Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-16-16 City Council Meeting Packet 2 of 3
MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: August 16, 2016 REGULAR ITEM # 18 AGENDA ITEM: CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements - Authorize Preparation of a Feasibility Report SUBMITTED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Chad Isakson, Project Engineer Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................. City Engineer - Report/Presentation………………………………………… .................. City Engineer - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: $7,000. If the improvements are ordered, the report costs will be charged against the project fund and become assessable to the benefitting properties. Should the project not be constructed, the report costs cannot be assessed. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving Resolution No. 2016-67, Ordering the Preparation of a Feasibility Report meeting MN State Statute 429 for the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements so that the costs may be wholly or partially assessed to the benefitting properties. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Lake Elmo, City of Oakdale, and Washington County are working jointly to make improvements along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 13 (Ideal Avenue/Olson Lake Trail) with the Phase 1 Improvements to be constructed in 2017. On July 19, 2016 the City of Lake Elmo approved a Resolution of Municipal Support for the Phase 1 Improvements consisting of pavement City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 18] August 16, 2016 -- page 2 -- preservation from CSAH 14 to 44th Street and Street Reconstruction with Trail, Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Improvements from 44th Street to 50th Street. The project will improve the roadway corridor, better manage storm water, add a pedestrian facility, and extend Oakdale’s municipal sanitary sewer system to several Lake Elmo properties. Washington County intends to require cost participation from the Cities of Lake Elmo and Oakdale in accordance with the County Cost Participation Policy for County Improvement Projects. In addition, the improvements include the extension of sanitary sewer service to Lake Elmo and Oakdale properties at the request of both cities. The current estimate for the local cost share of the improvements to be shared approximately equally between Lake Elmo and Oakdale is $1,185,142. A Joint Powers Agreement will be prepared to more specifically allocate those costs between the County and each City. Special assessments have been identified as one of the available funding mechanisms for the improvements where the benefiting properties are specially assessed all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to the City’s Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. In order to maintain special assessments as a viable funding alternative, the City Council must direct the preparation of a feasibility report meeting the statutory process for public improvements that are specially assessed. The report will advise on the improvements being recommended along the corridor, provide estimated project costs for the City cost participation of the recommended improvements, including easement and right-of-way, permits, and other requirements needed to implement the improvements, recommend whether the improvements should be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and advise if the improvements are ne cessary, cost effective, and feasible. The Report will also provide a preliminary assessment roll for each of the benefitting properties. Utility improvements will address sanitary sewer service to replace individual on-site treatment systems. Project costs will be as provided by Washington County’s design consultant (SRF Consulting) for the improvements. Additionally, a Cooperate Agreement will be needed between Lake Elmo and Oakdale to address the respective municipal cost share along with maintenance responsibilities for the various improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize FOCUS Engineering, Inc. to prepare a Feasibility Report meeting MN State Statute 429 for the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements in the not to exceed amount of $7,000. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2016-67, Ordering preparation of a Feasibility Report by FOCUS Engineering for the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements in a not to exceed amount of $7,000.” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution No. 2016-67, Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Report. 2. CSAH 13 Location Map and Typical Section. 3. Project Schedule. Resolution No. 2016-67 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016-67 A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE CSAH 13 PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, on July 19, 2016 the City of Lake Elmo approved a Resolution of Municipal Support for the County State Aid Highway 13 (Ideal Avenue/Olson Lake Trail) Roadway, Trail, Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Improvements for CSAH 13 from CSAH 14 to 50th Street; and WHEREAS, the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements, including pavement preservation from CSAH 14 to 44th Street and Street Reconstruction with Trail, Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Improvements from 44th Street to 50th Street, are proposed for construction beginning in 2017; and WHEREAS, Washington County, the City of Oakdale and the City of Lake Elmo are each responsible for sharing in the project costs per the Washington County cost participation policy; and WHEREAS, it is proposed to assess the benefiting properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to the City’s Special Assessment Policy and Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, That the proposed improvement, called the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements, be referred to the City Engineer and FOCUS Engineering, and that FOCUS Engineering is instructed to complete a feasibility report in accordance with Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429 for the proposed improvements, and to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible; whether it should be best made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement; using estimated costs for the recommended improvements as determined by the County’s design consultant; and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels. ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST 2016. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: __________________________ Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson City Clerk 7/11/2016 1 Preferred Alternative Oakdale Lake Elmo PROJECT SCHEDULE CITY OF LAKE ELMO CSAH 13 PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2015.125 FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4283 AUGUST 2016 JULY 19, 2016 Council approves Phase 1 Municipal Consent. County proceeds with Final Design. AUGUST 16, 2016 Council authorizes the preparation of the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Feasibility Report. FEBRUARY 21, 2017 County presents final plans and specifications. Council accepts Report and adopts project assessment policy. Calls Public Improvement and Final Assessment Hearing. FEBRUARY 22, 2017 Notice of Public Improvement and Final Assessment Hearing (Publish March 1 and March 8, 2017). FEBRUARY 27, 2017 County posts advertisement for bid. MARCH 21, 2016 Public Improvement and Final Assessment Hearing. Council Orders the Improvement for the CSAH 13 Phase 1 Improvements (Requires 4/5th vote). APRIL 4, 2017 County Accepts Contractor Bids. APRIL 18, 2017 Council approves “Concurrence” to award contract. MAY, 2017 Start of Phase 1 Construction. NOVEMBER, 2017 Substantial Completion. JULY, 2018 Final Completion. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 8/16/2016 REGULAR ITEM #: 18 AGENDA ITEM: Boulder Ponds PUD Amendment/Rezoning SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Consultant Senior Planner Emily Becker, City Planner BACKGROUND: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is requesting approval of a rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds PUD to rezone Outlots B (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID# 34.029.21.33.0024), Boulder Ponds from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to HDR-PUD.. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 7/25/16 and recommended approval. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: The Council shall determine whether to approve the rezoning/PUD amendment. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC believes the MDR/PUD was the incorrectly zoning for the proposed 64-unit senior facility proposed for Outlot C. The existing zoning is MDR/PUD whereas the desired zoning is HDR/PUD. Boulder Ponds would also like to add the adjacent Commercial/PUD outlot, Outlot C, to the development site with the same HDR/PUD zoning. The zoning for Boulder Ponds occurred on 4/21/15 and was based on a density analysis presented during the Concept PUD process. The area guided for Medium Density Residential, which is approximately 10.1 acres, contains 17 single family dwellings and a planned 64 senior facility, which has a planned gross density of 7.98 units per acre; the appropriate density for Medium Density Residential land use guide. The norther portion of the area was developed into 17 single family dwellings and was zoned LDR/PUD. The southern portion of the area was platted as Outlot C (2.24 acres) and zoned MDR/PUD for the planned 64-unit senior residential use. With MDR zoning, the maximum allowed density is only 7 units per acre, whereas with HDR, the maximum allowed density is 15 units per acre. City Council Meeting 8/16/16 Consent/Regular Agenda Item #19 Page 2 Correction from the Planning Commission Report. A 64-unit residential development on Outlot C would have a density of 25.91 units per acre which exceeds the allowed HDR density. However, after consultation with Consultant Planner, Ben Gozola, Staff now understands that this density, 64 dwelling units on 2.24 acres was approved as part of the concept plan and anticipated at preliminary plat. By adding the 1.44 acre-Outlot B to the development site, rezoning it from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD, an additional density of 26 additional dwelling units could be allowed based on the HDR zoning, or 31 additional dwelling units if 20% density bonus was applied through the PUD (for a total potential density of 90 dwelling units over both Oultots B and C together, or 95 if density bonus is applicable through the PUD). No additional density would be allowed, as suggested by the Developer, for unused density in the other portions of the development, north of 5th Street. The Developer has suggested that they might want to be allowed additional density if providing senior congregate care facilities with services, as was done with the Arbor Glen project in the Village area. If you recall, the memory care units were not counted towards the overall density count because these units are recognized as being different from standard multi-family residential development. In addition, the City Council slightly increased the maximum allowed density up to a maximum of 16 units per acre within the VMX District area. These provisions required a comprehensive plan amendment and did not include any other areas besides the VMX Zoning District. Without a similar comprehensive plan amendment, any memory care units would be considered as dwelling units. PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: at the Public Hearing, no one spoke from the public and there was no written correspondence. The Planning Commission expressed concern about approving the rezoning to HDR/PUD without a specific plan and was concerned that the senior living project could end up as a market rate high density multi-family rental housing. The Planning Commission made a motion that they are in support of congregate care with services not counting as dwelling units as was approved in the VMX District. Todd Williams and Tom Kreimer are in support of more high density residential and that the Boulder Ponds site is an appropriate location. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning/PUD amendment with a 7-0 vote. FISCAL IMPACT: There would be no direct fiscal impact by the rezoning/PUD Amendment, however, it will improve the marketability of Outlots B and C, which will provide development fees and building permit fees to the City when developed. City Council Meeting 8/16/16 Consent/Regular Agenda Item #19 Page 3 OPTIONS: The City Council should consider whether to approve the Rezoning/PUD Amendment from MDR/PUD and Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD for Outlots C and B, respectively. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of Ordinance 08-149 Rezoning/PUD Amendment with the following motion: “Move to approve a zoning map amendment/PUD Amendment, Ordinance O8-149, to rezone Outlots B (PID 34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID 34.029.21.33.0024), Bolder Ponds from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD respectively to HDR/PUD”. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes 7-25-16 Planning Commission Report Packet Ordinance O8-149 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 25, 2016 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dunn, Larson, Griffin, Fields, Dodson, Kreimer, Lundquist and Williams. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman Approve Agenda: M/S/P: Dodson/Griffin, move to approve the agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Approve Minutes: June 27, 2016 M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to approve the June 27, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried. Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment OP4 Boulder Ponds Wensman started his presentation regarding the Boulder Ponds PUD amendment which is processed as a rezoning. They would like to rezone outlots B & C from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD to HDR-PUD. Wensman went through some of the history of the site and explained what the developer is trying to do. Wensman provided draft findings as follows 1) The rezoning/PUD amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property 2) The proposed land use, Senior Housing is a conditional use in both the Commercial and HDR zoning districts, so the underlying land use will remain unchanged 3) The proposed HDR/PUD zoning is appropriate for the proposed senior housing density. 4) The proposed PUD/Amendment is consistent with the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary PUD Plans. Wensman stated that in order to develop the site as senior living, the area would need final plat/final PUD plan approval, outlot B & C would need to be combined into a single lot and a conditional use permit approval is required for congregate housing. Dodson is wondering why the CUP application is not with this. Wensman stated that they are trying to market the property, but there is no plan. Dodson is wondering if 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 they rezone the property, what would stop them from putting in a differnet type of High density housing. Wensman stated that there would be no guarantee that a differnet plan wouldn’t come forward. Fields asked if the senior housing is the motivation for rezoning this property, why wouldn’t we wait until there is a plan for a CUP for the senior housing. Fields feels that making the change could have the City end up with something that is unintended. Larson is wondering if there could be a condition attached to this request stating that it is for Senior Housing. Wensman stated that he does not believe there can be conditions on a rezoning. Deb Ridgeway, Excelsior Group, stated that they do not have a buyer yet for the property. She feels it is to clean up the zoning for the marketing of the property. She said that they need a larger lot in order to market this as smaller lots are not desirable. They are currently marketing the site as a senior housing project. Williams asked about the combined parcels and how many units they need to make it viable. Deb Ridgeway stated that they feel they need 100 units for it to be a viable senior housing project. Williams stated that it is only approximately 4 acres and at 15 units/acre maximum, that still only gives them approximately 60 units. Ridgeway stated that based on it being a PUD and looking at the entire site, they would be allowed 210 units. They would be platting 98 units at this time with a difference of 112 units. Wensman does not agree with Ridgeways calculations. The underlying zoning is the tool to enforce the comprehensive plan. There are bonuses allowed, however, once the zoning is set for a parcel, that is how it needs to be developed. The LDR could have been developed more dense, and just because it wasn’t, doesn’t mean that it can be shifted to another area. The PUD is not an open door for density. Williams wanted to confirm the allowed density for this site for HDR zoning. Wensman stated that it would be 64 units for this project or 76 units if they achieve the 20% bonus. He asked Ridgeway if that is the case, would they still want to proceed with the rezoning request. Ridgeway confirmed that they would. Dunn asked what qualified for a 20% bonus. Wensman stated that there is the base zoning and then with a PUD there are highlights that qualify for bonuses. Dunn stated that it is very hard to keep track of these issues if the developer keeps changing things as they go along. Wensman stated that the deviations are spelled out at the time of preliminary plat. Fields thinks that rezoning this now without a project opens the door for market rate multi-family rental housing. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 Public hearing opened at 7:38 pm No one spoke and there was no written correspondence. Public hearing closed at 7:38 pm M/S/P: Willimans/Dodson, move to add finding number 5 that there is disagreement between the applicant and staff as to how many units would be allowed with the new zoning, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Fields/Williams, move to add finding number 6 that to change the zoning to HDR would allow the site to be marketed as a market rate mulit-family housing site, Vote: 7- 0, motion carried unanimously. M/S/P: Williams/, move to add finding number 7 that unit counts for the congregate care as found in the senior housing in the Old Village area, should also be applied City wide. There was no second and this was added to the approval motion. Ridgeway wanted to clarify that the preliminary plat was approved to have a 64 unit senior facility, but the zoning was not put into place correctly. They would just like to expand the acreage so that they can market this better. The existing residents know that this is intended to be a senior living project. Ben Schmidt, Excelsior Group, their understanding based on the original PUD is that they could do a 64 unit senior facility on the 2.4 acres, but they would not be able to do it under the MDR zoning. This needs to change to HDR to get to what was approved with the PUD. Based on the original density of the 2.4 acre parcel, by adding the additional acreage, 100 units is easy to get to. He agrees with using the same language that was used in the Old Village. M/S/P: Williams/Dodson, move to recommend approval of the rezoning/PUD Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds, rezoning from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD based on the findings in the staff report and the additional findings voted on and further recommend that the counts that apply to senior housing in the Old Village, be applied to this site, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Williams stated that the City needs more HDR in the City as we have virtually none right now. He feels this is an appropriate place for HDR. Kreimer also agrees that this was always shown as a multi-family building. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment Open Space Development 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 Wensman started his presentation regarding the Open Space ordinance. He went through the recommendations that the Planning Commission had. There was also recommendations from the City Council. This version takes into consideration the Comments of the City Council. This ordinance is currently not in the Zoning Code, and this will move it back to the zoning Code. Wensman went through the specifics of the changes in this version. This version articulates what the City is looking for in these PUD’s. One significant change is eliminating the super majority vote for deviations to allow more flexibility. The Comprehensive Plan is very clear that the density is 18/40 acres. The Buffer language was updated, septic sites need to be identified first, roadway standards were eliminated in favor of City Standards, lot sizes were left at 1 acre and ½ acre, building area was clarified and open space configuration can be reduced on a case by case basis. The City attorney added language regarding failing septic systems so that the City does not incur costs for failure. Individual septic systems must be on the individual lots and are not allowed in outlots. There will no longer be a public hearing at the concept phase. Now there will be a public hearing at the final plat to memorialize the agreement via ordinance so that it is a lot cleaner and easier to track. Wensman also stated that the City Engineer did not put a number on the number of homes that would be needed to support a community septic. Williams would like the 154.650 purpose to be modified to say “wildlife corridor” or “natural corridor” instead of just corridor. Williams is concerned about the number of homes necessary to support a community drainfield. Dodson feels that the critical language is that the City be able to do the work and bill back the affected residents, rather than relying on the HOA to do the work and collect. Williams pointed out some grammer issues on page 8 item 4 and Dunn would like the (as much as possible) removed. Leaves too much room for interpretation. Would also like to change “strive to” to “shall”. Williams is wondering about on page 9 (6) v., the association owned stormwater management facilities. He thought that the engineer is insisting that the City own these in other subdivisions. Wensman said that he will discuss with contract planner and City Engineer. Williams is wondering why the code is silent regarding signage and doesn’t just refer to the City sign code. Wensman stated that city sign code would apply and would not need to be put in this section. The Planning Commission is not comfortable with page 11 1 (b) 2, the City holding the conservation easements and would like them to be held by an outside agency. Williams is wondering if there is a list of purposes that the open space can be set aside for. He thinks that it is not clear enough what the purposes should be. Wensman stated that it does talk about agriculture and natural habitat, but it does not say that those are 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 the only 2 things it can be used for. Kreimer is wondering if language could be added if the land trust doesn’t accept the land, the City may consider it. Williams stated that he believes the MN land trust typically wants open space that is 10 acres and this could be problematic with the reduction to 20 acres. Dunn feels that there seems to be unintended consequences for coming down to a 20 acre minimum. Williams is wondering if there should be a setback for trails when there is a wetland. Wensman stated that VBWD reviews the plans when a wetland is present and the review process protects that. Williams thinks that 154.660 (3) for deviations, there should be the word “and” after a & b so that all 3 criteria need to be met to get the deviations. Williams thinks that on page 18 (3) is left over from the commercial PUD and should be taken out. Williams suggested some other changes that were clean up items that applied more to commercial PUD’s. Public hearing opened at 9:25 pm No one spoke and there was no written correspondence Public hearing closed at 9:25 pm M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to postpone consideration of the OP Ordinance until staff can return a cleaned up copy for consideration, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment to opt out of requirements for Temporary Health Care Dwellings Wensman started his presentation by giving an overview of the Temporary Health Care Dwelling legislation. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute. The Building Official had a number of concerns such as septic systems, anchoring, water access, insulation, etc. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Public hearing opened at 9:30 pm No one spoke and there was no written correspondence Public hearing closed at 9:30 pm M/S/P: Dunn/Williams, move to recommend approval of the ordinance to opt out of the requirements of Minnesoat Statutes Section 462.3593 , Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 Dodson is concerned that if the state felt strongly enough to enact this, should we be willing to provide a mechanism for people to provide for loved ones. Larson feels that this legislation does not seem to fit in our community. Wensman stated that this is really to care for an aging population which is a valid concern, but is not sure that this is the best solution. This has been talked about in many different states. Wensman knows of at least a dozen cities around us that have opted out and only 1 that he knows of that have opted in. Business Item – Ordinance amendment for the keeping of pigeons Wensman gave a brief update on the pigeon ordinance. This item was talked about a while back and he has incorporated the suggestions of the Planning Commission from previous discussions. This is not an item that is in the zoning code, so a public hearing would not be required. This item will move forward to the City Council at a future date. City Council Updates – July 5, 2016 Meeting i) Vacation of watermain easement for Auto Owners – passed. ii) Amend Fence regulations in regards to encroachment agreements – passed. iii) Hunting Ordinance – Tabled. iv) CPA for Rural Single Family in regards to sanitary sewer – passed. v)Moratorium extension – passed. vi) Neighborhood park in Savona neighborhood – request for Park Commission to review. City Council Updates – July 19, 2016 Meeting i) Hunting Ordinance – Input given to Planning Director to bring back to future meeting. Staff Updates 1.Upcoming Meetings a.August 8, 2016 b.August 22, 2016 Commission Concerns Dunn is wondering if there is any way to get a feel for what the costs will be to the City for these additional developments that come forward. Be it for police, fire, lighting, etc. Dunn also mentioned that Baytown and West Lakeland are really concerned about Lake Elmo not taking a stand against the airport expansion. She would like it to be taken to the City Council for a resolution. 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7-25-16 M/S/P: Dunn/Larson, move to bring a request to the City Council to support Baytown and West Lakeland in their opposition to the airport expansion , Vote: 6-1, motion carried unanimously. Williams stated that the current design has no impact on the Neal ave and 30 th Street intersection. Larson stated that the last set of meetings that they had come to an agreement with Baytown. Kreimer stated that he just doesn’t feel that he has enough information to vote on this issue. Fields was wondering if there was any update on the land purchased by Prairie Island and put into trust. Wensman stated that he can check with Kristina. Dunn is wondering when discussions will start regarding lowering the forecast population numbers. Wensman stated that he has not gotten further direction from the City Council. Meeting adjourned at 9:57 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 7/25/16 AGENDA ITEM: 4b– PUBLIC HEAR ITEM CASE # 2016-24 ITEM: Rezoning/PUD Amendment – Boulder Ponds SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is requesting approval of a rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds PUD to rezone Outlots B (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and C (PID# 34.029.21.33.0024), Boulder Ponds from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to HDR-PUD. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC Property Owners: OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC Location: Jade Trail North, South of 5th Street Request: rezoning/PUD amendment to the Boulder Ponds PUD to rezone Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds from Commercial PUD and MDR-PUD, respectively to HDR-PUD Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped outlots - Commercial PUD/MDR PUD Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: LDR to the north, vacant - Commercial PUD outlot to the east, BP to the west, vacant Commercial PUD outlot to the south Comprehensive Plan: MDR/Commercial History: Boulder Ponds Preliminary Plat was approved on 7/28/14. The subject parcels were rezoned from RT to Commercial PUD/MDR PUD on 4/21/15. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 6/27/16 60 Day Deadline – 8/26/16 Extension Letter Mailed – N/A 120 Day Deadline – N/A Applicable Regulations: Article XVI, Chapter 154, Sections 750-760, PUD Regulations Article X – Urban Residential Districts Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM REQUEST DETAILS: OP4 Boulder Ponds is requesting a Rezoning/PUD Amendment of two parcels, Outlot B and C, from Commerical/PUD and MDR/PUD respectively, to HDR/PUD in order to better market the parcels for a future Senior Housing Development. Outlot B is presently zoned for Commercial/PUD and is 1.44 acres in size. Outlot C is presently zoned for MDR/PUD and is 2.24 acres in size. The applicant would like to rezone both parcels to HDR/PUD and market them together for a proposed senior housing project. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS: According to Article XVI, Chapter 15, Section 757, Subd C of the Planned Unit Development Code, PUD Amendments shall be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under the procedures for zoning amendment in Article III of the City Code of Ordinances. The rationale for the housing density in the MDR portion of Boulder Ponds was described in the 12/09/13 Planning Report for the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan: The medium density area, which is approximately 10.1 acres, contains 81 residential units (17 single family, 64 multi-family), resulting in a gross density of 7.98 units per acre. It should be noted that this density figure is slightly higher than what is guided by the Comprehensive Plan. However, given that the proposed development is a PUD, and that the amount of land guided for medium density residential development on these parcels by the Comprehensive Plan is much greater, Staff has determined that the proposed Concept Plan meets the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. To explain Staff’s reasoning for this determination in another way, the proposed Concept Plan decreases the amount of total land guided for medium density development by over 20 acres by moving the collector road south. The slight increase in density above the allowed range per the Comp Plan is balanced by the significant reduction in the amount of land guided medium density. To put it in simple terms, by using the low end of gross density ranges in the Comp Plan, these parcels were guided to have 195 total residential units (not accounting for road right-of-way), whereas the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes 157 total units. Overall, the proposed PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the intent of the land use and density requirements as guided by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The rationale for the density is sound, however, when it recommending subsequent zoning for the sites, Staff had recommended LDR/PUD for the single family cul-de-sac, Jade Circle North, and MDR/PUD for the senior housing parcel (Outlot C). Outlot B was zoned Commercial PUD. The LDR/PUD zoning is the correct zoning for the single family housing on Jade Circle North just south of 5th Street, but the remaining 2.240 acre parcel (Outlot C) was zoned MDR/PUD for a planned 64 unit Senior Housing project. The zoning code, Section 154.453, Subdivision A, allows: Averaging of Lot Area. When lots are clustered within a development to provide common open space, the open space may be used to calculate an average density per lot to determine compliance with the individual lot area requirements. To determine the allowed density for Outlot C, A 64-unit project on a 2.240 acres site (and 0.23 acres of corresponding open space) would have a density of 25.91 units per acre, exceeding the 7- unit per acres allowed by the underlying MDR zoning, or 8.4-units per acre if 20% density bonus Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM was applied through the PUD. The HDR zoning would provide a 15-units per acre base density, or 18-units per acre if 20% density bonus was applied through the PUD. Even with HDR/PUD zoning, the 64-unit project would exceed the density allowable on the 2.47 acre site (.23 acres of open space). Therefore, OP4 Boulder Ponds LLC is proposing to rezone Outlot B (1.44 acres) from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD to add to the Senior Housing project area. With the addition of Outlot B, the 64-unit senior housing project be 4.18 acres (3.68 acres outlot area + .5 acres of open space) in size with a density of 15-units per acre. HDR/PUD is the appropriate zoning district for the proposed use on Outlots B and C combined. Senior housing (congregate housing) is a conditional use in both the Commercial and HDR Zoning Districts, so although the request is for a rezoning from Commercial/PUD to HDR/PUD, the proposed underlying land use remains essentially the same. In order to proceed with a senior housing project on the Oulots B and C the following would be required: •Final PUD Plans and Final Plat (combining the two outlots into a single lot) •Conditional Use Permit DRAFT FINDINGS: In order to approve a rezoning, the Planning Commission shall consider findings are shall submit the same with its recommendation to the City Council. Staff suggests the following findings: 1. The Rezoning/PUD Amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the subject property. 2. The proposed land use, Senior Housing, is a conditional use in both the Commercial and HDR zoning districts, so the underlying land use will remain unchanged. 3. The proposed HDR/PUD zoning is appropriate for the proposed senior housing density. 4. The proposed PUD/Amendment is consistent with the Boulder Ponds PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary PUD Plans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning/PUD Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds, rezoning from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD with the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Rezoning/PUD Amendment for Outlots B and C, Boulder Ponds from Commercial/PUD and MDR/PUD, respectively, to HDR/PUD with the following motion based on the findings in the Staff report.” ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Meeting 7/25/16 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – ACTION ITEM •Application and Narrative •Planning Commission Report – Boulder Ponds PUD – Concept Plan 12/09/16 •Housing Density Analysis (from 12/09/16 Concept Plan) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members Boulder Ponds Preliminary PUD Amendment & Zoning Amendment Application 1 NARRATIVE Zoning Amendment & Preliminary PUD Amendment Project Representatives and Contact Information. LANDOWNER/ OP4 Boulder Ponds, LLC DEVELOPER c/o The Excelsior Group, LLC 1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 400 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Ben Schmidt, Vice President 952.525.3225 Ben.Schmidt@ExcelsiroLLC.com Deb Ridgeway, Asset Manager 952.525.3223 Deb.Ridgeway@ExelsiorLLC.com Property Address, Zoning, Parcel Size, PID and Legal Description Outlot B, Boulder Ponds Outlot C, Boulder Ponds ADDRESS XXXX Hudson Blvd XXXX Hudson Blvd CURRENT ZONING Commercial - PUD MDR - PUD PARCEL SIZE Acres 1.72 2.46 Sq. Ft 2,591,320.2 6,098.4 PIDs 34-029-21-33-0023 34-029-21-33-0024 Boulder Ponds Preliminary PUD Amendment & Zoning Amendment Application 2 Boulder Ponds is a Planned Unit Development that was approved to include a variety of land uses, including single family residential, multifamily residential and commercial. The first phase of street and utility installation is complete to serve 20 Villa lots, 27 single family lots and 10 acres of commercial and multifamily. During the preliminary plat process, the 2.42 multifamily site (Outlot C) was presented as a 64-unit multifamily building. Based on the current zoning of medium density residential (7 units per acre), Outlot C is allowed only 15.4 units, which is inconsistent with the PUD approval. In addition to remedying this inconsistency, there is a desire to rezone Outlot B to allow multifamily on the entire 4.18 acres. Therefore, this application requests approval to amend the zoning of Outlots B & C, Boulders Ponds from Commercial and MDR-PUD to HDR-PUD and allow for a maximum 112 multifamily units. This is based on the analysis of the current approved plan with 98 units versus the 210.4 units that could be allowed per the zoning code. The accompanying plan further illustrates this. There is no proposed layout at this time, but when a plan is created, Final Plat, Final PUD and Conditional Use Permit approvals will be required providing adequate oversight of the specific site plans. In conclusion, Boulder Ponds offers a uniquely planned mixed-use neighborhood where the land uses provide a seamless transition from commercial to low density residential. The high density use between the commercial and lower density homes creates a complementary buffer and generally a more desirable and overall more viable neighborhood for Lake Elmo. CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-149 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains that Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.032 Zoning District Map, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding Ordinance No. 08-149, as follows: Section 1: Zoning Map Amendment. The following properties, Outlot B, Boulder Ponds (PID#34.029.21.33.0023) and Outlot C, Boulder Ponds (PID#34.029.21.33.0024) are hereby rezoned from C-Commercial/PUD and MDR-Medium Density Residential/PUD, respectively, to HDR-High Density Residential/PUD. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo also hereby ordains that the Zoning Administrator shall make the applicable changes to the official zoning map of the City of Lake Elmo. Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. 08-149 was adopted on this 19th day of August 2016, by a vote of _ Ayes and _ Nays. _____________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 8/16/2016 REGULAR ITEM #: 19 AGENDA ITEM: Temporary Health Care Dwellings SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed in to law the creation and regulations of temporary family health care dwellings, codified as Minn. Stat. 462.3593, which permit and regulate temporary family health care dwellings. Community desire for transitional housing for those with mental and physical disabilities, and the increased need for short-term care for aging family members served as the catalyst behind this initiative. The resulting law allows for a family to more easily care for these individuals by using a temporary dwelling on the property. The law goes into effect on September 1, 2016 unless cities adopt an ordinance opting out. Currently, temporary health care dwellings specifically are not listed as conditional or permitted uses in the Zoning Code and therefore are considered prohibited except under certain provisions set forth in the Design and Performance Standards Section of the Zoning Code which allows, in some cases and with certain standards, temporary farm dwellings, temporary construction offices, and recreational vehicles. By not adopting the ordinance opting-out, temporary health care dwellings meeting the Statute’s standards would now be allowed with a permit. On July 25, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, considered, and recommended approval of the adoption of an ordinance opting-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: The Council should consider if an ordinance opting-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, which permits and regulates temporary family health care dwellings, should be adopted. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: Minnesota Statue, Section 462.3593 has the following key components: Creates a new type of permit referred to as a temporary dwelling permit that has a six -month duration, with an option to extend the permit for six months. City Council Meeting 8/16/2016 Regular Agenda Item #20 2 Requires that the permit be for a property where the caregiver or relative resides. Allows modular and manufactured housing (instead of just recreational vehicles) to use this permit process as long as the unit meets all of the listed criteria. Lists the criteria for the structure and the information required in the permit application. Addresses sewer safety issues with required backflow valves and advance verification of septic service contracts. Requires the inclusion of site maps showing where the unit will be placed and notification of adjacent neighbors prior to application. Requires applications to specify the individual authorized to live in the unit. Applies the permit approval process found in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.99, but allows the local government unit only 15 days to make a decision on granting the permit (no extension). It waives the public hearing requirement and allows the clock to be restarted if an application is deemed incomplete, as long as the applicant is notified of how the application is incomplete within five days. A 30-day decision is allowed if the regular council meeting occurs only once a month. Requires unit placement to meet existing stormwater, shoreland, setback, and easement requirements. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of the Statute cannot be prohibited by local ordinances that regulate accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. Sets a default permit fee level that may be replaced by a local ordinance. Allows cities to pass an ordinance opting out of using this new permitting system. The City does not currently allow temporary health care dwellings, except under certain circumstances and standards, so this Section of Minnesota Statutes would allow for, under certain standards, a use that is currently prohibited by Zoning Code. Additionally, the Building Official has the following concerns about allowing temporary health care dwellings: structure anchoring; septic system issues; water system access; inadequacy of insulation requirements for colder weather; municipal sewer connection issues; Metropolitan Council SAC/WAC charges determination difficulties; and backflow check access. FISCAL IMPACT: Adopting an ordinance opting-out of Minnesota Statute, Section 462.3593 would reduce potential issues which could be caused by allowing temporary dwellings and Staff time spent resolving these potential issues. PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends adopting an ordinance that has the City of Lake Elmo opting out of the requirements of Sections 2 and 3 of the Statute. The Commission did have some concern that there is no current mechanism to provide temporary housing for those with mental and physical disabilities and aging family members. OPTIONS: The Council may: City Council Meeting 8/16/2016 Regular Agenda Item #20 3 Approve the ordinance as proposed. Deny the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests that the Council approve, as recommended by the Planning Commission , the proposed ordinance opting-out of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593. “Move to approve Ord. 08-151 opting-out of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593.” ATTACHMENTS: Ord. 08-151 Planning Commission meeting minutes, 7/25/16 History of Session Law Chapter 111 (codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593) Chapter 111 (codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593) Summary of Responses from Other Cities Regarding Temporary Health Care Dwellings 482548v2 AMB LA515-4 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-151 AN ORDINANCE OPTING-OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 SECTION 1. Section 301: Standards for Residential and Related Uses, Article 7: Specific Development Standards; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Title XV: Land Usage of the Lake Elmo City Code of Ordinances is amended by adding the following: E. Temporary Health Care Dwellings 1. Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City opts-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, which defines and regulates temporary family health care d wellings. By exercising this authority, the City is prohibiting the use of temporary family health care dwellings within the City. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance No. 08-151 was adopted on this _____ day of _____________, 2016, by a vote of __ Ayes and __ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance ________ was published on the _____ day of _________________, 2016. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐25‐16 the only 2 things it can be used for. Kreimer is wondering if language could be added if the land trust doesn’t accept the land, the City may consider it. Williams stated that he believes the MN land trust typically wants open space that is 10 acres and this could be problematic with the reduction to 20 acres. Dunn feels that there seems to be unintended consequences for coming down to a 20 acre minimum. Williams is wondering if there should be a setback for trails when there is a wetland. Wensman stated that VBWD reviews the plans when a wetland is present and the review process protects that. Williams thinks that 154.660 (3) for deviations, there should be the word “and” after a & b so that all 3 criteria need to be met to get the deviations. Williams thinks that on page 18 (3) is left over from the commercial PUD and should be taken out. Williams suggested some other changes that were clean up items that applied more to commercial PUD’s. Public hearing opened at 9:25 pm No one spoke and there was no written correspondence Public hearing closed at 9:25 pm M/S/P: Williams/Griffin, move to postpone consideration of the OP Ordinance until staff can return a cleaned up copy for consideration, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment to opt out of requirements for Temporary Health Care Dwellings Wensman started his presentation by giving an overview of the Temporary Health Care Dwelling legislation. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute. The Building Official had a number of concerns such as septic systems, anchoring, water access, insulation, etc. Staff drafted an ordinance to opt out of the state statute based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Public hearing opened at 9:30 pm No one spoke and there was no written correspondence Public hearing closed at 9:30 pm M/S/P: Dunn/Williams, move to recommend approval of the ordinance to opt out of the requirements of Minnesoat Statutes Section 462.3593 , Vote: 7‐0, motion carried unanimously. 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐25‐16 Dodson is concerned that if the state felt strongly enough to enact this, should we be willing to provide a mechanism for people to provide for loved ones. Larson feels that this legislation does not seem to fit in our community. Wensman stated that this is really to care for an aging population which is a valid concern, but is not sure that this is the best solution. This has been talked about in many different states. Wensman knows of at least a dozen cities around us that have opted out and only 1 that he knows of that have opted in. Business Item – Ordinance amendment for the keeping of pigeons Wensman gave a brief update on the pigeon ordinance. This item was talked about a while back and he has incorporated the suggestions of the Planning Commission from previous discussions. This is not an item that is in the zoning code, so a public hearing would not be required. This item will move forward to the City Council at a future date. City Council Updates – July 5, 2016 Meeting i) Vacation of watermain easement for Auto Owners – passed. ii) Amend Fence regulations in regards to encroachment agreements – passed. iii) Hunting Ordinance – Tabled. iv) CPA for Rural Single Family in regards to sanitary sewer – passed. v) Moratorium extension – passed. vi) Neighborhood park in Savona neighborhood – request for Park Commission to review. City Council Updates – July 19, 2016 Meeting i) Hunting Ordinance – Input given to Planning Director to bring back to future meeting. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. August 8, 2016 b. August 22, 2016 Commission Concerns Dunn is wondering if there is any way to get a feel for what the costs will be to the City for these additional developments that come forward. Be it for police, fire, lighting, etc. Dunn also mentioned that Baytown and West Lakeland are really concerned about Lake Elmo not taking a stand against the airport expansion. She would like it to be taken to the City Council for a resolution. SF 2555 Status in the Senate for the 89th Legislature (2015 - 2016) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF2555&y=2016&ssn=0[6/28/2016 10:58:24 AM] MN Legislature Get Connected About the Legislature Mobile Site Minnesota State Legislature Minnesota Senate House Senate Joint Schedules Legislators Committees Bills Law Multimedia Publications SF 2555 pg. 4960 Intro pg. 5675a 1 pg. 5715a 2 pg. 6535a 3 pg. 6538 pg. 6572a 4 pg. 6573 vote: 50-15 pg. 7006 pg. 7050 pg. 7050 pg. 7894 pg. 7896 pg. 7908 Status in the Senate for the 89th Legislature (2015 - 2016) Current bill text: 4th Engrossment Add SF 2555 to MyBills Version List Companion: HF2497; Companion Text House Search Revisor number: 16-5628 Session Law Chapter: 111 Long Description Committee Hearings and Actions Senate Counsel & Research Summary Description Temporary family health care dwellings zoning regulation; temporary dwelling permits establishment Authors Hoffman ; Rosen ; Eken ; Koenen ; Abeler House Authors Peterson ; Loonan ; Newton ; Pugh ; Laine ; Schultz Actions Separated Chronological Senate 03/10/2016 Introduction and first reading 03/10/2016 Referred to State and Local Government 04/06/2016 Comm report: To pass as amended and re-refer to Health, Human Services and Housing 04/07/2016 Comm report: To pass as amended and re-refer to Finance 04/28/2016 Comm report: To pass as amended 04/28/2016 Second reading 05/02/2016 Special Order: Amended 05/02/2016 Third reading Passed 05/12/2016 Returned from House Presentment date 05/12/16 05/17/2016 Governor's action Approval 05/12/16 05/17/2016 Secretary of State Chapter 111 05/12/16 Effective date 09/01/16 House 05/04/2016 Received from Senate 05/04/2016 Senate file first reading, referred for comparison HF 2497 05/05/2016 Bills not identical, SF substituted on General Register Bills SF 2555 Status in the Senate for the 89th Legislature (2015 - 2016) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=Senate&f=SF2555&y=2016&ssn=0[6/28/2016 10:58:24 AM] ABOUT THE LEGISLATURE FAQ Guide to the Legislative Process Historical Statistics Employment/Internships Visiting the Capitol Maps District Finder Accessibility For all comments concerning legislation or issues: Contact your House Member Contact your Senator For bill status information, questions, or corrections: Contact Senate Index at 651-296-5560 Submit website comments CONTACT US GET CONNECTED MyBills E-mail Updates & RSS Feeds House News Senate News 700 State Office Building, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 ♦ Phone: (651) 296-2868 ♦ TTY: 1-800-627-3529 ♦ Fax: (651) 296-0569 pg. 7909 pg. 7991 pg. 8013 pg. 8014 vote: 113-17 pg. 8163 05/05/2016 Second reading 05/09/2016 House rule 1.21, placed on Calendar for the Day Wednesday, May 11, 2016 05/11/2016 Third reading 05/11/2016 Bill was passed Presented to Governor 05/12/16 Governor approval 5/12/2016 Secretary of State, Filed 05/12/16 Chapter number 111 2016 Minnesota Session Laws Key: (1) language to be deleted (2) new language CHAPTER 111--S.F.No. 2555 An act relating to local government; regulating zoning of temporary family health care dwellings; establishing temporary dwelling permits; amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D.01, subdivision 4; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394; 462. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 144D.01, subdivision 4, is amended to read: Subd. 4.Housing with services establishment or establishment. (a) "Housing with services establishment" or "establishment" means: (1) an establishment providing sleeping accommodations to one or more adult residents, at least 80 percent of which are 55 years of age or older, and offering or providing, for a fee, one or more regularly scheduled health-related services or two or more regularly scheduled supportive services, whether offered or provided directly by the establishment or by another entity arranged for by the establishment; or (2) an establishment that registers under section 144D.025. (b) Housing with services establishment does not include: (1) a nursing home licensed under chapter 144A; (2) a hospital, certified boarding care home, or supervised living facility licensed under sections 144.50 to 144.56; (3) a board and lodging establishment licensed under chapter 157 and Minnesota Rules, parts 9520.0500 to 9520.0670, 9525.0215 to 9525.0355, 9525.0500 to 9525.0660, or 9530.4100 to 9530.4450, or under chapter 245D; (4) a board and lodging establishment which serves as a shelter for battered women or other similar purpose; (5) a family adult foster care home licensed by the Department of Human Services; (6) private homes in which the residents are related by kinship, law, or affinity with the providers of services; (7) residential settings for persons with developmental disabilities in which the services are licensed under Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2100 to 9525.2140, or applicable successor rules or laws; (8) a home-sharing arrangement such as when an elderly or disabled person or single-parent family makes lodging in a private residence available to another person in exchange for services or rent, or both; (9) a duly organized condominium, cooperative, common interest community, or owners' association of the foregoing where at least 80 percent of the units that comprise the condominium, cooperative, or common interest community are occupied by individuals who are the owners, members, or shareholders of the units; or Page 1 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 (10) services for persons with developmental disabilities that are provided under a license according to Minnesota Rules, parts 9525.2000 to 9525.2140 in effect until January 1, 1998, or under chapter 245D; or (11) a temporary family health care dwelling as defined in sections 394.307 and 462.3593. Sec. 2. [394.307] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the county has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family Page 2 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the county. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law and local ordinances. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The county may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The county may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The county may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the county revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. Page 3 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise specified by an action of the county board, the county may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the county does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The county has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the county board holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the county has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the county receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30-day limit starts over only if the county sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The county cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A county may by resolution opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 3. [462.3593] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; Page 4 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the municipality has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the municipality. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. Page 5 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law, local ordinances, and charter provisions. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The municipality may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The municipality may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The municipality may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the municipality revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the municipality may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the municipality does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The municipality has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the statutory or home rule charter city holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the statutory or home rule charter city has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the municipality receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30- day limit starts over only if the municipality sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The municipality cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A municipality may by ordinance opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective September 1, 2016, and applies to temporary dwelling permit applications made under this act on or after that date. Presented to the governor May 12, 2016 Signed by the governor May 12, 2016, 1:27 p.m. Copyright © 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Page 6 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 6/8/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=111&year=2016&type=0 List of Cities Opting Out Two Harbors Tonka Bay Stillwater Springfield Savage Oak Park Heights (Leaning Opting-Out) North St. Paul North Oaks New Ulm New Prague Montevideo Mendota Heights Lauderdale Lakeville Lake Elmo (Pending Council Approval) Hopkins Glencoe Excelsior Dilworth Detroit Lakes Crystal Corcoran Clearwater Burnsville Austin MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: 8/16/2016 REGULAR ITEM #: 21 AGENDA ITEM: Pigeon Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director BACKGROUND: In late 2015, Planning Director Wensman had received an inquiry regarding the keeping of pigeons in the City and found that the City Ordinance did not address the issue. Chapter 95: Animals, of the City Code, does not currently address the keeping of pigeons. Pigeons are not considered farm animals nor are they pets. Without an ordinance for the keeping of pigeons, any future pigeon issues would be regulated by complaints through the nuisance ordinance. The issue was originally discussed at the Planning Commission and it was recommended that an ordinance written to regulate the keeping of pigeons. Staff prepared a draft ordinance, held a public hearing on the ordinance at the January 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the ordinance. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: The Council should consider if an ordinance should be adopted regulating the keeping of pigeons. If the Council decides such an ordinance should be adopted, it should consider if the provisions set forth in the Ordinance are appropriate for the City. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The ordinance was drafted based on review of several Wisconsin ordinances, the Gem Lake and Forest Lake ordinances, and followed the City of Lake Elmo Chicken Ordinance as a template. Gem Lake’s ordinance regulating pigeons is most similar to the proposed ordinance. Staff research found that the cities of Oakdale, Woodbury, Maplewood, and Stillwater do not have ordinances for the keeping of pigeons. The proposed ordinance has the following key components: A property must be zoned RR – Rural Residential or A – Agricultural and be 2.5 acres or greater in size. There cannot be more than 20 pigeons per lot. Property must be the primary residence of the pigeon keeper. A permit is required, requiring much of the same application materials as a Chicken Keeping Permit requires. Permit conditions are set forth including: City Council Meeting 8/16/2016 Regular Agenda Item #21 2 o The requirement to keep the pigeon premises clean. o Food storage restrictions. o Treatment of pigeons. o Disposal standards. o Loft requirements: Setback 50 feet from property line and adjacent habitable structures. Must be no more than 12 feet high and 200 square feet in floor area. Enclosure standards. Violations and permit issuance and revocation are outlined and are very similar to those of the current ordinance that sets forth standards for the keeping of chickens. FISCAL IMPACT: Setting forth such standards may reduce future staff time spent on nuisance complaints pertaining to the keeping of pigeons. PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing was held on January 11, 2016 with no public comment. Commissioner Dodson questioned why the loft requirements were so specific and why restricting the keeping of pigeons to the Agricultural and Rural Residential Districts. There was also a question by Commissioner Williams as to how the number of birds (20) was arrived at. Commissioner Williams also requested 2 additional requirements to the ordinance. Staff has included both. As a whole the Commission discussed the appropriate number of pigeons to allow. Commissioner Dodson thought 60 would be appropriate and Commissioner Larson thought no more than 100. The Commission ultimately decided it was better to be more restrictive and settled back to the number 20. Since the Commission meeting, Staff reevaluated the number of pigeons that could be housed in a 200 sq. ft. loft and it is upward of 200 depending on how the loft were de signed with a center aisle. It is Staff’s understanding that most pigeon fanciers prefer to keep flocks of 100 or more pigeons at a time. The person who initially inquired about keeping pigeons wanted to keep 100 pigeons. The City of Gem Lake restricts the number of pigeons to 120. OPTIONS: The Council may: Approve the ordinance as proposed. Amend the ordinance and approve the ordinance as amended. Deny the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests that the Council approve, as recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed ordinance regulating the keeping and maintaining of pigeons. “Move to approve Ord. 08-148 regulating the keeping and maintaining of pigeons.” City Council Meeting 8/16/2016 Regular Agenda Item #21 3 In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the approved ordinance through the following resolution: “Move to adopt Resolution 2016-68, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-148” ATTACHMENTS: Ord. 08-148 Resolution 2016-68 Planning Commission meeting minutes, 1/11/16 Gem Lake Ordinance 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-148 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING SECTIONS 95.114-95.122 WHICH PERTAIN TO KEEPING AND MAINTAINING PIGEONS. SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Chapter 95: Animals of the City Code by inserting the following new sections: KEEPING AND MAINTAINING PIGEONS § 95.114 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. LOFT. Any and all quarters in which pigeons are housed. PIGEON. Any and all varieties and breeds of pigeons. § 95.115 PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish certain requirements for keeping and maintaining pigeons to avoid issues that might otherwise be associated with keeping and maintaining pigeons in populated areas. § 95.116 INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT. Officers designated by the city shall have authority in the investigation and enforcement of this subchapter, and no person shall interfere with, hinder or molest any such officer in the exercise of such powers. The city shall make investigations as is necessary and may grant, deny, or refuse to renew any application for permit, or terminate an existing permit under this subchapter. § 95.117 KEEPING OF PIGEONS. 2 (A) Pigeons shall only be permitted on lots 2.5 acres or greater in size in the RR – Rural Residential and A-Agriculture zoning districts. (B) Maximum number of pigeons shall be no more than twenty (20) per residential lot. (C) The property will be the primary residence of the pigeon keeper. § 95.118 PERMIT REQUIRED; TERM, CONSENT, FEE. (A) No person shall (without first obtaining a permit in writing from the City Clerk) own, keep, harbor, or have custody of any pigeons within the city of Lake Elmo. (B) The first permit is valid for up to 2 years beginning on the date of issuance and ending on December 31 of the following year. Subsequent permits are valid from January 1 to December 31. (C) Prior to issuance of a permit, notices must be mailed to all homes within 150 feet of the applicant’s property lines. (D) The fee for a permit may be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by ordinance, from time to time. § 95.119 APPLICATION. Any person desiring a permit required under the provisions of this subchapter shall make written application to the City Clerk upon a form prescribed by and containing such information as required by the city. Among other things, the application shall contain the following information: (A) A description of the real property upon which it is desired to keep the pigeons. (B) The number of pigeons to be maintained on the premises. (C) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed loft, and/or aviary, setbacks from the loft to property lines and surrounding buildings (including houses and buildings on adjacent lots). (D) Statements that the applicant will at all times keep the pigeons in accordance with all of the conditions prescribed by the officer, or modification thereof, and that failure to obey such conditions will constitute a violation of the provisions of this article and grounds for cancellation of the permit. 3 (E) Such other and further information as may be required by the officer. § 95.120 PERMIT CONDITIONS. Each person keeping pigeons within the City of Lake Elmo shall comply with the following: (A) No loft for keeping or confining pigeons shall be maintained or operated in any manner which violates the city building code or zoning ordinance. (B) Pigeons must be banded in a way to identify each pigeon as kept by its owner. (C) All premises on which pigeons are kept and maintained shall be kept reasonably clean and free from filth, garbage and such substances which attract rodents at all times. (D) All pigeons shall be fed within the confines of the loft or premises on which pigeons are housed. (E) All grains and food stored for the use of pigeons shall be kept in rodent-proof containers. (F) Pigeons shall be exercised and permitted to fly only when under control of the permit holder or their representative. (G) All aviaries shall be completely enclosed with wire netting or equivalent material that will prevent pigeons from escaping the confines of the loft or coop. (H) The outline of the loft to house said pigeons shall be of such design to conform to the symmetry of the existing buildings. (I) The loft must provide a minimum 4 cubic feet of space per bird. The loft must be enclosed with wire netting or equivalent material that will prevent pigeons from escaping the confines of the loft. Lofts must be elevated a minimum of six inches and a maximum of twelve inches above grade to ensure free-way beneath the loft. Lofts shall rest upon concrete footings, cement blocks, or other suitable foundation material. A loft may have a maximum height of 12 feet and a maximum floor area of 200 square feet and must comply with Section 154.406. (K) Pigeon lofts may be located in the rear yard only and shall be at least 50 feet from adjacent property lines and habitable structures. (L) The property upon which pigeons are kept shall have established a principal use conforming to the zoning ordinance. 4 (M) Dead Pigeons must be disposed of according to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules which require pigeon carcasses to be disposed of as soon as possible after death, usually within 48 to 72 hours. Legal forms of Pigeon carcass disposal include burial, off-site incineration or rendering, or composting. § 95.121 VIOLATIONS. (A) Any person violating any of the sections of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be penalized in accordance with § 10.99. (B) If any person is found guilty by a court for violation of this section, their permit to own, keep, harbor, or have custody of pigeons shall be deemed automatically revoked and no new permit may be issued for a period of 1 year. (C) Any person violating any conditions of this permit shall reimburse the city for all costs borne by the city to enforce the conditions of the permit including, but not limited to, the pickup and impounding of pigeons. § 95.122 ISSUANCE, REVOCATION. (A) If granted, the permit shall be issued by the city and shall state the conditions, if any, imposed upon the permitted for the keeping of pigeons under this permit. The permit shall specify the restrictions, limitations, conditions and prohibitions which the city deems reasonably necessary to protect any person or neighboring use from unsanitary conditions, unreasonable noise or odors, or annoyance, or to protect the public health and safety. Such permit may be modified from time to time or revoked by the city for failure to conform to such restrictions, limitations, or prohibitions. Such modification or revocation shall be effective after 10 days following the mailing of written notice thereof by certified mail to the person or persons keeping or maintaining such pigeons. (B) The city may revoke any permit issued under this subchapter if the person holding the permit refuses or fails to comply with this subchapter, with any regulations promulgated by the city council pursuant to this article, or with any state or local law governing cruelty to animals or the keeping of animals. Any person whose permit is revoked shall, within 10 days thereafter, humanely dispose of all pigeons being owned, kept or harbored by such person, and no part of the permit fee shall be refunded. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. 5 SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance No. 08-148 was adopted on this __ day of _______, 2016, by a vote of _ Ayes and _ Nays. _________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: _________________________________ Kristina Handt City Administrator This Ordinance No. 08-148 was published on the ___ day of ____, 2016. CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2016-68 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-148 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-148, an ordinance regulating the keeping and maintenance of pigeons; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-148 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-148 regulating the keeping and maintaining of pigeons by: Restricting the keeping of pigeons to lots 2.5 acres or more in size and in RR – Rural Residential and A – Agricultural zoning districts. Limiting the number of pigeons to no more than 20 per residential lot. Requiring a permit, outlining application requirements. Setting forth permit conditions in regards to the maintenance of pigeons and loft standards. The full text of Ordinance No. 08-148 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo City Hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City. Dated: August 16, 2016 ___________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _________________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:____________________________________and the following voted against same:________________________________________ Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer, move to recommend rezoning of the Inwood booster station property from RR to the PF zoning district, Vote: 5-0, motion carried Unanimously. Ordinance Amendment – a request for an ordinance amendment to the animal ordinance that pertains to the keeping of pigeons. Wensman started his presentation stating that he had an inquiry regarding the keeping of pigeons. Currently pigeons are not regulated. Wensman researched what other Citys do. He used the Gem Lake ordinance as a guide and also used our accessory building ordinance as a guide to know how many pigeons would fit in what size building. The minimum lot size would be 2.5 acres and it would only apply to AG and RR zoning. Maximum number allowed would be 20 and they would need to be banded. Aviaries would need to be enclosed. The loft area would have an area of 4 cubic feet per bird and the maximum loft height would be 12 feet with a maximum of 200 square feet. They would need to be located in the rear property 50 feet away from any habitable structures. Dodson thinks the construction of the loft is very specific and is wondering why. Wensman stated it was taken out of other code and is probably to keep the birds safe from predators. Dodson was also wondering why it is limited to RR and AG. Wensman stated it is because he is trying to restrict it to where there is the least potential for complaints. Williams asked how the number 20 was arrived at. Wensman stated that he looked at the size of the accessory building and worked backwards. Williams is not sure that 20 is enough. Public Hearing opened at 10:04 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing Closed at 10:05 pm. Dodson would like to see the number increased to 60. Larson would like to see 100 as a maximum. Kreimer thinks that is a lot of birds on a 2.5 acre lot. No one spoke at the public hearing and he thinks that we should be restrictive until someone comes in and asks for more. Griffin stated that it can be a big nuisance if they are not taken care of and saw it first hand this summer. Dunn agrees that we should add to the code, but should be more restrictive for now. Kreimer would like to see on page 3 letter K read “Pigeon lofts may be located in the rear yard only and shall be at least 50 feet from property lines and adjacent habitable structures.” Williams would like to include in 95.117 an item C that 8 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 1-11-16 would state “Any property where pigeons would be kept will have a principle use conforming to the zoning ordinance.” Williams would like to add under 95.117 letter D “The property will be the primary residence of the pigeon keeper.” M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer move to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to the keeping of pigeons with the 3 suggested changes, Vote: 5-0, motion carried, unanimously. Ordinance Amendment – a request for an ordinance amendment to the weapons ordinance as it pertains to hunting. Wensman started his presentation and stated that this is being brought forward based on the number of calls the City received this fall. Wensman stated that the City might want to consider producing a map each year to designate where hunting is allowed. Public Park, public trail, ROW and public school was specifically added. Wensman ran these changes through Washington County sheriff and they were in support and liked the idea of a map. Griffin would like to see some distinction between shotguns and rifles. She would like to see rifles prohibited in the City. The Commission was wondering how this applies to conceal and carry and how 130.15 (B) (2) would apply. Wensman stated that he can bring it back to the City Attorney. Dodson asked how much of this had to do with land use and if it really needed to come to the Planning Commission. Public Hearing opened at 10:30 pm. No one spoke and there was no written or electronic correspondence. Public Hearing Closed at 10:30 pm. Kreimer was wondering where paint ball, air guns, etc. would fall in this scope. Wensman stated that he looked at it only from the standpoint of hunting. M/S/P: Williams/Kreimer move to postpone consideration of the weapons and hunting ordinance until clarification on 4 issues is received, Vote: 5-0, motion carried, unanimously. Council Updates – December 15, 2015 Meeting 1. CUP Amendment-Oakdale Gun Club – Approved. 2. Preliminary Plat Approval-Reider – approved. 3. ZTA-Uses in Rural Districts – Repeal uses that were added in 2013. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: August 16, 2016 REGULAR ITEM #: 22 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Removing the Prohibition of Solid Wall Fences Over Four Feet in Height on Any Lot Under ½ Acre SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Councilmembers Fliflet and Smith Stephen Wensman, Planning Director SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, is requesting that the City Council direct Staff to amend the City’s Fencing Regulations by repealing Subd. (E) (3), which prohibits solid wall fences over four (4) feet in height. This prohibition creates complexities in the fencing regulations. ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Council is respectfully requested to consider if this Subdivision of the City’s fencing regulations should be removed and, if so, direct Staff to prepare a report to bring to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS: The City’s fencing regulations are rather complex as compared to other cities. A brief history is provided below of changes to the fencing regulations that show details as to how this particular regulation was adopted. All other provisions of this Section would remain. 5/13/2013: Fence regulations are discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Regulations at that time prohibited privacy fencing, and the proposed ordinance amendment allowed for solid fences up to six feet in height except in front and side (corner) yard setbacks. Anticipated higher density residential development was cited as the reason for the recommendation of allowing privacy fencing, as the demand for this type of fencing would likely increase. 5/23/2013: Public Hearing is held on the ordinance. There is discussion over whether or not the air and openness requirement for those portions of a fence over 4 feet in height is appropriate , but the final version of the amendment does not include the provision. 6/4/2013: The fence ordinance amendment is brought to Council. There is concern about allowing six foot solid wall fences in small yards. A discussion about the ordinance at a workshop is requested. 6/11/2013: Item is brought to Council Work Session. Concern is again expressed about solid wall fences being put up on smaller lots. There was discussion about prohibiting such fences on lots of ½ acre or less, and there is concern that this could be seen as discrimination against those property owners of such lots. 6/18/2013: Fence ordinance amendment is on the agenda but tabled until the next meeting when all members are expected to be present. 7/2/2013: The fence ordinance amendment, along with an alternative version of the proposed amendment, is discussed. The alternative version prohibited solid wall fences over four feet on lot ½ acre in size. There was a significant amount of discussion over whether or not to strike the ½ acre lot size provision. The matter was tabled to a later council meeting. 7/16/2013: The ordinance amendment that prohibits solid wall fences over four feet in height is adopted. FISCAL IMPACT: Less Staff time may be spent in processing fence permit applications and enforcement of this Subdivision. OPTIONS: The City Council should consider whether or not to recommend that Staff and the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval of an amendment to the City’s Fencing Regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Councilmember Fliflet, seconded by Councilmember Smith, is requesting that the City Council direct Staff and the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval of an amendment to the City’s Fencing Regulations that repeals Subd. (E) (3) of Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations of the City Code: “Move to direct City Staff and the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and consider recommending approval of the City’s Fencing Regulations that repeals Subd. (E) (3) of Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations of the City Cod e.”