06-08-98 PC Agenda
.
.
.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, June 8,1998
7pm
I. Approval. of Minutes .. May ii, 1998
II. Informal Public Hearing.. Minor Subdivision
Applicant: Ronald J. Schmidt
Address: 2945 Regent Avenue North, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request: Subdivide the property located at 2945 Regent Avenue North
III. Informal Public Hearing.. Rezoning
Applicant: Sharon and Gerald Lund
Address: 2320..22 Douglas Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Request: Rezone the property from single-family residential to two-family
residential
VI. Reporte on Meetings of the HOUSing and Redevelopment Authority, CIty
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
V. Other Business
A. OASIS Mental Health Program - Annual Report
VI. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The. Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon.
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning .
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3.
The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
.
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information,
not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, May 11, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner,
McAleese and Shaffer. (Note: Commissioner Martens was a representative for PUD
42; and therefore, did not join the commission on the dais.) Also present were Mark
Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner; and
Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - April 27. 1998
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Groger and motion carried unanimously to
approve the April 27, 1998 minutes as submitted.
II. Reports on meetinas of the Housina and Redevelopment Authoritv. Citv
Council and Board of Zonina Appeals
. Commissioner Groger commented on the BZA meeting. No other reports were
given.
III. Other Business
A. North Lilac Drive Addition, P.U.D. No. 42 (Amendment No.1)
Item referred to the Commission from the Council for Discussion
Pentel commented to the Planning Commission that the City Council had referred
the amendment to P.U.D. No. 42 back to the Planning Commission to comment only
on five items of concern. She said that when it goes back to the City Council it will
be a "continued" public hearing.
Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, told the commission that there
was a minor correction on page three (3) of his report. The last sentence of item 4
states "Lot 3 will have to be included in a new plat for the PUD that would be
.submitted as part of the General Plan." Grimes told the commission that Lot 3 does
not need to be included in this PUD plat, but Lot 3 would be addressed in the PUD
Permit.
.
Rick Martens, project developer for this PUD, introduced Linda Fisher, representing
the applicant. Ms. Fisher's address is 1500 NW Finance Center, Minneapolis MN.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
Page 2
.
Ms. Fisher briefly stated that the architect and civil engineer on this project were also
in attendance. She commented that changes have been made to the plan twice
since the plan was reviewed by the Commission on March 9, 1998; the changes the
second time around were partly due to a meeting with staff, MnDOT and others
regarding the site. She said the original plan called for a 48,000 sq.ft., 3-story
building and after the second change the building was reduced to 31,500 sq.ft.
because of the removal of the lowest level of the building. Fisher said this
constituted a 30% reduction in building size which is much less than code requires.
She said the reduced building height would minimize the impact on the
neighborhood to the north. She said there is also less parking required and the
plans submitted include some proof of parking. The parking, Fisher said, now meets
code requirements.
Fisher said there are substantially fewer variances being requested - those
remaining are for the front yard building and parking setback and are justified
because of the configuration of the lot and the MnDOT taking.
Fisher commented that one of the major concerns of the Council and Commission
was water retention and treatment. She said the revised plan now shows on-site
ponding. She commented that the revised plan also includes a preliminary lighting .
plan and there is a revised landscape plan submitted on a preliminary basis.
Fisher then reviewed the five points as highlighted in Director Grimes memo as
noted below: .
1. Lighting. Fisher said there should be no spill over or glare from the lights, and
the applicant would work with staff regarding the timing mechanisms for night
lighting. She commented that this project is no different that similar ones that
have outdoor lighting.
2. Drainage. Fisher said there has been an extensive coordination between the
developer, the City, MnDOT, and the Bassett Creek Watershed Management
Commission regarding the drainage on the site. Fisher commented that when the
developer first approached MnDOT about using its proposed pond to the north,
MnDOT felt there would be enough ponding available to allow water run-off from
this development. She said they now have new information which makes them
believe this tie-in would not work. She said the developer is confident that with
the proposed two ponds on the site, Level I and Level II treatment can be
obtained to enhance water quality.
3. Impact of Traffic. Fisher commented that this property is guided and zoned for
commercial uses, and the developer does not see any appreciable traffic .
impacts.
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
Page 3
4. Inclusion of Lot 3. Fisher commented that Lot 3 is included in P.U.D. No. 42
Permit, but that it is not in the PUD amendment because there are no physical
changes being made to this site.
5. Landscaping. Fisher said a revised landscape plan is included in the agenda
packet. She pointed out there would be landscaping around the building and
ponds and a good amount of landscaping to the north side which would help
screen the building from the neighbors. She highlighted the fact that due to a
NSP easement, the plantings in the easement cannot grow any taller than 25
feet.
Fisher said, in summary, the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
zoning and standards for the Preliminary Design Plan approval. She said that the
concerns of the Commission and Council have been addressed.
Pentel expressed to the Commission that the Council is only looking for comments
from the Commission.
Commissioner Kapsner said that he had no comments specifically, but had a general
comment saying that the developer has gone to great lengths to meet the items the
Commission were concerned about.
Pentel agreed with Kapsner that the developer had worked out many of the details.
Pentel asked about the drainage ponds and where they would drain to. Grimes said
that water would collect into the two ponds and then drain into the ditch along the
railroad track, and then eventually into Sweeney Lake. He added that the ponding
would meet all City water quality and detention requirements. Pentel asked if the
ponds would have water in them at all times. Christopher Bolt, Civil Engineer for
Howard R. Green, said the ponds would be wet ponds meaning there would always
be water in them. Pentel said the ponds would be a nice amenity to the site.
Grimes commented that Interim Public Works Director, Jeff Oliver, would like to see
more rip-rap (rocks) around the outlet of the ponds, which can be worked out.
Commissioner Shaffer asked if the asphalt, where the MnDOT taking is (at the
southwest corner of the site), would be torn up. Bolt commented that MnDOT's
entrance ramp would cut through this area, but was unsure if the asphalt would be
removed. Pentel commented that quite a bit of weedy growth is coming up through
the asphalt.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
Page 4
Pentel commented that she agreed with staff on the projected number of trips being
generated by the building not having a major impact on the area. Grimes said there
may need to be some adjustment to the timing of the lights on Ottawa.
.
Commissioner Groger commented that he had the most difficulty with the exclusion
of Lot 3 in the replatting, but with the proposed building being decreased in size and
the elimination of some variances, he said he could accept the proposal. He briefly
commented on Lot 3 and its nonconformities and the difficulty in separating Lot 3
from the proposed development.
Pentel asked about the 5 acre threshold of Bassett Creek, regarding the ponding
issue, and whether the City can have its own threshold. Grimes said that the City
can place conditions on the PUD regarding the ponding threshold. He said the
Council is requesting to see ponding on the site as if it were a larger site.
Pentel commented that the exclusion of Lot 3 is an issue with her, particularly when
its a PUD and has one owner. Grimes said that the Lot 3 issues would be
addressed in the PUD Permit. Pentel asked Grimes to comment on the discussion
about fire suppression and the stair wells which was addressed in the PUD Permit.
Grimes commented that there are some letters in the Inspections file which
discusses the stairwell. He said that he would go back and review the information in .
the file.
Kapsner commented that a bigger concern was the lack of parking spaces and the
developer has now addressed this issue.
Pentel commented that the PUD Permit amendment needs to be cleaned up and
reflect what is relevant now.
Pentel said that she was impressed with the landscaping plan. Grimes requested
the architect to show the elevation rendering. Darrell Anderson, Architect,
commented that the original plan showed a retaining wall around the building which
is now non-existent. He reviewed the north side of the building, noting that the lower
level has been eliminated. Anderson said the row of hedges will cover the lower
windows on the north side. He then reviewed the landscaping plan noting the height
of plantings. He said the sumac on the north side of the property line would not be
maintained by the developer. Anderson briefly talked about the proposed plantings
around the ponding areas.
Pentel asked about sidewalks. Grimes commented that this would be included as
part of the Hennepin County trail system along the frontage road. Pentel suggested
that this be addressed by the sidewalk committee. She said people from the
proposed and existing business offices would probably use the sidewalks to get to .
Schaper Park. Pentel questioned whether this would be adequate for both walkers
and bikers. City Planner Beth Knoblauch commented that a sidewalk should
.
.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
Page 5
probably not be constructed at this time because it would be torn out again when
MnDOT did their work. Grimes said he would talk with the Engineering Department
about this issue. He said he would like to see what the trail looks like and believes
that the 12 foot trail can accommodate both walkers and bikers.
Groger asked where the trash enclosure would be placed. Anderson said it would
be located along the north side of the building. GrClger suggested keeping it more to
the west end of the building away from the view of the neighbors to the north. .
Anderson agreed. Grimes noted that the enclosure would be constructed with the
same materials as the building
Commissioner McAleese commented that there was some question, when the
proposal was first submitted, about how staff and the applicant was measuring
square footage. Grimes said that the applicant is now measuring gross square
footage as required by code.
McAleese commented that the plan has changed significantly enough and
questioned whether the Planning Commission should not be holding an informal
public hearing as required by State law. He said he was uncomfortable with this
meeting tonight not being held as an informal public hearing. McAleese said that
although he was uncomfortable with the process he is delighted with the developers
end result of the project.
Grimes commented that it was the City Council who referred this item back to the
Commission for comments only. McAleese said he understood that, but the Council
has not seen the plan which is before the Commission tonight. He said that the
procedure taken on this proposal may not work next time. Pentel agreed that she
approved of it coming back but would have like to seen is as a informal public
hearing. Kapsner commented that the commission is not discussing any new issues
and that if they wouldn't have made such dramatic changes, the commission
wouldn't be having this discussion. McAleese agreed, but said the process involved
with right now is what is troublesome. He said the plan before them does not
resemble the original plan.
There was further discussion about whether or not the Planning Commission should
have held another informal public hearing on this matter. Staff said they would look
into the process for future items.
Grimes said that he does not expect a vote on this and will forward their comments
onto the Counci I.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 11, 1998
Page 6
.
B. Discussion with Mayor Anderson concerning TwinWest Representation on
Golden Valley Boards and Commission
Mayor Anderson told the Commission that she meets with TwinWest on a regular
basis and they have approached her to find out if the City Council would change its
policy regarding appointments to the Boards and Commissions. She said that
business owners in Golden Valley would like to be considered for these
appointments even though they do not live in the City. Some commissioners
responded by saying that they feel that there already exists a wide range of business
people on the various Boards and Commissions. Mayor Anderson said that
TwinWest would like to be more involved in the City. City Planner Knoblauch thought
it may be worthwhile for a group of business people to comment on the City's zoning
code.
C. Discussion Initiated by McAleese Concerning Cell Towers in Residential
Areas.
McAleese told staff that he has been receiving phone calls concerning the cellular
tower sited off of Douglas and St. Croix Avenue. He said that the commission had
looked at smaller devices that would not obstruct a residential view and would like
the Commission to address this issue formally. Knoblauch commented that
unfortunately in the City of Golden Valley there are few places where towers can be
constructed and not have residential areas on some side. Director Grimes
commented that the smaller type devices are used on taller buildings which the City
does not have. Grimes also commented that a consultant for the City is now
reviewing cell tower and digital coverage in the City of Golden Valley. McAleese
said he believes the hearing process would be good.
.
IV. Adjournment
Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8: 1 Opm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
't' .:w
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
June 4, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
RE:
Informal Public Hearing - Minor Subdivision of the Property
Located at 2945 Regent Avenue North - Ronald J. Schmidt,
Applicant
.
Ronald J. Schmidt, owner of the property located at 2945 Regent Avenue
North is requesting to have his lot subdivided in order to create two
separate lots. Mr. Schmidt has told staff that his existing large lot is too
much for him to care for. He would like to divide the lot and sell off the lot
that would abut Scott Avenue. According to the attached survey, the
newly created lot would be 10,146 sq.ft. The lot with Mr. Schmidt's house
on it would be 10,882 sq.ft. (Note: The survey shows a proposed garage
onto Mr. Schmidt's existing garage. This proposed garage would need
two variances and will go before the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 23,
1998. )
The City of Golden Valley requires minor subdivision proposals to meet
City zoning standards. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area
requirement of 10,000 sq.ft. The new lot would exceed the required 80
foot frontage on a public street and side and rear setback requirements.
The existing house would meet all setback requirements after the
subdivision.
The attached survey also shows the existing drainage and proposed
drainage for the new lot after construction of a house. The Engineering
Department has reviewed this survey and visited the site. Comments
from the Assistant City Engineer, Jeff Oliver, are attached.
Approval of a minor subdivision application is based on a consideration of
factors found in Section 12.50, Subd. 3 of City Code. Subd. C(I) states
that "The conditions spelled out in this subdivision shall provide the only
basis for denial of a minor subdivision or consolidation except for the
additional conditions imposed on double bungalow lots in Subd. 5."
.
Information on the eight factors that affect this particular application are
as follows:
1. Minor subdivisions or consolidations shall be denied if the
proposed lots fail to meet all of the requirements of the
appropriate zoning district. Furthermore, the front of each lot
shall abut entirely on an improved public street, and the minimum
front setback line shall be established 35 feet distant from the
street right-of-way line.
The proposed two lots would meet these requirements.
2. Minor subdivisions may be denied upon the City Engineer's
determination that the buildable portion of a resulting new lot is
encumbered by steep slopes or excessive wetness.
No steep slopes or excessive wetness is found on the lots.
3. Minor subdivisions may be denied if public sewer and water
connections are not directly accessible by each proposed lot.
.
Sewer and water is available to the lots.
4. Approval of minor subdivisions shall be conditioned on the
applicant's granting of easements for necessary public purposes,
as determined by the City.
The survey indicated that there is a shed in the existing drainage
easement along the north property line. This sled will have to be
removed from the easement. The shed also does not meet the side
yard setback requirement of 5 feet. The shed should be moved from
the easement area prior to approval of the final plat.
5. Where public agencies other than the City have some form of
jurisdiction over an area including or directly affected by a
proposed minor subdivision, approval of that minor subdivision
may be conditioned on the requirements of the outside agency.
No other public agencies have jurisdiction over this minor subdivision.
.
2
.
6. If the applicant is required to submit to a review of the property's
title pursuant to Subd. 4c. of this section, then approval of the
minor subdivision shall be conditioned on the applicant
resolution of any title issues raised by the City Attorney.
The applicant is not required to submit title information.
7. Minor subdivisions of nonresidential parcels may be denied upon
the City Engineer's determination that new development on the
resulting lot(s) will cause undue strain on adjacent roads or on
public utilities, or will adversely affect adjacent residential,
institutional, or public land uses.
N/A
8. Approval of the residential minor subdivisions shall be
conditioned on the payment of a park dedication fee in an amount
established by Council resolution.
.
The City Council has the right to request a park dedication fee when
new lot( s) are created. Staff recommends that a fee of $500 be
assessed to be collected at the time the final plat is approved by the
City Council
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions, of the minor
subdivision for the property located at 2945 Regent Avenue North. All
other conditions for the subdivision meet City Code requirements.
1. A park dedication fee in the amount of $500 be received at the time
of final plat approval.
2. The shed located on the north side of the property be moved out of
the easement area before final plat approval.
Attachments: Location Map
City Engineering Memo dated May 18, 1998
Portion of existing plat on file
Survey
.
3
(;ULUI:.I'J
VALLi:::Y
........
..
.
~
I
.
I '"
~o
....
'^
...
3 100
... ~
~ ...
~
.... ..... ~
:3 ....
'" C>
..... ....
... .
...... Za.8Ch. Gov-/. ...-.
T RRACE
57Z.4{,
city OF GOLDEN VALLEY
PARK
i........ Z773.7~ Ifes. .........
1::6' · · R'"
:J. 505/ YY I
~o7.3
,
10
19-fHZ) ...... 'OQ
.
C OUTLOT
C
<t
1
.
500/
u.,~ L.
IT"'.!:: 0
'-Ii
6 ~ ~ ~
80 &
103.5
"S.8,.
_,3 ,
4920 45
49~5 4 49/5 45
107.85 , ,
0 z' 3 4
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
MAY 18,1998
MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF P~LANIN ND DEVELOPMENT
JEFF OLIVER, P.E.
ASSISTANT CITY EER
REVIEW OF PROPOSED LOT SPLIT AT
2945 REGENT AVENUE NORTH
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Engineering staff has reviewed Mf. ~n Schmidt's plan for splitting his
existing lot at 2945 Regent Avenue North. The original proposal for this lot
split was delayed due to concerns about drainage on and across the
proposed new lot. The developer has provided a survey with existing and
proposed topography, which appears to address these drainage concerns.
Staff recommends approval of this proposed lot split subject to the
following conditions:
.
1)
Inspections staff insure that adequate drainage is available across
this lot at all times during construction, and that the positive
drainage is provided following finished grading.
2) The builder will be required to provide an as-built survey of the
drainage across the lot prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for
this home.
3) Silt fence must be installed around the perimeter of this lot prior to
beginning any excavation. This silt fence must be maintained
throughout construction.
4) Permits will be required for any work within the street right-of-ways,
including Scott and Regent Avenues. Driveway construction,
reconstruction of additions is included in this requirement.
Please feel free to caIJ me at 593-8034 if you have any questions.
C: Mark Kuhnly, Chief of Fire and Inspections
.
-~---
-:0::
j)
"6
~
, ~
) ~'
()
c"
~
"t
~
i
~
~
o
~
l Jir.r;l;f,it~.'\i:'::':i1l;l"f:'/'\:{'~~~:;~;~j'.:(r)l..
:',n :,,;""'~~!I:<< "t~~>(.d,,'fN;!''1r:'~ -,;.1,0{. :'"
North Itne of Trod AI fl.L.S. N9 SI2i:::~'r!2~}i~,l~j:j,'~;;~J~t~:\;~,}
"'<:'i~(,]~;~.~~. . ", ",i'" ,
Ql9~.."""" . ,""r"'" ,
.,' //')'''7~,:'??'''t':)'~",~,,:,,,,- ~}..l;~;:~;","l;>'
, / I . ""',,
j,' " . ,
,-
, , ,
~ ~ I .
- ' . ,
~ ,,\tj ~ t ". ' ,
~ il ~'\'" L':" '
i'N, .,~,~, ",,:\,~il~',",.:','.',",',~
.~\~:.I';~
, '\0, ,1"",0_
'". 1 '
I . ~ \ I
I""", "
I
. I
.J: I
.1
1- ,
ir I
~: '(.": I.
!~'."'~ .
~ ~" '-' 'I...
~ ~:. . 1 "~:
'~ ~..... 1'"-''' ,.,
~~ . '-"" .
, ~:.':.' '.::.:"~< .
.. c..;, ",' : '. _J,/.I' '
tJ ~ ,'; . ,.. . '-')....<1...., .
,~ " '. ~: \O"f"'\~ '..','
Co) , , " "', C).,: . '. . .
Ti'l'~' I t_.,~ ";"'" ,:',,;J~j;-:t:j~j
A'85.45'44"~':' ~,~" .':~" <',','J~~f:?':
3 R.3t.I'S · , , ~ ~ : ....., ~~;"":'. ,'.
. Lt D ' \' Y ." . .........".". \0 ~ ... j ,1'
"'" .0' .(1 . ""~. ',.,., ....1'.":.:1 .,' ,',
tl.~ ..r;.'.....O\J.';> "/,,;,,;.;;', :- '!<},:,N. f l ,.' ...I:":.:.:~.:.
v " . ",' ~. . .,., 'r~'~' - . \, t.,.
A. '0, i 'b~' '''~ .~.' I:,;',;i:;.;;:....:.;\i}1~ ::iSCcl\t:~{ ,.,~ ~
'T~'(L,. /, '.,.,;. .:i,:..:':';.~~\'ti'.<: . .,.j' ~frih'j
"~~~', 0 "~~~' /: :,":;?',:.1."i":';Y;"P;~Bt,;', o. ;r'n.'g~';Q. 'ri~.~.'..
$I",,' 'L'\' '''" / ::.' '.' ,. ,"',)...,,,,. . '. , . " 'i'I~.'~ '
., ',' Jt;l' ~ :.: / . .}:': :':-'0 ,lje.riate'3 '''cn;t~c;,!.~~~1
. -.1'; / ::::,~' ~~itt:~M9E'R,q' .
0.00 00 ~ Y'" . /~j'i' '.L~'X~':<<~.;'~0;:r.;:.' :;,'rY'
,0 \ G / / . .:~,:~;: "~!.'~:~;';.;:,.;[:*~f!.::\:;.,'::": <f'"
"o~ "J~ j ,. ~. ,::"::"!/,>nn:.,':."': ',.'
~'J \~ / ...<fj;( .' "";~;'~:;~ijli,~:" :'r':::.
S ' "Q'(....,.~,' . ,.'",;>",;,...,,-- '.,""
<,.~f/ / 'c"',% 'd,\';r:!!~fW( ./C)..
....../ . " r" , - J,_,_....._,_<.I Q' '" " '''.
..., '. Cf./... ..:t: -T.. y--:-::;,:::.... '<':'::/;)' ';':{
....:.... ~. ""\ ....1.,' .' ."........... .....f .,;
CJ ...... -r ~ ~ . l\ 1/ " '..:. '. '., ; "'>:'::'~'" ""....' . .1;':':"iiF:::"
.:<': "l{,Co-t.. ~ . (tc. . .' .:,. . '. ,:: ~..'. ''':,~.St ;if~.
o ....< I . ' "', " , , . " -711\>. ~ .
~,~ 1; ~ ~ /D@riotes \0 roo\.. .nroinage.:.~n~ utU\\'l '. ~...: ,);~~~~i
..... ~') ~ !- ~ \) __r:J/ ,Eclsementbeln9:,Sf'fet,:()n.;!bot~'~\des (;:\;L~;}~'.
(" ......... ..... 1-..' l:l .~ / ' r\O\' \' e.... ,'J,." " '.,..r-,." ., .' ":~""'l" :",
'0' i.. /:. ~ ..... .... .... /: G ~ . 10 ~ f ~ ~ 0:. It,. :.,.<..:<:;~::-::t:. .....:...::;:~jt1~r:i/
"i':'o IV I.) ,.. .... - ~ u " , \ .. ~ :... ~ I . .' ' .. . ,,',: "'f'~~{~';';f
..... ..... ~:~'~i:i'''~ ,:~i .~J) "'?Os ..~ ~ ~ / _,.::..'::t{;viiY\<:,,'
(}r\e~ o~\ne b\oe\<s ........~~. \. ~ td I ~:
~d a",d QP~rO'ied.. '\ L.Y.:'\ \I ~; ~ t~ ': ~}
,cer\o\n \na\ ~ne. I \ 1 ~ to.: 1 '3
\ 1.' , : I t'..' I 0
?J,Ol' .' ~.'. R=J28.7~ Az/tJ?Ol 1'8./1 ~I..~- \ ~
~ A: 19.0o"Otr -... ~ 0:. \
, ~~ ... '+ \
(' .... .c.:... ~ . ... :'I :- ""
- I ~'r \ n. :\ % to \
. I . ...... \ ~j tx. \
N/9"(JO'tJtJIOE__ :v N ?l~Q ?'O'ts"w ..... , \
I 38.25 ~. _ /
~ ,.--------123.15______.._0.;. \
~ I -,,-- IIZ.or -, r -/11./5 ~ \
,0 2/.L'r;; l.ott j~." ~ ~_ I ~~ ~ \
n:: :~/",/~():~CJo~'rr:.- ~i: \3 J ~ o~% \\
Q;)" 'llo '4 6 ~-
I .. iii. N.~'
"'toy '" - \n \
1 .... \
INlrd()::-' :,'~: \
J 1-1./ --1 , . " \
.../ /laoo, " ..
'-";' - _"'R72~'9,A:, 1.80 IV 88- O.f.'a'O"u~ P", i'?'I2.,~~ A: -2;.7....Z-.;..;..-
- 41'88 'd"''()() ,"'. .,.. ''1. . (J.;)
Ts 20 '.dJ 1.. v E. F( - 251. 55- , i":, O.L\ 0 Ao/I!-75'tJOIO
Soufh line> of -n-acf A Ii'. l S N! SIZ T: 20
,"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..!-. -.,; .....:.-.,
I \
I I
I R. L. S. NQ 'Or2. I
I I
I I
1
\J 1\ \ \~ I., 1\ I~ \,\_1\\
, ~,.... ,-. \...: ~\" '-' ...., "
. Norfh Ii~ of LoIs lond 2, - 762 -1-9-
Block 1. Woodlown Pork Second Addifion E _' .
() ()()
. N'
- ......
~ ()
-4
c;..
()
~
~
~
~
N
-11111.00
::t.
vex:
t:> "":
o o.
o _J
cfJ _.
~.
::;.-
3 ~
_J
C.)
o
C)
~
Cl
-,
~.
/- e>
_of lJ
WI
(I'
'O'-Of)
:Yo ::..:
c.J c.:v.: f
o.a:
0 _J f,.'\. U
L"J 0
~ -,
...
-~
....: ....
<:l 4 ~,
l't _I
c..")
c)
_J 0
-.
~j
l.,) :;~
c." 4
I
I
I
I
I
TERRACt
H UN\ \: ~,
_'"
1011.00 /()(1.Ob
~ \
Q
!::
Cl
1 t:)
(;) .q (;)
~ !::
~
~'1. ~
<:(
("-..J
Lr)
,
,-
Cl
;;~
<or" 0
lJ
LJJ
tt"
t
',.;':. "
:.
)
J
)
I .
~~
~~
~~~
C) "("~
~ I "
Q)
01
~
01
-~
~-
'..'
) / \ J
. '/'y{, \' .
. . '0"" of ' '~(l, Lofs ,I- aa..cI 2.
56 ,8-1;1 .,,! OT .-"'Ii, -....
,/ t", ~l, \ \iflt"'iiotJoIQwn
... \), 2\i... /\. _A' ,(ddillO". '
...~':" ~ c'i-. f1" \
," .:5 (J ...,/ ~\O st,(,o Pari 01 It" I, \
'.;-. ,/ . 9Of'f.. 81,1(,/( I, W,1(1d/Jwn\
,/ ,/ Park S ~('ontl \
,/ A.ddillon
,
,-
",
. ..~~
. :~1rf" ,
It,~ .c.
o > ~. ,',
_I
Mot1H!,
,';:! J <~):/~
:1: 1
-~
~.
CJ .....
-' u.
1- ()
!-.
C-') -,
01'
c."J .--
<.( 8
. ~
l~~ ~
N :J~
C; f'I')
... zl
<:
V; tJ .
....."",.~,
- . \
I
I
I
I
I
~~
-....
....
"..
5
~')
o
o
~
...~
/---- -----
f
I
I
I
1
r'IJeyor
. \1\ \\Q~e
h daf.
/'
"
~
';..\i
,.",-..', (. .0.\:-:: ~ .:
.
~.......
........
I.. .
.."...
~..i...:
(....)
.....'
Z
.
I..;.,,:
;......
~I...i
2:
- -
!..;....:
~...
,...;;...
..~~:r:
........
I.. .
:::....:
.'11')
\.....
.
~.. to
......)
,,'r..
".j ..i.
-
PLAN:
RON SCHMIDT
Property located in Section
7, Township 29, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
'<t
'-.
I HOUSE I
85/..98 h54'S6
i'N
illO
il~
~
I
I.
~
n
"
n
Ii
~ .' f8,:;5:)
~. ')HRUlJ
;~l . ..!_~.
-'. !
OJ
I .
ir')
I 'r')
I .
P
o
l~
I
I
~
\l11
<r
1//.---..../
(12" T~~E}
I \",_.. /
5' DRAINAGE 8 UTILITY
EASEMENT "-
\'
\
\ ,
I \
I
: I
\.
'j
(f}
\
'85..
150.6
..,...
- CJl
U'
.,.
')C.. ;...
~.'.5~1l '~,;,
LS3 8 _ --........
SHED ~
....../ L1" , H, ,4 ...
. ~5T' 'OH 'RU
I \ \ ",
\ \
I .
. 24" ,PEF i
;
/
( \ .-'~
\ . '<;HRUB.-J.- ~ -.
...- \ / !
""f-- I VPlNE \
,.1
q () I':'
I
\
\
".
~ I
(l
;: \
~ i~ \
m--....J;: -t ;
00'" --. ..-- \"
~ ~_,_ \ ','~;n ~>
~ ~ ..-\35'.. r/' \
., ,'" ,'_' +-_ . ~ I
~ ,. : 00 ~.~. _. I
.. . .' 0 : '. 0 J I
_ _ _ 0 0 0 0 ... 12"
oW ~' J i '!; LFl . ~y' i, "
O~ .7 \ ". - I ,..~",:
, ' 0' ,,'..'
" ~' ' ' .,' ,:""..
, ' m , - ..- ,'.
\ : I
, ' '\..... I ' -'
I I -1'-: .-::: I
Ol~
I ,()1 \
, J.' ' 1'.0 ,
T' ~~-' ,~
: I """ . . .~. J':
\ ','T' .<,'
\ I I ",;: .~. ,,-":---
L \/ ~
1 OO!~- _._~~
(ll
5'
/
/
LO,T
(..l
PROPOSED FF"E
1 852.7 \
=FDTN GRADE
....
..:>:::..>
.1......)
..;;::.
.... "':.
.';.~;.).
:.... .
I......,.
\
'""r"--..---
''.~''I't
'.
~
If)
\ I'.
\ \
I k.
( \ _1 re,cft- -
I
I
I
GAo.
OJ
".
o
Tj1hh
....
:~"'"
l?~ ~.
:.~.~;/.
{ I..
:,-'...i
l:.~. .,
.,).. .~:
/..,.. .r
'.
1 ~/7:71
/
15", /W
~ /
\~i
")
Q?
/
I
I
/
~
'P
~
If)
OJ
5'
Jf""
I
I
I
I
I
I
J;
ctl
I
-B~~
I
~
~.
,)':>
V.
<. :'....
'.
."Q. "" ..' ':.'
~ "'.....
I.~.,........ .
/l.~ .
0""'.,.
,.... .
. \
,.........)
.~
""";1
,
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 2, 1998
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment
for Property at 2320-22 Douglas Drive -- Sharon and Gerald Lund,
Applicants
Sharon and Gerald Lund are requesting that the zoning designation on their
property at 2320-22 Douglas Drive be changed from Residential (single-family)
to R-2 (two-family) zoning. The purpose of the zoning map amendment is to
make their property conforming to.the Zoning Code.
The building at 2320-22 Douglas was built in 1958 as a two-family dwelling. At
that time, two-family dwellings were permitted uses in the residential zoning
district if the lot was at least 18,000 sq.ft. in area. This property is approximately
27,000 sq.ft. in area (150 ft. by 180 ft.). In 1981, the Zoning Code was changed
to allow two-family homes only in the R-2 zoning district. The existing double
family home properties were left with the Residential zoning which no longer
permitted two-family homes as a permitted use. These double home parcels
are now considered non-conforming uses. All new double homes must have the
R-2 zoning designation.
As stated above, this structure was built in 1958 as a double home. Building
Department records indicate this fact. The building has been used as a double
home since it was built in 1958. One of the attached photos show the interior
entrances into each unit. The outside reveals only one main entrance.
The current zoning code requires that lots in the R-2 district be at least 12,500
sq. ft. in area with at least 100 feet of frontage on the street. This lot exceeds
both of these requirements. The existing garage structure on the lot does not
meet the current required setbacks. The detached garage must be built at least
35 feet from a street right-of-way. The existing garage (which was built around
1960) is located 33.4 feet from the Wynnwood Road. When the building permit
was taken out for the garage, the permit stated that the garage was to be 35
feet from Wynnwood. An error in locating the garage was made. In addition,
the existing garage and storage shed are located to the'side of the house rather
than to the rear. When the garage for the double home was built, the City may
have considered the area east of the house as the rear yard. The City now
.
interprets the rear yard to be the area behind the house on the narrow side.
Therefore, the front of the lot is Wynnwood Road and the rear yard is south of
the house.
The City cannot change the zoning map for a site where the buildings are not
located in conformance with the zoning code. Therefore, the Lunds must
appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to address the existing
bUilding setback nonconformities. The Lunds are scheduled to appear before
the BZA in late June to request these variances for the garage and shed. When
the City Council hears the request for the zoning map amendment, there will be
a recommendation on the amendment from the Planning Commission, and a
decision on the variances by the BZA. The City Council will make their decision
on the zoning map amendment taking into consideration the recommendation of
the Planning Commission and the decision of the BZA. If the BZA does not
approve the variance requests, the City Council may overturn that decision.
There are several other two-family homes located along Douglas Drive, south of
Medicine Lake Road (see attached map). These two-family homes are also
located on property zoned Residential. Therefore, these homes are also
considered nonconforming.
The zoning code gives little direction for considering amendments to the zoning
map. In this case, the proposed lot to be rezoned meets the requirements of
the zoning code (assuming approval of the variances by the BZA). The use of
the lot as a two-family dwelling is consistent with the comprehensive plan map
which designates the area for low density residential uses. The total size of the
lot is about 27,000 sq.ft. This property is more than large enough to support two
single family lots at 10,000 sq.ft. per lot. The existing two family home is
located about 80 feet from the lot to the east and about 90 feet from the lot to
the south. The two-family home is about 95 feet from the lot to the north on
Wynnwood Road.
Staff has reviewed the file and there have been no complaints about the two-
family home over the past 40 years.
The rezoning and necessary variances would allow this two-family home to be
improved by increasing the size of the building. As indicated on the survey, the
lot is quite large which may allow for expansion of the building to the east and
south. The owners have not indicated a desire to add to the structure. My
understanding is that they are requesting the rezoning in order to allow for the
property to be refinanced. The bank states that the property is nonconformng
and that they will not refinance such a property (see attached bank form).
.
.
RECOMMENDED ACITON
Staff is recommending that Lot 8, Block 1, Westmore Heights be rezoned from
Single-Family Residential to R-2 in order to allow for the existing two-family
home on the lot to be considered conforming. The recommendation is
contingent on the necessary variances for garage and shed setbacks being
granted by either the BZA or City Council.
The existing two-family home has been located at this site for about 40 years.
The lot is double the size required for two-family structures in the R-2 district.
2
.
The lot is located on a busy street (Douglas Drive) and acts as a buffer to the
single-family homes to the east. The City should make an effort to preserve and
enhance the few existing two-family homes when they are located on lots that
are adequate in size and in locations that make
Attachments:
Location Map
Narrative by Applicant dated May 5, 1998
Bank of America Letter dated April 10, 1998
Colored Photos of Interior and Exterior of Duplex
Map showing location of duplexes in along or in the
vicinity of Douglas Drive
Survey
.
..
3
..
DisI.NtJ.' t81
.1;'
" ";'
OeURG
RD. .
.
7
6 .
z'
~~J
r:
.
Z'...TS
.
2"..1I7S
i4 .. "'.7S
.
..
Qi
~ . ...
"i ~
.. '''''.11
"if. ...
~ ...
... ~ ..
c,. ~
13. QI ..
~
~ "
~'" . ...~ ...
.. "..
..... ...
/p," ~
Z,.S . ...
~~
Zf.S "c-.
zoo
...
..
...'"
--e-- ~
~c,.
...
~
I......
J:'^
.. ..;
i~
I
I
,
G
~,~
~O.
300
"'
.
...
.
...
'0
..~
~
.or
,
.
.
.
"1
Sharon and Gerald Lund
2320 Douglas Drive
Golden Valley, MN 55422
5/5/98
Golden Valley Planning Department
City Hall
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427-4588
RE: PETITION FOR ORDINANCE WAIVER for REZONING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTAIL TO TWO FAMILY
TO: Whom it may concern
When we purchased this Duplex, we were not told of the
Grandfather Clause pertaining to the Zoning.
To Re-Finance the property, it has to be Legal and Confirming
which due to the Grandfather Useage, it is not. (See Attached)
Therefore, we would like to see the
it a legal conforming Duplex. This
advantage of lower interest rates .
of the property, insurance, Etc.
property re-zoned to make
would enable us to take
Not to mention future sale
Any help you could give us regarding the above would be greatlty
appreciated.
Sincerely,
~/~
Sharon Lund
.
.
.
m
Bank of America
APR I L 10, 1998
Loan Number: 0063956977
GERALD LUND
2320 DOUGLAS DRIVE NO
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422
Re: Request for real estate loan
Dear GERALD LUND
Thank you for your recent application for credit. We regret to inform you that BANK OF AMER I CA,
FSB cannot grant your request for credit at this time. The reason(s} for our decision are as
follows:
M PROPERTY UNACCEPTABLE COLLATERAL: PROPERTY IS LEGAL-NONCONFORMING AN CAN NOT BE REBUILT TO CURRENT STRUCTURE.
We sincerely appreciate your interest in our loan program and we are sorry you do not qualify
at this time. Once you have resolved the issue(s} with your application for credit,
we encourage you to re-apply .
Please take a moment to review the information on the second page of this letter. This information is
provided "to better inform you of your rights as a consumer. Should you have any questions or can
provide any additional information that might assist us in re-evaluating your request please contact
US.
Sincerely,
JOE MRAZ
PROCESSOR
(800) 642-2244
'fi<< - BA 121 197071
TM
Pa,. 1 01 2
ELECTRONIC LASER FORMS, INC. . (800)327-0545
P121 04/10/98 8:02 AM 0063956977
It'
f/
~
.po...~~ ~f\.
'-'
~
'"
(l-
+o-J~ pt".
....,
.
"f~'" ~
~oi,,~;
1.
;..Jy.,.y\....,co ~
1
.
'"
~
~~
---..
F--
f~~;'.
i
!~
...t1
~
2J '" '"
Q :"
" . '4
, ~;~
, '
'.. ,. ,
',\ .
" ,
DWD
,tj
2.4.OQ ~
I '
.
I
- ~.1 ,
.l . f '"
. I ," :\, Z21D
},~ J;: ,~f '; J./50
ifFF =1\ ': ! .:, ~,;~ I,
1/ Mil ~ '" ,,~;'
~ Oo-'t;t ~ '~,.l HONEyWELL' {(
JI !" ' , :&"', , ,
J] , tilt , Oti"
'" I . )~ ,..
:> of:< ;f.. ;'^
~I II '.:'. 0+
fll 'f~ .
'" ' Ii
~ : bOOO
" .
.; .i
~~.
I
I
D
7'1/
11/0
C
Dmotto
-
1
p~ Ai R\'K.
II, \~,,~~~ll
Color Code
D Pink - Duplex
o Neon Yellow - 1-1 Institutional
0- Yellow - 1-4 Institutional
D Green - M-1 Multi-Family
I Purple - Business &
Professional Office
. Red - Commercial
D Blue - Industrial
MJN~
HIGHWAY
DEFT.
~
.fa
5660
1-
~IO'
l
[
2!
,J
I
21
u.;
(~
.
.
GUS. (612! 544-1blSt
Certificate of Survey
SUHVEYING (; LAN[! PLANNING
WYNAlWOOfJ
,cor:
JEROME PAULSON
~ t7'f' ~d
;Z3p.o ~!?- j)fL.
~A ~ //U1 s-s-~-< ;2-
/'9?-c:l/ '7.5
RO/JD
-
1.11:, NORTH LILAC DRIVE. GOLDEN VALLEY. t\1N ~,~4L)
~
~
- ISO. 00 -
--,
I
I
I ,
I ~
~ "-
~
r
I
I ~ I
J _..>._~-'
\ ~
Q
I
33
0\
l\.
"l
1 V
~ I'
~ Ij.~.
'" "'I ")
~ ~
q II
~ :/
,:. - - - <166 -. - -
, ,/ e"8' c?
';?.~3/"1
.' 'l, ~
.... - ~-'')
~..-~. ""\
'Ii. ,t ~ /~
- / ./
. <"03
I
.,,' ~
..
...,
~
q)
It) ~
-r"'\ -", .... .:. / ~ /
~ ..../),;; ~
~ ").~~
~ ___ ~ Cl..~
/ ~ .J /
~ "/ 11)1)
~ '.... ~ .
1:.. . ~
~ -
&
.-- -- .~-
I
~
.~
'':'
~
I
~
~.
~
>- -.- --'66
--J-~:; ',.""
,,~8 ,c'
~I
,0-
N
c<)
. I
I I
- - - -- 5~ .. . . . - . b .
---'-.---- -- 3 1';. !
~S; I
CC ;1:'0 I
OY) -
N
/1 I
Scale: / =-30
33
--/5000 . .
NOTES ..
. . DC'l7ofes Iron Ibvnd
o Denofe5 Iran sef
DE5CRIPTION .-
Lof 8, h/oclf /, WE5TMORE HEIGHTSJ
flenn~p/n Counfy J M/nnesofo.
ViE HlPLP{ UiTlFY rH/..l ft.". .:-~ A 'hue AND dH,U r HLPP[~,f ';7A,110t'-J ur II SURVLl nr Jil[
nOU~DAHll.'c> '" lNf- ';\1'.[1 .\th.\':f !"f(:;(~RIBl.[l :.',;. eye -'.[ lOC.AT,. I-.J CF t_U. HUILDINC.; jI ;\t'i'l
TH!'IiLON AN:' .\lL VI>:~~l f l ~" 1;,..;( "'.'F~41S " :'" i 1'\".1'lr~ ON C;'\I[' I..M4D
[).!l,'d 'h,~. .2"d d;lY
Jvly
.. 0 ~ 986
/ /'
'.y ~~{ /J .f/~
Sur v('y(,r M Ifln,'~, ',1, I. '~q".: ~ j1" 'I I't
~H
239. 01
/9 Pan..'
cO //,9 H
4-
21
t1 ~lll"
<'I'
/J,?9J
.
OASIS MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM
ANNUAL REPORT
APRIL29, 1998
I. Summary of Siqnificant Trends, Developments, pOlicies
Durinq Previous Year.
.
During the past year the mental health delivery system in
Minnesota began going through some significant changes. The
Regional Treatment Centers began significantly downsizing
resulting in many mentally ill adults being referred
directly to community placement. State employees downsized
at the State institutions are being relocated into community
settings with the result that private providers are now in
competition with State provided services. Along with this
development~ several Minnesota counties, including Hennepin,
have begun planning for a complete conversion to a managed
care model for provision of mental health services.
Hennepin County projects moving to a managed care system
within two to three year. It is unclear at this time what
this might mean for privately operated mental health
programs such as Oasis Program.
II. Proqram Services.
.
A. Individual Case Manaqement. Overall case management for
program clients is the responsibility of the Hennepin County
Case Manager. Additionally, each client is assigned an
Oasis Program primary counselor who coordinates treatment
and discharge planning.
B. General Group Therapy. This group meets four mornings a
week and is facilitated by two mental health counselors.
The group employs a psycho-educational approach and assists
clients in better understanding their mental illness. In
addition, clients have an opportunity to practice
inter-personal skills in a small group setting.
C. Chemical/physical Health Group. Meets once a week for
one hour. This group provides information on chemical
abuse/use issues as well as physical health concerns such as
smoking, AIDS, exercise, etc. The group is facilitated by a
mental health counselor and the LPN.
D. Mental Health Education Group. Meets once a week for
one hour to provide information on mental illnesses and
common treatment approaches.
E. Men's and Women's Groups. Meets once a week for one
hour and emphasizes topics best suited for same-sex
discussion. Social and recreation activities are also
conducted during this group.
F. Eveninq Goal GrouD. This group meets for one-half hour
five evenings a week, and allows clients an opportunity to
discuss specific goals they have worked on during the day. A
"resident of the week" is also selected at this time.
G. General House Meetinq. Meets Monday evenings for
one-half hour. Purpose is to make general program
announcements, introduce new clients into the program, and
to conduct the resident council.
H. Independent Living Skills Classes. Classes offered
include: nutrition and cooking; budgeting skills; exercise
and health; conversation/social skills; and leisure time
planning. These classes are offered on a rotating basis and
are designed to help clients learn how to live more
successfully on their own.
I. Social/Recreation Activities. Program staff conduct
organized recreational activities five evenings a week as
well as Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Clients meet at the
beginning of the month to plan a monthly recreation
calendar. Typical activities include bowling, picnics,
swimming, movies, sporting events, and concerts. Clients
also make use of activities sponsored by Hennepin County
Community Support Programs.
J. Vocational Involvement and Planninq. The Oasis Program
is designed to get clients involved in vocational planning
shortly after admission, if the client desires. Typical
vocational programming includes: part-time competitive
employment; State Department of Rehabilitation Services;
Hennepin County Vocational Services Program, and various
volunteer opportunities.
K. Aftercare Services and Planninq. Oasis Program shares
two full-time Transitional Services Counselors with Bill
Kelly House. These counselors assist clients in moving to
independent living situations and follow clients for
counseling and assistance when living on their own.
.
.
III. oasis Proqram Staffinq. Current staffing levels and
their FTE's are as follows: Administrator, .10; Program
Director, 1.0; Mental Health Therapist, 1.0; Mental Health
Counselors, 2.0; Nurse, 1.0; Mental Health Worker,
full-time, 6.0; Mental Health Worker, part-time, 2.9;
Maintenance, _5; Secretary/bookkeeper, 1.0; Transitiotial
Services Counselor, 2.0. Turnover during the pa~t year was
significantly higher than in previous years and new hires
increasingly difficult to find due to low unemployment rate
in the area. All staff did receive a 5% salary increase in
October, 1997.
IV. Staff Traininq and Deve1ooment. Oasis program staff
are required to have at least fifteen hours of inservice
training each year. Much of this training is provided
through the Minnesota Association of Residential Mental
Health Programs, of which Oasis Program is a member.
Training is provided through in-person conferences and
workshops as well as a series of video tapes. Some of the
.
.
.
.
.
topics include: Crisis intervention; stress management;
medications; first-aid; cultural sensitivity training,
vulnerable adults laws and procedures. Additional staff
training is provided for one hour bi-weekly by a Licensed
Psychologist who meets with treatment staff to discuss
individual client treatment issues.
V. Administrative POlicy and Procedure Changes. There were
no significant changes in this area during the previous
year.
VI. Program Licensing. The Oasis Program is licensed by
the Minnesota Department of Human Services as a Category I
Rule 36 treatment program. The License for 1998-1999 will
be granted on July 1, 1998. The program is also licensed as
a Supervised Living Facility by the State Department of
Health. Current licensing was granted January 1, 1998. The
program is additionally supervised by Hennepin County Mental
Health Division.
VII. C1ients Served. The program served a total of 32
clients during 1997. There were 16 admissions and 16
disCharges. Average length of stay was 240 days, with an
overall occupancy rate of 97%.
VIII. Resident Community Invo1vement. During 1997 Oasis
Program residents were actively involved in a number of
community activities, including regular participation in the
Crystal Community Support Program and the Oasis Advisory
Board.
IX. Community Involvement Into Program. The Oasis Program
Advisory Board met a total of three times during 1997. The
Advisory Board consists of a cross section of community
representatives as well as a program client. Oasis Program
administrators present progress reports at the meetings and
solicit feedback and advice from Board members.
X. Eva1uation of program Services. Currently a wide range
of data is reported to the County which provides the program
with quarterly summaries. Oasis Program staff continually
review the data to assure that outcome measures are
satisfactory and the correct target population is being
served.
XI. Comp1aints Received and Problem Areas. It is the
continuing policy of the Oasis Program's administrator and
Program Director to be open and accessible to neighborhood
and community complaints and concerns. Feedback in this
regard is SOlicited from Advisory Board members and other
community sources.
XII. Conc1usions. In its thirteenth year of operation,
Oasis Program had an occupancy rate of 97%. Challenges
.
included recruiting and hiring qualified staff and
competition from State operated community services.
.
.
.