02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. .-- .-.--.. H. Statu~- Re'View on Eugene Zoning Code Conflicts with .l990Plan . . Report from Planning Department and Acting City Attorney was d~str~buted to Council with January 28 Committee agenda. That mem discusses two subjects: 1990General Plan and tbe Baker vs. MilwauJde Decision; Request to Rezone the Edgewood Shopping Center from C-2 to C-l. Mr. Saul, planner, noted that the questions presented to Council on the Edgewood shopping center are important because it is the first formal occasion ~he question of Baker vs. Milwaukie and the 1990 General Plan have been ~a~sed at the City Councilor Planning commission level. Because the quest~on 'raised is a broad question affecting many areas, it was felt important .to provide analysis of the purpose of the General Plan, t~e int~nt of.i~s _a4QP~rs, and the ~~~a~ion of.._th.€? R.~n to the Baker vs. M~lwauk~e dec~s~on. The. staff addressed two ,primary questions,---Ifr---' -.Sa-ul continued. The xirstwas to provide staterocnts from the plan itself which were drawn from the introductory portions and the introductory section to the land use section. The statements were meant to provide a sense of purpose of the plan. Looking at those conditions, he said, i t sep~ the apparent primary purpose was to address longstanding communi ty problems and provide an overall direction that an entire area could pursue. The plan was adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County after common problems were identified by them. The most important aspect, then, said HI. Saul,. is the emphasis on compact urban growth form and control of urban sprawl. From that objective on down, there is a decreasing level of review in the plan so that, as it affects smaller areas, the plan addresses them only in a broad sense. The 1990 Plan points out the need for further study an~ review to achieve broad objectives, thus the need for refinement studies is emphasized. Specific sections in the Plan speak to the need to re-examine zoning of particular areas to make sure that the zoning ordinance is capable of achieving the objective of the Plan. The question, 'then, said Mr. Saul, is how that is viewed in the context of Baker vs'a, Milwaukie. .. e~ He went on to say the Plan does set forth Objectives which, if achieved, rilill change development patterns occurring historically in this ci ty. The Plan does contemplate the fact that it will have to be a deliberate process, achieved over a lengthy period of time, with attention paid to the manner in which those changes are effected. In other words, in establishing broad Objectives, it does not mean they can be effected instantaneously by simply rezoning. Mr. Saul said an attempt has been made, through the memo, to show a reasonable response to the purpose of the General Plan and the intent of the court in the Baker vs. ,M,ilwaukie decision, and a response avoiding some of the dangers inherent in a decision like Baker vs. MilwauJde. The dangers which seem important are the instant rezoning of areas in an attempt to bring zoning in strict accordance with a plan diagram. The second danger is the assumption that past zoning is accepted in the Plan and the Plan does not contemplate change. A third danger is to say the Plan is so general it does not mean anything. Insofar as the Plan establishes objectives, said Mr. Saul, it can be used very effectively in evaluating such things as zone change requests when dealing with future sorts of uses'. That has been a criteria used by the City long before . Baker vs. Mi1waukie. The second thing the City can do is undertake a responsible process of refinement studies to address the conflict areas that do exist. The . other avenue the city has available is review of the zoning ordinance itself. It is important to recall that the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1968, four years before the adoption of the 1990 Plan. In the Planning Commis sion work _ . . program, there are major re'Vision schedules to bring distr.icts in close accord . wi th the Plan. Another element of reasonable response to Baker vs. Ml1waukie is for the City Council and Planning Commission to establish revision priorities which are broad and cover all factors of this coinmunity. Finally, staff feels 2/9/76 - 18 go