HomeMy WebLinkAbout81-0080" 'II""
VOL cy i f'l ,c �'19
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No.
80-20.2, the Redmond Urban Area
)
)
Comprehensive Plan, by the Amend-
ment of the Urbanization and Housing
)
MAR
Elements; Adding Policies to the
>
Natural Resources Element; Adopt-
ing Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive
)
ROSFMgRY
�ESCZTES
PgTTF/2Sp
Plan Map No. 3; and Declaring an
Emergency.
)
)
C0UNTy
CLERK
ORDINANCE NO.
81-008
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY,
OREGON, ORDAINS that Ordinance No. 80-202, the Redmond Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan, is amended as follows:
Section 1. That the Housing Element is amended to read as
set out inEx1�—A, attached hereto and by this reference incor-
porated herein.
Section 2. That the Urbanization Element is hereby amended
to read as set out in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Section 3. That the Natural Resources Element is amended
by the addition of the material set forth in Exhibit C, attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 4. That the Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Map No. 3, identifying segments in the Urbanization Element identifying
location of the Urban Growth Boundary, marked Exhibit D, attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, is hereby adopted.
Section 5. This Ordinance being necessary for the
immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety, an emergency
is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage.
DATED this YA day of 1' \ & rc- 1981.
ATTEST:
SUSAN STONEMAN
Recording Secretary
ORDINANCE NO. 81-008, PAGE 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DE UTES COUNTY, OREGON
Ce r
ROBERT C. P ULSON, JR., C airman]
VOL
4. BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY OREGON
In the matter of )
adopting ordinance )
No. 81-008 amending ) FINDINGS OF FACT
the Redmond Urban )
Area Comprehensive )
Plan )
37PAct 280
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN CONSIDERING
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 81-008 HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Findings -of -Fact
1. On April 6, 1980 the Land Conservation and Development
Commission reviewed the Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan for acknowledgement of compliance of the Statewide
Planning goals.
2. For reasons set forth in the Department's staff report, the
Commission found that the Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan and implementing measures comply with Statewide Planning
Goals, l(Citizen Involvement), 7(Natural Disasters and Hazards),
8(Recreational Needs), 9(Economy of the State), ll(Public
Facilities), and 13(Energy Conservation).
3. The Plan did not comply with Statewide Planning Goals 2,5,6,
10 and 14 for reasons described in the Department's report.
On May 28, 1980 a Continuance Order was granted to the City
in order to amend the plan for compliance with those goals.
4. In response to specific directives by the Department's staff
report, the City and County adequately amended the Plan in
September, 1980 to bring Goals 2 and 5 into compliance. Goals
6, 10 and 14 still could not be acknowledged as presented.
(Verbal conversation with LCDC staff in December, 1980).
5. In order to comply with Goals 6, 10 and 14 the Redmond Urban
Area Comprehensive Plan had to be amended to include the
following:
Goal 6
a. Adopt a policy to comply with applicable state and federal
water quality standards.
Goal 10
b. Revise the housing needs analysis consistent with recent
housing cost and income trends, not current housing mix
consistent with facts and analysis found in the Housing
section of the plan.
C. Assess the potential for infill and redevelopment on
"committed and developed lands" during the 20 year planning
period, and adjust the buildable lands inventory accordingly.
d. Determine the amount of buildable land in each residential
zone - and the amount of buildable land available for elderly
housing needs in the Special Service Commercial zone - to
ensure that adequate land has been zoned to meet the revised
housing needs by type and density range.
s VOL 37PAGE 281
Goal -14
e. Reconcile differences between the City and County population
projection for the Redmond Urban Area in a manner consistent
with County -wide projections.
f. Determine the excess development potential for "committed
and developed" industrial, commercial, residential and public
lands and reclassify this land as vacant buildable.
g. Reduce the size of the UGB to account for the above changes.
It is suggested that areas outside the sewer service boundary
be considered for exclusion, based on plan policy and Factor
3 of Goal 14. (The Department estimates that approximately
3,000 acres will need to be removed).
h. Based on policies in the plan and Management Agreement, adopt
implementing measures to insure that urbanizable lands are
retained in parcels of sufficient size to insure efficient
future development.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Amendments to the Redmond Plan were made in September, 1980 in
order to bring Goals 2 and 5 into compliance.
2. In order to comply with Goals 6, 10 and 14 items (a) through
(h) above, the subject plan amendments respond to those items
respectively as follows:
a. The Natural Resources element of the Plan is amended stating
that "in all water related issues, the City will comply with
applicable State and Federal water quality standards."
b. The Housing element of the plan is rewritten to better reflect
future housing needs. The overall housing mix for year 2000 has
been revised from 70% single family/30€ multiple family to 55%
single family/45% multiple family dwellings. Average household
size has been reduced from a projected 2.7 by the year 2000 to
2.1 people per household. (See Table on p. 7 of the revised
Housing element). Further, based on projected population, housing
mix, vacancy rates and household size, the Housing element now
concludes with a designated number of housing units needed by
year 2000.
C. The residential•builda.ble lands inventory is revised to
identify all residential lands as either buildable, unbuildable
or developed. The "committed" lands category was deleted.
Redevelopment and infilling on large lots was accounted for as
buildable, based upon the underlying zone and logical redivision
of the parcel. Due to the nature of existing uses, the amount
of commercial and industrial land available for redevelopment
is insignificant, other than a small residential neighborhood in
downtown Redmond.
d. The revised Urbanization element identifies the amount of
buildable land available in each residential zone. Lands
occupied by the C.O.I. canal, the BPA or railroad rights of
way, areas of excessive slope, the cemetary, school sites and
other such lands have been identified as unbuildable. The
inventory has been adjusted accordingly. The Special -Service
Commercial zone potentially has 36 acres of buildable land
for elderly housing. The C-1 zone north of Maple Avenue
VOL 3 7 PAGE 282
and east of Canal Blvd. has about 75 acres available and
designated for multiple family dwellings. The R-5 zone
has about 81 acres available. Further, densities have
been increased for exclusively elderly housing and finally
the R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, C-2 and C-4 zones allow multi -family
dwellings as a conditional use.f Adequate land has been
zoned for all other housing types. (See page 16 of the
Urbanization element).
e. The population projection was reduced from over 28,000 to
23,093 for the Redmond Urban Area. The revised population
coincides with the Deschutes County Plan.
f. The "committed" lands category has been deleted and all
lands are identified as either buildable or unbuildable.
g. The total acreage within the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary
was reduced by 2400 acres.
h. Stronger conversion policies have been added to the
Urbanization element. Parcelization of land to less than
ten acres in size is discouraged. If such development
occurs there shall be submitted a redevelopment plan that
addresses the location of future roads, structures, wells
and septic drainfields. Further, land partitions shall be
required not to remonstrate against the future formation of
a local improvement district for urban services.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
In accordance with the LCDC Continuance Order and the Department's
staff report the attached amendments are hereby made to the Redmond
Urban Area Comprehensive Plan.
DATED this 4th day of March, 1980.
BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
,:�p4"'
C c
Robert C.'Paulson, Jr., CHAIRM
HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTIOJ
VOL � f PSL
Housing is a critical issue in all Comprehensive Plans; particularly in an
urban area more land is used for residential purposes than any other use. Relative
to the subject planning area,.a comprehensive approach to this critical issue is
extremely limited by two basic factors;_1) a lack of current area, and even county-
wide, housing data, and 2) the fact that data for the Redmond area is not generally
extrapolated from the countywide totals. In spite of these major obstacles, the
housing element of this Plan has been developed for compliance with State Goal No. 10,
and is therefor based on the best available inventory base, an analysis of economic
situations, housing needs and availability relative to existing and projected pop-
ulation growth rates, as well as trends, and expressed needs and concerns.
The general purpose of this element of the overall Plan is to provide adequate
housing for all sectors of the community in a continuing high quality environment -
both socially and economically.
Po ulation
Estimates of the Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State
University, indicate that the population for the Redmond Urban Area was 7,518 in
1977. Although not reported for the Redmond Urban Area, Deschutes County's reported
population in 1977 was 46,800, an increase of 53% since 1970. The County has
recently ranked well above the state average percent of change due to migration;
for every one person added by natural increase, four persons have migrated into the
County.
Table _ Population Changes: 1960-70-78
Deschutes County & Cities
1960 1970 1978 1960-70 1970 -
Deschutes County 23,100 30,442 49,700 31.8% 63.0%
Bend 11,936 13,710 17,100 14.9 24.7
Redmond 3,340 3,720 6,450 11.4 73.4
Sisters 602 516 810 -14.3 57.0
Source: 1970 U.S. Census and Center for Population Research and Census,
Portland State University, 1978.
Age distribution of population over the past 20 years indicates a shift in its
composition. The 0-14 age group,. although composing approximately 3196' of the popu-
lation in 1960, has shifted dovrnward to 27% in 1970 and is fairly reflective of a
nationwide decline in the birth rate. This should effect a stabilization of elem-
entary school enrollment growth, even with modest immigration to the city.
Labor market population, age 15-64 years, experienced an approximate 7% decrease
between 1950 and 1960, but has shown a slight increase as of 1970 and now accounts
for 60', of the city population. Of particular note, the age group from 25-44 years,
prune source of managerial, skilled and semi -skilled labor has shown the greatest
decline since 1950. However, this is leveling off as the decline was only 1.5%
between 1960 and 1970. This is reflective of limited job opportunities, which result
in out -migration in search of more promising- economic opportunities.
VOL
The most dramatic shift has been in the 65 and over age group, which has
almost doubled its percentage since 1950. This reflects the desirability of
the area for retirement living and also our national trend of extended life
expectancy. Based on the above, plus Central Oregon's recreational and leisure
opportunities, this trend is likely to continue.
Redmond's 1970 population has approximately 5% more females than males and
the number of females is greater in all age groups. Approximately 77% of.
Redmond's population is concentrated in Enumeration Districts 1A, 1B, 2 and 5
which comprise the principal residential areas of the city. The remainder of
the population is in two Enumeration Districts which contain a large portion of
the city's industrialized areas. Alittle over 1% of Redmond's total population
consists of racial minorities. Seventy percent of this minority is distributed
in Enumeration Districts 3 and 4, or 17% and 53% respectively. Enumeration Districts
5, IA, 2 and 1B have the largest percentage concentrations of the 0-14 age group
and Enumeration Districts 4 and 3, the largest percentage of elderly in the 65
and over age group.
Future Estimates of Population
Population Growth in our nation has historically been associated with
economic opportunities drawing people to centers of activity. These economic
endeavors have generally been related to localized resources, markets, change in
mode of transportation and location of government. Therefore, to provide future
estimates of population for Redmond, certain assumptions are made based on
historical population trends, local resources and environmental desirability of
the region.
The single factor which will probably effect the most immediate change in
Redmond's (The City of) numerical population, is annexation and the intent for
such to be a priority factor for development. In addition, large tracts of
undeveloped land which are suitable for industrial development may also significantly
affect the growth rate, providing resources are reasonably available, support
systems are sufficient and a labor market is in being. Immigration, as a result
of living desirability and recreational resources, will also affect Redmond's
growth rate, probably not so much as direct growth in the city, but in providing
services for this segment of the population. .
. Z
9
VOL`�aGE
Projected Population: 1980-2000
Findings:
1. Redmond is the second largest city in Deschutes County historically
providing housing for about 10 percent of the County.
2. Redmond enjoys an economic and geographic relationship with Bend.
Historically, Bend has been three times larger than Redmond .in terms
of population.
3. Redmond is committed to providing for its share of the projected
County population between 1980 and 2000.
4. Redmond has or expects to have adequate public facilities and services
to accommodate its fair share of County growth.
5. Deschutes County grew by about 32Z.between 1960 and 1970. The County
grew by about 104% between 1970 and 1930, which deans that the County
doubled its population in this 10 year period.
6. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan projected a population of
123,200 in 2000. This would require a growth rate one -hale of the
rate over the past 10 years. The County Plan expected an annual growth
of 4.51. Howaver, based on the 1920 census figures, .an annual growth
rate of less than K would still achieve the projected populdtron.
7. Even hnugh County population will trouble In the next 20 years, Rodmond
lust triple its population in order to accommodate its fair share of
County growth. Put another way, the percentage of the County population
living in Redmond should increase from the Historical rate of 101 to
about 201. Redmond is willing to accept this demand for several
reasons including:
a. It is more desirable to have future county residents live in cities
than sprawled over the rural landscape.
b. Higher concentrations of people can result in substantial public
savings on facilities and services.
c. Bend should not be forced to accoimodate all County growth. The
County Comprehensive Plan shows the Bend urban area achieving a
population of 84,000 in 2000. This means that Bend is planning to
accommodate two-thirds of the County's projected population.
Sisters, on the other hand, cannot be expected to significantly
accts uodate the County's projected population_
8. Redmond accepts its projected population of 23,100 by 2000, as represented
in the Deschutes County Coeiprehensive Plan. This projection is recognized
not as a straight-line estimation of Redwond's future based upon the
past 20 years. Rathar, this projection recognizes what is expected of
Re:.', and in meeting the County's overall urbanization needs of the next
20 years. Redmond will not shirk its regional urbanization responsibilties
by arguing for a lower projection that reflects only an in -fill rate of
growth.
3
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL DESCHUTES COUNTY GROWTH WITH PROJECTED GROWTH, 1970-2000
Agency Projection 1970 ` 1980 2000
U.S. Census Bureau 30,442 .61,968
P.S.U. 50,500 65,700
County "Present Rate" 56,214 190,770
County "Preferred Alternative" 53,400 128,200
Sources: Center for Population Research and Census, Portland State
University; Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1979 p. 34
Findings:
1. Deschutes County grew faster between 1970 and 1980 than any projection
estimated.
2. Between 1970 and 1980, County population more than doubled. Using the
"Preferred Alternative" of the Comprehensive Plan, County population
would be expected to double over the next 20 years at a growth rate about
one-half of that over the past 10 years.
VOL VwE 287
POPULATION TRENDS, DESCHUTES COUNTY AND CITIES 1960-19801
Jurisdiction
1960
1970
1976
1980
Bend
11,963
13,710
16,000
17,121
Redmond
3,340
3,721
4,560
6,460
Sisters
194
161
760
693
Deschutes County
23,100
30,442
41,800
61,968
1All figures from
Center for
Population Research
and Census,
Portland, State
University.
Future Household Size VOL 37nUi
6
` Over years, the number of persons in a household has declined. In 1960,
the average Oregon household size was 3.09 persons per household. In 1970,
that figure declined to 2.94 people in the household. According to the 1970
:U.S. Census of Population, Deschutes County registered 3.0 persons per
occupied housing unit (3.1 owner occupied, 2.8 renter occupied).
A 1976 Bonneville Power Administration forecast estimates that the Deschutes
County average 1980 occupied household size will be 2.77 persons and 2.51
persons in the year 2000.
However, household size projections made by the Bonneville Power
Administration and Pacific Northwest Bell made for 1980 are significantly
in error. These agencies projected average household size to be 2.77 and 2.69
for Deschutes County, respectively. But the preliminary 1980 census indicates
average household size is 2.37.
In preparing assumptions for household size, it is important to note
that household size has been declining precipitously since 1970, from 2.90 to
2.37 in Deschutes County. At this rate, Deschutes County's household size
could be as low as 1.31 by 2000. This straight-line estimate may or may not
reflect reality. However, given the lack of adequate projections by any
agency, the Redmond Comprehensive Plan shall assume the following with
regard to household size expected in 2000:
1. 2.4 persons per single family dwelling, down from a County average of
2.7 in 1980.
2. 1.85 persons per multiple family dwelling (including apartments,
mobile homes in mobilehome parks, and duplexes), about the same as
currently exists in the County and similar to BPA's projection of
1.83.
3. Given a year 2000 distribution of housing at 55% single family
detached and 45°o multiple family, average household size should
be about 2.15. (This is similar to average household size projections
for 1990 prepared for Lincoln County by Ragatz & Associates in "A
Proposed Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan for Lincoln
County, Oregon", 1979.)
.44,
N N r- 4 �'N N -4N IN NO ,--I � -\I N � �'N
U N
t` Gl cY lD N co
rtS r i r\ 0 It -;j- CD m q co t.0 6l O im
Gi Cl 0 `> M00 (� 0 0 0� c.)CC OG
O
M
N
L
r�
a
C O
U
NN
+>
>)>>
to
r p
O i )-�
M
I'D
r -i O r-
OO)r,O
CO
O l0 C^
G)OILnM
M t\ r`
!�
V M t\
N r! lD cc)
to
c, E E
Ln
NCONM
r aJ
E E E
r�lDr-+lD
Mlfl
U
OOO�-+
rO r,) O
NCOt\lD
N
C
11 41
'd
O
--)
M
NIDLnM
a)
i-) 4-)
Ot-- IOM
Co
U)
—4r�
>>
o
r -i
N
o
n N jc:�
•r
r-•-
C •r
-0.-
a) 1 C) r-•-
C: 1 C) r--
r r- r -
ci
Ln
Q
_
C i-� Q
_ _
Gl -1-3 -^
N •r-
- v
L
r�
a
C O
U
NN
+>
>)>>
to
r p
O i )-�
•r
a
— a)
U
U ^ .r
F
c, E E
E-- E
E £= E
r aJ
E E E
U
CD
rO r,) O
r3 b O
rb ro O
M r0 O
11 41
'd
O
--)
• �7 J
N J
a)
i-) 4-)
4-> U -0 N
+)
L
>>
o
o
•r
r-•-
C •r
-0.-
a) 1 C) r-•-
C: 1 C) r--
r r- r -
ci
Ln
Q
_
C i-� Q
_ _
Gl -1-3 -^
N •r-
- v
rCl••-
N C Z} -)
0
r
a
a�
c�
cn
a
¢ o
a a1 -r
rn CO L�- V)
O O
r O O
r p
r O O
i
O
M
��
4-J
N
�
'iV
N
O
Gl
CO -IOM
d
rcf
cr
r+
Gl
lD
r`
lD N lG Gl
tr
N
N
m
O
r-
Ln
1
1;
r-/ rl lD
�-
p
N'
lD •--�
N
d
O
C O
U
NN
+>
to
r p
O i )-�
•r
.N
4-)
U
U ^ .r
U
CD
11 41
'd
O
--)
• �7 J
N J
a)
i-) 4-)
4-> U -0 N
+)
N
>>
o
o
S
N
C •r
-0.-
ami
ci
a)
a U
C) c�
N •r-
- v
r N
N C Z} -)
0
r
a
a�
c�
cn
a
¢ o
a a1 -r
rn CO L�- V)
L1 O
ro r. r`
a: m Gl
>- -i e -i
7
O
co
CT
.-i
N
•r
Q)
'0 i
a) ::5
N p�
7 •r.
4-
S- m
ro r\
O N
00
S_ aJ
G) iJ
N 4_
r-+ O
O 00
CP
aJ GMl
.a r+
N S
U a) rp
CJ
r (\
>, a G, -,'
i-)
N C)
S C)
Q) 3
> va c >
C .}.>
ry C LA C
N U
p C S_Ln
4-
'�
O .-
d
rt S_ Cl)
1 d
L O C
CJ +-> O rLy
a-) ap L
= O M U
Q) i N
U 4J
�7 C O,
U � �
i O 4.3 C)
r6 >
N L
a) rCS -
c -Q: a) a) N
t 4->
O 17 ro
Q) N S_
rd n. -P
7:3 ro U
U E O
n
O +-) C
U
L
d V)
rn a1 U
OE r U
O
L- O
4- +:)
N 4- nJ C
O O r {->
S-
-:3 •)-)
_O> c o•r c
a) CZ
4-
4-) C31 O 'p
O N C1
< CY ri Q :3
•--r N M f-
Household Income VOL wr
The County's average employee earnings is $9,468; 8% less than the State
average of $10,233. This rather low reported earnings, in relation to the
State, could be a function of the proportionately high number of jobs in
the lower paying tourism, recreation, and service related industries; a factor
which is expected to be more applicable to the Bend area than the Redmond
area.
The Oregon State Department of Commerce currently estimates the County's
median family income to be $15,779. Comparatively, the State's median
family income is estimated at $16,768, and the national level at $16,946.
Relative to the Effective Buying Income for the region at $10,529, with
Jefferson County second at $10,266 and Crook County the lowest at $9,740.
Table No. State Income Tax Adjusted Gross Income for ATI
Returns as No. & % of Deschutes County Totals
Income Average No.
of Returns
% of total
Less than $2,000 .2,462.
15.7%
$2,000
- $2,999
1,165
7.4
$3,000
- $4,999
1,945
12.4
$5,000
- $7,999
2,310
14.4
$8,000
- $9,999
1,435
9.1
$10,000
- $14,999
3,121
19.8
$15,000
- $19,999
1,707
10.8
$20,000
and over
1,245
7.9
15,390 100.0%
Source: Indicative of Depressed Socio -Economic Conditions
State Dept. of Human Resources, 1976.
Many of today's households have multiple income earners sohousehold
income would be different than the percentage shown in the preceeding table.
Therefore, with a larger percentage of households with incomes in excess
of $10,000, it's little wonder than recent housing construction has been of
the medium to high income type, and that the disparity of low-income families
is often overshadowed by the relative affluence of others.
0
�OL J `PAGE ICUI
In 1970, more than 10% of the County's 8,337 families, an more than 39% of
the 2,208 unrelated individuals had incomes below the poverty level. Of the persons
65 and over, 26:9' had BPL incomes. The Center for Population Research and Census,
P.S.U., estimates that the number of residents age 65 and over in 1975 had an in-
crease of 315 persons age 65 and over with BPL incomes. Using 1985 population
estimates, this number would increase to approximately 700, all other considerations
remaining equal.
Of the total of 1,036 renter households in the County in 1975, 30% are reported
to have paid 25% or more of their income for gross rent. Of these, more than 84%
had gross incomes of less than $5,000 per year. In 1970, it was reported that 10%
of all homeowners were financially burdened by excessive high monthly housing expenses
Unfortunately, a number of factors combines to make it virtually impossible
to determine the current exact number of households burdened with excessive monthly
housing costs. Further, while the incomes of area households have increased since
the 1970 Census, housing costs have increased at a far more rapid pace.
As long as the current elements of excessive housing costs; material increases,
land and development costs, decreasing housing purchasing power, and a higher than
average unemployment rate prevails, area households, particularly low and moderate
income households, will find it increasingly difficult to acquire decent, affordable
living.
EMPLOYMENT
The State of Oregon Employment Division publishes monthly labor force trends
which reflect numbers in the labor force and numbers unemployed.
The following graph reflects the increase in labor force and increase or decreas
in unemployed broken down quarterly from Jan. 1977 through April 1978 for Deschutes
County. Such information is not available for the Redmond area separately.
Table
No.
Numbers in Labor Force
Number Unemployed
Percentage Unemploye
Jan.
1977
21,160
2,32.0
11.01
Apr.
1977
21,810
2,130
9.8
July
1977
22,930
1,890
8.2
Oct.
1977
22,800
1,630
7.1
Jan.
1978
23,940
1,700
7.1
Apr.
1978
24,590
1,280
5.2
Despite a 3,430 person increase in the lahor force (16.2%) the number of un-
employed has decreased by 1,040 people. The decline in the unemployment percentage
in consistent with the state and national employment figures. It would appear that
the local economy has been able to absorb the increase in labor force brought about
by the period's phenomenal growth rate.
7
HOUSING STOCK VOL 37PAGE 2,9
In conjunction with the Land Use Survey conducted in September of 1971 as a
part of the 1974 Redmond Plan, condition of structure utilized primarily for housing
purposes were also evaluated and mapped for the City of Redmond and its immediate
environs. In addition, although both are more than seven years old, the 1970 U.S.
Census reports data regarding housing stock. Since 1970, a building permit reporting
mechanism has been established to monitor building activity. Presently, this latter
system provides only general. indicators, but when tied into a data base (1980 Censu
it will become a formidable planning tool.
Much like the population increases, the percentage increase in total housing
units between 1970-75 in Deschutes County and Redmond exceeded the State rate of
17.7% for that period.
Table No.____• Housing Units. & Percent Change 1970-75
Deschutes County
Bend
Redmond
Total Housing Units
1970
1975
11,563
15,581.
5,039
6,456
1,440
1,836
changes
1970-1975
34.7%
28.0
27.0
Source: U.S. Census of Housing 1970, State Housing Div., Dept. of Commerce
Although possibly not relevant in the immediate Redmond Urban Area as elswhere
in Deschutes County, the growing number of recreational homesites noted therein in
recent years makes it important to differentiate between year-round housing units and
those which are seasonal, vacation or second homes.
Table No. Occupied and Vacant Year -Round Units by Tenure.
Incorporated Cities and Deschutes County 1977
Source: 1970 U.S. Census applied proportionately with 1976 population
estimates supplied by Population -Research and Census, P.S.U., and
County and City building permit and mobile home permit reports. _
/0
Total
Occupied
Owner
Renter
Vacant
Year -Round Units
Units
Occuied
Occupied
-Round
Deschutes Co.
19,022
17,484
12,484
5,000
_Year
1,538
Bend
6,582
6,255
4,066
2,189
327
Redmond
1,847
1,682
1,043
639
165
Sisters
318
301
238
63
17
Source: 1970 U.S. Census applied proportionately with 1976 population
estimates supplied by Population -Research and Census, P.S.U., and
County and City building permit and mobile home permit reports. _
/0
VOL 31PAGE 293
Table No. Housing Units by Type - 1978
Redmond Urban Growth Area
T�ynof Housing Number D.U.'s % of Total
Single-family Conventional 1,867 71.7%
Single-family Mobile Home 131 5.0
Mobile Home Park Units 107 4.1
Duplex Units 126 4.8
Multi -family Units 368 14.1
Source: Deschutes County Assessor Records
l�
Table No.
STATE HOUSING DIVISION STATISTICS
REDMOND
Residential Dwellings Constructed:
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI -FAMILY
Year
total
No. % of Total
No.
% of Tota'i
1970
40
12 30.0%
28
70.0%
1971
41
11 26.8
30
73.2
1972
86
26 30.2
60
69.8
1973
52
24 46.1
28
53.1
1974
28
24 85.7
4
14.3
1975
10
10 100.0
-0-
0.0
1976
48
36 75.0
12
25.0
1977
74
64 86.5
10
13.5
1978
208
74 35.6
134
64.4
TOTALS:
587
281 47.9
306
52.1
l�
Housi nq Condition VOL 37PAGE 294
T�
Of the 19,022 total housing units located in Deschutes County at the
beginning of 1977, about 13% were considered substandard. In comparison, the
1971 survey in the Redmond area reported 4 to 6% of the housing in that area as
substandard. Despite the fact that substandard housing is often referred to, it
is always difficult to measure the absolute impact of such references because of
attitude and value differences. Most would agree, however, that sound housing
is that which is decent, safe and sanitary, and that which is not structurally
unsafe or substandard. Generally, the following standards are used for measuring
the condition of housing:
I. A plumbing system which lacks one of the following: hot water, indoor
toilet, bathing facilities reserved for the exclusive use of a single
household.
2. Overcrowded; more than one person per major room.
3. Overburdened housing costs; households that spend more than 25% of their
gross income for housing.
4. Heating; no heating system or a heating system which consists solely of
a room heater not connected to a flue, fireplace, or wood burning stoves.
5. Condition: subjective evaluation where the structure has minor or major
deficiencies, some of whichare caused by changes°in the building or
electrical codes since the time of construction. Dilapidated structures
are defined as those where rehabilitation would require an expense more.
than 50% of the value of the structure.
Of the 19,022 year-round housing units reported for Deschutes County, 21.90%
were built prior to 1939. For the Redmond area, 43.5% of all housing units (in
1971) were reported as being 33 years old or older. This is not to infer that all
housing units of 33 years of age and older are substandard; however, it is generally
accepted that housing units over 35 years old begin to show signs of deterioration and
dilapidation, particularly if a continuous program of building maintenance has not
been in effect. With these older structures, deficiencies may also be expected in
electrical, plumbing and structure due to the relative level of required standards
at time of construction.
A summary of the 1971 Redmond survey reported that, from a structural standpoint,
approximately 17% of the housing inventory was in need of major corrective action,
and 42% needed preventative maintenance to insure maximum longevity of that portion
Of the existing housing resources. The summary further sets forth that approximately
82% of the housing inventory was of sound structural quality, approximately 41% being
of recent construction and/or in excellent repair.
12 -
Table No.
Occupancy Status
and Conditions
Total Occupied
Substandard
All Other
Total Vacant
Substandard
All Other
Total Occupied and
Vacant
VOL 37j PAGE 295
Deschutes County Survey of Housing Conditions 1977.
Number of Year -Round Housing Units
Total
Owner
Rental
17,484
12,484
5,000
2,341
1,079
1,262
15,143
11,405
3,738
1,538
411
393
206
44
162
1,332
367
231
19,022
12,896
5,393
NOTE: There are 733 vacant housing units that are unclassified as either
owner or rental type.
Housin,Q Problems
Elements, conditions and situations in the area which are themselves or which
foster problems in the area's housing situation and future housing situations are
both direct and indirect in nature. What follows is a summary, with no attempt
made at priorization of the housing problems. While the magnitude and severity
of the area's housing problems are of varying degree, the mere fact that they
do exis-c and are recognized is sufficient to warrant consideration.
1. Insufficient Housin Data
As has been pointed out previously the area does not have sufficient,
up-to-date housing, housing condition and household information to
complete a thorough analysis of the current housing situation. In an
area where rapid population increases and shifts are occurring, the
seven-year old U.S. Census is not an adequate data base. Yet, state and
fedaral housing -related funds continue to be allocated on the basis of
that outdated census information.
2. Governmental Red Tape:
The lack of a streamlined systems of permit and financial application
processing at both state and federal levels acts as a deterrent.to resi-
dential building construction. Not only are the processes frustrating,
they are also costly in terms.of time.
3. Rapid Po ulation Growth
The area's population has increased more in the last seven years than in
the previous ten year period. This growth has especially accelerated in
the past two years. Provision of adequate public facilities and services
13
has not kept pace with population gains, VOL TINGE 2V6
4 Housing Codes:
While building codes and subdivision ordinances have generally been
adopted to assure standard quality in developing housing, the area
lacks housing codes to encourage and maintain standards in housing
units constructed prior to or in noncompliance with building code
regulations.
5. Concentration of Low -Income Housing•
There are concentrations of low-income, substandard housing units. Such
concentrations foster continuing neighborhood blight, Low-income
households are neither financially able to upgrade their own housing
nor to afford assessments for public improvements in their neighborhoods.
6. Economic Restraints:
High unemployment, a relatively high cost of living and generally lower
incomes result in households at all income levels having a diminished
housing purchasing power,
CONCLUSION
VOL 3"#'PAGE 297
Invent2rL-2 Housing Needs
1. Redmond must provide for at least 23,100 people in the year 2000
given the rate of growth expected for the County.
2. The average number of people per household has decreased and
continues to decline. Based on the 1980 census and housing,
population and occupancy trends recorded by Portland State University,
Population Research Center, the Redmond Urban Area Comprehensive
Plan shall assume the following with regard to household size expected
in 2000.
a. 2.4 persons per single family dwelling (55%) and 1.85
persons per multiple family dwelling (45%) including apartments,
mobile homes in parks and duplexes. -
b. Given a year 2000 distribution of housing at 55% single family
detached and 45% multiple family, average household size shall
be 2,15.
3. The vacancy rate is expected to average 5% for single family residences
and 701, for multiple family units. 1
Table No,
PROJECTING HOUSING FOR REDMOND TO 2000
Calculation Step
1. 23,100 people @ 2.15 persons per unit
2. Single family vacant units @ 5°0 of (.55)(10,750)
3. Multi -Family vacant units @ 7% of (.45)(10,750)
4. Total Housing units needed in 2000
The 1970 vacancy rate was 100.
Housing Units
10,750
300
350
11,400
The 1980 vacancy rate was 11.50
Housing Policies VOL 3"17PAGE 298
1. Because transportation for low income families is a problem, it is
important that more low income housing be provided inside the Redmond
Urban Area, and that such housing be provided for in close proximity
to commercial service areae
2. Criteria for the placement of mobile homes on residential lots shall be
developed.
3. Mobile home subdivisions shall be allowed in specified residential zones.
4. The city should be notified of all development proposals for lands
within areas of identi�ied concern.
5. To conserve materials and lessen the cost of development, the city shall
consider greater flexibility in road width requirements; however, such
lesser minimum road widths may only be suitable in planned unit developments.
6. Finance programs, public and/or private, should be encouraged to promote
rehabilitation of substandard housing or conversion to alternate housing
types.
7. Subdivision requirements should include satisfying the standards and
requirements for utility and road improvements of the applicable
jurisdiction.
8. Zoning standards should encourage high density development in appropriate
areas to minimize the cost of services and land, to protect natural re-
sources and to conserve energy.
9. Some method of development assessment should be developed for the purpose.
of controlling the increasing costs of public facilities and services, and
to insure that the purchaser is not assuming unforeseen costs for needed
additional improvements within a development.
10. Housing development should be based upon adequate provision of public
facilities and services. Extension of services and residential development
would best be accomplished by phasing development as needed.
11. P.U.D. developments shall be encouraged to provide a greater flexibility
in development of the land, encourage a variety in the development pattern
of the community; encourage mixed uses in a total area which could not
otherwise be efficiently and aesthetically developed as an integrated whole;
encourage developers to use a creative approach in land development; conserve
natural land features; facilitate a desirable aesthetic and efficient use of
open space; create public and private common open spaces and flexibility and
variety in the location of improvements on lots with diversity in the use of
the land.
14
VOL 317PAGE 299
12. Common trenching for, compatible utilities shall be encouraged,
13. Subdivision standards should encourage alternative design layouts to
the typical grid pattern to improve quality and appearance.
14. New development of low income housing should be located within the designated
areas for such uses, or provided as a portion of newly developed subdivisions
or planned unit developments.
15. The regional housing assistance agency should be responsible for coordinating
and implementing housing assistance programs through and in cooperation with
the appropriate state and federal agencies.
16. The city should promote the rehabilitation of existing housing, and the
re -use of vacant land.
17. Mobile homes should be recognized as a housing option and provided for in
developments designed therefor in selected residential areas with respect
for the character of existing residential uses.
18. Clustered mobile home development should be allowed to permit lot size
variation commensurate with conventional housing standards,
19, Mobile home parks should be developed in areas in close proximity to service
commercial, with access to a collector, and should be designed to protect
the character of adjoining residential uses and provide for a maximum level
of quality living for occupants,
20. The city should develop a mobile home ordinance to include the above rec-
ommendations and up-to-date standards, and to allow flexibility as well as
maintenance of respect for existing development and certainty to purchasers;
both those of the mobile homes and other area dwelling occupants.
21. 14ultiple residential uses shall be permitted in designated zones within the
limits of definitive development standards; such standards shall include
consideration of proximity to service commercial, public facilities and
services, higher order streets, and respect for existing residential area
characteristics and respect for maintaining the highest level of environmental
living for the occupants.
22, Multiple residential uses shall be allowed in close and convenient proximity
to Central Oregon District Hospital, Hulti-family dwellings should also be
considered as an appropriate use in some commercial areas, especially near
necessary shopping facilities for purposes of energy conservation, elderly
housing and downtown revitalization.
URBANIZATION VOL WPAGE 30®
,
INTRODUCTION
Accompanying the population expansion of the Redmond Urban Area will be a
greater demand and need for more land for urban type development. Historically,
as urban growth needs expand, there has been a gradual transition to higher density
developments which are lower land area consumers, but even with this transition,
additional lands for such developments will continue to be needed.
Accepting the fact that growth is going to occur, the goal must, therefore,
be for such growth to occur as orderly and efficiently as possible. Such growth
should be directed in a manner that detriments to physical, social, economical and
environmental factors are minimized. The recognition of the need for the estab-
lishment of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is one of the means by which growth can
be directed. Although the establishment of such a boundary is a primary tool for
identifying an area within which urban type growth is most likely to occur and
certainly the area within which such is most desirable, it must be realized that
this tool alone will not ensure absolute "orderly and efficient" development. Such
an accomplishment utilizing the boundary singularly would only be possible if the
boundary was strictly established to include only the city and existing adjoining
developed areas. An action of such restrictive magnitude would effectively elimi-
nate any flexibility or freedom in the market place and would undoubtedly increase
already "high" development costs. The two primary parts of the Urbanization Goal
are a) establishing an Urban Growth Boundary, and b) the Goals and Policies for
Development within the Urban Growth Boundary.
Urban Growth Boundary
An Urban Growth Boundary has been adopted to provide= for the economic and
efficient extension of public facilities and services, to maximize energy savings,
and to assure that buffers occur between urban development and rural land uses and
agricultural practices. In order to maximize energy savings and minimize public
costs, subdivisions should be evaluated for lot size and compatibility with sur-
rounding and adjoining land uses, and carrying capacities of the air, land and water
resources of the area. The UGB marks the extent of area likely to be served by
urban facilities and services until the year 2000. City utilities and services
shall not be considered available outside the boundary.
The UGB can best be described as a limit beyond which the urban growth of the
area should not extend during a specified time period. The objectives of the UGB
can be primarily implemented through zoning and subdivision regulations, and public
facilities programming. The UGB provides a means of curbing urban sprawl, while
at the same time encouraging progress toward orderly and well-planned growth.
The UGB is not an unchangeable boundary, but one which can be altered in accordance
with the procedures followed for establishment. All development within the UGB
should be subject to review and approval by the City. As a policy, land outside
the UGB should not be allowed to develop for urban or suburban type uses, except
in compliance with strict development standards. Therefore, the UGB must be
recognized as a means of concentrating and planning urban expansion for the con-
servation of land, air and water, stopping urban sprawl, and providing for the
efficient use of public -facilities and funds.
The Urban Growth Boundary, as developed and adopted for the City o Red t►Ud�.
is designed to accomodate the projected growth of the area to the year 2000, and
to provide sufficient area to provide some level of flexibility and freedom in`the
market place. .
3
Development. within the Urban Growth Bounda
The planning and development in Redmond to date has created a development
Pattern that provides rather clear divisions between different land uses. This
is seen as a desirable feature and one which helps to promote compliance with
other LCDC Goals & Guidelines.
The Burlington Northern railroad track runs through Redmond in a north -
south direction. Industrial and airport related uses have developed primarily
on the east side of the tracks. Retail and service commercial has developed
Primarily west of the tracks and along the two major highways (US 97 and 126)
which intersect west of the tracks. Residential development has occurred
primarily west of Highway 97 and north and south of Highway 126. Therefore,
schools and public facilities serving residential areas have been developed and
committed on the west side of the community.
To promote the continued geographic separation of differing land uses, to
maximize orderly and efficient growth during the planning period and to prevent
urban sprawl, policies have been developed to evaluate development proposals and
establish development priorities. It is viewed as essential that future de-
velopyant within the UGB be directed and guided in an orderly manner to prevent
leap frog type growth so development occurs from the community center outward
toward the UGB in a progressive manner. This will assure the availability of
public facilities and services. Also'fut:ure development must be directed so
that the efficiency of the transportation system and delivery of public services
are not jeopardized and the economy of the area is promoted While minimizing
unnecessary additional energy consumption.
I. 'Population Data
In order to determine the size of the UGB and the amount of land needed
for various land uses during the planning period, population statistics and
forecasts were developed. The following population data and forecasts of
growth rates was -initially presented as a basis for determining the expected
population growth in Redmond, The data covers the period. 1970 to 2000.
Population in the City of Redmond increased 10 percent from 1960 to 1970
and 63 percent from 1970 to 1977. Within Deschutes County the population
increased 32 percent from 1960 to 1970 and 54 percent from 1970 to 1977. The
rapid population growth in both Redmond and Deschutes County has occurred during
the past seven years.
Validation of the 1977 population in the City of Redmond was achieved by
counting all residences and naltipiying by accepted occupancy factors. On this
basis the population of the City was 6,31.0 in 1977. This population closely
correlates with the Portland StateUniversitypopulation estimate of 6,250 for 1977.
2
VOL
A. Po ulation Trends, Deschutes Count and Cities 1960-1980 1
i PAGE X02
Jurisdiction
1960
1970
1976
1980
Bend
11,963
13,710
16,000
17,121
Redmond
3,340
3,721
4,560
6,460
Sisters
194
161
760
693
Deschutes
23,100
30,442
41,800
61,968
l All figures from Center for Population Research and Census
Portland, State University.
B. Findings Supporting Redmond's Projected Population: 1930-2000
1. Redmond is the second largest city in Deschutes County
historically providing housing for about 10 percent of the.
County.
2. Redmond enjoys an economic and geographic relationship with
Bend. Historically, Bend has been three times larger than
Redmond in terms of population.
3. Redmond is committed to providing for its share of the
projected County population between 1980-2000.
4. Redmond has or expects to have adequate public facilities
and services to accommodate its fair share of County growth.
5. Deschutes County grew by about 32% between 1960 and 1970. The
County grew by about 104% between 1970 and 1980, which means
that the County doubled its population in this 10 year period.
6. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan projected a population
of 128,200 in 2000. This would require a growth rate one-half
of the rate over the past 10 years. The County Plan expected
an annual growth of 4.5%. However, based on the 1980 census
figures, an annual growth rate of less than 4% would still
achieve the projected population.
7. Even though County population will double in the next 20 years,
Redmond must triple its population in order to accommodate its
fair share of County growth. Put another way, the percentage
of the County population living in Redmond should increase
from the historical rate of 10% to about 20%. Redmond is
willing to accept this demand for several reasons including:
a. It is more desirable to have future county residents live in
cities than sprawled over the rural landscape
3
VOL VPAGE 303
b, Nigher concentrations of people can result in
substantial public savings on facilities and services.
c. Bend should not be forced to accommodate all County
growth. The County Comprehensive Plan shows the Bend
Urban Area achieving a population of 84,000 in 2000.
This means that Bend is planning to accommodate two-thirds
of the County's projected population. Sisters, on the
other hand, cannot be expected to significantly
accommodate the County's projected population.
8. Redmond accepts its projected population of 23,100 by 2000,
as represented in the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan.
This projection is recognized not as a straight-line
estimation of Redmond's future based upon the past 20 years.
Rather, this projection recognizes what is expected of
Redmond in meeting the County's overall urbanization needs
of the next 20 years. Redmond will not shirk its regional
urbanization responsibilities by arguing for lower
projection that reflects only an in -fill rate of growth.
Based upon the projected 5 percent average annual growth
rate, the population of Redmond and the Urban Growth
Boundary was set forth as shown in the following table for
the years 1977 through 2000.
VOL 0 1 PAGE 0
Table No. POPULATION FORECAST: REDMOND URBAN GROWTH
BOUNDARY AREA
5% Average Annual Growth Rate
YEAR
CITY OF REDMOND
1977
6,250
1980
7,235
1985
9,234
1990
11,785
1995
15,041
2000
19,197
URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARY
1 This figure will be rounded to 23,100 in all references
II. REDMOND'S ECONOMIC ROLE IN DFSCHLITFS r.OUNTY- AN 0VFRVTFW
7,518
8,703
11,103
14,180
18,094
23,093 1
Redmond enjoys important location, development, ownership, and
political advantages over competing jurisdictions in terms of economic
development. While it is not the tourists, financial, or government
center which Bend is, it is fast becoming the industrial, shipping,
agricultural marketing and service center of Central Oregon.
T-
VOL 31PAGE N5
Locational Advantages.
It may be claimed that a.11 roads lead to Redmond. In Cen.tral
Oregon, Redmond is considered the most centrally located city. Bend,
Madras, and Prineville are the major cities surrounding Redmond.
Redmond is at least 30 minutes closer to Portland and its ports,
airport, and industrial centers, than Bend. It is also that much
closer to the Columbia River and Interstate 84.
Major transportation routes and services have direct connections
in Redmond. Two state highways and a railroad pass through Redmond.
Perhaps more significant, Central Oregon's regional airport is located
in Redmond. These transportation connections make Redmond a more
favorable destination than.other surrounding cities.
Development Advantages.
Unlike Bend, Redmond enjoys an infrastructure of urban services
which can be enlarged and extended without substantial public
investment.. The city is generally flat to rolling, and not bisected
by major canyons, rivers, hills, or other natural obstructions.
Ownership Advanta es.
Large scale economic development requires cooperation of land
owners. In the case of Redmond, several thousand acres of
industrially suitable land is owned by local and federal governments.
The problem of land acquisition, which is prohibitive in many
jurisdictions, is not a problem in Redmond. Further, the industrial
areas of Redmond are in most cases separate from the residential
neighborhoods, thus industrial development will not be encumbered
by conflicting residential uses. This unique ownership pattern
provides Redmond with the ability to control the rate, location,
pattern, and timing of economic development. The entire Central
Oregon region can benefit from this important advantage.
Political Advantaqes.
There exists general political agreement that Redmond can
accommodate the lions share of the regions future economic growth.
Bend and Sisters have politically active and influential interests who
generally oppose development, and industrial development in particular.
This is not the situation in Redmond. Furthermore, the County and its
cities are depending upon Redmond for substantial economic development
in order to relieve development pressures elsewhere. (see attached portion
of the Deschutes County Citizens Preference Survey, Dr. Fred Obermiller
O.S.U. April 1930).
P
VOL37 PAGE '06
For these reasons, and other reasons provided below Redmond
is preparing itself to house 23,100 people (18% of the County total)
and employ 18,000 people (30 of the County total). Together with
Bend, the two cities can divert much of the County's future development
pressures into a major urban area, Between them, Bend and Redmond
should be able to house about 84% of the population and employ about
90% of the workers in Deschutes County.
WHERE SHOULD FUTURE
ECONOMIC GRO'JTH OCCUR?'
Community Indicating
PREFERRED GROWTH
CENTER
Preference
LaPine
Sisters
^
Bend
Redmond
LaPine
No
No
No
Yes ^
Sisters
No
No
No
Yes
Bend
No
No
No
Yes
Redmond
No
No
No
Yes
* A majority of residents in each Deschutes County Community prefer
Redmond as the future county growth center
* Only in Redmond do residents see their own community as a future
growth center.
1 This is a portion of the "Deschutes County Citizen's Preference Survey,"
conducted by Dr. Fred Oberm.iller of Oregon State University, April 1980.
III. URBAN AREA LAND NEEDS
Based upon existing land use, the target population for the year
2000 and the local characteristics of the Redmond area, land in the
urban area has been allocated for industrial, commercial, residential,
and public uses as described in the following pages.
CO'•1MERCIAL AND INIDUSTRIAL LAND
ProjectiM detiand for coi,,mercial and industrial land for Deschutes
Count, to 2000
Assumptions:
1. Employment will be at least 450/0' of total population (see
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, 1979, p. 86). Total
employment will be about 58,000, VOL VPAGE C107
2. It is desirable to provide employment for those in the
labor force within the county,
3. It is desirable to locate industrial and commercial land in
amounts adequate to supply such need within cities.
4. Industrial ,employment will amount to about 24,000 persons
in 2000, Industrial employment will consist of laborers
in manufacturing, construction, and wholesaling sectors.
Wholesaling employment is estimated to be about 25% of
the wholesaling/retail trade sector (using the ratio derived
from the Metro Urban Growth Boundary Findings, p. 8,
acknowledged by LCDC). (Industrial employment estimate
based on Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, 1979, p. 86).
5. Current employment density is about 3 employees per net
industrial acre (see Table, below),
6. Employment density will increase to 7.5 employees per net
industrial acre between 1978 and 2000, This compares
favorably to density projections of about 11 employees per
net industrial acre in the Portland metropolitan area by
2000 (see Metro Urban Growth Boundary Findings, figure
derived from comparable industrial categories found on P. 8).
7. Commercial employment, excluding government employment, will
require about 25,000 employees by 2000.
8. Current commercial employment density is about 10 employees
per net commercial acre (see Table below).
9. Commercial employment density will increase to about
.15 employees per net acre by 2000. Compared to Metro's
projection of 35 employees per net acre by 2000, this figure
is reasonable, In the Portland Metropolitan Region, commercial
employment includes employment in downtown office towers and
high density commercial parks. It is not unreasonable to assume
that Central Oregon commercial employment density will be
about 40% that of Portland's in 2000. This assumption requires
substantial increases in employment density in Central Oregon,
nonetheless. (Metro commercial employment density derived
from Urban Growth Boundary Findings, p, 8),
J
VOL TINGE I'OO
Ex sting Co rr,rerci al_and Indkastri al E,, ployee Densities: Deschutes County 1.9781
Jurisdiction
Deschutes Co
Bend
Redmond
Total
Cor mere i a 1
Net Acres Employees Densit
235
393
195
824 8,8102 1v
Industrial
N.t Acres— Employees Densit
265
1,542
602
2,449 6,440 3
1Land figures frOJI, Deschutes County PIanning C,partment, Bend Planning Department,
and Redmond Planning Departm?nt, 1930. LZnd figures for Sisters not
available. Density figures teased on to, -?I county er+;ploy;irent, which nears that
actual density will be lc,rer wr,,en land fir;ures fcr Sisters is includeJ.
2Coi-Mercial employment as defined in U2 assu,)ptions and der-11.1ed from, Deschutes
County Resource Document, (>. 149.
Projected Need for Cotx.ercial and Industrial Lair in Desc,,Utes Coanty: 1978-2.000
Eco:romic Cateur '
Erri-plo' V - e- — --- - ----- — - ------ -- —-- o--
Com mercial 25,00")
Industrial 2,x,000 -
Tota 1
Total 49,0001
lExcludes employr�ent in government.
All fic,,ures rcunded.
r
Target Den-ity
15/11it acre
7,5/net acre
Land Regi ired
1,700 net acres
3,2-:)0 net acres
,900 net arses
VOL «�*i PACE
Assessment or �Cfiii'121'C1-dl_aild IJ1,E 1-�ri�LCi-r�;' 1h ( 7!1__�� it!teS_
------�.__.
Jurisdiction
Deschutes County
Bend
Red;irond
Total
Co nrerc i a 11
Cross Acres 1,41 -et Acres
235 175
770
8042 600
1,545
Industrial) Total Net /'acres
Gross Acres Net Acres
355 275 450
1,787 2,557
1,650 1,252 1,852
3,314 11,859
flet acres are deter;?ined 0) .75 of cross, which alto% -Is enough land for streets,
parks, easements, and other non-cc!r„ercial and non- irdustrial use.
lEaclud,�,; 2.27 acres for government purpo:.es, quasi public uses and the
main COI canal and railroad rights of way.
All figures roundec:.
%�oillpa r -i nq CUI:'.Ilrerc-1 � l irnd I ndus crl al Lan Needs to '%va l l a!1l e in Deschutes co ,:ritt
Economic Category
Co:r:ne,-cial
Ir;d,1v,trial
ToteI
Land W'eede'd --_
1,700 n.�t acres
ac r e .S-
4
4,000 not acres
(_anci
Available
Surplus
(Doficit)
1,5115
net acres
(155
nett: acres)
3-3.81 r_
net acmes
11�
acres
4.259
net acres
(41
net acres)
VOL 37PAGE
Commertcia� 1 and Industrial Land Allocations in Redmond
Assumptions:
1. It is desirable to locate as much commercial and industrial activity
within cities as possible.
2. Bend has determined its commercial and industrial land allocations based
upon its ability and willingness to provide services to such land.
3. Increases in rural Deschutes County commecial and industrial land are
r
not foreseen between 1980 and 2000.
4. The City of Sisters cannot be counted on to supply a significant nor
substantial amount of commercial or industrial land.
5. Redmond can adequately provide the full range of urban services to all
land it allocates for commercial and industrial use.
FINDINGS:
1, Redmond's allocations for commercial and industrial land provide
Deschutes County as a whole with enough such land required in the
Redmond area to satisfy commercial and industrial land needs to 2000.
2. On the whole, Deschutes County has about 155 commercial acres less than is
needed, and about 1i4 ind�istrial acres more gran is needed to 2000. This
is a slight discrepency considering the fact that many industrial and
commercial activities can locate within any commercial or industrial
area.
3. There is little redevelopment potential of the 1`1-2 Heavy Industrial
lands currently being utilized.
4. Industrial zoning surrounding the airport protects the airport operations.
Further, development is highly controlled by the FAA.
5. Much of the industrial land is zoned light industrial (11-1) in anticipation
of warehousing, airport related and light industrial type businesses which
normally have a lcw employment to land area ratio.
6. Two major eastern Oregon State Highways intersect in the center of Redmond.
Central Oregon is a tourist and recreation attraction all seasons of the
year. Redmond commercial businesses serve tourists and truckers passing
through, as well as the local and regional population.
7, Redmond serves as a shopping area for several smaller rural and farm
communities in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties,
8. The main canal and railroad rights of way, rocky terrain and development
requirements (setbacks and landscaping) will place some limitations on
commercial and industrial property development.
0
PUBLIC LAND ALLOCATIONS
Inve_ ntorX VOL TINGE till
Lands designated for public use in the Redmond Urban area are:
I. The Dry Canyon (217 acres)
2. Juniper Golf Course (137 acres)
3. Future Deschutes County Fairgrounds site (533 acres)
Findings
I. The Dry Ca
The Dry Canyon is a unique topographic feature in Redmond
that has been designated as a future City and area:Vide
Public park. The canyon stretches in a linear north/south
direction covering about two thirds of the length of the
urban growth boundary. Thus, zoning the entire canyon as
open space not only retains the natural integrity of this
geographic feature, but also rakes it readily accessible to a laz-
portion of the designated residential areas. In 1978, the futur'
of the dry canyon was taken to the voters, resulting in a
clear directive by City residents that the canyon be
preserved for open space and park purposes,
2. Juniper Golf Course
Juniper Golf Course is an existing nine hole course and is
the only public or private golf course in the urban area.
There is a need to expand the golf course to eighteen holes
on the adjoining land zoned open space.
3. Deschutes County Fairgrounds
the Deschutes County Fairgrounds are currently located in the
the center of downtown Redmond. There is no off street
parking available and the facilities are generally outdated,
It is desirable to keep the fairgrounds in Redmond because of
the City's central location. But the facility must be moved
out of an already busy part of the City to a location that can
properly accomodate the operation. An area east of downtown
Redmond has been designated open space/park reserve for the
new fairgrounds.
RESIDENTIAL LAND NEEDS
Based on the detailed analysis in the Housing Element of this document
and the population data, the following summarizes the urban housing
needs for the Redmond Urban Area to the year 2000.
/2
Pro'ectin 1lp,
using for Redmond to 2000
Calculation Sten
1. 23,100 people @ 2.15 persons per unit
2. Single family vacant units @ 5°' of (.55)(10,750)
3. Multi -family vacant units @ 7D' of (.45)(10,750)
4. Total Housing units needed in 2000
Housin Units bLlyLeTby Year 2000
1. Singe Family (55%)
a. Conventional
b. Mobile Hor;e in Subdivision
2. Multiple Family (45 )
a. Apartments and Condominiums
b. I'lobile Home in Parksland Duplexes
TOTAL
VOL
cPbGE 6,-2
Housing Units
10,750
300
350
11,400
Number (rounded
5000 (44;x)
1200 (11`a')
3400 (30 /�)
1700 (16°!)
11,400
l i'lobile home parks are a discretionary use in Redmond subject to
conditional use approval. If the designated number of units needed
is not met by mobile home parks, the need will be met by duplex units.
/3
VOL 37 PACE 3
BUILDABLE LANDS INVENTORY
Buildable lands for all zones was derived from the 197SP land use
inventory for the planning area. A tax lot by tax lot analysis was
completed, identifying vacant and developed lands. Table No.
indicates specific developed and buildable acreages for each zone.
Residential Buildable Lands
Residential lands identified as buildable include:
1. All lots and parcels with no recorded structural use.
2. All parcels one to five acres in size with a structure, subtracting
20,000 square feet from each parcel for the existing structure.
3. All parcels ranging from five to twenty acres in size with a
structure subtracting one acre from each parcel for the existing
structure, (108 parcels).
Residential lands omitted as unbuildable primarily include:
1. The P,ed fond Cemetary (15 acres)
2. The Bonneville Pourer Transmission line right -of -tray (212' R.O.W.) (40 acres
3. The main Central Oregon Irrigation District canal lateral in west
Redmond, (50' R.O.W.)(32 acres)
4. Land on Forked Horn Butte that exceeds 12% in slope (approx. 65 acres).
5. Future elementary school site (10 acres, Map 15-13--:�0),
6. Existing and future and City reservoir sites (10 acres)
7. Existing public uses, railroad rights of way and roads.
The follol,,'ing Table identifies residential buildable landsand each zones
capacity for developr,ert.
iy
VOL
37PAGE.
O V
CJl
--
n OD
�
f!p
O U
f.'.
C)
X
5
OLn
�' t
L1 ::5
fD
--,
I Com)
f .J
it
(_7
ko Sal
c'ffD
CD CD
ni
p..
J cC7
O
CTT
D
10
(n
N t t7
) U
rD n -
frf
fD :3
n-5
O
-
L
a7
v
(-
u.
v>
-t
rt-
i�
n
CD
GJ
`r
(D
(D
n
c.
CA,
CD
CQ
p-
N
W
—1
O
N
p
L
O
(D
�
-s
CJ,
rt
(D
o
iT
N
N
,
CD
SZ
O
(D
O
O
n
5=
-h
C_:
pj
CD
O
N
=3
C
_..
00
(D CJ!
n
CD
-s
c,
(n
C:(�
�
o
�
o
f,
o
D
X
cr
.
to
n
(n
f
J.
ci.
:
-
(J)
n
(D
CL
n
a-
W
Ul
W
C)
N
W t (n n
CD
O
CD
ccf-
`.
(y
lD
•�
V
Cf)
Ul
IC)-
O
I
Cl
G
N
N
,
:3
1✓
W
O
-A
CJI
N
.A
f
lD
(D
C)
CO
CD
f-
A-
UI
IJ
to
co
�
, '
o
cJ
I(D
N
f1
N
Ol
CP
a
Ut (D <
CD
J.
C fD
CD
LL
J
) )
J
C()
1
I
o
't"
N
!. r., o
N
co C) .
C-1
N
F
U
Uf
r�
cr
/
QD
0
VOL 37 PACE Z Wy 5
SUMMARY
1 MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEEDS
On the surface it appears that there is not enough land available
to meet the designated need for multiple family dwelling units.
However, not only do the zones R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, C-2, C-3 and
C-4 allow multiple -family dwellings as a conditional use, the
C-3 zone also allows multi -family units for the aged as an outright
use. Furthermore,. the C-1 zone provides for multi -family dwellings
as an outright use on about seventy-five vacant acres in the NE
corner of the Urban Growth Boundary. In combination, these provisions
will insure the housing needs for multiple family dwelling units will
be met.
Potential
Housing Tyke
Units
Needed_
Units Available
Single Family Conventional
5000(44%)
9922
Mobile Home In Subdivisions
1200
(11.5)
6041
Duplex and Mobile Home Parks
2100
(16°x)
9374
Apartments and Condominiums
3400
(30)
1620 1
1 MULTIPLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEEDS
On the surface it appears that there is not enough land available
to meet the designated need for multiple family dwelling units.
However, not only do the zones R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1, C-2, C-3 and
C-4 allow multiple -family dwellings as a conditional use, the
C-3 zone also allows multi -family units for the aged as an outright
use. Furthermore,. the C-1 zone provides for multi -family dwellings
as an outright use on about seventy-five vacant acres in the NE
corner of the Urban Growth Boundary. In combination, these provisions
will insure the housing needs for multiple family dwelling units will
be met.
SUMMARY OF LAND STATISTICS FOR ALL ZONES. VOL 3 7 P A G E X16
Table No.
BIILDABLE LANDS
Land Designation for all Zones
Zone Total Acreage Buildable Lands (gross)
Residential
R-1 429 acres 133
R-2 620 302
R-3 726 350
R-4 1733 1463
R-5 422 115
Subtotal 3,390 2363
Commercial
C-1
524
187
C-2
287
84
C-3
78
36
C-4
68
28
C-5
74
74
Subtotal
1,031 1
409
Industrial
H-1
985
423
M-2
684
226
Subtotal
1,669
649
A -C (Airport)
1,435
N/A
OS -PR (Public)
887
N/A
GRAND TOTAL:
8,952 acres
1 Includes 227 acres for government purposes, quasi public uses and the
main COI canal and BN railroad rights of way.
VOL 3 PAGE '317
JUSTIFICATION FOR TIE LOCATION OF THE REDMOND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
CONSISTENT WITH GOAL 14. 1
Segment A
This portion of the boundary is committed to existing residential and commercial
parcelization at the east end and the City sewage treatment plant on the west
end. The boundary also follows a section line and includes the sanitary sewer
boundary.
Segment B
The boundary coincides with the sewer service boundary and the Burlington Northern
railroad right of way.
Segment C & D
The boundary coincides with the sewer service boundary and has access from two
designated collector streets.
Segment E
This segment coincides with existing parcelization and public ownership.
Segment F
The boundary coincides with existing parcelization, existing industrial use,
the future County Fairgrounds site and follows a section line.
Segment G
the boundary coincides with the future County Fairgrounds site, public ownership
and the airport control zone.
Segment H
This portion of the boundary is controlled by the airport operations and the
Federal Aviation Administration. It also coincides with the C.O.I. canal in
the southern portion.
Segment I
The boundary in this location protects the airport operations from possible
conflicting uses. The property is zoned for airport type restricted uses of
low intensity and high land coverage. Use of the land is restricted.
Segment J & K
This segment of the boundary includes committed industrial use and further
protects the airport approach zone. The land is needed for low intensity, high
land coverage uses related to the airport and industrial zoning. This land is
also included in a detailed industrial park development plan. Further, the
boundary coincides with a section line.
Segment L
This portion coincides with the BPA transmission line right of way.
Segment M
This portion includes some existing parcelization and a designated future
elementary school site.
1 See map 11o. 3
/9
ririrrr
VOL
Sejment N PAGEr
lhis portion of the boundary coincides with the C.O.I. canal and includes
existing parcelization. It is also parallel to a major rural road.
Segment 0
this segment primarily includes land with existing parcelization, bounded on the
west by the natural canal boundary.
Segment P
This segment follows a section line and a major rural road. This location also
avoids the nearby BPA transmission line. This portion also includes some
parcelization and urban residential development.
moment
This portion contains extensive parcelization and coincides with a designated
collector route. It also coincides with the sewer service boundary.
Segment R
This portion contains extensive parcelization and coincides with the sewer
service boundary. It also includes the sewer treatment plant in the north
corner.
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY ESTABLISHED
Based on the above data, the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary is hereby
established as indicated on the UGB map.
URBANIZATION GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Urban Growth Bound
1. To establish or change the Urban Growth Boundary, the following factors
must be considered.
a. Demonstrated need to accomodate urban population growth requirements;
b. Need for housing, employment opportunities and livability;
c. Orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services;
d. Maximum efficiency of land uses;
e. Retention of agricultural land;
f, Compatibility of urban uses with nearby agricultural activities;
g. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and
h. Establishment and change of the UGB shall be a cooperative process
between the City and County.
17
2 To provide for an orderlyVOL PAGE �J d .
to urban use; and efficient transition from urbanizabhe
3. To encourage city and county cooperation in the provision of urban areas;
4. To provide sufficient land within the UGB to accommodate projected growth
and at the same time allow some flexibility in the market place.
5. To maintain existing separation of differing land uses;
6. To accommodate past development decisions and commitments where
consistent with objectives and LCDC Goals & Guidelines;
7. To provide some degree of stability and predictability by fixing a
UGB which should not be changed without careful consideration of direct
and indireci: effects thereof.
8. To discourage urban sprawl;
9. To encourage orderly, phased growth from the center of the commun
without leap frog type growth; and it
y
10. To investigate funding alternatives to property tax,,>s for
Public facilities and services. funding
Urban Development
1. Plans should designate sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accom-
modate the needs for further urban expansion, taking into account: a) the
growth policies of the area, b) population needs, c) the carrying capacities
of the planning area, and d) open space and recreational needs.
2. The size of the parcels of urbanizable land that are converted to urban
uses should be of such dimensions as to maximize the utility of the land
resources and enable the logical and efficient extension of urban services.
3. Plans providing for the transition to urban land uses should take into
consideration as a major determinant the carrying capacities of the air, land
and water resources of the planning area. The conservation of land by
higher development densities should not exceed the carrying capacities of
the above resources.
4. The
factors
type,
which
location and phasing of public facilities and
may be utilized
services are
to direct urban expansion.
5. The
facilities
type,
and
design, phasing and location of major public
i?provements thereto
support
urban
are factors which may betutilizedatoon
expansion into urbanizable
areas.
areas and restrict
it from other
6. Financial incentives may be provided to assist in maintaining desirable
land use and character.
Km
7.
VOL 3 z PAGE.0
All local land use controls and related regulations should be mutually
supporting, adopted and enforced to integrate the type, timing and location
of public facilities and services in a manner to accommodate increased
public demands as urbanizable lands become urbanized. Such controls and
regulations may include zoning, subdivision and partitioning regulations,
building and housing codes, sign regulations, nuisance abatement codes, etc.
8. Development should retain and enhance the character and quality of the
urban area as growth occurs, and recognize and respect the unusual
natural beauty and character of the area.
9. Plans should provide a sound basis for urbanization by establishing
proper relationships between residential, commercial, industrial and
open land uses.
10. Plans should provide for a safe and coordinated transportation system,
and bring about a general increase in population density throughout
the urban area.in order to facilitate future public utility and trans-
portation systems.
11.' Development should retain and enhance desirable existing areas, and
revitalize, rehabilitate or redevelop less desirable existing areas.
Plans should encourage and promote innovations in development techniques
in order to obtain maximum livability and excellence in planning and
design for development.
FINDINGS
A. Data and Invento
I. The data and inventory developed provide the basis for UG6 and urban
development.
2. An annual growth rate of at least 5 percent should beused for planning
purposes.
3. Deschutes County is the fastest growing county in Oregon. The Redmond
growth rate has exceeded the county rate for the past seven years.
4. This growth phenomena is not clearly understood, but many people are
attracted to this area by the pleasant environment and opportunities
for outdoor recreation.
5. The Portland State University forecast is much too conservative. This
forecast shows a city population of 8,858 and an urban area population
of 11,540 by 2000. The forecasted growth rate was less than 3 percent
per year.
6. On the other hand, a continuation of the present growth rate, in excess
of 6 percent, shows a city population slightly in excess of 21,370 and
a planning area population of 28,635 by the year 2000 A.D.
7. Absolute population projections are riot attainable; close monitoring
and continual analysis of growth and potential therefor are deemed
necessary.
J10. In terms of geographical location, safety of traffic movement functions;
rr���ry ', distance to service areas and schools, the continued implementation•
VOL l+:��� of the major land use separations in the previous comprehensive plan
will result in better compliance with energy efficiency and economic
goals and policies.
I. Major shopping areas in the Central Business District (CBD) and along
Highway 97 are conveniently located for east -west accessibility. There
are adequate transportation facilities from the eastern portion to
accommodate expanded residential traffic to and from the CBD.
12. Air quality, noise and mixed traffic conditions resulting from indus-
trial areas in the southeastern portion of the planning area would not
be compatible with residential development in that area.
13. Future industrial development potential could be restricted by additional
residential development in the southeastern portion of the planning area.
14. The previous comprehensive plan for the area has maintained and imple-
mented one major residential area,on the west side of the planning area.
Promotion of urban residential development in the eastern portion would
create another major planning area in which to provide services, although
such would also be required for non-residential development.
15. Sufficient land is provided within the UGB to accommodate projected
growth and at the same .time allow some flexibility in the market place.
16. Existing separation of differing land uses is desirable and should be
maintained.
17. Past development decisions and commitments must be acconu7odated where
consistent with objectives and LCDC Goals & Guidelines.
18. Some degree of stability and predictability must be provided by fixing
UGB which should not be changed without careful consideration of direct
and indirect effects thereof.
19. Urban sprawl is undesirable.
20. Orderly, phased growth from the center of the corm unity without leap
frog type growth is to be encouraged.
21. Lands outside the UGB are not available for urban development.
22. Cooperation between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County is essential
if the Plan is to be effectively implemented.
23. The final decision on development requests must rest on the City or
County as follows:
a. Within the City limits - the City of Redmond.
b. Outside the City limits, but within UGB - the County after
consultation with the City, and jointly where feasible.
c. Outside UGB, but within Area of Influence - the County after
consultation with the City.
24. Urban development priority factors are necessary.
22-
25.
There is a recognized desire by local Redmond residentsOto resi7deGE
on small acreages that currently exist near the City. Although
the overall development attempt is to provide orderly efficient growth
and increase densities, it is expected that some of these small
residential acreages will be retained in the planning period,
.23
VOL earl PAGE 3009-03
B. Location of Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Development
1. The current and previously adopted comprehensive plans for the Redmond
Urban Area have maintained that the location of already established
airport, railroad, industrial, commercial service and residential areas
are unique in comparison with many communities in that industry and
major air and rail facilities are located in the eastern portion of
the planning areas and are somewhat separated from commercial service
and residential areas to the west. It is held that this unique land
use pattern in the Redmond Urban Area has a distinct planning
advantage from the standpoint of traffic safety, convenience, public
services, land use relationships, economics and various environmental
characteristics. Opening up areas to the east for new residential
development, however, should be considered.
2. The northeast corner of the urban growth boundary includes 212 acres
of land east of the railroad tracks planned for residential use. The
land was included as urbanizable land because it is contained within the
EPA sewer service boundary. The area is already divided into six parcels,
five of which are forty acres or less in size and only a small percentage
of the land is agriculturally utilized for pasture. The land is necessary
for estimated residential land needs and the area is in close proximity
to commercial services, the hospital and job locations. Further, water
pressure in that area is better than most other areas in Redmond. The
cost of providing public utilities to the area will initially be expensive
due to the railroad that must be crossed.
3. Some of the agricultural lands in t he western portion of the planning area
have already been developed or are committed to urbanization in compliance
with current comprehensive plan goals and objectives.
4. Land use plans and the development of certain agricultural and nonagricultu.
lands in the western portion of the planning areas have resulted in traffic
patterns which need to be extended and improved in a logical manner for
proper circulation.
5. The Redmond Nigh School was located in the western portion of the planning
area to implement the previous comprehensive plan and to better serve the
existing and anticipated urban residential areas located in said area.
6. Sewer and water services have previously been planned for and are being
provided to much of the area on the west side of the planning area. Except
for the committed airport and related industrial area thereof, most of the
eastern portion of the planning area is not within the current EPA approve("
sewer boundary, however, extension of such is Treasible even though expectf-'
to be more costly.
VOL JPdGE.
7. Land values, public and private commitments and transportation
systems that have been based on the previous comprehensive plan
must be considered.
8. Development of the east side would result in some increase of congested
east -west and north -south traffic conditions due to railroad crossings,
but would result in shorter travel distances to commercial service
areas and areas of employment,
POLICIES
- VOL J i PAGE
A. Urban Growth Boundary ,
The following policy statements are based on an analysis of the inventory
data and findings set forth herein and are used to justify an urban growth
boundary for the Redmond area consistent with the State Planning Goal -Urbanization.
1. That the urban growth boundary be used as "the official guideline by
which to plan all public services, future annexations and land uses
to the year 2000.
2. The planning area,and "area of influence," shall be preserved for future
urban expansion needs beyond the planning period or during the planning
period depending on unforeseen conditions resulting primarily from
future development of the regional airport and environs and other growth
factors. The Urban Growth Boundary shall not be changed unless it is
first determined that there is an identifiable need for expansion con-
sistent with applicable LCDC Goals, and that there are adequate public
facilities and services available without increased costs to residents
within the existing Urban Growth Boundary.
3. The location of the UGB must necessarily include some farmlands, most
of which are marginal, for future housing needs and other urban uses.
4. The !lrban Gro-,,th Boundary should proviJe an efficient transition frog;
urbanizable to Urban u:;e which:
a. Encourages city and county cooperation in the provision of
urban area services in order to bring about a more orderly
development pattern;
b. Provides sufficient land within the UGB to accommodate projected
growth and at the same time allow some flexibility in the market
place;
C. Maintains existing separation of differing land uses;
d. Accommodates past development decisions and commitments where
same are consistent with o'Djectives and LCDC Goals & Guidelines;
e. Provides some degree of stability and predictability by fixing
UGB which should not be changed without careful consideration of
direct and indirect effects thereof;
f. Discourages urban sprawl; and
g. Encourages orderly, phased growth from the center of the community
without leap frog type growth.
24
" f ,-�
6. The UGB, its justification and the following urbanization pA��qs`
• shall be used as the official basis for planning to the year 2000. The
UGB is hereby declared to include both urban and urbanizable land as follows:
Urban Land: The UGB includes lands inside and outside the corporate
limits of the City of Redmond, has concentrations of people who reside
and work in the planning area, and is supported by public facilities
and services deemed necessary for urban uses.
Urbanizable Land: The UGB includes urbanizable (buildable) lands
which are determined necessary and suitable for future urban uses,
can be served by urban services and facilities and are needed for the
expansion of the urban area of the City of Redmond.
B _ Urban Development
The following policies and recommendations relate to the urban development
goals, objectives, and findings:
I. Urban develop,nent shall be encouraged -in areas where public services
can be provided most efficiently and in a manner which will minimize costs
related to necessary urban services such as schools, parks, streets, police,
garbage disposal, fire protection, libraries and other facilities and services.
2. Standards for development within the UGB shall be uniform between the
city and county. Urban area planning and design reviews by the
Planning Commission should be the method utilized to implement these
standards and ensure compliance therewith. Future development and standards
therefore shall recognize and respect the character of existing developed areas.
3. Residential developments shall be located so they are as convenient to
places of employment and shopping facilities as is reasonable and feasible,
and they should be developed in ways which are consistent with the character
of the topography and soils on the site. Residential areas should offer
a wide variety of housing types and densities in locations best suited to each.
4. Urban sprawl within the UGB which results in excessive increased costs
of urban services, inadequate transportation provisions, etc. is undesirable
and shall be discouraged. The comprehensive plan and ordinances include
implementing tinting for growth provisions relating to the availability of
urban services and the financing thereof, and to other related plan policies
and statewide planning goals.
5. Undeveloped areas in close proximity to urban services should be developed
first as far as possible to facilitate the orderly and economic provision
of public facilities, energy consumption, housing and transportation.
6. The City should investigate and implement as soon as possible alternative
methods of funding public facilities and.services other than property, inclu-
ding consideration of system development charges.
7. To ensure orderly growth from the community center to the urban area
boundary and prevent urban sprawl, the following urban development factors
must be found to exist as indicated belo,v prior to approval of any devel-
opnient:
2,7
VOL d fr PAGE c.`.
A. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: such is required by 0..R.S..
Chapter 197 for any type of development.
B. Location within the Urban Growth Boundary: State Planning Goal +
No. 14 sets forth that the UGB is to be considered a division be-
tween urban and rural lands, thus it is clear that location within
must be considered a mandatory criteria for urban development.
C. Adjacent to City or Existing Urban Development: Urban sprawl is
recognized as a major contributor to higher public service and
facility costs and resultant higher taxes, and to poor and ineffi-
cient land use patterns. Therefore, development which occurs as
an extension of existing development is a method of minimizing such
cost factors.
D. Area served by Public Sewer, Water, Utilities & Streets: Sewage
disposal and domestic water supply, as well as other public services
and facilities, have emerged as critical factors in urban devel-
opment, particularly in relation to capacities, the balancing of
supply and demand, and the balancing of costs vs. revenues. Urban
development criteria must, therefore, take into account the problems
and costs associated with development which is not an immediate
extension of these facilities, or extends such facilities beyond
carrying capacities.
E. Proposed Density Factor: The recognition that land is a limited
resource, the need to minimize public costs, and the findings set
forth in the UGB analysis all point to the fact that the density
of development is an important factor. It is concluded that the
priority factor relative to density should be for developments with
a minimum density factor of 3.5 units per net acre or greater.
F. Improvements to City Specifications: Whereas the UGB and these
priority factors in total are intended to provide a means for or-
derly and efficient development which the city may ultimately en-
compass and serve, both physically and economically, it is vitally
important that improvements within all developments (including
minor land partitionings and non-residential uses) be at a level
commensurate with applicable city specifications, both inside and
outside the city limits.
G. Access to Existing or Projected Arterial or Collector: It is im-
perative that developments have access to an existing improved
arterial or collector street, or in the absence thereof that such
access be to a projected facility and that such facility be pro-
vided at the time of development.
H. Location Relative to Fire Protection Facilities: The location of
development relative to base fire protection facilities is directly
related to the effective response time by said service, and is
therefore a determinant factor 'in relation to the effectiveness of
such protection and public safety and welfare, the public costs of
such service, and the related private costs of the applicable pro-
tection rating. It is therefore imperative that the location of
various types of development within established distances of base fire
protection facilities be a priority factor.
IQ Y,
VOL 3~i PAGE, '%'0 0O
I. Location in Relation to Schools or Existing School Bus Routes:
The ultimate goal is for all residences to be within walking
• distances of school facilities, however, such is not always
achievable. In many cases busing is of course necessary; and
may even be less costly than additional schonl facilities; such
does not however mean that consideration of development in rela-
tionship to existing facilities or established bus routes is not
a dominate factor of economic and social considerations.
J. Development Design: Many findings set forth emphasize the need
to be concerned about the designs of development, particularly
in relation to recreational and open space needs, public services
and facilities vs. the costs thereof, liveability, needs of the
young, the elderly and the handicapped, and the need for a variety
of housing types and environments. The Planned Unit Development
concept and design should be encouraged.
K. Resource Carrying Capacities: The effects of exceeding resource
carrying capacities are easily recognized and are considered
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
Development which will exceed related resource (and facilities)
carrying capacities shall, therefore, not be permitted.
8. As a minimum the following criteria must be met before approval of
development:
A. City water and services must be available to the boundaries of
the.property being proposed for development.
B. City water and sewer services will be provided to the property
only after the area has been annexed to the City, or a "consent
to annex" has been set forth.
C. The property must be contiguous to the City to permit annexation.
D. The developer must provide roads, sidewalks, curbs, street lighting,
water and sewer facilities within the development to City standards
and specifications at the developer's expense.
E. Roads, water mains and sewage lines shall be sized to meet the
requirements of current and future developments which will be
served by the facilities based upon the City's sewer and water
facilities plans or other regulations.
9. Areas designated to accommodate multi -family residential development
and the approval of development proposals therefor shall be based on the
following i7rininrum considerations:
A. Expansion of recent housing trends for this type of housing.
B. Redeveloprrerrt of substandard housing areas.
C. Existing or proposed amenities which compliment multi -family housing.
VOL �'i PAGE t�r.FrtJ
D. Multi -family developments shall be reviewed in accordance with the
following minimum considerations: `
(a) Compatibility with adjoining land uses. `
(b) Respect for the character of existing residential areas.
(c) Energy efficiency goals and policies.
(d) Livability of the proposed development design.
(e) Provision of an identified housing need.
10. Mobile homes shall be recognized as a viable housing option, but approval
thereof shall be in accordance with established standards governing:
A. A minimum level of acceptable standards relative to public safety.
B. Installation requirements relative to public safety, aesthetics and
compatibility with area residential uses.
C. Respect for the character of existing residential areas and provisions
for buffers thereto.
D. Standards relative to long-term maintenance, modification and
appearance.
11. Mobile homes shall be considered as a type of residential development
and be subject to the same density regulations as other residential areas.
Mobile homes s,iould not be permitted on individual lots in specific subdivisions
61ready developed with conventional dousing unless mobile homes vere part of
the original develop::.ent concept and approved as s-ich.
12. Mobile homes located on individual lots other than mobile home parks
should.be subject to specialsiting standards.
13. Policies for the design of new residential development: The quality of
new residential development is a matter of public concern from the standpoint
of economical, social and environmental factors, and therefore shall be based
upon the following criteria; but not limited thereto.
A. Consideration of the impact and compatibility of the residential
development with bordering or neighboring land uses.
B. Assurance that the density and vital services required in the devel-
opment are commensurate with the area's potential for future annex-
ation, and that annexation shall be a requirement for final approval.
C. Encouragement that commercial services are conveniently located in
close proximity or within reasonable distances.
D. Evaluation of the development's plans for.providing a variety of
housing types, densities and marketability that meet the housing
.needs of the area.
E. Encouragement of new developments to be creatively designed as planned
unit developments to make the best use of topography, natural resources,
public facilities and services, and to maximize the ratio of public
benefits vs. costs.
J0
.
F.
VOL 37PAGE [11J®
Minimization of possible conflicts between incompatible land uses
shall include consideration of buffer areas or uses to separate
conflicting uses. Such buffers do not necessarily demand absolute
open space or public reserves, but can include such considerations
as transitional uses or graduated densities in the immediately ad-
joining areas of incompatible uses.
G. Encouragement of significant landscaping on flat, treeless parcels.
H. Encouragement of interesting alternatives to the typical grid
pattern layout.
I. If possible, orient buildings to take advantage of the natural
energy saving elements such as the sun, landscape, and land forms.
J. Site development should utilize plant materials and land forms
to enhance energy conservation.
K. In high density residential developments, provide defensible space
mechanisms for detering crime and heightening resident maintenance
responsibility. Note: Defensible space mechanism is a term used
to describe a series of physical design characteristics that max-
imize resident control of behavior, particularly crime.
L. In high density developments provide defined transition zones of
public and private area; for example by using entrance areas,
buffering and screening.
M. Provide usable outdoor space by providing distinct and definite
shape, not just the residue left after buildings are placed on the
land.
14. All residential development should protect the physical characteristics
of the site relating to soils, slope, geology, erosion, drainage and natural
features and vegetation.
15. In all residential areas, consideration should be given to "designs for
living" rather than directing major efforts to developments that are simple
and economical to build.
16. Residential development standards within the UG8 should be the same for
areas of similar densities or topographic conditions, both inside and outside
of the city.
17. New developments in existing residential areas should respect the character
and quality of the areas in which they locate.
18. New developments in areas without an established character or quality
should be periiitted maximum flexibility in design and housing type consistent
with densities and goals and objectives of this Plan.
19. Areas of older or poorer quality housing within the community shall be
located and identified and efforts made through redevelopment programs or
incentives to rehabilitate these sections, or provide development alternatives.
20. Residential development on the east side of the railroad track small not
restrict the nor;ial operation of an industrial use in the area.
.3/
VOL PAGE
20A Neighborhood commercial shopping areas, parks, schools and other public,'
uses and services may be located within residential areas and shall have P
development standards which recognize the residential area and the character
thereof. Development standards shall be established for such uses which will
provide off-street parking and maneuvering, landscaping, access control, sign
regulations, design review, and limitations relative to scale and services
provided.
21. Home occupations may be considered a legitimate use within
residential.areas, and may be permitted, provided that the use displays no
outward manifestations of a business.
22. Certain private recreational uses such as golf courses may be successfully
integrated into residential areas provided the location, design and operation
are compatible with surrounding residential developments.
23. Except for arterial and collector streets, street patterns in residential
areas should be designed to provide convenient access to each living unit,
but not encourage through traffic. Arterial and collector streets shall
be secured and developed under strict time frames so that a reasonable trans-
portation pattern will result and be maintained.
24. All new development shall be evaluated in terms of adequacy of provisions
for ingress and egress for emergency and maintenance services.
25. Hillside areas should be given special consideration in site design by
both the developer and local regulations. Building sites, streets and other
improvements should be designed and permitted in a manner which will minimize
excessive cuts and fills and other erosion -producing changes such as concen-
tration of rapid storm water runoff in adequate facilities.
26. Certain private and public nonresidential uses as may be deemed necessary
for the convenience and safety of the people may be permitted within residential
areas.
27. All nonresidential uses should recognize and respect the character and
quality of the residential area in which they are located and be so designed.
28. Of necessity, nonresidential uses will have to abut residential areas in
different parts of the community a-nd in these instances, any nonresidential
use should be subject to special development standards in terms of setbacks,
landscaping, sign regulations and building height.
29. In new residential developments, parking for recreational vehicles should
be provided in common storage facilities or in the rear yard area of each
building site with clear, access to a street or alley, and screened from ad-
joining properties and view from public streets.
30. Schools and parks should be distributed throughout the residential areas
of the community and every dwelling unit in the area should be within reasonable
distance of a school or a park.
31. Because schools and parks can encourage or direct residential development,
their location should be subject to the approval of the city.
32
+ 32. Area dedicated or provided as public, sem i publ i c VOL
pri vae foBpen space
as a part of a residential development should be counted as part of the total
area when computing residential densities for any given development.
33. Fire stations are necessary in close proximity to residential areas,
however, their location and design should be compatible with their surroundings.
34. Community buildings including community recreation buildings or health
and social service buildings can be permitted in residential areas where
those services are necessary or desirable and such facilities should be
compatible with surrounding developments and their appearance should enhance
the area.
35. Streets should recognize natural terrain features as much as possible
to avoid unnecessary cuts and fills.
36. Streets should be designed to carry anticipated traffic volumes and to
provide space for sidewalks or bikeways as deemed necessary.
37. Bikeways shall be considered as both a transportation and recreation
element in the plan, and adequate facilities should be obtained for this
purpose in all new development. Efforts should be made to extend bikeways
and pedestrian ways through existing residential areas.
38. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of all residential streets
unless the developer plans, dedicates and improves an alternate system of
walkways or trail to provide adequate pedestrian traffic within the resi-
dential area.
39. Bicycle traffic should be permitted on sidewalks in all residential areas
of the community in order to separate bicycle traffic from automobile traffic
but within specified limits to minimize hazards and conflicts with pedestrian
traffic.
40. Provisions should be considered which will permit mass transit vehicles
on arterial and collector streets within residential areas in the future.
41. All on and off-site improvements in residential areas should add to the
character and quality of the area as a place for people to live.
42. Efforts should be made over a sustained period of time to place utility
lines underground in existing residential areas when feasible.
43. All public utility facilities such as power, telephone and cable TV
should be located underground in new developments whenever feasible.
44. Above ground utility installations such as power transformer yards,
natural gas pumping stations, sewer and water facilities should be designed
to recognize the character of the area in which they are located.
45. Adequate street lighting should be provided in all new subdivisions
developed at urban densities.
33
46. New techniques of providing adequate lighti g suc aPsCor a entad yard ' Y
lights should be considered as alternate or supplemental facilities to the �
normal street lights at intersections. A
47. Street signs of a type approved by the city shall be provided for in
each new residential development.
48. Street trees should be those which are suitable to the climate of the
area, add color and beauty to the community and have a root system which
does not interfere with underground utilities, curbs and sidewalks.
49. Natural tree cover should be retained along streets in new developments
insofar as possible to retain the natural character of the area.
Conversion Policies
I. Jrbanizable lands small be retained in parcels of sufficient size to
insure the efficient expansion of City services and urban development.
2. Parcelization of land to less than ten acres in size is discouraged. If
such developrlent does occur, there shall be submitted a redevelopment plan
that addresses:
a. The location of future roads
b. The location of future structures, wells and septic drainfields.
Such redevelopment plans shall be consistent with the orderly future
development of the property at urban densities.
3. Land partitions shall be required not to remonstrate against the future
formation of a local improvement district for urban services such as
sewer, water and streets.
3�(
VOL
ADDI;NDU'1 TO THE NATURAL. RESOURCES ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Policy
1. As a means of maintaining the highest water quality possible,
no development shall be permitted without public or community
eater service, unless plans are approved for individual service
with applicable state agency approval. The applicable state and
federal water quality standards shall be used to implement this
policy and reference may also be, made to the State Water Quality
Management Plan.
2. In all water related issues, the City will comply with applicable
State and Federal stater quality standards.