|
<br />Paul Conte, to work through the final set of changes to the plan, all of which were reflected in the draft
<br />code included in the agenda packet. The draft had been reviewed by the City Attorney represented by
<br />Emlly Jerome at today's meeting. CAFHN submitted a letter, included in the agenda packet, dated
<br />September 6,2005, supporting the standards in the draft code.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lowe said the figures supporting the code were under revision, but not yet available. He said the
<br />
<br />revised figures would accompany the draft code forwarded to the Ci~*::9gMnq!:,
<br />. .... ',',".",V,',
<br />
<br />Mr. Lowe said staff recommended that the Planning Commissio~~f9rward !:pcimb'rd~8~ to the City
<br />Council establishing the Chambers Special Area Zone for adoPtid~il~i~~:::ia~ed thattli~::i~~!t~RJ~
<br />'<:~~l~ls:.~~:(;::::..> "'~~:;:;:;:;~:;:;:;j~:i~:~:):-
<br />Commission would need to make a specific recommendation on ~;~giifl:i,t~Wfti:2 Proposed [fiiVJmon to Map
<br />9.3055 for S-C/C-2 Subarea. He asked that the Planning Commission m~k~1~~~g:cific r.~commendation
<br />on the transportation improvements described in Attach'.1J.~'!!M~'!Rtft, and F oft~i~:1:5;:ggenda packet.
<br />
<br />......
<br />.".'.V';V.v.v"
<br />
<br />Mr. Hledik asked for clarification of a statement onR~~~ II-ffcpara~~R~::~~::sentence 3, Staff recommends
<br />
<br />~,',',',',"'.'.'.'.~.~.'.v.'.'.
<br />'';<'-' '-........v.:.:...:.:.:.:-
<br />
<br />that the standards be adoptedfor the Chamq.~~~!::~;rea:"but {~~~sses t{f~?lii~se standards should not be
<br />
<br />viewed as a precedentfhr other residenM~~,~teas or MiXetl>':g~~:f4~h:ters.
<br />;:::;., :;:;:;:~:~:~:~:,:~:~, "';::::::;:;:; :;:; :;::::: v.
<br />
<br />,;".,<,-""."""",.,..'.'.....'.
<br />.,.,.",..",,'..,.,.,........v.'.'.
<br />
<br />....'.....'.........v.....'.....~..
<br />
<br />Mr. Yeiter stated !!1~I~ii::it~~~i~~ili~~~ bee;::6~~~E~~~ upon a neighborhood outreach conducted in
<br />the chamb~~,~:;~r~nd staff did;;E~~~f~t.nmend't~~~jth~y be used in other R-2, R-3 zoned neighbor-
<br />hoods.~~:~~~ed that the specific nal~~?f the development pattern, development history, and the nature
<br />of th~:lfifitl~~~~~l~pment within the la~!ibar in area resulted in this specific set of recommendations. As
<br />discussed p;i'a~~ii~i~~::PubliC hearing~f~~li~ areas that requested R-2 reduced the allowed density based
<br />upon a carrying c~P.~~~::~,;~dy f~~~::~~ lots in consideration. He added that the area was small enough
<br />that the impact ofthe~H~~~~::B6tnpared to the maximum allowed density in the R-2 zone was not highly
<br />
<br />significant through all of!:~g:'R-2, R-3, R-4 zoned areas. Thus, staffwas comfortable recommending the
<br />proposed changes for this neighborhood based on the theory that reduction in allowable density for the
<br />medium density areas was not impactful to the buildable land supply.
<br />
<br />Mr. Yeiter said staff was concerned if these standards were assumed to be applicable to other residential
<br />neighborhoods, because the development patterns, the history, and the quality of housing in other
<br />neighborhoods may not warrant this type of process. Staff considered this to be part of an ongoing
<br />
<br />MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />
<br />September 26, 2005
<br />
<br />Page 8
<br />
<br />
|