Item 1: Ordinances on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments

Home Browse Search

meeting their density goals with buildings half the height being built in Eugene. For that reason, Mr. Aspegren endorsed the remarks of Mr. Couper and Mr. Shinabarger in regard to the City’s ability to realize its density targets with shorter buildings. He endorsed options A and C with the exception of the large lot development exemption. He did not think taller buildings were compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods. He asked the commission to consider how other Oregon cities were meeting density goals with lower building heights. Mike Russo , 1975 Potter Street, favored Option A although he thought Option C would also protect his neighborhood, although he had concerns about allowing buildings taller than that allowed in Option A. Mr. Russo asserted that “developers, architects, and construction job seekers” had stated the minor code amendments provisions had “retarded development and the jobs they would create.” Mr. Russo suggested that was an emotional argument at odds with the facts and shared a chart showing developments for which permit applications were made within a 326 day period to demonstrate that it was more likely that the additional costs created by the amendments in regard to such things as parking caused some marginal projects not to be built. He felt the more likely culprit was the general economic climate. He noted a recent article in The Register-Guard in which developers attributed the development slow-down the credit crunch and a declining demand for housing. Carolyn Jacobs , 2040 Agate Street, supported Option A and Option C in that encompassed Option A. She believed that the reduced height allowance reduced the potential of excess capacity in the neighbor- hood. She said the height of 65 feet was selected because it was above any minimum that would be required to simply meet maximum density; it recognized the need for flexibility expressed by developers. She said the ICS Task Team employed the same approach to its analysis as that used by the Land Use Board of Appeals, which asked if there were buildings meeting maximum density. LUBA had concluded that “The reduced maximum building heights in the R-4 need not preclude achievement of maximum residential development densities in the two university neighborhoods.” The task team asked the same question that LUBA had and produced the same results: the proposal would not preclude the realization of maximum residential development in the neighborhood. The City would not have a conflict with Goal 10 requirements. In addition, the proposed height standards were consistent with the density ranges in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan. Ms. Jacobs did not support the 75 foot limit for parcels larger than 10,000 because she did not think it was the residents’ best interest to incentivize lot assembly to facilitate the construction of taller buildings. She believed that maintaining lot configuration and eliminating massive buildings was at the core of infill compatibility issues in the neighborhood. She said that exceptions to the height standards should not be allowed until the City had design review standards in place. Ms. Jacobs entered the MiCAP LUBA decision into the record. th Deborah Healy Avenue, expressed support for Option C in terms of geography and Option , 360 East 15 A in terms of height. She believed that historic neighborhoods should also be protected. She suggested th that limiting the restrictions to the areas south of 13 Avenue eliminated an area containing some of the most historic homes in Eugene, including some on National Register, from protection. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Potter, Ms. Healy said Ms. Potter referred to building height on the University campus and maintained that the discussion was not about building height on campus. She also did not think the University was contemplating any more tall buildings on campus. Ms. Healy agreed with Mr. Russo about the reason for building slow-downs. She said that the task team’s suggestions met sustainability goals by providing a maximum density. Ms. Healy said that the data demonstrated that maximum density could be achieved with four-story buildings. She suggested the commission consider the issue of sustainability in terms of affordability. She said that new apartments had high price tags; an apartment could cost $48,000 per unit per year and typical students could not afford that price tag. The DRAFT MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission October 20, 2008 Page 6