Laserfiche WebLink
<br />types to serve different populations, and increasing the overall net <br />density oflhe area. ... <br /> <br />Then on. December 14,2005 Council adopted a motion directing staff to work <br />on infillcompatibiIity stat1.dards 'as a compliOlentary program to "opportunity <br />siting" that (finally) implements existing policies to protect neighborhoods. <br />Council then funded these new policies and made thenl priorities in the work <br />plan. . <br /> <br />(e) A change in circumstances in a substantial manner that lvas'not anticipated <br />. at the time the refinement plan lvas adopted <br /> <br />l~he .density. a~d scale of development aUo\ved by the R-2 zone has changed <br />substantially since the J/FW RP was adopted in 1983. Most notably~ the. average <br />number of dwelling units ~nowed on parcels in the subject area has . <br />approxinlately tripled since that time. There is no evidence this substantial <br />change was anticipated at the time the refinement plan \vas adopted. <br /> <br />In addition, the N'ovember 15~2006 code interpretation Qfthe JIFW RP policy <br />covering. the subject area (fileCl 06-13) has voided any Htnit on densit), allo\\led <br />by "medium 'densit:y" (i.e., R-2) standards - a staff action that was neither <br />intended nor anticipated by the po.Hey's explicit '~low-: to medium-density" <br />designation of the area. <br /> <br />Further, this ,same code interpretation voided any application of the policy's <br />.requirement for block plans or site reviews that assure up-zonings and <br />subsequent development m.aintain the character'ofth.e area, as the plan clearly <br />intends. Tbis staff action was like\vise neither intended nor anticipated by the <br />policy. <br /> <br />"Bottom up" planning <br /> <br />f\1r. Hinkley also submitted testimony opposing the proposed amendnlents based on a <br />novel theory that the "proposal is being driven from the bottorn up.'~ <br /> <br />There's no fllerit to thiscl.airTI nor any legal relevance to Mr. r!inkley's Hbottoln up" <br />theory. <br /> <br />. I'he testimony asserts the primar~y action among the three proposedalnendlnents is the <br />amendment to Eugene Code. This is \vrong. The prirnary action is to amend the J/FW <br />RP, vv'hicn is the legal.and appropriate instrument \vhere City Council establishes area- <br />specific policy. <br /> <br />This requires a Metro Plan amendment for consistency. While the Iv1etroPlan <br />estahlishesan HoveraU frame\vork,,4, local governments are responsible for area- <br />specific policies, such. as the case here. 1~he Metro l'>lao in ,no way envisions that only <br />the three...jurisdiction metro planning body wilt make~'top do\vn"policydec.isions <br />about specrfic IS-block areas inE.ugene. <br /> <br />4 rY1etro Plan 1-1 <br /> <br />{) <br /> <br />IIJ-28 <br />