CCMinutes - 04/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the public benefits portion as is; and Option 4 did not require any additional standards above those current contained in the code. Mr. Weinman recommended Option 2. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt Council Bill 4862, Option l(a), re- placing the ;;public benefits" portion of the MUPTE application with one referencing seven quality standards, adding new standards 8) ;;Designed for home ownership" and 9) %olici- tation of Comments from the relevant neighborhood association," and stipulating MUPTE applications must meet five of nine standards. Ms. Taylor asked how a developer would prove a project would not be built. Mr. Weinman said a financial analysis must be provided to the City. Ms. Taylor asked if the exemption would apply to vacant land. Mr. Weinman said the exemption applied to vacant land and already developed land. He cited cases where several small buildings were removed from a site and replaced with a larger building; the land continued to be taxed, but the small income from the three structures was taken from the tax roll over the ten year period. Ms. Taylor wanted to see a requirement that the projects constructed with the aid of the MUPTE have single rooms and studio apartments for low-income people. Mr. Weinman pointed out that each MUPTE application came to the council for approval and it could condition the incentive if it chose. Mr. Meisner said he wished to preserve the view shed before the Shelton-McMurphy Johnson House. He did not want to encourage development on the lot, and noted it was proposed for acquisition by the City at some point in the future. However, the lot still appeared to be in the boundaries on the maps before the council. Mr. Klein indicated the appropriate boundaries were reflected in Boundary Change Option C, and the lot would be deleted. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to amend the motion by substituting Option 2a for Option la, replacing the public benefits portion of the application with new language in the preamble, adding new standards 8 and 9, and including Boundary Change Option C. Ms. Nathanson supported the amendment. She determined that Mr. Meisner and Mr. Papd would accept a friendly amendment to the amendment to replace Standard 8 with "Number of units that are identified or designed for home ownership." Ms. Nathanson did not want to give applicants the impression the City was requiring that 100 percent of a project be designed for homeownership. Mr. Kelly opposed the amendment as he wanted to include the standards in the ordinance. He supported the original motion. He wanted to encourage downtown housing and wanted incentives that created good quality housing. Mr. Kelly said because each application was reviewed by the council, he wanted some sort of a ~floor" that each applicant must meet before the application reached the council to avoid creating a perception that the council was acting on an ad hoc, project-by-project basis. He did not think the standards in question were onerous and pointed out that not all needed to be met. Mr. Kelly said ifa project did not meet five of nine standards, he did not want to provide tax incentives for it. Ms. Bettman said she supported the MUPTE in the core because housing would not occur there without public assistance. She disagreed that the area in question was in the core of downtown; only some of it was. Since the City would be foregoing needed school and General Fund revenues to provide the MUPTE MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 4 Work Session