My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ordinance of MUPTE
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 11/24/08 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ordinance of MUPTE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:44:06 PM
Creation date
11/21/2008 10:45:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/24/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />In 1996, the council redesigned the selection criteria for the program and then placed a moratorium <br />on accepting MUPTE applications after the passage of Measure 47 (a property tax limitation and <br />redesign). <br /> <br />In January 2001, the council reinstated MUPTE with the new guidelines and adopted a boundary area <br />that was limited to the heart of downtown, substantially smaller than what had previously existed. <br /> <br />In February 2003, the council recognized that no multi-family development occurred in the core area <br />(including the pre-2001 boundary area) after the moratorium took effect (Broadway Place and High <br />Street Terrace were approved prior to the moratorium but constructed during the moratorium period). <br />The council then directed staff to return with proposed amendments to the program as part of a series <br />of “downtown tools.” <br /> <br />In July 2003, the council approved a small expansion of the MUPTE boundary to include the City’s <br />th <br />development site at 14 and Olive (the future home of The Tate Condominiums) and directed staff to <br />return at a later date with additional amendments to the program and boundary. <br /> <br />In early 2004, during multiple meetings, the council debated the merits of setting more specific and <br />strict quality standards for MUPTE-approved developments and settled on the current approach, <br />which provides a range of options to be evaluated by the council prior to approval. The council voted <br />to expand the boundary area for MUPTE-eligible housing and amended the rules to include quality <br />standards and increased public notification requirements. The amendments also eliminated an annual <br />fee that was paid into a low-income housing fund if at least 50% of the housing built was not low- <br />income. This was done after some members of the council asserted that charging the fee reduced the <br />incentive and ability to construct higher quality housing. <br /> <br />In October 2007, the council reviewed the MUPTE program and asked for an additional work <br />session. A motion to consider shrinking the boundary to the downtown, but including both The Tate <br />and Co-Housing sites was approved 5-4, with the Mayor specifically expressing a willingness to <br />continue the discussion about the boundary once more information is received from staff. Other <br />council comments included an interest in expanding the boundary and options to make the selection <br />criteria more objective than subjective. <br /> <br />In November 2007, when discussing two specific MUPTE requests, additional questions about the <br />program were raised. Responses to the questions raised at the October and November 2007 meetings <br />are provided below. <br /> <br />In May 2008, the council reviewed the program at a work session and requested a public hearing on <br />amendments that would create a new transit-oriented MUPTE area in the Highway 99 corridor and <br />Trainsong Neighborhood, limit the core area to the downtown (removing the West University <br />neighborhood), and create objective standards for approval. <br /> <br />In July 2008, the council conducted a public hearing. Prior to public testimony, the council voted to <br />schedule a work session after the public hearing followed by action at a later meeting. Three people <br />testified, all in support of the program. Each supported the current boundary and asked that it not be <br />made smaller. Terry Connolly spoke in favor of expanding the boundary. Ginger Newman argued <br />that the boundary should not be decreased without much longer notice (e.g. five years), indicating <br />Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081124\S0811243.DOC <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.