The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit Miscellaneous 1980-4-3 "'. ''.. - . . ,~. , ""'" .~ ~ '..! LANE COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICIAL DECISION APPROVING GHEENWAY DEVELOPMENT pEHMIT (UNCONTESTED) Application Summary: Agenda Item #6 william A. McGeorge, GCUp 80-30, 121 Doris St., Springfield, Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lot 2603. Greenway Conditional Use Permit for dwelling to be placed within willamette Greenway on new urban lot in a Suburban l\esidential O,A) District. Hearinq Date: April 3, 1980 Decision Date: April 13, 1980 Statement of Criteria and Standards: LCDC Goals Lane County Comprehensive Plan Lane Code 10.322 Facts Helied Upon (Findinqs): The initial Staff recommendation in this matter was denial based upon the location of the site within the floodway. At the time of the hCi.1r:ing th~ Staff \\',i thdrc\V its cccolfimcndation of denial if we were looking only at the G~eenway criteria and reservinc] the de tennI n" tion 0 f the floodway .1 oca tion to a. later time. 'l'hcl:efoJ:c, I .tlll tccatin(:J t.his matt(~r. as Dn uncontested one. Except for the floadway location, all factual s.tatements set forth in the staff report are adopted herein and approved. The Hearings Official hilS f.'crsonally observed the site. There W3S no opposition to the ,application at the time of the hearing. The property in que,:tion is located across the r.i vel~ fl~OI\l tlll i.ndllstri.nl ~-;i 1:(: and just to the north of a very dense mobile home subdivision. Because 0 f the topography theu~ j s vc r.-y 1i t tIc prope rty available for additional development ('.0 1:11e north of thi,; parcel. Installation of the mob.i..l e home outside of the 40 .feet distance a<Jreecl Lo by the app.1 i canL wi.1.1 not: i.nterfece wi th the existing vCgeta lion. 'J'he applicant docs require a Greenway develo}JIncnt pet~ll\it because of a pcoposed location within 100 feeL f,:Oll1 t.he or:di.nilry lIi.'lh ,.,ilter J1\,'.lck. ~;peciill findings are required in r:e<Jau] to l:hc ,':etbaek. :r find that the proposed home ",ill not disturb I:he existin'j ve<Je- tative fringe bet,..,een the i'lctivity in the river ilnd that the maximum open space is being preserved bel:ween the pro- posed mobile. home site Clnd the river by the proposed location. The activity is within iln urban ar.eil ilnr] public access is not necessary at this point. I have examIned the compatibility CJuidelines of Lane Cor]e .10.322-1', (;.') ;",d i.lfLcr dli'..' con~;ider:at.i.on 1 - McGeorl]c, Gelll' 80-30 ,...,oiiiM""~IU4""~ '"to ,'" I j..'\ , ',,' I .', ;: .~,. .~- .;;1' )-' the relative importance of the guidelines I find the proposed mobile home compatible with the \'iillamctte Hiver Greenway. In support of the special setback I find that approval of this 40 foot setback will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Greenway development permit ordinance in the area in which this property is located. Decision: GHEENWAY DEVELOPMENT PEHMIT APPHOVED with the condition that it be determined by whoever is responsible for admin- istering the flood management program in Lane County that the property is not within the floodway for the proposed location of the mobile home. Justification for Decision (Conclusions): I have reviewed again Lane Code 10.322 and the Staff notes and testimony in this matter. I find the Staff notes to be well reasoned with the exception of the floodplain analysis as discussed above which will be reserved for a later time. In regard to the Greenway permit only, I adopt the analysis of the Staff as set forth in the Staff notes. ;;/ '---., .' ..tc ..~ rl/ ~ Larry D. \['homson lIear.Ln']s Official 2 - McGeorge, GCUP 80-30 , , STAFF REPORT . Applicant: William A. McGeorge; GCUP 80-30 Location: 121 Doris St., Springfield; Map 18-03-02.2, Tax lot 2603 Proposal: Greenway Development Permit to place a dwelling w~thin the urban section of the Willamette Greenway. Code References 1. LC 10.322: Greenway Permit Procedures 2. LC 13.085: Dangerous Areas Background 1. Applicant is involved with multiple applications in order to locate a mobile home on the designated property. The Greenway Development Permit in concerned with the placement of a dwelling within the Greenway Boundary. The applicant is aware of the need to have the following actions taken: (a) Zone change to include mobile home (MH) (b) Acquisition of "Gap" portion of"the area (c) Partitioning to create a separate parcel for the dwelling 2. Flood Management Unit has indicated that a preliminary study designates the proposed parcel as being within the floodway. ~ new construction may occur in floodways. Construction in floodplains may be required to meet adequate floor level elevations. . 3. The 1990 Plan designates area as Low Density Residential use. Statewide Planning Goals Except for Goal 15, an evaluation of the Goals has been conducted in a separate document which is available for public scrutiny. Goal 7, concerned with hazard- ous areas, is not met by this application due to the projected floodway through the property. All other applicable goals are met by the proposal. Greenway Criteria 1. PROTECTS OR ENHANCES VEGETATION BETWEEN ACTIVITY AND RIVER Applicants sketch indicates a setback of 25 feet from the river bank. In existing subdivisions or small parcels, a policy to require a 40 foot setback from the river bank has been in effect to provide for sufficient vegetation and landscaping. 2. PUBLIC ACCESS TO RIVER Not appropriate in this urban area. Greenway Guidelines Compatibility of the activity with the Willamette River Greenway is based on the following applicable guildelines: ITEM :/1= 6 HO Staff Report 4/3/80 (MCGEORGE: GCUP 80-30) Page 1 of 2 . . , MAINTENANCE OF NA~L RIPARIAN VEGETATION . 1. A setback of 40 feet is the minimum necessary to maintain riparian vegetation and landscaping of a scenic quality. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH SITE AND VICINITY Adjacent mobile home subdivision is developed in a similar Setback Requirement Setback of 100 feet required; exception may occur with appropriate affirmative finding: Size and shape of parcel not suitable for a setback of 100 feet. Approval of a 40 foot setback will not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Greenway in the area affected by the proposed exception. Analysis Proposal is in line with existing development in the area and with a revised setback meets the Willamette Greenway Goal. Recent information has indicated that the proposed property is in the floodway portion of the Willamette River. Neither a partition can be approved nor a building permit issued for property within a floodway. In the event of a flood existing buildings may be replaced but no additional structures may be placed in a floodway. Recommendation Denial. ITEM~b HO Staff Report 4/3/80 (MCGEORGE: GCUP 80-30) Page 2 of 2 ~,";::.~_~_ .__~____~.~ ....._.._u__ ~.Lvllf~!f_' .. . .,..~ I? '" Ic,<e.,t- 7:J\ L c>t '/01 TCi)( L+ 701 P. Irce../ 2... P.av<-e..!l ,-" . i-\ d r- b 0.... D;1 U f' . VI';' .'}1.\-b . .. . ---...,--- -...--.......~ 1// II ,~o' ----,~ _, t/ I I JI!I; Ii Gap. '7~' ~-/ . ~,' , 4>' ' r\'l=>~d;~ .;:~~ ~~ I. ,/<~/ ~~~ ;:(I;; / ;/ %~i% '30' 8b' _,\fXJS+""'~ /. MobJ{~ )-Io""~~ - -I) :-l v.. I \" "" Lot ].LO-+ ~ '-J 15'3'.8 d 'JIO 6 S' I " ,rIt1.U :ID ~ e. / ~ 50 HO Staff Report 4/3/80 lMCGEORGE:.. GCUI 80-30) Attachment "A" Page 1 ofl 2. 500 6AP I ~.s DI2/UE. ~i?;~-. :' tJI.',"'" Q( ~ ~ ~ VJ ~ "t' " ~ :" '" Q./ 70/ :2 Q,/ if ~,> . , ;~. " 1\ 2200 , SITE. OF R.EQIJE~T , ~ DIV/'510N , 600 B02 - ....!.. -.....~ HO Staff Report 4/3/80 (MCGEORGE: GCUP 80-30) Pf!DPOSEO M08/1.-6 HoMt:. RA 1J\ I ~.I~''',,~ 0' lOa' 200' MAP ~, -, ~ ,'. of' .-,,"" '-'.~.,...'- . R.A ~ I , 1400 /5ot; . OoR.12IS ST, . 1.................................~ VICINITY MAP NO SCALE: :.; ITEM #. 6 - <<=(EE.oWIT'j ~ ~PLICATION FOR COkDITIONAL US~RMIT TO: LANE COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICIAL: I, 'VJ,//,~"", A. Me Ce"....<;p USE PERMIT as provided in Chapter ~O, hereby request a CONDITIONAL Lane Code (Zoning Ordinance), for 1[" e<L./'/:,L"",,,t.p... vu;J"...r, r;...->J;I, J.,"!M~) o...J-l,.... ,r"uH._t-L' of f-~. ).-1 .J.<::~ (proposed use) .&v-/1...y tl"'l"iC:L,) 0., ft., ~vJ,,., \vkl1';H"J ku.,<..~;h JuL'ni.}" k>......t;+,~~ W"",,,/ '-'-'/1", Ck W,~\~.~, - To,4et<SL..J plGrn 1:..r M!1 c...J~'\)Uik. w/,',." ASSESSOR'S MAP AND TAX LOT~S) v/f. D 1 _ DJ_. L _ ll.c.3 ~ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1)-' Do/,-'" Sf, ZIP CODE: U O. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Hr_ j ; j, f,~~< "rru'" '-~_' ZONE: n A . r" 'O..,:H< v~,j".. ",."L''''''';'''' . TOTAL AREA: 11""",!.PI. j f , SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (may be attached) () Six (2) copies of a plot plan with scale, dimensions, and north arrow showing the boundaries of the property and all existing buildings, parking areas, and landscaped areas, and indication of use. () Legal description of the subject property. () $95.00 Filing fee (Make checks payable to: Lane County Planning Division). () A written, detailed explanation of the proposal including hours of operation, number of employees, noise or pollution factors and proposed methods of control, etc. J\n1L:.cc...J- ~"" ~~( . :"jJ ~ c<:.. ;2 (' ~~ H _ I hereby certify that the above statements and other information submitted are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have the following legal interest in the property: owner of record; y contract purchaser; lessee; holder of an exclusive option to purchase; duiy authorized to act for a person who has the following legal interest: , and that the owner of record is knowledgeable of this application if I am not the lllfl,l'am A. M~~c5e...LD/Al(-.;3pl) Applicant's signature: ~lJ!t;",...u 0. 711..< ~...rt.dl. Telephone: 7) t:, - 'i (" 7 /l Address: 1.2/ VrH/U~_ 'f ~n.FA ZIP CODE: ""ztrI For: A...~-+- (firm) R.A i'i\OtoIIlNDt1f~) "M..._:'-~ Name: fI... .A fv1.. }_,4-1- TelepHone: '747 -3PL'\ Address:-.1.,p.It:~ J..f....L _ n._ ZIP CODE: S ,o"'f '" ~ c-l). D ~ "7') I.l '7, RECORD OF ACTION :? Date of Hearings Official Hearing: ~~ Date Filed: I-Z4-&::J Received By: -t~-3 Action Taken: GIll- /JILl IIlz..lcO Date of Appeal Hearing by Journal No. :lfUP5Y1,?T'l Board of County Commissioners: Action Taken: Order No.: Effective Date: Lane County Planning Division, 125 East 8th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97401 687-4186 '--- '- lvi II .. "'--, 0 0"Yf../ ',"---- r- e f( , ~ 1....0 ~, 'I , ~ 0." L 0+ ID' fd" L+ /0/ IJ, \reel 2.. P.. vce 11 ~.ar~ov DI~'L.JP Vi,--l ,fI\' b . 'il// / ~ 90' ;{f./ / <Ill;;' //I~/ 1//' /_ I/~ / :' / ~ " "}.. / /, -, /; / I, / ) / . , I I I 30' 8b' -, ill I // / / I /' C':ls-t"A9 MD/"{~ J-.lOl-V<t"~ - -I) :-l :,., \" '"' Lot '2 LO-t ~ '-i 15'3,8 Sc~/e I";, 50' I r -', .t) I'" .~ , , ~.. . .. o .. .. .. .. .. II .. , .... , i. II 00 . . . l l! ~ ~ -> =->...a= ... v-t ~ I: PROFESSIONAL . ~ 1....0 LAND SUp.V~YOR \ ~ I jZ( ! .~ i#At! ~ ij! a~~omJ \ Q: ~~ I' \S\ ~ t: gN It! \\~ ..i ~ 0" All ~.,~...... ~. ..."..!/OiI" ~ \.. _ ~. tr ;' . "'~O~J._ I --~, 574- "'. ()!$' ':>:., 3 "(' A _.~- .lb~~ . 190:. (JI' ~ \ !!.l W 1/ i\' I roo 0-".:0 ~ '. ~ 0 ',\[}. \ ;: J, l f-l.'!? ~ . . ~ z ~~ ~.~. I (PAR>CeL.5 ~ ~ 2244' ~RCeL/ _ i.\_.' ! ~ '- l I'i ~-a-EL2 fIB, f 'i i'l) '\ / rS.,.,~IS_~ar:~~p' ~ :!l Si"~ ~ '\ '. i :I , "f ' '~.' '- LJ;r-;.,~"SIa'~ .J~~= ~ ~ ,__ ! " I '? "r7~=- ,...... Lo"iY,..L.C' - Alh-R~W ! ~ c !i ~:;1ffff~~~~~~~~ I 1Z1ilI ./3, on" .,. 5&: .:"..."., ~ 4"r~~" '. M7(4m<Vk .. '!Jifi= " li3? ",.+. ~'yh4h' t.. ' &.N-~~7B. ~ ! "" ill >~ ~ :: 11 ~ ! \ I --l ~ ~'eO" ::j ~ Mop 18 03 0: o \ See ::- , .. -l \ .' V CO (:,M.C, a Mc6 ., ~A '" M-~ / , f ,0 ~ i -, 'lD ,,- 1$ '0 O( ~~ 0: \ . '11) ~Jl '. t I . , 1/4 _: -- ~--. . \ . Cor. 9 -, . MC 800 :z Mop , 4- e i ex: 03 02 3 2 ~ L 01 '" o <t ~ fJ ,,1. ",:>6"17.'" ". " '17 ,) ",0" ,I'" lD ~ ~6 r .....~D ,J L7 ,II ~< ~I? . .<t>f> \ f.'." '!) lJ ('J9 -~2, (.~ M PQ~ \ ~.bm!L~ ~ C: ~ 330 z I ~~ ~ ~. ' ~~%~UJI- ;: . N E Cor. : ! II Coryell ' ,,-.11.3 ~I /.) , \ D.LC.No -9 "J"~"2 , L4,: 1/ i/" : ~'11 " , ;e\ \ Tox Lo pdo, 'if' Mop ~; I : \03 II t-L,....,: I, , "'.:. 1 'f,'" \f' c.'M,C"'0';- ~~ I . ~ r .,.. ~- I ~::~ -.- J~ . _. ... ...,. ""'''. -- - " ... r.."o' \... c.. .. " I \'...:. -:=-. 'o. .,,,...-_~.,'~...5I'.1D.E 119t1.'J" ... ~~) \ ' , 0" . ~- \ 9. ,. '. ~~ J..... J..... ~ ~ ~ r<>. "~."/J~.":I."'7't1'<.O ."" " I. s. " 0 It"" ....'.~ I. ..u't - "' _,J ,1.,0 OJ t.(. .........~. Q) ">~.o .. V') "'''''? ~~ c<:,~" "'''..J...~ 0 ,.,..... .c.~ P"~"'-' llt: ' ..c. '. 0 , ';.-.~...:,:.:. ~ ,.'.'.N ~ " .... "tr .".....". ~" ~ "It" ~ "..~" ",... ....,.. >':'hl .., ..$,...,...,...... .......... l- ...,...,."1..,;1..... "," . :.::: }~~ili ~.::..:." .."q"~., ';10". ,,2 ",.,.",- 10 '-"0."0 " See . Me :... ' .... . ._____________ ___n '.' C'?LJ/1 / , ""- Io(~:. o .IR o f[,\JOH part it iot lane county ( I I I ,~, ~ _ ,5'<'19"<76 '30".6- - 'r, - 9~ <7CJ . (~ I ~ ~ \lJ /?z/'ce/.Z ,,'0/{ ~. ~/f' ~ '" \}, t ,? , ~ ./ /~ / V.:~ /,,'0,":19' " \J ';, ~ 'vbO .s c!J9"' S?' /7"0 " , (, ~ \t:J/1I:.', 1>, ~. - .\ I ~ ~v " (). ~ " "l ~ ~. /C;ofceI2 \) ,0 \; ~ 0, , " .5- 'y''''],,,'.3"5'"W /6<b.20 . Cd R.J\, Y1H'\ . ;';,,1.1-:: /" ~ 5<7' ;1./3 c 1.<. P 7k. -..J:2.3 FILE NO: JJ2. ")lll/-7f;, .' j C'k~_" "' :,IJHII,:C DIVISION i ENVlf10N1\.lfNT,'d i',',\fIJ,\GEMENl Dr.f';iHn.~ENr In:) r^ST GTH AVE. I EUGEI<JE, OR 97401 I PHONE (5031 E87.4186 I Q( . '\ . --. ! '. @) "" I agree to comply with the public hearing notice posting requirements, as provided on the reverse side, at the locations indicated on the above map locations between the dates of A-nv...-..R':/- and ~ P r-I (&j<1-r>. Also, I understand failure to comply wit~'se public hearing otice fequirements will result in an additional fe~ payment of $25.00. t\v~ Vy, I f\ Cfh/(~ _;.. v- J Name 1- u..r-keJ n;.lt&3 ... Lantllbunty Planning Division. ~ 125 E. 8th Eugene, Oregon 97401 JlY ORDER OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Lane Manual 10.035) APPLICANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE !'OR SIGNS TO BE DISPLAYED GIVIN(; NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR: Un zoned Area Development Permit Zoning Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Temporary Permit Special Exception Willamette Greenway Use Permit Willamette Greenway Extraordinary Exception The following rules are established under authority of that Order. 1. (a) One sign shall be posted age on any public street street or road, at least street or road. for each or road, one sign 300 feet, or portion thereof, of foot- If the property abuts more than one shall be displayed along each abutting (b) If no public street or road abuts the property, signs shall be displayed in such a manner as to be most noticeable to the public. The manner of posting shall be determined by a member' of the Planning Division and given to the applicant in writing. 2. Signs will be prepared by the Lane County Planning Division and provided to the applicant. 3. Signs will be displayed in clear view in such a manner as to be visible to an automobile traveling on the abutting street or road at a normal rate of speed. The signs shall be readable by a person standing at the edge of the street or road. 4. Signs shall not be displayed in such a way as to obstruct views or cause traffic hazard. 5. The signs shall be displayed at least 10 days but no more tban 15 days prior to the date of the hearing as shown on the sign. The signs shall remain on d.isplay until after the bearing date and removed within 7 days of that date. Placing and removal of the signs is the responsibility of the applicant. 6. If a sign is displayed on property not under the ownership of the applicant, permission to post sucb signs should be obtained from the property owner. 7. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the cancellation of the scheduled hearing. Rescheduling the hearing will require payment'of ad- ditional fee of $25.00. 8. The applicant will not be held responsible for removal, loss or damage of the signs through vandelism or similar acts. The applicant should notify the Lane County Planning Division if such problem occurs. 9. The applicant must sign a receipt for the signs and an agreement to comply with these requirements. ~, 11/2179 Phone: 687-4186 or toll-free 1-800-452-6379 rJ ..~ . . ').' . . COAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 6cuP ~o-3o SUM1,IflKY llased on the following filldin~s and conclusions: L J This application confonns to all applicable goals. LX] This application conflicts with Goals No. 7 L J Additional infonnation is needed to address Goal r~os. [ ] Goal Nos.3-5", li'-/c) do not apIJly to this application. 1'311'1.1(,-19 GOAL iil Fi ndi nq_ flo. 1: Statewide Planning Goal ~!o. 1 requi res citizen involvement in all phases of the planninl] process and coordination with other affected governmental agencies. Conclu'Sion No.1: [;ased on Finding No.1, since notice has been siven (in compliance to County ordinances) to IJrovide for citizen involvement and agency coordination, Statewide Planning Goal No.1 has been complied with. GOAL #2 Findinq_ No. ~: Statewide Planning Goal No.2 sets forth general requi rements for the preparation, content and adoption of comprellensive plans and implementing measures. The except ions process is also i dent ifi ed. The proposed 1 and, development now considered is not a comprehensive plon fJr implementing measure. Conclusion No.2: - -- ~ased on Finding No.2, Statewide Planning Goal No.2 relates to legislative planning matters and does not apply to this specific land use prcposal. 1100.,ever, the.exceptior,s process still applies when it is not pOSSible to apply Coal 3 or Goal 4 to the subject property and proposed land use request. 141' 20569-284 1 r . . UJAL #3 Find i nq flo. 3 : Ayricultural land is defined by State\,idc I'lanning boal 1'10. 3 as lands having pr'edul1Iinantly Class I-IV soils, or lands in other classes \'/hich are necessary to pennit fanl practices tu be undertaken on adJacent or nearby lands, or other lands suitable for fann use considering the factors set forth in the Goal 3 definition of "agricultural land." Conclusion No.3: Based on Finding No.3, the subject property -i-!;/is not agricultural land and Goal No.3 therefore ~..>:~~.'does not apply. --- Findin'l No. _: Provided Goal #3 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to sho\~ that the proposed development confonilS to this goal. Goal No.3 n~quires tlldt agricultural land be preserved in lIIini"iuni lot sizes appropriate for the continuation of the existing conllilercial agricultural enterprise within the area. Uses of agricultural land are restricted to those uses which are cOllsistent with ORS 215. An exce~tion is required ~Ihtn proposed uses are inconsistent \tith OKS 215 ur when proposed lots or parcel s are not adequate for the continuation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise in the area. WP 2()569-284 2 I' . . Conclusion ~!o. -- Based on the facts and discussion in the above finding, the proposed development [ ] confonns to Goal n. L ] confl icts with Goal if3. GOAL #4 Find i nl! No. <f Forest lands are defined by Statel'/ide Planning Goal No.4 as lands composed of existing and potential forest lands which are suitable for forest uses and are lands for special ized uses as defined in Goal #4. Conclusion No. V: -- nased on the facts and discussion in the above finding, the subject property _i~/'is not forest land and Goal No.4 therefore a~~lie3/does not apply. Findillli No. _ Provided Goal #4 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of ~roof to show that thE: proposed development confonllS to this goal. Development of forest land is 1 imited to forest uses as defined by the goal. Residences are nonnally not pennissible, except if accessory and necessary for forest uses. WI' 20569-284 3 ,.' . . Conc 1u s i on No. -- lJased [ ] [ ] on the facts and discussion confonllS to Goal #4. cOllfl icts with Goal #4. in the above findin9, the proposed development CO^L 115 r i lid i II~ No. .s-: Stdte\~i de 1'1 anni ny Goal rio. S requi res the conserva t i on of open space and the Ilrotection of natural and scenic resources. Opell space cOllsists of lands used for agricultural or forest uses and any land area that ~lOuld, if preserved and continued in its present use: "a. Conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; b. rrotect air or streams or water supply; Co rranote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes; d. Conserve landscaped areas, such as public or private golf courses, that reduce air pollution and enhance the value of abutting or neighboring prope rty ; e. Lnhance the value to the pub 1 i c of abut t i ng or nei ghbori ng parks, forest, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space; f. Pranote orderly urban devel oprnent." Conclusion No. .s-: Dased on the facts and discussion in the above fic,iing, the subject property -h/~ not open space and Goal Nn. 5 thdrefore ;c;~ :~,/does not apply. Findinq No. -- Provided Goal #5 appli::, to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to sho\~ that the proposed development canplies with this goal. WI' 20569-284 4 ., . .. Conclusion No. : -- [lased on the facts and discussion, in the above finding, the proposed deve 1 opulent: [ ] confon1JS to Goal #5. [ ] confl icts with .Goal #5. GOAL #6 Findinq 110. ~: Statewide Planning Goal No.6 requires the maintenance and ilaprovement of the quality of the state's air, water and land resources. This goal sets forth <jelleral requirements which must be considered during the comprehensive planning process. For site-specific decisions involving residential development, this <joal rec;uires a means of sewerage approved by the Lane County Water Pollution Control. Conclusion No. '" : [lased on the facts and discussion in the above finding, proper sewerage will be provided and, therefore, the proposed development complies with Goal #6. GOAL #7 Findinq No. L: Statewi de 1'1 anni ng Goal No. 7 requi res the protect i on of 1 ife and property from natural disasters and hazards. Areas of natural disaster and hazards are " . . . areas that are subject to natural events that are known to result in death or endanger the works of man, such as stream fl oodi ng, ocean fl oodi ng, groundwater, erosion and deposition, landsl ides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils and other hazards unique to local or regional areas." WI' 20569-284 5 . . Conclusion No. ~: oa sed on the facts and di scuss i on in the above fi nd i ng, the subj ect property i s/ia I,al subject to natural hazards and Goal No.7 therefore appl ies/d-~ ~~ ;'1'1'1;-.- Findinq No. L: Provided Goal #7 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to sho\-I that the proposed development compl ies with this goal. Development in hazard areas is prohibited without adequate safeguards, and conditions should insure that adequate safeguards are provided. ...J.' I- r1cJ4tL f./~ -s...,....~..........;t- r-r&.C.:-.l I.,.;J,I'"'-r ..;_~........ :- . 1/wI'1' ~4..- t-A._ 'f J'1e....-r-.'...t . IOu '1&...... P.l.o~. (.c:. 1"3. ",.r !,,0J... '.:j.r b",,"~/cll~ d...r&.l.al'w,...;;t ,.... f.(_.J..,~~. . Conclusion No. tl' : Based on the facts and discussion in the above finding, the proposed development L J conforms to Goal #7. L~J conflicts with Goal #7. GOfi L #8 Findinq No. ~: Statewide Planning Goal No.8 requires that the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors be provided for. This goal sets general guidelines for inventorying recreation opportunities and needs and general guidelines for designing canprehensive plans to provide for the recognized recreational needs. Various implementation techniques are encouraged in order to implement the comprehensive plan. Planning Goal No.8 applies to site-specific development I>.'hen the property and development under consideration is located adjacent to or within a planned or existing recreation area. !.Jhen the property and development are located within the Willamette River Greenway, the provisions of Goal No.8 are satisfied by adherence to the implementing Willamette River Greenway Ordinance. COJlclusion No.9: -- (jd,ed on the facts and discllssion in the above finding, Goal #8 2;::"306/does not ~ to the proposed development. WI' 20569-284 6 . . Find i ng No. Provided Goal #8 applies to this request, the Hpplicant must bear the burden of proof to show that the proposed develop~ent complies with this goal. Conclusion No. -- Rased on the facts and discussion in the above finding, the proposed development [ J confonns to Goal No.8. [ ] conflicts with Goal #8. GOAL #9 Finding No. 10 Statewide Planning Goal No.9 requires the diversification and improvement of the economy of the state. The primary means of accompl ishing this goal is to designate within the comprehensive plan suitable areas to meet the need for commercial or industrial development. In addition, plan poliCies should provide for necessary sewer and water services to land planned for industrial or commercial uses. This goal appl ies to site-specific development to the extent that the proposed development is for commercial or industrial development or to the extent that the proposed development would affect existing or plan- des ignated commerci a I or i ndustri a I areas. Conclusion No. 10 : Rased on the facts and discussion in the above finding, Goal #9 2~~"~/does not apply to the proposed development. Finding No. _: Provided Goal #9 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to show that the proposed development complies wi~h this goal. WP 20569-284 7 " ',.'" . . Conclusion No. Based [ ] [ ] on the facts and discussion conforms to Goal #9. conflicts with Goal #9. in the above finding, the proposed development GOAL #10 Findinq No. J..L.. Statewide Planning Goal No. 10 requires that the housing needs of the citizens of the state be provided for. Buildable lands for residential use must be inventoried and residential development accommodated as much as possible within urban growth boundaries. Buildable lands include land situated within an urban growth boundary, an area for which an exception has been taken and committed lands or nonresource lands inventoried and designated for rural residential development. This goal applies to site-specific development only when an exception (as identified in Goal #2) is necessary to allow for residential development. This is a proper application of Goal #10, because the exceptions process requires an inventory of buildable lands which is consistent with that same requirement in Goal #10. The requirement in Goal #10, for the proper phasing of public facilities and services to support housing development, is properly addressed in the findings and conclusions under Goal #11. An exception for proposed residential development [ ] is necessary (as identified by Finding No. ). [)C] is not necessary. ---- Conclusion No. ~: Based upon the above discussion and facts, Goal #10,~n-"~/does not apply to this request. Findinq No. ____ Provided Goal #10 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to show that the proposed development complies with this goal or that a proper inventory of buildable lands is provided. C0nclusiun No. - ---- Based on the discussion and facts in the above finding, the proposed development [ ] conforms to Goal #10. [ ] conflicts with Goai #10. WP 20569-284 8 , '. . . GOAL #11 Find i nq No. 12-: Statewide Planning Goal No. 11 requires the planning and development of a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facil ities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. This goal further provides general and specific guidelines for locating public facilities and services. These guidelines must be considered during the formulation of comprehensive plans and, prior to the adoption of such plans, during site- specific planning. Existing and proposed public facilities and services for the subject property are: ~ The foregoing facilities and services are/are not appropriate for the proposed development because: The foregoing facil ities and services are/are not appropriate for development for adjoining areas and the planned density of the area because: Conclusion'r'lo. ,-a-: -- Rased upon the discussion and facts provided in the above finding, the proposed development [~ promotes proper public facility and service planning and therefore conforms to Goal #11. [ ] does not promote proper public facility and service planning and therefore conflicts with Goal #11. GOAL #12 Findinq No. .JL: Statewide Planning Goal No. 12 requires the provision and encouragement of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The transportation p19n must address facturs which are of local, regional and statewide significance and WP 20569-284 9 .' . . which require various inventories. Because of the scope and inventories refjuired, this goal can only primarily he accompl ishec1 c1uring the comprehensive planning process. Application of this goal to site-specific c1evelopment is limitec1 to the extent that c1evelopment woulc1 impact existing or planned modes of transportation and to the extent that any proposed means of transportation I~ould provide for orderly neighborhooc1 c1evelopment. The proposed development conforms to the transportation element of local and regional comprehensiYe plans. ~ Yes .. ] No [ ] N/A Explanation: The proposed development utilizes existing transportation systems to the fullest extent. [)c] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A Explanation: The means of access for the proposed development promotes orderly neighborhood development [x-] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A Explanation: Conclusion No. /;) : Based on the above discussion and facts in the above finding, the proposec1 development ["C'] conforms to Goal #12. [ ] conflicts with Goal #12. GOAL #13 Findinq No. ~: Statewide Planning Goal ~;o. 13 refjuires conservation of all forms of energy based upon sound economic principles and through the management and control of WP 20569-284 10 ; . . land and uses developed on the land. The economic princif)les mentioned are to inventory and reuse vacant land, to encourage use of renewable energy resources and to minimize use of nonrenewable energy resources and to promote dense and compatihle development in appropriate areas. After these principles are incorporated into the comprehensive plan, then certain implementation techniques are suggested for adoption into (ountywide ordinances. The planning and implementation measures of this goal are not site-specific, but can only effectively be accomplished after Countywide inventories and policy formulation and application. Until such time, applicants should be encouraged to utilize various energy saving techniques in their developments. Conclusion No. ~: Based on the discussion in the ahove finding, Goal #13 does not apply to this site-specific land use proposal. GOAL #14 Findinq No. I~ : The purpose of Goal No. 14 is to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban 1 and use. It requi res the establ i shrllent of urban growth boundaries and stipulates criteria for the establishment and change of that boundary as well as conversion of urbanizable land to urban. The appl ication of this goal to site-specific land use proposals is limited to those areas which may be defined as urbanizable lands. "Urbanizable lands" are those lands within the urban growth boundary and which are identified and (a) determined to be necessary and suitable for future urban areas, (b) can be served by urban services and facilities, and (c) are needed for expansion of an urban area. ls the subject property considered to be urbanizable land as defined in Goal 1/14? [ ] Yes [.c] No [ ] N/A Explanation: (onclusion No. I~_: Based upon the facts and discussion in the above finding, Goal #14 ,::'fI:":,/does not ~ to the proposed deve 1 or;:~ent. wr 2n569-284 11 .. " .. . . Findinq No. : -- Provided Goal #14 applies to this request, the applicant must bear the burden of proof to show that the proposed development compl ies with this goal. The concerns for type, location and phasing of public facilities and services and transportation facilities within this urbanizable area have been addressed in the findings and conclusions for Goals #11 and #12. The only other identifiable concerns within Goal #14 that relate to site-specific development within an urbanizable area are that any rlivisinns of land or building development be so designed as to not preclude possihle further development of the property. The proposed division of the suhject property provides lots or parcels that confonn to the ultimate density projected by the comprehensive plan, or the proposed lots or parcels are of such size that they can be further divided to conform to the ultimate density projected hy the comprehensive plan. [ ] Yes [ ] No Explanation: The proposed bui 1 di ng development on the suhject property substanti ally provides for the 'ultimate density projected by the comprehensive plan, or is so designed or situated to allow for future orderly development of the entire property and adjoining areas. [ J Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A Explanation: Conclusion No. Rased on the discussion and facts in the above finding, the proposed development [ ] conforms to Goal #14. [ ] conflicts with Goal #14. Findinq No. If. : The location of the subject prop~rty has been thoroughly identified and discussed in this report when ad~re~sing the first 14 Statewide Planning Goals. The subject property is not situated within the Hillamette River Greenway, an estua ry resource area, a coastal shore I and area, a beach and dune area, or an ocean resource area. rs lJ,o:., (.;.., W :,~..-rte fr-,;'tV\. <O...&&.....r...y . ~Jr 20569-284 12 .. . I .-, . . . Conclusion No. II:. : Therefore, based on the above discussion and facts, Goals No. 1~19 do not apply to this request. 6,.,o..-t IS;- 4-<J"O"At,~ w.L.{ ~ Cct\(.d.....:t~.! ;~ ~..,.f ;~_"... wr 20569-284 13 e. . . r: - , : .. , , . . , . , -.. ..' VICTOR ATlVeH -- . . Department of Transportation PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION 525 TRADE STREET S.E" SALEM, OREGON 97310 February 27, 1980 Mr. Harry Sickler, Zoning and Subdivision Section Lane County Planning Division Public Service Bldg. 125 E. 8th Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mr. Sickler: RE: GCUP 80-30 Although it is difficult to evaluate based on the information provided us, this proposal would appear to be acceptable to this office. Key considerations from our perspective are the maintenance of existing vegetation, and the allowance of an adequate setback from the edge of the ri verbank. Very truly yours, , J R JEL:ma cc: Roger Ellingson Wa 11y Hi bba rd \' , .~ . Joe Hudzikiewicz, P1anninq Mobile Home Permit #1061-78 Ma~ 18-03-02.2, tax lot 2603 rdl- . lane county ..' ..~. ca;.:'.' I MEM_ANDUM ,/ TO FROM SUBJECT Jack Boss & Janet Chase .. " DA TE December 11 _ 1 Q7q The above referenced permit was issued to Randolph Allen for William McGeorge on the basis of a replacement of an existing mobile home. It has'come to our a t,tenti on that. the new mobil e home is on site but the older one has not been removed. At this point, there appears to be a violation of the zoning ordinance provi- sion of permitting only one residential use per parcel in addition to non- compliance with the stipulation of the building permit. Said building permit could only be issued as a replacement inasmuch as mobile homes are not permitted within an RA zone. We would appreciate your reviewing this situation and taking action to gain compliance. (""cc: Specific -- ene. propertie0-ne~ JH/jcb I. c - 53' Y