HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5980 03/19/2001
...\ ~
.
ORDINANCE NO. 5980
(SPECIAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE CERTAIN PROPERTY
RURAL RESIDENTIAUURBAN RESERVE FROM AGRICULTUREIURBAN
RESERVE; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 3
(AGRICULTURAL LANDS); AND ADOPTING A SAVINGS AND SEVERABll.,ITY
CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
A. Chapter N of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for the City of
Springfield are implemented by provisions of the Springfield Development Code, Article
7.
B. On July 28, 1999, the Lane County Board of Commissioners initiated proceedings,
without prejudice and on behalf of Dan and Brenda Porter, applicants, for a Type I
amendment of the Metro Plan diagram, and Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3
(Agricultural Lands), to redesignate from AgriculturelUrban Reserve to Rural
ResidentiallUrban Reserve, a 12.4 acre parcel of land between the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary and the jurisdictional boundary of the Metro Plan.
.
C. On November 16, 1999, the Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and
Lane County held a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment and Goal Exception,
followed by recommendations for approval of the proposed amendment and Goal
Exception by the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions on that date, and by
the Springfield Planning Commission on December 7, 1999.
D. On November 29,2000, the Springfield City Council conducted ajoint public
hearing with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on the
proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and Goal Exception.
E. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto indicating the
proposal meets the requirements of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code and
the requirements of applicable state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Metro Plan diagram land use designation is amended to redesignate
property identified as Assessor's Map 17-04-30, tax lots 200 and 300, from
"AgriculturelUrban Reserve" to "Rural ResidentiallUrban Reserve" as depicted in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein.
-
~
Section 2. Findings of fact made pursuant to LCDC Statewide Planning Goal 2
exception criteria for taking an Exception to Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, for the property
Ordinance NoS q R n
Page 1 of 2
.
.
.
"
,.
described in Section 1 of this Ordinance, taken in accordance with Oregon
Administrative Rule requirements for statewide planning goal Exceptions, as set forth in
Page 6 through 16 of Exhibit "B" attached to this Ordinance, are adopted as part of the
Metro Plan.
Section 3. Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts findings as set
forth in Exhibit "B" attached, in support of this action.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision,
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of ~ for
and ~ against this 1 9 t h day of -:January; 2001.
March
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this19 t h day ol-m~, 2001.
ATTEST:
Office
-Ma~~amalYn
City Recorder
REVIEWED & APPROVED
A~ TO FORM
_....J ~~~\o\ ~ l~
DATE: _U-\-3JJ ~OO(:)
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
Ordinance No.5 980
Page 2 of2
,;
1.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
March 9, 2001
,
Lan~
COU~
~~
Public Works
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION
To:
Springfield City Council
From:
Celia Barry, Land Management Division
".-j.
.. -,-
Re:
Porter Metro Plan Amendment
Enclosed please find materials for the Porter Metro Plan Amendment, scheduled for requested action
during your March 19,2001 regular session.
This proposed amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan Diagram was initiated by Lane
County in July 1999 on behalf of an individual applicant. The proposal concerns a 12.4-acre
parcel of land between the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary and the Metro Plan boundary. It
would redesignate land from "AgriculturelUrban Reserve" to "Rural ResidentiallUrban Reserve,"
adopt an exception to the statewide planning goals pursuant to Goal 2 requirements, and rezone
the property.
As background, the Planning Commissioners reviewed this matter in November 1999 and
recommended approval with the stipulation that the findings be strengthened. On November 29,
2000, the Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County elected officials held a joint public hearing on the
item. It was county staffs opinion that the findings submitted to the elected officials for the
hearing continued to be deficient. At the hearing, the applicant submitted additional findings.
While County staff found them to be much improved, they continued to be deficient. County staff
met with the applicant's agent and reviewed the deficiencies. The applicant again submitted new
findings, but no new evidence. The new findings, which staff believes now meet the criteria for
approval, are included as an exhibit to the ordinance included with this packet.
On February 14, 200 I, the Lane County Board of Commissioners approved the amendment in a 3-
2 vote, with Commissioners Sorenson and Dwyer voting in opposition. On March 5, 2001, the
Eugene City Council voted 5-4 to approve the amendment. The vote was 4-4 with the Mayor
breaking the tie and voting yes, thereby passing the City ordinance. Councilors FaIT, Nathanson,
Pape and Rayor voted in favor, and Councilors Bettman, Kelly, Meisner and Taylor voted in
opposition.
Please refer to the attached January 25,2001 cover memo from me to the County Board of
Commissioners for additional background and analysis.
LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1 125 EAST 8TH AVENUE 1 EUGENE, OREGON 97401 1 FAX 541/682-3947
BUILDING (541) 682.38231 PLANNING (541) 682-3807/ SURVEYORS (541) 682-4195 1 COMPLIANCE (541) 682-3807/0N-SITE SEWAGE (541) 682-3754
~
t.J 30% Post-Consumer Content
"
1
.
.
.
AGENDA COVER MEMO
DATE:
January 25,2001 (Date of Memo)
January 3 1,2001 (Date of3rd Reading)
TO:
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM:
Public Works Department/Land Management Division
PRESENTED BY:
Celia Barry, Lane County Land Management Division
'AGENDA ITEM TITLE: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION _
ORDINANCE P A 1156 - IN THE MA ITER OF AMENDING
THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE LAND
FROM "AGRICULTUREIURBAN RESERVE" TO "RURAL
RESIDENTIALlURBAN RESERVE", REZONE THAT LAND
FROM LANE COUNTY "EXCLUSIVE FARM USE 40-ACRE
MINIMUM /FLOODPLAIN" (E-40/FP) TO "RURAL
RESIDENTIAL S-ACRE MINIMUMlFLOODPLAIN/SITE
REVIEW" (RR-5/FP/SR) AND ADOPT AN EXCEPTION
PURSUANT TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2; AND
ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (File
P A 99-5599/Porter)
I.
MOTION
Staff recommends the following motion: '
MOVE THIRD READING AND APPROVE ORDINANCE PA 1156
II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM
A proposed amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan ("Metro Plan") Diagram
has been initiated by Lane County on behalf of an individual applicant. The purpose of the
amendment is to redesignate a 12.4 acre parcel oflahd outside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary
and inside the Metro Plan boundary to allow for its residential development. An "exception" to state
land use goal 3, Agricultural Lands, is required. County rezoning of the property is also requested.
The proposal is a Type I Metro Plan amendment request, pursuant to Lane Code 12.205, that must be
acted upon by all three Metro planning jurisdictions pursuant to Lane Code 12.225(1)(a)(ii). A
rezone from E40 to RR5 is also proposed, and the County alone must act on that request. Ordinance
PAl 156 places the matter before the Board.
III. DISCUSSION
A.
Background
In July 1999 by means of Order 99-7-28-2, the Board initiated this Type I Metro Plan
amendment proceeding at the request of the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Porter and their
Cover Memo Ordinance PA 1156
page I
"
agent, Griffith and Associates. An application was presented to the three Metro Planning
Commissions for joint public hearing on November 16, 1999. The Planning Commission .
recommended approval with the stipulation that findings be strengthened in regard to staffs
concerns as expressed in the Staff Report presented at the hearing. In response, the' applicants
submitted revised findings, which were evaluated in the October 25, 2000 Agenda Cover
Memo/packet, presented to the Board of Commissioners at a November 7, 2000 work
sessionll st reading and November 29 public hearing before the Metro Elected Officials.
A critical issue raised at the November 8 Board work session and November 29 public hearing
concerned meeting the threshold for an "irrevocably committed" exception by providing better
findings and documentation about surrounding land characteristics and land uses and their
relationship to the subject property, to demonstrate that farm use on the property is
impracticable. The applicant had inadequately addressed "farm use" as defined in Oregon
Revised Statutes (ORS) 215.203 with regard to the property's specific capabilities, and did not
discuss in full the relationship between the subject property arid property to the west.
In addition, previous findings did not address Goal 14 Urban Reserve requirements and
inadequately addressed all applicable Metro Plan policies. (While previous staff reports did
not identify the Urban Reserve findings deficiency, staff raised the issue verbally at the
November 7, 2000 Board work session, at the November 29 public hearing, and to the
applicant's agent in a telephone conversation during the week of October 23,2000.)
The applicant submitted revised findings at the November 29, 2000 hearing. While these
findings were much improved with regard to addressing the Oregon Administrative Rules
(OAR) Exception requirements, they were yet inadequate with regard to addressing Urban
Reserve criteria, and, with regard to other less critical issues. It was staffs view that while it
would likely be possible to demonstrate consistency with the applicable criteria, the applicant's
agent had not yet done so.
.
After the November 29 hearing, staff met with the applicant's agent and reviewed the
deficiencies point by point. The enclosed findings were submitted January 16, 2001 and
January 23, 2001, and are based upon that meeting and subsequent telephone conversations.
The new findings address the concerns previously identified b staff.
The issue was referred to OLCO in advance of the joint Planning Commissions hearing and no
comments or objections were received. No opposition was expressed at either the Planning
Commissions or Elected Officials hearings. Testimony consisted only of comments by the
applicants and their agent, and a neighbor testifying on behalf of the applicant.
B. Analysis
1. Character of the Proposal
The Character of the proposal is briefly described above in Section II. Additional detail
is found in attached Exhibit "C" to Ordinance P A 1156, attached.
2. Approval Criteria
The criteria that must be addressed are in Attachment 2 to this cover memo. Attachment
2 also includes the requirements for taking an "irrevocably committed" exception
.
Cover Memo Ordinance P A 1156
page 2
~: -;~ .' .,:. '.
"
r .~:~'.f;'
.
pursuant to state land use goal 2, and a list of the Metro Plan policies staff believes are
appropriate to address in this case.
Rezoning criteria are found in Lane Code 16.252, ahd are also included in Attachment 2.
3. Analysis
Staff believes that the attached revised findings meet the criteria for approval. In
explanation of this conclusion, the following discussion focuses on how the applicant
dealt with major deficiencies previously identified.
Consistency with Goal 2 Exception requirements
Goal 2 is implemented by OAR 660-004, which spells out the exception process
required to take land from a resource designation (Agriculture, in this case) and reassign
it to a non-resource designation (in this case the new plan designation would be Rural
Land, a non-resource designation that allows Rural Residential, 5-acre minimum
zoning). Goal 2 provides 3 options to qualify for an exception. The applicant chose the
"irrevocably committed" option. It generally requires a showing that, based upon
written findings and supporting evidence about the characteristics of and uses on the
subject property and surrounding land, fannuses on the subject property are
impracticable.
.
The soils on the property are defined by state law (ORS 215.710 and OAR 660-033-
, 0020(8)) as "high value" soils for the WiIlamette Valley. This is despite the fact that
soils are predominantly in agricultural class IV, are subject to wetness resulting from a
high water table, and have poor drainage. Since the law assumes the soils have high
value agricultural capabilities, as noted by staff at the November 29 hearing, soil quality
alone may not be used as justification for approval of an exception.
However, the property's soil characteristics do come into play in that soils are a
determining factor in the kinds of fanning activities that are possible given the size of
the property and adjoining land uses. For instance, if a tract of land is composed o~ soils
that are suitable only for grass seed production, and the property is relatively small in
size, and if the property is surrounded by residences, fann use may well be
impracticable' because of the land use conflicts that would result from standard, lawful
practices used in a grass seed operation, such as field burning. In fact, the subject
property and surrounding lands place the applicant in comparable circumstances to this
example.
.
The property is 12 acres in size. There is no practical outlet for surface water drainage given
the property's size and surrounding land uses. Public roads surround the property to the east
and north. County regulations prohibit off-site drainage into road side ditches unless an
applicant can prove that no additional water is added to the road's drainage way, an unlikely
possibility. Obtaining rights to drain the property onto other private properties to the west or
south would require a private agreement with one of those landowners, and surrounding
property owners would be unlikely to accept additional drainage onto their property. The
applicant's Exhibits K and L provide supporting evidence with regard to the property's soil and
drainage limitations.
The property does not possess water rights for irrigation purposes, which would be necessary
for certain tYpes of fanning activities as discussed in Exhibit M to the proposed findings.
Cover Memo Ordinance PA 1156
page 3
'J
Whether water rights would be granted is unknown, although staff has discussed the matter
with the Water Resources Department and it was indicated that granting additional water rights.
beyond domestic use would be unlikely.
The revised findings (Exhibit "C" to attached'Ordinance PA 1156) attached to this cover memo
include improved arguments and supporting documentation with regard to these matters. The
applicant provided better detail about the impracticability of farming the property and also
submitted letters prepared by OSU Extension Service professionals regarding the property's
potential for fanning and in particular, grazing pursuits. These documents are Exhibit M to the
proposed findings. As a clarification, one Extension agent directed his comments to
requirements for obtaining approval for a dwelling in the farm zone --hence making reference
to whether $80,000 could be earned in farming pursuits, the state-required gross annual income
for gaining approval for a dwelling in the farm zone. While this request is not related to
. obtaining a farm dwelling, the Extension Service analysis of the property's farming capability is
relevant and critical as objective evidence to support the applicant's request.
OSU agent Penhallegon's Nov. 7, 2000 letter (Ex. M to proposed findings, attached) states, "an
intensive greenhouse or above ground nursery" would come close to the $80,000 gross sales. .
.[however] soils would not support. . . strawberries, blueberries, rasberries, grapes, or any of
the tree fruits. . . [in addition,] annual vegetable or herb crops. . .need to be mainly grown
above ground." He indicates, however, that "flooding would also cause damage to a nursery."
Mr. Penhallegon points out the reason the state defines the soils on the property as "high value"
is due to their value for grass seed production, but that "on small acreage the value of the crop
is greatly diminished and is minimal for grass seed. . . "
The property was also evaluated specifically in regard to grazing, grass seed or hay production.
Mr. PenhaUegon indicates there is not enough acreage for a viable operation of these types,
especially given the high water table problems which limit the number of months that the land
could be grazed or cultivated. Mr. Schreder, OSU livestock specialist, in his Nov. 22, 2000
letter (Ex. M to proposed findings, attached), concurs with this assessment. He suggests a
variety of methods and options to increase the land's capability; however, the overall indication
of Mr. Schreder's comments is that the cost of improvements may not be worth the return given
the acreage and limited capability of the site.
.
In summary, the site has limited potential for farming because the types offarming pursuits that
are viable given soil conditions would only be practicable on significantly larger acreages and
only if irrigation and drainage technology were possible on the site, which does not appear to
be the case.
The analysis of the subject property provided by the Extensions Service only partially meets the
OAR test of whether farming a property is "impracticable". An applicant must also discuss
surrounding land characteristics and uses 1) as to why surrounding uses limit or constrain
farming the subject property, thereby rendering farm use impracticable, and 2) in relation to the
farming activities that might be possible on the subject property if it could be combined in a
farm operation with these surrounding lands.
Exhibit B to the applicant's proposed findings includes the findings adopted by the county in
June, 1985 in designating lands to the north and west as the "Royal Avenue exception area #7", .
providing objective documentation that adjacent ownerships to the north and west are
parcelized and consist of smaller acreages (with an average 3.71 acres per ownership). Staff
has verified through county records the average parcel size, and that there are 28 total tax lots,
Cover Memo Ordinance P A 1156
page 4
,'!f.:';'
,0
.
24 total ownerships, and 29 dwellings in the surrounding exception area (the applicant's
proposed findings (page 8) indicate there are a total of 26 tax lots and 24 dwellings but staff
considers this difference to be insignificant).
The tract of land immediately to the west, tax lots 501/502 (see applicant's proposed findings
Exhibit A), is zoned Rural Residential, 5-acre minimum, and includes a dwelling. The portion
of the tract that is undeveloped is approximately 5.5 acres in size. It is used on a seasonal basis
for lease grazing 3 horses. The applicant addresses this issue on page 9 of the proposed
findings, third paragraph. In addition, the property owner adjacent to the west, Ms. Faughn,
testified at the Nov. 29 hearing on behalf of the request. She indicated that after living on the
land for 14 years it has become clear that farming potentiaJ is minimal because of the high
water table in. the area (see November 29 hearing minutes, page 4, attached). If the property
had additional grazing capability it is likely that the property owner would be grazing
additional animals. Furthermore, based upon information provided by the Extension Service
and in the Lane County working paper (Ex. P to applicant's findings), even if combined in a
farm operation, the addition of 5.5 acres to a 12-acre parcel is unlikely to make grazing, hay, or
grass seed production more than marginally practicable.
Based upon the OAR criteria, and existing conditions on the ground as discussed above, the
applicant has demonstrated and documented that the subject parcel meets the test for an
irrevocably committed exception with regard to surrounding parcels to the north and west.
.
The application also provides findings regarding the land use of property to the east being
included in a wetlands restoration project. The parcel to the east could not be combined with
the subject property in a farm operation.
The applicant's proposed findings and Exhibit N indicate the parcel to the south is encumbered
by illegal filling activities with regard to farm use. This parcel may be used for horse stabling
as this use was identified by the applicant's agent in information provided to the Planning
Commission and no information was provided since as to why subsequent revisions now state
that no farming activities occur on that property. However, even if that property is used for
horse stabling, defined as a farm use under ORS 215.203, it is unlikely to ever be combined
with the subject property due to topographical constraints. The property to the south is higher
in elevation and made more so by a berm constructed on the south property at the property line,
creating a topographical barrier to combining uses on the two tracts.
The applicant's revised findings (pages' 9- 13), and Ex. P to the proposed findings include
general information about farming practices in Lane County, and the relationship between
small resource parcels and surrounding residential uses. This provides additional supporting
evidence for applicant's arguments that farming the land is impracticable.
.
Urban Reserve Criteria
The attached revised findings (pages 18-20) include the appropriate criteria of OAR 660-021-
0040 and statements addressing those criteria. Staff believes the proposed findings are
adequate to address the criteria with the following qualification. Staff notes disagreement with
the applicant's approach to OAR 660-021-0040(2); however staff believes that approach does
not harm the applicant's case. The criteria of section (2) provides direction to local
iurisdictions (and not individual applicants) in adopting urban reserve land use regulations.
The rule, including this section (0040) was initially established in 1992 (per LCOa November
29 Urban Reserve Work Session). The Metro Urban Reserve area was adopted in the 1980's, so
OAR 660-021-0040(2) was not applicable when the Metro Urban Reserve area was established.
Cover Memo Ordinance P A 1156
page 5
"
In any case, Metro Plan policy 25 of Section ILB., Growth Management and the Urban Service
Area, appears to address the requirements of OAR 660-0040(2), and the applicant addresses .
that Metro Plan policy in the attached proposed findings.
Metro Plan Consistency
Staff identified four Metro Plan policies that must be reviewed for this proposal (see
Attachment 2 to this cover memo). Staff believes the applicant has included adequate findings
to address these policies provided the Site Review overlay is assigned as recommended.
Section ILB., Growth Management and the Urban Service Area, Policy 25.a.,- requires a
determination of whether a proposed lot size is appropriate for future redevelopment upon
annexation. It applies to new parcels created within an urban reserve area. A proposal would
normally be reviewed against this standard as part of a land division process. The requirement
applies to creation of new lots that will be less than 10 acres in size, to ensure that future
development upon annexation can occur consistent with future urban zoning densities.
No new development is proposed under this request. In addition, approval of the request could
not result in a land division unless and until the property is annexed, because the subject
property, which is approximately 12.4 acres in size, already consists of two legal lots that could
not be further divided under the proposed RR-5 zoning. Nor would a future request for
rezoning to a greater density b~ approved under state and county requirements. City
regulations would also prohibit urban development until the property is annexed. Since no new
lots will be created, Metro Plan policy 25.a. need not be applied at this time. Upon annexation
and a future land division, this Metro Plan policy would support implementation of city
development standards.
.
However, the applicant submitted a conceptual plan (Exhibit 0 to the applicant's findings) that,
according to City comments as shown in the Planning Commission record, does not meet some
of the city's development standards. A future development plan would be reviewed as part of a
land division process once the subject property is annexed and redeveloped in the future.
Policy 25's additional requirements b. and c. (outlined in Attachment 2 to this cover memo)
would be addressed through a Site Review process (see proposed Site Review criteria, Exhibit
"B" to the proposed Ordinance).
C. Alternatives/Options
I. Adopt the Ordinance as presented.
2. Deny the request for a Plan Amendment/Zone Change by Board Order
D. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board approve the request with site review criteria (attached as
Exhibit "B" to the ordinance)
E. Timing
The Ordinance does not contain an emergency clause.
.
Cover Memo Ordinance PA 1156
page 6
\"
.
.
.
IV.
IMPLEMENTATIONIFOLLOW-UP
. '. .~.. '. '
Following unanimous adoption or denial by Lane County, Eugene and Springfield, notice of action
will be provided to DLCD and interested parties. If the three governing bodies are not in agreement
on whether to approve or deny the request, the action becomes subject to review by the Metropolitan
Policy Committee in a Conflict Resolution Process, pursuant to Lane Code 12.235(5).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance PA 1156 with Exhibit "A" (maps), "B" (Site Review Criteria), and "C" (applicant's
proposed findings and supporting exhibits).
2. Applicable criteria, OAR exception requirements, and applicable Metro Plan policies
3. ORS 215.203, definition offarm use and farmland
4. ORS 215.710, definition of high value soils
5. November 29,2000 public hearing minutes
Cover Memo Ordinance P A 1156
page?
"'
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON,
.
ORDINANCE PA 1156
)IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
)GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE LAND FROM "AGRICULTURE/URBAN
)RESERVE" TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAUURBAN RESERVE", REZONE THAT LAND FROM
)LANE COUNTY "EXCLUSIVE FARM USE 40-ACRE MINIMUM/FLOODPLAIN" (E40/FP)
)TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5-ACRE MINIMUM/FLOODPLAIN/SITE REVIEW" (RR-5/FP/SR)
)AND ADOPT AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2; AND
)ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (file P A 99-5599/Porter)
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan") sets forth
procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Lane County are implemented by the provisions of Lane Code 12.200
through Lane Code 12.245; and
WHEREAS, on February 29, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 886 applying Rural
Comprehensive Plan Zones to the Metro Plan Area of Influence outside the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary but inside the
Metro Plan Boundary, and Lane Code 16.400(6)(i) allows zone changes to be processed concurrent with Plan amendments;
and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 1999 by means of Order 99-7-28-2, the Board of County Commissioners initiated
proceedings on behalf of applicant Reed and owner Porter for a Metro Plan Diagram amendment to redesignate a 12.4-acre
parcel of land between the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary and the jurisdictional boundary of the Metro Plan, rezone that
property, and adopt an Exception to statewide planning goals pursuant to goal 2 requirements; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1999, the Planning Commissions of Lane County, Eugene and Springfield held ajoint
public hearing on the proposed amendment, zone change and Exception, followed by recommendations for approval of the
proposed amendment with rezoning to RR-5 and a Site Review (SR) suffix by the Lane County and Eugene Planning
Commissions on that date, and by the Springfield Planning Commission on December 7, 1999; and
.
WHEREAS, on November 29,2000, the Board of County Commissioners with the City Councils of Eugene and
Springfield conducted ajoint public hearing Of! the proposed amendment and Exception, and the Board of County
Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, and the Board is no":- ready to take action; and
WHEREAS, evidence exists within the record indicating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan,
of Lane Code Chapter 12 and 16, and of applicable state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County Ordains as follows:
Section I. The Metro Plan Diagram is amended to redesignate property identified as Assessor's map 17-04-30, tax
lots 200 and 300, from "Agriculture/Urban Reserve" to "Rural ResidentiallUrban Reserve" as depicted in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 2. The site identified as Assessor's map 17-04-30, tax lots 200 and 300, is rezoned from the Lane County
rural zoning district of"ExcIusive Fann Use-40/Floodplain Combining (E-40/FP)" to the Lane County zoning district
of "Rural Residential 5/F100dplain Combining/Site Review (RR-5/FP/SR)" on Lane County zoning plot map #268, as
depicted in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Site Review process is to be used as a means to
ensure that 1) the requirements of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, Growth Management and the Urban Service
Area, Policy 25 are met; 2) concerns with regard to soil characteristics, building design, and drainage are addressed;
IN THE MATIER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE .
LAND FROM "AGRICULTURE/URBAN RESERVE" TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAUURBAN RESERVE", REZONE THAT LAND FROM LANE
COUNTY "EXCLUSIVE FARM USE/FLOODPLAIN" (E-40IFP) TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5IFLOODPLAIN/SITE REVIEW" (RR-5IFP/SR) AND
ADOPT AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (file
P A 99-5599/Porter)
Page lof2
.
.
.
,~, : \,~';,';..-.,~ -:!" ~~,'
,- '~~:;.;
and 3) access to tax lot 200 is taken only from Royal Avenue, and not from Greenhill Road. The Site Review
requirements are specified in Exhibit "B" part 2.
Section 3. Findings of fact made pursuant to LCDC Statewide Planning Goal 2 exception criteria for taking an
Exception to Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, for the property described in section I of this Ordinance, taken in
accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule requirements for statewide planning goal Exceptions, as set forth in
pages 7 through 18 of Exhibit "c" attached to this Ordinance, are adopted as part of the Metro Plan.
FURTHER, Although not part of this ordinance except as identified in section 3 above, the Board of County.
Commissioners adopts findings as set forth in Exhibit "c" attached, in support of this action.
The prior designation and zone repealed by this Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of
persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
"
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
ENACTED this
day of
,2000.
Chair, Lane County Board of County Commissioners
Recording Secretary for this Meeting of the Board
IN THE MAITER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TO REDEsiGNATE
LAND FROM "AGRICULTURE/URBAN RESERVE" TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAUURBAN RESERVE", REZONE THAT LAND FROM LANE
COUNTY "EXCLUSIVE FARM USElFLOODPLAIN" (E-40/FP) TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAL 5IFLOODPLAIN/SITE REVlEW" (RR-5IFP/SR) AND
ADOPT AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2; AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (file
P A 99-5599/Porter)
Page 2 of2
252
253
lane county
ORIGINAL ORD. #
REVISION #
1002
Ordinance'PA lis6
Exhibit "B" part ]
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
@
L ~~ .
29 S.
Ite of proposed '
Zone change from
E40/FP to RR5/FP/Si
2~1~__.._.._.._..
25 30 -..-.
o OVA
~
'"
%
r=
r-
(E40)
..........
.
.
\
.
.
.
\
.. .... ........
. .
.
.
.
. .
. .
: .....l
1004
z
<
CD
II:
::l
.
.
.
.
1!.1~
615
Twnshp Range Section
17 04 30
PLOT #268
I-
.
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
PA 884
ORD#
17 04 31
DATE
2/29/1984
FILE #
RLE#
DATE
, ':
"
.
Ordinance P A 1156
Exhibit "B" part 2
CRITERIA TO BE MET AND CONDITIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH SITE REVIEW
PROCESS
Adoption of a Site Review suffix (/SR) to the subject property, identified as tax lots 200 and 300 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-30, requires that the following criteria be addressed in place of the criteria listed in
Lane Code 16.257(4), through approval ofa Site Review permit pursuant to the procedures of Lane Code
14.10~ and other requirements of 16.257:
I) Evidence shall be submitted sufficient to ensure that the requirements of the Metro Plan, Growth
Management and the Urban Service Area, Policy 25 are met.
2) The Planning Program shall require as a condition of approval that, as part of the building permit
application process for any structure on the property, documentation be submitted for review and
approval by the County Building Program, showing that soil types meet design requirements.
3) A drainage plan shall be submitted by an Oregon-certified engineer for review and approval by the
County Planning Program, demonstrating that home site, driveway, and other development on the
property shall not result in an increase of off-site drainage. The plan shall include development
recommendations to be implemented as part of the construction process.
4) Access shall not be taken from Greenhill Road to either property. Prior to approval of a building
permit for a residence on tax lot 300, an access easement shall be granted from tax lot 300 to tax lot
200, for access to Royal Avenue.
5) Other applicable development standards of Lane Code shall be met.
..
.
.,
.,
.
ORDINANCE PA-ll56
EXHIBIT .C.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
.
ORDINANCE PA 1156
(FILE PA 99-5S99/PORTER)
.
In the matter of amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram
to Residential land from "Agriculture/Urban Reserve" to "Rural ResidentiaUUrban
Reserve", rezone that land from Lane County "Exclusive Fann Use 4O-acre
MinimumlFloodplain" (e-40IFP) to "Rural Residential 5-acre MinimumlFloodplainlSite
Review" (RR-5ISR) and adopt an Exception pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 2; and
adopting savings and severability clauses.
.
I ," ~
'(
,
.. ._._._..._..........."_..,,..:.'\.:....:..,.:..~...~.::lo.h.:........ ~...~h........,~ _ .. h"_ '....
. EXHIBITS
.
.
EXHIBIT A WEST EUGENE VICINITY MAP AND LANE COUNTY
ASSESSOR'S MAPS
,EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT L
EXHIBIT M
EXHIBIT 'N
EXHIBIT 0
EXHIBIT P
ZONING PLOT MAPS #268 & #1002, ALONG WITH
ROYAL AVENUE EXCEPTION AREA #7 AND FINDINGS
METROPOLITAN AREA GENRAL PLAN MAP
AIR PHOTO
LEGAL LOT VERIFICATIONS; PA 99-5523 & 99-5382
FEMA FLOOD ZONE MAP
CONTOUR MAP
WELL LOG ANA YSIS & WATER RIGHTS MAP
WILDLIFE MAP
WETLAND MAP
N.R.C.S SOILS MAP & DESCRIPTIONS
BRAVADO LETTER ON FIELD TILE INSTALLATION
OSU EXTENSION AGENT LE'ITERS
PROPERTY FILE INFORMATION FROM 17-04-30 TAX
LOT #801
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADDENDUM TO THE DEVELOPED AND COMMITTED
LANDS WORKING PAPER, BOARD ORDER
NO. 89-10-25-4
.\
,
Exhibit C .
PA 99-5566
REVISED 01-23-2001
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The following infonnation represents the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law supporting the Lane County
Board of Commissioners' adoption of Metro Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Goal Exception for Dan and
Brenda Porter's land addressed as: 28828 Royal Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97402, see Exhibit "A" to these fipdings
and incorporated herein. ,These Findings are divided into the following sections:
I. Specific Findings Relating to the Subject Property
A. Description of the Subject Property and Summary of Action
B. Natural Site Features
C. Existing Surrounding Development Pattern
D. Existing Public Facilities and Services
II. Metropolitan Goals '
III.
Findings and Conclusions Relating to Metro Plan Amendment Criteria of Lane
County Code (LC) 12.225, as they relate to Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
.
IV. Findings and Conclusions Relating to County Rezoning Criteria of LC 16.252
v. Testimony before the Joint Metro Planning Commissions
VI. Summary
I. SPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
A. Description of the Subject Property and Summary of Action:
The Board of Commissioners (Board) Finds and relies on the following facts regarding the
description of the subject property and summary of the action.
I.
This Application is an amendment to the Metro Area General Plan to redesign ate 12.4
acres ofland from Agricultural, Urban Reserve Low-Oensity Residential to Rural
Residential Urban Reserve Low-Density and to rezone that area from Exclusive Farm
Use (E-40) to Rural Residential (RR-5). The property is identified on Assessor's Map as
Tax Lots # 200 and 300 (see Exhibit "A" to these findings and incorporated herein );
Documentation for a Committed Exception to Oregon statewide planning goal # 3, to
include this parcel with an exception shown on County plot maps 268 and 1002
(hereinafter referred to as Royal Avenue # 7) is provided in these Findings, see Exhibit
"B" to these fmdings and incorporated herein for zoning and exception area infonnation.
The subject property is located approximately 1,400 feet south of the City of Eugene's
city limits. The subject property can be reached by taking Royal Avenue west to
Greenhill Road. The subject property is situated at the southwest comer of Royal.
Avenue at Greenhill Road. This property is outside the Urban Growth Boundary, but
.
2.
,"
" ,
"
.
within the Metro Planning Boundary and is designated Urban Reserve, see Exhibit "C" to
these [mdings and incorporated herein for Metro Area Map.
3. The subject property is undeveloped land. The proposed County Rural Residential 5-
Acre Minimum parcel size zoning designation (RR-5) would be consistent with the
ownership pattern of the area and directly borders an RR-5 zoned area to the north and
west. The average parcel size for the surrounding existing Exception Area was
determined to be 3.71 acres, see Exhibit "D" to these findings and incorporated herein for
air photo.
4. Both tax lots have County legal lot certifications (P A 99-5523 and P A 99-5382), see
Exhibit E" to these findings and incorporated herein. The subject site, consisting of two
lots containing 12.4 acres, is consistent with RR-5 zoning found immediately to the north
and west. Upon approval of this request and subsequent lot line adjustments, one
dwelling could be placed on each of the two existing lots of record.
5. The subject site has 240' of frontage along the south side of Royal Avenue and 939' along
the west side of Greenhill Road.
B. Natural Site Features:
.
.
The Board Finds and relies upon the following facts regarding natural site features.
I.
The subject property is more or less rectangular in shape with the maximum east/west
dimension of 475' and a maximum north/south dimension of 1,325'. A large portion of
the property, along with many other parcels are within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) 100- Y ear Flood Plain, see Exhibit "F' to these findings
and incorporated herein. A south/west to north/east shallow drainage way is located on
the property near its middle portion. This drainage way drains into; and intersectS with
the north/south ditch along the east side of Greenhill Road. The subject property is
relatively flat. The site's slight slope to the northeast (fall of approximately 1%) is
toward this natural drainage way. The United States Geological Survey 7.5 Minute
Quadrangle Maps show slopes of 0-3% for this area, see Exhibit "G" to these findings
and incorporated herein for contour map.
2. Water will be provided by on-site wells. The section in which the subject property is
located is not situated in a water quality or quantity limited area as has been defined by
the County. An examination of the Well Logs in the immediate vicinity supports this
County determination. A copy of the Well Log records for the area demonstrates an
adequate quantity of water for existing and proposed uses. The Well Log Study finds the
average well production is 17.75 g.p.m., at an average depth of 135.4'. In addition, the
water log study found no instances where wells have been deepened. Tax lot # I 00,
owned by the applicant has an existing well that yields 17.75 g.p.m., the same yield as
the average of the area at a depth of 140 feet which is slightly deeper than the average
depth of the wells in the area, see Exhibit "H" to these findings and incorporated herein
for well log information.
3. Based upon a review of the Lane County Water Master records, no irrigation rights exist,
see Exhibit "H" to these findings and incorporated herein '
4. No identified historical resources would be affected by this proposal.
5.
The subject property is located within an Impacted Big Game Habitat area, see Exhibit
"r' to these [mdings and incorporated herein.
6.
No identified scenic resources would be affected by this proposal. The Army Corps of
Engineers and the City of Eugene are working on a restored wetland area east of the
2
subject site, separated by Greenhill Road. No foreseeable impacts of this Metro Plan .
Amendment and zone change are expected to affect this restored wetland area, see
Exhibit "J" to these findings and incorporated herein.
7. The property lies within Zone A of the Amazon Creek flood plain as mapped by FEMA.
No other natural hazards have been identified by any other government agency for the
subject site.
8. The subject property is predominantly in Agricultural capability class IV soils (covering
75% of the site). This soil consist of Dayton Silt Loam (75% total area, IVw) and
Hazelair Silty Clay Loam (25% total area, IIIe). This soil is subject to wetness and
doughtiness, which is the principle obstacle to commercial agricultural production as
stated in the U.S. Department of Agricultural Soils Survey pamphlets of Lane County,
see Exhibit "K" to these fmdings and incorporated herein. This type of soil is described
as soillirnited by wetness, productivity could be increased where ground water could be
drained by the installation of field tile. Two reasons exist why the installation of field tile
for this site is not a viable option. Installation offield tile at approximately $4,000 per
acre is too expensive. Secondly, the existing drainage outlet ditch is not deep enough for
subsurface drainage system to properly function, as stated by the handout during the joint
public hearing on November 16th 1999, by Bravado Excavation and Construction, INC,
see Exhibit "L" to these findings and incorporated herein.
9.
The land's flora, prior to settlement of the Amazon Creek portion of the Willamette
Valley and construction of drainage ditches (circa 1940's/1960's) is a mix of open
meadows and wetland prairie along with ash, alder and cottonwood trees along natural
braided drainage ways. This type of relatively flat valley floor was not commercial
timber land. "The Lane County soil ratings for forestry and agricultural 1997 booklet
indicates the subject site's soils have no Douglas Fir site index and no cubic foot per acre
yield productivity rating".
.
10. No preliminary site evaluation has been conducted on the subject site for sanitary sewage
drain field suitability, but due to high water table it can be expected that higher priced
and higher technology sandfilter systems may be required.
C. Existing Surrounding Development Pattern:
The Board Finds and relies upon the following facts regarding the surrounding area and
development pattern.
North -
West -
* See Exhibit "A".
Tax Lots # 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1400, 1501, 1502, 1800, 1900,2000,2100,
2500,2600,2700,2800,2900,3000,3100,3200 and 3300 of Assessor's Map
17-04-19 north of the subject property are zoned Rural Residential 5-Acre
Minimum Parcel Size (RR-5). These RR-5 parcels, including Tax Lot # 100 of
Assessor's Map 17-04-30 to the north of the subject property, range in size from
.6 acres to 10.14 acres creating an average parcel size of approximately 3.4
acres. Most of these small parcels are all under different ownerships, with the
exception of tax lots 1900, 2000, 2100 and 3000, 3100.
Tax Lots # 400, 500, 50 I ,502,600 and 700 of Assessor's Map 17-04-30 lie to
the west of the subject property. They are also zoned Rural Residential5-Acre
Minimum Parcel Size (RR-5). This portion of the Exception Area along the
.
3
.
.
.
. .
south side of Royal A venue contains 24.43 acres with its six Rural Residential
lots creates an average parcel size of 4.89 acres.
South -
Tax Lot # 801 of Assessor's Map 17-04-30 directly borders the subject property
to the south. This parcel contains approximately 20 acres. This parcel is
developed with a single-family dwelling and other residential-type outdoor
activity areas. A look through Lane County's TRS property files clearly shows
that tax lot #801 is not in fann use, as stated in a letter dated September I 9, 1996
from Roger McGuckin to Paul Patrick (land owner), 4th paragraph "... and that
in fact, no farm exists on the property that can be serviced by an additional
dwelling ". This is shown in exhibit "M" to these fmdings and incorporated
herein for referenced material. See DEQ letter dated April 27, 1989 and on site
sewage disposal evaluation for further information regarding no fann use of tax
lot #80Iin file (I 7-04-30, tax lot #801), see Exhibit" N" to these fmdings and
incorporated herein for referenced material. Tax lot #80 I does not have much
potential for future farm use, due to a majority of tax lot #801 being covered by
4 to 8 feet of fill material, as stated throughout the county file.
East -
The Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary borders the subject site to the east.
This area has a Metro Plan designation of Light-Medium Industrial. This site is
presently being used to create wetland areas.
D. Existing Public Facilities and Services:
The Board Finds and relies upon the following facts regarding existing public facilities and
.services.
Schools -...................................Bethel School District
Fire - ........................................City of Eugene Zumwalt Fire Protection District
Police - .....................................Lane County Sheriff's Department
Sewers - ...................................Site has an approved sanitary sewer system and a site
... ................. ......... .............. ....... inspection approval
Water -......................................Proposed well (see Exhibit H to these findings and incorporated
herein after - Area Well Log Analysis)
Solid Waste Disposal- .............SaniPac
Access - ...................................Royal Avenue and Greenhill Road
Phone - ....................................U.S. West Communications
II.
METROPOLITAN GOALS:
Lane Code 12.225(2)(b) provides that as criteria for adoption of this plan amendment that
"Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent."
The specific findings below address consistency with relevant Metro Plan policies while findings
made thereafter in tbis document, while addressing other Lane Code criteria and Oregon
Administrative,Rules, add further support to the demonstration that the amendment is consistent
with tbe Metro Plan and will not render it internally inconsistent.
Growth Manal!:ement and the Urban Service Area:
4
.,
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix uses rural land .
efficiently, in a way that it correctly follows the Metro Plan designation as an Urban Reserve Area,
which is land that is designated for future urban development.
Policy #25 of Metro Growth Management and Urban Service Area, Section II-B-page #'s 7 & 8 of
the Metropolitan Area General Plan.
(a) As Exhibit "0" to these findings and incorporated herein shows, the applicant
provided a conceptual plan for ultimate development. This conceptual plan for
future subdivision of the subject property will require a certified Oregon surveyors
stamp for final approval to meet City of Eugene standards for lot sizes and road
widths. This will be required as a condition of approval of this request which is in
accordance with applicable plans and policies.
(b) The proposed land use of establishing two rural residential five acre minimum lots
meets the applicable plans and policies of the Metro Area Plan by establishing this
development in an area that lacks viable agricultural suitability and is already
established as an Urban Reserve Area in the Metro Plan, which is designated for
future growth into the City of Eugene's Urban Growth BoWldary, see Exhibit""C".
(c) As a condition of approval the owner and his or her successors in interest of the
subject site are obliged to support annexation proceedings when the City of Eugene
initiates annexation. The owner and his or her successors in interest of the subject
site agree not to challenge any annexation of the subject property. The owner and
his or her successors in interest of the subject site will acquire City of Eugene
approval for any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of
use of the property, these uses must continue to follow the ultimate development .
pattern in Exhibit "0", mentioned in "a" above.
Residential Land Use and Housing::
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix provides a
viable area to extend existing residential development, in an area currently designated as Urban
Reserve.
Economv:
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix will broaden,
improve and diversifY the metropolitan economy by providing an area for home site development, ,
which will create needed income potential for area contractors. "
Environmental Resources:
The subject site is not needed as resource land, since it is not viable, economic or practicable to be
used as resource land, due to soil wetness, area (size), proximity to surroWlding residential
development and lack of interest of area fanners to use this site as agricultural land. Therefore this
Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review' suffix does not interfere with
environmental issues pertaining to resource land.
.
WiIlamette River Greenwav. River Corridors. and Waterways:
5
.
The subject site is not within the WilIamette River Greenway, nor does it have year round
waterways located on it, therefore this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site
review suffix does not apply to this Metropolitan Goal.
Environmental Desil!n:
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix will encourage
a safe, clean and comfortable environment in an area already designated for urban development under
the Urban Reserve Area, Metro Plan Designation.
TransDortation:
The area of the subject site is currently served by Lane Transit District along with adequate road
facilities to serve projected use in future west Eugene growth. North of the Subject Site at Barger and
Greenhill Road, Lane County has installed a "round about" traffic circle. This round about has the
potential to pass 4323 vehicle trips per hour. Currently this circle is at 20% this capacity. Royal
A venue west to Greenhill Road intersection is planned for widening in the next few years (2002
approximately). The board finds that this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a
site review suffix wiil be in accordance with current and future transportation planning issues and
concerns.
Public Utilities. Services and Fa~i1ities:
.
As detailed more specifically in Section III (660-004-0028(6)(b), Existing public facilities and
services") the subject site is already served by sufficient public utilities, services and facilities meeting
current needs in an area established as mediwn density rural residential (RR-5), therefore this Metro
Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix will not overburden the current
services provided this area of west Eugene.
Parks and Recreation Facilities:
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix does not hinder
the establishment of parks and recreation areas needed to meet public needs. Across Greenhill Road to
the east the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Eugene is enhancing an existing wetland area
which will provide open space along with park areas for the area and community.
Historic Preservation:
The subject site is not needed for Historic Preservation, therefore this Metro Plan amendment and
concurrent zone change with a site review suffix does not conflict with this Metropolitan Goal.
Enerl!V:
The location of the subject site within an Urban Reserve Area means that development in this area
has already been planned in the future, increased energy use required for development in this area has
already been considered. Therefore this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a
site review suffix meets this Metropolitan Goal.
Citizen Involvement:
.
Citizen involvement has been provided throughout this Metro Plan Amendment process, therefore
this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix meets this
Metropolitan Goal.
Plan Review. Amendment and Refinement:
6
... "'~"'~"'~"". ....~....... ..~....,
"
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix is responsive to .
the changing conditions of this part of the Metropolitan area. It will provide needed home sites for
those who want to live in a rural environment and will provide higher density development in the
future after the City of Eugene annexes this Urban reserve area into the Urban Growth Boundary.
This Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change with a site review suffix is consistent with
existing Metropolitan Goals, therefore the Lane County Board of Commissioners supports this Metro
Plan Amendment and concurrent zone change.
In. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO METRO PLAN
AMENDMENT APPROVAL CRITERIA OF LC 12.225
Lane Code 12.225(2) provides the criteria for approving a Metro Plan Amendment request.
A. 12.225(2)(a) "The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and"
The Board finds that Statewide planning goals #2, #3 and # 14 are relevant to this proposal.
1. Statewide Planning Goal #2:
In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732(l)(b) and Oregon Administrative Rules 660-
004-028, the Board Finds the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support ofa
Developed and Committed Exception for the subject 12.4 acres.
.
General Information:
The Board Finds the subject property will be added to an existing Developed and Committed
Exception Area otherwise referred to as Royal A venue # 7. This Exception Area is zoned Rural
Residential 5-Acre Minimum Lot Size (RR-5). The existing Exception Area has an average
density of3.7 acres; consequently, the subject propertyshould have the zoning designation ofRR-
5. Adding the subject property to the existing Exception Area is consistent with the policies
established in the 1989 Addendum to the Developed and Committed Lands Working Paper for
identified Developed and Committed Lands within the County jurisdiction and is consistent with
Policy # 25 of Subsection B - Growth Management and the urban service area of the Metro Plan.
The Exception process identified in goal #2 pertains to a "Developed and Committed Exception"
as set forth in OAR 660-04-028. In aCcordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732(l)(b) and
Oregon Administrative Rules 660-004-028, the Board Finds the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in support of a Developed and Committed Exception for the subject 12.4
acres.
Oregon Administrative Rule Findings:
The Board Finds the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as specifically required
by OAR 660-004-0028(2), (3) & (6) for a Developed and Committed Exception.
OAR 660-004-0028(2):
"(a)
Characteristics of Exception Area (proposed Exception Area)"
.
The Board Finds the following facts characterize the subject site:
7
"
.
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
.
The site has vehicular access from Royal A venue and Greenhill Road, developed County
roads.
The site contains 12.4 acres, which is a small site and does not meet the County's E-40
Exclusive Farm Use zoning minimum lot size standard of 40 acres.
In addition, the site has a long north/south dimension of 1,320 feet, the site is narrow
west to east (approximately 475').
The site's soils are classified as type IVw and IIIe. The U.S. Department of Agricultural
Soils Survey of Lane County indicates these types of soils are limited to spring and early
summer grazing. The soils description goes on to state the soil's agricultural
potential can be significantly improved with the installation of drainage tile if there
is an adequate drainage outlet and in the summer has irrigation. No adequate
drainage outlet exists to allow a subsurface field drainage to function and
installation cost are large at $4,000 per acre ($49,000 total). In addition, the subject
site has no irrigation rights.
The site is not adjacent to any commercial or large farming operations.
The net usable area of the property is approximately 12 acres. The minimum parcel size
for the present Agricultural E-40 zoning is 40 acres. Therefore, the parcel size is non-
conforming. The subject property is approximately one third the size of the minimum
farm parcel allowed in an E-40 zone. The subject site is not adjacent nor in the midst of
any commercial timber or farming operations. The Board Finds the subject property also
has very limited agricultural capabilities based upon its size, soil wetness, including lack
of drain tile and adequate drainage outlet. summer droughtiness in combination with the
fact the site has no irrigation water right. The subject property has no history of
commercial timber production. A southwest to northeast drainage way divides the
property.
"(b)
Characteristics of adjacent land. "
The Board Finds the following facts characterize the land adjacent to the site.
The land to the north and west contains approximately 24 dwellings on 24 tracts (26 lots)
and is zoned RR-5. These tracts' (Exception Area) average size is 3.71 acres.
The parcel to the south is a substandard-sized E-40 parcel and does not meet the E-40
zoning 40-acre minimum lot size. The parcel to the south is not usable as agricultural
land due to massive amounts of unproductive fiU material located on it as stated in T.R.S. .
file 17-04-30 tax lot #801.
The surrounding parcels, especially to the west, share similar soil characteristics (wetness
and summertime droughtiness). The parcel to the south once had similar soil, due to fill
activities those similar soils are 4 to 8 feet under a mix of wood waste and random soil, as
stated in T.R.S. file 17-04-30 tax lot #801.
The adjacent non-confonning E-40 parcels also lacks drain tile and does not have any
inigation water rights.
The surrounding parcels, including the lots to the south, are all under different ownership.
The adjoining non-conforming sized E-40 parcel to the south is primarily used as
Residential dwelling site with three out buildings, the balance of the land is laying
8
"
unused. The areas adjacent to the subject property described earlier in Section I.e. to the .
north and west of the subject property are small acreage Rural Residential parcels
averaging 3.7 acres in size. The land to the east is within the City of Eugene's Urban
Growth Boundary. The Metro Plan's designation for the land to the east of the site is
Light-Medium Industrial and is currently being re-established by the Army Corps of
Engineers and City of Eugene as an enhanced wetland area. The use of the 20 acre parcel
to the south is used as a dwelling site and is not in Agricultural production. The subject
property cannot practically be assimilated for farm use because of the surrounding Rural
Residential areas to the north and west, the Urban Growth Boundary to the east and the
small, non-conforming Agricultural parcel to the south, effectively making the subject
site segregated from commercially viable EFU land. The RR-5 parcels to the west of the
subject site although listed in tax records as being in agricultural use are not being used as
such. Tax Lot #400 does not have any farm use on it, currently it consist of open field of
mixed vegetation, with old fencing that is in a state of un-used disrepair. Tax lot #502
has three horses using the limited grazing ground. These horses are owned by a tenant of
the owner of tax lot #502 and are not permanent. During the wet months additional food
must be brought in to feed the animals, due to similar seasonal soil conditions as the
subject property. Since tax lots #400 and #502 share soil characteristics, the same
arguments apply to that land as the subject property. The Board Finds there are no viable
surrounding farm uses for the site to be assimilated with.
Without subsurface drainage and water irrigation rights, the soil's wetness and
droughtiness limits the site's use to grazing in late spring and early summer. In addition,
the commercial cattle grazing operations located much further to the north, cannot
practically incorporate the subject property into their operation because these grazing
operations are not adjoining. In addition, the reasons grazing operations do not use the
subject site nor surrounding lands are based upon the small parcel sizes, parcels are all .
under different ownership and the general area's wetness and droughtiness. The area's
commercial grazing operations have not been seeking additional land that is limited to
late spring and early summer grazing. The adjacent land to the north and west, however,
is zoned RR-5 and shares similar topographic and soil limitations. In summary, the
characteristics of adjacent Rural Residential lands is more similar to the subject site than
the Agricultural lands found further north. The Board Finds the characteristics of
adjacent land is not conducive to agricultural use of the site.
"(c) The relationship between the Exception Area and lands adjacent to it"
The Board Finds the following statements describe the relationship between the site and
land adjacent to it. The subject site (Tax Lots # 200 and 300, including the existing RR-5
Exception Areas located to the north and west) was created prior to the State's adoption
of the Statewide Planning Goals (i.e. Goal # 3 and 4, adopted December 27, 1974).
According to Lane County Land Management Division computer records (regarding
partitions, subdivisions, and year-built data for residences) and to Lane County
Assessment and taxation maps, the surrounding parcelization pattern was all in place by
1974. This development pattern occurred some 20 years prior to the adoption of
Statewide Planning Goals # 3 and 4. Therefore, this existing RR-5 Exception Area did
not require that a goal exception to Goals # 3 and 4 be taken prior to any land division.
In addition, the substandard-sized E-40 lots to the south were also created without
Findings against Goals # 3 and 4. However, both the surrounding Rural Residential
Exception Area lots and the substandard-sized E-40 lots to the south were approved
under applicable County Planning and Land Division regulations in effect at the time of
their creation. Therefore, the Exception Area to the north and west and the substandard- .
sized E-40 parcel to the south were all created prior to the adoption of Statewide Planning
Goals # 3 and 4.
9
"
'J::'<'''''0''1-;
.
The adjacent Exception Area and adjoining substandard-sized E-40 parcel to the south is
located in a portion of the WilIamette Valley that is highly parcelized as shown in
Exhibits "A" and "B". This fact is represented in the large amount ofIand area having a,
Rural Residential zoning designation. Based upon the examination of Lane County tax
records, virtually all the Rural Residential lots in the area have been developed with
single-family houses including 83% of the smaller, E-40 parcels in the area. The subject
site follows this regional pattern. The Exception Area has 26 lots of which 24 have
houses; that includes two sites with one house on two lots located to the north of the
subject site (Tax Lots # 501 and 502 and 1200 and 1300). The land to the northwest of
the site south of Royal A venue also contains a dwelling. This dwelling is accessed from
Greenhill Road. All the surrounding developed sites are all under different ownership.
.
Uses and activities associated with Residential areas and small acre Exclusive Fann Use
parcel dwellings in addition to day-ta-day eating and sleeping activities includes the
customary family recreational activities such as children playing in the area around the
houses, riding bikes on area streets, flower and vegetable gardening, raising family pets,
outdoor cooking, using outdoor living space (decks, patios, yards, etc. for recreation and
entertaining guests, parties, pools, etc.). The subject parcel has no vehicular access other
than the adjacent existing County roads. Intensive agricultural use of the subject
properly, if it were feasible, will create agricultural-related traffic which will conflict
with existing urban traffic including airport traffic and many of the Residential area's
activities. The type and severity of the actual agricultural impacts varies with the
agricultural pursuit and may include, but is not limited to, noise from agricultural
equipment, dust from disking, harrowing, planting, harvesting, etc., smells from hogs,
cattle, etc., and spraying of pesticides and fertilizers, etc.. Agricultural use of the
property; heavy trucks and equipment, etc., would conflict with the Residential uses
located in the surrounding Rural Residential area.
The fact that the surrounding Rural Residential use zoned lots are relatively small
(average size is 3.71 acres), the substandard-sized E-40 parcel to the south and the
surrounding land being developed with dwellings on three sides all under different
ownership hampers agricultural pursuits on the subject site.
The subject property has non-resource (Rural Residential) dwellings on at least two
sides. A total of six residential dwellings are located on parcels adjacent to the subject
property to the west, northwest, north and northeast, in addition to a non-fann dwelling
located on a parcel adjacent to the south. The existence of dwellings on at least three
sides of the subject property, in addition to the proliferation of rural residential dwellings
in the immediate vicinity ( as included in the subject exception area), creates a
relationship and interface between the subject property and the immediate area's
residential use, that makes resource use impracticable on the subject property.
.
Amendments to the Metro Plan require that compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
be demonstrated. Goal 2 requires that an exception be taken to Goal 3 in the subject
application. The exception provided in the subject application is that the subject property
is "committed and developed" (to non-resource use) and therefore impracticable for
resource use. Lane County has legislatively detennined that "Impracticability of Land
for Agricultural Resource Applications" is objectively evaluated utilizing criteria set forth
within the 1989 addendwn to the LCDC-acknowledged Developed and Committed Lands
Working Paper. The 1989 Addendum to the Developed and Committed Lands Working
Paper (''the addendum") was adopted in support of the Land County Rural
Comprehensive Plan by Board Order No. 89-10-25-4, and is attached as Exhibit "P" and
incorporated herein by this reference. The addendum provides an analysis of the impacts
commonly, if not universally, prevalent in the relationship and interface between small
resource parcels and surrounding residential use.
10
The addendum, as applied to the interface of uses found existing adjacent to the subject . '
property. Adjacent properties and properties in the vicinity of the subject property,
provides support for the fmdings that the subject property is identified as "developed and
committed lands.'" The subject property is surrounded by 7 dwellings of which 6 are
designated as residential, and the other is non-fann. The impacts of the relationship and
interface of those dwellings and uses, coupled with the additional proliferation of
residential use in the immediate vicinity, are found to be reasonably similar to those
impacts legislatively detennined in the addendum to create an impracticability of
resource use and, therefore, support the findings that the subject property is committed to
non-resource use.
Evidence in the record indicates that the subject property has been put to no resource use
for many years. It is further found that the presence and proliferation of residential use
adjacent to and nearby the subject property have led owners and prospective
owners/Ieases to consider the property impracticable for resource use. The same
conclusions regarding the reasons for impracticability of resource use found in the
addendum can be reasonably applied to the subject property.
The detenninations and standards applicable to the subject application include Section IV
of the addendum as follows:
"a) Parcels of 20 acres or less witll dwellings on tllree or more adjoining sides are
committed to non-resource uses tllat make it impracticable to conduct farm or forest
management"
"b) Parcels witll dwellings on two adjoining sides are impracticable/or farm
management of 15 acres or less and impracticable for forest management of 20 acres .
or less. "
The addendum represents an extensive evaluation conducted over a two year public
meeting period that included a research committee of professional and agricultural
interest representatives. This committee promulgated recommendations which were
incorporated into the addendum and adopted as Board Order 89-10-25-4.
Furthennore, it is found that Appendix A of the addendum provides support and
foundation for its decision in the section tenned "Neighborhood Characteristics: (3a)":
"Both the agriculture and forest experts agreed that the presence of dwellings on
neighboring land and the attitude the inhabitants hold towards standard management
practices would have definite bearing on a decision to buy at lease resource land; the
more houses the more likely the potential for conflicts. Residences adjacent on two or
more sides are not acceptable, Recreational uses are just as much of a problem to
resource managers, however commercial, industrial and institutional uses are compatible
because they have greater tolerance towards resource management practices."
The criteria provided within the Developed and Committed Lands Working Papers and
codified through Board Order 89-10-25-4, along with the other considerations stated
herein, support the finding that the subject property does not represent practicable
agricultural resource land and is therefore developed and committed to non-resource use.
The development surrounding the subject property mirrors and falls within the
considerations and criteria provided by the working papers to assess the practicability of
resource use and the developed and committed nature of the subject property. The
impacts and results of neighboring development that the working papers detail are found
to be reasonably associated with the subject property and should be applied to the .
property in the analysis of practicability of resource use.
II
, .
''';0'
.
The subject site, including the adjoining land, is limited in tenns of agricultural pursuits
by the type of soils, especially by high ground water and a lack of irrigation water rights.
As described in the U.s. Department of Agricultural Soils Survey of Lane County, these
soils (75% Dayton IVw & 25% Hazelair IIJe) are primarily restricted to spring and early
summer grazing (wetness and droughtiness). The use of these soils for cultivated crops is
also limited and unless subsurface drainage gets installed, a good drainage outlet exists
and irrigation water rights are used during the summer, the growing potential for crops or
grass for grazing is limited. The site and immediate surrounding area does not have any
subsurface drainage. Ross Penhallegon of OSU/Lane County Extension Service
submitted a letter laying out reasons whether to attempt an agricultural operation on the
site or not Mr. Penhallegon states in his memo that the soil found on the subject site is
not suitable for high value farm crops such as berries, grapes, nor tree fruits, but may
support row crops or herbs under proper care. Mr. Penhallegon does say that the soils on
the site are suitable for grass production, but due to the size of the site it can not be
profitable. In the NRCSIUSDA soil description for 38-Dayton soil (80% of site)
grasses and forage crops benefit from nitrogen and lime, key components in the
process of euthrophication, which is already a problem in the Long Tom river
system,( not in the memo). Mr. Penhallegon also states that nursery stock may have
potential too. The problem with row crops is the presence of a high water table, shallow
rooting depth due to subsurface clay layer and the threat of flooding in parts of the site.
Nursery stock also is threatened by flooding in parts of the site; Ultimately Mr.
Penhallegon states in the last sentence of the last paragraph, "I don't see any
agricultural use qualifying under the current standards". The "current standards"
mentioned by Mr. Penhallegon is based on siting a dwelling on agricultural land,
under the $80,000 rule for Exclusive Farm Use Land. The owners of the subject
property would need to produce this amount to locate a single family dwelling
where they want on the subject property. Although Mr. Penhallegon's letter
addresses EFU standards for farm dwellings, the information he provides is
compelling evidence towards the unrealistic prospect of farm use on the subject
property. This memo is attached as Exhibit "M" to these findings and incorporated
herein. Even if the cost-prohibitive subsurface drainage were installed on the parcel, it
would not improve the soil's capability because there's no adequate drainage outlet that
exists for the site. There is no sense in spending $4,000 per acre ($49,000 total) to install
drain tile on land that is designated for future urban development under the Urban.
Reserve Area designation of the Metro Plan. The surrounding land, including the
Amazon Drainage Ditch and the Fern Ridge Lake Reservoir, Urban Growth Boundary
and the surrounding Residential uses including the pattern of ownership prevent the
construction ofan adequate drainage outlet to serve a subsurface drainage of the subject
parcel. The existing drainage outlet handles surface water, however is not deep enough
to handle the subsurface drainage outlet, as, stated in Exhibit "L" to these fmdings and '
incorporated herein., ,a statement by Bravado Excavation and Construction, INC.
Furthennore, the existing drainage ditch that would be required to handle surface runoff
is that located along Greenhill Road. That ditch is a Lane County-maintained drainage
ditch to handle runoff from the surface of Greenhill Road and the county does not allow
such ditches to be used for surface drainage from adjacent lands. The subject site does
not have any established irrigation rights so as to extend the growing season in mid and
late summer for the production of row crops (com, carrots, mint, etc.). In addition, the
1,320' dimension north/south orientation and the 475' east/west dimension of the site
dictates crop aerial spraying be done in a north/south dimension. However, aerial
spraying directly conflicts with the adjacent and surrounding Residential uses located to
the north and west and natural areas located to the east.
.
.
As evidenced by the absence of cultivated crops and by the observation of the
predominant land use in the area, (limited grazing and large acreage grass seed
production). Livestock grazing requires large acreage, due to operational costs increasing
dramatically with distance from the home parcel (Le. cost of transporting cattle and feed
back and forth, increased cost of maintaining fences, overseeing cattle, etc.). Pete.
)
12
Schreder OSU Extension Agent from Linn County visited the subject property and .
concluded that the subject site is low quality pasture land. As it is now the site could
only handle 1 cow per two acres or 4 sheep per two acres only between April and Late
August, depending on seasonal climatic conditions. If the site were to get reestablished
to pasture land the cost is prohibitive ($500.00 to $2,000.00 per acre), then the land
productivity more increase slightly to I cow per acre etc. This letter is attached as
Exhibit "M" to these findings and incorporated herein.
This combination offactors shared between the subject site and lands adjacent to it has a
direct bearing on fanners and ranchers decision to use or not use land for agricultural
production. The more Residential development surrounding a parcel compared to its
size, the more houses a fanner must pass to get to his fann land and/or adjacent
agricultural lands the higher the potential for conflicts such as noise, dust from disking,
smells from animals, spraying of pesticides and the long hours of noise from machinery.
For all these reasons, including the fear of litigation these factors pose, the subject site is
looked on unfavorably as a site for farming and grazing. To state a different way, land
with homes developed for residential activities on more than one adjoining side is,
undesirable for commercial fanning. As set forth above, the relationship between the
subject site and the lands adjacent to it which includes both existing RR-5 Exception
Area and the substandard-sized E-40 parcels with a house, which is more like a Rural
Residential use than commercial fanns, renders the site unsuitable and impracticable for
the pursuit of agriculture. The Board Finds a combination of factors as set forth above,
including the subject site's size, relationship to the surrounding Exception Area and being
located among a series of substandard-sized residentially-developed E-40 parcels which
are devoid of any agricultural uses defines land that is Irrevocably Committed to a Non-
Resource use.
In addition, the Board Finds the future use of the site with two additional houses cannot .
conflict with uses on the parcel to the south when its actual use according to Lane County
records (see specifically Lane County Land Management Division Letter, dated
September 19,1996, Attached as Exhibit "N", and incorporated herein) is not agriculture..
OAR 660-004-0028(3)
Whether uses or activities allowed by an applicable goal are impracticable as that term is used
in ORS 197. 732(1)(b), in Goal 2, Part l/(b), and in this rule shall be determined through
consideration of factors set forth in this rule. Compliance with this rule shall constitute
compliance with the requirements of Goal 2, Part IL It is the purpose of this rule to permit
irrevocably committed exceptions where justified so as to provide flexibility in the application of
broad resource protection goals. It shall not be reauired that local I!overnments demonstrate
that eve" use aI/owed bv the aoolicable I!oal is "imoossible". (Emphasis added) For exceptions
to Goals 3 or 4, local governments are required to demonstrate that only thefollowing uses Or
activities are impracticable:
(a) Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203;
Findings consistent with the applicant's demonstration of the impracticability offann use on the
subject property are provided herein under discussions of OAR 660-04-0028(2), OAR 660-004-
0028(6), and throughout other sections of these findings. Said findings are incorporated into this
section by this reference.
(b) Propagation or harvesting of a forest product as specified in OAR 660-033-,0120; and
.
As provided for in findings hereinabove, the subject property contains soils that are designated as
having no Douglas Fir Site Index and no cubic feet per acre per year productivity rating and,
13
"
I :; ~~.
.
therefore the property is not considered forest resource land and the propagation or harvesting of a
forest product as specified by statute is impracticable.
(c) Forest operations or forest practices as specified in OAR 660-006-0025(2)(a)
The applicants have demonstrated that these uses are impracticable for the same reasons and under
the same findings of impracticability of farm use and the propagation and harvesting of forest
products.
OAR 660-004-0028(6)
"(a) Existing adjacent areas"
The Board Finds the following facts describe the existing adjacent areas:
*
The land to the north and west of the subject site contains approximately 24 dwellings on
26 lots that are zoned RR-5. This Exception Area's average lot size is 3.71 acres.
*
The parcel to the south contains a small, E-40 zoned parcel 20 acres in size. This
surrounding E-40 lot is a non-confonning lot size and is not in agricultural use.
The adjacent substandard E-40 parcel is primarily used as a Residential dwelling site with
the balance of the land laying under 4 to 8 feet of mixed fill material. Therefore actual
fann use on tax lot #80 I is not available due to the fill material located on a majority of
the land. The substandard-sized E-40 parcel to the south once shared similar soil
characteristics (wetness, summertime droughtiness) before the fill activity took place.
The adjacent small E-40 parcel to the south also lacks any irrigation rights required to
make this lot agriculturally productive.
.
To the northeast, north and west of the subject property are aU small acreage Rural
Residential parcels averaging 3.7 acres in size. Farther south of tax lot #801 more
substandard E-40 parcels exist, which are developed with Residential uses along with an
animal shelter and are void of any commercial agricultural pursuits. Therefore, the
subject property cannot practically be assimilated for farm use with these smaller parcels
since each parcel is developed with houses and aU being under different ownerships.
Without subsurface drainage and water irrigation rights, the soil's wetness and
droughtiness limits the adjacent area's use for grazing. Furthennore, because of these
limitations, the adjacent land owners have not been seeking additional land for this type
of limited late spring and early summer grazing. The adjacent lands to the northeast,
north and west are zoned RR-5 and share similar topographic and soil limitation. The
adjacent land to the northeast, north and west are more similar to the subject site than the
land found further north or south.
The land to the east is situated within the Urban Growth Boundary and within the Metro
Plan Boundary with a Metro Plan land use designation of Light-Medium Industrial.
Currently this land is being established as an enhanced wetland by the Anny Corps of
Engineers and the city of Eugene.
.
The area's RR-5 zoned Exception Area surrounds the subject site on two sides. There are
no commercial grazing operations in the immediate area. Approximately 35 single-
family residences are located within a quarter mile of the subject property. The Board
Finds the development pattern in the area adjoining the subject property including the
Rural Residential area and the area within the Urban Growth Boundary are such that
commercial farming is impracticable as defined by the 1989 Addendum to Developed
and Committed Lands Working Paper.
"(b) Existing pub/icfacilities and services"
14
"
The Board Finds the following facts describe the area's existing public facilities and
services.
.
*
The subject property has frontage and access from Royal A venue and Greenhill Road,
minor and major County collectors, respectively.
*
Royal Avenue is approximately 24' in width, asphalt mat without curbs having open
drainage ditches on each side.
*
Greenhill Road, as a major County collector, serves the west side of the
Eugene/Springfield metro area. Most of the tr~s using this stretch of Greenhill Road
between Highway 99 to the north and West II are through trips to the airport and the
metro area located to the south and southeast.
*
Greenhill Road and Royal A venue, under Lane County Transportation Division
Standards, can handle two additional single-family houses without changing its
functional classification.
*
Greenhill Road, under Lane County Standards, is classified as a major collector. Under
this classification, it is expected to safely handle 10,000 to 12,000 vehicle trips per day
while providing a roadway service level ofB and C. Volumes under 9,000 vehicle trips
per day establish a level of service of level B, which translates during peak hours as
having stable vehicle flow conditions, driver maneuverability at times may be restricted
with some slowing at intersections. During peak hour volumes at above 10,000 vehicle
trips per day the service level is at C. Service level C traffic continues to flow smoothly,
but at a slightly reduced spacing and speed where vehicular maneuverability is restricted,
however, drivers have the ability to recover readily from momentary conflicts without
undue delay.
.
*
In estimating the number of trips that would be generated by proposed development trip
rate, figures were used from the Sixth Edition of the Trip Generation publish by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. The trip generation for detached single-family
houses is 9 to 10 vehicle trips per day.
*
Greenhill Road counts were supplied by Lane County Public Works Transportation
Division. These counts are 1998 counts at locations just north and south of Royal
Avenue. Traffic counts on Greenhill Road going north averages 4,900 vehicle trips per
day and going south averages .4,300 vehicle trips per day. Royal A venue traffic going
east into Eugene averages 7,200 vehicle trips per day and west-bound is 5,450. Traffic
generated from two additional houses is estimated to be 18 to 20 vehicle trips per day.
Based upon these figures provided by Lane County Traffic Division staff: both Royal
Avenue and Greenhill Road have excess vehicular capacity. This excess capacity is in
the range of 4,000 vehicle trips per day.
*
The site's future traffic generation volume (\8 to 20 vehicle trips) were added to the
Greenhill Road I 998.traffic counts. Using the worst case scenario of20 additional
vehicle trips per day added to existing average of Greenhill Road's 4,900 vehicle trips per
day, figures to be 4,920 vehicle trips per day. Again, using the worst case of all 20
vehicle trips per day added to Royal A venue traffic counts, east bound traffic of 7,200
vehicle trips per day, is 7,220 vehicle trips per day.
The Board Finds the additional 20 vehicles (worst case) is not a significant increase in
traffic volume nor will it cause a change in service level for this stretch of Greenhill nor .
Royal A venue.
15
.
.
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
~. .', j
No public sewer or water facilities exist in the area. Water needs in the region are served
by individual wells and on-site sanitary sewer drain fields providing the necessary
sewage disposal. When this area gets annexed within the City of Eugene sewage and
water lines will be available.
*
Wells on the surrounding properties provide relatively high yields as noted previously in
these Findings.
The Well Log records for well drillers in the area clearly indicates an abundance of
water.
The Board Finds that water and sanitary sewer facilities can be provided on-site.
The region is under the jurisdiction of Lane County Sheriff's Department, the City of
Eugene Zumwalt Fire District and the Bethel Public School District. The Board Finds
the future addition of two residences will not require any public facilities or services over
and above those that are currently available.
"(c) Parcel size and ownership patterns of Exception Area and adjacent lands, including an
an~lysis of how the existing development pattern came about"
The Board relied on the following facts:
The Exception Area shown on the County Zoning Plots # 268 and 1002 to which this
property is adjacent contains 89 acres and 24 tracts under different ownership.
All of these ownerships have dwellings already located on them.
The site's two lots were created in 1938 and 194 I.
The smaller, E-40 parcels to the south of this property have existed since the late '60's.
Active commercial agricultural activities have not taken place on or adjacent to the
subject site, since the mid 1960's, as verified by archival aerial photos dating back to
1936. Little agricultural activities occurred before the 1960's in this area either, with
evidence pointing towards open field grass production. After researching the U.S.D.A.
records for the subject site, no federal farm subsidies have ever been provided to the site.
Therefore, the Board Finds the existing substandard lot sized development pattern in the
area was largely in place when this Greenhill Road and Royal A venue Exception Area
was acknowledged by the County. The subject two tax lots created in 1938 and 1941 are
legal lots of record as evidenced by the County's official Legal Lot Confirmations # 99-
5523 and 99-5382.
"(d) Neighborhood and regional characteristics"
The Board fmds the following statements describe the neighborhood and regional
characteristics.
As mentioned in previous Findings, the area's surrounding property consists primarily of
Rural Residential development, a dwelling on the 20 acre, E-40 property to the south,
which is primarily fill material, Greenhill humane society farther south and the City of
Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary to the east. The Exception Area, Royal Avenue # 7,
lies principally to the north, northwest and west of the subject property. The immediate
developmental environment surrounding the subject property is composed of small Rural
16
Residential, and a non-confonning E-40 parcel that are all developed with Residential .
dwellings.
The region where the property is located is highly parcelized. This parcelization pattern
surrounds the intersection of Greenhill Road and Royal Avenue. The region's larger
commercial grazing operations occur further north, closer to the .Eugene Airport. The
subject property, like other properties in the area, has a number of characteristics that
renders its agricultural use impracticable. These include, but are not necessarily limited
to small field size, limited soil capability and adaptability (wetness, lack of drainage
outlet and summertime droughtiness in combination with the lack of water irrigation
rights). For all these reasons the Board Finds the subject property should be included as
part ofthe adjacent Exception Area Royal A venue # 7.
"(e) Natural or man-madefeatures or other impediments separating the Exception Area
from adjacent Resource land"
The Board Finds that the only topographic impediments in the area are the east to west
Amazon drainage way separating lands to the north and northwest from Exception Area
Royal #7, and a 4 to 8 foot burm created by fill material to the south on tax lot #801,
which "walls" the subject property to the south. In addition, when this property was for
sale, none of the adjoining smaller property owners nor owners of the larger fann
operations located further north expressed any interest in acquiring the site. The principal
separation of/ands to the north and west from the site is Royal Avenue and the 89 acres
of developed Rural Residential area.
2.
Statewide Planning Goal #3:
.
In addition to all fmdings heretofore made regarding the impracticability of the subject
property for resource use (See fmdings regarding OAR 660-004-0028) the following
findings are made regarding Goal 3
I. Although the soil found on the subject site is considered high-value soil (75%
Dayton silt loam and 25% Hazelair silty clay loam) the actual productivity of the soil
found on the subject site is lower than is stated in the USGA soil survey. This is due
to the subject site being lower than surrounding properties to the south and
southwest. The run-offfrom adjacent property to the south makes the ground on the
subject site more saturated than what nonnally occurs on this ground. To further
support this fact a letter found in the Lane County property file (TRS of 17-04-30,
tax. lot #801, the property to the south of the subject site, dated April 27, 1989) stated
that contaminated water was flowing on the subject site's lower land. As stated in
the USDA soil survey for both soil types listed above, limiting factors prevent the
property from becoming an economically viable agricultural venture, those reasons
are listed below.
a. Penneability of the soil is very slow, effectively keeping all agricultural activity
including grazing activities to limited portions of spring and fall.
b.
Effective rooting depth is limited by a high water table and cultivated crops are
limited by a clayey surface layer. Both which drastically limit the kind of crops
that may be grown on the subject site. The soil found on the subject site is
primarily restricted to growing grass for hay production or grazing activities.
Since the subject site is considered small at 12.4 acres hay production is not
economically viable nor is a grazing operation, which is limited by seasonal
climate variations.
.
17
I" '.
.
c.
During summer, irrigation is needed for maximum production of crops grown on
the subject site. The subject site does not have any water rights, therefore
irrigation of the subject site is not an option.
d. Tile system installation is not economically viable due to cost ($4,000 per acre)
and lack of suitable drainage outlet of run -off. In some areas of the property,
tile systems are not even an option due to the shallow depth of the claypan. It is
a compelling reason that the neighboring properties to the south and southwest
are higher in elevation due to fill material, effectively draining their land on to
the subject site.
2. Agricultural activities on the subject site are not a valid use of the subject site. The
subject site is substandard with 12.4 acres within a zoning district of E40. The
subject site is primarily bordered by non-resource parcels to the north and west, and
is less than the desired minimum parcel size as concluded in Lane County W <irking
Paper on "Developed & Committed lands" 1989. The physical conditions of the
subject site and neighboring properties limit the productive capacity of the land.
Fertility of the soil is limited to a short growing season, dependant on climatic
variations, lack of or over abundance of water. The land use pattern in the area of
the subject site is primarily non-resource / rural residential, which discourages
commercial agricultural activities.
3. The subject site is best suited to non-resource / rural residential uses, which reflect
the future Metro Plan growth designation as an Urban Reserve Area.
.
The Board agrees that the best agricultural land should be reserved for agricultural uses, but the
Board finds that the subject site although considered high-value farm land under the USDA soil
survey does not need to be reserved for agricultural uses for the following reasons. The subject
site is to small to economically produce farm goods, the soil is to wet during the wet seasons and
to dry during the dry seasons. Tax Lot #80 I to the south consist of 4 to 8 feet of fill materia~
directly draining onto the subject site, which effectively brings the water table of the subject site
up during wet parts of the year. Water rights do not exist to the subject site, limiting agricultural
use to a limited time of each year. Draining the subject site with field tile is not an option due to
large cost and lack of proper ditch system. The residentialdeve[opment along with the lack of
viable agricultural ground to the south creates an island of agricultural ground that is unable to be
used in a reasonable manner.
The Board fmds that this Metro Plan amendment, and zone change with a site review suffiX
refiects an appropriate use for the subject site, which is designated as Urban Reserve, an area
plarmed for future urban development.
3. Statewide Planning Goal #14:
The Board fmds that Goal # 14 ,does apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area, in that the
subject site is found within an Urban Reserve Area, which is addressed under OAR 660-021-0040
Urban Reserve Area.
OAR 660-021-0040
Urban Reserve Area Planning and Zoning
.
(1) Until included in the urban growth boundary, lands in the urban reserve area shall continue to be
planned and zonedfor rural uses in accordance with the requirements of this section, but in a
manner that ensures a range of opportunities for the orderly, economic and efficient provision of
18
"
urban services when these lands are included in the urban growth boundary.
.
Findings:
The subject site, once redesignated to non-resource Rural Residential from resource E-40, will
continue to be planned and zoned as TUral use (i.e. rural residential - RR-5). Any new
development will occur in a manner that ensures orderly home site placement and which will not
impact or inhibit the orderly provision of future urban services once the subject site is included in
the urban growth boundary of the City of Eugene. Only two additional dwellings will be
authorized by this action and the siting of those dwellings will be consistent with future
development of the subject property at a higher residential density than is or will be authorized in
the Rural residential- 5 acre zone.
(2) Urban reserve area land use regulations shall ensure that development and land divisions in
exception areas and non-resource lands will not hinder the efficient transition to urban land uses,
and the orderly and efficient provision of urban services. These measures shall be adopted by the
time the urban reserve area is designated... The measures may include:
(a) Prohibition on the creation of new parcels less than ten acres;
Findings:
The subject site is 12.4 acres in size and includes two legal lots (see PA 99-5523 and 99-5382, .
incorporated herein by this reference) identified as tax lots 200 and 300 of assessor's map no. 17-04- .
30. The two legal lots already exist (created in 1941 and 1938 respectively) and this action will not
authorize or result in the creation of any new parcels. Therefore, this action is consistent with the
intent of OAR 660-021-0040(2)(a).
(b) Requirements for clustering as a condition of approval of new parcels;
Findings:
As stated above, two parcels currently exist as legal lots on the subject property. No new parcels will
be created with this action. Any new single family dwelling sites on the subject property will follow
the preplatting requirements of future lots as required in (c) below.
(c) Requirementsfor preplatting offuture lots or parcels:
Findings:
Exhibit "0" of these findings depicts how the future subdivision of the subject site may look, once
annexation into the City of Eugene has occurred. Any siting of additional dwellmgs will be consistent
with Exhibit "0" in that future lots or parcels will be created in a manner that efficiently uses the entire
acreage of the subject property. As a condition of approval, access onto the subject site will be limited
to Royal A venue, which will prevent additional traffic existin~ and entering Greenhill Road. .
(d) Requirements for written waivers of remonstrance against annexation to a provider of sewer,
water or streets;
Findings:
.
19
.
.
.
As a condition of approval of the subject application the owner agrees to sign a waiver not to
remonstrate against or inhibit annexation. As part of this condition of approval, any transfer of either
two subject tax lots shall include the requirement that future owners also sign such a waiver.
(e) Regulation of the siting of new development OIl existing lots for tile purpose of ensuring tile
potential for future urban development and public facilities.
Findings:
The siting of any new single family dwellings or other development on the two legal lots of the subject
property will follow the future layout of the proposed subdivision. Any development proposed on the
subject property will require City of Eugene approval consistent with these fmdings and site review
overlay requirements.
(3) For exception areas and non-resource lands in urban reserve areas, land use regulations shan
prohibit zone amendments allowing more intensive uses, including higher residential density, than
permitted by the acknowledged zoning in effect as of the date of establishment of the urban reserve
area. Such regulations shall remain in effect until such time as the land is included in the urban
growth boundary.
Findings:
The subject application does not involve property located within an exception area or currently
designated as non~resource land. Once designated as non-resource land with a Rural Residential _ 5
acre zoning classification, the subject property will remain classified in that zone (RR-5) until included
within the urban growth boundary of the City of Eugene
(4) Resource land that is included in urban reserve areas shall continue to be planned and zoned under
he requirements of applicable Statewide Planning Goals.
Findings:
This Metro Plan Amendment and zone change is consistent with the requirements of Statewide
Planning Goal #2, Part II. An exception to Goal #3 has been taken in this action pursuant to Goal #2.
The Board finds that this Metro Plan Amendment and zone change with a site review suffix changes
the subject site from the existing E-40, resource zone designation to RR-5, non-resource designation.
Goal #14 does not apply to this change, due to the fact that the subject site is located within an Urban
Reserve Area, which is governed by the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area Plan.
B.
12.225(2) (b)
"Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. ..
The Board finds that this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone change does not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent. The Metro Plan goals are not contrary to the findings
presented to the Board. The Board finds that this Metro Plan amendment and concurrent zone
change meets the future need of maintaining the Metro Plan and providing future urbanizable area
for the City of Eugene after annexation. The Board finds that this Metro Plan amendment and
concurrent zone change is compatible with the Metro Plan diagram as it exist now and into the
future plans of the Metro Plan.
Metro Area General Plan Policies
1. Growth Management and the Urban Service Area (II-B Metro Plan)
20
Policy #3 II-B-page 4:
.
Lane County shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and encourage
compact development of outlying communities.
Findings:
The subject site once changed from Exclusive Farm Use E-40 to Rural Residential RR-5, is not
considered Urban use or development, due to the average densities of the two parcels being
approximately one dwelling unit per 5+ acres, as permitted in the RR-5 zoning designation. The
subject site, once annexed into the City of Eugene, will be capable of higher densities, but only
through City of Eugene approved subdivision guidelines and development standards.
Policy #23 II-B-page 7:
To accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text and on
the diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but not
necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over the
planning period
Findings:
The subject property is located, just west of the City of Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary, and is
designated as an Urban Reserve Area, as described throughout these findings. This designation as
an Urban Reserve Area, means that the area of the subject property is to be "next in line" for
future city growth, which includes high density residential development. Not every project has to
average six dwelling units per acre, as the above mentioned policy states. Future development
once the area of the subject property is annexed into the City of Eugene, may average
approximately six dwelling units per acre. This future conceptual subdivision plan is addressed
below under Policy #25
.
Policy #25 II-B-page 7-8:
Based upon direction provided in Policies 3, 7, and 23 of this section, any development taking
place in an urbanizable area or in rural residential designations in an urban reserve area shal/be
designated to the development standards of the city which would be responsible for eventually
providing a minimum level ofkey urban services to the area. Unless thefollowing conditions are
met, the minimum lot sizefor "special light industrial" designations shall be 50 acres and the
minimum lot size for all other designations shall be ten acres. Any lot under ten acres in size but
larger than/lVe acres to be created in this area on undeveloped or underdeveloped andwil/
require the adjacent city and Lane County to agree that this lot size would be appropriate for the
area utilizing the following standards:
Findings:
Any development taking place on the subject site, once approval of this Metropolitan Plan
Amendment and zone change, from ExclUSive Farm Use E-40 to Rural Residential I Site Review
RR-5/SR will be subject to City of Eugene Development standards, which should be addressed
and enforced as conditions of approval for this request. Those conditions of approval for
development and future density increases are addressed below in "a " through "c".
An important note for this policy, the subject site has two existing legal lots, as shown in Exhibit .
"E" to these fmdings and incorporated herein. No new lots are to be created in this request, only
new uses are being established. Policy #25 of Metro Area General Plan II-B, Pages 7-8, although
important, should not be given much weight in this decision, due to the fact that the two legal lots
21
..~.. ,,--. '........ -.L" .~.._..". '_h ~_..___.. _. ..;..",:.,
.
of the subject parcel legally exist as two separate tax lots and that no new or additional lots are
being created.
a. The approval of a conceptual plan for the ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
Findings:
Exhibit "0" to these findings and incorporated herein, is a conceptual development
plan once annexation and the decision to further expand the density of the site is
requested. This is only a conceptual plan meant to show how future higher density
development may look. As a condition of approval, this conceptual plan for a future
subdivision to higher density, shall be drawn, up by a registered surveyor, meeting
development standards setforth by the City of Eugene.
b. Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
Findings:
The proposed land use change of the subject property, will increase the lot density
from no single family dwellings per five+ acres, to one single family dwelling per
five+ acres. This density increase and land use change confonns to applicable plans
and policies as setforth throughout these fmdings.
.
c.
The owner of the property has signed an agreement with the adjacent city which
provides:
1) The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support annexation
proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate annexation.
Findings:
As a condition of approval, the owners and their successors in interest support annexation into the
City of Eugene, once the city decides to proceed with annexation hearings.
2) The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property.
Findings:
As a condition of approval, the owners and their successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property into the City of Eugene.
3) The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approvalfor any
subsequent new use, change of use or substantial intensification of use of the
property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval of the use arbitrarily if it
is in compliance with applicable plans. policies and standards, as interpreted by the
city, as well as the conceptual plan approved under subsection a above.
.
Findings:
As a condition of approval, the owners and their successors in interest agree to acquire City of
Eugene approval for any subsequent new use, change in use or substantial intensification of use of
22
~._.. . ..,'~ .......""......--'. '" ._".... .~ ._.~ .~...._-- ,- ..,... ..:.,. "-,
"
the subject property. In return, the City of Eugene agrees not to withhold appropriate approval of .
any use arbitrarily if the use is in compliance with applicable plans, policies and standards.
2. Environmental Resources Element
Policy #3, III-C, page7:
When development is allowed to occur in the jloodway or jloodway fringe, local regulations shall
control such development in order to minimize the potential danger to life and property. Within
the urban growth boundary, development should result in in-jilling of partially developed land.
Outside the urban growth boundary, areas affected by the jloodway and jloodway fringe shall be
protectedfor their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values, their open space and
recreational potential, and their value to water resources
Findings:
The subject property is not considered valuable resource land, as described throughout this
Findings document The need for open space and recreation areas in the area of the subject site
has been satisfied by the joint venture wetland project to the east of the subject site, by the Army
Corps and City of Eugene.
As a condition of approval, the owners and their successors in interest agree to follow City of
Eugene regulations on development in floodway and floodway fringe areas, once annexation has
occurred into the City of Eugene. Until annexation occurs all development on the subject property
will follow proper guidelines during the building permit process, which must include floodway.
development standards ( i.e. all building is to take place at least one foot above the mean one- .
hundred year floodplam, as required for all development in flood hazards areas).
3. public Utilities, Services and Facilities Element
Policy #16,III-G, pages 6-7:
Level of services for rural designations:
a. Agriculture, forestland, sand and gravel. and parks and open space. No minimum level
of service is established.
Findings:
Does not apply to this request.
b. Rural residential, rural commercial, rural industrial and government and education. On-
site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural level of fire and police protection,
electric and communication service, schools, and reasonable access to solid waste
disposal facility.
Findings:
.
. The subject property will be served by:
23
'.. - ....* .-.---.-.:..... ...-........... ~,.._...._--_.~'.~--~...._-_._._.- ,. .
-.-"-------.............'"'.1J..-..:.:.~_.:....: __~
. On-site sewage disposal systems;
On-site well water systems;
Zumwalt Fire district;
City of Eugene Police and Lane County Sheriff;
Lane Electric Co-op;
Quest (US West);
Bethel School District;
Private Solid Waste Collection Services;
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO COUNTY
REZONING CRITERIA OF LC 16.252
A. Lane County 16.252(2) provides the criteria for deciding on a rezoning request. ,
"... zoning and rezoning shall be consistent with the specific purpose of the zone classification
proposed, applicable Rural Comprehensive Plan elements and components and Statewide
Planning Goals ... "
B. Lane Code 16.231 Rural Residential Lands Zone (RR-RCP).
(1)
Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Residential Zone (RR-RCP) is:
.
(a) To Provide opportunities for people to live in a rural area.
Findings:
The approval of this Metro Plan Amendment and concurrent zone change, with site
review suffix, from Exclusive Fann Use (E-40) to Rural Residential (RR-5), will provide
adequate opportunity for additional Rural Residential housing for people choosing to live
west of Eugene.
(b) To allow primary and accessory residential uses, and nonresidential uses which
may be compatible with primary residential uses.
Findings:
The approval of this Metro Plan Amendment and concurrent zone change, with site
review suffix, from Exclusive Fann Use (E-40) to Rural Residential (RR-5) will allow
one single family dwelling for each legal lot of record. The subject property consist of
two legal lots of record, therefore two additional dwellings for each 5+ acre lot, are
pennitted on the subject property once approved. Other accessory uses are subject to
pennitted uses and Director Approval ,as stated in Lane Code J 6.231.
(c) To implement the policies of the Rural Comprehensive Plan, primarily those
policies related to the residential development of areas identified as committed,
built upon or as non-resource land
.
Findings:
24
"
Throughout this fmdings documerit, reasons are given supporting the fact that the subject .
property is identified as irrevocably committed to non-resource use. The appropriate use
for the subject property is as non-resource. Rural Residential (RR-5).
(d) To provide protective measures for riparian vegetation along Class I streams
designated as significant in the Rural Comprehensive Plan.
Findings:
No Class I streams exist on the subject property, therefore riparian setback measures
protecting riparian vegetation along Class I streams is not required in this findings
document.
C. Lane Code 16.257, Site Review Procedures.
(1) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to establish a Site Review Permit procedurefor .
specified uses or applications requiring comprehensive review of proposed site
development on order to encourage the most appropriate development of the site
compatible with the neighborhood, to reduce adverse impacts upon public facilities and
services, and to provide a healthfUl, stable efficient and pleasant on-site environment.
Response:
The intension of the site review overlay (suffix) for the subject property is to ensure that ail
development present and future meets and conforms to potential development plans and
urbanization. All development on the subject property will require a site review permit evaluation
meeting Lane Code 16.257.
.
The Board Finds and Concludes the proposed Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change action complies
with the Metro Plan goals and policies regulating the designation of Rural Residential lands outside the
Urban Growth Boundary, but within the Metro Plan boundary.
v. TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JOINT METRO PLANNING
COMMISSIONS
The Board Finds there were no persons speaking in opposition nor issues raised concerning this
requested Metro Plan (Map) Amendment (OAR Exception Criteria).
A. The Board Finds that County staff raised three substantial issues:
The first County staff issue; the subject property is, technically, high value agricultural soils and
additional testimony is required to support the applicant's conclusions.
1. The Board Finds based upon the following Metro Planning Commission's Public Hearing
testimony that:
*
The Porters had discussions with the soils consultants, including contacting Lane County
Agriculture Extension Office about what they could raise on this type ofIand (wet,
droughty soil). These contacts indicated that without subsurface drainage and water
irrigation rights, the best use of their land was spring and early sununertime grazing.
.
25
.
.
.
*
*
2b.
The Porters, then, talked to a drain tile installer about installing subsurface field drainage,
but were told such drainage would not function unless the area's drainage ditches were
deepened to provide an adequate drainage outlet.
Bravado Excavation and Construction, Inc., after examination of the subject site,
provided a letter estimating the cost to be $4,000 per acre for installing field drains and a
conceptual drawing showing how the lack of a drainage outlet prevents drainage of the
site.
The Board Finds, based upon the evidence presented to the Metro Planning Commission, that the
area drainage ways are not deep enough to accommodate a subsurface drainage system for the
subject site along with not being cost effective in relation to future urban development of this
Urban Reserve Area. The Board also concludes, based upon the evidence, that the subject
property is too wet most of the year to be used for intensive agricultural production.
The County staffs second issue was that the applicant's narrative needs to address all the
Exception Criteria, specifically to supplement the record with information pertaining to:
a.
Parcel history pursuant to OAR 660-004-0028(6)( c)
b.
Showing that "farm use" on the site is impracticable
c.
Impacts concerning future residential development.
2a.
The Board Finds based upon the following Metro Planning Commission's Public
Hearing facts that:
As evidenced by the Lane County Legal Lot Verification determinations # 99-5523 and
099-5382, the subject site consists of two legal lots of record.
No records were found in the V.S.D.A. property files showing any federally subsidized
government funding.
The Board Finds, based upon evidence presented to the Metro Planning Commission, that since
the adjoining and surrounding Exception Area, including lots to the south, are all under separate
ownership and the subject site were all created prior to any applicable Statewide Planning Goals
and, therefore, such parcels may be used to justify committed exception.
The Board Finds based upon the following Metro Planning Commission Public
Hearing facts that:
The site's agricultural capability is restricted to limited low-intensity grazing during non wet parts
of the year (late spring and early summer). In addition, the site has never been used for orchards,
vegetable crops, field crops, grains, blueberries, ginseng, etc.
Not having an adequate drainage outlet, surface field drains will not function properly to dFain the
soil, therefore, the site is too wet for any type of intensive agricultural use (see previous Findings).
OAR Section 660-004-0028(3) states "it shall not be required that local government demonstrate
that every use allowed by the applicable goal is impossible".
The Board finds that determinations as to whether farm uses are impracticable is a matter of case-
by-case analysis, after consideration of all the criteria set forth in the OAR. The Board Finds,
26
based upon the evidence presented to the Metro Planning Commission and the applicant's
narrative, that farm use of the site is "impracticable".
.
2c.
The third County staff issue: concerning perceived contradictions concerning
impacts relating to future development. The Board Finds based upon the following
Metro Planning Commission Public Hearing facts that:
*
The adjoining land to the south is a non-conforming 20-acre parcel that is not usable
for agricultural purposes, due to fill activities in the past.
*
The land to the south, although zoned Exclusive Farm Use with a 40-acre minimum
(E-40) parcel size, is actually not in agricultural use and will not be in agricultural
use due to past fill activities.
*
The use of the adjoining land to the south is more in the nature of Residential use,
than a farm use.
*
The surrounding RR-5 Exception Area has had no conflicts with the uses of the
subject site because the subject site, like the land to the south, has not been in any
agricultural uses.
*
The future residential development of the subject site will mirror the existing
bordering rural residential zoned areas to the west and north.
*
The future residential development of the subject site will not affect the natural area
to the east, due to the separation by a 10 foot high dyke system along Greenhill Road
and Greenhill Road its self.
.
The Board Finds based upon the evidence presented in the Applicant's narrative and during the
Public Hearing, including discussion of Metro Plan Commission members, that future additional
dwellings on the site will have no significant adverse impacts on the neighboring E-40 parcel to
the south because the actual use of the land to the south is as a non-farm use and is separated by a
wall of soil bringing the property to the south up above the subject site 4 to 8 feet.
The Board concludes based upon the above Findings that County RR-5 zoning with a County Site
Review suffix will properly implement the Metro Plan policies.
VI. SUMMARY
The Board Finds, based on the size, shape, soils and location, the site is unsuitable for agricultural resource
and the use history of the property certainly supports this premise. The subject site is bordered on three
sides by small parcels. The subject property is impracticable for agricultural use based on its soils'
seasonal wetness and summer droughtiness, lack of adequate depth of drainage outlet, lack of irrigation
water rights, parcel size and shape and lack of connection/proximity to the area's Commercial farm
enterprises.
The Lane CoUnty Board of Commissioners Finds and Concludes that all of the applicable decision criteria
have been met, including those required for a Developed and Committed Exception to Statewide Planning
Goals # 3 and 4. In addition, the Board Finds County Rural Residential 5-Acre Minimum with a Site
Review Overlay is the proper County zoning to implement the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan.
.;
27
.-.;.. I -!"
r.,
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT A
.
~
lr
CD
~
9
q
,
I
,
,
L-1
l-
ll:
o
Q..
... ...
ea
>
lI:
... ~
Z
~ ~
0 >=
c:
ii:
.
z
AYALa -'
DANESO
SCH
III
a:
~
~
%
;:
~~
CRABTREE
HILL
.$
-;..
SUCCCOAClc
...
en
ROYAL
'-.l
SUBJECT SITE
I
~
lC
q
o
t OAK HILl.
c:afETERY
,II"'~
;
~.. OAK
-. HILL
IN&,
A~D~
PAan;.) '(f~,zr
.,.
\
~~
... 11TH
--l-d
t :METERY !
~ j I
r - _J- ~~~HFO.. _
I
I
...
(00
~
<oJ
::J:
CANTRELL.
RO
.
WIl.lOW :
()> CREDC OR
"
ASSESSOR'S MAP
17~04-30
EXInBI[t "ll
~
CRABTREE
HILL@
.
;or
. -- --..
-'-":':;-. ...~...- ---
, -
.,
=
i
;
I
j
r-
~", i:
~
.
a
..
...
~,"""','''"
. .....
N'R. '
. . ~
?-"---'---.-
0+0t9r %5:5'
,=J
:l29'
IofEST
I
I
:j
.'!
'I
J
f
i ..
I
.
I'
i:
,
!
801
?;:;
...
:
I
I
to
800
: ~ 18.29 AC.
..;r".......
~'"
~4
~
~
~
"
~.~
i
f
t
i
i
I"
.
.
..,
.
S. 321~
'""X...,
.... .
Or I
~.Il
I
:312'
..
f.
~-----------:.
- --~- ~~..,~)
.
I
j
I,
I,
I'
I'
r
"I
I,
I'
.
....;. ....
ASSESSORlIS MAP
~~
17-04-19
l'
:: F
," 1:/
, : I ~
.; j>-
. 1,:/:
! j: "':
, '..
I .
! i
i:t:j
,N
~ /.
_.4:1..,
1'17_
i
I
I
I
.)41.78"
~77'
I
I
42;J3"
'1
..
~:
J
;:
1"
:::
., w
.. ~
~.,
l
::I:O
-::0
r->
r-CD
....
::0
",
~
~
~
\
~.. 0
_S;J;:;
......z.
""i-
8(HfBIT ~
..
",
",
..-- - - -
~.~
..
~
-
r'
f?
:j
I
i
I
;
z
--
\:.
---...,
ZONING MAP PLOT #268
1002
Ull II
.- I ...
'''''
.... -
.- .
It.
,.. ;
,- I.t
252
EXHIBIT "B"
.
.SUBJECT SITE,
~
"'
.- ~
Nc@-H
~ .
.-
-
253
,... 1004
@
...
269
[0 1000
~E IN FEET
2000
.;~
3000
4006--~
-- NOR'tH~ I
.
kre ccuty'!
.. DF.F.ICIALZONING MAP
~. r- R.... Sect'on
17 04 30
ORIGINAL.ORn #
PA 884
DATE 2/29/1984 FILE #
:1 PLOT# 268
L' 17 04 31 ( _)
.
i
. I
./
/:
~
i
~
I
I
I
,
I
I
.
I
I
!
j
"
'-
, I--
t
ZONING MAP PLOT #1002
1001
.~,'O
~--------------
~411" jl
I
J
'M
252
----n;----,
o
IE:
-
Clli)
~
268
FLOG 0 PLAIN."
I 0 1000
~E 'IN EEET
2000 3000
~
~
.
NORTH ........ i
. '. . , -
. ~,lOF.F.ICIALZONING. MAP.
~ . " lTwnsftp Range Section
. _ 17 04 Iq
EXHIBIT
'B
.~
N~H
I
. ~ . .
f' PLOT~:1P02'"
L' ' (_,
OIUGlHAL ORD. #
DATE 2/29/1984 FILE #
PA 884
"
Royal
EXHIBIT "B:'
COUNTY IRREVOCAeL Y COMMITTED
EXCEPTION ~REA (ROY A~ A VEN~~, A.~~ !!7)
Avenue, Area No.7
, ,
....,
This proposed "built Upon or committed" exception is located in an agricultural area
near the intersection of Royal Avenue and Greenhill Road in Township 17 South,
Range 4 West, Sections 19 and 30. The east boundary of this exception area abutts
the urban growth boundary, which runs along Greenhill Road.
Findings of Fact:
1. This area is located on agricultural soil capability classification I-IV release
soils. This area is defined as "agricultural land" in the' Metropolitan Plan
agricultural inventory.
2. This area is located on Douglas Fir cubic foot site class 3 and 5 soils. This area
is also defined as "forest land'" in the Metropolitan Plan inventory.
3. Surrounding land uses are predominately agricultural (See Map IV-7 with land
uses annotated and Table IV-7).
4. This area. is zoned in Lane County as Farm-Forestry FF-20. District~ The
parcels adjacent to and east of Green Hill Road are zoned in Lane County as
AGT, and the parcels adjacent to and west of Green Hill Rd. are zoned in Lane
County as Farm Forestry 20 District (FF20) (with 20 acre minimum lot size).
5.
The follOWing services are available to th is area:
.
a. Water is provided by individual private water systems.
b. Royal Avenue, Green Hill Road and Hillaire Road are paved without curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, or strom sewer improvements.
c. Sewage disposal is provided by individual subsurface sewage disposal
systems.
d. Police protection is provided by the Lane County Sheriffs Office.
. .
e. School facilities and services are provided by Bethel School Dist. No. 52
north of Royal Avenue and Eugene School District No. 4J south of Royal
Avenue. .
f. Fire protection is provided by the Zumwalt Rural Fire Protection District
(under City of Eugene Contract).
6. The ownership pattern is fragmented (See Table IV-7 for ownership within the
"built upon and committed" area and surrounding adjacent parcels).
7. Parcel sizes are small ranging from 1.0 to 7 acres (See Map IV-7 and Table IV-
7).
8. Predominate Use of parcels within this area is single-family residential;
inclUding a dog kennel on tax lot 705 18 of the 23 tax lots have Single-familY.
dwellings located on them (See Map IV-7 and Table IV-7 for more detail).
9. The small lot size, the pattern of ownership, the current state of development
for single-family residential use, and the commitment to rural residential living
IV-55
.......
"'\3'
\Ia~
AI1f1Z
......,., 0 AI
ff'f
"'t
t't '
1m ""t.
"I.
ua, ~'f't.
IUI ~#
'I.
"
.',
.~ ., -0...
'._.~:::~
METROPOLITAN PLAN UPDATE 1981
MAP NO. IV - 7
ROY~l AVENUE, AREA NO. 7
........ Except 1 on Area
I.LJ.A I R I!
1300 = Tax lot No.
t
. IIO~
14',;
Scale: In = 5501
I~O~
102
~ :1 ': ,( . I .. .. " J
ua
101
.......... .......
110,
\10)
..................
lat
~
I
II
..J
..,
II::
70'
lal
un
10~ ,.
~ c:J
40~ A
t9
t ~
10~ 0;0 10' JO~ I
\1
~ 203 i
\lOl 10&
00' ~ 110)
t>
J. . I
10
:I' I
II '" 101
:) ., ~ .', I 0 I
1 ~
Q. 1M1
1Si=
j'
, I
!
through subdivision and fragmented public and private service delivery aA'
improvements render this area unsuitable for resource (agricultural or-fares,?/, '
use. These parcels could not be logically combined with adjacent, surrounding
parcels to form economic farming or forest management units. '
Recommendation:
The area outlined on Map IV-7 and those tax lots stipulated as "built. upon or
committed" in Table IV-7 should be designated "rural residential" in the Metropolitan
f!!!!. rather than be designated agricultural or forest. ,.',
.
.
IV-56
I
.1
,.'
" ri'J:ryIN"~""'lo~~~'sr~,,"~
" \~ . I t; ~" .
.' I '. ROYAL AVENUE, AhEA'N7 . EXCEPTIONS .
It) HAPlor LAND U~E( S) USE CODE P~l _ SCL;. I~r~' '. ACR~S Z~3 OWNE,R NAHE( S)
17041900_020001111 S , 121 l~O , $"8,"80 1.02 FF20 I,;;, 0', '.
" . .." ,,', ., c ,. --. ,'f'.:,'.I~,lo'," .;,:'''',i~Ht,{','', "'\."-.j"l\.','.. P "FREDERICKSEN>CARL C Ie BETTY
H"HHHH"HHH""HHH"H""""~"""""""""*""""*"""""""*"*"""*~""""*"""""""*~***"*""*"**"""*"*""""**""""~"***"""*""""""""""""*.****"**
11 04 19 00 02100 1111 S 121 140 $37,980 0.95 Ff20,
BLOOMER RICHARD L .. A
" ' DEPT'OF~VETS'
HHHHHHHHHHHH"HHH"HHH"HHH""""""""""""""""""""""""*""""""*""""*"**""""""""""""""""""""""""""""*""""*"""*"*"""""*"""""""~"H"H
11 04 19 00 02200 1111 S 121 140 $35,000 0,94 F~20
, ' 'ii' ,,' BARTSCH WERNER J .. GERTRUDE
"""""H"""""""H"HH""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""**""""*""""*""""""""*""*"""""""""""""""""""""""*"*""""""""""""""**""*""""
17 Oq 19 00 02300
"; .!
1111
s
431
130
$24,470
1,85
FF20
CONLEY HUOHYC + L A
MITCHELL DANIEL J
"""""""""""""""H""*"""""""""""""""""""""""""*"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""*""""""""""""""""***"""""***""""""""""*"*****H
11 04 19 00 02301
1111
s
121
140
$30,080
1.45
FF20
UNITED FINANCE CO
DEPT OF VETS
BROWN RALPH ETAL
. , , "..' . "'. i' 'I ;. ", .. STONE KARL E.
HHHHH""HHHHH"HH""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""*"*"**""*""""""*"*"***"***""""""""""""*"*****"""*"""*""""""""""""*"
....
<
I
0'1
\D
11 04 19 00 02302 9100
V
, ,.
130 000
$000
. 0.95
H20
LANGHOFf ELEANOR H
.DUNCAN LEE'H .'PATRICIA A
H""H""HHHH"""""HH""""H"H""*"""""""""""""""*"""""""""*""*"""""""""""""""""""""""*"""""""""""""""""*"""*"*"""*""""**"**"""""
17 04 30 00 00100, 1111 S 131 130 $311,520 1.66 Ff'2Q
. WALTHER HERHAN E . JESSIE
H"""""""""""HH""H"H"HHH""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""*""""
17 Oq 30 00 OOqOO
1111
S
131 130
$29,150
3.66
H20
PAPEJERRY A.. DELORIS A
CASEY HARVIN K Ie PATSY R
"""HHH"H"H""""H"H"""""""""*""""**"""*""*""""**"*"**"*~"""*"""""*"""""""""*""""""""""*""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""__"_"
17 Oq 30 00 00500
1111
1111
8040
s
S
A
131 130
$46,820
3.84
0.26
0.53
3.04
H20
, " , ," ,;O;:";;';""','t, ," ""j, .COATES,RICHARD W.V L
"""NH"""""""H"""""H""""""""""""*""""""""""""""""""""""""*""*"**"*"""*"""""""""""""""*"**"""""""""*"""~**""**~"*****""__""*
". ....P.-'_..."......,.
17 Oq 300000501 1111 S 131 150 $56,190 0.35 0 H20 ," ,
, ' . '.'<', ! I, " > ,"H'~ ' r, ":, .'t ' : HILLS ARTHUR LEROY + LIOA H
H"""HHHH"""""HHH"""""""""""""""""*"""**""*"**"""""""""**"***""**""*"*""""**"*"""*""*""**"**"""""""*"***""**"*****"*"***_*"
17 04 30 00 00502 8040
A
130 000
$000
5,53
H20
'.
'. HILLS ARTHUR LEROY +'LIDA H
MMH*HH""H"""""*"*"""*"""*"*""""""""*""*"""""**"**""""***"**"""*"****"**~""""""""***"*"""*""""*."""".*"**"**.**""*"""*"""""
17 04 30 00 00600 131 190 $35,140 4.96 Ff'20
1150 ' X 0.36
1150 )( 0.47,
80qO A 4.12
KELSO GEORGE W + HARY H
- STRONO DELBERT
~H""*"""HH"*"""""HH*H*"*HH**."""*"*.**""*"*""**""H".***1IIt*****"**.""*.*""*"**"*"***."~*...************"**"*""*~NN
-.
: .!OAUW V-I
ROYAL AVENUE, AREAN7:. EXCEPTIONS ' ,
peL SCL IHPn$ ACRES
: "il', '
~31 130 $44,770 4.95
1111 s 0.60
9100 V 4 ~ 314 ; ,'I j ',I'
, ':'i"" !,' ',';"" ' 't'r'\I\':h'\1P',:;~I:I\"" '. "'f"'(;':'.' ' , ",'i'/", i," "'I,HCGLOTHIN CARLJ" LOIS
HHHHHHHHHHH*******************************************~**************************************N****************NN**"*'*'**
.
;1 I'
HAPLOT LAND USE(S)
/7 04 '9 00,00703
USE CODE
ZN3':,
OWNER NAME(S)
;, i
H20
17 04 19 00 0070~
43 i 1;'8 $70,'030 5.22
1111 So, 64
9100 V 4.58
i" . " ,," ,HUNSDON ,STANELY B " NANCY A
HH**H*HHHHHHHHHHHHH*HHHHHH*H*HHHHHH*H**************H*********~******************~******************************'**********
, ,
H20
11 04 19 00 00107 8040 A 430 000 $000 2,88 'FF20
I " ,. ... . ' COGSWELL, CURT
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH***************************************************************************************1******************
17 04 19 00 01200
9100
v
431
000
$000
6.15
H20
KINNEY JESSIE M
", APPIER GERALD L
H**HMHHHHH*HH**H**HH****H*H*************************************************************************************H*********
17 04 19 00 01300 1150 X 431 190 $1,550, 3.56, FF20
. MAXIN:THEODORE,H" MILDRED L
HHHHMHHH*HHH**HH**********************************************************************************************************
~
<
I
en
(Xl
17 O~ 19 00 01301 1111 S 131 140 $58,170 0.97 FF20
. MAX'N THEODORE H " HILORED L
*H*MMHHMHHHHHHHHHHH*HH*H******H**********************************************H*HH****N************************************
17 04 19 00 01302 6379 0 . 131 307 $6,260 2,93 FF20
, " "" MAXIN THEODORE H " HI LDRED L
M*HMMNHNMMMNMHHHMHHHH*H"HH*"HHHH"H"HHHH"H**HHHMH***H**H*****H*H**************H*HH**HH********H*********************_***_**
17 04 19 00 01400
9100
1111
v
s
431 107
$680
5,10
3.60
1.29 '
H20
ENOS WILKINS C " KAREEN r
MHHMHHHMHMHHHHHHHH*HH*HH*H*HHH*HH****HHH*****HHH***H*************H***~*******H*****HH*********H**************************H
17 04 19 00 01600 1111 S 131 140 $37 , 280 ,. 14 H20
" , ..' , " : HARRELL JAMES F " ALTAE
*H*MHH***H*********************************************************-***********H*************************************_**.H
17 04 19 00 01700 8040 A 430 000, $000 '~09 FF20
' " , ",:' ~, ': ',.. p ; '" HUNSDON STANELY B " NANCY A
MHHHH*H***M**HH*H*****K*****************************************************************************************.**H.**...
17 04 19 do 01800 1111 5131 140 $3'~550 1.23 FF20
' , . ',,' GISCHLER REUBEN, T . PEARL
HH*HH****H**H*H************************************************H**H***HH******H********************H**H****H****.****.....
17 04 19 00 01900
1n1
s
421
140
$72,610 1.70 rF20
'" ".' .', , PARKS GEORGE H + .HELEN H
HHHHHHHHHHHHHH*H**H*******HHHH***********************H*****H*H**H**HH*********H**H***H****NH**HH******HH*H*H*H**.**......*
.t..,,,~~~""~l(~_..~~~-.r_
IQ'.
: I
,/
'TABLE IV-7',
:;: \
AREA N7i'.SURROUNDINO AREA
IHPR$ ACRES
'",.: .,'
$36,770
ROYAL AVENUE,
PCL SCl
433 130
HAPlOT LAND USE(S) USE CODE
;7 04 19 00 00702
39.50
1.18
1.33
111.16
22,81
1111 S
1111 S
8010 A
9100 V
ZN3
Ff20
OWNER NAHE(S)
GARLINGHOUSE ELIZABETH S
SOULTS EDGAR E
, DERBY GARALD W . PATRICIA A
H**H***M**MHHH*****************..*************.************************.*****H*H****H**********.*...*.*..**....**.........
17 04 19 00 00706 9100
V
$000
133 000
7.86
SHELLEY LAWRENCE E . MARY A
*******H*******************.***********.****.***..*..******..*.******.***.******.****.**~*.*...*****.**..*....***...**.*..
H20
11 04 19 00 00708
8040
$000
A
133 000
8.69
H20
SOULlS EDGAR E
GARLINGHOUSE ELIZABETH S
DERBY GARALD W . PATRICIA A
************************.**.**.****.***.**....*..****..*****.*...**..***.*...*.****.***.**.*.****.*****.***.***...*..**.*.
17 04 19 00 00709 8040
433 000
A
$000
'.18
ff20
SOULlS EDGAR E
GARLINGHOUSE ELIZABETH S
DERBY GARALO W . PATRICIA A
********************.************************.*.****************~******.*******.**..**********.****************.......*..*
....
<
,
Ol
o
17 04 19 00 00710
~040
A
433
$000
000
30.82.'
FF20
SOULTS EDGAR E
GARLINGHOUSE ELIZABETH S
DERBY OARALD W . PATRICIA A
******K******.****....*****.**..***.***..*...*..*.*..*...****.***...**.****.***.....******.****..*.....******.............
17 04 19 00 00800
9310
W
420 000,
$000
30.47
EUGENE CITY OF
KKKKKKK**KK*K**************.*********.*****.*******"**.******.**********************"*.*************..*.**..*.......*....*
H20
17 04 19 00 01500
8040
A
$000
133 000
5,72
JUDD LESLIE L . CAROL V
*****************.***********.***.**.***.******.*****************.*****.********.**********.**********.***************.**.
H20
17 04 30 00 00200 8040 A 133 000 SOOO 3.07 H20
. ' " THOMSON RALPH C
***************.**...*....************...****.********************.************.*..************************************...
17 04 30 00 00300 9100
433 000
V
$000
9.32
THOMSOH RALPH
,*******H*****.*.***.**.**.*...****..**..***.***.***.~*****************.**********~*.*********.*********************.***.**
H20
1133 litO $116,360 5.80
1111 S 0.41
1150 X 0."
8040 A 4,11
',: ' . , KELSO VERNON C . ALICE M
******ij**********************..*********..**.*************************.****..**.*.*****************.****************.*****
11 01, 30 00 00800 800 000 $000 39.93 FF20
8040 A 33,16
8222 0 . 6,87
~.._,~__.,.............. II......................................~......,:~ ~~.~~~.... ~.~.... K~...~~_~.~."**.:e"~**".**""'*""~:~***""""*"**"'**"'''u~~~~*~~~~n'*~~~~~
17 04 30 00 00700
H20
c,rrv
..
. '. ,
EXCEPTION STUDY AREA FINDINGS
EXBlBIT -"I
~.
:f
MAP NUMBERS
PARCEL OWNER
ZONING
ACRES
I 1 I 17-04-30 ROGER RODOLPH RR-5 1.66 AC
I
I T.L. #100 28828 ROYAL AVE
j
! EUGENE, OR 97402
2 17-04-30 KRAMTANH VORACHUCR RR-5 3.82 AC '
T.L. if400 28788 ROYAL AVE
EUGENE, OR 97402
3 17-04-30 THOMAS STEWART RR-5 3.96 AC
T.L. #500 28748 ROYAL AVE
EUGENE , OR 97402
4 17-04-30 DONALD FAUGHN RR-5 5.92 AC
T.L. #501 & 28760 ROYAL AVE
T.L. #502 EUGENE, OR 97402
5 17-04-30 DOUGLAS STINSON RR-5 4.87 AC-
T.L. #600 28738 ROYAL AVE
EUGENE ~ OR 97402
6 17-04-30 DAHIND.A MEDA RR-5 5~86 AC:-::
T.L. #700 28718 ROYAL AVE,.
EUGENE, OR 97402
7 17-04-19 LEE DUNCAN RR-5 0.96 AC.
T.L. #900 88806 GREENm:LL RD
EUGENE, OR 97402
8 17-04-19 JANET MONGILLO RR-5. 1.95 AC.:
T.L. #1000 88780 GREENm:LL, RD
EUGENE', OR 97402
9 17-04-19 RONALD FLAMMANG RR-5 1.45 AC,
T.L. t1100 28821 ROYAL AVE
EUGERE, OR. 97402
lO 17-04-19 CLARENCE RI(;tqF.T;T, RR-5 1.86. AC-,
T.L. 11200 & 28811 ROYAL AVE"
T.L. #1300 EUGENE , OR 97402 ' -
:;i:...;
11 17-04-19 RONALD wnsON RR-5 0~99 ,AC: '
T.L. i1400 28787 ROYAL AVE
'EUGENE , OR 97402
12 17-04-19 GEORGE PARKS RR-5, 1.21, AC-.
T.L. #1501 28777 ROYAL AVE
EOGENE,OR 97401
13 17-04-19 ESTHER BAIZLEY RR-5 0.60 AC
T.L. #1502 P.O. BOX 40903
EUGENE , OR 97404
14 17-04-19 CARL MCGLOTHIN RR-5 4.99 AC
T.L. #1600 28881 HILLAIRE ST
EUGENE, OR 97402
.
.
.
.
.
1 .' .
8
'~~~.)~
15 17-04-19 GERALD APPIER RR-5 5.55 AC
T.L. 11800 .1131 WEST AVE
LANCASTER , CA .
16 17-04-19 ROY KOCHIS RR-5 7.51AC
T.L. 11900, 748 FILBERT LN
T.L. 12000& SPRINGFIELD, OR 97478
T.L., 12100
17 17-04-19 LARRy BiNGHAM RR-5 5.10 AC
T.L. 12500 28450 HILLAIRE ST
EUGENE , OR 97402
18 17-04-19 RODNEY CRONK RR-5 5.85 AC
T.L. 12600 28562 HTT.T.2l.TRE ST
EUGENE, OR 97402
19 ' 17-04-19 MICHAEL DUBROWA RR-5 & 4.60 AC.
T~L. 12700 28665 ROYAL AVE E-40 OF 38.24 AC
EUGENE, OR' 97402 , IS RR-5
20 17-04';"19 JUBELL RR-5 & . 78 AC.
T~L. 12800 28614 HILLAIRE ST E-40 OF 5.66 AC
EUGENE, OR 97402 IS RR-5..
21 17-04-19 DALE HANSEN RR-5 5~ 32 AC-'
T.L. 12900 28690 HTT.T.2l. IRE ST
EUGENE, OR 97402
22 17-04-19 mmSDON TRUST RR-5 10.14 AC;
T.L. 13000 & 28794 HILLAIRE. ST
13100 EUGENE, OR 97402
23 17;;"04-19 DELNA COE RR.-5 " 1.26 AC
T.L. 13200 2888 HILLAIRE ~
EUGENE, OR 97402
24 17-04-19 l:LSA ADAMS RR-5 2.93 AC
T.L. 13300 430 FIRST ST
EUGENE, ,OR' 97401
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ACRES IN EXCEPTION AREA --> 89 "('~
TOTAL AMOUNT OF PARCELs m EXCEPTION AREA --> 24 PARCELS
AVERAGE ACRES PER PARCEL IN EXCEPTION AREA __> 3~71
ACRES/PA'RI-KI.
THIS APPLICATION WILL SEEK TO GET AN, RR-5 '. ZONING REDESIGNATION
,'....' 1I.1.....n."_lh....."..III, i I 1.".,"II....'n............. I .......................,,,.. . '\'01"'1""'
1"""'" ..........'..,1........., I.] ........1t.~.I..."'I. ........... ~ . ".",'1...1
I;............"..."....
Ih.'I"''' 11II r~~ ..~ II
~ ."".Ihl"",............... ..oI""1I..."U.'~.~1.,1 1'".."1".1.'''111
/\./ ..,
Un""Io.III,II\II.I. . III
1:_111.."...., ! I...........,.".. ....11........... '.....1.:......'......1
... .
. 11.1,.............""".,,.. !JD y...."..........., . 1....~ ....'fI,.......',.... :~:.; 1'.......1....",_.
'.'.
t fA.....II1~.. AI".4 lIJ ......,............. Ill! II.... ..... .~.... II .h.,.....I.....u..
~ '...............,......,... " ......1.....1.......
"......, I',"~
I
J
'0
.
Eugene-SQiilgfield
MetropolRlrl Area
General Plan
Plan Diagram
'......,...1."'.... tI". n........"...........II..ll."'."....,1 .""~,
L.. "\10', ....1 ..,,,...., oJ."'"....I.'..........., ."'L'f.....1I .:,
) ",., _...r"
,.,'''-.
I'. ;'1." I', ':'.'''''' . ';, ,.4... ,ll'''.''''''' 11.11...'.....1..11.,..11.."..
. . ....1. ....1.... ..".~ ,"11, 01"110 I' 01".111 10,'.1 .1111. :...:.,,1..
...,..:,..,..II.."I."'....',IIIIIII...,'II'II......\I....h......'" ,h...';"".4
.l. ........ .1.. '-' ..1,'",1;,,,....,,.01 .tl'"I1.,.. "1'lI,d ,..1.....1 ,,"1.4d
.' .........,. ...,1.,1.. "1"'111.01. I., .111,IO,...L.h.., 1'11..\ 111I1...1"lu..,.
....,;. ..... '1".1.. ....."....,......., '1...::.,.,.11",,";:..11111111041':11
" h""'"'I".'lh .".1 "..Ill;: II.. 1..,......I.'ull... ,1,,',f"'C:';lllllu,,"I.
... "',-...,." ,,"II..I.....~ ....1,..1'. 'd;"'lI"I..".III...IIIII".,,"!.:.
..... '.. ....,t, .... .....'.......1"1'1... hI..., 1'I...h....1 I'.",......" ,
.llo II ""~I"I; I..U' II". .l.. '.....1. II' ...,'.1..,."',,,,11., ;.~'C"" ,..Ii,....",.."
,,, .... ,~,n.h ,,1.1 ,,'1., I,. II,. '''1lt"...I'''10I...IIo I.:.,..,. "';1....
\,,,1 I......... ," '11. '-"'...;. ",h"':;"'."hl..u,.l.., ...'...1 Ii"
...1', "," ..." f '.111,.1.., I ;'1""1111"'." ...."r,"'I.IIIIMIIF' 1 )11..,'...01
"".1.1..1.11 Il. t....." ...1.11;........
,.
, "
/___._t
(:,
,'""
or
.,'
,
't'
c...A
II 1000"
l
l
~~I~ "
'Ih..lnl...,,""......., Ih" 111.;',' ".1' .k.h,,,, h"lUtlfS:'I;,1
.LI".""'''''''"",,, '","d".' .""III""'n", It,.p',.""
I. (."~fi.,4..... hd'.,".II..", '1:,........ ('...,. "." ...1.,'1' '"'
1I1l.'........."I...lIlhlll.'I'..lI....hl"..I......I.."".
,.( 1)1 '1'.."." .,,,''If .till)' ""'I".."h,"h 1,.. \.11....
,.,."""".'" '.hi'''.!.:11 .."...... ~ III d~' .h~ila' ,I..".,
ur (~Il." Ilu,.....I, 1Itt: 1\.".,.... f '11",,,. 1";11' ,.....it":..,I...
1~'"l1t. ,1\'.. It. ....'" irk 1".\"'" ...."'tltl t,. ,...";",,..1
"'''11'',,,' ",II,...i:tI\. ;'~"1"'1 '11,"'; 01'" .... \\....;......."
':"W\'5\ I!,. h".I\'.I. :"'\".I.u~i,'Sf '1"..,Ift....'., f JoI\\'_
.:.l.'..I"....I\.;tI".."..UtI).'.lIt"'"dll,.:...",':i;II,.,1
.;...
"it
,,'
ifIT~~:;
, '':if.S.fI:'" ,
'~. 'f:~-f:?~~;\:,_::;
1~~~g51~~
... '"';~;;t~ '",'
:.'~~-il~{I(~~~.. .
,\-.-~. CO ....,....~-..
:~fti' 'h-':'l~i: .
(E~~~
... '..;' T!'.,:.;
.;.. .:_ . ; j..e..:.:....
~ ,_ .:a~
" .~
~# ...:;~~
..,
~.,~~/~l ~
;t~ ,(' trt. . :-
iC-i. i:,:::
.! "io-.
.j< .~,
EXHIBIT E
../
Date: ~t==:'CZJ L. \-9 (~c:')~
J
lAND MANAGeMENT OMS
APPLICANT: :5l M ~ V'" \ t=t==-\.,-w ~ A~c.,
. '7.~o r.?"'"? (J }-4..,-,z:.'/ r::L..U~ r7~
FJ ')(AE:.}...1.~ "' 01Z... 97401
OimER:
\:z::l:::,&E\Z- \"7 ( ) D nL-F~
'Z..3B7-E::> ~VAL. ~,/r;::;. J
{::::; ~ El-4 ~J c::>\Z.. ~ 7402.
PA: ~ - i?5Z.:3
RE: Report: and Verification of a Legal LOt:
Tax Hap: Ci- 04 -?:>l&J -DO Taxlot: .3 '..oc::>
A more exact description by reference to Deed or Land Sales Contract:
is J:"'l.>- -' .... ~ "Z..."'%..~ ' p~ ~ c,f80
Based upon the Findings provided in t:hi.s report, the above referenced property .
constitutes a l.egal lot. Wich means:
1. OGmership to chis property may be 'conveyed with the assurance that such a
conveyance would noe require. approval. by Lane Counq land divisio~
regulations; and
2. Lane County'recognizes chis" property as a legally separate unit of l.andfor
che purposes of development:. Development wouldstil.l .oe 'subjec~ t:o,
applicable zoning, sanitation. access and buil~ng regulations.
Findings
1. The subjece property was creaeed as a separate parcel on
CJC, l"2'"~ ,1~4 " .
See attached inseruments ~ok:- Z-7"'7_ P4.G,e:.. /'buD
2. The creation of the subject property as a separate parcel complied with all
effective land divisio~, zoning' and comprehensive plan regulations, and it
therefore ~onseit:Uees a legal lot:
a. Land div~sion regulations:
~]
Yhen the subject: parcel was created, t:here were not land
division regulations' in effect to govern its creation. Lane
Count:y did not adopt appli.cable regulations for chis ki.nd of
division until M AV "Z- I.:::?CPZ-
There were land division' regulaeions in effece governing the .
creation of this parcel. and the creation of this parcel was
, specifically exempted by these regulations from compliance
because
t a....'f"'\ .C6"f,or:C'''AC'''-fTn1\".<:,'n~1 I 01 u:::n 'r~Jnov~ nE:"O^o"""C',f'T' , .......c:' r-__I/:'.....f"n""rt .."'7"U'f~ , _..__..._ _____... ....._......
t::
b. Zoning regulations:
~
~~
Pub6c \\brks
lAND MANAGEMENT DMS10
.
~J
tlhen the subject parcel was creat:ed, there were no zoning
regulations in effect at this time. . The zoning -for this
property was adopted on" ."c3L.:>Hre:- 5 L9Cu L .
tlhen the subject parcel was creat:ed, there were the following
zoning regulations in effect: Yhich the parcel complied with'
because
c 0 Addi tional Comment:s:
.
~E b\ZJ Ca I ).....lA..L- f'::7-^(7" ~( A!;; ~c.12::1 Bf!!!Z:r::J O~
~~ ~ ~ /' J ~~D ~ %-17 1/v/\<=7 P:-rz:;.1-~L>CJ'%=1-:;) Il'--J
6'~~~~6b~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t7 C Ml:::...1 U I)....lCA P-h..1ZfJZ;:.'\. ~ ~~ J}-4. fA ~____~~ 1 ~ L
rz;-r4~L 1 r?-r:" c..oU~~/ ~~ -::;:\" ~"Z- P~I [;E...~
^ ---/~-~,
"This is a prelimin:a-ry indication that the above referenced property. as ~er
desi.gnated on the enclosed m,ap. is a legal lot::. Tbe ,decisi.-on t:ha.r-'-tlii.S'property
const::itutes a legal lot vi1.1 be made at the time of t:he first:: peDlli.t or
appLication act:ion where a 1.egal lot is required. If t:he' boundaries of this'
legal lot have changed at the time of a permit: or applicat:ion Vhichrequtres a
legal lot, a new Legal Lot Verificat:ion will be required."
Sincerely,
Do Go NICKELL' p.L.S.a.
Engineering Associate
S41 -68%.-3989
ATTACHMENTS
. CC: TRS. File
I
.---
4-
.
.
.
I
.
~
. . ..11...-.
.. .f". - . -
.i.ur.' c-. ; ,,:,_. .~. ',!" ,. . l
~~~';'~-~b..u:~~ " r.': ,.
"
~..
~ :~;~ I ~ '
...
.
.
-=-
r
,',
.-:- #:.
~ . ~~
" -~'_. , - --~
:"{~ .~
f'f -- . .....
" " _ ,. ~~b~~==: .L;: _= -,. _:_ :
E
W.M.
THIS MAP REPLACES
~ om; I
1 7 04 .30.
IIE'GION
CRABTREE
HILL@
--.. t CNC. DOJ IInD P. flt.Af
~- DN. 1410 D.l1 1_
-18-" PTN. 2_ INfO RD.
1 "N. _ lH... eaz
- F'LalDCE~ HVT. Al..JCiHMEHT
~~ DJV 1= Q.Q. CIllI
~ 1 IDT AIU IC1'\IEDI = .. IZllO
7 nZI'ft DJV. I~ a.a. 006
w
I32lr
;><:<:7:-:: ::":'~~;.: (~~::::' --7392' _
2
...
G
co
...
-..-.-----
--
801
~
...
..
S. ~21~
~-v
:-~~ -",;,.-
..~,.-..
".1' _... _<I
800
. ~. 18.29 AC.
...
..;r",
~,r:
"
..
~
---.----~--
--
-~-~V~,
I) :~~ --
If
II
I
ii,
II
. ~ ~-
. "
I.
--_._-_........--...:......~~\.:...,;:o.,......__--:.:..::.:
s'
17' 04
EUG[ttE
le.AD.
OIJ
TJI.
.
.
.
.'
.
"
:t
!
Date:
A,t;:::"CZ-1 L.. \4 (9~~
J
EXHIBIT "E"
--~
~~
Public \\brks
LAND MANAGEMENT OMS/C
A more exact descnp!=ion by reference to Deed. or Land Sales Contract
is ~ I ~\::::.... t~~. p~~ ~7;;:; .
'a. ,Land div~ion regulations:
~]
Based upon the Findings provided in chis report:, the above referenced property
conStit:ut:es a ~egd lot:, which means:
I
1. Ownership to chis property may be conveyed with the assurance that such a
conveyance would not require. approval by Lane County l.and division
regulations;. and . .
2. Lane. Count:y recognizes chis property, as a legally separate unit of land for
the purposes, of development. Development 'W'ou1d still De subj ect to
"applicable zoning, sanitation, access and building regulations.
. '2. The creation of the subject property as a separate parcel complied with all
effective land division" zoning and comprehensive ,plan regulations, and it
therefore ~onstitutes a legal 10t:. ,
APPLICANT: ::s\~ G::. C7 \ r t-' \"'\t..l 4 A~G J
~~ f!:'OJ-4TTZ:..'-/ r..l..J.2~ 17~
F-I :>(A. E.t-..1.~ .. 012.. 97401
OtmER.:
\?~~E\Z.. lL'1 -'DnL-P~
"Z..8 B '""Z...8::, ~V ALe A \~ 'J
r:::; L?G::\ E 1-4@:.... C)\2... '1/40"Z...
Yhen the subj ect parcel was created, there were not l~d'.
division regulations in effect, to govern its creation. '4ne'
County did not adopt applicable' regulations for this kind' of
division until MAY"Z- I~CP"Z-
There were land division regulations in effect: governing the
creation of this parcel, and the creation of this parcel was
specifically exempted by these regulations from compliance
because.
LANDMANAGEMENTDMSION / PUBUCWORKSDEPARTMENT /12SEASTBTHAVENUE / EUGENE OREGON971'^ / F.
Ql "LOING ($41' 682 3823 , PLANN . " ....1 AX 541/682-3947
' - ING (541) 682-3807 r ~1J~nQ~ (c::.&1\ <::1>?.A<OC: , '"',.......... ..........,. ,.,.... ___ __..
PA: 9'=?> - ?~B"Z-
RE: Report and Verification of a Legal Lot
Tax Map:!i,04-nz::::- .00 Taxlot:
.'Z.00
.
Findings
1. The subject property was created as a separate parcel on
A.PtZ.!L- lB 1~3.8. .
See attached instruments ~O 1L- l <=:34 PAG, E:.. t57B
E
b. Zoning regUlations:
~
~~
Public \\brks
lAND MANAGEMeJT DM~
---t-J, ]
tJhen the subject parcel was created, there were no zoning
regulations in effect at this time. Tbe zoning for this
property was adopted on .. .3'L.;> H 1E.. ~ (9 Cg...L -
]
Yhen the subject parcel was created, there were the following
zoning regulations in effect "mich the parcel complied with.
because
c _ Addi tional Comment:s:
~E .c:,1,ZJ c.:, J ~ A...L- ~A (7 /' f,,::,( .l:::.G> ~c.~ e:,t%D 0 ~
~~ ~ ~/ 1 ~.p:.-D ~~y-:, I/v^~ P-~J....~L:>C.....r=:/:) I~
~~).4 \~6G> ~ ~~ ~~~S'-4t-\~,.-
. 1 CC/"'\ ~ r7 r=t::::.r ~-::z,-Z!5Lo a ~[p{p _ ~ ..J.r.z:::.
t?' eC M 1:::..1 ~ ) ')...l!A P.o.t7 I%-'\. " ~ J ~ G, ~ _ ~ l.c:::, A
\ rz::-C~A'- I ~ c.oL)~~/ ~~~ ~"Z-- PV"r-v/~~
^,-/~~~.
.
-"Ihi..s is a prel i'm;TUlIry indication that the above referenced. property. as fu.l.Lher
designated on the enc10sed map. is a lega1 lot. The decisi-on that this property
constitutes a legal lot will be made at the time of the first: peDlli.t or
appH.Ca.ti.on action where a legal lot is required. If the' boundaries of this.
legal lot have changed at the time of a permit: or app1ication~ch requires a
legal lot, a new Legal Lot Verification rill be required..
Sincerely,
D. G. NI~ P.L.S.O.
Engineering Associate
541 -68%.-3989
ATTACHMENTS
CC: IRS File
.
lAND MANAGEMENTDMSION I PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMR-JT I 1?<; FA..~T ~ AIft:M 11= I "01 11":<::"'<:: ("\0<::1":"""" .....,..~. , ~.~ ~...~ ~~._
II. M .
THlS MAP ,~EPLACES
1 7 04 30
~ :
CRABTRcr
HILL@
10<< , llalSION
~...,.. CNC. 1:IQt lNlU P. F\.AI
DN. 1410 l1ll. 1_
B-nt-9:5 I PI"- C!400 lN1U 'Ill.
PI"- - 1N1U.812
~ ~_ tNT.'AUGN€NT
.,......,.. DN 1~ o.a. l:5llG
111\' AlLJ JE:NEDl J2l2 .. l200
7~ DlV. 1307 o.a. 0D6
W..
I32Ir
--... -,-,,:-.::::::- - :-
2
~
.
o
.,
..
'.
'~-...I .
329'
war.
, I
--
s. J21.33
:..
. .;':'i-:~ - -.-
....... ; .-.... .
.~...... . . -.
...
at
>. ". -----
.:.1.--'_.--
. ,
- -. ...--
--. - ---:.. ~ :.....;.
- ~:c,:_-~v
. -
". ,.
I.
I
'f
I
11
I
E-' .<
1 7:0. ~4(' 30
EUG:E~E,'.
.'. '," .";-
.' . .
ICJ\;O'..SY:
,'..
~.:~
",. .}
~
. . '!
--- --~.
, .;
"1;1
"'~l;:~.l
\;:\1',J
:,:,";.'i' j
,,:Y'.\C';:',~:,~
~
c
~
.
./'\
',",--~39
F.E.M.A. FLOOD ZONE MAP
ZONE C
OAK
VIEW
AV
])1
.' II
II
(~
AREA OF '
SUBJECT SITE:=__ :J
FI
VIEW
AV
zs
o
ZONE C
--
z:
1II
III
II:
l:l
/I
II
II
"
~:-CHETK
~.
.,
I
I
" :
()FVj1r~
I ..,
ZONE C '
...~3S
pANE..[.., 1 (~t.f
lt11 "V/ 1~
i
~I~
"',.
= -
--:---:--
. .. :.
.........
T!3S
II
~
1)
City 01' E=ge:re I
A;t~ NO":" 'Nc:t.t;CE:;),
I ..
I __ ,
I h~ _ ,\ 2S7"J.t A) :
Ii;:) \ \ ,
) I \-ts"., />o"t'f.:
; o~~
I ~ :..H7a;;,.
. . ( ( ~ C'ft'k .-
,f\~~'" )~~~~ .<
"
, ........... "'~
.. ~......... ...
.:.~ r... ---.:.:::..,~.....
,... ../I"""l '...:::::>/... ,...'.
,___ 1'/' : ..,
:;;:"~~. : ,,: ......} / ,r.. r','.
...' __,;. ../ _~ __ ~___" .___ /' t/ \ I ;,--<:....~~,
--"-'~'n''''' 1 ....,..'... .-. ' , :
.... :/~ "",--':t2'";J Jir: ,,( ~ .: ,~-
.::;?<=- , ... I. . " .. .' '. .
_ 4'''\..;.'''---1' .---.->::-: l---- - \1 ·
~-""'\ I .:.,/ /...-
.. ..._ ~ .......:,., ' l .' .'
..'.. ... 'l \\ ...370-_._-........v.
.. .._.... D ,: .,J-.:-'--"''--'"
I .... ..............--.. ·
. ~ ~ A ~ ·
. ___. . ..~73... MER..: ·
:.;' ,.:~';r'. I\'lo,. :.. .'<. .,
-='" ,:.~' I I ',~ :::,....' I ':',
':,' ': I'~ f"
. . I ,.- ~ D ~. I
_/I~ I.! ~ r--~......--1' \
,/ . ,. t' O' ~
i) I. /l:,"-'.~r'," ;.. .,'-.::..,.,
/ : ,/:" .: ,I "'_'" \ I c L ' '\ ,
., , "';.Tii...t-- .\ ----, L-' - \e> ----.::.;;,
" I"'"' T', '\, \ ':'~ ~
t:1=';2:r~l...:' ..l.! '\ .......:1:1.. "~
, -.: --r"'." -- ' ..y- . " ..-.\ .
"_' I .'".. -~---:..:.:' '371 '...-- :: ".',
", ' /'" --- .. ' .
I ...'., /"'-'~~' .,' : - !(..~-,,:'-_-.~
"" I .....,;.-... -- I ,-" ....--.... '.
~__ ,_....".---r. "I "\ ....,. · 4-
_..' , ~:'/Gq--_\~-t",",\r-~
'i. (~>-' .\ ..... ">; .~\ - \"
~1 /,-,...",------'..Jl .... ,,-' "':"--..
I :::---" I '" .....
-"_..,..~~_w,...,.~....\j'.,.~..,.~..w.~~:.~____.
C:5 n, '.
U'... "
.~
---...-----...u.".............,;,."..h;..,..:..~~;.. .,_,.:..... ".... "'. .....
. 371
(3
.
~~'W
.......
.::0"
i
i .-
8.....
!/
I'
i :':' .L
, : ~ : I :,
",:;1 '.",
"<:':::>".,
. .........
· ~'':::::.~\~~ ___:'i L
\'~\
"\
3611:
........-...
.........
\
.0
.. ..
'. .....:~:
.......
372
'-
..-...~...
'''-"" .
.!.
\ ;.
: I:
\i~
.,'
, '.
"'....,
.;. ~
.: .:
. .'
_,_..,JEian
'.
'.w'!
~.::
...,-1
___.i::"
n ..,.
u:......
..,.
- .
".
I
"~,....,.." ~
........ ~
'.", I
l
, 'T"I-fERN.'
"
WELL LOG ANAL YSI~
.
;J.
.,.
LOCATION
USE
! 1
I
I ~
! 17-04-30
! 25898 ROYAL AVE
17-04-30 'l'L3402
17-04-30
88530 GREENHILL
17-04-30 DOM
88530 GREENHILL
17-04-30 'l'L800 DOM
88576 GREENHILL
17-04-30 TL800 DOM
88576 GREENHILL
17-04-30 TLI000 DOM
DOM
DOM
DOM
4
5
6
7
8
.
17-04-30 DOM
88490 GREENHILL
ROAD
9 17-04-30 DOM
88490 GREENHILL
ROAD
.
10 . 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
WELL 17975
11 17-04-30 MUN
UNKNOWN
12 17-04-30 TL1400 DOM
13 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
14 17-04-30 DOM
UNKNOWN
15 17-04-30 DOM
UNKNOWN
16 17-04-30 TL1303 DOM
OAK HILL CEM RD
17 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
18 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
19 17-04-30 DOM
UNKNOWN
20 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
21 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM
DEPTH
37 FT
180FT
280FT '
260FT
123FT
72FT
288FT
240FT
240FT
200FT
300FT
302FT
185FT
135FT
120FT
200FT
35FT
340FT
360FT
430FT
38FT
STATIC
LEVEL '
15 FT
119FT
280FT
260FT
37FT
N/s
20FT
30FT
N/S
80FT
N/S
75FT
42FT
57FT
N/S
28FT
N/s
N/s
N/S
54FT
N/s
EXHIBIT "1:
YIELD IN
G.P.M.
30GPM
N/S
N/S
NI
4.5GPM
N/S
2GPM
IGPM
N/s
7GPM
N/S
N/A
5GPM
25GPM
17GPM
.5GPM
20GPM
N/S
N/S
10GPM
30Gl?M
22 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM 150FT 140FT . 25GPM
23 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM 65FT 21FT 15GPM
24 17-04-30 DOM 45FT 23FT 13GPM
6320 ROYAL AVE
25 17-04-30 DOM 35FT 17FT 15GPM
6310 ROYAL AVE
26 17-04-30 DOM 70FT 10FT 50GPM
6480 ROYAL AVE
27 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM 38FT 10FT 20GPM
28 17-04-30 DOM 45FT 18FT 25GPM
UNKNOWN
29 17-04-30 . 100FT N/S N/S
DOM
WELL 11006
30 17-04-30 TL1500 DOM 180FT 18FT 5GPM
31 17-04-30 TL800 DOM 51FT 6FT 20GPM
32 17-0,4-30 TL1302 N/A 148FT 12FT 5GPM
33 17-04-30 TL1403 DOM 105FT 44FT 30GPM
34 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM 110FT 25FT 15GPM
35 17-04-30 UNKNOWN DOM 25FT 19FT 25GPM
36 17-04-19 DOM 95FT 18FT 12GPM
28562 H1:LLAl:RE
37 17-04-19 DOM 110FT 40FT N/S
88922 FIR BUTTE
38 17-04-19 'l'L2302 DOM 39FT 13FT 10GPM
39 17-04-19 TL706 DOM 42FT 12FT 9GPM
40 17-04-19 TL706 DOM 182FT 75FT 4.5GPM
41 17-04-19 TL707 DOM 222FT N/S N/S
42 17-04-19 UNKNOWN DOM 52FT 8FT 30GPM
43 17-04-19 UNKNOWN DOM 170FT N/S IGPM
44 17-04-19 UNKNOWN DOM 78FT 22FT 40GPM
45 17-04-19 UNKNOWN DOM 36FT 15FT 30GPM
46 17-04-19 UNKNOWN DOM 35FT 10FT 30GPM
47 17-04-19 DOM 59FT 12FT 60GPM
1050 HILLAIRE
"
H.
,
.
.
.
AVERAGE DEPTH OF
WELLS :
135.40 ~~X / WELL
NUMBER OF KNOWN TOTAL STATIC LEVEL: AVERAGE STATIC LEvEL:
S~TIC LEVELs: 41 ---> 1,691 41.24 ~~~ / WELL
.'
.
48 17-04-19 nOM 40FT
6315 ROYAL AVE
49 17-04-19 UNXNOWN nOM 150FT
50 17-04-19 DOM 155FT
SW1/4 OF SEl/4
51 17-04-19 DOM 51FT
SEl/4 OF NW1/4
52 17-04-19 TL1600 DaM 164FT
53 11-04-19 DOM 62FT
NW1/4 OF SE1/4
S4 11-04-19 DOM 38FT
SE1/4 OF SE1/4
";1W~~#wtHt 7, 312
FEET
NUMBER OF WELLS:
--> 54
TOTAL DEPTH OF
WELLS: 7,3,12 ~
.
4- ,-..../
J \._:~ j.' ~
8FT 18GPM
N/S 10GPM
60FT 30GPM
8FT 40GPM
18FT 3GPM
N/s HIs
12FT 10GPM
1,691 127.15
FEET GPM
NUMBER OF GIVEN TOTAL YIELD IN AVERAGE YIELD IN
WELL OUTPUTS: 41 G.P.M.: --->727.75 G.P.M.: -->17. 7S
DOH =. ~c WELL,
HUN = HtJm:CIPAL WELL
HIs = HOlm SHOWR
G.P .H. = GAT.T~ PER Hl.J:tu:J:~
.
",7/f'1 . '"\
.:-:'""
T:>wnship: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19.30, Well Log ill: NONE
Page 1 of 1
Well Log Report - Page 1 of 8
.
Township: 17S, Range: 04~ Sedion: 19~O, Well Log ID: NONE
C/id on the column heoding to re-sort the resuiJs. C/icJc on Well Log to view image, CUd here ifvou are having
hi
'TO ems
~ -,:s C; "0
0 .. > .
~ j c;,c ~~ ]~
- -ei iI~
0 CoG c..
Well T-R-sI ! Eg -,:s EQ Bond
'j( ~ ..
Log ~ f! Stn!et ofWeU OWner Company Ii: 0 ~ s: 0 CGnstn
u u
~LrlOI II BRlCH . II ,IEJEJEJ0EJEJ~
GEORGE
~LYJOI' IIBO~.LEO ~ IEJEEJEE8~
~~BI IIWfMZ. FRED ~ IEJEJBc:JEJElE
~~ ROYALAVE IINEWBY.ART II BEJEJ[J[JEJE
~. ROYALAVE IINEWBY.ART II IEJ~
~~~I II p~~~i 1\ IEJEJB8EJBE
~rrJDI II CRONK. JUd (I IEJEl08BEJE
~L!JDI II~'II IEJBBC:JEJEJ~
~ t7S4W.01 II~' ~ IEJElrnBEJE
~r*'OI
~S<XalUE ~ ~ IEJElrn8~
~ SE..sE
.
Go to page: 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 2 1 ~ Next>>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited fonnat
Return to GRID QUery Screen
.
.
.
.
:ownship: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
I-t
Page 1 of 1
Well Log Report -. Page 2 of 8
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
Cliclc on the column heading to re-son the results. CUd on Well Log to view image. Click here ifvou are havin'{
M .
,ro ems
t 'a G 'a
.. CD > ..
~ - liS 0..
~ ~ ;::..1 vu
1; -Q. i~ --
~CD ~.
WefI T-R-st - Eg ~ Eea Bor.
';c 'ii I! (;
f! Company 0 ~ 0
"Log Q.QQ Street otWell Owner ~ u: (.) >= (J Canst
~[z]DI II SOULTS. E E II GARUNGHOUSE. EEBrntn9N~ PAGE.
rnl ELIZABElH
1/>ffi1BR' - ~ EE[]J~
um si~
~[z]DI II PARKS.MR II PARKS. MRS GEORGE IEEJEJCJBElE
GEORGE
~~DI II BROWNING. 1/ IEEJ0EJ8_970 ~ CHR.IST .
JAMES D MAR
~~DI /I HURD. BIlL II IEJEEJGEElE
~~Dl II KOPPE. LO~ 11 'EJtJ0GEJIWM~1 ~ CAnER
~[z]DI II SOUNI'S . ED ' II IEElEEJEJr~mll. UNJQ.
UND
~, 17~-DI (I DRAKE. II IEJtJ0EJBB@
LEONARD
~~DI II HOPPE<, M F II IEJ8E[JEJ~
~~DI II HOPPER. M f /I E:E]B8D~
Go to page: <<Previous 1 2 d 1 ~ Q 1 ~ Next >>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited format
Return to GRID Query Screen
IWI"II Ino li<:'t ~(7~ ~<:-n')\Vh;l"hn':l(7f"=J .('.<-n<-<";,," ;~= 1 t1 ':l 1 ") <:> R...........,.<";~n- i n l).(",f) rYC'D' 'nv- l).D~.1 () n In"
Township: 17S. Range: 04W. Section: 19.30. Well Log ill: NONE
Page 1 of 1 . l-
.
Well Log Report - Page 3 of 8
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
aick on the coLumn heading to re-son the results. CLick on WelL Log to view image. Click here if vou are having
']rob/ems
--
Well T-R..st ~
"Leg Q.QQ {! Street ofWeU
~L!JDI
~~I ~
~1:Z-IJ II
~~DI
~~DI
~L!JDI
~117~W-~"
I~ ~l~-II IJ
~L!JDI
I~:: Ill~W-II~11
~'i i ~
&.~~~!.:: ~..
~ ~ ca.., I ~ 'a aiii
.. e ~Q iii.. Ea Bar
OWner Company ~ Ii: u == 5= 8 ' Coast
~HAAs<oDA"11 EEE:IJEElE
II ~ II IEE~"'~MUJao
I~ IEEEEJEEE
IIU=oJ<>m II EJEEEJDEl~
II =v. " EEEEIJEJ~
IDI m:~ IEEEJEIElE
IDI m:~ EJ8EBDEJE
Dlc=ENlBfKmS IEJEEEJElElE
11"'-0'1 .IEEEElDEJE
II v:o II EJ[J8D~
.
Go to page: <<Previous 1 ~. 3 ~ ~ Q Z ~ Next >>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited fonnat
Return to GRID Ouery Screen
.'
.
Township: 17S, Range: 04W. Section: 19,30, Well Log ill: NONE
Page 1 of 1
. Well Log Report - Page4of8
Township: 17S, Range: 041Y, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
Click on the column heading to re-sort the results. Click on We/I Log to view image. Click here ifvou are having
bl
.
,ro ems
t -= v "0
! .GJ > GJ
i Cij.c o. ~.!!
-Q. ::-'
- c,.. i~ a..
Well T-R.st 0 ! ED "0 Eca
)( ~ CD Be
' Log Q.QQ {! Street otWell OWner Company u: 8 ~ 5= 0 Con
0
~LrJDI If VAUGHN 0 II IEJElEJ0B~
12496 30 . CHUCK
- .
~w~1 II VAUGHN . II EJEJffiEEE
CHUCK
~ SE-
~E:] It JUDD. MR II IEEEJ0EJBE
LESLIE
~L!DI IDI LANE COUNlY JAIL .IEJEEJ8JEJE
.~LrJDI II ~o='11 EJBEJEJtJ~
I~: lr7~W'~ ] "~oMRII EJEEEJ8<OM977 E
~~DI " , STAlE OF JEJEEElEJE]E
OREGONlHIGHWA Y
DEPARTMENT
~~DI ./lmBtoOCM II IEJEJ0GEJ~
~L!JDI l~oEDII IEJEJ~
~LrJDI IICHERNan 0 ED II IEJEElEJ0EJ[]
Go to page: <<Previous 1 2 'J. 4 ~ Q Z ~ Next>>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited format
Return to GRID Ouerv Screen
.
,..Jwell...:.log_listyage.asp?whichpage=4&session_id= 143128&pagesize=1 O&ORDER :.BY =&P~l Of2JOO
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ill: NONE
Page I of I
,/1
Well Log Report - Page 5 of 8
.
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19~f), Well Log ID: NONE
Cliclc on the column heading to re-sort the results. Cliclc on Well Log to view image. ClicJc here ifvou are havin'5
~ .
ro ems
t 'a .. -,:r
i CD > lU
~ o.c u. Gel
=...a
i Ci.i- lS~ --
c._
Well T-R-st ! Eg -,:r Ea BondI
G 0 ~ .. 0
Lag Q.QQ (! SIn!et ofWeU Owner Company == y: (J s: () CGnstrur
11k12S061~01 1I0EBOOY. RALPH ~ IEJGJEJ801112711976/1CHRISTENSEN .
ILANE 12snJ~OI /I0EBOOY. RALPH II IEJaEJ0EJI212S1197611~.
ILA~ 1%S08III~W-3OfOI II WFSTON. DON II IEJGJEJ801ln6l197611CHRJsreiSEN .
ILANE t%9J9I~OI II KELSO . GEORGE II IEJGJ00ElI31121I96S II PAGE. DE
IlANE t25101l'7~30101 II CONANT. BOB " IEJEJEJ0BI8Isn975 II MIU.ER.. HA
1LA.~ t15t1111~W-30101 II REID. ORION A ~ IEJGJ80ElI121l2l196311~ .
llANE 125131/1:30101 "CASEY. MARVIN II IEJEJ0001 snl1m 1/ HAAS.CU'
IlANE 11514111:30101 IIKELSO. VERNON 1/ IEJGJ0081 snl1969 fl. MIU.ER..HA
ILANE '25I5111~-30101 II KELSO. v C ~ IEJGJ00EJIII2S11961 ~ UNKNOWN. m
ILA.~ 12516W7~30101 II BAIUY.ov II IEJGJ00ElI121l311960 II UNKNOWN. m
.
Go to page: <<Previous 1 ~ ~ ~ .5 Q Z ~ Next >>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited format
Return to GRID Ouerv Screen
.
Township: 17S, Range: 04W,Section: 19,30, Well Log ill: NONE
Page I of 1
l
. Well Log Report - Page 6 of8
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
C/icJc on the column heading to re-son the results, ClicJc on Well Log to view image. Click here if vOl!.gr~ havl1Jg
,rob/ems
.
... '0 'ii "
..... > CD
~ i 0 Sg ~ t; .,
1) c:. ~ ;:... 'I:J c:. ..
Wen T-R-sI 'iC ~ ! E Q UJ ~ 4D E Q Bonded
Log Q.QQ {! ~ ofWeU Owner Company == u:: S == s= 8 Construct
~wD II w~ IEJEEJEJGJDBE
~~DI /lSUNNEU.LB> DEJEJEJEJEJEJE
~~DI II BOand.SU DEJEJE][~I]~
~DI 11008EL.WRBtmI~B0BEJE
~DI ~ =. IDEEJ08EIBE
~LTIDI /lHEIER.JACK IDEJBEJ08~"'1I maa.CA
~~I ""'~CEM IlBAlS.DAvm IDEJEJBGJBEJG;;
1:= IIZIII30311 ~":tv~ II ~. IDEJEJEJ8BI3I2In9911=~
I~~ I ~~'~-II ~~~ II ~'IDEEJB0E11<=991ILO;':.~
I~ IIZ-]-/I ~~ROFF II BaL.R<XXY II..., JAN EJEJEJEJ86127fl991IL05
Go to page: <<Previous 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 Z ~ Next >>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited format
Return to GRID Query Screen
.
..;"...
, ~,.JweUJog..:.i,~yage,asp?whichpage=6&session_id=143128&pagesize=.:= 1 O&.:ORDER_8Y=&Pael O/2/QQ .
Township: 175, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30. Well Log ID: NONE
Page 1 of! 'h
Well Log Report - Page 7 of 8
.
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, Well Log ID: NONE
Cliclc on the column heading to re-sort the results. Cliclc on Well Log to view image. CIiclc here if vou are havin~
rob/ems
15
Well T-R-st ";!
'Log Q.QQ ~
Street otWell
Owner
Company
.
Go to page: <<Previous 1 2 :l ~ ~ Q 7 ~ Next >>
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delrnited format
.
Return to GRID Query Screen
TO'\'\1Il.5hip: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 1930. Well Log ill: NONE
Page 1 of 1
A
. Well Log Report - Page 8 of 8
Township: 17S, Range: 04W, Section: 19,30, WeD Log ID: NONE
Cliclc on the column heading to re-son the results. Click on Well Log to view image. Click here if vou are having
hl
.
TO ems
.
t "IS '0 ~
! . > .
i li.c ,2- -
=.j. --' ...
1) S.! --
"IS Co.
Well T-R-SI ';( - i Eg .. EC BoIKIe<
Log Q.QQ (! SIrftt otWell Owner co.-~I'" ~ 0 ~ 5= 0 CGnMruc-
(.) U
~12"'i~1I1H II :,11 EJBEJEEEJ JONES JR
CASEY
CASEYJOl-
WELL DRJU..
1~llzlI', ~~"1H I :'1/ 18ElEJtJB8Q~'999 0.5
~'Z'Bwm~~1 IEEEJ~
~~DE:E] lEIJE][]mm999 a
~~I~I~DmGRrrY=ANr~lrn[]O[][]C
I~I~' ~'.BD ~LUMBER IEJBGIJJ~' ~
~ SW..NW PROPERTlESllC. EXPLORATIo
INC..
Go to page: <<Previous 1 2 ~ 1 ~ Q Z 8
Download tabular data in an ascii tab delmited format
Return to GRID Ouery Screen
.
..Jwell lo~Jist.J'age.asp?whichpage=8&session id=143128&oaQ~ize=lO&ORDER BY=&PadOI2l00
EXHIBIT H
J:lage 10f'1 ..
I ~
10/03/00
PAGE
1
'-.--
PLACE OF USE REPORT 17 S 04 W
Section(s) 30
TWP/RNG POU-ID POD-ID APPLICATION PERMIT CERT I USE
17 . OOS 4.00W 166 S 43250 S 32434 38140 IR
17 . OOS 4.00W 166 S 46112 S 34397 38141 IR
17.00S 4.00W 174 G 4989 G 4707 41326 IR
17.00S 4.00W 190 G 1578 G 1453 29017 1M
17.00S 4.00W 190 G 1586 G 1457 29018 Il10
17.00S 4.00W 190 R 20691 R 810 15556 ST
,17.00S 4.00W 190 S 20692 S 16186 " 15654 1M
C
10/03/00 PAGE 1
POINT OF DIVERSION REPORT 17 S 04 W
Section(s) 30
TWP/RNG
POD-ID APPLICAT1 PERMIT
CERT f
USE RATE
(Cfs/Gpm)
PRIORITY
DATE
17.00S 4.00W
157 G
4989 G
4707
41326 IR
0.0100 C 9/12/1969
This report printed for request req_970522665
The map extent is for Township 17 S 04 W
Section(s) 30
Rights show are within the selected priority dates 01/01/1900 to 10/02/2000
.
The following layers are shown on the map -
Roads
Streams and Lakes
Township/Range and Sections
Taxlot lines and parcel ids (where available, not necessarily current)
City boundaries and names
Surface water rights
Groundwater rights
Places of Use
Points of Diversion
Instream water rights
OWRD Groundwater Management Areas
The water rights reported here have been interpreted by Department staff
from Department files and are intended to represent that interpretation
graphically. Locations shown on the map are only approximate and should
not be used for legal, financial or real estate decisions. For more
accurate legal location information, please contact the "Department.
.
ftp:/Iftp.wrd.state.or.uslpub/pickup/ip_216,)6 _32_1 65/rcq_ 970522665.lx(
10/4/00
-
W /\ L c K
l!1i
Kl(;HI~ IN
See t
-:.-..... -.J___
",./ ""I:
r- _.~ .,1,;;-..::.1'
'" I' ~ - .:,~" -. I
u..
- -- -., ,
. -- ':~ J
t,..
r--- .J
'- II'"
L
J
.j
I.
I
./. ...1. 1
i
ill I '... .... _
.. ...,.. - or ,I.
!' 'jl ...!
J...,!
.
1
eo W N S HIP
on(s) 30
"
1.-
..,
~ I' · ;,
'.'1 ':
; 1... /I, J
I I~s,
1/'" ,
,
, _. ..1..
, .J
,,:1 '
. ."
, II
J../
I
'- =-.:.:1
, .
..; Iftl
i
I '"
--.
.'--J
", ~.~. "... '--
.11
"
II.
....
....
lJ
I
"
,- -. :- -- .- -'. - -:: -- '1'
IHI "11 .".'
.. . .,_ 0' ..... ........!~ _
f r"-'" .... ...,;".".. .. .".,1
....
life
.'. I:, ~ ..! L... .. .. ..";;.::.: .. -" - ~=:::::;:-
_~..-- - . -1."-.
." -..-
'lIel 01 '1' .' ""CI 01 "I"
,.,", I'" It .. ...... .... '.,1......
.::.:,' :',::::I'U',:t:.::UJ'.. :.:....
12; ..,...... 't ..,h.. '11., II ".... , ".
~ ......... .....
D It...... 't ........... ",,,
~ "It,,,, 't .....h...' ..,......... tI,..
/lIlll,'Utlll,'1I: r:r,'II,m:lll'll!l.
...Ul.I,t1 tl'lIIlt'.I',ltllfI,tl II'U"..,
""'" ..." ,.." ..... II .........
. .....,..... ..... ,.h. .. ,It......
. ........... ............ ,.h' .f 'h.u...
IUllln.II'lIhlt'II,UII'.UIII 11I1t:
. ..............-.-..--....-......-........... .... .............................. . . ...........-.....-...
1 7
s
o 4
F:'trf-
tN.,........
"'IUllt
,.....
"t ,......, ....... ", ....
\\It
~
..,
:.'
if~! .
'.r~. .
.",' '.
~ ...: '
..,......:..
,,( ,. ,
, ':i :t}
,.~':~f4if}:~:
.' ~ ~~: ;:i) f'!~:
. '..1:)...
. .." '/~r
<f.iJ!.f/!\-,:'
I':- ','
"'.1
. ";'. ~'./~,: ,,"
I;......
.' '{',",.
'."!'::
,.'
trj
g
t=
.....
~
=
.
EXHIBIT I .:
~
11
NORTH
AREA OF
SUBJECT SIT
~
,L
....
.
.
/. .(.~~.,,~
. .'
.....~ .
~. -..
.
NATIONAL
WWNDS
INVENTORY
1alO 0
....t--tt--t
1CCO 2lXO 3Q2) 4QX)JlI!r:t
t I I I
4-
Sc:ale 1- = 2000'
'E ene West 2 .
...--.-. ...~.'"
.
U.S.D.A S,QILS MAP
...~
EXHIBIT "K'.
,.. ."
.1-0F~5':
'.
:~J\-
r
i
I
,
i
....;
.I
~~?ii!
II:,::. '~.f
.~.:"' .
. ~~. ~:.-
~".,~:f::
,.', , :-~._~
. ~~,~.:: :~:'
l'
38
r
~~
.- ..~.
,...
J
I
:
:~
38
,
I
..'
...:.
,~~
~..
~.~
- "..:.... ..
/
/
/
38
,
,
'_.~ERN
s~'~ .
...
p"C1Frc
-;....
~
..
...
: . ,
. ... -
..--
.. .....
.~.~
- .. .
- - ..'
38
.. ... .
:~iX~~',
.... ,
..
SOilS '6eSCRIPTION
\'iN.~,:\Q
'::vunev ,-\rea. Creqor.
7';,e substratum to a deptll Jr 60 Incnes
aced. weakly consoiidated very cobbly
oed in this unit are small areas of H
nd Saturn soils and CUPola soils
more than 12 percent. lnclud
ercent of the total acreage.
'Iity ot this Cupola soil is m
er capacity is about 3 to
city is 20 to 24 inches.
inches. It is limited
stratum. Runoff is
is slight
as homesites
.'~ Jm
=*-sIOP
,. abOut
Perm
AlJailabl
supplying
depth is 2
ccnsolidat
of water ero
This unit is
jmber produ
This unit is s
T.e basis of a 1
;cr Douglas-tir is
5 7.260 cubic fee
s<and ot trees 60 y
\lntemational rule. 0
aged, tully stocked s
Stones on the surta
ninder yarding.
Trees on this unit are
:imited rooting depth. PI
:aused by coarse tra
seedling survival Reto
.' ;ting Douglas-fir
.. "is unrt generally i
-"elopment. but so
:oarse fragments in
If this unrt is used
:imitation is the st
:hroughout the soil
:andscaping difficu
areas that have h
:he cobbly subs
1elp to establish
Tnis map unit
ately slow.
ches. Water
ectiverooting
e weakly
, and the hazard
or recreation and
n ot Douglas.fir. 01')
e mean site index
production per acre
ged. fully stocked
.580 board feet
ch kerf) from an even-
es 90 years old.
breakage ot timber and
to windthrow because of
mpetition and droughtiness
the soil decrease
can be accomplished by
hemlock Seedlings.
recreationaJ
al uses are limited by
yer.
evelopment. the main
Cobbles and stones
tions and
lish plants in
moved. exposing
.Iizing cut areas
bbly loam, 12 to 30
. ed soil is on high t
de Range. It tormed i
uenced by volcanic mat
hape and are 10 to 100 a
tation . is mainly Douglas-fir.
se-cedar. red alder. saJaJ. co
stem swordfem, and western b
.000 to 2.500 teet The average
is 65 to 85 inches. the average an
is 46 to 50 degrees F, and the av
eriod is 120 to 160 days.
, the surtace layer is very dark brown
n cobbty loam about 6 inches thick. The
dark brown very cobbty loam about 26 i
e substratum to a depth of 60 inches or mor
ed. weakly consolidated very cobbly loam.
'..... ,
K
20F,5
ha
make
Perme
Available
supplying cap
depth is 20 to
consolidated subs
hazard of water ero
This unit is used
timber production.
This unit is suited to
the basis of a 1 CO-year
for Douglas-fir is 124. The
is 7,260 cubic feet from an e
stand of trees 60 years old or
(InternationaJ rule. one-eigh
aged. fully stocked stand 0
Trees are subject to wi
rooting depth. Plant co
caused by coarse trag
seedling survival. Ref
planting Douglas-fir
of equipment is Ii
the surface lay
landings and s
If this unit i
main limitati
stones. Th
It this
limitatio
and
ex
38-0ayton silt loa~ day substratum.. This deep.
poorly drained SOil is in drainageways on broad valley
terraces in the Willamette Valley. It formed in stratified.
cfayey and silty mixed alluvium and lacustrine materiaJ.
Slope is 0 to 2 percent Areas are irregular in shape and
are 40 to 150 acres in size. The vegetation in areas not
cWtivated is mainly grasses. wild rose. hawthorn. and
Oregon. ash. 8evation is 300 to 400 feet The average
annual precipitation is 40 .to 50 inches. the average
annual air temperature is 52 to 54 degrees F, and the
average frost-free period is 165 to 210 days.
TypicaJly, the surface layer is dark gray silt loam about
7 inches thick. The subsurface layer is gray silt loam and
silty day loam about 9 inches. thick. The subsoil is gray
ctay about 29 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of
60 inches or more is grayish brown ctay.
Induded in this unit are small areas of Awbrig.
Bashaw. Conser, Courtney, Holcomb. Unsfaw. Natroy.
S6
SOILS DESCRIPTION
K
'iJT
)tt, and Pengra soils. Included areas make up about 20
percent of the total acreage.
Permeability of this Dayton soil is very slow. Available
water capacity is about 2 to 5 inches, Water supplying
capacity is 14 to 18 inches. Effective rooting depth is
limited by a high water table that is 1 foot above the
surface to 1.5 feet below the surface from November to
May. Runoff is very slow to ponded. and the hazard of
water erosion is slight
This unit is used mainly for ryegrass seed. hay, and
pasture. Where drained. it is also used for small grain
and com.
This unit is suited to grass and forage crops. Crops
respond to nitrogen and lime. Vehicles with large, low-
pressure tires can be used to apply fertilizer early in
spring to prevent damaging the crop' or compacting the
soil.
Grazing when this unit is wet results in compaction of
the surface layer, poor tilth. and excessive runoff.
Returning all crop residue to the soil and using a
cropping system that inc!udes grasses. legumes. or
grass-legume mixtures help to maintain fertility and tilth.
Tile drainage can be used to lower the water table if a
suitable outlet is available. Lowering the water table
improves the productivity of the soil and enables
machines to work the soil earlier in spring, thus allowing
::\ wider selection of crops and a longer season of use.
This unit is poorly suited to recreational development.
It is limited mainly by wetness and the content of clay in
the soil.
This unit is poorty suited to homesite development
The main limitations are wetness. very slow permeability.
low soil strength. and high shrink-swell potential in the
clay subsoil. Buildings and roads on this unit should be
designed to offset the limited ability of the soil to support
a load.
This map unit is in capability subclass IVw.
eluded in this unit are small areas of Klickitat SO'
dikes. sills. or thin interbedded flows of b
non soils on the more nearly flat slopes. s
'tar to this Digger soil but are more than
less than 20 inches deep to bedroc
and Rock. outcrop on ridgetops a
oog dikes and sills. of basalt AI
of Blachly, Peavine, and Pr
n remnants of more stable
areas generally are I
eas make up about 20
percentage varies fr
uaea
r soits
of the
2 acres If"
of the
ne area te
habitat. timber
used for recreatior.,
'on of Douglas-fir.On
. the mean site index
tial production per acre
ged. fully stocked
2.080 board feet
kerf) irom. an even-
80 years old. Trees3tl'.l
generally are
mainfy because .
now. and ice. Yield
on should be carefully managed
from undesirable understory plants.
vegetation can be controlled by P
the site and by spraying. cutting. or .
unwanted weeds. brush. or trees. Small
lanting difficult. Hand planting of nursery st
necessary to establish or Improve a stand.
the trees that are suitable for planting is
las-fir. which is most often used,
,J
SOILS DESCRIPTION
of
" periods
. ;:, ~ Jimbo s
:; "'iItI 8f1d mixed
.' .., dl!Ir1c brown
U n::.hes thick.
..,. about 29 inch
t:I eo .-dles or mar
~ content of grave
. rru:h as 15 percen
SlCn-
~ability of the Ji
~le water capacity i
LClCfYtng capacity is 20 to
'CXl1 :s 40 to 60 inches or
:::::r::t::ty and extremely cob
rd ~~ ~azard of water
~ ;;nit is used main
.see 'cr recreation and
~ UI".it is suited to
~ ~s at a 100-ye
'l:r :CtOglas-fir is 147
~cn per acre i
Q!Cl. ~lly stocked
~ 'eet (Intema
r ~r..aged. full
: ~ ~:- e :::asis of
,-'::t'z ':r ~cugt
;J:~::a, :rocuc
... .,....::~.a~ed. .
" ;.: -2': :car
,~ '.:~ 3r. :
-'" :,,=,
...~ -air. :j
:-~ \l..scc::;tJ'
~ ~hr.
~., -a::l(~C;
-~s
~. SOl ,S
~so
formed in
ce layer is
loam about
wish brown
turn to a depth
cobbly sand,
yet and subsoil is
tent increases with
moderately rapid.
S to 12 inches. Water
hes. Effective rooting
. It is limited by the very
tratum. Runoff is slow.
slight.
production. It is also
'ons for the management of
of the soil to compaction on th
'-.aJity and the hazard of wi
il. and plant competition on both
d wheeled and tracked equipment
t causes rutting and compaction on
edling mortality is a concern on the
I because of the low available water
d ~he hazard at windthrow is a concern
the restricted rooting depth.
Ie plants limit natural or artificial retorestati
e preparation and maintenance are intensive.
tion can be accomplished by planting Doug
s,
K
-
-
~'-~ .'.
, ~. 1..
40F5
This unIt IS SUited to recreatIonal developmen
limitations are the cobbles in the surta
permeable substratum at the H
rmeability of the substratum
n.
52B--Hazelair silty ctay loam, 2 to 7 percent
sJopes. This moderately deep, moderately well drained
sou is on convex foot slopes of the Coast and Cascade
Ranges. It formed in colluvium overlying sedimentary
rock. Areas are irregular in shape and are 5 to 100 acres
or more in size. The vegetation in areas not cuftivated is
mainly Oregon white oak. pOison-oak. Douglas-fir,
ponderosa pine. Oregon ash. wild rose, and grasses.
8evation is 300 to 1,400 feet. The average annual
precipitation is 40 to 60 inches. the average annual air
temperature is 50 to 54 degrees F, and the average
frost-free period is 165 to 210 days.
Typically, the surface layer is very dark brown silty day
loam about 11 inches thick. The subsoil is dark brown
silty clay about 4 inches thick. The substratum is dark
brown and light olive brown. mottled clay about 21
inches thick. Weathered bedrock is at a depth of 36
inches. Depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 40 inches.
Induded in this unit are smaJl areas of Dixormlle,
Dupee. Panther. and Philomath soils. Induded areas
. make up about 1 5 percent of the totaJ acreage. The
percentage varies from one area to another. ,
Permeability of this Hazelair soil is very slow. A~lable
water capacity is about 4 to, 7 inches. Wa~er supp~g
capacity is 18 to 22 inches. Effective rooting depth IS
limited by a high water table that is at a ~epth ~ 1 foot
to 2 feet from December to April. Runoff IS medium. and
the hazard of water erosion is moderate.
Most areas of this unit are used for hay. pasture. small
grain, and blackberries.. Some areas are used as
homesites. .
If this unit is used tor hay and pasture. the main
limitations are the clayey surface layer. the seasonal
high water table. very slow permeability, and restricted
rooting depth, Wetness limits the choice of plants and
the period of cutting or grazing and increases the risk at
winterkill. Proper stocking rates. pasture rotation. and
'1<, '
, "
-.:
".
70
SOILS DESCRIPTION
. ,
restricted grazIng during wet periods help to keep the
pasture in good condition and to protect the soil from
compaction and erosion. Fertilizer is needed to ensure
optimum growth of grasses and legumes. In most years.
supplemental irrigation is also needed.
If this unit is used for cu1tivated crops. the main
limitations are the cfayey surface layer. wetness. and
restricted rooting depth. The water table that builds up
during the rainy period generally limits the suitability of
this unit for deep-rooted crops. Tile systems are not
efficient in lowering the water table because of the
shallow depth to the claypan. Tile systems can. be
Improved by installing them across the slope. which
more efficiently intercepts water moving downslope
above the claypan.
In summer, irrigation is needed for maximum
production of most crops. Sprinkler irrigation is a suitable
method of applying water.
Returning all crop residue to the soil and using a
cropping system that includes grasses. legumes. or
grass-legume mixtures help to maintain fertility and tilth.
Grain and grasses respond to nitrogen; legumes respond
to phosphorus. boron, sulfur, and lime; and vegetables
and berries respond to nitrogen, phosphorus. and
potassium.
If this unit is used for recreational development, the
main limitations are wetness and slow permeability. Use
is limited to picnic areas, paths. and trails during the dry
part of the year. Drainage should be provided for paths
and trails. '
This unit is poorty suited to homesite development
Drainage is needed if roads and building foundations are
constructed. Cutbanks are not stable and are subject to
slumping. Reinforced retaining wails with proper drainage
are needed 'to minimize slumping.
If buildings are constructed on this unit. property
designing foundations and footings and diverting runoff
away from buildings help to prevent structural damage
because of shrinking and swelling. Support and stability
of buildings can be provided by placing footings below
the claypan. Roads and streets require the maximum
amount of base rock.. Access roads should be designed
to control surface runoff and help stabilize cut slopes.
Landscaping plants that tolerate a seasonal high water
table and droughtiness should be selected unless
drainage and irrigation are provided.
This map unit is in capability subclass 1IIe.
5 OF 5 .
.
inches. the average annuai air temperature is
egrees F. and the average frost-free period is
ays.
/y. the surface layer is very dark brown
ut " inches thick. The subsoil is dark
bout 4 inches thick. The substratum '
ight olive brown. mottled clay about
Weathered bedrock is at a depth
to bedrock ranges from 20 to
is unit are small areas of Dix
and Philomath soils and H
of more than 20 percent 0
eas make up about '5
ercentage varies from
I
silty
brown
inches
inches. 0
IncJuded
Dupee,Pa
that have slo
percent Inclu
total acreage.
another.
Permeability 0
water capacity is
capacity is 18 to
limited by a high
to 2 feet from Dece
the hazard of water e
Most areas of this u
If this unit is used for
limitations are the clayey
high water table, very sJ
rooting depth. Wetness .
the periOd of cutting or
winterkill. Drainage can be
to intercept water from high
stocking rates. pasture rotatio
during wet periods help to k
condition and to protect the
compaction.
Fertilizer is needed to
grasses and legumes. In
irrigation is also needed.
If this unit is used for
main limitations are sloopermeability. Drainage
trails. Cuts and fills s
This unit is poorly
Drainage is needed
constructed. Road
rock.. Cutbanks a
slumping. Reinf
are required to
If buildings
designingfo
away from
because
for build'
the cl
. Available
supplying
depth is
pth of 1 foot
s rapid, and
etopment. the
very slow
for paths and
u1ched.
eIopment
ndations are
heavy base
to
drainage
.
.
.
EXHIBIT "L"
Bravado Excavation and Construction, Inc.
P.o. Box 827, Pleasant Hill, OR 97455
CCB lie. # 105329: DEe lie. # 35289
November 16. 1 999
Dan Porter
28828 Royal A venue
Eugene. Oregon 97402
RE: Drainim! vour orooertv located S. W. of RovaJ and Greenhill
Dear Mr. Porter.
Installing drain piping on your property could be done at approximately $4.000 to 56.000
per acre. Your site.s soil has a high clay content. therefore. soil penneability is very slow. Dmn
lines. to be effective. require spacing at a minimum of 40 feet, possibly 30 feet. At S.J.OOO per
acre. for the 12 acres to be drained is $48.000.
More imponandy than the cost of a drain system is the fact there is no place to drain the
water collected by subsurface field drains. Your site requires an outlet of at least 6 to 7 feet in
depth to get rid of the water collected. The perforated piping must be at least 3 feel below the
ground surface. fall or grade of the pipe and the need to drain into an open drainage way outlet
which is at least 2 to 3 feel below the pipe outfall. Road ditch along Greenhill Road appears 10
the same elevation.as the ditch which drnins surface water from your land. This arQ'S drainage
systems are not suited for deeper dr:tinage ditches. Another option would be field drainage sump
and pump system. Such a mechanical system quickly becomes very costly with the cost of
pumps. electrical costs and depending on how far you have to pump. In addition. il has been my
experience the County will not allow you to pump the water into the ditch along Greenhill Road.
Can you get access through other properties to a place that wiH. then. drain away?
Sony I could not be of more assistance. however. your propeny is not a good candidate
for achieving the purpose offield drain system.
Sincerely,
Phone: 746-5554
7;tulZ~Jr"f
~ ;: /flfth'!
I
Fax: 746-0077
Pager: 718-8952
.........
EXTENS.ION SER't'ICE
_ANE COUNTY OFl:rCE
.
OREGON
STATE
UNIVERSITY
950 West 13 Avenue
Eugene, Oregon
97402.3999
Agricultural, Energy,
forestry, Home Economics,
Horticulture, 4-H
Telephone
541.682.4243
1.800.872.8980
Nutrition
Telephone
541.682.4281
Fax
541.682.2377
EXHIBIT M
.
DATE:
November 7, 2000
TO:
Jim Griffith & Associates
1257 High Street, #6
Eugene, OR. 97401
FAX: (541) 343-8394
.t9?-n:J ~.
FROM:
Ross Penhallegon
OSUlLane County Extension Service
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Potential Ag Site
I am sorry for being so slow at getting to your project but having to
respond to commercial growers in a three county area, working
with 240 volunteers and being responsible for numerous
educational programs, it takes time to get to all of the requests that
come in each day.
.
I was asked to evaluate a site located along Royal Avenue and
Greenhill'Road for its potential as an agriculture site.
Reasons Not To Grow Ag Crops:
The site does not have water rights.
The soil are very wet in the winter, floods and is very dry in the
summer.
I believe that under current land use pl~j1ning requirements, the site
would need to gross $80,000 in product - this requirement is very
prohibitive. ,
The site is in the uman f6vJtk BOUBdary according to Mr. Griffith.
/III En (7 Pf-ItN OCl';-'NJ)itJ'!Y
Reason To Grow Ag Crops:
Water rights can be applied for but it will take about two years.
The site is considered the "best" agriculture soil. .
.
Agriculture, Family and CommWlity Development. 4-H Youth., Forest:ry, Energy, and Extension Sea Grant Programs.
Oregon State University, United States Department of Agricultute. and Lane County cooperating. The Extension
.Service offers its programs and materials equally to all people.
.
The site would support a commercial nursery (above ground stock) or
greenhouse products.
An intensive greenhouse or above ground nursery would come close to the
$80,000 gross sales.
Drain tile could be installed to dry out some of the soil.
.
Mr. Griffith's Questions:
Can this site grow crops in a manner that creates a profit in relation to the work
done? Any site can do that if enough money is available to support the project.
TIlls is not the way most agricultural enterprises operate. This site has positives
and negatives. The soil will not support the main Lane County high value crops
such as strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, grapes, or any of the tree fruits.
Some annual vegetable or herb crops may grow here under the proper care. The
crops need to be mainly grown above ground. This soil is a high value soil
because in larger acreage it is used for grass seed production. On small acreage
the value of the crop is greatly diminished and is minimal for grass seed. For
animal production, there needs to be sufficient land for forage, grazing and
storage of the animals all year long. I am a horticulturist not a livestock
specialist. I suggest that you contact Mr. Paul Day, in Dexter. He can give you
specifics on livestock production.
In looking at a potential for an agriculture site, it is very good to look at the site
as to whether it can be profitable or not. In looking at property to grow a crop
so a building site can be located there, I believe that only a gross value is
needed, not a profit. Profit is a very important factor though. Sustainability is
very important but again the county does not factor in that measurement.
Soils:38-Dayton
Deep poorly drained on the valley floor
Dark gray silt loam and gray silt loam
Grayish brown clay
Permeability is very slow - difficult for roots to grow
Rooting depth is limited due to high water table, which is I foot above the
surface (flooding) to 1.5 feet below from November to May
.
It is mainly used for grass seed, hay and pasture. My opinion is that these three
crops are the BEST crops for this clayey, wet site but there is not enough
acreage for any of these three enterprises. I would say that the flooding would
also cause damage to a nursery.
, ,
Drain tile can be used to lower the water level, IF an outlet is available. The
BravadolExcavation says none is available.
.
The soils map also says that the site is poorly suited for a home site
development e~ecia11y if the soils poor drainage would not support a septic
system.
Soil: 52-B (minor acreage with this soil)
Moderately deep soil
Moderately well drained
Very dark brown silt clay
Dark brown silt clay
Bedrock at 36 inches
Permeability is slow
Effective root depth - limited by high water to a depth of 1-2 feet during
December to April.
It is used for hay and pasture. .
It has seasonal high water, poor permeability. and restricted root depth.
Tile is not effective with this soil but it does help if the water is removed from
the site.
This site is poor for grass seed, hay and home sites.
What is the best use for this site?
A small scale grass seed, hay or pasture operation is suitable. However, this
will not meet the $80,000 gross criteria.
If a nursery or greenhouse operation is developed, the $80,000 could be
obtained but the flooding is a real issue and severely wet soil is a major,
problem. According to county standards, I don't see any agricultural use
qualifying under the current standards.
.
..
.EXTENSION SERVICE
Linn COflnty
.
.
OREGON
STATE
UNIVERSITY
.
Old Armory Bailding
4rh and Lyons
PO Box 765
Albany, Oregon
97321.0261
, TelephoDe
541.967.3871
Fax
541.967.9169
hap:llosa.orst.cdalexccasioalliaD
.
EXHIBIT M
November 22, 2000
Jim Griffith & Associates
1257 High St #6
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Mr. Reed:
Upon reviewing the soil classification iDfonnation and visiting the site at 28828 Royal Avenue on the
comer of Royal and Green Hill Rd in Eugene, Oregon, I would consider this site to be alow quality
pasture site. To provide a viably productive livestock pasture the site would fust need to address the
drainage problem, and secondly, address the fozage quality and quantity issues. The site due to the
chaIacteristics of the soil and its topogIaphic nature does not provide adequate pasturing for animals
during the wetter months of the year. The presence of standing water on much of the site, in these wetter
months, create many challenges for a livestock manager in Sll.~g animal health and pasture
productivi1y. Because the site has had little to no use over the past several yeaIS, the forage base has
ciiminic:hf'.ti in quantity and quality due to inteIstitia1 erosion, creating many bunchgrass-type pedestals
that create a very uneven and unstable ground surface. The species composition appeared to be
indicative of a site with such soil and drainage chaIacteristics. The quantity of forage would improve
with some animal grazing pressure, but the quantity consaaint is still limited to the ecological site
chamcteristics. .
To fully realize the forage production capabilities of tins pasture it would be reco.I 1...l"I'Ided that the site
be plowed under and a new seedbed established. Pasture reestabnc:mnl"l'lt can be costly ranging from
S500.00 to S2,ooo.OO per acre depending on available resources and seedbed preparation time and
materials. As the site sits now the cauying capacity would sustain ....}UoAiw.dcly 1 cow per two acres or
around 4 sheep per 2 acres during the season of growth. usually April until late August, dependiug on the
seasonal climatic conditions. If the site was replanted and at its peak of production it could possibly
sustain 1 cowper acre or ap!1~uximately 4 sheep per acre overtbe same April to August growing season.
Because the site has no hay pasture at the present time thC site could be grazed at it's maximum c:apacity
of 1 cow per 2 acres, as previously mentioned. If the pasture was reest,lhlic:hf'.ti and a portion was hayed,
the animal IIUIDbe:Is would need to be reduced to free up the portion of ground to be harvested, or the
gr.IZing pn:ssure on the entire area reduced to allow the forage to stay ahead of the animals to provide a
viable hay crop. If the site was replanted and a portion was used for hay one also must cnn~dP.rthe
standing water issue for livestock location in the wetter months of1he year. Various livestock opticms are
available to a producer with a site such as this. Such options include a registered type heard oflivestock
Or a co. i... ..-n:ial beard along with a species choice such as cattle, sheep, hoISes, llama. etc.. These
decisions are limited, though, by the constraints of the site and the goals of the producer along with the
availability of capital
District Extension Agent
(Livestock & Water Quality)
P.O.Box 765
Albany, OR 97321-0261
Office 1-888-883-0522
Fax 541-967-9169
e-mail petcr.8cbreder@orst.edu
<q
"
i
.... ~. \
'-ell I~,.
rni.Joty, '
EXHIBI~,~
,~~'~
., l~"":L.
......
........1.-....1;<:
Thursday; September 19, 1996
I
'of;-
.......:.,.
: I.":
, PalllPatricK
....#:..... ;..
. ,"t.' .
. . .:.~ oJ .' ~ . ..
'.. '3~.::':
" ......
,'. ..
.:'......~~...:7~
.' .."....~~..
. i~,.":4
'.:':,;"..
'.. .,......
., .' -. '.::'~..
.,;.~::..." ,;
;'\~~
\J
12:;f:lk:,~ $()""TJ- ~Q I
.
'~
.'
. .
'. .
- -
. -
. ,
. .
-. o.
, "
Paul Patrick
88576 Greenhill Rd
Eugene, OR 97401
Department of Environmental Quality
WILLAMETTE VALLEY REGION
750 FRONT ST. NE. S~0-,J~~~7310 PHONE (503) 378-8240
~;/", (ltt~~t~ <~~~
, ._"{" ~o.9-~v . ;~
6-' ~~'( () 1.,. " Ii pril 27, 1989
- ..,.
~,"1~~~~:~;:'" ,,", ,'~ ,J..1
, -',' CERTIFIED MAIL
\ ~
IEIL 0Cll..DSC:HCIT
CID\ISMlR
" ,
RE: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANcE'
ENF-WVR-WQ-89-91
Lane County
'This letter is to inform you that you are in violation of CE:rtain
Oregon statutes,and rUles and have caused a significant, ad"erse
environmental impact on state waters.
Discussion
.. I
March 1, 1988, I visited your property because the Deparbnent had .
previously ~eceived a complaint regarding the depositing.~f large
quantities of wood waste on 'Your property, and questioned. whether
this, action had been "approved by the Department. You and I.discussed
the. matter and you stated that you were preparing .th,e si.te for
agricultural use, ,and were not using the site for wood waste.
disposal. '
March 4,' 1988, I' sent you a letter confirming our discussion.
'~.'..:. ," ..~. ~. -. ':. .... ').~. ,,". .;
April 13" 1988, I ~,:againvisi ted the site,. and you showed; me your
contourinq, ,irri.gation sys~, and much of your, plantinq.,. Based. upon
this visit, "I fe~t you did not come under the existing, "oregon
Administrative Rules' pertaininq to solid waste.
April 20.; 1988" I. sent you a letter confirming,;our,~s~~i<?n., (see
attached). Of particular, note is the "last ,parag%:aph, which,.states:,
.' . or:.', ;..~ '... . :"': : . '.' .:: . . .. ..
"There, is,; ,.however , one item worthy of- caution. When, woody
material . of ' this -type is used extensively, there is always the
possibility. .of ',leachate producti(~m. Such leachate cannot be
allowed to' enter public waters, surface or- underground. This
can be a serious matter, and one which you must protect
against."
Nove~er 10, 1988, we received another complaint that more wood waste
was being deposited, and it did not look like an agricultural 4It
pursuit.
..
DEOIWVR-l01 1/88
\
///
./.
. ,:>C,
Page 2
patrick
"\~~~~~~~~:::b~~" :1:1, i'9"S8, :'i: "'vi~if!~d~~fh~~~'i~~ ~ More waste was being'::":-;-::,: :,::,<-".
,'", deposited at the far end of your property and possibly on an
adjacent property. I looked at the drainage in front of your
property and along the side' your of property, and saw what appeared
to be early evidence of wood waste leachate. . However, ~ couldn't be
sure so I rescheduled a fOllow-up visit in the late Winter/e~rly
Spring of 1989.
March 23, 1988, I made a follow up visit, and this time I observed
'the drainage coming from your property had degraded badly and'was
heavily laden with thick, off-white gelatinour growths. This is an
indication of water in an advanced stage of degredation.. The areas:
of impact continued down the roadside ditch to the north, crossed .~.
under ,the road, and then crossed private property to the east and
nortn'and ultimately discharged to the Amazon drainage.
March 30, 1989, a rnvisit was 'made by JosephA. Petrovich, and myself,
and the situation was essentially as I had seen on March 23, 1989.
&. I
SDecific NonComDliance
During your placement of larqe quanti ties of woodwastes on your
property you failed to provide adequate safeguards to prevent
escapement of contaminated drainage from these materials into waters
of the state. This is in direct violation of ORS 468.720" which, in
part, states "no person shall cause pollution of any waters of the
state or place or cause to be placed any wastes in a location where
such wastes are likely to escape or be carried into the waters of the
state by any means."
.
Necessarv Action
Please submit your plan for correction of the existing'~itua~ion in
such a manner as to cease pollution, or potential pollution, of state
waters. This plan should be submitted wi thin 30 days' of your receipt
of this letter, and correction completed not later than October 1,
1989.
Since you have not been able to control contaminated runoff from
those wastes you have already placed, we also request-your immediate
action to terminate acceptance or placement of any additional, fll1
materials on your property. If you fail to compl y with the above..
requests it wi11 be necessary for me to refer this matter to our
Enforcement Section for civil Penalty A-ssesS1D.ent, which may be as
high as $7,500 per day for this type of'~ajor Class II violation.
.
\
\
/
,"
.
Gary
If you. have any questions, please feel free to call either me or
. "~..r~;~",~~"l~~::~,~~o.fi"::~;O\'si;:~>".h,;:.;,~,,..;i:. .,.k....
s~:~re~. ~ ., .
~~~rnade~
Diplomate AAEE ,
Reqiona:L consuJ.tant
..
DJH/mt
Patrick. non
'Attachment 1: Deparbnent letter to Paul. Patrick dated 4/20/88.
cc: WQ Division/watt.
Enforcement Section/watt.
stan Petrasek/watt.
Lane ' CountyHea:L th Department/watt.
~; .:':"-':;., :j~~~
..:' .:.
.,~ -;:"': .
. "
'.,
\'
\
\.
\
\
:" .~;!::..~'~:~;.'~'~:'~~'
~ " .
~. .
~.i'
.
.
Er.I.lWltor:
. "
cYvr '
:!VALUATIOR rm.o \lOR~,
t:;'.,
~o!'
:. ,r
;,t#
. :~.; ..' ;';..... ~~~~.~~":.~..;:~. ~/-.
, So1:l\',H.a.i:r:tx ':cOloi.l~Aiid;'~tt.linq : (NoU.:ion).;~ "'C::O&rse, FnCJi:taiiu~;liCOtS-..",,:, ,;: ~'q;,*::
.' . Sb:uC'r:l:ire. LAyer L1m1.t1nq"Enee1:1_ -SOU'De1n:h.e~';,:r'~;"''':~;~'
'1'~e',.
.t:~'1~:\' m~
',~~~::..~::,~~<~....~ :-..~"~~ '.--.------.;t.....
[j;;...,$~"~1.- ~rr~<""t:;,~,;~. ,..;;_
'...j;(;~:~, r=e;;~-:..JJ/.Ii 't
~~
f . '\. . i :sr;';,'.~:kt::A f',,:
.,
.
P1t',l
~f~s
~J~:"':.,l'
:;.;!:f .:.~.
',,',:if:"
'~;~;'~.;:~~',;~~;;l"" .'," ::,',,' f/:, ''},::;;,
.'::;\~!;:;:' L~:~?:::~:
'.:' .;. ~ . .
-. ~\ ,:...... ~~J.:
;; t:::j;?:~?~ft.p~~:' :~.~~:'~~~:~:~~~:'f~.=-~!('
',.
:::-; <-;:f:?~~f:~:>;;, :;i~~~}}~\F
. ..
'\~~
it
", :~~\. ",
:::" ~~~.!t;";.A:~"':""~"""""",,:, ,;~I~,.".
",.,,)'
,
. ''':
- ~.. ,.!..,.. .,w;........,,:
. : ...;.:::i:~~::.~' "~ .
.....
. ,
.~~-r..::~ {'
c/~ .~ .: ",'.
.;~.., .
, :'. ;'L:s.:.~~...... ',' , L....,:,;. :lI.
.-l.' -"~'~1'", ~~1oa
'~:V: '. ..~' ,; ":~',:i'
~t;. '~~~:;~Tl@:~~':,~:,
.~: . ':'~".~':~ ' ..&4if '~>..,.~..- .1:.
': r.4~'"", ~.,.l'-ti.. ......,....~. ,.
(.,
f
~.~
...<~J:'"i1... ~.:.!:;'~:,.
'. '::>1J~~i;~~t0?if.~;i~~~~;~ i
. .~'
, ."l.
:..~~-:'.,;.~...
:.~.~~f~;..
",')~.::",~
'..;t.
....
., '
'.,;t...
;".;'-:":"
.,:__';..1'
';?~~if~~~' ::~~~~;~~ '
,... .
J:;'-- :.::::',,' ':'..:,;:
.;"':
"""~:;~:"rt'~.'
,.~ ~~~3t~ ~:;,;-.;;.~.. :
:;::~~~";::.:'~:'f
.'. ~".. ....
~;- ,,":;"~:J~..~ <.::"
if'., '. ~ IL,~' -::~'~~~'!~1:'~'~"~:~-""" '.
'..:-
J':1!-,!,;{'
.... .".:..".........
. t....~:...".;,;:..
u.J.t',~'.A.:..(';:;., ,
-7 zff ;:':~Wt': "';'F-' :: ',- :GZ ;)~':;;~x,~J~~."", ~~ !",
- ( .-[ 1 ,;\ii'...t;;:.~ :' :::, ,:: 7.::,:::~.,.f.,!.:::.',,'.',',',:_r,
,<...:lr :{:.'):',/t ,;, ~>, ~~;:',..:',',', :. :~"
!-;'
"~~;~~~.~
.. .~..
\:
',;~ .~':~, . '.;;..:~ :~~\',~~fi'..
",ltt~.,.,. ..,!,.'$<
: :.'.;..:. .r<< ". ._~\~: ::~.\;_;~;
:." .
':i;<~.~~~~,;
.:'. ;;:.:.~..:
f~t:
(:~.- ....~:r-- --GJU .0. - "'@'-~~'~'
@ €) @ @ @~ :
00' _ $0 eo' eo' SO',< 80' eo' S~' so' . 80' fO (/0' ! 0
~. .,: ~_I:~~:l~J'_~_j~.:,~u'~"I.:"":".~~~~~'.:...~l;_.r~_u;} _ ~_~_~.~ t
l~"\ ;::-- . 'Y:!O' ..,,,': ~-_..._._-~,..........,..,.... ...:::; ::::"... .._-':.!o-,.._......,..'--..--~60' '~'-------1
..,... '.... -...,...------ - r- - (;REENHLl.J.. ROM. _ _ . _ _ _ __ +, __. \
.. ....u~~=~~ ~-..:.....--.-.-._.u....-----..--.....-~ S_~~~~. .........---.-..---....-..--....---.-..-...... .--l,) ....\
- - 00' ~ ", SIZE' TPTAL OWE:ASHI.P := 'V. '3'1 AC.fll:5
..--.,---.-. (;lCrlittloR CORNERS 0: TAl'<:r TM'LOT 100 .. Z.OS A<:RIi~ (LS'XIHIH(;.)
vv/ DIST^NCe IN p eT T^!o. \.OT 200 .. "f, 2t AC.rtU, Ct=)\IHING-)
,:;.....-.....''';. =)II~T'N(, lor OF At'CORO T^K LOT '300 = 3..~ Ac"E'S (EIt.,t1Nci)
....& :)12:Ci - ~OQITlONAL RO^O RIGHT OF W,,"'" (FurURE)
... ....O:7uHl!O LOT <:onHefl~ 20 FT ...LON6- wlisr SlOE' OF G.AeeNtfILL RO .. (J, e AC.,
<!Q. PT A,L,o'HI; SOVlll 'IO,e. or-~O.Yi,\L ....vl: ... ,0, 6 ^~,
M~'-!l.?TeQ :lItE. ~ l,l.1~ AC.RE-S
PAof"OSID LOT UNCi' AO,:rUS'-Mlit4T'$ /(11IHI)$ PIroeC!.ll\r1o"i)
, TIII\ 1,0,- 100 ~ 5:.V.S ~Re$ 'y,.."'x i"cSo'" .-V,8ACRn)
r"'ll LOr (00 · y.5"O AC,~lJ' (t:s-rlf fto'" ~. 3'1I1(R~S)
r^lC lor :roo - Yo 5'0 '\cr'lf~ ((IrS-'ll vto'" Yo 11 AcnEs)
FUTvRe VR8MUZAr,ott . ?6LOrs
TIII\ LoT 100 - 2' Lor~ . "vIAMr; " YZ LOTS PeR "CRI!'
-r-^I\ LO r ~OO. l: 5" Lor, ....veRAcHI~, 6" LOT~ feA ^CRl.'
,t~l! LOr '!bO · Z,. LOT' AVI:"'^GG ".6' LQr? PeA Ac.ne
· AVj:fMCOCi' FOR I'3.N^C,IS 5".5''1 LOTS Pe"ACflG
. AveR ....cot.> FOM I V, rr "C:, IS 5'. ZfT (On per. ,"eRE
.
, 0
1.)-0
(\.
)-
@
@)
@
~@
@
@
1- - - '. .. - - -i
,...... .. ....... ~......7
,-off -.. ---- ,..
F~vRG' RO^D W'OeNIl'Hi-
~ TIH&" OF sues Olv'OltlG-
c:.C:N rEHl llt/E OF ROlli)
(~_.,
~.,
TYPICAL l.oT <:.0' If eo'
</800 5Q Fr ..
((OOE Mitt 15 Y, 5'0011')
" · tt tf'un'D 0''''0. tMN CUA."".N"
.'
PORTER TRACT DEVELOPMENT (r:uTURe)
e
G>
e
@)
@
(!)~
@
"t:
.
EXHIBIT 0
,
. ., \ I" . . . ~
60' (.0' ~()' .so'
,-
80' I
@ ... I
g,
I
, I
~I III
I ~
... ,
@ 0,
lX>1
@@@@)
,." 0
@
-~r
.~? J
NOA\~
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR URBANIZATION
SCAU: , lrl ';:0 100FT A~rAovro 011
010111 Y. ee ."
Jim GI-' fIlth If Ass OClCt.tu ) ]:t'\c,
700 C:C><INf",v crus ftp,
G'
OAN t BReNDA PORTeR
EXHIBIT P
-:-ft.
1'1.'"
:r..
~:.~:[~~ ~..: .~. .
.I"'~
to
'.?
-.'
. :".\.
.~ "~l
'. . ~ ,;
.. ,
. .:':" ..-;
.':~
ti.
u.'
r,
,~
.
DEVELOPED AND COMMITTED LANDS WORXING PAPER-1989 ADDENDUM
I. Introduction
The Lane County Rural Co~prehensive Plan was adopted by the County
Commission and acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservatiop and
Development Commission in 1984. Plan designAtions and zoning for 770
distinct geographic areas within the county were applied according to
the Developed and Committed Lands Working Paper prepared in 1983. The
working paper cited the following general rule for identifying
developed and committed lands:
"...to qualify, an area must consist of at least four tracts which
are contiguous to one another, a majority of vhich have been built
upon. However, individual isolated commercial and industrial
activities, regardless of the number of tracts involved are
,considered for D&C status. Public facilities such as schools, are,
also considered. In most cases, all tracts must be ten acres or
less in size, unless other factors render larger tracts unsuitable
for resource use and/or committed to development."
,..e
The Rural Comprehensive Plan was challenged by 1000 Friends of Oregon,
who sought judicial review by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners
alleged seven assignments of error, including the method for
identifying Developed and Committed Lands described in the 1983 working
paper. The Court of Appeals ruled for the petitioners on the question
of identifying developed and committed.lands and on other assignments
of error. Subsequently, each of the parties petitioned the Oregon
Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of,Appeals
decision affecting developed and committed lands and remanded the case..
to the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The commission
then issued five "In Order To Comply" directives which indicate what
must be done to bring the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan back
into compliance with State law. The first directive deals with
developed and committed lands:
"In order to comply with Goal 2, Lane County must adopt findingsr
for all Developed and Committed Exceptions remanded by the court,
providing information on the history of past and present uses which
demonstrates that uses allowed by Goals 3 and 4 are impracticable
(see OAR 660-04-028). Where the county's findings cannot provide~
support for the exception, the county must designate and rezone'.
properties for Goal 3 or 4 resource uses."
.
The purpose of this addendum to the original Developed and Committed
Lands Working Paper is to satisfy the LCDC directive by explaining WHY
the areas so designated meet the applicable standards. The paper
describes the methods by which information is gathered and analyzed,
and the reasons WHY the information support's an exception to state
planning goals designed to protect resource lands. It is important to
remember that the thresholds set forth in Section IV are guidel~nes
only. Fact4 derived from individual excepti on a reas may di cta te:
c~nclusio~ different' than the thresholds suggest. Such determi~.tions
wlll be m~ on a case by case basis. .;:, ..
Page 2-EXHIBIT G
. .
,\
II. Criteria for Exceptions to State Planning Goals
'.
Section 197.732, Oregon Revised Statutes (OAR), specifies the criteria
and procedures for designating exceptions to State Planning Goals.
Local governments may adopt an exception ~hen:
a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the
extent that it is no 10nger available for uses allowed by the
applicable goal; or
b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as
described by commission rule to uses not al10wed 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) further
defines the requirements for developed and committed exceptions.
Physically developed lands are described in Section 660-04-025 as lands
that may no lonqer be available for the uses promoted by the applicable
goal due to the presence of buildings, roads, water and sewer
facilities, or utilities.,
The requirements for land irrevocably committed to other uses are
described in Section 660-04-028. The purpose of the rule is to permi t .
such exceptions where justified, so as to provide flexibility in the
application of broad resource protection goals. Findings need not be
prepared for each parcel of land, and the local government need not
demonstrate that every use allowed by the goal is impossible. The
findings for a committed exception are expected to address the factors
cited in Section 660-04-028(6) by explaining the reasons why the land
is irrevocably committed to uses other than those allowed by the goal:
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 (as defined in Section 660-04-025); and
g) Other relevant factors.
These are the factors referred to in the Supreme Court decision and the
LCOC directive. None of the factors are further defined in terms of
absolute standards that establish practicability, which is the
statutory measure.
The word "practicable" is easily confused with the word "practical",
however there is a very important difference between the two that must
have been evident to the authors of ORS 197.732. Practicable
"...applies to what has been proposed and seems feasible but has not 4It
actually been tested in use...(as opposed to) practical which implies
proven success in meeting the demands made by actual living and
use. "(We~ters, 9th ed.). In othe r words. the findings must ~x'plain WHY
~ 2
Page 3-EXHIBITG r_-'
.
farm or forest management does not seem feasible on lands that
otherwise appear to have such potential, even though the land may never
been put to such use.
WHY does the use of adjacent land or the presense of public
facili~ies hamper agriculture or forestry?
WHY do the size and configuration of parcels, or the
characteristics of the surroundings have a bearing?
WHY do natural or man-made features impede the use of resource
lands?
WHAT other factors may be relevant, and WHY?
These are not easy questions to answer for such'a large volume of
developed and committed areas as there are in Lane County. The 770
geographic areas so designated in the Rural Comprehensive Plan share
some similarities, but each has its own distinctive characteristics
that relate to the criteria of the administrative rule. Most of the
designated areas should easily qualify for exception to the State' goals
protecting farm and forest lands.
.
The Supreme Court decision cited a passage from the Court of Appeals,
conceding how difficult literal application of the statute really is:
"...We recognize that the large number of exceptions requires, as a
practical matter, that the county attempt' to justify each one in a
summary fashion..."
In the next breath the Court made it clear that in spite of the
difficulty the county must meet the requirements of ORS 197.732 and the
administrative rules.
This addendum to the Developed'and Committed Lands Working Paper
outlines a method for addressing these requirements in the most direct
way possible, by spelling out the process for distinguishing among
lands that meet or fail to meet them. The addendum was prepared during
th~ period when the first group of supplemental findings for 341
exception areas were revi~wed by the Department of Land Conservation
I and Development for acknowledgement by LCDC. The findings in this
initial group were not prepared according to the standards and
procedures described in this addendum, however on July 21st and
September 19th LCDC approved over 80% of the land area within the 341
areas. The addendum wil1 be used to evaluate all of the remaining areas
not approved in the initial review.
..
Page 4-EXHIBIT G
3
-
,::~-'
III. Methodology for Determining Exceptions
.
Lane Council of Governments has digitized maps and tabulated ownership
records for each of the 770 Developed and Committed Exception Areas.
The maps combine tax assessment, land division, addressing and zoning
records. This composite of existing land use augments, and in some'
cases supercedes, the exception area data sheets prepared as part of
the original Rural Comprehensive Plan submittal to LCDC in 1984. The
data reflects the number of parcels and structures now in' existance.
All statistical information should be more accurate because of computer
technology that has been employed since the data for the Rural
Comp~ehensive Plan was compiled.
The next step is to group all parcels within an exception area into
four categories specified by the Department of Land Conservation and
Development Commission response to the May 1988 Supreme Court remand:
1) Parcels or development which occured prior to the adoption of
Goals 3 & 4 (December 27, 1974);
2) Parcelization and development for which exceptions to Goals
3 & 4 were taken at the time of division or development:
3) Resource, non-farm and non-forest parcels or development created
pursuant to Goals 3 & 4; and .
4) parcels or development approved under unacknowledged zoning
regulations without findings against the Goals.
Counts are taken of parcels that meet the definitions of ORS 215.010(1)
and Lane Code 16.090: "...units of land created by partitioning, in
compliance with all applicable planning, zoning, and partitioning
ordinances and regulations, or by deed or land sales contract if there
are no applicable planning, zoning or partitioning ordinances (at the
time)...it does not include a unit of land created sol&ly to establish
a seperate tax account."
This definition is contradicted by OAR 660-04-025 (6)(c), the
administrative rule for determining ir'revocably commi tted on the basis
of parcel size and ownership patterns. The rule states: "...several
'contiguous undeveloped parcels under one ownership shall be considered
as one farm or forest operation". Counts are also taken according to
this more restrictive approach, and are indicated on the parcel data
sheets in brackets. Average parcels sizes are calculated with the-
number derived from the administrative rule.
The results are verified with tabular listings of Assessment and
Taxation records and aerial photographs taken in 1986. The boundaries
of the exception area are transfered to USDA soil maps and the farm and
forest capabilities for each soil within the area are recorded. Field
inspections are co~ducted as a final check of completeness and
accuracy, and as the means for identifying physiographic features that
could impede resou~ce management. Finally, the research is complete
when all past documentation of the area has been assembled. ~ .
~- 4
Page S-EXHIBIT G
.
-. .
.:..~~:
.
.
.
The analysis for each area follows a logical path that parallels the
statute and administrative rule. Each question leads to a finding that
either supports or refutes designation of the area as developed or
committed land.
Where is the exception area located, and how is land in the
vicinity designated on .the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan? Is
it in the midst of one of Lane County's 18 farm regions or
surrounded by forest land? The location of the exception area
determines whether the exception is being sought from Goal 3, which
protects agricultural land, or Goal 4, which protects forest land.
In some instances the area is located among farm and forest lands,
so both goals must be addressed. In other instances, neither use is
evident in the area even though land is designated for one or the
othe r..
Is the exception area one.of the 35 unincorporated communities in
Lane County? Unincorporated communities are distinct from other
exception areas' because most have public water and/or sewer
systems, dedicated streets, public meeting places and an
identifiable name listed in MCArthur's Oreqon Geographic Names.
Lane County's rural communities are integral to the productivity of
its agricultural and timber industries because processing plants
and distribution facilities are often located within, and because
rural communites are where many farm and forest workers live. Rural
communities are generally indistinguishable from small incorporated
towns and cities in every respect except for their lack of
sovereignty.
What are the soil conditions in and around the exception area? The
Soil Survey of Lane County Area, Oregon was pUblished by the US
Department of Agriculture in 1987. Each of the 210 distinct soil
units idehtified in the survey has been rated for potential farm
and forest productivity. Typically, several different soil units
are located within an exception area, and each may have different
ratings. The findings explain how much of the exception area is
composed of soils with high suitability for farming and/or
forestry, and the degree to which the remainder is unsuitable.
Is the Exception Area fully developed? Some of the 770 Exception
Areas in Lane County are fully developed because structures are
situated on all of the parcels located within, and because all of
the parcels are small in size. If so the exception to Goal 3 or 4
is justified according to ORS 197.732(a), and the analysis is
complete. If the area is not fully developed the factors identified
' in OAR 660-04-028(6) must be addressed to demonstrate WHY the land
is irrevocably committed to uses other than farm or forest.
WHY does the use of adjacent land or the presence of public
facilities hamper agriculture or forestry? WHY do the size and
configuration of parcels or the characteristics of the surroundings
hav~ a bearing? WHY do natural or man-made features impede the use
of respurce lands? WHAT other factors are relevant and wgyi Because
there:-re no absolute answers to these questions. Lane County
Page 6-EXHIBITG 5 r.
sought the advise of experts in the fields of agriculture and
forestry to formulate a series of guidelines that could be used
distinguish resource lands from those that are irrevo~ab1y
committed to other uses. Section IV describes how the advice was
obtained and what the experts said.
'.
to
OREGON LAND USE ALLOCATION SYSTEM
Applied to Lane County
(UUANywu<
........-.. mil - -..
Cilia UCI \D~C""'" k F=:::::'
txanoHs) "- m:DHDAXY
RESOURCE
------.......
~
r.. ....."T'\.~_ ....::...0."____'- .)>...~ ___~
~.....
r--.
nDCoUtT
-----
1"-1 J
~ ..
UA.AII RURAL
2.2~ 2.27.
/~
.---
f '<
F..-IF...at EI'U
......... F_
Actual Scale Representation
RESOURCE
.LS~
~
,,-.,
r:- <0_=
'~LJ 1 _ y- .......... --....,
. .... Jio.~
UItIAH UCI D,. C X HOH-COMNEJtCAL '---
RUUL
RESOURCE
P'rta.. F...
Pri... Fom'
..
COMMUClAI.
--
.
Page 7-E~BIT G
6
-
. -
~ .
~~./
.
IV. ~hreshoids for Land Irrevocably Committed to Non-resource Use
~or the past two years Lane County Land Management staff has conferred
with two technical committees in the development and testing of the
Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) computer model. In the past, the
farm LESA and forest LESA technical committees have met independently
to discuss whether the model could be used to distinguish between prime
resource lands and those of secondary value. In May 1989, the two
committees met jointly to define a different threshold; the distinction
between resource lands and rural areas that are irrevocably committed
to the extent that they can no longer be "practicably" managed for
agr~cultural or timber production. The threshold may be visualized as a
point along a continuum of land uses, with urbanization is at one end
and intensive resource management at the other. The point which
represents land that is irrevocably committed to non-resource use is
indicated by an x.
.
The ex~rts were shown a series of maps that portrayed different
owne~hip and development patterns. The maps focused on. sites that
varied from 5 to 20 acres in size, adjacent to existing homes on 1,2,3
and 4 sides; a total of 16 different configurations. Each expert rated
the diagrams independently as to whether they would purchase or lease
the site for farm or forest use. They were to make their decisions with
the understanding that the land was suitable in every other way and
that cost was not a consideration. The results were tallied and
discussed. The committees then achieved consensus on the following
guidelines:
a) Parcels of 20 acres or less with dwellings on three or more
adjoining sides are committed to non-~esource uses that make it
impracticable to to conduct farm or forest management.
b) parcels with dwellings on two adjoining sides are impracticable
fer farm management if 15 acres or less, and impraticable for
forest management if 20 acres or less.
c) Parcels with a dwelling on one adjoining side are impracticable
for farm management if 5 acres or less and impraticable for forest
manage~ent if 15 acres or less.
The experts explained how. they arrived at their decisions by replying
to a series of questions:
What is the minimum size parcel that may be managed for farm or
forest use, if there is no dwelling on the site and it is isolated
from other holdings?
What is the minimum size if the same parcel is adjacent to land
owned or leased for reSOurce use by the respondant?
.
What bearing would the presence of a dwelling have on the' decision
to buy or lease resource land if it were situated close to the
property line?
~,-
Page 8-EXHIBIT G
7
TWLQ)DCGa~
~~lEG(Q)N
~lUlrr~~
~.,.
~:,"'k. . Seeon.
"~'~'~':-:-"~ '-. "~'.. - ary
~-~,~-~-~-'-. , ;'..^j', . '. '.' -. ~ 1.11... F.,m
~~'i.,"o." . ''''''''''''''''''.''''' ..~""~ ~~,~'. ,
. '. """"''''''''A''.'''''''''''''''''''...~......r~iI' ~..~.:,::. , Forest!
' I , , : , , .' I , , , '.~.4.~1'; _.. .
. '" '''' "" "'... '" '" ...... "',JY."';'\}". '.~ Scattered
"""".'^""A"'.^:/.~~. ~ . ..:. ~.. ~
'<""""""":.\~~~~ . ~ ~ - ResidentIal
' , 'J - " ~~~~~ ~.~t~, ~ .~~
~ ~ .:~~~ · $:' ~..-~C-.- ~ . ~ ~_ ...:'..:
. . .'~ ...~.~ .~. ..',
.r. " To:) ~ _ ~'. ~/;' . ~~ .,..,,,^,:,~~
' ~. . ,;..'.. ~~-w.::..... ..........''''.''''''''...........'.....'.
,-- ~. -., ,. .... ..,'l_.ro...;,- ...:o:.'~;' "-'0 "".~~~. ,"'"",
...~ - ,:\,.~ . . . . . .1'. ::,:.~.. ..~~ :. .~. ........ ..~.... "",tI\.""."".."''-"'~....
'""(.. ,:' . "<f~' . . . . . " .... :':~';"""'" ~~..~ ..... ...~~ . .'...."'...'.,.........
.~..") .':. '. "., .:....... ...,.::...._~.:.,.,:.::~~: "....~ ,... .'. ~4: ....... .... :..:.. -:..!J.;:....~~
' , "!':~ '--'.. '- -,,'. -' - , , _. ~-.. .. .... , . , ,
....'..:...~.. . . ~<..:.....:.~<':.. '~~...,;.<..;.;.;:;-.,.. ~':::!:: ~-..,........ ..~"\....... .
':'~~~~~,.,.,;::~.t.;...~.1 ,_..~ .,~.,.. -'. Communlt
. . . · . .~.. --. ~ :,:...,:---. ~.-.-'4;: · './. .
../ .'. . .-:-:-: . :- ~),;::,:,;~~~ -." ./~ .:.
. .'. ..... of~~""'F17t-=!'r': _:'~-" ..:::..,.~c, , ~ . .,.. .,.
~;;;:~;:;~~~~.,- . , - ~.' -:;;.~.;.1~:~~
"~~'T.~~ .~.:::~ ~ -.;;..;~=-=---:-:'~. ,'", ~.....u . : '''''''''''''':;-";~J
Page 9:: EXHIBIT G . '. ~ ~_ --:.~. --<;;""'-" .... ;';:' ^.^ _ _ _ _ ""::::
.. .. .- ,":. ......: #. -.
Primary
Commercial
Forest land~
Seconcary
MIxed Farm
Forest
"
, .
.
, what bearing wou~d the dwe~ling have if it veresituated near the
center of the parcel?
If a parcel was otherwise suitable for purchase orlease as
resource land. what bearing would the presence of dwellings on
adjacent parcels have Qn the decision?
would the presence of undeyeloped land or some other form- of
buffering around the perimeter of the site be an influence in-
deciding whether to buy or lease a parcel for resource use?
Bow important is the regional setting when purchasing or leasing
resource land?
The experts wrote individual replies to these questions. then discussed
their answers as a group. The findings that follow are derived from
both the writen responses and the discussion, which are included, as
App~ndices A and B of this report.
'.
Findings of the Lane County LESA Technical Committee
1. The presence of dwellings on neighboring land has a definite_
bearing on the decision to acquire land for agricultura1
production. More to the,point, agricultural experts say it~ is the
attitude of the people who live in those homes toward
conventional management practices that often leads to the, type of
problems that make certain lands unsuitabl~ for farming.
2. The more homes there are adjacent to agricultural lands, the
more likely the potential for conflict. Agricultural experts
contend that the heart of the conflict is tnat people often move
to rural areas in search of solitude; whereas those who
already reside in the area ar& there to grow crops or raise
animals. Sooner or later the n~wcomers are likely to object- to
the dust from plowing, the smell of animals. the sprayin9o~
pesticides and other chemicals, and long hours of noise from
machinery.
3. prime agricultural lands are considered as such for both
environmental and institutional reasons. Agricultural experts
maintain that the best agricultral land is usually underlain by
the best soils; that there is greater acceptance of resource
management practices among like minded property owners; and that
favorab~e economies of scale result from concentrations of,
similar agricultural operations.
.
4. From a rancher's perspective land use conflicts usually involve
trespass. Dogs and motorcyclists harass livestock, and stray
members of their herd can destroy a neighbor's landscaping. The
discharge of industrial and household wastes are not as
observable, but the result can be even more serious because
of~Qntamination of the water supply and the soil ,uPOQ which it
is.$pplied.
c:-
Page lO-EXHIBIT G
9
. ,
.
Agriculture endeavors are extremely varied, and each type of
ope~atiori has its own requirements for the amount of land needed
for a viable commercial establishment. For example, livestock
grazing requires at least 50 acres because operational costs
increase "dramatically with distance from home. Grass seed and
wheat require at least 40 acres because each crop must be
,isolated from the other to raise certified seed. Organic farms
require as little as 5 acres of high quality farm land, but they
too must be isolated from other types of operations for
protection against chemical influence.
..
6. For all these reasons, and the threat of litigation they pose,
agricultural experts look unfavorably on land with homes on more
than one adjoining side for commercial farming or grazing.
7. The presense of dwellings on neighboring properties has a similar
bearing on the decision to acquire land for timber management. ,
Forestry experts state that no more than one or two homes are
acceptable alongside a parcel managed for commercial timber
harvest.
8. Other types of land use on adjoining property are more or less
acceptable. Recreational facilities are least compatible because
their attraction is due the very qualities that are contrary to .
efficient resource management. Commercial and industrial uses
tend to be more compatible because of a greater tolerance to
objectionable practices. The cardinal rule of forest resource
management: the more people, the less desireable the land.
Conversely, the more an area is devoted to forestry, the less
likely that neighbors will object to or interfere with
conventional forest management practices.
9. At least 20 acres of land are needed for successful timber
management because of the, time it takes to 9ro~ a harvestable
stand, and because of tha'economies of scale of,every aspect of
the operation from administrative costs to moving equipment~ .
There are simply more management options on parcels larger than
20 acres.
10.Location and physiographic characteristics are also weighed
heavily in the decision to acquire land for timber management.
Forestry experts state that proximity to market depends on
hospitable topography and good access; otherwise operating costs
go up, management flexibility drops, and even more acreage is
needed to offset the losses.
.
Page I I -EXHIBIT G
10
.
v. The Rationale for Exception Areas Boundaries
Many of the 770 Exception Areas in Lane County contain parcels of land
that are difficult to classify as either resource land or irrevocably
committed land. Rural dwellings are typically located amid cultivated
or forest lands, .however, agricultural and forestry experts contend
commercial resource management is no longer possible if the area is
inhabited beyond a certain point. Literal interpretation of State
Planning Goals 3 & 4 would dictate farm or forest designation of any
land not occupied by a building, but in light of the provisi~ns of OAR
660-04-028, which allow for exceptions to the resource protection ., .'
goals, that is simply not a reasonable interpretation.
The problem of classifying these lands is recognized by the
contributors to Sustaininq Agriculture Near Cities*. Wil1iam Lockertz,
Research Associate Professor of Nutrition, Tufts university, states:
.
"Agricultural land is but one resource involved in the activity
called 'agriculture'. That activity also involves management
ability, know-how, labor and committment; in short, itinvolves
people...if preserving agricultural land means only 'keeping
land now in farms from being developed', it does not assure that
the human element in agriculture will also be preserved..."
stewart N. Smith, Henry Luce Professor of Agriculture and Society at
Tufts, supports the concept of a Bimod~l Agriculture which:
"...suggests that, in general, farms'are getting larger, but
there is also an increasing number of smaller, part time
farms...the noncommercial sector, comprised mostly of small
part-time operators, accounts for a minor proportion of farm
output but for most farms in number."
Arthur' C. Nelson, Graduate City Planning program, Georgia Institute of
Technolo,gy, comments on" the theoretical value of rural residential
land:
"Some advise against eliminating all nonfarm or hobby farm
activities from the rural countryside because that would surely
lead to the purchase and utilization of farms by households
seeking rural residential, non-commercial farming lifestyles. It
is for this reason that Oregon's much heralded farmland
preservation program includes a kind of safety valve in that
several million acres of marginally productive rural land are
set aside to meet at least some of the demand for rural
residential lifestyles within commuting range of urban
employment opportunities."
. *Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities, ed. by Wm. Lockertz, Soil and
Water Con~ervation Society, 1987.
Page 12-EXHIBIT G
11
The zoning boundaries that define each exception area protect valuable
farm and forest lands against encroachment by new residents and
commercial enterprizes; however the very same boundaries protect rural
residents against objectionable management practices that are
unconditionally allowed in exclusive farm use and forest zones. Once
the perimeter of an exception area has been established it serves as a
cordon that protects these ~pposing interests, therefore the boundaries
are de1iniated to prevent islands of agricultural or forest uses within
rural residential zones.
-.
-
The current Rural Comprehensive Plan boundaries were original1y drawn
to coincide with property lines. The al te r~a ti ve is It spli t zoning",
which is seldom employed because it is so cumbersome to administer.
Consequently, in most cases the choice is whether or not a parcel
should be included within an exception area boundary. Parcels that
cannot be further diYided or developed are included even though
portions of the site may be in pasture or trees, because farm and
forest uses are permitted assessory uses in rural residential
districts.
Property with a farm or forest tax deferral would appear to be
categorically ineligible for developed and committed exceptions if-:not
for the fact that the oregon Department of Revenue officially
recognizes the distinction between land zoned for farm or forest use
use and rural residential use. The tax deferral program applies to .
both; even lands within Urban Growth Boundaries are eligible.
The relationship between taxation ,and land use has been debated on
previous occasions by advocates and the Land Conservation and'
Development Commission. The present policy of the commission is that
tax deferral does not automatically ,disqualify land from an- exception
to State Planning Goals 3 & 4, but it does add substantially to the
burden of explaining WHY the exception is warranted. That policy will
be adhered to in the findings of each exception area that containS-land
receiving a deferral.
.
Page I3-EXHIBIT G
12
"
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPT OF LANE COUNTY
LESA COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
REGARDING DEVELOPED AND
COMMITTED LANDS
PARCEL SIZE:
la. If the parcel is not adjacent to any other property you ovn or lease
for farm or forest management purposes and if it does not have a
residence on it, vhat vould be the minimum parcel size you vould
need for practicable farm or forest management?
Committee members representing the forest industry unanimously agreed
at least tventy acres are needed for successful management because of
the time it takes to grov a harvestable stand; separation from other
property ovners vho may object to management practices; and the
economies of scale for all aspects of operation from administrative
costs to surveying and moving equipment. .
Respondan t:
Forestry
Sue B. 20 acres for the folloving reasons:
- If the property is the right price.
- If the property is relatively close to tovn.
- If the property has good topography.
- If the property vould be an easy operating area for forest mgt.
- If you don't have all of these then your operating costs go up,
your fixed costs go up, and you need a greater acreage over vhich
to spread these costs over.
- Parcels smaller than 20 acres vould not be practicable for forest
management because of surveying,costs, equipment moving costs,
administrative costs, economies of scale.
Hike H.. 20 acres for the folloving reasons:
- Same as above.
- Access, equi.pment move-in and move-out costs.
- Topography.
- Transportation, market proximity.
- Increased flexibility.
- More management options on parcels 20 acres and larger.
John P. 20 acres for the same reasons
John S. 20 acres for the same reasons vith the addition of:
- No adjacent residences.
- Litigation increases on smaller parcels vith residences around.
Steve V. 20 acres for same reasons vith the addition of:
- Concern about kind of neighbor more than just if adjacent residence.
- The closer the neigbors are the greater the impacts.
Page 14-EXHIBIT G
..
Agriculture
Committee members from agriculture responde~ vith ansvers from 5 to 50
acres because of the diversity of agricultural endeavors. Parcels as
small as 5 acres are considered useable for organic farms if the soil
is high quality, but as much as ~O acres are necessary for adequate
seperation of seed crops and 50 acres are necessary for livestock. As
vith forest operations, there are economies of scale associated vith
each agricultural use.
Hark H. 40 acres for the folloving reasons respective to grass seed & vheat:
- Crop variety isolation (conflict vi other variety of grass seed),.
- Need certain minimum acreage to grov grass seed.
- If acreage becomes too small it becomes impossible to raise
certified seed.
- Cost of moving equipment.
Tom H. 15 acres for the folloving reasons:
- Smallest you can go and have neighbors.
Conflicts of moving equipment, moving your practices, moving your
management, moving your irrigation.
- Conflicts vi neighbor's tresspass.
Bruce v. 20 acres for the folloving reasons:
- Equipment expenses.
Travel time. .
- Increased labor costs.
.
Ross P. 12 acres for the folloving reasons:
- Profitablity.
- Plus other reasons already mentioned.
- Ability to spray affecting profitability and litigation.
Cleve D. 50 acres for the folloving reasons respective to livestock:
- Vhen you get avay from home you have greater management costs.
Need large enough unit to be able to afford to extra travel.
- Dogs harrassing livestock.
John H. 5 acres for the folloving reasons respective to organic farms:
- Not using chemicals.
- Using very li ttle fertilizer.
- If the property has good rich soil.,
.
Page IS-EXHIBIT G
.f
.
.
lb. If the parcel is adjacent to other property you ovn or lease for
f8.r1l or forest management and does not have a residence on it, vhat
vould be the minimum parcel size you vou1d need for practicable farm
or forest management?
Both resource groups agreed consolidation of holdings can maXlmlze the
utilization of equipment and labor, but at the same time increasing or
decreasing an operation involves a detailed, site specific economic
analysis. Configuration is as important as size in the efficient use
of resource land.
Respondant:
Forestry
Sue B. 10 acres for the folloving reasons:
- If adjacent to property you already ovn.
- Its not sO,much the size of the parcel as hov much it vould
enhance the property you already have.
Hike H. No minimum for the folloving reasons:
- If it is at the right price.
- If there are no topographical features vhich vould separate (creek).
John P. 5 acres ,if no close residences.
John S. 5 acres,vith the provision that it could logically become part of
the same forest management unit.
Steve V. No minimum as long as there vas no creek separating.
Agriculture
Hark H. 10 acres for the folloving reasons:
If you could avoid isolation problems for grass seed.
If you vou1d not have equipment relocation problems.
Tom H. 10 acres for the folloving reasons:
- If farm management unit is expandable.
- If it fits veIl vith the existing piece so that you could easily
extend management practices and irrigation systems.
Bruce V. 10 acres for the folloving reason:
- Because close proximity to other managed acreage vould reduce costs.
Ross P. 5 acres for the folloving reasons:
Easier to manage property in'close proXlmlty.
As long as it requires no major change from current mgt. practice.
Cleve D. 10 acres for the same reasons others have given.
. John H. 5 acres as long as the price is right.
Page 16-ExHrnIT G
---.......-.,..... .........-..--..-.- -"'-"
"
..
SUBJECl" PARCEL CBARACI'ERISI'ICS:
2a. If the parcel met your minimWll parcel size requirements and had a
residence on it in one comer or at one end of the property and the
bulk of the property vas undeveloped, vhat bearing vould the
residence and its location have on your decision to purchase the
parcel or to lease a portion of the parcel?
The forestry experts reasoned that the dvel1ing vould 'be an asset if
the purchaser intended to reside on the property or had a say as to
~o vould reside in the dvelling, hovever the dravback vould be that
the price of land vould be bid up by those vishing to reside on
resource land. .
Respondant:
Forestry
Sue B. - It vould prevent purchase of the property.
- Couldn't afford residential value for resource use.
Hike H. - If itnis at reasonable price could control portion vith residence.
John P. - Same.
John S. - Same.
.
Steve v. ~ If it is at a reasonable price.
- If you could control the occupant of the residence.
The agricultural experts replied unanimously that the dvelling vould
have little or no bearing.
: Agriculture
Hark H. - It vould not effect purchase of the property.
Tom B. - The nearer the residence the more effect it vould have.
- Vould like"to buy it at a price that could afford to demolish the
residence.
Bruce v. Minimal effect as long as you can conduct spraying.
Ross P. Minimal effect depending upon hov much land is used up for acce~s.
Cleve D. No effect.
John H. No effect as long as on corner or on end.
.
Page 17-EXHIBIT G
"
.
.
.
2b. If the parcel ~et your minimum parcel size requirements and had a
residence in the middle of it vi th the surrounding areas being
UDdeveloped~ vhat bearing vould the residence and its 10eation have
on your decision to purchase tbe parcel or to lease a portion of the
parcel!
The foresters stated that dvellings vould be objectionable
irrespective of location on the property.
Respondant:
, Forestry not purchase for same reasons before.
Sue B. tlould
Hike H. Vould purchase only if you (the forest manager) vould live in it.
John P. Vould purchase only if you (the forest manager) vould live in it.
John S. Same.
Steve V. Vould purchase only if could control vho lived in it.
The agricultural point of viev vas that they vould not choose such 'a
parcel because of the inconvenience of vorking around the building.
Agricul ture
Hark H. lIou1d purchase only if could control vho lived in it.
Tom B. Same.
Bruce V. lIould not purchase for the folloving reasons:
- Irrigation vould be a problem vI residence in the middle.
- Drifting dust and spraying,',vould be problem vI residence in middle.
- Noise pollution voul~'be a problem vI residence in the middle.
-lIould depend if Occupant vould put up vI these problems.
Ross P. Vould purchase only if he vas the occupant.
Cleve D. lIould not purchase property vI residence in the middle.
John B. tlou1d not purchase because it yould be too hard to york around.
Page 18-:EXHIBIT G
. ,
.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS:
3a. If the parcel met your requirements identified in 1. and 2. above,
what bearing would residential or nonresource related development on
adjacent parcels have on your decision to purchase or lease a
portion of the property?
Both the agriculture and forest experts agreed that the presence of
dwellings on neighboring land and the attitudes the inhabitants hold
tovards standard management practices vould have a definite bearing
on a decision to buy or lease resource land; the more houses the
more likely the potential for conflicts. Residences adjacent on tvo
or more sides are not acceptable. Recreational uses are just as
much of a problem to resource managers, hovever commercial,
industrial and institutional uses that are compatible because they
have greater tolerance tovards resource management practices.
Respondan t:
Forestry
Sue B. The more sides vi conflict then less inclined to purchase because:
- The more drivevays to residences then the more problems vi access
for hauling logs.
Hike H.
The more development there is, then requires a lover value or
larger piece in order for economies of scale to vork.
The more people in the vicinity then the less desi~able.
.
john P. Close houses vould rule it out because:
If residences then people vould be living there.
- Industrial uses or utilities vould not be considered as
conflicting.
John S. Same.
Steve V. - The more people around, then the less desirable.
- Church camps, boy scout camps vould be particularly undesirable.
- People vith strong recreational interests vould make the property
less desirable.
Agriculture
Hark H. Vou1d not purchase if property had residences on tvo or more sides.
,Tom H. The more residences around then the less desirable because:
- Difficulty in obtaining insurance for chemical application.
- Increase possibility of litigation.
Bruce V. Vould not purchase if residences on more than one side because:
- Problems vi spraying herbicides and pesticides.
- Having to take neighbors into consideration to move equipment.
- Subject to trespass and vandalism liability.
.
Ross P. Vould not purchase if residences on more than one side for same
reasons.
-
Page 19-EXHIBIT G
"
.
.
.
"
Cleve D. From livestock perspective, there are other considerations:
Industrial uses might pollute the soil on vhich livestock graze.
- Residential conflict harassing livestock (dogs, motorcycles).
Livestock getting loose and eating residential landscaping.
John H. Hostility of neighborhood is main factor.
REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS:
4. Vhat bearing vould regional characteristics have in your decision?
For instance~ if the parcel vas. located in a region characteri%edas a
prime area for farming or forestry. hoy vould th~~_ possibly tip the
scales in favor of the parcel being practicable for farm or forest
management verses if the parcel vas not located in a prime area for
farming or forestry?
Both resource groups agreed that the more the surroundings are devoted
to farming or forestry, the lesslikelihooq neighbors viII object
to or interfere vith standard management practices.
Respondan t :
Forestry
. Sue B. A prime forest area vould have no residences, therefore, small
parcels could be considered having, more potential for it to be
practicable for forest management.
Hike H. - If it is an area vhere there- has been some residential development,
then it makes no difference.
- The more development there is, then requires a lover value or
larger piece in order for economies of scale to York.
- The more residences then more people in the vicinity and the less
desirable.
John F. - ~esidences are generally opposed to resource management.
John S. Same reasons.
Steve V. - If it vas an area of recr~ation use, then more people and less
desireab1e.
- Attitude of neighbors is the key.
Agriculture
Hark H. A prime farm area vould have some bearing but main criteria vould
be the economics and profitability of farming specific property
rather than the regional characteristics.
Tom B.
Same reason and emphasizes that good soil is the bottom line.
Bruce V.
Agrees that good soil is the bottom line.
ROS~ P.
The less residential conflicts
practicable farm management.
Page 20-EXHIBIT G
theri the more potential:to- conduct
. ,
- If the farmer is ploving, the residents don't like the dust. ..
- If the farmer is spraying, the residents don't like the spray.
- If the farmer is raising animals, the residents donlt like the
smell.
- The farmer vil1 be making noise at 6:00 AM, residences don't
like the noise.
- Residences moved to rural areas for folloving reasons:
- peace;
- quiet;
- solitude.
- Farmers are located in the rural areas for different reasons:
- To raise crops.
- A basic conflict of interest and desires betveen rural residents
and resource mangement.
Cleve D. Vould have a greater interest in prime agricultural area because:
- Fever people that don't understand resource'management.
- Less negative factors vith vhich to deal.
John B.
Same reasons.
.
Page '21-EXHIBIT G
.
, '
.
.
.
APPENDIX B
REPLIES TO
DEVELOPED & COMMITTED QUESTIONAIRE
1. Parcel Size:
Question a) asked for a~ explanation of how the respondants arrived
at the minimum number of acres for practicable farm or forest
management, if all surrounding land were in seperate ownership. The
reasons given by the agricultural committee were:
organic farming can be conducted on small sites if the soil is
good.
equipment travel and surveillance of livestock takes longer and
therefore increases management costs.
risk is increased by using chemicals and fertilizers if the parcel
is too small.
economies of scale make small parcels unprofitable.
The reasons given by the forestry committee were:
the length of time needed to develop a harvestable stand of trees
requires many holdings, with few limitations.
small parcels are more isolated and therefore the cost of moving
equipment is higher. '
the larger the site the greater the distance to neighbors who
might object to usual forest practices.
survey and move-in costs along with other administrati~e problems
are proportionately higher as t~e parcel size decreases_
Question b) asked for a similar explanation if the land were
adjacent to the respondant's property. Both the agricultural and
forest committees stated:
increasing or decreasing farm holdings involves detailed economic
analysis of land and management costs.
consolidation improves the utilization of equipment and manpower.
configuration is as important as size in the efficient use of
resource land.
2. Parcel Characteristics:
Question a) asked what bearing the presense of a dwelling in one
corner of the parcel would have on a decision to purchase or lease a
parcel for resource use. Surrounding land would be undeveloped in
this scenario. The agricultural committe,e replied unanimously that
the dwelling would have little or no bearing_ The forest committee
reasoned: .-
- the price for the land would be bid up by potential buyers who
valued the property as a homesite moreso than resource land.
-the dwelling would be an asset if the purchaser intended to reside
on the property, or if the purchaser had a say as to wn..o ,would
occu~y the dwellinge. ,
Page 22-EXHIBIT G
? I
~
.
Question b) asked a similar question, however the dwelling would be
situated in the middle of the parcel instead of off to one side. The
agricultural committee replied that the parcel would be undesireable
because of the inconv~nience of having to work around the building,
and they probably would not purchase or lease it. The forest
,committee replied that the decision would be no differant than if
the dwelling were closer to the property line.
3. Neighborhood Characteristics
Question a) asked what bearing the above circumstances would have if
the surrounding land were developed with homesites. The agricultural
committee stated that the presense of homes around the perimeter
would have a major bearing, depending on the following factors:
the number of homes should not exceed one or two to a side.
- the attitude of the neighbors, i.e. their acceptance of normal
farm characteristics and practices.
~he forest committee agreed; citing the following reasons:
density is the factor, because the more houses the more potential
conflict.
recreational uses pose just as much of a threat because people .
expect environmental amenity.
other types of commercial, industrial or institutional uses are
fully compatible because they do not share the same expections.
Question b) asked if the presenseoof homes on only some of the
surrounding land due to buffering by natural features would make the
parcel more suitable for resource' use. The agricultural committee
stated it would not. The forest committee generally held to the
premise that development on more than one sise of a parcel
disqualified it for resource use unless the buffer were significant.
4. Regional Characteristics
The question was to what extent the regional setting made a parcel
more or less appealing for resource use. Both committees agreed that
the more the surroundings are devoted to resource use the less
likely that neigbors will object to or interfere with standard
management practices.
.
Page 23-EXHIBIT G "
, T
.
APPENDIX C
l'tEMBERSHIP OF
LESA FARM AND FOREST TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
SUE BOWERS- Land use manager, timberlands department, Weyerhauser Co.;
B.S. washington State univerSity, 1976; 13 years of experience in
silviculture, 7 of which in~olved State of Oregon planning process;
member of Society of American Foresters and Wome~ in Forestry.
Responsible for coordination of forestry and other compatible land Uses
on over 400,000 acres of Weyerhauser tree farm property: evaluation of
land purchases and disposal; dealing ~ith forestry issues in regulatory
.arenas; work in all phases of forest management inclUding contact with
adi:acent landowners and the general public.
CLIVE DUMDI- Sheep rancher; B.S. 9regon State univerSity, 1955; 20
years of experience ~s a rancher preceeded by 5 years as a banker and 5
years as a county extension agent; member of Lane County 'Livestock
ASSOCiation, Oregon Sheep Growers, American Sheep Industry ASSOCiation,
Western Oregon Livestock ASSOCiation, Oregon Cattleman Association and
~unction City Chamber of Commerce. Uses forage as the main source of
feed and "...therefore management of land for good pasture production
is very important."
.
THOMAS ~. HARPER- Self employed farmer: B.S. Oregon State university,
1941; 43 years of experience in farming; member of Oregon State
Horticulture Society; recipient of Hartman Cup for Outstanding
HorticUlturist; currently assists in managing a 700 acre farm
operation.
~OHN A. HENTZE-Farmer; B.S. Oregon State Uniyersity, 1953; 35 years of
experience in farming. "...for a farmer to stay in farming one has to
know how to rotate crops to maintain fertility, and how to grow each
crop economically."
MARR E. HELLBYE- Extension agent; B.s. & H.S. Oregon State univerSity,
1973 & 79; 10 years of experience as extention agent; member of
American Society of Agronomy and Oregon Weed Science Society.
Conducts research and advises farmers on field crops.
J. HIRE HORRIS- U.S. Forest Service; B.S. Washington State university,
,1966; 30 years of experience as a forester; member of Society of
American Foresters; received SAF awards for outstanding service in
1979, 1984, 1986, and 1987. Involved ~ith land and resource management,
assuring compliance with applicable policies and regulations, and
member of incident management team.
ROSS PENHALLEGON- Extension agent; B.A. , M.A. Washington State
University, 1976 & 83; 5 years experience preceeded by 8 years on a
farm; member Oregon County Agents ASsociation, National County Agents
ASSociation, Lane County Horticulture Society, Oregon Horticulture
SOCiety, Filbert Gro~ers ASSOCiation and Oregon Master Gardener
.ssoCiation. SP7cialize~ in commerciul horticulture, assists Lane
Ounty growers 1n managlng their furm l~nds.
JOHN M. P~LIPS- Retired forester; n.S. university of Califo<nia.
Page 24-EXHIBIT G
i,
1946, M.S. Oregon State university, 1967; 17 years experience as a
professor of forestry at Lane Community College, preceeded by 16 years
as a chief forester and 3 years as a forest engineer; member Society of
American Foresters, American Forestry Association, American Congress of
Surveying and Mapping, Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon and Oregon
Small Woodlands; selected as U.S. delegate to World Forest Technical
Education Conference in Stpckholm Sweden, 1971. Still manages smal1
forest tract.
.
JON STRANDJORD- BLM planner/environmental coordinator; B.S. & M~S.
Purdue university, 1966 & 69, M.B~A. Golden Gate University, 1974; 15
years exp~rience in wildland management. Current responsibilities
include land use planning of 320,000 acres of forest land and
implementing National Environmental Policy Act.
BRUCE G. WILLIAMS- District Conservationist, U.S.D.A.; B.S. Washington
State university, 1982; 12 years experience in management of pasture,
rangeland and cropland; member Soil & Water Conservation SOCiety,
Alpha-Zeta Agricultural Honor Society and Lane County Farm Bureau;
recipient of 3 U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service merit awards. Advises
farmers on resource management problems and provides soils and natural
resource information to the general public. '
STEVE WOODARD- Extension Forester/tree farmer: B.S. & M.S. Oregon Sta~
university, 1963 & 66: 40 years of experience in forest management: ...
fellow and past chapter president of Society of American Foresters.
Page 25-EXHIBIT G
.
. ~
.
IN THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDER NO.
89-10-25-4
}
)
}
)
)
)
}
)
IN THE MATTER OF
ADOPTING THE 1989
ADDENDUM TO THE
DEVELOPED AND COMMITTED
LANDS WORKING PAPER, IN
SUPPORT OF THE LANE
COUNTY RURAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
'WHEREAS, on February 29, 1984 the Board of County Commissioners of
Lane County adopted Ordinance No. PA 884, which applied Rural
Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning districts to all land within
Lane County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County adopted a
series of technical working papers in support of the Rural
Comprehensive Plan, including the Developed and Committed Lands Working
Paper adopted by Ordinance No. PA 883; and
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
acknowledged the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, including the
working papers, on September 13, 1984; and
.
WHEREAS, on March 29, 1988, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded
acknowledgement of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to LCDC
for reconsideration of five issues, including additional justification
for developed and committed exception areas; On June ,2, 1988, pursuant
to the Supreme Court remand, LCDC adopted Compliance Acknowledgement
Order 88-CONT-380 directing Lane County to provide, among other things,
additional justification for developed and committed exception areas
designated and zoned by the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 13 and 14, 1989, the Lane County and West Lane
Planning Commissions conducted pUblic workshops to discuss an Addendum
to the Rural Comprehensive Plan Working Paper on Developed and
Committed Lands; and
WBEREAS, on September 27 and October 3, 1989 the West Lane and Lane
County Planning Commissions conducted public hearings to consider the
final draft of the 1989 Addendum to the Developed and Committed Lands
Working Paper. Both commissions voted unanimously to recommend
approval to the Board of County Commissioners; now, therefore, be it
.
Page 26-EXHIBIT G
~ .
..
ORDERED that the 1989 Addendum to the Developed and Committed Lands
workinqpaper, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "Aft, is
hereby adopted in support of the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
enacted by Ordinance No. PA 884.
DATED this~day of
October . ~
. ~ ~--~o~n:y Board
Page 27-EXHIBIT G
2
.~ - --:'..
.-.... .....
of Commissioners
.
'$
.'~.
.~
.~~
-:-.
: ,
..~....
'/';
.
.
'.
AT!' . 2 to Cover Herro:
CHlTERIA
CRITERIA
I. Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Lane Code 12.225(2)(a). The amendment must be consistent with the
relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and
Development Commission; and
L Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning (implemented by OAR 660-004-0028,
Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process):
(1) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when the land subject to the
exception is irrevocably committed to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because
existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable
goal impracticable.
(2) Whether land is irrevocably committed depends on the relationship between the
Exception Area and the lands adjacent to it. The findings for a committed exception
therefore must address the following:
(a) The characteristics of the Exception Area; [the Exception Area being the subject property
. proposed for the exception]
(b) The characteristics of the adjacent lands;
(c) The relationship between the Exception Area and lands adjacent to it; and
(3) Whether uses or activities allowed by an applicable goal are impracticable as that term
is used in ORS 197.732(1)(b), in Goal 2, Part ll(b), and in this rule shall be determined
through consideration of factors set forth in this rule. . .For exceptions to goal 3 or 4, local
governments are required to demonstrate that only the following uses or activities are
impracticable:
(a) Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203;
(b) Propagation or harvesting of a forest product as specified in OAR 660-033-0120; and
(c) Forest operations or forest practices as specified in OAR 660-006-0025(2)(a).
(6) Findings offact for a committed exception shall address the following factors:
(a) Existing adjacent uses;
(b) Existing public facilities and services;
(c) Parcel size and ownership patterns of Exception Area and adjacent lands, including
an analysis of how the existing development pattern came about.
(A) Consideration of parcel size and ownership patterns under subsecti~n (6)(c) of
this rule shall include an analysis of how the existing development pattern came
Page 1 of'4
~ .
about and whether findings against the Goals were made at the time of .
partitioning or subdivision. Past land division made without application of the
goals do not in themselves demonstrate irrevocable commitment of the
Exception Area. Only if development (e.g. physical improvements such as roads
and underground facilities) on the resulting parcels or other factors make
unsuitable their resource use or the resource use of nearby lands can the parcels
be considered to be irrevocably committed. Resource and nonresource parcels
created pursuant to the applicable goals shall not be use to justify a committed
exception. For example, the presence of several parcels created for nonfarm
dwellings or an intensive commercial agricultural operation under the
provisions of an exclusive farm use zone cannot be sued to justify a committed
exception for land adjoining those parcels.
(B) Existing parcel sizes and contiguous ownership shall be considered together in
relation to the land's actual use. . For example, several contiguous undeveloped
parcels (including parcels separated only by a road or highway) under one
ownership shall be considered as one farm or forest operation. The mere fact
that small parcels exist does not in itself constitute irrevocable commitment.
Small parcels in separate ownerships are more likely to be irrevocably
committed if the parcels are developed, clustered in a large group or clustered
around a road designed to serve these parcels. Small parcels in separate
ownerships are not likely to be irrevocably committed if they stand alone amidst
larger farm or forest operations, or are buffered from such operations.
(d) Neighborhood and regional characteristics;
(e) Natural or man-made features or other impediments separating the Exception Area
from adjacent Resource land.
.
(t) Physical development according to OAR 660-004-0025; and
(g) Other relevant factors.
Ib: Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, implemented for purposes of this application by
OAR 660-021-0040, Urban Reserves):
(1) Until included in the urban growth boundary, lands in the urban reserve area shall
continue to be planned and zoned for rural uses in accordance with the
requirements ofthis section, but in a manner that ensures a range of opportunities
for the orderly, economic and efficient provision of urban services when these lands
are included in the urban growth boundary.
(2) For Exception Areas an~ nonresource land in urban reserve areas, land use
regulations shall prohibit zone amendments allowing more intensive uses, including
higher residential density, than permitted by acknowledge zoning in effect as of the
date of establish'ment of the urban reserve area. Such regulations shall remain in
effect until such time as the land is included in the urban growth boundary.
(3) Resource land that is included in urban reserve areas shall continue to be planned
and zoned under the requirements of applicable Statewide Planning goals.
.
Page 2 of 4
, ~
;/
.
Lane Code 12.225(2)(b). Adoption of the amendment must not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Section H.B.. Growth Manae:ement and the Urban Service Area. Policv 25: Based upon
direction provided in policies 3, 7, and 23 of this section, any development taking place
in an urbanizable area or in rural residential designations in an urban reserve area
shall be designed to the development standards of the city which would be responsible
for eventually providing a minimum level of key urban services to the area. Unless the
following conditions are met, the minimum lot size shall be ten acres. Any lot under ten
acres in size but larger than five acres to be created in this area on undeveloped or
underdeveloped land will require the adjacent city and Lane County to agree that this
lot size would be appropriate for the area utilizing the following standards:
a. The approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
b. Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
.
c. The owner of the property has signed an agreement with the adjacent city which
provides:
(1) the owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support
annexation proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate annexation.
(2) The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property.
(3) The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approval for
any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification ofose of
the property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval ofthe use
arbitrarily if it is in compliance'with applicable plans, policies, and standards, as
interpreted by the city, as well as the conceptual plan approved under
subsection a above. (pp. H-B-7, 8).
!
Section ill.C.. Environmental Resources Element. Policy 3.: When development is
allowed to occur in the flood way or floodway fringe, local regulations shall control such
development in order to minimize the potential danger to life and property. Within the
urban growth boundary, development should result in in-filling of partially developed
land. Outside the urban growth boundary, areas affected by the floodway and floodway
fringe shall be protected for their agricultural and sand and gravel resource values,
their open space ad recreational potential,.and their value to water resources.
Section ill.C.. Environmental Resources Element. Policy 4: Local governments shall
require site-specific soil surveys.and geologic studies where potential problems exist.
When problems are identified, local governments shall require special design
considerations and construction measures be taken to offset the soil and geologic
constraints present, to protect life and property, public investments, and
environmentally-sensitive areas.
.
Section ill.G.. Public Utilities. Services. and Facilities Element. Policy 16.b.: Rural
Residential. . .On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural level of ire and
police protection, electric and communication service, schools, and reasonable access to
solid waste disposal facility.
Page 3 of4
n.
...m._._......_._._._.. ... ........ ~.~ .................4..__ ..~.__,.._..~..~.._....__.........._h"'"
f '
Rezoning Criteria and Findings
.
Lane Code 16.252(2): Zonings, rezonings and changes in the requirements ofthis
chapter shall be enacted to achieve the general purpose of this Chapter and shall not be
contrary to the public interest. In addition, zonings and rezonings shall be consistent
with the specific purposes of the zone classification proposed, applicable Rural
Comprehensive Plan elements and components, and Statewide Planning Goals for any
portion of Lane County which has not been acknowledged for compliance with the
Statewide Planning Goals by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Any zoning or rezoning may be effected by Ordinance or Order of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Planning Commission or the Hearings Official in accordance with
the procedures in this section.
~.
,,-
.
.'
Page 4 of 4
~I<
Oregon Revised Statutes - Chapter 215
MT. 3 to Cover M=rno:
ORS 215.203
.
215.203 Zoning ordinances establishing exclusive farm use zones; definitions. (1) Zoning ordinances
may be adopted to zone designated areas of land within the county as exclusive farm.use zones. Land within
such zones shall be used exclusively for farm use except as otherwise provided in ORS 215.213, 215.283 or
215.284, Farm use zones shall be established only when such zoning is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
· (2)(a) As used in this section, "farm use" means the current employment ofland for 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. "Farm use" includes the preparation, storage and disposal by marketing or otherwise of the products
or by-products raised on such land for human or animal use. "Farm use" also includes the current'
employment of land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by stabling or training equines
including but not limited to providing riding lessons, training clinics and schooling shows. "Farm uSe" also
includes the propagation, cultivation, maintenance and harvesting of aquatic species and bird and animal
species to the extent allowed by the rules adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission. "Farm use"
includes the on-site construction and maintenance of equipment and facilities used for the activities
described in this subsection. "Farm use" does not include the use ofland subject to the provisions ofORS
chapter 321, except land used exclusively for growing cultured Christmas trees as defined in subsection (3)
of this section or land described in ORS 321.267 (1)(e) or 321.415 (5).
(b) "Current employment" of land for farm use includes:
(A) Farmland, the operation or use of which is subject to any farm-related government program; ,
(B) Land lying fallow for one year as a normal and regular requirement of good agricultural husbandry;
(C) Land planted in orchards or other perennials, other than land specified in subparagraph (D) of this
paragraph, prior to maturity;
(D) Land not in an exclusive farm use zone which has not been eligible for assessment at special farm use
value in the year prior to planting the current crop and has been planted in orchards, cultured Christmas trees
or vineyards for at least three years;
(E) Wasteland, in an exclusive farm use zone, dry or covered with water, neither economically tillable nor
grazeable, lying in or adjacent to and in common ownership with a farm use land and which is not currently
being used for any economic farm use;
(F) Except for land under a single family dwelling, land under buildings supporting accepted farm practices,
including the processing facilities allowed by ORS 215.213 (l)(y) and 215.283 (l)(v); "
(G) Water impoundments lying in or adjacent to and in common ownership with farm use land;
(H) Any land constituting a woodlot, not to exceed 20 acres, contiguous to and owned by the owner of land
specially valued for farm use even if the land constituting the woodlot is not utilized in conjunction with
farm use;
(1) Land lying idle for no more than one year where the absence of farming activity is due to the illness of the
farmer or member of the farmer's immediate family. For purposes of this paragraph, illness includes injury or
infirmity whether or not such illness results ,in death;
(1) Any land described under ORS 321.267 (1)(e) or 321.415 (5); and
(K) Land used for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by breeding, raising, kenneling or
training of greyhounds for racing.
(c) As used in this subsection, "accepted fanning practice" means a mode of operation that is common to
farms of a similar nature, necessary for the operation of such farms to obtain a profit in money, and ,
customarily utilized in conjunction with farm use.
(3) "Cultured Christmas trees" means trees:
(a) Grown on lands used exclusively for that purpose, capable of preparation by intensive cultivation
methods such as plowing or turning over the soil;
(b) Of a marketable species;
(c) Managed to produce trees meeting U.S. No.2 or better standards for, Christmas trees as specified by the
Agriculture Marketing Services of the United States Department of Agriculture; and
(d) Evidencing periodic maintenance practices of shearing for Douglas fir and pine species, weed and brush
control and one or more of the following practices: Basalpruning, fertilizing, insect and disease control,
stump culture, soil cultivation, irrigation. [1963 c.577 s.2; 1963 c.619 5.1(2), (3); 1967 c.386 s.l; 1973 c.503
s.3; 1975 c.210 s.l; 1977 c.766 s,7; 1977 c.893 s.17a; 1979 c.480 s.1; 1981 c.804 s.73; 1983 c.826 s.18;
1985 c.604 s.2; 1987 c.305 s.4; 1989 c.653 s.1; 1989 c.887 s.7; 1991 c.459 s.344; 1991 c.714 s.4; 1993 c.704
s.1; 1995 c.79 s.75; 1995 c.211 s.l; 1997 c.862 s.l]
.
.
http://landru.leg,state.or.us/ors/215.html
01/25/2001
, "
.
.
.
I >, Oregon Revised Statutes - Chapter 215
ATl' . 4 to Cover Maro:
ORS 215.710
215.710 High-value farmland description for ORS 215.705. (1) For purposes ofORS 215.705,
high-value farmland is land in a tract composed predominantly of soils that, at the time the siting of a
dwelling is approved for the tract, are: .
(a) Irrigated and classified prime, unique, Class I or Class II; or
(b) Not irrigated and classified prime, unique, Class I or Class II.
(2) In addition to that land described in subsection (1) of this section, for purposes ofORS 215.705,
high-value farmland, if outside the Willamette Valley, includes'tracts growing specified perennials as
demonstrated by the most recent aerial photography of the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture taken prior to November 4,
1993. For purposes of this subsection, "specified perennials" means perennials grown for market or
research pwposes including, butnot limited to, nursery stock, berries, fruits, nuts, Christmas trees or
vineyards but not including seed crops, hay, pasture or alfalfa.
(3) In addition to that land described in subsection (1) of this section, for purposes ofORS 215.705,
high-value farmland, if in the Willamette Valley, includes tracts composed predominantly of the
following soils in Class III or IV or composed predominantly of a combination of soils described in
subsection (1) of this section and the following soils:
(a) Subclassification IIIe, specifically, Bellpine, Bornstedt, Burlington, Briedwell, Carlton, Cascade,
Chehalem, Cornelius, Cornelius Variant, Cornelius and Kinton, Helvetia, Hillsboro, Hullt, lory,
Kinton, Latourell, Laurelwood, Melbourne, Multnomah, Nelda, Powell, Price, Quatama, Salkum,
Santiam, Sawn, Sawtell, Silverton, Veneta, Willakenzie, W oodbum and Yamhill;
(b) Subclassification IIIw, specifically, Concord, Conser, Cornelius Variant, Dayton (thick surface)
and Sifton (occasionally flooded);
(c) Subclassification IVe, specifically, Bellpine Silty Clay Loam, Carlton, Cornelius, Jory, Kinton,
Latourell, Laurelwood, Powell, Quatama, Springwater, Willakenzie and Yamhill; and
(d) Subclassification IVw, specifically, Awbrig, Bashaw, Courtney, Dayton, Natroy, Noti and
Whiteson,
(4) In addition to that land described in subsection (1) of this section, for pwposes ofORS 215.705,
high-value farinland, if west of the summit of the Coast Range and used in conjunction with a dairy
operation on January 1, 1993, includes tracts composed predominantly of the following soils in Class
III or IV or composed predominantly of a combination of soils described in subsection (1) of this
section and the following soils:
(a) Subclassification IIle, specifically, Astoria, Hembre, Knappa, Meda, Quillayutte and Winema;
(b) Subclassification IIlw, specifically, Brenner and Chitwood;
(c) Subclassification IVe, specifically, Astoria, Hembre, Meda, Nehalan, Neskowin and Winema; and
(d) Subclassification IVw, specifically, Coquille.
. (5) For purposes of approving a land use application under ORS 215.705, the soil class, soil rating or
other soil designation of a specific lot or parcel may be changed if the property owner:
(a) Submits a statement of agreement from the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United
States Department of Agriculture that the soil class, soil rating or other soil designation should be
adjusted based on new information; or
(b )(A) Submits a report from a soils scientist whose credentials are acceptable to the State
Department of Agriculture that the soil class, soil rating or other soil designation should be changed;
and ,
(B) Submits a statement from the State Department of Agriculture that the Director of Agriculture or
the director's designee has reviewed the report described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and
finds the analysis in the report to be soundly and scientifically based.
(6) Soil classes, soil ratings or other soil designations used in or made pursuant to this section are
those of the Soil Conservation Service in its most recent publication for that class, rating or
designation before November 4, 1993, [1993 c.792 s.3; 1995 c,79 s.78; 1995 c.812 s.8]
http://landru.leg.state,or.us/ors/215 .html
01/25/2001
-.. .... h.. '.," .-.... .... _..... .... ."-'-'. -_'_'~---_'_'._--____.___....,..._,..No'N."'_''''_'''_
'A'IT 5 to Cover MemJ:1'
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28f:OOO - JOINT BCC with CITIES #2 NoV: 29, 2000 public hearing minute
"-0.....
.. .-. \ -,
..t:,~~t'
APPROVED 1/3/2001
JOINT BCC MEETING WITH THE
CITIES OF EUGENE AND SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCILS
AND WILLAMALANE BOARD
November 29, 2000
7:30 p.m.
(Harris Hall Main Floor)
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance PA 1I56/In the Matter of
Amending the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Redesignate
Land From "Agriculture/Urban Reservetl to "Rural ResidentiallUrban Reserve", Rezone That
Land From Lane County "Exclusive Farm Use 40-Acre MinimumlFloodplain" (E-40/FP) to
"Rural Residential 5-Acre MinimumlFloodplain/Site Review" (RR-5/FP/SR) and Adopt an
;' Exception Pursuant to Statewide Planning Goal 2; and Adopting Savings and Severability
-:" Clauses (File P A 99-5599/Porter).
Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey called the Eugene City Council to order. Present: Bonnie Bettman,
Pat Farr, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, and Gary Rayor.
Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew called the Springfield City Council to order.
Present: Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield, Christine Lundberg and Fred Simmons.
Lane County Chair Peter Sorenson called to order the Board of Commissioners. Present: Bill
Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer.
Sorenson stated for all three metropolitan jurisdictionS the testimony, argum~nts and evidence
,must be directed toward the approval criteria and must be limited to evidence in the record as .
,-presented at the November 16, 1999 public hearing before the Metro Planning commissions.:.
,He said the failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to
,afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the
close of the hearing record precludes appeal to the Laild Use Board of Appeals.
.
:"'>~~'
Sorenson asked ifany of the participating elected officials from Lane County or the Cities of
Springfield and Eugene had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts.
There were no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts from any of the jurisdictions.
Sorenson noted that the record will be left open for additional written comments, but
comments must be received prior to the end of the hearing.
Mayor Torrey opened up the Public Hearing for the City of Eugene.
Springfield City Councilor Ballew opened the public hearing for an Ordinance amending the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram to Redesignate Certain Property
Rural ResidentiallUrban Reserve From Agriculture/Urban Reserve; Adopting and Exception,
to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands) and Adopting a Savings and Severability
Clause. '
Celia Barry, Land Management clarified that the record would only be left open if requested
prior to the close of the hearing.
Barry reported the item concerned a request for a Metro Plan amendment from agricultural . .:.
urban reserve to rural ,residential urban reserve and a zone change from exclusive farm use 40
acre minimum flood plain to rural residential five acre minimun:t flood plain site review. She
noted it involves a 12.4 acre property on the southwest corner of Greenhill Road and Royal
A venue. She added the urban growth boundary runs along Greenhill Road adjacent to the
http://lcweb/BCC_InfolMeeting_Info/2000%20MinuteslNovember/00-11-29jt2.htm
01118/2001
/'r
TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 28(000 - JOINT BCCwith CITIES #2 ('
Page 2 of5
.
east side of the property.
Barry explained the criteria for the Metro Plan amendment is cited in Lane Code 12.225,
Springfield Development Codes: 7,0703 and Eugene Land Use Code 9.128(3), She said the
Metro Plan amendment criteria states that the amendment must be consistent with the relevant
statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
and the adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
She stated that the zone change .criterion is found in Lane Code 16,252 (2), and read the
criterion. She added that all three jurisdictions must act on the Metro Plan amendment, but
only Lane County need act on the zone change request.
Barry noted the request involves an exception to State Land Use Goal 3 that relates to
agricultural lands. She added in order to remove land from a resource designation (such as
farm or forest) it has to be accepted out of the resource designation and placed in an exception
area. She added these lands are outside the urban growth boundary and considered developed
and committed and are no longer good for resource use, Barry noted the applicant had chosen
the irrevocably committed option and Oregon Administrative Rules spell out specifically how
the rule and goal is to be addressed in order to qualify. She said it is considered a Type 1
Metro Plan amendment because of the need to take an exception to the statewide land use
goals. She said the planning commissions in November 1999 recommended approval of this
application with the stipulation that the findings be strengthened (copy in file).
Barry stated that Brent Reed of Jim Griffith Associates had submitted additional findings this
morning that she had not reviewed and those will be distributed to the elected officials. She
said, regarding the findings that were distributed in the packet, staff does not believe they are
adequate to be adopted. She said it must be proven that the land cannot be farmed either
alone or in conjunction with adjacent lands and that didn't appear to be well documented in
the packet. She added the land to the west was not addressed at all for farm use on the
property and there is evidence in Assessment and Taxation records and aerial photos that
there is some farming activity on the property. She said regarding the property to the south,
the previous staff report to the planning commission had found the property to the south had
not been adequately addressed as far as not being farmable in conjunction with this property,
but that the applicant had done a better job in the fmdings that were in the packet for this
meeting with regard to the property to the south. She said, however, the problem with the
findings in the packet was that the original applicant's findings stated there was a horse
stabling facility on the property to the south that is defined as a farm use and the new findings
stated there were no farming activities and did not explain the revision.
.
.
Barry said the applicant did not address the urban reserve criteria that are in the Oregon
Administrative Rules and the rule was in place at the time of the application and required that
certain criteria be addressed, She noted the initial staff report to the planning commission
stated otherwise. She checked with DLCD and also learned at the work session earlier this
evening that the rule was in place as of 1992. She added there was no written information
about the urban reserve inadequacy because she did not have that information before the
packet was due. She said if it is approved, staff recommended a site review suffix be added to
the zoning designation (attached Exhibit B to the ordinances). She said it would ensure that
Metro Plan Policy 25 is addressed when the properties are developed. She recommended
requirements that drainage be addressed in the site review, as it was an issue for development.
as it isalso for farming activities, and there is evidence in the record that it is a substantial
issue for development of the property. She noted that there may be a lack of out fall for
drainage and they need to address how it will not impact surrounding properties. She added
the site review suffix would also ensure that access is not taken onto Greenhill Road but taken
onto Royal Avenue,
Dwyer said if the place could be productively farmed and there is no evidence that it couldn't,
it shouldn't be brought into the city.
http://lcweb/BCC_Info/Meeting_Info/2000%20MinuteslNovemberlOO-II_29jt2,htm
01/18/200 I
TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 28(')00 - JOINT BCC with CITIES #2 C
Page 3 of5
1:;':'
,.,Councilor Rayor asked whether there is a dwelling on the property. Barry responded that the
':' property owners live on tax lot 100 immediately on the comer of Royal and Greenhill and the
subject property surrounded their lot, and was vacant. She noted the subject property consists
of two legal lots, and so would not need to go through a County approved land division
process. She said this was why staff recommended that the drainage issue be addressed as
.' part of the a site review process, because the drainage issue would typically be reviewed as
;: part of a land division application and there would be no opportunity to do that in this case.
",,In response to a question from Eugene City Councilor Nailcy Nathanson, Barry responded
>'that the surrounding rural residential lands were designated as RR5 because they were found
to be parceled, developed and committed. She said the property to the west that may have
farming activity has a dwelling on it and that most of the properties in the RR5 area had
dwellings. She noted they were committed at the time the statewide land use goals came into
effect.
1~.;:',>
~?~
"Green asked for a clarification of the statement in staffs cover memo to the Board that the
applicant must prove that "no type of farm use under the definition is possible. II
<"Barry replied that each and every farm use in the state law does not need to be addressed, but
at minimum, categories of farm use should be addressed with regard to the subject property.
hi staff s opinion, the farming activities that are under state law were addressed in more of a
general nature than as how they related to the subject property. She said much of the
information provided was in the form of assertions not backed up with documentation, She
; added that since ORS 215.203 w~ not ev~n mentioned, it was a deficiency in the fmdings.
Councilor Bettman asked for an explanatIon of why the conceptual plan showing several lots
in a subdivision was attached as an exhibit to the application.
<Barry responded that perhaps the applicant could address this, but noted it was meant to
Laddress Metro Plan policy 25 of Section ILB., Growth Management and the Urban Service
..Area, which required the applicant to show how the property could be redeveloped once
,annexed. She noted the Site Review suffix would ensure that the conceptual plan was revised
;to show that city development standards had been met.
Councilor Pape asked if it was accurate to say that the soils on the property were poorly
drained, that the property lacked water rights and that the soils are considered only class III
:and IV for .agricultural purposes.
Barry stated that was correct. She further noted that the reason this was not enough to justify
approval of the application is because the soils on the property are defined as high value,
Dan Porter, stated he and his family were looking for property to build a home. He said the
property had the potential they were looking for, a house to live in while they built their
home, He wanted to build a house on the southern most piece of their property. He added he
had never developed any land in the past. He said the land was not usable for agricultural, as
it was moist in winter. He said they have met all the rules and all of the criteria had been
addressed satisfactorily.
,
.
.
Reed distributed handouts to the elected officials, (Copies in file). He gave a slide
presentation of the property.
Reed explained that the property has two legal lots of record totaling 12.4 acres that are
outside the urban growth boundary ,and within the Metro Plan boundary, Henoted it was not .
a request to annex within the urban growth boundary and it will not change the current Metro
Plan overlay designation of urban reserve, He said if this is approved, it will be zoned RR5
with an urban reserve overlay with the site review. He said the site (to the best available
information) had only been used for very limited grazing. He added they spoke with the
http://lcweb/BCC_Info/Meeting_Info/2000%20Minutes/November/00-11- 29jt2.htm
01/18/2001
J'J'- . , ..."
TUESDA Y, NOVEMBER 28(1)00 - JOINT BCC with CITIES #2
('
Page 4 of 5
.
USDA to determine if there was any type of federal information regarding the property and it
showed no records. He noted there were no jurisdictional wetlands located on the property
and there had not been farming on the property for at least 10 years.
Reed noted that amendment to the Metro Plan required that compliance with statewide
planning goals be demonstrated and. Goal 2 required that an exception be taken to Goal 3 in
this application and the exception sought is irrevocably developed and committed to non-
resource use--therefore is impracticable for resource use. He quoted ORS 660-004-0028 (1).
He explained that Lane County determined that impracticability of land for agricultural
resource use is objectiyelyevaluated using threshold criteria set forth in the 1989 addendum
to the development and committed working paper that was adopted in support of the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan by Board Order 89-10-25-4, attached as Exhibit "N" (copy,
in file). He noted an analysis through air photos and site visits had determined that subject
site has dwellings located on 'at least adjoining sides, He said the criteria provided within the
development and committed papers and through Board Order 89- 1 0- 25- 4 supported the
findings that the subject property does not represent practicable agricultural resource land and
is therefore developed and committed to non- resource use. He said the development
surrounding the subject property falls within the considerations in the criteria provided by
working papers to assess the practicability of resource use and the development and
committed nature of the subject property.
Reed commented that although the soils are considered high value (and they are not disputing
that fact) the subject is' greatly diminished by the size, and wetness of the site makes it
unworkable, Be noted the soils are wet from late fall to late spring and are dry during the
s,ummer, making a growing period. of only four months. He added the ground is too wet to
support anything but growing grass.
Reed stated that approval of this request would allow future owners to keep a few horses for
personal use. He said in consideration of OAR 660-004-0028 2 - 6, (the requirements for
irrevocably committed exception) they believe they were adequately addressed in the first
findings and also addressed them in the revised findings. He said with Section 3 of OAR 660-
004- 0028, it should not be required that 'local governments demonstrate that every use
allowed by the applicable goal is impossible. He noted the site is not in current farm use, the
land has sat unused for many years and is not adjacent to any fann uses. He added they didn't
believe an analysis of all the Metro Plan goals and policies was called for or helpful in this
application as the subject site is not valuable natural resource land and should not be protected
as such, He believed that this request should be approved from agriculture E-40 to RR5 with
an urban reserve site overlay.
.
Cindy Fawn, 28760 Royal Avenue, Eugene, stated she borders the Porter's property. She
stated she lived on the property for 14 years and there had been no production of farming that
had taken place on the property, as it is too wet.
Sorenson suggested keeping the hearing record open for three weeks until December 20,
asking the staff to review this and come back with materials presented,
There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Sorenson closed the Public
Hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the Public Hearing for the
City of Eugene.
.
There being no one else signed up to speak, Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew closed
the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield.
!Y10TION~ the City of Eugene would leave the record open for three weeks.
http://lcwebIBCC_Info/Meeting_Info/2000%20MinuteslNovember/00_11_ 29jt2,htm
01/18/2001
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28COOO - JOINT BCC ~th CITIES #2
Nathanson MOVED, Pape SECONDED.
VOTE: Unanimous.
~
,~).
Page 5 ofS ' " '~:'
MOTION: the Lane County Board of Commissioners would leave the record open for three
weeks and have staff come back and have a third reading and deliberation.
Morrison MOVED, Weeldreyer SECONDED.
Kent Howe, Land Management, noted there had not been a request to keep the record open.
He suggested closing the record tonight. '
Mayor Torrey asked how the City of Eugene should proceed on this matter.
Jan Childs, City of Eugene, suggested not leaving the record open because it does not appear
that they received new evidence.
Mayor Torrey asked if the City of Eugene would withdraw their motion.
Nathanson was in agreement.
Sorenson noted the record would be closed, the documents accepted, the staff would come
back to the individual jurisdictions.
MOTION: Lane County to approve'the S,econd Reading and setting a Third R~ading and
Deliberation for January 31, 2001.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE: 5-0.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting for the.Lane
County Board of Commissioners at 8:55 p.m. .
There being no further business, Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting for the City of Eugene
at 8:55 p.m. but they were reopening their meeting at the City of Eugene.
There being no further business, Springfield City Councilor Anne Ballew adjourned the
meeting for the City of Springfield at 8:55 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary
http://lcweb/BCC_Info/Meeting_Info/2000%20MinuteslNovember/00-11-29jt2.htm
01/18/200 I
.
~
"
j~
.'~.'
Ii
~
;~
,.
.l
Ii
'~
..:i
.