01-20-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

are not going to consider 1979 or 1985, what is the proper density for an R-2 project? The proposal would not qualify on that basis. Olson distributed a document to the Planning Commission. Olson stated that, if the Commission is not going to consider 1979 or 1985, he would have difficulty figuring the density is for R-2. If we count 1979 where there was a variance, Olson said his analogy of the homesite owner might be something to think about. Olson said he would go over some of the points on the document he distributed for the record. Olson referred to item #2 on the document, “Is greenspace still important?” Olson said that when they created the buffer zone, the Planning Commission considered that our backyards were small. The homes on 28th Avenue, the park and Brightondale were all part of the same PRD. The buffer zone or greenspace that was put in there was done because of the small lot sizes of the homes on 28th. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission considered a church project. Olson said he was interested in the Commission’s comments when they considered that project. The commissioners commented on how they appreciated the trees and greenspace the Baptist Church was going to retain. One Commissioners commented that it was good that the parking lot was not going to be so large that it would eliminate the greenspace. Olson stated the Planning Commission should apply the same criteria on the Brightondale project that it used on the church project. Putting a 70 foot by 220 foot building into that buffer zone will eliminate the mandatory greenspace that the Planning Commission and the City Council approved in 1985. Olson stated the 28th Avenue group does not think the Planning Commission was wrong in 1985. Olson said he was concerned about the City establishing a precedent if the City starts putting a building on every greenspace. Olson asked if anyone had spoken with the present residents at Brightondale. That is not a land use issue, but it is a consideration. When the buffer zone was created, they created it not only for the 28th Avenue residents, but for the Brightondale residents. The dining room at Brightondale was constructed so the residents could look out into the greenspace. The yard for the Brightondale residents on the new plan looks like the exercise yard for a penal institution. Recently, one 28th resident went over to Brightondale to ask assisted living for a relative. Brightondale staff gave him a tour of the building and the manager pointed out the view from one apartment. So they must feel the view is an amenity. In fact, in your packet of supporting material, Olson said he included a couple of pages he took out of the Brightondale manual. Olson said he highlighted areas where the Brightondale management promotes the landscaping and the courtyard. Olson said he assumed that it is easier for management to rent the apartments on the west side of the building overlooking the greenspace than it is to rent the apartments on the east side. Their rate structure seems to infer that. How will the proposed building affect the long range appeal of Brightondale and its occupancy in the future? Is it a good use of land space to put a building in for Alzheimer’s patients who will never see the light of day? Putting a building 25 feet away from a three-story building wipes out the east exposure. Fifteen foot trees on the other side eliminates that exposure. People will be paying about $50,000 per year to live under those conditions. I think we need to have some compassion for the residents living there. We have spoken to several elderly residents of Brightondale and they are frustrated because their concerns and opinions are ignored. A few of them were brave enough to speak out at our neighborhood meeting we had in the Brightondale dining room last fall. They were opposed to the addition and concerned about the high rates. In 1992, when G & P purchased the property, they gave the Brightondale residents the choice of a huge rate increase or moving out. Olson said he checked with some people who moved and they were paying between $700 and $750 per month for a one bedroom apartment before 1992. The rates have now increased to between $1,400 and $1,900 per month. One couple we talked to said it cost them $3,000 per month to live at Brightondale, not including the garage or special services. Olson referred to his comments in the document on parking. The seven residents do not cause the parking problems. Brightondale is not fully occupied currently. The big issue is the visitors. The Alzheimer’s people are not going to drive and will probably have more visitors. The residents on 28th know what the current parking situation is. The proposal is to be zoned as parking for convalescent, and Olson said he did not know I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\01-20-98.WPD 9