Date: Jurisdiction: Local file no.: DLCD file no.: June 05, 2015 City of Canyonville UGB-14-1, ZC-14-1, A 002-14 The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of adopted amendment to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation on 06/01/2015. A copy of the adopted amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local government office. Notice of the proposed amendment was submitted to DLCD 36 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. Appeal Procedures Eligibility to appeal this amendment is governed by ORS 197.612, ORS 197.620, and ORS 197.830. Under ORS 197.830(9), a notice of intent to appeal a land use decision to LUBA must be filed no later than 21 days after the date the decision sought to be reviewed became final. If you have questions about the date the decision became final, please contact the jurisdiction that adopted the amendment. A notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR chapter 661, division 10). If the amendment is not appealed, it will be deemed acknowledged as set forth in ORS 197.625(1)(a). Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures. If you have questions about this notice, please contact DLCD’s Plan Amendment Specialist at 503- 934-0017 or plan.amendments@state.or.us DLCD Contact NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND USE REGULATION DLCD FORM 2 NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR LAND USE REGULATION Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan o~QB~~~~T no more than 20 days after the adoption. (See OP. ... R 660-018-004-0). The rules require that the notice include a completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan amendment reviewed in the manner of periodic review. Use Fonn 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary amendment over 100 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Fom1 5 for an adopted urban reserve designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use Form 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. Jurisdiction: City of Canyonville Local file no.: UGB 01-14. ZC 01-14 Date of adoption: ·March 26, 2015 Date sent: March 27, 2015 Was Notice of a Proposed Change (Form 1) submitted to DLCD? Yes: Date (use the date of last revision if a revised Form 1 was submitted): 1/21/15 No Is the adopted change different from what was described in the Notice ofProposed Change? Yes ® If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposal: Local contact (name and title): Janelle Evans, City Administrator Phone: 541-839-4258 E-mail: city.administrator@cityofcanyonville.com Street address: 250 North Main City: Canyonville Zip: 97417- PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY For a change to comprehensive plan text: Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections implement, if any: For a change to a comprehensive plan map: Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: Change from to Residential acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Change from to acres. A goal exception was required for this change. Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address): T30S, R05W, Sec. 26 45.5 acrse of TL 200 and 4.9 acres of TL The subject pr.operty is entirely within an urban growth boundary http://www.oregon .gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1, 2013 The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation, by type, included in the boundary. Exclusive Farm Use- Acres: 49 Forest - Acres: Non-resource- Acres: Marginal Lands - Acres: Rural Residential- Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space- Acres: Rural Commercial or Industrial- Acres: Other: -Acres: If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres, by plan designation, included in the boundary. Exclusive Farm Use- Acres: Non-resource- Acres: Forest - Acres: Marginal Lands- Acres: Rural Residential - Acres: Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space- Acres: Rural Commercial or Industrial- Acres: Other: -Acres: For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: Attached For a change to- a zoning map: Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: Change from EFU Grazing and Farm and Fores Change from to · Change from Change from to to to R-2 Acres: Acres: Acres: Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: Overlay zone designation: Acres added: Acres removed: Acres: 49 Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address): T30S, R05W, Sec. 26 45.5 acrse of TL 200 and 4.9 acres of TL List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts: Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD.or members of the public of the effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. If the . submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly describing its purpose and requirements. htto://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1, 2013 May 26, 2015 Lane Council of Governments Jacob Callister 859 Willamette St. #500 Eugene, OR 97401 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Room 106 • Justice Building • Douglas County Courthouse Roseburg, Oregon 97470 Agency Coordination • A.dmini.strative • Long Range • Support Services (541) 440-4289 • (541) 440-6266 Fax On-Site Services Community Services {541)440-6183 (541)464-6443 (541) 464-6429 Fax Re: Notice of Adoption, Falk Estates LLC, Canyonville Proposed UGB Expansion Jacob, This letter is in regards to the notice we received at the Douglas County Planning Department on May 21, 2015, pertaining to Ordinance 631 that amends the City's comprehensive plan to enlarge its urban growth boundary to incorporate additional residential land and a portion of TiUer Trail Highway. Prior to this notice of adoption, Douglas County reviewed the material submitted by LCOG detailing the applicant's request to expand the Canyonville UGB. At that time, the County recognized that recent legislation through the passage of HB 2253, now codified as ORS 195.033, changed the procedures in which population forecast coordination occurs and is applied to the process of amending the UGB. ORS 195.033 allows for a local government to continue to use ORS 195.034 until a final population forecast is issued by Portland State University. At the time the applicant submitted their application to the City, a final population forecast for the City of Canyonville had yet to be issued. Douglas County provided comments to the City of Canyonville in a correspondence letter dated December 3, 2014, indicating the UGB amendment being considered seemed a reasonable location and encouraged the City to apply the appropriate standards found within the statutes when issuing a decision regarding the application. This letter serves as the County's final action in accordance with the "joinf' Post Acknowledgment Plan Amendment process outlined in the City of Canyonville/Douglas County Urban Growth Management Agreement (UGMA). ---A Program With GREAT SPIRIT!---- Section 3.1 of the UGMA states: AU City Plan text or map amendments and all City implementing ordinance (or code) amendments, not including Zone Map amendments, affecting the UGA shall be enacted in accordance with the procedures established in this Section. Section 3.1.1 goes on to state: The City shall notify the County of the proposed amendment at least 20 days before the City Planning Commission's first hearing. The City Planning Commission shall consider the County's comments when making its recommendation. The City Planning Commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the County for comments. The County may provide additional comments prior to the City Council's (Council) final decision. In making its decision~ the Council shall consider the comments of the County. The City shall notify the County in writing of its decision. Lastly, Section 3.1.2 states that: Within 15 days of receipt of written notice of the Council's decision, the Board of Commissioners (Board) may, on its own motion, notify the City of its intent to review the Council's decision. If the Board fails to respond within 15 days, the Council's decision shall be final and take effect, for the UGA, on the 161h day. There is no planned Board of Commissioners review that will implement the UGMA amendment process, as outlined in Section.-3.1.2 above. Therefore the City's decision is affirmed by Douglas County, making this the final County action in accordance with the UGMA. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 541-440-4289. Sincerely, cfo!=tf}=~ Stuart Cowie Senior Planner H:\a_staff\a_stuart\Letters\Canyonville UGB Expansion. Notice of Adoption.wpd ORDINANCE NO. 631 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CANYONVILLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT AN URBANIZATION STUDY, REPLACING PORTIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED URBANIZATION STUDY, TO ENLARGE THE CANYONVILLE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE A PORTION OF TILLER TRAIL HIGHWAY AND 45 ACRES OF T_tL"X LOT 200, ASSESSOR'S l\1AP 30S R5-W SECTION 26 AND 4.9 ACRES OF TAX LOT 700, ASSESSOR'S MAP 30S RSW SECTION 26 AND TO DESIGNATE-TillS PROPERTY AS RESIDENTIAL "'HEREAS, a request to amend the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan to enlarge the Urban Growth Boundary to include a portion of Tiller Trail Highway and 45 Acres of Tax Lot 200, Assessor's Map 30s R5w Section 26 and 4.9 Acres of Tax Lot 700, Assessor's Map 30s RSw Section 26, as described in the legal description and map attached as Exhibit A, and to designate this property as Residential, was submitted to the City in May of 2013; and WHEREAS, the Canyonville Planning Commission beard the request to enlarge the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary at a public hearing on February 11, 2015, reviewed supporting material, and recormnended cond-itional approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice of and a held public hearing before the City Council on March 23, 2015; and \VHEREAS, the City Council determined that the request to enlarge the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary and to designate the property identified in Exhibit 11 A" as Residential , is consistent with the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan, as amended by this Ordinance; the Statewide Planning Goals; OAR Chapter 660, Division 024; and ORS 197.298 as explained in the Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit B; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Canyonville ordains as follows: Section 1. The Canyonville City Council hereby amends the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan to include the property described in the attached Exhibit 11A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in the Canyonville Urban Growth Boundary and to designate said property as Residential. Section 2. The Canyonville City Council hereby adopts the Canyonville Urbanization Study 2015, attached as Exhibit "E" to the Staff Repott, and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full; and by that adoption, incorporates the Canyonville Urbanization Study 2015 as a part of the Canyonville Comprehensive Plan. The adoption of the Canyonville Urbanization Study 2015 repeals those portions of the 1997 Urbanization Study that have been superseded by the more recent Urbanization Study and no longer remain valid, as indicated by the analysis and conclusions of the 2015 Urbanization Study. 1 Section 3. The Canyonville City Council adopts the Findings of Fact, set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as the basis of this decision to include the property described in Exhibit nAn in the Canyonville Comprehensive Urban Growth Boundary and to designate this property as Residential. PASSED by the Canyonville City Council this 23d day of March 2015. APPROVED AND SIGNED this 23d day of:tvfarch 2015. Janevf E~ans, City Recorder · 2 ---- ----- - --- - ··-- I ·- ·--· ··- ···-· -~-- ---------- -- i~' ~;·· SURVEYED BY: I ., I B09 SE Pine Street Roseburg, Oregon 9H70 t + e f. PHONE (541) 673-0166 D W llil I 1\lw 1 acre where land value> iinprovement value, which are not vacant or infill parcels. No parcels met these criteria. • Developed Land means land with improvements but not included within "infill potential" or "redevelopment potential" categories. That is, land which is developed and not suitable or available to meet long-term growth needs. ·• Gross Vacant Acre means an acre of vacant land before land has been dedicated for public right-of-way, private streets orpublic utility easements. Assuming 25% for streets and utilities, a gross vacant acre will 5. The terms applied to both the 1997 and 2012 Buildable Land Inventories are generalizations concerning buildable land and ~ay not in all situations be wholly consistent with existing City policies. Nothing in the term "developed" would prevent a property owner from demolishing an existing structure and replacing it with more intensive development; provided, of course, that the new development is allowed by applicable zoning regulations. Similarly, the term "vacant" does not in any way imply that property owners are obligated to develop their property. ·- 1.1 - Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change have 32,670 square feet of vacant land available for construction. Land which has not been subdivided into residential lots falls into this category. • Net Vacant Acre means an acre of vacant land, after land has been dedicated for public right-of-way, private streets, 'Or utility easements. A net vacant acre has 43,560 square feet available for construction, because no additional street or utility dedications are required. Subdivided vacant lots fall into the "net residential" category. • · Maximum Gross Density means the maximuin density permitted by the underlying residential zone on 43,560 square feet of vacant, buildable land, less 25% for streets and utilities (or, the maximum density permitted on 32,670 sq. ft) . . ·• · Maximum Net Residential Density means the maximum density permitted by the underlying residential zone on 43,560 square feet of vacant, buildable land. • Projected Gross Residential Density means maximum gross residential density less 10% to account for irregularly shaped parcels, difficult-to-access parcels ~d market conditions. Although the 1997 and 2012 inventories shared ~e terminology defined above, the methodology used in collecting, sorting, analyzing and tabulating inventory data was significantly different. The inventory conducted in 1997 relied on separate and uncorrelated data sources which in turn produced separate and uncorrelated data sets, while the 2012 BLI employed the County's more robust and . fully integrated Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. For example, the principal data source for the earlier inventory was assessment and taxation records obtained from the Douglas County Assessors Office. Information concerning zoning, type and value of physical development, as well as mapping data dealing with topographic and environmental constraints, was collected from a variety of unrelated so-urces that simply did not integrate very well in the final1997 BLI report. To further compound the problem, it does not appear that the information derived from these unrelated sources in 1997 was actually verified in the field, as numerous inaccuracies were revealed during the course of conducting the 2012 BLI field yvork. While this is not meant to imply that the information in the 1997 inventory was inaccurate to a significant degree or is otherwise unreliable, it must be acknowledged that data from some of the sources was subject to misinterpretation due to the inherent limitations of the technology employed at the time. Consequently, . a number of errors in the data came to light when reexamined during the 2012 inventory. One such error ' for example, resulted because the County' s property a~sessment records at the time did not identify tax lots that were divided by the urban growth boundary, and thus did not segregate the portion extending outside the UGB from the portion lying inside the boundary. Consequently, parts of several tax lots that extended beyond the UGB, and encompassing a total of 132 acres, were erroneously included in the fmal tally of industrially-zoned land in the urban area. This error has been rectified in the 2012 BLI. In contrast, the buildable lands inventory and analysis conducted for this 2014 UGB amendment proposal is based on data· derived using the Douglas County Geographic Information System (GIS) which encompasses a number of fully integrated and up-to-date information sources, iricluding: Information Sources: - Tax lot boundaries - County Cartography Department, 2010 -- 12- - City boundary- County Cartography Department, 2010 Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change - Urban Growth Boundary- County Planning Department data system, 2010 Comprehensive Plan & zone boundaries: Original from Umpqua Council of Governments data set, - 2003, - Modified from City zone change ordinances to bringGIS data current, 2012 Modified graphic data base to conform to updated r/w and TL boundaries depicted on zoning maps (drafting cleanup only, no modifications were rriade to official zoning map). Flood Plain: 1 00-year flood plain boundary as updated and modified by FEMA in 2010 - Slope boundaries: Derived from USGA DEM using GIS Technology, generalized for the required values of greater than 25% slope and range of 13% to 25% slope. Methodology: Developed data set of all tax lots within the urban area; created GIS data set for all tax lot boundaries. - This procedure produced boundaries which entirely reside within the UGB - The results show some tax lots have less acreage than shown in Assessor records due to intersection of the UGB across the tax lot boundary. Only the area entirely contained in the UGB was used for calculation of tax lot size. Determine which tax lots are contained within the city limits. - This procedure also resulted in identification of tax lots partially within the city and partially within the UGA. Separate data files were generated for split tax lots. Determine the zoning of each tax lot. - The results of this procedure Greated a calculated acreage for each type of zone within each tax lot. Where tax .lots with more than one zone were identified, a separated data file was created and each zone was treated individually. (As stated before, gaps, overlaps and similar errors on the City's official zoning map that were identified from this procedure were left uncorrected, but they should be corrected by the City.) Draft GIS work maps were generated and useq_ in the field to facilitate verification of data. - Visual field surveys were employed to verify all data sets on all tax lots within the urban area. Spatially subtracted the floodplain and 1 00-year flood area from all impacted tax lots in GIS data base. - The area remaining in the tax lot was recalculated to acreage unconstrained by flood hazar4.. · - The data su~ary table shows both the impacted and the unconstrained acreage of these tax lots. Spatially subtracted from GIS data base portions of tax lots impacted by slopes greater than 25%. - Using only the area remaining from the elimination of flood information, the slope area was subtracted and the remai:tring acreage was again recalculated. - Again, the data summary table shows both the slope impacted acreage of each tax lots, ~nd the unconstrained acreage. · BLI Data Summary·Table (Table 4) Reorganization of the data was prepared as follows: - All tax lots inside dty limits grouped separately All tax lots in UGA grouped separately All tax lots either previously listed as Tribal or currently owned by the Tribe were grouped separately Within each group, the data was organized by zone for each tax lot. Within each zone, the data was sorted, modified and organized by field information. Any redundant acreage due to multiple property accounts was identified and removed to avoid duplication. -13- Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change - Total values were calculated within each group separately to allow the greatest analytical flexibility . All data was organized and displayed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets which are available in pdf form from the Geographic Information System Technology Section of the Douglas County Public Works Department. The fmal data summary table, which appears on page 14 of this document, is also available in pdf format for detailed listing of each tax lot within the urban area. Canyonville's Land Base The fmdings of the 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) are set out in a tabulated format in Table 4 on the following page. To provide a more meaningful and understandable context, Table 4 is organized so that information from the 2012 BLI can be directly compared with data for corresponding land use categories in the 1997 inventory. This continuity between the two inventories is intended to facilitate a clearer understanding of how Canyonville's land base has changed over the course of the past fifteen years. This is not to say that the findings from 2012 inventory can be correlated with the fmdings of the 1997 BLAin every instance. For example, Table 4 indicates that between 1997 and 2014, the land area with the city limits increased by 81 acres. We lmow, however, that in March of 1998, 99.5 acres was annexed into the city. Assuming that the data from in the 2012 BLI is accurate, by subtracting 99.5 acres of annexed land from the 483.2 acres inventoried in 2012, it can logically be concluded that the city actually contained 383.7 acres in 1997, or 18.3 fewer acres than the 402 acres counted the 1997 inventory . . Unfortunately, . the original field data from the 1997 BLI is no longer available, and it is therefore impossible to resolve all the conflicts that exist between the two inventories. As explained below, where it was possible to identify the source of data errors in the 1997 BLI, the corrected numbers are used in Table 4. Where it is not possible to determine the reason for such errors, the data originally published in the 1997 BLI is retained in Table 4. During the same period many new parcels were created in the city, principally the result of subdividing largerparcels into smaller lots in order to accommodate the new housing in the community. In 1997, there were 706 parcels comprising 281 acres of fully developed land in the city limits. Presently, the number of individual parcels has risen to 761, while the amount of fully developed land in the city has increased by twenty-five percent to total ·more than 350 acres. As employment opportunities in Canyonville have continued_ to increase in recent years, so too has the demand for more housing in the community. Nearly ninety percent, or 73.4 acres, of the newly-urbanized land in the city is now developed with new housing, including traditional single-family homes on individual lots, duplex dwellings on shared lots, multi-family or apartment-type dwellings, and manufactured homes on individual sites within planned residential communities. Between 1996 and 2012, the number of dwellings in Canyonville jumped from 530 to 694 housing units, representing an astounding 31 percent increase in just fifteen years. . . In addition to the changes that have occurred to the community 's land base inside the city limits, Table 4 -14 ·- Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change shows .how conditions in the unincorporated portion of the urban growth area have also changed since 1997. It is worth noting, however, that several significant errors occurred . in the '97 inventory with respect to the amount of land that was actually within the urban area at the time. Although the nature and extent of some of the more significant errors is discussed more fully in other sections of this document, it is neither feasible nor necessary to point out every error that occurred. Nevertheless, a concerted effort was made to correct those errors when they were brought to light in the coirrse of conducting the 2012 inventory. Consequently, some of the acreage figures shown for . 1997 on Table 4 have been changed from those reported in the original 1997 BLI. As might be expected, there has been considerably less change to Canyonville's land base in the unincorporated portion of the urban area where the full range of city services is not available to facilitate development. Just prior to the October 1997 UGB expansion, the unincorporated portion of the urban area contained 337 acres, or about 45 percent of the total land area within the UGB. By.2012, however, the land base within the entire urban area had increased by 99.5 acres, reflecting the amount of land that was added to the UGB in 1997. However, because that same 99.5 acres was annexed into the city several months later, the net amount of land comprising the unincorporated portion of the urban area remained unchanged at 337 acres. Table 5, below, summarizes the amount of developed land by general land use category currently inside Canyonville's ·city limits, as well as the amount of developed land in the surrounding unincorporated urban area. -15- Table 5 Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change Developed & Vacant Land in Canyonville and Surrounding Urban Area, 2012 Inside City Limits Commercial Community Service Industrial Residential Open Space Sub-Total Urban Growth Area Commercial Community Service Industrial Residential Open Space Sub-Total Tribal Trust Lands Total Urban Area 29.8 50.7 10.3 259.5 0 350.3 1.7 36.7 0.3 43.8 0 82.5 432.8 10.6 0.7 0 100.5 11 122.8 0 6.4 0 38.8 1.4 46.2 169 Total Urban Area Without Tribal Trust Lands Counted 40.4 . 51.4 10.3 360 11 473.1 1.7 43.1 0.3 82.6 1.4 129 227.6 828.4 612.2 Gross acreages figures only are shown. Acreages figures are not adjusted to reflect lands unsuitable for development due to physical and environmental constraints (steep slopes, flood plain, etc.). See Table 6 for net buildable acreages. Source: 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory · As Table 5 shows, 227.6 acres of land within Canyonville's UGB is presently being heid in trust by the federal government on behalf of the Cow Creek Indian . Tribe. These . Tribal trust lands, which are concentrated in the northerly portion of the urban area, comprise nearly · 65 percent of all the land presently lying between the city limits and the urban growth bolln.dary. Consequently, the City retains land use plallning and development jurisdiction on just 129 acres, or roughly one-third, of the 356 acres now in the uniricoqJOrated portion of the urban area. For the Canyonville urban area as a whole, . including land within the city limits, Tribal trust lands make up approximately 27 percent of the total land . area within the UGB~ It is important to note that the buildable lands inventory conducted in 1997 did not distinguish between Tribal trust lands and non-tribal lands inside the UGB. For example, lands designated and zoned for residential use, bu{ Un.der the jurisdiction and control of the Tribe, were simply included in the inventory of vacant and developed residential land with no distinction made as to their ·- 16 - Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change ownership status. The same was true for commercial, industrial and other categories of vacant and developed Tribal lands. Consequently, there is no way of ascertaining the actual amount or percentage of land that was legally within ~e jurisdiction and control of the Cow Creek Tribe in 1997. The BLI · · undertaken in 2012, did, however, identify all Tribal properties within the urban area, and subsequently segregated those lands from the non-tribal lands in the inventory. Although the zoning, acreage and devel~pment stl;l.tus of all Tribal lands was entered into the inventory data base (see Appendix E), they are not included in the final BLI report which is summarized · on Table 4. As was noted earlier, Tribal trust lands located just outside the UGB, but adjoining Tribal lands within the urban area, are not included in the acreage figure shown on Table 5. Table 5 shows that residential lands make up the largest portion of Canyonville's land base, comprising nearly three-quarters of the land area within the city. Residentially-zoned land that remains vacant and undeveloped represents about twenty percent of the total land area in the city. In the unincorporated portion of the urban area, existing residential development occupies one-third of the larid area, while vacant land zoned for future residential use makes up anoth~r thirty percent. The remaining 36% ofthe land base in the unincorporated area consists of land designated for commercial, industrial and public uses. As previously explained, the City of Canyonville does not have land use planning or regulatory jurisdiction over the 227 acres within the UGB that's held in trust for the Cow Creek Indian Tribe by the federal government; consequently, those lands are not accounted for in the 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory and Land Needs Analysis. It is also important to bear in mind that the amount of developed residential land shown on Table 5 is represented with a "net" acreage figure; that is, land area devoted to existing streets and roads is not included. Vacant residential larids, on the other hand, are shown with "gross" acreage figures that include not only the land area that will be eventually be developed with homes, but also includes acreage that will be needed to accommodate new streets and roads when those vacant areas are eventually developed. When calculating the amount of net vacant land available, the area needed for future streets and other nonresidential uses will riot be counted as being available for future housing. As a rule-of-thumb, it is assumed that when vacant residential hmd is developed, about twenty _ percent of it will be used for streets, utility easements and other nonresidential uses. In addition to those parcels that were inventoried as being completely vacant and undeveloped, the 2012 BLI accounted for parcels that were identified as being only partially developed and containing sufficient vacant area to feasibly accommodate further division and development. Such parcels are classified as in the BLI as "Under-Utilized Land''. Although the BLI ident~fied partially developed, or under-utilized, parcels in all zones throughout the urban area, only the under-utilized and vacant acreage of residentially- . zoned parcels was counted for purposes of determining the amount of residential land available · for future residential development. Under-utilized. residential parcels are those that are larger than one acre · and contain a dwelling. One-half acre with the dwelling is subtracted and the remaining undeveloped portion of the parcel (at least one-half acre) is counted as available for futureresidential development. -17- Inside City Limits Commercial Community Service Industrial Residential R-1 Residential R-2 Residential R-3 Open Space Sub-Total Urban Growth Area Commercial Community Service Industrial Residential R -1 Residential R-2 Open Space Sub-Total Total Urban Area Table 6 Falk Estates LLC~ Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change Vacant Buildable Land Supply in Canyonville and Surround~ng, Urban Area, 2012 10.6 0 10.6 0 5.9 5.9 4.7 0~7 0 0.7 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80.7 26.4 107.1 2.9 42.6 45 62.1 11.2 0.8 12 0 3.2 3.2 8.8 8.6 -o 8.6 0.5 6 6.5 2.1 11· 0 11 1.1 4.7 5.8 5.3 122.8 27.2 150 4 62.4 66.4 83.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.4 1.2 7.6 2.5 0.1 2.6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.8 5.1 43.9 0 10 10 33.8 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 0.7 1.4 0 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 46.6 7 53.6 2.5 10~1 12.7 40.9 169.4 34.2 203.6 6.5 72.5 79.1 124.6 Source: 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory One final note: the ~mount of vacant land shown on Table 5 has not been adjusted to account for the various topographic and environmental constraints that will ultimately restrict or lirriit the riumber of houses that can actually be built on a particular site . . Such constraints include steep or unstable hillsides, areas subject to flood hazards, riparian corridors along creeks, and wetlands and other environmentally~ sensitive sites. Adjusted acreage figures for vacant lands that were identified in the BLI as being impacted by these kinds ofconstraints are shown on Table 6 and Table 7. Table6 shows that approximately 80 acres, or forty percent, of the vacant and -under-utilized land in all zones within the urban area is impacted by topographic and environmental constraints. Inside the city limits an even higher percentage (46%) of the vacant and under-utilized land base is unavailable for development due to constraints, while in the unincorporated portion of the UGB less than a quarter of the vacant and under-utilized land in all zones is classified as being constrained. However, when we look at - 18- Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change just the lands designated and zoned for residential use, a different picture emerges. As shown on Table 7 on the following page, the Canyonville UGB presently contains about 172 acres of residentially-zoned land that is classified as either vacant or under-utilized. However, approximately 65 acres, or thirty-eight percent of that residentially-zoned land is also cla·ssified as being constrained by topographic and environmental factors (flood plain, slopes steeper than 25%, etc.) that render it unbuildable; leaving 107.5 acres available to meet Canyonville's future residential land needs. Seventy- three acres, or about two-thirds, oJ the buildable residential land is presently inside the city limits, while the remaining one-third is in the unincorporated portion of the urban area. Table 7 also reveals that steep hillsides (slopes ·gr-eater than 25%}represent the greatest impact on vacant and under-utilized lands in the urban area, particularly in the Low Density Residential (R-1) zone. Inside the city, 52 acres, or nearly 40% percent of the vacant and under-utilized land zoned R-1 is constrained by steep slopes, while 28% of the vacant land zoned R-2, and 70% of the land zoned R-3 is impacted by steep hillsides. In contrast, flood plain constraints are a far less significant factor. Only two percent of the vacant and under-utilized residential land in the city is impacted by potential flood hazards, while less than one-quarter of the vacant and under-utilized residential lands in the unincorporated urban area are impacted by steep slopes, · and no residentially-zoned lands are impacted by flood hazards. In summary, Table 7 shows t~e amount of vacant or undeveloped land remaining in each of City's three residential zones. Vacant land inside . the city limits is shown separately from vacant land in the unincorporated portion of the UGB. The Total Vacant Acres includes the acreage all undeveloped parcels, together with undeveloped portion of parcels that already have some development but contain sufficient vacant area to accommodate additional future development. Next, the acreage of vacant land that is constrained by severe physical and topographical features (floodplain arid hillsides steeper than 25%), are subtracted from the inventory of vacant land. The remaining amount of unconstrained, or "buildable", land is listed in the last column of the table. These acreage figures are significant because they provide a more accurate picture of how much of the remaining undeveloped residential land now inside the urban growth boundary is actually suitable and available to meet the community's future residential land needs. Table 7 illustrates the point made elsewhere in this document that a much higher percentage of the land in Canyonville occupies very steep hillsides than is found in other communities throughout Oregon; and while some of these steep hillsides have accommodated a limited . amount of development over the course of the city's history (albeit at a very low density), the vast majority of these lands have remained, and will continue to remain, unavailable for urban development. - - 19- Inside City Limits Residential R -1 Residential R-2 Residential R:-3 Sub-Total Urban Growth Area Residential R -1 Residential R-2 Sub-Total Total Urban Area Table 7 Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, · Annexation and Zone Change Buildable & Constrained Residential Lands Canyonville and Surrounding Urban Area, 2012 80.7 26.4 107.1 2.4 42.6 45 62.1 11.2 0.8 12 0 3.2 3.2 8.8 8.6 0 8.6 0.5 6 6.5 2:1 100.5 27.2 127.7 2.9 51.8 54.7 73 38.8 5.1 43.9 0 10 10 33.8 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 0.7 38.8 5.8 44.6 0 10 10 34.5 . 139.3 33 172.3 2.9 61.8 64.7 107.5 Source: 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory -20- HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive P.lan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change The first step in detennining_ future residential land needs is an analysis of income and housing cost data in . Canyonville. Table 8, below, documents ranges of household income in 2010 for both Canyonville · and Douglas County. Notably, the median household income in Canyonville ($33,047) was significantly less than Douglas County ($36,510) as a whole. Approximately 39% of Canyonville's households had an income of $~5,000 or less, which indicates a need for more affordable housing opportunities than is currently available. Less Than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 . $35,000 to $49,999 .. $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $~00,000 or more Median Household Income Table 8 Household Income Canyonville & Douglas County, 2010 45 9% 67 13% 85 17% 82 16% 94 18% 101 20% 26 5% 8 2% 0 0% 0 0% $33,047 Source: US Census of Population and Housing, 2010 4,126 9% 2,903 6% 6,759 15% 7,393 17% 8,309 19% 7,003 16% 4,269 10% 2,423 6% 595 1% 411 1% $36,510 Tables 9 and 10 on the following page provide useful measures of the need for affordable housing in the · community. Although household income in Canyonville is relatively low, it is fairly evenly distributed. Note that Canyonville has a higher percentage . of all persons below ·the poverty level (22%) than does Douglas County (16%). The highest incidence of poverty in Canyonville occurs with the elderly (13%) and with femalehouseholds with children (33%). Again, the data point to the need for providing least- cost · ~ousing options, such as manufactured homes on individual lots, manufactured home paries and multi-family housing. In order to ·minimize development costs and thus create opportunities . for more affordable and low-cost housing in the coriununity,- more land that is planned and zoned to accommodate higher residential development densities will n'eed to be pro~ided in the future. -21- Table 9 Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation a':Jd Zone Change Percent of Households Below Median Household Income Canyonville, 2010 Median Household Income 2009 Less than 80 Percent of Median Income Less than 60 Percent of Median Income Less than 40 Percent of Median Income Less than 20 Percent of Median Income Source: US Census ofPopulation andHousing, 2010 $33,047 197 76 58 39 Table 10 Percent of Persons & Families Below Poverty Level Canyonville & Douglas County, 2010 All Persons 22% Persons 18 Years and Older 19% Persons 65 Years and Older . 13% All Families 17% With Related Children Under 18 14% All Female Householder Families 33% With Related Children Under 18 50% - Source: US Census ofPopulation and Housing, 2010 38% -15% 11% 8% 16% 19% 14% 14% 23% - 32% 43% _ The level of educational attainment is an indicator of probable future ~come capacity, and therefore the -type of housing that will likely be needed-in the future. In 2010, only 3% of Canyonville' s residents had a bachelor's degree (compared with 9% of Douglas County's residents) while -14% had not graduated -from high school (compared with 12% of Douglas County residents). Table 11 suggests that earning _ power in: Canyonville is limited by the relatively lower level of educational attaillment; consequently, there will continue to be a need for lower-cost housing opportunities in the future. - 22.: Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment; Annexation and Zone Change Table 11 Educational Attainment Persons Eighteen or Older Canyonville & Douglas County, 2010 Less than 9th grade 0 0% 2,720 9th to 12th gr~de, no diploma 119 14% 10,041 High school graduate 379 42% 28,356 Some college, no degree 284 31% 25,061 Associate degree 77 9% 6,797 Bachelor's degree 31 3% 8,131 Graduate or professional degree 9 1% 4,396 Source: US Census ofPopulation and Housing, 2010 3% 12% 33% 30% .8% 9% 5% Table 12 considers the change of age distribution of people living in Canyonville from 1990 to 2010. Durin~ this 20-year period, Canyonville experienced significant population increases in all age ranges except ·one. The two groups that had the largest increase were the 18 - 24 ~ear old age group which increased 154%, and the 45- 64 year old age group which increased by 111%. The 25 ...;_ 44 year old age group decreased by about one percent, while the number of people over 65 increased by 76%. These figures suggest housing demands are greatest among younger working -age families and older working- age households that are approaching retirement age. The tremendous growth of these two age groups support the conclusion that there is a significant need for more lower-cost housing opportunities in Canyonville. Table 12 Age Distribution of Residents 1990 & 2010 0-5 Years Old 96 8% 105 6% 9% 6-17 Years Old 212 17% 291 15% . 37% 18-24 Years Old 74 6% 188 10% 154% 25-44 Years Old 330 27% 327 17% . -1% 45-64 Years Old . 225 18% 475 25% 111% 65 and over 282 23% 498 26% 76% Source: US Census ofPopulation and Housing, 1990 & 2010 -23- Housing Affordability Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change This section examines the cost of housing relative to income in Canyonville and Douglas County. As a rule of thumb, housing costs become "unaffordable" when they exceed .25% of household income. Table 13, below, examines monthly home ownership costs relative to reported monthly income in .2010. In Canyonville, nearly 40% of homeowners paid more than twenty-five percent their househoid incomes for housing, compared with 56% in Douglas County. For renters, Table 14 compares gross rent to household income. In Canyonville, approximately 61% of renters pay more than 25% of their household incomes for gross rent, compared with 64% in Douglas County. Although these percent~ges indicate housing costs in Canyonville are slightly lower than in Douglas County as a whole, they nevertheless demonstrate a clear need for: more affordable rental-housing opportunities, as well as for lower cost owner-occupied housing. Table 13 Monthly Cost of Home Ownership Compared to Income Canyonville & Douglas County, 2010 Less Than 20% 33 23% 5,052 20-25% 55 39% 2,701 25-30% 14 3% 1,227 30-35% 18 13% 2,003 More Than 35% 33 23% 6,661 Source: US Census of Population and Housing, 2010 Table 14 Gross Rent Compared to Income Canyonville & Douglas County, 2010 Less Than 15% 22 10% 1,338 15-20% 54 24% 924 20-25% 13 6% 2,143 25-30% 35 16% . 2,000 30-35% 19 8% 1 ~587 More Than 35% 83 37% -4,271 Source: US Census of Population and Housing, 2010 --24- 29% 15% 7% 11 o/o 38% 11% 8% 18% 16% 13% 35% 2010 Housing Stock - Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change Table 15 relies on the US Census Reports for 1990, 2000 and 2010, and compares changes that have occurred in housing mix and ownership during the twenty-year period. The most notable change is the decrease in the percentage of single-family homes compared to multi-family housing units. While single- family houses made up more than two-thirds (67%) of the housing stock in 1990, they represented only 57 percent of all dwellings in the community by 2010. During the same period the number of multi- family dwellings increased by 132 percent as their share of the housing stock rose from 16 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in.2010. The percentage of owner-occupied dwellings in Canyonville decreased from 58% to 54%, while the percentage of renter-occupied dwellings increased from 42% to 46%. Not surprisingly, owner-occupancy is highest among single-family and manufactured honies, and lowest among multi-family residences. Of further note is the dramatic increase in the median value of all dwellings in the city, rising from $44,700 in 1990 to $144,600 in 2010, an increase of223 percent. These numbers suggest that higher-cost conventional single-family residential development will cmitinue to play a decreasing role in providing affordable housing · opportunities for Canyonville's relatively low household incomes. Number of Housing Units Occupied Vacant Owner Occup~ed Renter Occupied Single-family Multi-family Manufactured Median Year Built Median Value 484 449 35 260 189 324 75 80 Table15 Housing Stock Summary Canyonville6 2010 100% 602 93% 508 8% 94 58% 275 42% 233 67% 346 16% 174 17% 82 1969 . 1985 $44,700 $144,60q . Source: US Census ofPopulation and Housing, 2010 100% 24% 85% 13% 15% 169% ·54% 6% 46% 23% 57% 7% 29% 132% 13% 2.5% 223% 6 The type and number of housing units listed in Table 15 are taken from the 2010 US Census Report for Canyonville and include only those dwellings located inside the city limits. Additional housing units located outside the city limits, but with Canyonville's urban growth boundary, were counted in the.2012 Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) for the entire urban area. The 2012 BLI revealed that 92 additional housing units are included within the unincorporated urban area surrounding the city. · -25- Housing Mix and Density Faile Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment Annexation and Zone Chano-~ . ~ Building permit data shows that 226 new dwelling units were added to Canyonville's housing stock from January 2000 through May of 2014. Table 16, below, shows that nearly two-thirds of these new housing units were manufactured homes, including 137 manufactured homes placed in manufactured home parlcs (61% of all new dwellings), and 11 manufactured homes that were placed on individual lots (5% of all new dwellings). Multi-family dwellings, including duplex and apartment units , contributed 53 additional . units (23% of all new dwellings); although, it should be noted that almost all the new multi-family dwelling units were in only two construction projects- a 40-unit low income project built in 2000 and a 12-unit dupl~x project developed in 2006. Conventional site-built single-family homes contributed the smallest share of new dwelling units, adding 25 new dwellings representing only 11% of all new housing units added to Canyonville's housing stock during the same period. Table 16 also shows that residential construction activity in Canyonville experienced a sudden and dramatic decline beginning in 200 8, mirroring the nation-wide· crash of the housing market. Nevertheless, the various economic indicators discussed in other sections of this_ document suggest there will continue to be a need for additional housing in the community that will have to be met as economic and market constraints continue, to ease. Table 16/ Approved Residential Building Permits Ca 2000- 2014 .2000 0 3 3 40 46 2001 3 0 13 0 16 2002 3 2 16 1 22 2003 3 2 16 0 21 2004 2 1 27 0 30 2005 6 1 17 0 24 2006 1 0 16 12 29 2007 5 2 29 0 36 2008 0 0 0 0 0 2009 1 0 0 0 1 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2011 1 0 0 0 1 - 2010 0 0 0 0 0 2011 1 0 0 0 1 2012 . 0 0 0 0 0 2013 0 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 0- -Total 15 11 137 _53 226 Percentage 11 °/o 5°/o 61°/o 23o/o 100% *Source: City of Canyonville Building Permit Records, January 2000 through May 2014. - 26- Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change To determine the density at which new residential development occurred in Canyonville over the course of the fifteen-year analysis period, the average net density of all new residential development was calculated by comparing the amount of vacant land that was fully converted to residential use each year :vith the number of dwelling units constructed within each of the three broad categories of housing types . . Between January 2000 and May 2014, 127.7 acres of vacant. residential land was fully developed with a total of 226 new dwellings. On average, each new dwelling unit consumed 0.57 gross acres of land. As used here, gross acreage includes the land area of the lot, parcel or mobile home park site containing the dwelling itself, as well as any vacant land used to construct public and private streets necessary to provide access to the new dwellings. Additionally, other lands within a development that were required to be designated and set aside as permanent common areas and open-space are included in the gross developed acreage. This historic data, derived from City building p.ermit records and the 2012 Buildable Lands Inventory, is presented in Table 17, below, and shows that while the average density of new residential development varied from year to year, depending on the specific mix of housing types built, new development has nevertheless occurred at densities well below those allowed by· Canyonville's zoning and land use regulations. The average net density of all categories of new housing (single-family, mobile home paries, multi-family, etc.) built in Canyonville between January 2000 and May 2014 was 1.77 dwelling units per acre for all residential zones. Table 17 Average Density of New Residential Development Canyonville, 2000- 2014 2000 46 5.42 8.50 0 .. 12 2001 16 10.07 1.60 0.63 2002 22 11.23 1.96 . 0.51 2003 21 30.72 1.46 1.46 2004 30 18.01 0.68 0.60 2005 24 17.33 1.38 0.72 2006 29 12;78 2.67 0.44 , 2007 36 20.92 1:72 0.58 . 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 1 1.07 .93 . 1.07 2010 0 0 0 0 2011 1 0.15 6.6 0.15 2012 . 0 0 0 0 2013 . 0 0 0 0 2014 0 0 0 0 Total 226 127.7 1.77 0.57 Source: City of Canyonville Building Permit Data; 2011-12 Buildable Lands Inventory; analysis by the applicant. -27- Falk Estates LLC, Applicant · Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change When considering the relatively low average density at which new residential development has occurred in the past fifteen years, it is important to bear in _mind the degree to which the current supply of buildable land is constrained by topography- most significantly steep slopes. It should also be taken into account that development on a just a few large hillside lots can skew the overall density picture dramatically. This can be illustrated by eliminating the three ho~ses that were built on lots containing more than one acre, inCluding a 18.97 acre parcel developed in 2003 that appears to have no practical potential for further division or development due to the_ extremely steep slope it occupies, and the two dwellings built in 2005 on hillside lots containing 1.62 acres and 2.81 acres respectively, and which likewise haye not potential for further division or development, yielding a _theoretical overall average density of 2.14 units ·per acre. _ Since so much of Canyonville's current inventory of vacant residential land is constrained by steep slopes, it must be assumed that future development of these constrained land will continue to keep overall average densities (particularly for single-family dwellings) much lower than would otherwise occur. As discussed more fully in the preceding section dealing with Canyonville's buildable land supply, and illustrated in Tables 6 and 7, steep hillsides will continue to have a significant influence on future residential densities. This influence on future residential land nee projections is examined in the following section. Year 2034 Residential Land Needs Projection As discussed earlier, the 2010 US Census reported that Canyonville had a population of 1,884 persons. The community's housing stock in 2010 consisted of 694 dwelling units, including 602 inside the city limits and 92 located in the unincorporated portion of the UGB. The average household size for renter- -occupied dwellings in 2010 was 2~5 8 person, which was somewhat larger than the average household s~e of2.34 persons for owner-occupied dwellings. Of the 602 dwellings inside the city's corporate limits, the Census fo-und that only 508, or roughly 84 percent, were occupied (an unusually high vacancy rate of sixteen percent compared to a vacancy rate of 9 percent for the county as a whole). Although Canyonville has historically had a higher vacancy rate than most other Oregon cities of similar size (the 1990 Census reported that Canyonville had a higher-than-average vacancy rate of 7.2 percent compared to a vacancy rate of less than 5 percent for the county at that time), it is worth repeating that the 2010 Census occurred during a period of severe economic stress when the coinmunity was experiencing significant out-migration of renters, while occupancy of owner-occupied dwelling remained relatively stable. Although more up-to-date vacancy rate data is not available, there are indications that some improvement has occurred since 2010. . For example, the : 2012 Certified Population Estimate for Canyonville issued by Portland State_ University was 1,910 - -an increase of 26 persons in two years, . . representing an annual average increase of less than one percent, but nevertheless a sign that Canyonville is continuing to grow. For -the purposes of this current analysis of future housing and residential land needs, a less extr_eme, average annual vacancy rate of eight percent is assumed for the 20-year planning period. -28- Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change If we assume that the mix of housing types that were built in Canyonville during the years 2000 through 2014 (see Table 16, above) will remain unchanged throughout the twenty-year planning period, and we further assume that both the average household size and the distribution of future population growth among the various housing types will likewise remain unchanged, we can easily calculate the number of · additi_onal housing units that will be needed to accommodate a projected urban area population mcrease of 968 persons (see _Population Forecast, Table 2) by Year 2034. To simplify the calculations, an overall average household size of 2.5 persons is used for all housing types. These assumptions are then applied to the calculations used to produce Table 18 on the following page: Table 18 Needed Additional Housing Units by Type - ·vear 2034 Single-Family 11% 2.5 107 43 . 46 Mnfg. Homes on Lots 5% 2.5 48 19 21 Mnfg. Home Park Units 61% 2.5 590 236 255 Multi-Family Units 23% 2.5 223 89 96 Total 100% 2.5 968 387 418 Source: US Census ofPopulation and Housing, 2010 Based on the figures in Table 18, the community' s projected population growth of 968 persons by Year 2034 will require an additional 4187 dwelling units.- This number is arrived at by dividing the projected . population increase by the assumed average household size for each of the four housing types. The sums are then increased by 8 percent to account for vacancies. [968 + 2.5 = 387 x .08 = 31 + 387 = 418] Housing Type & Density Projections Table 19, below, shows bow much land would be required to accommodate the 418 additional dwelling units needed in Canyonville by Year 2034 if the land need projections are based on the residential development densities prescribed by the Comprehensive · Plan for each of the four categories of dwelling type. Table 19 Land Needed for Future Housing To Year 2034 -Plan Designation Model- Single-Family Mnfg. Homes ori Lots Mnfg. Home Park Units Multi-Family Units Total 11% -5% 61% 23% lOOo/o 46 @ 2 to 5 DUlac 21 @ 2 to 5 DUlac 255 @ 5 to 8 DUlac 96 @ 8 to 18DUiac 418 - 29- Low Density: 9.2 to 23 ac. Low Density: 4 to 1 0 ac. Med. Density: 31.9 to .51 ac. High Density: 5.3 to 12 ac. All Residential: 50.4 to 96 ac. Falk Estates LLC, Applicant Comprehensive Plan & UGB Amendment, Annexation and Zone Change Source: US Census of Population and Housing, 201 0; City of Canyonville; analysis by applicant. 1 Includes 20% set aside for streets and other infrastructure. Table 19 shows that the maximum development densities permitted by the Comprehensive Plan would require only 96 acres of land to accommodate the 418 new dwelling units needed in Canyonville by 2034. In marked contrast, the historic. development data presented in Table 20 on the following page indicates that 160 acres, or 63% more land, will be needed for the same· 418 dwellings if future development is constrained to the same degree that occurred during the past fifteen years. As previously noted, the 2012 BLI revealed that Canyonville's UGB contains 172 acres of vacant and under-utilized land zoned for residential use (see Tables 6 and 7). However, about 65 acres, or nearly thirty-eight percent, of the presently vacant residential land is constrained by topographic and environmental factors to · such a degree as to render it ."unbuildable" - leaving 107 acres remaining to accommodate Canyonville ' s future residential needs. Ofthe 107 "available" acres, 21.5 acres, or twenty percent, was identified in the BLI as occupying hillsides with slopes ranging between 13% and25%: Although these less-steep hillsides were counted as being "buildable", and thus available to accommodate a portion of Canyonville's future housing needs, it is reasonable to assume they will not permit development densities anywhere near the density that will be achieved on the urban area's remaining 85.5 acres of vacant .low-lying residential land. It therefore bears repeating that steep hillsidesrepresent the greatest impact on vacant and under- utilized lands in the urban area, with more · than one-third of the current inventory of vacant and under- utilized land within the UGB occupying hillsides that are simply too steep (and potentially unstable and unsafe) to accommodate any meaningful amount of new residential development over the course of the next twenty years. The historic development density figures shown in Table 20 are based on data taken from city building permit records covering the period from January 2000 through May of 2014: Since the annual permit · reports identify the specific lots and parcels permits were issued for, and describe the type of construction that occurred; thus, it was possible to refer to county assessment records to learn the location and size of the lot or parcel that was developed for each new dwelling. Only building permit information and . acreage figures for new residential structures was counted. Remodeling work and additions to existing homes, or construction of garages, accessory buildings and other such improvements was not included. The amount of land consumed by all new dwellings within each of the four dwelling-type categories was added·together and the ·sum divided by the total number of dwellings built over the course ofthe fifteen year period. For example, 3 7 single-family dwellings ~ere built on individual lots and parcels totaling 32.74 acres between 2000 and 2014. The developed acreage consumed by the 37 dwellings is the~ divided by the number. of dwellings built, showing that, on average, 0.88 acres of land was devels Jhanlltat specified in Table BJDS.l as mud{(ied by Section Bl05.4. For this sizing, a fire flow duration of two hours was used for a total fire flow storage requirement of 120,000 gallons, The equalization storage will be estimated to be 25-p~rcent of the maximum dally demand (MOD). The emergency standby storage will he provided to provide additional stor«ge during emergencies such as pipeline failures, equipment failures, power outages, or natural disasters. The emergency standby storage volume required is typically based on risk assessment, systerri reliability, and the resources available for response. The emergency standby storage volume for this reservoir wHI be two clays of storage based on the average dally demand (ADD). The average daily demand Is dependent upon the average gallons used per capita per duy and the total number of people served. An analysis and report of all of the Douglas county water systems completed by the Douglas County Water Hesources Program in 2008 shows an average da-lly ga_llons per capita per day (GPCD) usage of 294 GPCD for the City of Canyonville based ori the average annual Wilter use from 2090 to 2006. However, this number is substantially higher than most of the water districts in the basin. The high per capita usage can most likely be attributed to the fact that at the time, the City also provided water to the Seven Feuthers Hotel and Casino and severe~! businesses at the truck stop. Per the County Report, the annual average fo r all Douglas County residents th«t receive watet· service is 186 Falk Reservoir Sizing Revised September 15, 2014 i.e, Engineering Job II 2613-01 Page 1 of 3 I - I .I i 1- ,_ ,. GPCD. Also, for comparison, the nearby cities of Glendale and Riddle are listed as having ar1 average dally use of 190 GPCD and 182 GPCD1 respectively. The City of Roseburg Water Master Plan, adopted In 2010 uses an average dally use of 188 GPCD for sizing of reservoirs. Based on the City of Roseburg1s data and other regional usage, the amount of 190 GPCD will be used as the average dally demand for sizing of the proposed reservoir. The maximum dally demand is assumed to be.2.5 times the average dally demand, so the maximum daily demand for the sizing of this reser\loir will be 475 GPCD. - - The total number of residential service connections to be served by the proposed reservoir is estimated to be 200 units. Per the Douglas County Water Resources Program 2008 report, there Is an average of 2.41 people per service connection In Canyonville (based on the 2000 census). Based on the previously stated criteria~ the calculations for the reservoir sizing follows, Reservoir Sizing ·• • • • 200 Residential Service Connections or Equivalent Residential Units {ERU) 2.41 people per ERU ADD per ERU = 190 GPCD*2.41 capita/ ERU = ADD= 458 Gallons/ERU*200 ERU = • . MOD= ,91,600 gallons*2.5 = 458 gallons/ERU/day 91,600 gallons 229,000 gallons 57,250 gallons • • .. • Equalization Storage (EQ) = 0.25*229,000 gallons= Standby Storage (SB) = 2~ADD = 2*91)600 gallons Fire Storage (FS}::: 1,000 gpmlitl20 minutes= Sizing Calculations= EQ + SB + FS 183,200 gallons 120,000 gallons o 57,250 gallons+ 183,200 gallons + 120,000 gaUons = 360A50 gallons Based on these preliminary calculations, a nominal 360,000 gallons of storage volume would be required to serve this residential development. Sanitary Sewer Appendix A of Division 52 of Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter340 summarizes Oregon DEQ sanitary . sewer design guidelines, The guidelines recommend design domestic flows should be between fifty and one~hundred GPCD, with a peaking fac.tor of between 1.8 and 4.0. The design shall atso Include an allowance for infHtration which should normally be less than 21000 gallons per acre per day, The proposed annexation will include just under 50 acres. Conservative calculations for the estimated dally · sanitary sewer volumes resulting from annexation and full build-out of the property are summarized · below. · Sanitary Sewer Volume • 200 Residential Service Connections or Equivalent Residential Units {ERU) • 2.41 people per ERU • Dally Volume per Residence 100 GPCD*2.41 capita I ERU = 241 gallons/ERU/day • Average Dally Residential Volume 241 gallons /ERU/day*200 ERU = 48,200 gallons/day Falk Reservoir Sizing Revised September 15,.2014 I.e. Engineering Job# 2613·01 Page 2of 3 e Pellk Hesiclential Flow 48,200 gCJ!Ions/day*4.0= (/l · lnfiltrntior1 Allowance 2000 gallons/acre*SO acres= :1.92,800 gallons/day :1.00,000 gallons/day a . Average Total Dally Wet Weather Volume= dally residential volume+ infiltration allowance o 4B,2oo gallons/day+ 100,000 g«llons/day = 148,200 gallons/day .o Peak Daily Wet Weather f-low= peak residential flow +infiltration allowcmce o 192,800 gallons/day+ 100,000 galloris/day = 292,800 gallons/day Based on these preliminary calculatlons1 the wet weather average daily sanitary sewer volume at-full build-out Is estimated to be 0.15 Million gallons per day (MGD) with Cl peak wet weather design flow of 0.29 MGD or 203 gallons per minute. · I .• ·-·· ···- · ····-~- .... +.~. ,, .li Falk neservolr Sizing · i.e. Engineering. Page 3 of 3 Rev!secl September JS, 2014 Job N 2613-01 ..... ···--------·--------------- CONTOURS ARE AERIAL CONTOU~S F'OR PLANNING ONLY. TAHJ< ELEVATION TO MATCH EXISTING SYSTEM ELEVATIONS. TANK LOCATION IS APPROXIMATE: • "- ~ ot;o~ut , On·QC>¥, 9; ( i C if-~UCtl~ r;~ l .l tr:-,'H IJ.: ~ ~ec.;;~[~;,.,w.ot I.Jl Q' 150' 300' 6QQ' •A< (~ 1 ) ~~~ · om . 1'-,':. . , -------·-··-·---------------------- --·------- ------ -- ---- ----- ------------ --------------- -------··------------·---------------~CALE: 1 n = 300' ~~:gJ~~-~ ~:,~·s26 1 3 .. 0 1 _.-/ ----~ .. --" FINAL lOCATION TO BE APPROVED DURING DESIGN PROCESS. TANK TO BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY OWNED BY F"ALK. DATE TO . THE DYER Pf\RTNERSHIP ENGINEEI~S & PLANNERS~ INC. MEMORANDUM September 19, 2014 Janelle Evans, City Administrator/Recorder City of Canyonville, PO Box 765 Canyonville, OR 974 t 7 COPYTO 1330 TEAI::" 503.248.9251 lanca'sterengineering.com We have completed our transportation analysis for the proposed expansion and annexation of 49.9 acres to Canyonville.' s urban growth boundary along -with the corresponding zone change f-roni Cotmty FG and FF_zoning to City R-2. This Transportation Analysis Letter (TAL) will address tbe impact of the proposed annexation and its development on the local transportation facilities. It:iB noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has reviewed the proposed annexation and zone change and has found that it will not ~-· •:! ._,:'?:-·· . , ,,~:l,sl' . . ·=!' ... -~~(f/' S62.'25'31 "E 141.65' 'l· ·~;l/' rJ)·~' n/ ,-,r:.)···; " .. '·~,y·' ,((~~,.::- ·~··{:'-.... 'i; N32'0B'58"W 248.93 ' ·~lj>' y· 1 1 ?.?.' 2?.0' .. . ~?o ' SCALE: 1 " ~ 200' " /',/s' ·~ ~-~· PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF FALK PROPERTY AND TILLER TRAIL H/GHWA Y INTO CITY OF CANYONVILLE, OREGON lOCATED IN THE SE 1/ 4 OF SEC. 27 AND THE SW AND SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP .30 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, DOUGLAS COUNTY, OREGON Thence South 69°00'14" East, 50.69 feet; Thence South 71 °47'~5" East, 100.86 feet: Thence South 65°54'09" East, 53 ;56 feet; Thence South 54°47'52" East, 61.55 feet; Thence South 43°38'23" East, 52.62feet; Thence South46°16'56" East, 33.77 feet; Thence South 56°56'32" East, 31.60 feet; Thence South 39°13'03'' East, 51.59 feet; Thence South 74°37'51" East, 289.90 feet; Thence South25°40'56" East, 221.20 feet; Thence South 00° 4 9' 31 " East, 215.41 feet; Thence North 84°38'20" East, 195.49 feet; Thence South 85°11 '48" East, 42.77 feet; Thence South 56°10'49" East, 194.83 feet to the Northeast comer of that tract of land described in said Instrument Number 2012-16655; · Thence Southerly along the Easterly boundary of said Instrument Number 2012-1665 5, South 15°20'41" West, 283.39 feet, more or less, to the Southeast corner of said InStrumentNumber 2012-16655; Thence North 88°47'29" West, 144.12 feet; Thence North76°26'42'' West, 16.6.29 feet; Thence South 78°34'59" West, 155.29 feet; Thence North 73°53'16" West, 173.02 feet; Thence North 66°12'26" West, 172.07 feet; Thence North 83°50'37" West, 218.85 feet; Thence South 83°43'30" West, 183.42 feet to the Easterly.boundary of a 60' wide Natural Gas Pipeline Easement; · Thence Northwesterly along said Easterly boundary the following courses: North 32°08'58" West, 248.93 feet; Thence North 56°11 '02'' West, 41.20; :Thence Westerly along the North boundary of said Easement the following courses: North 66°28'24" West, 520.00 feet; Thence North 67°19'20" West, 513.02 feet to a point on the West boundary of said Instrument Number 2012-16655; - Thence Northerly along said West boundary; North27°46'41"East, 299.35 feet to an angle point in the South boundary of said Instrument Number 2012-16655; Thence Westerly along said South boundary, North 60°46'40" West, 485.56 feet; · Thence continuing Westerly along said South boundary, South 82°49'01" West, 43.28 feet to a· point on the aforementioned Easterly Right-of-Way boundary; Thence Northerly along said Easterly Right-of-Way boundary to the Point of Beginning and thereterD1Unating. EXCEPTING any portion of said Tiller Trail Highway (Oiegon State Highway No. 227) Contains 49.90 Acres, more or less. Right-of-Way A variable width strip of land being a portion of the Tiller Trail Highway Right-of-Way (Oregon State Highway No. 227) located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 27 and the Southwest . Quarter of Section 26, To\Vllship 30 South, Range 5 West, Willamette Meridian, Douglas . County, Oregon, more-particularly described as follows:- . . All of that portion of said Tiller Trail Highway Northeasterly from the Southerly extension of the East boundary ofP AR.CEL 1 of that tract of land described in Instrument Number 2008-18139 . ) being the Urban· Growth Boundary Line of the City of Canyonville, to a line, perpendicular to the centerline of said Tiller Trail Highway from theN orthwesterly comer of that tract of land described in Instrument Number 2014-12400. ZONE Inside City Limits C-1 C-2 C-3 Total Commercial C-S (Community Service) 1-G PARCELS '97 '12 Table 4 Exhibit F Acres by Zoning in City & Urban Growth Area Comparison between 19971 BLI and 2012 BLI GROSS ACRES '97 '12 DEVELOPED ACRES '97 '12 VACANT ACRES. '97 '12 -~;~~- ;.~::~~0H:t;·;·.l1 UNDER UTILIZED '97 '12 it;-~!~:~~.~·~.J VACANT FLOOD PLAIN '97 '12 ~-l -t~~~flt;~ ~ :~f: VACANT STEEP SLOPES '97 '12 ::~~+~~~vJ~\: TOTAL NET VACANT CONSTRAINED BUILDABLE VACANTAC. ACRES '97 '12 '97 '12 \f~~~SJ}l:_~~~-1~:~ ;J;~&fj~;~~i~~~. · l:;.q::ti,iJ~n·J~;: ;~~~,~~r:t;f; r~ d b\3 :!:1 117 1 1;;;;, i5Jj.::~ l 28.7I :V4i~h/iH4d 26.2 l:;:rtn/aHk.ll 2.5 hf~\~ii4i;i.f.tLI o l ;,tJ'i2£~:rl o I1#·N:o,t:luJ;:!il o 1 :;;~:2;~:~~ 1 o lf:JiHP~;u.; 1 2.5 2.2 0 £~lA;3~Hi l 136 l:ii;S38JLil 40.4 IJ!J:i35,ttid 29.8 Uiit!.h 4i621 10.6 FMrl:~fjif;;rd o F;.o i2~ii;l o P:i:1-f~ bJ\;it:.:il 5.9 l jJo L2t~~112~ 1 5.9 P~0.4~2M I 4.7 ~.;;xaMil 42 nctti;t.~d,iH 51.4 nt.ill5a;2YJ 50.7 ttin~J1Hld .7 o I ~;H3 ;~,;q o j;;.aA!iiiitd o FLaJfl~;~;;;:a o . Bg~.ei s N I o:7 ,yi~Jas l 8 , .~a:~~oJt+, l 9.2 L~l:}: ntaf).ii'il 9.2 Li.;;~nm f;:;:~il o i:}J.i:!11l;~~hi~l o 1 :~1rM.b.n~n:1-o -~ ~;;~;Hrm:~rl o I ,HJ~~n.~~~ o lt Ria ifi: 0 0 4 n.~f,(!\ thiDd 1.2 1 ~fg;; H/iHfH 1.2 I :~H/i:t ;::utl . o P!il! ';!.~{;J · o l ~ifii2.;;,~;;.; 1 o J ~[¥.4\ b,i~rt:!ii 187 ;;~: nta iiil!f 80.7 26.4 JcJ\JaL~t< 2.4 ;:J n/aJJ~;~i~ 42.6 ;~.hliEt\l;:i;1t 45 ;;Hra mt:; 62.1 R-2 d1m; sui 28 nrk~;~;.g ;a:d 52.7 1 !J:ii2L1;~;Jd 41.5 l ;~;xi,iAFt :zgJ 11.2 .8 p;.u;3 tJ:;~J o W1~Xi bA~it4:1 3.2 Etma.;~-s;itl 3.2 m:~H:J ; gg 8.8 R-3 . . liJL;:fs ::l · 28 1 iXt:i1b ; ~ i'l 39.6 r ;g.;a ~ sJ:iiid ~ 31 HL~t;J.,:a :a [i l 8.6 o n;u~tm;4 .5 lt~1 ~:t0.%!M 6.o Lf.2fi~~il.~d 6.5 l:i::!2l9.;; 2.1 RMH* L~lJ04d n/a I ;tF22;3 d nla 1 -lfi~ 9~4:tH nla r:.nrJ;;f;2 i ~H I nla hii,jji~qfr:l n/a lf*i;~!~;tJH nla I ~\ ~ \2 jj~f&;:j n/a l'if~M~ill\i~! l n/a l !;~¥:;t.:y,.:; n/a · woA I ·U ~Lt# id 15 H~Y 2£:L62 1 21.3l i.(it14H;Z I o , .:;:;.:;,j,!:J;H 11 r~::)sti~lfH o 1:\it;:t,.,::§d 1.A :.,. ... .. , ... . ·- · - · · - ··· · -- ·~ ·- · · -- Total Inside City Limits IJ;Lt otL I 761 L!~f4.d.:gn l 483.2 l ii28h 3) 1 350.3 H\.Di8di3id 122.8 IJFg?;:iJJYI 27.2 H!.<8 ;6 ;1~{ 1 4 hi33.;9;;,iq 62.4 hA2i5i~!~~ l 66.4 l [iSi~iE I 83.7 fi;N~iU:iii l I :st;t;·;~~;:;;.t; l I .;Jki:H~;~J1i; l I ;'J~ii\iii~J l :~i:J2-li§;;:;E: : 1}~;E·~t~~:iiq~~ ~~-[it~i~J~~:~.~~;~ j,~~;;i;!Jr~~·:~)~ ~f~~;~¥~~~k1~·~i:i l:i~:;~( Unincorporated Urban Area LL!)11.f!.!),Li l 1;8~i~'B}!,;i{] c-1 l ;;,;~_i;H; a :H o lftt;::; 2.i1rid o liPf,:Hht [\1"1 o hm~,n/a;;J!}II o F\;~4;f.~:tntl o H:\£t;.o~;~;~i4· o l :;:lBi~.o:ii'tJmH o 1 '4~i~1 0:~~~;t __ g __ ltSi·iitihiU o c-2~01~~mru~311--~-1~~J-~~~~~-1~Hm~~--f]-p~~ffir~~~~~~-l~~~f-1ZS%~t-%-1tt~~t-~~~~tt-~~ Total Commercial I C-S 5.0 1-G 2 0 R-1A* lk;i;i.i4:nl n/a l n'~~' 65 rXi't~ l nla UUH/a,:t~·il nla _ _liii;H/i:ttn:.l n/a 1;:~:1iii·1M11'f n781:1.it3 : 3 iid n/a I .;~~:L6X11Jirs l n/a k 22;§w.m:l n/a PJHlifWD I n/a R-1B* 1 ;'(·1~;;t_1);j n/a l ~it;73J~S I n/a 1 \/~Jh/a ii.U n/a l i\~\Hta i~li.i l n/a n/a r::d i id i~·tiid nla pj66Ji (}i\.4 n/a IJ 61~4:t,~~;j n/a I ·~Hla iJ~n n/a R-1 1 ;~;HtaJ~;: I · 44 1 r::~ iitii?~U 80.5 u;;;rmu~;; l 41.8 rn:::. niEFci:!v I 38.8 W~'l;iKHlH s.1 h~HJEWtkl o l ti$tfila)iiii~ l 1 o p:;,~: RJ8JQ-; I 1 o.1 I ~HtiL~; !I 33.s R-2 0.7 Total Residential 34.5 WOA 7 l ~;iii~~~;k;.l 2.5 :xS:ri: ta.U 74 l ~!i 83t:~J.J 129 l-id 6012.;;1 82.5 Hii!iJ?.tJW I 46.6 Total UUA Ti~·:!:f!:t·;·~' i :i }~l~T!J~~~:;t~ ~i:fl/ai-U 835 L>HH/a\il; l 612.2 I01i~iHlif i'il;j 432.8 I<;:;;:Wa>nXI 169.4 34.2 LWHlaTi~d 6.5 Total Non-tribal Urban Area r ::; ~Er·[·:ii•!d · : 10.1 b 265mH 12.7 m~-~;;~;1~;;'='~~~ 11= 72.5 u~,;;Hnt:~:\; 1 79.1 i339 .i11~i l 40.9 I~l~ii:K~t~;; ;fmhHt l 124.s ~- ;-~:~'.:'.;',~'t~~T: ·r ;1-.:-~··.::~ ~;-~" Tribal Trust Lands n/a U b A IT 'b 1 I ':;,;.,.B-~4~ ' · 1 903 I ......... 7 5. 9 .. , .... : .... 1 840 I •::T4:- :1" :_.5-. ,;1 1 1",-''' 2•·-· s· 7. ·';· '·:-I I I :'..,._,_,.:,r:.:.:;;·;,:l I F' s•· 2.- '2·-:.;.:1 1 · -1 " '15 ·6··-~ · ·- 1- ·· · F'~,~ : ~ .;- 1 1 1\ · ··1 Total r an rea w n a .;x.:i, :r:·t~>:r,, (i~;::·;H . :. ' ,!,; n a ,;.,.,.; .. :.,1.::: n a ;,;,,;rr.l•mfl};, n a .,,, ,.-'''· n a ;:. <:: .. 4 n a :.;.308.Z.:~" n a ,~96 :3 :~ n/a *Following the 1997 UGB amendment, the RI-A & RI-B zones were consolidated into a single R-1 zone, while the RMH & RMP zones were consolidated with the R-2 zone, and ar~ therefore not applicable to the 2012 inventory. 1 All acreage figures shown for the 1997 inventory are prior to the 99.5 acre UGB expansion. 2 Due to the erroneous counting of 131 .7 acres lying outside the UGB during 1997 inventory, that amount has been subtracted from the figures shown for I -G industrial land in the unincorporated area in 1997. That amount has also been subtracted from total acreage figures for the unincorporated area as shown at the bottom of the table. ,