BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

September 27, 2006

1:30 p.m.

Commissionersí Conference Room

APPROVED 9/16/2007

 

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.

 

15. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 7-06/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 6 of Lane Code to Provide Regulation of Parking at or near Public Boat Ramps (LC 6.430 and LC 6.475) (NBA & PM 9/13/06).

 

Byron Trapp, Sheriffís Office, reported they had been dealing with this issue for a long time.He said they wanted to find a way to discuss it, as it is not addressed in the Oregon Statutes or in Lane Code.He noted parking is addressed within an actual designated Lane County Park, but there are no restrictions for boat ramp parking.He wanted to find a way to deal with congestion on the boat ramps.

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.There being no one signed up to speak, he closed the Public Hearing.

 

Dwyer stated this ordinance was well overdue as there had been parking on the boat ramps by people who made money so others could not get into the river.

 

Trapp said they would try to target with signage 15 or 20 of the high use ramps.He said they were addressing any public boat ramp that is primarily there for the access of the general public.He indicated that people show up to launch their boat and have an expectation that they can get their boat in and out of the water.

 

b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1234/In the Matter of Updating the Goal 5 Inventory and Adopting the Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan; Repealing Ordinance No. PA 1198; Amending Chapter 10 of Lane Code to Amend the Eugene Land Use Regulations and Add a Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone For Application to Urbanizable Lands Within the Eugene Urban Growth Area; Applying That Zone to Specific Properties; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Periodic Review Task No.7; File No. 06-5195). (NBA & PM 9/13/06).

 

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, commented that this could be the final hearing conducted under the Metro Plan Periodic Review Work Program.††† She said they are to consider testimony for the Eugene Goal 5 Water Resources Conservation Plan and Protection Measures, the wetlands, riparian corridors and upland wildlife sites as they apply in the urban transition area outside the city limits and within the urban growth boundary of Eugene.She said yesterday the Board was provided with supplemental material consisting of two revised exhibits and the written input received prior to this hearing.She noted Exhibit D is the final copy of Eugeneís Development Code that includes a clause addressing existing agricultural practices and implementation dates where necessary.She noted Exhibit F is a corrected list of tax lots in the urbanizable area to which the protection measures apply.

 

Schulz indicated that notice of this hearing was mailed to all property owners(Exhibit F) the first week of September and mailed notice included Ballot Measure 56 language stating the property was subject to new development regulations and property values could be affected.

 

Schulz stated that the city has identified the required Goal 5 impact areas for the sites by types.She said the sites were analyzed against criteria listed in the ESEE Analysis in Exhibit B to the ordinance. She said that all of the impact area types include, as part of the site, the area between the banks of the stream or river plus any fully intact areas of riparian vegetation extending beyond the setback distance for each impact area type. She said Type A is the Willamette River and the setback is within 120 feet.She said Type B streams have high connectivity, high quality wetland habitat or other good values and their setback distance is 75 feet.She added that Type C streams have steep slopes and connection to wetlands with some fish bearing and some higher quality plant communities with a 50-foot setback. She indicated that Type D streams are highly disturbed narrow fragmented corridors with a 25-foot set back from the top of the bank and sites identified as Type E have been determined to be primarily non-functional.She indicated the adjacent land is physically separated from the hydrology of the stream and they are surrounded by pavement and concrete and on those sites there is no setback distance; the area is equal to the site boundary.

 

With regard to conflicting uses, Schulz explained they are defined as land uses or activities that if allowed could negatively impact a significant natural resource site.She said the conflict uses are shown in Exhibit B for each of the specific sites.She indicated some potential conflicting uses could be storm water runoff, pollution, noise and light, erosion, removal of riparian vegetation or other activities that could increase flows or impervious surfaces. She said there are allowed uses according to the base zones for all of the sites and the ESEE Analysis considers potential impacts to the resource from the allowed uses.She noted pages 13 through 31 of Exhibit B show those in detail.

 

Schulz stated the protection measure categories are combined with the impact areas and both are based on analysis to determine each siteís future protection measure. She said the three categories are fully allowing conflicting uses, limiting conflicting uses and prohibiting conflicting uses.

 

Schulz indicated that the protection measures do not apply to current uses of the land in the urbanizable area.She said they would be applied as an overlay when a property owner initiates a development proposal. She said that urban development is not expected while the lands are unincorporated, only upon annexation to receive urban levels of services under the transition agreement between the city and the County would the measures be applied.She stated the city had done an extensive analysis and they fully involved the public in developing the protection measures to identify sites.She noted the Lane County Planning Commission conducted two work sessions and held a public hearing for consideration of the proposal as it applies in the urbanizable area. She stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance by a 5-1 vote and she recommended approval of the ordinance because the Goal 5 Natural Resources Inventory had been adopted by the Board previously.She said the protection provisions are consistent with the Goal 5 Rule requirements and they would complete the Goal 5 protection measures for the entire Metro Plan area and periodic review work program.

 

Morrison said when this came to the Board for the first reading, she asked for all the properties in question that have a number and a tax map to find out who the owners were.She did not see any owners and it was difficult to figure out the maps.

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing

 

David Mortimore, Eugene, said his east boundary is a slough.He indicated it is covered in the ordinance.He said it keeps him separated from his neighbors.He stated it carried water in the 1964 flood.He did not believe the city knew about the slough. He commented that this was socialism.He thought the Board was looking for trouble if they adopted this.

 

Scott Sorenson, Eugene, stated that Spring Creek is his backyard boundary.He said the city considers Spring Creek to be a creek.According to the city, he noted they say his yard and part of his house are wetlands.He said it has been in residential for over 40 years.He said it acts as a drainage system for all of the roads in Santa Clara.He indicated the creek is dry for 10 months out of the year.He said they only get water in the creek when there is a lengthy rain.He noted the spring dried up after the sewer system was installed.

 

Ron Bounds, Eugene, stated he gave Morrison packets to be distributed. He said the information was vague.He commented that it would affect his land and devalue it. He urged the Board to consider whether they wanted to pass this because the people are upset the city is forcing this on them.

 

Bill Kloos stated he represented the Home Builders. He said the Board is being asked to apply the same regulatory scheme outside the city, inside the urban growth boundary. He indicated the difficulty is having to work with a tiny map and to see what is mapped around the ditch to figure out where development is allowed outside of the setback area. He added that it is hard to tell what is protected and what is not.He said if they believe the maps are in error, it is hard to get them fixed. He said it was hard to reconcile what was there versus what is supposed to be there and protected.He commented that if there is a mechanism for relief, it has to be a real mechanism for relief that people could count on being able to apply for and get.

 

Roxie Cuellar, Home Builders, said their larger concern with the Goal 5 process is the impact on the land supply. She said they took it to LCDC as part of the periodic review task and there was a reduction for Eugene in the residential land supply based on the Goal 5 analysis. She noted that LCDC agreed there is a negative number in terms of surplus residential land but there was not enough that could withstand an appeal. She wanted to make sure the application of the ordinance is clear.She indicated that Goal 6 was coming up and it was going to impact the same pieces of property.

 

Gretchen Pierce, Eugene, commented that her motherís property is the last large potential residential development property.She said there are 35 acres planted in Christmas trees.She was concerned about the future of the land.She noted there are a couple of places that had been included in the natural resources inventory:a manmade hole that is now a pond and the setback requirements on private property. She said the setback requirements could end up taking acres out of prime development land. She asked the Board to accept these types of mandatory buffers around any of the areas that are considered natural resource habitat or key waterways.She said in most cases they are either manmade or ditches and are only active a short period.

 

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

 

Dwyer asked what their options were given the fact that it is the periodic review.

 

Vorhes said they could adopt, not adopt or change what they want to adopt.He said the city had done the work of developing it and their council approved it and sent it under the Urban Transition Agreement to this Board for consideration of adoption of not only the plan but also the land use regulations they have adopted.He indicated if they do not adopt or change, he was not sure of all of the consequences.He noted this was done pursuant to a program that the jurisdictions adopted and sent to LCDC for the periodic review.He recalled they adopted Safe Harbor for the area outside of the urban growth boundaries and they left it up to Eugene and Springfield on the choices of which way to go.He said Springfield did the work and the Board of Commissioners adopted it.He noted it could be an option for compliance with Goal 5.

 

Dwyer asked what happens if they do not adopt this.

 

Vorhes responded that they could get into legal arguments about whether the County was following the intergovernmental agreement.He said the Board could ask for more information or come back with information addressing some of the concerns that have been raised.

 

Morrison asked if they went to a Safe Harbor approach, if the city would have to go back through the public hearing process in order to change the inventory where it would be dealt with site specific. She asked if the County would be responsible for some of the costs.

 

Vorhes said they could ask Springfield what it would take to do a similar study. He said they would have to look to the city to see what they would be willing to do.

 

Van Vactor stated that the City of Eugene under the Transition Agreement is responsible for planning and if it does not meet the satisfaction of the governing body, it is their responsibility to fix it. He said the Board could ask the city whether they would change the standard.

 

Morrison did not think there was value to this.She commented that the Safe Harbor was the only way to do this.

 

Howe said that the Safe Harbor does not equate to lesser setbacks or lesser restrictions.

 

Vorhes recalled that under the Safe Harbor, they rely on the state agencies for mapping of wetlands and it does not make them go away.

 

Green asked why they should adopt the standards for Eugene, for the citizens who live inside the urban growth boundary but outside the city.He noted the city has not been responsive to those citizens around the concerns they raise.††† He stated there is no relief for some property owners.

 

Howe explained that part of the principles in the Metropolitan Plan is that cities are the logical provider of urban services.He said in that context, they entered into the Urban Transition Agreement inside the urban growth boundary. He noted that Eugene and Springfield are the logical developers of the code requirements for building and planning.He said they delegated the authority to them.He added in 1991 the Natural Resources Study started and in 1995 they started the periodic review of the Metro Plan.He recalled in 2002 they decided as the three jurisdictions to divide and separate the three planning efforts.He said Springfield would do theirs inside the urban growth boundary, Eugene would do theirs within the urban growth boundary and the County would do the portion of the Metro Plan outside of the urban growth boundary.

 

Green asked why they should continue to do something that had been proven ineffective in giving property owners relief.He needed a guaranty for the people who come to the city to air their grievances that they will be dealt with and not just have their money taken from them. He asked what the process was for the wetlands.

 

Neil Bjorkland, City of Eugene, explained that wetland mapping as reflected in the Goal 5 Study is strictly spelled out by state rules, they did not have any say. He stated they were required by the state to do the wetland inventory and the state rules have mandatory criteria for which wetlands are deemed significant and none of that was local choice.He said they hired the best wetland consulting firm in the northwest and they did the study following the rules. He stated that every place they had permission to go onto the property, they did so. He added properties where they requested permission to enter and the property owner denied access, they could not do an onsite study.

 

Green asked what relief Lane County citizens and those in the urban growth boundary had.

 

Bjorkland responded that wetlands are handled differently under state rules than streams.He said there is confusion where the site boundaries are because streams can contain wetlands.He said in looking at wetlands, the federal government and the state has the authority to state what is and is not a wetland.He said that relief has to come through a state and federal agency action and they could do nothing about it.He indicated they included a provision in the code provisions that the city had already adopted inside the city limits, which allows for making a correction to the maps.He explained the maps that the County and the city had already adopted were adopted as an amendment to the Metro Plan. He said the map could not be changed in a subjective way.He noted that they had a 16-year process that led to the adoption of the maps.

 

Dwyer said this needs to be continued and for anyone who has questions regarding this subject to submit the questions to the Board and they will be forwarded to the planning staff for an answer.

 

Vorhes said if they are going to leave the record open, it could work in a way that would allow the submittal of questions.He said they could have staff compile that information and bring it back to the Board on the next reading date and they could do that without renoticing.

 

MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for Ordinance No. PA 1234 on November 8, 2006 and closing the public hearing, keeping the record open to October 27, 2006.

 

Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

c. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 06-9-27-5/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 06-6437, Arnold).

 

Howe reported this is a 36-acre property on Upper Camp Creek Road.He said the property was acquired in 1974 and at that time it was unzoned.He said it is currently zoned exclusive farm use with a 60-acre minimum land division. He indicated the applicant wants to divide the land into lots that are less than 60 acres, each with a dwelling. He stated they provided deeds, comparative sales data and the county administrator has waived the appraisal requirement.He distributed the information that came in.He said it appears to be a valid claim.

 

Dwyer stated they have three options:to waive, to modify or to pay.

 

Commissioner Dwyer asked if there were any ex parte contacts.

 

Stewart explained that last year Mr. Arnold came to him for help on this piece of property. He said in the 70ís Arnold created two legal lots. He said in 1981 Arnold had an approval to replace a dwelling on one of the lots.He indicated Arnold did not move forward because it was something he wanted to do later on in his life for his kids.Stewart noted Arnold came in recently to do that and because of regulations that were changed, he spent time with Howe to see if they could redo the building site. Stewart said this was his last option.

 

There were no other conflicts.

 

Dwyer indicated there was a letter that came into the record from Linda Burke.He read the letter into the record. (Copy in file).

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.

 

John Arnold distributed paper work. (Copy in file). He explained that in 1974 when he purchased his property there were three site approvals for septic tanks. He indicated he built his home on one piece of the property.He later came into the County to get the other lots ready to be built on.He indicated at that time it was zoned Exclusive Farm Use, 40-acre parcels.He had to go through a special use process and he got everything approved.He wanted to build two homes for his children in the future. He put the wells and septic tanks in. He asked the County if he needed to do anything else with his property and he was told verbally that everything was okay.He added when he came back, he was told he only had two years to build.Heindicated the County had not sent him any letter.He came to see Stewart to try to get things rectified but he could not.He stated that was why he filed a Measure 37 claim.He said he had already subdivided his lot. He indicated his land value had not changed. He did not want a major development, he just wanted to get back what was given to him at one time.

 

Dwayne Tiller said he was in favor of the claim. He said he has known the

Arnolds for many years and he knew Mr. Arnold wanted to do this for his children.

He did not know anyone who was against this from happening.

 

Bob Green and Mary Green both stated they were for the Arnold Measure 37 claim.

 

Gary Thomasstated that John Arnold has been a good neighbor.

 

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to approve ORDER 06-9-27-5.

 

Stewart MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

d. PUBLIC HEARING/ORDER 06-9-27-6/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 06-6032, Minton).

 

Commissioner Dwyer asked if there were any ex partecontacts.

 

There were none.

 

Howe explained that this is a 28-acre property located on Rattlesnake Road, two miles west of Dexter.He indicated the property was acquired in 1969 and at that time it was unzoned.He said the property is zoned impacted forestland, F2, 80-acre minimum land division. He indicated the applicant wants to divide the property into lots less than 80 acres, each with a dwelling.He said the applicant has provided deeds and a real estate brokerís opinion as to the value of the reduction based on the sale price of comparable properties. He indicated the county administrator has waived the appraisal requirement.Howe distributed a letter from Betty Katz. (Copy in file).He stated it appears to be a valid claim.

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.

 

Russell Minton stated he acquired this property in 1969.He noted at that time there were only four homes.He said to date there are 33 homes. He said he has two springs on his property.He stated his land is not farmland and he cannot make a living on it.He wanted to give his kids a piece of property and he wanted to enhance his retirement.He recalled in 1973 he was givenapproval by Lane County to break it into five acre parcels.

 

Judith Danielson said she lives a quarter mile from Mintonís property. She believed his claim was valid based on the time of the ownership of the property but she did not believe the claim was valid in terms of the value of his property.She stated her own property had increased in value since it was bought in 1991 from $130,000 to $450,000 because there no small parcels in the area.She wanted the valley to stay small.

 

Jo Dunning said she lives a quarter mile from the property.She said when she bought her property in 1991, they paid $3,400 per acre and in 1997 they bought more acreage from the same person at $11,300 per acre.

 

John Tyler, stated he bought his property in 1968 and he has been neighbors with the Mintons.He indicated three properties had been on Hannah Road before Minton bought his property.He said that Minton could not make a living on the land.He said that for 20 years he ran cattle and horses on his land.

 

Dwyer asked if he made money with the cattle and horses.

 

Tyler did not know if he made any money.He said even though he owned his before Minton did, his classification is the same because they bought the land from the same owner and until they partitioned it, their land was the same.He said in his 38 years of owning his acreage, his land has not been decreased in value because Lane County incorporated the comprehensive plan to adopt the statewide goals.He said he had benefited from the fact they had the restrictions on their land.

 

Zach Mickey stated he is an attorney representing the Colbys who reside at 82356 Rattlesnake Road in Dexter.He noted the Colby property is adjacent to the Minton property.He said this claim did not meet the minimum criteria of a Measure 37 claim.He stated the claimant has to request the particular land use regulation be waived. He said there was not any specific land use regulation waived in this claim. He added there was not enough adequate base line information to determine what the impact is from a proposal to waive the regulation.He said it appears that Minton is not the owner of the property, he entered into a conveyance in 2003 that he conveyed all grantors rights, title and interest in and to the real property.He noted that Minton conveyed all of his right in this property by the deed.He said under the terms of the deed, the amount of money received in the event of compensation would not go to Minton but go to Selco Credit Union who acquired their interest in the property in 2003.He noted that none of Lane Countyís land use regulations has limited the value of the property since 2003.He commented there was no reduction of fair market value on the application.He recommended the applicant be remanded.

 

Stewart noted there was a valuation of the property to the dates when the regulations and zones were place on the property.He said the regulations keep Minton from doing what he wants to do.

 

Don Teague stated he lives one eighth of a mile from the property.He was concerned about the impacts to his family from crime, water to wells.

 

Catherine Johns said Mintonís land is not clean and there are old cars parked everywhere.She commented that was why the value went down. She was against theMeasure 37 claim.

 

Catherine McCool concurred with what Johns had said.

 

Benjamin Jackson said if Minton develops his property that the rest of the properties would devaluate the whole community. He thought Measure 37 needed to be re-thought out.

 

Rene Hiller stated she has the same hillside as Minton.She did not want to see the valley change and worried about the water table.She said Minton made money off lumber.

 

Arlin Marcus indicated he lives less than an eighth of a mile from the Minton property.He was opposed to this change.He thought it would add more traffic.He did not think one person could affect so many other peopleís way of life.

 

Lauri Segel, Eugene, thought the applicant had not substantiated that he had been the continuous owner since 1969.She thought more information should be requested on conveyances.She noted there was information on conveyances from 1974 and in 1994 for two different parties. She could not tell where the exact tax lot was. She asked the Board to request more information to substantiate it.She requested that the planning director provide opportunity for planning director hearings for all post Measure 37 waivers.

 

There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

 

Stewart asked about the question of ownership.

 

With regard to the discussion around the line of credit trust deed, Vorhes did not hear anything that changed or eliminated ownership interest on the part of Mitton by virtue of the document.He said the question of conveyances, he did not know what it the question of conveyances entailed.He noted in the title report there is reference to a bargain and sale deed from Sharon Minton to Russell Minton of a portion of property.He said if that is a portion that at one time the two of them owned together, the family connection was enough to disrupt continuous ownership.

 

Commissioner Dwyer opened the Public Hearing.

 

Minton explained he went through a divorce and plot number 1304 is his ex-wifeís, but still has the original property he acquired in 1969.He said he has a home equity loan and the bank does not own his land; he does.

 

Commissioner Dwyer closed the Public Hearing.

 

MOTION: to approve 06-9-27-6.

 

Green MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

Sorenson did not think Minton was denied value.He said the premise of Measure 37 is for compensating landowners who have shown a deprivation in value.

 

Stewart commented that Minton got extensive appraisals and there still shows a value loss.He said that whether they agree with it or not they are bound by the law that ownership has been shown.He thought it met the law.

 

Dwyer indicated there was no change in ownership.

 

VOTE: 4-1 (Sorenson dissenting).

 

16. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Green represented the Board at the dedication of the Martin Luther King Parkway in Springfield.He said Lane Countyís interest was $5,240,000.

 

Stewart indicated there would be a 100-year celebration for Smith Lund Mills Funeral Chapel.

 

Morrison announced that tomorrow is the Day of Caring at the Community Gardens

 

17. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD

 

None.

 

18. OTHER BUSINESS

 

ORDER 06-9-27-7/In the Matter of Proclaiming October 3, 2006 as Smith Lund Mills Funeral Chapel and Crematorium Community Appreciation Day.

 

MOTION:to approve ORDER 06-9-27-7.

 

Stewart MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 5-0.

 

There being no further business Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary