Proposed Apartment Complex/golf Links & East Natoma
#1
Posted 16 April 2013 - 05:29 PM
#2
Posted 16 April 2013 - 06:54 PM
While I definitely see a need for such a complex, I have to agree with a comment I saw at the end of the story that three stories for seniors doesn't seem very practical. I guess they'll have elevators? I know a family member that will soon be needing such housing, but I can't see them doing stairs
Did the neighborhood try and oppose the zoning change when it occurred?
#3
Posted 16 April 2013 - 07:34 PM
#4
Posted 16 April 2013 - 09:34 PM
#5 (Cheesesteak)
Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:31 AM
The proposed complex stands about 39-and-a-half feet high, four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home. The site is “somewhat depressed,” meaning it sits about 10 feet below street grade.
How can a 3-story apartment building only be "four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home?" I can understand the concern of the neighobrs who live on Smith Street - but I'm not sure that building something a few feet taller than a two story home is going to destroy their view. I also don't get the huge concerns about traffic and crime - it's a senior complex.
#6
Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:54 AM
I don't get it. The Telegraph article says:
The proposed complex stands about 39-and-a-half feet high, four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home. The site is “somewhat depressed,” meaning it sits about 10 feet below street grade.
How can a 3-story apartment building only be "four-and-a-half feet taller than a two-story home?" I can understand the concern of the neighobrs who live on Smith Street - but I'm not sure that building something a few feet taller than a two story home is going to destroy their view. I also don't get the huge concerns about traffic and crime - it's a senior complex.
I was wondering that, too. Are they thinking since it's affordable senior units that means crime?
The traffic concern is probably the amount of units and the fact that it is proposed as an active senior complex, which means there will be cars. If a lot of the residents will be retired and on fixed incomes, I doubt they will interfere with the school traffic.
Does anyone know where to find artist's renderings or layouts of the buildings besides what's on the facebook page? Maybe the residents could at least find some compromise with the placement of buildings, etc.
#7
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:20 AM
#8
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:26 AM
Crime at affordable senior housing doesn't come from the seniors... it comes from their kids and grandkids who often take up residence in their apartments because it's cheap and grandma has a hard time asking them to leave. Often times, seniors on fixed incomes, have children and grandchildren with low incomes too.
That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.
#9
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:30 AM
it probably isn't allowed. if its a senior facility, the age is restricted to 55 and above. like that Diamond Glenn complex over on Sibley Street. or the senior apartments in downtown Sacramento. crime free, all of them.That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.
#10
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:32 AM
That's a legitimate concern and if it's being proposed as 55 and older then that shouldn't be allowed to happen through the lease requirements.
it's hard to get rid of them because technically the seniors are allowed to have family come and visit, and also stay the night. It's hard to enforce who is staying with who, and for how long. Probably won't be a big problem in Folsom, but I have worked at a couple complexes in Rocklin where there were issues with drugs and loitering.
#11
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:37 AM
Another great day in the adventure of exploration and sight.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-
#12
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:40 AM
it's hard to get rid of them because technically the seniors are allowed to have family come and visit, and also stay the night. It's hard to enforce who is staying with who, and for how long. Probably won't be a big problem in Folsom, but I have worked at a couple complexes in Rocklin where there were issues with drugs and loitering.
I am sure there will be a ton of drugs used daily there - and loitering - of course there will be a lot of that as well- Heck it is for Seniors - they take lots of drugs and do not move very fast - right ?
It is really not hard to enforce no extended stays if the unit management monitors it.
Another great day in the adventure of exploration and sight.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-
#13
Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:57 AM
While the lot is partially 'below grade' to Golf Links at some spots, it's significantly 'above grade' to its neighbors on Smith. For those homes a three-story structure is closer to 4-5 stories. It's also not construction allowable under the current zoning; they are asking for special consideration to accomodate them.
There are lots of good reasons to have affordable senior housing, and for the most part, the neighborhood is supportive of the concept if they could keep it to two stories bu the developer refuses to consider anythign less than a three-story building. But from a planning perspective, it goes against existing policy and practice to build this way adjacent to one-story homes, and it goes against best practices to build senior housing over a mile and a half from stores and services - the project is locked into being someplace where only driving gets you places - that's not smart development for low-income seniors, that's a convenience only for land sellers and project developers. This project would be far better placed somewhere like Cavitt, which is undeveloepd, zoned, for the use, and adjacent to both shopping and medical services.
The project is also dependent on a conditional use permit, which is not something you would normally do for permanent construction like a three-story building where one isn't allowed by the existing zoning. If the use ends up being a problem, it's pretty hard to revoke the permit in such a case. with two additional condo projects already slated for the lot next door, this experiment in use could go wrong and the neighborhoosd will have to live with it.
I don't appreciate having to sound like a NIMBY, because I do care about my community and I'm willing to look at bigger pictures. I see value in such a prioject. But this is just a bad idea and I think it's a bit disingenuous as well since there are better sites in the city that don't require special treatment. And I'm afraid if the city can do this, it can do anything it wants with any piece of land in the city - that's not planning...it's the absence of planning.
#14
Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:17 PM
The same could be said for the residents in the historic district with their feelings about the subsidized transitional and affordable housing units being clustered in that area.There are lots of good reasons to have affordable senior housing, and for the most part, the neighborhood is supportive of the concept if they could keep it to two stories bu the developer refuses to consider anythign less than a three-story building. But from a planning perspective, it goes against existing policy and practice to build this way adjacent to one-story homes, and it goes against best practices to build senior housing over a mile and a half from stores and services - the project is locked into being someplace where only driving gets you places - that's not smart development for low-income seniors, that's a convenience only for land sellers and project developers. This project would be far better placed somewhere like Cavitt, which is undeveloepd, zoned, for the use, and adjacent to both shopping and medical services.
The project is also dependent on a conditional use permit, which is not something you would normally do for permanent construction like a three-story building where one isn't allowed by the existing zoning. If the use ends up being a problem, it's pretty hard to revoke the permit in such a case. with two additional condo projects already slated for the lot next door, this experiment in use could go wrong and the neighborhoosd will have to live with it.
I don't appreciate having to sound like a NIMBY, because I do care about my community and I'm willing to look at bigger pictures. I see value in such a prioject. But this is just a bad idea and I think it's a bit disingenuous as well since there are better sites in the city that don't require special treatment. And I'm afraid if the city can do this, it can do anything it wants with any piece of land in the city - that's not planning...it's the absence of planning.
#15
Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:21 PM
The same could be said for the residents in the historic district with their feelings about the subsidized transitional and affordable housing units being clustered in that area.
Do you think we can trade? We'll even throw in drug and alcohol counseling for your elementary school, no charge.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users