Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

Neighborhood (ETN, now tneS-C/R-2 subarea'ofthe Chambers Special Area Zone).' This area has about the same number of lots (265) and has a similar historical character (single-family, detached, grid-pattern, etc.) as Area IS. T<ne main difference is that the ETN had been zoned R-2 for many years prior to the study. An analysis of infiH development in the ETN area showed that only 27 tots had been developed with innn that resulted in three or mqre dwelling units on the lot Quoting from the report: HThe impactfrorn these developments is starkly different than the impact of the 200 or so lots that have been hl:vtorically develoJJed 14Jitn one or two mve llintgs. The cost has been high.qfthe 27 lots, 19 of them have '(severe H negative in1pacts on adjacent properties, anll6 of them navf? Hsubstantial J, negative impacts. The Hbeneflt 1J has been lOtV - only 36 more dWlelling units than the approximately 330 thatlvould exist if these Inftll developlllenls hlld been limite€{ to llVO units per lot. ,,2 . Based on this analysis of a comparable area, the most likely scenario if Area 15 remains designated "M.edium Density Residential" (MDR) for the next eighteen months isa handful of in fill developments producing a miniscule net gain in dwellings, but causing significant negative impacts on the blocks where they are built. o Producing reliable projections of the number of units that \'vtill be built under alternative r~finem.ent plan scenarios in an a1rnost fully built~out area, such as A.rea 15, is extremely diffi.cult. In the case .of Area 15, the maximum density aUov./cd by R-2 standards is so high that it has tittle bearing Qtl the number of units that could actually be built under existing site constraints andR...2 and Multiple-FarnHy development standards, such.as height and setback restrictions, open space requireluents, etc. Further complicating any estimate is t.he fact that the nutnb.er of economical I)'''' feasible units, based on variable market conditions~ is Hkely to be significantly less than the number ofphysicaUypossible units. t Finally, in the specific case of Area 15, any realistic projection for t.he next eighteen months would have to account for the dampening effect of almost certain strong resident opposition to any upzoning to R....2. We note the JWN has adopted several Illotions expressing such opposition, and has appealed the recent Planning Director's interpretation of the current Area 15 policy. I.n actuality, neither staff n~or \ve can provide an~y reliable estinlate OfI10\\l 111any more units \vould aetuaHybe built under a Lo\,," Density ResidentiaJ (t~DR) I See Section V of the Chambers Revisited Neigbbors' Report, included in public testimony during the CityCouncH hearings on the Chanlbers Special .A.rea Zone and available on",line at cnrNeighbors.org. 2 See page 48 of the report. 2 111-24