CCAgenda-4/12/04WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Policy lssues Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, 2004, public hearing. Council Goal Action Priority Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, 2004, public hearing. Financial and/or Resource Considerations Please refer to the Agenda Item Summary for the January 26, 2004, public hearing. Other Background Information Staff addressed the changes suggested by City Council following the January 26, 2004, public hearing. These changes are presented in legislative version in Attachment A. Staff notes in particular the following changes: 1. EWEB Policy Staff included final changes to the EWEB policy to specify a process by which the required master plan can be approved. EWEB is comfortable with the new text of this policy (page 29). 2. Historic Properties Staff included changes to Chapter IV, Special Places to replace Implementation Strategy #D regarding historic structures as a new policy, and add the word "appropriate." This change does not increase any protection for any listed property. Policy #4 now reads as follows: "Encourage listing of appropriate structures and sites of historic importance in the National Register of Historic Places or as City of Eugene Historic Landmarks" (page 23). 3. Status of Policies Proposed for Adoption During City Council discussion, questions were raised concerning the applicability of the policies in the plan to land use decisions. Based on direction from the Downtown Plan Update Committee (Planning Commission plus Councilors Bettman, Meisner and Nathanson), the policies in the Downtown Plan are generally aspirational in nature. They are intended to reinforce the desired character and activities for downtown, and to garner broad support and action from all factions in the community. They were not intended to be the basis for a denial of a downtown development. For example, Policy II.3. indicates the City's support for future proposals to re-designate and/or rezone underutilized properties in downtown. The exception is Policy VI.3 (the EWEB policy requiring a master plan before the City can approve an application for redevelopment not associated with EWEB functions). To clarify the intent of the policies, staff has added a statement to the introductory text of the plan, so that section states: "Policies are statements to articulate and move the community towards its goals. With the exception of Policy VI -3, relating to EWEB's riverfront property, the policies in the Downtown Plan are aspirational, and cannot be the basis for denial of public or private proposals regarding change in the downtown" (page 6). Alternatively, this intent could have been clarified by adding text to each aspirational policy to make its aspirational nature clear to the user (e.g. use the word "should" in those policies). As the material is currently presented for the council' s adoption, any applicant proposing a code amendment, zone change or a general (non-needed-housing) CUP or PUD will have to address each L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040412\S040412B.doc