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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lindberg asked further clarification on the policy for downtown and whether e the provision of housing was enough of public benefit to justify the tax exemp- tion. Mr. Byrne said there was a spectrum for looking at public benefit in this program. He said on one end of the spectrum, the housing is enough public benefit. At the other end of the spectrum, the expectation is for public benefit in "bricks and mortar" and from the beginning. He said the City's position was closer to the end of the spectrum where the housing was sufficient public benefit. However, he said certain standards and guidelines for aspects of the project give the City Council and staff the opportunity to negotiate with a developer and to reject a development outright if it does not meet certain standards. Mr. Lindberg asked Mr. Kittenger to respond to the points raised by Mr. Stafford. Mr. Kittenger said the guidelines fall into two categories; one relates to the facilities themselves, and the other regards neighborhood stability. The developers feel that senior residents will be a stabilizing influence on the neighborhood. They will have average or above average incomes which will help support downtown business and the public transportation system. Mr. K i ttenger said senior residents typically look out their windows and keep an eye on the neighborhood. He said the fact that Washington Abbey will have funds in perpetuity for upkeep and maintenance of the property was also a stabilizing influence in the neighborhood. Regarding the facilities, Mr. Kittenger said it was the developers intention to support alternative means of transportation by providing covered bike parking and encouraging car pooling. Mr. Kittenger said determining the exact amount of energy conservation provided by the building's design was difficult, but the plans submitted to the Building Department included 21 X 6' walls, R-19 insulation plus 2 inches of styrofoam, wood windows with e double glazing and other features which more than satisfied the Building Department's concerns regarding energy conservation. Regarding the guideline about encouraging community use, Mr. Kittenger said many of the facilities will be available on a sponsorship basis. Two stories will be devoted to commercial use, such as offices or small service-oriented businesses. A vest-pocket park will be provided. The parking is not only covered, but is screened and secured by radio controlled doors. Mr. Kittenger felt the design more than satisfied the criteria for public benefit. Mr. Ball asked if the marketing research described by Mr. Rood was local. Mr. Rood said the majority of elderly housing projects in the Eugene area were targeted to low-income. He said the research used was both national and local in nature. Mr. Ball asked if staff had any comment on the need for housing for higher income elderly. Mr. Byrne said he had no scientific data. He said one other project in town is nearly identical in rental structure and they were very helpful to the staff in analyzing whether there was a need for housing in this price range. That project has a 10-year waiting list. Ms. Schue provided a brief history of how the public benefit criteria were developed for this program. She said in a previous project of a similar nature, a committee worked with the architect to develop a list of public benefits that had to be provided before the project could qualify for the tax exemption program. She said the committee system proved to be time consuming. As a result, the program was restructured so that now projects receive a preliminary - recommendation from staff with a review by the Joint Housing Committee and final action by the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1982 Page 6