CC Minutes - 05/27/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark opined the City would be acting in bad faith if policies stated the intent to incentivize creation of density in the core and around the university, encouraging people to buy properties with the idea that they would be able to build housing, after which the City changed the rules making development no longer affordable. He was concerned that the boundaries could be changed at this point. He added he would not be opposed to the idea of extending the boundary into Ms. Ortiz’s ward, and welcomed more conversation on the issue. Mr. Pryor was intrigued by the nature of the discussion as it applied to the structural nature of the MUPTE rather than the reactionary nature. He noted a year from now, the Register Guard headline could be very different, adding the real estate market fluctuated. He proposed having a thoughtful structure in place around MUPTE that provided the ability to use it when needed. He asked if having MUPTE in place required its use, recalling that the council had voted not to use it in some situations in the past. Mr. Weinman confirmed MUPTE use was not required. Mr. Pryor asked if criteria or restrictions could be placed on MUPTE that would allow the council to offer circumstances under which MUPTE use would be available, and those under which it would not. He was less inclined to shrink, reduce or eliminate the possibility of use of MUPTE under any circumstance rather than provide more stringent criteria under which it could be used. Thus, expanding MUPTE into other areas could serve a structural benefit if good criteria were in place. He speculated that the application or use of MUPTE might be shifted from its original intent over time. He was reluctant to completely eliminate it as a tool, since there might be unforeseen circumstances in which the council would want to use it, and it would be a great deal of work to reimpose it. He fully supported control and strict standards, but did not support applying it simply because someone wanted it. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Weinman cited the downtown projects that had been built with MUPTE: Tate Condominiums, Broadway Place, and High Street Terrace. He th added WestTown on 8 was a low-income project that had received a 20 year low-income tax exemption. Ms. Solomon hoped councilors would not think that eliminating MUPTE in the university area would somehow drive up MUPTE-supported housing downtown, noting it clearly was not happening for a number of reasons in addition to parking and code issues previously mentioned. The same code, infrastructure and parking issues existed in the university area. She did not want the university area which still had a great deal of sorry-looking housing to be cut out. It was exciting to see new projects going up and she did not want MUPTE eliminated to drive up downtown development. She was pleased to support the boundary extension, noting land prices were going up and properties inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) were becoming scarcer. Expanding the MUPTE boundary would accomplish council goals in that part of town. MUPTE was only part of the picture and had been beneficial to the City. Many of the properties approved by previous councils were back on the tax rolls and were a huge benefit to the City. Mr. Zelenka said the goal of MUPTE was to stimulate multi-unit housing adding the boundaries had changed several times according to circumstances and to what the market was doing in various areas warranting a change in the boundary. He noted MUPTE was never guaranteed. He voted against recent applicants because he felt the developments would have been built without MUPTE. Staff research indicated that 321 units had been built during a recent three- year period MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2008 Page 6 Work Session