Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the park in the area that the ('ity had promised residents through the parks and open space bond measure would bceonK' an ofT. leash dog park. That park was not being built as promised and f\1s. Solomon asked ifit \vas because of the wetland designation. Mr. Bj6rklund did not know. The site had not been recommended fl.x protection by staff or the Planning Commission. He noted that the City \vould have to go through the State and federal permitting proccss to rill the wetlands on the site. Ms, Taylor noted her conceI1l about two propetiies cOlltaining the Amawn Creek headwaters, and asked if those entire properties, rather than just pans of them, could be designated fl.-)r c~mlp1ctc protection From development. \{c Bjorklund ~;aid the portion of those properties on the GoalS inventory \vas recom- mended llJr protection. The reroainder of the properties would be studicd through the upcommg South HiUs study. Ms. Taylor said the sites contained rare plnnts that would not be protccted if development occurred.. and the sites were also important fl.lr the purpose of connectivity T()r wildlife. Referring to Mr. Bjl:lrldulld's statement that the regulations would result in no unhuildable lots.. Ms. Taylor asked if the owner nf a large lot \vould be able to develop a second house on the lot If they had a seasonal stream on their property. Me Bjorklund indicated it would depend on the situation. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's earlier remarks, Mr. Bjorklund noted that connectivity (0 other open spaces was conSIdered by staff and the comrnission in their deliberations, and connectivity led to cCliain sites be recommended for more proted.I~)n, ivls. Taylor asked if l\k Bj.:jrklund's statement that there would be no unbuild8ble lots meant that the owner of a large parcel 'Nould be ahlc (0 build on as maJiY Jots as fit on the parcel. She cited the propeliy on Nectar \Vay and Dillard as an example. jyk Bjorklund said such a property wouJdhave to go through the planned unit development (PUD) process to be developed. He recalled that J U to 11 acres of the 45- acre sitc was in the GoalS inventory, so a large part of thc site was not impacted by the study, and the G()cd 5 regubtions would not affect those acres, Ms. Taylor 8sked if existing requests to de\.'cJop would be exempt from the ordinance. City Attorney E:mily Jerome said State Im,v governed the issue and it stipulated that eornpkte applications mw,t be considered under the standards and criteria in place at the time the applicationwa~~ submitted, She pointed out that the Planning CommiSSion bad added some prOVisions for existing application approvals that the council might wish to review. I"vls, Taylor indicated she would offer thc council a motion to establish a development moratorium _for site E37 on September 26. Mr. Poling determined li'Orn Mr. Bjikklund that affected propetiy owners living outside the city limits had t\vice received direct notIce of the zoning actions being contemplated. Mr. BjDrklund added that he had talked to many, many property owners who lived outside the city limits. At tbe request of:Mr. Poling, Me Bjbrklund explained the Significance ofthe two maps mounted on the meeting room, expJainmg that one showed corrections in mapping by nlaking the location of sites more accurate and the second depicted the Planning ('ommission's recommendations, Responding to a question fromMr. Poling, [>vir. Bjbrklund said the maps could. be found on the Web site and were posted in the Atrium Building, In addition, staff had e-mailcd copies ofthc map to many propeIiy ovvners. Me Pape detern1ined thHll ~vlr. Bj<<5rklund that the wuncil\; action to change the City's approach in the uplands inventory in the south hiHs did not affect the study bet(lre the counciL \Vork on the uplands study MINUTESm--Eugene City Council \Vork Session September 21.. 2005 Page 4