HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2016•••
••••
•••••
••••
•••
City of Apple
VaIiey
Meeting Location: Municipal Center
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124
JULY 20, 2016
PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA
7:00 P.M.
This agenda is subject to change by deletion or addition to items until approved by the Planning
Commission on the date of the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2016
4. CONSENT ITEMS
A. Pennock Center Revised Site Plan —Consider revised site plan for 5,400 sq. ft. building for
coffee and non-food retail. (PC16-21-VB)
LOCATION: 7668 150th Street West
PETITIONER: Java Capital Partner 7668 150th Street LLC.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
--NONE--
6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS
A. Temporary Health Care Dwellings Ordinance —Consider adopting an ordinance to opt -out
of the state law requiring that cities allow temporary health care dwellings as a use in residential
zoning districts. (PC16-20-O)
LOCATION: Citywide
PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates.
8. ADJOURNMENT
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Regular Scheduled Meeting
- Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 6, 2016
- Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, July 25, 2016
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Regular Scheduled Meeting
- Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 20, 2016
- Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 8, 2016
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Regular Scheduled Meeting
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Informal
Regular Scheduled Meeting
7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
5:30 P.M.
7:00 P.M.
Regular meetings are broadcast live on Charter Communications Cable, Channel 180. Agendas are
also available on the City's Internet Web Site http://www.cityofapplevalley.org.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 6, 2016
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at
7:01 p.m.
Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Angela Polozun and
Paul Scanlan.
Members Absent: David Schindler
Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist,
City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Engineer Brandon
Anderson and Department Assistant Joan Murphy.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Hearing none he called for a
motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving
the agenda. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 15, 2016
Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none he called for a
motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, approving the
minutes of the meeting of June 15, 2016. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
4. CONSENT ITEMS
--NONE--
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings -Public Hearing to consider amendments to
City Code Chapter 155 by adding Section 155.500 which relates to temporary family health care
dwellings in residential districts and the provision of Minn. Stat. § 462.3593. (PC16-20-O)
LOCATION: Citywide
PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley
Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 2 of 13
Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law legislation
that requires cities to allow homeowners to obtain a permit to place a mobile residential dwelling
structure on their property to serve as a "temporary health care dwelling." A temporary health care
dwelling is a small (300 sq. ft.) portable dwelling unit that can be placed in the yard or driveway of
a single family residential lot to allow short-term care for an ailing relative. The units receive water
through a hose and electricity through an extension cord from the principal dwelling; the health care
home's septic system would need to receive septic pumping service. The permits issued by cities
would be valid for a period of six months. The applicant is able to renew the permit for another six
month period.
The new law has a provision that allows cities to opt -out of the temporary home health care
permitting requirement. If an opt -out ordinance is not enacted prior to the law's effective date of
September 1, 2016, a city would be required to allow the structures through a permitting process
until such time as the opt -out ordinance is in effect.
City staff reviewed the temporary health care homes and identified several concerns from the
building code and zoning ordinance. The structure is an approximately 8' wide by 30' long
recreational vehicle or modular home with a pitched roof and siding to give it a residential
appearance. Staff is concerned that these temporary structures may negatively impact surrounding
properties.
The City Council discussed the ordinance at their June 9, 2016, Informal Meeting. They felt that
allowing families to care for convalescing relatives is beneficial to the community. However, they
felt that it would be better to encourage home owners to make improvements to their primary
structures, rather than have temporary dwellings stored on driveways or in back yards. The City
Council supported the idea of helping families and directed staff to review the City's existing
accessory unit dwelling (AUD) ordinance. Today, AUDs are only permitted in the R-1 (Single
family, minimum lot 40,000 sq. ft.) zones by conditional use permit. The City Council stated they
would like to discuss expanding the ability to construct AUDs in more zoning districts in the City.
Issues related to AUDs include ensuring that the home remains owner -occupied, the size of the
AUD is accessory to the primary dwelling, that the AUD does not negatively impact the
neighborhood and that single family homes are not converted to duplexes in single-family
neighborhoods.
Commissioner Alwin asked if an AUD was more a permanent structure versus these temporary
units for 6 months with an extension to give you 12 months. If you have somebody who is sick, it
is really a short term option.
Ms. Bodmer answered yes.
Commissioner Alwin commented if we are pushing people to the AUD is that effectively an option
and if there was something discussed at the City Council informal meeting may be prohibitively
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 3 of 13
expensive and may be forcing people into a permanent structure on their property versus these
temporary.
Ms. Bodmer answered that point did not come up, but what did come up was that many times when
you are caring for an ill relative 6 month or a year is not really enough time.
Chair Melander commented he tends to agree with what City Council discussed and could see the
AUD approach rather than placing somebody in the back yard.
Ms. Bodmer commented that she expects to bring back the AUD ordinance in the fall.
Anita Burke, 13966 Eveleth Ct, encouraged the Planning Commission to not opt -out of letting
property owners have temporary family healthcare dwellings on their property. She said she
experienced this in her family when her parents needed care and facility expenses are high and they
were draining the funds. There was no room in her house to add on to the house nor were there
funds to put on an addition. When health issues come up, families do not have time to build on
additions. They have to make decisions immediately. Patients are discharged from hospitals sooner
and sooner. These are some things to consider since baby boomers are living longer. Medicare
does not cover long-term stays at long-term facilities. It is a financial drain on families. She would
like to see more options. She believes people should be awarded for helping out their family
members and should be applauded for being willing to do so instead of being deterred from doing
so. She urges the City to utilize this new law to allow family members to help care for one another
in a cost effective way. There is no need for the City to rush into opting out of this law. She would
like the City give it a try. Then if the City is burdened with difficulties over this law then
investigate opting out of it. She hardly doubts that the City is going to be inundated with lots of
people asking to house an ailing family member in their back yard. Those few that want to and are
able to do so, why not let them.
John Louiselle, founding member of Next Door Housing, provided additional information and said
there is no reason to opt -out. A city can opt -out any time.
Ms. Bodmer recommended the Commissioners follow the typical procedure to not take action on an
item the same night as a public hearing if there are questions.
Commissioner Scanlan inquired if the City opts out is there a way that the City can make
adjustments to codes later to offer something like this on a limited bases but not under the specific
structures of the law that was presented.
Attorney Sharon Hills answered yes. She said the law mandates the City to allow them under the
specifics of the law. But if we opt -out it does not mean that we are prohibiting them. She added
that the Building Official had concerns with the water supply by a hose and electrical is by electric
extension cords, which are contrary to the current building codes.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 4 of 13
Commissioner Burke asked, in addition to septic removal, what kind of access there might be to
these units and considering the terrain of Apple Valley where there are not that many flat surfaces,
would residents be asking for setback variances to put these structures up.
Ms. Bodmer answered that the law has a provision that as part of the permitting that people need to
provide evidence that they signed up for pumping service for the septic. As far as setbacks, it will
not be a solution for every family and in cases where there is difficult topography and variances are
requested, the City would have to evaluate that.
Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
B. Planned Development No. 703/Zone 6 Ordinance Amendment - Public hearing to
consider amending the maximum number of assisted living units allowed within a continuum of
care facility in Planned Development No. 703/zone 6 from its current 15% to 30% of the total
number of units. (PC16-24-Z)
LOCATION: Planned Development No. 703/zone 6
PETITIONER: PHS Apple Valley Senior Housing, Inc. and South Shore Development, Inc.
Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
City Planner Tom Lovelace stated the applicant has submitted a request for a proposed continuum
of care facility on a 12.3 -acre site located in the Cobblestone Lake development. The project
proposes the construction of a 195 -unit building that will have 115 assisted living, 58 assisted
living, 20 memory care units and two (2) guest suites. The proposed project will contain twice the
percentage of assisted living units currently allowed by the planned development ordinance.
Therefore, an amendment to the current planned development ordinance requirements in zone 6 is
needed to bring the project into conformance.
On November 25, 2008, the City Council approved the Cobblestone Lake Senior Complex, a 214 -
unit continuum of care facility that would have 152 independent living units, and 32 assisted living
units and 30 memory care units. The City Council also directed staff to prepare amendments to the
Planned Development No. 703 to include the following:
• Define a continuum of care facility.
• Add a senior continuum of care facility as a permitted use.
• Amend minimum parking requirements for a senior continuum of care facility.
• Increase unit per acre density requirement.
• Increase minimum building height.
• Amend minimum landscaping requirements.
Staff prepared the amendments as directed and presented them to the City Council who approved
them on March 26, 2009.
The amendments included a breakdown, by percentage, of the number of assisted and memory care
units that could be included in a continuum of care facility, which reflected the 2008 proposal. In
review of that proposal, staff did not find any compelling reason for establishing the percentages.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 5of13
It appears that they reflected the project mix and the assurance that a continuum of care facility
would not be dominated by assisted and memory care units.
The 58 assisted living and 20 memory care units will represent 40% of the total number of units,
which is 11% more than what was approved in 2008. Staff has not found any statistical information
on what is a preferred unit type balance within a continuum of care facility. One could conclude
that the unit mix is likely based on market conditions and the ability of the owner/operator to
provide the necessary services.
A higher percentage of assisted living units would not likely have an adverse impact on public
services. It would also allow opportunities for more people to age in place and transition from an
independent living unit to an assisted living unit.
Commissioner Diekmann asked if the neighboring cities do not have percentage why does Apple
Valley.
Mr. Lovelace answered that in 2008 the project had a commercial component to it and the possibly
the City did not want to get overburdened with too many units in the intensive care or assisted
living. He said he was not able to find anything in prior discussions with the Planning Commission
or City Council as to why it was established. In 2008 it just memorialized what was being
constructed out there.
Commissioner Diekmann commented that assisted care might have one staff person while
independent care can have services provided. Memory care and full nursing home has more staff.
Chair Melander commented to let the mix seek its own equilibrium.
Kim Behrens, Kaas Wilson Architects, clarified that assisted or independent living is mixed in a
facility. They do not ask people to leave a unit to receive needed services. Residents just "age in
place". She recommended no cap on assisted living numbers.
Mr. Lovelace said that Apple Villa has 208 units and they do not distinguish between independent
living and assisted living. You can sign up for the level of assistance you want in that facility. He
said it depends on how you set up your venue for the type of service you would like to have.
Commissioner Scanlan asked if PHS at their facility was setting up for space flexibly or will those
numbers move back and forth based on demand or are you looking for the set number of
independent living apartments and set number of assisting living apartments and that would not flex
back and forth based on demand.
John Mehrkens, Presbyterian Homes and Services, stated he had never encountered an ordinance
that had a specific percentage or a limitation in any way based upon the care level. He added it
could be hard to manage. He said they cannot tell people they cannot have services in their
independent home setting and that same occurrence could happen in their independent setting. The
care and individual receives is really up to the individual.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 6 of 13
Loni Davis, 15778 Cobblestone Lake Pkwy, commented she does not see a reason for percentages.
Commissioner Scanlan inquired if this was specifically for the Cobblestone project.
Mr. Lovelace answered yes and that it is applicable to PD -703.
Commissioner Scanlan asked if outside of the Cobblestone area, how are other facilities affected
and if there were percentages.
Mr. Lovelace answered that he was not aware of other facilities having percentages.
Commissioner Diekmann asked if the current senior housing development in Cobblestone Lake
could increase the care as they go so that one across the street does not have percentages either.
Mr. Lovelace replied that the current senior building in Cobblestone Lake is owned by Dakota
County CDA and is independent living only. They are not classified as providing continuum care.
They do not have a memory service wing. There might be an independent group that comes in and
provides services. They are a senior apartment building that is independent living.
Chair Melander stated that there are a number of home healthcare around that do provide services.
Commissioner Diekmann proposed to remove the percentages if the Commission was comfortable
with that.
Attorney Hills commented that when this was drafted as an ordinance the idea was to keep it a
mixed use of residents and full nursing home. When removing the limit they could put in an entire
nursing home even when you would rather have a mixed use of resident apartments versus
commercial.
Commissioner Alwin asked Attorney Hills if the Commission should be concerned about imposing
a limit on just the nursing home component versus the limit on the assisted living.
Attorney Hills answered that the reason it is being requested from 15% to 30% on the assisted is
because the proposal in the next item before the Planning Commission is at 30%.
Mr. Lovelace clarified that is what is being proposed but the Planning Commission can make a
recommendation to modify.
Attorney Hills said absolutely. The Planning Commission can make any recommendation they
deem appropriate. They may delete a restriction.
Rachel Haas, 15700 Cobblestone Lake Pkwy, asked if percentages goes unrestricted does that mean
that commercial use exceeds the original split than it was supposed to when the project was first laid
out in terms of development.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 7of13
Attorney Hills answered that it is still mixed-use because you have your independent living which
are the apartments for rent versus the commercial component of nursing home care and memory
care.
Ms. Haas asked if you are saying that it could be either/or and they are not really limited, they could
make it all nursing care, would it exceed the original planned development.
Attorney Hills clarified that the Commission was saying to leave the 15% comprehensive, intensive
or full care living.
John Mehrkens, Presbyterian Homes and Services, added for clarification that as it relates to skilled
care, which is a licensed nursing home, it is very unlikely that a building with a housing setting be
converted to full skilled nursing home. It would be very costly. The state building codes are
different. It has different requirements. As it relates to assisted living, assisted living are
apartments and are residential dwellings. They do not typically see them treated or considered a
commercial use even though the staff within the assisted living may be providing services to
residents. Residents can receive services from their staff or from another agency. It is totally up to
the resident to choose whom they want to receive service from.
Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan,
recommending amending Planned Development No. 703/zone 6 by removing the
maximum number of assisted living units allowed with a continuum of care facility.
Ayes -6 -Nays -0.
6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS
A. PHS Cobblestone Lake Senior Housing Development — Consider Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, rezoning, replat of existing outlots and site plan/building permit authorization to
allow for the construction 195 -unit continuum of care facility. (PC16-14-PZSB)
LOCATION: Intersection of 157th Street West and Cobblestone Lake Parkway
PETITIONER: Tradition Development and Presbyterian Homes and Services
City Planner Tom Lovelace stated the applicant originally proposed a 175 -unit continuum of care
complex on 12.28 acres that consisted of 99 independent living, 56 assisted living and 20 memory
care units. The applicant has revised their plans and is now proposing a 195 -unit building with 115
independent living, 58 assisted living, 20 memory care units and two (2) guest suites.
The site is located along the east side of Cobblestone Lake Parkway, south of Embry Path and north
of Elmhurst Lane. The site is currently made up of three outlots that have a variety of
Comprehensive Plan land use and zoning designations.
A public park easement currently exists over and across Outlot G. A determination that the
proposed relocation of park from its current location is consistent with the City's Comprehensive
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 8 of 13
Plan will be necessary and vacation of the easement over this property will need to occur.
The site plan identifies future expansion that will include an additional 64 independent living units
and an 80 -bed skilled nursing facility, which will need future City review and consideration.
The proposed project will contain more assisted living units than currently allowed by the planned
development ordinance. An amendment to the current planned development ordinance
requirements in zone 6 will be needed to bring the project into conformance.
The site has been mass graded and public utilities have been extended to serve the site. Grading of
site will be needed to prepare it for development. Infiltration basins will be located to the east of the
property. The site shall meet all applicable infiltration requirements.
Discussion followed.
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of adoption of a finding that exchanging that portion of Outlot G,
Cobblestone Lake Commercial 3rd Addition currently held by the City for park
purposes in return for a portion of Outlot E, Cobblestone Lake Commercial 3rd
Addition, as shown on Exhibit 1, to be received and held by the City for park
purposes, complies with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 1
(Scanlan).
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT
COBBLESTONE LAKE from Planned Development No. 703/zone 7 and 8 to
Planned Development No.703/zone 6. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 1 (Scanlan).
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of the rezoning of Outlot A, PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT
COBBLESTONE LAKE from Planned Development No. 703/zone 8 to Planned
Development No. 703/zone 7. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 1 (Scanlan).
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of the PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT COBBLESTONE LAKE
preliminary plat. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 1 (Scanlan).
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of the site plan review/building permit authorization to allow for
construction of a 195 -unit continuum of care facility of Lot 1, Block 1,
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AT COBBLESTONE LAKE, subject to the following
conditions:
a. The site plan/floor plan layout for the designated assisted living units shall be
revised to reduce the number of units for compliance with the maximum allowed
number of units under the Planned Development zoning regulations, unless the
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 9 of 13
zoning regulations are amended to permit the number of units as proposed by the
applicant.
b. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated June 8, 2016.
c. Construction shall occur in conformance with the landscape plan dated June 8,
2016, subject to submission of a detailed landscape planting price list for
verification of the City's 2 1/2% landscaping requirement at the time of building
permit application.
d. A landscaped berm with a minimum elevation of 936 shall be constructed
between the south private drive and the east property line.
e. Construction shall occur in conformance with the elevation plan dated June 8,
2016, subject an exterior finish consisting of at least 50% non-combustible, non-
degradable and maintenance -free construction materials such as face brick or
natural stone with the remainder consisting of a combination of cedar, redwood,
and high quality cementitious fiberboard, sometimes referred to as "Nardi
Plank/Panel" .
f. The canopy at the main entrance shall have a minimum clear height of 13.5 feet.
g. Site grading shall occur in conformance with a final grading plan to be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
h. Infiltration areas shall be constructed in conformance with the City standards.
i. Any site lighting shall consist of downcast, shoebox lighting fixtures or wall
packs with deflector shields, which confines the light to the property.
Ayes - 5 - Nays — 1 (Scanlan).
Commissioner Scanlan commented regarding his votes tonight. He conveyed his specific concerns
that he presented tonight. He said: "I do not feel this falls in line with the Cobblestone Lake
community as staff outlined in the report that there are a number of things that would easily align
within a spreadsheet in terms that this proposal did meet. However, what the spreadsheet items do
not take into account is the significant long-term impact that the project of this size will have on an
already established Cobblestone Lake community quality of life. The project does not take into
account the established elements that define the character, heritage and identity of the Cobblestone
Lake community. Over the six years that I have been in this position, I guess one thing I have
learned is that compromise is an important component as we move forward on these projects and
when we saw the initial sketch plan back in April, I did not like the idea of the park move but I also
understood that this would be a good project moving forward that it helps balance the community. I
saw that there was something to work with. But what I struggled with moving forward with the
project, was that instead of the project maintaining what we looked at originally in the sketch plan is
that it continued to expand in size and mass. And even at the objection of the Planning Commission
that concern has not seemed to have been taken note of. So with that said in closing, I think that the
Mayor does ask the question of the members of the City Council, as I think they normally do, is this
the best possible design for this project, is that I do not feel, as though in my opinion that it does
meet the requirements of that Cobblestone Lake was founded on. That's where my objections to the
proposal are, not to the idea of adding a continuum care facility but I think it is the idea of the
massing of the structure that is not fitting or does not take into account existing homes that are in
the community.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 10 of 13
People in the audience said they have not been heard.
Chair Melander addressed the people in the audience. He said "You have been heard twice. There
was a public hearing and it was continued. We have had opportunities for public input. We have
received all those comments. This is what we are charged to do. We are also charged to follow the
law and the law says this, if we saw the requirements, we do not have the option to say we do not
like it. If it meets the requirements, we have to say yes, if we are going to be bound by the law and
we swore an oath to do that. You may not be happy with it but that is the way the rules are written
and we have to follow the rules. We have been analyzing and looking at the project and taking
comments and creating computer views. We are done with it now. We Voted. Take it up with the
City Council. This is how the process plays out."
B. Delegard Apple Villa Apartments — Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
"MD" (Medium Density Residential, 6 to 12 units/acre) to "HD" (High Density Residential, 12+
units/acre), rezoning from "M -7C" (Multiple family residential, 12 to 20 units/acre) to "PD"
(Planned Development) and site plan review/building permit authorization to construct a 28 -unit
apartment building. (PC16-18-PZB)
LOCATION: 7800 Whitney Drive
PETITIONER: Delegard Apple Villa Properties LLC
Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that before the Commission this evening is consideration of the
following land use actions to authorize construction of a new 28 -unit apartment building at 7800
Whitney Drive:
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "MD" (Medium Density Residential at 6 to 12
units/acre) to "HD" (High Density residential at 12+ units/acre).
2. Rezoning from "M -7C" (Multiple family residential, 12 to 20 units/acre) to "PD" (Planned
Development).
3. Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization for construction of a new 28 -unit apartment
building.
Delegard Apple Villa Properties LLC requests consideration of three land use actions that would
allow them to construct a new 28 -unit apartment building on the property located at 7800 Whitney
Drive. The property currently has three apartment buildings with a total of 48 units. Two detached
garage buildings currently provide 24 garage stalls. The petitioner would like to demolish the
existing garages and construct the new apartment building on the northwest side of the site. One of
the 12 -unit garages would be reconstructed as a single loaded garage on the southwest edge of the
site.
She reviewed what the development is currently guided in the Comprehensive Plan and currently
zoned. The petitioners request a rezoning of the property from M -7C (Multiple family, 12 to
20 units/acre) to "PD" (Planned Development) to provide flexibility in three areas of the M -7C
zoning district requirements: to increase the number of primary buildings per lot from one to four,
to reduce the parking lot setback from Whitney Drive from 20' to 15' and to reduce the required
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 11 of 13
number of garage parking stalls from 1.0 garage stalls/unit to 0.5 garage stalls/unit. All other
provisions of the M -7C zoning district are met.
In order to rezone a property with an area of less than five acres to PD, the petitioner must provide a
written statement indicating how the proposed rezoning to PD will benefit the public interest. The
petitioner states that this project will benefit the public in two key ways: first, the project will
improve the curb appeal of the 40 -year old site by replacing the garages with a new three story
apartment building and by updating the appearance of the existing buildings by painting the trim,
fascia and decks, and repairing and maintaining the brick exteriors.
New landscaping, site lighting and sidewalks will be installed which will further improve the
existing site. The second public benefit cited is that the owners will install and maintain a
significant stormwater infiltration system on the site where none exists today. Going above the
minimum requirement of providing infiltration for only the new impervious surface area will help to
reduce the volume of stormwater and increase water quality discharging to Keller Lake. Below
grade infiltration is a large cost to the owners and hidden from view, but an important benefit to the
City of Apple Valley and the Keller Lake community.
The lighting plans were revised to address any lighting concerns, but now the plan creates a couple
of dark spots along the south sidewalk. One more slight adjustment is needed to the plan to provide
safe use of the sidewalk at the south property line.
Discussion. followed.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "MD" (Medium Density
Residential at 6 to 12 units/acre) to "HD" (High Density residential at 12+
units/acre). Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of a Rezoning from "M -7C" (Multiple family residential, 12 to 20
units/acre) to "PD" (Planned Development), conditioned upon the following:
a. Approval of the rezoning is subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, a rezoning to Planned Development and execution of a Planned
Development Agreement.
b. Park dedication shall be a cash -in -lieu of land dedication based upon the number
of new apartment units added to the site.
c. The applicant shall renovate and update the exterior of the three existing
apartment buildings to include painting the trim, fascia, and deck railings to
match the color of the new apartment building; wash and repair the brick siding;
and replace the roofs; the update shall be completed within 180 days of the
effective date for the rezoning.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 12 of 13
d. A final plat shall be approved and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder in
accordance with the requirements of the City Subdivision Code (Chapter 153)
prior to issuance of the building permit.
e. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on final plat for all public
service lines in accordance with the City Engineer's memo of June 10, 2016.
f. An Infiltration Structure Construction and Maintenance shall be executed in
connection with the Development Agreement.
g. An access restriction easement shall be dedicated at the time of execution of the
development agreement that limits the number of driveways on Whitney Drive to
two.
Ayes -6 -Nays -0.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, recommending
approval of the Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization for construction of a
new 28 -unit apartment building, in compliance with all City Codes subject to
approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, execution of a planned
development agreement, and the following conditions:
a. A staging plan shall be submitted at the time of application of the building permit
that indicates where the material storage, contractor parking, and existing
resident circulation within the site will occur during the construction project. The
Staging Plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
b. The owner shall submit a nursery bid list at the time of application of the
building permit that confirms the value of the landscape plantings meet or exceed
21/2% of the value of construction of the building based on Means Construction
Data.
c. The landscape plan shall be revised by replacing the black hills spruce along the
west property line with coniferous plantings that provide full screening between.
the apartment site and the residential properties to the west but will not interfere
with overhead power wires. The landscape plan is subject to review and approval
by the City's Natural Resources Coordinator at time of application of the building
permit.
d. Construction activities, including site work, tree removal and construction, shall
be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays.
e. The lighting plan shall be revised to provide adequate light levels along the
sidewalk on the south side of the site without exceeding 0.5 foot candles at the
south property line. The lighting plan is subject to review and approval by the
Planner.
f. The exterior of the existing three apartment buildings shall be renovated to match
the appearance of the new apartment building, including, at a minimum, painting
the trim, fascia, and deck railings to match the color of the new apartment
building; wash and repair of the brick siding; and replacement of the roofs. The
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
July 6,2016
Page 13 of 13
update of the existing buildings shall be completed prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the new apartment building.
g. Pedestrian ways shall be painted in the parking lot to provide clearly delineated
pedestrian circulation through the site.
h. The final grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer prior to
issuance of the Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP).
i. The final stormwater management plan shall be reviewed and approved by City
Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit.
j. A final plat shall be approved and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder in
accordance with the requirements of the City Subdivision Code (Chapter 153)
prior to issuance of the building permit.
k. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on final plat for all public
service lines in accordance with the City Engineer's memo of June 10, 2016.
Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates.
Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next Planning Commission
meeting would take place on July 20, 2016, at 7:00 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander
asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the
meeting at 8:51 p.m. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0.
Respectfully Submitted,
Murphy, Planning De
artmenP7ssistant
Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission
on
Tom Melander, Chair
SOO
0000*
.600
*0*
City of Apple
Valley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
A
July 20, 2016
Consent
PROJECT NAME:
Pennock Center Parking Revised Site Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Consideration of a revised site plan for 5,400 sq. ft. building containing a coffee shop with
drive-thru lane and non-food retail or office at 7668 — 150th Street W. The revised June 20,
2016, plans shift the building back to the south to allow the front of the building to face CSAH
42.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kathy Bodmer, Planner
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Community Development Department
APPLICANT:
Java Capital Partners — 7668 150th St LLC
PROJECT NUMBER:
PC16-21-VB
APPLICATION DATE:
60 DAYS:
120 DAYS:
June 7, 2016
August 5, 2016
October 4, 2016
Proposed Action
1. Recommend approval of the revised site plan dated June 20, 2016, for a 5,400 sq. ft. building
containing a Class III restaurant with drive-thru lane and non-food retail or small office, subject
to compliance with all City Codes and the following conditions:
a. A nursery bid list shall be submitted at time of application of the building permit that
confirms the value of the landscape plantings meet or exceed 2-1/2% of the value of
construction of the building based on Means Construction Data.
b. The owner shall execute a License to Encroach Agreement with the City to construct
four parking stalls and the drive aisle within the City easement.
c. The owner shall execute a maintenance agreement for the long-term maintenance of the
retention area.
d. No sign approvals are given at this time. A separate sign permit must be obtained prior
to the installation of any signs on the site. The signs shown on the site plan do not meet
the sign requirements and must be revised at the time of application of the building
permit.
e. The petitioner shall revise the plans at time of building permit application to address the
City Engineer's memo of June 10, 2016.
f. The petitioner shall revise the plans at time of building permit application to match the
June 20, 2016, Revised Site Plan.
Project Summary/Issues
June 20, 2016 Revised Site Plan: The petitioners, Java Capital Partners — 7668 150th St LLC,
request consideration of an amended site plan/building permit authorization that repositions the
Pennock Center building south to its original distance from County Road 42. On June 15, 2016, the
Planning Commission reviewed a revised site plan that shifted the building to the north and placed
the front of the building facing south and the back of the building facing CSAH 42. The petitioners
now request that the site plan be amended from what the Planning Commission reviewed to place the
building back to the south, allowing two rows of parking on the north side of the building, and the
front of the building to face CSAH 42.
Previous Consideration: On February 11, 2016, the City Council reviewed and approved the
Pennock Center development on southeast corner of Pennock Lane and CSAH 42 (7668 - 150th
Street W.). The project involves the demolition of the Liberty Tax building and construction of a
new 5,400 sq. ft. building with a coffee shop, coffee drive-thru and non-food retail or small office.
The plan approved in February required a shared parking agreement with one of the adjacent property
owners; unfortunately, the parties were not able to reach an agreement for shared parking.
On June 15, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a revised site
plan and variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces for Pennock Center. No changes
were made to the size of the building, but the location of the building was shifted north to align with
the Firestone building to the east. Moving the building north resulted in moving the front of the
building facing south and the rear of the building facing CSAH 42 (150th Street W.). When the
petitioners reviewed the revised plans with the future tenants, the decision was made to shift the
building back to its original location. The revised plans were submitted before the project could be
advanced to the City Council. As a result, the petitioners are now requesting consideration of a
revised, revised site plan (now dated June 20, 2016) that shifts the building back to its original
distance from CSAH 42 so that the front of the building faces CSAH 42 as shown in the originally
approved plans.
The size of the building is the same as previously approved and the proposed uses are the same, but
the building has been moved south to its original distance from CSAH 42. The building is shifted
slightly west to create four new parallel parking spaces along the drive aisle on the east side of the
building. By shifting the building west and adding four parking spaces, the petitioners are able to
increase the parking on the site from 29 spaces to 32 spaces. Circulation through the site is one-way
in a counter -clockwise direction. The drive-thru lane and window continue to be located on the
southwest corner of the building. Stacking is available for eight vehicles in the drive-thru lane. The
dumpster enclosure will be incorporated into the southeast corner of the building.
Elevations: The front of the building returns to its original location, facing CSAH
changes are requested to the exterior elevations.
Parking Variance: At its June 15, 2016, meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces
spaces subject to conditions. No further action is needed on the variance.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment(s)
1. City Engineer Memo
2, Location Map
3. Oblique Aerial Photo
4. Zoning Map
5. Removals Plan
6. Site Plan
7. Grading & Erosion Control
8. Utilities
9. Landscape Plan
10. SWPP Plan
11. Building Elevations
12. Parking Study
13. Traffic Study
42. No other
reviewed and
from 43 to 32
Pennock Center
PROJECT REVIEW
Existing
Conditions
Pronertv Location: 7668 — 150th Street West
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2ndAddition
Comprehensive Plan
Designation
C -Commercial
Zoning
Classification
RB -Retail Business
Existing Platting
Platted Lot
Current Land Use
Office building
Size:
36,643 sf (0.841 acres)
Topography:
Flat
Existing Vegetation
Urban landscape.
Other Significant
Natural Features
Some existing mature trees are located on the site and may need to be removed
in connection with this project.
Adjacent
Properties/Land
Uses
NORTH
Bruegger's, Panda Express (north of CSAH 42)
Comprehensive Plan
C -Commercial
Zoning/Land Use
RB -Retail Business
SOUTH
Apple Valley Square Shopping Center
Comprehensive Plan
C -Commercial
Zoning/Land Use
RB -Retail Business
EAST
Firestone Auto Care
Comprehensive Plan
C -Commercial
Zoning/Land Use
RB -Retail Business
WEST
Grace Lutheran Church (west of Pennock Lane)
Comprehensive Plan
INS -Institutional
Zoning/Land Use
P -Institutional
d
-1461H-ST W
w
4
PD -290
-290
w
1
PD -290
GLAZIER AVE
150TH ST W
COUNTY ROAD 42
\-‘ I --1---
bL
w
•
<
CI I
W
Oj
I i
PD -244
2
1
-4 -
, 1----wi---- ---- --1-- - - -
1 •=1. i
2 ,t1 2 1
w,
Fi'D-244wcci1
151ST ST W <
, \,...,.._.,
fl PD -541
1
0
153RD ST W
z
WHITNEY OR
OBLIQUE AERIAL
91459 MN ')*Nd moils ooz auns '133a1S RISC 1S3MIC6V
311 133U1S 111091 899L
SW3N1tilld 1VildV3 VAlfr
MSS PM 'ABTIVA gleldV MIS H1091 8911L
113.1.N33 >100NN3c1
103fOild
5
0
t 1 g .Gi'v
i 11 FM iiii fi 1
cf,§ li In
Ug" 5.6P
#D1 1 1 1 1W ii q
li IX 1°i al rlh
iglhik !II& i‘i 11
, plo III u96 q
giloto 11.1
ci,i- §rE liw 6E 4
itg ) INO py 9g z
tf w§: Pig15 VW Iv §
9 44 g-6 .iFi sr, :
li uli !gg. §g 1 j
iS it; hX6 -ii gE . .
.15
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY REMOVAL NOTES:
5
6
REMOVALS LEGEND:
=
5
ox
d
\AI
; WNS:®■■■111:
11111 � W N
NE
isle
914,99 NW ')41:1Vd sinoi is 'ooz aims 13381S H1SC 1S3M1569,
011 1339LIS HIOS1 9991
S993NI8Vd 1VildV3 viwr
MSS MN '131165 IS /41.081 8995
N3.11430 )IOONN3d
iparobri
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
5
5
ni" 1 5 q
k h i 2
1 ir
401 hlcfi
.pigg,,,,§ t§4
usw. 6.,15qE n {,q LI W
EgEn Ili? ; li ii 0
hrqi wiq 1
utP§ iri, a Ix Pi W tigP
N,§tN6 bp -
DWI 'fi ,,,i' ,ci, p iiirq § bi
4' 4 le i 1 ih
gith:, oq-ii, 4 i6 gg g il if?,,`"
!gEUg
1`6110 W4I 1110 m § di
qwbNi iiii4'M NL P "
fl!:!
91i hil
n!lig00 H ! Pi O
ai
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY GRADING NOTES:
OVERALL SITE CURVE NUMBER (CN) = 87
.-- ...---- - --,. , -------- ,-:,--_,---
---------------- - -
,00e=-:_2 - , ---------
:-------- ,,,,,,;-------- -----,-----'-<--- _-=-----=
0z0
z0
0
>00
11111,00
91.889 NW '918Vd moils '0093iins '1331:11S H1SC 1S3M 9969,
311 133111S 1410S1 8991
StI3N1HVd 11/11dV3 VAYf
9919898 'AFTIVA MIS H1091 9991
1011433 )IOONN3d
103r0Lid
ISSUE/SUBMITT, SUMMARY
9
GENERAL UTILITY NOTES:
g 119.
i ')- ii 0 Vie .1 16 n
-g ,-. 1 g 1 '41 WI to p ct, ciE ; g
a g ghgig gEl. Ig gi ; p
Od a n ptv) f ft ggs ,T. t A qi p g gl ,,,,,
fq i' g ; P 0 121 gd P 1 11
CgU 1 01 WgI " q: g
A W d 4 § 1 Pli 2 , i trg3 4
'OE
!1VA i 2 ‘6 PE 4 ir ! ilit h 1
EP il 4 p' g 0
i„
pg . 1; .-445 , R H 0 lerT
I); h Ei g zi filmg Pi g .4 9 .$,
gi5 45 ig 1 i b qvap ?ii I I/ h rp
1
HE
t;i !1 , i.i- ibW lik4Eq., eil0 1. ti ib .._i
V r oc.l. avq
.l,
19 1 19 99
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY UTILITY NOTES:
ILL
moutt,t,
54:
10*
UTILITY LEGEND:
5
ufl
55
55 5
IRRIGATION NOTES:
LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:
91499 N 4Vd sinoi is 'DURUM '133519 KBE 1S3M 1,E65
311 13R/1914109i 8991
Sel3N.LINdIdV3 YAW
SUSS NMI 'ABTIVA ridelV 'MIS BIAL
/131.N33 >130NN2d
10.021d
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
5
9
g `!'
t §
E N
§
5 ;
g
48
8 ;5
5 ,h
ii!
A 8/
88VV
80.q.
Wet/
818
184
88
9
!! 1;
11 11
;
" 88
113
01.
tfee6 40:.
Oi
Ito; ,8 88
R 41g
IdT
t 12
f1,;h1r. g
gmg
;p1
1;1 MR e5gAY, -01(.1
18
LANDSCAPE PLAN
411(:)
LANDSCAPE ISLAND CALCULATIONS:
48
"frj60)
•
PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITE
5
9
8
18
18
8
18
8
3
5
1
1
1
8
18
4
5
18
5
9
18
3
8
55
4
5
18
1
8
8
8
5
18
8
8
8
4
18
8
8
18
1
1
55
9
18
18
0
z
z
CL.
L±J
LU
85(f)
0
85
LLJ
LL_
z
0
ck3
(/)
g °
2
80
4162 r
z
18
8
8
18
8
55
8
418
8
8
1
8
4
18
8
9
8
18
8
1
8
8
18
18
91499 NW `H21dd moils 'OOZ 31U1S '133231S HIS£ 1S3M 1.£617
311 1332I1S H1096 8991
S213N1HVd 1V1IdV3 VAVr
95185 855 'AH11VA B1ddV 'M IS 91051 888L
2:131N3O )IOONN3d
10.08d
ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY
1
5
'w O
V w Z
Z J
W J O
r))-
L W ZW
° -WOQ¢w ,,,i,da ZOQQO Q
LiQp
:L6
ZdQOOw3
aQ0 p �Z J
Zp
c'? -1:14
xQWQ zd J
t-p� !''-''
pxQt�i W�� � �i WO W
K U
� � � 3 z ag il
�bi
acnv5z�Q�z w0 oz W
S~ a'J H
O �a Up =�Q WU w� F-
!WQ mW v!0 U.=ate ni0 riU
0
z
0
W
J
14
1
• o Q O 6
Lf
8
0
Iau..4..4).X1Sunq 1.117L-LEZ-OZ£
10£9S is
1S WruuaD iS
isall nuarsall asn MIK t!)1I PP...)
spell 40.1V
'4;53z
NW 'AEITIVA UlddV
ISMA S IPOSI 899L
HIND XDONINad
-ON 10.0Hd
,au,alirgagki2tmq 7etug utz-az-ou
109S N1J 'PID is
1S ultrunraD 1S 'M
Pumtisall lquaPPS asn Paxlic MPH i
- -
stoetigoAV
'ATITVA aiddv
isaM 1S tuosi 599L
uliNaD NDONNIJ
"ON 133102.
,.11.....PIP@AT2unq tIrL-L£Z-OZE
10£9S NF 'PnoID 1S
1S u!PuuaD 1S *A4 tZ6Z
s4.1.1./1 I asp MIK 1 PPE IEPlaum03
St001111001V
Pkestha
P.44";',21fAti
11,1 Art.3 A.. I
NVJ '10TIVA aiaav
)sam is most 899L
NDONNIJ
:ON 10310.
r-4
*00
OM.
060
City of AppleValley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
6A
July 20, 2016
Land Use
PROJECT NAME:
Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Opt -Out Ordinance
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Consideration of ordinance amendment that would allow the City to opt -out of the provisions
of Minn. Stat. § 462.3593.
STAFF CONTACT:
Kathy Bodmer, Planner
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION:
Community Development Department
APPLICANT:
City of Apple Valley
PROJECT NUMBER:
PC16-22-0
Proposed Action
• Recommend approval of the draft ordinance "opting -out" of application of the
requirements of Laws 2016, Chapter 111, section 3, codified at Minn. Stat. § 426.3593
Project Summary/Issues
A Minnesota State law was recently enacted that requires cities to allow homeowners to obtain a
permit to place a mobile residential dwelling structure on their property to serve as a "temporary
health care dwelling." A temporary health care dwelling is a small (less than 300 sq. ft.) portable
dwelling unit that can be placed in the yard or driveway of a single family residential lot to provide
short-term care for an ailing relative. The new law has a provision that allows cities to opt -out of
the temporary home health care permitting requirement. If an opt -out ordinance is not enacted
prior to the law's effective date of September 1, 2016, a city would be required to allow the
structures through a permitting process until such time as the opt -out ordinance is in effect.
Analyzing land use issues in light of family medical challenges is difficult to do without sounding
uncaring. Staff is sensitive to the desire to provide temporary care housing for family members,
but believes there are other options available that don't require placing a temporary structure on the
driveway or rear yard for an extended period of time. The following is a list of issues staff has
identified concerning Temporary Health Care Dwellings:
• Temporary health care dwellings are large structures that could be imposing on neighborhoods
when placed either on a driveway or in the rear yard.
• This is an untested type of dwelling unit in Minnesota. Very few units are actually in use in
Minnesota at this time.
• The permitting process may require the City to collect data that is private under the healthcare
privacy laws.
• This State law would supersede City zoning authority.
• Temporary services would be connected to primary home with temporary, above -ground
electrical cord and hose.
• The temporary dwelling's septic system would require regular pumping. Access to the rear of
the yard behind the primary home to pump could be an issue.
• There are other options available to families.
• Many provisions of the zoning code are in conflict with these types of units: minimum home
width, connection to City services, placed on a permanent foundation, and the fact that the units
would be classified as a type of recreational vehicle.
• City Council's preference is to opt out of the State Law provisions, but to explore ways to
assist families to care for ailing family members including expanding the provisions of the
Accessory Unit Dwelling (AUD) ordinance.
When the public hearing was conducted on July 6, 2016, the Planning Commission received
comments requesting that the City wait, allow a permit to be issued, and then opt -out later if the
City determines the use is not acceptable. The City Attorney confirms that the new law will go
into effect on September 1, 2016. The City would be able to opt -out after the September 1
deadline; however, if a request for a temporary health care dwelling is received after September 1,
2016 a permit would have to be issued.
Testimony was also presented that a resident felt that this type of unit would have been beneficial
for her circumstances in order to care for convalescing relatives. The Planning Commission noted
that an accessory unit dwelling (AUD) is a permanent improvement while this type of structure is
temporary. The resident noted that it would have taken time and money to construct an addition
onto their home to accommodate the ailing family member. A drop home would have been an
affordable and quickly deployed solution for her family.
As the baby boom generation ages, the need to be able to respond quickly to an emergency
healthcare event will probably grow for Apple Valley families. The City is concerned that the use
of these temporary structures is a new, untested type of structure that requires further research
before permitting them in the City. Next Door Housing indicates it is conducting a pilot study at
this time with three homes currently placed in Minnesota and five more in production. Staff is
concerned that additional time is needed to study these dwellings and observe how they perform in
the Minnesota climate. In the meantime, families can react quickly and provide care by using
spare bedrooms, short-term care facilities, assisted living facilities, apartments, hotels and group
homes. Another option would be to assist the family member by providing outside support care
services so that the family member can remain in their current home.
Budget Impact
N/A
Public Hearing Comments
1. Families need to be able to provide short-term care to ailing family members quickly and
affordably. The temporary home health care dwelling meets that need. Staff response:
Caring for aging and ailing elderly family members is a challenge for many families in Apple
Valley. The need to be able to respond quickly to an emergency healthcare event will continue
to be an issue that families will face. The City is concerned that the use of these temporary
structures is a new, untested type of structure. Next Door Housing indicates it is conducting a
pilot study at this time. Staff is concerned that additional time is needed to study these
dwellings and observe how they perform in the Minnesota climate. In the meantime, families
can react quickly and provide care by using spare bedrooms, short-term care facilities, assisted
living facilities, apartments, hotels and group homes. Another option would be to assist the
family member by providing outside support care services so that the family member can
remain in their current home.
2. It's difficult for families to construct additions onto the back of their homes. It takes
time and money. Staff response: Providing care does not necessarily require an addition to
the home. Modifications and adaptations can be made to the interior of the home without
expanding the footprint. When the accessory unit dwelling ordinance is reviewed this fall,
staff expects that the City will look for best practices for modifying existing homes to care for
family members. Funding sources to help with the cost of rehabbing the home will also be
explored.
3. An accessory unit dwelling (AUD) is a permanent improvement while a Temporary
Health Care Dwelling is temporary. It's not a one-to-one comparison. Staff response:
That is true. However, there are other short-term solutions available that would not require a
permanent improvement. See responses to #1 above.
4. City process would have been lengthy, cost $600, and even then the staff said they would
probably not recommend approval. Staff response: When the City was contacted earlier
this year, staff was asked to determine whether these units could be placed in the City. When
the provisions of the zoning code and building code were reviewed, staff was not comfortable
that these types of dwellings complied with the City requirements. A representative of Next
Door Housing asked the staff whether an interim use permit (IUP) could be requested. An
interim use permit is a permit for a special use that is not otherwise permitted in the zoning
district and has a sunset date when the use must be discontinued. An IUP application fee is
$600 and requires a public hearing and notification of neighbors within 350' of the subject
property. It likely would have taken 60 days at a minimum to process the IUP.
5. The City doesn't need to rush into opting out. Why not give it a try and opt -out later?
Staff response: The City Attorney confirms that opting out later is an option. However, this
housing product is not yet a tested option. Staff believe that opting out gives the City the
option to study these dwellings further and if found to be a viable option, enact an ordinance
later. In the meantime, the City retains its local land use control.
6. These dwellings meet the IBC for Modular Homes Label and Fire Code 1192 for safety
and viability of all temporary dwellings. Staff response: The IBC in this case is the
Industrialized Building Commission not the International Building Code. The City's Building
Inspections Department concurred that a stamp is needed in order to transport and place a
manufactured home. However, the City follows the International Building Code; the other
IBC would be only advisory. The Fire Chief notes that the fire provision cited was from the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) which is advisory for Apple Valley as well and
not regulatory. The NFPA provision is related to recreational vehicles.
Attachment(s)
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Photos
3. Excerpt IBC (Industrialized Buildings Commission) - New
4. Excerpt NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) - New
5. League of MN Information - New
6. Newspaper Articles - New
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 155 OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING" BY
ADDING SECTION 155.500 UNDER WHICH THE CITY "OPTS -OUT" OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593
(LAWS 2016, CHAPTER 111, SECTION 3) GOVERNING TEMPORARY
FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS
The City Council of Apple Valley ordains:
Section 1. Chapter 155 of the Apple Valley City Code is hereby amended by adding
Section 155.500 to read as follows:
§ 155.500. OPT -OUT OF TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLING
ZONING LAWS.
(A) Purpose. On May 12, 2016, Governor Mark Dayton signed into law the creation and zoning
regulations of temporary family health care dwellings, as defined in and codified as Minn. Stat. §
462.3593 (Laws 2016, Chapter 111, Section 3). This new law provides that a municipality may,
by ordinance, "opt out" of the application of the requirements of this new law. Pursuant to
authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, it is in the best interest
of the City and its residents that the City of Apple Valley not be subject to the mandates of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 requiring temporary dwellings be allowed in residential
districts.
(B) Exercise of Opt -out. The City opts out of the application of the requirements of Laws 2016,
Chapter 111, section 3, codified at Minn. Stat. §462.3593, and accordingly the provisions therein
shall not apply within the City.
Section 2. Effective date. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the City Council on , 2016.
Mary Hamann -Roland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk
44.4A4S4'
_ ___----------'''
- ,-;
----4 _ _-f------------------- -;-_--------5----- -- — ---,--,--"-- ----".
-----:'' ,..1-.4' ------'-%,-------"-.-1
--,--=----,-- ---:---;-,------„11...,
-4-4--------„-----4------.,..4-. 4
'7_,:.'--%---------_____----__,--4-----=_:>----- --44--------4,--,--44--4-4
------..„--",>,--_-__-_-_-
44t 44_ - ----.--..-,--4
--;.1"-- - --.4,-- -44-_-_-,----4-44-4---
_-_--=-_,;---------..,,-- ---.
-----=',-,___.-------------4------ 4,,-,----_-4---",-_.=--: 4
_4 ____-----4----,-44-44-44-- 4,---_-_-4------,---,
------,---4-4-4-,:=.--t--_-_--_--_------------_--_------4---_--- _
.-5-_-----,--- -- .----4--.4-4-____----_-_---------->„------ -
--.------_ -- ---,------>- _.- -, -- . ,.-_-_,„ -- -_,,,_,-_,
5,-_---------_:--------- . __.- --. -_---------_-,----;-,
4,--4-...7-2- ,..------- •------44-
_----
_44,4%4,44---4,4--4,%44--I.4404r44-.444.4AAA4,44.444gf4rrr44444"-'
011110,*
4ftij*;11141f4,11.4*4,
Next Door Housing 8' x 30' "Drop Home"
Kattmst „w-4-444-4
,444044444 44:44404,4 4[41
4 44,444444 4.-44,40,640"4
444.1,2, 444 444444 14W4044.,
44 a. t4,44! r4W4-,,44,44.444
'w-44443' 44,44, <,44.
4.444 -*44, 44444,444t
ArA4, 44A 444-4s4444
44404,t444x44-44,
getti tCX-t,,tl
*alai feature*
trw
MED Cottage 12' x 24' "Granny Pod"
- ;1/4 -----
EXAMPLES
TEMPORARY HEALTH CARE DWELLING UNITS
Manufactured Structures Section
This section governs three different areas:
Manufactured Homes (HUD)
(Minnesota State Building Code
1350)
Prefabricated Buildings
(Minnesota State Building Code
1360)
Industrialized Modular Buildings
(Minnesota State Building Code
1361)
The Industrialized Modular Buildings Section
uses model rules and regulations (MRR) and
Uniform Administrative Procedures (UAP) listed
on the IBC (Industrialized Buildings Commission
website). Information about the IBC is provided
below and information about the website is on the
next page.
IBC (Industrialized Buildings Commission)
The Industrialized Buildings Commission
supports and enhances productivity, innovation,
affordability, and international competitiveness in
the American construction industry through
nationwide uniformity in codes, rules, regulations,
and procedures and the elimination of duplication
in reviews, inspection, and fees, while assuring
quality, durability, and safety in the built
environment.
The Industrialized Buildings Commission (IBC)
was created in the early 1990s when the states of
Minnesota, Rhode Island and New Jersey each
enacted the Interstate Compact for
Industrialized/Modular Buildings (model
legislation). The IBC which is responsible for
carrying out the activities of the compact is
comprised of governor -appointed state officials
from the member states and a representative from
the industrialized (modular) buildings industry.
The purpose of the compact is to streamline
regulations that govern industrialized (modular)
buildings -- from the design and manufacture to
delivery and installation -- and to eliminate costly
duplication of reviews and inspections by multiple
jurisdictions. The coordinating compact enables
member states to improve their efficiency and
reduce their costs by consolidating similar
services while continuing to operate, staff and
enforce industrialized (modular) buildings
programs. Improved compliance through uniform
rules, regulations and procedures; better
enforcement through sharing of information and
findings; and reduced costs through elimination of
redundant reviews and inspections are just some
of the compact's benefits.
The compact's rules, regulations and procedures
are developed by the Rules Development
Committee (RDC) and recommended to the IBC
for adoption. The RDC is a consensus -based
committee with representatives from state
governments, consumers, manufacturers
(residential and commercial), and private
evaluation and inspection agencies.
In addition to the member states of Minnesota,
Rhode Island and New Jersey, the IBC has an
agreement with the state of North Dakota whereby
North Dakota agrees to accept industrialized
(modular) bu ldings bearing an IBC certification
labels. Also, the State of Wisconsin has an
agreement with the State of Minnesota that allows
industrialized (modular) buildings manufactured
in Minnesota and bearing an IBC certification
label to be sited in Wisconsin.
Since 1992, the National Conference of States on
Building Codes and Standards, Inc. (NCSBCS)
has served as the IBC's secretariat. administering
the certification label program, providing
administrative and secretarial support, and
conducting audits of the design agencies.
1. Point your browser to :
http://www.interstateibc.org
2. Click on Forms & Regulations
State of Minnesota (flag) an the next screen will
list:
RULES & REGULATIONS
Uniform Administrative Procedures
Model Rules & Regulations
FORMAL INTERPRETATIONS
FI 00-01 U- vs R -Values on Data Plates
FI 98-02 Shipping Modules without Labels
FI 98-01 Superseded
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
NFPA 1192: Document Scope
1.1* Scope. This standard shall cover fire and life safety criteria for recreational
vehicles. A.1.1 Those members of the engineering profession and others associated
with the design, manufacturing, and inspection of recreational vehicles have been
aware of the need for uniform technical standards leading to the proper use of this
special type of equipment. They also have recognized that, because of conditions of
transport, size, and use, existing standards for motor vehicles or permanent buildings
are not completely applicable to recreational vehicles. It is with these factors in mind
that this standard has been developed. Much of the material in this standard has been
taken from or is based on nationally recognized standards for fire and life safety.
Applicable standards are shown in Chapter 2.
What is NEPA 1192?
This standard establishes fire and life safety criteria for recreational vehicles to provide
protection from loss of life from fire and explosion.
What does NFPA 1192 address?
Comprehensive coverage includes general requirements, fuel systems and equipment, and
plumbing systems. Fire and life safety provisions address interior finish and textile materials,
means of escape, fire detection equipment, and vehicular requirements.
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings of 2016
Allowing Temporary Structures — What it means for Cities
Introduction:
On May 12, 2016, Gov. Dayton signed, into law, a bill creating a new process for landowners to
place mobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary 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.2
Where can I read the new law?
Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passed this session, cities can find this new bill at
2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family
health care dwelling law?
Yes, unless a city opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care
dwellings as a permitted use.
Considerations for cities regarding the opt -out?
These new temporary dwellings address an emerging community need to provide more convenient
temporary care. When analyzing whether or not to opt out, cities may want to consider that:
• The new law alters a city's level of zoning authority for these types of structures.
• While the city's zoning ordinances for accessories or recreational vehicles do not apply,
these structures still must comply with setback requirements.
• A city's zoning and other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle
ordinances, still apply to these structures. Because conflicts may arise between the statute
and a city's local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
2016 Laws, Chapter 111.
2 Some cities asked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only states that have a somewhat similar statute
at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolina and Virginia. It is worth noting that some states have adopted
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) statutes to allow granny flats, however, these ADU statutes differ from Minnesota's
Temporary Health Care Dwelling law.
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX: (651) 281-1299
ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.0RG
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 2
• Although not necessarily a legal issue for the city, it seems worth mentioning that the
permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairment or that
individual's power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to release his or her
data.
• The application's data requirements may result in the city possessing and maintaining
nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
• The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties3. Cities should
consider whether there is an interplay between these two statutes.
Do cities need to do anything to have the new law apply in their city?
No, the law goes into effect Sept. 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.
Do cities lose the option to opt out after the Sept. 1, 2016 effective date?
No, the law does not set a deadline for opting out, so cities can opt out after Sept. 1, 2016.
However, if the city has not opted out by Sept. 1, 2016, then the city must not only have
determined a permit fee amount4 before that date (if the city wants to have an amount different
than the law's default amount), but also must be ready on that date to accept applications and
process the permits in accordance with the short timeline required by the law. Cities should consult
their city attorney to analyze how to handle applications submitted after Sept. 1, 2016, but still
pending at the time of a later opt out.
What if a city already allows a temporary family health care dwelling as a
permitted use?
If the city already has designated temporary family health care dwellings as a permitted use, then
the law does not apply and the city follows its own ordinance. The city should consult its city
attorney for any uncertainty about whether structures currently permitted under existing ordinances
qualify as temporary family health care dwellings.
What process should the city follow if it chooses to opt out of this statute?
Cities that wish to opt out of this law must pass an ordinance to do so. The statute does not provide
clear guidance on how to treat this opt -out ordinance. However, since the new law adds section
462.3593 to the land use planning act (Minn. Stat. ch. 462), arguably, it may represent the adoption
or an amendment of a zoning ordinance, triggering the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357,
subd. 2-4, including a public hearing with l0 -day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to
err on the side of caution and treat the opt -out ordinance as a zoning provision.5
3 See Minn. Stat. §394.307
4 Cities do have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets, as a default, a fee of $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, but authorizes a city to provide otherwise by ordinance.
5 For smaller communities without zoning at all, those cities still need to adopt an opt -out ordinance. In those
instances, it seems less likely that the opt -out ordinance would equate to zoning. Because of the ambiguity of the
Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 3
Does the League have a model ordinance for opting out of this program?
Yes. Link to opt out ordinance here: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Ordinance
Can cities partially opt out of the temporary family health care dwelling law?
Not likely. The opt -out language of the statute allows a city, by ordinance, to opt out of the
requirements of the law but makes no reference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a
program different from the one specified in statute, the most conservative approach would be to
opt out of the statute, then adopt an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city.
Since the law does not explicitly provide for a partial opt out, cites wanting to just partially opt out
from the statute should consult their city attorney.
Can a city adopt pieces of this program or change the requirements listed in the
statute?
Similar to the answer about partially opting out, the law does not specifically authorize a city to
alter the statutory requirements or adopt only just pieces of the statute. Several cities have asked if
they could add additional criteria, like regulating placement on driveways, specific lot size limits,
or anchoring requirements. As mentioned above, if a city wants a program different from the one
specified in the statute, the most conservative approach would involve opting out of the statute in
its entirety and then adopting an ordinance structured in the manner best suited to the city. Again, a
city should consult its city attorney when considering adopting an altered version of the state law.
What is required in an application for a temporary family health care dwelling
permit?
The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to:6
• Name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property
(if different than the owner), and the primary care giver;
• Name of the mentally or physically impaired person;
® Proof of care from a provider network, including respite care, primary care or remote
monitoring;
• 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;"7
statute, cities should consult their city attorneys on how best to approach adoption of the opt -out ordinance for their
communities.
6 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 3 sets forth all the application criteria.
7 This is a term defined in law at Minn. Stat. § 256B.0659, subd. 1(i) as "activities to include meal planning and
preparation; basic assistance with paying bills; shopping for food, clothing, and other essential items; performing
household tasks integral to the personal care assistance services; communication by telephone and other media; and
traveling, including to medical appointments and to participate in the community."
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 4
• An executed contract for septic sewer management or other proof of adequate septic sewer
management;
• An affidavit that the applicant provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents;
• A general site map showing the location of the temporary dwelling and the other structures
on the lot; and
® Compliance with setbacks and maximum floor area requirements of primary structure.
The law requires all of the following to sign the application: the primary caregiver, the owner of
the property (on which the temporary dwelling will be located) and the resident of the property (if
not the same as the property owner). However, neither the physically disabled or mentally
impaired individual nor his or her power of attorney signs the application.
Who can host a temporary family health care dwelling?
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."
Is this program just for the elderly?
No. The legislature did not include an age requirement for the mentally or physically impaired
dweller. 8
Who can live in a temporary family health care dwelling and for how long?
The permit for a temporary health care dwelling must name the person eligible to reside in the unit.
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, licenses to practice in this state." 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
8 The law expressly exempts a temporary family health care dwelling from being considered "housing with services
establishment", which, in turn, results in the 55 or older age restriction set forth for "housing with services
establishment" not applying.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 5
What structures qualify as temporary family health care dwellings under the new
law?
The specific structural requirements set forth in the law preclude using pop up campers on the
driveway or the "granny flat" with its own foundation as a temporary structure. Qualifying
temporary structures must:
• Primarily be pre -assembled;
• Cannot exceed 300 gross square feet;
• Cannot attach to a permanent foundation;
• Must be universally designed and meet state accessibility standards;
• Must provide access to water and electrical utilities (by connecting to principal dwelling or
by other comparable means 9);
• Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials;
• Must have minimum insulation of R-15;
• Must be portable (as defined by statute);
• Must comply with Minnesota Rules chapter 1360 (prefabricated buildings) or 1361
(industrialized/modular buildings), "and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission
seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2"10; and
• Must contain a backflow check valve.11
Does the State Building Code apply to the construction of a temporary family
health care dwelling?
Mostly, no. These structures must meet accessibility standards (which are in the State Building
Code). 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).
What health, safety and welfare requirements does this new law include?
Aside from the construction requirements of the unit, the temporary family health care dwelling
must be located in an area on the property where "septic services and emergency vehicles can gain
access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner."
What local ordinances and zoning apply to a temporary health care dwelling?
The new law states that ordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and
parking do not apply to these temporary family health care dwellings.
9 The Legislature did not provide guidance on what represents "other comparable means".
1° ANSI Code 119.2 has been superseded by NFPA 1192. For more information, the American National Standards
Institute website is located at https://www.ansi.org/.
11 New Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, subd. 2 sets forth all the structure criteria.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 6
However, unless otherwise provided, setbacks and other local ordinances, charter provisions, and
applicable state laws still apply. Because conflicts may arise between the statute and one or more
of the city's other local ordinances, cities should confer with their city attorneys to analyze their
current ordinances in light of the new law.
What permit process should cities follow for these permits?
The law creates a new type of expedited permit process. The permit approval process found in
Minn. Stat. § 15.99 generally applies; however, the new law shortens the time frame within which
the local governmental unit can make a decision on the permit. Due to the time sensitive nature of
issuing a temporary dwelling permit, the city does not have to hold a public hearing on the
application and has only 15 days (rather than 60 days) to either issue or deny a permit. For those
councils that regularly meet only once a month, the law provides for a 30 -day decision. The law
specifically prohibits cities from extending the time for making a decision on the permit
application. The new law allows the clock to restart if a city deems an application incomplete, but
the city must provide the applicant written notice within five business days of receipt of the
application identifying the missing information.
Can cities collect fees for these permits?
Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permit fee. The law sets the fee at $100 for the initial
permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless a city provides otherwise by ordinance
Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits?
Yes, but only if the permit holder violates the requirements of the law. 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.
How should cities handle data it acquires from these permits?
The application data may result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. To minimize collection of protected heath data or
other nonpublic data, the city could, for example, request that the required certification of need
simply state "that the person who will reside in the temporary family health care dwelling needs
assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living", without including in that
certification data or information about the specific reasons for the assistance, the types of
assistance, the medical conditions or the treatment plans of the person with the mental illness or
physical disability. Because of the complexities surrounding nonpublic data, cities should consult
their city attorneys when drafting a permit application.
Should the city consult its city attorney?
Yes. As with any new law, to determine the potential impact on cities, the League recommends
consulting with your city attorney.
Temporary Family HealthCare Dwellings
June 27, 2016
Page 7
Where can cities get additional information or ask other questions.
For more information, contact Staff Attorney Pamela Whitmore at pwhitmorelmc.org or LMC
General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundhoglmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach
Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266.
7/15/2016 Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - StarTribune.com
LOCAL
Suburbs opt to go their o way on
state's 'drop home' law
Facing a new state requirement to allow tiny trailers on residential
lots, many cities are saying no.
By Erin Adler(http://www.startribune.com/erin-adler/195633361/) and Emma Nelson
(http://wwwstartribune.com/emma-nelson/261800211/) Star Tribune staff writers
JULY 5, 2016 — 8:41AM
Metro suburbs are bypassing a new state law that would require them to allow tiny,
portable houses on residential properties, saying the state mandate doesn't work for
them.
The statute is intended to provide access to temporary "drop homes" for people —
mostly older adults — with health care needs that require them to be close to a
caregiver.
But worries about resident complaints, conflicts with local zoning ordinances and
timing concerns have spurred cities to opt out of the law. Some say they already have
the resources they need to meet the needs of aging residents, while others want to pass
their own laws allowing temporary structures tailored to their city.
The League of Minnesota Cities fought for an opt -out provision in the statute so local
governments could still have control over their own zoning.
Bill sponsor Rep. Roz Peterson, R -Lakeville, struggled to find a place for her elderly
father to live when he got sick two years ago. It's disappointing that cities are opting out,
she said, but she acknowledged that the law isn't one -size -fits -all.
"It's always difficult to accept change and innovation," Peterson said. "This won't solve
everybody's problem — this is one tool in the toolbox, so to speak."
Drop homes, sometimes called granny pods, are trailers under 300 square feet that are
billed as an affordable and temporary alternative to sending sick, injured or elderly
family members to a nursing home.
The new law was based on similar, but less restrictive, laws in North Carolina and
Virginia.
In Minnesota, the law allows homeowners to have a drop home on their property for six
months by paying for a $100 permit, unless their city has a specific ordinance against the
homes.
The Burnsville City Council voted unanimously on June 21 to opt out. Drop homes don't
meet city codes, said Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, and the city already has temporary
housing options.
Those options include spare bedrooms, apartments, assisted living facilities, short-term
health care facilities, hotels and group homes, according to a meeting agenda report.
"It's not that we don't have it," Kautz said. "We want control of what happens here in
Burnsville."
Some cities want to allow accessory dwelling units but are choosing to do so on their
own terms.
The Crystal City Council will likely vote to opt out at its next meeting, said Council
Member Jeff Kolb. The decision stems largely from the nature of residential properties in
Crystal, many of which may be too small to qualify for drop homes under the statute, he
said.
The City Council will try to pass an ordinance in the future that allows for accessory
units that are better tailored to the city, Kolb said.
"There was a concern that it would be perceived that by opting out, we were saying we
don't want this kind of thing around here, that it was kind of a cold-hearted decision," he
said. "The reality is it's not that at all."
http://www.startri bune.com/s ubur bs-opt-to-go-thei r -own -way -on -state -s -drop -home -1 aw/385496261 /
(http://strnedia.startribune.com/images/1467684122_08+678634
ELIZABETH FLORES, STAR TRIBUNE
John Louiselle, left, and Jesse Lammi are a pair
of young New Brighton entrepreneurs that
have started NextDoor Housing, a company...
1/2
7/15/2016 Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - StarTribune.com
In Lakeville, the City Council agreed to opt out last week but also sent the issue to city
staff for further review.
There were multiple concerns, said Mayor Matt Little, including aesthetics, property
values and the difficulty city staff would face in having to make judgments about
residents' illnesses.
"Every single city in this country is going to need to figure out a way to start taking care
of our seniors," Little said. "There's just a lot of issues we need to ... make fair and clear."
Meanwhile, city staff in Woodbury are recommending that city officials vote to opt out
in order to have more time to figure out what local needs are, said Jason Egerstrom,
Woodbury's spokesman.
Under the statute, cities have until Sept. 1 to opt out.
John Louiselle, co-owner of NextDoor Housing, a New Brighton -based drop home
company that helped craft the law, said he doesn't mind if cities choose a different
direction. "What's worrisome to us is when we see cities opting out and offering no
alternative solution," he said.
Peterson said she would like to see cities try out the statute and see how it works. The
biggest challenge, she said, is that people aren't familiar with the drop home idea.
"This is new — nobody's really done this before," she said. "Let's have a conversation
with the community before we just choose to abandon the idea."
Erin Adler • 612-673-1781
Erin.Adler@startribune.com 612-673-1781
emma.nelson@startribune.com 612-673-4509 emmamarienelson
http://www.startri bune.com/suburbs-opt-to-go-their-own-way-on-state-s-drop-home-I aw/385496261/ 2/2
Willmar seeks to opt out of temporary dwelling law 1 West Central Tribune Page 1 of 3
W L 1. M A R , M I P N
Willmar seeks to opt out of temporary
dwelling law
By Shelby LJndrud on Jul 8, 2016 at 12:10 a.m.
WILLMAR—The Willmar City Council will pursue opting out of the temporary
family health care dwelling law approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov.
Mark Dayton in May.
The law allows local governments to issue permits that allow certain types of
temporary dwellings to be placed in the yard or driveway of a home and used as
living spaces for a family member who needs assistance with a medical issue.
ADVERTISING
A motion approved Tuesday by the Willmar City Council sets a public hearing
during the July 18 meeting to discuss opting out.
http://www.wctrib.com/news/local/4069947-willmar-seeks-opt-out-temporary-dwelling-law 7/15/2016
Willmar seeks to opt out of temporary dwelling law
West Central Tribune Page 2 of 3
The law allows for municipalities to opt out of the law, as long as they pass an
ordinance to do so by Sept. 1. If not, the law will go into effect and must be
followed.
"It is kind of odd for that reason," said Bruce Peterson, Planning and
Development Services director, when the issue was brought forward June 30
before the council's Community Development Committee.
The committee members voted at that time to recommend the council opt out of
the law. Councilwoman Audrey Nelsen said the League of Minnesota Cities,
which worked with state lawmakers in the crafting of the law, also recommends
cities opt out of the law.
"There are a lot of if, ands or buts. The Legislature didn't address all of it. We just
need to make sure it is done right. We need to decide what we want," Nelsen said
at the June 30 meeting.
The city would like the Willmar Planning Commission to take a look at the issue,
and perhaps craft an ordinance regarding these temporary dwellings specifically
for Willmar and its needs.
"There might be some reasonable reasons to look at accessory dwellings. We
can do it the way we want to do it locally, not the way the state wants it done,"
Peterson said.
The state law does include certain requirements for a temporary dwelling: an
R-15 rating for insulation, a size no larger than 300 gross square feet, that it not
be attached to a permanent foundation and that it must provide access to water,
sewer and electric utilities.
"I foresee some zoning issues," Peterson said.
http://www.wctrib.cominews/loca1/4069947-willmar-seeks-opt-out-temporary-dwelling-law 7/15/2016
Willmar seeks to opt out of temporary dwelling law West Central Tribune Page 3 of 3
The state law specifies the temporary dwellings are for an individual who is
mentally or physically impaired and requires assistance with two or more
instrumental activities of daily living. The need must be certified by a healthcare
professional licensed to practice in Minnesota.
Under the state statute, the permit would be valid for six months and be renewed
once for an additional six months. The municipality could also negotiate with the
applicant for a longer period of time. There is a fee of up to $100 for the initial
permit and up to $50 for the renewal.
According to other news sources, multiple cities across the state already have
chosen to opt out of the new law, including Burnsville, Lakeville, Aitkin and
Cloquet.
There were Willmar staff concerns that even though the law was created to
provide temporary transitional housing for seniors, the law could be used for other
reasons and for a much longer period than it was originally created.
"This just gets us off the hook for the state mandate," Peterson said.
United States drivers with no tickets in
By Provide -Savings insurance Quotes
Drivers are stunned that they never knew this. If you drive less
than 50 mi/day, you better read this
ADVERTISEMENT
http://www.wctrib.cominews/local/4069947-willmar-seeks-opt-out-temporary-dwelling-law 7/15/2016
Email Correspondence
From: Ted Casady
Date: July 18, 2016 at 10:51:13 AM CDT
To: <info@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>
Subject: Objection to temporary healthcare dwelling ordinance
City of Apple Valley -
While I understand the need to care for ailing relatives, as well as the costs that may be associated both
with a commercialized assisted living as well as permanent home renovations in order to accommodate
an ailing relative, it is in our City Councils best interest to Opt Out of the temporary home health car
permitting requirement.
The new legislation does not address two vital issues that may arise from allowing temporary housing on
a lot in Apple Valley.
1. Life expectancy can be estimated with many ailments we face today, however there is no guarantee
that the relative will not require assisted living for longer than the legislation allows, which is 6 months
with a one-time renewal of 6 months. How will the city handle a situation where the occupant outlives
the medical professionals expectations and would likely be even more in need of assisted living than
when they entered 12 months prior. Is the city willing to put themselves in a position where they will
not approve an additional 6 -month permit?
2. If the occupant and/or main dwelling relative decide not to vacate or remove the temporary
healthcare dwelling upon the 12 month allowed duration, will the city assist in removal/eviction of the
temporary tenant and structure?
I see this legislation as a 'foot-in--the-door' tactic for a local company to sell these units as temporary
and legal by skirting the current building codes and personal home renovation permital process. Once
they have approval for 6-12 months the company (and customers of theirs) will petition for longer terms
with the assumption that a city would not 'kick out' a tenant of these temporary units, especially with
the state of health they would expect to be in.
Lastly, with the assisted living institutions currently available and/or being ushered through current
Apple Valley planning and council meetings, I believe the city should be more interested in
benchmarking or regulating the costs of our elderly entering those homes. We should look to make
those sorts of options financially suitable before looking to essentially drop a trailer on someone's
property for 6-12 or more months.
I thank you for your time and look forward to the future discussions on the legislation of this proposal.
Ted Casady