Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

l- lL. <( a::r: c amendments. Question: A question ,vas submitted about the density difference bet\veen the. current R-2code and that which \vas i.n pIa.ce in 1983 when the refinement plan was adopted, as related to the infornlation in the agenda packet submitted by Paul Conte aild Rene Kane. Response: Expanding on the staff report, in 1983, \vhen the refi.nement plan \vas adopted the R;..2 zone allowed ten to nventy units per net acre, and it specified a mininlum lot size of2,650 square fe.et. This minimum lot size translated to a net density of 16.4 . units per acre for new lots. Existing lots \\/ould allo\\' up to 20 units per acre. The exalnple lot \vas a 5,000 square foot lot \vhich in 1983\vould aIlo\v one or hvo units, the minimum density range. Currently, the land use code density limitations in R-2 aHo\ved 10 to 28 per net acre and \vhich \vas a change that was effective \\lith the adoption of LUCU. Sm.alllot provisions allowed the nlinimutn lot size toJ)e reduced to 2250 square feet. In LUCU the City Council included new rounding provisions for calculating . dens it), . Calculating for the minimum density allo\ved, the code sp~cified rounding down . to the next ,,,hole number, and for calculating maximum aUow'ed, the code specified rounding up to.the next whole number. On the sample lot of 5.,000 square feet, the code no\-v required a nlinimum of one unit \vhich was the same, and a maximum of four. Question: Provide some background and analysis on the impact this \vould have on the overall potential residential density of Area 15, specifically clarifying the discussion found on page 12 of the staff report pertaining to Goal 10. Response: The City Attorney had confirmed that for compliance \vith Goal 10 it \vas not necessary to quantify the potential difference in number of units for the findings the Planning Comnlission needed to adopt because the area was not included in the City of Eugene's adopted inventol)' of available residential land. Ho\vever~ ifthere\vas a difference bet\veen the calculations allo\ved for the nlaxinlum betvveen the designations, under the existing medium density residential designation, staff expected the subject area to graduaHy infiH over tittle, similar to \vhat bad happe,ned north of the channe.1. Four of thirty-six parcels \vere nO\\l zoned R-2, having been rezoned during the past 20 years. This \vas the area that ,vas alre.ady designate.d me.dium densit)'~ by the Metro Plan prior to itnplenlentation of the housekeeping anlendments.Although unlikely, if the entire area,