Item 8: Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

Overall, there are very few examples in the CR R-2 area east of Chambers Street ofinfiU - other than attached or detached single-family units and house conversions - that's been done in a way that's compatible with the neighborhood and has minimal negative impacts. A second look at infill This research suggests that, in the study area, Eugene's infilJ policy over the past two decades or so has failed to produce substantial benefit in reducing pressure for sprawl, yet has had substantial negative impacts and destabilized previously healthy functioning of parts of this pedestrian-friendly, close-in residential neighborhood. This area was originally built up primarily as single-family homes with some duplexes and additional units. From 1948 to 1962, the R-2 ("Two-Family Residential District") zoning for this area reflected that pattern and allowed only two dwellings per lot. The result was a number of second-floor apartments, small attached and detached units, and small-scale, compatible duplexes. This approach produced higher densities than in R-l zones, but had little impact on the stability of the neighborhood. The natural "carrying capacity" of this neighborhood's street and lot pattern was well-suited for many lots to have two dwellings of modest scale. Although the R-2 definition and development standards were revised in the next twenty years, the allowable dens.ities (down to 2,650 square feet per dwelling) effectively still limited most ETN lots to 1 or 2 units. About 30 lots could have 3 units and about 10 lots could have 4 or more units. In 1982, a major shift in the R-2 purpose and standards began the dramatic increase in the number of units allowed on lots in this neighborhood and the onset of relatively recent "infill." In short, this dramatic change in zoning was predicated on an untested theory that simply increasing - across the board - the number of dwellings allowed per lot in this single-family neighborhood would relieve the pressure for sprawl. We've now quantified the result of that approach in the CR R-2 study area. The effect can be seen by looking at the 27 lots that have been developed with infill that resulted in 3 or more dwelling units on the lot. (Converted houses are also included in this group.) The impact from these developments is starkly different than the impact of the 200 or so lots that have been historically developed with one or two dwellings. The cost has been high. Of the 27 lots, 19 of them have severe negative impacts on adjacent properties, and 6 of them have substantial negative impacts. The "benefit" has been low - only 36 more dwelling units than the approximately 330 that would exist if these infill developments had been limited to two units per lot. Looking at these statistics, we should ask whether the destruction of this (and other) neighborhoods, whose development patterns have served well for over 75 years, is going to save Eugene from sprawl. And whether the price we're paying is worth what we're getting in return. November 1, 2005 Chambers Revisited - Neighbors' Report 48