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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon referred to the Bethel Community Park site and said there was a wetland running through the park in the area that the City had promised residents through the parks and open space bond measure would become an off-leash dog park. That park was not being built as promised and Ms. Solomon asked if it was because of the wetland designation. Mr. Bjorklund did not know. The site had not been recommended for protection by staff or the Planning Commission. He noted that the City would have to go through the State and federal permitting process to fill the wetlands on the site. Ms. Taylor noted her concern about two properties containing the Amazon Creek headwaters, and asked if those entire properties, rather than just parts of them, could be designated for complete protection from development. Mr. Bjorklund said the portion of those properties on the GoalS inventory was recommended for protection. The remainder of the properties would be studied through the upcoming South Hills study. Ms. Taylor said the sites contained rare plants that would not be protected if development occurred, and the sites were also important for the purpose of connectivity for wildlife. Referring to Mr. Bjorklund's statement that the regulations would result in no unbuildable lots, Ms. Taylor asked if the owner of a large lot would be able to develop a second house on the lot if they had a seasonal stream on their property. Mr. Bjorklund indicated it would depend on the situation. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's earlier remarks, Mr. Bjorklund noted that connectivity to other open spaces was considered by staff and the commission in their deliberations, and connectivity led to certain sites be recommended for more protection. Ms. Taylor asked ifMr. Bjorklund's statement that there would be no unbuildable lots meant that the owner of a large parcel would be able to build on as many lots as fit on the parcel. She cited the property on Nectar Way and Dillard as an example. Mr. Bjorklund said such a property would have to go through the planned unit development (PUD) process to be developed. He recalled that 10 to 11 acres of the 45-acre site was in the GoalS inventory, so a large part of the site was not impacted by the study, and the GoalS regulations would not affect those acres. Ms. Taylor asked if existing requests to develop would be exempt from the ordinance. City Attorney Emily Jerome said State law governed the issue and it stipulated that complete applications must be considered under the standards and criteria in place at the time the application was submitted. She pointed out that the Planning Commission had added some provisions for existing application approvals that the council might wish to review. Ms. Taylor indicated she would offer the council a motion to establish a development moratorium for site E37 on September 26. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Bjorklund that affected property owners living outside the city limits had twice received direct notice of the zoning actions being contemplated. Mr. Bjorklund added that he had talked to many, many property owners who lived outside the city limits. At the request ofMr. Poling, Mr. Bjorklund explained the significance of the two maps mounted on the meeting room, explaining that one showed corrections in mapping by making the location of sites more accurate and the second depicted the Planning Commission's recommendations. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Bjorklund said the maps could be found on the Web site and were posted in the Atrium Building. In addition, staff had e-mailed copies of the map to many property owners. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 21,2005 Page 4