Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

There was' also a zone change to R -2/ t o that staff (incorrectly, as it turned out ) found during the application process did not trigger the Area 15 policy requirement for site review (/SR) because (staff interpreted)R...2/1 0 \VOU Id not exceed the" 1 0 d\veUings per acre'~ threshold in the Area 15 policy. In hoth cas~s, the change to tneR-2 base zone shquld not have been aUowed because it conflie.ted",i!" the Metro. Plan's LDRdesignation. Staff and the hearings official simply erred, but there was .no opposing testimony' to raise tbe issue at tbe time. Only in 2004 \vhen residents presented the M.etro Plan conflict argument in the "Taylor" zone change (Z 04-19), was the correct application of the la\"/ establislled. In denying the zone change to R-2/14, the hearings official correctly held that an)) upzoning toR-2, regardless of overlays, conflicted with tneMetro Plan LOR. designation for this area. That finding should have prevented the other two zone chan.ges in the LDR- designated area, but the issue wasn't raise~ at the time. It's also iUlportant to note that even in the very first case r'Berg" in 1984}, the Eugene Code criteria explicitly stated that the Metro Planpre.vails over the refinement plan. So it doesn't matter \\'hether some later LUBA or court action also imposed this requirement - Eugene Code had already incorporated the rule in the zone change criteria. The only reason the twoupzonings to R-2 in the redesignated area \\'ere allowed Vvta5 because the role of"R-2" as Eugene's.. implementation oftlie MetroPlanMDR "vas not properly recognized by staff, and no other party presented the argument until the "Taylor" case. Thus, tbe main point regarding. the "redesignated" area: Zone changes to an R-2 base zone have never been legal in this area until early 2006 ~lhen the MDR. (re)designation became effective after the Land Use Code Update appeal.\vas dropped. Could Council bave taken a different action in 20041 Commissioner McCo\\/n asked an important~ related question. about Council's approval in 2004 of tile ~4housekeeping" redesignation. rIe asked\\!hether Council could have taken an alternative action to eliminate the conflict bet\veen the !\1etro Plan and the JIFW RP. The ans\ver is "Yes" - Council could have approved either of tile foHo\ving alternatives: o Leave the Metro Plan LDR designation unchanged. Amend JIF\\l RP and code to designate Area 15 as LDR. This \vould have produced essentially the same outcome as the currently proposed amendments\viH achieve - so, obviously this was an alternative available to Council in 4004~ as \vell. 8 111-30