The URL can be used to link to this page

12-12-88 Joint PC-CC-HRC Agenda Golden Valley Planning Commission Civic C�n�er� 7800 Golde:n Valley Ra�d JOINT MEETING WITH CITY-:�OUNCIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION �,� � , Monday, December 12� 1988 7:00 P.M. A G�, E "�� A --�----� I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMSER 2$, 1988 II. DISCUSSION OF GROUP HOME PQLICY AS IT RELATES TO LEVEL IV BOARD AND LODGING FACILITIES III. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - I-394 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE IV. REPORT ON NOVEMBER 29, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * '* * * * * * * * � PLANNING LOMMISSION 6UIDELINES F4R PUBLiG INPUT The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the Gity Gouncil on land use. The Commission will recommend Council approval or derrial of a land use proposal based upon the Commission's determinat'ion of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the pro- ' posed use will, or will not, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. The Commission holds informa} public hearings on lar►d use proposals to enable you to learn, first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions'and offer comments. Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along with the Gommission's recomnendation, in reaching its decision. 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 p�^oposal and the recommendation from staff. Commission members may ask questions of staff. 2. The proponent wilT describe the proposal and answer any questions from the Comnission. 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 individuaJ questionsJcomments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak. Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time far questions/comments. 4. Please give your fulT name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair. Remember, your questions/comments are for the record. 5. Direct your questions/comnents to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer your questions. 6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the opportunity � to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information, not rebuttal. t 7. At the close of the public hearing, the Conmission will discuss the proposal and take appropriate action. MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ` � November 28, 1988 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Va11ey Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair McAleese at 7:06 P.M. Those present were Commissioners Leppik, Lewis, McAleese, and McCracken-Hunt. Commissioners Kapsner, Prazak, and Russell were absent. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of Planning and Development, Beth Knoblauch, City Planner, and Gloria Anderson, Planning Secretary. I . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 14, 1988 It was moved by Commissioner iewis, seconded by Commissioner Leppik, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the November 14, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. (The first paragraph of page 2 should read as follows: Commissioner Leppik asked how high the security fence would be and what type of exterior lighting would be installed. Commissioner Lewis asked whether or not the buildings would be sprinklered. The proponents said the fence would be six feet in height and the lighting system would be directed downward so that people using the facility could see; it would not be directed off the site. They also stated that only the two-story building would be sprinklered in compliance with the building code, and it was not required in the other buildings. ) II . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN � APPLICANT: Parker & Associates LOCATION: 1950, 2000, 2010 AND 2020 Douglas Drive REQUEST: Amendment of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to Change the Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential and Semi-Public to Commercial Zoning District Designation III . INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING APPLICANT: Parker & Associates LOCATION: 1950, 2000, 2010 and 2020 Douglas Drive REQUEST: Rezoning from Single Family Residential and Institutional Zoning Districts to the Commercial Zoning District IV. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICANT: Parker & Associates LOCATION: 1950, 2000, 2010 and 2020 Douglas Drive REQUEST: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Gasoline • Dispensing in a Commercial Zoning District Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 2 � Vice Chair McAleese introduced these three items and asked for a review of the � staff's report to the Planning Commission. Director Grimes reviewed the proposal by Parker & Associates for a 21,000 square foot convenience center which would require changing the land use designation on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, rezoning the property from residential and institutional to commercial , and obtaining a conditional use permit to allow for gas dispensing in connection with a convenience food store proposed at the center. He also indicated that a conditional use permit would be required for the day care portion of the center, but at this time there was not enough information available on the day care center to apply for the permit. He noted other uses proposed for the center would be a day care facility and other retail type businesses such as barber/beauty shop, dry cleaner, etc. Director Grimes also reviewed the past history of' this property. Several developers had wanted to construct housing or offices but none of the projects could be worked out finan�ially because of the size and value of the existing property and buildings. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked what control there would be over parking because of the different uses such as day care, convenience store, etc. Director Grimes said the parking would be based on retail commercial use. Commissioner Lewis questioned the fact that this would not create any additional • traffic and had concerns abaut the stacking of cars. She also was concerned regarding the location of the pumps in relationship to the day care operation that was planned. Director Grimes said this would be a neighborhood type center and would draw customers who already drive by this area on Duluth Street and Douglas Avenue. He noted that the distance between the gas pumps and day care operation was sufficient and would also have to meet State regulations. Mr. Tom Loucks, Tom Loucks & Associates, Inc. , is a land planner and was present to represent the proponent. He also introduced Mr. Gary Gandrud, corporate counsel for Parker & Associates. Mr. Loucks described the design and construction of the building and they felt it would fit in with the residential character of the neighborhood, providing a good transition from residential to the higher uses on adjacent properties. He said they would provide sufficient landscaping on the eastern boundary including a six foot fence ta provide the best screening possible to the residential neighbors. He also noted that this type of center would draw traffic from cars already travelling on Duluth and Douglas. Questions from the Commissioners concerned access from the east to the center, the type of lighting that would be used and hours of operation. The proponents stated there would be no access on the east side of the building, the lighting would be directed downward, not off the property, and that some of the lighting � would have to be kept on during night hours for security purposes. Mr. Loucks indicated that hours of operation of the convenience store/gas pumps would depend on the owner/operator of the store. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 3 • Commissioner Lewis asked if the proponents had signed purchase agreements with the current property owners and if so, would finalization of the purchase depend on their ability to obtain rezoning and a conditional use permit. Mr. Loucks said yes to both questions. Commissioner Leppik was concerned with the close proximity of the gas pumps to the residences to the east. She felt there could be a problem with gas running off into the neighboring yards and that there would be negative impacts from fumes and noise. Mr. Loucks indicated that if the gas pumps were moved to the west side, there ' would be a problem with traffic circulation. Commissioner McAleese asked what would happen to the space designated for the day care center if it were not put in. Mr. Loucks noted it would probably revert to retail space. Mr. Gandrud stated that a day care center would go in at this location and was willing to make it a condition of approval if necessary. Vice Chair McAleese opened the Informal Public Hearing. Ms. Elinor Snodgrass, 1945 Brunswick Avenue North, stated she was the owner of the property being purchased at 2020 Douglas. She said she had been told there would be only 3 gas pumps on the property, and that 5 pumps was too many. • Mr. Joe Mastrian, 2101 Brunswick Avenue North, expressed his concerns regarding traffic, hours of operation and snow removal . He also stated there were several other convenience stores already in the neighborhood and that they had problems with teenagers hanging around. Mr. Mastrian felt this parcel would be better suited to the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. Mr. Bob Parzyck, 2005 Brunsw'ick, stated he had heard the Mobil station across the street was going to be converted to a Super America store and station. He also asked if there would be any restaurants in the center and also had concerns about who would maintain the buffering along the east of the property, access to the property, and older houses being eliminated from the market for young, first time home buyers. Ms. Helen Brown, 2000 Douglas Drive, felt there already was a lot of traffic and noise along this intersection and that this convenience center would not make it any worse. She did not feel the young people caused any serious problems. Mr. Robert Fields was present to represent Croix Oi1 Company of Stillwater, the owner/operator of the Mobil station across the street at 1910 Douglas Drive. He indicated they would be bringing in a proposal for a Super America convenience store at this location and feTt there would be too many gas pumps at this location•. Mr. Paul Snodgrass, 2010 Douglas Drive (one of the homes being purchased by the proponent) , said the homes along Douglas being purchased are older homes and the . upkeep is tremendous and that this is a good opportunity for the owners to sel1 them. He feels the developers are conscientious and wi11 provide an improvement to the property. Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 4 � The Informal Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner McAleese asked the proponent their plans for snow removal . Mr. Loucks said they would remove it the same as any other business would. Director Grimes noted that there were large setbacks which would provide for snow storage. Commissioner Leppik asked if there could be any control over the hours of business as she was concerned that it would be a 24 hour convenience store with lights on and noise al1 night. Director Grimes said the only things that could be restricted would be the gas pumps through the conditional use permit. Moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt to recom- mend City Council approval of the request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map to change the use designation of the property at 1950, 2000, 2010 and 202D Douglas Drive from Medium Density Residential and Semi-Public to the Commercial Zoning District Designation. Commissioner Leppik stated she felt the change in the land use designation was appropriate in this case. Commissioner McAleese said he felt the current designation was not a good designation but was uncomfortable changing it to Commercial . Upon vote taken, the vote was unanimous to recommend City Council approval of . the land use designation change. Moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt to recom- mend City Council approval of the rezoning of the property at 1950, 2000, 2010 and 2020 Douglas Drive from Residential and Institutional to the Commercial Zoning District. Commissioner McAleese stated he was against the rezoning, that he feels the commercial use of this property was not appropriate. He stated he did not think there was a need for a convenience center at this site and was aTso concerned with the traffic. Upon vote taken, the vote was 3 to 1 to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning for the above described property. Commissioner Leppik indicated she was not happy having gasoline pumps this close to a residential property and that she was also concerned with the number of cars, lighting, noise and fumes. She was against this conditional use permit request as she did not feel it was the proper use for this site. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt said her concerns were not for the fumes but the additional lights and noises it would create. Commissioner Leppik asked the proponent if there would be a problem in limiting the length of the pump island to 60 feet rather than 80 feet. � Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission Hovember 28, 1988 Page 5 � Mr. Loucks stated that a 60 foot pump island would be acceptable. Moved by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt to recom- mend City Council approval of a conditional use permit to allow the dispensing of gaso� ine at a convenience store on the property located at 1950, 2000, 2010 and 2020 Douglas Drive in a Commercial Zoning District subject to the following conditions: l. The pumps shall be located as shown on the plan prepared for Parker & Associates by Tom Loucks & Associates, Inc. dated August 30, 1988 and on file with the City of Golden Valley. 2. There shall be a pump island not longer than 60 feet (20 feet being removed from the residential side) . 3. At least a six foot high fence shall be constructed along the east property line as shown on the plan referred to above. 4. The pump plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City' s Fire Marshal . 5. Failure to comply with one or more of the above conditions of approval shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner McAleese stated he would vote against the conditional use permit � request as he feels it will generate more traffic and is not the best use for the property. Commissioner Leppik stated she disagreed with staff that the property values would not be affected by this use. She feels the gas dispensing would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Upon vote taken, the motion failed on a vote of 2 to 2 to recommend City Council approval of the conditional use request. V. INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING - I-394 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE This item was introduced by Vice Chair McAleese and reviewed by Director Grimes. Commissioner McCracken-Hunt asked the Director how the public had been notified of this meeting. Director Grimes said the New Hope-Golden Valley Post had run an article regarding the informal hearing. The Informal Public Hearing was opened. Mr. David Olson was present to represent the TwinWest Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Olson said they were in general agreement, that it was necessary to have this ordinance and supported it. He noted that they had a number of suggestions for revision which had been written out in a letter dated November 14, 1988 to Mr. Bi11 Joynes, City Manager, (on file with the City of Golden Valley) which he briefly reviewed. i Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission November 28, 1988 Page 6 � Mr, Glenn Brown 611 Sumter Avenue South stated he was a homeowner in this area � , and had concerns with traffic. The Informal Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner McAleese stated he had a number of concerns and questions which he would like dealt with by the City Attorney. He said he would write out his comments and submit them to the Planning Department to forward to the City Attorney. Commissioner McAleese stated he would ] ike a copy of the letter from the TwinWest Area Chamber of Commerce. Commissioner Leppik asked if property owners could be notified when D level was attained so there would be some warning system before the E level was reached. Moved by Commissioner Leppik, seconded by Commissioner McCracken-Hunt, and motion carried to continue the discussion on the I-394 Dverlay Zoning District Ordinance until the Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 1988. VI . REPORT ON NOVEMBER 15, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING A repart on the November 15, 1988 City Council meeting was given. VII . LEVEL IV BOARD AND LODGING FACILITIES � Director Grimes stated the Planning Commission would have to look at the Zoning Code with regard to allowing Level IV Board and Lodging facilities in Golden Valley. This item will be discussed along with the City Council and Numan Rights Commission at the December 12, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 P.M. � PLEASE READ FIRST December 8, 1988 • T0: Golden Valley City Council , Golden Vall�y Hur��an Rights Commission and Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Definitions Relating to Informational Meeting on Residential Facili�ies One of the most confusing matters relating to discussing residential facilities/ group homes/board and lodging Level IV facilities is understanding the defini- tions and background. This is my attempt to make things clear. 1. Residential Facility - In the definition section of the Zoning Code, there is a definition of a residential facility (see attached) . This definition is similar to the one found in the State statutes that were passed when residential facilities serving six or fewer persons were required by the State to be permitted uses in the Single Family Zoning District. This definition in the statute specifically states that such facilities will be licensed. Examples of State licensed residential facilities are those licensed by the Department of Human Services (DHS) which include: Shelters for Children and Adolescents; Treatment Group Homes, Residential Treatment Centers; Residential Programs for Chemically Dependent Persons; Mentally I11 Adults; Physically Handicapped Children and Adults; and Correctional � Facilities (see attached sheet - "Community-Based Residential Facilities: Brief Description") . 2. Level IV Board and Care Facilities - These facilities are best described in an attachment to my seeond memo entitled "Hennepin County Requirements for Supervised Group Housing/Level IU Board and Lodging Facilities°. It is my understanding that Level IV has been proposed for licensing by the State but no action has yet been taken. My understanding is that the persons served by the Hennepin County Level IV program are almost entirely on General Assistance. This type of facility is less expensive to operate and, therefore, costs the State and County less to support than a DHS (State} licensed residential facility. It is also my understanding that there are currently �-10 Leve1 IV programs now operating - all in Minneapolis. There is a larger Level IV to be opened soon in Bloomington. 3. Larger Residential Facilities - The Zoning Code permits Residential Facil- ities licensed by the State serving 25 persons as conditional uses in the R-2, Multiple Family and I-3 Institutional Zoning District. � � COMMII1�lITY-BASED �tESIDENTIAL FACII�TIES: BRIEF DESCRIPTION Residential facilities are generally classified by the particular licensing regulations which govern their building, services, and client population. Each facility must have a health license or certification from the city or state health department which establishes standards far food preparation, nutrition, hygiene, and/or health care services. In addition, most community-based residential facilities also hold a ro ram license from the iVlinnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) or the Department of Corrections. The program license includes requirements for treatment and rehabili- tation services, staffing, client records, etc. � Funding for these facilities varies widely and may be provided through any combin- ation of federal, state, county, insurance, or private sources. Hennepin County eontracts directly with some facility operators and closely monitors their funding and program services. Other facilities are Qeriodically visited by county staff who refer clients to the facility. A few facilities accept only private referrals and are not used as resources by Hennepin County staff or clients. The following is a list of the community-based residential facilities which provide services to five or more children or adults: 1. Shelters for Children and Adolescents (DHS Rule 8, now 9545.1400) Shelters provide short-term (30 days or less) proteetion, care and support, generally on an emergency basis, to children and youth who may have been abused, neglected, or are in a family crisis. The goal is to return the child home or find a suitable out-of-home plaeement. 2. Treatment Group Homes for Adolescents (DHS Rule 8) Group homes provide relatively short-term (3 months to 1 year} counseling support and supervision to teens with emotional, behavioral, and/or family problems that require treatment, but are not so severe as to prohibit living in an open community setting and attendino community schools. � 3. Residential Treatment Centers for Children and Adolescents (DHS Rule 5 now 9545.0900 � Clients who use residential treatment centers are 5-18 years old and have more serious emotional problems that necessitate treatment in a self-contained setting for 12-18 months. Nearly all serviees, including specialized schools, are provided on-site. 4. R,esidential Pro rams for Mentall Retarded Children and Adults (DHS Rule 34 now 9525.0210 Mentally retarded clients vary widely in age, funetioning level, abilities, and handicaps. Therefore, some R.ule 34 facilities may be short-term, focusing on teaching the skills needed for independent living, while others provide lifelong care to severely disabled clients. Mentally retarded clients must also attend specialized day programs, such as school, training, or sheltered employment, within the community. 5. Detoxificaton Pro�rams (DHS ftule 32, now 9530.0100) These facilities provide only short-term (up to 72 hours) supervision to acutely intoxicated adults. Clients may then return to independent living or be referred to treatment services. 6. Residential Pro rams for Chemicall De endent Persons (DHS Rule 35 now 9530.2500 � Rule 35 facilities offer primary treatment (high intensity treatment for 3-6 months), short-term halfway houses, or extended care (6 months or longer) to adults or adolescents who may be in the early stages of the recovery process or those who are still engaged in harmful patterns of chemical abuse. Edueational/Vocational training, counseling, and assistance with emotional or domestic abuse problems are provided. 7. Residential Programs for Mentallv Ill Adults (DHS Rule 36, now 9520.0500) These facilities offer training in independent living skills, medications supervision, and counseling to adults with emotional disabilities. Programs provide many services on-site, but clients are also involved with recreational or vocational resources in the community. Rule 36 programs may be transitional (60 days to 18 months), intensive (18-36 months), or supportive (over 3 years). 8. ftesidential Pro rams for Ph sicall Handica ed Children and Adults (DHS Rule 80, now 9570.2000 Clients who use Rule 80 programs may have any number or eombination of physical handicaps such as cerebral palsy or epilepsy and mental retardation. ftule 80 programs may off er moderately short-term rehabilitative services to enable elients to learn to cope with or compensate for their handicaps, or they may provide lon;-term care and support. i 9. Correctional Facilities (Department of Corrections) • Facilities licensed as correctional programs include some group homes for children, secure juvenile detention centers, and adult halfway houses. They may be locked; most are "open." Clients are adults who have committed a crime or juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent. The programs offer educational/vocational programs, counseling, and independent living skills training. Most programs are short-term (3-6 months). 10. Board and Lod 'n Facilities/ftoomin Houses with Meals (Cit or State De art- ment of Health Board and lodging facilities offer a room, three meals a day, laundry services, and a TV room. A few offer some recreational activities, but unless they also have a Department of Human Services program license, they provide no rehabilitation services and little supervision. Clients are generally low income, single, and sometimes transient. They are often highly vulnerable because of age, emotional problems, and/or chemical dependency. 11. Supportive Living Residences (DHS Rule not yet promulgated) Supportive living residences (SLRs) are intended to provide preadrnission screening, 24-hour supervision, support, and recreational aetivities for vulnerable adults who do not need or refuse to use licensed residential treatment facilities. Some facilities would serve a specialized client group such as the frail elderly, battered women, or chemieally dependent persons. Others could serve a mix of • clients, ages, etc. They may be short- or long-term facilities. 12. Board and Care Facilities (Minnesota Department of Health) These health care facilities provide 24-hour supervision, limited nursing services, medications distribution, and recreational activities, usually on a relatively long- term basis. Clients are often elderly, suffer from a variety of physical and medieal problems, and/or emotional problems. Some may move to more inde- pendent settings; many eventually move to nursing homes. . � 11 . 03 ` ?8. °Residential Facility" - Any facility licensed by the State of Minnesota (except for foster family homes) public or private, which for gain or otherwise, provides one or more persons 24 hour per day care including food, lodging, training, education, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation and treatment they need. Residential facilities include but are not limited to State institutions under the control of the Com missioner of Public Welfare, residential treatment centers, maternity shelters, group homes, halfway houses, residential programs or schoois for handicapped children. Source : Ordinance No. 653 Effective Date: 4-12-85 79. "Restaurant , Class I" - Any traditional type restaurant where food is served to a customer and consumed while seated at a counter or table, including cafeterias where food is selected by a customer while going through a service line and taken to a table for consumption. 80. "Restaurant, Class II" - Fast-food type restaurants where customers order and are served at a counter and take it to a table or counter, or off the premises where the food is consumed. A "Class II" restaurant also includes "drive-in" restaurants where some or all customers consume their food in an automobile regard- . less of how it is served, and further includes carry-out and delivery restaurants where food is prepared for consumption off the premises only. Source: Ordinance No. 585 Effective Date: Z-14-83 . 81. "Restaurant , Class III" - Any type of night club, tavern, restaurant or other facility groviding entertainment, food and/or beverage that provides sitdown service but may also provide standup bar service and standup tables within the premises. Source: Ordinance No. 615 Effective Date: 5-25-84 82. "School, Primary, Secondary, College or University" - Any school having regular sessions with regularly employed instructors teaching subjects which are fundamental and essential for a general academic education, under the supervision of, and in accordance with, the applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota. 83. "Service Station (Gasoline Station)" - Any building or premises used principally for the dispensing, sale or offering for sale at retail of automobile fuels or oils or for the servicing of motor vehicles. • GOLDEN VALLEY CC 207 (6-30-88) December 7, 1988 • T0: Golden Valley City Council , Golden Valley Human Rights Commission and Golden Valley Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Informational Meeting to Discuss Expanding the Definition of a "Residential Facility" in the Zoning Code in Order to Permit Leve1 IV Board and Lodging Facilities Serving Six or Fewer Persons in a Single Family Zoning District Background Several months ago the Planning staff received several calls from persons or organizations that wanted to operate one or more Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities in the City of Golden Valley. The requests were to serve either a sma11 group (six or fewer) or larger group (up to 25) . One of the several persons that Beth Knoblauch and I talked to is Neal Tift, Mr. Tift talked about serving a couple of different population groups with a Level IV facility. However, the group that he finally decided to serve would be a Level IV facil- ity serving six persons with AIDS or AIDS related complex (ARC). He currently has a purchase agreement on a house for the Level IV facility. In order to open a Level IV facility in Golden Valley, the City would have to � indicate to the County that the property is properly zoned for the Leve1 IV facility. It was first indicated by Mr. Tift that Level IV facilities are licensed by the State and that they would fit under the City's definition of a "Residential Facility". The Level IV facility proposed by Mr. Tift would serve six or fewer persons; therefore, it would be considered a permitted single family use. (The definition of "Residential Facility" states that they must be licensed by the State. ) After further research, it was determined that Level IV facilities are not licensed by the State but are operated under an agreement with Hennepin County Community Services Department. The only rec�ulation the State has with Level IV facilities is that they r�eet cer��in heal�h standards for lodging homes (see attached standards) . The County is involved through the funding of the Level IV facilities in order to house vulnerable population. Since a Level IV facility is not permitted in the Single Family District, the only way to permit such a use is to change the definition �f a "Residential Facility" to include Level IV facilities. A change to the definition of "Residential Facility" has been requested by both Mr. Tift and the Hennepin County Community Services Department. (See attached letters. ) At the December 12 informational meeting, Marge Wherley from the Hennepin Gounty Community Services Department will be present to discuss the County's agreement procedure for Level IV facilities. I am enclosing a copy of the County's description of Level IV facilities that I got from Ms. Wherley. The description is entitled "Hennepin County Requirement for Supervised Group Housing/Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities". Also enclosed is a copy of the � "Request for Proposals for Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities Development Program" . This also describes the Level IV facilities and a program estab- lished by the County to encourage their development in the County. Golden Valley City Council , Golden Valley Human Rights Commission and Golden Valley Planning Commission December 7, 1988 � Page 2 Issues There are a number of issues that I believe should be considered by the Planning Commission, City Council and Human Rights Commission before the definition of a Residential Facility is considered for change. I am going to structure the issues by looking at reasons l) supporting an ordinance amendment to broaden the definition of a "Residential Facility" and 2) opposing an ordinance amend- ment to broaden the definition of a "Residential Facility". Support 1 - It was the State of Minnesota's original intention to license Level IV type facilities and/or make it a mandated use for all communities. The matter is still under discussion at the State regarding the licensing of Leve1 IV type facilities. This may be up for debate during the upcoming legislative session. In 1984 or 1985 State legislation was changed to require that State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons in a single family residential district be considered a permitted use. However, Level IV type facilities have not yet been licensed. 0 position 1 - Without a State mandate, local permitting of this type of facility is a discretionary matter which raises the issue if an incident occurs. Without a State mandate the City has a greater liability if someone is injured or harmed as a resu1t of the Level IV facility being allowed in Golden Valley. Even if Hennepin County would sign an indemnity agreement with the � City or agree to hold the City harmless, the City remains to have liability due to permitting the faciTity. Support 2 - Staff at the State Department of Human Services who license resi- dential facilities have high praise for Hennepin County programs for its excellence in meeting the needs of vulnerable adults. Opposition 2 - The County's program for Level IV facilities may be excellent today but there are no guarantees that political turnover or changes in funding or administration will not downgrade program quality. Support 3 - The State and County have agreed that there is an increasing need for these types of facilities in the suburbs because some of the people they serve come from the suburbs. Concentrating Level IV facilities in the central cities is not fair. Opposition 3 - There are some very sensitive political issues involved and these are not easily resolved at the local level . If there is a great need for Level IV facilities, the way to avoid local objection is to preempt local discretion by licensing Level IV facilities. Support 4 - The City and the County have a long history of cooperation and mutual aid on a variety of programs. • Golden Valley City Council , Golden Valley Human RigMts Commissian and Golden Va11ey Planning Commission December 7, 1988 � Page 3 Opposition 4 - The County made no effort to discuss the Level IV program with the City before Mr. Tift made his proposal . It is the staff's opinion that the County should have discussed this situation long before a proposal was submitted to the City. It now appears we are making a decision in a crisis setting. Support 5 - Because the Level IV program serves vulnerable populations that are often subject to unfair discrimination, a denial of the proposed ordinance amendment appears to be such discrimination. Opposition 5 - The City presumably would not be legislating against the popula- tion served by Level IV facilities, but only against the type of facility. The City must be concerned regarding arguments based on liability, guarantees of program quality, lack of foreknowledge about the program and neighborhood concerns. � • CHAPTER 4625 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTfi � REQUIREMENTS FOR LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS 4625.0100 Dffi?INI?IOAS. Subpart 1. Approved. The term "approved" shall mean acceptable to the commissioner following his determination as ta conformity with established public health practices. Subpart 2. Clean. The term "clean" shall mean the absence of dirt , grease, rubbish, garbage , and other offensive, unsightly . or extraneous matter. Subpart 3. Com missioner . The term "commissioner" shall mean the commissioner of health and the Minnesota Department of Health, which terms shall be synonymous. Subpart 4. Good Repair. The term "goo8 repair" shall mean free of corrosion, breaks, cracks, chips, pitting, excessive wear and tear, leaks, obstructions, and similar defects so as to constitute a good and sound condition. Subpart 5. Usable floor space. The term "usable floor space" means all floor space in a sleeping room not occupied by closets , toilet rooms, shower , or bathrooms. � Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14 ; 327. 10 to 327 . 67 4625.0200 SCOPS. Parts 4625.0100 to 4625.2300 shall be applicable to all lodging establishments, such as hotels, motels , lodging houses, and resorts as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 157. Statutory Author ity: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd 1 ; 157.01 :to 154.14; 327 . 10 to 327 .b7 4525.6300 S�6ITXTION REQQIREI�NTS. The construction, operation, maintenance, and equipment of lodging establishments shall be regulated as follows in parts 4625.0400 to 4625 .2200 . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14 ; 327.10 to 327.67 4625.0400 BIIILDIHG RBQQIRSMSNTS. Every building structure, or enclosure used to provide lodging accom modations for the public shall be kept in good repair, and so maintained as to pcomote the health , comfort , safety, and well-being of persons accommodated. Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08; 144.12 subd i; 157.01 to 157.14 ; � 327.10 to 327.67. 1 4625.0900 SPACE REQOIREMENTS. Every room occupied for sleeping purposes by one person shall contain at least 70 square feet of usable floor space, and every roam occupied for � sleeping purposes by more than one person shall contain not less than 60 square feet of usable floor space for each occupant thereof. Under no circumstances shall there be provided less than 400 cubic feet of air space per occupant. Beds shall be spaced at least three feet apart when place3 side by side. No sleeping quarters shall be provided in any basement having more than half its clear floor to ceiling height below the average grade of the adjoining ground. When strict compliance herewith is impracticable, the commissioner may waive any of the provisions of this part subject to such conditions as may be deemed desirable in the individual case. Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14 ; 327. 10 to 327.14 4625.1000 BBDDII�iG AHD LIFSN RSQDIREI�NTS. All beds, bunks, cots, and other sleeping places provided for guests in hotels , motels , resorts , and lodging houses shall be supplied with suitable pillow slips and under and top sheets. All bedding including mattresses, quilts, blankets, pillows, sheets, spreads, and all bath linen shall be kept clean. No bedding including mattresses, quilts, blankets, pillows , bed and bath linen shall be used which are worn out or unfit for further use. Pillow slips, sheets, and bath linen after being used by one guest shall be washed before they are used by another guest, a clean set being furnished each succeeding guest. For any guest occupying a guest room for an extended period of time, a fresh set of sheets and pillow slips � shall be furnished at least once each week , and at least two clean towels shall be furnished each day , except that the proprietor will not be responsible for the sheets, towels, pillow slips, and bath linen furnished by a guest. Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 1�7.14 ; 327. 10 to 327. 67 4625.1100 ROOM FURNISHING REQ�IREMSNTS. All equipment , fixtures, furniture, and furnishings, including windows, draperies, curtains, and carpets, shall be kept clean and free of dust, dirt, vermin, and other contaminants, and shall be maintained in good order and repair . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14 327. 10 to 327.67 • 3 All dishes, glasses, utensils , and equipment after washing and bactericidal treatment shall be permitted to drain and air dry. Single-service utensils or vessels as defined in part 4625.2400 , . subpart 20 must be handled in a sanitary manner. Such utensils may not be reused . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd l; 157.01 to 157.14 ; 327. 10 to 327.67 4625.1600 WAS?B DISPOSAL. All liquid wastes shall be disposed of in an approved public sewerage system or in a sew erage system which is designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the rules of the Minnesota Pollution Contzol Agency parts 7080 .0010 to 7080 . 0200 . Prior to removal , all garbage and refuse in storage shall be kept in watertight, nonabsorbent receptacles which are covered with close-fitting, fly-tight lids. All garbage, trash, and refuse shall be removed from the premises €requently to prevent nuisance and unsightly conditions, and shall he disposed of in a sanitary manner. All garbage receptacles shall be kept clean and in good repair . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd l; 154.O1 to 157.14; 327. 10 to 327 . 67 4625.1700 IPSECT AIiD RODENT CONTROL. Every hotel, motel, lodging house, and resort shall be so construeted and equipped as to prevent the entrance , harborage, or bxeeding of flies, roaches, bedbugs, rats , mice , and all other insects and vermim, and specific means necessary , for the elimination of such pests such as cleaning , renovation , or fumigation shall be used. The commissioner may order the facility to hire an exterminator licensed by the state to exterminate pests when : A. the infestation is so extensive that it is unlikely that a nonprofessional can eradicate the pests effectively; or B. the extermination method of choice can only be carried out by a licensed exterminator ; or C. upon reinspection, it is found that an establishment has not been brought into compliance with a prior order to rid the establishment of pests . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14; 327. 10 to 327. 67 4625.1800 PBRSON�L BEALTB ABD CLBAHLINBSS. No person shall resume work after visiting the toilet without f irst thoroughly washing his hands . Personnel of hotels , motels , lodging houses, and resorts may be required to undergo medical examination to determine whether or not they are eases or carriers of a communicable disease , Statutory Author ity: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157.14; 327 . 10 to 327 .67 � . 5 Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08; 144.12 subd 1; 157.01 to 157. 14 ; 327. 10 to 327. 67 � 4625.2300 IAITIAL AHD REN$WWAI, LICgNSE F$BS, LICBNS$ EXPIRATION DATES. Subpart 1. Fee schedule. License applications for lodging establishments as defined in part 4625.0100 shall be accompanied by the applicable fee as determined from the following fee schedule : A. one to 18 sleeping rooms , $46 ; B. 19 to 35 sleeping rooms, $90 ; C. 36 to 100 sleeping rooms, $120; and D. 101 sleeping rooms and over , $150 . Subpart 2. Expiration date. Initial and renewal lodging establishment 2.icenses shall be issued for the calendar year for which application is made and shall expire on December 31 of such year . Subpart 3. License renewals. License renewals shall be obtained on an annual basis. License renewal applications shall be submitted to the commissioner of health on form s provided no later than December 31 of the year preceding the year for which application is made . Subpart 4. Penalty fee. A penalty fee of $10 shall be added to the amount of the license fee if the application has not reached the office of the commissioner of health before January 31, or in the case of a new business, 30 days after the opening of such business. Subpart 5. Reduced license fee. From and after October 1 of each � year, the license fee for new establishments or new operators shall be one- half of the appropriate annual license fee plus any penalty which may be required . Statutory Authority: MS s 144.08 ; 144.12 subdl; 157.01 to 157.14 ; 327. 10 to 327 . 67 � 7 --•�.�., CRITFRIA FOR PERSONS OCCUPYING BOARDING AA1D I.�DGING HOUSE ESTABLISHN�ITS � 1. Ttie occu ant should be self-admitted or admitted by family mmbers snd free to P laave if he/she desires. 2. The occupant should be totally independent aad receive no more than limited superviaion of activities of daily living. 3. I! ttis occupant becoeaes ill, he/she cannot require 1�anda-cn care f°r 10°re �'� a period ot oae aeek. Wl�en such care becon►es necessary, the occupant must have a proper medical diaqnosia withia a twenty four hour perio�l of the onset of ill- :. nsss. The care qiver� durinq thia week should be under qualified aadicsl dir�ction. 4. The occupant cannot recaive injections of other thaa selt-a�ninistersd irisulin. 5. The xcupant can receive self-administezed medication that requires no more than limited supervision. L�imited supervision includea: a. remindinq the occupant� b. raac3inq labels for the occupant; c. assiatinq in refilling a prescription.• . •• 6. �7. If any of the followinq apply to the occupant, then the occupant ahould be • transferred to a more appropriate facility. a. The occupant has a disease endanqerinq other residents. • b. The occupant is not receivinq a therapeutic diet as ordered by a physician or proper autritional diet necessary to'maintain health. c. The occupant needs aasistance with ambulation and positioninq, mobility, wheelinq and trnnsferring. d, The occupant has a aiental condition limitinq his or hez vital care ability. e. The occupant has a mental condition diaruptive to othez persons. f. Tha occupant hea a mental oondition endanqerinq other pezsoas. � , � t �• i � � � ; Septemb�r. 1981 � , ' . 7oti� R C'aaaoLL T9.fx�- L.Pt sT �lexr.s D. OL�o� B E S T S�c F LA�A GA1� Bxi�� F. RTCE �RCH7fl31.D tipE�CER . . � TR9Cl T t�p,\ CTEF.VBL'RGH ROBEg7 >7. St,aRF ATTO�`\ETS AT LAti DArin i ZrBhr_ ROBER"I' L.. CROSF3l-. .lA?fE5 ]_'.��]I�(HEL� � LE0�4RD .'�1.ADDI�GTO\ � . � `3jOO IDS CE\TER I'41RE\ L. CI,ETTE� RoP�a� R.RnaTx Pni i. E. Ii.a>i�x.h� � � 1.��aI.TER (iRAFF '_�ZI_\"_1'E_APOLIS, '_�SI\"'_CESOT� j5-&02`�2113 � � BL9FE�`HI:F:IRD. �tR_ � _�7.LE\ L�. �AR\ARD � � EL17�BETt3 \1� �OI3ACH � RI('H.4RU .�.YETER50� � � TELEPI3O_\'E �Ci12� 336 7121 �CHR1S'TOPI3ER �T. C�fl.APt'T � ROAERT ��T. C�FiRISTLSX50\,�.IR. � � � �•10HV P. Pi��YLF. Fa.i�h •_T.\\:�LZ TELECOYIEI? 'Ci12: 339 5897 Rosc C. Foa>tE�i. � Z A0�f9� D. CARL�O\ � �. � C HRISSOPH£R�C .FOY � FFLAVA t�OGL � � � � � � :�1ARI\LS ��.�'A\ Pi'TTE\,,TR. � � � � OF COL^:SEL � �10H\ �.BiRTOS,•1R. � � CHARLES S.BELLO\�'ti � .1n�tEC C.Di�+cLES \�aan B. LEM-is � HOflER2 L.*SELLER.,TR. � ____ . tiC'OTT I�. ELLER � � � � RETI&ED � C AARI.ES C.BERVL"1ST � � � � GEORGE '�IALONE�' � (SEORCE o. LLD�b� � October 21 17HH � � LEOKARD H.�SIMO�ET � . r.�•IOSEPH��taFAt'E I�T I . . � � C�REGORY' D. SOi'LF . . � � . � . JAMES I.BEST � C ATHY E.C�ORLI\ � � . � 11902-1999�� PATRICR B. HEK\F:SSY � � � � C�HR]tiT71E K.tOL60� � . � R89eEeYa...J..F��..acnv . ERih ti'. IHElr: T1M07'HY _�.SCLLI\"_1V � � . Mr . Mark Grimes, Director Department of Planning and Development City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 • Dear Mark : You have advised me that a group has proposed to Hennepin County the operation of a Level IV Board and Lodging Facility in Golden Valley. This facility would serve six persons with AIDS or AIDS related complex (ARC ) . The facility would be located in the Residential Zoning District . In addition, I also understand the following regarding the facility: 1 . The applicable provision in the City Code is the definition of "Residential Facility" contained in Subd. 78 of Section 11 .03 of the City Code . 2 . The facility is intended to lodge six persons and provide 24 hours a day supervision. 3 . Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities are not licensed by the State of Minnesota. After reviewing this matter and researching the applicable ordinances, I have concluded that this proposal does not meet the reauirements of a Residential Facility for location in a Residential Zone. The issue in this matter is determined by the definition of 'Residential Facility" . It reauires that a residential facility . be "licensed by the State" . This term is not defined anywhere BEST c.�'.' FLA\AC�_�\ • Mr . Mark Grimes, Director October 21, 1988 Page 2 in the City Code. Accordingly, it is necessary to look to the legislative history and purpose of the provision. It is my understanding th:at the definition was taken from Minn. Stat . 245 .782 in response to a request by the State that all cities conform their zoning regulations ta the regulations of the Department of Public Welfare . The idea was for the Department of Public Welfare to take on the responsibility of the social agency responsible for determining the appropriateness of such homes. Accordingly, the City revised its ordinances in accord with that State reauest in 1984 . Now, it is my understanding that the State does not license Leve1 IV Board and Lodging Facilities. Since the definition of the City Code has not been met by this applicant because Level IV Board and Lodging Facilities are not licensed by the State, it is my conGlusion that such a facility does not aualify as a • Residential Facility in a Residential Zone. I hope this is sufficient for your purposes . Very truly yours , /��' �,,^ .!:-'-�' Al1�n �D . Barnard ADB: jg 5576U . _ COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMEN� � COMMUNiTY RESOURCES DIVISIOr� HENNEPIN A-130� Government Cen�er Minneapolis, Minneso�a 55�87-0130 November 8, 1988 Mr. Mark Grimes Director of Planning and Development 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Dear Mr. Grimes, Mr. Engstrom requested that I provide you with possible language which would allow Level IV Board and Lodging facilities to be developed in Golden Valley. The facility in question, the Oscar Romero Residence, is, in effect, exempt • from licensure by the State of Minnesota. I've discussed this with Jim Loving, Acting Director of the Department of Human Services Licensing Division. Current licensing standards apply on to residential programs for mentally ill, mentally retarded or chemically dependent persons. There is no license for facilities providing housing and supervision to adults with other disabilities, such as persons with AIDS or low IQ's, the physically handicapped or frail elderly. These persons clearly need quality housing which also offers on-site support services. A possible addition to your definition of "residential facility" might be "or a facility which provides 24 hour on-site supervision to physically or socially impaired adults and is not required to be licensed by the State of Minnesota." You could, as part of the zonin� process, require applicants to submit a letter from DHS Licensing and/or the Department of Corrections, verifying that the proposed facility does not require a license. The requirements for 24 hour supervision would avoid the problem associated with rooming house, etc. Hennepin County supported a statutory change creating a category of DHS licensure for supervised facilities servic�ng vulnerable adults, (originally called SLR or Supportive Living Residence) . This license would have provided operating standards for facilities such as Oscar Romero. DHS � HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportun+ty¢mploy¢r 2. � did not promulgate licensing standards. If your city were to adapt the above zoning definitions and the State did develop such a licensure category, Level IV facilities would be required to obtain a license to maintain their zoning status. Please let us know your reaction to the above and feel free to contact us if you would like to discuss. Sincerely, • ��l��(�,� /t rlar e �:h�le' 9 Y Supervisor Adult/Child Placement cc: Roger Engstrom }ch i ! November 17, 1988 � Mr. Mark Grimes, Director Department of Planning & Development City of Golden Vall ey 7�00 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 Dear Mark: I am writing to request that the City Code of Golden Valley be amended, Subdivision 78 of Section 11.03 to read: 78. "Residential Facility° Any facility licensed by the State of ��r2sota (except for foster family homes) , or certified by Hennepin County, public or private, which for gain or. .: . . . . . . . . . .etc. I �m re�uesting this amendment change to allow Denise and Nei1 Tift to open and operate a six bed facility as a Board and Lodging, Level IV in Golden Valley. ��!F are requesting this to be presented to the appropriate municipal authorities for action at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your assistance. I will be � pleased to help you in any way to expedite this matter. Cordially: . . \ i Ht.h►�cPI� COUttiTY REQUIRE�1ENT5 FOR SUPERI'ISED GROUP HOUSIhG/ LEV�L IY BOARD A�D LODGING FACILITIES � 1. Purpose. The purpose of Level IV Board and Lodging facilities is to provide safe, healthy, supervised group housing to adults arho, because of physi;:al , intellectual or emotional inaairrnents or cher�ical abuse/dependency, are unable to live independently. These facilities are not treatnent prograns; adults who need and want residential treatment services for chenical dependency, mental illness or physical handicaps should be referred to licensed treatnent facilities. 2. Building Requirenents . Lev�l IV Board and Lodging facilities rnust con�ly rJith all rec<ulati�ns tiiat apply to boardinc houses/io��in� houses, including bui 1 c'� �i�, zoni ng, heal t�� and f i r� Sdf�i.y COCZS and Hei�ne,�� i,o�nty c�.'t��r"i c�ti on r�cui rements. The faci 1 i ty must be i ns;�ected annual ly to assure to�,i�1 i a��cz �,�tn t.��es2 requirenents, a��d nust r,�ai nt�i n co�i es of al l 1 i cens2s, ci tati oi�s, correc- . ti on orri,�s, vari unces c�ranted and correcti on ti•�ork ord�rs. � .. _•:�;lr; ��g must ii�clude clean, well-ventillated, adequate and a��rc�rictely ��:�'.. � _ ��_:' space for sl eepi ng, bathi ny, di ni ng, l aundry ar;d saci al/re�re;t��-i onal ::�.:� �Y�F�c:::s, lockec storage areas for personal effects and a televisior� lounge. The ca;;a;.i ty of t�ie faci 1 i ty cannot exceed 32 beds and no more th�r� th��ee �� r�ts moy shar� any bedroom. The facility must provide clearly narked, �c �c;�!;,�� ly venti l lated areas for snoki ng and areas v:here smoki,�� i s not �e.��i it��. Doors and vri ndo►�s must be adequately secured. 3. i�le��s. Meals must be atlequate, nourishing an� ►�ell balanced. Three r�eals �er day inust be provided at regular timzs, with not more than 14 hours between the evening meal an� breakfast the following day, and not less than l0 hours between breakfast and the evening rneal of the sane day. Residents ►•.�ho notify staff that t�ey will be away from the facility for one or more meals per day must be offered a bag lunch. Residents may aarticipate in food pr�peratior� if instructed in proper kitchen safety procedures and if the above requirr�nents are r�2t. Th2 facility is not required to provide special diets (such as 1ow sodiurn • or restricted calorie) . However, if any modified diets are arovioeU, the meals _ 2 _ must be prepared as prescribed by the resident's physician, and a doctor's order must be mainta�ned in the client 's file. trenus for all three meals r�ust be iplanned at least` two weeks in advance and posted in the kitchen. Menu plans must be kept on fi 1 e at the faci 1 i ty for at least si x months, for revi e►: by county monitoring staff. 4. Staffing Ratio. Each facility shall provide an administrator/director for at least 20 hours per week in facilities with a capacty of 20 or fewer residents; or at Teast 30 hours per week in facilities with a capacity of 21-32. In addition, the faci�ity must provid2 at least 4 .2 full-time equivalent direct servic2 staff positic,ns to assure 24-hour, on-site supervisior� within the facility. 5. Staff Qualifications . No Level IV facility may employ any administrator or support staff who has been convicted of, has admitted to, or, based upon sub- stantial evidence, is a�leged to have committed physical abuse, sexual abuse, or nealect of a vulnerable adult or other crimes against persons (including but not lir�ited to assault, criminal sexual conduct, or manslaughter) . To verify this, the facility should apply for a criminal record check fron the Minnesota 6ureau iof Criminal Apprehension beforz hiring any employee. The results of this records cneck should be kept in the employee' s personnel file. State la�r also requires facilities to solicit information regarding any known instanczs of sexual abuse toward clients fror, the prior human services er�ployers of iob applicants before a hiring decision is made. Documentation of these referQnce checks should be keat in the file of stsff hired by the facility. The administrator/director must have, at a ninimur�, an associate of arts degree (or at least 90 credit hours) from an accredited college or university in human services, behavioral , social or health sciences or health care administration. The adminisT.rator/director must also have one year of full-time experience in management or supervision and one year of full-tir�e experience ►•rorkir�c� ►�ith functionally impaired adu7ts. Current board and lodging operators/adrninistra- tors are not required to �eet the educational requirements rp ior to certification as a Leve1 IV facility. However, before the facility can be certif9ed, they must present a written plan which shows haw they will meet these � requirements within two years, or they must agree to hire an administrator/director who mzets the educational and experience reGuirements described above. _ 3 _ 6. Personnel Policies and Procedures. All Level IV faciiities rnust maintain on 'i site a copy of the following: a current job description for each position which includes staff qualifications, duties and lines of authority; policies re�uiring an annual performance review of each staff position; an employee grievance procedure; a description of grounds for dismissal ; employee benefits; orientation and training including a requirement that each direct care staff person receive training, in first aid and CPR, and attend 12 hours of training per year in areas relevant to hislher job. The annual training must include topics related to the types of disabilities experienced by facility clients. The facility must also keep a se�arate personnel file on each employee. This file will include: the em�loyee's application for employment and/or resume; verification of any education or experience requirements for that position; results of contacts with at least two references; results of BCA check; a record of orientation and training; copies of annual jo5 performance evaluations; a record of any disciplinary actions . 7. Client Adnissions . 7he clients cf Level IV Board and LodSins facilities are � vulnerabTe adults with disabilities, handicaps and problems ►dhich prevent them frorr� 1 i vi ng i n the comr�uni ty ►��i thout su�port. Sone of these cl i ents may be chec,ically �Ependent or mentally ill adults in need of treatment who are un�rilling to live in a treatment prograr or have been unable to secure treatnent because facilities are full or the client fails to meet admission rec�uirements. These clients m�ay use a Level IY facility on a short-term basis, until they can secure residential treatment services, or they may choose to live in a Level IV facility as an alternative to in-house treatnert. Because Level IV facilities cannot admit mentally ill clients if they are willing and able to use a facility licensed for the treatment of inentally ill adults, all clients with a diagnosis of inental illness must be screened before they can 5e accepted for admission. The preadmission screening pracess is described seaarately. All clients must undergo a brief physical examiniation by a licensed physician within 30 days prior to admission or 5 days following admission. The physical report must specify that the client is free of serious disease which is likely � to be comr�unicable within the facility. Routine testing for AIDS is discouraged _ q _ and a client who has been diagnosed as having AIDS or ARC cannot be refused � adnission unless there is also a s ep cific, documented risk to the client or others. 8. Resident Rights. Residents of Level IV facilities have the following rights: A. Compensation. Any resident who performs labor other than routine self care independent living skilis training, or household chores, such as cleaning, cooking, etc. , nust be compensated in accordance with minimum wage requirements. B. Financial Affairs. If a resident requests assistance in managing his/her personal needs allowance, up to ��0/month, the facility must maintain a stater�ent of the facility 's fiscal responsibilities (signed by the client) , and records of every deposit and withdra►•�al . If a resident needs assistance with more than S70/month, he/she must be referred to a social services agency. � C. Phon2. Residents must have access to a noncoin-operated telephone for emergency calls. access must also be available to a coin-operated phone, or its equivalent, within the residence for inconing and outgoiiig local and long distance calls. D. Nail . The resident musf be allowed to receive and send uncensored, uno�er�ed mail . E. Yisitcrs . The resident must be allowed to receive visitors and comr�unicate ��ith persons of his or her choice, except when tt�e visitor poses a denonstrable risk of abuse to or exploitation of residents. Visiti�g hours may be limited to times posted by the facility, and visitors should be required to abide by house rules regarding drinking, violence, etc. . F. Personal Privacy. Residents have a right to privacy, individuality, and cultural identity. Employees shall respect the privacy of a resident' s room by knocking on the door and seeking consent before entering, except in an � emergency lsuch as client illness, smoking/fire hazards) . Facility staff may also enter client rooms fo� routine inspections if the day(s) , timets) _ 5 _ and reasons have been announced in advance. racilities that conduct routine � room inspections must have written policies regarding such inspections, and the schedule must be posted Nhere it can be seen by all residents. G. Personal Articles. The resident may retain and use his or her personal clothing and possessions as space permits, unless to do so would infringe on the rights of others or violate fire, health, or building codes. Any restriction of this right, citing the details and the rationale, must be documented in the resident's personal record. Unclaimed resident property nust be stored and disposed of in accordance with Landlord-Tenant law. 9. Client Discharges. cach Level IV facility must have policies and procedures for the voluntary (client willing) and involuntary (client not willing ) discnarge of residents. These must include: the grounds for involuntary discharye; tne number and type (written vs. verbal ) of warnings residents rrill be given prior to termination; the nunber of days residents ��ill be given to look far another living situation. All involuntary discharges will be documented in the clients ' files. In cases where a resident aoses an inmzdiate threat to self or others, , requires emergency medical or psychiatric care or has committed a charg2able offense such as serious property danaae or theft, the cliznt may be discharged immediately. However, in these cases, facility staff must attem�,t to secure hospitalization, incarceration or other alternative, emergency housinc; and these efforts must be documented in the client' s file. Unless the r�sident is hospitalized or has conmitted a chargeable offense, involuntary dischcrges nust be handled in accordance r;itn Landlord-Tenant La►�. 10. Er�ergency Procedures. Each Level IV facility must develop procedures for responding to: fire, severe rieather, medical and psychiatric emergencies, serious intoxication, missing aersons. Policies iaust include how the situation wi11 be handled by the staff on duty and who ►rill be notified (e.y. relatives, police, facility adr�iinistrator, county case manager, client's physician) . Critical medical data, including any kno��m medical or psychiatric conditions, allergies, and current medications, must be accessible to facility staff 24 hours per day. � _ 6 _ � 11. Recreational /Educational/Social Activities . Each Level IV facility must provide at least 10 hours per week of recreational , social or educational activities. Activities should include both in-house prograns and com�unity evenfis, and may be provided by facility staff or through an agreement with other agencies, volunteers, etc. Exanples of possible activities include: softball garnes, card tournaments, cooking classes, AA meeting, self-defense lecture/class, field trips to museums, etc. , etc. The facility should document group activities, indicating the number of resident5 ��ho have attended. 12. Medications. Each facility must describe how medications will be stared or handled by residents and/or staff. Such medications policies and procedures nust comply with h1innesota Deaartment of Health standards and restrictions. 13. Coordination r�ith Hennepin County. For all residents who have been assigned a Hennepin County Case Pianager, the facility must request an initial meeting (within two weeks) with the caseworker to discuss: the resident's current status; behaviors and incidents which should be reported to the case manayer by � the facility (and to the facility by the case manager) ; outpatient and comnunity services to be used by the client; and the role of facility staff vs. the county caseworker in areas such as arranging for health care, referrals to community services, �tc. The results of this discussion should be dotUmented in the client's file. The facility will also cooperate with the County in any rnonitoring or investigations. 14. Vulnerable Adults Act. Level IV Board and Lodging facilities are required to comply with the Vulnerable Adults Act. This means that the facility will develop: procedures for reporting any suspe�ted abuse of their residents; a facility abuse prevention plan tto minimize the risks posed by their populatior�, builidng and neighbo�hood) ; and individual abuse prevention plans (to identir'y and r�inimize the risks to specific clients) . DHS Rule 10 provides specific guidelines to use in meeting the requirements af the Vulnerable Adults Act. 15. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Level IV facilities must protect client confidentiality as specified in the Data Practices Act Chapter 351. This � Act describes: how data is classified; which data must be released to investi- _ � _ � gatory agencies; how clients must be rrarned about the possible uses of infor- mation about ther�; and how release forms should be used. Each Level IV facility must develop procedures to comply with thesz requirements. 7he Minnesota Department of Human Services has a manual available for sale which describes Data Practices reGuirements in detail . 16. Resident Files. Level IV facilities must maintain an individual file on each client admitted. Included in the file: demographic inforrnation; next of kin or other per:son to contact in emergencies; guardian and county case manager if apalicable; health information (includinS diaynosis and r�.edications if applicable, physician, dentist, results of admission physical exam�nation, allergies, health conditions) ; a concise social services history if kno►•�n; vulnerable adults individual abuse prevention plan; progress n�tes (at least every two ��eeks and more often if there are changes in the resident's condition, emergency incidents or any warnings of rules violations ahich could lead to ternination) ; release of information form; documentation of a preadmission screening for any client with a diagnosis of inental illness. Resi�ent files • must be stored for at 7east four years following the client's discharye. 17. Reaorts. 7he facility will arovide regular reports as required by Hennepin County, including admission and discharge reports (Client Tracking Syste�) , and quarterly financial reports. 18. Waivers/Exceptions . Since thesz standards are necessary for the protection of vulnerable adults, very few waivers or exceptions will be granted. If tt-�e hea�th or safety of facility r2sidents is not adversely aff2cted, a facility ma,� request a waiver, in writing, specifying the reasons for non-cornpliance and the . impact of coR�pliance vs. nor�-cor�pliance. The County may grant a temporary waiver if a reasonable plan for achieving compliance is presznted. � � BOARD A':D LODGIN� LEVEL Ib'/SUPERVISED GROUP H�t7SING M£Iv'T�,?, HEALTH PREADMISSIO'� S�RE�ING RF�QUIRE."'�'TS StatE law prohibits any board and lodging facility from accepting more than four adults with a diagnosis of inental illness unless the rlient ha� refused to use Department of Human Services - licensed residential mental health treatment program� (also kn�r�an as Rule 36 programs). It is thE policy of Hennepin County that Level IV facilities will not accept � mentally ill ad�lt except whea that client: {1) refuse� tc accept Rule 36 treatment; (2) is on a waitino list for a Rule 36 prograrn ano need� 2� hour supervi�ion until a space is available; or (3) has been refuse.; adr.,i��ion to all a?�ro�riate Rule 3c procra.ms. Ir. order t� a5�',:rE t��at all mEntellv ill adults c:ho nee� ano want re�idential treatme:�t he��e an op�ortunity to receive such ser��ice�, pread�r�i��ion screeninc is rec��ireo. Thi� uill include t�� xrts: (1 ) d p_Ellfilfl'a7� a�sess*��n� by facilit�� aff of all ciients a��lying for ac^is�icn, tc oe�E�,lne r,•hich ap�licant� m=.y be ment�lly ill; an�? (2? a �cr�_:,ino by thE county' of nll clients ioentifie5 as r��tally ill cr pro��iy rr�n�aily ill . b�ith the exception of clients alreeoy aar��itteci t� � the fzcility before Nove�r 1, 19�7, all clients mast have a preliminar�� assz�sTent ano a screening before they are accepteo for ad��ission. The pre-adr��s�ion screening process will be baseo on thE follo;;ino: 1. l�;'�at i� meat�l illne�s? Ho�: ��ill it be define�? ThE leaal def�nition of inental illne�s which sp�lie� tc residenti�l f�.:ilitie� is: "an orcanic cis�rder of the br�in or a clinically �ignifica�t disorde�� of thought, m�a�, perception, orientatio;,, memo��, or beha��ior thst i: li=�e:3 in the clinical rr�nual of the Internation�l Cl��sificatio� of DisEases (7CL-9-�'P;) , current edition, coaE ranae 2°�.O tc 3�2.9� or 3J6.0 to 31c.G or the corresp�n�ir�, cooe in the ,�rr�erican Psychia�ric �sociatioa's Diaonostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSr;-^;D) , current edition, Axes I, II or III, and that seriously liriits a person's capacity to function in primary aspects of daily living, such as personal relations, living arrange:r�ents, work an� recreation.° Facility staff may also use the folloa�ing as indicators of a probablE diagnosis of inental illnes: - Client ha� been adnitted to a co�nunity psycniatric hospital or , regional treatment center (state hospital ) for reasons other than chemical dependency; and/or • � - Client has receive� treatrnent in a Rule 36 residential treatment program; and/or - Client is currently ta}:ing or has been prescribe� psychotro�ic medications. 2. k'ho rrr�st be screened? When? A21 adults who currently reside in a Le�►el Iv/supen►ised group housino facility must be assessed and, if found to be mentally ill, must be screene3 by January 1, 1988. Be;inning on November 1, 1987, all clients r�r.�st be assessed ano , if mentally ill, rrust be screened prior to admission. .'s. hTM�_t i� the a�se�smc;��? Y;�o sho�.:lo d� it? Facilities ca� oesign thEir ow�n meth�!formrt for asses�ing whether an a��licant is diaonese� r%e:,�aily i31 or if therE are in�ications of o probobl e di agno�i� of inental i l lne�s (see �1 ab:,ve) . Cl i ents can be aske� tc fill out a checklis*, referral so��rce� can b� re_�e�te� to provide thi� inforn�tion, an^/or �teff may incluoe aoditional cuestion� in the client inter��iew. T�ny facility staff assigned to hancle client adr�is�ion= n�}• t� � assigneti res�oasibility for a=surina that all clients have been assesse�: for a mental illnes� dia�n�sis. 4. ti„�at is the proce�_= for scrEenino mentallv ill clients? t�'7� can d� it? ThE screenino prxE€s is simt,ly a methx of assurina that rr�ntally ill a.:.:lts understano �hat kind� cf treatment o�tion� m�y be av�ilable, ana are ab?e to make an informed choice bet�.�een resources. To acco�l ish this, an indepe�dent co•�:nty staff will talk with thE client an� dxument his/her choicE. If the client has a co�nty case rr�anager (fror, He:.nepin or another co.u�ty) , that social workEr may p:e�•ide tl�e scrEenine. If the client does not have a county soeial worker, Janis Va�, o psychhologist fram He:u�epin County �9ental Health So�ial Serviee� c;ill be availa5le to conouct screenin�s at the Government Center or at other locations. Janis Vape can be reached at 348-E506. 5. What kin3 of documentation is neeoed? Facilities tm�st develop a standard method of dacumenting that they have assessed each resident to determine �hether they r�ay be mentally i11. Thi� can be a separate checklist or a section on the admission form, but it must bE included in each client's file. It i� not ne_essary for the facility to require written substantiation of the client's diagnosis; however, the . facility may request thi� information on a case-by-case basis if it i� useful to the facility and readily availablE. . For all clients wherE there is an indication of inental illness, a copy of thE attached screening forrr must also be included in the client's file. � RESIbENTI,qI SCREENI'�� FOR'1 CLIE�IT NAMF: (nrint) After ciiscussing the benefits of residential treatr�ent vs. a Level IV Board and Lodnino/Sunervised ;roup Housing Facil;ty: (check one) I am on a waitin� list at a mental health residential treatment �roqram, , and exnect to be admitted about program name date I would like to use a mental health residential treatment oroqram, but I was reiected at these proc�rams: (lis± nroorams and �,�hen reiected) � Proorar� NamE Month!Year Relected � l do not want to �o to a mental health resi�entisl treatroer�t proqrar� at this time. Client 5i�nature Date Screener Date Title 4�ency FACILITI,: � A��11SSI�N �.4TE: �irect4r Si�nature REQUEST FOR PROPOS�LS FOR � LEVEL IV BOARD M1D LODGIIVG FACII.ITIES DEVELOPMEM' PROGRAM You are invited to submit a proposal to the County of Hennepin in accordance with this Request fa Proposals (RFP). I. IlVTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM INTENT A. Developmertt H�nntpin Camty (Co�mty) and the foundation community through the More . Than Shelter program have made available funds for development of Level IV Board and Laigings in underserved areas of the County. This grant prograrn will further the County's efforts to disperse residential facilities throughout the County as mandated by Chapter 617, Laws of Minnesota 1984. Preference will be given to those proposals which represent locations that are geographically balanced. The intent of this grant program is to assist owners/operators to develop a facility that complies with all applicable zoning, building, fire safety, and health requirements, as well as to provide a pleasant, comfortable general living environment. In addition, the facilities will be limited to a maximum of � 32 beds. The program provides a grant of up to 50 percent of the actual cost of development. Owners/Operators are required to obtain other funds needed for the project from other sources. Repayment of grant funds will be required if within eight years, or in the case of a non-profit facility within five years: (1) the County decertifies the Level IV status of the facility due to non- compliance with County standards; or (2) the owner/operator sells the facility or converts it to other than a Level IV use. (See Grant Agreement attached as Appendix A.) B. Client Services OwnecsiOperators selected for ftinding will be required to negotiate with Hennepin County regarding client supervision and supportive services. During this negotiation process, the owner/operator and the Co�mty will discuss the clients to be served in the facility, admissions and discharge requirements, the number and types of staff needed, service goals and methods, facility operaiing policies, job descriptions, and budget requirements. Suburban facilities will be expected to establish within their admissions guidelines a priority for suburban clients who also meet all other admissions criteria. Once the owner/operator �nd the County are in agreement, a rate wilt be esiablished and services will be implemented. If the owner/operator acquires a building which is occupied, the owner/operator is required to have a plan to assist those residents who require aid in relo�ation. � � - -] /V� !�� -c h � � �S' - 2 - �;�,,�ls �'s-5� �y3 z S- All facilities selected for fu�ding will be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health or its designee as Board and Lodging facilities. Negotiations fcr � staffing and services will be based upon Cotmty requirements and revised, if needed, when State licensing is available. The following sections of this RFP (II.B., III.B.) which relate to client services d�fine some of the requirements which will be the subject of negotiations with owners/operators. They are included in this RFP and in the application for planrung ptaposes and to identify whether there is any reason why the owner/operator would not be able to negotiate for or provide Level IV Board and Lodging services in accordance with County requir�ments. II. PROCESS/TIMETABLE A. Facility Development Pro�ram 1. F�a►dinR Commitments/Preliminary Loan Commitments Owners/Operators are required to submit as part of their proposals commitrnents for the non-grant portion of the ftmding necessary to complete the project. 2. Submission of Proposals Proposals will be accepted as long as grant#unds are available. 3. Preliminary Screening rProposals will be sCreened to determine that they are in compliance with the guidelines established for this program. The review is expected to be completed within 30 days of proposal submission. 4. City Review Process � The city review process should occur before the grant is awarded. S. Determination of Grant Award The County will eonsider proposals and determine the grant award within 90 days of proposal submission. Owners/Operators will be notified of the decision. 6. 'Submission of Documentation After notification of receipt of a grant, an owner/operator must submit certain documents to the County. See Appendix A, Grant Agreement, number 9 foc listing and timing. 7. Closin� Date See the Grant Agreement, number S for necessary preparation before the dosing. � 8. Completion of Development Project Completion is r�quired on or befare the date established in the timetable. - 3 - B. Service NeRotiations Pro�ess/Tim�table � Al! vendors selected for f�nding through this grant program will be required to participate in negotiations with Hennepin County. The service and budget agreemcnt developed by the owner/operator will be subject to acceptance and approval by the County. Because tlx County is responsible for developing services to meet a wide variety of client nceds, owners/operators must be willing to serve the kinds of clients identified by thc County as being in need of serviets. (These clients are d�saibed in the next section, under Service Requirements.) All bud�et ne�otiations will be based upon allowable expenses and depr�ciation schedules established by Hennepin County; documentation/ justification of proposed expenses will be required. Serviet and budget negotiations will be scheduled with each ovmer/operator following notification that his/her proposal has been selected for a grant. A timetable will be n�gotiated individually with each facility fa the relocation, if any, of curr�nt tenants, hiring of staff, admission of clients, and implementa tion of new services. This timetable will also take into consideration the type and extent of development and/or rehabilitation which will occur in each facility. III. REQUIREMENTS/GUIDELINES A. Facility Development Guidelines Ovmers/Operators will enter into a Grant Agreement, Mortgage, Promissory Note, and Escrow and Disbursement Agreement with the County and comply � with all of the provisions. Copies of the Grant Agreement, Mortgage, Promissory Note, and Escrow and Disbursement Agreement are attached as Appendix A. The following guidelines have been adopted for this program. Please review them to assure that your facility development project can comply, and describe how you will comply in your proposaL 1. Minimum Standards and Ener�y Efficiency All proposals will be requestcd to be in conformanre with the State of Minnesota's �uly 1, 1983 multi-family housing energy standards. Each facility must have a concept plan to bring the building into compliance with all building and fire safety standards. Owners/Operators will be rcquired to make all energy conservation improvements which have a ten-year pay-back or less. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 116H, 120, Subdivision 3.) New construction must be in conformanc� with the State Energy Code. 2. DeRree of Need The program will provide financia! assistance only to those projects that require such assistance to achieve the program's goa�s and objeetives. Therefore, proposals must demonstrate that the assistance requested is necessary and that other sources of private investrnent are not available or • adequate. _ 4 _ 3. Compliance with City Policy iProposals must comply with all the applicable city policies including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Regulations, Concept Plan Review, and Neighborhood Review, if required. 4. Time Completion All applicants will be required to submit a timetable that outlines the stages of the project G.e., relocation, demolition, construction start-up, construction completion, rent-up) and the estimated date for completion of each stage. If the timetable is not followed, the County may reallocate the program f�ds; however, owner/operators wauld be allow�d to resubmit the propasal for furture consideration as long as grant funds are available. S. Displacement Discoura�ed If displacement is necessary and imavoidable, the owner/operator must submit a rdocation plan. 6. Site Control Applicants must show evidence of site control through one of the following means: a. Fee Title. b. Long-Term Lease. � c. Signed Purchase Agreement. d. Signed Purchase Option. B. Service Requirements This section includes two parts. The first part describes the clients to be served by facilities which receive grants. The owner/operator should also consider whether there are some clients the facility wilT not be able to serve, and what kinds of clients might be served together or separately. The second part of this section includes facility and service requirements. This section should be reviewed carefully to determine whether or not any future certification or licensing problems may occur. If there are any building or staffing requirements with which a provider feels he/she will be unable to comply, the rationale must be included in the proposal. 1. Client and Facility Priorities Facilities selected for f�nding must serve non-elderly, functionally impaired, vulnerable adults. Examples of the types of clients in Hennepin � County who are in need of supportive residential services include: - Chemically dependent cliaits attempting to maintain sobriety and in �eed of a chemically free environment. - Chemically dependent clients who refuse treatment and/or are unable � or tmwilling to maintain sobriety. - 5 - - Mmtally ill clients who refuse to use residentia! veatment programs � but are not an immintnt danger to self or others; or who are waiting for a vacancy in a licensed treatment program or have been rejected by treatment programs. - Clients who are mentally retarded or have below normal I.Q. - Adults with physical handicaps who require specialized staff or a modifie�d building but are not in need of nursing services, inrluding the hearing impaired, mobility-limited clients (wheelchair, walker, cane), the blind, clients with cerebral palsy, epileptic clients, and persons with AIDS (Acquired Immtne Deficiency Syndrome�. - Homeless clients (many of whom may also have one or more of the problems descrilxd above), who ar� alienated from the service system and lack the personal support of friends, relatives, etc. The clients to be served in Level IV Board and Lodgings are those who are vulnerable enough to require 24-hour on-site supervision. Clients who require in-house treatment or rehabilitation must be referred to a licensed residential Veatment facility. This type of client, however, may be referred to a LevelIV Board and Lodging if the client refuses those treatment and rehabilitation services and is not eligible for involuntary commitment, i.e., is not a danger to self or others. Providers should identify in their pcoposals one ar more of the above client groups for service. However, Hennepin County reserves the right to • renegotiate any facility's target populations based on service duplication or unmet service needs within the County, and also based on the clinical feasibility of the populations included in the proposal (e.g., "dry" alcoholics should not be served with clients who are not attempting to maintain sobriety). Priocity will be given to proposals for the following facilities: a. A six-bed facility for clients with AIDS/ARC. b. A facility which will be modified to accept mobility-limited clients on one or more floors. c. A facility which will provide specialized staff and equipment needed by hearing-impaired clients. 2. Facility/StaffinR Specifications a. Admissiens Requirements The Minnesota Statutes require that dients in need of residentia! treatment be referred to licensed treatm�nt faciiities (Rule 34,35, 36, and 80). In addition, a board and lodging facility may not serve more than four mentally ill adults tmless those clients have refused licensed residential treatment services. Thertfore, all mentally ill dients admitted to Level IV Board and Lodging will be s�r�ened to determine � whether such a facility is appropciate for ttxir needs. A Hennepin - 6 - County pr�admission procedure is being established to fulfill this � requirement until State licensing requirements are finalized. Th:s process includes securing basic information on any diagnosis of inental illness and referring the c1ieM to a County case manager, or a physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist who can document the client's choice of a licensed residential treatment program or a Level IV Board and Lodging. Documentation will be maintained in the client's file so County staff can monitor compliance with this requirement. b. S�rvices to be Provided Level IV Board and Lodging facilities will be required to provide 24- hour on-sit� staff supervision; a clean, safe physical plant; nutritious meals; safeguards for client rightr, ditnt record-keeping; and recre- ational activiti�s. In addition, written policies and proced�aes will be required to assure compliance with the Minnesota Govtrnment Data Practices Act (regulates use of confidential client data) and the Vulnerable Adults Act (requires plans to prevent the abuse of vulnerable adults and procedures for reporting suspected abuse or neglect). c. Staff Requirements Each Level IV facility must have on-site staff 24 hours per day. The facility will establish qualifications for staff who will provide coverage. It is expected that minimum requirements for staffing will be at the paraprofessional level, with some basic experience working � with wlntrable adults as a requirement. Facilities with difficult or specialized populations may hire staff which exceed the minimum qualifications if this is needed to protect and support clients. However, treatment services will not be provided by the facility; therefore, staff will not routinely require specialized education/ training in most facilities. A part-time or full-time administrator will be required to provide overall staff supervision and accountability for fiscal and iicensing requirements. The administrator must have an associate of arts d�gree or at least 90 cr�dit hours from an accredited college or university in human service, behavioral, social, or health sciences; or human service or heaith care facility administration. The admini- strator m�st also have 2,080 hours of management, supervisory, or have administrative experience in a health care or hurnan service facility and 2,080 hours of experience working with functionally impaired adults. Persons witfi 2,080 hours of rxperience as the operator of a facility licensed by the Department of Health as a � lodging and food and beverage establishment shall not be required to meet the education requirements for administrator before licensure. Howev�r, the operator must present a plan for meeting the require- ments within two years from the date of submission of the proposal or for employing an administrator who me�ts these requirements. Each facility will be rtquired to develop personnel policies and prxedures, including specific policies related to hiring, dismissal, � grievances, perfamanct tvaluations, job desc.riptions, orientation, and - 7 - training. Hennepin County r�quirements include employee and � operator disqualifications; a facility will not be certified as a Level 1V if the owner/operator or staff have "been convicted of, admitted to or, based upon substantial evidence, is alleged to have committed incest, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect of a vulnerable adult; or any of the crimes listed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 609.18 to 609.k7k" (includes homicide, suicide, crimes against persons, and sex crimes). d. Physical Plant The facility must be in full compliance with all building, energy, health, and safety rcquirements, established by the Department of Health, Department of Energy and Environment, local municipality, and fire marshal for board and lodging facilities. County requirements include indoor recreational space which is available to residents at least 16 hours per day; s�parate, personal storage space for each residens ; a maxirnum of 3 residents per bedroom; designated smoking and emergency shelter areas; and sp�cia! building modifications if the facility will serve blind, hearing-impaired, or mobility-impaired clients. This Henn�pin County program will provide fu�ding only to facilities of 32 beds or less. e. Support Services The facility must indicate the support services that will be available in � the comrnunity to meet the needs of the client. f. Transportation � The facility must demonsirate that clients will have available adequate transportation to meet their 'needs for social, medical, training, employment, and other activities. g. ZoninQ Requirements A Leve1 IV Board and Lodging must be in compliance with local land use and zoning requirements. This may mean that the facility must obtain a conditional-use permit. Contact the local city planning or zoning department to receive information on the process. Proposals from owner/operators for facilities located in areas designated as "concentrated" with multiple group living facilities, as defined by Chapter 617, Laws of Minnesota 1984 (University, Powderhorn, Central, Phillips, Northeast, and Calhoun-Isles planning districts of Minneapolis; Eden Prairie; Minnetonka; Osseo; Robbinsdale; and Wayzata) will not be accepted. h. Other Lioe�n�s�ing. If, in the future, the Minnesota Legislature or the Department of Human Services requires Level IV faeilities to obtain a pHS lieense, facility owner/operators will be txpected to renegotiate their agreement with Hennepin County and apply for the appropriate license. � - 8 - � IV. IN�UIRIES Inquiries regarding the grant program components of this RFP should be directed to: Mark Hendrickson Office of Planning and Development 822 South Third Sireet Suite 310 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 348-7473 Inquiries regarding the client service components of this RFP should be directed ta: Marge Wherley, Supervisor Adult and Child Placement Unit A-1300 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 348-4829 V. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURE AND FORMAT A. Proposals wil! be received as long as grant funds are available. For information on availability of funds, call: Bonny Miller, Housing Coordinator . A-1300 Government Center Minneapolis, Mirnesota 55487 348-4108 B. Eour typed reproducible copies of the proposal on 8S4" x 11" paper, each numbered in the lower right corner, including a table of contents for easy referencing, shouldbe submitted to: Bonny Miller, Housing Coordinator A-1300 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 C. All proposals submitted musi identify the name, title, address, and telephone number of the person who will represent the organization in matters regarding proposa! content (form attached). D. If additional copies of forms are needed, contact Bonny Miller, 348-4108. E. This Request for Proposals does not commit the County of Hennepin either to award a grant or negotiate an agreement or to pay for any costs incurred in the pceparation of a proposal to this request. The County reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals reeeived as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel and/or amend, in part or entirety, this Request for Proposals. � - 9 - VL PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCEDURE AND AWARD CRITERIA . In order to evaluate proposals on factors of cost and program quality, five major criteria will be used: Maximum Points - Size and Location. In accordance with restrictions for 25 Level IV facilities' capacity, no facility may exceed 32 beds. Smaller, more normalized facilities will receive additional weighting. Recrcational, client, and staff space will also be considered. Facilities located to give geographic dispersal will re�eive higher points. - Pro�ram. Factors to be considered will include target 20 population, relocation plan, transportation plan, and access to support servic�s. - Cost Effectiveness. Total development costs, including fur- 20 nishings, will be considered on a per bed basis. Consideration will also be given to the pcivate fimds and owner's/operator's cash as a percentage of total development costs. The higher the percentage, the higher the number of points received for this criterion. - Vendor Capability. Financial information, prior training, and 25 experience of the facility owner/operator will be considered, � as well as any history of �mplaints, decertification, or repeated non-compliance. - Overall Proposal Quality/Completeness. The comprehensive- 10 ness of the proposal, including budget justifications, will be assessed and rated. � It is expected that agreements will be negotiated and grants will be awarded to those owners/operators whose proposals are determined to be programmatically superior within a competitive financial range and have demonstrated the ability to continue to operate without further subsidies for the rehabilitation of the facilities. Such determination will be based upon evaluation of the information fucnished as required under this RFP. � - io - VIl, APPLICATION • A. Facility Development Application 1. Project Description Provide a narrative description of the development of your facility (the "Project") including acquisition and/or rehabilitation. Using inspections requirements and reports from the city indicating what is reguired for your facility to comply with all codes, describe what changes you intend to make to your facility. Include any planned additions or cfianges to improve the general living environment, such as furnishirtgs, interior and exterior paint, etc. It is tnnecessary to include preliminary plans and specifications in your proposal; however, plans and specifications will be required between the award of the grant and the transfer of f�mds. • 2. Site Control Briefly describe the form of site control �f your facility and provide evidence of site control through one of the following means: a. Fee Title. b. Lo�g-Tecm Lease. c. Signed Purchase Agreement. d. Signed Purchase Option. • - 11 - 3. FinancialInformation • Describe ttx legal entity that is submitting the proposal. Include financial statements for each individual or pa.rtner of a partnership or corporation. Qesaibe sources of fu�►ding for the Project. Demonstrate the need far the financial assistance requested. Attach funding commitments, preliminary loan commitments, ttc. Complete the Financial Analysis form for the Project (form attached), 4. Timetable Submit a timetable that outlines the stages of the Project (i.e., city policy compliance, relocation of current residents, demolition, construction start- iup, construction completion, rent-up) and the estimated date for comple- tion of each stage. B. Secvice Application The infocmation inUuded in this stction will lx used for planning purposes and to determine whether there are any problems which may disqualify you frorn savioe negotiations. Infamation you provide regarding your target population • is subject to ntgotiations with Hennepin Camty. � - 12 - 1. Proposad Resident Population • Proposed Capacity (Number of Beds}: Briefly describe the types of clienu you propose to serve if yaur applica- tion is accepted for a grant (refer to Section III, B., Client and Facility Priorities� Clients who would be served: Clients who could not be served: • 2. Antici ted Relocati�s If the building is cucrently occupied, approximately how many persons might need to be relocated? Briefly desaibe the persons who might need to be relocated, and your plan for relocation assistance. 3. �cial Buildin� Modifications or Staffin� Would any specializ�d building modifications or specialized staff be needed to serve the clients you propose to serve? (For example, special bathrooms and a ramp for mobility-limited clients or staff who can communicate in sign language for hearing-impaired cli�nts}. If so, briefly list: • . - 13 - 4. Recreational, Client, and Staff Space � Briefly describe azeas that will be available for recreationa! activities, client r�cords, and staff activities. (A floor plan which includes location, size, and capacity of client bedrooms, and location and size of recreational and staff space should be attached to this section of the application. Hand drawings are acceptable.) S. Support Sefvices Briefly describe the community support scrvices (for example, medical, vocational, recreational, social, etc.) that are easily accessible to clients in this facility. 6. Transportation � Briefly desaribe the transportation that will be available to clients. (For example, MTC bus lines, facility van, volunteers, community transportation, etc.). 7. Facility/Staffin� Requirements Do you expect to be able to meet the following categories of facitity and staff requirements (r�fer to Section III, B. for description): a. Admission R�quirements Yes No b. Services to be Provided Yes No c. Staff Requirements Yes No d. Physical Plant Yes No e. Zoning Requicem�ts Yes No � � (If you answered no to any of the above, you must attach an explanation of the areas with which you will be unable to camply.) - 14 - 8. Nel�otiations '" Do you agree to enter into target population, service, and budget negotia- tions with Hennepin County if you are selected for a grant? Yes No 9. E�cperience/Trainin� Lkscribe any special training, experience, or skills which would enable you to develop and implement services for functianally impaired adults: • � � +i PROVIDER FACT SHEET Date Completed �• Items 4 ond S for egol Nanx of rovi r New—�viders nly: usiness A dress hone q� mployer denti icction umber (Used for I.RS. Reporting) roqrom me S. OrganiZational Stctus Program's Mailing Address Proprietorship Pcrtnersfiip rogrom Director hone Incorporated for Prof it Incorporeted Nonprof it under � usiness Manager hone 501-C-3 Int. Rev. Code Governmentct Unit 2. List names of those with outhority to sign contracts. * Nome Titk Phone 3. Service Locativn(s): Address(es) Hours of Operation . I (5/84) •Please att�ch topy of your bo��d resolution .naming people/posittons who have �uthority to siqn contracts. � - � r " —' 'r- !�:� � � '' ' ' ' �:. . :. t �. ' AOMINISTRATIYE -POI.ZCY SECTION; A4 MANUAL -CENERAL INFORMATION -PROCEDURE EXHIBIT: D . A�reements/[antracts � �Other th8n ommotlit�i PurCh25e51 RELEAS"c OATE: Se�tember, 1987 Ontract No. ' HENNEPIN COUNTY'S APPENOIX Y tontractor sha11 include a current v+ritten Atfirmative Actiort Plan (Plan) rith its return to the County ot the above numbered contract +rhich has been signed by the Contractor. The Plan shall be �eviewed by the 0irector of Hennepin �ounty Aftirmative Action (Oirector) tor approval . The Plan sha11 contain the tollowing goals: NONCONSTRUCTION CDNSTRUCTION EMP_OYMENT EMPLOYMENT C'JNTRACT=NG Minority: 10� Unskilled Minority: 10°G Minority: l00 (Rev. ] Women: 42� Skilled Minority: 6� Women: 2a Momen (Combined) : 30 with respe=� to said P1an, the Oirettor may provid� the Contractor with technical assistance upon request of Contrac.or. [�n uac: c�mplianc� wit'� respec: to an aForoved Plan sha11 be menitore� by the �i ^ector. The Dir°c`�r may, as often and at such times as the Dir_etas� sna11 Ce°�n desirable. maK° on-site revie�K to asc�rtain Compliance with an aparove� �lan. When the atoresaid goals are not met, the County wi11 require Contrac_or to � dtmonstrate that bona fide efforts have been made to mee*. the goals. If the County de_ermines that Cantractor has tailed to demonstrat� the same, the Gaunt� may suspend, Cancsl or terminate, in whole or in part, t`�e aforesaid contract. Further, if the ContraC.or has faited to submit �e�or;s recuir�d by the Direttor and�o r has not made bona fide ef`orts to mee= tye aforesaid goais, the County may withhold uo t� fifte�n (15�) perCent of the can�ract priC° until suC`+ ti!ne as the Contractor is determined to have submit.eo the required reperts ana/or to have made a bona fide effort to me�t the gcals. In the event that withhoiding a portion of the contract pric! is not a feas�ble alternative, a daity charge will be assessed Contractor tor each calendar day the Contractor has not filed the required reports and/or has not �ade a bona fide effort, as aforesaid, may be i�nposed by the County.� Any monies so assessed are not to be ccnstrued as a penalty, but as liquidate� damages to comcensat� the County for ContraCtor's failure to tite said reports and/or make saio bona fide effor". In any suft involving the assessment or r!COver� o` liguidated damaces . the reasonabteness of the daily charges shatl be presume�. The daily Charge wi11 be based on the original c�ntraCt amount and wi11 be in the amount in the be1oM set tor�h schedule of licuidaZe� damages. Original Contrac: Amcunt Charge P�r From More Than To and Including CaTendar 0ay S 50.000 3 iC0,000 SZCO 100,000 500,000 35p 500,000 1,000,000 a50 � 1,000,000 � 2.000,000 550 2.000,000 � 850 (continued) ADKIMISTRATIYE -POlIC1f SECTION: A4 MANUAL -SENERAL INFORMATION ��E EXHIBZT: 0 P9• Z • Ac�reen�ents/Contracts (Other ttian ommoo� y urChases) RELEASE OATE: September� 1987 The �ights and re�edies avsilable hereunder shall be in addition to and not a li�nitation ot any rights and resedies otherrise available under the atoresaid contract. law, statute, or equity. [Rev.] The Cont�acto� shail insert in all ot its Construction subcontracts over SS0,000 and rM ch the County deter�ines �easonabty retate to the atoresaid Cont�sCt Clauses �equlring the subCOntractor to: (lj turnish the Contractor with an Aftir�ative Action Pian centaining goals identical to the above set forth goals; (2) sub�it sll info��ation and reports requi�ed by Hennepin Courtty; and (3) co�ply rrith the Hennepin County 8oard's EEOlAA policies xith regard to emptoyment and contracting. It shall be the responsibility ot the Contractor to eonitor and enforct subcontractor's compliance vrith this paragraph. It is understood, hor+ever, that the �ounty �ay take such steps as it deems appropriat� to asCertain subcontracior's compliance with this paragraph an� turther, if the County determines that subcontr�ctor is not in compliance, the County may rtquire the Contractor ta take appropriate measures to bring subc�ntracior into campliance. � � December 7, 1988 � T0: Golden Va11ey Planning Commission FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Continued Discussion of the Informal Public Hearing on I-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance At the November 28 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held the informal public hearing on the I-394 Overiay Ordinance. The Planning Commission continued their discussion of the informal public hearing until December 12 in order to obtain additional information. As I stated at the November 28 meeting, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation to the City Council at the December 12 meeting because the City Council is holding the "official ° public hearing on the Ordinance on December 20, 1988 at 7:30 P.M. I am enclosing several pieces of information: 1. Copy of the Joint Powers Agreement between Golden Valley and St. Louis Park. 2. Copy of the I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance. 3. A letter from David Olson, President of the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce dated November 14, 1988 which addresses the business communities` concerns � about the Ordinance. 4. A letter from Allen Barnard, Golden Valley City Attorney acting for the I-394 Joint Task Force, addressing the changes suggested by David Olson's (TwinWest) letter dated November 14, 1988. 5. A memorandum to the City Councils of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley from the I-394 Task Force (memo written by Allen Barnard, Golden Valley City Attorney) dated December 5, 1988 addressing concerns raised by the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce and General Mills, Inc. This memo was written to summarize the position of the Joint I-394 Task Force that Tast met on November 22, 1988. 6. An article from the Monday, December 5, 1988 Star Tribune about the proposed I-394 Zoning Overlay Ordinance proposed by both Cities. 7. A memo from me to William Joynes, City Manager, addressing the comments from the I-394 Residential Task Force. This memo went to the November 22 meeting of the I-394 Task Force. I believe that the December 5 memo to the City Councils of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park is the most informative. This memo clearly outlines the reaction of the Task Force to the Chambers coneerns. I would like to highlight a couple of the points from this memo. � Golden Valley Planning Commission December 7, 1988 Page 2 • 1. The Task Force believes that it is important to keep the definition of reserve capacity and not just rely on Level of Service (LOS) as the trigger for implementation of traffic management plans. (page 2) 2. The Joint Task Force has agreed to change the Level of Service (LOS) at General Mills Boulevard from LOS D to LOS E. This increases the amount of trips that can use this interchange. The Task Force does not want to change the LOS at Louisiana Avenue to any lower than LOS D because it serves a large residential area in St. Louis Park. (page 3) 3. One of the major changes that is proposed to be made to the Ordinance (not reflected in your Draft of the Ordinance) is to require that the "trigger" for the implementation of traffic management plans be set at a higher LOS than the LOS which they are to accommodate. In other words, when the LOS at Xenia/Vernon reaches LOS D, traffic management plans would have to be implemented that would accommodate LOS E. This was done in reaction to Planning Commission comments in Golden Valley and St. Lauis ParK and comments by the Residential Task Force. This would eliminate any lag time in implementing traffic management plans. (pages 3, 4 & 5) 4. The Task Force has agreed that all leases that would be affected by traffic management plans include the paragraph found on page 5 of the memo rather than the entire Overlay Ordinance. (pages 5 & 6) • 5. The Chamber of Commerce believes that Exhibit I of the Overlay Ordinance (traffic generation table) should have a column for office uses greater than 800,000 square feet. The Chamber believes that traffic generation is less per square foot with larger developments. The Task Force believes that it is best to maintain the more conservative approach. � . • � TwinV��est � CNAMBER OF COMMERCE Woodside Office Park 10550 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (612)540-0234 November 14, 1988 Mr. Bill Joynes, City Manager City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Drive _ Golden Valley, NIl�T 55427 Dear Bill, TwinWest's Task Force has arnpleted their review of the �oposed I-394 Overlay Zoning District Orainance. We ap�xeciate your interest in our c�cc�nents regarding this ordinance and for formally including us in the review �ocess. As we stated in our original letter (October 20, 1988) , there is general suppart for the overall concept of the ordinance and your rational approach to an ordinance that would assure a roadway syst�n that ca�rks. Whi1e we have sane specific oatm�ents for im�oving the ordinance they should not be interpreted as undermining our general � support. i�ost ot our a�rtunents and concerns relate to the traffic assignments determined by S�'9�-��. We just received those and we may nave additional c�annents after careful review of those assiyrxnnents. Our suggested revisions to the ordinance follaw and are stated with perticular reference to the sections of the ordinance. Section 1 Substitute the wnrd "may" for the wr�rd "will." Without this change, Section 1 pre- suppr�ses the occurrence of traffic vongestion, which i.n reality may or may not occur. In the 13th line, o� page 1, insert the word "new" after the w�rd "all." Later sec- tions of the ordinance are clear that unexFxinded p�re-existing develognents are unaf- fected by this ordinance. Section 2N The definition of "reserve capacity" should be changed to delete reference to square feet of office developnent. The square footage and percentage allocation between the eities c�ouid reqnain in the Joint Powers Agre�nent. � � •ceaeoiTeo � SERVING CRYSTAL, GOLDEN VALLEY, HOPKINS, MEDICINE LAKE, MINNETONKA, NEW HOPE, PLYMOUTH AND ST. LOUIS PARK • Alternatively, after the wnrds "office developnent" for each of the intersections dealt with in the definition, insert the wr�rds "that distributes P.M. peak hour trips through the interchange." These additional wards recognize the fact that no office develognent distributes 100 percent of its trips through any one of the iden- tified interchanges. For e�ample, it appears Strgar-Roscoe determined that 38 percent of the inbound tarips for Traffic Assigrrment Zone 10 would use Vern� Avenue; 62 per- cent inbound to Zone 10 do not use the Vernon Avenue interchange. Add a last sentence to this definition which reads; "The reserve capacity for an interchange shall be increased to the extent that trip generating uses are removed through redevelopnent or otherwise." This change recognizes the fact that for cer- tain areas of the host cities, new developnent will be preceded by demolition and r�noval of existing uses. Seetion 3 Add the follawing after "reglace the existing zoning." and is based on a canpleted roadway in the occnmunities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley. Section 4 Our oonsensus on this section is that it should be revised to make it clear that if there are no level of service probl� then there is no need for a traffic manage- ment plan. Reaching the reserve capacity may very well serve as a warning system, • but there is no need for traffic management if no level of service p�obl�ns exist. In that respect, the parenthetical expression " (or keep it within the cities allocatable portion of the reserve caFacity, if that applies)" should be deleted. The Traffic Management Plan should be based on actual trips rather than those assumed to be generated by a parcel. Ultimately, the ledel of service is a function of actual trips not assumed tri�s. Basing it on actual trips at properly selected intersections takes into account both generation rates and distribution that actually occurs. Even if there are levels of service problems, a p�rticular awner should not have to pre�re or implement a traffic manag�nent plan if it can shaw either that its generation rate is lvwer than I.T.E. rates or that its traffic distribution directs less traffic to the critical interchange than the Strgar-Roscoe Study assumed. Section 4B-1,2 and 3 In the second line in each of these sections, substitute the word "if" for the words "each time° to clarify that successive w�eeks of reaching the trigger do not generate the need for multi�l.e traffic manag�nent glans. Section 4B-2 and 3 To support the ooncept that service level E is the appropriate service level for this type of roadway, the' cities should oonsider service levels oonsistent with that level of service at the General Mills Boulevard and the Louisiana Avenue intersec- � tions. � Section 48-4 In the second line on page eight, after the word "the" insert the word "locations", and take out number. Traffic generation alone is not determinative; rather, the routing choices made by the vehicles generated are critical. I�bnitoring should take that into acoount. Moa�itoring should not be required until sane threshold level of service determinant is reached; as a suggestion for Vernon Avenue, for example, that level of service might be 1eve1 of service D. Section 4t: Delete the words "and shall attach a voFy of the Ordinance to each Iease as an exhibit." Substitute the require�nent that tenant leases include the follawing seri- tence, "Goverr�¢nental regulations and requir�nents a�licable to Tenant may include a traffic management plan required by the city in which the Premises are located." The Ordinance may be recorded by the cities. This cxmbination is adequate notice. Section 5 In the third line insert the wc>rds "exercise best effort to" after the w�rd "shall" and before the w�rd "manage." Traffic management is a 000perative and wluntary exercise, relying heavily on incentives and education. Only in the rarest of cir- c�unstances can it be mandated by a building aaner. The imposition of a mandatory • standard on a building owner in these circumstances should be ameliorated by a "best efforts" qualifier. Section 6E In the first line delete the w�ords "and industrial", since the ordinance applies solely to office uses. Section 7 In the seventh line, i.nsert the wc�rds "so as to increase gross floor office area° after the wr�rk "modified.° This wr�uld allow alterations or modifications which do not increase traffic generating space. Section 8 The Joint Task Force should include an �nployer rep�esentative and business awner representative designated by TwinWest, and a citizen representative. Since staff me�nbers are already made a me�nber of the Joint Task Force, public representatives are appropriate. This is �rticularly true when transp�rtation managenent systems rely heavily on incentives, education, voluntary participation and �nployer involv� ment. In addition, the cities should set a formal process for notifying both the TwinWest and Citizen Task Forces of ineeting agendas and particular issues of interest to these caRnnittees. � • Section 9 In the fourth and fifth lines, delete "canditional use permit or planned unit deve- lopment permit" and substitute the words "building permit." The effect of this change is to make the fee payable when the developnent actually occurs versus when an application is submitted; on many oocasions, applied-for for developnent does not happen and, therefore, no traffic burden arises. If there is no traffic generating developnent, then there is no reason for the fee. Exhibit 1 In the office category, add a line for office developnents of greater than 800,000 square feet which notes an inbound rate of 0.26 and an outboud rate of 1.12. Supp�rt for this suggestion is: 1. 1987 I.T.E. Trip generation rates used by Strgar R�scoe in its June, 1988 update to the I-394 Traffic Im�ct Study established these rates for office buildings in excess of 800,000 square feet. The 1982 I.T.E. manual states, "The gener� tion rate for sites with more than one general office building should be deter- mined on the basis of total gross square feet of all buildings on the site, except when buildings are botally isolated fran one anather." The 1987 I.T.E. manual states, "When the buildings are interrelated or house one tenant, it is suggested that the total area or �nployment of all the buildings be used for calculating trip generation.° 2. City of St. Louis Park manual oounts at Minneapolis West Business Center confirm � the reliability of such lawer rates for such an office oanplex. Thanks again for encouraging our input. We will be actively following the process of approving a final ordinanee. ncere�y.: I,,�_ ' D�vi�Y C. Olson President DCO:mg � .lu�in H Ce�+HO�_L TwMMY L.PusT Iw.i�:� 1). Ui..o� B E 5 T 8c F LA N A G�N ]sxiw.�. t. Hic� ��c ��it�wLU tiNL�cLx Txwc-1• J \'w�. S•rr:��v�HC;u I:u��.�rr �1, �nn��r: ATTOtthl'1'ti AT I.AN Unv�t� .l. %t•1+Kr K��,�.�:r F. l'��uyi�Y � .InstLS i'. ?1�rite�.� I.i�,.e�w '�1 AUUtNUTO� .�SUU IDS C}iNTEH linHt;N li. tit.t:7'l'I;� uur.ur !{ 11n�n�t , }'wi•t. 1: hn�u��Ki 1�,�:��:�' �'�'��`�' MiNN1:Al'O1.I�;, A�1Ntif:bU'I'A ISM1•1cr:: Lil;s I�I.AKh. tiill lA1th. Ilt. � n 1). lin�a�..uu l:i.i��i.iu �� \'ut�nc �i � i�nuu A !'rrr:u�un Tr.:L�;riiurL �Ul::i :.f:,fU-71�1 t'��Hiaroi�iiiH J. C�i�ni•ur it<�i�i.�tr J ('Mititi•rw��Ur,,.IH. �IUtI�: 1'. Jlu1•i.t- I�lt.�st. .1.11'n1.'t TELECOYJER �(11'.?� 33A-!58V� 12oti� ('. l ott>n:t.L 'I u.»in. I1. k�A1tLh01 l�llltt5'PUI•��r:K C. l�ot• I ItANN ��UUL . . Vn�li�i .ti b'. �'wx Y�•�rn:x,.(�e. Ur Cu�;v.ci. .li>i�n .�. lfi:urun.•i�c. t'��w��.r.� ti. li�;t.�.uw•� .inn��.. (' I>i�cw�•t.r.ti �1'wttU 11. i.�:wl� N��i,� �n 1. Wi.�.t,t:�e,�lu. �h� t/�C�1' I). L.Ll.l:lt IZCTLHL`U ��l�nlil.l:� C.1Jt1tVi'I�T � � � (itORGI: �IwLONt:)' �,�.�,t�<.�: o �.�:�,�-�:,: November 18 , 1988 i.LO•,►�;ll ��. �,a,��:,>T 1- .iw�r.w� I.el'n�•e: lil ��r,:c:uir,• r1. �ui�,.r. JwM�:, I tiesr (�n"1-lil� 1]..(iOltl.l\ � � Iluo•s-1uutl. . . � j'.�TFtlt'!{ N. IIE]V)tti�Y . . . . R�)if1.HT J.�Fi.wJ.nc,w� � c�rfxi�'rixL K.tioi.�o i�n�n ws.a l:�i�h 11'. Itsr:i�: � T1AWT1(1' :�.tiCLl.l\'.�V � . . . . . Mr . William S. Joynes City Manager , • City of Golden Valley 7$00 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 • , Deat Bill�: �,� � The following are my comments on the suggested changes to the I-394 Overlay Ordinance made by the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce in its 'etter dated November 14 , 1988 . At the outset, I want you to know that although my comments are largely negative, I do welcome constructive comments and revisions. In addition, you sfiould know that although the Chamber ' s revisions appear short and easy, they are not . They are lenthy and go to the heart of the ordinance . I am enclosing a copy of the Model Ordinance with the TwinWest Chamber 's comments written in so you can follow along . Section 1 . I think it is not appropriate to substitute 'may" for "wlll " because this is the purpose statement for the ordinance and should be a strong positive statement to support the legislative underpinnings for the regulatory system enacted. With respect to the addition of the word "new" in the 13th line on page 1 , � also think that it should not be included because this is an ordinance for the long term and "new" will not have any relevance a few years from now. Obviously, all zoning ordinances have the problem that the Chamber is trying to address here, but it is usually solved by nonconforming use provisions , which we have done here. • B�sT & Fi_�r�c�:� � Mr . William S. Joynes ' November 18 , 1988 Page 2 ' Se'ction 2N . The definition of reserve capacity should not be changed as suggested because the reserve capacity . referred to is office development , not all development . Furthermore, it is important that we define reserve capacity as a specific number for both cities in tYie ordinance because the concept of reserve capacity is important in our regulatory sections, specifically Section 4 . Finally, the suggestion that a sentence be added indicating that the reserve capacity for the interchange shall be increased from time to time is inappropriate because it makes our ordinance vague and indefinite and, therefore, unenforceable . Obviously, if there are changes , the Task Force can recommend amendments to the ordinance •and any changes can be handled in that way. Section 3 . The suggestion �that language be added to Section 3 indicating that the ordinance is based on a completed roadway is well taken, but I think it should be covered elsewhere as a specific term of the ordinance, rather than � merely a comment. I will suggest specific language for Section 4 . . . Section 4 . The consensus opinion expressed by the Chamber is contrary to the agreement of the Joint Task Force in that the Joint Task Force felt that traffic management should begin at some point and that it should begin when either the reserve capacity was excee�ed or the specific level of service was exceeded. I auestion whether the traffic management plan can be based on actual trips because that would make it impossible to prepare a plan prior to traffic counts on existing businesses . In other words, it would reQUire a •wait and see" approach . That is not the approach taken by the Task Force, rather the approach was to recauire traffic management plans based on the best information available from traffic engineers. Therefore, it was necessary to use the "assumed" figures from the table so that one could defi�3itely determine when a violation occurred, rather than "wait and see" . Finally, it was necessary to use •assumed" figures in order to set up a standard against which the actual trips could be measured. Although this section does reauire ' a traffic management plan even of owners who can show that their generation rate is lower than I .T.E . rates, that plan would be very simple because it would be an expression of continuing to do what had heen done in the past . � Section 4B-1 , 2 and 3 . The words "each time" were substituted for the word "if" in the second line in each of I3�:57� bc F�_�rAC�� Mr . William S. Joynes . November 18 , 1988 Page 3 these sections specifically to r.emove the ambiguity caused by the word "if" whether the Task Force could require more than the first traffic management plan. In other words, the word "if' • suggests that only one traffic management plan is necessary the first time the reserve capacity is exceeded or the level of service is exceeded. However, the intent of the Task Force was to re4uire new traffic management plans of all affected property owners each time a new development was completed or a new problem arose . . New language . I suggest subparagraphs 1 , 2 and 3 of Section 4B be changed to limit imposition of the levels of servic� reauirement to the period of time after the interchanges are substantially completed, The new language has been added to subparagraphs 1 , 2 and 3 by hand . It includes the (a ) and (b) letters and the language " (effective after the interchange is substantially completed and operational ) " . , Section 4B-2 and 3 . The Chamber suggests that service level E is the appropriate level for all of the intetchanges covered by the ordinance , This is a policy decision for the Task Force and the respective councils. Section 4B-4 . The suggestion that we substitute the word "locations" for the word "number" is acceptable . However, monitoring cannot be held until a threshold level of service is reached because the 1eve1 of service at the Xenia/Vernon interchange is probably in excess of level E already. If one hypothesizes that upon completion of the roadway and interchanges there will be a substantial decrease in the traffic congestion at the interchanges until development catches up, I doubt that the Task Force will reauire useless monitoting; however it must have the freedom to reouire monitoring when necessary. Section 4-C . Although it would be better practice to reauire attachment of a copy of the ordinance to each lease (and that could be accomplished by a photocopy of the published version which would only be a couple of pages long) , it is possible to substitute a paragraph describing the ordinance ; however , the paragraph must be fairly descriptive of all terms of the ordinance so that the lessees have fair notice of it . It should be noted that recording the ardinance will not serve to � notify prospective lessees very well because (1 ) most prospective lessees will not engage in a title search and (2 ) BEST bC FLANAGAN � Mr . William S. .7oynes November 18 , 1988 • Page 4 given the fact that the ordinanee does not include proper legal descriptions of all affected properties, the abstractors will pick up and include copies of the ordinance in the abstracts of all parcels in the Cities of Golden Valley and St . Louis Park . The effect of this is to hopelessly complicate the acquisition of properties throughout both cities, rather than just notice the affected parties. If necessary, I suggest a paragraph such as the following. The Cities of Golden Valley and St . Louis Park have established an I-394 Overlay Zoning ' Ordinance which recuires the imposition of traffic management plans and restrictions on traffic generated by this development and others lying within a few block area surrounding the I-394/Xenia/Vernon interchange, the I-394/Louisiana Avenue interchange and the � I-394/General Mills Boulevard/Boone Avenue interchange. The ordinance restricts developments exceeding a certain level of density based on gross floor are.. per sQUare foot of land ' area and requires the imposition of traffic management plans on all owraers , lessees and other land users within the affected areas . The traffic management plans reauired involve the use of rideshare incentive programs , public transit incentive programs including the proviSion of paratransit services and so forth , bicycle and pedestrian incentive measures , variable work hours or flex time programs under which employees are required to stagger their work hours, measures to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles, use and accessory use design options which reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles and provision of less parking area than that reauired under other provisions of the respective zoning codes, shared parking arrangements and any other techniaues or combination of techniaues which reduce t'raffic and its related impacts. As lessees you may be reauired under penalty o£ law to stagger work hours, limit the number of vehicles used by � employees and so forth. A copy of the complete ordinance may be obtained at the city offices of Golden Valley or St . Louis Park . �3 �:��r bc ]��.l�rnc��.� � , Mr . William S. Joynes ' November 18, 1988 Page 5 Section 5 . The suggestion that the words "exercise best effort to" be inserted in the paragraph is not acceptable. It softens the ordinance to the point where it would be unenforceable . Section 6E . The suggestion that the words "and industrial" should be excluded is inappropriate since the ordinance does cover office and other uses. The idea of industrial here was to cover such uses such as insurance companies, various light manufacturing and so forth which exist in dense structures. Section 7 . The suggestion that the words "so as to increase gross floor office area" be inserted is inappropriate because space is not the only determipant of traffic generation. Another important determinant which the ordinance is designed to include is "use" . � Section 8 . The suggestion that the Joint Task Force should include an employer representative. and business owner representative is a policy auestion to be determined by the Task Force and by the respective city councils. Section 9. The suggestion that the words 'conditional use permit or planned unit development permit" be � deleted and the words "building permit" be substituted therefor is not an option for the Joint Task Force . As you may recall , we worked very hard on devising a fee-raising sy,stem which would have a good ehance of passing a court challenge . Accordingly, we relied on the authority in Minn. Stat. § 462 . 353, subd. 4 . That section provides for the charging of fees for the investigative and administrative procedures related to land use; hence, conditional use permits or planned unit development permits. Inserting building permits as the standard relates the fee to the administrative and investigative work regarding building permits - not the intent here . Furthermore, I assume that both cities have substantial building permit fees already and to add a zoning or land use fee to it would be very risky. Exhibit 1 . The Chamber suggests a change in Exhibit 1 by including specific assumed figures for office developments of greater than 800,000 sauare feet . This is a policy decision for '� the Task Force, and ultimately, the city councils . However , it should be noted that the Task Force discussed this matter before and decided to take a more conservative approach . Note also BEST & FLa1v'AGAI� • Mr . William S. Joynes November 18, 1988 Page 6 that including the Chamber 's suggestion would create problems of trying to measure the extent of a development. Can two adjoining land owners call their separate developments one development under some joint venture structure? Very tr��y yours, // ,� �� ,: �' . � � � Allen D . Barnard ADB: rys:5758U � ' Enclosures cc: James Brimeyer cc: Allen Friedman cc: David Strand cc: Lee Sheehy • cc; William Dixon cc: Larry Bakken cc• Mark Grimes � ' � MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCILS OF GOLDEN VALLEY AND ST. LOUIS PARK FROM: I-394 JOINT TASK FORCE DATE: December 5 , 1988 RE: Responses to comments made by TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, General Mills and others . The Joint Task Force has received comments on the proposed I-394 Overlay Zoning District Ordinance and Joint Powers Agreement from the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, General Mills , Inc . , the I-394 Residents Task Force and others . The following contains the responses of the Joint Task Force to those comments as well as some suggested changes generated by the Task Force itself . Section 1 . We do not think it is appropriate to substitute "may" for "will" in this section because a purpose statement should be a strong positive statement creating legislative underpinnings for the regulatory system enacted. � With respect to the addition of the word "new" in the 13th line on page 1, we also think that it shou2d not be included because this is an ordinance for the long term and "new" will not have any relevance a few years from now. Obviously, all zoning ordinances have the problem that the Chamber is trying to address here, but it is usually solved by nonconforming use provisions , which we have done here. Section 2N. The definition of reserve capacity should not be chanqed as suggested because it is important that the ordinance set out a specific number for both cities . The concept of reserve capacity is essential to the ordinance regulatory sections , specifically Section 4 . Finally, the suggestion that a sentence be added indicating that the reserve capacity for the interchange shall be increased from time to time is inappropriate because it makes the ordinance vague and indefinite and,' therefore, unenforceable. Obviously, if there are changes in reserve capacity caused by new studies , etc . , the Task Force can recorr�mend amendments to the ordznance at that time . Section 3 . The suggestion that language be added to Section 3 indicating that the Ordinance is based on a completed roadway is a good one, but we suggest the following language : � • " . . . and contemplates substantially completed and operational interchanges at I-394/Xenia-Vernon, I-394/Louisiana Avenue and I-394/General Mills Boulevard-Boone Avenue in the communities of St . Louis Park and Golden Valley. " In addition to the foregoing, councilmember Mitchel of St . Louis Park suggested that the Ordinance include a reservation of riqhts so that each city would be assured that in its sole discretion it may limit development below the projected reserve capacity when exercising its judgment or in reviewing any particular development . The Task Force believes that such a reservation is understood by the terms of the Ordinance, however , it may be a good idea to expressly set it out . Accordingly, we suggest the following language be added to Section 3 : "The City may restrict development below the projected reserve capacity or the traffic level of service if, in the exercise of its judgment , it deems it appropriate to do so . ° Section 4 . The consensus opinion expressed by the Chamber that actual level of service problems must precede the preparation of trafFic management plans is contrary to the position of the Joint Task Force. The Joint Task Force believes that at a minimum, traffic management must begin when either the � reserve capacity is exceeded or the specific level of service is exceeded . We question whether a traffic management plan can be based on actual trips because that would make it impossible to prepare a plan prior to traffic counts on existing businesses . In other words , it would require a "wait and see" approach. That is not the approach taken by the Task Force, rather the approach is to require traffic management plans based on the best information available from traffic engineers . Therefore, it is necessary to use the "assumed" figures from the table so that one can definitel�r determine when a violation occurs , rather than "wait and see" . Finally, it is necessary to use "assumed" figures in order to set up a standard against which the actual trips can be measured. Although this section does require a traffic management plan even of owners who can show that their generation rate is lower than I .T.E. rates, such a plan would be very simple because it would be merely a designation of what the owner has been doing to achieve those low figures . Section 4B-1, 2 and 3 . The Task Force used the words "each time" , rather than the word " if" in the second line in each of these three sections specifically to remove the ambiguity caused by the word " if" . The word "if" suggests that only one traffic management plan is necessary the first time the reserve capacity is exceeded or the level of service is exceeded. However , the intent of the Task Force is to require a • reconsideration of existing traffic management plans by all affected property owners each time a new development is completed or a new problem arises . -2- • New lanquage. We suggest subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Section 4B ,be changed to limit imposition of the levels of service requirement to the period of time after the interchanges are substantially completed. The new language includes the addition of the letter " (a) " after "each time" in each paragraph, the following after the word " interchange" in lines 7 of paragraph 1, 7 in paragraph 2 and 8 in paragraph 3 : " (effective after the interchange is substantially complete and operational" ) and the letter " (b) " immediately after the word "or" in the same line. Section 4B-2 and 3 . The Chamber suggests that service level E is the appropriate level for all of the interchanges covered by the Ordinance. The Task Force originally designated Levels of Service E for the Xenia-Vernon interchange and D for the other two interchanges based on its observation of existing conditions. However, in light of the request by the Chamber and General Mills, it is willing to recommertd Level of Service E for the General Mi11s Boulevard-Boone interchange. However, a Level of Service E would be inappropriate for the Louisiana Avenue interchange because of the impact on the large residential neighborhood in St . Louis Park at that interchange. Therefore, the Louisiana interchange ought to remain at Level of Service D. New language. The I-394 Residents Task Force along • with the Planning Commissions of both Cities (we understand) have expressed concern that the response time to get traffic management plans into place and operating may be too long after the applicable level of service is reached, Accordingly, the suggestion has been made that the "trigger" for the preparation of traffic management plans be set at a higher level than the level of service which they are to accommodate. Accordingly, the Task Force has suggested new lanaguage be included in subparagraphs l, 2 and 3 of Section 4B. In order to set out this new language and clarify the other language changes suggested for subparagraphs T, 2 and 3 , we have taken the liberty of setting them out below with notations and underlinings to indicate language changes . They should be revised to read as follows : l . For all parcels located within Zone A, each time � the traffic generated for one hour during the p.m. peak hour three days out of five consecutive business days exceeds Level of Service D at more than half of the intersections within the Xenia/Vernon interchange (effective after the interchange is substantially com leted and o erational) , or � once the reserve capacity allocated to the city for this interchange has been used, • whichever is first , the owner shall prepare and effectuate an original or revised traffic -3- • management plan which has been previously approved by the Joint Task Force . The traffic management plan sha11 be designed to reduce the traffic generated by or from the parcel by a percentage which, in conjunction with the other parcels in the zone, will serve tonaccommodate Level of Service E at the p.m.� `peak hour (or keep it within the city' s allocable portion of the reserve capacity, if that applies} , given the p.m. peak hour trips assumed to be generated by the parcel based on the table attached hereto as Exhibit l . 2 . Fox all parcels located within Zone B, each time � the traffic generated for one hour during the p.m. peak hour three days out of five consecutive business days exceeds Level of Service C at more than half of the intersections within the Louisiana Avenue interchange (effective after the interchange is substantially completed and operational) , or � once the reserve capacity allocated to the city for this interchange has been used, whichever is first , the owner shall prepare and effectuate an original or revised traffic � management plan which has been previously approved by the Joint Task Force. The traffic management plan shall be designed to reduce the traffic generated by or from the parcel by a percentage which, in conjunction with the other parcels in the zone, will serve tonaccommodate Level of Service D at the p.m. peak hour (or keep it within the city' s allocable portion of the reserve capacity, if that applies) given the p.m. peak hour trips assumed to be generated by the parcel based on the table attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 3 . For all parcels located within Zone C, each time � the traffic generated €or one hour during the p.m. peak hour three days out of five consecutive business days exceeds Level of Service D at more than half of the intersections within the General Mills Boulevard/Boone Avenue interchange (effective after the interchange is substantially completed and operational) , or � once the reserve capacity allocated to the city for this interchange has been used, whichever is � first , the owner shall prepare and eEfectuate an original or revised traffic management -4- plan which has been previously approved by � the Joint Task Force . The traffic management plan shall be designed to reduce the traffic generated by or from the parcel by a percentage which, in conjunction with the other parcels in the zone, will serve to ^accommodate Level of Service E at the p .m. peak hour (or keep it within the city' s allocable portion of the reserve capacity, if that applies) given the p.m. peak hour trips assumed to be generated by the parcel based on the table attached hereto as Exhibit l . Section 4B-4 . The suggestion that we substitute the word "locations" for the word "number" is acceptable . Until the interchanges are complete, the Task Force does not intend to spend a lot of time and money monitoring traffic levels , unless a problem should arise. However , it believes that it should have the power to be fiexible and require the monitoring when necessary because of some emerging problem or difficulty which cannot be foreseen at this point . Section 4-C. Although it would be better practice to require attachment of a copy of the ordinance to each lease (and that could be accomplished by a photocopy of the published . version which would only be a couple of pages long) , it is possible to substitute a paragraph describing the ordinance; however, the paragraph must be fairly descriptive of all terms of the ordinance that significantly impact the lessees so that they have fair notice of it . It should be noted that recording the ordinance will not be effective because (1) most prospective lessees will not engage in a title search and (2) given the fact that the ordinance does not include proper legal descriptions of all affected properties , the abstractors will pick up and include copies of the ordinance in the abstracts of all parcels in the Cities of Golden Valley and St . Louis Park. The effect of this is to hopelessly complicate the acquisition of properties throughout both cities, rather than just notice the affected parties . If necessary, we suggest a paragraph such as the following . The Cities of Golden Valley and St . Louis Park have established an I-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance which requires the imposition of traffic management plans and restrictions on traffic generated by this development and others lying within a few block area surrounding the I-394/Xenia/Vernon interchange, the I-394/Louisiana Avenue interchange and the I-394/General Mills Boulevard/Boone Avenue • interchange. The ordinance restricts developments exceeding a certain level of density based on -5- . gross floor area per square foot of land area and requires the imposition of traffic management plans on all owners , lessees and other land users within the affected areas . The traffic management plans required involve the use of rideshare incentive programs , public transit incentive programs including the provision of paratransit services and so forth, bicycle and pedestrian incentive measures, variable work hours or flex time ro rams under which em lo ees are re uired to stagger their work hours, measures to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles, use and accessory use design options which reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles and provision of less parking area than that required under other provisions of the respective zoning codes , shared parking arrangements and any other techniques or combination of techniques which reduce traffic and its related impacts . As lessees you may be required under penalty of law to sta qer work hours, limit the number of vehicles used by employees and so forth. A copy of the complete ordinance may be obtained at the city offices of Golden Valley or St . Louis Park. Section 5 . The suggestion that the words "exercise � best effort to" be inserted in the paragraph is not acceptable . It softens the ordinance to the point where it would be unenforceable. Section 6E. The suggestion that the words "and industrial" should be excluded is inappropriate since the ordinance does cover office and other uses . The idea of industrial here was to cover such uses such as insurance companies , various light manufacturing and so forth which exist in dense structures . Section 7 . The suggestion that the words "so as to increase gross floor office area" be inserted is inappropriate because space is not the only determinant of traffic generation. Another important determinant which the ordinance is designed to include is "use" . Section 8 . The Task Force believes it would be inappropriate to include an employer representative and business owner representative because the bodies ' functions would be to monitor the traffic generation, air pollution, traffic management plans , etc . , created by fellow owners . This involves a governmental function, the enforcement of the ordinance by the Joint Task Force . i -6- Section 9 . The suggestion that the words "conditional . use permit or planned unit development permit" be deleted and the words "building permit" be substituted therefor is unacceptable. The authority in Minn. Stat . � 462 . 353 , subd. 4 , is the basis for this fee-raising method. It requires that it be reTated to the investigative and administrative pxocedures regarding land use - not building permits . Thus, it must be tied to conditional use permits or planned unit development permits . However , it would be possible to provide that 50% of the fee would be payable at the time that the conditional use permit or planned unit development permit is applied for and the other 50o payable at the time that the building permit is taken out . To accomplish that the first sentence of Section 9 should be revised to read as follows : Under the authority in Minn. Stat . § 462 .353 , subd. 4 , each owner of a parcel or development subject to the terms of this ordinance shall pay a traffic management administrative fee of $. 10 per square foot of gross floor area. 500 of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a conditional use permit or planned unit development permit for such development and SO% of the fee shall be paid at the time such owner applies for a building permit therefor . � Exhibit l . The Chamber suggests a change in Exhibit 1 by including specific assumed figures for office developments of greater than 800, 000 square feet . This raises difficult enforcement questions such as : What is a campus development? May two developers joint venture a campus development on adjacent parcels? How do you define what is included or excluded? The Task Force considered this request at great length and recommends that the change not be made - that the ordinance take a more conservative approach. A more conservative approach results in an ordinance which may be more easily enforced. ADB � � �5816U . . � . . . � . . . . � -7- . � . =. �,s�sB �� ' ��, ��s ��$ �t _ z -�fi � ' � � ,- a.�° ,� � � � �8 ��_ .. � � � .� _ s�E �_. ��=� �� .s$�� , ��°� _�� 8 : =, , � �s � _ '�� b �,�� . $ �� ,., _ - � � >. ; --� , _ : .�� $ ��a � ! � - � � � � 3 � �� " _ - , : .�� s �$a� �.�'� s�r� . a� >� - �� ,�5 � � �� 'I _ � �8 � , � ,�t; $ °� �-g.�, �E ��:'� r � .��3 �� :_��_� . __ _ : r� �� _� ��'�� , a � $�, �- -� - � � �� _s�� .., .� . _ .� � �� . � �� . �� . � � � � w e� � s�a�" �. � i : �■� ��..�� .��" �� ,� � � _a � :- s � '� �'�s� � � . � e_ .�� .. � ��.� �. - � � o� �_T� � �- . � � ��.�� g� ,S � ��.�� - - �.��- � � �, �.� �3 � _ � .� _ � � o�� _� �.+ � � ��s ��•9� r • �� . r Q� � !�'� �� - .�.r � �� $� . �� .� a� o � � . � ��_ � � _ � � 2� . �$� �. : °� � � �os�� N � s � �-�� ,�� _ � -�� - ,� �� Q� � � .,�o,�T � � � � � � �vF3�� •� � (� �3�= . ~� _ — 5 �!■� � � �;� � r� .�.� � ��- -,� � � � - : �� : -� � _ \ � :�� . � � � � .= a �� V �� r � � � � � � � � � � �� . . G� . � � � � _ . -� a� .� � �. _ � � � .� �.. � $. � � : Y� � - � � � o � � �� s �_ � v� � ��3 � �� r • �� - � . � � � � � �� - � - � .�.. � : �� _ �# _ � � ,Vi �� a�3�� $ � L - tA � � ;�8�3� .��- � � �i w�r � . C 4 r� . ��. . � � ��3*��'4'. I_'G;� � ' _ '..� : .. }' - � �t ...._.. _i_ v Q � m - V � � � � W - a a Q�.W. � �f • � ' �� i. ' W�i � M oo�� N � ; •0� � �,�a� �� 1 � ,�o Q ��m�� .�m..�� ✓'�' C �Q ! aW�'�� i�le f.i W ' �y �'�o � �a �°o � � � � �N w°0�� w�N �N c°ic� ��€ Q � (� � i. � � � � t�--------��----� . � � . ��;a? ti.`�,�c ' � 3 � � � Q V . .�'a'°- v, c�v �'^c.° L.�. � � ai� � ° uc �oG �~ ° � O � � Yt� � 0 � . �L� y � �i a�. � �_' o'��o y � � . �o a � 'o .8 � ao..._ >. y a� «' >�°� ro � �-�� ,��3 V.� �� '�' �WZ�°> � � M '� t� �„�+ ��. Vl � � }jp_o � �'w�oo... � �� .oc� � � 'Oa•� � � E �Vo �, v��3'c3� � co � � oa_ a � �. ��+• 'a_ o ae � � � o a�e..�na � � �^ '�g '��.e� c c°f c�� .v�°'� oE „•-" ° �; no°��e � �� 3��°3a�e� ,C� a'A 1 '� � V �"''� u �� Ct.�?� � ��U� •� � � 3 �� '�•a°•a � �e�L - v V •��aw�� v � u .+ r„ «. a. �°� �.�� '�s�� + �'1��° �`°•u �' � �'��,rso � �,`� o0 3'$ � 'v'$ o� �s r^��s � � � � � �� c � �� ° = � u��b �.$.u� . � oa � 3^ �',0,��.. �... « � c >e� E °� �.[ �; ° �.e� $,�� = y� � � oaay �'= � e �� a, �,? au3 � ��.a� � E.�.o� Q�30 �� m�� 'u-��•3a �� a�� s � °'g eE � �ye�� ve �$ ��"'~��Tid � �j' y�.G 3.�•C�.� u � g�... N�"""""'�'�� 'p a� � Cf O C � � O �V O '«+.O u+D aQ�y.�� C '.�., y.y C T � e�•> O `d'i �i' � � '�w. >,— „g u « a .o... '�'� v.ov... yy ��o � «E.. �.�,cU «.o � � e� „`6'�,,, o �e�� 3 'b,�s3a� , va, u• eo Xi �� b a. .. � o '� c.c >,e= � 3c °° q V1VC.C•� � ��° �3;�� g � � �'$�C�wa� �,a > �.� h3w � o�3a $ 'a«. Q ec'o .�-' 3 � c �ao�3 � � •. � � E .. «.- o a�. «.-'<4» aO.a'� o p.a .v c Q � a�� e E"' «,`" E�= � ...` euc `° u �Ql �tu•- w-. y.+ � � 3 � . ...�• C'`" G !0 ` S�. � H � Cm CwG�.�i' u«�E Ep.QCNC Vy4. 3 �•f'4...�. ��7G � FR�"'i7C �� l..O � ; y�� - �•.,�� • � `' 3 y� ° ° >' � �� E an" c a� p a p,^ u p•-,,, aa b•� ^^ � � v �' oo �., %.o o• s �,«... a� `� o p s� .� p,,., q� wc a�`.� `" � " °' $ a ... a a � �a .,. cs �'a�... :os�v3o �`„�..: $�v �, � �� $� ou '�$ � ca�� Fa.. � �' �°' � Eu •• �'�� 8 �,� s.c u e.., e e .. �iaE > �, h > �•_ c� �F � ya $3� ��stv �e� � c �� $ a � �C �' `000 o1Q�' ,�,•�w •�,,v" o �e`; ° ,°°e �'� ° � � v� � E �—Q3u � � 7S �s� > ��5.if � °�� cr3 '3�o � o.o ts a..� �� `' ��$,'o� Z � � °' �.:� y � �� 3�� (� 7S'.c��°�°o � E�E�° U `� � K `�L� u�..�� $�,� v:c � '� �`� 3'� ° uo ° �;= � '� Q� a� � .� 8 C� u.3o33oao O: �a3 � < E� ��.S� E �3: o Q �'U— oo � eo m a� �e�"� ' ' � ��O"' Ca u«� w � e� u Q.0 C=� � 3�� ad t� �i� u'O y„�'�C� ��"�t'�.O � �C �� , a O�� C � �,' 6�i�.��'O Q C�... �� h er�" � g� '� E?e:. �: �.� o � t� ��-, eo�d' q � °'.e��r�„ a 67-� � `;� � 3�� ° u• •� �, �o°� o'� �.a8 E.. " 3 �� $$ o�,�� u «. 0 .e.> �'�o v .�� ° °'cE a ° : Ee � �� a .�.,, Q ��«. � > �.�. t �,a �•p-p <... � �G,t?� �� C � e� � 43 >�� p w�'� �� r.�� . C �""r��u'' C�� O.0 6 0�� 3 0 � Fc � $ o,., 9.0 3.�`• � E,,, ou �•� a �s ��.go o � �_ �.a.. v+ " � � o� �.��—°a � a� �� o`° �•=� � � ��u~ v E w � ^ , � 3$ v� y �S �, ES� � ��u �• � 8�� 3E �� Q��a.�o�s�� .�� $ �r�a°',� ,c° ��F� � � o--a �o�•-. .., u °' ei u � . at Ci8 w',= ° `' ` ° ,ei °w � � �R � �,s.vEa �.. oa.., > �, �•� �S.-. � 0° 0 � 3��.- $•� � o"�u �:,�- ` . C �r Q {�� M M�.�~t�n � � � � �� oWV � S��a�.o �A .��'�$��.[ D �,�� `�' E ��,$s'� o V �« G '�' C3w ��v `� � o � o c c��v > a„• .r �• � o,�, "(� og ,� ,� �•.. u�.. ,«e � �...s � o o,a ►e'$•., �,.. � o�'v � �.�.v � ��q� � � � �� ° u.a �G�US.�r,v °� � � � Eo � �rtL' � s� �� .:; � .,... 0 8�8 0 . e @ !� � E ��•� a 3 � � � °q o � g �_— �e > Eu �' H .v, ° � E�2� a,,�tr� �yo a�'CT'� �v5�a "� �.. � og'c•a �'.re� �° �i° �� C G ? � O C � � t � -73 fn Q C � y"' 3 \ � � � �� C �; u C O �y� � �� '«"5...C�..,� V w�25 3 �4c �•� � °< c t°�v ii.8� �.5 �«. � � o�o.� 3�.: $ _�•°.�b��°— �4 a�5�°� g�� c�° �•�$o�'r'�° � � �w 3 3 � E 3 � �.3�v�i � ��r � �. � ou•°-•c� �� u�' a �sw °e:p�:+ o �.=g ''� b"coSi � °�a`'° u'"m�'-� �.°s =v.sv= � a��v � � acc(""� •�,;°•- �; o � 0�3 u o a.�'2�a� � � �� :e �va^ �'...� � uaeEa'�t3' .��'_s W >aE �i 00� oc>� a� g � ��.�,�u8 ° �8•Ed EE• q a��u � T! a�i C �"^G'C � � � Lw� r$.� a�"" G � p �" � O �"��'� ' Q �� a` a+' � > > � : oEo �� $,, � � ��-- �e «. e `s�• uE� � '� � u o,eu�g � � �' �, �• o oa— ... e �a �" �'o >,� L'� sa•�'� 3��, ua .g �� .. �' 3—� e.�, _ Ea� �:ao� a, � a 30 °" >+> >b� baeao: _ u� o'� �� Q � s G° Cti' � u._ = �v v �, ,�V� � .e�. E.� � � £''c u �� . �i .� c. � � ,esa �3 � > �� e _ 'O ' � �v o o � ao o Q�" a�e v e � >t � � �u '� ' � .� S� .o � ,�r� � 8 2 u �E:! �. � o >. o °' u G� •" c�v�._4. °°�e �co .:re � uE, u �o �.E .co a a�•;,�c _ �.. .. �'�� i: � � a� v,� � '' aa 'r��'•$,� ri o,Y � �' w"s� °'� �o° bg � o,'y��= �o3� � �$'� � a.� $s � � O � �� V'.. � s�.p;� O CV^' V ? T C�n u o � a:o �o=� ° `""p �� °1�� >,�oEE �No ° p `�==� °� •��..-� 3 � '�r:�, °� � vu� 0 0 �"�"' > �� 8�— � r�*'do�c erS °�?� ��0" °° °� �' a;u "(�� y >"°:° ?.va�� $ ,3,•� �Uwi3o � e „ '�� ° eaa, � �r �.� � $ ao,cs co a � E u� � � �a o �cqu �•-. � a, � Ca�.�V),=� � .� °�� Cwi�� . $,C ��.�r ,�„ V�' p�w Cw+�. .G.�Cp� G� Cb �O .� ti �OC�. . tn �+„ M: '� soa�'cmE�v�,'�v >, s �'° `�' � :° C��9E e °� `' °e ��Q�.0 e � '�' °°uu �aa� '�t �i'o' � `° `tc•e � FEs �� `ou< � s� oC7� v°�aue°s.5 �sEaa°. E $'a��v' � �.��o3�m �;c° ��U � 3 °�' �s3 � . r0. �'Oc� � November 21, 1988 T0: William S. Joynes, City Manager FROM: Mark W. Grimes, Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Comments of I-394 Residents Task Force The I-394 Residents Task Force met on October 20, 1988 and November 3, 1988 to review the proposed I-394 Overlay Zoning Ordinance and Joint Powers Agreement between Galden Va11ey and St. Louis Park. The members of the committee are: Francie Glickman, Golden Valley Mahlon Swedberg, Golden Valley Bob Mayeron, Golden Valley Jim Benshoop, St. Louis Park Elizabeth Fixen, St. Louis Park Kim Grette-Harkins, St. Louis Park The co.mmittee was staffed by Acting City Manager Sharon Klumpp and Acting P1anning Director Rye of St. Louis Park and Director of Planning and Development Mark Grimes from Golden Valley. � The Residents Task Force approved the concept of the Overlay Zoning Ordinance and the Joint Powers Agreement because it was felt it would help protect the residents in the area. The PUD and CUP for large developments would give each of the Cities a chance to review the overall effect including the effect on traffic in the neighborhoods. The group recommended that stiffer management plans should be initiated when any intersection exceeds the recommended level of service (LOS) . The draft ordinance states that the plans would only go into effect when more than half the intersections exceed the specified LOS. The Residents group felt that the more conservative approach would have a more positive impact on the residents of the area who will also use the interchanges. The Residents Task Force suggested that or�-going communication with people living in the I-394 area is important to keep them informed of changes. Local street improvements needed to increase traffic volumes in the area should be approved only after a public hearing. The Residents Task Force also agreed that office tenants should be put on notice in their leases that traffic management plans may be implemented in the future. Overall , the Residents Task Force believes that the approach taken in the Overlay Ordinance and Joint Powers Agreement is well thought out and demonstra- ted the ability of the two Cities to work together to solve a mutual problem. �