07/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman Hershner asked the size of the units for which the suggested $134 monthly rental (0565) would be charged. Mr. Safley replied that four floor plans were to be used from 600 to 850 square feet, depending upon whether they were one- or two-bedroom units. He said that square-foot cost was one of the factors in providing less costly housing. By designing" e smaller units he would be able to charge less rent. He said the $134 charge would be the average monthly rental. He went on to describe the additional cost involved in designing the sound barriers in the project which he said would.probably make the rentals average a little more. than $134. Councilwoman Campbell remarked about the impossibility of ever getting those who could pay (0607) high rents to live in the area proposed for this development, and she wondered why Mr. Safley thought it an appropriate place for low-income people considering the existing industrial uses and proposed County public works uses nearby. Mr. Safley appreciated that concern and .said that an effort was made to create a living environment through design and noise control. Other projects he said proposed for low-income' housing ended up as high-income housing because of design changes to provide a better living environment. He noted that in this case the General Plan indicating medium density housing for that area was adapted after the indus- trial uses were in operation an~'property rezoned for the County shops. He felt the proposed development would take care of the problems for this particular piece of property. Bruce Taylor, living on Ayres Road, ,felt the development was too far from the main employment C0665) center and without mass transit service, that the area was pretty well over-developed already. He felt some consideration should be given to the location of a housing development next to a sand and gravel operation in terms of dangerous truck traffic to children and pets. Also the noise and air pollution for tenants of the housing. He said it would make a major conflict e between land uses of the housing was allowed and that the low-density designation should re- ma1n. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, supported the project and said she was speaking on her own (0704) initiative and not as a representative of the Joint Housing Committee since that committee had not discussed the development. She disagreed with the findings of the Planning Commission that the subject property would not best serve the public need. She felt this development would be a way of increasing housing within a wide range of rentals and that the applicant went further than normal in establishing the demand and type of tenants. She cited the need for low-cost housing anywhere in the city and called attention. to the factors making it possible to provide such units in this development - smaller in size, less valuabl~ ~and, developed under site review rather than_planl).ed unitdeve~opmen..t~,:e-!c. ,She'sqgg'e~te4_,thatif ~~~t.hiiY~dj,ifefe_ntia'!tdisappear~d ,the :rentals 'wduld 'be' a5:hlgh >15' tn~"anY'bih~r::-area..~-: Mr~'; Niven continued that detefmin~ti'on-ofwhether' a propeny chuld be corisldered the "best~~=fle,f wOl.l~d have to be made on an individual basis, that properties considered best for housing were c:: those located in areas long used for residential purposes and so commanding the highest rentals. This property, she felt ,', was one of those with inherent flaws which could be over- come. And if the proposed sound barriers proved successful, the project could be invaluable in showing the' way to protect other properties - both residential and commercial - lying along heavily traveled noisy thoroughfares. . She noted the age of potential tenants in their early twenties and said that age group, growing up in. a rock and roll age, probably wouldn't . hear the noise ,generated by the sand and,gravel eompanyanyway. But she said the reduction in no~se through construction of the sound carriers would b~ considerable and called attention to the existing single-family dwellings in that area now which weren't stopped from going in there because, of the noise. She didn't feel it was appropriate. that the sand and gravel operations should control use of adjacent land it neither owned nor developed. She concluded by saying that she thought there was a well defined need of a fine group of tenants which would be well served by the proposed development, and use of the project for a testing of sound control would be of public benefit. Susan Franqin, 890 West 3rd Avenue, member of ,the 'Planning Commission, highlighted the (0842) Commission's reasons for denying the rezoning. She said development to moderate-cost housing would not be consistent with existing uses in the area, and rezoning this isolated parcel would make comprehensive overall planning for that area 'very difficult. In addition, she said, the property was isolated, large and vacant, separating two RA tracts, and the public need would not be served by rezoning. James Kovack, a representative of, Eugene Sand & Gravel, said he was neither for nor against the rezoning. However, he hoped that whatever decision was made would not "price them out" because he felt the~e was a need for the firm's products in the community. He said they would be glad to co-operate whatever the zone was to work out mutual problems. Trygve Vik, 1675 Firland Boulevard, was in favor of the requested rezoning. He said'ij,e e owned the property immediately to the west of Mr. Safley's property and that there were many areas in the city where there was housing of equal density to that proposed by this develop- ment on streets as heavily traveled as the North Delta. And he felt there were regulations to take care of the possible air and noise pollution 'problems. Councilman, McDonald agreed with Mrs. Niven to some extent that the noise might not bother (0931) younger people who might live in the propqsed housing. However, he wondered how the noise 7/22/74 - 2 1.~'