BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
February 15, 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Bill Dwyer presided with Commissioners Bobby Green. Sr., Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson and Faye Stewart present.† County Administrator Bill Van Vactor, Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 2-06/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Adopt Amendments to the Springfield Development Regulations for Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Springfield Urban Growth Area (LC 16.600-15) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (NBA & PM 1/25/06).
Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, reported that this is a proposal to adopt amendments to the Springfield Development Code for application within the urban growth boundary in the City of Springfield.† She noted the development code was last amended in 1993 and the amendments before the Board are for formatting consistencies, clarifying the text for compliance with statewide statutes and amendments to review procedures for certain project types within the city.† She noted the applicable criteria for the project in Lane Code 10.31520 is to have the amendments not be contrary to the public interest and to have the classification zoning consistency achieved in the amendments.† With regard to consistency with statewide goals and statutes, she noted Exhibit B findings go through it in detail.† She said that staff finds that the amendments comply with all of the approval criteria as described in Exhibit B.† She noted the Lane County Planning Commission held a Public Hearing in October 2005 and during that hearing there was a discussion for a potential conflict between the cityís ordinance and housekeeping amendments, specifically on Section 5.090.† She said subsequent to the Lane County Planning Commission meeting, the city council reviewed the amendments provided as supplemental information.† She noted they adopted that on January 17, 2006 and are proposing to add this to the packet of amendments brought forward by the Board.† She added the Planning Commission recommended approval with that amendment to the Board.††
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.† There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Vorhes suggested (given the addition of the new language and the timing) that they set a Third Reading and Final Action for two weeks or more to incorporate the ordinance.
MOTION:† approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Action on March 15, 2006.
Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.†
b. PUBLIC HEARING In the Matter of Considering a Ballot Measure 37 Claim and Deciding Whether to Modify, Remove or Not Apply Restrictive Land Use Regulations in Lieu of Providing Just Compensation (PA 05-5813, Nice).
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained this application for a Measure 37 claim is for a three-acre property that is zoned rural residential with a five-acre minimum.† He noted the property currently has two dwellings on it, one a manufactured home and the other is a temporary hardship mobile home that was placed in 1970. He indicated they got an annual renewal and in 1992 the renewal stopped.† He said they want to keep the temporary mobile home and make it permanent.† He stated their desire is to create three one-acre parcels.† He noted the applicant acquired the property in 1970 and at that time the property was unzoned.† He said the only issue they have on this claim has to do with the appraisal.
Howe said the concern the staff has is that the property is wholly within the floodway, not the floodplain.† He thought the appraisal didnít take into consideration the issues of the extra costs that would be involved in developing a piece of property that is in the floodway.† He said the regulations require a setback water analysis.† He added that any allowed construction would result in an engineered foundation on pilings that elevates the cost of the development than what would be in the floodplain.† He said their understanding of the appraisal information is that it is based upon their floodplain instead of the floodway regulations.† He added the engineering construction standards are different between the two and that was the concern staff had.
Van Vactor noted that the flood regulations are not exempt to Ballot Measure 37 because there would still be health and safety concerns as opposed to regular land use regulations.† He added there are also federal issues.
Stewart asked what the added costs could be.
Howe responded that the floodway application is $1,200; engineering costs are $3,000 to $5,000 for the step backwater analysis to address the permit requirements.† He added there is a required engineered foundation for pilings in the location with added costs.
Stewart asked why this claimant had to go through the engineering process when they werenít requiring it from other claimants.
Howe stated the applicant had provided information where the difference in value that they demonstrated is between $115,000 and $100,000, based upon $15,000 of engineering costs and County permit fees.† He added that it did not include the additional cost of construction needed for engineered foundation on pilings that will be required.† He noted the cost of the appraiser used in providing the evaluation of the application was treated as if it was development in a floodplain.† He stated that the appraisal didnít use the right cost figures because it will be developed in a floodway.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Cornacchia, Eugene, stated he represented the applicants.† He noted that the property was zoned at the time the applicants purchased it as AGT, allowing one-acre parcels until 1984, at which time it was rezoned to the current RR5.† In response to the issues raised by staff, he requested that the appraiser go back and review his work.† The appraiser did that in a letter provided to staff dated December 6, 2005.† He said in that, the appraiser stated since the three comparable vacant land sales he used were also in the AE floodplains, it appears the buyer of the three properties had the opportunity to consider any added foundation costs in making their offer to purchase. †He noted the appraiser looked at all of the other properties that had gone through the same development scenario in the past five years.† He noted in each of those, the appraiser did not see any elevated foundations above three feet. He said the amount of compensation could be one dollar or fifty cents.† He said it was only important for establishing whether or not there was a valid claim and he knew that Lane County wasnít going to pay for the claim.
Cornacchia explained that when looking at the appraisal, the appraiser in using other properties in the AE zone came up with $115,000 in difference in value.† He noted the only construction consideration given in the code has to do with the foundation and how far to raise it.† He suggested $115,000; minus $15,000 would leave $100,000 in value.† He didnít think it would cost $100,000 to build a three-foot foundation.† He thought the difference would be about $80,000.† He said they have determined through the appraisal that the AE property is in the AE zone.† He noted the appraiser indicated that the only additional cost associated with this was the engineering, the County fee and the foundation.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.
Stewart thought the conditions for the Measure 37 waiver had been met and there was a loss of value.
MOTION:† to tentatively grant the waiver for the Nice request.
Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).
Dwyer indicated the board order would come back on the Consent Calendar.
17. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS
18. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
19. OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 2:05 p.m.