Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

The property owned by Mr. Johnson, according to city records, is within Eugene city limits, and therefore would be subject to application of the fWR overlay zone. 6.9 Leahy. Dan/Mallard Lake Corp. Concerns about impact of setbacks on E66 (also known as Mallard Lake), particularly on individual lots in the Mallard Lake Estates Subdivision that are not yet developed, and the imposition of additional setbacks after a subdivision has been approved. Staff response: Both the City Council and the Planning Commission heard testimony questioning the applicability of the Goal 5 standards to projects that have received prior approval from the City or may be in process when Goal 5 is adopted. In response to the testimony of Mr. Leahy and others with approved land use permits, the proposed regulations were revised during the Planning Commission's deliberations to address this "vesting" issue. Under the proposed ordinance (9.4930(5) Exceptions), a tentative subdivision approved prior to the date of ordinance adoption, along with construction on the lots pursuant to the subdivision approval, would be exempt. This exemption would apply to all of the lots in the approved Mallard Lake Subdivision. However, the ordinance language has the specific intent of limiting this exemption to development "explicitly authorized" by the approved land use permit. Future land use permits (e.g. additional subdivision or alteration of the water feature) and site work beyond that approved in the subdivision and subsequent building permits would not be exempt. This is consistent with the recommendation to protect Mallard/DeSoto Lake as a significant Goal 5 resource. The "Exceptions" language also anticipates that some land use permit approvals (e.g. a tentative P.U.D.) may expire when substantial progress has not occurred. For these reasons, it is appropriate to apply the fWR overlay to parcels containing significant Goal 5 resources recommended for protection, while acknowledging the development rights and expectations conferred through prior land use approvals. No change is recommended. 6.10 Mulligan. Bruce. Supports G5 recommendations. States concerns about cattle grazing impacts to stream (E38C). Staff response: Cattle grazing is not an allowed use under the draft /WR provisions recommended by the Planning Commission. 6.11 O'Dea. Kim/Law Office Bill Kloos (for Kogap Enterprises, 1580 Valley River Drive). Three adjacent parcels will be affected by the proposed conservation area of Site WR-3, Willamette River wetland. States that the proposed setback will not touch lot one of the parcels and that none of the three parcels should not be rezoned because even if the setback did touch them, they are already developed and would be exempt under the draft /WR overlay zone. Staff response: These issues were reviewed during the Planning Commission's review, and a correction for one of the subject lots was recommended by the Planning Commission. Kogap Enterprises owns 3 lots (17042440 1100, 1200 and 1500), all of which are currently developed, at the end of Valley River Drive next to the Delta Ponds. In lot 1100, the conservation area would extend approximately 40-50 feet onto this lot. The first 15-20 feet of the conservation area includes trees along the wetland edge; the remainder includes landscaped lawn area and a building. Under the proposed WR regulations, only the building area would meet the definition of "exempt development" under 9.4920(5). A small portion oflot 1200 would be within the proposed conservation area. Lot 1200 is almost entirely developed with paved parking areas and structures, but includes a landscaped area that does not meet the definition of "exempt development" under 9.4920(5). The fWR provisions would have the effect of maintaining