Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

Jefferson Westside Neighbors Testimony and respon.se to Planning Commission publ'icl1earing on Jefferson "Area 15" plan '8ndcodeamendments Decelnber 12, 2006 The Jefferson Westside Neighbors OWN) has previously submitted testimony in support of the proposed' amendments. The follo\ving testiJnony provide comments in response to plano,jng commissioners' questions, staff comments) and other public testimony. Maximum R-2 densit}r in 1982-1983 We confirmed \vith staff that J\~,fN's prior testimony accurately stated themaxinlUtll R-2 density during the 1982...1983 period when the JeffersonlFar\\lest Refinement Plan (J/F\\l RP) \vas deliberated and adopted by City Council. The figures presented by staff during the discussion were incorrect l-~he maxitnum R...2 density \vasestablished in ordinance 18~71, se,ction 9 (arnending 9.336 R-2 definition) and section 16 (amending 9.546 Lot area; Lot Area PerD\velling Unit) as 2,650 s.f. per dwelling unit Mathematically, this is approxinlately 16.4 d\veHing-units per net acre (du/na), but it is essential to understand that the zoning code in 1983 had notl1ingresenlbling current zoning code 's Hround up "provision, which grea.tly inflate,s the effective allowable density, especially on smaH parcels, such as those in Area 15. As \veexplained in our prior testimon)!, the equivalent nlaximum density under the current R-2 calculation method is approximately 9.7 du/na. Estimating additional d"rclling units Staff discussed the question of\vhat net differenc,e the proposed arnendments lnight have on the nutllber of future dvvelling units that \vould be added to Area 15. Staff has addressed the legal criteria that [nay be related to this question in their findings, and staffcorre,ctly found the proposed amendments c.olnply \vith the standards. In tenns of the practical impacts the proposed amendments may have, there are several ilnportant points to consider: o Because the amendments sunset on Ju ly I, 2008, the period of any analysis is only eighteen months or le,ss. rrhis temporary action will have no long term effect~ and based on informal observations oftne rate of developrnent in the area, the number of ne\v 'units that would be built in this time interval \vould be SJllEtllundereither designa.tion. lienee the net difference is likely to be fllinor and should not be a factor in this te111pOprl1)J action. o [)uring the 2004...2005 HChanlbers Revisited" project, data'on residential developnlent \\las c.ollected .and analyzed for the area w'ithin the "East rrra.ditional 111- 23