procedure and Design Plan. However, City staff is not sure that process is a good fit since the <br />proposed amendments do not include adoption of any changes to Eugene's Willamette <br />Greenway Boundary which is the purpose and focus of the OAR process suggested by DLCD <br />staff. If the clear and objective track applications for Willamette Greenway Permits are treated <br />as Type III applications and include a public hearing, none of the extra state adoption <br />procedures are required. The City would only need to follow its regular land use code <br />amendment process and thereby avoid this uncertainty and added complexity to the adoption <br />process. <br />The main benefit of the administrative review procedure and Design Plan would be to allow <br />clear and objective track Willamette Greenway Permits to proceed through a Type II land use <br />application process and forgo an initial public hearing that would otherwise be required under <br />Type III procedures. Staff's original thinking was that the Type II process could help remove <br />barriers to the construction of housing. However, staff is now recommending that clear and <br />objective track Willamette Greenway Permits be processed as Type III applications, including a <br />public hearing. This new recommendation is based on significant public testimony requesting <br />more of an opportunity for public input on clear and objective track Willamette Greenway <br />Permits, consistency with other adopted clear and objective track application types, and the <br />complexities of the state adoption process. <br />Both application types are subject to the same timeline under State law for a final local decision <br />(within 120 days of a complete application), and staff believes that the clear and objective <br />standards themselves will still reduce barriers to the construction of housing within the <br />Greenway, even in the context of a Type III application process. Staff recognizes that this is a <br />big change to the previous recommendation and looks forward to discussing it with the <br />Commission and receiving input on the proposed change from the Commission and the public. <br />Parking & Vehicle Use Areas <br />The draft code currently includes an approval criterion (see draft code at EC 9.8814(3)(d)) that <br />prohibits parking and other vehicle use areas between any building and the Greenway setback. <br />Staff reviewed the standard against other similar base zone and special area zone parking <br />orientation requirements and found potential conflicts with existing standards that prohibit <br />parking and vehicle use areas between buildings and the adjacent street, as opposed to being <br />between buildings and the river. Staff is now recommending that this standard be deleted from <br />the proposed code. <br />Native Landscagin2 Buffer <br />The proposed native landscape buffer requirements along the Greenway setback (see draft <br />code at EC 9.8814(3)(a)) function to increase the minimum interior yard setback from 5 feet to <br />10 feet and to ensure that the area is planted with native plantings that will mature to provide <br />a robust visual buffer between development and the river. Front and interior yard setback <br />requirements elsewhere in the code generally range in width from 0 feet to 15 feet. The <br />current Residential Zone Development Standards at EC 9.2750 for all zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4), <br />require a minimum interior yard setback of 5 feet and no required plantings. The width and <br />required plantings in the buffer area could be revised based on public input, however staff <br />Page 6 of 91 <br />