BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'

REGULAR MEETING

September 16, 2009

1:30 p.m.

Harris Hall Main Floor

APPROVED 10/28/2009

 

Commissioner Pete Sorenson presided with Commissioners Bill Fleenor, Rob Handy, and Faye Stewart present.  Bill Dwyer was excused.  County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.

 

9. PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No.4-09/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 10.600-15) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses. (Applicant: City of Springfield) (NBA & PM 8/26/09).

 

Stephanie Schulz, Land Management, explained that that this is a Public Hearing to take testimony and consider this amendment to Lane Code Chapter 10 for implementation of updates to the Springfield Development Code adopted by their city council on March 2, 2009.  She stated that the Board is being asked to amend Lane County’s code for consistency and the regulatory rules that apply to development within the Springfield urban growth area outside the city limits and inside the existing UGB.  She indicated that the proposed amendments include updates for a clearly defined Master Plan review process in Glenwood, updated fire code regulations for application within the drinking water protection overlay district and scrivener’s error corrections.  She added that consistency in development of regulations is a key component of delivering effective and efficient urban services to urban fringe area property owners.

 

Schulz said the delivery of urban services by the cities within the urbanizable area of the Metro Plan is supported by the coordination agreements with the metro cities.  She noted that there are no policy changes in the amendment request as they are development code updates.  She indicated that for the city of Springfield, legislative land use authority for the urban transition area is exercised by the Springfield Planning Commission.  She said the city has submitted this application to the Board for co-adoption with a positive recommendation from the Springfield Planning Commission and the Springfield City Council.

 

Schulz indicated that the ordinance would amend code only, not the Metro Plan policies, diagrams or maps.  She said that application of the development code amendments within the urbanizable areas is dependent upon adoption of the Board, and if not adopted, the amendments would not apply.  She noted while the former Springfield Development Code would remain in effect, having the two different codes could potentially be confusing and inefficient for property owners.  She stated that staff recommends the Board approve the ordinance.

 

Gary Carp, city of Springfield, concurred with Schulz’ presentation.

 

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

 

Handy asked if Springfield could change notice requirements to 1,500 feet.  He also asked if they could have pre-development meetings with the neighborhood to get the issues dealt with ahead of time.  He also wanted to post notice at three or four intersections of nearby collectors and arterials to get the word out about the notices.

 

Carp responded that their notification has always been 300 feet.  He added the state requirement is different than the city.  He said the city’s notice is 100 feet. He said there is a specific mention of notice requirements in the Master Plan process and that is consistent with the city policy.  He indicated that current city notice requirements have a standard that notice has to be posted on site.  He added that this particular neighborhood meeting is previous to any public hearing process.  He said it was a courtesy to the neighbors. 

 

Handy asked if Springfield would consider a wider notification area and adding what Gresham, Eugene and Albany had found to be conducive to public involvement.

 

Carp responded that they would consider it and stated the text is based on language from the city of Albany’s code.

 

Handy asked if Carp could take this to the city of Springfield and bring it back to the Board with additional language for the notification.

 

Stewart asked if they were to ask Carp to go back and reconsider moving from 300 feet to 1,500 feet if it would include going back to the Springfield Planning Commission and city council to go through the process.

 

Carp stated that was correct.  He added that the additional notice requirement would put a financial burden on the city.  He indicated that they have a hard time currently in dealing with notice issues.

 

MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No.4-09

 

Fleenor MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

Handy recommended sending the message to Springfield to consider that change in the future.  He said he would support this but noting that public notice is important and if they do it at all, it should be correct.

 

ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0.

 

 

10. PUBLIC WORKS

 

a. FIRST READING AND SETTING SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. Pa 1263/In the Matter of Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Residential" and "Commercial" to "Industrial" and Rezoning that Land from "RR-2/RCP, Rural Residential" and  "RC/RCP, Rural Commercial" to "RI/RCP, Rural Industrial"; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 07-5430: Swanson Group) (Second Reading & Public Hearing 9/30/09, 1:30 p.m.).

 

Handy  asked about conditions for approval for the future church location and possible mitigation of the negative impacts that were referenced by the neighbors in the public hearing.

 

Rafael Sebba, Land Management, responded that for plan amendment zone changes, conditions of approval are not typically attached. He noted the findings adopted by the Board should conclude that the proposed plan amendment and zone change are consistent with the requirements in Lane Code and the RCP and ORS.   He indicated that it is the findings that note why the plan amendment and zone change are supportable.  With regard to conditions of approval, he said they are attached to more specific development proposals that require land use approval.  He said if there is a specific development proposal and someone comes in with a request for a special use permit, they would attach conditions of approval that would need to be fulfilled prior to pulling building permits.  He added if those conditions are not met, it would become a compliance issue.  He indicated for a plan amendment zone change, (since they are talking about changing the plan designation for a property and changing the zoning to be consistent with that plan designation) ultimately they are establishing a new zone for the property.  He said to apply conditions of approval, it is not specific enough at this point to get to specific conditions.  He added that the purpose of the findings is to address whether or not the proposal is consistent to the particular policy.

 

With regard to the church and land swap that is a component of the plan amendment, Sebba noted for a new church to locate on a vacant parcel in the Rural Residential Zone, it would require a special use permit and getting at that through the plan amendment zone change is specific to the subject property and the church would be located on a different parcel.  He added that a special use permit for a new church is not a guaranty and because the proposed church would not be located on the subject property, they could come in for special use permits at any time.

 

Ron Funke, stated he is a representative for the applicant.  He indicated that they have already applied for and received approval for the new Church of Christ in Noti on the property across the street.

 

MOTION: to approve a First Reading and Setting a Second Reading and Public Hearing for Ordinance No. Pa 1263 on September 30, 2009 at 1:30 p.m.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Stewart SECONDED.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

b. DISCUSSION AND ACTION/Correspondence on Hodson Lane.

 

Marsha Miller, Public Works, reported that over the past several months there were issues and concerns raised about the annexation of Hodson Lane by the city of Eugene that occurred in 2006.  She said staff did research and investigation and was asked by the Board to draft a letter for the Board’s approval.  She indicated that this is a draft letter that summarizes the issues.  She stated staff was ready to prepare the letter to send or make any adjustments.  She said that Jim Seaberry and John Dotson had asked for this gap to be closed with the Larsons on Hodson Lane.

 

MOTION: to send a letter to Cliff and Kathy Larson.

 

Fleenor MOVED, Handy SECONDED.

 

Fleenor explained that this was not the definitive conclusion they were looking for, but it is an explanation that states Lane County has exhausted its tools in trying to deal with this and they have to turn it back to the city of Eugene for further consideration and the city of Eugene doesn’t want to consider it.

 

VOTE: 4-0.

 

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION

 

a. PRESENTATION/Working for You Video.  

 

12. COUNTY COUNSEL

 

a. Announcements

 

None.

 

13. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Fleenor announced his community dialogue in Junction City at the Moose Lodge.

 

Handy recalled the governor’s proclamation about Hispanic Heritage Month.  He reported that information from the Oregon Department of Education from 2007/2008 showed that 31 percent students in of public schools were non-white.  He added that there are 17 percent Latinos in public schools.

 

Stewart reported that on Sunday there will be a dedication of the new McKenzie River Track.  He noted the cost for the project was over $500,000.  He said they were looking forward to drawing visitors and future events.

 

Sorenson stated that no decisions will be made before January, but they need to do as much backlog work as possible and do it during the closing months of 2009.  He indicated that they will discuss workload issues, the calendar, outreach meetings and issues being brought forth by departments.

 

 

14. EXECUTIVE SESSION as per ORS 192.660

 

Per ORS 192.660 (2)(h) for the purpose of pending litigation.

 

15. OTHER BUSINESS

 

None.

 

There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson recessed the meeting into Executive Session at 2:45 p.m.

 

 

Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary