07/14/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R-3 to R-3/20 A, resulting in a maximum of 20 residential units per acre, instead of 35 units per acre. He added that 35 units per acre was excessive, . according to the Metropolitan Plan, and 20 units per acre would be consistent with that plan. Responding to questions, Mr. Chenkin sa i d the Planning Commission's recommendation of R-3/20 A was less restrictive than the R-2 zoning recommended by the neighborhood, which would have resulted in a maximum of 16 units per acre. He added that the Planning Commission had intended to provide a transition zone between the R-2 and R-3 districts. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Planning Commission recommendations concerning Implementation Strategies 1.4, 1.6, and 1.7 described on Page 2 of Exhibit A. He said Policy 2 of the Land Use Element, to support improving existing housing and reducing the number of substandard units, had been important to the Planning Commission and the neighborhood. He also said the plan contained several Implementation Strategies that had been suggested by the Historic Review Board, and those were noted. Mr. Hansen asked what type of progress had been made in improving residential housing in the area. Mr. Chenkin said progress had been substantial and was documented in the plan appendix of March 1986. Ms. Bishow said most Community Development Block Grant loans made in the area had been for owner-occupied residences. Mr. Hansen said he liked the improvement he had seen. Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission had recommended changes to Implementation Strategy 3.1 on page 3-2 to discourage rezonings from residential to commercial and to allow review processes in place to be used. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Policy 4 on page 3-6 of the draft plan, adding that an e amendment to the Metropolitan Plan would require a separate hearing, which could be held the same night as the hearing on the draft plan. He said the amendment process then would be referred to other jurisdictions, and final City Council action on the plan and on the Metro Plan amendment would follow. Mr. Chenkin reviewed Policy 5 on page 3-6, concerning the site of Lincoln Schoo 1 . He said the neighborhood recognized that the site probably would not be used as a school, but residents strongly favored retaining public ownership. If public ownership could not be retained, Mr. Chenkin said the neighborhood favored development that would be compatible with the adjacent area. He said the Planning Commission agreed with the neighborhood recommendation for application of a site review process, but had made some changes to make neighborhood recommendations less stringent. He also said the Planning Commission had strongly recommended retaining public ownership of Lincoln School if possible. Mr. Chenkin reviewed the policies on page 3-8 of the plan, for the Eastern Residential/Mixed Use area, which he said would retain residential areas. He said the policies for the Northern Residential area should provide a transition between commercial uses to the north and residential uses to the south. Policies for the West 7th Avenue Commercial area recognized continuing commercial uses, he said, and policies for the Chambers Street Commercial area recognized existing commercial uses, but discouraged expansion. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session July 14, 1986 Page 2