May 9, 2007

1:30 p.m.

Commissioners' Conference Room

APPROVED 10/22/2008


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.




a. 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).


Stephanie 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. 


Schulz 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.


Schulz 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.


Schulz 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


Schulz 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. 


Schulz 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.


Fleenor asked how the City of Veneta fits in.


Schulz 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.


Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing.


Brian 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 west connectivity.


Fleenor asked if there was any opposition or public comment to the contrary.


Issa 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.


Fleenor asked what would happen if this isn’t approved.


Issa 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.


Sorenson asked how many people testified when the Veneta City Council held its hearing.


Issa 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.


Devon 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. 


Sorenson 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.


Issa 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.


Schulz 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. 


Issa 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.


Vorhes 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.


Fleenor asked if it was essential for this project to move forward.


Issa 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.


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


Sorenson 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 decision.


MOTION: to approve a Second Reading and Public Hearing and Setting a Third Reading and Deliberation on May 23.


Fleenor MOVED, Sorenson SECONDED.


Dwyer stated that he was prepared to act.  He wouldn’t support the motion.


Stewart thought it was ridiculous as they were talking about a third of an acre.


VOTE: 3-1 (Dwyer dissenting)





Sorenson 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. 


Fleenor announced that he was having his Coffee and Conversations with Mike Spath from ODOT, talking about upgrades to Highway 126.


Dwyer reported that there would be no Legislative Committee meeting.








Jim Gillette


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.


VOTE: 4-0.


There being no further business, Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary