12/22/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I ! I: Speaking in favor of the rezoning: , Ron Woodruff, 1466 waShinfton, speaking on behalf of L. R. Brant, responded . to Mr. Anderson's letter Items 1 and 4). He read Mr. Anderson's letter (Item 1). He stated they were emphasizing housing for the elderly on the adjacent tax 10t--52 units or 26,000 square feet, with 4,000 square feet in office space. They are emphasizing the hous,ing component of their project. He read Item 4 of Mr. Anderson's letter. He explained their intention to preserve the old church as much as possible. One of the assets of the community is retaining the church in its original character. It i,s the visual and aesthetic advantage of the project and the property. Speaking in opposition to the rezoning: Tom Anderson, 790 West Broadway, speaking as Chairperson of the Westside Neigh- borhood Quality Project, said the WNQP was given notification of the project as a courtesy by Bill Sloat since the project is on the border of the neighborhood. He appeared at the Planning Commission meeting. He referred to his letter submitted to the City Council. He pointed out that once a zone change is made, anything can be done within the scope of the new zoning, independent of the anticipated project. Mr. Anderson reviewed the neighborhood concerns as out- lined in his submitted letter: 1) holding the developers to what they now say will go in, rather than focusing. on the commercial; 2) off-street parking availability; 3) upgrading essentially to R-4 under the guise of mixed use; 4) increased traffic noise and pollution; and 5) the dichotomy of the two major policies of City--increased housing density in the downtown area and retaining the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson' explained the . neighborhood felt this kind of mixed use should be contained on the east side of Washington Street.. Thi S app1 icat ion is on the edge of that area. They are concerned that commercial development ~i11 spread into their neighborhood. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Delay asked if granting the MU zoning would in essence mean R-4 zoning. Mr. Croteau answered if the building was torn down it could be rebuilt at R-4 density. Mr. Lieuallen observed the statements of the applicant concerned moderate- and low-income housing, housing for the elderly, etc., as well as potential condo- minium uses of the building. He asked, given current interest rates, if 10w- or moderate-income housing seems very likely. Mr. Croteau suggested the church had been empty for a long time which means the land was not able to be sold and that might indicate a more likely possibility of conversion. Mr. Lieual1en was concerned that conversion to residential uses might be unlikely. With economic conditions as they are, a developer might be tempted to level the building and erect something strongly commercial in nature. MU zoning does have some protec- tions. A residential aspect does not seem likely. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 4