05-19-86 agenda3-~
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 14
Agenda May 19, 1986
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject Authorization To Execute a Contract With
South Hennepin Vocational Technical School
(Vo-Tech) For 1986-87 Project
Dear Commissioners:
South Hennepin Vocational Technical Center (Vo-Tech) has
requested that the HRA again participate in a housing project for
the school year 1986/87. This would be the eighth project
between the two organizations since 1977. This letter describes
past actions taken by the HRA and staff in preparation for this
project, summarizes the contract with Vo-Tech, and requests
execution of the contract by the HRA.
On September 17, 1984 the HRA authorized staff to acquire
the property located at 6820-12th Avenue through the Voluntary
Acquisition Program. The property was acquired with $39,000 in
CDBG Year X (1984-85) funds. The intent of the acquisition was
to use the site for a future Vo-Tech project. The existing
structure at the time of acquisition was small, had no bedroom,
and was substandard as to the mechanical, plumbing, and
electrical system. Rehabilitation was determined to be
impractical. Following acquisition, the structure was demolished
and the site cleared of nuisance trees. However, the original
garage and driveway were retained for use in a new project.
Redevelopment and housing activities, a reliable source for
structures in the past, could not provide an appropriate
structure to relocate and rehabilitate for the 12th Avenue
project. It was necessary to look elsewhere. A structure
located at 3340-26th Avenue South, Minneapolis, was available to
be purchased from the State of Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MNDOT). MNDOT needed to have the structure
removed for a future right-of-way project by June 25, 1986.
The structure was offered by the State under a competitive
bidding process. MNDOT would acce~t either a high bid or $1,500
for the structure. CDBG funds were budgeted by the HRA to secure
a structure by direct purchase or competitive bidding. The HRA
was awarded the structure with a high bid of $1,360. The
competing bids were $1,026 and $1,258. The structure, a three
bedroom, one-story rambler, is structurally in very sound
condition but requires extensive interior remodeling to return it
3'y
to a livable condition. A picture of the house accompanies this
letter. Richfield's inspection division has evaluated the
dwelling and will authorize the move. The rehabilitation work
will include:
-relocating the structure from 3340-26th Ave. So. to
6820-12th Avenue
-modifying the rambler to become a 1-1/2 story split
entry home
-new heating system
-new electrical wiring and service
-new plumbing system and fixtures
-all new sheetrock walls and ceilings
-all new floor coverings
-new oak trim
-new doors and windows
-new siding
-new roof covering
-renovating the existing one stall garage located at
6820-12th Avenue
It is expected that the rehabilitation project will commence
soon after HRA contract approval and be completed in the summer
of 1987. The house would be sold to a family of three to six
members having a moderate income (as determined by Section 8
income limits) of between $24,000 and $30,950. The Planning
Commission made a finding that disposition of the property as a
single family dwelling would be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The amount of the Vo-Tech contract for relocation and
rehabilitation of the structure to become a three bedroom, two
bathroom home is not to exceed $49,850. The major elements of
the contract include:
-A maximum cost of $49,850.00, (actual costs could be
less, as demonstrated by receipt), for all work performed
under the direction of Vo-Tech and the HRA paying Vo-Tech
after the property is sold, or by August 31, 1987;
-A work completion deadline on or before July 1, 1987;
-Supervision of labor and insurance coverage to be the
responsibility of Vo-Tech.
-A provision requiring Vo-Tech to be responsible for a one-
year warranty for defects caused by faulty workmanship or
defective materials, a two-year warranty on installation of
plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling systems, and a
ten-year warranty on structural defects. (This warranty is
required by state law).
-An addendum to the contract, specifying Vo-Tech's
responsibilities for house moving that ensures the house
is moved prior to June 25, 1986 from the City of
Minneapolis, all permits have been secured, and that all
Richfield city departments are notified far enough in
advance of the move to minimize disruptions to area
residents.
33
The rehabilitated house will be a split-entry design. A
copy of the survey, floor plans, and building elevations
accompany this letter. The lot at 6820-12th is 60 ft. wide and
will accommodate the relocated structure without a variance.
Although the completed value of the home has not yet been
determined by independent appraisal, staff estimates that the
value should be in the $75,000 to $85,000 range.
As in previous projects, the initial purchase price would
more closely approximate $60,000 and a second lien would be used
to recover the difference. While FHA and Conventional mortgage
rates have been favorable lately, it is anticipated that a
reduced interest rate mortgage would be secured from the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in the Spring, 1987.
There are three other Vo-Tech units in various stages of
completion:
920 W. 66th St.: within the Rae Drive/66th Street project
area now under construction; the buyer has been qualified, is
presently renting the unit from the HRA, and a closing date is
going to be arranged pending authorization to proceed from MHFA.
924 W. 66th St.: within the Rae Drive/66th Street project
area now under construction; the original buyer that was approved
by the HRA chose not to purchase and has moved out of the unit
which was being rented. The unit is vacant and has been readied
for a new purchaser. The marketing is occurring now. The
hearing for a sale will be scheduled for the July HRA meeting.
7245 Humboldt: construction (interior and exterior
finishing) and landscaping will occur in June. A family has been
identified to purchase. The HRA will be scheduled to authorize
the sale at the June meeting, following a public hearing.
It is recommended that the HRA adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the execution of the Vo-Tech contract by the Chairman
and Acting Executive Director for the 6820-12th Avenue project as
described.
Res tfully ubm tted,
~~.
e vi
Acting Executive Dir ctor
3'~
HRA RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH
SOUTH HENNEPIN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL CENTER. (VO-TECH)
WHEREAS, the HRA acquired the real property at 6820-12
Avenue South, legally described as:
The N. 1/2 of the E. 1/2 of Lot 3, Baumgartners First
Addition; and
WHEREAS, the HRA has purchased the structure at 3340-26th
Avenue South, Minneapolis to be relocated to 6820-12th Avenue
South and rehabilitated to become a 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom home;
and
WHEREAS, the contract price for the rehabilitation of the
structure will not exceed $49,850 and an addendum to the contract
will specify moving requirements that Vo-Tech will adhere to; and
WHEREAS, following completion of the rehabilitation work,
the property would be sold to a first homebuying moderate income
family.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the HRA Chairman and Acting Executive Director are
authorized to enter into a construction contract and an
addendum related to moving requirements with Vo-Tech for
an amount not to exceed $49,850.00 for the housing
rehabilitation project to be completed at 6820-12th
Avenue South.
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota this 19th day of May, 1986.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
~,5
3340-26th Ave. S.
Hedlund Engineering
Land Surveyors CIviI Engin~~rs
Services
Land Planners
Surveyar~s G'ertlfuute
9201 East Bloomington Freeway
8bomington, Minrwsota 55420
Phone:.888-0289
/~
P~,~e ~4~
J08 N0. 6- ~`~
SURVEY FOR Richfield H.R.A.
GESCR18E0 AS~ The N. '~ of the E. ~ of Lot 3, BAUMGARTNERS FIRST ADDITION, city o f
Richfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements of
record.
TOP, OF FOUNDATION
GARAGE FLOOR
BASEMENT FLOOR
SEWER SERVICE ELEV.
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
DRAINAGE DIRECTIONS
DENOTES LOT CORNERS
DENOTES OFFSET STAKE
= I4S, t~
= 14 i. 8
O
p
• o
130.
W
w
0
(r1
r
Z ~fl.S
,!
3o.s _ _~
S~rutJ~ t~ T * 1
37~ I~
v. 1
~ ~ ~°RO/°OSEO 2
~ N NOuSE
~ ~ a-
~ '~
b
30.5 ~
y
~ ~3 ~:
6Xi5T'.
G f{S21~C~, N 1 '
N N gone. oQiYEw~ J •s
2 Z 1 r..
`u ., ... HEDGE Row 130'44
Exi5T1 N~
N_Q~~I*
I¢4.a
r~----_
7xo"tir,,-.3o.s- y
~ h .
T
~ ~/ ~
5
I
F--
O 142.7
~
,
V,
W
Z Mar.llolt~
i T°P'EI'=142.8
W
~ 14.0
N
~RTtFICATE OF SURVEY ~
I hsreby certify that on ,5 / 7 /,86 ,.I surveyed the property described above and that
the above plot is o correct repre~lentotion of safd survey.
Colvin H. Hedlund, Minn. Reg No. 5942
3,9
Z
~.
.~
J
7
iu
J
=
r
i
s~
N
il~
1
..
t
''.
,~I~{I
~
~.~/. ~
'
~i ~.
~' /
d
Z
u
Y
~.
q,
`
1
S
' C
yy
.~. Y
O
..- ---
8-- - - -$
3-~
~~
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Office of Executive Director
HRA Letter No. 13
Agenda May 19, 1986
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Public Hearing on the LHN Land Use Plan
Amendment ~~5 for Property at 64th Street and
Lyndale Avenue, and Property At Graham and
Lyndale Avenues
Commissioners:
The LHN Land Use Plan Amendment ~~5 was discussed by the HRA
on March 17, 1986. The amendment proposes to modify the
permitted land use at two sites within the LHN area. (See
attached map).
The first site is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of 64th Street and Lyndale Avenue. The property is
owned by Mr. Oreck who recently renovated the existing commercial
retail shopping center. A portion of Mr. Ahlquist's property
which adjoins the Oreck property to the South is also included
within the modification. Mr. Ahlquist has also renovated his
property. The 1975 and 1979 LHN Land Use Plan Map identified
this area for multifamily development. As noted in the March
17th letter, the dimensions of the property simply were not
sufficient for a desirable apartment development. Thus, the
modification for this site is a "housekeeping" item. The
modification amends the land use from multifamily to commercial.
The second site is bisected by Graham Avenue at its
intersection with Lyndale Avenue. It is bordered on the north by
Circle Place and on the south by Auto Lane. The amendment would
modify the land use for this site from commercial to commercial
and/or multifamily. Thus, commercial uses could continue on this
site with or without housing or housing could be the only use.
The Walker Methodist Residence and Health Services, Inc. together
with E. J. Plesko have expressed interest in developing a rental
housing project for the elderly on this site. Mr. Shaller and
Mr. Trestman owners of Big Wheel and Trestman Music,
respectively which are located on this site, have proposed the
expansion and renovation of the commercial use (The HRA also owns
three lots which are a part of this development site). Another
agenda item for the May 19th meeting relates to the selection of
one of the two development proposals for this property.
~,v
It is recommended that the HRA hold the public hearing,
evaluate the testimony and approve the attached resolution.
Respe fully s it ed,
~i~
tev L. Devic
Acting Executive Director
~-3
Due to the lengthy amendment process, it was appropriate to
initiate the modification to the land use plan in March. Three
bodies must act on it, the HRA, Planning Commission and City
Council. Thus, on March 17, 1986, the HRA referred the LHN Land
Use Plan Amendment Number 5 to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission was requested to make a finding as to the
conformance of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan.
On April 22, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public
meeting at which the request was considered. Over 1,100 notices
regarding the consideration of this item by the Planning
Commission were mailed. The notice recipients, both owners and
tenants of commercial and residential property within the LHN and
within 350 feet of the LHN boundary were invited to the meeting.
By a vote of 9-0 the Planning Commission agreed to support
amending the LHN Plan from multifamily to commercial for the
property lying between 64th and 65th Streets adjacent to the east
side of Lyndale Avenue (6401 to 6453 Lyndale Avenue South), and
to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation to be
consistent with the amendment to the LHN Plan.
By a vote of 8-l, the Planning Commission agreed to amend
the LHN Plan changing the land use from commercial to multi-
family and/or commercial for the property lying between Circle
Place and Auto Lane adjacent to the west side of Lyndale Avenue,
also included is the Graham Avenue right-of-way, the adjoining
Circle Place right-of-way and the right-of-way adjoining Lot 5,
Block 3, Fairwood Shore Addition on the west, and, to amend the
City's Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject
property be consistent with the LHN Plan.
The next step in the Land Use Plan Amendment process is for
the HRA to hold a public hearing and take formal action on the
proposal. Notice of the HRA Public Hearing was published on May
13, 1986 in the Richfield Sun Current. An invitation was
extended to over 1,100 residents and business tenants and owners
within the LHN and within 350 feet of the LHN project boundary
area on April 28, 1986. Also, a verbal invitation was made at
the public meeting held Wednesday, May 7, 1986 at City Hall when
the two development proposals were presented for discussion by
the public.
If the HRA adopts the attached resolution, it would be
presented to the City Council with a request for them to schedule
a public hearing and approve the Amendment.
~~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF RICHFIELD,. MINNESOTA
APPROVING MODIFICATION N0. 5
IN THE LYNDALE HUB NICOLLET COMMERCIAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Richfield, Minnesota (HRA) did on October 15, 1975, approve a
redevelopment plan for the Lyndale Hub Nicollet "Commercial
Improvement program" (the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Richfield, Minnesota did on
November 24, 1975, approve the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has subsequently been amended including
those amendments adopted in 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Plan designated certain land uses for particular
properties; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the land use plan for
certain properties should be changed to more appropriately
reflect current conditions; and
WHEREAS, Modification No. 5 is described in the attached
Exhibit A and shown on the attached map-Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 462.356 requires the Planning
Commission's finding as to the conformance of the proposed land
use modification with the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority that:
1. The receipt of the findings of the Planning
Commission with regards to the conformance of
Modification No.S to the Comprehensive Plan is
hereby acknowledged.
2. Modification No. 5 is hereby adopted and the Plan
is changed to conform with said modification.
3. That the Acting Executive Director be, and hereby
is authorized, as an agent of the Richfield Housing
and Redevelopment Authority, to present the modification
to the City Council for their consideration at a public
hearing along with a request for its approval.
1-5
Passed by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City
of Richfield this 19th day of May, 1986.
Thomas E. Harms, Chairman
Joan Helmberger, Secretary
a-b
MODIFICATION N0. 5
THE LYNDALE-HUB-NICOLLET COMMERCIAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT A
"Amendments to the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet Commercial
Improvement Project", approved March 12, 1979 by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, and, the City Council on March 26, 1979,
is hereby modified as follows. The Land Use Map, page 31 is
hereby modified for the following:
The property lying between Circle Place and Auto Lane
adjacent to the west side of Lyndale Avenue, known as
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fairwood Shores Addition,
and, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 3 Fairwood Shores
Addition, also Graham Avenue, the adjoining Circle Place
and the right-of-way adjoining. Lot 5 on the west
from Commercial to Commercial and/or Multi-Family, and;
The property lying between 64th and 65th Streets adjacent
to the east side of Lyndale Avenue except Block 2, J. N.
Hauser's Second Addition, from Multi-Family to Commercial.
~-~
-- ~ ~ ~ ~-
--'1-35 _ \\
~ ~~~
~ ~ v- h ' i` ~ __ --~--i
11. .
\ ~~ 'i 'I I
J' ~ r-TT-T- i-0 I
~„~ ~, ~ ` a° ; l"/ i C i ~ ~ j 'I it N I
I
~ r
',.:~ ~ I '=rye :' ;"~1~> ' Ip .+ P.•.•, ~~ -I ,; <
-. ~
r-- M•RRI[T •Y[. ~
s ~ _~ ~ -- - ~--; -.,--.--rte
I ~ ' ~ ~ I I ~ eR•MO •YC ,
I I ~ ' ~T I, i r I~
j , ' -i------: ~ I
~~ ~~~ ~ M[•YMT RYC I~' /
g - _ ' ' ~~ ~ i=1
Z v ' I I i I I I {~,y~ II
' [ulsocu •vc
'~
o m ~ -. ~ I
~: ;
, ;
„.f..,f.. ,,`~
- ~~
;I
W. iJ _ ~ I
7+R •YC 1
~I
x ~ # LYIVCIALE / HUB/ NICOLLET
~ ~ ! = ' COMMERCIAL 111/1PROVEMENT
~ '~ PROGRAIVa RICHlFIELO, MN
~T .T.T£TTTiX7 - - _- --- - ------ - - -------- -- - - -
~-N RA-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 199
~bFR~A Letter No. 12
Agenda May 19, 1986
The Honorable Mayor
-and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Selection of Proposal for the Graham Avenue
Development .Site, LHN Project
City Council Members and Commissioners:.
At the April 21, 1986 HRA meeting, two proposals were
presented for the redevelopment of a site within the LHN adjacent
to Lyndale Avenue between Circle Place and Auto Lane.. The site
is now occupied by Trestman Music at 6630 Lyndale Avenue, Big
Wheel/Rossi at 6700 Lyndale, three vacant parcels owned by the
HRA and located at 709, 715, and 721 Graham Avenue,-and Graham
Avenue and Circle Place right-of-ways. The site is approximately
two acres in size and is depicted on the attached map.
Description of Development Proposals
One of the proposals is for a commercial use and the other
proposal is for a residential use. The commercial concept
envisions the vacation of Graham Avenue and the construction of
an approximate 8,.000 S.F. one story commercial structure which
would tie the Big Wheel and Trestman Music stores together.
Through the use of building materials, the three structures would
have a unified facade. Approximately 147 parking spaces would be
located adjacent to Lyndale Avenue and at the rear of-the site.
The owners of the two existing buildings, Mr. Shaller and Mr ..
Trestman, would be the owners and developers.
The housing concept envisions the construction of
approximately 224 units of rental housing for the elderly in a
high-rise structure of twelve floors with services and amenities
to meet the needs of the tenants.. The owner/developer would be
E. J. Plesko, and Walker Management, Inc. a division of Walker
Methodist Residence and Health Services, Inc. would manage the
development.
In attendance at the April HRA meeting were members of
several groups interested in the future of Richfield. These
included the City Council, the Planning Commission, Human
Services Commission and the Local Strategy on Aging Task Force.
The Plesko-Walker team should present additional information
before the evaluation can be completed. It was also deemed to be
cc-d~-z
appropriate that the Local Strategy on Aging Task Force .and
Planning Commission would meet separately to evaluate the
proposals and make a recommendation to the HRA. Finally, input -
from the project area would be obtained by inviting people to a
public meeting in early May.
The balance of this letter discusses several topics.. The
results of the meetings held during the week of May 5th, an
evaluation by staff of the additional informatioh presented by
the Plesko-Walker team as a result of the April 21 HRA meeting,
some previously presented information which is still of concern,
and finally, other considerations including a staff-
recommendation designed to assist the HRA and City Council in
selecting a development concept.
Results of Meetings
During the week of May 5, the Local Strategy on Aging Task
Force and Planning Commission met to deliberate on the
redevelopment of this site. A meeting for people within and
adjoining the LHN was also held.
The Task Force met the evening of May 5th at City Hall..
They support the development of housing on-this site provided the
HRA is satisfied with the affordability of the units. Attached
to this letter. is their written recommendation. Some of the.
significant new data which the Task Force considered was an
"Inventory of Richfield Area Retirement Housing".which is
included with their report. It indicates that there is no
market rate .retirement rental housing .development in Richfield at
the present time. It also indicates. that the Plesko-Walker
proposal in comparison to other retirement rental housing
alternatives. either occupied. or under construction in adjoining
municipalities would be the most affordable retirement rental
housing opportunity .available to Richfield residents.
On the evening of May 7th, approximately 150 people attended
a meeting in the Council Chambers. The people responded to a
letter mailed to over 1100 residential and business property
owners and tenants. These people were located within the LHN
project and within 350 feet of its boundary. The people. who
expressed opinions fell into four categories: (1) Lake Shore
Condominium residents (slightly less than one-half of those in
the audience), (2) business. owners in the area, (3) VFW Post
representatives and (4) other residents. The Lake Shore Drive
people were most concerned about possible congestion related to
traffic and the impairment of their views which they presently
enjoy. The business representatives were primarily concerned
about the 66th and Lyndale area losing its commercial image
because of the loss of retail space, which would be the result of
the development of additional housing. If that happened, they
feared that fewer people would shop in the area. Mr. Sieff,
owner of the S & M Company, of which Lyndale Hardware is a part,
was concerned about his business being isolated. The isolation
ce-~~,en-3
would result from the housing development, and in his opinion,
would be detrimental to Lyndale Hardware's business.
The VFW representatives expressed concern about their need
for parking space for their proposed expanded facility. With the
housing development, it would be more difficult, if not
impossible for them to utilize a shared parking facility.
However, with the commercial development., the sharing of parking
facilities would be easier to accomplish. Some exploratory
discussions between the VFW and Shaller-Trestman representatives
on this parking question have already taken place..
Other residents of the area expressed concern about the
impact of the apartment-proposal. .Most of those concerns were
related to concerns previously identified above. In their
opinion Richfield has not been, and should not become, a
community of high rise buildings, increased traffic congestion
and a community characterized by a demand for an increased level
of public services.
The Planning Commission met on May 8th at City Hall. Notice
of the meeting was published in the Sun-Current and it was ,
announced at the May 7th public meeting. The audience was
relatively small compared to the previous evenings' meeting.
Some concerns first expressed on Wednesday, were again expressed
at this meeting and were related to congestion,- density, and loss
of commercial space. Two persons, Myrna Hammer, Chair of the
Local Strategy on Aging Task Force and the Human. Services
Commission presented the Task Force position in favor of housing
An elderly man .who indicated he attended the meeting without
prompting, expressed a desire for the rental apartments and that
he understood the concept of utilizing the interest earnings from
the investment of the sale proceeds from his home to help pay the
monthly rent. The Commission on a 7-1 vote favored the
commercial project..
Response to Concerns Raised At Meetings
The concerns of persons participating in the meetings fell
into three areas; (1) congestion, (2) land use relationships,
(3) rents and marketability. With the housing development,
congestion was perceived as a potential problem because of the
traffic already carried by Lyndale Avenue and 66th Street. For
some elderly people, it is uncomfortable to walk across either of
these streets. The Plesko-Walker team was requested to retain a
professional consultant to study the existing and future traffic
volumes in the vicinity of 66th Street and Lyndale. Attached to
this letter is a memorandum from the firm of Short-Elliott-
Hendrickson, Inc. The report indicates that with the housing
development, the daily traffic volumes would increase one to two
percent. On the basis of this memo and being familiar with the
area, staff has tentatively concluded that there is not, and will
not be, a traffic problem if the housing project were to be
constructed. A final conclusion could be reached by staff if the
ee-~~a - y
consultant would provide additional analysis related to the
design capacity of the existing streets, existing .traffic volumes
and projected volumes from Woodlake Point and Market Plaza and
finally the service level which is likely to result when the
capacity and volumes are related to one another. Plesko-Walker
has been asked to provide additional information on this subject.
As a part of the LHN redevelopment activities, the City
undertook a right-of-way improvement project designed to reduce
accidents, and congestion,-and to increase pedestrian safety.
You may recall from the LHN evaluation report, prepared and
presented by staff recently, that the number of motor vehicle
accidents along 66th Street has decreased dramatically since the
improvements were installed. This decrease has taken place in
conjunction with an increase in the traffic volume. Within the
past few days, staff reviewed traffic accident report data for
1984 and 1985 along 66th Street, including the intersection with.
Lyndale, and Graham Avenues and Rae Drive.. During this period of
time, there were no reported accidents involving motor vehicles
and pedestrians. However, as a result of the concerns and
apprehension of some elderly to walk across the streets, staff is
of the opinion that Public Safety personnel and the management
and occupants of the residences adjacent to 66th Street should
work together in an attempt to overcome these concerns.
Congestion was not perceived as a problem with the commercial
proposal.
Land use relationships broadly defined include building
heights, density of units and population and the compatibility of
commercial and residential land uses.. The commercial development
even though it involves an expansion of approximately 8,000
square feet .would not result in any significant change from. the
existing development in terms of the items above and it would
make needed aesthetic improvements. It would strengthen the
appeal of this area for shoppers. The housing proposal would add
a 12 story building to the area,. result in a density of
approximately 124 units per acre and a population increase
estimated at approximately 291 persons. (The density of Woodlake
Point approximates 105 dwelling units per acre if only the land
controlled by the association is considered. The future
population of the building is estimated at 204 persons).
Existing commercial space of approximately 21,000 square feet
would be lost plus the proposed 8,000 additional square feet of
commercial space.
If there is to be another tall residential building in the
community this is the appropriate location. It takes the
pressure off other areas of the community which have a single-
family home character. The grouping of tall buildings at this
location could help provide a focal point for Richfield. There
is sufficient open space and low intensity development on
adjoining property to mitigate the feeling that this is a highly
urbanized area. With three structures located in close proximity
ce-~1RA-s
to one another, there may be a possibility of cooperative efforts
among the building occupants in the future. The increase in
population can also be accommodated by the existing public and
private facilities in the area. Although the discretionary
income of the residents may not be high, they would bring.
increased sales to many of the nearby businesses..
The proposed housing project is designed .and sited in such a
way as to minimize the impact on the Lake Shore Drive
Condominium. It is located approximately 150 feet or one-half
block .from the Lake Shore Drive building. The views from Lake
Shore Drive to the north and south would not be blocked. Three
windows per floor are located on .the east end of the building
including a window for a bedroom, a window for a smaller bedroom
or den and a window in the living/dining area. Each would have
impaired views as a result of the Plesko-Walker building. The
living room is the same room which has large patio doors with a
view of the south toward Woodlake which would not be affected by
the proposed structure.
Regarding the diminution of the supply of commercial space,
it is important to note that 63,000 square feet of net rentable
commercial space is being added to the north side of 66th Street
at Market Plaza. This would help to offset the loss of the.
commercial property and-image south of Circle Place.
The marketability of the developments is another concern..
The commercial proposal, being relatively small, should be
relatively easy to market. However, it is appropriate to
determine whether there is a need for more commercial space. At
the present time there is a wide variety of commercial uses in
the LHN area. A survey of commercial property owners or managers
in the LHN during the last few days, revealed that there is"
approximately 24,.349 vacant square feet of retail space now on
the market. This includes space at Oreck Plaza, Richfield
Shoppes and the Hub.
The marketability of the residential development is more
difficult to assess. The market study presented by Walker on
April 21, resulted in a request that they reaggregate their data
anal better identify the Richfield resident responses to the
market survey and better demonstrate the marketability to
Richfield residents. There are three attachments to this letter
which relate to residential marketability. The Task Force report
previously mentioned contains an analysis of the retirement
housing available in Richfield and adjoining communities. One
conclusion which could be drawn is that with rents proposed for
the Plesko-Walker proposal being below the market rate rents of
these nearby developments, the renting of the Plesko-Walker units
would be facilitated.
Another attachment is from Attorney David Sellergren of
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, Ltd. representing the
~c-NRA- 6
developers of Woodlake Point. His letter, and the attachment
from Lee Maxfield,' take the position that the. elderly housing
market is for ownership and rental is essentially the same.
That is, elderly people do not show strong preference for
ownership or rental housing. In this situation he asserts the
condominium .market is now over built and with 57% of the Woodlake
Point units sold the prospect of an additional 224 rental units
would intensify the problem. (The letter also implies that the
HRA may be in violation of the contract between the Woodlake
Point developers and the HRA if this project is approved. HRA
legal counsel does not agree with this implication). Plesko-
Walker has taken a different- position. They feel the elderly
market is segmented and that rental retirement units do not
compete strongly with condominium retirement units. Staff does
not feel that sufficient information has been presented to
evaluate this issue. However, the data presented by Walker does
indicate the presence of a market.
.The attachment from Quality Decisions, Inc. represents a
reformatting of the earlier gathered data which still must be
analyzed. An analysis of the data will be presented by the
Plesko-Walker development team on Monday along with other market
data.
Closely related to marketability is the rent to be charged
for the units. Attached to this letter is a memo from Plesko-
Walker .regarding the rent range for the apartments. They have
proposed a range from $500 to $1150 per month including services.
Monday, the developers will analyze the incomes necessary to
afford the apartments within this rent range. The following
discussion of rents and qualifying income is based on a 224-unit
building utilizing tax exempt mortgage revenue bond financing
which Plesko-Walker is considering.
Utilizin existin rules of HUD and the federal Treasury
Department which are responsible for regulating developments
financed with tax exempt bonds), Plesko-Walker would be required
to comply with the following:
-45 dwelling units must be "affordable" to moderate income
persons (i.e., 20% of the units must be occupied by persons with
incomes at or below 80% of median income)
The following table differentiates various incomes and household
sizes as a percentage of median income:
Household
Size
1
2
50% (low
income)
$12,300
$14,050
80% (moderate
income)
$19,250
$22,000
100% (median
income)
$24,600
$28,100
Thus, 45 dwelling units must be occupied by one person
households with incomes at or below $19,250 and two person
households with .incomes at or below $22,000. Keep. in mind
ec-rfRA- 7
that persons with incomes at 50% or below (i.e.,-low income)-
are eligible for subsidized housing. Persons in the $12,300
to $19,250. and $14,050 to $22,000 range would be the
moderate income persons that .would benefit most -from having
access to affordable rents.
-45 dwelling units must have "affordable" rents: (i.e.20% of
the units have a rent schedule such that moderate income.
.persons pay no more than 30 percent of income for rent).
The following table assigns maximum rents based on household
size and various income levels:
Number of Household Maximum Monthly Rent Permitted
bedrooms Size ~ Percentage of Median Income
50% 60% 70% 80%
0 1 $308 $369 431 481
1 1 $30.8 $369 $431 $481
1 2 $351 $421 $492 $550
2 2 $351 $421 $492 $550
Thus, 45 dwelling units must have affordable rents, which
for a one person household could not exceed $481/month,
$550/month for a two person household.
The Utilization of New rules may-occur if proposed federal
legislation passes sometime this year and revenue bonds. have not
yet been issued for this project. If this occurs, Plesko-Walker.
would have a choice of:
-occupying 20% of units with households having incomes at
70% of median, or
-occupying 25% of units with households having incomes at
80% of median
Thus, if new rules apply, 45 units must have rents which do
not exceed $431/month to $492/month respectively serving one and
two person households with incomes which are at or below 70% of
the median incomes described in the above table.
OR
56 units must have rents which do not exceed $481/month to
$550/month, respectively serving one and two person households
with incomes at or below 80% of the median income.
If tax exempt financing is utilized, the controls above are
operative and the developer would risk loss of tax exempt status
for the bonds if these controls were violated.
Additional Considerations,. Housing Proposal
The housing development would be consistent with the goal of
the HRA to provide alternative forms of housing in the community.
CC• f~+P,¢- y
Appropriate available sites for multi-unit housing in
Richfield are scarce. This site is ideally located to provide
housing for .the elderly. It is close to transportation,
commercial support services and recreational facilities.
However, to provide a site for housing, it would be necessary to
displace several businesses.
Attached to this letter is a memorandum which concludes that
there. are no identifiable problems which would cause additional
expenses to the City. as a result of this housing project.
A tax exempt Tax Increment bond sale in the amount of $2.5
million to $3.5 million would be necessary to provide the housing
site. Based on a preliminary analysis by Evensen-Dodge Inc. the
additional bonds would not impair the ability of the HRA and City
to retire all bonds by the year-2002 (the LHN status. report
recently presented to the HRA projected a probably pay off of all
bonds by 20.02). However, the sale of .tax exempt bonds would have
to be initiated and completed soon. Rules permitting a tax
exempt redevelopment bond sale are in effect until September 1,
1986 or until Congress adopts a law which would make a sale for
this purpose unacceptable, whichever occurs first.
In return for this expenditure, a housing project valued at
approximately $l0 million would be constructed. Annual
incremental tax revenues of approximately $280,-000 would result.
The full increment would be available in 1990 assuming
construction started in 1987 and was completed by January 2,
1989. A partial increment would be received in 1989. The tax
increment would be utilized to pay off bonds and would not be
available to taxing jurisdictions until all bonds were paid off.
According to Hennepin County Assessment personnel, ownership of
this project. by a nonprofit organization would not make it tax
exempt provided, of course, the property is utilized for rental
retirement living.
The probable sale value to a developer of the entire site on
which housing would be constructed could be $300,000 or as high
as $600,000. However, negotiations would determine the actual
sale price. The site is approximately two acres in size and
would provide limited space for outdoor amenities for apartment
residents.
The building would be designed and programmed .for people
fifty-five years of age and older. But most of the occupants
would be over 65 years of age. It would be-open to anyone
without restriction but in marketing the units populations in
certain areas could be targeted through advertising first..
Additional Considerations, Commercial Proposal
The commercial development would be in compliance with the
land use plan policy statement adopted in 1979. The original
1975 plan also envisioned the commercial use of this land, though
utilizing a different concept.
C'c- {J RA- `1
The proposed commercial development could proceed with
little additional cost to the HRA or City. A preliminary
estimate of additional cost would be $50,000 to $75,000, most of
which would be for utility relocation..
The commercial development and renovation may add market
value of approximately $618,000 (this is a preliminary estimate
for buildings and right-of-way which would become taxable).
Additional tax revenue generated would approximate $30,000 and
would be available in 1988, assuming project completion by
1/2/87 . However, this revenue would be utilized to pay off tax
increment bonds and would not be available to taxing
jurisdictions until all bonds were paid off. This value would
result from a total expenditure of approximately $300,000 to
$325,000 by the HRA and City. Approximately $250,000 has been
expended to date to acquire and manage the three HRA properties
which are part of the site. The other expenditures are related
primarily to previously mentioned utility relocation. No
additional bond issue would be needed to provide for this
development.
The probable sale value. of the HRA land (three properties)
for commercial purposes is approximately $100,000. However,
negotiations would determine the actual sale price.
Conclusion and Recommendation
It is recommended that .the City Council and HRA endorse the
concept of housing for the subject property provided that
additional information be transmitted to the staff in three
areas. These areas are, (1) traffic volume and capacity
information, (2) a complete schedule of rents for the apartment
units, and (3) additional information on the senior citizen
housing market.
This recommendation is based upon several factors:
(1) this is the only suitable location for high density housing
in Richfield; (2) the location of housing on the subject property
would be compatible with the other housing uses in the immediate
area; (3) while the project will not serve as many low and
moderate persons as desired it does represent a step towards
meeting the HRA's goal of providing additional moderate income
housing for senior citizen; (4) the housing project will be a
more valuable tax resource for the community over a longer period
of time, and (5) there are several other locations in the
community where the existing commercial uses may be able to
relocate.
It is further recommended that the housing concept be
endorsed contingent upon the successful negotiation of a
developer's agreement with Walker-Plesko.
ec ~l-I1S
It is recommended that the Trestman/Shaller project be
deferred at this time and that it be pursued in the event that
negotiations are unsuccessful with Walker/Plesko. '
An alternative course of action the Council and HRA may wish
to consider is to delay action on a decision until June 23. This
additional time would permit additional analysis and discussion.
If the latter course of action is followed, it should occur only
after. presentations by both developers and the taking of
additional public testimony. A delay may risk the opportunity to
utilize tax exempt Tax Increment bonds and tax exempt-Housing
Revenue Bonds. Both of these types. of financing, one used by the
HRA and City, the other by the developer result in lower interest
rates, less cost and therefore, potentially lower rents. If ..this
financing is not available, taxable Tax Increment bonds .and
housing financing would be available. Because the financing
would be taxable, the interest rate would be higher, the costs
greater and thus., the rents would likely increase.. At the present
time the difference in interest cost between tax exempt and
taxable financing is only one-half to three-quarters of a
percent.
Res tfully ubm'tted,
`~ ,
even L. Devich
Acting City Manager
Acting Executive Director
SD/eja
Attachments:
A. Graham Avenue Development Site Map
B. Local Strategy on Aging Recommendation
C. Short-Elliot Hendrickson Traffic Letter
D. Letter from Larkin, Hoffman & Attached
Maxfield Market Study
E. Memo from Walker-Plesko on Rental Unit Prices
F. Article ".Owning Vs Renting"
G. Walker-Plesko-Richfield Housing Survey Report
H. Memo on Impact of Increased Elderly Population
"3Ar 1130SIY18 - ,
I ~ ~ t ,~
• ~ ,
_ ~ ' ~ ~
i
'3Ar NlaOM1N7M I ~ I
t
1 !
i
. ~ - t~t~ ~ l ;n
- ~ ~ I If ~1
,. ,
'' : t ~~~
r 1Nrsr3ld ~
la~aarN
} } ~`
f" ~ ~
~ ~ ~
W W W W
~ d za a
~ ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~
a .~ a ~ o. a
Z G J N ~
~ ~
=O _ ~ _
.gym C7 y H
• _
i
1
'anr 1Nr~as ~ _
r- f
J W /~ ~'~t~~ ~~~~ Off:
- • Y v ~~ \`
J ^ . ~"
aer :rno~ ~ ~ ~' .~
~(
~ ~ A I
--p r' ; __
~ i. ,
~]Ar 1NOdn0 _ ~'
..... f " .J 8 OOOMNAI
S,
1 ~ I ~ _;
~ ~-
`u~s.~..~u~^^s...^^n! I J ~ I I
•anr Nosaawi L ~ ~___L..
' ' ; 1-i 1 I ! j ~ ~ 1 ; "+ ~ I T--tT' C~ ,- ?-t . rT t I ~ t ~ _ -•- -
4
\ ~ -- ___ ~ S £ - ~
-/Z
May I2, 1986 ~. _
T0: The Richfield Housing and•Redevelopment Authority;
. Thomas E. Harms, Chair
FROM: The Local Strategy on Aging Task Force;
• Myrna Hammer,. Chair
SUBJECT: Local Strategy on Aging (LSA) Task Force Recommendation:
Plesko- Walker Proposal
The Task Force supports the housing concept being proposed.
On May 5, 1986, the LSA Task Force met to discuss the Plesko-
Walker retirement rental housing proposal. The purpose of the
meeting was to evaluate the housing proposal in relation to
elderly housing needs and arrive at recommendations to be
forwarded to the HRA. There were several factors and concerns to
be evaluated and drawing a conclusion was difficult. This. memo
discusses the deliberations that occured and the context of ---
project support.
Several LSA Task Force members (six of eight) had the opportunity
to hear the housing proposal presentation from Plesko- Walker at
the April HRA meeting. All members received the retirement
housing market study and information contained in HRA Letter No.
11, dated April 21, 1986 "Redevelopment Concepts For The Graham
Avenue Development Site, LHN Redevelopment Project". This
subject, housing opportunities for the elderly, is of keen
interest to the LSA Task Force. A list of members is attached
tb reference.
The LSA Task Force has been meeting routinely since September,
1985, to understand the needs•of the growing elderly population
and to hear from professionals on several priority concerns:
-need for coordination of services;
-inability to provide new subsidized housing
opportunities for elderly because of significant
funding reductions;
-need for housing alternatives for persons 65 to 80 years of
age with an environment suitable for independent living yet
flexible enough to allow aging in place;
-an affordable housing opportunity for moderate income
elderly;
-responding to an elderly population that will continue to
increase each decade even well past the turn of the century;
-many elderly programs such as Section 8 rent assistance,
meals on wheels, and housing rehabilitation that operate at
capacity, suffer from funding reductions, and retain
waiting lists for assistance; and,
-need for transportation bath within, and, i.n and out of the
city.
~- ~3
The Plesko-Walker concept offers solutions to these concerns for -_-
the elderly that would reside in the project, if approved. As a
result, the demand for community services is reduced and the
costs of service are passed directly on to those that. benefit.
The special May 5th meeting provided a forum to discuss all
relevant material from the April, HRA meeting placed in
perspective with previous meetings of the LSA Task Force.
Additional new material that would assist in the decision making
process was also provided.. The new material included an
"Inventory of Richfield Area Retirement Housing"-and definitions
of income level terminology and average rents. An additional
rent survey information sheet has been included with this memo to
further clarify the average rent data that was provided to the
LSA Task Force. All of this "new information" is attached for
reference,
Because of efforts by Myrna Hammer, Task Force Chair, the
meeting also provided an opportunity for members that could not
attend or could not stay through the entire meeting (Mayor John
Hamilton, Michael Sandahl, Vern Luettinger, Ivan Ludeman) to have
their concerns voiced:
-Would this proposal create an "in-migration" of elderly
as mentioned in the "Lukerman Strategy. on Aging" study?
-Will this proposal provide housing affordable to moderate
income people?
-Are retail businesses being driven out, to the detriment of
the community? .
-Is this area being overdeveloped with elderly highrises?
-Is Richfield overbuilt with elderly housing?
-Must tax increment financing be utilized?
Connie Hoverson, LSA Task Force member and co-author of the
"Lukerman Study" provided perspective on the relationship of the
study to the Plesko-Walker housing proposal. The in-migration
question arose from an analysis of the buyers and potential
buyers of. Lake Shore Drive and Woodlake Point Condominiums.
However, this data may not be relevant to a retirement rental
project. The condominiums have been sold to higher income
elderly. households with significant assets and ownership
interest. .The study collected no data that directly related in-
migration to a rental project. Finally, the study does not
assess whether in-migration was either good or bad.
The "Inventory of Richfield Area Retirement Housing" helped the
Task Force understand the present elderly housing market. One
conclusion-which may be drawn from the inventory was that the
Plesko- Walker proposal, in comparison to other retirement rental
housing alternatives either occupied or under construction,, would
be the "most affordable" retirement rental housing opportunity
available to Richfield residents. There was a concensus of
opinion that Plesko- Walker should strive to provide the most
8- ~~/
affordable combination of building-and. services possible without
sacrificing the quality and competitiveness of their proposal. _
Plesko- Walker must still demonstrate that their rent is
affordable to moderate income persons and they will hopefully do
so at the May 19, 1986, HRA meeting..
The following additional findings were made:
-sites for new housing are very scarce, and virtually all
sites have conflicting use priorities: retail,housing,
or parks.
-this .housing site and the Plesko-Walker proposal is the
best combination available and there is no other site on
which it could be located.
-retirement rental housing opportunities are not over built,
in fact, none exist in the market area identified by zip
code 55423, 5541.7, and 55419.
-it is preferable to locate this proposed development with
other existing LHN retirement housing units because it
allows services to be focused without increasing City
services, keeps high rise development in the one
area of the city adequately supplied with shopping, banking:
and transportation support,. and minimizes the traffic
congestion caused by retail activities.
-a highly regarded, professional development team has sub-
mitted the proposal.
-the market study indicates a strong interest from Richfield
residents for this type of housing.
-this proposal increases housing turnover opportunities for
Richfield residents, while allowing them to remain in the
community.
-the development provides a significant amount of property
tax. revenues without a significant increase in the cost of
delivering public services.
-there are considerably more vacant retail spaces than
.housing options for the. elderly. Minimal retirement
rental. housing vacancies exist in the Richfield
area.
It is the recommendation of the Local Strategy on Aging Task
Force that the HRA support the Plesko-Walker proposal and resolve
to their satisfaction that the units will provide an affordable
housing opportunity with support services for Richfield elderly.
/.~
8
Local Strategy ~ Aging-Task Force __
Member Representing
John Hamilton, Mayor City Council
Michael Sandahl City Council
.Vern Luettinger HRA
Ivan Ludeman HRA
Connie Hoverson Planning .Commission
Barbara Krit~an Planning Commission
*Myrna Hammer Human Services Commission
(*Task Force Chairperson)
Nancy Tjornhom Human Services Commission
Staff
Lit Hipp, Community Center Manager
Bruce Nordquist, Housing Specialist
. l,6
Inventory of Richfield Area "Retirement Housing"
The purpose of the following information is to provide an ~~
inventory of retirement housing within and adjacent to Richfield.
Elderly persons have a wide variety of choices in the market
place, .including single family and condominium ownership
opportunities and subsidized and market rate rental
opportunities. These are the same choices available to the
general population. However, these choices do not necessarily
provide an appropriate alternative for an elderly person to "age
~in place" and remain as independent as possible..
"Retirement housing" is unique in that it provides an environment
that can accomodate elderly needs-specifically, whether through
building design, services, or both. Persons must be of various
ages, such as 55, 60, 62, and sometimes 65 years of age to
qualify to reside in a particular building. Individual building
requirements vary. Even though elderly are very interested in
retirement choices, it is important to understand that some
elderly desire and qualify for subsidized housing, some desire
ownership opportunities designed for the elderly, and some desire
rental opportunities designed for the elderly.
A review of the inventory data suggests that:
-Within an identified market area (zip code areas 55423,
55419, and 55417) no market rate retirement rental
housing exists.
-Richfield has a substantial number of retirement ownership
housing units (881 units) within or adjacent to the city.
-There are a substantial number of subsidized retirement
rental units. (725 units) within or adjacent to the city.
Need for more can be demonstrated by 56 elderly that have
currently applied to the Richfield HRA-for rental assistance
and waiting lists utilized by building management.
-Within an area adjacent to Richfield, the retirement market
rate rental opportunities (417 units) are full, have low
vacancy rates, and have monthly costs that exceed those being
proposed for a new Richfield retirement rental development.
-Waiting lists, occupancy levels, and vacancy rates
suggest no lack of .demand for the 2,023 units of
retirement housing in the Richfield area.
The sources for the inventory data include the Metropolitan
Council and telephone interviews with building management.
Accompanying the inventory is a map of Hennepin County showing
the focus area for the inventory.
5/5/86/BN
CQ C ~ ~,
(D c± ~ (D
f... J ~i
N. ~..._ r
(), c+ ~_•
~ r•K tL
m a
~- ~~~ -~
j4 ~ ~n ~
y
:~ ~Z
J lI ~
< r- .Z: :~
~""• y `~ ~
~ ~- <
J _.
Q3 C .O
< iC
~ ~ L~
J ~ .
r
C il- rD <
CO ? X '~
9 ~ +--
/^T~ ~• ~ ~
lV r J ~~
~+ c. _n
~ ~
r- ~ vi cu
J r}
:G ~' C9 <
r- C i+i
< Q
m r- 3 '<
~~•yfi
~:r~n-
Cn .. .j
T - -
J
:7 i+: ff
`G ^ i9 C
~ .n r-
!-- ,. r
:D °.C !? Q
Y7 J
,O~" :Ti c•r ,Q
~y Y-
~". ~ .~.
is :, C
~ ~
Cn Q v
Cn tD C i
~• J ~ ,,.
l9 - to --+
i* ~n - c.
~, ~.
J O 3 7
O ~ ~ S
µ
ffi 7
~'- cT
-b O (Q
O 7
~ O :.:
fl. ~ 7
:J- (D T~T
^^~ ~ W
\J ^
J
~ jr_ fi
[* <
l~ _ff
O ~•
~ ~+
as (D C.
~ ~-
~ ~ J
C C9 iQ
cn ~- w
Y• -f~ ~
J :~.
,~ -+
O ;p
O 1 O
!D ~
a
N
ct
fv
X
C9
z W
w
-•~
fR
.. ~
s
~*
77
:y
O
;~.
TT~
lY
O
R
T~T
CY
J
sv
r
2
O
C
Cn
---
7
.G
n
O
-J+-
c
Cn
~~
Cr£ air tn3Z ~ C7 v~ v G~
GAO ~ r•G~ O}'•O ~ O _~I~• ~ C -
:* O cr C'i ~ l'* J z' O 7 l'* O O ~J'
^~ ~ 7tD JJ O u. d 33
-
~.. -+.
m ~
~
o
fi
ro
~.
r... O O J C7 r ni
O. ~ rr C7. Z F'• 3 Q Z (D
TJ ;C~ Qi ~ N. ~ ;L C ~,. ~, Q
in C = ? O -1 ~
r ~-'"
r a
W !L
CG
~
SL O _
tTi
~
`~ J 11T ~ C11 ~ ~ ~ YQ f ~ !D
-* ~ r- r m r ~ o m r -,-
;c- m < 3 O - ~ O r•
y :~ C7 O N DUI O '~
~-' T1 (~J D O ur Q < ~ ui iD
~- ~ /~
D T ~ (D O N r•
'"'
O
~
J
c+
O O
7 J
cr
ff
rp
r ~ ~•t .~ „
fi ~
~ -.• N ~.,. N
a F... < __
~
w
W r J a
~ ~.• ,~
O = O
O 1, O H
Cn
v ~!
~ O
q C C~ A C cn N
J ~• .p J ~.• F,,• D A
Y
C4 :II ; r ;p tt'
Cn (~ --~ N•
ii -i O Q "S
Q. (D lD
. to i... tD 7 3
A A c* (D
r -1 W A `G ~ N fi J
AN~iT AOA NACD ~ C Q~W L' C !D ~•+•~
N N r r+ N t, !~ N r ~- O M 1 I
N ~'' fD 7
-.• iU (D 2
N Q O
ffffff~ff ffffi; 'Jff'
.
.`' C, n ffff fi ~ 7J
m lY. ~
`O.rl~ ~ ~ ~
CiQa1 .
~
~ l~! lY
>7.~~
C (Q (0
RO
C ~ p... N•
~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0
'S ~ "'
~ 'Z ~
:, .
~ ~
7 (!in 7
A ff iU
ocoo O O O
000 O O O
000 j
~-• O O ,.- N .~,
~ _ ? ~
~ ~ 3
3 ?
Cn
3 ~
C W~.o
(
f t
~-
Y• ~
D ~
~ ~
~nao
~ ~
A 3 it
~ A~ C
N
~ r
r ~ J = ~0 ~ J
T. --~•
~! ~ CD cr
`-n Cn to ~ .~' ~ cr ~•
c-
O c+•
O ;t
O ~
: O ~ A D N
~
~
~ . ~
~ c* r ~
J /
` J ~
:' ^`
O~~ O 3 ff} O?~ C ~ rJ• W C
J N 7 0 J O 7 0 0~° +-~-
f!I! R i v3 t'r 1 fA c' f r- ~r p R
r?~- rffr r~ -- 3 O
1
WHO i v
N1+0 1 ~
W-fi0 Cf~ ~+
O in
*
r !C O tJi (D O U~ (D O ~ c
Nm O OCD O O[D O
O (A ~
(D CA O W tD ~! O
O O -
-++
cr C O
d° ~ -i,
rr C ~ o<~ ~
' w J ~ o a ~
~
~ ~.,..
O c* o ,,.
O c* ~ ~.,.
O R r O -•~•
J
l~ Q r• t9 c
In O c* -r
c
~- l0
m
• t0 (D 7
~
-- f,,
1-+ --+
N
..~
O
(D m ~ h Cyr?
~ O O ~D
~ n ~ ~ •
~ pµs ~ ~
~ ~ N 's
I)h7~ !0
'C 't -+~
~ ~ ~ ~
N K cn p-
r 3 ~ to
m ~ ~ ~
--' P <
~ a °a m
~ Lb cD u1
F+ n -f
fA et jD
~ < x w
~ ~-~d w
A c+ (D 1•~
~ +; o to
cp m v'
F+ lA (p N
-+~ ~ to cp
P~ ~ m <
C.ar ~ n K
~ ~ ~~
(D R~ W M
er (D •• O
c+ b ~
O A~ W cY
~ ~ ai w
rn O ~
~ ~ ~ a
~ c+ r- w
w ~ ~W
~ M ~ O
o ~ ~
~ o m r-
V
K 8 p
~ ~
c+ F+
W ~
< c+
~~
v •~•
~ ~
~ n
p1 (p
~ O
M
F+
M ~
M N-
V Rt V ~ ;~
to Q, v'+ O
a
~) y Q
C;7 ~ ;' 3
;T~ CT ~-
Z' Z
p
:7
{ O
:u ~
~
J ~
'* ~ r F
~ (D
D AJ N: O.
< rr
• < O f1i
(D ~ C!
N.
(6
3
N
#c 7
r't
W O
OD -•~, _
_ O
7 CQ
r- 1.+-
cT 7
tq CQ
rr
W
r ~-• --i W
r W ~ K CO
~ (P tJi 'L
I I 1 (p C
W N -•r
7
O ~
~~D' -
h
(D CD (D q
aQ~
Z ~ J
p p p !+.
o e c
3 ~ ~ CQ
~-
v
Cb T. ~! R1 ~ ~! N 'II C7
0 O' O -CJ~ O ~ C
l!1 0 ~ ° ~
~x `~~ ~ ~~ - t~
G1 1-' f?~ O N 7• ~~ r•
rt ~ ~ C'Y (t f+.
~ ~ ~ N
_ O
~ O 7 a
T. itl rt ~ ..
~ p
X G (D 7 z s1 v ,.,.
DQ 7 D7 ~ (D
tD ~ ~* < 0~ c* 3
'
" ~ (~ r.. ,~
~
- -~
~ O
R
rL 7
`*
O ~
7 ~
7
3F R
N N r
p 11
~
J A O ''
-
O _
C O
7 C
f... l9
~" N.
C9 7
(Q
at
N ~D N r -~ N
ON
! i NN O ~ p.
N --• I i
N r
~
~
C
ZT a' ~ ~ ff ~ r7.,.
m ~
aQ . r o m
Qa
a
c
n
~ ~ ~
O O O ~ p ..
0 0
~ ~ 0 0
~ ~ 0
3
l4
~0
tR 2
`~
~. ~-
~ },,
N
V
=
0
~
,C ~
c•r C9
~
~
~ t4
~
~
~~ t9
~
~
~ ~.
c*
o a ~ T ~ v3 O to G~
I'''-` - c~*WOOr~ ~- t~o
~ - '3 7 'S
fl
c~' t
7 O e~° m7o
7 p
~~
'
~
FY m O
LntD S.'!p
RO o
lTO S O -.~.
~, a o o tv ~- o o m °,
tD ~"
n 63 7 1 c* ~ -A t0 m m -A ( ~
moo Ar*NY• ~ 1,
~ 7. o
~ ~ ~ C p ~ l~l
F+ O
y ~ (D
~ ~ ( -S ~ cr
~ 11
b ~+• O
~ O O
O
<
w c+ r N (7
N as ~0 00
00 Oo c
~ ~ 0~0 0 00
o c o f 0
~ c+ O f'• t* p pl ~ ~ f tD
to f.,.
(D N
O N
C9
~ ~ 0 r
p ~~..
.7..
xp
W* 7 N. O r O t-r N
c
(p F'• `•0 7 ~'•
w wDi rp tQ t0
v
B-i 8
-~
7'
(D
v
Z
N.
3
S1!
~ H
7
3
Al ~
.S ~
(D D :Z7
c'* ~ cD
N. (D c+
7 SU N•
O ~
1? (D
D Q 3
~.
(D ~ 7
N A cT
_ ~
O ~ O
c c
~*~t~
C9 O r•
N• ~
a ~ ~~
CD -r•
O O
N ~ ~
r• -h ~
a --• o
O CD '~
O -•r cr
Q Q C
tD 7
C9 W -•~-
C cr
Nctr-
A O N
N C
W cr
N
N.
A
r
`0
N
to
A
t--
V
v
.~
~
W
v
.-. J i ~i O~ ~ 0~ ~ fT S ~ 3
~ pal r- O r !D r N _ SU
~* ~- C~ K cn ~ !n ~ ? ~
~ .T. ~ Y ff C'~• ff f* N. ~
d ~ (D ~ cY iTi (D
:~
~ a ~ ~
~ -
7' :c m
4° O.
R° ~ R° 3
tUZ
rr
'-'• W ~ N
-< ~ -< 7 -< (?1 -< 7 (D
O ~ O SL C1 -,.. O O ~ ~
:L u O r•
< < < < a ~* m
'4 ~ fD ~ O r. ~... 3 i
~'' N j 7
~ ~
Y:.
(D
~ ~
l't
• O 0~ p 0~ -h 1•j
W N W A
C =
. J O
1.,. _ (D
c+ N c+
CQ -+• K
7
ct? (D
k7
(D
Wt~N ~r-+
NO~lJ1 atnW t0O AO K p.
1 - I
• PJ N r
I 1 1
N r (p
1 1 i I
r (D r-+ rp
~
tD
n+
~! ~yx
t,, ~
A ~
_
~
D N ~
~
ff
N fi
ff~ ~~
O
C ~' m
~
( (
D
tD ~• O F...
-i, w
cp
o••o oom om tvm
~
O C v O O 7 O 3 -n O r• s^b
~ ~ ~ O ~ f1 -h O cT f) O
~' K K `< C4 ~
K
e
+
cf ~
w ~
w
r r
~ c
p ? Ja A = a ~
~
C4 tll C9 N r
+• ~ m
~* cr c•r c+ iQ ~
O O O O 3
K ~ K ~ ~
n
• N
eR 63 63 fA iA 4A
O
ONO .Q~iO Urr AW ~•
O O i (!~ (n I (p v 0 O N cr
i i t i i .0 Q (Ji 1 i 1
_ r}..N NrW ~ 1 (D rN CJ
.p A W N O O r-- -+~ iQ -h O
0~.0O ffW. O W~ -h CQ
OO 1 tD ON 3 W ~ c+
~ N ~ r '* C ~ 3
~ ff O
O
7 ff N O ff ~- O ~
c" (~ C. ~ (D ct ~
Q ' Q C9
C7
"~' C ~0 Z
t~O ~D Q~ v7 N
p p(P O
3
n
~ ;j
C9 (D
- f
O [U Or £
O ~• O AI (D
~
S
c- p -•.• e1 R O -•~• c•*
~ ~ Q C't O F,• O c- !Q
t~
~~
~
~wWB ~ Gacwaw ~ ~ a M°ewpn hrt ':: ~.i~' i'~vw~ 1' lTW-r ;~'~.. t
. ~ ~ *t~•~l a ar ::~1
M : ;t..a„t. HE NEPIN _ '~ .--, 1 •~ ~~~'~~:;~, .
~.
t 2 _..::~_ ..• ..r:~...
~ ~ t
t a
~, ;.;... ~i:ta
M°/w ~ Maw ~ 1 t K'".'arr.F~it< .
1 ~t(3 qq
1 1 ~~~~ rr alle . ~ ~'i
~~~~ ~ y Lana +w+ L~ J ' _ __ ~L99.
L t
5 ~'~ ~S ~~ ~~ .n. ; ~-i fit!
:' _ pn ~ ~ _
l? ~ ,<..
EuaslazEDR ,-~ :" _. ~` .~~;~`...;:,.:. • "~:;• 44
. • ENT ~ •-~=.:f-.~<:J: 460.:76 iran~a~.~ "~ F
at: ARCNERMEIGNTi/VARTMENTS•y"~^}~'T^~=~%~`~~=.+~`*~'~. ' ~ ~ ~ ! •`''
Mrw,wowta , _ -- <
w ~owwuc ;~`• ~ ..x V Fig '.~ ~x~s# `': ,~. ~~ +~'~ Q n,.. 8 ,.,. - -- .'..'~.
i. iROOKSLANOINC 'S'a~~J~`~~~+,Thr~.:{-'~'l~:r,~a j`_(~{j7~(JJ~ ~ ~r'rw
-~,~#s_.
~~i.- CANARY CENTER AlARTYEtRS~+~~~5 ^°.~'S'!.tt~~ ~ 10 -
- -' Gown Vattay r ~;>, 'i+. -~ ~ r`'.. a-EJ ~ - aP~,r~,r~ ~~~ ~~;! .
'_{. OOWTOWEAi .~~J".'^~a,v~~jt'st~~'s1~- SMINGIECAEEKT • ~ak~•7>~.T~'~3~~1~~+
_ .1wPtIM .. ~r.'i- ,7 ~O'i e..+.-EtoptlpoConat .~Rtti~'' + ~ L'r" .ty)~/$7"°
~ r {~.. •i. ~ 1,~ ~ '! ~w ~ r"1 s`S.afi ~ >~`r -t41Q~ .s~ ;w..
- .-7.'EOENOALERE~IREM{~sRESIOEN~ `;t"t~~~ T„~VEN~F,~,~,}}.~;,ysi~t.~,j~ 1 tr~~
- ~ .EOr hart - ::.: _° ' a _ - _i* ~ T~a"'r"~-,}t+~ ~~h~+ j~* ~',1_' •' ~,
t. -I.
•i.- GIDEON IOMO ,5 -- :~ ~~ ~''Z1. SOUTH 511011E COYW/N1 's',°,«y'a~L~ .4 -;~~/j`~+%t•~••e- ie- ~ r •. ~ y -
_ Etanlartylw. .... ,•.,~~, t:F. •'1 EacaYwt'.---t T1Ei `r. ~ .,•+4'`.-'... SfLY + ~'T'"ih-. r!~
>+ _ `_`,~.~ c~`: L +• .: 'r~L.:Lr' ~- :t.-r~r*.F•' ~- L;sc.. ~~?~,~+'?~;~ _ r. ~?~' ,`'y~.•'.fx
::i. GLEN LAKE f:., s ti}~ -7t..3;•• -WE ihS=L~~~'r.f~- _.s::3~.t~: ':~`~+:. .'~ .~ ~, ~,.
_ 11Mwo3onYa LANDING.t ~~ '~. titer. STOt~KA~~ ~; `~~~ ~s'F t rLa -a~~ `s y~+, +Z~f~ ~ ~ •ti!a ~
_ ,~ H '_r~ytr~ . , Yo~R _:e=.~- T• j } '~~{r~.~• ~r,'7 1Z'. •;.' ~ '. a, .. _•._ ' ~~~,~
10. NAMtLTON N k ~+"oF - +t~ ~S:.,a
OUSE -' ~. ~~ DWNCONTINEN AL s+ i a a ~ r%• ~tiT
~ ~ ;.. s 7 ~~ ~ ~ ONMEO •..i~t y3'4)r'.+aY't!*'
St. Lou,a qrY "-~y^`R. r.1'3S`~ y.' .: EdItM.. -=.- t~ ~:...... n a .'
'tFgS 1 laStl~ °'p'ti ~ .. ~. }_tiY;.`'rr !~} p v 1 / a -' '7t?'-~'V`~r~ ,~i' -;:
tl. HtILCRESTA-ARTYENTi 1'-+'~ t ~S. 37:-CALVARY CENTERCOp/ERATIVE rl
Loretto da~.~~•~1'~i~4:- ~ YARKETAATE RENTAL.' ~'+•i ~,~~ ~.:`~GptWn Va1NY .,:.;.e,:., { •~~a~'r~~ -
17. NILLSIOE TERA ~~~bbp ~++r~
Lpy Ir-a AI:Es• ~ ~ s '; tn'T' °a~j`f'.7l. lROOKW000 ESTATEi ; ~xY ~ + '~•,. CASTLE RIDGE OONQOMINIU 1'~ ''C.w~ .ai•;
'~ spa. '. yYrooklvnCangr ~ ~ tii •,~}1,..,..ErMnPrairia ~ ~';+~~,~+ v ~'1~'.~.s'r''$h
li. NO-KINS VILLAGE ' t t : ~t~~ ~i itta'}'~' '^ ;~~ ~ z}. yi ~.. COVENANTMANOq ;j . 'trF .oi^/'rc
- _ Nops.~ _ _- A ZE. BROOKNl000 YANOR a jxIf x~"+•t ~:._ Gowwl V ~y ."~ a.~~`a-
1~. tNDtAN ... A+'1 .~{- Lt ~:i".. aoW n 37 -it i ~- ` Jn - ~ - ~~ y ~~ "!~7_i.._...: -o.- t~r::a
KNOLLYANOq .F_~-' CNAIELVIEWA-ARTMENTi`SS~ ~'~' ~-p_' iRIENDSNI-VILI.AGE~OFgLOOMINgTOry~,:~~ ;aprti;Y~`y
•aaOUwA - a+/ Si': ~'a.:t'A"~ 1!.+-5 .. NoVkYM ~ ' ' ' a - . •r~,•~`i...+:*~.}: , + _EbonNeDton - . , r p~ ~
li. KNOXLANOING =i~~tl i~'~~ ~ ~.._.. _:; j,'~f-~ %:-~ •'t'~11 KENZINGTON',"~~~.~•'k' ~~ i=+~h ~i
~5.-30:.CNARDON000RT ,~ ~ .+r~_a~- ; ; ~~ l~. ;p~~ia7'
Ebom.nytola P -,Jt t ty'a:'< Naw IpW - A' ai as ^ _ ~: .r, ts_ ~-' ~ h. MtltonY .'( rjra ;.. l~l, a 1: t vq„r•
ti. MALE TERRACE r ~ ~ 4 ~~ - ~ '~~'~"r°'~~li • i
Woe -twa ': S`' t -•• ~_ ~r _ ~ -~/. HERITAGE YANOR - :aJ•.s'I~ytk ~~:`s~:.ai ~', LAKE SNORE ORIVE CONOpY1NIljYL •.+y F+~Y:~'
' 17. MENORAH / a' 1'+f' d - k - - . ••:'1 ~!- ..
- St. Loua Part~A '-i a a a ~• ; ~: ~ NORTH RIDGE CONGR -' t ~ ~ ! ~+. LEE SQUARE COOIERATIVE ~ a7~ t e ~ .
v w)1 ~vJ>sSJ.+~f'~a' Naw ELATE 110USING Ropp„yyta ... f t4 i~[ t',j ~ ye
/i. NORTH -ARK/ ~ '~ .t . 'a H°sta ~a_ J ~~ J , ~.1:,?.:; 1j: ~"~-~yt~~p"~~a! ~ ~`lSir
LAZA - '~ . ~"_ ~. «. WOODLAKE -OINT "Pfix~'!" f ~t>~~ J.a.!!,~c.
Nsw,-wpo ~ +~1 ..T3: REYBRANDT a tntl ,.. '~ t a '~d„~~~~ ~~
a tti ~ _ r. +j#' a h • Rwtaato , •~+'~,'•-'., ~, w• atc...:.w..:
lY. w Ealwta - y - 1l ,w y,
rt,,
ILEAS.aMTILACE A-ARTMENTf ~.~~~'3{. RIDGE/DINT • 7 ~ ~• `'f • Jr-~'•'sf~~'%'~'~~'~ T~ YOpK0001ERATrvE •:''Y~ ~'~" ;;~J. 3 +1~~
Raw Ywlnwonta E y k ''" a~ ~ 1 ~- + -
:.;~ r r~,~ ~;,s.
' ~ w •j(i$I)F~'cNt ~'kj'; t ..:.f EO,ti ., J • ~-A"fir , '-;o ~•~-1`t~~ ~
70. RICHftELOTOWERi ~` NfM~* t .Jp~ ytir.;3~?" ~~~+art,•' '7 ~ ^~••311,i.
~, °3i. ROYBET
q R,tlttww ~ ~.. 'at....G ~ 1(`~.~ap~•+ ~ 3~ N ~a•~M+'21' ~1
~: a - EOw _ ~ ' O SMMEO t~L'..~_ k'=>•~' ~-;ti"ar
71. ROYp~.LANOING a ~ .. ~ ~ ~ " ~ _, . ~ _ f {
1i. iT. THERESE RESIDENCE N. GOOD NEIGNWII REi10ENTUIL CME MOMi-EOI
.''• _ Natrlloy :7 ...~,~ Etlilta ;j. ~ a
y;~~k~~~ ~~,
-. :-
~./ ~~
Income and Rent Definitions
1) Low Income: 50% of Median Income in Metropolitan Area
• (Section 8 Rent Assistance Qualifying Income)
Family Size Maximum Income
1 $12,300
2 $14,050
Tenants of Section 8 Subsidized housing pay no more than
30% of income for rent.
®.$12,300 (1 person) income is equivalent to a maximum
monthly rent payment of $307
® $14,050{2 people) income is equivalent to a maximum
monthly rent payment of $351
2) Moderate Income: from 50% to 80% of Median Income in
Metropolitan Area
Family Size Maximum Income
1 $19,680
2 $22,480
3) Middle Income: Median Income in Metropolitan Area
:Family Size Income
._
1 $24,600
2 $28,100
4) Average Rent: Existing Richfield Non-Subsidized Rental Units
1 bedroom = $400
2 bedroom = $500
Richfield Rent Survey
B- z ~-
The most recently published rent survey prepared by the Apartment.
Guide and the Minneaplis Star and Tribune occured in February,
1986. The survey information for Richfield, as presented below,
is more closely indicative of rents in larger apartment complexes
rather than smaller individual buildings. Since these are
average figures, it does not clearly represent. rent variations
that occur between buildings and between garden level to third
floor apartments.
Type of Unit
Studio.
l bedroom
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
Average Rent
$312
$405
$500
$570
Vacancy Rate
No vacancy
2.4%
3.1%
No vacancy
The Richfield Community Development Department conducted a survey
in 1984 (70% response) indicating that most 1 bedroom units fell
in the $361 to $400 range and 2 bedroom units in the $421 to-$540
range. Given modest 5 to 10 percent increases in rents since.
1984, the 1986 averages, noted above, appear close to the more
extensive data compiled in 1984.
ZF H
SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC.-
TO: MIKE GOULD, E.J. PLESKO & ASSOCIATES
FROM: BOB BYERS, SEH ,
DATE: MAY 7, 1986
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEV.
LYNDALE AVENUE AND WEST 66TH STREET:
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Background
The proposed development site is located in the southwest
quadrant. of the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and West 66th
Street immediately south of Lyndale Hardware (See figure). The
proposal is for the development of a 12 story senior/elderly
apartment building of 224 dwelling units. The primary access to
the site will be from Lyndale Avenue with a secondary service.
access from Ci>?cle place,
Traffic Generation
Average daily trips to and from the development were estimated
based on the observed characteristics of similar senior housing
developments both locally and nationally. A summary of these
characteristics is presented below..
Time Period Rate $In $Out Total Trips
Average Day 3.5 Trips/Unit 50$ 50$ 785 Trips
AM Peak Hour 0.38 Trips/Unit 40$ 60$ 85 Trips
PM Peak Hour 0.42 Trips/Unit 60$ 40$ 95 Trips
(r o~~
MEMORANDUM
200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612? 484-0272
~~
The total vehicle trips may in actuality be somewhat less than
these figures since the development will generate many pedestrian
trips to nearby commercial and service establishments which might
have otherwise used an automobile. Also the site has excellent
transit service available which includes six local routes, seven
freeway express routes and a university express route. An
improved MTC bus stop is located within 150 feet. of .the site.
These factors many tend to reduce the overall vehicle trips,
however, the higher values were used to ensure that the
evaluation is conservative.
Roadway Operations.
On an average daily basis the site would not add a significant
.additional amount of traffic. The roadways in the vicinity of
Lyndale Avenue and. west 66th Street carry average daily volumes
of 15,000 to 18,000 vehicles .per day. The added trips from the
site would generally result in increases of less than one or two
percent.
The most critical period.. of the day for roadway operations is
the- PM Peak Hour or evening rush. hour period. We have reviewed
the additional site traffic added during the PM Peak Hour and the
resulting.-operations. The impacts on the intersection of Lyndale
Avenue at west 66th Street would be very slight, with a total of
approximately 65 vehicles added in the PM Peak Hour.
The operations of the site entrance at Lyndale Avenue and. west
67th Street were also reviewed for the PM Peak Hour. Due to the
relatively low volumes entering and exiting the site, it appears
the intersection will operate at a good level of service. Some
delay will be experienced by vehicles leaving the site .and
desiring to proceed northbound on Lyndale Avenue. .The traffic
signal at west 66th Street will tend to reduce this problem since
it will provide periodic gaps in the traffic on Lyndale Avenue..
Ci7~
Summary
Rased on our review, we do not anticipate any significant traffic
impacts due to the proposed development. Also it-does not appear
that any additional roadway modifications or traffic control
devices will be needed.
' a. ,
~ ~i.. j - ~
).' ~ P`
a. •w ~« • • '. '~ a
~ti. P~C. ~`-,t'~~' ~ ^~ ~• r '. fly ':,.. ? T='t'~ ~ ~ !~•:,~
~ , t •. '~~ s .S ~ ~ rte;` .
a ~ ~ .~ •~Y _. ~r~;' e '~~,~~r~~ > i ~.,~ S to ~. _ ,lJ
iT,k ~v-.:ra t,~ ZS ~ 'c ate"^'~i~~~~ +~ ~Ry,;~.~ ~ ''li1-, '
,`~-^ _ ~,~-'._ tit',,; ~' ! ~.. ,.~yY~r ~ h ,:,.`i:. ~s `~ ' c.y~t :' <
F ;' J
C~ ^ :~.*. e -' ~~ , j ~5 'yam .4 ' } 1
`ter 1-E: h. -.~ ~'.: '_ta.. ,;~.A ~- ..~ ~'^
'~-1 i M /IH
' ~~ ~ ~/ ~,
~,,. Svc / / Z~ ///
~ ` ~~;~ ~ I
~l•-i \. • ~•~ \ \\t
.`• rz- ....~ T
~\ /~ 1
r 6~~~ ...~;~ . ^ iz Sr ~Y 7 ~ I I ~
._ ~~ ~~
. -~ ,.~ ~ ;
. ;- /-
f, - ~~
1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
9LOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 5531
TE L E PHON E:161 21 8 3 5- 3800
TELECOPIER:16121835-5102
REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
DAVID C. SELLERGREN
.ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 6, 1986
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE: (612) 338-6610
TELECOPIER: (612) 338-1002
Thomas Harms, Chairman SENT VIA MESSENGER
Richfield Housing & Redevelopment Authority
c/o Steven Devich, Acting City Manager
6700 Portland-Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Subject: .Proposed 200 Unit Elderly Housing Development
Adjacent to V.F.W. Building
Dear Chairman Harms:.
Our client, Richfield Lake Limited Partnership, owner of Woodlake Point,
has asked me to communicate their concerns about the subject proposed.
elderly development. The concerns relate to the timing of a potential
competitive project, assisted. by the. Richfield Housing and Redevelopment
Authority. Briefly stated, the concerns are as follows:
1. Among the many. interactive and cooperative elements in the
Redevelopment Agreement entered into between the Richfield
Lake Limited Partnership and the Richfield Housing and
Redevelopment Authority, is a provision which obligates
the developer to pay deficiencies in projected tax
increment. If the Richfield. Housing and Redevelopment
Authority were to actively participate in creating
competition for Woodlake Point, this activity would be
extremely detrimental to Woodlake Point and contrary
to the public-private partnerships embodied in the
Redevelopment Agreement.
2. The elderly housing market is presently saturated with
`market rate elderly housing. Any addition to this market
near Woodlake Point at this time will seriously hamper
marketing efforts at Woodlake Point.
3. The elderly buyer is a very conservative, deliberate buyer,
who shops the market or will wait and see what alternatives
are available. Even the mere announcement of additional
elderly housing in the immediate area could decrease the
sales volume at Woodlake Point and seriously affect the
development.
_-
~" -~_; p_ a,
L~RKIN, HOFFMAN, -,~,
DALY & LI N D G RE N, .LTD ?°°° o~ H'N N~ ST~~
LARKIN, HOFFMAN,
DALY & LINDGREN, LTD
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority
May 6, 1986
Page two
~-z ~
My client does not want. to object to future use of this area for elderly
housing; only to the timing or any announcement of proposed elderly
housing at this time. We request on behalf of Richfield Lake Limited
Partnership that this item before the Richfield Housing ,and Redevelopment
Authority be continued until Woodlake Point is-.sold out. We attach an
independent and current analysis by the Maxfield Research Group which
substantiates our client's concerns.
Sincerely yours,
David C. Sellerg , for
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDG , Ltd
DCS/ssg
Enclosures
Mf\XFIELD
RE~AR~H
~x v~
May 2, 1986
Mr. 8ichard Brier
Richfield Lake Limited Partnership.
c/o Derrick Laad Company
1650 Shelard Tower
St. Louis Park,. MN 55426
Dear Mr. Krier:
~-aq
At your request, we have inventoried projects that are competitive with Gbod-
lake Point in Richfield. These include other projects. in Richfield, South
Minneapolis, Bloomington and Edina. Of the projects that are competitive with
Woodlake Point, most have been for at least .two or three years and with the
exception of Walker Place in South Minneapolis, Rembrandt is Edina and the new
Edina Park Plaza, all are condominium or cooperative buildings.
Although senior housing is growing in market acceptance, there are many pro-
jects competing for potential senior housing residents. In our studies of the
Twin Cities senior housing market, we have identified both seniors who desire
to rent and seniors who desire to own their retirement housing. Since most of
the senior developments now in the Woodlake Point competitive market area are
ownership units, there appears to be a market for rental units is the area.
However, with the large inventory of condominium and cooperative units avail -
able, the question arises on the timing of development of additional units,
whether rental or ownership. As shown on the accompanying table, each project
is the area that has been marketing for over a year has had a sales pace of
approximately 4 to 5 units per month. Assuming that all reserved units will
stay off the market., most projects have at least one year remaining in their
marketing program.
In aggregate, there are 297 ownership units in the area that are neither occu-
pied or reserved. Based on historic absorption rate of approximately 22 units
per month in the market area, this would indicate that it would be mid-1987
before all units remaining in the area are sold. In addition, there are 15
units remaining at Walker Place (a 4 to 6 month supply), and 191 units remain-
ing at Edina Park Plaza, the newest project in the area. Edina Park Plaza has
620 KICKERNICK; 430 FIRSTAVENUENORTH
612-338-0012 MINNEAPOLIS, MWNESOTA55401
V~ vV~)
V
Mr. Richard Krier May 2, 1986
Derrick Land Company Page 2
reserved only l0 units in the past 6 months, since marketing began in October
of 1985. There is some concern from the developer, and others knowledgeable in
senior housing, whether this project will be successful or not, since this is
the most expensive rental project in the Twin Cities and also has the highest
level of services.
Seniors who are interested in moving out of their home have no sense of urgency
is moving, unless their health deteriorates to the point where they cannot take
care of themselves. For this reason, marketing of senior housing is a very
time consuming, and tedious task. Also, seniors are more apt to make a deci-
sion to move when they can see the building or the units they will be moving
into. We have found that seniors want to walk through the actual units and
envision their own furnishings in them. They also want to see the qualitq of
finishing and the type of carpeting, appliances, and .bathroom fixtures provid-
ed. For this reason, the major marketing thrust of a project starts once units
are available for occupancy. ~ .
Ou the other hand, when new projects are announced, seniors tend to want to
wait and see the new project before deciding among several projects in an area.
For this reason, any additional projects that may be announced in the market
area, and particularly in Richfield, may affect the marketing pace. of existing
projects since seniors may decide to wait and nee what the newest building will.
look like before making a choice. For thin reason alone, a new building
announced in Richfield today would likely have an impact on the marketing pace
for the remaining units in your project..
Please review the following table and if you have anp further questions on the
market for senior housing units in Richfield.
Sincerely,
MARFIELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC..
ee A. MaxfielH"
LAM/ddb
Attachment
t
p-~
1
AVAILABLE COMPETITIVE SENIOR HOUSING
TO WOODLAKE POINT
January 1986
Unite-Remaining
(Neither occupied
Marketing Total nor reserved as Sales Pace
Development Name Type Start Units of January 1986) per month
Richfield
Lakeshore Drive Condo 6-81 178 Ot --
Woodlake Point Condo 8-84 157 52 5
South Minneapolis
Becketwood Coop 11-82 238 82 4
Renwood Isles Condo 10-84 132 43 5
Nokomis Square Coop 9-81 208 26 3
Standish Green* Condo 8-85 45 35 1
Walker Place Rental 8-83 140 15 4
Bloomington
Friendship Village Coop 1-80 321 N/A --
Gideon Pond Coop 6-85 101 59 4
Edina
7500 York Coop 6-75 338 Ot
Bembrandt Rental -- 136 1
Edina park Plaza* 8ental 10-85 201 191 2
*IInder Construction.
tThere is a waiting list for resales at Lakeshore Drive and a 2 to 10 year waiting
list for units at 7500 York.
Source: Maxfield Research Group, Inc. '
~ -~ ~ e+ .+ r. + D
A 1D ~ ~ N A
ft!
~ A
d.
' \
tl N K
N
d 7 C
O N
~f A 0
e- e~- ~
N ~
N \ ~ ~ W N ~ W
W V d O O ~
N f
D
>H -°+ ~ 7 f'- <C
O A rW WW01W ~
O e~7 '~
'N
'~ N l'7
00 WW ~ 't OCtO\ p
p
~ W
O O N
~
~ O ~ AN 7
3 ~ r ~
d Stn
Z (
O r+
~ t 0
Qf'f A r rv V ~ SON N~ A
7 N
+ 0 AN .
. ~ N~
~11
W W
O.
D
r 0
0 ~ G ~O ~ ~~ r O ~ .
N r tr 0 ~
O O ~ ~~ ~~ O O ~
7 p ~
~
t0 ~ ~ C~ N~~ 7!
v AOD O
\
'
~ N
K v W. 7 a
A
~ WWW
r _
.. ~
00 ~ W C ~ \~ W ~ 0
„" Ovi
~ 0
.O 1 A O O ~ ~ n d „_
~ V ° O
A
tJl H
a O
to
N
r r Of - r
g N ~ H\ .~ ~ .~ ~
r,
ad oo N
t ov~ ~- V O
~
O i
-
C 7 O tp
O oo ~
fL N r .-
N 7 7
C O
7
d A
A
N \ -~
70 .r
((pp
~ ~ OD -~+ O ~p iWJ1 ~ C O+ ~ O W N ~ p ~ 2
f O
at
-o ~ v• ~i Ae*~ .r
7
\ WWW ~
V
,f .
r
Q N ~ ~
N
~ QO it tp ~ 7
\ O
vv AV C~ ~~~ N
r.9a ~a ~i Q
~
O ~ O V C
O r W pr
7
-
lT O ~O O W t0 (0
0
_ W
O ~
..
~
~n 1
00 O "'
t O.~N.'O W O O
7 x 0 0 G K N tJ~ O W O
N 5000 ? O ~ y O
O
3 ~
. W O
~
Y O
A 0
O ~\ \ O O + ~ N
N ~
t!f ~ t0 ~
v ~ rr ~W m ~ c ~ ai 3
WW ....
~ N O V Ol <N(D OT N .~ 7
tr fD e* 1 A fD 7 1/~ ~
~
O
~ r.
-+01
P+ 7 O
N 3 ~ N
SN NON ~'-
° O
° Z ''
° ~'
~ °
o o ~ i ~
y
; t
~ ?
~. r..
~ 7
b
~
W N ~~ d N~ ~ _
i
4
i
O ~ d
0
~0 ~ WW ~ "~
r
O r . .
.. 70 .~ r+ e~- 7r
O ~
O C
A NOOK ~ St
~; VN ~ ~ ~
W N A~ '7 < ~ N N ~i ~
NO N
i N
b Ol N \ C ~ ~ ~N.r~ _
O+ O
~ r 00 01 p 7\ 7WWW pr A d
A °
o ~ v 7' ~\ A tr O ...~
W o Cp. ~
a tTO rvo+ v ~ d
~ O t ? i o
N
W ~ ~~ rn~o ~
. aK
~ Ot tp O r t
t rN
A A
O
W ~
v 01 Ot ~
C - 33
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 1986
T0: H.R.A.
City of Richfield.
RE: Affordable Rental Senior Housing
Walker Management and E. J. Plesko and Associates have proposed a
project which will provide affordable rental senior housing for.
the City of Richfield. Reques s have been made for Walker and
Plesko to provide a schedule of rents for the project. Walker and
Plesko are proposing rents that range from E500 to .1,150 per
month. They include utilities, except telephone, availability of
meal service ~-not the total cost of the- meal), scheduled
transportation, security services. Based on a survey of other
senior housing in the region, these rents are very competitive.
They also are competitive with Market Plaza, a building which
includes- commercial-space on the ground floor thereby enabling
the renis to be .465 - .900 per month.
A more definitive rent schedule cannot be calculated at this
time. Walker and Plesko have agreed to an early presentation of
the project to the H.R.A. only because of the need to act quickly
in order to secure tax increment financing. As a result,. we have
not progressed in the planning of the building to that point that
we could produce an actual .schedule of rents. To do so at this
time would be an irresponsib e~ comm~tmen ~-our part. Walker and
Plesko are committed to developing for Richfield a project which
serves die community. We feel strongly that the range proposed
will suit that purpose.
The nature of the financing proposal for the building also
requires that 2oq of the apartments are set aside to serve people
with moderate incomes.
3-3y
May 19, 1986
H.R.A. - City of Richfield
Page. Two
Although .500 to .1,150 may initially sound like a high rent
figure to some people, particularly if they have not recently
purchased a home or rented an apartment, indeed many people have
found that range very affordable. Annual income --
o Pensions, social security, investment income
Plus
o Income from the investment of the proceeds- gained from
the sale of a house
Equal
o A total income stream available for housing and living
expenses and savings.
When one leaves home ownership behind and moves into a rental
.unit, one also leaves. home maintenance, utility bills and real
estate taxes behind. These figures are included in the rental
rate. Affordable housing takes all of these figures into
consideration. People of moderate income can be served in
Richfield.
Real Estate ~, - 3 S
Owning
vs.
Renting
Research shows a general trend of people
aged 55 to 65 preferring : ~ ~ ownership and people
_~
over a e 70 ~'~ referrin rental.
g ~ p g
~:~;~
--~. °~
by Je,,~`'Barge
he house is too big, the snow
is too deep, the kids have all
flown the nest - or been
pushed out -and you've finally
made the hard decision to move out
of the family homestead and into
something more in tune with the
way you want to live and the things
you want to do.
Your next decision? To buy or to
rent...owning vs. leasing.
A few years back, that might not
even have been a real issue for most
middle or upper income seniors.
The senior rental market .that ex-
isted back then was largely govern-
ment subsidized, so most seniors
didn't qualify. The market-rate ren-
tal units available outside. of that
market didn't have the package. of
services that most seniors want to
have available. They were also sub-
ject, as many found to their distress,
to condominium conversion.
Today, surprisingly, the trend, at
least in terms of what's being built,
is toward rental. Luxurious but af-
fordable rental units of~'ering a wide
menu of amenities are aimed at the
increasingly affluent senior market.
At least half a dozen market-rate
rental buildings are going up across
the metropolitan area.
Luverne Molberg, president of
Continued on Page 43
OCT08Efl t985/ACTNE SENIORS 41
/ .
OWNING VS. RENTING
continued from page 41
the Webster Institute, which con-
ducts market research for de-
velopers of elderly-housing, sees a
growing market for rental units
throughout the region. The in-
creased financial flexibility that
renting can bring is the main reason,
she says.
"One of the reasons for the move
to rental is it gives people more
flexibility with the financial re-
sources. They .like the capacity to
choosing to rent seem to prefer
developments co-sponsored by
some sort of non-profit group, such
as a church or non-profit housing
group such as Augustana, Walker or
the Ebenezer Society.
"Rental stability. is very much a
concern," Molberg says. "I think
seniors took for reliable,
trustworthy, proven sponsorship
that provides stability."
On the other hand, adds
Molberg, a large group of people
will be kept to a minimum.
"it's the idea that when~you own,
you're more in control." Vavoulis
says. "I think that's true. You cer-
tainly do have more rights."
Vavoulis says that his customers -
and Kenwood-Isles will open in the
middle of this month, 50 percent
reserved -are also looking for
surroundings that. will evolve with
them, change with their needs.
For example, because Kenwood-
Isles was designed for the indepen-
Which one is better for you rec~,,ires a balanced
examination of the advantages of each. to f'rt
.your changing. lifestyle.
change their mind without all the
hassle of having a sale or resale, and
I think they like the financial free-
dom it gives them."
Molberg's research shows a gen-
eral trend of people aged SS to 65
preferring ownership and people
over age 70 prefemng rental.
"As you get older, if you're going
to stay in independent housing,
you're going to have to spend more
of your money on services,"
Molberg says. Because of this, as
people on fixed incomes grow older,
they often choose to put fewer of
their assets into housing and more
into buying services.
"For some, they have tied up all
of their assets in housing, so their
income might not be generous
enough to provide aU the services as
they want them. They end up being
`house rich' and `service poor.' "
On the down side, the fear that
people often have with a rental, says
Molberg, is that the ownership
could change and you wouldn't re-
ally know the true intentions of the
new owner.
Because of this, many seniors
prefer to own because they like to
have more control over where they
live -and some assurance .that
their neighbors will be of like back-
ground and income levels.
Tony Vavoulis, project manager
for Sherman-Boosalis' S5-and-over
Kenwood-Isles condominium pro-
ject in Minneapolis' trendy Uptown
area, feels there's strong demand for
both types of housing.
"There are people who, no mat-
ter what you tell them, would
choose rental," he says. "They're
meeting a different demand. The
obvious one for rental is at a certain
age you don't want •to tie all your
assets up in real estate."
On the other hand, he adds,
there's the perception that with rent-
ing, you're throwing your money
away because you aren't Building up
equity or getting any tax advantages.
"There's people who can argue
both sides of it effectively," he says.
Vavoulis' view that many people
choose to put large chunks of their
money into real estate knowing that,
with their housing costs taken care
of, their future monthly expenses
dent elderly, at present it does not
have a heavy service component.
Meal service, managed by the non-
profit Ebenezer Society, is offered
only every other day, and while
residents have access to a new clinic
being opened on the site by Abbott-
1Vorthwestern Hospital, there is no
on-call medical help available.
"But that's up to the owners,"
says Vavoulis. "That's why people
pursue ownership over rental -
because they are the owners; they
get to influence decisions regarding
service and operations in a more
direct manner.
"That gets to be the function of
the condominium association
board. They can decide that. since
the average age has gone from: 69 to
79, they need more services to main-
tain independent living here."
In many cases, Vavoulis feels, by
buying instead of renting, the hus-
band is either consciously or un-
consciously trying to set up the
spouse so that if something happens
to him, her monthly financial ex-
posure would be minimal
Continued on Page 49
OCT08ER 1985/ACTIVE SENIORS 43
_' OWNING frS. RENTING
/ continued from page f3
"At the signing of the purchase
agreement, it's not unusual for the
husband to say, 'If something
should happen to me...' They
never want to say it or address it, but
it'S ther'C."
But to a surprisingly large extent,
the decision between renting and
owning can boil down to one. thing:
location.
"Some people could either own
or rent, so it often depends on where
they want to live and what's avail-
able there," says Vavoulis.
There doesn't seem to be a whole
lot of difference between owning
and renting when it comes to
amenities, either. Both tend to have
some kind of meal plan available,
and also offer a high percentage of
common space available for every-
one's use. For example, Kenwood-
Isles has two guest rooms available
for the use of rtisidents' friends and
relatives.
"Community space allows you to
actually buy less property and use in
common those spaces you would
use only once or twicx a year,"
asserts Vavoulis.
Whether they decide to rent or
own, seniors are beginning to use
their resources in a way that directly
benefits themselves in terms of
more active lives, the freedom to
travel, and more time to get in-
volved in other interests back home.
"I think seniors are moving away
from the necessity of having a large
inheritance to leave their children.
which often required they live a
rather frugal retirement existence,"
says Molberg. "Instead, they are
freeing up some of those resout+oes
and enjoying life more. They are
using their resources to enjoy their
retirement and maintain an inde-
pendent lifestyle."
While there are many societal
trends moving seniors in this direc-
tion, including the loosening of
family ties and the oft-times far-
flunggeographic locations of family
members, a big reason is the fact
that their children, because of two-
income families and other reasons,
just aren't as needy as they once
were.
"Their children, in their forties
and fifties, probably have as much
money as their parents do in their
70s on retirement," concludes
Molberg.^
~OM~ STOP Taki Chances
nssocru~nar On .Home s
3T8-0356 ~ltxr>bers • ElecMaans • Pr~ers
HOME Association is a mem ~~~for home hou
~wP
condominium owners. The prof HOME staff refers screened service
providers to meet yotx partiatlar needs for any service. large or smaN.
HOME tn~mbsrs just caN HOME
Membership assures quaNty home services for one year.
Spedal membership offer... s25/ ear
Seniors ... get an additiona12096 off ... 19.95/year
416 Hennepin Avg, Mlnr»spolis
~ <,~ ~:.
~~ t
;~
-.
-r;;~
,j
~-. ;. •
..
ecurity. It's a very real concern for older adults. When we
designed The Wellington, we made it our first priority as
well.. We build safety, security and peace of mind into
every new home.
There's around-the-clock security system protecting the
main entrance to the building.•Visitors can be screened on your
own television set with our closed-circuit surveillance camera.
Staff nurses, emergency pull cords in each unit, a personal daily
check program-there are so many ways we put your well-being
first at The Wellington.
For older adults who want an independent and affordable
lifestyle, The Wellington is the Twin Cities' finest rental com-
munity. Choose from four beautiful 1 and 2-bedroom designs,
located in Highland Park's scenic Shepard Park area.
Ask about our Preview Showing Special Package. Available
through October only.
Call Katie Haried today at 698-0302. •
~~- ~:.
~: WFLI,INGTOh' ~`
4'- _ ~
2235 Rockwood Avenue
St. Paul
~ Developed and managed
i. t,y Stuart Cnr~x~ralinn
OCTOBER 1995/ACTIVE SENORS 49
-.-,-.--.-- ...r
:. . _ CK.lLvc~
ve Reoart ~~Q Page 1
Ricnf field Nausing Sur y C/~
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= < .a5
May, 1986 **Sig. Duff. _ < . 01
sssssaac=e==e==3=sa==asses=a33asars==arsaa=s=o==aas=aaasae=3s:sa=ri==so=sa=caps=
SURVEY QUESTION SY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 7a
% % % % x
sa=seas =cssaeeaa===seas= ____= cas sea as~xa .ease ecn =a=wee a= c=ce=. a== c=c seace =e e c
HOUSING PREFERENCE~~' N=1729.
RENT-NO SERVICES 16 19 17 0 16
RENT-BASIC SERVICES 23 34 47 51 64
CONDO-BASIC SERVICES 41 35 29 23 17
. OTHER 20 12 8 6 3
CURRENT HOME~*
N=1827
SINGLE FAMILY HOME 93 9f- 91 8? 77
APARTMENT 4 4 6 8 19
CONDO-TOWNHOUSE 2 1 2 2 2
OTHER i 2 2' 3 2
YEARS IN PRESENT HOME ~~ N=1816
,,~!. , .
LESS THAN 2 YEARS 2.' 1 1 0 1
3-5 YEARS ,:, 4y "'' 2 2 2 2. 2
6-8 YEARS ~ _`~ 4 3 4 l 1
9-1,1 YEARS ..;~: , ~t 6 4 4 5 5
MORE THAN 12 ~•A r 85 89 90 89 81
MARITAL STATUS*•~' `"' ~ N=1817
SINGLE it 9 10 9 13
MARRIED 81 89 77 69 56
WIDOWED 8 11 13 22 31
SPOUSE'S AGE*~a Na1379
UNDER 60 ~ 80 31 4 4 1
60-65 18 63 35 14 2
66-70 2 5 50 36 9
71-75 0 1 8 40 35
76-80 0_ 0 2 5 42
OVER 80
-------------------------
---------------
----------
---------
---------
---------
SEX'M' N=1776
MALE 65 73 68 73 62
FEMALE 35 28 3~ 27 38
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT HEALTH~~' N=1814
GOOD 88 77 76 68 66
FAIR 12 21 21 31 34
POOR 0 2 3 1 i
----------------------------------------------- ------------------
~i<<jtily C~cci~ion~, lr~c.
~~V
Richfield Housing Survey Report Page 2
Pleska-Walker Partnership ~-Sig. Diff.= < .05
May, .1986 ~*SiQ. Diff. _ < .01
s3x==xm=oo.xaaso=====asxa=ss=sssax==cs===s=e===oaa~axm3xasassammaax==aamsams=s
SURVEY QUESTION HY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
- % X X % %
sa===.aa=====_=====x=====c..oaoc=====-----=====a=.==m==s=a=aa=s===a=a~=.=.==c
ANNUAL INCOME** N=1753
LESS THAN ~ 10, 000 ._., 6 9
310,000-315,000. 9 14 25
315,000-32x,000 10 18 20
320,000-330,000 24 31 31
..OVER 330,000 53 -31 16
SOURCES OF INCOME - SALARY/WAGES~*
14 22
31 30
2 ijl 16
24 23
10 8
N=1833
YES
NO 84 47
16 53 17
83 9
91 3
97
SOURCES OF INCOME - INVESTMENTS*~ ~ N=1833
YES ~ 4 '''M~ 49 56 58 62
NO 51 44 42 38
SOURCES OF INCOME - PENSIONS
YES- ~~~ J
NO -',~' 80
;°
SOURCES OF INCOME- SOCIAL SECURITY~~
N=1833
55 76 61 66
4~ 24 39 34
N=1833
YES 8 52 87 91 - 88
NO ~ - 92 48 13 9 12
SOURCES OF INCOME - SSI N=1833
YES 0 1 1 1 1
NO 100 99 99 99 99
MARKET VALUE OF HOME~* N=1639
LESS THAN 340,000 1 0 0 1 0
341,000-349,000 1 2 3 2 4
350, 000-359, 000 4 4 5 10 10
360,000-369,000 16 18 25 28 31
370,000-379,000 37 - 42 40 41 36
OVER 380,000 42 34 26 18 20
MORTGAGED HOME*~ N=1660
YES 49 29 ~16 10 7
NO 51 71 84 90 93
Qt»li~y De~i~io~~~, Inc.
~
Richfield Housing Survey Report Pwge 3'
~~~~
Plesko-Walker Partnership •~ Sig. Diff.= < .05
.May, 1986 - ~ •~•~Sig. Diff.= < .01
sa==.==.=c======a.aoo==aa=a=.=a==ca=ao==aoo=.===== =.=c===s=a=amsa====aasxsa=z
SURVEY QUESTION BY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
x X % % X
saga===.=..=====c.=xaaaaa=====a==sa=a=ax o=. c=a o..= ==._ _=-===a.m== .a =o==..m==.
MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT N=420
LESS THAN 5300 65 ~ 72 71 ?3 70
5301-5400 15 20 ~ 22 19 20
5401-5500 10 3 4 0 10
5501-5600 3 2 3 0' ~
5601-3700 3 1 0 8 0
OVER 5700 4 3 0 0 0
MONTHLY RENT N=164
LESS THAN 5300 36 28 15 20 13
X301-5400 27 44 39 26 34
5401-5500 18 it 39 43 47
5501-5600 18 17 S 11 6
5601-700 ~~ 0 3 0 0
INTERESTED IN LIVING IN RICHFI `~ R ~~
+ NT COMMUNITY~t N=1800
y~
YES 48 52 54 62
NO li 8 11 8
UNDECIDED ~ ;, ~ ;, 7 41 40 36 30
WHEN WOULD CONSIDER MOVING~~• N=1389
IMMEDIATELY 2 5 7 11 1l
i-3 YEARS 19 25 30 40 49
4-5 YEARS 17 23 30 23 22
6 OR MORE YEARS 63 48 33 26 19
APARTMENT PREFERENCE•~•~
N=1658
STUDI O 1 1 2 1 1
ONE BEDROOM 18 20 21 36 44
2 btDRDOM 49 57 58 52 44
2 BEDROOM + DEN 32 22 19 12 10
APARTMENT RENT. AVAILABLE
LESS THAN 5400 34 29
5401-5500 28 33
5501-5600 22 21
5601-570a 8 8
5701-800 ~ 4 4
OVER $800 5 5
AMENITIES DESIRED - DISHWASHER•~•x~
N=1618
25 32 24
34 35 43
20 16 20
li 11 6
6 3 5
4 3 2
N=1833
NOS 60 40 ~~~~K'~/DeC~~~~~~, ~~1~b.
Richfield Noosing Survey Report Pape 4 ~`-/~ /
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= ( .05
May, 1986 *+~SiQ. Diff. _ < .01
as~a==s==cross===.sass=asasas=ssc=aa=as=anxa=s=sssssas:ssassssasssasa:aasssmsac
SURVEY QUESTION by AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
% % X % %
AMENITIES DESIRED - GARBAGE DISPOSAL* N=1833
YES - 48
NO 52
AMENITIES DESIRED - PATIO BALCONY**
49 51 40 50
51 49 60 50
N=1833
50
s0
N=1833
YES 70 66 65 57
NG 30 34 35 43
AMENITIES DESIRED - COMFiINATION FsATHrSHOWER
YES 61
NG 40
AMENITIES DESIRED - SHOWER ONLY :~
63 63 62 62
37 37 38 38
N=1833
YES 8 34 33 37 30
NO 66 6B ~ 63 70
AMENITIES DESIRED - OTR~ IES N=1833
YES `~'" i l 11 10 10 8
NO ~ 89 89 90 90 92
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - 24 HOUR SECURITI~
N=1750
IMPORTANT 86 9~D B8 87 89
NOT IMPORTANT 13 10 12 13 11
DO NOT LIKE 1 1 0 1 0
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - URGENCY PULL CORD*~
N=1598
IMPORTANT 39 49 54 54 72
NOT IMPORTANT 59 49 44 44 28
DG NOT LIKE 2 2 2 2 1
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - ENCLOSED PARKING
N=1732
IMPORTANT 90 89 86 89 84
NOT IMPORTANT 10 10 14 it IS
DO NOT L IKE 1 1 1 1 2
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LAUNDRY SERVICES**
Na1639
IMPORTANT 43 46 53 60 68
NOT IMPORTANT 52 49 ~~ 35 29
DO NOT LIKE 6 5 Qli~~~ll.~ D~CIcS~IIcS, 1t1C3
Richfield Housing Survey Report. Page 5 `~!r~~
Plesko-Walker Partnership ~ Sig. Diff.= < .~D5
May, 1986 ~*Sia. Diff. a < . 01
aa__________________________=°a==n=====_________.=.==x======a=======o====axna
SURVEY QUESTION ~Y AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
% X X % X
aaaaa==.=a..a....o...a....a=..n=====c===c===.aox=o====°___°°°=.==c===-..o====
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES- HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES~* N=1525
IMPORTANT 10 8 10 16 31
NOT IMPORTANT 79 81 79 73 63
DO NOT LIKE 11 ~ 11 12 1.1 6
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - GAME PARTY ROOM N=1611
IMPORTANT 38 37 37 36 30
NGT IMPORTANT 57 58 58 59 63
~DO NOT LIKE 5 5 ~ 6 5 7
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - MEAL SERVICE**
IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
DG NOT LIKE
N=1 589
26 23 31 34 53
67 72 63 63 45
• 7 ~ 5 6 3 2
,. ~
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - GUEST ROOM ~`~~'` N=1564
IMPORTANT
NGT IMPORTANT
DO NOT LIKE
/. t~4^~~
T. ~
~' ~...
~'~, ~~.'r :~T 37 33 39 34
l~ ` t~ ~ 59 63 57 61
4 4 4 5
IMPORTANCE OF :FEATURES - EXERCISE WHIRLPOOL SAUNA AREA~* N=1584
IMPORTANT 52 51 - 45 35 35
NOT IMPORTANT 42 44 47 56 51
DG NOT LIKE 6 5 8 9 14
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - INDIVIDUAL STORAGE
N=1706
IMPORTANT 92 91 90 89 89
NGT IMPORTANT 8 8 10 11 11
DO NOT LIKE
---------------------------- 0
------------ 0
---------- 1
-------- 0
---------- 0
----------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - TRANSPORTATION
N=1625
IMPORTANT 58 60 63 63 73
NOT IMPORTANT 41 39 37 35 27
DG NOT LIKE
--------------------------- i
------------- 1
---------- 1
--------- 2
--------- 0
----------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - AFFILIATION WITH HEALTH. CARE FACILITY~• Na1548
IMPORTANT 35 41 42 43 60
NGT IMPORTANT ~ 6a 54 5 53 41
DO NOT L I KE 5 5 Q~jlj~~
`-~C Y D~C~~~O~l~.
. ............. _ . . ! ~~~
Richfield Housino Surve Report Pa `'' /
Y g e 6 ~~
Plesko-Walker Partnershic * Sig. Diff.= < .05
May, 1986 **Sig. Diff. _ ( . 01
sssaspsaaaasaaasaas aaass assaasaaaaaaasaaaaaa== aaa =aaaa as asasaaaa a area agar aaa a:
SURVEY QUESTION by AGE .Under 6a 6a-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
x x x x x
aaa==.== _._ .a=cac==aaa==a=ea.s== e.ca .. a =_= cn. ao =_= oa==a=caa aancc= =a==n===aaa c:
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - HOME HEALTH SERVICES N=1509
IMPORTANT 26 30 31 28 42
NG T I MG+ORTANT 70 66 66 68 56
DO NOT LIKE 5 4 3 4 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - BEAUTY BARBER SHOP** N=1589
IMPORTANT 21 ~ 21 25 34 49
NOT IMPORTANT 73 X72 70 ~ 61 47
DG NOT LIKE 7 6 v 6 3
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LIBRARY N=1573.
,.i
IMPORTANT 35 ~°'• ~'''`~ ' 37 c8 42
• ~:
NG? I MPORTANT 60 6iD 68 5 5
DO NOT LIKE ~> 3 5 3
... Q ~ ;1.,~~~
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WALK ~ ~ N=1644.
IMPORTANT 65 ®® 65 66 v6 53
NOT IMPORTANT 33 33 32 43 44'
DO NOT L LKE 2 2 2 1 3
IMPORTANCE Or= FEATURES - SNACK TiAR N=1526
IMPORTANT 24 23 21 24 •27
NO i I MPOr~TANT 72 70 72 71 67
DO NOT LIKE 5 7 7 5 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CONVENIENCE STORE* N=1655
IMPORTANT 56 53 57 59 71
NOT IMPORTANT 41 43 ~t}@ 3g 28
DO NOT LIKE 3 4 4 3 2
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WORKSHOP*~ N=1566
IMPORTANT 45 45 37 3~D 23
NGT IMPORTANT 53 50 60 66 69
DO NOT LIKE 3 5 3 ~ 4 g
------------------------------------------------------------------------
~MPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CRAFT ROOM** N=1566
IMPORTANT 44 ~ 45 42 32 23
NOT IMPORTANT 53 5a 56 65 7a
DO NOT LIKE 4 ~ 5 ~ 8
-------------------------------------------------QLx~~C1cS1Qlk~~l1C_ ----
• Richfield Housing Survey Report Page 7 ~~~
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.a < 5
May, 1986 **Sig. Diff. _ < . 01
sssssasssssazaa:assaasssassassassaasassasaaaaaaasaasms:sassssssaaaasssssssass
SURVEY QUESTION BY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70
% % X % %
ssss ass acasa s ss sass s as as s a=aassas as sass as man ss s a s :ssssa :a ass aaasa a a s s ss ssss
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES.- BANKING SERVICE*~ N=1587
IMPORTANT 37 28 28 30 56
NOT IMPORTANT 60 68 69 67 42
DG-NOT L IKE 3 4 3 3 3
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CHAPEL. N=1599
IMPORTANT 42 38 40 43 57•
NOT IMPORTANT 53 59 57 53 43
DO NOT LIKE 5 3 3 4 0
CAUSE OF WORRY - HEALTH PROBLEMS N=1833
YES 40 44 41 3B 42
NO 61 56 59 62 58
---------------- -------------------------T~------ --------~~ -------- -- --~~------
CAUSE OF WORRY - TRANSPORTATION•~* ~'=~'' "
~= N=1833
YES x 1 ~' ' 3 16 23 30
NO
---------------- ,.` 7
---------- ~~f,• ------''---- 84
---------- 77
------- 70
------------
CAUSE OF WORRY - SECURITY
• YES
NO
CAUSE OF WORRY - LONELINESS
N=1833
36 41 40 43 34
64 59 60 57 66
N= 1833
YES 9 7 6 6 9
NO 91 94 94 94 91
CAUSE OF WORRY - NUTRITION•~ N=1833
YES 3 3 4 3 9
NO 97 97 96 97 91
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAR OWNERSHIP STATUS** N=1716
OWN AND DRIVE 94 95 92 e9 74
DO NOT OWN 3 3 4 5 it
OWN EiUT DO NOT DRIVE
------------------------------- 2
--------- 2
---------- 5
--------- 6
-------- 15
-----------
CURRENT ZIP CODE
N=1610
55417 7 6 8 11 15
55•+19 5 7 9 9 8
55423 88 87
Richfield Housing Survey Report ~ ~ ~h (e~ age 8 ~~~~"'~
Plesko-Walker Partnershi ~'~~~~ +~ Si Diff.: .05
P ~~.o~u~J1,d 9
May, 1986 ~~i-_-~Jt-_a.t.e~~"~ ig. Diff. _ (. 01
ssxs= _: c asax=c= a==aaaaca sasacmc= -_= z. _ _= aaQ= os= axa a:=.a =xa o==m=asat
SURVEY QUESTION BY INCOME UNDE , OVER X15,000
N % N %
s=======c========cc======s==a====x=a =_____ =.ca.=======ac=ax=o====.=a.= m .c = .a c
HOUSING PREFERENCE* N=383
RENT-NO SERVICES 27 18 31 13
RENT-BASIC SERVICES 92 62 121 52
CONDO-BASIC SERVICES 25 17 72 31
OTHER 4 3 1l 5
CURRENT HOME
N=396
SINGLE FAMILY HOME 152 98 238 99
APARTMENT 0 0 0 0
CONDO-TOWNHOUSE 3 2 3 i
OTHER
------------------------------ 0
---------- 0
------------- 0
------------- 0
-------
YEARS IN PRESENT HOME ~ ~ N=394
LESS THAN 2 YEARS 0 0 1 0
3-5 YEARS 0 ~.~ 0 1 0
6-8 YEARS _ 6 `,~ 4 5 2
9-11 YEARS 4: ~~~,;. 8 3
MORE THAN 12 YEARS ~ <'~.~` 224 94
:r :t
MARITAL STATUS** N=392
SINGLE 17 li 9 4
MARRIED 93 61 209 87
WILOWED 43 28 21 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWN AGE*
N=396
66-70 - 66 43 137 57
71-75 55 36 73 30
76-80 25 16 26 11
OVER 80 9 6 5 2
SPOUSE'S AGE
N=301
UNDER 60 3 3 5 2
60-65 21 23 43 21
66-70 33 36 ~ 86 41
71-75 22 24 57 27
76-80 12 13 13 6
OVER 80 2 2 4 2
SEX**
MALE
FEMALE
92 63
55 37
Na381
189 81
45 19
------------------------------------------------~<<<~Tty ~5eci~io~i~-.ll~c, -----
Richfield Hausir~g Survey Report Page 9
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= <.OS
May, 1986 ~~ Sig. Diff. _ <. G1
s.s==a==c=.===___=====a=aaa=a==as=a=a=a=ac=a= .no.=asam=saaa=a==- =a==coos=o.s=:
iURVEY QUESTION BY INCOME UNDER X15,000 OVER $15,0~D0
N % N %
snaa==a.=.cc=na====a=====aa=sa=s=aaaaasaa===.aaaanaamaaaaoaaaaasaaaoasaaamsaa:
CURRENT HEALTH N=391
GOOD 105 68 168 71
FAIR 49 32 65 28
POGR 1 i 3 1
SOURCES OF INCOME - SALARY/WAGES N=396
.YES 9 6 36 15
NO 146 94 205 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES OF INCOME - INVESTMENTS~~ N=396
YES 54 35 171 71
ENO 101 65 70 29
SOURCES OF INCOME - PENSIONS** N=396
~.
YES 104 67 196 81
•:
NO 5~1 ..~, 33 45 19
:ri
SOURCES OF INCOME - SOCIAL S~.~~~Y N=396
. ~'~., "_
YES ;~~,~ : ~~~ 92 214 89
NO 13 8 27 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES OF INCOME - SSI N=396
YES 0 0 1 0
NO 155 10@ ~4@ 1@0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKET VALUE OF HOME~* N=38@
' LESS THAN X40,000 0 0 1 @
f41,0@0-X49,@00 10 ~7 2 1
?.50,00@-$59,000 ~2 15 13 6
X60.@@0-X69,@0@ 59 40 50 22
X70,0@0-$79,000 41 2B 110 47
OVER ~8@, 000 15 10 56 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORTGAGED HOME
N=382
YES ~ 23 15 22 9
NO 126 85 211 91
Qu~(ily Deci~io~~s,. inc.
Ri=hffield Housing Survey Report Page la
Plesko-Walker Partnership" ~ Sig. Diff._ <. 5
May, 1986 ** Sig.- Diff.= <.01
~sa~x~==~====c==.ao===~=s==a.aca==.~====.=coc===a=~saaasm=ssaasaa=~m==a=a=~~ma
SURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDER X15,000 OVER (15,000
N X N1 %
ra=so=~c=oo=====.c==~==ca.==.aa.c=o=use==anca=ca====~=c...o~=aaaaoeo=s.a.===c
MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT
N=47
LESS THAN X300 18 78 15 63
• X301-400 5 22 7 29
f4ft11-500 0 0 1 4
X501-$600 0 •• 0 1 4
OVER X601 0
---- 0
-------------- 0
------------- 0
-------
--
----------------------------
MONTHLY RENT -------- ~ -
N=9
LESS THAN X300 4 80 1 25
#3iB1-400 1 20 2" 50
$401-500 0 0 0 0
X501-3600
---------------------------- 0
------------ 0
---------=---- 1
------------- 25
----------
INTERESTED IN LIVING IN RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY N=396
YES 155 .100 241 100
NO 0 0 0 0
WHEN WOULD CONSIDER MOVING '~~.:_;ti. ~y~ N=373
-~•
-.~" ,~
..~` ~,
IMMEDIATELY
1-3 YEARS _• ~-"• 8
`` ~~'~~ 37
. 20
93 9
41
4-5 YEARS ~~
28 65 2B
6 OR MORE YEARS ;• 27 51 22
APARTMENT PREFERENCE**
N=390
STUDID 6 4 0 ~0
ONE BEDROOM 61 40 38 16
2 BEDROOM 76 50 154 65
2 BEDROOM + DEN 10 7 45 19
APARTMENT RENT AVAILABLE**
N=369
LESS THAN X400 55 38 30 14
X401-500 64 44 59 27
X501-$600 18 12 60 27
1601-700 5 3 37 17
X701-3800 4 3 20 9
OVER X800 0 0 17 8
AMENITIES DESIRED - DISHWASHER** N=396
YES 57 37 147 61
NO 98 63 94 39
. /~.,,,~/~~//f/
Richfield Housing Survey Report Page fl
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig..Diff.= <.05
,May, 1986 ~•~ -Sig. Diff. _ (. ai
ssssasa==ca.a=ssarias=====aossa=ssesaasssssssssas=salsa=saa=asamassasaaaasasaaz
SURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDER X15,000 OVER X15,000
N % N %
ss=====______________________________________________________________________=
AMENITIES DESIRED - GARBAGE DISPOSAL~*
N=396
YES 56 36 136 56
NO 99 64 105 44
AMENITIES DESIRED - PATIO BALCONY N=396
YES 96 6~ ~ 164 68
NO 59 38 7.7: ~ 32
AMENITIES DESIRED - COMBINATION BATH-SHOWER
N=396
YES 94 61 152 63
NO 61 39 89 37
AMENITIES DESIRED - SHOWER ONLY :~ N=396
YES }.a ~ ~.
'~~ ~
~
34
89
37
NO - ;*~
`. ~~ 67 152 63
.AMENITIES DESIRED - OTHER ~• ITIES N=396
YES 14 9 31 13
• NO 141 91 210 87
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - 24 HOUR SECURITY N=385
IMPORTANT 127 84 208 89
NOT IMPORTANT 24 16 ~ 26 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - URGENCY PULL CORD
N=360
IMPORTANT 91 6 5' ~ 133 61
NOT IMPORTANT 48 34 g~ 37
DO NOT LIKE
--------------------------- 2
------------- 1
-------------- 4
-------------- 2
----------
IMPORTANCE DF FEATURES - ENCLOSED PARKING*
N=380
IMPORTANT 122 84 214 92
NOT IMPORTANT 22 14 20 9
DO NOT LIKE 2 1 0 0
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LAUNDRY SERVICES
IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
DO NOT LIKE
N=361
82 58 132 60
51 36 80 36
e 6 Qu~~(i~y Deci~ion~,11~~.
Richfield HGUSing:Survey-Report Page 12 ~"~'~
Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sio. Diff.~ < 05
May, 1966 ** Sig.. Diff. _ . 01
~s=a=ss~~s=oa=:a=~m3=aa=~aa:s~assaam:saes=esms~massss~ssws~~aasso~asa~ssss~st
SURVEY QUESTION BY INCOME UNDER X15,000 OVER X15,000
N % N %
sas:==a=aasaaaa~xa=asa=aaa=~=sa=~aaaa====~_=~~==oa=~3aas=a=o==a=...=.a=~..==c
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES N=324
IMPORTANT 18 15 27 13
NOT IMPORTANT 87 73 153 75
DO NOT LIKE 15 13 24 12
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES --GAME PARTY ROOM N=349
IMPORTANT. 48 36 85 39
NOT IMPORTANT 79 60 118 54
DO NOT LIKE 5 4 14 7
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - MEAL. SERVICE N=348
IMPORTANT 52 40 84 39
" " NOT IMPORTANT 72 : ~ 56 125 57
DO NOT L I KE 6=~" 5 9 ~ 4
y~
t'~
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - G~J~S~~~~ ~ N=341
. ~.-, w ~ w
" .~_ :~ ~.
IMPORTANT Y~ "~' ~'~~ 34 89 42
NOT I MPORTANT ~'± `;~ 78 61 115 $4
DO NOT LIKE 6 5 9 4
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - EXERCISE WHIRLPOi7L SAUNA AREA N=337
IMF~ORTANT 40 32 94 44
NOT IMPORTANT 74 59 99 47
DO NOT LIKE 11 9 19 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - INDIVIDUAL STORAGE N=373
IMPORTANT 129 89 210 92
NOT IMPORTANT 15 10 18 8
DO NOT LIKE 1 1 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - TRANSPORTATION N=356
.IMPORTANT 92 68 149 68
NOT IMPORTANT 41 30 68 31
DO NOT LIKE 3 2 3 i
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - AFFILIATION WITH HEALTH CARE FACILITY N=340
IMPORTANT 63 50 96 45
NOT IMPORTANT 58 46 112 52
DO NOT LIKE 5 4 6 3
------------------------------------------------~1-k~~~~-~~-~cS~4taS,-~------
Richfield Housing Survey Report Page 13 ~ w
Plesko-Walker Partnership ~ Sig. D2ff.= <.05
May, 1986 ** S i g. D i f f._ <. 01
ssma==a===a==s=a=s3a=asa===caaaa=sosa~assa=aa=a==sas~ssss~sssasmasaa=sssa:acsama
SURVEY ;QUESTION BY INCOME UNDER 315,000 OVER 115,000
N % N %
s==a===.====a=~c====c=a==aa==s~axasaaasaas~=3a==~=~~aa=s=o:aes~aa=aaxssaa==m===c
i
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - HOME HEALTH SERVICES
IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
DO NOT LIKE
49 39
70 56
6 5
N=332
62 30
139 b"l
6 3
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES -.BEAUTY BARBER SHOP N=348
IMPORTANT 40 30 71 33
NOT IMPORTANT 83 63 133 62
DO NOT LIKE- 9 7 12 6
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LIBRARY N=343
IMPORTANT 49 38 68 32
NOT IMPORTANT 72 56 135 63
DO NOT LIKE 8 6 11 5
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WALKING PATHS N=353
IMPORTANT 82 . - :r '~,~ i~~`' 136 62
y.,,,
NOT I MPORTANT .,~:: `' . - s 8~D 36
DO NOT L I KE :. ~ 4 2
~. ___
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - SNACK ~~
N=330
IMPORTANT
NOT IMPORTANT
DO NOT LIKE
31 25
87 70
6 5
42 20
150 73
14 7
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CONVENIENCE STORE N=358
IMPORTANT 97 68 123 58
NOT IMPORTANT 42' 29 83 39
DO NOT LIKE 4 3 _ g 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WORKSHOP N=339
IMPORTANT 44 35' 76 36
NOT IMPORTANT 76 61 130 61
DO NOT LIKE 5. 4 8 4
MPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CRAFT ROOM
N=343
IMPORTANT 53 41 89 42
NOT IMPORTANT 72~ 56 119 56
DO NOT LIKE 4 3 6 3
-------------------- . ----------------------------Q{~i~~~-~E-~&EpHcS-~f~C-----
Richfield Housing Survey Report Page 14 ~`"~ v l
Plesko-Walker Partnership •>f Sig. Diff.= (. 05
May, 1986 ** Sig. Diff. _ <. 01
sass=====saaa=aas=saa=a=33=sa==aasasaammeoa====sassxass~ssasaa3sasaaaasa=massz
SURVEY QUESTION BY INCOME UNDER (15,000 OVER *15,000
N % N %
ssssssss:aaaaasssassaasasassasaaasasaasassssssassaasssasaaaasasssasassassasaa~
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES.- BANKING SERVICE
N=348
IMPORTANT 47 36 65 30
NOT. IMPORTANT 81 ~ 61 144 67
DO NOT LIKE 4 3 7 3
--------------------------------- ------ -
IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CHAPEL* - -------------- ------------ ---------
--
N=350
IMPORTANT 69 51 81 38
NOT IMPORTANT 61 45 127 59
DO NOT LIKE 5 4 7 3
CAUSE OF WORRY - HEALTH PROBLEMS Na396
YES 70 45 119 49
NO 85 55 122 'S1
CAUSE OF WORRY - TRANSPORTATION
YES
NO
40
1.15
_--: ;
CAUSE OF_ WORRY - SECURITY .• i .. •
;:
N=396.
:~6 56 23'
4' 18..t 77
- --------------------------------
N=396.
YES ~4 41 112 47
NO 91 59 129 54
CAUSE OF WORRY - LONELINESS - N=396
YES 14 9 17 7
NO
---------------- 141
------------------------ 91
-------------- 224
------------ 93
------------
CAUSE OF WORRY - NUTRITION
N=396
YES 12 8 14 6
NO 143
----------------- 92
-------------- 227
------------- 94
-----------
CAR OWNERSHIP 8TATU8+~~-
N~367
OWN AND DRIVE 115 83 216 95
DO NOT OWN 10 7 4 2
OWN BUT DO NOT DRIVE
------------------------------- 14
--------- 10
------- 8 4
-------------------------
CURRENT ZIP CODE ------
N=357
55419 18 16 Qu~jfi(.y DCC~on~
lnc~
,
SII~:~itA t~_ ~tt~vr~~t~
MEMO
/~- SL
.April 21, 1986
SUBJECT: The Community Perceived Impact Of An Increasing Elderly
Population and a Concentration Of Retirement Housing
Information was researched regarding the positive and negative impacts felt by
communities, resulting from an increasing elderly population 3n concentrations
of retirement housing. Contacted for information were several, highly
respected, agencies and organizations abreast of issues on aging, both locally
and nationally. Also contacted were consultants, planners and developers
specializing in the development of retirement housing. This memo is a summary
of the findings.
There appears to be a definite lack of written material on this subject., Over
the past decade, as the concern for housing for the .elderly grew, most related
studies focused on the needs of the .elderly. In the studies and articles
reviewed on retirement housing, and in conversations with developers and
consultants, most all mentions of comr-ttmity felt impacts were positive. No
negative impacts were identified as a direct result of concentrating retirement
housing in a community. There were, however, some concerns expressed
regarding, one, initial objections to developments by the community, and. two,
the need ibr long range planning in regards to the design of the building and
the changing needs for supportive services, such as housekeeping and in-house
medical-care provided by the management of a development..
Listed below are the .positive. impacts identified, and the concerns
expressed. This list is compiled of information gathered from various
sources. Most of the following points were identified by more than one source.
Positives Impacts of Concentrating Retirement Housing In a Community•
-A retirement housing complex tends to have a stablizing effect
on neighborhoods.
-The elderly are not a transient population group. Their
move. to retirement housing is usually their last.
-A high density retirement complex increases tax revenue in ~~
a community, without additional use to the school system.
-Retirement housing creates jobs in the community.
-The value of a retirement housing development appreciably increases
over a period of years. Again, this generates more tax
revenue.
-The elderly spend most of their expendable income within
the community.
-2-
-Providing alternative: housing for the elderly within a
community, promotes a roll-over in the housing stock.
If alternative housing is not available, -the elderly
are likely to age in place, remaining in their single-
family homes. This causes a period of decline in the
number of children in the community, in turn, school
cutbacks are made due to declining enrollment, thus,
the community has less appeal to young families.
Initial Concerns Expressed By Communities Where The Development
of Retirement Housing is Proposed.
-An increase in the elderly population will have a negative
affect on the image of the community.
N-53
-Contrary to this concern, the elderly, as a
population group, have proved to be good citizens.
They are generally stable, quiet and not disruptive.
In fact, they have gained a positive image within
communities. ,
-A high density housing development will create more traffic and
crime, and create a strain on public services.
-High density retirement housing has proven to add
very little to the amount of traffic and crime in
a Community.
-The-need for utility
is no different from
condominium complex.
problem.
service in a retirement complex
that of any apartment or
Therefore, this is not a
-According to information provided by the Richfield
Public Safety Dept., the number of recorded emergency service
,calls originating from the Lake Shore Drive senior
condominiums in Richfield, is no greter than those originating
from non-elderly complexes in Richfield, similar in
density. The nature of the calls, however, tends.to
be largely medical rather than domestic or disturbance
related. With present capabilities, Richfield Public .
Safety personnel foresee no problem in supplying
emergency services to an additional, high density
housing development in the area of 66th St. and Lyndale
Ave. .
Concerns'For Continued Success of Retirement
-A need has been identified for long range planning regarding
the physical design of the building and the delivery of
supportive, in-house services provided by the management, to accomodate
. _3_ C
J
changing needs of residents. Most persons moving into
~ retirement housing see. it a their last move. Although they may
be-self-sufficient and active at the time of initial occupancy,
-` as residents age and become more fraile, their needs change and
services provided_by the management, must change to meet these needs.
It is suggested that a qualified management company be chosen
to implement careful planning in the development stage of retirement
housing to prepare for changing ftrture service demands.
Below is a list of agencies, organizations and individuals contacted to
provide information on this subjzct. As little written information was
' available, t!~ best source of information proved to be personal conversations
with developers and consultants working with retirement housing. These
individuals provided. insights gained from hands-on experience.
Agencies and Organizations Contacted
American Planning Association - Chicago, IL.
Center for Urban Policy Research -Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ
Center for Urban and Rural Affairs- Minneapolis, MN
Citizens League of MN - Minneapolis, MN
Metropolitan Council - St. Paul, MN
Minneapolis Community Development Agency - Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis Planning Dept. - Minneapolis, MN
MN League of Cities - St. Paul, MN
MN State Board. on Aging - Minneapolis, MN
MN State Demographers Office - St. Paul, MN
MN State Planning Agency - St. Paul, MN
National League of Cities - Washington, D.C.
Urban Land Institute - Washington, D.C.
Individuals Contacted
Jack Bowersox - Architect/Developer, Design Through Research, Inc., Mpls., MN-
-Specialists in Senior Housing Developments.
Ann Carlson-- Assistant Manager, Lake Shore Drive Condominiums, Richfield
Maria DeWhite & Sally Hover - Consultants/Planners,
Gerontological Services, Inc.
Santa Monica, C~A
-Specialist in Senior Housing Developments
Catherine Grey - Independent consultant, Mpls., -Formerly with Ebenezer
Sue Haller - Economic Development Dept., City of Redondo Beach, CA
-Currently undertaking the development of a multiple senior .
housing project within their community