Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bjt,rldund acknowledged the contribution of Ann Siegemhaler to the ,,;taffwurk i11\'ol\\x1 in preparing the rnaterials before the council. Mayor Piercy asked how many of acres recommended tOr protection were located outside the city limits j\;1L Bjorklund estimated th~lt 75 percent were located inside the city limits, and 25 percent were located outside the city limits. Mayor Piercy invited questions and comments from the council. Mr. Kelly commended the thorough staff work and thanked I'v1L Bji)rklund and all othcr Planning Di\'ision staff involved in the preparation of the materials before the council, as\veH as the Planning Commission for its review. My. Kelly asked if the commission automatically reco111mended the \WR overlay for sites that the ESEE analysis indicated met the criteria for limIting cont1iding uses or if there were such sites l(lr which the overlay was not re~~or(Jrnemkd, Mr. Bj<Jrklund said that where the ESEE analysis concluded that uses should be limited, the Planning Commission recommended the application of the \ViR overlay. Mr. Kelly asLed if the commission recon1mended that uses be prohibited on any site. Mr. Bjorklund said the commission did not recommend any sites fiJr that designation because some of the uses allowed by the regulations include low-impact trails and, subject to standards review, interpretaii\'e kiosks or other inte111retativt; facilities, rvfinor impacts were allowed within the protected areas that would not be allowed on a site that feH into the category of"'prohibit conflicted uses."' Mr. KeHy liked the \ \VR overlay concept but was concerned about the adjustment review process. He offered as an example of his concern the case ~)f a lot that included an established con~;crvation easement. tfthe overby was applied to the lot, it appeared the process allowed the conservation area to he reduced t.o one.third of the lot. even ifbefige the process it covered a rnllch greater percentage ~)fthe lot. [>..,1;-. Bjiirk1und concurred. Mr. Kelly said that similarly, the ordinance al10wed a reduction of the setback by 20 perccnt, including the setback along the WiHamettc River. Mr. BjiirkItmd c~)ncurred. fvlr. Kelly Said his problem with that was that it concerned sites that were already declared significant. Ms. Solomon thanked Me Bji)rklund for his presentation. She clarified that the acres lTcOnlmel](kd fCll' conservation did not mean those acres were being completely protected from development. Mr. Bj6rklund said the acre numbers he shared were acreages of the site; because the protected area included the site and a setback that could extend beyond thc site, the total area in the conservation area \Nould bc somewhat greater than the figures he shared. Hmvcver, the fkxibJe provisions he had described made ;t difficult to say \vhat exact number of acres would be no longer availabk f~)j" development Ms. Solomon asked hO\\7 that atlected the completion ofbuildab1e lands inventory given that staff did not. appear to know how many acres remained buildable. My. Bj('Irklund said staffnmst analyze the impacts of the l:ommission's recommendations against the existing inventory. He pointed out that. because of the WaY the reguiations were \vritten, they would not result in an unbuildabk lot. If every lot could be built on, the City had not subtracted from the buildable lands inventory. In addition, \vhen land was divided it ',','as generally divided along 'vvat.envays, so the resources were at the back end of the lot and. the developers placed the house on the front of a l<)t so the functional "buiklability" of those Jots was not lost Mr. Bj6rldund said staff also analyzed the acreage assuming the entire conservation area was unbui ldable, and fCHmd there were still excess acres of buildable land based on adopted land inventories. Ms. Solomon referred to the Bethel Community Park site and said there was a wetland running through MINUTES nmEugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 3