CC Minutes - 10/12/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

ended ($47,500). Speaking to the issue of the effect of MUPTE on project quality, Ms. Laurence shared a photograph depicting the Coho Apartments, which received the MUPTE, and a photograph showing the Mallard Apartments, which did not, and acknowledged it might be difficult to gauge project quality in the cases shown. However, she pointed out that since 2008 the MUPTE had provided for neighborhood input into project design, and that requirement ensured the neighborhood group had a voice in the process and provided for a higher degree of compatibility. She suggested the City might revise the MUPTE approval criteria based on the needs and conditions in each individual area. Ms. Laurence reported that there was one project awaiting council approval, the Paradigm at 17 and Pearl, which was approved by the council for MUPTE and was currently under construction. The project would not be completed by the date mandated in the resolution approving its MUPTE application and staff would ask the council to extend the deadline on October 24. Ms. Laurence concluded the presentation by asking the council to consider where density should be increased, how the City could ensure that it was located and designed in a compatible manner, where MUPTE should be used as a tool, and if the identified areas were appropriate for the application of MUPTE. Mayor Piercy asked if expedited planning and permitting processes could serve as an incentive to replace MUPTE. Ms. Laurence emphasized the importance of MUPTE in securing project financing and suggested some projects would not go forward in its absence. The expedited processes might speed up income streams, but would not be considered a "make it or break it" incentive in the same manner as MUPTE. Ms. Gardner emphasized the need for multiple tools, including those mentioned by Mayor Piercy, to incentivize the desired development. Mayor Piercy asked if the City could require neighborhood association input for all new developments. Ms. Gardner said that the code could be amended to provide for such input. Ms. Taylor suggested neighborhoods other than just the affected neighborhood should be consulted when developers requested tax exemptions. She agreed with the mayor that all development proposals should be discussed by the affected neighborhood association. Ms. Taylor believed any tax exemptions granted should be for a clear benefit and she saw that happening only in the downtown. She suggested that another future developer might develop a property that the current owner could not afford to build without MUPTE. Speaking to the subject of neighborhood input, Ms. Taylor pointed out that in one case, the adjoining neighbors had opposed a project but the neighborhood association supported it. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Laurence shared data regarding the differences between property taxes paid prior to project construction and after the exemption expired. Ms. Taylor said it appeared staff was already committed to the wider application of MUPTE. City Manager Ruiz said staff envisioned MUPTE as one of several tools to implement Envision Eugene. He said staff wanted to do more neighborhood outreach before returning with a final recommendation. Ms. Taylor suggested if housing was needed and developers needed to make money they would build housing without a tax exemption. Ms. Laurence said Eugene had construction costs similar to those of Portland, but rents were lower so the community was not experiencing the type of development that Envision Eugene suggested was needed. She said staff was trying to integrate a development incentive with the City's goals for livability, compatibility, and prosperity. Staff believed the City needed some development incentive to attract quality development and encourage it in the most appropriate locations. MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 12, 2011 Page 2 Work Session