Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

provide adequate protection for Spring Creek for several reasons: 1) The City-owned parcel extends only for the length of the Spring Creek subdivision, and does not protect the remaining portions of Spring Creek that are recommended for protection; and 2) Ownership of a parcel and the uses on it can change and, for this reason, protection measures are being proposed for a number of City-owned lands. The City-owned area in some places is nearly as wide as the proposed conservation area, but it is not uniform in width throughout its length. For this reason, some adjacent properties (beyond the City parcel) have more area within the proposed conservation area than other properties. According to the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, this section of Spring Creek is fish-bearing. This characteristic, along with other habitat characteristics provides the basis for the Planning Commission recommendation for a 40' setback. Staff finds that the proposed regulations area necessary under GoalS rules, and that providing a consistent level of protection along this length of Spring Creek is warranted. No change recommended. 6.6 Golick, Deanne. Notes a mapping error on her property. Response: Staff visited the site with Ms. Golick and confirmed that the map was in error. The GoalS riparian corridor does not exist on Ms. Golick's property, and staff has corrected the map to reflect the correct location of the upper end of the corridor on the adjacent property. 6.7 Reer, Doug & Sharon. Agree that proposed setback will affect one of their parcels; however, the Reers want to verify that their second, adjacent parcel (1803162302000) is not on slated for /WR overlay zone. Supports preservation of the natural resource and wetlands. Staff response: The second, adjacent parcel (1803162302000) is affected to a minor degree by the proposed GoalS protection measures. A portion of wetland AMA-14 (Barber wetland) is located very close to the property line; the proposed setback of25 feet would extend onto this parcel approximately 20-25 feet in one corner. 6.8 Johnson, Marshall. States concern about impacts to his property on Copping Street, next to the Willamette River. Opposes project. Response: The proposed regulations would exempt existing development from regulation and would allow continued use and maintenance of existing ornamental landscaping. Based on review of aerial photography, Mr. Johnson's lot is entirely landscaped. Therefore, the only restriction due to the application of the /WR overlay zone would be to expansion of development beyond the current development footprint. Remodeling of the existing house, or expansion within the existing footprint would be allowed. In this unusual case, the proposed conservation area actually encircles the house. The proposed conservation area would occupy well over 33% of Mr. Johnson's lot, and therefore this parcel would be eligible for a reduction in the conservation area under draft EC 9.8030(21)(a). These provisions would allow the conservation area to be reduced until it occupied no more than 33% of the lot, which would remove the conservation area from the front yard, and a portion of the side yard. This would allow room to expand the house toward the street, on the opposite side from the river, which would have minimal impact to the river and its riparian area. Staff believes that the proposed regulations would not interfere with continued stewardship of the riparian area, since the regulations specifically allow those activities that are needed for maintenance, stewardship or restoration of the riparian area. Most of the properties on Copping Street to which Mr. Johnson refers are outside Eugene city limits, and would be subject to Ordinance No.2, which would require the /WR overlay to be applied upon annexation to the city.