10-21-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

higher on the Brightondale property. That is the cause of the drainage problem. The building would be 78 feet wide; imagine what the pitch on the roof would be. The building would actually be the height of a two-story building. The building would be the same height as the two-story homes. Therefore, the residents of the two- story homes would look out their second-story windows and see the roof of a building that is twenty-five feet away. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the lot sizes. We are opposed to the portion of the proposal closest to the homes. We are not opposed to an Alzheimer’s unit. The homes on 28th Avenue were there before Brightondale was built. Olson stated the discussion about evergreen screening is a side issue. It would be important should the building be built. A six-foot spruce tree only grows about six inches per year. Therefore, in about twenty years the trees would provide screening. We would lose the natural area in that portion of the Brightondale site. Olson stated the proposal would have an impact on the property values. A property that backs up to Brightondale was sold about six months ago. It was on the market for eight months and sold for a reduced price. The houses on the other side of the street sell very quickly. Olson said that if the proposed building is approved, the homes on 28th Avenue could become rental property. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have some appraisals done to determine what would happen to property values. Perhaps G & P Properties would be willing to reimburse the ten property owners for loss of value to their property. Olson said the twenty-five feet between the property line and the proposed building may not be enough for a buffer. Twenty-five feet is less than the width of this room and does not provide much room for planting trees. Also, a swale would be cut in there that would gather the water and rush it down through the back yards. The back yards are a virtual river when it rains. Part of the problem may be the holding pond. The developer is talking about knocking a hole in the berm so they can flood the park. Olson said he was concerned about the pipe the developer is suggesting. The developer is planning for a ten-year storm. That is two inches in twenty-four hours. We have had that much rain in half an hour often. The proposed storm sewer system is not large enough. Who is going to guarantee that these homes would not be flooded? The pipe size is a problem. Olson said the window air conditioners at Brightondale make a lot of noise. The proposed building would have a roof system. If the system is lower than the buildings around it, the noise would bounce off the taller building. Therefore, the proposed building would increase the noise level. Olson stated Brightondale has a serious parking problem. Vehicles for Brightondale park on 28th and 27th. If the 22 proposed parking stalls are going to be used for the proposed building, where will the parking go for the existing building? On-street parking on 28th and on Rice Creek Road needs to be banned. Vehicles cannot get in and out of New Market safely because the sight line is impaired by parked cars. The proposed addition would make these situations worse. Olson stated that, looking at the City Council minutes, it was not the builder who decided to reduce the number of units in Brightondale to 72 units. The City Council decided on the 72 units. The Council decided the congestion and parking problems in the area could not handle more than 72 units. Olson said he had copies of the minutes of those City Council meetings and could provide copies. Olson said Brightondale was originally planned for the site of the proposed Alzheimer’s unit. The residents on 28th and the developer reached an agreement where Brightondale would be moved to the other side of the site. Brightondale was originally going to be four stories high, but it was decided to reduce the height because of the impact on the neighborhood. Later the residents and the City Council agreed on the tuck-under garage at Brightondale. The garage did raise the building height, but the residents tried to compromise with the developer. The last thing the residents agreed to was the berm that was to be screened with trees. The original PRD called for a privacy fence. The original developer asked the residents to agree to a berm instead of a fence. Olson said someone asked the why we do not have the stipulations the resident agreed to in writing. The answer is that the original developer was easy to work with and was anxious to satisfy the residents. Mr. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\10-21-97.WPD 8