CCAgenda-4/21/04WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

residency in the downtown area. He asserted there was no reason not to expand the boundary to the west. He recommended extending the boundary to Lawrence Street or to Washington Street. He expressed hope that the council wanted to see more owner-occupied residences downtown and not just rental units. Elizabeth Lyon, 2123 Marlow Lane, spoke as part of the potential co-housing development. She related that she had raised her family in a single-family dwelling and they were now grown. She stated that she was an author with four books and had an editing company. She expressed her desire to be part of a co-housing development now that her children were grown, but felt her position was tenuous. She opined that both low-income and high- income people received benefits for housing in the downtown area but middle-income people like herself received none. She urged the council to help the people "in the middle" who want to contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Jenny Gussett, 535 West 20th Avenue, testified on behalf of the co-housing group. She said she had a long-held interest in the community and in enhancing the sustainability and livability of the downtown area. She felt the co- housing development had a unique take on the fulfillment of the downtown goals as it featured multi-family, multi-generational housing and would be an opportunity to model how people could live in a community and have ownership at the same time. She added that it would encourage people to use cars less and walk more and asked that the boundary be expanded to include the site at 11th Avenue and Lincoln Street. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break at 8:52 p.m. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman clarified that the staff recommendation was that low-income housing would no longer be counted as a public benefit by charging the fee, because it was preferable to see the project quality increase. Councilor Bettman felt the ECO Northwest study did not apply to the West University Neighborhood, as the data was different. She asserted the neighborhood was not a downtown neighborhood. She stated that she had supported the MUPTE for the downtown core, adding that she would support further incentives for that specific area. Councilor Meisner supported the MUPTE proposal as presented before the council, including its boundaries. For those who requested the boundary be extended to Lawrence Street or farther, he stressed that the discussion had been, for years, focused on the preservation of the neighborhood there. He asked if the co-housing proposal could be allowed to benefit from the MUPTE. Mr. Weinman responded that the boundary could be extended to include that property. Councilor Nathanson expressed her support for the reinvigoration of the incentive. She asked staff to look into and present information on what it would take to extend the boundary to allow the co-housing development to benefit from the MUPTE and also to include the area between 1st Avenue and 5th or 6th avenues. She said, while true that the council had been explicit about not changing the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the edge of downtown, the northern edge seemed to be of a separate development type. Mr. Weinman agreed to look into this and provide the information. Councilor Kelly said the staff response to a parcel specific inclusion in the MUPTE boundary was also of interest to him. Councilor Kelly asked staff to prepare an amendment for the adoption meeting that would include the WUN recommendations. Additionally, Councilor Kelly commented that, if the City was not expanding the boundary beyond the downtown core, he would not feel a need for the standards that had been added. He supported them because the boundary L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040421\S040421B.doc