Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.09.1972Speci al lvlHRC Meeti ng 5 /9 /72 Present: Chairman Broady, Ms: Grant, Kampf, Hughes, l,{old, Larsen Messers: Jessup, Lowery, Bransford, Ray,Ashworth Guests: Jim Lammers, Norman Undestad, Joel Romain Developers Jim Horst - Maplewood Review Eugene White - North Maplewood Home 0wners Assn Bai I ey Sei da - Staff Fi rst I tem on the Agenda: Criteria. Cri teria drafted 5/2/72 discussed and refined. Copy attached.s to be noted and kept in mi nd that criteria 'is s ubject to revision,her by addition or deletion, as experience warrents in the future.eria as drafted will be used to evaluate the "Raditz" proposal evening. Criteria could be given to potential developers. Don A "Special use" permits can be used to regulate or control many services. They are issued in "unique" situations. J oh n Bro a dy (to set tone of eveni ng's presentation) The MHRC approved resolution to be presented to the Village Council;it is by nature a "statement of poiicy". Commission's purpose isquite clear. We do feel the Village should encourage housing for a wi de s pectrum of citizens. It i wh et C ri t th i s The counci I which would resoiution. rel ati ve to asked us to develop some cri teri a for low rent housing tend to freeze out the nore general statement in the [,rle were also asked to make some specific commentsthe project that Mr. Undestad has before the Counci l . four one 3/story - 3 bednoom - 23/unlt structures12/story - I and two bedroom - structure.(lst three floors wou'l d be "fami1y" units) We have met to establish the cri teria and tonight to refine andthen apply this criteria to the Raditz proposal. Copies of the Raditz staff reports were given to the Commissionerspreviously. The commission has also spent quite a bit of timeduring the last four years delving into one aspect or another of housing. Radi tz Proposal Devel opers Basically: a A How far have they proceeded with HUD Cannot s ubmi t appl i cati on unti I they on the I and from th e Vi 11age. application? h ave a clear go ahead -more- a A 2-Special Raditz Meeting 5/9/72 If HUD money was not avaiIab1e, what alternative plans do you have?If they cannot be HUD funded they would go el sewhere. Shoul d be kept 'i n mi nd that one part of the "package" coul d be funded and one might not. AIso that different parts of the "package" could be handled under 221D-4 or 207.//tl/////(Asked of the Commissioners) Have we taken a survey to determine the need of low to moderate income housing and housing for the elderly?0ur survey was on "attitudes ". Is there or is there not a need in Maplewood for such housing? The Comm'i ssion is on record, b mode ra te i n come housi ng when i physi cal and social developmen //////0n what basis beyond the land woul d be a reasonab le pl ace to HUD and peopl e that are cl ose a A a A y res olt .i s int. (se do you bui I d uti on, favori ng I ow to accordance wi th sounde cri ter.i a and resolution). a A to this in fact defi ne th at this a devel opment of this type? i n f ormat i on . rise"totalComment: 0ne three fami ly bedroom structure and the "hi would be the on 1y subsidized structures of the Radi tz package. a A [^lhat about the mai ntenance and liveability over a span Management i s key to both supervisory and mai ntenance t^lell -qualified res i den t manager; salary about $.l2,500.project, no mai ntenance or caretaki ng; woul d, however, mai n tenan ce. o f t i me ? p rob I ems ! Di rect supervise (first answer gave us to understand that custodial ririnimal . Latei padded statement with following): Caretaker in each of the Iowin the hi ri se, Maintenance uni t, per month. Comment: Can envi sion nece tower structure. lloul d you go to a l ower care woul d be structures; two poss i bl y three be on the ratio of $3.75 Per ri se would ssary changes e structure? A. g. just el de 11y in P rob ab I y no t.a. 0pen a. A. I and use was not pl anned for. How about totai site being used for housing rather than the envi s i oned offi ce bui 1di ng? Rents would be the obstacle, office structure would be the obvi ous money maker. Do you anticipate Maplewood residents moving into this complex as opposed to outs i ders ? Yes (7s%). a A -more- 3-Special Radi tz Meeti ng 5 /9 /72 a A a A l,Ioul d you cons i de r was turned down by Yes. other sites in Councii? Maplewood if the Raditz location Have you I ooked at others?Yes. The site proposed, however, seems to be the only reasonable one for the type of project land use proposed. Comment: Return to the investor of 6% guaranteed profit in the 236 deve) opment; bas ed on ful I occupancy. (0ther questi ons and answers appl ied to cri teri a and attached) Maplewood Homeowners Assn objections to the proposal: (main) --No access to Raditz Ayenue --No sh oppi ng center wi thin wal ki ng d is tance --The 20-25 si ngl e fami l y residences in and around the site would be s queezed for space --The one family residences would bear the brunt of the assessments; curbs , storm sewers , water, si dewal ks etc. $40 to $50 per squarefoot is expected. l.loul d these changes Not in the ambitious have come anyway?a A --Some pri vate property are now. to be condemned. to any high density devel opment sense woul d they a Is the Home 0wners Assnin that area? Yes. have opposed a A If proj ected assessments werethis project? satisf ied, woul d No, b ecaus e of pri v ate homes pa ttern whi ch not outri ght makes dangerous. th ey approve access to thenew traf f i cdifficult if //////////// John Broady wili be Commission spokesman onThursday, May I1, at the special hearing called for the Raditz proposal . He will make Commission recommendations. It should be stated as a prelude to any statement that suggestions are not from a thorough study. l{le are commi tted to the "concept". Next monthly meeti ng ; J une 6th. Mqyor and Council will be with us. Mari a Larsen, Secretary Mapl ewood Human Relations Commission Especial Iy i mportant as our Counci I Ch amb e rs lvlr. Wh i te MHRC Cri teri a as applied to "RADITZ" Proposal 5/9/72 I . RES I DENT POPULAT ION The proposed development shouid make provision for Iow to mode ra te to h i 9h -modera te i ncome res i dents . -- IT DOES In any development, 10% of the units should be made availablefor I ow and moderate i ncome housi ng. -- IT DOES a b c Needs of shoul d be the I ow gi ven i ncome and pri ori ty i n el der'l y ci ti zens of Map lewood occupancy. --THEY WOULD Family units should be spaced or scattered rather thanhigh density. d - -To high a "fami 1y" population --Bui I di ngs too close togeth er--children ori ented famil ies onhi rise wi th el der'l y renting can work a hardshi p, i n many in too smal I an area. the first three fl oors of thethe remai n ing nine floors above, ways, to the el derly tenants. 2. SOC IAL DIMENS I ONS b c The devel opment shoul d notof di fferent cultural andof the commun i ty. Informati on about theto encourage commu n i ty i mproved hous i ng. physi caily segregate residents soci a l backgrounds from th e rest devel opment shou'l d be di ssemi nated resi dents to avai I themsel ves of --BY NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLACEMENT IT WOULD. The development should avoid the concentration of peop'l e representing the same cul tura'l and economi c background. --UNKNOl^lN AT THIS TIIYE d --POSSIBLY -mo re - a. An effective ed ucati onal proces s shouid be ini ti ated so that Mapl ewood residents are prepared to absorb people of differentcultural and social backgrounds into the community. --COULD BE INITIATED 2-Cri teri a vs Rad i tz 3. DESIGN & MAINTENANCE a The and --IS NOT devel opment should be proposed areA i n wh ich compati bl e with the existi ngit is planned. adequate sanitary and maintenance servicesbTh ere shoul d beprovided. --"sanitary"; unknown qual ity - - "mai ntenance " ; di s turb i ngl y - - "ma nagemen t " ; q ue s t i onab I e at the moment. ques ti onabl e c The structure shoul d be a phys i ca l asset to the community. --l,'lhi le the devel opment "package" is pleasing on the does not fit in well with its surround.ings and manysingle fami ly res i den ces would s uffe r esthetical ly cl ose proximi ty of the devel opment. 4. FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO OCCUPANTS wh o I e i tof the from the a. The and --n i I provision should be made for year round recreational open space areas for chi ldren: (al so no projected use of any open s pace) I n door recreati onal facilities shoul d be envis i oned forthe devel opment's sen i or ci ti zens and pre-school chi ldren. b --"open" s pace in building (hi rise bo th elderly citizens and childre pl anned areas of recreati on for e n;it not n ot feasible for use by compa ti b I e; no chiIdren or e lderly.her c. Appropri ate tra ns portati on facilities shoul d beavailable to the residents of the development. --NOT AT THE MOMEIIT BUT A POSSIBILITY d. School.s , shoppi ng faci i i t.i es and other publ i c servi cesshould be convenient to the residents oi the housingdevelopment. --"Schools"; o.k.--]!hopping"; hardship to elderly; possibly to fam.i lies.Ciosest area would be about 1/i'n\le of Iighway type-wa1king.--"Public Servr'ces,, j moot point whether-public sirvii:e, suih'as poiice and fi re. depa rtmen t are adeq ua te to properly - - cover a devel opment of th i s s i ze . M.L.