Item A: Ordinance on Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

experimentation with MUCs, noting that other techniques may be more applicable in other scenarios. He said the staff recommendation was to consider this as an experiment for this neighborhood. Mr. Belcher expressed his appreciation to CAFHN for the great job they did. He noted that the commission has been approached by other neighborhoods for similar work. Mr. Yeiter replied that while the topic was appropriate for most neigh1?f!rhooW~, thedtscussion would continue moving forward to the next joint meeting with the City Q~iiB2~'I:'~~ ol~~~t;~ity siting and its '-~-~-"'''''-'''''~':'':'';':':':':;'' implications. Large neighborhoods were zoned for much higheda~;nsity th~n::thi~1t~~~~t:for MDCs. The current zoning for residential neighborhoods allowed a steady in~~~;::!~:::~~iowabl;"Jii~~~8g;g~hse of V^....'.-.-.-.-x-.-x-.-x.x'x'. high level policy discussions that had not been resolved. ,,:':':::"'~~~';';;'<:..,..... '.v Mr. Lowe said this process was done under the umbrella.HE;~W9s, and stafflb~W:@:jlfproblems in a specific area related to infill and redevelopment, Whig~;:bl~~~i~~~gi~~~~t th~ pn~~fg~s with the R-2 zone. The R-2 zone existed in many areas outside ofMUG!i.~iFhe ~i2, Ri~ffi:;~~:1!t-4 zoning districts presented a fundamental problem in that the design stan~~~:'ofth~'p~~~~~ set ~i::~li~:::bty Council and the design standards established for those zones cr~~~~:i.conflicts. T~::~~!~::~as a structural problem that demanded a review of:~::~;:+~:~~:.::~~~~ R~W':Z~l~~~::.~nd the assodated design standards, which arguably may actually be missi~.~.::~Qm:.:tJm~~:::~~~~:.:~istri2m:::~~t::it;;~$!ed the unwanted problem to occur. Mr. Lo~?:::~m?lored the Planning Co~%ion to refrain from establishing this pattern in other neighbor- hoods;:~0tiH~tit~1'Qoking at what was re~tIY:.::broken, the R-2, R~3, and R-4 zoning districts. ,'," "~'~"~"~'~'~'~'~';-~'>;'>':">" ','.'.'.'..v Mr. Belcher stat~d:l~~t.i~2.ile the.R~~posed was a generally well crafted solution, he feared this solution ............^..o^.y_..~.~.;.;_.,_ ,./..-,.-, did not get to the cruX:'a@~t~:i~ue of design standards or site review. He added that the side effect of the solution stated that the citl:~would treat this as an R-l zone without changing the zone. He noted that the Planning Commission had been asked to address issues in the past that had been identified as having minimal impact but almost always concluded with reducing zoning densities that resulted in defacto zonmg. Mr. Lowe said the Chambers Reconsidered process was done in good faith with CAFHN, and had resulted in a product that not everyone may be comfortable with. In fact, design standards for a small MINUTES- Eugene Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 26,2005 Page 9