CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the low level of maintenance done on properties in the neighborhood contributed to the problem. He felt that rental owners were holding property, investing as little as possible, and getting the highest rents they could based on the assumption that the property would eventually become part of the university or the hospital. Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, voiced his support of the staff recommendation. He felt that, because the projects would come before the City Council, there would be opportunities to determine the quality of the project. He did not think that the City would want to get into design contests on a neighborhood basis. Regarding the proposed boundary, he urged the council to move it so that it butted up against Washington Street allowing development to look out over the park. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, executive director of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DE1), called attention to the memorandum included in the council packet, which was the result of a meeting of developers who had built in the downtown area, City staff, and a representative of the architect group. He encouraged the council to read the memorandum. He conveyed the organization's support for the expanded boundary and the staff recommendation for the language on design standards. He noted that staff indicated that the existing Land Use Code was adequate to provide the quality projects the City was seeking. He added that DE1 also supported the elimination of the low-income housing fee connected to MUPTE applications in the past. Mr. Brink asserted that downtown development was some of the most expensive development to pursue. Regarding the concern expressed by some that the MUPTE would represent lost tax revenue, Mr. Brink stressed that undeveloped property did not increase tax revenue, while development eventually increased the tax rolls. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the support of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for the expanded MUPTE boundary. He called it a tool to help achieve the vision set forth by the Downtown Plan. He asserted that trying to densify the core population of the City would help revitalize the downtown area. He underscored that the City Council had the final say on a project and a prudent investor or developer would realize that there would be an expectation of quality in the application, so the extent that Option (2) provided in the preamble that the council looked for quality, it represented a directional guideline an applicant would want to pursue. Mr. Connolly asked the council to ~demonstrate commitment to the Downtown Plan Update" and approve the MUPTE ordinances before it in conjunction with Option (2). Micheal Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, supported the need to ensure that tax dollars and tax exemptions were spent to the best benefit possible. To that end, he felt the addition of the seven public benefit standards should be approved. He asserted that the City Council would be able to judge the projects using these standards as goals and provide the most benefit for the public dollars. Mr. Roberts said there was a ~real need for this exemption" to make downtown development viable and asked the council to support Option (2) in order to given the community the design standards needed and the flexibility. Hugh Prichard, 101 East Broadway Street, explained that he was a co-developer of the Broadway Place, a mixed-use development that benefitted from the MUPTE it was granted in 1996. He urged the council to expand the boundary and to keep it simple. He felt the process was a ~good, transparent" public process. He described the process, stating that the developer submitted its construction costs in a public work session and in two l~roformas. Mr. Prichard said that developer was required to justify the tax relief MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting