CC Minutes - 11/10/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

partial exemptions were not permitted; the land would continue to be taxed but the entire improvement would be exempted. Mr. Kelly stated he did not see inconsistency in a position that encouraged infill and provided a subsidy, but not for every kind of infill. He asked what community goal would be met by subsidizing a %racker box" that met the building code and nothing more. He quoted the City's Growth Management Policy 9: mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing infill and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards. He said many communities had design standards in their land use codes and had managed to surmount the challenges of developing standards that were reasonable throughout the community. He said that ~reasonable person" standards that briefly articulated quality expectations would be fair to the community, developers, and taxpayers. He said examples of standards included housing types, treatment of parking, visual interest articulation, and landscaping. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments on quality design standards, but cautioned that the standards should not be so specific that, for example, the spacing of shrubs was prescribed. He said the expectation was more than presentation of an acceptable landscaping plan; it also encompassed compatibil- ity with neighboring properties and design and construction quality. He asked staff to provide proposed standards to the council. He commended Ms. Bettman's idea of an incremental rather than full exemption for improvements and suggested that issue could be pursued with the State Legislature. Mr. Pap~ related that in discussions with developers in Eugene and other communities it was clear that the type of redevelopment the council wanted to encourage was unlikely to happen without an incentive. He supported the MUPTE incentive and agreed with the need for some type of quality standards in conjunction with the incentive. Ms. Nathanson said it was important to remember that MUPTE application approvals were on a case-by- case basis and she did not want to see standards that were so specific that redevelopment could not have fewer units than that which was being replaced, even though the new replacement was of much higher quality and welcomed by the neighborhood. She cautioned against requiring redevelopment to be compatible with or like development on adjacent properties, or retain the character of the area. She said that could defeat the goal of encouraging improvement of a deteriorated area. She urged caution in phrasing objectives. Ms. Bettman asked if staff could provide additional information on the fiscal ramification of adopting the expanded MUPTE boundary, such as projecting the number of projects per year and analyzing loss of the tax value of what was currently on the site. She remarked that the West University neighborhood was the highest density in the community and any redevelopment would require demolishing an existing structure. Mr. Weinman replied that there had been eleven MUPTE applications approved since 1978. Of those projects, five had exhausted the exemption period and were back on the tax rolls. He said it would be extremely difficult to speculate where a project would occur, what it would replace, and what would be built as a replacement. Citing the MUPTE program history, Ms. Bettman commented that the High Street Terrace project had resulted in the forfeiture of $250,000 and asked why the council was being asked to take action to forego tax revenue without knowing the impact. Mr. Weinman replied that the council was only being asked to expand the MUPTE boundary and could determine the fiscal impact on a case-by-case basis during the review of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 5 Work Session