Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4920 approving a multiple- <br />unit property tax exemption for residential property located at the northwest corner of West <br />th <br />11 Avenue and Lincoln Street, Eugene, Oregon; Eugene Downtown Cohousing LLC as <br />applicant. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wished to note that his support for the project was due to its location in the downtown core <br />area, where he believed incentives were needed to create multiple-unit housing. <br /> <br /> <br />D. ACTION: <br /> <br />Resolution 4921 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property <br />thth <br />Located at 534 East 14 Avenue and 535 East 14 Alley, Eugene, Oregon (West University Sus- <br />tainable Housing LLC, Applicant) <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to adopt Resolution 4921 approving a multiple <br />th <br />unit property tax exemption for residential property located at 534 East 14 Avenue and <br />th <br />535 East 14 Alley, Eugene, Oregon; West University Sustainable Housing LLC as appli- <br />cant. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman explained that the proposed apartment project consisted of nine units approximately one block <br />west of the West University Park. He noted that the developer had built another project about a block from <br />the proposed project that had qualified for a MUPTE one year earlier. He stated that the project would be in <br />an area zoned R-3, Residential, which allowed for a minimum of 20 units per acre and a maximum of 56 <br />units per acre and this project fell in the middle of that range. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Weinman said eight units would have four bedrooms and one <br />unit would have five. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that the project would not be located in the urban core. She considered it to be located <br />in the University neighborhood and she felt that projects would be built there regardless of whether the <br />MUPTE was granted. She also thought the City should require development in that area to meet the <br />maximum density requirement as she believed the project was “taking away” units by tearing down existing <br />housing. She questioned just how much they were increasing density by building the new project on that <br />land. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how housing was designated to be “not good” housing stock. She said it seemed like a <br />subjective designation. Mr. Weinman replied that in this case it was the owner’s decision. He stated that <br />the back units that were off the alley were definitely in very poor condition. He noted that there were <br />currently six units on the property and the proposed project would increase that number to nine. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reiterated her feeling that it was not a high enough density. She noted that the development <br />proposal included retaining trees and asked if the developer could guarantee that the trees would live through <br />construction. Mr. Weinman responded that it was not part of the MUPTE program to require it but he <br />believed the applicant would make an “honest effort” to retain the trees that were there. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the neighborhood understood that there was no guarantee that the trees would be <br />retained. Mr. Weinman replied that in knowing the chair of the West University Neighborhood he believed <br />he understood that you can’t guarantee this sort of thing. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />