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

Home Browse Search

each MUPTE application when specific information about existing and replacement structures was available. Ms. Taylor suggested the time period to speak not be shortened for successive rounds of discussion. She contended that the West University neighborhood, in addition to being the most dense, also had some of the most beautiful houses in the City and hoped that some type of interest-free loans could be used to refurbish them, rather than tearing them down. She asked what benefit the community had received from High Street Terrace or Broadway Place. Mr. Taylor replied that any downtown revitalization effort encouraged more residential options, either in new construction or adaptive reuse, because more residents in downtown reinforced growth management, pedestrian-friendly, and livability goals. He said the MUPTE boundary expansion both identified an area where more housing was encouraged and provided a tool to help developers make the decision to add a housing component to a project or create new residential opportuni- ties. Ms. Taylor expressed concern over foregoing taxes on properties outside of the City's center. She asked which MUPTE properties had been returned to the tax rolls. Mr. Weinman referred to the history of the MUPTE program and said that any project over ten years old was now subject to taxes. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor's comments about the need to rehabilitate some of the beautiful old homes in the West University neighborhood and said the challenge was that there were many absentee owners with little interest in rehabilitating their properties. He asked staff to research, separate from the MUPTE issue, whether other jurisdictions had developed successful programs to encourage rehabilitation, particularly by absentee owners. He pointed out that the West University neighborhood was already primarily housing and the task force was trying to encourage more variety and quality in housing and a broader mix of residents, not necessarily more housing units. He suggested that the MUPTE boundary could be moved west to Lawrence Street to include the six block area between 13th Avenue and 7th Avenue. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct staff to provide qualifying standards at least ten days prior to a public hearing on MUPTE. Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion for the purpose of developing options for quality or qualifying standards that the council could consider. Mr. Weinman said that timing of the hearing would require the standards be completed by November 14, 2003. Mr. Kelly responded that implicit in his motion was the need to delay the hearing and action dates for MUPTE. Mr. Weinman said the council's schedule would result in a hearing after the first of the year. Ms. Nathanson said she had heard two approaches discussed: developing qualifying standards for applications and requiring developers to submit plans and descriptions of a project for consideration by the council. She asked if Mr. Kelly intended to include the submission of plans and descriptions as an option. Mr. Kelly replied that his motion only addressed the development of standards, but he was not opposed to having staff provide information on other options as well. Mr. Pap~ said he did not want the council to be involved in design review for projects that came before it and therefore qualifying standards that a project must meet were necessary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 6 Work Session