Storm Sewer System - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

r sites within the urban growth boundary; water and wetland bodies within Eugene; significant waterways and uplands as identified by the Natural Resource Special Study; the location of hydric soils within the urban growth boundary (UGB); and erodible soils within the UGB. Responding to a comment from Mr. McCarthy about the possible impact on development from the large amount of possibly sensitive sites, Mr. Lyle stressed that the City was interested in regulating only the most sensitive areas in the community. He said that the City wished to create a reasonable program that did not require it to regulate every construction site. Mr. Bingham noted that Eugene had about 5,800 vacant lots, and the data shown on the maps could affect about 3,500. Ms. Anderson asked if developers would have to negotiate with City staff about the nature of a sensitive area, or if there would be data to show PIC staff the location of sensitive areas. Mr. Bingham said that the City's tax lot information was quite accurate, but the data about sensitive areas was in most cases the best available informa- tion available to the City. Mr. McCarthy said that for large -scale planning, such maps as those used by Mr. Bingham were appropriate, but he believed more detail was needed to ensure development certainty for smaller scale planning. He said that the City should not pass on the burden of proof to the individual developer. Mr. Lyle said that staff showed the committee the maps to "raise a flag" regarding the need for further investigation on each site to verify whether the site is a sensitive area. He acknowledged that such investigations would be labor- intensive for either staff or the developer. Ms. Anderson said that the sites in question were five acres or less, so the City would be likely to be dealing with single - family or small -scale multiple- family housing developments. Any fee was likely to impact such developments disproportionately. Mr. Bingham pointed out that for subdivision development, for example, builders seeking permits will already have topographical informa- tion. M. Anderson said that while it would not take long for a professional to complete a one -acre site plan, she was unsure she wished to encourage such additional expenditures. Mr. Lyle asked the committee to consider the elements of the proposed defini- tion in light of the map overlays. Ms. Girling favored the retention of A given the steepness of the identified grade, and B because she believed highly erodible soils were a problem that must-be addressed. She said that D and E were more problematic 46ecause of their broad applicability and the lack of current information. MINUTES-- Stormwater Development Standards July 13, 1995 Page 5 Department Advisory Committee