Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poling suggested if council’s future discussions about the implementation of Envision Eugene <br />pointed it back to MUPTE, it should not hesitate to revisit it. At this point, he preferred to move on to <br />another area. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz maintained that MUPTE in its current form had done its work in the WUN. She was not <br />unwilling to talk about its application in the future, but was hearing from constituents and councilors <br />representing the area that it was not working. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown said the City’s resources were shrinking because of tax abatements. He supported tax <br />abatements for low-income housing and thought more such projects were needed, but the projects being <br />supported by MUPTE were market-rate developments. The percentage of renters in the WUN seemed to <br />increase each year and they were increasingly rent-burdened and were not helped by such projects. He <br />supported the motion because the City needed the money involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown agreed with Mr. Zelenka that most of the projects would have been built anyway, although <br />they might have been slightly different. He advocated for the application of MUPTE in areas where, but <br />for the MUPTE, no development would otherwise occur. He suggested that the council direct staff not to <br />spend time on the Franklin Corridor or Midtown/South Willamette because development would happen in <br />thth <br />those areas without tax rebates. He supported spending staff time on the Trainsong/6 and 7 area. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor did not support the motion because he wanted to see the input staff proposed to gather from <br />WUN residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed MUPTE had run its course in the WUN. He reiterated the lack of owner-occupied <br />housing in the WUN and said it was a very dense neighborhood that was experiencing redevelopment <br />through consolidation of single-family lots. It was a very different area than the other areas under <br />discussion both because of the nature of its housing and its tenants. He agreed with Mr. Farr that the <br />pillars were sometimes conflicting and said the pillar Protect Neighborhood Livability was in conflict <br />with some of the values expressed by the other pillars. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested that the City could accomplish some of the benefits of MUPTE by instituting a <br />requirement for neighborhood consultation for all multi-family developments, expedited planning and <br />permitting processes, green building or quality incentives, examination of livability impact such as the <br />Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, parking requirements, number of bedrooms, number of unrelated <br />occupants per unit, and design review were all “non-dollar” tools the City could employ in place of <br />MUPTE. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark suggested that neighborhoods should be allowed to weigh in on all types of development. He <br />believed the council would sending a mixed message if it dropped MUPTE now and decided to reinstate <br />it later. He did not support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted staff to talk to residents of the WUN about elements of the MUPTE process they <br />would like to see implemented in the future. He did not think that was precluded by passage of the <br />motion. <br /> <br />The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Zelenka, and Brown <br />voting yes, and councilors Poling, Pryor, Clark, and Farr voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a <br />vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy agreed that the issue could be revisited in the future. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2011 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br />