Ordinance No. 20001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT A FEWDINGS AND CGNCLUSIONS GF THE EUGENE CITY CGUNCIL ., RE: Controlled Income and Rent Housing Code Amendments tCA 93-3} Back ound On October 27, 1993, at the request of the City Council, the staff presented to the Ci . tY Council options for amending the City's Controlled Income and Rent CIR} regulations for housing projects with density banns. This request was a result of a review by the Housin g Policy Board of a Land Use Board of Appeals ~LUBA} remand of the City's decision to grant conditional approval of a CIR project in the Willakenzie area, the Orchards. The LUBA remand resulted in the project not going forward because of code language flaws in the current CIR code provisions, The Housing Policy Board, as well as the developer of the Orchards project, Housing Authority and Community Services Agency ~HACSA} of Lane County, felt that a review of the zoning provisions dealing with CIR housing was recess ~y to address the issues rased by LUBA. The council approved a motion to make review of the CTR code provisions astand-alone project and to add to the Planning Commission's work program the CIR Code Amendment Project. This issue is in direct response to one of the City Council Goals, Housing, which states in part "Increase the supply of low-income housing throughout Eugene ... " On February 22, 1984, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a draft code amendment to deal with the remand issues in order that future CIR housing projects can proceed in an orderly., and ~ timely fashion. Notice of the hearing was provided in accordance with Chapter 9 Amendment Procedures, Eugene Code Section 9.1134. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission President tabled the item and asked staff to work with the City Attorney's Office, HACSA and other housing professionals in order to refine the code amendments previously drafted in response to public testimony and Planning Commission discussion and input. The Planning Commission met on January to and February ~, 1995, to review and discuss revised draft code amendments. Based on further discussion and additional input from the City Attorney's Office, the Planning Commission made further refinements to the draft and voted unaminously to recommend the ordinance for council's consideration. The changes to the CIR provisions of the City Code as recommended by the Planning Commission are generally as follows: 1} addresses the issues raised in the Orchards LUBA appeal by requiring that public services are "available" rather than "adequate, " which is consistent with how other housing developments are evaluated; 2} Provides for the full density allowed by the Metro Plan by eliminating the PUD density point ~bedroam count} system; 3} Allows for density bonus in the R-2 and PL zones as well as the low-density zones; and 4} Eliminates approval criteria that are not clear and objective. FINDINGS - - 1