Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

neighborhoods west and south of the University of Oregon by lowering building height limits and providing a gradual transition in building height between single family areas and high density zones. She indicated that the commission had three options to consider in regard to the building height proposal, and reviewed the three options. Mark Gillem , 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, endorsed the idea of more careful regulation of building form. The idea of tapering height away from the UO was valid and made sense. He advocated for streets to be mid-block connectors rather than dividers and the mid-block to be used to taper heights down. That would th avoid the problem that existed at 19 Avenue where four- and five-story buildings existed across from one- and two-story buildings. He believed the regulation was too coarse as it applied to the area south of th campus. He believed the proposed mid-block drop to 50 feet north of 19 Avenue and 35 feet south of th 19 Avenue presented a problem. It would still mean that taller buildings could exist across from much shorter buildings. Mr. Gillem said that west of campus the problem was similar in areas such as between Kincaid and Alder streets. He thought the sharp contrast that would be created needed to be avoided. He suggested that the commission reconsider the maximum height and allow even higher buildings imme- diately adjacent to campus between Kincaid and mid-way to Alder. He thought such height would be appropriate in that area, with heights to be 65 to 70 feet on both sides of Alder, and mid-way between Alder and Hilyard the height could be dropped to 35 feet to avoid a severe transition. He thought Option B came closest to the intent of his remarks, but did not quite match. Laura Potter , 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, noted her association’s involvement in the proposal development process. She acknowledged that the issue was a hard one for all involved, including the neighbors and development community. She urged the commission to recommend Option B to the council. She said that the option allowed for greater density and more appropriate building sizes. She did not think the City would see 90-foot buildings in many places due to the expense involved, but the association felt the allowance should be in place for higher buildings on campus, which would continue to grow and was surrounded by neighborhoods that would support high densities. She pointed out that the City would need more housing for more students. She believed the option provided protection for both the south and west university neighborhoods by limiting height a great deal. Richard Shugar , 3110 Beech Street, supported Option B, which addressed the concerns residents of R-1 zones had about height while striking a balance between neighborhood compatibility and development potential. He spoke to the credit provided for a sloped roof, and said it would only benefit buildings of 28 feet wide or less. Many multi-family buildings were wider than that, and the incentive for a sloped roof would be lost. He recommended an additional ten feet be allowed to achieve the desired result. Rick McAlexander , 1100 Jacobs Drive, spoke to the topic of building height measurement, saying that he and Mr. Shugar strongly felt measuring the building height to the ridge and allowing a credit for a steeper roof was the least attractive option for measuring building height, and recommended that instead the building be measured to the cornice. He suggested that perhaps the overall height could be reduced to accommodate the roof form as well as residents’ desire to reduce overall building heights. He agreed with Mr. Sugar about Option B. He said that the Building Height Task Team did not have the opportunity to discuss Option C in much detail, and he did not think it should be considered for that reason. Gordon Anslow , 4493 Paddock Drive, recommended that the City use an approach to incentivize sloped roofs of more than 6/12. He was most supportive of Option B because it did not seek to further regulate th Avenue close to downtown. He believed that downtown would be heights in the area north of East 13 most assisted by an increase in the general density of the neighborhoods around it. He endorsed the recommendation for greater heights for larger parcels. DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 4