Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.07.14 PC PacketAGENDA HUGO PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAV, JULY 14, 2016 HUGO CITY HALL 7:00 p.m. A. ROLL CALL (Arcand, Kleissler, Knauss, Lessard, McRoberts, Patzner, Rosenquist) B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 23, 2016 D. PUBLIC HEARING E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion on Temporary Health Care Dwellings F. OLD BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651) 762-6304 or rLba(i,ci.hueo.mn.us, thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursdav, June 23, 2016 Chair, Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Arcand, Kleissler, Knauss, McRoberts, Rosenquist ABSENT: Lessard, Patzner STAFF: Bryan Bear, City Administrator Rachel Juba, Planner Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 28, 2016 Commissioner Rosenquist made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McRoberts, to approve minutes for the meeting of April 28, 2016. All Ayes. Motion carried. Abstained: Arcand, Knauss. Bald Eagle Industrial Park 6t—h Addition — Preliminary Plat Juba described that the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for a lot split of a 9.42 acre parcel in Bald Eagle Industrial Park. The City Code requires all subdivisions in zoning districts that are eligible for City sewer and water, which create two or more parcels, to be platted. Juba stated that no development/construction approvals have been requested at this time and staff has not reviewed any development concept plans for the site for compliance with City Code. Juba described the analysis staff used on the applicant's request, which included a lot size that complies with City Code, no wetlands on the property, and utilities being available to the property. Juba stated that since there is no construction proposed currently, drainage and grading was not analyzed. The applicant has been notified that stormwater management will be required, where some storage and treatment was previously met with a regional pond. Juba also stated that at the time of a site plan submittal, access will need to be further analyzed. Juba concluded be saying that it was in staff's opinion that the necessary requirements have been met to approve the preliminary plat and that staff recommends approval of the Bald Eagle Industrial park 6th Addition preliminary plat, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. Chair Kleissler invited the applicant to the podium to speak. The applicant had no comments at this time. Chair Kleissler opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Lisa Berggren, 5485 134th Street N., approached the podium. She asked what the plans for the property are. Juba stated there is no development proposed at this time and the hearing is for a preliminary plat for a lot split. She described that the property is zoned I-3, which is a general industrial district. She stated this lot could be used for a similar businesses currently seen in the industrial park like an office warehouse, manufacturing, and storage. Mrs. Berggren asked if the applicant would speak to the future of the property. Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 2 Alex Altstatt came to the podium. He stated that his family currently owns and operates out of an adjacent property. Their plans would be to build a warehouse, approximately 20,000-40,000 square feet, and move operations to that new building. He stated that this is all to support future expansion of the company. Commissioner Knauss asked if expansion would mean still operating out of the current building when new one is built. Mr. Altstatt stated that they would no longer operate out of the building they are currently in and would either rent it out or sell it. Chair Kleissler closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Arcand seconded, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in the resolutions. All Ayes. Motion carried. Terre De Veau — Sketch Plan Commissioner Arcand stated that he would be removing himself from the discussion because he has a conflict of interest since he owns part of the property the development is proposed to be located on. Juba described that the applicant is requesting review and comments on a sketch plan for a residential development on 197.5 acres, with 296 units, located north of 130th Street and east of TH 61. Juba began by reminding the Planning Commission of the process and stating that there are no approvals during the sketch plan review and their comments are advisory and non-binding. Juba stated that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) would be triggered from this request and would study a variety of items including land use, water resources, fish and wildlife, and transportation. Juba stated that the applicant would request the rezoning of the property from R-3 to PUD in order to ask for flexibility on lot width, lot size, and setbacks. In exchange, the City would expect a higher level of design and amenities within the project. The applicant is currently proposing landscaped streets, decorative lighting, trails, a public park, and a stormwater reuse system. There are several natural resources on the site that the applicant is trying to preserve by the development layout. There is also development difficulty with the powerline and pipeline easements. Therefore, reduced setbacks and smaller lots sizes would allow the developer to maintain the natural topography, trees, and wetland features of the site. In addition to preservation of a few significant stand of trees, the applicant is proposing landscaped buffers between the proposed lots and existing neighborhoods and landscaped buffers along TH 61 and 130th Street. Juba stated that the applicant has done a good job providing connections between the adjacent neighborhoods, as encouraged by the neighborhood pattern and housing goals section of the Comprehensive Plan. She described that a traffic analysis would need to be completed to evaluate the roadways for the anticipated increased traffic. Juba stated that the Parks Plan indicates a need for a public park in the area and the applicant is showing a 10.2 acre public park that features trail connections, passive areas, a playground and shelter, and play fields. The applicant would like the Commission to consider allowing the use and improvement to a portion of an existing 18 -acre City -owned outlot for a passive park area, additional trails, and stormwater pond. The outlot was deeded to the City for public purpose/use and in discussions with the City Attorney, the Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 3 proposed use would be allowed and can be considered. Staff is generally comfortable with the proposed use of the outlot, but the Commission should discuss the proposed use and provide feedback to the developer. Juba concluded by saying that the applicant is proposing a creative and efficient use of the property, while reducing impacts to the natural features of the site. She believed the applicant has done a good job with the development layout and proposed added amenities and the plan meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in regards to land use, parks, and transportation. Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide feedback to the applicant on the proposed lot size and lot width, the proposed use of the City -owned 18 acre outlot, 130th Street improvements to an urban section road, the proposed long roadway connecting the north and south portion of the site, and the proposed landscape buffers along TH 61 and 130th Street. Ben Schmidt, the representative of the Excelsior Group, approached the podium. He stated that their company is currently finishing up Prairie Village and Waters Edge 5th Addition in the City and are excited about this new project. He described that this site has its challenges with natural features, wetlands, and the pipeline, but these challenges allow them get more creative. He said this development will have a variety of housing products, styles, and prices for a broader appeal to future and current residents of Hugo. He stated that there is an opportunity to implement a water reuse system and further opportunities for preservation of landscape. Mr. Schmidt concluded by saying he was excited to hear the Planning Commission's comments, incorporate those into the plan, and come back with a preliminary plat. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he believes there is an issue with the long road that connects the north and south of the site. He asked what other possibilities are for this road. Mr. Schmidt stated that that was a concern from staff, as well. He described that there is a possibility to make a 90 degree turn somewhere in the road, but with wetland restrictions, the site is longer than wide. He explained one change that the group made, which was creating a 90 degree turn off the main entrance. He stated as the process moves forward, they will be getting input from traffic engineers because they want to make sure traffic goes down that road at a pace that fits since there are driveways along it. Commissioner Knauss asked what the name of the development meant. Mr. Schmidt stated that it is French for "land of water." The group had looked into Hugo's history, which is why they went with the French name, but after receiving comments on this name they are looking at other names for the development. He said they would welcome input on the name. Commissioner Knauss said that on the plans in front of the Commission, the park plan shows a tot lot. She asked if he could elaborate on this. Mr. Schmidt stated that the group thinks there is an opportunity for a full playground, but want to talk to the Parks Commission and others to make sure it all fits. Commissioner Knauss stated that she would suggest a full size playground, since there are so many homes that are proposed to be built within the development. Mr. Schmidt stated that he agrees. Commissioner Knauss noticed that some streets go over the pipeline and asked if the developer would need to acquire an easement. Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 4 Mr. Schmidt stated that they don't need an easement, but do need to meet their design standards and get their approval. He explained that they have been in contact with them. Knauss asked staff if there was an expected date that TH 61 would be expanded. Bear stated that they do not have an anticipated timeline from the state for the expansion of the roadway. He said that there is an approved corridor plan that indicates what the expansion will look like. Although this is in the Met Council's Regional Plan, it is not in the Met Council's fiscally constrained plan. Therefore, the timeline is unknown. Chair Kleissler opened the floor to the audience for comments or questions. Vann Clipper, 12536 Fenway Ave. N., approached the podium. He asked why a large mass of housing was located on the corner of TH 61 and 130th Street. He also asked if the pond shown on the corner of TH 61 and 130th Street would be removed with the expansion of TH 61. Randal Barnes, 6491 132nd St. N., approached the podium. He believes the project is exactly the project needed for this lot and that it is vastly superior to past proposals for this lot. Lisa Berggren, 5485 134th Street N., approached the podium. She stated that the amount of homes proposed to be put on these properties are concerning and the proposed lot widths and lot depths are not close to required standards. Mrs. Berggren stated that another concern is traffic. She believed that there are not enough roadways accessing the property, so 137th Street will be a shortcut for a lot of cars to get onto TH 61. Mrs. Berggren stated that the large pond is also concerning, as her backyard and others' will back up to it. There are also concerns regarding the impact of flood plain, wildlife, drainage, and flooding. She stated she understands this property will be developed but wants it to be developed with current residents in mind. Chair Kleissler directed staff to answer resident's questions. Juba stated that there are wetlands and floodplains the developer is trying to preserve, which is why the development is designed in this way. Commissioner McRoberts asked if there is a plan to extend or make water areas any larger. Juba stated that there is a ditch, but no standing water on the property currently. She explained that the pond would be constructed within the floodplain. Juba stated that the 40 ft. of additional right of way needed for the future expansion of TH 61 could not be built on. She stated that the plan would have to shift over another 40 ft. to the east. Juba stated that the PUD process does allow applicants to ask for flexibility on lot size and lot width. She stated that an alternative is to build the minimum lot size designated within the R-3 zoning district, where some of the lot lines would just extend into the floodplain and wetlands. Juba explained that allowing the developer to have this flexibility reduces impacts to these natural features. Juba then described that the allowed density in the R-3 zoning district is 4 units per acre and the applicant is proposing 2.5 units per acre. They would not have to ask for any flexibility on this. Chair Kleissler asked what the density is on adjacent sites. Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 5 Juba stated that she didn't know off hand, but generally the density is between 2 and 3 units per acre in the R-3 zoning district. Commissioner McRoberts asked if the 2.5 units per acre density includes all the ponds and wetlands. Juba stated that density is just for the buildable land. The gross density is 1.5 units per acre and includes all ponding, wetlands, and floodplain. Juba stated that there were a lot of questions on traffic and she doesn't have all the answers to them, but the development does have two access points on 130th Street, which is a signaled intersection. This signal was constructed with future development in mind. Juba reiterated that 134th Street would be a right -in, right -out and 137th is proposed to be a full access. Juba stated that there will be more evaluation of streets through the traffic analysis. Juba then moved onto the drainage concerns. She stated that drainage is one of the things that is evaluated as plans move forward, but that a development has to handle all of its own drainage on site. Bear discussed signal timing. He stated that the City had MnDot evaluate signal timing at 130th, 140th, and 147th and they acknowledged that the timing of green lights is much shorter on lower volume intersections, but that the timing of all lights were where they wanted them to be at, so no changes were made. Bear then moved onto the resident concern for wildlife impacts. He reiterated that there is an environmental review that will evaluate the impacts. Commissioner McRoberts stated he had concerns with the proposed 45 ft. wide lots and the large proportion of the lots that will not meet the standards. Lisa Berggren, 5485 134th Street N., approached the podium. She believed that the larger lots shown on the plan were in Mahtomedi. Juba stated that this development is completely within Hugo, but some of the lots were in the Mahtomedi school district, while most are located in the White Bear Lake school district. Bear stated that there is an interesting conversation to have over lot widths. He said that if the applicant wanted to add more lots that were wider, it may result in a different project with more of the land being built on and less of the land open space. He stated that larger lot widths doesn't necessarily mean a smaller density, but just a reconfiguration of the site. Commissioner Knauss stated that there are other Villas throughout the City and asked staff what those lot widths are. Juba stated that 45 and 50 foot lots have been approved. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that these lots have been approved in the past, so he would feel comfortable with the same. Commissioner Knauss believed that the City set a standard that for Villas a 45 ft. wide lot is acceptable. She asked the Commission what the compelling reason for not allowing the same for this development. Chair Kleissler stated that without looking at others, she believes the difference could be the number of villas requiring this flexibility. Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 6 Juba stated that she doesn't believe that the 45 ft. lot widths have been approved for this type of concentration in a development, but that was because those types of developments haven't been coming through in the past few years. She stated that if the product wasn't detached townhomes, it could be attached townhomes. Bear stated that when development was occurring 10+ years ago, they were guided similarly to this property, as single family neighborhoods with a townhouse component. As long as the overall density doesn't exceed 4 units per acre, those can be proposed and would generally be in much larger proportions than shown on this sketch plan. Desiree Rotter, 13635 Fiona Ave. N., approached the podium. She stated that with the site being built up and the construction of homes and roads, all of the stormwater will go into the ponds. She believes that this standing water will lead to a bad smell in summer months and a larger population of mosquitos, which will make it unbearable to live. She stated that the City is already having issues with the water towers, sewers, and TH 61, so adding 600-800 more people is only going to add to these problems. She stated that she was aware that these properties would be developed eventually, but that the Planning Commission needs to make sure the current residents are protected. Commissioner Rosenquist wanted clarification that the pond water would be used for irrigation. Juba stated that the developer has proposed to use the stormwater in the ponds for irrigation. Commissioner McRoberts asked staff if the site will be graded or drained so nothing runs offsite. Juba stated that was correct. Bear explained that there was still a significant amount of work to be done on drainage and grading. He stated that the site currently has a ditch running through it, so the water will eventually flow offsite, like it does now. He also said that development nowadays have ponds because stormwater management requirements are very serious. There are rate control and volume control requirements that are set by the watershed. Bear added that he is not aware of issues with water towers or sanitary sewer and the Comprehensive Plan indicates how these services can connect to site and hold site capacity. Commissioner Rosenquist asked if staff could explain the use of the City -owned outlot more. Juba stated that the applicant would be proposing to use the outlot for stormwater ponding, a passive area of the park, and trails. She stated that nothing done on this piece would be added into the request for flexibility or for park dedication. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he believed it would be a positive amenity for the whole development. The Planning Commission agreed with Commissioner McRoberts comment. Commissioner McRoberts asked what the City's role would be in improvements to 130th St. He asked if it would be up to the developer to make those improvements. Juba stated that they will know more after the traffic analysis, but the Comprehensive Plan shows the road as an urban collector street. The City's policy is that properties abutting the road would have some share in Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 7 construction costs or required to pay full construction costs. Juba stated that she would like the Commission to comment on if the improvements should still be considered and discussed with the applicant. Commissioner McRoberts stated that given amount of traffic, yes. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that he believes improvements will need to be made, but it is important that an engineer looks at it taking into consideration the traffic from this development. Susan Klingbeil, 5854 1281h Alcove, approached the podium. She expressed concern for traffic and is worried that adding this development will make it worse. She stated that they need to consider a four-way stop to get onto 130th St. from the proposed development and Beaver Ponds development. Juba stated that the intersection that connects to the Beaver ponds is anticipated to be evaluated in the traffic analysis. Juba also expressed that with the 130th Street improvements it would be expected that a trail will be constructed on the north side of 130th St. from TH 61 to Goodview. Chair Kleissler asked if there has been any consideration making the trail loop. Juba stated that it looks like there is one loop proposed, but doesn't know if the trail would be mulch or paved, although the City does prefer paved trails. Chair Kleissler believed that the developer should look for an opportunity to do some loops because that would keep people on the trails rather than on streets or trying to cross TH 61. Chair Kleissler wished the Planning Commission talk about the long roadway connecting the north and south of the site. She stated that it was a long stretch. Commissioner McRoberts wanted a traffic engineer to evaluate this road and believed there could be a lot of traffic going on that road. Commissioner Rosenquist believed the applicant understands the Commission's opinion on that road and the need for a traffic engineer to study this road and figure out if there's something further that can be done. Commissioner Knauss stated that it may need to have more curves to lessen the speed on the road. Chair Kleissler stated that the current design looks like it would make a great opportunity for a cut through, so it needs improvements. Mr. Schmidt approached the podium. He stated that they are interested in making that road as residential as possible because there are homes on it. He said they had designed some previous concepts that didn't have the road cross the ditch, so the north and south of the site were not connected. He stated that he was interested in the Planning Commissions feedback on losing connectivity compared to having a road that people might make a shortcut through. He stated that they will look further into how they can calm traffic, but that the site offers challenges to where the road can be located. Commissioner Knauss believed the north and south of the site should be connected to provide more access in and out of the development and spreads the traffic flow. Planning Commission June 23, 2016 Page 8 McRoberts asked staff on what side TH 61 will get widened. Juba stated that it will expand to the east. Commissioner McRoberts asked how far the road will be from the development when TH 61 is widened and if the proposed pond will disappear between the road and the development. McRoberts stated that the buffer is crucial. Commissioner Rosenquist stated that it would be wise to buffer the back yards of the houses, more than in the right-of-way. Juba stated that there will probably be a mixture of buffering within back yards and in the right of way. All of this will be taken consideration when looking at the preliminary plat. Mr. Schmidt approached the podium. He stated that the space between the back of houses and 130th St., it appears to be very tiny, but it actually is quite large. They want those homes buffered from 130th St. because they want to sell the lots. They want to be creative with what the landscape along 130th St. looks like currently and take that into consideration when planning the landscaping on the north side. He stated that the new plans will take the 40 ft. of additional right of way into consideration and still leave plenty of room for buffering, including the pond. Commissioner McRoberts stated that he looks forward to seeing future plans. Chair Kleissler commended the applicant on saving the mature trees, but questioned their life cycle and if those would be replaced if something happened to them down the line. Mr. Schmidt stated that a lot of the site has scrub trees, which will be cleaned up. In doing this, they will highlight the specimen trees and that care should extend their life cycle. Commissioner Knauss stated that if it is decided that 130th St. will be improved, she would like to see it done sooner rather than later. She believes there would be more opposition to 130th St. being improved when homes are constructed. Adiournment Commissioner McRoberts made a motion, Commissioner Rosenquist seconded, to adjourn at 8:31 p.m. All Ayes. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant Agenda Number E1 CITY OF HUGO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Memorandum TO: Hugo Planning Commission FROM: Rachel Leitz, Community Development Assistant SUBJECT: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings DATE: June 30, 2016 for the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2016 1. BACKGROUND: On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a process for landowners to place a temporary residential dwelling on their property to serve as a family health care dwelling. Community desire to provide transitional housing for those with mental or physical impairments and the increased need for short term care for aging family members served as the catalysts behind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short term care alternative for a "mentally or physically impaired person", by allowing them to stay in a "temporary dwelling" on a relative's or caregiver's property. This affects all properties with existing residences in the City. Per the statute Cities can opt out with adoption of an ordinance or resolution. 2. TEMPORARY HEALTH CARE DWELLING A. Requirements Placement of a temporary family health care dwelling can only be on the property where a "caregiver" or "relative" resides. The statute defines caregiver as "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." The definition of "relative" includes "a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative also includes half, step and in-law relationships." The law requires the person residing in the dwelling to qualify as "mentally or physically impaired," defined as "a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse, licensed to practice in this state." The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired dweller. A temporary family health care dwelling must: 1. Primarily be pre -assembled; Page 2 2. Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet; 3. Cannot be attached to a permanent foundation; 4. Must be universally designed and meet state -recognized accessibility standards; 5. Must 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. Must have exterior materials that are compatible to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; 7. Must have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; 8. Must be portable (defined by statute); 9. Must comply with 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. Must contain a backflow check valve. B. Application Process 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. The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to proof of care from a provider network, written certification signed by a Minnesota licensed physician, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse that the individual with the mental or physical impairment needs assistance performing two or more "instrumental activities of daily life," an affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents, and a general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures on the lot. C. Approval/Denial Process 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. The municipality has 15 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 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. This is a very tight timeline for staff working on a request such as this. The normal review period under State Statute is 60 days. All of this would mean that the permit process for a temporary health care dwelling would most likely be staff reviewed and approved and would not go through a process with the Planning Commission or City Council. 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 2 Page 3 or storage. The primary types of dwellings proposed fall within the classification of recreational vehicles, to which the State Building Code does not apply. Two other options exist, however, for these types of dwellings. If these structures represent a pre -fabricated home, the federal building code requirements for manufactured homes apply (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If these structures are modular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with the State Building Code (as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1361). The law specifically limits the time frame for these temporary dwellings permits to 6 months, with a one-time 6 month renewal option. Further, there can be only one dwelling per lot and only one dweller who resides within the temporary dwelling D. Revocation The statute allows for the city to require the permit holder to provide evidence of compliance and also authorizes the city to inspect the temporary dwelling at times convenient to the caregiver to determine compliance. The permit holder then has sixty (60) days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. The law does not address appeals of a revocation. 3. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY The law requires cities to follow and implement the new temporary family health care dwelling law beginning September 1, 2016. Cities will need to be prepared to accept applications, must have determined a permit fee amount (if the city wants to have an amount different than the law's default amount), and must be ready to process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. Cities may opt out of the new law. The new law alters a City's level of zoning authority for these types of structures, especially with provisions where accessory structure or recreational vehicle ordinances do not apply. City's ordinances are wade to preserve a neighborhood's character. This new law would allow this type of structure in all zoning districts, even those that would not allow them. The City does allow similar structures within the City Code, which are accessory dwelling units and accessory apartments. These uses have their own performance standards and are accessory uses in the rural areas of the City. The City has also made special provisions for these types of uses if a special situation arises and is open to working with residents if they have a request for a similar use. Other considerations should be the permitting process and enforcement after the permit period has expired. As stated before, a new permitting process will have to be considered, as these requirements differ from standard application review requirements. This will take a considerable amount of staff time, which all needs to be completed before September 1, 2016. If the City were to move forward with this process, there would need to be staff time devoted to tracking approved permits and approving renewals at the six month mark. Once a one year period has expired, staff would then need to begin a monitoring process to ensure the temporary health care dwelling was removed from the property. Staff believes this process may be difficult because even though a 3 Page 4 permit may expire, a healthcare issue generally does not and there may be an unfavorable response from permit holders. Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance or resolution to do so, which requires a public hearing through the Planning Commission and an approval of a resolution by the City Council. 4. CONCLUSIONIRECOMMENDATION: The law goes into effect September 1, 2016 and automatically applies to all cities that do not opt out or don't already allow temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use under their local ordinances. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the temporary family health care dwelling ordinance and provide staff with comments. Because the new law alters the City's level of zoning authority and the structures have the potential to change the character of the area, staff recommends opting out of the temporary family health care dwelling statute. Attachments: 1. MN State Statute, Chapter 111, Section 3 (462.3593). 4 Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws https:,','www.revisor.mn.gov/laws ?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Cha... Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise specified by an action of the count,,, b�, the county may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial�ermit and Lip to $50 for a renewal of the hermit. 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. The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an a lication for the tg=orary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99 exc t as provided in this section. The county has 15 dZ-s 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-dgy 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. 1462.35931 TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanin s 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 orhp ysically_ impaired person for whom the individual is caring_. (c) "Instrumental activities of dailv living" has the meaning riven in sertinn 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-lay.r relationships. Memporgry family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver'sr�ion of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdiN ision 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 aapermanent 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 colnosp ition, appearance and 4 of 6 6x2$."2016 9:38 AM Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws.'?year-2016&type=0&doetype=Cha. durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction,- (7) onstruction;(7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; $ be able to be installed removed and transported by a one -ton piqkup truck as defined in section 168.002 subdii ision 21b a truck as defined in section 168.002 subditi=ision 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 vah e. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; auplication. (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 tmpgLaa 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 VXIy for a tg.WqLqU dwelling permit from the municipality_ The_permit application must be signed by the priinary 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 naive, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primga carqiver 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, vrimary care, or remote patient monitorinz services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instnunental activities of daily living signed b by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; 4 an executed contract for se tic service mana ement or other proof of adequate septic service management-, (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property o,vmers and residents of the a lication for the tem or - dwelling en -nit - 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 t=orary family health care dwelling must be located on Prop=Y where the caregiver or relative resides. A tempora , 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 poly to the primary structure. The tmporgy 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, local ordinances, and charter 5 of 6 6.'28/2016 9:38 AM Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws https:,''wwv,.revisormn.gov.'law-s/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Cha... provisions. Subd. 4. Initial permit term, renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The gpl2licant ma.X renew the pennit 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 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 temporar family amily health care dwelling. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance the municipalityma charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. S. No pubUc hearing required, awpHeation of section 15.99. (aDue to the time -sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling,the municipalfty does not have to hold a public hearing on the a lication. The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an 9PI21ication 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 dg= 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 dgny it. If the municipalfty receives a written reguest that does not contain all required information the Lapplicable 15-d4or 30 -day limit starts over only if the municipals , 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 a lies 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 n 2016 by the Revisor of Statutesr State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. 6 of 6 6/28/2016 9:38 AM