On the agenda: Madras meeting — data center (Jan 16)

1. Planning Commission Meeting Materials
Documents:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 01-16-2025.PDF
PLANNING COMMISSION PACKET 01-16-2025 01-15-25_PC_PACKET.PDF

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers, 125 SW “E” Street, Madras, OR 97741
Telephone (541) 475-2344 www.ci.madras.or.us
This meeting is open to the public. Audio/Video of the meeting will be available on our website within 24 hours
following the meeting. This agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the
meeting. However, the agenda does not limit the ability of the Commission to consider additional subjects. Meetings
may be canceled without notice. Zoom participants should use the “raise your hand” feature during the public
comment portions of the meeting to alert the moderator that they would like to speak.

Zoom Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89158939359?pwd=9SriNOpzLXhLOlsJZvfqG2a61Sf6C7.1
Dial: 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 891 5893 9359
Passcode: 465328
MADRAS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
I.

Call Meeting to Order

II.

Roll Call

III.

Public Hearing(s)
1.

City of Madras request for Development Code text amendments to amend the
effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Madras.
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

2.

City of Madras Code amendments to implement the City Public Improvement Design
and Construction Standards in the Municipal Code.
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

IV. Regular Agenda

V.

1.

Approve September 4, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

2.

Approve October 9, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3.

Approve October 23, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

4.

Annual Election of Commission Chair and Vice Chair

Additional Discussion

VI. Adjourn Meeting

Page 1 of 1

Planning Commission Meeting

January 15, 2025

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 15, 2025 at 6:30 PM
City Council Chambers, 125 SW “E” Street, Madras, OR 97741
Telephone (541) 475-2344 www.ci.madras.or.us
This meeting is open to the public. Audio/Video of the meeting will be available on our website within 24 hours
following the meeting. This agenda includes a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the
meeting. However, the agenda does not limit the ability of the Commission to consider additional subjects. Meetings
may be canceled without notice. Zoom participants should use the “raise your hand” feature during the public
comment portions of the meeting to alert the moderator that they would like to speak.

Zoom Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89158939359?pwd=9SriNOpzLXhLOlsJZvfqG2a61Sf6C7.1
Dial: 253-215-8782
Meeting ID: 891 5893 9359
Passcode: 465328
MADRAS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
I.

Call Meeting to Order

II.

Roll Call

III.

Public Hearing(s)
1.

City of Madras request for Development Code text amendments to amend the
effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Madras.
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

2.

City of Madras Code amendments to implement the City Public Improvement Design
and Construction Standards in the Municipal Code.
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

IV. Regular Agenda

V.

1.

Approve September 4, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

2.

Approve October 9, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3.

Approve October 23, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

4.

Annual Election of Commission Chair and Vice Chair

Additional Discussion

VI. Adjourn Meeting

Page 1 of 1

Planning Commission Meeting

January 15, 2025
Page 1 of 70

CITY OF MADRAS
Request for Planning Commission Action

Meeting Date: January 15, 2025
To:

Planning Commission Members

From:

Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

Subject:

City of Madras request for Development Code text amendments to amend
the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Madras.

TYPE OF ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve
MOTION(S) FOR CONSIDERATION:
I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the proposed
Development Code amendments in File No. TA-24-3 to amend the effective Flood Insurance
Rate Map for the City of Madras be approved.
OVERVIEW:
The Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) administers the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) which is implemented at the local level through local codes that
establish development standards for areas subject to flooding (i.e. Special Flood Hazard Area)
which is often referred to in short as the floodplain. The areas that are subject to the
development standards for the Special Flood Hazard Area are identified on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) that FEMA establishes. FIRMs are changed from time to time. The City is
proposing to amend MMC 18.45.020(2) that will change which FIRM will be used to identify
which properties are subject to the regulations in MMC 18.45 (Attachment A). As a result, some
properties will be added or removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area and Floodway, as the
case may be, as identified in the attached documents (Attachment B). The Planning
Commission will conduct a legislative public hearing on January 15, 2025 and accept public
comments and consider deliberating on the matter.I move that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that the proposed Development Code amendments in File No.
TA-24-3 to amend the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Madras be approved.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Property owners and residents have long identified that the current effective FIRM for the City of
Madras is not accurate. Often they report that specific properties are not inundated with
floodwaters during flood events. In response to this concern, in 2016, the City of Madras
obtained a grant from the Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over Willow Creek, to
re-map the floodplain. The 1989 Flood Insurance Study for the City was derived from surveys,
topographic maps, and other available tools. The re-mapped floodplain was prepared primarily
with Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and was supplemented with surveys. LIDAR is
accurate to +/- .10 inches, which is much more accurate than the tools used in the 1989 study.
The re-mapping work started in 2017 and was completed in 2019. However, in 2019 the City
determined that the bridge over Willow Creek on J Street was not constructed to allow flood
water to pass the bridge and would cause other areas of the City, such as The Pines subdivision,
Page 1 of 3

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 2 of 70

to be inundated with floodwater during a 100-year flood event. As a result, in 2020 the City and
Jefferson County funded the expansion of the J Street bridge so that no additional properties
would be included in the Special Flood Hazard Area because of the J Street bridge being
undersized.
The bridge expansion was completed in 2023, and no additional properties will be included in the
Special Flood Hazard Area because the J Street bridge being undersized. Now the City can
proceed with amending the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map. In so doing, the City needs to:
1. Hold public hearings on the proposed Development Code amendments on January 15,
2025, and February 25, 2025, before the Planning Commission and the City Council,
respectively; and

2. Amend the Development Code to change which map will be used to determine which
properties are subject to the City and FEMA development regulations in Special Flood
Hazard Areas; and

3. Submit to Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA):

a. A resolution passed by the City Council that:

1. Acknowledges the public process the City used to notify affected property owners of the
proposed amendments to the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM);

2. Requests that the proposed amendments be finalized to establish a new effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City;

3. Identifying that after FEMA establishes a new effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for the
City, the City will pass an ordinance changing the Development Code to implement the
new map; and

4. After FEMA establishes a new effective Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City, the City
will pass an ordinance changing the Development Code to implement the new map.
As a result, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on January 15, 2025, to consider
the specified amendments to MMC 18.45.020(2), as identified in Attachment A, which will
implement the amended Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and related documents identified
in Attachment B. Then on February 25, 2025 the City Council will consider the proposed
Development Code amendments and a Resolution requesting FEMA to establish a new Flood
Page 2 of 3

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 3 of 70

Insurance Rate Map for the City.
Before the January 15, 2025, Planning Commission public hearing, the City has:
A. Notified the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development of the proposed
Code changes to MMC 18.45.

B. Held an Open House on December 12, 2024, for which all property owners affected by
the proposed amendments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map were notified.

C. Notified all affected property owners of the proposed amendments to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map and that they may cause a reduction or loss of property value and use per ORS
227.186, and of the City will hold public hearings on January 15, 2025, Planning
Commission and February 25, 2025 City Council, respectively.

D. Published notice of the January 15, 2025, Planning Commission and February 25, 2025,
public hearings in the Madras Pioneer in the December 25, 2024, and January 29, 2025,
editions of the newspaper.
The proposed Development Code amendments will impact some property owners whose
properties are not currently located in the Special Flood Hazard Area/Floodplain or Floodway.
The amendments will likely require them to purchase flood insurance, which would be an
additional cost to them.
The proposed Development Code amendments will impact some property owners whose
properties are currently located in the Special Flood Hazard Area that will now be in the
Floodway. The amendments may increase the property owner’s cost for the required flood
insurance.
FISCAL INFORMATION:
Proposed City Development Codes will allow FEMA to establish a new Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City and determine which properties are subject to the City's Floodplain
Development regulations in MMC 18.45.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

Page 3 of 3

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 4 of 70

EXHIBIT A___
Amendments
Added language in double underline
Deleted language in strikethrough
Chapter 18.45
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
18.45.020

General provisions.

…
(2) Basis for Establishing Flood Hazard Areas.
“Flood(a) The “flood hazard area” shall be all areas identified as a “special flood hazard” identified
by the Federal Insurance Administration andAdministrator in a scientific and engineering report
entitled “"The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for the City of Madras,”" dated July 17,
1989_____________, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps which is(FIRMs) are hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Development Code. The Flood Insurance
Study isFIS and FIRM panels, and any amendments or revisions thereto, are on file at City Hall.
(b) A Letter of Map Amendment/Letter of Map Revision to a FIRM adopted by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and/or Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration shall be
automatically incorporated into this Development Code without further action and be controlling
for purposes of establishing the flood hazard area.

{10340316-01764706;110340316-01764706;2}

Page 5 of 70

Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.8.0.56 Document comparison done on
12/20/2024 11:45:18 AM
Style name: Default Style
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Original DMS: \\BLJWorldox\Worldox\wdocs\clntfls\10340\316\~VER\1\01764706.DOCX
Modified DMS: \\BLJWorldox\Worldox\wdocs\clntfls\10340\316\01764706.DOCX
Changes:
Add
13
Delete
9
Move From
0
Move To
0
Table Insert
0
Table Delete
0
Table moves to
0
Table moves from
0
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.)
0
Embedded Excel
0
Format changes
0
Total Changes:
22

Page 6 of 70

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

CITY OF MADRAS, OREGON

11
OF

ONLY PANEL PRINTED
Panel Contains:
NUMBER
410103

0001

SUFFIX
C

Time: 2:41:40 PM

5

8. 0
224
8

.3

22
4

NE 16TH ST

)

.
50

0

5
22

0. 4
5
22

0.

O

,

M

,

SE HILLCREST
ST

HOFF LN

)

22
4

2245
.

224
7

7

.7

9.

7

2243.3

2244
.

22

ST

G

F

D

Pedestrian
Bridge

ZONE AE

SE GRIZZLY RD

8

5
22
P

,

1.

8

5
22

2. 9

5
22

K

,

SE D ST

SE G ST

SE BUFF ST

5
22

SE BUFF ST

3. 7

4. 4
225
5. 2
225

Q

,

6. 3
57
22

ZONE AE

REVISED
AREA

.1

5
22

7.

8

9.

DRAFT
Date: 6/28/2024

SW H ST

)

22
5

CEDAR HILL DR

MADRAS, CITY OF

PANEL

N

,

)

1

COMMUNITY

SW 1ST ST

PANEL

,
,

SW G ST

Jefferson County

SE

Bridge

SE 10TH ST

150

SW F ST

SE 9TH ST

75

SW F ST

ST

SE 8TH ST

0

1,000
Feet
Meters
300

22
4

3. 7
500

1
1

SE 7TH ST

250

ST

26

SE 6TH ST

0

SE E

97

SW 3RD ST

1:6,000

SW MADISON ST

1 inch = 500 feet

SE 5TH ST

Map Projection:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Oregon North FIPS 3601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NGVD 29

SW E ST

SW 4TH ST

SW 3RD ST

Y

SW 2ND ST

SW

SCALE

C

HW

A

D
SE OO
W
SH RD

)

SW D ST

R
VE
UL

L

,

SE 11TH
ST

2242
.1

.5

2232.8

SE C

B

224
2

ZONE AE

,

2240.7

)

)

)

2232.0

2234.4

.7

SW CANYON RD

Bridge

)

.8

,

5
223

2234

A

NE 12TH ST

NE 10TH ST

NE 9TH ST

ST

NE 5TH

NW 4TH ST

2239.7

2238.9

NE B ST

)

NW 3RD ST

J

,

)

NW B ST

NW B
ST

)

)

ST

)

NW 1ST

)

)

)

I

,

)

.5

Culvert

)

ST

)

223
0

NE PINE

NE 8TH ST

) )

)

)

)
2237.7

)

2236.2

2234.1

2236.5

D

)

C

2231.3

,

Culvert

,

H

) )

ZONE AE

Pedestrian Bridge

,

)

)

Willow Creek

Bridge

Bridge

)

,
E

Bridge

NE 7TH ST

Pedestrian Bridge

SW I ST

Note: S_Trnsport_Ln was updated to incorporate
United States Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefiles,
dated 2023.

6
22

0.

1

60
22

.9

6
22

1.

4

VERSION NUMBER

1.1.1.0

MAP NUMBER

4101030001C
EFFECTIVE DATE

SW J ST

JULY 17, 1989

Page 7 of 70

FLOODING SOURCE

BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NGVD)

FLOODWAY

CROSS SECTION

DISTANCE

WIDTH
(FEET)

Willow Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q

1,104
1,668
1,777
2,351
3,574
4,272
5,064
5,220
5,841
6,291
6,444
6,853
7,076
7,253
7,737
8,249
9,520

104
205
242
190
299
421
562
503
450
634
442
751
700
430
385
212
182

1

SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)

MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT
FLOODWAY

WITH
FLOODWAY

INCREASE

776
1487
1330
1027
1604
1229
1460
1414
1396
1051
1436
2331
1981
1451
1013
913
980

7.7
4.7
6.2
5.4
3.8
6.4
5.5
6.1
5.5
6.5
5.4
4.1
4.2
5.7
6.6
6.4
5.8

2230.5
2232.8
2234.1
2234.8
2236.5
2239.7
2242.5
2243.3
2244.5
2245.7
2247.7
2248.0
2248.3
2249.7
2250.4
2251.8
2257.1

2230.5
2232.8
2234.1
2234.8
2236.5
2239.7
2242.5
2243.3
2244.5
2245.7
2247.7
2248.0
2248.3
2249.7
2250.4
2251.8
2257.1

2231.0
2233.4
2235.0
2235.7
2237.3
2240.4
2243.1
2243.9
2245.5
2246.3
2248.6
2249.0
2249.2
2250.1
2251.2
2252.7
2258.0

0.5
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.9

Revised Data
1

T
A
B
L
E
2

Feet Above Burlington Northern Railroad
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

CITY OF MADRAS, OREGON
(JEFFERSON COUNTY)

FLOODWAY DATA
WILLOW CREEK

Page 8 of 70

FLOODING SOURCE

1

T
A
B
L
E
2

BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NGVD)

FLOODWAY

CROSS SECTION

DISTANCE

WIDTH
(FEET)

Willow Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M

388
1,104
8,249
9,828
11,598
12,870
14,028
16,088
17,518
18,578
18,767
20,037
21,777

90
104
212
348
294
153
168
130
210
190
260
110
230

1

SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)

MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)

REGULATORY

WITHOUT
FLOODWAY

WITH
FLOODWAY

INCREASE

598
776
913
1064
990
784
746
733
917
843
978
556
926

7.3
7.7
6.4
6.9
6.8
8.6
9.6
5.3
4.3
4.7
4.0
7.0
4.2

2228.7
2230.5
2251.8
2257.8
2263.2
2266.9
2270.8
2277.8
2282.8
2287.2
2288.8
2292.5
2297.2

2228.7
2230.5
2251.8
2257.8
2263.2
2266.9
2270.8
2277.8
2282.8
2287.2
2288.8
2292.5
2297.2

2228.8
2231.0
2252.7
2258.8
2264.1
2267.6
2271.8
2278.8
2283.8
2287.8
2289.2
2293.0
2298.1

0.1
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9

Revised Data

Feet Above Burlington Northern Railroad
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OREGON
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)

FLOODWAY DATA
WILLOW CREEK

Page 9 of 70

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,235

2,235 2,255

2,255

2,230

2,230 2,250

2,250

2,225

2,225 2,245

2,245

REVISED
REACH

2,220

2,220 2,240

2,215

E

2,240
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
"1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

2,215 2,235

4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED

A

B

C

D

CROSS SECTION LOCATION
* DATA NOT AVAILABLE

2,210
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

10.5

STREAM DISTANCE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET ABOVE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

11.0

11.5

12.0

WILLOW CREEK
UNINCORPORATED AREAS

REVISED
REACH

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OR

2,260

SE J STREET

2,240 2,260

FLOOD PROFILES

2,265

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

CITY OF MADRAS

CITY OF MADRAS

JEFFERSON COUNTY

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,245 2,265

2,270

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD 29)

2,240

2,250 2,270

2,275

CITY OF MADRAS

2,245

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,250

CITY OF MADRAS

2,255 2,275

LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY

2,255

12.5

01P
Page 10 of 70

2,295

2,295

2,290

2,290

2,275

2,275

2,270

2,270

2,265

2,265

2,260

2,260
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
"1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

2,255

4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED

F

G

CROSS SECTION LOCATION
* DATA NOT AVAILABLE

2,250
12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

STREAM DISTANCE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET ABOVE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

17.5

18.0

18.5

WILLOW CREEK

2,280

UNINCORPORATED AREAS

2,280

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OR

2,285

FLOOD PROFILES

2,285

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD 29)

REVISED
REACH

19.0

02P
Page 11 of 70

2,240

2,240

2,235

2,235

2,230

2,230

I

J

K

L

2,225

2,225
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
"1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

2,220

4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

C

A

STREAM BED

B

D

E

F

G

H

CROSS SECTION LOCATION
* DATA NOT AVAILABLE

2,215
500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

STREAM DISTANCE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET ABOVE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

5,500

6,000

6,500

WILLOW CREEK

REVISED
REACH

(JEFFERSON CO.)

2,245

CITY OF MADRAS, OR

ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD 29)

2,245

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

2,250

FLOOD PROFILES

2,255

NE B STREET

NE 9TH STREET

NE 7TH STREET

SW 5TH STREET

SW 4TH STREET

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

2,250

SW CANYON ROAD

2,255

2,260

JEFFERSON COUNTY
CITY OF MADRAS

2,260

7,000

01P
Page 12 of 70

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,260

2,255

2,255

2,250

2,250

2,245

2,245

2,240

2,240
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
"1%+" ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

2,235

4% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED

M

N

O

Q

P

CROSS SECTION LOCATION
* DATA NOT AVAILABLE

2,230
7,000

7,500

8,000

8,500

9,000

9,500

10,000

10,500

11,000

11,500

STREAM DISTANCE IN THOUSANDS OF FEET ABOVE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

12,000

12,500

13,000

WILLOW CREEK

2,260

(JEFFERSON CO.)

ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD 29)

REVISED
REACH

CITY OF MADRAS, OR

2,265

FLOOD PROFILES

2,270

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

CITY OF MADRAS

CITY OF MADRAS

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,265

CITY OF MADRAS

SE ASHWOOD ROAD

2,270

JEFFERSON COUNTY

2,275

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

2,275

13,500

02P
Page 13 of 70

R. 13 E.
R. 14 E.

FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP
THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT
E
HTTP://MSC.FEMA.GOV

Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A,V, A99

31
35

32

36

1
97

T. 10 S.

T. 11 S.

T. 10 S.
T. 11 S.

SPECIAL FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS

OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD
OTHER
AREAS

1
26

Regulatory Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee
See Notes. Zone X
NO SCREEN Areas Determined Eto be Outside the
0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall

GENERAL
STRUCTURES

OA
D

l
ER
N

RA

ILR

an
a
on
C

RT
H

18.2

NO

Sip
h

With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR

17.5

GT
O

N

NE LOUCKS RD

BU
R

LIN

Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
E
Base Flood Elevation
Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary

OTHER
FEATURES

3

2

NOTES TO USERS

1
6

NY

NW POPLAR ST
ON
R

For information and questions about this Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), available products associated
with this FIRM, including historic versions, the current map date for each FIRM panel, how to order
products, or the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in general, please call the
FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Flood
Map Service Center website at https://msc.fema.gov.
Available products may include previously
issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map.
Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website.
Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain aEcurrent copy of the adjacent panel as well as
the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Flood Map Service Center at the number listed
above.

AN DR

CA

5

NE BE

SW

Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
Water Surface Elevation (BFE)

For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study Report for this jurisdiction.

D

To determine if flood insurance is available in this community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National
Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620.
S_Trnsport_Ln was updated to incorporate United States Census Bureau TIGER/Line Shapefiles, dated 2023.

ZONE A

2228.7

Willow Creek

SCALE

A

,

2229.1
2229.6

2230.0

ZONE AE

l

B

,

2230.5

RT
H

an
a

City of Madras

N

NO

on
C

GT
O

(AREA NOT INCLUDED)

BU
R

C

3. 7

ZONE AE

4. 4

D

2257.8

,
1

12
0

Bridge

.4

2263.2

)

DRAFT

2264.1

)

SE J ST

2265.4

2265.7

2266.5

VERSION NUMBER

F

1.1.1.0

,

ZONE AE

Date: 6/28/2024

2266.9

Time: 2:28:37 PM
2267.7

2268.4

R. 14 E.

2269.0

8

.1

R. 13 E.

97

E

,

2
226

)

1

B

RD

SW L ST

0209

SUFFIX

ZLY

SW L ST

410101

PANEL

RIZ

0. 9

7

G
SE

6
22

.1

)

1
26

JEFFERSON COUNTY

NUMBER

)
9.

ZONE AE

12

COMMUNITY

)

5
22

1
226

11

209 OF 500

)

6
22

ZONE A

300

Panel Contains:

REVISED
AREA

Pedestrian
Bridge

SW K ST

150

2,000
Feet
Meters
600

ZONE AE

.9

Willow Creek

SW K ST

0

PANEL

225 2
.
55
22
.3
56
22

SW J ST

1,000

(Unincorporated Areas)

)

1

5
22

SW J ST

500

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OREGON

.8

52
22

11

0

FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

,
5
22

10

1:6,000

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

LIN

Sip
h

1 inch = 500 feet

E ASHWOOD RD

ER
N

RA

ILR

OA
D

2230.4

REVISED
AREA

Map Projection:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Oregon North FIPS 3601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NGVD 29

MAP NUMBER

4101010209B
EFFECTIVE DATE

JULY 17, 1989

Page 14 of 70

MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN
TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 13 EAST AND
TOWNSHIP 11 SOUTH, RANGE 14 EAST.

ZONE AE

2269.0
2270.1
2270.8

,
G

7
R. 14 E.

12

R. 13 E.

JOINS PANEL 0217

REVISED
AREA

SCALE
Map Projection:
NAD 1983 StatePlane Oregon North FIPS 3601 Feet;
Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NGVD 29

1 inch = 500 feet
0

2273

0

1:6,000

250

500

75

150

1,000
Feet
Meters
300

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP

JEFFERSON COUNTY, OREGON
(Unincorporated Areas)

Willow Creek
7
22

13

PANEL

6

18
G
SE

2278

ZONE AE

RIZ
YR
ZL

H

D

,
8
22

0

217 500
OF

Panel Contains:
COMMUNITY

NUMBER

PANEL

SUFFIX

JEFFERSON COUNTY

410101

0217

B

DRAFT
Date: 6/28/2024

Time: 2:34:22 PM

VERSION NUMBER

1.1.1.0

MAP NUMBER

4101010217B

EFFECTIVE DATE

JULY 17, 1989

Page 15 of 70

CITY OF MADRAS
Request for Planning Commission Action

Meeting Date: January 15, 2025
To:

Planning Commission Members

From:

Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

Subject:

City of Madras Code amendments to implement the City Public
Improvement Design and Construction Standards in the Municipal Code.

TYPE OF ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve
MOTION(S) FOR CONSIDERATION:
I move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed
Code amendments in File No. TA-24-2 to implement the City’s Public Improvement Design and
Construction Standards.
OVERVIEW:
The City of Madras relies upon the Development Code (Title 18) to review and approve
development within the City, including public infrastructure improvements. The City also utilizes
the Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards (Title 12) to identify how public
infrastructure improvements are to be designed and constructed. The City, from time to time,
needs to amend the Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards. The Public Works
Director has identified the need to amend the Public Improvement Design and Construction
Standards, and the City Attorney has identified the need to amend the City’s Development Code
at the same time to ensure both the Development Code and the Public Improvement Design and
Construction Standards are consistent with each other.
The proposed Code amendments affect Title 12 – Public Improvements and Open Spaces and
Title 18 – Development Code. At the January 15, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission will conduct a legislative public hearing on the proposed Code amendments. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission take formal action to recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed Code amendments in File No. TA-24-2 to implement the City’s
Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Title 18 amendments
The proposed text amendments to MMC 18.20.020 are related to when public improvements are
required and how they are to be designed. Additionally, the proposed text amendments specify
that public improvements are to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Public
Improvement Design and Construction Standards.
Title 12 amendments
Page 1 of 2

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 16 of 70

The proposed text amendments to MMC 12.25 clarify how rights-of-way are to be granted,
dedicated, or transferred. Additionally, the proposed amendments specify that the City Council
must approve any occupation, encroachment, or establishment of a point of access and how the
provisions of MMC 12.25 are to be enforced. MMC 12.30 is proposed to be removed as these
requirements are included in the Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards.
FISCAL INFORMATION:
Proposed amendments to Titles 12 and 18 to ensure the Development Code and the Public
Improvement Design and Construction Standards are consistent with each other.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

Page 2 of 2

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 17 of 70

ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MADRAS MUNICIPAL CODE AND MADRAS
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION PROCEDURES,
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Madras (“City”) adopted the Madras Development Code (“MDC”
or the “Development Code”) to implement the Madras Comprehensive Plan and regulate
land uses and development within the City;
WHEREAS, City’s adopted standards for public improvement and site development
standards are contained in MDC Chapter 18.20;
WHEREAS, standards for excavations and sidewalk construction are also contained in
Madras Municipal Code (“MMC”) Chapters 12.30 and 12.40 respectively;
WHEREAS, pursuant to MMC 12.45.020, City also adopted standards for public
improvements and site development known as the Public Improvement Design and
Construction Standards;
WHEREAS, City desires to create consistency between MDC Chapter 18.20, MMC
Chapters 12.30 and 12.40, and the Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards
and further desires update provisions governing public improvements and site development;
WHEREAS, City adopted procedures for street dedications in MDC 18.20.160;
WHEREAS, City also adopted provisions governing public rights-of-way subject to City’s
jurisdiction in MMC Chapter 12.25;
WHEREAS, City desires to create consistency between MDC 18.20.160 and MMC
Chapter 12.25 and further desires to update provisions for administration of public rights-ofway under City’s jurisdiction and street dedications;
WHEREAS, City filed the land use application identified as Planning File No. TA-24-2
(the “Application”) to revise and update the foregoing provisions (collectively, the
“Amendments”);
WHEREAS, City provided appropriate notices to the Department of Land Conservation
and Development, interested parties, and the public for the Application and Amendments
and a public hearing on the Application and Amendments to be held by the City of Madras
Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”);
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on January 15, 2025, and after fully
deliberating the matter, the Planning Commission recommended that the Madras City
Council (“City Council”) approve the Application and Amendments;

Page 1 of 3

ORDINANCE NO. ___
Page 18 of 70

WHEREAS, City provided appropriate notices to interested parties and the public for a
public hearing on the Application and Amendments to be held by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on January 28, 2025, and fully deliberating
the matter, the City Council voted to approve the Application and Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Madras ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: FINDINGS
1.1

The findings contained in the recitals and those found in the staff report
delivered at the January 28, 2025, public hearing before City Council are
hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. City Council finds that
the Application and Amendments are consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and statewide land use goals and do not significantly
impact any existing or planned transportation facilities.

SECTION 2: AMENDMENTS
2.1

The amendments to the MMC and MDC contained in the attached Exhibit A
are hereby adopted.

2.2

The provisions of the MMC and MDC that are not amended or modified by
this Ordinance No. ______ (this “Ordinance”) remain unchanged and in full
force and effect. The amendments supersede any conflicting provisions
and/or policies in any City enactment or adopted document. Staff are
directed to take such actions as are necessary to incorporate and/or codify
the adopted amendments into the MMC and MDC.

SECTION 3: MISCELLANEOUS
3.1

Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, and/or portion of
this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, unenforceable, and/or
unconstitutional, such invalid, unenforceable, and/or unconstitutional section,
subsection, sentence, clause, and/or portion will (a) yield to a construction
permitting enforcement to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law,
and (b) not affect the validity, enforceability, and/or constitutionality of the
remaining portion of this Ordinance.

3.2

Corrections. This Ordinance may be corrected by order of the City Council to
cure editorial and/or clerical errors.
[signatures on next page]

Page 2 of 3

ORDINANCE NO. ___
Page 19 of 70

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Madras and signed by
the Mayor this _______ day of _____________________, 20 _____.
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstentions:
Absent:
Vacancies:

_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
___________________________________
Mike Lepin, Mayor

ATTEST:
___________________________________
Keli Pollock, City Recorder

Page 3 of 3

ORDINANCE NO. ___
Page 20 of 70

EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENTS
[attached]

EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. _____
Page 21 of 70

EXHIBIT ___
Amendments
Added language in double underline
Deleted language in strikethrough
Chapter 18.20
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
…

18.20.020 Streets.
(1) AccessFrontage. No development may occur unless the development, and any new units of land created
from the development, has frontage orand approved access to a public or private street and the following.
Private streets are prohibited unless approved by the Public Works Director and any approved private street
is required to provide a public access easement covering the entirety of the private street and meet other
requirements of the design and construction standards are met:.
(2) Required Improvements. Development must comply with the following:
(a) Streets within or adjacent toabutting a development, or as otherwise necessary to connect the
development to the existing street system, must be improved in accordance with the design and
construction standards.
(b) Development of new streets, and additional street width or improvements planned as a portion of an
existing street, must be improved in accordance with this section, and publicPublic street right-of-way and
private street easements, as applicable, must be dedicated to the City to extend streets compliant with the
design and construction standards beyond existing public rights-of-way or private street easements.
(c) All new and/or existing streets and alleys must be paved per the design and construction standards.
(2) General. The location, width, and grade of streets must be considered in their relation to existing and
planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and safety, and the proposed use of land to
be served by the streets. The street system must assure an adequate traffic circulation system with
intersection angles, grades, tangents, and curves appropriate for the traffic to be carried considering the
terrain. Subdivisions must provide for the continuation of the principal streets existing in the adjoining
subdivision or of their proper projection. Where, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, topographic
conditions make such continuation or conformity impractical, exception may be made. In cases where the
City has adopted a master development plan, street plan, or plat of a neighborhood or area of which the
development is a part, the development must conform to such adopted plans or plat.
(3) Existing Streets. Whenever existing streets, adjacent to or within a development, are of inadequate
width to accommodate the increase in traffic expected from the development or by the City’s transportation
policies, additional right-of-way must be provided at the time of the land development by the applicant.
During consideration of the development, the City Public Works Director will determine whether the
improvements to existing streets, adjacent to or within the development, are required. If so determined,
such improvements shall be required as a condition of approval of the application. Improvements to
{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 22 of 70

adjacent streets shall be required where traffic on said streets is directly affected by the proposed
development.
(43) Minimum Right-of-Way and Roadway Width. The street right-of-way and roadway surfacing widths
must be in conformance with standards and specifications set forth inWidths, Design, and Materials. The
widths, designs, and materials of rights-of-way, private street easements, streets, driveways, and alleys must
comply with the design and construction standards. Without limiting the foregoing, whenever existing
streets, driveways, and alleys, abutting or within a development do not meet minimum standards, additional
right-of-way or easement width must be dedicated and/or additional improvements must be made to
achieve compliance with the design and construction standards. Oregon Department of Transportation
facilities must meet Oregon Department of Transportation design standards.
(54) Extension of Streets. Streets must be extended “to and through” the development, meaning that
streets meeting the design and construction standards are extended along all frontages. The resulting deadend streets may be approved without a permanent turn-around.internal and external frontages and
otherwise as needed to connect to abutting properties.
(5) Approved Master Plans. In cases where the City has adopted or approved a master development plan or
street plan, the development must conform to such adopted plans.
(6) Frontage Access and Access Restrictions. The proposed number of access points, location of access
points, and spacing between access points must comply with the design and construction standards. If a
development abuts or contains an existing or proposed collector or arterial street, the Public Works Director
shall restrict or limit access by means consistent with the design and construction standards. The Public
Works Director may require private streets with access easements,may require access be taken from the
lowest classified street, frontage roads, consolidated access points with reciprocal access easements, access
restriction agreements, reserve strips, or similar requirements to achieve the objectives of this subsection.
Provision may be made for emergency access. All private streets and access drives must comply with
applicable standards set forth in the design and construction standards.restrictions to preserve the function
of the collector or arterial street.
(7) Continuation of Streets. New streets or street extensions that constitute the continuation of existing
streets in contiguous territory must be aligned along their respective centerlines to produce a straight street.
Where straight line continuations are not possible, such centerlines shall be continued as curves. These
streets or the continuation of streets in contiguous territory may be required unless otherwise approved by
the Public Works Director where such continuation is necessary to maintain the function of the street or
desirable to support development of the surrounding area. Where solar orientation would not be possible if
the street area continued, a new pattern acceptable to the Public Works Director may be started that is
solar-oriented..
(8) Street Layout. Streets shouldAny planned streets abutting or within a development must be established
and constructed in their planned location as shown in the Transportation System Plan. Additional streets
abutting or within a development must be oriented to form a grid to the greatest possible extent.unless
otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. No dead-end streets or cul-de-sacs are permitted unless
authorized by the Public Works Director, who may impose conditions on any such approval including,
without limitation, requiring pedestrian connections or fire turnarounds.
{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 23 of 70

(9) Intersection Angles. Street intersections must be as near right angles as possible except where
topography requires a lesser angleunless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, but in no case
shall the acute angle be less than 60 degrees.
(10) Street Names. Except for extensions of existing streets, no street name may be used which will
duplicate or be confused with the name of an existing street in a nearby city or in the County. Street names
and numbers must conform to the established pattern in the City and are subject to the approval of the Fire
Department and Public Works Director.
(11) Alignment and Separation. The alignment of streets and thespacing and separation distances between
streets shall be governed byand/or intersections must comply with the design and construction standards
and MDC 18.60.090. Separations between driveways and streets, and between driveways, must comply
with the design and construction standards.
…
18.20.160

Street dedications.

Any person desiring to create a street that is not part of a subdivision or partition must make written
application to the City Public Works Department. Said application must be accompanied by the required
information and appropriate filing fee. [Ord. 933 § 4.16, 2019.]
18.20.170

Minimum design standards.

The minimum standards of design and improvements for the dedication of a street shall be the same as set
forth in the design and construction standards and must be in compliance with other applicable street
standard regulations.
18.20.180

Procedure for street dedications.

(1) Upon receipt of written application and appropriate filing fee for a street dedication, the request shall be
forwarded to the Public Works Director for review and recommendation.
(2) If access to a County road or state highway is planned, the necessary permits must be obtained prior to
approval.
(3) The Public Works Director shall forward the proposal to the City Council for a public hearing.
(4) The only notice required for a hearing under this section shall be by publication.
(5) The City Council may accept, reject, or accept the proposal with conditions to the proposed dedication.
18.40.020 Site plan review.
…
(3) Procedures.
…
(d) The site plan shall be drawn to scale and shall indicate the following:
{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 24 of 70

…
(vii) Storm drainage system, including, but not limited to, draining anda preliminary grading and draining
plan consistent with MDC 18.60.080(n), existing topography, and elevations.
18.60.080 Informational requirements for tentative plans.
…
(3) Information Concerning Proposed Development.
…
(n) If fill or grading is proposed, a separate preliminary grading and drainage plan prepared by an engineer
must be submitted that must show as-developed contour lines related to some established benchmark or
other engineering acceptable datum and having minimum intervals of two feet for slopes of less than five
percent (5%), five feet for slopes of five to fifteen percent (5% to 15%), 10 feet for slopes of fifteen to twenty
percent (15% to 20%), and 20 feet for slopes greater than twenty percent (20%).

Chapter 12.25
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
12.25.010

Definitions.

“City” means the City of Madras, Oregon.
“City Administrator” means the City Administrator or City’s Administrator’s designee
“Person” means an individual, corporation, association, firm, partnership, joint stock company, or
similar entity.
“Public rights-of-way” include, but are not limited to, streets, roads, highways, bridges, alleys,
sidewalks, trails, paths, public easements, and all other public ways or areas, including subsurface
and air space over these areas.
“Within the City” means territory over which the City now has or acquires jurisdiction for the
exercise of its powers.
12.25.020

Jurisdiction.

The City of Madras has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory control over all public rights-of-way
within the City under the authority of the City Charter and state/or applicable law.
12.25.030

Scope of regulatory control.

{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 25 of 70

The City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory control over each public right-of-way whether the
City has a fee, easement, or other legal interest in the public right-of-way. The City has jurisdiction
and regulatory control over each public right-of-way whether the legal interest in the public rightof-way was obtained by grant, dedication, prescription, reservation, condemnation, annexation,
foreclosure, or other means.
12.25.035

Grants, dedications, and transfers of public rights-of-way.

(1) The City Administrator is authorized to accept, on behalf of City, or by City on behalf of the
public, any of the following grants or dedications of public rights-of-way:
(a) Any public rights-of-way created, granted, or dedicated by partition or subdivision plat
(b) Any grant of an easement in favor of City
(c) Any dedication of an easement in favor of the public
plan

(d) Any dedication of right-of-way for a public street shown on City’s transportation system

(e) Any dedication of right-of-way for an existing public street that achieves minimum
dimensional standards established by City from time to time for public street rights-of-way
(2) All other grants or dedication, as well as any intergovernmental transfers, of public right-of-way
require the approval of City Council. At the discretion of City Council, a public hearing may be
called to consider the grant, dedication, or transfer. Nothing herein shall preclude the City
Administrator from referring any proposed grant or dedication of public right-of-way to City
Council.
(4) The only notice required for a hearing under this section shall be by publication.
(5) The City Administrator or City Council may accept, reject, or accept with conditions any grant,
dedication, or transfer of public right-of-way.
12.25.040

City permission requirement.

No person may occupy or, encroach, or establish a point of access on a public right-of-way without
the permission of the City. The City grants permission to useoccupy public rights-of-way by
ordinances, resolutions, franchises, licenses, and permits. Any franchise, permitted occupation,
encroachment, or point of access on a public right-of-way requires the approval of City Council.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council may delegate such authority or otherwise
authorize the City Administrator, or other City official, to issue licenses, permits, and other
approvals for occupation of a public right-of-way by resolution including, without limitation, as part
of the Public Improvement Design and Construction Standards adopted from time to time pursuant
to MDC 12.45.020.
{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 26 of 70

12.25.050

Obligations of the City.

The exercise of jurisdiction and regulatory control over a public right-of-way by the City is not
official acceptance of theany improvements within the public right-of-way, and does not obligate
the City to maintain or repair any part of the public right-of-way.
12.25.060

Enforcement

Each violation of this chapter is a separate offence subject to a fine of not less than five hundred
dollars ($500.00) per offense. Each separate calendar day that a violation persists is a separate
offense. The City may pursue all other rights and remedies provided under applicable federal,
state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. In addition to any other rights or remedies
provided under this chapter, the City may file a civil action to recover unpaid fees, fines, and costs,
including, without limitation, the City’s attorney fees and other fees, costs, and expenses incurred
by City to enforce this chapter. The City’s rights and remedies under this chapter are not exclusive
and may be exercised singularly or concurrently.
Chapter 12.30
EXCAVATIONS
12.30.010

Definitions.

[Reserved]

“City standards” means standards adopted by the City of Madras which are, unless otherwise approved in
writing by the Public Works Director, the 1990 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
Manual, published by the American Public Works Association, Oregon Chapter.
“County” means Jefferson County, Oregon.
“Franchised utility” means any utility company paying a franchise fee to the City of Madras.
“Paving” means asphaltic concrete, concrete, oil mat, or other hard surfacing.
“Person” means any actual person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity.
“Public Works Director” means the Public Works Director for the City of Madras or the Public Works
Director’s designee.
“Right-of-way” means that portion of land dedicated to the public for access, utilities, streets, alleys,
sidewalks, or any other public purposes. For the purpose of this chapter, “right-of-way” shall also mean
easement.
“Sidewalk” means the part of the street right-of-way that is intended for the use of pedestrians, between
the curb lines or the lateral lines of a roadway and the adjacent property line.
“Street” means the portion of a right-of-way between curbs or shoulders designated or used for vehicle or
pedestrian travel and shall include alleys and easements.
{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 27 of 70

“Utility” means any utility operating in the City of Madras including, but not limited to: cable television,
electric power, natural gas, telephone, water, and sewer.
12.30.020

Permits required.

At least forty-eight (48) hours prior to commencing any excavation within a right-of-way of the City of
Madras, all persons must apply for and obtain a permit from the City. Permits shall state approximate time
of beginning and end of work. The permit shall be accompanied by a map and cross-section, detailing the
location of facilities in relation to the right-of-way and any affected sidewalk and/or road surface. Said
permit must be approved in writing by the Public Works Director before construction commences, and must
include any relevant standards that may apply. The applicant must notify the Central Oregon Underground
Utility Coordination Council to obtain utility locates forty-eight (48) hours prior to excavation. The person
causing any damage to any sidewalk, street, or other facility within the right-of-way shall replace or repair
said facility to the extent of the damage whether or not such person has obtained a permit. All work within
City rights-of-way shall be to City standards.
12.30.030

Exclusions.

Deschutes Valley Water District and franchised utilities shall be exempt from permit requirements when
conducting routine maintenance and emergency repairs to existing utilities within City rights-of-way. All such
maintenance and repairs shall conform to applicable City standards.
12.30.040

Street and sidewalk crossings shall be bored.

All utilities crossing under streets and sidewalks shall be bored, unless permission for open cut is granted by
the Public Works Director prior to the start of work.
12.30.050

Street and sidewalk cuts.

When a street or sidewalk cut is allowed, it shall be done to City standards, which shall include appropriate
traffic control, pavement cutting, backfill, and repair.
12.30.060

Applicant responsibilities.

For a period of one year following any work under this chapter, including patching paved surfaces, cuts and
borings, applicant shall be responsible for the condition of said pavement patches, cuts, and borings, and
during that time shall, upon request from the Public Works Director, repair to the Public Works Director’s
satisfaction any of the street surfaces which become settled, cracked, broken or otherwise faulty.
12.30.070

Preservation of existing monuments.

Existing survey monuments shall be preserved in accordance with ORS 209.150.
12.30.080

County roads within City limits.

Where excavation or construction within the limits of the right-of-way of a county road is anticipated or
performed within the City limits, all provisions of this chapter shall apply and have precedence over county
regulations.
12.30.090

Penalties.

{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 28 of 70

Any violation or failure to comply with any provision of this chapter shall be punishable upon conviction by a
fine of not more than three hundred dollars ($300.00). This penalty is in addition to, not in lieu of, any civil
remedies available for noncompliance.
12.30.100

Separate violation.

Each day that a violation of this chapter continues shall constitute a separate violation.
12.30.110

Permit fees.

Permit fees shall be as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council of the City of Madras
excepting that franchised utilities shall not be required to pay a permit fee
12.30.120

Appeal.

Whenever a provision of this chapter or action hereunder by the Public Works Director shall be deemed
excessive or unworkable, such provision or action may be appealed to the City Council of the City of Madras
by the affected person. Appeals will be heard de novo.

Chapter 12.40
SIDEWALKS
…

12.40.030

Standards and specifications.

Sidewalks shall be constructed, altered, maintained, and repaired in accordance with the Public
Improvement Design and Construction Standards adopted by Ordinance No. 965 (from time to time
pursuant to MMC Chapter 12.45 MMC) and any amendment thereof or any successor document12.45.

{10340316-01595531;110340316-01595531;2}

Page 29 of 70

Summary report:
Litera Compare for Word 11.8.0.56 Document comparison done on
9/11/2024 11:22:57 AM
Style name: Default Style
Intelligent Table Comparison: Active
Original DMS: \\BLJWorldox\Worldox\wdocs\clntfls\10340\316\~VER\1\01595531.DOCX
Modified DMS: \\BLJWorldox\Worldox\wdocs\clntfls\10340\316\01595531.DOCX
Changes:
Add
61
Delete
81
Move From
0
Move To
0
Table Insert
0
Table Delete
0
Table moves to
0
Table moves from
0
Embedded Graphics (Visio, ChemDraw, Images etc.)
0
Embedded Excel
0
Format changes
0
Total Changes:
142

Page 30 of 70

MADRAS PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES

City Council Chambers, 125 SW “E” Street, Madras, OR 97741
Wednesday, September 4, 2024

I.

Call Meeting to Order
Chair Irvine called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.

II. Roll Call
Planning Commission:
Commissioner Melissa Irvine was present
Commissioner Mary Kendall was present
Commissioner Clifford Reynolds was present
Commissioner Ashlyn Etter was absent
Staff and Consultants:
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director
Bethany O’Conner, Associate Planner
Matthew Kittelson, Kittelson and Associates
Elizabeth Decker, Kittelson and Associates
III. Review and Approval of the Minutes
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

To approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on
May 15, 2024, as presented.
Reynolds
Kendall
Irvine, Kendall, Reynolds
Nays: 0
Etter
Absent: 1
Recused: 0
3/0

IV. Public Hearing(s)
1. Madras Transportation System Plan Amendment – South Madras Concept Area
Refinement Plan:
A. Open Public Hearing
Chair Irvine opened the public hearing.
B. Economic Interest Statement
Commissioner Reynolds disclosed that he owns property along Adams Drive
within the Refinement Plan area; however, he does not have an economic interest in
the proposal and, therefore, he can remain unbiased.
C. Staff Report

Page 1 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 32 of 70

CDD Nicholas Stead noted that a proposal was being put forth to the Planning
Commission to amend the City of Madras Transportation System Plan (TSP)
adopted by the City in 2018. The TSP includes the concept areas of north, central,
and south, and the South Madras Concept Area Refinement Plan clarifies the future
transportation system improvements within the south concept area. The City and the
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have jointly funded the project, and
the City has worked extensively with ODOT.
Matthew Kittelson presented an overview of the public engagement process and
considerations in developing the Refinement Plan. The study area was noted as
being between Colfax and J Street north-south, and between Culver Highway and
Adams Drive east-west. The purpose of the Refinement Plan is to consider how to
plan for future transportation needs within the City and along the highway.
The Refinement Plan includes background work, details on the public engagement
process, updates to the project and community goals identified within the TSP, and
strategies for funding the Refinement Plan. The next steps include the identification
of funding, evaluation of intersection controls, creation of detailed design plans, and
construction.
The Refinement Plan identifies three primary transportation deficiencies within the
study area: namely, insufficient side street and long-term mainline US97 capacity, a
lack of east-west connectivity between J Street and US26, and inadequate
pedestrian and bicycle networks. Over the next 20 years, an estimated 26% increase
in traffic is projected along the Culver Highway and US97.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that a projected population increase of 1.4% as
calculated by the Portland State University must be considered in all infrastructure
planning for the City. This forecast has been fairly accurate over the past several
years, with the exception of the post-pandemic growth; the projection is reevaluated
every three years.
Matthew Kittelson reviewed the public engagement for the Refinement Plan, with
four meetings of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and three well-attended
public meetings.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that current property owners with major developments in
the study area were sufficiently engaged to obtain their input and to raise their
awareness of the project.
Commissioner Kendall inquired about the feedback received from the property
owners.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that the response from property owners to the
Refinement Plan was mixed, based on the location of the property and the potential
impact of the proposed amendments on the particular property or business.
Matthew Kittelson noted that the approach when engaging the public was
pragmatism. The considerations focused on how to move forward in a way that is
aligned with the funding realities, including solutions that involve a phased approach.
Matthew Kittelson provided an overview of the evaluation of the three concepts;
namely, couplet, interchange, and mainline enhancement. Staff were recommending
the mainline enhancement alternative based on the evaluation and feedback from
the PAC, public, and the project team.

Page 2 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 33 of 70

Commissioner Reynolds requested clarity regarding the definition of an
interchange.
Matthew Kittelson responded that an interchange is anywhere the highway travels
over or under the local road, with ramps connecting the highway. Interchanges are
high capacity, but they are expensive because they involve structural investments.
As such, they are not feasible in the short term.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired whether any options were ruled out because
funds were identified as the biggest shortfall.
Matthew Kittelson noted that relying on funds in the short term was a challenge. No
form of an intersection was excluded from the Refinement Plan, as the City will
pursue all avenues of funding. Intersections have not been precluded, but they are
not relied upon within the Refinement Plan as the only path forward.
Commissioner Kendell enquired whether two lanes for southbound traffic on US97
with two northbound lanes going through Adams Drive is not an option.
Matthew Kittelson confirmed that this is not an option.
Matthew Kittelson reviewed the key features of mainline enhancement as the
preferred alternative; specifically, intersection control devices at Colfax Lane, Hall
Road, and Fairgrounds, and planning for increased capacity. Control devices will be
selected after the evaluation review and are subject to ODOT approval. It was noted
that additional lanes will be necessary beyond 2045, but work could be done in
phases.
Commissioner Irvine asked whether the Refinement Plan proposed to build from J
Street south to north or vice versa.
Matthew Kittelson replied that any phasing would be pragmatic and based on
funding. Of the three intersections, starting with the intersection control at Hall Road
would make the most sense in the short term due to its central location and partially
built east-west connection. The J Street traffic signal is already part of the TSP, and
is being pursued independent of the Refinement Plan.
Commissioner Irvine asked whether widening US97 will reduce the current
greenery on the edges.
Matthew Kittelson replied that the expansion would include the right of way, but the
design has not yet been carried out. A key provision in the Refinement Plan for this
alternative is a median in the middle. It was noted that any design for widening US97
will avoid designs such as that of south Redmond, which may lead to a high number
of collisions. Access will be reviewed by legal counsel, but there will be provisions to
limit turns in individual driveways and to allow for U-turn movement.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about ODOT’s jurisdiction over access.
Matthew Kittelson noted that there is a legal process regarding access, and fair
access is an important area of discussion. He further noted that the Refinement Plan
must be workable, and it calls for a median subject to future design processes.
Commissioner Reynolds asked if the Refinement Plan allows for the elimination of
additional intersections if there were to be an increase in use causing one of the
identified intersections to become unnecessary.
Matthew Kittelson explained the process of ODOT for intersection control
evaluation. If Hall Road was evaluated to be working well, the Refinement Plan
would not require other intersection control devices to be added.

Page 3 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 34 of 70

Matthew Kittelson reviewed the other key features of the mainline enhancement;
specifically, pedestrian crossings and east-west connections. A project is already
underway with ODOT that involves planning pedestrian crossings; the crossings
have been included and expanded upon in the Refinement Plan. The east-west
connections and connections to the north have already been included in the TSP
and will not be amended. A new road is proposed in the Refinement Plan that will run
diagonally from Colfax Lane to Culver Highway as part of a plan for a well-connected
transportation system that provides options for connectivity to and from the highway.
It was noted that the property owners on Colfax Lane were involved in the
Refinement Plan public engagement process.
Commissioner Reynolds asked which highways in the Refinement Plan were under
the City’s maintenance jurisdiction and which were under the State’s. He further
inquired about whether the planned access road to Culver Highway would be a
highway.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that maintenance of any road other than Culver
Highway and US97 would be under the obligation of the City of Madras or the
County. The Refinement Plan is conceptual; once designed, the engineering plan will
identify which entity is responsible for roads.
Commissioner Kendell inquired about whether the circulars indicated for
Hall Road and Colfax Lane would be roundabout locations.
Mathew Kittelson explained that roundabouts for Culver Highway at Hall Road and
Belmond Road are indicated on the Refinement Plan. They are subject to future
development needs and funding.
Mathew Kittelson then reviewed the final key feature of the mainline enhancement,
freight and mobility, which would allow for freight on and off the highway. Specific
improvements require coordination with the ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee, with
preliminary discussions with the Committee underway.
Commissioner Kendell asked whether eastern Hall Road would be extended.
Mathew Kittelson replied that the TSP allows for the extension of Hall Road
independent of the Refinement Plan.
Matthew Kittelson reviewed the next steps; specifically, adopting the Refinement
Plan as an attachment to the TSP. The Refinement Plan’s three major amendments
include the new roadway from US97 to Culver Highway (City), improvement of the
skew angle at Culver Highway/Colfax Road (County), and a new roadway from US97
to Adams Drive.
Commissioner Kendell asked about the reference to Adams Drive in the
presentation.
Mathew Kittelson replied that the Adams Drive reference was not in relation to
creating a couplet, but rather as a conceptual connection from Colfax Lane to Adams
Drive to improve the overall grid on the east side of the highway.
Matthew Kittelson then reviewed the dates of the planned adoption hearings
scheduled for the City of Madras and Jefferson County in relation to the Refinement
Plan.
Commissioner Reynolds asked for clarity on why the Commission was being asked
to approve an amendment, given the fluidity of the process.

Page 4 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 35 of 70

Matthew Kittelson noted that the TSP is a framework for 20-year growth. The
current TSP does not include a clear framework as to how the transportation system
can be modified to support growth in the south. The Refinement Plan narrows the
plan, focusing on the highway and making improvements in specific locations to
support growth. It allows the City and ODOT to have an investment strategy to work
with development and to seek funding sources that align with the plan.
Commissioner Reynolds noted that the Refinement Plan is limited by funds, and
asked what would draw ODOT’s attention to the City’s transportation needs. He also
asked what would happen if the plan was not implemented.
CDD Nicholas Stead replied that the County requires traffic in the City of Madras to
meet volume thresholds to warrant action by ODOT. He advised the Planning
Commission that the Refinement Plan will lead to building as it provides goals. As
the design changes, construction plans must be refined to meet the goals in the
Refinement Plan. Forecasting the details of the implementation may not be possible,
but the goals will remain the same.
Commissioner Reynolds asked how often goals of a transportation plan are met
but are followed by subsequent problems.
CDD Nicholas Stead replied that this situation occurs often within transportation
because funds are not available to build what is wanted.
Matthew Kittelson noted that ODOT does not currently have money to fund
transportation projects, but ODOT will gather with legislators in 2025 and is in the
process of assessing its investments. The City of Madras will be in a better position
to receive money from the County and to receive federal grants if it has a plan that
has been developed by working with the community and ODOT with a vision for
solving transportation problems. The Refinement Plan is a readiness plan; there is
still work to be done to obtain the funds but the Plan moves the City closer to being
ready to receive them.
Commissioner Kendall asked whether the three roads are the City’s goals that will
be refined if money becomes available.
CDD Nicholas Stead confirmed that the three roads are the goals of the Refinement
Plan.
Chair Irvine noted that the Commission must have a plan, as it puts the City in a
better position when funding opportunities arise.
CDD Nicholas Stead explained that it is challenging for staff to work with property
owners within the concept area regarding transportation needs when there is no
Refinement Plan in place. The Refinement Plan provides direction.
The Commissioners discussed the need to plan for growth and change. It was noted
that by laying the plan out on a map, there are some benchmarks for movement if
funding arises. Furthermore, it allows property owners to understand the potential
impact on them.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that the expenses to develop the Refinement Plan
totaled approximately $300,000, and was equally shared between ODOT and the
City. The contributions of both entities reflect their joint commitment to the
Refinement Plan.
Matthew Kittelson clarified that the initial implementation estimates for construction
are between $60 million and $70 million according to current prices. It was noted that
the estimated costs of the concept are outlined on page 26 of the Refinement Plan.

Page 5 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 36 of 70

D. Proponent Testimony
E. Neutral Testimony
F. Opponent Testimony
G. Close Public Hearing
With no further questions, the public hearing was closed at 7:04 p.m.
H. Planning Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Reynolds asked for clarity on the Refinement Plan approval
process.
CDD Nicholas Stead explained that if the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve the proposed Refinement Plan, then the City Council will
consider the Refinement Plan and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If
the City Council approves the Refinement Plan, they will adopt a City ordinance to
make it effective. Any further refinements to the Refinement Plan would follow the
same process.
Commissioner Kendall requested clarity on the approval process for funding for
implementation of the Refinement Plan.
CDD Nicholas Stead responded that funding is usually only presented to the City
Council and not to the Commission, because the City Council has the budget
authority for the City; City Council would appropriate resources for expenses or
approve any funding agreements with partner agencies.
Commissioner Kendall asked for confirmation that the approval of the Refinement
Plan by the Commission would involve an approval of the goals of the three roads
as presented, and these roads would be the goals for construction if funding
became available.
CDD Nicholas Stead noted that the Commission would approve an amendment to
the City of Madras’ TPS to include the three goals, and confirmed that the purpose
of approval would be to provide that direction if funding was secured.
Commissioner Kendall asked for clarity as to whether the Refinement Plan would
need to come back to the Planning Commission for a concept proposal that only
included two of the three roads in the Refinement Plan as presented.
CDD Nicholas Stead provided a scenario in which a significant amount of funding
was provided to the City for roads; the Refinement Plan could be presented to the
Commission for approval of amendments to the Refinement Plan to reflect a
selection of a more expensive option.
Chair Irvine noted that the Refinement Plan provides for updates, oversight, and
consulting with ODOT. Although the three roads are highlighted, the specifics of how
those roads connect are beyond the Planning Commission’s mandate. The Planning
Commission approves a plan or concept and not a schematic drawing.

Page 6 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 37 of 70

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

To make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed
South Madras Concept Area Refinement Plan amendments to the
Madras Transportation System Plan.
Reynolds
Kendall
Irvine, Reynolds, Kendall
Nays: 0
Etter
Absent: 1
Recused: 0
3/0

V. Additional Discussion
CDD Nicholas Stead provided an overview of upcoming meetings, noting that there will
be a Joint Planning Commission meeting on September 18, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. for an
urban growth boundary amendment. A quorum is required for the meeting. The agenda
and meeting packet will be e-mailed to the Commissioners on September 10, 2024
along with an invitation for each Commissioner to meet with CDD Nicholas Stead to
review the staff report. It was noted that if both Commissions approve the urban growth
boundary amendment, there will be a zone change vote. If approved, this will be
followed by the annexation of the property.
A series of Public Hearings will be held on October 2, 2024, for code amendments. CDD
Nicholas Stead confirmed that the staff report will include public comments.
Commissioners will receive an e-mail within a week of the meeting with the schedule of
future Planning Commission meetings for which staff have provided notice.
CDD Nicholas Stead introduced the new Associate Planner Bethany O’Connor, who is
replacing Fatima Weir. Bethany O’Connor started on September 3, 2024.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the status of food trucks, as previously
discussed by the Planning Commission, and asked whether there was allowance for
commercial nodes in industrial areas.
CDD Nicholas Stead responded that staff are working on refinements with respect to
food trucks, which will likely be presented to the Commission in October 2024 and to the
City Council during November 2024. It was noted that code amendments were made in
2017 to clarify commercial use in industrial zones.
VI. Adjourn Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 7:57 pm.

Minutes prepared by:

Reviewed by:

_________________________
Bethany O’Connor, Associate Planner

_________________________
Nicholas Snead, Community Development

Approved by Planning Commission on: __________________

Page 7 of 7

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

September 4, 2024

Page 38 of 70

MADRAS PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES

City Council Chambers, 125 SW “E” Street, Madras, OR 97741
Wednesday, October 9, 2024

I.

Call Meeting to Order
Chair Irvine called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

II. Roll Call
City of Madras Planning Commission:
Commissioner Melissa Irvine was present
Commissioner Mary Kendall was present
Commissioner Clifford Reynolds was present
Commissioner Ashlyn Etter was present
City of Madras Staff and Consultants:
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director
Bethany O’Connor, Associate Planner
Matthew Kittelson, Kittelson and Associates
Elizabeth Decker, Kittelson and Associates
Jefferson County Planning Commission (until 8:39 p.m.):
Commissioner Jessica Locke was present
Commissioner Michelle Parcel was present
Commissioner Pete Bicart was present via Zoom
Commissioner Rich Brandvold was present
Commissioner James Roff was present
Commissioner Lorie Hancock was present
Commissioner Jeff Jordan was present
Guests
Debbie Taylor, Madras-Jefferson County Chamber
Phil Stenbeck, County Planning Department
Jeff Rasmussen
Will Ibershof
Glenn Breniman
Kip Light
David Allen
Steve and Susan Rask
Mickey Killingsworth, Secretary Treasurer of Jefferson County Farm Bureau
Josh Bailey, General Manager of North Unit Irrigation District
John Stark, CEO of Economic Development for Central Oregon
Nancy Coleman, Realty Specialist for the Bureau of Reclamation, Bend Oregon
Pamela Thomas
Michelle Varley
Rich Madden
Christy Abbe
Gary Harris
Rick Allen
Page 1 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 40 of 70

III. Public Hearing(s)
1. City of Madras Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Large Lot Industrial UGB
Amendment Proposal, File No. PA-24-1:
A. Open Public Hearing
Chair Irvine opened the public hearing.
B. Planning Commission Chair reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
Chair Irvine read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
C. Staff Report
CDD Nicholas Snead reported that the City of Madras provided the DLCD with 35
days’ notice of the public hearing and adjacent property owners were provided
adequate notice. Three consecutive notices were placed in the Madras Pioneer. The
Large Lot Industrial Program (LLIP) requests that property owners sell at marketconsistent prices and participate in infrastructure investments to support the
development. The following property owners opted out of the program:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Greg Williams, owner of Site 1
Darlene Binder, owner of Site 2
Loy Peterson, owner of Site 4
Jeris Clark, owner of Site 7
Bradley Clowers, owner of Site 10
Stan Sullivan, owner of Site 13
Eddie Kip Light, owner of Site 15

Owners opting out were not considered in the Goal 14 analysis. Sites 5 and 6 have
slopes exceeding 5% and would require industrial traffic to travel through residential
areas. Exhibit 8 in the findings identifies land around the urban growth area (UGB)
with the priority for inclusion of the UGB based on ORS 197A.285(2)(c). Findings
factually demonstrate consistency with ORS 197A.285(2)(c) and OAR 660-0240067(7). Based on the analysis documented in the findings, it was determined Site 9
meets Large Lot Industrial site needs. It is adjacent to Madras’ existing industrial
area and the landlord accepts all LLI requirements. The LLIP will not disrupt
agricultural uses around Site 9.
A total of 80.4% of Site 8’s acres are developable. The irrigation canal crosses the
northern portion of the site and the area is not developable. The Public Works
Director has provided a letter stating that a pump station is needed at the northwest
corner of Site 9. All sewer will flow to the pump station at the northwest corner of Site
9 and then it will be pumped into treatment plants. Site 8 will have a longer sewer
line connecting to the pump station and Site 9 has more developable coverage.
Commissioner Hancock inquired whether moderate or high scores regarding
infrastructure development could be quantified.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that planning is at an early stage at the present time
and the cost could depend on the length of pipe required.

Page 2 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 41 of 70

Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the likelihood of a pump station at the
northwest corner of Site 9.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that a survey of the property will be done to determine
the location of buildings. It is likely that the pump station will be located at the
northwest corner or the section with the lowest elevation.
Commissioner Hancock asked if the difference in traffic between Site 8 and Site 9
can be discussed.
CCD Nicholas Snead responded that traffic between the two sites has not been
tracked, as they are in close proximity, and an expectation analysis has been
prepared for the project. A trip cap of 400 trips per day from any site developments
has been self-imposed, and if trips exceed 400 per day, the impact analysis will be
reviewed again to mitigate the excess trips.
Commissioner Locke inquired how the trips would be monitored or managed to
enforce the limit.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that if the site is brought into the UGB, a site plan
review permit will need to be obtained from the City and a traffic impact analysis is
required. The traffic impact analysis should outline compliance with the 400 trips per
day rule.
Phil Stenbeck added Exhibit L, correspondence between the City and Susan Rask;
Exhibit M, correspondence from Susan Rask which details the newspaper notice and
notifications; and Exhibit N, a City of Madras letter from Jeff Herd, the Public Works
Director, that details a previous decision. A notice outlining a requirement of 750 feet
from the edge of a property was administered. If the Planning Commission renders a
decision during the meeting, a Board Commissioners hearing will be held on October
23, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
It was noted that there is evidence that adequate urban facilities will be provided to
the site. Regarding implications for farm uses, rights will be transferred to applicants.
There is evidence in the record that industrial land is needed.
D. Applicant Testimony
Jeff Rasmussen noted that the County is satisfied with the changes to the staff
report.
Commissioner Roff inquired about the costs of canal transfers, as it is a federal
issue.
Jeff Rasmussen noted that the County is willing to comply with any requirements
and planning of transfer costs was not done, as changes could be made.
E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
Josh Bailey noted that, after the previous hearing, he was approached by several
Council members requesting estimates to replace pipes. The cost estimates were
entered into the record.
CDD Nicholas Snead inquired whether it is a requirement that the irrigation canal be
piped at a development site or if the canal can remain if the easement is not
impacted.

Page 3 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 42 of 70

Josh Bailey noted that the canals can remain as is as long as the easements are
not infringed upon or access prohibited. Site 8 and Site 9 have irrigation canals.
David Allen inquired if the irrigation costs provided are for Site 8 and 9 combined.
Josh Bailey noted that the cost estimates provided are for Site 9.
Josh Bailey noted that the length of the pipe would be approximately 2,700 feet. A
30-inch high-density polyethylene pipe will be installed and the cost is $160 per
square foot for a total cost of $432,000. Design engineering will cost $32,000, and
deliveries will cost a total of $100,000. Valve and automation will cost $50,000,
resource compliance will cost $20,000, and intake and outlet structure will cost
$25,000. The total irrigation cost will be $647,000.
The costs are estimates and the $160 per square foot price is a quote provided by a
contractor based on a piping project they are completing at the present time.
Nancy Coleman noted that relocating an irrigation facility that is US-owned will
result in additional time added to the project timeline and it will be an additional cost.
It may take an additional six months to pipe the lateral. The relocation of gravity-flow
irrigation ditches to the perimeter of a large parcel may involve pumping. Another 18
to 24 months may be added to the process to meet the federal compliance
requirements.
It was noted that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, the
engineering review, and the realty processes will be additional costs. An additional
$100,000 to $200,000 may be added to the project total.
John Stark noted the importance of diversifying the economy to support community
infrastructure and safety. EDCO focuses on industrial development and requested to
replace the existing site with a more advantageous opportunity, as companies are
interested in purchasing land in Central Oregon. He noted that agricultural activity
can continue; however, EDCO is focused on creating employment opportunities in
Central Oregon. Approximately 5,086 or 60% of community members leave the
County to commute to work.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the number of employees travelling to the
County for work.
John Stark noted that the number is 1,566.
Gary Harris noted that there are alternative sites available that would not affect
farmland. He noted that Jefferson County Commissioners have invested
approximately $1.56 million in the three farmland parcels in Site 9 and there may be
lengthy wait for an industrial client which will result in a longer wait for utilities. He
noted that the City should have assessed land located eastward towards the prison,
as there is an eight-inch water line, a transmission line, and a four-lane paved road.
Gary Harris provided a map for the Commission’s review. He noted that if the UGB
amendment is approved, the site should only be used for large lot industrial uses and
under 50 acres. He noted that there is approximately 130,000 acres of farmland in
the map provided and approximately 200 acres of the land can be irrigated. He
advised Commissioner Reynolds that there are acres that produce approximately
$1,000 to $2,000 in economic value and this has a multiplying impact.
Commissioner Hancock asked Gary Harris to elaborate on his recommendation of
other properties instead of Site 9.
Gary Harris noted that the land is flat and accessible by Birch and Dogwood.
Page 4 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 43 of 70

Kip Light highlighted Central Electric Cooperative’s coverage which includes service
to small industrial areas and residential properties. CEC currently has the load
capacity to serve large data centers ranging from 100 to 200 megawatts. CEC is not
aware of any plans of BPA to build a new substation in the Madras area. To increase
capacity, BPA would need to invest in construction and upgrades to the transmission
system. Any request to increase capacity would require BPA to conduct studies
which could take several years and significant investment from the requesting party.
The estimated cost of a new delivery substation in the Madras area would be
between $75 million and $100 million with a five-to-ten-year construction. Building an
additional transmission line from the Columbia River to Central Oregon has an early
price tag of $1 billion and a construction timeline of approximately 10 years.
G. Opponent Testimony
Mickey Killingsworth opposed the proposal and agreed with Gary Harris’
assertions. She noted that the Planning Commissions could consider other locations.
Madras has become a bedroom community to Bend and Redmond. Prineville has
begun to develop into a community that has sufficient capabilities to support
organizations such as Apple and Facebook. She noted that the City and County
should protect agriculture and irrigated high-value lands. The east side of the City
should be further developed and Site 8 should be considered instead of Site 9.
David Allen noted that State of Oregon rules state that only land that is half a mile
from the existing UGB and one mile from the existing exception can be considered.
Michelle Varley commented that the Commissions consider Site 8, as it shares the
same advantages as Site 9; however, it may be more advantageous regarding
infrastructure and accessibility. A total of 42.5 acres of Site 8 can be developed
which could result in four 400,000-square-foot buildings on the lot. She cited
accessibility issues with Site 9.
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony
Jeff Rasmussen noted that Site 8 has been under consideration; however, there are
concerns with the irrigation canal’s weight restrictions.
Commissioner Irvine inquired about additional details regarding Site 8 that should
be considered as the Commission deliberates.
CDD Nicholas Snead reiterated that the needs analysis stated that a site between
100 and 200 acres is preferred. Site 8 has less developable land compared to Site 9.
The ideal site should have the lowest infrastructure costs to maximize development.
Commissioner Kendall asked if the property above Site 8 is City owned.
CDD Nicholas Snead confirmed that the 78 acres is owned by the City. The City
has existing leases on the land and it is not considered as available. The waste
water treatment plant may need to be dredged or relocated.
Will Ibershof noted that the City is interested in Site 9, as the developable land is
195 acres. The land is continuous regarding opportunities, as it is a square
accessible lot. There is no canal leading to the middle of the property with
easements. Site 9 is preferable to the City, as it offers marketing opportunities.

Page 5 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 44 of 70

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:
I.

To decline the UGB expansion as stated.
Reynolds
None
0
N/A
Absent: 0
Motion failed

Nays: 0
Recused: 0

Close Public Hearing

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission close the public hearing
and defer deliberations to the next Planning Commission meeting on
October 23, 2024, at 6:30 p.m.
Etter
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine
Nays: 1
N/A
Absent: 0
Recused: 0
3/1
That the Jefferson County Planning Commission close the public
hearing and deliberate on October 9, 2024.
Jordan
Brandvold
Locke, Parcel, Bicart, Brandvold, Roff, Hancock,
Nays: 0
Jordan
N/A
Absent: 0
Recused: 0
7/0
That the City of Madras Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council not approve the comprehensive plan amendments as proposed.
Reynolds
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine, Reynolds
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
Recused: 0
4/0

J. Planning Commission Deliberation
K. Jefferson County Planning Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Hancock inquired if the Planning Commission could recommend
Site 8 rather than Site 9.
David Allen: confirmed that the Planning Commission can recommend Site 8.
Commissioner Jordan asked for clarification as to the reason the County
purchased the site and the party that authorized the purchase. He thanked Gary
Harris and Kip Light for their insight and expressed apprehension in moving forward
with Site 9.
Commissioner Roff noted that Site 9 is satisfactory and it is preferred farm ground;
however, Site 8 or another site should have been considered.

Page 6 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 45 of 70

Commissioner Locke understood the need to attract businesses and solutions
should be identified. She expressed that the cost of development could hinder
opportunities for businesses to develop on the site.
David Allen noted that all areas half a mile out of the UGB are considered farm
ground. He reiterated that development of the land can only be for industrial uses
and the site can continue to be used for farming until a decision regarding
development is rendered.
Commissioner Bicart inquired if the UGB could be expanded.
David Allen noted that the state has asserted that development must be within half
a mile of the UGB or one mile from the existing exception area which is outside the
UGB and already developed.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the City of Madras amended the UGB in 2024 and
Eco Northwest advised of the required Goal 14 analysis. If a change is made, the
same level of analysis will be required.
Motion:

Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the Jefferson County Planning Commission recommend that the
Board of Commissioners deny the application for Site 9 for the following
reasons:
• It is exclusive farm use (EFU) irrigated land
• The overall development cost has not been quantified in
comparison to Site 8
The Jefferson Planning Commission recommends that the Board of
Commissioners consider Site 8 for the UGB.
Hancock
Parcel
Locke, Parcel, Roff, Hancock, Jordan
Nays: 2
N/A
Absent: 0
Recused: 0
5/2

2. City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial Zone Change Proposal, File No. ZC-24-1
A. Open Public Hearing
Motion:

Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

To defer discussion of the City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial Zone
Change Proposal, File No. ZC-24-1, and City of Madras Large-Lot
Industrial Annexation Proposal, File No. AX-24-1, to the next Planning
Commission meeting on October 23, 2024, at 6:00 p.m.
Etter
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine, Reynolds
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
Recused: 0
4/0

B. Planning Commission Chair reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
C. Staff Report

Page 7 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 46 of 70

D. Applicant Testimony
E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
G. Opponent Testimony
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony
I.

Close Public Hearing

J. Planning Commission Deliberation
3. City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial Annexation Proposal, File No. AX-24-1
A. Open Public Hearing
B. Planning Commission Chair reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
C. Staff Report
D. Applicant Testimony
E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
G. Opponent Testimony
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony
I.

Close Public Hearing

IV. Regular Agenda
V. Additional Discussion
VI. Adjourn Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm.
Minutes prepared by:

Reviewed by:

_________________________
Bethany O’Connor, Associate Planner

_________________________
Nicholas Snead, Community Development

Approved by Planning Commission on: __________________

Page 8 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 9, 2024

Page 47 of 70

MADRAS PLANNING COMMISSION
OFFICIAL MEETING MINUTES

City Council Chambers, 125 SW “E” Street, Madras, OR 97741
Wednesday, October 23, 2024

I.

Call Meeting to Order
Chair Irvine called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

II. Roll Call
City of Madras Planning Commission:
Commissioner Melissa Irvine was present
Commissioner Mary Kendall was present
Commissioner Clifford Reynolds was present
Commissioner Ashlyn Etter was present
City of Madras Staff and Consultants:
Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director
Bethany O’Connor, Associate Planner
Garrett Chrostek, City Attorney
Guests
Brenne Fuller
Jeff Rasmussen
Kelly Simmelink
Michelle Varley
Mickey Killingsworth
Wayne Fording
Susan Rask
Steve Rask
III. Public Hearing(s)
1. City of Madras Comprehensive Plan amendment for Large-Lot Industrial UGB
Amendment Proposal, File No. PA-24-1:
A. Open Public Hearing
Chair Irvine noted that the public hearing was closed at the conclusion of the
previous Planning Commission meeting on October 8, 2024.
B. Planning Commission Chair Reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
Chair Irvine read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
Commissioner Reynolds disclosed that he had consulted Gary Harris and asked
questions about farming and his experience in Madras. No conversation was had
regarding the agenda items.

Page 1 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 49 of 70

Chair Irvine had a brief discussion with Commissioner Etter on October 22, 2024,
regarding the meeting agenda items and there was no discussion regarding either
individual’s opinions on the proposal.
Commissioner Etter confirmed that a discussion was held with Chair Irvine
regarding the meeting agenda.
C. Staff Report
Chair Irvine asked City of Madras staff to provide a summary of the parameters
regarding the urban growth boundary (UGB) and a specific lot.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the information he will share is in the record of prior
hearings. UGB in the State of Oregon can only be amended when there is a need
and cities are required to have a 20-year land supply. Residential, industrial, and
commercial zone land meets the 20-year land supply. The proposal is a large-lot
industrial UGB expansion and it was determined that the proposed Site 9 meets the
regional need. The large-lot industrial land need is separate from the other
commercial and industrial lands. The regional needs analysis identifies the criteria for
the large industrial sites.
The analysis outlines the characteristics of a suitable site. If a suitable site is not
found in the urban reserve area, then a study area one half mile beyond the City’s
UGB can be considered. A suitable site was not found in priority one, two, or three
lands. Property owners must be willing to participate by agreeing not to subdivide the
land by parcels less than 50 acres, agree to use the land for large-lot industrial
purposes, and make the land available at a reasonable market price for 10 years. At
the previous meeting, it was noted that several property owners did not want to be
considered for the program. If a suitable site is not found in priority one, two, or three
lands, then priority four and five lands can be considered which are irrigated
farmlands.
Chair Irvine inquired about the factors that resulted in the recommendation of Site 9.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that his prior presentation compared Site 8 and Site 9.
Site 8 has less developable land than Site 9, as there is a road on the land and an
irrigation canal. The lands should be used to identify a site that can be easily
developed to create jobs and bring new industries to the community.
Chair Irvine noted that the City has proposed Site 9 and inquired whether another
recommended site would meet the criteria outlined in the proposal.
CDD Nicholas Snead commented that ORS 197 80.285 and Board Administrative
Rule 650, Division 24, Subsection 67 has specific requirements that outline how
cities should find suitable sites and land to meet land need for UGB. The City of
Madras concluded that Site 9 was suitable after the objective analysis was done as
required by statute and the reference administrative rule. Factual evidence may not
support another site and there may be issues justifying a change from Site 9 to
Site 8.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the utility company that serves Site 9 and
inquired about the quantity of power, as the pump station for the site could take 1.1
megawatts. There is an available power restraint for the site, and it may be beneficial
that the site is placed on a utility grid that can be upgraded.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the questions should be related to evidence in the
record.

Page 2 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 50 of 70

Garrett Chrostek reiterated that the record is closed and inquires can be made
regarding information in the record. Inquiries that request to add new information to
the record are not appropriate, as the record is closed.
CDD Nicholas Snead confirmed that the 1 megawatt of power supplied by CEC is in
the record and the ability to upgrade CEC infrastructure to 2 megawatts is also in the
record.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the amount of power required for a data
center, as the electricity provided to the site may not be optimal.
Commissioner Etter commented that Site 9 is near an industrial area and
expressed that additional manufacturing should come to Madras.
Commissioner Kendall commended the City of Madras staff’s efforts and
acknowledged their work as they completed the analysis adhering to state laws and
regulations.
Chair Irvine concurred with Commissioner Kendall and noted that Site 8 has
detrimental factors. Based on the information on record, Site 9 is the most suitable
despite unknown factors such as the future power supply and the party that will use
the site. The proposal meets the criteria to bring Site 9 into the UGB.
Commissioner Reynolds noted that the site was proposed based on land available
at the present time and there is only one opportunity to expand the UGB for the
large-lot industrial annexation.
Commissioner Kendall inquired about the mandate prohibiting development
beyond boundary line.
CDD Nicholas Snead reviewed the administrative rule regarding the limit for a UGB
population less than 10,000. Sites were found within one half mile of the UGB that
meet the area requirements; however, the property owners did not want to be
considered.
Commissioner Kendall inquired about another opportunity for a large lot if the City
decided to wait.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that, according to the Regional Economic Opportunities
Analysis for the large-lot industrial for Central Oregon, after a site is developed and
committed, the City can replenish. The needs analysis can be updated to gauge
whether the need remains or it may change. There may be opportunities in the future
and the same analysis will be required.
Commissioner Kendall inquired if there is a timeframe in which the large-lot need
must be addressed.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that if the UGB expansion is not considered at the
present time, then the same proposal can be made in the future. Based on the
housing capacity analysis, the City has four times the residential land supply needed
for a 20-year land supply. The boundaries will be similar if the City opted to wait a
few years.
Commissioner Etter reiterated the importance of bringing jobs to Madras to prevent
community members leaving to commute to work outside of the City and County.

Page 3 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 51 of 70

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed Urban Growth Boundary.
Etter
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine
Nays: 1
N/A
Absent: 0
3/1

D. Applicant Testimony
E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
G. Opponent Testimony
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony
I.

Close Public Hearing

J. Planning Commission Deliberation
2. City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial Zone Change Proposal, File No. ZC-24-1
A. Open Public Hearing
Chair Irvine opened the public hearing.
B. Planning Commission Chair Reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
Chair Irvine read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
C. Staff Report
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the matter in question is whether or not to rezone
the land brought into the UGB to City of Madras large-lot industrial. The large-lot
industrial was created based on the regional needs analysis. There were no conflicts
with statewide planning polls. The department of transportation staff suggested a trip
cap of 400 trips or 200 cars for Site 9. The possibility of more trips will be considered
at the site planning review level, and another traffic impact analysis will be prepared.
If the trip cap is exceeded, a TPR analysis is required, and measures will need to be
taken to mitigate adverse impacts on traffic. If there are additional trips, there are
regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure the transportation system is adequate to
meet the needs.

Page 4 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 52 of 70

Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the zone change as proposed.
Commissioner Etter noted that the real estate taxes do not change until the use of
the property changes and inquired whether the people who have a lease on the
property are impacted by the zoning change.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that people who have a lease will not be impacted, as
they can still farm the land.
D. Applicant Testimony
Jeff Rasmussen Expressed that the County was in favor of the Zone Change.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the Planning Commission can make any
recommendation to their respective elected officials. According to the urban growth
area agreement between Jefferson County and the City of Madras for urban growth
boundary amendments, the City Council and Board of Commissioners will need to
come to the same conclusion regarding the urban growth boundary.
Commissioner Reynolds inquired about the influence of the County Planning
Commission’s decision.
Jeff Rasmussen noted that the inquiry can be addressed during the County quasijudicial hearing that will be held on November 13, 2024.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that staff will make a recommendation to the Board of
Commissioners and a similar process will be undertaken.
E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
G. Opponent Testimony
Susan Rask expressed dissatisfaction regarding the City and County’s zoning
changes.
Michelle Varley noted that changing the zoning is a 10-year commitment and
questioned whether a developer would invest to develop the site. She noted that the
proposed traffic mitigation steps are not sufficient.
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that the traffic impact analysis in the record states that
the transportation system is adequate. When a development is proposed, a TIA will
be submitted to study traffic. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve
the zoning changes, the large-lot industrial standards would apply.
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony

Page 5 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 53 of 70

I.

Close Public Hearing

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission close the public hearing.
Etter
Reynolds
Etter, Kendall, Irvine, Reynolds
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
4/0

J. Planning Commission Deliberation
Commissioner Reynolds inquired if a developer would incur infrastructure costs
including development studies.
CDD Nicholas Snead confirmed that it is the developer’s responsibility to ensure
adequate infrastructure.
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission recommend that City
Council approve the zoning change for the lots outlined in the staff
report.
Reynolds
Etter
Etter, Kendall, Irvine, Reynolds
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
4/0

3. City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial Annexation Proposal, File No. AX-24-1
A. Open Public Hearing
Chair Irvine opened the public hearing.
B. Planning Commission Chair Reads Quasi-Judicial Statement
Chair Irvine read the Quasi-Judicial statement.
C. Staff Report
CDD Nicholas Snead noted that Mickey Killingsworth can comment on the zoning
proposal during the City Council public hearing on November 12, 2024, at 5:30 p.m.
in the City Council chambers.
The annexation proposal is the same property as the UGB expansion zone change.
People who would like their property to be brought into City limits will need to enter
an annexation agreement. This annexation agreement is not complex, as
development on the site is unknown at the present time and the agreement has been
drafted in a generic manner.
D. Applicant Testimony
Wayne Fording and Jeff Rasmussen were in favor of the proposal.

Page 6 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 54 of 70

E. Proponent Testimony
F. Neutral Testimony
G. Opponent Testimony
Mickey Killingsworth noted that the City Planning Commission should consider the
County Planning Commission’s deliberation and decision. She noted that there are
ramifications if the Planning Commission moves forward.
Chair Irvine commented that the City Council will review the matter, and comments
can be made during their meeting and during the Board of Commissioners meeting.
H. Applicant Rebuttal Testimony
I.

Close Public Hearing

Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission close the public hearing.
Etter
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine, Reynolds
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
4/0

J. Planning Commission Deliberation
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:
Motion:
Moved:
Seconded:
Ayes:
Absent:
Passed:

That the City of Madras Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council deny the proposed annexation based on the information
provided.
Reynolds
None
0
Nays: 0
N/A
Absent: 0
Motion not carried
That the City of Madras Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed City of Madras Large-Lot Industrial
Annexation Proposal, File No. AX-24-1
Etter
Kendall
Etter, Kendall, Irvine
Nays: 1
N/A
Absent: 0
3/1

IV. Regular Agenda
V. Additional Discussion
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on November 6, 2024, at 6:30 p.m.

Page 7 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 55 of 70

VI. Adjourn Meeting
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Minutes prepared by:

Reviewed by:

_________________________
Bethany O’Connor, Associate Planner

_________________________
Nicholas Snead, Community Development

Approved by Planning Commission on: __________________

Page 8 of 8

Madras Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
An Equal Opportunity Provider

October 23, 2024

Page 56 of 70

CITY OF MADRAS
Request for Planning Commission Action

Meeting Date: January 15, 2025
To:

Planning Commission Members

From:

Nicholas Snead, Community Development Director

Subject:

Annual Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair

TYPE OF ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve
MOTION(S) FOR CONSIDERATION:
That the Commission elect (Name) to serve as Commission Chair and (Name) serve as
Commission Vice Chair for a one-year period beginning January 2025 through December 31,
2025.
OVERVIEW:
In accordance with Ordinance No. 502, City of Madras Planning Commission Bylaws, the
Planning Commission is required to elect a Chair and Vice Chair annually at the first meeting of
the calendar year. These leadership roles are essential for facilitating Commission meetings,
ensuring adherence to procedural rules, and representing the Planning Commission in
coordination with staff and the City Council.
The current Chair, Mellissa Irvine, and Vice Chair, Ashlyn Etter, have served in their roles for the
past year. The Commission is now tasked with nominating and electing individuals to fill these
positions for the upcoming term.

STAFF ANALYSIS:
The Planning Commission Chair presides at all meetings, conducts meetings in an orderly
manner following all accepted laws ad bylaws governing the Commission, calls special meetings,
and appoints all Commission committees. The Planning Commission Vice-Chair Conducts
meetings and hearings in absence of the Chair and serves out the unexpired term if the Chair is
vacated.
FISCAL INFORMATION:

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION:

Page 1 of 1

Request for Planning Commission Action
Page 57 of 70

ORDINANCE NO. 866
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 502 TO REDUCE THE CURRENT NUMBER
OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM A SEVEN MEMBER COMMISSION DOWN
TO A FIVE MEMBER COMMISSION; ADOPTING NEW PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City of Madras ("City") adopted Ordinance No. 502 on October 22, 1991,
which ordinance established the composition and general duties of the City of Madras Planning
Commission (the "Commission"); and
WHEREAS, City adopted Ordinance No. 728 on March 8, 2005, which ordinance amended
Ordinance No. 502 with respect to the Commission's membership requirements; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 5, 1994, the Commission adopted certain Planning
Commission Bylaws (the "Original Bylaws") pursuant to ORS 227.020 in order to govern
Commission business and operations; and
WHEREAS, the original bylaws were amended by formal motion of the City Council on
July 22, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the original bylaws, as amended, were repealed and replaced by passage of
Ordinance No. 714 on January 27, 2004 (the "Current Bylaws"); and
WHEREAS, the Madras City Council (the "Council") and Commission have determined that
Ordinance No. 502, as amended, and the current bylaws are outdated and in need of
amendment or replacement; and
WHEREAS, on or about March 18, 2014, the Commission reviewed and discussed the

proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 502 and the proposed Planning Commission Bylaws
dated April 14, 2015 substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Proposed
Bylaws") and determined that the ordinance amendments and bylaws being proposed were
acceptable; and
WHEREAS, after providing the public with an opportunity to testify on the ordinance

amendments and proposed bylaws, and after taking into consideration any written and oral
comments received from the public and staff during the public hearing held on April 14, 2015,
the Council approves the amendments to Ordinance No. 502 and the proposed bylaws as
provided in this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Madras ordains as follows:
SECTION 1:

FINDINGS

The above-stated findings contained in this Ordinance are hereby adopted.

PAGE 1 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 866

Page 58 of 70

SECTION 2:

AMENDMENT NO. 1

Ordinance No. 502, Section 3, Membership, Subsections (1) and (7), as amended by
Ordinance No. 728 in the case of Subsection (1 ), are hereby amended in their entirety as
follows:
"(1)

The commission shall consist of five voting members. Commission members
shall be appointed by the City Council. At all times, at least one (1) member
must be a resident of the City of Madras. Not more than two (2) members may
reside outside the Madras city limits but within the City of Madras Urban Growth
Boundary. Not more than two (2) members may reside outside the Madras city
limits but within a three mile radius of the Madras city limits. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the City Council shall endeavor to appoint residents of the City of
Madras to the commission."

"(7)

No two (2) or more members of the commission shall have the same occupation.
Business persons engaged in different kinds of business shall not be prevented
by this subsection from serving. Being retired shall not be considered an
occupation within the meaning of this subsection. Persons principally engaged in
the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit, including as principals,
members, officers, or employees of any partnership, business entity, or
corporation that principally engages in the buying, selling, or developing of real
estate for profit, shall be considered to have the same occupation."

The foregoing amendments are hereby made part of Ordinance No. 502. The sections and
provisions of Ordinance No. 502 that are not amended or modified by this Ordinance remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.

SECTION 3:

ADOPTION OF BYLAWS

The proposed bylaws dated April 14, 2015, are hereby approved and adopted by the
Council. The proposed bylaws, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", replace and supersede the
current bylaws dated January 27, 2004 in its entirety. In furtherance of the general powers
and duties granted the Commission under Ordinance No. 502, as amended, the
Commission will be permitted to make any further amendments and/or modifications to the
Commission bylaws as and when the Commission deems necessary or appropriate without
the Council's review and approval provided such amendments and/or modifications are
permitted and do not conflict with Ordinance No. 502, as amended, and applicable law.

SECTION 4:
4.1

MISCELLANEOUS

Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, and/or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, unenforceable, and/or unconstitutional,
such invalid, unenforceable, and/or unconstitutional section, subsection,
sentence, clause, and/or portion will (a) yield to a construction permitting
enforcement to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, and (b) not

PAGE 2 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 866

Page 59 of 70

affect the validity, enforceability, and/or constitutionality of the remaining portion
of this Ordinance.
4.2

Corrections. This Ordinance may be corrected by order of the City Council to
cure editorial and/or clerical errors.

4.3

Emergency Declaration. The City Council finds that passage of this Ordinance is
necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health, and safety of
City's citizens. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist. This
emergency Ordinance will be in full force and effect upon its passage by the
Council and signing by the mayor.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Madras and signed by the
Mayor this l L\ th day of
Q
O
, 20 15 .

p)]i

Ayes:
Nays:
Abstentions:
Absent:
Vacancies:

5
0

0

Q

Royce Embanks, Mayor

ATTEST:

an, City Recorder

PAGE 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 866
Page 60 of 70

Exhibit "A"
Planning Commission Bylaws
[attached]

EXHIBIT "A" - PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS, DATED APRIL 14, 2015

Page 61 of 70

CITY OF MADRAS
PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Madras Planning Commission (the "Commission")
hereby adopts the following Planning Commission Bylaws pursuant to ORS 227.020
and/or Ordinance No. 502 in order to govern the Commission's business and
operations. As of April 14, 2015, (the "effective date"), these bylaws replace and
supersede all prior Commission bylaws, as amended, in its or their entirety.
SECTION 1:

MEMBERSHIP

A.

NUMBER AND SELECTION. The Commission shall consist of five (5)
voting members. Commission members shall be appointed by the City
Council. At all times, at least one (1) member must be a resident of the
City of Madras. Not more than two (2) members may reside outside the
Madras city limits but within the City of Madras Urban Growth Boundary.
Not more than two (2) members may reside outside the Madras city limits
but within a three-mile radius of the Madras city limits. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the City Council shall endeavor to appoint residents of the City
of Madras to the Commission.

B.

TERM OF OFFICE. Members shall be appointed for three (3) year terms,
or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. Terms
begin on January 1 and end on December 31. Terms shall be staggered.

When an interim vacancy occurs, the City Council shall make
appointments to fill that position for the duration of the unexpired term
given due consideration to the Commission's recommendation.

C.

REPRESENTATION. No two (2) or more members of the Commission
shall have the same occupation.

1. Business persons engaged in different kinds of business shall not be
prevented by this subsection from serving.
2. Being retired shall not be considered an occupation within the meaning
of this subsection.
3. Persons principally engaged in the buying, selling or developing of real
estate for profit, including as principals, members, officers, or
employees of any partnership, business entity, or corporation that
Page 1 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 62 of 70

principally engages in the buying, selling or developing of real estate
for profit, shall be considered to have the same occupation.

D.

RESPONSIBILITIES. Commission members shall regularly attend
meetings of the Commission and its subcommittees, as well as fulfill other
duties as assigned by the Chair. Members shall notify the Community
Development Director when they are unable to attend a Commission
meeting.
Prior to meetings and hearings, members shall review pertinent written
documents in preparation for deliberation and decision making.

E.

TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP. The City Council may, following a
hearing, remove a Commission member for the following reasons:
1. Failure to attend regular Commission meetings resulting in three (3)
or more consecutive unexcused absences;
2. Committing a felony;
3. Incompetence;
4. Misconduct;
5. Failure to declare conflicts of interest or ex-parte contacts.
The Community Development Director shall be directed by the
Commission Chair to notify the City Council in writing when a
Commissioner's appointment needs to be reviewed for possible
termination.

SECTION 2:
A.

OFFICERS

ELECTION OF OFFICERS. At the first regular meeting of each year, the
Commission shall select from its voting membership, a Chair and ViceChair whose term of office shall be one (1) year. Said member shall be
eligible to serve as many terms as they are elected to serve.
1. Duties of the Chair.

Page 2 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 63 of 70

a. Preside at all meetings;
b. Conduct meetings/hearings in an orderly manner following
all accepted laws and Bylaws governing the Commission;
c. Call special meetings;
d. Appoint all Commission committees.
e. Sign approved documentation (e.g. Minutes of the Meetings,
Decisions, etc.)
2. Duties of the Vice-Chair
a. Conduct meetings and hearings, and
documentation in the absence of the Chair;

sign

approved

b. Serve out the unexpired term when the Chair is vacated.

SECTION 3:

ROLE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

The Commission is composed of volunteer lay members whose duties include:
A.

Participation in the Periodic Review of the City Comprehensive Plan.

B.

Maintenance of ordinances
Comprehensive Plan.

C.

The conducting of hearings intended to satisfactorily determine application
issues.

SECTION 4:
A.

intended

to

implement

the

City

STAFF

STAFF TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
In addition to the
Community Development Director, the following positions may support the
work of the Commission:

1. City Administrator
2. Jefferson County Fire Marshal

Page 3 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 64 of 70

3. City Public Works Director
4. City Attorney
5. City Recorder
6. Community Development staff and consultants

B.

ADVISORS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The Council may, at the
request of the Commission, designate subcommittees of citizens and
professionals as advisors. Said advisors will be requested to provide
technical assistance, participate in deliberations, and attend meetings to
the extent deemed appropriate by the Chair.

C.

LEGAL COUNSEL. The City Attorney shall act as legal advisor to the
Commission in the conduct of all hearings.

D.

COMMISSION SECRETARY. The Community Development Director or
Community Development staff shall serve as Secretary to the Commission
and shall keep an accurate, permanent, and complete record of all
proceedings before the Commission. The Community Development
Director shall be responsible for overseeing the timely and accurate
preparation of the Commission minutes.

SECTION 5:
A.

COMMISSION MEETINGS.

REGULAR MEETINGS.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the
Commission shall be the first Wednesday (or such other business day that
the Commission may fix from time to time) of each month, beginning at a
time set by the Commission in the Madras City Hall Council Chambers.
In addition to the foregoing regular meeting dates, the Commission may
meet at other times, dates, and places as may be deemed appropriate to
carry out the Commission's business.
If there is no pending business, the Community Development Director may
cancel a Commission meeting by providing appropriate notice.

Page 4 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 65 of 70

B.

SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings may be called by the Chair, a
majority of the Commission members, the Community Development
Director, or the City Council by giving at least forty-eight (48) hour notice
before the meeting.

C.

QUORUM. A quorum shall consist of not less than three (3) members of
the Commission. It is necessary to have a quorum present to conduct
business or hold a public hearing. A previously absent member may
count towards a quorum and participate in a continued hearing if the
commissioner states for the record that they have listened to the
recordings of the prior meeting and have read all of the evidence in the
record

D.

VOTING. Motions may be made and seconded by any member of the
Commission except the Chair. Each Commission member, including the
Chair, shall vote unless there is a recognized conflict of interest or unless
the Commission member or Chair was unable to consider the full record
on the matter. In this case, the Commission member or Chair will abstain.
A majority vote of those constituting a quorum shall be required to pass
any motion before the Commission. All voting on public hearing issues
shall be by roll call of the Commissioners. On a tie vote, the motion fails.
The Commission shall approve or deny any application where the
Commission serves as the hearings body. Matters where the Commission
does not serve as the hearings body may be forwarded to the City Council
with either a recommendation to approve, recommendation to disapprove,
or no recommendation.

E.

AGENDA. The Community Development Director, in conjunction with the
Chair, shall set the agenda and give notice to members seven (7) days
prior to the meeting. Additional items may be added at the meeting when
requested by individual Commission members, City Council, or
Community Development staff.

F.

MINUTES. A recording of the Commission's proceedings plus an
accurate written record shall be maintained by the City Recorder in
compliance with the state records retention schedule, and in the office of
the Community Development Department.

Page 5 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 66 of 70

SECTION 6:
A.

COMMISSION HEARINGS

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BIAS, AND EX-PARTE CONTACTS. A
Commission member shall not participate in any proceedings in which any
of the following has a direct, or substantial financial interest: the member,
the member's spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, parent-in-law, cousin,
niece, nephew, employer or partner in any business with which he or she
is negotiating or has an arrangement or understanding concerning
prospective partnership or employment.

Any action, or potential financial, or other interest that would lead to bias
or partiality shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is
considered.
Any party to any action may, in relation to an action, challenge the
impartiality of any member before or during the hearing on the action. A
challenge must include the facts relied upon by the challenging party
relating to the member's alleged bias, prejudgment, or personal interest,
or other facts from which the party has concluded that the member cannot
participate in the decision in an impartial manner.
In the event of a challenge for bias, the member shall respond in a
statement of capacity to participate in the hearing, which shall be part of
the record. The statement shall refer to the challenge and include the
reasons why the member wishes to participate or be disqualified. The
statement of capacity to participate in the hearing shall not be subject to
cross examination, but shall be subject to rebuttal by the challenging
party.
The member of the Commission shall not:
1. Communicate, directly or indirectly, with any interested persons or
their representatives in connection with any matter before the
Commission that is subject to a public hearing except upon notice
and an opportunity for all parties to participate;
2. Take notice of any communication, reports, staff memoranda, or
other materials prepared in connection with the particular case
unless the parties are afforded an opportunity to contest the
material so noticed; or
3. Conduct a site visit with a party or their representative unless all
parties are given an opportunity to be present.
Page 6 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 67 of 70

If ex-parte contact cannot be avoided by a member of the Commission,
disclosure of the contact shall be made by the member at the opening of
the appropriate hearing. Such disclosure shall be subject to the same
rules as for a statement of bias or conflict of interest.
Requests for disqualification based upon bias, conflict of interest, or exparte contact shall be considered by the entire Commission present, and
be granted upon majority consent (excluding the individual disclosing or
challenged concerning bias or ex-parte contact). The Commission shall
consider the evidence in the record and decide whether the individual can
reasonably be expected to render an impartial decision.
In the event a member is disqualified, the remaining members shall hear
the application. In the event of no quorum, the application will be
rescheduled to a future meeting.
No decision or action of the Commission shall be invalid due to ex-parte
contact or bias resulting from ex-parte contact with a member of the
decision-making body, if the member of the decision-making body
receiving the contact:
a. Places on the record the substance of any written or oral ex-parte
communications concerning the decision or action; and
b. Has a public announcement of the content of the communication
and of the parties' right to rebut the substance of the
communication made at the first hearing following the
communication where action will be considered or taken on the
subject to which the communication related.
A communication between city staff and the Planning Commission shall
not be considered as ex-parte contact for the purposes listed in the above
paragraph and subparagraphs.

B.

BURDEN OF PROOF. The burden of proof is placed upon the applicant
seeking approval of the proposed action. Such proof shall show that:

The proposed action is in accordance with the applicable standards and
criteria of the City of Madras Comprehensive Plan and relevant zoning
ordinances.

Page 7 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 68 of 70

C.

HEARING PROCEDURES. Hearings on proposed actions shall be
conducted in compliance with Article 9 of the City of Madras Zoning
Ordinance (No. 864) as it may be amended from time to time. These
bylaws shall be subordinate in the event of any conflict with the City of
Madras Zoning Ordinance.

D.

ORDER OF HEARING. The general rules governing hearings will be as
follows:

1. Questions may be asked by Commissioners at any time on any
point and shall be directed through the Chair;
2. The length of time given for speakers may be indicated by the
Chair;
3. The Chair may regulate time allowed if it is in the public's interest
and necessary to the Commission's responsibility as a hearings
body;
4. Anyone wishing to testify before the Commission may be
represented by counsel;
5. Questions must be submitted to the Chair who may request
answers.
6. All Commissioners are expected to contribute to the deliberation by
asking questions, and discussing issues;

Page 8 of 9

-

Hearing declared open

-

Chair reads ORS 197/227 ..... , if requested, or not included
on the meeting agenda.

-

Staff report

-

Applicant testimony

-

Testimony of proponents

-

Written testimony favoring application shall be read by the
Chair or designee

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 69 of 70

-

Testimony of all opponents

-

Written testimony in opposition to the application shall be
read by the Chair or designee

-

Applicant rebuttal

-

Public hearing is closed

-

Discussion by Commissioners including attention to any
relevant written questions from the audience

-

Action by the Commission; motion for disposition; discussion
of the motion; call for the question, and voting

A continuance may be granted by a majority of the Commissioners
present if new information regarding the application has been
presented by the applicant after the notice of public hearing is sent.
If the hearing is continued, the time and place shall be announced.
Persons previously notified need not be renotified.
If there is no continuance, the record shall remain open for seven
(7) days if a party so requests.

SECTION 7:

PLANNING COMMISSION TRAINING

The Community Development Department shall provide appropriate training to all
Commission members when the department's budget allows for training. All
Commission members shall be given a current, complete notebook containing the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, any updates
thereto, and any other written information that will assist the Commission members
in carrying out their duties.

SECTION 8:

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS REVIEW

These bylaws shall be reviewed for appropriate and timely revision(s) at the first
meeting of each calendar year.

Page 9 of 9

Planning Commission Bylaws

Page 70 of 70