Madras planning commission backs Site 9 UGB expansion, recommends zoning and annexation to City Council

The Madras Planning Commission on the evening of the hearing voted to recommend that the City Council add Site 9 to the city’s urban growth boundary for large‑lot industrial use (PA‑24‑1) and to approve a related zoning change (ZC‑24‑1) and annexation (AX‑24‑1).

Staff told commissioners the record supports the proposal and that the city followed state planning rules and the regional needs analysis when identifying Site 9. Staff noted the record includes utility and traffic letters and recommended a trip cap to limit traffic generation. “The TPR analysis has been completed. We’ve reviewed it with ODOT. They are okay with the trip cap on this as well,” staff said during the presentation.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about developability, slope, irrigation canals, and utility capacity. Krishna Reynolds asked about electric service and referenced letters in the record showing a current 1‑megawatt capacity with upgrades that could allow 2 megawatts; staff and other participants said final load and any upgrades would be determined by a developer at site‑plan review.

During public testimony opponents raised concerns about infrastructure, farmland loss and traffic. Michelle Varley, a nearby resident, told the commission she was worried about utility and road capacity and about committing farm ground for 10 years: “Is it really a possibility that you’re gonna find someone who’s gonna put in millions and millions and millions of dollars to develop this site?” she asked.

Commissioners debated the statutory limits on the study area (half‑mile/one‑mile rules), the availability of alternative sites and the economic argument for capturing industrial leads. After deliberation Commissioner Eder moved to recommend Site 9 for the UGB expansion; the motion carried by voice vote (three ayes, one recorded nay). The commission later voted to recommend the zone change and annexation to the City Council as well.

What this means next: the Planning Commission’s recommendations will be transmitted to the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners, which will hold their own hearings. Staff said any future developer would be responsible for site‑specific infrastructure studies and for design and mitigation required by the city, county or ODOT, and that annexation agreements will set binding obligations for infrastructure improvements.

The record for these decisions includes citations to state law and administrative rules cited by staff during the hearing and submitted letters and technical reports referenced in the staff packet. The City Council public hearing and the county hearings were identified by staff as the next opportunities for public testimony.