04/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kingzett, involved in managing rental units, said there were several hundred single mothers in this area needing housing at rents they could afford to pay and with the advantages this project would offer - close to downtown, on public transit ~ , system, etc. He thought the location was favorable, citing other units on Willam- ~ etteStreet with which there had been no problems with traffic and noise. He said if they were involved in management of rentals of the proposed project, there would be no danger of its becoming an "instant slum." He noted other apartments in the area under their supervision and invited inspection to d~termine appearance. Ms. Jensen felt church organizations and other social services would prevent this project from becoming a slum area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul commented on the suitability of the proposed site for location of the I-B-~ single-parent housing. He cited the General Plan which indicates a residential use for this area, although it does not speak specifically to the type of housing. The Plan does encourage a variety of residential development for all age groups, and the Community Goals state a need for mingling of housing types to meet specialized needs. The first phase of this project, he said, will provide specialized housing not previously provided in Eugene. The totle project, this being the first phase, will offer a variety of housing to various age and income groups. Mr. Saul noted that the RP zone calls for a comfortable relationship be- tween professional and residential uses, and this location between the stadium, which is in operation only a portion of the year, and the office complex would provide that relationship. With regard to being next to an arterial street, he said, the city had time and again stated it would continue to encourage residential de- velopment in that situation. He pointed out the many advantages of this location - access to park facilities, access from two streets, public transportation - all ~ because of the street system. He noted that the appeal stated violation of ......... criteria with regard to traffic generated, however testimony at this hearing suggested removal of some of the provided parking space because of lack of traffic from the project itself. He said some of the parking space could be removed legitimately within the PUD framework if the Council chose to transfer some of that space to open space. Mr. Saul noted too that the appeal stated the project would result in obstruction of view toward the eastern hills. However, the only interruption, he said, would be a portion of the view toward the southeast. He added that suggestions with regard to fensing the outdoor play area, increasing size of common area, etc., could be addressed at the time of final approval of the project. Councilman Murray asked Mr. Morgan if more information was available with regard to day care and social services on a similar project in Vancouver. Also, what the additional space would be used for if parking was reduced. Mr. Morgan answered that the Vancouver project was a large one and did have day care services provided by the Province, it was not private. The extra space, he said, would go into the playground area. He added that the children would be under three years old so the playground would be geared to pre-school children. Councilman Bradley wondered if other elements should be the issue rather than land use and zoning. He referred to the $60,000 subsidy through revenue sharing funds. Mr. Saul answered that the question of whether the development would meet code standards for planned unit development was the issue at this time. Subsidication and whether this project should be so supported, he said, was a separate issue, ~, and since that issue would ultimately come back to the Council, it could be ad- ~ dressed at that time outside the context of a decision on the PUD. 7/26/76 - 4 a.J8