New Search
1. Subsection 9.262(7)(b): This subsection outlines the criteria for exceptions to the <br /> setback provisions for the Waterside Protection Subdistrict. The version recommended for <br /> approval by the Planning Commission included a subsection 3., which allowed an exception if <br /> "there is an error in the city's riparian inventory maps on the property in question." Staff <br /> recommends omission of this criterion, because errors in the riparian inventory maps should be <br /> correct on the inventory maps, not addressed through a code exception process. <br /> 2. Subsection 9.264(2)(d): This subsection gives criteria for exceptions to the Wetland <br /> Buffer Subdistrict. The Planning Commission version reads as follows: - <br /> (d) Development within the Wetland Buffer Area shall be exempt <br /> from the setback provisions of this section if (1) the specific development is <br /> included in an approved wetland fill permit from both the Oregon Division of <br /> State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (2) the above referenced <br /> permits were approved prior to adoption of this section of the code, and (3) any <br /> mitigation requirements specified in the permits have been substantially satisfied. <br /> Staff proposes amending this subsection as follows: <br /> (d) Development within the wetland buffer area shall be exempt from <br /> the setback provisions of this section if (1) the specific development is included --in <br /> to be constructed upon fill that is authorized under an approved wetland fill permit <br /> from both the Oregon Division of State Lands and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, <br /> (2) -- :•6 • -- • .- • •• .... • • • ••....- ; - - - -- ' ;- <br /> the -eefle the fill is consistent with the goals and policies of the West Eugene <br /> Wetlands Plan including the designations on Map 3 of the Plan, and (3) any <br /> mitigation requirements specified in the permits have been substantially satisfied. <br /> This change would make the ordinance consistent with intent expressed by staff in public <br /> hearings on these code amendments. The change would also address a basic inconsistency in <br /> the previous language. If buffer setbacks were required on wetlands filled under an authorized <br /> permit, the net result would be that the wetland program would allow development in one <br /> process, then prohibit it in another. Since wetland filling is costly due to mitigation <br /> requirements, staff feels it would be unfair to prohibit development within a buffer area on fill <br /> that has been mitigated elsewhere at substantial cost. <br /> Section 9.300: In its approval of the code amendments on June 28, 1993, the Planning <br /> Commission removed from section 9.300(2) a provision which would have allowed a private <br /> property owner to request NR Natural Resources District be applied to his/her property. At that <br /> time staff inadvertently missed a phrase to the same effect in the purpose section of 9.300. The <br /> present version of the ordinance has this phrase removed to be consistent with the Planning <br /> Commission's action. <br /> Memo: NR Implementation Code Amendments (CA 92 -2) Page 5 <br />