CC Minutes - 11/13/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman opined that given that this could not be enforced it should not be advertised as a component of the project. Mr. Zelenka asked how a unit was defined. Mr. Weinman responded that he would provide a copy of that section of the code. He believed that a unit could technically include one with a shared kitchen. Ms. Solomon related that she had spent time in the University area and was dismayed by the quality of the housing. She was glad that the applicant would improve the housing stock. She had been pleased to see the letter indicating unanimous support from the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Clark said he was also interested in the effect on net density. He suggested that it would be useful to include an analysis of the effect of a MUPTE application on taxes both in the short-term and the long-term over the useful life of the building. He also wanted to see an analysis of the net effect on on-street parking. He believed that if the City moved away from allowing MUPTE applications in the University neighborhood the result would be that more high-rise, multi-unit developments would occur that would intensify the pressure on the parking problems in that area. He also expressed interest in seeing how this would affect the City’s sustainability goals. Mr. Weinman stated that he had received a handout from the applicant earlier in the day. He provided copies of it to the council. He explained that it indicated that the City would break even on the property taxes it would forego after 11½ years. He said every year after that point the City would collect approxi- mately 700 percent more in annual tax revenue than it would without the MUPTE right now. Ms. Bettman asked if this took into account the loss of existing revenue. Mr. Weinman affirmed that it did. Ms. Solomon was impressed by the developers’ commitment to sustainable practices. She thought the project could possibly be used as a standard by which the bar would be set for future development. She also noted that the project contained over 60 percent open space. She averred that this was consistent with the council’s goals to increase density and open space. Mayor Piercy felt the questions that remained included whether they were still trying to “densify” the area or not; was the City still trying to preserve single-family units in that area. She also thought a certain level of criteria in terms of sustainable building elements should be included, noting that currently it was all voluntary, if the MUPTE boundary continued to include the University area. Mr. Zelenka said in the future discussion of the MUPTE he wanted to look into having applicants cost out sustainability features. He wanted to know what the MUPTE was “buying” and how they knew what they were “buying.” The motion passed, 3:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session