Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

City Council, Mayor Piercy, My name is Lauren Hulse. I volunteered on the Single Dwelling Committee, a sub-committee of the ICS Task Team and am currently on the Enforcement Implementation Team. I’d like to speak to the ICS Height Proposal for the South and West University neighborhoods. By now, each of you has received a packet of materials containing the data we have collected that presents our case for lowering building heights while 3 and 4-stories. still meeting the city’s density goals. This can be done in buildings of Anything over not 4-stories is “excess” and only serves developers and neighborhoods. I could tell you all the fact-finding we did in support of lower building heights but you’ll see it in your packets. What I would like to do is to remind you of the ICS Goal Statement adopted by the ICS Task Team in February 2008. It states that the primary purpose of the ICS Task Team is to (a) "prevent residential infill that would significantly threaten or diminish the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood" and (b) "encourage residential infill that will enhance the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood" and (c) "so long as the goal stated in (a) is met, allow for increased density." We, as a neighborhood, overwhelmingly support 35 feet south of 19th Street and 50 feet for the first half thth block north of 19 and then 65 feet for the half block south of 18. Increasing building height beyond 4 and 5-stories would result in irreparable harm to our neighborhood and is NOT necessary to achieve the city's density goals. It’s also important to us to keep our original lot sizes both for the character they add to our neighborhood and also to prevent developers from buying several lots to have enough area to build up to 75 feet or higher. not That height does belong in any neighborhood that is predominately R1 such as South University. That height does not meet the ICS Goal statement that says to “Encourage residential infill that will enhance the stability, quality, positive character, and livability of a residential neighborhood” and most importantly, it is NOT necessary to build at that height to reach the city’s density goals. It will have the opposite effect of threatening or diminishing what we love about our neighborhood. The ICS Task Team recommended to the Planning Commission a similar transitioning of heights but th . In a compromise with the development community, allowed for only 50 feet along the south edge of 18 we have advocated for 65 feet. It is also time for the city to develop good design standards to go hand-in- hand with allowing greater building heights. Of the three alternatives presented to the Planning least favored by the neighborhoods Commission, they recommended the alternative and most favored by developers. I am also strongly against allowing a reduction of 3 parking spaces for use of a ‘shared car’ for buildings required to have a minimum of 15 parking spaces. Neighborhoods would once again have to ensure that a shared car is available and in good working order year-to-year. The city simply does not have the resources for enforcing its many agreements made with property management and developers. It is still too new of a “concept” for developers to get a reduction in parking spaces. Let’s see how it works after 3 years and then come back to the idea of reducing parking requirements. Thank you.