HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19917ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ING THE EUGENE•SPRIl~GFIELD
METRaPGLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM TG
INCLUDE PRGPERTY LGCATED ON THE EAST SIDE GF
HAYDEN BRIDGE RGAD IN THE URBAN GRaWTH
BGUNDARY; T4 DESIGNATE THE PRGPERTY LGW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; AND ADAPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds $s follows:
1. The Cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County initiated an update
amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan}
pertaining to the inclusion of property inside the urban growth boundary and designation
on the Metro Plan diagram as law density residential use. The property is located in the
3940 block of Hayden Bridge Road and consists of approximately 3.b7 acres.
2. Adoption of this proposed amendment was recommended by the Eugene,
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions following public hearings.
3. Notices of the public hearings before the planning commissions and Eugene
City Council were provided in advance to affected and adjacent properties, Notices were
also published in local newspapers in general circulation.
4, The proposed amendment is consistent with relevant Statewide Planning
Goals except where an exception to those Goals is necessary; the criteria required for
taking an exception to the Statewide Planning Goals; applicable policies of the Metro Plan;
and the procedure required to affect a Metro Plan update amendment, as reflected in
Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY 4F EUGENE DGES ORDAIN AS FGLLGWS:
Section 1. The findings set forth above and the findings contained in Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are adapted.
Section 2. The Metro Plan diagram is amended to include in the urban growth
boundary Tax Lots $00, 900, 901, and 902~•Assessor's Map 17-02-19-41, and Tax Lot 500
Assessor's Map 17-02-20-00 and designate the property on the Metro Plan Diagram for
low density residential use.
Section 3. Notwithstanding any relevant provisions of the Eugene Charter of 197
or Eugene Code, 1971 concerning the effective date of ordinances, the Metro Plan urban
growth boundary amendment and plan diagram designation provided for herein shall not
become effective until identical amendments have been adopted by Lane County and the
City of Springfield.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision
and that holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Passed by the City Council this
~~day of 1993
~-~.
City Recor er
Approved by the Mayor this
~p day of 1993
Mayor
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS FUR JOURNAL NUHBER 93-01-12
HAYDEN BRIDGE ROAD URBAN GROuTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
Findings of Fact
Location: Tax Lots 800, 900, 901 and 902, Assessor's Map 17--02-19-41 and Tax Lot
Assessor's Map 11-02-2~0-00
Sipe; 3.70 acres
Lan~Use: Single Family Residential, vacant, water discharge structure
Metro P an Desi nation: Agriculture
Ur an Growt Baun ar Location: The adopted urban growth boundary in this vicinity
a uts t ese ots a ong t ear rontage with Hayden Bridge Road
Lane Count Zoning E-40 Exclusive Farm Use
Ve etation: Grasses, blackberries, mixed ~ri~arian fringe of cottonwood, maple,
W1 Ow
Soils: Class IIIe and non--rated
Su rrSu oundin Land Uses: Large lot and urban density single family residential,
pu is uti ity, in ustrial and river
Public Facilities, Services and Utilities;
-- P one prove e y US West Communications
- Electricity provided by Springfield Utility Board
.- Water provided by Rainbow Water District
-- On--site sewers. Municipal sewer is proposed in 5-7 years
- Road side ditch storm drainage. Municipal storm sewer in 5-7 years
- Police protection by Lane County Sheriff
-- Fire protection by Springfield through contract with Rainbow
.~ Willamalane Park and Recreation District
- School District #19
Trans ortation: Access to these properties is provided via Hayden Bridge Road
w is is c ass~fied as a collector. ~ ..
I. Nature of Request
This action seeks to include the following parcels into the Urban Growth Boundary
~UGB~ ~of the City of Springfield:
Map & Tax Lot Number Acres Property Owner & Address
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 900 .81 ac Frank and Carmelita Cross
3980 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, 0R 97477
17-OZ-19-41 Tax Lot 901 .39 ac Cross
17-02-19-41 Tax Lot 902 .53~ac Cross
17-02~-19-41 Tax Lot SQO 1.45 ac Willard and Gladys Rohrer
39b0 Hayden Bridge Road
Springfield, OR 97.477
17-02-20-00 Tax Lot 500 .49 ac Weyerhaeuser Co. Y Tax Dept.
P.O. Box 16.45
Tacoma, WA 98401
Total Acreage 3.b7 ac
Exhibit A -- Findings -- 1
II: General Information
A. Background
is action to amend the UGB was precipitated by the discovery that the City of
Th
rin field had mistakenly issued a residential building permit for tax lot 900.
Sp. g ometime after the final occupancy had been
This error was not discovered until s
ranted. The other lots have been included in this UGB amendment for several
g
reasons includin similarities in development, lot size, common•boundar~es• and
• $ B, Tax Lot 800 also is occupied by a single
proxlm~.ty and relationship to the UG
famil home but construction occurred prior to state law requiring adoption of urban
Y
rowth boundaries. Tax Lots 901 and 902 are vacant and Tax Lot 500 is the site of a
g
Weyerhaeuser Company water discharge structure.
.,
B. Description of Site
Each of these lots front on Hayden Bridge Road and extend east and/or north to the
McKenzie~River a roximately 22fl feet}. The UGB abuts each of these lots along
~ PP
their entire Ha den Bridge Road frontage and along the western and southern
y ivel .
boundaries of lots 800 and 500, respect y
The to o rah of these lots is characterized by a uniformly steep slope away from
P g~ P y 'v r. The maximum elevation is 510 feet ion lot
Hayden Bridge Raad towards the rl e
500 and the minimum elevation is 452 feet blot 800} which is the ,mean high water
} ,
mark of the McKenzie. The 100 year flood elevation along this portion of the river
is 4b0 feet. All but the narrowest margin of lot 800 and 902 is above 4b0 feet.
The 4b0 foot mark for lots 901, 900 and 500 is precipitous. FEMA flood naps show a
small area of lot 800 adjoining the river in Zone A-b X100 year flood}. An equally
small area of Zone B (between 100 and 500 year flood} abuts the A-b Zone on lot 804.
The remainder of lot 800 and literally all of lots 540, 900, 901 and 902 are in Zone
C. Zone C is described as an area which may be subject to minimal flooding during a_..
500 year event.
There are two soil types found on these lots. Nelda Silty Clay Loam predominates on
lots 500 900 and 901 .and intrudes nominally into 1ot~902. Chapman Urban Land
Complex makes up the remainder of lot 902 and all of lot 840.
Nelda is used for hay, pasture, cultivated crops, timber production, recreation and
homesites. Because this soil is underlain with deep deposits of gravel, it is
' 1 drained and re wires substantial irrigation during droughts. This soil does
raped y Q
not rovide maximum yield unless fertilized with lime, nitrogen and phosphorous.
P
Its subclass is IIIe.
Cha man is used mainly for urban development.. It is also used for yards and open
P
areas around and between buildings. Because of the mixture of natural and man--made
deposits, na capability rating is assigned to Chapman.
C. Plan Designation and Zoning
The lots are zoned E--40 and the Metro~Plan diagram does show these properties as
a ricultural although it could be argued that lot 500 is shown as park and open
g
s ace. The matrix found in Appendix C of the Metro Plan keys the exclusion of these
P
lots from the UGB to one or more of the following characteristics:
Exhibit A -~ Findings -- 2
protection of agricultural lands; floodway fringe; protection of wetlands; and
protection of sand and gravel resources. Chapter II of the Plan explains that the
establishment of the UGB is based an the seven factors of statewide Goal 14,
including retention of Class I-IV agricultural lands. Also in this chapter is the
following passage related to establishment of the UGB: "Since the most productive
agricultural lands are typified by Class I agricultural soils located in the
floodway fringes, the boundary of the floodway fringe often serves as the location
of the urban growth boundary. When the floodway fringe follows a natural bench or
when a road creates a dike which defines the floodway fringe, the boundary between
urban uses and agricultural uses may be abrupt. In other instances, the transition
from urban to rural is not as easily definable on the ground."
Chapter II also includes the exception process which is required anytime resource
land (Goal 3 Ag or Goal 4 Forests is not protected with exclusive zoning or is
placed inside the UGB. No farm or forest designations exist within the UGB.
Outside the UGB exceptions to these goals were taken for areas already committed to
urban use, including the airport and rural residential and commercial in the LCC
Basin, Japer Road, West Eugene, East Thurston and North River Road areas. Even if
they met the exceptions criteria, these lots cannot be shown on the diagram as an
exception area because the total acreage of 3.67 is well below the minimum land use
designation of 5 acres.
It should be noted that the 1982 version of the Metro Plan contained a matrix
similar to that found in Appendix C. The 1982 matrix also listed these same
limiting factors as an explanation for exclusion of this property from the UGB.
However, the 1982 Plan diagram clearly shows these properties to be low density
residential, not agricultural. The county zoning at that time was AGT (Agriculture,
Grazing and Timber} which allowed residential use.
The 1982 plan contained the same policies .regarding
exceptions areas. The only changes to documentation
these four factors that occurred between 1982 and
flood hazard maps in 19$5. These maps. increased the
in this area. Also between 1982 and 1981 the Coun
property consistent with LCDC requirements for resou
D. Adjacent Land Uses
the establishment of the UGB and
or technical data pertaining to
1987 was the publication of new
flood elevation by several feet
ty was compelled to rezone this
rce lands outside the UGB.
The McKenzie River forms the eastern boundary of these lots and is approximately 40
feet lower in elevation than the right-af-way line of Hayden Bridge Road. The
former Oregon Aquaculture fish breeding facility is located on the far side of the
river. All land across Hayden Bridge Road is owned by EWEB and is developed with a
water filtration plant. Adjacent to lot 800 is an orchard and a newly constructed
single family home. Approximately 600 feet further west on Hayden Bridge Road is
the beginning fiend} of urban density residential development,
E. Logical Boundary Extension
The proposal includes 2 parcels committed to urban use and three parcels to small
and/or to steep to be used for agricultural purposes. The UGB abuts these
properties along all boundaries except the river. Because the preponderant majority
of these lots is in flood zone C, the river becomes a logical boundary.
Exhibit A - Findings - 3
The adopted public facilities plan includes this property in an existing water
service boundary (Rainbow} and designed storm and sanitary sewer basin projects.
Improvements to Hayden Bridge Road to urban standards will occur through urban
transition agreements with Lane County and as development within the UGB occurs.
III. Requirements for Urban Growth Boundary Amendments
The current Metro Plan amendment process adopted by all three jurisdictions in
November, 1990, requires the following criteria to be applied in rendering a
decision of approval or denial of plan amendments:
Section 7.Ob5~2} Criteria for Approval of Plan Amendment
., .
(a} The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
(b} Adoption of the amendment must not make the Retropalitan Area General Plan
internally inconsistent; and
(c} The amendment is not a Plan update amendment, unless the amendment has been
initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of Springfield
and Lane County.
Response to ~1.Q65(2}(a}: The amendment must be consistent with the relevant
statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC.
~1} The Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the relevant statewide planning
goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
Statewide Goal 2 Land Use Planning; Goal 3 Agricultural Land3 Goal 14 Housing; and
Goal 14 Urbanization are the applicable goals. Goal 2 contains the exceptions
process that must be addressed whenever a designated resource land, in this case
Agricultural, is proposed to be.used.or designated for non-resource purposes. Goal
3 applies only insofar as the provisions of this goal demonstrate why this property
does not implement or carry out the intended purpose of the goal. Goal 10
applicability is relevant to the proposal because this action would change the
designation of this property from agricultural to low density residential. Goal 14
must be applied to any expansion of an acknowledged urban growth boundary.
Also, specific sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes FORS) are applicable and
presented here as findings.
A. Goal 2 Land Use~Planning
DRS 197.132(1} A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when:
(a} The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it
is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal;
Exhibit A -- Findings -- 4
(b} The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as described by
commission rule to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing
adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable
J
goal impracticable.
Chapter bb0, Section 4 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR} provides further
clarification of these requirements for developed and committed exceptions. In
Section bb0-04-OZS, developed lands are described as no longer available for the
uses contained in the goal because of the presence of buildings, roads, water and
sewer facilities, or other urban facilities..
Section Gb0-04-028 describes irrevocably committed lands and requires that the
government's explanation of irrevocable commitment address the following factors:
(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;
(g} other relevant factors.
The lots included in this proposal satisfy the criteria for developed and committed
lands as follows;
Lot 900 is approximately 35,000 square feet and is occupied by a single family home
and a sand filter waste system. The house is approximately equidistant between
Hayden Bridge Road and the McKenzie River and is within 10 feet of the common
boundary with Lot 901. The sand filter system takes up much of the southern half of
Lot 900. ~~
Lot 800 is approximately 1.45 acres and is occupied by a single family home that is
much closer to the river than to Hayden Bridge Road. Complete records are missing
on this property, but it is assumed that an an-site sewage system is present and
that canstructior~ occurred before adoption of the Metro Plan.
Lots 901 (17,000 square feet} and 9oZ (23,000 square feet} are vacant and are in
joint ownership with Lot 900.
Lot 500 is approximately 21,000 square feet and is occupied by a Weyerhaeuser
Company water discharge structure. A substantial portion of this lot has .been
cleared and graveled to provide access to this structure.
All abutting property, as well as Lots 900 and 800, is included in Rainbow Water
District. No storm or sanitary sewers are available to these lots, but this area is
within storm and sanitary sewer basins identified in the PFP. Both of these
facilities will be placed in Hayden Bridge Road r-o-w. School is provided by
District 19; fire protection is provided by Springfield through contract with
Rainbow; and police protection is provided by Lane County.
Exhibit A - Findings - 5
EWEB's filtration plant is directly across Hayden Bridge Road from these lots on a
55 acre parcel zoned PLO. EWER also owns a 2.b acre parcel zoned PLOD immediately
south of lot 500. This lot is within the UGB and separates the subject lots from
the intersection of Marcola Road and Hayden Bridge Road. Immediately West along
Hayden Bridge Road is a new single family home on a 2 acre parcel, a vacant 2 acre
parcel, four 113 acre parcels with single family homes and then several hundred
single family homes on city-size lots.
Along Marcola Road~are several industrial uses and a residential facility. The
McKenzie River separates these lots from the Camp Creek and Mohawk Valleys, both of
which have a variety of uses, including agricultural, timber, commercial and
residential of varying density ranges. The river marks a clear division, both in
elevation and in use, between the urban and rural landscapes. Many years ago the
Hayden Bridge Road area was an exclusive farming area, and in several large areas
north and west of these lots, agricultural use does predominate. But during the
b0's and 10's dozens of subdivisions were approved, cutting this area up into a very
definite rural-urban interface. Throughout both the recent and distant past these
lots were largely unaffected because they were not used extensively for agriculture
and, until recently, there was only a single residence. The commonality of these
lots is not just their history or their size or their slope or their use: they are
the edge of the city, as sure and distinctive as the river below them. They are
isolated~anly by the artifice of the UGB., and not because they are separate from the
land surrounding. This action is a logical extension and consistent with the goal
of compact urban growth.
Other relevant factors
ORS 215.203 defines Exclusive Farm Use Zones as lands to be used exclusively for
farm use as follows: "...the current employment of land far the primary purpose of _.._..
obtaining a profit in money by raising, harvesting and selling craps 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."
The largest of these lots is 1.45 acres and is occupied by a single family home that
is located near the center of the property by the river. The next largest lot x.81
act is occupied by the recently constructed single family home. The three remaining
lots are 112 acre or smaller. There is little possibility of any of the farm uses
that can be sustained by this soil classification being operated for a profit. Any
activity involving animals would create noise, odor or waste that would create a
nuisance for nearby residents and would become a possible source of contamination of
the McKenzie River.
ORS 215.253 prohibits cities and counties from enacting laws or ordinances
restricting or regulating any farm use land with exclusive farm use zoning "...from
accepted farming practices because of noise, dust, odor or other materials carried
in the air or other conditions arising therefrom if such conditions do not extend
into an adopted urban growth boundary in such manner as to interfere with the lands
within the urban growth boundary."
Exhibit A - Findings ~ b
All of these lots abut the UGB. No portion of these lots is further than 250 feet
from the UGB. This proximity gases a very real likelihood of noise, dust, odor,
overs ra and other conditions extending into the UGB lands. A valid claim of
P Y
interference could result in the city or county regulating certain farm practices
and thereby diminishing the intent and purpose of exclusive farm zoning.
ORS 215.23 allows the county to "...approve a proposed division of land to create
arcels for farm use as defined in ORS 215.203 if it finds: (a} That the proposed
p' ro riate for the continuation of the existing commercial
division of land is app p
a ricultural enterprise within the area; or fib} The parcels created by the proposed
~ ' han the minimum lot size acknowledged under ORS 191.251."
division are not smaller t
Ore on Administrative Rules ~OAR~ Division bb0-05-O10 defines "commercial
~ f~ land directl en a ed or supporting land directly
agr~.cultural enterprise as Y g g
en a ed in agricultural uses affecting the community. OAR bb0-05-010 also defines
•g•g rea a but b the ability of the land to support
minimum lot size not by ac g y
agricultural uses or agricultural enterprises in the area.
All of the lots are zoned E-40 which establishes 40 acres as the minimum lot size.
Clearl these lots were not ,created to serve the continuation of commercial
y' .
a ricultural enterpr.~se nor do they satisfy what the county adopted under GRS
g
191.251 and ORS 215.050 for minimum lot size. The complete aggregation of these
lots would result in an area less than 1110 the minimum lot size required by the
zonin . There are no farm uses on the Springfield side of the river that would need
g
ar could use these lots as allowed in ORS 215.203 for the reasons cited above.
Given the location of the UGB, the surrounding uses, and the presence and planned
introduction of full urban services abutting these lots, the continued status and
zonin of these lots as agricultural lands is inconsistent with the facts, with the
g
intent and purpose of the goals and the protection of the law.
Goal 3 Agricultural Land
This oal is established to preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Such lands
g ' ntl Class I throe h Class IV soils as identified in
are defa.ned as land of predomina ,y ~
the Soil Capability Classification System of the United States Soil Conservation
Service and other lands which are suitable fog farm use taking into consideration
soil fertilit suitability for grazing, climatic conditions, existing and future
y~
availability of water for farm irrigation purposes, existing land use patterns,
technolo ical and energy inputs required, or accepted farming practices. Farm use .is
• g uded in the Exce tion discussion of this report.
defined in ORS 215.203 and was lncl p
Half the area comprised by these lots is Nekia silty clay loam. This soil has a
IIIe ratin and is best suited for hay ar pasture use. Row craps require irrigation
• g• ilizers. The size of these lots makes hay or
and lime, nitrogen and phosphate fart
asture an unsuitable choice, while the size, slope and proximity to the McKenzie
p
make the use of these fertilizers, and therefore raw crops, also an unsuitable use
of the land.
Exhibit A - Findings - l
The other soil t e found on these lots is Chapman urban complex. This soil has no
YP
in because of the variety of natural and man-made materials. This type of soil
rat g
re wires fertilizers and irrigation and for the same reasons cited above, does not
q
make farm use a suitable choice.
Other factors which inhibit the use of these lots for accepted `farm practices•or
su ort for commercial agricultural enterprises .are found in the Exception
'PP ort and include lot size, adjacent uses and "developed and
discussion of this rep
conimi t ted" status .
h se~lots should be converted from agricultural to residential. and from rural to
Te
urban use based on the findings in the Exception discussion of this report.
Goal 14 Housing ~.
' ro osal will convert 3.69 acres of E--40 agricultural land to low density
This p p ain of 10 to 12 building sites.
residential. This represents a potential net g
' e this land would 'oin an existing residential inventory of several thousand
Whil J
e 'it is im ortant to note that need is not at issue, The developed and
acr s, P
mmitted discussion elsewhere in this report pre-empts the additional exceptions
co
irement to determine need. These lots and, the adjacent neighborhood are
requ
irrevvcabl committed to single family residential development. The small acreage
Y
' v lved in this re nest will be provided With full urban services Whether, the land
in o q
is ever develo ed beyond existing densities or not. The, conversion from
P rve the inte rit of the existing housing and
agricultural to residential will prese g Y
the neighborhood by maintaining consistent land use regulations.
Related findings to Goal l0
ORS cha ter 197.0053}, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination states:
~ P
"...cities and counties should remain as the agencies to consider, promote and
mono a the local aspects of land conservation and development for the best Interests
g
of the people within their jurisdictions."
RS 191.010 states: "The .Legislative Assembly declares that, in order to assure the
O
hi hest ossible level of livability in Oregon, it is necessary to provide for
g P
erl re ared and coordinated comprehensive plans for cities `and
prop Y P P • 3 Shall be the basis for more specific
counties...These comprehensive plans: ~ }
les and land use re ulations which implement the policies expressed through the
ru g
com rehensive plans; ~4} Shall be prepared to assure that all public actions are
p• with the olicies ex ressed through the comprehensive
consistent and coordinated P P
ions' and 5 Shall be regularly reviewed and, if necessary, amended to keep them
~ } he are desi ned to
P '~ h n in needs and desires of the public t y g
consistent With the c a g g
serve."
The ro ert owners are in support of this action because of their desire to reside
P •p Y with full urban services. These services are or in
on their land and be provided
time will be adjacent to these lots. All adjoining praperty•is within the UGB and
J
is ex acted to be developed at urban densities. The proximity of existing and
P
ro osed urban develo ~ment makes the inclusion of these lots consistent with the
P P • P h and S rin field as the ro~vider of
fundamental principle of compact urban groWt p g P
urban services.
Exhibit A -- Findings -- 8
Goal 14 urbanization
The purpose of the urbanization goal is to prova~de for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use. To ensure the likelihood that this will
occur, establishment or amendment of urban growth boundaries must be based upon
consideration of the following factors:
~l} Demonstrated need to accommodate long--range urban population growth
requirements consistent with LCDC goals;
(2} ,Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability
(3} Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;
.,
(4} Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban
area;
~5} Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
~G} Retention of agricultural land as defined, With Class I being the highest
priority for retention and Class vI the lowest priority; and,
~7} Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.
In addition to the foregoing, the exceptions process found in Gaal 2 must be
prepared whenever an amendment to the UGB will result in the conversion ~of
previously identified resources lands.
Factors 1 and 2: Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population
growth and need for housing, employment opportunities and livability.
These factors apply only when the "reasons" determination in Goal 2 is required.
When it is shown that land is developed and committed to urban use, a reasons
justification is not necessary to complete the amendment. The exceptions discussion
elsewhere in this report demonstrated that these lots should be considered as
"developed and committed" therefore finding~of need is not required under Goal 2 ar
Goal 14.
Factor~3: Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services.
These lots receive the fallowing public facilities and services:
1. Rainbow Water District domestic water
2. Fire and Life Safety protection from City of Springfield
3. Willamalane Park and Recreation District
4. School District 19
5. Lane County Sheriff
These lots are included within storm and sanitary sewer basin areas proposed for
development in the Public Facilities Plan. These projects will be constructed in
Hayden Bridge r-o-~w and will go forward regardless of the disposition of these lots.
Exhibit A -- Findings - 9
sition a reement with Lane County identifies the road system
The City s urban Iran g
' nsferred to the City upon completion of urban standard improvements
that is to be tra
Bride Road is one of these roads and, again, will be
by Lane County. Hayden g are included in the UGB.
im roved to an urban facility whether or not these lots
P
. 'cienc of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing
Factor 4. Maximum effi y
urban area.
' sion earlier in this report indicated the improbability, if
The goal exception discus ,
' of these lots sustaining or supporting farm production or
not impossibility, r information corroborating this
commercial agricultural enterprise. Furthe
' nd in the October, 1989 Lane County Addendum to Working Paper,
conclusion is fou ~~ re ort included testimony from
entitled "Developed & Committed Lands. This p
rvatianists and extension agents concerning the "minimum lot
farmers, ranchers, conse ,
• ~~ farm unit. Although the statute refuses to quantify
size or smallest usable less than 5 acres to be
"minimum lot size", this group would not consider anything ,
• hat small if the land was vacant. The total area of this
practicable, and only t homes. The vacant land is
amendment is 3.b9.acres and includes two single family ,
' e orated b the two homes and totals only 1,~1 acres. Maximum
non-~cantiguous (s p y, ro ased urban facilities abutting
efficiency, particularly in light of existing and p p f
t be derived by the perpetuation of an agricultural designation o
these lots, canno
this land.
Factor 5: Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences.
• res onse to this factor is based on continuing the
The first half of the P f the res onse is based an
ricultural designation on these lots. The second half o P
ag
low density residential use. .
Environmental
occu ied this site, it would require fertilizatfion and
If a crop--type farm use P not affect ad'acent residences,
irri anon. Dry application of fertilizer should J ,
g Fertilizer or
ra would be hard to contain on site because of ,small lot size., ,
but sp y
' ns would be carried directly into the McKenzie Raver under
pest control applicatio ro ert .
irri anon or rain events because of the slope of this p p Y
g
cted on this site would be limited because of small lot size.
Animal husbandry condu imals common to this part of
There is inadequate area to grow feed to sustain farm an ,
' Valle . The smell that such livestock raise would ,impose upon
the Willamette y
' The castin s of these animals, as with animals the world over,
neighboring homes. g
flows downhill and into the river.
in a of the UGB does provide open space and thus a scenic virtue
Farm land at the fr g h se lots abut the Mckenzie River
that should not be overlooked. However, because t e,
scenic qualities are inherent to all but the most noxious uses.
~~ a lots would result in an increase in impervious surface due
Residential use of thes r n-off from bath of these
to construction of the dwelling and driveway., The u ,
' would need to be addressed as a requirement of the building permit.
improvements
Exhibit A - Findings - l0
Until ublic sewer is constructed, on-site sewer systems are designed and built to
P
standards specified by the Lane County Sanitarian.,
Residential uses, articularly in this area of Hayden Bridge Road, are typified by
P
lar a lots with most of the property given over to lawns, gardens and ornamental
g
landsca in . As with farm uses, fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides are
P g ' i hborhoods and some of these materials will likely end
commonplace in residential ne g
u in the river. The degree to which this may occur is dependent upon individual
P
homeowner reference and awareness of the environment and therefore cannot be
P
predicted.
Develo meat of these lots with homes will increase current auto trip generation
P
inasmuch as no discernible trips were generated prior to residential use. However,
iven state law which strictly limits the placement of dwellings in exclusive farm
g
zones the use of these lots for farm activities would require travel to and from
the residence of the operator. The number of trips or distance traveled cannot e
predicted.
Energy
A ricultural uses near markets reduces energy consumption far transportation ,of
g
roduce. Some agricultural uses, such as pasture, require low amounts of attention
P
or equipment for production. Other agricultural uses, including most row crops,
rel on soil re oration Milling, fertilizing, irrigation and harvesting which may
ye P P ,
require large commitments of machinery and electricity.
Residential uses will consume energy for space heating, yard maintenance and
trans ortation. Hayden Bridge Road is classified as a collector street by Lane
P
Count and the Cit of Springfield. Marcola Road, which is approximately X00 feet
Y Y, minor arterial. Immediate access to this
south of Lot 50C, is class~.fied as a
s stem reduces vehicle miles traveled by providing more direct routes and linkages
Y
with other large volume systems.
Economic
A ricultural uses, particularly those close to markets, can have a positive affect
g
on the local econom in terms of employment and laver transportation costs. As with
Y
mast industries, a riculture requires extensive support services, investment and
g
su lies from other sectors. This spin-off effect is consistent with a healthy
PP
econom . As most of the preceding discussion has indicated, these lots are too
Y
small and fragmented to be used for serious agricultural uses.
Residential develo ment is another major industry with as many or more spin-off
P
industries as agriculture. Unfortunately this activity is not an on-going process
for ro ert of this size. The mast significant economic aspects of this proposal
P P Y
involve the elimination of public subsidy. These lots are in existing urban
services areas and will at some time be adjacent to all urban services. The
continued deli nation of this land for agriculture will result in a subsidy for this
g
infrastructure as well as a possible farm deferral for property taxes. Inclusion
into the UGB and eventual annexation allow public expenditures to be recovered and
is consistent with the economies of scale inherent to compact urban growth.
Exhibit A -~ Findings - 11
Social consequences
A ricultural land provides the food we eat, employment opportunities ar~d open space
g
nities. The reduction of this resource will have a corresponding affect on each
ame
these benefits. In this particular case, the only one of these attributes which
of
will be affected is open space, and that only partially.
Residential develo meat of these lots is consistent with adjacent and surrounding
P
uses, This art of the Hayden Bridge Road area is characterized. by.a scattering of
P' adjacent to urban densit residential development.
large lot residential development ~ Y ,
The nei hborhood that has evolved here over time appreciates the proxlmxty of nearby
g ral feel that lar er lots X1/3 to 1 acre} convey.
agricultural lands and the ru g ,
Future develo went of the three vacant parcels, even xf further land division
P
occurs, is consistent with this neighborhood.
The artial loss of open space mentioned earlier is not a forceful argument given
P
he fact that most low density residential site development occupies less than 259
t
f the lot. The slo a of these parcels away from the road diminishes the visual
o P
im act of development and protects, through development constraint, encroachment on
P
the river.
This ro~osed change does not measure negatively against these factors because the
p P •
size of the area involved is small, the land has an exxsting commitment to
residential use .and any additional residential development will be consistent with
the overall character of this neighborhood.
Retention of a ricultural land as defined, Frith Class I being the highest
Factor 6. g
priority for retention and Class ~I the~lawest priority.
The conversion of agricultural land to urban use requires a goal exception as
r vided in Goal 2 and 4RS 197.732. This report has addressed this requirement at
po
length under discussion found on pages 4-7.
Factor 7: Com atibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural
P
activities.
These lots alread have undergone a certain degree of conversion from agricultural
y
use to residential, as have other former agricultural lands in this neighborhood.
The ro osed development of these lots with additional single family Names will not
P P ,
lace residences any closer to existing farm uses or designated agricultural land
P
not in production.
These lots are located on a collector street that is within 604 feet of an
intersection with a minor arterial. The development of these lots will not diminish
the availability of water for agriculture because of the domestic supply source and
residential uses do not demand the water volume required of irrigated farm land,
Exhibit A - Findings ~- 12
Res apse to 7.4b5~2~tb}: Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan
P
Area General Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan is acknowledged by the state for compliance with applicable goals.
Post-acknowled ement requirements for.UGB amendments require a goal exception when
g
resource land is converted for urban use and a Goal 14 Urbanization analysis. These
issues have been addressed by this report.
The proposal does not seek to amend the plan text nor is such amendment necessary.
The exce Lions process is specified in the plan, these seven factors are included in
P
Cha ter II of the plan as is the statement that the boundary may require further
P
adjustment over time.
The Growth Management and the Urban Service Area goal states the following: "Use
urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficient~3y. Encourage orderly and efficient
conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response to urban needs, taking into
account metro olitan and statewide goals. Protect rural lands best suited for
P
nonurban uses from incompatible urban encroachment."
B virtue of the requirements of Goal 2 and Goal 14, this report has shown how the
Y
ro osed amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan's growth management goal.
P p
These lots are not used efficiently if they are left in an agricultural designation;
these lots are adjacent to existing urban uses an an urban transportation system;
these lots already have undergone same partial urbanization as a result of land
division and residential development; the size, location, topography and soil
classification of these lots does not make them well suited for nonurban uses; and,
the rinciples of orderly and efficient extension of services and compact urban
P
rowth, embodied in the PFP proposal for this area, is not served by the
g
continuation of an agricultural designation of these lots.
The lan diagram will be~changed from an agricultural designation to Low Density -..
p
Residential, as will the zoning. This is consistent with existing use of this
property as well as abutting uses, zoning and plan designations.
Res onse to 7.4b5~2}~c~: The amendment is not a Plan update amendment, unless the
P
amendment has been initiated by the governing bodies of the City of Eugene, City of
Springfield and Lane Gounty»
The 'oint elected officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County unanimously
? lution and Order on Februar 4, 1992.
initiated this amendment by Reso Y
Conclusion and Recommendation
This report includes responses to all applicable criteria of the Metro Flan,
Statewide Goals, ORS and OAR concerning the exceptions and urbanization processes.
This report has demonstrated that the proposed inclusion of these lots is consistent
with the aforementioned criteria. On March lb, 1993 the joint planning commissions
voted unanimously to adapt findings in support of this action and forwarded the
re nest t.o the joint elected officials with a recommendation of approval. Staff
9
recommends approval of this Urban Growth Boundary amendment and a concurrent
redesi nation to Low Density Residential and requests the elected officials of
g
S rin field, Eugene and Lane County to adopt the findings of this report, along with
p g
an relevant testimony from the March 16, 1993 joint planning commission public
Y
hearing and the May b, 1993 joint elected officials public hearing.
Exhi b~ t A - F~ nd~ ngs ~- 13
^-. -~.~^
~'~ et
66 R
S` L
,der
~,1 ~ ~~
~Jr1
~ * ~ ~
0 rc
a d
° °r t~
o ,,
r ~
O
h ~
r
o; ~ °
o .
~•
r'
.~
y ~
~6
~,w~
~~
///
rI'
~/ h
/;
~ ~
/ w
f
~J
/~
i ~V
~m
i;
-~-- ~. rn
~t
I
~ h
h ~' r
1 {
~.
0
j/ ~
f ~1