Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

compared to the relatively low habitat values on this segment, the economic values are higher in relation to the resource values than for other portions of this site and other similar sites. Based upon new information about the site, and given that the St. Clair stream section represents a significant proportion of this site, staff recommends amending the Planning Commission recommendations to apply a 20-foot setback for the St. Clair parcel only, and revising the ESEE analysis for this portion ofE37 I to reflect this new information. This approach would maintain the viability of the overall stream corridor, and would be consistent with ESEE conclusions related to 40-foot conservation areas applied to other portions ofE37 I and other sites in the South Hills. 7. Testimony Related to Other Issues 7.1 Biggs. Charles. Concerns about upland areas; about scenic values and protection of scenic sites. Staff response: The current Periodic Review Work Task for GoalS does not include addressing scenic resources. Therefore, the current GoalS project was not intended to address scenic resources, nor is addressing GoalS scenic resources on the Planning Commission Work Program for future action. No change is recommended. 7.2 Farrington. Philip/Peace Health. Asks for changes to proposed regulations to provide for more flexibility. Concerns about how existing development is treated. Response: The draft regulations include provisions to vary the buffer distance within a development site through Standards Review in section 9.8030(21)(c). This provision was included in direct response to comments received earlier, to which Mr. Farrington refers in his letter. No change is recommended. 7.3 Hoyt. Mark (for Joe Green). Can private streets be built within conservation area under proposed regulations? Response: This use is not clearly addressed in the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff believes that this is a legitimate use where no other point of access to developable land is available other than across a protected riparian corridor, and that allowing this use would be consistent with the Planning Commission recommendations, as long as the impacts are minimized. Staff recommends a minor change to 9.4930(3)0) to clarify that a "private access road" is not necessarily limited to one crossing from a street to a single lot. Private access roads would be limited to the minimum number of stream crossings necessary for an approved use, and would be subject to development standards in draft section EC 9.4980. Staff believes that with this minor change, the issue raised by Mr. Hoyt is addressed. 7.4 Joll. Dennis. Concerns about wetland mapping on his property. Staff response: The Eugene Local Wetland Inventory was approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) in January 2005. Only the DSL has the authority to determine whether an area is wetland or not. Staffhas spoken with Mr. Joll and members of his family to provide information regarding wetland mapping on his land. Concerns about the wetland mapping need to be addressed to the DSL, which has the authority to review and approve changes to the mapping. The wetland areas on Mr. Joll's property that are recommended by the Planning Commission for protection in the GoalS study are the exact areas set aside as wetlands and drainage corridors in the adopted Royal Node Plan. Therefore, the GoalS study would not change the areas where development can occur on his property, all of which is within the Royal Node Plan area.