Laserfiche WebLink
<br />identify examples while making the application of these quality standards subjective. During a work <br />session on October 22, 2007 Councilor Zelenka requested that staff provide council with options on <br />making the local standards less subjective and more objective. That is the basis for the proposal <br />provided for consideration. <br /> <br />The ordinance, as proposed, uses the word “better” one time. It is in the current MUPTE ordinance <br />[2.945 (1)] and is not changed, although the sentence is edited to enable the district to be expanded to <br />the Trainsong Neighborhood: <br /> <br />There is a need and demand for better housing at rental rates or sale prices accessible <br />to a broad range of the general public in the downtown and transit oriented areas <br />which is not likely to be produced without this incentive. This incentive is intended to: <br /> <br /> <br />In this context the term “better” is subjective and could be interpreted in various ways, including an <br />improvement over the existing land use. A traditional way to measure improvement would be the <br />resulting increase in property value. <br /> <br />3) Please provide a map delineating "transit oriented areas" which is a completely new term, as <br />well as define what a "transit oriented area is?" <br />Why didn't you use the term in the code "Transit Oriented Zone?" <br /> <br />Response: <br />The map is included in the attachments. The term, “Transit Oriented Area” comes from the state <br />statutes that enable the tax exemption. The statute language originates from an expansion of the <br />original purpose that was limited to the “core area” in order to accommodate housing that is built <br />along transit corridors, such as the MAX in Portland. <br /> <br />The area proposed for expansion up to and including the Trainsong Neighborhood is being done <br />through the Transit Oriented Area portion of the statutes, because it is arguably not in the core area. <br /> <br />4) According to the criterion to build 5 or more units, a developer could remove 5 units and build <br />5 and still get tax breaks-correct? Would it be consistent with the state statute to adopt criteria <br />requiring a net gain of 5 units? If it is legal to do so please provide language to achieve it with the <br />added caveat that units that were demolished within a year before application is made, get <br />counted in the formula for determining net gain of units. <br /> <br />Response: <br />It is possible that a developer could remove five units and then receive Council approval for a MUPTE <br />to add five units. To date, this has not happened. There has consistently been a gain of five units or <br />more. It is possible for the City to add that requirement. For example, council could add a new <br />subsection to E.C. 2.945(6) to provide that in order to approve an application the council must find that <br />“construction of the multiple-unit housing project will result in a net gain of five or more housing units. <br />Units demolished within the year preceding the filing date of the application will be included in the <br />calculation of whether the project would result in a net gain of five or more housing units.” <br /> <br />5) Please provide language to amend to continue to collect the current rate of taxes on land and <br />improvements during the 10 years of tax breaks, at least that way the Co., city, and schools won't <br />be losing the revenue they are currently receiving. <br /> Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080813\S080813C.doc <br /> <br />