CC Minutes - 10/24/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

good deal more liberal and did not mention “unbuildable” in the provision. He said that he could imagine that there could be an imminently buildable lot that would still fall under the provision of subsection (d) as written and allow one to roll back the protection for that area. Mr. Kelly said that he was also troubled by the statement that subsection (d) was needed to satisfy the goal 9 and 10 findings. He did not think it was needed to satisfy goals 9 and 10. He said that the next to the last paragraph on page 45 said: Even supposing the provisions above were not a part of the overlay’s regulations, the overlay is being applied to such a small number of acres included in the area’s inventories of commercial and industrial lands that this ordinance overlay could not diminish the area’s supply of those lands below the projected need. He said that he would need a motion for an amendment to remove (d) or rephrase it to really address constitutional taking. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Björklund said that there was a one-time adjustment limit per property and that the land-use application would be on file in the City and would go in a data base to which the staff and the public would have access. Ms. Bettman asked if the objectives of the program - to protect water quality in resource area, to protect significant riparian corridors, upland habitat, and to ensure the survival of the area’s biologic system - would be met if the council adopted the ordinance. She also asked how success would be measured. Mr. Björklund said that staff thought the ordinance would accomplish those objectives. He said that measuring success was a difficult task. He explained that there were many factors affecting resource protection, such as maintenance. He said that this ordinance would not cause areas to be maintained by removing and controlling invasive plant species. He said the City could encourage or provide incentives for restoration, but could not legislate it. He said those kinds of things and others, such as climate change, were completely out of the City’s control. He said that in terms of what was within the City’s purview regarding Goal 5 regulations, this ordinance did accomplish the objectives. Ms. Bettman said that the answer to how success could be measured or benchmarked was that it could not be measured. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would make sure the roads along the waterway, which would allow the City to maintain the area, were outside the setback area, especially if the roads were paved. She said that she was referring to page 21 of the packet. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see language that would apply the Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone to publicly zoned land. She said that existing uses were grandfathered in, but if the property was sold for housing or for another use, this would be a way to preserve natural resources as it was being conveyed into another use. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Solomon, to extend the time by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Papé commented that he was disturbed there was not enough time to process the new proposals from the staff. He asked if there would be another public hearing before adopting the ordinance. City Manager Taylor said no. Mr. Papé said that he was not ready to proceed with the ordinance on November 14. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.2751 on page 13. She requested that language be brought forth that would have the planning director “round up” to the next whole number when calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or development site. She said that rounding the number down would mean MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2005 Page 8 Work Session