minhead.gif (11357 bytes)approved Approved 11/10/99

October 27, 1999


Harris Hall Main Floor - 1:30 p.m.

Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr., presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson. Cindy Weeldreyer was excused. Assistant County Counsel Stephen Vorhes and Recording Secretary Melissa Zimmer were also present.




a. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1142 Amending the Junction City Comprehensive Plan to Modify the Urban Growth Boundary Within the City Limits and Adopt an Exception Pursuant To Statewide Planning Goal 2; and Adopting a Severability Clause (file PA 99-6075; Country Coach, Inc.).

Mike Copely, Land Management, reported this is an expansion of an urban growth boundary entirely within the city limits of Junction City. He noted the ordinance co-adopts the city’s action to expand its urban growth boundary to encompass an additional 17 acres. He added the city of Junction City had already taken action on the urban growth expansion to adopt it at the city level, as well as to redesignate and rezone the property.

Copely reported the ordinance contains findings addressing the key elements of the proposal with respect to statewide planning Goal 2 and 14, exception criteria. He noted there were other findings addressing other goals but the key findings relate to the urban growth boundary expansion. He stated this proposal originated at the city level earlier this year and went through the city process in September and concluded October 14, with the city adopting it. He added there were public hearings and public inquiries, including the Lane County Planning Commission. He said in all cases, the result was an affirmative vote by the officials involved and there had been no objection to the proposal in any of the hearings. He said staff recommends approval of the proposal as submitted.

Green noted that this decision is subject to plan amendment and rezoning criteria cited in the agenda cover memo and attachments, evidence and testimony must be directed toward the approval criteria, and failure to raise an issue to enable a response may preclude appeal to LUBA. He added it is an opportunity for those present to enter information into the record and only persons who qualify as parties may appeal the Board decision to LUBA.

Green asked the Board if they had any ex parte contacts or a conflict of interest.

All commissioners stated they had none.

Commissioner Green opened up the Public Hearing.

Steve Cornacchia, 180 E. 11th, Eugene, stated he represents the applicant, Country Coach. He thanked the County for the way this was being processed, to co-adopt this with the City. He noted because of the unique situation of the urban growth boundary existing within the city limits, that the Board’s role in this issue is determined by the intergovernmental agreement with Junction City. He said in the intergovernmental agreement, the Board’s role is referral. He noted the staff at LCDC disagreed with that position and are relying upon the statute that says the County has coordination responsibilities for all comprehensive plans within its jurisdiction. He added Country Coach’s expectations and needs are immediate and it doesn’t make economic sense for Country Coach to wait. He said there is ample foundation and support for the ordinance. He noted that Country Coach is a victim of its own success in this situation, being successful in the development of their business and an increased demand for their products. He said to meet their demands, Country Coach has three options: expand next door on property that is adjacent to them; locate on a satellite site in Junction City; or another location in Lane County, to house their expansion. He said the idea of adjacency becomes paramount when looking at how they do business. He added that each Country Coach vehicle has over 35,000 moving parts and the movement of the chassis through different buildings and sites is the accepted practice for this industry. He stated the adjacent site is far preferable for a variety of reasons than for any satellite site that is available in Junction City.

Cornacchia noted that during Junction City’s periodic review process, they identified an inventory of industrial lands to meet their projected needs for the next 20 years. He added the state decided to take 85 acres of their industrial zone for the siting of a new corrections facility. He said they would be adding back 17 acres to the acknowledged industrial lands inventory for Junction City, in the near future. He said they have met all of the criteria and considerations that were set out for urban growth boundary expansion and for the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. He noted Goal 2 provides for a distinct and complete set of criteria that an applicant must address and meet. He added in this case there is a unanimous Junction City Planning Commission, Lane County Planning Commission and City Council of Junction City who have agreed with that assessment.

Bob Lee, 1021 Quince Dr., Junction City, reported he started Country Coach in 1974 and moved it to Junction City in 1977. He said since 1977, they have grown and have been able to acquire the adjacent property or buildings in order to grow. He noted they have 14 buildings and for the last 14 years they had grown 20% a year and expect the market demand to expand at the same rate for the next ten years.

Bert Likens, City Manager, Junction City, reiterated that the city of Junction City has had a long standing with Country Coach, and the Junction City Council is supportive of this application as this is a common sense decision to expand on the adjoining property.

Cornacchia noted that this expansion has no impacts, and from the standpoint of notice on the issue, each of the hearings had been noticed to the entire community of Junction City through publications and notice.

Dwyer asked the city manager about agricultural land inside the city and outside the urban growth boundary.

Likens stated in 1982, Junction City’s first comprehensive plan was acknowledged, and at that time, a resident of the city never saw this land being urbanized and it was already in the city limits at that time. Likens stated he has chosen to sell the property that is within the city limits. He noted the applicant now has the property and is having the property changed for a different use inside the city limits.

There being no one further signed up to speak, Commissioner Green closed the Public Hearing.

Morrison stated she was in favor of going forward with this as the project is a benefit to the citizens of Junction City, and creating jobs to her outweighs the use of the agricultural land being left like it is. She noted the Board had discussed the need for jobs that families could sustain themselves and Country Coach has been an employer that has been able to demonstrate that. She said she did not see the loss of 17 acres of agricultural land as being that significant.

Sorenson said he views each decision in a whole and not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. He said he was not in favor of expanding the urban growth boundary to accommodate a change from an agricultural use to a commercial or industrial use. He said he didn’t share Morrison’s view that an incremental change doesn’t add up to something bigger. He added that establishing an urban growth boundary was done for a reason, to maintain the agricultural land outside of the urban growth boundary, maintaining the ability within the urban growth boundary to have residential business, industrial uses. He said he wasn’t ready to do that but would be willing to work with any business to find an appropriately zoned property within the urban growth boundary.

Dwyer stated that agricultural land is important to him where the agricultural land and open space will be in perpetuity, not until the next developer comes along. He said a policy needs to be developed and the Board has to take a position in preservation of these lands. He noted even though it is outside of the urban growth boundary, it is unique in that it is inside the city. He said he will vote in the affirmative of this in deference to the process and all the time the applicants had spent in trying to move the process forward. He said his approval of this does not provide a blank check to cities or other governments to do the same.

Green stated if there was ever a zoned planned amendment that made the most sense, this is the one. He said he will be voting in the affirmative.

MOTION: to approve Ordinance PA 1142.

Morrison MOVED, Green SECONDED.

ROLL CALL VOTE: 3-1 (Sorenson dissenting).



There being no further business, Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting at 1:52 p.m.

Melissa Zimmer, Recording Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 11/03/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.