--
DOCUMENTS
nl~tWo-(lm~) I .
U~pi1flfllent of Land Conservation and Developm,ent
1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
M E M 0 RAN DUM
March 21, 1979
TO: State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts,
Other Local Reviewers and Citizens
FROM: W. J. Kvarsten, Director
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Cities of Pilot Rock, Echo and Ukiah Comprehensive
Plans and Ordinances
Comments Due: May 7, 1979
Tentative Date for
Commission Action: June 8, 1979 in Portland
Field Representative: Ji.m Kennedy
Lead Reviewer: Claire Puchy
The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has
received requests from the Cities of Pilot Rock, Echo and
Ukiah in Umatilla County asking that their comprehensive
plans and ordinances be acknowledged to be in compliance
with ORS 197 and the Statewide Planning Goals.
This notice is to afford your agency a review opportunity
before the Commission's action to make sure the comprehensive
plans and ordinances have been properly coordinated with
your plans and projects for this area.
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.
State and Federal Agencies,
Special Districts, Other Local
Reviewers and Citizens 2 3/21/79
Complete copies of the comprehensive plans and ordinances
are available for review in the following locations:
LCDC Central Office
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
Contact: Claire Puchy
Phone: 378-4926
LCDC La Grande Office
Rm. 135, Classroom Bldg.
Eastern Oregon State College
La Grande, OR 97850
Contact: Jim Kennedy
Phone: 963-2171 x 412
Pilot Rock City Hall
Pilot Rock, OR 97868
Contact: Duane Cole
Phone: 443-2811
LCDC Portland Office
320 SW Stark, Rm. 530
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Linda Macphers
Phone: 229-6068
East Central Oregon
Association of Countie
920 S.W. Frazer
Pendleton, OR 97801
Contacts: Jeri Cohen
(Pilot Rock)
Henry Markus
(Ukiah and Echo)
Phone: 276-6732
Echo City Hall
Echo, OR 97826
Ukiah City Hall
Ukiah, OR 97880
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:CP:rnh/MC
'. 0," ~.TTACHMENT A
LAND COHSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE REPORT
City of Pilot Rock
DATE RECEIVED: March 12, 1979 DATE OF COMMISSION ACTION: June 7, 1979
I. REQUEST: Acknowled9ment of Compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals
for the comprehensive plan and implementing measures.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Staff:
Recommends the City of Pilot Rockls acknowledgment request be denied
and that the jurisdiction be granted a planning extension to September 15,
1979 to complete revisions to its comprehensive plan and implementing
measures for Statewide Planning Goals 10 and 14. '
B. Local Coordination Body:
.- Recorrmends the Conmission acknowledge the City of Pilot Rockls com-
prehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compliance with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
.-
. ,
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Kennedy
Phone: 963-2918 ,"
..
COORDINATOR: Jeri Cohen
Phone: 276-6732
LEAD REVIEWER: Claire Puchy
Phone: 378-5455
Date of Report: May 24, 1979
'.-----
!
i
. .,.. .
:)'1';'\
, .....
\"
\':.:: ..
>-+----II't---\.,.e.-.-".l....-.-.-7-';;-
\
\
.\
,
l/,·l
h l / Y..LJ·I .•t: /
. / :..,'/~~/ If
i l /.-.,-1
~' .I9/
.........
..
SlO'~S~'2·.
'UIUIIf: " ....u
,.UUllt cny ~"1I'
~'G~T ,..OUI"IlAL
C~(.~••
'"1lll'''111''' STill ......
COI"'(I'lCIA~
u..... G/lOW1H 10UIlIl.....
-'-
o
I!El
o
o
o
CJ
I ··..·"·,·.... ,·.. ·,,... . ..~ , ,....,I"••, .....
//
.. /
/
Adoptld pur.ulI'I1 10 Cit, 01 Pilot Roek
Ord,nanel No.320 01'1 11/25118.
:......
. _Jl..-..
.. i---,~--'-:;:
.,
"." ".-.' ," <~;::;::>:. I
......... i·:;:::-:. .. .... ... ....::
:i:.;.;. ;.: .. . .. . ";:::
.....'. ~:t::!:::;:·::~::'::-::;:~.::·~ :.. . <; :-. i~ .:::;:~::::.,:;:::::~~;;:~J
.:.:::: "r::::,.· .. ' ....:".,..:
~::: .. :~':~F:;:~<.~:/::: .;-:;. ;.::" .. .1
.......::.::, •..\[.': •...:-..'. . .....
-,.; :::-:.: -
HOTE: Pl .... ,.1•• 10 '1'>_ moll '.C."1 U.S
O.'lllfl",e"l 01 Ho... ·"nq lind Urb_n a.wIIlIGom_"l
F.l .... floOd H:u ••d "'0 lot IIood pIon•• r•• ' ~=-=. +", =0'
(;::==-::':;;'".'"..',,",,'.'.",,'."[]m::"::··==_==="",.odICX,. -=_IZl....__-:~~·::..-""..CI---.....-----...'!"-~'!!''''''1
COMPREHENSIVE PLANt If:~~_."ev
o 0'l? \V7 rry r2 Ici)0n 00,0 )=r fD) r('\\ P> :1'(' ,fr'\:\O i"D;:C:: ('2. """ ",~~ U lJ ~tr I.r' b~ L LrU\0~.:;~" L. ~)Lr~'..::.'==:'J~:J:.r\.
x~---~·_--· jO&
City of Pilot Rock
Ill. BACKGROUND INFDRMATIDN:
A. GEOGRAPHY:
-2-
The City of Pilot Rock is located in the central sector of Umatilla
County, approximately 15 miles south of Pendleton. Its economy
centers around agriculture and lumber.
B. GOVERNING BODY:
Mayor and a six-member City Council.
C. POPULATION:
1977 - 1,75D
1976 - 1,715
1975 - 1,715
1974 - 1,645
1960 - 1,695
195D - 847
1940 - 358
D. PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES:
Comprehensive Plan:
Zoning Ordinance:
Subdivision Ordinance:
Mobile Home Park Ordinance:
Urban Growth Area Joint
Management Agreement: .
Adopted November 25, 1978
Adopted November 25, 1978
Adopted November II, 1978
Adopted November II, 1978
Adopted November 25, 1978
E. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION:
Planning Commission approved as the Committee for Citizen Involvement
January 23, 1976. Subsequently. an Independent Committee for Citizen
Involvement was established in March 1976. A Citizen Involvement
Program was approved June 18, 1976.
F. COMPLIANCE STATUS: --,-
-
Planning Assistance Grant approved June 18. 1976.
Planning Assistance Grant approved May 6, 1977 with a compliance date
of July I, 1978. -
Compliance date was extended to September 1. 1978.
Total amount received was $9.200 plus a portion of a joint grant awarded
to East Central Oregon Association of Counties (ECOAC).
City of Pilot Rock
IV. FINDINGS:
A. General Overview:
-3-
Pilot Rock began in 1867 as a trading post for settlers and people
involved in the mining, livestock, grain and lumber industries.
Incorporated in 1903, the City's economy has always been influenced
by these industries which depend on natural resources of the region.
Currently, over half of Pilot Rock's labor force is employed in the
lumber and wood products industry.
Pilot Rock's urban growth boundary encompasses a 1,671 acre area, 328
acres of which are within the city limits. Currently, most land in
the City is in residential, commercial, industrial and pUblic use.
Some vacant land exists which is mostly in the floodplain or on steep
slopes. About 28 acres are in farm use and are sUitable for development.
Most of the land within the UGB i~ presently in agricultural or
industrial use.
Pilot Rock's current population of 1,750 is expected to reach a
maximum of between 3,285 and 4,145 by 1995. This projection is
predicated on the City's desire to attract industry, stimulate
economic growth and provide land for residential development.
The comprehensive plan, which was prepared by the East Central Oregon
Association of Counties (ECOAC), is a well-organized, easily understood
document. It should serve as a useful guide to citizens and decision-
makers in achieving the City's goals and carrying out its policies.
The City of Pilot Rock does not comply with Goals 10 (Housing) and 14
(urbanization). Basic deficiencies are summarized as follows:
Goal 10: The Zoning Ordinance contains unclear and djscretionary
conditional use approval standards and multifamily units are not
allowed outright in any zone.
Goal 14: The urban growth boundary is not supported by findings
relative to all factors in Goal 14. 'Specifically, the City has not
demonstrated a need for all residential land dncluded within the UGB.
Goals 3 (Agricultural "Lands), 4 (Forest Lands), 15 (Willamette Greenway),
and 16-19 (Coastal Goals) are not applicable to the City of Pilot
Rock.
B. Applicable Goals:
1. Citizen Involvement: (Goal 1)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
City of Pilot Rock
Factual Infonnation: -Plan. pp. III-I-2. IV
-4-
Plan Policies: Citizen Involvement Policies, p. 2
Implementing Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318). Article 12
(Administrative Provisions); Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316).
Section 2 (Subdivision and Partition Procedure and Approval);
Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317), Section 2 (Procedure for
Mobile Home Park Plan Approval)
The Pilot Rock Planning Commission functions as the approved
Committee for Citizen Involvement. The City's approved Citizen
Involvement Program included public meetings of the City Planning
Commission and the City Council, numerous public hearings, and a
community attitude survey (pp. IV-1-2; Community Attitude Survey)~
Pilot Rock is committed to citizen involvement in all future planning
efforts (Citizen Involvement Policies. p. 2), and shall conduct
periodic public opinion surveys. establish advisory committees and
hold public meetings and hearings. Changing needs of residents
within the UGB are grounds for review and amendment of the compre-
hensive plan and ordinances (p. 9).
The plan includes procedures for holding public hearings and notifying
citizens of such hearings (pp. 9-10).
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 1.
2. Land Use Planning: lGoal 2)
The City of Pilot Rock has adopted a comprehensive plan to serve as
the' basis for all land use decisions and actions (Ordinance No. 320).
The plan includes inventories and other factual information, as
well as identification of problems and alternative courses of
action. All applicable Statewide Planning Goals have been addressed.
Pilot Rock has adopted policies lOrdinance No. 320) and has made
land use designations within the UGB (Comprehensive Plan Map).
consistent with the factual base.
Implementing Measu~es. including zoning, subdivision, and mobile
home park ordinances; have been adopted by Pilot Rock (No. 318. 316
and 317. respectively) to carry out the plan and policies.
Land within the City has been zoned, consistent with plan map
designations and provisions of the Zoning Ordin~nce.
Preparation of the comprehensive plan and implementing measures was
coordinated with state and federal agencies. special districts and
Umatilla County. None of these has identified any conflicts
between its programs and the City1s adopted plan and ordinances.
Umatilla County has amended its comprehensive plan (Ordinance
No. 79-12), consistent with Pilot Rock1s comprehensive plan for
City of Pilot Rock -5-
'. ,
that area outside the city limits, but within the UGB, and will
amend its ordinances according to provisions of the Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Agreement (see the Goal 14 section of this
report for details).
Pilot Rock will review its plan and implementing measures at least
annually and amend these documents if necessary. Procedures for
review and amendment are included in Ordinance No. 320 (Sections 6
and 7).
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 2.
3. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: (Goal 5
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. II-I, 111-3, VII-4, VII-11-12, VII-
14, VIII-17
Plan Policies: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources Policies, p. 3; Public Facilities and Services Policy 11,
p. 7; Comprehensive Plan Map
Implementing Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318), Articles 3.70
(POS), 5.20 (Conditional Uses--Placing Conditions on a Permit);
Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316), Section 4 (Requirements for
Improvements, Preservation and Design)
Pilot Rock has described all applicable Goal 5 topics, including
open space, mineral and aggregate resources, energy sources, fish
and wildlife habitats, outstanding views, water areas, groundwater
resources and historic sites (pp. VII-4, VII-11-12; VII-14, VIII-
17, VIII-22-23, Community Attitude Survey). Urban development,
agriculture, grazing and timber harvesting are recognized as
having potential negative impacts on these resources (p. VII-II).
The City points out (p. VII-II) the importance of protecting open
spaces, floodplains and minimum streamflow~; concentrating growth
withi n the UGB; and ,carefully managfng agri'cultura1 and forest
lands.
Pilot Rock has adopted a number of policies (pp. 3, 7) which
reflect its concern for the protection of identified natural
resources. To carry out these policies, the City has designated
(Comprehensive Plan Map) and zoned (Zoning Map) 302 acres (18.1
percent) of land within the UGB as permanent open space. In
addition, Article 5.20 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the City
Council to place conditions on conditional use permits to protect
"existing trees, vegetation, water resources, wildlife habitat or
another significant natural resource."
City of Pilot Rock -6-
No archaeological or hjstoric sites or buildings have been identified
in Pilot Rock by the local Museum of Natural History or the State
Historic Preservation Office (p. VIII-Il). Several sites and
buildings were identified in a community attitude survey {po 5) as
having possible historical significance. It is the City's policy
(Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
Policy 7, p. 3) to "preserve archaeological and historic sites.
structures, and artifacts.·" According to Section 4.9 af the
City's Subdivision Ordinance, these shall be preserved in the
design of subdivisions and land partitions. The City recognizes
(p. II-I) the need for an historic and archaeological survey and
literature search. and will incorporate such information into the
plan at plan update. .
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with GoalS.
4. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: (Goal 6)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. III-3, VII-7-10, VII-13-14, VII-I?,
ViI-21-24, Soils Map
Plan Policies: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Policies,
p. 3; Economic Development Policies 2 and 3, p. 5; Public
Facilities and Services Policies, pp. 6-7; Transportation Policy
2, p. 7
Implementation Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318), Articles 3.50
(M-I), 3.60 (M-2), 3.82 (Additional Requirernents--Ground Cover
Requirements), 5.20 (Conditional Uses--Placing Conditions on a
Permit); Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316), Section 4 (Require-
ments for Improvements, Preservation and Design)
Oust from agricultural operations, odors from industries and
sewage treatment facilities, lack of a storm drainage system, and
noise from truck traffic and industry cause periodic air and water
quality problems (pp. VII-13, VIII-2Pl. None of these problems
are serious enough to violate state or federal environmental
standards (pp. VII-i3, VIII-21).
The Department gf Environmental Quality has commented (see letter
attached) that. "About 85% of the sewage seeps into the ground,"
and "The treatment system is not adequate and is assuredly dis-
charging contaminants to the groundwater and probably indirectly to
Birch Creek." However, DEQ states that. "Because the 1eaking
lagoons were isolated and Pilot Rock has been in a very low growth
situation, the state Sanitary Authority and the DEQ have never
pressed the issue of the unsealed lagoons. Now the City wants to
actively grow. They rightly believe that their sewage treatment
system is adequate. since they have never been told othen-lise."
City of Pil ot. Rock
-7-
DEQ has also pointed oJt that the proposed residential area along
the east side of U.S. Highway 395 is downwind of existing industries
and proposed industrial areas. This will require these industries
to be "as clean and noise and nuisance free as possible."
It is the City's pol icy (p. 3) to maintain and improve the qual ity
of air, land and water by (1) limiting all discharges from existing
and future development to meet state and federal environmental
standards, and (2) encouraging clean industry to locate in Pilot
Rock.
The City is developing a capital improvement program for expansion
of the existing sewer system and construction of a storm drainage
system (Draft Preliminary Capital Improvement Program). In addition,
Pilot Rock's Subdivision Ordinance contains requirements regarding
the provision of storm drainage and sewerage facilities as well as
tree maintenance in areas of new development (Sections 4.3, 4.5 and
4.9, respectively) (see the Goal 11 section of this report for
more deta i1s) .
No industry which will create a public nuisance because of noise,
smoke, odor, dust or heavy truck traffic is allowed in the City's
industrial zones (M-l, M-2) (Zoning Ordinance, Articles 3.50 and
3.60). In the M-2 zone, "measures necessary to satisfy all applicable
state or federal requirements shall be required as a condition of
approval by the City." Article 3.82 of the Zoning Ordinance
requires residential and commercially zoned land to be planted with
ground cover, trees and bushes to prevent dust blowing.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 6.
Suggestion for Plan and Implementing Measures Improvement:
The City of Pilot Rock should coordinate with the Department of
Environmental Quality to establish a procedure for correcting the
City's sewage treatment seepage problem. .
.5. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: (Goal 7)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal: .,
Factual Information: Plan, pp. II-I, 111-3, 111-4, VII-4-10,
Comprehensive Plan Map, Natural Hazards Map, Soils Map; U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development F.r.A. Flood Hazards
Map
Plan Policies: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Policies, p. 4; Comprehensive Plan Map
•City of Pilot Rock -8-
Implementing Measures::- Zoning Ordinance (No. 318). Articles 3.70
(pas), 3.83 (Additional Requirements--Hazard Areas), 7.20 (Mobile
Home Regulations--Installation Requirements); Subdivision Ordinance
{No. 316), Section 4 (Requirements for Improvements, Preservation
and Design); Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317), Sections 3
(Requirements for Improvements, Preservation and Design) and 4
(Siting and Installation of Mobile Homes in Mobile Home Parks)
Pilot Rock has identified three types of hazards within the planning
area--flash flooding. steep slopes (greater than 12 percent), and
soil limitations (pp. 111-3, VII-4-10). The locations of these are
mapped (Natural Hazards Map, Soils Map).
Pilot Rock faces a special flood hazard problem in that its downtown
;s in the floodplain. However, the City is participating in the '
National Flood Insurance Program and has a policy (Areas Subject to
Natural Disasters and Hazards Policy 3. p. 4) to, "investigate
alternative ways to reduce the flood hazard within the city limits."
The City recognizes (p. II-I) the need for further study of flood
hazards, and will update the plan and ordinances as such information
becomes available (p. VII-7).
Pilot Rock has a policy (Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and
Hazards Policy 2, p. 4) to "limit the use of land in the floodplain
within the urban growth area to open space, recreation or other
appropriate uses which minimize the potential loss to life or
property and which comply with federal and state regulations." To
carry out this policy, the flood hazard area as well as most of the
steep slope areas hav~ been designated (Comprehensive Plan Map) and
zoned Permanent Open Space (PaS) (Zoning Ordinance, Article 3.70).
No permanent structures are allowed in this zone.
If a structure is proposed in any identified hazard area in the
UGB, Article 3.83 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the developer to
demonstrate an awareness of the hazard and to incorporate necessary
safeguards into site and building plans before the City can approve
the building permit. Similar provisions are included in the Sub-
division Ordinance (Sections 4.1(4), 4.3(1), 4.3(2)(f), and 5.2(1)(e)
and the t~obile Home Park Ordinance \Section'·3.2).
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 7.
6. Recreational N~eds: (Goal 8)
The acknowledgement request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. 111-3-4, VIII-l?, Existing Land Use
Map, Community Attitude Survey
Plan Policies: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources Policy 1, p. 3; Recreational Needs Policies, p. 4;
Transportation POlicy 4, p. 7; Comprehensive Plan Map
City of Pilot Rock -9-
Implementing Measures:: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318), Articles 3.10
(R-l), 3.20 (R-2), 3.30 (R-3), 3.40 (C-1), 3.50 (M-l), 3.70
(POS); Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316), Section 4.8(1) (Parks,
Playgrounds and Recreation Areas)
The comprehensive plan describes existing recreational facilities
in Pilot Rock (pp. III-3-4, VIII-17, Community Attitude Survey) and
determines future recreational needs, based on a community attitude
survey. The results of this survey have been translated into a
number of policies (Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and
Natural Resources Policy 2, p. 3; Recreational Needs Policies,
p. 4; Transportation Policy 4, p. 7). Land has been designated for
parks and open space uses on t~e plan map, consistent with these
policies.
Parks and other similar public uses are allowed outright in the R-
1 and POS zones, and conditionally in the R-2, R-3, C-l, and M-l
zones. In addition, the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 4.8(1))
requires and provides standards for parks, playgrounds and recreation
areas development in all future subdivisions and land partitions.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 8.
7. Economy of the State: (Goal 9)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. 11-1-2, 111-4, VIII-I-13, VIII-18,
Existing Land Use Map
Plan Policies: Land Use Planning Policies, p. 2; Agricultural
Lands Policies, pp. 2-3; Air, Hater and Land Resources Quality
Policy 2, p. 3; Economic Development Policies, pp. 4-5; Compre-
hensive Plan Map
Implementing Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318), Articles 3.30
(R-3), 3.40 (C-l), 3.50 (M-l), 3.60 (M-2), 3.70 (POS); Preliminary
Capital Improvement Program ,.~-
Lumber and wood produtts industries employ 53 percent of Pilot
Kock's -labor force, indicating the City's dependence on the region's
natural resource base (pp. VIII-5-6). This dependence, coupled
with fluctuations in the national housing market itself, causes
seasonal fluctuations in employment (p. VIII-6). The City has
adopted a number of policies (Economic Development Policies,
pp. 4-5) which express its intent to diversify the local economy,
preserve land for new commercial and industrial development,
provide necessary facilities to attract and serve such development,
minimize the environmental impact of industrial growth, expand job
opportunity and training programs, and develop a downtown improve-
ment plan.
City of Pilot Rock -10-
The City acknowledges ~p. II-I) the need for an industrial park
plan and a downtown improvement plan and intends to incorporate
these into the comprehensive plan at plan update. In addition) the
Umatilla County Economic Element (completed in February 1979» the
Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report (to be
completed by December 1979), and the Umatilla National Forest unit
plans (to be completed in the future) "should be evaluated ... with·
regard to potential economic development and population growth
based on commercial timber production and other forest uses ll
(p. II -1) . The results of thi s eva1ua ti on wi 11 be ; ncorpora ted
into Pilot Rock's plan at the next update (p. II-I).
Agricultural and vacant land north of the City within the UGB has
been designated and zoned for future commercial and industrial use
(Comprehensive Plan Map). taking advantage of nearly rail and \
highway transportation routes and potential public facilities
extensions. This land is important for future industrial growth
because most land within the City zoned for commercial or industrial
use is currently supporting a timber-related activity or another
preexisting use (p. VIII-5).
The City has two industrial zones (M-l and M-2) and a commercial
zone (C-l) which have been applied to 89 acres. 285 acres, and 44
acres. respectively. within the UGB.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 9.
8. Housing: (Goal 10):
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. 11-1-2, III-4, VIII-8-lI, VIII-13-
16, VIII-18-20, IX-I-5, Existing Land Use Map, Natural Hazards Map,
Soils Map, Community Attitude Survey
Plan Policies: Housing Policies. pp. 5-6; Comprehensive Plan Map
Implementing Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318). Articles 3.10
(R-1), 3.20 (R-2), 3.30 (R-3); Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316);
Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317)
Buildable Lands. Inventory
Goal 10 defines buildable lands as H ••• lands in urban and urbanizable
areas that are suitable. available and necessary for residential
use" (emphasis added).
A. lands Suitable and Available for Residential Use
Pilot Rock has inventoried land within its planning area in
terms of suitability and availability for residential development
(pp.II-2, VII-4-IO, VIII-13-14, Natural Hazards Map, Soils
City of Pilot Rock -11-
There are about 20 landowners within the UGB outside the city
limits (p. IX-5). The availability of their lands is uncertain
(p. II-2).
Based on population projections of 3,285 .to 4,145 people at
various densities, the plan indicates that 464 to 728 acres of
land will be needed for residential use by 1995 (pp. 11-2, IX-
1). This was calculated in the followfrig manner (p. IX-I):
514
171 .
43
728
328
-109
27
464
unit) acres needed
Acres Needed
(3,285 projection) ~(~4~,1~4~5~~~~
4
3
2
People
per Unit
1
4
12
Formula:
40
40
20
Map}. Major limitations are flood hazards, soil. conditions and
steep slopes (see ·the Goal 7 section of this report for more
details). Other factors considered included proximity to
transportation routes, land ownership patterns and the City's
ability to provide public facilities and services (p. 1II-5).
"Most of the land ~lithin the proposed urban growth area is
presently in agricultural use. The major exception is the
industrial area just north of the City. Some parcels are in
residential use or vacant" (p. VIII-l3). \~ithin the city
limits, 28.4 acres (one parcel) are in agricultural use, and
43.6 acres (three parcels) are vacant (p. VIII-14). The agri-
cultural land is suitable for development but its availability
is uncertain (p. VIII-13). Two of the vacant parcels are
undevelopable because of natural hazards; the third has been
subdivided for homesites (p. VIII-13).
B. Lands Necessary for Residential Use
An inventory of existing housing (by type and condition) is
included in the plan (pp. VIII-14-16). A community attitude
survey indicates there is a need for "additional homes to buy or
rent and apartments" (p. 1II-4). No other housing needs Qy~
have been identified in the plan.
Based on 1970 Census data, 25 percent of Pilot Rock's population
earns less than $5,000 annually and 53 percent earn over $8,000
.(p. VIII-8). These percentages are lower than both Umatilla
County and the State of Oregon averages for those income ranges
(p. VIII-8).
Percent of Dwelling
Population Unit/Acre
City of Pilot Rock -12-
No justification fdr the percent of population (i..e., 40-40-20
split) at various densities used in these calculations is given
in the plan. However. the Principal Comprehensive Planner has
indicated that the figures were arrived at by the ECOAC planning
staff and the City Planning Commission after an analysis of
state. regional and local housing mix and density trends (personal
communication. May 7, 1979).
The number of housing units needed Qt~ are not identified in
the plan. However, based on the above data, OLeO staff calculates
that the City will need the following number of units:
Number
(3,285 projection)
of Units
(4,145 projection)
1 unit/acre @
4 people/unit
4 units/acre @
3 people/unit
12 units/acre @
2 people/unit
328
436
324
514
684
516
Housing Policies
Pilot Rock has a number of housing policies (pp. 5-6) which reflect
its commitment to providing adequate housing for its citizens.
Several of these policies tHousing Policies 2-4, 6-8) express the
intent to provide a variety of housing types at various densities
and price ranges.
Within the UGB, 908 acres have been designated for residential use
(pp. 11-2, IV-3, Comprehensive Plan Map).
Implementing Measures
Three residential zones are established by the City's Zoning
Ordinance--General Residential (R-l). Limited Residential (R-2) and
Farm Residential {R-3)--which allow for a variety of housing types
and residential densities. Single family dwellings are allowed
outright in all three zones. Mobile homes are allowed outright in
the R-l and R-3 zone~ and two family dwellings on corner lots are
allowed outright in the R-l zone. MUltifamily and two family units
area allowed conditionally in both the R-l and R-2 zones. Mobile
home parks are conditional uses in the R-l zone and are subject to
provisions of the City Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317).
Article 5 of the City's Zoning Ordinance contains the following
approval standards for conditional uses:
City of Pilot Rock -13-
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 will have minimal adverse impact on the
tal livability, (b) value and (C) appropriate development of the
abutting properties and. the surrounding area compared to the
impact of development that is permitted outright.
3. The location and design of the site and structures for the use
will be as attractive as the nature of the use and its setting
warrants.
4. The design will preserve environmental assets of particular
interest to the community.
5. The applicant has a bona fide intent and capability to develop
and use the land as proposed and has some appropriate purpose
for submitting the proposal and is not motivated solely by such
purposes as the alteration of property values for speculative
p~rposes.
1000 Friends of Oregon has objected to Pilot Rock's acknowledgment
request in part because these criteria, "are wholly discretionary
and encompass broad and generalized standards" tsee letter attached).
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock does not comply with Goal 10.
Pilot Rock has made a determination of existing housing, income
levels, and land suitability and availability. Housing needs have
been identified as homes to buy and rent and apartments. Needed
acreage has been calculated on the basis of density but not by
number of units per housing type.
However, it can be assumed that one unit per acre and four units
per acre densities will provide predominantly single family housing,
and that 12 units per acre densities wil"' provide predominantly
multifamily housing. Based on these~assumptlons, the City of Pilot
Rock will need 764 to 1,198 single family units and 324 to "516
multifamily units by 1995. Land has been designated and zoned for
these residential uses (see the Goa"1 14 section of this report for
details).
Conditional use approval standards 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Zoning
Ordinance are unclear and discretionary and could result in the
exclusion of a needed housing type. This is especially important
in light of the following:
-.,
City of Pilot Rock -14-
1. A significant amou~t of land designated for residential use has
been zoned R-2 in which single family dwellings are the only
outright permitted use.
2. Multifamily units are only allowed conditionally in the R-l and.
R-2 zones.
3. Income levels of many Pilot Rock residents are relatively low
and therefore purchase of a home will be difficult.
Although mobile homes are allowed outright in the R-l and R-3
zones anct dup"r exes on corner 10t5 are a11 owed Qutri ght ; n the R-l
zone, under current zoning. the City cannot carry out its policy
(Housing Policy 7. p. 6) of providing "a diversity of housing
types and a range in prices" unless unclear and discretionary
conditional use standards.are eliminated and/or other low-cost
housing types (e.g., multifamily units) are allowed outright in at
least one zone.
In order to comply with Goal 10. the City of Pilot Rock must:
1. Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional use
approval standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, or
2. Allow multifamily units or other low-cost housing types out-
right in at least one zone. which contains sufficient buildable
lands to accommodate identified needs;
3. Amend the plan (p. IX-I) to include justification for the
percent of populatlon at various densities used in calculating
residential acres needed;
4. Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of
units needed by housing type.
g. Public Facilities and Services: (Goal 11)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal: ,"
Factual Information:· Plan, pp. 111-3, 111-4-5, VI1I-17-24, Existing
Land Use Map, Water System Map. Sewer System Map. Natural Gas
Lines Map. S~hool District Boundaries Map. Oregon State Highway
Division Map of Pilot Rock. Community Attitude Survey
Plan Policies: land Use Planning Policy 5. p. 2; Recreational
Needs Policies. p. 4; Housing Policy 9. p. 6; Public Facilities
and Services Policies. pp. 6-7; Urbanization Policy 3. p. 8;
Comprehensive Plan Map; Urban Growth Area Joint Management
Agreement
City of Pilot Rock -15-
.,
Implementing Measurei: Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316), Section 4
(Requirements for Improvements, Preservation and Design); Mobile
Home Park Ordinance (No. 317), Section 3 (Requirements for
Improvements, Preservation, and Design); Urban Growth Area Joint
Management Agreement; Proposed Capital Improvement Program
The comprehensive plan includes an inventory of public facilities
and services, including schools, police, fire, water, sewer, solid
waste, libraries, communication and medical services (pp. VIII-17-
18, VIII-21-24, Existing Land Use Map, Water System Map, Natural
Gas Line Map, School District Boundary Map, Oregon State Highway
Division Map of Pilot Rock) .. All are adequate to meet current
needs within the city limits (pp. VIII-17-18, VIII-21-24). However,
the City intends to develop a storm drainage system and additional
health services as well as expand police, fire, water and sewer
systems as population grows (Public Facilities and Services Policies 6
and 7, p. 6). This will be done through development of a capital
improvement program (Public Facilities and Services Policy 9,
p. 7). A preliminary CIP will be completed in April 1979 (p. 11-
2) .
Pilot Rock has a policy (Public Facilities and Services Policy 10,
p. 7; Urban Growth Area Joint Managment Agreement, V) to provide
city water and sewer services only within the UGB and only after
annexation. Subdivisions and other new developments are required
to have public facilities (Public Facilities and Services Policies 13
and 14, p. 7; Subdivision Ordinance, Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7,
4.10; Mobile Home Park Ordinance, Section 3.5). However, new wells
within the UGB will be discouraged if they will (either individually
or collectively) substantially reduce the City's ability to provide
a dependable source of water (Public Facilities and Services Policy 11
p. 7).
Pilot Rock's Housing Policy 9 (p. 6) requires low density residential
areas to be laid out so that they can be further subdivided or
partitioned at a later time to insure provision of needed public
facilities. Subareas having 12 percent slopes or greater are
excepted. This policy is carried out by Section 4.1(5) of the City
Subdivision Ordinance. .::-
Conc1us ion: The City of Pi lot Rock comp1i es with Goal 11.
10. Transportation; (Goal 12)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. 111-5, VIII-24-25; Pilot Rock Urban
Growth Area Joint Management Agreement, Attachments 0-1 (List of
County Roads Within the City Urban Growth Boundary) and 0-2 (Map
of Existing County Roads Within the City Urban Growth Boundary)
' ..
City of Pilot Rock -16-
Plan Policies: Housing Policy 6, p. 5; Public Facilities and
Services Policy 12. p. 7; Transportation Policies, p. 7; Compre-
hensive Plan Map; Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
Implementing Measures: Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316). Section 4.
(Requirements for Improvements. Preservation and Design); Urba-n
Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
The plan includes an inventory of all transporatian modes available
to the City (auto. rail. air. bus. bicycle) and an assessment of
future needs (pp. 111-5, VIII-24-25). Policies to meet these needs
have been adopted (Transportation Policies, p. 7). A highway
collector plan to expedite traffic flow has been proposed and is
shown on the plan map. The City intends to work with the Oregon
Department of Transportation to minimize traffic problems along
U.S. 395 (Transportation ~olicy 3, p. 7). Pilot Rock and Umatilla
County have agreed to cooperatively develop an implementation
policy regarding development and maintenance of streets and roads
within the UGB. consistent with the comprehensive plan (Urban
Growth Area Joint Management Agreement. VII).
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 12.
11. Energy Conservation: (Goal 13)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. 111-5, VII-14
Plan Policies: Housing Policies 6 and 8. pp. 5~6; Public Facilities
and Services Policy 10. p. 7; Transportation Policy 2. p. 7;
Energy Conservation Policies. p. 8; Urbanization Policy 3, p. 8
Implementing Measures: Zoning Ordinance (No. 318); Subdivision
Ordinance (No. 316), Section 4.9 (Preservation of Natural
Features and Amenities); Urban Growth Area Joint Management
Agreement
..
-. ,
Pilot Rock recognizes (p. VIII-14) the potential of solar energy
for water and space· heating, wind for pumping or generation of
electricity and solid waste for the generation of electricity and
steam by either..an industrial or municipal cogeneration facility.
Five policies (p. 8) have been adopted which call for (1) revision
of the Zoning Ordinance to protect solar access, (2) design of new
streets and buildings to allow for utilization of solar energy and
landscaping to reduce summer cooling needs, (3) energy efficient
extension and upgrading of water and sewer lines, (4) protection of
trees. and (5) insulation of buildings.
City of Pilot Rock -17-
,,.
The City Zoning Ordinance (Article 5.20) allows the City Council to
impose conditions on conditional use permits, including limitations
on the height, size or location of a building or structure, and
preservation of existing trees. The Subdivision Ordinance (Section
4.9) requires preservation of existing trees and the planting of
trees as a condition for subdivision or partition approval.
Through its Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement with
Umatilla County, the City has carried out its Urbanization Policy
(3, p. 8) of controlling outward growth by phasing the extension of
public facilities.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 13.
12. Urbanization: (Goal 14)
The acknowledgment request includes the following to comply with
this Goal:
Factual Information: Plan, pp. III-2-3, III-5, 'VIII-13-14, VIII-
18-19, VIII-21-24, Existing Land Use Map, IX-1-9; Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Analysis
Plan Policies: Land Use Planning Policy 6, p. 2; Agricultural
Lands Policies, pp. 2-3; Urbanization Policies, p. 8; Comprehensive
Plan Map; Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
Implementing Measures: Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement;
City Ordinance No. ,320 (Adopting the Comprehensive Plan); County
Ordinance No. 79-12 (Adopting Pilot Rock's Comprehensive Plan)
Urban Growth Boundary
Pilot Rock and Umatilla County have mutually adopted (Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Agreement) a site specific urban growth
boundary encompassing 1,671 acres, 320 of which are within the city
limits (pp. VIII-14, IX-3). The boundary was established to
separate urbanizable land from rural land LUrbanization Policy 1,
p. 8; Urban Area JOi.nt Management Ag-reement, 'II. B. ) .
Umatilla County has'made prel iminary population projections which
estimate Pilot Rock's 1995 population to be between 2,300 and
2,600 (pp. VII1.18-19). This projection based upon the assumption
that the City will continue to have 3.4 percent of the County
population.
However, the City expects its present population of 1,750 to reach
between 3,285 and 4,145 by 1995 (pp. VIII-18-20, IX-1-3). This is
predicated on the assumption that 10 percent of new county residents
will decide to live in Pilot Rock. "\~hether or not this projection
is realistic depends on a number of factors including land availabilit
City of Pilot Rock • -18-
and the des; rabil ity of Pil at Rock for ; ndus tri a1 development 11
(p. VIII-18). Pilot Rock intends to "encourage a moderate rate of
growth" (Housing Policy 1, p. 5) and believes (pp. 1I-2. VIII-18)
that if land were made available for development some people who
now work in Pilot Rock but live in Pendleton would move to Pilot
Rock.
1000 Friends of Oregon has objected to Pilot Rock's acknowledgment
request in part because of the discrepancy between County and City
population projections which has resulted in "an unduly expansive
UGB" (see letter attached). uThere is no suggestion that the '10% I
figures has been coordinated with the County planning staff or with
other municipalities." However, Umatilla County adopted Pilot
Rock's comprehensive plan (Ordinance No. 79-12).
Based on its own population projections. the City predicts it will
need from 464 to 728 acres of residential land (see the Goal 10
section of this report for details) and 763 acres of commercial~
industrial. public and permanent open space land (p. 11-2). Actual
land use designations within the UGB (including the city limits)
are as follows (p. lX-3):
~ Acres Percentage
Residential 908 54.3
Convnerci a1 44 2.6
Light Industrial 89 5.3
Industrial 285 17. I
Permanent Open Space 302 18.1
Public and Semipublic 43 2.6
.TOTAL 1,671 100.0
The urban growth boundary includes 908 acres of residentially
designated land--180 to 444 acres beyond the projected need of 464
to 728 acres. nA11 of this land will almost certainly .not be
needed through 1995" (p. II - 2) . The additi anaI acreage was included
in the UGB in order to compensate for those areas within the urban
area whose availability for development iS~llncertain (pp. II-2~ IX-
1-4), but the plan does not indicat~ how that specific figure--908
acres--was derived. ,Goal 14 requires that establishment of the
urban growth boundary be based upon "demonstrated need to accommodate
long-range urban population growth requirements li (emphasis added).
Transition from Urbanizable Land to Urban Uses
Umatilla County has adopted Pilot Rock's comprehensive plan, including
land use designations~ for that portion of the UGB outside the city
limits (i.e .• the urban growth area) (Ordinance No. 79-12). In
addition, the County has adopted the substantive provisions of the
-19-
City's implementing or~inances for all lands within the urban
growth area except those zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (Ordinance
No. 79-12) and has rezoned the non-EFU lands consistent with the
City Zoning Map. The Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
(Sections II and III) specifies that land zoned for Exclusive Farm
Use shall remain in that use until rezoning is requested. Such
rezoning shall be consistent with the City's plan and shall require
adequate findings for the-need to rezone. The Urban Growth Area
Joint Management Agreement also states that the City Zoning Map.
shall apply to land within the urban growth area upon annexation to
the City.
The City estimates that between 328 and 514 acres of land in the
UGB are needed for residences at a density of one dwelling unit.per
acre (p. IX-I). "The low density residential designation is meant
to discourage rural residential development outside the urban
growth boundary by allowing similar development within the planning
area as an interim use" (p. 11-2). 1000 Friends of Oregon objects
to Pilot Rock I s acknowl edgment request, in part, because, "Low
density residential development is permitted on agricultural land
that should be protected by EFU zoning" (see letter attached).
1000,Friends states that the City's policy of retaining land within
the urban growth area in Exclusive Farm Use zoning until rezoning
is requested "is totally ineffectual since the comprehensive plan
allows the landowner, at his whim, to request that EFU land within
the UGB be rezoned to 'R-3, Farm Residential'." However, as indicated
above, the Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement specifies
that adequate findings for need must be made to justify such rezoning.
1000 Friends is also concerned that permitting EFU land to be
rezoned upon request will likely result in "scattered, uncoordinated,
and inefficient development." However, Section 4.1(5) of the
Subdivision Ordinance requires that low density residential areas
which are subdivided or partitioned, be laid out so that such areas
may be further subdivided or partitioned at a later time while
still insuring that necessary public facilities can be developed.
This carries out Housing Policy 9 (p. 6)". City water and sewer
services will be provided only after annexation (Public Facilities
and Services Policy 10, p. 7; Urban Growth:Area Joint Management
Agreement V), and new wells will be discouraged if they \~ill either
individually or coliectively substantially reduce the City's ability
to provide a dependable source of water (Public Facilities and
Services Policy.11, p. 7).
The Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement of these jurisdictions
includes provisions for review and amendment of the comprehensive
plan, UGB and ordinances.
,City of Pilot Rock
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock does not comply with Goal 14.
"f
•' ..
. City of Pilot Rock
-20-
Pilot Rock. and UmatilJa County haveJutually adopted a site specific
urban growth boundary and a joint management agreement for the
lands within that area.
Pilot Rock would like to grow and believes it can accommodate ten.
percent (10l) of the County's new growth by 1995 if sufficient land
is made available for development. Although the City has a projected
need of 464 to 728 acres of residential land. 908 acres have been
designated for residential use. No justification for the additional
180 to 444 acres is given except the uncertainty in the availability
of land within the UGB. The plan states that "all of this land
will almost certainly not be needed through 1995" (emphasis added).
If some of this land will not be needed to accommodate growth, it
should not be included within the UGB. If, at a later date, such
land is needed, the boundary can be amended, as provided for in the
Urban Growth Area Joint M~nagement Agreement.
In order to comply with Goal 14, the City must either:
1. Provide the findings based upon factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14
which justify the designation of an additional 180 to 444 acres
of residential land beyond the projected need of 464 to 728
acres; or
2. Make plan map, zoning and UGB amendments to meet the projected
residentlal growth needs of the City. Specifically, the UGB
should be modified to include no more than the acreage needed.
In addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14. these amendments
should take into account the other factors of Goal 14. par-
ticularly factor 6· (retention of agricultural land).
C. Comments Received:
The following have submitted statements on the acknowledgment
request:
Agency or Party Position
Port of Umatilla
Oregon Department of Transportation
Oregon Department of Economic
Development
Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality
1000 Friends of Oregon
Oregon Business Planning Council
Public Utility Commissioner of Oregon
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
*Statement attached.
+Received after deadline.
, Ackriowl edge
Acknowledge
COIMlents*
Corrments*
Objects to Acknowledgment*
COlTlT1ents*
Comments+
Acknowledge+*
City of Pilot Rock -21-
~; .." .'
O. Overall Conclusions:
.' ,
The City of Pilot Rock has done a good job in developing a compre-
hensive plan and implementing measures which comply with most of
the Statewide Planning Goals. The plan includes inventories and
other factual information, policies and means of carrying out most
policies. However, there are several deficiencies regarding .
Goal 10 (Housing) and Goal 14 (Urbanization) which must be corrected
prior to acknowledgment (see Sections IV.B.8. and IV.B.12. of this
report for details).
V. RECOMMENOATIONS:
A. Staff:
Recommends that the City of P·ilet. RockLs acknowledgment. request be .
denied and that the jur.isdiction be granted a planning extension to
September 15, 1979 to make revisions to its comprehensive plan and
implementing measures for Statewide PJanning Goals 10 and 14. .:.
In order to comply, the City of Pilot Rock must:
."Goal 10
4. Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of units
needed by housing type.
,,'
Either:
3. Amend the plan (p. IX-I) to include justification for the percent
of population at various densities used in calculating residential
acres needed;
1. Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional use approval
.standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, or
2. Allow multifamily units or other low-cost housing types outright
in at least one zone which contains sufficient buildable lands to
accommodate identified needs;
1. Provide the fiQdings based upon factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14 which
justify the designation of an additional 180 to 444 acres of
residential land beyond the projected need of 464 to 726 acres; or
Goa·l 14
"" ...~-,
-:' ..
. City of Pilot Rock -22-
,
2. Make plan map, zoning.and UGB amendments to meet the projected
residential growth needs of the City. Specifically. the UGB
should be modified to include no more than the acreage needed. In
addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14, these amendments should
take into account the other factors of Goal 14. particularly
factor 6 (retention of agricultural land).
B. Local Coordination Body:
Recommends the Commission acknowledge the City of Pilot Rock's com-
prehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compliance with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
CP:mh/11C
6/11/79
094061/094634
,
\
Department of Economic Development
voCTOA ATovEH
--
-
. .. ~­
. ,
~-"" .-.Vr'\' -'I:'
.•_. • / I
921 SW. WASHINGTON STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 PHONE (503) 229-5535-·
11ay 2, 1979
Ms. Claire Puchy
Plan Review Specialist
Main Office
1175 Court Street N.E.
Salem, Ore90n 97310
Dear Ms. Puchy:
I have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pilot Rock in
light of the policies and concerns of this Department and have the
following comments.
The plan 'contains a good assessment of the economic situation in
Pilot Rock and the goals and policies indicate that the people of
Pilot Rock desire a more diversified economy and an increase in both
industrial and non-industrial emplo.,Y11lent opportunities.
The Plan does not, however, stipulate how the City intends to go
about encouraging such diversification and resultant job creation.
This Departments policy is to encourage cities to work toward
achievement of their economic goals by the design and adoption of a
development strategy and work program appropriate to thei~ area and
conditions. We would hope that Pilot Rock could prepare such a
strategy and work program by the time of the first periodic review
and update of their Comprehensive Plan and include it at that time.
This Department has completed a draft \-/orking r1Jt!lJual "How to do
Economic Development Planning" for the u~ of ltical jurisdictions in
Oregon. Chapters 4, 5 arrd 6 would, I be'ieve, be especially useful
to Pilot Rock at this time and in the near future, since they deal
with the design and evaluation of an economic development h~rk
program. -
The Department has retained two consultants to help cities and
counties in Oregon in their economic planning efforts. ,Should Pilot
Rock feel they might be of help now or in the future, they would
contact:
Cable Address-ORECONDEV
"30." •.j.
Local Planning/Communlty Development Division
Department of Economic Development
Suite 425
921 S. W. Washington Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
Telephone: 229-5535
Sincerely,
1t51/{ev.vl?'vvv.
William T. Rankin
Economic Development Specialist
IHR: nb
cc: Duane Cole,
City Administrator
;:;"
p'0at~'" ~,.~".
'0.......,.
Department of Environmental Quality
522 SOUTHWEST 5TH AVE. PORTLAND. OREGON
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1760. PORTLAND, OREGON 97207
MAY 4 1979
~ '1 R%l,NDUM May 4, 1979
•
TO:
SUBJECT:
Comments
Claire Puchy, D~D Lead Reviewer
Bob JaCkman\.--
CEQ Review ~nd Comment on Co~pliance Acknowledgment Request _
pilot Rock
Steve Gardels, DEQ East~rn Region Manager, Pendleton. comments on sewage
and \~ater quality, air quality, solid waste and noise in the attached
memo.
Harold Sa;,lyer I DEQ l'1ater Quality Division. Portland adds, "we consider
the city's facilities adequate until evidence suggests otherwise. Any EPA
grant for facility planning will depend on prioritization of all documented
water quality problems and sufficient funds to address all needs on the
prior~ty lisb above the level where Pilot Rock would fall."
DEQ's"Noise Control Section and Air Quality and Solid Waste Divisions have
nothing to add.
If the matters noted above are dealt with during Comprehensive Plan main-
tenance and update, it appears to DEQ that no substantive conflicts will
exist b~tween the pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and DEQ plans and
programs.
No Objection
The Department does not object to LCDC AcknOWledgment of the P.ilot Rock
Comprehensive Plan. However, we request that LCDC authorize and encourage
pilot Rock to develop and include in their Plan the needed improvements
identified above as soon as possible.
RDJ: jo
Attachment
cc: pilot Rock
Jim Kennedy, DLeD Field Representative
Jeri Cohen, Local Coordinator
Jim Claypool, DLCD
William H. Young, Director, DEQ
Mike D~Nns, Management Services, OEQ
Jack Wea~hersbee, Air Quality Division, DEQ
Mike ziolko, Air Quality Division, DEQ
Hal Sawyer, Water Quality Division, DEQ
Ernie Schmidt/Bob Brown, Solid Waste Division, DEQ
John Hector/Jerry Jensen, Noise Control Section, DEQ
Steve Gardels, Eastern Region, DEQ
Fred Bolton, Regional Operations Division, DEQ
STATE OF OREGON
DEC - ERO 276-4063
INTEROFFICE MEMO
I)IPT.
TO; Bob Jack.m..an, Ie DATE: April 16, 1979
'2 II\':-~?'~- UlJ.:. c' ,.~ 1
'.", (.(;: ...... "'.~
,r:-:: .~ r"' ":;....-.: '..,....:.'
I (") -.....:. ,... '':':
LJRevie\.; of Pilot :ioe:< Ccrnp PlanSUBJECT:
A central part of Pilot Rock's Plan is 't~ei~ understand~ng that the se~age tre2tm€~:
lagoons can handle 2500 people--or 30% more ~han the present 1750 people.
Toei~ syst~~ consists of the collection se~ers. lift P~~PS,
t~~-cell lagoon with ~~ overflow st~cture to Birch Creek.
in early 1959.
a lcng interse~tor line,
The syste~ was ccmple~ac
Average flow into the lagoons is about 0.25 ~~D, which is about 30% higher thar.
expected, due to infiltrat:on. The lagoons were never sealed as per Clark and
Groff engineers construction specifications.
Since they Here not s:ealed, a, direct discharge to Birch Creek has never happe::.ed.
Because of th~ non-discharge situation, disinfection facilities Here not needed
or i~stalled like the rest of the discharging treatme~t plants.
By 1966 the first cell had sealed enou&~ to cause an overflow to cell 2. The over-
flo~ is inte~ittent. The sewage that enters the second cell disappears into the
grou~d to the shallow groundwater. Water does cover about one acre in the second
~ond.
Attac~~ent I is an annual ~ater balance for the lagoon. About 85% of the sewage
seeps into the ground. The seepage ~ould pr~bably contain organics (BOD), nitrates,
and fecal and pathogenic bacteria. The treatment system is not adequate, and is
assuredly discharging contaminants to the groundHater and probably indirectly to
Birch Creek. I must state that some treatment would be taking place in the first
lagoon and in the soils below them.
North of the lagoons
the creek and the RR
isolated.
The lagoons set between Bi~ch Creek and the railroad. rightrof-way.
terrain beyond the RR right-of-way.
: I .
there is a narrow stretch of private land that
tracxs. T~e lagoons and the private land are,
There is steep
is also beb·Jee:1
therefore,
Agricultural zonins, the railroad and the c~eek have prevented la~d and shallow
Well develop~e:1t near and co~~-gradient from the lag~ons.
Because the leaking lagoons \·;ere isolated and Pilot Rock has been i:1 a w~ry low
~rowth situation, the State Sanitary Authority and the ucQ have never pr~ssed the
lssue of the u:1sealed lagoons.
No~, the c:~y ~ants to ac:~ve11 grow. They righ~ly believe that their se~age
page -2-
treatment system is adequate, since tr~y have never been told otherViise. Their
comp plan should be acknowledged.
There should ~e a stetement in the plan that both the DEQ and the city should
jointly analyze the lagoons. Also, that DEQ should recornF.end that a Step I facil-
ities plenning grant be given to Pilot Rock. The grant could dete~ir.e elternetives
especially agricultural use of treated westewater.
,
In general, the plan is well prepared and is good.
My (other) comments are as follows:
1. Air, Water and Land Resources Quelity:
A. Sewage treatment adequacy--should be analyzed as per above.
Industrial Hastes should not be el1m-ied into the city 1 s legoons. He have
had a feH complaints of odors from the city's lagoons--usuelly in the
spring.
B. Solid Waste Service and Disposal. The old solid waste site is closed,
but is burning underground. It was not managed correctly. The site was
ovmed.and operated privately. Hopefully, the site will burn itself
only minor land reclamation Vlill be needed. It is too dangerous to
contour the site now, since cave-ins have happened.
The new site has had similar mismanagement problems. Large fires have
burned for days, since the Haste (Hhich contains large amounts of industrial
waste fiberboard) was not covered and compacted properly.
The Operator stopped using the site for about four months and hauled waste
to Pendleton. He re-worked the new site and is now operating it properly.
With good operation, the site is good and could last 6 to·lO·years.
Therefore, solid Haste disposal for Pilot Rock is dependent on operation,
and is not site-limiting for years.
The U.S. Gypsum Plant is on a variance for opacity emissions from their
bake ovens. Bake oven ~te",pering) emissions are tough to control. The
variance was granted because prevai"ring winds carry the emissions away from
populated areas. Future growth could change this.
the north end of
the most part.
of little consequence.
Also, U.S. Gy~sum's industrial waste holding ponds have caused some odors,
but, again, the prevailing winds take the odors a~iay from popul2. ted areas.
Mother nature is the controlling factor with these odors. Adverse ~eather
conditions have brought the odors all the way to Pendleton for very short
periods.
Air Quality is generally good. The local in?ustr~~s·on
Pilot Rock are on air permits and are in co~plianc8 for
Small, short-term upsets hav~ been observed. They were
c.
2. The location of the city's lagoons sho~ld be ShONTI on a n2.p. Zoni~g 2.~cund the
lagoons should, of cour3e, re~ain lo~ density.
~age .-3-
3. The pr~posed resi:e~t:al area along the east sice of 395 north of to~m will
require exizti~g and fu:ure indust~i~s to be as clea~ and no~se a"d nuisance
free as possijle. The proposed reside~tial area is cc~nwind of the i~dustries.
b The reco~mendatio~ on ,age VIII-22 to cemplete a ~astewater facilities plan
..
is geod, es~ecially si~ce the city wants to gron a~d the adequacy of the treat-
Dent system is in question.
S?G:jlj
cc: r:·LBol ten I flO
cc: Ci~y l~nager, City of ?ilot Reck
cc: Henry l1arcus I ECOP.C
;."
'. '
Note
U iI,""/...,J;r)
!
.:. ",
.... ..... PICO? (be-Ie LAG00>N
','(;vA-7~ . giA;C.J~CJF.· .. ..
2JSC ~fZ? cO ··.3712 (5 AM -rG J
t N PL U (?N T .:., '.
.... ~~\Jb cJO,~S~/I~'D(A-C7UAC)
~:.' :.;('3 Co. 2'~l'J-tJ :: [9J..' a 5;~;1!C:-C-!-O-'I'.l--~~(
. '.. - .
'. - ..... -; " ....:. ...
. ':;~~:'":". ?G;~;;F±~;jji~;f /tr-'() I u:'.~' .'
.. ' ,~~. '. / I .!.~~~...,> ;I.:q~' ... ' .. ' ..r=
.:.:::C:::·>7/., O~S!~lG_~-XS /-\~-P-:J .~. Li!J},7 S ,
_. >~:. ; <. :..'.'.: _-~: •. '. -')<A-/~\ {? .. ' .. 7 -'. '-
..: : . 2 v A..f Of2 /+71 0 1'-...:l QLv~.---,:~7 .
.,". iJM0~'" /~.s2;X::~/V'(fOjl.J .,/L;v-Jbv--c;./VJv':'
. . .. . .' .' . . . '- IJ .
. .. - :. ... " , /~_Q/\~ ~.~~./~- '3 ~-;f /I~\ yVC'>/,""" .
. . / :.. ~. ,. .' I g
. '. .
. '.- .....
.Se~AbG ~iN F-LvG'NT- rT!2~1 PiefCi
-9GvAPO(l&/£]N LO,pJ
s=
-
;)75,75 -·0- 4JI3--'~2JI4
.. S =77./j/>
1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON
May 4, 1979
-,_.-,. ----'.-
, ,;,\,
.:..... ,.-, i .:--" ,.
~_',-- .•.• :::. "~I':
Dear Mr. Kvarsten:
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
Department of Land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court St. N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
1000 Friends of Oregon objects to LCDC acknow-
ledgment of compliance of the City of Pilot Rock's
comprehensive plan and ordinances.
ADVISORY BOARD
Tom McCall, Chairman
portland
Eric W_ Allen, Jr.
Medlord
Ray A Atkeson
Ponland
Marlin H. Buchanan
MIlton-Freewater
Eli~atleth C. Ducey
Portland
John D. Gray
Portland
Glenn L Jackson
Medlord
Maurie Jacobs
Eugene
HeCIOr Macpherson
Albany
Pat Straub
Salem
Half Tempieion
Portlancl
Mrs. Robert C. Warren
Portland
Subject: Objection to Request for Acknowledgment
of Compliance from the City of Pilot RocR
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Allen Baleman, President
Klamath Falls
Claudia Burton, Vice President
Salem
Jellrey L. Rogers, Secretary
Portland
Sarah C. Harlan, Treasurer
Portland
Ernest R. Bonner
Portland
Sleven H. Corey
Pendleton
Dale C. DeHarpport
Porlland
Allrecl A Hampson
Portland
Slephcn R. McCarthy
Porllancl
Peler G. McDonald
Wilsonville
Janet McLennan
Portland
Wade Newbegin, Jr.
Clackamas
Janet Rekate
Cannon Beach
George C. Sheldon
Portlancl
Martin T. Winch
Se'"
Henry R. Richmond
Execulive Director
1. The Pilot Rock UGB is Excessively
Expansive and Based on an Inflated
Population Projection
The size of Pilot Rock's urban growth boundary
("UGB") is based on an extremely high proj ected
population growth rate that is unrealistic and un-
supported by reasonable evidence. The present popu-
lation of Pilot Rock is 1,750 (comprehensive plan,
p. VIII-l8). The East Central Oregon Association
of Counties 1977 "Preliminary Populati.on, Forecast"
for Pilot Rock in 1995 is 2,150-2,200 (p. VIII-l9).
This population projection roughly extrapolates Pilot
Rock's current 3.4% share of the present Umatilla
County population to a proportionate share of the lprojected 1995 population (p. VII1-19, Table 15).
i,-
To the contrary, the Pilot Rock Comprehensive
Plan states:' ,
."The Pilot Rock City Council and Plan-
-ning Commission have decided to encourage
economic development and population
growth. If 10% of new county residents
decide to live in Pilot Rock between
1978 and 1995, then based on county
projections 3,285 to 4,145 people would
IThe design capacity of the present sewer system
will serve 2500 people (p. 111-4).
<100 DEKUM BUILDING, 519 SW. THIRD AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 9720<1 (503) 223·4396
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
May 4, 1979
Page Two
The comprehensive plan offers no substantial factual
support for Pilot Rock's presumed increased share of Uma-
tilla County's population. There is no suggestion that the
"10%" figure has been coordinated with the county planning
staff or with other municipalities. In fact, several Uma-
tilla County cities are contending in their comprehensive
plans that their proportionate shares of the county's popula-
tion will drastically increase (e.g., see City of Echo
Comprehensive Plan, p. VIII-18). ---
live in Pilot Rock in 1995. Whether or not
this projection is realistic depends on a
number of factors including land avail-
ability and the desirability of Pilot Rock
for industrial development. (P. VIII-18)
This inflated population projection Lor Pilot Rock is
unwarranted and little, more th10ln an-'excuie upon which to base
an unduly expansive UG~. Pilot Rock relies on this supposed
population growth to claim that 464-728 additional acres will
be needed for residential use in 1995 (p. IX-l). The UGB is
drawn in accordance with these inflated vacant land needs.
No city, however, is voluntarily assuming a reduction
in its share of future county growth. Furthermore, Umatilla
County has failed to discharge its responsibilities as the
coordinating body by attempting to allocate projected popula-
tion growth among the cities -- in approving the comprehensive
plans for the cities of Pilot Rock, Echo, and umatilla, Uma-
tilla County has not relied upon the projections and alloca-
tions described in the East Central Oregon Association of
Counties 1977 "Preliminary Population Forecast". Coordination
of these plans is essential to prevent a series of unnecessarily
large UGBs that will promote sprawled residential development
on agricultural lands in Umatilla County. (Predominantly
Class III soil, p. VII-16, Soils Map)
The minutes of a discussion between Henry Markus, Prin-
cipal Comprehensive Planner for the East Central Oregon Asso-
ciation of Counties, and the Umatilla County Planning Commission
(County Review of Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report,
August 9, 1978) offer an apparent rationale for the large UGB:
..
Mr. h'. J. Kvarsten I
Hay 4, 1979
Page Three
Director
!
"(Pilot Rock) should plan for maximum
reasonable growth that can be expected.
A small Urban Growth Boundary would pre-
sent problems ... in that Pilot Rock has
no planning staff.
"Commissioner Harstad asked Markus if the
annexation process would solve most problems
the City would have if they adopted a con-
siGerablv s~aller Urban Growth Boundary.
Markus responded,' stating that first the
Urban Growth Boundary would have to be
amended and elaborated on what a long,
.!:edious process that would be folloHed."
(p. IX-4,Sl
This'rationale of administrative expedience is no justi-
fic.ation for the unduly large UGB. The "long, tedious process"
which the minutes report Mr. Markus to have described is, of
course, the demonstration that there is a need for the land to
be included within the UGB. Meeting this requirement of Goal 14
is "tedious" only when the evidence to support it is lacking.
The Pilot Rock UGB is injustifiably expansive and, therefore,
in violation of LCDC Goal 14 (Urbanization).
2. .Excess Agricultural Land Is Unnecessarily
Included Within the UGB
There are three zoning designations within the UGB:
a. General Residential (R-l): permits outright:
single family dwellings, mobile homes, and two-
family dwellings on corner lots; conditional
uses: two-family dwelYing, multifamily dwelling,
mobile home park, public or semi-public use:
6,000 sq. ft. minimum lots [Ordinance No. 318,
§ 3.101 .
..
b. Limited Residential (R-2): permits outright:
single family dwellings: conditional uses; two-
family dwelling, multifamily dwelling, public
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
May 4, 1979
Page Four
or semi-public use; 7,500 sq. ft. minimum
lots. [Ordinance No. 318, § 3.20]
c. Farm Residential (R-3): permits outright:
single family dwellings and mobile homes,
allows farming; conditional use: public
or semi-public use; one-acre minimum lots.
[Ordinance No. 318, § 3.30]. (p. VI-5, 6,
7)
Approximately one-half of the residential land within the UGB is
zoned R-3 -- one-acre minimum lot size. If outside the UGB, this
land (predominantly Class III soil, p. VII-16, Soils Map)would be
zoned for exclusive farm use, F-l. The apparent rationale for
including this agricultural land within the UGB is:
"To establish low density residential areas
within the UGB rather than rural residential
area'S adjacent to, but outside the UGB."
[Ordinance No. 320, § 5,1.8.] (p. V-6)
This justification is dubious and in contradiction to LCDC
Goal 2 (Land Use Planning), Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands), and Goal 14
(Urbanization). By permitting single family residential development
on one-acre lots, Pilot Rock's plan allows land to be taken out of
agricultural production regardless of whether the land is inside or
outside the UGB. This agricultural land should be protected for agri
cultural production by appropriate EFU zoning and exclusion from the
UGB. Its inclusion within the UGB should only be permitted to the
extent that land is needed to meet reasonable residential needs based
on realistic population projections. In any case, residential
development should be more efficient than permitted by one-acre lot
zoning so as to decrease the amount of land taken out of agricultural
production.
The comprehensive plan,attempts to meet these concerns with a
policy "to retain land within the urban growth area presently zoned
for Exclusive Farm Use for' farming until rezoning is requested."
[Ordinance No. 320, § 5, C.4.J (p. V-3) This policy is totally
ineffectual since the comprehensive plan allows the landowner, at his
whim, to request that EFU land within theUGB be rezoned to "R-3,
Farm Residential." The residential development permitted by this
rezoning may substantially interfere with farming operations that
remain under EFU zoning within the UGB. Additionally, by permitting
landowners to be rezoned upon request, the likely result will be
scattered, uncoordinated, and inefficient development. Land that
is presently zoned EFU and not shown to be legitimately needed,
should be retained in EFU zoning outside the UGB.
, '.
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
May 4, 1979
Page Five
3. Pilot Rock Fails to Permit Lower Cost Multifamily
Besidential Development
Goal 10 (Housing) requires each municipality to encourage the
availability of "affordable" hoUsing and "allow for flexibility of
housing location, type and density." Furthermore, the municipality
must identify and quantify the need (or lack) for multifamily
dwellings.
In denying the City of St. Helens' request for acknowledgment
of its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances, LCDC held that .
Goal 10 requires that lower cost multifamily dwellings must be out-
right permitted uses in at least some zoning areas. This requirement
is nm" being refined by LCDC in the draft "Clarification of
St. Helens Housing Policy". In short, the draft "clarification" is
that Goal 10 can be met by limiting mUltifamily dwelling to con-
ditional use status if the conditions are approval standards that
are " ... clear and obj ective; 2) ... reasonable in terms of their
cost impact; and 3) ... not have the cumulative impact of discouraging
a needed, housing type." Where the conditional use approval standards
are "dis'cretionary and dependent upon vague cri teria," Goal 10 will
be violated.
The Pilot Rock comprehensive plan does little to identify and
quantify the need for multifamily housing (p. IX-I). The zoning
ordinances only permit multifamily dwellings as conditional uses
in the R-l and R-2 zones (p. VI-5, 6) subject to extremely dis-
cretionary standards. [Ordinance No. 31B § 5.10-5.20] (p. VI-12, 13).
The set of approval criteria are wholly discretionary and en-
compass broad and generalized standards. These provisions will give
the City Council virtually unreviewable discretion to deny permits
for multifamily dwellings based on the objections of neighbors who
simply dislike such residential uses. Pilot Rock's applicable
approval criteria must he far more nrecise in order to satisfy the
St. Helens standard for Goal 10. ~ .~ r
,
. " * * *
In summary, 1000 Friends objects to acknowledgment of compliance
of the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons:
1. The UGB is excessively expansive. (Goal 14 violation)
-
2. Low-density residential development is permitted on
agricultural land that should be protected by EFU
zoning. (Goals 2, 3 and 14 violation)
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
May 4, 1979
Page Six
3. Lower cost multifamily dwellings are not "available"
in any zoning area. (Goal 10 violation)
Respectfully submitted,
{~~(/Zes -
I
-Howard- Learner
Legal Intern
!i/;fi't1I1'1[[[:;1
Robert E. Stace , Jr.
Staff Attorney
HL:ms
,-
", '
---
:'
" OREGON BUSINESS PLANNING COUNCIL
, 1979
1178 CHEMEKETA. N.E,
STAFF:
KATHERINE KEENE
PI.nmng o".cror
OAVIDS. HILL
N.lu,.1 R..o"rces
Drr.ctOF
SAL~M. OREGON 97301
May 7, 1979
PHONE (503) 370·8112
Mr. Wes Kvarsten, Director'
Department of Land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
ATTENTION: Claire Puchy
Dear Mr. Kvarsten:
The Oregon Business Planning Council has reviewed the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances for
the city of Pilot Rock. We have reviewed the documents
in terms of the citys current and projected population,
location, and potential for gro\",th. We have found the docu-
ments to'be good for an initial planninq effort.
, '
BACKGROUND DATA
There is no inventory of mineral and aggregate resources.
A Department of Geology and Mineral Industries publication is
referenced, but there is no indication if any aggregate
resources are located in the city or urban growth area. This
may violate Goal 5.
There is no mention of the history of flooding in the
"Natural Environment" section. What is the recurrence interval
for floods in Pilot Rock? This omission lTIay violate Goal 7.
PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
A. Citizen Involvement. See below:.'
B. Land Use Planning.' See below.
C. Agricultural ~ands
The plan goal and policies conflict. The goal says to
"preserve and maintain," but the policies say "to identify,"
and "to encourage ... development." The Camp Plan Map design_
ates no agricultural uses within the city limits or urban
growth boundary. The goal as written, apparently does not
apply to lands within the city or UGB.
lolEMBEIlS: .~SSOCI""TED OIlEGO", INDUSTIlIES _ O'.gon 'OIUI IMusl"u CounCil - O",,,on Pel.,1 Counc,1 ·OREGON ...SSOC1.... TION 0,0 REAL TOilS • OOEGON_
COLU"';;I .... Cf, .... P1ER ASSOC'A~~D GE'-[""'L CO"IR;'CTORS - Con,'fucI,on InOu.r,y Ao••ncemeni F"ntJ· OPEGGN $110 TE "OM~BUILDEIiS .... SSCC,A 11011
Hes Kvarsten
May 7, 1979
City of Pilot Rock
Page 2
The conflicting nature of the goal and policy statements
may be in violation of Goal I and 2. The plan is not under-
standable when internal conflicts exist.
D. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources.
The goal and policies cont'lict. The ,goal says to "conser-ve"
whereas several of the policies say to "preserve." Definitior:
of the words as contained in the Goals and Guidelines indica~e'
there is a substantial difference between the two terms.
Policy 3 has two different ideas expressed. The first
deals with city budget matters in acquiring open space. The
second deals with encouraging open space in private develop-
ments. The second idea may not be justified. The city has
designated many acres for permanent open space. Currently,
9.5% of the city's land is Public and Semi-Public, Table 12,
p. VIII-14. Table 17, p. IX-3 shows that 302 ~cres or 18.11
witl be permanent open space in the future.
E. Air, Water and Land Resources Quality.
Policy I commits the city to a function that is a D. E. Q.
function.
F. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards.
The Plan Goal is "To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards," yet the Plan Map shows commercial
and residential designations in flood prone areas, especially
. downtown. Policy 2 goes ·on by saying, "To limit the use of
land in the floodplain ... to open space, recreation .... "
The flood hazard is very diffic~lt td'deal with in the PlaQ
because the downtown a~ea is in ~ flood hazard area. The
dilemma involves suffering a flood sooner or later or addres-
sing the question of moving the downtown area to another part
of town. There are potential violations of LCDC Goals, but
they must be balanced against the magnitude of the flood
threat and cost of relocating a major portion of the community.
G. Recreational Needs.
Policy 5. This policy is not in consonance with Goal D,
Policy 3. Policy 3 says the city will acquire suitable land
po
Wes Kvarsten
May 7, 1979
City of Pilot Rock
Page 3
for open space using public funds and that the city will
encourage provision for open space in private oevelopments
(emphasis added). Goal G, Policy 5 ~eauires the decication
of park land or a fee in lieu of (emphasis addec). What is
the city's policy: To encourage or to require? The fermer
is much different than the latter. Again, internal plan
inconsistencies reduce the effectiveness of the plan document
and may violate statewide goals.
The City (pop. 1,750) currently has a 1 acre park next
to the elementary school. Table 12, p. VIII - 14 shows the
city has 31.3 acres (9.5%) of public and semi-public land
28.4 acres (8.7%) of agricultural land and 43.6 acres (13.3%)
of vacant land. Furthermore, Table 17, p. IX-3, indicates
that future land use within the UGB will have 302 acres
(18.1%) pf permanent open space. Goal D. Policy 3 says that
public funds will be used to acquire open space.
There does not seem to be adequate justification for
requiring developers to dedicate land to the city for parks,
given the city's policy of acquiring land fer pa~ks and the
302 acres of permanent open space.
H. Economic Development
Policy 2 refers to "non-polluting" when the city's intent
is probably "low polluting."
I. Housing
Policy 6. This policy commits the city to "locate high
density residential development near the_Gentral business
district. " The central business di-strict:: is in the flood-
plain, thus, implementation of Policy 6 may be difficult.
Another problem is there is no multi-family zone. High
density residential is allowed only as a conditional use in
the General Resid~ptial, R-l and Limited Residential, R-2
zones. There is no analysis of future needs for multi-family
areas. There may be violations of goals 7 and 10 l'lhich \I1i11
need to be reconciled.
J. Public Facilities and Services.
The goal ar.d policies indicate the desires of the community.
Wes Kvarsten
May 7, 1979
City of Pilot Rock
Page 4
but are not tied to the population estimates (3,200 -4,100
in 1995). The capacity of the sewer system is 2,500 and the
water system 2,300 people ,. The expected growth will exceed
the capacity of the sewer and water systems during the
planning period.
Knowing that the sewer and water systems must be expanded
in the planning period, the plan should ~ddress the situation.
The Comp Plan Map shows potential water tank storage sites.
This is partially tied to Policy 12 which says "to identify
approximate locations of future streets, water tank sites
and other public facilities."
ZONING ORDINANCE
Multi-family uses are not a permitted use in any zone.
Conditional uses can be granted for multi-family, but it may
be difficult to get approval. There are several undefined
conditions that must be met prior to receiving an approval
for a conditional use. For example, Article 5, Conditional
Uses, 5.10, Authorization. 2, says:
Taking into account location, size, design,
and operating characteristics, the use will
have minimal adverse impact on the (a) livability,
(b) value, and (c) appropriate development of the
abutting properties and the surrounding area
compared to the impact of development ..that is
permitted outright. .
Subparagraphs (a) and (b) are not defined, nor are there
standards established for them. Subparagraph (c) is not
understandable, but seemingly it requires an analysis and a
comparison which could only be ade~uatleY·addressed in a
lengthy research project.
This appears to be a violation of Goal 10.
In summary, tne plan for Pilot ROCK is a good document
for the city's first plan. However, compliance with the
Statewide Goals may require more than is contained in the
Plan. There are many internal inconsistencies that mask the
city's desires. The flood hazard as it relates to the down-
town may take several years to adequatley reconcile.
Hes Kvarsten
May 7, 1979
City of Pilot Rock
Page 5
Before the plan becomes a truly workable document that
provides effective guidance for municipal decision makers.
it needs additional refinements. These may be made as a
condition to compliance or during plan maintenance after
compliance. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, "
Q~,9.a~
qim Jac'ks,
Associate Planning Director
JJ: pa'...
cc: Cit¥ of Pilot Rock
Jim Kennedy
ECOAC
". .
""
""F"
UMATILLA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMISSIONERS
r ~ "Woody" $tarrCH
p... L. "Bud" Draper
Ford Robertson
STAFF
Miehele Hallman
Legal Counsel
Joe Campbell
Administralive Assislant
216 S.E. 4lh P.O. Bo~ 1427 Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Phone 503/276·7111
May 9, 1979
~rr. Wes' Kvarsten, Director
Land Conservation and Developl)8nt Ccmnission
1175 Court Street, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
Dc:! r ~fr. KV:J.Tsten:
Marcia Wells
OfficII Manager
O:-:':J' -'-'f-' ,-
.... , I\n II"c,\, Ct
LAND CCNSERVATIC:'
AI'.ln ,..,-, ,-, '-"-" ,"_. '"T'
MAY 1 7 i979
SALEM
\~e are'~Titing in response to your notice that the Cities of Echo, Pilot Roc~,
and Ukiah have requested acknowledgement of their canprehensive plans.
TIle County has, of course, reviewed and accepted the cities' plans and is
satisfied that state~vide goals have been complied with in a manner acceptable
and suitable to the cities.
At our hearings, the urban growth bolU1daries of the cities received speci<tl con-
sideration because of citizen questions. However, the COunty accepted the cities'
urb:m growth boundaries since the cities justified them hy recog:nizing citizen
concems. The City of Echo especially is to 00 c01lTl2nded for holding several
s[)3cial rrx:etings with property a,mers after city adoption to assure that all
cit~zen concerns were an::.-owered.
In light of the above, the Board would encourage r.a:x: _to acknowledge the Canpre-
hensivc plans of Echo, Pilot Rock, and tndah . •" ;.-
. ,
BCC:mw
cc: ~h·. Jim Kennedy
~1s. Jeri Cohen
Cities of Echo, Pilot Rock,
f~ tndah
I.lr. lien ry !.!;l rkus
Respectfully submitted,
mlAl'lJJlI COIl!\'lY
IJOAllD OF m)I~,IISSIONEIIS
~!t .~\(.'~
Henry S. Markus
5025 SW Corbett Ave. #15
Portland, Oregon 97201
227-4804 (home)
248-4545 (day, message)
October 1, 1979
Pilot Rock City Council
P.O. 30x 130
Pilot Rock, Oregon 97868-
SUbject: Review of DLCD Staff Report on Pilot RacY. Plan
Dear Members of the Council:
! have reviewed the DLeD staff report (dated 9-27-79) o~
Pilot Rock's request for. acknowledgement of compliance.
AssQ~ing that LCDC agrees with the staff report, the only
nroblem to be resolved is a misunderstancin~ about the new
zoning map. (See last two paragraphs of page 6 of the
staff report.)
Pilot Rock needs 336 acres of low density residential land
( page IX-2 of the amended plan technical report). The
zoning map does not show 336 acres of farm residential.
Therefo~ according to the DLCD staf~ either the zoning
oap or the needs table is incorrect.
The problem as I see it is that the DLCD staff have failed
to interpret the zoning map in terms of the text of the
zoning ordinance and the urban growth area joint management
agree~ent.
Please consider that:
1. Any land outside the city limits and presently zoned
EFU by Umatilla COQ~ty is not affected by Pilot Rock's
zoning c.ap.
.-
2. If a property o~ner requests~a zorle change from EFU to
residential consistent with the comprehensive plan for
the area and the property is outside city limits, he must
establish need and the cOW1ty mav rezone to a "lesser
density or ±Y1tensity of use" (p-age 3, III.C. 4.b.,UGA.n.LO\).
If the need for additional s~all lots cannot be established,
but the need fo~ large lots (one acre for examnle) could,
then Umatilla County ~ould o~ly allow large lot zoning.
3. If EYu land is a~ley.ed into the city, it would ~utomatically
be zo:r.ed in accordance Y/ith the city's zoning mapi however,
the 6000/7500 squaye foot ~i~ir.~~s a~8 niniDQ~S no maxi~~~
lot size has bee~ established, t~erefore one ac~e lots are
allo~ed out~ig~t.
Pilot Rock City Council
October 1, 1979
page two
The City of Pilot Rock has enough land within the UGB to
allow for 336 ac~es of low density residential development.
It is not necessary to freeze the land by allowing only
one acre lots. 3ased on the above information, I conclude
that the~e is no actual nroblem.
The LCDC agenda item on Pilot Rock is set for October 11, 197
I p,lan to be there. If I can be of any assistance to you
prior to Oct. 11th, please contact me.
Sincerely,
~//'/t~~~
I'
Henry S. markus
Consultant to the
City of Pilot Rock
and to ECOAC
cc: Umatilla County ·Planning Department
Vlayne Schwa..'1dt, ECOAC
Jeri Cohen, Coordinator
Jim Kennedy, DLCD
Clare Puchy, DLCD
'.
,
- ;
D~?:'.?·: .:..:·.1 {];:
LP.ND CC,<:::.:::2V..:....,·! c: i
REQUEST FOR ACKriOHLEOW1ENT OF COMPLIANCE
LOCAL COORDINATION BODY RECOI1MENOATION
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
SL,mr"ary of Local Coorcioz:tion Body Recommr:ndations
.~ . .
The Umatilla Courty Board of Commissioners recommends that the City of
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan te acknowledged a~ bein~ in compliance with
The Oregon Statewide Planning Goals.
Bl.ckground
I. Important Dates
May, 1976
January. 1977
.
July 25, 1977
August 10, 1977
November 28, 1977
December 16, 1977
December 21, 1977
, January 10. 1978
•
Fehrucry 8, 1978
Hay I, 1978
Community Attitude Survey C;rc~lated
Tabulated Ccmmurity Attitude
SUI'vey mailed "to city residents
Draft Plan Goals and objectives
mailed to city residents
City Council/ Planning Cc,rrmiss;on
pu b1; c hea ri 09
Draft Plan ma~led to city residents
and affected £overnmental units
Draft Plan mailed to urban gro\';th
area resider,ts
City Council/Planning CCfTlmission
public he~ring on Draft ~lan
Cmatilla County Planr,ing Commission
revfew of Draft Plan
City CourciljPlanning Commission
pub1i c hea ring on ~_Uggf~S ted amend-
m~nts to Draft Plan
f:".evised DY'aft Plan mcdled to city
residents and affectEd g0vernmental
units
June 14, 1978
July 19, 1978
August 9, 1978
August 9, 1978
August 16, 1978
October 11, 1978
November 11, 1979
Nevember 25, 1978
December 20, 1978
January 22, 1979
City Council/Planning Commission
hearing on Comprehensive Plar
Ordinance; Zoning, Subdivision, and
Mobile Home Park Ordinances; Technical
Report; Joint Management Agreement
Umotilla County Planning Commission
workshop on Draft Plan an~ Technical
Report
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
workshop on Draft Plan and Technical
Report
City Council, Planning Commission
~ublic hearing on ComprEhensive Plan
Ordinance; Zoning Subdivision, and
Mobile Home Park Ordinances; Technical
Report; Joint Management Agreement
City Council adoption of Subdivision
anc' Mobile Home Park O!'d;nances
City Council adoption of ComprEhensive
Plan anc' Zoning Orcinance
Umatilla Cc'unty Planning Commission
Review of AdoptEd Comprehensive Plan
and Joint Management Agreement
Notice of February 14, Board of
Commissioners hearing mailed to urban
growth area residents
FEbruary 14, 1979 Umatilla County Board of Corr.missioner
Review of Adopted Comprehensive Plan
and adoption of Joint Management Agre
The soils surrounding tre City of Pilot Rock are predominantly
Classes III and IV which are currently being used for pasturE
and the production of various crops, Corse~uently, productive
agricultural lanG was included within the City's urban growth
boundary (UGS).
March 7, 1979
· ,
.'
II, Discussion
"
Umatilla ~~unty Board of Commissioner
adoption dl Ce,mprhensive Plan for
urbar growth area
·'
Recognizing the importance of agricultur~l land, the citiz~ns of
Pilot Rock have adopted a policy \·,hich protects EFU wned farm
land w~th;n the UG~.unt;l it ;s needed for urba~ development. In
addition. this policy has been implemented in t. City/County
Joint Management Agreement.
The Pilot Rock UGB might appear r~ther optimistic when the
City's past growth patterns are considered. Its location seems
to be well reasoned when the various factors discussed below are
examined.
First, the Umatilla Ccunty Board of Commissioners has ex~ressed
a desire to expand the courty's commercial and int.ustrial base.
It is felt that the prov;sio~ of n~merous appropriate sites
throughout the cQurty ~rould encourage this expansion. One s~ch
area north of Pilot Rock \'las included within the UGB baSEd on the
City's potential ability to serve it as well as existing transpor-
tation facilities. In addition, the City is actively working
with the Port of Umatilla. East Centrel Oregon Associatior. of
Counties, and Ofpartm~nt of Eccnomic Develo~mr:nt to support and
encourage the development of an ir.dustrial park at this location.
Second, a small number of persons own the majority of land
1'lithin the Pilot P.ocY UGB. In order to accolTJ)1odate projected
grm·,th anc diverse attitudes: toward such gro\·lth. UGB I s must
be large enough to providf flexibility. A small UGB which
encompasses few property owners who choose not to develop their
land would preclude growth.
Third, if Pilot Rock is successful in attracting ne\.'; industries
to the community, the city will experience a higher rate of growth
than in the recent .past. The. amount of gro\.'lth \,";11 be determined
b) ar, enlarged work force, land availability, and consumer preference.
The city h~s developed a Comprehensive Plan which attempts to
provide sufficient availalbe land to acoommodate increased 9rowth.
Finally. the City of Pilot Rock does net employ any full time
planning staff. During He time that a professional planner
has been available to them, city residents have been actively
er:gaqed in long term planning. Such plandn9 includ~d the
adoption of a large UGB to eliminete the;:need for piecemeal
amendments at a t~me when profess40nal staff would be unavailable .
•
In conclusion, \.'1~ of the l'matilla County Bozrd of Commissioners
believe the City of Pilot Rc·ck Comprehensive Plan is in complianCE:
with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals anc should be so ackn~w­
ledged by t~e Land Conservation and Development Commission.
~
Ford Robertson, Commissioner
A,TTACHt~ENT B
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT C0I1t1ISSION
ACKNOWLEDQ~ENT OF COMPLIANCE
Response to Denial Order of June 13~ 1979
City of Pilot Rock
DATE RECEIVED: AU9uSt 3, 1979 DATE OF CDW1ISSIDN ACTION: October 11, 1970
I. REQUEST: Ackna~ledgment of Compliance with the Statewide Plannin~ Goals
for the comprehensive plan and implementing measures.
II. SU~1ARY OF RECOt1MENDATIONS:
A. Staff:
Recommends the Commission acknowledge the City of Pilot Rock's
comprehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compliance with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
B. local Coordination Bodv:
.
Recommends the Commission acknowledge the City of Pilot Rock's com-
prehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compllance with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Kennedy
Phone: 963-2918
COORDINATOR: Jeri Cohen
Phone: .. 276-673'2
, , LEAD REVIEWER: Claire Puchy
Phone: 378-5455
Date of Report: September 27, 1970
\.,
"\,
,/
i
I
I
•~.
\,
\
\
lVIAP (A!; AMENDED)
[?)O[L@u ~@©~"
/
\
/ !:i
/ II/ !j
/ II
L,
ZONING
~Wlr'\7 @~
NOTE: PlelS. "Ier to the mO$1 recent U.S. Oept.
01 Housing ilnd Urb.llr'l O.... elopm.nt F,I."'.
Flood l1a.ufd Map for Ilood prone .re••
wllhin Ihe city limits.
Adopted pursuant 10 City 01 Pilol Rock
Qrd'tlanCI No.318 on 11/25/78. i1S .moe""~
by O'd,roilroce No. 330 on 7· 11- 79.
,?'! .........._ ...."""'... """.....,.......__.lG.......""'1= ~~;g:;;:""">lM-
I ,.;
I , ~
I »
-- /-----4'-----
I
, '"'
I ,.../
I "I ,'.
-- ----,'--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -- - t
I
I
. Ij! I,
t
f LEGEND
~
0 R-l G£ ... EIIlIlL RESIDENTIAL
"
0 R·2 1l1.UTt:O II£SIOllolTIAl
~ £'-<J R'3 fAltlll 1I£510EIC1''''L
i 0 C·, co .... u.e'Al
t 0 1rA-' LIGHT lHDSTIl'''l0 "",2 H[AVY UIOU$lIU.l.l
0 POS PERWANfNT O'EI'I SPACEf. I'm FLOODPLAIN
0 SLOPES ~12~.
I PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC
f ~ pOTf,nlAl WATEfIl ,,,,"'1( SITES
t • CHUIICIi
"
COl.llolUNITY CfHT£1l
K·
. P.l.RK
"
fiRE STU1DH
~ FUTURE STREETURBAN GROWTH
i· BOUNDARY
t EXPANSIQW AREA,.
CITY LIMIT
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
AND CREEKS
.
po
-2- City of Pil ot Rock
II 1. BACKGROUND
On June 7, 1979 the Commission considered the City of Pilot Rock's
request for acknowledgment. The Commission denied the request and
granted the City a planning extension to September 15, 1979 to allow
the City time to make necessary pla1 and implementing measures amend-
ments to bring them into cQmpliance with Goals 10 (Housing) and 14
(Urbanization).
On August 8, 1979 the City of Pilot Rock submitted Ordinance No. 32~
(adopted July II, 1979) amending the comprehensive plan, and Ordi-
nance No. 330 (adopted July 11, 1979) amending toe 70nin9 Ordinance.
Urnat ill a County amended its comprehens; ve plan (Ord i nance No. 79-21)
to include Pilot Rock's amendments on August 3, 1979.
--,-
Requirement:
1. Housing: (Goal 10)
B. Required Plan and Implementinq Measures Revisions:
-3-
City Response:
The City of Pilot Rock has amended Article 5 of its Zoning Ordi-
nance (Ordinance No. 330). The conditional use approval stand-
ards are now as follows:
Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional use
approval standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance or
Allow multifamily units or other low-cost housing types outright
in at least one zone which contains sufficient buildable lands
to accommodate identified needs.
A. Previously Approved Goals:
On June 7, 1979 the Commission found the City of Pilot Rock's plan
and implementing measures to be in compliance with Statewide Planning
Goals 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,8, g, .11, 12 and 13. The ordinances submitted
by the City on August 8, 1979 do not conflict with that action and
the City's plan and implementing measures remain in compliance with
those Goals. Goals 3, 4 and 15-19 are not applicable to Pilot Rock.
IV. FINDINGS:
City of Pilot Rock
"1. The use will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, 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 uses or uses allowed outright
on abutting properties.
3. The use will, not have a sign4ficant adverse impact on
public faciJi~ies including but not limited to streets,
sewer and water facilities, such as the traffic generated
by the use surpassing the capacity of the street serving
the use;
4. The design will preserve environmental assets such as
-. trees, watercourses, historic and archaeological sites and
similar irreplaceable assets of particular interest to the
community. "
The Zoning Ordinance has also been amended to allow multifamily
dwellings outright in the General Residential (R-l) zone.
-4- City of Pilot Rock
Amendments to the.~omprehens;ve plan (Ordinance No. 32~) indi-
cate the need for 28 acres of high density resirlential land (12
units per acre). The Department has compared the City's Zoning
Map with the Existing land Use Map and has estimated there are
approximately 20 to 30 acres in the R-l zone which are buildab.le.
Plan amendments inrlicate that the R-l zone, together with the
R-2 zone (in \'l'hich multifamily and bom family dwellings are
allowed conditionally). contain about 5~O acres. This acreaqe
does not include any flood plain areas or land having slopes of
12 percent or more.
Requirement:
Amend the plan (p. IX-1) to include justification for the per-
cent of Dopulation at various densities used in calculating
residential acres needed.
City Response:
The plan originally submitted by the City used a 40-40-20 per-
cent of population split in calculating residential land needs.
Pilot Rock has amended its plan (Ordinance No. 329) to include
the following table regarding residential land needs:
Density Share Peap1e People/Acre Acres
(DUlAC)
Low (1) 20% 829 2.47 336
. Medium (4) 60% 2487 9.98 252
Hi9h (12) 20% 829 29.64 28
Total 100% 4145 nla 616
The City has offered the follO\,ing in s~pport of the 20-60-20
percent split for low, medium aod high;-density development:
"The preSent urban/rural population shares in Umatilla
County are 69/31. Relative to the present 31% rural share,
Pilot Rock will assume that about 20% of new residents will
choose to live in a low density residential area within the
urban growth boundary rather than in a rural residential
area outside the boundary. The difference between 31% and
20% is 11%; these new residents would live outside the
boundary in EFU or rural residential areas.
City of Pilot Rock -5-
Multiple family dwellings have had a 35% share in Umatilla
County in recent years. Discounting existing residents and
assuming a population of about 4,145 people, Pilot Rock
will assume that about 20% of the residents (3~% of new)
will live in multiple family housing or mobile home parks.
The remaining 60r, of existing and new residents will live
in single family homes or mobile homes on individual lots."
Requirement:
Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of units
needed by housing type.
City ResDonse:
The plan originally submitted by the City projected a need for
464 to 728 acres of residential land by 1995.
The comprehensive plan has been amended (Ordinance No. 329) to
indicate an overall need of 495 to 616 acres of residential land
'through the year 1995. The City has not determined the number
of units needed by housing type, but rather ~y density. Based
on plan amendments, the Department has calculated the City will
need the following:
Density Acres Units
(DUlAC) Needed Needed
Low (1) 336 336
Medium (4) 252 1008
High (12) 28 236
Total 616 1680
The above figures correspond to the City's high population pro-jection. --
~
In response to :compliance requirements for Goal 14, Pilot Rock
has removed 371 acres of land from the UGB, all of which had
been zoned R-3 (Farm Residential) (low density). The Department
has estimat~d from the amended zoning map that less than 50
acres of R-3 land now remain in the UGB.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 10.
City of Pilot Rock -f)-
--
Pilot Rock has removed some of the unclear and discretionary
conditional use approval standards from its Zoning Ordinance and
rep1aced them with clearer, more obj ect i ve standards. Hmo/ever.
standards 2 and 3 are still somel'Jhat unclear and discretionary
{i.e., use of terms sucb as "unreasonably interfere" and "sig-
nificant adverse impact").
The City has also amended its zoning ordinance to allow multi-
family dwellings outright in. the R-1 zone. Although the ,=xact
number of buildable acres in that zone is· not kno'tm, the Depart-
ment has estimated that it contains close to 28 acres needed for
high density development.
Pilot Rock has offered an explanation for the percent of popu-
lation at various densities used in calculating residential
acres needed. The 20-fiO-20 percent split appears reasonable and
generally reflective of trends in the County as well as broad
housing needs identified in the plan.
Pi10t Rock has not determined the number of housing units neededEY type, but rather by density. This is the same approach taken
10. the City's original plan. The Department believes this
approach is valid in this case for a numher of reasons. As
indicated in the Commission's June 7,1979 findings, it can be
assumed that one unit per acre and four units per acre densltiF:s
will provide predominantly single family housing (single family
and individual mobile homes), and that 12 units per acre
densities will provide predominantly multifamily housing
(multifamily and mobile home park units). Based on these
assumptions, the City will need 1,344 single family and
individual mobile homes and 336 multifamily and ~obile home park
units. Overall, the City will need 495 to 616 acres of
residential land; 563 acres have been designated as such ann can
accommodate 1,344 single family and 336 multifamily units.
The City has amended its UGB, however, rtmoving 371 acres. All
of the land removed from the UGB ~ad been zoned R-3 (Farm Resi-
dential). The minimum lot size in this zone is one acre. The
Department has estimated from the amended zoning map that less
than 50 acres of R-~ land now remain in the UGB. Ho~~ver. the
City has identified the need for 336 acres of low density (one
acre minimum)" residential land.
On September 2S, 1979, the City Manager of Pilot Rock informed
the Department that the 336 and 252 acre figures in the housing
needs table (for low and medium density development, respec-
tively) Here in error, and that the amender! zoning map could, in
fact, acco~odate the actual housing needs. The City Manager
also indicated a corrected housing needs table would be
submitted to the Department by the October 1979 Commission
meeting.
City of Pilot Rock -7-
On October 9, 1979, the City i~anager informed the Department
that, in fact, the table was not in error and endorsed a letter
from the former planning consultant to the City (dated
October 1, 1979, and received by the Department on October 3,
1979). A copy of the letter is attached.
Pilot Rock has demonstrated it has sufficient land within its
UG3 to acconmodate its projected 1995 population. It is the
Depe:rtment's understanding that the City's need for 336 acres of
one-acre minimum lots can be met on land currently zoned for
medium-density residential use and that 'there is no inmediate
need for expansion of the UGB in order to meet this need. Plan
policies require low-density subdivisions on septic systems be
laid out so that they can be resubdivided to urban densities and
serviced.
SUGGestion for Plan and Imolementing Measures Improvement
Eliminate unclear and discretionary language from conditional
use approval standards 2 and 3 in Article 5 of the Zoninq
O'rd ~ oance. -
2. Urbanization: (Goal 14)
ReGuirement:
Either provide the findings based upon factors 1 and 2 of
Goai 14 \~hich justify the designation of an additional 180 to
4ti 4 acres of residential land beyond the projected need of 464
to 726 acres; or
I·jake pl an map, zoning and UGS amendments to meet the projected
residential growth needs of the City. Specifically, the UGS
should be modified to include no more than the acreage needed.
In addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14, these amendments
should take into account the other factors of Goal 14, particu-
lal-ly factor 6 (retention of agri,.cultur-a1 land).
City Response: ':.,
The City ha~.chosen the second option above.
The plan originally submitted by the City projected a need for
464 to 728 acres of residential land by 1995.
Pilot Rock has amended its plan (Ordinance No. 329) and Zoning
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 330) to reflect amendments to its UGB.
Specifically, 371 acres of residentially zoned land have been
removed from the UGB. There are now 537 acres of residential
land. The projcted need (as amended) is 495 to 616 acres, based
-8- City of Pilot Roc~
on la~ and high population proje:t;ons, respectively. All land
removed from the UGB ;s in farm use and shall remain so until
needed and UGB amendments are made. These lands have been
included in "Expansion Areas," for which the City has policies·
regarding their inclusi·on in the UGB at a later date. See the
Goal 10 section of this report for more details.
Conclusion: The City of Pilot Rock complies with Goal 14.
C. Comments Received:
Department of Economic Development
*Statement attached
D. Overall Conclusions:
COITTnents*
The City of Pilot Rock has amended its comprehensive plan and imple-
menting measures to comply with the Statewide Planning Goals.
V. RECO~~EMOATIONS:
A. Staff:
Recommends the Commission acknowledqe the City of Pilot Rock's
comprehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compliance \</ith
the Statewide Planning Goals.
B. Local toordination Body:
Recommends the Commission acknowledge the City of Pilot Rock's com-
prehensive plan and implementing measures to be in compliance with
the Statewide Planning Goals.
CP:mh
486A
17A
--
.' .'
~-
~.,
:- ..
REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COr~PLlANCE
LOCAL COORDINATION BODY RECO~MENDATION
City of Pilot Rock
,
"/;-'::"/:: ...
,,- •. ,.•..'.,.; .•~.: '.;
"~:: ; r
-.. -
Summary of Local Coordination Body Recommendations
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners recommends that the City of
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan be acknowledged as being in compliance with
the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals. The Umatilla County Board of
Commissioners further recommends that the Umatilla County Comprehensive
Plan for the area between the Pilot Rock city limits and urban growth
boundary be acknowledged as being in compliance with the Oregon Statwide
Planning Goals.
Background
I. Important Oates
May, 1976
January, 1977
JUly 25, 1977
August 10, 1977
November 28, 1977
December 16, 1977
December 21, 1977
January 10, 1978
February 8, 1978
May 1, 1978
~ommunity Attitude Survey Circulated
Tabulated Community Attitude
Survey mailed to city residents
Draft Plan Goals and objectives
mailed to city residents
City Council/Planning Commission
public hearing
Draft Plan mailed to city residents
and affected governmental units
Draft Plan ~~iled to urban growth
area ·res i dents
City Council/Planning Commission
review of Draft Plan
Umatilla County Planning Commission
review of Draft Plan
City Council/Planning Commission
public hearing on suggested amend-
ments to Draft Plan
Revised Draft Plan mailed to city
residents and affected governmental
units
June 14, 1978
July 19, 1978
August 9, 1978
City Council/Planning Commission
hearing on Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance; Zoning, SUbdivision, and
Mobile Home Park Ordinances; Technical
Report; Joint Management Agreement
August 9, 1978 Umatilla County Planning Commission
workshop on Draft Plan and Technical
Report
August 16, 1978 Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
workshop on Draft Plan and Technical
Report
October 11, 1978
November 11, 1979
City Council, Planning Commission
public hearing on Comprehensive Plan
Ordinance; Zoning Subdivision, and
Mobile Home Park Ordinances; Technical
Report; Joint Management Agreement
City Council adoption of Subdivision
and Mobile Home Park Ordinances
November 25, 1978 City Council adoption of Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance
December 20, 1978 Umatilla County Planning Commission
Review of Adopted Comprehensive Plan
and Joint Management Agreement
January 22, 1979 Notice of February 14, Board of
Commissioners hearing mailed to
urban growth area residents
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
Review of Adopted Comprehensive Plan
and adoption of Joint Management
Agreement
--
Umati-lla CoUnty Board of Commissioners
co-adoption of Comprehensive Plan
LCDC denial of acknowledgement
City Council adoption by ordinance
of Comprehensive Plan amendments
City Planning Commission consideration
of proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments
Umatilla County Planning Commission
review of Comprehensive Plan amendment
..
March 7, 1979
February 14, 1979
June 7, 1979
June 27, 1979
July 11, 1979
July 25, 1979
~: ..
August 1, 1979
II. Discussion
Umatilla County Board of
Commissioners co-adoption of
Comprehensive Plan amendments
The soils surrounding the City of Pilot Rock are predominantly Classes·
III and IV which are currently being used for pasture and the production
of various crops. Consequently, productive agricultural land was in-
cluded within the City's urban gro~th boundary (UGB).
Recognizing the importance of agricultural! land, the citizens of Pilot
Rock have adopted a policy which protects EFU zoned farm land within
the UGB until it is needed for urban development. In addition, this
policy has been implemented in a City/County Joint I-ianagement Agreement.
Subsequent to the June 7, 1979, denial of acknowledgement, the City of
Pilot Rock excluded four residential areas from its growth area and
designated them as expansion areas. These are as follows: the southern
area \'/est of East Birch Creek Road; tlle southwestern area between Birch
Creek and an intermittent stream therefrom; the midwestern to the west
of the city limits; and, area east of U.S. Highway 395 bounded by Red
School Road and the city limits. It is felt that the present UGB is
reasonable and supported by the following discussion.
First, the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners has expressed a desire
to expand the county's cOlTJllercial and industrial base. It is felt that
the provision of n~merous appropriate sites throughout the county would
encourage this expansion. One such area north of Pilot Rock was in-
cluded within the UGB based' on the City's poten.Ual, ability to serve
it as well as existing transportation facilities. In addition, the City
is actively working with the Port of Umatilla, East Central Oregon
Association of Counties, and Department of Economic Development to support
and encourage the development of an industrial park at this location.
Second, a small number of persons own the majority of land within the
Pilot Rock UGB. In order to accorrrnodate projected growth and diverse
attitudes to'o'/ard such growth, UGB's must be 1arge_ enough to provide
fleXibility. A small UGB which encompass~ few property owners who choose
not to develop their land would preclude growth .
. ,
Third, if Pilot Rock is successfull in attracting new industries to the
community, the city ~ill experience a higher rate of growth than in the
recent past. The amount of gro..... th will be determined by an enlarged
work force, land availab1ility, and consumer preference. The city
has developed a Comprehensive Plan which attempts to provide sufficient
available land to accommodate increased growth.
Finally, the City of Pilot Rock does not employ any full time planning
staff. During the time that a rrofessional planner has been available
to the, city residents have been actively engaged in long term planning.
..
Such planning incllided the adoption of a large UGB to eliminate the
need of piecemeal amendment~ at a time when professional staff would
be unavailable.
In conclusion, we of the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners believe
the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and the Umatilla County
Comprehensive Plan for the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area are in compliance
with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and should be so acknowledged
by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
'.
2- ~~ .r
__"- day of -~."""7'ot=~~~:..-.,.------,1979.
" ,
".
Ford Robertson, Commissioner
Dated thi s
~(.~--
F. K. "Woody" Starrett, Cha i rman
.J ,.·,r_ ;~'~'f:" ~ - •••.••.•.
., -_.- ....
, ,,' ".
•••• • _. J
Department of Economic Development f'" !\' _,. .0.- 1 ·-.Il!
• '-.-. - I
921 S.W. WASHINGTON STREET, PORTLANO, OREGON 97205 PHONE (503) 229-5535
C::'PAFn;,;?;·j j C;:
Lf.ND CO:'J2'::,-::\/P.T:O~1
Sep~ember 20, 1979
Mr. ~ies Kvarsten
Director
Land Conservation and Development
1175 Court Street N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
Subject: Reconsideration
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan
Dear hies:
Pilot Rock, Echo and Stanfield are not in the Wi11amette
Valley. They are part of an economic area dependent on a
natural resource base. They share unique circumstances.
They are:
- historically dependent on agriculture and forestry
for an economic base.
attempting to diversify their economies to provide
employment in secondary processing and manufacturing.
- experiencing unique problems, such as the capacity
of ground water supply and need for interstate agree-
ments to provide a future water source.
- managing unique opportunities, such as vast areas of
irrigable land and the hydraulic capacity of the
Columbia River.
- facing complex decisions abo~t how to allocate those
resources.
Growth in Umatilla .County cannot necessarily be expected to
follow trend projections, but will be the result of large
individual private and public investments which cannot be
predicted, and of interstate and national decisions which
cannot be predicted or timed.
It could be said that while land is the scarce resource in
the Willamette Valley, water supply and pUblic and private
investment capital are the scarce resources in Umatilla
County.
Cable Address-QRECONDEV
Mr. Wes Kvarsten
September ZO, 1979
Page 2
Management of Scarce Resources
Comprehensive planning must focus on management of scarce
resources. Appropriately, Willamette Valley plans focus on
contained urban growth boundaries, because agricultural land
and existing urban centers with public facilities already
available are the scarce resources. The plans of Umatilla
County cities appropriately focus on diversification of the
economy, creation of job opportunities and provision of
costly public facilities. Acres of land are not their
scarce resource. Your criteria of demonstrated need takes
on different meaning in such an economy.
I believe that the Commission has found this focus evident
in the Pilot Rock, Echo and Stanfield plans. Their inter-
pretations of Goals 10, 14 and 9 reflect these different
realities. As you consider their attempts to comply with
LCDC Goals, we hope you keep those differences in mind.
Pilot Rock
Pilot Rock has decided to seek diversification, new industry
and new jobs. They have demonstrated that trend population
projections are not adequate for their planning purposes
and have presented their_projections using an economic
modeling procedure based on labor force projections. The
City realizes these projections may not "come true," but
they feel responsible to plan within that context.
The City concludes (from recent trends) that if they continue
to encourage development through appropriate planning and
provision of services, the City should have a fair chance
to attract the industry it seeks. They would then need the
residential land they are planning for.
The Department recommends that you:
- accept their population parameters, ask them to
monitor grow.th and focus their attention on pro-
viding for the growth they expect.
- accept their reduced UGB coupled with the Joint
Management Agreement, expansion areas and land
designations.
- compliment them on their method of keeping produc-
tive agricultural soils in EFU until such time as
an alternative economic use is presented.
", .
-,
.,. Mr. l~es Kvarsten
September 20, 1979
Page 3
- urge them to plan growth within the capacity of the
public facilities they are willing to provide.
- urge a more detailed; timed, prioritized capital
improvement program and budget. As outlined here
on page 1, private and public investment capital,
and programs, are their scarce resources.
The Department of Economic Development stands ready to assist
the City and the County as they work to achieve their economic
development goals.
Sincerely,
~~~
Deputy Director
RE/JR/gm
,.
CHAIRMAN
..'lay;H' h)~1 t'r Odo11l
Viet: ('IIAIKMAN
.JlIlh:e n. 0. :-:l'I~on
st:CRETARY·TR£A.SURF.R
Mayo," (;on!oll Challlll:tn
EXECL:TIYE DIRECTOR
KaylH' I.. S\·jll·;andt
DOCUMENTS
LOCALP,lot~cL
Ct">1"> b)
l
East
Central
Oregon
Association of
Counties
920 S. W. Fraur. P. O. Bol: 1207
Pendleton. O~gon 97801
August 6. 1979
W. J. Kvarsten. Director
Department of land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court Street. Northeast
Salem, Oregon 97310
.. -
Phone (503) "\-i!132"'~
Lf.:"O C·.-
I'
--
Subject: City of Pilot Rock 2nd Acknowledgement Request
Dear Mr. Kvarsten:
The City of Pilot Rock requests the LCDC to grant an Acknowledgement
of Compliance. Six copies of the recent amendments to the plan,
zoning ordinance, and technical report are enclosed. If possible,
please place this matter on the Commission's September Agenda.
Sincerely,
#""7 -/ /!'~
Henry S. Markus
Principal Comprehensive Planner
HSM(mh
Enclosures
cc: City of Pilot Rock
Umatilla County
~~~tary <I~iiltion cor the rolluwmg COUNTIES <lnd Cities: GILUAM: Arlington, Condon, Lonerodr.; GRANT: Canyon City.
-i . Granite, John Day, Long Creck, Monument, Mt. Vernon, l'r<lirie City, Seneca; MORROW: Boardman. Heppner, lone. Irrigon.
fstngton;.UMATILLA: Adams, Athena, E.eho, Helix, Hermistdn, Milton·FrHwater, Pendleton. Pilot Roclr... Stanfield, Ukiah, Umatilla.
on; \\HEELER: Fossil, Mitchell, Spray.
ORDINANCE NO. 329
Amending the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No. 320.
as adopted on 11-25-78.
The City of Pilot Rock ordains as follows:
WHEREAS, the Oregon LCDC suggested revisions to the plan at their
meeting on June 7, 1979. and
WHEREAS, farming is a suitable use for the land adjacent to the city
sewage lagoons, and
WHEREAS, the phrase "non-polluting" as used in plan policy 5(H)(2) is
subject to interpretation, and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Economic Development has suggested that
the City prepare an economic development strategy •. and
WHEREAS, land should be designated for expansion of the urban growth
area when necessary, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 320 does not specify who may apply for plan amend-
ments, and
WHEREAS. a public hearing was held by the Planning Comrrlission on
June 27, 1979, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed
amendments on July 2, 1979, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 11, 1979,
and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearin9 was published
in the East Oregonian on June 18. 1979, and in the Pilot Rock News on
June 21, 1979, and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to
affected land owners within the Pilot Rock urban growth area on June 14,
1979, and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the
East Oregonian on July 2, 1979, and in the Pilot ~ock 'je~'/s on July 5,
1979, and
\~HEREAS, notfce of the City Council public hearing \'las mailed to affected
land owners within the Pilot Rock urban growth area on June 29. 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE
Section 1.
the City of
The Pilot Rock City Council hereby
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan text
adopts the amendments to
as given below:
"Section 2. Plan Technical Report. .. as provided in Section 7 8."
"Section 5(E}. Air. Water and Land Resources Quality ... 3. To encourage
Umatflla County to maintain exclusive farm use zoning in the area around
the city sewage lagoons outside the urban growth boundary. "
"Section 5(H). Economic Development ... 2. To encourage diversified;:
AaA-~ell~ttA§ industrial development in order to provide a stable job
warket for city residents ... 7. To prepare an economic development
strategy and 'tiOrk program. II
"Section 5(M).
eXQansion areas
Urbanization ... 7. To first consider land in designated
for inclusion within the urban growth boundary."
"SECTION 7. PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
An amendment to the text of this ordinance or to the compre-
hensive plan map may be initiated by the City Council. City Planning
Commission. an affected governmental unit? or by_a property owner or
resident of the City or urban- growth area. An owner of property located
within a designated expansion area may apply.for amendment of the urban
growth boundary. All applications for plan amendments shall be made on
forms available from the City accompanied by a fee in an amount established
by the City Council."
"Section 7 8. Plan Amendment ll
"Section 8 9. Severabi 1ity"
Section 2. The Pilot Rock City Council hereby adopts tl)e amendments to
t ...~ Comprehensive Plan ~lap as follm'ls arid as shc\'/rl on tn<::: c.t~a~h;;;2r;~
hereto:
The area east of U.S. Highway 395 north of town. the area west of East
Birch Creek Road south of town. the area north and sout~ of U.S. Highway
395 west of town. and the area north of the water tanks west of town are
taken out of the urban growth boundary and designated as expanslon areas.
Section 3. In as much as it is necessary for the health. peace and
safety of the inhabitants of the City of Pilot Rock that this ordinance
have immediate effect. an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage
by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
Passed by the Pilot Rock City Council on this 11th day of ~, 1979.
Attest:
~·ea:~CitY"ffecorder
cc: Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
Land Conservation and Development Commission
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
':-
.
.
.
-
,
.
:;:;:
::;:;
-;"
.
.
.
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
>1:
"':::.
•.•
:••::
i·:,,
·:·:.
·.;·.
:.·••
•·
.
i·ii
.
'
.
'
.
.
.
:-:
.:-
:-:
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:.
;.;
:':
:>
:::
-::
::
.
.
.
.
'.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"
,::
:
:.:
.:.
::.
,'
.
.
;.;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
':-
.'
'
.
'
.
..
..
.
:.:::
.::::
:::::
:::\}
~?y::
::::
.
.
.
.
:-:
-:-
:
.
.
'
.
.
'.
-
'
.
,
::
::
::
.:
.:
.;'
.
.
'<
.::
:::
;':
:;:
"<"
;~~
';"
~::,
<,....
·i:'.
::!i"
·]l!·
~;
:tt.:
:i:.j:..
(;::,
'::..
:'
<
:?
i:.
.
.
:
:.
..
..
••
:
:
':':
"
'.••.
••.i.•.•
.i,I·.
i.1'.!.•.
•.•
.••
•:••
.••
••.
.1..i..,.•..
i..•·.!...•.·.•,.'.i.i.·..·.·..•.I..•....:.:..:..j.
.•w
.
:
.
:
.•••·
.
:.•i~.•.:.;.·.·.•.:.·,··.•.'
;:
i.i;.•.~r.~.j
.~j.<::·:
·:····::'
:.:'
.
:
:-
:-
:-
;.;
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
..
..
..
..
.
;.:
-:
;.;
..<
-:.
;.;
.;.
:-:
.;.
:-:
.
• • • ~ • ~ , ,
o • • • • • o > c
• g • • , • c, • • ~
• ~ • ~ • •,
• • • •DO
O§
JIO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
'
.
::.
::::
:.::
::::
::::
::::
-'"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.-
:-
.
•»
.
•..
•..
.•.
...
.:-:
-::
:.
-
.
;.;
.;.
·
.
.
•.
•
:-:
.
.
'
»
.
"
:.
.
'<
::
,.
'
"
.
'.
"
I
·
~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~
.
• • • • • • • • • •
• g • • c • •
• c • • • • • • • \
.
'.
,
.
: "'
.
-
.
-
.
'\.
.
•
•
I!
II
D~
,
;.
.
'
;'
.'
;'
:
:.
f.'~.."
'"
,
.
.
;';'
;"'"
':+
;;;
;;;
;;;
;k
0.,
:=
-,.
:;;;
*
.
:::
:::
::;<
'
,
-
'.
:.
-
"
':.
.
:..:~.'
,:~:::
:::
'::
:::
:::
:::
:::
:::
;::
:::
:::
:;:
;:;
:'::
:::
':':
:::
.
-
.
-
'
-
;"
""
""
-
.
'
.
'.
.
'
.
'
.
'.
.
:.:
.
.
'
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:::
::'
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
:-
.
-
:::
:f.
-
:-:
-:-
:-:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:-.
.
.
.
.
»
.
.
.
.
.
:
:::
:::
::.
:.:
.:.
:.;
.
.
,."
'
·/.i
!·.'
·~j,
,~,·
··
An
:
'.
'-
::>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'
.
'
'.
••
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:..
'
.
'.
.
-
:
::''.
.
'
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;::
-
.
',
-
'
,
"
,'
.
:.~«
'.
-
:'
.
'
.
.
:::
:.:.
,/:::
»:-:
,::::
:::':
::.;>
.,
.
.
-
',
,
'"
,
'
-
.
'.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;..
.
.
"~'W.·:
:·:t
::
!•••
••
•·
••
•
:
••
••
.•
••
.•
••
••
•·
·
.
.
.
.
'.
:-:
-:<
::,
.
'.
-
,-
'.
""'
":,
;,;
,;,
~
,.
;'
.
'
.
:"
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
'
.
'
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
-".,.•
* .. " ......•••
-
PUBLIC NOTICE,
11= or OREGON, County of Umatilla, 5_
'lCE PRESLER. being firSt ,duly sworn, depose and say that
the owner-publisher of lthe PILOT ROCK NEWS, a newspaper
circulation as defined by Sections 1·509, 1-510, Oregon
printed and published at Pilot Rock, Oregon. in aforesaid
ted copy of,. which is hereto annexed, was published in the
jsUe of said newspaper fC)r .-L successive and consecutive
in the following issues: _-"'JJJJJ..l llV__''S",'-'1,,9'-7,,9'-- _
City of Pilot Rock
The PitOI Rock Cil~ Council ...ilI hold
• pulllie hearing On Wo:d.• luly II, 1979,
It 7:30 p.m. &1 Pilot Rock Cito' H.II. The
pUTJ'OSe of Ih huting is to consider the
following p.opond l:ncncmenu to the
<:omP'"ch"nsj~cpIn aad loning ordi,..,..
eo::
I. Amend tile v.ban po..-,? bound• ...,.
.nd tedliCe the .m.....nt of I.nd in the ut·
blIn Stow." ., ...:
2. To .1Iow multiple-funil" d..-ell;n~1
.., .n oulrig"t u~ ill- the Genenl
Residenti.llone (R·l);
3. Amend Artide 5: Co:tdilionaJ Us.es
10 m.ke '"""iew ,t.nd.roU l:Io'e dear .nd I
objecli..e; 'I
4. Other hovH keeping .mendmentf" -
.nd:
S. Neeeu.,), fbaog~ to the plt.n
techniul repOl'l.
A .peafie ti'l of .11 propooed .men-
dments is .uilable II CiN h.U 0' call
443-2811. .
Publi.hed in the Pilot Roek iiew$July
S,1979.
Duane Cole
. City Adm,n;"lr,t.,..
Notary Public for Oregon
and state; that 'the P"b) j c H"'ar~ ng 00 ::lmpndmeats to the
bod ond
My commission exph:es 19- --c=--My Commission l::~!:lires ~eJ. 1. 1981
AUG 1
RECEIVED
1979
-- E.C.O.A.C.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
An Ordinance Adopting
Amendments to the City
of Pilot Rock Comprehensive
Plan as Amendments to the
Umatilla County Comprehensive
Plan
)
)
)
)
)
)
Ordinance No. 79-21
WHEREAS, the City of Pilot Rock, Oregon, has
amended its Comprehensive Plan, including its Comprehensive
Plan Map and Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS. that land" within the Pilot Rock Urban
Growth Boundary is under the jurisdiction of Umatilla
County, Oregon and included in the Umatilla County Compre-
hensive Plan, and
WHEREAS. a notice of public hearing on the Pilot
Rock Comprehensive Plan Revision was mailed to all record
owners of property within the amended Urban Growth Boundary
of June 29, 1979, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the amended City of
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan was held before the Umatilla
County Planning Commission on July 25. 1979, and notice of
the hearing was published in the East Oregonian on July 14,
1979, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on this ordinance was
held before the Board of Commissioners of Umatilla County,
Oregon, on August 1. 1979, and notice of the hearing was
published in the East Oregonian on July 14, 1979, and
WHEREAS, at this hearing the Board of Commissioners
considered the technical report accompanying the Pilot Rock
Comprehensive Plan and agrees with.the report with the ex-
ception of the final sentence of paragraph three on page
IX-1 ,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners
of Umatilla County. Oregon,' hereby ordains as follows:
The Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan. adopted
on April 6. 1972. and amended on February 14, 1979, to adout
the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan for that are::>.
Within the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Boundary is further amended
to adopt those amendments to the Pilot ·Rock Comprehensi\'e
Plan which were adopted by the Pilot Rock City Council as
OrcLlll;,tnce No. 329, dated July 11, 1979, :t. copy of which is
attached and by this reference incorporated herein.
•DATED this _--",,-__day of August. 1979.
UMATlLLA COUNTY BOARD
OF CmlmSSIONERS
ATTEST: County Clerk
• J
I
A. L. DraperFouque te. ~.
I,
,"
'.
•
''1,. ,
BEFORE THE BOARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON
Regarding the adoption of an )
alnendment to Umatilla County }
Ordinance #79-12. )
ORDINANCE NO. 79- \=.~ .
WHEREAS, Umatilla County Ordinance No. 79-12 was adopted
on March 7. 1979, as an amendment to the Umatilla County
Comprehensive Plan,
WHEREAS. an amendment to Ordinance No. 79-12 is necessary
in order to conform the ordinance to the Pilot Rock Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE. The Board of Commissioners for Umatilla
Cou~ty. Oregon, hereby ordains as follows:
Ordinance No. 79-12 is amended as follows:
,
~ ,",.
• 1979.c2. "CIl../(;V
U~AT\I:~L~L~~~N~T~Y~~A~R~D~O~F_COMMISSIONERS\-"" .~
~j;J;;;);4; irma n
~rd Robertson .~~---A. ·T~.Draper .~-
The Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan,
originally adopted- on April 6, 1972, is amended
to adopt the City Comprehensive Plan for that
land"_des.ignated as.being within the City of
Pilot ~ock Urban Growth Boundary, but outside of
corporate city limits, '~eferred to as the City
of Pi.lot, Rock Comprehensive Plan as adopted by:
the"·Pilot Rock City Council on November 25, 1978.
The substantive provisions of the City of Pilot
Rock,Subdivision and·Zoning Ordinances are also
adopte~' 'by reference for application only in
the Pilot Rock Urban Grown Area, except that
land uzoned 'F-1 (Exclusive Farm Use) shall remain
in EFU1zoning until. rezoning is requested .. Such
rezon-ing" shall be supported by adequate findings
of fact showing the need for the change. Umatilla
County~shall implement the Comprehensive Plan
for the Urban Growth Area as specified in the
Pilot,Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Mana·gement
Agreement.
DATED~~'is i')'r<;/ day of::
-
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
STATE OP OREGON.
County of Umatilla I"
Equity
Law
Ii No.----
_____ being first dt;.iy
sworn, d~posc and say that I am the: p:"incipaJ der:C of the publisher of the &st
Ongodan. a newspaper of genual circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
and 193.020; printed and published at Pcrldleton in the Olfores<l.id county and
state; that the _·__,EcQ""-'--""C'C",,--"pO'u'o"cll...li"cc...,ouo:Li:'..licc,-"o'-- _
a printed copy 01 which is hereto Moued, Wa3 published in the: entire issee
of said newspaper for ,"-,__ successive and consecutive! 0 SO:>C t ; 00 in
the following issues:
"
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~}.~7~t~h"--__ day of
------~!t'.-l1+'<~9-=-,.U, J /' •
, .
'. ~'. '-....-..0...:.. .:.•• _...L. /
-_/.
Notary Public of Oregon
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity ILa", No. _
STATE OF OREGON,
1.- - .··2.~1·~..:..,"·~t";i-,e·:"-~------ . being first dt:ly
sworn. depose and say that I am the principal derk of the publishu of t..1.e East
Oregonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as de:£ined by DRS 193.010
and 193.020: print~ and publisbed at PrndJeton in the afo~.said county and
state; that the _-,£."OC-o'-,cc"""7_..LP",<:P:J.jlc11.'<,,-,,,'<olj,tui"cc0"- _
a printed copy at which is hereto annexed. was published in the e:1ti~ is.5af:
of said newspaper foe ~·,~_-$uccessiveand CODSet:utive ~,. S ct' _ .. .>tlln
the following issue.s: .
19~
- - __, ~,~lu..'~l~"7'·
. /.
-,/', .r.-
Notary Public of Or~gon
-------
•
.
•
ORDINANCE NO. 330
Amending the City of Pilot Rock Zoning Ordinance, flo. 318, as adopted
on 11-25-78.
The City of Pilot Rock ordains as follows:
WHEREAS, the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan was amended on July 11, 1979.
and
WHEREAS, the Oregon LCDC suggested revisions to the zoning ordinance
at their meeting on June 7, 1979. and
WHEREAS, multiple-family dwellings should be allowed as an outright use
in at least one zone, and
WHEREAS, buildings situated so that an existing street cannot be extended
would impose a hardship on abutting property O\·mers. and
WHEREAS, portions of the conditional use article are vague and subject to
interpretation, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 27.
1979, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed
amendments on July 2, 1979, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 11, 1979,
and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published
in the East Oregonian on June 18, 1979. and in the Pilot Rock News on
June 21, 1979, and
Whereas, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to
affected land owners within the Pilot Rock General Residential Zone (R-l)
on June 14. 1979, and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the
East Oregonian on July 2, 1979, and in the Pilot Rock News on July 5,
1979, and
1.plER!:AS, "otic~ of the City Council publir: hei;.ri ... ~ \'12.5 r.:'iled to affected
land owners within the Pilot Rock General Resid~n:ial Zone (R-i) on
June 29, 1979,
NO\'1, Therefore
Section 1.
to the City
The Pilot Rock City Council hereby adopts the amendments
of Pilot Rock Zoning Ordinance text as given below:
"Section 3.10 General Residential Zone, R-l ... 4. Multiple-family
dl'/e 11 i ng"
"Section 3.11 ... 2~--Ht:llh-faffiHy-8WeHtR§... 3 2.... 4 3."
"3.84 Access ... A building shall not be situated so that an existing
street cannot be extended."
"ARTICLE 5. CONDITIONAL USES
5.10 Authorization to Grant or Deny Conditional Uses. A condi-
tional use listed in this ordinance shall be permitted,
altered or denied in the 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 change in the use
or in lot area or an alteration of structure shall conform
with the requirements for conditional use. tR-jt:lB§tA§
w~etAe~-e~-A8t-a A conditional use proposal shall be
approved 8F-eeAtei. Qi the City Council sRall-~et§A-t"e
~Fe~esalls-a~~~8~~tateAe55-aAa-8e54~aa4lfty-e~-tAe-~eltS
EeAYep.teAEe-e~-Aeee5Stty-t8-~e-5eY¥eB-a§atA5t~aAy-a8Ye~se
€eABttfeRs-tAat-weHl8-~est:llt-f~effi-aotAeFiliA§-tRe-~a~tiet:lla~
aeYele~ffieRt-at-t"e-leeatteR-~~e~ese6-aA6.-te-a~~~eYe-st:leh
t:lse-aS-~fepe5eB,-5Rall-ftRB-tAat if the following e~4te,4a
standards are either met. can be met "by observance of con-
ditions, or are found not applicable.
1. The use will be consistent with the comprehensive plan,
aR8-tAe-eejeeti~e5-8f the zoning ordinance and other
applicable policies of the City.
2. Taking into account location, size, design, and operating
characteistics, the use wlll-ha¥e-ffitAtmal-a6Ye~se-~ffl~a€t
eA-t"e-tal-lt.a.'lttY;-t.1-.al.e.-aRS-tel-a~~.e~.t.te
~eYele~ffieAt-ef-tRe-aet:ltt4A§-~Fe~e~t4e5-aA6-tRe-5t:1~~e~A8­
4R§-a~ea-eeffi~a~e8-t9-tAe-4ffipaet~ef-ae¥ete~ffieAt-that-ts
~eFffi4t~e~-et:lt~t~kt~ shall not ~,reasonably interfere
with continuation of existing uses or uses allowed out-
right on abuttinQ prooerties.
~.--tAe-teeatieA-aA8-8es4§A-ef-tAe-Stte·a"8-st~~etij~e5-fe~
tAe-ij5e-wtll-ee-as-att~aet4¥e-as-t"e-Aatij~e-8f-tRe-ij5e
aR8-tts-setttA~-wa~~aAt5~
3. The use will not have a significant adverse impact on
~blic facilities including but not limited to streets.
sewer and water facilities. such as the traffic generated
by the use surpassing the capacity of the street serving
the use.
4. The design will preserve environmental assets such as trees.
watercourses. historic and archae logical sites 1 and similar
irreplaceable assets of particular interest to the community.
5.--tke-a~~ttea"t-ka5-a-e8Aa-f4ee-4AteAt-aAe-ea~aetlity-t6
8evele~-aA6-ijSe-tRe-taA8-as-~~e~83ed-a"6-~aS-5effie-ap~~8­
pPtate-pij~pese-fep-Sij8Mttt4A§-tR~-~~e~esat-aA6-t5-Aet
m8ttYate8-setelY-8Y-SijeR-~ijppe5e5-a5-tRe-alte~atteR-8f
pFe~e~ty-Yatijes~fe~-5peeijlattYe-pij~pe5e5.
5.20 Placing Conditions on a Permit. In permitting a new condi-
tional use or the alteration of an existing conditional use,
the City Council may impose conditions which it finds necessary
te-aYet8-a-6et'iffieAtal-iffipaet-aAa-te-e~he~;5e-~feteet-iRe
8est-t~te~ests-af-tRe-Sij~~eijA~tA§-a~ea-e~-!~e-eefflffiij~4ty~a5-a
wRele~ and reasonable to minimize conflict between the pro-
posed use and existing uses or uses permitted outright. The
use shall be subject to design review and approval before
construction. These conditions may include the following:
1. Limiting the manner in which the use is conducted, in-
cluding restricting the time aA commercial activity may
take place and restraints to minimize such environmental
effects as noise. vibration, air pollution. glare and
odor.
2. Establishing 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.
5. Increasing the amount of street dedication, road\'~ay width
or improvement within the street right-of-way.
6. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage.
surfacing or other improve~ent cf a parking c;ea or
truck loading ared.
7. Limiting or otherwise designating the number. size.
location. height and lighting of signs.
8. Limiting or otherwise designating the location and
intensity of outdoor lighting and requiring its shielding.
9. Requiring diking. screening. landscaping or another
facility to protect adjacent or nearby property and
designating standards for its installation and maintenance.
10. Designating the size. height. location and materials for
a fence.
11. Measures to £ProtecttR§ and preserVetR§ existing trees,
vegetation. water resources. wildlife habitat or aAother
significant natural resource.
12. Requiring a children1s play area or outdoor recreation
area or both in the case of a multiple-family
dwelling or a recreational vehicle park of 10 or more
units.
13. Requiring payment of a fair share of the cost for improve-
ment of a street, water and sewer· lines serving the site
or participation in an improvement dis:rict established
to provide city facilities and services to an area includ-
ing the site.
l2~ 14. Iffi~e5tft§-ethep-EeA8tt49AS Other reasonable measures
to permit the development of the city in conformity with
the intent and purpose of the conditional classification
of uses. II
Section 2.
the Zoning
The Pil at Rock Ci ty Council hereby adopts the amendments to
Map as follows and as shown on the attachment hereto:
The area east of U.S. Highway 395 north of town, the area west of East
Birch Creek Road south of town, the area north and south of U.S. Highway
395 west of town. and the area north of the water tanks west of town are
taken out of the urban growth boundary and designated as expansion areas.
Section 3. In as much as it is necessary for the health, peace and safety
of the inhabitants of the City of Pilot Rock that this ordinance have
immediate effect. an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect immedi2tely upon its passage
by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
Passed by the Pilot Rock City Council on this 11th day of ~. 1979.
Attest:
e:z;r;;~Lf!fL-
City Recorder
cc: Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
Land Conservation and Development Commission
\
\
•
• •
\
\
.._----_.... <:-
""... '0 "l'o .00.00 r>OO...,.
.Y;;; I
o " ,,.. ,CoO Ill'"
iIII•••••••••••••II••••••••i"i.i'••""',.... TO "'"""
,
,
,
,
~f,
'"'f
....',
,
,
"
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
!
,
l
r-qq
q
q
.. {eXPANSION
,
AREA
EXPANSION
MAP
~D[L@lr ~@©~
J
FUTURE STREET
URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY
EXPANSION AREA
CITY LIMIT
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
AND CREEKS
PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC
.. POfENTIAl WATER 'ANIe SITlS
, CHURCH
CC COMMUNITY efNTEfI
, PAliK
,. FIIIE STATION
/
/
•
/
..
"
LEGEND
D •., GI!NI!RAL RUIDIENTIAt
D .., t'NITlO RUlOfNTlAl
~ .., 'ARM U.$IOIENTIAl
-
C·, COMMERCIAL
D M" LIGHT INOSTlIlAl
D M" HEAVY "~OUS"II"'l
D pos Pf:llfrIlANEIIJ opu. S'ACE
IMm FLOODPLAIN
D SLOPES ~12"
-
-
)
ZONING
©DlrW @~
NOTE; Pl•••• r.f,r 10 Ih. mOlt rlclnt U.S. Dept.
01 Houlin" Ind Urbln Oevelopment F.'.A.
Flood Hlzlrd Map lor flood pronl Ir•••
within lh. city limits.
Adopted pur,usn! to City of Pilot Roc;k
Ordinance No.318 on 11/25/78, III
by OrdInance No. 330 on 7-11-79.
7-11·79
Approved changes and additions to the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive
Plan report.
Chapter II Summary and Conclusions
page 11-2:
"Land Reguirements
About 464 495 to 128 616acres of residential land will be needed through
1995. Lanareserved for conmercial, light industrial> industrial. public
and permanent open space uses include 763 729 acres. The remaining 998 563
acres within the Pilot Rock urban planning area has been designated for law
.~eAs~£y-pe54eeA~ial-aA8 residential. Att-e¥-tA45-t3Ra-wtll-alffies~-eeF­
taiA1Y-A8t-~e-Aee8e8-t~peH§A-t995~--HeweYeF>-a5-iAe4eate8~a8e~e.-few-~Fe­
peFtY-E~Re~5-a83aeeAt-t8-the-€4tY-AaYe-ffia8e-tAe4f-taR8-aYailaBle-fe~-eeYe19p­
If!eAh
G4YeA-thi5-faet.-4t-waS-Aeee5sapy-~e-~Ael~ee-ae~e-~aAe-fe~-,es~6eAt~al-Mses
s9-tRat-tRe~64ty-~e~le-R3ve-fle~~~il4~y-te-~es?eR!-~~-~~e5e-faR9-enR~~5-~~
eR6eSe-ta-atle"-ee¥el8~meR~~--+~e-teW-aeRs~~y-~es4e~~t4al-eesi9Mat~eA-i5
ffieaRt-te-a~5eeHPa~e-PM,al-,e5~6eRttal-aevete~ffieRt-eat5t~e~the-M,~aR~§,ew~R
geijR6aFY-By-attewiAg-stmtta'-6evetepmeRt-wi~RiR-tRe-~~aRAtA§-a,ea-a5~aR
tRtepiHl-Mse,:," -
lIComprehensive Plan and Implementation Heasures
The final Technical Report was prepared after review and co-adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement by Uma-
tilla County. As of Fee'Ma,y~ 1979. the following documents have been
completed:
1. Technical Report
2. Comprehensive Plan
3. Zoning Ordinance
4. Subdivision Ordinance
5. Mobile Home Park Ordinance
6. Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
A-ppettffltRa,y-ea~ttal-tffi~,evemeRt-p.,.e§.,.affi-~lil-~e-eeffl~lete6-~y-A~,tl-197g,:,
7. Preliminary Capital Improvement Program"
Chapter III Summary of Findings
~~~jsed. see at~acr~d material.
Chapter VI Implementation Measures
Add adopted preliminary capital improvement program lattached).
fhapter VII Natural Environment
Page VII-13:
"Pi1at-Ree k.- ~'FeVlBeS -aeeEt1:Ja te- sewa§e- t'Fea bIeRh - - +Re-1a§ ElElR- t:y~e- sys te~
is-~'FeSeRt1Y-1:Jt.:j.1tleB-at-5l*ty-~e'FeeRt-ef-ea~aettY7 The eXisting city
se\l/a e treatment s stem is not ade uate. It is dischar in contaminants
to the round\'i'ater. Steve Guardels DE 4-16-79 The area around the
lagoons should remain in farm use. DEQ and the city should jointly
analyze this problem. The city should consider apDlying for a Step I
facil ity planning grant. In addition ... "
Chapte:' VI I I Soci oeconomi c Envi ronment
page VIII-14:
.end Table 13 (attached) and add The estilT'ated Jul 1 1978, 0' ularion
of Umatilla Count was 53900; urban 37 525 69~ . rural 16 375 31~.
The estimated number of dwelling units in Umatilla County in 1978 was
21,784; therefore, the average number of people per dwelling unit was 2.47.
page VIII-17:
" ... The City's Fire Insurance Protection Class is No.7 5... "
page VIII-18:
"Population Projections
A preliminary population forecast was prepared for Umatilla County and
Cities in 1977. Y~BateB-f.:j.§1:J~eS-5he~le-ae-aYa.:j.la6te-4R-wlRtep-19t8-797
P~Eljeet.:j.eR5-fap-P.:j.tElt-REle~-a~e-~tYeR-tR-faB~e-t5~ Please ...
page VIII-19, Table 15, take out
Page VI ll-21:
. ~te5eA~~y,-Pit9~-P.e€k-~~6~teeS-aae~ija~e-t~eatF.eRt- e-Ee~?ly-w~~~-9E~~s
~ ?-.":i 2~ - a ;. 5EAaf' §C- f3 efffi4 t - "Feqd4- remeA t 57 ~T!!h"e_tee'','-E"d,-"~,,,,E.:.'C-,,--f,-,2,,C~'-,i-"-'[.Lj-,,,h 3,,5'--2,a
seepage problem. Any corrective measures taken to insure the proper
treatment of sewage to meet current standards should be designed to
allow incremental expansion of capacity to accoimJodate growth."
Add map showing location of city sewage lagoons.
Chapter IX Land Use Planning
Pages IX-l. 2. 3 and top of 4 revised. see attachment.
7-11 ·79
Approved changes and additions to the City of Pilot Rock Plan Report~
Chapter III, Summary of Findings.
Citizen Involvement
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on
June 6. 1979. to obtain comments on a proposed amendment to County Or-
dinance No. 79-12 intended to clarify the affect of county co-adoption
of the city plan on EFU lands.
The Pilot Rock Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 1979.
on proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and
technical report.
The Pilot Rock City Council held a public hearin9 on July 11, 1979, to
obtain comments on proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning
. ordinance and technical report.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 25,
1979, (?) to obtain comments on the aillendments to th2 com~reh2nsive p1an.
zoning ordinance and technical report adopted by the city.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on
August 1,1979, (?) to obtain comments on the amendments to the compre-
hensive plan, zoning ordinance and technical report adopted by the city
and the recommendation of the county planning commission.
Land Use Planning
The city submitted the comprehensive plan, implementation measur~s. and
technical report to OLCO on March 9, 1979, and requested LCOC to grant
"an acknowledgment of compliance.
A total of seven jurisdictions, agencies- and organizations commented on
the city's acknowledgment request. Umatilla County, the Port of Umatilla,
and the Department of Transportation supported the request. The Department
of Economic Development and the Department of Environmental Quality suggested
that material be added. The Oregon Business Planning Council and 1000 Friends
of Oregon stated that revisions were needed.
On May 24, 1979, the OLCO staff recorrmended to LCOC that" ... the City of
Pilot Rock's acknowledgment request be denied and that the jurisdiction be
granted a planning extension to September 15. 1979, to complete revisions
to its comprehensive plan and ilTlplementing ffi€:3.S.I·es for Statewide Planning
Goals 10 and 14."
The city responded to comments on the acknowledg~en~ reques~ by letter to
L':DC on May 2';, 1>79.
The city responded to the OLCO recommendation by letter to LCOC on
May 31, 1979.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners amended County Ordinance
No. 79-12 on June 6, 1979, to clarify the affect of county co-adoption
of the city plan on EFU lands.
lCOC denied the city1s request for acknowledgment on June 7, 1979. LCDC
stated that:
1110 order to comply. the City of Pilot Rock must:
Goa1 10
1. Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional use approval
standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. or
2. Allow multifamily units or other low-cost noosing types outright
in at least one zone which contains sufficient buildable lands to
acc~mmodate identified needs;
3. Amend the plan (p. IX-1) to include justification for the percent
of population at various densities used in calculating residential
acres needed;
4. Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of units
needed by housing type.
Goal 14
Either: "
1. Provide the findings based upon factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14 which
justify the designation of an additional 180 to 444 acres of
residential land beyond the projected need"of 464 to 726 acres; or
2. Make plan map, zoning and UGB amendments to meet the projected
residential growth needs of the City. Specifically, the UGB
should be modified to include no more than the acreage needed. In
addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14, these amendments should
take into-account the other factors of Goal 14. particularly
factor 6 (retent ion of agri cu1tura1 1and) . n
lCOC also stated that the City of Pilot Rock comprehensive plan and implementa-
tion measures comply with Goals 1, 2, 5, 6. 7, 8. 9. 11, 12, and 13.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning CO~qi5~ion ~et on June 13, 1979.
to discuss proposed amendments to the plan, implementation "measures, and
technical report.
Th" Pilot Rock City Council 3:-:1end2d the cOillp:""e~3"be p1an. zanin9 ordinar.c2
and technical report on July 17. 1979.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission recommended co-adoption of
the proposed amendments on July 25, 1979.. . .
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners _co-adopted the proposed
amendments on August 1. 1979.
The city resubmitted the revised comprer.ensive plan. implementation mea-
sures. and technical report to OLCO on August 6, 1979 and requested LCDC
to grant an acknowledgment of compliance.
Air. Water and land Resources Quality
On June 7, 1979, LCDC approved the followin9:
"Suggestion for Plan and Implementing ~leasures Improvement:
The City of Pilot Rock should coordinate with the Department of
Environmental Quality to establish a procedure for correcting the
City's sewage treatment seepage problem."
Housing
Housing types in Umatilla County in 1978 were 66% single-family, 20~
multiple-family, and 14% mobile homes.
The estimated urban share of 1978 Umatilla County population was 69%.
The average number of people per dwelling unit in 1978 in Umatilla County
was 2.47.
Public Facilities and Services
The city sewage lagoons have a seepage problem.
Awastewater facilities plan will be required when existing treatment capacity
is fully committed by city approval of new development.
Urbanization
"Preliminary county population projections estimate PHet-Reek.!.s Umatilla
County's population at 2,159 67,450 to 2,359 76,050 in 1995."
Population projections. forecasts and allocations to local jurisdictions
are conclusions not facts because they are based upon assumptions and
findings of fact.
Vacant, buildable land becomes available for development at land a~ner dis-
cretion subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan and avai1aJili:j Of
required public facilities and services.
A small number of landowners control most of the buildable land contiguous
to the city.
Designation of a water and sewer service area is necessary to establish a
main line oversizing policy.
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
Preliminary Capital Improvement Program*
PROJECT
1. Street Improvements
2. Industrial Park
3. Sewage System Improvements
4. Community Center Rehabilitation
5. City Hall Replacement
6. Water System Expansion
7. Central Business District Rehabilitation
8. Swimming Pool
9. New Park Facilities and/or Improvements
'Note: Adopted by City Council on 5-23-79.
ESTII·1ATEO FUNDING
COST SOURCES
? ?
? EOA. Port .. .
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
Revised 7-11-79
TABLE 13
HOUSING INVENTORY
PILOT ROCK Ul1ATlLLA COUNTY
# % • %
"
Existin9 1970
Single-Family 474 92 12,547 77
Multi pI e-Family 33 6 2,393 15
Nobile Homes 8 2 1,256 8
Subtota1 51> TOO 16,196 100
Added 1970-78
Sin9le-Fami ly 28 51 1,805 32
l1u lti pI e-Fami ly 0 0 1,941 35
f~obi 1e Homes 27 49 1,842 33
Subtotal 55 100 5,588 100
Total May, 1978
Sin9le-Family 502 88 14,352 66
t-lultiple-Family 33 6 4,334 20
Mobile Homes 35 6 3,098 14
570 100 21,784 100
Note: 1970-78 figures have not been adjusted for demolition,
fire, etc.
Source: U. S. Census, 1970
ECOAC Surveys, 1977
Ore90n State Housing Division, 1970-78
VIII - 14
\
.... ,,; ~oX~
- c= \ \
~mJ •
,
\ ~ .'/
"-
, ,
'\, ,
\ ,, .
"" ~ ~
• .'
·•
, <
\ l, > ,
•
- "":-
~- '\
~
,
,
--,---
LOCATION OF PILOT ROC:< !·IUNICIPAL SEHAGE LAGOmlS
VIII-27
Revtsed 7-24-79
CHAPTER IX
Land Use Planning
Establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary
The urban growth boundary is identified based on land required for growth and
barrier/incentive analysis. Land requirements may be calculated in two ways.
First. forecast population and determine land needed on a 1:1 ratio. Second,
estimate need including a multiplier to account for land which remains in farm
use or vacant by owner decision and which will keep land costs down", require
fewer plan amendments and less development time delay. Barrier/incentive anal-
ysis sets boundaries based on natural and man-made features like floodplains,
steep slopes. public facilities, and so on.
The following assumptions were made about growth within the Pilot Rock urban
planning area:
(1) 1995 population will range from 3,285 to 4,145.
(2) Land will be available for development.
(3) Pilot Rock will encourage commercial~ light industrial and
indJstrial' development north of the City within the urban
growth boundary.
(4) Many people who work in the area will desire to live in Pilot
Rock.
(5) Umatilla County will encourage residential, commercial, and
industrial development within urban growth boundaries.
(6) The city and county will encourage low-density residential
development within the urban growth boundary rather than rural
residential development outside the boundary.
The present urban/rural population shares in Umatilla County are 69/31. Rela-
tive to the present 31% rural share~ Pilot Rock will assume that about 20% of
new residents will choose to live in a low density residential area within the
urban growth boundary rather than in a rural residential area outside the
boundary. The difference between 31% and 20% is 11%; these new residents
would live outside the boundary in EFU or rural residential areas.
Multiple-family dwellings have had a 35% share in Umatilla County in recent
years. Discounting existing residents and assuming a population of about
4,145 people, Pilot Rock will assume that about 20% of the residents (35~
of new) will live in multiple-family housing or mobile home parks.
The rema~ning 60% of existing and new residents will live in single family
homes or mobile homes on individual lots.
Assuming a population of 4,145 people. 616 acres of land ~Iill be needed for
resic~n:ial use. About 495 acres would be required for a pop;lat:on of
3,285.
IX - I
TABLE ---- RESIDENTIAL LAND REQUIREllENTS
Density
(DUlAC) Share Peopl e People/Acre Acres
LOI' (I) 20% 829 2.47 336
Hedium (4) 60% 2487 9.88 252
Hi9h (12) 20% 829 29.64 28
Total 100% 4145 nla 616
Sample Calculation:
(Population) (Share)
= Acres
(People per Dwellin9 Unit) (Dwelling Units per Acre)
(Population)
(People per Acre)
(Share) Acres
(4145)
(2.47)
( .2) 336
Factors considered before the urban growth boundary was established included:
(I) Land requirements
a) Residential (495 to 616 acres)
b) COlrrnerc ia1
c) Industrial
d) Public and semi-public
e} Permanent open space
IX - 2
TABLE 16
Future Land Uses Within Urban Growth Bounda~y
Type Acres Percentage
Residential 563 43.6
Commercial 44 3.4
Light Industrial B9 6.9
Industrial 285 22. 1
Permanent Open Space 277 21.4
Public and Semi-Public 34 2.6
TOTAL 1292 100.0
. .
IX - 3
(2) Natural barriers
a) Birch Creek floodplains
b) 50;1 classifications and development limitations
c) Topography
(3) Transportation routes
a) U.S. Highway 395
b) Mill Road
c) Red School Road
d) East Birch Creek Road
(4) Land ownerships
a) Property lines
b) Number of owners
c) Attitudes toward growth
(5) Public facilities (potential alinity to provide)
a) Streets
b) Water system
c) Sewage system
As shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map in Chapter V, the boundary was established.
along the bluff on the west; to the city limits on the south; along the flood-
plain, the middle of Section 16, and along U.S. Highway 395 on the east; and to
the municipal sewage treatment lagoons on the north. The area between East Birch
Creek Road and the floodplain south of tne city was included because it is pres-
ently served by city water. Four expansion areas have identified which total
345 acres. One or more of these areas should be included within the urban growth
boundary when need can be demonstrated ..
Future Land Use
Land was designated for residential, commercial, light industrial, industrial,
publi'c and permanent open space uses based on technical data, the Community
Attitude Survey, current land use, and information obtained at public hearings.
Please refer to the Comprehensive Plan Map in Chapter V and Table 16 for
specific locations and acreages of different uses. Permanent open space in-
cludes undeveloped land subject to flooding and areas with slopes greater than
or equal to 12%. The area north of the city 'limits was reserved for commercial,
light industrial and industrial uses to take advantage of access to the Union
Pacific Railroad spur and U.S. Highway 395~ With the exception of three future
streets and three potential water tank sites. only current public and semi-
public uses were identified.
Three new residential areas were identiffed. One on the west to take advantage
of scenic views and underutil ized farm land. An area to the southv/est to ex-
pand an existing neighborhood and utilize existing roads. Land on the east to
~110'1; exp,lnsion of t\-IO existing neighbor:"loods.
IX - 4
• AcJ.- C-I
S"i' G
DEPARTMENT OF
LAND CONSERVATION
AND Or=VS::10!:"\.,e"'''T
1979
110 ."\Q. .~\ SALEMOrdinance
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUtlTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
An Ot"dinance Adopting )
Amendments to tile City )
of Pilot Rock Comprellensive )
Plan as Amendments to the )
Umati 11a County Comprehensive)
Plan )
WHEREAS. the City of Pilot Rock, Oregon, has
amended its Co~prehensive Plan. including its CO~lprehensive
Plan '-lap and Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, that land within the Pilot Rock Urban
Growth Boundary is under the jurisdiction of Um~;11a
County, Oregon and included in the Unlatil1a County Compre-
hensive Plan, and
WHEREAS. a notice of public hearing on the Pilot
"Rock Comprehensive Plan Revision was mailed to all record
owners of property within the amended Urban Growth Boundary
of June 29, 1979, and
\·JHEREAS. a public hearing'·'rin the amended City of
Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan was held before the Umatilla
County Planning CO~lmission on July 25. 1979. and notice of
the hearing was publis/led in the East Oregonian on July
14, 1979, and
\~~IEREAS. a public hearing on this ordinance
was held before the Board of Comillissioners of Umatilla
County, Oregon, on August 1, 1979, and notice of the
hearing was published in the East Oregonian on July 14. 1979.
NOW. T~!EREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners
of Ur:latilla County, Oregon. hereby ordains as fo1101'IS:
The U~atilla County Comprehensive Plan. adoDted
on Apri 1 6. 1972. and amended on Febr.uary 14, 1979. to adopt the
City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan for that area within
the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Boundary is further amended
to adopt those arnendnlents to the Pilot Rock COI~prehens1ve
Plan w/lich were adopted by the Pilot Rock City Council
, .
/'/
/
as Ordinance No. 329; dated July 11, 1979, a copy of which
is attached and by this reference incorporated herein.
DATED this \fy day of~(~;:f979.
UMATILLA COUNTY BOARD
OF COMMISSIO~ERS
F.K. Starrett, Chairman
" I
"'ATTEST: County Cle~k gJ.ic~~F~ Robertson
tit~~~ //'~A/2~~n Fouquel£te, ~r. ~~ .~ ~
A.L. Draper
\-lHEREAS. notice of the City Council public hearing \'/dS mailed to affected
land m-mers within the Pilot Rock urban grm... th area on June 29, 1979.
NOH, THEREFORE
Section 1. The Pilot Rock City Council hereby adopts the amend~ents to
the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan text as. given bel 0','/:
"Section 2. Plan Technical Report. .. as provided in Section 7 8."
"Section
Umatilla
the city
5( E) _
County
sel·/age
Ai r, \~ater and Land Resources Qua 1i ty ... 3. To encoura9.!.
to maintain exclusive farm use zonin9...in the area around
lacoons outside the urban grOl'lth boundary."
"Section 5(H). Economic Development. .. 2. To encourage diversified.
AeA-?sff~~4Rj industrial development in order to provide a stable job
market for city residents ... 7. To prepa'"e an economic deve10Dfficnt
strategy and work program."
"Section 5U-,}-
~ansion areas
Urbanization ... 7. To first consider land in desiqn:l.t£~c1
for inclusion within the ur:bail9r~hbo_undary." ---
"SECTI~N 7_ PLAN Ai-IGID;~ENT APPLICATIONS
An amen~ment to the text of this ordinance or to the compre-
hensive plan mao :r.ay be initiated by the City Council, City Planning
Corrmission, an affected governmental unit? or by a pr'operty C'"mer or
resident of the City or urban growth area. An owner of property located
I·lithin J designated expansion area may apply for amendment of the urban
.9TO\'lth boundary. All appl ications for plan amendments stlall be made on
forms available from the City accompanied by a fee in an amount established
by the City Council."
"Section]. 8. Plan f,mendment"
"Section 2 9. Severability"
~~~ticn 2. The Pil!";t ~~d; City t:c~l::::i; r;:.!('e~')' c~~pts th~ c.;;:em~-'=:1:5 t!1
t;l~ C'j::,pr€;h~ns~ ..'::- ?lc!: :i<~iJ as fo: !c·.;:: '::'!1j ~~ :;h.~·....r. cn i:h2 €.t~.:!.:;-:;:~n~
her~ to:
•
-. ORO INMICE t:O. 329
Amending the City of Pilot Rock Co;nprehensive Plan, Ol"dinance I/o. 320,
as adopted on 11-25-78.
The City of Pilot Rock ordains as follows:
WHEREAS, the Oregon LCDC suggested revisions to the plan at their
meeting on June 7, 1979, and
\·JHEREAS, farming is a suitable use for the land adjacent to the city
sewage lagoons, and
HHEREAS, the phrase "non-polluting" as used in plan policy 5(H)(2) is
subject to interpretation, and
~!HEREAS, the Oregon Department of Economic Development has suggested that
the City prepare an economic development strategy, and
WHEREAS, land should be designated for expansion of the urban growth
area when necessary, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 320 does not specify who may apply for plan a~end­
ments;I and
\>IHEREAS, a public hearing I-las held by tho' P1D.nning Commission 011
June 27, 1979, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the proposed
amendments on July 2, 1979, and
\'/HEREAS, a public hearing I-las held by the City Council on July 11, 1979,
and
\·IHEREAS, notice of the Planning Corrrnission public hearing vias published
in the East Oregonian on June 18, 1979, and ~n the Pilot Rock News on
June 21, 1979, and
\·JHEREAS, notice of the Planning COlrmission public hearing \'laS mailed to
affected land O\'mers \-lithin the Pilot Rock urban grmvth al'ea on Jeiile 14,
197'], a:1d
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the
~~:.it O~'eiJonian on JI;ly 2, 1979, (;·-:c in t.h:: rilot ~'Jc!~ ;'le':i-) c:: J.Jl/ S,
i';7J, {did
•
, TIl!:! area cast of U.S~I'i9h\'IdY 395 north of Lown, the tCil \'J2St of East
Birch Cl'eek Road south of to'tm, the area north and south of U.S. Highway
395 ~'1est of tOl-Jn.- and the area 1l00'th of tire \"/Jtcr tl.lnks \"/est of to'om Q"2
taken out of the urban grm'1th boundary and designated as expansion areas.
Section 3. In as much as it is necessary for the health, peace and
sofety of the inhabitants of the City of Pilot Reck that this ordinunce
have inmediate effect, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage
by the Ci iy Council and approval by the Hayor.
Passed by the Pilot Rock City Council on this 11th day of ~, 1979.
Attest:
cc: Umatilla County Board of Cornnissioners
Land Conservation and Development Corrmission
DOCUMENTS
LOCAL
Pilot- R<4 fA",!
O""c)
ut::lJa, ""ent of Land Conservation and Development
1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (5031378-4926
October 22, 1979
The Honorable Gordon Chapman
Mayor, City of Pilot Rock
P. O. Box 130
Pilot Rock, OR 97B68
Dear Mayor Chapman:
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to confirm that the Oregon Land Conser-
vation and Development Commission, on October 11, 1979, officially acknowl-
edged the comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances of the City of Pilot
Rock as being in compliance with ORS 197 and the Statewide Planning Goals.
The acknowledgment signifies a historic step for the City's land use planning
program. By effectively planning ahead for the wise use of your valuable
land, you have set an excellent example for others to follow.
I would like to commend the local officials, staff, and citizens of your com-
munity for their hard work and foresight in the field of land use planning.
Enclosure
cc: l~dy Starrett, Chairman, Umatilla County
Board of Commisioners
Jeri Cohen, County Coordinator
Jim Kennedy, Field Representative
Henry Markus, Planning Consultant
WJK:LC: 519
0658A/32A
BEFORE THE
LAND CDNSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CDMMISSION
OF TljE STATE OF OREGDN
IN TliE MAffiR OF THE
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
)
)
)
)
COMPLIANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ORDER
On March 12, 1979, the City of Pilot Rock, pursuant to ORS Ch 197.251 (1)
(1977 Replacement Part), requested the Land Conservation and Development
COOTl1iss;on acknowledge that the comprehensive plan amf implementing
ordinances, consisting of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted November 25, 1978;
Zoning Ordinance No. 318, adopted November 25, 1978; Subdivision Ordinance
No. 316, adopted November 25, 1978; Mobile Home Park Ordinance No. 317,
adopted November 11, 1978; and the Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement,
adopted November 25, 1978, are in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals.
ORS 197.251 (1) requires that the Commission review and approve or deny
the request within 90 days. The Commission reviewed the written report of the
staff of the Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 7 1979
regarding the compliance of the aforementioned plan and ordinances with the
Statewide Planning Goals. Pertinent portions of that report (Attachment A
Section IV) are attached hereto and constitute the findings of fact of the
Ccmnission.
Based on its review the Commission found thpt the aforementioned
Comprehensive plan and implementing measures did not comply with the Statewide
Plannin9 Goals 10 and 14 adopted by the Commission pursuant to ORS Ch 197.251
(I) (1977 Replacement Part).
On AU9ust 8, 1979, the City of Pilot Rock submitted to the Department an
addendum to its Comprehensive Plan and implementing measures.
-2-
The Commission reviewed the attached written report of the staff of the
Department of Land Conservation and Development on October 11, 1979, regarding
the compliance of the aforementioned plan and measures with the Statewide
Planning Goals. Section IV of the report (Attachment B) constitutes the
findings of the Corllnission.
Based on its review, the Commission finds that the City of Pilot Rock's
comprehensive plan and implementing measures comply with the Statewide
Planning Goals adopted by this Commission pursuant to ORS Ch 197.225 and
197.245.
Now therefore be it ordered that:
The Land Conservation and Development Commission acknowledges that the
aforementioned comprehensive plan and implementing measures of the City of
Pilot Rock are in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 1979.
.
(~the
WJ<:CP:mh
arsten, Director
Corrmi 5S ; on
......-
-
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 COURT STREET N.E., SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
SePtent>er 14, 1979
1ll: State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts,Other Local Reviewers and Citizens
FROM: W. J. Kvarsten, Director
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEOGMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Cities of Echo and ~ 1 t R k prehens;ve Plan and Ordinances
Comments Due: September 21, 1979
Tentative Date for
COlllnission Action: October 11, 1979
Field Representative: Jim Kennedy
Lead Reviewer: Claire Puchy
The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has received requests
from the Cities of Echo and Pilot Rock asking that" their comprehensive plans
and ordinances be acknowledged to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning
Goals.
On June 7, 1979, the Commission reviewed the City of Echols and the City of
Pflot Rock's acknowledgment requests and determined that they were not in
tompliance with the followin9 Statewide Planning Goals:
Etho: Goals 10 (Housin9), 11 (Public Facilities and Services), and 14
(Urbanization)
Pilot Rock:· Goals 10 (Housin9) and 14 (Urbanization)
rae reconmendations··ado·pted by the Comnission are attached. Staff review will
lOCus on whether the supplemental material addresses all of the issuesdentified in the adopted recommendations.
State and Federal Agencies, Special Districts, 2
Other Local Reviewers and Citizens
September 14, 1979
Pursuant to the Department's amended acknowledgment of compliance rule, this
notice is to afford your agency a review opportunity prior to the Commission's
action to make sure the comprehensive plan and ordinances have been properly
coordinated with your plans and projects for these areas.
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 plan or
ordinances. If the Commission does not receive an objection from a notified
agency, it will conclude that the agency will follow the comprehensive plan
and ordinances. Comments and objections should be sent to the Department's
central office in Salem.
Complete copies of the comprehensive plan and ordinances are available for
review in the following locations:
LCDC Central Office
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
Contact: Claire Puchy
Phone: 378-5455
LCDC La Grande Office
Classroom Building, Room 135
Eastern Oregon Building, Room 135
La Grande, OR 97850
Contact: Jim Kennedy
Phone: 963-2918
Echo
City of Echo
City Hall
Echo, OR 97826
LCDC Portland Office
320 SW Stark, Rm. 530
Portland, OR 97204
Contact: Linda Macpherson
Phone: 229-6068
East Central Oregon Association
of Counties
P.O. Box 1207
Pendleton, OR 97801
Contact: Jeri Cohen
Phone: 276-6732
Pilot Rock
City of Pilot Rock
City Hall
Pilot Rock, OR 97868
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:LC:krh
52Z
City of Pilot Rock \
Goal 10
1. Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional use approval
standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, or
2. Allow multifamily units or other low-cost housing types outright
in at least one zone which contains sufficient buildable lands to
accommodate identified needs;
3. Amend the plan (p. IX-I) to include justification for the percent
of population at various densities used in calculating residential
acres needed;
4. Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of units
needed by housing type.
Goal 14
Either:
1. Provide the findings based upon factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14 which
justify the designation of an additional 180 to 444 acres of
residential land beyond the projected need of 464 to 726 acres; or
2. Make plan map, zoning and UGB amendments to meet the projected
residential growth needs of the City. Specifically, the UGB
should be modified to include no more than the acreage needed. In
addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14. these amendments should
take into account the other factors of Goal 14, particularly
factor 6 (retention of agricultural land).
City of Echo
Goal 10
1. Either eliminate unclear and discretionary conditional
standards from Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance, or
2. Allow duplexes, multifamily units or other low-cost housing types
outright in at least one residential zone, containing sufficient
buildable lands to meet the identified needs;
3. Amend the plan (p. IX-I) to include justification for the percent
of population at various densities used in calculating residential
acres needed;
4. Amend the plan to include a determination of the number of units
needed by housing type.
Goa 1 11
Either:
1. Discuss in the plan the methods or strategy by which it will eith
expand the existing sewage treatment facilites or construct new
facilities which are adequate to meet projected growth needs;
or
2. Revise its comprehensive plan (including population projections)
and UGB commensurate with the design capacity of existing treatme
faci 1iti es.
Note: The activities listed above must be carried out in coordinati
with the compliance recommendations in the Goal 14 section of this
report.
Goa 1 14
Either:
1. Provide findings in the plan which, in the light of the ~ounty's
coordination of all its cities' plans, justify the assumption tha
20 percent of future West Umatilla County residents will live in
Echo. If such findings are made, the City must also either:
a. Make findings based on factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14 to justify
the designation of an additional 36 to 256 acres of residentia
land beyond the projected need of 356 to 576 acres; or
b. Make plan map, zoning and UGB amendments to meet the projected
residential growth needs of the City. Specifically, the UGB
should be modified to include no more acreage than needed. In
addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14, these amendments should
take into account the other factors of.Goal 14, particularly 3
(the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and
services) and 6 ( retention of agricultural land).
Or:
2. In coordination with Umatilla County and ECOAC. reconcile the
significant differences in population projections. Based upon a-
general agreement on anticipated population growth. the City and
County must amend. as necessary, the comprehensive plan, UGB and
implementing measures. In addition to factors 1 and 2 of Goal 14.
these amendments must take into account the other factors of
Goal 14. particularly 3 (the orderly and economic provision of
public facilities and services) and 6 (retention of agricultural
land).
Note: Activities 1 and 2 listed above must be carried out in
coordination with the compliance recommendations in the Goal 11
section of this report.
(!!
Department of Land Conservation and Development
1175 COURT STREET N.E.• SALEM. OREGON 97310 PHONE (503) 378-4926
June 13, 1979
The Honorable Gordon Chapman
Mayor,.City of Pilot Rock
Pilot Rock, OR 97868
Dear Mayor Chapman:
On June 7, 1979 the Commission reviewed the City of Pilot Rock's
acknowledgment of compliance request and adopted the attached order
denying that request. The basis for the denial was that the City's
comprehensive plan and implementing measures did not compl~ with
Statewide Plannin9 Goals 10 (Housin9) and 14 (Urbanization).
As noted in the attached order~ the Commission granted the City of
Pilot Rock a plannin9 extension to September 15, 1979 to make the
necessary plan and implementing measures changes to comply with
Goals 10 and 14.
Althou9h the Commission did not find Pilot Rock to be in compliance
with all of the Statewide Planning Goals 9 it recognizes the overall
excellent quality of the City's plan and implementing measures. I
am confident that Pilot Rock can make the necessary changes to bring
its Plan into compliance.
Please contact your field representative, Jim Kennedy, at 963-2171
~412 if you have any questions .
. '
Cordially,
WJK:CP:db
Enclosure
cc: lknatill a County_Board of COI11Jlissioners
Jeri Cohen, County Coordinator
Henry Markus, Principal Comprehensive Planner, ECOAC
Jim Kennedy, Field Representative
Claire Puchy, Lead Reviewer
Senator Michael Thorne
Representative Jack Duff
•BEFORE THE
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF THE
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
)
)
)
)
COMPLIANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ORDER
On March 12, 1979 the City of Pilot Rock, pursuant to
DRS Ch. 197.251(1) (1977 Replacement Part), requested that
its comprehensive plan and implementing measures, consisting
of the comprehensive plan, ordinance no. 320, adopted
November 25, 1978; the zoning ordinance no. 318, adopted
November 25, 1978; the subdivision ordinance no. 316,
adopted November 11, 1978; the mobile home ordinance no.
317, adopted November II, 1979; and certain other materials
be acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission in compliance with. the Statewide Planning Goals.
The Commission reviewed the attached written report of
the staff of the Department of Land Conservation and Development
on June 7, 1979 regarding the compliance of the aforementioned
plan and measures with the Statewide Planning Goals.
Section IV of the report constitutes the findings of the
Commission.
Based on its review, the Commission finds that the City
of Pilot Rock's comprehensive plan- and implementing measures
do not comply with Statewide Planning Goals adopted by this
Commission pursuant to ORS Ch. 197.225 and 197.245.
-2-
Now therefore be it ordered that the City of Pilot
be granted a planning extension to September 15, 1979 to
complete the work described in the attached report of the
Commission.
The Land Conservation and Development Commission does
not acknowledge that the aforementioned comprehensive plan
and implementing measures of the City of Pilot Rock are in
compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals.
Dated this 13th day of June, 1979.
<..=-=-,,,,-- GL-~.. ~,-. .
--- (i -\)O,~. - ~ /l-A/'
~w. J. Kvarsten, Director ~
~ For~the Land Conservation and
, Development Commission
---
WJK:CP:krh/MC
6/13/79/DC#15
PILOT ROCK
©@~~~~[}{]~~@DW~
~[L~~
cJI1\lRMAN au
~Iayol' Foster om
£ CHAIRMAN~~~ge O. a. Nelson
SECRETARY.TREA URER
r Gordon Chapman~Iayo
EXEC TIVE DIRECTOR
!layne L. Sch~ ant!
March 9, 1979
East
Centr I
Oregon
Association of
Co ies
920 S. W. Frazer. P. O. Box 1207
P ndleton. Oregon 97801
Phone (503) 276-6732
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
Department of Land Conservation
and Development
1175 Court Street Northeast
Salem, Oregon 97310
Subject: City of Pilot Rock Acknowledgment Request
Dear Mr. Kvarsten:
AR 121979
The City of Pilot Rock requests the Land Conservation and Development
Commission to grant an Acknowledgment of Compliance.
1. Plans* and Implementation Measures* to be Reviewed
a) Comprehensive Plan Ordinance No. 320 (10-25-78)
b) Umatilla County Ordinance No. 79-12 l2-14-79)
c) Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement (City 10-25-78,
County 2-14-79)
d) Zoning Ordinance No. 318 (10-25-78)
e) Subdivision Ordinance No. 316 (10-11-78)
f) Mobile Home Park Ordinance No. 317 (10-11-78)
*Note: Please refer to Chapters V and VI of the plan report.
2. Supporting Documents, Inventories and Other Factual Information
Please refer to the plan report.
3. City Representative
Duane Cole, City Administrator
Post Office Box 130
Pilot Rock, Oregon 97868
(503) 443-2811
G a. SOCiation of the following CO TIE and Cities: GfLL1A 1: Arlington. Condon. Lonerock; GRAlII"T: Canyon City•
.railite. John Day. ng Cr ek. onum nt. t. Vernon. Prairie City. S nera; 1 R W: Bo dman. Heppner. lone. Irrigon.
. i~ATlLL : Adam. henn. Echo. Helix. Hermiston. lilton·Freewaler. Pendl ton, Pilot Rock. Stanfield. Ukiah, Umatilla,_~:::ELER: Fo il. 'tchelL Drav.
Mr. W. J. Kvarsten, Director
P'age Two
r·1a rch 9, 1979
4. Affected Agencies and Districts***
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 1427
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
Pilot Rock School District 2-R
Don Murray, Superintendent
Post Office Box BB
Pilot Rock, Oregon 97868
Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District
Pilot Rock, Oregon 97868
Pilot Rock Cemetery District
Pilot Rock, Oregon 97868
Oregon Department of Transportation
George Strawn, Planning Representative
Post Office Box 850
LaGrande, Oregon 97850
**Note: Please refer to Chapter IX of the plan report for other
entities which may ,be affected governmental units.
5. Chairman of Committee for Citizen Involvement
Bill Elfering, Chairman
Pilot Rock Planning Commission
Route 2, Box lOlA
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
6. Urban Growth Area Agreement
Please refer to item l(c) above.
Sincerely,
~-//1~
Henry S. Markus
Principal Comprehensive Planner
HSt~: bb
Enclosl:Jres
cc: Mayor Gordon Chapman, City of Pilot Rock
Umati 11 a County Board of Commi ss i oners
Jeri Cohen, Planning Coordinator, Umatilla County
Jim Kennedy, Field Representative, Department of Land
Conservation and Development
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, ORE~ON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
and
TECHNICAL REPORT
February, 1979
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Gordon Chapman, Mayor
Ivan Goodman. President
Will iam Bran; ff
ThOOl Hi 11
Gerald Hemengway
Kathryn Murray
Vern McGowen
PLANNING C~~ISSION MEMBERS
Bill E1fering, Chairman
Earl Bensel
Ann Crump
George Elliot
Irene Pedro
Miles Pilch
Mary Lou Slabik
ClTY STAFF
Duane R. Cole, Jr .• City Administrator-Recorder
James Williams, Chief of Police
Fred Horn and Wes Hereld. Maintenance Foremen
PLANNING STAFF
Henry Markus, Principal Comprehensive Planner
East Central Oregon Association of Counties
Ker; Stratton, Cartographer
Umatilla County Planning Oepartment
Beryl Brizendine. Secretary
East Central Oregon Association of Counties
The preparation of this report was financed in part through
1976-77 and 1977-7B Planning Assistance Grants from the Ore-
gon Land Conservation and Oeve10pment Commission (LCOC).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF MAPS
LIST OF TABLES
FOREWARD
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
IV. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Overview
Community Attitude Survey, May 1976
Public Notices (City and County)
V. GOALS AND POLICIES
Comprehensive Plan Ordinance
County Ordinance Co-adopting Plan
Application to Amend Comprehensive Plan Ordinance
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
VI. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Zoning Ordinance
Application to Amend Zoning Ordinance
Variance/Conditional Use Application
Application for Building/Mobile Home Zoning Signoff
Subdivision Ordinance
Application to Amend Subdivision Ordinance
Application for Partition/Subdivision
Mobile Home Park Ordinance
Application.to Amend Mobile Home Park Ordinance
Mobile Home Park Sketch Plan Application
Mobile Home Park Final Plan Application
Mobile Home Park License Application
Land Use Application Fee Schedule
Variable Land Use Development Costs
Preliminary Capital Improvement Program
i
VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Climate
Geology
Mineral and Aggregate Resources
Topography and Natural Hazards
Soils
Fish and Wildlife
Open Space
Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Scientific. Natural and Cultural Areas
Energy Resources
VIII. SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Economic History and Resource Base
Employment
Income
City Financial Base
Land Use and Zoning
Housing
Parks and Recreation
Archeological and Historic Sites and Buildings
Services
School
Police
Fire
Util iti es
Sol id Waste
Corrmuni ca ti cns
library
Other Services
Population Projections
Facilities
Sewage System
Water System
Stann Ora i nage
Transportation
i i
1
2
4
4
7
11
11
13
14
14
1
5
8
12
13
14
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
21
22
24
24
IX. LAND USE PLANNING
Establishment of the Urban Growth Boundary
Future Land Use
County Review of the Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report
Juint Management of the Urban Growth Area
Affected Governmental Units
X. BIBLIOGRAPHY
XI. APPENDICES
Agency Coordination Letter
County Review Process
Preliminary Population and Labor Force Projections, Morrow
and Umatilla Counties
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Analysis
iii
MAPS
locatiOI1
comprehensive Plan
Zoning, Adopted 10-25-78
Natural Hazards
SOils
Housing Survey
Existing Land Use
Zoning. Repealed 10-25-78
Water System
Sewer System
Natural Gas Lines
SChool District Boundaries
Highway
TABLES
I 1 1976 Climatological Oata
I 2 Pilot Rock Soil Information
I 3 Types of Employment, Pilot Rock City Residents
I 4 Umatilla County Employment 1976, Lumber and Wood Processing
I 5 Umatilla County Employment by Place and Sector. 1976
# 6 1970 Household Income
# 7 Household Income. Umatilla County and Oregon. 1974
# 8 Median Income in Dollars Befores Taxes by Decile for Counties
in Oregon Administrative District 12, 1978
I g Eastern Oregon Counties by 1978 Median Family Income
110 Tax Oata
III Tax Rate Breakdown, City of Pilot Rock
112 Land Use Within City Limits
113 Housing Inventory
114 Housing Condition and Type
115 Preliminary Population Forecast
116 Population Change 1950-l976
#17 Future Land Uses Within the Urban Growth Boundary
iv
Chapter
vi
V
VI
VlI
VI I
VlIl
VIlI
VIII
VIII
VlIl
VIII
VIII
VlIl
Page
VlI-2
VlI-10
VIII-5
VIII-6
VIII-7
VII 1-8
VIII-9
VIII-10
VIII-ll
VIII-12
VII 1-13
VIII-14
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-19
VIII-20
IX-3
FOREWORD
Pilot Rock is located on Birch Creek and U.S. Highway 395 in central
Umatilla County. As shown on the location map, Pilot Rock is twenty
miles south of Pendleton.
The technical portion of this report provides the background infor-
mation, facts, and considerations that served as the basis for de- .
velopment of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Draft Plan Goals,
Objectives and Sketch Map were distributed on November 28, 1977,
to. all city residents and affected governmental units.
The Draft Plan was adopted by resolution by the City Council on
December 28, 1977, and the Plan was amended on February 8, 1978.
The revised Plan was mailed to city residents and affected gov-
ernmental units on May 1, 1978.
The Draft Plan and Technical Report were reviewed and tentatively
approved by the Umatilla County Planning Commission on August 9,
1978, and by the Board of Commissioners on August 16, 1978.
The Pilot Rock City Cpuncil adopted the Subdivision Ordinance and
Mobile Home Park Ordinance on October 11, 1978, and the Comprehen-
sive Plan Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Growth Area Joint
Management Agreement on October 25, 1978.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission reviewed and recommended
co-adoption of the Plan and the Urban Growth Area Joint Manage-
ment Agreement on December 20, 1978. The Plan and Agreement were
reviewed and co-adopted by the Umatilla County Board of Commis-
sioners on February 14, 1979.
v
WASHINGTON
N
FOR
MAP
LOCATION
OREGON
vi
INTRODUCTION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIPTION *
t. Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan is the public's conclusions about the development
and conservation of the area, adopted by the appropriate City Councilor
the County Commissioners, and agreed to by all affected governmentaJ units.
It is the only, all inclusive, plan for a given geographic area.
Comprehensive means all inclusive in tenms of the functional and natural
activities in the area, such as:
--The natural resources of land, air, and water that are to be preserved,
conserved, managed, or utilized;
--The constraints related to development such as physical limitations of
the public and private sectors to provide necessary services; or
resource limitations such as inadequate stream flm'/s or ground water
resources to provide the water needed to support development, etc.;
--The locations for various types of land and water uses and activities in
an area, such as residential, agricultural, commercial, forestry,
industrial, etc.;
--The utilities, services, and facilities needed to support the present
and contemplated uses and activities; where they will be provided, and
upon what conditions; .
--Considerations and the special values of the area, such as housing,
energy supplies and consumption, improvements of the local economy,
recreation ne~ds, scenic areas, and the direction and nature of growth
and development, if such is desired.
The term uplanll means the group of decisions made before changes are made
in the area. A public plan, like a remodeling plan for a building, shows
the present condition as well as any future changes. It shows the direc-
tion and nature of changes in land and water uses and what utilities,
streets or other pubHe facilities \-';11 be provided, etc. Hhen a public
improvement will be built or when a change in use is expected it is
expressed by an estimated date, or the reaching of a population level or
density or, the occurrence of another event such as the installation of a
water line or the construction of a school.
The purpose of public planning is to make the public decisions in advance
of construction of a facility, or the use of resources, so any differences
are resolved prior to starting a project. Unnecessary project delays are
avoided when the public and affected agencies have resolved any conflicts
well before construction work begins.
* Oregon Land Use Handbook, Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Commission, Chapter 70, pages 1 - 12.
1-1
The public's plan is a document upon which public agencies,
and individuals must be able to rely so their decisions and investme
can be made with confidence. People buying homes can do so, assured
the neighborhood they have selected won't change adversely. Farmers
make capital investments, certain that the adjacent areas will not b
developed and preclude them from continuing their farming practices,
causing them to be unable to pay for and use needed improvements.
Businesses· can invest in new sites, confident that they can be useq
their intended purpose,. and that the needed services will be provid
Public investments in water, sewer systems, schools, etc.
an orderly manner, in keeping with the ability to pay for
The plan is the basis for other public implementation actions, such a
zoning and ~ubdivision decisions. These must be made in the total c
of the overall need reflected in the plan.
When adopted; the plan expresses the coordination decisions of the p
(individuals, grou9s, and organizations), incorporated with thoseof
agencies. In addition to setting forth the public's choices about n
conservation and development will occur in their geographic area, th
also incorporates the plans of all other governmental jurisdictions i
that area. Fitting them together harmoniously, it interrelates need$
constraints, and services with natural resources. When completed, th
comprehensive plan relates all decisions directly to the air, water,
land resources of the local area in a coordinated manner.
The plan is a statement of the choices made by the public, enactedby
City Councilor County Commissioners. These are choices that are mad
consciously, and are not merely self-fulfilling'prophecies of trends
projections. These choices can be made contrary to trends if the ch
necessary to affect the trends are made too. These trends must be co
ered, but only as factors to be taken into account. The choices also
reflect a consideration of the area's problems and needs, as well as
social, economic, and environmental values. Practical and possible
native solutions, providing the range'of options available, must be
ered in making the choices. This assures that the best possible solu
will be developed for the area.
II. Format of the Comprehensive Plan
The public's planning document consists of two parts. The first part
the adopted comprehensive plan, which contains the decisions about th
uses of resources, and the provisions of services and facilities.
plan shows the decisions in the form of maps and policy statements.
are equivalent to a broad blueprint for the area: a blueprint that i
interpreted when it is applied to specific situations through zoning
other implementation measures. The general plan is adhered to, but s
designations, like "residential-single family", may be further refin
into several single family residential classifications, depending or
needs of the area. For some jurisdictions the plan will be only a f
pages in length; for others, it will take more space to set down the
essence of the decisions.
I - 2
IThe second part of the planning document consists of the background infor-
mation. facts. and considerations that served as the basis for the conclu-
sions. This background includes such items as the inventories showing the
extent. characteristics. values and limitations of the planning area's
resources. I tal so shows the use of property. property ownersh; p 1i nes
and factors related to population and growth trends. The background infor-
mation describes the nature of the economic base; its development and
conservation implications. It also sets out the process that was followed
to arrive at the choices made in the plan.
Although not a part of the legally adopted plan document, the background
material is essential to understand why and how the plan's conclusions
were reached. Whether included after the summation, or provided as a
separate appendix, the background information affords the user of the plan
more detailed infonnation when it is needed to interpret the plan. It
also serves as the basis for consideration of requests for changes and
revisions. It provides the basic information needed to understand how the
facts were used to reach the conclusions made in the plan. This can be
important to assure continuity in the review and updating of the plan.
The plan may cover all of the area within a jurisdiction; itmaybecomposed
of plans for subareas, or parts, of the jurisdiction. When area plans are
used, they are consolidated through, and fit within, a more generalized,
overall plan. The nature of the plans of adjacent areas, and the respon-
sible governing bodies, should be noted also.
The· amount of detail needed depends on. the nature of the area involved;
its size, character and pace of change. The level of detail may not need
to be unifonn throughout the plan. Some areas within the jurisdiction may
need more precision than others. The plan may be fairly general in large
homogeneous areas, such as agricultural and forested regions. However, it
will need to be detailed in situations where it is important to recognize
a boundary between areas, or to identify property lines that will be
specific in concentrated areas so that the level of needed services can be
determined. reliably.
Tradi ti ana11y, comprehens i ve plaos were suppos ed to be long range, encom-
-~ passing twenty plus years, and were quite general. A long-term plan is
still necessary to proyide a general idea of how growth is to take place;
what services will be needed and the management required to conserve
resources. However, a short-term plan is more specific in areas that are
being urbanized, renewed, or where change is occurring at such a rate that
confident decisions cannot be made beyond five to ten years.
The plan is adopted by:
a. The City Council for an incorporated area;
b. Both the County Board of Commissioners and the City Council for an
unincorporated portion within an urban growth boundary;
c. The County Board of Commissioners for an unincorporated portion of
the county.
1-3
The completed plqn incorporates the plans of all units of government
area, and provides a common basis for decisions regarding conservatio
development in each city and county; all affected agencies are expec
use it. Each comprehensive plan provides a place for each government
unit affected by the plan to sign, expressing their agreement with the
This signature is a commitment to use the plan and not an agreementto
any actions inconsistent with the plan.
The plan is agreed to by:
a. Each special district having any land related responsibilities wi
the plan area, such as water, sewer, solid waste, schools, roads.
ports, irrigation, fire, soil conservation, etc.;
b. Each stqte and federal agency having responsibilities for regulati
standards, services, property, or the operation and maintenance of
facilities in the area;
c. Optimally, semi-public agencjes, such as electric and telephone
companies should also be asked to sign the plan, since they are d
ly affected by the public's decision.
III. Responsibilities for Preparation and Revision
The fitting together smoothly of all parts of the plan is
important features of a comprehensive plan. Coordination occurs pri
during the preparation of the plan by involving all affected people a
agencies throughout the development of the plan. These plan and deve
ment coordination responsibilities include:
a.Each city and county is responsible for the preparation of the pl
its jurisdiction. However, both the city and county have the res
bility for working togethBr to jointly prepare the plan for an u
growth area.
b. The County, under ORS Chapter 197, is charged with theresponsibi
of coordinating the plans of cities and special districts. CRAG
been designated by the Legislature to perform these functions in .
area covered by Clackamas, Multinomah and Washington Counties. 0
areas may select an alternative Co'ordination Body under the proc
of ORS 197.190. '
c. Each special district is also responsible for working with
and county, to make sure the functional part of their area
tent with the comprehensive plan for the area.
d. Each state and federal agency has the responsibility of working
each city and county to incorporate the agency's plans into the C
hensive plan.
To achieve the objective of public understanding and support of the p
as well as assuring that the plan reflects the desires and needs of t
people it is designed to serve, it is essential that the public be
1-4
•involved throughout the entire process of the making of the plan. Real,
useable, involvement opportunities must be created during every phase of
the plan development. The public includes:
-·The general citizenry of the area;
-·All property owners;
--Groups; clubs and organizations;
--Firms; businesses; corporations; private agencies, such as associations,
firms, partnerships, joint stock companies; any group of citizens.
The plan development process must also include:
--All affected local, state, and federal agencies;
--Public utility and public service groups and organizations.
Further opportunities for input :,lUSt include those not living in the area,
so they can particlpate in discussions concerning issues of more than
local interest, such as areawide, regional, state, and national concerns.
The plan is not cast in concrete. It is a public plan by a changing
society in a developing and renewing, dynamic situation. The plan must be
reviewed periodically to assure that it reflects the desires and needs of
the people it is designed to serve; that the plan is achieving the desired
stated objective. However. it must not be changed dramatically or capri-
ciously at each review if individuals, organizations. and public agencies
are to be able to rely on it. If the review takes place with reasonable
frequency •. then most adjustments will be small and easi'ly accomnodated .
It is essential that those people and agencies. as well as the general
public who were.involved with the preparation of the plan. be given the
opportunity to be included in any review so their understanding and
. support of the plan will continue.
I - 5
SU MARY
CHAPTER I I
Sunmary and Conclusions
The City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan will be the one and only plan for'
the Pilot Rock urban planning area after:
1. Pilot Rock City Council adoption of the plan by ordinance
(10-25-78);
2. Umatilla County review of the plan pursuant to ORS 197 and
co-adoption of the plan for the urban 9rowth area (2-14-79);
and
3. Land Conservation and Development Commission acknowledgment
of compliance of the plan with applicable Statewide Planning
Goals pursuant to ORS 197.
The plans and activities of special districts~ Umatilla County, state agen-
cies. and federal agencies which will affect the Pilot Rock urban planning
area must be consistent with Pilot Rock's Comprehensive Plan.
The remainder of this summary has been organized to briefly address the ques-
tions given in Attachment B of the Umatilla County Resolution and Order - "In
the Hatter of the Development and Adoption of Procedures and Standards for
County Review of City Comprehensive Plans" dated July 20. 1977. as given in
the Appendix.
Data Inventories
Sufficient data was available to prepare the plan as reflected in the Tech-
nical Report. There is additional infonmation which could be collected and
added to the Technical Report. This should be done as part of a maintenance
and update effort.
The Umatilla County Economic Element was completed in February 1979. The
Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report should be completed
by December 1979. The Umatilla National Forest unit plans should be evalu-
ated after all of them are completed with regard to potential economic de-
velopment and population growth based on commercial timber production and
other forest uses.
Needed studies include: Soil survey. final flood hazard study. historic and
~rcheological survey and literature search. industrial park plan and engineer-
lng analysis. and a downtown improvement plan.
identification of Buildable Lands
Development limitations include the Birch Creek floodplain. slopes greater
than Or equal to 12S. and severe soil limitation ratings. Topography and
PUblic facility requirements were also taken into account.
II - 1
Economic and Population Projections
There are several sites suitable for commercial, light industrial, and
industrial development north of the City. Pilot Rock will encourage such
development. The City has received many inquiries about land available
for development. The decision to make land available for development
rests with private property owners. If land is made available, Pilot
Rock feels that substantial residential, commercial and industrial de-
velopment will occur. It is assumed that 10% of new county residents
will decide to live in Pilot Rock between 1978 and 1995. Therefore,
based on preliminary county population projections, 3,285 to 4,145
people would live in Pilot Rock in 1995.
Land Requirements
About 464 to 728 acres of residential land will be needed through 1995.
Land reserved for commercial, light industrial, industrial, public and
.permanent open space uses include 763 acres. The remaining 908 acres
within the Pilot Rock urban planning area has been designated for low-
density residential and residential. All of this la~d will almost cer-
tainly not be needed through 1995. However, as indicated above, few prop~
erty owners adjacent to the City have made their land available for devel
ment.
Given this fact, it was necessary to include more land for residential use
so that the City would have flexibility to respond to those land owners w
choose to allow development. The low density residential designati.on is
meant to discourage rural residential development outside the urban growt
boundary by allowing similar development within the planning area as an
interim use.
Public Facilities and Services
Zoning, subdivision, and mobile home park ordinances have been adopted
which include design requirements. Three major streets and potential wat
tank sites have been included as part of the plan. The streets will all
looping of water and sewer lines as well as traffic circulation.
Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Measures
The final Technical Report was prepared after review and co-adoption of
Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement by
tilla County. As of February 1979, the following documents have· been c
pleted:
1. Technical Report
2. Comprehensive Plan
3. Zoning Ordinance
4. Subdivision Ordinance
5. Mobile Home Park Ordinance
6. Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement.
A preliminary capital improvement program will be completed
II - 2
-• 
SUMMARY 
OF FINDINGS 
CHAPTER III
Summary of Findings
fjtizen Involvement
The Pilot Rock Planning Commission served as the Committee for Citizen In-
volvement.
City Council and Planning Commission m~etings were open to the public.
A Community Attitude Survey was circulated in Mays 1976, and was fully
tabulated and mailed to residents in January, 1977.
The Draft Plan Goals and Objectives were mailed to residents before a hear-
ing was held on August 10, 1977, by the Pilot Rock City Council and Plannin9
Commission.
The Draft Plan was mailed to residents and affected governmental units on
November 28, 1977, and to property ~dners within the urban growth boundary
and outside City limits on December 16, 1977.
Apublic hearing was held by the Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Com-
mission on the Draft Plan on December 21, 1977.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission reviewed the Pilot Rock Draft Plan
on January 10, 1978.
A public hearing was held by the Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Com-
mission on suggested amendments to the Draft Plan on February 8~ 1978.
The revised Draft Plan was mailed to all City residents and affected govern-
mental units on May I, 1978.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Commission held a hearing on June
14, 1978, continued on July 19, 1978, and August 9, 1978, on the Comprehensive
Plan Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Mobile Home Park Or-
dinance. Technical Report, and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement.
A work session was held by the Umatilla County Planning Commission on August
9, 1978, and Board of Commissioners on August 16, 1978, on the Draft Plan
and Technical Report.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Commission held a hearing on October
011 •. 1978. on the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivisionrdlnance, Mobile Home Park Ordinance, Technical Report, and Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Agreement.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission held a hearing on December 20, 1978,
On the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Management
Agreement.
III - 1
Notice of the February 14, 1979, hearing (see below) was mailed to owners
of property within the Pilot Rock urban growth area on January 22, 1979.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners held a hearing on February 14.
1979, on the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint
Management Agreement.
Public hearing notices were published at least ten days
in the East Oregonian.
The Draft Plan and Techn'ical Report were available for review at Pilot Ro
City Hall, the offices of the Umatilla County Planning Department and the
East Central Oregon Association of Counties in Pendleton, and the Depar
of Land Conservation and Development in Salem.
Land Use Planning
Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters No. 92, 197, 215, and 227 provide the ba
for planning and regulations affecting land use.
The Statewide Planning Goals as adopted by the Land Conservation and
ment Commission provide the framework for local planning.
Statewide Planning Goals #4, and #15-#19 are not applicable in
An. "Agency Coordination Letter" was sent to all identified affected gover
mental units on January 10, 1977, by the Morrow and Umatilla Counties' Pl
ning Coordinator.
The Pilot Rock City Council adopted the Draft Plan by resolution on Dec
28, 1977.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission tentatively approved the Pilot R
Draft p'lan on January 25, 1978', subject to conditions.
The Pilot Rock City Council adopted amendments to the Plan by resolution
February 8, 1978.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners tentatively approved Pilot Roc
Draft Plan on March 1, 1978, subject to conditions.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission tentatively approved the Draft Pl
and Technical Report on August 9, 1978.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners tentatively approved the Draft
Plan and Technical Report on August 16, 1978.
The Pilot Rock City Council adopted the Subdivision Ordinance and Mobile
Home Park Ordinance on October 11, 1978, and the Comprehensive Plan Or-
dinance, Zoning Ordinance, and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreem
on October 25, 1978.
The Umatilla County Planning Commission recommended co-adoption of the Pi
Rock Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
December 20, 1978.
III .- 2
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners co-adopted the Pilot Rock Com-
prehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement on February
14, 1979.
~ricu1tural Lands
Soil data including capability classes and limitation ratings were obtained
for the land within and surrounding Pilot Rock (Soil Conservation Service,
1976) .
Within the urban growth boundary, Classes III and IV soils with limitation
ratings of severe are predominant.
The area surrounding Pilot Rock is used for wheat, pasture, feed, and crops.
Circle irrigation is in use west and north of the City.
Soils along East Birch Creek, West Birch Creek, and Birch Creek are Classes
I and II and are flood prone.
Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas; and Natural Resources
There are no identified scientific, archaeological, or historic areas or
sites in Pilot Rock.
Potentially useable energy resources in Pilot Rock include solar energy,
wind energy and solid waste.
Birch Creek is a tributary of the Umatilla River and provides important
fish and wildlife habitat.
Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality
. .
Air quality is good except for periodic dust from agriCUltural operations
and odors from 1oca1 indus try.
Pilot Hock provides adequate sewage treatment. The lagoon type system is
presently utilized at sixty percent of capacity.
A solid waste disposal site is located near Pilot Rock and pickup service
is available.
~reas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
Areas along East Birch Creek, West Birch Creek, and Birch Creek are subject
to floodin9. The Federal Insurance Administration (HUD, 12-75) and the Corps
of En9ineers (Walla Walla, Washington, 1-76) have mapped flood prone areas.
DOWntown Pilot Rock is within the flood area.
The bluff on the west side of Birch Creek is 9reater than 12% slope. That
Portion of the bluff (Pilot Rock) southwest of downtown is bare rock.
Recreational Needs
Pilot Rock has a City park with picnic and play areas.
III - 3
The Pilot Rock School District has both indoor and outdoor recreational
facilities.
Improvements to the community center" are needed .
.A majority of respondents to the Community Attitude Survey indicated that
additional park and recreation facilities are needed.
Economic Development
Pilot Rock has a resource economy based on forest and agricultural
Pilot Rock is a retail trade center.
The major employers in Pilot Rock are Louisiana Pacific, U.S.
Furniture, the Pilot Rock School District .. and Britt Logging.
The area north of Pilot Rock between U.S."Highway 395 and the railroad is
suitable for commercial, light industrial, dnd industrial development.
Some potential exists for growth of the downtown area but downtown is bro
up into small parcels, has a mix of housing and business, "and is subject
flooding.
Housing
As of June 1976,"Pilot Rock has 467 houses, 5 apartments, 25 duplexes,
plexes, and 35 mobile homes;of these 37 units were considered marginal
substandard.
A majority of respondents to the Community Attitude Survey felt that ad-
ditional hom~s to buy or rent and apartments were needed.
Little land is presently available for development.
Public Facilities and Services
The sewage system has a design· capacity of 2,500 people; present populati
is 1,750 people. If industries who now have their own systems or new in-
dustry or both are connected to the City system, expansion of treatment f
cilities will be necessary.
During 1977-78, old water lines were removed and new water lines, house
service meters and fire hydrants were installed. The u.S. Economic Devel
ment Administration funded this work.
The City has two wells, one produces 850 gallons per minute and the
450 gallons per minute.
Pilot Rock has two reservoirs; the main facility holds 600,000 gallons,
the backup facility holds 100,000 gallons.
Additional water demand over current use will require development of ano
well and one or more storage facilities.
III - 4
pilot Rock has no storm drainage system.
police protection is provided by the City.
The nearest health facilities are in Pendleton twenty miles north of Pilot
Rock.
Fire protection is provided by the Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District.
Iransportation
Major access to Pilot Rock is provided by U.S. Highway 395. The highway
southwest and north of town has recently been resurfaced. At the north
City limits of Pilot Rock 1975 average daily traffic was 2,300 and at the
south City limits 880. The 1965 average daily traffic was 1,900 and 770
respecti vely.
Most streets in town are paved; few streets have curbs or sidewalks except
in the downtown area.
Bus service, Amtrack, and passenger and freight air service is available in
Pendleton.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company has a spur line to Pilot Rock from Pendleton
for frei ght.
Energy Conservation
The following measures would conserve energy:
Desig~ standards including energy efficiency as a criterion for new
water and sewage system construction;
Inclusion of measures in 7.oning and subdivision" ordinances to protect
sun rights, wind breaks to reduce heating requirements, and shade trees
to reduce cooling requirements.
Ur;banization
Factors considered in identifying urbanizable land and the urban growth
boundary included flood prone areas, soil classifications and development
limitations, slopes greater than or equal to 12%, transportation routes,
land ownership, ability to provide City services, and potential economic
development and population growth.
Preliminary county population projections estimate Pilot Rock's population
at 2,150 to 2,350 people in 1995.
Annexation to the City will be limited to land included within the urban
growth boundary:
LCDC Administrative Rule, "City Annexations and Application of Goals
within Cities" adopted 2-9-79, filed with Secretary of State on 2-16-78;
Peterson v. Klamath Falls 279 OR 247 (1977).
The LCDC administrative rule on lIAckno'tfledgment of Compliance ll requires an
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement between the City of Pilot Rock
and Umatilla County. "
II I - 5
CITIZEN
INVOLVEMENT
CHAPTER IV
Citizen Involvement
In 1976, the City of Pilot Rock prepared a Planning Assistance Grant Appli-.
cation and a Compliance Schedule for the Oregon Land Conservation and Develop~
ment Conmission. After approval of these documents by the Land Conservation
and Development Commission, Pilot Rock contracted with the East Central Ore-
gon Association of Counties to provide staff support for the Cityls planning
effort. Beginning in September 1976. and continuing through the present time.
East Central Oregon Association of Counties staff met with either the Plan-
ing Commission. City Council. or both once a month on the average. Few City
residents attended regular meetings, but attendance at public hearings was
good.
Briefly summarized, the citizen involvement effort included:
The Pilot Rock Planning Commission served" as the Committee for Citizen In-
vol vement.
City Council and Planning Commission meetings were open to the public.
A Community Attitude Survey was circulated in May, 1976, and was fully tab-
ulated and mailed to residents in January, 1977.
The Draft Plan"Goals and Objectives were mailed to residents before a hear-
ing was held on August 10, 1977, by the Pilot Rock City Council and Planning
Corrmission.
The Draft Plan was mail('d to residents and affected governmental" units on
November 28, 1977 and to property owners within the urban growth boundary
and outside City limits on December 16. 1977.
A public hearing was held by the Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Com-
mission on the Draft Plan on December 21, 1977.
A public hearing was held by the Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Com-
mission on suggested amendments to the Draft Plan on February 8. 1978.
The revised Draft Plan was mailed to all City residents and affected govern-
mental units on May 1, 1978.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Commission held a hearing on June
14, 1978, continued on July 19, 1978, and August 9, 1978, on the Comprehensive
P~an Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Mobile Home Park Or-
dlnance, Technical Report. and Urban Gro\'/th Area Joint '·1anagement Agreement.
Awork session was held by the Umatilla County Planning Commission on August
9, 1978, and Board of Commissioners on August 16, 1978, on the Draft Plan
and Technical Report.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Commtssion held a hearing on October
11, 1978, on the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance. Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision
IV - 1
Ordinance, Mobile Home Park Ordinance, Technical Report, and Urban Growth
Area Joint Management Agreement. .
The Umatilla County Planning Commission held a hearing on December 20, 19
on the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Manageme
Agreement.
Notice of the February· 14, 1979, hearing (see below) was mailed to owners
of property within the Pilot Rock urban growth area on January 22, 1979.
The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners held a hearing on February 14,
1979, on the Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Joint Ma
agement Agreement.
Public hearing notices were published at least ten days before
in the East Oregonian.
The Draft Plan and Technical Report were available for rev;ewat Pilot Ro
City Hall, the offices of the Umatilla County Planning .Department and the
East Central Oregon Association of Counties in Pendleton, and the Depart-
ment of Land Conservation· and Development in Salem.
IV - 2
Please rate the
ease.sate_Dr.~~e~~ city or . need to improve city or~~er i6.c?1"'gove~~ental, serV1ces. local governmental services.
-
-y
" " " CITY OF PILOT ROCK
'" "''''
C
.... "0 1!!il "0 .... '"$ '" 0'" <- 0';;"0 <- ~<- 0 COMMUNITY ATTITUOE SURVEY "''' 0" -" 00
" "'"
0 z._ "''' 0'" z '" 0"• 0 g <-z V>Z zu
'"'
> w> ~ (May, I976 - 72 Responses)
'"
0""
"
« «
43 9 7 Streets and roads i os; de the city 1im; ts 6 39 9 2I 7 includina maintenanceI.
Streets and roads outside the city limits7 45 9 6 1 7 33 10 5I. i inn m;l;ntpn;lnr-p
3. 4 36 24 3 2 1
Street 1ights 4 10 35 4
I 9 26 10 16 4 Side\ialks and curbs 17 17 20 54-
5. 2 10 31 12 8 2 Street Cleaning 6 27 16 5
I. 5 32 26 5 2 Parking availability 3 12 3q 1
IS 35 9 I Hater SUp~lY 72 c; ty water a well? 1 7 40 37. Do you ave
9 37 9 I 1 Sewage disposal . I sept; c tank? 3 38 58. Do you have 65 C1 ty sewer
I. 12 34 12 2 1 8 Garbage collection 3 42 7
1m. 4 28 19 4 7 8 Library faeil i ties , 10 10 28 5
I. 2 16 27 15 7 City parks and picnic areas 13 23 20 1
12. 7 15 13 30 3 Public meetinrplaces and recreation 30 14 12 3facilities or children
U. 4 12 17 30 2 Public meetinf places and recreation 33 14 10 3facilities or teenaaers
14. 9 25 14 20 1 Public meeting places and recreation 17 16 12 2facilities for adults
15. 11 21 11 20 5 Public meeting places and recreation 18 16 19 2facilities for senior citizens
16. 11 29 25 5 1 1 Fire protection (fire department) 6 16 26 3
17. I 13 31 9 16 Law enforcement _~pol i ce department], 17 14 23 2speed and traffic control
18. 11 29 9 18 Law enforcement (pol ice department), 19 18 15 3all other activities
Il. 2 7 15 6 37 1 Dog control 31 8 14 5
Ill. I 5 10 11 32 7 Junked car relOOval 26 18 11 2
Ii. 1 3 17 7 24 9 Nuisance ordinance en forcemen t 17 11 14 9
12. 4 25 11 24 4 Litter control 17 23 10 5
13. 3 27 26 Quality of education in local schools 7 21 21 25 5 2
14. 1 12 27 11 19 medical and health facilities 19 18 16 2
Is. 6 20 28 5 4 6 Child care facilities 4 12 25 10
1
30 mixed with other residences
34. Do you feel that locations for mobile homes should be:
26. Do we need new industry and the new jobs it brings?
apartment 4_ duplex
1 other types of housing
~ apartments to rent
~ duplexes to rent
51 homes to rent
Indicate desired location
rade school, 2 close in, land
14 cit ark, 9 school,
othermobile home
16 electric, 30 oil, 17 as, 6 wood
30 homes to buy under $15,000
10 homes to buy over $20,000
37 homes from $15,000 to $20,000
15 mobil e homes
63 owner 8 renter 46 home
~
swimming pool (public)
~ yes 23 no
~ yes --.lL no
42 separated from other residences
35. Should the city use more land for parks and recreation facilities?
~yes 28 no If yes, what kind of facilities and where should
be located?
30. How is your home primarily heated?
31. Do you have a secondary source?
'32 yes, 36 no, 8 electric, 2 oil, 1 as, 16 wood
32. Do you feel the need for housing is:
~ great 28 moderate 7 little
33. What kind of housing is most needed in town? (check all that apply)
28. Do we need new non-industrial employment opportunities?
~yes 25 no
27. Is additional growth of the city desirable?
29. Please describe your living quarters:
35. (continued)
~
large parks
neighborhood parks or
tot lots
senior citizen center
recreation center
tra; 1er pa rks
campi n9 fae; 1; ti.es
other
Indicate desired location
. ..
Northeast area, out of citY t north of town,
Empty lots
3 park, 2 high school. 2 vacant lots,
2 residential areas, in each addition, old
L.E. Roy home site, Southeast Second. hill
and southwest area, each end of town,
9rade school. central, on dead end side
streets like Cedar, 7th, 8th, and 9th.
4 downtown, 2 community center, park,
~es (Eagles, Elks), close in.
7 central location or main street. 2 park,
community center, school. by fire station
10 edge/out of tOvtn, in talm, north end,-
near US 395
10 edge/out of town, in town, east of new
fire hall, south end, north end, west of
L.P., near US 395
3 tennis courts (lighted), skating
facilities. bike trails, outdoor basketball
courts, larqer community center, downtown
theater
\
36. How many years have you lived in or near Pilot Rock?
-l 1ess than 1 3 1 - 2 7 3 - 5 12 6 - 10 11 11 - 19 38 20+
3) . How long do you plan to remain in the immediate area?
Most people said indefinitely.
3
30 51 to 64 30 65 and over.
6 less than 1 acre 34 1 to 4 acres 17 5 to 20 acres
5 job, 2 housing, 2 like town, return to home state, to retire,
1 40 acres plus.20 to 40 acres
4 retired, 3 medical, 2 bank, 2 Desoto-Kerns
writer, local business, personnel, secretary, log truck
accountant, teacher, Louisiana Pacific.
~yes 41 no
___3_ less than $4,000 4_ $4,000 to $5,999· 14 $6,000 to $9,999
14 $10,000 to $14,999 22 $15,000 and up
39. How many people in your household i~ each of the following age groups?
36 under 10 33 10 to 17 18 18 to 22 38 23 to 35 40
38. If you moved here in the past 5 years, why did you come?
45. Recognizing that smaller acreages may create more demand for local se
(water, sewer, school, etc.), what do you feel is the·minimum desirabl
acreage for land parceling outside the city limits?
42. What was your total annual household income last year?
44. Do you favor limiting the expansion of public water supply and
system as a means of controlling growth.
43. Hould you support with your tax dollars additional city expenditures
following:
~ salary for third policeman ~ summer youth program
equipment ~ street improvements -lZ- public swimming pool
department new equipment 7 other (tennis, skating, bike trails, af
---- station, dog control)
40. What is the present primary occupation of the head
where employed?
7 Louisiana Pacific, 6 U.S~ Gypsum, 13 retired, 4 self-employed,
4 lumber, 2 bank, 4 medical, 2 Desoto-Kerns, 2 salesman, 2 heavy
operator, 2 manager, 2 other blue collar, 4 other white collar.
41. If there is a second wage-earner in the household, what is their
and where employed?
46. List the streets in Pilot Rock that you feel are most in need of improvement,
Grandma Roy's chestnut tree
ches tnut tree on the Perri n place (SW 2nd)
museum
Main Street
10 Cherry Street Southwest Birch
5 Douglas Ruppeville
5 Cedar Second
4 Delwood Northwest Third
3 Alder Southeast Third
3 most Fourth
2 all Northwest Fourth
2 Elm Southeast Fourth
2 Birch South Fourth
2 Northeast Third Northeast Fifth
2 Royer Addition Northeast Sixth
2 by Mentser and Ell iot garages Southwest Eighth
Main U.S. 395
many intersections. S.W. Cedar intersection \'lith U.S. 395. side streets off
Southwest Birch, install light at Southwest Birch and U.S. 395, Umatilla
County road to McKay area, all streets connecting Birch and Cedar.
47. Identify any sites or buildings in the area which should be identified and
recognized for their historical significance?
3 old hospital (brick or stone building)
old bank building
old post office
old school house
former St. Agnes Church
first log house at Hemphill
48. Should the city provide water and/or sewerage service outside the city limits?
If yes. how should the services be provided?
4 to a service district only 31 by higher charges since no city taxes
are paid 21 only after annexation 5 at the same rate as city users.
49. What do you like most about living in Pilot Rock?
climate
quiet
peaceful
friendliness
quiet
it is peaceful
low crime rate
peop1e are fri end1 i er
sma11 tOlffl
it is small
small to\'1n
small town
it is home
~hurch and easy shopping, no meters
lt is a nice friendly place to live
Small town
smallness
It is a small town
friendly business people
it is home
5
49. (continued)
Climate
Small. friendly. good climate. clean air
Shopping. convenience
Small community. friendly people
The small town concept
Community feeling
It is small and quiet
Small town
Scenery
Number of people, climate
T.he climate
Our home. our job, the people
Small town
Cost
Mostly self-contained for most needs
Small. friendly
Knowing everybody
Quiet and partly clean
it is a small town
The people
My home and my friends
It is a worki ngman' s town. and a fri end'ly town
Lesser taxes. Small town atmosphere but not too distant to a big city
Not a lot of people. Being close to the mountains and open country.
Rural setting. Location to so many outdoor activities. Size of corrm
People. School system. especially grade school.
Fewer big city problems. but any city must continue to grow or die.'
Like small towns. good water. country atmosphere. good schools.
The people and the small town atmosphere.
Small community. slower pace of living. smaller school system.
I like living in a small community.
It is a small quiet town composed mostly of friendly people.
$mall town with small town ideas. Keep it this way
We like the mountains. people, church and climate.
It's small town. rural like setting.
It provides means of livelihood and people are somewhat
Pendleton's.
50. What are the most serious problems in Pilot Rock?
Poor police and traffic control. Dogs running loose.
looking yards.
Recreation facilities for teenagers and a personality
force.
Dogs. Motorcycles without mufflers.
City finances, housing, recreation facilities.
Dog control, city budget.
Nothing for the young people to do. Poor police department.
law.
A lack of adequate communication with police department and no recreati
faci 1iti es.
Limited services - electricians, plumbers
Animals in city limits (horses, etc;)
Too darn many dogs in neighborhood running loose.
Animals and dogs.
Lack of recreation, such as bowling lanes, dances, and show house.
50. (continued)
nSpeeding" on S.W. Birch and side streets leading to ball field at grade
school.
The youth have nothing to do,
Nothing for kids to do,
Cleaning weeds and grass from along the streets and vacant lots,
Traffic control for dogs.
No swimming pool.
Need more recreation for the kids,
Lack of housing. Dog control.
Recreation for all ages.
Noise - motorcycle noise and car squealers,
Vandalism from young kids. They wander in groups just looking for something
to do.
Lack of a qualified administrator and shortage of police personnel.
Housing.
Lack of jobs and recreation for young people.
No ambulance. School taxes.
Water system. Streets.
The increase of dangerous drugs in the area,
Lack of things for teenagers to do to keep them out of trouble. The place
for them now is a problem (recreation center).
Teenage supervision and motivation, school administration~ city administra-
tion (may be improving with new manager).
Unfriendliness toward newcomers.
P@lice force should be improved in quality not just by adding more people~
Medical~ fire, police.
Drugs and the 'way some people drive on our new streets and in the
residential districts at times.
Government trying to make like a city.
Not enough police. No good community center for children or s\'limming pool
or something.
Allowing fly-by-night developers to put up shoddy contruction.
No recreation for any age. -
No future in Pilot Rock, no opportunity, no s\'lirrming pool.
Rootvi-lle taken care of, beautification of dwellings, lac'k of housing.
Not enough recreation for the' kids. Police improvement. They do their job,
but other times you can never get a hold of them.
City Hall not organized. New City Manager may help.
Apathy.
Police force and recreation areas for both young and old. Th~y had a good
place but the City has wrecked it.
Need more medical and dental services. Housing shortage. No legal servi~es.
Lack of recreational facilities.
The soot that floats up from the mills and not enough recreation for the
teenagers.
Police service. Telephone Company service or system. Streets. Ed Young's
youth center.
A serious lack of responsible law enforcement. Drug abuse. Animal control.
Junky people who leave cars, garbage and personal possessions allover their
property.
Improved fire and police protection.
Inefficiency of police force. Control speeding in residential areas.
Not having any recreation for our young people. No su~er employment for
kids.
Dope traffic.
7
50. (continued)
Lack of pride by some citizens as regards litter and trash including s
very shoddy and cluttered residences.
Until very recently, dirty pool in City Hall and general public apathy.
hiring of a city manager should help. La'ck of intellectual and recr
al stimulation for all ages.
51. What would you like to see acco"mplished in Pilot Rock during the next ff
to ten years?
Clean up the town.
Get rid of slum area known as "Ruppeville" and make availabre more
housing.
See people take more interest in keeping up their homes.
Swimming pool, decent recreation center for young people, improve
department, enforce leash law. .
More recreational facilities built and improved police patrolling.
More trees in residential areas.
Get animals (horses, etc.) out of town.
When an ordinance is adopted, ~~ it and enforce it.
Housing for the older people.
Building of swimming pool, theater and small bowling limes.
Home town bakery. New cafe. Gift shop. Citizens police organization
help the police.
That long awaited swimming pool be completed.
Swimming pool and tennis courts.
More places to live and more for the kids to do.
Absolute dog control, ambulance service, and more homes.
More housing. Work for teenagers (industry).
The schools teaching the 3 R's again instead of sports.
Some housing'to rent arid some activity for kids.
Continued full employment. Lower property taxes. More
and houses. A covered swimming pool.
More and better shopping facilities.
A swimming pool.
Lower school taxes. All around better teaching of 3 R's
More housi ng. More businesses of industry. Improvement
Ambulance service.
The new fire station. More heavy duty play equipment at the park.
police force, continued street maintenance and the swimming pool.
Community self project of beautifi cati on, lenni s courts, swimmi n9 pool,
neighborhood parks (can be done by community-donated time) and more
facil iti es.
Curbs and sidewalks, more recreational facilities, more restaurants an
places to park and store recreational vehicles off the streets.
Street improvements, improve buildings on Main Street - a little paint
h~lp. '
Main Street stores fixed up. Need paint and shop fronts improved.
depressing in present state.
Another bank. A full time doctor. More businesses. Better housing
facilities (to rent).
A swimming pool. More cooperation in little league and more help.
Swimming pool and better meeting hall for senior citizens.
Svlimming pool. and sidewalks.
,More housing. Recreation sites. Pool - adult pool and tot pool.
more reasonable than now.
8
51. (continued)
More growth and a public swimming pool~
Recreation. growth, industries, non-related industry employment, medical
facilities improved.
Recreation facilities, police improvement 1 more rental housing, cleaning up
the town. Fixing the streets and with stop signs.
Some houses look like dumps with trash in yards, etc. Would like to see
it cleaned up and fixed up. The town is ugly,
I'd like to see it much much ~leaner. and the dog control law enforced, and
I shouldn't have to wait five years.
More job opportunities. A mobile home place where you can buy a spot large
enough for mobile homes for old people, so they wouldn't have more than
they can take care of.
Park and playground areas in several areas. Bus transportation services to
Pendleton for senior citizens especially.
A public swimming pool and better fire protection, so our insurance rates
could be lowered.
Tennis courts and swimming pool built.
Activities for teenagers. More housing.
Swimming pool for our community.
A swimming pool and possibly around-the-clock police on duty.
Curbing and sidewalks on Birch and Cedar. Swimming pool, tennis courts,
and better athletic facilities for high school.
A swimming pool put in. We can afford it as well as other small towns.
Swirrm;'ng pool.
Swimming pool and housing.
A beautified city.
A very stiff and vigorously enforced ordinance against littering and junky
premises. Would help eliminate the need for street cleaning.
An up grading of most present services and more recreational facilities.
More public happening (barbeques, etc.) and less general apathy. Better
library.
52. Please list in order of preference those
50 and 51 for which you would be willing
levy, if needed.
projects you listed in questions
to support a bond issue or taxing
Priori ties
Does not include recreation l please see next page.
2nd 3rd
3 1
3
1 1
1
1
1
1
2 1
1
2
Facilities~ Services, and Programs
TOTAL
* NOTE
1st
3
2
I
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
22
1
15
1
1
7
4th
1
1
1
1
4
Total
8
6
3
2
4
4
1
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
48
9
S@me more control. over young people and vandalism.
Greater supervision in park.
Would also like the kindergarten program to expand to all day.
2
1
1
4th
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
3rd
Priorities
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
2nd
1
18
3
2
24
. 1stRecreation
TOTAL
Let's not try to make a New York City out of Pilot Rock.
Pool
Recreation Facilities
Activities for Teenag(rs
Acttvites for Children
Seniors Meeting Place
Tennis Courts
Bowling
Athletic Facilities
Neighborhood Parks
Park Maintenance and Improvement
Library
Theater
10
More interest in city government by more citizens
Ifall peopl e be the same to each other; in other words, where one party
thinks he or she is much better than other ones.
Why can't this town provide recreational facilities for it's own
as . other towns can.
Kids should learn to ride bicycles and roller
Teachers should teach not run T.V.'s.
The City needs a meeting place downtown to compliment the social contac
centered around the Post Office. Perhaps a coffee shop, restaurant, or
cream parlor. The Community Center Building does not daily serve as a
gathering place for the community. Perhaps because of location, or be
it has no facility for an always-open, drop-in-and-chat type location.
waul d like to see expansi on of ali brary to become areal resource cen
for the community with room for group to meet study di scuss, perhaps be
entertainedwith film, etc. I would also encourage fuller use of school
buildings by the community in such ways as the community schools, open
library, etc.
I would like to see plantin~s and a small park like area where the
. house is being built. Also new restrooms at the park.
Higher priced speeding tickets in'residential area where children are 5
crossing on S.W. Birch Street with lights.
52. (continued)
53. Pl ea::e make any comments whi ch waul d help to make Pil ot Rock a
to live, or any other comments you would like to make.
3 (continued)5 .
Develop a beautification program. Have a contest through the paper for
slogans and ideas to encourage residents to paint up. clean up, and
generally beautify property.
Ambul ance and more nurses and doctors".
Dentist and Attorney. 24-hour police force.
No state building code for city of Pilot Rock, but refer back to old code.
Less city government interference on private property.
Get city employees to do something.
Have members of Planning Commission required to live in Pilot Rock.
Stop annexation until all utilities have been installed at the expense of
developer including any expansion of water and sewer feeders and streets.
I believe either the city or some government agency should be fiscally
responsible for code enforcement, not private architects.
Kids would stay out of trouble if given the proper recreation places. A
pool has been needed for too long. New tennis courts too! This town and
probably one more industry can grow with out hurting. We have to grow or
be stagnant for ever!
New and better parks and a swimming pool.
Need a better dog kennel, tax rebate or tax break for those who clean up and
beautify the property, to include home owners, store keepers) and property
owners. Ruppeville needs cleaned up or torn down cause of health hazards.
Four lettered words taken off of stai rs (school stairs), buildings and
bridges. Better sidewalks.
Recreation for kids would cut down on
policeman around when you need them.
town.
some crimes
More rental
which kids do.' Have
housing and to clean up
Schools need basic reading and math. We rank lowest in math at Blue
Mountain College. Kids can't read. Too much emphasis on sports. Motor
bikes, pedestrians, and bicycles are a tremendous problem in Pilot Rock.
Either let motor bike riders on the street where they are not a danger to
little children or opening car doors or else make them stay off the bikes.
It's against the law for these young kids anyway. whether on the street
itself or on the side. A $4 or $5 fine to parents of bicycle riders might
help them too. Why not put up some basketball hoops on the old tennis
courts. There is not one public hoop in town. Sometimes people get so
involved in the big things that the little inexpensive ideas don't get
noticed.
I would like to see the culvert at blinker light cleaned out. A puddle for
everybody to drive through. Water stands in ditch to breed mosquitoes.
I reported this two years ago both locally and to Highway Department. On
the positive side: Who ever fixed the \'/ater leak and installed new casing
at the blinker, did a good job. It is best it has been since I've been
working on that corner. About the dogs: r will not vote more money for
anything until we do better with what we have. The majority of people want
11
53. (continued)
dogs off the streets but the City does not see that the mandate of th
is carried out. If the situation does not improve, I'll get a lawyer
take the City to court to see why they are not doing their job. It i
to take my neighbors to court one by one when it's the City at fault.
Keep it a small town. Don't bring in big new industry.
Twenty-four hour police protection. Fair handling for all citizens.
recreational activities such as swimming pool, tennis courts.
Make Pilot Rock dog owners aware of their responsibility
their neighbors and their dogs.
More personal pride by individual home owners in the care of their ya
homes.
A more efficient police force. Better use of time by city employees
(maintenance crew).
I don't feel we have enough recreation for youth or older people.
summer jobs for teenagers.
Keep police car moving and working and available
Intelligent and wise spending.
Let's try to increase quality, rather than quantity living by staying
and improving what we have. Growth and expansion usually is expensiv
all that rosey.
Have twice supported swimming pool fund but money disappeared.
We desperately need recreational facilities. If the public (or certa1
of it at least) were made to feel responsible for care of these facil~
there may be more pride and interest shown. For instance, heavy fines
any destruction and littering and most of the people would respond to
pride, I think. A dog catcher was called by our neighbors regarding a
nuisance dog which was fighting with other dogs and terrorizing child
They were told "l ' m not going to mess I'lith that dog. If you want some
done, call the cops." The dog is still roaming the streets at all ho
Dog catcher also refuses to pick up his friends' dogs~
* * * * * * * * *
The results of Pilot Rock's Community Attitude Survey were tabulated b
Comprehensive Planner who is working with the Planning Commission and
City Council. The answers to open-ended questions are exact quotes f
surveys which were returned (exceptions noted).
12
IN THE.. COURT OF THE
sTATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity }Law No.. _
I ,
"
I·~.,I .
o
;~
!'~
I·:, .
- --~ .0-,'" . .:.~";
PUIlICHOTlCE
TM Pllot Rock ClfY Coo.o\cil ..d
Pl....i"9 eo.......,""'" wilt ""lei •
put>lic he."", lOotIlain co......_
on 11•• Of'41ft Go.II ..." Obilldlvn
lor P,lal Roc!<" Compu"_ivlt
1"1_ on Wltaln<la.,.. "<.9..110, .II
1.)0 p.m. .I, ",It POIg' RGCk Cit.,.
H.lII. A lltlitt pruconullon",m bit
......dlt "" I~1t InlotmaJ!gn "'M ""
betn CI)IIIt('1-o""ino 1~ltpl..nlf19
prIXHS .." I". "b.., QI''''''tI'lf bclvnd.'.,. ",Ill be dliK\l$slld.· .
C~l" of IIIIt·O,all Goals ..,<1>
Objlt('llvltS will bit m.,it<l out II) all
~idtnlS1)1 PIII)I RllCl< bltl_ lilt
public. " .... Ing •. omltr' inllt...Nd.
!>er'1()N m.l.,. oat,ln ,"Is .... ,1,11,1
b.,. CiIlllno;l 21..,nL or Wl'III"'I\I
HM'y • M ...k.... , eomprt'lMnSivt
PI.....n..... ECO"C. ""'1 Office 80"
339, 1"_"_ OI"lt9I>n "1111.
, Piiol RIXl< Gay C-clF
Pilol Rock PI.... ill9 eo-nn.,ioIl
AuQusl t. It'll _~. ~
in
'.
. ~_ successive and consecutive insertion
193.ozo; printed and published at P~dleton in the aforesaid county and
ro-94fI£l;li~N-;tic_;:PR-----~--.
~TE OF OREGON.
of Umatilla
Subsenbed and sworn to before me this -'l~s~t day of
IIld nt\li'spaper for
following issues:
IIiIted copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue
Patricia L. Hawk
•. --.:-=.::..:.:.:..:.=--'-'="--- being first duly
depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East
August 1 77.--------7-~=:::...:----~- -. 19_~4'L<Z""",,,:'-'!..:"<'e-..:"",,"",)"--o,q~J £.
..p .... a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by QRS 193.010
Notary Public of Oregon
My CO"'::';.':;-::;.,:)"~ r-v, C"
SEP-'" -" , ;:,
1· ..... 1980
AFFIDAVIT· OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, County of Umatilla, $S-
r, JOYCE PRESLER, being first duly sworn, depose and S9.y that
I lam the owner-publisher of Ithe PILOT ROCK NEWS, a newspaper
of general circulation. as defined by Sections 1-509, 1-510, Oregon
Code. printed and published at Pilot Rock, Oregon. in aforesaid
county and state; that 'the Pilot Rock CityCouQcil
and Plannino Commission
a prdn,ted copy <qf whidh. as hereto annexed, was published in !the
entire issue of said newspaper for ....JL... sl1'CCessive and consecutive
weeks .in the following issues: _--l'AlL!l(!g:j.J!U!.ssu:t~4'4;_]L9'::Ll7-,7c.... _
My Commission Expires Fc~. 1. 1981
My commission expires , 19 ----
IN THE ·COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity lLaw No. _
,
...-.._-------
EO,""
"U'bIC NOTICE
The Pliol Rod< CIty e-d ""'"
Pl.-...l"", CO<n<nlulon w;" _ •
Pt>bI;c"e..I"9 100000_n CIl....,,"ftU
.., _ Pliol noel< Ontl ClJ.....
Ilt , ...., PI.. On w,~._..,..
o.rc bitr 21. '''7, _ 1:30 p.m.~_
~ P,IO' ll:oc.. Ciry Hall. COP;K ""
1M Of'att Compr..~.. ~I'"
............. ";111<1 10 .11 .~ 01
P,lot ~oc".011_...... Noov._
111. 1"117. ~"'"
U.. PI'ot ~oc~ [)r;J1I p,.,
TeeMI"", R"lJIIrl ....ilI OIl _v";laDl ..
10' .....,_ beQinn1r>tl in OK.....
be'r'. 1911. al Pilot ROC" Oly 101,,11.
III.. -enr-t C."lr"l- O'''90n
"".oocT"liof! 01 COIInUn ollie_ '"
Pe<><!lelon• ...,~ III.. o.f'IlII'"lment Of
land Con....""lon ~ lInd'
O'••lapm......, offic .. in. ~."" ,
MoI ... I,,1 will be .o<I<le<l to Ill ..
,,,,,hn;ul rej.Ort~._. de"'loped
th.-o""",,, May. 1"'.Tlledr.fT pi_
ObI.cT.......I' !;III ••"'Md••Iter
rev,..... .." "............t. 10 boa
~e<! .. Cay palic.,.
L""''' "" 11 In ""riClJltvr.1
.,M "as De In<:'''''''' ",1111'" ltoe
r>r_.,~or_ -...o.y.
All.. _~Jo.n of In. pi ...
9f'OW'ln te"",<1• ., ...<1 1...<1 ..1 11\
"'" _oar, ....y c__ 10 1M
term"" ......111 TIl" 1• ...,.._ ....
"""""" ,,, QlON."t :fl ......." ...
....!><OIl ....n.. Sl.cPl con~'" is
_iec 10 cltr. c_,.,. "'"'0 .....
patlc......11 ''''ll'''''''-' _
.An",,__ It.. que,..- 0'
romme<l" co.,u.."i009 m. «.11
po..... '" tffMic'" repl..t .,
co"I,)(1 101 ..... ., M"..""". Co •
""eI\....,_ PI.." ..... E••t e-.,
O!'e_ ~.oc""'ion 01 e-.I,a.,
Pou 0110<_ 80'1 J:I'. P_.-.
O!'t9O" .,101. n-:D.
! P,lo. ~oc'" Cil'y Cooioocil:
[ P,IO' ~oc" P1..,"ir>9 eom",l..;onI OO'C.... lle.. 1. U. 21, '971
I.
I
issue
19R
'I
~lY cO:vt'.m:SlO·: C:Plt1ES
SEPT. o. 1~30
was publiShed in the entire
Notary Public of Oregon
21
.-
'.
de-pose and say that I am the: principal clerk of the publisher of the East
";]0. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
193.020: printed and published at P~dJeton in the
- _.- _. _ .._-- ----_._-~.-
[0-280 public Notice
follOwing i~ue3:
I m
::J Dec·
_----'C'-'o,unccnlLli"e--"F-"Q"-r:;dL being fJrst duly
ATE OF OREGON.
ty of Umatilla
- .
&aid newspap,..~ for --".~c--,--"-'succ:essi~eand consecutive i os er t i a nin
" -'
. - ~
'-.. ) :;:.
",' .....,4 _
pri.D.ted P?py ~! which is hereto annexed.
"..I:
being fIrst duly
Equity tLaw 5No. _
}ss.STATE OF OREGON,
County of Umatilla
Connie For'dI, ~
and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
" -- -.., _--_ _ .._ -~ _,--_.-,.~._ -----_._.~"""'"'
i th [0-370 Public Notice
sta.e; at the --.: ~------.,_-----
, 1'·! ~
"
MY cO:-{~:.~fS:;\l_.)r.~~::~.. '::.::~
SE.PT. o. 1 :....':...;,~
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
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAvir OF
PUBLICATION OF
I;". J:: ~::1 ~..:.. ..._~ t
it printed copy ~f whicll is he~toi:nnexed, was publi~hed' in ~e entire issje
If said ne~~pai~~for 3"'~' successi~e and co~secu~vei~ s e rti b n ~~I :.... . () .. ' .,,; I,
: I 1'"' ,.- '_~ ;!
ithe following i~es: :~ c, C j;
I jan ~:~ 25, F~~b31 ~ 8 19.-1lL
! I ~ -:; :~C~:i~ i!
! ~
I '-' 11th' ,.Subscribed i~d sworn to before me this . day of
, ,
THE COURT OF THE
II'IsTATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity
Law
lNo. _
:::-"c " .... ',. __ .
C;':I' i. ~.I
".
,,'
,
"ii, 197:1 'I
Ii
"
-I' ci Q"2~rJ day of ~
, ,
«
, <
depose and say that I am the principal clcJ:k of the publisher of the East
"
_t93.Q20iYri.nteA.<!~~J?!lJ?Il~~~~L~...P.~_I~£:1jn the ~~~ ~oun.9" and~ _
_~ 1:0-445 Public Notic'..!
___.rP"-Qttlr,";(',"';"OLC.!.~.Jt:llcQ.Y'"".k ._ being lIrst duly
~~ ;~ ~ I:
« tt: .-; ~ ;j
""'01 ~py~ which is h~~lO;~nnexed. was fUbli~hed~ in the entire iss~e
llidntwipaper for- ~ r ~ ::; successive ana consecutive :; .~( -.~~i 'Y j~I .~ () f;;l ...,..; il
lollowinil issues: ~ l) ("') l~
I
, ....! :;:: (!)
.~ :.~ 2
.....",.n. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by DRS 193,010
RECf!V';:O
MY cC,~.~~·:F,:).. i'~ i_.<P!l-<cS
[:',-1 ~ ! •.';)
and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
=
·R·,~rC:\VE!-\J6-
JUN 161918
. 19~
being first duly
Equity l No
Law 5 ~----
}~
..
IN THE COURT OF THE
5TATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
Oregonian. a newspaper of ~eneral circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East
STATE OF OREGON.
County of Umatilla
I. Beverly .Krosting
. (
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
state; that the EO- 793 Public Notice
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue
June 3. & 13th
-------------
~l&kQ-lr--PIfY"'/lA&~T<LJ::(,<Y\--"""'jt--'
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1_5_t_h day of
of said newspaper for __--=2=--__ successive and consecutiveinsertions in
the following is·sues:
)'.fFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
or OJl;&GON. County of Umatilla. ss-
pRESLER. being first duly sworn, depose and say that
."ner_pubtisher of lthe PILOT ROCK NEWS, a newspaper
., CI citCulation as def~d by Sections 1-509, 1-510, Oregon
printed and published et Pilot Rock. Oregon. in aforesaid
Notice of Public' Hearing
.- _-
• PUBLIC NOTICE
-_..... _- ._""'"
~. Mobile Home Park
Ordi::ance
5. :.Jrban Growth
Area ~oi~t Ma~age­
::-,e::t AgreerJe~t
I
I
City
Planning
A proposed anend-
~er.t to ~he plan for
the area west cf Mill
Road will also be
considered. T~e a-
me~lli~ent would change
the fut.ure land use
fro~ i~dustr1al and
open space to resi-
dential.
~e t~chnical re-
port is a vallable
for review at Pilot
Rock Ci toY J-lall, the
EOOAC office in Pend-
leton, and the De-
partment of Land
Conservation ar.d De-
velop~ent office in
Salem.
Anyone who has
questions or com-
ments concerning the
draft plan or tech-
nical report way
contact Henry ~arkus.
Comprehensive Planner.
East Central vregon
Association of Count-
ies. Post Office Box
339. Pendleton, Ore-
gon 97801, 276-6732.
Pilot Rock
Co'.mcil
Pilot Rock
Cor;..mission
1. Pilot Rock Com-
prehensi ve Pla~~ and
Tech~ical ?e?~~
2. Zoni~5 Ordir.ance ?~clished in the
J. Subdivisim': Or- filot Rock News
di~nce JU!le 8, 1978
The Pilot Rock City
Council and Plan~ing
COl'llM.isslon will hold
a public nearip.g at
7:30 p.m., WedOLesday.
June 14, 1978, a~
Pilot :tack City :raIl
concer~lr.g adop~iJ~
of:
JUL 0G1978
copy 01. which .is hereto annexed, was published in the-
RECEIVED
iIIQe of said newspaper for -J.-..:- successive and consecutive
ill the following issues: _....JJ!J1I1IJo"...u 8".......1"9'-7/J8"--- _
......:' '. tAy COrnml'i$,Oll e:"plrC3 Jan. 2Q, lee"
./: .'iofY'I~on expires--'=---, 19 - -
,
'. "I
"" """ ,....,t: t<>~m,~. day I 19:zJ_----.>~(/JLl..Q." / , !.a... '
;' \J ~ J ~ \ • • Notary ~Pu'bo.b-!:lic--;furc-""'O,-"'-g-o-n
E.C.O.A.C.
".,
, ,
jl.
. '
.,
,.
'.
"
'.
June 30 19~b ...-:-- ;
I A L, =:;~ II 6l. LV"kl~-
Subscribed imd sworn to before me this ..;~lL..:--- day of
IN THE COURT OF THE
5TATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
;s'tate; -thaCthe _-_-_EO.,·"...-='_.""8-'-7..L1_Pu......."'b.l-""i-"c~N"'o'-"t,...i"'c""e~-_··_· ,_.-_._-_.-_.•_.-_-_-._._-_._-_..._.-_._--_.-_"'_- .-......
j
~-----_.:".,~::..._--~---------------------
;-',
and 193.020: printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
Oregonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
sworn. depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East
I. __B_e:.;v_e:.;r_l-,Y,-,K.c.r:.;o:.;s:.;t.c.lllc:·""g"-- being first duly
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
STATE OF OREGON.·
County of Umatilla
Equity (Law 5No. _
! the following is~ues:
• • !':"'A
'i
.,_,,' t ~.. !.
; a printed copy of which i; 'her~to imnexed. was published in the entire issue
, ' .: ... . -,'
; -_. I
'of said newspap'er for 1 successive and consec~ti'leinsertion in
,
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity 1Law No. _
ATE OF OREGON.
ry of Umatilla
Beverly Krosting,_~'--_:- -"'--- being first duly
. depose. and say that I am the. principal clerk of the: publisher of the East
ian, a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
193.020; printed and publ!shed at- Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
EO- 911 Public notice- pilot rock city council
,noted copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire Wtle
IIid Dtwspaper for =2'---__ successive and consecutive insertionsin
follOWing issues:
..... -'J'-"ul~-'1~4t,h & 18th . 19'8
!. ,OJ • i1 "4 CJ 1<,",,1,=>t-J- ... --- J {/ '7" T
Subserib~ and sworn to before me this 18th day of
Jul . ,9!!..-
(~---;;r;"."::.},-,Z;;"'-"'/"'G:'<L",.,{_·/,--,,,d,---,,6;...L.<·~~,4/!""d"",,--- 2;j,.""",'~_
Notnry Public of Oregon
,
RECEIVED
JUL 2 a1978
;'stati;' that"i1ie'-'" EO':'''955 Publj c ..Not.jce~:------_.- -- - __ _ _h ---------.
sworn. depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East
I
r
··'B_ev_e.::..r::..l:::;y"--K:.=-ro.:..::.s:::;t.::i.::n""g'-- being first duly
'.'
".
'"'::'
1
;,
RtCEIVED
1No., _EquityLaw
was published in the entire issue
. ,
successive and consecutive insertion in
'-'
~} r:-. -<."
...,
..... ,. -.
July 27th 19BL.-
~t ;~, "Q" ~ ~.~ r'\ ;jJ:0'1-'~ ':~. . \ l /....... :""
- ~., 8th
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day.of
STATE OF OREGON.
County of Umatilla
.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
: ....j ~,
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
I n-
i ;::J :J_~ ;-~ ~::.
1a printed copy.of which is h~reto annexed.
1 . .... ~. .
, ." -'" ....w
;of said ne\~spap-er for 1 .
~ :.~~
j the following is~ues:
t ", r"'-~ . ,
t ,-:;.,
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity lLaw No. _
~TE OF OREGON.
of Umatilla
Beverly Krosting_~'--'_"-- --" ~ being first duly
. depose and say that I am the prillcipal clerk of the publisher of the East
ian, a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the afore.said callnlY and
975 Notic,e of Public Hearing.
following issues:
. "
,
,
~
.,
~p~
Notary Public of Orego:!
priDted copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue
Slid newspaper for 1 successive and consecutive insertion in
r----C:'·.L·__..:..-':.....:.::- ~A=ug:.:.~4t:::h~__.. 19~
-, 'guLUk~9'!fG<H,i::1~
Subscribed and sworn to before me thIs 7th day of
Aug. 78r-'---'-~.)')19_
'-zziZ"~&': ./
.•.:.;i
'. •."J"
RECEIVED
I"" -'-.' '78.':.1
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire isslle
hUG 0 91978
j~~Y c':
:: =:~ -:. J.
.8thl---- day of
___ being first duly
",1,-__ successive and consecutive insertion in
EO- 984 PuJ:!lJ.J.jLLc_NllJo....t!L.j.I.Jc~Je"- _
Beverly Kro::..::cst.:;c~=·n~g,,- _
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
E uity lLaw 5No. _
IN THE COURT OF THE
5TATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _
the following issues:
STATE OF OREGON.
County of Umatilla
sworn. depose and say that I am 'the principal clerk of the publishe of d"" East
Or",gonian. a newspaper of general circulation. as defined. by ORS 193.010
I.
and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid cl-unty and
state; that the
of said newspaper for
IN THI!:E_-------COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity ILaw No. _
ian, a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
j..
193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
£0- 091 PUblic Notice- The Pilot Rock Council
ATE OF OREGON.
ty of Umatilla
Beverly Krost ing_--=-=.:~--,-"-----,-_,,,-.::.c-"- ~ being first duly
. dtpose and say that l am the principal clerk of the: publisher of the East
,f.{y,<!lb ~ '\ ~. isrhA• :k~11--
SUbscribed and sworn tc? before: me this 11th day of
priDted copy of which is hereto annexed. was published in the entire issue
said newspaper fot 2 successive and consecutive i n serti crnS
following issues:
r-- --'O"'c7t~19~
C.'7:'27.t!>,uo< ~/ CO -ez <,;<l?r .t'A
Notary Public of Oregon
Oct. 2nd. & 10th 7819__
[
' .o~ Eo:.;:5:t:..,~-....,.,.":
I"uallCHOTIC'E ~'.J.
Tne I",l(It liIoclrClty Cou<><:lr.nd·
, Pl.nn.ng Commission ,,",Il f>CII~ "
P\lClh<; NM'''lI "r~1;:IO p.m.,
Well"""..... 0Ct_ 1I~ 191•• ,,'
,roe p,lor ~oc~ C,ry H"II """"...n·
Ing.clO9t1onab· 1,J- .,....,. or' .:
1. PilClrR",,~C~lI$i«IoPI'"
and Tec""lc.1 R"""", _,..-'
2. .zan."... Or~Ill~ ~-~-~.
3. S"t><lI~;.,onOr<l;""""a-"~
••;MObiIe _,....... 0rI:l....inc1t
S. Uri..". Crowl!>' .......a-' Joint
........~I- lII'~,...-:
TII6It oo<:" ~ .... ""alraCl!e
,or r,....i_ al c;"'.II,,1I _ '" r".
eCOACofficlt",_IItIOo'l_ -:-
"'n1a<>e _ """' QUltSliorll 0<'
commltnl.-~<;oncft'nl"", lh~u
00<:"...... '" 'mal'~con'K""H_y
Mar~vs.Camprer->,,,a ptanne<"'.J:"" Can"al 00'_ A$SOC,al;an
at C"""h"- F>oD-OtIi<:e 8<»l 339,
P~.IOII,OIl; '1801, 27....,32. "".
P,l... Il;<>ek CIty t.counti. ~ ~
1',10' R<>ek P'IanninO Cbmmll-
Il<wIo - -~~ ~'::;-'."'_
OC1_?',~ lf1l;_~;!':.#..2::-S:q.
.=,
.-
rt.V CC: :
~:::. ... r. 8.
'. ,;::,~.;:l.~S
1:).;>0
.. ", -.-:::,
19 70
being first duly
Equity l
Law 5 No.
Notary Public of Oregon
}~
. ,
::,..-
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
. ,
.....,
~11-~A&~1
. Q .) 11th
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
Or..gonian, a newspaper of general circulation, as dehned by ORS 193.010
sworn, depose and say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMAT!LLA COUNTY
STATE OF OREGON.
County of Umatilla
I 8everl'i t~t'ostin:;, -
and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
." 'h' h .._.£0- .. 222: Public }!otice~,... , .... _ ...
.state; t at t e _
1 ; n-=-~""'-i 0"1,of said newspaper for ' successive and consecutive '-.' "'. I ~ - j in
'. the following is;ues:
.f a printed copy of which is'hereto ~nnexed, was published in the entire issue
Ul"I'\lIotltla County COl.lrtN>l.I,.... P .0.Oox l427 PencSleton. O~go... lI1i'eo1
Pr>One. 276-7111, Ext. 314
PIIar RlXX URBAN GIllYI'll OO[)''IDARY POOPERrY a.v=
I hereby certify that the' attached list of property
owners and residents \'oere rrniled, first class, on January 22, 1979,
notification of proposed land classification and/or zone changes
affecting their property (copy attached), pursuant to the provisions
of OIlS 215.503.
Signed this 22nd day of January. 1979.
()~~
Dennis A. Olson
Planning Director
Designated Mailing Certifier
OOI'ICE 'TO MJRrGAGEE, LIEJ:·mOLDER,· VENlX)R OR SELLER: .
ons CR<WfER 215 REQUIRES T!i>\T IF YOU RECEIVE TIUS
OOI'ICE, IT MUST PID\1PTLY ~E FORWAPJ)EJ) 'TO THE
PURCHASER.
You are the recorded titleholder or purchaser of the follovring property (Umatilla
Assessor's Office records):
Assessor's Map:-------~--------
Tax Lot : _
This property lies in the unincorporated portion of the City of Pilot FDck
proposed Urban Growth Boundary. On Wednesday, February 14, 1979, at 10:00 a.m.
in Hoem 114 of the OJunty Courthouse in Pendleton, the Ur-atilla County Board of
Oommissioners \vill consider adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan .and Zoning
for these lands. Adoption will change the land classification and approved land
uses frem County to City designations. .
Current County Plan Classification : _
Current County Zoning Designation : ~ _
Proposed City Comprehensive Plan Classification(s): __
Proposed City Zoning Designation(s) : _
For further information, City pl~~s and maps are. available for your inspection at
Hall, at the County Planning Departrrent in the ColIDty Courthouse in Pendleton. and
East Central Oregon Association of Counties (920 SI'l Frazer, Pendleton).
IN THE COURT OF THE
STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLICATION OF
Equity
Law
} No. _ FEB? '79
UMAT'tt; WU;'ITY
J'l.ANNi,';tl CQ~l3Sh)N
,
,
'C]~ .- -=~".,.....,.--<,,'-'
-.; ~ > ~'•• I!O·JI. .)~.
- PUISlICNOTtCE
\ THE UMATlll... COUNTY, 1I0A"lD OF COMMISSlONeRS
will hold II\IIHI( ht....ings on II...
tln.,i.e<I Compr_MOvl Pl.... lor
'!I'M: cilit'S 0' Pilo! Roc~•.~
,lic~o. "n<l&S!MU~F:i?acccrO'AU
""'flln,, (\ aro ;;r "'V C"m",ll-
,iOr>u. RUOh,,'ion 1M OrOlr en·
1,1Ie<! "'n In, ~1I"" 01 Develop.
men••nd "'ClOp'ion 01 PfOCfllutt1o
."'" SI.ndArd'l. 10' CounTY Rev_
i> Of cay C.....pr~livePl.",," lor
, ... P\>'POH'S 01 l"'_'!"ll elKl
~, •......".rg,o<,,,,.O· f-
III 1M ~hon by or".....nc.
0' _ PGrhOM GIl !tie Ci'..,,'
CDmpr_~... Pl_ ."i,II MI'
drtU Ine"UI"twln 9<_1tt , ...
• mc<>d ......ts to ~ u ml.l
C"''''''1 Comprlhen,,;...t,Pl.<l; •
p) TI>< '1nll1.mlnl,Hono' Joinl
M.nl"tm.nt Ao,"",.nlo ,11."
In\lli'l1 "'Ilan orOWlh .r..... •
·Thl public ...... ,;"11 will bfo 1><'0
.t l~.OD •.m. GtI Wid""""'.".
Ft:>ru.<y l4" '9~, in ROCIOTI 114 O!
'he County C....r1"""~ in P...·
(litton, .Oreoon For lu,U.... I,,·
lor"'.Ii t.I,"-· ~I.."l. "'.P'_/
10;"1 -." .;0'"""'""'"
.' _ lor .nspec'Ion.' ,...
'no>K'l". C.,.., H.I~ •• _ C-"I
1'1' P'.""ing o.p." ....., in "'~
COlI""" Cou_ in P_.'o<>.
It"" ., EIlSI c.e"".' 0."90<>
I..soclillion of C"""lieS j9~ S.W.
F,.tH".I"_I.,on). '. - .. I
OATED I~II J'd dill' 0'1
Feh'u.'l'.191'. .
UMIITrLL#\ COUNTY BOARDI
OF COMMISSIONeRS
F~I>rU.~~3~19~ '" ..• ,-'2'.
. .... . ...... ' '." .
.,
__ .. :-:r.f"',~
'y
,..~;
,,',.,-
.-'
3rdfeb.
was published in the entire: issue
}S>
,
/l _,
,
ian, a newspaper of general circulation. as defined by ORS 193.010
. ~ ..
~e\lerly J:::._r~o;:sc:tc:ic:'_'9~ being first duly
. depose and say that I am the principal deck of the: publisher of the East
193.020; printed and pubJislH~d at Pendleton in the aforesaid county and
that "the- -t.()... ;).;0 t-willic noticr.! t:umpr'!:!.fI~nsi'J~ -plalls
follOWing issues:
ATE OF OREGON.
ty of Umatilla
19 7~
5 .' -. A L-r71~·Mi<4--'''-'
ubscflbed and sworn to before: me: this , . day of
feb_ 7'";
19_,_ . .
,07 t7i~C:L£ L <0 (i;~S-
Notary Public of Oregon
printed copy of which is hereto annexed.
" ..
. 1 't--'~r~' 0·'Slid newspaper for successive and consecutive .. L .... '.. .., In
GOALS
AND POLICIES
OROINANCE NO. 3.~ D
.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY OF PILOT ROCK
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
~CTION 1. AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 92, 197. 215 and 227,
the Statewide Planning Goals, and in coordination with Umatilla County and
other affected governmental units, the City of Pilot Rock hereby adopts the
City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan including plan goals and.policies as
enumerated herein and the plan map included as Attachment "A",
SECTION 2. PLAN TECHNICAL REPORT
The technical report provides the background information, facts and
considerations that the city's comprehensive plan goals. policies and map
are based on. The technical report is not adopted as part of the plan but
remains the supporting document that is subject to revision as new technical
data becomes available. When ne\oJ data indicates that the city's plan should
be revised, amendments shall be made as provided in Section 7.
SECTION 3. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
All plan implementation measures including but not limited to the
Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Mobile Home Park Ordinance, and
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement between the City and County,
shall be consistent with and subservient to the City Comprehensive Plan.
~ECTION 4. AVAILABILITY OF PLAN
After the City Comprehensive Plan receives ackowledgement of compliance
from the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission, the comprehensive
plan, technical report and implementation measures shall be available for use
and inspection at City Hall, Umatilla County Planning Department office, East
Central Oregon Association of Counties office in Pendleton, and the Department
of land Conservation and Development office in Salem.
~CTION 5. PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
The follOWing statement of goals and policies provide 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-
Pl~cable Oregon Statewide.Planning Goals. The policy statements set forth a
9TUlde to courses of action which are intended to carry out the goals of the plan.
he policy statep.lents present·the City's position on matters pertaining to
PhYSical improvements and community development.
A. Citizen Involvement
It shall be City Policy:
It shall be City Policy:
-2-
GOAL: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
2. To 'dentify lands suitable for development and areas where developm
should be restricted.
1. To prepare data inventories on natural resources, man-made structure
and utilities, population and economic characteristics, and the role
and responsibilities of affected governmental units.
GOAL: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures opportunity
for citizens to participate in all phases of the planning process.
8. To establish additional policies and implementation
with the Comprehensive Plan as necessary.
GOAL: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for aU decisions and actions related to use of lap.d and
to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions
5. To determine the public facilities and services required to acco
existing unmet public needs and expected economic and population
6. To revise the comprehensive plan and urban growth boundary for the
City of Pilot Rock as necessary based on available information,
citizen input, coordination with affected governmental units, and
the goals and policies adopted herein.
7. To prepare, adopt and revise as necessary zoning, subdivision and
mobile home park ordinances.
3. To develop economic and population projections.
4. To determine the land requirements for projected economic
and population growth.
1. To conduct periodic community surveys to ascertain public oplnlon an
collect information; tabulated survey results shall be distributed.
2. To encourage people to attend and participate in
and city council meetings and hearings. .
3. To establish advisory committees as necessary to study
blems and make recorrrnendations for their solution.
C. Agricultural Lands
B. Land Use Planning
I
It shall be City Policy:
1. To identify agricultural lands which should be preserved and protected
from urban development.
2. To encourage residential, commercial~ and industrial development
within the urban growth boundary.
3. To restrict non-farm development outside the urban growth bLundary.
4. To retain land within the urban growth area presently zoned for
Exclusive Farm Use for farming until rezoning is requested.
D. Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Resources
GOAL: To conserve open space and protect 1".atUPal., scenic, historic.
and cultural resouroes.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To identify.open spaces; scenic. cultural and historic areas; and
natural resources wtiich should be preserveu froll) urban development.
2. To distribute open space throughout the urban area to insure visual
relief within the urban environment and to provide sufficient space
for passive and active recreation.
3. To preserve open space through public acquisistion of suitable land
and by encouraging provisions for open space in private developments.
4. To examine any publicly-owned lands including street rights-of-way
for their potential open-space use before their disposition.
5. To encourage multiple uses of open space land provided that the
uses are compatible.
6. To preserve the bluff between the city water storage tanks and .
Delwood Street and the bluff west of the industrial area as per-
manent open space.
7. To preserve archaelogical and historic sites, structures, and
artifacts.
8. To conserve the area's natural resources.
E. Air, Water and Land Resources Qual ity
GOAL: To maintain and improve the qualivj of the air,> water and land
resoW'ces of Pil.ot Rock.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To limit all discharges from existing and future development to meet
applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules,
and standards.
2. To encourage industries to locate in Pilot Rock which would have
no significant detrimental effect on the environmental resources
of the area.
-3-
,I
F. Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
GOAL: To proteot Zife and property from naturaZ disasters and hazard$.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To encourage development to locate outside floodplains, natural dra1
ageways, steep slopes, and other 'hazardous areas.
2. To limit the use of land in the floodplain within the urban growth a
to open space, recreation or other appropriate uses which minimize
potential loss to life or property and which comply with federal and
state regulations.
3. To investigate alternative ways to reduce the flood hazard within the
city limits.
4. To require site specific information clearly determining the degree
hazard present from applicants who seek approval to develop resident1
commercial, or industrial uses within known areas of natural disaste
and hazards.
G. Recreational Needs
GOAL: To satisfy the reoreationaZ needs of the oitizens of PiZot Rook
visitors.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To develop public meeting places and indoor recreational facilities
for all age groups.
2. To build additional park and outdoor recreational facilities in order
to meet recreational needs of residents and visitors as the community
grows.
3. To develop a community swimming pool complex if resources become avai
4. To develop a pedestrian pathway along East Birch Creek between the
downtown business area and the community park.
5. To require the dedication of park land or fee in lieu of for park 1a
or facilities as a part of the review and approval of subdivisions a
planned unit developments.
6. To plan community recreation facilities in conjunction
planned school facilities so that they complement each
H. Economic Development
GOAL: To diversify and improve the eoonomy of PiZot Rook.
It shall be City Policy:
-4-
1. To preserve the land north of dOl,ntown and west of U. S. Highway 395·
for commercial and industrial development and protect this area from
encroachment of incompatible land uses.
2. To encourage diversified, non-polluting industrial development in order
to provide a stable job market for area residents.
3. To minimize high noise levels. heavy traffic volumes, and other undesire-
able effects of heavy commercial and industrial developments.
4. To provide facilities necessary to attract and serve industry.
5. To cooperate with and encourage the use of local manpower training
agencies and programs to expand job opportunites. reduce unemploy-
ment, reduce out-migration of youth, accommodate the growth of the
local labor force, and maximize the utilization of local manpower
as job opportunites increase.
6. To develop an improvement plan for the downtown area and encourage
concentration of retail and service businesses, professional offices.
financial institutions and public services.
I. Housing
GOAL: To increase the supply of housing to allow for population groUJth
and to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of Pilot Rock.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To encourage a moderate rate of growth and a mixed population of varying
age groups. incomes. and life styles.
2. To encourage variety in residential areas by fostering and retaining
the amenities and natural variety inherent in the landscape~ provide
for variation in the design of these areas and their related facilities
and encouraging the use of new techniques in land development.
3. To allow mobile homes in appropriate residential areas on individual
lots as an outright use and mobile home parks as a conditional use.
'4. To cooperate with agencies involved in the development of low and
moderate incrnne housing.
5. To consider a housing code enforcement program to prevent deterioration
of the community's housing stock.
6. To locate high density residential development near the central business
district adjacent to areas with the amenities of view and open space.
and on sites served by arterial or collector streets.
-5-
I7. To encourage future residential development which provjde prospectt
buyers with a variety of residential lot sizes, a diversity of housi
types, and a range in prices.
8. To establish low density residential areas within the
boundary rather than rural residential areas adjacent
the urban growth boundary.
9. To require that low density residential areas which are subdivided
partitioned, be laid out so that such areas may be further subdivi
or partitioned at a later time while still insuring that necessary
public facilities can be developed. Subareas which are equal to or
greater than 12 percent slope are excepted.
J. Public Facilities and Services
GOAL: To pZan and deveZop a tir:1eZy, orderZy, and efficient arrangement
of public faciUties and services to serve as a framework fol'
urban deveZopment.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To locate public facilities to be accessible to the people who use
them and concentrate related public services in one araa.
2. To develop public and semi-public building 'sites adequate in size
to accommodate future as well as existing needs.
3. To resolve specialized utiHty problems created by a particular type
of use (abnormal or peak water requirements or unusual sewage dispose
problems of certain types of industries) by working with the parties
responsible.
4. To require underground installation of utilities in all new develo
and as major improvements are made to areas with above ground utilit
5. To cooperate with agencies involved in providing and coordinating s
services and consider pooling of city resources with social
provide needed services within the community.
6. To encourage the development of health services.
7. To develop, maintain, update, and expand polic~ and fire services,
streets and sidewalks, water and sewer systems, and storm drains
as necessary to provide adequate facilities and services to the
community.
8. To work with Umatilla County to insure adequate provision for and
control of solid waste disposal sites.
-6-
9. To plan public faci1ities~ utilities and servtces to meet expected
demand through development of a capital improvement program.
10. To provide city water and sewer servtces only within the urban growth
boundary and after annexation.
11. To discourage development of new wells within the urban growth boundary
if such wells either individually or collectively ~ril1 substantially
reduce the City's ability to provide a dependable source of water.
12. To identify approximate locations of future streets~ water tank sites s
and other public facilities.
13. To require necessary onsite public facilities to be provided in new
subdivisions including but not limited to water~ sel,o/er t and streets.
14. To require property owners to pay their fair share of the costs of
extension of public facilities which will serve their property.
K. Transportation
GOAL: To provide and encourage a safe~ convenient~ and economic trCU}8por-
tation system.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To repave city streets and provide curbs and sidewalks as resources
are available.
2. To encourage development and use of alternate means of transportation
to the private automobile.
3. To work with the ODOT to minimize conflicts between through and local
traffic on U.. S. High"ay 395 to reduce traffic hazards and expedite the
flow of traffic by limiting access to and from the highway within the
urban growth area and planning for adequate access to property adjacent
to the high"ay.
4. To develop good transportation linkages (pedestrian t vehicular~ bicycle~
etc.) between residential areas and major activity centers.
5. To encourage the continuing availability of rail transportation linkages
to mainline services.
6. To work with Umatilla County to develop joint policies concerning
local roads and streets within the urban growth boundary.
-7-
L. Energy Conservation
GOAL: To conserve energy and develop and use renewable energy resources.
It shall be City Policy:
1. To revi se the zoni ng ordinance to protect solar access.
2. To encourage orientation and design of new streets and buildings to
allow for utilization of solar energy and provision of landscaping
to reduce summer cooling needs.
3. To design the extension and upgrading of water and sewer lines and
facilities to minimize energy use.
4. To protect existing trees.
5. To encourage building owners to insulate their buildings to conserve
energy and reduce operating costs.
2. To develop a cooperative process between Pilot Rock and Umatilla Coun~
for the establishment and change of the urban growth boundary.
It. shall be City Policy:
1. To establish an urban growth boundary to
land from rural land.
GOAL: 1"0 provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban 7.and use.
3. To encourage development to occur within a relatively compact urban
area with controlled outward growth by phasing extension of public
facilities.
4. To consider only those areas that are within the urban growth boundary
for annexation to the city.
5. To work wth Umatilla County to develop policies and regulations to
manage land development within the urban growth boundary outside city
limits.
6. To tax land within the urban growth boundary based on current use and
market value.
M. Urbanization
-8-
~CTION 6. PLAN ANO IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE REVIEW
-- The City Comprehensive Plan and implementation measures shall be re-
riewed at least annually to determine conformity \,rlth changes in:
Oregon Revised Statutes and administrative rules;
Oregon Case Law;
Oregon Statewide Planning Goals;
Requirements of the City;
Needs of residents or landowners within the City or urban growth
area; and
Concerns of the County and other affected governmental units.
If the City Comprehensive Plan. implementation mearues, or both fail
to conform to any of the above criteria, the non-conforming document(s) shall
~ amended as necessary and as soon as practicable.
SECTION 7. PLAN AMENDMENT
After the Planning Commission and City Council determine that proposed
illendments should be considered. amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be -
~sed on the following procedure and reqUirements.
A. The Pl anni ng COllTTli ss i on sha11 set a pUb1i c heari ng da te and gi ve noti ce
thereof through a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least
ten (10) days prior to the hearing and if applicable, notice shall be
mailed to:
1. Property owners within 250 feet of land subject to a proposed
amendment to the plan map; and
2. Affected governmental units which may be impacted by or who
have requested opportunity to review and cOllTTlent on proposed
amendments.
B. Copies of proposed amendments shall be made available for review at least
ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
t. Within ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing, the Planning
COllTTlission shall make findings of fact and recommend to the City Council
adoption. revision or denial of proposed amendments.
0, Upon receipt of the Planning COITmission recommendation 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 and if applicable. notice shall be mailed to:
-g-
1. Property owners within 250 feet of land subject'to a proposed amend~
ment to the plan map; and
2. Affected governmental units which may be impacted by or who have re-
quested opportunity to review and comment on proposed amendments.
E. Copies of proposed amendments and the Planning Commisison recommendation
shall be made available for review at least ten (10) days prior to the
City Council hearing.
F. 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 pro-
posed amendments. Adoption of plan amendments is effective upon:
1. City adoption in the case of amendment of the plan map for an area
within the city limits.
2. County adoption in the case of amendment of plan policies or the plan
map for the urban growth area;
3. County adoption and LCDC approval in the case of amendment of plan
goals or urban growth boundary location.
G. Copies of plan amendments adopted by the City shall be sent to the County
and the LCDC within ten (10) days after adoption.
SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If an article, sentenc~,
clause or phrase shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisiction to be
inval id, the decision shall not affect the val-jdity of the remaining portions
of this ~rdinance.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Pilot Rock City Council on this }). ,j - day of
N,,·v-~~-:y\ ' 1978.
rd~~~,./ ayor .
ATTEST:
~JU
Ci ty Recorder
-10-
.
'.
'.
::··ililll::1!
·::~~[::.:.
<=
-':;:
..
.
.
.
.
.
~
~
~ .....
.
'
.
1'
.
~
~
'
.
'
~
~
~
~
~.
.
.
'.
"
. .
.
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
.
"
.
.
.
.
' :-
'.
:.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:-:
-:.
.
.
-
'
::::
::;::
,:·I'
-
jil!:!
:.:::::
:.,.::,
:·
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
• " ~ • o
> " • D " • ~ • •
o o • • • • o • •
• •
i g • ~ >
•
~
g • ~ •
~ • • ~ •
• • • ,
o
•
•
~
.
"
.
>
>
•
• ~.
.
• • ~ • ~ • • • • •
• • o o o • • • •
• .
'• • o o • • •
• S ~ • •• •
• • • • • • ~ o ~ < " i •II
D~
J
[J
DD
~I
D
· ·• , ,-~
o
>:
'
.
'
'
.
'
.
.
'
.
' :-:
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
'.
.
'.
.
'.
.
:'.
'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
'.
:;;
:;:
.::
:~:::
::::::
::::;:
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
-
_
.
.
.
_
,
.
•
'
j'-
--
-
'
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
'
;'.
·
i?
··
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.:
:::
:::
~::
>:'
.
;.-
'
,
'
.
::::
:.
.
.
'
.
'
'
.
.
.
.
::
}'
.
.
.
•.
:,:
'
.
,.
"
"
,
,
,
.
.
'.
.
:-
:::
:::
,::
:::
:-:
>
"
:,
'-
:'
,r~
~~
".~:::[:
:-.,--.,
.
.
.
-
:.:
.
.
'-
::'
:'.
-
:.:
-
'.
:.'.
::.:
:.::
.::.
::.:
'•.::,
:.':
'"~
.
..
..
..
..
..
,
;:
;:
;:
::
:m
t'
r:
::
:-
',
:-:
:<
,:::
:-:
::-
:::
:-
:,:
-.
A:~'"
"
:
~~~~
~~
.
.
;.
;
:-..
:-..
:
:.
:.
,
;r
:'
:'
.
.
.
.
':
.
':'
:
::
-:
-:
'..
.
'
.
'
.
'.
:,.
...
.
'.
.
~~
:-:
.
.
.
.
.
:':
:::
:::
:::
.
.
~
:-:
-:-
:,
:,
-
/'
~~
.
:::::
:.:::
-:(:::
£'
.'
"
'::-:-
:-::
/
'.
~~~~
Z~~~
/
.
.
.
.
.
.
•'
.
.
"
"
,
':'
:::
-:
-:
-.
.
'
.
.
.
.
.-~
.
.
.
.
.
'
.
.
.
.
'
.
'
-
:
.
;:,:!
!bllI
11il
,iii:i;
.i::!!!!!!
nu!I:!i::i
llii!ii:!!
·!··iii~!i
l/':~I~·:_
::__:_:'_::,:..:~
:_::,:~.'~~.~:<;,:;.:;.'":":
-.:'~.~;;,'.'.'~':"~C~-'_:-_
::_'-_'_:_~_~:_~_::~::r:f.>:
·\:·~»~.
.,~>.
:-:-:,.
..
.''.
:.":,.'.'
:.
.:::.
;;;;;;;...;;;.-
/~~.
.l
._
"~
.
.
_
..
;.
.
.
.
.
.
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,ft
jl
'Jl:
...z
'::-
::::
'~:-
:'.
:~
.
.
.
.
.
..
~
-
-
'
-
:.
BEFORE THE BOARO OF OOUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR UMATILLA OOUNTY
Regarding the adoption
of the City of Pilot Rock
Comprehensive Plan
as an amendment
to the Umatilla County
Comprehensive Plan.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Ordinance NO.>'\?,-\d-,
Wl--IEREAS, the City of Pilot Rock, Oregon, has adopted as
part of its Comprehensive Plan an Urban Growth Boundary encompassing
land lying outside the Pilot Rock corporate city limits, hereinafter
refe rred to as the Pilot Rock Urban Growth A rea; and
WHEREAS, the Pilot Rock Urmn Growth Area is included in
the City of Pilot Rock Corr.prehensive Plan, with Goals, Objectives,
and Policies and the Land Use Plan being applied to the Area; and
WHEREAS, that land within the Pilot Rock Urban Grovlth Area
is presently under the jurisdiction of Umatilla County and included within
the Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan; ·and
-WHEREAS. the Umatilla County Planni.ng Commission reviewed' :>
the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and held a public hearing on
Decembe r 20 7 1978j and
WHEREAS, the City of Pilot Rock and Umatilla County proposed
to enter into an agreement entitled the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area
JOint ManagementAgreement 7 which provides for Umatilla County
administering land use controls within the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area
utilizing the City of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan and zoning and
subdivision standards, and providing opportunity for the City to review
and comment on many land use reque.3ts affecting the Pilot Rock Urban
Growth A rea; and
WHEREAS, the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Manage
Agreement was approved by the Pilot Rock City Council on November
1978; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on this ordinance and the Pilot
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement was held before the
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday, February 14,
1979, and notice of the hearing was published in the East Oregon\an on
February 3, 1979; and
WHEREAS, notice by Fi rst Class Mail was given January 22,
1979 to those Urban Growth A rea p rope rty owne rs who would expe rien
changed land-use designations unde r this 0 rdinance, and indicating
p resent land classification and zone, proposed land classification and
zone, and time and place of the public hearing on this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners "
approved the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agree
on Fe.bruary 14, 1979.
The Board of County Commissioners for Umatilla County,
Oregon, hereby ordain as follows:
The Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan. originally
adopted on April 6. 1972. is amended to adopt the City
of Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan for that land desi.g-
nated as being within the City of Pilot Rock Urban
Growth Boundary. bu~ outside of corporate city limits,
referred to as the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area as
referenced and mapped in the City of Pilot Rock
Comprehensive Plan as adopted by the Pilot Rock City
Council on November 25, 1978. The substantive
provisions of the City of Pilot Rock Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances are also adopted by reference for
application only in the Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area.
Dated this 7dday of /l1~ , 1979.
UMATILLA COUNTY BQ£\RD OF COMMISSIONERS
\..x..~
F .K. Starrett, Chalrm'="'-:n------
Ford Rober!son, Vice-Chai.rman
A .. 'IBud" Drap~mmissioner
ATTEST, County Clerk
J. Dean Fouquette, County Clerk
.
~ ~ ......L
'tlJ.Jv>,. rh(LALiM. /&~I
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE
APPLICANT
Name --'-- _
Address _
Phone Noo _
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
Landowner (agent*) within Urban Growth Boundary __
Resident (renter) within Urban Growth Boundary __
Governmental Unit: City of Pilot Rock __, County __
Special District • State Agency __, Federal Agency ___
*Note: If agent, attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF Af1ENDMENT
Text: Goal __• Policy __,. Other __; Section(s) _
Applicant shall prepare and attach a copy of proposed text amendment to
this application.
___ Map: Present Land Use Classification is _
Proposed Land Use Classification ;s _
Inside city limits (yes or no) _
Outside city limits but within
Urban Growth Boundary (yes or no) _
Amendment to Urban Growth Boundary (yes or no) _
Applicant shall prepare and attach the following to this
application: .
(1) 8 1/2 11 X 11 11 location map of area subject to proposed map
amendment drawn to scale.
(2) Either assessor's map or other parcel map drawn to scale
showing proposed map amendment. and
(3) A list of names and addresses of property owners** whose
property is subject to the proposed map amendment or with-
in 250 feet of the exterior boundary thereof.
**Note: This information available from County Assessor1s office.
Page I of 2 pages
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE
APPLICANT
Name --'-- _
Address _
Phone Noo _
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
Landowner (agent*) within Urban Growth Boundary ___
Resident (renter) within Urban Growth Boundary ___
Governmental Unit: City of Pilot Rock , County ___
Special District , State Agency , Federal Agency _
*Note: If agent, attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF Afo1ENOMENT
Text: Goal ______, Po1icy " Other ; Sec ti on (s ) _
Applicant shall prepare and attach a copy of proposed text amendment to
this application.
___ Map: Present Land Use Classification is _
Proposed Land Use Classification ;s _
Inside city limits (yes or no) _
Outside city limits but within
Urban Growth Boundary (yes or no) _
Amendment to Urban Growth Boundary (yes or no) _
Applicant shall prepare and attach the following to this
application:
(1) 8 1/2" X 11 11 location map of area subject to proposed map
amendment drawn to scale.
(2) Either assessor's map or other parcel map drawn to scale
showing proposed map amendment. and
(3) Ali st of names and addresses of property ol'lners** whose
property is subject to the proposed map amendment or with-
in 250 feet of the exterior boundary thereof.
**Note: This information available from County Assessor1s office.
Page I of 2 pages
FEE
JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENT
Page 2 of 2 pages
DateSignature of Applicant
__________________________, City Recorder of PilotI,
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $ ~ __
Applicant shall prepare and attach a presentation of facts and
reasons which establish need, appropriateness and purpose of
the proposed amendment.
City Recorder
Rock, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
I, , lCi rc1e one: Landowner,
agent,.resident, representative of government unit) swear that the details
and information contained in the above application and attachments thereto
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
received by me on the day of , 19 __
_______________ accompanied by a fee of $ ~
,
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE
Date
1. Application submitted by applicant
2. Planning Commission hearing date set
3. Public notice of Planning Commission hearing
a) Mailed to property owners
b) Mailed to affected governmental units
c) Published in local newspaper
4. Planning Commission hearing held
5. Planning Commission recommendation (within 10 days
of hearing)
6. City Council hearing date set
7. Pub1ic notice of City Council hearing
a) Mailed to property owners
b) ~la i1 ed to affected governmental units
c) Published in local newspaper
8. City Council hearing held
9. City Council decision (within 10 days of hearing)
10.. Applicant notified of dec; s; on
If plan map amendment for an area within the city limits,
then
11. Effective date, if amendment adopted by City Council
12. Amendment sent to County Planning Department, County
Assessor and lCOC for their records
If plan map amendment for an area within the Urban Growth
Boundary but outside city limits or plan policy amendment,
then.
11. Applications and hearing record referred to County for action
if amendment adopted by City Council
Page 1 of 2 pages
12. Effective date, if amendment co-adopted by County
13. Amendment sent to LCDC for their records if co-adopted
by County
If Urban Growth Boundary or plan goai amendment, then
11. Applicatlon and hearing record referred to County for action
if amendment adopted by City Coun~il
12. Application and hearing record(s) referred to LCDC for review
if amendment co-adopted by County
13. Effective date, if amendment approved by LCDC
CITY RECORDS
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE
1. Application and attachments thereto
2. Schedule and checklist
3. Copies of public notices
4. Analysis of applicable plan goals and policies
5. Planning Commission hearing record, findings of fact and recommendation
6. City Council hearing record, findings of fact, conclusions, decision
7. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
8. If amendment approved copies of notices to County P'lanningDepartment,
County Assessor, LCDC ... as appropriate
Page 2 of 2 pages
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
URBAN GROWTH AREA JOINT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
The parties to this Joint Management Agreement shall be the City of Pilot
Rock, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the City and Umatilla, County.
Oregon hereinafter referred to as the County.
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 corporate
limits to the City's urban growth boundary as referenced and mapped in the
City's Comprehensive Plan on If - A~ ,1978, and hereby incorporated
into and made a part of this document see Attachment A).
This Joint Management Agreement ;s entered into pursuant to DRS Chapters 190
and 197 and the Oregon St~tewide Planning Goals for the purpose of facilitating
the orderly transition from rural to urban land uses within the City's urban
growth area.
Words and phrases used in this Joint Management Agreement shall be construed
in accordance with ORS Chapters 92, 197, 215, 227 and 446 and applicable Ore-
gon Administrative Rules and Statewide Planning Goals unless otherwise speci-
fied. 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. Introductury Infonmation
A. This Joint Management Agreement is the culmination of a series of
actions intended. in part. to facilitate the orderly and efficient
transi~ion from rural to urbanizable to urban land uses within the
urban growth area. Such actions include the preparation of a city
comprehensive plan. the cooperative establishment of an urban growth
area, coordination with affected governmental units, and county
review of the city comprehensive plan.
B. The City Council has adopted a comprehensive plan ordinance which
includes an urban growth boundary and planning goals and policies.
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 annexation
to the City subject to provisions of ORS 215.130(2)(a).
"Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
B. The City's urban growth area has been identified as urbanizable 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 Com-
prehensive Plan which addresses the urban grO\~th area into the County
Comprehensive Plan (see Attachment B).
C. After the City's Comprehensive Plan has been reviewed by the County
Board of Commi ssi oners, and after County concurrence I·ti th and approv
of the Plan for the area within corporate city limits and adoption 0
the Plan for the urban growth area, all public sector actions which
fall within the scope of the City's Comprehensive Plan shall be con-
sistent with the Plan.
D. Land within the urban growth area presently zoned for Exclusive Farm
Use shall remain Exclusive Farm Use until rezoning is requested. and
such rezoning shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
E. It is the policy of 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, Subdivision and Mobile Home Park Ordinances
A. The substantive, as opposed to procedural, portions of the City's
Zoning, Subdivision, and Mobile Home Park Ordinances (see Attach-
ments C-l, C-2, and C-3) shall be incorporated by reference into
and made a part of the County Zoning, Subdivision and Mobile Home
Par~ Ordinances with exceptions as .necessary and as agreed upon
in writing by both parties to this Joint Management Agreement no
later than 30 days after acknowledgement of compliance of the city
plan and implementation measures by Land Conservation Development
Commission.
B. For the purpose of this Joint Management Agreement:
1. Substantive provisions of a zoning ordinance shall be those
sections of the ordinance which establish outright uses, con-
ditional uses, and zone requirements (e. g. minimum lot sizes.
setback requirements, etc.) and the zoning map; and
2. Substantive prov'isions of the subdivision and mobile home park
ordinances shall be those sections of the ordinances which es-
tablish 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;
~ Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement -3-
3. Be a recorrmendation 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 Exclusive Farm 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).
4. After action is taken by the County pursuant to Section 111(C)(3)
above. all subsequent rezoning by the County shall be consistent
with the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Nap except that:
a. Adequate findings for the need to rezone land shall be re-
qui red, and;
b. land may be rezoned to a lesser density or intensity of use
(i. e. low-density vers.us medium-density residential).
D. The above mentioned incorporated Ordinances shall only be applied to
building permit~ zone change, conditional use, v(lriance~ subdivision,
major partition, minor partition. and mobile home park requests af-
fecting the City1s urban growth area. The County may approve building
permits without referral to the City except when the building is to
be served by either city water, or sewer or both.
IV. Referred Application/Situations
A. The County Planning Department shall refer eath request affecting the
urban growth area to the City for its review and comment within five
(5) days of the date the request was filed with the County Planning
Department.
B. The City shall review the request and submit its recommendation to
the County Planning Department within thirty (30) days of the date
the request was received by the City or within five (5) days after
the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting whichever is sooner.
The City Planning Commission shall review the request and made re-
commendations as necessary to the City Council prior to City Council
action on the request.
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 Sections IV A and B above shall be
applicable.
O. The County shall retain final decision-making responsibility for a'1
land use actions affecting the City urban growth area, but such de-
cisions shall only be made after the receipt of timely recommendations
from the City.
Pilot Rock Urb~n Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
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
The City shall provide city services only after annexation. City servi
include but are not limited to sewer and water.
VI. Annexation
Annexation of sites within the City urban growth area shall be in-accord
ance· with relevant annexati on procedures contai ned in the Oregon Revi sed
Statutes, Oregon case law, and City Ordinances and shall not occur until
such sites become contiguous to the City as required by the Oregon Re-
vised Statutes.
VII. Roads
The County and City shall cooperatively develop an implementation
regarding streets and roads Nithin 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.
A. The circumstances under which the City will assume ownership and
maintenance responsibility for County Roads within the corporate
1imits .
.
B. The conditions under which new streets and roads will be developed
in conjunction with subdivisions within the City urban growth area.
C. The conditions under which new public streets and roads, other than
subdivisions, will be developed within the City urban growth area.
D. The conditions under which existing county roads and bridges within
the urban growth boundary wi 11 be impr·oved.
E. See Attachments D-l and D-2 for existing county roads within the
corporate limits and the urban growth area.
VII I. Appeals
A. As the County retains responsibility for land use decisions and ac-
tions affecting the urban growth area, appeals from such decisions
and actions shall be in accordance with the appeals process specifi
in the County Zoning, Subdivision, 01' Mobile Home Park Ordinances,
applicable state statute or administrative rule.
pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
0---
-5-
B. In the event that either the County Planning Corrmission or the County
Board of Commissioners. disagrees with the City comment and recommen-
dation provided for in Section IV of this Joint Management Agreement.
the City shall have standing to appeal as provided in Section VIII A ,
above.
IX. Comprehensive Plan and Implementation f·1easure Review and Amendment
A. The City Comprehensive Plan. including this Joint Management Agreement.
and the zoning. subdivision. mobile home park. and other implementation
ordinances or measures shall be reviewed at least annually to determine
conformity with changes in:
1. Oregon Revised Statutes and administrative rules;
2. Oregon Case Law;
3. Oregon Statewide Planning Goals;
4. Requirements of the City;
5. Needs of residents or landowners within the City urban growth
area;
6. Concerns of affected governmental units; and
7. County administration of land use regulations within urban
growth areas.
B. 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 shall be amended as necessary and as soon
as practicable.
C. Amendments to this Agreement and the Comprehensive Plan for the urban
growth area shall be adopted by a majority of both the full City Coun-
cil and the County Board of Commissioners after recorMlendations have
been received from both the City and County Planning Commissions.
X. Severabil ity
The provisions of this Joint Management Agreement 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 Agreement.
Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement is si
and executed by:
, I
UMATILLA COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~\(,~­
~tZ/r;;tw;
PILOT ROCK CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 1/ - 2-6 - 78
Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement
~
ATTACHMENTS
A * Pilot Rock Comprehensive Plan Ordinance (No. 320)
B * Umatilla County Ordinance No. 79-12 amending the County
Comprehensive Plan by its adoption of the City Comprehensive
Plan for the urban 9ro~th area.
C-l * Pilot Rock Zoning Ordinance (No. 318)
C-2 * Pilot Rock Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316)
C-3 * Pilot Rock Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317)
0-1 * List of existing county roads within the City urban growth
boundary
0-2 * Map of existing county roads within the City urban growth
boundary
-7-
Ci
ty
o
f
Pi
lo
t
Ro
ck
A
tta
ch
m
en
t
D
-l:
Ur
ba
n
Gr
ow
th
A
re
a-
Jo
in
t
M
an
ag
em
en
t
Ag
ree
m
en
t*
Li
st
o
f
Co
un
ty
Ro
ad
s
W
ith
in
Ur
ba
n
Gr
ow
th
Bo
un
da
ry
Le
ng
th
Le
ng
th
Ri
gh
t
o
f
M
ee
ts
St
an
da
rd
s
o
f
Na
me
No
.
W
ith
in
W
ith
in
Wa
y
Pa
ve
m
en
t
(ye
s/n
o)
Es
tim
ate
d*
*
UG
A
Ci
tv
Li
m
its
W
idt
h
W
idt
h
Co
un
ty
Ci
ty
Co
st
N.W
.
Ce
da
r
St
re
et
61
7
an
d
Sp
ar
ks
Ro
ad
(Mi
11
Ro
ad
'?)
N.W
.
De
lw
oo
d
an
d
67
2.
C
at
tle
D
riv
e
Ro
ad
'
Un
na
me
d
Ro
ad
22
S.W
.
Bi
rc
h
St
re
et
an
d
84
2t
Ea
st
Bi
rc
h
Ro
ad
S.
E.
Fi
fth
St
re
et
an
d
66
8
W
ag
ne
r
Ro
ad
N.
E.
Fo
ur
th
St
re
et
41
8
an
d
Re
d
Sc
ho
ol
Ro
ad
U
m
at
ill
a
Co
un
ty
Ro
ad
De
pa
rt
m
en
t,
~ttacnment 0-2:
Ex.isting County
Pilot Rock Urban Growth Area - Joint Management Agreement
Roads Witnin Urban Growtn Boundary (February, 1979)
<ofT •
842 1/2
t
,
,
\ t.-" .' ..\
•
0 ~,
'I.
I '\\.
668
i
,Ii
, .
,
I
; !:
..
617
,672
f
/ ';:
~- ~
\
\ - \L---~~~ • \\< • \
\ \
,- '._~ \\ \
\ \
\. -"~
,- "
r •••..
/
..
T1S 1l3U ..,M. PILOT ROCK
UM-\n~L'" COuNTY. OOlEGON
......,,, '.,
,., "" ,-."_..-,.. .~.
v·'''·,..,, ....,....,"--'"
o ". "....-" '0.'"o ,,., 'c" ,,_'0 'em,
_.~~ "~""·')'.C""·'''·'
i;1'". ~'O' "0 ".-'."
= ,..,,, C"', '0' ,~..;,
,......-."..,. ..,_ ~.
"".., ........ " ......, ~.
IMPLEMENTATION
MEASURES
•Ordinance No. 3/ &
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
ZONING OROINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONSl/nICLE 1.
~
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Title .
Purposes . . . . .
Scope .
Zoning of Areas to
Definitions
. . .
be Annexed
1
1
1
1
1
1
M!TlCLE 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES 5
2.10
2.20
2.30
Classification of Zones
Zone Boundaries
location of Zones
5
5
5
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.40
3.50
3.60
3.70
3.BO
ARTICLE 3. USE ZONES .
General Residential Zone. R-l
Limited Residential Zone, R-2
Farm Residential Zone, R-3
Commercial Zone, C-1 ...
Light Industrial Zone, M-l
Heavy Industrial Zone. M-2
Pemanent Open Space Zone. POS
Additional Requiremehts
•
•
5
5
6
7
7
8
g
9
9
ARTICLE 4. NON-CONFORMING USES ....
4.10 Definition .
4.20 Circumstances for Allowing a Non-conforming Use
MTICLE 5 CQNDITIONAL USES . . . . . . .
11
11
11
12
5. 10
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
Authorization to Brant or D~ny Conditional Uses
Placing Conditions on a Permit .
Application for a Conditional Use .
Procedure for Taking Action on a Conditional Use
App1 ication .
Time Limit on Permit for a Conditional Use
Time Limit on Reapplication .....
-i-
12
12
13
14
14
14
-ii-
(RESERVED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
ARTICLE 10. SIGNS
. ·
Specifications
Authorization to Grant or Deny Variances
Circumstances for Granting a Variance .
Application for a Variance .
Procedure for Taking Action on a Variance Application
Time Limit on a Permit for a Variance
General Requirements for Siting Mobile Homes ~
Installation Requirements .....
Waiver of Installation Requirements
General Provisions
Off-Street Parking
Joint Parking
Off-Street Loading
Nonlisted Uses
Surfacing
Access
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADI"G . . .
10.10 Sign Requirements
11.10 Exceptions. . . ..
11.20 Accessory Uses and Facilities
13.10 Interpretation .
13.20 Authorization of Similar Uses
13.30 Penalty .
13.40 Severability .
12.10 Form of Petitions and Applications
12.20 Notice of Public Hearings
12.30 Building Permits
12.40 Amendments .
7.10
7.20
7.30
6.10
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
9.10
9.20
9.30
9.40
9.50
9.60
9.70
ARTICLE 8.
ARTICLE 7. MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS ....
ARTICLE 9.
ARTICLE 11. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 12. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS .. .
ARTICLE 13. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT
_A~RT~I~C=LE~6_.~VA~R~I~AN~C=E~S .
Ordtnance No, ~/~
.,., ,
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
ZONING OROINANCE
NlTICLE 1. INTROOUCTORY PROVISIONS
~
1.10 Title. Thts ordtnance together with the zoning map attached here-
to as Appendix A shall lJe knm-m as tile lontng ordinance of the City
of Pilot Rock, Oregon.
1.20 Purposes. This ordinance is enatted for the purpose of promoting
the public health, safety, and welfare; to encourage the most ap-
propriate use of property within the city; to stabilize and pro-
tect the value of property~ to provi'de adequate Hght and air;
to prevent overcrowding; to lessen traffi~ congestion; to facili-
tate adequate and economtcal provtstons for public improvements,
all to implement the comprehensi~e plan of the City of Pilot Rock;
to provtde a ~thod of admil1tstratton and to provi:de penalties
for vtolations of the p~ovisions nerein.
1.30 Scope~ No structure or lot s~all heretnafter be used or occupied
and no structure or part t~ere of shall be erected, moved, recon-
structed, extended, enlar.ged or otherwtse altered except as per-
mitted by this ordinance,
1.40 Zonirg of "Areas to be Annexe.d. Prtor to the annexation of any land
to the City of Pi'lot Rocl< the Planning Comnission shall detennine,
by reference to toe comprehensive plan, the appropriate zoning
for t~e property to 5e annexed, The zoning of the property to'-be
annexed shall be tn accordance wtth the comprehenstv~ plan.
I. 50 DeHm·tions,
1 ~ Accessory" Use or" Structure, A use or structure i nci dent; a1
and subordinate to t~e'maTn use" of the property. located on
the same lot with the matn use,
2. Alley. A street through a 510ck primarily for vehicular
access to the back or si'de of property othen',;se abutting on
another street.
3.
4.
5.
BUi'ldtnfi' Any structure having a roof tntended for the sup-
port, s elter or enclosure of any persons. animals. property
or business acttvHy'.
City, The Ctty of Pilot RocR, Oregon,
Ci"ty, Counci'l , The City Council of the City of Pil ot Rock, Oregon.
-1-
6, Comprehensive Plan, Tbe comprehe.nsive plan of the City of
Pilot Rock, Oregon:
12., Farming; Farril'Use. The use of land for rais'ing and harvest
crops, or for the feedillg, oreedi'ng and management of lives
or for dairytng, or for any other agricultural or horticult
use, or any combtnati'on thereof. tncl udi'ng di'sposa1 of such
products 5y marketi'ng or otne~lise. Farming also ,'ncludes
use and construction of butldings customarily used in the
above activtties.
for occupancy
facilities, F
does not inclu
Dwelltng Unit. One or more rooms'designed
one fami'ly', cbntaintng complete housekeepi'ng
the purposes of this ordi'nance dl-Ielling unH
mobtle homes or recreational vehicles.
7.
-2-
13. Floor Area. Tne total area of all floors of a 5uildtng as
sured to the outstde surfaces' of exterior \'Ia11 S'. tncl udtng
halls, statrways, elevator sn,afts I attached porches and bal
contes, excluding open court yards and vent shafts.
14. Grade. The average elevation of the finished ground elevat
at the centers of all walls of a 5ui'lding, except that if a
\~a11 is para11 e1 to and wi'thin fi've feet of a sidewalk, the
stdewalk elevation nearest the center of the wall shall can
tute the ground elevation.
15., Height of Butlding, Tne verti'cal distance from the grade
the hi'ghest point of the coping of a fl at roof, to the deck
Hne on a mansard roof. to th,e wean PQ.l'tlt between the eaves
and highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. '
16. Home' Occupati'on ' (bus'tness' J. Accessory use of a dwe1Hng,
emp1oy';-ng only the inhabitants of the dwe 11 ing, \'Iherein tne
residenUa1 character of the dVle 11 i ng i's maintained. The
occupati'on must 5e lawful and must be conducted tn such man
that storage or display of merchandise, equipment or mach!n
is not visible from off the property on l'lhicn the occupatl
8. Dwelltng; StngleFamtly, A detached building containing one
dwelHng unit.
9. Dwelling, Two Family, A detached building containing two
d~le 11 ing units.
,10. Dwelling, Multi':"fariltly. A Building containing three or more
dwe 1Hng units.
11. Fami'ly. An tndividual or two or more persons related by me
dage, blood, legal adopti'on or guardianship, and not more
than two unrelated persons living together 'in one dwelling
unit; or not more than fi've unrelated persons ltvi ng toget
in one dwelling untt,
bis located, and the occupation may not infringe upon the
right of neighboring residents to enjoy the peaceful
occupat ton of thei r dwe1Hng ~
17. Lot. A parcel of land having sufftcient area to meet the
mfnimum lot requirements in the zone tn which it is located
and havtng its principal frontage on. or permanent access to
a street.
18. Lot Area. The total area within the boundary lines of the
lot.
19. Lot, Corner. ~ lot abutting on two or more intersecting
streets, other than alleys. where the angle of intersection
of the streets does not exceed 135 degrees.
20. Lot Depth, The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the
front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line.
21. Lot Line. The boundary liM of a lot.
22. 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, t~e shortest 19t line along a
street other than an alley.
23. Lot Line, Rear. The boundary line opposite and most distant
from a front lot Hne. In the case of a trreguar, triangular,
or other non-rectangular lot, a line ten (10) feet in length
wtthtn the lot parallel to and at a maximum dtstance from the
front lot line,
24. Lot Line, Side. Any lot line not a front or a rear lot line.
25, Lot Width. Tfle mean hodzontal Mstance between the side lot
Hnes, ordinarily measured parallel to the front lot line.
26. Mobile Home. A structure designed or used for res'ldential
occupancy dependent upon external uttlity 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 ts supported upon posts, footings or a
foundation.
27. Mobile Home Park~ A place where four or more mobile homes are
located withi'n 500 feet of one another on a lot, tract or
parcel of land under the same ownership, the primary purpose
of \';hich is to rent space OI~ 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 connection with securing
the trade or patronage of such person.
-3-
28. Modular Home. A sectional or factory built house built to
the housing standards of the" Oregon Department of Commerce
signed to be affixed to real property on a permanent found'
29. Owner. The owner of record of real property as shown in
records of the County Assessor, or the registered agent of
such owner.
30. Parking Space. A nine (9) foot by twenty (20)
access to a public street, used or intended to
parking of a vehicle.
31. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission of the City 0
Pilot Rock.
32. Public Use. Building or use such as a city hall, fire stat
city shop, school, community center, park, and similar uses
33. Recreational Vehicle. A vacation trailer or other vehicula~
or portable unit WhlCh is either self-propelled or towed or
is carried by a motor vehicle; which is intended for human
occupancy. Definition also includes "camping vehicle"and
!'trai ler".
34. Recreation Vehicle Park. A lot which is operated on a fee
other basis as a place for the parking of occupied recreat1
vehicles.
35. Semi-Public Use. Building or use such as a church, hospital
sanitarium, rest home, nursing or convalescent home, utility
structure, and similar uses.
36. Sight Obscuring Fence. A solid fence or a slat fence at 1
six (6) feet in height that completely obscures vision.
37. Sight Obscuring Planting. A dense perennial evergreen plan
with sufficient foliage to obscure vision and which will r
an average height of at least six (6) feet within thirty (3
months after planting.
38. Sign. An identification, description or device which direc
attention to a product, place, activity, person, institutioR
or business, and which is affixed to or represented upon a
building, structure or land. " Each display surface of a sig
structure shall be considered a se~arate sign.
39. Street. A public right-of-way for the use of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
40. Yard. An open space on a lot \~hich is unobstructed from t
ground upward except as otherwise provided in this ordinan.
Unless otherwise provfded in thfs ordinance, paving is deft
as an obstruction.
-4-
41. Yard, Front. That yard lying between the front lot line and
the front of the building.
42. Yard, Rear. That yard lying between the rear lot line and.
the rear of the building.
43. Yard, Side. That yard lying between the front and rear yards,
between the building and the side lot line.
44. Urban Growth Area. That land between the incorporated limits
of the city and the Urban Growth Boundary.
45. Urban Growth Boundary. The Boundary designated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan which identifies and separates urbanizable
land from rural land.
~TICLE 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONES
2.10 Classification of Zones. For the purpose of this ordinance the
following ·zones are hereby established:
ZONE
1- General Residential
2. Limited Residential
3. Farm Residential
4. Commercial
5. Light Industrial
6. Heavy Industrial
7. Permanent Open Space
DESIGNATION
R-l
R-2
R-3
C-l
M-l
M-2
pas
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-af-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 or-
dinance and attached hereto as Appendix A. Said map and all no-
tations, references or amendments thereto shall be and remain on
file with the City Recorder.
~LE 3. USE ZONES
3.10 General Residential Zone, R-l. In an R-l lone.the fol1uHing uses
and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
-5-
6. The lot depth shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
3. Mobile home
2. Multi-family dwelling
-6-
4. The lot area shall be a minimum of 6,000
shall exceed the minimum by 2,000 square
dwelling unit over one.
8. Nor more than thirty (30) percent of the
be covered by buildings.
9. The minimum street frontage shall be sixty (60) feet
except on a cul-de-sac where the minimum shall be thir
(30) feet.
7. Building height shall be a maximum of twenty~eight
feet.
5. The lot width at the front building line shall
of fifty (50) feet.
4. Public or semi-public use
1. Two-family dwelling
3. Mobile home park subject to the requirements of
of Pilot Rock Mobile Home Park Ordinance.
1. Single-family dwelling
2. Two-fami ly dwell i ng but only on a corner lot
1. Single-family dwelling.
3.11 Conditional Uses Permitted in a R-l Zone. In a R-l zone t
following uses and their 'accessory uses are permitted when
authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq.
3.12 Dimensional Standards in an R-l Zone. In a R-l zone the
following dimensional standards shall apply.
1.· The front yard shall be a minimum of t\~enty (20) feet.
2. Each side yard shall be a mlnlmum of ten (10) feet, ex-
cept that on a corner lot the side yard on the street
side shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
3. The rear yard shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
3.20 Limited Residential Zone, R-2. In a R-2 zone the
and their accessory uses are permitted outright.
3.21 Conditional Uses Permitted in an R-2 Zone. In a R-2 zone
the following uses are permitted outright.
1. Two-family dwelling
2. Multi-family d"elling
3. Public or semi-public use
3.22 Dimensional Standards in an R-2 Zone. In an R-2 zone the
dimensional standards of an R-l zone shall apply except
that the lot area shall be a minimum of 7,500 square feet
and the minimum street frontage shall be 75 feet.
3.30 Farm Residential Zone, R-3. In an R-3 zone the following uses and
their accessory uses are permitted outright.
1. Single-family d"elling.
2. t10bi 1e home
3. Farming, not including intensive livestock or poultry operations
such as a commercial feed lot or poultry plant.
3.31 Conditional Uses Permitted in an R-3 Zone. In an R-3 zone
the following uses and their accessory uses are permitted
when authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq.
1. Publ ic or Semi-pub1 ic use
3.32 Dimensional Standards in an R-3 Zone. In a R-3 zone the
dimensional standards of an R-1 zone shall apply"except
that the lot area shall be a minimum of one (1) acre.
~.40 C01111'lercial Zone, C-1. In a C-1 zone the following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted outright.
1. Retail or wholesale trade establishment
2. Repair or maintenance establishment
3. Eating or drinking establishment
4. Office
5. Financial institution
6. Amusement establishment
7. Motel or hotel
-7-
3.41 Conditional Uses Permitted in a C-l Zone. In a C-l zone
following uses and their accessory uses are permitted wh
authorized in accordance with Article 5 et. seq.
1. Expailsion of, a use allowed prior to the adoption of
this ordihance.
2. Recreational vehicle park
3. Public or semi-public use
3.42 Dimensiona" Standards in a C-l Zone. In a C-l Zone the
following dimensional standards shall apply.
1. In a C-l zone the dimensional standards of the R-l
zone apply to a lot or structure whose primary use
is for a dwelling.
2. The lot area shall be a minimum of 6,000 square feet.
3. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet unl
the rear lot line is abutting on an alley.
4. Building height shall be a maximum of t\lenty-eight (28
feet.
5; The street frontage shall be a minimum of sixty (60)
feet.
3.50 Light Industrial Zone, M-l. In a M-l zone any industrial.
w"ill not create a public nuisance because of unsightliness, noise
smoke, odor, dust, vibration, or heavy truck traffic
outri ght.
3.51 Conditional Uses Permitted in a M-l Zone. In a
following uses are permitted when authorized in
with Article 5 et. seq.
1. Retail or wholesale trade establishment
2. Repair or maintenance establishment
3. Public or semi-public use
3.52 Dimensional Standards in a M-l Zone. In a M-l zone the
following dimensional standards shall apply.
l. The lot area shall be a minimum of 10,000 square feet.
2. The minimum street frontage shall be 100 feet.
3. The front, side and rear yards shall be a minimum of
ten (10) feet each.
-8-
4. Building height shall be a maximum twenty-eight (2B)
feet.
3.53 Limitations on Use.
and conditions shall
In a M-l
apply.
zone, the following limitations
,
1. 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.
2; Any use of property within 100 feet of a lot in a resi-
dential zone shall be subject to the revi~~ of the Plan-
ning Commission. The City Council may impose such limi-
tations as m~ be required to reduce conflicts between
uses.
3.60 Heavy Industrial Zone, M-2. In a M-2 zone any industrial use which
may create a public nuisance because of noise, unsightliness, smoke,
odor, dust, vibration, or heavy truck traffic may be permitted sub-ject to City Council approval. All cost effective measures to
mitigate a potential public nuisance and measures necessary to
satisfy all applicable state or federal requtrements shall be re-
quired as a condition of approval by the City.
3.61 Dimensional Standards in an M-2 Zone. In a M-2 zone the
dimensional standards of an M-l zone shall apply.
3.62 limitations on Use. In a M-2 zone the limitations and con-
ditions of an M-l zone shall apply.
3.70 Permanent Open Space Zone, POS. 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
eHher upstream or downstream from the site and tn 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.BD Additional Requirements.
3.81 Clear Vision Areas. A clear V1Slon area shall be maintained
on the corners of all property at the intersection of two
streets or a street and a railroad .
•g- .
3.82
3.83
1. A clear V1Slon area shall consist of a triangular are
two sides of which are lot lines measured from the co
intersection of the street lot lines for a distance s
fied in this regulation, or where the lot lines have
rounded corners, the lot lines extended in a straight
line to a point of intersection and so measured, and
the third side of \1hich 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.
wa11, structure or temporary or permanent obstructi on
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, provided all branches and foliage are re-
moved to a height of eight (8) feet above the grade.
3. The following measurements
areas:
a. In a residential zone, the minimum distance shall
be thirty (30) feet or, at intersections including
an alley, ten (10) feet.
b. In all other zones where yards are required, the
minimum distance shall be fifteen (15) feet, or
at intersections including an alley ten (10) feet.
except that \then the angle of intersection between
streets other than an alley, is less than thirty
degrees (300 ), the distance shall be twenty-five
(25) feet.
c. Where any yards are requi red, the minimum di stance
shall be as in (b) above and buildings may be con-
structed within the clear-vision area, providing
that any portion of the structUy'e within the clea
vision area is more than eight (8) ·feet·above the
top of the curb or street centerline grade and is
supported by not more than two columns not more
than eight (8) inches in diameter.
Ground Cover Requirements. Any property in a residential
or commercial zone shall be planted with ground cover,
trees and bushes so as to prevent any dust blowing from
the property; such plantings shall be in place within
six ("6) months after completion of the structure.
Hazard Areas. If a structure is proposed for any area
subject to flooding or of greater-than twelve percent (12S
slope, the developer shall show that he is aware of the
flood hazard or steep slope condition and has incorporate
necessary safeguards into his site and building plans be-
fore the City signs the building permit.
-10-
3.84 Access. Before the City approves a building permit, zone
change. conditional use. or variance it shall be demonstrated
that the property has adequate access to a city street, county
road. or state highway. If a county or state permit is re-'
qui red, the permit shall be obtained by the property owner
prior to the final city approval. If dedication of a street
is necessary to provide adequate access. the street shall be
designed and constructed to the requirements established by
the City of Pilot Rock Subdivision Ordinance.
jRTlCLE 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.
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 m~ be made when nec-
essary 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 classification as permitted in the ordinance, or
to a classification that more nearly conforms to the regu-
lations 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 qf the prop-
erty shall conform to the ordinance.
4.24 Destruction of Structure. If a non-conforming structure or
a structure containing a non-conforming use is destroyed by
any cause to an extent exceeding 80-percent (80%) of its
valuation as determined by the County Assessor the non-con-
forming use or structure shall not be reestablished. A
future structure or use on the site shall conform to this
ordi nance.
4.25 Pre-existing Permits. Nothing contained in this ordinance
shall require any change in the plans, construction, altera-
tion or designated use of a structure for which a permit
has been issued or approved by the city and construction
has commenced prior to the adoption of this ordinance. pro-
vided the structure, if non-conforming or intended for a
non-conform"ing use, is completed and in use within two (2)
years from the time the permit was issued.
-11-
ARTICLE 5. CONDITIONAL USES
5.10 Authorization to Grant or Deny Conditional Uses. A conditional
use listed in this ordinance. shall be permitted, altered or denf
in the accordance with the standards and procedures of this artf
In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of thfs •
ordinance and classified in this ordinance as a conditional use,
a change in the use or in lot area or an alteration of structure
shall conform with the requirements for conditional use. Injudging ·whether or not a conditional use proposal shall be appro
or denied, the City Council shall weigh the proposal's appropri
ness and desirability or the public convenience or necessity to
served against any adverse conditions that would result from au
izing the particular development at the location proposed and, to
approve such use as proposed, shall find that the followinq crite •
are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, or are ~
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 will have minimal adverse impact
on the (a) livability, (b) value, and (c) approprate develop-
ment of the abutting propertie5 and the surrounding area
compared to the impact of development that is permitted
outri ght.
3. The location and design. of the site and structures for the
u~e will be as attractive as the nature of the use and its
settir.g warrants.
-12-
Limiting the manner in which the use is conducted, including
restricting the time an activity may take place and restrain~
to minimize such environmental effects as noise, vibration,
air pollution, glare and odor.
1.
4. The design will preserve environmental assets of particular
interest to the community.
5. The applicant has a bona fide intent and capability to develoP
and use the land as proposed and has some appropriate purpose
for submitting the proposal and is not motivatea solely by
such purposes as the alteration of property values for specu-
lative purposes.
5.20 Placing Conditions on a Permit. In permitting a new conditional
use or the alteration of an existi"ng conditional use, the City
Council may impose conditions which it finds necessary to avoid
a detrimental impact and to othe~lise protect the best interests
of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. These con-
ditions may include the following:
2. Establishing 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.
5. Increasing the amount of street dedication, roadway width or
iJlllrovement within the street right-of-way.
6. Designating the size, location, screening, drainage, surfacing
or other"improvementof a parking area or truck loading area.
7. Limiting or othewise designating the number, size, location,
height and lighting of signs.
8. Limiting the location and intensity of outdoor ligh~ing and
requiring its shielding.
9. Requiring diking, screening, landscaping or another facility
to protect adjacent or nearby property and designating standards
for its instal1aUon and maintenance.
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.
12. Imposing other conditions to pennit the development of the
city in conformity with the intent and purpose of the con-
ditional 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 author-
ized agent of the owner by filing an application with the City
Recorder in accordance \'1ith 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 addit i on to fil i ng an app1i cati on the City Council may re-
quire 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.
-13-
5.40 Procedure for Taking Action on a Conditional Use Application. The
procedure for taking action on a conditional use application shal
be as folllows.
5.41 Application Review. Upon receipt of the application the
City Recorder shall provide copies of the application mate~
ial to the Planning Commission members.
5.42 Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall
review,the application at its next regular meeting and re-
commend approval. conditional approval or denial of the app •
cation to the City Council. The recommendation shall incl
the findings of fact relied on in making the decision.
5.43 Public Hearing. Before the City Council may act on an appl
cation for conditional use a public hearing shall be held as
provided in Article 12.
5.44 Notice to Applicant of Action Taken. 'Following the close
of the hearing the City Recorder shall provide the applicant
with written notice of the action taken as provided in
Article 12.
5.50 Time Limit on a Permit for 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 mayex-
tend such authorization for a period not to exceed one additional
year.
5.60 Time Limit on Reapplication. No application for a
permit shall be considered by the City Council within one year of
the denial of the loequest. unless in the opinion of the City Coun-
cil 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 specific piece of property. strict appHcat'ion of
the ordinance would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship. No
variance shall 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.
-14-
6.20 Circum5tances 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 prop-
erty 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 ~mer
of the property, since the enactment of this ordinance. has no
control.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property
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
vadance ..
4. The public need is reasonably met by the variance.
5. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the pur-
poses of this ordinance, or to property in the same zone or
vicinity in which the property is located, and the variance
is in compliance with and is not a deviation from the compre-
hensive plan for the city.
6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would
alleviate the hardship.
6.30 Aeplication for a Variance. A request for a variance may be ini-
tlated by a property owner or authorized agent of the owner by
filing an application with the City Recorder in accordance with
Article 12.
6.40 Procedu~~ for Taking Action on a Variance Application. The pro-
cedure for taking action on the application for a variance shall
be as follows.
6.41 Application Review. Upon receipt of the application the
City Recorder shall provide coptes of the application mater-
ial to Planning Commission members.
6.42 Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission shall
review the application at i'ts next regular meeting and re-
commend approval, conditional approval or denial of the
application to the City Council. The recommendation shall
include the findings of fact relied on in making the decision.
6.43 Public Hearing. Before the City Council may act on an appli-
cation for variance a public hearing shall be held as provided
in Article 12.
6.44 Notice to Aeplicant of Action Taken. Following the close
of the hearlng the City Recorder shall provide the applicant
\'iith \'iritten notice of the action taken as provided in
Article 12.
-15-
7.12 Insigne of Compliance. The mobile home shall have the
Oregon "Insigne of Compliance" as provided for by ORS 446.1
However, upon submission of evidence indicating substantial
compliance with the standards required for an "Insigne of
Compliance," the City may waive the "In$igne of Compliance-
requirement for units manufactured prior to September 1969.
7.13 Ol·mershi p. The owner of the mobile home shall be the owner
of the lot upon which the mobile home is ,located and shall
agree in writing prior to installation that if the mobile
home is removed from its foundation, the owner shall remove
the foundation'and all additions to the home and permanently
disconnect and secure all utilities. 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
sixty (60) days from the date the mobile home. is removed.
This ,condition shall not apply in the event that another
mobile home is placed on the original foundation within
sixty (60) days of the removal of the original mobile home.
6.50 Time Limit on a Permit for a Variance. Authorization for a varia
shall be void after one year unless substantial construction has
taken place. However the City Council may extend authorization
for a period not to exceed one additional year on request.
7.10 General Requirements for Siting Mobile Homes
7.11 Dimensions. Mobile homes sited on individual lots shall be
at least twelve (12) feet in width and forty-eight (48)
in length or shall have at least 576 square feet of floor
area.
ARTICLE 7. MOBILE HOME REGULATIONS
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. In flood prone areas, the
floor of the mobile home shall be at least one foot above
the 100 year flood elevation.
7.22 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 approvea by the Department of
Commerce. Such requirements shall be met within seven (7)
days after the mobile home has been placed on the lot.
-16-
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 footing~
in accordance with state approved instructions provided
by the manufacturer.
2. The mobile home shall be placed on a cement or concrete
block foundation, in accordance with Department of Com-
merce Regulations and accepted engineering standards.
7.24 Tongue Removal. The tongue of the mobile home shall be re-
moved.
7.25 Skirting, Gutters and Downspouts. Unless the foundation is
continuous, the unit shall have a continuous skirting of
non~decaying. non-corroding material extending at least six
(6) inches into the ground or extendi'ng to an impervious
surface. The skirting or continuous foundation shall have
openings which shall be secured against entry of animals
under the mobile home. The mobile home shall be provided
with gutters and downspouts to direct wate)O into stonn drains,
if storm drains are available.
7.26 Attached Extensionso No extension or outbuilding shall be
physically attached to the mobile horne, however, a covered
or uncovered carport or patio, or a storage unit for inciden-
tial yard and household items may be erected adjacent to the
exterior walls of the mobile home. Exception: factory
installed tip-outs that are designed to blend in with the rest
of the mobile home are allowed.
7.30 Waiver of Installation Requirements. The City Council glvlng their
reasons therefore, mqy reduce or waive one or more installation
requirements that, in its judgement, are not requisite in the in-
terests of the public health, safety and general welfare, or which
are inappropriate.
~TICLE 8. (RESERVED FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
~T[CLE 9. OFF 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 Mainten~nce. The provision and maintenance
of off-street parking and loading spaces are continuing
obligations of the property owner. No building or other
permit shall be issued until plans are presented to the city
-17-
STANDARD
space per two beds and
per two employees
2 spaces per teacher
1 space per classroom plUS
per administrative empl
1 bicycle space per fau
dents.
space for each four seat
not fixed seats then 1
for each 100 square fee
floor area.
2 spaces per dwelling unit
2 spaces per dwelling unit
1 bicycle space per two
units.
space per guest room
parkin~ Space Location. Required parking spaces shall be
locate not more than 500 feet from the building or use
they serve.
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
materials or the parking of trucks used in conducting the
business or use. .
that show property that is and will remain available for
exclusive use of 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 required by this ordinance.
Total Requirements. If several uses occupy a single struc_
ture or parcel of land, the total requirements for off-
street parking shall be the sum of the requirements of
the several uses computed separately.
-18-
Hotel or Motel
Preschool or kindergarten.
Elementary or junior high
school
Theater, auditorium, church
stadium or other assembly
area
USE
Residential
One or two family dwellings
Multi-family dwellings
Institutional
Hospital or Nursing Home
9.14
9.15
9.13
9.20 Off-Street Parking 'Specifications .. Hhere 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,~
counted shall be those intended to be working on tne premises, 1
eluding proprietors during the largest shift in peak season. Fr~
tional.requirements shall be counted as a whole space.
9.21 Parking Spaces are required as follows:
USE
Institutional (Continued)
High School
Clubs or meeting halls
COO11lercial
Retail stores
Service or repair shop
Bank or professional offices
Eating or drinking establish-
ments
Bowling alley
Industrial
Storage warehouse. manufacturing
establishments, freight term-
inal, food processing.
Wholesale establishment
STANDARD
6 spaces per classroom plus
1 space for each employee
and 1 bicycle space per
four students.
1 space per 100 square feet
of f10ar 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 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
1 space per employee plus 1 space
per 700 square feet of patron
serving area.
9.22
9.23
9.24
School Bus Loadin1Areas. Each school having a capacity ofover twenty-five 25) pupils shall have a driveway designed
for a continuous forward flow of passenger vehicles for the
purpose of loading and unloading children.
Residential Parking. In a residential area no parking shall
be allowed in the front yard of the dwelling units other than
on a driveway.
Bicycle Racks. 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 bi-
cycles 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 hi"t by a car.
-19-
9.30 Joint Parking. Owners of two or more uses, structures or parcel
of land may agree to utilize jointly the same parking and loadin
spaces when the hours of operation do not overlap, providing tha
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 parkin9 spaces and driveways, except
those of single family residences, shall be hard surfaced with
concrete, asphalt, cement, oil mat or similar surface which is
resistant to dust and mud. Type and thickness of this hard
surface shall be approved by the City Engineer.
9.70 Access. Groups of more than four (4) off-street parking spaces
shall be served by a driveway or aisle so that no backing move-
ments or maneuvering within a street other than an alley will
be required. Driveways or aisles shall be clearly and permanentl
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. A sign is permitted only as an accessory use
to the use of the property on which the sign is located .
.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 two (2) square feet
in area.
10.12 Commercial Zone Requirements. In a commercial zone the
following regulations shall apply.
1. Signs shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from
any residential zone.
2. Moving or flashing signs are prohibited.
-20-
3. Total area of all signs shall not exceed one tl}
square foot per 100 square feet of the building's
ground floor area except that a minimum of eigh-
teen (18) square feet shall be allowed.
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 residential property owners and shall not interfere
with, confuse, or mislead a vehicle operator.
10.13 Industrial Zone Requirements. In an industrial zone
the following regulations shall apply.
1. Signs shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from
any residential zone.
2. Moving or flashing signs are prohibited.
3. Signs visible from residential properties 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.
10.14 Temporary Signs.
1. One sign shall be allowed per lot advertising the
property for sale, lease or rent and the sign shall
not exceed six (6) square feet in area. A "for sale'l
sign shall not be allowed to remain on the property
after the property is sold.
2. One sign shall be allowed per subdivision advertising
lots or homes for sale. Such sign shall not exceed
fifty (50) square feet in area and shall be set back
at least twenty (20) feet from the nearest street.
3. One advertising sign not to exceed eight (8) square
feet in area nor advertising for a period exceeding
two (2) weeks an event such as a picnic, bazaar, or
banquet of a church, service club, fraternal organi-
zation. or similar group shall be allowed.
4. One political sign per lot shall be allowed not to
exceed two (2) square feet in area nor advertising
a candidate or issue for a period exceeding thirty
(30) days prior to the date of an election.
10.15 Public or Semi-public Sign. On property in public or
semi-public use, an identification sign facing each
abutting street not to exceed six (6) square feet in
area and a bulletin board not over ten (10) square
feet in area shall be allowed.
-21-
ARTICLE 11. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
11.10 Exceptions
11.11 Projections from Buildings. Cornices, eaves, "canopies
sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues and "other architec~
tural features may project not more than two (2) feet
into a required yard of open space as established by
this ordinance.
11.12 Height Exceptions. The following types of structures
or structural parts are ~ot subject to the buildin~
height limitations of this ordinance: chimneys, church
spires, belfries, radio and television antennae, "flag-
poles, smoke stacks and other similar projections.
11.13 Lot Size Requirements. If a property ownership, whether
lt be a lot or more than one contiguous lot "held in a
single ownership" at the time of passage. of .this ordinance,
has an area or dimension which does not meet the lot size
requirements of the zone in which the property is located,
the holdings may be occupied by a use permitted in the
zone subject to the other requirements of the zone, pro-
vided that, if there is an area deficiency, residential
use shall be limited to a single-familY dwellinq or to
th.enumber of dwell log units consistent with the density
requirements of the zone. The record of ownership as
recorded in the office of the County Clerk at the time
of passage of this ordinance shall be the basis for appli-
cation of this exception unless the owner submits proof
that a different ownership existed at the time the pro-
visions of this ordinance became applicable to the land
concerned.
-22-
3. Shall be located on the same site as the principal
use or structure served.
11.20 Accessory Uses and Facilities. Accessory uses and facilities
shall be permitted in any district when incidential to and
associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental
to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional
use therei-n, subject to the provisions of this section.
11.21 Requirements. Accessory uses and facilities shall meet
the following requirements.
1. Shall be subordinante to the primary activity of the
principal use or the principal facility, respectively
2. Shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficie~'
or necessity of the occupants or the activities of a
principal use, or the function of a principal struc-
ture.
4. Shall not violate setback requirements or maximum lot
coverage standards provided for in Article 3.
11.22 Examples of Accessory Uses include~ but are not limited
to, the following examples.
1. A home 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 pur-
suant to this section shall be construed to be permitted
as a principal use or facility unless specifically author-
ized 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.
ARTICLE 12. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
12.10 form of Petitions and Applications. Petitions and applications
provided for in this ordinance shall be made on forms prescribed
by the city. Applications shall be accomoanied by plans and
specifications, drawn to scale, showing actual shape and dimen-
sions of the lot to be built upon; the size and locations of
existing and proposed structures; the intended use of such
structures; 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
250 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 an application, petition. or an amendment to
this ordinance sh~ll be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City at least ten (10) days
prior to the date of the:~earing. 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 conspiciuous places within
the City continuously beginning at least ten (10)
days prior to the date of the hearing.
12.22 Personal Written 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, class-
ification or uses shall be sent to owners of property
within 250 feet of the property for which the conditional
-23-
use, variance or amendment has been requested.
shall be mailed at least the (10) days prior to
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.
12.24 Purpose of Public Hearing. The hearing shall allow inter.
ested persons 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
resumed shall be announced.
12.26 Notice to Applicant of· Action. Hithin ten (10) days foll JIg
the close of a hearing the City Recorder shall provide the
applicant with a written notice of the City Council's actton
on the application, the findings of fact on which the action
is based, and any conditions imposed, signed by the Mayor
and City Recorder.
12.30 Building Permits. 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.
12.40 Amendments.
12.41 Authorization to Initiate Amendments. An amendment to the
text of this ordinance or to a zone boundary may be initia~
by the City Council, the City Planning Commission, an affected
governmental unit, or by application of a property owner or
resident of the City or urban growth area. The .request for
an amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application
with the City Recorder.
12.42 Public Hearings on a Proposed Amendment. A public hearing
shall be held by the Planning Commission with the public
notice given as provided in Article 12.20, on any proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, at its earlies~ practi
meeting after the amendment is proposed. The Planning C
mi ss i on shall, withi n ten (10) days after the heari ng rec
mend to the City Council approval, disapproval or conditi
approval of the proposed amendment. After receiving the
recommendation of the Planning Commission the City council
shall hold a public hearing as provided in Article 12.20
on the proposed amendment before making a decision. Findi
of fact upon which the decision was made shall be made a
part of the record.
-24-
ATTEST:
~;,!£~
C,ty Recorder
12.43 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.
12.44 Limitation on Reapplications. No applicatton for an amend-
ment to the text of this ordinance or to a zone boundary
shall be considered within the one-year periud immediately
following a previous dental of such request. except the
City Council may permit a new application if in the opinion
of the Planning Commission new evidence or a change of
circumstances warrants it.
ARTICLE 13. INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCENENT
-
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 provisi~n 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 allrnied use, if it is similar to the
alluwed uses in the zone. if its effect on adjacent properties
is substantially the same as that of allowed uses. and if it is
not specifically listed as an a~lowed 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
ten (10) days, or by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. A vio-
lation 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.
13.40 Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If
a 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 AND ADOPTED by the Pilot Rock City Council on this :) _,,- day of
___!V~ , 1978. City Ordinance No. 235 as adopted on March 5, 1973,
ijnd a'mendments thereto, are hereby repea 1ed.
~ryTh11 c2~~flayor
-25-
,"".... '0 'In
" ..,,,.... 11'00 IS""
• Y;;;;;; I
" n ..
(UH_nU. '0 "ul 1
• ' II
••
\
\
\
~
'\
T
'"
\
,
• •
- - - - "'" ...Jl'.l.- • •
\l
""
,
,
,
,
e--,',
'"
,
,
../,
,
,
/
l,
l,
,
,
,
,
,
,
MAP
~D[L@u ~@©~
J
FUTURE STREET
URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY
CITY LIMIT
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
AND CREEKS- -
-
/
/
/
..
"
LEGENO
CJ 0·\ GINI""'" Iluun,NnA'"
CJ 0·2 ll .. lnll IIUIDIIlTIAL
~ 0·' ',""M "ESIDINTI ... ",
-
C·, CO,.,.IRCIAL
CJ •., LIGHT IHDSTII,"'"
CJ .·2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
CJ POS PEI'lIUMENT OPtN SPAC!!m FLOODPLAIN
o SLOPES ~12%
PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC
It POff.NTI"'''' WATER lANK SIUS
, CNUIlCH
CC cO .....U"IT'!' CIENTUI
P "A"K
fS '1111 1111"011
j
ZONING
©DuW @[?
NOTE: Pl.ase r.llr to the mo,l reClnt U.S. Dlpt.
or Housing and Urban Development F.I.A.
Flood Hazard Map lor flood prone arias
within the city IlmU,.
Adopted pursuent 10 City 01 Pilot Rock
Ordiunci No. 318 on 11/25/18.
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION TO AMENO ZONING OROINANCE
APPLICANT
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
landowner (agent*) within Urban Growth Boundary __
Resident (renter) within Urban Growth Boundary _
Governmenta1 Uni t: City of Pi 1ot Rock __, County __,
Special District __, State Agency __' Federal .Agency _
*Note: If agent. attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF AMENDMENT
Text: Applicant shall prepare and attach a copy of proposed text amend-
ment to this application. Section to be amended, __
_ Map: Present Zoning Classification is _
Proposed Zoning Classification is _
Applicant shall prepare and attach the following to this
application:
(1) 8 1/2 11 X 11 11 location map of area subject to proposed map
amendment drawn to scale,
(5)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Either assessor's map or other parcel map drawn to scale
showing proposed map amendment, and
A list of names and addresses of property owners** whose
property is subject to the proposed map amendment or with-
in 250 feet of the exterior boundary thereof, and
Other information specified in Section 12.10 of the Zoning
Ordinance
Agreement by the property owner(s) to satisfy the require-
ments of Section 3.84 of the Zoning Ordinance if applicable.
** Note: This information available from the County Assessor's
office.
Page 1 of 2 pages
JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant shall prepare and attach a presentation of facts and
reasons which establish need, appropriateness and purpose of the
proposed amendment.
FEE
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $ ___
I, , (Circle one: Landowner,
agent, resident, representative of government unit) swear that the details
and information contained in the above application and attachments thereto
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Page 2 of 2 pages
City Recorder
Rock, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
Date
day of , 19 __
Signature of Applicant
I, , City Recorder of Pilot
$-----
received by me on the
----
from accompanied by a fee of
--------------------
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK ZONING ORDINANCE
Date
1. Application submitted by applicant*
2. Planning Commission hearing date set
3. Public notice of Planning Commission hearing
a) Mailed to property owners
b) Mailed to affected governmental units
c) Published in local newspaper or posted
4. Planning Commission hearing held
5. Planning Commission recommendation (within 10 days of hearing) ___
6. City Council hearing date set
7. Public notice of City Council hearing
a) Mailed to property owners
b) Mailed to affected governmental units
c) Published in 10ca1 newspaper or posted
8. City Council hearing held
9. City Council decision (within 10 days of hearing)
10. Applicant notified of decision
11. Effective date if amendment adopted oy City Council
12. County Planning Department and County Assessor notified,
pursuant to ORS 308.342, if amendment approved
*Note: Applications for Zoning Map amendments for areas within the
Urban Growth Boundary outside city limits should be made to the County.
CITY RECORDS
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK ZONING ORDINANCE
1. Application and attachments thereto
2. Schedule and checklist
3. Copies of public notices
4. Analysis of applicable plan goals and policies. Note: All amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance or Map must be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan.
5. Planning Commission hearing record, findings of fact and recommendation
6. City Council hearing record, findings of fact, conclusions, decision
7. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
8. Copies of notices to County Planning Department and County Assessor if
amendment approved
2/79
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
(ZONING ORDINANCE)
APPLICANT
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
. Landowner (agent*) within City Limits __
Governmental Unit: City of Pilot Rock __' County __'
Special District ' State Agency __, Federal Agency _
*Note: If agent, attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Zoning classification of property is _
Variance. Please refer to Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinance for variance
requirements. If lot size. variance may not be necessary, please refer
to Ordinance section 11.13. Briefly describe the type of variance being
requested:
___ Conditional Use. Please refer to Article 5 of the Zoning Ordinance for
conditional use requirements and to Article 3 for types of conditional
uses allowed. Type of conditional use being requested is _
AnACHMENTS
Applicant shall prepare and attach the following to this application:
(l) A presentation of facts and reasons which establish need. appro-
priateness and purpose of the Variance/Conditional Use request,
and
(2) 8 1/2" x 11" location map of area subject to proposed Variance/
Conditional Use drawn to scale, and
(3) Either assessor's map. parcel map, or site plan drawn to scale
showing proposed Variance/Conditional Use. and
Page 1 of 2 pages
(4) A list of names and addresses of property owners~* whose_
property is subject to the proposed Variance/Conditional
Use or within 250 feet of the exterior boundary thereof,
and
(5) Other information specified in Section 12.10 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and
(6) Agreement by the property owner to satisfy the requirements
of Section3.84 of the Zoning Ordinance if applicable~
**Note: This information available from County Assessor'"s office.
FEE
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $ __
I, (Circle one: Landowner, agent.
representative of government unit) swear that the details and information con-
tained in the above application and attachments thereto are true and correct W
the best of my knOWledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, __________~ , City Recorder of Pilot Rock.
attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were received by
me on the day of , 19 __, from _
______________________ accompani ed by a fee of $ _
City Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
2/79
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
(ZONING ORDINANCE)
Date
1. Application submitted by applicant*
2. Planning Commission review date set
3. Planning Commission review held
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within 10 days of review)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of City Council hearing
a) Mailed to property owners
b) Mailed to affected governmental units
c) Published in local newspaper or posted
7. City Council hearing held
8. City Council decision (within 10 days of hearing)
9. Applicant notified of decision
10. Effective date, if request approved by City Council
*Note: Applications for Variance/Conditional Use for areas within
the Urban Growth Boundary outside city limits should be made
to the County.
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
(ZONING ORDINANCE)
1. Application and attachments thereto
2. Schedule and checklist
3. Copies of pUblic notices
4. Analysis of applicable plan goals and policies. Note: All Variance/
Conditional Use must be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
5. Planning Commission review record. findings of fact and recommendation
6. City Council hearing record. findings of fact. conclusions, decision
7. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
2/79
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION FOR BUILOING/MOBILE HOME ZONING SIGNOFF
(ZONING ORDINANCE)
LANDOWNER
Name _
Address _
Phone No.
APPLICANT' (if different from above)
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
*Note: Attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF APPLICATION
__ ConstructBuil di ng:
Mobile Home: __ Install
__ Remodel
__ Other
__ Other
county road __, or state highway __
Brief description of project: ___
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Lot No. __, Block No. __, Assessor's Map No. with
frontage on Cname) which is a
(check one) city street __
Note: If county road or state highway an access permit shall be required.
In Fl Dod Hazard Area: (yes/no) __
Fire Zone: One __ Two Three __
City Se"er __ Septic Tank __Utilities: City Water __ Well __
Zoning classification is ___
Intended use of the building/mobile home is _
Page 1 of 4 pages
Is intended use allowed as an outright use in the zone? (yes/no)
--------If no, is intended use allowed as a conditional use in the zone? (yes/no)
If yes, a conditional use application will be necessary.
If neither an outright or conditional use, a Zoning Ordinance amendment •
will be necessary. Note: All Zoning Ordinance amendments must be con-
sistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Type
Dimensional Standards (see Article 3)
Street Frontage
Lot Depth
Front Yard
Side Yard (each)
Rear Yard
Lot Area (see Section 11.13 for exception)
Lot Width (at front building line)
Lot Coverage (Building Area ~ Lot Area = %)
Building Height
Mobile Homes (see Article 7)
Offstreet Parking and Loading (see Article 9)
Signs (see Article 10)
Additional Requirements (see Section 3.80)
Requirement*
Clear Vision Area
Ground Cover
Hazard Areas
Access
*Note: Fill in applicable dimensional standard or indicate yes, no or
n/a as appropriate.
SITE PLAN
Applicant shall prepare and attach to this application a site plan drawn
to scale showing how all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be satisfied. .
Page 2 of 4 pages
The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans and specifications
shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation
of any of the provisions of the Uniform Building Code as administered by the
state of Oregon. No permit presuming to"give authority to violate or cancel
the provisions of this Code shall be valid, except insofar as the work or use
which it authorizes is lawful.
I hereby certify that the above information is correct and understand that
issuance of a permit based on this application will not excuse me from comply-
ing with effective Ordinances of the City of Pilot Rock and Statutes of Oregon,
despite any errors on the part of the issuing authority in checking this appl i-
cation.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, • City Recorder of Pilot Rock,
Oregon, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
received by me on the day of " 19 __
Ci ty Recorder
Page 3 of 4 pages
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
(To be filled out by City official)
Applicant's site plan and intended use meet all applicable Zoning Ordinance
requirements (yes/no).
If yes, the Zoning Signoff Application may be approved by the City.
If no, the Zoning Signoff Application is not approved for the following
reason(s):
If the application is not apPI'oved, the applicant may revise his application
as necessary or (check all appropri ate) :
__ Apply for a variance
_______ Apply for a conditional use
__ Request. a Zoning Ordinance amendment
__ Reques t a Comprehens i ve Pl an amendment.'
Pilot Rock City Official
Page 4 of 4 pages
Date
Ordinance No. -:; I (-
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
SUBOIVISION OROINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBOIVISION AND PARTITION PRDCEOURE ANO APPROVAL
g,..,c"-TI!.-'0",N_1,..,.---.:G",E",N,,,ERA=L-,P..cR",OV,-,I",S,,-ION=S
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1. 10
1.11
1.12
1.13
SECTION 2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
Title
Purposes . .
Authority
Jurisdiction
Enactment
Severability
Amendments .
Variances .
Exception in Case of a Planned Unit Development
Appea1 . . . . . . . .
Violation and Penalties
Schedu1e of Fees . . . . . . •
Definitions .
Subdivisions ..
Major Partitions .
Minor Partitions .
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
8
8
14
14
ASSURANCE FOR C~1PLETION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTSSECTION 3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Improvements and Guarantees of
Inspection of Improve~ent
Maintenance of Improvements
Deferral or Waiver of Required
Financial Security
Improvements
16
16
18
19
19
SECTION 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, PRESERVATION, ANO DESIGN 21
~ECTION 5. SPECIFICATION FOR DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTEO
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 .
Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks
Utilities .
Public Uses .
Preservation of Natural Features
Nonresidential Subdivisions
and Amenities
21
22
25
27
28
30
31
31
33
34
39
5.1 Sketch Plan .........•....
5.2 Tentative Plan .
5.3 Final Subdivision Plat or Major Partition Map
-i-
39
40
43
Ordi nance No. ~! 0'
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
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 Pilot
Rock.
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 establishing uniform procedures and standards for the
partitioning and subdividing 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
partitioned 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 adopted pursuant to the powers and jurisdiction vested
by Oregon Revised Statues, 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 subdivisions regulations shall apply to all subdivisi
and partitions of lands, as defined herein, located within
the corporate limits of the municipality.
(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 urban growth boundary.
1.5 Enactment. In order that land may be subdivided and partitioned
in accordance with these purposes and policy, these regulations
are hereby adopted.
1.6 Severability. ~~ereany word~ phrase, clause. sentence, paragraph
or section. or other part of these regulations is held invalid by
court of competent jurisdiction. this judgement 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 may be initiated by
the City Council, Planning Commission. an affected governmental
unit~ or by application of a property owner or resident in the
City or urban growth area. The procedure to be followed for adop-
tion of the proposed amendment shall be that prescribed by ORS
92.048.
1.8 Variances.
(l) 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 circumstances apply to
the property which do not apply generally to other
properties in the same vicinity~ and result from
tract size or shape~ topography or other circumstances
over which the owners of property have no control.
(b) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a
property right of the applicant sUbstantially the
same as possessed by owners of other property in the
same vicinity.
(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 conditions designated. The City shall keep the
findings on file as a matter of public record.
1.9 Exce tions in Case of a Planned Unit Develo ment.
Reserved for Planned Unit Development.
1.10 Appeal. A person may appeal to the City Council from any decision
or requirement made by the Planning Commission or the City Engineer
pursuant to this ordinance. Written notice of the appeal must be
filed with the City within thirty (30) days after the decision or
requirement is made in the case of subdivision or major partition
and ten (10) days in the case of a minor partition. pursuant to
ORS 92.044 (2) and 92.046 (3).
-2-
1.11 Violation and Penalties.
(1) Every final subdivision plat and partition map shall be
approved pursuant to this Ordinance and the provisions
of Chapter 92, Oregon Revised Statutes, before title-to
the subdivided land can be sold or transferred in any
manner. If landis transferred or sold contrary to the
provisions of this Ordinance, the City Attorney shall
commence action to enjoin further sales or transfers and
to compel compliance with its provisions. The cost of
maintaining this suit shall be imposed against the person
transferring or selling the property to be subdivided or
partioned.
(2) In additon to penalties provided by state 1a\~, any person
violating 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 mc>re than 30 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 addition
the City will not give zoning approval on any appl'ication
for a building permit to be issued by the State of Oregon
as _to any pi ece of property Q\·med by a person in vi c1ation
of the provisions of this Ordinance.
1.12 Schedule of Fees.
(1) 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 ac-
cepted unless accompanied by all applicable-fees.
1.13 Definitions. As used in this Ordinance, the following words
and phrases shall mean:
(1) APPROVAL.
(a) TENTATIVE. The official action taken by the City
Council after a public hearing on the proposed sub-
division or partition.
(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-
(3) CITY. The City of Pilot Rock, Oregon.
(4) CITY ENGINEER. A registered professional engineer as de-
fined 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) OEOICATION. A deliberate appropriation of land by its
mtner 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 135°.
(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.
(g) 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 or 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 1ine.
(10) MAP, PARTITION. A final diagram, drawing or other writing
containing all the descriptions, locations, specifications,
dedications. provisions and infonnation required by this
Ordinance concerning a partition.
-4-
(11) PARCEL. A unit of land that is created by a partitioning
of land.
(12) PARTITION. An area or tract of land divided into two 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 ownership at the beginning of that year.
(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
cemetary·l ots,
(c) divisions of land made pursuant to a court order,
including but not limited to court orders in pro-
ceedings involving testate or intestate succession,
(d) any adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of
a common boundary \'Ihere an additional parcel is
not created and where the existing parcel reduced
in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the
minimum lot standards of the zoning ordinance.
(14) PEDESTRIAN WAY. A right-of-way for pedestrian traffic.
(15) PERSON. A natural person, firm, partnership, association,
social or fraternal organization, corporation, trust, es-
tate, receiver, syndicate, branch of government, or any
other group or combination acting as a unit.
(16) PLANNING COMMISSION. The Planning Commission of the City
Pilot Rock, Oregon.
(17) PLAT, SUBDIVISION. The final map, diagram, drawing, replat
or other writing containing all the descriptions, location,
specifications, dedications, provisions and information re-
quired by this Ordinance concerning a subdivision.
-5-
(18) 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 oipeline. sani-
tary or storm sewer main, trees. or by another special
use:
(19) ROAOWAY. The portion of a street right-of-way developed
for vehicular traffic.
(20) SIDEWALK. A pedestrian walkway with permanent surfacing.
(21) SKETCH PLAN. A sketch preparatory to the preparation of
the tentative subdivision plan to enable the subdivider
to save time and expense in reaching general agreement
with the City as to the form of the plan and the objectives
of these regulations.
(22) STREET. A public or private right-of-way for the use of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including the terms "road",
"highway". "lane", "avenue", "alleyt' 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.
(cj 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-OE-SAC. A short street having one end 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) LOCAL STREET. A street intended primarily for
access to abutting properties.
(g) t1ARGINAL ACCESS STREET. A local street parallel
and adjacent to an arterial street prOViding
access to abutting properties. but protected from
through traffic.
-6-
(.23 )
(24)
(25)
(26)
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 ownership at the beginning of that
year.
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.
TENTATIVE PLAN. A preliminary map, drawing or' chart of
the subdivision, dedication, or portion thereof, containing
the elements and requirements set forth within this ordi-
nance and which the subdivider submits for tentative ap-
provalat a public hearing.
URBAN GROWTH AREA. Land between the corporate limits of
the City and the urban growth boundary. .
(27) URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY. The boundary designated in the
City's Comprehensive Plan identifying and separating
urbanizable land from rural land.
-7-
SECTION 2. SUBOIVISION ANO PARTITION APPLICATION PROCEOURE AND APPROVAL PROCESS
~
. 2.1 Subdivisions. Before any permit for the erection of any structure
in a proposed subdivision is 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 pro-
posed 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 Administrator the procedure for
adoption of a subdivision plat and the improvement re-
quirements provided for in this Ordinance.
(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 subdivided. 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,
(3) be accompanied by a minimum of five (5) copies of
the sketch plan as described in these regulations
and complying in all respects with these regula-
tions.
(4) be accompanied by the appropriate fee, based on
the fee schedule adopted by the City Council.
(5) The application shall include an address and tele-
phone number of an agent located within Umatilla
County who shall be authorized to receive all no-
tices required by this Ordinance.
(b) Planning Commission review of sketch plan: At· its next
r~gular meeting, the Planning Commission shall study the
sketch plan, taking into consideration the requirement$
of the subdivision regulations and the best use of the
-8-
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 sizes and ar-
rangement, the further development of adjoining lands
as yet unsubdivided, and the requirements of the Com-
prehensive Plan.
(c) Planning Commission recommendation: Within fourteen
(14) days after the Planning Commission reviews the
sketch plan, it shall advise the city council and the
applicant of the specific changes or additions, if any,
it has determined necessary.
(d) City Council review of sketch plan: The City Council
shall review the sketch plan at its next regular meeting
after receiving the Planning Commission's recommendation.
(e) Approval of sketch plan: Within thirty (30) days after
the City Council reviews the sketch plan, it shall ad-
vise 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 subdivision in final form. This approval
authorizes the applicant to submit a tentative plan.
(f) 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:
-9-
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 Re-
corder at least 15 days prior to a regular Planni
Commission meeting.
be made on forms available from the City, tOgether
with the appropriate fee, based on the fee schedu
adopted by the.City Council.
(2)
(1 )
(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:
(3) include all land which the applicant proposes
to subdivide, 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 portion.
(4) comply in all respects with the sketch plan.
as approved.
(b) Preliminary .review by City Engineer: Upon receipt
of the application for tentative plan approval, the
City Recorder shall furnish one copy of the appli-
cation to the City Engineer. The City Engineer
shall review the tentative plan and prepare his
preliminary report to present to the Planning Com-
mission at its next regular meeting.
(c) Planning Commission review: at its next regular
meeting, the Planning Commission shall review the
tentative plan ·and the preliminary report of the
city engineer.
(d) Planning Commission recommendation: Within four-
teen (14) days after Planning Commission review~
the Planning Commission shall advise the City Coun-
cil, City Engineer, and the applicant of the speci-
fic changes or additions, if any~ it has determined
necessary.
(eJ City Council review: The City Council shall hold
a public hearing to review the tentative plan after
receiving the Planning Corrmission's recommendation
and the City Engineer"s report.
(fl Notice and Opportunity to be lIeard:
(1) NOTICE:
(aJ Procedure: The City Recorder shall give
notice of the public hearing in the fol-
lowing manner:
(1) NEWSPAPER: Notice shall be published
in at least two issues of a newspaper
of general 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.
-10-
(2) MAIL: At least ten (10) days prior to t~
pUblic hearing, notice of the hearing Shall
be sent by first class mail to:
(a) The applicant and all record owneri
and contract purchasers of real pro~
erty within 250 feet of the proper~
whi ch is the subject of the proposed
action, and
(b) All affected governmental unHs which
have an interest in the proposed su~
division.
(3) POSTING: At least ten (10) days prior to
the public hearing, a notice of such public
hearing shall be posted on the closest~
1i c streets in vi sib1e 1oca ti ons surrounding
the proposed subdivision or property to be
partitioned.
(b) Content: The pub"' ic notices shall contain the
following:
(1) Date. time and place of public hearing.
(2) General description of the action propos~
on the subdivision application.
(3) Address. including lot and block number.
if any, of the property that is to be
subdivided,
(4) Notice by mail and posting shall also in-
clude a 8>," x 11 ". diagram of the property
to be subdivided, to be provided by the
app1 icant, indicating its location relative
to adjacent property OI'mers wi thi n 250 feet
and at least two clearly marked public
streets.
(2) PUBLIC HEARING: .
(a) The City Council shall hold a public hearing
on the tentative plan within 40 days from the
first regular planning commission meeting
following submission of the tentative plan.
(b) The public hearing shall be conducted in acco~
dance with the requirements governing the con
of quasi-judicial hearings on land use matters
pursuant to ORS 215.412 and 227.170.
-11-
(c) If necessary, the City Council may resolve to
continue the public hearing giving the date,
time, and place the hearing will be continued.
(g) 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
approval or disapproval and the findings and conclu-
sions upon which the City Council's decision was
based .accompanyi ng the plan.
(h) 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 shall
submit a new tentative plan for approval, subject
to all current_zoning restrictions and land division
regulations.
(4) FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT:
(a) Application procedure and requirements: Hithin one year
of the approval of the tentative plan, the applicant,
in order to receive final approval of the subdivision
plat, sha11 fil e with the City Counc il an app1i cati on
which shall:
(1) Be made on forms supplied by the City, together with
the appropriate fee, based on the fee schedule adop-
ted by the City Council.
(2) Include the entire subdivision or section thereof,
access to which is via an existing state, county
or local government street.
(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.
-12-
(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
ded i ca t i on to the pub1i c of all .s treets. 1oca1 9overa.
ment uses, utilities, parks and easements, without
any reservation other than reversionary rights u~
vacation of any such street or road and easements
for public utilities, pursuant to DRS 92.090 (3).
(7) Be accompani ed by a performance bond or other aSSur.
ance for completion and maintenance of improvements.
as specified in Section 3 of this Ordinance, and
which includes a provision that the principal of til
bond or other guarantee of financial security shall
comply with all the terms specified by the City
Council as a condition of approval of the final
subdivision plat,
-13-
(8) Be accompanied by written assurance from public
utility companies and improvement districts that
necessary utilities will be installed and by proof
that the applicant has submitted petitions in writf~
for the creation or extension of any .improvement
districts as required by the City Council upon ten~
tive 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 apprcwa1.
In order to be considered at the next meeting, the
application shall be submitted at least ten (10)
working days before the regularly scheduled meeti
of the City Council.
(2) The application for final plat approval and accom-
panying documents shall be reviewed by the City
Engineer and affected governmental units to deter-
mine whether it substantially conforms to the ten
tive plan, the requirements of law and this Ordin
The City Engineer may make such checks in the fiel
as are desirable to verify that the subdivision pl
is sufficiently correct on the ground and he or.hi
representatives may enter the property for this pu
pose. If the City Engineer determines that the f
subdivision plat does not so conform to the tenta
plan, the requirements of law and the Ordinance,
he shall advise the applicant of the changes that
be made and shall afford the applicant an opportu
to make the changes or additions.
[3} Upon receipt of the plat with the approval of the
City Engineer, the City Council shall consider the
application at a regularly scheduled meeting. With-
in ten (lO) days of the meeting, the City Council.
shall approve, disapprove or conditionally approve
the application, setting forth in detail any condi-
tions 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 security 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 reach-
ing its decision. One" copy of the final subdivisi'on
plat or major partition map signed by the Mayor,
shall be returned to the developer with the date of
approval, conditional approval or disapproval noted
thereon, 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 90 days after the date the last required ap-
proving signature has been obtained, or within one year
of approval of the final plat or map, whichever 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
approval of a sketch plan, procedures for which are specified in
Section 2.1 (2) of this Ordinance.
2.3 Minor Partitions.
(l) 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 fonns available from the City,
(b) include all contiguous~holdingsof the owner, with an
indication of the portion which is proposed to be par-
titioned. 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
-14-
book and page of each conveyance to the present owner
as recorded in the County Clerk's office. The affida_
vit 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 stock- •
holders of each corporation owning more than 5% of
any class of stock,
(c) be accompanied by a nllnlmUm of five (5) copies of the
sketch plan, as described in Section 5.1 of this ordinanQ
and complying in all respects with this Ordinance,
(d) be accompanied by the appropriate fee, based on the fee
schedule adopted by the City Council.
(2) Revdew by City Engineer: The City Recorder, within ten (10)
days of receipt of the application, ~1al1 refer the applicatioo
to the City Engineer, who shall determine if dedication of
land, easements or conditions for approval of the sketch plan
are required.
(3) Review by Planning Commission
(a) After receipt of the application and report by the City
Engineer the Planning Commission shall review the appli-
cation, sketch plan and recommendations of the City Engi-
neer at its next regular meeting.
(b) Planning Commission's Recommendation: Within fourteen
(14) days after the Planning Commission reviews the sketch
plan and the report of the City Engineer, it shall send
its findings and recommendations to the City Council and
the applicant.
(4) Hearing by City Council:
(a)
(b)
The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the
application at its next regular meeting after the Planni~
Commission reviews the sketch plan and the report by the
City Engineer.
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)
(f) of this ordinance.
(5 ) Action on application: The City Council shall approve,
conditionally 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.
·-15-
~CTION 3. ASSURANCE FOR C~1PLETION ANO I1AINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS
e.---
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 appli-
cants 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 descretion ffiJy waive the requirement
that the applicant complete and dedicate all public improve-
ments 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 sub-
division approval 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 incompleted portion of required i~provements.
The guarantee of financial security shall also secure all lot
improvements on the individual lots of the subdivision as re-
quired in these regulations. and may take the form of any of
the following:
(a) Escrow Account: The subdivider or land partitioner ~hall
deposit cash. or collateral readily convertible to cash
at face value, either with the governing bo~y or in escrow
with a bank. The use of collateral other than cash. and
the selection of the bank with which funds are to be de-
posited are subject to the approval of the City Council.
Where an escrow account is to be employed. the subdivider
shall file with the City Council his agreement with the
bank guaranteeing the following:
(1) that the funds in the escrow account are to be held
in trust until released by the governing body and
may not be used or pledged by the subdivider as se-
curity for any obligation during that period;
(2) that in the event that the subdivider fails to com-
plete the required improvements. the bank shall im-
mediately make the funds in escrow available to the
City for the completion of these improvements.
(b) Property Escrow: The subdivider may offer as a guarantee
land or penGonal property. including corporate stocks
or bonds. A qualified real estate appraiser shall es-
tablish the value of any real property so used and in
-16-
(c)
(d)
so doing, sha11 take into account the poss i b.i 1ity
of decline in the value of said property during-the
guarantee period. _The City Council reserves the right
to reject the use as collateral of any property when •
the value of the property is unstable, when the property
may be difficult to sell or when other factors exist
which will inhibit the City Council from exchanging the
property for an amount of money sufficient to complete
the requi red -improvements. Ylhen property is offered as
an improvement guarantee, the subdivider shall:
(1) execute an agreement I-lith the escrow agent I-/hen it
is not the City, instructing the agent to release
the property to the City in case of default. The
agreement shall be placed on file with the City
Recorder.
(2) file with the City Council an affidavit affirming
that the property to be used as a guarantee is free
and clear of any encumbrances or liens at the time
it is to be put in escrow.
(3)- execute and file with the City Council an agreement
stating that the property to be placed in escrow as
an improvement guarantee 1·1i 11 not be used for any
other purpose, or pledged as a security in any other
matter, until it is released by the governing body.
Special Improvement District: The City Council may enter
into an agreement with the subdivider, and the O\1flers of
the property propos?d for subdivision or partition, if
other than the person subdividing or partitioning the la~.
that the installation of required improvements will be
financed through a special improvement district created
pursuant to Oregon law. This agreement shall provide that
no lots within the subdivision or major partition will be
sold, rented, or leased, and no contract for the sale of
lots executed, before the improvements district has been
created. An agreement to finance improvements through
creation of a special improvements district constitutes
a waiver by the subdivider or partitioner, or the owne~
of the property, of the right to protest or petition
against the creation of the district.
Letter of Credit: Subject to the approval of the Cit~
Council the subdivider or land partitioner shall provl~e
a letter of credit from a bank or other reputable instl·
tution or individual. This letter shall be deposited
with the governing body and shall certify the following:
-17-
(1) that the creditor guarantees funds in amount equal
to the cost, as estimated by the subdivider or land
partitioner and approved by the City Council, of
completing all required improvements.
(2) that if the subdivider or land partitioner fails
to comp1ete the spec i fi ed improvements \~i th in the
required period, the creditor will pay to the City
immediately, and without further action, such funds
as are necessary to finance the completion of those
improvements, up to the limit of credit stated in
the letter.
(3) that this letter of credit may not be withdrawn, or
reduced in amount, Unttl released by the City Council.
(el 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
payable 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, except in the case of a creation of a local improvement
district, as provided for in Section 3.1 (2)(c) of this ordi_
nance.
(4) Failure to Complete 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.
3.2 Inspection of Improvements
(1) General Procedure and Fees. The City Council shall provide
for inspection of required improvements during construction
and insure their satisfactory completion. The applicant shall
pay to the City an inspection fee of two percent {2%} of the
amount of the estimated cost 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
-18-
appl icati'on. These fees shall be due and payable upon dernallcl
of the City, and the City will not give zoning approval on
the developer's appl ication 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 imp~
ments have not been constructed in accordance with the City'S ~
construction standards and spec ifi ca ti ons, the appl i cant shall
be responsible for completing the improvements.
(2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion: The City Council will
not accept ded i ca t ion of requ i red improvements, not release 01'
direct the release of property or money held in escrow, or t~
surety performance bond-or letter of credit, until the City
Engineer has submitted a certificate stating that all requ1~
improvements have been satisfactorily completed and until t~
applicant's engineer or surveyor has certified to the City
Engineer, through submission of detailed "as-built" survey
plat of the subdivision, indicating location, dimensions, mate-
rials, and other information required by the City, that the l~.
out of the line and grade of all public improvements is in
accordance with construction plans for the subdivision or maj~
partition, and that title insurance policy has been furnisMd
to and approved by the City Attorney indicating that the im-
provements shall have been completed, are ready for dedica-
tion to the local government and are free and clear of any
and all liens and encumbrances. Upon such approval and re-
commendation, Lhe City Council shall thereafter accept the
improvements for dedication in accordance with the.establis~
procedure, and shall release all performance guarantees post~
by the developer, as provided for in Section 3.1 (2).
3.3 r~aintenance of Improvements
(1) The applicant shall be required to maintain all improvements
on the individual subdivided lots until acceptance of said
improvements by the City Council.
(2) 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 satis-
factory to the City Attorney, in order to assure the satis-
factory 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.
3.4 'Deferra16r-Waiver of ' Required Improvements
ell The City Council giving its reasons therefore, may defer
or waive at the time of tentative plan approval the pro-
vision 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
because of lack of connecting facilities.
-19-
(2) Whenever it is deemed necessary by the City Council to defer
the construction of any improvement required herein because
of incompatible grades~ future planning, inadequate or lack
ofconnecting facilties, 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.
-20-
SECTION 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND DESIGN
4.1 General Improvements·
(1) CONFORMAN0E TO APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS. In addition
to the requirements established herein, all subdivision or
major partitions shall comply with the following laHs, rUles
and regulations: •
(a) The City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Capital
Improvement Program and other appl icable city ordinances.
(b) All applicable Oregon Statutes and administrative rules.
(c) The requirements of the State Highway Division or County
Road Department if the subdivision or partition or any
lot contained therein abuts a state highway or county
road.
(9) Plat approval may be withheld if a subdivision or partit1~
is not -in conformity l'lith 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 may be
required to be indicated on the subdivision plat or partition
map, or the City Council may require that restrictive con-
venants be recorded with the Cpunty Clerk in a form to be
approved by the Ci ty Attorney.
(3) MONUMENTS. The applicant shall have permanent reference
monuments placed in the subdivision or partition as required
by ·ORS 92~050 to 92.070.
(4) CHARACTER OF LAND. Land unsuitable for subdivision, partition
or development due to flooding, improper drainage, steep
slopes, rock formations, adverse earth formations or topo-
graphy, utility easements or other features which will reas~
ably 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, upon 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.
-21-
Cs) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAS. Subdivisions and partitions
in low density residential areas as shown on the comprehensive
plan shall be designed so that such areas may be further
subdivided or partitioned at a latpr time whilp. ~till in-
suring that necessary public facilities can be developed.
(6) SUBDIVISION NAME. The proposed name of the subdivision shall
not duplicate or too closely approximate 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 which shall be deter-
mined 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 shall be suitably improved as
required by city, county or state rules, regulations,
specifications or orders, or be secured by a performance
bond required under these regulations, with the width
and right-of-way required by the~e regul~tions.
(b) Grading and Improvement Plan. Streets shall be graded
. and improved and conform to the city construction stand-
ards and specifications and shall be approved as to de-
sign and specifications by the City Engineer, in accord-
ance with the construction 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 pos-
sible 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 to-
pography. A combination of steep grades and curves
shall be avoided. Specific standards are contained
in the design standards of these regulations.
(2) All streets shall be properly integrated with the
existing and proposed system of thoroughfares and
dedicated right-of-way as established by the Com-
prehensive Plan.
-22-
Cd) Road Names. The sketch plan as submitted shall not
indicate any names upon proposed streets. The City
Council shall name all streets at the time of tentative
plan approval, in the case of a subdivision, or pre-
liminary map approval, in the case of a major partitio~
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. The applicant shall install all
street signs, to be placed at all intersections within
or abutting the subdivision or major partition, the type
and location of which to be approved by the City Engineer.
(f) Street lights. Street lights·shall be lnstalled 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
location, width, and improvement to accommodate pros-
pective traff·ic 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 following design standards
for roads are hereby required as given.in Table 1 and
as follows:
(b) Road Surfacing and Improvements. After sewer, water,
and other required utilities have been installed by
the developer, the applicant shall construct curbs and
gutters as required by Section 4.6 of this ordinance
and shall surface roadways to the widths prescribed in
these regulations. The surfacing shall be of such
character as is suitable for the expected traffic and
in harmony with similar improvements in the surrounding
areas. Types of pavements shall be as determined by
the City Engineer. Adequate provision shall be made
for culverts, drains and bridges.
All road pavement, shoulders, drainage improvements and
structures, curbs, turnarounds, and sidewalks shall con-
form to all construction standards and specifications
adopted by the City Council upon recommendation of the
City Engineer, and shall be incorporated into the con-
struction plans required to be submitted by the developer
for plat approval.
-23-
lC) Excess Right-of-Way. Right-of-way widths in excess of
the standards designated in these regulations shall be
required 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 any on point.
(2) Proposed new intersections along one side of an
existing street shall, wherever practicable~ coin-
cide with an existing intersections on the oppo-
site 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 intersect
'arterial 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 blenty-five (25)
feet. Alley intersections and abrupt changes in
alignment within a block shall have the corners cut
off in accordance with standard engineering practice
to permi t sa fe vehi cu 1ar 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
percent (2%) rate at a distance of sixty feet, meas-
ured from the nearest right-of-way line of the inter-
secting 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 vis-
i bil i ty. the deve1oper sha 11 Cllt such ground and/or
vegetation (including trees) in connection with the
grading of the public right-of-way to the extent
necessary to provide an adequate sight distance.
-24-
(c)
4.3 Drainage and Storm Sewers
(1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. All subdivisions or major partitions
shall have adequate provision for storm or flood water run-
off 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 methods as approved by the'
City Council and a copy of the design computations shall be
submitted along with the plans. Inlets shall be provided SO
that surface water is not carried across or around any inter_
section, not for a distance of more than 600 feet in the
gutter. When calculations indicate that curb capacities
are exceeded at a point, no further allowance shall be made
for flow beyond that point, and basins shall be used to inter_
cept 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
subd·ivision or partition. Such drainage facilities shall
be located "in the road right-of-way where feasible, or
tn perpetual unobstructed easements of appropriate width.
and shall be constructed in accordance with the const~­
tion standards and specifications recomended by the Cit;y
Engineer and adopted by the City Council. .
(b) Accessibility to Public Storm Sewers
(1) \lihere 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
Engineer. However, in subdivision or partitions.
containing lots less than 15,000 square feet in
area and in business and industrial districts, the
City Council may require underground storm sewer
systems to be constructed throughout the subdivision
or partition and be conducted to an approved out-
fall. Inspection of facilities shall be conducted
by the City Engineer.
(2) If a connection to a public· storm sewer will be p~
vided eventually, the developer shall make arrange-
ments for future storm water disposal at the time
the plat receives final approval. Provision for
such connection shall be incorporated by inclus~o~
in the performance bond required for the subdivl S10n
plat or partition map.
Accommoda.tion of Upstream Drainage Areas. A culvert or ....
other drainage facility shall in each case be large en~~"
to accommodate potential runoff from its entire upstrea'
drainage area, whether inside or outside the subdivis iO"
or partition. The City Engineer shall determine the
-25-
neccessary size of the facility, based on provlslons of
the construction standards and specifications-assuming
conditions of maximum potential 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 par-
tition on existing 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 impl'ovements.
Where it "is 'anticipated that the additional runoff inci-
dent to the development of the subdivision or partition
will overload an existing downstream drainage facility.
the City Council may withhold approval of the subdivision
or partition until provision has been made for the improve-
ment of said potential condition in such sum as the City
Council shall determine. No subdivision or partition shall
be approved unless adequate drainage will be provided 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 of the max-
imum 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 r/hich shall be suffi-
cient in time of high water to contain or move the water.
and no fill shall be placed in 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. These flood plain areas shall
be preserved from clearing. grading. or dumping of earth.
waste material. or stumps. except at the discretion of
the City Council.
(3) DEDICATION DF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
(a) General Requirements. Where a subdivision or partition
is traversed by a watercourse. drainage\'lay. channel or
stream. there shall be provided a storm water easement
-26-
or drainage right-of-way conforming substantially to the
lines of such watercourse, and of such width and const~
tion or both as wi)l be adequate for the purpose. Wher,-
ever possible, it is desirable that the drainage be mai~
t~ined by an open channel. with landscaped banks and ad~~
wldth for maximum potential volume of flow.
(b) Drainage Easements
(l) Where topography or other conditi ons are such as to
make impr.actical the inclusion of drainage faciliti~
within road rights-of-way, perpetual unobstructed
easements at least fifteen (15) feet in width for
such drainage facilities shall be provided across
property outside the road lines and with satisfac~
access to the road. Easements shall be indicated
on the plat. Drainage easements 'shall be carried
from the road to a natural watercourse or to other
drainage facilities.
(2) When a proposed drainage system \~ill carry watel'
across private land outside the subdivision or
partition, appropriate drainage rights must be
secured and indicated on the plat.
(3) The applicant shali dedicate, either in fee or by
drainage or conservation easement of land on both
sides of existing watercourses, to a distance to
be determined by the City Council.
(4) Low-lying lands along watercourses subject to floodf~
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 determing the number of lots to M
util i zed for average density procedure nor for com-
puting the area requirement of any lot.
4.4 Water Facilities
(1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
(a)
(b)
Necessary action shall be taken by the applicant to pro-
vide a water-supply system capable of adequately meeting
domestic water use and fire protection requirements.
Where a public water main is accessible, the applicant
shall install adequate water facilities'.including fire
hydrants subject to the specifications of State law.·
All water mains shall be at least six (6) inches in
diameter.
-27-
tc) 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
financial security furnished by the developer.
(2) INDIVIDUAL WELLS AND CENTRAL SYSTEMS
(a) In low-density residential zones if a public water system
is not available, individual wells may be used or a cen-
tral water system provided in such a manner that an ade-
quate supply of potable water will be available to every
lot in the subdivision or partition. Water samples shall
be submitted to the (appropriate government agency) for
its approval, and individual wells and central water sys-
tems shall be approved by (appropriate government agency).
Orders of approval shall be submitted to the City Council.
(b) If the City Council requires that a connection to a public
water main eventually be provided as a condition to ap-
proval of an individual well or central water system,
the applicant shall make arrangements for future water
service at the time the plat or map has received final
approval. Performance or. cash bonds may be required to
insure compliance.
(3) FIRE HYDRANTS. Fire hydrants shall be required for all sub-
division and partitions except those coming under Section 4.4
(2). Fire hydrants shall be located no more than 500 feet
apart and within 500 feet of any structure and shall be ap-
proved by the City and appropriate fire district. To eliminate
future street openings, all underground utilities for fire
hydrants together \'/ith the 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.
-28-
(2) HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Sani_
tary sewerage facilities shall connect with the public sanita~
sewerage system. Sewers shall be installed to serve each lot
and to grades and sizes required by approving officials and'
agencies. No indi"vidual disposal system or treatment rlants
(private or group disposal systems) shall be permitted.
(3) LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. Sanitary sewer_
age systems shall be constructed as follows:
(a) Where a pub1ic sanitary sewerage system is reasonably
accessible the applicant shall connect with same and
provide sewers accessible to each lot in the subdivision
or partition.
(b) Where public sanitary sewerage systems are not reasonably
accessible but will become available within a reasonable
time (not to exceed ten years), the appl i cant may choose
one of the following alternatives:
()) Central Sewerage System, the maintenance cost to
be assessed against each property benefited. Where
plans for future public sanitary sewerage systems
exist, the applicant shall install the sewer lines,
laterals, and mains to be in permanent conformance
with such plans and ready for connection to such
public sewer mains; or
(2) Individual disposal systems, provided the applicant
shall install sanitary sewer lines, laterals, and
mains from the street curb to a point in the sub-
division or partition boundary where a future con-
nection with the public sewer main shall be made.
Sewer lines shall be laid from the house to the
street line, and a connection shall be available
in the home to connect from the individual disposal
system to the sewer system when the public sewers
become available. Such sewer systems shall be
capped until ready for use and shall conform to
all plans for installation of the public sewer sysP
tem, where such exists, and shall be ready for conp
nection to such public sewer main. .
(c) W~ere sanitary sewer systems are not reasonably access~
ible or will not become available for at least ten UOI
years, the applicant may install sewerage systems as
follows:
-29-
(1) Medium-Density Residential Districts. A central
sewerage system only. No individual disposal
system will be permitted. Where plans exist for
a public sewer system to be built, for a period
in excess of ten (10) years, the applicant shall
install all sewer lines, laterals, and mains to
be in permanent conformance with such plans and
ready for connection to such public sewer main.
(2) Low-Oensity Residential District. Individual dis-
posal systems or central sewerage systems shall
be used.
(4) MANDATORY CONNECTION TD PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEM. If a publ ic
sanitary sewer is accessible and a sanitary sewer is placed
in a street or alley abutting upon property, the owner there-
of shall be required to connect to said sewer for the pur-
pose of disposing of waste. and it shall be unlawful for
any such owner or occupant to maintain upon any such property
an individual sewage disposal system.
(5) INDIVIDUAL DISPOSAL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS .. If public sewer
facilities are not available and individual disposal systems
are proposed, minimum lot areas shall conform to the require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance and those of the Department of
Environmental Quality for 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 approve9 by the Department of Environmental
Quality.
4.6 Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks
(1) REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
(a) Concrete curbs and gutters shall be required on all
streets.
(b) Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated non-
pavement right-of-way of all streets as given in Table
2. Sidewalks may be required at the discretion of the
City Council on local or collector residential streets.
(2) PEDESTRIAN ACCESSES. The City Council may require in order
to facilitate pedestrian access from streets to schools,
parks. playgrounds, or other nearby streets, perpetual un-
obstructed easements at least twenty (20) feet in width.
Easements shall be indicated on the plan, plat or map.
-30-
4.7 Utilities
(1) LOCATION. Ali utility facilities, including but not limi~
to, gas, electric power, telephone and CATV cables, shall
be located underground throughout the subdivision or partiti~
Wherever existing utility facilities are located above ground'
except where existing on public roads and rights-of-way, t~
shall be removed and placed underground. All utiHty facili.
ties existing and proposed throughout the subdivision or
partition shall be shown on the tentative plan or map_ Unde~
ground service connections to the street property line of eaQ
platted lot shall be installed at the developer's expense. At
the discretion of the City Council the requirements for servi~
connections to each lot may be waived in the case of adjoini~
lots to be retained in single ownership and intended to be
developed for the same primary use.
(2) EASEMENTS
(a) Easements centered on real' lot line shall be prO'lided for
utilities (private and municipal); such easements shall ~
at least ten (10).feet wide. Pr0per coordination shall
be established between the developer and the appropriate
utility companies for the establishment of utility ease-
ments established in adjoining properties.
(b) Where topographical or other conditions are such as to
make impractical the inclusion of utilities witJin the
rear lot lines, perpetual unobstructed easements at
least ten (10) feet in width shall be provided along
side lot lines vlith satisfactory access to the road or
rear lot lines. Easements shall be indicated on the
plan, plat, or map.
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
reservation shall be of suitable size, dimension, topo-
graphy, and general character and shall have ade~uate
road access, for the particular purposes envisioned by
the City. When recreation areas are required, the nu~
of acres to be reserved shall be determined from Table 3.)
\oJhich has been prepared on the basis of providing two (211,acres of recreation area for everyone hundred (100) m-
ing units. The developer shall dedicate all such recr:a-
tion area to the City as a condition of final subdivisl~
or partition approval.
-31-
(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 per-
centages from Table 3 would create less than two (2)
acres. the City Council may require that the recreation
area be located at a suitable place on the edge of the
subdivision or partition so that additional land may be
added at such time as the adjacent land is subdivided
or partitioned. The City Council may a1101'1 or require
provision of tot lots in addition to or instead of
parks and playgrounds. Where recreation land in any
subdivision or partition is not reserved. or the land
reserved is less than the percentage in Table 3 the
provisions of Section 4.8 (1) (d) shall be applicable.
(c) Recreation Sites. Land reserved for recreation pur-
poses shall be of a character and location suitable
for use as a playground. playfield. or for other rec-
reation purposes. and shall be relatively level and
dry; and shall be improved by the developer to the
standards required by the City Council such improve-
ments shall be included in the performance bond or
other guarantee of financial security. All land to
be reserved for dedication to the City for park pur-
poses shall have prior approval of the City Council
and shall be shmvn marked on the plat or map. IIRe_
served for Park and/or Recreation Purposes.
(d) Alternative Procedure: Money in Lieu of land. Where~
with respect to a particular subdivision or partition.
the reservation of land required pursuant to this
section does not equal the percentage of total land
required to be reserved in Table 3. the applicant
shall deposit with the City Council a cash payment
in lieu of land reservation prior to the final ap-
proval 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 for facili-
ties that will be actually available to and benefit
the persons in said subdivision or division or par-
tition. The City Council shall determine the amount
to be deposited. based on the following formula: two
hundred ($200) multiplied by the number of times the
total area of the subdivision or partition is divisible
by the required minimum lot size of the zoning district
in which it is located, less a credit for the amount
of land actually reserved for recreation purposes, or
streets. or both, if any, as the land reserved bears
in proportion to the land required for reservation
in Table 3.
-32-
(~) 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 in
excess of the requirements of Table 3, or other public
usp.s as indicated on the Comprehensive Plan or any
portion thereof, such space shall be suitably incor-
porated by the applicant into his sketch plan. After
proper determination of its necessity by the £ity
Council and the appropriate local government official
or other public agency involved in the acquisition and
use of each such ~ite and a determination has been
made to acqui re the site by the pub1ic 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'p~an to the pDb1ic' body concerned with ac-
quisition for its consideration and report. The City
Council may propose alternate areas for such acquisition
and shall allow the public body or agency 30 days for
reply. The agency's recommendation, if affirmative,
shal; 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 affir-
mative 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 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 agenC1
to initiate acquisition within the prescribed 12 month~
sha11 result in the removal of the "reserved" des ignatlOn
from the property involved and the freeing of the prop-
erty for development in accordance with these regulations.
4.9 Preservation of Natural Features and ~enities
(1) GENERAL. 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,
-33-
and similar irreplaceable assets, shall be preserved in
the 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 tenta- .
tive plan or map has been granted. All trees where required
to be retained shall be preserved, and all trees where re-
quired shall be \'/elled and protected 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, and the location
of all proposed trees required along the street side of
each lot as required by these regulations.
(2) TREES PLANTED BY DEVELOPER
(a) As a requirement of subdivision or partition approval,
the applicant shall plant trees on the property of the
subdivision or partition. Such trees are to be planted
within five (5) feet of the right-of-way of the road
or roads within and abutting the subdivision or partition,
or, at the descretion of the City Council, within the
right-of-way or on the abutting property which in the
opinion of the City Council comply with these regulations.
tb) New trees to be provided pursuant to these regulations
shall be approved by the City. Such trees shall have
a minimum trunk diameter of not less than two (2) inches,
measured 12 inches above ground level.
(1) Only long-lived trees which are suited to the
City's climate and soils shall be planted.
(2) On east-west streets, a tree shall mean a de-
ciduous tree which loses its leaves in winter.
(3) On north-south streets, a tree shall mean an
evergreen tree which retains its leaves or
needl es throughollt the year.
(3) TREE EASEMENT AND DEDICATION. The tentative plan or map
and final plat or map· shall reserve an easement authorizing
the City to plant trees \'Iithin five (5) feet· of the required
street right-of-way of the City. No street shall be
accepted for dedication until the City Engineer informs
the City Council that compliance, where necessary. has
been made with this requirement.
4.10 Nonresidential Subd~visions
(1 ) GENERAl.
zoned for
If a proposed
corrmercial or
-34-
subdivision includes
industrial purposes,
land that is
the layout of
the subdivision with respect to such land shall make such
provision as the City Council may require. A nonresidential
subdivision shall be subject to all the requirements of
these regulations, additional standards required by the Ci~
. Council, and shall conform to the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance.
(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 satisfaction of the City Council that the street, par-
cel, 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.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Proposed industrial parcels shall be suitable in
area and dimensions to the type ~f industrial de-
velopment anticipated.
Street rights-of-way and pavement shall be adequate
to accommodate the type and volume of traffic anti-
cipated to be generated thereupon.
Special requirements may be imposed with respect to
street, curb, gutter, and sidewalk design and con-
struction.
Special requirements may be imposed with respect to
the installation of public utilities, including water.
sewer, and storm water drainage.
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 upon ex-
isting or potential residential development and pro-
visions for a permanently landsaped 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 residen-
tial areas.
-35-
TABLE I
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS
Residential
~imum Right-of-Way Width (in feet)
Business-Industrial
Arterial Street
Collector Street
Local Street
Alleys
Minimum Surfaced Width (in feet)
Arterial Street
Collector Street
Local Street
Alleys
!@ximum Grade (Per Cent)
LocaI Street
Collector Street
Arterial 'Street
ttini.mum Grade
~tmum Radtus of Curve Un feetI
Local Street
Collector Street
Arter; a1 Street
80
60
50
20
44
38
38
20
12
10
8
0,5
200
300
400
100
70
60
24
48
44
38
24
8
7
5
0.5
300
400
500
-------------------~---------------'---
___________________-~36=-- _
TABLE 1 (continued)
DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ROADS
Resi denti a1
Minimum Length of Tangents Between Reserve Curves (in feet)
-Business - Indust....l
-
Local Street
Collector Street
Arterial Street
Minimum Sight Distance (in feet)
Loca1 Street
Collector Street
Arteri a1 Street
Intersection
100
200
300
150
200
275
Across Corners - 75 feet Back
200
300
400
200
275
300
Minimum Cul De Sac Diameter (in feet) 70
Design Speed (Miles per Hour)
90
Local Street
Collector Street
Arterial Street
Minimum Length of Vertical Curves
25
35
40
30
40
45
-
Loca1 Street
Collector Street
Arteri a1 Street
100 feet, but not less than 20 feet for each
algebraic difference in grade.
200 feet, but not less than 50 feet for each
1 per cent.
300 feet, but not less than 50 feet for each
algebraic difference in grade.
-37 -
TABLE 2
SIOEWALKS REQUIREO
-Type of Street Residential Business-Industrial
-
Local Optional* Both Sides Six (6 ) Feet Wide
Collector Optional* Both Sides Six (6 ) Feet Wide
Arter; a1 Both Si des Four Both Sides Six (6 ) Feet Wide(4) Feet Wide
*NOTE: Optional, but where provided by the developer or required by the City
Council, four (4) feet minimum on one side of the road with concrete
curbs and gutters.
TABLE 3
TABLE OF RECREATION REQUIREMENTS*
Size of Lot
40,000 S. F. or larger
20,000 S. F.
10,000 S. F. or less
Percentage of Total Land in Subdivision.
to be Reserved for Recreation Purposes
2.0 per cent
4.0 per cent
8.0 per cent
*NOTE: Calculated on the basis of two (2) acres of park per 100 dwelling units.
-3B-
.....
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 lnch.
(2) ~ame: The s~etc~ p~an shal~ s~ow the ~a~e.of the s~bdlvision
1f property 1S w,-thln an eXlstlng subdlvlslon, and If not, it
shall show the proposed name which does n'ot 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 referenc0.
(b) Citation of any existing legal right-of-way or ease-
ments affecting the property.
(c) Exi.sting covenants on the property, if any.
(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, north arrow, and date.
(5) Features. The following are the required features of the
sketch map. .
(a) Location of property lines, existing easements. burial
grounds, railroads right-of-way, watercourses, and
existing 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 immed-
iately adjacent to the tract; names and addresses of
adjoining property owners from the latest assessment
rolls within two hundred fifty (250) feet of any peri-
meter 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; existing permanent building and utility poles
on or immediately adjacent to the site and utility
rights-of-way.
-39-
lc) Approxi~ate topography, with contour intervals
of at least 20 feet.
Cd) The approxfmate location and "idths of proposed .
streets.
(e1 Preliminary proposals for connection I-lith.. existing
water supply and sanitary sewage systems, or alter-
native means of providing water supply and sanitary
waste treatment and disposal. preliminary provision
for collecting and discharging surface water drain-
age, accompanied by tentative approval by the Depart-
ment 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.
(h) The location of temporary stakes to enable City
officials to find and appraise features of the
sketch plan in the field.
li) Whenever the sketch plan covers only a part of an
applicant'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, together with
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
development of the surrounding area. The sketch
plan shall show all school and improve~ents dis-
trict lines with the zones properly designated.
5.2 Tentative Plan
(1) Required: The following shall be required of a tenta-
tive subdivision plan or major partition map.
Cal Scale. The plan or map shall be drawn on a sheet
18 by 24 inches ;n size or a multiple thereof at
a scale of one inch equals 100 feet or, for areas
over 100 acres) one inch equals 200 feet.
-40-
(b) Name: The plan or map shall show the name of the
subdivision 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 pr~viously recorded, as pro-
vided by ORS 92.01 (1).
(c) Ownership:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
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.
Citation of any existing legal rights-of-way or
easements affecting the property.
Existing covenants on the property, if any.
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 surv~ys.
(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
tentative plan or map.
(3) The location, widths and names of both opened
and unopened streets within or adjacent to the
tract, together with easements and other important
features. such as section lines, sections corners,
city boundary lines and monuments.
(4) Contour lines related to some established bench
mark or other datum approved by the City Engineer
and having 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 symbol together
with not less than four spot elevations
per acre, evenly distributed.
-41-
lb) For slopes of ftve percent (5~) to ftfteen
percent 05%): five feet.
(c) For slopes of fifteen percent 05%) to twenty
percent (20%): ten feet.
(d) For slopes of over twenty percent (20%):
twenty feet.
(5) The location of at least one temporary bench mark
within the subdivisl~on or partftion 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, marshes,
wooded areas and isolated preservable trees.
(8) Existing uses of the property and location of
existing structures to remain on the property
after platti.ng.
(9) The location, width, approximate grades
and radii of curves of proposed streets. The
relationship of streets to projected streets to
assure adequate traffic circulation.
(10) A plan for domestic water supply lines and related
water service facilities.
(11)
(12 )
Proposals for sewage disposal, storm water drainage
and flood control, including profiles of proposed
drainage ways.
Proposals for the improvements, such a~ electric
lines~ natural gas, sidewalks, cable TV, tele--
phone lines, and so on.
(13)
(14 )
(15 )
A donation to the city of.all common improvements,
including but not iimited to streets, parks.
sewage disposal and water supply lines, the do-
nation of which shall be a condition of approval of
the tentative plan.
The location, width and purpose of proposed easements.
The location and approximate dimensions of proposed
lots an~ the proposed lot and block numbers.
(16) Proposed sites, if any, allocated for purposes other
than single-family dwellings.
-42-
(2). The following may be required at the discretion of the City
Council. If the information cannot be shOlm practicably on
tentative plan or map, it shall be submitted in separate
statements accompanying the plan or map.
(a) A vicinity map showing existing subdivisions and unsub_
divided land ownerships adjacent to the proposed sub-
division or partition and showing how 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 adjoining
streets of existing sewers, water mains, culverts, drafn
pipes and electric lines.
(d) A sketch of a" tentative layout for streets in the un-
subdivided portion, if the subdivision proposal pertains
to only part of the track owned or controlled by the
subdivider.
(e) Approximate center line profiles with 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 con-
struction.
(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 Subdivision Plat or Major Partition Map
(1) Information required on Final Plat or Map: The final sub-
division plat or partition map shall be presented in india
ink and shall contain all information, except for any chan~
or additions required by resolution of the City Council
showing on the tentative plan or map. In addition, the
following information shall also be shown on the final sub-
division plat or partition map:
(a) Reference points of existing surveys identified, re-
lated to the plat 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.
-43-
(2) Adjoining corners of adjoining subdivisions or
partitions.
(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
intercepting the boundary of the tract.
(c) Tract, block and lot boundary lines and street right-
of-way and center lines, with dimensions, bearings,
or deflections angles, radii, arcs, point~ and curva-
ture and tangent bearings. Normal high water lines
and the hundred-year flood plain for any creek or other
body of water. Tract boundaries 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
curvature, 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.
(e) Easements denoted by fine dotted lines, clearly identi-
fied and, if already of record, their recorded reference.
If an easement is not definitely located of record, a
statement of the easement shall be given. The width of
the easement, its length and bearing, and sufficient
ties to locat~ the easement with respect to the sub-
division shall be shown. If the easement is being
dedicated by the map, it shall be properly referenced
in the owner's certificates of dedication.
(f) Lot numbers beginning with the number "1 11 and numbered
consecutively in each block.
(9) Block numbers beginning with the number "1" and continuing
consecutively without omission or duplication throughout
the subdivision. The numbers shall be solid, of suffi-
cient size and thickness to stand out and so placed as
not to obliterate any figure. Block numbers in an addi-
tion to a subdivision of the same name shall be a con-
tinuation of the numbering in the original subdivision
pursuant to ORS 92.090 (1).
(h) Identification of land to be dedicated for any purpose,
public or private, to distinguish it from lots intended
for sale.
-44-
(i) Building setback lines, if required, are to be made
a part of the subdivision restrictions.
(j) Explanations of all common improvements required as
conditions of approval of the tentative plan, pursuant.
to Section 5.2 (1) (e) (13) of this ordinance.
(k) The following certificates, which may be combined,
where appropriate:
(1) A certificate signed and acknowledged by all
parties having any record title interest in
the land, consenting to the preparation and
recording of the plat.
(2) A certificate signed and acknowledged as above,
dedicating all land intended for public use ex-
cept land which is intended for the exclusive
use of the lot owners in the subdivision, their
licensees, visitors, tenants and servants.
(3) A certificate with the seal of and signed by the
City Engineer or the surveyor responsbi1e for
the survey a~d final map.
(4) A certificate of approval signed by the City
Engineer stating that streets and roads held
for private use and indicated on the tentative
plan have been approved by the City pursuant
to ORS 92.090 (3) (b).
(5) Any other certifications now or hereafter required
by law.
(2) Supplemental information required. The following data
shall accompany the final plat or map:
(a) A preliminary title report issued by a title insurance
company in the name of the owner of the land, showing
all parties whose consent is necessary and their inter-
est in·the premises.
(b) Sheets and drawings showing the following.
(1) Traverse data including the coordinates of the
boundary of the subdivision and ties to section
corners and donation land claim corners, and
showing the error of closure, if any.
(2) The computation of distances, angles and courses
shown on the plat.
(3) Ties to.existing monuments, proposed monuments.
adjacent subdivisions, street corners and state
highway stationing.
-45-
(c) A copy of any deed restrictions applicable to the
subdivision.
(d) A copy of any dedication requiring separate documents.
(e) A list of all taxes and assessments On the tract which
have become a lien on the tract.
(f) A certificate by the City Engineer that the subdivider
or land partitioner has complied with the requirements
of this ordinance.
-'L
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Pilot Rock City Council on this 11 day of
%),,?ri~/ty-= . 1978.
~
ArrEST:
-46-
CITY OF PILOT ROCK. OREGON
APPLICATION TO AMENO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
APPLiCANT
Name _
Address _
Phone No.
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
Landowner (agent*) within Urban Growth Boundary __
Resident (renter) within Urban Growth Boundary ___
Governmental Unit: City of Pilot Rock t County '
Special District , State Agency , Federal Agency __
*Note: If agent, attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF AMENDMENT
Applicant shall prepare and attach a copy of proposed text amendment
to this application. Section(s) to be amended _
JUSTIFICATION FOR AMEN~~ENT
Applicant shall prepare and attach a presentation of facts and reasons
which establish need, appropriateness and purpose of the proposed amend-
ment.
FEE
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $, __
I, • (Circle one: Landowner,
agent. resident. representative of government unit) swear that the details
and information contained in the above application and attachments thereto
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I,"~.-.~.-c~,-,~~~=-cco=",~crcc-c~c-c..,c:L=' City Recorder of Pilot Rock
attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were received by
me on the day of ,19 __, from _
- accompanied by a fee of $ _
~----____=>"..,...c_c_.__-----Ci ty Recorder
2/79
I'
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Date
1. Application submitted by applicant
2. Planning Commission hearing date set
3. Public notice of Planning Commission hearing
a) Mailed to affected governmental units
b) Published in local newspaper (two times)
4. Planning Commission hearing held
5. Planning Commission recommendation (within 60 days of hearing)
----
6. City Council hearing date set
7. Public notice of City Council hearing
a) Mailed to affected governmental units
b) Published in local newspaper (two times)
8. City Council hearing held
9. City Council decision (within 10 days of hearing)
10. Applicant notified of decision
11. Effective date, if amendment adopted by City Council
12. Copy of adopted amendment sent to the County Clerk pursuant
to ORS 92.048(4), and to the County Planning Department
CITY RECORDS
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
1. Application and attachments thereto
2. Schedule and checklist
3. Copies of public notices
4. Analysis of applicable plan goals and policies. Note: All amendments to
the Subdivision Ordinance must be consistent with the adopted Comprehensiv,
Plan.
5. Planning Commission hearing record, findings of fact and recommendation
6. City Council hearing record, findings of fact "and recommendation
7. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
8. Copies of notices to County Clerk and County Planning Department
ment adapted.
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION FOR PARTITION/SUBDIVISION
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE)
LANDOWNER
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
APPLICANT' (if different from above)
Name _
Address ----------
Phone No. _
*Note: Attach written authorization to represent landowner.
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Minor Partition (two-three lots** without street)
Sketch Pl an
Major Partition (two-three lots** with street)
Tentative Hap
_ Final Hap
___ Subdivision (four or more lots**)
Sketch Plan
Tentative Plan
Final Plat
**Note: Refer to Zoning Ordinance for minimum lot size.
AnACHNENTS
Applicant shall prepare and attach to this application as appropriate
1. 8 1/2" X 11 11 location map of proposed partition/subdivision and
adjacent property and at least two clearly marked public streets;
2. A list of names and addresses of property Qwners*** whose property
is within 250 feet of the exterior boundary of the proposed parti-
tion/subdivision; and
***Note: This information available from County Assessor's office.
Page 1 of 2 pages
I "
3. Either
a) Sketch Plan - five copies ( see Ordinance Section 5.1), or
b) Tentative Plan or Map - five copies (see Ordinance Section
5.2), or
c) Final Plat or Map - ten" copies (see Ordinance Section 5.3).
FEE AND DEPOSIT
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council.
Fee $ _
Deposit (to pay for engineer/legal fees)
Total $ ======;:
I, " (Circle one: Landowner, agent)
swear that the details and information contained in the above application and
attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, City Recorder of Pilot Rock,
attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were receiv~d
by me on the day of , 19 __, from _
accompanied by a fee and
------------------------
deposit of $ _
City Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR MINOR PARTITION
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE)
Date,
1. Application and sketch plan submitted by applicant
2. Sketch plan referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
deposit.
3. Sketch plan reviewed by Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within 14 days of review)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of hearing
a) Published in local newspaper (two times)
b) Mailed to property ~dners
c) Posted
7. City Council hearing held
B. City Council decision (within 14 days of hearing)
9. Applicant notified of decision
10. If Minor Partition approved, County Clerk and Assessor
notified
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR MINOR PARTITION
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE)
1. Application, sketch plan and attachments thereto
2. City Engineer's report
3. Planning Commission meeting record, findings of fact and recarnmendation
4. Copies of public notices
S. City Council hearing record. findings of fact. conclusions and decision
6. Copy of notice to applicant
7. Copies of notices to County Clerk and Assessor (if Minor Partition approved)
8. Schedule and checklist
2/79
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR MAJOR PARTITION
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE)
A. Tentative Map
1. Application and tentative map submitted by applicant
2. Tentative map referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
deposit.
3. Tentative map reviewed by Planning Commission
Note: At least fifteen (15) days after application
----- submitted to allow for review by City Engineer.
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within fourteen (14)
days of revi ew)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of hearing
a) Published in local newspaper (two times)
b) Mailed to property owners
c) Posted
7. City Council hearing
8. City Council decision (within fifteen (15) days of
hearing)
9. Notice to applicant of decision
B. Final Map (within one year of tentative map approval)
1. Application and final map submitted by applicant
2. Final map referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
deposi t.
3. Final map reviewed by City Council
Note: At least ten [10) days after application submitted
to allow for review by City Engineer.
Page 1 of 2 pages
Date
4. City Council decision (within ten (lO) days of review)
5. Notice to applicant of decision
6. If major partition approved, County Clerk and Assessor
notified
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR MAJOR PARTITION
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE)
A. Tentative Map
1. Application, tentative map and attachments thereto
2. City Engineer's report
------:.
3. Planning Commission meeting record, findings of fact, and
recommendation
4. Copies of public notices
5. City Council hearing record, findings of fact, conclusions and
decision
6. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
7. Schedule and checklist
B. Final Map
1. Application, final map and attachments thereto
2. City Engineer's report
3. City Council meeting record, findings of fact, conclusions and
decision
4. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
5. Copy of notices to County Clerk and Assessor, if major partition
approved
6. Documents dedicating street and other common improvements to City
7. Schedule and checklist
Page 2 of 2 pages
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
~. Sketch Plan
1. Applicant discusses sketch plan requirements with City
Engineer
2. Application and sketch plan submitted by applicant
3. Sketch plan reviewed by Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within 14 days of
review)
5. City Council review of sketch plan
6. City Council decision (within 30 days of review)
7. Notice to applicant of decision
8. Notice to affected governmental units (if sketch plan
approved)
B. Tentative Plan
1. Application and tentative plan submitted by applicant
2. Tentative plan referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
deposit
3. Tentative plan reviewed by Planning Commission
Note: At least fifteen (15) days after application
submitted to allow for review by City Engineer
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within 14 days of
review)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of hearing
a) Published in local newspaper (two times)
b) ~~i1ed to property owners
c) Posted
Page 1 of 3 pages
Date
7. City Council hearing
8. City Council decision (within 15 days of hearing)
9. Notice to applicant of decision.
C. Final Plat (within one year of tentative plan approval)
1. App)ication and final plat submitted by applicant
2. Final plat referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
depos it.
3. Final plat reviewed by City Council
Note: At least ten (10) days after application sub-
mitted to allow for review by City Engineer.
4. City Council decision (within 10 days of review)
5. Notice to applicant of decision
6. If subdivision approved, County Clerk and Assessor
notified
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PIL.OT ROCK APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
A. Sketch Pl an
1. Application, sketch plan and attachments thereto
2. Planning Commission meeting record, findings of fact and
recommendation
3. City Council meeting record, findings of fact, conclusions and
decision
4. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
5. Copies of notice to affected governmental units (if sketch plan
approved)
6. Schedule and checklist
B. Tentative Plan
1. Application, tentative plan and attachments thereto
2. City Engineer's report
3. Planning Commission meeting record, findings of fact, and recommendatio"
Page 2 of 3 pages
4. Copies of public notices
5. City Council hearing record, findings of fact, conclusions and
decision .
6. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
7. Schedule and checklist
C. Final Plat
1. Appl ication, final plat and attachments thereto
2. City Engineer's report
3. City Council meeting record, findings of fact, conclusions and
decision
4. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
5. Copy of notices to County Clerk and Assessor, if subdivision approved
6. Documents dedicating streets and other common improvements to City
7. Schedule and checklist
Page 3 of 3 pages
Ordinance No. 5/17
CITY OF PILOT ROCK
MOBILE HOME PARK ORDIN~~CE
2ECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Title. These regulations shall hereafter be known, cited and
referred to as the Mobile Home Park Regulations of the City of
Pilot Rock.
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 establishing uniform procedures and standards for Mobile
Home Parks within the City. These regulations are necessary to:
(l) guide the future development of the City in accordance
with the. Comprehensive Plan.
(2) insure that facilities, including but not limited to
sanitation systems, water supply systems, streets and
fire protection, are adequate to serve a Mobile Home
Park, 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 Jurisdiction.
(1) These regulations shall apply to all Nobile Home Parks
located within the corporate limits of the municipality.
(2) The City shall review and comment on plans for Mobile
Home Parks to be developed beyond the corporate limits
of the City and within the urban growth boundary.
1.4 Severability. Where any word, phrase, clause, sentence, para-
graph or section, or other part of these regulations ;s held
invalid by court of competent jurisdiction, this judgement shall
affect only that part held invalid, and shall not impair the
validity of the remainder of these regulations.
1.5 Amendments. An amendment to this ordinance may be initiated by
the City Council. Planning Commission. an affected governmental
unit. or by application of a property owner or resident in the
City or urban growth area.
1.6 Violation and Penalties. In addition to penalties provided by
state law. any person violating or failing to comply with a
provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof. be
punished by a fine of not more than 5500.00 or by imprisonment
for not more than 30 days. or both. In add iti on. the Ci ty
shall not give zoning approval of any application for a building
permit to be issued by the State of Oregon as to any piece of
-1-
· I
property owned by a person in violation of the provisions of
this Ordinance.
1.7 Schedule of Fees.
(1) 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 accep~
unless accompanied by all applicable fees.
1.8 Definitions. The words and phrases used in this Ordinance shall
have the meaning given in the City Zoning and Subdivision Ordina
1.9 Mobile Home Park License
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a mobile
home rark within the City unless such person holds a valid
license issued by the City.
(2) Every person holding a license shall give notice in writing
to the City within twenty-four hours after having sold, trans-
ferred or otherwise disposed of any interest in or control of
a mobile home park. Such notice shall include the name and
address of such person's successor in interest or control.
-2-
(3) Applications for licenses shall be in writing. Such appli-
cations shall contain the name and address of the applicant
and the location and legal description of the property,
showing stands, individual mobile· home space, buildings,
roads and other service facilities. The license shall be
granted upon inspection of the mobile home park if it is
in compliance with the design requirements of this ordinance.
(4) If a pre-existing mobile home park is found not to be in
compliance with the design requirements of this ordinance,
the applicant. shall either make necessary alterations or
seek a waiver of required improvements.
(5) After the license has been issued, the City may conduct peri
inspections. If any violations of the conditions of this
ordinance are found, the City Recorder shall give notice to
the person to whom the license was issued. Unless the speci
violations are made to conform to this ordinance within 30
days the license shall be suspended and operation of the
park shall cease.
(6) Upon withdrawal of a license, the licensee shall have 30 d~
to request a hearing before the City Council. The filing 0
the request shall operate as a stay of suspension. A heari~
shall be set within 30 days. If the City Council finds tha
the licensee is in compliance, the notice of violation shal
be modified or withdrawn. If the City Council finds that
licensee has failed to comply with this Ordinance, the lie
shall be revoked.
,..
SECTION 2.
~
2.1
2.2
PROCEDURE FOR MOBILE HOME PARK PLAN APPROVAL
Discussion of Requirements: Before preparing the sketch plan as,
required in Section 2.2 below, the applicant shall discuss with the
City Administrator the procedure for approval of a Mobile ~ome Park.
plan and the impRovement requirements provided for in this Ordinance.
Sketch Plan. Prior to development of a Mobile Home Park the owner
of land or his representative shall file an application for ap-
proval of a sketch plan.
(1) The application shall:
(a) be made on forms available from the City.
(b) include all land which the applicant proposes to develop,
and if the mobile home park pertains to only a part of
the tract owned or controlled by the developer, then the
applicant shall also include a sketch of a tentative lay-
out for streets in the remaining portion. 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 con-
veyance 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 and submitted to the City Recorder at least
fifteen days prior to a regular Planning Commission meeting.
(d) be accompanied by the appropriate fee, based on the fee
schedule~adopted· by· the City Council.
(e) the application shall include an address and telephone
number of an agent located within.Umatilla County who
shall be authorized to receive al' notices required by
this Ordinance.
(2) Review by City Engineer: The City Recorder shall refer the
application to the City Engineer, who shall determine if
conditions for approval of the sketch plan are required.
(3) Review by Planning Commission
(a) after receipt of the application and report by the City
Engineer the Planning Commission shall review the appli-
cation, sketch plan and the recommendations of the City
Engineer at its next regular meeting.
~3~
-4-
be made on forms supplied by the City, together with
the appropriate fee, based on the fee schedule adopted
by the City Council.
be accompanied by a minimum of ten copies of the final
mobile home park plan.
comply in all respects with the sketch plan, as approV
be presented to the City Recorder at least fifteen (15
days prior to the regular meeting of the Planning Com·
mission at which consideration is desired.
(c)
(d)
(b)
(a)
(b) Planning Corranission's Recommendation: Within fourteen
(14) days after the Planning Commission reviews the
sketch plan and "the report of the City Engineer, it •
shall send its findings and recommendations to the C1~
Council and the applicant.
(4) Review by City Council: At its next regular meeting after
receiving the Planning Commission's recommendation, the
City Council shall review the application.
(5) Action on Application: The City Council shall approve, co
ditionally approve, or deny the application and state the
reasons therefore within fourteen (14) days after its rev1
is completed. This approval authorizes the applicant to s~
mit a final plan.
(6) Notice to Governmental Units: All affected governmental u~b
shall be notified of the approval of the sketch plan and s~l1
be given a reasonable period of time to review the sketch p
and to suggest revisions in the public interest prior to the
public hearing on the final plan.
(7) EffectIve Period of Approval:
(a) The approval of a sketch plan for a mobile home park shill
be effective for one year.
(b) Any plan not receiving final approval within one year
shall be null and void, and the developer must submit
a new sketch plan for approval, subject to all current
land regulations.
2.3 Final Mobile Home Park Plan
(1) Application procedure and requirements. Within one year of
the approval of the sketch plan, the applicant, in order to
receive final approval of the mobile home park, shall file
an application which shall:
(2) Preliminary review by City Engineer: Upon receipt of the
application for final plan approval~ the City Recorder
shall furnish one copy of the application to the City
Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the final plan
and prepare his preliminary report to present to the
Planning Commission at its next regular meeting.
(3) Planning Commission review: At its next regular meeting~
the Planning Commission shall review the final plan and
the preliminary report of the City Engineer.
(4) Planning Conwnission recommendations: Within fourteen (14)
days after Planning Commission review~ the Planning C~~­
mission shall advise the City Council~ City Engineer~ and
the applicant of the specific changes or additions~ if any,
it has determined necessary.
(5) City Council review: The City Council shall hold a public
hearing to review the final plan after receiving the Planning
Commission's recommendation and the City Engineer's report.
(6) Notice:
(a) Procedure:
the pub1 ic
The City Recorder shall give notice of
hearing in the following manner:
1. NEWSPAPER: Notice shall be published in at least
bm issues of a newspaper of general Cil~CulJtion
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 within 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 Mobile Home Park.
3. POSTING: At least ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing. a notice of such public hearing shall be
posted on the closest public streets in visible lo-
cations surrounding the proposed Mobile Home Park.
-5-
(b) Content: The public notices shall contain the followf
1. Date, time and place of public hearing.
2. General description of the action proposed on
the application.
3. J,ddress,. i nc1udi ng lot and block number, if any.
of the property.
4. Notice by mail and posting shall also including
a 8!:!" x 11" diagram of the property, to be pro-
vided by the appli.cant,indicating its location
relative to adjacent property owners within 250
feet and at least two clearly marked public streets.
(7) Public Hearing:
(a) the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the
final plan within 40 days from the first regular
planning commission meeting following submission of
the fi na1 plan.·
(b) 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.
(c) If necessary, the City Council may reso'lve 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.
(b) One copy of the final plan shall be returned to the
developer with the date of approval, conditional
approval or disapproval and the findings and conclusions
upon which the City Council's decision was based acc~
paning 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.
-6-
3.2 Character of the Land. Land which is 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. Existing features which wQuld.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 preserved in the design.
3.3 General. Applicable standards of the City Subdivision Ordinance
shall be followed by the developer.
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
improvements required as each phase is constructed shall be deter-
mined based upon the total number of mobile home spaces which will
exist after completion of all phases.
3.5 Required Im~rovements. The follOWing improvements shall be re-
quired subject to applicable standards as approved by the City
Council upon recommendation of the City Engineer.
(1) Interior streets
(2) Water lines and fire hydrants
(3) Sewer lines
(4) Underground utilities
(5) Provision for adequate drainage
(6) Six (6) foot sight obscuring perimeter fence or landscaping
3.6 Opti ana 1. Improvements. The fo 11 ow; ng improvements may be requi red
subject to upplicable 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 recreation vehicle parking or both
(4) Fenced play area(s) or park(s) or both
(5) Recreational facilities
(6) Groundcover or trees or both
(7) Laundry facilities
(8) Other suitable improvements as det~rmined by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
-7-
3.7 Connection with Public Water and Sewage Systems. Mobile Home
Park water and sewer lines shall be connected to City water
and sewer 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 or sewer lines or both to the
site.
3.8 Deferral or Waiver of· Required Improvements. The City Council
giving their reasons therefore, may defer or waive the provi-
sion 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 .
. ' .
SECTION 4. SITING AND INSTALLATION OF MOBILE HOMES IN MOBILE HOME PARKS
4;1 Mobile Home Spaces. Each space for a mobile home shall contain
not less than 2,500 square feet exclusive of space provided for
the common use of tenants, such as roadways, general use struc-
tures, guest parking, walkways and areas for recreation and
landscaping purposes. See' subsection 4.2 and 4.3 (2) belO\~ for
related requirements.
-8-
4.2 Setback Requirements. No mobile.,home 1n..tbe park sha.ll be lo-
cated closer than fifteen (15) feet from another mobile home or
from a.general use building in the park. No mobile home acces-
sory building or other building or structure on a mobile home
space shall be closer than ten (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 struc-
ture shall be within 25 feet of a public street property bound-
ary or ten (~O) feet of another property boundary.
4.3 Installation Requirements.
(1) Insigne of Compliance. The mobile home shall have the
Oregon "Insigne of Compliance" as provided for by ORS
446.170. However, upon submission of evidence indicating
substantial compliance with the standards required for
an "Insigne of Compliance", the City may \~aive the "In-
signe of Compliance" requirement for units manufactured
prior to September 1969.
(2) A mobile home shall occupy not more than 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 road-
ways, 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 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 shall be met within seven (7) days after
the mobile home has been placed on the space.
F(4) Footings or Foundation Requirements. The mobile home shall
be installed in accordance wth one of the following method~.
(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 be placed on a cement or concrete
block foundation~ in accordance with Department of Com-
merce Regulations and accepted engineering standards.
(5) Tongue Removal. The tongue of the mobile home shall be re-
moved.
(6) Skirting, Gutters and Downspouts. Unless the foundation is
continuous. the unit shall have a 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. The mobile home shall be provided with gutters
and downspouts to direct water into storm drains. if storm
drains are available.
(7) Attached Extensions. No extension or outbuildings shall be
physically attached to the mobile home. however. a covered
or uncovered carport or patio, or a s~orage units for in-
cidential yard and household items may be erected adjacent
to the exterior walls 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 Waiver of I'ristal1ation Requirements." The City Council giving
"their reasons therefore, may reduce or waive one or more in-
stallation requirements that. in its judgement, are not requi-
site in the interests of the public health, safety and general
welfare. or which are inappropriate.
AP~VED AND ADOPTED by the Pilot Rock City Council on this
_ ?ZJYR~. • 1978.
ADEST:
~City Recorder
-9-
/.oii -C'/ day of
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
APPLICATION TO AMEND MOBILE HOME PARK ORDINANCE
APPLICANT
Name _
Address ~
Phone No. _
TYPE OF APPLICANT (Check one)
landowner (agent*) within Urban Growth Boundary ~~
Resident (renter) within Urban Growth Boundary ~~
Governmental Unit: City of Pilot Rock ~~" County ~~
Special O"istrict , State Agency ~~, Federal Agency _~
*Nate: If agent, attach written authorization to rep~esent landowner.
TYPE OF AMENDMENT
Applicant shall prepare and attach a copy of proposed text amendment to
this application. Section(~) to be amended '
JUSTIFICATION FOR AMENDMENT
Applicant shall prepare and attach a presentation of facts and reasons
which establish need, appropriateness and purpose of the proposed amend-
ment.
FEE
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $ __
I, • (Circle one: Landowner,
agent, resident, representative of government unit) swear that the details
and information contained in the above application and attachments thereto
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant
I •
Ore;;90"'n'"",-:a"tt"Ce=-=s"tC-::Ct ""ha"t'-'t"h"Ce-f"'oC:rcceccgo"C,"·n=-=g:-:-a"Cpp"'l"i'"'c"a"tTjo=-=n-:a"nd
Date
City Recorder of Pilot Rock,
attachments thereto were re-
ceived by me on the day of
--- -------
19 __ from
-----------
accompanied by a .fee of $, _
------..,..,...,.==-----ci ty Recorder
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK ORDINANCE
Date
1. Application submitted by applic~nt
2. Planning Commission hearing date set
3. Public notice of Planning Commission hearing
a) Mailed to affected governmental units
b) Published in local newspaper
4. Planning Commission hearing held
5. Planning Commission recommendation (within 10 days of hearing)
----
6. City Council hearing date set
7. Public notice of City Council hearing
~)' Mailed to affected government~l units
b) Published in local newspaper
8. City Council hearing held
9. City Council decision (within 10 days of hearing)
10. Notice to applicant ot decision
11. Effective date, if amendment adopted by City Council
12. County Planning Department notified of amendment
CITY RECORDS
APPLICATION TO AMEND CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK ORDINANCE
1. Application and attachments thereto
2. Schedule and checklist
3. Copies of public notices
4. Analysis of applicable plan goals and policies. Note: All amendments
to the Mobile Home Park Ordinance must be consistent with the. adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
5. Planning Commission hearing record, findings of fact and recommendation
6. City Council hearing record, findings of fact, conclusions, decision
7. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
8. Copy of notice to County Planning Department if amendment approved
2/79
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
MOBILE HOME PARK SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
OWNER
Name _
Address -,. -------_
Phone No.
APPLICANT' (if different from above)
Name _
Address _
Phone No.
*Nate: Attach written authorization to represent landowner.
BACKGROUNO INFORMATION
Zoning classification of property is _
Is a Nobile Home Park allowed as a conditional use in this zone?
(yes/no) . If no, the appl icant may apply for a Zoning Ordinance
amendment (text or map). Note: All amendments to the Zoning Ordinance
must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Has a conditional use permit been approved by the City for the proposed
Mobile Home Park? (yes/no) If no, the applicant may apply for
a conditional use permit. Note: No Mobile Home Park Sketch Plan Appli-
cation will be approved by the City until a conditional use pennit is
approved.
Has the appl icant met wi th the City Engineer to discuss the City's Mobile
Home Park design requirements? (yes/no) If no~ this should be
done before application is submitted to t~ty:
Has the applicant contacted the Oregon Department of Commerce to discuss
state Mobile Home Park design requirements? (yes/no) If no~
this should be done before application is submitted to the City.
AnACHMENTS
The applicant shall prepare and attach the following to this application:
1. A map showing all land which the applicant proposes to develop, and
if the mobile home park pertains to only a part of the tract owned
or controlled by the developer, then the applicant shall also in-
clude a sketch of a tentative layout for streets in the remaining
portion.
2. An affidavit of ownership, which shall include the dates the respec-
tive holdings of land were acquired, together with the book and pages
of each conveyance to the present owner as recorded in the County
Page 1 of 2 pages
Clerk's office. The affidavit shall list the legal owner of the
property and as applicable the contract owner of the property, the
date contract of sale was executed and, if any corporations are in-
volved, a complete list of all directors, officers and stockholders
of each corporation owning more than 5% of any class of stock.
3. Five (5) copies of the sketch plan showing:
(a) Natural Features (see Ordinance Section 3.2)
(b) Required Improvements (see Ordinance Section 3.1 and 3.5)
(c) Other Improvements (planned by developer)
(d) Mobile Home Spaces and Stands (see Ordinance Section 4.1,4.2,
and 4.3(2) )
4. If necessary, a request for waiver of one or more required improvements
including justification for" the request. (see Ordinance Section 3.8)
5. A plan showing how the Mobile Home Park water and sewer lines could be
connected to City water and sewer systems. (see Ordinance Section 3.7)
FEE AND DEPOSIT
Fee $
-------
Deposit
Total $======
(to pay for engineer/legal fees)
I, , (Circle one: Landowner, agent)
swear that the details and information contained in the above application and
attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, , City Recorder of Pilot Rock,
Oregon, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
received by me on the day of , 19 , from
----- ---------- ---
accompanied by a fee and deposit
--------------------
of $ _
Ci ty Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
2/79
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY. OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
Date
1. Application submitted by applicant
Note: Do not accept application unless a conditional use for
a Mobile-Home Park has already been approved by the City or
applications for a conditional use and a Mobile Home Park--
sketch plan are submitted at the same time. If a Mobile Home
Park is not a conditional use in the zone in which the property
is located do not accept a Mobile Home Park sketch plan appli-
cation. a zone change is required first.
Z. Application referred to City Engineer for review
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
deposit.
3. Oregon Oepartment of Commerce notified that the City has
received an application for a Mobile Home Park
4. Review of sketch plan by Planning Commission
Note: At least fifteen (15) days after application sub-
mitted to allow for review by City Engineer.
5. Planning Commission -recomnrendation {within 14 days of review}
6. Review of sketch plan by City Council
7. Decision made by City Council (within fourteen (14) days
after r~view completed)
8. Applicant notified of City Council's decision
9. Affected governmental units (especially Department of
Commerce) notified 9f City Councills decision
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION
1. Application and attachments thereto
1. Schedule and checklist
3. City Engineer's report
4. Planning Conunission meeting record, findings of fact and reconTJlendation
5. City Council meeting record, findings of fact. conclusions, decision
6. Copy of notice to applicant of decision
7. Copy of notice to affected governmental units
2/79
CITY OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON
MOBILE HOME PARK FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
OWNER
Name :.- _
Address --------------------c-----------------------
Phone No. _
APPLICANT* (if different from above)
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
*Note: Attach written authorization to represent landowner.
BACKGROUNO INFORMATION
Zoning classification of property is _
Conditional Use Permit approved on __
Mobile Home Park Sketch Plan** approved on _
**Note: Final plan appl icatian must be submitted within one year of
sketch plan approval.
ATTACHMENTS
The applicant shall prepare and attach the fonm-ling to this application:
1. Ten (10) copies of the final plan showing:
(a) Natural Features (see Ordinance Section 3.2)
(b) Required Improvements (see Ordinance Sections 3.1 and 3.S)
including conditions specified at the time of sketch plan
approv31 .
(c) Other Improvements (planned by the developer)
(d) Mobile Home Spaces and Stands (see Ordinance Sections 4.1, 4.2,
and 4.3(2) )
2. If necessary, a request for waiver of one
including justification for the request.
Page 1 of 2 pages
or more required improvements
(see Ordinance Section 3.8)
3. A plan showing how the Mobile Home Park water and sewer lines will
be connected to City water and sewer systems subject to approval
by City Council. (see Ordinance Section 3.7)
4. 8 1/2" X 11" 1ocati on map of Mobil e Home Park and adjacent property
and at least two clearly marked public streets.
FEE AND DEPOSIT
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council.
Fee $ _
Deposit (to pay for engineer/legal fees)
Total $
======
I, , (Circle one: Landowner, agent)
swear that the details and information contained in the above application and
attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, Ci ty Recorder of Pi 1ot Rock,
Oregon, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
received by me on the day of , 19 __
from accompanied by a fee and
deposi t of $ ~ _
Ci ty Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
Date
1. Appl ication submitted by appl icant
2. ApplicatiO'l referred to City Engineer for revie\~
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
depos it.
3. Review of sketch plan by Planning COlTl1lission
Note: At least fifteen (15) days after applicaton sub-
mitted to allow for review by City Engineer.
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within fourteen days
after review completed)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of City Council hearing
a} ~~iled to property owners
b) Hai 1ed to affected governmental un; ts
c) Published in local newspaper (two times)
d) Posted
7. City COuncil hearing held
8. City Council decision (within fifteen (15) days after
hearing)
9. Applicant notified of City Council's decision
10. Affected governmental units (especially Department of
Commerce) notified of City Council's decision
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
1.. Application and attachments thereto
1. Schedule and checklist
3. City Engineer's report
4. Planning Commission meeting record. findings of fact and recolll11endation
5. Copies of publ ic notfces
6. City Council hearing record. findings of fact. conclusions. decision
7. COpy of notice to applicant of decision
8. Copy of notice to affected governmental units
2/79
3. A plan showing how the Mobile Home Park water and sewer lines will
be connected to City water and sewer systems subject to approval
by City Council. (see Ordinance Section 3.7)
4. 8 1/2" x 11" location map of Mobile Home Park and adjacent property
and at least two clearly marked public streets.
FEE AND DEPOSIT
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council.
Fee $ _
Deposit (to pay for engineer/legal fees)"
Total $
======
I, , (Circle one: Landowner, agent)
swear that the details and information contained in the above application and
attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, " City Recorder of Pil ot Rock,
Oregon, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
received by me on the day of , 19 __'
from accompanied by a fee and
deposit of $ ~ _
Ci ty Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
Date
1. Appl ication submitted by appl icant
2.. ApplicatiOl referred to City Engineer for revie\~
Note: Engineer's fee to be paid for out of applicant's
depos it.
3. Review of sketch plan by Planning COlTl1lission
Note: At least fifteen (15) days after applicaton sub-
mitted to allow for review by City Engineer.
4. Planning Commission recommendation (within fourteen days
after review completed)
5. City Council hearing date set
6. Public notice of City Council hearing
a} ~~iled to property owners
b) Hailed to affected governmental units
c) Published in local newspaper (two times)
d) Posted
7. City COuncil hearing held
8. City Council decision (within fifteen (15) days after
hearing)
9. Applicant notified of City Council's decision
10. Affected governmental units (especially Department of
Commerce) notified of City Council's decision
CITY RECORDS
CITY OF PILOT ROCK MOBILE HOME PARK FINAL PLAN APPLICATION
1.. Application and attachments thereto
1. Schedule and checklist
3. City Engineer's report
4. Planning Commission meeting record, findings of fact and recorrmendation
5. Copies of publ ic notfces
6. City Council hearing record, findings of fact. conclusions, decision
7. COpy of notice to applicant of decision
8. Copy of notice to affected governmental units
2/79
CITY OF PILOT ROCK. OREGON
APPLICATION FOR NOBILE HONE PARK LICENSE
NAME OF NOBILE HOME PARK _
OWNER OF MOBILE HOME PARK
Name _
Address _
Phone No. _
APPLICANT* (if different from above)
Name _
Address . _
Phone No. _
*Note: Attach written authorization to represent landowner.
BACKGROUNO INFORMATION
Were plans for the 1·1obile Home Park reviewed and approved by the Oregon
Department of Commerce prior to construction? (yes/no) _
Oate Conditions (yes/no) _
the CityWere plans for the Mobile Home
prior to construction?
Park reviewed and approved by(yes/no) _
Oate Conditions (yes/no) _
Has the Mobile Home Park been inspected and
Department of Commerce?
certified by
(yes/no)
the Oregon
Oate Conditions (yes/no) __
Have all City design requirements and conditions been met?(Yes/no) _
If no, which requirements or conditions have not been met? _
Has the City been given a set of lias built" plans for the Mobile Home
Park? (yes/no)
--_._-
Page 1 of 2 puges
If no, the applicant shall prepare and attach "as built" plans shO\~­
ing (as applicable) the following features:
Interior streets
Water lines and fire hydrants
Sewer lines
Storm drains
Utility lines (electric, phone, CATV ... }
Park and/or recreation facilities
Buildings (indicate actual/or intended use}
Mobile home spaces and stands
Easements
Areas subject to flooding
Natural .drainage pattern
Slopes greater than or equal to 12%
FEE
Refer to fee schedule adopted by City Council. $ _
I, (Circle one: Landowner, agent)
swear that the details and information contained in the above application and
attachments thereto are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant Date
I, , City Reco rder of Pi1 ot Rock,
Oregon, attest that the foregoing application and attachments thereto were
recei ved by me on the day of , 19 __, from
______________________________________ accompanied by a fee of $_
City Recorder
Page 2 of 2 pages
2/79
SCHEDULE AND CHECKLIST
CITY OF PILOT ROCK APPLICATION FOR MOBILE HOME PARK LICENSE
APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY APPLICA~T
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CONTACTED
1. Mobile Home Park plan reviewed* on
2. Mobile Home Park inspected* on
3. ~IDbile HOffie Park certified* on
*flote: If any of these steps not completed. r~quest
letter from Oeparbment of Commerce specifying
\'/hat needs to be done.
REVIEW OF CITY RECORDS
1. Sketch plan of ~~bile Home Park reviewed on
2. Final plan of Mobile Home Park reviewed on
CITY INSPECTION OF MOBILE HOME PARK
To determine that all City design requirements and
conditions have been met. Inspection done by:
LICENSE ISSUED
Only after all State and City .requirements have been met.
Date
2/79
IMOBILE HOME PARK LICENSE
ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF PILOT ROCK,
OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 317
THE . . . _
MOBILE HOME PARK MEETS THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY
OF PILOT ROCK, OREGON. THE LICENSEE SHALL GIVE NOTICE IN WRiTING TO THE
CITY RECORDER WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER HAVING SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR
- OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF ANY INTEREST IN OR CONTROL OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK.
SUCH NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF SUCH PERSON'S SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST OR CONTROL.
LICENSE ISSUED TO:
NAME _
ADDRESS _
PHONE NO. .__
MOBILE HOME PARK LICENSE ISSUED ON DAY OF , 19 ____
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
2/79
RESOLUTION NO. 150
City of Pilot Rock
Land Use Application Fees, Deposits
and Variable Development Costs
HHER~AS the City of Pilot Rock Plan Ordinance r:o. 320. Zoning
Ordinance No. 318, Subdivision Ordinance No. 316, enc ;"obile
nO-i.e ?ark Ordinance rio. 317 require application fee:;. engineer-
ing ~nd legal reviews and other variable development costs, and
W~=~EAS th2 City will incur costs in revie~ing epplic~:ions
including but not limited to staff time. public notic~5.
hearings~ and overhead, and
HHEREAS the cost of engineering or legal re'Jie~15 or bJti-t "till
vary. and
W~~~i~S ap?licants Sh0Uld pay for those costs i;,c~r~:~ ~y ~~e
city rath~r than being subsidized by other residents ar.d prop-
erty owners.
NOW. therefore, the Pilot Rock City Council Approves and Adopts
the atte.ched "Land Use Appl ication Fee Schedule" and 5t.::-Rary of
Variab1e land Use Developments Costs" on this 24th day
of January , 1979.
Attes t:
Recorder
City of Pilot Rock
Land Use Application
Fee Schedule
Plan Ordinance (No. 320)
Ordinance Amendment (text or map)
Zoning Ordinance (No. 318)
Ordinance Amendment (text or map)
Conditional Use
Variance
Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316)
Ordinance Amendment (text)
Minor Partition (1-3 lots wlo street)
Sketch Plan
Major Partition (1-3 lots wI street)
Tentative Plan
Final Map
Subdivision (4 or more lots)
Sketch Plan
Tentative Plan
Final Plat
Mobile Home £,ark Ordinance (No. 317)
Ordinance Amendment (text)
License
Sketch Plan
Final Plan
Fee
$ 50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
50.00
30.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Deposit*
$ 50;00
150.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
200.00
100.00
Combined Fee
Two or more applications made at the
same time for the same piece of land
with combined public notices and hear-
ings.
75% of separate fees
and depos its
*Note: Deposit will be used to pay for engineering or legal reviews or
both as necessary. Applicant will be charged actual cost of
such review(s)." "
City of Pilot Rock
Variable Land Use Development Costs
Bond
None(No. 320)
(No. 318)
Plan Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance
Conditional Use
Subdivision Ordinance (No. 316)
Major Partition (if improvements made
after final map approval)
Subdivision (if improvements made
after final plat approval)
Facilities Inspection Fee
Fee in lieu of park land
Extension of water or sewer lines
or both to site, additional water
storage if necessary
Bond*
Bond*
2% of estimated cost
of improvements
See ordinance
At cost or fair share
as determined by City
Count:il
Maintenance (one-year period) Bond
Mobile Home Park Ordinance (No. 317)
Extension of water or sewer lines
or both to site. additional water
storage if necessary
At cost or fair share
as detennined by City
Council
*Note: Bond or other guarantee of financial security~
Draft*
City of Pilot Rock
Preliminary Capital Improvement Program
Project
1. Street Paving
2. Industrial Park
3. Sewage Collection System Improvements
4. Community Center Rehabilitation
5.
6.
7.
*Note: To be completed by April 1979.
Estimated
Cost
Funding
Sources
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER VII NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Cl imate
-
umatilla County is located in the southeastern part of the Columbia Basin.
This Basin is bounded on the south by the high country of central Oregon,
on the north by the mountains of western Canada, on the west by the Cascade
Range and on the east by the Blue ~1ountains and the north Idaho plateau.
The gorge in the Cascades through which the Columbia River reaches the Pacific
is the primary break in the barriers surrounding this basin. These physical
features have important influences on the general climate of Umatilla County.
The Columbia River approaches the area from the northwest to its junction with
the Walla Walla River at an elevation of 351 feet and some 25 miles north of
Pendleton. then turns southwestward to be joined a few miles below by the Umatilla
River. Both the Walla Walla and Umatilla Rivers have their sources in the
Blue Mountains and flow westward to the Columbia.
Precipitation is definitely seasonal in occurrence with an average of only
10 percent of the annual total occurring in the 3-month period July-September.
Most precipitation reaching this area accompanies cyclonic storms moving in
from the Pacific OCean. These storms reach their great~st intensity and
frequency from October through April. The Cascade Range west of the Columbia
Basin reduces the amount of precipitation received from the Pucific cyclonic
storms. This influence is felt, particularly, in the desert area of the
central part of the Basin. A gradual rise in elevation from the Columbia River
to the foothills of the Blue Mountains again results in increased precipitation.
This increase supplies sufficient moisture for productive wheat, pea, rnd
stock raising activity. The lighter summertime precipitation usually accompanies
thunderstorms which often move into the area from the south or southwest. On
occasion, these storms are quite intense, causing flash flooding.
Under usual atmospheric conditions. air from the Pacific, with moderate tem-
perature characteristics, moves across the Cascades or through the Columbia
Gorge to result in mild temperatures. When this flow of air from the west
is impeded by slow-moving high pressure systems over the interior of the con-
tinent, temperature conditions sometimes become rather severe; hot in
summer and cold in winter. During the summer or early fall, if a stagnant
high predominates to the north or east, the hot, dry conditions may prove
~etrimental to crops during late May and June, and cause fire danger to rise
1n forest and grassland areas. Ouring \"Iinter~ coldest temperatures occur
when air from a cold high pressure system in central Canada moves southwest-
ward across the Rockies and flows into the Columbia Basin. Under this con-
dition the heavy cold air sometimes reDains at low levels in the Basin for
several days while warmer air from the Pacific flows above it, to give compara-
tively mild temperatures at higher elevations.
VII-l
TABLE 1976 Climatological Data
Factor Echo/Stanfi e1d *1 Pil ot Rock UL--~~----------==~~~:""-_------''-'-'-''-''--'-=='--------~
Temperature
High (date)
Summer Average
Low (date)
Winter Average
Rainfall
Annual
Departure from
Normal
Growing Season
(# of days between
32" 1ows)
101 (7-17)
73.0
7.0 (2-6)
33.2
6.06
-2.87
175
101 (7-17)
69.5
1.0 (2-5)
35.3
11.23
-3.25
111
93 (9-11
61.1
-12.0 (2.
25.6
14.71
-3.51
NOTES: *1 OSU Agriculture Experiment Station.
*2 # of days between 28° lows - 72
SOURCE: "Climotological Data, Annual Summary, Oregon, 1976," Vol. 82,
#13, NOAA, Asheville, N.C ..
Geology
The extensive plateaus of north-central Oregon are a part of the Columbia
Plateau physiographic province. The unit of plateau and canyon topography
defined as the Deschutes-Umatilla Plateau includes a 100-mile-long strip
of east sloping piedmont along the base of the Cascade Range and a main part
in which the surface descends generally northward from the 3,500- to 4,000-
foot levels in the mountains of Central Oregon to the 400- to 1,OOO-foot al-
titude along the Columbia, Umatilla, and Walla Walla Rivers.
This 150 mile long by 10 to 70--mile wide main body of the plateau unit is
the largest part of Oregon devoted predominantly to the growing of small
grains.
The oldest rocks are schists and gneisses. They have been bared by erosion
in the steeper part of the north slope of the Blue Mountains and occur within
this plateau unit only in stream canyons south of Pendleton.
VII-2
The principal rock unit of the plateau is the volcanic sequence now named the
basalt of the Columbia River Group but referred to herein as the Columbia
River basalt. It consists of t~iocene and early Pliocene~ accordantly layered,~
dark basaltic lavas with some interbedded tuffs near the top. The greatest
total thickness of basalt beneath these plateaus is estin~ted at 3,000 feet.
It thins to the south, where relatively small areas af.the underlying rocks
are exposed within this plateau.
The Columbia River basalt is the greatest unit of lava on the continental
areas of the world. The extrusion consisted of successive flows of very
liquid lava that spread great distances from fissues and non-elevated ori-
fices. The main body of the basalt extends west from the consolidated rock
beneath most of this plateau. Over part of the plateau the basalt is over-
lain by a relatively thin covering of sedimentary deposits.
The upper Pleistocene glaciofluvial deposits consist of the waterlain gravel
and sand that underlie the lower benches adjacent to the Columbia River and
wide areas in the lowermost part of th6 Umatilla River valley.
The crustal deformation that has framed the large structural and physiographic
characteristics of the Deschutes-Umatilla Plateau resulted from broad open
folding in Pliocene and Pleistocene time. This folding is most readily dis-
cerned by the tilt and altitude of the once-horizontal Columbia River basalt.
The master structure is the broad Dalles-Umatilla syncline. whose axial trough
extends 160 miles from the Cascade Range to the intersection of the Horse
Heaven anticline with the Blue Mountains anticline east of Pendleton. This·
great east-west downwarp. because of its connection with the east end of the
Columbia Gorge through the Cascade Range. is a major transportation route to
the interior of the Pacific Northwest.
The Deschutes-Umatilla Plateau contains very little in the way of metallic
minerals or carbonaceous fules. the common concept of mineral resources. It
does have large areas of loessial soil~ great amounts of road metal and common
rock; access to large amounts of good quality \'later; "and minor amounts of
other usable mi'neral materials.
The growing-season flow of the Walla ~lalla and Umatilla Rivers and most of
the creeks of the plateau is used for irrigation in adjacent valley plains.
The only storage of surface runoff for irrigation is in Cold Springs and
McKay Reservoirs in the Umatilla River basin and in a fe\'i scattered farm
reservoi rs.
The area along Birch Creek is Alluvium (Qal) made up of consolidated gravel,
~and and silt. Beginning just south of Pilot Rock and extending northeast
to Mission, are Sedimentary Rocks (Ts). The Agency Syncline goes through
this area. A Syncline is a low toughli"ke area in bedrock in II/hich rock in-
cline together from opposi"te sides. Most of central Umatilla County is
part of the Columbia River Group (Tcr) made up of columar jointed basalt
flows ten to one-hundred feet thick.
VIl-3
PR
Mineral and Aggregate Resources
Pilot Rock is located in TIS-R32E. Five rock quarries are located in this
area - - one private and four Oregon State Highway Division. Please refer
to "Rock Material Resources of Umatilla County, Oregon," Oregon State
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Portland, 1976, for further
information.
Topography and Natural Hazards
Pilot Rock. for which the city is named, is a large outcropping of weathered
basalt just west of town. Elevation of the city is about 1,650 feet above
sea level. The city is located in and adjacent to three canyons through
which East Birch Creek, West Birch Creek and Birch Creek flow. Key features
shown on the Natural Hazards Map include:
1. Flood~lains at the bottom of each canyon;
2. The bluff west of tm~n rises eighty feet or more forming a natul'al barrier
with slopes greater than 12% and portions greater than 20%; and
3. Drainage is from south to north.
Six natural drainageways flow into the creeks from south and east of the city•.
Land adjacent to these drainageways is typically greater than 12% slope.
Flash flooding is an occasional hazard in these areas; for example, where
Wegner Creek joins East Birch Creek just south of town.
Areas subject to flooding or of slopes greater than 12% generally should
not be developed. If such areas are developed special care should be taken
to protect structures on-site and adjacent property. Two. areas subject to
these hazards have already been developed. Downtown Pilot Rock is in the
floodplain and homes have been built on the steep slopes west of downtown.
Ways to reduce or alleviate the flood hazard·downtown include:
1. Discouraging new development in floodplain areas north, south and.south-
west of town;
2. Periodically cleaning the creeks of brush and debris; and
3. Evaluating the amount of water backup caused by existing bridges and if
significant taking measures to reduce this problem.
Homes have been built on the steep slope west of downtown to take advantage
of the excellent views of the Blue Mountains to the east. New homes may be
allowed in this area but their foundations should be designed to insure the
safety of the occupants and other structures downslope.
VII-4
PR
New collector streets and water tank sites should be identified based on topo-
graphY and located to serve developing areas. Main water and sewer lines
should be placed in collector street fights-of-way. These facilities need
to be located to allow water and sewage to flow downhill and to connect and
looP with existing streets and main lines.
Dood Hazard
According to present Department of Housing and Urban Development~ Federal
Insurance Administration emergency flood insurance program regulations
land use and control measures adopted by the community for the flood plain
IlllSt:
111b l When the Administrator has designated areas of special flood hazards
(A zones) by the.publication of a community's FHBM, but has neither pro~
duced water surface elevation data nor identified a floodway or coastal
high hazard area, the community shall:
(1) Require permits for all proposed construction and other develop-
ments including the placement of mobile homes, within Zone A on
the community's FHBM:
(2) Require the application of the standards in paragraphs (a) (2),
(3), (4), (5), and (6) of this section to development within
Zone A on the community's FHBH;
(a){2) Review proposed development to assure that all necessary
permits have been received from those governmental agencies
from which approval is required by Federa.l or State laN,
including section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control· Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1334;
(a){3) Review all permit applications to determine whether pro-
posed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding.
If a proposed building site is in a flood-prone area, all
new construction and substantial improvements (including
the placement of prefabricated buildings and mobile homes)
shall (i) be designed (or modified) and adequately anchored
to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of tpe
structure, (ii) be constructed with materials and utility
eQ4ipment resistant to flood damage, and Ciii) be constructed
by methods and practices that minimize flood damage;
(a)(4) Review subdivision proposals and other proposed new develop-
ment to determine whether such proposals will be reasonably
safe from flooding. If a subdivision proposal or other
proposed new development is in a flood-prone area~ny .
any such proposals shall be reviewed to assur.e that (i)
all such'proposals are consistent with the need to minimize
flood damage within the flood-prone area, Oi) all public
utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and
water systems are located and constructed to minimize or elim-
inate flood damage, and (iii) adequate drainage is provided
to reduce exposure to flood hazards;
VII-5
(a)(5) Require within flood-prone areas new and replacement water
supply systems to be designed to minimize or eliminate in-
filtration of flood waters into the systems; and
(a)(6) Require within flood-prone areas (i) new ?nd replacement
sanitary sewage systems to be designed to minimize or elim-
inate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and dis-
charges from the systems into flood waters and (ii) onsite
waste disposal systems to be located to avoid impairment to
them or contamination from them during flooding.
(3) Require that all subdivision proposal s and other proposed new develop-
ments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, include
within such- proposal base flood elevation data;
(4) Obtain, review, and reasonably util ize any base _flood elevation data
available from a Federal, State, or other source, until such other
data has been provided by the fjministrator, as criteria for requiring
that (i) all new construction and substantial improvements of residential
structures have the lowest flood (including basement) elevated to
or above the base flood- level and (ii) all new construction and sub-
stantial improvements of nonresidential structures have the lowest
fl~or (including basement) elevated or floodproofed to or above the
base flood level;
(5) For-the purpose of the determination of applicable flood insurance risk
_premium rates- within Zone A on a community's FHBM, (i) obtain the
elevation (in relation to main sea level) of the lowest habitable
floor (inciuding-basement) of-all new or substantially improved
structues, and whether or not such structures contain a basement,
(ii) obtain, if the structure has been floodprodfed, the elevation
(in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was flood~
proofed, and (iii) maintain a record of all such information with
the official designated by the community under ~ 1909.22(a)(9)(iii);
(6) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the State
Coordinating Office prior to any alteration or relocation of a water-
course, and submit copies of such notifications to the Administrator;
(J) Assure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or re-
located portion of any watercourse is maintained;
(8) Require that all mobile homes to be placed within Zone A on a com-
munity'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 home, 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
additional 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 carry,ng
a force of 4,800 pounds; and (iv) any additions to the mobile home
be similarly anchored;
VII-6
(g) Require that an evacuation plan indicating alternative vehicular
access and escape routes be filed \'lith appropriate Disaster Pre-
paredness Authorities for mobile home parks and mobile home sub-
divisions located within Zone A on the community's FHBf1. 11
(From Chapter X-Federal Insurance Administrations. Subchapter B-National
Flood Insurance Program, Part 1910.3 [b]:)
PR
As more current flood plain maps and elevations are available, lenders, in-
surance salesmen, and city officials will be notified.. City flood plain manage-
ment ordinances and regulations \'Iill need to be updated and brought into com-
pliance as new i-nformatiory is available if the ci.ty.\'lishes to co~tinue to participate
in the program. If the Clty chooses not to partlclpate, flood'lnsurance \'Iould
not be available for city residences and businesses.
~
Soil conditions are one of the most important features related to land use
planning. Soils concerns are twofold: (1) capability or producttvity' potential
and (2) limitations related to development. These limitations can be overcome,
although in many instances, substantial expenditures will be required. u. S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service definitions for the various
soils capabilities are given 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 capa-
bility classes with progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for
practical use. They are defined as follm·:s:
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 practices.
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~
impracticable to remove, that limit their use largely to
pasture, range, woodland, or wildlife.
Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally un-
suited 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.
VI 1-7
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 artificial drainage).
(c) Shows chief limitation is climate that is too cold, too dry, or
too cloudy for production of many crops.
The soil mapping unit boundaries (see soils map) are determined 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 inter-
pretation and walking over the land is used to determine kinds of land forms
and soils present.
Limitation Rating. Each soil mapping unit has definite limitations for
specific uses. The'limitations are rated as follows:
Slight soil limitation is the rating given soils that have properties fa-
vorable 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 performance of the structure or other
planned use is less desirable than for soils rated slight. Some soils
rated moderate require treatment such as artificial drainage, run-off
control to reduce erosion, extended sewage absorption fields, extra ex-
cavation, 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
1ike.
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, flood hazard, high shrink-swell potential,'a seasonal
high water table, or low bearing strength. This degree of limitation
VII-8
requires major soil reclamation, 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 sailor to design a structure to compensate for a severe'
degree of limitation.
some of the specific uses evaluated include:
Dwellings with and without basements, as· considered here. are for structures
not more than three stories high that are supported.by foundation footings
placed in undisturbed soil. The features that affect the rating of a soil
for dwellings are those that relate to capacity, to support load and resist
settlement under load, and those that relate to ease of excavation. Soil
properties that affect capacity to support load are wetness, susceptibility
to flooding, density, plasticity, texture, and shrink-swell potential. Those
that affect excavation are wetness, slope, depth to bedrock, and content of
stones and rocks.
Small commercial bUildin~s, as considered here, have the same requirements
and features as describe for dwellings. The main difference for commer-
cial buildings is a reduction of slope limits for each limitation class.
canneries, foundries, and the like are not considered here because foundation
requirements generally would exceed those of ordinary three-story dwellings.
Local roads and streets, as rated here. have an all-weather surface expected
to carry automobile traffic all year. They have a subgrade of material
stabilized with lime or cement; and a flexible or rigid surface. commonly
asphalt or concrete. These roads are graded to shed water and have ordinary
provisions for drainage. They are built from soil at hand, and most cuts
and fills are less than six feet deep.
Boundaries delineated by the soil mapping units (see soils map) are seldom
sharp or clear cut. 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 00-
site data. Infonnation included here \'/ill:
1. Provide preliminiary estimates of soil limitations for general planning
of building sites, highways, drainage systems, and other community develop-
ments.
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.
6. Supplement the information obtained from other published maps and reports.
PR
The soil survey table summarizes
unit as shown on the soil map.
information associated with each soil mapping
VII-9
r
a
b
'e
U
P
I
J
o
e
~
.
!
2
.
!
.
!
.
.
In
f'
o
rm
e
tl
o
n
M
ap
Sy
m
bo
l
So
i1
Na
me
Se
pt
io
Ta
nk
A
bs
or
pt
io
n
F
ie
ld
s
D
ev
el
op
m
en
t
L
im
it
at
io
n
R
at
in
g
D
w
el
lin
gs
D
w
el
lin
gs
Sm
al
l
w
it
ho
ut
w
ith
Co
m
m
er
ci
al
B
as
em
en
ts
B
as
em
en
ts
B
ui
ld
in
gs
1>
.gr
le
u
'
tu
.r
e
C
ap
ab
i'
It
y
C
'a
ss
Lo
ca
1
Ro
ad
s
No
n-
an
d
S
tr
ee
ts
Ir
ri
ga
te
d
Ir
ri
ga
te
d
H
H
er
m
is
to
n
s
il
t
lo
am
an
df
in
es
an
dy
lo
am
,
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
0-
3
pe
rc
en
t
s
lo
pe
s
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Il
c
I
L
L
ic
ks
ki
ll
et
v
e
ry
st
on
y
lo
am
,
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
7-
40
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
Se
ve
re
VI
Is
-
-
Ma
M
cK
ay
s
i1
t
lo
am
,
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
1-
7
pe
rc
en
t
s
lo
pe
s
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Il
le
Il
le
Mc
M
or
ro
w
s
il
t
lo
am
,
sh
al
lo
w
,
Se
ve
re
M
dd
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
1-
20
pe
rc
en
t
s
lo
pe
s
VI
Is
-
-
Oa
On
yx
s
i1
t
lo
am
,
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
0-
3
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
II
c
I
PR
a
P
il
ot
Ro
ck
s
il
t
lo
am
1-
7
pe
rc
en
t
s
lo
pe
s
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Il
le
-
-
PR
b
P
il
ot
Ro
ck
s
il
t
lo
am
,
Se
ve
re
7-
12
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
II
Ie
-
-
PR
c
P
il
ot
Ro
ck
s
il
t
lo
am
s,
12
-2
0
pe
rc
en
t
n
o
rt
h
an
d
so
u
th
sl
op
es
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
IV
e
-
-
R
R
iv
er
w
as
h
I
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
VI
ll
s
-
-
Va
Va
1b
y
s
i1
t
lo
am
,
1-
7
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
M
od
er
at
e
Il
le
-
-
Vb
V
al
by
s
il
t
lo
am
,
7-
12
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
t~
od
er
a
te
Il
le
-
-
Vc
V
al
by
s
il
t
lo
am
s,
Se
ve
re
12
-2
0
pe
rc
en
t
s
lo
pe
s
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
II
le
/I
Ve
-
-
Ya
Y
ak
im
a
gr
av
el
ly
lo
am
,
m
o
de
ra
te
ly
de
ep
,
0-
3
pe
rc
en
t
sl
op
es
M
od
er
at
e
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
Se
ve
re
M
od
er
at
e
II
Ic
li
e
So
ur
ce
:
So
il
C
on
se
rv
at
io
n
Se
rv
ic
e,
U.
S~
D
ep
ar
tm
en
t
o
f
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
re
,
Pe
nd
le
to
n,
O
re
go
n,
19
77
..
PR
Fish and Wildlife
-
In Umatilla County there are 26 species of amphibians and reptiles~ 12 species
of fish, 259 species of birds and 89 species of mammals. Fish and wildlife
provided several hundred thousand recreation days with a value of over $7.7 million
in 1977. Hunting and outdoor recreational activities contribute to the economy
of Pilot Rock and are an important part of local life-style.
Fish in Birch Creek include Summer 5teelhead and Rainbow Trout. land adjacent
to the creek and its tributaries provide important wildlife habitat. The
Birch Creek drainage area is used by deer and elk for grazing during critical
winter periods."
All development will have impacts on fish and wildlife. Creeks and floodplains
are the most sensitive areas and should be protected through designation as
permanent open space. Concentrating residential, commercial and industrial
development within urban growth boundaries will help maintain the fish and
wildlife carrying capacity for· the remainder of the county.
Steel head move up Birch Creek from the ,Umati1la River to headwaters in the
Blue Mountains. Minimum stream flows should be maintained in order to protect
.fish. Bridge construction, flood prevention measures, and development adjacent
to streams and flood areas should be designed to maintain stream integrity
and wildlife habitat.
Management-of agricultural, grazing and forest lands in central and southern
Umatilla County affects fish and wildlife in the Pilot Rock area. For example,
deer and elk require adequate grazing areas for forage in both summer and
winter. The city should be concerned with and review and comment on county and
Forest Service plans and private agriculture, grazing and forest activities
to protect fish and wildlife. Also, blo local industries depend on the sus-
tainability of timber supply. Overcutting, too little reforestation or har-
vesting of timber in.sensftive areas will hurt the city"s economy, liveability
and environment.
Open Space
Land has been set aside as open space in the city's urban planning area~ After
the comprehensive plan is adopted by the city, reviewed and co-adopted by Umatilla
County, and has recei ved acknowl edment of camp1i ance from LCDC, 1and v,i thi n open
space areas qualify for a special tax' assessment. Lando\iners desiring this
special assessment must make application to the County Assessor.
Open Space Lands is State legislation which provides for tax reductions for
lands which are approved as worthy of special consideration because of their
value to the public as open space. The reduced assessment of the true cash
value of the designated land is based upon the assumption that open space
Use is the highest and best use of the land. Oregon has 4,956 acres so clas-·
sified for 1976.
VII-ll
The purpose of this legislation is:
" ... to maintain, preserve, conserve and otherwise continue in
existence adequate open space lands and the vegetation thereon to
assure continued public health by counteracting pollutants and to
assure the use and enjoyment .of natural resources and scenic beauty
for the economic and social well-being of the state and its citizens
... to prevent the forced conversion of open space land to more
intensive uses as the result of economic pressures caused by the
assessment thereof for purposes of property taxation at values in-
compatible with their preservation as such open space land, and that
assessment practices must be so.designed as to permit the continued
availability of open space lands for these purposes • (ORS
308.740) .
Preservation of applicable lands should achieve one or more of the.following:
(a) Conserve or enhance natural or scenic resourr.es;
(b) Protect air or streams or water supplies;
(c) Promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal
marshes;
(d) Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses,
which enhance the value of abutting or neighboring property ..
(e) Enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks,
forests, wildlife preserves, natural reservations, sanctuaries,
or other open spaces;
(f) Enhance recreation opportunities;
(g) Preserve historic sites;
(h) Promote orderly urban or suburban development; or
(i) Affect any other factors relevant to the general I'lelfare of pre-
serving the current use of the property ... [ORS 308.755(2)J.
Once classified, lands remain classified until request to withdraw is made by
thelandowner or land use has been changed to uses not allowed under this
classification. If Open Space lands are declassified additional taxes
equal to those at which the land would have been assessed without Open
Space classification, plus interest, are imposed on the land for each year
the land was classified as Open Space.
The legislation allows land uses to change from an Open Space use to another
(such as a park to a golf course) and still retain Open Space classification.
Thus, the legislation encourages preservation of land by providing a tax
break but does not stipulate any requirements for the preservation of natural
values.
VII-12
Air. Water and Land Resources Quality
-
Please refer to the Oregon Oepartment of Environmental Quality "Handbook
for environmental quality elements of land use plans ll (July. 19781 for
detailed information on environmental regulations. The handbook covers
coordination, air quality, noise control, solid waste and water quality.
Pilot Rock should approve or deny a DEQ request for a "statement· of com-
patibility" for site specific actions affecting land use based on the
best available information and technical advise. .
Air quality in Pilot Rock is good except for periodic dust from agricultural
operations and odors from local industries and sewage treatment facilities.
There is no apparent conflict with Class II PSD (Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) air quality standards or violation of the 8-hour carbon
monoxide standard.
Major sources of noise in Pilot Rock are traffic on U. $. Highw~ 395 espe-
cially trucks and log handling equipment in the industrial area. Noise can
be controlled by locating industry norLh of ta~n~ providing a new road from
U. S. 395 to the industrial area to keep truck traffic to a minimum in town~
and by providing buffers around the industrial area. Requirements to control
noise may be included in ·the zoning ordinance.
A solid waste disposal site is located north of Pilot Rock and pickup service
is available. Umatilla County completed its Solid Waste Management Plan on
8-14-74. Pilot Rock should work with the-County to up-date the plan as nec-
essary. Solid \'Iaste may be recycled. used as an energy resource or disposed
in a sanitrary landfill.
Pilot Rock provides adequate sewage treatment. The lagoon type system is
presently utilized as sixty percent of capacity. In addition to the municipal
system~ two industrial waste ponds are located north of town. Water quality
concerns may be broken down as follows:
1. Point-Source Pollution
A. Central Treatment Facility
1. Residential~ commercial and industrial - - future treatment
capacity needed.
2. Collection system - - future extension.
B. Non-Central Treatment Facilities
1. Industrial (separate from municipal)
2. Low density residential and commercial - - septic systems.
2. Non-Point Source Pollution
A. Developed areas - - storm drains and settling basin.
B. Undeveloped areas - - natural drainage.
VII-13
PR
Pilot Rock has all the above except 2(A); there are no storm drains. Also
l(A)(I) does not include industrial.
Three major issues will need to be addressed as development takes place in
Pilot Rock. First, should the municipal and industrfal treatment systems
be combined at sometime in the future? Second, should a storm drainage
system be developed? Third, can an'overall sewage collection system design
be developed event though the system will probably be extended on a piece-
meal basis? Each issue raised could be answered with a qualified yes; the
qualification in each case being a need for specific engineering and finan-
cial studies to determine whether the benefits from each project would lie
worth the cost. After study, other arrangements might be shown to better
serve the needs of the community. In regard to the third issue ra'(s.ed above,
two things should ~e no~ed. ,The urban growth boundary should be established,in
part, based on sewage collection ~ystem_design requirements. Also, 'low densi~
residential areas within the urban growth boundary may need to be served by
the centra I treatment facil ity if son tests done by DEQ show that septic
tank absorption fields will not work adequately.
Scientific, Natural and Cultural Areas,
No signi'ficant, natural or cultural areas are located in the Pilot Rock urban
planning area. However, creeks and flood prone areas'provide important fish
and \'iildlife habitat. Please refer to the fish and wildlife section of thi.s
chapter for additional information.
Energy Resources
Potentially usable energy resources in Pilot Rock include solar energy, wind
and solid wastes. No hydro or thermal electric facility sites have been
identifi'ed near the city. Solar energy could be used for water and space
heating. Wind energy is available for pumping or generation of electricity.
Five sources of solid waste are available: Residential/commercial trash,
industrial, sewage sludge, agricultural,' and forest Lnon-comercial grade
wood). These wastes could be used for generation of electricity and steam
production by either an industrial or municipal cogener'ation facility.
VII-14
/629
(
- - -
- - .
,/
,
( ({
1- I -1
,t,Pilot
I ICem
, I
, .,
). - - ~
/
1680
5
o.
•
HAZARDS
~O[L@U ~@©~
'.
20
LEGEND
INTERMITTENT STREAMS
FLOODPLAIN
SLOPE > 12%
CONTOUR LINE
120 foot intervall
I
/957 x
Base Map .. U.S. Geological Survey
Denver, Colorado, 1967
Floodplain .. U.S. Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla, WA, January 1976
U,S. Geological Survey, 1971
Federal Insurance Administration
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban
Development, Dec. 1975
];J'..-"
:Jjf/
1/
I
_...-
SOURCES:
-/700-
/ I
NATURAL
©OU):{ @[?
PRa
L
Va
n-------\-- -'--\"-1~\-
20
.
Oa
LEGEND
PRa SOIL SYMBOL
Isee text)
SOURCE: S.C.S., Pendleton,
OR,1977
SOILS MAP
©OuW @~ [¥)O[L@u
PRa
3
1
FEET
Q 660 13i1111!
o I~," ~6.1 <115.2
~.........METE~5
SOCIO - ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
Chapter VIII
Socioeconomic Environment
[canomie History and Resource Base
Prior to white settlement in Umatilla County, the native Cayuse Indians of the
region often summered in the Ukiah vicinity. The mountain meadows, streams,
and forests of southern Umatilla County provided roots, berries, fish and game,
the key elements in the Indian hunting and gathering economy. After the arrival
of wild horses from the Southwest. these were pastured in the Blue Mountains
during the summer as well.
The great westward migrations of the 1840's and 1850's passed through umatilla
County without settlement. The Indian population was decimated, however, by
disease and, after the destruction of the Whitman Mission on the Walla Walla
River in 1846. by "ars with white settlers from the Willamette Valley. In 1855
and 1858, warfare broke out between the native inhabitants and the increasingly
populous white settlers. During this period~ the main 'reservations in Eastern
Oregon and Washington were established~ including the Umatilla.
After the Cayuse War of 1847 and 1848 and the Treaty of 1855. the local Indians
retired to the Umatilla Reservation. They fought on the side of the white
settlers against the Bannocks in the last Pacific Northwest Indian war in 1878.
The decisive conflict occurred at Battle ~1ountain near the Umatilla/John Day
Basin divide in the Blue Mountains south of Pilot Rock.
The discovery of gold in the John Day area led to the establishment of permanent
settlements in southern Umatilla County~ which arose to supply the needs of miners
and teamsters traveling up the canyons of the Birch Creek Forks~ over the divide
and down into the John Day River North Fork drainage.
During the 1870!s. Umatilla County experienced an expansion in livestock produc-
tion. centered on sheep. that lasted for thirty or more years. During the last
quarter of the nineteenth century. the county's mix of lower elevation winter
pasture and irrigated hay fields in stream bottoms combined with higher eleva-
tion surrmer grazing lands provided an ideal environment for sheep. The rich
native grasses of the region were already suffering depletion from overgrazing
by 1885. In 1905. Pendleton "as still the leading wool railhead'in the world.
By this time, however. the growth of grain production and restrictions on graz-
ing in the newly-established National Forests had limited the area's potential
for sheep production.
Where the sheep had eaten down the bunchgrass and broken up the sod with their
feet. farmers began planting wheat. Early experiments in grain production had
been attempted in the higher rainfall areas of eastern Umatilla County in the
late 1860's. but it was not until after 1880 that large scale wheat farming
developed in Umatilla County. Commercial grain farming was made more economi-
cally feasible by the arrival of the railroad in 1883. Prior to that time,
sacks of grain had been hauled by wagon to the Columbia at Umatilla or Wallula
from the higher elevation Columbia Plateau farmlands of eastern and southern
Umatilla County.
VIII - 1
Irrigation
Farmers have practiced irrigation in Umatilla County since the fur trapping days
of the early nineteenth century. The Hudson Bay Company farm near present-day
Umapine in the Walla Walla Valley used canals to irrigate its crops through the
summer. The Whitman Mission west of Walla Walla also used diverted river floWS
limited to streamside canal techniques.
Later in the nineteenth century, as commercial farming spread on the Columbia
Plateau, some farmers used windmill pumped groundwater for domestic, livestock
and crop purposes. These were increasingly replaced by gasoline and later
electric power during the first four decades of this century. In 1882 the
Columbia Valley Land and Irrigation Company under O. D. Teel took over a ditch
built in the 1860's south of Echo to divert Umatilla River flows onto dryland
farms. This earliest irrigation canal in the West End was still in use when
the Federal projects began after 1900.
The first large scale irrigation project attempted on the lower elevation
Columbia Basin lands, however, was the Hermiston Project, completed in 1908.
Cold Springs Reservoir was the surface impoundment providing water to the canal
system dug for this project, which enabled the production of field and truck
crops on the sand and loam soils of the Columbia Basin.
About this time, a proposal known as the Teel Project was promoted to transfer
water through a mountain tunnel from Snipe Creek in the John Day drainage to the
upper reaches of Butter Creek in the Umatilla drainage basin. This proposal has
recently been revived by Butter Creek irrigators in the form of the Snipe Creek
Project, which similarly calls for development of a reservoir north of Ukiah
connected by a tunnel with Butter Creek's East Fork.
In 1916, the West Extension was added to the Hermiston Project in hopes of
irrigating sandy soils to the west of Hermiston and in Morrow County around
Irrigon. It w~s less successful than the original Cold Springs system.
Since 1969, the West End of Umatilla County and northern Morrow County have
experienced rapid increases in agricultural production due to new irrigation
techniques. Relying on water pumped from raised pools behind the John Day
and McNary Dams and from deep wells, improved alkalinity leaching methods and
center pivot and-wheel-line sprinkler pipe irrigation, corporate and family
farms have watered about 90 thousand acres of previously un- or under-productive
land in Oregon's Columbia Basin during the last nine years. Production of
alfalfa, wheat, and especially potatoes on this land has enapled the develop-
ment of a vigorous food processing industry in the ~lest End of UmatrIla County.
Pilot Rock
The history of white settlement in the Pilot Rock area began over a century
ago at a site called Mount Pleasant, about one and a half miles south of
present day Pilot Rock. The Birch Creek drainage afforded teamsters bound
for the post-1862 gold mining operations of the John Day area a choice of
alternative routes. When the Army returned to Eastern Oregon after the
Civil War the freight and pack train traffic from the Columbia at Umatilla
Landing to the gold fields increased as travel was made safer and economic
activity revived. In 1867, A. J. Sturtevant, a partner in the Mount Pleas-
ant trading post, decided to move his business to the confluence of the East
VIII - 2
and West Forks of Birch Creek in order to attract the trade of people
following both branches of the Creek. The establishment of Pilot Rock
dates from this move. The basalt bluff above West Birch Creek that be-
came a landmark for approaching wagon trains lent its name to the town,
which was platted in 1B76.
The history of land use in Pilot Rock recapitulates the economic history
of Eastern Oregon. The subsistence economy of the nomadic Cayuse Indians,
consisting of hunting, fishing. and root-gathering, was altered more than
a century before the arrival of white trappers in the 1820 l s by the domes-
tication of wild horses. descendants of escaped stock from Mexico and the
Southwest. By the time Hudson Bay trappers began working the streams of
the Northwest, the Indians of Umatilla County owned vast herds of a hardy
breed of pony that came to bear their name, the Cayuse.
From its foundation, Pilot Rock has served as an important transportation
conduit between the major east-\~est routes (Columbia River, Oregon Trail,
1-80 Freeway) and more populous trade centers of the Columbia Basin and
Plateau in the north and the mining, livestock and lumber country of the
Blue Mountains to the south. The area around Pilot Rock in the upper
reaches of Birch and McKay Creeks of south central Umatilla County has
always been important to the livestock and grain production industries.
It has long been a center of sheep production in Oregon, and although
numbers have declined steadily during this century. the Pilot Rock area
continues to have one of the state's largest remaining groups of bands,
especially for summer range:
The records of School District No.1 of Pilot Rock, date back to 1B73, and
consist of school board minutes, a register. and a record book, however, a
school existed several years prior to that time. The first school in the
district was a log cabin on the old Dick Waugh place, and was constructed
in 1866. In 1869 a new building was erected of llDTlber above the bridge on
the road to Jack Canyon. In 1873 voters met at Mt. Pleasant and voted a
tax to build a school house, a quarter mile south of the present town. A
frame building 28 x 36 feet, double f) oared and ceiled with planed boards.
was erected on land donated by t1r. Fletcher and Mr. HiTson. In July 1BB3,
the site where the present Pilot Rock school (the old building m,ned now
by Goldenls) was donated by A. J. Sturtevant and a new school house was
bui 1t. A tax of $BOO. 00 was voted for the buil di ng purposes March 2, 1BB5.
Also in 1B85 it was voted to collect $5.00 from all non-resident pupils
attending the school. The present junior high school was built in 1919,
and was first used as a high school, until the new high school was built
in 1955. The new grade school was completed in 1949. A. J. Sturtevant was
the first county school superintendent in Pilot Rock and Pilot Rock was
School District No.1.
Pilot Rock was incorporated in 1903, and in 1910 had a population of 197.
In 1912 the town was re-incorporated and a new charter drawn to conform
to conform to Oregon Statutes. In 1907 telephone service was inaugurated
and in 1916 a municipal light plant was set up. The first church in Pilot
Rock was established in 1883. The community church was built in 1912, and
the Catholic Church in 1930. Several other churches now have buildings
completed.
VIII - 3
,Pilot Rock was always a point of distribution for central Umatilla County
settlers seeking firewood and construction lumber in the Blue Mountains.
In the 1930's and 1940's, it became a major center of commercial lumbering
activity, with the development of the U. S. Gypsum, Kerns and Louisiana-
Pacific plants (Pilot Rock Lumber Co.). It remains, with Pendleton, a'
leading wood processing community in the county.
The population of Pilot Rock doubled bet~leen 1930 and 1940, and again
between 1950 and 1960, largely as a result of growth in the commercial
timber industry there. Pilot Rock Lumber Company, which began operation
in 1940, sawing box lumber, and Kerns Company, which was established during
World War II supplying the Army with ammunition boxes, were the first wood
products concerns in the city.· The Pil ot Rock Lumber Company mi 11 wa~ even-
tually sold to Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and the Kerns facility was·
closed in 1967 and taken over by Fame Furniture Company in 1978..U. S.
Gypsum located in Pilot Rock near the Louisiana-Pacific mill after the war.
Pilot Rock Businesses
Golden Antique Shop
Art's IGA (supermarket)
Blue Mountain Forest Products
Bob's Chevron Station
Britl· Logging Inc.
C & CLogging
Carl's Body Shop
Country Corner
D &D Department Store
Dorfman Construction Inc.
Fender's Health Center
First National Bank
Dale Frye &Associates
Fame Furniture Company
Gary's Auto Service
Harris Drive In
Harris Pine Yards
Horn Pump Service
LP~l Logging
Lady Fair Beaute Salon
LaVonne's Beauty Bar
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Thomas McMahon Insurance Agency
Mentzer &Elliott Chain Saw Sales &Service
O'Brien Construction Company
Panhandle Construction Company
Partney Construction Company
Pendleton Grain Growers Elevator
Pilot Rock Grocery
Pilot Rock Hardware
Pilot Rock Motel
Pilot Rock News
Pilot Rock Pharmacy
Puget Sound Truck Lines Inc.
Quimby Trucking Inc.
VII I - 4
Pilot Rock Businesses (continued)
Reynolds Shell Service Station.
Round-Up Room
Sampson I s Tavern'
Sears~ Roebuck &Company
Standard Oil of California Western Operations Inc.
Stanley Stanhope Sanitation Service
Stone Machinery Company
Thames Construction Company
Union Pacific Railroad
U. S. Gypsum Company
Ed Young Investments
Source: 1978 Phone Directory
Employment
TABLE 3
Types of Employment, Pilot Rock City Residents
Number .X
Manufacturing 19 4.0
Medical 56 12.0
Retai 1 26 6.0
Government 10 2.0
Food Processing 2 .4
Lumber 247 53.0
Communications 2 .4
Util iti es 15 3.0
Service Establishments io 2.0
Education 71 15.0
Banking B 2.0
TOTAL 466 100.0
Source: Community Attitude Survey. 1976
The figures displayed in Table 3 depict the employment picture in Pilot
Rock. The labor force is concentrated in the lumber and wood products
industries with these activities employing 53% of Pilot Rock's estimated
civilian labor force of 821. The next closest employer is education which
provides 15% of the total. The next closest category is medical and re-
lated fields, contributing 12% of the areals jobs, retail contributing 6%
VII I - 5
·utilities 3%, banking, government and service establishments all contrib-
uting 2% and finally food processing and communications both at less than
one half of one percent. This data shows Pilot Rock's dependence on the
region's natural resource base for its industrial activity.
The labor force is subject to the seasonal nature ·of this base and suffers
the consequences of high employment and full production during spring, summer
and fall and lower employment during winter and early spring months. The
instability produced by these fluctuations is further reinforced by the other
negative aspects of a silvaculture based economy; most specifically its de-
pendence on·national housing starts and mortgage interest rates, and sus-
ceptibility to natural forces (eg. insect infestation), \'/hich affect the
production and sale of wood and wood products. All these parameters are out
of the,control of local businessmen, thus, the labor force finds itself in the
same predicament. Table 4 displaying county wide employment totals, and l~er
and wood processing totals for calendar year 1976 demonstrates the cyclical
nature of employment in the sector.
TABLE 4
UMATILLA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT 1976
Lumber and Wood Processing
J F M A M J J A S 0 N
'.Number 830 680 770 780 800 870 890 920 940 940 9"0 9Q
Percent
of Total 4.2% 3.5% 3.9% 3.9% 3.8% 4.0% 4.1% 4.0% 4.4%. 4.3% 4.6S 4
Employment'
Source: Covered Employment, Oregon Employment Division, 1976
Low Employment
Low Production
High Employment
Full Production
One can assume that the affects of these fluctuations are felt more severely
by Pil ot Rock I'/hen one compares its proporti on of Umati n a County Manufacturing
sector payroll with those of other communities. Table 5 shows these comparisons
both on an absolute and a percentage basis. As can be seen nearly 11% of all
manufacturing in the county takes place in Pilot Rock. When one considers that
lumber and wood processing are the only manufacturers extant in Pilot Rock (as
opposed to the extensive agricultural and industrial development in the west
end of Umatilla County) this figure's impact.is heightened.
This dependence upon timber raises two issues. First, what is the sustain-
ability of the commercial grade timber resource? Future supply is based on
allowable cut, reforestation, land capability, and occurrences of fire, disease
or insect infestation. Good management of national and private forest lands
would:increase the likelihood of an adequate supply of timber over the 10n9- k
term. Whether or not this will occur is not known. Second, should Pilo! ~OCti~
encourage the diversification of its industrial base? Industrial diverSlflC~ll
would allow local residents to be less dependent on the timber resource for
ment. All of the land presently zoned commercial or industrial is in use fOrorthese purposes or another pre-existing use. Additional land will be needed f
economic development.
VIII - 6
TA
BL
E
5
U
m
at
ill
a
Co
un
ty
Em
plo
ym
en
t
by
Pl
ac
e
an
d
M
ajo
rS
ec
to
r,
19
76
Pl
ac
e
Po
pu
la
tio
n
I~
an
uf
.
Go
v1
t.
Tr
ad
e
Se
rv
ic
es
O
th
er
Um
ati
ll
a
Co
un
ty
NU
MB
ER
%
NU
I~
BE
R
%
NU
MB
ER
%
NU
MB
ER
%
NU
MB
ER
%
NU
MB
ER
%
Ad
am
s
25
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
39
.
96
24
.
58
(D)
.
22
At
he
na
97
0
2.
0
30
5
8.
30
25
.
62
47
1.
14
(0)
.
22
68
7.
93
Ec
ho
52
0
1.
0
(0)
.
14
(D)
.
12
18
.
44
31
1.
35
12
1.
40
He
li
x
16
5
.
3
(D)
.
14
(D)
.
12
(D
)
.
12
79
3.
44
< -
H
er
m
ist
on
6,
64
0
13
.2
1.1
31
31
.0
0
91
9
22
.7
0
71
0
17
.1
7
34
2
14
.9
0
24
4
28
.50
- -
M
ilt
on
-F
re
ew
at
er
4,
60
0
7.
2
31
1
8.
50
60
1
14
.8
0
31
9
7.
72
28
8
12
.6
0
11
8
13
.8
0
.
.
.
,
Pe
nd
le
to
n
14
,3
00
28
.6
1,
29
7
35
.0
0
1.
99
3
49
.2
0
2,
59
8
62
.9
0
1,
23
4
53
.8
0
21
5
25
.00
Pi
lo
t
Ro
ck
1,
75
0
3.
4
39
7
10
.9
0
61
1.
50
45
1.
10
76
3.3
1
(D
)
.
58
St
an
fi
el
d
1,
08
0
2.
2
(0)
.
14
28
.
69
21
.
51
60
2.
62
Uk
iah
32
0
.
6
(0)
.
14
(D)
.
12
(0
)
.
12
14
.
61
24
2.
80
U
m
at
ill
a
2,
00
0
4.
0
34
.
90
26
7
6.
60
16
0
3.
90
60
2.
62
13
6
15
.4
0
W
es
ton
62
5
1.
3
13
9
3.
80
10
.
25
(D)
.
12
89
3.
90
(D)
.
58
Re
m
ain
de
r
o
f
Co
un
ty
16
,8
15
33
.6
23
.
60
93
2.
30
17
6
4.
30
11
.
48
30
3.
50
TO
TA
LS
50
,00
0
10
0.
0
3,
65
7
10
0.
00
4,0
51
10
0.
00
4,
13
3
10
0.
00
2,
29
4
10
0.
00
85
7
10
0.
00
(D)
-
Le
ss
th
an
te
n
e
st
ab
lis
hm
en
ts
,
n
o
t
re
po
rte
d
fo
r
di
sc
lo
su
re
pu
rp
os
es
.
As
su
me
d
to
be
an
av
er
o
ge
o
f
fiv
e
job
s
fo
r
a
n
a
iy
tic
al
pu
rp
os
es
.
So
ur
ce
:
n
O
is
tr
ic
t
12
La
bo
r
M
ar
ke
t
A
na
ly
si
s,
C
.L
T.
A
.
T
it
le
I
Ev
al
ua
t1
on
,11
EC
OA
C,
Ec
on
om
ic
C
on
su
lta
nt
s
O
re
go
n,
Ju
ly
19
77
,
pa
ge
31
,
Ta
bl
e
II
.
14
.
"Income
Table 6 shows the distribution of family and unrelated individual's income
for the City of Pilot Rock and surrounding rural area comprising Enumeration
Districts 52 and 53, and compares these figures with income data for Umatilla
County and the state. The Pilot Rock data is based on a 20% sample of the
1970 census and is the latest available information for the city, the COunty
and state figures are also taken from 1970 census data to be comparable.
TABLE 6
1970 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Pil ot Rock Umati 11 a County Oregon
# of %of # of %of # of %of
Income Level Households Households Households Households Households Households
$ 0-$2,999 71 14.0 1,224 11.0 50,100 9;0
$ 3,000-$4,999 53 11.0 1,252 11.0 53,942 10.0
$ 5,000-$7,999 106 21.0 2,661 23.0 104,197 19.0
$ 8,000-$9,999 116 23.0 1,883 16.0 83,987 16.0
$10,000-$14,999 116 23.0 2,974 26.0 152,677 28.0
$15,999 + 33 7.0 1,533 13.0 97,580 18.0
TOTALS 495 100.0 11 ,527 100.0 542,483 100.0
Source: Pil ot Rock i nformati on from 1970 U. S. Census of Popul ation and Housing,
FHth Count Summary Tape, Fil e C. Oregon. County and State fi gures frll
General Social and Economic Characteristics, Oregon, U.S. Department of
Con~erce, Bureau of the Census, 1970.
When 1970 income information is compared for the Pilot Rock area, Umatilla Coun~
and Oregon, it becomes apparent that the city has a higher percentage of its ~~
ulation (25% compared to 22% and 19% respectively) earning less than $5,000
annually than do the other jurisdictions. Correspondingly, the City of Pilot
Rock has a somewhat lower percentage of households with incomes of $8,000 or
more annually -- 53% compared with 55% for Umatill a County and 62% for the
state. There are several factors that must be considered when analyzing this
data. Pilot Rock's income distribution follows fairly closely the mid-ranges
of state income but reverses the positions of highest and lowest income classi-
fications. These extremes are somewhat damped out when one compares Umati~la
County to Pilot Rock's income (with the counties $8,000-$9,999 classificatlon
surpassed by Pilot Rock) and "is easily explained by Pilot Rock's "location.
Its accessability to Pendleton and other industrially developed towns allows
citizens to be somewhat independent of their seasonally oriented economy and
reap the gains of steady employment from businesses in Pendleton and the
surrounding area.
VIII - 8
More current income data for Umatilla County and Oregon is included in Table 7.
It is apparent that some shifts have occurred as well as a substantial increase
in the number of families earning over $15,000 annually. The same kinds of
changes may have occurred in Pilot Rock though until the 1980 census is completed
it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions;
TABLE 7
Household Income, Umatilla County and Oregon 1974
count~
Income Level
$ 0-$ 2,999
$ 3,000-$ 4,999
$ 5,000-$ 7,999
$ 8,000-$ 9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000 +
TOTALS
Umatilla
# of
Households
2,268
1,848
2,654
1,966
4,402
3,662
16,800
of
Households
13.0
11.0
16.0
11.0
26.0
22.0
100.0
Oregon
1: of
Households
103,282
. 77 ,052
109,020
82,790
212,302
235,254
819,700
%of
Households
13.0
9.0
13.0
10.0
26.0
29.0
100.0
Source: Sales Nanagement, the Marketing Magazine, IISurvey of Buying Power ll ,
New York, New York,~ne, 1974.
VIIl - 9
TA
BL
E
8
M
ed
ian
In
co
m
e
in
D
ol
la
rs
Be
fo
re
Ta
xe
s
by
D
ec
ile
s
fo
r
Co
un
tie
s
in
Or
eg
on
A
dm
in
is
tra
tiv
e
D
is
tr
ic
t
12
19
78 Co
un
ty
St
at
e
UM
AT
ILL
A
MO
RR
OV
J
GR
AN
T
GI
LL
IA
M
WH
EE
LE
R
OR
EG
ON
Pe
rc
en
til
e
Fa
m
ili
es
Fa
m
ili
es
Fa
m
il
ie
s
Fa
m
il
ie
s
Fa
m
il
ie
s
Fa
m
ili
es
<
:
.
Fi
rs
t
10%
5,
04
9
4,
50
8
5,
73
6
5,
58
6
4,
57
9
5,
66
8
.
.
.
.
.
10
%
.
.
.
.
.
Se
co
nd
8,
17
4
8,
84
3
7,
65
7
8,
43
2
8,
45
9
9,
09
7
.
.
.
.
.
Th
ir
d
10
%
10
,63
1
11
,06
2
9,
78
6
10
,2
24
10
,1
75
12
,0
92
a
Fo
ur
th
10
%
12
,88
1
13
,0
67
12
,3
29
11
,7
65
11
,60
6
14
,4
98
Fi
ft
h
10
%
14
,9
03
14
,9
10
14
,1
92
13
,3
17
12
,3
75
16
,7
68
Si
xt
h
10
%
17
,0
53
18
,5
54
16
,1
08
14
,3
57
13
,6
45
19
,21
1
Se
ve
nt
h
10%
19
,63
1
21
,17
1
18
,4
82
17
,0
30
16
,21
1
21
,98
1
Ei
gh
th
10
%
23
,8
50
26
,3
03
21
,7
80
21
,5
85
18
,9
52
26
,5
85
N
in
th
10%
31
,04
3
38
,3
93
26
,8
15
28
,7
75
22
,35
1
36
,4
70
La
st
10%
39
,1
77
55
,4
24
38
,0
69
35
,6
87
32
,1
74
n
,0
53
St
at
e
Ra
nk
o
f
Ov
era
11
M
ed
ia
n
Fa
m
ily
In
co
m
e
23
rd
22
nd
28
th
32
nd
36
th
-
So
ur
ce
:
Or
eg
on
St
at
e
H
ou
sin
g
D
iv
is
io
n,
Sa
lem
,
19
78
.
TABLE 9
Eastern Oregon Counties
by 1978 Median Family Income
Rank In
Eas tern Oregon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
County
Kl amath
Harney
Wasco
Union
Deschutes
Lake
Shennan
Crook
Morrow
UMATILLA
Hood Ri ver
Jefferson
Grant
Malheur
Gilliam
Wallowa
Baker
Wheeler
STATE
Medfan
Fam; ly Income
16,122
15,910
15,860
15,821
15,779
15,395
15,066
15,012
14,910
.14,903
14,662
14,263
14,192
13,411
13,317
13,203
12,893
12,735
17,768
Rank In Ore90n
(36 Count; es1
9
12
13
14
15
17
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
30
32
33
35
36
Source: State of Oregon Housing Division, 1978
When this overall median income is broken down into decile categories (Groups of
ten percentiles). an interesting pattern emerges. {see Table 8} Umatilla County
ranked .23 of 36 Oregon Counties in median income as computed by the State "Housing
Division in 1978, and tenth of 18 in Eastern Ore90n. (see Table 9) What this
ranking means in terms of buying power and living standard is not clear. The
general cost of living in Umatilla County is probably similar to elsewhere in
Oregon, with rents and texes 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 is not readily determined.
Data are presently unavailable on income adequacy. The number of older people
living on fixed incomes in Pilot Rock would have to be determined by a new com-
munity survey. In 1977, the number of persons below poverty level in the Pilot
Rock-Echo Division (cities of Pilot Rock - Echo and western rural Umatilla County)
was 585. This number constitutes about 13% of all Umatilla County residents be-
low Federally established poverty level g~idelines.
VIII - 11
.City Financial Base
Some indication of current area economic conditions is provided by assessed
valuations, tax rates and bonded indebtedness figures. Table 10 shows the
assessed valuation of Pilot Rock and Umatilla County. Construction of proc-
essing plants, housing and the Hinkle Rail facilities have contributed to
total county valuation and have substantially reduced the county tax rate ~n
the past few years.
TABLE 10
Tax Data
Assessed Valuation
1969-70
1977-78
$ Increase 1969-78
% Increase 1969-78
Population
%Increase 1969-78
Tax Rate ($/1000)
1969-70
1977-78
Pilot Rock
$5,490,187
$9,872,434
$4,382,247
80%
9%
$3.00
$5.33
Umatilla County
$395,473,371
$827,610,111
$432,136,740
109%
16%
$4.05
$2.30
is included in Table 11. The total tax
fluctuations in Intermediate Education
County tax rates have claimed a de-
and most other allocations have re-
Source: Abstract of Taxes, Umatilla County, Oregon Fiscal
Years 1969-70 and 1977-78.
A breakdown of Pilot Rock's tax rate
rate has fluctuated primarily due to
District, city and school tax rates.
creasing percentage of the total rate
mained about the same.
The total bonded indebtedness for the City of Pilot Rock is approximately
$118,604. This debt is the result of construction of sewage facilities in
·1952 and a fire district bond in 1975. The sewer bond is to be repaid .over.
30 years with yearly payments of about $18,440 while the fire district bond 1S
mbe repaid over 10 years with annual payments of about $4500. Both bonds
are to be paid through tax revenues. Total indebtedness is about 1.2% of
the assessed value of Pilot Rock, a much lower.ratio than most small cities
in Umatilla and Morrow Counties enjoy.
VIII - 12
TABLE 11
TAX RATE BREAKDOWN
City of Pilot Rock
1977 781969 70-
-
--
'Tax _% of Total Tax % of Total
-Rate Tax Rate Rate Tax Rate
Umatilla Co. 4.05 14 2.30 8
I.E.D. 8.35 28 2.88 11
B1. Mt. Ed. Dist. 1.30 4 1.88 7
Port #1 .36 1 .16 1
- - -
School #2 12.70 43 14:05 51
City of P.R. 3.00 10 5.33 19
Fire Dist. --- -- .47 2
Other .09 -- .21 1
SUB TOTAL 29.85 27.28
less Rate Re1 ief 1.30 ---
TOTAL 28.55 100 27.28 100
Total City Taxes
collected: $16,470 $52,538
Source: Abstract of Taxes, Umatilla County, Oregon for the -
fiscal years of 1969-70 through 1977-78.
Land Use and Zon; ng
As shown on the land use map and Table 12, major land uses within the city limits
are residential, commercial and public. Three large parcels are vacant and one is
in farm use. The vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Pilot Rock has been
subdivided and home sites are presently being improved. The vacant land between
downtown and the log pond is mostly floodplain. The vacant land next to the
water tank is steep and rocky. Finally, the parcel in agricultural use at the
southwest corner of the city is suitable for development but its availability
is uncertain.
Most of the land within the proposed urban growth area is present1y in agri-
cultural use. The major exception is the industrial area just north of the
city. Some parcels are in residential use or vacant. As shown on the zoning
map~ most city zoning corresponds with existing land use. County zoning differs
from existing land use in two major ways. Significant areas of land are zoned
R-2 Suburban Residential and M-2 Heavy Industrial whlch are presently in agri-
cultural use or vacant.
VIII - 13
TABLE 12
Land Use Within City Limits
Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public and Semi-Public
Agri cultura1
Vacant
TOTAL
Source: ECOAC Survey,
Acres
211 .1
10.9
2.7
31.3
28.4
43.6
328.0
1977 .
%
64.4
3.3
0.8
9.5
8.7
13.3
100.0
Housing
As shown in Table 13, Pilot Rock had 502 houses (SF), 33 multiple family
(MF) units and 35 mobile homes (MH) in May 1978. Based on a survey done
in 1976, the city had 37 marginal and 31 substandard housing units as
given in Table 14.
TABLE 13
Housing Inventory
~.
Existing Added Total
1970 1970-78 May, 1978
SF MF MH SF MF MH SF MF I
Pilot Rock 474 33 8 28 0 * 502 33 I
Umati 11 a 3,1County 12,547 2,393 1,256 1,805 1,941 1,842 14,352 4,334
NOTE: (*) Data not available. 1970-78 figures have not been adjusted for demolition, fi
etc.
Sources: U.S. Census, 1970
ECOAC Surveys, 1976-78
Oregon State Housing Division, 1970-78
VIII - 14
Distr.ict
TABLE 14
Housing Condition and Type
Housing Condition
Adequa te Margi na1 Substandard
1 &2
3
4
TOTAL
242
131
77
450
Housing Type
Apartments 5
Houses 467
Ouplexes 25
3-4 p1exes 2
Mobil e homes 35
11
13
13
37
o
o
31
31
TOTAL 534*
*NOTE: Occupied units only, four units vacant and two units under
construction.
Source: Pilot Rock Housing Survey, ECOAC, June 1976.
VIII - 15
-~.- "
,~.. -
::J~ .'f
District #4
;:'t
" ,
District
p,Lor
.~.
c(.... lEa....
T 1 5 A32E W.r.T.
lfGE!'·1O
V 1·;T~";r .. :~ •••···~;;'HO ROUT{
o U So ~~~~J "'~...r[
o :r.q, :~;""::.. "l(HJ,;
,'--:':'. H"': ·.~T -~.;, C~ ~ ... s"sr;:'~
~~ Q,","V) ... .;_ ..... '
::::=:: S''' .. ,· c~=·. ')1' .~"'/EL
VIII 16
r
District #1
District #2
,
".It,
"j"
HOUSING SURVEY
PILOT ROCK
U\.t;\TILLA COUNTY. OREGON
..,._.,~ •• -·1
::,-,:,;.. r>'""1l ~";""'~'~"IM">
.~ :PH-"' ..·=.-·....vo="... r>o..
'I:,,"L _e.-.. ' ...: ...... r.ou-c"
Ih"':w-d !-o' • ., 1f71 •
?;;-.:..!>..... I.71S
Parks and Recreation
Pilot Rock has a one-acre park located between the elementary school and
East Birch Creek. Many trees provide shade along the creek. The park
has picnic and play areas. The community center is fairly heavily used
but is in need of rehabilitation.
Archeolog"ical and Historic Sites and Buildings
There are no archeological sites on file with the Museum of Natural History
and apparently no surveys have been conducted in this area based on a re-
port done in 1977 (Swanson). No historic sites or buildings have been iden-
tified in Pilot Rock by the Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, ODOT, 1976).
Several sites and buildings were identified in the Community Attitude Survey.
School
The Pilot Rock School District has one elementary and one hi9h school both
of which are located in the City. Capacity is 600+ students and current
enrollment is 558. There are no expansion plans. The district has thirty-
nine teachers and twenty-seven other personnel.
If a significant rate of growth occurs within the Pilot Rock urban plan-
ning area, the City could amend the Comprehensive Plan Ordinance and Sub-
division Ordinance to require:" the pro~'ision of school sites or fee in lieu
of to be used for land acquisition or capital improvements. Such a course
of action should be jointly developed with the Pilot Rock School District
if needed.
Pol ice
The City provides law enforcement services. The deparbnent has four officers
and two vehicles.
Fire
The Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District has 20-30 volunteers and five
vehicles. The City·s Fire Insurance Protection Class is No.7. The district
has the largest land area in the state.
Util i ties
Water and sewer services are provided by the City. The water hookup fee is
$225.00; sewer is $100.00. The monthly water charge is $4.50; sewer is $4.00.
Electricity is provided by Pacific Power and Light. Phone service is proVided
by Eastern Oregon Telephone Company. Res i dent i a1 phone rates are $5. 95/month;
business rates are $9.20/month. Cable TV and FM service is provided by the
Pilot Rock Television System. Natural gas is available from the Cascade Nat-
ural Gas Company. Maps of water. sewer and gas line locations have been in-
cluded in this chapter.
Solid Waste
Garbage collection is available from the Stanley Stanhope Sanitary Service.
Waste is buried at the landfill north of Pilot Rock. The landfill has capac-
ity for another 8-10 years of service.
VIII - 17
Corrrnunication
Local newspapers include the Pilot Rock News published weekly and the East
Oregonian published six days a week in Pendleton. The City has cable TV
and FM service. Two radio stations are located in Pendleton - KTIX and
KUr~A .
Library
Pilot Rock has a small library which is supported by the City. The county
library shares books with the City facility.
Other Servi ces
County, state and federal offices are located in Pendleton. Pilot Rock has
one doctor; other doctors, dentists, hospitals and eye clinics are in Pendle-
ton. A day care center operates in the City.
Population Projections
A preliminary population forecast was prepared for Umatilla County and Cities
in 1977. Updated figures should be available in winter 1978-79. Projections
for Pilot Rock are given in Table 15. Please refer to the appendix for back-'
ground i nformati on and compari sons I-lith other forecasts. The county projec-
tion is the best available information but the City projections are overly
arbitrary. 1977 Pilot Rock populations 1,750 which was 3.4% of county pop-
ulation. 1977 Umatilla County population was 52,100 people; 1995 projection
is for 67,450 to 76,050 people. 1995 Pilot Rock population would be 2,300
to 2,600 people if 3.4% of county maintained.
The Pilot Rock City Council and Planning Commission have decided to encourage
economic development and population growth. If 10% of new county residents
decide to live in Pilot Rock between 1978 and 1995, then based on county pro-
jections 3,285 to 4,145 people would live in Pilot Rock in 1995. Whether or
not this projection is realistic depends on a number of factors including
land availability and the desirability of Pilot Rock for inQustrial develop-
ment.
A commuter survey done by ECOAC in February 1977, indicated that 42% of the
employees of the firms surveyed lived in Pendleton and worked in Pilot Rock.
The survey included 564 employees out of the labor force of 821. One ex-
planation for this situation is that little land has been available for
residential development. It would be reasonable to assume that if land were
available, more people would choose to· live in Pilot Rock who presently com-
mute.
Until the Kerns Company closed down in 1977, the City had made no effort to
encourage industrial development. Joint effort by the City, ECOAC and the
Oregon Department of Economic Development resulted in the location of the
Fame Furniture Company in the empty Kerns facility in 1978. If the City
continues to encourage industrial development through appropriate planning
and provision of services and given the climate for growth in Umatilla County
at the present time, the City should have a fair chance to attract new in-
dustry.
VIII - 18
TA
BL
E
15
19
95
19
90
PR
EL
IM
IN
AR
Y
PO
PU
LA
TIO
N
FO
RE
CA
ST
19
85
19
80
•
"
"
,
'
J
V
I
~
:
J
U
I
:1
'.3
;)
19
70
19
77
A
B/C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Ec
ho
47
9
52
0
60
0
65
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
60
0
75
0
95
0
65
0
75
0
95
0
Pi
lo
t
Ro
ck
1,
61
2
1,
75
0
1,
83
0
1,
88
0
1,
95
0
2,
00
0
2,
05
0
2,
07
0
2,
12
0
2,
17
0
2,
15
0
2,
15
0
2,
20
0
St
an
fi
el
d
89
1
1,
24
5
1,
45
0
1,
65
0
1,
70
0
1,
90
0
2,
00
0
1,
90
0
2,
10
0
2,
20
0
2,
30
0
2,
45
0
2,
65
0
Uk
iah
-
-
-
-
33
0
35
0
-
-
-
-
36
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U
m
at
ill
a
Co
un
tv
44
90
0
52
10
0
56
50
0
60
15
0
61
60
0
65
25
0
68
85
0
64
95
0
69
00
0
72
45
0
67
,4
50
73
10
0
76
05
0
'" - - - ~
NO
TE
:
Th
e
C
iti
es
a
re
n
o
t
u
sin
9
th
es
e
fi9
ur
es
fo
r
pl
an
ni
n9
pu
rp
os
es
.
Up
da
ted
pr
oje
cti
on
s
sh
ou
ld
be
a
v
a
ila
bl
e
by
W
in
ter
19
78
-7
9.
Pl
ea
se
se
e
a
dd
iti
on
al
m
at
er
ia
l
in
A
pp
en
di
x.
So
ur
ce
:
EC
OA
C,
O
ct
ob
er
,
19
77
.
<
:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N o
TA
BL
E
16
PO
PU
LA
TIO
N
CH
AN
GE
19
50
-1
97
6
PO
PU
LA
TIO
N
%
CH
AN
GE
%
OF
CO
UN
TY
19
50
19
60
19
70
19
76
19
50
-6
0
19
60
-7
0
19
70
-7
6
19
50
19
60
19
70
19
76
UM
AT
ILL
A
CO
UN
TY
TO
TA
L
41
,7
03
44
,3
52
44
,9
23
50
,0
00
6.
4
1.
3
11
.3
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
IN
CO
RP
OR
AT
ED
24
,2
26
28
,5
32
27
,7
59
33
,1
85
17
.8
-
2.
7
19
.6
58
.1
64
.3
61
.8
66
.4
UN
IN
CO
RP
OR
AT
ED
17
,4
77
15
,8
20
17
,1
64
16
,8
15
-
9.
5
8.
5
-
2.
0
41
.9
35
.7
38
.2
33
.6
AD
AM
S,
CI
TY
OF
15
4
19
2
21
9
25
0
24
.7
14
.1
14
.2
0.
4
0.
4
0.
5
0.
5
AT
HE
NA
,
CI
TY
OF
75
0
95
0
87
2
97
0
26
.7
-
8.
2
11
.2
1.
8
2.1
2.
0
2.
0
EC
HO
,
CI
TY
OF
45
7
45
6
47
9
52
0
-
0.
2
5.
0
8.
6
1.
1
1.
0
1.
1
1.
0
HE
LI
X,
CI
TY
OF
18
2
14
8
15
2
16
5
-
18
.7
2.
7
8.
6
0.
4
0.
3
0.
3
0.
3
HE
RM
IST
ON
,
CI
TY
OF
3,
80
4
4,
40
2
4,
89
3
6,
64
0
15
.7
11
.2
35
.7
9.1
9.
9
10
.9
13
.3
MI
LT
ON
-FR
EE
WA
TE
R
3,8
51
4,
11
0
4,
10
5
4,
60
0
6.
7
-
0.1
12
.1
9.
2
9.
3
9.1
9.
2
CI
TY
OF
PE
ND
LE
TO
N,
CI
TY
OF
11
,7
74
14
,4
34
13
,1
97
14
,3
00
22
.6
-
8.
6
8.
4
28
.2
32
.5
29
.4
28
.6
PI
LO
T
RO
CK
,
CI
TY
OF
84
7
1,
69
5
1,
61
2
1,
71
5
10
0.1
-
4.
9
6.
4
2.
0
3.
8
3.
6
3.
4
ST
AN
FIE
LD
,
CI
TY
OF
84
5
74
5
89
1
1,
08
0
-
11
.8
19
.6
21
.2
2.
0
1.
7
2.
0
2.
2
UK
IA
H,
CI
TY
OF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.
6
/
UM
AT
ILL
A,
CI
TY
OF
88
3
61
7
67
9
2,
00
0
-
30
.1
10
.0
29
4.
6
2.1
1.
4
1.
5
4.
0
WE
ST
ON
,
C
In
OF
67
9
.
.
.
78
3
66
0
52
5
15
.3
.
~1
5.
7
•
5.
3
1.
6
1.
8
1.
5
1.
3
.
SQ
u~
ce
s~
iq
SU
.
iq
&
O.
~n
d
lQ
70
U
.S
.
C
en
su
s,
19
76
Po
rt
la
nd
St
at
e
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Sewage System
The sewer system is an integral part of Pilot Rock 1 s infrastructure be-
cause of its essential role in public health and welfare. An adequate
sewage collection and disposal system is necessary to allow future eco-
nomic and housing development. A definite plan for sewage collection
and treatment should insure the fulfillment of the following objectives:
a. To create a sewage system which is current, flexible, and
coordinated with the comprehensive plan of the community.
b. Penmit orderly and timely expansion of the sewage system
on a sound financial basis, without costly llcrash tl pro-
grams.
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 that will allow it to carry out its intended
functions.
The sewage treatment facility presently being used by Pilot Rock consists
of a two cell facultative lagoon which was constructed in 1958. The treat-
ment facility is presently processing an average daily flow of 190,000 gal-
lons. This lagoon-type system was designed to provide treatment for ap-
proximately 125,000 more gallons of sewage per day. The design population
for the facility was 2,500 people.
Presently. Pilot Rock provides adequate treatment to comply with the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality's sewage discharge permit requirements.
The existing collection system consists mainly of a gravity flol'l network of
vitrified clay pipe. The system is almost completely made up of eight-inch
diameter pipe serving as sub-mains and laterals. There are some ten and
twelve-inch diamter piping, serving as trunk lines to transport the collected
sewage to the treatment facility.
The collection system was constructed in 1958 and some sections suffer from
root damage and groundwater infiltration. A pump station has just recently
been remodeled and is in good condition.
With the adoption of the "State-Wide Water Quality r~anagement Plan ll in 1977.
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (OEQ) has defined water qual-
ity standards not to be exceeded and minimum design criteria for treatment
and control of wastes pertaining to separate Oregon drainage basins. Pilot
Rock is situated in the Umatilla Drainage basin and all future waste treat-
ment and controls must meet requirements set by DEQ, and must also meet or
exceed any more stringent standards !'equired by any other state or federal
agency.
The current facility should be able to
growth within the present City limits.
accommodate residential
As expansion continues
and conmerci a1
within the
VIII - 21
growth boundary and population or industrial demands require the addition
of more sewage treatment facilities, it would be advantageous to complete
a Wastewater Facilities Plan. Findings of a Wastewater Facilities Plan
would indicate the best route to take to achieve adequate wastewater treat-
ment for future conditions.
The existing collection system is sufficient in capacity to serve the area'
within the present City limits. The conditions of the existing systel:i should
be determined in order to define the extent of root damage and ground water
infiltration. This could be accomplished through a sewer system evaluation
survey. . \
The direction of future growth is governed by City Policies and will effect
the expansion of the present collection system to accommodate development.
Minor modifications to the existing system and extensions of sewer mains in
the direction of growth should satisfy future needs. Any extension of sewer
mains to developing areas should take into account future development beyond
that particular area and an oversizing policy should be adopted. Future plans
for minor collector lines should be deferred until substantial development
occurs which dictate a pattern.
Water System
The water system in a community plays an essential role in economic and pop-
ulation growth. A definite plan for provision of water should insure the
fulfillment of the folluwing 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 quantity and quality
for domestic, industrial, commercial and institutional use,
which conforms 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.
In 1977, the City of Pilot Rock was awarded a local Public Works Capital De-
velopment and Investment Program Grant (USEDA) to fund the replacement of
their deteriorated water system. The overall project consists of two phases,
each involving the removal of old water lines, installation of new lines,
house service meters, and fire hydrants. New pumping equipment was also
installed in City Well Number One, through this funding.
Presently, Pilot Rock obtains its water from two sources:
a. City Well No. One is an artisian well which was developed in
1955. This well is presently producing 850 gallons per minute
VIII - 22
with fairly stable flow characteristics. The pumping facilities
at this well site were recently replaced.
b. City Well No. Two was installed in 1956. This well is presently
producing 450 gallons per minute. The static water table depth
is currently located fourteen feet below the ground surface and
has experienced only gradual decline throughout the years. Well
No. Two has been put to only limited use until the past few years
so the pumping facilities are in good condition.
The water quality of both sources is good, therefore, no treatment or chlo-
rination is required or performed.
Pilot Rock's existing water storage facilities consist of two reservoirs.
The main reservoir has a 600',000 gallon storage capacity. It is a concrete
reservoir which was constructed in 1953 and is in good condition. The other
storage facility consists of a 100,000 9alloog capacity reservoir. which is
used now only as a backup facility.
With the completion of Pilot Rock1s Water System replacement project in
1978. the distribution system is in excellent condition. The system cur-
rently serves approximately 500 households and 25 businesses and industries ..
The main components of the distribution network consist of:
a. Ten-inch diameter transmission line and supply mains.
b. Eight-inch diameter auxiliary mains and distribution lines.
c. Six-inch diameterdistribution lines (very little in new system).
d. Four-inch diameter distribution lines located in areas where
the situation calls for short distances and they cannot be
looped into the rest of the system.
The fire protection capacities of the new system are excellent. Hydrant
placement blankets the existing developed area very well. water floHs and
pressures are adequate to insure sufficient firefighting capabilities.
Currently, Pilot Rock's two water sources are capable of producing sufficient
quantities of water to supply residential and cOllll1ercial needs for a population
of approximately 3,700. The pumping capabilities at both wells are adequate
to serve approximately 2,300 people. Growth potential inside· the growth bound-
ary outside of City limits indicate that future water demands for residential
and commercial uses may not be accorrroodated by the present pumping capabilities.
Consequently. plans for expanding the pumping capabilities at one or both of
the well sites should be considered. Water requirements for appreciable fu-
ture industrial development may require development of a new well to cope
with added source demands.
As growth occurs in the Pilot Rock area, future storage facilities will be
necessary in order to meet and comply with Health Division requirements.
Potential water tank sites are shown on the comprehensive plan. Sizing these
facilities depends upon the area to be served arid potential domestic, industrial
VIII - 23
and commercial usage. Apprxoimate sizes of the storage needed can be
estimated at this time, but final design work must be done as actual de-
velopment takes place.
The existing distribution system is adequate for the present service area.
Future growth will be supplied by extension of main lines in the direction
of growth and the construction of transmission lines to supply water from
the sources to future sto;'age facilities. Pipe sizing of the present system
should be adequate to accommodate future development.
Storm Drainage
The development of sewage and water service has taken precedence in small
communities while storm drainage has often been neglected.
At present, Pilot Rock does suffer from problems associated with the flooding
of Birch Creek and excess storm runoff.
The benefits of a storm drainage 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
A storm drainage system would be advantageous in the Pilot Rock 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 accommodate growth.
Transportation
A well planned transportation system is essential to serve people and commerce
of a community. A transportation system should be planned around 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 allow people and goods to travel conveniently.
c. To create a transportation system ~Ihich is current, flexible,
and coordinated with the comprehensive plan.
VIII - 24
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.
The major road access provided to Pilot Rock is through U.S. Highway 395.
Two county roads also allow road access to the area~ these are: County
Road No. 658 and No. 673. This situation allows easy access to highway
transportation facilities which link the City with regional production~
distribution~ and marketing centers.
Approximately eighty percent of Pilot Rock's existing streets are paved.
These streets are mainly paved to a width of twenty feet and a few major
collector streets are paved to twenty-four foot widths. There are few
existing curbs or sidewalks in Pilot Rock. The ones which do exist con-
sist mainly of short lengths of the downtown section of Highway 395.
Pilot Rock is situated approximately fifteen miles·south of the Pendleton
Airport which supplies the area with major cOl11l1ercial and freight air·
service.
A major rail line used for freight transport extends to Pilot Rock from
Pendleton. This line is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad and is used
to serve Pilot Rock's existing industries.
Passenger rail service is provided through Amtrak at the Pendleton rail
station.
In order to meet present needs and accommodate growth~ the City of Pilot
Rock should develop a major collector system which will a11m'1 people and
goods to travel conveniently throughout the area.
A major collector plan should be adopted and implemented to connect com-
mercial~ industrial and residential districts with efficiently designed
streets for smooth continuous traffic flow. A collector plan is shown on
the comprehensive plan map which would intertie various districts by the
most direct routes. Future minor streets should be planned around this
collector system.
The existing City streets which do not now have curbs and sidewalks and are
of inadequate width should be improved as funds become available. Minimum
roadway widths will have to conform to street classification, (arterial,
col1ector~ minor~ etcJ and curb and sidewalk construction to adopted City
policies.
All future streets should be improved with pavement~ curbs and sidewalks
as need dictates.
Because of Pilot Rock's present size, a mass transit system is impractical.
As growth continues~ inter-city bus service would become feasible and intra-
city bus service in conjunction with Pendleton could also become practical.
These bus services could provide convenient transportation between residential~
industrial and commercial centers in the area.
Bicycles serve as an alternate form of transportation and recreation. Thought
should be given to the placement of bicycle paths in the community to provide
safe routes between various City activity centers.
VIII - 25
....o:ooo.co _ .....
.. _ I
o ~ ~ .~ In .~
_Hot
church
park
fire station
community center
post office
city hall
telephone company
FARM
CITY LIMIT
PROPOSED URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARY
CREEKS
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
I SOURCE: Land Use
Survey, ECOAC, Sprin9
1977
.,.
----_ ..
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC
o
-o
.. . . .. ~ .
EXISTING LAND USE
©Olr):{ @[P lPO[L@lr ~@©~
.'....
......
"
"
"
...
.. ....
,'.~'''' ..
" ,:'.. ,
i
l:
o
o
o
o
o
','
,'.
'.','
"
,,'
':;:;:::::: ;:::. :::: .::: ::;::::::::;:::::;:;::::::::::::::::::::::::::}:;:::::::
:{{):i{\~t-:· jtI~t//kttt\:{:)(L.o:=,=_~
"~~~~~;",,,,.':' !~fiji;;i!:i!;,j'i,il,"iii,iil,i"£:'ZN ,'"
::~ :~:~CRUB~~::~I~~~~~NLTIAL ..... 1/ 1",,::i}IIif}iH:&:}i}/:.:::4iI})i.?\.
M'1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
M'2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
PROPOSED URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
CITY LIMIT
CITY
RL RESIDENTIAL LIMIT Iw/o mobile homeI
RG RESIDENTIAL GENERAL Iw/mobile homel
C COMMERCIAL
F FARM
SOURCES: City of Pilot Rock and I':::,:;:" • "".'.' \, ". 'I.
Umatilla County, October, 1977 ,")', ,'1:, '\
M '. '.'18 " .."',j",,~ ~~,'~':~::::7./';:::":::O::::":::~::;:C~::7::::""::.,,~T .. u 1<:, \tVj.:;i.;,~:>::'~:
.. : ... : ';'}.. .: :;:' ..
1 I· ..' .... ,:: .-N -;;..' .;.
:,>:1 •. ", •~ ,::' '.:.,::.::..'.,.,.,:.,.:."I,:,:•.••,::,:;:/.•,:.l.:~;.::,'~,',•.,~;,!.,.::''''' :: ':' ::,.•:.
.. :;:;:;:{::;::::::< ';'';;: I·:::::. :7;j 1 '..'';' '
'- . : 1 ::... 1 ..
1 ::. .l1 .. - . . 1
1 :: '.' ... 1
1 .:.:.' . . ..
".":,:,, .:··:itUb>,.:wi' ~"I.~ ~~:;'~'!fff:~~~;>,';i"'.: ',f"'::":::"'::::' ,,::·,:·'i:":::::'::::,i:::t:::!!.!:!!!'!!::::',.',:!,"!,i'r,'i,•
): z" .' .~,.. 'I .. "~~? L\"'j' - ",;;t ;-...... ' .. j' ~ 1 . " ••••;.'..
" .. ' . V I, " '" "" '.. . ,..~ ""\" I ',:,,..
'.... ~,·JI Au, ,-", , '.:.'
\ t,') "",." ,: ::. '::: .,', Iii••':';.i
1:-:.....•.....~j,4~~"'·, ", .",,, ", ·"r:!:'.::::-:,:-:,:·:
.4-_......""'''' """- . , r" ',"..,:,
,'." " J,.," • \ \fi l" ','
:;:. '.', •••• .:•. ," " -,'. :,,- .... '" f ..': ;::':':;':1":::::::
',{? ':it·::: ::::·, ..:.~:····\.··.·:.':< ..·tH/··""t
!I",..c""'+';:'--:'d :
ZONING
©OlrW @If
.......
)
I
f'~c
/
LEGEND
10" WATER LINE
8" WATER LINE
- - 6" WATER LINE
4" WATER LINE
• FIRE HYDRANT
SOURCE: Pilot Rock
water system -phase
1& 2 ,Wallulis & As-
sociates, Pendleton,
OR, June 1977
~,
,
\
\
\
FEET
o 300 600 1200 1:\00
7;:"" __ =======
- - -
- - -o 72 1"3 215 287
METERS
WATER SYSTEM
©DuW @[? ~D[L@u [ffi@©lK
\ ,
LEGEND
FORCE MAIN
12" LINE
10" LINE
\
.~
\
-
8" LINE
SOURCE: "As built"
sewer system plan,
Clark & Groff Engine-
ers, Salem, OR,
March,28,1958
ST.
)
/
"
~
"
/
HIGH
SCHOOL
I
S·
fER
TANK
___---I-_,- -1.----,---'>-l...L-'2o]20 21
o 300
FEET
000 1200 1500
- - -
- - -
-------
-----------
SEWER SYSTEM
©OUW @~ [¥)Olb@u ffi1@©~
o T2 143 21~ 2lH
METERS
430
,.
"
LEG END
...~
2"MAIN
ldlstrlbution systeml
SOURCE: Cascade Natural
Gas, Pendleton. OR
November 1977
-
I
flc~"
/
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
~~~~~~
LIE~
CII1E~
•
1; .:g
~
"
~ 8" ~ HIGH"
"
SCHOOL0ST.
" ~,
3rd 5T.
~ ~@• 1;
~
WATER
TANK
(
o '00
FEET
600 "00 1500
- - -
- - -o
"
143 215 287
METERS
<30
NATURAL GAS LINES
©DuW @[? lPD[L@u ~@©~
~
"ll., .._+.....r-,..-u
• 1'''
.. 71 ... ::: lb :\: ,':_" ...~ "-
T•• ••••••••• (~:::: ::::: .. 'V., ""'" ' '\~i-!-;-~:: ::;.J,j.:: : ::Ci :;f~~,:::::::' .. ~
Ttl ....'t.,;,t·-I.:..:..~~ «.c. . • . . . • .. . .,........ m.-r-l '"I'~ - ··1 I'mIY '. '.';'.'. .. . :: n
:::::: ::::::::::::: ...... ~..---<...J
TIl ••••••
.. .. . .. . . . ~ ..
•• • lu.r
TU :::::: ~:rl.:::::::::: ::: ::)!):
· . .. ... . ... . .. .. .
· . . . . .. .
· . .. .. . . .. .. .
T.' .....
h
•• Ttl
•
LEGEND
t: :: :\ 2 - R PILOT ROCK
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
SOURCE: Umatilla Intermediate Education District, Pendleton,
Ore90n, October 1977
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
UlJlMJ&lLrOlblb&l ©@lU)OOLrW9 @1Rl~@@OO
'UL.U
o z .., It
MM.
....
\.".,
....l"or-
.- ."
, .'
---
,
,
.,....
TIS RUE ....!.l.
,
,
I
I
i
;
r
t
PILOT ROCK
..k
T
c..... ~ •• .....-. .. _ ....
'"- $0 ~ _~ 1>-_ ...... 00_ , .•~
U~'·."
v ...·· ,·, ...·..····~· ...o .., _-,- --,
o If." ..- ----,
" "... ' .'. -. .-.~ __II
= .,...... .-. -"-".
__'0". "'.!
j, 0«000< ..
':> <or< <%"on" • -. _. \
-w<>oo ..-:'> .
---..: ..... .I
.....---.._-~,.,.....--_.-
b"'-' .... ""
.~ I.1IS
"C"lE
... •
-
,- 'U"nH
CO ...., I I
'"
• '"
,.. >5""uu,
I ~
'"
I I I
LAND USE
PLANNING
CHAPTER IX
Land Use Planning
----
Establ ishment of the Urban Growth Boundary
The urban growth boundary is identified based on land required for growth and
barrier/incentive analysis. land requirewents may be calculated in two ways.
First. forecast population and determine land needed on a 1:1 ratio. Second.
estimate need including a multiplier to account for land which remains in farm
use or vacant by owner decision and which will keep land costs down. require
fewer plan amendments and less development time delay. Barrier/incentive anal-
ysis sets boundaries based on natural and man-made features like floodplains.
steep slopes, public facilities and so on.
The following assumptions were made about growth within the Pilot Rock urban
planning area:
{l} 1995 population will range from 3,285 to 4,145.
(2) Land will be available for development.
(3) Pilot Rock will encourage commercial, light industrial and
industrial development north of the City within the urban
9rowth boundary.
(4) Many people who work in the area will desire to live in Pilot
Rock.
(5) Umatilla County will encourage residential, commercial and
industrial development within urban growth boundaries.
Based on the following calculations, approximately 464 to 728 acres will be
needed for residential use in 1995.
Assume no vacant land in 1995 and
3,285 people 4,145 people
l} 40%
2) 40%
3) 20%
1 OU/AC @4 people/OU
4 OU/AC @3 people/OU
12 DU/AC @2 people/DU
328
109
27
464 AC
514
171
43
728 AC
Formula:
( %l( population)
=( DU/AC{ people/DU) AC
Where DU means dwelling unit and AC means acres.
IX - 1
Factors considered before the urban growth boundary was established included:
(1) Land requirements
a) Residential (464 to 728 acres)
b) Commerci a1
c) Industrial
d) Public and semi-public
e) Permanent- open space
(2) Natural barriers
a) 8irch Creek floodplain
b) Soil classifications and development limitations
c) Topography
(3) Transportation routes
a) U.S. Highway 395 .
b) Mill Road
c) Red School Road
d) East Birch Creek Road
(4) Land ownerships
a) Property lines
b) Number of owners
c) Attitudes toward growth
(5) Public facilities (potential ability to provide)
a) Streets
b) Water system
c) Sewage system
As shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map in Chapter V, the boundary was established
along the bluff on the west; to the cemetery on the south; along the floodplain.
the middle of Section 16, and along U.S. Highway 395 on the east; and to the
municipal sewage treatment lagoons on the north.
Future Land Use
----
Land was designated for residential, commercial, light industrial, industrial,
public, and permanent open space uses basMon technical data, the Community
Attitude Survey, current land use, and information obtained at public hearings.
and hearings.
Please refer to the Comprehensive Plan Map in Chapter V and Table 17 for specific
locations and acreages of different uses. Permanent open space includes undevel o
IX - 2
TABLE 17
Future Land Uses Within Urban Growth Boundary
Type Acres Percentage
Residential * 908 54.3
Conrnercial 44 2.6
Li9ht Industrial 89 5.3
Industrial 285 17.1
Pennanent Open Space 302 18.1
Public and Semi-Public 43 2.6
TOTAL 1,671 100.0
*NOTE: Includes most "existing streets and U.S.- Highway
395.
IX - 3
land subject to flooding and areas with slopes greater than or equal to 12%.
The area north of the city limits was reserved for commercial, light industrial
and industrial uses to take advantage of access to the Union Pacific Railroad
spur and U.S. Highway 395. With the exception of three future streets and three
potential water tank sites, only current public and semi~public uses were ,iden-
tified.
Four new residential areas were identified. One on the west to take advantage
of scenic views and underutilized farm land. An area to the southwest to expand
an existing neighborhood and utilize existing roads. Land on the east to allow
ex~ansion of two existing neighborhoods. The area to the northeast to take ad-
vantage of extended water and sewer facilities as commercial and industrial de-
velopment takes place.
County Review of Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report
The following reviews are based upon the process adopted in 1977 as given in the
appendix.
Planning r~mmission (8-9-78)
"Chairman Troedson opened the continued hearing for review of the technical report
of the Draft Comprehensive Plan for the City of Pilot Rock. Chuck Merrill read
excerpts from the staff report relative. to this review. See attachment "B".
Henry Markus, ECOAC planner for Pilot Rock, distributed to Planning Commission
members a memo addressing items mentioned in the County staff report and reviewed
some major points. See attachment "C".
Duane Cole, City Administrator fo\ Pilot Rock, stated that at tonight's City
Council meeting the size of the city's Urban Growth Boundary had been discussed
and the County Planning Commission reaction to it. He commented they believe
the size of the Urban Growth Boundary is directly related to how vigorously the
City intends to pursue further expansion of the area. Mr. Cole then cited fig-
ures put forth in Mr. Markus' memo which noted that although Pilot Rock's pop-
ulation currently is 3.4% of the County population, the City is planning for
10% of the County's population by the year 1995. The basis for the assumption
is the close proximity to Pendleton, the large industrial base and good rail
system. He elaborated on formulas used to arrive at the area included in their
currently proposed Urban Growth Boundary.
Henry r~arkus noted that the feeling among' City officials is that while they are
not certain of the future, they feel they should plan for the maximum reasonable
growth that can be expected. A small Urban Growth Boundary would present prob-
lems, he commented, in that Pilot Rock has no planning staff and pressure from
development would present problems for staff support. A basic question that
must be answered before an agreement can be reached between tbe City and County
is that of which basic assumptions will be used in planning for the area.
Commissioner Harstad asked Markus if the annexation process would so'ive most
problems the City would have if they adopted a considerably smaller Urban Growth
Boundary. Markus responded, stating that first the Urban Growth Boundary would
have to be amended and elaborated on what a long, tedious process that would be
IX - 4
followed. Markus mentioned a feature of the Comprehensive Plan ordinance
which provides for an annual review of the Plan and Map. A discussion fol-
lowed on the calculations and assumptions used in arriving at the area re-
quired for the Urban Growth Boundary.
Commissioner Wallulis asked how many property owners were involved in the area
included in the Urban Growth Boundary and outside Pilot Rock city"limits. Markus
stated he believed there to be approximately 20 property owners included in that
area. Commissioner Harstad observed that the cities Markus is responsible for
seem to have somewhat larger Urban Growth Boundaries than other~ similar cities
in the County and that perhaps this is due to his personal preference. Markus
stated that while he was sure Harstad's statement is true to some degree, he
is confident that the Urban Growth Boundaries established for the cities of
Echo, Stanfield, Pilot Rock and Ukiah reflect the needs and wishes of their
residents. He stated that Pilot Rock wishes to attract diversified types of
industry and considerable amounts of residential development and so feels
their large Urban Growth Boundary to be clear.ly justified. Current and pros-
pective industries were discussed.
Duane Cole stated that elected Pilot Rock officials are all in support of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan and although he has come in contact with some anti-
growth sentiment, by and large private citizens and industry alike support and
encourage the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. At this time Chairman Troedson
made reference to a report to the Planning Commission by member George Gilbert
reviewing the Pilot Rock Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Report and it
was the concensus of the Planning Commision members present that they had read
and reviewed Commissioner Gilbert's report and had no questions of it. See
attachment "0".
Chairman Troedson closed the hearing and entertained a motion for disposition
of the issue. Commissioner Wallulis observed that Pilot Rock is a small com-
munity, but the assorted ownershi ps in the Urban GroloJth Boundary facil Hate a
large Growth Boundary provided proper planning takes place. Discussion followed.
Commissioner Wallulis moved that the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Technical Re-
port for the City of Pilot Rock be approved and recommended to the County Board
of Commissioners for adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Harstad
and passed unanimously with Commissioners Wallulis, Harstad~ Tillman, Troedson,
Anderson and Smith voting in favor. II
Board of Commissioners (8-16-78)
"Chuck t~erri 11 gave a revi e~'/ of the report on Pilot Rock.
Mr. Markus said his recommendations are covered in the last sheet of the memo,
projecting the optimum number of people ~... ho could- 1lve there.
In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Markus stated that one-fourth
of the area was rock and therefore unusable.
Commissioner Lynch pointed out that map boundaries are unrealistic without an
explanation of the unusable areas.
Mr. Markus made three points for consideration: (l) if amended on an increment
basis on growth boundary, is this a good way or not?; (2) how do you make an
orderly growth boundary?: (3) are you over-comnlitting land on growth boundaries?
IX - 5
He pointed out that in a meeting, issues can get too confusing.
Commissioner Starrett stated the lack of data results in some issues being
sent back to be more fully addressed.
Commissioner Lynch stated that Mr. Bill Elfering, of the Pilot Rock Planning
Commission, had no opposition to approval. but a letter had been received op-
posing the growth boundary. Mr. Elfering had not seen this letter.
Mr. Markus said that all land ;n farm use will stay that unless they request
it to be changed.
Commissioner Robertson motioned that the Technical Report for Pilot Rock be
accepted with the recommendations of the planning staff. Commissioner Lynch
seconded the motion. All;n favor, none opposed; motion carried. II
Planning Commission (12-20-78)
Senior Planner Chuck Merrill stated that basically all three staff reports
(Pilot Rock~ Echo. Ukiah) are comparable. These are all final comprehensive
plans for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation" to the Board
of Commissioners. In all three instances the plans have addressed the con-
cerns expressed in the past.
Under VII Roads (C) (page 4 of Echo Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agree-
ment) whicllSfates: "The conditions under which new pUblic streets and roads.
other than subdivisions. will be developed within the city urban growth area"-·
Commissioner Wallulis questioned what kind of roads these would be. Mr. Markus
said the idea behind this was that if the state or county or city wanted to
build any new roads separate from subdivision activity, there should be a joint
city-county. policy dealing with how this ~lOuld be done, who would pay for what,
and what standards to follow; this is why this was broken out as a separate
i tern.
Also, under the Environmental section of the plan, under Air, Water and Land
Resource ~lity (pg VII-13). paragraph three states: IIThere are no maj~
sources of noise in Echo at the present time." Wallulis questioned this in
light of the major railroad line which runs through the community. Markus
said this statement is referring to stationary and highway noise such as from
plants, etc. but added that he would correct the text of the plan to refle9t.
that the railroad is the major source of noise for the area.
Mr. Merrill stated the staff recommends Planning Commission approval of the
plans and reco~nendation to the Board for approval.
As to other comments on the plans, Mr. ~larkus said that on Echo. the soil and
natural hazards maps were being reprinted and he had received them this morn-
ing. Stanfield's plan is to be mailed out for Planning Commission review on
Friday along with these maps.
Commissioner Gilbert indicated he has reviewed the Pilot Rock Plan and has no
questions at this time.
Mr. ~larkus noted there· is one change in the text of the Pilot Rock Plan. On
page 5 under the Comprehensive Plan and Implementation Measure Review and
Amendment, Section C, the phrase Band the Comprehensive Plan for the Urban
Growth Area II has been 1eft out.
IX - 6
Concerning the Ukiah Plan, Markus said it needs a Section C on page 5 tit pre-
sently has a Section A and B). On page 5 of the Joint Management Agreement
for Ukiah, Section B should end with that first sentence; Section C should be
added which reads: "Amendments to this agreement and the Comprehensive Plan
for the urban growth area shall be adopted,ll and continue with the remainder
of what was Section B to complete Section C. Markus said this makes is clearer
that it takes both the city and county to amend the agreement after it has been
signed by both parties. He concluded that these are the only changes at this
time.
Commissioner Wallulis then moved to recommend to the Board of Commissioners
approval of the Comprehensive Plans and Joint Management Agreements for the
cities of Ukiah, Pilot Rock and Echo, with the amendments as discussed by
Henry Markus. The mot i on was seconded by COlTflli ss ioner. Gil bert and carri ed
unanimously.
Board of Conmissioners (2-14-79)
Hearings on the finalized Comprehensive Plans for the cities of Pilot Rock,
Ukiah, Echo, and Stanfield for the purposes of formulating decisions regard-
ing: (1) The adoption by ordinance of those portions of the Cities I Com-
prehensive Plans which address the urban growth areas as amendments to the
Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan; and (2) The implementation of Joint Manage-
ment Agreements affecting the urban growth areas.
Mr. Merrill stated this staff report is essentially the same as the one re-
viewed previously by the Board. The staff reconmends adoption of the Pilot
Rock Final Comprehensive Plan as an amendment to the County Comprehensive
Pl~. .
Mrs. Jennie Heimuller, landowner within the proposed urban growth boundary
area, stated she and her husband do not \oJish to be included within the growth
boundary area under the limited housing (R-2) designation. City Administrator
Duane Cole explained the concept behind establishing an urban growth boundary
--that the City just wants to have "a say" in \....hat development occurs outside
of the city limits. Mr. Markus added that this does not change Mrs. Heimuller's
present zoning--it only changes if she requests it to be.
Jerry McKague, employed with Louisiana Pacific Corp. in Pilot Rock, stated they
have three parcels included in the growth boundary area; he requested to know
what effects the new plan designation would have on the present M-2 county zon-
ing of these parcels. Mr. Markus stated that if the present zoning conflicts
with the new plan, this would have to be_changed by the County to comply with
the City plan and with state law. The present use would be classified as a
non-conforming use and could continue, providing it is not altered. But any
new uses woul d ha ve to -conform \"i th the new plan.
In light of this, McKague stated they are opposed to some of the changes the
City Comprehensive Plan proposes as they do not feel it addresses the needs
of Louisiana Pacific and other plants in this area.
Pat Patterson, who owns property north of town, questioned the effects the new
plan \oJould have on this' property in terms of increased taxes or property de-
valuation. Mr. Markus replied this would depend on where Mr. Patterson's
property is located.
IX - 7
Chainman Starrett suggested postponing the hearing for additional input due
to the unresolved concerns presented. Mr. Markus explained that most of
these issues have come up in the last 2 1/2 years. and similar concerns have
been dealt with. Appropriate notice has gone out to inform all interested
persons. Some of the questions, specifically addressing industrial zoning,
were discussed in depth by both the City Planning Commission and City Councjl.
and·objections were noted, with compromises made at the time to resolve these
issues. Markus said he would suggest that there will always be some unresolved
issues between conflicting land uses. In some of these cases. if it continues
to be a problem. Markus suggests this be handledas part of the update process.
as~ both the plan itself and the Joint Management Agreement specify that once
a year the City and County review the plan and make known to property owners
and residents that if they have specific concerns for changes they'd like to
see made, this is the apprQpriate time to do this.
Mr. Patterson indicated he opposes the new plan as he does not feel designating
his area as Commercial is in the best interest of the people--ie, there is no
public need for this.
Commissioner Draper said he feels most of the issues presented thus far have
been answered. Chairman Starrett added that there are mechanisms for change
within the plan.
Mr. Markus, in answer to Chairman Starrett, said the Joint Management Agree-
ment is very similar to the one previously submitted to the Board for review.
Further revlew of the plan followed, after which the hearing was closed. Co~
missioner Draper moved to adopt the Pilot ROCK Comprehensive Plan as presented.
The motion was seconded by Conmissioner Robertson and carried, with Chairman
Starrett voting in favor of the motion. Draper then moved to accept the Joint
Management Agreement as presented. The motion was seconded by COll'l11i ss ioner
Robertson and carried, with Chairman Starrett voting in favor of the motion.
Joint Management of the Urban Growth Area
The urban growth area is land between the existing city limit and the urban
growth boundary. This land is under county jurisdiction and is included in
the city's Comprehensive Plan. The LCDC requires that the city and county co~
adopt a Joint Management Agreement before acknowledgment of compliance with the
Statewide Planning Goals is granted by LCDC to the city. The Joint Management
Agreement for Pilot Rock is included in Chapter V and an analysis of the need
for such an agreement has been included in the appendix.
The agreement basically states that the county will co-adopt the Comprehensive
Plan for the Urban Growth Area and the substantive portion of the city's zoning.
sllbdivision and mobile home park ordinances. Another important feature of the
agreement is that land presently zoned for exclusive farm use shall remain so
zoned until needed for urban developn~nt.
Affected Governmental Units
Statewide Planning Goal No.2, Land Use Planning. states that:
II 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
IX - 8
Each plan and related implementation 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 re-
vision of plans and implementation"ordinances ...
Affected Governmental Units -- are tLose local governments, state
and federal agencies and special districts which have programs,
land ownerships or responsibilities within the area included in
theplan ... 11
The following are definitely affected governmental units:
Umatilla County
Pilot Rock School District
"Pilot Rock Rural Fire Protection District
Pilot Rock Cemetery District
Oregon Department of Transportation (Highway Division)
The following may be affected governmental units:
Umatilla County Education Service District
Blue Mountain Community College
Umatilla County Soil and Water Conservation District
Port of Umatilla
East Central Oregon Association of Counties
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Commerce (Building Codes Division)
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration (flood insurance maps)
Plus many other state and federal agencies wh"ich potentially are affected gov-
ernmental units because they have programs which include the Pilot Rock urban
planning area.
IX - g
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atlas of Oregon. University of Oregon. 1976.
"Columbia-Blue f·1ountain Resource Conservation and Development Project,lI Soil
Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Oregon, June.
1974, and annual updates through 1978.
"Cost Effective Site Planning, Single Family Development." National Association
of Home Builders. Washington, D.C., 1976.
"Mineral and Water Resources of Oregon," U.S. Geological Survey, State of Oregon
Deparbnent of Geology and Mineral Industries. Bulletin 64, 1969.
"Overall Economic Development Program, Phase I," East Central Oregon Association
of Counties, 1974.
"Overall Economic Development Program Revision. n East Central Oregon Association
of Counties, 1977.
IlOvera11 Ecanom; c Development Program Revi sian ~ II East Centra1 Oregon Associ ati on
of Counties, 1978.
"Pennit Coordination Project~U East Central Oregon Association of Counties. 1977.
Planning in Rural Environments. W. R. Lassey, McGraw-Hill Book Company. San
Francisco, California. 1977.
"Population Estimates: Oregon Counties and Incorporated Cities. July 1. 1977."
Center for Population Research and Census. Portland State University. Portland.
Ore90n, 1977.
Ilpreliminary Population and Labor Force Projections. t·1orrow and Umatilla Counites."
East Central Oregon Association of Counties. 1977.
"Reconnaissance Geologic t'1ap of the Pendleton Quadrangle. Oregon and Washington."
G. W. Walker, u.s. Geological Survey, 1973.
"Resource At.las: Natural, Human, Economic, Public: Umatilla County," Oregon
State University~ Extension Community Development Project, Corvallis. Oregon~ 1973.
"Rock Material Resrouces of Umatilla t;ounty. Oregon. 1976'" Short Paper 26,
State of Oregon. Department of Geology and Mineral Industries.
Rural Environmental Planning, F. L. Sargent, University of Vermont. 1976.
"Social Accounting for Oregon 1976. Indicators of Depressed Socia-Economic
Conditions." State Community Services Program. 'Oregon Department of Human
Resources. Salem. Oregon. November. 1976.
"Statewide Inventory of Historic Sites and Buildings: Umatilla County." Oregon
State Historic Preservation Office. Parks and Recreation Branch. Department of
Transportation. Salem. Oregon, 1976.
x - 1
"Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines," Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission, Salem, Oregon, 1973.
"Umatilla County Economic Element," East Central Oregon Association of
Counties, February, 1979.
Urban Planning and Design Criteria. Second Edition, J. DeChiara and L.
Koppelman. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1975.
x - 2
APPENDICES
Cf!;\IR'fL-\N
, Cornm~..,iontr Barbara Lynch
VICE CHAIRMAN
Judge Andrew F. r...eckif!
SECRETARY-TREASURER
M3yor Lawrence P. Gray
EXECUTIVE nffiECTOR
ft,vnald R. HaU
JAN 1v 1017
:East
CenUCIl
Oragol1
Association oj
(oun~ies
920 $. W. Frazer. P. O. Box 339
Pendletoll, Oregon 9781)1
Phona lS03) 276-6732
Re: Planning Programs of Jurisdictions in :.lorrQ\'1 and Umatilla Countiesl
Planning Coordination Process
Dear Sir:
This is to introduce you and your agency to the jurisdictions of Morrow
and Umatilla Counties. to inform you of their comprehensive planning
programs and of their interest in participating in your agency's planning
program, and to request your cooperation and assistance in the planning
coordination process.
mE JURISDICTIONS
All jurisdictions in f1orro'.'l and Umatilla Counties a~'e participating in
the planning coordination process. These jurisdictions are general
purpose units of local government and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Morro\'1 County
Boardman
Heppner
lone
Irrigon
lexington
Narrow Coun ty
Umatilla County
Adams
Athena
Echo
Helix
Hermiston
Hi 1ton-Free\'la ter
Pendleton
Pilot Rock
Stanfield
Ukiah
Umatilla
Heston
Confed~rated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation
U;natilla County
"oI.U~tG:~ a~sociation of the following COUKTIES :llld Cities: GlLLIA~l: Arling!o:l. Condon. Lonerock; GRAr.,.: Canyon City
. i't~~- r~~lte: ~oh;: Day; Long Creek, Monume;l~. ~.tt. Ve.mon. Prai.ie~ity. S~:l..ca; :-'IQRROW: Boardman. Heppner. Ione, rrri~n:
"'0 . " ~ .•IA fil.LA: At.::l.ms. Athen3, Echo. Helu. Herrruston. Mllton·:- reeW3teT. Pendieton, Pilat Rock Stanfield Uki.1:-' Uma'ilia
n. "HEELE;t: Fouil. ~t::chell, Spray. • • -. .• .
,January, 1977
Page 2
PLANNING PROGRAI1S OF THE JURISOICT IONS
Each city and county in Oregon is required by state law to:
"(a)
(b)
Prepare and adopt co~prehensive plans consistent with state~
wide planning goals and guidelines; and
Enact zoning. subdivision and other ordinances or regulations
to implement their comprehensive plans. u
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 \':111 be requesting assistance from your agency in any
and possibly all of the following planning phases;
1. Prav; 5 i on of ava i1 able da ta. reports. maps. and/ or other i nforma-
tion on the jurisdiction and environs. or notification of surveys
or other data acquisition activities in process (see At~achment A-
Comprehensive Plan Data Requirements).
2. Review ~f_~he_j~risdictionls base data and projections.
3. - Review of the jurisdiction1s draft plan.
4. Review of the ju~isdictionls adopted Comprehensive Plan prior to
Acknowledgement of Compliance with Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals by Oregon-Is Land Conservation and Development Corrmission.
Specific timeframes for your agency's involvement in the above functions
are specified in each jurisdi(:tion's Compliance Schedule. \'Ihich the
Oregon Land Conserva ti on and Oevel opment .Coromi ss i on has already' provided
you for your review and comment.
AGENCY I NVOL VEI,IENT
Opportunity for agency involvement i-n 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 implementation m~asure 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.
..
.
',"
January, 1977
Page 3
AFFECTED 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 Oregon
land Conservation and Development Commission pursuant to ORS
197.040 on December 27, 1974, operative January I, 1975.)
State agencies are required by law to:
"... carry out their planning duties~ pm'lers 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 "
DRS 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 Developw~nt Commission is required by .
.statute to: .,... .- . ---~ ..- .- ..
IIRevie\'l comprehensive plans for conformance with statewide planning
goals (and) ...
. . . coordinate planning efforts of state agencies to assure
conformance "dth state\-Jide planning goals and compatibility lYith
city and county comprehensive plans."
DRS 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 Hithin
county, including those of the county, cities, special districts
state agencies, to assure an integrated comprehensive plan for
entire area of the county."
DRS 197.190
-
Each county governing body is also required by statute to:
".•. review all comprehensive plans for land conservation and
development \·/ithin 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
January) 1977
Page 4
whether or not the comprehensive plans are in conformity with
the statewide planning goals."
DRS 197.255
For the purposes of coordination of plannin9 actiyities (DRS 197.190) and
review of comprehensive plans for compliance with'Statewide Planning Goals
(DRS 197.255), the Morrow County Court and the Umatilla County Board of
Commissioners have retained the East Central Oregon Association of
Counties (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. ~~ title is Planning
Coordi na tor.
CONTACT PERSONS FOR THE JURISDICTlONS
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 ag2ncy or organization will be notified of any change
in contact personnel._
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 OevelopliientOffice
has expressed an .interest in being involved in the coordination process.
Please insure that a copy of all \'1ritten communication beb,een 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 MID INVOLVENENT
Your organization is receiving this letter because it has been-identified
by at least one jurisdiction in HarrON or Umatilla County either in the
jurisdiction's Compliance Schedule \'/hich 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 ADACHi·IEIiT C.
2. a SPECIAL DISTRICT, please see ATTACHMENT D.
3. a LOCAL AGENCY or ORGANIZATION havin9 programs, land O'.-merships.
or responsibilities within ONLY ONE JURISOICTJO:1 (e.g. the Athef'\a
Police Department. the Irrigon Chamber of Comrr.erce). please see
ATTACHNENT E.
pJanuary, 1977
Page 5
A number of governmental units, while not coning within the definition of
"Affected Governmental Units" in State'tlide Planning Goal #2 (i.e. "hav:ing
programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities within the area included
in the plan"). may be impacted by land use decisions of some or all of the
jurisdictions in '·!orrm·t and U;;:atilla Counties." Your city, county, ,and/or
state may be one of those govern»~ntal units, examples of which are
contiguous units (e.g. the State of ~ashington. Union County, Walla Walla
County) and neighboring govern~ental units (e.g. Echo, Stanfield, Hermiston
Umatilla, Irrigon). Because coordination among these units ,-/ould prove
mutually advantageous, your organization might be interested in becoQing
involved in the planning programs of some or all of the jurisdictions in
Horrow and Umatilla Counties. and in'/iting then'! to beco:.:e involved inyours.
If so. please notify the conta~t person for the jurisdiction. and please
send the Planning Coordinator a copy of your co~munication with each con-
tact person you notify.
INVOLVEi·1ENT OF JURISDICTIONS 111 111lT!ATIO~i OF THE PLAilNHIG COORDItIATI01I
PROCESS.
The twenty jurisdictions in Morrow and Umatilla Counties are in varying
stages of developing or revising their corr:prehensive plans. Some are pre-
paring to ~dopt their plans and are ready to submit them for Acknowledge-
ment of Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals. Sorr:e are now starting
to acquire data and their contact persons IT.ay 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 follo\'ling attachments have been submitted:
1. At tachmen t F
2. Attachment G
Umatilla County Planning Program
Pendleton. Agency Review of Third Draft of
Comprehensive Plan.
DEVELDPi-1E~H OF TilE PLANNING COORDHIATIO:'I 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 Attach~ent H -- Distribution list) .
. It \'1i11 be sent to other affected governr.:entai units, as identified.
The jurisdictions of r·lorrm·1 and Umatilla Counties are looking fOr\'lar'd to
working with your agency in the develop».ent of their comprehensive plans.
An effective land use planning coordination process will prove mutually
beneficial to jurisdictions, special districts. and local. state a~l
federal agencies. Please for~ard to r::e any recoimiendations you have for
the further development and improve"2nt of the coordination process.
p
ATTACHMENT A
Comprehensive 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 activities in process.
Natural Environment
Geology
Topography
Soils
Mineral and Aggregate
Earthquake Faults
AgricuT"tural) Forest Suitability
Energy Resources
Unique Scientific, Ecological Areas
Archaeological Sites
Intrinsic Suitability *
Existing Land Use
Socioeconomic Environment
Housing Characteristics
Schools
PoliceFire ---- "------
Social and Health Services
Parks and Recreation
Transportation Facilities
and Ser'll ces
Climate
Hydrol09Y •
Flood Plain~ and Hetlands
Vegetation'
Fi sh and IIi! dl i fe
Landslide/Erosion Potential
Septic Tank/Foundation Suitability
Scenic Areas
Air/Hater/Land Quality
Conflicts and Constraints
Lands Suitable for Urban Uses
Historic Preservation
Sewer
Water
Storm Drainage
Solid Haste
Electricity and Natural Gas
Communications
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 na lly, tha t certa ina reas 1end themselves 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 bei::n accep ted tha t the place is a
sumof natural processes and that these processes consti tute social values.
inferences can be drat-in regarding uti 1ization to ensure optimum use and en-
hancement of social values. This ~ its intrinsic suitability."
Design With Nature, [. L. NcHarg, Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969, page 104.
Prepared by: Don Burns. Henry Markus. Sarah Salazar
Local Contact Persons
", "
January. 1977
Page 6
I am anxious to exp10re with you the potential benefits and future
development of the planning coordination process, and I very much
appreciate your cooperation and assistance. ~
"
Sincerely.
~+Ijj,1/.r,. {, ''(r,.
" "~ 7Lj~ "--
Robprt J/ Bel tramo
Pl~~n~ng Coordinator
RJB:vp
Enclosures:
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment 0
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment 1
Comprehensive Plan Data Requirements
List"of Contact Persons and Planning Coordinator
for Jurisdictions in 11orrow and U~atilla Counties
Requests of Federal and State Agencies
Requests of Special Districts
Requests of Local Agencies and Organizations having
Programs, land Ownerships, and ResponsibilIties
within only one jurisdiction
Uw~tilla County Planning Program
Pendleton, Agency Review of Third Draft of
Comprehensive Plan
Distribution List
Oregon State~'lide Planning Goals and Guidelines·
,.
I .. ATTACH'-IENT B
CONTACT PERSONS FOR AGENCY COOROIrIATION
ALL JURISOICTIONS IN HORROH AND UNATILLA COUNTIES
Planning Coordinator
Mr. Robert J. Beltramo. Planning Coordinator
East Central Oregon Association of Counties
Post Office Box 339
Pendleton, Ore90n 97BOI
276-6732
***********************.
NorrO\" County
* ~lorrO\" County
Mr. Oavid R. Moon. Planning Director
NOI"rm-J County Planning Department
~lorro','/ 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 97836
676-5030
* Boardman
Nr. Jim Thompson. Administrator
City of Boardman
206 Main Street, North
Boardman, Oregon 97818
481-9252
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Umatilla County
* Umatilla County
~Ir. Dave Bishop, Planning Director
Umatilla County Planning Oepartment
Umatilla County Court House
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
276-7111 ext. 314
* Echo, Pilot Rock, Stanfield, Ukiah
Nr. Henry S. '·larkus~ Comprehensive Planner
East Central Oregon Association of Counties
Post Office Box 339
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
276-6732
* Pendl etan
Hr. Edd Rhodes, Planning Director
City of Pendleton
Post Office Box 190
Pendleton, Ore90n 97801
276-lBl F '.
* Umati 11 a
Mr. J. K. Palmer, Administrator
City of Umatilla
Post Office Box 130
Umatilla, Oregon 97B82
922-3226
cc: Mr. Ron Johnson, Consultant
l),~JI-1fHi I ton
1111 Common~ealth Building
421 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
222-3621
* Adams~ Athena. Helix~ Weston
Ms. Sarah M. Salazar~ Comprehensive
Pl anner
Umatilla County Planning Department
Umatilla County Court House
Pendleton, Oregon 97BOI
276-7111 ext. 314
* Hermiston
Mr. l. T. Harper, City Manager
City of Hermiston
295 East Main Street
Hermiston~ Oregon 97838
567-5521
* Milton-Freewater
Mr. Del McNerney, City Planner
Ci ty of 1-1i 1ton-Free\'/ater
Post Office Box lOB
Milton-Freewater. Oregon 97862
938-5531
* The Confedera ted Tri bes of t1e Umati
Indian Reservation
Mr. Tom Hampson, Planner Director
Tribal Development Office
Post Office Box 633
Pendleton, Oregon 97301
276-3165 .
po
-
ATTACH>IE~IT C
Requests of Federal and St~te A~encies
Please fon;ard ~'lithin thirty (30) days of recei?t of this 1etter to the contact
person for ea:h jurisdiction affected and to the Planning Coordinator the
following information:
A. General Information
1. The ndille of the director and the authorizec! agency contact person \'/ith .
\·/hom the jut'isdiction should deal. if different. please indicate \'/hich
person \·';11 be signing off on th~ jurisdictions' cOii.?rehensive plans
.during the LCOC Acknowledgenent of Ccu.?liance Process. Please include
mailing addresses, office locations. anc t~lephQ~~ n~~bers.
2. The enabling legislation for the agency \-,ith em-rent arr:endrr.ents.
Please include a sUJr.mary. if available, Hith footnotes to the
legislation.
3. Legislation the agency is charged with a~~inistering. Please include
a summary, if available. ~Ji th footnotes. to the legislation.
4. Grants and/or loans - under State\·,ide Phnning Goal ::2, liThe plan shall
be the basis for specific impler.:entatioil r.:~asures". \"lhich include
IIgran ts for construction". Each jurisciction1s cOi7lprenensive plan \-;;ll
thus be used, as a basis for grant and loan applications. Please send:
a. A 1ist of grants and/or loans the" agency is charged \'Iith
administering.
b. The criteria by ...thich the agency \'li11 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 a.lready develo:Jed grant and/oi~ loan cr·iteria,
please indicate hm'l developed and ~'ln2n officially promulgated. If
none have yet been developed, please specify the pl·ocess by \';nich
local jurisdictions \'Ii11 revie'.'/ the:-:-: pdor to ado?tion~
5~ Pel·mits - under State~'Jide 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 ~·:ith adwinistering, \',hich
may apply to the jurisdictions or a?~licar.t5 in the jurisdic~ions.
b. The criteria which the agency will use to evaluate permit applica-
tions, and the administrative regula~ions and statutes on which
the criteria are based,
c. If your agency h3s already develop~~ p~ri:"it issvance critet"i03,
please indicate how developed and ..·;h=n officially promulgate:! .. If
none have yet been developed, please specify the process by which
local jurisdictions \'/i11 revie'.'1 the~ prior to ado;:>tion.
1
•6. The administrative appeals procedures of the agency.
7. If available) a concise state~ent or pa~phlet outlining the ge~eral
activities of the agency.
B. Planning Programs of the Jul'isdictions.
1. A listing of data inventories the agency has O~ file for 22ch jurisdic.
tion. (Please refer to Attachr.:ent A - COii:prenensive Plan Data.
Requi rements.)
2. Technical assistance the agency can provide to each jurisdiction.
3. An indication of the coordin3tion ~ethod preferred by the agency for
use during the planning process (e.g. telephone calls. letters, in-
person vis; t).
4. Agency evaluation of the comprehensive plans of jurisdictions.
a. The criteria the agency \'lill us,= to ev~l11ate each juri.;oiction's
comprehens i ve plan and i m~1er..ent; n9 ordinances. and the adr-:; nis tra·
tlve regulation:; and statutes upon ~'ih;ch 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 hm·J developed and ~·/hen officially proiT!Jlgated. If
none have yet been developed, please specify the process by \'ihich
local jurisdictions \'Iill revie\'I them prior to adoption.
5. For federal agencies, please COr.Jl1!;'nt on \'lhether your asenc)' \'!ill be
\~i 11 i n9 to \'/Ork \'Ii th the llorthl':es t Fedel"a1 Regiona 1 Cou:1ci 1 to develop
a coordinated federal review process.
6. For state agencies and federal agencies ~'Iith statcb';de }~eprese:ntatives
in Oregon. please co~ment on whether your agency will be willing to
\'Iork through the Oregon Land Co:",servation and Develop~ent Co:r~;)ission
office in Salem to develop a coordinated rev'ie~'1 pl~ocess.
7. A listing of problems ~':h-ich Iil~Y hinder your asency in\'o1'1e~ent in the
planning programs of the jurisdiction:; (e.g. insufficient agency budge
to assist in tasks specified on jurisdiction's co~pliance sch2d~12~
inadequate agency staffing to pl~ovit.l.= p=I'sonnel necessery to do in-
house data compilation. an31ysis, and reproduction for the j:.:risdictiod
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 h2S which ~3Y directly iw.pac~ the juris~
diction's area. Ple3se include a staterr:ent of ho·.... the plan \'1as
developed and \'lhen it \'/as officially adopted.
2
po
-
b. If no plan now eX1StS or if the prese~t plan is undergoing
revision. please specify:
1. The process by ~·;hich each jurisdiction can be involved in the
d0veloplT'ent of the agency plan.
2. The process by v/hich each ju!"'isc!ic~ion Hill reviel's the plan
prior to adoption.
2: Areas of interest the ag.ncy has I·,ithin the jurisdicUon, to include
any current programs, land o~ner5hip5. or ~lar.ning or m~nage~ent
responsibilities impJcting upon the jurisdiction or its surrounding
area.
3. Current cr potential land u~e prJblei.o or conflicts the agency
recognizes.
O. Continuing Requests
1. Please insure that a copy of all written cOT-munications bet~een your
agen"cy and a contact person fro~ 2.'r'.y juris~iction, con.:erning the land
use planning program. is sent to :'he Pla~~ing Coordinator.
2. For materials (e.g. agency plans, proposed regulations) the ag~ncy is
submit~jng to jurisdictions for review and cO~7.ent. please send a copy
to the Planning Coordinator. \·lith a distribution list of jurisdictions
receiving the material for infori71ation PUI~poses.
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
\·/il1 be informed of any changes in jurisdiction contact personne,l
or Planning Coordinator) .
. b. Any changes in the enabling legislation for the agency) or iii the
legislation the agency is charged \·JTth administering.
c. Any modifications in the crit~l'ia for evaluation of grant applica-
tions) loan applications, and perf;1lt applications.
d. Any additional ;nfor;r;ation rele'/an~ to the Comprehensive Planning
PI~ogram of the jurisdictions or planr.ing prograr:l of the agency.
4. Please recom~end to the Planning CO)r~in3~or eny i~p,ovements that can
be made in the planning coordinction ?rOC~5; ~~ are developing pursuant
to DRS Chapter 197.
3
----------.....·............------------tt
ATTACH:,JENT D
Requests of Special Districts
Please respond \·lithin thirty (3D) days of receipt of this letter-
to the cont2ct person for each jurisdiction \·tithin \'Ihich yOJ!"
district has progra~s. land ownerships. or responsibilities. Tr.~
contact person will be interested in the activities of yo~r dis-
trict, the planning prograQ of your district, and the d2~elop­
ment of a coordination process bebjeen the district and tn2:
jurisdiction ~'Ihere one does not ;Jresently e?<ist.
Please send the Planning- Coordinator a copy of your cOlW:unicatiofi
with each contact person to whom you respond.
pATTACHI·iENT E
Recj'..as t of LO'::a1 Agenci es and Organ i za to i cns
·I1.:1'J1 119_ ProQrarr.s. Land Ot·:ersh,i p5, or Respons i bi 1 i ti e5
Within Only One Jurisdiction
Please respond to the contact person for your jurisdiction. Your juris-
diction's contact pzrson ~",ill perfor,., coordination ':Icn-k ~'Jit~ YIJ~r ~9=ncy
or organization. 'Because such coordination Hill be intra-j';risdictional,
there is no need to notify the Planning Coordinator.
I· .
c".~",'1 Co.. , ,........
p~",.n... ,~n. Ot"'~_'
?!-:?"'O: 2 76 - 7111
f~: 3U
UNATILLA COU:1TY
Tnrou.--jh AU::,'7l!St 1977. ln~till.:? Coune-y's pla..l..-fu--.g effo~ts 2.re
directed to.,'ard t1peati....'1g the e.'ci.stir.g cm:nty-Hide co::pre.:':.ensive p~a..:.-:.
t..he count".I--the "l:est E..'d... Basically, the plC'4"1,·;rill ide;ltify fot='
rural-.reside..itial c..."1d natural resource areas. Tne cities in t.~e P~'i.i:..g
..-
-....~-- tmit either have a specific city plan or are in tl:e p::-oce55 of C:e.v~lo?i.r:g
one in coordination ,-rith county pl2.D....,ir.g progrars. AttacJ.1ed is a
ueeting schedule .of our advisory grOl-':'_ Agencies are i...T1vited to F-~te.'1d
the rreetL.'"1gs a.,d :may be asked to provice infou:-.ation en subjects Cis-
cussed. Phone 276-7111, extensio~ 314. the PIC'nning De::>art:::"ent, - ..~
. .
specific tire and place of l'Eeting.s.
l.M4TJllA COU~IIY - \·ZSTER.~ PlA'\,,'D'G L'I-.'TI"
HEST EN) Crr:rm;S ADVISCRY CCnUllEE
PlA"<NlliG I'!EETIJ\G TOPICS
- 23·
.:.":
Noverrber 11
.. .
. . .
_.......
.'"
2~ ..
Disc:u:>sion or >;..urk schechl1.e and overall cc~ty
plaI1P.lIl.g progran.
Election of officers, orga...-u.za:--ion co. ...i.t.t:e:e
report on SuDCCc:r:a.tt'12 structure, revis·,
. t· r_ • . PI . "
eJC..S l.I"!.g vv,,?:"er:.e.::.s1.ve ~ ~ ar'.C l·j2P .
Discussim of nrr..T· to survE.)t CC::C_--..i.ty r:.2eA..s c=l::l
proble:-s. disCt.;.Ssion of SC'r.'E r...:1tt~al r~-:i
invent-ory pre"arod bv S"L",f:f nO's"blv .......... -=..:1 - ...,..,.."...
- -... r' ~ • .........-. r' ::> - J ~'-'_"" <:%. t..v'.·'.'
n:eetir..g to id=:..."1.tLry (Sl.Il:"'JCy) h"'e.St end p:-o:'lE:"s ..
DisctlSsiG:1 of criteria for ide.:."1ti=-"~"1g c.cicclturz.l
lands, revie..J'.p-'Jblic facilities :L.1.~·enCo::",,7n:-eca=ed
by staff. '. .
* Includes greater Umatilla, Hermiston, Stanfield, and Echo aree:'S of the coUll
pUmatilla Coun~j: coot'd
_page 2
J~~'1! ·2......j 13
27
24
~ . ". . ~- ~- • ~ 0"u..:..SC\J.SS~cn 01. U::J2!1 6_0-..J'tr:. l)'.)t::'!t...a::7. rt?:'n_,,; 1.
L..teriD bOl.:nC:o-r-i.es of c:"de.s. rcvie:·, ar-.d. C.5C"...!35
O~:1 5pc.ce L."1ve.nto!y; cC":!:ir.-,;.e S'.r.=-...-ey of c.........~ty
needs and prob!.es.
Discuss recreation r..ee.d.s, re':i.?;1 state oa=:'"s ula:l
c::r..d liw~tory oE recreaticrr:. areas, eval-t:ate results
of cctiB...:P; ty n::ees su:::veJ~
R2vier,; Eci':o-Stanfieli ecCr.;.o7.'i.c &t.a, rev-:.E"..;r c~t::'!.~.:
po?U1a!:ion-e:ploj"i!:.EI1t projEc:i::r:!, discuss ecc..c;:i.c.
wvelo;-",:ent. iclentL.~ ELploYC°i.t ce::.t-e=s.
P<"i.e'"-i" anc. discuss "'Jest end l.ar:.d use irr=:e!".-:o-:::;.
April
r-ay
June
J..u.y
10
24
14
28
12
26
9
23
14
-. R-~erH tra.n.sporU!.tian ;nv:=.-:.t0=7. discussi:::':'l. of
CC1Et~ road ccnditic.'..3, rev"ie:" ay.":'cult-.=al :!.c.:."1Cs
j,.-wer..tory.
R...ov....;.~" City of U•.atilla. dra£~ pl:=::1, C!..s=-...:.ss all
i..-r ':.,,:·,::ories r.eeded to i~'"11:~ f.] rrc::rz,u=k J.~:.c. uses ~
cli· .-;'-" '8 ~-O""';""'J .J_+-::\~ "..... L • ...-..;> ........0 \J.<..!.l..,.C.
Di£i'-~.:'':;.:iicn and revi€"~l ·air-~"ater-lz....1dquality
prob ~L-l'!"S 2..!.,d inventories. revie:·! ?'~oject:ic::s ·of
. land \..!.Se need.3-atploy,c5!c-pcpu1<=.cj"cn.-r:.,si"-a:i
density-fir...mcizl. abilicy ::0. s~rv=.
Re;.·~.cr..... Irap ~1-=ojecting future fr.:::-.e;~">:::,~,: l~"'l= =:::-2.25,
dis.:..-uss con,;;1.ict~ 'h'ith p::ese..,t .picc...:. ;.. ' Ci.s;:~5
enargy conser.'"at~Chl cGnSl.deratJ.C!'.5.
Continue discussion of coru:'l..ic~ Gr2.2.S. discuss:.
alteIT'_"3.tive la.."1d uses and policies. begi~ fOr:-112.tion
of alce.:.:r..ative. plz..~.
Contin~ discussion of CorrIi:'l:zU.t"j" go-",l s.
,
Forcr:ul2.::ian DE plar.s to achieve goals and policies;
Discussiffi1 of plan ro:..;g...l.;, draft.
Ccntin~d "tourk 0!1. pla..1. draft; ~"rie-:" ECi.~:> Z1d
Stznfie.ld Draft Plan3 pr2par~d by ciey plar~cr.
Atter,:i EC-.:.~ and Sta..."'lfi.eld heE:ri.,,;g:s C8 ci=-i ?l-=.:.-:s;
Co:1::i:.~;,:e. ~;('lrk ~ CG1.2:Y pI.::::. <U2.::-::.
Fresa;::;. d::"aft of t·;"25::-E..-:C PIa,.;
C:J'...!nty ?la.-rrri..:g C-cm!:'':'ssicn.
(te:<..t --~) .~"~i-' L.....
,,,
." "{:-3"S ~:rr! OF P.2NDG70?-J
P. O. sox 190
PENDLETON,ORi::OON 97801
January 5. 1977
~ar Coordinating Agency:
Copies of the City of Pendlet.on's Third Draft of its
Comprehensive P1a:\ are available for re'/ie-:J and cO:r;;:'!ent by
you at the offices of the Land Cons~rvatio~ snd Develop~ent
Com:aission. Salem.. Crego:"!, the East Ce::ltr2.1 Ot'ego':'l Associa-
tion of Counties. Pend1ct~:"I, Oregon, or City P~ll in Pendleton.
Sincerely,
, " "_~ '\ ", ,"'- _i.e ~
"/Ed<,.lard A. Rh;:ld.~s .. ;; L'.:
Director of Planning & B~ilding
EAR:clf
"RECIPIENTS OF PLANNING COORDltIATlOlI LETTER
Federal Agencies ~ Certified Nail
tis. Nary l-lundell
Mr. D. Craig Ahlberg
Rura1 Deve1opmen t Servi ce
U.S. Department of Agricul ture
Hr. Louis Baxter
Mr. Kenneth K. Keudell
fir. Ken Durrell
Farmers Home Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hr. Jack Sainsbury
Hr. David NcLeod
Hr. George Potter
Agriculture Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Ms. laura Jean White
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
.U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hr. Thomas W. Thompson
Mr. Jim Pease
Hr. Gera1d Br.og
11r. Darrell NaxI-,ell
11r. Jlyron L. Dunning'
Hr. Harold Kerr
Oregon State Extension Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
I-Ir. Al Dard
fir. H. B. Rudolph
Mr. Warren Post
Hr. Gordon George
Forest Service
·U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hr. William L. Dugan
Nr. Guy W. Ilutt
Nr. Robert Adelman
Hr. Dale Boner
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
~1r. Tom Current
Nr. Ronald R. Hall
Mr. ~la r!< Bus ton
Hr. C. j.:~r!< Smith
Econo~ic Developxent Acm;n;stration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Uoatil1a Army Depot
Department of the Army
Hr. Dave Geiger
Hr. Ron Barrett
Mr. Frank Parsons
~:r. Gordon O. Ri char:dson
r1r. Larry Bagas
Planning Branch. Portland
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
Hr. Stan Dumas
13th Naval District
~estern Naval Facilities
Lt. Brian Quendeck
liaval lJeapons Syster.ls Training Facilities
Nr. Gary Gillespy
'·Ir. Cliff Safranski
. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
I-Ir. Charlos Pol ityea
lil~. Chuck Hoyt
Office of land Usc and \'!ater Pla~ning
U.S. Department of'Interior
fir. Don Rogers
l-lr. John Ki ncheIoe
Nr. Larry Rasmussen
U.S. Fish and ~Jildlife Service
U.S. Depattment of Interior
.-
fh'. Ernest J. Borgman
Hr. Ed'.;in L. Arnold
r{a tiona 1 Pa tk Servi ce
U.S,. Department of Interior
Nr. Ha 1 ter Le\-;i s
Bureau of f.ii nes
U.S. Department of Interior
Mr. A. R. Leonard
Geological Survey
U.S. O~~artment of Interior
~:r. Roy SaGpscI
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. DepartJr.ent of Interior
Federal Agencies (continued)
Mr. Tom Hampson
~Ir. John Hughes
Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. 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. Oepartwent of Interior
Nr. Dale Gooch
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Interior
Hr. Emmett Willard
!-lr. Harold H. Cantrell
Bonneville Power Administration
U.S. Department of Interior
land and Natural Resources Oivision
\l~shington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Justice
Mr. Richard Arnold
U.S. Department of fraf\sportatic:n
Mr. Hans Sperber
Federal Aviation Administration
u.s. Department of Transportation
Region 10
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. ·Oepartment of Transportation
Portl and Offi ce
Federal Railroad Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Mr. Cecil Quellette
!-lr. John Vlastelica
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ilashington', D.C.
. (Office of Public rnfor~,tion)
Nr. Frank Thomas
Federa1 Pm-fer Co;r.mi ss i.on
Hr. J. Oon Chapman
Small Business Administration
!-lr. Andy Ekman
Federal Energy Administration
Seattle Office
U.S. Er.ergy Research and Dev21cpment
Administration
!-lr. Jim Hanchett
Hr. Robert Ryan
'·Ir. Robert Engelken
Nuclear Regulatory COirFiission
!-lr. George'Van Santan
Mr. Donel J. Lane
r~r. Lafry Vinton
Pacific Nartln'Jest River Basin Corrmissioa
Pendleton Office
Heppner Offi ce .
lone Office
U.S. Postal Service
Salt Lake City Office
U.S. l'leather Bureau
State .o.qencies El. Certified r':ail
Hr. Don McKinnis
Agricultural Deve~opment
Departup-nt of Agrlculture
~15. lois Sohlender
Hr. Trever'Jacobson
Hr. Dave Bassett
Building Codes Division
Department of Commerce
Mr. Douglas Stevie
Housing Division
Department of Commerce
Mr. Gene Osborne
Real Estate Division
Depa rtmen t o,f Comme rce
Hr. Daniel Goldy
Departrnent of Economic Development
'Mr. Floyd SheHan
Ports
Department of Economic Development
Mr. John Groupe
Eas tern Oregon Reg i ana 1 0 f fi ce
Department of Economic Oeveloprr:ent
fir. William G. \'Iilmot, Jr.
Department of Education
I1r. Da vi d E. Pi pe"
Department of Energy
I1r. Hike Downs
I1r. Steve Gardels
Hr. Robet't Jackman
Mr. Bill Young
Department of Environmental Quality
Hr. J.lfchae1 Burton
Hr. David Uupp
Ms. Leslie Lehw.ann
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Executive Oepart~ent
I'lr. James Lauman
~lr. Jack E. :,:~11and
"!r. Glen F. Hard
r·lr. \Iilliam C. Han
Mr. James V. Phel~s
Deparu,ent of ,Fish and Wildlife
fl<'. Phillip Brogan
,rk. Bill Holstcla;;
Di vi sian 1'::lnagerr:~nt, PIens and Programmi n9
Oregon State OepartIr.ent of Forestl'"Y
Nr. John D. Beaulieu
Department of'GeologY,and Mineral
Industries
fir. Standl ey L. Ausmus
Hined land Reclar.!3.tion Division
Departr.:ent of Geology and Hineral
1ndustries
Nr. Jack 1. Hinderup
Office of Facilities Planning
Oregon State Board of Higher Education
Hr. Richar-d A. Da':is
Hr. Darrel 5~ttice
Oepart~ent of HU~3n Resources
Nr. Don Ste;·;ard
Employment Division
Department of Huxan Resources
Hr. Bert t,!Ol~1ey
~·:r. La vel~ne l'li 11 e-r
Hr. Jack Hdght
Nr. ~!illard S. Titus
Oregon Stete Heal to Oivision
Department of HU\i',an Resources
J. D. Bray, N.D.
!-ir. J. E. :':~rray
E. C. Bru~ette. Ph.D.
I'~ental l:le~lth Division
Department of Hu~an Resources
Hr. llarQld Brauner
Nr. Ronald t.!Jer
Nr. Bob B3iley
Hr. ;·:ike r1~schner
Hr. Herb Riley
Departcent of land Con5ervation
and De.v21v;JiHtmt
~lr. Stan1ey Hamil ton
Nr. B:Jr;tc:l ? le~·ii 5
Division of State. L~r.ds
State Agencies (continued)
Nr. Keith Stubbl efie1d
11r. Buck Costar
Oregon law Enforcement Council
State Planning Agency
~lr. James A.' Hadley
Oregon S~ate Marine Board
Nr. Robert R. Fisher
District No.4 Headquarters 1 Baker
Oregon State Police Department
_Nr. Paul Bettio1
Hr. Leonard Skinner
Board on Police Standards and Training
Mr. James E. Weiss
Center for Population Research
and Census
Nr. Dave Astle
Nr. Gale Spinning
Public Utility Commission
Mr. Charles Liles
State Soil and Hater Conservation
." Commission
Mr. Robert A. Burco
Nr. Robert Bensley
Nr. Robert Schroeder
Mr. George Strawn
Department of Transportation
Nr. Fred Klaboe
Nr. Bill Beckner
Highway Division
Department of Transportation
-Hr. David G. Talbot
Hr. Ted Dethlefs
Hr. Ted Long
Parks and Recreation Branch
High~',ay Division
Department of Transportation
Salem Office
Department of Veterans Affairs
-
_14r. Darrell Learn
Nr: Hilliam Porfily
Nr. Douglas Bennett
Mr. Joseph Szra~ek
Department of Hater Resources
Mr. Jeffrey Kleinman
l-lr. Stephen Ka foury
Joint legislative Cc~~ittee on
Land Use
Mr. Henry R. RichTiond
1000 Friends of Dreson
Hr. David Cole
11useum of Natural History
University of Oregon
r·lr. Kenneth C. Tollen~ar
Bureau of Governmental Research
University of Oregon
Nr. Gl en Juday
.Natural Area Preserves Advisory
COiTinittee
'·lr. Ben t':ouchect
208 I-later Quality Project
Other Agencies (County, City, Local, etc.) .Il.z. Certified flail
League of Oregon. Cities,
Sal em
Road Advisory Co~~ission
Association of Oregon
Salem
Counties
Hr. Carlos Van E1sberg
Umatilla County Road Department
!1r. Glen Thorne
Umatilla County
.
.
I-Ir. Ilayne Rifer
The Nature Conservancy
Umatilla County Board of Cow.missioners
Morrow County Commissioners
Hr. Jim Ellis
Blue Hountain Econo;r,ic Development
Council
~Ir. Ed Hoeft
~lr. Dale Boner
Columbia Blue r'lountain Resource,
Conservation, and Development
fir. Ronald R. Hall
fast Central Oregon Association of
Counties
Umatilla County Assessor
Umatilla County Fair Soard
Herroi ston
Umatilla County Housing Authority
Hermiston
fir. Tom flunck
Umatilla County Intergovernmental
Counei 1
Ns. Julia I~ul-ray
Umatilla County League of Homan Voters
Mr. Bruce Barnes, HSH, ACSH
Umatilla-Norro\'l County f·jental Health
Program
Reverend Di rk. Rinehart
Umatilla-I·lorrm-i County Nental Heal th
Program Advisory Board
:·:r. Art £:1f:"'"Cf.:S
Uma.tilla Co:.mty'Parks Corr~llission
Umatilla County pranning Commission'
Hr. Henry Kopacz
Umatilla County !·Iater and Soil
Conservation District
t·:orro\'l County Assessor
Ns. Ruth ~:ccabe .
Morrow County Historical Society
Norrm, County Road Department
tk. Hi 11 i em Penney
Port of Umati 11a
Mr. Rupert Kennedy
Port of t·:Orro:.,
Heppner Chamber of Commerce
(i ty (ounei 1s
Adams
Athena
Boardman
Echo
Helix
Heppner
Hermis ton
lone
Ir'ri gon
Lexington
. Hil ton-Free\'later
Pendleton.
Pil ot Rock
Stanfield .
Ukiah
Umatilia
* * * * 1:: *
~ast.ern Gre;on r.eai th Systerrs Ag:::ncy, Inc.
---------------~1
,
Other Agencies (continued)
Schools
Blue Nountain Community College
Pendleton
Athena School District No. 29
Athena
Echo School District 110. 5
..Echo
Ferndale School District No.1
Miltqn-Free,ater
Helix School District No.1·
Helix
Hermiston School District flo. 8
Hermiston
. McLough1in Uni on I:i gh Di 5 tri ct r:o. 3
Milton-Freewatzr
Nilton-Freel1ater School District ilo. 31
Mi 1ton Freel-:ater
Norrow County School District No.1
Lexington
Pendleton School District No. 16
Pendl eton
Pilot Rock School District No. 2
Pilot Rock
Stanfield School District No. 61
Stanfield
Tum-A-Lum School District No.4
Hi 1ton-Freewater
Ukiah School District tlo. 80
Ukiah
Umapine School District No. 13
Hil ton-Fre~water
Umatilla School District No.6
Um~ti 11a
Umatilla County interw.~diate
Education District
Pendleton .
~:eston School District Uo. 19
Weston
* * * * 7: *
Irrigon 'Pork District
. Hermiston Irrigation District
.
Stanfield-Hestland Irrigation District
Heppner ~lood Control District
lexington-lone Ceffietary District
Hej)pner Cerr:etary Di5trict
Irrigon CeMetary District
Athena Police Depart~ent
Boardman Fire District
Echo Fire Depart~ent
Helix Fire Department
Heppner Rural Fire District
Hermiston Fire Oepal"trr:ent
Irrigon Rural Fire Protection
Pendleton Fire De~2rD~ent ffil
Pendleton Fire Department #2
Pilot Rock Fir~ C2~artw.ent
Stanfield Fire Dep~rtm~nt
Umatilla Fire DEpartrr:ent
Pioneer ;·;,:;;-.ori a1 P.Jspi ta i
St. Anthony Hospital
other Agencies (continued)
~orrow County Grain Growers
lone
Heppner
lexington
Grain Grm'/ers t Inc.
Athena
Echo
Helix .
Henn'iston
Pendleton
Pilot Rock
Greyhound Bus lines
Pendleton
Burlington Northern, Inc.
Helix
Pendleton
Portland (Regional Office)
Union Pacific Railroad
Heppner
lone
Pend1 eton
Weston
fIr. Don Nielson
Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation
Pacifi c Northwes t Bell
Pendleton
Eastern Oregon Telephone Company
Pilot Rock
Columbia Cable Television
Her.ni 5 ton
Heppner Television, Inc.
Heppner
lexington City Television
lexington
Pendleton CO.l1'J1lunity Television System
Pendl eton
~eston/Athena Community Television Company
: Athena
.
.
Pacific PO'der and Light
Pendleton
Portland General Electric Co~any
Portland
Umatilla Electric Cooperative Association
Henn; s ton
Co'lumbia Basin Electric Co-op
Heppner
Cascade rIa tura1 Gas
. Hermiston
. .
Cascade Natur~l Gas
Pendleton
Heppner Nor-Gas Company
Heppner
HcCa 11 Gas Company
Stanfield
Pacific Gas Transmission Company
San Francisco
- ------- ------
_._---
Can tac t Persons
Mr. Jim Thompson
City Administrator
City of Boardman
Hr. David R. Moon
Planning Director
Morrow County Planning Department
Mr. Donald G. Burns
Associate Planner
f~rro~ County Planning Department
Mr. Cecil Thompson
·Chairman
West-End Citizens Advisory Committee
Mr. L. T. Harper
City Administrator
City of Hermiston
Nr. De 1 Iktlerney
City Pl anner
City of Milton-Freewater
..tIe; ghborinR Juri sdi cti ons
Benton County Court House
Prosser, Washington
Gilliam County Board of Commissioners
Condon, Orego~
Grant County Board of Commissioners
Canyon City, Oregon
Kl i cki tat County Court House
Goldendale, Hashington
11r. £dd Rhodes
Planning Director
·City of Pendleton
Hr. Henry f.!arkus
Comprehensive Planner
East Central Oregon Association
of Counties
Mr. Dave Bishop
Planning Director
Umatilla County Planning Departmen't ..
:,Is, Sarah 1-1, Salazar
Comprehensive Planner
Umatilla County Planning'Department
Hr. J. ·K. Palrr:er
City Administrator
City of .Umati 11 a
Mr. Ron Johnson, Consultant
9,'IJiVHilton, Portland
Union County Board of Co~~issioners .
La Grande, Oregon
Walla Walla County Court House
\'lalla Halla, "ashington
Wallowa.County Board of Commissioners
. En terpri se, Oregon
Wheeler County Board of Commissioners
Foss; 1, Oregon
Federal Agencies ~ Certified I-!ail
Cab; net 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 BrOl-/n
Secretary of Defense
Mr. Joseph A. Califano, Jr.
Secretary of Health, Education,
aod \>Ielfare
Ms. Patricia R. Harris
Secretary of I-lousing and Urban
Development
_Mr. Cecil Andrus
Secretary of Interior
Attorney General Griffin Bell
Departn;ent of .Justice
Ik. Ray '-larsha11
Secretary of Labor
Nr. Thomas B. lance
Director, Office of Hanagew.ent
and Budget
'-Ir. Cyrus Vance
Secretary of State
Mr~ BrOckman Adams
Secretary of Transportation
Nr. \01. Nichael Bluir.entahl
Secretary of Treasury
Recipients of Informatio~al CODies
President Jim~y Cart~r
Mr. Jack H. Watson
Governor Robert Straub
State of Oregon
_.U.S. Senator r·lark 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 Jack Sumner
Representative Ed Patterson
Representative Jack Duff
Governor Dixie Lee Ray
State of W3shington
U.S. Senator ~:arren G. "lagnuson
U.S. Senator .Henry 1·1. Jackson
U.S. Representative Thomas S. Foley
U.S. Representative I·like f.1cCormick
Senator Jeanette Hayner
Senator Hax Benitz
Senator Al Henry
Representative Eugene Struthers
Representative Ch~rles Kilbu:y
Representative Claude Oliver
Representative Gene laughlin
Represent~tive Jc~es Boldt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Oi ck Porn
Economic Development Administration
-.
ADDENDUM TO ATTACHMENT H
Second Certif;e~ Mailing
Federal Agencies
~Ir. Merle Storm, Director
Bureau of Land Hanagement
. U.S. Department of Interior
~Ir. Naurice H. Lundys Director
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U.S. Department of Interi,?r
Mr. Rod Vissia, Regional Director
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Interior
Mr. Donald P. Hodel, Administrator
Bonneville Power Administration
Mr. Christian Ila1k, Director
Federal Aviation Administration
M~. Earl Anderson, Acting Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
Mr. Jack Robertson, Regional Director
Federal Energy Administration
Mr. Tab Seahorn, Acting Director
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service
Mr. H. A. Wadsworth
Coop. Extension Service
Oregon State University
fir. Theodore A. 5ch1apfer
Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Colonel Harvey Arnold, Jr.
Army Corps of Engineers
~lr. J. D. Murray, Jr., Admiral
U.S. Navy
/olr. Nile B. Paul, Acting Director
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Mr. Russell E. Dickenson
National Park Service
U.S. Oepartm~nt of Interior
10k. rl~ancis Briscoe
Area Director'of the Bureav of
. Indians Affairs
Mr. George F. Wager
Federal Communications Commission
Mr. John H. Jewhurst, Lt. Colonel
U.S. Ail' Force
Mr. lloyd R. Pprter, District Director
U.S. Department of Comterce
Dr. Fred Cleaver
NOM
National ~larineFisheries
Mr. David Head, Regional Administrator
U.S. General Services Administration
Mr. James Wakefield
NationCi.l Heather Service
Hr. Bernard E. Kelly. Regional Director
Department of Health, Education,
and ~!elfare
Real· Admiral C. A. Richmond, Jr.
U.S. Coast Guard
- -- - - ---- -----
State Agencies ..
-
Hr. leonard Kunzman, Director
Department of Agriculture
Hr. Clarence Pa rker
Department of Economic Development
Dr. Verne Duncan
Department of. Education
Mr. Fred Niller
·Department of Energy
Mr.. Jack Carter
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Executive Department
Mr. John R. Donaldson
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mr. Ed Schroeder
Department of Forestry
Mr. Raymond Corcoran
Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries
Mr. o Denn; s Jolurphy
Department of Human Resources
Mr. Keith Putman
Oregon State Health Division
Mr. ~:il1iam s. Cox
Division of State Lands
~1I•• Laurence Sprecher, Director
Department of General Services
Mr. Lon Topaz
Mr. Charlie Davis
. Public.Utility Commission
Mr. Jim Sexson, Dir~ctor
Ha ter Resources Depart-::'?n t
Nr. Richard A. Hiller, !·1ajor General·
Oregon Military Department
Mr. Jim Ross
Department of land Conservation
and Development
-BEFORE THE BOARD OF Co:-mSSIO~;ERS
OF UMATILLA COUNTY
In the matter of the Development
and Adoption of Procedures and
standards for County Review of
city Comprehensive Plans.
.--------------;)
)
)
)
l
-----------
Resolution and Order
WHEREAS, DRS 197.175 requires each city and county in the State of
Oregon to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans co~sistent with Statewide Planning
Goals, and
WHEREAS; DRS 197.190 requires each county to coordinate all planning'
activities affecting land use within the cOlJnty~ including those of th<.: co!mty,
cities, special districts and ·state agencies; to assure an integrated comprehensive
plan.for the entire area of the county, and
WHEREAS, DRS 197.255 requi res each county to rev; el'l all comprehens ive
plans in the county for the. purpose of advising local jurisdictions as to their con-
formity with Statewide Planning Goa1s,. and.
WHEREAS, Statewi~e 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, the Umatilla County Board of COli'missioners cn No ....ember 9~ 1975,.
discussed the issue of urban growth boundaries and planning coordination with
other city ar.d county officials, ar.d requested local planners to develop a process
for establishing urban gro\'lth bOt:ndaries, and
WHEREAS, Umatilla County's Plannin9 Coordinator met on December 6, 1976,
and February 14, Harch 21, April 11, April 22, t·lay 9, and fiay27,1977, \"lith local
planners or contact persons to develop the process ·for establ ishing urban grm",th
boundaries, and
-, WHEREAS, local planners fo1101,in9 the direction provided by the Board of
~mmissioners, have developed an overall process necessary to meet the statutory
nd county requirements for the establishment of urb3n growth boundaries and
ctivities related thereto, and
WHEREAS, the U~atilla County Board of Commissioners has requested each
tty in the county to review and co~ent on the proposed process, and
WHEREAS, adoption of this process will pro1ide a form for cooperative
stablishment of urban gro·../::h bOIJndaries, review of city cOi.:;:lrehensive plans
I'ICluding areas ...lithin urban gt'o;·/th boun':1aries·, ~nd '"lili picvide t~e ccs;s for
eveloping joint -city/county management policies for land within urban gro'.... t!1
Oundarics,
NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the ~atilla County Board of
Commissioners 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'9iven in Attachment B.
BE'IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Umatilla CourityPlanning
Department and Planning Commission 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 reviewing city comprehensive plans and urban
growth boundaries, establishing findings of fact, and ~aking recom-
mendations on the adoption of Or concurrence with a cityls comprehen-
sive plan and'urban gra.th boundary.
ATIEST:
Dated this 2D1::!l day of July, 1977.
Umatilla County Board of Corrmissioners
\.\
.s::-\(~"~ .
f. K. Starrett, Chairman
..~~
~Commlssl0ner
Ford Robertson, COumissioner
Process
County Review of City Comprehensive Plans
I. Final Draft Plan Review
A. City circula~es draft plan for review.
B. City and county planners discuss draft plan.
C. County staff report prepared
D. Review by county planning commission
1. Public notice, planning commission work session, ten days
2. Planning commission work session
a. City presentation (city option)
b. County staff report
c. Comments by affected government units
d. Public comments
e. Questions
3. Planning commission findings and recommendations
a. Findings on .
1. Compli ance I<ith s ta te goals.
2. City/county issues identified.
3. Urban growth boundary and plan fo,' area within boundary outside
city 1imi ts.
4. Coordination with affected government units
b. Recommendations
E. Summary of planrying commission ,,:ark session-~ findings and recorrmendations
prepared and distributed by county staff.·
F. County staff report revised as necessary to reflect issues identified at
planning commission work session and/or new information.
G. Review by Board of Commissioners
1. Public notice, Board hearing, ten- days
2. Board hearing
a.· Summary of planninq com~ission work session, findings and
recorrrnenda t·; ons
. .
·1 '
b. City presentation (city option)
c. County staff report
,d. Corrments by affected governmen'. unit's
e. Public comments
f. Questions
3. 'Board findings and recommendations
a. Findings on
1. Compliance with state goals
2. City/county issues identified
3. Urban gro"th boundary and plan for area within boundary outside
city limits
4. Coordination with affected government units
b. Recommendations
H. SummarY of county review of city draft plan prepared and distribute~ by
county staff
II. Adopted Plan Revie" Process
A. City circulates plan for review
B. City meets with county planning commission to discuss plan (city option)
C. County staff report prepared
O. Review by county planning commission
1. P~b1ic notice, planning commission hearing, ten days
2. Planning commission' hearing
a. City presentation (city option)
b. County staff report
c. Comments by affected government units
d. Public comments
e. Questions
3, Planning commission findings and recommendations
a. Findings on
1. Compliance with state goals
2. City/county issues
3. Urban growth boundary and plan for area within boundary outside
city limits
4. Coordination with affected government units
b. Recommendations
1. FUrther negotiation needed and/or
2. Adopt/concur with exceptions as necessary
E. Sum~ary of planning commission hearing, findings. and recommendations
prepared and distributed by county staff.
F. County staff report revised as necessary to reflect issues identified at
planning commission hearing and/or new infor~ation.
G. Review by Board of Commissioners
~. Public notice, Board hearing, ten days
-2. Board hearing
.". SUTTVTlary of planning commission hearing, findings, and recommendations
b. City presentation (city option)
c. County staff report
d. Comments by affected government units
e. Public comments
. f. Questions
3. Board findings and actions
a. Findings on
1. Compliance with state goals
'2.- City/county issues
3. Urban growth boundary and plan for area within boundary outside
city 1imits
4. Coordination with affected govern~ent units
b. Action
1. Further negotiation with city and/or
2. Adoption of plan if urban growth boundary outside city limits
with exceptions as-necessary. or
3. Concurrence with plan with exce~tions as necessary
H. Summary of county review of city plan prepared and distributed by county
staff
_.~.~
"I
Fonn of Review
County Review of City Comprehensive Plans
The purpose of this intensive review is to resolve intergovernmental planning and
coordination issues at t.he local level to the greatest extent pas,sible. The fall
iog questions \'Ii.11 be addressed by the Board of Commissioners, Planning" COirm;ssion
and County staff in reviewing city comprehensive plans. The emphasis of the review
is to insure that the plan is in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals. cityf
county issues have been identified and resolved. cooperative establishT.ent of an
urban growth boundary and plan for the area within the boundary outside city limits
and coordination wjth affected government. units.
1. Data Inventories
a. Whicn inventories required by the Statewide Planning Goals were considered
not applicable to the planning area?
b. ' Were there inventories·for which adequate infonnation ~as not available?j
c. For those inventories completed:
1. Was best existing data used?
" .
2. Were sources, dates, inadequacies noted?
3. Are maps, tables, narrative understandable?
4. Was this infonnation made available to the public?
5. Were research needs identified and prioritized?
2. Identification of Buildable Lands
.a, Which of the following lands considered unsuitable for development were
identified in the planning area?
1. F1 oodway. fl oodp1ai n
2. Creeks, ditches, rivers, wetlands
3. Earthquake fault zones
4. Agricultural and forest lands
5. Severe soil limitations (groundl'later, steep slopes, landslides, erosion
. and disposition, weak foundation soils)
6. Mineral and aggregate resource sites
7. Archaeological/paleontological sites
8. Outstanding scenic views and sites
9. Significant fish, wildlife, and natural areas
10. Wild and scenic waterways (potential/approved, state/rederal,
b. If any of these lands were included ,lithin the urban growth boundary, what
'policies were adopted to:,
1. protect public health, safety, and welfare?
2. protect environmental quality, natural and scenic resources?
3. Economic and pop~lation projections
a. Were emerging trends and possible future key events identified?
b. Forecast(s) over what time period(s)?
c. Were assumptions explicit?
.d.· Was best existing data used and sources, dates, and uncertainties noted?
e. Were comparisons made with other forecasts?
f. Were there findings and conclusions?
4. land requirements for projected economic development and population growth
a. Were land characteristics required for different types of projected develop-
ment established?
b. Was the availability of land with these characteristics -- within city, con-
tiguous to city establ ished? .
c. Was the total amount of land required for development specified?
5. Public facilities and services required to accommodate existing unmet needs and
e~pected economic and population growth
a. Were design requirements/standards established?
'b. Was energy conservation and use' of renewable energy resources -- water, sun-
shine, wind, geothermal, wastes (municipal. industrial t farm t forest)
emphasized?
c. Were alternative ways to meet needs discu~sed?
d•. Was the ability of the community to provide such facilities and services
established?
6. Comprehensive plan and urban growth boundary
a. Are goals, findings, objectives, and policies (or their equivalent) indexed
or collected in one·place in the planning report?
b. Was adequate but not excessive land set aside for projected development with
appropriate or required characteristics? '
c. Does the land included meet design requ;l"eonents for puol ic facil ities and
services? .
d. Were ndtu~al or man-made barriers recognized?
'----- . ....... -
-. I"
" .
e. Were lands unsuitable for development excluded and/or left in open space
uses?
f. Were conflicts resolved or exceptions taken to the Statewide Goals~
g.. Coordinati on' wi th affeeted .governmenta 1 Ulli ts ~
•1. Were joint issues and problems identified?
2. Were policies established to resolve these issues and problems?
3.. Does the plan provide for joint implementation by governmental bodies
operating in the planning area?
h. Was citizen involvement in the comprehensive planning process documented?
i. Was a policy established for revising or amendinq the comprehensive plan
and the urban growth boundary? .
7. Were policies established for implementation of the plan such as.
a. Zoning and subdivision ordinances
b. Capital improvement program
c. Phasing of infrastructure within urban grm,th boundary
d. Intergovernmental cooperation-and agreements
'.
::a
SECOND'DRAFT
PRELI}ITNARY POPULATION AND LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS
MORROW AND UMATILLA COUNTIES
Prepared by:
EAST CENTRAL OREGON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
October, 1977
-. I·
..
e. Were lands unsuitable for development excluded and/or left in open space
uses?
f. Were conflicts resolved or exceptions taken to the Statewide Goalsr
g.. Coordination' with affected ,governmental Ullits ~
•1. Were joint issues and problems identified?
2. Were policies established to resolve these issues and problems?
3. Does the plan provide for joint implementation by governmental bodies
operating in the planning area?
h. Was citizen involvement in the comprehensive planning process documented?
i. Was a policy established for re~ising or amendinq the comprehensive plan
and the urban grol<th boundary? .
7. Were policies established for implementation of the plan such as.
a. Zoning and subdivision ordinances
b. Capital improvement program
c. Phasing of infrastructure within urban grm,th boundary
d. Intergovernmental cooperation-and agreements
'.
SECOND'DRAFT
PRELUITNARY POPULATION- AND LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS
MORROW AND UMATILLA COUNTIES
Prepared by:
EAST CEh7RAL OREGON ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
October, 1977
1. INTRODUCTION
The eatimations of future population for Morrow and Umatilla Counties contained in
this report are abstracted from a larger p:oject undertaken by the East Central
Oregon Association of Counties pursuant to state requirements for an economic
element (Goal 09) of the comprehensive land use plan. This plan Yill include a
detailed analysis of the growth potential of Morrow and Umatilla Counties, one
task of which was to project future labor force demand, and from that, resident
population. This task is still being conducted by the staff of the East Central
Oregon Association of Counties. When completed, it will contain figures for
Morrow and Vmatilla Counties, their municipalities, and other political sub-
divisions to the year 2000. The present (October, 1977) report contains only
those data derived from the first or assumption-testing computer run. Another run
will be made after consultation with county and city authorities. See Section
III below for a general discussion of the method by which these figures were
derived.
II. HOW TO USE THESE FIGURES
When the final report is published next year after consultation with municipal
an~ county officials and a review of assumptions in light of better knowledg~
about start-up dates. etc. for major development projects. the population pro-
jections from which these figures are abstracted should be as reliable as
present techniques allow. Their utility lies not so much in their accuracy
(which is not greater than ± 10 percent). but in the explicitness of the assumpti
on which they are based. They serve to focus discussion. If an interested citizen
disagrees with a figure. he can point to the specific assumption that seems out
of line, rather than vaguely object to the final prOjection as somehow wrong.
We wish to emphasize that the projections of future population for Horrow and
Umatilla Counties contained in this report are entirely preliminary. The pro-
jections are to be regarded as tentative until the staff of the East Central Orego
Association of Counties have consulted with officials and planning staffs of regioD
cities and other political subdivisions. These figures are due to be revised
further during the next nine months on the basis of better information from gove
mental agencies. public utilities and private firms concerning their plans for -
economic development in Morrow. Umatilla and Gilliam Counties. Local elected
officials. planners. engineers, builders, and interest citizens should await the
preparation by the East Central Oregon Association of Counties of third draft
findings in the summer of next year. and the final results in September. 1978~
before basing any decisions on this series of projections.
..
III. HOW THESE PROJECTIONS WERE DERIVED
The basic procedure for developing these figures is fairly straight-forwaTd
although it requires some complex 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 await publication of the final
report for inclusion in the Morrow and Umatilla County Comprehensive Plan.
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 officjally certified data.) This procedure was
repeated for 1975-80 and.subsequent five year intervals, given- the resident pop-
ulation developed by the computer for the beginning year.
This process is known as the "cohort-survival technique" and is the basis
for all economic 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 n~t in- or out-migration during the
forecast interval. Since its development at the University of Oregon
in the early 1960 t s. it has been refined and applied to u wide range of
e~onom1c and political units by a variety of forecasting firms and agencies
with notable success.
2. Estimate E.i Higration
There are two commonly practiced means-of estimating the number of people
_moving into or out of an arca. 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 oethod 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 where they are more plentiful. This ~del is most
appropriate to a region experiencing rapid economic growth. such as ours.
today .
This technique of population projection requires the forecaster to estimate
future g~owth 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 popu~ation
derived in the first half of the program to yield the resident labo~ force.
Subtracting the resident labor force from the expected total labor force
demand gives an estimate of how many jobs are available to non-residents.
3. Estimation of Labor Force in 1980~ 1985
In order to estimate future labor force figures for Mor~ow and Umatilla
Counties, 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 Oregon 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 •.mdertaken is the consider-
ation of when construction on them begins. Attention should therefore be
paid to the dates assumeq for onset of construction and operation of each
of the proposed new facilities. (See list of assumptions belo~.) The
total for 1980 would be substantially less if construction were to start
on Alumax, say in 197~ rather than 1978. Another important consideration
is the percent of county labor force living outside the county. Estima.tes
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 step in the program adds the expected resident population due
to natural increase with the expected in- 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 employment. The final report will contain this informatioa.
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 made about
new projects and growth in established categories for each separate scenario
follow:
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 pr~ductivity
high (no shortages of petroleum~based products); employment growing
proportional to new acreage. No shortage of ~ater.
2. Food Processing and Light Industry - Continued gro~th in food processing
and light industry at or near 1970-75 levels;
3. Energy-generation Facilities and Construction - No new electrical-generating
plants in area after completion of Carty facility. ·Construction of second
powerhouse at McNary Dam and of 1-82 Free~ay 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 in.terval.
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 plant to begin in 1982. (See Appendix 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 by Portland Ceneral Electric in Morrow and Gilliam Counties and
by Pacific Power and Light at Roosevelt, Washington. (See Appendix C)
4. Same as A and B.
* Note: Scenario Band C are identical for 1980.
5. Differing as in 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 peak (early 1980's) level.
We would like to emphasize that these assumptions were designed to yield the
highest reasonable result ineach case. The generally high trend of the
resulting figures may be seen by consulting Tables 1 and 2 which report
our findings and compare them with recent projections of other agencies
and companies. These assumptions and others regarding commuting, working
spouses, and incidence of singleness among in-migrators were tested on this f1
computer. run. Alterations that seem called for in these or any other param-
eters 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
I. CO~3truction population defined as temporary (i.e., specifically associate~1
with major new physical plant or Federal Construction and not hired·locall~
computed separately from main program due to different age- and sex-
structure.
2. Non-employment motivated in-migration (i.e., non-local retirees and re-
creation motivated movers) calculated and distribute4 separately from
main program. (Primarily Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains Enumeratio
Districts). .
UMATILLA COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1975-1985
TABLE 1 A
.
Year
-
1975 1980 1985
Portl and State; February, 1976 48,000 50,700· 53,900·
Pacific Northwest Bell ~ April, 1976 48,200 53,500 57,500
Bonnev; 11 e PO\'v'er Adm; ni stra t; on; December 1976 47,650 54,200 59,450
ECOAC, Scenario A; AU9ust, 1977 48,017*' 56,520 61-,590
EcbAC, Scenari 0 B; August, 1977 48,017 60,130 65-,240
ECOAC, Scenario C; Augus t, 1977 48,017 60,130 68,840
* Portland State University recognizes that these figures are too low and is in
the ~rocess of updating them on the basis of present knowledge, such as city
houslng surveys. The exceptionally rapid growth in our area rendered the
Portland State University "historical trend technique" inappropriate. The
latest updated county fi9ure (1976) is 50,000, which a9rees well with our program.
** From com uter calibratio r edur.
***
surveys. The rapld growth and changlng economlC CO:nposltlon of r·lorrO'.'l 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 fi9ure (1976) is 5,350, \'Ihich is· still 10l'ler than the
current population, according to our model.
** Pacific North\...est Bell also admits the inadequacy of its figures for planning
purposes, in as much as it ;s developed on a household basis, and therefore,
-.inappropri ate for a rapidly changing area with a s i goi ficant construction
popul ation.
Bonneville Power Administration is the first agency to conduct forecasts for
Morrow County taking recent and expected growth fully into account. Its figures
differ from mine mostly in the treatment of the construction force and assump-
tions about cOTmluting ( llhollsehold ll vs. "establish;;:ent" data).
.
Morrow County Population Projections 1975-2000
TABLE IB
Year
I , 2000 ISource 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
-
,
.
Portland State University*
Februa ry, 1976 5,200 5,100 5,400 5,600 5,900 6,000
Pacific Northwest Bell**
April, 1976 5,200 5,200 5,300 5,400 -- --
Bonneville Pm"er Administration***
December, 1976 5,175 . 7,175 8,475 9,475 10,100 --
ECDAC, 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~ 111 ,027 11,587
ECDAC, Scenado C
AU9ust, 1977 -- 9,907 10,650 11,674 12,482 13;297
.
* Portland State Universtty recognizes that its figures are too low and is in the
process of updati~g them on the basis of present knowledge, such as city housing
. . .
+ This small incr"ease is due to assumption of no oe,,'I" energy-facility construction
after 1987, and consequent departure of previously (1975-1987) semi-pe~anent
construction· labor force. Scenario C assumes fairly stable level of this force
throughout the forecast period. (See list of assumptions.) This further assumes
successful coordination of construction projects among the Qajor contractors.
co
u
n
ty
W
es
t
En
d
Ec
ho
He
rm
ist
on
St
an
fi
el
d
U
m
at
ill
a
Ru
ra
l
Pe
nd
le
to
n
Mi
lto
n
Fr
ee
wa
te
r
O
th
er
C
iti
es
O
th
er
Ru
ra
.l
CI
TY
AII
O
PL
AN
NI
NG
UN
IT
PR
OJ
EC
TIO
NS
U
m
at
ill
a
Co
un
ty
,
19
70
•
19
95
(F
igu
res
gi
ve
n
to
n
e
a
re
st
50
)
Ta
bl
e
2A
(R
ev
isi
on
)
19
80
19
85
19
90
-
19
95
19
70
19
75
A
31
C
A
3
C
A
3
C
A
3
C
l
.
44
,9
00
48
,2
00
56
,5
00
60
,1
50
61
,60
0
65
,2
50
68
,85
0
64
,9
50
69
,0
00
72
,4
50
67
,45
0
73
,1
00
76
,0
50
13
,2
00
15
,2
00
21
,7
00
25
,1
00
24
,60
0
27
,7
50
31
,1
50
26
,4
50
30
,1
00
33
,3
50
28
,05
0
33
,20
0
35
,80
0
50
0
50
0
60
0
65
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
60
0
75
0
95
0
65
0
75
0
95
0
4,
90
0
5,
95
0
8,
55
0
9,
95
0
9,
45
0
11
,2
50
12
,4
00
9,
95
0
12
,0
50
13
,1
50
10
,1
50
13
,8
00
14
,9
50
90
0
1,
00
0
1,
45
0
1,
65
0
1,
70
0
1,
90
0
2,
00
0
1,
90
0
2,
10
0
2,
20
0
2,
30
0
2,
45
0
2,
65
0
70
0
1,
60
0
3,
35
0
4,
75
0
3,
95
0
4,
65
0
5,
60
0
4,
35
0
5,
20
0
5,
85
0
4,
80
0
5,
65
0
6,
40
0
6,
20
0
6,
15
0
7,
75
0
8,
10
0
3,
90
0
9,
35
0
10
,3
50
9,
60
0
10
,0
00
11
,2
00
10
,1
50
10
,5
00
11
,90
0
13
,2
00
14
,1
00
14
,9
00
15
,0
00
15
,5
00
15
,7
00
15
,7
50
16
,0
00
16
,3
50
16
,4
50
16
,4
00
16
,8
00
16
,9
50
4,
10
0
4,
50
0
4,
95
0
5,
00
0
5,
40
0
5,
45
0
5,
45
0
5,
75
0
5,
80
0
5,
80
0
6,
00
0
6,
10
0
6,
15
0
3,
50
0
4,
00
0
4,
25
0
4,
30
0
4,
40
0
4,
45
0
4,
50
0
4,
65
0
4,
70
0
4,
75
0
4,
80
0
4,
80
0
4,
85
0
-
10
,9
00
10
,50
0
10
,7
50
10
,8
00
11
.6
50
11
,85
0
12
.0
00
12
.1
00
12
.1
50
12
.1
50
12
.2
00
12
.2
50
12
,3
00
..-
MORROW COUNTY
City Population Projections~ 1970-2000
(Revised 10.13.77)
Table2B
U.S. and Ore90n
.
Census ECOAC Estimates
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
County A 4,470 5,190 7,290 8,480 9,550 10,050 10,590
.8 -- -- 9,910 10,550 10,610 11 ,030 11 ,590
C
--
-- --
10,650 11 ,670 12,480 13,300
Boardman A 190 700 1,280 1,710 2,080 2,230 2,370
B -- -- 2,620 2,590 2,500 2,670 2,900
C -- -- -- 2,600 2,930 3,180 3,410
Heppner A 1,430 1,600 1,770 1,790 1,810 1,830 1,850
B -- -- 1,800 1,840 1,870 1,890 1,900
C -- -- -- 1,850 1,890 1,920 1,950
lone. A 360 410 460 510 560 590 600
B
-- --
500 600 630 650 660
C
-- -- --
600 680 750 780
.
Irrigon A 260 370 620 840 1,030 1,100 1,250
8 -- -- 1,140 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,600
C -- -- -- 1,440 1,600 1,750 1,970
,
-----I Lex; ngton A 230 250 270 290 310 350 360
B -- -- 290 330 350 360 370
I C -- -- -- 330 370 390 400
I
Rural A 2,000 1,860 . 2,870' 3,340+ 3,760 3,950 4,160
B -- -- 3,560' 3,790 3,810 3,960 4,160,
C -- -- -- 3,830 4,200 4,490 4,790
* Trended at 1975-77 rate of increase in rural residential and adjusteD by 1970-75
decreases in farmstead population.
** Trended at 1975-77 rate without adjustment.
+ Extrapolated at general county rate. This distribution is entirely suppositional.
Rural share of county growth may reasonably be expected to decrease wi th·time. there-
fore. ci ty tota 1s may be greater than shown after 1985. especi ally for Boardman and
Irrigon.
IHow The City Projections Were Derived
Many factors can limit the growth of a city situated" in a rapidly-expanding county
These constraints fall into three main classes: physical, economic, and public
attitudinal.
Among the physical limits to growth are such problems as inadequate infrastructure
(water, sewer, etc.) or services (schools, recreational facilities, housing, etc.)
steepness of site or floodplain location. Other 'physical constraints are a city's
location with respect to new industrial plant sites or transportation syste~s, and
its general attractiveness to newcomers.
The economic problems that can confront a city even in a growing area include
financing needed new services and capturing its desired share of the employment-
and income-generating developments planning on entering the area. Finally, the
desire of the present residents to see their city expand, remain the same or
decline often determines which of these alternatives will occur.
In distributing the projected county and planning unit population among the cities
all of these factors were taken into account. A so-called "gravity flml/" model
(borrowed from Alumax consultant CH2M Hill) iI/aS progra,mmed for cities in the hi.gh
growth North Morrow/West Umatilla area (1970 Census County Divisions of Boardman in
Morrow County and Umatilla, Hermiston, and Stanfield and Echo area Enumeration
Districts 51 and 54 in Umatilla County). Other cities and enumeration dis"tricts.
in the two counties were increased in proportion to their 1970 share of the employ
ment and special population data stored in the computer. In both cases the
figures derived in this way were cross-checked with historically-trended census
data and compared with county and planning unit totals. "(Larger units have a
higher degree of reliability for both practical and statistical reasons, so it was
therefore deemed advisable to adjust city figures to coincide with the county and
planning unit totals.). The results of this procedure are tabulated in Table 2.
The distribution of county population among the cities and rural enumeration
districts is based on specific assumptions about the location of new industries,
direction of commuting and future farm organization, alllong other variables. Differ
ent assumptions would yield different results, but each decision was made with
reference to the best behavioral evidence and economic models now available. It
is a complicated process. The results wer.e arrived at carefully and.consideratel~
and are reliable as the state of the art allows.
Review and Application of the City Projections
After review by the counties and cities during the next nine months~ the computer
program for the counties will be rerun using the hopefully more reliable informa-
tion about new projects in the area available then. If the results differ si'gnif-
icantly from those contained in this preliminary report~ it will be necessary to
run the distribution program again as well. At that time all the comments from
local elected officals and planners can be considered in developing 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 growth shown in the Rural
categories may reasonably be transferred to the cities, Due to the inability to
foresee future annexations and to the present uncertainty about urban grOtlth
boundaries' in the area~ it was deemed \',rlser not to attach expected population
growth in presently rural but urbanizing enumeration districts to neighboring
cities. Such a procedure would have involved concocting an arbitrary annexation
schedule for each larger city.
,
In general then~ the Cities of Boardman, Irrigon) Hermiston, Stanfield, Umatilla,
Milton-Freewater, Pendleton, and Pilot Rock may arguably regard the listed-figures
as bases for each forecast year. Should city officials or interested citizens'
wish to know an approximation of how many more people \'Iould likely be residing
within a city "boundary in a given forecast year than sholom on the char·t, all they
need do is provide ECOAC with 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 how many people would be likely
to want to live there according to tne distribution model and under each economic
development scenario, and if the present residents were Willing to bond themselves
or find other ways and means to remove those physical limitations on growth
subject to remedy. For instance, scenarios Band C assume that Echo builds a ne\'1
water system and that lone benefits from the construction of the proposed new
north-south road in western MorrO\'1 County, and that both communities decide to
encourage expansion.
City officials and interested citizens are encouraged to comment and request
further information on this 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 review them to promote greater reliability
for planning purposes.
APPENDIX A
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE PROJECTIONS
Marrow and Umatilla Counties, 1975 - 2000
COUNTY/SCENARIO 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
.
. 2000
UHATILLA - A .
Ci vil i an Labor Force * 21 ,470 25,600 28,220 30,160 32,010 33,900
Total.Employment 19,950 23,940 26,530 28,410 30,2.50 32,200
Unemployed 1,520 1,660 .1,690 1,750. 1,760 1,700
Percent 7.1 6.5 6.0 5.8 5.3 5.0
UMATILLA - B
. Civilian Labor Force 21 ,470 27,700 30,030 32,150 34,820 36,540
Total Employment 19,950 25,980 28,290 30,3BO 32,970 34,710
Unemployed 1,520 1,720 1,740 1,770 1,850 1,830
Percent 7.1 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.0
UMATILLA - C
Ci v"ll i an Labor Force 21,470 27,700 31,800 33,990 36,430 39,200
Total Employment 19,950 25,9BO 30,050 32,190 34,610 37,320
Unemployed 1,520 1,720 1,750 1,800 1,B20 1,880
Percent 7.1 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8
•
~10RROW - A
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 5,330
Unemployed 180 270 290 290 290 2BO
Percent 5.4 6.2 5.8 5.5 5.3 5.0
MORROI~ - B
Civilian Labor Force 3,310 5,760 6,050 6,100 6,290 6,570
Total Employment 3,130 5,410 5,720 5,760 5,960 6,240
Unemployed 180 350 330 340 330 330
Percent 5.4 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.0
MORROW - C
Civilian Labor Force 3,310 5,760 6,090 6,610 7,070 7,530
Total Employment 3,130 5,410 5,760 6,260 6,720 7,170
Unemployed 180 350 330 350 350 360
Percent 5.4 6.0 5.5 5.3 5.0 4.8
* By place of residence consistent with present Oregon Employment Division BenchmarkS .
..
APPENDIX C
Portland General Electric, Alumax Pacific Corporation,
and Federal Construction Projects
Morrow, Gilliam, and Umatilla Counties
1975 - 1995 Yearly Average Employment
Project 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Portland General El ectri c 20 1,350 1,600 1,700 1,870
Carty 20 330 100 100 100
Construction (20) (230) -- -- --
Operational -- (100) (100) (100 ) (100)
Pebble Sprin9s I * 0 1,020 240 170 170
, Construct; on (1,020) (90)-- -- --
Operational . -- -- (150) (170) (170)
Pebbie Sprin9s II + 0 0 1,260 170 170
Constructi-on
--
(1,260)
-- --
Operational -- -- -- (170) (170)
Other (post '85) ++ 0 0 0 1,550 1,720
Cons tructi on -- -- -- (l,400) (1,400)
Operational -- -- -- (150 ) (320)
Alumax * 0 1,750 800 800 800
Construct; on (1,130) -- -- --
Operational -- (620) (800) (800) (800)
Federal 0 500 40 40 40
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)
* Assuming construction to begin. second quarter, 1978.
** Assuming construction to begin, second quarter, 1980.
+ Assuming construction to begin. second quarter, 1982.
++ Assumi ng constructi on to beg; n on th i rd and fourth nuc 1ea r plan ts in area,
second quarters of 1986 and 1990.
.
AP
PE
ND
IX
.B
AL
UM
AX
-A
SS
DC
IA
TE
D
EM
PL
DY
ME
NT
*
Ty
pe
o
f
19
7B
19
79
19B
O
19
B5
19
90
19
95
Em
p1
oy
me
nt
**
To
ta
l
Um
a+
Mo
rT
ot
a1
Um
a+
flo
rT
ot
al
Um
a+
M
ar
To
ta
1
Um
a+
M
or
To
ta
1
Um
a+
Mo
rT
ot
al
Um
a+
M
ar
C
on
st
ru
ct
io
n
B2
0
6B
D
90
12
30
10
00
15
0
11
30
90
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
pe
ra
tio
na
l
0
0
0
BO
70
10
62
0
55
0
40
BO
O
6B
O
10
0
BO
O
6B
O
10
0
BO
O
6B
O
10
0
.
Se
co
nd
ar
y
++
24
0
17
0
30
4B
O
37
0
60
59
0
47
0
60
40
0
25
0
BO
60
0
43
0
90
10
00
78
0
12
0
TO
TA
LS
12
60
B5
0
12
0
lB
70
14
40
22
0
23
40
19
20
24
0
12
00
93
0
18
0
14
00
11
10
19
0
18
00
14
60
22
0
*
C
on
str
uc
tio
n
as
su
m
ed
to
be
gi
n
in
se
co
n
d
qu
ar
te
r
o
f
19
78
.
*
*
Co
ns
tr
uc
tio
n
an
d
o
pe
ra
tio
na
l
em
pl
oy
ee
s
w
er
e
co
m
pu
ted
by
ta
ki
ng
th
e
ye
ar
ly
av
er
ag
e
o
f
qu
ar
te
rl
y
la
bo
r
pr
oje
cti
on
s
ta
bu
la
te
d
by
CH
2M
H
ill
fro
m
Al
um
ax
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
an
d
re
po
rte
d
in
Po
rtl
an
d
Ge
ne
ra
l
E
le
ct
ri
c'
s
Ho
us
in9
an
d
Co
mm
un
ity
Fa
ci
lit
y
Re
qu
ire
m
en
ts
by
Sk
id
m
or
e,
Ow
in
gs
,
an
d
M
er
ri
ll,
M
ay
,
19
75
.
+
D
is
tr
ib
ut
io
n
to
co
u
n
tie
s
ba
se
d
on
gr
av
ity
flo
w
m
od
el
an
d
jud
gem
en
to
f
CH
2M
H
ill
st
af
f
in
Al
um
ax
E~
v;
ro
nm
en
ta
l
Im
pa
ct
St
at
em
en
t,
M
ay
,
19
76
.
++
Se
co
nd
ar
y
em
plo
ym
en
t
w
as
co
m
pu
ted
by
ap
pl
yi
n9
m
u
lti
pl
ie
rs
to
to
ta
l
ba
si
c
em
plo
ym
en
t
o
f
2.
0
fo
r
c
o
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
w
or
ke
rs
an
d
2.
25
fo
r
o
pe
ra
tio
na
l.
Th
is
m
ea
ns
1
su
pp
or
t
job
pe
r
co
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
an
d
1.
25
pe
r
o
pe
ra
tio
na
l
job
.
W
ith
tim
e
la
gs
,
as
di
sc
us
se
d
in
th
e
te
xt
o
f
th
is
r
ep
or
t,
an
d
in
th
e
Al
um
ax
EI
S
fro
m
w
hi
ch
th
es
e
m
u
lt
ip
lie
rs
w
er
e
de
ri
ve
d,
th
is
m
ea
ns
.
3
se
co
n
da
ry
pe
r
co
n
st
ru
ct
io
n
w
or
ke
r
an
d
.
4
pe
r
o
pe
ra
tio
na
l
w
or
ke
r
in
19
80
.
Fi
gu
re
s
u
se
d
fo
r
19
B5
,
19
90
,
an
d
19
95
re
sp
ec
tiv
el
y
w
er
e
.
5,
.
75
,
an
d
1.
25
a
dd
iti
on
al
em
plo
ye
e
fo
r
ea
ch
ba
si
c
o
pe
ra
tio
na
l
w
o
rk
er
.
Nu
mb
ers
o
f
se
co
n
da
ry
w
or
ke
rs
th
us
de
riv
ed
w
er
e
di
st
ri
bu
te
d
to
co
u
n
tie
s
on
th
e
ba
si
s
o
f
th
e
CH
2M
H
ill
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
r
v
ic
e
es
ta
b1
is
hm
en
ts
.
Morrow and Umatilla Counties
URBAN GROWTH AREA JOINT f~NAGEMENT ANALYSIS
Introduction
The concept of an "Urban Growth Boundary" is a planning solution to a complex
problem.. In an attempt to provide for orderly development of land adjacent to
urban areas, implementation of the urban growth boundary concept has been're-
quired of local governments in advance of political and legal solutions.
Within an urban growth boundary, both the city and the county have an interest.
The county's interest lies in statutes requiring the county to be responsible
for all land use decisions in areas outside of incorporated boundaries. The
city's interest lies in the potential costs future annexation can have if
development does not follow plans for facilities and services extension.
There is no existing legal or political framework within which cities and counties
can work through this ambiguity. The most reasonable approach is for the parties
involved to establish a process which incorporates. as peers, the interest of
each within the existing legal constraints. In this process, the county will
retain final jurisdiction as reqult'ed by law) but the city's interest would be
represented by util izing their plans and implementing measures for area \'iithin
the urgan growth boundary. The property owners would have their interests
represented through hearings by the county to insure that their needs are ad-
dressed as a part of the final decision.
This process should be viewed as an interim solution. Statutory changes developed
through the political process will be necessary to finally resolve the ambiguity.
It is indeed unfortunate that the situation gives rise to a cumbersome process
with additional paperwork. But until a cleaner process is developed, it is
vastly important to protect the rights of all parties with an interest, and
that the process be defensible so that the parties are not unnecessarily en-
cumbered by lengthy and costly appeals. .
The Model Urban Growth Area Joint Management Agreement provides such a process
for land use decisions with an urban growth boundary. It should be viewed as
a short-term agreement that will, with certain flexibility, meet the complex
needs of a number of individual cities \'o'orking with a county for a logical. and
responsible development of the area.
URBAN GROWTH AREA JOINT MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS
Morrow and Umatilla Counties
ORS 197 ..015(7) defines "Goals" as ".. ; mandatory statewide planning standards
•.. " (emphasis added). Statewide Planning Goal #14 (Urbanization) requires
that "[u]rban growth boundaries ... be established to identify and separate
urbanizable land from rural land". The goal also states that "[e]stabl istunent
and change of the boundaries shall be a coope~tive process between the city
and the county or counties that surround itll (emphasis added).
In the process of developing a comprehensive plan, most cities will identify
some land outside existing city limits as necessary over time to accommodate
anticipated urban expansion. Thus. the city will propose an urban growth
boundary which subsumes unincorporated territory and include those lands in
its planning process. The county has the responsibility of reviewing the city
comprehensive plan, including the proposed urban growth boundary, fOl confor-
mity with the Statewide Planning Goals (ORS 197.225). If the plan is found to
be satisfactory, the city and county must then .cooperatively establishe the
urban growth boundary [Statewide Planning Goal #14 (Urbanization); ORS 197.015(7)].
The Morrow County Court and the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners have
each adopted a Resolution and Order entitled, uIn the Natter of the Development
and Adoption of Procedures and Standards for County Review of City Comprehensive
Plans j •• The process involves two sets of hearings, one at the final draft plan
stage and one at the adopted (by the city) plan stage. Each set of hearings
begins with the county planning commission which reviews the plan in accordance
with the standards contained in the Resolution and Order. At the draft plan
stage, the planning cOmmission is required to make findings and may make
recommendations on:
1. The plan's compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals;
2. The identification of city/county issues~
3. The urban growth boundary and plan for the urban growth area; and,
4. Coordination with affected governmental units.
The county governing body then conducts a similar review and makes its own
findings and recommendations. At the adopted plan stage, the county planning
commission is required to make findings with respect to the four factors men-
tioned above. The planning commission must also make recommendations with
respect to:
1. The need for further negotiation; and/or,
2. The adoption/concurrence of the plan with exceptions as necessary.
The governing body makes its own findings and takes appropriate action
as follows:
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Analysis
Page 2
1. Enters into further negotiation with the city; and/or.
2. a. If the urban growth boundary subsumes unincorporated territory, adopts
the plan for the urban growth area (i.e., that area of land extending
from corporate limits to the urban growth boundary) and concurs with
the plan within city limits with exceptions as necessary; or.
b. If the urban growth boundary does·not subsume unincorporated territory
concurs with the plan with exceptions as necessary.
ORS 2l5.503(2){a) requires that "[a]l1 legislative acts relating to comprehenc
sive plans, land use planning or zoning adopted by the governing body of a
county shall be by ordinance ll • Therefore, cooperatively established urban
growth boundaries must be adopted by ordinance. If. in addition, a county
approves a city comprehensive plan for an urban growth area which subsumes
unincorporated terriroty, the county enters into an implied contract with the
city to comply with the city's plan for that area. Adoption of the urban
growth area plan as an amendment to a pre-existing county c~nprehensive plan or
incorporation of the urban growth area plan into a developing county comprehen-
s;v~ plan are the only ways to implement this contract. In either case, the
action must ~e taken by or~inance.
Both Morrow and Umatilla Counties have pre-eXisting comprehensive plans, so the
previously mentioned Resolution and Order only addresses adoption of city urban
grmolth area plans and concurrence wi th city plans i os ide corporate 1im; ts.
Adoption is executed as an interim measure through ordinances which amend the
county comprehensive plans. It is anticipated that both counties will incor-
porate city urban growth area plans into the developing county comprehensive
plans which, when adopted by ordinance, will supersede the existing county
plans and the interim ordinances amending them.
A cooperatively established urban growth boundary which subsumes unincorporated
territory identifies such land as "ava ilable over time for urban uses ll [State-
wide Planning Goal #14 (Urban·ization)]. The presumption is that this land will
be annexed as needed to accommodate urban expansion. Thus the city has a valid
interest in its development. The city could logically argue that the urban
growth area should be within its jurisidction and under its direct control.
This point of view cannot, however, be accomnodated under current Oregon land
use statutes (ORS Chapters 92, 215, and 227).
Although various provisions of DRS Chapter 227 refer to a city's powers over an
area within six miles of the city (i.e., ORS 227.090(9) permits a city planning
commission to U[s]tl!dy and propose measures "deemed advisable to promote" the
public interest, health, morals, safety, comfort, convenience, and welfare of
both the city and the area within six miles thereof"; ORS 227.110(1) requires
city approval of subdivision plats and plats or deeds dedicating land within six
miles of the city prior to recordation; ORS 227.120 allows a city "to rename any
existing street, highway, or road other than a county road or state highr/ayll
within six miles of the city if such renaming is found to be "in the best in-
terest of the city and the six mile area"), it appears that provisions of ORS
Chapters 92 and 215 nullify these powers. For example, ORS 92.042(1) grants
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Analysis
Page 3
to cities the power to approve p1ans~ maps, and plats to subdivisions and major
partitions within six miles outside corporate limits only until such time as the
county governing body adopts ordinances or regulations for the control of sub-
divisions and major partitions (emphasis added). County governing bodies must
adopt~ and may from time to time ~evise, comprehensive plans which are in con-
formity with the Statewide Planning Goals and zoning, subdivision, and other
ordinances which are designed to implement adopted county comprehensive plans
and which are applicable to all land in the county (emphasis added; ORS 215.050).
ORS 215.170 states that "[t]he powers of an incorporated city to control sub-
division and other partitioning of land and to rename thoroughfares in adjacent
unincorporated areas shall continue unimpaired until the county governing body
having juri~diction over the area adopts regulation~ for controlling subdivisions
there II (emphasis added).
Various rules of statutory interpretation also demonstrate the Legislature's
intent to withhold control over unincorporated land from a city. ORS 92.110
speCifically requires that all plans, plats, or replats of subdivisions located
within the boundaries of an irrigation, drainage, or water control district or
district improvement company be submitted to the appropriate board of directors
for approval prior to approval by the county governing body. No prior approval
provisions exist with respect to such actions within unincorporated areas .
adjacent to city limits. Therefore, the Legislature is presumed to have pur-
posefully withheld prior approval power from cities. In addition, ORS 215.130(2)
(a) provides that a county comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances will
apply-when city boundaries are extended or a new city is created unless or until
the city provides otherwise I=phasis added). Subsection (2)(b) provides that a
county comprehensive plan and tmplementing ordinances shall apply to "[t]he area
within the county and also within the boundaries of a city if the city governing
body adopts an ordinances declaring the area within its boundaries subject to the
county's land use planning and regulatory ordinances, officers, and procedures
and the county governing body consents to the conferral of jurisdiction ll (emphASis
added). Subsection (3) states that "[a]n area within the jurisidiction of city
land use planning and regulatory provisions that is withdrawn from the city or
an area within a city that disincorporates shall remain subject to such plans and
regulations which shall be administered by the county until the county provides
otherwise" (emphasis added). The fact that the Legislature did not include a
provision permitting a county to confer jurisdiction to a city, particularly when
Subsection (2}(b) is considered, once more indicates an intention to confer juris-
diction over unincorporated areas only to counties.
Cities and counties are faced with a significant dilemma with respect to the
management of urban growth areas. Cities would like to control land use decisions
in such areas to insure that development is orderly and consistent with city com-
prehensive plans so future annexation costs are minimal. Counties might- like to
confer jurisdiction over such areas to cities~ but they cannot, at present~ le-
gally delegate their land use decision-making responsibilities. How can both
interests be accommodated? One obvious solution is to amend the Oregon Revised
Statutes. Until such time as the Legislature deems such action appropriate,
another mechanism must be utilized.
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Analysis
Page 4
Several alternative approaches to urban growth area management within current
legal constraints can be identified. They can be separated into three generic
categories based on county planning commission designation (DRS 215.020 perm,ts
a county governing body to create one or"more county planning commissions or to
utilize a joint planning commission). The first set of alternatives involves
retaining a county planning commission as the land use decision-making bo?y for
all unincorporated land. The second set of alternatives involves naming the
city planning commission as the county planning commission for land use deci-
sions within the city's urban growth area. The third set of alternatives
involves a combination of the first two sets of alternatives .. The county
governing body would retain final decisi-on-making authority in each set of
alternatives. Within each set, there are five approaches to implementing
comprehensive plans. The first approach would utilize one group of county
ordinances for all unincorporated areas. The second approach would utilize
one group of county or~inances for unincorporated land outside urban growth
boundaries with county procedures and each city's substantive ordinance pro-
visions being applicable to each city's respective urban growth area. The
third approach would utilize one group of county ordinances for unincorporated
land outside urban growth boundaries with a different group of county ordi-
nances uniformly applicable to all urban growth areas. The fourth approach
would utilize one group of county ordinances for unincorporated land outside
urban growth boundaries \IJith different groups of county ordinances appl icabl'e
to each city (one group per city). The fifth approach involves considering
each type lf land use ordinance (e.g., zoning, subdivision, mobile home park,
etc.) separately and utilizing any of the preceding approaches for each type
of ordinance. .
The concept of joint city/county urban growth area management in Morrow and
Umatilla Counties originated vlith agreements beh/een the City of Boardman and
Morrow County and between the City of Umatilla and Umatilla County. A Model
Agreement was formulated on the basis of these existing agreements \'Shich
utilizes existing county planning commissions. The county planning commissions
apply one group of county ordinances to unincorporated land outside urban growth
boundaries while adhering to county procedures and applying each city's ·sub-
stantive land use ordinances to each city's respective urban growth area. This
may burden the county with some additional administrative requirements, but
after familiarization with city ordinances is achieved the effort necessary to
apply them would be reduced. The applicant may have to wait a little longer
for a decision due to the fact that city comment is required prior to county
approval or denial, but this approach protects the city's interests and provides
the applicant with an additional forum in which to present his request. Finally,
this approach preserves the peer relationship between elected officials which
could be jeopardized if the city planning commission was designated as the county
planning commission for land use decisions within the urban growth area (i.e.,
the Model Agreement permits a city council to review city planning commission
recommendations prior to county consideration; the alternative approach could
put the city qua county planning commission in a conflict of interest situation
while removing the right to review from the city council).
In conclusion, until the Legislature specifically provides for city jurisdiction
and control over urban growth areas, the Morrow and Umatilla County approach is
'< "
Urban Growth Area Joint Management Analysis
Page 5
perhaps the most efficient mechanism within these counties for accommodating
both city and county interests in urban growth areas. It is far from perfect,
and as joint management agreements are implemented deficiencies are expected
to become evident. For this reason, an amendment process was included in the
Model and should be utilized when necessary.