Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-19-86 agenda
Rfl- CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager council Letter No. 199 HRA Letter No. 12 Agenda May 19, 1986 The Honorable Mayor Housing and Redevelopment and Authority Commissioners Members of the City Council City of Richfield 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 i 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 pity 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 ~-t~,~-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 ould be obtained b invitin eo le to a from the ro'ect area w Y 9 P P P J 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 information 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 i 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 eo le were most concerned about possible congestion related to P P traffic and the im airment of their views which they presently P ncerned en 'o The business re resentatives were primarily co P J Y about the 66th and Lyndale area losing its commercial image because of the loss of retail s ace, which would be the result of P 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 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 ither of some elderly people, it is uncomfortable to walk across e 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 c~`,~~ 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 apart 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 o ulation of the building is estimated at 204 persons). P P 00 uare feet Existing commercial space of approximately 21,0 sq 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 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. i~ • 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 and 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 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- i 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. Utilizing existing 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 folio-wing table differentiates various incomes and household sizes as a percentage of median income: Household 50% (low 80% (moderate 100% (median Size income) income) income) 1 $12,300 $19,250 $24,600 2 $14,050 $22,000 $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 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 by_ Percentage of Median Income 50% 60% 70% 80% 0 1 $308 $369 $431 $481 1 1 $308 $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. 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 severalbusinesses. 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 i~ recently presented to the HRA projected a probably pay off of all ~ bonds by 2002). .However, the sale of tax exempt bonds would have ~I 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 $10 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. 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. ~--J~ 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, ~ 5zeven L. Devic 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 W ' ~ /i ~ it a~ ~ ~ - - _ ~ ~ - 1 _ z i ~ _ _ r. • a O~ ~ L. 0. t. f sf~i~of•r~ nr~frf.~ . _ ~ 64 th ST. . ¦ Darden ~ ~ ~ Center / . ~ 1. I CAKE 1- _--~^_''r-~'.' ~i a - - - _ `I . ~ , v~j~~~\ I - - ~ r~nr~or~ri ~ffrirrlf•rrr 1 - ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ti,~' .r~rrt 11 Irllra~ll rrl Aitr - 65th BC ii _ ~ ^ .r\ _ ~ ~ I I~ _ - - _ / .'l r _ K MART ; ~ Z _ ~ ~ E Y 7 _ I , _ ~ r . ~ ~ ~ e 66 th ST. Y~r/*~Ml~irl~rt~Irrrr!/flri~Uirf~rrir: _--1---1- _ ~ r-~ ~ w?nd.-.- o J I - _ LHN i - - _ ..(f I I "Gpt?dp ,Hard. L.-_ ' I rr~u BOUNDARY - ~f 1•S0 L.L_ ~ ~ G.A.D. SITE 4-- t - ~ .S 3HALLER ~y~T.' I- ~ i PROPERTY `HRA: ~ _ ~ . . ~ o° _ ~ ~'tij~:;:•;' v~ • ~ T T R E S T M A N R Il ~ ~ ~_-i _ \~kF ~f~.s.~' ~ .ti e~ ro sr. ti ~ PROPERTY ~ HRA HRA PROPERTY _J ~ CRICKET C _ O o~,` ~ To r I ~ > J r- ` _ W~~~.. ~ ~ Z ' - ~ LAKE ~ 1 ~ I 1 - i ~ M I i i t'_ / May 12, 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 Far 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, 'to 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 transR~rtatian bath within, and, in and out of the city, i The Plesko-Walker concept. offers .solutions to these concerns for the elderly t-hat 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 perspec ive 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 tSA 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 ar 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 condomi-mums 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 i 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 eoneensus of ~i opinion that Plesko- Walker should strive to provide the .most ~8- i 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 5.5423, 55417, 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. • ~ - - /..S . Local Strategy ~i Aging Task Force Member Representing John Hamilton, .Mayor City Council hlichael.Sandahl City Council Vern Luettinger HRA Ivan Ludeman HRA Connie Hoverson Planning Commission Barbara Kritzman Planning Commission *Myrna Hammer Human Services Commission (*Task Force Chairperson) Nancy 2jornhom Human Services Commission Staff Lil Hipp, Community Center Manager Bruce .Nora quist, Housing S cialist Pe i 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 provi-des an environment that can accomodate elderly needs specifically, whether through building design, services, or both. Persons must be pf 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. 5/5l86/BN ' Retirement Housing Opportunities In An Identified Richfield Market Area flip Code areas: 55423,. 55419, 55417) 1) Subsidized Retirement Rental Housing = 149 Units Project Name/Location # of Units Type of Units Height Unit Cost Comment Richfield Towers,. Richfield .149 143-1 bedroom 7 story 30~ of 250 waiting 77,th & Chicago Ave: 6-2 bedroom income for 1000 occ. rent 2) Condominium/Owned Retirement Hou=ring = 543 Unit=. Project Name/Location # of Unit=; Type of Units Msit~ht Unit Co.,t Comn?ents Nokomis Square Cooperative.,. 128-1 be<.iroom 7 story $~i0-117,000 17 units Minneapolis 4-1 be<iroom+ monthly fee left to sell 50th St. S~ 35th Ave. 208 72-2 bedroom _ of $150-360 I Lake Shore Drive, 84-1 bedroom 11 story $60-100,000 13 waiting .Richfield 17~i 30-1 bedroom+ monthly fee 100% occ. 6th St. & Lake Shore Drive 64-2 bedroom of $125-250 Woodlake Point, Richfield 66-1 bec~roorn 12 story $E~2-16.0,000 65 units ~~r.h yt. & Lyndale Ave, 157 55-1 becir`oom•t- monthly fee left to sell 32-2 bedroom of $119--3.12 4-2 bedroom+ 3) Mar~krat R3t:e Retirement Rental Hou~:ing = O t.Jnits N(7TE: * feat:uri;s and ~::ervi.ce~, availak~le vary from building to building monthly fF~c~s may r..c~ver expenses such as: ~3s~.<:~riation due's, maintenance of building anti grounds, taxes, utilities, =uncial proyr~m ~rnd ar.tivit,iYS, mart.yage payments of a cooperatives meals if food service is pr~~vidPCi, housekeeping, ernergNncy rneciical assistance if adjacent to a nursing home. • f ~ ~ ~ - 1 t-v O ortuniti.es Retirement Housing pp ^ 55417) n Area Adjacent To Richfield Sut putsi•de Odes 55443, 55419, ~ In A Outside zip The primary Marketing Area s Comment;s c' 'zed Rrtitirement Rental Housing = r37~ Unit Hei.llt Unit CU`~Jt 1) ,~ub~~.di y Type of Ur~i.ts t c~cation # of tJnit.J 30% ofi 100 waiting Pro.7ei;t Name/ - 100% occ.. - 7 story income. South Haven, Edina 100 100-1 bedroom .for rent 75th St- & York Ave. I 30°f ofi 900 waiting 12 ~torY 100% occ. Yorktown Continental.,.. 282-1 bedroom income for Edina 264 2-Z .bedroom - rent 71st & York Ave. 2?0 waiting 192-1 bedroom 15 story 3O° °fi 100% occ. 21~. income for l3loornington 24_2 bedroom rent Knox i_anr~~nKr~nv, Ave. $15t ~t- Clwr~ed Retirement Housing = 338 Units Comments 2~ Conciomini.i.im/ HeigPtt Unit Cost Type of Units # of tlni t~ 550 wai ting l,r.~,.jf~<:t N,~rY„~/t_c->c~~ai.ic~n - 185-1 bedroom 9 story. Share of 100°s occ. 338 Mork in 75OC) York Cooperative, 135-2 bedroom cooperative. Ed i r ?:j 18-3 bedroom $13 , 500--29 , 500 75th St. R, Yi~r-k Ave- with monthly fes of $498 to $1,079 rounds, taxes, utilities, from building.to building and g housekeeping, NOTE: maintenance of building rovided, *features,and services avaienses such ase aymentstofna cooperative, meals if food service is p monthly fees may .cover exp ro rams and. activities, mortg g p home. social p 8 • emergency"medical assistance if adjacent to a nuns ng _ - - ~ _ - - ' Retirement Housing Opportunities Adjacent to Richfield .~continued~ 3) Market Rate Retirement Rental Housing = 417 Units Pr-o.je<~L- Name/I~ocG~tion # of Units Type of Units Height Unit Cost/Mo. Comments v t-leritage Manor, Edina 64 60-efficiency 4 story $735-eff. 25 waiting e~ 61st St. ~ York Ave. 4-lary© eff . $840-1g. eff . 98 % occ. I Rembrandt, Edin~~ 88 80-efficiency 4 story $910-eff. 6 waiting 61st .t.. & York Ave.... 8-1 bedroom $1175-1330 for 98% occ. 1 bedroom units Roybet, Edina 62 13-efficiency 4 story $910-930 ,eff. No waiting 61st St. & York Ave, 45-1 bedroom $1175-1230 1 bed. 98% occ. ` 4-2 bedroom $1395-2 bedroom Edina Perk Plaz:~, Ecin.3 203 125-1 bedreom 18 story ~ $950-1230-1 bed. Un<~er 78th St. York ~1vP. 46-2 bedroom $1320-1490-2 bed. c:on~tr. 32-2 bedroorn+ $1700-1900-Pent. C]cc:, 2/87 (Edinbourgh) t • - ,,.r. _f~ - ~ . i.- -x . Y; S ~ ~ ~ f v 1 , / 1 C•'~ w,rN~ 1 ~ / , 1 ~W j..t~ ...,~C x: y ~ t':~ s ~ ~ A ~ ~ii j p w/Yn is t 1 ~^a+ , . 1 w 1 1 HoM , y~ ~ ~ jo~ Ir~r ~ iLititri - t ~j a J/i~y4+2~ ~'.kf,1T. M,Y.ini ~ WYM Lam.-III t 1 : s 1 is r~"tY'~ t~~'; isssM ~'L~1 + _+rl~~ gS,. ~t w u r r aus S F'}~~ y ~~11 -W \J f'- i ~ .r ¦ 1 1 ~ 1 ..(I~j ' 1 ' { y > ~ t lin - c , At. ~ • a - . p ~ r c H+. y .j.O++~ ~ EdMs Kist sA • ~{SIWZEO RENTAi. ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ 1~ ti i ,<~,;~,tf~s'i AACIIERM r ~a ''r~pY t ti r :i"Q' ns C~ tA~ ' y~~r~-Si.~ ' gW)1lJC: ryt""~".`E '1 ~~'r .k•Ln' ~tf a~ i4i ~t~~'jaA . Yt's- nP~ io1KG ~~e"'~~ "'s~` ~*11~'-,•. "©'-~'`'J ~>N r` , ,~.Y4 ~ ,sew ~VA CEN'CEN~~~~s,T.,t~~~,.r=~t 1"~'~"• KTOKIERr +'~'1~>^Y`"{'~~ r_ 4r ,,~~`~t'sf.*. '"S`' ViJW' ' iv~ .YYk".'~v SN{MGLECAEE ~ ~,~~'~+a` s. Z Sta. , 7 OpYER Nlll +•.+.:.y-,~ ~`,y'a`° #`Y+~'t ~ t~~'• ErooWYp Caw ~ ~ ,f~~irF ',~y~,E~'"L< .yi "f t ~ '~..i•' - r ?p cs+r ~b .M VE~~.1?" a''Y:.•y~` `~.~s.+~+1„~~}pr4~^~•~~~~y',~~^.~~~k``„ ~ _ ~ f ,~~¢sT(r ~jvOWEF4i'`•t~~~CE >~`~,$i. i~Y1'{~Sr~;to~-1.ts7'~•' `^~'GL ~~t•~~r{ ti ~ 'o:~~,y~y~'~, _ S •I~pi'us . E AESIAEMENT AEStOE 1 ~ t• Y - .m SNDRE ~ # .t-.e+t! +`h?~ t % ~j sl•, r • ,~Ly DAI. ~'~~.E Uiw~i4r r`•sit~-b!~"` t •~6s~~•~~~} EO Y*'~.' ~ t ~ VE7s,~ `~'fr> 7..E~pgrO • -vr~ 3~?~~ wESTOM~;'y;~-"-.~'- x " r'°k 1 jij~'. ~ cENt~~~AT/ ~ ~ .t~,4~'~ N tOND S C` i'~",~,~1°s~ ' • k~"~ jA~~.. J~i r CALVARY .a • y,>i,'>: 4 ~~w.t -sj` f. GIOEO a ti. ro< . MO`11d ;,DNTINEN. • t. a ix t ,~~s i'.1`7~ V.tNY ~gyUM4 0 ~ T4" 'C,~s r' ~~'r'~• YOR?CfOMM'~:o r,.,, > aGo~ G!~ E W+Dtlw f 3 ? r^ eL ~ ~ . tt t~,,. ~ Z t'E1~^ ~TLE RIOGECON ,i ~6'''C. GLENIAK ~<y,+, i 3 EdiM~:*~~-'Js.. 7r ~ hsiti. ,i r~.; t fa 1W' NOUS6 ~y~~.+'t. 4v~f 1. P ,y~TE RENT L t~' t ~ ~ . err "ti~`~ V ENANT MA~i,..~"~ . 14TDN r r -r'lit ~ta MARKET ~ y CO y ~ a;~TON r+., " 7 10. NAM ~y~t-~yY ~slr-~}L~. ESTATES: r Va1bM LppM?H ~,[~Y~s .....r^ St.IA~ T ~ApTMENT,,r? *.}s;,i."3~1~ sRDOKp :.A :,r ays,~ ~ • pSNlf VI{.1J1~ ~ ~ ~ ]i'4. ~F"•~~°. . 11. N{Ly~oR~ S {r OtpolctY rr. r n. . N~~~ ~T.' t t r a y $ s'S' O MAµOR a , ,.Ylaap'p4i°p ` i'Y ~'-..r y '~r~1e.~V ~k`~.~r' IOETERRAGE 7 'G`<~j~ rl?~`'~'W. gAO0KIN6O~M :,3 '^S,'.. KENZINGTON rj+",sS V*~ ,,,tw,~t. tZ. NIL Vw s.•~~.* `'ICjiiY nti~ s:~topWY ~ApTyAENT81 {s 1.41 ~.AMIwpY ~t DOMIN,~~~f"t ~ V{Lt,AGE ~ ~~ar ~:,s.r'•r GNAYEIVw~ s~~~ ~w~ *ti~.E KESNOREORIYE~ y~, ~~3. N~~ ~ i~~~~ It'~' NppKlls. CAUAj 1,,, 'Y' ~ ti. ~ ,.~,~tiaW ~ ~,nyE tj„tk{ ~ KIt1OLLMANCR ?,.5 -3O:Ct1AAD~ ~ ~.~4jS x7y'`Yr~~. gOUARECA~ ,t~~, ?l ,1";.:` t4. {NDr~ ..rvstt i~ ~~'~a ~Nof+P OR >.t *3~ i.,x.,;1,;sN,.1.EE a •~a,~. Y`'t•~r ' V.NO{NG t tt ,d Ytr: j NERITAGE MAI'~ ^ it/1G , t• KE tp{NT ; ~='fir'' ~ ~ _ °"~sS;1~` .,~,SM'~'.,r~.. ' t• o , w 3 w KNDE{aoT""yl°p :t~ `:;z s.' ~ Eela. ' AIDGECOMGRE4AjEN~ a , ya~« -~tsi{O ..,TINE. r ~~?~.3a~ 'r.~ E7EARAGE , > .q • A•t ~'~i?.~ NOPS1i ~~r•~ ~ ~1'1.e +}^a YORKCOpfERA 10:.~ta ~«'~.t ~E• Wpu P1Mn :y ~y i ~'~i NwN IWV~ v }i i~,s~C`YI tE{" • ~,pp ) ? R?'~r'r <~5. _y~.ki.~"i~ ~~"`r s K ~ i '11• sE~~aW11LAZA.: ~,1~``i+'}t~~µ_; ~y .AE.~EMMI~~DTE T'~'yx4~n~"`;~ty'~~. ~ti~~r.:1;` "~i"t~', ~~~yjP'~ ~E-RpINA ' r4 °'a. . • ~R{DGE~~ t9„r *af ~r. Ir is :1x01 O ~AAEO ~ CARE N 11. NDRT~~ RK PLAZA . • . i?• - SOR IlES1OE«TWL t ;~yL.. ~ ;>".'s ~ Nii/ ApTMENti~ ~11F~~"i Gt`'l~ ~ M'ppa r , . ,0000 NEIGH i k. „ ~74s . . ~ W t~EAtAI/ttLACE1?r r. j" 1 i1dY8Ej Bd11111 , i jOWERi s > S~~ 7NERESE RESIOENCE t • ' 10. RICHPIELO { t + ' Niw ND~ , RldltrW , Z~, ROBS 1 ~{"ANOING ~ ~ n - ~ ~ j~ s y,,,,Yl ,4 r. +y _ _ . ~ . t ~ r. _ _ 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 3096 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 The most recently published rent survey prepared b the R artment 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 a artments. P Tvae of Unit Average Rent. Vacancy Rate . Studio $312 No vacancy 1 bedroom $405 2.49K 2 beds oom $500 3. X 1 3 bedroom $570 No vacan c Y T ' he Richfield Comm unit Develo m ent De artment conducted a rv Y P p su ey in 1984 (70X 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. ~"s MEMORANDUM 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. Circle..p~.ace, 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 $Out Total Triers Average. Day 3.5 Trips/Unit 50~ 50~ 785 Trips AM Peak Hour 0.38 Trips/Unit 40$ 60$ 85 Trips PM Peak Hour 0.42 Trips/Unit 60~ 40~ 95 Trips 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MLNNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484-0272 - i 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 otherwis® 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- additionai 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 resuiting~operationa. '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. 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.' ` f c~jr ' • . o • - . ~ ` ~ ~ ~ .1 r Y ,try., r, 1, X13{, i, X ~ ~5..+ ~'I . l '4 ' i 9 t. 1 cam. ~~r,r'*~ .al,~r ~,5 • i.: ,sf:>. ' a{ i uti f _ ~ 5 y r mss, ' ~A ~ ~ r . y h u~( L .~i ~ ! ~ • iA ~ • Si lit 7 J;;f ro r a , ? ~ i }ha~A i3` i f. .x. _ h ~ n r l` f3 ~"~/"';T'.`~ r ~.fe , ~ 4,~~` ~,~~hs~"" yr'-r.~':. ..s. ~ ~ ,.i ! ~ - ~ ~ z} 1 ~r.i. - :s- mfr ' F ZT ~ ~ ~Y'Z ~t-i~`~'• ~ v ..t ~ , r ' ? u~t n R'~ 4 ~.j t 1 ~ W Vs 4 fi a;r'.....i. T ( ~1 f 'e.. ~ ri: ~ . r~R Z. 5 RY wry. ~ t . - t . . I ' _ a. . LARKIN, HoFFMAN, 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER DALY VL LI N D G RE N, L 1 ZOOOSOU H1NINN STREET 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ~~~JJJJ - - BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE:1612i835.3B00 qT-7^Op1~iCVC AT i A\V/ 7ELEPHONE:(672)338-6670 TELECOPIER: {6121835.5102 l"~ 1 1 y C_~1V G 1 J_ ["_l. 1 L W 7ELECOPIER: (672) 338.1007 REPLY TO MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE May 6 , 19 $ 6 DAVID C. SELLERGREN 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 c~,.~u«unicate 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 III 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 conservat~.ve, 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. i LARKIN, HOFFMAN, ~ DALY & LINDGREN, LTD ATTORNEYS AT LAW Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority. -May 6, 1986 Page two 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 n, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDG , Ltd lip DCS/ssg ~ ~ ~i . Enclosures i ~ ~ ~ .........J...~ -1 -1 - t~~ !r ~QCJh Map. 2, 1986 Mr. Richard Brier Richfield Lake Limited Partnership c1o Derrick Land Company 1650 Shelard Tower St. Louis Park, MN 5542b Dear ifir. Krier: At your request, we have inventoried projects that are competitive with Wood- lake Point in Richfield. These include other projects in Richfield, South Minneapolis, $loomingtoa and Edina. Of the projects that are competitive with Woodlake Point, moat have been for at least two or three years and with the exception of Walker Place is 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 in the area. However, with the large inventory of condominium and cooperative units avail- . able, the question arises oa the timing of development of additional units, whether rental or ownership. As shown on the accompanying table, each project in 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 il stay off the market, most projects have at least one year remaining is 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 unite 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 FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612-338-0012 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 ~ . ~ `-r~~ l) V,/ V Mr. Richard Rrier May 2, 1986 Derrick Land Company Page 2 reserved only 10 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 is the Twin Cities and also has the highest level of services. Seniors who are interested in moving out of their home have ao sense of urgency is moving, unless their health deteriorates to the point where they cannot Cake `.care of themselges. 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 buildinng or the units they will be moving into. We have found that seniors want to walk through the actual units and. eavislon their own furnishings in them. They also want to see the quality 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. . On 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 utay decide to wait and see what the newest building will . look like before making a choice. For this reason alone, a new building announced in Richfield today would likely have an impact oa the marketing pace for the remaining units is your project. Please review .the following table and if you have any further questions on the market for senior housing units is Richfield. Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC. ee A. Maxfiel~ LAM/ddb 'Attachment r AVAILABLE COMPETITIVE SENIOR HOUSING TO WI~ODLAKE POINT Jaauary.1986 ' Unite Remaining (Neither occupied Marketing "Total nor reserved as Sales .Pace Development Name Type Start Units of January 1986) der 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 Reawaod 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 Rembrandt Rental 136 1 Edina park Plaza* 8ental 10-85 201 191 2 *Under 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. I i ~ COMPETITION M ~ ~ Owned/Rental ~ ' 8ecketwood Gideon Pond Kenwood Isles Lake Shore Drive Nokanis Square 7500 York Edinborou4h Walker Place Woodlake Point Type Coop Coop Condo Condo Condo Coop Rental Rental/Fee Condo Units 238 101 133. ll8 208 338 201 139 157 Unit Mix- 1 BR 1 BR-600 l 8R-600 1 BR~ 1 BR-619-773 1 BR 1 BR-623-931 1 BR-575-630 1 BR-610-843 600-700 2 BR-900 1 BR/D-750 1 BR/D 2 BR-858-1031 720-900 2 BR-1063- 2 BR-792-1225 1 BR/D 915-976. 2 BR Z BR 2 BR 3 BR 2500 2 BR 1200 2 BR-1050-1106 890-1600 1050-1300 Penthouse- 3 BR 976-1600 1400-1500 Services Sec/emer Sec/emer Sec/emer Sec/emer Sec/emer Sec/emer 2 meals Van Service Sec/emer Dining rm Dining rm Dining rm Transports- Transportation Health care Transports-' Sec/emer Transports- Transports- Health care Transports- lion Oining rm Daily meat Linen Dining rm lion Transports-. lion Meals-user Housekeeping Health care Beauty shop Conv. shop Conv. shop Mktg. History Oct '82 Jan '85 Spr '84 June '79 3/86 Aug '84 Jan '84 Oct '84 35-40X Oate/Occupancy 3/86 10/85 1982 1985 1918 1/87 Fall 85 2/86 Official Price Range 57,000- 12,000- 58,000- 60,000- 60,000- 13,000- 950-1900 663-1233 62,000- 181,000 _144,000 143,000 110,000 117,000 30,000 31,000- 160,000 498-1079/ ~ 93,000 • Month Ent fee Price/Sq. Ft. 108-115 97-101 88-110 86-103 'Current Status 62~ Sold 45 PA 67X Soid 88X Sold Sold Constr/Mktg 91z occ 89 PA (58~ occ) Const to ~ 15/list Prob w/mktg 460/list 15 rented begin soon ~ start/stop 1.5X - MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 1986 T0: H.R.A. City of Richfield RE: A ffordable 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. Requests 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 .500 to .1,150 per month., They include utilities, except telephone, availability of meal service (but 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 ren is 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 irresponsible commitment on our part. Walker and Plesko are committed to developing for Richfield a project which serves the community. We feel strongly that the range proposed will suit that purpose. The nature of the financing proposal for the building also requires that 20~ of the apartments are set aside to serve people with moderate incomes. May 19, 1986 ' H.R.A. - City of Richf~teld 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 1~ving 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. ~~c. • • Research shows a general trend of ~ople aged 55 to 65 preferrir'g ~ ~ ownersl up and ~ae~ople over a e 70 preferting rental. g . • by Jeff barge he house is too big, the snow didn't qualify. The market-rate ren- is too deep, the kids have all tat units available ,outside of that flown the nest or been .market .didn't have the package. of .pushed out and you've finally services that most seniors want to made the hard decision to move out have available. They were also sub- of the family homestead and into jest, as many found to their distress, something more in tune with the to condominium conv~;,..~on. way you want to live and the things Today, surprisingly, the trend, at you want to do. least in terms of what's being built, Your next decision? To buy or to is toward rental. Luxurious but af- rent...owning vs. leasing. fordable rental units offering a wide A few .years back, that might not ~ menu of amenities are aimed at the even have been a real issue for most increasingly affluent senior market. middle or upper income seniors. At least half a dozen market-rate The senior rental market that ex- rental buildings are going up across fisted back then was largely govern- the metropolitan area. went subsidized, so most seniors LuVerne Molberg, president of Continued on Page 43 OCTOBER 1985/ACTIVE SENIORS 41 OWNING VS. RENTING continued from page 41 choosing to rent seem to prefer will be kept to a minimum. the Webster institute, which con- developments co-sponsored by "it's the idea that whemyou own, ducts market research for de- some sort of non-profit group, such you're more in control;' Vavoulis velopers of elderly-housing, sees a as a church or non-profit housing says. "I think that's true. You cer- growing market for rental units group such as Augustana, Walker or tainly do have more rights." throughout the region. The in- the Ebenezer Society. ~ Vavoulis says that his customers - creased financial flexibility that "Rental stability is very much a and Kenwood-Isles will in the renting can bring is the main reason, concern," Molberg says. "I think middle of this month, 50 percent she says. seniors look .for reliable, reserved are also looking for "One of the reasons for the move trustworthy, proven sponsorship surroundings that. will evolve with to rental is it gives .people more that provides stability." them, change with their needs. flexibility with the financial re- On .the other ..hand, adds For example, because .Kenwood- sources. They like the capacity to Molberg, a large group of people Isles was designed for the indepen- Which-one is better for you requires a balanced examination of the advantages o?f each to fit your changing I'r~estyle. change their- mind without all the .prefer to own because they like to dent elderly, at present it does not hassle of having a sale or resale, and have more control over where they have a heavy service component. I think they like the financial free- live and some assurance that Meal service, managed by the non- dom it gives them." their neighbors will be of like back- profit Ebenezer Society, is ofTered Molberg's research shows a gen- . ground and income levels. only every .other day, and while eral trend of people aged SS to 65 Tony Vavoulis, project manager .residents have access to a new clinic preferring ownership and ,,;.~,,le for Sherman-Boosalis' S5-and-over being ..,ed on the site by Abbott- over age 70 preferring rental. Kenwood-Isles condominium pro- Northwestern Hospital, there is no "As you get older, if you're going .jest in Minneapolis' trendy Uptown on-call medical help available. to stay in ind.;,r ,...dent housing, area, feels there's strong demand for "But that's up to the owners," you're going to have to spend more both types of housing. says Vavoulis. "That's why people of your money on services," "There are people who, no mat- pursue ownership over rental - Molberg says. Because of this, as ter what you tell them, would because they are the owners, they ~ ~ Yle on fixed incomes ~ ~ 1 older, choose rental," he says. "They're get to influence decisions .regarding they often choose to put fewer of meeting a different demand. The service and ~ r motions in a more • their assets into housing and more obvious one for rental is at a certain direct manner. into buying services. age you don't want °to tie all your "That gets to be the function of "For some, they have tied up all assets up in real estate." the condominium association of their assets in housing, so their On the other hand, he adds, board. They can decide that, since income might not be generous there's the r ...,option that with rent- the average age has gone from: 69 to enough to provide all the services as ing, you're throwing your money 79, they need more services to main- they want them. They end up being away because you aren't building up fain ind..,r ...,,dent living here." `house rich' and `servicx poor.' " equity or getting any tax advantages. In many cases, Vavoulis feels, by On the down side, the fear that "There's people who can argue buying instead of renting, the hus- people often have with a rental, says both sides of it effectively," he says. band is either consciously or un- Molberg, is that the ownership Vavoulis' view that many people consciously trying to set up the could change and you wouldn't re- choose to put large chunks of their spouse so that if something har r :..,s ally know the true intentions of themoney into real estate knowing that, to him, her monthly financial ex- new owner. with their housing costs taken care posure would be minimal. Because of this, many seniors of, their future monthly expenses Continued on Page 49 OCTOBER 1985/ACTIVE SENIORS 43 i ' OWNING f~S. RENTING ~ . . - continued from page 4.ii ~ STOP TBki Charx:es M "At the signing of the purchase ~ !'k~t~'1e S ab... ~.;,..t, it's not unusual for the Pltmr'bers • Elecalaans • Painters husband to say, `If something 378-0356 l.arxiscttpers • Carpenters should hay, r to me...' They ~ home tovrnt,ouse and ~ never want to say it or address it, but HOME Assoaation is a membership condominium ovrners. The prof HOME staff refers screened service it's there." providers to meet your . „ ~tlar needs for arty service, large or small But to a surprisingly large extent, HOME msmbsts Just caM HOME the decision between renting and Membership assures home ~ one y,~, owning can boil down to one thing: Special memt>tsrship otter s25/year location. g~J~ , , , ~ an additional 2096 off ...119.95/year . "Some people could either own 416 Hsnnsptn Avanus, IiANxNSpoNs or rent, so it often d ~..,ds on when 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 +k ~ g amenities, either. Both tend to have ~ l~ some kind of meal plan available, i p g and also offer a high ~,..,,.,.aage of «,~c • common space available for every- f ~ ~ ~ , , ones use. For trample, Kenwood- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Isles has two guest rooms available ~ 4~ for the use of residents' friends and Y relatives. - • "Community space allows you to ' .actually buy less p,. ~ ~ r ~riy and use in ~ ' common those spaces you would ~ ' use only once or twice a year," asserts Vavoulis. Whether they decide to rent or own, seniors are beginning to use their nsourcxs in a way that directly benefits themselves in terms of ~ more active lives, the frxdom to ecurity. It's a very real concern for older adults. When we travel, and more time to get in- designed The Wellington, we made it our first priority as volved in other int- -,.~s back home. well We build safety, security and peace of mind into "I think seniors an moving away every new home. from the necessity of having a large There's around-the-clock security system protecting the inheritance to leave their children, main entrance to the building.•Visitors can be screened on your which often required they live a own television set with our closed-circuit surveillance camera. rather frugal retirement"existence," Staff nurses, emergency pull cords in each unit, a personal daily ~ says MOlberg. "Instead, they an check program-there are so many ways we put your well-being freeing up some of those resources first at The Wellington. and enjoying life more. -They are For older adults who want atn independent and affordable using their resout+rxs to enjoy their lifestyle, The Wellington is the Twin Cities' finest rental com- retirement and maintain an rode- munity. Choose from four beautiful 1 and 2•bedroom designs, pendent lifestyle." located' in Highland Park's scenic Shepard Park area. While. there are man societal , Y Ask about our Preview Showing Special Package. Available trends movin seniors in this direr- g in of through October only. lion includin the loosen g 8 famil ties: and the oft times far- Call Katie Haried today at 698-0302. Y flung geographic locations of family _ members, a big reason is the fact 1-- ~ that their children, because of two- g a income families and other reasons, - ~ just aren't as needy as they Once 2235 Rockwood Avenue e ~ were. , j • ¦ a "Their children, in their forties St.Paul ~'4' and fifties, probably have at; much Developed and maneRed = = money as their parents do in their s..' ny Stuart G~rlr~ration ?•~•z,~.4~•:,,~:,~~..;:.:~:....,,,,. . 70s on retirement," concludes Molberg.? OCTOBER 1985/ACTIVE SENIORS 49 1 . ~ ve Re art Naoe-1 Rxcnfxeld Nausxno Sur.. y a Pleska-Walker F~artnershio ~ * Sig. Diff. _ < . 05 May, 1986 *~Sig. Diff. _ < . O1 aam~acm=as=o=~~=tsas~saa=aaioais:~~o~ass~~:asaamse=x=maes~assam~=a=~a«:a==smc~=~a~~amas=s SURVEY QUESTION by AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 - 71-75 Over 7a • % ~ X X % % HOUSING PREFERENCE~~ N=1729, RENT-NO SERVICES 16 19 17 20 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 87 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 E YEAR5 ~ i 1 a 1 3-5 YEARS 4 2 2 ~ 2 2 2 6-8 YEARS 4 3 4 11 9'1,1 YEARS vr,~,~.: , V 6 4 4 5 5 MORE THAN 12 - 8v 89 90 89 81 ~1. f MARITAL STATUS~* N=1817 • SINGLE 1l 9 10 9 13 MARRIED 8.1 89 77 69 v6 WIDOWED 8 ii 13 22 31 SPOUSE'S AGE+~* • N=1379 UNDER 60 80 31 4 4 1 60-65 18 63 35 14 2 66-70 2 5 50 36 9 71-75 a 1 8 40 35 76-80 0 0 2 5 42 OVER 80 • SEX* N=1776 MALE 65 73 68 73 62 FEMALE ~35 28 32 27 38 • CURRENT HEALTHat•* N=1814 GOOD 88 77 76 68 66 FAIR 12 21 21 31 34 POOR 0 2 3 1 1 _________________________________________~~<~jtily ~~~~~~o~~~_~t.1C.______ Richfield Housin Surve Reoart P ~w q 9 Y wge e Pleska-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= < .05 .May, 1986 ~~SiQ. Diff. ~ < . 01 a¢m=s=>Saa=maaao=a=asa=ssaaaasaa=>arsmeea=aamasa~===m=saaat=saasm::aaa:mace=a=aaa:a=maaem= SURVEY QUESTION HY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70 % X X % X stem=essaa=oe=====me=s==aem=once:aese:aa=aae:e:mx==c==eae:=o..ma=.==ass;ams=zre:a=esesax..==== ANNUAL INCOME** ~ N=1753 .LESS THAN ~ 10, 000 6 9 14 22 ~ 10, 000-~ 15, 000 9 14 2 5 31 30 X15,000-X20,000 10 18 20 20 16 't~20,000-X30,000. 24 31 3i 24 C3 .OVER x+30, 000 v3 ~ 31 16 10 8 SOURCES OF INCOME - SALARY/WAGES** N=1833 YES 84 47 17 9 3 NO 16 53 83 91 97 i SOURCES OF INCOME - INVESTMENTS** N=1833 YES 4 49 56 58 62 NO 51 44 42 38 I .SOURCES OF INCOME - PENSIONS N=1833 YES i~~- 55 76 61 66 II • NO "-^':,.4` . 80 4~ 24 39 34 .SOURCES OF INCOME - SOCIAL SECURITY*~ N=1833 YES 8 52 87 91 88 ~ ~ 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 X40,000 1 0 0 1 0 #41,000-X49,000 1 2 3 2 4 X50, 000-~59, 000 4 4 5 10 10 160,000-X69,000 16 18 25 28 31 '~70, 000-~79, 000 37 ~ 42 40 41 36 OVER '~80, 000 42 34 26 18 20 MORTGAGED HOME+~+c~ : N=660 YES 49 29 ~16 10 7 NO 51 71 84 90 93 Qu~~li~yDe~i~ion~,, incti _ , Richfield Hc~u~cing Sur•voy Report P~,g~ 3~,~ Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= < .05 ,May, 1986 - *~Sig. Diff. _ < . 01 ma==xq====c=mooaxxxmamaaanmx=xmaammmmmm==mox=x.oamaxxanmmxamaosxax~xamxm=sasarsas SURVEY QUESTION BY AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70 % % X % X aamx=max==xxxan=sxx=m~a=axmmxacmmxmmam====nx.m.-:xm~xxxmm===mmmm=xoomm...aamzmaa MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT N=4c0 LESS THAN X300 65 ~ 72 71 73 70 X301-400 15 ~0 ~ 2E 19 20 x401-500 10 3 4 0 1a. . X501-$600 3 E 3 0' 0 f601-700 3 1 0 8 0 OVER f700 4 3 0 0 0 MONTHLY RENT ~N=164 LESS THAN X300 36 28 15 E0 13 X301-400 27 44 39 36 34 X401-500 18 11 39 43 47 X501-600 18 17 S 11 6 ~?601-700 0 3 0 0 INTERESTED IN LIVING IN RICHFI R NT COMMUNITY* N=1800 YES 48 52 54 62 NO 11 8 it 8 --------UNDECIDED--------- ---?--------41 ----40-- 36 ------30 - WHEN WOULD CONSIDER MOVING~~ N=1389 IMMEDIATELY 2 5 7 11 11 i-3 YEARS 19 25 30 40 49 4-5 YEARS. 17 B3 30 c3 2c~ 6 OR MORE .YEARS 63 48 33 26 19 APARTMENT RREFERENCE** N=1698 STUDIO 1 1 2 1 i ONE BEDROOM 18 E0 21 36 44 2 BEDROOM. 49 57 58 52 44 2 BEDROOM + DEN 3c~ E2 19 lE 10 APARTMENT RENT AVAILABLE N=1618 LESS THAN X400 34 89 B,°, 3B 2q X401-500 28 33 34 35 43 $501-600 2B 21 E0 16 20 X601-$70a 8 $ 11 11 6 3701-800 ~ 4 4 6 3 5 OVER $80a 5 5 4 3 2 AMENITIES .DESIRED - DISHWASHER** N=1833 NOS ~0 40 ~~l~~Cy V~C~ ~~~C~, 1~1 2 ~ ~if~`tAldiS, ~fl`XI',Cl~ .Richfield Mousing Survey Report Pape 4 Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.~ Z .05 May, 1986 **Sig. Diff. _ < . al ~ ao:amzasaaama=~samass~~m~a~sa~msasaaoxa~~~aasmams=saicma~~~~smm~a:mmmasmscmaoamssaasamaaa SURVEY QUESTION SY AGE Under 60 60-6v 66-70 71-75 Over 70 'i % % X % AMENITIES DESIRED - GARBAGE DISPOSAL* N=1833 YES ~ 48 49 51 40 S0 NO ~ 52 51 49 60 50 AMENITIES DESIRED - PATIO BALCONY** ~ N=1833 j YES 70 66 65 57 50 NG 30 34 35 43 50 - - - - - AMENITIES DESIRED - COMBINATION bATHrSHOWER N=1833 YES 61 63 63 62 62 NG 40 37 37 38 38 - AMENITIES DESIRED - SHOWER ONLY N=1833 I~ i YES ~ ~•8 34 33 37 30 NO 66 68 ~ 63 70 AMENITIES DESIRED - OT = IES • N 1833 YE5 ~ l1 11 10 10 8 NO ~ 89 89 90 0 9 92 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - 24 HOUR SECURITIf~ N=1750 .IMPORTANT 86 90 88 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 'I IMPORTANT 90 89 86 89 84 NOT IMPORTANT 10 10 14 it 15 DO NOT .LIKE 1 i 1 1 2 .•.--.~-~.---------~.-------------------~-..~-.~---...~-r~~-ui.--~--~-~.-..---r--..--------- IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LAUNDRY SERVICES~t~ ~ N~1639 IMPORTANT 43 46 53 60 6,8 NOT IMPORTANT 52 49 3~ 29 DO NOT LIKE 6 5 Qllc~~ll. DC~C~CS~I~CS, 11103 __.._~___________._.__._._.__W_..•..-___.___.,....-------------~ ..J11~.~J.c~L'(1l.la.J.U.1.\:1:~CT1:.1.._____ . ~ Richfield Housing Survey Report Page S Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.= < .a5 May, 1986 •~•~Sig. Diff.= ( .01 ====x=x=x=._=~=x=....=xonx=x=x= :=xx-ocoxxx-._-.===ox=x x~xaxxx=maaaxaxxx=x=xxa===xm~x SURVEY QUESTION $Y-AGE Under 60 6a-65 66-7Q 71-75 Over 7Q~ X % ~ % X . =x. xx=mn n-nmmx===-==xnax=x=na=x = :oxxx=xcn;n==e=xxxaxx~xx==xxxeox=xx=sm~x xx~ox IMPORTANCE-OF FEATURES - HOUGEKEEPING SERVICES~•'~ N=155 LMPORTANT 1@ 8 10 16 31 NO7 IMPORTANT 79 81 79 73 63 DG NOT .LIKE 11 11 12 11 6 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - GAME PARTY ROOM N=1611 IMPORTANT 38 37 37 36 3a NGT LMPORTANT 57 58 58 59 63 ~DO NOT LIKE 5 5 6 5 7 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES MEAL SERVICE~•* N=1589 IMPORTANT 26 23 31 34 ,`,3 NOT IMPORTANT 67 72 63 63 45 DG NOT L I KE ~ 7 ~ 5 6 3 IMPORTANCE OF .FEATURES - GUEST ROOT!!!, '~r Nx1564 IMPORTANT • 37 33 39 34 NGT I MPORTANT ~ ~ S9 63 57 61 DQ NOT -LIKE - ~s ~ 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 i IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - INDIVIDUAL STORAGE: N=1706 IMF~O.RTANT 92 91 9~D 89 89 II NGT IMPORTANT 8 8 10 11 11 ~ DO NOT LIKE O 0 1 a 0 IMPORTANCE~OF FEATURES - TRANSPORTATION 'Nai625 IMPORTANT 58 60 63 63 73 NOT IMPORTANT 41 39 37 35 27 DG NOT LIKE 1 1 1 e 0 I ~I IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - AFFILIATION WITH .HEALTH. CARE FACILITY'S N=1548 IMPORTANT 35 41 4~ 43 60 NGT .IMPORTANT 60 54 55 53 41 DO NOT LIKE 5 5 Ql(ij D~CIC~IO~ICS, 1~1~ _ _ _..._..__.___._-_.11l1V!'~1lK11:h_yw\;~'('~dT1',~ i Richfield Housing Survey Report Fage 6 Plesko-Walker F'artriershio * Sig. Diff. _ < . ~5 .May, 1986 *+~S i g . D i f f . _ < . ~Ii 1 mmasasisaacasammme~aaaeammm~sansstsoam=masaa:amesaoxammsnssa=sraaansx=am=xemomas:ap=:samx¢ax=sa:m:maaa SURVEY QUESTION 8Y AGE Under 6~D 6~D-65 66-70 71-75 Over 70 X ~ % X amm===.oc~xaxoa=x=xn=o.•-mmo==oso.=x=rssxcx=sox=xaao=oooox=x=xaoo~os=a=--aoo==o=x IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - HOME HEALTH 5ERVICES N=1509 IMPORTANT C6 30 31 ?8 42 NC'i. T I MPORTANT 70 66 66 68 56 DO NOT LIKE 5 4 3 4 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - 6EAUTY EiARt3ER SHOP~* N=1589 IMPORTANT 21 ~ 21 ~5 34 49 NOT IMPORTANT 73 7:. 70 ~ 61 47 DG N07 L I t(E 7 6 5 6 3 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LLBRARY N=1573. IMPORTANT 35 F'°'' ! ~ 37 28 4~ NG i IMPORTANT 6a 60 68 .=i5 DO NOT LIKE 3 5 3 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WALK N=1.644 IMPORTANT 65 65 66 56 53 NOT IMPORTANT 33 33 32 43 44 DO NOT LIKE E 2 2 1 3 . - --*-__------___.----s-_ - IMPORTANCE Or= FEATURES - SNACK bAR N=1526 IMPORTANT 24 23 21 e4 •27 NO i I MPOr~TANT 72 70 72 71 67 DO NOT LIKE 5 7 7 5 6 ------------------C------ IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CONVENIENCE STORE* N=16.,5 IMPORTANT 56 53 57 59 71 NOT IMPORTANT 41 43 ~40 38 28 DO NOT LIKE 3 4 4 3 2 .IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - WORKSHOPs~t N=1566 IMPORTANT 45 45 37 3~1 23 NOT IMPORTANT 53 5~ 6~0 66 69 DO NOT LIKE 3 5 3 ~ 4 8 MPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CRAFT ROOM*~ N=1566 IMPORTANT 44 45 42 32 ~3 NOT IMPORTANT 53 50 56 65 7a DO NOT LIKE ~ ' -----------4------ --Q~~ nn~~.Qt~I~~C.~-- - ~u~.wt:.~t~c~t.ts, an~~~,urt•,e Richfield Houeing.Survey Report Page 7 Pleska-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.a < 5 May, 1986 **Sig. Diff.= < .01 sassaaomaaas ssassassasssss~sssssssss~ossseams:aasmsassmsssseasss ss~sss ssssssss sssmsmsss SURVEY f~UESTION BY .AGE Under 60 60-65 66-70 71.-75 Over 7J~ % X X X X sssssss:=aaaaatssaecaasaasssssssxaaaam~samsass=ssammmaaaass~asssasssssssssssssmm~asassssssss IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES -BANKING SERVICE** N~1587 IMPORTANT 37 28 28 30 56 NOT IMPORTANT 60 68 69 67 42 DG NOT LIKE 3 4 3 3 3 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CHAPEL ~ N=1599 IMPORTANT 42 38 40 43 57' NOi IMPORTANT 53 59 57 53 43 DO NOT LIKE 5 3 3 4 0 CAUSE OF WORRY - HEALTH PROBLEMS. N=1633 YES 40 44 ~41 38 42 NO 61 56 59 62 58 CAUSE OF WORRY -.TRANSPORTATION** ~~w N=1833 YES. 1~~ 3 16 23 30 Nq 7 84 77 70 . ---~•--1'---~.------...-----.~-~.----------- CAUSE OF .WORRY - SECURITY N=1833 YES 36 41 40 43 34 _ NO 64 59 60 57 66 CAUSE OF WORRY -LONELINESS 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 OWNERSHIR STATUS** N=1716 OWN AND DRIVE 94 95 92 89 74 DO NOT OWN 3 3 4 5 11 OWN HUT DO NOT DRIVE ''a 2 5 6 15 CURRENT ZIP CODE* N=161a 55417 7 6 8 11 15 55+ 19 ~ 5 7 9 ~ 9 g 55423 8? Qli~~~y Decib~o~l~, ln~' I ___.___88___~______ _...aua~ti~,ux~.?s..aa a: • • •c. . a ra,~..__.___._.. _ Rir_f,field Hauaing Survey Repart ~ ~h age $ P 1 esko-Wa 1 ker Partnership ~ S i D i f f. _ 05 ou~~ 9 May, 1986 ig. Diff.= <.01 =s~aa~ac=ae:am~~~~~~se==sx~=sm:~s~maa -~~aaesam~^~^._^=m=~xs~= ams:mom=x==sassosaxasss~ss~ SURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDE , OVER ~F15,000 ' N X N % ______°______________~____~__________________=_____==~==s~s====s=====________ HOUSING PREFERENCE. N=383 RENT-NO SERVICES 27 18 31 13 RENT-6ASIC SERVICES 92 62 121 52 CONDO-BASIC SERVICES ~25 17 72 31 OTFytR 4 3 11 5 i CURRENT HDME N=396 SINGLE FAMILY HOME 152 98 238 99 APARTMENT 0 0 0 0 CONDO-TOWNHOUSE 3 2 3 1 OTHtR ~ 0 0 0 0 .-~i-.~ 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 ~ Y3> ' ~ 224 94 .,~K, MARITAL STATUS** N=392 SINGLE 17 11 9 4 MARRIED 93 61 209 87 WILOWED ~ 43 28 21 9 OWN AGE* ~ N3396 i 66-70 - 66 43 137 57 71-75 55 36 73 30 76-80 25 16 26 it OVER 80 9 6 5 2 I . 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** N~3ei MALE - 92 63 189 81 FEMALE 55 37 ~ 45 19 __-___________~~l~jTty ~eci~ion~; lnc.----- Richfield Housir~ Surve Re art Page 9 ~j' 9 Y P f/ Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sio. Diff.= <.OS ~IMay, 1986 Sig. Diff. _ 01 sass=eoame=e.oseeersaaoeeaesssxaaseeesaea:eaa:eaeaz:a:ea=oa.aaa:aaoma:asarsasxeaex:acoaa aseeaaoa iURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDER X15,000 OVER $15,000 N % N ~a:eases==eea==eas:asaaeaaaaacxa=areas=aas~>=s=asaeseme:=aaasnursesaaaessaaaaasaaasas:tsasomas~as CURRENT HEALTH Na391 GOOD 105 68 168 71 FA~i R 49 32 65 28 POG R 1 i 3 1 SOURCES OF INCOME - SALARY/WAGES N=396 .YES 9 6 36 i5 i NO 146 94 20S 85 SOURCES OF INCOME - INVESTMENTS~* N=396 YES 54 35 171 71 ~NO 101- 65 70 29 SOURCES OF INCOME - PENSIONS** N=396 YES 104 $ 67 196 81 II'i ND 51 ` ;~'c,*~~ 33 45 19 SOURCES OF INCOME - SOCIAL 5.,, ,1 N=396 ::4 ..fir, YES 92 214 89 NO 13 8 27 11 I SOURCES OF INCOME - SSI N=396 ' YES 0 0 1 ~ NO 155 100 240 1.00 MARKET VALUE OF HOME** N=380 ' LESS THAN $40,000 0 0 1 0 341.,000-X49,000 10 2 1 350, 000-~59, 000 22 15 13 6 360.000-~69, 000 59 40 5~1 22 370,000-379,000 41 ~B 110 47 .OVER 'fi+8O, 000 15 10 56 24 MORTGAGED HOME N~382 YES ~ 23 15 22 9 NO 126 85 211 91 . Qu~(i(.y Deci~io«,, lnc. iii\'`'I:.\I'UL11. ~11N\i ti(Yl f\ Ri_hfield Housing Survey Repar•C Page 10 Pleska-Walker. Partnershi ~ Si p g Diff.= 5 ,May,- 1986 Sig. Diff.= <.@1 axaxxo=o=ao=m.o.aaeo===.maxmm~==~==xxmoaao===see.==onasaa:at=mtxxs~xaomoo=ao==eeea=x SURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDER X15,0@@ OVER X15,@@@ N X N % ==sx==ca=.ssoa-====n====.=e==a=.aa====a==.=a.=.o..xos=o.xssa=.x========c=c=~ana MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT N=47 LESS THAN ~3@@ 18 78 15 63 X301-~4@0 5 22 7 29 ~4G?1-~5@0 @ @ i 4 • X501-$600 0 0 1 4 OVER ~6@1 @ ~ @ @ @ MONTHLY RENT• ~ ~y=g LESS THAN X30@ 4 80 1 25 ~3w1-9'?4@@ 1 20 2 50 X401-~5@@ 0 0 0 0. $501-~6@0 0 @ 1 25 INTERESTED IN LIVING IN RICHFIELD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY N=396 YES 155 10@ 241 1 ~D0 NO 0 0 0 @ S WHEN WOULD CONSIDER MOVING `,~:.z N=373 M•.., . IMMEDIATELY ~ 8 20 9 1-3 YEARS 37 9;3 41 4-5 YEARS e8 65 28 6 OR MORE YEARS 27 51 22 APARTMENT PREFERENCE*~ N=390 • STUDIO 6 4 0 0 ONE BEDROOM 61 4@ 3Fs 16 2 BEDROOM 76 5@ 154 65 2 btDROOM + DEN 1@ 7 45 19 APARTMENT RENT AVAILAbLE~* N=369 LESS THAN ~4@@ 55 3B 3@ 14 ~4iD1-~5@@ 64 44 59 27 X501-600 18 12 60 27 X601-~7@@ 5 3 37 17 ~7@1-~8@0 4 3 20 9 OVER $8@0 @ @ 17 g AMENITIES DESIRED - DISHWASHER** N=396 YES 57 3? 147 61 N0 ~ 98 63 94 39 ~ --------------------------------------:--.-----.--Q{~~(~ -CAE-~c~'~; ~~c: t~c~i.~s. ~n`~ •ur . t.. t.t i Richfield Hcusir~g Survey Report Page 11 Pleska-Walker Rartnership * Sig. Diff.~ <.?DS ,May, 1986 Szg. Diff. _ ai xs=sas==xmo~===aoaaasa~~r..aaamc~s~~o=aaaa~=~=rs~scss~aae~smanaea~aasasa~=ssaaarssas~~s~as[ --SURVEY QUESTION by INCOME UNDER ~15,0i~0 OVER 515,000 hj X N % ~ma~saa=a=.a=n-pnamaso~~soss=~~=a~aao=~~==a~oo...o...m~~a~o~~m=aa~=ate=~~.,.=ao~a.:-~~_~ AMENITIES DESIRED - GARBAGE DISPOSAL~'* N=396 YES ~ _ 5b 36 136. 56 NO 99 64 ~ 105 44 AMENITIES DESIRED - PATIO BALCONY N=s96 YES 96 6~ ~ 1~4 68 NO 59 38 7~.7 32 AMENITIES DESIRED - COMBINATION BATH-SHOWER N=39b YES 94 61 152 63 NO 61 39 89 37 AMENITIES DESIRED - SHOWER ONLY N=396 - YES 34 89 s7 NO ~ 67 152. 63 'C~ AMENITIES DESIRED - OTHER IT.IES 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 65' ~ 133 61 NOT IMPORTANT 48 34 8~ 37 DO NOT LIKE 2. 1 4 2 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - ENCLOSED PARKING' N=380 IMPORTANT 122 84 214 92 NOT LMPORTANT 22 14 20 9 DO NOT _ LIKE 2 1 0 0 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES --.LAUNDRY SERVICES N=361 IMPORTANT 82 58 13~ 60 NOT IMPORTANT 51 36 80 36 DD NOT LIKE 8 6 Qllc~~l~,y l,.J~C1~iQ11~S, ~11~'. . Page 12 Richfield Housing Survey Report Plesko-Walker Partnership * Sig. Diff.~ ( ia3 May,. 1986 Sig. Diff. ~ . 01 ssssa:me=sxsssss:s=sssssao:smseosa:ssafo:asaasoassass:mas3ssscoassssssasssssssoa~awsssssASs 5URVEY QUESTION F3Y INCOME UNDER X15,@@@ OVER X15,@@@ N % N % ~a:aaca==acssaasmaassasassxrasssmssaasasnaesas-=mm~ms=ac=w=scaxams=s:s= smassmazsomoammnso~~a=ss=saz 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 41d 84 39 NOT IMPORTANT 72 ,y~ 56 125 57 DO NOT L I KE ~6r=> 5 9 4 - i r'.~- IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES.- G.. ~ N=341 IMPORTANT 34 89 42 NOT IMPORTANT 78 61 115 54 DO NOT LIKE 6 5 9 4 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - EXERCISE WHIRLPOOL SAUNA AREA. N=337 IMPORTANT 4@ 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 21@ 92 NOT IMPORTANT 15 1@ 18 8 DO NOT LIKE 1 ~ 1 @ @ IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - TRANSPORTATION N=356 IMPORTANT 92 68 149 68 NOT IMPORTANT 41 30 68 31 DO NOT LIKE 3 2 3 1 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES.- AFFILIATION WITH HEALTH CORE FACILITY N=34@ IMPORTANT 63 5@ 96 45 NOT IMPORTANT 58 46 112 52 DO NOT LIKE 5 Richfield Housing Survey ReQort Pane 13 Sv Plesko-Walker Partnership ~ Sig. Diff. _ a5 ,May, 1986 Sig. Diff.= <.ai ss~amasaamzsssaaaa+oss~zffisa:a~asAazsamsss~msa~z~sm~~esxa=rxm=sae~m~:s=ae~:eessaeszmaac~zsrFaatoszaasso~ae -SURVEY QUESTION BY INCOME UNDER ~i5,a00 OVER $15,010 N •~G N X ~aassmaaax-s=~a~osz==a~m~~~=aa~s=a~yzazaass~szazm=sass=~~aarssTSaasaas~~caa==zmcsz=easma=aa 'IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - HOME HEALTH SERVICES N=332 IMPORTANT 49 39 62 30 NO"f 1 MPORTANT 70 5E 139. 6"l DO NOT LIKE 6 5 6 3 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES -.BEAUTY BAR9ER SHOP N=348 IMPORTANT ~ 40 3~D 71 33 NOT IMPORTANT 83 63 133 62 DO NOT LIKE 9 7 12 6 - -..-.r-~.-.~~..-~. IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - LIBRARY N=343 IMPORTANT 49 38 68 32 NOT IMPORTANT 72 56 135 63 DO NOT LIKE 8 Ci 11 5 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES -WALKING PATHS N=353'. IMPORTANT 82 136 62 NOT IMPORTANT a DO NOT LIKE 4 2 "'Aa. • ~ - IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - $NACK~ a N=330 IMPORTANT 31 c5 42 2O NOT IMPORTANT 87 70 150 73 DO NOT LIKE 6 5 14 7 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CONVENIENCE-STORE N=358 IMPORTANT 97 68 123 58 NOT IMPORTANT 42' 29 B3 39 DO NOT LIKE 4 ~ 3 - ~ 9 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 ~.MPQRTANCE OF FEATURES -CRAFT ROOM ~ N=343 IMPORTANT 53 41 89 42 NOT IMPORTANT 72~ 56 119 56 DO NOT LIKE 4 3 6 3 •uaxi:,u~c~ias. aErxxt~urr~ Rit^hfield Houaing Survey Report F~a e 14 s 1 Plesko-Walker Partnership ~ Sig. Diff.a 05 May, 1986 Sig. Diff.= 01 ~saasasaxsaaasaaas=ease=sae==sea=aaas=ss=saa~a=a=msaeaassosssssa~soe=msasaa=amaasssgeasa ---€URVEY QvESTION BY INCOME UNDER s15~000 OVER. X15,000 N % N % ~ssssssssassssssssosssssossssasssssssssssssssssssasssssossssssssssssssesssssws IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - BANKING SERVICE N=348 IMPORTANT 47 36 65 30 NOT IMPORTANT 81 ~ 61 144. 67 D0 NOT LIKE. 4 3 7 3 IMPORTANCE OF FEATURES - CHAPELS 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 N=396 YES 70 45 119 49 NO 85 S5 122 31 r CAUSE OF WORRY- TRANSPORTATION ~ ~ N=396 YES 40 ';26 56 23. 1.15 4' 185 77 --------NO------------------- '.CAUSE OF. WORRY - SECURITY N=396 YES ~ 4 41 112 47 NO 91 59 i~9 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 9c'~' C27 94 CAR OWNER8HIP BTATU8e* Nw367 1 OWN AND DRIVE 115 83 216 95 DO NOT OWN 10 7 4 2 OWN PUT DO NOT DRIVE 14 10 8 4 CURRENT ZIP CODE N=357 55417 13 10 55419 e 6 CZttcj(i(.y Dec}~ IC~l1c5, i ' ~ MEMO i r i April 21, 1986 SU&TF~T: 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 in concentrations of .retirement musing. Contacted for information were several, highly respected, agencies and organizations abreast of issues an aging, both locally and nationally. Also contacted were consultants, planners and dwelopers 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 w,w„unity 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 for 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. _ 5 -Providi .alternative housi f r he lderl w' o t e thin a ~ ~ Y 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. 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 ogre 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 service in.a retirement complex is no different from that of any apartment or condominium complex. Therefore, this is not a problem. . . -According to information provided by the Richfield ' Public Safety Dept., the number of recorded emergency service calls originating .from the Lake Shore Drive senior condaniniums 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 develor„«~,t in the area of 66th St. .and Lyndale Ave. Existing Concerns'For Continued Success of Retirement Housing Developments. -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- ~ S changing needs of residents.. r1ost 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 future service demands. Below is a list of agencies, organizations and individuals contacted to provide information on this subject. As little written information was available, the 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 far Urban. and Rural Affairs- Minneapolis, MN Citizens League of MN - Minneapolis, NIlV Metropolitan Council - St. Paul, MN Minneapolis Community Development Agency - Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Planning Dept. - Minneapolis,_MN MlV 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, CA -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 _ ss~ ~ CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of .City Manager Council Letter No. 198 Agenda May 27, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Study Session - Board of Review Preliminary Council Members: On June _2, 1986, at 7:00 P..M., the Richfield Board of. Review wi.11 cohvene to conduct its annual business. The Board of Review consists of City Council Members and two resident experts appointed by the City Council. The 5:00 P.M. study session will focus on the methods of property appraisal used by Hennepin County appraisers for the City of Richfield. Additionally, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser, Larry Miller, will review the types of appeals which may come before the 1986 Richfield Board of Review. Attached is a brief synopsis of the duties and responsibilities of Local Boards of Review. - - ~ Res e tfully submitted, - ~ - v n evich Acting City Manager SLD/eja cc: Larry Miller, Hennepin County Principal Property Appraiser _ _ _ - - - ~/7~d LOCAL L-+OAF;DS QF F;ESJ I E47 Section ~7~F. ~~1 provides that .the town board, the council, or other government body of each city shall be a board of review. The charter of certain cities provides far the establishment of a board of _ e u~Iizat' q ion. The provisions of Sectz an X74. ~1 and tt-ii s regulation apply to all boards of review ar boards of equalization. - - - THE T I h~E OF MEET I h!G OF THE &~F,RU C]F F.EV I EW - Section ^7~4. Sri states the couray ~ assessor shall fix a date for each board of review or board of equalization to .meet far the purpose of reviewing the assessment of property in its respective town ar city. The county assessor is required to serve written notice to the clerF: of each of such bodies on ar before April 1 •of .each year. These meetinys are required to be held between April 1 and Jane 3t~ and the c1 erF: of the board of review or the board of equalization is required to give published and posted notice at least ten days before the date set for - - - 'the first ~rneeting. - The .board of review and the board i~f equalization of any city, unless a longer period is approved by the commissioner. of revenue,--must complete its mark and ad j Dorn within C~ days from the time of canveni ng specified in the notices of the cierF:. No action taF:en subsequent to s?.ech date sh.al 1. be valid. The twenty days refers to calendar days~and the day of the board is the first day. A r-equest for additional time in order to complete the worF of the board of review Riust be addressed to the commissir~ner of revenue in writing. The commissioner's approval is r?ecessary t.a legalize any procedure s!?L~sequent to the e;;piration of the twenty day period. Thy cc~mmi ssi aner-• of revenue wi 11 not, however, e:;tend tf,e time for local boards of review to meet ast June ~,~s p because county boards of equa~izatian convene in July. • 84 r - tt,~_ t~~:~;~<bilit of t-,is property. Tt-re board is required too r~e~,.~ieaa tt",c rr,~~t'ter c-~nd rn~;te an4,r corrections tt-,at it de~_~rr,s just . When Z c~cal board of review or equal i Kati on convenes, i t i s necessary that a rr,a j or i ty of the members be i n - attendance in order tt-,at any valid action may be tat:en. The Iocal assessor is required by law to be present with . t-ris a~-..sessrr,ent books and papers. He is required a3 so to t~:~k:e art. i n the ~proceedi ngs t,ut has no vote. In _ ~,ciditiorr to the Iocal assessor, the county assessor or or~t_ ~.~-E l:is _assistant~ i.s required. to attend. The board ~~.hc;ul d ~=r-ccs'e-d i a,tr,edi atel y to review the assessments of pr C~pc'rty. - i r, tt-,c pr i rnary duty of -'each board of review to e:arr,ine .the aGsessment record to see that all to>:able pr~:~perty in the a~asessment district l;as been .properly pl. heed t_?pon the I i st and valued by the assessor. In ca=e any property, either real or personal, has been c,mitt~d, the board has the duty of rnaFiing the ~.;sse=smEr+t . The co,T,pl ai nts and ob j eeti ons of persons who feel ~~ggrie~.-ed with any assessments for the current year should be considered very carefully by the board. Such c-;sse-•s,r,ents must be reviewed i n detai 1 and the board has -t:-il~- ~tc.tthc,rit'y to ~rt~-,t::e corrections it deems to be just. _ _ -rhe fir,,,-.ird may- ad j Qurn from day.. to day +.!nt~i 1 all cases - ~ t"ra'•re bEen heard. c'~ - #'.:~~!}-.+ayer mr~y appear ~ in person, lay counci 1 , or by a.!ritten co,7,rrrunicwation to present his objections to the hoard !:~f revi ew. - - F..refcre wdjourr~ing, the board of review or equalisation shc+ul d prt~p~,r-G atn official 1 i st of the changes. The 1 aw r;-,q,?ires, t?-,at the changes be listed on a separate form !t~hi c:t-, i appended to the assessment booF~. The ~.n.ssE~=.-=_-tiTt4_'i'1tc-• cif ami tted property must be 1 i sted i n detai 1 - - _.~-:c'~ G;I1 ~is~le~~smerrts that t-iave been increased or ;:+c:t.rr•_~w~s.e~t C~t-:c~uld bE= =.t-,owr. as prescribed on tl-re form. ~'~.~'t:;:_r- tt'ic ch~~nr~es gave been completed, the record st-ioul d •_igr'?E~d ~,r~d d~~'ted by tt-ie members of tl'ie board of Yr"~r i e~~ or Er t~L?ctI i ~ a-t i on . The changes listed i n the - r~r-racer-di r•_c~. s. -shc~t..ll d be entered i n tt-ie assessrrrerit booF; by 8b CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Office of City Manager Council Letter No. 198 Agenda May 19, 1986 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Richfield Subject: Reconsideration of Denial of a Request by the Chamber of Commerce for a Fee Waived Permit to to Erect a Temporary Oversize Trailer Billboard Honoring Small Business Week at Three Locations During the Month of May Council Members: At the May 12, 1986 City Council meeting, the City Council considered a request by the Chamber of Commerce to erect a temporary oversize trailer billboard at three locations in the city during the month of May. The vote of the Council resulted in a 2-2 tie vote, which meant that the permit was not approved. The Chamber of Commerce has requested that the City Council reconsider their request, and this item has been scheduled for reconsideration at the May 19, 1986 City Council meeting. The Aorta panel will read "Richfield At Work - Salute to Small Business Week May 18-24". The Chamber is proposing to place the sign in front of the former Arthur Treacher's Restaurant at 66th and Penn Avenue from May 8-12; at the Colonial Motel, 77th and Lyndale from May 12-19; and at the Chamber of Commerce office, 6637 Lyndale Avenue, from May 19-27. Staff Review: The inspection and planning divisions have reviewed the sign permit application and recommend that the City Council deny the request since the maximum temporary sign permitted by city ordinance is 12 square feet. Resp fully bmit d, f v n ucviC Acti g City Man ger SD/eja