Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Work Sessi on City Hall--McNutt Room January 22, 1986 11 : 30 a. m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Richard Hansen, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Freeman Holmer, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan (11:45 a.m.- 12:40 p.m.), Cynthia Wooten (12:15 p.m.-12:40 p.m.) Council President Richard Hansen called the work session to order and presided until Mayor Brian B. Obie arrived. I. TRIPLE MAJORITY ANNEXATIONS e Planning Director Susan Brody introduced the discussion. Jim Carlson of the Planning Department explained triple majority annexations. He said the criteria are in the State statutues. He said consent for the annexation must ,be given by a simple majority of landowners who own a majority of the land area to be annexed and a majority of the assessed value of the land to be annexed. The majorities must be separate and simultaneous. The property of non-consenting land owners can be included in the annexation proposal. Tax-exempt property and public rights-of-way can be added to the proposal without the consent of owners. The triple majority procedure is the one used most often now by Oregon cities to annex properties. Mr. Carlson also discussed past annexations to Eugene. Answering questions, Mr. Carlson said a person counts as only one owner in calculating the majority of landowners even though the person may own several tax lots. If more than one person owns a tax lot, the percentage of the lot each person owns is used in calculating the majority of landowners. All the tax lots owned by a person are used in calculating the land area and the assessed value of a triple majority proposal. The properties of non-consenting owners which are within the proposal (intervening properties), properties which will benefit from City services, or developed properties are often added to the proposal to make a logical boundary. Also, rights-of-way needed for services and properties which would create islands of unincorporated land are often added to the proposal. Answering other questions, Mr. Carlson discussed how the staff puts together a triple majority proposal for the council. He said the council actually initiates the annexation request to the Boundary Commission. There is no minimum number of owners or minimum amount of land needed for a triple majority proposal. When properties are excluded from the annexation, the City defers assessments until the properties are annexed. If sewer lines must pass those properties to serve the annexed properties, the City must pay the cost e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 22, 1986 PagE! 1 e e e of the lines until the properties are annexed. When the properties are annexed, the assessment will be the same and no interest on the assessments will be charged by the City. However, if services (sewer lines, for example) to the exempted properties are constructed later, the assessment may be larger. Mr. Carlson said annexations affect other jurisdictions because the annexed properties are withdrawn from special districts. The annexed properties are added to the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. He said the City can apply a tax differential procedure when properties are annexed. Once a tax differential schedule has been applied, it cannot be changed. II. AIRPORT ROAD ANNEXATION PROPOSAL (A/Z 85-3) Ms. Brody introduced the Airport Road annexation proposal which is a triple majority proposal. She said the council's consideration of the proposal will be a quasi-judicial procedure and the councilors should disclose ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest at the work session and the public hearing. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Terry Jones of the Planning Department described the properties in the proposal and the islands of unincorporated property that will be created. She said the proposal involves 170 acres, 36 tax lots, and 23 property owners. All of the properties are zoned for industrial use. They are within the urban growth boundary. Much of the land is vacant and could be developed more intensely in the city. The properties are not contiguous to the city. They are 1.7 miles from the existing city limits. She said the City Code contains special criteria for the annexation of non-contiguous, industrial properties, and findings for those criteria are in the staff notes. Ms. Jones said two property owners contacted the City and petitioned for annexation. Those property owners contacted other property owners in the area and arranged a meeting at which annexation procedures were explained. The City mailed letters inviting owners to join the annexation request area. Ms. Brody added that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. If the! council initiates the annexation request, the Boundary Commission will consider it. Answering questions, Ms. Jones said Falkenstein Meats and the Springfield Creamery were the first owners to petition for annexation. The proposal involves industrial land. The properties in the proposed island are residential, and the owners did not consent to annexation. Those propertie!s will be considered for annexation when they are developed industrially. The owners of Tax Lots 1600 and 1603 did not consent to annexation. The properties are not included in the proposal because they do not front on Enid Road and cannot be served by the proposed sewer. Responding to other questions, Mr. Gleason said the exempted properties which could be served by the sewers will represent a cash flow expense to the City. Most annexations are "cash positive" to the City. Mr. Carlson added that a tax differential procedure should provide enough cash for police and fire MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 22, 1986 Page 2 e e e services. The assessed value of all the property in the proposal is $5.6 million. The Blachly-Lane properties are tax exempt. The City provides police service to the airport, and those police will respond to calls from the properties in the proposal. Mr. Gleason said the police cannot do preventive patrol work now. Mr. Carlson said the City has a contract with the Lane Rural Fire Department, and it will continue to provide fire service to properties in the proposal. Responding to a question about deferring or compensating owners who have invested in septic systems, Mr. Carlson said sewer systems must be built to serve all the properties along them. The tax diferential procedure is the best way to mitigate the impact of annexation. Ms. Schue said it is reasonable for people to invest in private sewage systems on property that is not contiguous to the city limits. Mr. Gleason responded that the City accepted a schedule of connections when it accepted the Federal grant for the River Road/Santa Clara sewer system. The Airport Road properties are in that area. Several councilors asked the staff to provide additional information at the public hearing. Mr. Hansen asked if it is a City policy or a practice not to charge interest when assessments are deferred. He was bothered by the large area in the proposal and asked how the boundary was chosen. Mr. Holmer would like a list indicating the owners of each tax lot in the proposal, the area in each property, the assessed value of each property, and whether the owner consented to the annexation. Mr. Miller would like information about ways to mitigate the costs of annexation to non-consenting property owners. Mr. Rutan said the councilors need to know what they can do at the public hearing to modify the proposal. He noted that the councilors can withdraw the properties of non-consenting owners, but the councilors cannot withdraw properties so that the triple majority statistics are changed or so that the proposal has an illogical boundary. Mayor Obie said he will not be present when the council considers the Airport Road annexation proposal. He said the owners of the Coca Cola Bottling Plant on Highway 99 North are deciding whether to stay in this area. The council IS decision could have an impact on that decision. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer about annexing the Coca Cola property in a separate procedure, Ms. Brody said the annexation process will have to begin again if the council decides to divide the proposal. Mayor Obie adjourned the work session at 12:40 p.m. R~~ ~c;t.;~~r'- City Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:pv/1950C MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 22, 1986 Page 3 --;a I . . -- e M E M 0 RAN DUM January 22, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Mayor and City Council Planning Department METRO PLAN MID-PERIOD REVIEW On January 8, the City Council tabled action on Metro Plan Diagram Amendment B-20, Barger Drive UGB expansion, until the January 22 meeting. The proposed amendment is to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to include 40 acres north of Barger Avenue adjacent to the existing Eugene city limits and to change the Metro Plan designation from Agriculture to Low Density Residential. This is in an area where physical features, such as a river or ridgeline, did not play a significant role in the establishment of the UGB. The subject property contains a single family dwelling and is in farm use. Property to the north, west, and south of the subject property is in farm use. Property to the east of the subject property is developed with single family structures. A map of the subject property and surrounding area is attached. The Metropolitan Policy Committee recommended approval of B-20 along with the Springfield (5:0) and Eugene (4:2) Planning Commissions. The Lane County Planning Commission (6:0) recommended denial of the amendment because the subject property did not have unique characteristics that justified expansion of the UGB. On January 6, 1986 the Springfield City Council (5:0) recommended denial of the amendment based on lack of applicable LCDC goals analysis. The UGB has not been altered or expanded since the Metro Plan was acknowledged in 1982. In mid-December 1985, the DLCD indicated that even minor changes to the UGB must be based on the seven factors in the Statewide Goal 14 Urbanization and the Goal 2 Land Use, Part II Exception Standards. Under Goal 14, for example, findings need to be developed stating that the land is needed for residential use and will not adversely impact adjacent agricultural land. The exception process, futhermore, requires findings justifying why the agricultural goal does not apply and why the proposed use would be compatible with other adjacent uses. The data below shows that there is currently no demonstrated need for additional Low-Density Residential land in the metropolitan area. Amendment No. B-20, however, would result in only a .14 % addition to the total supply of Low-Density Residential Land within the UGB. Total Within UGB Unincorp. Eugene Eugene Total Acres Designated Low-Density Residential 28,216 7,235 13 ,043 Vacant Privately-Owned Acres Designated Low-Density Residential 9,460 3,460 3,000