Item C: Mixed-Use Centers - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

W. 11th at Chambers There have been two attempts to rezone the "Chambers Node" area to encourage higher intensity density development and integrated uses, first through a specific planning project (1999- 2000) and, again, with the/ND Nodal Development Overlay Zone (2002). Using a 1999-2001 TGM grant for support, the City studied the 81 acre, 28 block area surrounding the intersection of 11th Avenue and Chambers Street, identified in TransPlan as potential node site #1C. This established neighborhood had many of the components one would expect in a node: mix of housing types and densities (existing gross density is 12.3 units/acre), commercially-zoned land, grid street pattern, neighborhood park, nearby schools and churches, and good transit service. Yet several conditions soon became apparent, as listed below, that prevented the City from successfully adopting a nodal development strategy. The program called for extensive public outreach and participation in the data gathering and plan development stages of the process. Public participation was great from the beginning. General meetings drew 80-100 participants, mostly residents. City staff met with smaller groups, business owners, and neighborhood organizations dozens of times. Keeping the interested parties informed and involved became a huge, expensive, and staff intensive endeavor. The short TGM funding cycle, exacerbated by an 8 month delay in grant awards, required that studies be finished and products published more quickly than was comfortable to accommodate the large amount of public interest. · The proposed nodal development area was bordered on three sides by commercial streets. Successful "Main Street" design to accommodate pedestrians requires attention to both sides of the street; hence, the nodal boundaries were determined to be wrong. · Two of the commercial streets bordering the project area were state highways, which were not conducive to pedestrian activity. · Area residents were very concerned that higher densities would result in decreased property values, increased crime, increased traffic, and removal of many historic structures. Crime prevention became a major component of all the meetings. · Many residents discovered (or were reminded) that their properties were already zoned for higher densities than the existing development pattern would indicate. The public discussion began to turn to ideas about how to reduce permitted densities and prohibit alley-access dwellings. · Residents wanted discretionary architectural review imposed on all new structures, which the City could not afford to implement. · The study area included four blocks of industrial property, which did not fit into the nodal development scenario. The concept of a new mixed-use transitional zone emerged, but the City had insufficient resources to create and implement the new zone within the timeframe of the study. Owners of industrial properties were dubious of the proposal. · Owners of commercial property were not supportive of the traffic solutions proposed that converted one-way streets to two-way, caused assessments, or changed driveways or access points. Commercial owners were adamantly opposed to any restrictions on use (there are several automobile sales and service establishments in the area) or design standards. · This node is not located in an established urban renewal area. In the sub-area most conducive for aggressive residential redevelopment, such activity would displace lower income owner/occupants already living at above the targeted 12 dwellings per acre. · The area's major grocer relocated far from this node. The building has since been purchased by the State of Oregon and converted into offices. · ODOT did not comment on the suggested improvements for state roads. · Lane Transit District's early plans for a Bus Rapid Transit route conflicted with the recommended pedestrian improvements on 1 lth Avenue, the proposed commercial hub for the neighborhood. 30