Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Agenda Packet 04-01-14 Reduced
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner While Preserving the City’s Open Space Character NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Meeting Tuesday, April 1, 2014 7:00 P.M. City of Lake Elmo | 3800 Laverne Avenue North AGENDA A. Call to Order B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call D. Order of Business E. Approval of Agenda F. Accept Minutes 1. Accept March 18, 2014 City Council Meeting Minutes G. Council Reports • Mayor • Council H. Public Comments/Inquiries I. Proclamation – National Library Week Proclamation J. Consent Agenda 2. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 3. 2014 Seal Coat Project – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bids; RESOLUTION NO. 2014-20 4. Family Means CUP; RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 5. Site Plan Review Ordinance; ORDINANCE 08-105 K. Regular Agenda 6. Horning Lot Size Variance; RESOLUTION NO. 2014-22 7. Launch Properties CUP Concept Plan and Zoning Map Amendment; RESOLUTION NO. 2014-23, ORDINANCE 08-106 L. New Business 8. Joint Services Agreement with ISD 916 9. Approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Stillwater School District for the Establishment of a Multi-use Park at Oakland Junior High School M. Staff Reports and Announcements • City Administrator • City Attorney • Planning Director • City Engineer • Finance Director • City Clerk N. Adjourn ****Item times are estimates and subject to change**** ***Note: The Public is advised that there may be a quorum of Library Board Members in attendance as observers. No official action can or will be taken by the Library Board at this meeting. 7:00 7:10 9:00 7:15 8:05 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 CITY OF LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 Mayor Pearson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT: Mayor Mike Pearson and Council Members Justin Bloyer and Mike Reeves. Also Present: City Administrator Zuleger, City Attorney Brekken, Community Development Director Klatt, City Engineer Griffin, Finance Director Bendel, and City Clerk Bell. PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council Member Reeves asked that Item 14 be added to the agenda. MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE MARCH 04, 2014 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS AMENDED. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ITEM 1: ACCEPT MINUTES THE MARCH 04, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES WERE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BY CONSENSUS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COUNCIL REPORTS: Council Member Bloyer: took the predictive index survey. He thought it was pretty amazing and was impressed with results. It was money well spent if it helps the staff. Council Member Reeves added that it identifies who we are and how we work. Mayor Pearson: attended gateway corridor meeting; attended Library Board meeting; attended County/City joint project for Lake Elmo Ave. reconstruction open house. He thanked church for accommodating the open house. Some comments were about connecting to sewer; held Meet the Mayor; attended bond request meetings. Council Member Reeves: attended Meet the Mayor and found it really interesting; Enjoyed the first episode of The Mayor Show; attended Parks Commission meeting on 3/17/14. Public Comments Library Director Linda Orsted spoke about the library. Spring break activities – train your brain. Working to get kids active as well as quiet time to search out favorite books; Will be screening Disney movie about Norway; have e-books available at library on two different platforms – Overdrive and Freading. To use, patron simply needs a library card from Lake Elmo Library; Library Board voted to change the reimbursement – still one card per household, but from any library system in MN. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve Payment of Disbursements and Payroll 2. Accept Financial Report dated February 28, 2014 3. Accept Building Report dated February28, 2014 4. Approve League of MN Cities Insurance Trust Waiver Form – Annual Renewal 5. Lake Elmo Sewer Infrastructure Improvements: I-94 to 30th St. – Pay Request No. 6. 6. 2014 Seal Coat Project – Joint Services Agreement with Baytown Township MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. REGULAR AGENDA Page 1 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 ITEM 8: SCHILTGEN FARM PARCEL B SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. Community Development Director Klatt provided overview of the Schiltgen Farms North sketch plan submission. Explained the key issues that staff and the Planning Commission have identified as needing to be resolved prior to prelim plat. Mr. Klatt also explained the parkland, storm water retention, and open space discussions previously held. The proposed trails along with cul-de-sacs versus more grid-like planning were discussed. Mr. Klatt explained that the comp plan calls for more traditional style (grid-like) layout in the village area. Staff has asked for more direct route to connect the east and be in line with the village land use plan. The county’s concerns, including screening/berming on CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Ave. were noted. Both parks and planning commission have reviewed application. Mayor Pearson asked Mr. Griffin about traffic impact on street with various methods. Mr. Griffin noted that gridded does not necessarily mean straight roads. They can be curved and meandering. Important thing is to have connectivity. Connectivity benefits efficiency. Developer Dave Gonyea stated that they were open to idea of adding pocket park. Council consensus was supportive of having something available to neighborhood. Mr. Gonyea addressed the county’s concerns for Lake Elmo Avenue and noted that addressing it is in his interest. He also noted that they are considering using theming fencing. Mr. Gonyea further addressed the through-road and his concerns regarding the increased traffic. Council Member Bloyer asked which lots were quickest to sell. Mr. Gonyea said road safety has an impact on which lots sell first. Families with kids prefer cul-de-sacs and not though roads. Mr. Gonyea also explained their approach to storm water management. Mr. Bloyer asked about price point. Homes will probably start at $450K to $600K. Houses across the street will be probably $500 to $750K due to larger lots. The architecture, density, and lot sizes were discussed. Mr. Gonyea asked for direction on the cut through road to the east. Council and staff discussed the benefits and concerns with connectivity and overall maintenance. Council consensus is in favor of a small neighborhood park and additional trail connections. No formal action taken. ITEM 9: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT; ORD. 08-104, RES. NO. 2014-16 Community Development Director Klatt explained the ordinance amendment proposal. It is a minor amendment. Mr. Klatt pointed out the changes that staff recommends are different than what the Planning Commission formally recommended regarding the side entry garages. Council Member Bloyer asked about attached garages and why they are included in accessory use structures. Mr. Klatt stated that because attached garages are subordinate to the main structure. The attached garage is considered an accessory use but not an accessory structure. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 08-104 AS AMENDED, REORGANIZING AND UPDATING THE CITY’S ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PROVISIONS Page 2 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 WITHIN THE ZONING CODE, AND FURTHER AMEND BY STRIKING “UNLESS THE GARAGE IS SIDE-LOADED” FROM § 154.456 B(1)(A),(B) AND § 154.508 B(1)(A),(B). Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION TO AMEND: Council Member Bloyer moved to AMEND EXEMPT STRUCTURE TO ADD #8 WATER ORIENTED STRUCTURES AS PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY SHORELAND STRUCTURES. Mayor Pearson seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED 3-0. Mayor Pearson thanked staff for completing this item. MOTION TO AMEND: Mayor Pearson moved to ADOPT RESOLUTION 2014-16 TO ALLOW FOR SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-104. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ITEM 10: ACCESSORY 2013 INTERNAL LOAN REPAYMENT; RES. NO. 2014-17 Finance Director Bendel provided an overview of the $200,000 internal loan repayment from the Village Fund to the General Fund. MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-17, APPROVING AN INTERNAL LOAN FUND REPAYMENT, FROM THE VILLAGE FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2013. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ITEM 11: 39TH STREET NORTH: STREET AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS -ACCEPT PETITION AND AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY REPORT; RES. NO. 2014-18 City Engineer Griffin provided overview of the proposed project. It was noted that the City has heard from 3 of the 5 property owners with interests in affected parcels. It was pointed out that if the project is not completed, the city will be liable for the feasibility study costs with no way to recoup. Owners have voiced desire to have the city contribute because the street is a higher used MSA road. Mr. Griffin explained the project schedule. It is aggressive due to the timing of some of the steps required through the 429 petition process. A public hearing would be required if not 100% petition. Council Member Reeves asked about the amount at risk and the amount owners desire the City to contribute. The amount at risk is $9,400 for the feasibility study. An actual contribution amount has not been specified. Possible ranges of 10-30% have been discussed. MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-18, DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE 39TH STREET NORTH: STREET AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, IN A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $9,400. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 12: DOWNTOWN LAKE ELMO MARKET AREA PROFILE Community Development Director Klatt provided overview of the study. The study will involve local business owners and officials and give the city a market profile for the downtown. Anticipated staff time Page 3 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 involvement is unknown, but it is believed to be beneficial to staff. Council consensus is positive that the business owners are being involved. MOTION: Council Member Bloyer moved TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE TO COMPLETE A MARKET AREA PROFILE FOR LAKE ELMO IN A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $750. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ITEM 13: APPROVE WASHINGTON COUNTY MUNICIPAL WATER COALITION RESOLUTION; RES. NO. 2014-19 City Administrator Zuleger gave an overview of the Washington County Municipal Water Coalition and its purpose. Mr. Zuleger also gave summary of the resolution itself. Council Member Reeves voiced his support for the resolution. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2014-19, TO ENTER INTO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING WATER SUPPLY. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. ITEM 14: APPROVE LASERFICHE RIO UPGRADE EXPENDITURE City Clerk Bell explained the background of the item and the reason for the timing of the item. This upgrade expense was not budgeted for in the 2014 budget due to the amount not being available until now. Roseville IT did not provide the proposal until just before the council meeting preparation. Roseville needs the agreement approved by 3/19. Clerk Bell also explained the benefits of the software. If the City were to purchase this software on its own, it would cost more than $20,000, so the benefit is great. It was also pointed out that the use of this software is instrumental in the 2014 Plan of Work goal of reducing the use of paper. MOTION: Council Member Reeves moved TO APPROVE THE 2014 LASERFICHE RIO UPGRADE AND DEPLOYMENT AGENCY COST CONTRIBUTION. Council Member Bloyer seconded the motion. MOTION PASSED 3-0. SUMMARY REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Zuleger: attended bonding bill meetings. Upcoming legislative hearing on bill on Thursday 8:45AM.; reported Washington County Board of Commissioners passed resolution in support of water funding; working on Joint Powers Agreement with school district for park; working on obtaining water security/letters of credit issues for Lake Elmo Ave. So far City has secured $1.3 million; City will be discussing joint services for utilities with Oakdale; commended Mike Bouthilet for his attending utility management seminar; Council transportation workshop is moved to April 8. The joint Planning/Council commission will now be in May. City Attorney Brekken: no report. Community Development Director Klatt: working on ordinance on commercial wedding venue; Planning Commission will be taking it up if the Council support moving forward. Council Member Reeves asked about the number of events cap. Mr. Klatt responded that it is based on Afton’s ordinance and applicant. Council consensus is that Planning Commission should go forward with item. Question was asked about what type event are involved. At this point, just ceremonies, but the Commission has discussed expanding it. The applicant has not indicated anything but ceremonies thus far. City Engineer Griffin: MS4 permit has been accepted and now posted for public review. Due to deep freeze this winter, road conditions will be poor this spring. Road restrictions will be enacted soon. Page 4 of 5 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 18, 2014 Finance Director Bendel: attended Finance Committee meeting. Still looking for two more members; audit follow-up work is continuing; working on sewer and water cash flows. City Clerk Bell: working on several HR issues including Predictive Index. Encourage the entire Council to take the survey; working on the 39th St 429 petition; CFL light bulbs obtained through the County recycling grant are available for residents to promote recycling. Notice will be in newsletter and on website; Mayor Pearson adjourned the meeting at 9:03 pm. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor _______________________________ Adam R. Bell, City Clerk Page 5 of 5 CITY OF LAKE ELMO NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK 2014 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, libraries are the heart of their communities, campuses, and schools; WHEREAS; librarians work to meet the changing needs of their communities, including providing resources for everyone and bringing services outside of library walls; WHEREAS, libraries and librarian volunteers bring together community members to enrich and shape the community and address local issues; WHEREAS, librarians are trained, tech-savvy professionals, providing technology training and access to downloadable content; WHEREAS, libraries offer programs to meet community needs, providing residents with computer classes and financial planning services to both teens and older adults WHEREAS, libraries continuously grow and evolve in how they provide for the needs of every member of their communities; WHEREAS, libraries, librarians, library workers, and supporters across America are celebrating National Library Week. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I Mike Pearson, Mayor of Lake Elmo proclaim April 13-19, 2014 as NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK I encourage all residents to visit the library this week to take advantage of the wonderful library resources available at your library. “Communities matter @ your library.” Signed this April 01, 2014 ________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #2 MOTION AGENDA ITEM: Approve Disbursements in the amount of $146,429.29 SUBMITTED BY: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director THROUGH: Cathy Bendel, Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Finance FISCAL IMPACT: $146,429.29 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount of $146,429.29. No specific motion is needed as this is recommended to be part of the Consent Agenda. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: NA -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 2] April 1, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the fiduciary responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed and paid in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # Amount Description ACH $ 9,442.16 Payroll Taxes to IRS & MN Dept of Revenue 3/20/14 ACH $ 6,086.04 Payroll Retirement to PERA 3/20/14 DD5406-DD5431 $ 28,597.70 Payroll Dated (Direct Deposits) 3/20/14 41120-41152 $ 101,823.39 Accounts Payable 4/01/14 2330-2337 $ 480.00 Library Card Reimbursement 4/01/14 TOTAL $ 146,429.29 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the City Council approve as part of the Consent Agenda the aforementioned disbursements in the amount of $. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accounts Payable – check registers -- page 2 -- MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 CONSENT ITEM # 3 AGENDA ITEM: 2014 Seal Coat Project – Resolution No. 2014-20 Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for Bids SUBMITTED BY: Ryan Stempski, Assistant City Engineer THROUGH: Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Cathy Bendel, Finance Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate………………………………….Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Engineering. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The total estimated project cost for the 2014 Seal Coat Project is $213,000. The project will be paid through the Infrastructure Reserve Fund (Fund No. 409). Approval of this resolution does not commit the council to the project costs. Once contractor bids are received, the actual construction costs will be known and the council will be asked to consider entering into a contact to complete the work. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is respectfully requested to consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Resolution No. 2014-20, thereby approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the 2014 Seal Coat Project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-20, thereby approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the 2014 Seal Coat Project.” -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 3] April 1, 2014 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with the annual street maintenance program, the City Council ordered, on February 18, 2014, the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2014 Seal Coat Project. In addition, the City Council approved a Joint Service Agreement with West Lakeland Township and a Joint Service Agreement with Baytown Township as part of a shared services arrangement to pursue this work in a more cost effective manner. Through a shared services arrangement, the fixed costs for the design, obtaining bids, and administering construction is shared between each community, thereby lowering the overall costs. In addition, by combining the City and Township projects together, staff hopes to promote a more competitive bid environment that may result in a reduced unit price to lower each community’s respective construction costs. The combined project includes the plans and specifications to seal coat approximately 8 miles of streets in Lake Elmo (see attached Project Location Map), 2 miles of streets in West Lakeland Township and 1.7 miles of streets in Baytown Township. A project schedule is attached. With the approval of Plans and Specifications, the bids would be presented to council for award at the May 20, 2014 council meeting. The work is scheduled to be substantially complete by July 18, 2014 and has a final completion date of August 22, 2014. West Lakeland and Baytown will reimburse Lake Elmo for the portion of the work completed on their Township roads in accordance with the project Joint Service Agreements. Each Township will also be reimbursing the City $3,000 for the administration and engineering services associated with the project, and they will be directly responsible for the construction oversight for the work completed on their respective roadways. In 2013, the City completed a crack seal project for these city street segments in preparation of this year’s seal coat application. The 2014 Seal Coat Project now provides the design documents for seal coating these same street segments to complete the maintenance process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the City Council consider approving, as part of the Consent Agenda, Resolution No. 2014-20, thereby approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the 2014 Seal Coat Project. If removed from the consent agenda, the recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve Resolution No. 2014-20, thereby approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the 2014 Seal Coat Project.” ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Resolution No. 2014-20 2. 2014 Seal Coat Project Location Map 3. Project Schedule -- page 2 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-20 A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE 2014 SEAL COAT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to a motion passed by the City Council on the 18th day of February, 2014, FOCUS Engineering, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the 2014 Seal Coat Project and has presented such plans and specifications for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file at Lake Elmo City Hall and made a part hereof, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper an advertisement for bids upon making of such improvements under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for at least 21 days, shall specify the work to be done, and shall state that sealed bids provided to the City Clerk prior to the specified bid date and time and accompanied by a bid bond or cashier’s check made payable to the City of Lake Elmo in an amount not less than 5% of the amount of such bid will be considered ADOPTED BY THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ON THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 2014. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By: __________________________ Mike Pearson Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: ________________________________ Adam Bell City Clerk Resolution No. 2014-20 1 DOWNSLAKE LAKE JANEHILL PARK LAKE ELMOREGIONALPARK RESERVE TARTANPARKGOLF CLUB LAKE ELMO LAKE JANE SUNFISH LAKE OLSONLAKE LAKE DEMONTREVILLE CLEARLAKE HORSESHOELAKE ROSELAKE REIDPARK VFWPARK LIONS PARK 31ST ST N 32ND ST N LAVERNECT NLAYTONCT N30TH ST CIR N 30TH ST N TANA RIDGEPARK LEGION AVE NLISBON AVE NLISB O N CT N LISBON AVE NLANSINGAVE N24TH ST N24TH STCT NLAKE ELMO AVE N20TH STCT N20TH ST NLEGION AVE NLEGIONLN CIR N LEGIONLN CT N 21STST NLEGIONAVE NMANNINGTRL N12TH ST N LAYTONAVE NLAVERNEAVE NLEEWARDAVE N11THST N 14TH ST N MANNING AVE NCity of Woodbury STONEGATEPARK KRAMERLAKE GOOSELAKEARMSTRONGLAKE RIDGEPARK EAGLE POINT BLVD HUDSON BLVD JULEP AVE N 9TH ST N JULEPCT N JEW E L AVE N J A S M I N E A V E P L N 10TH STLN N10TH ST N WHISTLINGVALLEY RD WHISTLINGVALLEY TRL 10TH STCT NKEATS AVE NLAKE ELMO AVE N3RD STREETPL N 15TH ST N 15TH S T C T IVORY CT 16THST NIVORY AVE N21TH ST N 22ND ST N 21STST N 22NDCT N EAGLE POINTLAKE TABLYNPARK HEIGHTSPARK 26TH ST N 27TH ST N IMPERIALAVE NINNSDALEAVE NIRONWOODTRL N 28THST N27THST NIRISH AVE N2 7 T H S T C T N STILLWATER BLVD N INNSDALEAVE N31ST ST N JAMLEY AVE N28THST N JONQUILTRL NJONQUILAVE NJAMACA CT NIDEAL AVE N38TH ST N 39TH ST N INNSDALEAVE N36TH ST N 37TH ST N IRWINAVE N35TH ST N IRISAVE N 37TH AVE 35THST NIRISHCT NIRVINECIR NISLE AVE NLAKE JANETRL NJAMACA AVE NLAKEJANEHILLSPARK PEBBLEPARK LAKE JANETRL N IRVINECT NIVYCT N 42NDST NDEER PONDTRL NJACK PINETRL NDEERPOND CTNWINDBREAK TRL N HIDDENBAY TRL NHIDDEN BAYTRL N BIRCHBARKTRL NCity of Oakdale West LakelandTownship Baytown Township City ofOak ParkHeights City of GrantCity ofPine Springs 59th ST N HIGHLANDSTRL NHI L LTOPAVE N 53RDST N DEMONTREVILLETRL CIR NHILL TRL N 50TH ST N HI LL TR L NHIGHLANDSTRL NHIGH LANDSCT NHYTRAILAVE NDEMONTREVILLEWILDLIFE PARK DEMONTREVILLEPARK 55TH S T N JAMACAAVE NISLE AVE NJAMACA AVE NJANERD N 49THST JASPER AVE NJAMACABLVD NJEROMEAVE NKLEISPARK CARRIAGESTATIONPARK 39TH ST N LAYTONAVE NLAVERNE36TH ST 35TH ST 34TH ST UPPER 33R D S T N 33RD ST N 32ND ST NKRAFTCIR NLAMPERTAVE NLANGLYCT N33RDST LN N KLONDIKE AVE NSTILLWATER LN NKELVINAVE NKELVINCT N 43RD ST N KIRKWOODAVEKINDRED WAY KINDREDCTTAPESTRYHILLTAPESTRYBEND TAPESTRY TRL 47TH ST N KIMBRO AVE NLAKE ELMO AVE N50TH ST NKIRKWOOD AVE NKEATS AVE N58TH ST N 56TH ST N58TH CT NMANNINGAVE NLINDENAVE NLILYAVE NMARQUESSLN N MARQUESSTRL NMARQUESSTRL CT NMARQUESSTRL CIR N55TH ST N LINDEN TRL NLAR K S P U R LN N LILAC LN N44TH STLN N44TH ST N BLUESTEM LN NLILY AVE NLILY AVE NLILAC PL N LILAC WAY N 51ST ST S 55TH ST 53RD ST N 57TH ST N JULEPWAYJULEPAVE NJANECIR NISLECT NBLUE-STEM TRL NMARQUESS LN CV NMARQUESS WAY NKINDREDWAYJE R O M E AV E C T N OLSON LAKETRL N HUDSON BLVDHUDSON BLVD 10TH ST N HUDSONBLVDINWOOD AVE NINWOOD AVE NSUNFISH LAKEPARK HI D D E N BA YCT N CHERRY-WOODTRL N JANERD NDEMONTREVILLETRL N59th ST N 55TH ST NJ A N E C T N 47TH ST N 50TH ST N STILLWATER BLVD NLAKE ELMO AVE NAVEBLUESTEMCIR NLITTLELITTLEBLUESTEMCIR N LINDENTRL NSTILLWATER BLVD N50TH ST N 60TH ST N LAKE ELMO AVE N57TH STCIR57TH ST57TH ST CV N60TH ST N 59TH ST CT N 59TH ST N KELVINAVE N60TH ST N DEMONTREVILLETRL N50TH ST N LIBSONAVE N30TH ST N 10TH ST N MANNING AVE N10TH ST N 15TH ST N IVORYAVE NCity ofOak ParkHeights City ofStillwaterStillwaterTownship City ofAfton 34TH ST N KlondikeAve NSTILLWATER BLVD N TAPESTRY TRL T A P E S T R Y T R L TAPESTRYGRJULEPAVE NSTILLWATER BLVD N HOMESTEDPARKHELMO AVE NMAN N I N G A V E N 40TH ST N N1 62 121110 13 1415 22 23 24 34 98 5 17 16 2120 29 28 27 26 33 34 35 36 25 7 18 19 30 3132 HERITAGEPARK VERONICAPOND GOETSCHEL'SPOND Union Pacific Railroad Union Pacific R ailr o a d TablynPark Eagle PointCreek Estates Lake ElmoHeights Torre Pines Farms ofLake Elmo ParkviewEstates WildflowersShores HuppertAdd BeautCrest Estates FriedrichHghts KenridgeAdd Prairie RidgeOffice Park Eagle PointBusiness Park Stonegate Hammes CountryVista WhistlingValley Midland Meadows DavidNelson Est TheHomestead TartanMeadows The Forest Schwartz-Martinco Add PackardPark EdenPark Heritage Farm LonesomePine Add DownsLake Est MyronEllman Elmo View LISBONAVE NCty AudPlat No. 8 Lake ElmoPark Brookman Add Sunfish Ponds Hamlet OnSunfish LakeParkMeadows Tapestry AtCharlottes' Grove Berschen's Shores DawcinAcres LakeJaneHighlands TealPass Est Fox FireEstates Meyer'sPineridge KrausesAdd Springborn'sGreen Acres Arabian Hills JudithMaryManor Lake Elmo Vista Rolling Hills Est Prairie Hamlet HiddenMeadowsOf Lake Elmo Jesse'sHideaway DiscoverCrossing Arvold'sAcres St. Croix'sSanctuary TamarackFarm Est CarriageStation TanaRidge John M DayFarm Add The Fields ofSt. Croix2nd Add The Fieldsof St. Croix BluestemAt The Fieldsof St. Croix BurrwoodEstBergmannAdd DemontrevilleHighlands Add Lane's DemontrevilleCountry ClubDemontrevilleHighlands Add Olson Lake Add Oace AcresAdd LakeJaneHills Lake JaneManor No. 1 ThreeLakesFarm Add Bordners Garner Farmettes MA N N I N G T R L ; ¤StationNo. 2 Ì ¤StationNo. 1 åLake ElmoElementary Oak-LandJunior High Skyview CommunityMiddle School Skyview CommunityElementary Eagle PointElementary 2013 CRACK SEAL PROJECT LOCATION MAP 0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles 4 Lake Elmo Airport Parcels City Parks Golf Course Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve Subdivisions Lakes Park Office651/430-8368 ;City Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue N651/777-5510www.lakeelmo.orgÌPublic Works Building3445 Ideal Ave N651/233-5414¤Fire Stations Station No. 13510 Laverne Ave N651/770-5006 Station No. 24259 Jamaca Ave N651/779-8882n CardinalRidge CardinalView Map Date: SEPTEMBER 2013 Created By: Schools å å å å 2013 CRACK SEAL CITY OF LAKE ELMO 2014 SEAL COAT PROJECT PROJECT NO. 2014.118 PROJECT SCHEDULE February 18, 2014 Council orders preparation of Plans and Specifications. April 1, 2014 Presentation of Plans and Specifications. Council Approves Plans and Specifications and Orders Advertisement for Bids. April 5, 2014 Placement of Advertisement for Bids. –Oakdale-Lake Elmo Review. Publication on April 9 – Quest CDN. Publication on April 2 May 1, 2014 Receive Contractor bids. May 20, 2014 City Council accepts bids and awards Contract. May 23, 2014 Process and send out Contract Documents. June 6, 2014 Receipt of Contractor’s Bonds/Legal Review. June 10, 2014 Conduct Pre-Construction Meeting and Issue Notice to Proceed. June 11, 2014 Contractor begins Work. July 18, 2014 Substantial Completion of Work (including sweeping of excess aggregate). August 22, 2014 Final Completion of Work (including Punchlist and final documentation). MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 CONSENT ITEM #4 AGENDA ITEM: Family Means CUP Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director - Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment request by Family Means to construct a community center in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. The community center will allow Family Means to provide expanded and improved programming to youth in Cimarron Park, providing a service that will benefit the greater Lake Elmo community. FISCAL IMPACT: None – All City review costs were recuperated through the required application fee SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to approve a CUP Amendment request by Family Means to construct a community center in the Cimarron Manufacture Home Park as part of the Consent Agenda. The community center will be utilized to provide expanded after-school and summer programming to youth ages 6-18 in Cimarron Park. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on 3/24/14 and unanimously recommended approval of the request. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 4] April 1, 2014 The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the CUP Amendment request as part of the Consent Agenda. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the CUP Amendment request can be approved through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-21, approving the Conditional Use Permit Amendment request by Family Means to allow for the construction of a community center in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Cimarron Manufactured Home Park was approved by the Town of East Oakdale in 1967 via Special Use Permit (Attachment #6). As part of the approval of the manufactured home park, various accessory uses that would be permitted in the future were also identified in the approval. Community centers were identified as one of the permitted accessory uses. As Cimarron Park proceeded with various accessory uses, such as the golf course, the City processed the request as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment. Following this established procedure, Family Means requesting an amendment to Cimarron Park’s CUP to proceed with the construction of the community center. To provide further clarification, it should be noted that Special Use Permits, which were common during this time period, have now been replaced by CUPs procedurally. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CUP amendment request at its meeting on 3/24/14. No one spoke in favor or against the request. The Planning Commission voiced their support of the project. After discussing a few questions related to parking and programming, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the CUP Amendment request for approval (Vote: 5-0). BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: Allowing for the construction of a community center allows the Family Means organization the expanded space and facilities to improve after-school and summer programming for youth in Cimarron Park and the greater Lake Elmo community. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: Family Means currently operates after-school and summer programming in the existing clubhouse of Cimarron Park. Allowing for the construction of the community center will allow Family Means to serve a larger population of youth, as well as provide expanded and improved programming for the population. Threats: None -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 4] April 1, 2014 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the CUP Amendment request as part of the Consent Agenda. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the CUP Amendment request can be approved through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-21, approving the Conditional Use Permit Amendment request by Family Means to allow for the construction of a community center in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-21 2. Planning Commission Report, 3/24/14 3. Location Map 4. CUP Application Form and Narrative 5. Community Center Plan Sets 6. Cimarron Park Special Use Permit 7. CUP Required Findings (§154.106.A) -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-21 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMUNITY CENTER WITHIN THE CIMARRON MANUFACTURED HOME PARK WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Family Means, 1875 Northwestern Avenue, Stillwater, MN (“Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow the construction of a community center for the purpose of providing after-school and summer programming to children between the ages of 6 and 18 within the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park (901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN); and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.102; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Conditional Use Permit Amendment request to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated April 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its April 1, 2014 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.106. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.106 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment is to allow the construction of a community center to serve youth in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park as more fully described in application materials submitted to the City. 4) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment will apply to leased property legally described in Exhibit A. 5) That a community center is a permitted accessory use per the approved Special Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. Resolution No. 2014-21 6) That the proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. 7) That the proposed use conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. 8) That the proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 9) That the proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 10) That the proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring uses. 11) That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 12) That the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 13) That the proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 14) That vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. 15) That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment is granted. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of April by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ____________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk 2 Resolution No. 2014-21 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-13 ITEM: Family Means Conditional Use Permit Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer Rick Chase, Building Official Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a Public Hearing to review an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. The proposed amendment to the CUP is to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center to serve as an accessory use to the existing manufactured home park. The youth center will be run by the Family Means organization to accommodate after-school and summer programming for young residents of Cimarron between the ages of 6-18. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CUP amendment request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Family Means (Arba-Della Beck); 1875 Northwestern Avenue, Stillwater, MN 55082 Property Owners: Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (Kate Yunke); 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Location: Part of Sections 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue (CR-17) and immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10). PID Number: 36.029.21.21.0001. Request: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment Existing Land Use: Manufactured Home Park w/various accessory uses Existing Zoning: MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential Surrounding Land Use: North – gasoline station and neighborhood convenience store, and Tartan Meadows rural single family neighborhood; west – Midland Meadows rural single family neighborhood; south – vacant land guided for Urban Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Business Park (BP); east – Oakland Jr. High School and vacant/agricultural land guided for Urban High Density Residential (HDR). PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 2 Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family (west and north); CC – Convenience Commercial (north); RT – Rural Development Transitional District (south and east) Comprehensive Plan: Urban Medium Density Residential History: Property was given approval through a Special Use Permit to operate a manufactured home park in 1967. As part of the approval for the manufactured home park, various accessory uses were also permitted, including a golf course, utility buildings, and a community center. As the park proceeded with the construction of the various accessory uses, such as the golf course in 1988, the City processed that additional uses via a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the proposed community center related to the Family Means youth programs is being processed as an amendment to Cimarron Park’s existing Conditional Use Permit. It should be noted Special Use Permits have been replaced by Conditional Use Permits in current land use law or best practice. Deadline for Action: May 1, 2014 (60 day time deadline per State Statute) Applicable Regulations: §154.106 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. The CUP amendment has been submitted by Family Means, a non-profit organization that runs after-school and summer programming for youth in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. Family Means currently runs similar programming inside the existing clubhouse and office of Cimarron Park. However, due to a lack of space (900 square feet) within the existing facilities, the applicants have noted that they are unable to expand programming in Cimarron Park to provide a greater variety of programs and services. Due to this limitation, Family Means is proposing to construct a 4,000 square-foot youth center in the southeast corner of the existing parking lot that serves the clubhouse and office. As guided by the established procedure of adding other accessory uses to the manufactured home park in the past, the proposed use requires an amendment to Cimarron’s existing CUP. BACKGROUND The building proposed by Family Means is intended to increase capacity for after-school and summer programming for youth within the Cimarron manufactured home park. Family Means is currently providing some programming within a 900 square-foot space in the basement of the existing clubhouse/office of Cimarron Park. However, as stated in the provided narrative, they would like to expand their capacity and programming to serve greater numbers of youth with expanded activities. The proposed youth center would allow them to accomplish these goals. The applicants first met with staff in 2012 to discuss this proposal. At the meeting, staff instructed the applicants that the review of the youth center would be processed as an amendment to their existing CUP (formerly Special Use Permit). As instructed by staff, the applicants are now moving forward with their proposal by submitting an application for an amendment to the existing CUP. The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components: PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 3 • Narrative. The attached narrative includes a general overview of the project with additional background information regarding the organization and the intended use of the structure. The structure will have a teen area and a children’s area, as well as additional space for quiet study, computer stations and a commercial grade kitchen. The applicants have noted that there is adequate parking for the facility with 108 total parking spots at the end of construction. In addition, the narrative provides important details about how the structure will be served by the domestic sanitary sewer and water systems within Cimarron Park. Finally, it is noted that the project will result in an overall reduction in the amount if impervious surface. • Lease Agreement. Family Means have entered into a 30-year lease agreement with Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., the owners of Cimarron Park, to lease the area needed for the construction of the new youth center. In addition, the lease also provides access to common areas surrounding the building, including the dedicated parking spots for the facility. • Plan Sets o Lease Description Sketch. The sketch includes a description of the area to be leased for the youth center, as well as information relating to existing conditions and topography. o Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plan w/Details. The grading and utility plan shows the proposed grading as well as the proposed utility connections. The sanitary sewer service for the building will connect to the existing 6” service line for the clubhouse and office. The proposed water service will be connected via a 6” service line on the northern side of the structure. The plan also show a proposed rain garden on the east side of the site to address updated conditions related to drainage and storm water runoff. It is the City’s understanding that the applicant has prepared the submitted plan in coordination with the Valley Branch Watershed District. Finally, the plan includes measures to address erosion and sediment control. o Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan includes the species and location of a variety of plantings proposed for the site. The plan includes 6 trees and multiple varieties of shrubs and perennials. Upon review of the City’s landscape ordinance, Staff found the proposed landscape plan to be consistent with the City’s requirements. o Building Plans and Elevations. The applicants have provided elevations from the south and west sides of the proposed youth center, as well as the out or storage building. Building plans are also provided, showing how the interior space will be utilized in the youth center. o Site Plan Sketch. The Site Plan Sketch shows consistent information that supports the other documents in the plan sets. The sketch also demonstrates how the resulting parking lot will be striped in order to accommodate adequate parking facilities. The sketch and narrative note that 108 parking stalls will result from the redesign. However, when counting the stalls on the sketch, staff counted 95 parking stalls. Staff would request that the applicant verify the final number of parking stalls in advance of the building permit being approved. In reviewing the submitted materials, staff has determined that the applicants have provided a complete and thorough application to review the proposed amendment to Cimarron’s CUP. In order to further review the proposed use, staff reviewed the application in accordance with the City’s PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 4 ordinance pertaining to conditional use permits. In addition, staff did review the history of the site to better understand how to process the request. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: In terms of the history of the manufactured home park, Cimarron Park was granted a Special Use Permit by the Town of East Oakdale in 1967 (Attachment #4). As part of this approval, various accessory uses were identified that could be constructed accessory to the manufactured home park at a later date. These accessory uses included a nine-hole golf course and a community center/office. In reviewing this application, staff has determined that the proposed youth center is an accessory use that is consistent with the original approval of the park. It should be noted that cities no longer issue special use permits, as these types of approvals have been replaced by conditional use permits (CUPs). In reviewing the proposed amendment to the CUP, staff reviewed the request according to the required finding of the City’s CUP Ordinance. The required findings include 12 findings that relate to minimizing potential impacts or nuisances associated with the proposed use. For the convenience of the Planning Commission, staff has provided the 12 required findings in Attachment #5. In reviewing the 12 required findings for granting a conditional use permit, or an amendment to that permit in this case, staff has found that the proposed use meets all of the required findings. In the judgment of staff, the proposed use is an expansion of a use that is currently occurring within the Cimarron clubhouse/office that will positively impact the community. In addition, there are no nearby land uses in close proximity that would be negatively impacted by the construction of the youth center in this location. After reviewing the required findings, staff finds that the proposed use would not conflict with the City’s requirements for granting an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the CUP. To facilitate the review by the Planning Commission, staff can address any questions related to specific findings if needed. The Fire Chief also reviewed the proposed youth center. The site will contain a fire hydrant in close proximity, and the structure will be sprinkled. The Fire Chief also wanted to know whether or not the facility could serve a dual purpose as an additional storm shelter in cases of extreme weather. Staff will follow up with the applicants and representatives of the manufactured home park to discuss any possibilities. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park to allow the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment submitted by Family Means to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center at the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 5 2. Application Form & Narrative 3. Youth Center Plan Sets 4. Cimarron Park’s Approved Special Use Permit 5. CUP Required Findings (§154.106.A) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Scource: Washington County, MN 3-19-2014 Location Map: Family Means CUP Amendment K 456717 456710 Project Location 901 Lake Elmo Ave N 0 400 800200 Feet 1"=400' Cimarron Manufactured Home Park 10th St N Lake Elmo Ave N City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN MN 55042 03/03/2014 REVISED -03/18/14 Application for Conditional Use Amendment: Cimarron Community Building 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Cimarron Park Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. Kate Yunke, Property Manager 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-436-6188 Owners/Lessees: Arba-Della Beck, President FamilyMeans 1875 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 651-439-4840 Architect: Brian Larson, AIA Larson Architects, LLC 807 N. 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-0056 Project Background FamilyMeans is a private nonprofit social services agency founded in 1963 by Stillwater area community leaders. Their Youth Development Initiative provides on-site after-school and summer enrichment programs for Cimarron children and teens. FamilyMeans has 20 years of experience providing high quality youth programs. Local law enforcement and Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) management have publically credited their Cimarron program as instrumental in reducing juvenile crime within the community. The Cimarron youth programs have outgrown their existing space, located in the basement of the Cimarron golf clubhouse and business office. This 900 square-foot space limits the number of youth who can participate, as well as the variety of programming that can be offered. FamilyMeans and ELS have entered a 30-year lease agreement, allowing FamilyMeans to construct a new 4,000 sf one-story building and 500 sf outbuilding at the south end of the Cimarron clubhouse parking lot. The larger building will support and allow for the growth of Cimarron’s youth programming. Youth currently have the opportunity to explore art, science, music, sports, cooking and computer skill-building in an open free-choice environment. Expanded summer programming offers a soccer club, bike program and entrepreneurial garden project. Activities also include field trips and community service efforts. Help with school work is available daily, and teens explore post-secondary education options. Project Narrative As noted above, the proposed Cimarron Community Center building is located near the community entrance and existing offices and golf clubhouse. The new building and its yard occupy one end of an existing parking lot adjacent to existing playground and court areas, and are a short distance from the offices and the community pool. With its rear yard greenspace, the project reduces the overall impervious area of the site, and its location allows shared use of the existing parking lot. When striped as indicated, the remaining parking lot could provide 108 parking spaces ( including the 15 spaces needed for this new facility) . The plans have been developed in consultation and with support from the ELS/Cimarron local staff, who have concluded that this number of spaces will be more than adequate for all parking needs. The main building is a gable-roofed, slab-on-grade wood-framed structure with porches on both sides. Adjacent to the main building is an outbuilding with a seasonal bike shop and storage areas for outdoor recreation. The two buildings form edges to an outdoor play area bounded on the remaining sides by a earth berm and the playground areas. The main building’s plan is symmetrical, with a teen area and a children’s area on each side separated by a movable wall partition . Each side has its separate entrance from the parking lot/drop-off area to the north, as well as direct access to the outdoor play area to the south. In the center of the building are large activity multi-use spaces , with high (12’-0” ) ceilings. The center movable wall partition can be folded into a pocket, allowing the entire center area to be opened for special events. There are also quiet rooms to the south, facing the play yard, for study, art or small group activities. A central commercial-grade kitchen will be used for preparing food and for teaching purposes. On both the north and south sides of the building there are outdoor porches protecting entrances and providing space for small gatherings out of the elements. The site development of the building and yard will result in removal of some existing parking , and a net gain in pervious green space. As part of the reconfiguration of parking lot stormwater systems, a raingarden/bioswale is proposed that can help infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff from site and building. Smaller nearby raised bed gardens may be constructed to support the program’s gardening and produce initiative. A new 6” PVC line sanitary sewer service for the new building will be connected to the existing 6” sanitary sewer line running from the existing clubhouse/office building to the sanitary main in the street. Most of the usage from toilets, sinks, kitchen and other wastewater will be simply transferred from the program’s current use in the existing building to the new building. Any increase in usage from the new facility should easily be accommodated: according to the Chris Chvala, Cimarron Utility Director, the Cimarron wastewater treatment facility has an average flow of 72,000gal. with a capacity of 120,000 gal. The water service to the new building will via a new 4” line connected to the existing water service near an adjacent fire hydrant. Chris Chvala indicated that water pressure in this area is good, with few other sites using the existing 6” main in the street. Once a sprinkler contractor is engaged, water flow rates at the site will be verified. Summary The primary use of the proposed new Community Building for after-school and summer programs (currently housed by the existing clubhouse) appears to conform and be compatible with uses in the immediate area. Its scale, appearance and character differentiates enough to provide its own identity, but is also compatible with the existing office/clubhouse and the surrounding residential neighborhood. No additional parking will need to be created, with the existing parking lot providing all of the spaces needed. The overall net impervious surface area will decrease as a result of this project, with the addition of green space in the rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT All applications for Conditional Use Permits in the City of Lake Elmo shall be reviewed according to the following required findings (§154.106.A): 1. The proposed use will/will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city because:____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. The use or development does/does not conform to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan because: ____ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. The use or development is/is not compatible with the existing neighborhood because: __________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed use does/does not meet all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance because:____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain or shoreland area, the proposed use does/does not meet all specific standards for such use in §150.250-257 (Shoreland Ordinance) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management) because: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6. The proposed use will/will not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will/will not change the essential character of the area because: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. The proposed use will/will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures because: ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8. The proposed use will/will not be served by adequate public facilities because: ________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 9. The proposed use will/will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will/will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community because: _________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 10. The proposed use will/will not include excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors because: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Vehicular approaches to the property will/will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares because: ____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 12. The proposed use will/will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance because: _________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Revised 3-20-14 Exhibit A Lease Parcel Legal Description: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Section 36; thence South 00 degrees 02 minutes 38 seconds West, bearing oriented to the Washington County Coordinate System, NAD83, 1986 adjustment, along the west line of said Section 36 a distance of 743.74 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 22 seconds East 494.61 feet to the point of beginning; thence North 54 degrees 22 minutes 43 seconds East 120.59 feet; thence South 39 degrees 34 minutes 29 seconds East 162.16 feet; thence South 43 degrees 32 minutes 36 seconds West 62.70 feet; thence South 28 degrees 50 minutes 23 seconds West 62.70 feet; thence North 70 degrees 27 minutes 11 seconds West 24.26 feet; thence North 35 degrees 32 minutes 39 seconds West 180.68 feet to the point of beginning, containing 0.52 acres, more or less. MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 CONSENT ITEM # 5 ORDINANCE 08-105 AGENDA ITEM: Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Nick M. Johnson, City Planner THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from the Consent Agenda): - Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director - Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend repealing the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance to improve operational efficiently and remove redundant and unnecessary provisions related to the review of building permits for permitted uses on pre-existing platted lots. FISCAL IMPACT: None SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to consider repealing the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance as part of the Consent Agenda. The ordinance contains outdated information and requirements related to landscaping, storm water management and other provisions that no longer apply. In addition, it presents procedural inefficiencies that are not common amongst other communities. The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council repeal the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance as part of the Consent Agenda. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the ordinance can be repealed through the following motion: -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5] April 1, 2014 “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-105, repealing the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: In the judgment of staff, the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance was originally adopted to ensure adequate plan preparation and orderly development in Lake Elmo. However, now that the City’s Zoning Code and other ordinances have since been updated, many provisions in the ordinance are now redundant or unnecessary. From a procedural standpoint, the ordinance (subsection B) requires the Planning Commission and City Council to review development or construction proposals for permitted uses on pre-existing platted lots. From a comparison perspective, this requirement is atypical in other communities, where Planning Commission and City Council review is only required for instances of platting, land subdivision and conditional uses. Now that the City has adopted the Design Guidelines and Standards Manual, staff now recommends processing building permits for permitted uses on platted lots administratively, as is the typical practice in most cities. Repealing the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance would allow the City to proceed with growth of the community in a more efficient manner. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed action at its meeting on 3/24/14. There was minimal discussion of the proposed action. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the ordinance be repealed (Vote: 5-0). BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: Removing redundant and unnecessary provisions in the City Code helps avoid confusion, making the process more straightforward for the applicant. In addition, processing building permits for permitted uses on platted lots administratively allows the City to be operationally efficient. Operational efficiency is important during a growth phase. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: The proposed action provides the City the opportunity to remove redundant and unnecessary provisions from the City Code, allowing for better communication with the applicant/taxpayer. In addition, repealing the ordinance allows the City to process building permits for permitted uses on platted lots administratively, improving operational efficiency. Threats: Requiring Planning Commission and City Council review of all building permits for permitted uses on platted lots adds additional workload to these bodies. In addition, requiring Planning Commission and City Council review for permitted uses on platted lots is not common amongst other communities, putting Lake Elmo at a competitive disadvantage in some cases. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 5] April 1, 2014 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council repeal the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance as part of the Consent Agenda. If removed from the Consent Agenda, the ordinance can be repealed through the following motion: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-105, repealing the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-105 2. Planning Commission Report, 3/24/14 3. Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-105 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REPEALING OUTDATED PROVISIONS RELATED TO SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 151: Building Regulations, by repealing City Code Section 151.070 in its entirety. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 3. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-105 was adopted on this first day of April 2014, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-105 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2013. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014 - 19 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance. Staff is recommending to strike the ordinance with the intent of improving operational efficiency by administratively processing construction projects for permitted uses on existing platted lots. This recommendation is based upon the fact that the City has a full-time administrative, planning, engineering and building staff who are able to process these requests administratively. In addition, the newly adopted design review process should aid staff in the review of building permits for permitted uses on existing platted lots. The requested action does not require a public hearing, as the ordinance is not located in the Zoning Code. Staff is recommending that the ordinance be struck. REQUEST DETAILS City staff has been working on an updating the Zoning Code and other Code sections to prepare for what is anticipated to be a busy growth phase for the community. In order to improve operational efficiency in advance of this growth period, staff is proposing to strike the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance. The main reason to strike the ordinance relates to Section B, which reads the following: “(B) Review of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the site and building plans for the purpose of determining their compliance with this section and other applicable city ordinances. The Zoning Administrator shall have 60 days in which to complete the review of the site and building plans. During the same 60-day period, the Council and Planning Commission shall also review the site and building plan and refer the plan to other city staff for review for the same purpose.” Per the required procedure established under this ordinance, permitted uses on pre-existing platted lots also have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. When reviewing this procedure compared to other communities, this requirement can only be described as atypical. In staff’s judgment, this ordinance language is likely remnant when the City did not have a full-time planning, building and engineering staff to review the construction projects in the community. In addition, now that the City has developed and adopted a design review process, staff is more prepared to assume the responsibility of processing these types of requests administratively. To be clear, staff would only process construction projects administratively in cases where the proposed use was a permitted use under the City’s Zoning Code, and the property is a pre-existing platted lot. In a significant proportion or majority of development projects, some platting or land subdivision will be required. In addition, applicants proposing a use that under the City’s Code is a conditional use will always be required to apply for a conditional use permit, which addresses many of the uses that have BUSINESS ITEM 5B 2 potential impacts or nuisances associated with them. Both of these processes require a public hearing. It is only in cases where the proposed use is permitted and the lot is already platted where the staff administrative review would occur. In addition to the improving operation efficiency component, there are other provisions within this ordinance that are no longer applicable. For example, the City has adopted new landscaping provisions and requirements. Therefore, the landscaping provisions within the Site Plan Review Ordinance are no longer necessary. Other requirements included in the ordinance, such as lighting, surveys, building plans, storm water management plans and other requirements are already addressed by other ordinances and by the City’s building permit process. In other words, the Site Plan Review Ordinance is currently outdated and only adds additional unnecessary review. Staff would recommend striking this ordinance to improve efficiency and reduce confusion. As stated in the summary, the proposed action does not require a public hearing because the ordinance is not in the City’s zoning code. Staff is bringing the proposed action before the Planning Commission because it does relate to land use and development. Now that the City’s design review process is in place, staff recommends proceeding with removing this ordinance to improve operational efficiency. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend striking the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance (§151.070) through the following motion: “Move to recommend striking the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance (§151.070) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5B Print Lake Elmo, MN Code of Ordinances § 151.070 SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW. (A) Information required. Except has hereinafter provided, every person, before commending construction or alteration of a structure, shall submit to the Zoning Administrator the following documents and information: (1) A survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing conditions, accurately dimensioned; (2) A complete set of preliminary drawings prepared by an architect, landscape architect, engineer, or planner showing: (a) An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating parking layout including access provisions, designation of locations of principal and accessory buildings, landscaping, in conformance with the zoning code and division (A)(3) below; (b) Fences or walls or other screening, including height and type of material in conformance with Chapter 1500 and the zoning district regulations; (c) Lighting provisions, type, and location; (d) Curbs; (e) Building elevations, sections, and outline specifications, including material proposed; (f) Existing and proposed land elevations in 2 foot contours, drainage provisions, and utility provisions as may be required, including water, sewer, drainfield, lake shore, flood plain, airport or environmental overlay districts; and (g) Existing limitations imposed by zoning. (3) Landscaping and screening plan. (a) Complete landscaping, screening, and erosion control plans shall be prepared and signed by a professional landscape architect or professional site planner with educational training or work experience in land analysis and site plan preparation. These plans shall include: 1. Detailed natural land analysis, including vegetation, soil types, and slopes; 2. Man-made features (berms, fences, and the like); 3. Details of all proposed vegetative landscaping materials including: placement, Latin name/common name, caliper/height, and quantity; 4. Details of proposed non-vegetative landscaping materials; and 5. Planning and construction schedule for completion of landscaping and screening plans. Page 1 of 2CHAPTER 151: BUILDING REGULATIONS 3/20/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx (b) The final landscaping and screening plan must be approved by the Council/engineer at the time of the site plan review. (c) The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, fountains, decorative walks, or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements) Percentage of Total Project Value to Be Allocated to Landscaping Below $1,000,000 2% $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 1 and 3/4% $2,000,001 to $3,000,000 1 and 1/2% $3,000,001 to $4,000,000 1 and 1/4% Over $4,000,000 1% (d) All landscaping must be guaranteed for 2 growing seasons, with a bond or security . (4) A Storm Water Management Plan and/or and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as required in § 150.273. (B) Review of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the site and building plans for the purpose of determining their compliance with this section and other applicable city ordinances. The Zoning Administrator shall have 60 days in which to complete the review of the site and building plans. During the same 60-day period, the Council and Planning Commission shall also review the site and building plan and refer the plan to other city staff for review for the same purpose. (Am. Ord. 9764, passed - -) (C) Exceptions. The following types of construction or alteration are exempt from the site and building plan review provisions of this section: (1) The construction or alteration of a single or double family detached dwelling and buildings accessory thereto; and (2) The construction or alteration of any building where the Building Inspector estimates that the total cost of the construction or alteration will not exceed $2,500, provided that in no event shall buildings be constructed or altered in violation of the Uniform Building Code or city ordinances. (1997 Code, § 520.01) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99 Page 2 of 2CHAPTER 151: BUILDING REGULATIONS 3/20/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 REGULAR ITEM #6 RESOLUTION NO. 2014-022 AGENDA ITEM: Horning Lot Size Variance – Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director - Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission considered an application for a lot size variance at its March 24, 2014 meeting. The Commission is recommending approval with the draft findings and conditions of approval as specified in Resolution 2014-022. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A – if the parcel were considered a buildable lot, the City would have collected an assessment for the subject lot as part of a recent road project. The Planning Commission is recommending that the applicant pay a fee in lieu of this dedication at the time a building permit is issued for the site. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Suzanne Horning (as Trustee of the Suzanne R.W. Horning Trust) for a variance that would classify Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo as a buildable lot. The lot currently does not meet the City’s minimum lot size for a lot of record in a RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant has also requested a variance from Section 154.017 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that any variance granted by the City “shall expire if work -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 6] April 1, 2014 does not commence within 12 months of the date of the granting of the variance. The applicant has asked that the 12-month time limit be waived for this request. The suggested motions to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-22 approving a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements in a RS District and the maximum time for which a variance is valid.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides an overview of the request and the draft findings that have since been slightly modified by the Planning Commission. The Commission conducted a public hearing concerning the variance at its March 24, 2014 meeting and received the following comments from neighboring property owners: • Christine Cirilly, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has been paying property taxes on the property as a building lot since 1985. She noted that the applicant intends to build a home that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. • Greg Zeipelt, 4940 Jamaca Avenue North, stated that, prior to purchasing his house immediately to the north of the applicants lot, he had been informed this lot was not buildable. He discussed the existing drainage in the neighborhood, and pointed out that drainage has gotten worse since the 2012 road project. • Bill and Valerie Brass, 8930 Jane Road North, expressed concern about setting a precedence for allowing building on other substandard lots in the neighborhood. They also expressed concern about drainage in the area, and noted that the eastern portion of their lot collects water that drains from the subject property. • Jason Brash, 9030 Jane Road North, explained that he recently moved to Lake Elmo and chose it for the open space and large lots. He encouraged the Planning Commission to keep it this way. The Planning Commission generally discussed the drainage around the site; Staff responded that the City Engineer has been out to look at this area, but ultimately found that the water is draining to a low area in the neighborhood that has been previously designated as a ponding area. The Commission recommended the addition of two conditions of approval and asked that an existing condition be modified to require that any future construction on the site not exacerbate the existing drainage situation in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the variance request with the findings and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2014-021. This resolution includes the conditions as revised and recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 6] April 1, 2014 Strengths • The Planning Commission found that the applicant met the City’s four variance criteria. • The variance will allow the applicant to build on a lot that has previously been considered buildable by the City. Weaknesses • The City will need to track this variance to ensure the five-year deadline is met. Opportunities • The variance will allow the current and past tax assessment for the property to match the classification as a buildable lot. Threats • The neighbors in attendance at the public hearing expressed concern over the existing drainage situation on the lot and the loss of open space in the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the request from Suzanne Horning (as Trustee of the Suzanne R.W. Horning Trust) for a variance that would classify Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo as a buildable lot and to allow the variance to remain valid for longer than one year subject to conditions. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-22 approving a Variance from the minimum lot size requirements in a RS District and the maximum time for which a variance is valid.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-022 2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 3/24/14 3. Application and Project Narrative 4. Existing Site Conditions/Survey 5. Location Map 6. Krause’s Addition Plat 7. Septic System Report – Tom Trooien -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2014-022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT IN A RS DISTRICT AND FROM THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS VALID WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Suzanne Horning (as Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North, (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the “City”) for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on March 24, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated April 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its April 1, 2014 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.109. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.109 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variance includes the following components: Resolution 2014-022 1 a) A variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. The subject lot is 0.785 acres in size and the minimum required size to be buildable is 0.9 acres. b) A variance to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows: Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. PID 09.029.21.11.0015. 5) That the strict enforcement of Zoning Ordinance would cause practical difficulties and that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Specific findings: That the proposed use is reasonable because the lot was platted as a buildable parcel and all other parcels of similar size have had houses constructed on them since the subdivision was approved. The property is very close to meeting the required 0.9 acre minimum lot size requirement, and construction of a home on this lot will not be any more obstructive than structures built on lots meeting the 0.9 acre requirement. The applicant also purchased the lot at the time it was a buildable parcel. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to install a complaint septic system on the property. A five year deadline for construction of a home on the property is a reasonable period of time for this work to be completed. 6) That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Specific findings: That the applicant’s property is unique due to former platting of this property as a buildable lot and continued classification of the property as buildable since the lot was subdivided. The applicant purchased the property with the understanding that a house could someday be built on the property, and City records indicate that the lot was indeed buildable at the time of purchase. Other homes on neighboring smaller lots were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s zoning regulations. 7) That the proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. Specific findings: The applicant’s lot is larger than several of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood and is close to the minimum size needed to be considered buildable. The lot is of sufficient size to allow the installation of a compliant septic system and to allow the placement of a home on the parcel consistent with neighboring structures. 8) That the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Specific findings: No impacts above and beyond those considered normal for any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the variance be granted. Resolution 2014-022 2 CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1) The driveway for the future home of the lot shall access Jane Road North. Driveway access to Jamaca Avenue North shall be prohibited. 2) The applicant shall provide a drainage easement for the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff from the subject property and adjacent parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. The specific location of the drainage easement shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3) The variance shall be valid for a period of five years, but may be renewed upon review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. 4) A grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan shall be submitted in conjunction with a building permit for the property. This plan shall not exacerbate any existing drainage issues and must be designed to mitigate any additional runoff from any future construction on the site. 5) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. 6) The applicant shall submit a letter from Washington County that an approved septic system can be located on the site prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. 7) The owner shall pay a fee comparable to the assessments levied against other homes in the neighborhood for the 2012 Jane Road North road project that shall be collected at the time a building permit is issued for the site. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of April 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. __________________________________ Michael Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk Resolution 2014-022 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-08 ITEM: Horning Lot Size Variance – Krause’s Addition, Lot 9 SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Suzanne Horning (as Trustee of the Suzanne R.W. Horning Trust) for a variance that would classify Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo as a buildable lot. The lot currently does not meet the City’s minimum lot size for a lot of record in a RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant has also requested a variance from Section 154.017 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that any variance granted by the City “shall expire if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of the granting of the variance. The applicant has asked that the 12-month time limit be waived for this request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Briggs and Morgan (Christine Cirilli), 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN acting on behalf of: Suzanne Horning (Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North Property Owners: Suzanne and Robert Horning Trust, 8991 Jane Road North Location: Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo. PID Number 09.029.21.11.0015 Request: Variance – Lot Size and Time Limit for Completion Existing Land Use: Vacant parcel, prior recreation use (tennis courts) accessory to 8991 Jane Road North Existing Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Surrounding Land Use: Single family residential Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family Proposed Zoning: No Change History: Krause’s Addition was platted in 1963. The home at 8991 Jane Road North (across the street and also owned by the applicant) was constructed in 1979. The City granted a lot size variance for the subject property in 1985, but no home was ever PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 2 built on the site. A permit to install a tennis court on the subject property was approved later in 1985. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/3/14 60 Day Deadline – 4/3/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 6/3/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.450 – RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District 154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement) 150.250 – Shoreland Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. The application also includes a request for the City to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance. In this case, the applicant has requested that the variance be granted without a deadline so that a home could be built on the lot at an unspecified time in the future. The applicant is therefore not proposing to construct any buildings on the property, and is instead seeking a variance to classify the lot as a buildable parcel in advance of any specific building plans for the property. The lot under consideration is 0.785 acres (34,195 square feet) in size and the minimum lot size within the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district is 1.5 acres. As an existing lot of record, otherwise known as a lot that was platted prior to the City’s zoning regulations becoming effective, this property would be considered buildable if it met 60% of the district’s minimum lot size. The applicant would therefore need at least 0.9 acres (39,204 square feet) for this lot to be considered buildable under the current zoning regulations. The site is currently occupied by a tennis court that was built in the mid-1980’s, and has served as an accessory use to the home located at 8991 Jane Road North. Should the variance be approved, the applicant intends to convey the lot to her children as a buildable lot, although she has not provided any specific time frame for a home to be constructed. The application materials include a septic system analysis documenting that a system compliant with Washington County septic regulations may be constructed on the property. For the purposes of this report, the septic designer assumed that a new home would be built on the same area presently occupied by the tennis court. In addition to the above-referenced septic report, the applicant has provided a detailed project narrative with an analysis of the required variance findings. The applicant has also provided a detailed survey of the lot showing the existing topography, drainage patterns, tree cover, and improvements that are currently situated on the property. There are no specific site development plans, and any future construction on this property will need to comply with the City’s zoning and subdivision requirements (with the exception of minimum lot size should the variance be granted). BACKGROUND The lot that is the subject of the variance request is part of Krause’s Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, which was platted in 1963 when this area was still part of East Oakdale Township. The attached copy of the plat shows that the lot is the same size as it was when originally subdivided. It PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 3 likely would have been considered buildable up to the incorporation of the area into the City of Lake Elmo and the adoption of City zoning regulations in the late 1970’s. The home at 8991 Jane Road North was constructed in 1979, and it appears that this property (Lot 7) and the subject property (Lot 9) have been under common ownership since at least this time. In June of 1985, a previous owner applied for and was granted a variance by the City to grant Lot 9 status as a buildable lot. It appears that this action was taken in response to the City’s adoption of the 1.5-acre minimum lot size for single-family residential lots in this neighborhood. No home was ever constructed after the granting of the variance, and a tennis court was installed on the property later in 1985. As noted in the application materials, the present owner acquired the property sometime in 1985. It appears that the property transfer occurred after the construction of the tennis court. Additionally, the applicant has described that City assessed the subject property as a buildable lot in 1985 for a City project. Based on this information, it does appear that the City would have considered the lot to be a buildable lot at the time the property was purchased by the applicant. The applicant has also pointed out that the property has been assessed as a buildable lot the entire time that they have owned it. When the City was planning for the reconstruction of Jane Road North in 2012, the Planning Department was asked to review the assessment rolls for the project and to identify vacant, buildable parcels that would need to pay an assessment. Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition was not deemed buildable because it does not meet the 60% size requirement referenced above. Because the current Zoning Regulations include a one-year time limitation concerning the time frame for construction of projects subject to a variance, it is Staff’s opinion that the 60% requirement does apply in this situation. The applicant has therefore submitted a variance request in order to re-classify this property as a builable lot. The applicant’s parcel is situated at the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Jane Road North, and is approximately 230 feet north of Lake Jane. Other than a tennis court, there have been no other improvements constructed on the site. There is a fairly heavy amount of tree cover surrounding the tennis court around the periphery of the lot. All of the surrounding lots are occupied by single family residential homes. In general, the properties to the north and west are larger lots (1.5 acres), while the properties to the south and east are smaller lots (generally under 1 acre). In particular, there is a cluster of homes along the northern edge of Lake Jane than are very similar in size, and sometimes smaller, than the applicant’s parcel. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES In reviewing the applicable codes that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request: • RS District Setbacks. Any new construction on the lot will need to comply with all required setbacks for the RS District. The portion of the lot that abuts Jamaca Avenue North is considered the front property line, and is therefore subject to a slightly larger setback. • Driveway Access. Although the City Code does not include any restrictions on the location of a driveway on the property, Staff is recommending that any future driveway access Jane Road North instead of Jamaca Avenue North, since the latter is the less traveled roadway in adjacent to the lot. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 4 • Impervious Coverage. The RS District allows a maximum impervious coverage of 25% while the Shoreland Ordinance limits lot coverage to 15% or 6,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The tennis court currently occupies 7,395 square feet, which is 21.6% of the lot. At the time a new house is constructed on the property, the applicant will need to comply with the maximum impervious coverage allowed under the Shoreland Ordinance. • Shoreland Setbacks. The lot is far enough away from Lake Jane that any new structure will be able to comply with structure and septic system setbacks. • Drainage Area. There is an existing drainage area immediately to the west and to the northwest of the applicant’s lot, and it appears that a portion of the drainage area is also located on this lot. While the adjacent Sprinborn’s Green Acres plat includes a drainage easement over the adjacent lots, there is currently no such easement in place on the applicant’s property. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to provide a drainage easement over the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff as a condition of approval and prior to the issuance of any building permits for the property. • Septic and Drainfield Areas. The subject parcel is large enough to meet the City’s minimum requirement of 20,000 square feet for a primary and secondary septic system site. • Surrounding Lots. The neighboring lots within the public hearing notification area range in size from 11,424 square feet (0.26 acres) to 83,025 square feet (1.9 acres), and of these 13 lots, the average size is 41,592 square feet (0.95 acres). • Variance Expiration. The City Code specifies that variances are valid one year from the date a variance is issued. If construction has not taken place within one year, the variance becomes void. While the applicant has requested a full waiver of this requirement, Staff is recommending that the City maintain a specific deadline for construction of a home on the parcel. Staff is suggesting five years as a reasonable expectation. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Under this standard, the City would need to find that the classification of the subject parcel as a buildable lot is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. In this instance, the property was originally platted as a buildable lot and there is evidence in the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 5 City’s records that the current owner purchased the property with the understanding that it was a buildable lot. Additionally, the lot is consistent in size with other parcels platted at the same time and that have subsequently been built upon. The property has direct access to a platted and improved street, and a house can be placed on the property in manner consistent with the surrounding homes. Concerning the time extension associated with the variance request, Staff is recommending that a 5-year deadline is a reasonable expectation for construction of a new home. Proposed findings related to this criterion are as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed use is reasonable because the lot was platted as a buildable parcel and all other parcels of similar size have had houses constructed on them since the subdivision was approved. The property is very close to meeting the required 0.9 acre minimum lot size requirement, and construction of a home on this lot will not be any more obstructive than structures built on lots meeting the 0.9 acre requirement. The applicant also purchased the lot at the time is was a buildable parcel, and the continued use of the property for a tennis court is not reasonable given the separation of this parcel by road right-of-way from any others under common ownership. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to install a complaint septic system on the property. A five year deadline for construction of a home on the property is a reasonable period of time for this work to be completed. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification. In this case, the lot was platted as a buildable lot within an older subdivision. Other properties in the area were platted at a later date and under a different set regulations. The property owner also purchased the lot as a buildable lot, and the site has been assessed as such for the past 25 years. Again, Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant’s property is unique due to former platting of this property as a buildable lot and continued classification of the property as buildable since the lot was subdivided. The applicant purchased the property with the understanding that a house could someday be built on the property, and City records indicate that the lot was indeed buildable at the time of purchase. Other homes on neighboring smaller lots were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s zoning regulations. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. A formal set of findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: The applicant’s lot is larger than many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood and is close to the minimum size needed to be considered buildable. The lot is of sufficient size to allow the installation of a compliant septic system and to allow the placement of a home on the parcel consistent with neighboring structures. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Propose findings for this criterion are as follows: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 6 FINDINGS. No impacts above and beyond those considered normal for any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the variance be granted. Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and supporting documentation included with the application. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above and with conditions of approval related to the drainage area on the site, the location of the driveway access, and the time limit for the expiration of the variance. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will be reviewing these findings with the Commission at its meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The driveway for the future home of the lot shall access Jane Road North. Driveway access to Jamaca Avenue North shall be prohibited. 2) The applicant shall provide a drainage easement for the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff from the subject property and adjacent parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. The specific location of the drainage easement shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3) The variance shall be valid for a period of five years, but may be renewed upon review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. 4) A grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan shall be submitted in conjunction with a building permit for the property. 5) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Application and Project Narrative PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 7 3. Existing Site Conditions/Survey 4. Location Map 5. Krause’s Addition Plat 6. Septic System Report – Tom Trooien ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Scource: Washington County, MN 2-26-2014 Location Map: 09.029.21.11.0015 KJamaca Ave NJane Rd N Variance Request 09.029.21.11.0015 0 200 400100 Feet 1"=200' MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 REGULAR ITEM # 7 RES. 2014-22/ORD 08-106 AGENDA ITEM: Launch Properties Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for a Light Industrial Business Park SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Director Jim Sachs, Public Works/Water SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .....................................Community Development Director - Report/Presentation………………………...Community Development Director - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECCOMENDER: The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD Concept Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at its March 24, 2014 meeting and recommended approval with conditions. The City has previously adopted a future land use map amendment that supports the rezoning of the subject parcel to BP – Business Park. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – the applicant has stated that they will be seeking some form of financial assistance from the City for the project. The City Council has previously approved a plan to extend public water service south of 10th Street. The applicant will be responsible for extending water to the proposed development, and will be paying both SAC and WAC charges with the new development (estimated to be 90 REC’s total for the two buildings). -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 7] April 1, 2014 SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The initial phase will include the construction of a 125,000 square foot building on the western portion of the site, which will be occupied by a tire distribution business. The proposed zoning of BP – Business Park/Light Industrial allows for a range of office, light industrial, and non-production industrial uses on the site. A detail description of the request along with the original Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission is attached to this report. The specific action that has been requested includes the following components: • A zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation of the parcel from RT – Rural Transitional to BP – Business Park/Light Industrial. This zoning is consistent with the City’s land use plan for the I-94 Corridor. • A request for a PUD Concept Plan to allow the construction of two light industrial buildings with a net area of 385,000 square feet. A PUD has been requested in order to allow for a zero lot line build out of what will eventually be two separate parcels and to allow for a waiver of the City’s current setback requirements for certain portions of the property. The suggested motions to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-106 approving a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the Launch Properties parcel from RT to BP” and “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-22 approving a PUD Concept Plan for a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development with conditions.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides an overview of the request and a list of comments from Staff. The Planning Commission considered the application for a Zoning Map amendment and PUD Concept Plan at its March 24, 2014 meeting and conducted a public hearing on the request at this time. Representatives from Launch Properties addressed the Commission to further explain the project and to answer questions. The property owner of a the parcel immediately north of the subject property along Lake Elmo Avenue spoke at the public hearing and expressed concern about noise from trucks entering and exiting the site, noise from trucks maneuvering and idling on the site, traffic speeds along Lake Elmo Avenue, and potential drainage problems associated with the construction of a berm along her southern property line. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 7] April 1, 2014 The Planning Commission discussed the request, and unanimously recommended approval of the zoning map amendment as presented. The Commission did offer additional conditions or modifications to the ones drafted by Staff in order to address their concerns over the following aspects of the site plan: • That the proposed setbacks from the northern property line were too close to the future residential area. • That the proposed berm between the site and the future residential neighborhood to the north was not high enough to provide an adequate buffer. • That certain aspects associated with the architectural design of the proposed building were not consistent with the City’s design guidelines. In particular, the Commission wanted to see additional protrusions and recessions along the street-facing facades. The Commission also noted that the preliminary and final development plans should address drainage issues in the northwest portion of the site and should include additional landscaping within the central parking area. The conditions of approval as amended by the Planning Commission are incorporated into the draft resolution. Please note that the Valley Branch Watershed District has submitted a brief comment since the Planning Commission meeting, which is attached as part of this report. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan with the findings and conditions as noted in the attached Resolution 2014-022. The motion passed unanimously. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths • The proposed rezoning and PUD Concept Plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for the I-94 Corridor. • The project has been designed to comply with the City’s zoning regulations and design standards for a BP – Business Park development. Weaknesses • The proposed buildings and parking areas are very large and will generate a significant amount of storm water runoff (which will need to be managed on site). Opportunities • The development will add up to 90 REC units and will pay connection fees for sewer and water service. • The applicant plans to incorporate elements from the City’s theming study into the project, which will be located at a key entrance point into the community. Threats • The proposes use will general truck traffic that will be limited to -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 7] April 1, 2014 Hudson Boulevard North • The site is located immediately south of a future single-family residential area. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-106 approving a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the Launch Properties parcel from RT to BP” and “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-22 approving a PUD Concept Plan for a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development with conditions.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 08-106 2. Resolution No. 2014-22 3. Planning Commission Staff Report – 3/24/14 4. Application Form 5. Legal Description 6. Application Description and Project Narrative 7. Existing Conditions Map 8. Concept Layout 9. Building Renderings 10. City Engineer Review Comments 11. Washington County Review Comments 12. Comments from Valley Branch Watershed District -- page 4 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-106 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo ordains that Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.032 Zoning District Map, of the Municipal Code, shall be amended by adding Ordinance No. 08-106, as follows: Section 1: Zoning Map Amendment. The following property is hereby rezoned from RT – Rural Development Transitional to BP – Business Park/Light Manufacturing: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record. PID No. 36.029.21.33.0001. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo also hereby ordains that the Community Development Director shall make the applicable changes to the official zoning map of the City of Lake Elmo. Section 3: Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. 08-106 was adopted on this 1st day of April 2014, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ____ Nays. _____________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk CITY OF LAKE ELMO RESOLUTION NO. 2014-022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN RELATED TO A BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Launch Properties (c/o Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN (“Applicant”) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (“City”) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan, a copy of which is on file in the Lake Elmo Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the proposed PUD Concept Plan is to allow the construction of two light industrial buildings with a combined net area of 385,000 square feet that will be constructed in two phases and that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue North and Hudson Boulevard North. The PUD will incorporate exceptions form the City’s Zoning Regulations as noted below; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24, 2014 to consider the PUD Concept Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2014 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD Concept Plan with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a memorandum from the Planning Department dated April 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission PUD Concept Plan at its regular meeting on April 1, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS 1) That the procedure for obtaining approval of said PUD Concept Plan is found in the Lake Elmo City Code, Section 154.800. 2) That all the requirements of said City Code Section 154.800 related to the PUD Concept Plan have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan would allow the construction of two light industrial buildings with a combined net area of 385,000 square feet that will be constructed in two phases and that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue North and Hudson Boulevard North on property legally described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record. PID No. 36.029.21.33.0001. 4) That the proposed PUD Concept Plan includes the following exceptions from the underlying BP – Business Park Zoning District requirements: a) A reduction in the required setbacks between buildings and parking areas within a BP district and adjacent residential districts. The site plan identifies a building setback of 96 feet and parking area setback of 56 feet. b) The establishment of a zero lot line setback between the two proposed buildings and lots. The PUD will allow the creation of a common parking and truck loading area, all of which will be internal to the development. 5) That the proposed General Concept Plan for a PUD: a) Is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that the uses proposed are consistent with the BP – Business Park land use designation shown for the area on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. b) Is consistent with the purpose of Section 150.800 et seq. of the City Code. c) Complies with the development standards of Section 150.800 et seq. of the City Code. 6) That the proposed PUD will allow a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of the land than if the applicant was required to conform to the standards of the existing zoning districts on this property. 7) That the uses proposed in the PUD will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property and will not be detrimental to potential surrounding uses. 8) That the PUD is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit, and that provision and construction of dwelling units and open space are balanced and coordinated. 9) That the PUD will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets, and other public facilities and utilities, which serve or are proposed to serve the development. 10) That the PUD is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION 1. Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s PUD Concept Plan for the construction of two light industrial buildings with a combined net area of 385,000 square feet is hereby approved, subject to the following: a. The preliminary and final development plans shall address all comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated March 18, 2014. b. The applicant shall prepare a traffic impact study prior to the submission of preliminary and final plans that addresses the concerns and comments included as part of the review letter from Washington County dated March 19, 2014. This study shall clarify the intended use of the secondary access driveways providing access to the automobile parking areas. c. The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. d. The final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans that conform to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and that conforms to the City’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a cross section view of the proposed berm and landscaping along the northern property line as part of these plans. e. The applicant shall submit detailed architectural plans at the time of the preliminary and final development plan review by the City. These plans shall conform to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual and must include elements to break up the continuous flat roof line. f. The final preliminary and final development plans shall include a signage plan. g. The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication as determined by the City prior to the final plat being released for recording. h. The final plat shall include all easements for drainage and utility and other purposes as required by the City Engineer. i. The storm water plans shall differentiate between storm water retention and storm water infiltration areas. j. The preliminary and final development plans shall include a specific land use plan for the property clarifying the uses allowed under the PUD, the dimensional requirements for the site, including any deviations from the underlying zoning, and other information deemed appropriate by the City. k. The exception as requested from the required setbacks from the northern (residential) property line will not be permitted unless a letter of support is provided from the affected property owners or an augmented landscape plan as deemed appropriate by the City, including an increased berm, is provided to off-set the reduced setback. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of April 2014 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ___________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Dean A. Zuleger, City Administrator PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-17 ITEM: Launch Properties Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for a Light Industrial Business Park SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Director Jim Sachs, Public Works/Water Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The initial phase will include the construction of a 125,000 square foot building on the western portion of the site, which will be occupied by a tire distribution business. The proposed zoning of BP – Business Park/Light Industrial allows for a range of office, light industrial, and non- production industrial uses on the site. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN Property Owners: Reco Real Estate, LLC, 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN Location: Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36. Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Lake Elmo Ave. N. and Hudson Blvd. N. PID Number 36.029.21.33.0001 Request: Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Existing Land Use: Vacant/agricultural fields Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Surrounding Land Use: Agricultural fields, single family residential, golf driving range, drive-in theater Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional, RS – Rural Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Business Park PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 2 Proposed Zoning: BP – Business Park/Light Industrial History: The site has been used for agricultural fields for a long time. The property has been placed on a holding zone since the adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 3/6/14 60 Day Deadline – 5/6/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 7/6/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.051 – BP Business Park Zoning District 154.800 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations 154.105 – Zoning Amendments REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for property located northeast of the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue North and Hudson Boulevard North. The details concerning the two different aspects of the request are as follows: • The zoning map amendment would change the zoning designation of the parcel from RT – Rural Transitional to BP – Business Park/Light Industrial. This zoning is consistent with the City’s land use plan for the I-94 Corridor. • A request for a PUD Concept Plan to allow the construction of two light industrial buildings with a net area of 385,000 square feet. A PUD has been requested in order to allow for a zero lot line build out of what will eventually be two separate parcels and to allow for a waiver of the City’s current setback requirements for certain portions of the property. If the City decides to approve the request, the applicant may then proceed with the preparation of preliminary development plans and preliminary plat for the site. Under the City’s PUD Ordinance, the applicant must also submit final development plans as part of the review process. The applicant has requested to submit the preliminary and final development plans at the same time, which may be allowed by the City for smaller development projects. Because the proposed development is confined to one existing parcel and will not require the construction of any public roads through the project area, Staff is supportive of a combined preliminary and final plan submission should the concept plan be approved. The attached application narrative and site plans provide an overview of the applicant’s request, which will be built out in two phases. The first phase will include the construction of a 125,000 square foot building for a perspective tenant that intends to use the space for a tire distribution center. The bulk of the building will be used as a warehouse/distribution area, with a smaller office area located at the front of the building facing Hudson Boulevard North. The plan includes the reservation of space on the site for a future 25,000 square foot expansion of this building, along with an automobile parking area for employees near the front entrance and a truck loading area along the western portion of the building. Because the proposed tenant is expected to need a relatively small amount of customer/employee parking, the applicant is proposing to depict a portion of the parking area as “proof of parking” that could be constructed at a later date when needed. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 3 The second phase of the project includes a much larger building of 235,000 square feet that would be located in the western portion of the lot. There is no specific use identified for the building, but it is being planned to handle businesses looking for “flexible, functional space in an accessible location along the I-94 corridor” in accordance with the applicant’s project narrative. Both buildings would be accessed via a shared driveway entrance off of Hudson Boulevard North, with ancillary access provided through driveway in the extreme western and northern portions of the site. The site plan includes shared storm water facilities that will be located along Hudson Boulevard North and along the western boundary of the property. As part of the application for a PUD, the applicant has requested flexibility from some of the current BP zoning district requirements as follows: • The establishment of a zero lot line configuration for the parking lot between the two proposed buildings and lots. If the zero lot line configuration was not approved as part of the project, the applicant would need to set the parking areas back 15 feet from the adjoining lot line (which would leave 30 feet of space between the two parking areas). The PUD will allow the creation of a common parking and truck loading area, all of which will be internal to the proposed development. • A reduction from the required setbacks along the northern property boundary and the area guided for urban low density residential development. The applicant is proposing a building setback of 96 feet from this property line, with a drive aisle (fire lane) located 56 feet from this line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum building setback of 150 feet from residential zones for buildings and 100 feet for parking areas (which would include maneuvering lanes and driveways). The applicant is proposing a berm and landscaping along this line to help compensate for the reduced setbacks. BACKGROUND The proposed development site is 29 acres in size and located within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. This property, as well as the property to the north, west, and east is included in the City’ future sewer service area, with these parcels being guided for urban low density residential, commercial, and business park respectfully. The site has historically been used for agricultural fields except for the southern portion, which is lower in elevation and covered with vegetation. The surrounding existing uses include the Vali-Hi drive in theater, the Country Air golf practice facility, and the Forest residential subdivision. All but the Forest subdivision are guided for future public sewer service and are expected to be redeveloped at some point in the future. The City has recently reviewed a sketch plan for the property immediately north of the applicant’s site (the golf practice facility) for a 50-unit residential subdivision. A portion of the City’s trunk sewer line extension project that will provide sanitary sewer service to the Village Area crosses the western portion of the applicant’s property. This portion of the sewer is a gravity line that will allow the applicant to immediately connect to service the proposed buildings. The City Engineer has noted that this service line will need to be extended to Lake Elmo Avenue in order to provide service to other properties in the area. Any properties that use the sewer connection will need to plan for the future extension of service through their properties as a requirement for being allowed access to the service. Water service is not to the site, but will be extended to the eventual location of 5th Street as part of a planned City project later this year. The applicant will be responsible for providing a plan for the connection to public water service as part of the preliminary plan submissions. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 4 The City’s future land use plan guides the subject parcel for Business Park, and this land use classification extends for the entire length of Hudson Boulevard North between Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. The specific description for the land use category from the Comprehensive Plan reads as follows: BUSINESS PARK – The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs. Specific desired attributes of this land use include a diversity of jobs, high development densities and jobs per acre, high quality site and building architectural design, and increased tax revenues for the community. Office, office showroom/warehousing, research and development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for this land use category. Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office and light industrial uses of the employment center. In addition to the Eagle Point Business Park, much of the land between Manning Ave and Keats Ave adjacent to I-94 is guided for this land use classification. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): BP] As part of the request, the applicant is asking that the City rezone the parcel to the BP – Business Park/Light Manufacturing District consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed activities are either permitted or conditional uses within this district. As part of the request for a planned development, Staff is recommending that the City structure the PUD so that the allowed uses within the development are consistent with the permitted and conditional uses within the BP zoning district. The final PUD should also specify any of the zoning exceptions being sought by the applicant as described in the preceding section. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES/STAFF COMMENTS Members of the Community Development, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed PUD Concept plan and provided comments in the following areas: • Land Use. The proposed Concept Plan and the buildings/uses proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance concerning the Business Park land use category. The PUD Ordinance does provide for flexibility form the underlying zoning standards with the understanding that this flexibility will help a developer better utilize site features and obtain a higher quality development. The objectives related to a PUD are noted in the findings section below. • Zoning. With the extension of sewer and water service to the site, the City is able to take action rezone this parcel in a manner consistent with the future land use designation of Business Park. • Lake Elmo Theming Study. The applicant is proposing to incorporate design elements form the City’s Theming Study, including an enhanced corner treatment (signage and landscaping) at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North and the installation of white horse fencing extending out from this corner area. • Impervious Coverage: The proposed coverage of the parcel falls well within the allowable amount of impervious coverage (75%) for a BP zoning district. The site plan preserves 39% PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 5 of the site as open space, including storm water ponds, screening buffer areas, and general landscaping. • Access/Driveways. The City Engineer has noted that the driveways will need to comply with the City’s access spacing requirements and that the entrances along Hudson Boulevard North will likely need to be modified to meet these requirements. The County has questioned the future usage of the Lake Elmo Avenue access point, and has requested that a traffic study be conducted to more fully understand the expected traffic impacts from the development. Staff is recommending that access to the Lake Elmo Avenue driveway be limited to automobiles, and that all truck traffic be required to use the Hudson Boulevard entrance. • Setbacks. The proposed buildings and driveway areas will comply with the setback requirements of the BP zoning district with the exception of the internal side yard parking setback and the building and parking area setbacks from the northern property line. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the northern property line setback by constructing a berm and additional landscaping in this area. • Screening and Buffering. Because the northern property line represents the boundary between a light industrial and residential development, Staff is recommending that the proposed berm and landscaping as proposed be incorporated as a requirement of the PUD. The applicant should submit additional details, including a proposed cross section view of the berm, as part of the preliminary and final plan submittal. • Design Standards. The proposed buildings will be subject to the City’s Architectural and Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. The Planning Commission will be the reviewing body for the design review associated with these buildings, which will be incorporated as part of the preliminary and final plan review for the site. The applicant will need to provide the required information to complete this review with as part of any future plan submissions to the City. • Water and Sewer Services. The applicant will need to submit a plan for the extension of water services to the site as part of the preliminary and final plan submission. The Engineer has noted that the applicant will be responsible for extending these service across the site as part of these plans. • Storm Water and Erosion Control. The applicant will need to submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans with the preliminary and final development plans. These plans will need to conform to City of Lake Elmo and Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) requirements. The applicant is strongly encouraged to meet with VBWD to review the district requirements prior to preparing this plan. The applicant and City will also need to determine whether or not the proposed ponds will be deeded to the City or left under private control. • Parking. The City’s Parking Ordinance would require 60 parking stalls for the proposed use, including 18 associated with the office area and 42 for the warehouse portion of the building. The applicant has depicted 47 stalls adjacent to the first phase building, with another 85 stalls shown as “proof or parking”. The parking ordinance does state that the Planning Commission may allow parking requirements for a particular use to be relaxed or lessened in response to an expected demand that is lower than the required standard in this section, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 6 provided that sufficient open area is set aside on the parcel to meet the required standard, if determined to be necessary at a later date. With the expected demand for parking to be low for the proposed use, Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved as presented with the proof of parking concept. • County Review. Washington County has submitted its review comments, which are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. The most significant of the County’s comments is the request for a traffic study, which Staff is recommending be included as part of a preliminary and final plan submission. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the concept plan and provided comments in a review letter to the City dated March 18, 2014. The applicant will need to address the Engineer’s comments as part of the preliminary and final plan submission for the site. • Sidewalks and Trails. The concept plan does not include any trails or sidewalks within or adjacent to the development area. Although this is a commercial development, Staff is recommending that the plans be amended to include a trail along Lake Elmo Avenue within the County right-of-way. This trail will provide a connection to the planned multi-purpose trail along 5th Street immediately to the north of the subject property. At this time, the City’s plans do not include any trails or trail corridors along Hudson Boulevard North. • Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which must be submitted at the time of preliminary and final plan submission. The applicant will also need to submit a tree preservation and protection plan as part of this application. • Environmental Review. The proposed project does not meet any threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet. • Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has asked that the fire lanes within the development be designed in accordance with Minnesota Fire Code standards. The fire chief will need to review the placement of fire hydrants within the project site. • Park Land Dedication. The City has established a fee in lieu of land dedication for commercial land development. This fee will need to be paid at the time a final plat is approved by the City. • Lighting. A specific lighting plan has been not been submitted and should be included with the preliminary and final development plans. • Signs. The applicant has not provided a signage plan, which will be needed as part of future submissions to conform to the City’s Sign Ordinance. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 7 City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant’s use of a PUD will provide the applicant with flexibility to design a more unified and cohesive development than could be accomplished with the underlying zoning district. In particular, the proposed setback waivers will allow the loading areas to be configured to the center portion of the site and internally screened from adjacent properties. The proposed location of the buildings will also provide for a shared main access point to Hudson Boulevard, while eliminating truck traffic at the peripheral access driveways. The project includes a substantial buffer from the residential property north of the site, which in conjunction with the expected landscaping within the proposed residential subdivision will provide for an effective transition between these uses. The proposed use will be subject to the recently revised required findings for Planned Developments. When reviewing requests for approval of a planned unit development, the PUD Ordinance notes that the City should consider whether one or more of the objectives listed below will be served or achieved: 1) Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; 2) Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities; 3) Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques; 4) Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; 5) Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities; 6) Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features; 7) Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; 8) Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation; 9) Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved; and 10) Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. Please note that the Staff recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The preliminary and final development plans shall address all comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated March 18, 2014. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 8 2) The applicant shall prepare a traffic impact study prior to the submission of preliminary and final plans that addresses the concerns and comments included as part of the review letter from Washington County dated March 19, 2014. This study shall clarify the intended use of the secondary access driveways providing access to the automobile parking areas. 3) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. 4) The final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans that conform to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and that conforms to the City’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a cross section view of the proposed berm and landscaping along the northern property line as part of these plans. 5) The applicant shall submit detailed architectural plans at the time of the preliminary and final development plan review by the City. These plans shall conform to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. 6) The final preliminary and final development plans shall include a signage plan. 7) The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication as determined by the City prior to the final plat being released for recording. 8) The final plat shall include all easements for drainage and utility and other purposes as required by the City Engineer. 9) The storm water plans shall differentiate between storm water retention and storm water infiltration areas. 10) The preliminary and final development plans shall include a specific land use plan for the property clarifying the uses allowed under the PUD, the dimensional requirements for the site, including any deviations from the underlying zoning, and other information deemed appropriate by the City. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will review the recommended conditions of approval with the Commission at the meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The preliminary and final development plans shall address all comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated March 18, 2014. 2) The applicant shall prepare a traffic impact study prior to the submission of preliminary and final plans that addresses the concerns and comments included as part of the review letter from Washington County dated March 19, 2014. This study shall clarify the intended use of the secondary access driveways providing access to the automobile parking areas. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 9 3) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. 4) The final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans that conform to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and that conforms to the City’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a cross section view of the proposed berm and landscaping along the northern property line as part of these plans. 5) The applicant shall submit detailed architectural plans at the time of the preliminary and final development plan review by the City. These plans shall conform to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. 6) The final preliminary and final development plans shall include a signage plan. 7) The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication as determined by the City prior to the final plat being released for recording. 8) The final plat shall include all easements for drainage and utility and other purposes as required by the City Engineer. 9) The storm water plans shall differentiate between storm water retention and storm water infiltration areas. 10) The preliminary and final development plans shall include a specific land use plan for the property clarifying the uses allowed under the PUD, the dimensional requirements for the site, including any deviations from the underlying zoning, and other information deemed appropriate by the City. The suggested motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Legal Description 3. Application Description and Project Narrative 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Concept Layout 6. Building Renderings 7. City Engineer Review Comments 8. Washington County Review Comments ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 10 - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING HUDSON BLVD L E V A R D B O U HUD S O N N O R T H PARCEL 42HLAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTHC.S.A.H. NO. 17© 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved N 120 FEET600 GRAPHIC SCALE ERICKSON IVILC HUDSON BLVD L E V A R D B O U HUD S O N N O R T HwHI T E P I CK E T F EN C E MONUM EN T S IGNWE L C OM E TO L AK E E LM O PARCEL 42HLAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTHC.S.A.H. NO. 17© 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved N 120 FEET600 GRAPHIC SCALE ERICKSON IVILC © 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved ERICKSON IVILC MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 REGULAR $$ ITEM #: 8 AGENDA ITEM: Approve the Services Agreement with ISD 916 SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator THROUGH: Mayor Mike Pearson REVIEWED BY: Adam Bell, Asst. Administrator / HR, Cathy Bendel, Finance Director, SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate .................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: City Administrator FISCAL IMPACT: $31,500 of non-tax revenue per year with an annual escalator clause SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Per Council.request, the City Administrator has negotiated a non-tax services agreement with Independent School District 916 for the provision of municipal services for a new $13 million campus to be located in the Eagle Point Business Park. The agreement is for $31,500 for the first year with annual escalator clause. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: “Move to approve a Services Agreement with ISD 916 for $31,500 with a 1.02% escalator clause per year to run through calendar year 2014.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: ISD 916 has a similar agreement with the City of Blaine, MN and the construct of this agreement is based on this document as precedent. The agreement has been reviewed by both Lake Elmo and ISD 916 legal counsel. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [New Business Agenda Item 8] April 1, 2014 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: ISD 916 is a specialty school district that provides services to both students and area school districts that provide educational services for student with exceptionalities ranging from cognitively disabled to gifted and talented. The District has purchased land in the Eagle Point Business Park for the purpose of building a specialized school to serve these students. In accordance with MN State Statutes, the property is tax exempt but the City can charge the District for municipal services rendered to the site. After careful analysis of the street, public safety and utility services costs to the City, an annual service fee of $31,500 was arrived between the parties. An escalator clause of 1.02% a year has been added for the life of the contract (10 years). The contract also contains a clause that allows for the renegotiation of the terms before the end of the 10 year period. In addition to the Services Agreement, ISD 916 has agreed in principle to be responsible for $33,000 in WAC and SAC charges, $61,000 in parkland dedication fees, and $25,000 in associated planning costs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: The Agreement allows the City to recover actual costs for the provision of services in the area of police, fire, utilities, and streets per MN State Statutes. Weakness: The potential for the Agreement not be renewed after the 10 years exists and the City would not be able to collect taxes on a commercial piece of property. Opportunities: The inclusion of a ISD 916 school in Lake Elmo greatly enhances our surrounding school districts, reduced overhead costs for specialty staffing and puts a chool within reasonable driving proximity of Lake Elmo parents with children who have exceptionalities. Threats: Not signing this agreement would place a burden on the City to provide services with no cost recovery RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following motion: “Move to approve a Services Agreement with ISD 916 for $31,500 with a 1.02% escalator clause per year to run through calendar year 2014.” -- page 2 -- SERVICES AGREEMENT Services Agreement, entered into this _____ day of _____________, 2014, by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (“City”) and Northeast Metro 916 Intermediate School District (“School”). WHEREAS, School is the fee owner of a parcel legally described as Outlot A Eagle Point Business Park 7th Addition, Lake Elmo, Minnesota, (the “Property”), and intends to construct and operate a public school on the Property serving special needs students pursuant to its organizational charter (the “Activity”); WHEREAS, School anticipates, based on its operation of similar schools, that the Activity will require public safety services provided by City (“Services”) at a level which exceeds those generally provided to other businesses or institutions in the City; WHEREAS, City and School have agreed on a fixed rate of reimbursement to be paid to City by School for Services rendered to the Property, and such agreement is evidenced by this Services Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, School and City hereby agree as follows: 1. Services. City agrees to provide the Services to the Property during the time that the Activity is conducted on the Property, without any charge, assessment or fee charged to School or assessment against the Property, other than the Payment described in Paragraph 2 below. 1 2. Payment. School agrees to make an annual payment (“Payment”) to City in consideration of City providing the Services. Each payment shall be payable on December 31, commencing December 31, 2017, and shall be attributable to Services rendered during the school year commencing September 1st (prior to the Payment date) and concluding August 31st (subsequent to the Payment date). The amount of the Payment due December 31, 2017 shall be $31,500.00; the Payment amount in each subsequent year shall equal 1.02% of the previous year’s payment (a two percent annual increase). 3. Term. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall commence as of the date hereof, and shall terminate ten (10) years later; provided; however, that School’s obligation to make the Payments shall cease at such time prior to the end of the Term if it ceases to conduct the Activity on the Property. Six months prior to the end of the Term, City and School shall meet to consider a possible extension of the Term and any appropriate modifications to the Payment amount or other terms of this Agreement. 4. Miscellaneous. Any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by City and School. Both parties acknowledge that the extension and performance of this Agreement have been fully authorized and approved by their respective institutions. Any notices hereunder shall be sent in writing, by certified or registered U.S. Mail, return receipt requested, or by a national overnight mail service, to addresses listed below: Ms. Kristine Carr Director of Administrative Services Northeast Metro 916 2540 County Road F East White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Director of Finance City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. N. Lake Elmo, MN 55449 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Services Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF LAKE ELMO: NORTHEAST METRO 916 INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT By:_______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor By:_______________________________ Its:_______________________________ By:_______________________________ Dean Zuleger, City Manager By:_______________________________ Its:_______________________________ 020588/312001/1585010_1 3 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION DATE: April 1, 2014 REGULAR $$ ITEM #: 9 AGENDA ITEM: Approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Great Stillwater School District for the establishment of a multi-use park at Oakland Junior High School SUBMITTED BY: Dean Zuleger, City Administrator THROUGH: City of Lake Elmo Park Commission REVIEWED BY: Shane Weis, Chair, Park Commission Stillwater School District Board of Education SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .............................................................. City Administrator - Report/Presentation…………………………………………City Administrator - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Public Input, if Appropriate .................................................... Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Parks Commission, City Council FISCAL IMPACT: $80,000 from the Parkland Dedication Fund for the construction of three new tennis courts at Oakland Junior High. Annual maintenance of $2,500-$5,000 for park upkeep and equipment repair. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City of Lake Elmo and the Stillwater School District are partnering together and sharing resources to establish a 3.7 acre park located on the northwest corner of the Oakland Junior High Campus to serve future development, the Cimarron community, and families in the adjacent areas. The park will be jointly maintained by both parties and public use will extend to two areas of the Oakland Junior High athletic campus during non-school hours. The City of Lake Elmo and the Stillwater School District request the approval of this Joint Power Agreement to be able to work together under the authority of the MN State Statutes. The recommended motion for this action is as follows: -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting [New Business Agenda Item 9] April 1, 2014 “Move to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Stillwater School District for the creation of a multi-use park at Oakland Junior High School and the disbursement when invoiced of $80,000 of parkland dedication funds for the construction of three new tennis courts.” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: The City of Lake Elmo Park Plan and the Comprehensive Plan suggest a neighborhood park be located in this region of the City and this partnership allows for a park to be strategically located near a school, on a bike trail and near an affordable housing neighborhood. BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths: Partnership with the school district and a strategic location of a park Weakness: Minimal use of Area A & B during school hours Opportunities: Installation of 3 new tennis courts at an economy of scale rate and shared maintenance of the park Threats: No suitable location for a park beside this site in the SE quadrant due to traffic, commercial use and lack of forested areas. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the following: “Move to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the Stillwater School District for the creation of a multi-use park at Oakland Junior High School and the disbursement when invoiced of $80,000 of parkland dedication funds for the construction of three new tennis courts.” -- page 2 -- March 2014 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTI-USE PARK THIS AGREEMENT made this ______ day of __________, 2014, by and among the City of Lake Elmo,, Washington County, Minnesota (“Lake Elmo”) and Stillwater Area Public Schools, ISD 834 (“District”) (collectively the “Parties”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the District and Lake Elmo have identified the mutual benefits of developing a multi-use public park located on approximately 3.7 acres in the northeast corner of the Oak- Land Junior High School campus wholly owned by the District noted on Exhibit A (“the Property”), the entire Property to be designated by and through this joint powers agreement as “Oak-Land Neighborhood Park; WHEREAS, the Parties seek to develop the Property as a multi-use park consisting of playground structures, picnic areas (including tables), walking paths connecting to regional trails, conservation areas, bathrooms, and other park amenities meant to complement the recreational facilities found on the Oak-Land Junior High School campus; WHEREAS, the location of this multi-use public park further affords a recreational benefit and increased quality of life for taxpayers of both Lake Elmo and the District in a quadrant of the community, which includes a large affordable housing complex currently not served by a park; WHEREAS, in exchange for its the quiet enjoyment and use of the Property, Lake Elmo agrees to make available necessary parkland dedication funds to help in the purchase and development of infrastructure, athletic fields, sport courts and other equipment needed to support the multi-use park and publically-accessible recreational portions of Area A and Area B as depicted on Exhibit A. WHEREAS, the Parties believe that co-development a multi-use park is a prudent use tax dollars for benefit of the public; WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 authorizes two or more governmental units by agreement of their governing bodies jointly and cooperatively to exercise any power common to the contracting parties or similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they are exercised; WHEREAS, cities are authorized to enter into development contracts under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 2(a); and, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to set forth the respective rights and obligations of the parties to this joint powers agreement (“JPA”). NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by the Parties as follows: ARTICLE I Purpose and Term 1.1 The Parties agree to mutually carry out the actions necessary to fulfill the terms of this JPA to establish the Property as a multi-use park, known as Oak-Land Neighborhood Park and jointly used by Lake Elmo and the District as provided herein. 1.2 This JPA shall remain in place until terminated in accordance with the terms herein or as mutually agreed upon in writing by the Parties. 1.3 To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Parties intend to enter into this Agreement and operate under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, authorizing the combination of powers of two or more governmental units. Unless amended in writing by the Parties, this JPA does not form a board within the meaning of Section 471.59 subd. 2. Article II Responsibilities of Lake Elmo 2.1. The Lake Elmo Planning Staff will work with the District to determine a legal description (“metes and bounds”) for the 3.7 acres that comprise the Property known as Oak-Land Neighborhood Park, located in the northeast quadrant of the Oak-Land Junior High campus and to be used for the purpose of a multi-use park. The legal description of the Property shall substantially conform to Exhibit A. 2.2. Lake Elmo shall promptly designate the Property and the recreational portions of Area A and Area B of the Oak-Land Junior High campus as “official City parkland” to allow the District to take full advantage of Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.03 Subd. 6(e) and 466.03 Subd. 23. 2.3. Lake Elmo shall appropriate parkland dedication funds for the purpose of purchasing infrastructure, playground equipment, athletic field equipment, sport courts, or other hard assets allowed by Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2 (b) for use by the general public in the designated recreational areas of the Oak-Land Junior High Campus. Lake Elmo shall authorize an $80,000.00 parkland dedication fund allocation for the cost of installing three (3) new publicly-accessible tennis courts in Area A of the Property. Said funds shall be disbursed upon execution of this Agreement. 2.4. Lake Elmo shall provide appropriate signage for the Property, designating the area as a joint development of Lake Elmo and the District, identified as a public park named “Oak-Land Neighborhood Park.” Lake Elmo agrees to be responsible for maintaining all park and picnic equipment, including structures, placed on the Property. Lake Elmo shall be responsible for providing all necessary safety and security measures for the Oak-Land Neighborhood Park through its contract with Washington County Sheriff’s Department or other equivalent law enforcement agreements Lake Elmo may enter into from time to time. 2.5. By September 1, 2014, Lake Elmo shall provide a park master plan that, subject to the District’s approval, will provide for the installation of infrastructure, appropriate land use and utilization of the Oak-Land Neighborhood Park. 2.6. Notwithstanding anything to apparent the contrary herein, Lake Elmo agrees that Area A and Area B of the Property will not function as a public park or be available for public use during regular school hours, as such school hours are published by the District to Lake Elmo and may be adjusted from time to time. Lake Elmo agrees that the District shall have priority use for all areas described in this JPA and Lake Elmo will not schedule any activities that may conflict with the District’s priority use. ARTICLE III Responsibilities of the District 3.1. The District shall, at its expense, survey the Property and provide Lake Elmo with a property description (“metes and bounds”) for the Oak-Land Neighborhood Park. The entire Park area shall be designated as a multi-use park. 3.2. The District shall grant Lake Elmo access to the Property for the purpose of preparing the site for the multi-use park. The District shall, in turn, grant Lake Elmo the right to clear the site of dead wood, brush, and debris; perform forestry duties to preserve trees and clear portions of the site for the development of the Oak Land Neighborhood Park. 3.3. By October 31, 2014, the District shall review and render its approval, qualified approval or rejection of Lake Elmo-proposed master plan for the installation of infrastructure, land use and utilization of Oak-Land Neighborhood Park 3.4. The District shall submit an invoice for the expansion of the current three (3) tennis courts on the Property, to be completed by the District in 2014 and not to exceed $80,000.00. Lake Elmo agrees to pay the $80,000.00 from parkland dedication funds within fifteen (15) days of Lake Elmo’s receipt of the invoice. 3.5. The District agrees to provide general landscape maintenance of the Oak-Land Neighborhood Park and of the publically-accessible recreational portions of Area A and Area B. For purposes of this JPA, “general maintenance” shall be mowing, trimming of vegetation, and related grounds keeping of Areas A and B, but shall not include snowplowing or other snow removal. The District shall maintain all recreational equipment and fields in Area A and Area B. ARTICLE IV Default 4.1 In the event of any material breach of this Agreement that is not cured within (30) days of written notice of the breach describing the nature of the default and what action is necessary to cure the default, the non-defaulting Party may declare the other Party to be in default of this JPA. 4.2 The non-defaulting Party shall have all rights and remedies available under to it under law or in equity. 4.3 The failure of the non-defaulting Party to declare default or otherwise exercise its rights under this JPA shall not constitute a waiver of its rights to later declare default and exercise all rights and remedies available under section 3.2 above. . ARTICLE V Liabilities 5.1 Each Party retains the financial responsibility for damage to or loss of its own equipment that may occur in performing its duties under this JPA. 5.2 Each Party retains the financial responsibility for workers’ compensation benefits for its own employees and for any injuries that occur to its employees in performing its duties under this JPA. 5.3 Each Party shall be liable for its own acts and omissions, including the acts and omissions of its officers, employees or agents and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts and omissions of the other Party, its officers, employees or agents. Each Party agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other Party, its officers, employees or agents, against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, expenses, claims or actions, including attorneys’ fees that the other Party may hereafter sustain, incur or be required to pay, arising out of any act or omission of the indemnifying Party, its officers, agents or employees, in the execution, performance, or failure to perform its obligations of this JPA. Nothing herein, however, shall be deemed a waiver by either Party of the limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 466. Article VI Miscellaneous Provisions 6.1.1 This JPA shall be binding upon Lake Elmo and District and their respective successors. Neither Party shall be allowed to assigns this JPA without the express written consent of the other Party. 6.2This JPA represents the entire agreement between Lake Elmo and District. 6.3 This JPA may be amended only by a written document duly authorized, executed and delivered by Lake Elmo and District. 6.4 Lake Elmo and the District each agree, upon written request of the other, to execute and deliver instruments and documents of further assurance as may be reasonably required to carry out the intention of this JPA. 6.5 This JPA may be executed in counterpart, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. . 6.6 All notices, demands or other communication under this JPA shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly served when delivered to the person for whom it was intended, or when mailed, first-class mail, postage prepaid, as indicated below: If to Lake Elmo: City of Lake Elmo City Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 If to District: Stillwater Area Public Schools, ISD 834 Superintendent 1875 Greely Street S. Stillwater, MN 44082 6.7 The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this JPA, in no way, affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this JPA, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. 6.8 Upon dissolution of this JPA, the Parties shall equitably divide the real and personal property forming the Oak-Land Neighborhood Park, in accordance with their respective contributions, taking into consideration maintenance of such property. [Remainder of page left blank intentionally] IN WITNESS WEREOF, the City of Lake Elmo and the Stillwater Area Public Schools ISD 834 have caused this joint powers agreement to be duly executed on the day and the year first above written. CITY OF LAKE ELMO By______________________________ By______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor Adam Bell, City Clerk Attest____________________________ Dean Zuleger, City Administrator ISD 834 – STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS By_____________________________ By______________________________ Its School Board Chair Its School Board Clerk Attest___________________________ Corey Lunn, Superintendent Oakland Jr. High School Proposed City - ISD834 Joint Park3.7 Acres Area AArea B Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User CommunityCity of Lake Elmo - ISD 834 JPA Proposal µData Scource: Washington County, MN 3-5-2014 ISD 834 Property Proposed Joint Park 0 300 600150 Feet 1"=300'