The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9-1-15 City Council packet items 9-13 MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: 09/01/2015 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM #9 AGENDA ITEM: Pebble Park Picnic Shelter SUBMITTED BY: Public Works Superintendent, Mike Bouthilet THROUGH: Parks Commission REVIEWED BY: Staff SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................................. Mayor - Report/Presentation………………………………Public Works Superintendent - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Parks Commission FISCAL IMPACT: Up to $24,000 from Park Land Dedication Fund SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Parks Commission reviewed two bids for the purchase and installation of a picnic shelter in Pebble Park at the August 17, 2015 Parks Commission meeting. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the bid from Webber Recreational Design, Inc. in the amount of $23,163.00. The bid from Northland Recreation was a total of $29,342.00. The shelter will be 20’ x 24’ with a 24’ x 28’ concrete slab. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the following motion: “Motion to authorize expenditure of up to $24,000 from the Park Land Dedication Fund for the purchase and installation of a picnic shelter in Pebble Park.” MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: 09/01/2015 REGULAR AGENDA ITEM #10 AGENDA ITEM: Tablyn Park Upgrades SUBMITTED BY: Public Works Superintendent, Mike Bouthilet THROUGH: Parks Commission REVIEWED BY: City Council / Staff SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction of Item .................................................................... Mike Bouthilet - Report/Presentation………………………………………… ..... Mike Bouthilet - Questions from Council to Staff ............................................. Mayor Facilitates - Call for Motion ............................................................... Mayor & City Council - Discussion ....................................................................... Mayor & City Council - Action on Motion .................................................................... Mayor Facilitates POLICY RECOMMENDER: Parks Commission FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $2,500 plus staff time SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Parks Commission has been working on a concept plan for Tablyn Park upgrades. The first phase of improvements was approved unanimously by the Commission at the August 17, 2015 meeting. The Commission has authorized staff to remove the basketball court, relocate the swingset to the lower play area and rent equipment to remove brush from the hill to allow better access and visibility to the lower play area. Labor for these improvements would be provided by the City’s public works staff on an “as available” basis. Public Works Superintendent Bouthilet has obtained pricing for renting brush removal equipment for approximately $2,500. It should be noted that the rental equipment would potentially also be used for buckthorn removal at other parks after work is completed at Tablyn Park, as the allotted rental period would most likely not be entirely used on the Tablyn Park brush removal. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the staff recommends the following motion: City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 10] September 1, 2015 -- page 2 -- “Motion to approve the rental of brush removal equipment for use at Tablyn Park and authorize staff time to move the swing set and remove the basketball court at Tablyn Park.” MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: September 1, 2015 REGULAR ITEM #11 RESOLUTION 2015-073 AGENDA ITEM: Final Plat Submission Extension for Village Park Preserve Residential Subdivisions SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner (Former) 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: Staff is recommending that the City Council approve a request by GWSA Land Development, LLC to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for Village Park Preserve residential subdivisions. FISCAL IMPACT: TBD – The City will require that the applicant enter into a developer’s agreement with the City to specify the financial responsibilities for various aspects of the subdivision and related public improvements. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from GWSA Land Development, LLC to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision. The City’s subdivision ordinance requires a Final Plat application to be filed within 180 days of Preliminary Plat approval for a proposed subdivision. The Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat was approved on September 16, 2014 (Resolution 2014-74) and the Council has previously granted a 6-month extension for this plat making the new deadline to file the final plat by September 16, 2015. This subdivision is located in the Village Planning Area. GWSA Land Development, LLC is now requesting an extension to April 15, 2019. The rationale for the request is included in the attached letter from Gonyea. City Council Meeting [Consent Agenda Item 10a/b] December 2, 2014 -- page 2 -- Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-073, extending the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision to April 15, 2019.” STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: Approval of the extension requests for the submission of the Village Park Preserve Final Plat will allow the applicants to finalize utility and stormwater management plans for this site. The extension will also allow Gonyea to better stage development with the Village Preserve project that will be under construction soon. The requested extensions provide a reasonable timeframe to move into construction given the existing conditions surrounding the site. Weaknesses: None Opportunities: Approval of the Final Plat submission extension will allow the applicant enough time to complete the Final Construction Plans for the residential subdivisions within a more reasonable and appropriate timeframe. Threats: The delay of the submission of Final Plat does delay future payment of sewer and water availability charges for the proposed subdivisions. However, given the circumstances of the site, Staff views the requested extension as a reasonable solution to resolve the outstanding issues and preparation of Final Construction Plans. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the request to extend the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-073, extending the Final Plat submission deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision to April 15, 2019.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2015-073 2. Gonyea Letter of Request 1 Resolution 2015-073 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-073 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION FOR THE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THE VILLAGE PARK PRESERVE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC, 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200, Plymouth, MN, submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Preliminary Plat for a 100-unit single family subdivision on an approximately 64 acre parcel in the Village Planning Area (PIDs: 13.029.21.43.0004 and 13.029.21.44.0002) to be called Village Park Preserve, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution 2014-74, approving the Village Park Preserve Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC submitted a request for a 6-month extension to the Final Plat submittal deadline of the approved plat to allow for additional time to prepare Final Utility and Stormwater Management Plans; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-090 granting a 6-month extension that resulting in a new submittal deadline of September 16, 2015; and WHEREAS, GWSA Land Development, LLC submitted a second request to extend the Final Plat submittal deadline of the approved plat until April 15, 2019 to allow for additional time for the phasing and construction of improvements in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve an extension to the Final Plat deadline for the Village Park Preserve residential subdivision, and hereby extends the Final Plat application deadline to April 15, 2019. 2 Resolution 2015-073 Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of September 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. ___________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk Wednesday, August ll, 2015 Kyle Klatt Planning Director City ofLake Elmo 380O Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 DearKyle: On behalf of GWSA Land Development’LLC, the developer, and pursuant to Lake Elmo City Ordinance Section 153"07 Subdivision L, I am requesting an extension for the deadline to present the final plat ofVillage Park Preserve to the City. Initia量ly we Planned to develop Village Park Preserve in the spring of2015, but later decided due to stormwater issues and the extension of sewer via the Eastem Village Sewer Project, that developing Village Preserve would a1low us to address stormwater COnCemS that create challenges for Village Park Preserve as we11 as downtown Lake Elmo. We now have final plat approval and have started construction on Phase l of Village Preserve, and plan to have lots available for spring 2016, We will mostlikely Start developing Phase 2 in 2016 with lots available spring 2017. The deadline for fina量plat application for Village Park Preserve is September 16, 2015, but due to the timing and estimated completion ofVillage Preserve, We WOuld like to ask for an extension for final plat application to April 15, 2019, Thank you for your consideration, 閣四国 Craig Allen ChiefManager - GWSA Land Development, LLC MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: September 1, 2015 REGULAR ITEM #12 ORDINANCE 08-121 RESOLUTION 2015-045 AGENDA ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner (Former) Planning Commission 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 is recommending approval of a zoning text amendment to expand the opportunities to conduct Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues within the community. FISCAL IMPACT: None – The City’s review of the requested Zoning Text Amendment is reimbursed through the submitted application fee. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received a request from Danielle Hecker, 11658 50th Street North, to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts. The City Council discussed the matter at their June 2, 2015 meeting, and requested that additional opportunities for public engagement be provided. The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending approval of the requested amendment with further City Council Meeting [Agenda Item 12] September 1, 2015 -- page 2 -- restrictions on the application of the ordinance as noted on June 2nd. The motion to take the recommended action on the request is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-121, amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200” In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the approved ordinance through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-045, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-121.” BACKGROUND INFORMATION/STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has received a petition from Danielle Hecker, 11658 50th Street North, to amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts. The City Code presently restricts such uses to the A – Agriculture and RT – Rural Transitional Districts. The City Council reviewed this request at the 6/2/15 meeting. The City Council postponed consideration of the Zoning Text Amendment to seek additional public feedback, as well as a map of potential sites the proposed ordinance would activate. To follow up on this discussion, staff has attached a map that identifies the Rural Residential parcels that would be able to be utilized as wedding venues. There are 6 such parcels in the community. The map can be found in Attachment #4. In addition, the City has received additional feedback about the proposal to amend the wedding venue ordinance. The feedback is collected and attached to this report in Attachment #5. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS: Strengths: The Planning Commission found that the ordinance amendment would help preserve historic agricultural buildings within the City. The ordinance expands upon the existing ordinance that allows additional opportunities for use of agricultural properties that may no longer be viable as farmland. Weaknesses: The ordinance would allow the expansion of a more commercial-type of activity into rural residential areas. Wedding ceremony venues will generate additional traffic at peak times immediately prior to and after each event. The venues could potentially generate other negative impacts that need to be managed on the site (noise, trash, parking, etc.). Opportunities: The potential for re-use of historic buildings that would otherwise have limited use. City Council Meeting [Agenda Item 12] September 1, 2015 -- page 3 -- Threats: Wedding venues by their nature will result in the gathering of larger numbers of people at one location, which can result in some impacts to surrounding properties. The ordinance establishes standards in order to contain or limit any negative impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the aforementioned, the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200 with the additional restrictions as documented in the attached Ordinance 08-121. The recommended motion to take action on the request is as follows: “Move to adopt Ordinance 08-121, amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues as in interim use permit within the City’s RR – Rural Residential zoning districts and to increase the maximum number of guests allowed at each event from 150 to 200” In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the approved ordinance through the following motion: “Move to adopt Resolution 2015-045, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-121.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated June 2, 2015 2. Ordinance 08-121 3. Resolution 2015-047 4. Map of Possible Rural Residential Wedding Venue Locations 5. Additional Public Feedback Since 6/2/15 Meeting 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-121 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING COMMERCIAL WEDDING CEREMONY VENUES AND ALLOWING SUCH USES AS AN INTERIM USE IN RR ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: §154.400 Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 9-1 lists all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the rural districts. “P” indicates a permitted use, “C” a conditional use, and “I” an interim use. Uses not so indicated shall be considered prohibited. Cross-references listed in the table under “Standards” indicate the location within this Ordinance of specific development standards that apply to the listed use. Table 9-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Rural Districts RT A RR RS RE Standard Accessory Uses Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue I I I - - 154.310.D SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: § 154. 310 Standards for Accessory Uses D. Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue. A commercial wedding venue is allowed as an accessory use with an interim use permit in the A – Agriculture, and RT – Rural Transitional, and RR – Rural Residential zoning districts on parcels greater than 10 acres size. The establishment of a Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue on RR parcels is limited to those sites meeting the following criteria: 1) the site has historically been used as a farmstead for the surrounding agricultural land; and 2) the use will incorporate a barn or other historical agricultural building over 75 years of age for the wedding ceremonies. The suitability of a parcel for a wedding venue shall be determined by the characteristics of the site and by the unique capacity of the parcel to accommodate the use while preserving the essential rural character of the neighborhood and the site on which the use is located, by the ability of the parcel to accommodate the use without negative impact on the general health, 2 safety, and welfare of the community, and by other factors the City may deem appropriate for consideration. The use must adhere to the following standards: 1. Ownership. The property will be the primary residence of the venue operator(s). The operator must be on the premises for the duration of each event. 2. Maximum Number of Guests. The maximum numbers of guests is limited to 150 200 for each event. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-121 was adopted on this 1st day of September 2015, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-121 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2015. Resolution 2015-045 Page 1 of 2 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-45 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-121 BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-121, an ordinance to amend the City’s regulations pertaining to Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues; and WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-121 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-121, which amends the Zoning Ordinance provisions pertaining to Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues. The revised ordinance amends the standards for such uses as follows: • Allowing a Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venue as an interim use within the RR – Rural Residential Zoning Districts. • Increasing the maximum number of guests allowed for each ceremony from 150 to 200. • Adding standards that limit Commercial Wedding Ceremony Venues to sites in RR Districts that served as the farmstead for larger agricultural parcels and that would be conducted in historic buildings over 75 years of age. The full text of Ordinance No. 08-121 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during regular business hours. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City. Dated: September 1, 2015 Resolution 2015-045 Page 2 of 2 ___________________________________ Mayor Mike Pearson ATTEST: ____________________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk (SEAL) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 Kyle Klatt From:kmlohmer@comcast.net Sent:Monday, July 06, 2015 3:29 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Hecker property citizen input Dear Kyle, I was told that the City of Lake Elmo and council members were looking for feedback regarding the Hecker property and the conditional use permit. I would appreciate if you could share my letter with the mayor and council members. Thanks so much. Thank you for taking the time to read our letter regarding the proposed renovation and wedding site on the Hecker family's property. The Heckers are friends of my daughter in law and I was told of the upcoming decision regarding the conditional use permit they are seeking. I did stop by and observed a most beautiful location for what they are planning to do. I wanted to write with some thoughts on the upcoming decision. Our family lived in Lake Elmo for 23 years, and 2-1/2 years ago moved into the Audubon development in Baytown Township. We are at the very back side of the development with woods in the back yard and less than 1/4 mile from 30th street - and very close to the Camrose Hill wedding event site. On weekend evenings in the summer it is not uncommon for us to hear music playing from weddings and I have to say that it is a very pleasant sound. It is always quiet by 10 p.m. and it makes me happy thinking that such a "joyfilled event" is taking place there. I have never heard any complaints since we've lived here. Because 30th street is the border between Baytown Township and West Lakeland Township, I made calls to the township chairs, Kent Granulard and Dan Kyllo. (Mr. Granulard's brother actually lives directly across from Camrose Hill.) They both confirmed that there has never been any issues or complaints and that there is a positive impact to the local community by having the wedding site there. They have never had any traffic incidents and the event center is for weddings and receptions as well. I know that the Heckers are only planning on doing the wedding ceremonies on their property. I wish you well as you make your decision, and would encourage you allow for this zoning text amendment and conditional use permit. I think it would add greatly to the Lake Elmo community and I know that the Hecker family will be very respectful and will take very seriously the terms of the agreement. Best, Greg and Kathy Lohmer Baytown Township 2 Kyle Klatt From:Marlene <marlenedyer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2015 10:04 PM To:Kyle Klatt Cc:Jeremy Dyer Subject:In Response to Lake Elmo Weddings Hello Kyle, I wanted to reach out to you as a Lake Elmo resident to let you know that I am in support of rural setting weddings in Lake Elmo. I read in a recent Lake Elmo publication that this topic would be coming up for consideration soon so I wanted to reach out to you. As you already know, Lake Elmo is beautiful. The farms and rolling hills are picture perfect as a backdrop for weddings to take place. Recently my youngest sister got married on such a farm, but had to go across the river to Holton, Wisconsin for her nuptials. Outdoor rustic weddings are a growing trend. Wouldn’t it be great if Lake Elmo were the place to get married? I am specifically in favor of Danielle Hecker, as she and her husband seek to restore and preserve the historic buildings on their property and use them to better the community. Inviting people onto their property for wedding ceremonies would encourage the support of other Lake Elmo business through reception venues, flowers, catering, etc. What a great way to bring more business into our city. If our city can set up very specific perimeters regarding parking, traffic flow, times of day, and other requirements that would ensure safely and meet resident’s concerns, I am certain that allowing for rural wedding venues could benefit our city in a positive way. Not to point out the obvious, but there is not a lot of pleasant publicity in news about Lake Elmo right now. This is a great opportunity to show our guests the true beauty and history of Lake Elmo. Thank you, Jeremy & Marlene Dyer 10316 Tapestry Bend 3 Kyle Klatt From:PAUL H+REV PALLMEYER <pallmeyer@msn.com> Sent:Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:09 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Proposed Wedding Ordinance We feel that residents should be able to have weddings and receptions in any size and area of their choosing. While the proposed change expands wedding venues to “rural residential” zones, the limits on the size of both weddings and receptions should be dropped. Paul and Ruth Pallmeyer, 8989 Lake Jane Trail N. Sent from Windows Mail 4 Kyle Klatt From:Barb Miller <bkm.miller@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, June 13, 2015 8:24 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Lake Elmo Wedding Proposal I live at 9240 55th St N and just read the article in the "Review", looking for public opinion on the wedding proposal. I support the right of individuals to have a wedding AND reception in the area zoned rural residential. I would increase the maximum guest limit to 300. Barbara Miller 5 Kyle Klatt From:Backberg, Benjamin <BBackberg@fredlaw.com> Sent:Monday, June 08, 2015 2:07 PM To:Mike Pearson; Justin Bloyer; Julie Fliflet; Jill Lundgren; annejsmith@msn.com; Dean Zuleger; Kyle Klatt Subject:RE: Lake Elmo- Wedding Venue Ordinance Change I have had a chance to review the playback of the council meeting on 6/2/15 that discussed this topic. I have also been receiving more emails in opposition to this ordinance change. People are also calling foul on the 750 ft notice. Notice seems to be a reoccurring theme for meetings, which should be very simple to fix. Is this topic going to come in front of the council tomorrow night? Please let me know asap. Great if it could be delayed so people can have additional time to digest the proposal. I was also very surprised to hear that barn owner plans to book the barn out 2‐3 years in advance—this will not be 10‐20 per year. She is going to try her best to have as many weddings as possible (for her benefit to the detriment of everyone else around her). This will have a big change on the area, especially on the weekend (when families are out the most). 50th Street is also set up very poorly for commercial activity of any type. Not to mention, almost all wedding patrons will not know where they are going, which heightens safety concerns greatly (looking at phones for directions, etc.). We get countless people lost in our neighborhood because they think Linden goes through. Happy to discuss this with any of you, but think my view has changed. I no longer think this will be a harmless business and could be very dangerous, especially for young kids who will venture over there from Sanctuary once the new development is built out to the south. Thanks, Ben 612‐492‐7232 From: Backberg, Benjamin Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:58 AM To: 'mpearson@lakeelmo.org'; 'jbloyer@lakeelmo.org'; 'jfliflet@lakeelmo.org'; 'jlundgren@lakeelmo.org'; 'annejsmith@msn.com'; dzuleger@lakeelmo.org Subject: Lake Elmo- Wedding Venue Ordinance Change Importance: High Council Members, I have not had a chance to look at the materials in detail on the proposed wedding ordinance change, but was wondering where you all were falling on the proposal? Seems like a slippery slope. Great if you could let me know your thoughts as soon as possible. The Sanctuary HOA Board is looking into this matter now and it also looks like it would directly impact the Gotschal land plat. No on in the Sanctuary neighborhood was aware of this until this morning. Thanks, Ben 612‐492‐7232 6 Kyle Klatt From:Wally Nelson <wally@morrowpartnersinc.com> Sent:Sunday, June 07, 2015 8:16 AM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Wedding Venues Mr. Klatt, I think it is a wonderful idea to allow weddings in these zoning districts. It is a great way to keep the rural character of Lake Elmo in place and this will allow the old barns with character to be preserved. Thanks 7 Kyle Klatt From:guswilt24@comcast.net Sent:Friday, June 05, 2015 6:56 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:Weddings I enjoyed the presentation given by Danielle Hecker (sp?) and her idea to craft her barn into a wedding chapel/area. I think it would be a great venue to host such a beautiful event. I also think it would be OK to host weddings at other sites as well. Thanks for tossing this idea out to the public. Dana Nelson 2871 Legion Ave N 8 Kyle Klatt From:Paul Huot <p.huot@huot.com> Sent:Friday, June 05, 2015 1:13 PM To:Kyle Klatt Subject:weddings I think it’s sad that we can’t legally hold a small (100 people or less) wedding and reception in our homes. I am good with having a permit for weddings and reception over 100 people up to 200. Paul Huot 4955 Jamaca Ave N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 p.huot@huot.com 9 Kyle Klatt From:jenniferpelletier@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, June 02, 2015 12:47 PM To:mike pearson; Anne Smith; Justin Bloyer; jfliflet@freshwater.org; Jill Lundgren Cc:Dean Zuleger; Kyle Klatt Subject:Fwd: Tonight's agenda item / wedding facility in RR / resend Hello, I sent this to the planning commission last week, but I thought I'd send it to the council prior to tonight's meeting as well. I have been in communication with the applicant and she knows what my thoughts are; she's a good neighbor and it is not my mission to prevent them from starting a business. MOST of this note below has to do with the next phase: the interim use permit discussions. Regarding a zoning change, I am not opposed to adding a wedding facility in the RR district as long as it does not include receptions. Thank you for taking the time to read my comments before/during tonight's meeting. It is not necessary to read it aloud; like I said the applicant and I have chatted quite a bit about it. Have a great day, Jennifer Pelletier From: jenniferpelletier@comcast.net To: "Kyle Klatt" <kyle.klatt@lakeelmo.org> Cc: "Dean Zuleger" <DZuleger@lakeelmo.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:13:33 PM Subject: Fwd: Tonight's agenda item / wedding facility in RR Dear Planner Klatt and members of the Planning Commission, I'm writing to you regarding tonight's agenda item: the proposed code change in the RR zoning district to add wedding ceremonies. Initially, I had no questions or concerns. However, after thinking through this request (and realizing that we're dealing with a city wide code change), I do wish to express some thoughts for consideration. I am a previous planning commissioner myself, and live across the street. Comment/Concern: 1) The ingress and egress ~ 50th street. This road has no shoulder for pedestrian and/or bike traffic. There are many children in the area that use the road, and it has become not only busier due to through traffic heading to Hwy. 5 or CSAH 17, those who use the road frequently drive well over the 40MPR limit. In fact, there is a speed indicator sign out on the road as we speak. QUESTION for the commission: what would adding multiple wedding ceremonies add to this growing problem? Again, there is no shoulder on this road. 10 2) Regarding the overall change in the zoning code: I'm not opposed to this type of business. In fact, I think it's a wonderful use of space. However, my concern is that a wedding facility in one area of the zoning district RR could look very different in another area. I'm hoping that the Planning Commission does its due diligence and not only addresses all areas affected, but considers adjacent parcels that may be affected as well. 3) New development: the land immediately next to this parcel is slated for a new development. Where will this traffic flow? Consider this in addition to a wedding facility, on a road with no shoulder. This is another important question that I'd like the PZ to address. 4) Possible solutions: a) limited the maximum # of visitors (issue: how would the city monitor this?) b) discuss/limit the number of ceremonies allowed per day c) discuss a time of day with which all visitors need to off the premises (i.e.: nothing past 6pm, etc) To be clear, it is not my intent to come across as though I am against the project. However, as a previous planning commissioner, these are important questions/concerns that I think deserve to be addressed. This could have a significant impact on current adjacent parcels, and the future development that will be coming in right next door. Sincerely, Jennifer Pelletier 4884 Lily Ave. North 1 Nick Johnson From:Danielle Hecker <dnhecker@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2015 1:49 PM To:Kyle Klatt; Nick Johnson Subject:Fwd: 50th Street Wedding Venue Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Thank you Kyle…Nick just CC'ing you on one that I received too (along with the council members). ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jim Hansen <h.wood86@gmail.com <mailto:h.wood86@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:37 PM Subject: 50th Street Wedding Venue To: mpearson@lakeelmo.org <mailto:mpearson@lakeelmo.org> , jbloyer@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jbloyer@lakeelmo.org> , jfliflet@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jfliflet@lakeelmo.org> , jlundgren@lakeelmo.org <mailto:jlundgren@lakeelmo.org> , annejsmith@msn.com <mailto:annejsmith@msn.com> Cc: dnhecker@gmail.com <mailto:dnhecker@gmail.com> I am writing to the council in regard to the issue of a Wedding Venue on 50th Street North that was discussed at the 6‐2‐ 15 council meeting. I live at 11260 50th Street North, which has a spectacular view of the proposed wedding venue, as evidenced by this photo from my home: I concur with the Mayor that issues like this tend to bring out the passionate opposition rather than supporters. In fact, the notification that I had received about this proposal really only asked for concerns to be voiced. Having no concerns, I did not respond. However, after hearing claims that “everyone with surrounding property is opposed”, I felt compelled to respond. I believe that the wedding venue can be something that actually helps preserve the rural nature of the street – seeing the old barn(s) preserved and restored – as opposed to the “open space” developments that have popped up since we moved in 25 years ago. I (fondly?) recall spending many mornings and evenings in the old barn helping Martin milk the cows after he became too short to reach the milk lines. I would hate to see this building removed or run down for lack of purpose. In fact, seeing the numerous improvements that have already been made to the property over the past few years has been very encouraging. 2 During the council discussions I heard numerous concerns about the increased traffic that would be on 50th Street. While this venue may add periodic increases before and after a ceremony, it is negligible compared to the increase that the housing developments (and the inevitable future developments), which feed onto 50th Street, have had (and will have). I would also like to remind (or inform) the council that 50th Street North is a “State Aid” street. This means that it had to be designated and designed according to the “state‐aid” criteria in 8820.0700 Subpart 3: 8820.0700 SELECTION CRITERIA Subpart 1. Basis. ‐ A state aid route must be selected on the basis of all criteria in either subpart 2 or 3. Subp. 2. County state‐aid highway. A county state‐aid highway may be selected if it: A. is projected to carry a relatively heavier traffic volume or is functionally classified as collector or arterial as identified on the county’s functional classification plan; B. connects towns, communities, shipping points, and markets within a county or in adjacent counties; provides access to rural churches, schools, community meeting halls, industrial areas, state institutions, and recreational areas; or, serves as a principal rural mail route and school bus route; and C. provides an integrated and coordinated highway system affording, within practical limits, a state‐aid highway network consistent with projected traffic demands. Subp. 3. Municipal state‐aid street. A municipal state‐aid street may be selected if it: A. is projected to carry a relatively heavier traffic volume or is functionally classified as collector or arterial as identified on the urban municipality’s functional classification plan; B. connects the points of major traffic interest, parks, parkways, or recreational areas within an urban municipality; and C. provides an integrated street system affording, within practical limits, a state‐aid street network consistent with projected traffic demands. The periodic traffic from weddings will certainly not create serious traffic issues in regard to the street’s design capacity. Issues in regard to the intersection of 50th Street and Highway 5 are primarily due to the volume (and timing) of traffic on Hwy 5, not so much 50th St. This is an important issue to be addressed, but it is a separate issue and a distraction from the Wedding Venue discussion. Finally, a few commented about noise. I am unaware of wedding ceremonies that produce “noise”; beautiful music, yes! So, in short, I am very much in favor of this use for the property and urge passing of the tabled motion. Regards, Jim Hansen MAYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION -- page 1 -- DATE: September 1, 2015 REGULAR ITEM # 13 RESOLUTION 2015-069 AGENDA ITEM: Inwood 2nd Addition Residential Subdivision – Final Plat SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director THROUGH: Clark Schroeder, Interim City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Jack Griffin, City Engineer 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 is recommending that the City Council approve a final plat request from Hans Hagen Homes for the second addition of a planned unit development to be located east of Inwood Avenue and south of 10th Street within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. The final plat will include 21 single-family lots. The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its August 24, 2015 meeting and a summary of the Commission’s report and recommendation is included below. FISCAL IMPACT: None – the lots to be platted with the 2nd Addition will be served by improvements presently under construction as part of the 1st Addition. No development agreement is needed with the developer because there are no additional improvements needed to serve the proposed lots. SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a request from Hans Hagen Homes for approval of a final plat associated with the second phase of the InWood Planned Unit Development (PUD). The final plat consists of 21 single family lots City Council Meeting [Regular Agenda Item 13] September 1, 2015 -- page 2 -- that will re-subdivide a larger outlot (Outlot E) within the Inwood development. Because there are no public improvements that need to be installed with this subdivision, Staff will not be conducting a lengthy review of the plat or restating the conditions of approval attached to the first addition. All required improvements are being installed as part of the first addition, and any plat restrictions or modifications would have been addressed as part of the City’s first addition review. The Planning Commission considered this matter at its August 24th meeting and recommended approval of the final plat as presented. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2015-069 approving the final plat for Inwood 2nd Addition” LEGISLATIVE HISTORY/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission considered the final plat at its August 25th meeting, and recommended approval of the request as presented. The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the final plat consistent with the findings as noted in the attached resolution. The motion passed unanimously (7 ayes and 0 nays). BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SWOT): Strengths • The proposed plat is consistent with preliminary plat and creates new buildable lots from a larger outlot that was set aside for future replatting. Weaknesses • None Opportunities • The request for second addition is based on strong demand for the lots within the initial project phase. Threats • None RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the final plat for Inwood 2nd Addition. The suggested motion to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation is as follows: “Move to adopt Resolution No. 2014-069 approving the final plat for Inwood 2nd Addition” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2014-069 2. Planning Commission Staff Report – 8/24/15 3. Application Forms 4. Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-069 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR INWOOD 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Hans Hagen Homes, 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300, Fridley, MN (Applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 24, 2014 to consider the Inwood Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the December 2, 2014 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat request at its December 2, 2014 meeting and adopted Resolution No. 2014-094 approving the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission met on August 24, 2015 to review the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition consisting of 21 single-family detached residential lots; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2015 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition at a meeting held on September 1, 2015; and NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: 2 FINDINGS 1) That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.08 related to the Final Plat have been met by the Applicant. 2) That the proposed Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition consists of the creation of 21 single-family detached residential structures. 3) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014. 4) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 5) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans. 6) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD. 7) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of September 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. __________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk 1 CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2015-069 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR INWOOD 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Hans Hagen Homes, 941 NE Hillwind Road, Suite 300, Fridley, MN (Applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (City) for a Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition, a copy of which is on file in the City of Lake Elmo Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 24, 2014 to consider the Inwood Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation concerning the Preliminary Plat as part of a memorandum to the City Council for the December 2, 2014 City Council Meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Preliminary Plat request at its December 2, 2014 meeting and adopted Resolution No. 2014-094 approving the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission met on August 24, 2015 to review the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition consisting of 21 single-family detached residential lots; and WHEREAS, on August 24, 2015 the Lake Elmo Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition at a meeting held on September 1, 2015; and NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the testimony elicited and information received, the City Council makes the following: 2 FINDINGS 1) That all the requirements of City Code Section 153.08 related to the Final Plat have been met by the Applicant. 2) That the proposed Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition consists of the creation of 21 single-family detached residential structures. 3) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat and Plans as approved by the City of Lake Elmo on December 2, 2014. 4) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat is consistent with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map for this area. 5) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat generally complies with the City’s Urban Low Density Residential zoning district, with the exceptions as noted in the approved Preliminary PUD Plans. 6) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with all other applicable zoning requirements, including the City’s landscaping, storm water, sediment and erosion control and other ordinances, except as previously approved as part of the Inwood PUD. 7) That the Inwood 2nd Addition Final Plat complies with the City’s subdivision ordinance. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby approve the Final Plat for Inwood 2nd Addition. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of September 2015 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. __________________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Julie Johnson, City Clerk