01-20-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Baker asked Mattila about the parking for the park. Mattila responded the Park and Recreation Commission met with the developer and the neighbors and they worked out a proposal to share parking on the proposed coop site. Gould responded that they would donate twenty-four stalls on the Rice Creek Center property for park parking. Bessler asked if they would be marked as such. Zisla called for a point of order because he could not follow the remarks going back and forth without coming forward. Zisla asked what about the zoning for multi-family. Mattila responded that would be an R-3 District. Zisla asked what is the density in an R-3 district. Mattila said eight to ten units per acre with a 30-foot height limitation. Zisla asked why is there a three-story ninety unit building in an R-2 District. Mattila responded the City overlays any R-1, R-2, or R-3 District with the PRD ordinance in which there is no height limitation. Zisla asked about the backyard setback in the R-2 district. Mattila responded 5 feet. Under a PRD ordinance, the setback is 25 feet or the height of the building, whichever is less. Zisla said, then in an R-1 zone a house can be within 5 feet of the backyard and the neighbor could do the same. Mattila responded affirmatively. Zisla asked about the backyard setback in an R-2 District. Mattila answered 5 feet. Zisla stated there is no question that this is part of the PRD. The problem here is not Brightondale, but the undersized single family homes that are too close to their lot lines. Livingston asked if the single family homes should be able to use the park and add another unit to their property. O'Brien stated this problem comes down to the fact that years ago something was done and the residents were led to expect a certain result and O'Brien said he did not feel it was fair to change that. O'Brien said he did not have a problem with the senior coop, but he does have a problem with the Alzheimer's unit. Zisla asked if O'Brien felt that way because of what people were led to expect before or because of the nature of the development and the site itself. O'Brien responded objects to the nature of the development and the site and that they led the residents to believe there would be a greenspace. Knuth said most of the comments made this evening were on an emotional level regarding views. The neighbors on 28th thought certain restrictions existed. The residents moved to Brightondale expecting the amenities such as the view that were in place. Knuth said she thought we should honor that. Zisla said often people had come to Planning Commission meetings and objected to a proposal because it would spoil the view or another amenity for them. The problem is those folks like what happens on property that does not belong to them. The benefit of view cannot control what the property owner can do with his property. Technically, the argument about covenants is that in 1985 there were such vehicles as covenants, but no covenants were done in this case. To say there was an agreement there is not true. There were no written agreement or covenants. Two Planning Commission members who were on the Commission in 1985 explained what they thought the agreement was. That causes some problems because the restriction the neighbors thought was there never existing in writing. O’Brien asked Zisla if he felt the PRD provided those restrictions. Zisla answered yes, but the PRD is subject to change. Technically, that is the problem with a PRD. People may think the PRD protects them, but in fact the City has the authority to change it at any time. Baker said all parties to the PRD has to be considered. The City cannot amend part of the PRD without considering the entire PRD. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\01-20-98.WPD 12