07/25/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Delay said he too felt the plan was mostly conceptual and he was most uncomfortable about its lack of clarity. He said marginal resource land e was not defined except by default. He said it seemed to be everything which was not restricted in development by existing statewide land use planning goals, yet represented three times as much land as is within existing incorporated cities. When asked if Mr. Delay's comments seemed accurate to Mr. Bennett and if all the land would be identified for intensive development, Mr. Bennett responded that much of the so-called marginal resource lands were included in other plans for more intensive development. He said the new plan would not completely change plan- ning practices for these areas. He said five-acre development was already being done without the design standards the County recommended. He said he did not expect that adoption of the County's plan would mean a huge shift of people moving to the rural area. He said 36 percent of all dwelling units were being built today in rural areas which was the same percentage as in 1975. Mr. Delay asked if the County was absorbing the rapid influx of people into this area as much as incorporated areas. Mr. Bennett said the County planners were attempting to accumulate more speci- fic facts, but that its latest detail data showed this to be happening. Ms. Miller said that after reading the County's plan she had more questions than before she had read it. She asked if parcel size and inherent characteristics were used to define marginal lands. Mr. Bennett said they were. She asked if this meant that someone who had already divided his land into ten-acre parcels, though it was first-class agricultural land, could say that it was not the right size to be used as farm land. Mr. Bennett said this was accurate. Ms. Miller said the concept of cluster- ing seemed to call for less essential lands. She asked if there were e built-in controls governing the remaining large open parcels. Mr. Bennett said the intent of the plan was to preserve open space as with PUDls. He pointed out that City Councilors and County Commissioners have changed over the years and they could change restrictions on land. However, he said the plan, partially through deed restrictions, would attempt to handle this problem. Ms. Miller asked if the County plan had come up with any solutions for the urban reserve land problem. Mr. Bennett pointed out that County planners and the County Commissioners had held many work sessions and that the part of the plan which the Councilors had seen only represented a small part of their work. He said there were many maps and ordinances from other coun- ties being reviewed to check on the feasibility of ideas. For instance, he said one subdivision ordinance existed which determined where a house could be placed on the large parcel of land. He said such rulings could help the county, but that they needed to be gathered into a unified plan. Mr. Henry asked about changes in taxing statutes. Mr. Bennett said there were two aspects to this issue. First, local policies might have to be changed, and second, the city of Eugene has much land in farm referral which, he said, forces many people into the county area. He suggested a deferential was needed so that areas designated for development in urban use would not aid speculation, whereas rural land use for agriculture and fibers should not be taxed at a high residential level which would encour- age development. He said that state legislation might be needed to . determine a deferential between taxing urban and rural land. 7/25/79--6 409