Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-12-2016 POSTED IN CITY HALL July 8, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2016 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of Draft Minutes for June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. 6. AutoMotorPlex – PUD Concept Plan Review – east of Arrowhead Dr., north of Hamel Rd (PID 11-118-23-23-0002). 7. Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 8 of the City Code related to Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings. 8. Concurrent Special Meeting for Comprehensive Plan Update with City Council and Planning Commission on Wednesday, August 3, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. 9. Council Meeting Schedule 10. Adjourn Planning Department Update Page 1 of 2 July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mitchell and Members of the City Council FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner; through City Administrator Scott Johnson DATE: June 29, 2016 SUBJ: Planning Department Updates – July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting Land Use Application Review A) Just for Kix Site Plan Review, Variance, Lot Combination –45 Highway 55 – Just for Kix has requested approval of a Site Plan Review for construction of an 18,040 square foot building to include a dance studio and retail. The applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum hardcover in the Elm Creek shoreland overlay district from 25% to 50% and also a lot combination to combine the property annexed from the City of Plymouth. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at the June 14 meeting. They recommended approval but requested additional architectural modulation. The City Council is scheduled to review on July 5. B) Jeffrey-Johnson Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation – 2605 and 2505 Willow Drive – Glenn Jeffrey has requested approval of a rearrangement of the lot line between his and his neighbor’s property. The Jeffrey’s propane tank is located on the Johnson property. The applicant has also requested to vacate easements adjacent to the lot lines and replace with new easements. Staff is conducting a preliminary review and will present to Council when ready, potentially at the July 5 meeting. C) AutoMotorPlex Concept Plan – east of Arrowhead Drive, north of Hamel Road – Bruno Silikowski has requested review of Concept Plan for construction of approximately 215,000 square feet of private garage condominiums for motorsports enthusiasts. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review at the July 12 meeting. D) Deer Hill Preserve (Stonegate Farms) Final Plat – Property Resources Development Company has requested final plat approval for the Deer Hill Preserve CD-PUD subdivision, formerly known as Stonegate Farms. The first phase of the development is proposed to include 10 lots in the northeast corner of the site, near the current termination of Deerhill Road. The City Council granted approval at the June 21 meeting. Staff will work with applicant on the conditions of approval before construction begins. E) Excelsior Group Concept Plan –2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – The Excelsior Group has requested review of a Concept Plan for development of 87 single family lots west of the proposed Wealshire site. The property is not within the current Staging period and the applicant seeks flexibility to jump ahead one period. The Planning Commission provided comments at the June 14 meeting and the Council at the June 21 meeting. The project will now be closed. F) LeJuene Lot Line Rearrangement – 2782 and 2820 County Road 24 – Larry and Jean LeJeune have requested approval of a rearrangement of lot lines between two parcels they own. The Council granted approval at the June 21 meeting. The applicant is recording the documents at Hennepin County and the project will now be closed. G) Wealshire LLC Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review – Wealshire, LLC has requested a site plan review for construction of a 173,000 sf memory care facility. The request also includes a rezoning from RR-UR to Business Park. The Met Council has also approved of the previous Comp Plan amendment. The City Council granted approval at the May 3 meeting. Construction is now underway and the project will be closed. H) Hamel Brewery, St. Peter and Paul Cemetery, Wright-Hennepin Solar Panels –The City Council has adopted resolutions approving these projects, and staff is assisting the applicants with the conditions of approval in order to complete the projects. Planning Department Update Page 2 of 2 July 5, 2016 City Council Meeting I) Woods of Medina, Capital Knoll– These preliminary plats have been approved and staff is awaiting a final plat application J) Bradford Creek, Hamel Haven, Buehler subdivisions – These subdivisions have received final approval. Staff is working with the applicants on the conditions of approval before construction begins. Other Projects A) Comprehensive Plan – The Steering Committee appointed a Housing subgroup to finalize a draft of the Housing chapter. Staff intends to present a draft of the Park/Trail/Open Space plan to the Park Commission on July 20. A concurrent City Council/Planning Commission meeting is planned for August 3 to review rough draft of the Vision/Goal, Land Use, and Housing chapters. B) Cable Expansion Analysis – Planning staff continued assistance with the analysis related to proposed cable construction for 2016. C) Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings – staff has reviewed information related to recent statute changes which would preempt local controls related to mobile housing for family members being cared for by residents of a home. The statute allows a city to “opt-out” from the state preemption. Staff intends to present information on the subject, including an ordinance which would opt out of the regulations, to the Planning Commission at their July 12 meeting. 1 CITY OF MEDINA 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 2 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 3 Tuesday June 14, 2016 4 5 1. Call to Order: Acting Chairperson White called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 6 7 Present: Planning Commissioners Chris Barry, Kim Murrin, Robin Reid and Janet White. 8 9 Absent: Planning Commissioners Todd Albers and Victoria Reid. 10 11 Also Present: City Planner Dusty Finke. 12 13 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda 14 15 No comments made. 16 17 3. Update from City Council Proceedings 18 19 Finke stated that Anderson was unable to attend tonight. He provided a brief update on the 20 recent Council activity, noting that final approval of the Wealshire project was granted and 21 the Council accepted the resignation of Foote. He noted that Foote sold his house in Medina 22 and therefore had to resign from the Commission. He advised that the City will be looking 23 for a resident to fill the vacant position on the Commission and welcomed suggestions for 24 residents that may be interested. He reviewed some roads in the City which will see 25 construction in the upcoming months, noting that the Council spent the last few meetings 26 going through the approval process for those projects. 27 28 4. Planning Department Report 29 30 Finke provided an update. 31 32 5. Approval of the April 12, 2016 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 33 34 Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Murrin, to approve the April 12, 2016, Planning 35 Commission minutes as presented. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Albers and V. 36 Reid) 37 38 6. Public Hearing – Excelsior Group – 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road – PUD 39 Concept Plan for a Subdivision of 87 Single Family Lots 40 41 Finke presented a request for a PUD Concept Plan review for residential development at the 42 property located at 2120 and 2212 Chippewa Road. He stated that the property is 37 acres, 43 31 net acres, and would be proposed to have 87 single family lots. He stated that the property 44 is currently guided low density residential and is in the 2021 staging area. He noted that the 45 property had been in the 2016 staging area but was shifted to the 2021 area when the 46 amendment was made to the staging plan. He stated that previously the plan allowed for a 47 property to jump ahead one five-year development cycle but when the plan amendment was 48 made, the flexibility was changed to only allow a two year jump ahead which would allow 49 the property to move ahead to 2019. He noted that the City is in the process of updating the 50 Comprehensive Plan, noting that thus far in that process the subject sites have been 51 considered rural residential. He advised that the projected growth has been substantially 52 2 reduced, almost 50 percent, by the Metropolitan Council which is why the staging plan was 53 amended and why the Comprehensive Plan updates include lesser density as well. He 54 identified the subject sites on an aerial map, noting that the properties are currently residential 55 with pastured land and wetlands. He described the adjacent uses and noted that the Concept 56 Plan does show the Wealshire project to the east, which recently received final approval from 57 the Council. He reviewed the proposed access that would be provided to the site and noted 58 that the plan includes a small arch in the center. He stated that the lots to the east would be 59 proposed as 55 feet wide lots with detached villas, while the western half of the site would be 60 proposed as 65 to 75 feet wide with single family homes. He noted that would be similar to 61 the north portion of the Enclave or Fields of Medina. He stated that the City is on pace to 62 have the updated Comprehensive Plan in place prior to when the property could develop, 63 given the flexibility which would allow a two year jump ahead to 2019. He stated that for 64 that reason staff believes that it would be logical for the Commission to review the Concept 65 under the draft version of the Comprehensive Plan, noting that if the City does like this 66 concept it would be possible to incorporate these properties as low density development 67 within the draft Comprehensive Plan, which could then be adjusted accordingly. He noted 68 that an application could be reviewed prior to the staging period but explained that in past 69 cases that were similar, the occupancy of the building was not allowed until the staging 70 period was reached. He reviewed the land use map and noted that the Steering Committee 71 has been operating under the guise of meeting the minimum requirements of the system 72 statements from the Metropolitan Council. He noted that low density residential would be 73 similar to R-1 zoning which would have larger lots, 90 feet in width, with larger setbacks 74 than what is proposed for this concept. He noted that an R-1 zoning would allow two units 75 per acre, while this concept has 2.8 units per acre. He stated that in regard to transportation, 76 staff noted the limited right-in/right-out access at Mohawk Drive. He stated that the potential 77 development could have an impact on the traffic patterns planned for the City. He noted that 78 the concept review is advisory and does not require formal action. 79 80 Murrin asked for clarification as the report states that the eastern portion of the site would be 81 within the Rockford school district, while the western portion would be within the Wayzata 82 school district. 83 84 Finke replied that there are two sites, the eastern 19 acres is within the Rockford school 85 district, while the western homestead is in the Wayzata school district boundaries. 86 87 R. Reid referenced the future land use plan, noting that this property and the properties 88 around it, with the exception of the Wealshire property, are guided for rural residential. She 89 noted that the property along Willow is guided for low density and asked for some 90 background information on that decision. 91 92 Finke stated that while he cannot speak for the entire Steering Committee, the decision would 93 go towards the community goals to spread out development in different staging periods. He 94 noted that the property is closer to the full access intersection as well. 95 96 Barry referenced the challenge of the timing with updating the Comprehensive Plan, noting 97 that it is difficult to make a recommendation since the property straddles two different planes. 98 99 Glen Schmidt stated that the Excelsior Group does a lot of residential development, noting 100 that he is present in representation of the property owners. He stated that they do understand 101 that the property resides in the flux area. He explained that the property was in the 2016 102 staging area and was moved to the 2021 area. He noted that based on the surrounding uses it 103 would make sense for this property to be residential. He explained that it would make sense 104 to have development around the Wealshire property so that property is not on an “island”, 105 3 noting that the detached villas could be a good transition from that development. He 106 displayed a sketch of what the development could look like, noting that the PUD concept is 107 different than the normal lot size. He stated that the housing products proposed for the 108 concept would also provide some housing types that are currently not available in abundance 109 within Medina. He stated that they have not spoken with the Wealshire property but they 110 would be willing to work with that property in regard to connection of trails and potential 111 access points. He stated that the engineer believes that the sewer could be served by gravity 112 sewer going back to the existing sewer line located at Chippewa and Mohawk. He stated that 113 the intent was to bring the potential project to the City and determine if it would be desirable, 114 noting that they would be flexible in the method used to go forward. He noted that 115 preliminarily the site could be serviced by existing infrastructure and would provide a mix of 116 housing, perhaps for the people that work across the street. He noted the location adjacent to 117 Wealshire would allow a family to purchase a home close to their loved one that lives at 118 Wealshire to make visiting much easier. He noted that the yards would be irrigated through 119 the stormwater ponds rather than using City water for irrigation. He stated there are wetlands 120 and open space in the middle that would be protected. He did not anticipate any updates 121 needed for City streets. He stated sewer and water are close and therefore could be connected 122 to. He advised that they work with local Minnesota builders to provide a nice variety of 123 housing types. He stated that trails and a park would be provided in the community. He 124 stated that although the products provided would not meet the definition of affordable 125 through the Metropolitan Council, the villas would have a price beginning in the high 126 $300,000’s while the home would begin at $650,000 and the villas would be affordable 127 compared to the Medina housing stock. He stated that if there is support for the concept they 128 would work with staff to determine the best path to fruition. 129 130 Murrin referenced the exits and asked if there would be only one exit for the property. 131 132 Schmidt stated that they would anticipate the one entrance, where the current entrance to the 133 property is. He stated that if there is a determination that the roads to the north will not be 134 necessary, perhaps they could work with Wealshire to connect to the fire road and make that 135 an actual road. 136 137 Murrin asked if there was a requirement for two access points for a development. 138 139 Finke stated that it is not a requirement, noting there are other developments in the City that 140 were approved with one entrance. 141 142 Murrin noted that the proposed park would be three quarters of an acre and asked if the 143 applicant would be open to a larger park. 144 145 Schmidt replied that they would certainly consider that option. 146 147 White opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. 148 149 Bruce Workman stated that he is one of the landowners and has lived on the property for 30 150 years. He noted that originally he planned to sell the property 15 years ago, but he liked it so 151 much in Medina that he decided to stay. He stated that he was surprised by the recent 152 potential changes to the Comprehensive Plan and did not think it was fair for the City to 153 leapfrog over their property to develop further to the east. He stated that Chippewa was a 154 ten-ton road, noting that he paid a high assessment, and that road would be sufficient. He 155 noted that the utilities are in place as well and believed the City should do what is right for 156 the landowners and the City. He noted that the other landowner has also lived on his property 157 for over 30 years. He stated that this would be the right development at the right time. He 158 4 stated that the pond is 16 feet deep and has fish in it, which would be a great amenity next to 159 the park. 160 161 Craig Gray, spoke in representation of his mother who lives at 1951 Chippewa Road, and 162 stated that he is not sure how he feels about this concept compared to the draft 163 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he does not have any objections to the concept and 164 believed that the market would dictate whether or not the development would be successful. 165 He stated that if there is a demand for this development, it should be built. He noted that the 166 properties around this area have been allowed to develop and believed that the road would 167 ultimately need to be upgraded, which his family would need to contribute towards. He did 168 not believe that was fair as his family would be restricted to develop under rural residential. 169 He believed that his family should be given the same consideration as this plan and as the 170 Cavanaugh property. He stated that it seems ridiculous that this area is intended to be an 171 island of rural residential. 172 173 Brian Stephenson stated that he owns the property to the north of the eastern property. He 174 noted that his concern is that if this concept moves forward, then the surrounding properties 175 should all be included in similar development standards and staging. He stated that he has 176 lived on his property for 30 years and if this property develops with houses, he will move on. 177 178 White closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 179 180 Murrin asked how long the applicant has owned the land. It was clarified that the landowners 181 still own the land and this is simply a concept. She stated that she would like to keep as much 182 open space as possible and would be concerned with adding more houses, as the draft 183 Comprehensive Plan does not go in the direction of higher density. She stated that she has 184 concern with the setbacks, stating that if a development was allowed on that property she 185 would want to see less houses. She would also want to ensure that the property could be 186 serviced by sewer and would like to see two access points. She stated that she would also 187 like to see a larger park. 188 189 R. Reid stated that there are fairly specific criteria for PUD and even stricter criteria for the 190 jump ahead, noting that this development does not meet virtually any of the criteria. She did 191 not see any reason to grant the extreme variances for the small lots. She believed this to be 192 an ordinary development and did not find it to be innovative or preservation of natural 193 features. She stated that using the stormwater for lawn irrigation is already required and is 194 not going above or beyond. She stated that she would want to see the lot sizes meet the 195 requirements and did not see any reason to accommodate this development. 196 197 Barry agreed that the lot sizes are a lot smaller than what is allowed under R-1. He stated that 198 he does like the pond by the park. He stated that three parcels over is low density residential, 199 noting that this is a similar sized space. He noted that the City is still allowing that type of 200 development, just in different areas. He stated that perhaps the applicant should ask the 201 Steering Committee to look at their area again, as this area has been guided for low density 202 and is just recently proposed for change. He believed that low density residential would fit in 203 this location, but that discussion would need to be had with the Steering Committee and staff. 204 He noted that the concept would need to better match the low density requirements if that 205 zoning was allowed. 206 207 White echoed the comments of the other Commissioners and agreed that the applicant should 208 bring their request for low density to the Steering Committee. She agreed that she did not 209 believe that the PUD criteria were met through this concept. 210 211 5 R. Reid stated that if a proposal were brought back that met R-1, there would be a worthwhile 212 discussion on whether this should be allowed to develop. She noted that the PUD and jump 213 ahead do not make sense. 214 215 Finke stated that the Council will review this concept the following Tuesday. 216 217 7. Public Hearing – Clough Properties – 45 Highway 55 – Plat, Shoreland Overlay 218 Hardcover Variance - Site Plan Review 219 220 Finke presented a request from Just for Kix at the property located at 45 Highway 55 for 221 construction of an 18,000 square foot commercial building. He noted that the first request 222 would combine the lot with recently annexed land from Plymouth to make the land one 223 developable site. He stated that a variance is requested from 25 to 50 percent of hardcover, 224 noting that 25 percent hardcover is the maximum allowed within the Elm Creek Shoreland 225 Overlay District and is similar to other adjacent properties. He advised that a rezoning would 226 also be required to match the other surrounding properties, noting that access would be 227 provided from the Aldi site. He noted that if the project moves forward, the existing home 228 would be demolished, noting that the site is next to Aldi and surrounded by the Creek and 229 railroad tracks. He referenced an access to Highway 55, which would be closed. He stated 230 that the use is permitted within the District and with the exception of the variance for 231 hardcover, all other elements of the Shoreland Overlay District would be met. He provided 232 information on the tree preservation and landscaping. He noted that there will be fill in the 233 wetland and the proper approval process and mitigation would be required. He noted that the 234 setbacks from the stream location would be met along with a buffer. He noted that the 235 application would be dependent on the variance request. He advised that similar variances 236 have been approved along Sioux Drive, but noted that each variance must stand on its own 237 and the Commission should review the request against the variance criteria. He noted that the 238 applicant does propose stormwater filtration above and beyond the minimum requirements in 239 order to mitigate the additional hardcover. He reviewed the proposed building materials and 240 design, noting that staff is looking for direction on whether additional modulation would be 241 required. He stated that the applicant does propose access from the property to the west onto 242 Sioux Drive and to close the Highway 55 access, which will be a positive to improving the 243 arterial flow of Highway 55. He stated that the applicant is looking for an emergency access 244 onto Highway 55, noting that it does appear to be supported by MnDOT which would greatly 245 improve the emergency circulation. He stated that staff suggested connecting the sidewalk to 246 the western property line which will improve pedestrian traffic and could connect to Aldi if 247 the sidewalk is extended in that location. He stated that staff supports the plat in any 248 circumstance. He noted that the variance criteria are listed in the staff report along with 249 support of how that criteria is met and advised that there are small technical items that could 250 be updated to meet the standards. He stated that if the Commission finds that the criteria 251 have been met, staff would recommend approval of all three action items. 252 253 R. Reid asked if the Elm Creek Watershed has reviewed the project. 254 255 Finke confirmed that the Watershed has reviewed and approved the request, stating there 256 were a few technical items they wanted updated. 257 258 Andy Brandall, representing the applicant, stated that he is thankful for the cooperation of the 259 City throughout this process. He stated that he and the owner are in agreement with the 260 conditions noted in the staff report and advised that the Watershed took action and approved 261 their portion of the requests at their meeting the previous week. 262 263 White asked for more information on the building materials. 264 6 Brandall replied that the owner has decided to go with a predominantly precast building 265 because of the energy efficiency of the materials. He noted that the owner was unable to 266 attend and therefore he was attending in representation. He stated that the general theme 267 (arched windows and rock) is similar to the design of the other studios they own in attempt to 268 mimic an old New York style studio. 269 270 R. Reid asked if the parents are dropping the children off. 271 272 Brandall replied that there are a lot of younger students and noted the studio design includes a 273 viewing area for parents. He noted that while some parents drop off and pick up, a large 274 amount of parents stay to watch their child. 275 276 R. Reid asked if this amount of parking would be needed if the City did not require this level 277 of parking. 278 279 Brandall replied that this amount of parking is actually the bare minimum for the studio and 280 therefore would not want a reduction in parking. 281 282 R. Reid was not sure how the parking lot will flow, as it seems awkward. She also believed 283 the intersection near Aldi will be problematic as this will add additional traffic to that area. 284 285 Brandall replied that a traffic study was done with the Aldi development and noted the 286 intended use for this site was actually planned for higher use than this site, as this site will 287 have off-peak use. 288 289 R. Reid stated that she likes the arched windows and the overall design and materials 290 proposed for the building. She stated that perhaps in other locations the City would not want 291 to compromise to this level, but stated that she would be fine in this instance because the site 292 is unique and would need to be commercial in use. 293 294 Barry asked if the access to Highway 55 would be closed. 295 296 Brandall replied that with access being granted through the other property it would have been 297 very difficult to negotiate with MnDOT to maintain the access to Highway 55. He explained 298 that because this is a destination location, the owner was not interested in keeping that access 299 open. 300 301 Barry replied that he remembers taking his daughter to dance class at 5:30 p.m., which he 302 would not consider to be off-peak. He asked what would happen when classes turn over and 303 there are parents attempting to leave and parents attempting to come and noted that a train 304 could come at the same time which would really throw things off. 305 306 R. Reid stated that the use would be off-peak because the majority of traffic will come to the 307 site during the evenings and weekends. 308 309 Barry stated that the Highway 55 access could be used to relieve some of the congestion from 310 the site, but acknowledged that MnDOT may not have given that option. 311 312 White opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. 313 314 Jim Tiller, in representation of the Arnt property, noted that the sale of the property has 315 closed. He stated, in his opinion, this is a gateway property that will be seen by hundreds of 316 vehicles going west each day and believes that this will be an attractive high quality product. 317 7 He stated that this will not be a national chain property and will draw attention because it is 318 unique. 319 320 White closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. 321 322 Barry stated that perhaps the top could include additional modulation. He acknowledged that 323 the parking is intended to support a future addition, but stated that the amount of parking 324 seems excessive for just three studios. He asked when the addition would be planned. 325 326 Brandall replied that they would like to complete the addition soon, but noted that timing did 327 not work financially at this time to build out the entire building. 328 329 R. Reid stated that at some time she believes there will be complaints regarding traffic with 330 the railroad. 331 332 Barry asked if MnDOT would be negotiable to opening the Highway 55 access in the future. 333 334 Finke replied that MnDOT wants to limit the amount of access onto Highway 55 and once an 335 access is closed it would not be reopened. 336 337 White noted that there are turn lane improvements being done on Sioux Drive currently. 338 339 Finke noted that the majority of the traffic would be turning right to access Highway 55 and 340 therefore would not be impacted by trains. 341 342 Barry asked if there is a way to keep the access to Highway 55 “open” for emergency access, 343 which would provide opportunities for the future. 344 345 Finke did not believe there was an in between, either it would need to remain open or close. 346 He explained that the access is currently open for one house to access Highway 55 and 347 approval from MnDOT would be needed with the change in use to use that access. He stated 348 that the review and traffic study support that there will not be an issue with the proposed 349 amount of traffic for this site. 350 351 Barry stated that he would be interested in seeing that traffic study. 352 353 Murrin stated that the parking lot does not appear to be setup to exit onto Highway 55 and 354 therefore in order to use that access point, the parking lot would need to be reconfigured. She 355 stated that whoever uses this site would have an issue with traffic flow. She asked if MnDOT 356 could be asked whether the access could remain open. 357 358 Finke stated that the applicant and City presumed closure of that access from the beginning. 359 360 Brandall replied that because there is an alternative access point from the Aldi site it would 361 be rare that MnDOT would allow the Highway 55 access. 362 363 Murrin asked who is paying for the turn lane improvements. 364 365 Finke replied that the business owners are paying for the cost of the project. 366 367 Murrin stated that MnDOT should be approached to determine if the access could remain 368 open, noting that perhaps a gravel path be used for the time being until it is known if the site 369 will need that additional access. She agreed that further modulation should be added to the 370 8 top of the building. She noted that perhaps the tan portion could be broken up as well. She 371 stated that she did have concern with filling the wetland, but noted that her concern was 372 addressed through the staff presentation. She stated that she would support the project with 373 additional modulation and would also request from MnDOT to leave the Highway 55 access 374 open. 375 376 R. Reid stated that perhaps some landscaping could break up the tan wall. 377 378 Finke stated that the angles should be considered, noting the long wall would not be perfectly 379 in line with Highway 55 as it pivots away. He noted that additional landscaping would be 380 torn out when the addition comes forward. 381 382 White stated that this project is so much nicer than she anticipated that it would be and 383 appreciated the design of the applicant. She did not anticipate a large traffic problem, noting 384 that if people have a hard time going into a business they most likely will not choose to go 385 there. She stated that the City and businesses have done what they can to mitigate the issue 386 through the Sioux Drive project. She referenced the entrance and suggested modulation 387 above the entrance and noted that similar modulation could occur on the north side when the 388 addition is built. She stated that the brick accents between the windows could be extended to 389 the roof line to provide additional modulation. 390 391 White confirmed the consensus of the Commission that the criteria for a variance would be 392 met through this request. 393 394 Murrin asked and received confirmation that both parcels are in Medina, as one portion had 395 previously been located in Plymouth but was annexed. 396 397 R. Reid stated that she would like to see additional modulation on the north and south sides. 398 399 Barry agreed that both the Highway 55 side and parking lot sides would need modulation. 400 401 Murrin stated that the ends also need a little modulation. 402 403 R. Reid commented that the far end would not be that visible. 404 405 Barry stated that it would still make sense to remain consistent. 406 407 White confirmed that the Commission would desire additional modulation on the north, south 408 and west sides. 409 410 Murrin asked if the applicant should request to keep the MnDOT access open. 411 412 Finke stated that would go against multiple goals of the City and therefore should not be 413 requested. 414 415 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Reid, to recommend approval of the Variance, Plat and 416 Site Plan Review, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report with an additional 417 condition requesting additional 3-D modulation on the south, west and north sides. Motion 418 approved unanimously. (Absent: Albers and V. Reid) 419 420 8. Potential Special Meeting: Wednesday, August 3, 2016 421 422 9 Finke stated the purpose of the August 3rd meeting would be to provide an opportunity for the 423 Council and Planning Commission to finalize the draft of the Land Use Plan. He noted that 424 once that portion is approved the engineers will begin to work on the technical side of the 425 Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that the Planning Commission keep the date open at this 426 time, but noted that the meeting will not be called until it is known whether the progress 427 remains on track to meet that timeline. 428 429 9. Council Meeting Schedule 430 431 Finke advised that the Council will be meeting on Tuesday, June 21st to consider the 432 Excelsior project and finalization of the Deerhill Preserve project. 433 434 White volunteered to attend the meeting. 435 436 White thanked Foote for his service and dedication to the Planning Commission. 437 438 10. Adjourn 439 440 Motion by Murrin, seconded by Barry, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried 441 unanimously. 442 AutoMotorPlex Page 1 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: July 7, 2016 MEETING: July 12, 2016 Planning Commission SUBJ: AutoMotorPlex – PUD Concept Plan Review – East of Arrowhead Dr., N. of Hamel Road – Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: July 6, 2016 60-day Review Deadline: September 4, 2016 Summary of Request Bruno Silikowski has requested review of a PUD Concept Plan for construction of an “Automotorplex,” a series of finished garages designed for motorsports enthusiasts. The concept shows nine buildings of approximately 215,000 total square feet. The applicant operates a similar facility in Chanhassen. The subject site is approximately 18 acres in area, guided for Business development and zoned Business Park. The site is currently tilled farmland. A wetland is located in the middle of the site. The proposed site would need to be subdivided off of surrounding land in order to be developed as shown on the concept. Property to the west of the subject site is guided and zoned rural residential. Property to the north is guided business and currently farmed. Property to the east is guided business and currently a rural lot. Loram operates a warehouse on the property to the south. An aerial of the site and surrounding property can be found at the top of the following page. The applicant is considering a PUD in order to allow flexibility in the development because it is not a standard business use and to allow a more residential feel to the building construction. The purpose of a PUD Concept Plan is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to a formal application. The Planning Commission and City Council will not take any action and the feedback is purely advisory. Comprehensive Plan As noted above, the subject property is guided Business (B) in the current Comp Plan and is planned for development in the current staging period. The objectives of the Commercial and Business land uses are attached for reference. The City is currently in the midst of its decennial Comprehensive Plan update. The Steering Committee has put together drafts of a Vision, Community Goals, and a draft Land Use map, which was routed to the Commission during an earlier concept plan review. No substantial changes are currently proposed for the subject or surrounding properties. AutoMotorPlex Page 2 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Proposed Site Layout The concept plan shows buildings north and south of the wetland on the site, with the buildings separated by approximately 50 feet. Buildings vary in size from 12,800 square feet to 40,000 square feet. A single access point is proposed off of Arrowhead Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Loram’s southern access point. The site was generally laid out according to the BP standards. It appears that the concept requests flexibility to be closer to the eastern property line than would be required in the BP district. The table at the top of the following page summarizes the proposed concept and the requirements of the underlying BP district. The applicant is considering a PUD, which would permit flexibility if it serves the broader purpose of the PUD and other city objectives. As noted above, the property to the east is guided Business, but currently contains a home. This fact likely warrants discussion when considering appropriate setbacks under a PUD. AutoMotorPlex Page 3 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting BP Requirement Proposed Minimum Lot Size 3 acres 18 acres Minimum Lot Width 200 feet 1105 feet Minimum Lot Depth 200 feet 700 feet Front Yard Setback 50 feet 80 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 20 feet Side Yard Setback 30 feet 50 feet Residential Setback 100 feet 100 feet Residential Setback (w/ buffer) 75 feet 100 feet Parking Setbacks Front 35 feet 50 feet Rear/Side 20 feet 20 feet Residential 100 feet 115 feet Residential (w/ buffer) 60 feet 115 feet Max. Hardcover 70% 61.4% The proposed use is fairly unique and is not explicitly listed in the city’s zoning regulations. The garages are privately owned and store non-commercial items. The recreational and social/“club” aspects of the use differentiate it from typical storage garages. The applicant also proposes ancillary uses (retail, repair, conference spaces). These unique uses appear best addressed thorough a PUD. The Planning Commission and City Council should determine if the subject property is appropriate to accommodate such a mix of uses. Staff has some concern related to how the concept appears to propose to subdivide the subject property. It appears that approximately 1.25 acre of land to the south of the proposed buildings would be landlocked if divided as shown. The only way to access the property would by impacting wetlands. Staff recommends that any future formal application not create this situation. Architectural Design The applicant proposes LP SmartBoard lap siding as a primary building material. This material is not permitted in the BP district. The applicant seeks flexibility via the PUD in order to support a less industrial architectural finish. The BP district requires “a minimum of 20 percent of the building exterior shall be brick, natural stone, stucco (not Exterior Insulation and Finish System or similar product), copper, or glass.” Staff would recommend this at a minimum as a part of the PUD. The BP code requires that “buildings shall be designed to avoid long, monotonous building walls. Modulation may include varying building height, building setback, or building materials/design. Generally, a particular building elevation shall include a minimum of one element of modulation per 100 feet of horizontal length, or portion thereof.” The rendering provided by the applicant shows a good deal of modulation. Staff did note that the modulation appears to be greater in the interior spaces. The applicant should ensure that modulation and general architectural design is best on the facades facing the exterior of the site. AutoMotorPlex Page 4 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting The BP code requires that “building elevations which face a public street shall include generous window coverage.” The applicant shall note this requirement if proceeding with a formal application. Garage Doors The proposed buildings include a substantial amount of garage doors to access the garages. The BP zoning ordinance limits loading docks to 20% of the building perimeter. Docks which are screened by buildings do not count in this amount. The BP district also requires docks within 300 feet of residential property to be screened by a building. The applicant has attempted to screen as many of the doors as practical with buildings, but it appears that the remaining elevations would far exceed 20% . The applicant seeks flexibility under the PUD. It should be noted that the garage doors are not typical loading docks, which would often have trucks backed up to them. If the Planning Commission and Council support such flexibility, they may wish to consider requiring more architecturally attractive doors on the garage doors facing the exterior of the site. Tree Preservation and Landscaping There are no existing significant trees on the site. The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan along with the concept plan. The BP district requires planting based on the perimeter of the site. In this case, a minimum of 73 overstory, 37 ornamental trees and 121 shrubs would be required. The BP district also requires 8% of the area within the parking lot and loading docks to be landscaped and requires landscaping adjacent to buildings. It appears that the concept plan shows a fairly continuous arrangement of buildings and drive aisles. Staff recommends that the site plan incorporate more greens spaces between buildings and drive aisles. Parking and Events The concept plan does not explicitly show parking areas, so appropriate parking will need to be provided on future submittals. On a day-to-day basis, the parking need for the garages would appear to be fairly low. There would be opportunities to park in front of the units, provided it does not block drive aisles. The retail uses and any conference space would need to provide their own parking as well. The other primary consideration would be parking for events. At their Chanhassen facility, the AutoMotorPlex hosts monthly car shows with over 500 cars and hundreds of visitors. They also host smaller events on weeknights. The applicant has indicated that they have obtained the ability to park at Loram for large events. Staff would recommend further discussions related to these events with the applicant and that a set of conditions be established to mitigate any impacts on neighboring properties or public rights-of-way. AutoMotorPlex Page 5 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Wetlands and Floodplain The concept plan shows a wetland in the center of the site along with a drainageway in the southwest corner. It appears that the concept plan has accommodated the City’s minimum upland buffers around the wetland areas. FEMA maps identify no floodplains on the subject properties. Transportation The applicant proposes a single access to Arrowhead Drive. An existing stoplight at Highway 55 would support traffic from the west, north, and east. Southbound traffic would likely wind through Hamel Road, and Willow Drive. The City Engineer has not raised capacity concerns related to nearby roadways. Both Arrowhead Drive and Hamel Road are county roads and the applicant will need to follow any recommendations by Hennepin County related to necessary improvements to support the development. Staff believes that a 2nd entrance, at least for emergency purposes, should be considered for the site. Sewer/Water The applicant has not provided a utility plan along with the concept plan. The applicant will be required to extend sewer and water from the north, keeping the sewer main as deep as possible to serve the site and surrounding lands. The utility plans shall extend service to the edges of the site. Stormwater/LID Review/Grading Review The Concept Plan does not include full grading or stormwater plans. Any development proposal would ultimately be subject to relevant stormwater standards. Park Dedication The concept plan contemplates a subdivision and the applicant has also indicated that they will divide the garage units into a condominium plat. The City’s subdivision ordinance allows the City to require up to 10% of the buildable land, an 8% cash-in-lieu fee, or some combination thereof. Staff will present the concept to the Park Commission for comment. A future trail is shown along Arrowhead Drive in the City’s Trail Plan. Park dedication will likely involve the dedication of land for this trail and, potentially, construction of the trail. Purpose of Concept Plan Review/Review Criteria According to Section 827.33 of the City Code: “As the first step in the review procedure for a PUD, an applicant shall complete and submit…[a] Concept Plan...” “Comments and actions by the City during review of the Concept Plan are purely advisory and in no way shall bind the City to subsequent approval…nor imply any future approval.” The City has a great deal of discretion in the Planned Unit Development. The Concept Plan process allows the developer to receive feedback in order to determine whether they will invest AutoMotorPlex Page 6 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting in the formal development proposal. The purpose of the PUD district is described below. A PUD should meet these objectives in order to be approved. “Section 827.25. PUD - Planned Unit Development Regulations - Purpose. PUD - Planned Unit Development provisions are established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed to allow greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and/or nonresidential areas by incorporating design modifications and allowing for a mixture of uses. The PUD process, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Code related to setbacks, lot area, width and depth, yards, and other development standards is intended to encourage: Subd. 1. Innovations in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. Subd. 2. Higher standards of site and building design. Subd. 3. The preservation, enhancement, or restoration of desirable site characteristics such as high quality natural resources, wooded areas, wetlands, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. Subd. 4. Innovative approaches to stormwater management and low-impact development practices which result in volume control and improvement to water quality beyond the standard requirements of the City. Subd. 5. Maintenance of open space in portions of the development site, preferably linked to surrounding open space areas, and also enhanced buffering from adjacent roadways and lower intensity uses. Subd. 6. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly development and use pattern and more convenience in location and design of development and service facilities. Subd. 7. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower development costs and public investments. Subd. 8. A development pattern that effectuates the objectives of the Medina Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) Subd. 9. A more desirable and creative environment than might be possible through the strict application on zoning and subdivision regulations of the City.” Staff Comments The Planning Commission and City Council should review and provide comments on the Concept Plan. If the applicant proceeds with a formal application, staff has provided comments throughout the report, which are summarized below: 1) The landscaping plan shall meet the minimum requirements of the BP district and site plan shall incorporate more landscaping between buildings and drive aisles. 2) Garage doors facing the exterior of the site shall be decorative in nature. 3) Park dedication shall be provided as recommended by the Park Commission. 4) Conditions related to large events shall be required which may include, but not be limited to subjects such as: days/hours, parking, exterior speakers, etc. AutoMotorPlex Page 7 of 7 July 12, 2016 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 5) A minimum of 20% of the exterior building materials shall be brick, stone, strucco, or glass. 6) Substantial berming and screening shall be provided for garage doors which face the exterior of the site. Attachments 1. List of Documents 2. Commercial land use objectives 3. Engineer Comments dated 7/8/2016 4. Narrative 5. Letter of Support – Chanhassen 6. Concept Plan Project:  LR—16‐186 – AutoMotorPlex Concept Plan The following documents constitute the complete record of the above referenced request, even if some documents are not attached, or are only attached in part, to Planning Commission and City Council reports.  All documents are available for review upon request at City Hall. Documents Submitted by Applicant: Document Received Date Document Date # of pages Electronic Paper Copy? Notes Application 6/15/20166/15/20163  Y Updated 7/5/2016 Fee 6/15/20166/15/20161  Y  Mailing Labels 6/20/20166/17/20165  Y  Narrative 6/20/2016 11  Y  Concept Plan 7/6/2016 7/5/2016 1  N  Letter from Chanhassen 6/27/20166/23/20161  Y                              Documents from Staff/Consultants/Agencies Document Document Date # of pages Electronic Notes Engineer Comments 7/8/2016 2    Legal Comments 6/29/2016 1          Public Comments    Chapter 5 - Land Use & Growth Page 5- 17 Amended May 21, 2013 (CPA2030-4) Commercial Uses The previous objectives outlined referred to urban land uses with a residential component. The following objectives refer to commercial and industrial land uses that are connected to or planned for urban services. The Urban Commercial area is along the TH 55 corridor and will support businesses to benefit the residential areas to the north and south and commuters who travel on TH 55. Businesses will provide a variety of retail products and services mixed with light industrial/warehouses and smaller offices. Objectives: 1. Provide convenient and attractive shopping and services to meet the needs of City residents. 2. Avoid multiple access points to collector and arterial roads. 3. Encourage businesses that benefit the local community by providing employment opportunities offering convenience goods and services, utilizing high quality design, and having limited impact on public services. 4. Require commercial activities that serve the broader metropolitan market to have access to a regional highway or frontage road. 5. Regulate the impact of commercial development along the border between commercially and residentially guided areas to ensure that commercial property has a minimal impact on residential areas. 6. Regulate construction to ensure high quality, energy and resource efficient buildings and to promote such Green Building standards as LEED Certifications or the State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines: Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond (B-3) standards. 7. Encourage construction that enhances the visual appeal of TH 55 corridor. 8. Create or update standards that promote a more rural appearance, or create campus style developments that protect ecologically significant areas and natural features. 9. Require frontage roads that do not directly access TH 55 corridor. 10. Require developments to provide frontage roads as shown conceptually in the transportation plan. 11. Require conditional use permits for manufacturing, processing, cleaning, storage, maintenance and testing of goods and products in order to prevent adverse affects to the City and its residents. 12. Use the site plan review process to ensure that commercial and industrial uses are compatible with neighboring future and existing uses, and with the adjoining public streets and highways. PUD’s may be used to help accomplish this policy. Buildingalegacy–yourlegacy.701XeniaAvenueSouth Suite300 Minneapolis,MN55416 Tel:763Ͳ541Ͳ4800 Fax:763Ͳ541Ͳ1700  EqualOpportunityEmployer wsbeng.com  K:\02712Ͳ970\Admin\Docs\062816Submittal\_2016Ͳ07Ͳ07AutomotorplexConceptPlanͲWSBCommentsͲFinal.docx July 7, 2016 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: Auto Motorplex Concept Plan – Engineering Review City Project No. LR-16-186 WSB Project No. 02712-970 Dear Mr. Finke: We have reviewed the Auto Motorplex plan submittal dated June 15, 2016. The plans propose to construct 205,000 square feet of private garage condominiums, a restoration shop for high end show cars, and a possible/future museum, event center, automotive detail shop, and retail for garage finishing. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Medina’s general engineering standards and Stormwater Design Manual. We have the following comments with regards to engineering and stormwater management matters. Site Plan & Civil 1. The City will require that the existing sanitary sewer system is extended south from the dead- end on Arrowhead Drive to serve the site. Verify structure builds and the feasibility of serving the area with a gravity sewer system as proposed. If depth allows, the applicant will also be required to extend the sewer main to the far southerly extension of the property along Arrowhead Drive. 2. The City will require that the existing watermain is extended south from the dead-end on Arrowhead Drive to serve the site. Verify that adequate water pressure will be available for the site. The applicant will also be required to extend the water main to the far southerly extension of the property along Arrowhead Drive. 3. Looping connections may be required within the site to minimize long dead-end watermain sections and/or long hydrant leads. Traffic 4. Details should be provided with respect to hours of operation and typical average hourly and daily traffic generation from the site. 5. Will the site have events that attract traffic and need for additional parking? If so the applicant should provide information to determine what additional parking is necessary. Auto Motorplex Concept Plan – Engineering Review July 7, 2016 Page 2  K:\02712Ͳ970\Admin\Docs\062816Submittal\_2016Ͳ07Ͳ07AutomotorplexConceptPlanͲWSBCommentsͲFinal.docx 6. The location of the driveways should follow City access guidelines. 7. Will semi-trucks be accessing the site? If so the driveways and circulation routes should be designed to accommodate them. Stormwater 8. The project is located within the ECWMC and will need to comply with their stormwater management/permitting requirements as well as the City’s. 9. The proposed drainage design should account for the offsite area tributary from west of Arrowhead Drive. There appears to be a culvert approximately 450’ north of the intersection of Hamel Road and Arrowhead Drive that drains easterly onto this site. 10. Stormwater treatment is required prior to discharge into the adjacent wetlands. Please contact me at 763-287-8532 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Jim Stremel, P.E.  AutoMotorPlex Medina Project Overview/Narrative Golfers have their place at the club, pilots have their place at the hanger and now car enthusiasts have their place… the AutoMotorPlex. The AutoMotorPlex was designed by a motorsports enthusiast for vehicle collector enthusiasts. Many of us are at an age that we finally can collect and enjoy our vehicle passion in a responsible way. We are also in the downsizing/rightsizing stage of our lives and the AutoMotorPlex supports the changes in our lives with a purpose built facility to cater to our passion of vehicle collection and enjoyment. The AutoMotorPlex is a facility designed specifically for the vehicle collector with all of the quality, safety, security and amenities to support/make it easy to enjoy our passion. Many of our members view vehicle collecting like “art collecting”. With vehicles, in many cases, outpacing the stock market in terms of returns. People are searching for places to not only properly keep their collections in an upscale facility but also share their passion with other like-minded enthusiasts. The AutoMotorPlex prides itself on its quiet enjoyment of the collector passion, quality of construction of the buildings/campus, the security, and the standing of many of its members in the community. The AutoMotorPlex also engages in giving back to the community thru supporting charities and private and community gatherings. The first AutoMotorPlex facility was built in the city of Chanhassen on approximately the same size of property as is being reviewed in Medina. Besides being started and built in the worst recession in recent history, the AutoMotorPlex was an overwhelming success. The Chanhassen AutoMotorPlex has brought much to the community, from a significantly increased property tax over what any commercial building could have brought on the same land to being increased sales to local shops and businesses. The AutoMotorPlex is a proven concept and the Medina location will be managed by the same developer and team. The first facility in Chanhassen was built on 17 acres and houses 215,000 sq ft and represents approximately $40MM of property value. The Medina facility consists of ~17.5 acres and the developer expects a similar result. The Medina AutoMotorPlex will consist of approximately 205,000 sq ft of private garage condominiums with part of that space being reserved for a restoration shop for high end show cars, a potential car museum, an event center for corporate meetings, an automotive detailing shop and a retail shop for garage finishing. The developer has already met with Hennepin County to be sure any issues they may raise will be addressed. Photo’s from the AutoMotorPlex ‘s 1st site. The link below is a piece that was done by Bloomberg News you are encouraged to review it as it does a nice overview. There are a number of other articles that have written by Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Autoweek, and many local news outlets as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=j9zuqU3qX2E Thanks for taking a look. Kind regards Bruno June 23, 2016 CITY OF CHANgASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.22 7.1150 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Todd Gerhardt Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 City Manager Mr. Scott Johnson City Administrator City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: Chanhassen Auto MotorPlex Dear Mr. Johnson: I am often asked to write letters of recommendation, be it for prospective college students or city council members seeking appointment to boards and commissions. In this case, I would like to provide what is essentially an unsolicited letter fully supporting Bruno Silikowski and his development of the Chanhassen Auto Motorplex. I appreciated his guidance and thoughtfulness throughout what ended up being a wonderful addition to the City of Chanhassen. Bruno and his team did a great job identifying the core elements that this project needed to consider, which included high -quality building materials, professional landscape plans, and an overall master plan that blended in with the natural beauty of the Bluff Creek corridor and the numerous wetlands that surrounded the site. Based on the final outcome, I believe Mr. Silikowski has the experience and potential to duplicate this project elsewhere without hesitation. He was always available and looking out for potential disruptions to surrounding neighborhoods, and kept the city updated on his progress. With that said, I would strongly recommend Mr. Silikowski as a quality developer that follows through on his promises. Sincerely, Senior Center TG:ms Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Website www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow ENGINEERING SURVEYING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING EVS, INC. 10025 Valley View Road, Suite 140 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Phone: 952-646-0236 Fax: 952-646-0290 www.evs-eng.com SHEET NUMBER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT # # DATE REVISION LOCATION PROJECT JLL 07.05.2016 JLL 2016-002.1 MEDINA, MINNESOTA AUTOMOTORPLEX-MEDINA Concept Sketch #18 BUILDING AREAS TOTAL SITE AREA = 17.81-ac AUTO CONDO = 188,540-sf RETAIL = 26,000-sf SITE AREAS TOTAL SITE AREA = 775,888-sf IMPERVIOUS SURF. = 476,295-sf (61.4%) PERVIOUS SURF. = 299,593-sf (38.6%) Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 3 July 12, 2016 Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings Planning Commission Meeting MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: July 6, 2016 MEETING: July 12, 2016 Planning Commission SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings – Public Hearing Background During the 2016 session, Minnesota passed a new statute related to “Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings.” The law allows and establishes regulations for trailers which may be parked on a property for 6 months (extendable up to a year) to house a family member who is being cared for by a resident of the property. Cities are required to allow these dwellings subject to the requirements in the law unless a city opts-out of the requirement or explicitly adopts its own regulations on the use. Attached is the statute along with a FAQ from the League of Minnesota Cities on the subject. Analysis Staff believes that very few, if any, of these Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings would be requested even if the city did not opt-out of the law. If any of the dwellings were to be placed on property, staff believes the regulations are stringent enough that there would not be substantial impacts on neighboring properties. The law establishes very specific requirements on the dwellings. Specifically: • The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. • A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. • The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. • A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. • Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. • Primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; • No more than 300 gross square feet; • Not be attached to a permanent foundation; • Universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; • provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 3 July 12, 2016 Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings Planning Commission Meeting • Have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; • Have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; • Be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; • Be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and • Be equipped with a backflow check valve. The dwellings are permitted for up to a year (6 months + 6 month extension which can only be denied for violations). The applicant is required to submit to the city a written certification from a doctor that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living. The law sets a fee of $100 for application for a dwelling, but does allow the City to set its own fee. If the City does not opt out of the requirements of the law, staff would recommend a higher fee to cover the review costs, likely $300+. Staff believes that it is fairly unlikely to see many of these dwellings even if the City does not opt-out for a number of reasons. It is likely that a family which could afford one of these dwellings would have sufficient space in the home to house the family member. Providing one of these dwellings on a smaller lot would be difficult because the dwelling needs to meet setbacks and also be easily accessible. The most likely place to place on a small lot would be in the driveway, but in most cases it would be difficult to meet the front setback. It seems much more likely that these may be requested on larger and rural lots. In these cases, the units will be further from neighboring homes which would mitigate most concerns. The main concerns with the implementation of the law are more administrative. The law only permits the City 5 days to determine if sufficient information has been submitted and requires the City to act within 15 days. The City would need to collect health information which is non- public and would need to establish a process to handle the data. Staff also has some concern related to difficulties getting property owners to remove the dwelling once the allowed timeframe has elapsed. Conclusion The easiest and safest option would appear to be for the City to opt-out of the requirements. Staff has prepared an ordinance which would do so. The dwellings are, by their nature, temporary in nature. The City could opt-out at a later time if issues arise. However, if the City does not opt-out, it may be prepared to review and issue permits by September 1. Ordinance Amendment Page 3 of 3 July 12, 2016 Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings Planning Commission Meeting Attachments 1) League of Minnesota Cities FAQ 2) Minnesota Statute 462.3593 3) Newspaper Articles on subject 4) DRAFT ordinance opting out of requirements 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.1 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. 1 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. 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 counties 3. 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 amount 4 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 10-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”. 10 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 pwhitmore@lmc.org or LMC General Counsel Tom Grundhoefer at tgrundho@lmc.org. If you prefer calling, you can reach Pamela at 651.281.1224 or Tom at 651.281.1266. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise specified by an action of the county board, the county may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the county does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The county has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the county board holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the county has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the county receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30-day limit starts over only if the county sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The county cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A county may by resolution opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 3. [462.3593] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who: (1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and (2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired person for whom the individual is caring. (c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659, subdivision 1, paragraph (i). (d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state. (e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step, and in-law relationships. (f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2. Subd. 2. Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must: (1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation; (2) be no more than 300 gross square feet; (3) not be attached to a permanent foundation; (4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards; (5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means; Page 4 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 7/1/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=111 (6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to the exterior materials used in standard residential construction; (7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15; (8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37, or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38; (9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2; and (10) be equipped with a backflow check valve. Subd. 3. Temporary dwelling permit; application. (a) Unless the municipality has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking or storage. (b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the municipality. The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling; (2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services; (3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state; (4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic service management; (5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and (6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and other structures on the lot. (c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner. (d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot. Page 5 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 7/1/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=111 (e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this section must comply with all applicable state law, local ordinances, and charter provisions. Subd. 4. Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months. Subd. 5. Inspection. The municipality may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property. The municipality may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied and meets the requirements of this section. Subd. 6. Revocation of permit. The municipality may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit holder violates any requirement of this section. If the municipality revokes a permit, the permit holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care dwelling. Subd. 7. Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the municipality may charge a fee of up to $100 for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit. Subd. 8. No public hearing required; application of section 15.99. (a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary family health care dwelling, the municipality does not have to hold a public hearing on the application. (b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this section. The municipality has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it, except that if the statutory or home rule charter city holds regular meetings only once per calendar month the statutory or home rule charter city has 30 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to deny it. If the municipality receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30- day limit starts over only if the municipality sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. The municipality cannot extend the period of time to decide. Subd. 9. Opt-out. A municipality may by ordinance opt-out of the requirements of this section. Sec. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective September 1, 2016, and applies to temporary dwelling permit applications made under this act on or after that date. Presented to the governor May 12, 2016 Signed by the governor May 12, 2016, 1:27 p.m. Copyright © 2016 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Page 6 of 6Chapter 111 - Minnesota Session Laws 7/1/2016https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?year=2016&type=0&doctype=Chapter&id=111 EAST METRO New Brighton company's tiny trailer homes offer solution for families in need New Brighton entrepreneurs helped write a bill to allow their small mobile homes into yards. By Erin Adler (http://www.startribune.com/erin-adler/195633361/) Star Tribune JUNE 4, 2016 — 12:42PM At different times, Jesse Lammi and John Louiselle have received the same bittersweet update: Their sick relative was healthy enough to leave the hospital. The bad news: Their family had to track down a safe, affordable and local place for their still-fragile family member to convalesce in just a few days. The young entrepreneurs created New Brighton-based NextDoor Housing to help families avoid that dilemma. In a twist on the “tiny homes” trend, their company sells and rents out 240-square-foot, handicapped accessible trailers designed to sit temporarily in homeowners’ backyards when a family member can’t quite live independently. “Really, the goal here was to provide time and sanctuary for people in need,” Lammi said. “A spot where you can be near family but still have that privacy and independence.” A new bill passed weeks ago allows parking the 8-by-30-foot structures — called Drop Homes or granny pods — on single-family home lots for six months with a $100 permit, unless barred by a local ordinance. “The nexus of NextDoor Housing really is just trying to add another option to the current ones,” Louiselle said. Rep. Roz Peterson, R-Lakeville, and Sen. John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, sponsored the bill. Lammi and Louiselle crafted a “relatively complicated” bill — the Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Bill — mostly on their own, Peterson said, an impressive feat. Peterson was also taken with the idea of Drop Homes. “I have a 96-year-old father and personally experience the challenges,” Peterson said. “People need to have some choices and this is just one other … tool in the toolbox.” Lammi and Louiselle grew up playing hockey together in the northern suburbs. They reunited after college and came up with the NextDoor Housing concept, drawing on college majors in health care and economics. “It really was a combination [of both of us],” Lammi said. “I kind of had modular housing ideas, and John brought the health care side into it.” The business began in 2014 and leapt forward when the two received a $340,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. NextDoor Housing contracts with a company in north-central Minnesota to construct the homes. Each Drop Home plugs into a 50-amp outlet and has heat, air conditioning, heated water and a bathroom with a shower. They can be pulled with a one-ton pickup truck, making them mobile. The homes cost $45,000 to $70,000 to purchase or $1,250 a month to rent through NextDoor. Combining that rent with in-home health care would cost about $3,500 a month, the same or less than a spot in assisted living. “The price of nursing home care has skyrocketed in the last five years,” Louiselle said. “A lot of people need that, but there are individuals who land in nursing homes that don’t necessarily need or want to be there.” A lot of interest has come from rural Minnesota, Lammi said, where there are already a few Drop Homes sheltering people with medical problems. So far, three have been sold and two rented. Since the law takes effect Sept. 1, the real kickoff will be at the Minnesota State Fair in August, where they’ll “go full-scale launching our rental operation,” Lammi said. (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_146501345033875.jpg) ELIZABETH FLORES, STAR TRIBUNE New Brighton entrepreneurs John Louiselle, left, and Jesse Lammi founded NextDoor Housing, a company that produces small, (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_1465013452 Each mobile home (called a Drop Home) features heat, air conditioning, heated water, a bathroom with a shower and a bed and Page 1 of 2New Brighton firm's tiny trailer homes offer aid for families in need - StarTribune.com 7/5/2016http://www.startribune.com/tiny-trailer-homes-offer-a-solution-for-families-in-need/381847... The goal is to sell or rent five Drop Homes by the fair’s end, Lammi said. New Brighton Mayor Val Johnson, a Lammi family friend who has advised both partners on their business, called their brainchild “brilliant.” “When people have a good idea and they work diligently to make it happen, it’s important to support them,” Johnson said. “It’s not always about experience but more about drive.” “We’re the only company around doing this,” Lammi said. “We really believe it’s the wave of the future.” Erin.Adler@startribune.com 612-673-1781 (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/ows_1465013455 The small mobile homes are designed to be used by people who are recovering from an injury or illness or for those who may have a Page 2 of 2New Brighton firm's tiny trailer homes offer aid for families in need - StarTribune.com 7/5/2016http://www.startribune.com/tiny-trailer-homes-offer-a-solution-for-families-in-need/381847... LOCAL Suburbs opt to go their own 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://www.startribune.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.” In Lakeville, the City Council agreed to opt out last week but also sent the issue to city staff for further review. (http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1467684122_08+678634+02 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 Page 1 of 2Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - StarTribune.com 7/5/2016http://www.startribune.com/suburbs-opt-to-go-their-own-way-on-state-s-drop-home-law/38... 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 Page 2 of 2Twin Cities suburbs opt to go their own way on tiny 'drop homes' - StarTribune.com 7/5/2016http://www.startribune.com/suburbs-opt-to-go-their-own-way-on-state-s-drop-home-law/38... Ordinance No. ### 1 DATE CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. ### AN ORDINANCE REGARDING TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTHCARE DWELLINGS; OPTING OUT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593 The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 828.63 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined language as follows: Section 828.63. (Deleted by Ordinance No. 295) Temporary Family Healthcare Dwellings – Opt-out Pursuant to Statute. Pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of Medina hereby opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this ______ day of ______, 2016. ______________________________ Bob Mitchell, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk Published in the Crow River News on the _____ day of _____, 2016.