CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 had been expanded into the West University Neighborhood. He opined that, should the City be granting public funds to developers, high standards of development needed to be upheld in that area. In response to a question from Councilor Papd, Mr. Weinman explained that the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace was a HUD 202 federal project and was tax-exempt because it was a Department of Housing and Urban Development project to build low-income housing. Councilor Pap~ supported the inclusion of the co-housing development project in the MUPTE boundary. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, in response to Councilor Pap~, stated that the Eugene area covered 43 square miles. Councilor Pap~ remarked that the project-by-project approval would prevent the West University Neighborhood from having a shoddy development built within its parameters with the benefit of MUPTE. He said that when counting city blocks, the MUPTE boundary seemed to encompass approximately one square mile and was not excessive. Councilor Taylor strongly believed that everyone should share the tax burden and if people are excused from taxes, it should be for a definite benefit. She supported a tax incentive for the core of the city. She opined that the Broadway Place development had not contributed to making the core of the downtown area more vibrant. She advocated for making all of the standards of quality required. She predicted that any proposed MUPTE would be submitted to the City Council in the Consent Calendar. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting