CC Minutes - 06/11/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To direct staff to return to a work session with a finer-grained reduced boundary for MUPT£. The proposal should also include a qualifying matrix to encourage quality, high-density housing in exchange for the incentive. The proposal should also consider the character of existing development in each area. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Kelly that he used the word "consider" rather than "protect" in the last sentence to give staff latitude in what is brought back. He pointed out that the council must support the staff recommendation to forward it to a public hearing. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Papd accepted the rewording of the motion as a friendly amendment. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to hold a public hearing on a minimum expansion of the MUPTE to an area that would include the 14th Avenue and Olive Street development site. Ms. Nathanson wanted the Tate Group's proposal to move ahead but was concerned about making law for a single developer. She preferred that any ordinance expanding the MUPTE boundaries address a broader area. Mr. Kelly hoped that between now and the public hearing staff would contact the developer to determine how much time was needed. He noted that another project was proposed for 14th Avenue and Hilyard Street that had the potential to qualify for the MUPTE as well, and hoped the council could finish its work on the MUPTE in early fall. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not want to see the quality matrix in the administrative rules accompanying the ordinance. City Manager Taylor believed that the minimum expansion being proposed should be done in the context of the larger expansion accomplished after the council's recess so that people understood the nature of what was being done. Ms. Taylor was opposed to giving a tax exemption to something outside the downtown with no public benefit. She said that there were people in the community in danger of losing their houses because they could not pay their property taxes. She indicated her intent to vote against the motion. Ms. Bettman thought subsidies were appropriate if targeted appropriately. She thought the motion was an example of that. Ms. Bettman said the City needed to establish a critical mass of housing in and around downtown. She termed the motion an example of opportunity or asset mapping. Rather than creating blanket regulations and incentives applying to everything, one looked at specific sites and opportunities to fulfill multiple City objectives. Many communities were taking MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 10 Work Session