Item 8: Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

The "Look of Density" is the problem. Councilor Kelly mentioned there is research showing the issue is not density, but "the look of density." At least some experts in the field believe the public's perception of density is somewhat more complex than just considering how it "looks." Residents who experience inappropriate infill know that's true. At a recent "Visualizing Density" seminar presented in Portland, two nationally recognized authorities on density from the Lincoln Institute spent a day covering issues related to public resistance to "dense" development. Consistent with CAFHN's research, many other considerations (privacy, greenspace, noise, pedestrian and vehicle movement, etc.) were identified as essential to consider in planning denser development in a way the public will support. It's easy to appreciate from a few real-world examples that the look of a "dense" development isn't the key factor that determines it's overall impact or public acceptance. Eugene has a number of visually appealing infill structures that have significant negative impacts because they're too large or were built in the wrong location. (See for example, the four-plex at 927 W. Broadway Alley.) You can also find dozens of examples in Eugene of plain or "ugly" structures that have insignificant impact on their surroundings. Residents are the best source to understand what the real objections are to infill, and in the S-C/R-2 area, residents did not identify structures' visual appearance as one of the most significant impacts. CAFHN members spent an extensive amount of time delving into the "on-the-ground" impacts of infill in this neighborhood, and Councilors can get a thorough understanding of in fill issues in the S-C/R-2 area by reading Section IV of the Neighbors' Report (available on our Web site at www.cnrNeighbors.org). The S-C/R-2 standards reflect a very deep and thorough assessment of the important issues that culminated in a successful effort to produce clear and objective standards that are relatively simple, not overly restrictive, and yet address the pivotal elements that are fundamental to this neighborhood's character. Prohibiting lot aggregation. Row house development. Councilor Kelly expressed concern over the S-C/R-2 standard that prohibits combining lots and questioned whether this provision assumes the current lot pattern is "exactly the best lot layout!' He also asked whether row house development would be possible under the proposed standards. Early in the public involvement process, the project consultants identified the street grid and lot patterns as the most fundamental element that defined the neighborhood. Through our own research, residents confirmed and documented this observation. During Planning Commission deliberations, Chairman John Lawless specifically supported this provision of the standards by pointing out that the lot pattern was of "fundamental importance to the character of the neighborhood." 4