Loading...
Staff ReportsCITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO.499 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD ZONING CODE AS IT PERTAINS TO ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Section 1. City Code Section 1201.02 is hereby amended to include: "ACCESSORYAPARTMENT. A small apartment that meets the standards of Section 1201.03 Subd. 22. of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living." Section 2. City Code Section 1201.03 is amended to include: "Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. The purpose of allowing and regulating accessory apartments in single family dwellings is to: 1) increase the diversity of housing options for residents; 2) encourage better utilization of existing housing stock; 3) protect the safety of residents and the stability, property value, and character of residential neighborhoods. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-IA, R-113, R-IC, R-ID, R-2A, R-213, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. C. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (2) The principal unit shall have at least 700 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 475 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood, marriage or adoption. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult live-in care -provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that if the care -provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) Any property for which an accessory apartment is proposed shall have, at minimum, three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be enclosed. Any parking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a garage or an approved driveway. (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home." -2- Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 1 Oth day of September 2012. ATTEST: 0,"1� L/Y�x/ Christine Lizee, Mayor City Administrator/Clerk I°c. a - .2 1. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING — ACCESSORY U&SH Director Nielsen explained one of the topics on the Planning Commission's 2012 work program is life. cycle housing. One potential aspect of this is what is referred to as "accessory apartments". The City's Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings to one per property for single-family residential zoning districts. The Code does not allow for accessory apartments in single-family homes. The proposed amendment would allow people to create an apartment within a dwelling. Allowing accessory apartments would address both ends of the life -cycle housing spectrum. It would support older parents moving in to o accessory single-family homes with their adult children, or adult children moving in with their parents. The concept ry apartments in single-family homes is not a new idea around the country. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. Nielsen then explained that after reviewing many accessory apartment codes staff has assembled a list of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood's zoning regulations. He reviewed a proposed definition for accessory apartment. It reads "A small apartment that meets the standards of Section of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living." He noted that four of the zoning districts are for single-family dwellings only, and three are single and two dwellings. He stated if the accessory apartments were to be considered dwelling units there would end up being two-family dwellings in single-family districts. Nielsen emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, must be subordinate to the principal use. He stated that at this time Stab recommends these be limited to an apartment within the existing single-family home. It should not be an accessory stmcture. A cautious approach to this is recommended. It represents a fairly drastic change by allowing more people into the various zoning districts. He explained some cities limit the square -footage size of the accessory apartments. Staff has chosen not to recommend that. There are very large homes in the City and someone may want to use an entire lower level of the home for such an accessory apartment. Staff suggests a percentage of the total square footage of the home instead. Nielsen stated Staff is suggesting that there be a public process and that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in single-family residential zoning districts (R-1 and R-2). A public hearing would be involved. Neighbors within 500 feet would be notified of the application and how a request does or does not comply with the zoning standards. Staff recommends that accessory nd how a provisions be placed in the Section 1201.03 General Provisions of the Zoning Code because it applies to seven zoning districts. Nielsen reviewed a list of provisions that are intended to generate discussion. They are as follows. "Subd.22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-IA, R-lB, R-1 C, R-ID, R-2A, R-2B, R-2C and in the P. U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section 1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the follawing standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (This allows most if not all of the lower level to be used for an accessory apartment.) (2) The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (The intent of this is to try and ensure the house remains in character with the single-family neighborhood. It does not mean there cannot be a separate entry.) (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (The purpose is not to make homes drastically bigger just to accommodate accessory apartments.) (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single- family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. (Two spaces are currently required. It may be prudent to talk about some type of screening.) (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home. Chair Geng stated he thought the first draft is very good Commissioner Hutchins stated he and Commissioner Amst have concern that Standard c.(6) does not allow for a full-time live-in caregiver. Director Nielsen stated it should allow for that. Hutchins then stated with regard to Standard c.(3) he asked if someone had a sliding patio door if that could be retrofitted into an entrance for a lower level accessory apartment. Nielsen stated that is allowable. Commissioner Artist suggested Standard c.(8) be changed so that the third parking space isn't on the grass. Director Nielsen stated that needs to be addressed in another area of the General Provisions section. Commissioner Hasek stated that would apply to hard surface coverage. Chair Geng asked how a situation where the property is already at the maximum impervious surface allowed would be handled. Director Nielsen stated they will have to give up hardcover somewhere. Nielsen stated that is where some allowance for permeable pavers could factor in. Director Nielsen stated for most of the City's zoning districts the driveways tend to be longer. Therefore, there should be room for the third vehicle. Commissioner Hasek asked what the City's shortest front yard setback is. Director Nielsen responded 30 feet in the City's normal zoning districts. There are some planned unit developments (P.U.D.$) where the setback is 20 feet. Nielsen noted the front yard setback is not counted as part of the parking area except in P.U.D.s. The required parking spaces have to comply with setbacks. A vehicle can't be parked within 15 feet of the street surface. Hasek then asked if the garage floor area is considered part of the total floor area. Director Nielsen responded typically not. Hasek stated Standards c.(1) and c.(2) regarding square feet of area don't seem to work together mathematically. The 500 square feet requirement is more than the no more than 40 percent of the original total floor area for smaller homes. Nielsen stated he will revisit those two standards. Hasek gave an example of how Standard c.(6) may be too limiting. A married couple move into the husband's parent's home. The couple gets divorced and the husband moves out. The former daughter-in- law continues to live in that house. The City shouldn't care about that. He questioned why blood should factor into this situation. Commissioner Davis noted that earlier during this discussion Commissioners Artist and Hutchins noted that the Standard doesn't allow for full-time caregivers. Director Nielsen stated Hasek isn't necessarily talking about a caregiver; just a person who is no longer legally a family member. Nielsen noted there will always be exceptions to things. Hasek asked if the City allows overnight parking on the street. Director Nielsen responded the City does and that it depends on the time of year. Commissioner Hutchins stated he doesn't understand what Commissioner Hasek's concern is about the square footage stipulations in Standards c.(1) and c.(2). Commissioner Amst stated based on the square footage stipulations in those two Standards it will not work for any house with less than 1,350 square feet of total floor area. Director Nielsen stated one of the two Standards has to be adjusted. Nielsen then stated the provisions should not eliminate some of the smaller homes in the City. Commissioner Amst stated during her second meeting, she thinks, as a Planning Commissioner she brought this topic up. During that meeting Director Nielsen had stated the City didn't want to look like Kenwood. She thanked Nielsen for his change of perspective on this and for the terrific progress made on moving this forward. She noted this is something she wanted to see move forward before she stopped being a Planning Commissioner. Nielsen stated the City has chosen to have a different character for the community than many other cities; it isn't better or worse just different. Director Nielsen stated accessory apartments are probably the City's best means of getting to affordable senior housing and affordable housing in general. He noted there are a lot of young families that can't afford to live in the City. Director Nielsen asked the Commissioners what they thought the neighborhood reaction to accessory structures would be. Commissioner Amst stated in her neighborhood there are at least four homes where something like this is going on. And, there are at least four homes that have become rental properties. As long as people are quiet there is not a problem. She then stated residents in her neighborhood realize things are changing. Chair Geng stated the only issue he can foresee is parking; one being too many vehicles and/or run down vehicles. He and his wife had someone with a rundown car staying with them and some of his neighbors didn't even like that car being parked in their driveway. Director Nielsen stated he will revise the draft amendment. He asked the Planning Commission if the life - cycle housing sub -topic of accessory apartments warrants its own public hearing rather than a public hearing for all Code changes related to life -cycle housing. Chair Geng and Commissioner Arnst stated they thought it warrants its own hearing. r CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8,2012 Page 8 of 12 Nielsen asked the Commissioners if they have any input on the guiding principles. If there is none he is going to rewrite the vision statement before the next discussion. Commissioner Hutchins stated he thought the guiding principles addressed many of the concerns that were raised about the Study during the public hearing. Such as concerns about the west -end buffer, how the redevelopment would fit in with the surrounding area (in particular Gideon Glen), the size of structures, and circulation. Commissioner Hasek expressed his agreement with Hutchins perspective. Director Nielsen stated he will rewrite the vision statement to reflect the guiding principles. Chair Geng stated that prior to the next discussion on this topic he suggested the Commissioners and Staff give some thought to how the feedback on the Study should be summarized in the Study Report. Commissioner Davis suggested it be in bullet point form so it is easy to read. Director Nielsen stated it could be an appendix in the back of the Study Report. Nielsen noted a resident's suggestion to include a summary of recommendations was discussed during the Commission's December 61" meeting and he suggested that summary be added to the Report. Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he wanted anything from the Commissioners prior to that work session. Nielsen stated he can't think of anything at the moment. Director Nielsen recommended the Commission discuss each individual suggestion made and concern expressed by residents. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the most difficult thing will be to take into consideration the desires of all the City's residents and not just those near the Study area. The redevelopment of the Study area has to consider future generations and an aging population in the City. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission could be provided with a copy of the revised Study Report at least a week before it is going to discuss it. Director Nielsen stated he will do that. 4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING Director Nielsen stated he had attended a seminar about Communities of a Lifetime during the latter part of 2011. He then wrote a memorandum dated December 1, 2011, about Communities of a Lifetime and included with it some attachments regarding life -cycle housing. The Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss the topic during its December 6, 2011, meeting but there was not time to do that. He explained one topic discussed during the seminar was the goal to try to help keep people in their homes as long as they want to continue to live there. If residents can't continue to live in their homes then there should at least be the opportunity to continue to live in their community. Nielsen noted the City currently has two senior housing projects with both of them being cottage -style, independent living arrangements. There is no assisted living facility or care facility in the City. He also noted that during its March 12, 2012, meeting Council is going to consider an amendment to the City Code which has been recommended by the Planning Commission. Part of that amendment will allow ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into any required front, side or rear setback subject to certain regulations. That will help the elderly with access to buildings and it might help them be able to remain in their homes a little longer. Nielsen stated he has identified four topics related to life -cycle housing. The first topic is the review of the City's existing zoning requirements relative to elderly housing. A CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8, 2012 Page 9 of 12 Nielsen explained the second topic is accessory apartments. It's his recollection that the Planning Commission thought accessory apartments is an important component of elderly housing. Either allowing families to have their elderly relatives move in to a separate living area in their home or having elderly parents allow their children to move in to a separate living area in their home. He recommended taking a cautious approach to accessory apartments because they can change the character of a neighborhood by allowing, for example, more than one dwelling on a lot. He stated he thought it prudent at the beginning to limit the use of accessory apartments to family members and to attached quarters. There should also be a residential use agreement. Adequate parking for these types of uses also needs to be addressed. He stated from his vantage point a conditional use process may be the best approach to take for allowing accessory apartments. Nielsen then explained the third topic is barriers to seniors staying in their homes. He noted the City's Ordinance does not distinguish between the various types of elderly housing. People were aware of that when the current code was written. When it was written people who deal with elderly housing advised Staff that there were three main categories — independent living, assisted living and care facilities. He suggested they be distinguished with respect to at least density. He explained he did not think density was an appropriate measure for assisted living or care facilities. The concerns such as traffic about density don't apply to them. Commissioner Hutchins noted that many people in assisted living facilities still drive. Nielsen explained if the City requires 1.5 parking spaces for independent living the requirement for assisted living will likely be less than that. Nielsen stated there is staff parking needs at assisted living facilities. Nielsen went on to explain there are things in the City Ordinance, copies of which are included in the meeting packet, that need to be discussed. He suggested the definition of elderly housing be reviewed to ensure it's consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act with respect to housing for older persons. He explained the current purpose of the Elderly Housing section limits the purpose to housing within residential zoning districts. He suggested addressing nonresidential districts and mixed -use type districts as well. The same applies to conditional use; there is nothing in there about the commercial districts or mixed -use districts. The City stipulates the minimum site size for elderly housing projects shall be three acres. That is okay for cottage -style elderly housing. That may not be appropriate for mixed -use projects provided the mixed -use district is three acres in size. Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains census data for 2010, 2000 and 1990 showing population by age groups and gender in the City. He noted there was an influx of new people into City when development increased during the 1990s. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated there are population projections for the City for the next ten years but they are not specific to age groups. Hasek commented based on the census data people are living longer now. Director Nielsen stated there are a number of meetings scheduled for the Planning Commission to discuss life -cycle housing. He has been entertaining having Rick Fenske, a senior housing developer, come again to speak to the Commission about elderly housing and the aging population. [Mr. Fenske gave a similar presentation during a July 1, 2008, Planning Commission meeting and the minutes for that meeting detail the presentation.] He explained the reason he did not ask Mr. Fenske to speak to the Commission in 2011 is that he was considering doing a project in the City. He asked the Commission if it would be interested in having a presentation by Mr. Fenske. Commissioner Hasek stated he would be interested in such a presentation and he asked if there is a way the presentation could be made available to the residents. He commented he isn't sure there is a good CJ CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February S, 2012 Page 10 of 12 understanding of the changes occurring with the City's population and that there is a desire on the part of elderly residents to stay in the community. Director Nielsen stated it may be possible to video record that presentation and then put it on the City's website for viewing. Council Liaison Hotvet stated she thought that would be a great idea. She then stated it could be worthwhile to talk about why younger people aren't moving into the City. She stated she doesn't think there is a common understanding of what affordable housing is and that housing in the City is very expensive. Director Nielsen stated the high price of housing in the City is driven by the life style chosen for the City. The City requires large lots and low -density single family developments. Starter families can not afford to buy homes in the City. Council Liaison Hotvet stated it may be prudent to talk about what a new housing market should look like. Chair Geng stated he could support opening up a presentation like that to the residents, noting it would limit the Planning Commission's ability to focus on anything else that evening. Commissioner Amst suggested it be an ongoing education series. Articles could be published in the City's newsletter and information could be placed on the City's website. She noted the walk score for the City is very low. It's not easy to safely walk to places in the City. She noted residents have done it to themselves in Shorewood. She stated people want to put their children in a stroller and safely walk to a coffee shop or a friend's home. Younger people want smaller homes and they don't have the same desire to be married to their property like their parents are. They don't want to have to do a lot of maintenance to their property. Commissioner Garelick stated in the City of Edina there is a strong push towards distinguishable neighborhoods. Shorewood doesn't have neighborhoods. It's just a big area. He questioned if a similar type concept could be considered for the City. Commissioner Davis stated there is enough to discuss about life -cycle housing for more than just a work session. It's an event. Director Nielsen stated this year there will be another government training session. He suggested it may make some sense to dedicate a portion of the afternoon to this topic. Nielsen stated he will check into the feasibility of doing that. Commissioner Arnst stated it's important to her to create opportunities for residents to remain in their homes when they grow older. One way is to accommodate their young children moving back home. She cautioned against the limiting the focus of accessory space in homes to the elderly. It should be for all family members. She stated allowing for accessory space in homes is the easiest thing for the City to do. It will not take public dollars to do that. Accessory space should be at the top of the list of things to move forward with. Chair Geng agreed that the focus should not be limited to the elderly CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 8,2012 Page 11 of 12 Commissioner Hasek reiterated the need to take additional parking needs into consideration when children move back in with their parents for a period of time. Director Nielsen stated the City receives complaints often about too many cars being parked on residential streets for residents on one property. Hasek stated there will be a need to educate residents on the reasons for there being a need to accommodate multiple families living in a single-family home for a while even if it means there will be more vehicles to park on or near the residential properties. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a discussion scheduled for April on life -cycle housing. He will prepare materials on accessory apartments for that discussion. Chair Geng suggested that be recorded and made available on the City's website. Nielsen stated he will also coordinate having a life - cycle housing discussion during the one -day government training session. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Hasek stated he wanted to talk about coyotes in the City. He explained that four of the last five evenings he has been woken up by noises from coyotes that had to have been within 200 feet of his home. Their sound goes from a howl to what sounds like a scream. There is more than one of them. After enough lights have been turned on in homes in the neighborhood the coyotes disperse. He expressed concern about what the coyotes could eventually do. They could take pets, chickens and so forth and they could eventually be a danger to children. The more animals and pets people have outside the greater the attraction for coyotes. He stated coyotes have been sighted throughout the metropolitan area. He then stated it is time to do something about controlling the population of coyotes. Director Nielsen noted the coyotes do take deer out Administrator Heck stated there is no documented evidence of a coyote attacking a human being. They do take small animals such as squirrels, rabbits, rats and so forth. Commissioner Amst stated coyotes rarely take deer unless it is a fawn or a sick deer. She then thanked the City for implementing an ordinance about feeding deer because it appears to have done some good. Feeders she has been aware of do not appear to be being used. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing slated for the February 21, 2012, Planning Commission meeting about zoning encroachments. The Planning Commission has requested Nielsen provide them with a final version of the draft of an amendment to Shorewood's Municipal Code Chapter 704 that will establish rules for the keeping of farm and other animals. Nielsen stated he will prepare materials on accessory apartments, one component of the ongoing life -cycle housing discussion, for discussion during that meeting. Nielsen then stated Commissioner Garelick has requested 10 minutes of time to discuss the state of real estate in the South Lake area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • ww NxLshorewood.mn.us • cityhallOci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2012 RE: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments FILE NO. 405 (Zoning 1201.03) Attached is a revised memo setting forth a draft of an ordinance related to accessory apartments. The revisions (shown underlined) address three concerns raised by the Planning Commission in its initial review of the proposed amendment: Subd. 22.c.(2) Alternative floor areas are provided — the original 850 square feet and 500 square feet, plus 700 square feet and 480. Both are consistent with the 40 percent requirement provided in c.(2). The alternative allows for smaller homes to have accessory apartments. Subd. 22.c.(6) Provision is added to include full-time care -provider. The language is consistent with the provisions for elderly housing. Subd. 22.c.(8) Clarifies that required parking must be in a building or on an approved driveway. This item is scheduled for a public hearing next Tuesday. If you have any questions relative to the amendment or the revisions, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday night. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane n C •PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474.0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaMci.shorewood.mmus 1341 Did-M !.XVI II lid I TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 18 February 2012 (Revised 2 August 2012) RE: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments FILE NO. 405 (Zoning 1201.03) One of the topics identified in the Planning Commission's study of life -cycle housing is that of "accessory apartments". This housing option, which is not currently allowed in Shorewood's Zoning Code, is viewed as addressing both ends of life -cycle housing spectrum — older parents moving in to single-family homes with their adult children, or younger adult children moving in with their older parents. Either situation provides for more affordable, better utilized housing stock, especially in an area that is somewhat dominated by relatively large single-family homes. Accessory apartments in single-family homes is by no means a new idea. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. Consequently, much of their experience can be drawn upon as we consider this housing option for Shorewood. Regulations vary among municipalities but usually are concerned with health and safety standards, as well as maintenance of the basic character of the neighborhood. In this regard, staff suggests that the City proceed cautiously, limiting accessory apartments to family use and establishing a transparent process providing for neighborhood awareness. Upon review of many accessory apartment codes, staff has put together a menu of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood's zoning regulations. I. Definition: "ACCESSORYAPARTMENT. A small apartment that meets the standards of Section of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living." Coll PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 It should be emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, is subordinate to the principal use. II. Category of Use. With respect to a transparent public process, it is recommended that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in the single-family residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts. This not only provides a public hearing process, it also provides uniform standards and a mechanism for formal recording of the City's approval. III. Code Section. Since the proposed code amendment will have requirements common to more than one zoning district, it is recommended that the accessory apartment provisions be placed in the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code (Section 1201.03). It is recommended that a new subdivision (22) be added. IV. Suggested Standards. The following provisions are not considered to be exhaustive, but are intended to be a basis for discussion. "Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-IA, R-113, R-IC, R-11), R-2A, R-213, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (2) The principal unit shall have at least 850/700 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500/480 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. IPA Memorandum Re: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult live-in care -provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s)provided that if the care -provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be eiven to the Zoning Administrator. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. Any narking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a gara€le or an approved driveway. (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home." -3- Memorandum Re: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Laura Hotvet -4- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaIIGci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 18 February 2012 RE: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments FILE NO. 405 (Zoning 1201.03) One of the topics identified in the Planning Commission's study of life -cycle housing is that of "accessory apartments". This housing option, which is not currently allowed in Shorewood's Zoning Code, is viewed as addressing both ends of life -cycle housing spectrum — older parents moving in to single-family homes with their adult children, or younger adult children moving in with their older parents. Either situation provides for more affordable, better utilized housing stock, especially in an area that is somewhat dominated by relatively large single-family homes. Accessory apartments in single-family homes is by no means a new idea. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. Consequently, much of their experience can be drawn upon as we consider this housing option for Shorewood. Regulations vary among municipalities but usually are concerned with health and safety standards, as well as maintenance of the basic character of the neighborhood. In this regard, staff suggests that the City proceed cautiously, limiting accessory apartments to family use and establishing a transparent process providing for neighborhood awareness. Upon review of many accessory apartment codes, staff has put together a menu of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood's zoning regulations. I. Definition: "ACCESSORYAPARTMENT. A small apartment that meets the standards of Section of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living." t • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 It should be emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, is subordinate to the principal use. II. Category of Use. With respect to a transparent public process, it is recommended that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in the single-family residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts. This not only provides a public hearing process, it also provides uniform standards and a mechanism for formal recording of the City's approval. III. Code Section. Since the proposed code amendment will have requirements common to more than one zoning district, it is recommended that the accessory apartment provisions be placed in the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code (Section 1201.03). It is recommended that a new subdivision (22) be added. IV. Suggested Standards. The following provisions are not considered to be exhaustive, but are intended to be a basis for discussion. "Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a. Purpose. b. Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-lA, R-1B, R-1C, R-lD, R-2A, R-213, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c. Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (2) The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. -2- Memorandum Re: Life -cycle Housing — Accessory Apartments -� 18 February 2012 Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Laura Hotvet (3) No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (4) An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (5) The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6) Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. (7) The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8) A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. (9) The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10) The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11) Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home." -3- V. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960.7900 FAX (952) 474.0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 February 2012 RE: Life -Cycle Housing - Topics FILE NO. 405(Comp Plan — Housing) One of the items on our 2012 Work Program is the issue of Life -Cycle Housing. We started this discussion at the end of last year with a staff report, dated 1 December 2011 that provided background on Communities for a Lifetime. Due to its length, we are not redistributing that staff report, but Commissioners are urged to review in preparation for our discussion at the 8 February Planning Commission meeting (if anyone needs a copy, we can e-mail it to you). To lend some organization to our study, staff suggests the following outline of topics to be discussed over the coming months: • Review of existing zoning requirements relative to senior housing (Exhibit A, attached). This will be our topic for the 8 February meeting. • Senior Accessory Apartments • Barriers to seniors staying in their homes • Update Zoning Code to address assisted living and care facilities We have compiled some demographic data relative to Population by Age and Gender in Shorewood, comparing the 1990, 2000 and 2010 Censuses. These are attached to the back of this memorandum. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet n C, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER / ELDERLYHOUSINC. A dwelling or group of dwellings where the occupancy is / restricted to persons 62 years of age or older, or which qualifies as housing for older �• persons under the Federal Fair Housing Act. r � Subd. 20. Elderly housing. a. Purpose. The purpose of this subdivision is to provide opportunities for elderly housing within residential zoning districts and to maintain / compatibility with other uses within those districts. b. Conditional use. Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-IA, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R-2A, R-213, R-2C, R-3A, R-313 and R-C. In addition the following conditions shall apply: (1) Elderly housing projects shall be processed as planned unit developments (P.U.D.) in compliance with § 1201.06 of this code; (2) Occupancy of each dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than two adults, 62 years of age or older. Occupancy of dwellings which qualify as "housing for older persons" under the Federal Fair Housing Act shall be limited to two adults, 55 years of age or older. The occupancy limitations shall be memorialized in restrictive covenants approved by the city and filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated above shall not apply to one adult live-in care -provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that if the care -provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator; (3) To continue to qualify for the elderly housing classification, the owner, homeowner's association or agency shall annually file with the City Administrator/Clerk and the Zoning Administrator a certified copy of a quarterly resume of occupants of the building or buildings, listing the number of tenants or occupants by age, by unit; (4) Adequate off-street parking must be provided in compliance with Subd. 5 of this section. Parking plans must show room on the site for at least one garage space per dwelling unit; Exhibit A (5) Parking areas for five or more cars must be screened and landscaped from view of surrounding residential property, in compliance with Subd. 2g of this section; (6) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with Subd. 11 of this code. (7) All structures shall comply with the Minnesota State Building Code; (8) The residential density of elderly housing projects shall not exceed the following: (a) R-lA and R-1B: Four units per acre; (b) R-IC, R-ID, R-2A, R-2B, and R-2C: Eight units per acre; (c) R-3A, R-3B and R-C: Ten units per acre; (9) The minimum site size for elderly housing projects shall be three acres; (10) Dwelling units may be detached or attached; (11) Building heights shall be limited to one and one-half stories in all districts except the R-3A, R-3B and R-C zoning districts in which buildings may be three stories; (12) Where allowed, multiple -family elderly housing must have elevator service to each floor; (13) Usable open space as defined in this chapter is equal, at a minimum, to 20% of the gross lot area; (14) The provisions of § 1201.04 Subd. Id(1) are considered and satisfactorily met. C. Fees reduced. Park dedication fees as required in § 1202.07 of this code and local sanitary sewer access charges as required in § 904.18 Subd. 1 of this code shall be charged on the basis of the development potential of property as currently zoned. Fees shall not be charged for additional residential units achieved under b(8) of this subdivision. Population by Age and Gender in Shorewood Select data to chart: Census 1990 0 Census 2000 * Census 2010 Female 0.56% 1.16% , 1.2696 . 1.64% - 1.9s-k 3. 3'9 % 4.08% 6.42% 5.2% 3.76% 2.2% ■ 1.42% 1.2% 1.6% 4.24% 4.2% 3.82% Over 85 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 Under 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census or American Community Survey. Male 0.47% 0.85% 1.04% . 1.6% _ 1.92% 1.9% 3.76% 1 4.52% 5.64% 4.98% 3.48% 4.56% 4.45% Population by Age and Gender in Shorewood Select data to chart: Census 1990 * Census 2000 O Census 2010 Female 0.18% 0.49% 0.65% ' 1.46% _ 1.26% - 1.93% _ 2.34% 4.12% 4.92% -- 6.24% 4.85% -- 2.59% _ 1.2% 1.09% 3.04% — 4.84% ®_ 4.99% , 3.77% Over 85 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 Under 5 Male 0.14% 0.3% ' 0.86% ■ 1.23% . 1.36% _ 1.89% 2.24% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census or American Community Survey. W 4.8% I 5.41% ' 5.51% 4,86% 4.78% 5.26% 11 Population by Age and Gender in Shorewood Select data to chart: Census 1990 O Census 2000 O Census 2010 Female 0.17 % 0.41% 0.3% 0.93% ■ 1.37% 1.91% 2.08% 5.48% - 5.09% 4.77% 3.13% 3.79% ■ 3.68% , 4.11% over 85 80 to 84 75 to 79 70 to 74 65 to 69 60 to 64 55 to 59 50 to 54 45 to 49 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 Under 5 Male 0.12 % 0.29% 0.37% . 0.88% — 1.44% r 1.96% 2.45% .— 3.14% 3.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census or American Community Survey. n . 5.43% 5.1% 4.63% 3.57% ' 4.19% . 4.39% 4.26% CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • cityhalloci.shorewood.mmus MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 December 2011 RE: Life -Cycle Housing FILE NO. 405 (Comp Plan — Housing) One of the items that has been on our list of things to do is to review our Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations relative to life -cycle housing, that is the range of housing choices available to residents in this community. It is worth mentioning that there is an enormous amount of information available on housing and finding a starting point for discussion can be somewhat daunting. Two weeks ago I attended a forum (thanks to Commissioner Amst) sponsored by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC), the subject of which was "Communities for a Lifetime". Although the forum was quite short, the discussion and some of the hand-out materials they provided could provide a basis for our discussions. Attachment I provides a brief overview of Communities for a Lifetime. There is a lot more information on their website which is included on the bottom of the page. Communities for a Lifetime was actually incorporated into Minnesota Statutes in 2009, an excerpt of which is included in Attachment 11. The highlighted provisions focus on the housing aspect. Attachment III contains the "Baby Boomer Survey" conducted by Transform 2010, a project of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. One of the topics mentioned in the forum was "aging in place". It was pointed out that many people simply want to remain in their current living situation. Where this becomes unrealistic for some people due to physical or health related reasons, many still want to remain in their community. Shorewood's predominantly single-family residential housing • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Life -Cycle Housing 1 December 2011 stock provides some range of options for people of various ages. There may be things the City would wish to consider to broaden housing choices. For example, in January the Planning Commission will be studying an ordinance amendment addressing access improvements for older homes. That conversation could and should include a discussion of handicapped accessibility. These types of improvements could go far in keeping older residents in their homes. Another topic for discussion should be accessory apartments. This alternative could address housing needs on both ends of the age spectrum — adult children moving in with parents and vice versa. Shorewood's Zoning Code was amended several years ago to address one aspect of senior housing - independent "cottage" style housing. Our ordinance does little, however, to address the needs of older residents who can no longer live by themselves (assisted living and care facilities). Over the next few months, it is proposed that these topics be explored and, to the extent desirable, be incorporated into our Comprehensive Plan and development regulations. The Planning Commission should identify what background information would be useful for decision -making purposes. Staff is already working on census data. An inventory of housing stock will also be presented. Cc: Brian Heck -2- Communities for a Lifetime - What are communities for a lifetime? Page 1 of 1 C Enlarge text size: ® 0 Q Print Siatray Communities for a Lifetime Home About Resources Assistance Local Initiatives What are communities for a lifetime? Home . Atwut . What are communities for alifei What are Communities for a lifetime are good places to grow up and grow old, and offer physical. social communities for and service features for residents of all ages and abilities. Through collaborative action and a lifetime? strategic planning, community leaders across sectors build places that support health and vitality for residents and the community as a whole. Why bunit Why communities for Transform , a 2010 joint project of Minnesota's Department of Human Services, Board on Aging a lifetime? and the Department of Health, identified fostering communities for a lifetime as one of five core strategies to prepare Minnesota for a growing aging population. According to Transform 2010, How are building communities for a lifetime requires leadership and civic investment in four major aspects communities for ofoommunity. a lifetime buih? 1. Assessment and planning Where are communities for Considering the impact of local demographic trends, including the aging of the a lifetime bush? population • Assessing the physical, social and service assets and needs of the community Who is involved in communities 2. Improvements to physical infrastructure for a lifetime? • Applying universal design principles W built environments, such as housing, parks and When has trails, and cry streets Minnesota taken • Increasing the variety and affordability of housing, including Modification of existing important steps? homes and intergenera final living • Improving mobility through various fortes of transportation, including safe and age, friendly roadways, accessible public transit, and pedestrian and wheelchair-fnendly streets 3. Improvements to social inGastructure • Increasing paid and non -paid work opportunities for people of all ages and abilities • Improving physical and mental health and safety across the population • Strengthening neighborhoods. civic organizations, faits communities and other informal social networks • Creating opportunities for interaction between generations and among diverse groups 4. Improvements to service infrastructure • Ensuring the availability of essential community services, including Primary health rare, grocery stores, and pharmacies Offering amenities such as parks, cultural opportunities, and a wide array of recreational options Sustaining and developing supportive services that promote resident well being and independence ® 2010 Minnesota Boam on Aging, Minnesota Department of Human Services For questions and comments about this site contact DHS.lifelimeffistate con us Home Contact Us Site Mao Attachment [ http://www.mnlifetimecommunities.org/en/About/What.aspx Excerpt from Minnesota Statutes 256.975 Minnesota Board on Aging: Subd. 1 O.Communities for a lifetime. (a) For purposes of this subdivision, "communities for a lifetime" means partnerships of small cities, counties, municipalities, statutory or home rule charter cities, or towns, whose citizens seek to affirmatively extend to persons ages 65 and older the opportunities, supports, and services that will enable them to continue to be contributing, civically engaged residents. (b) The opportunities extended within a reasonable distance to senior residents by communities for a lifetime must include, but not be limited to: (1) the opportunity to contribute time and talents through volunteer community service; (2) the opportunity to participate in the paid workforce, with flexibility of hours and scheduling; (3) the opportunity for socializing, recreation, and wellness activities, including both physical exerciseand mental stimulation; (4) the opportunity to "age in place" and choose among a variety of affordable, accessible housing options; including single-family housing, independent congregate senior housing, and senior housing with services; (5) the opportunity to access quality long-term care in the setting of the senior's own choice; and (6) the opportunity for community -wide mobility and to access public transportation, including door-to-door assistance and weekend and evening access. (c) Communities for a lifetime must demonstrate the availability of supports and services for senior residents that include, but are not limited to: (1) an array of home and community -based services to support seniors' options to remain in an independent living setting as they age and become more frail; (2) access to contemporary remote medical technology for cost-effective home -based monitoring of medical conditions; (3) access to nutrition programs, including congregate meal and home -delivered meal opportunities; (4) access to a comprehensive caregiver support system for family members and volunteer caregivers, including: (i) technological support for caregivers remaining in the paid workforce to manage caregiver responsibilities effectively; and (ii) respite care that offers temporary substitute care and supervision for frail seniors; -I- Attachment 11 (5) personal assistance in accessing services and supports, and in seeking financing for these services and supports; (6) high -quality assisted living facilities within a senior's geographic setting of choice; (7) high -quality nursing care facilities within a senior's geographic setting of choice; Wid (8) the protection offered to vulnerable seniors by a publicly operated adult protective service. (d) Communities for a lifetime must also: (1) establish an ongoing local commission to advise the identified community for a ra lifetime hs and on its provision of the opportunities, services, and supports (2) offer training and learning opportunities for businesses, civic groups, fire and police personnel, and others frequently interacting with seniors on appropriate methods of interacting with seniors; and (3) incorporate into its local plan, developed in accordance with sections <a href="/statutes?year=2009&id=366.10#stat.366.10">366.10, <a href="/statutes?year=2009&id=394.232#stat.394.232">394.232, and <a href="/statutes?year=2009&id=462.353#stat.462.353">462.353, elements that address the impact of the forecast change in population age structure on land use, housing, public facilities, transportation, capital improvement, and other areas addressed by local plans; provisions addressing the availability of the opportunities, supports, and services identified in paragraphs (b) and (c); and strategies to develop physical infrastructure responsive to the needs of the projected population. lRa Transform 2010 DATA REPORT Baby Boomer Survey Themes for Action About the Survey • Redefining work and retirement Members of the baby boom generation (boomers) begin to turn 65 in 2011. • Supporting caregivers of The generation is the largest ever born and represents the beginning of a all ages permanent shift in the age of our state's population. To better understand the • Foster communities for implications of this historic demographic shift, Transform 2010, a project of a lifetime Minnesota's Department of Human Services in partnership with the Board on • Improving health and Aging and Department of Health, conducted a survey of Minnesota boomers, long-term care those born between 1946 and 1964. • Maximizing use of technology As the boomers age, they will face transitions —changes in work/retirement, personal health, housing, and changes in relationships and social roles. This survey addressed these important areas of personal transition to: • Stimulate individual boomers to think and prepare for key transitions • Gather information on boomers needs and preferences to effect system change • Inform the policy agenda for aging at the state level The survey focused on Minnesota boomers' current thoughts about work and housing in particular, and the ways in which they expect to approach these issues in the next 10 years. The survey also sought better understanding of the way in which personal health, finances, and caregiving responsibilities impact Transform 2010 boomers' decisions about work and housing. is a project of the Minnesota Department of Human Services About the Findings Presented in this Report In partnership with: The findings presented in this report are primarily descriptive to allow the Minnesota Minnesota Board on Aging & reader room for their own interpretations and uses of the data. The findings Minnesota below cover responses to all of the questions asked in the original four -page Department of Health mail survey. The first level of bullets report the responses of all respondents, while the second level reports notable differences between sub -groups of respondents, e.g., differences by age, gender, or health status. The findings CONTACT INFORMATION below are based on data that were weighted to reflect the actual age Email distribution of Minnesota's baby boomer population. tra nsform.2010@state.m n. us Web site y For more information about the specific methods used to conduct this survey www.dhs.state.mn.us/2010 �1 please refer to the Methodology section at the conclusion of this report. If you General inquires Call Minnesota Board on Agin e have questions about any findings reported here or would like access to the (651) 431-2500 survey data set, please contact Peter Spuit at Peter.SpuitPstate.mn.us or LaRhae Knatterud at Larhae.Knatterud(@State.mn.us NOVEMBER 2010 Attachment III Findi 1. Overall Perceptions about Life A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or d overall • 87 percent of respondents reported being satisfied with their life respondents (46%) indicating that they were very satisfied o Respondents who were working at all for pay were more s not working at all for pay (79%) o Married/partnered respondents (89%) and those who live greater satisfaction with life than unmarried/partnered re who live alone (78%) o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably fina money left over after meeting their basic expenses (91%) with their lives overall than respondents who just meet (7 basic expenses (58%) sfaction with life rall, with nearly half of (88%) than people others (88%) reported cents (79%) and those ally (95%) or have e much more satisfied I or don't meet their o Respondents who reported that their current health status as good or excellent (90%) were much more satisfied with life than respondents vho indicated their health was fair or poor (63%) o Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition V at affects their choices around housing and/or employment (70%) were less satisfiE I with life than respondents who did not have such a condition (90%) B. Respondents were also asked if they were optimistic or pessimistic about • Over two thirds of respondents (70%) reported that they were opI years, with over half (53%) describing their outlook as somewhat i o Married/partnered respondents (73%) and those who live to be more optimistic than unmarried/partnered respondE live alone (64%) o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably Tina money left over after meeting their basic expenses (74%) the next ten years than respondents who just meet (56%) expenses (38%) o Of the 38 percent of respondents who don't meet their basi reported being very pessimistic about the next ten years o Roughly a third of respondents (34%) who were currently ni indicated that they were pessimistic about the future, comr respondents (25%) who were working at all for pay o Respondents who reported that their current health status were much more optimistic about the next ten years (74%) indicated their health was fair or poor (41%) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey a next ten years istic about the next ten i others (72%) tended (65%) and those who ially (86%) or have re more optimistic about don't meet their basic expenses, 23 percent working at all for pay -ed to one quarter of good or excellent i respondents who 2. Current Living Arrangements A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current housing situation 90 percent of respondents reported that they were satisfied with their current housing, with 60 percent indicating that they were very satisfied o Respondents who reported greater dissatisfaction with their housing included those who were unmarried/partnered (13%), living alone (12%), or not working at all for pay (9%) o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (16%) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and/or employment (13%) were also more dissatisfied with their housing situation than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (6%) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (6%) B. The survey asked whether respondents own or rent their current home The vast majority of respondents indicated that they own their home (93%) o Home ownership was more common among respondents who are older (95%), married/partnered (97%), or living with others (95%), as compared to younger respondents (91%), those who are unmarried/partnered (78%), or who live alone (80%) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses were much more likely to rent their home (20%) than respondents who live comfortably (2%), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (5%), or just meet their basic expenses (8%) o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (13%) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and/or employment (12%) were almost three times as likely to rent their home as respondents who described their health as good or excellent (5%) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (5%) C. Respondents were asked about the type of residence in which they live • The vast majority of respondents reported that they live in a single family home (88%) • A relatively small portion of respondents reside in a townhome or condominium (7%), an apartment (3%), or mobile home or some other residence (3%) oTownhomes and condominiums were more common among respondents who live alone (21%) or those who were not married/partnered (18%), versus those who live with others (5%) or were married/partnered (4%) o Townhomes and condominiums were also more common among respondents who live in the 7-county metro area (12%) versus outstate Minnesota (3%) o Older respondents, born between 1946 and 1951, were twice as likely to live in a townhome or condominium (10%) than younger respondents, born between 1959 and 1964 (5%) 3 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey D. Survey respondents were asked about who lives in their household • Over three quarters of respondents (77%) reported that they live V ith a spouse/partner • Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) indicated that they share a 1 esidence with someone under 18 or an adult child, grandchild or niece/nephew • Of all respondents, 14 percent reported that they live alone • A relatively small portion of respondents indicated that they live w th other adult friends or relatives (3%) or older adult parents or grandparents (1.4%) •The majority of unmarried/partnered respondents live alon (64%) o It was also more common for unmarried/partnered respon ents to report that they live with other adult friends or relatives (7%) or older adult )arent or grandparent (2.4%), than those who were married/partnered (2% and 11D, respectively) o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (2 %) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing nd/or employment (23%) were roughly twice as likely to live alone than respon ents who described their health as good or excellent (13%) or did not have a chronic lonclition that affects their choices (13%) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (27%) were much more likely to live alone than respondents who reported that they live cot ifortably financially (10%), have money left over after meeting their basic expei ses (14%), or just meet their basic expenses (17%) E. The survey asked respondents about how many years they had lived in their current home Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) reported residing in th more; of these respondents, 39 percent reported living in their hot Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported moving in the p respondents, only 3 percent of respondents had moved in the past o Married/partnered respondents (76%) and those who live � living in the same home ten years or longer more often tha respondents (63%) or those who live alone (62%) • Unmarried/partnered respondents (18%) and those who lip more moves in the past 4 years than married/partnered re! respondents who live with others (10%) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses repot 9 years (35%) than respondents who are more financially home for 10 years or for 20 years or more 9 years; of these th others (75%) reported unmarried/partnered alone (18%) reported ondents (9%) and more moves in the past ire (`25%) F. The survey also asked respondents about how many years they had lived ih their current community • Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) reported that they h; community for 10 or more years; of these respondents, 51 perce lived in the same community for more than 20 years • Remaining in the same community for 20 years or more H outstate respondents (58%) than respondents from the 7 o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses chani often in the past 9 years (18%) than respondents who are (-11%) lived in their current reported that they had ; more common among runty metro area (45%) 1 communities more ore financially secure Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 4 3. Future Living Arrangements: All Respondents A. The survey asked all respondents about how many additional years they expect they will stay in their current home • A majority of respondents (52%) indicated that they plan to stay in their current home an additional 10 years or more; of these respondents, 27 percent reported that they plan to remain in their home for an additional 20 years or more • Nearly a third of respondents (32%) expected to move from their current home within the next 9 years Roughly 1 in every 6 respondents (15%) indicated that they did not know how long they expect to stay in their home o Younger respondents expect to remain in their current homes longer than older respondents. Even so, nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) born between 1946 and 1951 plan to stay in their homes for 20 years of more o More than a third of outstate respondents (35%) plan to remain in their current home for 20 years of more, as compared to roughly half as many respondents from the 7-county metro area (19%) o Unmarried/partnered respondents (39%) and respondents who live alone (40%) expected that they might move in the next 9 years more often than married/partnered respondents (31%) and respondents who live with others (31%) o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (60%) expect to stay in their current homes longer than respondents that have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (55%), and respondents who just meet (48%) or do not meet their basic expenses (35%) Figure 1: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Current Home, by Year of Birth (n=3,809) 20 years or more 10-19 years 5-9 years 1-4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey ■ 1946-1951 a 1952-1958 ■ 1959-1964 B. The survey also asked all respondents about how many additional years the their current community • Nearly half of all respondents (49%) indicated that they plan to rem community for the next 10 years or more; of these respondents, 31 they plan to stay for 20 or more years • Nearly one fifth of all respondents (19%) reported that they are con different community within the next 9 years • Roughly one third of respondents (32%) are unsure of their plans, �A not to answer and 16 percent leaving the survey question unanswe o More than a third of outstate respondents (37%) plan to ren community for 20 years of more, as compared to roughly a c from the 7-county metro area (24%) o Respondents currently living in the 7-county metro area wei an expected move to a different community in the next 9 ye c Respondents who reported that they live comfortably finam to stay in their current community longer than respondents)I left over after meeting their basic expenses (50%), or respoq (46%) or don't meet (32%) their basic expenses Figure 2: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Community, by 20 years or more 10-19 years 5-9 years 1-4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% expect they will stay in in their current �centindicated that ering a move to a 16 percent preferring ain in their current uarter of respondents more likely to report rs ally (55%) were planning ,iat have some money lents who just meet of Birth (n=3,809) 35% ■ 1946-1951 6 1952-1958 ■ 1959-1964 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 6 Figure 3: Additional Years Respondents Expect to Stay in their Community, Metro vs. Outstate (n=3,809) 20 years or more 10-19 years 5-9 years 1-4 years Less than 1 year Prefer Not to Answer No Answer 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% ■ Outstate ■ 7-County Metro C. All survey respondents were asked to predict who they might be living with 10 years from now in 2020 • Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) expected to be living with a spouse or partner • -11 percent expected they would be living alone, while 13 percent of respondents responded that they didn't know what to expect Roughly 5 percent indicated they expect to be living with someone under 18 or an adult child, while only 1.5 percent reported that they expect to be living with a friend or another adult relative or an older adult relative o Nearly 1 in every 5 respondents (19%) who are currently unmarried/partnered indicated that they expect to be living with a spouse/partner in 2020 o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (19%) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and/or employment (19%) were roughly twice as likely to expect to live alone in 2020 than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (10%) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (10%) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey Figure 4: Living Arrangements in 2010 as Compared to Expected Living Arrangem in 2020 (n=3,798) Yourself only, no one else Your spouse or partner Someone under 18 (child, grandchild, niece/nephew) Adult child, grandchild, niece/nephew Your or your spouse's/partner's parents or grandparents Friend(s), sibling(s) or other adults Don't Know or Prefer not to answer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 4. Future Living Arrangements: Questions asked of Respondents the Next 10 Years A. Respondents to this section of the survey were asked an open-ended, wri main reasons they are thinking about moving within the next 10 years • Responses were coded into eight major categories: climate, cost, I home location, changes to family size/structure, changes in health start, and other Most respondents indicated they wanted to move due to home cF because they desire a smaller home (14%), less home maintenanc of living on one level (3%) • A third of respondents reported that they were considering a mw, a better location (33%). For these respondents, a "better" locatio family and friends (4%) and job opportunities (4%). Respondents safe, well -managed communities (4%) and more rural areas (3%) • 1 in every 5 respondents (20%) indicated that they were consideri of housing or general cost of living, pointing especially to rising pr of their monthly housing bills (4%), and problems with their emplc finances (3%) • Nearly a quarter of respondents (24%) were thinking of moving to experience, with 5 percent desiring a different climate and 6 pera new home or place • 10 percent wanted to move because their family has changed in s nest" or a new marriage), and 5 percent planned to move becaus( family • 6 percent of respondents described other reasons for wanting to ■ 2010 71POY11, 80% 90% ng a Move in question about the )me characteristics, the desire for a fresh racteristics (41%), mainly (8%), or want the option to what they considered was a place closer to so expressed interest in g a move due to the cost 3erty taxes (4%), the cost anent or personal ve a different wanting to retire in a me way (e.g., an "empty of a health change in the Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 8 Figure 5: Reasons for Moving Reported by Respondents Considering a Move in the next 10 Years (n=1,013) Home characteristics Home location Cost of housing/Cost of living Fresh start/Retire to new place Climate/Freedom to travel Change in size of family Change in health of family member Other 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% B. Respondents were asked whether they would stay in their current community or move to a larger or smaller community • The largest portion of respondents (39%) indicated that they didn't know whether they would stay or move to a different community • Among respondents that had a plan for their next move, 24 percent said they would remain in their same community, while another 24 percent said they would move to a smaller community • 12 percent of respondents reported that they plan to move to a larger community C. Respondents were also asked whether the next time they move they would stay in the same area of Minnesota, move to a different area of Minnesota, or move to a different area of the U.S. or the world • Well more than a third of respondents (41%) ekpect to stay in the same area of Minnesota if they should decide to move • A similar proportion of respondents (40%) reported that they were considering a move to a different area, with 22 percent considering other parts of the US, 17 percent looking at other parts of the state, and 1 percent considering a move to another country • 19 percent of respondents indicated that they didn't know where they might move D. Respondents were asked whether they might move closer to services and other amenities or family and friends Nearly half of respondents (44%) wanted to move closer to services and amenities, while a slightly smaller portion of respondents (38%) wanted to move closer to friends and family o Older respondents born between 1946 and 1951 reported more interest in moving closer to services and amenities (50%), and family and friends (46%), than younger respondents born between 1959 and 1964 (34% and 29%, respectively) o Female respondents were more interested than males in moving to a home closer to services and amenities (48%vs. 40%), and family and friends (46%vs. 30%) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey • Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition t around housing and/or employment (53%) had more inter( services than respondents who did not have such a conditi( • Respondents who reported that their current health status were more interested in moving closer to family and friend indicated their health was good or excellent (37%) E. Respondents were asked whether they would look for a home that would level • More than two thirds of respondents (68%) indicated that if they ti 10 years they would look for a home where they could live on one • 20 percent responded that they did not know whether they would home, and 12 percent said they would not look for this feature • Older respondents were more likely than younger respond( for single -level living • Respondents born between 1946 and 1951 responded yes 1 of 79 percent, while those born between 1952 and 1958, re often (73%) •The youngest group of respondents, born between 1959 ar a rate of 53 percent • Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (7 chronic condition that affects their choices around housing were more interested in single -level living than respondent health as good or excellent (68%) or did not have a chronic their choices (67%) Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Interested in the Option of Single -Level Living, Yes Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% F. Respondents were also asked whether they will own or rent their next • More than two thirds of respondents (69%) indicated that they while 13 percent expect to rent • Nearly 1 in every 5 respondents (18%) are unsure whether they move in the next ten years Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey t affects their choices in moving closer to (44%) 3s fair or poor (46%) han respondents who them to live on one re to move in the next this feature in a to indicate a desire this question at a rate )onded yes nearly as 1964, responded yes at %) or that they have a nd employment (76%) who described their ondition that affects ✓ Year of Birth (n=1353) A72, ■ 1946-1951 ■ 1952-1958 ■ 1959-1964 90% ne i to own their next home, I own or rent should they 10 o Older respondents (18%) were more likely to indicate an interest in renting than younger respondents(11%) o Females (15%), unmarried/partnered respondents (26%) and respondents who currently live alone (25%) also reported that they would more likely rent than own, as compared 11 percent of males, 8 percent of married/partnered respondents, and 11 percent of those who live with others o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (36%) were much more likely to expect to rent their home in the future than respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (5%), have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (10%), or just meet their basic expenses (19%) o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (33%) or that they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and employment (26%) were almost three times more likely to expect to rent in the future than respondents who described their health as good or excellent (11%) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their choices (11%) G. Finally, the survey asked respondents about what type of home they might choose the next time they move • Well more than a third of respondents (42%) reported that they expect they will live in a single family home the next time they move • More than a quarter of respondents (28%) indicated that they are considering a move to a townhome or condominium • Nearly 10 percent are considering moves to apartments, with 6 percent reporting an interest in senior -only apartments and another 3 percent expressing an interest in apartments for all ages • Roughly 1 in every 5 respondents (19%) were unsure to what type of home they would move next, while 2 percent indicated they will move to some other type of home o Older respondents indicated more interest in townhomes or condominiums (31%) and senior -only apartments (12%) than younger respondents (23% and 2%, respectively) o Females favored townhomes or condominiums (32%), senior -only apartments (7%), and apartments for all ages (4%) more than male respondents (24%, 5% and 2%, respectively) o Respondents in fair or poor health (32%), people who do not meet their basic expenses (27%), and unmarried/partnered respondents (25%) were most unsure of the type of their next home o Respondents who were most favorable toward senior -only apartments included people in fair or poor health (16%), people with chronic conditions that affect their choices around housing (16%), and people who just meet their basic expenses (11%); these respondents were 2-3 times more favorable toward senior apartments than all respondents(6%) o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably financially (37%) were more likely to favor townhomes or condominiums than respondents who have some money left over after meeting their basic expenses (31%), or respondents who just meet (19%) or don't meet (17%) their basic expenses Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 11 Figure 7: Types of Housing in 2010 as Compared to Expected Housing Types in Considering a Move in the next Ten Years (2010 n=3,803; 2020 n=1,417) Single family home Townhome or condominium Apartment for all ages Apartment for seniors Something else Don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 5. Current Work and Financial Situation A. Survey respondents were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfactio their employment situation • Just over three quarters of respondents (76%) reported that they M current employment situation; of these respondents, 40 percent in very satisfied 19 percent indicated that they were dissatisfied, and another 5 chc question • Of the 19 percent of respondents who reported that they were dis! employment situation, 9 percent were very dissatisfied o Respondents who reported that their current health status (80%) were much more satisfied with their current employr who indicated their health was fair or poor (49%) o Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition t around housing and employment (55%) were much less sat employment than respondents who did not have such a coi B. Respondents were also asked about whether and how they are currently • The majority of respondents (68%) reported that they are working respondents, 58 percent were working for an employer and 10 pei • One fifth of respondents (20%) reported that they are working par working for an employer and 6 percent self-employed • 18 percent of respondents indicated that they are unemployed; of currently unemployed, 8 percent are not looking for paid work, 6 F work, and 4 percent are unable to work o Younger respondents, born 1959-1964, were more likely tc (77%) than older respondents, born 1946-1951 (48%) for Respondents ■ 2010 ■ 2020 90% 100% or dissatisfaction with satisfied with their ted that they were not to answer the with their good or excellent than respondents at affects their choices fied with their lition (80%) rking for pay II -time; of these nt were self-employed ime, with 14 percent dents who are are searching for working full-time Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 12 o Not surprisingly, older respondents were more likely to report that they are unemployed and not looking for work (22%) than the younger respondents (1.7%) 0 6 percent of respondents born between 1946 and 1951 indicated that they are unable to work, compared to 3 percent in the middle and younger age groups o Female respondents were more likely to report that they are working part-time (25%) than male respondents (14%) C. To better understand what non -paid work respondents participated in over the past year, we asked a series of questions about these types of activities • The majority of respondents (56%) spent some time in the past year volunteering to help others • Over a third of respondents (36%) spent time with or provided care for a child, while one quarter of respondents (25%) provided care for a friend or family member with an illness or disability • Respondents also indicated that they are pursuing continuing education, whether to advance their career (25%) or for personal enrichment (20%) • Finally, nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) indicated that they did not take part in any of these activities or otherwise did not provide responses o Females were more likely than males to report having spent time volunteering (60% vs. 52%), pursuing education for personal enrichment (23% vs. 16%), caring for a child (41% vs. 30%), or caring for a loved one with an illness or disability (29% vs. 20%) o Respondents who indicated they have a chronic condition that affects their choices around housing and/or employment (30%) were more likely to care for an ill or disabled relative or friend than respondents who did not have such a chronic condition (23%) D. Respondents were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current financial situation • Roughly two thirds of respondents (67%) reported that they were satisfied with their financial situation; of these respondents, 23 percent were very satisfied and 44 percent were somewhat satisfied The remaining third of respondents (33%) were either dissatisfied with their financial situation or did not provide an answer; 20 percent were somewhat dissatisfied, 10 percent were very dissatisfied and 3 percent did not answer o Respondents born between 1946 and 1951 were more satisfied with their financial situation (71%), than younger respondents, born 1952-1958 (67%) and 1959-1964 (63%) o Married/partnered respondents (69%) and respondents living with others (68%) reported greater satisfaction with their financial situation than unmarried/partnered respondents (58%), and those who live alone (59%) o Respondents who described their health as good or excellent (70%) or did not have a chronic condition that affects their housing or employment choices (70%) were much more satisfied with their current financial situation than respondents who indicated Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 13 their health was fair or poor (38%) or that have a chronic choices around housing and employment (46%) E. Respondents were asked to describe their household's current financial sit whether they live comfortably, meet their basic expenses with some left o expenses, or do not meet their basic expenses • Roughly two thirds of respondents (67%) reported that they either have money left over after they meet their basic expenses (33%) • 20 percent of respondents indicated that they just meet their basic 8 percent reported that they do not meet their basic expenses o More respondents from the 7-county metro (39%) reportec comfortably financially than respondents from outstate Mh o Unmarried/partnered respondents (15%) and those who IN meet their basic expenses twice as often as married/partne respondents living with others (7%) o Respondents who indicated their health was fair or poor (2 chronic condition that affects their choices around housing (17%) fail to meet their basic expenses much more often th described their health as good or excellent (6%) or did not I that affects their choices (6%) Figure 8: Respondent Financial Situation based on Marital/Partner Status and Married/Partnered Not Married/Partnered Live with Others Live Alone 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% ition that affects their on, indicating meet their basic comfortably (34%) or ses, while another hat they live esota (29%) alone (15%) do not !d respondents (5%) and ) or that they have a d/or employment respondents who ,e a chronic condition Arrangement (n=3,809) ■ Live comfortably ■ Mee som s lust ■ Don F. Finally, respondents were asked whether they received certain types of fir past year • 10 percent of respondents indicated that they had received income while 9 percent had received unemployment benefits within the pi • 8 percent of respondents indicated that they had received financial or family member • Another 5 percent reported that they had been enrolled in one of care programs r basic expenses with over your basic expenses your basic expenses assistance in the through Social Security, A year assistance from a friend nesota's public health Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 14 ST AaAanS jawoog Ageg :lAodaa ele(i OTOZ wio;sueil LT 'sluapuodsaa asayl;o !OZOZ Aq paAoldwa-;las aw!i awos puads of i:)adxa Aayi legl pa:wodai b96T pue 6S6T uaamlaq ujoq (%Z£) sivapuodsai;o pnyl a AlyOnoa o uo!lsanb ayi of puodsaj of lou asog:) ivawad IT leuo!ilppe ue :luawAoldwa -11as japlsuoo pinom Aagl;! moul lou p!p Aayl iegl passajdxa sluapuodsai;o ivawad 6T • aw!l ajow puads of Ou!uueld lua»ad g gl!m'OZOZ u! paAoldwa -;las aw!l awos puads pinom Aayi leql paleolpui (%LZ) sluapuodsai;o jalienb a ueyl aaoyy aanln; ayi u! ivawAoldwa -pas uo Su!uueld lou aiam Aayl leyl pa:podai (%Zq) sluapuodsai;o pj!yl a ueyi ajow • OTOZ of paiedwo:) OZOZ u! paAoldwa -;las Oulpueds aq ll!m Aayl loadxa Aayi awll yonw moy lnoge palse osle a.jam sivapuodsaj AaANnS -9 aaow Tom pinom Aayi Res iva»ad Z pue 'ajo;aq se yonw se Tom Aayl ples luaaaad 6 'OUplJom awll ssal quads pinom Aagl p!es ivaojad gZ'sluapuodsai asayi;o :Aed jo; Ouiliom aw!l awos puads pinom Aayi pale:)!pu! iva»ad 6£ 'TS6T PUe 9b6T uaamlaq woq sluapuodsaa Ouowy o OZOZ u! Aed jo; Oupliom lie le aw!l ou puads of ueld Aayi leyl pa:podai TS6T PUe 9b6T uaamlaq ujdq sluapuodsai;o iva»ad 6q o laom punae sueld ainin; jlayl;o ainsun aiam sluapuodsai;o iva»ad OT • OZOZ Aq Ile le Ou!4jom aq lou pinom ieyl pole3!pul (%£Z) sluapuodsai;o jalienb a ApeaN ajow liom of i:)adxa iva»ad S allym'ssal Ou!liom aq of ueld Aayi legi palealpul (%SZ) sluapuodsai;o aa:penb y mou op Aayi se OZOZ ul iunowe awes ayi inoge OuiVom aq of laadxa Aagl legs paliodai sivapuodsai;o iva»ad L£ • OTOZ of paiedwo3 OZOZ ui jaAoldwa ue io; Aed io; Ou!miom puads ll!m Aayl laadxa Aayl awii yonw mog palse aJam sluapuodsaj AaAunS •y uoilenl±s (%b) SJaylo yi!m OUTAll sluapuodsaa pue (%£) sluapuodsaa pajauved/papiew ueyi weigoid ain ylleay 3pgnd a ui pallojua gu!aq iwodai of Alal!l ajow osle aaam (%£T) auole anll oym asoyi pue (%ZT) sluapuodsaa paaaulied/pa!aiewun o (%L) sJaylo gl!m anll oym sluapuodsaa pue (%9) sluapuodsaa pajaulied/pauiew ueyi Al!we; pue spuau; woj; aauels!sse lepueu!; aaow OUTAMW palaodai (%IT) auole anll oym asoyi pue (%ST) sluapuodsaa paaauiaed/pauiewun o ivawAoldwaun SUlA!aaaJ l,odaj of (%/) salewa; ueyi Alal!l aaow aiam (%TT) saleym o siyauaq asayl uo Ou!meip sluapuodsaa japlo;o iva3aad 6-L yl!m'(%ZT) sluapuodsaa ;o isaOunoA ayi Ouowe uowwo:) lsow sem si!;auaq ivawAoldwaun;o id!any o aoinos s!yl woj; awooul BUTAIB381 ajam sluapuodsaa jaOunoA;o iva»ad 5-b Aluo seajaym'awo3ul Ai!jroaS lel:)oS OUTAIODW pa:podaa TS6T PUe 9b6T uaamlaq ujoq sluapuodsai;o luawad LZ o we.iOoid ylleay o!lgnd a ui pallojua ajam luaoaad OZ pue'pualj; ao jagwaw Al!we; a woi; tioddns lepueu!; dlay panlaaaJ lua3jad 6Z 'slyauaq ivawAoldwaun panla3aJ lua»ad 9£ 'awo:)u! Al!an3as lepos panlaaaJ ivaaaad ob'lioddns;o pupl Aue Ou!AlaaaJ pa:podai oqm sluapuodsaj ayi;o o percent said they would spend about the same amount of 2010, and 10 percent said they would spend more time Figure 9: Employment in 2010 as Compared to Expected Employment in 2020, by 1946-1951 0 0 1952-1958 N 1959-1964 1946-1951 0 1952-1958 N 1959-1964 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% self-employed as in of Birth (n=3,809) )loved by Employer Employed Employed iething Else/Don't Know Answer C. Survey respondents were asked about how much time they expect they wl spend on education for l career advancement or personal enrichment in 2020 compared to the tim they spent on education in 2010 • More than a third of respondents (35%) indicated that they will education for career advancement, whereas half of all responde would spend some amount of time on education for personal er • 39 percent of respondents reported that they would spend no ti career advancement, whereas 23 percent of respondents report spend time on education for personal enrichment 27 percent of respondents did not know what future time they r did not respond to the question D. Survey respondents were also asked about how much time they expect tl to help others in 2020 compared to the time they spent volunteering in 2 • More than three quarters of respondents (76%) plan to spend tim these respondents, 38 percent plan to spend more time voluntee • 19 percent of respondents were unsure whether or how much th, percent of respondents indicated that they would not spend time o Respondents who reported that they live comfortably fina spend more time volunteering in the future than respond( left over after meeting their basic expenses (41%), or thos don't meet their basic expenses (27%) Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey id sometime pursuing (50%) indicated they at all on education for that they would not spend on education or will spend volunteering 110 volunteering in 2020; of ng than they did in 2010 y would volunteer, while 5 ✓olunteering icially (49%) expected to its who have some money who just meet (24%) or 16 E. Survey respondents were asked if they plan to stop working for pay at some age, or not • More than half of respondents (56%) reported that they have already stopped working for pay (10%) or that they plan to stop working for pay in the future (46%) o Of respondents who indicated that they plan to stop working at some point in the future, 64 was the mean age at which they plan to stop working; 68 percent of respondents resoondpd with _...__ --vil ou ano b8 o Of respondents who had already stopped working, 55 was the mean age they had stopped working; 68 percent ofrespondents responded with anaagehich between 48 and 62 Nearly a quarter of respondents (23%) indicated that they have no plans to stop paid work 21 percent of respondents were unsure about whether and when they would stop paid work o Not surprisingly, respondents born between 1946 and 1951 were more likely to have reported that they had already stopped working (26%) than younger respondents (6% and 2%, respectively) o Younger respondents were more likely to report that they don't plan to stop working for pay (28%) than older respondents (16%) o Younger respondents were also more likely to report uncertainty about the Possibility to stop paid work (23%) than older respondents (16%) o Men (49%) and married/partnered respondents (48%) plan to stop working for pay more often than women (43%) and unmarried/partnered respondents (39%) Figure 10: Respondent Plans to Stop Working for Pay, by Current Household Financial Situation (n=3,809) Plan to stop working for pay Have already stopped working for pay Don't plan to stop working for pay Don't know (. zura 40% 60% 80% ■ Live comfortably ■ Meet basic expenses with some left over ■ Just meet basic expenses ■ Don't meet basic expenses Finally, respondents were asked how they would expect to describe their household's financial situation ten years from now in 2020 • Roughly two thirds of respondents (68%) reported that they expect to either live comfortably (32%) or have money left over after they meet their basic expenses (36%) • 13 percent of respondents indicated that they expect to just meet their basic expenses, while 4 percent doubt they will meet their basic expenses • 12 percent were unsure what to expect about their future financial situation; 3 percent of respondents preferred not to answer Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 17 o More respondents from the 7-county metro (36%) reported comfortably in 2020 than respondents from outstate Minne o Unmarried/partnered respondents (35%) and those who liv expected that they will not meet their basic expenses in 20; married/partnered respondents (22%) and respondents wh Figure 11: Household Financial Situation in 2010 as Compared to Expected Year of Birth (n=3,809) ■ Live c ■ Meet some ■ Just r rat they expect to live to (29%) rlone (34%) more often than ive with others (22%) Situation in 2020, by r basic expenses with over your basic expenses ■ Don't eet your basic expenses ■ Don't now/Prefer Not to Answ r/No Answer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 7. Long-term Care and Family Caregiving A. Survey respondents were asked whether they have any chronic physical t condition(s) that affects the choices they make about housing and/or em • 13 percent of respondents indicated that they have a chronic cone choices about housing and/or employment • 83 percent of respondents reported that they did not have such a • 3 percent of respondents preferred not to answer this question o Older respondents reported having chronic conditions tha and/or employment choices (17%) more often than young o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (30%) report having a chronic condition that affects their choiceE and/or housing than respondents who reported that they (7%), have money left over after meeting their basic exper their basic expenses (20%) B. Respondents were asked what they would most likely do if they could no for health reasons mental chronic :)yment :ion that affects their ition ffect their housing respondents (10%) ere much more likely to round employment e comfortably financially �s (12%), or just meet live independently Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 18 • One third of respondents (34%) indicated that they would most likely stay in their home with assistance from family, friends and/or an agency; of these respondents, half preferred to receive assistance from family or friends and half from an agency • Another 7 percent of respondents indicated that they would share a residence with a family member or friend, which may or may not entail a move • 28 percent of respondents indicated that they would move to assisted living or a nursing facility, with 27 percent indicating an interest in assisted living • Roughly a third of respondents reported that they were either unsure of what they would do (27%) or preferred not to answer (3%) o Male respondents were more likely to plan on family and friends providing them care (22%) than female respondents (13%) o Female respondents (30%) and married/partnered respondents (28%) were more likely to express interest in assisted living than male (24%) or unmarried/partnered respondents (22%) o Respondents that indicated that they live comfortably financially (34%) were more likely to express interest in assisted living than those who do not meet their basic expenses (16%), just meet their basic expenses (21%), or those who have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (27%) o Respondents who indicated that they are in good or excellent health were more likely to favor assisted living (28%) than those in fair or poor health (17%) o Respondents who do not meet their basic expenses (40%) or just meet their basic expenses (34%) were much more uncertain about what they would do if they could no longer live independently than respondents who reported that they live comfortably (19%) or have money left over after meeting their basic expenses (27%) Figure 12: Response to Health Change that affects Independence, by current Financial Situation (n=3,809) Live comfortably c 0 Meet basic expenses with some left 3 over cJust meet basic expenses Don't meet basic expenses 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% ■ Stay home with help share residence ® Move to assisted living / nursing facility ■ Don't know / Something else C. Respondents were also asked a question about how they think the cost of long-term care (e.g., help in their home, assisted living or nursing home care) will most likely be covered should they need it • Nearly a third of respondents (32%) indicated that they did not know how their longterm care costs would be paid Nearly a quarter of respondents (22%) planned to pay for long term care with their own savings and investments, while an additional 5 percent said they would tap the equity in their home Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey iL•7 oZ %SE %OE %SZ AaAanS Aawoo8 Ages :ljodaa ele(J OTOZ wio}suejj %oz %ST %01 %S %0 Jamsue ON asla SulylawoS Al!wel/uaJpI!43 woj} lJoddnS (aBeSpow asJanaJ'•B•a) A1!nba awoH aouejnsui aim weal-Suol wei2oid 1U8wwaA08 y sluawsanul Jo SSUTAes leuosaad mowl 1,uo0 (608'E=u) We0 weal BuoI 101so0 ay1 Jano0 01 sueld sluapuodsa,8 :£T ain8!i (%T£) sasuadxa o!seq nayl Bu!laaw aa:4e Jano 14al ABUOw aney Jo (%T Algelao}woo anll oym sluapuodsaj uegi palaAO3 aq pinom aieo weal-Buol101so 841 moq lnoge u!eljaoun ajow yonw ajam (%Sb) sasuadxa o!seq nayllaaw lsnf a (%0b) sasuadxa o!seq a!ayl laaw 1ou op oym sluapuodsay o NO sasuadxa o!seq nagl laaw lsnf oym asoyl io'(%ZZ) sasuadxa olseq ila4l Bullaaw ia:ge Jano:Ual Aauow aney '(%L) Algeljo;woo anll oym sluapuodsaJ u yl uolldo ue se weigoid lu8wulano2 a }o lioddns lap!suoa 01 Alaj!j aaow aia & (%8E) sasuadxa o!seq nags laaw 1ou op oym sluepuodseN o (%LT) glleay luallaoxa Jo P0041 ui asoyl uegl (%SZ) weigoid JU9wUJDA08 a }o lioddns Maas of Alaj!l ajow Diem g1 aq good ao i!el u! Die Aayl leyl paleo!pui oym sluapuodsad o ,LT) siaglo gllm BulAll sluapuodsal pue (%gT) sluapuodsal pajaulied/papiew u g1 weiSoud luawwano8 a woj; lioddns Maas of Alaj!l ajow osle aiam (%bZ) auole i All oym asoyl pue (%SZ) sivapuodsai paiaulied/pauiewun o (%bT) ease oilat i Alunoo-L ayi woe} asogl ueyl (%ZZ) am weal Suol jol Aed dlaq of weigoid jUaW JJaAoB a jap!suoo of Alaj!l aaow ajam sluapuodsai alelslno o sasuadxa olseq nagl Bulleaw ia744Jano nal Aauow aneq oym asoyl }o luaolad gT of paiedwoo se 'slsoo ajeo wia Buol Janoo of Aem a se aouejnsui aieo wal-Suol jol lioddns passajdxa Alger woo aq Aay11eg1 pal,odai oym sluapuodsai;o luaolad bZ o sasuadxa o!seq J'a411 ullaaw Jal}e Jano 1lal Aauow DAN Aagl palpodal oym asogl ;o 1uaoiad OZ of paiedw jo se 'aieo weal Suol jol Aed 01 sluawlsanul pue SOUTAes umo nags asn of ueld Alqeljc.WOO anll Aagl legl paleo!pui oym sluapuodsai;o 1uaojad LE o (%ST) slu puodsai alelslno ueyl (%gZ) slasse le!oueug nays q1!m ajeo weal Suol pun} of pa !loui ajow aaam eaje oalaw Alunoo-L ayl wol} sluapuodsaa o paAaAins sdnoa8 age ayl ssone luals!su o Apiel aiam slsoo aaeo weal Buol BulJanoo lnoge sasuodsaa o ajeo weal Buol;o lsoo ayl yl!m aouels!sse jol aoinos Ja410 awos jo 5 ouaijj'Al!wel uo Alai pinom Aay1 p!es sivapuodsai;o luaoJad Z Aluo lonpoid aouejnsui aieo weal Suol a uo Alai pinom Aa41 p!es (%gT) uolvodoid aw s ay1 AlyBna al!ym'weJBojd luawwano8 a azillln pinom luaolad 8T TZ AaAanS jawoog Ageg :laodall eleO OTOZ wjolsuejl jeaA lsed ayl ui lioddns leloueu!l spua!al jo Allwe; paplAwd lou pey Aagl legl paleo!pul sluapuodsaa to luaojad 6£ • Allelouewl jagwaw Allwel jaglo jo pua!il a gullJoddns aiam luaojad ZT jaglouy . sluaiedpuea8 jo sluaied nagl of lioddns leloueull SulplAad ajam Aagl legl paleolpul lua»ad IT • uaJpll43puea8Buldla4 paliodai luaoaad L aagloue allym '@Be awns to uajpllgo Su!lioddns ajam (%6b) sluapuodsaj to lleq AjjeaN . spuaul jo sjagwaw Allwel aaow jo auo jol lioddns leuueull2ulp!Aoid palJodai sluapuodsaa to luaojad 09 Alg2noy . jeaA lsed aql ul pua!il jo jagwaw Allwel e of aouels!sse jo lioddns leloueuy pap!Aad peq Aaql jaglagm paMse ajam sluapuodsaa 'Alleul j (%SI) sluapuodsaj alew uegl (%ZZ) sa!l!l!q!suodsaj SulAlSaJea nagl ul aseaaoul ue aled!ollue of Aiaj!I ajow ajam sluapuodsaa alewaj o (%TT) sluapuodsaa japlo uegl (%LZ) sall!I!q!suodsaj BuIA!Sajeo nagl ul aseanul jaleajS a aas of paloadxa sluapuodsaj jaSunoA o uollsanb aql jamsue of lou paiialaid sluapuodsaa to luaojad L Ieuolllppe uy . sall!I!q!suodsaj 9u1A1SaJe3 ainlnl nagl lnoge loadxa of legm (o%Tq) ainsun ajam sluapuodsaa to uolliodoid jellwis y . luasaid le op Aaql uegl 2u1A1?aaeo aw!l aaow puads plm Aaql legl paloadxa luaojad OZ 'sluapuodsaj asagl to 'OZOZ u! jagwaw Apwel jo puaul palges!p jo Ili ue jol Buljeo awll awns puads of loadxa Aaql legs paleo!pm (%SE) sluapuodsaa to pA41 a uegl aaow • ajeo 2ulnoud puads II!m Aayl aw!l gonw moq pue OZOZ Aq pua!il jo jagwaw Apwel palges!p jo ll! ue Jo; aJeo ap!Aoid ll!m Aagl loadxa Aagl jaglagm lnoge palse osle ajam sluapuodsaa AaAanS -3 WO Jamsue 01 lou asoyo ao (%TZ) ulelJaoun aagl!a ajam luaojad gZ jagloue pue uajpllga joj Suljeo Ile le awll ou puads ll!m Aagl legl loadxa luaaaad 61 OZOZ ui pllgo a jol Su!jeo awll to lunowe awos puads of loadxa (%£S) sluapuodsaa Ile to lleq nano OTOZ u! AIIA!loe sl4l8ulop luads Aaql awll aql of paiedwoo OZOZ ui pl!go e jol 2uueo puads of loadxa Aaql awll gonw moy pue jaglagm lnoge palse ajam sluapuodsaa AaAanS •Q Respondent Demographics The survey collected a number of pieces of demographic information from respor of the results. This demographic information is also useful in determining whethe survey reflect the make-up of the general population of boomers in Minnesota. E survey respondents provided below, we determined that the respondents do gen population of boomers. To provide some points of direct comparison to the gene on race and ethnicity, place of residence and income below provide data on surve general population. Age (n=3,809) Year of Birth Percent 1946-1951 26% 1952-1958 38% 1959-1964 36% Unknown/Missing 1% Total 100% Gender (n=3,809) Percent Female 49% Male 50% Unknown/Missing 1% Total 100% Race and Ethnicity (n=3,809) Percent Minnesota Boomers* White 94.2% 91.49% Black/African American 1.2% 2.92% Hispanic 1.0% 1.99% American Indian or Alaska Native 0.9% 0.87% Other Race 0.6% 0.56% Asian or Pacific Islander 0.7% 2.17% Prefer Not to Answer 2.0% N/A Unknown/Missing 0.8% N/A Total 100% 100% * US Census, 2009 Relationship Status (n=3,809) Percent Married or Partnered 77% Divorced or Separated 10% Single, Never Married 8% Widowed 3% Unknown/Missing 2% Total 100% �nts to support analysis he respondents to this sed on the profile of ally reflect the general it population the tables respondents and the Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 22 Location in State (n=3,809) Percent Minnesota Boomers* 7-County Metro 49% 54% Outstate 51% 46% Total 100% 100% * Minnesota State Demographic Center, 2007 Community Setting (n=3,809) Percent In the city of Minneapolis or St. Paul 8% In the suburbs of Minneapolis or St. Paul 39% In a larger city or town in greater Minnesota (e.g., Duluth, Rochester) 7% In a smaller city or town in greater Minnesota 23% In a rural area 22% Unknown/Missing 1% Total 100% Personal Health Status (n=3,809) Percent Excellent 17% Very Good 37% Good 33% Fair 9% Poor 2% Prefer Not to Answer 1% Total 100% Household Income, before taxes (n=3,809) Percent Minnesota Population (all households)* Under $25,000 89/. 19% $25,000-$39,999 109/0 44% $40,000-$59,999 17% $60,000-$74,999 13% $75,000 or more 35% 37% Prefer not to answer 17% 0°/0 Total 100% 100% * US Census, American Community Survey, 2006-2008 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 23 Methodolo, The results of the Baby Boomer Survey are based on 3,764 completed surveys gatl iered between July and September 2010. The overall response rate for the survey was 36 percent, based n a distribution of 10,500 surveys. In addition to the 3,764 completed returns that were analyzed fo this report, another 487 surveys were returned and not used in the analysis. These returns were not used n the analysis for one of the following reasons: because the household lacked a respondent from the targ age group (264), the survey questionnaire was returned undeliverable by the post office (152), the sun y was returned after the cutoff date (68), or the return was submitted from out of state (3). The sample of 10,500 boomers was selected by a national sampling service that vy is hired by Transform 2010 on contract. The mailing list was based on a random sample of mailing addr sses of households containing an individual in the target age group. The sample was segmented into hree subgroups: boomers between 1946 and 1951, 1952 and 1958, and 1959 and 1964. Based on he objectives for the survey, boomers born between 1946 and 1951 were over -sampled. This will allov for in-depth data analysis of the "leading edge" of the generation in the future. In order to compare the responses of three age subgroups in this data report, the responses received by members of each subgroup were weighted to correspond with the distribution of boomers across the same age groups in Minnesota's general population. For example, each completed sun ey response by a boomer born between 1946 and 1951 was given the weight of roughly half a response, be :ause we received nearly twice as many responses from this age group as compared to the general populat on. The margin of error for the survey ranges from ± 3 percent to ± 7 percent (with a lonfidence level of 95 percent). The margin of error is 3 percent for respondents born 1946-1951 and a Imuch as 7 percent for respondents born 1959-1964. The focus of the survey was informed by a series of focus groups with boomers h spring 2010. The survey questionnaire was co-authored by Peter Spuit, Project C and Lori Laflin, Department of Human Services Survey Researcher. I from fall 2009 to sultant, Transform 2010 Transform 2010 Data Report: Baby Boomer Survey 1 24