CC Minutes - 04/23/12 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Phillip Farrington, Ward 1, believed the Downtown Plan's Regional Implementation Strategy C, which called for promotion of multi -story mixed structures downtown through financial incentives or code amendments. He pointed out the MUPTE was the council's only financial tool. He anticipated that the downtown would continue to require public investments to ensure its revitalization. He said if the project went forward it would have a major economic impact; if it did not move forward, he anticipated the property would remain vacant for some time to come. John Acken, Capstone Collegiate Communities, concurred with the staff recommendation. He said the project would not be financially feasible without the MUPTE. He pointed out the project was a large one and would have a positive economic impact downtown. It would also result in many valuable on- and off -site infrastructure improvements. He said that Capstone Collegiate Communities was committed to being a good neighbor to the community. Julie Daniel, Ward 3, supported the proposed project because it had both direct and indirect economic benefits, the additional residents would help revitalize downtown, the project was ideally located, and it would be easier to manage students living in a concentrated area. Students living on the edge of campus neighborhoods increased the cost of housing and put those areas out of reach of families seeking to purchase homes. She believed the project met MUPTE guidelines as well as a range of City plans. Rosie Pryor, Ward 8, supported the proposed development. She was familiar with site and knew that it was difficult to redevelop. She was very happy about the proposal and asked the council to use one of the few tools it had to steer residential development into those locations were density was required. Jean Tate, Ward 1, said residents of her building were concerned about noise and traffic but believed the applicant would address them. She supported the MUPTE application and said she would never do a housing project for six percent. She commended the staff findings and hoped they reflected what the developer planned to do. She asked the council to support the MUPTE application. Rick Satre, Springfield, supported the MUPTE application because it supported the community's growth management goals, would aid in the revitalization of downtown, contributed to economic development, and added to public safety. He pointed out that all of the recent projects in downtown had required a subsidy. He thought the applicant had demonstrated that it would be a good neighbor. Joe Tyndall, Ward 1, suggested the proposed subsidy to out -of -state developers was quite sizable, which concerned him. He hoped the council considered that issue. Art Bowman, Ward 1, suggested the question before the council was whether six percent was an acceptable rate of return on investment and if the building could be constructed without a tax break. He believed that if the building could be built without the tax break, the council was opening itself to criticism. He called for more examination of that issue and better explanations to the public. Gerry Gaydos, Ward 3, said the MUPTE was an extremely important tool in the construction of multi- family construction and he thought it should be used in this instance. He believed the effort the applicant put in was extraordinary. He agreed with the remarks of Mr. Farrington regarding the fact the property had been available for some time. Mr. Gaydos also believed the project would help bring the UO and community together. Craig Willis, Ward 4, supported the MUPTE application. He considered it a reasonable City investment. The project would help maintain downtown's current momentum. He believed the application was MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 23, 2012 Page 9. Regular Meeting