HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5687 05/17/1993
y
'~
~ '
/
It
ORD;r'N~NO. 5687,
"-
, AN 'OJ.riINANCg~;~~~,Pt~2~t~~;~iJ.G~E';"SPRnfGFIELD ,METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL
PLAN DIAGBAM,TO INCLUDE?:pgO~ERT,;y 'LO.0ATED::INTHE 3900 BLOCK OF HAYDEN BRIDGE ROAD IN
THE URaY G)lbVTa:BQ~~~f::}T();'<.~~GNi\TElBE'PROPERTY LOY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND
, ' ',', ~*JM\J:)OP :~~,~,~,WIJ.;ITYC~USE .
.' ~., "-,;; .
:,;:;. .'~'
. ., ~.:'- ';':' ,
The CHy Council of)Jh~,(:H:t:Y."i~Jspr~ngf~~ld finds' as follows:
" 1. The Ci,t~~~i>(),~~k~f~~~j,A~;9:'l ~g~ne ~m~, ~ane County initiated an update
amendment to the."E~.en~" ' , if'12]jd.:~tropol1 tan Area General Plan (Metro Plan)
pertaining "toth~i::,iri91, , ",' " ~~~c.~llet'ty : imdde ,t~ uroan growth" boundary and
designatiori onthe:':~Metr'9:")~~'~'~~iai~gram"as lowaensity residential 'use (Jo.No.
93-01-12). The p't9perty,';1;~~;f~~'~i~~e.fi~ ',tl:le 3900 block 'Of HaydEm Bddge Road and is
approximately 3. 70':acr~s';~':~?:;~"';'~~>' , "'''', '
. .,: . - .
2. Adoption of,~~i~~1:';lp,F.~se<l ,) amendment has been recommended by the
Springfield, Eugep^~;;.j9.P.~'; :l;f';c~~yPlanning ,Commissions following their joint
public hearing on 'Mfj;fr~li\:'t ,,;1993: '~~~': ' ,
, '
3. ,Notice oL,thep~J~],.;i~!'~eadngsbe~'Or~ the Planning Commission and Ci ty
Council were publisheq.;in,'!1:Q'di'Jj',:.iieJfS,paper:s of gener'al circulation anCl/ were provided
in advance to affec<teq.Ll;(~a7;~~d,Ja~tptoperties. The content and distribution of
these Dotices was iri:&frif~f~ahl;e:withthe provisions of the Springfield Development
,_ Code Section 14.03o.apd' the Oregon Revised Statutes.
- \ " ,
_ ,: ~. The pro~sed, plan ,amendment is c?nsistent wi th app~icable Sta tew~de
jlannlng Goals, wlth~~ ',;9~~:;:~~};.]~2(1) allowmg a Goa,l Exceptlon,' OAR SectIon
660-04-025 and 660~04~Z8'~~esc~lb~ng developed and commItted exceptIons, and meets
other criteria forapprov~I,pfMetroPlanamendments as' required by Section 7.065
of the Springfield"~y~lop~~nt Codea~shown in the findings attached as Exhibit A
and incorpora ted hex:~nl by:j:4:!~~r.ence. :,'" ;
, '
NOV, THEREFORE" ,THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOVS:
"
Section 1. The findings set forth above and incorporated herein by reference
and the findings cotitain~d.in Exhibit A attached hereto are adopted.
Section 2. The Metro Plan Diagram is amended to include in the urban growth
boundary Tax ,Lots, ,99()~, .~~1",~~()2 and 800 of Assessor's Map 17-02-19-41 and Tax Lot
50.0 of, Assessorts/:~agf{aq~l:"."2,~OO,e.nd',designating said property on the Metro Plan
diagram' aScLo~\Dei;f~~.t,~;R~ip~Ii~Jal;'~~ ,)- '!,
,Section 3.TH~~:,:'~M~Vto'Plan amendments shall become effective when identical
amendments have b~~I)<'~d91i't~4:~bY Lane County and the Ci ty of Eugene.
"
Section 4. If:'atly:,se~iion, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this Ordinance is f~~,Y,anyreason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdietiotf,,;suchportion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and
independent provision~and such holding' shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions hereof~ '
~-,
_\
,~)"
ATTACHMENT 1
(J
?
Ordinance No. 5687
Page 2
. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the, Ci ty of Springfield this 17th
May , 1993, by a yote of ~ in favor and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the Ci ty of Springfield this 17th day of May
1993.
day of ",
Mayor
S~;?//~~
ATTEST: '
~~~
City Recorder
.
.
FH:VIEWED ,3t APPHOVED
AS TO FOR~J1
~_}~e<,,~-.J L € A\\ 'i
[,'i/} -"/::. ~,'2 '5 J~ ?, , ,'~,.
\. ~ 1-.. __........... ,_ .............._.~....
OFFICE OF CI1.Y ATTORNl:=Y
CITY OF SPFlINCFIELD
EXHIBIT A
.
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS FOR JOURNAL NUMBER 93~Ol-12
HAYDEN BRIDGE ROAD URBAN GROVTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
Findings of Fact
Location: Tax Lots 800, 900, 901 and 902, Assessor's Map 17-02-19-41 and Tax Lot
500, Assessor's Map 17-02-20-00
Size: 3.70 acres
rana-Use: Single Family Residential, vacant, water discharge structure
Metro Plan Designation: Agriculture
Urban Growth Boundary Location: The adopted urban growth boundary in this vicinity
abuts these lots along their frontage with Hayden Bridge Road
Lane County Zoning: E-40 Exclusive Farm Use
veyetation: Grasses, blackberries, mixed riparian fringe of cottonwood, maple,
wi low
Soils: Class IIIe and non-rated
surroundiny Land Uses: Large lot and urban density single family residential,
public uti ity, industrial and river
Public Facilities, Services and Utilities:
Phone provided by US West Communications
Electricity provided by Springfield Utility Board
Water provided by Rainbow Water District
On-site sewers. Municipal sewer is proposed in 5-7 years
Road side ditch storm drainage. Municipal storm sewer in 5-7 years
Police protection by Lane County Sheriff
Fire protection by Springfield through contract with Rainbow
Willamalane Park and Recreation District
. - School District #19
Transportation: Access to these properties is provided via Hayden Bridge Road
which is classified as a collector.
I. Nature of Request
This action seeks to include the following parcels into the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) of the City of Springfield:
Map & Tax Lot Number
Acres
Property Owner & Address
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 901
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 902
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 800
.39 ac
.53 ac
Frank and Carmelita Cross
3980 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, OR 97477
Cross
Cross
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 900
.81 ac
1. 45 ac
Willard and Gladys Bohrer
3960 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, OR 97477
17-02-20-00 Tax Lot 500
.49 ac
Veyerhaeuser Co. % Tax Dept.
P.O. Box 1645
Tacoma, VA 98401
Total Acreage
Exhibit A - Findings - 1
3.67 ac
.
~I. General Information
A. Background
This action to amend the UGB was precipitated by the discovery that the City of
Springfield had mistakenly issued a residential building permit for tax lot 900.
This error was not discovered until sometime after the final occupancy had been
granted. The other lots have been included in this UGB amendment for several
reasons including similarities in development, lot size, common boundaries and
proximi ty and relationship to the UGB. Tax Lot 800 also is occupied by a single
family home but construction occurred prior to state law requiring adoption of urban
growth boundaries. Tax Lots 901 and 902 are vacant and Tax Lot 500 is the site of a
~eyerhaeuser Company water discharge structure.
B. Description of Site
Each of these lots front on Hayden Bridge Road and extend east and/or north to the
McKenzie River (approximately 220 feet). The UGB abuts each of these lots along
their entire Hayden Bridge Road frontage and along, the western and southern
boundaries of lots 800 and 500, respectively.
The topography of these lots is characterized by a uniformly steep slope away from
Hayden Bridge Road towards the river. The maximum elevation is 510 feet (on lot
500) and the minimum elevation is 452 feet (lot 800) which is the mean high water
mark of the McKenzie. The 100 year flood elevation along this portion of the river
is 460 feet. All but the narrowest margin of lot 800 and 902 is above 460 feet.
The 460 foot mark for lots 901, 900 and 500 is precipitous. FEMA flood maps show a
small area of lot 800 adjoining the river in Zone A-6 (100 year flood). An equally
. small area of ZoneB (between 100 and 500 year flood) abuts the A-6 Zone on lot 800.
The remainder of lot 800 and literally all of lots 500, 900, 901 and 902 are in Zone
C. Zone C is described as an area which may be subject to minimal flooding during a
500 year even t .
There are two soil types found on these lots. Nekia Silty Clay Loam predominates on
lots 500, 900 and 901 and intrudes nominally into lot 902. Chapman Urban Land
Complex makes up the remainder of lot 902 and all of lot 800.
Nekia is used for hay, pasture, cultivated crops, timber production, recreation and
homesi tes. BecaUse this soil is underlain wi th deep deposi ts of gravel, it is
rapidly drained and requires substantial irrigation during droughts. This soil does
not provide maximum yield unless fertilized wi th lime, ni trogen and phosphorous.
, Its subclass is IIIe.
Chapman is used mainly for urban development. It is also used for yards and open
areas around and between buildings. Because of the mixture of natural and man~made
deposits, no capability rating is assigned to Chapman.
.
C. Plan Designation and Zoning
The lots are zoned E-40 and the Metro Plan diagram does show these properties as
agricul tural although it could be argued that lot 500 is shown as park and open
space. The matrix found in Appendix C of the Metro Plan keys the exclusion of these
lots from the UGB to one or more of the following characteristics:
Exhibit A - Findings - 2
.
.rotection of agricultural lands; floodway fringe; protection of wetlands; and
protection of sand and gravel resources. Chapter II of the Plan explains that the
establishment of the UGB is based on the seven factors of statewide Goal 14,
including retention of Class I-IV agricultural lands. Also in this chapter is the
following passage related to establishment of the UGB: "Since the most productive
agricultural lands are typified by Class I agricultural soils located in the
floodway fringes, the boundary of the floodway fringe often serves as the location
of the urban growth boundary. When the floodway fringe follows a natural bench or
when a road creates a dike which defines the floodway fringe, the boundary between
urban uses and agricultural uses may be abrupt. In other instances, the transition
from urban to rural is not as easily definable on the ground."
Chapter II also includes the exception process which is required anytime resource
land (Goal 3 Ag or Goal 4 Forest) is not protected wi th exclusive zoning or is
placed inside the UGB. No farm or forest designations exist wi thin the UGB.
Outside the UGB exceptions to these goals were taken for areas already committed to
urban use, including the airport and rural residential and commercial in the LCC
Basin, Japer Road, West Eugene, East Thurston and North River Road areas. Even if
they met the exceptions criteria, these lots cannot be shown on the diagram as an
exception area because the total acreage of 3.67 is well below the minimum land use
designation of 5 acres.
It should be noted that the 1982 version of the Metro Plan contained a matrix
similar to that found in Appendix C. The 1982 matrix also listed these same
limi ting factors as an explanation for exclusion of this property from the UGB.
However, the 1982 Plan diagram clearly shows these properties to be low densi ty
residential, not agricultural. The county zoning at that time was AGT (Agriculture,
~Grazing and Timber) which allowed residential use.
The 1982 plan contained the same policies regarding the establishment of the UGB and
exceptions areas. The only changes to documentation or technical data pertaining to
these four factors that occurred between 1982 and 1987 was the publication of new
flood hazard maps in 1985. These maps increased the flood elevation by several feet
in this area. Also between 1982 and 1987 the County was compelled to rezone this
property consistent with LCDC requirements for resource lands outside the UGB.
D. Adjacent Land Uses
The McKenzie River forms the eastern boundary of these lots and is approximately 40
feet lower in elevation than the right-of-way line of Hayden Bridge Road. The
former Oregon Aquaculture fish breeding facility is located on the far side of the
river. All land across Hayden Bridge Road is owned by EWEB and is developed with a
water filtration plant. Adjacent to lot 800 is an orchard and a newly constructed
single family home. Approximately 600 feet further west on Hayden Bridge Road is
the beginning (end) of urban density residential development.
E. Logical Boundary Extension
The proposal includes 2 parcels committed to urban use and three parcels to small
and/or to steep to be used for agricultural purposes. The UGB abuts these
properties along all boundaries except the river. Because the preponderant majority
of these lots is in flood zone C, the river becomes a logical boundary.
Exhibit A - Findings - 3
~
. The adopted public facili ties plan includes this property in an existing water
service boundary (Rainbow) and designed storm and sanitary sewer basin projects.
Improvements to Hayden Bridge Road to urban standards will occur through urban
transition agreements with Lane County and as development within the UGB occurs.
III. Requirements for Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
The current Metro Plan amendment process adopted by all three jurisdictions in
November, 1990, requires the following criteria to be applied in rendering a
decision of approval or denial of plan amendments:
Section 7.065(2) Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Hetropoli tan Area General Plan
internally inconsistent; and
(c) The amendment is not a Plan update amendment, unless the amendment has been
initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield
and Lane County.
Response to 7.065(2)(a): The amendment must be consistent with the relevant
statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC.
. (1) The Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the relevant statewide planning
goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Statewide Goal 2 Land Use Planning; Goal 3 Agricultural Land; Goal 10 Housing; and
Goal 14 Urbanization are the applicable goals. Goal 2 contains the exceptions
process that must be addressed whenever a designated resource land, in this case
Agricultural, is proposed to be used or designated for non-resource purposes. Goal
3 applies only insofar as the provisions of this goal demonstrate why this property
does not implement or carry out the intended purpose of the goal. Goal 10
applicabili ty is relevant to the proposal because this action would change the
designation of this property from agricultural to low density residential. Goal 14
must be applied to any expansion of an acknowledged urb~n growth boundary.
Also, specific sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are applicable and
presented here as findings.
A. Goal 2 Land Use Planning
ORS 197.732(1) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when:
(a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it
is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal;
Exhibit A - Findings - 4
.
.(b)
The land subject to the exception is irrevocably commi tted as described by
commission rule to uses not allowed' by the applicable goal because existing
adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by, the applicable
goal impracticable.
Chapter 660, Section 4 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) provides further
clarification of these requirements for developed and commi tted exceptions. In
Section 660-04-025, developed lands are described as no longer available for the
uses contained in the goal because of the presence of buildings, roads, water and
sewer facilities, or other urban facilities.
Section 660-04-028 describes irrevocably committed lands and requires that the
government's explanation of irrevocable commitment address the following factors:
(a) existing adjacent land uses;
(b) existing public facilities and services;
(c) parcel size and ownership patterns of the exception area and adjacent lands;
(d) neighborhood and regional characteristics;
(e) Natural or man-made features or other impediments;
(f) physical development;
(g) other relevant factors.
The lots included in this proposal satisfy the criteria for developed and committed
lands as follows:
Lot 900 is approximately 35,000 square feet and is occupied by a single family home
. and a sand filter waste system. The house is approximately equidistant between
Hayden Bridge Road and the McK~nzie River and is wi thin 10 feet of the common
boundary with Lot 901. The sand filter system takes up much of the southern half of
Lot 900.
Lot 800 is approximately 1.45 acres and is occupied by a single family home that is
much closer to the river than to Hayden Bridge Road. Complete records are missing
on this property, but it is assumed that an on-site sewage system is present and
that construction occurred before adoption of the Metro Plan.
Lots 901 (17,000 square feet) and 902 (23,000 square' feet) are vacant and are in
joint ownership with Lot 900.
Lot 500 is approximately 21,000 square feet and is occupied by a Veyerhaeuser
Company water discharge structure. A substantial portion of this lot has been
cleared and graveled to provide access to this structure.
All abutting property, as well as Lots 900 and 800, is included in Rainbow Vater
District. No storm or sanitary sewers are available to these lots, but this area is
within storm and sanitary sewer basins identified in the PFP. Both of these
facili ties will be placed in Hayden Bridge Road r-o-w. School is provided by
District 19; fire protection is provided by Springfield through contract with
Rainbow; and police protection is provided by Lane County.
Exhibit A - Findings - 5
.
4ItEWEB's filtration plant is directly across Hayden Bridge Road from these lots on a
55 acre parcel zoned PLO. EVEB also owns a 2.6 acre parcel (zoned PLO) immediately
south of lot 500. This lot is within the UGB and separates the subject lots from
the intersection of Marcola Road and Hayden Bridge Road. Immediately west along
Hayden Bridge Road is a new single family home on a 2 acre parcel, a vacant 2 acre
parcel, four 1/3 acre parcels with single family homes and then several hundred
single family homes on city-size lots.
Along Marcola Road are several industrial uses and a residential facili ty. The
McKenzie River separates these lots from the Camp Creek and Mohawk Valleys, both of
which have a variety of uses, including agricultural, timber, commercial and
residential of varying density ranges. The river marks a clear division, both in
elevation and in use, between the urban and rural landscapes. Many years ago the
Hayden Bridge Road area was an exclusive farming area, and in several large areas
north and west of these lots, agricultural use does predominate. But during the
60's and 70's dozens of subdivisions were approved, cutting this area up into a very
definite rural-urban interface. Throughout both the recent and distant past these
lots were largely unaffected because they were not used extensively for agriculture
and, until recently, there was only a single residence. The commonality of these
lots is not just their history or their size or their slope or their use: they are
the edge of the ci'ty, as sure and distinctive as the river below them. They are
isolated only by the artifice of the UGB, and not because they are separate from the
land surrounding. This action is a logical extension and consistent with the goal
of compact urban growth.
Other relevant factors
4It
ORS 215.203 defines Exclusive Farm Use Zones as lands to be used exclusively for
farm use as follows: "...the current employment of landfor the primary purpose of
obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling crops or the feeding,
breeding, management and sale of, or the produce of, livestock, poultry, fur-bearing
animals or honeybees or for dairying and the sale of dairy products or any other
agricultural or horticultural use or animal husbandry or any combination thereof."
The largest of these lots is 1.45 acres and is occupied by a single family home that
is located near the center of the property by the river. The next largest lot (.81
ac) is occupied by the recently constructed single family home. The three remaining
lots are 1/2 acre or smaller. There is little possibility of any of the farm uses
that can be sustained by this soil classification being operated for a profit. Any
activity involving anim~ls would create noise, odor or waste that would create a
nuisance for nearby residents and would become a possible source of contamination of
the McKenzie River.
ORS 215.253 prohibits cities and counties from enacting laws or ordinances
restricting or regulating any farm use land with exclusive farm use zoning "...from
accepted farming practices because of noise, dust, odor or other materials carried
in the air or other conditions arising therefrom if such conditions do not extend
into an adopted urban growth boundary in such manner as to interfere with the lands
within the urbari growth boundary."
Exhibit A - Findings - 6
4It
4It All of these lots abut the UGB. No portion of these lots is further than 250 feet
from the UGB. This proximi ty poses a very real likelihood of noise; dus t, odor,
overspray and other condi tions extending into the UGB lands. A valid claim of
interference could result in the city or county regulating certain farm practices
and thereby diminishing the intent and purpose of exclusive farm zoning.
ORS 215.263 allows the county to "...approve a proposed division of land to create
parcels for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203 if it finds: (a) That the proposed
division of land is appropriate for the continuation of the existing commercial
agricultural enterprise within the area; or (b) The parcels created by the proposed
division are not smaller than the minimum lot size acknowledged under ORS 197.251."
Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Division 660-05-010 defines "commercial
agricultural enterprise" as land directly engaged or supporting land directly
engaged in agricultural uses affecting the community. OAR 660-05-010 also defines
minimum lot size not by acreage but by the ability of the land to support
agricultural uses or agricultural enterprises in the area.
All of the lots are zoned E-40 which establishes 40 acres as the mlmmum lot size.
Clearly, these lots were not created to serve the continuation of commercial
agricultural enterprise nor do they satisfy what the county adopted under ORS
197.251 and ORS 215.050 for minimum lot size. The complete aggregation of these
lots would result in an area less than 1/10 the minimum lot size required by the
zoning. There are no farm uses on the Springfield side of the river that would need
or could use these lots as allowed in ORS 215.203 for the reasons ci ted above.
Given the location of the UGB, the surrounding uses, and the presence and planned
. introduction of full urban services abutting these lots, the continued status and
zoning of these lots as agricultural lands is inconsistent with the facts, with the
intent and purpose of the goals and the protection of the law.
Goal 3 Agricultural Land
This goal is established to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Such lands
are defined as land of predominantly Class I through Class IV soils as identified in
the Soil Capabili ty Classification System of the Uni ted States Soil Conservation
Service, and other lands which are suitable for farm use taking into consideration
soil fertili ty, sui tabili ty for grazing, climatic condi tions, existing and future
availabili ty of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns,
technological and energy inputs required, or accepted farming practices. Farm use is
defined in ORS 215.203 and was included in the Exception discussion of this report.
Half the area comprised by these lots is Nekia silty clay loam. This soil has a
lIle rating and is best suited for hay or pasture use. Row crops require irrigation
and lime, nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers. The size of these lots makes hay or
pasture an unsuitable choice, while the size, slope and proximity to the McKenzie
make the use of these fertilizers, and therefore row crops, also an unsuitable use
of the land.
Exhibit A - Findings - 7
.
4ItThe other soil type found on these lots is Chapman urban complex. This soil has no
rating because of the variety of natural and man-made materials. This type of soil
requires fertilizers and irrigation and for the same reasons cited above, does not
make farm use a suitable choice.
Other factors which inhibit the use of these lots for accepted farm practices or
support for commercial agricultural enterprises are found in the Exception
discussion of this report and include lot size, adjacent uses and "developed and
committed" status.
These lots should be converted from agricultural to residential and from rural to
urban use based on the findings in the Exception discussion of this report.
Goal 10 Housing
This proposal will convert 3.69 acres of E-40 agricultural land to low densi ty
residential. This represents a potential net gain of 10 to 12 building si tes.
While this land would join an existing residential inventory of several thousand
acres, it is important to note that need is not at issue. The developed and
commi tted discussion elsewhere in this report pre-empts the addi tional exceptions
requirement to determine need. These lots and the adjacent neighborhood are
irrevocably committed to single family residential development. The small acreage
involved in this request will be provided with full urban services whether the land
is ever developed beyond existing densities or not. The conversion from
agricultural to residential will preserve the integrity of the existing housing and
the neighborhood by maintaining consistent land use regulations.
4It Related findings to Goal 10
ORS, chapter 197.005(3), Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination states:.
". . . cities and counties should remain as the agencies to consider, promote and
manage the local aspects of land conservation and development for the best interests
of the people within their jurisdictions."
ORS 197.010 states: "The Legislative Assembly declares that, in order to assure the
highest possible level of livabili ty in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for
properly prepared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities and
counties.. .These comprehensive plans: (3) Shall be the basis for more specific
rules and land use regulations which implement the policies expressed through the
comprehensive plans; (4) Shall be prepared to assure that all public actions are
consistent and coordinated with the policies expressed through the comprehensive
plans; and (5) Shall be regularly reviewed and, if necessary, amended to keep them
consistent with the changing needs and desires of the public they are designed to
serve."
The property owners are in support of this action because of their desire to reside
on their land and be provided with full urban services. These services are or in
time will be adjacent to these lots. All adjoining property is within the UGB and
is expected to be developed at urban densi ties. The proximi ty of existing and
proposed urban development makes the inclusion of these lots consistent with the
fundamental principle of compact urban growth and Springfield as the provider of
urban services.
Exhibit A - Findings - 8
.
4laGoal 14 Urbanization
The purpose of the urbanization goal is to provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use. To ensure the likelihood that this will
occur, establishment or amendment of urban growth boundaries must be based upon
consideration of the following factors:
(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth
requirements consistent with LCDC goals;
(2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability
(3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;
(4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban
area;
(5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
(6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest
priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and,
(7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.
In addi tion to the foregoing, the exceptions prqcess found in Goal 2 must be
prepared whenever an amendment to the UGB will result in the conversion of
previously identified resources lands.
. Factors 1 and 2: Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population
growth and need for housing, employment opportunities and livability.
These factors apply only when the "reasons" determination in Goal 2 is required.
Vhen it is shown that land is developed and committed to urban use, a reasons
justification is not necessary to complete the amendment. The exceptions discussion
elsewhere in this report demonstrated that these lots should be considered as
"developed and committed" therefore finding of need is not required under Goal 2 or
Goal 14.
Factor 3: Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services.
These lots receive the following public facilities and services:
1. Rainbow Vater District domestic water
2. Fire and Life Safety protection from City of Springfield
3. Villamalane Park and Recreation District
4. School District 19
5. Lane County Sheriff
These lots are included wi thin storm and sani tary sewer basin areas proposed' for
development in the Public Facilities Plan. These projects will be constructed in
Hayden Bridge r-o-w and will go forward regardless of the disposition of these lots.
Exhibit A - Findings - 9
.
. The Ci ty' s urban transi tion agreement wi th Lane County identifies the' road system
that is to be transferred to the City upon completion of urban standard improvements
by Lane County. Hayden Bridge Road is one of these roads and, again, will be
improved to an urban facility whether or not these lots are included in the UGB.
Factor 4: Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing
urban area.
The goal exception discussion earlier in this report indicated the improbability, if
not impossibility, of these lots sustaining or supporting farm production or
commercial agricultural enterprise. Further information corroborating this
conclusion is found in the October, 1989 Lane County Addendum to Vorking Paper,
entitled "Developed & Committed Lands." This report included testimony from
farmers, ranchers, conservationists and extension agents concerning the "minimum lot
size" or smallest usable farm unit. Although the statute refuses to quantify
"minimum lot size", this group would not consider anything less than 5 acres to be
practicable, and only that small if the land was vacant. The total area of this
amendment is 3.69 acres and includes two single family homes. The vacant land is
non-contiguous (separated by the two homes) and totals only 1.41 acres. Maximum
efficiency, particularly in light of existing and proposed urban facilities abutting
these lots, cannot be derived by the perpetuation of an agricultural designation of
this land.
Factor 5: Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences.
The first half of the response to
. agricultural designation on these lots.
low density residential use.
Environmental
this factor is based on continuing the
The second half of the response is based on
If a crop-type farm use occupied this si te, it would require fertilization and
irrigation. Dry application of fertilizer should not affect adjacent residences,
but spray would be hard to contain on site because of small lot size. Fertilizer or
pest control applications would be carried directly into the McKenzie River under
irrigation or rain events because of the slope of this property.
Animal husbandry conducted on this site would be limited because of small lot size.
There is inadequate area to grow feed to sustain farm animals common to this part of
the Villamette Valley. The smell that such livestock raise would ,impose upon
neighboring homes. The castings of these animals, as with animals the world over,
flows downhill and into the river.
Farm land at the fringe of the UGB does provide open space and thus a scenic virtue
that should not be overlooked. However, because these lots abut the McKenzie River
scenic qualities are inherent to all but the most noxious uses.
Residential use of these lots would result in an increase in impervious surface due
to construction of the dwelling and driveway. The run-off from both of these
improvements would need to be addressed as a requirement of the building permit.
Exhibit A - Findings - 10
.
4Ituntil public sewer is constructed, on~site sewer systems are
standards specified by the Lane County Sanitarian.
Residential uses, particularly in this area of Hayden Bridge Road, are typified by
large lots with most of the property given over to lawns, gardens and ornamental
landscaping. As with farm uses, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides are
commonplace in residential neighborhoods and some of these materials will likely end
up in the river. The degree to which this may occur is dependent upon individual
homeowner preference and awareness of the environment and therefore cannot be
predicted.
designed and built to
Development of these lots wi th homes will increase current auto trip generation
inasmuch as no discernible trips were generated prior to residential use. However,
given state law which strictly limits the placement of dwellings in exclusive farm
zones, the use of these lots for farm activities would require travel to and from
the residence of the operator. The number of trips or distance traveled cannot be
predicted.
Energy
Agricultural uses near markets reduces energy consumption for transportation of
produce. Some agricultural uses, such as pasture, require low amounts of attention
or equipment for production. Other agricultural uses, including most row crops,
rely on soil preparation (tilling, fertilizing), irrigation and harvesting which may
require large commitments of machinery and electricity.
... Residential uses will consume energy for space heating, yard maintenance and
.., transportation. Hayden Bridge Road is classified as a collector street by Lane
County and the City of Springfield. Marcola Road, which is approximately 600 feet
south of Lot 500, is classified as a minor arterial. Immediate access to this
system reduces vehicle miles traveled by providing more direct routes and linkages
with other large volume systems.
Economic
Agricultural uses, particularly those close to markets, can have a positive affect
on the local economy in terms of employment and lower transportation costs. As with
most industries, agriculture requires extensive" support services, investment and
supplies from other sectors. This spin-off effect is consistent with a healthy
economy. As mos t of the preceding discussion has indicated, these lots are too
small and fragmented to be used for serious agricultural uses.
Residential development is another major industry wi th as many or more spin-off
industries as agriculture. Unfortunately this activity is not an on-going process
for property of this size. The most significant economic aspects of this proposal
involve the elimination of public subsidy. These lots are in existing urban
services areas and will at some time be adjacent to, all urban services. The
continued designation of this land for agriculture will result in a subsidy for this
infrastructure as well as a possible farm deferral for property taxes. Inclusion
into the UGB and eventual annexation allow public expenditures to be recovered and
is consistent with the economies of scale inherent to compact urban growth.
Exhibit A - Findings - 11
4It
(
. Social consequences
Agricultural land provides the food we eat, employment opportunities and open space
amenities. The reduction of this resource will have a corresponding affect on each
of these benefits. In this particular case, the only one of these attributes which
will be affected is open space, and that only partially.
Residential development of these lots is consistent with adjacent and surrounding
uses. This part of the Hayden Bridge Road area is characterized by a scattering of
large lot residential development adjacent to urban density residential development.
The neighborhood that has evolved here over time appreciates the proximity of nearby
agricultural lands and the rural feel that larger lots (1/3 to 1 acre) convey.
Future development of the three vacant parcels, even if further land division
occurs, is consistent with this neighborhood.
The partial loss of open space mentioned earlier is not a forceful argument given
the fact that most low density residential site development occupies less than 25%
of the lot. The slope of these parcels away from the road diminishes the visual
impact of development and protects, through development constraint, encroachment on
the river.
This proposed change does not measure negatively against these factors because the
size of the area involved is small, the land has an existing commitment to
residential use and any additional residential development will be consistent with
the overall character of this neighborhood.
.' Factor 6: Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest
_ priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority.
The conversion of agricultural land to urban use requires a goal exception as
provided in Goal 2 and ORS 197.732. This report has addressed this requirement at
length under discussion found on pages 4-7.
Factor 7: Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural
activities.
These lots already have undergone a certain degree of conversion from agricultural
use to residential, as have other former agricultural lands in this neighborhood.
The proposed development of these lots with additional single family homes will not
place residences any closer to existing farm uses or designated agricultural land
not in production.
These lots are located on a collector street that is within 600 feet of an
intersection with a minor arterial. The development of these lots will not diminish
the availability of water for agriculture because of the domestic supply source and
residential uses do not demand the water volume required of irrigated farm land.
Exhibit A - Findings - 12
.
, ,';
. .
4ItResponse to 7.065(2)(b): Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan
Area General Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan is acknowledged by the state for compliance with applicable goals.
Post-acknowledgement requirements for UGB amendments require a goal exception when
resource land is converted for urban use and a Goal 14 Urbanization analysis. These
issues have been addressed by this report.
The proposal does not seek to amend the plan text nor is such amendment necessary.
The exceptions process is specified in the plan, these seven factors are included in
Chapter II of the plan as is the statement that the boundary may require further
adjustment over time.
The Growth Management and the Urban Service Area goal states the following: "Use
urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently. Encourage orderly and efficient
conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response to urban needs, taking into
account metropoli tan and statewide goals. Protect rural lands best sui ted for
nonurban uses from incompatible urban encroachment."
By virtue of the requirements of Goal 2 and Goal 14, this report has shown how the
proposed amendment is consistent wi th the Metro Plan's growth management goal.
These lots are not used efficiently if they are left in an agricultural designation;
these lots are adjacent to existing urban uses on an urban transportation system;
these lots already have undergone some partial urbanization as a result ,of land
division and residential development; the size, location, topography and soil
classification of these lots does not make them well suited for nonurban uses; and,
. the principles of orderly and efficient extension of services and compact urban
growth, embodied in the PFP proposal for this area, is not served by the
continuation of an agricultural designation of these lots.
The plan diagram will be changed from an agricultural designation to Low Densi ty
Residential, as will the zoning. This is consistent with existing use of this
property as well as abutting uses, zoning and plan designations. '
Response to 7.065(2)(c): The amendment is not a Plan update amendment, unless the
amendment has been initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of
Springfield and Lane County.
The joint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County unanimously
initiated this amendment by Resolution and Order on February 4, 1992.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This report includes responses to all applicable criteria of the Metro Plan,
Statewide Goals, ORS and OAR concerning the exceptions and urbanization processes.
This report has demonstrated that the proposed inclusion of these lots is consistent
with the aforementioned criteria. On March 16, 1993 the joint planning commissions
voted unanimously to adopt findings in support of this action and forwarded the
request to the joint elected officials with a recommendation of approval. Staff
recommends approval of this Urban Growth Boundary amendment and a concurrent
redesignation to Low Density Residential and requests the elected officials of
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County to adopt the findings of this report, along with
any relevant testimony from the March 16, 1993 joint planning commission public
hearing and the May 6, 1993 joint elected officials public hearing.
Exhibit A - Findings - 13
.