summary planning evaluation - village of...

Peter G. Steck Community Planning Consultant

P. O. Box 306, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey 07040 (973) 762-6568 Fax 762-5457

[email protected]

SUMMARY PLANNING EVALUATION PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT

“THE DAYTON” 150 SOUTH BROAD STREET, BLOCK 3707, LOT 5.02 152 SOUTH BROAD STREET, BLOCK 3905, LOT 1.01

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD Prepared for: Thomas Wells, Esq. Wells, Jaworski & Liebman, LLP 12 Route 17 North Paramus, New Jersey 07653-1827 and Scott T. Loventhal K & K Developers, Inc. 820 Morris Turnpike Short Hills, New Jersey 07078

Peter G. Steck, P.P. N. J. Planner License No. 1776 December 26, 2013

-1- INTRODUCTION On December 3, 2013 Ridgewood Village Planner Blais Brancheau presented a draft “Amendment to Land Use Plan Element of the Village of Ridgewood Master Plan” which analyzed four potential inclusionary housing projects for consideration by the Planning Board. The project proposed by K & K Developers, Inc. is known as “The Dayton” and is recommended in the draft plan amendment for an AH-2 designation. This Planning Memorandum summarizes the planning considerations supportive of the multifamily development that have been presented to the Planning Board over the past two years. It has been prepared on behalf of the developer with the intent of highlighting the land use planning advantages of multifamily housing at this location. K & K Developers, Inc. proposes to redevelop the Brogan Cadillac property and the adjacent automotive servicing building to the south with a multifamily residential building consisting of approximately 106 rental apartments. The site encompasses 2.67 acres yielding a density of 39.7 units per acre. The Dayton will have Ridgewood’s signature Tudor design, will reserve 10% of its units as affordable housing, and will provide on-site parking at a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit.

This Summary Planning Evaluation is intended to assist the Mayor, Village Council and the Planning Board in assessing the merits of the proposal with the anticipation that the Village Master Plan will be amended and that subsequently the Land Use and Development Ordinance would be amended permitting a future site plan application to the Ridgewood Planning Board for The Dayton.

PLATE I

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DAYTON

-2- BACKGROUND INFORMATION The closure of Brogan Cadillac on South Broad Street in the Village of Ridgewood created an opportunity to redevelop the site with a downtown compatible use. Responding to this situation, K & K Developers negotiated an agreement with the property owner to redevelop the site for multifamily housing and authorized the preparation of supporting conceptual plans and studies. This Summary Planning Evaluation is one of those studies. Initially only the 2.44 acre Brogan Cadillac site was proposed for redevelopment. But as the planning process progressed, K & K Developers was able to contract for the abutting automotive property at 152 South Broad Street and respond to preliminary comments offered by the Planning Board and the Village Planner. While increasing the site to 2.67 acres and creating a more regular shape, K & K Developers lowered the number of apartment units to 106 units, increased the parking ratio, and added to the variety of unit types by including dens and lofts.

The entire site is in the B-2 Retail Business District which is a commercial zone permitting residential use only above first floor businesses. This Summary Planning Evaluation is offered in support of an eventual amendment to the Zoning Chapter of Ridgewood’s Land Use and Development Code that would permit multifamily units without ground floor businesses and with a density and dimensional standards commensurate with this prime location. Such an amendment requires legislative action by the Village Council and a referral to the Planning Board. With a supportive amendment to the Village Master Plan, the Village Council is then able to amend its Land Use and Development Code creating a new AH-2 Zone for the subject site with the planning rationale already in place. LOCATION OF THE BROGAN CADILLAC SITE The subject site is located on the west side of South Broad Street approximately 600 feet south of East Ridgewood Avenue and backs up to the railroad as shown below.

PLATE II LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

-3- The aerial photograph on Plate II depicts the existing site conditions as well as the surrounding area. The Brogan property and the adjacent automotive property are completely covered by buildings and pavement. Although the Brogan property is no longer in use as an auto dealership, the existing parking area (approximately 75 spaces) is used for commuter parking. To the north is Columbia Savings. To the east and across South Broad Street are the Montessori Academy of Ridgewood and the New York Sports Club. To the south are offices followed by a three-story apartment building. To the west are the Conrail railroad tracks. Further to the north is the Ridgewood train station at a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Although only at the conceptual design stage, plans for The Dayton have been prepared to convey the type and scale of multifamily development sought to be accommodated by the rezoning. Proposed is a building of Tudor design compatible with the architecture of many buildings in the downtown. A total of approximately 106 dwelling units are proposed distributed over four floors with parking located underneath. Ten percent of the units are to be reserved for low and moderate-income residents. These “Mt. Laurel” units are to be distributed throughout the building and architecturally treated so that the exteriors are indistinguishable from market rate units. The resultant density is 39.7 dwelling units per acre.

The building would be positioned toward the front of the site as is typical in a downtown setting. Plate III shows a perspective view and Plate IV shows the front facade. Parking both under the building and extending to the rear would be accessed via two driveways on South Broad Street. On-site parking would be at a ratio of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit.

PLATE III CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE DAYTON

-4-

PLATE IV PROPOSED FRONT FAÇADE OF THE DAYTON

As currently envisioned, the 106 units would include 41 one-bedroom units, 62 two-bedroom units, and 3 three-bedroom units as detailed in Table 1. Each unit would have its own separate utility services making the building eligible for condominium ownership. However, owing to the terms of the contract with The Brogan Co. and to real estate market conditions, the units are initially to be offered on a rental basis with subsequent evaluation as a condominium project as market conditions evolve.

Table 1

Distribution of Dwelling Units Unit Type Market Rate Units “Mt. Laurel” Units Total Units

1 Bedroom 39 2 41 2 Bedroom 56 6 62 3 Bedroom 0 3 3

Total 95 11 106

The project is to be marketed to the “book ends” segments of the population: younger individuals and couples at the one end and at the other end seniors who wish to retain their roots in Ridgewood. It is also expected that proximity to the Ridgewood train station and to the restaurants and other retail uses and services in the downtown will prove to be strong determinants of future occupancy.

Overall, the project represents the introduction of well-designed, conveniently

located dwelling units with elevator access, on-site parking, and lobby services in an under-represented segment of Ridgewood’s downtown land use mix. The viability of the project is strengthened by its close proximity to the Ridgewood train station and the restaurants, retail uses and services found in the Village’s downtown.

A sampling of other multifamily buildings in Ridgewood culled for the purpose of

market analysis is included in Appendix A. The projects included in the sample support the conclusion that The Dayton will expand the housing choices currently available rather than duplicate elements of the existing housing stock.

-4- ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The subject site is currently located in Ridgewood’s B-2 Retail Business District as shown on Plate V. The B-2 District allows retail sales and services, financial institutions, offices, clubs, tradesman shops, furniture movers, job printing plants, child care centers, surface parking lots and “Dwelling units on other than the ground floor or basement.”

In the B-2 District, the following dimensional standards apply to permitted uses:

Maximum building height: 45 feet Minimum front yard: Match adjacent buildings Minimum side yard: 0 or 12 feet Minimum rear yard: 10 feet or ½ building height Maximum floor area: 45% of lot area Maximum improvement coverage: 90% of lot area

The existing B-2 District provisions also include incentives for projects with a low and moderate-income housing component. As incentives, the B-2 Zone permits an enhanced building height of 50 feet and an enhanced floor area of 60% of the lot area.

PLATE V EXISTING ZONING

-5- By way of history, the Brogan site was part of a larger area considered for inclusionary zoning by the Village of Ridgewood in early 2011. Although ultimately rejected, proposed Ordinance No. 3291 sought to create two new affordable housing districts in addition to proposing certain height and floor area ratio bonuses in the B-1 and B-2 Retail Business Districts. As shown on Plate VI, Ordinance No. 3291 sought to create the AH-2 and AH-3 Affordable Housing Districts with the subject site being included as part of the proposed AH-3 District.

PLATE VI AH-2 AND AH-3 ZONES IN ORDINANCE NO. 3291

As drafted, both the AH-2 and AH-3 Zones would have accommodated multifamily dwelling units either in a purely residential building or in a mixed-use building. Densities of up to 23.2 dwelling units per acre and 25.5 units per acre would have been permitted for affordable owner-occupied units or for rental units respectively. In the AH-2 Zone, a 16.7% affordable housing component was required, and in the AH-3 Zone, a 25% affordable housing component was required. However, with the decision not to adopt Ordinance No. 3291, the subject site remained in the B-2 Zone.

-6- EXISTING MASTER PLAN AND REEXAMINATION REPORT CONSIDERATIONS

The most recent planning policy document is the Housing Element of the Village of Ridgewood Master Plan and Fair Share Plan adopted by the Planning Board on December 16, 2008. Having assumed continuation of the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and its third round rules covering the period from 2004 to 2018, the 2008 Plan offered proposals to address Ridgewood’s constitutional obligation to zone for low and moderate income housing. Included in the Fair Share Plan was the subject site along with several adjacent properties totaling 3.4 acres. This area was selected “because of its location near the central business district and mass transit (passenger rail and bus) facilities, as well as the interest recently expressed by several developers for housing at the site…. The proximity to the CBD will allow the density to more easily be accommodated, provide convenient shopping for site residents as well as a boost to the CBD retail market. The proximity of the mass transit facilities will reduce traffic from the site during peak commuting hours. All of the foregoing is consistent with transit-oriented development studies that are ongoing with the Planning Board. ” []

Leading up to the selection of the subject site as part of an inclusionary housing

site is the 2008 Fair Share Plan’s assessment of Ridgewood’s housing market. As stated in the Fair Share Plan:

Trends in household size, however, indicate that new housing units need not be as large as previously, at least from a practical perspective. Market demand exists for larger homes, however, despite the smaller household sizes. The projected increase in the number of senior citizens suggests a continuing need for housing units suitable for persons of this age group. These units generally are smaller than average, are conveniently located near shopping areas and services, require less maintenance and are lower in cost. The ability to adapt to these needs is severely limited, however, by the shortage of developable land in the Village and other factors. [Page 3]

Prior to the 2008 Fair Share Plan, the Planning Board adopted a February 7, 2006 Reexamination of the Master Plan and Development Regulations which affirmed portions of the earlier 1983 Master Plan. The 2006 Reexamination Report considered the review of Ridgewood’s housing plan element a high priority anticipating new state regulations concerning affordable housing. Moreover, in assessing Ridgewood’s major problems and objectives relating to land development, the 2006 Reexamination Report stated on page 10 that “The Village’s master plan currently seeks as a policy to provide a wide range of housing types and densities. This objective remains valid.”

Finally, it is noted that the New Jersey Supreme Court has recently invalidated the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) regulations for Round Three and has directed to COAH to craft new standards. Despite this delay, it is noteworthy that municipal affordable housing responsibilities remain a constitutional responsibility and will not disappear.

-7- PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR DISCUSSION

The December 2013 Ridgewood Master Plan Amendment drafted by Planner Brancheau for consideration by the Planning Board presented a sample recommendation for a new AH-2 Land Use Plan designation that would apply solely to the subject property. Replacing the existing B-2 Retail Business District recommendation for the subject site, the new AH-2 designation would accommodate commercial uses with regulations similar to those in the existing B-2 Zone and would also allow inclusionary multifamily housing with the following lot, bulk and intensity of use standards:

-8- PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

The procedural steps involved with creating a new zone typically include the following:

1. An amendment to the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the

Ridgewood Master Plan in support of the proposed rezoning is drafted.

2. The Planning Board conducts an advertised public hearing on the Master Plan amendment and adopts the amendment. Upon adoption, a copy is send to the Bergen County Planning Board.

3. An ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter of the Village Code is introduced

by the Village Council and sent to the Planning Board. Following introduction, the proposed ordinance and the upcoming Village Council public hearing are advertised in the official newspaper and the Village Clerk sends notices by regular mail and by certified mail to property owners within the area to be rezoned and to property owners within 200 feet of the area to be rezoned.

4. Following introduction, the amending ordinance is referred to the Planning

Board for its (1) determination of whether or not the ordinance amendment is substantially consistent with the Land Use Element and Housing Element of the Master Plan and for (2) a recommendation as to whether the Village Council should adopt the ordinance amendment.

5. The Village Council at second reading holds an advertised public hearing

and, upon receiving public comments, the Village Council considers adoption of the zoning amendment.

6. If adopted by the Village Council, the legislative action is advertised in the

official newspaper and a copy of the zoning amendment is sent to the Bergen County Planning Board whereupon it becomes effective.

7. The developer then files an application with the Ridgewood Planning Board

for preliminary and final site plan approval and Village professionals review the application.

8. At a public meeting, the Planning Board entertains the application and

considers granting preliminary and final site plan approval.

9. Upon approval by the Planning Board and upon issuance of Construction Code Permits, construction of The Dayton commences.

-8-

PLANNING MERITS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT From a land use planning perspective, the following aspects of the proposed residential project are offered as supporting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and to the Ridgewood Master Plan: 1. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land.

A 2.67 site in an established downtown setting within walking distance to train and bus services is a highly valuable resource. Being slightly outside of the retail core, the site is not positioned for successful ground floor retail use and is not appropriate for a highway-oriented use such as an auto dealership. The site is appropriate for multifamily residential use oriented to single-person households or couples either before or after their child-rearing years. The policy statements in Ridgewood’s existing Master Plan confirm these site attributes.

2. Expanding the range of housing choices

There are few higher-end residential units in Ridgewood’s downtown. The proposal includes on-site parking, elevator service, and well-designed dwelling units in a handsome building. This housing product represent a choice for residents that does not currently exist thus responding to the Master Plan’s objective of promoting a wide range of housing types and densities.

3. Supporting the Village downtown

In addition to expanding housing choices, the introduction of additional households in proximity to the downtown adds new customers who are likely to utilize the goods and services offered in the Village. The health club across the street and the businesses on South Broad Street on route to the train station would benefit greatly. The other sections of the downtown would also be likely to garner new customers.

4. Aesthetic improvement

Aside from its function as a housing resource, a dramatic visual change would result from approval of the project. The dominant feature of the existing site is surface parking. As proposed, the parking would either be under the building and shielded by the front façade or in the rear of the building. The structure itself would be of a Tudor style that is the signature style of Ridgewood’s downtown.

5. Low impact land use

Modern multifamily housing in a downtown setting is recognized as generating minimal land use impacts. From a traffic viewpoint, the automobile trips produced would be less than certain permitted commercial uses. Moreover, the design of the building and the site, the marketing focus of the developer, and the location in a “transit village” setting strongly suggest that the demand for public services would be minimal.

-9-

Although each community has its own unique characteristics, demographic studies geared to New Jersey suggest that the number of public school age children associated with the project would be relatively small. The November 2006 publication “Who Lives in New Jersey Housing?” offers demographic multipliers predicting the total population and the likely number of public school age children*. For above-median value multifamily rental housing, the proposed bedroom mix of 106 dwelling units is predicted to accommodate a total of 208 persons, 11 of whom would be public school attendees. If considered a “transit-oriented” development, the predicted number of public school attendees would be less than three students. The Ridgewood Board of Education culled information on public school children residing in multifamily developments in the Village. A total of 219 public school students was documented for the 835 apartment units regardless of the type of structure. Of significance is the result of disaggregating the data based on garden apartments versus non-garden apartment developments. A disaggregation of the data as displayed in Appendix B indicates that the experience for non-garden apartments in Ridgewood (which would include projects like The Dayton) is one school age child for every 16 dwelling units. Applying this ratio to the 106 unit The Dayton would predict 7 school age children which is in line with the 11 public school students predicted earlier. It is noted that a different ratio is characteristics of garden apartment developments in Ridgewood. The disaggregation of Board of Education data reveals that one school age child is generated for each 2.7 garden apartments in Ridgewood’s developments.

6. Positive real estate ratable. Although not a valid consideration in variance proceedings, the economic benefits of certain types of land uses are legitimate factors in evaluating rezoning requests. Multifamily projects such as the subject proposal typically generate tax revenues that on the whole more than compensate for the total of local educational and municipal services associated with the development. In fact, it is fair to state that the municipal service costs per dwelling unit are smaller for new multifamily units compared with single-family detached homes owing to the different occupancy characteristics as well as Ridgewood’s land use pattern. The proposed development, for instance, does not result in additional street maintenance costs and has a centralized refuse collection area which are clearly more efficiently serviced than 106 detached single-family homes. Given that that production of real estate ratables is a legitimate planning issue in a rezoning effort, Table 1 on the next page estimates the real estate tax revenues generated by The Dayton using current data. One column assumes an initial offering as a rental project and the second column assumes its possible future conversion into a condominium project.

* Who Lives in New Jersey Housing? A Quick Guide to New Jersey Residential Demographic Multipliers by David Listokin, Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, November 2006. http://policy.rutgers.edu/cupr/otherreports/Multipliers_QuickGuide.pdf. With respect to transit oriented housing, the study surveyed 10 projects in New Jersey representing a total of 2,183 dwelling units and identified only 47 school age children (a ratio of 0.02 public school age children per dwelling unit).

-10- For illustrative purposes a value of $350,000 per unit is assumed for rental occupancy yielding a total assessed value of $37,100,000 and a value of $500,000 per unit is assumed for condominium ownership yielding a total assessed value of $53,000,000. At the current time, assessed value in Ridgewood is approximately equal to market value.

Table 1 Estimation of Real Estate Tax Revenues

Tax rate components: Rate per $100 of assessed value

Rental Assessed Annual Payments

Condo Assessed Annual Payments

Bergen County 0.236 $87,556 $125,080 Bergen County Open Space 0.003 $1,113 $1,590 Ridgewood Board of Education 1.535 $569,485 $813,550 Ridgewood Municipal Services 0.542 $201,082 $287,260 Ridgewood Library 0.036 $13,356 $19,080 Ridgewood Open Space 0.004 $1,484 $2,120 Total 2.356 $874,076 $1,248,680

SUMMARY OF PLANNING CONCLUSIONS

The request of K & K Developers, Inc. for a master plan amendment and a subsequent zoning amendment that would accommodate an inclusionary housing development on the subject site presents a unique planning opportunity. A confluence of attributes makes the site well suited for multifamily use. It is close to the downtown, near mass transit, available for redevelopment and in a land use setting that can accept the scale and intensity proposed. At a time when the real estate market remains compromised but shows beginning signs of vitality, the rezoning request represents a realistic effort to produce an aesthetically pleasing building constructed and managed by an experienced developer.

The suitability of the site for multifamily use is not a new determination. Ridgewood’s 2008 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan already identified the site for multifamily use, and Ridgewood’s 2006 Reexamination Report affirmed the 1983 Master Plan goal of providing a wide range of housing types and densities.

In short, the proposed inclusionary housing project makes good planning sense. K & K Developers, Inc. and the members of its team stand ready to provide additional information to assist the Mayor, Village Council and Planning Board in evaluating the merits of the requested master plan amendment and the hoped for rezoning.

-11-

PRELIMINARY PLANNING COMMENTS ON OCT. 14, 2013 CBR LETTER On behalf of Citizens for a Better Ridgewood, Inc., attorney John Lamb issued an October 14, 2013 letter to the Ridgewood Planning Board offering his opinion as well as presumably the opinions of members of the organization he represents. Awaiting the possible future presentation of some expert testimony, the following preliminary responses are offered for consideration of the Planning Board: A. Attorney Lamb describes the Planning Board as currently considering four mixed-use applications. He is mistaken. The Dayton does not have a nonresidential component and hence is not a mixed-use project. Hence, it is not clear that he actually reviewed The Dayton. B. The letter is essentially an opinion letter. He uses phrases such as in the opinion of CBR, we believe, may be affected, there is a chance, may not generate, it is our opinion and the like. The opinions are apparently offered by Attorney Lamb or by the four named officers and trustees. While certainly the legitimate expressions of at least four residents, the points offered do not constitute the expert opinions of planners or traffic experts. C. The survey of other zones in Bergen County is interesting background information. However, it does not constitute a valid planning analysis of inclusionary housing projects in a downtown setting. His statistical statement that “only 13.9% of the towns in Bergen County allow housing densities of 40 or more units per acre” illustrates the lack of a legitimate planning analysis. The Village of Ridgewood is unique in its land use configuration and should not be bound by the zoning choices made by elected officials in other municipalities in different land use environments. Attention should be drawn to the middle paragraph on page 11 of his letter wherein he opines that “you cannot rely on averages or statistics from other municipalities to predict behavior in a special and unique municipality like Ridgewood.” In this instance, however, both state wide data and Ridgewood-specific data are employed to predict a low number of public school attendees. D. The Lamb letter looks to maintain a maximum density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre. This is not a potent density for inclusionary projects in a downtown setting. It should be kept in mind that a two-family house on a 50 foot by 100 foot lot results in a density of 17.4 units per acre. E. His rhetorical question “Isn’t the Village of Ridgewood already fully developed?” implies that a vacant automotive dealership on the edge of the downtown is an appropriate use of land. The Brogan Cadillac site will surely be developed in the future given its prime location and size. The pertinent question is what type of development makes sense in this setting. Moreover, his “already developed” defense was discredited approximately 10 years ago with respect to the Mt. Laurel II decision.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MARKET SAMPLE OF RIDGEWOOD MULTIFAMILY UNITS

Apartment Name Location No. of Units

Year Built

Unit Type

Rent / Month Photo of Project

Ridgecrest (Seniors) 7 Ridge Road 130 Units

1984 Studio $1,099

1 BR $1,230

Heights Gardens Ridgewood Ave. & Heights Road 31 Units

1960 1 BR, 1 BA-A, 950 Sq. Ft. $1,250-$1,350

1 BR, 1 BA-B, 1,150 Sq. Ft. $1,950-$2,000 2 BR, 1 BA, 1,150 Sq. Ft. $1,700-$1,750

Eastgate at Ridgewood 500 E. Ridgewood Ave. 40 Units

1952 1957

Studio, 380 Sq. Ft. $1,050-$1,300

1 BR, 1 BA $1,275-$1,600 2 BR, 1 BA $1,250-$1,385

Mayflower Apts. 335 E. Ridgewood Ave. 76 Units

Studio, 450 Sq. Ft. $1,160-$1,235

1 BR, 1 BA, $1,260-$1,385 2 BR, 1 BA $1,810-$1,885

Oak Manor Apts. 286 Oak Street 77 Units

1950 Studio, 420 Sq. Ft. $1,155-$1,380

1 BR, 1 BA, 895 Sq. Ft. $1,750 2 BR, 1 BA, 1,075 Sq. Ft. $1,940-$1,960 3 BR 1 BA, 1,330 Sq. Ft. $2,420

Dakotas 20 Ridge Road 40 Units

1956 1 BR, 1 BA, 647-947 Sq. Ft. $1,550

2 BR, 2 BA, 1,394-1,471 S.F. $2,300 3 BR, 2 BA 1,561-1,566 S.F. $2,700

Apartments 263 Franklin Avenue 44 Units

1915 Eff. 1 BR, 1BA, 580 Sq. Ft. $1,250-$1,326

1 BR, 1 BA, 605 Sq. Ft. $1,400 Large 1BR, 1 BA $1,400

Apartments 20 Garber Square 24 Units

1940 1 BR, 1 BA $1,400

APPENDIX B-1

STUDENT GENERATION RATES FOR DIFFERENT APARTMENT TYPES

GARDEN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RIDGEWOOD # Address Apartment Units

Total: 1B/2B/3B

Tenure Public School Attendees

1 522 North Maple Avenue 35: 18 / 14 / 3 Rental 17 2 280-320 Oak Street 77: 27 / 34 / 16 Rental 58 3 250-270 Oak Street 74: 17 / 57 / 0 Rental 30 4 21-31 & 20-30 Ridge Road 40: 14 / 26 / 0 Rental 37 5 60 Madison Place 21: 5 / 15 / 1 Rental 0 6 30 Corsa Terrace 8: 8 / 0 / 0 Rental 0 7 69 W. Ridgewood Avenue 33: 5 / 28 / 0 Rental 0 8 311-351 E. Ridgewood Ave. 76: 67 / 9 / 0 Rental 10 9 27-33 Corsa Avenue 22: 2 / 20 / 0 Owner 3

10 144-160 S. Maple Avenue 30: 25 / 5 / 0 Rental 9 11 350-374 E. Ridgewood Ave. 21: 9 / 11 / 1 Owner 7 12 450-500 E. Ridgewood Ave. 22: 8 / 14 / 0 Owner 12 13 450 E. Ridgewood Avenue 33: 33 / 0 / 0 Rental 0 14 135-167 S. Maple Ave. 54: 26 / 24 / 4 Rental 18 15 535 E. Ridgewood Ave. 12: 12 / 0 / 0 Rental 1

TOTAL 558: 276/257/25 202

NON-GARDEN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS IN RIDGEWOOD* # Address Apartment Units

Total: 1B/2B/3B

Tenure Public School Attendees

16 263 Franklin Avenue 46: 36 / 10 / 0 Rental 6 17 20 Corsa Terrace 5: 1 / 4 / 0 Rental 3 18 10 Corsa Terrace 20: 2 / 18 / 0 Rental 2 19 140 Bellair Road 19: 7 / 9 / 3 Owner 0 20 303 Marshall Street 6: 4 / 2 / 0 Rental 0 21 153 Dayton Street 6: 4 / 2 / 0 Rental 0 22 164 Union Street 30: 17 / 13 / 0 Rental 0 23 174 South Maple Ave. 10: 5 / 3 / 2 Rental 0 24 20 Garber Square 24: 12 / 12 / 0 Rental 2 25 54-56 Oak Street 9: 7 / 2 / 0 Rental 0 26 216 S. Broad Street 18: 3 / 15 / 0 Owner 2 27 36-38 Leonard Place 8: 0 / 8 / 0 Rental 0 28 310 Spring Ave. 30: 30 / 0 / 0 Rental 0 29 Durar Avenue 36: 0 / 0 / 36 Owner 2 30 578 Race Track road 10: 0 / 10 / 0 Owner 0

TOTAL 277: 128/108/41 17

* Not included is the 130 units senior citizen development at 7 Ridge Road which has 90 parking spaces and is the address of 3 public school children.

APPENDIX B-2

FIELD SURVEY OF ON-SITE PARKING FOR RIDGEWOOD APARTMENTS

A B C D E #

Property Address

Parking Spaces

Dwelling Units

A/B Spaces Per D.U.

Bedrooms A/D Spaces Per BR

1 522 N. Maple Ave. 63 35 1.8 55 1.1575 2 280-320 Oak St. 104 77 1.35 143 0.727 3 250-270 Oak St. 90 74 1.22 131 0.687 4 21-31, 21-31 Ridge Rd. 51 40 1.275 66 0.772 5 60 Madison Pl. 29 21 1.38 38 0.763 6 30 Corsa Terr. 14 8 1.75 8 1.75 7 69 W. Ridgewood Ave. 43 33 1.30 61 0.705 8 311-351 E. Ridgewood Ave 86 76 1.13 85 1.01 9 27-33 Corsa Ave. 33 22 1.5 42 0.785

10 144-160 S. Maple Ave. 42 30 1.4 35 1.2 11 350-374 E. Ridgewood Ave. 42 21 2.0 34 1.235 12 450-500 E. Ridgewood Ave. 47 22 2.14 36 1.305 13 450 E. Ridgewood Ave. 43 33 1.3 33 1.3 14 135-167 S. Maple Ave. 74 54 1.37 86 0.86 15 535 E. Ridgewood Ave. 17 12 1.41 12 1.41 16 263 Franklin Ave. 0 46 0.00 56 0.000 17 20 Corsa Terr. 14 5 2.8 9 1.55 18 10 Corsa Terr. 27 20 1.35 38 0.710 19 140 Bellair Rd. 58 19 3.05 34 1.70 20 303 Marshall St. 10 6 1.66 8 1.25 21 153 Dayton St. 10 6 1.66 8 1.25 22 164 Union St. 50 30 1.66 43 1.16 23 174 S. Maple Ave. 14 10 1.4 17 .824 24 20 Garber Sq. 14 24 .58 36 0.39 25 54-56 Oak 8 9 .89 11 0.727 26 216 S. Broad St. 23 18 1.28 33 0.700 27 36-38 Leonard Pl. 10 8 1.25 16 .625 28 310 Spring Ave. 43 30 1.43 30 1.43 29 Durar Avenue 92 36 2.56 108 0.852 30 578 Race Track Rd. 20 10 2.0 20 1.0

TOTAL / AVERAGE

1,214 835 1.45 1,332 .911

Dayton 180 120 1.50 199 .905 * Not included is the 130 units senior citizen development at 7 Ridge Road which has 90 parking spaces

and is the address of 3 public school children.

APPENDIX B-3

AERIAL PHOTOS OF RIDGEWOOD APARTMENTS

# Address Apartment Units Total: 1B/2B/3B

Bing Map Birdseye Photo of Site

1 522 North Maple Avenue Block 1509, Lot 20 R-5 Zone 17 Public School Children

35: 18 / 14 / 3

2 280-320 Oak Street

Block 1912, Lot 2 R-4 Zone 58 Public School Children

77: 27 / 34 / 16

3 250-270 Oak Street

Block 1912, Lots 3, 4 & 5 R-4 Zone 30 Public School Children

74: 17 / 57 / 0

4 21-31 & 20-30 Ridge Road

Block 2004, Lot 12 R-5 Zone Block 2013, Lot 4 R-4 Zone 37 Public School Children

40: 14 / 26 / 0

5 60 Madison Place

Block 2114, Lot 1 R-4 Zone No Public School Children

21: 5 / 15 / 1

APPENDIX B-4


# Address Apartment Units

Total: 1B/2B/3B Bing Map Birdseye Photo of Site

6 30 Corsa Terrace Block 2114 Lot 3 R-4 Zone No Public School Children

8: 8 / 0 / 0

7 69 W. Ridgewood Avenue


33: 5 / 28 / 0

8 311-351 E. Ridgewood Ave.


76: 67 / 9 / 0

9 27-33 Corsa Avenue


22: 2 / 20 / 0

10 144-160 S. Maple Avenue

Block 3710, Lot 14 R-4 Zone 9 Pubic School Children

30: 25 / 5 / 0

11 350-374 E. Ridgewood Ave.

Block 4002, Lot 2.01 R-4 Zone 7 Public School Children

21: 9 / 11 / 1

APPENDIX B-5




12 450-500 E. Ridgewood Ave. Block 4003, Lot 1 R-4 Zone 12 Public School Children

22: 8 / 14 / 0

13 450 E. Ridgewood Avenue


33: 33 / 0 / 0

14 135-167 S. Maple Ave.


54: 26 / 24 / 4

15 535 E. Ridgewood Ave.

Block 3612, Lot 30 R-4 Zone 1 Public School Child

12: 12 / 0 / 0

TOTAL 546: 264/257/25

APPENDIX B-6




16 263 Franklin Avenue Block 2012, Lot 10 B-2 Zone 6 Public School Children

46: 36 / 10 / 0

17 20 Corsa Terrace


5: 1 / 4 / 0

18 10 Corsa Terrace


20: 2 / 18 / 0

19 140 Bellair Road

Block 2313, Lot 2 R-2A Zone No Public School Children

19: 7 / 9 / 3

20 303 Marshall Street

Block 3607, Lot 38 T Zone No Public School Children

6: 4 / 2 / 0

APPENDIX B-7




21 153 Dayton Street Block 3704, Lot 24 R-2 Zone No Public School Children

6: 4 / 2 / 0

22 164 Union Street

Block 3709, Lot 9.01 R-3 Zone No Public School Children

30: 17 / 13 / 0

23 174 South Maple Ave.


10: 5 / 3 / 2

24 20 Garber Square

Block 3801, Lot 1 B-1 Zone 2 Public School Children

24: 12 / 12 / 0

25 54-56 Oak Street

Block 3805, Lot 5 B-2 Zone No Public School Children

9: 7 / 2 / 0

26 216 S. Broad Street

Block 3905, Lot 8.01 R-3 Zone 2 Public School Children

18: 3 / 15 / 0

APPENDIX B-8


# Address Apartment Units

Total: 1B/2B/3B Bing Map Birdseye Photo of Site

27 36-38 Leonard Place Block 3906, Lot 1 R-3 Zone No Public School Children

8: 0 / 8 / 0

28 310 Spring Ave.


30: 30 / 0 / 0

29 Durar Avenue

Block 4104, Lot 3 R-1A Zone 2 Public School Children

36: 0 / 0 / 36

30 578 Race Track Road

Block 4704.01, Lot 11 R-125 Zone No Public School Children

10: 0 / 10 / 0

TOTAL 289: 140/108/41

End File

summary planning evaluation - village of...

Documents