BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
March 30, 2005
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Anna Morrison presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1211/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Pursuant to RCP General Plan Policies - Goal 2, Policy 27.a.ii. and Goal 4, Policy 15 to Rezone 34.2 Acres from Nonimpacted Forest Land (F-1, RCP) to Impacted Forest Land (F-2, RCP) for a Parcel Identified on Lane County Assessorís Map 21-01-30 as Tax Lot 300, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File: PA 04- 5252, Everett). (NBA & PM 3/16/05).
Bill Sage, Land Management, explained in Policy 27 of Goal 2, there are eight circumstances in which you can come to the Board and ask for a conformity determination.† He noted the one used in this application is 27 a.ii.† He said when they come under that circumstance, they are saying that in 1984 when the parcel was first zoned, there were legal lots within the subject area that werenít identified at the time by staff.† He said the policy stated had they been identified, it may have had some impact on what they did with the zoning.† He said if that case can be met, they are shifted in the policy to Goal 4, Policy 15, which are the characteristics of determining how a parcel should be an F1 or F2 designation.† He indicated that the staff report went through a process of asking specific questions and putting findings that came out of the deliberations at the Planning Commission and made conclusions on each of those steps. †He said under Goal a. ii, the Board has to decide whether a legal lot is there.† He recalled the County did legal lot verifications and found there was a legal lot for the 34-acre piece in 1984.† He recalled in the public hearing that took place before the Planning Commission on August 3, there was an issue raised that during the time period between 1983 and 1986, Lane County had definitions of legal lot in their Lane Code 13 and 16 that says on January 1 of every calendar year, any parcels where there is contiguous ownership, creating a tract, becomes one legal lot.† Lane County followed what was happening with the legislature and the 1985 Legislature passed amendments to ORS 192 that clarified all that.† He added that the County came back in 1986 and adopted three ordinances. He explained that one amended Chapter 13, one amended Chapter 16 and one took the errors and omissions policy and extended it for another three years to clear it up.† He indicated when the Planning Commission met, they adopted an interpretation of what a legal lot was between 1983 and 1986 and they stated in that determination that because of all the factors at the state and local level, they were interpreting that any legal lot that was there in 1984 was a discrete legal lot and it hadnít lost its status as a lot and wasnít merged then or now.††
Sage said when the Board deliberates on this, they will have to determine if there was a legal lot.† He added if the Board agrees with the Planning Commissionís recommendation, they will need to adopt their interpretation that in 1984 a legal lot existed and it wasnít merged.†† He indicated there were findings in the board order that the Board adopted as its interpretation.†
Sage explained the Planning Commission unanimously made a recommendation that the Board not only adopts that interpretation, but also approve the request for rezoning the 34 acres from F1 to F2.
Sage noted since the Board received the packet, one item came in as an addendum to the record on March 28, from Jim Just from Goal 1 Coalition.
Morrison recalled that this is a de novo hearing and she asked if there were any ex parte contacts.
There were no ex-parte contacts.
Jim Mann, representing Earl Everett, property owner, indicated they have an application for a plan amendment and zone change for 34 acres.† He said they had a hearing with the Planning Commission and they reviewed it and recommended approval.† He said that staff has developed findings and they recommended the Board adopt the findings in support of the proposed change.† He indicated this is the first hearing under this application process. . With regard to the zone change from F1 to F2, at the time they applied for this zone change, since Lane County adopted the Comprehensive Plan in 1984, there were only three applications for zone changes from F1 to F2.† He said they all went to the Lane County hearingís official.†
With regard to changing the zoning from F1 to F2, Mann said there would be a wide spectrum of the kinds of applications they will get under the requirements.† He said some would be obvious because of the condition of the properties.† He said this seems like it is an F-2.†
Mann distributed information from the Planning Commission.† He noted at the Planning Commission hearing there was a concern raised by the opposition that they hadnít adequately shown that some of the existing development in the area actually existed in 1984, even though they had aerial photos and other information.† He submitted additional information.† He recalled in 1982 there was an existing dwelling on the property that burned down.† He submitted a land use permit that was approved in 1983 for a replacement dwelling.† He noted at the time Lane County was doing the zoning in 1984, it would have been an active permit.†
Dwyer asked if someone would have bought the land in 1984, before the adoption of the code or zoning, what could they be expected to be able to do for that piece of property.†
Mann indicated that the practice at the time was that the permit was valid for the life of the permit, and was not negated by the adoption of the new zoning.
Mann said the first submittal was the Lane County tax assessment improvement appraisal with the church that is contiguous on the south end of the property.† He noted the information indicated that the church had a year built date of 1945.† He explained there was a dwelling on tax lot 400 with a year built date of 1971.† He said there is a note out of the Lane County permit records that on map 21-01-30, tax lot 1602, there was an existing mobile home with the year built date of 1963.† He included a copy of Lane Countyís Goal 2 Policy 17 into the record with the approved replacement dwelling for the subject policy.† He indicated that Policy 17 was numbered different in 1984, but the policy said to the extent possible, Lane County and planning and zoning would recognize existing approved permits.† He said while looking at Policy 17 and the zoning policy for F1 and F2, they have to consider other policies that give direction for F1 and F2 zoning.
Mann said when they are looking at uses on adjacent property; there is an industrial use to the south that is in the M3 zone.† He explained in the submittal the Board received from Goal 1 Coalition, it indicates the uses allowed by the forest goal and is therefore forest use.† He said following that line of logic it discounts the use.† He referred to a quote out of the OAR that they referred to that said it is a facility where finite processing of forest products is allowed by the forest goal, but Lane Code Chapter 16.090, a permanent processing facility is restricted to processing products raised on the tract where it is located.† He said if there was an existing facility there that had the broad ability to process forest products (and they took it), where it was zoned before industrial and not zone it industrial, the use is limited.† He said when Lane County zoned it in 1984, that was the appropriate thing to do.†
Mann indicated there was another comment in the objections that there is a mobile home on the industrial zoned property and the commentator said it is in the industrial zone as an accessory industrial use, not a mobile home, and calling it an accessory industrial use without having any facts to do that is inappropriate.
Mann explained in looking at the F1, F2 criteria, he believed ownership is developed with residences on non-forest uses.† He said if they consider the fact that this property had a dwelling on it until 1982, they had an active land use permit with replacement rights in 1984.† He said the application met the requirement.† He said if they say it is predominantly ownership of 80 acres or less in size and looking at the property involved, it might not qualify because of the purpose.† He said it would qualify as ownership that is generally contiguous to tracts containing less than 80 acres. He explained there is a constraint that has been put on the application and the Planning Commission that when they are looking at the adjacent parcel, you canít go on beyond the adjacent property. He said in looking at the adjacent developed and committed lands and consider the character of them, you look at what they are adjacent to. He said it makes a difference if they are isolated developed and committed parcels or if they are adjacent to large unincorporated communities.
Dwyer asked if there is a road there, if it made it contiguous.
Mann said that a road does not make them contiguous.† He said they look at homes that are contiguous and find out what they are contiguous to.† He said that with F1 and F2, they have to look at each criteria so one might carry more weight than the other.
Laurie Segel, 1000 Friends of Oregon, stated their concern with the application is with the application of the provision.† She said the inquiry on the adjoining parcels should be based on ownership, not parcelization.† She said what has been misrepresented is that the inquiry on errors and omissions needs to be based on historical conditions.† She said the fact of whether or not an error or omission was made in zoning couldnít be based on what is on the ground.† She added it had to be based upon what was happening in 1984 when the zoning applied.
Dwyer said if that was the case, the legal record showed there was a house there in 1983.
Segel commented that they have to look at ownership, not parcelization and make sure the condition area is okay.† She was concerned about them because the same criteria is being used in evaluating the application and those provisions are not misinterpreted.† She said she wasnít speaking in opposition of this application; she was speaking to the correct implementation of the provisions for Goal 2, Policy 27 and for Goal 4, Policy 16.†
Sage indicated the Planning Commission made findings on each of the characteristics of what F1 and F2 parcels are compromised of and they made conclusions on each of the four and they made a conclusion and supported the application for approval.
Dwyer asked if they dealt with parcelization versus ownership.
Sage said they discussed it but didnít get to a point of making an interpretation.† He said they can discuss things and make a recommendation and have an opinion, but only the Board could interpret the policy.† He said the Board could agree with the hearings official or choose to deal with the interpretation separately and change it.†
Mann indicated that Lauri Segel stated in her presentation that the application had been misrepresented and it must be based on historical information showing what had happened in 1984.† He took issue with that.† He stated they had presented the kind of historical information that was needed.
Sorenson noted there was a dwelling on the property in 1984.† He asked if that decided the case.
Sage responded that the fact there was a dwelling and residential development covered the first characteristic of the subject property, and in 1984 they zoned some F1 properties that had ownership on them, which were large and isolated.† He noted in this case they were looking at development on one parcel that was subject to this decision that is smaller and below the threshold of 80 acres.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Morrison closed the Public Hearing.
Dwyer asked what the Planning Commissionís recommendation was.
Sage indicated their recommendation for the Board was to consider approving this based on findings and conclusions.
MOTION: to close the record and deliberate.
Stewart MOVED, Green SECONDED.
Stewart commented that there was a legal lot there at the time.† He didnít think this should be rolled into a timber F1 zone.† He believed this property met the characteristics to qualify for F2 zoning.
Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes stated that given the testimony and evidence that was submitted today, there was enough evidence to address the issue.† He thought it might be appropriate to revise the findings to address that.† He said if they are taking action to approve, he recommended that be a tentative action and set a third reading and final action at a time in the future that would allow for a revision of the findings that would address the issue as it was developed.
MOTION: to tentatively approve Ordinance PA 1211 pending the submission of more findings and support through the application, and approve a Second Reading and setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on April 20, 2005.
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1212/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Pursuant to RCP General Plan Policies - Goal 2, Policy 27 a.ii., Goal 2, Policy 27 a.vii. and Goal 4, Policy 15, to Rezone 83.58 acres from Nonimpacted Forest Land (F1, RCP) to Impacted Forest Land (F2, RCP) for Four Parcels Identified as Tax Lots 4100 (15.69 acres) and 4200 (23.19 acres) on Lane County Assessorís Map 19-01-08, and Tax Lots 1800 (26.01 acres) and 401 (18.69 acres) on Lane County Assessorís Map 19-01-17, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (File: PA 04-5276, Kronberger). (NBA & PM 3/16/05).
Morrison asked if there were any ex parte contacts.
There were none.
Sage reported the Board received the first agenda cover memo on February 28 and since that time they had received three separate supplementals.† He recalled on March 24 he received from the applicant an executive summary of the presentation they put into the original application and more information has come into the record since that time.† He said on March 28 the Board received a second addendum to Jim Just and the Goal 1 Coalition. He noted in this case, the applicant chose to make an application under two of the circumstances of the eight that are in Goal 2, Policy 27.† He said that was the policy that dealt with legal lots.† He added they also made an application at the same time to be considered under Policy 27 a.ii, where there was a correction of an inconsistency between the text of an order or ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners and an official plan in the zoning diagram.† He noted in this case he presented them as Option 1 and Option 2 and they dealt with findings and conclusions.† He said he had made an error in the processing of the Planning Commission.† He said when he was directing the Planning Commission on how to proceed with this application, he misread or made a literal translation of what the applicant put in their final rebuttal.† He read that to say that they wouldnít withdraw the consideration under the policy for legal lot parcelization and rely on the errors and inconsistencies between the text and the map.† He said the Planning Commission only made recommendation and conclusions based on one of the two policies.† He stated after the deliberation they asked for the opportunity to come back to review that criteria and get a second opinion.† He said at that time the Planning Commission thought they had been influenced by what he had given as direction and the way it was handled, and it was better to come to the Board with a recommendation of a non-decision and have the Board make the determination based on the complete record.
Sage said if they go to the inconsistency between a map and a text, they have to go back to the same process in 1984 and look at what the Board did, to see if it was meant to be drawn on a map the way it was, or if the text they referred to needed to have something in it.† He said the Board needs to go back and apply the Goal 4 Policy 15 to both of the circumstances, to determine if the intent of the zoning was F1 or F2 and the inconsistencies between the map and text.† He said they have to make two decisions on Policy 27 a.ii, legal lot parcelization and one on Policy 27 a.vii, using consistencies.† He said if both are denied, then the application would not go forward.† He said if they choose to approve one of them,† then the application could prevail.
Dwyer asked how the Planning Commission dealt with it.
Sage responded that they were confused.† He noted there were times in the discussion where they were making cases and trying to point out his error.† He said they made the process and connection between Goal 4 and Policy 15.† He said they made one recommendation, on the consistency of the map and the text.† He said their recommendation was to deny the application.
Sage said under Option 1, the Board could agree that the map was the one that prevailed at the time, indicating what were the boundaries of the F1 zone, and that is what the Board would rely on.† He added the second option would affect the text itself because it was laid out as part of the ordinance.† He said it was the result of the LCDCís remand to Lane County.† He said in February 1984, they rezoned properties in response to some of those concerns and in September 1984, they changed the zoning and that was when the map change occurred.† He noted it was a text discrepancy.
Dwyer asked if the map came first.
Sage indicated they both came together.† He explained when Ordinance 8-84 was adopted in February, it went up to LCDC for rezoning the whole County.† He said on the first order it was just on the map.† He said when they adopted Ordinance 8-91, it made the amendment of Ordinance 8-84 maps.† He said they marked any changes they made then and because they marked on top of maps, they said in the ordinance for any further delineation affected by the zoning from F1 to F1, you go to Exhibit C.
Morrison opened the Public Hearing.
Al Cooper, Eugene, Applicantís Agent, said he was impressed with Sageís taking some of the responsibility for what happened at the Planning Commission level.† He said they applied for the application under the conformity determination process that was a two-step process. He indicated that the first step asked if something happened in 1984 that merits re-examination now.† He added there are eight categories and they applied under two of them.† He said that one of them was a failure of the maps to display actual existing legal lots and the other was the inconsistency between the text of the ordinance that creates the zoning and the maps.† He said during the deliberation the question about the ability to identify legal lots was complicated.† He added in their final rebuttal they could qualify under any one or more of the eight categories.† He said if the first one is too confusing or they didnít agree with staffís research, they qualified under the second step.† Cooper stated Sage said that someone got misconstrued, that they applied under one criteria and changed and applied under something else.† He said they were accused of bait and switch and duping the Planning Commission.† He said they applied and discussed both alternatives.† He said once the case qualifies and the staff reports they qualify under both criteria, then they have one issue.† He said the question is whether the property should be restored to its original F2 or left in F1.† He explained to reach that determination they apply the criteria that are found in the Rural Comprehensive Plan Goal 4, Policy 15 and there is criteria for zone change found in Lane Code Chapter 16.† He said as Jim Mann mentioned, there had been three previous F1, F2 case hearings by the hearings official.† He said the hearings official said this process requires that the original process of designation be re-visited to see if the factors that originally supported F1 have changed to such an extent that F2 is now justified.† He explained the staff report presented to the Board when they were adopting the conformity determination process contained the statement that this process is a pact between a private property owner and the County to acknowledge existing circumstances and provide relief.††
Cooper noted in this matter what counts is ownership, not necessarily parcelization in 1984.† He said in response to comments to LCDC, an ordinance was passed in which there was a map that showed the entire area as F1.† He indicated the text of the ordinance said they were rezoning property as shown on the map and then further delineated on the list of tax lots.† He said they were not using the inconsistency to decide what the zoning ought to be.† He said the inconsistency is to get to the case on the merits.
Cooper indicated within a mile from their property there are 263 parcels of less than 10 acres.† He said out of 263 parcels there are many owners.† He added on their property is four separate ownerships.† He explained the F2 zoning depends on small parcelization, dwellings and things to enforce in the F1 area.††
Sage recalled when the County reviewed this, there was one tax lot and four legal lots within the triangle: one was 69 acres, one was 27 acres, one was 78 acres and one was 26 acres.† He said the property line adjustment of the 118 acres to the south was consolidated and it left 83 acres.† He noted in 2000 Lane County did four legal lot verifications and found that those four acreages existed and were legal.† He added in January 2003, the property line adjustment that included the 118 acres re-configured the four lots that were left within the 83 acres and resulted in parcels that were 15.69 acres, 23.19 acres, 26.1 acres and 18.69 acres.
Cooper commented that regardless whether the County could or could not have recognized legal lots, he thought this case qualified under the category of inconsistency between the map and the text.† He noted the criteria were created when Lane County was zoning the entire county.† He said they donít work as well† as when they go small area by small area.† He explained the way the criteria are applied is to go through each one and they will go toward F1 or F2 and whichever one predominates, directs toward that zoning.† He noted that the staff report correctly documented that in the area there are 32 homes and the County shop, but those are zoned F1.
With regard to Lane Code Chapter 16.252 (2) criteria that apply to all zone changes, Cooper asked if the zone conforms to the physical characteristics of the property and if it was in the public interest.† He said as to the physical characteristics they talked about, scientists evaluated the property with expertise in forestry.† He added because of the slightly lower quality of soils and the surrounding property, the property would not be of interest to a large industrial timber manufacturer, but would be of interest to small woodlands.
Cooper indicated they received a 15-page letter of objection.† He said the letter contained 11 errors.† He requested that the record stay open so he could have a written report on those.
Marvin Zettle, Dexter, said he is a neighbor of Merle Brown.† He said he moved back to the area because of the horseback riding.† He said the property they are talking about is where the horseback riding trails are.† He asked what would happen with those trails if the land were developed.† He read a letter into the record from Merle Brown.
Laurie Segel, Eugene, stated she was speaking on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon.† She said there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission and at deliberations staff brought forward a policy amendment for Goal 2 Policy 27.† She said what didnít make sense was for the Planning Commission to be considering policy amendments that hadnít gone forward to a public hearing that would be used to help deliberate on the two judicial applications before them.† She said the policy amendments were used to help the Planning Commission deliberate.† She contacted staff following that and said that procedurally that was incorrect.† She noted that staff didnít agree with that and went back to the Planning Commission with the policy amendment.
Dwyer asked if this concept raised any issues.
Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, said it didnít cause concern because he wasnít at the Planning Commission meeting.† He said the Board has a recommendation in front of them and what they are considering is an application under the old policy that is in effect that governs the Boardís determination and the Planning Commissionís ultimate recommendation on the Policy 27 language.
Sage noted in Attachment C to the Agenda Cover Memo, there is a memo from staff to the Planning Commission that was written on October 1.† He said the deliberations were October 5.† He explained that it took them about two months to find the documents to address the issue that legal lots emerged in 1983 to 1986, lost their status on January 1 of every year and therefore couldnít be considered under any of the policies today as they were written in Goal 2, Policy 27 2.a.ii.† He added the† Planning Commission adopted two motions that night: a motion of recommendation to interpret that policy that is a finding that they used a common sense interpretation from 1983 to 1986, and to look at legal lots that were verified as being there in 1984 as being legal lots.† He noted that was for the Kronberger application and the Everett application, as those legal lots had been identified† legal lots for consideration.† He said they could go to Goal 4, Policy 15 to consider rezoning that land.† He said they made a second motion to take the policy information to the Board to craft a change in Policy 27 2.i to eliminate the verbiage about legal lots that existed, parcelization patterns and put that policy in place so it only addressed the characteristics of Goal 4, Policy 15.† He said the Planning Commission knew that these two applications would come to the Board under the old policies, that the interpretations the Board adopted was a recommendation as common sense and the other issue about changing the policy would come under a separate ordinance, which it did.† He said they went back in December and the Planning Commission reviewed that and adopted another recommendation.† He said they brought the policy change to the Board two months ago and the Board adopted and changed Policy 27 2.a to only deal with Goal 4, Policy 15 characteristics.† He said the Planning Commission was aware of the two motions they made and dealt with two applications under one interpretation that they wanted the Board to adopt and to make a clearer motion to bring a policy change, which the Board did.
Segel commented that two provisions of the Rural Comp Plan, Goal 2, Policy 27. a. had been identified as applicable criteria.† She said with Goal 4, Policy 15, the analysis of appropriate zoning for F1 or F2 is relevant to the application of Policy 27 a. ii.† She thought there was an incorrect application of Policy 27 in that the question stated is whether the subject property now more closely resembles F1 or F2 characteristics.† She said the correct inquiry is whether the subject property in 1984 had the characteristics more closely resembling F1 or F2, when zoning was applied.† She added the application position is that current conditions are relevant to the required inquiry and it appears that staff accepted the position.† She said the purpose of Policy 27 is to correct identified errors or omissions resulting from the official plannerís zoning plot, not recognizing lawfully existing in terms of zoning uses, or from inconsistencies between the official plan and the zoning plot.† She said that Policy 27 does not and should not address changes in circumstances of failure to anticipate later unforeseen changes, and circumstances or conditions simply cannot be considered an error or omission.† She said the question of whether one or four legal lots exist is not determinative because the required inquiry of ownership is not legal lots.† She added even if the subject property was comprised of four units of land rather than one in 1984, that fact is not relevant to the inquiry required of Goal 4, Policy 15.† She said that policy lists the factors.† She said even if four units of land were created as of 1917, it appeared that those units of land were subsequently consolidated and that the subject property constituted a single tract in 1983/1984.† She said the subject property was under one larger ownership at the time the rules applied in 1984.† She said they found parcelization was not relevant and could not have dictated that the subject land be zoned F2 rather than F1 and based on these points within the Goal 1 Coalition written comments, she said this application should not be approved.
Gwen Farnsworth, said she was a neighbor.† She indicated what Jim Just submitted had errors in the numbers of acreage but the facts were correct.† She said there is no access to the parcels from across the railroad tracks.† She thought whatever happened on Dexter Highway is not relevant to this application because there is only one access to the property, off of Rattlesnake Road.† She entered letters into the record from concerned neighbors.† She passed around pictures of the property and adjacent areas.† She commented that Kronberger did not have anything taken away from him, he bought the property with the intent of changing the zoning to make a profit on it.† She added the property was managed as a timber property until he bought it.
Green asked why Farnsworth objected to the application.
Farnsworth replied that along with the application, Kronberger said if he gets the F2 zoning, he would put a house on each lot.† She said the property is growing trees and she didnít want to see development on it.
Sage submitted new letters into the record.
Dwyer asked when the Kronbergers purchased the property.
Kronberger stated he purchased the property six years ago.
Cooper requested that the record be left open to respond to new information submitted.† He said that all of the comments about the County could or could not have identified legal lots; they were operating under the old policy.† He said they applied under two categories.† He commented that conformity determination is a two-step process that any one of the eight criteria makes you eligible for further consideration.† He said once they are eligible, the question is what is the correct zoning, F1 or F2, and to determine that they use the criteria in Goal 4, Policy 27 and the rezone criteria in Lane Code Chapter 16.† He said it is not a minor amendment that happens when they change the Comprehensive Plan.† He said the Comprehensive Plan designation calls it forestland and that is not being changed.† He said it is incorrect that Kronberger acquired property from Mr. Brown and then quitclaimed it back.† He said it was a property line adjustment process.† He said there were four legal lots on the Kronberger property next to the Brown property. He added the Brown property line was dropped down and the bottom 112 acres were added and no new parcels were created.† With regards to the property to the north, he said that any dwelling in an F2 zone is termed a forest related dwelling and any property over 10 acres has to have a stocking survey.† He said they found out that 13 Ĺ acres of the property is under timber production and 2 Ĺ acres to a dwelling and it was stocked at 267 Douglas Fir per acre.† He said it is under forest management.† He added that some of the clearing that was referred to was a County requirement of a fire protection zone.
Green asked which concerns of the criteria they needed to deliberate on.
Cooper said they could ignore the discussion about the legal lot and they could reach the merits under the map text inconsistency.
Morrison closed the Public Hearing.† She said they would leave the record open to allow comment on information they received today and to give them an opportunity to review the material.
Morrison re-opened the Public Hearing.
Dwyer asked if the property was purchased six years ago with one unit.† He asked if the sale accomplished one unit where he encompassed four lots.
Cooper said they County said they did a legal lot verification.
Dwyer asked if the purchase price was reflected as a one-unit sale or four lots.
Kronberger said the application is to look back to see if the County made a mistake on the zoning.† He believed they did.† He said the lots they bought were legal lots and were small tax lots and zoned F2.
Dwyer asked if he bought the property for forest management.
Kronberger indicated that he bought the property as an investment for his family.† He said they bought eight to ten legal lots.
Morrison closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to move to keep the record open until April 13 and approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading on May 4 for Ordinance PA 1211.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.
c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1213/In the Matter of Adopting a Conformity Determination Amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Pursuant to RCP General Plan Policies - Goal 2, Policy 27 a. iv., to Correct a Scrivener Error on the Official Zoning Map - Plot†† 525, and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Lane County LMD). (NBA & PM 3/16/05).
Sage explained when they were in the McKenzie Watershed and they were doing periodic review, they had the opportunity to take some of the old paper maps and make new maps. He said they needed to rezone those boundaries and designations inside the watersheds.† He said there were plan and zoning maps that were changed and Walterville was one of the communities where they didnít do any changes.† He said in the process, the plan map was drawn correctly. He added when they transferred over the zoning map, there was one triangular piece south of the highway under the RR5 zoning and they didnít catch it until after the Board had already adopted it six months ago.† He said they now need to change the zoning map.
Morrison opened the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak she closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION:† to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1213
Dwyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.
ROLL CALL VOTE: 5-0.
d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 05-3-30-16/In the Matter of Approving a Design Concept for the Realignment of Airport Road, the intersection of Airport Road and Greenhill Road, and short sections of Greenhill Road both north and south of Airport Road, in the Vicinity of the Eugene Airport and Authorizing the County Administrator to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Eugene for the realignment project.
Tom Stinchfield, Public Works, asked the Board to consider a board order that would approve a design concept for the realignment of Airport Road.† He added the order would also authorize the County Administrator to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Eugene regarding the project.† He noted this was a County road section that serves the Eugene Airport.† He said the easterly end of Airport Road had been transferred to the City of Eugene and the westerly part remains outside of the City, outside of urban growth boundary and is a County road.†† He indicated the section of road they are talking about realigning is in the County section west of the City section.
Stinchfield recalled the Airport Master Plan Update was approved in April 2000 and it included the proposal to close the diagonal runway that crosses the main runway.† He said the plan calls for construction of a second parallel runway to the east of Greenhill Road and the runway protection for the southern end of the runway is in conflict with where Airport Road currently exists.† He said as part of the Airport Master Plan, Greenhill Road running by the airport entrance was vacated as a County road that allowed the airport to have operations that would go between the two runways without crossing a public road.†
Stinchfield explained after the Airport Master Plan Update was approved, Greenhill Road that ran in front of the airport entrance was re-located to the easterly edge of the runway area.† He said it was built in 2000 with FAA grants and the County pushed for the road to keep adequate circulation around the airport.† He said the second runway is under construction and will be completed in 2006.† He indicated the City of Eugeneís plan is to construct the Airport Road realignment project in 2006 with the FAA grant.† He said the estimated cost is $2,400,000 with a five percent airport matching fund requirement He noted that Greenhill Road (which they constructed in 2000) would be extended to the south and there would be a cost.† He added the abandoned section of Airport Road on the east end is planned to be converted to a local road to provide access for the homes along there.† He indicated that the section between Airport and Greenhill would have to be redone.
Stinchfield indicated that Alternative One that is supported by County and City staff is a conventional ďTĒ design that allows free flow into the airport.† He noted Alternative Two is a single lane roundabout.† He said the City hired a consulting firm to do a traffic study to study the movement of traffic into the airport and to study the performance of the roadway into the future.† He said the conclusion is either option will function meeting County performance standards through 2025 and there is no congestion problem with either design.† He said their recommendation is Alternative One.† He said that is about $80,000 more expensive than the roundabout because there is more turn lane construction.††
Sorenson asked what was needed from the Board.
Stinchfield explained the board order as it is drafted for the design concept would implement selecting Alternative One with the conventional intersection design and the effect of the order would be to move the project forward, that would authorize the County Administrator to enter into an agreement with the City to proceed with the project.† He noted this project was unusual because it was City funded and the concept of moving a road like this had been previously approved in the Airport Master Plan and as part of the Comp Plan.† He said they would bring the concept to the Board.† He said the Board has to decide if this is the proposal to go forward.
Commissioner Morrison opened the Public Hearing.
Richard Null, Eugene, represented the owners of the parcel, tax lot 900. He asked if the map represents what is proposed and wonít infringe on their property.
David Lintz, Mill City, stated the notice was dated March 18 and he received it March 22.† He sent a copy to his lawyer and he didnít open the letter until this morning.† He wanted the Board to continue this until April 20 so he could consult his experts to see if he has a concern.† He thought the design concept was vague.† He said there is no driveway for him and he has 85 acres left and he didnít know how he would get to his land.
Stinchfield said there would be no problem with the County if the City wanted to move this item.† He noted what they donít have with the design concept would be direction from staff to acquire properties.† He said the way this is set up with the IGA and design concept, the City will do the acquisition of land and the County is not directly involved. He said they would eventually formalize the driveway for Lintzí property with their normal driveway permit process.
Terry Higgins, City of Eugene, recalled that last fall the City sent out notification about the change.† He indicated he had a conversation with Mr. Lintz about his access to the property.† He said the criteria includes maintaining a 50-mile-per-hour speed zone through the curves.† He said they are making their best attempt to avoid the ODF & W property containing wetlands.† He explained that those are the tightest curves they can get in.
Dwyer wanted to roll this until April 20.
Morrison agreed to roll this but said there were conversations that took place last fall with regard to counsel.† She wanted to know if Lane County owned any of the parcels.†
Sorenson asked why they would spend money for a traffic light when they could go ahead with a roundabout.
Stinchfield said the traffic study found that three-quarters of the traffic entering the airport is using Airport Road, not Greenhill Road.† He indicated Alternative 1 has the advantage of bringing that traffic into the airport directly; they donít have to turn through a roundabout.† He said the traffic study found that the traffic signal warrant criteria are not met and are not needed for the Alternative 1 design.† He added that Alternative 1 has the advantage of serving the traffic directly.† He said that Lane County supports the City with a 50-mile-per-hour design.
MOTION:† to move to roll this item to April 20 to provide other information and to give Lentz time to meet with his attorney.
Dwyer MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
Dwyer wanted to leave the record open until April 20.
18. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
Green and Morrison will be attending the River Road Santa Clara meeting of the Transition Manager process.† Green reminded people about earned income credit.
Morrison indicated she would be attending a wastewater management meeting for Stewart.† She asked if she could be there as a proxy for Stewart.† There was consensus for her to be a proxy.
19. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
20. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Morrison adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.