Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />and low-income units. Ms. Childs noted that the plan amendment did not ad- <br />dress rent levels, only a change in residential density. She said the coun- <br />cil was only being asked to approve an amendment to the Metro Plan. She said <br />the City of Springfield was the only body which could make a zoning change in <br />this area. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald said people tend to complain about low-income "ghettos," al- <br />though it is possible to have a middle-class ghetto. He pointed out that the <br />housing in the Good Neighbor Care Center development would be new, not run- <br />down. He said his biggest concern about this project was its proximity to a <br />chemical plant. He said lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (lRAPA) recom- <br />mended against the project in a memo because the agency did not favor con- <br />structing housing so near a chemical plant. However, existing residences are <br />closer to the plant than would be proposed housing. <br /> <br />In response to a request from Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Childs explained that the <br />Planning Commission had based its conclusion on the fact that arguments in <br />favor of retaining the property in an industrial designation were site-spe- <br />cific; i.e., it is a large site with single ownership, has real access, etc. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said the arguments in favor of redesignating the property for <br />family residences were based on the need for housing in general, not to the <br />specifics of the site. She said the Planning Commission was concerned about <br />concentrating a number of low-income units in one project. The commission's <br />housing dispersal policy sets a maximum for low-income family units in any <br />one project. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said the property in question has been zoned industrial for a long <br />time. She said the Housing Policy Board wants to emphasize dispersal and has <br />targeted 10 to 40 units of low-income housing per project as a maximum. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles suggested the City might need to set a minimum number of low-income <br />units per project. He pointed out that the Walnut Grove housing development <br />is directly across the street from a railroad track on which chemicals are <br />transported regularly. <br /> <br />Ms. Ehrman said the council was being asked to make a land use decision with- <br />out any guarantee that its recommendations about how the land should be used <br />would be followed. Mr. MacDonald asked what initial requirements the council <br />could make. Ms. Childs responded that the MPC needed the council to identify <br />the major issues, either for or against the amendment, for later review by <br />the commission. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller said he was concerned about land east of the road dividing this <br />property. He said that if housing were constructed in this area, there would <br />be no buffering from the chemical plant. He said he was also concerned about <br />the area becoming a ghetto. He said housing which is 20 to 30 years old can <br />easily become a ghetto. He suggested that housing in this development should <br />be for both low- and middle-income people. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 13, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />