CC Minutes - 03/10/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

concern about the compatibility of the development with the surrounding neighborhood and Mr. Zelenka had posed several questions related to those concerns, which were addressed in the agenda item summary and related materials. She said the developer had indicated the price of the property was based on its zoning and development potential and it was necessary to build a certain number of units to make a profit on the property. She said the possibility of a multi-unit property tax exemption (MUPTE) might make a smaller building feasible, but the MUPTE boundary would need to be expanded to include the site. Ms. Harding said a moratorium on the building was not recommended because of the process requirements which would take longer than 45 days, during which time a building permit could be submitted. She said the Minor Code Amendments Process (MiCAP) was unlikely to affect the height of a building on the site, although parking provisions could require increased parking on the site. She said any other code amend- ments that might resolve the issue would be subject to a process that would require at least four months. She said the question of whether to expand the definition of infill to address the number of residents per apartment would be forwarded to the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team for evaluation as part th of the ICS process. She said designating the area directly south of the University on 19 Avenue between Hilyard and Agate streets would also be explored. Ms. Harding reviewed the council’s options and said the City Manager recommended option 1 and 3 related to working with neighborhood residents on long-term city-wide solutions through the ICS process and working with the developer to encourage consideration of the neighborhood’s concerns. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Harding illustrated the existing zoning in the neighborhood on an aerial photograph. Ms. Bettman said she could support the City Manager’s recommendation but would offer a motion to amend it. She objected to revising the MUPTE boundary for one particular project and if the council wished to provide a subsidy in exchange for certain design changes it should look to other funding sources. She said it was ironic that some development was allowed at the lowest possible density in outlying neighborhoods while the highest possible density was required in the urban core. She said a minimum density requirement compatible with the City’s objective of absorbing population growth without expanding the urban growth boundary should be imposed on new development. Mr. Zelenka said the residents do not object to development; but wanted it to be compatible with the surrounding single-family neighborhood through a graceful transition instead of an abrupt edge. He would propose a number of amendments to the City Manager’s recommendation to address that concern. Mr. Clark related that he had toured the site and observed the existing parking problems in the area, which would be compounded by the proposed development, although the developer was simply following the rules established by the City. He hoped a way could be found to mitigate the impact, but this issue reflected the quandary of the City’s growing up or out. He asked if Alder Street would be altered in any way. Ms. Harding replied there were no plans to change the street. Mr. Pryor said the council’s involvement in attempting to resolve the conflict between the developer’s need for a financially viable project and the neighborhood’s concern with compatibility would be to find a solution that recognized both of those interests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 10, 2008 Page 3 Work Session