Item 3: PH on Ordinance Regarding State Motor Pool Metro Plan Amendment and Zone Change

Home Browse Search

Policy iss.ues . Please refer to the Agenda Item Sunun8ry for the January 26, 2004, p~blic hearing. Council 'Goal Action 'Priority Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, 2004, public hearing. Financial and/or Resource Consideration~, Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, .2004, public hearing. Other Background Information ~taff addres~ed the changes suggested by City Council follo\ying the January 26, 2004, public hearing. These changes are prese~ted in legislative version in Attachment A. Staffnotes in particular the following changes: I'. EWEB Policy , Staff inc~uded final changes to the EWEB policy to specify a pro~ess by which the required master plan can be approved. EWEB is. comfortabl~ with the new text of this policy (page 29). 2. Histori~ Properties . Staffincluded c~anges t~ Chapter IV, Special Places to r~place Implementation Strategy#D . regarding historic structures as a. new policy, and add the word "appropriate." This change does not increase any protection for ~y lis~ed property. Policy #4 now reads as follows: "Encourage listing of appropriate structures and sites of historic importance in the National Register of Historic Places . . or as City of Eugene Historic Landmarks" (page 23). 3. Status of Policies Proposed for Adoption During CitY Council discussion, questions were raised concerning'the applicability of the policies 'in the pI,an to land use decisions. Based, on direction from'the Downtown Plan l!pdate Committee . (Planning Commission plus Councilors Bettman,.Meisner ~d Nathanson), the policies in the Downtown Plan are generally aspirational in nature. They are intended to reinforce the desired character and activities' for downtown, and to gamer broad support and action from all factionS in the community~ They were not intended.to be the basis for a denial of a downtown development. For example, Policy 11.3. indicates the City's support for future proposals to re-de'signate and/or rezone underutilized properties in downtown. The exception is Policy VI..3 (the EWEB po~icy requiring a master plan before the City can approv'e an application for redevelopment not as~ociated with EWEB fUnctions). . To clarify the intent of the policies, staffhas added a statement to the introductory text of the plan, so that section states: "Policies are. statements to articulate and move the community towards its goals. With the exception of Policy VI -3, relating to EWEB's'riverfront property, the policies in the Downtown Pl~ are aspirational, and cannot be . the basis for 4enial of public or private proposals regarding change in the downtown" (page 6). Alternatively, this intent could have been clarified by adding text to each aspirational policy to make its aspirational nature clear to the user (e.g. use the word "should" in those policies). As the material is currently presented for the council's adoption, any applicant proposing a code amendment, zone change or a general (non-needed-housing). CUP or PUD will have to address each L:\CM0\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S040412B.doc ~:?;:>~2