New Search
EC 9.8030(2)(b) Minimum Setbacks for Park Improvements in PRO Zone. The minimum <br /> required special setback for park improvements may be adjusted upon a finding that the <br /> proposal achieves all of the following: <br /> 1. Consistent with EC 9.2600 Purpose of PRO Park, Recreation and Open Space <br /> Zone.. <br /> 2. Is compatible with adjacent development. <br /> FINDINGS: The Findings of the Staff Report on this application, dated January 16, 2004, are <br /> incorporated here as establishing compliance with each of the above cited applicable approval <br /> criteria. As the Staff Report findings. explain, each of the proposed improvements satisfies the <br /> Willamette Greenway permit criteria, subject to compliance with the conditions noted above. <br /> At'the public hearing, one of the several resident who testified in supported the proposed <br /> improvements, questioned the omission of Pond N from the proposed improvements. As he <br /> explained; this pond is a "very sick body of water" that is filled with nuisance weeds;.and that could <br /> easily be connected to the rest of the project with only minor changes. However,. as a representative <br /> of the applicant explained, Pand N is m private ownership and, based on acost-benefit analysis, <br /> improvements to that pondwere rendered infeasible at this time. The omission of that pond from the <br /> improvements does not impact compliance of the proposed improvements with the approval criteria. <br /> Another nearby resident-encouraged additional pedestrian access to the River bike path via Merry <br /> Lane. This also is not a part of the proposed improvements and the record does not indicate that <br /> this improvement is necessary in order for the remaining improvements to satisfy the Willamette <br /> Greenway permit criteria. <br /> One resident, while not opposed to the proposed improvements, questioned the proximity of his <br /> :property to proposed trail improvements. As the site plans depict, his property is not adjacent to the <br /> <br /> _,1trails. Another resident requested that the city construct a fence to keep pedestrians and pedestrian <br /> noise from his property: He based his request on EC 9.8815(5)(e) and (f). However, as explained <br /> ,in the incorporated Staff Report findings, Section 5 is not applicable to this application. EC <br /> .:9.8815(4), which is applicable, specifically provides for pedestrian pathways within the Greenway <br /> and specifically discourages fences within the Greenway. There is no evidence in the record to <br /> support the need for modification of the proposed improvements to accommodate a fence in this <br /> instance. <br /> Conclusion: As more fully explained in the incorporated Staff Report Findings, and based on the <br /> findings of compliance with each approval criterion, the requested Willamette Greenway Permit is <br /> granted,: subject to compliance with the. conditions of approval listed above. <br /> DATED this 9th :day of February, 2004. <br /> Respectfully Submitted, <br /> Virginia L. Gustafson <br /> HEARINGS OFFICIAL <br /> NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS: This decision may be appealed to the Eugene Planning <br /> Commission: Appeals must be filed on a Planning Department form within twelve (12) days of the <br /> approval date shown above. Appeals are governed by the provisions of Eugene Code Section <br /> 9.7655. <br /> Findings of the Hearings Official -February 9, 2004 (WG 03-1) Page 5 of 5 <br /> <br />