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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman suggested an approach that expanded the MUPTE on a site-by-site basis and included the use of a matrix to encourage quality housing in exchange for the incentive. Mr. Weinman determined that Ms. Bettman was suggesting that the City create a structure and criteria for how to apply the MUPTE. He indicated that State legislation required the City to establish a boundary for the MUPTE. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved that staff identify where opportunities exist for the use of the MUPTE, and return with a specific recommendation about sites to be developed for high-density quality housing that included a matrix to encourage quality housing in exchange for the incentive. Mr. Weinman believed that it would be difficult for staff to determine where future opportunity areas exist. He encouraged the council to adopt a boundary. Ms. Bettman said that the MUPTE had an impact both on people's property values and on the General Fund. Much of the area covered by the proposal was already developed with high-density housing and the City would be subsidizing development that would already be likely to occur. She said that the City Council was considering conflicting policies. The City was both allowing and encouraging existing housing to be converted to commercial and office uses west of downtown at the same time staff was proposing new housing subsidies. She termed that a waste of taxpayer dollars and counterproductive to the council's goals. Ms. Bettman wanted to apply the MUPTE tool surgically, as she did not think the City could afford to apply it as a blunt instrument. Ms. Solomon thought the council should forward the staff recommendation to a public hearing and modify it later. She did not think the staff-recommended boundary would be adopted ultimately, but could be used as a starting point for discussion. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that forwarding the boundary proposal as presented to a public hearing would result in much opposition. He hoped that staff was taking into account repeated themes in the council's comments. Mr. Kelly asked if Ms. Bettman's motion included consideration of his quality matrix idea. Ms. Bettman said yes. Mr. Kelly thought Mr. Weinman's points regarding the difficulty of identifying future opportunity areas were well-taken. He thought Mr. Poling's point regarding the need for a closer examination was also a good one. He said that the right way to approach the issue was through a new refinement plan that looked at the neighborhood on a block-by-block basis. In the absence of that, he preferred something that tried to take a closer look and that addressed the distinctions that existed in the neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson preferred to establish clear and specific boundaries. She also preferred to reduce the boundaries before the public had the opportunity to comment, as she preferred to focus the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 8 Work Session