BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'
June 2, 2004
Commissioners Conference Room†
Commissioner Bobby Green, Sr. presided with Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Don Hampton, Anna Morrison and Peter Sorenson present.† County Administrator Bill VanVactor, Assistant County Counsel Steve Vorhes, Mark Kardell, and Recording Secretary Malinda Dodson were also present.
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER 04-6-2-12/In the Matter of Certification of Final Assessments for Improvements to Irvington Drive (County Road Number 540) Between Mile Post 0.00 and Mile Post 1.47 and Setting Lien Values Against Properties. (NBA & PM 5/5/04). †
Frank Simas stated that the County Engineer approved construction improvements for the project on March 24, 2004 and by the Public Works Director on March 26, 2004.†† He explained that the adjacent properties on the project were made subject to an estimate by Order No. 03-4-16-6, which specified that the amount would be determined at a later date.†††† Simas said that the total assessable costs for the project were $245,851.61 to be assessed to approximately 122 benefiting properties.††† Of the 122 properties, 26 of the parcels were eligible for deferral under the existing Lane Code provisions.† All property owners to be assessed by the project were notified by mail of the amount of their proposed final assessment.† †
Leslie Marty, 3610 Honolulu Avenue Eugene, a resident of 24 years, asked what he is paying for.† He stated that he was assessed an amount of $1,400 but the alleged improvements have only had a negative impact on his property.† He explained that the RV parking he has had for 15 years was accessible from Irvington Drive and is now covered with a curb.† In addition, his privacy fence was removed, and the corner of his property was purchased to add wheelchair access as well as an unused sidewalk.† He felt that the improvements have decreased his property value and asked if the County was willing to make up the deficit of appreciation that would have occurred if the project had not been done.
Commissioner Sorenson asked Marty what he would like the Board to do.† Marty, responded by stating that he would like a curb cut put in for RV access and felt it should have been done in the first place.† †
Commissioner Morrison asked Marty if he had a permit for the RV driveway access off of Irvington.† Marty said no, and that he didnít believe any other long standing residents had permits before the code was changed to add improvements.† †
Commissioner Green asked if Marty based his potential negative impact to his property on market values.† †
Marty stated that RV parking that is no longer accessible has a negative potential for appreciation if he should decide to sell his home.† In addition, Marty stated that increased traffic volume due to development in the area has increased the noise level, and has impacted the safety and livability of the community.
Commissioner Dwyer asked staff why a curb cut was not put in at Irvington and why historic use of the property was not accommodated.
Simas explained that access management policies are applied to existing accesses, and primary access is considered in determining whether a driveway should be eliminated.
Commissioner Dwyer asked Frank Simas if there was any communication with Leslie Marty and if it was implied that Marty would still be able to utilize his RV access.† †
Simas stated that he did not speak with Marty, but members of his staff had on several occasions. Simas did not know for sure if Marty was told that he would lose access to his RV parking.† ††
Marty maintained that he was not told he would lose access to his RV parking.
Commissioner Hampton asked Mr. Simas how it is decided that some properties get more than one access point while others donít.† †
Simas said that it depends on the usage and that in some cases it would be better to have a circular driveway.† †
Commissioner Hampton asked the same question specific to RV access.
Simas stated that the criteria involves application of judgement and is based on looking at the properties to determine which accesses are absolutely necessary.† †
Commissioner Hampton asked if it was determined that one access point was sufficient but the property owner wanted two, would it be possible for the property owner to pay for the additional space?† †
Simas stated that there have been some instances where they have done that.†
MOTION:† Approve the order and all assessments with the exception of Mr. Marty and have staff bring back an estimate for the cost of putting in a curb.† Commissioner Sorenson MOVED, Commissioner Hampton SECONDED.
VOTE: 4-1 with Commissioner Morrison descending.
b. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1205/In the Matter of† Amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Land From "Rural Commercial" to "Rural, Community" and Rezoning That Land From "RC/C-RCP, Rural Commercial" To "RR-2/C-RCP, Rural Residential", and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (file PA 03-5200; Finney). (NBA & PM 5/19/04)
Jerry Kendall explained that the property is comprised of four separate legal lots sandwiched between Hwy. 126 and the McKenzie River, within the unincorporated community of Nimrod, and adjacent and due east of Eagle Creek Lodge.† He said in 1990 the owner of the lodge applied for a rezoning to commercial to make his lodge conforming.† At the time, he also owned the adjoining properties that were all rezoned to commercial at the same time.† Now that the separate legal lots have been sold off, the current owners are requesting restoration of the rural residential zoning.† Kendall stated that the application passed unanimously with the planning commission 7-0.†
Commissioner Green called for any disclosures.† There were no disclosures.†
The current property owner described the property and explained that they are not good commercial lots.† He added that the former owner anticipated using the adjacent property commercially in conjunction with the resort, but that it didnít work out.†
MOTION:† Approval of Ordinance No. PA 1205, Dwyer MOVED, Commissioner Sorenson SECONDED.
c. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1206/In the Matter of Adopting the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan as a Functional Plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan for Application Within the Springfield Urban Growth Area and Adopting a Severability Clause (Metro Plan Periodic Review Work Task 5). (NBA & PM 5/19/04).†† ††
Stephanie Schulz explained that the ordinance is a drinking water protection plan for the city of Springfield and surrounding areas.†† She explained that the there are times of travel zones that travel out around the wells.† The plan is to protect the ground water for the city of Springfield.† She said that it is a metro functional plan and would require co-adoption by the Board.† ††
In response to Commissioner Sorenson, Schulz stated that the project is an overlay district for contaminants and potential hazardous material that could sink into the wells and contaminate the water.
Commissioner Sorenson asked if it regulates land use in the city of Springfield and in unincorporated Lane County.
Schulz said that it only applies to the edge of the urban growth boundary and not unincorporated Lane County.† †
Commissioner Dwyer MOVED approval. †
Sara Summers, City of Springfield Planner, commented almost all properties are low density residential and article 17, and the drinking water protection plan, has no effect on those properties.† Properties that are currently zoned industrial commercial or multi-family residential have to annex into the city of Springfield in order to be developed.† She stated that the bottom line is that this is for the purposes of DLCD and DEQ and the agencies that need them to finish their work project.† She also mentioned that they are not excluding any businesses that practice good use of chemicals.
Nancy Morino, City of Springfield Water Quality Protection Coordinator, commented that of the list of goals developed by a citizen task force the number one priority was public education.† Ongoing outreach and collaboration is a big portion of the drinking water protection plan being considered.† †
MOTION:† Approval, Commissioner Dwyer MOVED, Commissioner Morrison SECONDED.
d. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 13-04/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. (NBA & PM 5/19/04). †
Stephanie Schulz explained that this is the implementation language to add to the code for the drinking water protection program that would apply within the urban growth boundary and outside the city limits. ††††
MOTION: Approval, Commissioner Dwyer MOVED, Commissioner Morrison SECONDED.† VOTE: 5-0.
e. SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. 14-04/In the Matter of Amending Lane Code Chapter 7 to Revise Non-Commercial Kennel and Dangerous Dog License/Fee Requirements (LC 7.075, 7.085, 7.135).
Commissioner Green summarized that the code is being amended to revise the commercial and non-commercial kennel license.†
Gary Shearer, 83499 Rattlesnake Road, Dexter, 97431, expressed that the abolishment of non-commercial kennel licenses is not clear.† Shearer recommended retaining the four licensing types and not eliminate the non-commercial license but rather increase the fee.† He stated that the people in this classification could be an excellent resource to LCARA and to the County in providing education to reduce irresponsible ownership. He suggested sending the proposal back to staff with recommendations that they keep the current code and licensing structure, raise the fees, and review the permit process limits for a win-win situation. He supplied written documentation of his comments.† (Copy in file)
Al Phillips, Box 2146 Eugene, highlighted concerns by local cat and dog owners relating to the non-commercial kennels and to licensing.† They included:† 1) The public has not been given information detailing the ramifications of the licensing changes, 2)† The conditions they would be facing by going from non-commercial to commercial have not been published, 3) Why would a pet owner or a hobbyist be put in the same category as a commercial boarding kennel or a commercial breeding kennel? 4) The public has not been apprised of the very expensive hoops they would have to go through to meet the zoning requirements on their existing property.
Phillips stated that in the interest of creating positive results for County officials, zoning, LCARA, and dog and cat owning citizens, an extension in time before a decision is made would be advisable.† He added that on the advice of legal counsel, dog and cat clubs have requested an extension of time so that more workable solutions could be developed.† †
Ann Jenson, 1642 North Danebo, Eugene, 97402, stated that she would like to see the non-commercial kennel license retained at its same rate.† She mentioned there are 339 property owners in Lane County who rely on this because they presently own more dogs than zoning codes allow.† She stated that a provision could be added that requires that each dog be individually licensed to allow for the revenue needed by LCARA, and the protection needed by dog owners until zoning codes are modified.† Emotionally, Jenson explained that under the current regulation, if she were to breed a litter of puppies and decide to keep one, she would have to dispose of one of her older dogs.† She said if she didnít do it, she would risk having the zoning department banging on her door and taking her animals.†
Commissioner Green asked Jenson to explain her remarks regarding self- incrimination. ††
Jenson explained that Mr. Wellington told her that when he takes an application
for a non-commercial license he notifies the zoning department.† She said that many of those people are presently over the legally allowed limit.†
Marc Kardell, Assistant County Counsel, explained that if there is a violation of zoning code, Mr. Wellington alerts Lane Countyís Compliance Officer who writes a letter requesting that the owner come into compliance.†† He agreed that there is a self-incrimination aspect to what is reported to any of Lane Countyís enforcement officers.†
Kathleen Jones, 29001 Gimpl Hill Road, Eugene, 97402, stated that she previously had a non-commercial kennel license for up to eight dogs just for rescued pets.† She said she would happily pay a fee increase to license each dog individually if increased revenue would mean an increase in hours at LCARA to make it more accessible for people to get there and adopt or reclaim a dog, and if the increased fees would help fund the spayed and neutered program.†† Jones supported LCARAís recommendation to also license cats to make fees more equitable to pet owners.†
Scott Bartlett, 1445 East 21st Eugene stated that fee increases should be granted provided that the Board divert a percentage of those fees for spay and neutering, public education, and marketing the visibility of LCARA.† †
Commissioner Green addressed Mr. Suchart, Director of Management Services,† and Mr. Wellington and stated that he felt the threshold for licenses was set to low. He questioned what rationale would be used for increasing fees and what the true cost is for providing the service.†
Mr. Suchart stated that they try to keep their costs in line with other similar agencies and that the revenue problem stems from not doing everything the Board and pet owners want.
Commissioner Green asked Suchart to take another look at non-commercial kennel licensing and figure out a true cost of its operation.
Commissioner Dwyer stated that he would like to see a work plan that states the goals to be achieved and what steps LCARA intends on taking to get there.††
Commissioner Sorenson suggested that they return with scenarios that project revenue based on the way it is computed and the assumptions of the number of dogs that will be licensed both commercial and non-commercial.†
Suchart commented that the proposal has been a moving target, and that the service level moves as decisions are made by the Board.†
Commissioner Green summarized by requesting that LCARA come back for a third reading on June 9 with the big picture, consistent with numbers shown at the budget committee, and to structure a flat amount for the non-commercial kennel license as well as the individual license fees.†
Mr. Van Vactor acknowledged that a fourth reading would be set for June 28 and pointed out the issue of whether the fees will go into effect on July 1, if only enacted for two days.† He questioned if there was an emergency clause on the ordinance.†
Mr. Suchart stated that there was a 30-day amnesty and that the fees would go into effect on August 1.
MOTION: †Commissioner Morrison MOVED to have a third reading set for June 9, Commissioner Dwyer SECONDED.† VOTE: 5-0. †
16. MANAGEMENT SERVICES
a. ORDER 04-6-2-13/In the Matter of Amending Lane Manual Chapter 60 to Revise Animal Regulation Authority Fees (LM 60.825).††
This item was rolled to June 9, 2004.†
There being no further business, Commissioner Green recessed the meeting at 4:30 p.m.