01-20-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schiferl said he would like to deal with the noise issue. He was referring to a comment made earlier in the evening by an unnamed person in the audience. Schiferl said he would like to make it clear his comments on noise were not meant as a scare tactic. Schiferl stated he talked to three people, including members of his family, about first hand knowledge of Alzheimer’s patients. All three of them mentioned the noise issue. Schiferl said he did not know how prevalent it is and only brought it up as a legitimate issue. There were some answers tonight on the issue that clarified the issue. Regarding the comment made by Commissioner Zisla whether noise was a legitimate land use issue, Schiferl said he felt noise is inherent in all kinds of land use issues, whether directly or indirectly. For example, traffic can be a noise issue. Schiferl said he would not pursue the issue further in this proceeding, but he wanted to clarify his thinking on the issue for the record. Baker said he agreed with Knuth’s comments and we do have to be concerned about quality of life of the residents. The Golden Pond application had similar problems when it came before the Planning Commission. It was originally proposed to leave the existing a six-plex on the site and the Planning Commission did not think it was a good use of the site. That would have blocked the view of Golden Pond from the street. The Planning Commission made it a condition of approval that the apartment building be removed. The City Council agreed and the building was removed. Golden Pond is a much better development because of that condition. Brightondale is a similar case. Aesthetics aside, Baker said he had a real concern about parking. The existing Brightondale facility did not have enough parking to meet code and is the reason for the shared parking agreement with the Rice Creek Shopping Center. Eliminating the agreement and adding twenty more units to Brightondale will cause a parking problem. Baker said his other concern was that the Planning Commission does not have a complete set of plans to consider. The Planning Commission cannot do their work when it has incomplete information. The site plan should show parking and fire lanes instead of the developer giving us verbal information. Schiferl said he would like to make it clear that, should the Commission decide to deny approval because of concerns with the Alzheimer’s wing, that we make it clear that the coop is a separate issue. The coop is a viable proposal, but the details should be considered more fully. Zisla stated that the developer made an effort to respond to the setback and the roof line issues. Zisla said he felt those were the core issues. Schiferl said he would vote against approval based on consideration of land use issues not based on emotion. Gould said he would like to reply to Commissioner Schiferl’s comments that he could not support the Alzheimer’s wing but could support the senior coop. Gould said he would welcome that recommendation and the proposals could be separated. Baker stated he thought the senior coop proposal had merit, but he still wanted to see a complete site plan. Livingston said he would like to take another look at the coop proposal and to vote on that separately. The Commission does not have enough information on the coop proposal to vote on the matter this evening. Livingston suggested the developer bring the coop proposal back as a separate issue. Baker asked for a motion on the proposal. Zisla said he had a question on procedure. If the Commission denies the staff recommendation, does that create a procedure problem for consideration of the coop issue. Will that delay the process? Mattila answered the current application is for both the Alzheimer’s facility and the senior coop facility. We would have to make a recommendation to the City Council on the current proposal. Unless the developer withdraws the application, the City Council must consider it. Zisla asked if recommending denial of the Alzheimer’s wing was possible. Also, would it be possible to recommend approval of the senior coop, subject to the concerns of I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\01-20-98.WPD 13