JOINT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'/PLANNING COMMISSION
October 5, 2010
Harris Hall Main Floor
Commissioner Rob Handy presided with Commissioners Pete Sorenson and Faye
Stewart present, and Commissioner Bill Fleenor participating via teleconference.
County Administrator Jeff Spartz, County Counsel Liane Richardson, Minutes
Recorder Linda Henry were also present.
Commissioner Handy explained Commissioner Dwyer had been excused from the meeting.
Planning Commissioner Tony McCown presided with Planning Commissioners Lisa Arkin, George Goldstein, Nancy Nichols, Dennis Sandow, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, Ryan Sisson and John Sullivan present. Land Management Division Staff Kent Howe, Matt Laird, Keir Miller and Sarah Wilkinson were also present.
Mr. Handy convened the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. McCown convened the Lane County Planning Commission.
Those present introduced themselves.
Mr. Handy read the items for public hearing into the record.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance 7-10/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 13 and 16 of the Lane Code to be Consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules and to Make Other Various Correction and Clarification Revisions (LC 13.050, 16.005, 16.211, 16.212, 16.237, 16.238, 16.239, 16.240, 16.241, 16.243, 19.294, 16.296). (Sarah Wilkinson, Planner)
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1275/In the Matter of Amending the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (RCP) by Amending Two Coordinated Population Forecasts for the City of Coburg (PA 10-5610), (Sarah Wilkinson, Planner)
REFER TO PUBLIC HEARING/Order No. 10-10-5-1/In the Matter of Amending Chapter 5 of Lane Manual to Formalize Staff Coordination Between Compliance and Permitting (LM 5.013). (Sarah Wilkinson, Planner)
Mr. Handy called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest on the part of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Fleenor and Mr. Handy stated they had no ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Stewart stated he had received telephone calls from several constituents about the agenda item.
Mr. McCown called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest on the part of the Planning Commission. Ms. Nichols stated a neighbor telephoned her about the agenda item. There were no other affirmative responses.
Ms. Wilkinson offered the staff report. She stated comments received from the public after the agenda had been prepared had been provided to commissioners this evening. She explained the amendments before the commissioners this evening were part of a larger long range planning project to modernize and streamline Lane Code. The amendments were grouped as follows:
Ms. Wilkinson explained consideration of the proposed amendments to Lane Code
Chapter 16.211 required mailing of a Ballot Measure 56 notice to property owners
in the impacted forest land zone in Lane County informing them of the proposed
amendments and tonight’s public hearing. The most common concern identified was
related to the deletion of the term “manufactured dwelling”. People expressed
concern that the proposed deletion would result in the exclusion of manufactured
dwellings on property in the impacted forest land zone. She asserted staff
shared that concern. However, it was not Lane County’s policy to distinguish
between manufactured dwellings and stick built homes for the purpose of single
family development, nor was such differential treatment allowed by state law.
Staff did not believe it was the intent of the proposed language to exclude
manufactured dwellings. However, there were definitions in the Lane Code that if
strictly interpreted, appeared to exclude manufactured dwellings. Staff
recommended that the BCC and the Planning Commission refrain from moving forward
with that change. The deletion was not a substantive change and it was not
required for the County to be in accordance with any relevant state laws.
Alternatively, the BCC could choose to direct staff to research how to best
revise the existing definitions to ensure that manufactured dwellings were not
excluded. It was important that sufficient time be taken to consider the impacts
of any changes to avoid unintended consequences since the terms manufactured
dwelling, manufactured home and mobile home were used throughout Lane Code.
Mr. Sorenson said the task force consisted of people representing various viewpoints. The task force recommendations were the topic for tonight’s public hearing. He acknowledged task force members Bob Emmons and Ryan Sisson who were present. This public hearing was the opportunity for the public to provide feedback to the commissioners on those recommendations. The BCC had insisted on unanimous approval by the task force of the items presented for public hearing.
In response to a question from Ms. Arkin, Ms. Wilkinson stated specific reference to manufactured dwelling was not made in the applicable section of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). The Goal 1 Coalition thought it was not necessary for Lane County to make reference to manufactured dwellings in Lane Code because it was redundant language. The task force discussions never progressed to analysis of the definitions in Lane Code but the issue arose during the pubic comment period for Ballot Measure 56.
Mr. Handy opened the public hearing for the BCC.
Mr. McCown opened the public hearing for the Lane County Planning Commission.
Jim Walsh, 90050 Killian Lane, Elmira, identified himself as a representative for the Eugene Association of Realtors, Springfield Board of Realtors, Cottage Grove Board of Realtors, and the Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors. These groups questioned Chapter 16.211(5), which included the deletion of manufactured homes from that section of the code. They did not think it was necessary to make the proposed deletion, but there did need to be consistency. The groups believed the ORS coupled the terms “single family dwelling” and “manufactured dwelling”. He asserted property owners should be able to site either stick built or manufactured homes on legal F2 template sites. The groups agreed with the staff recommendation to refrain from deleting the reference until it was studied further.
Gene Stevens, 79324 Abbott Lane, Cottage Grove, identified himself as the Senior Vice President of Land and Timber for Rosboro. Rosboro had been a forest products manufacturing business in Lane County for over 70 years. He stated Rosboro supported the staff recommendation to refrain from deleting the reference to manufactured dwelling until it was studied further. The proposed changes to Lane Code 16.211 were unnecessarily restrictive. The addition of the proposed language could be devastating for land owners and result in the loss of property owners’ rights for future template dwellings. The original ORS did not contain language regarding dwellings and the language adopted by Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was done so without proper authority based upon ORS. He added the existing language for contiguous had worked in the past and as acceptable as stated. He averred adoption of the proposed revisions would open Lane County to future claims for loss of existing property rights. The land owners of Lane County should have a consistent set of standards to work with without needless qualifications, further complications and restricted activity. He requested the BCC unanimously support option 3 for Lane Code 16.211.
Dick Beers, 2185 Carmel, Eugene, opposed the F2 zone change. His family owned F1 and F2 property and he did not think the change was needed at the present time. He asked: why was there a need for change; how many acres of land in Lane County were zoned F2; how many owners would be impacted by the proposed change; when did government rules constitute taking; for a definition of the term director and for an explanation of how a director was selected; who issued the land change requirement; who sponsored the proposed change/proposed taking; were all people who owned F2 property able to agree or oppose; was this a democratic issue or an issue being forced upon the landowners by the government; will owners be compensated for non-permitted issues; did all of the BCC favor the issue; does the BCC need a recall action?
John Baxter, 23476 Highway 36, Cheshire, said if the definition for manufactured dwelling was deleted, it would make a difference for template dwellings in the area in which he lived. Many of the dwellings around him were manufactured dwellings and it would be difficult for him under the proposed language to use the template plan to place a home on his F2 land.
Tom Paterson, 2155 Ridgeway Drive, Eugene, not present.
Lois Kerns, 85101 McBeth Road, Eugene, declined to speak.
Arthur Kerns, 85101 McBeth Road, Eugene, declined to speak.
Kraig Kerns, 85101 McBeth Road, Eugene, declined to speak.
Craig Manker, no address, stated Jim Walsh, the representative for the realtors had addressed his concerns.
Steve Macauley, 80575 Turkey Run Road, Creswell, questioned how contiguous legal lots could be combined to form one legal lot. He asked if there would be compensation for property owners for the loss of value and use of their property.
Sally Cowan, 89266 Knight Road, Veneta, said she was not a citizen and could not vote on Ballot Measure 56. She was concerned that during the current difficult economic times, if something happened to her stick built home, whether she would be able to replace it with a manufactured home. She opined the proposed changes could inadvertently create a gerrymandered gentrification of the area. Although she wanted to continue to live in her stick built home, she wanted to keep other options open.
Tom Bowerman, 33707 McKenzie View Drive, Eugene, was generally supportive of the proposed changes which he saw as housekeeping measures to bring Lane Code into conformance with state laws and to correct inconsistencies. He expressed concern with the clause related to road access for emergency vehicles that required a turnaround for emergency vehicles. In some topographic locations it would be difficult if not impossible to meet the code requirement. He asked the commissioners to give some discretion to allow a fire chief to evaluate individual situations and provide alternatives to the code requirements.
Richard Towpie, 95609 Marcola Road, Marcola, was concerned that property owners would be forced to install turnarounds where they had not previously existed and which would be a financial burden to the property owners. He asked why the commissioners were proposing the changes at the present time.
Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, had been a member of the Land Use Task Force. He assured everyone that the makeup of the committee consisted of development interests and private property concerns. While people had expressed concerns this evening about private property rights, all of the proposals before the commissioners were consensus proposals that task force members of varying views had agreed upon. Nothing was proposed that would result in any change to existing law. He said the current definition of contiguous was intended to address situations other than template dwellings. Lane Code did not supersede state law. The term manufactured dwelling in the context of template dwellings did not appear in either Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) or ORS, but it did appear in Lane Code. It was being deleted from the Lane Code template provisions so that Lane Code would read the same as state law. The intent was not to limit template dwellings to stick built houses. Manufactured dwellings were already included in the term dwellings. The intent was to clarify that only permanent manufactured homes could be considered when applying the template test. The current Lane Code language suggested that a non-permanent manufactured home, such as a medical hardship dwelling, could be used to qualify for a template dwelling. He stated the requirements for turnarounds and turnouts for fire safety standards were state rather than local law. The task force had not addressed this issue. The proposed Lane Code amendments would make Lane Code consistent with state law.
Pat Russell, 3290 Danville Road, Creswell, was concerned that if F2 land was not being used in forest management, the land could be taken out of F2. He wanted to make sure his property would remain zoned F2.
Mr. Handy closed the BCC public hearing.
Mr. McCown closed the Lane County Planning Commission public hearing.
Mr. Goldstein was troubled that any constrictions would be a socio-economic bias, and suggested the various housing types looked at should be classified as dwellings.
In response to a question from Ms. Nichols, Mr. Howe said the intent of the use was the determining factor when a manufactured dwelling was replaced by either a stick built home or manufactured dwelling.
Ms. Arkin followed up on questions raised by the speakers. She asked if under changes to contiguous lots, would lots be combined and would there be compensation for loss in value.
Ms. Wilkinson said one of the criterion when applying for a template dwelling was whether the applicant owned properties contiguous to the subject property, were the properties zoned F2, and were the properties under the same ownership. ORS stated that contiguous properties under one ownership were considered to be a tract, and there could be only one dwelling per tract. This regulation currently existed and would not change under the proposed revisions.
Ms. Arkin asked if homeowners would incur costs related to constructing turnarounds required by the proposed change.
Ms. Wilkinson said the proposed change was a text clarification change. The standard applied to turnaround requirements on dead end roads. The standard would be applied to new development, and would not be applied retroactively to existing dwellings. She added there were provisions in the code that allowed for modifications of road design standards if a piece of property could not meet code requirements to due topographic features. Assessing costs for building a turnaround on a dead end street were evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki noted the task force intended to include manufactured dwellings in the definition for dwellings, and asked why objections had arisen.
Ms. Wilkinson said the proposal before the commissioners was based on the report prepared by the task force, and there had not been direction in the report to revise definitions of regarding dwellings or manufactured dwellings.
Ms. Arkin observed the Oregon Manufactured Housing Association had offered testimony that they wanted to be involved in the process. They had proposed language for the term dwelling that could be amended to include manufactured homes.
Ms. Wilkinson agreed there were ways to address changes to the definitions, in a manner that would not result in unintended consequences in other parts of Lane Code or result in conflicts with other definitions.
In response to a question from Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Howe explained that park model recreational vehicles under the state building code were considered to be equivalent to manufactured dwellings or stick built structures. The BCC could direct staff to draft language that under F2 zoning, dwellings would have to be permanent dwellings.
Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Nichols, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ordinance No. PA 1275, housekeeping amendments to the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, correcting countywide coordinated population figures for the City of Coburg, be adopted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, seconded by Ms. Arkin, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Order No. 10-10-5-1 in the matter of amending Chapter 5 of Lane Manual to formalize staff coordination between compliance and permitting (LM 5.013), be adopted. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, seconded by Mr. Goldstein, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ordinance No. 7/10, in the matter of amending Chapters 13 and 16 of the Lane Code to be consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules and to make other various correction and clarification revisions (LC 13.050, 16.005, 16.211, 16.212, 16.237, 126.238, 16.239, 16.240, 16.241, 16.243, 16.294, 16.296) not be adopted until further discussion occur and staff provided a report explaining the manufactured dwelling definition and turnout requirements.
Mr. Sullivan asserted that by not making a recommendation, the Planning Commission would leave a portion of the issue unresolved and would not move it forward to the BCC with a positive motion.
Mr. McCown would not support the motion because he did not feel it necessary to hold up the remaining issues. The intent of the original motion from Goal 1 and the task force was to prevent non-permanent residences from being included in the template. He would support a motion that allowed for the changes.
Following a brief discussion, Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki withdrew the motion, and Mr. Goldstein withdrew the second to the motion.
Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ordinance No. 7/10, in the matter of amending Chapters 13 and 16 of the Lane Code to be consistent with Oregon Administrative Rules and to make other various correction and clarification revisions (LC 13.050, 16.005, 16.212, 16.237, 126.238, 16.239, 16.240, 16.241, 16.243, 16.294, 16.296) be adopted. Mr. Siekiel-Zdzienicki, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, further moved that staff review and revise as needed LC 16.211 to include the intent of the Land Use Task Force.
Mr. McCown noted the BCC would debate the issue on October 26, 2010. He opined the BCC clearly understood the issue and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, and staff would further clarify the issues identified tonight for the BCC.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Arkin understood by implementing the intent of the task force, the intent of the motion was to allow manufactured homes as permanent dwellings.
Mr. Handy adjourned the BCC at 8:25 p.m.
Mr. McCown adjourned the Lane County Planning Commission at 8:25 p.m.