HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.20.1972 Memo RE Planned Unit Development, Forest Green Pahse IIHENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON
EI'/GTTVEEPTNG . A R C H I T ECT U R E . PLArl,rN/,1,/G . S TSTEMS . ECONOT,I/CS
Ittly Z0, 1972
The Honorable Maycr, Member of the Village Council and
Members of the Village Planning Commissron
Members of the lv{aplewood Human Relations Commission
Village of Maplewood , Minnesota:
mGElvrijl
JUL 2
/h"4,/
VILLA
1
/.\ -
37%
,/rlro
UI
MAPLEiVOOD
Re: Planned Unit Development, Forest Green Phase II
Gentlemen:
At the July 17, Planning Comrnission meeting, the commission directed a sub-
committee to draft a Planning Commission recomrilendati on to the Villag'e Council.
During the discussron held concerning the subject project, a lrimary -concernof the planning cornmission was the population density which. would be generated
by this project. TLe developer had anticipated this concern and was prepared to
offer an alternative density. Unfortunately, the commission was not taking
testimony from the public at this meeting, so the developer was unable to ad-
vance his new denr-ity proposal.
Accordingly, in the hope that we can eliminate the concern over population density
and, at the same time, make the sub-commitlee's task easier, Mr. Givens has
requested us to offer the following as his reviseci request for Phase II of the lorest
Green Planned Unit Development:
Stage l: 69 units designed specifically for senior citizens
Stage 2: I00 units ciesigned for low-moderate income families.
This revision rvould expect to generate the following population:
Number Proiected PoD ulation Pro ected
Unit Type of Units Per Unit
SeniorCitizen-1BR
Family - 1 BR
Family - 2 BR
family - 3 BR
Total i69 363
The previously approved Phase II allowed 192 units with a projected population
density of 366. Mr. Givens'revised proposal results in 23 ferver units and a
lower projected population. The revised population figure al.so falis rvithin the
69
30
64
6
79
5l
20s
28
1. 15
t.7
J.L
A7
OAaAHA . DE,VVEF . pHo€NtX, OALL-L:^ - CH4F.LOTii . WASHINAiON.D-C. . P€NSACaLA . t.lNN€APaLlS ' NORFOLX.YA.' HELENA ' T.XARKANA
PoDuiation
Iuly 20, 1972
page two
Planned Unit Development, Forest Green Phase II
guidelines which the Planning Commission suggests be established as part of
the proposed land use plan.
An integral part of the revised proposal is the request for variances in the size
of units and off street parking to accommodate the Senior Citizen facility. It
Is therefore requested that the Planning Commission recommendation include the apprcval
of these va.riances as recommended by the Dfuector of Community Developlrlent in
his report of July 7L, 7972, i.e.: 21 spaces of off street parking and no garages,
and a unit floor area of 550 square feet for a one bedroom apartment.
To assist the Planning Commission sub-committee in draftingE recom-mendatioi'I
to the Council, a sample resolution was submitted to the Planning Commissiotr prior
to the July 17 meeting. It is the developer's suggestion that this sample resoluticn,
revised to incorporate the information contained herein, be used as a guide by the
sub-committee in drafting their propcsal. It is felt that this resolution not only
contains the ingredients necessary to allow this project to qo forward, but als)
coritains satisfactory performance on the part of both the present owner and the
proposed developer.
Very truly yours ,
HENNINGSON DURIIAM &HARDSON
Robert L. Pope, A.I
representinq Mr. Ar
DF
c hie Givens , Sr.
N,P/dc
l'
TO:
FRoM i
SUBJECT:
DATE :
}lIiMORANDlft
Village )lanager
Director of Community DevelopmenE
Planning Conmission Request for Planning Report on Fred Moore Speclal
Use Pernit Revised Proposal Resulting f rorn July LO, 1972 meeting.July 1I, 1972
Situat ion
At the July L0, 1972 Planning Commission meeting the Fred Moore Special Use permit
Transfer Request referred by the Village Council vras discussed by the Commissionvith the proponents (11r. Givens people and lIr. lloorers people).
?his Offieets report rilemorandun of July 6, 1972 vas the focus of discussion, At
the neeting the proponents advanced a ner,r proposal designed to'be both flexlble andto bring the proposal more into line vith the Planning Comnission's proposed
Comprehensive llunicipal Plan guides now being advanced.
New Proposal
The follor.ring proposal r.;as advanced for Connission considaratj-on:
"Change in dr.;e1ling unjt character to:"
69
34
77
L2
Senior citizen
1 bedroo:n dr,rel
2 bedrooin dru'el
3 bedroon dr.rel
TOTAL DK'ELLING
bedroon dwelling uni ts
nq units
nq
ng
lir
1
1i
IT
1i
U
units
units
TSL92
Planninq Cons iderat ions
1 The following subjects appear to this office to be related to the revised pro-
Posa1.
(1) ProJect population - density
(2) Public transportation increased needs
(3) Reduction in off-street parking denand
(4) Reduction ln bullding bulk coverage of 1ot
(5) Increased need for facilities in housing for senior citi.zens
(6) tlousing type rnix
Revised Proiect PoDulation - Densitv:
The revision in this 0fficers opinion could be projected to generate the
f ollowing populatlons :
)
1
,
Type Unit
Senior Citlzen
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroon
3 Bedroom
No. of Units
(1 Bdr) 69
77
t2
1. 15
1.7
3.?
4.7
79
58
246
56
Projected Pop/Unit ProJ. Pop.
192
Based upon the above population projections
rhat the revision proposal would produce a
on the Phase Il 12 acre portion.
it would be this
projected density
439
0ffice's calculations
of 36 people/net acre
-{s regards the density of the totaL Planned Unit DeveJ-opment it ls this Officers3alculation tha! the total projected pc.rpulation of Ehe total development including
Phase I and Phase II \,rith this revision r,rould be 709 people distributed over an
18 acre tract which results in a density of 34 people/neE acre..
fhe Planning Conmission proposed land use plan as referred to in the July 6 rnemo
irom this office jndicates a planned population density range for the Site bet\reen
19-30 people/net acre.
3. Public Transportation I'ieeCs lncreased:
It would be this Office's judgrnent that \,/ith the advent of possible senloritizen housing and the resulting population therefron uould nost probably
\-,r:eale a denand for increased public transDortation as a resulE of Ehese
peoples limit.ed mobility both economically and physically and-their reliance
upon the public transportation systen for mobility.
Public transportation is in reasonable proximity and accessibility to the
proposed site develoDnent. If the area develops as planned by the CoflLnissionin their land use plan for the area, then the \ril1age should press for publictransportation routing along Beebe Road to North St. paul Road so as Eoprovide convenient public transportation facilities in closer proximity !ohigher denslties of populations which affords more efficienE utilization ofthe public transporta!ion system..
\. Reduction in Off-Street parkin e Denand:
l.]ith rhe
request
for the
elenent of senior cltLzen housing in the revislon the proponents wouldconsideration of a reduction in Ehose off-street parkin; f;cilitiessenior citizen portion on1y.
ThLs office believes that the requirine
which nust be a garage unit) for senioifollowing reasons:
of 2 off-street Darking spaces (one ofcitizen units is unreasonable for the
1 Accordlng to vehicle
dwelling e:;per ienc e
demand fop resident
registration statistics in relation to occupant typeindicates a substantial- absence of off-streei prrtiig
orsneci vehic 1es .
The
shi
age
p due
level of
to:
this occupant type presents difficulties in vehicle owner-
t
a
b
c
llnltation of income to afford acquisition, maintenance, lnsurance, etc,
physlcal health condltlons of person
insurance compahy policy provisions regulating or restricting auto
insurance coverage of elderly drivers
Based upon the previous two items the absence demands would then cause the
undue iraste of land for parking and buildings which are not only unwarranted
but result in land not being assigned a use value which r,rould have nore
value to the senior citizen resident if used as open space, hobby rooms,
or leisure activitli space.
This offiee does not irnply elirnination of parklng but rather supports a
reduction. Evidence exists that there l-s some ownership and that gu6.sE-
visiEor parking is \/arranted. This Village has no sLandard for such but
this office r,rould consider that 3 off street parking spaces/each 10 dr.relling
units or increnent thereof. Thus it r'rould be this office's vie\n that 2l
spaces rvould be satisfacLory to serve the senior citizen.elenent. No garages
for this element voul-d be required in this Officers opinion.
5. Reduction in Buildinq Bulk Coverase;
3
b
The revised proposai would
building bulk eoverage for
assumptions:
in this Officers judgm€:nt result in a reduction in
the Phase II portion based on the following
accrue to the
considerations should be
occuDant type. For
Senior citizen housing vrith a reduced parking and garage requir:anent.
The rernaining dvelling unit mix of lesser 3 and 2 bedroorn units l/ould
result in less floor space presumably being needed within the building.
In addition, if these assumptions are true then more land will
open space net of the site.
should be noted that a revjsed site plan would need be provided
as a result of these building conditions if such is approved
6. Increased Need for Facilities in Senior Citizen Housin q:
Iloreover, it
and approved
I,Iith the advent of Senior Citizen housing additionalgiven at the outset to account for the naEure of theexample, this Office vrould consider that:
a Elevator: any building involving senior citizen housing of 2floors should contain a passenger elevaEor for convenj.ence tto facilitate mobiJ,ity for the occupanfs
or more
o occupants and
b. \o 2 L/2 Storv l3uilding: Due to occupant mobility problems due to age or
buildings should have at-grade floor
teps upon entrance. Such is necessary for
wheel chaired occupants. It is noted hereto sider.ralks and building entrys are necessary.
health senior citizen housing
entry level. Thus avoiding s
those senior citizens who arethat ranps fron parking lots
\-, c. Corulunity Roons:Due to the lack of reobility ior this occupant rype it isessential tha c
to provide for
coxununity meeting rooms and hobby areas be provided in order
these peoples needs in terms oI leisure tine activity.
3
d. Securltyl A s ecuri t y systen is needed withln the bullding in order to
lnsure privacy for these residenEs and freedom frorn peddler and solicitor
type nuisances.
c flre Safetv: Because of this occu pant type basic lmmobility there ls needto provide automalic alarm system with rnagDetic closing fire doors in ail ha1lcorridors so as to contain fire and prevent time delay spread. Further, there
1s need to consider the need for spinkler systern installatiorr throughout
the building to provide a fire safety compensaEion for fire evacuation delay
due to occupant mobility.
f. Reduced Iloor Area/Senior Citizen Dr.rel1in Unit: The proponents lndicafe
the desire to have considered the minlnum floor area reducEion per seniorcitizen dwelling unit. The current code provides and requires a minimum
fl"oor area per unit of 500 square feet/efficiency unit and 650 square fcet/
1 bedroom unit.
The proponents claim is reasonable, However, it would be this officers
Judgment that the minimum a11or,;ab1e floor area/uni.t (senior citizen)
should be no less than 550 square feet/ 1 bedroom unit and no less than
500 square feet/efficiency unit.
7. Housing Type lllx
The revised propo;al affords a better mix of housing types, in this Officers
opinion, and atteixpt to r,rore closely aecornplisir the Ilousing Goal and ObjeeEr'.ves
of the "P1an f or llapler.rood.rl
Recomiendation:
Based upon Ehe proposed "Plan" this Office believes thaE it should use it as abasic guide for evalualing all proposals including this one.
Moreover, the original conditions outlined in the .Iuly
are stil1 advanced for consideration by the Conunission
proposal.
6, 1972 Office memorandum
in their revier'r of this
The issue of mix of houslng types into the neighborhood is nor,r surfacing and thecommission can begin to see the issue of r,rhether there ought to be any guidelinesnlx and achleving balance of housing opporrunities wiEhin the neighborhood andcom.uniEy. htithout guldes the Village should expect the proposed housing goar tofail and consideration should be given to revising iE sho;ld the corunission notagree r.ri th it for such would only be paper bol<lness if not used for its intende.l
PurPose.
on
4