Laserfiche WebLink
the approach in question. Ms. Bettman said that given the City's General Fund constraints, the <br />City had to be very strategic about how it applied incentives. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that she was concerned by the appearance of fairness. She hoped that staff <br />was careful in using language. When the council talked about protecting neighborhoods, it was <br />not discussing maintaining them in the status quo, but about improving them <br /> <br />While acknowledging Ms. Nathanson's concern, Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. He <br />pointed out that the council had agreed to extend the MUPTE in a public session to the developer <br />in question. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor disagreed with Mr. Meisner. She maintained that the council had been told it was not <br />being asked to vote on the MUPTE at that time. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to schedule a public hearing <br /> on July 14 for an ordinance that establishes a Vertical Housing Zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he did not know if he would support the ordinance but believed it should be brought <br />to a public hearing. He spoke to the comments previously made by Ms. Bettman regarding <br />housing on top of existing commercial, saying that often the Building Code prevented such <br />redevelopment. He said that he did not think it would be a bad thing to provide a tax incentive for <br />a property owner to replace a one-story commercial building on an underused site with a four- <br />story building that included one storey of commercial and three storeys of housing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that Mr. Kelly was discussing redevelopment of an existing site. Her <br />concern regarded the fact that the zone meant a structure including both commercial and housing <br />could be built across the street from an existing commercial use, and the business on the bottom <br />floor would be tax-exempt, creating an unfair competitive advantage. The council needed to figure <br />out a more equitable approach. She supported the use of the zone in nodal development areas <br />only. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan indicated that the program in question was a State program, and it became a tax <br />exemption that a development was entitled to due to its location within a zone. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />C. WORK SESSION: Use of Downtown Urban Renewal Funds for Downtown Projects <br /> <br />Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />