Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

th Lauren Hulse , 1256 East 20 Avenue, provided the commission with a packet outlining her suggestion to achieve greater density in three- and four-story buildings. She advocated for adoption of Option A. She noted her opposition to the greater height allowance for buildings on larger sites. She said it was important to residents to retain the original lot sizes for the character they gave the neighborhood and to prevent developers from assembling enough land to build to 75 feet. That height did not belong in a neighborhood that was predominantly R-1 and was at odds with the ICS Goals Statement, which spoke to neighborhood character and livability. It was not necessary to build to that height to reach the community’s density goals. Al Couper , 2258 Harris Street, emphasized the ICS Task Team’s commitment to make no recommenda- tions not based on facts. For sustainability reasons, the task team also committed to making no recom- mendation that prevented the City from reaching its density targets. He noted the current City planning model, and said the relevant setting for current policies was the 1999 Residential Lands and Housing Study. It suggested that if new high-density development built out at 35 dwelling units per net acre, there would be enough high-density land. He referred the commission to a bar chart of density comparisons to illustrate his remarks. The zoning code had two density ranges, one for R-4 of 20 to 112 dwelling units per net acre, and one for R-3 of 20 to 56 dwelling units per acre. He said the R-4 zone in the South University Neighborhood (SUN) was developed at over 50 dwelling units per net acre; that included all single-family units as well. Mr. Couper said that density was being achieved with buildings of no more than four stories; 85 percent were two and three story buildings. Mr. Couper concluded that the City did not needed extremely tall buildings to reach maximum densities. Mr. Couper indicated his support for options A and C but had reservations about the 75 height limit for large lot development in the absence of design standards. Tim Shinabarger , 2338 Agate Street, spoke in support of Option A. He said the ICS Task Team recommendation would not prevent population growth in the high-density areas under discussion. He called the commission’s attention to a document on page 157 of the meeting packet entitled Population Implications for Reduced Building Height in High-Density Residential Zones in support of his remarks. He referred the commission to the chart on page 11 of the meeting packet entitled High Density Residential Development in South Eugene—Population Comparison to illustrate the potential for growth. He suggested that increased density could happen over time and be driven by market forces. th Steve Baker Avenue, supported Option C because it reduced the maximum allowable , 316 East 16 building heights in both the West University and South University neighborhoods. He believed it would th reduce incompatible infill, which he felt was necessary, particularly along the East 12 Avenue corridor. He said the proposed code changes associated with Option C were based on the detailed information collected as part of the ICS process. Mr. Baker indicated he had updated information to provide to Ms. Harding comparing the height of existing buildings and their heights to demonstrate all buildings now in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) comply with the height proposal. He said that buildings of three and four stories were being built at approximately 110 units per acre in three or four stories, and were meeting the maximum density allowed. Examples of which he was aware had open space and more than the required amount of parking. He suggested that the issue was a design issue to some degree. Mr. Baker said that he wanted Option C to be considered because of the historically significant structures along East th 12 Avenue and the Millrace, and he wanted them to be protected from encroaching tall buildings. Bill Aspegren, 1939 Alder Street, compared Eugene’s height standards to those of other Oregon cities. He suggested Eugene was out of sync with other cities in allowing significantly taller buildings than those cities allowed. Taking Eugene and Portland out of the equation, Mr. Aspegren said average maximum building height was less than 50 feet. He said that Eugene was the only city without some form of transition between single-family residential buildings and taller multi-family buildings. Those cities were DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 5