CC Minutes - 10/22/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman said she learned there were two other expansions the council had processed, one an expansion th in anticipation of a co-housing project and one that encompassed the Tate project at 13 and Olive. She had not meant to exclude those from the boundaries she would propose. She clarified the number of units that received the tax exemption with Mr. Weinman. Mr. Weinman called attention to the listing of projects. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the council’s receipt of information about the characteris- tics of MUPTE applicants, Mr. Weinman said that the information was included at the request of Mr. Zelenka. Ms. Bettman questioned whether the information was relevant to the decision given the application criteria did not address the characteristics. Mr. Clark said he had done some research into the issue and had learned that there were two different kinds of housing being built in the area in concern, and the type that was supported by the MUFTE were more traditional type of apartment complexes that could serve both students and low-income residents. Those without MUPTE support were generally market-rate housing and were profitable. The City was experienc- ing a surge of construction of apartment units that were five and six bedroom units aimed at students because the City’s parking requirements stipulated only one space per unit, which made them more affordable and profitable. It was becoming less affordable to build standard one- and two-bedroom units, which needed MUPTE support. Mr. Weinman indicated the City was also receiving MUPTE applications for units with more bedrooms. He could not say there was any consistency in bedroom numbers. Mr. Clark said that someone suggested to him that in the absence of the MUPTE, the five- and six-bedroom units would continue to predominate and the result would be student housing with parking crammed along the street. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Weinman said he would characterize Mr. Clark’s remarks as accurate. Ms. Ortiz thought the idea of encouraging growth in certain areas was ‘okay’ with her. She agreed that some of the units might not be as nice in the absence of the MUPTE. However, her challenge was that she did not see much building going on in her neighborhood or other areas not covered by the MUPTE. The infill that had occurred in her area was not attractive. She looked forward to seeing Ms. Bettman’s recommendations because she thought the City was “bringing coals to Newcastle” with the MUPTE. It was not as though the properties were not valuable or would not be developed; the question was how much input into the quality and design the City would have. Ms. Taylor asked the original purpose of the exemption. Mr. Weinman said it was to encourage housing in the core area and support a compact urban growth form and encourage redevelopment in the core. Ms. Taylor said it was supposed to be a benefit for the city, not the developers. Mr. Weinman agreed. He reiterated it was to encourage development in the core. Ms. Taylor believed that when the City changed the boundaries of the exemption area it had changed the purpose of the program. If someone wanted to build something good, they did not have to pay taxes for ten years whether it benefited the City or not, during which time the value of the property decreased before the property owners paid taxes. It did not seem fair to her, and it did not seem to benefit the City but rather developers Mr. Weinman said the current area was slightly smaller than the area established in 1986. The boundaries were last changed in 2004. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 22, 2007 Page 8 Work Session