Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the inclusion of open social space in the proposal. She also <br />appreciated the proposed bicycle and pedestrian plans and hoped City staff looked carefully at what other <br />bicycle /pedestrian amenities could be included in the development. <br />Mayor Piercy encouraged the developers to meet with residents of the Olive Plaza to allay their concerns. <br />She asked about the possibility of including non - student housing in the development. Ms. Laurence <br />indicated that was possible. <br />Mayor Piercy reported that two local agencies that worked with individuals with disabilities had <br />expressed interest in having space in the development so their staff could work with the students. <br />Mr. Farr suggested that with the exception of policy 5, the proposal appeared to satisfy the City's Growth <br />Management Policies. Referring to Policy 6, Increase density of new housing development while <br />maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods, Mr. Farr asked how the proposal <br />satisfied that policy. Ms. Laurence suggested that placing student housing in the proposed location could <br />lessen the pressure for development in other established residential neighborhoods. <br />Mr. Farr asked how the proposal satisfied Policy 9, Mitigate the impacts of new and /or higher density <br />housing, in-fill, and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing <br />maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs. Ms. <br />Laurence said the development plans considered the needs of adjacent historic properties including such <br />as the Kennel -Ellis Building and the Florence Apartments and attempted to provide additional and <br />improved access to the Florence Apartments. The Kennel -Ellis Building was less impacted. <br />Mr. Farr believed that the development was supported by the City's Growth Management Policies. It <br />would provide needed downtown housing and would promote other downtown economic development <br />because students had needs. <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged residents' concerns about the proposed development. He believed the council <br />needed to recognize those concerns and address them head -on in a thoughtful and realistic way. He <br />concurred with Mayor Piercy about the need for outreach to residents of Olive Plaza. He suggested that <br />Eugene was turning into a different kind of community and that was sometimes painful. The Growth <br />Management Policies spoke to a desire for more density and that was not just talk. The goal must be <br />accomplished, but the City must be sensitive about how that occurred. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if the council timeline worked for the developer. City Manager Ruiz said the developer <br />needed to finalize its plans about mid -May and his goal was to ensure the council could make a decision <br />at the end of April or beginning of May. He said the project was large and unusual for the community <br />and he wanted to ensure there was time to get people answers to their questions. <br />Ms. Ortiz suggested that the proposed development was exactly what was wanted to downtown to create a <br />critical mass of residents, so she questioned the amount of process that was required and suggested the <br />council re- evaluate the process following its action on the Multi- Family Property Tax Exemption <br />(MUPTE) application. <br />Responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka for an estimate of the projected annual MUPTE, Community <br />Development Director Mike Sullivan said tentative figures indicated a range of $900,000 and $1.6 million <br />annually. That analysis was still underway. Mr. Zelenka observed that the amount involved was larger <br />than the cumulative amount of taxes exempted to date. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council March 12, 2012 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />