Laserfiche WebLink
MUPTE applications, regardless of their scores within the approval criteria points system, should not automatically <br />be approved without being first thoroughly reviewed by the council. He summarized saying he supported options C <br />and F as outlined in the agenda item summary. <br />thth <br />Ms. Ortiz commented that there had not been a huge rush to develop properties within the 6 and 7 Avenue Corridor <br />and Trainsong Neighborhood areas. She further noted that her conversations with residents of those neighborhoods <br />had indicated that MUPTE exemptions would be helpful incentive to encourage responsible development in those <br />areas. <br />Mr. Zelenka noted he was in favor of option D of the proposed MUPTE boundary revisions, and further stated that it <br />was no longer necessary for the West University Neighborhood to remain within the MUPTE boundaries since it was <br />such a highly desired location for University housing. <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that there was no direct proof that MUPTE exemptions encouraged better development <br />within the programs boundaries. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked that the proposed language of the ordinance revision 2.945(8) be amended in order to preserve the <br />council’s authority to overrule an application’s satisfaction of the MUPTE approval criteria. City Attorney Glen <br />Klein noted that he had already made a note regarding that subsection and that the language in question would be <br />revised in accordance with Mr. Zelenka’s concerns. <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that the 100 point score necessary for MUPTE approval according to the proposed criteria <br />seemed considerably low, noting that six of the nine proposed categories alone could garner the 100 points necessary <br />for MUPTE approval. Mr. Weinman noted that staff had attempted to test the proposed MUPTE criteria against <br />existing and proposed projects, and further noted that the scoring system could indeed be adjusted if the criteria did <br />not prove to be stringent enough in its execution. <br />Ms. Piercy commented that she had wrestled with the issues regarding the MUPTE for quite some time, and felt that <br />the MUPTE was essential to the continued growth of the neighborhoods within its urban boundaries. <br />Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Pryor that the MUPTE approval criteria points system should be used only as a guideline <br />for the council and that it should retain its authority to make the final decisions regarding MUPTE applications. <br />Ms. Piercy commented that it would be very important for the council to consider how the character of each <br />neighborhood within the MUPTE boundaries would be affected by proposed developments. <br />Ms. Bettman said tax exemptions such as the MUPTE should be used judiciously and as incentives to responsible <br />property development rather than simply as a giveaway. <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule <br />action on Options C, D and F as listed on the agenda item summary which expands the <br />boundary to include the Trainsong Neighborhood, revises the selection criteria, and <br />eliminates the West University Neighborhood. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute for Options C and F. <br />Mr. Clark responded to Ms. Bettman’s previous comment by saying that it could not be considered a giveaway when <br />the City was attempting to create jobs and foster similar economic growth by employing the MUPTE. He further <br />stated that without the MUPTE in place there was little guarantee that properties would ever be developed or <br />improved in the areas such as the West University Neighborhood. <br /> <br />MINUTES: Eugene City Council October 22, 2008 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />