Greenway Setback Alternatives <br />Based on interest expressed by some Commissioners at the last work session and in response to <br />testimony from the River Road Community Organization and other interested parties, staff has <br />prepared maps showing several site examples with Greenway setback alternatives at a greater <br />distance from top-of-bank than the 100 feet proposed in the initial draft code. These site <br />examples showing the alternative Greenway setback distance at 150 and 200 feet are provided in <br />Attachment A. Per Commissioners request, a comparative analysis regarding Greenway setbacks <br />and process requirements from other local jurisdictions is also provided in Attachment B. <br />These increased setback areas and sample sites are generally located along the south and west <br />banks of the river where the 100-foot setback has already been shown and proposed, as <br />opposed to other areas with existing setbacks at 35 feet established through adopted <br />refinement plans or special area zones. The examples shown in Attachment A raise some <br />concerns about expanding the protected setback areas beyond that of established local policy <br />under the existing provisions of Goal 5, and possible legal implications for the adoption process <br />under needed housing statutes and Goal 15. These concerns and possible implications will be <br />presented to the Commission for further discussion at the meeting. <br />Goal 5 and Goal 15 Relationship <br />As discussed extensively in prior meeting materials, the draft code also includes several <br />provisions which staff has reviewed closely for compliance with the existing Statewide Goal 5 <br />regulations and the Statewide Planning Goal 15 requirements that need to be met for this <br />project. Considerable effort was made to look at the best possible options for integrating the <br />existing Goal 5 regulations (from the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or "/WR <br />Overlay") into the proposed new Greenway standards. Upon further review, legal concerns have <br />arisen over some of the potential issues with creating connections between Greenway standards <br />and those standards contained in the /WR Overlay requirements, particularly the exceptions <br />listed for prior developed areas, the allowed use list, and development standards. <br />In essence, staff proposes revising the code to make it abundantly clear that the protections and <br />requirements of the /WR Overlay stand on their own, and that nothing in the existing /WR <br />Overlay requirements can be used as a basis for approval or denial under the new clear and <br />objective review track for Willamette Greenway Permits. The result would mean that only the <br />newly adopted Greenway setback and related standards apply for purposes of review and <br />approval of proposed housing during Willamette Greenway Permit review. The /WR Overlay <br />requirements would remain in full force and maintain protections as they relate to Goal 5. <br />Applicants would still be required to comply with these separately, but not as a basis for review <br />and approval though the newly created standards for Willamette Greenway Permits. <br />Tree Preservation Standards <br />Staff will be bringing back additional information and concepts to get the Commissions <br />direction on the possible addition of tree preservation standards that could be included as part <br />of the approval criteria for Willamette Greenway Permits. The intent would be to use the <br />recently adopted Clear & Objective code amendments ("C&O Amendments") as a framework. <br />The C&O Amendments addressed the need for better tree preservation standards for a variety <br />