Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l- <br />LL <br />-c:c <br />cr: <br /> <br /> <br />including south of the channel were rezoned to R-2, complete.redevelopment could result <br />in an esthnated total potential of 1 ,085 d~!elling units. This calculation was based upon a. <br />gross lot analysis according to Goal 10 guidelines. Ms. Harding explained the formula <br />used to calculate the number of dwelling units. The actual number of units could be <br />higher depending upon the exact lot sizes. and the density round up prov.ision contained in <br />the land use code. The impact to the. adopted inventory was negligible under Goal 1. 0 <br />requirements. Staff felt the practical reduction in potential units was likely less than the <br />analysis demonstrated be,~ause the area ,vas not expecte,d to be completely redeveloped in <br />the next 20 years. <br /> <br />Question: Could you check to see if there \vas a past action similar t.o this one that imposed a <br />change in zoning classification temporarily versus pennanently? <br /> <br /> <br />Response: Staff \vas not proposing to change zoning, rather the plan designation. There <br />had been other plan aUlendluentsapproved \vitha revert back clause. M.s. Harding cited <br />the McKenzie WHlamette Medical Center Memorandum of U.nderstanding (MOD) which <br />specified that if a hospital was nofbuilt on the property, it ,vould revert to its prior land <br />use designation? adding the current situat.ion was unique and there \vere no identical <br />examples. <br /> <br />Question: Why are the Gro\\'ih M.anagement Policies (GMP) not criteria to be considered in land <br />use decisions? <br /> <br />Response: '}"'<he resolution that adopted the GMP Section 3 read: "The policies adopted <br />. by Sect.ion 1 shall not be used in determining vvhether the City shall approve or deny <br />individual land use applications. Instead, the policies \vo\dd be implelne~ted through the, <br />Council's actions in amending the Eugene Code 1971 and in actions other then code <br />changes such as adopting the City budget and Capital Inlprovement Program." When <br />that resolution \vas adopted by the previous Cou.ncil,it \vas deternlined that the policies <br />vvere, not sufficiently clear and obje,ctive for inclusion as land use decision making <br />criteria. <br /> <br />In response to a question from M.f. I-Iledik, !vis. I~Iu.rding understood that this area ""as not <br />included in t.he residential lands inventory because it \vas mostly built out. (fhe maps in the <br />