Laserfiche WebLink
B. WORK SESSION: <br />Capstone Collegiate Communities Student Housing Development Project <br />Senior Planner Nan Laurence and Urban Services Manager Denny Braud of the Planning and <br />Development Department led the council through a PowerPoint presentation titled Capstone Collegiate <br />Communities Proposed Downtown Student Housing Project. Councilors asked questions clarifying the <br />details of the presentation. <br />Mr. Farr indicated his concerns about the project had been addressed. He emphasized the importance of <br />student housing that was located near the University of Oregon (UO). He was excited by the potential of <br />having more students downtown. Speaking to the proposed Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption <br />(MUPTE) sought by the developer, Mr. Farr pointed out the City could collect no taxes from housing <br />provided by the University. <br />Mayor Piercy asked staff to consider the needs of the elderly and disabled using the bicycle path. She <br />also asked that staff consider requiring the developer to provide air conditioning for upper story residents <br />of Olive Plaza. She questioned if the City could require improvements to improve the functionality of the <br />sidewalk near Olive Plaza. <br />Ms. Taylor said the MUPTE score did not mean the council must approve the MUPTE application. She <br />pointed out the property in question was one of the last vacant properties in the area and suggested it <br />could be put to a better use, like a county hospital or a youth center. She expressed concern that student <br />housing did not meet the purpose of the MUPTE. She did not believe there was a shortage of student <br />housing. <br />Ms. Ortiz was prepared to take action on the MUPTE application at this time. She said there had been <br />many opportunities for someone else to buy the property. She believed that if someone bought a property <br />it should be their decision about what the property could be used for. She did not know if she would <br />support the MUPTE if the City could own the property but since that was not a possibility she <br />recommended that the council move on. <br />Mr. Brown perceived no critical shortage of student housing to justify the project. He reviewed <br />University of Oregon enrollment projections and contrasted it to available housing and noted that did not <br />even account for other student housing projects. He did not see a need for the development. He asked if <br />the City needed to subsidize 1,200 new beds given that the existing supply was sufficient for ten years. <br />Mr. Brown anticipated the development would take money away from existing landlords. He did not <br />think the project was in the public interest. <br />Mayor Piercy acknowledged some would never be supportive of the proposal and suggested that the <br />council get everyone on board possible for the decision it needed to make, and if that took more time she <br />believed the council should take it. <br />Mr. Clark believed the council’s decision should be simple given the pending budget crisis at the County <br />and the City’s own shortfalls in funding for human services. He believed the project was a good one and <br />would increase the property tax revenues that paid for services. <br />Mr. Pryor agreed with the mayor that the council should take its time. <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2012 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />