03/08/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.... 503 3/8/71 e Ii il \1 " I, I 'I !, Ii support the Planning Commission action, and if the project is successful.the property values will decline because of the incompatible nature to the surrounding neighborhood. If the Planning Commission action is supported and the project fails financially, historically or socially, property values of property would decline_even further. If the Council chooses to find the Planning Commission erred in this project, it will hand the PUD a temporary setback, but they would go on to find a new site. Mr. -Hemphill felt as citizens of the community, the City should have their best interests at heart. When people built in the area they were under the impression a sizeable church would be built on the site. Mr. Hemphill was concerned that there would be only one exit, which would be on 25th into Chambers.: :i He also argued that proximity to schools was very poor, and that the nearest grade school was a mile away. Mr. Hemphill expressed concern that the density was not proper, and that the fact that it was now legal to toss in the adjoining acre of land should have no .bearing, since that acre had no relation to the housing project. He again suggested a compromise and that the project could be relocated. The Committee has located several alternative sties and expressed its intention to help PAD relocate. Mr. Fred Brenner, at this point, gave a slide display of houses in the vicinity of the develop- ment. Mr. Roy Nelson, 1125 Lorraine Highway, said he had been engaged by the Westmoreland Improvement Association to look at the neighborhood in question to ascertain whether property values would, in fact, be devaluated. He had no personal interest, but was-asked for his professional opinion. He said that, in his opinion, this was a rather small neighborhood with restricted access off Chambers. He outlined properties in the neighborhood, and said this use would seriously reduce the value of the whole, and would have a mitigating influence on the more expensive homes,. and a devaluation on the resale of these properties. The density of the project would be ten homes per acre, as compared to the 31/3 per acre of those now existing. Mr. Vonderheit explained to Mr. Mohr that there was no record that the Planning Commission had calculated density as so many units per acre. He explained his calculations. Mr. Mohr asked if his argument was not based upon what should be included in the calculation. In answer to Mr. McDonald's request for clarification of the City Attorney's report, Mayor Anderson said the Attorney would have a full presentation at a later part of the testimony. In answer to Mr. Teague, Mr.. Nelson said he was a qualified appraiser. Mr. Mohr asked Mr. Vonderheit to again explajn-why tQe church acreage could not be used when calculating density. Mr. Vonderheit explained -tna~Section 18.06(f) was changed in relation to permitted buildings and uses. The uses originally covered only dwellings. Then Section (a) was amended to include all uses in the parent zone. Section (f) was added which provided that an area of ..pUblic or semi-public use could be used to calculate density for residential uses. Before it was modified, a church could have been built without a PUD. He did not feel a church would be a semi-public structure. There was nothing in the minutes or 'motion to indicate how the Planning Commisison 'had made .its computation. It was simply approved without any reference to density per acre or anything else. ,;.'. Mr. Teague askedtfMr. Vonderheit was' basing his appeal on the fact that deasity was incompatible. Mr. Vonderheit agreed. In answer to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Hemphill said his group 'did not object to subsidization of the the _units for low and moderate income families. To Mr. Teague he said their basic opposition revolved-around reduction -in property values. He agreed that, if the density was computed on 2.2 acres, they would still oppose the project. One of the objections of inclusion of the church in the overall computation is that St. Mark's -Church is not the applicant. It did not sign the application and is therefore not eligible to be included in the computation. In answer "to Mr. McDonald, Mr. Vonderheit said they were not -involved at all in the question of objection of low and moderate income persons living in the area. It was a question of following terms of the ordinances which had been set up and the devaluation of property values. A short break was taken. : \1 Mrs. Shirley Houlegard, 1710 West 28'fih, spoke against the proj ect, and said she felt that there were two sets of rules - one for the Council and one for FHA - and that she felt too many peop~ would be crow.ded into tbi.s. space. She argued that the units would be too small, and those living in tI:em.would he extre1?ely ~rowded. She said that, in approving this project, the Planning Comnn_.Ss,lon had proved ltS. blas. 3/8/71 - 2 ..... Ii II \! I' il I e I I e I~ -