Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fart raised concern that the open waterways plan would adversely affect the cost of housing <br />in the city. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the Planning Commission's concerns about <br />using interim buffers, Mr. Lyle said that the commission felt that planned unit development <br />(PUDs) would go a long way in protecting headwaters over 500' elevation. Ms. Childs added that <br />Commissioner Art Farley felt that if the council's primary concern was headwaters, then the PUD <br />process would be adequate protection. She went on to say that Commissioner Farley had also <br />felt that if the council's concern was with areas outside of the 500' elevation, then the council <br />should consider some sort of interim buffer. She said that Commissioner Jon Belcher was <br />concerned about waiting until the Natural Resources Study process provided buffers. She said <br />that he also viewed setbacks as a way of providing more open space. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding a timeline for the Natural Resources Study, Ms. <br />Childs said that there was a two-step approach to the study. She said the inventory document <br />would come before the council in January. She said the second phase of the study would come <br />before the council in the winter of 2001. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that the key word was "interim." He stressed the importance of providing <br />some protection for waterways while waiting for the Natural Resources Study to be completed. <br />He added that the time line projected by Ms. Childs seemed a little optimistic. He opined that <br />PUDs and the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) were not adequate to protect waterways in the <br />interim. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor expressed concern over the cost of implementing interim buffers. Mr. Lyle said that <br />much of the cost was involved with the public process. He clarified that those costs were for <br />policy adoption and not for implementation. He said that buffers on redevelopment sites were not <br />being considered. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed that interim buffers were needed. She noted that the Planning Commission <br />recommendation was a 3:2 vote. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the timeline for implementing the Natural <br />Resources Study, Ms. Childs reiterated that it would take 18 to 24 months for the study to be <br />completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff look at new technologies that would allow for more narrow buffers <br />and still protect water quality. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed confusion in that he thought the question before the Planning <br />Commission was not whether to implement interim buffers but how to do it. He thought that <br />PUDs and LUCU were not adequate to protect the City's open waterways. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that the question was if the provisions in PUDs and LUCU were good <br />enough until the Natural Resources Study was completed. She supported the majority position of <br />the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the impact of interim buffers on City staff time, <br />City Manager Johnson said that there would be a contract with the Lane Council of Governments <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />