HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Incompatible Infill (19th and Alder)
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
th
Work Session: Neighborhood Infill/19 and Alder Proposal
Meeting Date: March 10, 2008 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Terri Harding
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5635
ISSUE STATEMENT
th
A seven-story, 52-unit apartment building is being proposed by a private developer at the corner of 19
and Alder Streets in the South University Neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed significant concern
over the compatibility of the proposed building with the surrounding neighborhood. This work session
provides council the opportunity to discuss the various issues surrounding this infill proposal and
options for addressing neighbors’ concerns.
BACKGROUND
th
The property is located at the northeast corner of 19 and Alder, and is currently developed with two
houses: 1867 and 1893 Alder Street (see Attachment A). The zoning of the property is R-4, High-
Density Residential. It is designated High Density Residential on the Metro Plan diagram; there is no
refinement plan for the South University area. The proposed apartment building is allowed outright in
the R-4 zone, though a building permit application has not been submitted as of the date of this Agenda
Item Summary. The developer, Dean Pickett, discussed his proposal at a November 29, 2007, South
University Neighborhood Association (SUNA) board meeting and a January 8, 2008, SUNA general
meeting. The developer also had a pre-development conference with the City on November 6, 2007.
On February 11, 2008, neighborhood residents testified during the council public forum, detailing their
concerns and prompting a work session request by Councilor Zelenka. Neighborhood residents also
testified at the council public forum on February 25, 2008.
Councilor Zelenka outlined the following questions in his request for a work session:
1.Could the fees be modified or lowered in this case? Should the formula be revised?
This question is based on the presumption that the developer indicated fees were a significant
factor in his decision to develop the number of units and building height he is proposing (52
units and seven stories). In discussion with the developer, a more accurate characterization of
his statement is that because the City allows up to 112 units/acre in the R-4 zone, the price of the
property was based on that development potential. That price was set by a private party, the
previous owner of the property. Because of the cost of the property, and in order to develop a
profitable project, a certain number of units must be developed by the developer. As the number
of units decreases, the economy of scale also decreases, so that amenities must be dropped to
retain profitability. In addition, the code encourages density over 90 units per acre (42 units in
this case) by offering a private open space exemption (see EC 9.550(9)). The exemption from
open space requirements is attractive because it allows more design flexibility for the building.
F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080310\S080310B.doc
The fees collected by the City to develop the proposed building include building permit fees and
systems development charges (SDCs). The City publishes a fee-estimating guide, which was
provided to the developer at the November 6, 2007 pre-development meeting. There are no
exemptions to building permit fees. The only available SDC waiver applies to affordable
housing.
2.Can/should we impose a temporary moratorium on this building until after the Infill
Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team completes its work?
The council can impose a moratorium, but only after following the state statutory process and
only if the council finds that the statutory criteria are met. ORS 197.520(1) requires a city to
provide the State with notice of a proposed moratorium at least 45 days before the final public
hearing. ORS 197.520(3) specifies the circumstances under which a city can impose a
moratorium, including the types of findings that must be made to justify the moratorium. Unless
the moratorium is adopted prior to the submittal of an application, the moratorium will not affect
or apply to the application. ORS 227.178(3) provides that a city must base its decision on an
application on the standards and criteria in effect at the time that an application is submitted,
even if the standards and criteria change after the application is submitted.
Because of the 45-day required notice, which provides a large window for an application to be
submitted, a moratorium does not appear to be an effective way of dealing with this issue.
However, the ICS process is an appropriate place for these types of issues to be explored and
addressed. The ICS Task Team is in the process of establishing committees to work on specific
issues; compatibility between high density and low density development, parking concerns and
mass and scale have been put on the table numerous times and will be addressed by one of the
committees, with the goal of producing recommended solutions by the end of the year.
3.Can the Minor Code Amendments Process be accelerated to help deal with this circumstance?
The Minor Code Amendments Process (MiCAP) is moving forward. Twenty proposals for
amendments are going through the Planning Commission recommendation process, slated for
public meetings in late March or early April. A Planning Commission hearing on the
recommended code amendments will follow later this spring, followed by a City Council
hearing. The MiCAP list of potential amendments currently includes a building height
measurement item, and a parking requirements item that could potentially affect the proposed
th
19 and Alder development, depending on what the Planning Commission recommends and the
council eventually adopts. However, it is unlikely the outcome of the building height item, as it
is currently being discussed, will significantly affect what can be built on this development site.
Allowable height is currently 120 feet, and the proposed building is roughly 90 feet in height.
The parking requirement item, as it is currently being discussed, could result in a requirement for
increased parking on this site. Currently, one off-street parking space is required per unit (with
an allowance of a 25% reduction by right). If the minimum number of parking spaces required is
revised for lots affected by a Residential Parking Permit Program, or based on the number of
bedrooms instead of units, the required number of parking spaces for the site could increase. The
applicable requirements will be those in effect at the time a building permit application is
submitted. It is unlikely the MiCAP process can be completed prior to the submittal of building
permit plans, due to the public notice and hearing requirements involved with amending the land
use code.
F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080310\S080310B.doc
4.Are there other land use code amendments that would help resolve this issue that wouldn’t
conflict with the Metro Plan?
The underlying policy decision here is whether to direct staff to work on this issue separate from
the Infill Task Team work. If the council chooses, the following potential code amendments
may address the stated compatibility issues and would be consistent with the Metro Plan:
th
?
Overlay zone limiting building height along the north side of 19 Avenue, requiring a
more extensive height transition between zones, or requiring buildings to step back in
height.
?
A code amendment to increase minimum off-street parking spaces required for uses
adjacent to Residential Parking Permit areas or within a certain distance of the university,
or based on the number of bedrooms rather than units.
The code amendment process may be initiated by the council, and takes approximately four
months to complete. Making this new task a high priority on the Planning Commission work
plan would require a revisit of the approved work program, and would have an impact on other
items currently under way. Should the council decide to pursue this option, staff would seek
direction on which adopted work program tasks should be reprioritized. Alternatively, these or
other code amendments could be pursued within the context of the Infill Task Team process
currently underway. This would afford the benefit of comprehensively assessing the impact of
the proposed solution as it relates to potential development proposals in the immediate vicinity,
and those that could be proposed in other parts of the city. It would also allow other solutions
that may not have been suggested by residents or staff to be explored and refined before they are
implemented.
5.Should we expand the definition of infill to address not only the number of apartments in
buildings, but also the number of residents per apartment?
This is a suggestion that staff recommends be passed on to the ICS Task Team for evaluation.
As the Task Team gets further into examining the issues, this problem, specifically as it relates to
parking requirements near the university, will be addressed.
th
6.Should we request that the area directly south of the University on 19 between Hilyard and
Agate be a test case for the ICS Task Team’s work?
As previously mentioned, the ICS Task Team is in the process of establishing committees to
work on specific issues. One of the committees will deal with compatibility issues surrounding
multiple-family development. There are two other issue committees, generally dealing with 1)
single-family development and 2) large subdivisions and edge development. The council could
encourage the task team to prioritize one set of issues or geographic area. However, there are
other neighborhoods across the city that are experiencing the impacts of incompatible infill, and
the council needs to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of directing staff and task team
work to focus on a particular area or issue at the exclusion of others.
F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080310\S080310B.doc
Staff’s discussions with the developer indicate that he is evaluating design options to address some of
the concerns that have been raised. Specifically, the design team is evaluating reduced building height
by lowering ceiling heights and/or reducing the number or size of units. As mentioned above, reducing
the number of units would require significant design changes regarding open space; reducing the size of
units would also require significant changes to the unit layout and overall building design. With regard
to parking, the developer indicates that the expense of underground parking is the main reason for
providing the minimum number of spaces required.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The adopted Growth Management Policies are relevant to the decision of how to approach this issue.
Numerous policies encourage residential infill and increased density, while maintaining neighborhood
character. The following policies are particularly relevant.
Policy 1: Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase density
and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently.
Policy 6: Increase density of new housing while maintaining the character and livability of
individual neighborhoods.
Policy 9: Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill, and redevelopment on
neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing maintenance programs, and
continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
1.Direct staff to work with neighborhood residents on long term city-wide solutions for compatible
infill through the Infill Compatibility Standards process.
th
2.Direct staff to return to council with compatibility measures in the 19 Avenue area separate from
the Infill Compatibility Standards process:
th
a.Overlay zone limiting building height along the north side of 19 or requiring a more
extensive height transition between zones;
b.Code amendment increasing minimum off-street parking spaces required for uses adjacent to
Residential Parking Permit areas, within a certain distance of the university, or based on
number of bedrooms rather than units;
As part of this option, provide specific direction to the Planning Division for reprioritization of work
program to accommodate the additional work tasks.
3.Direct staff to continue to work with the developer to encourage consideration of the neighborhoods’
expressed concerns.
4.Direct staff to draft findings in support of a moratorium for this development, per ORS 197.520(1).
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends Options 1 and 3. The Infill Compatibility Standards process is the most
appropriate venue for developing compatibility measures in a coordinated and equitable manner. In
addition, staff recommends continuing to work as a liaison between the neighbors and the developer
toward mutually agreeable solutions.
F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080310\S080310B.doc
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to direct staff to work with residents toward compatibility solutions
through the ICS process. In addition, direct staff to contact the developer and residents immediately and
continue to work toward mutually beneficial solutions.
ATTACHMENTS
th
A. Aerial photo of proposed development site at 19 & Alder
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Terri Harding
Telephone: 682-5635
Staff E-Mail: terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us
F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080310\S080310B.doc