Eau Claire commissioners warn zoning draft could raise rents, hamper infill

The Housing Opportunities Commission and members of the public told city planners and elected officials that a near-final draft of Eau Claire’s zoning code could unintentionally increase housing costs and discourage infill development. Commissioners and speakers raised specific concerns about required balconies or patios, tree-preservation requirements and garage design standards — changes they say could add tens of thousands of dollars to projects and increase monthly rent.

At a commission meeting, Scott Rogers, vice president of governmental affairs at the Eau Claire Area Chamber of Commerce, urged the commission to press for code changes with affordability in mind. “Housing supply and affordability is important to us,” Rogers said, noting the commission’s recent participation in the zoning review process and the need to avoid provisions that raise costs for entry-level buyers and renters.

Why it matters: The draft zoning update is intended to modernize the city’s rules and allow more housing types, but commissioners said some aesthetic and preservation rules may have the opposite effect by increasing development costs and pushing new projects beyond the budgets of workforce and lower-income households.

Commissioners and builders pointed to three code provisions as likely to have the largest near-term cost impacts. One is a set of multifamily “design choice” items: in practice, many small projects would likely choose the requirement that 50% of units include balconies or patios. Christina Thron, executive officer of the Chippewa Valley Home Builders Association and a commission member, told the group that, "Each balcony or patio ... is between $5,000 and $9,000 per unit," and that for a 20-unit building the balconies alone could add roughly $75,000 to construction cost — which she said would translate to an estimated $100 per month increase in rent for affected units.

The commission also heard that required social/gathering spaces and landscaping add costs (Thron estimated a minimum of about $25,000 for a required social-gathering amenity and cited landscaping/screening costs that can add to projects). Tree-preservation rules were singled out as especially uncertain: commissioners said small, wooded infill lots could face disproportionately large fees or planting requirements if the code uses a low diameter threshold for protected trees. One planner noted a sample tree assessment showing a small lot could trigger replacement requirements that would be impractical to meet on-site and would require expensive off-site planting fees.

Commissioners said another provision — new garage-frontage or anti-monotony rules — could force designers to widen lots or otherwise alter plans for twin homes, increasing unit prices. Thron summarized builders’ early estimates that some of the proposed design and preservation items together could add “thousands” per unit and materially affect the ability to produce workforce-level housing.

Commission debate and next steps: Commissioners discussed possible responses. The commission previously sent a formal letter to the zoning advisory committee (ZPAC) raising concerns; some members said that letter had not changed the draft. Commissioners voted to prepare a revised or supplemental letter and explore whether the commission should designate its chair or another approved representative to testify at public hearings. Staff said the plan commission will hold a public hearing in June and the city council will hear the draft in July; if approved, staff expects the new code and fee schedule to take effect on Oct. 1.

Staff also described available procedural routes for developers. Large projects that commit to deep, income-restricted affordability can seek approval through a planned-unit-development (PUD) process that allows deviations from some standards, but speakers emphasized that projects intended to serve households at 50% of county median income (or lower) usually require outside subsidy or tax-credit financing to be financially feasible.

Related city policy and funding: Commissioners and staff discussed the potential to direct capital-improvement funds at housing. Staff said council members signaled interest in allocating flexible CIP dollars to projects that produce affordability, and that any such program design or scoring would require subsequent council approval. Speakers noted federal programs and tax-credit scoring (referred to in the meeting as LIHTC or similar competitive financing) influence where subsidized projects locate, often favoring qualified census tracts; that can limit buildable sites for subsidized projects and complicate developer decisions.

What’s next: Commissioners asked staff to circulate the commission’s previous letter and a draft revision with updated cost figures ahead of the June meeting so the commission can consider a formal action and, if approved, authorize a designated representative to present the commission’s recommendation at the planning commission and council public hearings.

Ending: Commissioners and community members stressed a desire for clearer, outcome-focused meetings in future regional housing discussions, and several commissioners volunteered to collect local stories and data to make affordability impacts clearer to council members and residents.