Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

had not begun. Mr. Pape asked if <1dditional protections could arise frorn tbat work. Mr. Bjorklund said yes. NIr. Papc det.em-lined from Mr. Bj6rklund that some'..vhere bct'v',1een 5,00n and 7,000 lots would be affected by the uplands invent.ory in the south hiHs. }vir. Pap6 asked if the City ',voukl notify the property owners of t.he council's action. NIL Bjorklund said yes, VI/hen the staff embarked on tbat work. At the request of ;\1r, Pape, Mr.BF1rklund reviewed the different levels of protection bemg proposed at this time. He said that adjustmcnts were <1vaibblc in each category, but t.hey were keyed to the category and the type of resource ill the category. The commission wanted to avoid a situation ,vhere the setback was reduced so hr that the resource was not adequately protected. Mr. Pape asked about the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the regulations, suggesting tbat additional setbacks could impair a developer's abitity to divide a site into as many lots as previous. Mr. Bji.'lrklund concmred, but pointed out that in the case of subdivisions that had been developed in the past five years, developers were generaJ1y designing them to maintain such corridors <1S an amenity to the development Mr. Pape scud if the City was tabng land out of the 20-year land supply by protecting more acreage, it may have an issue wit.h the existmg buildable land supply. JVls. Jerorne responded that the City could not adopt a land use regulation without domg an analysis of that issue. She reiterated that staff did a worst- care ~~cenario an<11ysi<; that indicated a surplus still existed in aH three categories of buildable land. Ms. Bettman ~~olXlmended staff fen its v{ork on the issue. She recalled the council's motionlO estabhsh <1 conservation fund to pay for natural resource sites, and asked when the council would sce the results of that work. eity Mal1<1gerTayJor indicated the City Attorney's Officc \Vas doing the required work. Ms. Gettman referred to the "reduce and restore" option and asked ho\o',1 the City lI1onitored the restoration and setb<1ck when the property changed hands. Mr. Bj6rklund said the City \vould take the same approach as it did to cDde enforcement violations, 'vvhich \-vas frequently complaint-driven. He suggested that education was the key to cnmpliance with the ordinance, He said staff would continue to \-\lork with propeny owners to educate them about the regulations, and with Parks and Open Space staff~ for e'{ample, on such tbings as community education regarding native plants. J\h. Bettman asked if the property deed would ret1ect the \WR overlay, or if there would be any documentation of the overlay thm was carried with the ownership of the property. J\;1L Bjorklund said the City had limited opportunities to at1-ect deeds, but it. would track that infonnation. J\:ts. Beltman suggested the 20-year buildable lands inventory \vas less predicated on lots than on h~)Using units, and that was a density issue. She questioned why, in Section 9.2751, Special Development Standmds for Table 9,1040, stafT proposed that the Planning Director round down the acreage or land to the previous \vhole nurnber to calculate the mininmm net density, which could diminish the potential density on largc lots. Mayor ho'cy solicited a second round of council questions and comrnents. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. BeUman's request for t()llmv-up rcgarding the proposed compensation fund. Mr. Kelly returned t.o his concerns about the t1exibl1ity provided by adjustment review. Mr. Bji.}rklund referred him to Section 9.8030(2l)(a)(1), and explained that the 33 percent calculation v.;as not 3:') percent of everything on the site; one did not get to factor in the pond, stream, or wetland itself in the 33 percent. He added that staff found only a couple of sites where the .)3 percent would apply. In those cases, staff MINUTES mEugene City Council \-Vork Session September 21, 2005 Page 5