04/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

expressed the idea that this project may be a "social disaster." Since it was legally unclear, he thought there should be clarification and more information before a decision was made. Councilman Williams cited "ground rules" between the Joint Housing Committee and Council - that granting of funds or expenditures is the prerogative of the Housing Committee. Although Council has been advised of such grants and consent requested, the original grant of authority is that of the Joint Housing Committee. As a member of that body, Mr. Williams thought it necessary to view the approval of the funds very clearly tied in with authorization for this particular project. Con- versely, he said, if this development was denied. it would imply that funds would not be authorized for the project. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to deny the appeal and approve the project as proposed. II-A-I Councilman Keller said there was no question about the need for this type of specialized housing. In judging whether this project would provide a stable, healthy environment, he said, he was not sure there was anyone present who was in that particular living situation or age group. "Healthy" could be 40 people living together with a common cause - "stable environment" could be met by living a year in one place. He assumed the developer had examined the market to the extent that the project was needed or he wouldn't be willing to build. He shared the concern of those who felt the project was not exactly right, but in talking about low-cost housing, perhaps this basically could provide that. Councilman Murray recognized the need and had no questions about the location, but he still thought there was not enough information to be sure that it was workable. He wanted to know how similar housing works; if successful, what make it so. Councilman Williams thought objections could be raised to anything. He said he had watched submission after submission, opposition after opposition come before the Joint Housing Committee. This project was selected from a number of others after modifications of play areas, parking, etc., and he was willing to accept it. He didn't think another would come along that would be any better. He said it was the Council's choice to reject this one, but if so it shouldn't be on the assump- tion that a better program would be forthcoming. -- Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against the motion because she didn't wish to commit the city's funds in the face of testimony from the Childrens' Services and the Women's Commission that this was an unsatisfactory project. However, she recognized that there could be changes in design so she was rejecting it with the understanding that it could be brought back if adjustments could be made. Mayor Anderson asked if it would be necessary for the applicant to file again for another conditional use permit if the appeal was upheld and the project denied. Mr. Saul said if the project was denied, the applicant would have to wait one year to resubmit. Councilman Bradley had concerns similar to Mr. Murray's and wanted delay. He said he didn't subscribe to the statement that authority was granted to the Joint Housing Committee to expend funds. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to table to the May 24 Council meeting for discussion on funding of the project from revenue sharing money and to give opportunity for presentation of more information as to social concerns. -, 4/26/76 - 6 ~.1.0 " ,