Commissioners recommend deeper affordability for 212 University project, subject to developer feasibility

The Planning Commission reviewed a five-story, 20-unit apartment proposal at 212 University and moved to recommend an amended affordable-housing plan that would provide 15% of units at deeper affordability, contingent on the developer’s ability to secure approvals and financing.

The project, presented by Thomas McNair of the Community Development Department, is a five-story building with a mix of three- and four-bedroom apartments. McNair said the project applied under the downtown form-based code and the state’s builder’s remedy, which sharply limits the city’s ability to deny the application so long as required affordability levels are met. “It is a 5 story, 20 unit apartment building,” McNair said, and he described the constrained scope for local review because of the builder’s remedy.

Why it matters: the developer offered two affordable-housing plans and recent state changes reduced mandatory percentages, creating a choice between a larger share of low-income units or fewer units at deeper affordability. The commission’s recommendation will go to the city council as part of the concurrent design-review process and could affect how many on-site units serve very-low-income households.

Most of the hearing focused on which affordable-housing mix the commission should recommend. The project’s original proposal provided 20% of units as low-income (four units). An amended plan offered 15% total (three units) split as 10% very low-income and 5% low-income (effectively two very-low and one low). Commissioners and staff linked the new option to a January 1 state update to the builder’s remedy that lowered the baseline requirement to 13% for projects invoking that law.

Nearby resident Craig Reynolds, who said he lives at 234 Second Street across from the site, urged commissioners to oppose the project’s scale and character. “It’s a monstrosity,” Reynolds said, calling the proposal “a 5 story dormitory in a neighborhood that has 2 story apartments and residential housing.” Reynolds acknowledged he understood the city’s limited discretion under the builder’s remedy but recorded his neighborhood opposition for the record.

The applicant, identified in the record as Chris, told commissioners the developer already has approval for the original low-income option and that the deeper-affordability alternative had been submitted late at the city’s request. “We do have approval already for the low option,” Chris said, adding that the very-low option “came up maybe 4 or 5 days ago at the city's request” and that it may be uncertain whether lenders and construction partners can accept the alternative mix.

Commission discussion centered on balancing unit counts against depth of affordability. Commissioners noted the city’s housing-needs allocation and pipeline data presented during the hearing showing a shortfall at the very-low-income level, and several members said they preferred the amended mix when possible. One commissioner moved to recommend Option B — the 15% plan that provides two very-low-income and one low-income unit — and included a condition that if the developer later demonstrates the deeper-affordability plan is not feasible, the city should accept the original 20% low-income proposal. The transcript shows commissioners expressing support for that contingency; no formal roll-call vote was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Next steps: the design-review approval is concurrent with the affordable-housing plan and is expected to proceed through staff review and potential appeals. McNair said a staff-level design-review notice and a 10-day public comment period will be mailed to properties within 500 feet of the site and posted on the city web page. Commissioners also discussed conditions that would return the item to the commission if the applicant later cannot meet the amended plan.

The commission’s recommendation and the project’s design-review materials will be forwarded to the city council as part of the approval track; commissioners emphasized they were making a recommendation on the affordable-housing commitment rather than approving construction details.