HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Opportunity Siting Update
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Opportunity Siting Update
Meeting Date: December 8, 2008 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Patricia Thomas
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5561
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is an opportunity for the council to review early task team findings and discuss
current status and proposed next steps for the Opportunity Siting project. The update will include the
status of work done to date, preliminary findings and a forecast of next steps for the program.
BACKGROUND
The Opportunity Siting project was initiated by City Council action on the Planning Division Work
Program in July 2006. Staff was hired for Opportunity Siting (OS) and its companion project, Infill
Compatibility Standards (ICS) in fall of 2006 and spring of 2007. A Planning Commission
subcommittee on OS was established in November of 2006, and met regularly to lend guidance to the
project. Following a period of public outreach, including a web-based survey on OS, engagement with
neighborhoods, tours with neighborhood volunteers, and interviews with “sounding boards” of
community members, a major kickoff event for OS and ICS was held in October of 2007. Following
this meeting, the Opportunity Siting Task Team was established. The team membership is composed of
residents as well as planning, design, affordable housing and residential development professionals.
Task Team members were approved by the Planning Commission in November of 2007.
Project Purpose and Goals
On July 17, 2006, the City Council approved with modifications the Planning Commission’s strategy for
addressing opportunity siting and infill standards. The Planning Commission’s strategy for OS included
a draft work program with the following stated general purpose: “Find and prepare specific sites for
higher density residential development with intention of relieving infill pressure in established
neighborhoods.” Building on this purpose, the OS subcommittee of the Planning Commission
interpreted the intent to include establishing a process for siting dense housing in ways that are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. In response to the direction provided, the OS Task
Team adopted the following goals and objectives:
Goals:
·Create a planning process to identify and recommend housing sites in the city that can feasibly
accommodate high density residential development that is compatible with nearby development
and has the support of nearby residents.
·Develop a program to facilitate development on those sites.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081208\S081208B.doc
Objectives:
1. Further the implementation of the City’s Growth Management Policies, in particular 1, 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10.
2. Contribute to the city’s inventory of housing.
3. Contribute to the variety of housing options available within the city.
4. Demonstrate that dense infill projects can be compatible with their surroundings and garner
neighborhood support.
5. Provide an attractive alternative avenue for developers to work with the City to build high
density residential projects.
6. Coordinate with infill compatibility standards, mixed use center planning, and other growth
management efforts to assure the issues are addressed in a holistic way.
Task Team Accomplishments
The Task Team has met every three weeks since it was established in November 2007, and has focused
on developing broad understanding of the underlying issues and opportunities in multiple-family
residential development.
As outlined in the attached synopsis (Attachment C), the Task Team has:
·Developed a depth of understanding of the development process through trainings and from invited
professionals;
·Identified factors that are necessary for development success as well as impediments to success;
·Tested and refined a methodology for neighborhood residents to recommend opportunity sites;
·Considered market demand and financial viability of denser housing models in Eugene by
commissioning two economic case studies of a hypothetical development site.
Next Steps
To continue moving the OS project forward, the project team and Task Team are planning the following
next steps for January-July of 2009:
Develop implementation strategies
The OS Planning Commission subcommittee, task team and staff work groups have begun to brainstorm
potential strategies to implement Opportunity Siting through land use, building permit and other
processes. An additional implementation strategy may include financial and process incentives,
although they will need to be tested for feasibility before being formed into recommendations. Strategies
to be studied will provide mechanisms to allow sites to come forward in two ways:
·Suggested directly by a developer or property owner, or
·Through a neighborhood site identification process.
Engage development community
Engage developers individually and in focus groups to seek further input regarding:
·Methodology for a developer to propose an opportunity site;
·Risks and barriers to development on different kinds of sites;
·Range and effectiveness of potential incentives, economic realities;
·The value of a successful neighborhood planning process as a development incentive;
·Response to proposed implementation strategies.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081208\S081208B.doc
Further investigation of neighborhood siting process
A workshop model was developed by the task team in collaboration with neighborhood leaders, and
tested during the summer of 2008 with Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN). The workshop provided
for an introductory exploration of neighborhood character, development impacts, site analysis and
matching appropriate development to potential sites.
The task team will perform further testing of a neighborhood site identification process in additional
neighborhood settings. The test with JWN demonstrates how a two-step model works in an inner core
neighborhood with a grid street pattern. By testing in suburban and semi-rural edge neighborhoods, the task
team can learn lessons about how the model works to identify sites in other types of neighborhoods.
The workshop model can also be applied to a pair of adjacent neighborhoods that share an asset, such as
a major park or avenue with commercial or cultural amenities. Because these features are often near
boundaries of two adjacent neighborhoods and because assets such as parks and commercial streets lend
vitality to community life irrespective of neighborhood boundaries, this may offer an efficient and
dynamic approach to identifying sites.
Formulate recommendations for implementation
During the next phase of the task team’s work, periodic meetings will be held with the OS Planning
Commission subcommittee for guidance on project direction. Summary recommendations of
implementation strategies will be presented to the Planning Commission mid-2009 for a work session
and development of recommendations to refer to the City Council.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
·The City Council has included Opportunity Siting as a priority item on the Planning Division Work
Program.
·Growth Management Policies 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
COUNCIL OPTIONS
No formal action is required at this time. The OS Task Team will return to the Planning Commission
and City Council with implementation recommendations in mid-2009.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager at
this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no motions are offered by the City Manager at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Task Team Members
B. Opportunity Siting Timeline
C.Synopsis: Opportunity Siting Task Team Work
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081208\S081208B.doc
SUPPLEMENTAL ATTACHMENTS
Note: The following items are not attached due to their size and to save on printing costs. These are
available in the City Manager’s Office or online in the council packet materials.
1. City Council and Planning Commission Direction
2. Task Team Products:
2008 Work Program Timeline
Ten Tenets
Siting Considerations, draft
Siting Criteria Scoring Map, draft
Expanded Workshop Model
3. Market Analysis, by Johnson and Gardner
4. Financial Viability Analysis, by Johnson and Gardner
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Patricia Thomas, Metro and Community Planning
Telephone: 682-5561
Staff E-Mail: patricia.thomas@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081208\S081208B.doc
Attachment A
Opportunity Siting Task Team
Updated 10/30/08
Co-Chairs:
Anne Delaney Bergsund DeLaney Architecture & Planning
Ann Vaughn Santa Clara resident
Members:
Mary Archer Lane Transit District
Jason Blazer Jefferson Westside resident
Stephanie Jennings Community Development, City of Eugene
Bob Kline Harlow Neighborhood Resident
Carolyn Kranzler Architect
Nico Larco U of O Architecture faculty
Brian McCarthy Cameron McCarthy Gilbert Scheibe
Terry McDonald St, Vincent de Paul
Dan Neal Attorney, developer
John Wagner Housing Policy Board
Resource persons:
Jean Tate, also former Task Team member
Harris Hoffman
Hugh Prichard
Dan Olmstead
Former Members:
Ethan Nelson
Micheal Roberts
11/21/2008
ATTACHMENT C
SYNOPSIS
: OPPORTUNITY SITING TASK TEAM WORK
December 2008
TASK TEAM WORK: November 2007 through April 2008
The Task Team met every three weeks since it was established in November 2007 and focused on
developing broad understanding of the underlying issues and opportunities in multiple-family
residential development.
To initiate the work, the Task Team adopted a work program and project timeline to guide their
research and process. Following development of the work program, the team members shared
their expertise and perspectives on the project via a development primer of research and mutual
education. The following outlines the highlight activities of the Task Team’s initial project
definition, education and research, as reported in an update to the Planning Commission on May
12, 2008.
?Establishing Goals and Work Program
?Public Outreach
Maintaining a current and comprehensive web site:
www.eugene-or.gov/oppsiting
Sending newsletter updates to 435 person interested parties list.
Developing “Ten Tenets of Opportunity Siting,” describing importance of work.
Touring Eugene with ICS Task Team
?Preliminary Siting Criteria
Developing preliminary siting criteria and accompanying map
?Design and Development
Exploring the role of design as a factor in determining appropriate density for specific
sites.
?Market Demand
Studying economic motivators and constraints on multiple family residential
development.
Exploring development risks, barriers and possible incentives.
See Supplemental Attachments 2 for key Task Team Products and 3 for the Market Analysis.
Additional materials are cataloged in monthly folders of the “OS Task Team Materials”. See
January folder for real estate surveys.
TASK TEAM WORKMay through October 2008
:
Following the research and education phase, the Task Team began to develop processes to
collaborate directly with members of the community to identify sites and tease out essential
factors to make Opportunity Siting successful. The team worked to:
?
locate sites directly by identifying several preliminary siting criteria,
?
locate sites indirectly by identifying a range of factors that would determine the success
of development on an opportunity site,
?
consider who might want to live in the housing,
?
consider issues of compatibility with existing neighborhoods, and
?
consider whether the development on a site would be financially viable.
The team then formulated this into a guiding concept that for Opportunity Siting to be successful
it must achieve a balance, not unlike a three-legged stool, of three important components –
compatibility, market demand, and financial feasibility. The ensuing work done by the task team,
resource people, subcommittees, a volunteer neighborhood, market
consultant and the project staff team is described below within the
three-legged stool framework.
Compatibility Financial Feasibility
Market Demand
Compatibility
As conceived by the City Council and reflected in the motions passed, an important focus of the
OS program is to protect the health and stability of existing neighborhoods and to relieve infill
pressure on neighborhoods. Thus, two of the Task Team’s challenges have been to:
?
identify those characteristics of a neighborhood that define its “health and stability”,
?
and to determine where and how to direct development pressure.
The Task Team further challenged itself to envision how development pressure can actually
be a force for neighborhood enhancement. The Task Team’s working premise is that
opportunity site development must be located in such a way as to contribute to neighborhood
synergy rather than fragment the neighborhood.
ICS Role
The Infill Compatibility Standards project shares this challenge and is going forward
simultaneously with OS. ICS directly confronts the question of defining compatibility of a broad
range of development features within existing neighborhoods. It is tasked with proposing
mitigation measures to heighten the likelihood of new development being compatible with
existing neighborhood character. ICS will not necessarily be completed prior to identification of
opportunity sites in neighborhoods; therefore, it is essential for OS to also address issues of
existing neighborhood character and compatibility. It is essential for OS to also address issues of
existing neighborhood character and compatibility because ICS and OS are on parallel tracks and
timelines, rather than OS following completed infill compatibility standards.
Studying Compatibility
From early in the Task Team’s work, design and compatibility emerged as significant factors in
locating dense housing. Based on recurring team member observations that “it’s all about
design”, the team devoted a meeting to the topic of, “What’s Design Got to Do With It?” The
team furthered their inquiry by studying a range of dense housing types and identifying design
and planning characteristics unique to each type. (See website “Presentation and Graphic
Resources” for “Density and Form” and “Development Types.”)
Compatibility- Neighborhood Workshop Test Case
The team then tackled its goal to,“recommend housing sites in the city that can feasibly
accommodate high density residential development that is compatible with nearby development
and has the support of nearby residents,” by intensively developing a process to work with and
learn from neighborhoods. To further this effort, they sought a neighborhood organization to test
the methodology. Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) volunteered to be part of the pilot study
and began a productive collaboration with the Task Team and staff to test and refine the process.
Evolving from this collaboration was a two-step workshop process to introduce OS to a
neighborhood. For the first workshop, JWN’s leadership emphasized that, in the absence of
completed infill compatibility standards, OS must start by focusing on defining the JWN
neighborhood character that needs to be protected, and must second, identify the negative impacts
that denser development can cause. JWN leaders advised that only after these initial steps were
accomplished could the neighborhood engage in a productive discussion about opportunity sites.
Postcard invitations were mailed to all neighborhood addresses to advertise the workshops. The
two step workshop process followed the following format: (See OS website June and July Task
Team materials folders.)
Workshop One
1. History, background and context for Opportunity Siting
2. Establish a description of Jefferson and Westside neighborhood character that is
important to be protected.
3.Develop a list of possible negative impacts of dense development to guide
decisions about appropriate opportunity sites and development types.
Workshop Two
1.Training and hands-on exercise in site analysis of a potential opportunity site.
2.Non-binding brainstorm exercise matching development types with potential
opportunity sites.
Results
Numerous hypothetical development sites emerged from the brainstorming exercise matching
sites with development types (See map in Supplemental Attachment 2). The brainstorming
activity aligning development types with sites in the neighborhood also provided for a choice of
sites to be used for a hypothetical market study and financial viability analysis. The Naval
th
Reserve site near 13 and Chambers (owned by the City of Eugene) was selected as the subject of
the hypothetical analysis.
Expanded Workshop Model
The sequence of the workshops as requested by JWN served well to educate the Task Team and
staff about the neighborhood organization’s priorities and the important factors in gaining
neighborhood support for opportunity sites and implementation strategies. Brainstorming of
hypothetical sites also successfully demonstrated the benefits of an intuitive exercise for
neighbors to link design, development types and sites as they imagine a possible future
neighborhood with denser housing in suitable locations.
Following the workshops, the Task Team, staff volunteers and JWN leadership provided
debriefing comments and a critique to guide future workshops. Their comments stressed the
importance of a more in-depth process with significant pre-planning and inclusion of components
that address infill compatibility:
“To plan an OS process that effectively engages neighborhood residents, staff and
the OS Task Team should understand that most neighborhood residents don’t
separate “infill compatibility standards” and “opportunity siting” in the way that
OS (and ICS) Task Team members, staff, and Planning Commissioners may.
Accordingly, residents’ concerns over infill compatibility standards must be
considered by the OS Task Team in planning for
successful approaches to achieving OS goals.”
The Task Team Workshop Subcommittee used the experience and the debriefing information to
develop the Expanded Workshop Model to be tested as part of Next Steps below (See
Supplemental Attachment 2).
Relationship with Mixed-Use Centers
The Council’s original motion identified Opportunity Siting as “a primary strategy for achieving
density targets in mixed-use centers.” Based on Planning Commission OS Subcommittee input
and web survey results, the Task Team stepped back to create a public process to allow the
community to identify a broader range of suggested locations for opportunity sites. Neighbors in
the test case study wanted to look at a variety of locations for different types of sites including on
the interior and the edge of neighborhoods. A next step will be evaluation of sites to determine
how locations identified by the community align with mixed use centers. The sites can also be
evaluated against other preliminary siting criteria to test both the suitability of sites and the
appropriateness of the criteria.
Market Demand
Task Team Research
In winter of 2008, the Task Team studied several factors relevant to market demand including:
?
Demographic data on local housing demand.
?
Characteristics of the local multiple family market
?
Housing affordability trends and levels of unmet housing needs in the Eugene-Springfield
area.
A key finding the task team learned was that 15-37% of owners (varies by whether mortgage
held) and 58% of renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, indicating a
proportionally high housing cost burden (2006 American Community Survey).
Team members also developed and conducted informal surveys among local property managers
and real estate professionals to get some sense of what types of dwellings were in demand and at
what price ranges. Although the number of respondents was limited, the results were revealing.
Realtors reported a growing interest in a broader range of housing types from townhouses to
condominiums and mixed-use buildings, with a high interest in condominiums in price ranges
below $250,000. Property managers and realtors reported a pent-up demand for multiple-family
housing in the downtown, southeast and university areas.
Consultant Report and Findings
This preliminary research was supplemented by a professional analysis in October 2008 of
Eugene housing market demand by Johnson-Gardner consultants (See Supplemental Attachment
3). The findings conclude that multiple family rental housing is in great demand in Eugene at all
price points. Eugene- Springfield has historically low vacancy rates, and those rates in spring of
2008 were lower than 4% with many unit types at much lower rates. Given the difficulty of
financing single family home loans in the current market, the demand for rental apartments is
expected to climb. Because Johnson-Gardner was also asked to produce a market analysis for
hypothetical development on the Naval Reserve site, the study outlined the demographic
characteristics of the market in the target area of west and southwest parts of Eugene. The types
of households seeking rental housing include all age groups, income groups, and household
composition. The study targeted the portion of the market earning over $15,000 per year.
The expected demographics of the market demand during the next five years in the west and
southwest parts of Eugene, as concluded in the report are:
“The primary target market for the project is likely to be a mixture of both local and
newly in-migrating young graduate student and professional singles and couples as well
as pre retirees and retirees desiring a quality apartment unity, located close to
employment, the University and services. Proximity to the elementary school will also
attract families.”
“Middle-income households of working age are the likely primary rental profile at the
subject site. Based on the total demand profile, there will be roughly 2785 households
earning between $25,000 and $150,000 seeking rental housing per year.” (Includes new
and turnover renters.)
Financial Feasibility
Case Studies
The Naval Reserve site was also selected for a case study of financial feasibility for medium and
medium-high density development.
A subgroup of task team members and staff held a mini-charrette to develop two schematic site
plans for the site. The intent was to test the suitability of the site for development at two different
densities. Further, the development forms proposed in the two schemes allowed testing of both a
less costly medium density building type and a more costly higher density building type. The
intent of studying two densities and two development types was to seek generalizations that could
inform options for opportunity sites in JWN and similar neighborhoods.
The two schematic site plans are shown on pages 7 and 8 of the financial feasibility report (See
Supplemental Attachment 4). The medium density plan at 20 dwelling units per acre describes a
development with several two and three story apartment buildings, which include flats and
townhouses. Buildings face the street and an interior drive as well as an internal open space.
Parking was proposed to be located in grouped lots and under the townhouses. Based on their
research, the consultant assumed construction costs similar to other recent garden-type apartment
developments in the community.
The higher density site plan, at a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, describes two six-story
buildings similar to The Tate constructed along a new north-south street connecting 13th and 14th
Avenues. The plan also includes four story stacked townhouses facing 13th and 14th Avenues,
shared open space and grouped parking below and adjacent to the buildings. The quality of
construction materials necessary to meet building code requirements for the six-story building
dictated a higher cost construction and therefore a higher end development.
Consultant Report and Findings
Johnson-Gardner consultants studied both the market demand, above, and the financial feasibility
of the schemes. Their report concluded that the site, located along a bus route, adjacent to a
school, play fields, parkland, grocery store, a church and commercial services was well suited for
family housing. They also concluded that the area did not provide the range and intensity of
amenities, such as restaurants and shops, needed to attract a high-end demographic for the higher
cost design.
“Households that are seeking an urban experience associated with high-density
development will want more amenities in the immediate area than is available at
the subject site and many of the neighborhoods in Eugene. Sites close to the
downtown core, within walking distance of restaurants, the Hult Center and
other amenities have a better chance of attracting households looking for high-
density development.”
Johnson-Gardner analyzed the feasibility of each development scheme including multiple
variables and potential incentives for the 20 dwelling unit per acre scheme. The consultant’s in-
depth analysis of land, construction, and other development costs in relation to the expected
income return on rents for the property demonstrated a considerable financial gap in all scenarios
studied. The high density/high end development scheme was calculated to be the least financially
feasible by a significant percentage.
The family housing scheme, Scenario E in the report, is the only one that “pencils out.” To
achieve this requires density increased to 25 dwelling units per acre, hypothetical city incentives
including a subsidy of $650,000 and ten year property tax abatement, along with potential
building permit fee waivers. This “best case” scenario has no financial gap, when 25% equity is
provided by the developer. This finding begins to frame the sort of incentives necessary to make
existing appropriately zoned sites feasible for development, given current and forecasted market
conditions. The likelihood of such incentives being granted to OS developers depends on the
success of the implementation process being developed and the City’s willingness to award these
incentives at the policy level.
The Johnson-Gardner study also provided broad conclusions about rents and wages and the
viability of sites located on busy streets at neighborhood edges (See Key Conclusions):
“Ultimately, the key variable that prevents either form from being considered
viable is that rents in the study area are low.”
“The primary reason this site cannot command higher rents, which would
th
improve its financial viability, is its location on a corridor. The site is on 13
Avenue and close to Chambers, heavily trafficked corridors. Large roads are a
disamenity for residences and the value of two similar structures, one on a busy
road and one a quiet road will be very different.”
“One reason this site was selected to be the subject site was because it is an
“edge” site. It is in a location that bounds a neighborhood. Existing residents
often prefer to consider edge sites to be potential opportunity sites. If an
attractive apartment complex locates on an edge site, it creates a buffer for the
neighborhood from heavily trafficked roads. However, locating a development
on an edge site makes it difficult to command higher rents.”
Not all sites proposed by neighborhoods will be on the edges, or boundaries, of neighborhoods.
To that end, the pilot test of the workshop included ideas for developing a methodology for
considering sites internal to neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS
See Agenda Item Summary.
For further details on this project and materials to date, please view the webpage at
www.eugene-
or.gov/oppsiting
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more information, contact:
Patricia Thomas, Metro and Community Planning
682-5561 or at: patricia.thomas@ci.eugene.or.us