By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Despite concerns, planners approve downtown development and rezone NE land to R-4

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

CubFan

This is horrible for downtown. Downtown McMinnville has been the crown jewel of McMinnville, and they just ruined years of hard work preserving it and adhering to historic design standards.

Bob

There is a shortage of affordable projects. The primary reason is economics not zoning ordinances (those developments cost more to get approved and built than they can rent or sell them for). So, in their infinite wisdom state legislators chose to wipe away property owners rights to legally challenge the economic or quality of life damages these too big, too little parking buildings will cause (4-story buildings with limited on-site parking on lots half the size they should be). That will negative affect traffic safety and property values within five or six blocks. That will become very evident after these buildings are up and lived in. But that will be too late.

Wouldn’t it work better for ALL taxpaying citizens (including affordable housing residents) if state and local governments teamed up to redirect maybe 25% of homeless funds to people who are actually working to get ahead in life.(without raising taxes)

Because of crazy state laws, Mac’s planning commissioners were only given the option to vote yes/no. I sure would have preferred no and passing the issue upstream to the city council. What bothered me in watching the broadcast was that 3-4 commissioners openly praised themselves for taking an important step towards helping fix maybe 120 people find housing while showing no sorrow at all for the damage their decision will cause surrounding property owners. Or the businesses, employees, and customers that count on 2nd street lots for parking.
So they were celebrating helping 100 people while ignoring the damage they had just inflicted on several thousand people? Some positive changes need to start happening.

The Tea Smith

Happy to see that this made it through and I hope it continues into development. Putting workers and customers within a stones through of third street is fantastic.

tagup

My understanding is that this project is listed as affordable housing….. not exactly the target market that 3rd street is looking for.

CubFan

The Tea Smith,
I guess I don't understand how removing parking from the Coop Church lot, and building a 72 unit affordable housing complex on one of Mac's busiest streets will put workers and shoppers within a stone's throw of 3rd Street? The people qualified to live in this complex would probably NOT be the demographic who are interested in most 3rd St businesses? Please enlighten me.

CubFan

Bob,
I'd love to know who the 3-4 planning commissioners were...do tell! It's too bad their position is appointed and not elected. They could have a hard time defending their decision.

Bob

Cub fan, you’ll have to watch the broadcast to see for yourself. But I will give you one hint. I am done buying books downtown.

Otis

So wait...
Jeb supported the development of his current 3rd St property into the Gwendolyn Hotel...which was going to be a multi-story, sun blocking, fancy, super expensive, beast right on 3rd St...way bigger than what's currently being proposed at the church site.

The city denies the Gwendolyn application.

Now he's got an axe to grind with the city because they turned down his project...and maybe he also doesn't want anything that might "taint" the value of his property on 3rd St....like an new affordable housing apartment building 2 blocks away?

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like a conflict of interest.



tagup

Otis-you must admit that the Gwendolyn had a lot more upside to offer the 3rd street businesses than an affordable housing project.
Seems that the “historic preservation“ argument is pretty inconsistent.

Otis

I guess 3rd St biz workers will just have to live in all the other apartment complexes on 2nd St.

Oh, wait. There aren't any.

None on 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.

As for the historic landmarks committee approval for new projects, yes....the city isn't consistent at all:

The Kent Taylor Civic Hall's modern design on 2nd St.
The Modern Police building on 2nd.
The Modern Fire building on 2nd.
The Oregon Mutual Modern construction on 4th.
and the poster child of chucking all historical guides out the window is the First Federal Bank's Modern design on 3rd.

I guess all municipal buildings get a pass from being 'historical'....as well as banks?


tagup

There are a number of Apartment complexes on 2nd Street around Newby School. Just not in the business core area. I’m not convinced apartments in the downtown area are in the best interest of the business community. But that ship has sailed.

Otis

So all the other types of housing are good in the business district?
Just not apartments?

I'm sure if you polled the biz folks on 3rd they would agree that more people walking, shopping, and living in the biz district equals more $$$ in their pockets.



tagup

I'm not sure what other types of housing are in the business core, but I doubt many new additions are planned or would have the same impact on parking & traffic as this project.
I doubt your "poll" would show that business owners care if customers live in the core area, and I find it hard to imagine affordable housing renters will be a regular presence in the downtown restaurants & shops.

Bob

I started out with a statement that I am in favor of a 22 unit affordable apartment building on this site. What I am totally opposed to is a 4-story 74 unit apartment that supplies maybe half the parking needed by residents. It is the size and the negative effect that will have on surrounding property owners -and 2nd street drivers that I object to.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable