HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19444ORDINANCE NO. L ~U4~
AN aRDINANCE ADAPTING THE WESTSIDE NEIGHB4R-
HOaD PLAN AND REPEALING RESaLQTIaN Nfl. 2747.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows:
1. In the fall of 1984, the Eugene Planning Commission
began the process of updating the 1977 Westside Plan and develop-
ing a new refinement plan for that portion of the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan within the boundary of
the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project. Those boundaries can
be described as 13th Avenue on the south, Chambers Street on the
east, 7th Avenue on the north to Washington Street, south on
Washington Street to the alley between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue,
east along the alley to Lawrence Street, and south on Lawrence
Street to 13th Avenue.
2. In January 1985, a major community event was conducted
in the Westside Neighborhood to provide an easy opportunity f or
residents, property owners, and businesses to identify issues to
be addressed in the update of the Westside Plan. Approximately 75
to 140 people attended the event. Advance information about the
event was mailed to all residents, property owners, and businesses
~in the area along with a mail-back survey. About 150 completed
surveys were returned.
3, During March 1985, nine members were appointed to serve
on the Westside Planning Team as a result of a joint effort by the
City of Eugene, the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project, and the
Eugene Citizen Involvement Committee. The planning team repre-
sented area residents, businesses, and institutions. The planning
team was charged with preparing a draft update of the Westside
Plan and providing opportunities for citizens to be involved
throughout the process.
4. In March 198G, a draft Westside Neighborhood Plan was
mailed to all property owners and all addresses of record within
the plan boundary. The draft plan was also forwarded to the
planning directors of Lane County and the City of Springfield for
their review for consistency with the Metropolitan Plan.
5. Gn April 8, 198G, the Westside Neighborhood Quality
Project voted to recommend adoption of the draft plan with certain
modifications.
6. Gn April 24, 1986, the Department of Land Conservation
and Development was forwarded a copy of the March draft Westside
Neighborhood Plan.
7. Gn May 6 , 19 86 , the Eugene Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the March draft Westside Neighborhood Plan.
ordinance - 1
After a tour and work sessions to consider the plan and public
testimony, the Planning Commission took action at its June 2
meeting to recommend a revised version of the March draft ~westside
Neighborhood Plan for adoption by the City Council. The Planning
Commission also recommended a minor amendment to the Metropolitan
Area General Plan.
8. On July Z8 , 1~ 86 the Eugene City Council held a public
hearing on the March draft Westside Neighborhood Plan, considered
testimony and the recommendation forwarded by the Planning Commis-
sion, and tentatively approved the March draft Westside Neighbor-
hood Plan with modifications.
9. Adoption of the refinement plan necessitated a change in
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and that
action was initiated by the Council in conformity with the process
described in the Metro Plan, and the refinement plan, including
modifications thereto, and the Metro Plan amendment were submitted
to the Lane County Board of Commissioners and City of Springfield.
l0. Based on the above record and findings, the City Council
concludes that the March draft Westside Neighborhood Plan as
amended is consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan and other applicable plans and policies, and
therefore consistent with Statewide Land Use Planning Goals.
NoW, THEREFORE ~
THE CITY of EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Based on the above findings which are incorpor-
ated herein, the goals and policies set forth in the Westside
Neighborhood Plan are hereby adopted as a refinement of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan for the area of
the Westside Quality Project.
Section 2. The implementation strategies set forth in the
Westside Neighborhood Plan are hereby recognized as potential
means of reaching or implementing adopted policies but they are
not adopted by the City Council.
Section 3. The land use diagram included in the Westside
Neighborhood Plan is hereby adopted as a refinement of the Eugene -
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram and the explan-
atory text discussing each segment of the diagram is recognized as
clarifying and providing further explanation of the intent of the
Metro Plan diagram.
Section 4. Exhibit B to this ordinance is hereby adopted as
revisions to be incorporated in the final version of the Westside
Neighborhood Plan.
Section 5. The list of implementation priorities is hereby
ordinance - 2
recognized as providing direction to indicate What implementation
activities will be emphasized first,
Section 6. The City Council hereby adopts as additional
findings the supporting text, maps, charts, and tables contained
in the Westside Neighborhood Plan and the Westside Neighborhood
Plan Appendix, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
Section 7. City of Eugene Resolution No, X747, adopted
September 12, 1977, concerning the Westside Neighborhood Plan is
repealed.
Passed by the City Council this
12th d~ of January, 1987
~- ty Recorder
Approved by the Mayor this
12th day/of/ January{, 1987
Mayor
ordinance - 3
FINDINGS FoR APPLICABLE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
Goal 1. Citizen Involvement
A. Goal 1 is intended to ensure that citizens have an oppor-
tunity, "ta be involved in all phases of the planning pro-
cess."
B. In January, 1955, a major community event was conducted in
the Westside Neighborhood to provide an easy opportunity for
residents, property owners, and businesses to identify issues
to be addressed in the update of the Westside Plan. Approxi-
mately 75 to 100 people attended the event. Advance infor-
mation about the event was mailed to all residents, property
owners, and businesses in the area along with a mail--back
survey. About 150 completed surveys were returned.
C. Anine-member planning team, representing area residents,
businesses, and institutions developed the draft Westside
Neighborhood Plan aver a 1~-month period.
D. The Westside Neighborhood Quality Project included general
information about the draft plan in their neighborhood news-~
letter throughout the planning process. In March 1986, an
information session on the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan
was held in conjunction with the Neighborhood's monthly
meeting.
E. In April 1986, the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project
discussed the draft plan and forwarded a recommendation to
the Eugene Planning Commission.
F. In May 1986, the Eugene Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the March draft Westside Neighborhood Plan.
G. The Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee ~MAPAC~,
the designated citi2en advisory committee for the metro-
politan plan conducted a review of the proposed plan amend-
ment on May 29, 1986. The meeting was announced in accord-
ance with Oregon's Public Meeting Law.
B. 4n June 2, 1986 the Eugene Planning Commission recommended a
revised version of the March draft Westside Neighborhood Plan
far adoption by the City Council. The commission also recom-
mended a minor amendment to the Metro Plan to remove the
asterisk shown on the plan diagram west of Jefferson Street,
between 7th and 11th Avenues.
I. On July 28, 1986 the Eugene City Council conducted a public
hearing on the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan and amendment
to the Metro Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission
and tentatively approved the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan
and initiated an amendment to the Metro Plan through submis-
Exhibit A - 1
sion of the refinement plan and proposed Metro Plan amendment
to the Lane County Board of County Commissioners and City of
Springfield by the Eugene Planning Department. Notice of the
meetings before the Eugene Planning Commission and Eugene
City Council occurred in accordance with State law and local
notice requirements.
Citizens of the metropolitan areas have had opportunties to
be involved in all phases of the development and adoption of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan
amendment.
Through the above processes, development of the draf t West-
side Neighborhood Plan and related amendment to the Metro Plan
have met the intent of Goal 1, Citizen Involvement,
Goal ~. Land Use Plannin
A. Goal ~ establishes a consistent land use planning process
throughout the state,
B. The Metro Plan was adopted by Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County by ordinance in 1982 and has been subsequently amended
by ordinances.
C. That portion of the Metro Plan within the Urban Growth Boun-
dary was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission ~LCDC} in August, 1982,
D, The Westside Neighborhood Plan and proposed Metro Plan Dia-
gram amendment fall within the Urban Growth Boundary.
E. The Metro Plan identifies the role of refinement plans by
noting that it is important to augment the Metro Plan by
"mare detailed refinement plans, programs, and policies,"
F. Fundamental principle #1, page II-1 of the Metro Plan, iden-
tifies it as the long-range policy document providing the
framework within which more detailed refinement plans are
prepared, In accordance with this principle, to date Eugene
has adopted over 15 refinement plans and special area
studies,
G. The broad direction established in the draft Westside Neigh-
borhood Plan is consistent with the Metro Plan. The Westside
Neighborhood Plan. strongly supports the preservation of
residential uses within an area of the Metro Plan Diagram
indicated as appropriate for mixed use with an emphasis on
medium-density housing, The Metro Plan amendment submitted
in conjunction with the refinement plan is necessary to make
the two documents consistent. The plan diagram reference to
"mixed use" was not based on a need far specific land uses,
There will be no overall impact, therefore, on the land use
allocations.
Exhibit A -- 2
Based upon existing Metro Plan policies and the above find-
ings, the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan and the proposed amend-
ment to the Metro Plan Diagram satisfy the requirements of Goal 2,
Land Use Planning.
Goal 5. o en S aces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural
1?oen~~rrroe
A. Goal 5 is intended to conserve open space and protect natural
and scenic resources.
B. None of the area within the Westside Neighborhood Plan was
identified in the Metro Plan "natural assets and constraints
working paper." 1978 hand addenda as containing significant
Goal 5 related areas.
Based on these findings, the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan
and the proposed Metro Plan amendment comply with Goal 5, Open
Spaces, Scenic, and Historic Areas and Natural Resources.
Goal 9. Econom
A. Goal 9 in the Statewide Goals identifies the need to "diver-
sify and improve the economy of the state."
B. The Metro Plan contains direction for encouraging the vital-
ity of the Eugene downtown area. The proposed Metro Plan
amendment will encourage residential development in the
Westside Neighborhood and potentially stimulate commercial
growth in the downtown .
Based on these findings, the policies contained in the draf t
Westside Neighborhood Plan and the proposed amendment to the Metro
Plan comply with Goal 9, Economy.
Goal 10. Housin
A. Goal 10 of the Statewide Goals is directed at providing for
the housing needs of the staters citizens.
B. The Metro Plan encourages a variety of housing in or near the
downtown area.
C. The Westside Neighborhood Plan area is adjacent to Eugene's
downtown.
D. The proposed Metro Plan amendment will encourage the reten-~
tion of existing housing and additional housing in the Wes t-
side area.
Based on these findings, the draft Westside Neighborhood Plan
and the proposed Metro Plan amendment comply with Goal 10,
Housing.
Exhibit A ~- 3
1~ESTSIDE NEIGHBGRHOGD PLAN REIIISIQNS
The following reflects changes to the March, 1986, draft Westside Neighborhood
Plan as incorporated in the final versian of the Plan adopted by the Eugene
City Council an January 12, 1957. The changes are shown in legislative
format, with addi t~ ons shown i n bold and deletions bracketed] . Portions of
the final version of the P1 an not 1 i steel here remain the same as i n the March,
1986, draft.
CHAPTER ~ - INTR~DUCTIaN
1. Pa a 1-1. Amend section titled What is in the Plan? to clarify status
of goa 1 s and implementation priorities . Amend as follows
Fol 1 awi ng this Tntroducti on [are the P1 an' s priorities
encompassing both Baal s and impl ementati one is a list of I~estside
Neighborhood Plan Goals. Goals are broad statements ... area's
future.
[Tmplementation Priorities are recognized by the City Council
as the mast important statements to employ accomplishing the
plan's goals.]
The next major portion of the plan contains ... policies. ~No
further change through the paragraph on "Findings."~
The last section of the plan describes plan implementation and
amendment processes and lists the implementation priorities.
The implementation priorities are recognized by the City
Council as the most important strategies to analyze first, and,
if possible, carry out as soon as reasonable.
CHAPTER Z -PLAN PRIORITIES
1. Page 2-1. Change the ti t1 e of Chapter ~ f rom P1 an Pri on ti es~ to
Westside Neighborhood Plan Goals.
2. Pa a 2-1 and 2-2. Move the list of implementation priorities from
Chapter 2 to Chapter 7.
CHAPTER 3 -LAND USE ELEMENT
1. Pa e 3-1 Tm 1ementation Strate y 1.3, amend this strategy to make the
area serve as a transi ti on between the R-2 zoned property to the west and
R-3 zoned property to the east, but to use the tool of applying a zoning
subdistrict to reduce the density allowed rather than to rezone
properties to R-~. Tmpl ementati on Strategy 1.3 to be reworded as fo1 lows:
Tni tiate ~rezoni ng ofd a zoning subdistrict for the properties
along the west side of Jefferson Street between $th and 12th
Avenues from R-3 Multiple Family Residential to [R-2 Limited
Multiple Family Resi denti al R-3120 A, Maximum of 20 units
per acre instead of 35. ~
2. Pa a 3-1 Tm 1ementation Strate y 1,4. This strategy calls for a
reduction in the R-~2 maximum density in the neighborhood from 16 to 14
Exhibit B - 1
units per acre by adding a 14/A subdistrict. The Commission recognized
the desire to preserve the single-family/duplex residential character of
the area yet wanted to encourage additional housing near the downtown.
Therefore, delete Implementation Strategy 1.4 which reads as follows:
[Initiate rezoning of existing R-2 properties to R-2/14A. ~Thi s
would reduce the number of residential units allowed per acre
from 16 to 14 . ~ ~
3, Pale 3-1~. ,I__mp1 ementati or~.,,,,5„tra_ tegi e,s,,,1.6 and 1, 7. Strategy 1, 7 refers to
Reso1 uti on 312D wh~~i ch prescribes pot i cy guidelines for establishing
institutional uses in the ~estside Neighborhood. The Council adopted the
resolution an April 9, 1979, to balance the neighborhood's desire to
preserve its residential character with the needs of certain social
service providers and si mi 1 ar uses to 1 acate i n areas that adequately
respond to the needs of their c1 i ants.
Implementation Strategy 1.l proposes that the list of uses in the
resolution be changed to include institutional uses that require a
conditional use permit i n resident? al zones . Tt a1 so ca11 s for close
scrutiny before approving institutional uses within two blocks of
existing i nsti tui oval uses rather than the existing standard of one-hat f
or one b1 ock.
The Commission recommended that the study of the distribution, operating
characteristics, and external impacts of social service institutions
throughout the City called for in Implementation Strategy 1.6 should
precede and be the basis for any changes to Resolution 312. Therefore,
Implementation Strategy 1.7 should be deleted. Implementation Strategy
1.6 on page 3-1 should be amended as fvl1ows:
Conduct a study of the distribution, operating characteristics,
and external impacts of social service institutions in the
City. If any Planning District is found to have a
disproportionate share of such facilities, the City ~should~
may implement a regulatory measure to [di sparse reduce
possible negative external impacts of such institutional uses.
Also, review and monitor R-3 coned properties to determine the
impact of clinics on the housing supply.
Del ate Imp1 ementati on Strategy 1. l which reads as fo11 ows
Amend Resolution No, 312x, establishing a policy for
institutional uses in the westside Neighborhood. Amendments to
the resolution should include: a} modifying the list of
institutional uses defined to include those uses required in
the residential zoning districts to obtain a conditional use
permit; and b} enlarging the area that is reviewed when
approving institutional uses. Specifically, Section 1, #2-C
and 2'-Q of the resolution should be revised to ref 1 act that uses
proposed to be located within a two-block radius of one or more
i nsti tuti anal uses may be approved only after close scrutiny. ]
4. Pa a 3-2. Based on a suggestion of the Historic Review Board, add a new
Implementation Strategy 2.3 as follows:
Exhibit B - 2
Encourage owners of historic property to take advantage of
financial incentives for rehabilitation such as the City Historic
Loan Fund, the Special State assessment Program, and federal
tax credits for rehabilitation.
Pa e 3 2, I rat
5. _g__ ~- . „m l~em,enta,t~ on S,t,.,, e~y 3.1, Amend the strategy to al 1 ow the
bat arced rewi ew of rezoning requests~~i n 1 i ght of broader pal i ci es. Amend
as follows:
~Do not allow] Discourage rezonings from residential to
commercial zoning districts along neighborhood boundaries.
6, Pa a 3-5. Add the following information to the description section of
the Central Residential Area:
I n January, 1986, the City approved a Planned Unit
Development BPD 84-3~ for the block bounded by west 10th,
Broadway, Adams, and Jackson, The PUD, or block plan, is
an example of a potential too[ for preserving the existing
housing stock and yet allowing compatible infill housing to
increase the density.
7. Pa a 3-6 Policies 1 and 2. Re-word and combine Policies 1 and Z as
follows to allow a more balanced review of rezoning applications:
The City shall continue to recognize this area as appropriate
for medium density residential development. To retain the
area's primarily residential use, the City shall not allow
rezonings in the area that would encouraged and shall
discourage non-resi denti a1 uses. This pot i cy applies to al l
portions of the Central Residential Area, even those properties
abutting major arterials such as Chambers Street and hest ~~th
Avenue.
S. Pa a 3-6 Policy 5b. Change this policy, referring to the application of
site review to the Lincoln ~Schoo1 property, to include more fl exi bi 1 i ty
to respond to devei opment proposals by removing the sentence referring to
location of new buildings and parking and changing reference to the
specific site review criteria to indicate that other criteria may be
applied at the time of rezoning. Amend to read as follows:
... the City shall consider:
Application of site review to address creating a positive sink
between the new development and the surrounding area.
[Particularly, any new bui 1 di ngs should be at the outer edge of
the site with parking towards the interior.] Building and
parking areas should be buffered appropriately from the low
density residential areas surrounding the site. [Specific
criteria of they Si to review criteria woul d bed to consider
should include: ~No additional changes to 5b).
9, Pa a 3-9, Amend Policy 3 to correct substantive typographical error as
follows:
Exhibit B - 3
Tn general, the... commercial node at Blair Street and [East]
Vest 8th Avenue.
14. Pa~e,.3=10. Amend Policy 2 to correct substantive typographical error as
follows:
Tn general, the.., commercial node at Blair Street and [East
Nest Avenue.
11. Pa a 3-11 Policy 2. As presently written, this policy would prohibit
expansion of commercial zoning beyond its present boundaries in the
vicinity of Nest 11th avenue and Chambers Street to avoid strip
commercial i n that area . Amend to al 1 ow for slightly more f 1 exi bi 1 i ty i n
the event a proposal might be appropriate in terms of other applicable
pol ~ c~ es by change ng the wording of the policy to read:
To avoid strip commercial development along West 11th Avenue
and Chambers Street, expansion of commercial uses outside of
this area shall [note be [considered apprapriate~ discouraged.
l2. Foilowin a e 312. Amend Existing Benera1 Land Use map as follows:
-Tndicate the Washington Abbey an the southeast corner of 1Dth
Avenue and Washington Street as multiple family instead of
religious.
Tndicate the Applegate Nursing Home on the northwest corner of
Madison Street and Broadway as a social i nsti tuti on i nstead of as
religious .
-Tndicate an expanded area as religious immediately to the west of
the Applegate Nursing Home,
-Indicate the Vet's Home on the southwest corner of Madison Street
and Broadway Avenue as social institution instead of single family.
-Change the designation on~the southeast corner of Madison Street
and Broadway Avenue to mu1 ti pl e-family from single-family.
-Tndicate the book store and salvation army as commercial uses on
the northwest corner of 11th Avenue and Lawrence Street, change from
religious.
-Change the designation an the northeast corner of 11th Avenue and
Washington Street f ram commercial to social institution .
-Change the designation of the social institution noted on the north
side of 12th Avenue east of Madison Street to mul ti pl e-fami ly.
13. Pa a 3-15. As the Historic Review Board suggested, add a Land Use
Element Housing Finding 15 to read:
The ~estside Neighborhood has a high concentration of
potentially historic buildings and sites, but a comprehensive
cultural resource survey. and inventory has not been conducted
in the neighborhood,
14. Followin a e 315. Improve readability of the toning Districts map by
removing the reference to Site Review.
CHAPTER 4 - TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ELEMENT
Exhibit B - 4
1. Pale 4-1,_ Impl ementati on Strategy Ame I 1 e a ~ on S g
..._.---_ 1.3. nd mp meat t' trate y
1.3 to c l a r ~ f~..... _,. ~..,.,.., ~.,_,~....~. ~...,.,_~~.
that the existing di verter system i s not being questioned
and to delete reference to the term "Woonerf" because of public confusion
about what a "Woonerf" really i s. Re-word as fv1 lows:
In establishing new gateways, work with the Neighborhood in
designing [woanerf s or others traffic management techniques tv
supplement [alternatives toy the existing di verter system i f i t
is anticipated they will effectively reduce non-1oca1 traffic,
[Woonerf is a Dutch ward for a way to design streets and
adjacent public rights-of-way to provide for shared use of the
street by pedestrians and automobiles. It includes a special
set of design standards and traffic regulations . ~~
Delete all references to "Woonerf" throughout the Plan.
2, Pa a 4-~ . Add an Impl ementati vn Strategy ~ . 5 as propo-sed by the Westside
neighborhood as follows:
Establish a neighborhood procedure for identifying areas of
traffic problems (such as Broadway and ~-fmaden) and
impiementing solutions to these problems.
3. Pa a 4-2, Tm 1 ementati ~.n Strate y 2.4. Clarify the intent of thi s
strategy to "encourage".rather than "direct" through traffic to use 6th
Avenue. Amend as follows:
[Direct] Encourage westbound [11th Avenue through] traffic to
use 6th Avenue rather than 11th Avenue.
4. Page 4-~. Add an Implementation Strategy 3.3 as proposed by the Westside
neighborhood, wi th a sl i ght modification, as fol 1 ows:
Improve pedestrian and traffic safety in the area of Broadway
and Almaden through the use of traffic management techniques.
5. Page 4-Z, Implementation Strategy 4.3, Amend this strategy as fo11 ows to
be more realistic about the role of West 11th Avenue in the overall
transportation system:
As long as possible retain existing on-street parking on West 11th
Avenue to maintain its residential character.
6, Followin a e 4-2. Amend the Traffic IEolume map to reflect average
daily traffic counts taken during 1984 and 1985 and to include a new
category shaving streets with traffic volumes less than 1,000 to 2,500
vehicles per day.
7. Pa a 4~-7, Amend Finding 5 to accurately indicate existing and proposed
bikeway facilities as follows:
Existing bicycle facilities in the Westside Neighborhood
consist of signed routes on Broadway[, and 12th Avenue[, and
Monroe Streets , The Bikeway Master Plan calls far bicycle 1 ones
on Polk, [ands Chambers and Monroe Streets.
Exhi bi t B - 5
CHAPTER 5 -PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT
~. Pa a 5-~, Im lementatian Strate y 2.3. Delete Implementation
Strategy 2.3 which reads as fo11 ows because i t wvul d seta precedent
by requi ri ng a speci f i cal ly identified private business to addresses
a broad social issue.
Encourage the Downtown Athletic Club to offer reduced rates to
Central Planning District low-income residents until a
Jefferson Pao1 rep1 acement i s completed i n the central area . ~
2, Pa a 5-~ Policy 3 requi res that, insofar as possible, public foci 1 i ti es
and services are to be provided to the Westside Neighborhoad to the same
degree as elsewhere. Based on a suggestion from the Westside
neighborhood add the following cross-reference:
(Refer to Policy 1 and associated Implementation Strategy 1.fi in
the Land Use Element.
3. Pa a 5-1, Im 1 ementati on Strate y 3.2. C1 ari fy this strategy by amending
it as follows:
In providing public facilities and services, ive
~ s ecial
CP ~
consideration to the unique circumstances of the Westside
Neighborhood, including for example, its inner-city position,
density, and location with respect to the City's arterial
street system and the recent loss of an elementary school and
public swimming pool.
4. Pa a 5-2 Im lementation Strate y 3.4. Delete Implementation Strategy
3=.4 which reads as follows based vn comments from the Parks Department
that the site i s unsuitable due to uti 1 i ty easements i n the alley between
the two parcels, lack of projected demand for mare land at the Kaufman
Senior Center, and because of property owner opposition ,
[Consider expanding the Kaufman Senior Center rounds onto the
g
undeveloped parcel to the north.
5. Pale 5-4, emend the Central Planning District Map by removing the symbol
for Historic Structures and Landmarks because the locations of the
symbols are not all precise. Furthermore, only one, the Chambers House,
i s i n the Westside Neighborhoad so the others are not significant i n
terms of this Plan, Indicate the location of the Chambers House on the
Existing General Land Use Map on page 3-13.
5. Pa a 5-6. Amend last sentence in Finding 1o to correct substantive
typographical error as follows:
Emergency medical care and ~transpartation is~ fire protection
inspections are al sa provided to the area.
CHAPTER fi - NEIGHBQRHDC}D CHARACTER AND DESIGN ELEMENT
I. Pa a 6-1 Policy ~. Based on a recommendation from the Historic
Review Board, replace the policy with amore definitive statement as
follows:
Exhibit B ~- 6
Recognize and encourage the preservation of the unique
features of the ~estside Neighborhood that contribute to the
neighborhood's character and a sense of place]
identify and encourage preservation of the significant cultural
resources and unique features of the neighborhood including
buildings, sites, structures, objects, street trees, and
landscape features.
2. Pa a 5-~, insert a new Im lementation Strate y ~.3, based on an
Historic Review Board recommendation, to read:
Encaurage Historic Landmark Designation and/or National
Register Nomination of eligible buildings, sites, structures, and
objects .
3. Page 5_~Z~rnp_1 ementati on Strate,~_y ~.5, C1 ari fy that the intent of the
strategy is to encourage the redevelopment of existing projects. Recent
revisions tv the Gi ty Code require parking 1 of buffering and would apply
to al 1 new deve1 opments . Amend this strategy as fall ows:
Encourage owners of existing commercial and multi -f ami 1y use
properties property owners to devote more surface to
1 andscapi ng, parti.cul arty i n areas of extensive pavement.
4. Pa a 5-2 Im lementation Strate y 2.6. Change the strategy to indicate
other street trees that provide a similar effect as Big Leaf Maples yet
don't have pavement disadvantages. Amend as follows:
Plant trees that when mature will be characterized by tall,
spreading shapes consistent with the neighborhood's character,
especi a1 ly Big Leaf Mapl es, except where they would interfere
with solar access to nearby buildings. Species that would be
considered include Red Oaks, Red Maples, Scarlet Oaks, and
except where the planter strip is not wide enough, Big Leaf
Maples .
CHAPTER 7 -PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND UPDATE PROCESS
Incorporate Chapter 7 entitled Plan Implementation and Update Process. Note:
this chapter was accidentally left out of the document at the time of
printing . }
1. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND UPDATE PROCESS
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The Westside Neighborhood Plan is a long-range policy document.
Implementation of the plan will occur over the years through both public and
private actions. Commitment of City financial resources to specific activities
will generally occur through annual budget processes.
The City is expected to use the plan to:
a. Evaluate those development proposals requiring City review for
compatibility with the adopted plan and other adopted City policy.
Exhi bi t B - 7
b. Initiate public programs and other actions to implement specific
aspects of the plan andfor encourage appropriate private
investment.
c, Encourage the westside Neighborhood Quality Project to assist with
the implementation of the refinement plan.
The Westside Neighborhood Quality Project"s role is to:
a. Actively ,initiate projects that will help implement the plan.
b, Encourage citizens to be involved in the review of development
requests and serve as an advisory body to the City.
It is hoped the private sector will use the plan along with other adopted policy
to guide the initiation and development of projects.
PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
The refinement plan is intended to provide policy direction for programs and
projects within the 1Nestide Neighborhood. To ensure that the plan continues
to reflect the community`s desires for the area, periodic evaluation of the plan
should occur. kith i n five years after the adoption of the refinement plan, the
City and neighborhood group should evaluate the time frame for conducting a
major update of the plan.,
IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
The f o11 owl ng implementation priorities are recognized by the City Counci 1 as
the mast important strategies to analyze first, and, if possible, carry out as
soap as reasonable.
LAND USE
1. Encourage those engaged in residential development to preserve the
existing single family character through mechanisms such as black
p1 anni ng, al 1 ey access parcels, and rehabi 1 i tati on of existing
residential structures, Page 3-1, 1.1}
2. Conduct a study of the distribution, operating characteristics, and
external. impacts of social service institutions in the City. If any
Planning Qi stri ct i s found to have a di sproporti ovate share of such
foci t1 i ti es, the City [shout d~ may imps ement a regul story measure to
[dispersed reduce possible negative external impacts of such
institutional uses . Also, review and monitor R-3 zoned properties to
determine the impact of clinics an the housing supply. Page 3-1, ~,~}
3. Target the ~estside Neighborhood for rehabilitation loans, especially to
address: 1} areas adjacent to neighborhood boundaries, 2} areas adjacent
to commercial uses, and 3} blocks with a high percent of substandard
housing. Page 3.~, Z.2}
[4. Dv not allow rezvnings from residential to commercial zoning districts
along neighborhood boundaries. Page 3-2, 3.1}~
ExhibitB-8
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
[5~4. In establishing new gateways, work with the Neighborhood in
designing [woonerfs or others traffic management techniques to
supplement [alternatives to] the existing di verter system i f i t i s
anticipated they will effectively reduce non-local traffic. [~Woonerf
is a Dutch ward fora way to design streets and adjacent public rights-
of-way to provide for shared use of the street by pedestrians and
automobiles. It includes a special set of design standards and traffic
regulations.}~ Page 4-1, 1.3}
[6~5. Work with the neighborhood group to provide reference materials to
property owners regarding potential techniques to reduce traffic noise
impacts. Page 4-Z, ~.3}
[76. [Directs Encourage westbound [11th Avenue through] traffic to use
bth Avenue rather than 11th Avenue, Page 4-2, Z.4}
7. Improve the intersection at 13th and Monroe to reduce traffic back-ups
on Mon roe, increase pedestrian safety, and regulate traffic f Iow. I n
considering improvements, maintain Monroe as a two-way street,
recognizing its residential character. Include representatives from the
fairgrounds and the Vvestside Neighborhood when considering
improvements. (Page 4~~, 3.2~
S. Improve pedestrian and traffic safety in the area of Broadway and
Almaden through the use of traffic management techniques,
[5~9. Use signalization, signs, or marked crosswalks for pedestrians and
bicycle crossings near the Kaufman Senior Center on Jefferson Street and
along the 12th Avenue bike route at Jefferson and Washington Streets.
Page 4-Z, 5.3}
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
[910. Continue to work with School
Lincoln Community School property
public use. Page 5-~, ~. }
District 4~-J i n an effort to keep the
in public ownership far community and
[1Q~11. Construct a Jefferson Pool replacement that will complement the
City's parks and recreation program and also serve the Westside
Neighborhood. Page 5-~, Z.}
[11]12. In providing public facilities and services, give [special]
consideration to the unique circumstances of the Westside Neighborhood,
including far example, its inner-city position, density, and location
with respect to the City's arterial street system and the recent lass of
an elementary school and public swimming pool. Page 5-2, 3.2}
[12]13. Explore the possibility of a neighborhood based police officer and,
i n general , greater police vi si bi 1 i ty. (Page 5-Z, 6.2}
[13]14. Install adequate pedestrian level street lighting for safe foot and
bicycle travel at night. Page 5-~, 6.5}
Exhibit B - 9
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND DESIGN
~~4~ ~5, Encourage owners of existing commerci a1 and multi -fami 1 use
y
properties [praperty owners to devote more surface to landscaping,
party cul arty ~ n areas of extensive pavement. ~ Page b-Z, 1.5~
~5~1fi. Plant trees that when mature will be characterized by tall
spreading shapes consistent with the neighborhood's character,
[especially Big Leaf Maples, except where they would interfere with
solar access to nearby bui 1 di ngs, Species that would be considered
include Red Oaks, Red Maples, Scarlet Oaks, and except where the
planter strip is not wide enough, Big Leaf Maples. Page b-2, 2.b}
pitbwppc
Exhibit B - ~4