Item 8: Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

Secondly, to actually achieve the medium- and high-density residential development that opportunity siting would anow will require that investors view the surrounding neighborhoods as a stable area that will help attract potential occupants of quality apartments and condominiums. A realistic approach to creating a Chambers MUC can't ignore market factors; and unstable, declining neighborhoods would kill chances for investment in the area. The S-C/R-2 standards are the lynchpin to assure the necessary stability for a successful MUC. Thirdly, as Councilor Bettman pointed out, the current lack of protection against destabilizing inflll in this neighborhood will lead to flight and increase sprawl, regardless of what may happen outside the S-CIR-2 area. Adopting the S-CIR-2 standards is a positive step for compact growth, regardless of the additional benefits of future opportunity siting in the nearby area. There is no value in delaying adoption of the S-CfR-2 standards. Rather, there is potential harm in delaying protection of this close-in neighborhood. Design review should be considered. Councilor Kelly asked whether a design review process had been considered. Residents made clear at the beginning of the "Chambers Revisited" project that processes such as context-specific application of standards, design review, and block planning were all potentially effective approaches to protecting the character of the neighborhood while allowing more intense development. Staff and consultants, however, stated a few months into the project that there weren't adequate resources under the ODOT grant to develop anything more than "clear and objective" standards (which are what the S-C/R-2 standards reflect) and a draft of some voluntary design guidelines. As many Councilors are probably aware, effective, cost-efficient design review processes are difficult to create and even more difficult to get accepted by an sectors of the community. It has taken over a year to create, and build widespread public support for, the clear and objective standards that cover the small S-CIR-2 subarea. Developing a design review process would likely take at least that long, the public process would be contentious, and there's no assurance at an that a design review process would ultimately be adopted by Council. Residents are not opposed to a future project to consider alternatives in addition to clear and objective standards. However, as Councilor Bettman observed, the proposed S-CIR-2 standards are quite modest and allow for great flexibility in what can be built. On that point, we would note that the Lane County Association of Home Builders testified in support of standards such as those in the S-CIR-2 code. Council has before them a well-crafted, concrete solution which has broad public support. It would make little sense to set aside or delay adoption of these standards based solely on the hope that an effective and publicly supported design review process could be crafted and adopted. If a future project successfully develops such an alternative, the S~C!R-2 standards could be adjusted, as needed, to accommodate the alternative approval process. 3