Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance No. 20226
ORDINANCE NO~ 20226 AN' OP~INANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPI~dNGF][ELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN D]~AG~L;kM TO REDESI~GNATE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S MAP 17-04~30, TAX LOTS 20t) and 3{)0 FROM "AGRICULTURE/URBAN RESERVE" TO "RURAL RESIDENTIAL/URBAN RESERVE"; ADOPTING AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT TO STATEWlDE PLANNING GOAL 2; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan") sets fbrth procedures fbr amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are implemented by Sections 9.118 through 9.136 of the Eugene Code 1971. 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. On July 28, 1999 by means of Order 99-7-28-2, the Board of County Commissioners inkiated proceedings on behalf of applicant Reed and owner Porter for a Metro Plan Diagram mn.endment 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 properpy, and adopt an Exception to sta~ewide planning goals pursuant to Goal 2 requirements. D. On November 16, 1999, the Planning Commissions of Lane County~ Eugene and Springfield held a joint public hearing on the proposed amendment, zone change and Exception, ~¥11owed by recommendations of approval of the proposed amendment wkh rezoning to RR-5 and a Ske Review (SR) suffix by the Lane County and Eugene Planning Commissions on that date, and by the Springfield Planning Commission on December 7, 1999. E. On November 29, 2000, the Eugene City Council with the Board of County Commissioners and the Springfield City Council conducted a joint public hearing on the proposed mnendment and Exception, and the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, and the Eugene City Council is now ready to take action. F. On February 14, 200 i, the Lane County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. PA 1156 adopting the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment, Goal exception and rezoning for the subject property. Evidence exists within the record indicating that the proposal meets the requirements Ordinance- 1 of/he Eugene Code, 1971 and the requirements of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Metro Plan Diagram is amended to redesignate property identified as A ssessor s map 17-04-30, tax lots 200 and 300, from "Agriculture/Urban Reserve" to '~Rural Residential/Urban 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 described in section 1 of the Ordinance, taken in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule requirements for statewide planning goal Exceptions, as set forth in pages 7 through 17 of Exhibit B attached to this Ordinance, are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Section 3. Although not part of this Ordinance, the findings in attached Exhibit B are adopted in support of this Ordinance. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is fc, r 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 affbct the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Section 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of 1976, this Ordinance shall not become effective until identical provisions are adopted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners and Springfield City Council. Passed by the City Council this 5th day of March, 2001 City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this 5tt' day of March, 2001 Ordinance - 2 KEY C - Commu~ ~PLIC S F S OF FACT ~ CONCLUSI OF LAw FiLE NO~ MA 99-2, PORTER EXHIBITS E B~T A WEST EUGENE ~CINITY MAP AND L~E COUNTY ASSESSOR S S ][BET B ZONING PLOT S #268 & #1002, ALONG WITtt I~OYAL AYENUE EXCEPTION A~A #7 ~D INGS E IBIT C ~TROPOLIT.~ ~A GEN~ PL~ ~ BIT D ~a e~OTO E~IBIT E LEG~ LOT VEmFICATIONS; PA 99 5523 & 99 SS WILDLIFE MAP WETLAND MAP DESCRIPTIONS B1L4~VADO LETTER ON FIELD TILE INST~LATION AGENT LETTEIL2S PROPERTY FILE INFORS~TION FROM 17-04-30 TA~X~ LOT ~01 E IBIT O CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PL~ E~IBIT P ~DENDUM TO ~ DE.LOPED ~D COMMITTED II. IIL Nat~r~I Site Features IV. Findings and Conclusions Relating to Chanty Rezoning Criteria of LC 16.252 Testimony be~gre the Joint Metro Ptanning Commissions north and Nat~l~li Site Features: one south side of Royal Avenue and 939' along The Board Finds and relies aport the following facts regarding natural site features. this the irrigation rights exist; No identified historical resources would be affected by this proposal. Habitat area, see Er3dbi. ~ ~? L No identified scenic resources would be affected by this proposal Engineers and the Ckv ofa.~.~ - .... ~ r . The Army Corps of -~ ~ .... m'e wor~:mg on a restored wetland area east oftl~e ?tan The property lies within Zone A of the Amazon Creek flood plain as mapped by FEMA. Surrounding Development P~ttern: relies upon the fi>llowing facts regarding the surrounding area and See Exhib~__._,t North Residential activity that ta~ 4m8~ by E×istlag Pnblic Facilities and Services: site incorporated of (b) (c) site and area Goal. The BOard Finds site: (~ 9 CJ~aracter~tics of adjacent 8 660-053-0120; and ~3 continue to be planned and goned under make the L and the Urban Service Area (II~B Metro Plan) 20 of the subject parcel legally exist as two separate tax lots and that no new or additional lots are being ..... created The approval ora conceptual plan fbr the ultimat'e development at urban densities in accord with applicable plans and policies. Findings: xhibit O tot ' - hese findm s and in - g corporated hereto, is a co plan once annexationaa_' d the dec' .^. _ nceptnal development lsk,. tv fhrther expand the densiW of the site requested. This is only a conceptual plan meant to show ho develo me t w furore p n may look As a condP;^~ -~ ........ gher dens~ ' -~- m~pprova~, mis conceptual ~ a furore subdivision to higher density; shall be drawn up by a registered surveyor, meeting development s;andards setfor~ by the Cky of Eugene, Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policie& Findings: The proposed land use change of the subject properW, will ~cre from no sin le fa ' : use khe lot densi g rally dwellings per five+ acres to one ' - ty five+ acres .... single . Thru densl Y hng er . ~ ty increase and land use chun e confo and policies as setforth throughout these findings, g rms to apphcable plus The owner of the properr), has signed an agreement with the adjacent ci~: which provides: ]) Fhe owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to proceedings should the cit)~ at its option initiate annex~tio~ annexation Findings: As a condition o£approvaL the owners and their successors in intere t Ci~t of Eu erie o - . . s support annexation into the g , ace the city decides to proceed w~th annexa6on hearings. 2) The owner and his or her ~uccessors in annexation oft he subject ~roperO~ interest agree not to challenge Findings: As a condition of approval, the oz~ers and their saccesso~ in ~terest a~ee not to challenge ~exafion of~e s~ject prope~ into the Cky of Eugene. 3) The owner and his or her successors m interest w#l acquire ci~ approval br any subsequent new use, change of use or substantial inte ion o~d~e of ~e properO~ The ciO, will not withhold appropriate a~prov~[ ~Fthe ~se arfftr ari(y & in compliance with applicable Plans, policies andstanda~, as in : c~o~ as well as the con ~ . ~ terpreted ~v the cep~.a[ plan a~proved under subsection a above. F~nd~ags: As a coadkion of approval, ~e owners ~d their successors ~a ~nteres~ a~ee to acquire C~W of Eugene approval for ~y subsequent new use~ ch~ge ~n use or sabstmqfia~ ~n~ens~ficat~on of use of 22 the subject property. In return, the City of Eugene agrees not to withhold appropriate approval of any' us~ arbitrarily if the use is in compliance ~ith applicable plans~ policies and standards. En¥ironmentat Resources Element PoliCy #3, IILC, page7: When development is a/lowed to occur in the fioodway or floodw tin . control Such deveto ' aY fi ge, local re u/ali 'pment tn order to mt ~ . g ohs shall mmtze the potenttd dan er t the urban rowth b g o life and ro er ' ~ g oundary, development shoul, r ' ' * P p ry. gqthm Outside the urban ~,,wth b,~..*~ ,~ d esult tn ~?fil{i~ of partially develo ed l ~ ., ~, cas affected b the o . . . -~ ~,,~gr~vel resource values, t~eir open space and recreational potential, and their value to water resources Findings: 'II~e subject property is not considered valuable resource lanck ~s describe - F~dhags document The ~.,~ c~. .. ~ d ~ou~out , ~ - ne .... ~ open space and recreation ~eas in the n~ been satisfied b . . ~ea of the sub ecl s t y the joint venire wetland ro'ect t . i ~ ~ e Co~s ~d C~W of Eugene. P ~ o the e~t of the su~ect s~te, by the As a condition of approvaL ~e omers ~d ~eir successors ~n ~ntemst a~ee to follow C~ of Eugene regulations ~n development k~ floodway ~d floodway ~nge areas, once a e occ~ed into the City of Eue~ne ~ ~:~ ...... ~. ~. _ : ~ xation h~ ' ~ ~ . ,~.ut ammXatlO~ OCCH~ ail ~evelopment on the subject prope~, will follow proper guidelines dur~g ~e building pemit process, which must include ~ood~a development stands ( Le all build~o is t° t~j -'--~- 2- ..... ~ Y h~d ye~ floodnta~ ~ m~,,~ r .... . ....... . the me~ one- r ~ ~unbu tut all uevempment m hood ~ds ~e~). public Utilities, Semites and Facilities Elemeat Policy gl6,IlbG, pages Levd of services.~r rural designatio.z: a. -4gri~ttur< forest land sand and grin, eL and parg~ and open space. No minimum of semqce & established Findings: Does not apply to this request. b. Rural residential, rural commercial, rural industrial and government and education. site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural [eve~l offire and police protection, disp°sal facilit5:electric and communication service, schools, and reasonabl~ access [o solid' waste Fiadiags: The subject property w/It be served by: 23 On-s~te sewage disposal systems; On-site well Water }ystem}; Zumwalt Fke district; Ci~ of Eugene Police and Lane County Sherif£: L~e Electric Co-op; Quest (US West); Bethel School Dis~ict; Pr/rate Solid Waste Collection Services; LATING TO COUNTY Jv' LC 16.252 A. L~e Co~ 16.2520) provides the criteria for deciding on a rezoning request~ "... zoning and rezoning shall be consistent with the specie purpose of the zone class~cation L~e Code 16.231 Rml Residential Lands Zone (l) Purpose~ The purpose of the Rural Residential Zone (~-RCP) is: (a) To Provide opportunities for people to live & a ~rM area. F~nd~ngs: ~5Zat tf thi~M~t PI~ ~,en~ent ~d coherent zone ch~ e, w w sums, from Lx : g lth slte cmslve k'a~ nde . .. Use (E-40) to Rural Res~dentml quate op o~ for . . ( ), wdl promde P ~' add~tmnal Rural west of Eugene Residential housing for people choosing to live (fi) To allow ~rimao, and acceaxo~ residemial use& and nonresidential uses which m~, be compatible with Rrima~ residential Findings: ~e approval of this Me~o Plan ~endment ~{d coherent zone ch~ge~ w~ site ~vie~ ~uffix, ~om ExcluSive Fa~ Use (E~0) to Rural Res{deutial (~.}} wUl allow one single fm~ily dwell~g for each legal lot of record. Tne subject prope~ consist of two legal lo~ ofrecord~ there~bre two additional dweUings for ~ach 5+ acre . Pe~i~ed on the sub'~ect roe ]ott are ~ ~ _ ~ ~. P p ~, once approved. Other accesso~ ~es are sub pe~ea uses ann D~ector Approval ~as s~ted ~ Lane Code 16 23 (c) To ~m~lement the ~o[icies~ of the Rural C~mprehenxive Plan, primarily those built u~on or ~ non-resource [and e F~ndings: 24 Throughout this findings documenL reasons are given supporting the ~hct that the subject property is identified as irrevocablsJ committed to non~res'ource use. The appropriate use For the subject property is as non-r~source. RthmI Residential (d) To provide tvrotect[ve measurexjbr riparian vegetatto~ along Class J ~treams designated as sig~,~cant in the R~tral Comprehemive Plan. No Class I streams exist on the subject property~ therefore riparian setback meas~es protectkng riparian vegetation along Class I streams is required in this findk~gs document, not Lane Code 16~257~ S~te Review Procedures. Purpose. It is the purpose oft/,& section to establish a Site Rm, iem* Permit ]vrocedure fi9r specified uses or ~Pp/}catior~ requiring comprehensive r~'iew qf Rrogosed site d~'elopment on o~der to encourage th~ most appro~riate dm'elo~me~t of the site compatible wm the neighborhood to reduce ~verse ir~pacts Con Pub)ic facilitt~$ a~d ae~ iceS' and to provid~ a health~l, stable ~cient andpleasa~t on'site e~vironment. Response: ~e hatension of the site review overlay (suffix) for the subject prope~ is to ensure that all development present and furore meets and conforms to potential deve . arbani~ion All develo . lopment ass and m%tk~g L~; Co)e i~.5~,erlt on the subject property wdl requ/~e a site reviePwt permit eval nation The Board Finds and Concludes the proposed Metro Plan Amendme with the Metro P~ . . nt and Zone Cha an goals and pohmes re ' . . age acnon corn lies Urban Growth gulatmg the designation of Rural Residential l~ds ' Botmdary, but within the Metro Plan boundary outside the TESTIMONY BEFORE THE JOINT METRO PLANNING COMMISSIONS The Board Finds there were no persons speaking in opposition nor ' ' requested Metro Plan (Ma~,~ a&~.~_d .... ;. :. ~ issues rased concerning this - ~ ..... ,~miicm [~ix ~xceprlon Criteria). The ~kst County staff issue; the subject property is, technicall , hi v addkional tet' ' ' y gh alae a iCUl s ~mon is r . _ gr rural soils and Y eqmred to support the apphcant's conclusions. testhmonyThe Boardthat:Hnds based upon the fbllowing Metro Plarmkng Corarrdssion's Public Hearing The Porters had discussions with the soils consultants, includ~ contacting Lane County Agriculture Extension OmCe about what the5, could ~ise on thi~ tS'Pe of la'~d (wet, droughty soil). These contacts indicated that without subsurface drainage and water ~gati6n rights, the best use ofthek land was spring and early summertime grazkag. 25 The Porters~ then~ talked to a drain tile installer about installin~ subsurface field drainage, but were told such drainage would not function unless the area s drayage ditches were deepened to provide an adequate drahaage outlet. Bravado Excavation and Constmctmn, lnc, after examination of the subject site provided a letter estimating the cost to be $4,000 per acre for installing ~eld drains and a ~en~eptual drawing showing how the lack ora drainage outlet preventk drainage of the The Board Finds, based upon the evidence presented to the Metro Plannin Commisslo area drama e wa s are no~ g ' n~ that the g Y dee enou to . . . . p gh acco~rmmdate a subsurface drm subject s~te along with not beina cost e~Eec, t{w ~ ~, ....... nage system fbr the Urban Reserve ............ ,*~mmn m mmre urr>an development of this Area. The Board also concludes~ based Upon the evidence, that {be sub' property is too wet most of the year to be used f~r in};;s~,~ ~-*-~2-Z, 71 , ~ject The County stalTs second issue was that the applicant's narrative needs to address all the Exception Criteria, specifically to supplement khe record with information pertaining to: a. Parcel histo~ pursuant to OAR 660-004-0028(6)(c) b. Showing that "farm use" on the site is impracticable c. Impacts concerning future residential development. The goard F~nds based upon the follnw~ng Metro Planning Commission's PnI>I~c Hearing facts that: As evidenced by the Lane County Legal Lot Verification determ/nafions # 99-5523 and 99-5382, the su~iect site consist~ oft~,o legal lots ofrecor& No records were found in the U.S.D.A. property files showing any federally subsidized government funding. 2b~ The Board Finds, based upon evidence presented to the Metro Planning Commission, that sbace the adjokn~g and surroun~ting Exception Area, including lots to the so~th, are all ~der separate owne~hip a~d the subject site were all created prior to ~hy applicable Statewide Planning Goals and, therefore~ such p~rcets may be used to justify commi{ted exception. The Board F~ads based upon the fo~low~ng Metro P~anr~ing Commission Public Hearing facts that: The skews agricultural capability is restricted to limited towdntensity grazing during non wet parts of the year ~late sprkng ~d earth, summer). In addkion~ the site has ~e~er been used for orchards, vegetable crops, ~eld ~rops, gr~ns, blueberries, ginseng, etc. Not having an adequate draknage outlet, surface field drains will not 5unction properly to dm~n the i , soil~ therefore, the site is too 4et for an~ type of intensive agricultural use (se~ pr~vi;us Fhad~gs). OAR Section 660 004 0028 . - - (3) states ~t shall not be requir, ed that local government demonstrate that every use alloWed by the applicable goal is :. 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 fbrth in the OAR. The Board Fknds, 26 based upon the evidence presented t.o,?e Metro Pta~ning Commission narrativ~ that farm use df the site is impracticable ~ and the applicait's The third County staff ~ssne: concerning perceived contradictions concerning impacts relating to future development. ~he Board Finds based upon the fo Metro Planning Commissior~ Public Hearing facts that: llowmg 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 minknum (E-40) parcel size, is actually not in agricultural ase and will nor be hq agricultural use due to past fill activities. The use of the adjoining laid to the south is more in the nature of Residential use~ than a farm use. . The surrounding RR-5 Exception Area has had no conflic~ with the uses of the subject site because the subject site. like the land to the south~ has no[ been in any agricultural USes. The future residential development of the subject site will mirror the existing bordering rural residential zoned areas to the ~,est and north. The futare residential development of the subject site will not affect the nalm~al area to the east~ due to the separation by a 10 foot high dyke system along Greenihili Road and Greerthill Road its s~l£ PublicThe Board Hearin FindSincludin based upon. the evidence, presented in the ~AppIicant's. narrative and d uring g~ g d~scussmn of Metro Plan Commmsmn members, that fu~&~e addkiona1 dwellings on the site will have no significant adverse impacts on the neighboring E~0 parcel to ~mgmg me 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. VL SUMMARY- The Board FLrids, based on the size~ shape, soils and location, the site is unsmtable for al!ricultural re wate '~ · - p i g outlet, lack of irrigation enterprises.r riglats, parce~ size and shape and tack of connectiOn/proximity to the arenas Commercial far~ The Lane County Board of Commissioners Finds and Concludes that all of the applicable decision criteria have been met; including those reqUked for a Developed and Committed ExceptiOn to Storewide Planning Goals # 3 and 4~ In addi~inn, the t~°ard Finds Coun~ Rural Residential 5-Ac~ Minimum with a Site Review Overlay is the pr°pe~ County zoning to impl;ment the Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan. 27 U~ECT SJTE H~LL~~ ~% 5O2 AC~ 29 f / / MAP PLOT #268 1002 252 253 DATE PLOT~ 2~8 FLOODPLAINs; DATE COUN~ [RR CASLY COB~M{~m [t "B~~ ~oar th}~ i~ ~t ~po~ or comm~d- e . rea ~s d ,, Pab~h a r~ . e{~ned as - ~ ciass~f~cat~o~ {-~V re,ease AGT, a~ _ , Green d the - Hd~ Road - - The ~ as Fa~ F ~ . . ; IFF20 . ) (w~ 20 ac - ne vot~ow~n scm ; . Royal c. So. Se d~sPosal ~s Poi}ce Protection {s Prov{ded b~ the Lane Coun~ Sher~s O~i~. Sehm~ D~stmet No. 4J so~ ~ Roy}~ F~r~ P~ect[on ~s provided by the (under Cie ~ Eugene cOntra~t). ZumaJt Rural Fire P~tion District 7). '~e s~l{ lot size, the Pa~rn ~ OWnership, the current s~ ~ davelopmnt for single-~amily residential use, and the coolant to rural residen~al living ? IV-59 IW-60 CEPT]ON STUDY FINDINGS ZONING 17-04-30 AVE OR 97402 I7-04~30 T.L, 8400 RR~5 17-04--30 S P,R-5 T.L~ ~500 8748 ROYAL AVE ACRES 1.66 AC 3.82 AC 3,96 AC RR-5 17-04-30 T~L, 8600 DOUGLAS STI~SON RR~5 28738 ROYAL AVE O2 OR 97402 8700 RR~5 T17~04~19 5,92 AC 4~87 AC" 5986 ACY 0,96 AC 17-04--19 T.L. ~I000 MONGILLO ~-5 !, 95 AC~ T.L~ 81100 RR~5 1.45 AC RR~5 1.86- AC. 17-04-i9 T.L. 81400 . RR-5 0i99 AC" 17~04-t9 T~L. ~i50I RR-5 7401 17-04-19 EST~BAIZ~y T,L~ %t502 P.O~ BOX 40903 OR 97404 17-04~i9 CARL MCGLOTHIN T.L. ~1600 28881 HILI~IRE ST EUGE1TE~ OR 97402 1.21 AC7 0.60 AC 4.99 AC 17-04~!9 T~L~ ~1800 AVE CA ROY KOCmIS 748 FILBERT It{ RR~5 RR~5 5~55 AC 7.51 AC RR-5 S~ 5.10 AC 5.85 AC RR--5 & 28 E"40 17-04~-19 T.L. #2900 OR 97402 S~ RR--5 4.60 AC oF 38.24 Ac ~78 ACk OF 5~66 AC IS RR-5 5'~32 AC 10.14 17-04- 19 T~L. $3300 I~A ADAMS RR-S 1.26 AC 2.93 AC _ _EXHIBIT E - PA: ~. mor_e exact description by reference ~'o Deed or Land Sales Con~rac~ is .... Based ~on ~he F~ndings provided in ~his report, r~e above referenced property/ 1. ~ership ~o ~is proper~ ~y be conveyed ~ ~e ~s~ce ~a~ su~ a ~e p~oses of developmen=. De~velopm~= wo~d s=ilI 5e '~jec~ =o epplicable zoning, sanitation, access ~d b~lding re~Iatib~ The subject property was cr~e.a~ed as a separa[e parcel on See . of ~e s~jecc property as a separage parcel co,lied wi~h all and comprehensible plan regulations, a~d iT lo~: Land div%sion regulations: ~~ ] ~hen ~he subjecu parcel was crea~ed, uhere were no~ land division regulations' in effecu ~o gove~ ins creation. Lane County did no~ adop~ applicable re,la,ions for ~his kind of division un~il __ ~ There were land division re~ala~ions in effec~ governing ~he creation of ~his parcel, and the creation of rI~is parcel was specifically exempted by ~khese regula~ions from compliance because b ~ Zoning regula~ior~: LAND MANAGF_~ENT DtVtS~O~ no zoning Additional Commenr~: Sincerely, D~ G~ NICKELL' P~L.$_O~ ATTAC~LM ENTS CC: ~PS File CRAE3~EE H~LL~ TH~S MAP REPLACES EUGENE 29 801 AC~ LAND PA: RE: Land Sales Contract above referenced proper~ r~a= such a CounTy land ~vision Ia~d for o1% all Land division relations: Cou~n~ did division until .governing spec~ parcel becau~se b ~ Zonir~ reg~ia~ions: When ~e sUbjec= parcel was crea~ed, there were no zoning regula=ions in elf et= a~ ~s time~ ~e zoning for ~his propert~ was adop=ed on~ ~ %q%en the subjec~ parcel wa~ crea~ed, there were ~he following zoning regulations in effec= which ~e parcel complied with~ became Additional Com~encs: co~=z~es a legal lot ~ill be made at t~e ~ of ~e first ~ or Ieg~ lot ~ve c~ged at ~e t~e of a pe~ or a~li~ion ~ re~ a leg~ lot, a new ~gal ~t Verifi~tion ~ll be req~ed~ Sincerely~ P.L~$~O. Associate 9 ATTAC~LMENTS CC: ~ File ZON~ C THIS MAP REPLAC~ 29. 17 i0;~:" 30 EuGeNE 801 502' WELL LOG ANALYSIS IT "~ LOC~TION USE DEPTH STATIC DOM 37 FT I5 FT YIELD IN 30GPM 280~ 260FT 260FT 72FT 3?FT N/ 4 ~ 5 GPM N/S DOM 240FT N/S N/S DOM DOM DOM 35FT DOM 360FT N/S 5?FT N/S 8FT ?GPM N/S N/A 25GPM 17GPM .5GPM N/S N/S 10GPM 3 8FT N/$ DOM 17-04-30 UNEI~OWN DOM DOM 17-04--30 DOM DOM DOM DOM DOM 0 DOM DOM DOM 65FT 45FT 35~ 70FT ~OWN DOM DOM 38FT 45FT 180FT 51FT 110~ 25FT 95FT 140FT t 21FT 23FT 17FT 18FT N/S i2~ 44FT 25FT 19FT ISFT DOM ll0FT 40FT DOM 39FT !3FT DOM 12FT 182FT ISGPM 15GPM 50GPM 25GPM N/S 25GPM NfS 10GPM DOM N/S N/S DOM 52~ 8FT 3 DOM i170~ N/S 1GPM DOM 78~ 22FT 4 0GPM 36FT ISFT 30Gq~M 35FT 10FT 30G~M i2F~ 60GPM t7~04~19 DOM DOM DOM t55~ 51FT N/S 60~ 18 GP~ 30Gp~ 40GPi~ DOM 62~ 3$FT N/S I2FT 3GPM IOGPM Township: 17S, Range: 04W. Section: 19.30. Well Log ID: NONE Page I of 1 Well Log Report - P~ge ~ of 8 Towr~hip: ]75, Range: 04~, Sec~on: i g~O, Well Log ~D: NONE Well Log to vi~ image, u ROYAL A~ NEWBY ~ ART CRONK. JIM LANGHOFF. ~OR M SOULTS. E Ii; Go to page: i ~ 3_ _4 5_ _6 7_ 8_ o . ii mb fo~at to JONES. C> OLDHAM ~ PAGt~ ~ Il PAGE. K Towns~p: 17S, Range: 04W? Section: 19.30. Well Log ID: NONE Page 1 of I well Log Repo _ Towrmhip: ] 7~~, Range: 04~, 3~io~: 19,30~ ~ell Log ID: NONE col~ ~g to re-som the r~ Cli~ on Well Log to vi~ image~ GEORGE PAGE. PAGE. HOPP~P.. M F Gotopage: t_ 2 3_ 4_ 5_ 6_ 2_8 N~>_> ~ mat_ to GRID Towrm~p: 17S. Range: 04W. Section: 19.30. Well Log ID: NONE Well Log Report Page3 o£8 Townxti~: ] 7S, ]~ange: 04W~ Section: J9~O, Well Log ID: ~ro~rE Page 1 of. I M cJotopage: i _2 3 4_ _5 _6 2 8_ Do~_o~ mb~ ~ in a~ ~_cii tab delmited format ?AC~E Township: 17S, Range: 04W. Section: 19,307 Well Log iD: NONE CIi~ on ~etl Log m vi~ image, Page t of I PAG PPi'CF Go to page: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next>> .-~-~ wellJog_list_page.asp~+~ichpage=4&~ession_id= 14312 g &pagesize= I 0&ORDER :-B Y=&Pat t 0,'2/00 TovmsNp: t7S, Range: 04W. Secriom 19.30. Welt Log ID: NONE Page 1 of I Well Log Repo Page 5 of 8 Towrlship: 17S, Raffle: 041F, Section: ] 9~0, ~eH Log rD: NONE WESTON ~ DON ORLON A PAC~ ~ D~ Go to page: <<Previotm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next>> cii format S Towns~p: 17S, P, mnge: 04W. Section: 19,30? Well Log iD: NONE Well Log Report _ P:~ge 6 ors Township: ] 7S~ : 04~} Sec~n: ]9,30, WelI Log JD: ~o vi~ image,. u_ ~e_.~hevi~ Page i of I BO~. SU Gotopage: 1_ 2_ 3_ 4_ 5_ 6 _7 _g JAN Next I_tog i. Lst_page.asp?whichpag~&session id= 143128&pagesize= t O&ORDgR _B¥-~&p~ 10F2/90 Towrmhip: i7S, ~ge: 04W, Section: 19.30. Well Log ID: NONE Page i of I Well Log Repo~ Page 7 of 8 ~ DR OF~ BELL ~ ROYAL ROCKY B~ JAN DR. OFF ROYAL B~ JAN 10l W $TItAVE JOI-tN 2gTlg ~OYg_L ~ LE~CH ~ JOHN ROCKY ~ION 3 2~1 W 1 ITl{ Go to page: <<~vio~ 1_~ 2 3 4 5_ _6 7 _8 Next >> ION ery Screen TovmahiP: t7S. Range: 04W. Sect/on: 19,30. Well Log ~: NONE Page 1 of Well Log Report eage 8 of 8 Tawtt$~ip: ] 7S, Raz~ge: a4~, : ]9,30, Well Log rD: NONE STEVE 762 W 2ND ST Go to page: <<Pm, do 1_ 2_ 3_ _4 5_ _6_6 7_ 8 9 i rmat_ ~__/weiI lo~li~._page.aso?v,~ic/apage=S&session id=t43128&t>a~esiT~=l 0&ORDER BY=&Pa~10F~00 E IBIT H 10/03/00 PLACE OF USE REPORT 17 $ 04 W Section(s) 30 TWP/RNG POU-iD POD-ID APPLICATION PERMIT PAGE 1 CERT % USE !7,00$ 4.00W 166 S 43250 S 32434 38140 IR 17~00$ 4.00W 166 S 46112 $ 34397 38141 IR 17-00s 4.00W 174 G 4989 G 4707 41326 IR I7-00S 4.00W 190 G !578 G 1453 29017 IN 17.00$ 4.00W 190 G 1586 G 1457 29018 17.00$ 4.00W 190 R 20691 R 810 15556 ST t7.00S 4~00W 190 S 20692 S 16186 ~ -15654 10/03/00 TWP/RNG POINT OF DIVERSION R~PORT 17 $ 04 W Section(s) 30 POD-ID APPLICATI PERMIT CERT ~ USE PAGE RATE { Cfs/Gpm) i7~00S 4.00W 157 G 4989 G 4707 41326 IR 0.0100 C This report printed for request req_970522665 The map Fownship 17 S 04 W the selected priority dates 01/01/1900 to 10/02/2000 The following layers are shown on the map - Roads PRIORITY DATE 9/12/1969 Areas available, not necessarily current) accurate legal should please contact the~Department. frP://f;:p~wrd.state~or, us/pub/pickup/ip_2 I6 26 32 I657rcq_970522665.txt 10/4/00 NORTH AR OF SOILS DESCRIPTION and 56 SOILS D~SCR~PTiON make up about 20 SOILS DESCRIPTION Area. Cregon 40F5 SOILS DESCRIPTION 7O 50F5, a and ~mmer~ ~mga~on iS EX IT - L" November 16. 1999 Dear Mr. porter~ very slow. Drain sump your property is not a good candidate Sincerely. Fax: 746~0077 Pager: 718~8952 E IBIT M November 7, 2000 TO: J/m th & Associates 1257 m~ Street, #6 Ross P egon O Co Extension Serv/ce S~ T: n of Potential Ag Site I was d to a site located along Royal e and Dill Road for its p al as an site. Reasons Not To Grow A . g Crops. 54~682~2377 ~e on To Grow Ag Crops: r/ can be apphe~ for,bm it ~ take about two years. The site is considered the: best' a~cul soft. Agriculture, Family and Communi~, De~telopmenr, 4-H Youth. Fnrestr% Energy~ and E×*ension Sea Grant Programs. Oregon State Universit% United States Department of Agriculture~ and'Lane ~ounr~~ cooperating~ The Extension Service offem ks programs and materials ~quatly to alt people. or of~e soil. to the loam the not support a septic Soil: 52.B (m/nor acreage Mth th/s soil) - I~ted by h/gh water to a depth of 1 ~2 feetg t is the best ~e for Us site? A sm~l w/ll not be ,September 19, 1996 -. i989 CERTIFIED ~L letter to Paul Patrick dated 4/20/~$~ E~IBIT P Criteria for Exceptions to State Planning Goals n when: b) ted iteria to the the a~ The for each area follows a logical path that parallels the~ dministrative rule. Each q~estion leads to ts or refutes desinna~ ~ ~L_ ~ a f~ndin t = .... ~ o~ ~ne area a~ ~ .... ~ ~ 9 hat ~ ~=~=~ope~ or it P other the 35 how is land in the or n area rom Goal 3~ which forest lands~ ~=~nces~ neither use is ~ ~ ~ =~es~naue~ for one or the other of cessin9 plants eca se Rural from small incorporated : in every respect except for their lack of un are s have of e no Page 6~F~XI4IBIT G in by the US stinct soil rated for potential farm its area is the remainder is unsuitable~ Exception ~ructures are [thin, and because all of size. If so the exception to Goal 3 or 4 ins to ORS 197.732(a). and the analysis is s not fully developed the factors identified ) must be addressed to demonstrate WHY the land committed to uses other than farm or forest~ adjacent land or the presence of public e or forestry? why do the size and the characteristics of the surroundings ~HY do natural or man-made features impede the use other factors are relevant and WhTY$ Because answerSStO these questions. Lane C.o~Qty sought the advise of experts in the fields of agriculture and forestry to formulate a series of 9uidelines that could be used to distinguish resource lands from those that are irrevocably committed to other uses. Section IV describes how the'advice was obtained and what the experts said. O~G ON tISE ALL 0 CAT~ON SYSTEM App~e~ ~o L~e Page 7- BIT G IV~ ~hresho~dk for Land Irrevocably Committed to Non--resource Use ~or Lane conferred wit of the ~ the the two are Irrevocably committed er be pract:~cabty managed for r i an X. ly C The point which ource use is that portrayed different n 'decisions with way and led and nhieved consensus on the following farm or ~ on three or more that make it management~ if 20 acres or less. for one adjoining side are impracticable or le~s and impraticable for forest or less. how. they arrived at their decisions by replying the minimum size parcel that may be managed for farm or ere is n~ dwelling on ~he site ~nd it is isolated What is the minimum size if the same parcel is adjacent to land owned or leased for resource use by the respondant? presence of a dwelling have on the decision resource land if it were situated close to the Page 8- BIT G 7 Page 9-EXHIBIT G Whatcenter bearing of t~eW°%~ldparcet?the dwelling have if it were situated near the a parcel for resource use? BOWresour¢eimp°rtantland?is the regional setting when purchasing or leasing rscussed h~ the perts ~ten move e who long hours si result ntrations ons. that land use conflicts usually involve tock~ and stray landscaping. The are not as re even more serious because the water supply and the soil upo~ which it Agriculture ~ endeavors are extremel o ekation ~ y varied P has its own re ' ~ and each t e for ~ qul rements fo YP of a vlabl - r the arno e commerc · unt of la ~ ~al esta nd ne raz~ · bllshment For ~ eded g n re u~r - exam . g q es at least P ~ lives 1 . 50 acres be . took ncrease d ~ cause o e . ramatlcall . ~_ ~ P rational c . Y w~th d~stanc osts whea~ re ~ from nome quire at lea . Grass s . st ~0 acres be eed and ~solated from cause each cr the other - op must be re uire as ' to raise certified see q l~ttle as . d~ Or an~ 5 acres of ~ g c farms too must be i h~gh quallt farm solated f Y land ~ rom oth ~ but . er t e - the protection a a ~ ~ ..... Yp s of operation Y g ~nst ~hem~=l ~n~Auence. s for 6. For all these reasons, and the threat of litigation they pose~ agricultural experts look unfavorably on land with home~ ~n ~gre 7. than one adjoining side for commercial farming or grazing. The presense of dwellings on neighboring properties has a similar bearing on the decision to acquire land for timber management. Forestry experts state that n~ more t acce table ~ ban one o P alon side r two h g a ar omes are P cel managed for comm~-= harvest. ==u~ 8. Other types of land use on adjoining ro ert aable'ttractlonReCreat'~~s' ~onaiduethe fac~t~t~esverv~ ~ ~u~,~_~areP leasP ~-Yt comare_ pat~blem°re = ~ ~===s 5nat are contrary to management. Commercial and industrial uses compatible because of a greater tolerance to s. The cardinal rule of forest resource people, the less desir~able the land. an area is devoted to forestry, the tess neighbors will object to or interfere with onal forest management practices. least 20 acres of land are needed for successful timber nagement because of the time it takes to gro~ a harvestable stan~ and because of the'economies of Tt~e operat~on~ from ~u~n~s~rat~vead~, ' cos' scale of~every~ aspect of here a ts to m ~ re s~mply more mana~em=~* ~- orang equipment. zu acres. = ~.~ u~lons on parcels larger than 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 go up~ management ~lexlb~ ~i~t: dr ; otherwise operat~n: g costs needed to offset the losses y ops~ and even mor~ acreage is Page 11-EXHtBIT G 10 The Rationale for F~ception Areas Boundaries that is reas OhS to t ble interpretation ~ the William Lockertz~ versity~ states: ~keeping does not assure that lso be prese ,, fred... larger, but for a minor proportion of farm in number.~ rura a Institute of eSidential pr se lye in that rural land are for rural commuting range of urban Y It Page 12~ BIT G ed. by Wm. Lockertz, Soil and tl 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 alloQed in exclusive farm u~e 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 deIiniat~d to prevent islands of agricultural or forest uses within rural residential zones. The pot dis cts ~ n boundaries were originally drawn Lye is ~'split zoning", o ~umbersome to administer~ the choice is whether or not a parcel within an exception area boundary. Parcels that di~¥ided or developed are included even though the site may be in pasture or trees, because farm and ~ uses in rural residential use both; receiving a deferral. ~x deferral would appear to be for developed and ~ommitte~ exceptions if~not Department of Revenue officially tween land zoned for farm or forest use use. The tax deferral program applies to ban Growth Boundaries ~re eligi~ie. been debated on Land Conservation and ~f the commission is that land from an~ exception it does add substantially to the s warranted~ That policy will s of each exception area that ~ontains land Page 13~ BIT G ! 2 APPENDIX A TRANSCR COUNTY LESA COMMITTEE DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPED AND COMMITTED LANDS PARCEL SIZE: If the parcel is not adjacent to any other property you own or lease for farm or forest management purposes and if .it does not have a residence on it~ vh~t vould be ~he minimum parcel size you vould n~d for practicable farm or forest m~magement? s representing the forest industry unanimously agreed tventy acres are needed for successful management because of ion from other and the tire equipment. Respondanr: reasons: If If If your area for fores~ mst. your opera,%ns costs go up~ m greater acreage over vhich acres vould not be practicable for fores~ -cos~s~ equipment moving costs, of scale~ and move-out costs. options on parcels 20 acres and iarger. John P. 20 acres for the same reasons Jokm S. : same reasons vith the addition of: residences- ncreases on smaller parcels vith residences around. Steve W. 20 acres for same reasons vith the addition of: ~ Concern about kind of neighbor more ~han just if adjacent residence. - The Closer the neigbors are the greater the ~mpacts. Page 14~ IT G Committee members from agriculture responded with answers from 5 to 50 acres because of Ghe diversity of agricultural endeavors. Parcels as small as 5 acres are considered useable for organic farms if the soil is htgh quality, but as much as &O acres are necessary for adequate seperation of seed ~rops and 50 acres are necessary for livestock~ As with forest operations, Ghere are economies of scale associa[ed with each agricultural use~ Mark M~ 40 acres for the following reasons respective to grass seed & wheat: - Crop variety isolation (conflict w/ other variety of grass seed).. ~ Need certain zinimum acreage Go grow grass seed~ if acreage becomes Goo small it becomes impossible ~o raise certified seed~ - Cos~ of movin~ equipment~ Tom $. 15 acres for ~he following reasons: - Smallest you can go and have neighbors. - Conflicts of moving equipment, moving your practices~ moving your mana~emen~ moving your ~rrigation. - Conflicts v/ neighbor,s tres~pass. B~ce W. 20 acres for the following reasons: - Equipmen~ expenses. Travel ~ime. - Increased labor costs. Ross P~ 12 acres for the following reasons: - Profitablity~ - Plus other reasons already mentioned. - Ability ~o spray affectin¢ profitability and litigation. Cleve D. 50 acres for ~he following reasons respecGive to !ives~ock: When you ge~ away from home you have greater management costs. Need ~ar~ enough unit ~o be able Go afford to ex~ra ~ravel. Dogs harrassinE lives[ock~ John H~ 5 acres for ~he folloving reasons respective ~o organic farms: - Not using chemicals~ Using ve~ little fertilizer. - If the proper~y has good rich soil. Page t ~-~BIT O lb~ If the parcel is adjacent to other property you own or lease for far~ or forest ememt and does ~ot have a residence on it, what would be the minimum parcel size you would nee~ for practicable farm or forest management? Both resource groups a~reed consolidation of holdings can maximize ~he utiliza~!on of equipmen~ and labor~ but a~ ~he same time tncreasin~ or decreasin~ an op~ra~ion involves a de~aited~ si~e specific economic analysis. Conft~ura~ion is as important as size in ~he efficien~ use of resource parcel as how much i~ voutd have. Mike reasons: topographical features which would separate (creek). John P. 5 acres~if no close residences. John S. 5 acres with the provision ~hat it could logically become part of the same forest managemen~ uni~. Steve W~ No minimum as long as ~here was no creek separating. e ~ ~ ~0 acre~ for ~he followin~ reasons: ~ If you could avoid isolation problems for ~rass seed. - If ~ou ~ould no~ have equipment relocation problems. Tom ~. I0 acres for ~he following reasons: If farm managemen~ unit is expandable. [ If it fits v~ll with ~he exis%ing piece so that you could easily extend managemen~ practices and ir~iga[ion systems. B~ce V. lO acres for ~he followinM reason: - BeCause close proximity to o~her managed acreage would reduce costs. Ross P~ ] fotlowin~ reasons: · close proximity. wires no major change from curren~ mgt~ pract~ce. Cleve D. 10 acres for ~he same reasons o~hers have given. John $~ 5 acres as long as ~he price is righ~ Page t6-~ IT G $~ECT PARCEL ~~STICS: If the parcel met your minimum parcel size requirements and had ~re~d~ce. on it in one cor~er or at one end of the property a~d ~he ~u~ o~ ~he proper~y w~ ~devetoped~ ~ b~ring would ~he r~id~ce ~d it~ ioca~ion ~ve on your decision to pur~e the parcel The forest~ experts reasoned ~hat the dvelting vould be an asset if the purchaser intended ~o reside on the property or had a say as to ~ho ~ould reside in ~he dwelling, howeve~ t~e drawback would be ~hat the price of land would be bid up by ~hose wishing to reside on resource land~ Respondant: ~'~ ~ - It would prevent purchase of the property. - Couldn't ~fford r~sidential value fo~ resource use. Hike M. - If it is at reasonable price could con~rot portion ~ith residence. S~eve ~ -~If it is a~ a reasonable price. - If you could control ~he occupant of the residence. The agricultural experts replied unanimously that the dwelling vould have little or no bearing~ I~ vould no~ effect'purchase of the property. Tom ~ - The nearer the residance the more effect i~ vould have. - Uould like ~o buy i~ at a price ~hat could afford ~o demolish ~he residence. B~ce ~. Minimal effect as long as you can conduct spraying. Ross P. Minimal effect dependln~ upon ho~ much land is used up for scce~s. Cleve D. No effect~ John ~ No effect as long as on corner or on end~ Page 17- BIT G The fores~ers s~a~ed tha~ d~ellin~s ~ould be objectionable irr~pec~ive of location on ~he p~oper~y. ~ ~ Would no~ purchase for same reasons before. Mike M. Would p~r~ase only if you (the fores~ manager) would live in i~ Jo~ P. Vo~ld purchase only if you (~he fores~ mmnager) would live S~eve V. Would purchase only if could control who lived in The agricultural point of view was that they would not choos~ such a parcei because of the inconvenience of working around the building~ uld purchase only if could control who lived in it. Tom H. Same° Bruce ~. [ reasons~ Ross P. Would purch~e only if he was the occupant. Cleve D. Would no~ purchase property w/ residence in ~he middle. John $~ Would no~ purchase because it would be ~oo hard ~o work around. Page NEIGEBOEHOOD ~CTEEISTICS: If t~he parcel net your requirements identified in 1. and 2. above, vhat 5earinEvould 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 dvetlings ~n neighboring land and the attitudes the inhabitants hold towards standard nanagement practices ~ouid have a definite bearing on a decision ~o buy or lease resource land; ~he more houses the more likely the po~entia! for conflicts. Residences adjacent on tvo or more si~es ar~ not acceplable. Recreational uses are just as much of a problem to resource managers, however connercial~ industrial and institutional uses that are compatible because they have grea~er tolerance ~ovards resource managenen~ practices. Re~pondant: The more sides v~ conflict ~hen less inclined to purchase because: - ~e more drivevays ~o residences then ~he more problems ~/ access for hauling logs. Mike M. - The more developnent there is~ then requires a lover value or larger piece in order for eeo~onies of scale To york. - The more people in ~he vicini[y then ~he less desirahle~ Close houses vould rule it out because: If residences then people ~ould be living ~here. Industrial uses or u~iti~i~s ~ould no~ be considered as conflicting. John S. Sane. Steve The more people around, then the less desirable. Church canps, boy sdout camps ~ould be particularly undesirable. People vith strong recreational interests vould hake the property les~ desirable. not purchase if property had residences on tun or more sides. The more residences around then the less desirable because: ~ Difficulty in obtaining insurance for chemical applica~ion~ - Increase possibili[y of litigation. Bruce V. Would no~ purchase if residences on more ~han one side because: - Problens v/ spraying herbicides and pes~icides~ Having %o ~ake neighbors in~o consideration to move equipment. ~ Subjec~ to trespass and vandalism liabiii~y. ~oss P. Would not purchase ff residences on more than one side for same reasons~ Page 19-~BIT G Cleve D. From livestock perspective~ there are other considerations: ~ Industrial ~ses might ~Ollute the soil on which livestock graze~ - Residential conflict h~rassing livestock (dogs, motoreYeles)~ - LivestOck getting loose and eating residential landscaping. John H. Hos[ili[y of neighborhood is main factor. are devoted R~pondan[: F°restr)~ Mike then residential deYelopment~ hem ~ore work. vicinity and the less Job_n P~ - Residences are generally opposed to resource management. John S. Same reasons. people and less A prime farm area would have some bearing but main criteria would be ~h~ economics and profitability of farming specific property ra~her than the regional characteristics. Tom 8. Same reason and emphasizes that good so~l is the bottom line~ Bruce ~. A~rees that good soil is the bottom llne. Ros~ The less residential conflicts ~hen ~he more po~entiat~ conduc~ practicable farm m~na~ement~ - If the farmer is plowing~ the residents don~t like the dust~ ~ If the farmer is sprayi~g~ the residents don~t like the spray~ - If the farmer is raising animals, the residents don~t like the smell. - The farmer viii be making noise at 6:00 AM, residences don~t like the noise. - Residences moved to rural areas for folloving reasons: - quie~ - Farmers are located in the rural areas for different reasons: - To raise crops~ ~ A basic conflict of interest and desires betveen rural residents amd resource mangement~ Cleve D~ ~o~ld have a grea~er interest in prime agricultural area because: - Fewer people that don~t understand resource~management~ - Less negative factors vith vhich ~o deal. APPENDIX D~ELOPED & COF~MITTED Parcel Size: explanation of how the respondants arrived ac~es for practicable farm or forest unding land were in sepesate ownership. The icult~ral committee were: - organic farming can be conducted on small sites if the soil is longer and is s and fertilizers if the parcel ec mall parcels unprofitable~ The reasons given by the forestry committee were: evelop a harvestable stand of trees ew limitations. d and therefore the cost of moving ro distance to neighbors who ractices~ ~e the agricultural and inc ngs involves detailed economic Parcel Characteristics: of a e ommitt r no bearing for Page 22- IT G and would be bid up by potential buyers who rty as a homesite mor~so than resourCe land~ ld be an asset if the pUrchaSer intended t© reside rty~ or if the purchaser had a say as to w~o ~would ge. Question b) asked a similar question~ however the dwelling would be situated: in the middle of the parcel instead of off to on Neighborhood Characteristics Question a) asked what bearing the above circumstances wo the surroundin~ land were ~,i~__~ ..... j _ ~ ~ uld have if committee stated that t~ ~~u ~x~n nomes~e~ The agricultural - ~=~=~e o~ homes around the would have a ' ' perimeter ma3or beaten d ~ g~ ependlng on the following factors- ~ the number of homes should not exceed one or two to a side~ their acceptance of normal The forest committee agreed~ citing the following reasons: - densityconflict, is the factor~ because the more ho~ses~ ~ the more potential - recreational uses pose just as much of a threat because people expect environmental amenity. - ot~er types of commercial~ industrial or institutional uses f~lly c~patib!e because the~ do n-~ -~ ..... are ~ ~ ~r~ ~ne same e×pections. Question b) asked if the presence of homes on only some of the surrounding land due to b~ffering by n~tural features would make the parcel mor~ suitable for resOurc~~ use. The agricultural committee s~at~d i~w?u~d n?t. Th? forest committee generally held to the p emxse that ~eveiopment on more than one sise of a parcel ~isqualified it for resource use unless the buffer w~re significant. Regional Characteristics The question was to what extent the regional settin~ made a parcel more or less appealing for resource us~. Both c°mmi{tees agreed that the more the s~rOund~ngs are devoted to resource use the iess manag~mentlikely thatprac~ices.neigbors Will object to or interfere with standard Page 23- IT G. APPENDIX C IEMBERSHIP OF L~SA FAR~ AND FOREST TEC~NIC~L COmmITTEE timberlands department~ Weyerhauser years of experience in in Forestry. other compatible land uses property~ evaluation of restry issues in regulatory general luding contact with ~LC~ 1955; 20 a banker and 5 is main source of good pastnre production in Oregon State University, r of Oregon State ~ for Outstanding ~cre farm and how to grow each Oregon State University~ of Ore rmer crops~ ice; B~S~ washington State University f°rester~ member of sOciety of awards for outstanding service in resource management, regulations and ~ & M.A. Washington State rience preceeded by 8 years on a Agents ~orticutture Societ~ National County Agents tion and Oregon ~aster Gardener commercial horticulture, assists Lane naging their farm lands. JOHN M~ ?~L%?S- Retired forester~ g-S. University of Califo~n~ia, Page 24- B~T O 1946, M~$~ Oregon State University, 1967~ 17 years experience as a professor of forestry at Lane Community College~ pr~eeded by 16 years ~s a chief forester and 3 years as a forest engineer~ member Soc American Foresters~ ~erican Forestr~ A .... ~-~- ~ - ' .iety of ~ ~uu~on, American Congress of Surveying and M~pping, Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon and Oregon Small Wo°dlands~ selected as U~S. delegate to ~orid Fores~ Technical forestEducati°ntract~C°nference in Stockholm Swed~n~ t971~ Still manages small JON STRANDJORD~ BLS planner/environmental coordinator~ Purdue University, 1966 & 69~ M.B.A. Golden Gate University, 1974; 15 years experience in wildland management. Current responsibilities include ~and use Planning of 320~600 acres of fores impiementin Na ~ ~ ~ t land and g t~onal Environmental Policy Act. BRUCE G~ WILLIAMS- District Conservationist, U-S.D.A,; B~S. Washington State University, 1982; 12 years experience in management of past~re~ rangeland and cr~land~ member Soil ~ Water Conservation Society~ Alp~a~zeta Agricu~turai Honor Society and Lane County Farm Bure~; farmers on resource management problems and roved resource infor ~ ~ £ .. ~ P es so~ls and na ma~ ~u ~he general public. ~ t rai STEVE WOODARD- Extension Forester/tree farmer; B.S. & M~S. Oregon State University, ~963 & 66~ 40 years of experience in for fellow and asr ch . ~ est mana ement- P apter president of Society of American Forgsters'e' Page 25- IT G IN Tt~E BOAllD OF COPL~%SSIONER$ OF LA~E COUNTY~ OREGON ORDER NO. 89~10~25~4 t984 the Board ce No. PA 884~ which ADOPTING T~E 1989 ADDE/~TO LOP~~ CO~I~ED gUPPORT OF TSE ~E of districts to all land within Lands Working the reme Court remanded ~ive P1 ional on a~eas Plan~ and app ng Paper on Developed and 27 and October 3, I989 the West Lane and Lane conducted Public hearings to consider the ndum to t'h~ Developed and Committed Lands ons voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of County Co~missioner2; now~ therefore, be it Page 26-E~BIT G ORDERED that the 1989 Addendum to the Developed and Committed Lands Working Paper~ incorporated herein by referenc~ as Exhibit A ~ is hereby adopted in support of the Lane County Rural ComprehensiVe enacted bY Ordinance Do. PA 884. Plan DATED this 25_day of October Page 27-E~BIT O