New Search
In April, 1993 a joint planning commission public hearing was held on this item. The Eugene <br /> Planning Commission recommended approval of the code amendments in June, 1993. The <br /> code amendments were then put on hold pending state and federal review. That review was <br /> completed in late summer 1994, following which the amendments were brought back to the <br /> Eugene Planning Commission (EPC) for minor changes, primarily consisting of updates, <br /> clarifications and corrections. After EPC again recommended approval, the amendments were <br /> taken to the -Lie County Planning Commission for action. The Lane County Plarai'ing <br /> Commission (LCPC) called for a second public hearing based primarily upon the length of time <br /> between the public hearing and their action. LCPC gave explicit direction on how to conduct <br /> public notice for the hearing, which city and county staff followed in every detail. Over 2,500 <br /> notices were sent out, including a four page explanation of the code amendments with graphics <br /> and a generalized map. At the public hearing twelve people testified, of which three supported <br /> the amendments and nine opposed them. <br /> At a work session on January 10, 1995 staff presented LCPC with a detailed response to the <br /> public testimony. LCPC concluded, based upon their perception that the number of people <br /> attending the hearing was relatively small, that the notice had been inadequate. Consequently, <br /> they voted to require a third public hearing, with customized notice sent to each affected property <br /> including maps detailing the exact impacts the setbacks would have on each tax lot owned by an <br /> individual or company. They also directed staff to include information about the square footage <br /> included in setback areas and representative dollar figures for the per - square -foot value of those <br /> affected areas. City and county staff will seek direction from the Board of County <br /> Commissioners regarding how to proceed with processing for the urban transition area, given the <br /> extreme cost of the notice specified by the county planning commission. <br /> Since the Council's action on the amendments for the area inside the city limits is independent of <br /> the county's action for the urban transition area, consideration by the Council for adoption within <br /> the city limits can proceed. <br /> Public testimony before the county planning commission focussed on the setbacks from <br /> protected waterways and wetlands and a provision which allows the city to require dedication of <br /> a maintenance access easement as a condition of approval for land use applications which <br /> include or abut protected waterways. Both the public testimony and discussion among the <br /> county planning commissioners focussed upon the financial impact of reducing the developable <br /> area of private held parcels through imposing setbacks. LCPC requested an opinion from the City <br /> Attorney's office regarding possible takings issues raised by these code amendments in light of <br /> the recent Dolan vs. City of Tigard case. That memo is included in the materials on file in the <br /> Council Office. <br /> Overview of Ordinance Provisions <br /> The elements of the Natural Resources Implementation Code Amendments are described below <br /> Memo: NR Implementation Code Amendments (CA 92 -2) Page 2 <br />