Loading...
2016-08-11 PC Agenda Packet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Thursday, August 11, 2016 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA 2. MINUTES July 12, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting (pages 1-2) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by the City of Albertville for a zoning text amendment to Appendix A, Chapter 100 of the Albertville City Code to opt out of MN Statutes 462.3593 (pages 3-9) b. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by the City of Albertville for a zoning text amendment to Appendix A, Chapter 400 of the Albertville City Code to establish a conditional use permit revocation process (pages 10-12) 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Discussion of Accessory Building Restrictions (pages 13-15) 5. ADJOURNMENT 1 ALBERTVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2016 DRAFT MINUTES ALBERTVILLE CITY HALL 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA Chair Klecker called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Becker conducted roll call. Present: Chair Klecker and Commissioners Dominick, Edgren, Barthel, Brempell, Wegner and Council Liaison Hudson. Absent: None. Others Present: City Planner Alan Brixius, City Attorney Mike Couri, and Building Permit Technician Maeghan Becker. Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Dominick, to approve the agenda as presented. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell and Wegner. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DELARED CARRIED. 2. MINUTES Motioned by Dominick, seconded by Klecker, to approve the June 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Barthel, Brempell and Wegner. Nays: None. Absent: Edgren. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. None 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. Temporary Family Health Care Facilities - Brixius presented to the Commissioners an ordinance amending Section 100 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance relating to temporary health care units. Four example photos were shown of the temporary housing structures. Brixius wants the 2 Commissioners to study this topic as it will be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. B. Planning Commission Training - Basics of Planning was presented by City Attorney Couri. - Edgren arrived at 7:42pm. - Planning Commission recessed at 9:10pm. - Klecker reconvened the meeting at 9:15pm. - Hudson excused himself at 9:15pm. - City Planner Brixius presented the Official Roles and Responsibilities. 5. ADJOURNMENT Motioned by Barthel, seconded by Dominick, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. Ayes: Klecker, Dominick, Edgren, Barthel, Brempell and Wegner. Nays: None. Absent: None. MOTION DECLARED CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________________ Maeghan M. Becker, Building Permit Technician 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Adam Nafstad FROM: Alan Brixius / Ryan Grittman RE: Albertville - Temporary Family Health Care Facilities DATE: July 7, 2016 FILE NO: 163.05 – 16.15 BACKGROUND This Spring, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a law purporting to require municipalities to allow “temporary family health care dwellings” under MN Statutes Section 462.3593. The new law defines these dwellings, requires their accommodation, but includes an “opt-out” provision that permits the municipality to exempt themselves from the provisions. ANALYSIS Intent of the New Law. The statute itself was developed and put forward by a New Brighton firm called Next Door Housing that builds these units. The statute includes an exemption for any municipality that already has an ordinance that allows temporary health care dwellings as a permitted use. Cities that have a prohibition on RV occupancy or other similar code are not immune to the law. Components of the Statute. The new law includes the following aspects: • Definitions of caregiver, person needing care, and “relative” providing care; • Specifies that the subject of the Statute is a “mobile” residential dwelling; • Specifies that the unit must be built off-site; • Specifies that the unit is no more than 300 square feet, and has no permanent foundation; • That the unit is “universally” designed and meets accessibility standards; • That the unit access plumbing and electrical through the principal home, or “other comparable means”. 4 • That the unit uses exterior materials compatible to “standard residential construction” and has an energy rating of R-15; • Is sized to be movable with a one-ton pickup truck; • Provides that such units will be permitted uses; • Provides for an application and permitting process, including notice to “adjacent” property owners; • Provides that the unit must meet setbacks and floor area ratio requirements; • Provides that the unit is occupied by only one person; • Provides for one six-month permit term, and one additional six-month term; • Provides for municipal inspection and a revocation process; • Provides for a maximum $100 fee for the initial permit, and $50 fee for the additional term extension; • Incorporates MN Statutes Section 15.99 for permit review. • Provides for the opt-out ordinance as noted below. Opt-out Provision. The new statute, as a part of MN Statutes 462 is incorporated into the municipal planning and zoning regulations, and will become effective on September 1, 2016. The municipality will have to opt-out of the regulation prior to that date to avoid its effect. Because this is a zoning regulation, any opt-out will need to be processed as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, requiring the typical hearing and ordinance adoption. The only opt-out is an explicit opt-out. Accessory Dwelling Units Generally. The issue of accessory dwelling units for the purpose of providing living space for family members needing care has been widely discussed. The context for most of these discussions has been for attached units that constitute some form of second dwelling on single family parcels. There are various arguments, pro and con, for these units. Issues Under the New Law. Apart from the issues raised by accessory dwellings, the temporary family health care dwelling addresses a separate aspect of this issue – mobile, detached “trailer” units that are hauled to the subject residential property, installed with connections to the electrical and plumbing services from the main house, and then detached and removed, theoretically, when their use is no longer needed. Interestingly, the statute provides for a single six-month period of installation, and the option for one additional six-month period. The statute also provides for an extensive process of permitting and locational regulations that would supersede a community’s normal review process. It is not clear how the statute might apply to somebody who wishes to apply for a third six-month period – it would appear that the statute prohibits that extension. The statute also allows for one unit per lot without distinguishing between single family or multiple family properties (twinhome, townhome). The statute allows only one person to reside in the unit. 5 In the City of Albertville, some of the residential neighborhoods consisting of small to mid-sized lots raise question with regard to rear yard access and unit placement. Placement of a temporary health care unit is required to meet principal building setbacks. This will be problematic on the smaller lots in the City. SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVES 1. The municipality may choose to do nothing, and allow the statute to go into effect. In this case, all of the details of the law, including size, location, construction, delivery, timing, and process would be regulated by the statute. 2. The municipality may decide that it wishes to allow temporary family health care dwellings, but prefer ordinance details more tuned to its specific requirements and zoning objectives. Examples of alternatives preferred by the municipality might be providing for site-built facilities, differences in size or materials, differences in location or screening requirements, the use of interim use permits or conditional use permits, or alternative notice requirements, just to name a few. In such a case, the municipality should take action to adopt an ordinance opting- out of the statute, and proceed to adopt its own regulations. It will be important that the municipality opt-out of the State law, or the statute may have the effect of pre-empting the preferred alternative. 3. The municipality may decide that only attached accessory units are suitable in their community. Again, the municipality will need to take specific action to adopt an opt-out ordinance to avoid the effect of MN Statutes 462.3953 prior to September 1, 2016. 4. The municipality may decide that it does not favor accessory units. Instead, families who are considering providing health care to their family members can do so within the confines of a single family home. It may be necessary to add some definition to what constitutes a separate residential use (especially cooking and sanitation/plumbing facilities) to ensure that single family homes are not accidentally modified to create additional dwelling units on the property. RECOMMENDATION While the City has a number of options for addressing this issue, staff would strongly recommend that the City adopt the attached ordinance to opt-out of the State regulations to avoid land use and performance standards issues that will occur with the application of State standards on lots within Albertville. If the City believes that this housing option is needed within the City, the City will adopt its own regulations specific to the City and appropriate for its lot sizes and neighborhoods. 6 c: Kim Olson Meaghan Becker Mike Couri Paul Heins Attachments: Exhibit A Opt-out Ordinance Exhibit B Photos EXHIBIT A CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2016 – ___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A, SECTION 100 OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO TEMPORARY HEALTH CARE UNITS WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which permits and regulates temporar y family health care dwellings. WHEREAS, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to “opt out” of those regulations. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Appendix A, Section 100 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance is hereby added as follows: Section 100.11: OPT-OUT OF MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 462.3593: Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City of Albertville opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Approved by the Albertville City Council this _____ day of ______ 2016. Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor ATTEST: Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk 7 EXHIBIT B8 EXHIBIT B9 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Adam Nafstad FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: August 4, 2016 RE: Albertville – Zoning Ordinance: Conditional Use Revocation FILE NO: 163.05 – 16.17 In processing a Zoning Ordinance violation related to non-compliance with the agreed terms of a conditional use permit, we discovered that the Albertville Zoning Ordinance does not contain language that outlines the process for conditional use permit revocation. To correct this provision, the attached ordinance amendment is offered that outlines a revocation process. The revocation process is consistent with State Statutes and is similar to the revocation language of other cities. The ordinance components include: 1. Notice of violations. 2. Timeframe for correcting the violation. 3. Analysis of violations and site conditions. 4. Public hearing to present information to the Planning Commission or City Council. 5. Planning Commission recommendation. 6. Council action. The attached Zoning Ordinance amendment is recommended to address the issue of conditional use permit revocation. c: Kim Olson Maeghan Becker Paul Heins Mike Couri 11 CITY OF ALBERTVILLE COUNTY OF WRIGHT STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2016 – _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 400, ADMINISTRATION – CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS OF THE ALBERTVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 400.8, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATION PROCESS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 400 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to add Section 400.8 to read as follows: 400.8. Conditional Use Permit Revocation. If a conditional use permit is in violation of this Ordinance or conditions of permit approval, the City may initiate a process to revoke the conditional use permit involving the following steps: (a) Written notice of violation to the property owner citing the violation and timeframe to correct violations. If the conditional use permit was issued to a person other than the owner, the City shall also provide notice to such other person at the last known address for such person as contained in the City’s files. (b) If violations are not corrected within the stated timeframe, the City will notify the property owner and conditional use permit holder and publish a public hearing notice for a public hearing to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. Notification of the public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, and written notification of said hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to all owners of land within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of the property in question. (c) City staff shall prepare a report outlining the terms of approval, violations, and findings for the conditional use permit revocation. (d) A public hearing may be held by either the Planning Commission or City Council. If a public hearing is held by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission shall provide findings and recommendation for action to the City Council within ten (10) days of the commencement of the public hearing. If no such recommendation is forthcoming within the ten (10) day period, the City Council may act without the recommendation of the Planning Commission. City of Albertville Ordinance No. 2016-________ Page 12 12 (e) If the City Council holds a public hearing, the City Council shall review the City staff report(s), take testimony from the property owner, and public testimony, and make a decision on the conditional use permit revocation. (f) Following a vote by the City Council to revoke the conditional use permit, the City shall file a certified copy thereof including a legal description of the property with the County Recorder and/or Registrar of Title and shall mail notice of its decision to the property owner and holder of the conditional use permit. THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION. Approved by the Albertville City Council this _________ day of _________ 2016. Jillian Hendrickson, Mayor ATTEST: Kimberly A. Olson, City Clerk NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. __________________________________________________________________ 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Adam Nafstad FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: August 4, 2016 RE: Albertville – Homeowners Associations and Covenants FILE NO: 163.05 – 16.18 BACKGROUND Currently, Section 1000.4, Accessory Buildings, has the following provision: 5. Design Standards/Covenants: These accessory building performance standards are applicable for all single-family lots in the city, provided, however that these standards shall not be permitted where these design standards will supersede design standards or covenants that have been established as part of an approved residential planned unit development. Property owners shall demonstrate compliance with approved covenants/design standards with the submission of a building permit for an accessory building. This ordinance provision was put in place at the request of local homeowners associations, specifically Cedar Creek, to restrict accessory buildings along the golf course. This development does not want the City issuing permits that is contrary to the covenants that would detract from the physical appearance of the golf course. The Towne Lakes subdivision was a planned unit development that was allowed smaller lots in exchange for strong covenants related to architectural standards, building placement, and lot use. Their homeowners association has requested that the City not approve building permits prior to the Towne Lakes Homeowners Association approval. The City agreed with the land use objectives of these planned unit developments and adopted this provision to remove conflicts between homeowners association covenants and City regulations exclusively for accessory buildings. 14 ISSUES ANALYSIS More recently, we have had requests for outbuildings in Albert Villas subdivisions. In the case of a lot in the 6th Addition, we discovered that covenants were in place that restricted the size of any detached accessory buildings. The property owner was informed that the City could not approve a larger accessory building than allowed by the covenants. A later similar request was for a second accessory building on a lot in the Albert Villas 4th Addition. The property owner was informed of the City regulations, however, the property owner discovered that the developer did not place covenant restrictions on the 4th Addition. This property owner may pursue a second large outbuilding by ordinance. These two lots fall within the same larger subdivision developed by the same developer, yet different rules apply. Albert Villas does not have a homeowners association to enforce the covenants. Enforcement of these covenants becomes the responsibility of the individual property owner to bring a civil suit against the covenant violator. In discussions with staff, the City may develop restrictions that accomplish the original objectives of protecting the golf course or PUD requesting smaller lot sizes without relying on private covenants across the entire City. CONCLUSION Staff is asking the Planning Commission for direction as to whether the enforcement of covenants should remain, or if the City should explore a change of the ordinance. We have provided an inventory of neighborhood, covenants, and homeowners associations for your review. c: Kim Olson Maeghan Becker Paul Heins Mike Couri 15 Homeowners Association Research Association Review Process Notes Towne Lakes 1st (appears to cover all Towne Lake subdivisions) Master ARC Reviews all buildings Hunters Pass Design Guidelines – Design Review Committee Reviews all buildings Cedar Creek 1st Addn. Architecture Control Committee Allows accessory buildings on lots not on golf course Parkside 3rd Addn. No covenants Parkside 1st Addn. Architectural Representative approval Reviews all buildings Center Oaks (all Addn.) Needs architecture approval Allows accessory buildings on lots not on golf course Albert Villas 1st Addn. None No restrictions on accessory buildings Albert Villas 2nd Addn. Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 square feet Albert Villas 3rd Addn. Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 square feet Albert Villas 4th Addn. No covenants Albert Villas 6th Addn. Must match principal structure One accessory structure up to 120 square feet