CC Minutes - 03/05/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Kelly expressed sympathy to the property owner for the process he had to go through. However, he said that while the proposal might not represent a wholesale conversion of farm land to residential land, such conversions usually happened just one or two acres at a time. He said that if the land in question had been well outside the urban growth boundary he would defer to the Lane County Board of County Commissioners. He noted in this case, however, the County board had been split on the issue, the final vote being a 3:2 tie. The property was immediately adjacent to Eugene and its conversion affected Eugene. It also had the potential to conflict with the discussion the elected officials had about establishing a metropolitan greenbelt immediately outside the urban growth boundary. He thought the proposal represented the first step toward urbanization ahead of any demonstrated need. Councilor Kelly noted that the staff notes, while indicating the soils on the property were not good agricultural soils, also stated they were also ill-suited for home sites. The property was also in the 100-year flood plain, which concerned him. Councilor Kelly said he was not sympathetic to the proposed amendment as he believed it contradicted the Metro Plan and Eugene's community goals. He noted there was no problem building a new house on Tax Lot 100 in the short-term. Councilor Bettman said that on its face, the proposal sounded reasonable. She also sympathized with the property owner. However, Councilor Bettman did not think the agricultural land in question was special as there was similar soils throughout the area, and if the criteria cited in support of the proposal were interpreted in a similar manner for other agricultural land it would lead to more conversion of agricultural land. She did not think it was the best agricultural land, but it was the only agricultural land available in the valley. Councilor Bettman thought that there were pitfalls to increasing densities on the edge of the urban growth boundary that involve transportation. She felt that subdividing land outside the urban growth boundary was counterproductive to many other strategies and policies the City was trying to pursue, most notably densifying within the urban growth boundary. It was also more economically feasible to provide services inside the boundary. She did not support the motion. Councilor Taylor also opposed the amendment for the reasons cited by councilors Kelly and Bettman. She was concerned about the incremental destruction of agricultural land, noting the loss of other agricultural land near the site. She was also concerned the proposal would lead to more urban sprawl. Councilor Fart observed he could view the property in question from his son's window. He would be concerned if the land was to be removed from agricultural use; however, it was not viable as a farm, and the addition of one house would have a minimal impact and would put the property into a use it was better suited to. Councilor Meisner noted that he had the opportunity to view the site in question. He said that rarely did such "wholesale applications for conversion" come before the council; most were individual, and had a human face. He was very concerned about the incremental conversion of farm land to other uses. He recollected the council discussion about and decision to end the concept of urban reserves, in part because such lands were too easily converted to residential use and were generally resource lands. He said that redesignating the land would eventually lead to its annexation. He said that while the land was not good for agriculture, it was not good for housing either. At this point, Councilor Meisner did not support the proposal because it was inconsistent with the Metro Plan and community values, and he could not find the requested exception to Statewide Goal 2 warranted. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 5, 2001 Page 7 Regular Session