Item 7: Ordinances on Goal 5 Natrual Resources Study

Home Browse Search

in this case, but only if that adjustment can be applied to a parcel that already contains a residence. Staff spent considerable time and energy exploring with the City Attorney other options to address this type of situation, and found no viable alternative provision. This is due in large part to the great variability of circumstances and configurations of lots, residences, and resource sites, such that concepts such as "the house is surrounded by the conservation area" or "the conservation area extends into the front yard" were problematic under many potential scenarios. Through public testimony before the council, staff has been made aware of at least one area where several existing homes are in the situation described above. Without a viable alternative approach, staff cannot support excluding parcels with existing residences from this adjustment. Motion E (Councilor Kelly) Description: This amendment is similar to the amendment under Motion D, but with two differences. This amendment would require that the parcel is not developed, but would limit it to lots of 10,000 square feet or less in area, and would not require that the parcel could not be developed without the adjustment. This amendment would raise the standard for demonstrating the effectiveness of enhancement measures within the remaining conservation area. It would accomplish this by requiring the applicant to demonstrate consistency with the enhancement standards in the new section (21)(e) that is introduced under Motion C above. Staff Commentary: For the same reasons that were stated in staff comments on Motion D, staff does not support this motion. Motion F (Recommended by Attorney/Staff) Description: This motion is an alternative to motions D and E. This motion would allow this adjustment to apply to a parcel that contains a residence or other structure, but would raise the standard for demonstrating the effectiveness of enhancement measures within the remaining conservation area. It would accomplish this by requiring the applicant to demonstrate consistency with the enhancement standards in the new section (21)( e) that is introduced under Motion C above. Staff Commentary: Staff recommends this as an alternative to Motions D and E. This amendment would help ensure that an adjustment approved under this section would not cause a decrease in the overall functions and values of the conservation area, while addressing known situations in which the conservation area provisions would create an unreasonable restriction with little benefit to the resource. Additional Information For additional information, please contact Neil Bjorklund, Senior Planner, at 682-5507 or via email at neil.h. bjorklund@cLeugene.or.us.