JOINT BCC MEETING WITH THE
CITIES OF EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILS
AND WILLAMALANE BOARD
November 29, 2000
Harris Hall Main Floor
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance PA 1156 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Redesignate Land From "Agriculture/Urban Reserve" to "Rural Residential/Urban Reserve", Rezone That Land From Lane County "Exclusive Farm Use 40-Acre Minimum/Floodplain" (E-40/FP) to "Rural Residential 5-Acre Minimum/Floodplain/Site Review" (RR-5/FP/SR) and Adopt an Exception Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 2; and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (File PA 99-5599/Porter).
Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey called the Eugene City Council to order. Present: Bonnie Bettman, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, and Gary Rayor.
Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew called the Springfield City Council to order.
Present: Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield, Christine Lundberg and Fred Simmons.
Lane County Chair Peter Sorenson called to order the Board of Commissioners. Present: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer.
Sorenson stated for all three metropolitan jurisdictions the testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the approval criteria and must be limited to evidence in the record as presented at the November 16, 1999 public hearing before the Metro Planning commissions. He said the failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the hearing record precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Sorenson asked if any of the participating elected officials from Lane County or the Cities of Springfield and Eugene had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts.
There were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts from any of the jurisdictions.
Sorenson noted that the record will be left open for additional written comments, but comments must be received prior to the end of the hearing.
Mayor Torrey opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
Springfield City Councilor Ballew opened the public hearing for an Ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Redesignate Certain Property Rural Residential/Urban Reserve From Agriculture/Urban Reserve; Adopting and Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Adopting a Savings and Severability Clause.
Celia Barry, Land Management clarified that the record would only be left open if requested prior to the close of the hearing.
Barry reported the item concerned a request for a Metro Plan amendment from agricultural urban reserve to rural residential urban reserve and a zone change from exclusive farm use 40 acre minimum flood plain to rural residential five acre minimum flood plain site review. She noted it involves a 12.4 acre property on the southwest corner of Greenhill Road and Royal Avenue. She added the urban growth boundary runs along Greenhill Road adjacent to the east side of the property.
Barry explained the criteria for the Metro Plan amendment is cited in Lane Code 12.225, Springfield Development Codes: 7.0703 and Eugene Land Use Code 9.128(3). She said the Metro Plan amendment criteria states that the amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission and the adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. She stated that the zone change criterion is found in Lane Code 16.252(2), and read the criterion. She added that all three jurisdictions must act on the Metro Plan amendment, but only Lane County need act on the zone change request.
Barry noted the request involves an exception to State Land Use Goal 3 that relates to agricultural lands. She added in order to remove land from a resource designation (such as farm or forest) it has to be accepted out of the resource designation and placed in an exception area. She added these lands are outside the urban growth boundary and considered developed and committed and are no longer good for resource use. Barry noted the applicant had chosen the irrevocably committed option and Oregon Administrative Rules spell out specifically how the rule and goal is to be addressed in order to qualify. She said it is considered a Type 1 Metro Plan amendment because of the need to take an exception to the statewide land use goals. She said the planning commissions in November 1999 recommended approval of this application with the stipulation that the findings be strengthened (copy in file).
Barry stated that Brent Reed of Jim Griffith Associates had submitted additional findings this morning that she had not reviewed and those will be distributed to the elected officials. She said, regarding the findings that were distributed in the packet, staff does not believe they are adequate to be adopted. She said it must be proven that the land cannot be farmed either alone or in conjunction with adjacent lands and that didn't appear to be well documented in the packet. She added the land to the west was not addressed at all for farm use on the property and there is evidence in Assessment and Taxation records and aerial photos that there is some farming activity on the property. She said regarding the property to the south, the previous staff report to the planning commission had found the property to the south had not been adequately addressed as far as not being farmable in conjunction with this property, but that the applicant had done a better job in the findings that were in the packet for this meeting with regard to the property to the south. She said, however, the problem with the findings in the packet was that the original applicants findings stated there was a horse stabling facility on the property to the south that is defined as a farm use and the new findings stated there were no farming activities and did not explain the revision.
Barry said the applicant did not address the urban reserve criteria that are in the Oregon Administrative Rules and the rule was in place at the time of the application and required that certain criteria be addressed. She noted the initial staff report to the planning commission stated otherwise. She checked with DLCD and also learned at the work session earlier this evening that the rule was in place as of 1992. She added there was no written information about the urban reserve inadequacy because she did not have that information before the packet was due. She said if it is approved, staff recommended a site review suffix be added to the zoning designation (attached Exhibit B to the ordinances). She said it would ensure that Metro Plan Policy 25 is addressed when the properties are developed. She recommended requirements that drainage be addressed in the site review, as it was an issue for development as it is also for farming activities, and there is evidence in the record that it is a substantial issue for development of the property. She noted that there may be a lack of out fall for drainage and they need to address how it will not impact surrounding properties. She added the site review suffix would also ensure that access is not taken onto Greenhill Road but taken onto Royal Avenue.
Dwyer said if the place could be productively farmed and there is no evidence that it couldnt, it shouldnt be brought into the city.
Councilor Rayor asked whether there is a dwelling on the property. Barry responded that the property owners live on tax lot 100 immediately on the corner of Royal and Greenhill and the subject property surrounded their lot, and was vacant. She noted the subject property consists of two legal lots, and so would not need to go through a County approved land division process. She said this was why staff recommended that the drainage issue be addressed as part of the a site review process, because the drainage issue would typically be reviewed as part of a land division application and there would be no opportunity to do that in this case.
In response to a question from Eugene City Councilor Nancy Nathanson, Barry responded that the surrounding rural residential lands were designated as RR5 because they were found to be parceled, developed and committed. She said the property to the west that may have farming activity has a dwelling on it and that most of the properties in the RR5 area had dwellings. She noted they were committed at the time the statewide land use goals came into effect.
Green asked for a clarification of the statement in staff's cover memo to the Board that the applicant must prove that "no type of farm use under the definition is possible."
Barry replied that each and every farm use in the state law does not need to be addressed, but at minimum, categories of farm use should be addressed with regard to the subject property. In staffs opinion, the farming activities that are under state law were addressed in more of a general nature than as how they related to the subject property. She said much of the information provided was in the form of assertions not backed up with documentation. She added that since ORS 215.203 was not even mentioned, it was a deficiency in the findings.
Councilor Bettman asked for an explanation of why the conceptual plan showing several lots in a subdivision was attached as an exhibit to the application.
Barry responded that perhaps the applicant could address this, but noted it was meant to address Metro Plan policy 25 of Section II.B., Growth Management and the Urban Service Area, which required the applicant to show how the property could be redeveloped once annexed. She noted the Site Review suffix would ensure that the conceptual plan was revised to show that city development standards had been met.
Councilor Pape asked if it was accurate to say that the soils on the property were poorly drained, that the property lacked water rights and that the soils are considered only class III and IV for agricultural purposes.
Barry stated that was correct. She further noted that the reason this was not enough to justify approval of the application is because the soils on the property are defined as high value.
Dan Porter, stated he and his family were looking for property to build a home. He said the property had the potential they were looking for, a house to live in while they built their home. He wanted to build a house on the southern most piece of their property. He added he had never developed any land in the past. He said the land was not usable for agricultural, as it was moist in winter. He said they have met all the rules and all of the criteria had been addressed satisfactorily.
Reed distributed handouts to the elected officials. (Copies in file). He gave a slide presentation of the property.
Reed explained that the property has two legal lots of record totaling 12.4 acres that are outside the urban growth boundary and within the Metro Plan boundary. He noted it was not a request to annex within the urban growth boundary and it will not change the current Metro Plan overlay designation of urban reserve. He said if this is approved, it will be zoned RR5 with an urban reserve overlay with the site review. He said the site (to the best available information) had only been used for very limited grazing. He added they spoke with the USDA to determine if there was any type of federal information regarding the property and it showed no records. He noted there were no jurisdictional wetlands located on the property and there had not been farming on the property for at least 10 years.
Reed noted that amendment to the Metro Plan required that compliance with statewide planning goals be demonstrated and Goal 2 required that an exception be taken to Goal 3 in this application and the exception sought is irrevocably developed and committed to non-resource use--therefore is impracticable for resource use. He quoted ORS 660-004-0028 (1). He explained that Lane County determined that impracticability of land for agricultural resource use is objectively evaluated using threshold criteria set forth in the 1989 addendum to the development and committed working paper that was adopted in support of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Board Order 89-10-25-4, attached as Exhibit N (copy in file). He noted an analysis through air photos and site visits had determined that subject site has dwellings located on at least adjoining sides. He said the criteria provided within the development and committed papers and through Board Order 89-10-25-4 supported the findings that the subject property does not represent practicable agricultural resource land and is therefore developed and committed to non-resource use. He said the development surrounding the subject property falls within the considerations in the criteria provided by working papers to assess the practicability of resource use and the development and committed nature of the subject property.
Reed commented that although the soils are considered high value (and they are not disputing that fact) the subject is greatly diminished by the size, and wetness of the site makes it unworkable. He noted the soils are wet from late fall to late spring and are dry during the summer, making a growing period of only four months. He added the ground is too wet to support anything but growing grass.
Reed stated that approval of this request would allow future owners to keep a few horses for personal use. He said in consideration of OAR 660-004-0028 2 6, (the requirements for irrevocably committed exception) they believe they were adequately addressed in the first findings and also addressed them in the revised findings. He said with Section 3 of OAR 660-004-0028, it should not be required that local governments demonstrate that every use allowed by the applicable goal is impossible. He noted the site is not in current farm use, the land has sat unused for many years and is not adjacent to any farm uses. He added they didnt believe an analysis of all the Metro Plan goals and policies was called for or helpful in this application as the subject site is not valuable natural resource land and should not be protected as such. He believed that this request should be approved from agriculture E-40 to RR5 with an urban reserve site overlay.
Cindy Fawn, 28760 Royal Avenue, Eugene, stated she borders the Porters property. She stated she lived on the property for 14 years and there had been no production of farming that had taken place on the property, as it is too wet.
Sorenson suggested keeping the hearing record open for three weeks until December 20, asking the staff to review this and come back with materials presented.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Sorenson closed the Public Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.
MOTION: the City of Eugene would leave the record open for three weeks.
Nathanson MOVED, Pape SECONDED.
MOTION: the Lane County Board of Commissioners would leave the record open for three weeks and have staff come back and have a third reading and deliberation.
Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.
Kent Howe, Land Management, noted there had not been a request to keep the record open. He suggested closing the record tonight.
Mayor Torrey asked how the City of Eugene should proceed on this matter.
Jan Childs, City of Eugene, suggested not leaving the record open because it does not appear that they received new evidence.
Mayor Torrey asked if the City of Eugene would withdraw their motion.
Nathanson was in agreement.
Sorenson noted the record would be closed, the documents accepted, the staff would come back to the individual jurisdictions.
MOTION: Lane County to approve the Second Reading and setting a Third Reading and Deliberation for January 31, 2001.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 8:55 p.m.
There being no further business, Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting for the City of Eugene at 8:55 p.m. but they were reopening their meeting at the City of Eugene.
There being no further business, Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew adjourned the meeting for the City of Springfield at 8:55 p.m.