Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

HARDING Terri L From: Sent: To: Subject: susannah [susannah@)cyber..dyne.com] TuesdaYl December 12~ 20064:11 PM HARDING Terri, l Written_testimony ra: Area 15 I metro plan a-mendment, neither for .nor .against windsheild survey..rtf; HAVG certification" Attachments: ~.:,,~,.';:. . ". ,.,..>.>~.-...:.. ~ .. windsheild -.AVG survey.rtf (3 KB) tification_.txt (222 [ Commissioners: People rear infill, but they don't realize that is is all around them and cont.ributing to the vibrancy of the neighborhood they love. When infill is done right it is visua.lly unobtrusive and brings life to a neighborhood. Some of the testimony presented at hearing referred to area 15 as a neighborhood of single-family homes. In realitYI a recent "windsheild surve~yU shows that 58.5-68,,8% of the lots in area 15 ha,\Te more than one unit, with 95 units 'in complexes of 3 or more despite nominal Rl zoning. (See attached results.) In the portion of area 15 north of the Amazon Canall 90..3-93,,5% of the lots have more than one unit I al though this . 'area was described in testimony as being identical in charact.er to the rest of area 15. I chose this neighborhood as the plac~ to build my dream home, itself an infill cottage, precisely because of the lively mix of housing types, and the greater-than-Rldensity that gives it its urba.n-yet-friendlyfeel. I'd venture that many folks in this neig-hborhooo, including some of those who testified in favor of the amend.mentsl may have chosen to live here for the- same reasons. Although this isn't a neighborhood of single-family" homes f unlimited upzonings to R2 wouldn't be appropriate either. I'd prefer that we preserve the nIO"Vl-to-mediumdensity'l designation currently in the refinement plant and create anew zoning category to implement it, e. g" R.I. 6 . Input from a variety" of folks is of course necessary to writes. good code, but just to illustrate what I have in mind: how about a maximum density of 21 units/acrei a limited number of single-lot upzoning-a to R2 or R3 (possibly with consent of nearby residents); design standards to ensure compatabilit,y" ~rithfandprivacy a.ud solar access for I existing stru.ctures; and smaller minimum lot sizes that fit a more compact neighborhood" Many or the folk.s who submitted written testimony prior to the hearing made similar suggestions. Contrary to how it may be perceived, neighborhood opinion is not unanimously' opposed t'o infill t and theJWN does not speak for all or us . I haven I t yet met any of the people who wrote in,but I know quite a rew neighbors, including myself, who abstain from voting at JWN meetings rather than voting HnOn and wea.thering the consequent personal attacks. (Thus the so-called Hunanimot:us'u motions opposing infill.). I know others who don't attend the meetings an)'frtorefor simila.r rea.sons. Even though V4e can't st.omach th,e stifling of debate occllrring a.t JWN, vte are active mernbersof our community -- and we love our neighborhood for its bustling non-R1 self. Susannah Meininger 1418 Lavvrence, Unit A 97401 111-32