HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/1994 AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
June 28, 1994
7:00 P. M.
CITY HgtJ.
MAPLEWOOD ROOM
Call to Order
Roll Call
Approval of Minutes
a. May 10, 1994
Approval of Agenda
Communications
a. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood - Phase Three - "lax-Increment Financing
b. Annual Report
c. City Tour - Tuesday, July 19
Unfinished Business
a. Meeting with City Council
New Business
a. VOA - Assisted Care Living Facility, Cope and Castle Avenues
b. Rosewood Estates - Assisted Care Living Facility (no report included)
c. Crime Prevention Coalition Meeting - Carol Nelson, Maplewood Police
d. Age Requirements - Senior Housing in Maplewood
e. Interviews
Date of Next Meeting
a. July 12, 1994
Adjournment
MINtrlT. S OFTHE
MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND RFDEVELOPMENT AUTHORFI~
MAY 10, 1994
1. OALL TO ORDER
Cha~erson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. ROLL OALL
HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Tom Connelly, Gary Pearson, Larry Wl~tcomb
City Staff: Ken Roberts
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. December 8, 1993
Commissioner Wlzitcomb moved approval of the minutes of December 8, 1993 as
submitted.
Commissioner Conne11¥ seconded Ayes--all
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Whitcomb moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Connelly seconded Ayes--all
5. COMMUN[CAT[ONS
There were no communications.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood - Phase Three - Tax-Increment Financing
(Section 11-29)
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. David Hesley, accountant,
and Bruce Mogren were present representing the applicant. Mr. Roberts explained
this is being reviewed without the actual site plan because the applicant needs to
quickly complete the tax-increment financing application process. Since the developer
has not submitted a site plan to the City yet, Mr. Mogren explained the anticipated
site plan for this phase of the development. Mr. Hesley said Phase I has
100% occupancy and Phase II is preleased at 90% of occupancy. Staff said a market
HRA minutes of 5-10-94 -2-
survey will be required as part of the process for tax-increment financing to document
that there will be enough demand from seniors for these units.
Commissioner Pearson moved the HRA recommend adoption of the resolution that
gives the developer 100 percent of the increased tax revenue (tax increment) from
this project for 15 years on a pay-as-you-go basis. Approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. The City may change the amount of tax-increment financing after the collowing
are done:
(a) The developer and City determine the total cost of the development.
(b) The developer shall provide a market study to the City documenting there
will be enough demand from seniors over 59 years old for these units over
the life of the bonds. The City must approve this study.
The City Council must approve the Comprehensive Plan change, conditional use
permit for a planned unit development, any reduction in parking spaces, and the
final design plans.
Commissioner Cormelly seconded
Ayes--Fischer, Connelly, Pearson
Nays--Whitcomb
Commissioner Whiteomb said he voted no because it is based on a specific purpose
and not a general public purpose. Mr. Whitcomb felt the tax-increment funds could be
better spent elsewhere in the City, such as our deteriorating areas of the City.
b. Annual Report
Commissioner Fischer discussed with the HRA the issue of enforcement and
compliance of the truth-in-housing ordinance. She suggested the HRA may want to
consider ideas for enforcement of this ordinance.
Commissioner Whiteomb moved approval of the Annual Report (March 199S-
February 1994) with the following addition on page 4-Working with the Council:
'~vVe look forward to our upeorning meeting with the City Council, If we feel there is
a need for additional guidance from the Council, we will make a request for a shirt-
sleeve work session."
Commissioner Pearson seconded
Ayes--all
HRA Minutes of $-10-94 -3-
c. Meeting with City Council
The HRA discussed this upcoming meeting. No action was taken.
d. Commercial Property Study
Ken Roberts presented ~he staff report and discussed it with ~e HRA. Commissioner
Fischer explained the Planning Commission's recent work on this study. No action
was taken by the HRA.
8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING.JUNE 14, 1994
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Community Design Review Board and HRA
Director of Community Development
Meetings with the City Council
May 23, 1994
The City Council would like to meet with each of the City's Boards and Commissions.
The City Manager told me that there are three available dates: December 5, February 6
and March 6. Please let us know if you cannot meet on one of these dates. The
meetings would be from 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Maplewood Room.
..................... T---T ........................ T---I' ,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand - Associate Planner
Maplewood Assisted Care Living Facility
White Bear and Cope Avenues
June 14, 1994
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
VOA Care Centers of Minnesota is proposing to build a 62-unit assisted care living
facility. This facility would be north of the Cope Avenue fight-of-way and east of White
Bear Avenue. (See the map on page 12.) There would be 53 studio units, 6 one-
bedroom units and 3 two-bedroom units. The building would be three stories high. The
siding would be vinyl with brick accents. There would be a tunnel connecting the
proposed building with the Maplewood Gar, Genter. The applicant would use this
ttmnel as a storm shelter. VOA also plans to build an eight-foot-wide trail along their
south property line. (Refer to the site plan and building elevations on pages 16-17, the
enclosed plans and the letter on page 18.)
VOA is also proposing the following changes to the adjacent Maplewood Care Center
site: (VOA owns the Maplewood Gate Genter.)
1. Build a wooden fence around the trash receptacle at the west side of the south
parking lot.
2. Replace the wooden fence along the east lot line with a solid, eight-foot-tall
wooden fence. (This was a neighbor's request.)
3. Replace the fence along the north side of Cope Avenue with a berm and four trees.
(This was a neighbor's request.)
4. Remove the two storage sheds that are south of the building.
Revise the Sherren Avenue driveway and parking. There are 27 existing parking
spaces along the south side of this drive. VOA proposes to add more asphalt and
restfipe this drive for 10 parking spaces and a drop-off lane along the south side.
There would be 18 parking spaces on the north side of this driveway. VOA also
plans to narrow the drive entrance from 33 feet to 24 feet.
(Note that the south ends of the new and old parking lots on the landscape and grading
and drainage plans are different from the site plan. The site plan is correct.)
Requests
VOA is requesting that the City do the following:
1. Vacate the undeveloped alley between Castle Avenue and the vacated Hazel Street.
(See the map on page 15.)
2. Change the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
(See the maps on pages 14 and 15.)
Approve fewer parking spaces and garages than the Code requires. The Code
requires that VOA provide 124 parking spaces--two for each living unit. Sixty-two
of these spa.es must be garages. VOA is proposing 40 open parking spaces and no
garages.
Approve a variance for the dwelling unit sizes. VOA is proposing that the efficiency
units have 375 square feet and the one-bedroom units have 465 square feet. The
Code requires at least 580 square feet for each unit. VOA is also proposing that the
two-bedroom units have 610 square feet. The Code requires at least 740 square
feet. (See the letter starting on page 22.)
Approve a variance to the City's density standard for studio units. The City does
not have a density standard for efficiency traits. The City uses 1.1 people per unit
for studio (efficiency) units. VOA is proposing to use one person per unit for their
studio units. (See the letter starting on page 22.)
6. Approve the site plan, grading and drainage plan, landscape plan and building
elevations.
BACKGROUND
The VOA had applied for approval of this project with 66 units in 1993. The Planning
Commission and Community Design Review Board recommended that the Council
approve the project. Because of higher than anticipated costs, the VOA withdrew their
application before City Council action. The previous request included the vacation of
Cope Avenue and the possible purchase of City-owned property to increase the VOA's
site size. VOA is no longer requesting that the City vacate Cope Avenue or buy City
land.
· ' DISCUSSION
Alley Vacation
There is no need for the undeveloped alley on this site. VOA owns the property on both
sides of the alley The alley vacation would allow them to build the proposed care
facility as shown on the site plan. The City should keep an easement over part of the
east end of the alley for existing underground utilities.
Zoning Map Change
Rezoning the VOA site to R-3 would be consistent with the City's land use plan. The
land use plan shows R-3(H) (residential high density) for this site. (See the plan on
page 13).
Parking Authorization
The City has approved reduced parking and garage requirements for all past senior
housing developments. (See the parking for other senior Projects section on page 10.)
The new VOA building would have less parking per unit than the other senior projects
in the City, but would have the same parking ratio as the recently approved Rosewood
Estates senior project (Lakewood Drive and Maryland Avenue). Most of the residents at
the VOA project will not drive. Parking is primarily for visitors and staff.
The VOA project is similar to an assisted living project for seniors in Roseville called
Rosewood Estates (associated with the Maplewood Rosewood Estates). This project has
68 units. Staff has visited this project at different times and days. They have had
between 9 and 14 cars parked there. The proposed number of spaces should be enough.
If a problem develops, VOA can add more parking.
Room Size Variances
The City's minimum room size requirements were designed for typical family
apartments. Assisted-living facilities do not require room sizes as large as typical
apartments. Typical apartments have more people per unit than assisted-living facilities.
As stated in the letter on page 22, a single room is easier to get around in because of
the physical or cognitive impairment of the resident. Another characteristic of an
assisted-living facility is that there is a large amount of social space. Approximately 50%
of the building area would be resident living quarters, the remaining 50% would be
made up of common areas for dining, social programs and activities. On December 13,
1994, the City Council approved floor area variances for Rosewood Estates. Rosewood
Estates proposed 425 square feet for efficiency units and 525 square feet for one-
bedroom units.
Density Vadance
The applicant has explained that, based on statistical data, efficiency units have a
maximum occupancy between .9 and 1.0 people per unit. Maplewood does not have a
standard for efficiency units. The City uses 1.1 persons per unit for one-bedroom units.
The applicant's figures are based on factors unique to this resident profile, such as the
turnover rate of units and unexpected departures for hospitalization. Considering the
size of the studio units (375 square feet) and the nature of the occupants, it does not
seem likely that there would be more than one person residing in each studio unit. The
applicant would meet the City's density requirements for one- and two-bedroom units.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the resolution on page 26. This resolution vacates the undeveloped alley
north of Cope Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and the Maplewood Care
Center. This vacation is subject to the City keeping a drainage and utility easement
over the south 10 feet of the east 30 feet. The City should vacate this alley because
it is in the public interest. It is in the public interest because:
1. There is no need for this alley.
2. The City does not build alleys.
3. The City has a policy of vacating unneeded alleys.
Bo
Approve the resolution on page 26. This resolution changes the zoning of this
property from R-1 (single-dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple-family residential).
The City bases this rezoning on the findings required by the City Code and that the
R-3 zoning is consistent with the City's land use plan.
C. Approve 84 fewer parking spaces than Code requires and no garages, since:
1. Most of the residents would not drive.
2. The City has allowed fewer parking spaces for similar seniors housing
developments.
The property owner shall add off-street parking if the City determines there is not
enough parking.
De
Approve the resolution on page 27. This resolution approves a 205-square-foot
floor area variance for the studio units, a 11S-square-foot floor area variance for
the one-bedroom units and a 130-square-foot floor area variance for the two-
bedroom units. Approval is based on these findings:
E
1. Common areas compensate for the reduced unit size.
2. There are fewer people per unit in senior-housing facilities than in
conventional apartment buildings.
3. Larger units can be more difficult to get around in for a resident with physical
or cognitive impairment.
4. The City approved floor area variances for Rosewood Estates.
Approve the resolution on page 28. This resolution approves a variance to the
City's density standard to use one person per unit for efficiency units. Approval is
based on the following reasons:
1. The applicant presented national statistics showing occupancy rates between .9
and 1.0 people per unit for assisted living efficiency units.
2. The City does not have a standard for efficiency units in senior housing.
Approve the site plan, grading and drainage plan, landscape plan and building
elevations (stamped April 13, 1994) for the Maplewood Assisted Care Living
Facility and the changes to the Maplewood Care Center site. The City approves
these plans subject to the following conditions:
1. This review must be repeated in two years if the City has not issued a
building permit for this project.
2. All construction shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community
Development may approve minor changes in the plans. The Gommunity Design
Review Board must approve major changes.
3. Gomplete the following work before occupying the building:
a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction.
b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards.
c. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space. Handicap-
parking stalls and signs must follow ADA requirements.
d. Install continuous concrete curbing around all new drives and parking
lots.
Complete the following for staff approval before the City issues a building
per,uit:
Submit plans for the fence along the east lot line and for the trash-
enclosure.
Revise the grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans to reflect
the parking lot design shown on the site plan. The erosion control plan
shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District
Erosion Control Handbook. The utility plan shall show any fire hydrants
required by the City Fire Marshal. The City shall not issue a building
permit until the City Engineer approves this plan.
c. Revise the site plan to show the eight-foot-wide pedestrian trail as a paved
d. Revise the landscape plan to:
(1) Show the parking layout as proposed on the site plan.
(2)
Show a landscape screen south of the existing Maplewood Care
Center parking lot. This landscaping must be at least 80% opaque and
six feet tall. (code requirement)
e. Provide documentation to show that trees will be planted on site at a total
value of at least 1% of the project's construction cost.
Parking shall be paved according to the site plan, not the landscaping or
grading plans.
6. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health,
safety or welfare.
be
The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the
required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished
work.
c. The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any
~shed work.
All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community
Development may approve minor changes.
6
" CmZEN COMMENTS
We asked the surrounding property owners for their opinion of the previous proposal.
We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 31
properties, we received 14 replies. Seven were for the proposals, five were against and
two had no comment. We did not send out surveys for the new plan.
Those for the requests had the following commentS:
It vacates Cope Avenue. Putting the street through would not be in the best
interest of the neighborhood. Also want to know how the lot behind will have
access - from Hazel or Van Dyke? They mentioned using the City property on Van
Dyke and Cope for a park. Is this in the planning? Nice idea for a small green space
set in kind of a park. I object to any idea of having access to the parking lot on the
south end of the nursing home from Cope Avenue. At the time the nursing home
was built, it was stated that the home would have no access this way. We do not
want delivery trucks using the neighborhood streets, nor any other traffic to or
from the home or the new building using it. They should change the south parking
lot of the home to green space and have all parking on the north end. Move the
dumpster out of the south lot also. Make all deliveries from the north side.
(Niezgocki - 2271 Hazel Street)
2. I do not want the traffic Cope Avenue would bring to our street if it were to go
through. (Garry - 2261 Hazel Street)
3. It would be a good buffer zone for Highway 36. (Lockery - 2256 Hazel Street)
4. I would like to see Cope Avenue extended to White Bear Avenue. (Lindgren - 2250
Hazel Street)
5. The assisted living facility would be the most desirable use of the property.
(Anderson - 2249 Craig Place)
Those against the requests had the following comments:
When, oh when, is the nursing home going to quit making us a "buffer'? We are
not against senior housing per se - against being squeezed out and a lower value of
home - we have realtors proof! The frontage road - cannot hold more traffic - or
for that matter more noise - (from trucks, etc.). Their wood fence is not a noise
barrier!l Right now we have a vacant HUD home at 1922 Castle - another to the
east of us is going soon! Why not have them take the three of us - and put in a
courtyard - and underground tunnel to connect them?? makes more sensei We will
protest loud and dean (Th,mines - 1928 Castle Avenue)
2. Added traffic on Hazel Street North. (Chiconis - 2264 Hazel Street)
We still would like to see single-dwelling homes in this area. If that is impossible,
we cannot comment on any plans that the VOA might have without seeing what
they have in mind. Besides, they really haven't been very good neighbors in that
they have not taken very good care of their property and fence along Cope Avenue
and our property line to the point of it being an eyesore in our neighborhood.
What's to stop them from bringing down our neighborhood even more? (Gehrke -
1917 Cope Avenue)
4. I want Cope Avenue to go through to White Bern Avenue. (Bambach - 2256 Craig
Place)
8
.. REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Area: 2.73 acres (2.87 acres with the bonus allowed for extra landscaping)
Existing land use: Undeveloped
Property Owner: Volunteers of America Care FaciIifies and Care Centers, Minnesota
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Existing parking lots for Maplewood Care Center
East:
Maplewood Care Center and houses on Cope and Castle Avenues. The
Maplewood Care Center is a three-story 156-bed nursing home.
South:
Cope Avenue right-of-way South of the right-of-way is a house, an
undeveloped lot (privately owned) and City-owned lot on the comer of Cope
Avenue and Van Dyke Street.
West: Castle Avenue (frontage road) and White Bear Avenue
SITE HISTORY
On February 1, 1968, the City Council vacated Hazel Street from Cope to Castle
Avenues.
On June 26, 1969, the City Council approved building and site plans for the Maplewood
Care Center.
On January 20, 1972, the City Council denied the alley vacation. They intended to
review the alley vacation again after the City resolved the question of extending Cope
Avenue. (At the time, the Council was considering whether to build Cope Avenue to
White Bear Avenue.)
On July 11, 1983, the City Council changed the land use plan to delete Cope Avenue as
a collector street from White Bear Avenue to Ariel Street.
On August 28, 1989, the Council gave preliminary approval to VOA's request for
$5,300,000 in tax-exempt financing to buy the Maphwood Care Cente~: This approval
was subject to VOA making improvements to the building and site.
On September 25, 1989, the Council vacated Sherren Avenue between White Bear
Avenue and vacated Hazel Street.
On December 10, 1990, the Council considered changing the land use plan for the
undeveloped property at the comer of Gope Avenue and Gastle Avenue. The change was
from R-3H (high-density residential) to R-1 (low-density residential). The Gouncil
decided not to make this change. The Gouncil gave no reason. The Planning
Gommission recommended against a change because noise from White Bear Avenue was
not conducive for single dwellings and the VOA was planning a senior project on this
site. The Gouncil did change the zoning on the Sherren Avenue right-of-way from R-1
to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: R-3H (multiple dwelling)
Density: Proposed - 22.8 persons per acre (with the landscaping density bonus)
Allowed - 22.8 persons per acre
The VOA is proposing to plant enough trees to for a density credit. The Code allows the
site size to be considered "increased" by 100 square feet per unit, 6,200 square feet in
this instance, if at least 1% of the construction cost is spent on planting trees. This
would increase the site size for density purposes from 2.73 acres to 2.87 acres.
Zoning: R-1 (single dwelling)
Parking at Other Seniors-Housing Facilities
The City has approved reduced parking and garage requirements for all past senior
housing. These projects include:
1. Concordia Arms: 100 spaces for 124 units (.8 space per unit)
2. Hazel Ridge: 75 spaces for 75 units (1 space per unit)
3. Casey Lake (never built): 62 spaces for 62 units (1 space per unit)
4. Village on Woodlynn: 87 spaces for 60 units (1.5 spaces per unit)
5. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood: 161 spaces for 106 units (1 space per 1.5 units)
6. Rosewood Estates: 61 spaces for 100 units (.6 spaces per unit)
The VOA project would have 40 spaces for 62 units (.6 space per unit).
Vadance Approval Findings
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a
variance from the zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the property under consideration.
l0
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship', as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the
property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use ff used under conditions allowed
by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to
his property, not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the locali~. Economic considerations alone shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms
of the ordinance.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE ASSISTED CARE MVlNG FACIMTY
The assisted care living environment respects the individual's right to privacy. It also
works to relieve the stress of the threat of institutionalization by providing a home-like
setting. The proposed facility would be for seniors who now are living with, or getting
help from, family members (being the care givers). It also is for seniors who are living
in their own home with no services. Such people often have their health deteriorate
because they do not get the sex'eices or help they need. The proposed facility would not
have the extensive regimentation and health professional supervision that a skilled care
nursing facility would provide. The building includes common space with a dining
room, laundry, living rooms, library and a television lounge.
go:b-7:voa4.mem (11)
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Property Line/Zoning Map (Existing)
4. Property Line/Zoning Map (Proposed)
5. Site Plan
6. Building Elevations
7. VOA Project Description and Letter of Request dated March 30, 1994
8. VOA Variance Justification Letter dated March 30, 1994
9. Alley Vacation Resolution
10. Zoning Map Change Resolution
11. Floor Area Variance Resolution
12. Density Variance Resolution
13. Site Plan, Grading/Drainage, Building Elevations and Landscaping Plan (Separate
Attachments stamped April 13, 1994)
Attachment 1
)KS
^VEL
8 ~k ^v~
o ~
AV~
ROSEWOOD AV~_
AV~. S.
^V.
· ~' ~ MORTH
5AIt~
1700' O'
:.. NORTH
o.
~"~ "' ' ~" ' '' ,' ~"l' " ' ....
~ :_"~.'.' -.-.,: .:::.t.,.:.~,.'.l,.t'.. '~":~:, :..'.',J..
GOAJr q'~/ I HOLLIOWAY / ~, /~ . I
~ ~../ ~ I ~ ~ m,,,,, ..
LOCATION MAP
12
Attachment.~
R-3
LAND USE MAP
13
Attachment 3
BALI-HAl
1917
R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS
I )PE AVENUE
R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
'-~ROPER~Y LINE / ZONING MAP
-. (EXISTING) '
PROPOSED zONING MAP cHANGE (R1 TO R3)
14
1922
- COPE AVENUE
~ 2263
I
- (,,).., (~.).
R1 = SINGLE DWELLINGS R3 = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
15
Attachment
Iii
Attachment 6
BUILDII~3 ELEVATIONS
'17
Attachment 7
5200 DTC Parkway
Suite 500
Englewood, Colorado
80111
(303)773-0436
fax(303)773-8709
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Deve!opment
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
March 30, 1994
RE: Maplewood Assisted Living Facility
Dear Mr. Olson:
Pursuant to our meeting with you in your office on March 22, 1994 and our
confirmation letter dated March 24, 1994 of that meeting, we are herewith
forwarding all materials we believe are required to comprise a complete submittal.
Enclosed for your review are seven (7) copies of the current Site Plan (all
previously submitted Site Plans should be discarded). The previously submitted
Landscape Plans, Building Elevations and Drainage Report remain current.
The project description is as follows:
VOA Care Centers of Minnesota (VOA) is proposing to build a 62-
unit Assisted Care Living Facility. This facility would be on a 2.73
acre site (without Cope Avenue vacated), that is north of the Cope
Avenue right-of-way and east of White Bear Avenue. The building
would be three stories high. There would be 53 alcove (studio)
units, 6 one-bedroom units and 3 two-bedroom units. The siding
would be vinyl with brick accents (see attached plans). There would
be a tunnel (approximately 800 square feet) connecting the new
facility with the existing Care Center. VOA also plans to build an
eight-foot wide paved trail along their south property line.
The care available at this facility would be between that at a nursing
home and that available at housing for independent seniors. The
assisted care living facility would provide minimal aid for daily living
to the residents. This would include help with housekeeping,
laundry, bathing, mobility, medication management, social events,
nutritional or other needs.
18
Mr. Geoff Olson
March 28, 1994
Page 2
VOA is proposing the following changes to the existing Maplewood Care Center
site: (VOA owns the Maplewood Care Center.)
Provide a new wooden fence enclosure around the trash area at the west
side of the south parking lot.
Replace the wooden fence along the east lot line with a solid, eight-foot-tall
wooden screening-fence.
e
Remove the wooden fence along the north side of Cope Avenue and
landscape this area.
Revise the Sherren Avenue driveway and parking. There are 27 existing
parking spaces along the south side of this drive. VOA proposes to add
more asphalt and restripe this drive for 10 parking spaces and a passenger
drop-off area along the south side, and 18 parking spaces on the north side
of this driveway. VOA also plans to narrow the drive entrance from 33
feet to 24 feet.
Note: The existing and proposed parking are shown on the site plan.
There are currently 94 parking spaces for the existing Care Center. Upon
completion of the new Assisted Living Facility parking area, plus the
Sherren Avenue revisions, the total parking count for both buildings
combined will be 134 spaces. Out of that total, 40 spaces will be for the
A.L.F., leaving 94 spaces (current total) for the Care Center.
VOA is requesting that the City do the following:
Vacate the undeveloped alley between Castle Avenue and the vacated
Hazel Street.
e
Change the zoning map from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple
dwellings).
Approve fewer parking spaces and garages than the Code requires. The
Code requires that VOA provide 124 parking spaces - two for each living
unit. Sixty-two of these spaces must be in garages. VOA is proposing 40
open parking spaces and no garages.
19
Mr. Geoff Olson
March 28, 1994
Page 3
Se
Recognize that VOA intends to utilize a Density Credit for landscaping by
planting trees on site at a total value of 1% of the construction costs. In
so doing per the zoning ordinance, the effective site area can be increased
by 100 s.f. per dwelling unit, or 62 units x 100 s.t?. -- 6200 s.f.
Grant a variance on the square footage of the dwelling units. See attached
letter containing support data for this request.
Grant a variance relative to density for people per unit (Reference Zoning
Ordinance Table 5 - Estimated Persons Per Dwelling Unit and Planned
Maximum Density of Dwelling Units). We understand the Studio Units are
considered at a rating of 1.1 people per unit, and we request a variance for
Studio Units to be considered at a rating of 1.0 people per unit. The 1
Bedroom Units would remain at 1.1, and the 2 Bedroom Units would
remain at 2.0. See attached letter containing justification for this request.
If this variance is granted, the site density (people per acre) would be
calculated as follows:
Unit Type People/Unit Total People
53 Studios 1.0 53.0
6 1 Bedroom 1.1 6.6
3 2 Bedroom 2.0 6.0
Total 62 Units
65.6 People
Actual Site Acreage =
(without vacation of Cope Avenue).
Landscape Density Credit =
(6200 s.f. = .14 acres) (See Item 4 above)
Total Site Area =
2.73 acres
.14 acres
2.87 acres
2.87 acres x 22.8 people/acre allowed = 65.4 people
Summary:
65.4 people allowed
65.6 people actual
Per our phone conversations, if the actual number of people is within .5 of
the number allowed, it is determined to be acceptable.
2O
Mr. Geoff Olson
March 28, 1994
Page 4
0
Approve the plans for a new assisted care living building and changes to
the Maplewood Care Center site.
It is our understanding that this letter, along with the attached justification data,
site plan, Variance Application and recording fees render our application current
and complete. Please advise us if you require any further information.
Sincerely,
Lantz-Boggio Architects, P.C.
CC:
Chuck Gould, Volunteers of America
Dennis Boggio, Lantz-Boggio Architects
Attachment 8
Lantz -
5200 DTC Parkway
Suite 500
Englewood, Colorado
80111
(303)773-0436
fax(303)773-8709
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
March 30, 1994
RE: Maplewood Assisted Living Facility
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter is to serve as justification for our request for variances to your zoning
ordinance on two issues:
Floor area of individual dwelling units, Ordinance 36-122(b) "Density
and Area Requirements".
Density for People Per Unit, Ordinance Table 5 - "Estimated Persons
Per Dwelling Unit and Planned Maximum Density of Dwelling Units".
Regarding Item 1, the ordinance requires as a minimum 580 square feet for
Efficiency and One Bedroom Units, and 740 square feet for Two Bedroom Units.
We are requesting approval of 375 square feet for Efficiencies, 465 square feet for
One Bedroom Units and 610 square feet for Two Bedroom Units.
Our request is based upon occupancy of the building by seniors, particularly
Assisted Living residents. The typical Assisted Living resident is between 85 and
95 years old whose characteristics include physical impairment, cognitive
impairment, or both. Generally a resident needs assistance with lhe activities of
daily living including bathing, grooming, eating, toileting, mobility, etc.
22
Mr. Geoff Olson
March 30, 1994
Page 2
The apartment or personal residence of a typical Assisted Living resident can be
detrimental if the unit is too large. Generally, because of physical or cognitive
impairment, a single room unit is the easiest to negotiate. We have therefore
sized the units within this project to be optimum for the resident profile being
served.
An important component in the Assisted Living concept is the common space or
public space within the building. It is within these spaces that residents take meals
and participate regularly in daily social programs and activities. These spaces are
an extension of the personal living environment. In the proposed project, the
social spaces and non-dwelling spaces account for approximately 50% of the
building and the dwelling units make up the remaining 50%.
Based upon this ratio, the amount of space devoted to each dwelling unit is
approximately twice the actual individual unit area. The building has an overall
area of 51,000 s.f. which equates to an average of 822 gross s.f. per dwelling unit.
Given the concept of Assisted Living, we believe that it would be impractical and
non-responsive to meet the letter of the City Ordinance with regard to individual
unit areas which creates an undue hardship for the project. We therefore request
a variance on areas of the individual units be granted. It is important to point out
that this variance will not alter the essential character of the area and the variance
would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance in that the area
of the building including public living and social spaces is 822 s.f.
Regarding Item 2, we are requesting that Efficiency Units be considered at a
rating of 1.0 in lieu of the 1.1 rating currently in Table 5.
The justification for this request is based on statistical data of Assisted Living
Facilities nationwide. The actual occupancy of all units combined (Efficiencies,
One Bedrooms and Two Bedrooms), on a national average basis, ranges from 1.0
to 1.6. However, considering Efficiency units only, statistics show that the total
maximum occupancy falls between .90 and 1.0 people. These figures are
calculated utilizing factors characteristic of the resident profile, such as the
turnover rate of units and unexpected departures for hospitalization.
Mr. Geoff Olson
March 30, 1994
Page 3
One additional hardship created by the 1.1 rating being applied to the Efficiency
Units is that they only return revenues at a rating of 1.0.
There are no additional negative impacts to the City of Maplewood with regard
to traffic and services; indeed, the project has fewer demands on infrastructure and
services than other multi-unit or multi-family developments. We believe this
request does not violate the spirit of the Ordinance since the actual occupancy of
the units is generating the site density calculations. We, therefore, request a
variance on the people per Efficiency Unit be granted.
Sincerely,
Lantz-Boggio Architects, P.C.
Attachment 9
A~ ~ ~ VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America (VOA) is requesting that the City vacate the
following described alley:
All the alley between Lots 1-12 and Lots 18-27 in Block 9, Dearborn Park between
the vacated Hazel Street and the east line of the right-of-way for White Bear Avenue.
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:.
1. A majority of the property owners abutting this alley signed a petition for this
vacation;
2. On June 20, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve this vacation.
3. On July ._, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property
owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present
written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations
from the City staff and Planning Commission.
WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will
go to the following abutting properties:
Lots 1-9, Block 9 (including vacated Hazel Street accruing) and Lots 18-27,
Block 9 (including vacated Hazel Street accning), Dearborn Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described vacation for the following reasons:
1. There is no need for this alley.
2. The City does not build alleys.
3. The City has a policy of vacating unneeded alleys.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,1994.
25
Attachment 10
RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America (VOA) applied for a change in the zoning map
from R-! (single dwellings) to R-3 (multiple dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located east of White Bear Avenue and
between the vacated Sherren and Cope Avenues. The legal description is:
Lots 1-27, Block 9, Dearborn Park (including streets and alleys accruing thereto).
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On June 20, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve the change.
2. On July _, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and ·
present written statements. The Council also considered reports and
recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the
zoning code.
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the
use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan
is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient,
and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public warm;
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
5. The proposed change would be consistent with the existing land use plan
designation for this property,
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,1994.
26
Attachment
FLOOR AREA VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America applied for a variance from the floor area
requirements in the zoning ordinance.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the .property east of White Bear Avenue and
between the vacated Sherren and Cope Avenues. The legal description is:
Lots 1-27, Block 9, Dearborn Park (including streets and alleys accruing thereto).
WHE~, Section 36-122(b) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that
the minimum habitable floor area for effldency and one-bedroom units is 580 square
feet and that the minimum for two-bedroom units is 740 square feet.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing that the efficiency units have 375 square feet,
that the one-bedroom units have 465 square feet and that the two-bedroom units have
610 square feet.
WHEREAS, this requires variances of 205, 115 and 130 square feet.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On June 20, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve this variance.
e
On July 11, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to
speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and
recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described variance for the following reasons:
1. Common areas compensate for the reduced unit size.
2. There are fewer people per unit in senior-housing facilities than in conventional
apartment buildings.
3. Larger units can be more difficult to get around in for a resident with physical or
cognitive impairment.
4. The City approved floor area variances for Rosewood Estates.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,1994.
27
Attachment 12
DENSITY VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Volunteers of America applied for a variance from the density
requirements in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property east of White Bear Avenue and
between the vacated Sherren and Cope Avenues. The legal deserlption is:
Lo's 1-27, Block 9, Dearborn Park (including streets and alleys accruing thereto).
WHEREAS, Table 5 of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan does not have a standard
for efficiency units.
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a density calculation for the efficiency units of
1.0 persons per unit.
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1. On Sune 20, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve this variance.
e
On July ._, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and
present written statements. The Council also considered reports and
recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described variance for the following reasons:
1. The applicant presented national statistics showing occupancy rates between .9 and
1.0 people per unit for assisted living efficiency units.
2. The City does not have a standard for efficiency units in senior housing.
The Maplewood City Council approved this variance on
,1994.
28
MAPLEWOOD CRIME PREVENTION COALITION
On May 5, our first meeting of rental property owners/managers was well
attended. After City officials were introduced, Chief Kenneth Collins
welcomed everyone.
The St. Paul Crime Prevention Coalition was described by Officer Paul Strong
and Dianna Wilhelmson. A handout describing the Mesa Crime-Free Multi-Housing
Program was distributed for future evaluation and discussion.
During open discussion, attendees introduced themselves and suggested areas
where information from the Police Department would be helpful.
The group expressed an interest and a need to continue meeting on a regular
basis. It was decided to meet on the third Thursday of the month.
Any interested rental property owner/manager is welcome to attend the next
meeting, which will be held at Edgerton Manor, 2021 Edgerton Street (the
corner of Edgerton and Skillman). The meeting will begin at l0 a.m. on
Thursday, June 16, 1994.
For more information, call 770-4543.
MAPLEWOOD CRIME PREVENTION COALITION BEGINS
Rental property owners and/or managers are invited to attend a meeting on
Thursday, May 5, 1994, at l0 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Council
Chambers of Maplewood City Hall, 1830 East County Road B.
This is an effort to have City officials and property owners and managers work
together to provide safe and pleasant rental housing conditions in Maplewood.
The ~oalition will discuss issues, listen to speakers and generally educate
themselves about tenant screening, landlord and tenant rights~-safety and
other common concerns.
We encourage any and all property managers or owners to attend. Whether it is
a small complex or a large complex, operators are sure to gain useful
insights. City officials will be involved as facilitators only. Chairpersons
will be representatives from the rental community.
Other cities have had good results from organizing this type of group to share
information and support crime prevention in multiple dwellings.
If you want to be involved in this effort or if you have any questions, call
the Crime Prevention office at 770-4543.
· :~! ~'.:,, '.'-:..~:~1~"~'::' ~~~~ ...~:?w~~.:..
· ~.~ :.. . .. ,, , ~.~ .... ,.~ "' " ":';:. '.'
~: ' ............. ....... : .~, -,,~ ...~-~ ...... ,. · .. ...~.~:~ ..-
~,.~ .... :......-~~:~... .. ~ . ........
~'~.rl~lQ ~. ~...?~::~t~..~:~t· 'm m ..... '...'.'.:.t~'~:?.t
~.,,.~..~; _....~..,..~ .... ~..?~........
1 ..................
~. -i · ',l
~.) . ·-.?.?.i
~,,~t~~.~ ....
~.~ ..~...~ · ,,
~.~ - .. ~....? .
· - ~ ' -' "-.~' '~'~'~4 '
· ..- ..,t~ .... ~ .... '......t
~-~..'~ ~',~,~
.:~ .:',.. ~.'.' , . ,,.:~.,),.~~... ~ , . ........ ...:;~ ........ 2~... ....
..-- ..~;~'., .:.~.;..'~ .
- ' "~ '"J'~: ' 1
~,~ . ~.~ ,.. · ~.~ . ·
. . , ~.. .~ .~. '.: . .... . · . .. . .
~.~' ".'"'"'~""" ' '"'-.~ ~,~,~,.'.~ · .-.-...~ .,.-~. ,5~[~and lo rd takes a~m on onme; '.m · a , "
· , .~ ., }~,~, .. _ ... ... ....
. , · .~ .,~,.,.... ...... ... .~_
';.....~ ~'~,."~.' ~ ~,,..~ ,~ -
· . .... .... .., I..~..,~~ = ~, ~ ~ ~=~. ~. --,., ~ ~,~ ,.
· , .:...: .:: ~ .~.~:,.. · .~~~~. :,.
.....':,.~.~:..:.,.:.; ~.... ~. i:...,~.:~:~'~ ~, ~=~.. .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
'L'-~..',,'. -'.-~ · ',," ..........
:.....~.... .... ~....., ~...,~(.~,~ ~ ~ w~ ~. ~i~
' ;'.:-": .:.':'C: "~ ~.~o~~ ~~~.
: ~~:~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~..~,~ ~ ~ =~ = .,~, ~o~ we would
~=== ~. ~ ~ ~ ]~ ~ ~o~ even go
.. ....~:.;~ ........
FE~-18-199~ 12:15 FROM DP~D PHOENIX ~.~IZONR 9161~55241~0 P.06
ZehziM ~ ~8 1use ~ Fc~ more Informa~Son on the ,~alnlng It~llon~ call Phoenix ,
i=ezK b crucial ~ ~el~'raxm I~licl t:)ff~Jr Connie $~in. iff. 4~$e~7. . . . '":' %: /':'''~"
. ~k ~," ~-'~ ~A ~ ~o ~ ~ ~s7 ~ ~e~, ~ · ~
. .. .. ... .. . ~ ~,~~
· - .~~ ~1~ ' w~ ~l' I~ ~ ~ _ · · - - ·
~. ........ ~ ~ . . .... .....
-....~ .~......~..~.:......::,.' . .~::
.... . ~:. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
~ '~.':~ ~~~. ~~~' ..; '~, ...
THE MESA CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM
Chronic drug dealing and othcr.-fllegal activity can reduce a neighborhood to a mere shell
of the healthy community it once was. When fltis happens, many residents look to thc police
or "the system" for any poss,'hie solutions. The police and city government do have cridcal
respons~ilifies, but they should be shared with the citizens of the community.
To address the crime problem in rental properties requires a unique coalition of landlords,
tenants and police. The most effective way to deal w/th any illegal activity on rental
properly is through a coordinated effort. There are currently several large dries across the
United States that have begun to recognize the benefits of this cooperative effort. In most
cases, current city codes and nuisance laws can easily be applied to meet these objectives.
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY I~ RENTAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTS FOR: · Radical decline in properly values
· Severe property damage from tenant abuse and police raids
· Loss of rent during eviction and repair process
· Fear and frustration for managers and other residents
· Animosity between neighbors and property managers
PROVEN BENEFITS OF THIS PROGRAM INCLUDE: · A stable, more satisfied tenant
· Increased demand for rental property
· Lower maintenance and repair costs
· Improved property values
· Improved personal safety for renters
· Appreciative neighbors
· More time spent on rout/ne management
· Less rime spent on crisis control
The MESA CRIlViE FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM is designed to help owners and
the managers of rental properties keep drugs and other illegal activity off their property.
The purpose of this program is not to SERVE the landlords, but to EDUCATE them and
their tenants to improve the livabflity of the neighborhoods by reducing crime, and with the
assistance of the Fire Department, educate them in life safety and fire prevention.
This program is honest and direct. It is solution oriented. It is designed to be easy and very
effective in reducing crime in rental properties. It has three key elements that will ensure
the crime prevention goal:
1) Management Training
2) Security Assessments
3) Tenant Training
Crin~ Pm~ M~i-Nousi~ IWoi~m - ~oS'~m/~u',d,l~'s Guidebook
TH]E FIR~ ~.Is;.IV~NT of the program involves training property managers to become
more effective in reducing criminal activity. We will focus on these two facts: l~ffect/v¢
property management can have a major impact on the health of a commu-lty ahd the quality
of life. S~condly, them are ~'ble and legitlmat~ tochniqu~ wMch can b~ ~ to stop
thc spread of clru~ and illegal activity on rental prol~rty.
Thc landlord training will equ/p the manager with the necessary skills to spot problems
before they occur, and to deal with them before the situation becomes too dangerous or
requires police involvement. This is a basic premise of Community Oriented Policing and
Problem Oriented Policing. We will be able to address the ROOT CAUSES of crirn¢ in
rental property, which will result in less crime, fewer calls for police service and more
available time for beat officers to be proactive in fighting crime.
Sord¢ of the topics of the training program include:
· PREPARING ~ PROPERTY so it does not attract crime. If a property
is run down, it says the management does not care about the property.
Illegal activity may be tolerated if the manager is not operating legally.
· APPLICANT SCREENING is a sure way to find out what type applicant
is being considered. Many applicants have a history of eviction for
drugs, illegal activity or non-compliance. The program will teach how
to obta/n credit checks and background checks using local credit
reporting agencies and sound management techniques.
rules
RENTAL AGREEMENTS are the best way to in%tm the tenant about
and causes for eviction. The agreements will enforce a drug free and
violence-free lease addendum that is acceptable under the current
landlord tenant laws. Rental agreements arc standardized and are
enforced equally to all persons to avoid discrimination.
ONGOING MANAGEM]//NT techniques that help reduce the poss~flity
of illegal activity. By conducting routine property inspections, the
documentation of all violations and promoting an 'apartment
eommun/ty;' property managers will be better prepared to note illegal
activity and to deal effectively with it.
· p.T_~GAL ACTIVITY recognition is not as easy as it sounds. There are
many property managers who are unaware of the illegal act~ty that
occurs on theft' property. We will address how to idcntif~ what is
suspicious, and how to report it. Emphasis is given to gang and drug
activity.
· EVICTIONS are an effective way to deal with tenants involved w/th illegal
activity. While criminally probable cause is required to arrest an
offender, e/vflly the landlord needs just a preponderance of evidence
to evict a tenant engaged in criminal activity.
76
Crime Free Muhi-Houa~g Pm~,r~m - p~u/bmn~'~"s O~M~__t~__k
NOTE: Many people see drug dealers and v/olent offenders as large rocks that cannot be
moved, that will just sit there/f you ignore them. They are not rocks; in fact, they are
plants. Just like a weed, they grow, root and choke out health/er plants. The best way to
kill a plant is to keep uprooting it. (Evictions serve that purpose).
· WORKING WITH THE POLICE is confusing for some property managers.
They do not .understand what they can expect from the police, nor the
difference between criminal and cml matters. Now we have the
opportun/ty to explain the role of the police and what we would like
to have them do for us, so we can help them more effectively in the
future. This should also greatly reduce calls for serv/ce on matters of
· a civil nature.
· THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM offers numerous benefits to landlords and
tenants who qualify. But there are also some cautions and concerns we
will address in this chapter. We will also clear up many of thc
misconceptions landlords have about this program.
· THE APPENDIX identifies resources that are available to the landlord to
help them conduct theft' management duties within the scope of the
Landlord & Tenant Act of Arizona. We also provide a copy of the
newly revised laws and a list of forms they should pick up to effect/rely
manage their property.
· A FIRE DEPARTMENT presentation to raise the awareness and
understanding of life safety and fire prevention issues.
Upon completion of th/s train/ng program, the manager will be issued a certificate to be
posted in the leasing of:rice. TMs certificate will appeal to the honest renter who is look/rig
for a safe place to live. They will have the comfort of knowing all applicants are carefully
screened, and criminal activ/ty on the part of other tenants will be dealt with through the
evict/on process. This will also discourage the dishonest renter fi.om even applying,
espec/ally if they just got ev/cted from another pardcipathg apartment complex!
TIlE SECOND ~I.~MENT OF TttE PROGRAM requires the landlord to meet the
minimum security requirements of C.P.T.E.D. (Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design). While our program does address their legal responsibility to provide units that are
up to habitability standards, the C.P.T.E.D. security analysis of the property will call the
landlord to a higher standard.
We will requ/re the following upgrades whenever necessary:
· Single cylinder deadbolts on external doors
· High security str~eplates (with 2-3 inch screws)
· 180 degree eyeviewers installed on front doors
· Adequate secur/ty lighting
· Proper trimming of bushes
· Anti-lift/slide devices on windows and sliding glass doors
When an apartment complex meets these security requirements, the management will receive
a second certificate showing that thc complex has met thc minimum security, recluircmcnts
of thc C.P.T~.D. program. This certificate is to be displayed with thc previous (completion
of training) certificate in the leasing office. This new C.P~T.E.D. certificate should appeal
to thc honest renter looking for a s~fc apartment to live in. It will ~lso show dishonest
applicants thc management is working with thc police department. This should also reduce
the poss~ility of crimes with proven crime prevention techniques of target hardening,
resulting in a reduced number of calls for service.
TI-IB THIRD ~-~M~-N'T of the program involves train/hi the tenants to be eyes and ears
· for the "apartment community." Currently, Mesa does not have a block watch program for
apartment complexes. This clement will require thc landlord to provide incentives to draw
me res/dents to a police-sponsored crime prevention seminar. During this tra/ning, wc will
discuss several topics to help reduce crime and foster police goodwill. Topics to bc
discussed include:
· Auto Theft Prevention
, Sexual Assault Prevention
, Burglary and Theft Prevention
· Neighborhood Watch Principles
· General Safety/Crime Prevention
· Fire Prevention
· Life S&fety Awareness
These programs have effectively reduced crime in residential areas, and should be ,~resented
to residents living in rental property ~s well. This should help to reduce c~lls for ~ervice by
preventing the rash of crimes in rental properties.
Upon completion of this training program, the management will be issued a third certificate
to be posted in the lea.sing office. The three certificates will send a powerful message to the
honest and dishonest applicants. The tenants do realize the police can't be everywhere at
once, but they will know the other tenants and managers will be watching closely and
worldng with the police.
Any complex that has completed all three elements of this program will be qualified to
display the department authorized sign wh/ch states:
We Have .loined The:
MY~A CRIM~ FREE
MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM
(custom seal)
Keeping illegal activity
out of rental properly
These signs are purchased by the landlords, but can only be purchased with a le.tter from the
Police Crime Prevention Urgt. To maintain the integrity of the signs and program, there is
an expiration date on all the signs. Each year the management must apply for a new sticker
to be applied to the sign, much like the one on a license plate. Each year they will be a
different color to make it easier to see fi.om a distance who is current in the program.
The complexes can qualify for renewal by participating in ongoing crime prevention
programs such as "meet your neighbor" activities, crime prevention followup training and
National Night Out events annually.
This program is tmique to Mesa. After extensive research around the country, no other
program has been found that addresses the issues and concerns of rental property in the way
our ~ CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM does.
The Mesa program is one that has been carefully developed and reviewed by police,
community and legal ad,,~sors. It is a program that will effectively deal with illegal activity
on rental property, while providing the tenants with the best protection against crime and
violent criminals.
This program calls on managers to take unusual steps toward providing a clean and safe
living environment for citizens of Mesa. It will require managers to spend time and money
to benefit the citizens and the City of Mesa. But this will also benefit the property managers
as well, as they will have a safer and highly desired rental property.
Several other police agencies within the Valley have shown a great interest in this program,
and are anxious to develop the program in their area. This is an excellent opportur~ty for
Mesa to be a fl'ont-mnner in the Valley and the State. I believe this program will also
command national attention.
All landlords sign waivers as a prerequisite to training that states:
"I understand no part of thi~ training shall be regarded as legal advict or con.~dered a
replacement of a landlords's responsibility to be familiar with the law. ~ services of a
competent attorney should be ~ught in any situation that has the potential to become
adversarial betwe.~n the property manager and tenant.
Crime Free Mutfi-Houslnl Pmrnm - Pmfum/Insuuctor's Ouid;.ba~b:
79
I i i i
MEHORANDU~
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Ken Roberts
Chris McGlincey
AGE REQUIREMENTS - SENIOR HOUSING
June 2, 1994
Per your request, I researched the files on the "Cottages"
projects for City age standards on these senior projects. In
addition to the two cottages projects, summarized below, I also
called Archer Heights which has an adult-only (non-family)
building which happens to be 95% seniors, but is not stipulated
as such. I could not reach anyone at Concordia Arms.
Carefree Cottaqes
The partnership which owns the project covenanted to the City in
the July 27, 1993, Covenants & Restrictions Agreement that the
project shall be rented in accord with 24 CFR §§ 100.300 to
100.303. These federal sections provide exemptions to the Fair
Housing Act. The purpose of the exemptions is to specifically
provide for older persons. The threshold age under the exemption
is 62. All members of a household must be 62 or older to qualify.
No children or other live-in relatives under 62 years of age are
allowed. An exception is provided for live-in home health aids,
so long as they are hired and not related to the senior tenants.
Woodlyn cottages
The funding for Woodlyn is from three sources: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), tax exempt financing and tax
increment financing (TIF). There do not appear to be any age
restrictions as part of the CDBG financing. Rather, CDBG funding
is dependent upon fifty-one percent of units being rented to
residents qualified by income characteristics. Nor do there
appear to be any age requirements tied to the tax exempt or TIF
financing packages explicitly.
The only written age requirement I found is contained in
Condition A of the PUD resolution dated December 14, 1987.
Condition A states that the development shall not be converted to
non-seniors housing without revision of the PUD. The term
"senior" is defined in the PUD resolution as age 60 or over. This
is inconsistent with the federal Fair Housing Act exemption
threshold of 62, as noted above. However, in a telephone call to
the project, I was told that applicants are screened using a 62
year-old threshold.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
APPLICANT INFORMATION
DATE:
.ow long hay. you l~v.d in ~. ¢~ty of .aplewood? 3/~
2. Does your employment require travel or being away from the
community which would make rcTalar attendance at meetings
difficult? Yes )< No --~/]W~=~3
3. On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving?
' Community Design Review Board __Park & Recreation
Commission
Housing & Redevelopment
Authority
Human Relations Commission
__Planning Commission
Police Civil
--Service Commission
Do you have any ~ areas of interest within this
Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities?
List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which
you have been or are an active participant:
e
Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
mb\frm\boards
r---r T i