Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

suggested that “we care” neighborhoods needed long-range vision and it was important to maintain their character. She said the proposed zone was the thoughtful product of many months of work that would foster the “we care” attitude necessary to maintaining the health and vitality of the urban core. She asked the commission to recommend adoption of the proposed zone to the council. Matt Purvis , 1391 West Broadway, said livability and sustainable cities were built on great neighbor- hoods merged with thriving commercial areas. He said new housing and residents could contribute to the increased vitality of the area, but new housing must be properly sited, well-designed, and available to a broad range of incomes. Mr. Purvis believed that most of the infill done in the last decade was detrimental in that it was poorly designed and poorly sited, with significant negative impacts on nearby residents. It had not produced a large number of additional dwellings or variety. For that reason, the neighborhood supported opportunity siting. Mr. Purvis said that opportunity siting could increase the number of choices for new housing in the neighborhood while ensuring well-planned design and location that enhanced, rather than degraded, the neighborhood. Most of the opportunities were on vacant or under-utilized R-4 and R-3 land not addressed by the new zone. Residents had identified a number of sites where such development could be encouraged. Speaking to the question of whether the new standards would adversely impact the projected capacity for new dwellings with the urban growth boundary, Mr. Purvis referred the commission to a tax lot analysis included in the meeting packet that demonstrated no impact on the current land supply as adopted in 1999 or the inventory in process. That was due to the fact the area was nearly built out and the rate of redevelopment had been historically low. However, the standards still provided for a density increase of at least 40 percent. Phillip Farrington , 1160 Monroe Street, spoke of the elements that contributed to a great neighborhood, including walkable leafy tree-lined streets, a compatible mix of uses, great heritage, and beautiful housing stock. He believed the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood epitomized a great neighborhood. He believed that the neighborhood was at a “tipping point” due to the potential of inappropriate development that could harm the character of the neighborhood. He recommended the commission forward the proposal before it to the City Council. It would not stop development; however, it would ensure that development occurred in a much more thoughtful, appropriate, context-sensitive, manner. James Givens , 1059 Adams Street, noted the work he had done to improve his house and garden. He had raised his son in his house, and it had been a center for his son’s friends due to its proximity to many fine local business establishments, parks, and the fairgrounds. He said the neighborhood worked because of the fine-grained integration of its housing stock, tree canopy, and owner-occupied houses. He knew all his neighbors. When those elements coalesced, neighbors became more committed to their neighborhood and each other. Mr. Givens spoke of recent incompatible development projects and offered an example of a th Avenue that was out-of-scale, had no garden spaces or outdoor rooms, and would project on West 11 inevitably attract only short-term renters with no incentive to invest in the neighborhood. Mr. Givens noted that he currently had neighbors who were renters who had lived in the neighborhood longer than he had because of the quality of housing and low cost. He believed the guidelines in the zone were flexible, sensitive, and conscientious and would inspire and ensure better designed, more compatible infill development. Jan Wulling , 1389 Washington Street, asked the commission to recommend approval of the proposed zone to the council. She had recently bought a house in the neighborhood because of the values mentioned by previous speakers. Ms. Wulling endorsed development with a sense of proportion constructed at densities that resonated with her need for beauty and grace. She felt saddened for the neighbors who, because of undesirable infill, had lost their sunlight or gained undesirable views. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 2