11/15/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lindberg said his clarification was intended to note that since the property e was used as a church and was not on the tax rolls, with completion of the project in question, at least part of the property will be taxed and there will be a gain for the City. Ms. Schue asked if the $500,000 was the total property tax. Mr. Byrne said it was the estimated amount of tax on the improvements. Ms. Schue said 30 percent of that amount would be the City's and the rest would be other taxing agencies. Mr. Ball asked if the present office space use was being taxed. Mr. Byrne said to the best of his knowledge it would be. Public hearing was opened. Merrill Kittinfer, architect for the Washington Abbey project, said as part of the Conditiona Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission, the project developers were allowed to use some space in the church building for an office, but only for a short time while the project plans were developed. He said it was not technically an office building at the present time. Mr. Kittinger introduced the positive findings of the Planning Commission into the record. He said the finding responded to every point raised by the Hearing Official and the Planning Commission came to a different conclusion. Mr. Kittinger read the following from the Planning Commission's findings: "that the location, size, design, and operating characteristices of the proposed development are such that it will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and e surrounding neighborhoods." Mr. Kittinger said on the basis of that, the City has executed a Conditional Use Agreement with the developer for the development of the property. He said the council should also be aware that the developers have a building permit and the development has gone through the entire planning process, satisfying all code requirements for the project. He said the Joint Housing Committee had recommended approval of the tax exemption application. Mr. Kittenger made reference to the points raised in the written statement to the council from an opponent of the project. He felt those technical points did not relate directly to the tax exemption status. Mr. Kittenger said the diagra- matic plans distributed to the council were prepared over a year ago and did not represent the exact plans which show the common spaces in the design. He said he had a copy of the exact plans if the council wished to review them. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison Street, said he supplied the Hearings Official's findings to the council because he felt the Official had made some good points. He noted he had also submitted extensive written testimony about the Washington Abbey project and would only expand on it. Mr. Stafford said Washington Abbey had been cleverly presented, but he believed it was reasonable to inquire whether or not the project really qualified under the guidelines for tax exemption. For example, he said the outdoor living space seemed adequate to him at first and it was not until he actually calculated the area of these spaces that he concluded that the amount merely met the require- ments of the zoning ordinance and was not in excess of those requirements. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 3