each such site and a determination has been made to acquire the site by the public agency. the site shall be suitably incorporated by the applicant into the tentative plan and final plat. (b) Referral to Public Body. The City Council shall refer the sketch plan to the public body concerned with acquisition for its consideration and report. The City Council may propose alternate areas for such acquisition and shall allow the public body or agency thirty (30) days for reply. The agency's recommendation. if affirmative. shall include a map showing the boundaries and area of the parcel to be acquired and an estimate of the time required to complete the acquisition. (c) Notice to Property Owner. Upon a receipt of an affirma- tive report the City Council shall notify the property owner and shall designate on the tentative plan and final plat that area proposed to be acquired by the public body. (d) Duration of Land Reservation. The acquisition of land reserved by a public agency on the final plat shall be initiated within twelve (12) months of notification. in writing. from the owner that he intends to develop the land. Such letter of intent shall be accompanied by a sketch plan of the proposed development and a tentative schedule of construction. Failure on the part of the public agency to initiate acquisition within the pre- scribed twelve (12) months shall result in the removal of the "reserved" designation from the property involved and the freeing of the property for development in ac- cordance with these regulations. 4.9 Preservation of Natural Features and Amenities. Existing features which would add value to the development or to the City as a whole. such as trees. watercourses and falls. historic and archeological sites. and similar irreplaceable assets. shall be preserved in the H - 26 - design of the subdivision or partition. No trees shall be removed from any subdivision or partition nor any change of grade of the land effected until approval of the tentative plan or map has been granted. All trees on the plat or map required to be retained shall be preserved, and all trees where required shall be welled and pro- tected against change of grade. The sketch plan (or tentative plan in the case of a major partition) shall show the number and location of existing trees, as required by these regulations and shall further indicate all those marked for retention. 4.10 Nonresidential Subdivisions. (1) GENERAL. If a proposed subdivision includes land that is zoned for commercial or industrial purposes, the layout of the subdivision with respect to such land shall make such provision as the City Council may require. (2) STANDARDS. In addition to the principles and standards in these regulations, which are appropriate to the planning of all subdivisions, the applicant shall demonstrate to the sat- isfaction. of the City Council that the street, parcel, and block pattern proposed is. specifically adapted to the uses anticipated and takes into account other uses in the vicinity. The following principles and standards shall be observed: (al Proposed industrial parcels shall be suitable in area and dimensions to the type of industrial development anticipated. (b) Street rights-of-way and pavement shall be adequate to accomodate the types and volume of traffic an- ticipated to be generated thereupon. (c) Special .requirements may be imposed by the local government with respect to street. curb, gutter and sidewalk design and construction. (dl Special requirements may be imposed by the local government with respect to the installation of public utilities, including water, sewer, and storm water drainage. (e) Every effort shall be made to protect adjacent resi- dential areas from potential nuisance from a proposed commercial or industrial subdivision, including the provision of extra depth in parcels backing up on existing or potential residential development and provisions for a permanently landscaped buffer strip when necessary. (f) Streets carrying nonresidential traffic, especially truck traffic, shall not normally be extended to the boundaries of adjacent existing or potential residential areas. H-V- TABLE 1 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS Residential Commercial-Industrial Minimum Right-of-Way Width (in feet) Arterial 66 66 Collector 66 66 Continuous Minor Street 66 66 Minor Streets less than 2.400 feet in length which cannot be extended 66 66 Alleys 16 16 Minimum Surfaced Width (in feet) Arterial 44 52 Collector Street 40 48 Continuous Minor Streets 36 40 " Minor Streets less than 2.400 feet in length which cannot be extended 28 40 "Maximum Grade (Percent) Local Road 10 6 Collector Road 8 6 Arterial 6 5 Minimum Grade 1 1 Minimum Radius of Curve (in feet) Local Road 100 200 Co 11 ector Road 100 200 Arterial 300 400 H - 28 - TABLE 1 (continued) DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS Residential Minimum length Between Reserve Curves (in feet) Commercial-Industrial Local Road Collector Road Arterial Minimum Sight Distance (in feet) Local Road Collector Road Arterial 100 100 200 200 200 275 200 200 300 250 250 300 Intersection Across Corners-75 feet Back Intersection Minimum Turnaround (in feet) Local Road Right-of-Way Diameter Pavement Center Island Diameter. (if required) Design Speed (miles per hour) Local Road Collector Road Arterial 120 100 40 25 25 30 160 . 140 60 25 25 30 Minimum Length of Local Road Arterial Vertical Curves 100 feet. but not less than braic difference in grade. 200 feet. but not less than cent. If - 29 - 20 feet for each alge- 50 feet for each 1 per- SECTION 5. SPECIFICATIONS FOR DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED 5.1 Sketch Plan. The following shall be required: (1) SCALE. Sketch plans shall be drawn to a convenient scale of not more than one hundred (100) feet to an inch. (2) NAME. The sketch plan shall show the name of the subdivision if property is within an existing subdivision. and if not. it shall show the proposed name which does not duplicate the name of any plat previously recorded. (3) OWNERSHIP. The sketch plan shall show: (a), Name and address. including telephone number of legal owner or agent of property. and citation of last instru- ment conveying title to each parcel of property involved in the proposed subdivision. giving grantor. grantee. date. and land records reference; (b) Citation of any existing legal right-of-way or ease- ments affecting the property; tc) Existing covenants on the property. if any; and, (d) Name ,and address. including telephone number, of the professional person(s) responsible for subdivision design, for the design of public improvements, and for surveys. (4) DESCRIPTION. The sketch plan shall describe the location of property by government lot, section, township. range and county. graphic scale. nor.th arrow. and date. (5) FEATURES. The following are the required features of the sketch map. ,tal Location of property lines. existing easements. burial grounds. railroad right-of-way, watercourses. and exist- ing wooded areas or trees eight (8) inches or more in diameter. measured four (4) feet above ground level; location. width. and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or immediately ad- jacent to the tract; names and addresses of adjoining property owners from the latest assessment rolls within two hundred and fifty (250) feet of any perimeter boundary of the subdivision. (b) Location. sizes. elevations, and slopes of existing sewers. water mains. culverts. and other underground structures, within the tract and immediately adjacent thereto; exist- ing permanent building and utility poles on or immediately adjacent to the site and utility rights-of-way. . 1-1 - 30 -' .. (cl Approximate topo9raphy, with contour intervals of at least twenty (20) feet. (d) (e) The approximate location and widths of proposed streets. Preliminary proposals for connection with existing water supply and sanitary sewage systems, or alternative means of providing water supply and sanitary waste treatment and disposal, preliminary provision for collecting and discharging surface water drainage, accompanied by ten- tative approval by the Department of Environmental Quality and other appropriate agencies. (f) The approximate location, dimensions, and areas of all proposed or existing lots. (g) The approximate location, dimensions, and area of all parcels of land proposed to be set aside for park or playground use or other public use, or for the use of property owners in the proposed subdivision. th) The location of temporary stakes to enable City officials to find and appraise features of the sketch plan in the field. . til Whenever the sketch plan covers only a part of an appli- cant's contiguous holdings, the applicant shall submit, at the scale of no more than two hundred (200) feet to the inch, a sketch in ink of the proposed subdivision area, tog~ther wit~ its.proposed street system, and an indication of the probable future street system and drainage system of the remaining portion of the tract. (j) A vicinity map showing streets and other general develo- ment of the surrounding area. The sketch plan shall show all school and improvement district lines with the zones properly designated. 5.2 Tentative Plan. (1) REQUIRED. The following shall be required of a tentative sub- division plan or major partition map. (al Scale. The plan or map shall be dralill on a sheet 18" x 24 11 in size or a multiple thereof at a scale of one inch equals 100 feet. (b) Name. The plan or map shall show the name of the sub- division or partition if property is within an existing subdivision. and if not, it shall show the proposed name which does not duplicate the name of any plan or map pre- viously recorded, as provided by ORS 92.09(1). 11 - 31 - -----------. (c) Ownership. (1) Name and address, including telephone number, of legal owner or agent of property, and citation last instrument conveying title to each parcel of property involved in the proposed subdivision or major partition, giving grantor, grantee, date and land records reference. (2) Citation of any existing legal rights-of-way or easements affecting the property. (3) Existing covenants on the property, if any. (4) Name and address, including telephone number, of the professional person(s) responsible for sub- division or partition design, for the design of public improvements, and for surveys. (d) Description. The location of property by government lot, section, township, range and county, graphic scale, north arrow, and date. (e) Features. (1) Scale of drawing. (2) Appropriate identification of the drawing as a tenta- tive plan o~ map.- (3) -The location, widths and names of both opened and un- opened streets within or adjacent to the tract, to- gether with easements and other important features such as section lines, section corners, city boundary lines- and monuments. (4) Contour lines related to some established bench mark or other datum approved by the City Engineer and hav- ing minimum intervals as follows: (a) For slopes of less than five percent (5%): show the direction of slope by means of arrows or other suitable symbols together with not less than four spot elevations per acre, evenly distributed; (b) For slopes of five percent (5%) to fifteen per- cent (15%): five feet; (c) For slopes of fifteen percent (15%) to twenty percent (20%): ten feet; and (d) For slopes of over t\-Ie:1ty percent (20%): twenty feet. 7 - 32 - (5) The location of at least one temporary bench mark within the subdivision or partition boundaries. (6) The location and direction of perennial or inter- mittent water courses and the location of areas subject to flooding. including informational sources relied on. (7) Natural features such as rock outcroppings, marshe-s, wooded areas and isolated preservable trees. (8) Existing uses of the property and location of exist- ing structures to remain on the property after plat- ing. (9) The location. width. names, approximate grades and radii of curves of proposed streets. The relation- ship of streets to projected streets as shown on the Comprehensive Plan or as suggested by the City Council to assure adequate traffic circulation. (10) A plan for domestic water supply 1ines and related water service facilities. (11) Proposals for sewage disposal, storm water drainage and flood control, including profiles of proposed drainage ways. (12) Proposals for the improvements, such as electric utilities. natural gas, sidewalks. cable TV. tele- phone lines. etc. (13) A donation to the public of all common improvements, including but not limited to streets. roads, parks, sewage disposal and water supply systems, the donation of which shall be a condition of approval of the ten- tative plan. (14) The location, width and purpose of proposed easements. (15) The location and approximate dimensions of proposed lots and the proposed lot and block numbers. (16) Proposed sites, if any allocated for purposes other than single-family dwellings. (2) The following may be required at the discretion of the City Council. If the information cannot be shown practicably on the tentative plan or map, it shall be submitted in separate statements ac- companying the plan or map. H - 33 - (a) A vicinity map showing existing subdivisions and unsub- divided land ownerships adjacent to the proposed sub- . division or partition and showi·ng hOl'l proposed streets and utilities may be extended to connect to existing streets and utilities. (b) Proposed deed restrictions, if any. in outline form. (c) The location within the subdivision and in the adjoin- ing streets and property of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, drain pipes and electric lines. (d) A sketch of a tentative layout for streets in the unsub- divided portion, if the subdivision proposal pertains to only part of the tract owned or controlled by the sub- divider. (e) Approximate center 1i ne profil eswi th extensions for reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision or partition. showing the finished grade of streets and the nature and extent of street construction. (f) If lot areas are to be graded, a plan showing the nature of cuts and fills and information on the character of the soil. 5.3 Final Subdivisi~n Plat or Major Partition Map. (1) INFORMATION REQUIRED ON FINAL PLAT OR MAP. The final subdivision plat or partition map shall be presented in india ink and shall contain all information, except for any changes or additions re- quired by resolution of tne City Council showing on the tentative plan or map. In addition, the following information shall also be shown on the final subdivision plat or partition map: (a) Reference points of existing surveys identified, related to the plat or map by distances and bearings, and referred to a field book or map as follows: (1) Stakes, monuments or other evidence found on the ground and used to determine the boundaries of the subdivision or partition; (2) Adjoining corners of adjoining subdivisions or par- titions; and (3) Other monuments found or established in making the survey of the subdivision or required to be installed by provisions of this Ordinance. (b) The exact location and width of streets and easements inter- cepting the boundary of the tract. (c) Tract, block and lot boundary lines and street right-of-~Iay and center lines, with dimensions, bearings, or deflection If - 34 - .. angles~ radii, arcs, points of curvature and tangent bear- ings. Normal high water lines and the hundred-year flood plain for any creek or other body of water. Tract bound- aries and street bearing shall be shown to the nearest 30 seconds with basis of bearings. Distance shall be shown to the nearest 0.01 feet. No ditto marks shall be used. (d) The width of the portion of streets being dedicated and the width of existing right-of-way. For streets on curva- ture, curve data shall be based on the street center line. In addition to the center line dimensions. the radius and central angle shall be indicated. tners within 500 feet and at least two clearly marked public streets. (7) Public Hearings: (a) the public hearing shall be conducted· in accordance with the requirements governing the conduct of quasi-judicial hearings on land use matters pursuant to ORS 215.412 and 227.170. (b) if necessary. the . City Council may resolve to continue the . public hearing giving the date, time, and place the hearing will be continued. (8) Action on Final Plan: (a) Within fifteen (15) days following the close of the public hearing, the City Council.shall give written notice to the applicant of approval, disapproval or conditional approval of the final plan. Approval shall be indicated by the signature of the Mayor on the plan. (bl One copy of the final plan shall be returned to the developer with the date of approval, conditional approval or disapproval and . th~ findings and conclusions upon·which the.City Council's decision was based accompanying the plan. SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, PRESERVATION. AND DESIGN 3.1 State Requirements. All improvements included in ORS Chapter 446 and OAR Chapter 814.28 are hereby incorporated by reference into this Ordinance and shall be required. 3.2 . Character of the Land. Land \~hichis subject to flooding, poor drainage, steep slopes, rock formations, adverse earth formations or topography, utility easements or other features which will reasonably be harmful to the safety, health, and general welfare of the future inhabitants of the mobile home park shall not be developed. Existtng features which \10uld add value to the development or to the City as a whole, such as trees, watercourse, historic and archaeological sites, and similar irreplaceable assets, shall be perserved in the design. 3.3 General. Applicable standards of the City Subdivision Ordinance shall be followed by the developer. r -5- 3.4 Phasing. If the mobile home park is to be built in phases. each phase shall be built in accordance with these regulations and the improvements required as each phase is constructed shall be determined based upon the total number of mobile home spaces which will exist after completion of all phases. 3.5 Req-Jired Improvements. The following improvements shall be required subject to applicable standards as approved by the CityCouncfl 'Jpon recorrmendation of the City Engineer. (l) Interior streets- (2) Water lines and fire hydrants (3) Sewerage disposable facilities that satisfy the requirements of the Department of Environmental Quality and the City Council (4) Underground utilities (5) Provision for adequate drainage (6) Six (6) foot sight obscuring perimeter fence or landscaping 3.6 Optional Improvements. The following improvements may be required subject to applicable standards as approved by the City Council upon recommendation of the City Engineer. (1) Curbs or sidewalks or both (2) Street lights (3) Guest or Recreational Vehicles parking or both (4) Fenced play area(s) or parkes) or both (5) Recreational facilities (6) Groundoover or trees or both (7) Laundry facilities (8)- Other suitable improvements as determined by the City Council 3.7 Connection with Public Water Systems. Mobile Home Park water lines shall be connected to the City water systems. The developer may be required to pay for or perform the work or both to extend or increase the capacity of lines or both of City water lines to the site. 3.8 Deferral or Waiver of Required Improvements. The City Counci1 given their reasons therefore, may defer or waive the provision of one or more improvements as, in its judgement, are not requisite in the interests of the public health safety, and general welfare, or which are inappropriate . ..L -6- 4SECTION 4. SITTING AND INSTALLATION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS 4.1 Mobile Home Spaces. Each space for a mboile home shall contain not less than 1,600 square feet exclusive of space provided for the common use of tenants, such as roadways, general use structures, guest parking, walkways and areas for recreation and landscaping purposes. . 4.2 Setback Requirements. No mobile home in the park shall be located closer than 15 feet from another mobile home or from a general use building in the park. No mobile home accessory building or other building or structure on a ~obile home space. shall be closer that 10 feet from a mobile home accessory building or other building or structure on another mobile home space. No mobile home or other building or structire shall be within 25 feet of a public street property boundary or 10 feet of another property boundary. 4.3 Installation Requirements. (1) Insigne of Compliance. Each mobile home shall have the Oregon "Insigne of Compliance" as provided for by ORS 446.170. However, upon submission of evidence indicating substantial compllancewith the standards required for an "Insigne of Compliance", the City may waive the "Insigne of Compliance requirement for units manufactured prior to September 1969. (2) A mobile home shall occupy not more that 40 percent of.the contiguous space provided for the exclusive use of the occupants of the mobile home and exclusive of space provided for the common use of tenants, such as roadways, general use structures, parking spaces, walkways and areas for recreation and landscaping. (3) Installation and Tie-Down requirements. The mobile home shall be installed, tied down and anchored in accordance with the rules established by the Oregon Department of Commerce, or in accordance· with the instructions of the manufacturer which have been approved by the Department of Commerce. Such requirements must be met within seven (7) days after the mobile home has been placed on the space. (41 Foot\ngs or Foundation Requirements. The mobile home shall be installed in accordance with oen of the following methods. (al The mobile home shall be placed upon pieces and footings in accordance with state approved instructions provided by the manufacturer. (b) The mobile home shall by placed on a cement or concrete block foundation, in accordance with Department of Commerce Regulations. (5) Tongue Removal. The tongue of the mobile home shall be removed. If it is designed for removal and is not a permanent part of the mobile home. (p) Skirting. Unless the foundation is continYous, the unit shall have a continuous skirting of non-decaying, noncorroding material extending toan impervious surface. The skirting or continuous foundations shall have openings ~lhich shall be secured against entry of animals under the mobile home. (7) Attached Extensions. No extension or outbuildings shall be physically attached to the mobile home, however, a covered or uncovered carport 7- -7- or patio~ or a storage units for incidential yard and household items may be erected adjacent to the exterior wells of the mobile home. Exception: factory installed tip-outs that are designed to blend in with the rest of the mobile home are allowed. 4.4 Deferral or Waiver of Siting on Installation Requirements The City Council. giving their reasons therefore, may defer or waive the provision of one or more siting or installation requirement, as in its judgement~ are not requisite in the interests of the public health, safety, and general welfare~ or which are inappropriate. Approved and Adopted by the Lexington City Council this -->,,~ day Of~'~--- ____,1979. Attest: . City Recorder / . r-8- Mayor a -LEXINGTON ORDINANCES ORDINANCE NO. 74-1 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE OPERATION OF TIlE LEXINGTON WATER SYSTEM AND DEFINING THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY AND ITS WATER SYSTEM CUSTOMERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITIt, AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. Now,. therefore, the city of Lexington. Oregon, does ordain as follows: .;~.. "- ..-. ".: customers receiving service city limits, are bound by these all the The city of Lexington and whether inside or outside Rules and Regulations. title. This code shall be known as '~ules and.Regulations for Water System of the City of Lexington Oregon," and may be cited Section 1. 1.1 Short the Operation of the and pleaded .. 1.2 Scope. from the water system, rules and regulations. '.. "-' "'" city council • - " ..'. ·-.f:;! and care to at a proper accepted under the the water system. been from . . ""'-persons, firm, or corporation ,. .\:-~ system under the terms of these ~ . ;_l. ., .~~.~:~~! _. : --:~. . ',..:-'iJ. . :'" Sec~ion 4. Description of Service. 4.1 Supply. The city will exercise reasonable diligence deliver a continuous and sufficient supply of water to the customer pressure and to avoid any shortage or interruption in delivery. S~ctipn 3. Service Area. The area served by the water system shall be initially all that area included within the corporate limits of the city of Lexington and may be expanded to include such other contiguous or neighboring territory as the' city coune!'l shall, from time to time, determine to serve • , . Section 2. Definitions of General Terms. 2.1 "City" shall mean the legally constituted municipal governments of the city of Lexington, Morrow County, Oregon. 2.2, "Water system" shall mean all city-owned facilities for supply, : transmission, storage, and distribution of potable water. , 2.3 "Superintendent" shall mean the person appointed by the t9 manage 'the affairs of the water system. - 2.4 "Applicant" shall mean the person or making application for water service from the water regulations. 2.5- "Customer" shall mean an applicant who ha!'; terms of these regulations and who receives water service The city shall not be liable for damage resulting from the interruption in service or from the lack of service. 'Temporary suspensiJn of service by the city for improvements and repairs will be necessary occasionally. Whenever possible and when time permits. all customers affected will be notified prior to shutdowns. 4.2 Quality. The city will exercise reasonable diligence to supply a safe and potable water at all times. 4.3 Ownership of syatem. All water mains, valves, fittings, hydrants, and other appurtenances. except "cutsomer service lines," as defined in subsection 7.1 herein, shall be the property of the city. 4.4 Classes of service. The classes of service shall be regular or special, . as further described by a number following the letter designation indicating: 1. Inside city limits. 2. Outside city limits. Regular service includes the following: 4.4.1 Class A service. Class A services shall be thos@ where the , ;;;;- J -1 .. ~. Lexington Ordinances occupancY,is primarily residential, including multi-family dwellings such as duplexes, apartments, motels, courtels, etc. where each unit is individ~ ually metered. 4.4.2 Class B Service. Class B services shall be those where the occupancy is primarily commercial, such as retail stores, multi-family dwellings, apartments, motels, courtels, etc. without individual meters, shups, service stations, etc. 4.4.3 Class C service. Class C services shall be those where the' occupancy is primarily industrial, such as manufacturing plants, warehouses etc. , 4.4.4 Class D service. Class D services shall be thse where the occ~pancy is primarily for public or semipublic.use, such as schools, churc parks, playgrounds,. municipal buildings, etc. 4.4.5 Class E service. Class E services shall be those not otherwise classified, consisting of temporary services, standby fire protection servi only, services for which speical contracts are in effect, etc. 'Special service includes the following: 4.5 , Spe'cial contracts. When the applicant I s requirements for wat'er are unusual or large, or necessitate considerable special or reserve equipment or capaci, the city reserves the right to make special contracts, the provisions of which are d erent from and have exceptions to the' regularly published water rates, rules, and ,regulations. 'This special contract shall be in writing and signed by the applicant and the city. 4.6 Resale of water. Resale of water shall only be permitted under special contract, in writing, between the city and the person or party selling the" water. ,4.7·, Service preference. In case of shortage of supply,. the city reserves the right to give preference in the matter of furnishing service to customers and interests of 'the city from the standpoint of public convenience or necessity. Water service to user:s outside the city limits shall, at all times, be subject to th prior and superior rights of the customers with the city. 3ection 5. Application for Service. 5.1 Application form. Each applicant for water service shall sign an application form provided by the city giving date of application, location of premis whether they have been served before, the date on which applicant desires to have service begin, purpose for which service is to be used, the address for mailing or delivery of bills, the applicant's address (owner, tenant, or agent), the class and size of service, and such other information as the city may reasonably require. In signing the application, the customer agrees to abide by the regulations of the city water system. The application is merely a written request for service and does not bind the city to serve. 5.2 Deposits and establishment of credit. At the time application for service is made, the applicant shall establish his credit ~th the city. 5.2.1 Establishment of credit. The credit of the applicant will be deemed established: a. If the applicant makes a cash deposit with the city to secure payment of bill.s for service. The deposit shall be a sum equal to the estimated bil.l for one billing period but not less than $10.00. b. If the applicant has promptly paid all accounts due the city for a period of 12 consecutive billing periods. 5.2.2 Deposits. At the time the deposit is given to the city, the applicant will be given a receipt for the sa~e. The deposit is not be to considered a payment on account. The deposit ,.,i 11 be returned to the customer when service to the customer is discontinued, provided all out- J - 2 , ~ .. ,- Lexington Ordinances standing bills have been paid. The city may, at its option, return the deposit without application, provided all bills have been paid promptly for 12 consecutive billing periods. The city will not pay interest on any deposit. 5.2.3 Forfeiture of deposit. If an account becomes delinquent and it is necessary to turn off the service, the deposit shall be applied to the unpaid balance due. Water service will not be restored to that customer at- the same or different premises until all outstanding bills due the city have been paid and the cash deposit replaced. 5.3 Application amendments. Customers desiring a material change in the size, character, or extent of equipment or operation which would result in a material change in the amount of water used shall give the city written notice of such change prior to the change and the application for service shall be amended. Customers desiring a change in the size, location, or number of services shall fill out an amended application. Section 6. Main Extensions. 6.1 Within the city limits. Water main extensions to areas within the city limits not included in area initially served shall be installed under the procedure established by the city charter for public improvements. Each property benefited by such extension shall be assessed its proportionate share of the cost of the extension. " 6.2 Outside the city limits. Water mains outside the city "limits shall be extended only at the expense of the customers served. The main extensions shall become the property of the city at the time service is provided. The city shall determine the size of the main extension. Extensions outside the city limits shall be installed by the city or by contractors approved by the City. The installation procedures and materials used shall be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the ci ty. " 6.3 Locations of extensions. The city will make water main extensions only on rights-of-way, easements, or publicly owned property. Easements or permits secured for main extensions shall either be obtained in the naree of the city or transferred to the city, along with all rights and title to the main at the time service is provided" to the customers paying for this extension. .. Section 7. Services. 7.1 Definition .. The "service connection" shall be that part of the water distribution system which connects the meter to the main and shall normally consist 'of corporation stoP. service pipe, curb stop, meter, meter yoke. and meter box. " The "customer service line" shall be that part of the piping on the customer's property that connects the service to the customer's distribution system. 7.2 Ownership. installation. and maintenance. The city shall own, install, and maintain all services and installation and maintenance shall only be performed by authorized employes of the city. The customer shdll own. install, and maintain the customer service Hne. , 7.3 Service connection charge. At the time the applicant fi leg for service where no service "previously existed, or if he is filing for a change in service size or location, he shall submit with his application ~ service connection charge if "applicable. This charge is to cover the cost to the city to install the service from the main to and including the meter and the meter housing. The service connection charge shall be as set by resolution of the councit. 7.4 Size of service. The city wi 11 furnish and install a service of such size and at such locations as the applic~nt requests, provided such request$ are reasonable and that the size requp.sted is one that is listed by the city. The minimum size of service pipe shall be 3/4 inch. The city may refuse to install a service y_ 3 .. Lexington Ordinances Permanent changes in the size of the service paid by the customer on the basis of actual line which is undersized or oversi~ed, as determined by a study and report of the superintendent. 7.5 Changes in service size. line requested by the customer shall be cost to the city for making the change. 7.6 Length of service. Where the main is in a public right-of-way, the meter will be placed at the right-of-way line nearest the property to be served for the standard connection fee, provided the length of service does not exceed the width of the right-of-way. Where the main is on an easement or publicly owned property other than . designated ri~hts-of-way, the service shall be installed·to the boundary of the ease ment or public property by the city, provided the length of service does not exceed 30 feet. If, in either case cited above, the length of service line to the meter location ·exceeds the maximum stated, the applicant shall pay the extra cost of the ·line on the basis of actual cost to the city for labor, materials, and equipment rental plus 15 per cent. 7.7 Number of service connections on premises. The owner of a single parcel· of property may apply for and receive as many services. as he and his tenants require, provided his application or applications meet the requirements of the policies, rules, and regulations. 7.8 Standby fire protection service connections. 7.8.1 Purpose •. Standby fire. protection service connections of ~2-inch size and larger will be installed only if adequate provisions are made to prevent the use of water from such services for purposes other than fire extinguishing•. Sealed fire sprinkler systems with water-operated alarms shall be considered as having such provisions. The city may requir that suitable detector check meter be installed in the standby fire protect s~rvice connections, to which hose lines or hydrants are connected. All piping on the customers' premises shall be installed in accordance with th .plumbing code of the state of Oregon. . '7.8.2 Charges for service. Charges for standby fire protection ~ service will be as stated in the published water rate schedule. No charge will be made for· water used in the standby fire protection services to extinguish ac.cidental fires or for routine testing of the fire protection system. The customers .shall pay the full cost of the standby fire protect service connection, any required detector check meters, and any required special water meter installed solely for the service to the standby connection. 7.8.3 Violations of regulations. If water is used from a standby pipe connection service in violation of these regulations, an estimate of amount used will be computed by the city. The cUftomer shall pay for the water used at the regular rates, including the minimum charge based on the size of the service connection and subsequent bills rendered on the basis of the regular water rates. 7.9 Fire service connections other than standby. A service having fire protection facilities on the premises and I Section 16. Access to Property. The duly appointed employes of the city,. under the direction of the superintendent, shall have free access at all reasonable hours of the day to any and all parts of structures and pre~ses in which water is or may be delivered for the purpose of inspecting connections, the conditions of conduits and fixtures. and the manner and extent in which the water is being used. The city does not. however, assume the duty of inspecting the custo~er's line, plumbing, and equipment. and shall not be responsible therefor~ ·Section 17. Responsibility for Equipment. 17.1 Responsibility for customer equipment. The city shall not be liable for any loss or damage of any nature whnts(Jcver caused by any defect in the customer's linc, plumbing, or equipment, nor shall the cLty be liable for loss or damage due to interruption of service or temporary changes in pressure. The customer shall be responsible for valves on his premises beinF, turned off when the water service is turned on. 17.2 Responsibility for city equipnent. City e~ui~~ent on the customer's .:::r- 9 ' .. Lexington Ordinances premises remains the property of the city and may be repaired, replaced, or removed by the city e~ployes at any time without consent of the customer. No payment will be made to the property owner for the right to install, maintain, replace, or remov city equipment on his p~emises. The property owner must exercise reasonable care t prevent damage to equipment and must in no way interfere with its operation. The property owner must keep vicious dogs or other animals secured or confined to avoid interference with the utility operation and maintenance. 17.3 Damage to city equipment. The customer shall be liable for any da to equipment owned by the city which is caused by an act of the customer, his tenan agents, employes, contractors, licensees, or permittees.- Damage to equipment shall include but not be limited to breaking of seals and locks, tampering with meters, injury to meters, including but not limited to damage by hot,wate~ or steam, and dama.ged meter, boxes, curb stops, meter stops, and other service appurtenances. Section 18. Fire Hydrants. 18.1 Operation. No person or persons other than those designated and authorized by the city shall open any fire hydrant belonging to the city, attempt to draw water from it, or in any manner damage or tamper with it. Any violation of this regulation will be prosecuted according to la.w. No tool other than special hydrant wrenches shall be used to operate a hydrant valve. In cases where temporary service has been granted and water is received through a fire hydrant, an auxiliary external valve will be provided to control the flO\~ of water. 18.2 Moving a fire hydrant. When a fire hydrant has been installed in t locations specified by the proper authority, the city has fulfilled its obligation. If a property owner or other party desires to change the size, type, or location of the hydrant, he shall bear all costs of such changes. Any change in ti,,, location of a fire hydrant must be approved by the city. Section 19. Penalties. Any person violating any'of the provisions of ' these rules and regulations shall, upon conviction thereof,' be punished by a fine 0 not more than $300.00. Section 20. Amendments. 20.1 City council. The city council shall have the power to establish water rates' and charges and amend these policies, rules, and regulations as may be necessary for the efficient operation of the water system. 20.2 Suspension of rules. No employe of the city is authorized to suspend or alter, any of the policies, rules, and regulations cited herein without specific approval or direction of the city council as stated in subsection 20.1 abo except in cases of emergency involving loss of life or property or ,~hich would plac the water system operation in jeopardy. Section 21. Constitutionality, Saving Clause. If any clause, sentence, "paragraph, section, or portion of this code for any reason ~hall be adjudged invali by a court of competent,jurisdiction, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this code, but shall be confined in 'its operation to th clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or portion of this code directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment is rendered. Passed by the council and approved by the mayor __~,,~,~~~~__~~~~~__~ ,1-' ;;:. ~4~lRq73b 31359-8 NUl ]'-10