Laserfiche WebLink
<br />When evaluating the various criteria this displaced impact on other parts of the city and the <br />Metro Are.a need also to be considered. <br /> <br />Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking llCtiom to increase <br />density and use vacant and under used land within the boundary more effICiently. <br /> <br />These amendments and code changes clearly intend to reduce density in Area 15. That action is <br />directly in conflict with the concept of "taking action to increase density" contained in the above <br />. policy.. Additionally, Area 15 contains several vacant or undeveloped lots, reducing the <br />permitted density does not represent an efficient use of land within the DGB. For these reasons, <br />the proposed legislative package is not consistent with this policy. <br /> <br />Policy 2 Encourage in1il1, mixed use, redevelopment, and higher density development. <br /> <br />By reducing density these proposed amendments and code changes direct discourage in-fiU and <br />prohibit higher density development. For these reasons, the proposed legislative package is not <br />c.onsistent ,vitIl this policy. <br /> <br />Policy 5 Work cooperatively with Metro Area partners (Springfield and LtlIte Coul11J1) and <br />other near bJ' cities to avoid urban sprawl an.d preserve tlte rural character in areas out side <br />the urball growth boulldaries. <br /> <br />Failing to support the existing UGB as discussed above does not represent working cooperatively <br />with our Metro Partners to avoid urban sprawL For these reasons, the proposed legislative <br />package is not consistent "rith.this poliCjr. <br /> <br />PoliC)T b Increase the del.sity of new hOllSilZg development lv/tile maintaining the character <br />Qlrd livability of individual neighbor/roods. <br /> <br />1''llese amelldments anti code changes clearljl intend to reduce density of ne\v de'velopment in <br />Area 15. Granted th.e idea behind this arnendnlent is to ad.d.ress inappropriate in-fi 1. 1 and it could <br />be argued inappropriate in-fill does not maintain the character and livability of the neighborhood, <br />but the solution for this problem are design standards not a prohibition on in-fiU through the . <br />red.uction of densit)l. For tllis reasons, the. pro11osed legislative package is not consistent ",itl} this <br />polic)'. <br /> <br />Policy 7 Provide for a greater variety of housi"g types. <br />1..10\"" density resid.ential penl1its the most limited variety of housing types of any zoning <br />designation. It effecti'vel:y limits de'velopment to single family d.\;vellings loc,atedone to the lot <br />,vith in rare cirCUlnstallces an occasional duplex. lJnder the current Refinell1ent Plan language <br />and density designation development of duplexes, four-plexes and small apartment buildings <br />Illfljl be pemlitted. Rather the providing f()r a gre<.lter varietyofliousillg tyl'pes, the proposed <br />changes contained in the legislative package will clearly reduce the variety of housing types in <br />the area, this is directly COlltrar)l to this policy. <br /> <br />Hinkley <br />l~estimony on l'vlA 06-5, R.a 06-3 and CA. 06-1 <br />5 DecelD.ber 2006 <br />Page 9 of 12 pages <br />