Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(""\ F <br /> <br />f...." .......: <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />JUNE 26, 1979 <br /> <br />_. <br /> <br />After much discussion of this, the Planning Commission voted to oppose <br />this proposed project for the following reasons: <br /> <br />The Commission is concerned as to whether this is the best use <br />for this property because: <br /> <br />I. There is a traffic problem in this area now, Pine Hall <br />Road is narrow and is the only access in and out of this <br />area; <br /> <br />2. This project is too large for this small congested area <br />of the City; <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />3. If developed and not properly supervised, this project <br />could reduce the value of the existing properties; <br /> <br />4. There is already one low-income project in the area which <br />has not been properly supervised and controlled, thus <br />creating many problems; and <br /> <br />5. This project could bring in more low-income families from <br />other areas, thus increasing the City's welfare case loads. <br /> <br />We hope that you will consider our comments when your agency discusses <br />this project at its meeting June 28. If we can be of further assistance, <br />please let us know. <br /> <br />Mr. Rountree's Presentation <br /> <br />1. changing of housing patterns does not, in itself, change "people <br />values"; <br />2. there is no real need for housing projects of subject type; <br />3. there is a need, and emphasis should be directed accordingly, to <br />bring existing sub-standard housing (i.e., individual or single- <br />family residences) up to standard; <br />4. the present citizens and property owners in the area cited, when <br />they located and built their homes, felt assured that the area <br />was a good and suitable area not only from a safe investment <br />standpoint, generating satisfaction and pride in home ownership, <br />but also an area with an atmosphere inherently desirable for the <br />responsible raising of and caring for their families; <br />5. the development of the "Martinsville Apartments" project, at the <br />site indicated, would not only "sandwich" these concerned citizens <br />and their properties between two like complexes (i.e., the <br />Rivermont Apartments and the proposed "Martinsville Apartments"), <br />with an adverse effect upon area property values as well as upon <br />the "character" of the neighborhood; <br />6. traffic generated by the addition of the "Martinsville Apartments" <br />complex would be intolerable; <br />