CCMinutes - 04/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

incentive, it needed to be targeted to what was needed, and that was downtown as opposed to the West University Neighborhood, which she termed a ~hot market for student rentals." Ms. Bettman said that if the council did not include the standards in the ordinance, it would not see high- quality housing in the area in question. She said that the City would be giving some developers an incentive and not others, and given the oversupply of rental units and the existing nature of the neighborhood, she did not think the City would leverage any owner-occupied or long-term residency there. She thought the motion was counter to what the council was attempting to achieve in the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman moved to amend the amendment to the motion by substituting Boundary Change Option D. The amendment to the amendment to the motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman stated she would vote against the amendment. Mr. Papd asked if Mr. Meisner was willing to accept the addition of Boundary Change Option B and Boundary Change Option C as a friendly amendment to the amendment to the motion. Mr. Meisner said yes. Mr. Papd emphasized the fact all the applications would be reviewed by the council and he did not think the council would accept poor development. He thought the tool was one of the few options the City had to encourage housing in downtown. Mr. Meisner asked if developers had expressed interest in making MUPTE applications. Mr. Weinman said staff received informal contacts. At the request of Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner described the impact of the amendment to the motion as it applied to the boundaries. Ms. Bettman said the Jefferson Westside Neighbors were promised there would be no extension of the MUPTE beyond Lincoln Street. She did not believe people living at 17th Avenue and Alder Street thought they lived downtown. She reiterated her previous remarks regarding foregone revenues. Ms. Bettman maintained the council would approve all MUPTE applications in spite of their quality. The developments would put a demand on City services without paying any taxes. Ms. Taylor thought the boundaries to which the MUPTE would be applied created less incentive for building in the downtown core because development on the fringe of downtown would be subsidized. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by revis- ing the MUPTE boundary to Boundary Change Option D. Mr. Kelly said if the MUPTE was a central city housing incentive, it needed to be applied to the center of the city. He said the City needed to be careful about the incentives it offered in tight financial times. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session