May 9, 2007
Commissioners' Conference Room
Commissioner Faye Stewart presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill
Fleenor and Peter Sorenson present. Bobby
Green, Sr. was excused. County
Administrator Bill Van Vactor, County Counsel Teresa Wilson and Recording
Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1241/In the Matter of
Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Veneta Comprehensive Plan Maps
to Expand the Veneta Urban Growth Boundary to Include .36 Acre of Land;
Redesignate That Land From a RCP Designation of ‘Forest’ to a Veneta Plan
Designation of ‘Medium Density Residential’; Concurrently Rezone That Land
From Lane Code (LC) Chapter 16 ‘F2 - Impacted Forest Lands’ To LC Chapter 10
‘RR - Rural Residential’; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses.
(File No. PA 06-7487; City Of Veneta) (NBA
& PM 4/18/07).
Schulz, Land Management, said in accordance with the adopted procedures with the
coordinated land use action between Lane County and the small cities in the
County, the City of Veneta is requesting co-adoption of a map amendment. She
indicated that it will move the southern urban growth boundary and concurrently
change the zoning to allow for property annexation to accommodate a planned
western extension of Perkins Road across Territorial Highway in conformance with
the Veneta Comprehensive Plan and the Veneta Transportation System Plan.
She noted the site is .36 acres in size and a portion of the northwest
corner of Tax Lot 1608 on Assessors Map No. 18-06-01.
She noted the entire tax lot is currently zoned F2 impacted forest land.
She said the property directly west of the site is zoned RR5 rural
residential and land to the north
within the City of Veneta is zoned GR. She
added that the rural land south and east of the city is currently zoned F2
impacted forest land and RR5 rural residential.
explained that this proposal is a minor plan amendment to the Rural
Comprehensive Plan. She noted that
moving an urban growth boundary amends both the City and County Comprehensive
Plans and requires substantially identical ordinances from both jurisdictions.
She added that the zoning designation remains a Lane County zone until
annexation, but changes from a Lane
Code Chapter 16 designation that applies outside of the urban growth boundary to
a Lane Code Chapter 10 designation that applies to small city urban growth
boundary in their urban transition lands. She added that the Chapter 10 zone of RR is the most
appropriate Rural Comprehensive Plan transition zone given the city’s future
development plans for the property.
noted that with Lane Code Chapter 12.050, .the Board may amend or supplement the
Comprehensive Plan upon the finding of an error in the plan.
She indicated that the Veneta Comprehensive Plan identifies Perkins Road
as an east west collector street that will eventually extend to Bolton Hill Road
on the west edge of town. She added that the South West Area Specific Plan
neighborhood is a 128 acre development adopted as a Refinement Plan to the
city’s Comprehensive Plan. She
noted that there has been a change in public need for adequate transportation
system connections due to the future development plan for the neighborhood.
She said that amending the UGB will provide for the needed space to
connect the future urban transportation link serving the neighborhood to the
existing system. She added that the
further responsibility for construction and maintenance of the road will be
transferred to the appropriate jurisdiction, the City of Veneta.
She indicated that it does not impair the purpose of the plan to amend
the UGB to allow the city to provide a safe transportation connection to serve
future urban development.
explained that another general amendment criteria is that the Board may amend or
supplement the Comp Plan upon making the following findings: that the amendments
meets all applicable requirements of local and state law including the statewide
planning goals and Oregon Administrative Rules.
She noted that findings addressing the statewide goals in the OARS are
found in Exhibit A to the city ordinance. She
said that staff concurs with the findings that all applicable requirements of
local and state law have been met. She added that the amendment must also be
necessary to correct an identified error or necessary to fulfill an identified
public or community need. She added they need to comply with a mandate or to
provide for the implementation of a policy or otherwise deemed desirable and
appropriate by the Board. She said
the proposed UGB expansion is necessary to fulfill an identified public and
community need for the amendment as provided and is desirable, appropriate and
proper. She indicated that there is
an identified public community need for the UGB amendment to allow the city to
establish an improved transportation link serving the development in the
Southwest Area Specific Plan
stated that the amendment will not conflict with adopted policies.
She said the proposed UGB amendment is consistent with the Rural Comp
Plan, Policy 12 Transportation and Policy 14 Urbanization, addressed in the
findings. She stated the amendment
must be compatible and consistent with the existing structure of the Rural Comp
Plan. She noted that this is a
proposed map amendment compatible with the existing structure and does not
affect any text provisions and is consistent with the plan structure. She said an additional amendment provision is the
classification of the amendment. She added that it is a minor amendment because
it is for the map and no exception is proposed.
She noted that there are no text changes, therefore it qualifies as a
minor amendment. She said currently
the site is a gravel driveway.
explained that all amendments to Lane Code zoning maps shall be made by
ordinance. She said the city action
included a concurrent amendment to the zoning district for the site because of
the intent to annex. She said the proposed Lane Code Chapter 10 designation of RR
provides the most compatible zone for consistency with the future annexation
plans. She said the Rural Comp Plan
map, zone map 178 and the Veneta
Comprehensive Plan map will be amended with this action.
She said staff and the Lane County Planning Commission unanimously
recommend approval of this ordinance as presented because it meets all the
criteria for a minor amendment to the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
She indicated that ample notice has been provided to the public and
regulatory agencies to ensure opportunity for comment and participation.
She recalled that notice was provided about this matter through two
direct mailings to adjacent property owners and legal ads in The Register
Guard. She added there was also
a posting of a sign at the entrance to the property announcing both the Planning
Commission hearing and the Board’s hearing.
asked how the City of Veneta fits in.
responded that the City of Veneta has made this amendment and adopted an
ordinance for the action and brought it to them as their final action.
She noted that the City of Veneta they took action.
She said because the urban growth boundary takes away and adds from one
plan to another, it requires concurrence with the Board of Commissioners.
Stewart opened the Public Hearing.
Issa, City of Veneta, stated that this
is for an expansion of the urban growth boundary.
He stated that it is not to bring in developable land for residential or
commercial purposes, it is for the expansion of Perkins Road.
He said it has to do with the engineering of the road.
He noted that it will be a collector street and will carry a large volume
of traffic. He added that the
expansion of Perkins Road is an integral part of both the development of the
area and lands to the east and to the south in the future in keeping the east
asked if there was any opposition or public comment to the contrary.
responded that once they got to the UGB expansion, they had been through the
planning process for the plan amendment for over a year, and that included
several work sessions. He didn’t
remember any overwhelming opposition.
asked what would happen if this isn’t approved.
said given the lay out of the site under the current plan, it would require a
drastic revision of the plan and it would cut off all southern connectivity from
the site. He said it pushes all the
traffic on Bolton Hill.
asked how many people testified when the Veneta City Council held its hearing.
said there were a handful of
people. He added that by the time
they got to this review process for this application, they had already gone
through the plan review process. He
said the majority of people showed up to give public comment during the work
sessions and the Planning Commission hearings.
He added they did the first two phases of the development as subdivisions
and there was no public comment received.
Trottire, Veneta, said she attended
all the meetings. She thought there
were 20 people present and the reason the urban growth boundary didn’t come up
was because neither the planner nor staff brought it up.
She brought it up because it appeared to her that the city shouldn’t
approve the subdivision as presented because they couldn’t put the road in
unless this was approved. She said
the primary reason this is being brought up now is not because they want to have
the road go through in a less curvy manner, it is because of the developer, so
he can put a road in. She added the developer was given a variance to fill in a
wetland. She noted that there were
other ways to put the road in without filling in the wetland.
She commented that they are going to be allowed to damage other wetlands
and instead of restoring them, they are going to recreate them.
She said things were brought up about the subdivision, and they
couldn’t answer the questions and they never got back to them.
asked if they expand the UGB if they have to conduct any studies.
He asked what the limitation is for the city and the County in approving
UGB changes without a need that is tied to the growth of the city.
responded that this is not for the purpose of higher intensity development or
for residential or commercial development.
He indicated that it is the inclusion of a piece of land in the city to
provide adequate services for lands already within the UGB and zoned for urban
development but not yet developed.
explained that for the Rural Comprehensive Plan, the amendment being a map falls
under the minor amendment category. She
said the need is connected to development in the city. She said the proposal and
the need on expanding the UGB is a small piece.
commented that it would possible for the developer to develop the site at the
same level of intensity without the connection.
He said they made trade offs and out of 130 acres, they set aside 30
acres of parks, wetlands and open space. He
added that they are for transportation systems within the development.
said with developable lands, this application is not going to add a portion of a
.36 acre building site to the inventory of Veneta.
He said if there was another application to move the boundary to add
building sites, it would be different. He
said in this case it is not being affected by this change.
He said what is inside the urban growth boundary currently with buildable
lands is not going to change given the specific purpose of this modification. He
said it won’t be a new building site.
asked if it was essential for this project to move forward.
stated it was critical. He said the use of the property currently is zoned Forest but
it is a gravel road. He said it
will be the conversion of a gravel road to a paved road for this small section.
being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public
was concerned about the issue of making this small amendment to benefit one
particular developer. He didn’t know where the public interest argument is.
He said since this is a high likelihood of controversy in the future,
they should make sure all commissioners are present when they make their
to approve a Second Reading and Public Hearing and Setting a Third Reading and
Deliberation on May 23.
MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.
stated that he was prepared to act. He
wouldn’t support the motion.
thought it was ridiculous as they were talking about a third of an acre.
3-1 (Dwyer dissenting)
said he participated in a phone conference with Tony Bieda, Intergovernmental
Relations Manager, regarding the current status of Secure Rural Schools
legislation. He said on May 15 they
will make a decision about not holding the budget meetings for May 17 and the
following week. He thought they
would resume the meeting on May 29
for a possible three day work program. He
said they have been informed that the U.S. House of Representatives is getting
ready to pass a bill and the one year plan is a part of the discussion.
announced that he was having his Coffee and Conversations with Mike Spath from
ODOT, talking about upgrades to Highway 126.
reported that there would be no Legislative Committee meeting.
12. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE BOARD
Wilson indicated if the foreclosure sale were to occur, Gillette would have a year redemption period and that was not accurate. She stated it is a six month redemption period
Liane Richardson, Assistant County Counsel, said the letter extends an offer to delay the foreclosure sale of the property. She said it would allow Gillette the opportunity to legalize the current structure to make it an equine facility as requested in his letter. She noted the requirements are that he accept this offer and pay to Land Management Division $1,500 that would cover the cost incurred by the County since the last offer of settlement was accepted. She said he would have to do that by 4:00 p.m. on May 15. She added that on or before May 16 he would have to apply to the Planning Department for a special planning review and pay their application fee of $1,000 to have it reviewed. She stated by May 21 he has to have any other active permits finalized. She said a month after he accepts this offer, he would have to have a detailed set of architectural drawings and supplemental information submitted to the department so they could determine it was actually going to be an equine facility instead of a residence. She stated by August 3 he would have to complete removal of all of the residential aspects of the structure and have the inspection done by that date. She said by September 14 he would have to have any construction done to modify it for use as an equine facility and inspection done on that date. She indicated they have a clause that if he fails to meet any of the above benchmarks, the County will immediately proceed with a foreclosure sale. She added if he accepts the offer, they postpone the foreclosure sale until September 20. She stated that he has to remain in full compliance for one year from September 14, 2007 to September 14, 2008. She added that if he remains in full compliance during that year, they will satisfy the foreclosure sale of judgment. She noted that there will be one unscheduled and unannounced inspection around the beginning of September.
Wilson recalled that the original judgment for the foreclosure sale is premised on was $23,000. She indicated there was a discount as part of the settlement.
Sorenson said the letter doesn’t address whether or not they will have a public hearing. He asked if there could be a clause where Gillette retains all of his rights to fight the matters he is currently fighting. Sorenson wanted Gillette to retain all of his rights to come into public comment and continue to provide information. He said there are no requirements to hold a public hearing and that Gillette understands there will be no public hearing. He said they want to encourage him to use his full right to fight on the existing case.
Wilson said if they were to do that that they need to carefully craft the language so what is expressed is no public hearing opportunity with respect to the matters that were litigated and resulted in the judgment.
MOTION: to send the letter.
Dwyer MOVED, Fleenor SECONDED.
There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.