Ordinance No. 20162 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

areas when consistent with other planning policies, Policy #3 states that the City should "Encourage increased residential density at various locations within cities by implementing programs, policies, and code modifications that bath establish minimum densities and allow maximum densities permitted by local or Metropolitan Area General Plan density categories in designated areas..." Page 11I-A-6} 4n December 7, 1994, the Eugene City Council adopted code amendments which established minimum density standards in the medium and high density zones in order to insure that these zones achieve at least the lower threshold of those zoning designations. Adoption of these minimum density standards was a required work task of the current periodic review of the Metro Plan. To change the planning and zoning designations to a lower density with no minimum flow density is 0 -10 unitslacre} is clearly inconsistent with this action. 1.2 Zn the description of the Residential Land Use Designation, the text states that "While all medium- andhigh-density allocations shown on the diagram may not be needed during the planning period, their protection is important because available sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited." Page 1I-E-3} while not an adopted policy, this text provides background for the significance of these land use designations. 1.3 The Willakenzie Area Plan is a refinement of the Metro Plan and provides more detail for the area of the proposed amendment plan request, This Plan contains general policies, encouraging a mixture of housing densities, and supporting medium- and high- density residential uses inappropriate areas, such as those close to commercial services and alternative transportation modes. 1.4 The proposed amendment will result in a decrease in the percent of land available for medium density housing, and will decrease the opportunity to provide far a range of housing needs in this part of the community. 1.5 Based on the above f ndings, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1 ~. 1.6 1n addition, the proposed refinement plan amendment does not meet the criteria of EC 9.1452}~c}~1}through ~4}. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed amendment met the criteria for a refinement plan amendment under EC 9.145~b}, and the City Council disagrees with that conclusion. 1,7 No error in the publication of the Plan has been identified through any public review process concerning this subarea. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.145~Z}~c}~ 1 }. 1.S The applicant states that the diminishing amount of commercial land available for development in this area represents a change of circumstances to justify the ref nement plan amendment. The applicant has not provided any specific information to support this claim. In the less than six years since the refinement plan and the Commercial Lands Study were adopted in the fall of 1992, no such change of circumstances has been identified which Ordinance - 3