Loading...
PC Packet 07.19.16 AGENDA HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,July 19, 2016 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED JUNE 21, 2016. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 40 X 80 FINISHED METAL BUILDINGIN AN I/C ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 805 HWY 7 WparcelB. 5.NEW BUSINESS A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 4 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 4- 18 CONFOMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. B.DISCUSSION REGARDING REGULATION OF TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS. 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings 8.ADJOURNMENT MINUTES HUTCHINSON PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,June 21, 2016 5:30 p.m. 1.CALL TO ORDER 5:30 P.M. The June 21, 2016 Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Hantgeat 5:30 p.m. Members in bold were present Chair Hantge, Commissioner Kirchoff, Commissioner Kalenberg,Commissioner Norton, Commissioner Arndt, Commissioner Wick, andCommissionerFahey. Also present were Dan Jochum,City Planner,Kent Exner, City Engineer, Marc Sebora,City Attorney,and Kyle Dimler, City Building Official. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED MAY 17, 2016. Motion by Commissioner Arndt, Second by Commissioner Norton. Motion approved. Motion to Approve–Motion to Reject 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 1011 LEWIS AVE SW. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed the lot and proposed garage project on the site of 1011 Lewis Ave. SW. Mr. Jochum reviewed the subject application as included in the Staff report in the Commissioners’ packets. nd Mr. Jochum noted that 4 lots along Lewis Ave. and 2Ave. SW have garages in their front yards and 3 of those 4 have obtained variances as required. Mr. Jochum reviewed the required practical difficulties in complying with the official control: 1) Reasonableness, is the use reasonable? 2) Uniqueness, is the difficulty caused by the uniqueness of the land and not the preference of the land owner? 3) Essential character, will the essential character of the locale change if the variance is granted. Staff believes that this application meets the 3-part test of practical difficulties. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June21, 2016 Page 2 Commissioner Arndt asked if the house on the subject lot is currently over the property line. Mr. Jochum noted that the line Commissioner Arndt was referring to is somewhat skewed due to the angle at which the aerial photo was taken. Commissioner Fahey asked if the proposed garage would be in line with other nearby garages located in front yards. Mr. Jochum indicated that it is approximately in line. Jim Christopherson, applicant addressed the Commission and noted that the proposed location of the garage would be approximately 25 feet from the house and 83 feet from the garage to the street curb. Mr. Jochum noted that the Commissioners did receive one letter from an adjoining neighbor requesting the Commission consider the author’s objection to this proposal. Chair Hantge asked if 1005 Lewis Ave. Lee Streteskyapplied 10/26/2004 variance to construct a garage in the front yard Adrian Peterson 1005 Lewis Ave. SW addressed the Commission. Ms. Peterson noted that when the garage was built on her property the owner at the time asked for input from neighboring property owners. Ms. Peterson noted her belief that her property value may be decreased by having a large garage built adjacent to her lot. Ms. Peterson noted that she is concerned that constructing numerous garages in front yard space along Lewis Ave. SW will result in a tunnelfeel. George Dostal 1014 Lewis Ave. SW. Mr. Dostal stated that he purchased his property because Lewis Ave. SW was the nicest street and town and would like to see it remain the same. Mr. Dostal noted that Lewis Ave. SW is a unique area and he would like to keep it that way. Commissioner Fahey asked Mr. Dostalif he objected to the variance in 2004. Mr. Dostal noted he did. Mr. Jochum noted Staff recommends the garage siding and roofing to match the house on the property, screening provided on south and east sides of garage, and any required moving of utilities would be solely at the owner’s expense, existing drainage patterns are not to be altered. Commissioner Wick asked if Staff would recommend a small drainage ditch on the east side of the garage. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June21, 2016 Page 3 Mr. Jochum noted that the applicant would be responsible to submit a proposed drainage plan. Mr. Christopherson noted that his proposed garage will be lower than the one adjacent to his. Motion by Commissioner Norton, Second by Commissioner Wick to close public hearing at 5:54p.m. Motion approved unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Norton, Second by Commissioner Hantgeto approve with staff recommended conditions. Approved unanimously. Item will be on City Council’s consent agenda next Tuesday. Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject B.CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING OFFICE SPACE INTO A SALON IN THE C-5 CONDIDTIOANL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 300 HWY 7 W. Dan Jochum, City Planner addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum reviewed the application as included in the Commission’spackets. Mr. Jochum noted that there are no exterior changes proposed to the subject building. Mr. Jochum noted Staff recommends approval with conditions 1-4 as include in the packets. Commissioner Arndt asked what the remainder of the building would be. Mr. Jochum noted it would not change from what it currently is. Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Wick to close public hearing at 5:59p.m. Motion approved unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Wick to approve with staff recommended conditions. Approved unanimously. Item will be on City Council’s consent agenda next Tuesday. Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June21, 2016 Page 4 C.CONSIDERATION OF A SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 1315 MONTREAL ST SE. Dan Jochum, City Planner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochum introduced Chris Rayman from Koepers Development group to review the application. Mr. Rayman noted to thewest will be an out lot and to the south there will be a storm water detention pond that is ultimately planned to be returned to the City’s ownership. Mr. Rayman noted there is planned to be a green courtyard in between each of the proposed buildings on the site. Mr. Rayman noted there will be a combination of stone veneer and vinyl siding to help break up the mass of the structure. Mr. Rayman noted that construction is planned to move from the east to the west as the market drives demand. The planned color palate is to be blue/gray/beiges. Commissioner Arndt asked about planned lighting for the site. Mr. Rayman noted that the lighting will be directed downward and comply with local lighting regulations. Mr. Rayman stated that they plan to provide numerous trees and will work with the City Engineer and Forester to verify appropriate plantings. Mr. Jochum reviewed the number of units planned for each building. The buildings will be 31 feet tall and each dwelling unit will be accessed from interior hallways. Mr. Rayman noted there will be 19 garage stalls per building. Mr. Jochum noted that all setbacks appear to be met in the proposal. However, Mr. Jochum noted that there is a significant elevation difference between the subject property and the adjacent single family dwellings to the east. Staff recommends that screening trees on the easterly side of this property be place on the upper flat portion of the property rather than in the existing slope on the eastern border. Mr. Jochum also stated that Staff notes the 3:1 slope proposed is quite steep and wants to ensure the landscaping can be maintained. Commissioner Wick asked how the applicant plans to stabilize a 3:1 grade. Mr. Rayman stated the plan is to mowed grass in this location. Mr. Rayman also noted the eastern garages are broken up by stone veneer and architectural components. Chair Hantge asked who the intended market is for these apartments. Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June21, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Rayman indicated that this development company has developments throughout the state, apartments are market rates and 20% TIF funded units. Bruce Naustdal, 1175 Dale St. SW addressed the Commission. Mr. Naustdal noted he owns property on Bradford St. SE and asked for clarification of where this proposal is located in relation to his property. Mr. Jochum reviewed the proposed location of the apartment buildings and the garages would be approximately 20’ from the easterly Motion by Commissioner Norton,second by Commissioner Wick to closepublic hearing at 6:18p.m. Mr. Jochum noted Condition 12 should include screening of the garages as well as the parking lot. Motion by Commissioner Nortonto approve with 16Staff recommended conditions, second by Commissioner Kalenberg.Motion approved unanimously. Item will be on City Council consent agenda next Tuesday. Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject D.CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT LOCATED AT 210 HASSAN ST SE. Dan Jochum, City Planner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Jochumnoted that this application is basically a plat to formalize a lot that will allow proceeding forward with the MidCountry Bank project that the Commission has reviewed multiple times over the past several months. Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Arndt to close the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Fahey, Second by Commissioner Nortonto approve with staff recommended conditions. Approved unanimously will be on Council consent agenda next Tuesday evening. Motion to close hearing –Motion to approve with staff recommendations–Motion to reject Minutes Hutchinson Planning Commission June21, 2016 Page 6 5.NEW BUSINESS 6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 7.COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF A.Upcoming Meetings Mr. Jochum noted that Staff has received one application for a new building to be constructed on a lot on West Hwy 7 for the July Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jochum noted that there are also some training opportunities available for Commission members who are interested. Mr. Jochum asked Commissioners to see him if they are interested. 8.ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Arndt, Second by Commissioner Wick to adjourn at 6:24p.m. DIRECTORS REPORT –PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:July 14,2016, forJuly 19,2016, Planning Commission Meeting Application:CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A POLE STORAGE BUILDING IN THE I/CINDUSTRIAL/COMMERICALDISTRICT LOCATED AT 805HWY 7WPARCEL B. Applicant:HARLEY ALBERS,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITFOR A POLE STORAGE BUILDING IN THE I/C DISTRICT This request is very straightforward. All uses in the I/CZoning District require a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, all pole framed buildings need a CUP.The lot is avacant,landlocked lot with easement access. Becauseit is landlocked it is not visible from HWY 7or any other public street.The applicant is proposing a 40’x80’pole structure with steel siding and roof. Conditional Use Permit 805HWY 7 WParcel B–Storage Planning Commission –7-19-2016 Page 2 GENERAL INFORMATION Existing Zoning:I/C(Industrial/Commercial District) Property Location:805HWY 7 W. Parcel B. Lot Size: .42Acres Existing Land Use:Vacant Lot–Some outdoor storage. Adjacent Land Use And Zoning:R-3 to north. Everything else is I/C. Comprehensive Land Use Plan:Commercial Applicable Regulations:Sections154.066 and154.123 Conditional Use Permit: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required because all uses in the I/C District require a CUP and all pole structures require a CUP.Theapplicantis proposing to build a 40’x 80’pole structure for personal storage. The lot is currently vacant of buildings but has most recently had old construction equipment parked on it. The lot is accessed through andeasement with the owner of 845 HWY 7 West. There is a residential neighborhood and houses directly to the northof this property. There are currently trees in place but staff recommends 6 foot evergreen trees be planted every 15 feet to screen this use from the adjacent residential uses year-around. It shouldalso be noted that drainage cannot impact adjacent property owners. The building will have to be set back 50 feet from the residential zoning boundary and 20 feet from interior lot lines. A concreteor bituminousapron will need to be constructed in the front of the building (west side) that can accommodate two parking stalls to meet zoning ordinance requirements for storage uses. These parking spacesmust be at least 8.5’x 20’in size. As noted above, this is a very straightforward request and staff recommends approval. The following are standards for granting a conditional use permit: (a)The proposed building or use at the particular location requested is necessary or desirable to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of the public convenience and willcontribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community; (b)The proposed building or use will not have a substantial or undue adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting the public health, safety and general welfare; and (c)The proposed building or use will be designed, arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. Conditional Use Permit 805HWY 7 WParcel B–Storage Planning Commission –7-19-2016 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions. If the Planning Commission recommends approvalofthe applicant’s request, staff suggests the following conditions be part of the approval: 1.The standards for granting a conditional use permit would be met, subject to the conditions stated. 2.The proposed building improvements shall comply with the standards of the I/Cdistrict and the Zoning Ordinance. 3.Drainage from this lot/project cannot negatively impact adjacent properties. 4.The applicant must utilize the area outlined in the easementdocumentfor the driveway to access the property or obtain an easement inthe location of the existing driveway. 5.Theapplicant must plant evergreen trees at least 6 feet in height every 15 feet along the north side of proposed building within 6 months of obtaining certificate of occupancy for building. These trees are for screening purposes. 6.Two paved parking stalls are needed for the building and must be at least 8.5’x 20’in size in order to meet zoning ordinance requirements. 7.At which time the uses changes to a more intense public storage facility or a different use from storage, the driveway from HWY 7 up to the proposed structure must be improved to a concrete or bituminoussurface. 8.The Applicant must obtain all necessary permits for any construction that would be needed. 9.The conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions required by the permit are observed. Any expansion or intensification of a conditional use or change to another use requires approval of a newconditional use permit. MEMO–PLANNING DEPARTMENT To:Hutchinson Planning Commission From:Dan Jochum, AICP and City of Hutchinson Planning Staff Date:July 14,2016, forJuly 19,2016, Planning Commission Meeting RE:TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS I would like to have a discussion with the Planning Commission regarding the new State Law regarding temporary family health care dwellings. These structures are similarto “Tiny Homes” or sometimes called “granny pods”and would be allowed as accessory structures on properties st with principal structures unless the City opts-out of thenew law by September 12016. We recently received some information from the Minnesota City Managers Association regarding what other communities are doing on this issue. Out of approximately 30 communities, only was going to not opt out of the new law. There were a mix of metro and outstate communities that participated in this informal survey. We can discuss this issue and the Planning Commission meeting and develop a recommendation for the City Council to consider. Thank you, Dan Jochum Temporary Family Health Care Dwellingsof 2016 Allowing Temporary Structures –What it means for Cities Introduction: On May 12, 2016, Gov.Dayton signed,into law, abill creating a new process forlandowners to placemobile residential dwellings on their property to serve as a temporary family health care 1 dwelling.Community desire to providetransitionalhousing for those with mental or physical impairments andtheincreasedneed for short termcare for aging family members served as the catalystsbehind the legislature taking on this initiative. The resulting legislation sets forth a short term care alternative fora“mentally or physically impaired person”,by allowingthemto stay in a 2 “temporary dwelling” on a relative’s or caregiver’s property. Where can I read the new law? Until the state statutes are revised to include bills passedthis session, cities can find this new billat 2016 Laws, Chapter 111. Does the law require cities to follow and implement the new temporary family health care dwelling law? Yes, unless acity opts out of the new law or currently allows temporary family health care dwellingsas 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. Whenanalyzing 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 setbackrequirements. A city’s zoningand other ordinances, other than its accessory use or recreational vehicle ordinances, still applyto these structures. Because conflicts may arise between thestatute and a city’slocal 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 citiesasked if other states have adopted this type of law. The only statesthat havea somewhat similar statute at the time of publication of this FAQ are North Carolinaand 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 seemsworth mentioning that the permit process does not have the individual with the physical or mental impairmentor that individual’s power of attorney sign the permit application or a consent to releasehis or her data. The application’s data requirementsmay result in the city possessing and maintaining nonpublic data governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 3 The new law sets forth a permitting system for both cities and counties. 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 optout or don’t already allowtemporary family health care dwellingsas apermitted useunder 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 optingout,socities can opt out afterSept.1, 2016. However, if the city has not opted out by Sept.1, 2016, then the city mustnot onlyhave 4 determined a permit fee amountbefore 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 theircity attorney to analyze how to handle applications submitted after Sept.1, 2016,butstill 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 forany uncertainty about whetherstructures currently permittedunder 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 lawmust 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 useplanning act (Minn. Stat. ch.462), arguably, it mayrepresentthe adoption or an amendment of azoning ordinance, triggeringtherequirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2-4, includingapublic hearing with 10-day published notice. Therefore, cities may want to 5 erron the side of caution and treat the opt-out ordinance as azoningprovision. 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 provideotherwise 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 noreference to opting out of parts of the law. If a city wanted a program different fromthe 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 statuteshould consult theircity 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 cityto 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? 6 The mandatory application requests very specific information including, but not limited to: 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 7 life;” 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 followingto 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 norhis 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 canonlybe 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 8 dweller. 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 9 ); by other comparable means Must have compatible standard residential construction exterior materials; Must have minimum insulation of R-15; Must be portable (as defined by statute); Must comply withMinnesota Rules chapter 1360(prefabricated buildings) or 1361 (industrialized/modular buildings), “and contain an Industrialized Buildings Commission 10 seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute Code 119.2”; and 11 Must contain abackflow check valve. 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 proposedfall 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 thesestructuresrepresent a pre-fabricated home,the federal building code requirements for manufactured homes apply(as stated in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1360). If these structures aremodular homes, on the other hand, they must be constructed consistent with the State Building Code(as statedin 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 thatordinances related to accessory uses and recreational vehicle storage and parkingdo 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 thecity’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 expeditedpermit process. The permit approval process found in Minn. Stat. §15.99generally applies;however, the new law shortens the time frame within which thelocal governmentalunit canmake 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 a30-day decision. The law specifically prohibits cities from extending the time for making a decision on the permit application. The new lawallows the clock to restartif a city deems anapplication incomplete,but the city must provide the applicant written notice within five business days of receipt of the application identifying the missinginformation. Can cities collect fees for these permits? Cities have flexibility as to amounts of the permitfee. The lawsets the fee at $100 for the initial permit with a $50 renewal fee, unless acity provides otherwise by ordinance Can cities inspect, enforce and ultimately revoke these permits? Yes,but only if the permit holder violates the requirements ofthe 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 nonpublicdata 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 requiredcertification 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 orthetreatment 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.orgor 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.