10-21-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Gould has also attempted to compromise with the residents also. However, the residents have one major disagreement with Mr. Gould. That is the location of the proposed Alzheimer’s unit. We do not disagree with the plans for the shopping center property. The other reason we did not have a written agreement is that they built the original building so another story could not be added. Another reason we did not have a written agreement is that they had reached the density limit. The City Council decided that only 72 units would be built instead of 101 units. The residents were reassured by members of the City Council that the residents did not need a written contract because the density had been reached and no more building could be done on the site. Therefore, the residents did not feel that pursuing a written agreement was necessary. In fact, a Planning Commission member said he did not think be any good anyway. There was no reason to do it. The problem now is that this proposal is trying to circumvent the density. If the park land is not given to G & P Properties, G & P cannot build this unit. G & P’s properties do not touch each other. The only way to join the properties is by giving them park land. The reason the City got the park is that the residents got smaller lots. Olson stated that two years ago he was interested in putting an addition on his house. Olson said he wanted to put a bedroom above the garage. Olson said he was informed the density limit for his lot had been reached and he could not build the addition. What will the City Council do if a resident abutting the park wants to build an addition? Will they give that resident some park land so they will have a large enough lot to build an addition? If the City is going to do it for G & P, they should do it for the residents. G & P’s property is two separate pieces of property and should be treated as such. The shopping center was a going concern twelve years ago and we did not foresee that someone would buy it and try to join the two pieces of property. Using park land is circumventing the density limits decided by the Planning Commission and the City Council. We feel the proposal should be denied on that basis if not because the proposed building is too close to the homes. Mr. Gould is in this for a profit, but these are our homes. Olson said the proposal for the shopping center may be a pleasing idea but the shopping center property would make a pleasant addition to the park. Olson said the residents thought an Alzheimer’s unit was important, but feel their quality of life is being threatened. Olson directed the Commission’s attention to the “More Concerns” list. The residents suggest taking an existing floor of Brightondale and remodel it for an Alzheimer’s unit. Take the units that would be lost and tack them onto the coop units. Olson asked the Commissioners to come to their homes and stand on their decks and see the lay of the land. There is room for an addition in the front of the Brightondale building toward Rice Creek Road. G & P could make a court yard between the existing building and a new building. The City Council could grant a variance to let G & P build closer to the street. That would solve the parking and congestion problems. The entrance could be changed and the buildings could be joined. Olson said he did not believe G & P had considered any alternatives. The residents made the agreement with the original developer and they believed G & P Properties bought the agreement when they bought the property. That is usually the way it works. If there is an agreement on a piece of property, the agreement does not have to be written to be legal. Verbal agreements can be verified to be legal. Please do not be pressured into doing the wrong thing just to develop the shopping center. We would like the City to separate the two properties into two separate ideas. The Planning Commission could grant the approval on the shopping center and deny approval for the Brightondale building. The residents would like more study to be done. We feel very strongly about this. Please look at the drainage when you visit the site and see if you think a swale would work. Remember the proposed holding pond may seem like a good idea but the pond would take a big chunk out of the park. The existing pond is about 20 feet by 30 feet. The proposed pond would be at least 100 feet by 200 feet. Please come to our homes and have a cup of coffee. Thank you for listening to us. Grace Dedrick, 2023 28th Avenue NW, stated that half her property is behind the existing Brightondale building. This proposal would affect the other half. Dedrick said her main concern was the drainage and said her property was the most affected by the drainage. The rain on July 1 measured four inches. Dedrick said her backyard was flooded on the southeast corner. Dedrick said the landscape rock in that area was washed away and 3 inches of mud accumulated. Dedrick said she had to remove the remaining rock and clean up the area. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\10-21-97.WPD 9