 |
|
|
|
BNA Committee Pages
Each committee has their own page, please click their title to learn more.
Beautification & Parks
Flower plantings, memorial trees, park clean-up
Communications
web site, newsletter
History
photos, archives
Membership
recruitment, applications, volunteers
Public Affairs
civic issues, capital improvements
Special Events
Jazz in July, Easter egg hunt
|
|
|
Beaverdale Neighborhood
Association
P.O. Box 30175
Des Moines, Iowa 50310
Phone: (515) 255-4898
bna@beaverdale.org
BNA Mission
The Beaverdale neighborhood Association is neighbors working together to promote the social welfare of the Beaverdale area by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements for the common good and general welfare of the community.
The BNA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, nonprofit organization. Your company may have a matching funds program.
|
|
The following comments are in response to the letter BNA President Bill Miller sent to the Des Moines Mayor and City Council on behalf of the neighborhood association, March 23, 2007. All comments are anonymous.
April 2, 2007
They should of built 6 big houses brick of course with 2 car garages and a pool. Everyone wants a bigger house in this neighborhood, that other stuff is gonna be to cluttered.
Good luck that'sa just my thought, keep it simple and put alot of pretty lighting and benches up the way keep business in the business area.
March 26, 2007
Dear Bill and BNA leaders - In response to the letter the Beaverdale Neighborhood Association sent to the City Council and forwarded to your members, I think it is a serious mistake for the BNA to take such a stand on this extremely divisive issue. I have been a loyal BNA member for many years and you have broken faith with, I believe, the vast majority of your members.
In your letter you completely misrepresent the opinion of the 75 percent of Beaverdale survey respondents to the Essman and Associates mail survey who said they wanted a large gathering space in this location and 67 percent who wanted open space. When you say "while the RDP...may not be ideal to every Beaverdale resident...", it implies that a only a few people might not find this development "ideal" rather than 75 percent of respondants who want something far different. Where are their voices in your letter to the city?
Do you know how many of the development's nearby neighbors oppose this development in this location? Virtually all of them. How can a neighborhood association NOT give more consideration to the neighbors living next to such a dramatic, large development? How is this in line with the claim that BNA supports "neighborhood-sensitive development." Exactly what neighborhood would this be when nearly 100 percent of the nearest neighbors oppose it?
I am so disappointed in my neighborhood association. I wish I could believe you want to represent the majority of Beaverdale residents and protect this lovely neighborhood but you have shaken my confidence. There are already excellent planned developments in process on sections of Beaver Avenue that are already commercial. Let us [see] what traffic those developments create and then evaluate our next steps for the good of all the community.
March 26, 2007
This is probably the single most traitorous act of cowardice at the 11th hour I have seen since the US Congress gave thier right to wage war to the president of the U. S. A. Contray to your contention that you were forced to make this decision because of your responsibility to the community--you merely hid behind the cloack of indiffernece until it was too late to have a public concensus of the BNA members. I wonder how long it will be until you will be compelled to move from the inhospitable Beaverdale neighborhood into a properous western suburb.
March 26, 2007
I firmly support the BNA. I want Beaverdale to be a vibrant part of Des Moines, encouraging younger families to settle there. I think the current proposal is in sync with those needs.
March 25, 2007
I have read your letter to the Mayor, City Council, and others. How can you possibly say the things you say? How can you possibly send this garbage to our Honorable Mayor and Des Moines City Council? You are impersonating a true Beaverdalian. Residents here love our community. Most here can afford to live in the new homes in the west suburbs. We choose to stay here in a community of churches, family, friends, trees, and friendly people, less traffic and less crime to mention a few reasons. Mr. Miller, you are in no way speaking for the majority of Beaverdale residents. Mr. Miller, you are NOT a long time Beaverdale resident, so do not pretend to be one. More of this comment.
March 25, 2007
The development is over-sized: "a whale in a goldfsh bowl" and will make the immediate area congested and overcrowded. Sorry to see the BNA take the position stated in the letter. I believe most Beaverdale residents will be unhappy with the result. There seem to be lots of "insider" and "cronyism" aspects. Hope my suspicions and predictions are wrong.
March 24, 2007
Thanks for sending to us by email your letter to the mayor regarding the two proposed development projects in Beaverdale. We agree heartily with your position. Hopefully, development of the two projects can proceed without further delay.
March 24, 2007
My husband and I have lived in the same Beaverdale house for a total of over ninety years. In the letter on the front page of the winter issue of the "Sidewalk", it states "The BNA voted to remain neutral." I can only ask WHY DID THE BNA BOARD WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE to change their postion on being neutral regarding the Rice rezoning ???? The proclamation that you know (without taking a poll) what we want is ludicrous. Mr. Miller, you and the board were elected to voice the opinions of the Beaverdale residents. It is VERY PRESUMPTUOUS and downright untrue to say you have my neighborhood's best interest at heart. I am a member of the Beaverdale Neighborhood Association, and I do not believe for one minute that the reason you have come out for developing the Rice grounds has anything to do with the best interests of Beaverdale or it's residents!
March 24, 2007
As much as I like the green in the former Rice School site, it is not practical for it to remain "green."
However, after looking at the plans set for a vote by the Des Moines City Council next Monday (March 26, 2007), I do not feel they represent Beaverdale.
The Des Moines Register recently quoted the owner of Grounds for Celebration as saying Beaverdale has a "village feel." That truly hit home with me.
I've lived here for nearly 19 years and love it. My wife and I have raised three children, and they have moved to other states but still speak highly of Beaverdale.
The proposal seems to me as if someone drove out to West Glen Shopping Center and said, "Heck! We can squeeze some of that into the Rice School site." It is too much in too small an area. I worked in traffic safety for 15 years and doubt the local streets could support that much additional activity. That means widening Beaver and Adams to support the traffic needs.
I suspect the next step would be to widen all of Beaver to accommodate more traffic, thereby creating a real thoroughfare. But I digress.
I oppose the current plan. Change is inevitable but it needs to fit in with the neighborhood and not vice versa.
March 23, 2007
Bill, you caputure my thoughts exactly in this memo. Well done.
March 23, 2007
Well put, Bill, and thank you so much for your concern and coordination!
March 23, 2007
We are replying to show our support for both proposed developments. Our only concern/comment would be in regards to the Rice School site. The 'current' design (reviewed at a meeting a few months back) for the commercial building on the corner is not even close to being in character with the neighborhood. Thanks for everything you do and communicating with the city on behalf of what is best for our neighborhood.
March 23, 2007
We received the e-mail copy of your letter to Mayor Cownie and others. We do not agree at all with your statements concerning the re-zoning of the Rice Field. We do not feel that you are properly representing the families who live near the proposed plan. Over 90% of those families have stated they do not agree with the plan as it has been presented. Even the Plan and Zoning Commission agreed that this plan as it is does not meet the 2020 plan for the city's growth.
We have a letter we are sending today to the same Council members urging that the re-zoning not be changed to allow commercial/retail businesses on that property. This will make too many homes in a relatively small area. We live across the street from the property in question and feel that it will be a serious traffic problem with the addition of 43 residences plus the on street parking for commercial/retail businesses. Instead of adding to the neighborhood, we feel that these houses will form a neighborhood of their without the need to interact with the current Beaverdale area. If the plans would be changed to have no commercial or retail buildings built plus less dense housing, we would be more in agreement with the change in zoning.
We are sorry that you felt the need to speak out about this issue instead of remaining neutral, since there is so much serious controversy over the plan and you are not truly representing the Neighborhood. We do not think it will "revitalize" the area but instead will be detrimental to the area.
March 23, 2007
I totally disagree with your letter relative to rezoning of the former Rice School site. I have lived in the area for almost 20 years on Ashby Avenue. I am concerned about the impact of drainage on Ashby/Wallace Lane as well as the increased amount of traffic on Beaver.
I supported the rezoning of Joe’s site. But, I agree with the zoning committee that there are too many questions and potential downsides for rezoning the former Rice School site.
I agree that development should occur – Joe’s site will add condos and I understand Boesen has another site for condos where his current greenhouse is located on Beaver. I believe we should wait to see if we can fill 2 new sites of condos and retail before adding a third site. Also, let’s continue to fill retail in the designated location farther south that is already zoned for retail.
The Rice School site is right across from Holy Trinity and Holy Trinity School – lots of kids coming to and from – the traffic on Beaver has already increased significantly and I think with the new developments, in particular at the Rice School site can make a dangerous setting.
Currently, there are drainage problems and talking with others there is a strong concern about people getting water and backup in the basements or backyards. I don’t think the city has the money to redo all of our old drainage/sewage pipes. These pipes were not built for the volume that is now being proposed to add to their structure.
I moved to the area for the neighborhood – NOT for retail. With that said, I do frequent the establishments in Beaverdale area – restaurants, bars, coffee shops, book store, hardware store, clothing stores (which is too bad we lost Bonds to one of the new developments, a staple in our community but no one seemed to care), eye clinic and I go to church at Holy Trinity.
Listening to the meetings, it seems as if everyone in support of the Rice Development Partners is located on the fringes of Beaverdale. In close proximity to the Rice Field, 90% of the community is OPPOSED to the development as laid out.
As a member of the BNA I am surprised that you are taking this stand and I am wondering at what meeting this issue was discussed and the decision made. I don’t recall getting an invitation to be a part of such discussion. If the BNA is to represent the neighborhood – and as you note it cannot make everyone happy – I suggest you DON’T voice an opinion because you are NOT representing the community of Beaverdale. I do not think it is appropriate for you to write a letter saying it is on behalf of the BNA.
I am urging the city council to follow the plan and zoning committee’s recommendation and OPPOSE Rice Development Partners.
March 23, 2007
Mr. Miller, As a member of the BNA you need to realize you do NOT speak for me. I am emailing all the Council Members and reminding them of this fact. Why you felt you could speak without polling your members is a curiosity to me.
March 23, 2007
An excellent letter that is probably long overdue. While this proposed development has caused some unrest in the neighborhood, the BNA and many residents have been involved in this process for many years. And from those efforts, I feel I’ve been well informed, have had opportunities to voice my opinion and concerns, and that the BNA has always considered the best interests of the neighborhood as a whole. Good work!
March 23, 2007
In reply to the (no subject) subject letter we want you to know that we are not in favor of rezoning the Rice site.
March 23, 2007
Thanks for supporting the development of the site. As long as it's done well, it will be an improvement over an open field.
March 23, 2007
I think the letter was very well written and I think it is great that the BNA took a supportive stance on this issue. Thank you for all the work you do and keeping our neighborhoods best interests in mind.
March 23, 2007
I believe the support of this proposal and this letter is a slap in the face to residents of Beaverdale. The survey of residents done did not show support for the current Rice Developers proposal and I have yet to met anyone in Beaverdale that is happy about this. It seems that a small group of folks will stand to profit on this at the expense of the rest of the neighbors. I urge you to withdraw your support and will be urging the mayor and city council to do so as well. Please do what is right for the majority of residents in Beaverdale, not the few who stand to profit. Let's keep our neighborhood the beuatiful neighborhood it is. If Bosen and his croonies want West Des Moines, let them move out there. Thank you.
March 23, 2007
Mr. Miller's letter should begin as, I write on behalf of myself, not the BNA! As a resident, and to the best of my knowledge still a member, I feel betrayed by Mr. Miller's letter and his homage to the Rice Development Partners.
March 23, 2007
Some of my neighbors who are BNA members have been calling today concerning this latest letter, wondering why they weren't consulted.
You know full well that I, a BNA member, was not consulted. Nor, I'm confident, were any of the other 600-plus members, except perhaps for the dozen or so who are officers, ex officio persons, and board members.
I supported what you said in your earlier letter to the Plan and Zoning Commission -- green space traffic, drainage concerns, etc. I regret that you seem to have abandoned those concerns. I trust that the members of the Mayor and City Council will have access to your earlier views along with the nine conditions set forth by the P&Z staff to improve the development.
You could have e-mailed members in advance of this notice. You could have called a membership meeting. Given all the neighborhood fear and loathing, wish you had.
March 23, 2007
As a BNA member and a long-time Beaverdale resident, I am highly disappointed in the BNA Board’s decision to support the Rice Development Partners’ development plan. President Miller asserts that there has been significant resident input into this plan. He is right—the residents have given plenty of input, but our input has often been ignored.
At the public cherret held several years ago, the development option which obtained the highest number of votes from attendees was a plan to convert Rice School Field into an enhanced park. This voting data was disregarded; the “powers-that-be” pursued commercial and mixed-use development instead.
In August 2004, a follow-up phone survey among a broad cross-section of Beaverdale residents was conducted by Essman. In that survey, 67% of residents polled preferred that Rice School Field remain open space; 75% supported a development plan with some form of community gathering space (like a central park or an amphitheater) as part of the development plan. Take a hard look at the proposed Rice School Field development—neither of these concepts is being delivered to the residents in any meaningful sense.
At the 2006 Beaverdale Fall Festival, over 700 signatures were obtained, stating the populace’s opposition to commercial development at Rice School Field. Those signatures were submitted as evidence to Des Moines’ Planning & Zoning Committee last month—yet the development plans continue.
This year, a legally required voting opportunity was offered to those residents living within 250 ft. of Rice School Field. To date, the publicly available results from this vote show that 34 of 37 respondents oppose a rezoning/land use change of Rice School Field to commercial and high-density uses, but BNA still chooses to support the plan.
Broad numbers of Beaverdale residents have spoken, time and again. Yet, in spite of this input, both the BNA and many City Council members seem intent that Rice School Field Development be erected as planned. What more must citizens do to be heard?
Before the BNA Board states its public support for Rice Partners’ development plan, I suggest they take a formal vote from all BNA membership (not mere website blogs from those of us who care enough to speak). If the majority of those votes favor the development plan, so be it—BNA has then served its obligation to accurately represent the views of its membership. However, I’m troubled by BNA’s choice to take a position on such a controversial and important issue, without first determining where its membership stands. President Miller—when you speak to City Council on this topic, please disclose that your position paper did not result from a formal polling of your constituency!
March 23, 2007
This is not the voice of the community. You should have polled the membership and viewed that as what the membership really wanted. Your best - would have been to have remained neutral. The board needs to be voted out of their positions - or do the honorable thing and all resign. his is a disgrace.
March 23, 2007
Bill and Members of the BNA Board: You made a great decision by choosing to support the rezoning and development of the former Rice School site. Change is difficult and I commend you, the DMPS School Board and the City of Des Moines for taking the initiative to provide responsible development for our great neighborhood! This development doesn’t please everyone, but it truly was a community-based effort, and I do believe you are speaking for the majority of our great community! We are fortunate to live in a community that cares so much and fortunate to have leaders, like yourselves, who are willing to make difficult decisions for the betterment of our community. Congratulations on the first bit of measurable progress since the revitalization effort began.
March 23, 2007
Mr. Miller,
Straight off your website on "why BNA". “A primary goal of the BNA is to give all Beaverdale residents an active voice in the future of the neighborhood by working closely with the city of Des Moines, Polk County, Beaverdale businesses and organizations and neighbors to implement actions that cover the major issues facing the residential, commercial and public facets of the area."
I am a BNA member and resident for 15 years. After reading your letter to the City Council I can honestly say you do not speak for me on the issue with Rice Field. I do not like that you infer that “we speak” for the BNA membership. Other than the charette and phone survey, when have you discussed this with the general Beaverdale Population? I am pro development - pro responsible development. I went to the charette and voted. The majority voted green space of some sort and were then asked to revote for development. There was a phone survey which I was not selected. I filled out surveys about what Beaverdale needs and was able to attend BNA meetings that discussed the issue with the vacant Walgreens building. Where were the meetings related to this development? Where were the articles in The Sidewalk? This development seems to have gone underground after the charette until the meeting on January 30th, 2007, when the plans were “final."
I am 100% behind the Joe’s Place development. As much as it pained me to see Bond’s closed, it was a responsible act to level a building in dire needs of repair and replace it with something that has Beaverdale character. The development at the Rice Field is not responsible development and is in no way Beaverdale character. Reading the P&Z mintues, they agreed unanimously that this was not Beaverdale character. If you have been working with the City and the developer all this time, how could you miss this?
A Jordan Creek style commercial, townhomes and row houses do not fit Beaverdale. If I wanted that, I’d move to West Des Moines. Friends of mine that have not lived in Beaverdale even say, “That’s not Beaverdale” when I describe the design. I have been waiting for years for Street Scape. Where is it? If you have some master plan, why not share it with the public instead of appeasing us like little children and telling us “great things are coming."
There are nice people on both sides of this issue and feelings have been hurt on both sides. That has been pretty evident over the past several months. Where have you been to try to reconcile? You have not taken an active role. The BNA sent a "neutral" letter to the P&Z. You sent out this letter to the City Council at the 11th hour. Why didn’t you send out a message to the BNA members to take a poll? If you were for it all along, why did you not go public months ago and help guide the neighborhood. I recognize you can not please everyone all the time, but there are so many people opposed to this development that you either missed the mark on understanding that or you just didn’t care.
So Mr, Miller, you were elected to help voice my opinions. My opinion says this development is not the right development for this site. Go back to the drawing board and come up with something less dense and that looks like Beaverdale. Please voice my opinion to the City Council. Open up to your grand plan so the residents can express their opinion pro or con instead of injecting your own. What’s next that is being kept hushed?
March 23, 2007
DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS ! LONG TIME BEAVERDALE RESIDENT. DID YOU POLL THE MEMBERS?
March 23, 2007
It is amazing that Beaverdale survived and thrived for its total existence before the Beaverdale Neighborhood Association was formed in 1990. The BNA, I am sure was intended to become an arm of people willing to donate their time and make improvements in Beaverdale originally. What was a great association at one time, has become a self serving, politically minded organization, who toadies up to those with money, ie power. What has built up these self serving folks, will also bring them down. The current controversy, concerning the Rice School Site, has polarized the Beaverdale area. The current President, Bill Miller, a Beaverdale resident for a -very few years-seems to believe in his self derived omnipotence, that he has the gaul to say he is speaking for all the BNA and that he and his buddies speak for Beaverdale. Nothing could be further from the truth! Please!! Let's hope he takes his ego and goes to play his games in some other community. Beaverdale deserves better!
March 23, 2007
When you’re adding up the people opposed to the Rice site design, count me among them. As a person whose street enters Beaver at the site, I know that from now on I’ll never be able to enter Beaver from Adams due to the heavy traffic at those intersections. I also worry about the safety of the children attending Holy Trinity across that busy series of intersections. I think we could have had a much better proposal for that site that would have benefited we over 65 people who would like to stay in Beaverdale when we have to leave our homes and aren’t ready for a retirement home but would like a one story home…….I know everyone has made up their minds on this.
PS After speaking up at the meeting at Christopher’s regarding the rezoning and being “put down” by Mr. Gudisessi, Mr. Vlassis and others there I can see why people are reluctant to speak their minds. Who wants to be made to sound like a “fool?"
March 23, 2007
Concerning the letter to City Council regarding the Rice Field development. I have lived in Beaverdale for over 30 years and you, Mr Miller, or members of the BNA Board, do not speak for me so please have the common courtesy not to give the false illusion that you do.
March 23, 2007
I agree with your position on the Rice Development. We have enough parks in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Below are comments extracted from e-mails send to bna@beaverdale.org, to BNA and MSI board members and posts to the blog that was recently disabled. Comments are posted anonymously and are subject to editing.
Jan. 30, 2007
I am one of many Beaverdale residents who oppose the sale of the Rice field for commercial development.
Des Moines has a choice to keep a green space or loose it forever to development. The Beaverdale area already has what many areas want – shopping, services, and green space within walking distance of many residents. While there is a trend in many parts of the country toward designing new communities to be walk-able with public green space, here we are poised to give up part of what makes Beaverdale the envy of some living in sprawling suburbs and denser urban areas.
I believe it is short-sighted to sell this land for development. Yes, it might provide needed funds to the school district, but it will take away a far more valuable asset to the area and by extension, the city. By keeping the land for park space, we will have the option to re-build a school on the site, and we will have the land to use for outdoor activities.
We have an epidemic of obesity in this country, and it is a major contributor to sky-rocketing health care costs. Why should we take away an opportunity for children in the area to walk to a place for an informal game of soccer or other active sport? If they have to have a parent drive them, the informal game of soccer will not be as likely to happen. It seems to me that this city has a goal of making sure that it is not possible for a child (or even an adult) to walk anywhere. We have been consolidating our schools and our parks. Perhaps “bigger and better” is not always better if it means more time in a car or school bus.
Personally, I am not opposed to a limited amount of medium-density housing in the Beaverdale area, but it doesn’t need to be on Rice field. And, I am not completely opposed to new development as long as it is in harmony with the scale and ambience of the neighborhood. But, again, it doesn’t need to be on Rice field.
I hope that the city and the school board can work with Beaverdale residents to find a way to allow this land to remain publicly owned space for recreation and/or education.
I would hate to see Beaver Avenue turn into another 86th Street. By selling this land for commercial development along with other development plans rumored, we will be fast on our way to another congested street of strip malls.
Jan. 30, 2007
I live on Ashby Avenue by the dead end and have concerns with the Rice Development Plan. I think we have enough open retail space in the Beaverdale area that we should try to promote bringing businesses to fill those vacancies. The reason my family and I moved to this area 20 years ago was for the neighborhood environment, small town atmosphere. I do not wish for it to become a series of strip malls and condos.
Jan. 28, 2007
Thanks for holding the meeting this week with regards to the Rice Development. I am unable to attend but wanted to express my support for the project. Having reviewed the proposal I believe it will enhance our neighborhood and add some exciting housing options. Having lived in Beaverdale all of my life, and attended Rice elementary, I have followed this issue closely. The character of the development is in line with the architecture and "village" atmosphere we began creating years ago with the revitalization plan.
The below comments were made in the final months of 2006.
I like the Nelson Development idea the best, except for a few items. Why do they feel that they need a large expanse parking lot, instead of breaking it up a bit into partials...and why tan brick? Why not mixtures of red - to fit in with the "Beaverdale Brick"... or at least various colors of brick. Also, my person opinion - but why the modern windows in all designs and why does everything have to look so similar (same colors, similar designs)- make it more hodgepodge - like the rest of the neighborhood... and GOD HELP ME - PLEASE NO OUT FRONT GARAGES LIKE ONE other developer shows...it's not the suburbs.... and how about leaving a little "park" somewhere
Kudos to those behind a valuable and effective public forum exploring development possibilities on the Rice School site.
I have heard from others also that the presentations went well. I have thanked Duane Van Hemert many times for allowing us to participate. My neighbor was employed by the School District for years and he said all other contracts for schools, etc. were done strictly by bid. There was no consultation with the neighborhood. Whatever happens now--we had a voice!
In regard to the Rice Partners proposal, I didn’t like the monster retail buildings they proposed at all. Their plan just didn’t seem to be well thought out. I do not feel that apartments are a fit to the area. As well the idea of underground parking, sure they may have a large number to offer the school district, but where will they get amount for the rest of the job, that underground parking will be at least $300K.
I really liked the Nelson presentation a lot and felt they were the best prepared and presented everything coherently. The amount of green space was nice and the explanation of the dollars was concise. If I had to choose, I would go with their plan despite the fact that it would be phased. I am not sure about the Live-Work idea, however.
I felt that the second presentation, Simonson, was attacked from my point of view. It seemed to me that some of those questions were planted specifically. Especially in reference to West Glen (client driven and based on their input) and the Newens Dairy lofts (the rendering was the building around the corner from the picture shown). Colby park in Windsor Heights has concerts once a week during the summer, usually of low amplification, and the residents tolerate it there. Yeah, it’s a little dense, but all things are conceptual at this point, right?
It seemed to me that the “residents” were open to the idea that all the plans are conceptual, but forget Nelson and Regency. I fear the cliché about money is applicable in this case and would rather see the site remain a field than have anything there at this point. Regardless of what happens, it is the long term affects on the neighborhood and community that matters most. I can’t help but think that the comments made about keeping out the “riff-raff” are leading Beaverdale toward a xenophobic attitude.
My thought is that if the residents wish to maintain the character of the neighborhood, then ditch the row houses and town homes and put in a corner store and do a row of storey-and-a-half houses behind with a splotch of green space to appease the hippies.
I think I may be on the path of becoming jaded by the whole public process. I understand that you can’t please everyone all the time. I think that a decision should be made sooner than later and let the winner have the spoils.
-Flustered in Des Moines.
NELSON: I appreciate saving green space/trees in NE and SW corners. Don't approve of four-and- five stories along Beaver, too tall. Not good for residents across Beaver. Together these buildings look llike a resort hotel. The court between buildings look sterile. How about making the projections on the rear of the commercial buildings an elevated walk for rear access to the businesses therein.
Row houses look like a row of barracks.
Large parking lot makes the site look like a shopping center.
Keep north and east rear yards for the residents, A walk may be a good idea, but may encourage encroachment on the neighbors east and north.
Roof lines seem to keep in the Beaverdale types of roofs.
Be careful of proposing parallel parking along Beaver. Check with Main Street Initiative Design Committee. Traffic volume may increase in the future and such parking may become hazard.
REGENCY: Looks overdeveloped. Too crowded, too boxy. Although buildings along Beaver have different facades, they look redundant, too commercial, llike the suburbs. Even the row houses and others look too much like 'an apartment complex' as in the suburbs. Flat roofs are not Beaverdale.
The triangular park won't fly. Residents may be neighborly, but doubtful they will want an entertainment venue for others than themselves. Better use that space for residents hangout.
Too many residences on the perimeter. Walk behind seems cramped between the structures and existing rear yards opposite. Not much outdoor living space for occupants. Reduce number of dwellings.
Decorative walks along Beaver and Adams nice. However, wouldn't encourage parallel parking, or bump outs. Check with MSI Design Committee. Future traffice may increase and create hazards.
RICE PARTNERS: Unfortunate elimination of space in NE and SW corners. However, they show excellent separation between commercial and residential uses, providing good transitional mix. Respects existing neighbors and avoids offensive noise to residents and furnishes separate vehicular access to both uses. Particularly llike underground parking. Also like the pedestrian circulation across the site and the access it gives to the business core to the south. Like the creativity of the elevated public area nestled by the shape of the two commercial buildings.
Like the staggered arrangement of the townhouses along Beaver. If possible, reduce garage in front of house. However, some off the side on corner houses may meet the need for variety.
Seriously consider relocating or reorienting the south commercial building north and east of the trees along Adams. Or redesigning it if necessary to provide the commercial space.
Be aware of probably increase in traffic volume along Beaver in the future when planning on parallel parking and bump outs. Check with MSI Design Committee. Bump outs may interefere also.
RICE SCHOOL LOCATION: Way too dense. Too many buildings on such a small parcel of land. The school district needs money that is obvious. But for us local residents we want a plan that fits into the neighborhood. I do not understand the parking and traffic is a major concern. There are a lot of local children walking to Holy Trinity each morning and afternoon as well as Merrill students walking home in the afternoons. I hope their safety is of a major concern to the BNA.
All the proposals presented for development of Byron Rice field, formerly site of Byron Rice school, are way too much development for the area of the land. 4.3 acres, could be a beautiful park setting, for relaxation, for adults and children to enjoy the area and each other. Look at what other communities, large and small have done for community beautification. We don't need more concrete, glass, stone, a multiple housing area and more strip mall development. It looks like the developers would stand to make tons of money at the expense of the Beaverdale Area, protected until this time from the encroachment of Big Business.
In reference to the current situation regarding the Rice Field project. Has anyone considered a community center? Put the center where the school once stood, keep the soccer field, add new playgrounds, etc. You could design the facade of the Building to represent the "Craftsman" style which is so prominent in all the homes.
I was born and raised in Beaverdale, however I now live in LA. I felt I should contribute something to the discussion.
I have lived in Beaverdale since 1928. I do not like to complain but I believe that the Beaverdale Association has an obligation to the neighborhood to preserve and maintain the integrity of the area. If that is not your mission you should be replaced. Neil Westin appears to be a young man with no interest in historic preservation and does not well represent his neighbors. Sadly there are residents of the area who believe that bigger is better and more commercial area is important. There are probably more of us that disagree with that philosphy. Beaverdale has always been a quiet, safe and friendly community of single family homes. Multible housing and more retail defeats that purpose. Please help preserve our neighborhood.
There are probably grants that can be applied for if the Des Moines School Board insists that the Rice school grounds must be sold. Most of the Beaverdale residents would favor money being found through grants and /or bond issues to save the Rice School grounds for the pleasure of the neighborhood rather than the affluence of developers. Ask the Beaverdale residents that are not transient residents what they think.
We realize the decisions are probably signed, sealed and delivered at this point, but the more discussion there has been the more we have thought about the Rice School site. We understand the need for the school district to have the income from the site, and also the desire for Beaverdale neighbors to maintain an area for the community – aka “green space.”
If there is still room for discussion – could we investigate what it would take to get a YMCA in the neighborhood? This could be a tremendous asset to the neighborhood, bringing in new families and helping older residents at the same time. Beaverdale is known for its multi-generational residents, and they could all benefit from a Y in the area – from rehabilitative classes for seniors to tumbling classes for toddlers and yoga classes for moms (me!) it just seems as if it would be a win-win-win.
We understand if “the show must go on” and we need to go ahead with the plan on the table … but if there is room for investigation, we’d like to consider a YMCA/community center for the area. If this could be an option, we’d be willing to lead the charge to investigate the feasibility of the idea. |
