Item 8: Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy and City Council October 6, 2005 Page Two As these figures indicate, the proposed S-CIR-2 standards allow a substantial increase in density in the S-CIR-2 subarea and allow all metro and local density-related "benchmarks" to be exceeded by substantial margins. The bottom line is that the City will be able to fully accommodate the level of growth intended for a potential Chambers MUC as part of its overall growth management strategy, and our neighborhood will do its full measure in support of this strategy by allowing a substantial increase in density and meeting all applicable density-related policies. Looking ahead, if "opportunity siting" were implemented to allow higher densities for well-designed apartment or condominium developments on appropriate sites, much higher average densities could be achieved for the entire Chambers MUC. Although staff did not develop a plan for opportunity siting in a potential Chambers MUC area as part of the "Chambers Revisited" project, CAFHN has provided a "jumpstart" by identifying 36 specific S-C area parcels with a high potential for medium- to high-density residential development. (See Attachment A, which is from page 63 of the "Neighbors' Report.") Even at their current zoning, these parcels would allow up to 476 units, increasing the potential density for a Chambers MUC to over 30 dwelling units per net acre. CAFHN strongly supports the principles of opportunity siting, and we believe many of the parcels we've identified could be developed at higher densities than currently allowed and still help protect the stability of the established residential neighborhoods. As you consider details of the S-CIR-2 standards, we'd like to call to your attention that these standards have been carefully worked out, with much discussion among staff, consultants, and residents, so they work together as a whole to protect the character and stability of the neighborhood as density increases. A specific standard cannot necessarily be changed in isolation without impacting the overall effectiveness. A1ley-access-only lots are a good example in that they effectively allow an additional unit to be developed (after partitioning) on many lots. The impact of this provision is balanced by the specific thresholds established for the number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, including alley-access-only lots. Increasing the number of dwelling units allowed per lot or lowering the lot size thresholds would upset the balance upon which alley-access-only lots depend. There are similar inter-relationships among other development standards, and we encourage you to consult with Chairman Lawless if you desire a fuller explanation of any aspect of the standards' interrelationships.