The URL can be used to link to this page

05-12-97 PC Agenda . . . AGENDA GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Chambers May 12, 1997 7pm I. Appr~val" of Minutes. April 28, 1997 II. Informal Public Hearing -- Conditional Use Permit Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota - Purpose: To allow for the use of a detention facility in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District -.-,. SHORT RECESS - -III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Boar.d of Zoning Appeals IV. Other Business V. Adjournment 1----- . (1 ------~---- -1 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. -: I I I Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28, 1997 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm. Those present were Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner, McAleese, Pentel and Prazak; absent was Lewis. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Beth Knoblauch, City Planner. I. Approval of Minutes - April 14, 1997 Moved by McAleese, seconded by Groger and carried unanimously to approve the April 14, 1997 minutes as submitted. II. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for Valley Creek P.U.D. No. 71 Applicant: Valley Creek Development, L.L.C. Address: 8300, 8400, 8500 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Review an amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan for Valley Creek P.U.D. No. 71. The approval ofthis P.U.D. would allow for the construction of three office buildings, totaling approximately 128,000 sq.ft. on 8.5 acres Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his staff report. He told the commission that this site had been reviewed last year for a similar office use which had not gone forward. Grimes said that there is a new developer for the site who is proposing three buildings; two buildings would be approximately 40,000 sq.ft. and a third building would have 48,000 sq.ft. All three buildings would be three stories in height and have underground parking. He said that the plan is to do a phase development. The first phase would house the North Memorial clinic. The next two buildings would then be built out. Grimes commented that the development will require that a pond be built on the west end of the site as per the new requirements of the Basset Creek Water Management Organization. He said that parking will exceed requirements of the zoning code. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28, 1997 Page Two Grimes said that he had done an analysis of changes from the old proposal to the one before the Planning Commission. One change is an increase in the amount of land for the proposal. The increase is due to a piece of property along Highway 55 which has now been acquired by the HRA, and will be sold to the developer. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal noting that this project is a good use of the site and that there will be good access onto Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road. He also said that there would be sidewalks along Golden Valley Road and on Wisconsin Avenue to some point, to be determined. Commissioner Johnson asked if the previous developer had trouble with financing or finding tenants for the building. Grimes commented that they were having difficulty putting together a tenant package. Grimes also said that the present developer feels confident that he will be able to lease or sell the buildings. Commissioner Kapsner asked if there was a timeframe for build-out of the buildings. Grimes reminded the Commission that all three buildings will be on one lot. The developer plans to construct the first building and then move on to the next. The developer is trying to get a timeframe together that would have all the buildings constructed in the next year or two, but suggested the question be addressed to the developer, who was present. Commission Johnson asked if this building would be similar to the Health West building located at 1-494 and Hwy. 55. Grimes said the developer is only looking at locating one clinic in this campus. The City may be concerned if more clinics were being proposed because of parking demand. Grimes said that the developer is looking at occupying about 10% of the building with accessory type uses for employees, i.e. snack bar to serve the people who work there. Commissioner Groger asked if there was any above ground connection between the buildings. Grimes answered no. Groger then said that it sounds as though there may be an underground connection between the buildings. Grimes said that the developer has talked about having one large parking area under the building, but this may end up costing too much and be dropped. Groger asked if the east building is built first, and then the economy goes sour, how much is the developer committed to the development and would they need to come back with any change to the buildings. Grimes commented that the proposal is one development plan and they want to build-out the entire site. If they would choose to build something different on the other two pads, they would have to amend the PUD. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28, 1997 Page Three Commissioner Prazak commented that the building size has increased from the previous proposal and that there are more parking stalls. He asked staff if there was less greenspace available due to these increases. Grimes agreed with Prazak's statement that the building size has increased and so has parking. He said that the developer would be maintaining the required 35 foot setback along Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. City Planner Knoblauch told the commission that there was more underground parking on this site plan and the HRA did pick up additional land along Hwy. 55. Grimes said that the setback areas would be maintained and the developer will try to maintain as many trees along Hwy. 55 as possible. He also noted that berming would be present along Golden Valley Road across from the Mallard Creek Apartments. Commissioner Prazak asked how big the proposed pond would be on this site. Grimes said that the analysis for the size of the pond is still being studied and would be part of the General Plan of Development. Prazak asked if Bassett Creek runs adjacent to the property. Grimes said yes. Chair Pentel asked if the ponding would need to be constructed at the time that the first building is constructed and would the pond be for the runoff of three buildings instead of the one. Grimes said that all site improvements would be done upfront and the pond would handle runoff from the entire site. Michael Monn, Architectfor Amcon, introduced himself and was open to any questions. Chair Pentel asked if there was a timetable for when the other two buildings would be built. Monn said that preliminary plans would be to start the first building in June and then build six months out for the second building and then another six months out for the third building. Monn said that all the site work will need to be done right away, other than parking. Pentel asked if the berming and improvements along the streets would be completed upfront. Monn said yes, the landscaping would be completed along Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. Pentel asked how the remainder of the land, which included the two building pads would be maintained. Monn said that maintenance of the remaining site has not been discussed. The intention is to prepare the pads upfront and probably seed the remainder of the site while the first building is under construction. Pentel asked if all the buildings would have underground parking. Monn said yes, each building would have its own parking area, that one large lot under all three buildings would not be financially feasible. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28, 1997 Page Four Commissioner Prazak asked Mr. Monn to characterize the profile of the building. Mr. Monn talked about the outside look and construction of the building. He said that the intent is to use as much of the grade as possible along the Hwy. 55 side (south). Commissioner Groger asked if there has been any thought about directing the parking lot light away from the Mallard Creek Apartments. Monn said absolutely, the lighting will be thrown down and inward. Chair Pentel asked if North Memorial would be a 24-hour operation. Monn said no, that it would function more like a neighborhood clinic and may have some evening hours. Pentel asked if the lot would be lit all night. Monn said that he believed that it would not, that there might be some kind of night lighting. Commissioner Kapsner asked what size market the developer was going after. Monn said they would market to whatever size market is interested; the buildings were intended to be multi-tenant. Planner Knoblauch asked if Monn could comment on any other perspective tenants. Monn said there were no solid agreements that he could speak to. Chair Pentel asked how solid waste would be handled. Monn said it would all be held inside the garage until taken away. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing. Nancy Miller, Representative for United Properties who owns Mallard Creek Apartments - 3500 W. 80th Street, Bloomington, commented that her question to the lighting in parking lot was answered. She asked staff to address the height of the berm and to expound on the landscaping planned along Golden Valley Road. Grimes commented that the preliminary design plan shows that there will be berming along Golden Valley Road and Wisconsin Avenue. Staff would like to see the berm high enough to block car lights which would be approximately 3 feet. The berm may also have landscaping on it. Grimes reviewed the landscape plan. Ms. Miller stated that they may want to see a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees along Golden Valley Road. Grimes mentioned that the developer may want to look at placing additional landscaping on the Mallard Creek property. Ms. Miller asked if a traffic signal is planned for Golden Valley Road. Grimes commented that City staff review of the Wisconsin Avenue and Golden Valley Road intersection, did not warrant for the need of a traffic signal. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28,1997 Page Five Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Commissioner Prazak said that he was pleased overall with the development and the additional underground parking, which makes sense in this climate. He believes that the building should fit into the character of the area. Commissioner Johnson is pleased with the design of the building and the parking area which faces Golden Valley Road. Commissioner Groger agreed with Johnson's comments and believes that this design is an improvement over the previous proposal. Chair Pentel commented that she also likes the design of the development and was glad to see the addition of berms on Golden Valley Road and thanked Ms. Miller for attending as an interested property owner from across the street. Pentel thought the ponding, as seen on the site plan, looks a bit sterile at this point and is hoping to see water-emergent plants and other plantings to help filter runoff prior to running into the pond. She also hopes to see some low growing plants to replace the number of trees that will need to be removed in this area. Chair Pentel asked staff about signage. Grimes commented that the developer will need to meet the sign code requirements of the City. He believes there will be a monument sign and directional signs to get in and out of the development. Commissioner McAleese agreed with previous comments made and was glad to see that the entire site is being developed instead of having multiple concepts. McAleese asked staff if the supporting uses, being purely incidental, should be added in the recommendation as a condition. Grimes said it should be stated in a way that the supporting uses are an incidental use for those tenants within the office park. Prazak asked if a time limit should be placed on the supporting uses that correspondence with the hours of the businesses in the buildings. Grimes said that it has always been the City's intent to encourage uses that would provide support to the Valley Square area. McAleese also suggested that the plan that goes to the City Council show the curb cuts on the Mallard Creek property. Grimes agreed. MOVED by Prazak, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the amended preliminary design plan for Valley Creek P.U.D. No. 71 with the condition that the accessory uses be Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 28, 1997 Page Six limited in its hours of operation and to provide support for those businesses within the Valley Square area. III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing ~nd Redevelopment Authority, City Council and Board of Zoning Appeals No reports were given. IV. Other Business A. Presentation by Fred Salsbury, Director of Public Works on the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area Fred Salsbury gave a brief summary of the traffic study report concerning the Golden Hills Redevelopment Area B. Reschedule Planning Commission Meeting on May 26 The Planning Commission members could not come up with an alternative date for the week of May 26 that would work with the majority of the commission. V. Adjournment Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8: 12pm. Emilie Johnson, Secretary . . . .I MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 7,1997 Planning Commission Mark W. Grimes Director of Planning and Development Informal Public Hearing -- Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a Boy's Juvenile Detention Center at 7155 Madison Avenue West -- Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant Hennepin County Property Services has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the construction of a 16-bed boy's juvenile detention facility. The facility would be operated by the Hennepin County Dept.of Community Corrections. The property where the facility is to be located is pending rezoning from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). (The City Council will be considering the rezoning and comprehensive plan map amendment for this site on May 20, 1997.) If the property is zoned Institutional (1-3), a juvenile detentional facility would be considered a conditional use in that district. It is the opinion of both the City staff and City Attorney that the proposed juvenile detention facility fits under the definition of a residential facility. Attached is a copy of the definition of a residential facility. At the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission considered a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Industrial to Semi-Public; and rezoning of this property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for both of these requests (see attached minutes). These items will be considered at a public hearing by the City Council at its May 20, 1997 meeting. Prior to the CUP going to the City Council for approval, the County must appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on May 27, 1997 because the proposed detention facility does not meet all setback requirements for building and parking. The Zoning Code requires that the side and rear setback be 50 feet for building and 25 feet for parking or driveway. In other words, a 25 foot landscaped strip must be maintained around the rear and side lot lines. The front yard setback is 35 feet when abutting streets. It is anticipated that the public hearing on the CUP will be held on June 3, 1997, after the decision of the BZA is made. If the BZA does not agree to the variance(s}, the County could then appeal the decision to the City Council at its June, 3, 1997 meeting. . '- As discussed at the Comprehensive Plan Map and Rezoning hearing on April 14, 1997, the Department of Community Corrections has a need to add beds to house juvenile offenders. They have provided information to the Planning Commission in writing and orally regarding this need. I am attaching copies of the written information that they have submitted indicating the need for this facility. The County has also told the Commission and staff that they prefer to build a new building on this site rather than remodel the existing group home. This appears to be the preferred alternative because it will provide a better building for the purposes of housing juvenile offenders and it will also be more acceptable to the industrial neighbors. The County staff has met with the neighbors in the area and they all seem to be in agreement that if a juvenile detention facility is going onto this site, a new building, with state-of-the-art technology and a well designed is in everyone's best interest. The County has submitted the following reports: · Staff use and support · Statement of need · Statutory Requirement · Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions · Site Plan · Survey of property This submitted information is self explanatory with the exception of the Covenants. The Covenants would be placed on the property stating that they have told the City that the site would only be used for a 16-bed, temporary holding facility for juveniles. They will include a site plan with these covenants. These covenants will be reviewed by the City Attorney. The staff would like the Covenants changed to indicate that the detention facility use is a CUP and not a nonconforming use as indicated in the "Recitals". The Covenants is an added assurance by the County that the property will only be used for a small, juvenile facility unless the Covenant agreement is changed. As required by the City Code, the Commission must make findings and recommendations to the Council based on ten factors. They are as follows with staff comments: 1. Demonstrated need for the proposed use: The County has indicated in their materials that there is a shortage of juvenile detention space in the County. Many of the juveniles that take up bed space in the Correction System are from the suburbs. 2. Consistency of Comprehensive Plan of the City: The property where the facility is proposed is recommended to be designated on the Plan Map for Semi-Public uses. This City Council will consider this change at its May 20, 1997 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended this change at their April 14, 1997 meeting. . . . 2 . 3. Effect upon property values in the neighborhood: The staff does not believe that this proposal will have a negative effect on property values because the site has been used in the past as an unsecured residential facility . 4. Effect on anticipated traffic generation upon the current traffic flow and congestion in the area: The proposed use will have a minimal traffic impact. It is estimated that the use will generate fewer than 50 trips per day. This would be fewer trips than would be generated from a small industrial or office user on the same sized site. 5. Effect of any increases in population or density upon surrounding land uses: The number of persons living at the detention facility will be the same as the number living in the previous group home. Since the juveniles cannot leave the facility and will be on-site at all times, the effect will be minimal. 6. Increase in noise levels to be caused by the proposed use: There may be some additional noise due to the fenced, outside play area. The County has stated that if the juveniles become too noisy, they will be told they must go inside. Much of the time the juveniles will be outside (weekends and after 5 PM) is after the majority of businesses has left the neighborhood. 7. Any odors, dust, smoke, gas, or vibration to be caused by the proposed use: No such problems would occur due to the detention facility. 8. Any increase in flies, rats, or other animals and vermin to be caused by the proposed use: The proposed use will not cause any increase in these animal problems. 9. Visual appearance of the proposed structure of use: The new building will be designed by an architect. The neighbors believe that it will be an improvement over the existing building. The building will be well landscaped. 10. Any other effect upon the general public health, safety, and welfare of the City: The Director of Public Safety has been extensively involved with this application. It is his opinion that the proposed use will not cause the City public safety problems due to it being a detention facility. The County will be responsible for the behavior of the juveniles. The number will be limited to 16. The types of offender that will be sent to this facility are screened to eliminate those that may harm themselves or others. Also, the number of police calls to this site would be far, far less than when it was a group home. . '. RECOMMENDED ACTION The staff believes that the use of this property for a juvenile detention facility operated by the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections will be an improved use of the site and provide the neighborhood with a more secure and attractive building. The County has given assurances to the City of Golden Valley that the new facility will be secure, be well maintained, respect its neighbors, and be attractive. A "Declaration of Covenants" has been prepared by the County for signing that will guarantee that the bUilding will only be used for a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. This is "Covenant" will give the City and 3 ~ neighbors security in that they will know who is responsible for the operation of . the building. The staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for this property is approved by the City Council. 2. The variances requested to construct the building be granted by the BZA or if denied by the BZA, approved by appeal to the City Council. 3. The attached site plan prepared by Symees Maini and McKee Associates and Winsor Faricy and dated May 12,1997 be made a part of the CUP. 4. The "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" be filed with this property . 5. A landscape plan be submitted during the building permit process and be approved by the Building Board of Review. 6. Any outdoor lighting be approved by the Chief Building Inspector to insure that the lights do not adversely effect neighboring properties. 7. The detention facility be limited to 16 beds. 8. All necessary permits for construction are obtained from the City, County and State. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage of goods, supplies or equipment unless . screened so it is not visible from the street or adjacent properties. 10. The uses on the site shall meet all applicable City, State and Federal regulations. 11. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the CUP. Attachments: Definition of Residential Facility Minutes of the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997 Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated April 1 0, 1997 Hennepin County's DeSCriptive Summary (3 pages) Staff Use and Support Material (3 pages) Statement of Need (3 pages) Statutory Requirement (1 page) Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (3 pages) Location Map Survey Site Plan . 4 . . . 78. "Residential Facility" - Any facility licensed by the State of Minnesota (except for foster family homes) pUblic or private, which for gain or otherwise, provides one or more persons 24 hour per day care including food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation and treatment they need. Residential facilities include but are not limited to State institutions under the control of the Commissioner of Public Welfare, residential treatment centers, maternity shelters, group homes, halfway houses, residential programs or schools for handicapped children. Source: Ordinance No. 653 tiv~ Date: 4-12-85 79. "Restaurant, Class I" - Any traditiona restaurant where food is served to a customer and consumed while seated at a counter or table, including cafeterias where food is selected by a customer while going through a service line and taken to a table for consumption. 80. "Restaurant, Class II" - Fast-food type restaurants where customers order and are served at a counter and take it to a table or counter, or off the premises where the food is consumed. .A "Class ~I" restaurant also includes "drive-inQ restaurants where some or all customers consume their food in an automobile regard- less of how it is served, and further includes carry-out and delivery restaurants where food is prepared for consumption off the premises only. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: 1-14-83 81. "Restaurant, Class III" - Any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility providing entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sitdown service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises. Source: Ordinance No. 615 Effective Date: 5-25-84 82. "School, Primary, Secondary, College or University" _ Any school hav ing regular sess ions with regular ly employed instructors teaching subjects which. are fundamental and essential for a general academic education, under the supervision of, and in accordance with, the applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota. 83. "Service Station (Gasoline Station)" - Any building or premises used principally for the dispensing, sale or offering for sale at retail of automobile fuels or oils or for the servicing of motor vehicles. GOLDEN VALLEY CC 207 (6-30-88 ) . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Seven ak asked if this is a new P.U.D. . 9 development. McAleese s the fence issue, agreed. t another type of fence may be mor opriate and believes Condition 6, be address . e landscaping plan. Pentel r dition 3 will be revised to aces to be used for III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive l-and Use Plan Map Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota . Purpose: To change the designation of the subject property from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services Address: 7155 Madison Avenue West, Golden Valley, Minnesota Purpose: Rezoning of the subject property from industrial to Institutional (1-3) Planning Director Mark Grimes gave a summary of his staff report. He said that Hennepin County Property Services is requesting the City to amend its Plan Map and approve a rezoning of the subject property to allow for a boys detention facility for Hennepin County Community Corrections. He noted the subject property is currently zoned Industrial and that the existing. structure had been used as a group home for adolescent girls. Since the mid-1970's, it has not been used for the past few years, but has been on the market. Grimes commented . that Hennepin County was denied additional beds at its downtown facility. He , Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eight . said Hennepin County would use the subject property to house boys who were not a threat to the community. Grimes said the County chose this site because it was previously used as a group home. He noted that the Council, in 1975, under a provision of the Zoning Code at that time, allowed for this use. At that time, the City Council could allow a use in the Industrial District if the City Council determined that the use was not detrimental to the neighborhood. This clause was removed from the Code somewhere around 1988. Grimes noted that Hennepin County was willing to use the existing footprint and make extensive renovations to the building which would have been consistent with the zoning code. The County met with the Industrial neighbors in the area to explain what they wanted to do. The neighbors reactions were that they knew that Hennepin County could operate a detention center from the existing building, but would rather see a new facility with a better constructed outdoor activity area, better landscaping and better parking for the site. Grimes noted that staff went to the City Council, in February of 1997, and the Council asked staff to look at the alternatives to allow this type of facility. Staff . and the City Attorney's best suggestion would be to rezone to Institutional and the Plan Map be amended to Semi-Public Facility so a Conditional Use Permit could be issued for a residential facility on the site. Hennepin County would then build a new facility as shown on the plan submitted. Grimes noted that variances may be needed for this proposed building and the applicant may need to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Commissioner Johnson asked if Hennepin County has committed to which type offenders would be housed at the facility. Grimes asked Johnson to address that question to Sig Fine from Hennepin County Corrections. Grimes talked about a covenant agreement for this site between the City and County that would state the kind of offenders to be housed in this facility. Commissioner Kapsner asked which property is located directly to the east of the subject property. Grimes said it is Boustead Electric Company. Chair Pentel.asked if the covenant would be attached to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Grimes answered yes. Pentel asked if the CUP comes before the commission for review and Grimes said yes. Commissioner Groger said that his problem is that the City is taking an existing nonconforming situation and making it permanent by changing the zoning and . Plan Map. Mark said yes. Grimes said the approval of the rezoning would make . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Nine the property consistent with the Plan Map. Groger said he didn't have a problem with the existing use and attached covenant, but what happens in the future if the number of juvenile offenders goes down. Grimes said that they have set out specifics in the covenant and the City would have to agree to any changes. City Planner Knoblauch asked for clarification that if Hennepin County did not want to use it as a detention facility, but maybe a clinic, would this be allowed. Grimes said no. Hennepin County has agreed by covenant to use this site as stated and would have to come back to the City if the use would change, whether permitted by code or not. . McAleese said for the purposes of rezoning, we are talking about a general type of use that will occur here, but on the other hand this could fall through and we don't know if the covenant will be signed further restricting the use of the property. There are other meetings a~ which it will be addressed. Grimes said that staff will only entertain the CUP if the covenant is attached. McAleese said that that was down the line and technically we can think of the covenant but not something concrete. Grimes said the commission will need to ask if they are comfortable with this zoning district at this location. He said that because this is a small piece a property, there are some limitations and how it can be used. However, we are trying to put protections in the code that Hennepin County will be the only users of the property. Pentel asked if the City will collect taxes on this property if Hennepin County has it. Grimes said no. McAleese asked if the rezoning and Plan Map amendment doesn't get approved tonight or by the Council what h~ppens. He said that it is his understanding that Hennepin County could use the existing facility "as is". Grimes said yes. Grimes said that Hennepin County could maintain the footprint and rebuild. McAleese asked what the City review process would be. Grimes said they would need to pull a building permit. Grimes said that in any case, Hennepin County would supply a covenant limiting its use to 16 beds for juvenile boys. McAleese asked for clarification on the previous nonconforming use, that hasn't been in business for 6 months. Grimes said that staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney who has commented that if someone consistently markets the property for a grandfathered nonconforming use, the property is not considered abandoned. Kapsner asked how"many beds were proposed. Grimes said 16. Kapsner commented that this could possibly revert back into a group home and Grimes answered yes. He continued saying that once you review the plans, one can see . that there is a specific use in mind. Kapsner asked if the City of Golden Valley Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Ten . was compensated by Hennepin County regarding past police calls to this site. Grimes said no. Groger asked about the appearance of the building. Grimes said that Hennepin County has sketches and is willing to work with the area businesses. Kapsner asked how close the nearest school was located. Grimes said the Sandburg Junior High is a couple of blocks to the east. Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, complimented staff whose has worked with Hennepin County for the past five months. Mr. Fine talked about the need for space to house less serious juvenile males. He noted that one person has escaped in the past 14 years from the juvenile facility in Minneapolis. Mr. Fine talked about the need for more space and what kind of juveniles would be housed on the subject property. He noted the average length of stay would be approximately seven days. He talked about trying to comply with the City's zoning code, by taking the building apart, putting in the needed security features and still maintain the building footprint. Mr. Fine told the commission that his organization met with the neighbors and they would like to . see a new facility built which would blend better with the Industrial area. He said there decision to pursue the proposed requests resulted from the neighbors concerns about security, aesthetics of the existing building and could a new building be built that blended better. Commissioner Kapsner asked if rebuilding is cheaper than adding another story onto the facility downtown. Mr. Fine said yes, it was significantly cheaper. Commissioner Johnson questioned what kind of offenders would be placed at this site. Mr. Fine said it would be offender-based instead of offense-based. These juveniles will be hand selected. He doesn't anticipate any public safety risk. Commissioner Prazak asked if an offender would be moved from this facility to downtown if there were any problems associated with the offender. Fine answered yes. Chair Prazak asked how much movement would be seen from this facility to downtown. Fine said there would be daily movement. There may be two or three trips a day. All juveniles will be booked downtown and then brought to this facility . Grimes asked if food would be brought in everyday. Fine said yes. . . . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Eleven Pentel said she noticed a study area on the plan. She asked if there will be visitors. Fine said yes, you might see parents, professionals, or attomeys. Fine said that under State Statute, they can hold a juvenile in detention for 14 days before they have to give formal education so the plan is to not hold anyone that long. Someone who would beheld that long will be located at the downtown facility. Grimes commented that there are set hours for visiting and a limitation on the number of visitors at one time. All visitors must first call for an appointment. Chair Pentel asked about the outdoor activities and asked about visibility to the outside. Fine said there would be a brick wall. Wayne Winsor, Winsor/Faricy Architects, reviewed the proposed building plan. Commissioner Lewis asked if the outdoor activity area would be covered. Mr. Winsor answered no. Pentel asked at what time of the evening activities would be outside. Barb Kam, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center answered that at the downtown facility, the outdoor area is lit and activities go on until 9:30pm, but this would not be the case at the Golden Valley facility. The juveniles would only be outside during daylight hours. Kapsner asked if the proposed building is designed so a second story could be added. Fine and Kam both said no. Greger asked the applicant, given the restrictions being placed on this facility, Le. number of males to be housed and only for a short period of time, is there a long term need for this type of facility and restrictions. Kam said yes, that demographic studies have been done to determine the number of beds that are needed. After the year 2010, the age range of these juveniles start dropping. Pentel asked if 16 beds is really what was needed. Kam responded that for detention purposes, this number of beds was sufficient. Grimes asked if the juveniles would be monitored when outdoors. Kam responded that outdoor activities are always monitored. Groger asked Kam if it is anticipated that this facility would be full all the time. Kam answered yes. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Twelve . Pentel asked what kind of signage would be placed on the property. Fine answered only the address. Pentel asked how many of existing trees would remain. The architect said all the trees on the boulevard would remain. Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing Steve Svensen, VP & co-owner of Boustead Electric, 7135 Madison Avenue West (located directly to the east of the proposed property), said that all the neighbors agreed that they do not want to see another facility like the last one. Mr. Svensen commented that the neighbors want the property rezoned, so Hennepin County can build a security building and take care of these juveniles. He noted that the County has made a lot of concessions so business customers are not exposed to the residents of this facility. McAleese commented that visually it would be an improvement. Svensen agreed. Curtis J. Smith, CJ Printing, 2420 Nevada Avenue North (property located to the . south of subject property). Mr. Smith commented that his biggest concern were people on the outside trying to get residents out. He is concerned that people may climb his building trying to get the residents of this facility out. Smith noted that his building is five (5) feet of the property line. Pentel pointed out that the plans show that the proposed detention center's outside wall would be 15 feet from the subject property line. Grimes reaffirmed with the applicant that there would be outdoor security cameras scanning the area at all times. Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing. Prazak commented that he was comfortable with the "spot zoning" for this area. He believes that the proposed use would be an improvement over the previous use. Prazak commented that he believes the City of Golden Valley has a responsibility to provide facilities of this kind. Johnson agreed with Prazak's comments and added that she liked the idea of a new building instead of remodeling the existing one. She believes this type of facility is greatly needed and is appropriate for the City to participate in placing this type of facility in Golden Valley. McAleese said if the proposal was for an empty lot, he would be unable to support either of the requests, but because the City is stuck with the existing . conditions, the proposal would be an improvement. McAleese noted that he is . . Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission April 14, 1997 Page Thirteen bothered by something that comes close to being "spot zoning" but is willing to go along with this proposal. He said he was deeply troubled by the interpretation of the zoning code that a "group home" and a "jail" are the same things, but doesn't believe that this particular case is so bad. McAleese continued saying that if the facility were for hard core criminals, he would be troubled and perhaps the zoning code isn't specific enough on what is meant by residential facility. The Planning Commission may want to revisit the zoning code on this issue. Prazak commended Hennepin County for contacting the neighboring businesses regarding this issue and that the design takes into account the businesses concerns. Kapsner asked the applicant if the residents of the facility would be unsupervised in the outside area at any time. Fine answered no. Kapsner asked staff what affect would this facility have on the housing goals for Golden Valley. Staff said none. . Groger said he supports the proposal and believes it is a vast improvement and that his only concern would be the outdoor activity area regarding to noise or things being thrown over the wall. He said that he trusts staff for monitoring this situation and taking appropriate action. Groger added that he does like the flag poles in the front of the building. Pentel said ~hat she favors the proposal, but is concerned that when demographics change, there may be a need to reconsider what is happening at this site. She believes that through the CUP process and covenant, that the Planning Commission and staff will be assured that it will be for juvenile males and only for 16 beds. MOVED by Kapsner, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. MOVED by Kapnser, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council to approve the rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). . ~AP~P::A~:~~~. No were gIVen. . MEMORANDUM Date: April 10, 1997 To: Golden Valley Planning Commission From: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development Subject: Informal Public Hearing -- Amendment of the Comprehensive land Use Plan Map from an Industrial Use to Semi-Public Facilities; and Rezoning of the Subject Property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) to allow for the Construction of a Boy's Detention Facility for Hennepin County -7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant . Hennepin County Property Services, acting for the Hennepin County Community Corr~ctions, has requested a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment in order that Hennepin County may construct a new 16-bed boy's detention facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West (southeast comer of Madison Avenue and Nevada Avenue). The site is a comer lot (200 feet by 145 feet) which is about 28,500 sq.ft. in area (.65 acre). The site is now the location of a 16-bed group home that has been on this site since 1975. It has served adolescent girls. The building is currently empty but has been actively on the market for the past year or so. Such a detention facility would be considered a residential facility in the 1-3 district, so a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required. The property is zoned Industrial and guided on the Plan Map for Industrial use. The site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that the use of the property, as a group home, would fIt in with the area. The building was used for other industrial purposes until that time. Group homes were not a permitted use. At that time, the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow uses in the Industrial district that were not specifically but would be compatible with uses permitted in the Industrial district. This was done by motion of the City Council. It did not require a CUP. Some time after the group home was built, the City Council changed the Zoning Code and did not permit uses other than those specifically outlined in the Code. The group home is now considered a non-conforming use. It may continue as it is today but it cannot be expanded. . The Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections has been looking for alternative ways to house the growing juvenile offender population, since it was determined by the County Board that the present 87-bed facility at 510 Park Avenue would not be expanded due to high costs. One of the alternative ways is the construction of a small 16-bed facility at the subject site for juvenile boys who do not pose a threat to the community or themselves. 1 The Planning staff and City Attorney have met to discuss the use of this site as a detention facility. When the County first approached the City in 1996, the idea was . to either tear down the existing group home and build a new 16-bed facility or substantially rehabilitate the existing building on the same footprint. Staff and the City Attorney first determined that the use of the building, for a detention facility, was consistent with its current use as a group home if the number of beds remained the same (16 beds). Therefore, the County could use the building as long as the footprint of the building remained the same. Interior and maintenance improvements could be done. The other alternative and the one preferred by the County is to demolish the existing building and start over. The first alternative could be done because it was determined to be consistent with the existing nonconforming use. The second, however, could not be done without a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Code amendment. In either case, there is also a state law that requires that when a public agency opens a public facility in another City, the City Council of the City where the facility is to be opened, has to find that the proposed use is consistent with the Comp Plan and Zoning Code. Prior to the City Council finding, the Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the City Council on this matter. In anticipation of the above State requirements, the City staff suggested to Hennepin County that they meet with the surrounding property owners in order to get their input on the proposed use. The County met two or three times with these owners. The . property owners realized that the property could be used by the County "as is" and that the former use as an adolescent girls group home caused problems. In fact, Director of Public Safety, Dean Mooney has stated that the former group home caused many police calls, primarily due to runaways. There was also some property damage caused by the runaways. It is Director Mooney's opinion that a secured detention facility would have fewer, if any, problems. In the discussions with the business neighbors, the result of the discussions was that a new detention facility on the site would be preferred over remodeling the existing building~ The new building would be better designed from the neighborhood's perspective and provide the County with a new 16-bed state-of-the-art type facility. At the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting, the City Council met with Hennepin County to discuss their proposed use of the site. The Council directed staff to explore changes to the Zoning Code that would allow the County to build a new building on this site. The Planning staff met with the City Attorney to go over the options. There are few options from a zoning perspective. The staff is recommending that Planning Commission and City Council consider rezoning the property to Institutional (1-3) which would make this type of facility a conditional use. The other alternative would have been to either make group homes/detention centers a conditional use in the Industrial district or go ~ack to the former provision that would allow the City Council to allow certain uses that they believe would be compatible with the uses permitted in the Industrial district. . 2 ; . . . The Planning and legal staff have given hard thought to this matter. The recommended method to allow for this juvenile detention center is to rezone the property to Institutional (1-3). If a conditional use was permitted for this type of use in the Industrial district, the City would have to consider residential facilities in all areas zoned Industrial. The staff does not believe that residential facilities are appropriate in all Industrial areas. By permitting it as a CUP, it is difficult to not allow such a use, if it meets the standards set in the Code. The staff does not recommend going back to the way the City Council originally allowed the group home. This type of clause in the Code would allow uses that may be entirely inappropriate for the Industrial area without proper notification and hearing from the public. The rezoning to Institutional does raise certain issues. First, is this the dreaded "spot zoning" issue. In this case, the group home has existed in this location for over 20 years. It is in an area with offices and manufacturing uses. The Industrial neighborhood is well maintained and is desirable industriaVoffice location. The property is also in an area that is quite a distance from residential uses and schools. Dover Hill is probably the closest housing. It is separated from the site by other industrial uses and a railroad track. Based on staff experience, group homes or detention centers of this size and type are not liked by residential neighborhoods. Because of this unique location and site history, this site for a detention center may work as well as any other location in Golden Valley. Second, when rezoning to 1-3, ,the other uses that we permitted in that district should also be considered. These permitted uses include rest homes, sanitaria, nursing homes and clinics. Conditional uses include hospitals, out-patient surgical facilities, lodge halls, day care, and residential facilities. Due to the small size of this property, other uses of this property, either permitted by right or as a CUP, would be unlikely. Perhaps a day care facility, small clinic, or residential facility could occur on this site. However, the limited amount of space on the lot for parking and open space make other uses unlikely. Third, the Comprehensive Plan should be considered. In this case, it is recommended that the Comp Plan Map first be amended from Industrial to Semi- Public (Institutional). The Comp Plan description and the Zoning would then be consistent with this change. The issue with "spot zoning" is less problematic. The issue that the Planning Commission and City Council must decide here is whether it would be in the long term best interest of the City to have this type of use in an Industrial area. Group homes, residential facilities and detention facilities are all needed in the City. With a secured facility, this type of facility may work because the residents (inmates) are not going out into the neighborhood but staying in the facility. With the continued controversy ov~r their location near residences, perhaps locating these institutional uses in the Industrial district would be appropriate and make sense. In the case of this property, it has the history of use as a group home. It would seem to make more sense to allow for a new building that the neighborhood wants rather than trying to retrofit an existing building. 3 . . With the rezoning, Hennepin County has agreed to a set of restrictive covenants that State that the building would be limited to a 16-bed juvenile detention facility. A draft copy of those covenants is attached. These covenants will have to be modified to indicate that it is a conditional use in the Institutional (1-3) zoning district and that the County would commit to only using the building as a 16-bed detention facility without agreement by the City. . I am attaching s~veral reports and other information that have been gathered on this matter for the past several months. Some of this information is helpful for background on this subject. Recommended Action This is a difficult zoning and planning issue. Hennepin County will build the detention center at this location in either a substantially remodeled facility or a new facility. The' preference of the neighbors in the area is that the existing building be tom down and replaced with a new building. Staff also believe that a new building would be preferable because it will be better designed for the site. Because it is a locked facility, the use will be more compatible with the area. In order to construct a new building, there would need to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map from an Industrial use to Semi-Public Facilities and a rezoning of the subject property from Industrial to Institutional (1-3). If these . issues go forward, a CUP would have to be issued for the site to be used as a residential facility. The County has agreed to the use of the. property only under conditions found in restrictive covenants stating it would be a 16-bed facility. Overall, the staff recommends amending the Plan Map and Zoning Map. In this specific instance, staff believe that this location for a 16-bed detention facility would not have a detrimental affect on the neighborhood and essentially continue its existing status. With the CUP, the City can apply other conditions they believe are necessary prior to issuance of the CUP. MWG:mkd Attachments: Location Map Survey Site Plan Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions Other materials attached . 4 . . . -:-? J/eSCrlf.f7~ J..eAAr--P) ~ ..J~t-=t- ~ r~~ e'r".ih1l\5 -!iCe!,':) tva.r fi:Y'J-r CfAttr/~ J:b$c"l'gJ~ ~ us€ ~at.MJ va/~. The Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center, located at 510 Park Avenue in Minneapolis is an 87 -bed maximum security facility designed to hold juveniles arrested for criminal behavior pending court action. Juveniles are held in this locked facility to ensure the safety of the public, the safety of the juvenile and to ensure that the juvenile appears for his/her next court hearing. Hennepin.'s existing Juvenile Detention Center was opened in the summer of 1984. During its initial years of operation the average daily population did not exceed the mid-50 to 60 range. However, the population of the Juvenile Detention Center began to exceed the facility capacity beginning in 1989. In that year, the facility was over capacity on 116 separate days with an average of 5.3 residents beyond the 87-bed capacity. In the following five years, tlu'ough 1994, overcrowding has steadily increased. The facility was overcrowded on 302 separate days in 1994, with an average of 14.5 residents beyond capacity on each of those days. As overcrowding continues, it.has been necessary for the Detention Center to use classrooms.as well as recreational and other space for resident sleeping. As a condition of continued Minnesota Department of Corrections licensing, the County has been expected to take action to reduce the detention population or provide adequate housing. If additional bed space is not obtained, we may need to change detention criteria, resulting in releases of juveniles who present greater community safety risk. A number of counties within the sate are in the same situation as Hennepin and are now in the process of expanding their juvenile detention capacities. In addition to merely building more bed space, Hennepin County has examined the population being detained and believes that the development of a juvenile correctional shelter, foster care beds and community-based intermediate sanctions and procedures can serve as effective alternatives to pretrial secure detention for some juveniles. The Juvenile Court has also been committed to decreasing case processing time which will lead to reductions in the length of stay in detention and the use of the Electronic Home Detention Program has been expanded for eligible juveniles. In conjunction with the above actions, Hennepin County will also need additional secure bed space, given demographic projections, and has turned to 7155 Madison as a viable, cost-effective solution. The building at 7155 Madison would be completely rebuilt on the interior, as well as the exterior if allowed, to provide a 16-bed secure (locked) detention annex. The outside recreation area, as well as the interior, will be built to meet the security standards of both the Juvenile Detention Center as well as the Minnesota Department of Corrections, which would be our licensing authority. The program of this annex would mirror the activities of the IDC. Juveniles would be under the constant supervision of professionally trained staff and will not be allowed outside of the secure parameter with the exception of being transported to and from 510 Park A venue. Transportation between the two buildings will be done by Juvenile Detention staff in security vehicles. All intake and release procedures will occur at the IDC, eliminating the need for police cars to frequent the building. It is anticipated that . Juvenile Detention staff will make three transports per day between facilities. Since we do not have an Annex for juvenile males in existence, we need to look at the total male population of the IDC for statistical data to describe the male population. Data for the male population of IDC for 1995 reveals: · Total number admitted: 3734 young men . Average age: 15.6 years · Average length of stay: 7.6 days · 71 % are young men of color · Warrants for arrest account for 41 % of the admits, with arrests for new crimes accounting for 50% · Warrants may be issued by probation officers for technical violations (Le., school problems, curfew, drug use, etc.), or by the Juvenile Court for failure to pay a fine or failure to appear for a previously scheduled court hearing for minor offenses (Le., truancy, traffic offenses, curfew, etc.) · Listed below are those primary offenses (most serious) that were presented for admission to the IDC, at a minimum of ten or more times for juvenile males during 1995. Warrants! A&Ds Auto Thefts Assault Theft Drug-related Offenses Disorderly Conduct Weapon-related Offenses Robbery Burglary Property Damage Ordered Detained in Court Violated Surveillance Loitering with Intent Auto Traffic & Accident Trespassing Run Away! Absenting Criminal Sexual Conduct Violated Electronic Detention Domestic False Information to Police Court Ordered Treatment Term Curfew ProbatiOn/Parole Violation Terroristic Threats Fleeing 2178 840 454 554 316 274 188 212 141 121 169 113 91 114 100 65 40 122 135 54 54 51 22 36 30 . . . HomicidelManslaughter Forgery Stolen Property Possess/Conceal Obstructing Legal Process Violated Locator Program 25 26 24 34 8 The population that would be housed at 7155 Madison would be the lower risk young men, whose arresting offenses are less serious and who exhibit few behavior problems while in the IDC. For the safety of the detained youth, and for staff, those residents who exhibit serious acting out behavior will be housed at the IDC. When examinillg the statistics for 1995 for the young men detained, 230 major behavior incidents were recorded, translating into one incident every 1.9 days. Major incidents would generally consist of fights between juveniles; juvenile on juvenile assault, juvenile on staff assault, property damage or escape. With lower risk juveniles being housed at 7155 Madison, the number of behavior incidents would be significantly less. In the past 12 years, due to the structural and procedural security of the IDC, only one young man has escaped from that building. As stated earlier, the interest is to provide the same level of security at 7155 Madison as at the IDC with the lower risk juveniles. Escapes from this proposed annex would be anticipated to be nonexistent. . . . . . STAFF USE AND SUPPORT The Staff Use and Support area of this facility provides for several major functions, including: Control room for the facility The control room serves as the central control for access and egress of perimeter doors. Control room staff will be responsible to greet the public and determine whether or not admission to the building is authorized. Technology allows control staff to visually monitor remote areas inside and outside of the building. The control room staff can also sound monitor and speak to resident rooms. The control room will also monitor all emergency equipment such as fire and smoke detectors. Public entry This area will be secure, and include a sally port. Visitors will be expected to walk through a metal detector prior to entrance to the resident areas of the building. This will also be the entrance for facility staff. Supervisor Office A Juvenile Correctional Supervisor will office in this facility and will be responsible for staff supervision and resident behavior and welfare. If emergency situations should take place in the hours the supervisor is absent from the facility, staffwill contact the supervisor on duty at the Juvenile Detention Center for directions as needed. Gara~e Sally Port Juveniles will enter and exit the building through the garage sally port. They will be secured in the transport vehicle prior to the exterior door being opened by the staff in the control room. All supplies for the facility would also enter through the garage sally port. The lunch and supper food for this facility will be prepared by the Hennepin County Adult CorrectionalF acility (ACF) and be delivered in a hot/cold cart prior to each meal. Delivery will be through the garage sally port. Laundry services will also be provided for this facility by the ACF and delivered at this point of entrance. Interview Office This room will be available for resident visits from professionals involved in their cases such as attorneys, probation officers, clergy. VisitlLibrary/Classroom This multipurpose room can be used as a ~lassroom, but can also be used for other purposes during non-school hours. Other uses could include parental visiting, special programs such as outside speakers, and religious services. HOUSING UNIT . This facility has one housing unit consisting of 16 secure/wet rooms. The individual rooms surround a multipurpose day room area which will provide space for dining, passive recreational games, watching television, reading, and arts and crafts, etc. A small nutrition center will provide a refrigerator, microwave, toaster, sink and storage. The lunch and supper meals will be brought to the facility from the Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility in a hot cart from which they will be served to the residents. Sky lights will allow for outside lighting. A staff office is provided as well as a storage area. Two shower rooms meet the standard requirements of one shower per 8 resident rooms. Residents and staffwill have access to the playground from the living area for outdoor recreation as well as emergency evacuation. INDOOR/OUTDOOR RECREATION Indoor Recreation In addition to the day room area in the housing unit which will be used for passive games and activities, the facility has been designed with an indoor recreation room. This room is large enough for ping-pong, but if not ping-pong, could be used for exercise machines, etc. Wmdows . will allow for staff supervision from the staff office and day room and from the control room and supervisor office. Outdoor Recreation The outdoor recreation will be equipped to allow for basketball, volleyball, as well as other running and ball games. . PROPOSED: . SPACE PROGRAM - 16 BED BOY'S DETENTION ANNEX - GOLDEN VAI.I F.V, MINNESOTA SPACE NAME QUAt'lTfIY NET SQ, IT NET TO GROSS DEfI ~MARKS FACfOR GROSS Bedrooms 16@ 70 SF Ea. 1120 1.20% 1456 GSF Resident Showers 2@50SFEa. 100 130 Dayroom/Dining/ Activity Room 1 1080 1404 Indoor Recreation Room 1 322 418.8 Staff Toilet/Locker Room 1 66 85.8 Classroom/library /Visiting 1 245 318.5 Classroom Storage Closet 1 50 65 Staff Office (with storage cabs) 1 133 172.9 General Storage Room 1 126 163.8 Administrative Office 1 86 111.8 Control Room 1 115 149.5 Interview Room 1 66 85.8 Public Lobby 1 146 189.8 . Public Restroom 1 72 97.5 Laundry Room/Janitor Closet 1 100 130 Corridor 1 387 503.1 Mechanical Room 1 206 267.8 Garage 1 440 572 TOTAL NET SQUARE FEET ................... 4,860 NSF TOTAL GROSS SQUARE FEET (Net S.f. X 1.20) = ................................. 5,832 GSF Proposed Exterior Amenities Include: . Outdoor recreation yard . Visitor parking . Staff Parking . Surveillance system . / . 'P:\l996\96i66.ll4\RP'I'9SPACE.doc ~ ' STATEMENT OF NEED 'major problem for Hennepin County has been the cronic overcrowding of Hennepin's current detention facility during the past five (5) years. The creation of a sixteen (16) bed secure, detention annex, as well as the creation of twenty (20) secure .female detention beds in the proposed Juvenile Female Resource Center, will give us ample secure bed space through the year 2010. Hennepin's existing facility was opened in the Summer of 1984. The population of the Juvenile Detention Center began to exceed the facility capacity beginning in 1989. In that year the facility was over capacity on one hundred sixteen (116) separate days with an average of 5.3 residents beyond the eighty-seven (87) bed capacity. In the following years, through 1995, overcrowding has steadily increased. The facility was overcrowded on three hundred thirteen (313) separate days in 1995, with an average of 17.4 residents beyond capacity on each of those days. This amounts to a 270% Increase in the number of calendar days during which overcrowding has occurred from 1989 to 1995. ,JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER OCCUPANCX. AVERAGE #OF DAYS AVERAGE # OF YEaR # OF ADMITS POPU~TlON LENGTH OF STAY OVER CAPACrrv RES. OVER CAPACIlY 1989 3,324 80 8.8 Days 116 5.3 . 3,332 84 9.1 Days 182 6.0 1991 3,262 83 9.2 Days 163 5.8 1992 3,641 83 8.2 Days 208 7.5 1993 4,004 92 8.2 Days 260 13.5 1994 4,327 96 7.7 Days 302 14.5 1995 4,763 100 7.6 Days 313 17.4 In 1992, a Detention Altematives Committee was formed under the leadership of Judge Philip Bush. The Committee studied both utilization patters and possible alternatives to the use of secure detention beds. A report completed in January of 1994, proposed several action steps: . Increased Utilization of Electronic Monitoring. The Community Corrections Department implemented an Electronic Detention Program'in 1977. However utilization of this clalemative had been disappointingly low, averaging nine (9) clients perda; Onfl of the Committee recommendations was to provide additional staffing support for this program to insure that all detention admissions would be screened for possible program inclusion, and to provide sufficient supervision. The County Board provided additional funding in support of this program in mid-1994. The result has been that the average daily population for Electronic Detention more than tripled to 34.2 in 1996. Unfortunately, the crowding problem has not abated in spite of this dramatic change. 1) '2,' ~nt of Need . :) Juvenile Probation's Locator Program. On an average 20% of the Juvenile Detention Center population consists of juveniles that have absented from home or placements. or who have chronically refused to obey Juvenile Court orders. The past practice had been for probation officers to secure Arrest and Detention Orders. with the result of eventual apprehension and arrest of probationers, who were then placed. In the Juvenile Detention Center awaiting a court tlearlng to review their situati.ons. The Locator Program has been an attempt to inject an alternative to the A&O process. Assigned probation staff actively look for juveniles in the community.. Once located, juveniles are give the option of either going to the Juvenile Center, or agreeing to be placed on electronic monitoring. during which time probation officers are able to review each case and make necessary changes to supervision plans. This program has been very successful. More than eight hundred (800) juveniles have been located and placed under this alternative since 1993. We estimate that approximately two thousand two hundred (2200) detention bed days have been saved as a result of program operation, approximately six (6) beds on any given day. Again, in spite of the positive results of this program, our Detention Center overcrowding has continued. 3) The Alternatives Committee also recommended that the County support a non-secure shelter program to provide a Detention Center alternative for juveniles who are at a lower level of public safety risk. This became a reality in August 1996 when St. Joseph's Home for Children .. opened Wabasha Shelter. Hennepin County contracts with Sl Joseph's for complete use of . this 16 bed shelter. . Concerned about the continual overcrowding and in need for more current demographics. the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections' Research and Systems Technology Division provided the following projections for detention bed needs in March, 1996. . . To~ juvenile population estimates for the year 2000 and 2010 were provided since the population over the next fifteen (15) years is not expected to grow in a linear fashion; population projections Indicate a 10% increase in total juvenile population of Hennepin County by the year 2000. but a 15% decrease between 2000 and 2010. Finding this too general and the population considered to be at risk was looked at more carefully. When the juvenile population is disaggregated by race and sex, the projections for how many beds will be needed at the JDC in 2010 do increase and are as follows: . ; . ;).., r , !:i2. a 3 S ent of Need . PROJECTIONS FOR ACTUAL DETENTION BEDS NEEDED 2mm 20m Males Females Total 87.2 1U. 99.0 90.6 1U. 102.4 Based upon the above projections, overcrowding will continue and the existing facility will become increasingly difficult to manage. As a condition of continued Minnesota Department of Corrections licensing, the County has been expected to take action to reduce the overcrowding. It is therefore necessary for Hennepin to increase it's secure bed capacity by the construction of this 16 bed detention annex. . . .. 11- . STATUTORY REQUIREMENT Federal law required that juveniles be jailed separately from adults, but most st~tes were not in compliance in the late 1980's. The Federal govemment moved to force compliance by making federal aid dollars fo.r highways, and other federally supported projects contingent upon the state's ~~liance with this law. The Minnesota legislature responded by passing 260.171 Subd. 2 (e) ~ limited the use of adults jails and lock-up facilities to detain juveniles. The federal dollars, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 and current case law, as well as the need to reserve jail facilities for adult offenders, all converged to impel the legislature to enact this legislation. Compliance with this law, coupled with an increase in serious offenses alleged to juveniles resulted in a state..wide shortage of secure juvenile detention beds, which then resulted in the serious overcrowding taking place at the Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center for the past seven (7) years. The legislature chose to address the state wide shortage in 1995 by providing a $16M bonding subsidy that could be used by counties for construction of such facilities. Hennepin County has applied for it's allotted sum of $3.8 million, of which a portion will be applied to the Detention Annex. Following are sections of Minnesota statutes that impact or govem various aspects of the detention and disposition of juvenile offenders in Minnesota and construction grants to counties to provide facilities to house these services: . . 260.165 260.171 260.172 260.173 260.181 260.185 643.7 Subd 10 643.79 643.335 Subd 3 Taking a child into custody .. Release or detention of children Detention hearings for children Place of temporary custody; shelter care facility Termination of Jurisdiction Dispositions; delinquent child Juvenile Detention Facilities Construction Grants Secure Juvenile Detention Facility Construction Grants Pre..Design Requirement G, ~ . . . DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDmONS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration") is made as of the _ day of . 1996, by the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a county governmental unit established by the State of Minnesota ("Declarant"). RECITALS A Declarant is the owner of certain real property in the County of Hennepin together with buildings and improvements thereon (collectively referred to as ''PropertY'), such real property is legally described as follows: Lot 7 and the North 35 feet of Lot 6, Block 3, Advertising-Creative Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. B. Declarant is desirous of imposing certain covenants, conditions and restrictions upon the Property for purposes of facilitating its use as a temporary holding facility for juveniles. C. The City of Golden Valley ("City") has required Declarant to make this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in order for Declarant to continue to use the property as a nonconforming use in the Industrial Zoning District. NOW, THEREFORE, in connection with the development of the Property and its continued use, Declarant does hereby declare that each of the following covenants, conditions and restrictions shall exist and be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of Declarant and all successive owners and users of the Property. COVENANTS, CONDmONS AND RESTRICTIONS 1. The Property may only be used as a temporary holding facility for juveniles who are awaiting a court appearance or placement in another facility; no adults or persons who will be, or have been, tried as adults may be housed in or on the Property. 2. The building on the Property shall have no more than sixteen (16) beds for such juveniles and there will be no additional beds for staff members. 3. The size and footprint of the building shall remain less than 6,000 SF as it is on the date these Declarations. 4. Construction of the facility shall be u1 accordance to the site plans prepared by Symmes Maini & McKee Associates/Winsor Fariey dated 12 May 1997 subject to minor variation due to construction technologies and building components selections. No signage will be placed on the building other than a building identification and address. ~ . 5. The Property shall be maintained in accordance with all City codes and regulations. 6. While housed on the Property, the juveniles shall not be permitted to walk or freely move throughout the neighborhood surrounding the Property. 7. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions herein contained shall be perpetual, shall create mutual benefits and covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon any owner, tenant, or occupant of the Property and their respective successors and assigns. 8. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions set forth herein shall be enforceable only by Declarant, any successive owner of the Property, any tenant or occupant of the Property or the City of Golden Valley and shall be enforceable by a. Injunctive relief, prohibitive or mandatory, to prevent the breach of or to enforce the performance or observance of said covenants, conditions and restrictions; or b. A money judgment for damages by reason of the breach of said covenants, . conditions and restrictions; or c. Any combination of the foregoing. 9. Invalidation of any of the provisions of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions herein, whether by order of court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise, shall in no way affect any of the provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. . 10. This Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions may not be amended, modified, cancelled, revoked or terminated without the express written consent of the City of Golden Valley. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year first above written. . 2 . . . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By Its The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1996, by . the Hennepin, a Minnesota governmental unit, on behalf of the County. day of . of the County of Notary Public 3 I I. \- \ r-'---" - -rr----.~*~ ~. .w t.~ : ~~-"\~\~~"'~--':- ..... - ,'., \ ~f'c",~'\"1 I }; -. ~ ..:-..r. ;!) g. i .~ ! I ':'. ~L" '" ..\ f .,. \, ' ~ \ ..' \\ " Ji ~. ;. \\ \ ~,\- .---..-...--.-.- I ~ \~ \\ I '\ \ . J[ e \\\~:. i .." _. ,I 4\'\._:~ .: r I ~~ . .' -. \-',t .-..~.-~;~~.~_ ,: t. . \ ~ ".", . !.I:CaM;pt. -..~ i , "~I\ V e: -- :.....----.---... . . -...-.':"':':-- ................. ..:-':-..~:~~:~_:..::......~::.. _.-.~.~. ,.... ...:...:. -_..._._;;:~,L"'__ .~ ..'\:.- ,.,.... -- ......... ,,,,, '"'---_. --.~- I :.. _I _.:.-.. , . " , j.... / 10ft)'" I .....,..\.. . . ..; J. -'" . --~.--,....-1 .:. ....C' .. ..,':1':'\- . -....... ~.~~\., .! :t;~.. I " i .. ,I J . .. ! ...-.. ~ _.! .. .- ;~. I . I I :1 .' " .. ,~ ----... .. Ui(jr;.~r .. -~r .. -.--.. ,,-.-- ----~ " ..' 3.. :.iY" ..~ j..-. ,. ?J ; .~~ .\~ -i.-l I --,'-' _..._~ -' ,-~. , .~~~---~- .: "/"'~ . s~~..;&,IlG P.'f-- - ~ .... . . ." ....t "~'lI.t . ." "':3'" ",. , I " ,. I I ! . ~I <f<'* I f.tJ'" ,''1" ..... c...~ ~IO~ , tJ:'~ . , .j 'f ! /;/;/,\'''' ..' , 'i:.';;: ,\~ '\: , :,,- .' . , ., , .- '.. .. ... ~. . '" y i , ~. 1 r r I 1 J ! I :.<+:-:.t -\ ..:: ~ ..\, . ..i,.......: ,\ ..*.1./ '~\. ~..~ "\ ", , '\ ,\'~ , '\"\ ,. \ , '. '. , , ,,' '. ' , ... '\. -'. ~,"', '\. ..... '\ ". , e'J';) '. !- (. "::"-<,-,-j 1 ...... . .'-H "-<1 " ~~D IT.:~ I @ I. 61'-', I : I . .-- . !. ',' I I . f ----.-.... -~ : .. f --~-. ~..~~_. --.:::.----. ~..... '--------1 -.. '" -- '--;--. ': .;..... -:.~.....: t~---~.._ ,_ ..1'~ . l~-- t. ,.......~ f~..,f I ........, ~:........... .._.:".._, " . ..,. ~:,)....... I' ! J .~....,~'~(~.~\ .," --.: -.- ~,........ '. , , . . "'~.., ~ ., I-_l..~_-; .. ~? ....':., A'\" ! :, .~ tI <Or '\1-. : .... I ;, fli L .. : '. I : J . ~ ' ...... ~ -&.......0_ 'T1:i;:A:' A ....!l I \,-..:\ --:.. . /.1 ~ t' c . ) . .... . /":"... ~ I - ~"'~'!.,..,... ..*'-.'........... "::: . . I ~ ....\~.. . " <<r....--L-i .. L I ! J T 11 . t r--.--.... ..... ......j f: 1" ~ l L_ ~~.:._.. -=~J I .,. .{' '.. ~.< I o;..~V' ii -1 ...... '"'''' ~:.. .. ~ f"~' ,; I f I :::lj,:~~~; ~ ~-J I it 'Iii ---; ! i . :~.." ~.Y' ,!I, I .,. ~.r;;-' .~ ~.':i.;.1~ :' .. J 'l -----, ::. f :.:.. f :::.-- _L.."::-- ..,. 1 11:I-" . I I I .i -.. ~. ::",: ~ :. t I I r LEGAL DESCRIPTION- BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE. AREA . 28,787.31 SQUARE FEET (0.66 AatES) ADVERTISING-CREATIVE CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY GENERAL SERVICES DE? ARll.fENT TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISlON SURVEY SECTION . LOT 7 AND THE NORTH 35 FEET OF LOT 6. BLOC< '3. ADVERTISING-cREATIVE a:NTER. HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA. o DENOTES SET MONULENT . DENOTES FOUND UOOJUENT 8624 CONmETE CURB MADISON AVENUE W f CONmETE 2 SLAB /' ..- -179.90 589056' 171E- , ,...) L-"31. 45 ! =~~R"""', ,/ R-20.00 ~ ON CONcmE ",- ( A-eOo05'"3Q' I PAD L-l --1. 100.7 - fa -... z ( ONE STORY :I: w - co FRAME BUILDING ::t to- 3 ~ ~ ~ ... I T - 0 34.7 0 < 0 .~ z . ~ ~ . ~ CD i IS 80 \. ", ONE STORY BLOC< BUILDING GARY F. CASWELL HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYOR --.., i .... lQ \ 80 =- - C) ... 8 o o z: N It) ~ I I " I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON THIS ~ DAY OF 5ep1u;,beY . 19 '" AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. II ~477~ PHILLIP A. NELSON, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMfER 17025 o 40 80 ~ I SCALE IN FEET . CSP 528 SEPTEMfER, 1996 THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ANY FACTS THAT MAY EE DISa.OSED BY A FUlL AND ACCURATE TITLE SEAR Of. NOTEIA NORTH BEARING ON THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON AN ASSULlEDDATUM. r MADISON AVENUE W. . w => z w ~ <( o ~ z TEAD TRIC, . PUBLIC ENTRANCE VISITOR PARKING REe. 14x23 YlSlTlNG/ LIBRARY/ ClASSROOM 1.-' JM./ UECH. .." '., . '. . , ..... ." " eo ''''. ',0.. , "0 .:.0 ,,"', .: VAN GARAGE . .0.. , . . 0" . . . ..... .' .' . " .' .... .. ..- .' ,".. .' ..... .0' ([ ] '~y: .', .....:..outOOPR.:ACtivr-fIES: '.,:.'.~ .... f. . ." ,'.',." .... ..... .0' . ',: D- DUMPSTER STAFF PARKING BOY'S DETENTION ANNEX Golden Valley. Minnesota NCRIH ~ ~ffi ,........ .. __ 00,.._ ~ SMMA \