CC Minutes - 09/21/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bjorklund acknowledged the contribution of Ann Siegenthaler to the staff work involved in preparing the materials before the council. Mayor Piercy asked how many of acres recommended for protection were located outside the city limits. Mr. Bjorklund estimated that 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 Mr. Bjorklund and all other Planning Division staff involved in the preparation of the materials before the council, as well as the Planning Commission for its review. Mr. Kelly asked if the commission automatically recommended the \WR overlay for sites that the ESEE analysis indicated met the criteria for limiting conflicting uses or if there were such sites for which the overlay was not recommended. Mr. Bjorklund said that where the ESEE analysis concluded that uses should be limited, the Planning Commission recommended the application of the \WR overlay. Mr. Kelly asked if the commission recommended that uses be prohibited on any site. Mr. Bjorklund said the commission did not recommend any sites for that designation because some of the uses allowed by the regulations include low-impact trails and, subject to standards review, interpretative kiosks or other interpretative facilities. Minor impacts were allowed within the protected areas that would not be allowed on a site that fell into the category of "prohibit conflicted uses." Mr. Kelly liked the \WR overlay concept but was concerned about the adjustment review process. He offered as an example of his concern the case of a lot that included an established conservation easement. If the overlay was applied to the lot, it appeared the process allowed the conservation area to be reduced to one-third of the lot, even if before the process it covered a much greater percentage of the lot. Mr. Bjorklund concurred. Mr. Kelly said that similarly, the ordinance allowed a reduction of the setback by 20 percent, including the setback along the Willamette River. Mr. Bjorklund concurred. Mr. Kelly said his problem with that was that it concerned sites that were already declared significant. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Bjorklund for his presentation. She clarified that the acres recommended for conservation did not mean those acres were being completely protected from development. Mr. Bjorklund 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 the site, the total area in the conservation area would be somewhat greater than the figures he shared. However, the flexible provisions he had described made it difficult to say what exact number of acres would be no longer available for development. Ms. Solomon asked how that affected the completion of buildable lands inventory given that staff did not appear to know how many acres remained buildable. Mr. Bjorklund said staff must analyze the impacts of the commission's recommenda- tions against the existing inventory. He pointed out that because of the way the regulations were written, they would not result in an unbuildable lot. If every lot could be built on, the City had not subtracted from the buildable lands inventory. In addition, when land was divided it was generally divided along waterways, so the resources were at the back end of the lot and the developers placed the house on the front of a lot so the functional "buildability" of those lots was not lost. Mr. Bjorklund said staff also analyzed the acreage assuming the entire conservation area was unbuildable, and found there were still excess acres of buildable land based on adopted land inventories. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 3