03/08/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

505 e 3/8/71 i: I' II II :: I, 'iT II proj ect for low and moderate income persons. She was a member of the Mayor's Committee on Goals, I: and this type housing was seen as one of these goals, and, asa r.eal need of the community. She i had taken four trips to the site of the proposal, and felt there were only moderate homes in the immediate vicinity. The Council will have to decide which legal arguments are the valid ones. I Mr. Jerald King, 1558 West 26th Avenue, said he lives in the area one block from the site. He and several neighbors support the PAD proposal. Signatur.es procured on a petition supporting the project were all from persons well within the area in which opponents had obtained their signa- tures, and represented a number who had previously signed the opponents petition. ' Ken Bylund, 1110 West 27th, said he was not here to speak from his labor position, and that the Central Labor Council had not taken an official position. However, it has been the position of organized labor to support low income housing. Many working people in the area would qualify for this housing, and it was Mr. Bylund's personal conviction to support the proj~ct. Mrs. Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, said she.realized the minutes of Planning Commission' meetings were voluminous, and she would have to take exception that the Planning Commission minutes were not to be relied upon. At the meeting of February 2, minutes from preceding meetings were distributed so that people who testified could read the minutes and correct them. No one spoke up and made any comment on errors on preceding minutes. The Planning Commission has made every effort to make minutes available and give an opportunity to correct them. e In answer to Mr. Mohr, Mr. 'Hoffman said the Planning Commission intent was that density would be 33 units on gross acreage of 4.28 acres. The Planning Commission was aware of the density it was talking about. To Mr. Van Rysselberghe Mr. Mohr directed a question concerning standards in the language of the ordinance which would speak to the issue of integration and anything detached in character from surrounding uses, or was this a Planning Commission value judgment. Mr. Van Rysselberghe said this would be a value judgment made by the Planning Commission. ,The Planning Commission has given the Council suffic&ent information so that they can make a judgment. I In answer to Mr. Teague, Mrs. Smith quoted prices estimated per units, and said this would include the value of the land. As far as responsibility in the future, a commitment will be signed with FHA which will make the PAD organization responsible as a non-profit corporation. If the commitment is not met, it will be handled by FHA as with any other non-profit corporation. In answer to Mn Teague, Mr. Hoffman said the Planning Commission has listened to neighbors and to citizens who are concerned, and are certainly affected by their comments. Members of the commission must look beyond the neighborhood and loo~ to the interests of all the people of the City. This was a tough decision to make, bht it was a unanimous decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoffman certainly thought the project would benefit the City. From all the evidence presented, the Planning Commission felt the development would enhance and fit into the neighborhood and would not detract. ;; 'I Mr. McDonald expressed concern with financial responsibility of the Presbyterian Church. Mrs. Smith outlined the PAD organization, and its record in the United States. Mr. Gribskov was also concerned, and asked should PAD default on its commitment, what would become of the project. Would the City have to take it over? I Mr. Hershner reminded the Council and those present that, in view of the fact he is a law partner of Mr. Vonderheit, he has withheld any comment or questionmng, and intends to abstain from voting on this matter. The City Attorney, in answer to Mr. McDonald's earlier question, said, regarding computation of area that could be used for purposes of complying with the ordinance for density, streets, parking areas and other areas were included. It is the practice of the Commission and of the Building Department that, when plans for development are received, they use the gross area. It was pointed out by Mr. Hoffman that it was the intent of the Planning Commission to make it possible to use, for residential density, public and semi-public buildings, in which such as a church would be included. The appeal is a very legalistic document which sets forth contentions of the appellant and 'the Attorney has studied minutes of Planning Commission meetings and has row submitted his comments as to the material and data which the Council received in the points of the appeal. It is now up to the Council to affirm and approve Planning Commission action granting preliminary approval of the PACT Action Planned Unit Development or uphold the appeal of this matter and overrule the Planning Commission action. I' ,I I, e I thing~ I The City Attorney read the appeal challenges 'and findings point by point. He outlined the motion which should be made if these findings were approved by the City Council. In answer to Mr. Teague, he said there was no question that computation of the number of allowable units should be based on the 4.2 acres, which includes one acre on which St. Mark's Church will be built. I Councilmen queried the Attorney on many of the points in detail. The Attorney pointed out that the Council function was to hear the appeal and make its decision. If the action of the Planning Commission is affirmed, the entire matter goes back to the Planning Commission for its close supervision, and staff will see that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are complied with in the development of the project. It \\ 3/8/71 - 4 ~