|
<br />cussion. However, she said she left and did not hear any of the discussion, so
<br />felt she need not abstain at this time.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 2, 1976 were received as
<br />part of this record by reference thereto.
<br />
<br />Public hearing was opened.
<br />
<br />I-A-S
<br />
<br />Speaking against the project and in favor of the appeal were Mary Milhaupt, 2570
<br />Spring Boulevard, who read a prepared statement on behalf of the Women's Commission;
<br />Craig Smith, 440 West 23rd Avenue, Friendly Area Neighbors, who also presented a
<br />letter from Paul Marshall, 2415 Willamette Street; Nancy Anderson, 415~ River
<br />Road, Lane CQunty Chi1drens Services; Leslie Childress-Ullman, lB4S~ Univeristy
<br />Street, part-time city parks worker; Sue Thomsen, 1965 Brewer, who also read a
<br />letter from Thomas Moen, former Childrens Services manager. Primarily, objections
<br />were based not on the concept, but specific structural design and location. They
<br />were concerned about light and noise from neighboring establishments, traffic
<br />hazards for the small children occupying the project, lack of provision for counsel-
<br />ing services and day care services, lack of privacy for parents. It was suggested
<br />that some of the space spent for parking be used instead for expanded play area
<br />since low-income people occupying the housing would not have the ratio of cars
<br />normally applied in other projects. Also suggested was the dispersal of this type
<br />of housing throughout the city, using older, larger houses.
<br />
<br />I-A-6
<br />I-A-7
<br />
<br />I-A-7
<br />I-A-B
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Speaking in favor of the project and against the appeal were Betty Niven, 3940
<br />Hilyard Street, Joint Housing Committee; Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, developer
<br />of the project; Ed Kingzett, 777 High Street, Suite 340, Associated Management, Inc.;
<br />Edna Jensen, 41 Madison Street. Ms. Niven explained that the project came into
<br />being through an offer from Mr. Morgan in response to a request to use part of
<br />revenue sharing funds to meet the need for this type housing. She stressed that
<br />it was for housing assistance, not to meet social needs. The location was chosen
<br />close to downtown, near services and public transportation. Constraints on con-
<br />struction were necessary to keep the units within the income level of those for
<br />whom the housing is proposed. It would provide an alternative for single parents
<br />now residing in motel units and, even though small, would be constructed to higher
<br />than code standards. Ms. Niven thought some changes in the design probably could
<br />be made, up to the point where it would unduly increase the rent. But she felt
<br />the location could not be improved - the neighborhood was receptive to the idea
<br />of integrating this project into the area. The suggested use of older homes, she
<br />said, would result in rents beyond the means of those for whom the housing is in-
<br />tended and would not increase the supply of such housing, a housing supply which
<br />needs increasing. She added that if this project was rejected, there would be no
<br />housing at all of this type.
<br />
<br />I-B-2
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Mr. Morgan noted that none of the people criticizing the project had asked to're-
<br />view the plans with him. He recognized the street and traffic situation, but
<br />declared this project was to provide housing for people in really tough circum-
<br />stances, highly transitory citizens, and designed to meet a specific emergency
<br />need. He agreed that the amount of parking space provided may not be necessary,
<br />but it was provided in order to meet the city's parking requirements. The project
<br />conformed to zoning and housing dispersal policy and had unanimous approval of the
<br />Planning Commission; it was within walking distance of markets and other services;
<br />available to bus system. He said that he worked with the child care services
<br />with the conclusion that a project of this size in no way could support a child
<br />care center. However, the common area was enlarged to provide a facility for some
<br />public service group to work with the mothers who would be living there. He said
<br />the total valuation of the project now was at $300,000 and may exceed that amount
<br />because that price was set over a year ago. He said he was willing to go ahead
<br />with the project if the Council chose to deny the appeal.
<br />
<br />~l7 4/26/76 - 3
<br />
|