02-10-1998MWAM
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Study Session
February 10, 1998
7:00 p.m.
Roll Call
New Business
Water Plant Conference Room, 6221 Portland Avenue
ITEM #1 Presentation on the results of the Community Survey
Bill Morris, Decision Resources
Old Business
Council Chambers, City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue
ITEM #2 PC Letter #7 Airport Mitigation Strategy
Don Brauer, Airport Consultant
Adjournment
Planning Commission Letter
February 10, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 1
Letter #: 7
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Bill Morris, Decision Resources, Inc., will give a presentation on the
results of a residential survey that was taken in September, 1997. An
executive summary of the survey results is attached.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No action is being requested on this item.
Decision
Resources Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUNEMLARY
City of Richfield Residential Survey
Methodology:
Survey of 400 randomly selected residents of the City of Richfield.
Average interview time of forty -nine minutes.
Telephone interviews completed between October 27 and November 24, 1997.
Results projectable to their respective universes within t 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100
cases.
Residential Demographics:
Median longevity in the city of 16.3 years.
Twenty -seven percent residents for five years or less.
Twenty -six percent residents for over thirty years.
Median longevity at current residence of 10.1 years.
Thirty -five percent residents for five years or less.
Thirty -three percent residents for over twenty years.
Median adult age of 45.5 years old.
Twenty -five percent were under 35 years old.
Thirty-six percent were over 54 years old.
Median education level of some college, albeit short of graduation.
Thirty-four percent had high school or less education.
Thirty-nine percent were at least college graduates.
Thirty -eight percent of households contained school -aged children or pre- schoolers.
Twenty -two percent were "single parent households."
Twenty -six percent of households contained senior citizens.
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 • (612) 920 -0337 • Fax (612) 929 -6166
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty -two percent were currently involved in volunteer activities for their school district, city,
church, civic organization, or other public service program.
Sixty -eight percent owned their present residence.
The median current value of residential property was $115,500.00.
Women outnumbered men by two percent in the sample.
Ward representation tended to be fairly uniform across the community.
Thirty -four percent resided in Ward One.
Thirty -five percent lived in Ward Two.
Thirty-one percent dwelled in Ward Three.
Airport quadrant representation also proved to be fairly uniform.
Thirty-six percent lived in Quadrants One and Two.
Thirty-two percent resided in Quadrants Three and Four.
Thirty-three percent dwelled in Quadrants Five and Six.
Perspectives on Current and Future Residences:
Thirty-four percent moved to Richfield from the City of Minneapolis.
Twenty-three percent always resided in the city.
Twenty percent moved from other Hennepin County suburbs.
Thirty -seven percent chose Richfield as a place to live because of its "location."
Twenty percent based the choice on "housing opportunities."
Ten percent reported "their family was here."
Ten percent liked the "peacefulness and quiet."
Nine percent said "their job was located here."
Sixty percent rented their prior residence.
Seventy-one percent now lived in a single family home.
Twenty-one percent resided in an apartment building.
Six percent lived in a duplex or double bungalow.
Eighty -seven percent were "satisfied" with the home they currently inhabited.
Fifty -six percent reported they were "very satisfied."
Fourteen percent were "dissatisfied."
Page 2
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
In five years, fifty -nine percent expected to still live in their "present home."
Fourteen percent expected to move to another Richfield home.
Eight percent wanted to live elsewhere in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
Ten percent saw themselves living outside of the Metropolitan Area.
If they were to move, fifty -six percent would seek a single family home.
Thirteen percent would re- locate to an apartment building.
Nineteen percent would move to a townhouse or condominium.
Eighty -one percent thought they would own their next residence.
In looking for new housing, residents placed the greatest importance on four characteristics:
Have a home with new /updated roof, plumbing, heating, and electrical system."
Have a home with new or updated insulation."
Have an updated kitchen."
Have adequate off - street parking."
Forty-six percent felt the type of homes they could afford and would like to live in were "more
available in Richfield than in suburbs further from the core cities."
Twenty -nine percent felt the opposite was the case.
Sixty percent were satisfied with the current range of housing available in the City of Richfield.
Nine percent wanted more "townhouses."
Eight percent sought more "high income housing."
Eight percent wanted more "senior housing."
Neighborhood Perspectives:
Ninety percent were "satisfied" with their neighborhood as a place to live.
Fifty -six percent were "very satisfied."
Ten percent reported "dissatisfaction."
Thirty-seven percent chose their current neighborhood because of its "location."
Twenty -one percent moved there because of "housing availability."
Fourteen percent considered the neighborhood to be a "nice area."
Forty-four percent defined the quality of their neighborhood in terms of "the quality of things
such as schools, churches, parks, and other services."
Twenty -two percent saw it as "the friendships I have with the people who live there."
Twenty percent defined it as "the feeling that I'm living among people like myself
whether I know them or not."
Page 3
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Fifty -seven percent "had real roots in my neighborhood."
Thirty -five percent disagreed.
Fifty -four percent felt "their neighbors are pretty much like themselves."
Forty-one percent saw "their neighbors as quite different from them."
Fifty -five percent had noted "no change" in the types of people who lived in their neighborhood
in recent years.
Fifteen percent felt it had "changed for the better."
Thirteen percent thought it had "changed for the worse."
City services provided to the neighborhood were generally well - regarded.
Exceptionally high ratings were awarded for "street maintenance," "snow plowing of
streets and alleys," "street light replacement," "parking availability," "park maintenance,"
curb and gutter repair," and "tree maintenance along the boulevards."
Moderately high negative ratings were posted for "having reasonable property taxes" and
street traffic."
Fifty -five percent saw "no change" in the desirability of their neighborhood as a place to live in
the past few years.
Twenty -one percent felt it was "more desirable."
Fourteen percent saw it as "less desirable."
Residents were particularly positive about their area of Richfield as a place to live.
Very high ratings were posted for "general appearance and livability," "street
maintenance," "a place to purchase a starter home," "safety from violent personal crime,"
and "a place to raise children."
Above average negative scores were given on "safety from property crimes," "bus
service," "freedom from excessive noise," "convenience of shopping areas," "a place to
retire," "available health care facilities," and "available full -time jobs."
Sixty -nine percent reported there had been no decline in the appearance of housing in their
neighborhood during the past few years.
Only eighteen percent felt their were blighted residences in their neighborhood or felt neighbors
did not look out for one another.
But, thirty -three percent reported their pride in their neighborhood had not increased during the
past few years. ,
Page 4
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City ofRichfield Residential Survey
Forty-four percent felt "excessive speeding" was at least a "somewhat serious" problem on their
neighborhood's residential streets.
Thirty -four percent similarly rated "excessive through traffic" and "too much traffic."
Thirty-three percent rated "traffic threats to children and bicyclists" and "dangerous
intersections" as "very serious "or "somewhat serious."
In giving an overall grade to their neighborhood, sixty -seven percent awarded a rating between
B+ and B -."
Eighteen percent awarded it either an "A" or "A -."
Twelve percent gave a grade in the "C" range.
City Perspectives:
Location" was considered to be the best thing about living in Richfield by thirty-three percent of
the respondents.
Fourteen percent cited "small town ambience."
Twelve percent pointed to "sense of community."
Ten percent talked about "nice people."
Nine percent liked the "peacefulness and quiet."
Nine percent also cited it as a "suburban community."
Twenty percent thought "airport noise" was the worst thing about living in: Richfield.
Eighteen percent cited "crime."
Eleven percent reacted negatively to "growth."
Twelve percent were "boosters" who disliked nothing about the community.
Fifty -six percent regarded the desirability of Richfield as a place to live as `unchanged" in the
past few years.
Twenty-three percent saw it as "more desirable."
Sixteen percent felt it was "less desirable."
In assessing a community as a place to live, residents placed a very high importance on several
characteristics:
Greater importance was assigned to "clean, well kept -up neighborhood," "reasonably safe
area," "street maintenance and trash cleanup in the neighborhood," "lack of vandalism in
the area," and "responsiveness of the police force."
Lower importance was placed upon "being in an area where people are very similar to
you," "good day -care available for children," "bikeways and trails in the area," "park
programs in the area," and "bus service in the area."
Page 5
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City of RichfieldResidential Survey
Eighty -nine percent rated the quality of life in the community as "excellent" or "good."
Eleven percent rated it as "only fair" or "poor."
Needed improvements included "less crime and gangs," suggested by sixteen percent,
less airport noise," at eleven percent, "less growth," cited by eight percent, and
improvement of run -down areas," mentioned by seven percent.
Crime," at thirty-two percent, was regarded as the most serious issue facing the community
today.
Growth" was mentioned by twenty -three percent.
Airport noise" was key for ten percent.
Sixty -eight percent felt the City of Richfield was headed in the "right direction."
Fifteen percent saw it as "off on the wrong track."
Unhappiness was based on "growth and re- development," at twenty -five percent, and
crime," cited by twelve percent.
A solid eighty -four percent would recommend living in Richfield to others.
Only seven percent disagreed.
In assessing community characteristics, most residents regarded Richfield as having "about the
right amount" of each one.
However, thirty percent felt the city had "too many" rental units.
More than twenty -five percent, felt the city had "too few" higher cost housing
opportunities, townhouses, trails and bikeways, light manufacturing industry,
entertainment and dining establishments, and full -time head -of- household job
opportunities.
Airport Noise:
Sixty -one percent had been annoyed by aircraft operations at the Minneapolis -Saint Paul
Intemational Airport.
Thirty -five percent were annoyed on a daily basis.
Thirty-one percent reported being annoyed weekly.
Summer was by far the most annoying season.
Evening, followed by morning, were the most annoying times of day.
Page 6
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Richfield Public Schools:
Sixty -seven percent rated the Richfield Public Schools as "excellent' or "good."
Ten percent saw them as "only fair" or `poor."
Forty-three percent felt the quality of the public schools had remained "about the same."
Thirteen percent saw it as "getting better."
Sixteen percent felt it was "getting worse."
Thirty-nine percent felt the Richfield Public Schools were good enough to be a reason to "stay"
in the city.
Only six percent felt they were a reason to "not stay."
Fifty -three percent reported visiting a Richfield Public School Building during the past three
years.
City Government and Staff.
Fifty -seven percent felt they could have a say about the way things were run in this community.
Twenty -nine percent felt they could not.
By a forty -one percent to thirty-three percent margin, residents supported a city property tax
increase if it were needed to maintain city services as their current level.
Fifty -two percent saw Richfield property taxes as "about average" in comparison with
nearby areas.
Twenty percent felt they were comparatively "high," while four percent felt they were
comparatively "low."
Eighty-one percent viewed the value of city services in terms of the property taxes paid as
excellent' or "good."
Thirty-nine percent felt they knew "a great deal' or "a fair amount' about the work of the Mayor
and City Council.
An unusually high sixty -four percent "approved "of the job of the Mayor and City
Council.
Eight percent expressed "disapproval."
Twenty -nine percent experienced "quite a lot' or "some" first -hand contact with the Richfield
City Staff.
A very solid sixty -nine percent rated the City Staff as "excellent' or "good."
Fifteen percent rated them as "only fair" or "poor."
Page 7
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City ofRichfield Residential Survey
Forty-six percent had contacted — by telephone or in person — a staff member at Richfield City
Hall.
Twenty -four percent contacted the Motor Vehicle Licensing Office.
Fifteen percent talked with the Public Works and Engineering Departments.
Thirteen percent contacted the Police Department.
Twelve percent each talked with the Housing Inspection Office and the Park and
Recreation Department.
On each quality service dimension, City Hall was rated "excellent"or "good" by at least
eighty -four percent.
Park and Recreation Opportunities:
Seventy -two percent felt either "very well informed" or "somewhat informed" about the
Richfield Park System and facilities.
Twenty -five percent rated themselves as "not too well informed" or "not at all informed."
A very high ninety percent rated the park and recreation facilities in the City as "excellent" or
good."
Only five percent felt they were "only fair."
Eighty-one percent had used the Community Parks during the past year.
Seventy -four percent rated them as "excellent" or "good."
Seventy percent each had visited the trails and Woodlake Nature Center.
Sixty -five rated the Woodlake Nature Center as "excellent" or "good."
Sixty -one percent similarly rated the trails.
Fifty -two percent had visited the Municipal Swimming Pool and Water Park during the past year.
Forty-five percent rated it highly.
Thirty-eight percent used the Rich Acres Golf Course in the past year.
Thirty-one percent rated the course as "excellent" or "good."
Twenty -eight percent had used the Ice Arena.
Twenty-two percent rated the arena positively.
Page 8
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty-one percent regularly left the city to use leisure time recreational facilities or programs.
Twelve percent left to use lakes and boats.
Ten percent headed for biking and hiking trails.
Eight percent visited other parks.
Seventy-five percent rated the overall job the City of Richfield was doing in maintaining trees as
excellent" or "good."
Nineteen percent were more critical in their evaluations.
New Community Center Facility:
Seventy-seven percent favored the construction of a new City of Richfield Community Center.
Sixteen percent opposed it.
The typical resident would support a property tax increase of $32.80 annually to support
the construction and partial operation of the facility.
Over seventy-five percent supported eight facilities in the center.
Eighty-one percent each supported "an aerobics, exercise, and fitness room" and "a
relocated senior citizens center."
Seventy -nine percent favored "an indoor running- wilking track."
Seventy-eight percent each favored "an indoor swimming pool" and "an arts and crafts
room for instructional programs and classes."
Seventy-six percent supported "group meeting rooms."
Seventy-five percent each favored "a gymnasium" and "day care and pre - school space."
Public Safety Issues:
Richfield residents were intensely concerned about five public safety issues in their neighborhood.
Eighty percent were concerned about "juvenile delinquency and mischief."
Seventy-nine percent expressed concern over "speeding and careless driving."
Seventy-eight percent were concerned about "burglary."
Seventy-six percent were apprehensive about "general theft."
Seventy-five percent were concerned about "vandalism and graffiti."
Majorities of residents were afraid to walk alone at night in three locations.
The park closest to their home" was troublesome to sixty-six percent.
0 "Veteran's Memorial Park" was mentioned by seventy-two percent.
Woodlake Nature Center" concerned seventy-five percent.
Page 9
Decision Resources, Ltd
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Sixty -one percent felt crime in their neighborhood had "remained about the same" during the past
three years.
Twenty -four percent noted an "increase."
Only thirty-eight percent felt crime in the City of Richfield had "remained about the same" during
that time period.
Forty -nine percent thought it had "increased."
Vandalism and burglary" was judged to be the "most serious" crime problem by thirty-seven
percent.
Thirteen percent each pointed to "drugs" and "gangs."
Sixty percent based their responses on "hearsay" and "news reports."
Fifty -seven percent thought Richfield Police patrol activity had "remained about the same" in
their neighborhood during the past year.
Nineteen percent noted an "increase."
Twenty percent were "uncertain."
Forty percent reported their neighborhood or apartment building belonged to Neighborhood
Watch.
Seventy -three percent read "Eye Spy" newsletter.
Sixty -three percent felt their block or building was active in the program.
Sixty -two percent felt Neighborhood Watch had helped them get to know their neighbors
better.
Communications Channels:
Forty-five percent regarded either the "Sun- Current" or "the local newspaper" as their principal
source of information about city government and its activities.
Twenty -two percent cited the "city newsletter."
Seventy-eight percent recalled receiving "Your City" newsletter.
Ninety -one percent of those who recalled reported "regularly reading" it.
Forty-five percent "kept it around for later reference."
Eighty-six percent rated the newsletter as "very effective" or "somewhat effective."
Fifty -eight percent of the households currently subscribed to cable television.
Twenty-eight percent had watched telecasts of the Richfield City Council Meetings during
the past six years.
Page 10
Decision Resources, Ltd.
1997 City of Richfield Residential Survey
Forty percent currently owned or had access to a modem - equipped personal computer.
Another eleven percent expected to have access in the future.
Forty-eight percent registered interest in receiving city information through computer on-
line services.
Conclusions:
1. Richfield again possessed one of the highest residential ratings in the Metropolitan Area
on city services, City Government, and City Staff. The Mayor and City Council scored a
sixty -four percent approval rating compared with a suburban area norm of fifty percent.
City Staff was rated positively by sixty -nine percent, compared with a suburban area norm
of forty-six percent. On average, among those expressing opinions, eighty-five percent
approved of each service provided by the City; this average rating was thirteen percent
above the Metropolitan Area suburban norm.
2. Neighborhood ratings were generally high, and the vast majority of residents believed
neighborhood quality had not declined during the past few years.
3. Airport noise, a perennial problem in the community, has been displaced by concerns
about crime, particularly juvenile vandalism and burglary, and growth/redevelopment.
4. Most residents still regarded Richfield as possessing a "small town ambience" in spite of
its proximity to Minneapolis. Very high ratings were awarded the community on its
cohesiveness, friendliness, and connectedness.
5. The tax climate remained relatively benign despite increased hostility in neighboring areas.
In fact, the value placed on quality city services for the taxes paid was the highest in the
Metropolitan Area.
6. Support for a Community Center was moderately positive. However, the acceptable level
of taxation may not equate with the full- service facility which many residents envisioned.
7. Communications by the City to its citizenry was excellent. The reach and respect of both
the city newsletter and the "Sun- Current" were solid. Cable television provided a good
augmentation to the print media, while computer processes may be a further future
enhancement to be considered.
The City of Richfield remains among the top -rated communities in the Metropolitan Area. At a
time when evaluations of many institutions are tending to become more and more negative,
Richfield continues to be exceptionally well - regarded by its residents.
Page 11
Planning Commission Letter
February 10, 1998
Agenda Section: New Business
Item #: 2
Letter #: 8
GENERAL INFORMATION
Type of Request: Review and discuss status of airport mitigation plan.
ANALYSIS
Proposal: Don Brauer, airport consultant, will provide information (land use, population,
market value) on the area to be impacted by the proposed runway (Exhibits 3,
4 and 5). He will also present a possible scenario for redevelopment in the
airport mitigation area (Exhibit 6, 7) and seek feedback on the scenario from
the Commission.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Recommendation: No action is being requested at this time.
EXHIBIT 4 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Conditions
EVELOPMENT AREA
LAND USE AREA ac Units u Total Population School Population Market Value $
Single Family 113.7 546 1256 220 46.5
Single Family High Density 6.4 58 122 11 2.8
Multi - Family Medium Density (25 u /ac) 15.6 401 641 40 9.4
Multi - Family High Density (50 u /ac)
Regional Commercial /Office 18.2* 14.9*
High Density Office
Low Density Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Parks 29.7
Streets 47.6
Other 5.06 0.1
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 218.1 1005 2019 271 58.8
Includes all commercial uses in 000,000s
PRIMARY AREA
LAND USE AREA (ac) Units u) Total Population School Population Market Value $
Single Family 180.2 892 2052 377 73.2
Single Family High Density 6.5 58 122 11 2.8
Fi- Family Medium Density 15.6 401 641 40 9.4
A- Family High Density
Regional Commercial /Office 21.4* 16.3*
High Density Office
Low Density Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Parks 29.7
Streets 47.4
Other 6.42 0.1
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 285.8 1351 2814.4 I 428 85.5
Includes all commercial uses in 000,000s
Page 1 2/6/98
EXHIBIT 7 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Proposed Concept
POSED CONCEPT
LAND USE AREA ac Units u Total Population School Population Market Value $
Single Family
Single Family High Density 50.5 728 1528 146 98.2
Multi - Family Medium Density (25 u /ac) 200 320 20 10
Multi - Family High Density (50 u /ac) 16.5 982 1375 28 44.2
Regional Commercial /Office 48.8 48
High Density Office 18.2 18
Low Density Office 34.7 34
Neighborhood Commercial 1.3 1.3
Parks 24.3
Streets 18.5
Other 5.5
vacant, schools, churches, quasi-public)
TOTAL 218.3 1910 3223 194 253.7
in 000,000s
For comparison of existing conditions, see the table titled, 'Redevelopment Area" found in EXHIBIT 4.
Page 1 r 2/6/98
EXHIBIT 5 NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Existing Market Value of Properties
0
Lj o
z a
o! LL
N ch 7 J O h a0 w O W O r N
r m U ..r N <y.._.N
Apartment
a s_:
Za
M• -1
e rs E ;
ON
tl! ®N
Z
11 i®
w®
M_
MOM
ii
a .
i
o
I
i4
63RD ST
Prima Area
64TH ST
65TH ST
66TH ST
67TH ST
68TH ST
69TH ST
70TH ST
Redevelopment Area
g
Apartment 32 9438000
Church 1 j 0
Commercial 61 16308300
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 6 0
Quasi - Public 1 0
Residential 892 73277100
School 2 0
Vacant 2 97000
Redevelopment Area
71.ST ST.
Comp Plan Area
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
75TH ST.
Apartment 32 9938000
Church
Apartment 32 9938000
Church 1 0
Commercial 48 1495910.0
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 6 0
Residential 546 46987000
School 2 0
Vacant 1 78000
71.ST ST.
Comp Plan Area
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST.
75TH ST.
N
76TH ST. 500 0 500 1000 Feet
77TH ST.
February 4, 1998 _]
Apartment 32 9938000
Church 1 0
Commerciall 50 15273100
Duplex 29 2873000
Park 3 0
Residentia 519 43832200
School 2 0
Vacant 2 97000
N
76TH ST. 500 0 500 1000 Feet
77TH ST.
February 4, 1998 _]
EXHIBIT 6
Z
z
n
D
m
0
w
a
INi
s
i I
s
I w
NOISE IMPACTED AREAS IN RICHFIELD
Pro posed.Redeveiopment Plan
u; o
W
Z
D CO W O 01 O N I- co)
V J N N N N N -
i
63RD ST
64TH ST
65TH ST
66TH ST
67TH ST
68TH ST
69TH ST
70TH ST
71 ST ST.
72ND ST.
73RD ST.
74TH ST
Relocated Street
Redevelopment Boundary
Parkway
PROPOSED LAND USES
Church
0 Neighborhood Commercial
High Density Office
High Density Office /Regional Commen
Ge'f• Low Density Office `,
r! Park
Quasi- Public
High Density Multiple Residential
0 High Density Single Family Residential
School
EXISTING LAND USES
Apartment
Church
Commercial
Duplex
Park
Quasi - Public
0 Residential
School
Vacant
Proposed Redevelopment Area
mss
Church 38694.530 0. -89
Neighborhood Commc'l 59024.383 1.36
High Density Office 795253.623 18.26
HDO- Regional Commc'1 2125613.030 48.80
Low Density Office 1513284.250 34.74
Park 1057255.370 24.27
Quasi - Public 128415.653 2.95
High Density Multiple 719958.604 16.53
High Density Single Pam 2201804.327 50.55
School 73336.633 1.68
Medium /High Density Multi Family Units (25 u/acre) = 200
High Density Multi Family Units (50 ulacre) ='982
High Density Single.Family Units = 728
75TH ST.
N
76TH ST.
500 0 500 1.000 Feet
77TH ST.
78TH ST.
February 3, 1998