09-08-97 PC Agenda
r
.
It
e
AGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Chambers
Monday, September 8, 1997
7pm
I.
Approval of Minutes - August 25, 1997
II.
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 71
Applicant: Hennepin County Property Services
Address: 7151 Madison Avenue West (Formerly Known as 7155 Madison
Avenue West)
Purpose: Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) dated June 3,
1997, which would allow for the proposed residential facility to be
approximately 800 sq.ft. larger than permitted by the original C.U.P.
III.
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Map
Applicant: Colonial Acres Home, Inc.
Address: 5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue
Purpose: Amend the Comp Plan Map for a portion of the subject property
from Industrial (Radio) to Residential (High Density) and a portion of
the subject property from Residential (Medium Density) to
Residential (High Density)
IV. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant: Colonial Acres Home, Inc.
Address: 5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue
Purpose:
Rezone the proposed property from the Radio and Television
Zoning District to the M-3 Multiple Dwelling (6-story maximum
height) Zoning District and the existing property from M-1 to the M-3
Multiple Dwelling Zoning District
,
V.
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan _
P.U.D. No. 18, Covenant Manor Colonial Acres
.
Applicant:
Colonial Acres Home, Inc.
Address:
5650 and 5800 St. Croix Avenue
Purpose:
Review of an amendment to the Preliminary Design Plan, P.U.D.
No. 1 B, Covenant Manor Colonial Acres
- SHORT RECESS -
VI. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, City Council
and Board of Zoning Appeals
VII. Other Business
VIII. Adjournment
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
e
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 leam, 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.
e
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.
e
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25,1997
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, August 25, 1997. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Johnson, Kapsner, Martens,
McAleese and Prazak; absent was Groger. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director
of Planning and Development and Mary Dold, Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - June 23. 1997
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by McAleese and motion carried unanimously to
approve the June 23, 1997 minutes as submitted.
II. Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning
Applicant: GBC.Partners, LLP (Gary and Connie Larson)
e
Address:
East side of Zane Avenue about 400 feet North of TH 55
Frontage Road
Purpose:
Rezoning of the property from Open Development to the
Industrial Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to add
this piece of property to the empty at 5828 Olson Memorial
Highway in order to construct an officelwarehouse on the site.
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, gave a summary of the staff
report. He said the request is from GBC Partners to rezone approximately 11,000
sq.ft. of property which would allow for the construction of an officelwarehouse type of
building. Grimes reminded the Commission that the applicants appeared before the
City Council earlier this summer with the same rezoning request and a subdivision
request. He said that that the rezoning request was denied by the City Council and
the subdivision request was tabled to a future City Council meeting. Grimes also
added that the Commission had made a favorable recommendation to the City Council
when these two requests appeared on its agenda of June 23, 1997. Grimes told the
Commission that the applicant did appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on
June 24, 1997 and was granted substantial variances for the building which are still
valid.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25,1997
Page Two
-
He also told the Commission that the Zoning Code has no time frame stipulations
regarding similar requests to be heard again. Grimes said that GBC Partners believe
that they have additional information on its proposal, although essentially the
information submitted in the agenda packet is the same as submitted for the June 23
meeting.
Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes the reasons for denial by the City Council.
Grimes read the minutes from the July 15, 1997 City Council meeting noting Council
Members Johnson and Micks' comments.
Commissioner McAleese commented that this is an unusual case in that it is coming
back to the Planning Commission. He wanted to know if there is anything in the
Zoning Code on how the Commission should view the Council's comments. Grimes
said that the Council made findings and its concerns dealt with issues of the
construction of the building. Grimes also commented that if one is looking at the
proposal on a rezoning standpoint, it is a bit more difficult to articulate because it
makes sense to rezone the small parcel.
Applicant, Connie Larson, co-owner of Golden Valley Supply Company, commented e
that GBC Partners are requesting the same rezoning of the proposed property which
was approved by the Planning Commission on June 23. Ms. Larson reviewed the
plans of the building, including a new elevation plan and colored building sketch. She
also reviewed the company's operation, and history of the proposed land including the
FluiDyne property. Ms. Larson reiterated what had happened at the Planning
Commission of June 23 and the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting of June 24.
Ms. Larson introduced Brad Moen of Moen Leuer Construction Inc.
Commissioner Martens asked if a landscaping and grading plan had been submitted.
Grimes said that these plans would be part of the information submitted to the Board
of Building Review. Grimes also said that the Inspections Department would be
reviewing the grading plan and that the Engineering Department has taken a
preliminary look at the site and believes some care will need to be taken when
developed. Grimes also said that the City Forester would look at the site to see which
trees could be saved and what kind of plantings would be viable.
Mr. Moen reviewed for the Commission the newly submitted elevation plan noting that
the neighbors would be shielded from the future building by trees or fences.
Chair Pentel asked how much of the building is exposed to the most northern
residential property owner. Mr. Moen said 12 feet.
e
e
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25,1997
Page Three
Commissioner Martens asked if there would be a retaining wall and Mr. Moen
commented yes and showed on the plan where it would be located on the northeast
side of the building.
Chair Pentel asked where the mechanicals would be placed. Mr. Moen said inside the
building.
Commissioner Martens commented that someone in the future could come along and
place mechanicals on the roof of the building. Grimes said that the City requires
screening for mechanicals on buildings.
Connie Larson noted some of the concerns of the four residents to the east. She
talked about the resident closest to the frontage road being concerned about the trees
and Ms. Goodwin, the second closest neighbor to the frontage road being concerned
about lighting, erosion, sewer capacity and drainage. Mr. Moen said that the building
would be low enough that the residents wouldn't see any lights from the building and
that the dock lighting would be around the comer from the residential properties; the
lighting would be impact. Moen noted that there would be no erosion on the hill
because of the slope of the land and that there would be proper drainage, which will
be done by a Civil Engineer. The applicant noted that they wish to preserve as many
trees as possible. Ms. Larson said that the Edsons, 5804 Olson Memorial Hwy. were
concerned about property values. Larson commented that she had talked to some
realtors who commented that the neighborhood is surrounded by industrial and
office/warehouse and the worst case scenario is not to have anything on the lot.
Connie Larson told the Commission that they are planning to construct a very nice and
beautiful building on the site. Larson said that the Edson's are also worried about the
removal of trees and the applicant has told the Edsons that they would work with them
to get the desired affect, if reasonable.
Ms. Larson commented that the Trettils are worried about the retaining wall and a
south barrier wall. She stated that there is no retaining wall or sound barrier wall at
that end of the property. She talked about a concern of noise and smell and told the
Commission that her company does not manufacture anything. Larson told the
Commission that she and Gary Larson have talked with Council Members Johnson
and Micks and have walked the property with Micks. GBC Partners believes that this
is a win-win situation for the neighbors, City and the applicant.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1997
Page Four
e
Georgia Goodwin, 5806 Olson Memorial Highway, said that she has now put up a
fence because she believed that something would be built on the proposed lot.. She
said that her concern is about the small forest of deciduous trees that cleans the air.
Goodwin said that this proposal is unfortunate because of the required variances that
were huge. She said that she did not want to see a warehouse in her backyard but
believes that this proposal is the lesser of several evils.
Don Edson, 5804 Olson Memorial Highway, commented that he doesn't want to see
anything on those lots; it is the woods that make the neighborhood. He said his main
concern is property values and that the residential properties will be devalued. He
would like GBC Partners to hire a realtor to do an assessment of what the value of the
homes would be with and without a building 6n the proposed lots. Edson also told the
Commission that the Zoning Code states a 100 foot setback from residential lots and
there must be some good reason for it and now the applicant has received a variance
for 72 feet and believes this is encroachment onto his property. He questioned
whether the elevation drawing presented at tonight's meeting was to scale. He said
that he was looking for some kind of compensation spread across the neighborhood.
Jim Trettil, 5802 Olson Memorial Hwy., believes that the residential property values e
will go down. He questioned whether there would be a retaining wall or fence along
the back property line. Trettil said he was upset with the number of variances
granted. He commented that Leonard Frame bought it for a parking lot and believes
that's all it is. He doesn't believe that anyone cares about the residents east of the
proposed property and is against the rezoning request.
Commissioner Kapsner told Mr. Trettil that the proposed back yard would gradually
slope back to the building and that a portion of the building would be underground.
Kapsner also said that there would be no retaining wall.
Brad Moen explained to the Commission the 3 to 1 slope that would be built and
would be easily mowable. He told the C;:ommission that the elevation plan is drawn to
scale. He said there was no retaining wall and there would be a pine tree backdrop
for the residents to look at.
Commissioner Marten would like the City Council to have a formal landscape plan for
review and would like to have this in the motion. Moen said that a formal plan could
be prepared for City Council review.
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1997
Page Five
Gary Larson commented that the majority of trees to the rear of the residential
properties is on the proposed lots. He said that GBC Partners do not want to push
anyone out and does not want to see property values go down. He believes that once
his business is in place he becomes a neighbor. As stated earlier, GBC Partners
believes that this is a win-win situation. Gary Larson commented that this is a very
difficult piece of property to work with. He also wanted to clarify that Mr. Edson did
give a verbal approval (noting that he would stay neutral on the proposal) when he
and Connie Larson visited with him.
Grimes commented to the Commission that if the four homes and street were vacated,
the area would be approximately 200 x 600 feet (approximately 3 acres). He said he
has calculated that a 40,000 sq.ft. building could be placed on the site with adequate
parking. Grimes said that there are three businesses to the east of the 'residential lots
that are smaller than the residential lots and driveway. Grimes said that the four lots
and driveway are developable on its own. Commissioner Martens agreed with Grimes
that the residential homes and driveway could be developed for a small user.
e
Mr. Edson came forward to comment on his conversation with Mr. Larson on giving his
approval to the proposal. He said that the Larsons showed him a document noting that
they would replace trees but did not want to sign the document because the document
was too vague. He said that he has talked with Council Members Micks and Johnson
and told them that this proposal would be the less of two evils. Edson would still like to
have a realtor do a before and after assessment of the area to determine market
values.
Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Commissioner Prazak commented that it is difficult to sort out the building plan from
the rezoning and supports the rezoning. He said he was pleased to see the additional
information, Le. the elevation plan. Prazak said that this is an awkward lot to build on.
He said he reassured by Grimes' comment that the four homes and driveway would
be large enough to develop on its own.
e
Commissioner Johnson said she supports the rezoning and that it makes sense to
make the lots buildable. She believes that the Larsons have done a good job of
listening to the neighbors and have accommodated everyone with their concerns.
Johnson noted Commissioner Martens comment that there are not a lot of small lots
left in Golden Valley to build on and she believes that this a good proposal for the
amount of space available. Johnson does not believe it is fair to hold the applicants to
what was submitted by Mr. Frame.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25,1997
Page Six
e
Commissioner Martens said that he supports the application and believes that it is a
good design, good use of the area and is sensitive to the land and neighborhood. He
commented on the variances granted and believed they were appropriate in this case
noting the site coverage. Martens said his biggest concern would be the landscaping
and its affect on the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors are being impacted by
the removal of the trees and he would like to see a landscape plan before he voted if
the final decision were up to this Commission and encourages the applicant to have a
formal plan for Council review.
Chair Pentel commented on Mr. Frame in 1989 getting his lot rezoned from Open
Development to Industrial for a parking lot and used it as a wedge, used by Mr. Frame
to get variances for a very large building. She said she sees the rezoning as a way to
further isolate the residential area and views this rezoning as a way to increase the
size of the variances - the proposed building is very long and 28 feet from the east
property line. She opposes the rezoning of the proposed property.
Commissioner Kapsner said that he had a number of concerns. He believes that the
proposal is not encroaching on the residential area to the east and sees no future
residential use for the proposed property. Kapsner said he sees the long term use of e
this area as industrial or office and is the future of the proposed piece of property,
whether it is constructed now or later. He said that the applicants have submitted a
use that is workable, it is not the number one choice, but it is better use than other
choices. Is in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner McAleese commented on the narrow issue of the rezoning and
believes it is appropriate. McAleese said that he attended the City Council meeting of
July 15 and has reconsidered the matter of rezoning the property. He said that he is
not sure whether the City Council was wrong in their denial of the rezoning when
looking at the issue of policy. McAleese said that he would vote against the rezoning
at this time, that looking at the simple planning standpoint of rezoning makes sense,
but believes there are other development issues.
MOVED by Johnson, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 6-2 (one
commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the request to rezone the proposed
property from Open Development to Industrial.
e
.
e
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
August 25, 1997
Page Seven
III. Reports on Meetings of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zoning Appeals
Chair Pentel gave a report on a BZA meeting. Grim~s reported on the Special
Meeting of the HRA regarding a motion for the HRA to acquire properties in the
Golden Hills West Area.
IV. Other Business
A. Attendance Review
Chair Pentel reviewed attendance.
B. State Planning Conference in Rochester, MN
Chair Pentel and Commissioner Martens will be attending the conference.
V. Actjoumment
Chair Pentel adjourned the meeting at 8:30pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
~
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
SEPTEMBER 4, 1997
Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) No. 97-71 to allow construction of larger building for the
Juvenile Detention Facility at 7151 Madison Avenue North
(Formerly known as 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin
County Property Services, Applicant
Hennepin County has requested that CUP No. 97-71 be amended in order to
allow for the construction of a juvenile detention center that would be about 800
sq.ft. larger. CUP No. 97-71 was granted by the City Council on June 3, 1997
after receiving a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on
May 12, 1997. At the May 27, 1997 Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) meeting, the
BZA approved several variances that allowed for the construction of the building
that was proposed as part of the original CUP. Prior to the original CUP action,
the City Council amended the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to
permit institutional uses on this site. I am attaching staff memos and minutes on
the original CUP application for your information.
Hennepin County is now requesting that the CUP be amended because the site
plan submitted with a building plan of 5,745 sq.ft., dated May 12, 1997 and
attached to the CUP is no longer valid. As stated in a memo from Michael
Jordan of SMMA Architects, the size of the building is proposed to increase from
6,000 sq. ft. to 6,552 sq. ft. (Note that the original CUP approved a building of
5,745 sq. ft.) They state that the size has increased due to the exterior thickness
of the walls from 1 ft. to 1 ft. 4 in. and the addition of a room to enclose the
dumpster. It is also my understanding that additional space was needed to meet
certain code requirements. At the Planning Commission hearing, the architects
will need to explain in greater detail why the building size expanded from 5,745
sq.ft. to 6,552 sq.ft.
Due to the increased size.of the building, Hennepin County must also apply for
new variances to permit the construction of this proposed building. The
variances that are required for the new building are substantially larger due to
the increased size of the building. Attached is a list of the variances that will be
requested from the BZA. The County will have to appear before the BZA prior to
the amended CUP consideration by the City Council.
.,.
The use of the new building remains to same - a 16-bed juvenile detention
annex. In my memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7, 1997, there is an
explanation of the use. This is attached for your information. If this amended
CUP is approved, a revised "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions" will have to be drafted. These "Covenants" will then be filed with
the County Recorder. The revised "Covenants" will have to reflect the revised
CUP. The City will require that the "Covenants" state the exact size of the
building as approved by the amended CUP. The staff will also recommend that
the amended CUP include a condition that no building permits will be issued until
there is proof that the "Covenants" are recorded.
As part of the CUP review, City Code requires that the Planning Commission
make findings and recommendations to the City 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.
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.
.
.
.
2
"...
~
.
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 welllandseaped.
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 "Covenanf will give the City and
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. No building permits be issued until there is proof that the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions has been filed.
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 Associatesl
Winsor Faricy, with the signature of the Director of Planning and
Development and dated of September 4, 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.
.
3
'lit'
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: Location Map
Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated April 1 a, 1997
(Comp. Plan Amendment and Rezoning)
Minutes of the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997
Staff Memo to Planning Commission dated May 7, 1997
(Conditional Use Permit)
Minutes of the Planning Commission dated May 12, 1997
Staff Memo to City Council (Public Hearing on Compo Plan
Amendment and Rezoning)
Minutes of the City Council dated May 20, 1997
Staff Memo to Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 21;" 1997
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 27, 1997
Staff Memo to City Council (Public Hearing on Conditional
Use Permit)
Minutes of the City Council dated June 3, 1997
Hennepin County's Descriptive Summary (3 pages)
Staff Use and Support Material (3 pages) .
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (3 pages)
New Proposed Variances
Survey/New Site Plan/Old Site Plan (attached separately)
(Note: Attachments of the above mentioned memos were not included. If more
information is desired, contact the Planning Department)
.
4
.
.
.
I/T:\WORD\MEMO.DOT
.
ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
STRATEGIC PLANNING RESOURCES
~
SMMA \
Symmes Malnl & McKee AssoclatesJWinsor Faricy
MEMORANDUM
M INN E A POL IS>. M N . 8 T . P A U L . M N . C A M B RID G E. M A
To: CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
From: MICHAEL JORDAN
Project HENNEPIN COUNTY -16 BED BOYS JUVENilE DETENTION ANNEX
Re: ZONING SETBACK VARIANCE AND REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Distribution: RICHARD STRONG, HCPM (MF)
Date:8/18/97
Project No.:97413.00
The original zoning setback along the Nevada Avenue side of the proposed building was l:\ased on our
preliminary site plan, and the _location of the existing building on the site, which had assumed that the
existing parking lot dimensions could be applied to the new parkjng lot-layout.
When we received the Zoning variance description, we found that the required parking setback was listed
as 5'-0", not the 3'-0" as shown and the parking stall dimensions were required to be 20'-0" and not 18'-0"
. as shown. Since our building dimensions are fixed, this requires a: change -to reduce. by 4'-8" the setback
at the Nevada Street side of the project. .
The size of our building-has also changed from the original submittal and approval of the conditional use
permit. The building exterior wall thickness was increased from 1':0" to 1'-4" arid we also added a room
. -
to enclose the trash dumpster which increased the building area from 6,000 S.F. to 6,552S.F. As a
result, we are also requesting an increase in the permitted area to 7,000 S.F.
.
801 Nicollet Mall. Suite 1600. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612. 332. 3654 Fax. 332. 3626
.
.
.
.
v~'~v'a' ~~.~~~~~~ UJ~O
FFR lEI '97 13= 00 QUAllTEK
liV Y.'U<1\ &. K~(;
19J 001
P.!"'1
,0:~:!" .[ Hennepin County
H;1~'~iC.'~ . t
.L!:~':~..! '.. ~;: .
..jf'.~ n~;;~i 1
..;t . ,..,.
_.I;!;. ,I
kta EqNAl~ B~~
April 1. 1997
rlf~
lift!
S9F oSqs>'
~
1; 0 l~ u ~.lIey'
, 17-
Uf
Duane Devereaux.
6100 Jeffrey Lane
Edina. MN 55436
RECEIVED
APR 1 0 1997
R.e: Proposed Juvenile Boys Detention Annex
7155 Madison Avenue West
Dear Duane Devereaux::
l11t~re will be a meeting on Friday" April] I. J997. at 1:00 p.m., ax the. Golden Valley City
Hall, in the City Council Conference Room (across the ball from the Council ChamberS)
in order to review the floor plan and look at building elevations.
Nof;bing is final at this stage and your presence and input at this m~ting are ~ercome and
appreciated. Thank you.
Sincerely,
1!:!d-4/~
Architect-Project Manager
~-/D -91
~ .fhJ~.
npb J. ~/3 !!bJ~ ~
~ Jo". ()wI~;JL o.-.&:ft.:~ -'
~ 1 In.Il4d"t'..{ ~~~i~? - ; ~ ~~f'~
IhJl"'~/&J~ 1~ ~- ~ 1I~~Q(41't
~
}.tt, . ........1 ~ of PuWfc Wad.,
l~- A-2208 H~p'n County OOYt!Il\ment Center
MinnCIlpulis, Minnesota 55-481..0228
(612) J4~28S2 FAX:(612) 348-3491
II J.-l!
fl. 4lu
3. .~k.
&c,dcd PGper
.
.
.
.'
~~
RE:CEIVEO
r-- - .
~~. ,; G ~' 1996
ace label s,ystems inc.
December 6, 1996
"
Sig Fine
Hennepin County Community Corrections
C-2353 Hennepin County Government Center
~eapolis,~. 55487
Dear Mr. Fine,
As a business owner in the very near vacinity of the proposed Juvenile Boys Detention
Annex, we are submitting our very strong objections to this proposal.
Ace Label has been located in Golden Valley since 1993, and we are currently in
process of building a new facility directly across the street from our existing building.
There are several reasons that the proposed facility would be detrimental to Ace Label
as well as our entire industrial area.
I) Safety- When we moved to Golden Valley in 1993, we carefully looked for the-
type of :q~ighborhood ~at would provide for the safety and welfare of our
employees. We-operate two shifts, so we have employees arriving at very early
hours in the morning as well as a second shift that leaves after midnight.
2) Vandalism- Although personal safety comes first, our employees cars are located in
a secluded parking lot. We utilize expensive and valuable computer hardware and
systems, which would shut us down if they were damaged or vandalized. Since this
is an industrial area, it is very quiet, unattended and unpopulated on the weekends.
~
3) Market Value- In order to proceed with our new facility, we must sell the existing
building. Our realtor is in agreement with us, that this proposed center could be a .
detriment to the sale and decrease the value of our building. We also face this, ,
devaluatio~ of the brand new building we are planning.. '
.,
7100 Madison Ave. W. · Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 · (612) 933-3105 · FAX (612) 545-8771
Page 2
..
.
We realize there are no guarantees about safety and crime anywhere. However, it
makes no sense to propose a facility so inconsistant with the industrial nature of this
neighborhood. We would be just as. opposed if this were an all night pizza parlor or a
bar.
Although we are not demographic experts, it seems that a detention center would be
better placed in a busy, well lite, high traffic area. We would not ask to place our
business in the middle of an inappropriate area for our process, so we are in hopes that
our wishes will be respected to not put this detention facility in the midst of our
operation.
Sincerely,
ACE LABEL SYSTEMS, INC.
t?tL- a. e
Art Bakshian
President and CEO
cc: - Golden Valley Police Departmeg.t
City of Golden Valley
Jeff Svendsen, Boustead Electric_
~-
-,
.
i
.
I. 0
. ~ ~ sa ~ · ~~D
,.;a IDO - r 100
1 ~ -;
:> ~ 17 ': 16.
I'" '\
Z;:.~, I - . COU{\~'S '::f~~ii: '7Z'!O
I n\{\'hI 11.t1 I n....1
. ~8{\{\e\'" raC\\~'" \ t!'4D IDO ..
~ 5\\8 O~oeIl8{\\\O{\ 8 \j\\. ~ ... -MADISON
.. ~ p..'tJ . -7
I- - -- - - - ~e ~8'tJ3da ;~!
1~~~ .
.1
.
N l/2
ISO
tfu
_____i.________
~
!
..
'" ~.!.s ~
ii.::.. ,
.,.....- t
.,... \aa:b. :;.
-....:..J ~
Ce..c;.~ i
-i
'~LL____:_
II
.:1 i
I
Wed.
if /1. 55
J
~esf
3' ,. 17
>
-
1-.
LaJ
3/f.i, O. ~:
::1
6
~ .
~
SEC. 29, l
200 0 200
I _
scale
:.... :-- ..~
.....:-- \. ..
....-....
fe
"r : :{.~ - >R ,., i
i . I ki I . ,_ I
20.
r
~
...
ei
~J4 I 13 . II 9
2
I
.
~
'"
~J5
.
7140
7/JS
61..6.
/110.111
~H.:t.
10 fil'"'
- ","'0.
... I 'II
0....
"'... ~
a I- ~
~ I ~ .
:;:
o
~
~
...
~~
'Cl~
.
<:l
~
~: 2
ti.:
~~
..
...
~ 3
5
4
~/4.1J'
100 \
I
,
C) - - - - - - _J
C) I
!"l
'Ii o. 2 a' PART
~ !al
I
I
3
~
..
III
...
~
.~
iii
4
(!)
...
~
U
..."
~
'-S
~
..
MEMORANDUM
.
Date:
April 1 0, 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
Corrections, 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 corner of Madison
Avenue and Nevada Avenue). The site is a corner 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 Ute 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 back 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 over 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 several 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 torn 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
...
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
April 14, 1997
Page Seven
ak asked if this is a new P.U.D. Knoblauch answered it is a new P.' r
. 9 development.
McAleese s
the fence issue,
agreed.
t another type of fence may be mor opriate and believes
ondition 6, be address . e landscaping plan. Pentel
III. Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive Land
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 th~ 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 t.his 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 at 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 happens. 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 attorneys. 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 be held 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 Karn,
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 Karn both said no.
Groger asked the applicant, given the restrictions being placed on this facility, i.e.
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. Karn responded that for
detention purposes, this number of beds was sufficient.
Grimes asked if the juveniles would be monitored when outdoors. Karn
responded that outdoor activities are always monitored.
Groger asked Karn if it is anticipated that this facility would be full all the time.
Karn 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 urysupervised
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 that 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).
.
,-
.
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 Restrictionsn 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 10, 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 (enclosed separately)
.
4
..
.
.
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12, 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. eeting
s called to order by Chair Pentel at 7pm.
Those p~
McAleese; abs e Johnson and Prazak. Als
of Planning and Beth
, apsner, Lewis,
m were Mark Grimes, Director
I.
Moved by McAlees
the April 28
ed by Groger and motlo
utes as submitted.
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 Institutlonal
(1-3) Zoning District
Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, gave a brief summary of his staff
report to the Commission dated May 7, 1997. Grimes told the Commission that
Hennepin County made the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on behalf of the
Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections. The permit is needed in order
to allow a juvenile detention center at 7155 Madison Avenue West in the Institutional
District.
Grimes reviewed previous recommendations by the Planning Commission to change the
Comprehensive Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities and the Zoning Map
from Industrial to Institutional.
Director Grimes gave brief history of the 7155 Madison Avenue West property noting
that the site, in the past, was used as a girl's group home. He said that the site had
been marketed for the past few years as a group home. Grimes said that Hennepin
County told staff that it has a need for additional space to house juveniles and believes
this site would .work. Hennepin County and the neighboring businesses have had a
couple of meetings regarding the use of the site and whether to renovate the existing
structure or design a new building. It seemed to be the consensus that a new designed
building would iook more aesthetically pleasing than the existing building. In order to
construct the new building, the Council would have to approve a Compo Plan Map
amendment, Zoning Map amendment and a Conditional Use Permit. Grimes said the
Council would be holding a public hearing for a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map
..
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12, 1997
Page 2
amendment and Zoning Map amendment on May 20. He explained that the proposed
building would not meet all the required setbacks and Hennepin County would have to
appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals on May 27. If the Board approves the
requested variances, the Council, at its June 3 meeting, will then review Hennepin
County's request for a CUP or hear an appeal if the BZA did not grant the requested
variances.
.
Grimes again said that the CUP would allow a 16-bed juvenile detention facility in the
Institutional (1-3) District. He told the Commission that Hennepin County has submitted
a covenant agreement which states that this facility will be used for this purpose. The
covenant agreement will be made a part of the conditions for this CUP.
Grimes explained that juveniles would first be booked at the downtown Minneapolis
facility and then would be brought to the Golden Valley site. He talked about the length
of stay, off-site food preparation, visitation and number of officials on the site.
Director Grimes reviewed the setback issues and the need for variances on .the east and
south sides of the property, with the construction of the new building. He then reviewed
the "ten factors for consideration". (Nothing outstanding was noted in these ten factors.)
Grimes said that the existing structure will be demolished and a new building
constructed which should be an enhancement to the site and area. Staff believes that
the use of the site as a detention facility would be an improvement over the existing use
and that the covenant agreement would assure that this site be used only as a 16-bed .
detention facility for boys. Grimes reviewed his conditions for granting the CUP as
follows:
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.
.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12,1997
Page 3
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.
Commissioner Lewis asked Grimes about item 8{B) of the covenants. She wanted to
know if this meant that the City could sue to enforce the covenants if Hennepin County
was not abiding. Grimes said that the language in the covenant is standard language,
and if Hennepin County made a change it would have to be approved by the City.
e
Commissioner Pentel asked how the City would know if Hennepin County was not
abiding by the covenant. Grimes said that the City would have to trust Hennepin County
or there would probably be complaints from the neighboring businesses. He continued
saying that the Inspections Department and/or Police Department probably would be
making routine yearly checks.
Commissioner Lewis asked about item 1 of the covenant regarding no adults or persons
who would be tried as an adult be housed at this facility. Grimes commented that
Hennepin County could better answer this question. Commissioner McAleese said that
he believes that item 1 is a promise by Hennepin County that persons being housed at
this site will be considered juveniles and not treated as adults; Grimes agreed and said
that once a juvenile is verified as an adult, they would not be sent to the Golden Valley
site.
Commissioner Groger asked Grimes about the length of stay for juveniles and Hennepin
County's requirement to send these persons to school. He was concerned that if the
time limit was not met, would this cause more traffic due to transportation from the
Golden Valley facility to the Minneapolis facility to school these juveniles. He said he
found notning in the covenant which covers this topic. Grimes answered that Hennepin
County would need to provide schooling for juveniles if they were kept longer than 14
days. He said that schooling is provided at the downtown facility, but that Hennepin
County has told staff that seven days would be the average length of stay for a juvenile
at the Golden Valley facility. Grimes also said that the juveniles at this facility are waiting
for a court appearance, and therefore, their stay would not be that long. Grimes
suggested that maybe there could be a monthly or yearly report stating the length of
time a juvenile was at the site. Chair Pentel said that Hennepin County must have their
own regulations regarding this subject.
e.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12,1997
Page 4
.
Commissioner McAleese asked Grimes about the recommended language change to
the covenant, as noted in his memo on page 2, regarding the detention facility use
falling under a Conditional Use Permit rather than it being a nonconforming use as noted
in the "Recitalsn. McAleese wanted to know if this change should be a condition or just
a change before it comes to the Council. Grimes said that he would be talking with
Hennepin County and requesting that they change the language in the " Recitalsn . That
this would not need to be a condition of the CUP.
Sig Fine, Director of Correctional Institutions for Hennepin County, commented that this
facility would be for short-term, male, juvenile offenders for pre-trial, age 16, for not
more than 14 days. This facility is intended to help accommodate the facility downtown,
which would have the responsibility of housing the more dangerous kids. He said that
the Golden Valley facility would be secured and well staffed. He said that due to
meetings with the neighborhood businesses, the business owners felt that if there were
a wall around the facility, they would feel better about the site, along with an enclosed.
sally port for egress and ingress. Fine said that because of these additions,the building
was enlarged which affected the setbacks. He noted that this site is very sm'all. Fine
believes that Hennepin County has been very forthcoming and will be good neighbors.
Chair Pentel asked if the downtown facility ever had to be evacuated. Fine said once
due to a bomb scare and persons were moved to the recreation yard. He said this could
happen at this facility but the juveniles would be evacuated to the, recreation yard until a .
Hennepin County squad could evaluate the situation. Fine said that there has only been
one escapee from the downtown facility in the past 15 years.
Chair Pentel asked if clients and staff would be allowed to smoke in the building. Fine
said they would not and would probably be going outside on their break to have a
smoke. He said that all Hennepin County facilities are smoke free but the grounds are
not.
Commissioner Kapsner asked if the juveniles have any interaction with the community
regarding dental or doctor appointments or schooling. Fine said that there is a contract
for medical needs, and physicians would visit the site as needed and if there is a need
for a clinic or hospital visit, this would be done through a supervised transportation to the
Hennepin County Medical Center.
Director Grimes asked how many juveniles would be transported to the facility in Golden
Valley each day. Barb Kam, Acting Division Manager for the Juvenile Detention Center,
anticipated three transports of juveniles per day along with two transports of food, one
for lunch and one for dinner, and one other transport for laundry pick-up and drop-off.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing.
Duane Devereaux, property owner of 2370 and 2455 Louisiana Avenue North, believes
this should be called a prison, because people are being locked up. He believes that
properties values in the area will depreciate and an appraiser should evaluate this. He .
believes this is an expensive piece of land to put this type of facility on in an Industrial
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12,1997
Page 5
area. Mr. Devereaux said he was worried about the type of people that would visit the
site. He believes that the size of the property is not efficient because there is no room
for expansion, no cooking and laundry facilities, and little parking. He believes this is the
poorest use of land in the Industrial District.
Chair Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
Chair Pentel asked if visits would have to be scheduled and would they occur during day
time hours. Karn said that visiting hours would be day and evening time hours. She
said visits are allowed only to parents or custodial adult, i.e. grandparents.
Pentel asked if there had been any crime in downtown Minneapolis related to the
juvenile facility or because of visitors to the facility. Karn said none that she or Mr. Fine
could say was directly related.
Commissioner Kapsner said that Mr. Devereaux had concerns that were brought up at
the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, on the subject of buddies coming to
visit their friends in the facility. He said he was reassured that there would be no contact
over the wall or unsupervised contact, and only parents and legal guardians would be
able to visit. Kapsner continued talking about the cost of land for this facility saying that
there could be less expensive land but there may be a problem with putting this type of
facility in a residential area and believes that the land cost is justifiable. Kapsner said he
. supports the proposal.
Commissioner Groger said a concern he has is with the expansion of the site and the
substantial variances which would need to be granted for the construction of the
building. Groger continued by saying that the CUP is a valid proposal over what is there
now.
Commissioner Lewis supports the proposal and believes that this use is a better fit in
the Industrial district than a Residential district. She believes that we need this type of
facility in the suburbs.
Commissioner McAleese supports the proposal along with the changes made at the
meeting for the Comp Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment. He said he
would recommend a change to condition 2 that the CUP shall not be issued until the
variances requested have been approved.
Chair Pentel thanked Mr. Devereaux for his comments and told him that some of these
issues had been previously addressed. Pentel believes that the facility will be secure
and will not have an affect on the surrounding neighborhood. She also said that the
building to be built will enhance the area more than what is existing, and that the City
could have had another group home go into this site, as is. Pentel supports the
proposal.
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
May 12,1997
Page 6
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Kapsner and motion carried unanimously to
recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow for a
Boy's Juvenile Detention Center at 7155 Madison Avenue West, along with the 11
conditions as outlined in the staff memo, with a change in language to Condition 2 to
read as follows: The CUP shall not be issued until 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.
.
V. Adjournment
IV.
III.
.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
.
.
May 14,1997
William S. Joynes, City Manager
Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development
Public Hearings on Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
from Industrial to Semi-Public Facility and Zoning Map
Amendment from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) for Property
at 7155 Madison Avenue West -- Hennepin County Property
Services, Applicant :
At the April 14, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
unanimously recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Map
amendment from Industrial to Semi-Public Facility and a Zoning Map
amendment from Industrial to Institutional (1-3) for the property at 7155
Madison Avenue West. These amendments would allow Hennepin
County to use the property for a 16-bed juvenile detention facility if a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were granted: If the City Council approves
both the Plan Map amendment and the Zoning Map amendment, the
County will be applying for the CUP to allow a residential facility in the
Institutional (1-3) Zoning District. I am attaching a copy of the April 14,
1997 Planning Commission minutes for your information. Also attached is
the staff memo on this matter dated April 10, 1997.
Hennepin County has also applied for the CUP that would allow the site to
be used for a residential facility. (It is the opinion of the Planning staff and
City Attorney that a juvenile detention facility fits the definition of a
residential facility as defined by the City's Zoning Code.) The Planning
Commission held an informal public hearing on this request at its meeting
of May 12, 1997. The Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the CUP for the juvenile detention facility. However, the public hearing
on the CUP must be continued until the June "3, 1997 meeting because
the proposed new detention facility will require setback variances. The
County has applied for these variances and will appear before the Board
of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on May 27, 1997. If the variances are approved
by the BZA, the CUP will go to the City Council on June 3, 1997 knowing
that the planned building has received the necessary variances. If the
BZA denies the variances, the County has the right to appeal the BZA
decision on the variances to the City Council at the June 3, 1997 meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of both
the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map from Industrial to Semi-
Public Facility and an amendment to the Zoning Map from Industrial to
Institutional (1-3). These changes would permit the County to apply for a
CUP that would allow for the construction of a new 16-bed juvenile
detention building on the subject site. The County is now in the process
of applying for the CUP and necessary variances for consideration by the
City Council after the two subject actions are approved.
Attachments:
Minutes of the Planning Commission dated
April 14, 1997
Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated
April 1 0, 1997 with attachments
Site Plan (enclosed separately)
Ordinance No. 159, 2nd Series
Resolution 97-45
2
.
.
.
.
'...:. '.I
.
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
May 20, 1997
Page 5
,-
MOVED BY Mick onded by Johnson and motion'" unanimously to amend the
foregoing n to request the applicant to address the Iigtiti
on t allard Creek apartments.
~:I:C ~earin~ - Comprehensive la.~d ~se PI~~ ~: ~,;~n::~n~ _ j1 ~~ Ma~i~~n ~~~~~
~~~ ~nd OrdInance #159 - Rezo~1 (} olnst tl I 1- D st t _ 7 a
Avenue West-
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development presented the staff report.
Richard Strong, Hennepin County Property Services and Barb Karn, Juvenile Detention
Center Manager, reviewed the plans and answered questions from the Council.
Kevin McAleese, Planning Commission Representative, presented the Commission report.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were afforded
the opportunity to express their views thereon.
~ -
Sandy Commers, Robbinsdale School District 281, expressed concern over the use of
Title I and Special Education funding, asked about the educational requirements, and
funding for the center and funding for those programs and asked if they will need require a
teacher for the site, requesting a notice be sent to the School District notifying them of any
changes to the status.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Member Russell introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 97-45
RESOLUTION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
MAP RESPECTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7155 MADISON AVENUE WEST
Regular Meeting of the City Council
May 20,1997
Page 6
.
Public H~aring - Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map Amendmenl-7155 MadiS~1J AV:U~
West and Ordinance #159 - Rezoning to Institutional (1-3) Zoning District - 715 Ma .so
Avenue West - Continued
The motion for the adoption for the foregoing resolution was seconded by Member LeSuer
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:' Anderson,
Johnson, LeSuer, Micks and Russell and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor
and her signature attested by the City Clerk. -
Member LeSuer introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
ORDINANCE NO. 159, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THE CITY CODE.
Rezoning from Industrial Zoning District to Institutional (1-3) Zoning District
7155 Madison Avenue West
Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant
.<.-)
MOVED by LeSuer, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to approve .
Ordinance #159, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows:
ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES RUSSELL - YES
Public Hearing - Ordinance #160 - Conditional Use Permit - 7155 Madison Avenue West
.. 0 00
William Joynes stated staff recommends this item be continued to June 3, 1997 in order
for the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear the variance requests for the proposed building at
their meeting of May 27, 1997.
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon. Hearing and seeing no one, the
Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Micks, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to continue the
public hearing for Ordinance #160 to June 3, 1997.
.
.~
. .,,",
. . 0
n rmously ~Ijp
a by staff. 0 __o,~
o 00 .
)
..
MEMORANDUM
Date:
May 21,1997
To:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
From:
Mary Dold, Administrative Secretary, Planning and Development
Subject:
7155 Madison Avenue West (97-5-22)
Hennepin County Property Services
Hennepin County Property Services, with property located at 7155 Madison Avenue West is
requesting several variances from City Code.
Brief History of Property
.
Hennepin County has already presented three other applications to the City for review. .A
Comprehensive land Use Plan Map amendment would change the use of the property from
Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. A rezoning would change the zoning from Industrial to
Institutional (1-3) and a Conditional Use Permit would allow for the operation of a residential
facility (16-bed juvenile detention center) in the Institutional (1-3) Zoning District.
The site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that such a use of
the property would fit in with the surrounding industrial area. Group homes were not a
permitted industrial use, but the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow
miscellaneous uses in the Industrial district that would be compatible with its permitted uses.
This was done by motion of the City Council. 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 legally 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. 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 legally use the building "as is". Interior and
maintenance improvements could be made, but no substanti'al exterior changes would be
allowed. The alternative preferred by the County - to demolish the existing building and start
over - could not be accomplished without a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and
. Zoning Code amendment.
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 ish
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 outcome was that a new detention facility
on the site would be preferred over remodeling the existing building. In addition to eliminating
problems related to the lack of security in 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. Unfortunately, this new facility as designed cannot fully meet
the setback requirements of the Institutional zoning district without obtaining variances.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comp Plan Map amendment and
rezoning at its meeting of April 14 and Conditional Use Permit at its meeting of-May 12. The
City Council, at its meeting of May 20, approved the Comp Plan Map amendment and the
rezoning. The Council will hear the CUP request, at its meeting of June 3, which is after it has
the decision of the Board on the variances. I have attached the minutes of the Planning
Commission of April 14, for your information. The minutes from the May 12 meeting have not
been completed as of this writing.
Request
.
Hennepin County Property Services will need four variances in order to construct a new
bUilding on the site. Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements state that side and rear
yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width and depth, of
which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped and maintained as a
buffer zone. Staff has determined that the rear yard is to the east because it is opposite the
shorter of the two streets. The side yard is to the south. The requested variances are as
follows:
· East Side - 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed
building; and 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of
greens pace along the property line.
· South Side - 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed
building; and 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the lack of
greenspace along the property line.
Because this will be a new building, no information is yet to be found in the file. The existing
building file has no relevance on these requested variances.
.
'I
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27, 1997
Page 17
.
Grimes asked if the siding on the additio would match the existing structure and the
owner said that it would and some of th arage brick and some from other locations would
be re-used.
MOVED by II to grant the request.
.
Shaffer asked i one in the audience hed to speak. Alfred an la Anderegg, 117
Westwood Drive ~,came forward and Iked about the pine. ." s and landscaping
between homes. ~~. ~eregg said that h saw the plans bri and thought they would
just add to the back but nQ~ he thinks the . dition goes u -. to 12 feet which would
abruptly change his view, esgecially to the uth. He Inued by saying that the Mallin
lot is about 2 feet higher than lis. so the wa. ill blo' is view. The nei hb 0
expressed concern that this ab ~ uyers at the
tim ,e e . 'se look out of proportion to the homes on
the street and is not in the motif of the ~ rhood. The An,dereggs ~ommented that
they would be very disappointed if the~.E look at that wall rather than trees and that
they are concemed about resale. l1JeY are I, If'"!1e residents of Golden Val/ey, 36 years,
and they are concerned about t~rack of es. . udgment and concern for the neighbors.
They asked about the increase=of interior vol " e ohhe home. Polachek stated that the
roof will be less than 5 f~rQher than it is n'. ~~<
, . . ~
Swedberg asked how,.ffie neighbor knows th the value of t'e ~ouse will be decreased
and if they have ~rofessional opinion on th~( ssue. Mrs. Anaer..~g commented that it is
her oPinlo,a'professional opinion, that tie would be a dec" in property values.
Swed. ~!l1'noted the comments of neighbors a seconded the mOlforr~.
~ ,
Gltlger stated that for the record, the basis of his vote is that tt is a minor,ce and that
the neighborhood has changed over the years and larger homes are prevale,
7155 Madison Avenue West (Map 14) (97-5-22)
Hennepin County Property Services
Request:
Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements _ 33 feet off
the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet for the proposed bu~lding
on the south side; and
Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements _ 8 feet off
the required 25 feet to a distance of 17 feet for lack of greenspace on
the south side; and
.
Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements _ 6.46 feet off
the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the proposed
building on the east side; and
('
",
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27,1997
Page 18
.
Waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 20 feet off
the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of greenspace
on the east side.
Purpose:
To allow for the construction of a new building at 7155 Madison
Avenue West.
Owner David Pfeffer was in attendance.
Grimes explained that Hennepin County has already presented three other applications to
the City for review. A Comprehensive Land Use plan map amendment would change the
use of the property from Industrial to Semi-Public Facilities. A rezoning would change the
zoning from Industrial to Institution (1-3) and a Conditional Use Permit would allow for the
operation of a residential facility (16-bed juvenile detention center) in the Institutional (1-3)
Zoning District. ".
This site became a group home in 1975 when the City Council determined that such a use
of the property would fit in with the surrounding industrial area. Group homes were not a
permitted industrial use, but the Zoning Code gave the City Council authority to allow
miscellaneous uses in the Industrial district that would be compatible with its permitted
uses. This was approved by motion of the City Council. 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 considere~ a legally 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. 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.
Hennepin County wants to tear down the group home and build another facility. Variances
are needed to do so. The zoning needs to be changed to Institutional, and a Conditional
Use Permit is needed. Also, variances are needed because setbacks in Institutional zones
are fairly substantial. If granted, Hennepin County can request a Conditional Use Permit.
If denied, Hennepin County will appeal to City Council.
Swedberg asked if the property would require setbacks for light industrial instead of the
juvenile facility, and Grimes stated that it probably would since this is a small, comer lot.
The existing building doesn't meet the set back requirements.
Groger stated that parking goes up to the lot line now.
.
~
Minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals
May 27,1997
Page 19
.
Grimes stated that the City Council permitted the group home because there was no
reason not to. Now it has a non-conforming group home in the industrial district. The City
felt they had to allow it to operate. The neighbors prefer a new home. Security with the
group home was a challenge.
Swedberg said that it seems that a building of any size would need variances. Grimes
stated that maybe a small building could be built without variances. This neighborhood
was developed in the 60's without setback requirements. Swedberg observes that the City
could get more out of this than we have now. It will look better in back, too. Grimes added
that a wall 12 to 14 feet high would keep the juveniles inside. The wall will have razor wire
on the inside which will not be visible from the street.
Swedberg asked about landscaping. Grimes said that a landscape plan will be presented.
The County is working with neighbors to plan landscaping. Traffic is minimal less than 50
trips a day, less than usual in an Industrial zone.
The owner stated that there are 23 employees on a 24 hour basis.
Grimes said that visitors are limited to parents and guardians, and must be approved
ahead of time. Groger added that friends will not be visiting.
. Groger related the concern of the owner to the south as this facility would be 5 feet from
his lot line. However, there will be someone with the juveniles when they are outside.
Grimes added that the wall is 14 feet high so no one will know who is in the facility. Shaffer
asked about security cameras and the owner said they will be inside and will probably spin.
Shaffer added that the windows facing Nevada are high security windows that no one can
see out of.
Groger asked about parking needs and Grimes answered that only the employees and a
few visitors will be parking there. He added that on-street parking is common in that area
and that he doesn't see a parking problem.
Swedberg stated that in looking at alternatives, the City couldn't do much better than this
proposal.
.
MOVED by Swedberg, seconded by Groger and passed unanimously to approve the
waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 33 feet off the required 50 feet to
a distance of 17 feet for the proposed building on the south side; and the waiver from
Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - 8 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of
17 feet for lack of greenspace on the south side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd.
8 Yard Requirements - 6.46 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 43.54 feet for the
proposed building on the east side; and the waiver from Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard
Requirements - 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet for the lack of
greenspace on the east side to allow for the construction of a new building at 7155
Madison Avenue West.
.
.
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 29, 1997
William S. Joynes
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow
Residential Facility at 7155 Madison Avenue West - Hennepin
County Property Services, Applicant.
At the May 12, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
unanimously recommended approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) that
would allow for the construction and operation of a juvenile detention facility for
boys at 7155 Madison Avenue West. The facility would be operated by the
Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections. In order to allow for
the CUP to be considered by the City Council, the Council previously approved a
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment and Zoning Map amendment at its May
20, 1997 meeting. The public hearing on the CUP by the City Council has been
delayed until the June 3, 1997 meeting in order to allow the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) to consider the necessary variances to allow for the construction
of the facility. At the May 27, 1997 meeting of the BZA, the BZA granted all
necessary variances for the construction of the facility as submitted with the
CUP.
I am enclosing my memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7, 1997 which
describes the CUP requested by the County. A copy of the revised "Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" is also attached which will be
attached to the records for this property.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The staff and Planning Commission are recommending approval of the CUP to
allow for the construction of a 16-bed boys juvenile detention facility at 7155
Madison Avenue West. The following conditions are recommended to become a
part of the conditional use permit:
1. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment for this property .
is approved by the City Council.
2. The CUP shall not be issued until 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: Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated May 7, 1997 and
attachments
Planning Commission Minutes dated May 12, 1997
Staff Memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals dated May 21,1997
Ordinance No. 160, 2nd Series
.
2
.
Regular Meeting of the City Council
June 3, 1997
Page 2
*
Y Russell, seconded by LeSuer and motion carried unanimously to authorize the
eneral business licenses #16632 - #16687 and #6941 - #6943.
.
MOVED by Russell, s . nded by LeSuer and motion carried
fireworks dispJay for the - Relief Association Street Dan
at the Chester Bird America ion Post #523.
rmously to approve the
e held on June 21, 1997
*
* .
nded by LeSuer and- moti' - carried unanimously to receive and
ed as follows:
mission - May 12, 1997
ervices Foundation - May 12, 1997
Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance #160 - Conditional Use Permit _ 7155 Madisofl
Avenue West
The following ordinance was MOVED by Russell, seconded by Micks:
ORDINANCE #160, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE
Approval of Conditional Use Permit
7155 Madison Avenue West
Hennepin County Property Services, Applicant
Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development; presented the staff report and
answered questions from the CouncU.
.
Dean Mooney, Director of Public Safety, updated the Council on the educational programs
and funding of the programs to be provided the residents of the detention center.
Sig Fine, Hennepin County Correctional Institutions Administrator. reviewed the request
and answered questions from the Council. \~ ....... ~
/.' j
VJ
Regular Meeting of the City Council
June 3, 1997
Page 3
.
Continued Public HearinQ - Ordinance #160 - Conditional Use Permit - 7155 Madison
Avenue West
The Mayor opened the meeting for public input and persons present to do so were
afforded the opportunity to express their views thereon.
Sandy Commers, Robbinsdale School District 281, thanked the County for being as
cooperative and cOZiaborative as they have been regarding the issue of funding the
educational programs for the residents at the detention center.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
MOVED by Russell, seconded by Micks and motion carried unanimously to approve
Ordinance #160, 2nd Series. Upon a roll call vote, the vote was as follows:
ANDERSON - YES JOHNSON - YES LESUER - YES MICKS - YES RUSSELL _ YES
Continued Public Item - Preliminary Design Plan Approval - PUD #74 - Hidden Lakes
Divelopment _
. iI Member LeSuer stated he would like the Council to make an amendment to the
~ aken on this matter by the Counc,il a prior meeting held on June 2.
.J{
.
- .
Allen ard reviewed the process 'the ouncil to consider an amendment an action
previou' taken. .,,1) \
Council M'" ber L:.eSuer withdrew:his amendment.
- l' ~
MOVED by cks, seconded by 'Johnson and molbn carried unanimously to continue the
public item the preliminary design plan approval for PUD #74, Hidden Lakes
Development a Special deeting scheduled tor7:,.m. on Thursday, June 19, 1997.
*
MOVED by LeSue . 'fnded by Russell and motlon~ed unanimously to approve the
requests for beer a " r wine at Brookview Park as reco~ed by staff.
*
.,
/~
MOVED by LeS r, s ded by Russell and motion carried unanimously to authorize the
Mayor and Mayor Pro em to sign the Certification of Local Perfonnance Measures for
Local Performance Aid Payable in 1998.
.
'11
l~ .,
'*
>
---;:? J/eSCrlf,'f7~ ~, -~) ~ ~{t:.r-r- W~ {ewV1~
er/'./h~5 -Ii Ctt Ij VaJ ~ ;"J"r CfA1 Si ~ J:;bGc~ I'()/-,
rJ:F- Us€ ~w.M.r ~a /~
.
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 hislher 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, through 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 Depamnent of Corrections licensing, the County has been exp~ted 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 fme
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.
W arrants/ 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 TermCurfew
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 examining
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 tights 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 facili~
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.
Garage 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 staffin 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 Correctional Facility (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.
Visit/Library/Classroom
This multipurpose room can be used as a classroom, 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.
O!
~
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 staff will have access to the playground from the
living area for outdoor recreation as well as emergency evacuation.
INDOOR/OUTDOOR RECREA nON
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. Windows .
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.
.
I
.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
Revised on 18 August 1997
'Ibis Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ("Declaration'') is made as of
the 18th day of August 1997, 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 ofijennepin together
with buildings and improvements thereon (collectively referred to as "Property;'), such real
property is legally described as follows:
Lot 7 and the North 3S 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
tbe property as a conditional use in the 1-3 Institutional Zoning District.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, in connection with the development of the Property and its
~........-..,,~tinued use, Declarant does hereb declare that each of the follo' co~~~~cJJ!!i>~_, __
... ,----,-- ~ons- 8Jli ' e m mg-upon, aulnute' to e- iene :rO" Deelatattt ana~ .~-~.. - ~":~-=:~
successive owners and users of the Property.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
1 . The Property may only be used as a temporary bolding facility for juveniles wbo
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. '
. .---
::I, The size and footprint of the building not including the exercise yard shall remain
less than :\ 888 3F as it is on the date these Declarations.
/,55')1 ~ ft .
4. Construction of the facility shall be in accordance to the site plans prepared by
Symmes Maini & McKee AssociateslW'msor Farley dated 18 AutnlSt 1997 subject to minor
variation due to construction technologies and building components selections. No signage will
be placed on the buj.~dingo~er than a building i~entification and a4clr~._ , 00' ___.. _ '. ____... _____. __
- ~~H\ P(~
1
Z"d
lWSW Al~d~d Al~ NN3H Wd1S:21 l6. 81 ~
:;. 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...' I~iunctive-relief; prohibitive or mandatory, to.prevent.tlie-breaclfofi)ftO=~==
enforce the perfonnance or observance of said covenants, c~nditions and
restrictions; or .
a. 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
Restnctic)ns 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 WIlNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the
day and year first above written.
2
.
.
.
.
.
J-'-'-
.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
By
Its
STATE OF lv.lINNESOTA )
)55,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
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
r.\82208 ps\d&.c\staft\suong\covenants
,--:.::,....~____~;..:._._;.....:.:...:.~._.._~.-:_......~--..:.---__...~ -0"--'- _.___. ____..__.. p~_'_ __ ..
.
.. . ,-.
._- --_. -._. -. '~_.__._._---- - -.. -~.. ....- --- ._---
3
17'd
lW9W )'l~dO~d )'D N"'3H ~d2~:2't L6, 8t ~I::I
.
- J_\::.:, -:~<~-'::.}E';:'J
New Proposed Variances
CityHaD ..'-
7800 Golden VaIleyRoad.
GoIdenVaIIey,MN 55427:.4583 7155 Madison Avenue West
(612) 593-8000 '. . Hennepin County Property Services
FAX (612) 593-8109
TOO (612) 593-3968
Mayor and Council
593-8006
CityManager
593-8002
Public Safety
Police 593-8079
Ftie 593-8080
Fax 593-8098
Public Works
. 593-8030
Inspections
593-8092
Motor Vehicle
593-8101
Planning and Zoning
593-8095
Finance
593-8013
~
593-8020
Park and Recreation
200 Brookview Parkway
Go!denVaIIey, MN 55426-1364
(612) 544-5218
FAX (612) 544-0398
TOO (612) 593-3968
.
Hennepin County Property Services, with property located at 7155 Madison Avenue
West, has petitioned the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals for the following
waivers:
Section 11.46, Subd. 8 Yard Requirements - City Code states that side and
. rear yards in the Institutional Zoning District shall not be less than 50 feet in width
and depth, of which at least 25 feet adjacent to the property line shall be landscaped
and maintained as a buffer zone. The requested variances are as follows:
. 33 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 17 feet from the south property
line for the proposed building; and
· 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the south proeprty line
for the lack of greenspace due to the proposed parking lot; and
. .5 feet off the required 50 feet to a distance of 49.5 feet to the east property line
for the proposed building; and
· 20 feet off the required 25 feet to a distance of 5 feet from the east proeprty line
for the lack of greens pace due to the proposed parking lot.
Section 11.46, Subd. 9 Front Yard Setback - City Code states that no building
or structure in an Institutional Zoning District shall be located less than 35 feet from
the property line abutting a public street. The requested variances are as follows:
. 5 feet off the required 35 feet to a distance of 30 feet from the west proeprty line
for the proposed building facing Nevada Avenue; and
The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on the site. Previously
requested variances shall become null and void because of the new plan and
requests. The applicant has moved the building 5 feet closer to Nevada Avenue in
order to accommodate the required fire lane of 20 feet in width and parking spaces of
9' x 20' on the east side of the property.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION-
BOUNDARY SURVEY OF THE'
ADVERTISING-CREATIVE CENTER
HENNEPIN COUNTY
GENERAL SERVICES DE? ARTUENT
TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVIS.ION
SURVEY SECTION _
.
LOT 1 AND lHE NORTH '35 FEET OF LOT 6.
BLOCK 3, ADVERTISING-~TIVE CENTER,
HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA.
AREA . 28,781.'31 SQUARE FEET (0.66 AatES)
o DENOTES SET LIONUt.ENT
. DENOTES FOUND IoDWUENT
80
.
z
w
~
~
<
C
~
:z
80
8624 CONatETE aJRB
MAD ISON AVENUE. W r CONatETE ~.
. SLAB
-179.90 589056' 17IE-' /-....
.......... L-31. 45 ! ~~5~R""',... I ~.I
....... R- 20. 00 ~ ON CON<m'E!L- ~ _
( A-90.05'30~ PAD ~ ~
(~ 100.1 - --..\ (. WO~D -"'0 :a
I STORAGE _
ONE STORY , \ - SHE~ 0)
co co' CONatETE
Iii FRAME BUILDING Iii SlJ.B ~
I T lc~
34.'1 -100.1-
\ ",,'"
s
\
..
8
o
0-.
Z
~
~
N
WOODEN -.... ENTRY "'1"" '! 64. 4 I ~
DECK ~'\.\ft. I .,, - - ~
I CONatETE SLAB.J ~ I "'~~S~
- I NORTH'LlNEOF LOT 6 --;r-r ~=- -
I 6- 0) - ..~
~ .&:l"\1.~1l\~OUTH LINE OF THE NORTH -'. f .-EDGE OF -' I
Nv- f 35 FEET OF L~ .....! .~.,~ BITUUINO~J /
ONE STORY 5~199.87 N89.~'~2.E""'" .
BLOC< BUILDING I I
i
t.
'.....
GARY F. CASWELL
HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYOR
I HEREBY CEfrIFY THAT THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PREPARED
BY UE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISI~ ON THIS 411, DAY
OF 5ept0r1peY . 19 'I' AND THAT I AU A DULY ~
LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
II
~471~
PHILLIP A. NElSON. PROFESSIONAL lAND SURVEYOR
MINNESOTA LICENSE NUMfER 17025
o 40 80
~ I
SCALE IN FEET
.
CSP 528 SEPTEMIB, 1996
THIS SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO ANY FACTS THAT LlAY EE
OISa.OSED BY A FUll AND ACQJRATE TmE SEARIlI.
.
NOTEI A NORTH BEARING ON THIS
SURVEY IS BASED ON ~ ASSULED DATUM.
--
"
/
/.
/,
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
::>
i
i
ToO. PMIPf:I'
- B. 112'-t.
~
--
--
.....
AI .I air. ..-,'-G'
.' ~i.lM:'"
~!t:.:~:- '.
.........-
.............
-_.
...... -....
WIXlD ... AS IfDJ!D
...........
~
'~......,.,..~,..,...
'.!.... ............,0;.... "no'.:...
.:.;..~;;~: .:,>:':'.:;;~: .~:..:;~~:::::::...:
. '.'
. . . ~ ." .,
.................
ellD'RtliSUl_
...-
~-
""""'''''''
JllI1l"M.-
==--
4'''''' ... ......... 'ffi
MfA '" DIMI 1'tP
.....
MADISON AVENUE W.
......
..-.7"1: nua
---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
,.
,?
;
="1
I
I
I
_'~_4
--~
1D IElMIf. 'hP.
B'~
~t
iii:'
e
a.
co
I
... III
-4:~'"
.....11
"1
~-......
IMIlfUIV
IClI'PEII.
--
I
I
I
I
8' - oQL
...-.:
I ID7
~i ~1l1
~ i .
Ii
I
rG- . .-.---
I .
~ ,r -.:
III
....
"""1"-
......_.~.......,-
.-......
~CMR
rm:.,lIlI..
sa&/A1
..........
-'---'-1\
1
0,
Sf' .
-- 1
. i
~ !
I
tE
1
1
,4l. III" .
.,.-
"/C
-
..,.
,
,
,
I
,~
1-
i~
.....~:
... : --.-
. .-.-.-
-. .
'-+- ......,
'-.,.,
I IIaUIH LIlE CF tHE NDKIH &1
~ [.. om... LOr"
... ,.
~ ._._._._.~._._. .-.-.-.-.---.-.-.---.-.
NBlI'H"a"I!: 111.81
I
-
I
I
1
1
.If
"~I
107." l ~ -. .
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---._._.___L._._ PI_
G
OMtSlOll'
""""'-
Q) ~~/SlTEfUN
-
EB
.~
SMMA \
=-r::. --I
~~
~
e
~-i
~e
00
(.) .~
.5 P'-
c:::2.CD
me
e
em
m=
:l:e
~
....,
--
___ om
Pro/CtNullDr. 0031524
ConInlI:tftmDr. AlI054
ClIIIllr tanber:
Fund tanber: 55
Alll:01n tlmk l20109
::2!\: ~tH7 ID. .,......
:::6S:~"'" DA at
!!:....--
--
HennepIn County
Juv. Det. Annex
7tu ........ Awnue
--,-
,....,_.... .......--
~ . ,.... - .,....1lJ 11II
. ..... IIIJ 6Ict ........ ... ...
I _ . ." IIIttdnl MUId ....
Ull_.,..SIatI..-...
-
-a_a ..._
ROOF PLAN Be
SITE PLAN
DETAILS
IlIl1I
sew: M NOTED
__ I't -;:u:-
_If -
I'IlG.L AICIL IUi
...,.,.... m
_110. ""i74ii
~_I:_""&1B7
1\1
PI\1997\97413\D\/G\A\AS\ 7413A-1 81897 wG1
~
IIIC
00 euRClED
AI. ...- -.... _00NJ:B0l.lENI'8
~I~
.~
@ EN.ARGED LA
AI. ...-.._ I.NJFIYtroLErlsJAFF
@ EN-AFlClED SHOWERIKlTaeET1E
A2 ew6 LW-r~
'-10'"
<ID euRClED lYP. CELL PLANS
AI. ...-_
;'1
iI
~
@ REFLECTED CEI..t/Q PLAN
AI. IGoVo ...........
....~
u--r
r-r ,'...
1iP."
. J::ri
",...
,'-r ~~_~~ l~~. ,'-r
",..
~.
"".'
r'
b.
1-__
z
t
~
'r
..
~I~
. "
"
~~~L:15
(
~I
~
~I~ :
~rt
-1L
--
.~
DCP. .rrJ
....
..... .IT. -<
I",..
...~
...-
@FLOORPLAN
AI. IGoVo .........
J
.......
:....
....... TIll.....
-o---o~
=
=
=
=
......
......
......
......
......
.ft@LJ- j--"~
I
I
I
I
I------>
I t
L-..
t
g
~
lVL
/l1JTf
'JIIIC-
m;va.
;.1 ~
III
I It
~
.,1 i
II -
~
~
SMMA ~
=::~-~
t9U!!!5l!1 ~eUI
~ "'.......-
~
c
~-i
::::IC
00
(..).! -
.5 ~
CLm
CDe
c ~..
c.=
CD._
:J:c
~
::::I
-:t
..... ......
-
_lMlE_
ProJIlCl Numbar: 0031524
ConlrBCl Number. AOSD54
CenIer Number.
Fund Number: 55
AI:count Number. 720109
:&: HHJ lAm,......
:&:.!:!:!l..!!.!!
... 10..
m;;;;;,;-
HennepIn County
Juv. Oet. Annex
7'. ........ Awnue
o.w_ y....._ ........
''*''''oom,lIloIlIIII...._
___-_1IJ"
:,.::r.:~-:.t'
..... tit. RIll of ~
-
... .. .... - - --..-,.,.
FLOOR PLAN/
CLNG. PLAN &:
ENLARGED PLANS
-
IClLC ... N1lTED
- or TiAiiiQL
_IY -
PIO.L. Mat. i:UD
PIlQ.L.... m
... .. "'i74';'i
.~ _I: _JSSDDJ.IC_
A2
P.'U99T\97413\DVG'A'AS\ 7413A-2 9-5-97 1128151 Pf'l EST
, -,
.
.
MADISON AVENUE W.
TEAD
TRIC.
, VISITOR
PARKING
, w.
::)
z
w
~
~
~
z
JAH./
IIECHo
.. ...... ....... I
.. ... "... .. ..,
'.
,.'. :.:::, ',' :'. '".,. '.
... .. .. .." ....0... ..:: _ :.. .:..... .... e.
o.:: ........ ::. ....:.. ......-. _'"l
,.' .:.' >-::.:': " ::'. ...:~ ':'" .~-:~:; >.:: ~:~ ':.:.. '~..:.:,' .::.~.
.' : . . :'.OUT.DOOR.:AttiviTIES ....... :'. ....: :.... :.....:.
.... ':'- /: :'. '.:.> ~' . ,.:.:. <;:; :: . }~. :.~ ';y <::~ .:~ -:: ) ::.:
.. .,. .... . . '. . .' . . ..' '.' . . . .' ......
., .:. '..::~.....' :.:.:....:>.:.:....::~:;. .::": ~: ~~.:---:: .~":.:.' ..:::.._..; ....i. :.....:.' .
VAN
GARAGE
([ - -' ]
DUMPSTER
MAINT
.. .. .. :.. .. 0".: ".. .. ...
.. ... ...... ..:.. .... .......
.- ....
.. ..
STAFF
PARKING
'. .
.. ....
.... :........ ...."0 ..
'. .
.'". ...
....... .... ... :..
BOY'S
May 12, 1997
NCRlH
~E9
.~
SMMA \
........... . McrII'-*-/
-MIr
DETENTION ANNEX
Golden Valley., Minnesota
. #. "
~
-.r: l/r - ,'-0"
~
en
en
.......
..
(V)
OJ
C
;:]
":l
C
o
.1.....
u
c
;:]
o
u
~
'r-
U
OJ
-'=
~
E
"'0
OJ
>
o
~
0.
0.
ftS
C
ftS
r-
0-
OJ
~
'r-
(./)
I
l_._
.
.'
~ Ii ~
M 'E M 0 R"A N O-U M
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
.
.
September 3, 1997
Golden Valley Planning Commiss~on
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Amendment to the Comprehensive,
Land Use Plan Map From Medium Density Residential Uses and
IndustriallTerminal Warehousel Radio U,ses to,Higl.1 D~nsity
Residential Uses - 5650 and 5800 St Croix Avenue -Rttquest
made by Colo'nial Acres Home, Inc.
This is the first of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to gain
approval in order to expand the Covenant Manor PUD that currently occupies the
southerly half of the subject site. Two parcels of land are involved: the existing
Covenant Manor property, and the proposed expansion property (location map
attached). At present, the Covenant Manor property has a comprehensive land
use plan map designation of medium density residential uses; the proposed
expansion property is designated for industrial, terminal warehouse, and radio
uses. Neither designation is adequate for the applicant's purposes.
Background and Planning Considerations
Covenant Manor Property - Covenant Manor is a high-rise (five/six story) senior
citizen apartment complex built in 1980. While it has a density of 41.3 dwelling
units per acre, its medium density residential land use designation only
anticipates five to twelve units per acre. When the development first went
through the PUD process in 1978, its land use plan designation was never
mentioned as a factor to consider, though records do note that the property's
zoning was M-1 Multiple Dwelling.
Ensuring that actual development and use of an area conforms with a
comprehensive plan has taken on increasing importance over the years. In
order to indicate that Covenant Manor is an appropriate and desirable land use
for the long term future, the map designation for this property must be-corrected
to reflect the high density nature of its development. If not included as part of the
expansion proposal, such re-designation would very likely occur some time in the
next year as a "housekeeping" change in the course of Golden Valley's land use
plan update.
to,
Proposed Expansion Property - The two-acre proposed expansion property was .
occupied by radio transmission towers for more than fifty years beginning in the
1940's, when therE;t was nothil;1,9, but farm land around it. Today it is surrounded
by a variety of different uses: the Bassett Creek office complex to the west,
Byerly's/Spring Gate shopping center to the northeast, and Copacabana
apartments and Covenant Manor to the ,south. The transmission towers were
removed two years ago and the land is now vacant., It has been bought by
Colonial Acres Home, Inc., owner of both Covenant Manor and the Colonial
Acres care center across the street.
The property is a "landlocked" parcel, meaning that it has no direct access to or
from any public street. According to City records, its sole legal access is by way
of an easement out to St. Croix Avenue through the Copacabana parking lot to
the south. Parcels like this one cannot be created today except through the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, but Golden Valley has a number of
them left over from earlier times. Though they are each legally developable as
"grandfathered" situations, the preferred alternative is to physically combine
them with an adjacent property by replatting as the applicant will do in
connection with the related Covenant Manor PUD amendment.
The site's current industrial designation is not in keeping with the character of
any of the adjacent properties. Given its circumstances, the logical plan for its
future use would involve an extension of one of the adjacent land uses: office,
commercial, or multi-unit residential. It is not very well positioned for extension
of the westerly office uses, and lacks the visibility and access needed for most .
commercial uses. That leaves some form of multi-unit residential use as the
'most desirable option.
As part of its Livable Communities commitment, Golden Valley has agreed to put
its best effort into increasing the average density of its multi-unit residential
developments. Acting on that commitment will involve designating more multi-
unit properties for high density (twelve units or more per acre) as opposed to
medium density (five to twelve units per acre) residential use. As noted above,
Covenant Manor is already well into the high density category. The Copacabana
apartments were originally built at 10.7 units per acre but recently received
permits for an expansion raising site density to about sixteen units per acre,
putting it in Golden Valley's high density residential category as well. It seems
reasonable to expect that the proposed Covenant Manor expansion property
should be re-designated to that same category of use. '
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of tl:1e request to amend the comprehensive plan map
from medium density residential uses and industrial/terminal warehousel radio
uses to high density residential uses for the two subject properties.
Attachments:
- Location Map
.
2
..
II'
.331
c
.~
~ .
.
"J
.
.
s.
I
oAX
co ...
",,:)
00
r--cn
1
101,..
~r-
~d
=....
. ....
o
...
TRACT
~.
\-.
A
;!:
\...
--
........
0-
'b
'Z
zat. S2
DtILIITH 51:
.
\~?J~
8
..
p
;,
~o~
....
...
.-
-
.:
..
~
~.
ci
~;
>>O.Z15S"E 38'.''''
0::: PART OF LOT 10 :::
~-~"--'----:1.'4----- 0010
4 ~ Sub- --I'1",u/IJ.
~ect Prop -. ~
5650 and 5800 ert,es
Pl.."""~,, St. Croix A
I Vet
I
I
H ,'8
::J6J6 !SlID!
,,1.1
.
.
..- ..(
~!o'\
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 3, 1997
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Beth Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Rezoning of the Properties located at
5650 and 5800 St Croix Avenue from M-1 Multiple Dwelling and
Radio & Television to M-3 Multiple Dwelling - Colonial Acres
Home, Inc., Applicant
.
This is the second of three interrelated items for which the applicant needs to
gain approval in order to expand the Covenant Manor PUD that currently
occupies the southerly half of the subject site. Two parcels of land are involved:
the existing Covenant Manor property,' and the proposed expansion property
(location map attached). At present, the Covenant Manor property is zoned M-1
Multiple Dwelling (three story maximum height); the proposed expansion
property is zoned Radio & Television. Neither designation is adequate for the
applicant's purposes.
.
Background and Planning Considerations
Many of the planning issue~ attending this rezoning proposal are the same as
those addressed in the related comprehensive plan map amendment proposal; if
that item is approved, most of the questions regarding the appropriateness of the
rezoning are also resolved.. The key issue in considering any rezoning
application is whether or not it would be compatible with the comprehensive plan
designation for the same property
Golden Valley has no multi-unit residential sites currently zoned M-3, which
allows a maximum height of six stories and maximum density of 24 units per
acre (or 27 u/a if the garages are underground). In fact, there are no known
instances of such zoned sites at any time since the Multiple Dwelling subdistricts
were established back in 1964. Only two sites in the City are even zoned M-2,
which allows buildings of up to four stories in height and densities up to 20 (22)
units per acre. Golden Valley's tallest and most dense residential developments
have all used the PUD designation with underlying zoning of M-1 Multiple
Dwelling or Residential, on the theory that such a practice might give the City
greater control over very high density residential developments.
On the other hand, a PUD designation does not replace normal zoning, it only
provides for flexibility from some of the established standards for the appropriate .
zoning district. The City's zoning map reflects both the PUD designation and the
underlying zoning. The zoning district requirements form the base line for
negotiating the PUD requirements. Thus, to some extent, it is misleading to
have a development such as Covenant Manor reflecting an underlying zoning
category of M-1 Multiple Dwelling (maximum height of three stories and
maximum density of 18 (20) units per acre) when the reality is twice as high and
more than twice as dense as that zoning would allow. The M-3 zoning district is
a much more appropriate rei:..~~t:on of the high density nature of the Covenant
Manor PUD, and the PUD de~.-ation itself still provides adequate control over
site design and operations.
The applicant came forward a year ago with the intent of applying for just the
comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning, while holding off on amendment
of the PUD. Staff had reservations about approving the proposed expansion
property for high density residential development while it remained a separate,
landlocked parcel. If for some reason the plan to expand Covenant Manor never
did come through, a subsequent owner could quite legally and.with no additional
public hearings have erected a six story apartment building on the property,
although it could contain no more than 48-54 units. Any traffic from those
apartment units would have had to enter and exit the site by way of the existing
easement out to St. Croix Avenue. Police and fire calls to the property would
have been similarly hampered. There would have been no mechanism to ensure
complementary site design and ongoing cooperation between the apartment .
building managenent and Covenant Manor.
The applicant listened to staffs concerns and withdrew the plan amendment and
rezoning request until the PUD amendment was in a position to move forward.
That has eliminated most of staffs concerns. Consolidation of the proposed
expansion property with the Covenant Manor property will provide options for
improved accessibility, and the targeted senior clientele will generate less traffic
per unit than in an average rental apartment development. The consolidated site
will also allow for unified building design and minimization of any potential
conflicts between old and new construction. While expansion of Covenant
Manor is expected to be at considerably higher density than normal zoning
standards would allow, the PUD process gives the City the ability to incorporate
individually tailored regulations right into the PUD permit as a means of offsetting
any concerns about site density.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the accompanying request for comprehensive plan amendment has received
favorable consideration, staff also recommend approval of the application for
rezoning of both subject properties, from M-1 Multiple Dwelling and Radio &
Television to M-3 Multiple Dwelling.
Attachments:
- Location Map
.
2
,
/6'
.331
c
.....
~ .
.
-S"4,.18 "'1~.I.I
.
. S. r.
~~ N
TRACT \.-. ~
~d A
='"'
. '"' ~.
0
"I:
I
04%
......
Hi::>>
00
r-cn
\
HU"Sl'.U-E ZSZ.5Z
~
.
~-
..... <or
0-
.
o
z
...;
...
H "'4B'S8iYZJ'
660$-9$ DtlLUTH Sf:
)
.
\~?J<a
~o.
....
.;:
....
-
..
~ tl8S"Z1SS-E 387,'4
o Lt= p!.~_~_!:.O!_19__-~
i ~ S~b' --m'J.,uct;
~ect Prop .'
5650 and 5800 ert'e~
PL""-~ 1_ . Sf. CrOix Ave
I
I
8
.....
.'
c:i
~.
'"
H,n
14
~...~
,1..\
..
..
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
.
.
September 3, 1997
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Elizabeth A. Knoblauch, City Planner
Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan Review
for An Amendment to Covenant Manor-P.U.D. No.1-B; 5800
St. Croix Avenue; Colonial Acres Home, Inc., Applicant
BACKGROUND
This proposal involves the existing 3.02 acre Covenant Manor Planned Unit
Development (PUD) plus 1.98 acres of vacant land abutting the PUD (see
Location Map Attachment A). The applicant wants to combine the Covenant
Manor property and the vacant land, formerly a radio tower site, for a total of
4.98 acres. The new area is intended to support a six-story addition (seven, if a
mezzanine level is counted) containing 134 apartments plus underground
parking; together with the already-permitted 130 units, the amended PUD would
provide up to 264 dwelling units for senior citizens and their out-of-town guests.
Other on-site facilities will also be added, enlarged, and/or renovated (see
Narrative Attachment B, oversized site plans, and Site Plan Statistics Attachment
o for more information).
This is the last of three related items that must be approved in order to expand
the existing Covenant Manor independent living facility for seniors. The first two
items, amending the comprehensive plan map and rezoning the property, verify
that the site is generally appropriate for high-density residential use. The PUD
amendment process will now begin to establish the exact requirements under
which the new addition will be permitted.
There are two stages of approval for any PUD proposal, whether it is a new PUD
or an amendment to an existing one. This is the first, or Preliminary Plan stage.
Its purpose is two-fold: to give the proposal a broad concept approval, and to call
out issues that must be addressed in detail as the applicant advances to General
Plan stage. Preliminary Plan approval does not guarantee that a proposal will
become reality. It gives an applicant some assurance of being on the right track,
and some guidance on how to proceed. In the case of the Planning Commission
in particular, the limitations of Preliminary Plan approval are clearly laid out. City
Code Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.0 provides that:
"The Planning Commission's consideration of the application shall be
limited to a determination of whether the application constitutes an
appropriate land use under the general principals and standards adhered
to in the City and, if necessary, its report shall include recommended
changes in the land use planned by the applicant so as to conform the
application or recommend approval subject to certain conditions or
modifications. "
.
ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICATION
PUD's are regulated under City Code Section 11.55. Four subdivisions of that
section come into play when screening PUD applications for eligibility. Each is
discussed below. After considering the Covenant Manor amendment in view of
all four subdivisions, staff find that the proposal is eligible as a PUD and may
enter the Preliminary Plan stage of application.
PUD Definition - PUD's are defined in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 2. For reasons
explained a bit later in this report, the Covenant Manor PUD no long~r meets the
definition under which the property initially received PUD designation. With its
broad array of on-site service and support facilities, Covenant Manor does
appear to fit under the terms of Subd. 2.A.3, which allows "apartment projects
involving a multi-use structure."
PUD Purpose and Intent - Applications must also meet the general purpose
and intent of PUD's in Golden Valley, as set out in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 1.
According to Subd. 1, the PUD process is intended for use in situations "where
designation of a single use zoning district or application of standard zoning
provisions are too rigid for practical application." Certain aspects of Covenant
Manor, if taken individually, would require a mix of Multiple Dwelling, Institutional,
and Commercial zoning; the only way to legally allow all of those aspects under
one roof is through the PUD process.
Standards and Criteria for PUD's - City Code establishes basic requirements
for different types of PUD in Sec. 11.55, Subd. 5. Residential uses are covered
in Subd. 5.8. There are eight items addressed under the basic standards for
residential PUD's. Several do not apply in this particular case. Others will be
formalized in various plans and agreements, some of which are not required until
the General Plan stage of application. The list is as follows:
1. All residential PUD's must have at least 100 feet of frontage on a public
street. The amendment area has no street frontage at all, but the existing
PUD property has ample frontage on St. Croix Avenue.
2. All development must be served by public sewer and water, and fire hydrants
must be installed according to a plan approved by City Staff. Water and
sewer lines are available at the site. Detailed planning for utility service to
the proposed addition will come with the General Plan.
3. No principal building in the PUD can be located closer than the measurement
of its own height to a rear or side property line if that line abuts a single family
use. No single family use abuts the existing PUD or the amendment area.
.
.
2
.
4. Private roadways within the PUD must be constructed according to a plan
and with the approval of the City Engineer as to type and location. There will
be no private "roads" of the type found in PUD's with multiple buildings or
lots. Engineering staff are reviewing preliminary plans for the parking and
service drive system, and will note any requirements that the applicant must
incorporate into the plans before the General Plan stage of application.
5. No building within the PUD can be located closer than 15 feet from the back
of the curb along any internal road. This requirement is not applicable, as
explained in #4 above.
6. Provisions for solid waste storage and disposal must be in accordance with a
plan approved by the City. If there will be any changes from what was
previously approved, this level of detail will be handled at the General Plan
stage of application.
7. Landscaping must be based on a detailed planting plan approved by the City,
and must meet established minimum landscaping standards. Detailed
landscape plans are a General Plan requirement, but the applicant has
supplied preliminary plans. Golden Valley's landscaping standards call for a
minimum of one tree per dwelling unit for all multi-unit residential buildings, a
requirement virtually impossible to meet within the amount of open space
remaining on the site if the proposed addition is approved. The original
Covenant Manor building very likely also fails to meet the guidelines, which
were not established until four years after it was approved. A 28-unit wing
added in 1984 was accompanied by tree plantings complying with the
landscaping standards for that wing only.
There is some precedent for granting PUD approval in situations that do not
fully meet PUD requirements but appear justified on the basis of particularly
unique features or concerns. For example, Golden Valley Commons (Valley
Square's Area C) was approved despite the fact that plans failed to provide
the required loading/unloading space for each retail shop; it was felt that
maximizing the pedestrian-friendliness and amenities of the site was more
important than reserving permanent loading areas for store deliveries.
In this case, helping to meet the growing demand for the type of housing that
Covenant Manor provides, plus making a significant contribution toward
increased residential density per the City's Livable Communities commitment
(discussed more fully later in this staff report), may be seen as justification for
allowing less-than-standard landscaping. If so, that decision should be noted
in the conditions of approval, so that the record remains clear if the matter
comes ul' again in future years. The City may also want to consider whether
there are off-site landscaping improvements that the applicant could make in
exchange for the reduced on-site landscaping requirements.
8. Shared land, buildings, or infrastructure must be dedicated to the general
public, placed under a landlord's control, or regulated through a landowners
association. There will be no shared land, buildings, or infrastructure since
the expanded PUD will continue to consist of a single lot.
Completeness of Application Packet - The final screening of any PUD
proposal for eligibility purposes is based on Sec. 11.55, Subd. 6.A, which
.
.
3
establishes the various components that must be submitted at the Preliminary
Plan stage of application. The City is in possession of the required application
form, preliminary design exhibits, required mailing list, preliminary plat, and
application filing fee, and staff find all components suitably complete.
.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The types of issues that come up in connection with PUD applications can vary
based on the PUD type and on specific characteristics of each PUD. Concerns
that generally accompany residential PUDs can grouped into the categories of
zoning trade-offs, park dedication requirements, Livable Communities impacts,
and miscellaneous engineering/construction issues. Each category will be
addressed in the following paragraphs.
Starr review of this particular application has been a bit more difficult than usual.
The age of the existing PUD was a major contributor to the problems
encountered. Several sections of the zoning code have been changed since
Covenant Manor was first built; those changes affect both the basic PUD
process and the underlying zoning district provisions used for establishing the
PUD requirements. Even the type and extent of information considered
important enough to retain for the record have changed over time. Some basic
administrative issues had to be addressed as the review process unfolded. They
include establishing PUD boundaries, determining the maximum number of
permitted units in the development, and determining the number of legal parking
spaces. Staff's resolution of each of those issues will be explained before
moving on to the more routine PUD review considerations.
Existing PUD Boundary - As its title indicates, Covenant Manor is - or was _
part of Golden Valley's very first PUD. Bassett Creek Plaza PUD #1 was
originally intended to be a multi-structure office park built in three stages. The
first two stages, on lots facing Duluth Street, were completed in 1973 and 1974.
The final stage, fronting on St. Croix Avenue, never did get built. Instead, the
developer and the owners of nearby Colonial Acres nursing home approached
the City in 1974 to request a PUD amendment for a high-density senior citizen
residence. After due consideration by the Planning Commission and City
Council, Covenant Manor was approved in 1978.
In current records, there is no solid indication of whether the City consciously
intended to split the former stage 3 office site into its own PUD, or whether the
division was an unintended side-effect of too little experience with major PUD
amendments at that time. Either way, Covenant Manor was issued a modified
PUD designation (#1-B) on a separate permit identifying the PUD as comprising
only the immediate premises. The other two lots retained the name of Bassett
Creek Plaza and were assigned PUD #1-A on their permit. In two subsequent
Covenant Manor amendments, there was no recorded consideration of how any
proposed site changes might impact the rest of the original site.
There are no provisions for unified architectural controls between the office
buildings and the residential development. There are no provisions for
cooperative maintenance of landscaped areas, or for other activities to which
.
.
4
.
multiple owners within a single PUD are typically bound by the terms of a permit.
The only remaining physical or legal connection between PUD #1-A and PUD
#1-B today is an easement agreement providing Duluth Street access for
Covenant Manor through the office parking lot, and allowing overflow Covenant
Manor parking on the southerly portion of the office lot on evenings, weekends,
and holidays. Staff have determined that, intentional or not, the effect of past
actions has been to establish Covenant Manor PUD #1-B as an entity separate
and distinct from Bassett Creek Plaza PUD #1-A.
The replatting necessary for including the amendment area as part of Covenant
Manor will help to clarify the permanent record on this point. The existing
Bassett Creek Plaza plat does not even identify the property as a PUD, much
less reflecting the specific PUD number and boundaries. Though not shown on
the preliminary plat (attached), the information "P.U.D. No. 1-B" will become part
of the plat title before final approval.
Maximum Approved Dwelling Units - Because parking has been identified as
a critical concern throughout the history of the Covenant Manor PUD, and
because parking adequacy is evaluated on the basis of site occupancy, it is
important to quantify exactly how many dwelling units are allowed and how they
may be used. Current application materials refer more than once to the fact that
there are 126 dwelling units at Covenant Manor. The approved permit, on the
other hand, specifies a maximum of 124 units, leaving two of the now-existing
apartments in violation of the PUD permit. Since the amount of construction
necessary to physically add two new units would not have been able to get past
the watchful eyes of the City Inspections staff, there had to be a problem
elsewhere in the record or in the PUD process.
The original PUD permit authorized a maximum of 99 dwelling units. Details of
size and configuration are not noted in the permit or staff reports, but related
parking requirement calculations indicate that 19 or 20 units had two bedrooms
while the rest were either one-bedroom units or smaller studio units. In 1984,
Covenant Manor was approved for a 28-unit addition (16 2-bedroom and 12 1-
bedroom apartments). At that time, staff noted that some units in the original
building had been combined to create larger "custom" apartments. Nothing in
the record indicates how extensive the structural changes were, or even where
the units were located within the building, but the amended permit assumed the
combinations were permanent; with no added explanatory comments, the permit
covered only 96 existing units, plus 28 new units, for a 124-apartment maximum.
It is not uncommon in Golden Valley today - under straight zoning as well as
PUD's - to allow the creation of custom-sized apartments by combining units.
However, the originally-permitted total generally remains on record as the legal
site maximum unless a specific explanation is provided for doing otherwise.
Never addressed at all in the official record were certain "guest units" intended to
accommodate of out-of-town visitors. The units are only briefly noted in assorted
staff comments and reports following original PUD approval. Exact numbers of
guest units, combined units, and total units vary between sources. It does
appear that the City knew about the guest units during the original PUD approval
process, but simply did not consider them worth discussing for the official record.
.
.
5
Staff finally excavated the original Covenant Manor floor plans from storage and .
used them to arrive at a breakdown of maximum permitted dwelling units and
guest units. Original construction was approved with 102 units total, 99 of which
were allowed for full-time residential occupancy while the remaining three were
reserved for guest use. All of the 28 units added in 1984 were intended for
regular occupancy.
No plans anywhere in City Hall show exact locations of guest units or of units
combined during or after original construction; staff therefore conclude that the
guest units are structurally the same as regular occupancy units and minimal
structural alterations were made in the process of creating custom-sized units.
Based on that conclusion, staff submit that - at least from a structural stand
point - either the guest units or the individual components of combined units
would be easily converted to regular occupancy and thus should be covered in
the terms of the approved PUD permit. If a specified number of units must
always be reserved for guest use, the number should be noted. If the City
wishes to require that all combinations remain permanent, the affected units
should be clearly noted. As no such notations exist, staff have administratively
determined that the effect of past PUD approvals results in AN ADJUSTED
MAXIMUM OF 130 UNITS PERMITTED WITHIN THE BUILDING TODAY, WITH .
UP TO 127 UNITS ALLOWED FOR FULL-TIME RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY
AND THREE UNITS RESERVED FOR GUEST USE.
The applicant has differentiated between guest units and regular occupancy
units for the proposed addition. Overall numbers for the entire site should be .
recommended as part of Preliminary Plan approval. If staff's administrative
determination of what prior approvals have allowed is found inappropriate in view
of the currently-proposed PUD amendment, then the numbers should be revised
as necessary. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend additional
instructions regarding site occupancy - for example, how long a particular
"guest" may stay at Covenant Manor or whether guest unit occupancy should be
specifically limited to visitors of Covenant Manor residents - such guidelines
should also be made part of the Preliminary Plan approval.
Finally, for more efficient City tracking of permitted site uses, it may be desirable
to require an updated set of accurately labeled floor plans. The current proposal
is the third PUD amendment since Covenant Manor was built. In each case, the
applicant generally has supplied revised exterior site plans for the entire PUD,
but floor plans have always been limited to new construction. The approved
permit, on the other hand, has consistently referred to permitted uses "as shown
on the development plans." Staff must now work with four separate sets of
oversized plan sheets to come up with a complete picture of building usage.
Since they will not be used for construction purposes, new composite plans
would not have to be drawn to any precise scale; in fact, a reduced size (either
8W' by 11" or 11" by 17") would be preferred. The only requirements should be
that the plans cover the entire inside of the building, that they correctly label all
significant areas and types of use, and that they be readable.
Existing Parking - Trying to get a handle on legal parking spaces was almost
as difficult as figuring out the number of legal dwelling units. Initially, Covenant .
Manor had no underground parking. There were some detached garages, but
6
.
most parking spaces were in the open. Resident demand for covered parking
turned out to be much higher than expected, so the applicant obtained a PUD
amendment to build more detached garages over some of the open spaces;
since the structures themselves took up some room, the total number of on-site
parking spaces decreased ~ven though the number of covered spaces went up.
With construction of the 1984 wing, two underground parking levels were added
to the site; however, construction of that wing required tearing down some of the
existing detached garages. Also, plans showing the underground parking layout
indicate "parking spaces" right in front of emergency exits and maintenance/utility
room doors. The total number of spaces as noted in staff reports is less than the
partial plans appear to indicate, but there is no official record of whether certain
underground parking spaces had been disallowed or how much the count was
affected by demolition of existing spaces. After making a "best-guess" estimate
of existing permitted spaces, staff asked the applicantto supply a complete
count of striped garage stalls. The response was four spaces more than the
staff estimate. Staff believe the difference lies in a four-stall storage garage
omitted from the staff estimate.
Based on the verified staff estimate, CURRENT ON-SITE PARKING CONSISTS
OF 48 UNDERGROUND STALLS, 18 STALLS IN TWO DETACHED GARAGES,
4 STALLS IN A DETACHED GARAGE USED FOR STORING SHUTTLE BUSES
AND MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT, AND 30 OUTSIDE SPACES. Excluding the
four storage stalls - which are not available for resident, guest, or employee use
- these numbers result a permitted ratio of 0.73 on-site spaces per dwelling unit,
or 0.5 enclosed stalls per unit and 0.23 outside spaces per unit.
As noted in the application materials, the current proposal will remove existing
parking as well as adding new spaces. The proposed site plan provides an
accurate count of outside parking. As noted above, complete floor plans should
also be provided, showing approved parking throughout the building if the
proposed amendment is approved.
Zoning - The "Purpose and Intent" paragraph of the City's PUD requirements
makes it clear that a major intent of the PUD process is to "permit design
flexibility by substantial variances from the provisions of [the zoning] chapter,
including uses, setbacks, height, parking requirements, and similar regulations."
Thus, to some extent, variances are a given with any PUD; that is part of what
the process exists to do for qualified PUD applications.
Despite the basic intent of the PUD process with regard to variances, the City
must ensure that each proposal does not exceed the bounds of good design
practices in the type and extent of variances being requested. To that end, it is
useful to have an understanding of how any proposal varies from normal zoning
standards. Since a PUD, by definition, is intended to be treated as a unified
whole, it is generally appropriate to consider existing variances over the entire
site as well as any new variances accompanying a particular PUD amendment.
Based on the related rezoning application, the standards of comparison for the
Covenant Manor PUD are those of the M-3 Multiple Dwelling district. There are
five comparison items to review for this proposal (see Comparison of Standards
Attachment F). Overall, staff found some fairly substantial built-in requests for
.
.
7
variances, but the proposed addition alone will not create a situation that is much
less conforming than what was previously approved for most comparison items.
As noted earlier, the M-3 district allows only high density residential uses, while
Covenant Manor includes a variety of supportive care and service facilities that
would otherwise call for Institutional or Commercial zoning. However, because
the special facilities are accessory to Covenant Manor itself rather than being
open to the general public, the expanded use allowed by the PUD is probably
one of the least significant variances from standard zoning in this case.
A comparison of lot areas reveals the most extreme difference between code
and PUD: the site is barely half the size needed to support the proposed total of
264 units under standard zoning. The proposed addition, which would almost
double the original unit count while adding only two-thirds of the original lot size,
would only be at forty percent of the required lot size if considered alone. Some
argument could be made that the required allocation of 1,600 square feet of land
area per unit is unreasonably large for a six story building, but the code assumes
that very large apartment or condominium buildings will include more interior
common area than smaller buildings. Clearly, that is true for Covenant Manor,
with its many accessory facilities. On the other hand, Covenant Manor also has
a greater percentage of space-conserving, one-bedroom or studio units than the
average apartment building.
Proposed structural lot coverage for Covenant Manor also exceeds the 35
percent allowed by code, but only by one percentage point, another indication
that the ratio used to calculate minimum required lot size may be too high.
Covenant Manor as it exists today does fall within the code limit at 33 percent.
The proposed wing Will occupy a significantly higher proportion (45%) of the
amendment land area than Covenant Manor now occupies on the existing site,
but the increase in structural coverage is minimal once existing and proposed
areas are averaged together.
Compliance with standard zoning setbacks is variable around the site. The
existing building has already been permitted to come as close as 20 feet to the
north and west property lines; the current proposal includes a small extension of
that variance for a loading dock expansion. The proposed addition comes as
close as 22.5 feet to the northeast property line, 2.5 feet less than code would
allow. A relocated detached garage (used for Covenant Manor shuttle buses
and yard equipment) actually comes down to zero setback at both rear comers,
but its proposed location is an improvement on its current location within the
front yard setback area. Parking and driveway setback variances are more
noticeable, particularly the zero setback all along the back of both the existing
and proposed wings. The reduced front parking setback of only 25 feet again
represents an improvement over the existing situation of having three detached
garages sitting in front of the main building at 28 feet from the property line.
Parking provisions show a tremendous gap between standard zoning and this
proposal. The applicant proposes to provide barely more than one-third of the
normally required parking for a multi-unit dwelling of Covenant Manor's size.
The shortfall is greater for outside parking than for underground stalls. On the
other hand, the proposed addition would still result in an overall site parking ratio
.
.
.
8
.
of 0.77 spaces per dwelling unit, a very slight increase over what exists today.
Senior-only developments have been proven to require less resident parking
than developments with no age restrictions, though Covenant Manor does have
more on-site employees.than a typical apartment complex or condominium. The
cross-parking agreement with Bassett Creek Plaza makes additional outside
parking available for staff or guest use on evenings, weekends, and holidays.
In summary, the zoning comparison shows minimal departure from standard
zoning in terms of permitted uses, lot coverage, and building setbacks; moderate
departure in the case of parking/driveway setbacks; and substantial departure
from code requirements for lot area and garage/parking space requirements.
Park land - As a residential development, Covenant Manor is subject to the
City's park dedication requirement of land or its equivalent cash value. Back
when the property was still part of the 11.4 acre Bassett Creek Plaza office PUD,
one acre of park land - just one-tenth of an acre less than the maximum
required dedication - was dedicated to the City as part of the PUD approval
process. There was some question as to whether park dedication could be
required for office developments, but the City felt the neighborhood was under-
served by park land, and land anywhere along the creek should be preserved as
much as possible; the record indicates that the dedication was officially made in
exchange for reduced parking requirements on the rest of the site.
Whatever official reason was given, the existing Covenant Manor PUD has met
park dedication requirements; that leaves the 1.9B-acre PUD amendment area.
An Open Space and Recreation (OS&R) Commission recommendation is not
available at the time of writing this report. It will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission if received before the informal public hearing.
The OS&R is unlikely to want 0.2 acres of park land at the location in question,
so some other arrangement will probably be recommended. City Code stipulates
a cash contribution, but the City might also want to look at a cash equivalent in
services such as clean-up efforts along the nearby trail segment. With or without
an OS&R recommendation for review, the Planning Commission may choose to
forward its own park dedication recommendation for City Council consideration.
Livable Communities - Golden Valley, like-most other metro area cities, has
made a commitment to contribute its best efforts toward increasing the supply of
affordable and life cycle housing by participating in the Livable Communities
program created by state law. As part of its commitment, the City adopted a
policy of including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in the consideration
of any proposed housing development. The existing portion of Covenant Manor
is already included in Livable Communities base line information; staff have
prepared an evaluation (see Livable Communities Evaluation Attachment G) for
the proposed expansion. Of the four Livable Communities measurement areas
impacted by the proposal, the evaluation indicates a solid positive impact on
housing variety and multi-unit density, a negative impact on owner /renter mix,
and no clear assessment on ownership affordability. Given the great difficulty of
making any noticeable impact on housing densitY, the Covenant Manor proposal
is particularly attractive from a Livable Communities stand point.
.
.
9
Engineering/Construction Issues - The Inspections Department has identified .
no particular construction issues for the Preliminary Plan stage of approval, other
than to second the recommendation of Planning staff that all future permits
should clearly identify the maximum number of permitted on-site units and the
number of any units specifically reserved for guest use. The comments of the
Engineering Department (see Engineering Memo Attachment H) indicate no
issues of serious concern, but do note several items requiring some form of
follow-up by the applicant. Also, Engineering staff noted informally to Planning
staff that the applicant's intent to use the Covenant Manor roof for temporary
storm water storage will require very good construction specifications to ensure
against some of that storage unintentionally migrating indoors - particularly after
a winter such as Minnesota experienced in 1996-1997; this is not, however, a
concern within the Engineering Department's direct realm of authority.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend approval of the preliminary design plan for the proposed
amendment to Covenant Manor PUD No. 1-8, subject to the following additional
recommendations:
· waiving of the PUD landscaping requirement set out in City Code Sec. 11.55,
Subd. 5.8.7, with any compensatory off-site landscaping the Planning
Commission deems it appropriate to recommend;
· inclusion of the information "P.U.D. No. 1-8" as part of the plat title;
· specific reference to both the maximum number of permitted units for the
entire building and the number of units reserved for guest use, plus any
additional recommendations for regulating the use of those guest units as the
Planning Commission deems it appropriate to make;
· submittal of an updated set of floor plans identifying uses throughout the
entire building;
· any park dedication recommendation the Planning Commission deems it
appropriate to make;
· any Livable Communities recommendation the Planning Commission deems
it appropriate to make; and
· all requirements and comments set out in the Engineering Department memo
dated August 29,1997.
Attachments:
A. Location Map
8. Narrative
C. Oversized Site Plans (enclosed separately)
D. Site Plan Statistics
E. Oversized Pretiminary Plat (enClosed separately)
F. Comparison of Standards
G. Livable Communities Evaluation
H. Engineering Memo Dated August 29,1997
10
.
.
I
I
. W01~O i
a
Q
t1)
t1)
~
.
V1
> :."
fr -.
::; :I:
~ 0
~ -3:-
c lT1
111 V1
~
I="
- _:I:
o
3:
lT1
V1
.
ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP
~.
North
Duluth Street
BASSETT CREEK
PLAZA
P.U.D. #1-A
,
Phase 1 Phase 2
o
BYERLY'S &
SPRING GATE SHOPPING
CENTER
:c
I
'<
-
o
o
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT
AREA
ST. CROIX
PARK
COPACABANA
APARTMENTS
EXISTING
COVENANT MANOR
P.U.D. #1-B
St. Croix Avenue
I
-< S.F. HOMES
Q
111 I
:I
~
~
111
:s
c
111
><
111
:s
iii
~
:s
c
111
I I I
S.F. HOMES
, I I
COLONIAL ACRES
NURSING HOME
,
.
ATTACHMENT B: NARRATIVE
CovmanfJManor
.91 Covtnanb ~irtmtnV Cmnmuni!v
5800 ST. CROIX AVENUE. MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55422-4483 . (612) 546-6125 . FAX (612) 546-8529
COVENANT MANOR
PROPOSED COURTYARD BUILDING
GOLDEN VALLEY MINNESOTA
Introduction
The Covenant Manor Campus is a continuing care retirement community,
consisting of three distinct levels of care, in three buildings, on one 13-acre campus
in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Covenant Manor, the five-story building on the north
side of St. Croix, provides independent living for approximately 175 older adults. This
portion of the campus was established in 1980, with a connecting east-wing addition
completed in 1986. Also in 1986 Heritage House was opened, offering assisted living
to a maximum of 18 people. Colonial Acres Health Care Center, our 118-bed skilled
. nursing care facility, this year celebrates its 35th anniversary. Heritage House and
Colonial Acres are physically connected and located on the south side of St. Croix.
Covenant Manor is Minnesota's only accredited continuing care retirement
community. Accreditation by the Continuing Care Accreditation Commission of the
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging is assurance that
Covenant Manor meets the highest standards for senior housing.
Independent older adults choose to enter continuing care retirement
communities (ccrc) while they are active and capable of making their own choices
and provisions for their future, because they recognize value in the broad continuum
of care provided-from wellness through varying degrees of frailty. Our ccrc provides
each of our residents assurance of housing and appropriate care within the
community for the rest of their lives. For this security residents pay a one-time
entrance fee. A monthly maintenance fee provides an assortment of services. As
health and personal needs change, residents have priority access to other levels of
health care, including assisted living and skilled nursing.
.
AFFIUATED WITH COLONIAL ACRES HEALTH CARE CENTER
Covenant Manor is administered by Covenant Retirement Communities. Inc~ on behalf of the
Board of Benevolence of the Evangelical Covenant Church.
COVENANT MANOR
COURTYARD BUILDING
August 1997
Existing Building as of 1997
Covenant Manor currently houses 126 independent living apartments, including
alcove, one- and two-bedroom styles, ranging from 490 to 1 ,200 square feet. Each
apartment has a patio or balcony, full kitchen, emergency call system, 24-hour
security, individually controlled heating and cooling systems. Monthly fee includes
the main meal of the day in a congregate dining room, utilities, local telephone and
cable television services, housekeeping and linen services, transportation,
maintenance, an extensive activity schedule. Community facilities include: heated
indoor swimming pool and whirlpool, fitness area, health services office, free laundry
on each floor, library, activity room, game room, woodworking shop, barber and
beauty shop, individual garden areas, gazebo, 225-seat fellowship center. Parking
areas include approximately 48 indoor spaces and 12 free-standing garages, plus
additional outdoor spaces available.
Proposed Courtyard Addition to Covenant Manor
Covenant Retirement Communities, a not-for-profit corporation, provides
professional management and direction for each of 13 communities nationwide. A
benevolent extension of the Evangelical Covenant Church, Covenant Retirement
Communities' policies, procedures and centralized resources assure successful
operation, stability and fiscal accountability of each campus. With more than a
century of experience in caring for needs of older adults and a network of 13
communities, Covenant Retirement Communities has been recognized nationally and
locally for exemplary standards of operation. Within the context of sound
management and social concern, our management team has been aware for some
time of the desirability of expanding the capacity of our facilities and program in
Golden Valley.
The Courtyard Building will add 129 apartments to the independent living
residences at Covenant Manor. The new structure will be connected to the north side
of the present east wing and the linking walkway. It will be located on vacant land
between Covenant Manor and the Spring Gate Shopping Center. All facilities,
,
.
.
.
, .
.
.
.
COVENANT MANOR
COURTYARD BUILDING
August 1997
programs and services for proposed construction will be connected and integrated
with existing facilities. Expansions and enhancements in community areas will be
available to residents of current as well as new units. The Courtyard Building
receives its name from the horseshoe shape of the structure which will enclose an
outdoor courtyard. Pond and stream, year-round landscaping, bridges, gazebo,
walking paths are envisioned for this area.
The six-story building will expand our variety of apartment styles, including a
617 square feet, one bedroom style-to a 1,454 square feet two bedroom, two bath,
with great room style, and twenty-two variations in between. Unit plans include:
40 1-bedroom 1 bath
36 1-bedroom 1-1/2 bath with den
48 2-bedroom 2-bath
5 2-bedroom 2-bath with den
Updated and enhanced apartment features in proposed units include expanded
storage, master suite and walk-in closets in all apartment, optional dishwashers,
optional in-apartment washer/dryer facilities, high ceilings on specific units. First floor
apartments will be handicap accessible. 74 apartments have courtyard exposure; 35
apartments have east exposure; 20 apartments have west exposure.
Outdoor garages will be removed, providing space for expanded capacity of
surface parking on the St. Croix side of the current east wing of Covenant Manor.
Current indoor parking will be maintained and an additional 70 units of indoor parking
will be added under the proposed Courtyard Building.
The present dining room overlooking Bassett Creek nature area will remain
and be enlarged, expanding into what is currently swimming pool and whirlpool areas.
Kitchen preparation and storage areas will increase in size, along with the employee
break area. Current game room, health services office and storage will be renovated
to provide a spacious .lobby, coat room and restrooms near the enlarged and
enhanced dining area.
3
COVENANT MANOR
COURTYARD BUILDING
August 1997
Our front door will open onto a Village Center-an interior pedestrian plaza
wrapped around an outdoor courtyard. Coffee area, library, craft/activity room,
beauty/barber shop, game room, chaplain's office, health services, administrative
offices all will be relocated to the Village Center area. Plans include addition of a
computer center and banking services. The new pool and whirlpool will be
considerably larger, with a view into the four-season, open-air courtyard.
Professional-caliber wellness and fitness facilities are planned. A large, well-
equipped wood-working/hobby shop is designed for the far-north side of the building.
Printed materials describing the Courtyard Building for potential residents are
currently being developed.
4
~
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT D: SITE PLAN STATISTICS
HORTY
ELVING
&ASSOCIATES. INC.
PLANNERS. ARCHITECTS . ENGINEERS. INTERIOR DESIGNERS
PUD Application
Covenant Retirement Community
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Date: August 21, 1997
1. Description of New Living Units
There are 24 different unit types but essentially the units can be broken down into the
following categories:
One-Bedroom Guest Unit
One-Bedroom Unit
One-Bedroom with Den Unit
Two-Bedroom Unit
Two-Bedroom with Den Unit
Two-Bedroom Deluxe Unit
5
40
36
43
5
5.
134 new units
.l26..existing units
260 total units
2 . Surface Parking
Existing surface parking 24
New surface parking ~
Total surface parking after construction 78
.~ EAR S
505 EAST GRANT STREET . MINNEAPOUS. MN 55404-1490. (612) 332-4422. FAX (612) 344-1282
,
3. Existing Property .
Existing Property 131,748.7 sq.ft.
Existing Building 38,359.5 sq.ft.
Three existing garage buildings 2,234 sq.ft
2,209 sq.ft.
1,473 sq.ft.
Existing roadways/parking 25,733.5 sq.ft.
Existing sidewalks 9,235 sq.ft.
Current Lot Coverage
Structures 33%
Roadways/parking 19%
Sidewalks a
59%
After Construction Lot Coverage
Structures 39,474.5 sq.ft. 29%
Roadways/parking 25,857 sq.ft 19%
Sidewalks 9,307 sq.ft a
55%
.
.
J
. 4. New Property
Property 85,405.8 sq.ft.
Existing structures 1,092 sq.ft.
Existing walks 1,834 sq.ft.
Roadways/parking o sq.fL
Current Lot Coverage
Structures 2%
Sidewalks ~
4%
After Construction Lot Coverage
Structures 38,627 sq.fL 45%
Roadways/parking 23,520 sq.fL 27%
Sidewalks 2,145 sq.ft. ~
74%
5. Lot Coverage
After Construction Lot Coverage for New and Existing Properties
Structures 78,101.5 sq.ft. 36%
. Roadways/parking 49,377 sq.ft. 23%
Sidewalks 11,452 sq.fL ~
64%
.
~
HORTY
ELVING
&ASSOCIATI:S, INC.
PLANNERS. ARCHlTEcrs . ENGINEERS. INTERIOR DESIGNERS
.
pun Application
Covenant Retirement Community
Golden Valley, Minnesota
Date: August 21, 1997
Sheet 2-1 - Site Plan Demolition Notes
1. Remove existing wood framed buildings and concrete slabs adjacent to the east
property line on the new property to the north.
2. Remove all of the existing concrete sidewalks on the north property.
3. Remove portion of existing concrete sidewalk at southwest comer of west wing as
required for new dining room addition.
4. Remove overhang at existing main entry and prepare for new canopy.
5. At existing turn-around, remove concrete curb and prepare for new larger driveway.
6. Relocate existing trees adjacent to turn-around; trees to be relocated to new courtyard
or new east screen wall.
.
7. Demolish and remove existing east and west wood frame garages and concrete slabs.
8. Relocate two-stall bus garage and three stalls of existing garage; to be relocated to
northwest of new property. Remove existing concrete slab.
9. Relocate mechanical equipment located at northeast comer of existing east wing to
roof of east wing.
.~ . A R S
505 EASTGRANTSTREEl'. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404-1490. (612) 332-4422. FAX (612) 344-1282
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT F: COMPARISON OF STANDARDS
M-3 MULTIPLE DWELLING ZONING vs. COVENANT MANOR PUD
M-3 Zoning
Permitted Use: Multi-Unit Dwelling
Structures up to Six Stories Tall
Minimum Lot Area: 9.7 Acres
Based on 1,600 square feet x 264 units. Code
requires 1,800 SF/Unit if all required parking
spaces are not underground.
Maximum Lot Coverage: 76,004 Sq F
Based on structures only, 35% of total lot area.
Minimum Setbacks:
Street:
35 Feet Building*
35 Feet Parking/Driveways
Side and Rear:
25 Feet Building
12.5 Feet Parking/Driveways
*Code provides alternate s~tback of % building
height, if applicable, for single family uses
across street; front side maximum of 64 feet
fails to trigger that provision.
Minimum Parking: 310 Garage Stalls
264 Outside Sp.
Based on 1 per unit, plus % per 2nd bedroom.
Rooms identified as "dens" were not counted
as bedrooms.
PUD Proposal
Proposed Uses: 5/6 Story (7 if mez-
zanine is counted) Multi-Unit Dwelling,
Plus Accessory Supportive Care and
Service Facilities
Proposed Lot Area: 4.99 Acres
Proposed Coverage: 78,102 Sq F
(35.97%)
Proposed Setbacks:
Street:
Building Okay
Parking Area at 25 Feet
Side and Rear:
Existing building/new loading
dock varies down to 20 feet on
North, West.
New wing varies down to 22.5 ft
on Northeast.
Relocated garage varies down
to zero feet.
Zero parking/driveway setback
all along North side of existing
building AND West and North-
east of new wing.
Driveway around East side of
building at 10.5 feet.
Proposed: 127 Garage Stalls*
78 Outside Spaces
*Excludes four stalls in a detached garage at
the northwest comer of the site, reserved for
storage of Manor buses and equipment.
This comparison is based on overall existing AND proposed PUD characteristics.
,;
.
ATTACHMENT G: LIVABLE COMMUNITIES EVALUATION
OF PROPOSED COVENANT MANOR EXPANSION
As part of its Livable Communities participation, Golden Valley has committed to
including a Livable Communities impact evaluation in its consideration of any
proposed housing development. If Covenant Manor were a nursing .care or
mainstream congregate living facility, it would not qualify as housing for Livable
Communities purposes. Since the development instead consists of complete,
self-contained apartment units that are augmented by on-site care and service
facilities, it is included in Livable Communities housing statistics, which are
based on U. S. Census definitions and counts.
Adopted policy says the City will look at potential impacts on all Livable
Communities benchmark areas, but will not necessarily give equal weight to all
impacted areas for a particular development, and will not necessarily allow the
Livable Communities evaluation to outweigh other concerns that may. arise in
connection with a proposed development. There are six Livable Communities
benchmark areas, not all of which are applicable to this proposal. Staffs
evaluation of each area is as follows:
.
Ownership Affordability
The proposed dwelling units are closer to being ownership-based than rental, but
the financial arrangements cannot be directly translated to home-buying
equivalents. Residents make an up-front endowment that gives them lifetime
occupancy of a unit, plus a specified level of ongoing health care and personal
services. The Livable Communities program at this time offers no guidelines for
evaluating the affordability of this sort of living arrangement.
Rental Affordability
Because it is assumed that the new development will be ownership-based, this
benchmark area will not be impacted at all.
.
Variety in Housing
For the purpose of Livable Communities, any type of housing unit that is not in
the form of traditional detached single family homes is considered as contributing
to variety in housing. According to the most current estimate (1995 Metro
Council, based on 1990 Census and annual building permits), Golden Valley has
27.6% of its housing in non-detached units. The Metro Council's benchmark
range is 37 to 41%. The City's goal is 31%. If the Covenant Manor expansion is
built as proposed, and no more detached single family homes are added to the
City's housing stock in the same interval,. the percentage of non-detached units
would increase to 28.7%. It should be noted, however, that the modest 14-unit
increase in the City's housing stock between 1990 and 1995 breaks down into
eight traditional detached homes and six duplex units, so it probably isn't realistic
to assume no additional increase in detached homes.
.
Owner/Renter Mix
The Covenant Manor expansion will increase the proportion of owned housing in
Golden Valley. This is contrary to the City's goal of maintaining current
proportions.
Single Family Detached Density
As with rental affordability, this benchmark area will not be impacted at all by the
expansion of Covenant Manor.
Multi-Unit Density
The Covenant Manor expansion is exactly the type of high density development
that provides the most effective way of increasing average multi-unit housing
density in Golden Valley. Golden Valley's present multi-unit density is 10.8 units
per acre. The Metro Council's established benchmark range is 14 to 15 units per
acre. The City's goal is 12 units per acre. The average multi-unit density in the
City if the expansion occurs as proposed would be 11.34 units per acre.
.
.
2
ATTACHMENT H: ENGINEERING MEMO
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
AUGUST 29, 1997
MARK GRIMES
DIRECTOR OF PZLANI ND DEVELOPMENT
JEFF OLIVER, P.E.'
ASSISTANT CITY NEER
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR THE PROPOSED
COVENANT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY P.U.D.
Engineering staff has reviewed the plans for the proposed Covenant
Retirement Community Planned Unit Development. This proposed
development is located immediately adjacent to the existing Covenant
Manor site north of S1. Croix Avenue, west of Highway 100 and south of
Duluth Street.
Based upon the plans submitted, staff has identified the fOllowing issues
which need to be addressed:
.
1. This site is adjacent to Bassett Creek. A portion of the site is within the
flood plain for the creek. The plans submitted show flood zones, but
they do not correspond with the contours shown on the plans. The
developer's engineer should clarify how the illustrated flood zones were
determined.
2. According to the policies of the Bassett Creek Water Management
Commission, this development will need to provide for rate control only.
It appears that the calculations submitted for the storm water
management will meet the Commission requirements. The storm water
management plan will be reviewed in detail with the final plans.
3. The Erosion Control plan should include gravel construction entrances
at all points where construction traffic will leave and enter the site. The
detail for these entrances should include the 4: 1 berms as required by
the BCWMC.
.
.
.
.
4. All the utility improvements on site will be owned and maintained by the
developer. Permits for connection to the adjacent City utilities will be
required.
Engineering staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for the
proposed Covenant Retirement Home subject to the comments contained
in this review and the comments of other City staff.
.
.