The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-01-2009 Council PacketLE City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota December I, 2009 7:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER 13, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C, ATTENDANCE: Johnston DeLapp Emmons, Park Smith D; APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (The approved agenda is the order in which the City Council will do its business.) E. ORDER OF BUSINESS: (This is the way that the City Council runs its meetings so everyone attending the meeting or watching the meeting understands how the City Council does its public business.) F. GROUND RULES: (These are the rules of behavior that the City Council adopted for doing its public business.) a APPROVE MINUTES: 1. Approval of the November 17, 2009 City Council minutes H. PUBLIC COMMENTS/INQUIRIES: In order to be sure that anyone wishing to speak to the City Council is treated the same way, meeting attendees wishing to address the City Council on any items NOT on the regular agenda may speak for up to three minutes. , CONSENT AGENDA: (Items are placed on the consent agenda by City staff and the Mayor because they are not anticipated to generate discussion, Items may be removed at City Council's request.) 2. Approve payment of disbursements and payroll 3. Approve 2010 Liquor license renewals 4. Consider approval of Resolution No. 2009-046 Approve the renewal of an Interim Use Permit Application from Corrunon Ground Church to permit the keeping of horses. . REGULARAGENDA: 5. Update on Friends of Washington County — Marc Hugunin 6. Final 2009 Tax Levy Certification, Payable 2010, Resolution No. 2009-048 7. Proposed 2010 Operating Budget and 2010-14 Capital Improvement Program; Resolution No. 2009-049 8. Public Hearing: Delinquent water and wastewater utility bills; Resolution No. 2009-50 9. Consider an application from James Burns for a variance from the front yard setback requirement in an R1 zoning district to allow the construction of a building addition; Resolution No. 2009-045 10. Consider application for a CUP to allow and Agricultural Entertainment Business, a rezoning request, and an amendment to a CUP for Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse, Resolution No. 2009-047, 51, 52 Ordinance No. 08- 021 K. REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: (These are verbal updates and do not have to be formally added to the agenda.) • Mayor and. City Council • Administrator • City Engineer • Planning Director Adjourn **A social gathering may or may not be held at the Lake Elmo Inn following the meeting.** City of Lake Elmo City Council Minutes •November 17, 2009 Mayor Johnston called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m, PRESENT: Mayor Johnston and Council Members DeLapp, Emmons, Park and Smith Also Present: City Administrator Messelt, Planning Director Klatt, City Engineer Griffin, Attorney Kevin Sandstrom and City Clerk Lumby APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the Nove* 17, 2009 City Council Agenda as presented. Council Member DeLapp seOnded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, ORDER OF BUSINESS: GROUND RULES: APPROVED MINUTES: The November 4, 2009, City Counekmrnuttwe approved by consensus, ,PUBLIC COMMENTS/IN, ul Charlie Stockwell, Re atta C&Of i.he Minisota Boat Club, thanked the City Council and staff for their 4-10-diff*, enthusiasm in aliowing the Club to host the 106th Annual NWIRA Championship Regatta7 Lake Elmo on August 21 and 22, 2009, David Moore, 8680iIStillwaterOvd., would like to talk to the Planning Director about his shed that is now in theiringeiistrict according to the new FEMA flood plain maps. CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION: Council Member Smith moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. CounCil Member DeLapp seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. • Approve payment of disbursements and payroll in the amount of $432,590.15 • Approve an 18 month extension to the variance issue for 8961 371h Street N, Thomas Dufresne • Adopt Ordinance No. 08-020 repealing a moratorium on wireless telecommunications towers LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2009 Authorize American Engineering Testing, Inc. to proceed Geotechnical Services for the 2010 Street and Water Quality Improvements Feasibility Report in the amount of $5,800 • Approve Partial Payment N. 3 to Tower Asphalt Inc. in the amount of $142,116.86 for the 2009 Street Improvements Project • Approve Resolution No. 2009-044 supporting efforts to secure State bonding funds to design and construct an East Metro Regional Firefighter Training Facility • Approve contractors application for payment and change order #1 for Carriage Station picnic shelter project • Approve grant agreements with the State of Minnesota for Sunfish Lake Park Prairie Restoration Project and Sunfish Lake Park Natural Resource Management man REGULAR AGENDA: Response to the Metropolitan COuricil on 2030 Comprehensiv an Update, City Administrator Bruce Messelt reported the City Co#11 is beihc ,-4sked to review the context of the City's proposed response to the Metropolitan Council regarding its June 19, 2009 letter to the City indicating that the 2039zgeMprehpsive Plan*date the City submitted earlier in the year is incomplete with reit-05,tto,,timpliance with Lake Elmo's 2005 systems' statement. Upon completion of its review. the City Council is asked to authorize the City to submit the informaiioriij icluded helin response to the notice of incompletion. untilon pages 3, 4, and 5 of the Staff provided and reviewed chant' response to the MetropolitarigOtincil. MOTION; Council MembePAarkmovedttord item #1 because the City* is more restrictive where note4and ame item #7 to read...of housing cognizant of different Johnston seconded the motion. The motion passed levels of affordab. 5-0, I Council Member DeLa„pp told#Ouncil members about a dispute between the Met Council and Orono ast*olitio in regard to the same growth issues and fighting to preserve its rural characterMayor Johnston agreed that Lake Elmo should observe Orono closely. He noted that the City spend $365,000 in legal fees and won the best agreement with the Met Council of anyone in the seven county metro areas, MOTION: Council Member Park Smith moved to direct staff to contact the Orono staff to discuss current events with the Met Council and keep the City Council posted, Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. MOTION,Council Member Park moved that City staff be directed to submit the information presented as amended/modified tonight in response to the Met Council's notice of incompletion regarding the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Council Member Emmons seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2009 2 Consider developer's request for an extension of the completion deadline for Whistling Valley I, City Administrator Bruce Messelt reported that the City Council is being asked to consider request by the developer to extend the required completion date for the remaining improvements of Whistling Valley I, II, and III. Per the Whistling Valley III Development Agreement, all items were to be completed by October 31, 2009. Staff has worked with the developer to create an acceptable schedule to complete the remaining improvements. The proposed schedule required all items to be completed by June 30, 2010. MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to allow an extension to complete all remaining items in Whistling Valley I, g and III in accordance with the schedule with a al completion date of June 30, 2010. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Authorization to proceed with formulation of 2010 StreeVsessments and Overall Update of City Assessment Policies by Finance Subcommittee City Administrator Bruce Messelt reported the CitY3CouncOs being asked to approve formulation of the City's 2010 Street Assessments, based the information provide at the November 10th workshop. Once formulated, this information will be provided to the Finance Committee for consideration and‘rOtOp_and to 'e'City Council for final approvals. In addition, the Council is asked16-aSSizn the review of the City's overall Assessment Policies to its Finance Re1.0*(,ComrMitge:,-ThlOubcommittee, comprised of Council members Emmons and Smith will Willithe City Administrator, City Engineer and City Attorney to review and uPdateAhe overall City Assessment Policy for full Council consideration. MOTION: Cou .1 Member DOLapp moved to direct preparation of 2010 Street Assessments, as pr4ented, and to charge the Finance Subcommittee and City staff with 4 reviewing and updating4hea5i's overall Assessment Policies so as to bring such into grater conformance withrent laws, practices and City objectives. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. Reports: City Engineer Griffin reported there will be a rain garden workshop by Angie Hong, December 2, 6-7:30 p.m. at Lake Elmo city hall. Council Member Smith volunteered to be the liaison between the City Council and Fire Department. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2009 MOTION: 'Council Member DeLapp moved to appoint Council Member Smith as the liaison between the: City Council and the Fire Department. Council Member Park seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Sharon Lumby, City Clerk LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 17, 2009 4 CITYOF LAKE EL 0 AYOR & COUNCIL COMMUNICATION AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 12/01/09 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #: 2 Approve Disbursements in the Amount of $ 310,149.37 Torn Bouthilet, Finance Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrator City Staff SUMMARY AND ACTION REOUESTED: As part of its Consent Agenda, the City Council is asked to approve disbursements in the amount ofS 310,149.37. STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has fiduciary authority and responsibility to conduct normal business operations. Below is a summary of current claims to be disbursed in accordance with State law and City policies and procedures. Claim # ACH ACH ACH DD2493 DD2530 34978 - 34987 34988 - 35024 Amount $ 1,313.73 $ 7,488.61 $ 230.60 $ 24,401.65 $ 7,477.66 $ 269,237.12 Total: $ 310,149.37 Description Payroll Taxes to IRS 11/19/2009 Payroll Taxes to Mn Dept. of Revenue 11/19/09 Payroll Tax to Wis. Dept of Revenue 11/19/09 Payroll Dated 11/19/2009 (Direct Deposit) Payroll Dated 11/19/2009 (Payroll) Accounts Payable Dated 12/01/2009 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: City staff' has compiled and reviewed the attached set of claims. It is also noted that the City purchased certain materials and supplies ordered in preparation for a possible H1N1 flu outbreak. No significant additional supplies relating to a possible H1N1 flu outbreak are anticipated to be ordered and the last claim is for these supplies is included herein. -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Approval of Disbursements December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #2 In order to address the potential or perceived apparent conflict of interest relating to the selected vendor, who also serves as a volunteer on a City Commission, the City Administrator requested and reviewed competitive quotes relating to the items purchased. It has been determined that no legal conflict of interest exists and that the City received either the lowest or a reasonably competitive price for the materials and supplies purchased. Other considerations, such as immediate availability and reasonable support for local vendors also were noted. Concerns regarding this potential or perceived apparent conflict of interest will be addressed in the future by "pre -approving" use of such vendors and requiring similar demonstration of competitive pricing, availability and the like. A copy of this particular assessment is on file with the City Administrator, should a member of the Council be interested in further review, RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve as part of its Consent Agenda proposed disbursements in the amount of $ 310,149.37. ATTACHMENTS: 11/24/2009 Accounts Payable SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff ....... ..... ............. Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ...... ..................... ...................................... Mayor Facilitates -- page 2 -- Accounts Payable To Be Paid Proof List User: Administrator Printed: 11/24/2009 - 1:04 PM Batch: 004-11-2009 Invoice # Inv Date ACS Animal Control Services 529 11/14/2009 101-420-2700-43150 Contract Services 529 Total: ACS Total: ANDERNIC Nicholas Anderson 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 101-410-1320-43620 Cable Operation Expense 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 101-000-0000-20201 Use Tax Payable 11/17/2009 Total: 11/4/2009 11/04/2009 10I -410-1320-43620 Cable Operation Expense 11/4/2009 11/04/2009 101-000-0000-20201 Use Tax Payable 11/4/2009 Total: ANDERNIC Total: ARAM Aramark, Inc. 629-6865299 11/16/2009 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 629-6865299 Total: 629-6868347 11/19/2009 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms 629-6868347 Total: 629-9863286 11/12/2009 101-430-3100-44170 Uniforms 629-9863286 Total: ARAM Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference 1,030.57 0.00 12/01/2009 Animal Control Sery 10/5-11/5/2009 1,030.57 1,030.57 58.78 -3.78 55.00 58.78 -3.78 55.00 110.00 0.00 12/01/2009 CC Cable 11/17/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 CC Cable 11/17/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 CC Mtg Cable 11/4/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 CC Mtg Cable 11/4/2009 51.01 0.00 12/01/2009 Linen City Hall -Annex 28.72 0.00 12/01/2009 Uniforms 59.96 0.00 12/01/2009 Uniforms 51.01 28.72 59.96 139.69 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page invoice # Inv Date CDW CDW Government Inc. QPC4971 10/16/2009 410-480-8000-45700 Office Equipment & Furnishings QPC4971 Total: CDW Total: CENCOLLE Century 349323 101-420-2220-44370 349346 101-420-2220 11370 349347 101-420-2220 41370 349389, 350407 101-420-2220 41370 349393 101-420-2220-44370 College 10/27/2009 Conferences & Training 349323 Total: 10/27/2009 Conferences & Training 349346 Total: 10/27/2009 Conferences & Training 349347 Total: 10/27/2009 Conferences & Training 349389, 350407 Total: 10/27/2009 Conferences & Training 349393 Total: CENCOLLE Total: CTYOAKDA City of Oakdale 10000460-01 11/30/2009 601-494-9400-43820 Water Utility 10000460-01 Total: CTYOAKDA Total: DADSPLUM Dad's Plumbing LLC 11/13/2009 11/13/2009 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 11/13/2009 Total: DADSPLUM Total: FIRE Fire Instruction & Rescue Educ 08011 11/04/2009 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training 08011 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference 192.33 0.00 12/01/2009 Computer Monitor 192.33 192.33 600.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Public Safety Leadership 11 X 2 600.00 1,226.48 0.00 12/01/2009 Firefighter 1 & Hazmat Oprs A. Friedrich 1,226.48 1,226.48 0.00 12/01/2009 Firefighter 1 & Hazmat Oprs, B. Cunnien 1,226.48 1,246.48 0.00 12/01/2009 Firefighter 1 & Hazmat Oprs, T. Steinman 1,246.48 1,246.48 0.00 12/01/2009 Firefighter 1 & Hazmat Oprs, J. Sinclair 1,246.48 5,545.92 5,523.56 0.00 12/01/2009 Water service 194 5,523.56 5,523.56 168.40 0.00 12/01/2009 Repair roof drain at station #1 168.40 168.40 315.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Annual FIT Testing 315.00 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No No No 0000 0000 0000 Page 2 Invoice # Inv Date FIRE Total: FREDS Fred's Tire 461913 11/23/2009 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 461913 Total: FREDS Total: FRONTIER Frontier Precision, Inc 80206 11/10/2009 101-430-3125-42250 Landscaping Materials 80206 Total: FRONTIER Total: FXL FXL, Inc. 12.01.09 11/24/2009 101-410-1550-43100 Assessing Services 12.01.09 Total: FXL Total: HARTMAN Hartman Homes Chk Req 11/19/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req Total: HARTMAN Total: KOOTENIA Kootenia Homes Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req Total: KOOTENIA Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 315.00 21.09 0.00 12/01/2009 Repair Tire -Fire 21.09 21.09 142.04 0.00 12/01/2009 Snow Plow Route Markers 142.04 142.04 2,000.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Assessing Services - December 09 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Escrow Return 9906 Tapestry #6927 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 0.00 12/01/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 0.00 12/01/2009 Escrow Return-2907 Jonquil Pmt 6434 Escrow Return-2928 Jonquil Pmt 6273 Escrow Return-2923 Jonquil Pmt 5657 Escrow Return-2935 Jonquil Pmt 4890 Escrow Return-2897 Jonquil Pmt 5458 No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 3 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference LSCVFD LOWER ST CROIX VALLEY FIRE Chk Reg 11/18/2009 159.50 0.00 12/01/2009 Vol Comb Conference Rental Car 101-420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training Chk Req Total: 159.50 LSCVFD Total: 159.50 Task Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 MALMQ Malmquist Greg 11/18/2009 11/18/2009 872.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Volunteer combination officer - No 0000 101420-2220-44370 Conferences & Training conference 11/18/2009 Total: 872.00 MALMQ Total: 872.00 MFRA McCombs Frank Roos Assoc Inc. 66005 11/01/2009 700.20 0.00 12/01/2009 Planning Senrices & Code No 0000 101-410-1910-43150 Contract Services Enforcement 66005 Total: 700.20 MFRA Total: 700.20 MNDOHEDU Minnesota Dept of Health 4th Qtr 11/23/2009 601-494-9400-44370 Conferences & Training 4th Qtr Total: MNDOHEDU Total: 1,439.00 0.00 12/01/2009 4th Qtr. Water Supply Connection Fees No 0000 1,439.00 1,439.00 MNNAT MN Dept. of Natural Resources 09/17/2009 09/17/2009 9.30 0.00 12/01/2009 Shipping missed on previous invoice - No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Maint Eqpt 09/17/2009 Total: 9.30 MNNAT Total: 9.30 NEXTEL Nextel Communications 761950227-080 11/23/2009 101.52 0.00 12/01/2009 Cell Phone Service - Admin No 0000 101-410-1940-43210 Telephone 761950227-080 11/23/2009 105.20 0.00 12/01/2009 Cell Phone Service - Fire No 0000 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 761950227-080 11/23/2009 34.72 0.00 12/01/2009 Cell Phone Service - Bldg No 0000 101-420-2400-43210 Telephone 761950227-080 11/23/2009 59.08 0.00 12/01 /2009 Cell Phone Service - Public Works No 0000 101430-310043210 Telephone 761950227-080 11/23/2009 17.36 0.00 12/01/2009 Cell Phone Service - Parks No 0000 101450-5200-43210 Telephone AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Page 4 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # 761950227-080 Total: NEXTEL Total: 317.88 317.88 OSWALD Oswald Hose & Adapters 9100 11/20/2009 37.16 0.00 12/01/2009 Repair Hose Coupling No 0000 101-420-2220-44040 Repairs/Mann Eqpt 9100 Total: 37.16 OSWALD Total: 37.16 PETERS() Peterson Fram & Bergman Corp 11140-030001 10/31/2009 101-420-2150-43045 Attorney Criminal 11140-030001 Total: PETERSO Total: 2,891.23 0.00 12/01/2009 Legal Services - Criminal invoice 1140M 2,891.23 2,891.23 No 0000 PETTYC1 Petty Cash LE City Hall 11/18/2009 21.41 0.00 12/01/2009 Best Buy Wall mount kit -cable - No 0000 410-480-8000-45800 Other Equipment LE City Hall 11/18/2009 7.08 0.00 12/01/2009 Menards Womens lavatory No 0000 101-410-1940-44040 Repairs/Maint Contractual Eqpt LE City Hall 11/18/2009 6.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Reimburse Contractor 0/Payment No 0000 101-420-2400-44300 Miscellaneous LE City Hall Total: 34.49 PETTYCI Total: 34.49 PLANTH PLANT HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC 979-09 11/12/2009 528.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Forester Services - October 2009 101-430-3250-43150 Contract Services 979-09 11/12/2009 168.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Forester Services -Development 203-490-9070-43150 Contract Services 979-09 Total: 696.00 PLANTH Total: 696.00 No 0000 No 0000 ROGERS Rogers Printing Services, Corp 16775 11/23/2009 390.09 0.00 12/01/2009 Utility envelopes and billing paper No 0000 101-410-1320-43040 Legal Services 16775 Total: 390.09 ROGERS Total: 390.09 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Page 5 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # RUD Prince-Rud Diane 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 342.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Cleaning City Hall & Annex No 0000 101-410-1940-44010 Repairs/Maint Contractual Bldg 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 256.50 0.00 12/01/2009 Cleaning Fire Hall No 0000 101-420-2220-44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 11/17/2009 11/17/2009 -38.50 0.00 12/01/2009 Use Tax No 0000 101-000-0000-20201 Use Tax Payable 11/17/2009 Total: 560.00 RUD Total: 560.00 S&T S&T Office Products, Inc. 01NR7209 11/24/2009 497.59 0.00 12/01/2009 Office Supplies 101-410-1320-42000 Office Supplies 0INR7209 Total: 497.59 S&T Total: 497.59 SAMSCLUB Sams Club 5508 11/24/2009 47.98 0.00 12/01/2009 Station Supplies - Fire 101-420-2220 44010 Repairs/Maint Bldg 5508 Total: 47.98 SAMSCLUB Total: 47.98 SPRINT Sprint 837908817-24 11/24/2009 79.98 0.00 12/01/2009 Phone Card for Laptops 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 837908817-24 Total: 79.98 SPRINT Total: 79.98 STILLMED Stillwater Medical Group 11/14/2009 11/14/2009 101-420-2220-43050 Physicals 11/14/2009 Total: STILLMED Total: No 0000 No 0000 No • 0000 25.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Preplacernent/annual physicals, Hep B No 0000 25.00 25.00 STOTKO Stotko Speedling Construction Pay Cert. 1 10/16/2009 15,067.95 0.00 12/01/2009 Partial Pay Shelter - Carriage Park No 0000 404-480-8000-45200 Buildings & Structures Pay Cert. 1 Total: 15,067.95 STOTKO Total: 15,067.95 AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Page 6 Invoice # Inv Date Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference Task Type PO # Close POLine # TACHNEY Jason Tachney Chk Req 11/17/2009 803-000-0000-22900 Deposits Payable Chk Req Total: TACHNEY Total: TDS TDS METROCOM - LLC 651-779-8882 11/13/2009 101-420-2220-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 11/13/2009 101-430-3100-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 11/13/2009 602-495-9450-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 11/13/2009 601-494-9400-43210 Telephone 651-779-8882 Total: TDS Total: TKDA TKDA, Inc_ 000200903363 1 203-490-9070-43030 000200903364 1 203-490-9070-43030 000200903365 1 203-490-9070-43030 000200903366 1 601-494-9400-43030 000200903367 I 603-496-9500-43030 000200903368 1 101-430-3100-43030 000200903368 1 101-410-1930-43030 000200903368 1 101-410-1910-43030 000200903369 1 409-480-8000-43030 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903363 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903364 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903365 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903366 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903367 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 1/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903368 Total: 1/11/2009 Engineering Services AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) 1,000.00 0.00 12/01/2009 Escrow Retum-8009 Hill Tri Permit 5111 1,000.00 1,000.00 156.09 153.15 104.13 42.03 455.40 455.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 Analog Lines - Fire Analog Lines - Public Works Analog Lines - Lift Station Alarms Alarm - Well House #2 1,278.40 0.00 12/01/2009 Development Whistling Valley 3,075.26 0.00 12/01/2009 Lake Elmo Farms 476.75 0.00 12/01/2009 Sanctuary 1,262.49 0.00 12/01/2009 SW Area Water System Extension 469.88 0.00 12/01/2009 Surface Water Mgmt Plan 1,278.40 3,075.26 476.75 1,262.49 469.88 185.14 3,780.71 3,491.54 7,457.39 2,204.95 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 No 0000 Page 7 Invoice # 000200903369 404-480-8000-43030 000200903369 603-496-9500-43030 000200903369 601-494-9400-43030 000200903369 602-495-9450-43030 000200903370 409-480-8000-43030 000200903371 415-480-8000-43030 000200903371 416-480-8000-43030 000200903372 417-480-8000-43030 Inv Date 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903369 Total: 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903370 Total: 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903371 Total: 11/11/2009 Engineering Services 000200903372 Total: TKDA Total: Amount Quantity Pint Date Description Reference 106.48 4,475.84 2,331.73 185.14 9,304.14 851.89 851.89 11,152.10 1,593.61 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 General Engineering 0.00 12/01/2009 2009 Crack Sealing 0.00 12/01/2009 2009 Street Improvements -final Design 0.00 12/01/2009 Tablyn Portion 12,745.71 3,375.00 0.00 12/01/2009 T F 2010 Street and Water Quality 3,375.00 40,296.91 TOWER Tower Asphalt, Inc. Cert 3 11/11/2009 123,302.01 415-480-8000-45300 Improvements Other Than Bldgs Cert 3 11/11/2009 18,814.85 416-480-8000-45300 Improvements Other Than Bldgs Cert 3 Total: 142,116.86 TOWER Total: 142,116.86 USBANK US Bank Trust 33402400 01/01/2010 310-480-8000-46010 Bond Principal 33402400 01/01/2010 310-480-8000-46110 Bond Interest 33402400 Total: USBANK Total: VANZANDT Van Zandt Distributing 3883 11/06/2009 101-420-2220-42080 EMS Supplies 3883 Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) 35,000.00 2,581.25 37,581.25 37,581.25 105.85 105.85 0.00 12/01/2009 2009 Street Improvements 0.00 12/01/2009 Tablyn Project 0.00 12/01/2009 Principal 0.00 12/01/2009 Interest 0.00 12/01/2009 EMS Supplies fo H1N1 Protection Task Type PO # Close POLine # No No No No No No No No No No No No No 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 Page 8 Invoice # Inv Date VANZANDT Total: WASRADIO WASHINGTON COUNTY 64621 11/01/2009 101-420-2220-43230 Radio 64621 Total: WASRADIO Total: Report Total: AP - To Be Paid Proof List (11/24/09 - 1:04 PM) Amount Quantity Pmt Date Description Reference 105.85 1,166.90 1,166.90 1,166.90 269,237.12 0.00 12/01/2009 Monthly user fee for 800 MHz radios Task Type PO # Close POLine # No 0000 Page 9 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: C DATE: 1 2/01 /2009 CONSENT ITEM MOTION: Consider Approval of Liquor License Renewals for 2010 Sharon Lumbv, City Clerk Bruce Messelt. City Adrninistrato SUMMARY AND, ACTION REQUESTED: The City has received liquor applications for 2010, required fees. and insurance certificates. As all applications are in order. it is recommended that the City Council consider the following Motion: Move to approve 2010 Liquor License Renewals, as presented, and an On -sale intoxicating liquor license for the Lake Elmo Inn Event Center STAFF REPORT: The City is being asked to grant the following 2010 liquor applications: • On -sale intoxicating liquor and On -sale Sunday intoxicating license to 3M Club of St. Paul (Operators of Tartan Park) and to the Machine Shed Restaurant by Heart of America Restaurants; conditioned upon approval by the Washington County Sheriff's Dept. • On -sale intoxicating liquor, Off -sale intoxicating liquor and On -sale Sunday intoxicating liquor license to the Twin Point Tavern and Lake Elmo lnn conditioned upon approval by the Washington County Sheriffs Dept. • New application for On -Sale intoxicating liquor license for the Lake Elmo Inn Event Center including the outside patio on the Southside of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 2010 liquor license renewals and approval of the new On -sale intoxicating liquor license for the Lake Elmo Inn Event Center, ATTACIIMENTS: None, SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if renzoved from Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff__ ..... ............. .Ylayor Facilitates Call for Motion .......... ....... ....... ...... .................Mavor & City Council Discussion__ ........ ...... ......... ..... ..... . ........ __Mayor & City Council Action on ................ ...... Facilitates Discussion'Action Mayor facilitates -- page 1 -- CITY OF AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 12/01/2009 CONSENT ITEM 4: 4 MOTION: Resolution 2009-046 Consider approval of Resolution 2009-046 Approving the Renewal of an Interim Use Permit OUP) Application from Common Ground Church to Permit the Keeping of Horses. Kelli Matzek, Planner Common Grounds Church. Applicant Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director SUMIVLARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is being asked to consider a renewal request from Common Ground Church to allow the keeping of two horses as an interim use at 10240 Stillwater Blvd N. The applicants were granted an TUT (Resolution 2008-012) on February 191h, 2008 with a set expiration of December 31. 2009 at which time the applicants could reapply for another two year IUP. Based upon the application and review of relevant facts and applicable City Code. City staff is recommending approval of Resolution 2009-046, with certain conditions denoted below. As such, the suggested motion is as follows: Move to approve Resolution 09-046 allowing the keeping ofhorses with an Interim Use Permit at 10240 Stillwater Blvd A with conditions. STAFF REPORT: In the two years since the on al IUP was granted. one complaint was received regarding the lack of an enclosed structure for thehorses to enter to get out of severe weather. The Animal Control Officer (ACO) was informed of these concenis. went to the site. and stated that all applicable requirements are being met at the site and the horses were not being neglected. The ACO suggested requesting the water supply have electricity to keep it from freezing over. The applicants have stated in their current application that they are looking at alternatives such as placing the horses in another facility temporarily during the winter months to address the concern. The zoning of the subject property is Public Facilities (PF) which would allow the use as an IUP. The applicants have identified approximately four acres of the property for grazable land for horses and are proposing to maintain caring for the two horses that were permitted previously. Staff continues to find all eight criteria fOr an Interim Use Permit to be met for two horses. The eight general criteria for all Interim Use Permits are: -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Interim Use Perniit Renewal for Common Ground Church December lst. 2009 Agenda Item i4 Is the use allowed as an interiin use in the respective zoning district and does it co 01.111 to standard zoning regulations? 7 Use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, 1101SC., traffic, dust, or unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of MC CO71117711101% 3. Use will not adversely impact implementation of the comprehensive plan. 4. The date or event that will terminate the use is identified with certainty, 5. The applicant has signed a consent agreement agreeing that the applicant, °WWI", operator, tenant and/or user has no entitlement to future reapproval of the Interim Use Permit as vell as agreeing that the interim use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is IleCCSSaly.fbr the public to fitlly or partially take the property in the )(inure. 6. The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate Ibr permission of the use including the requirement of appropriate financial surety to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim structures upon the expiration of the interim use permit. 7. There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, iiiterest, or Go' utility fees due upon the subject parcel. 8. The term of the interim use does not exceed n,vo (2) vears, The three specific criteria for horses as an Interim Use in the PF zoning district: I. The keeping of horses does 1701 constitute a feedlot per Minnesota Rules, The propertv is directly adjacent to only Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR) zoned properties that are not developed as open space preservation subdivisions. Roadways shall be considered an adequate buffer. 3. Evidence is provided to show adherence to all livestock and horse regulations in the Lake Elmo city code. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The property is approximately 24.5 acres in size with four acres identified for the pasture of horses. If approved, the proposal would authorize horses to be kept on the property throughout the year as part of the "Hoof Prints" organization which is a non-profit. faith -based, volunteer run group. The purpose of the organization is to benefit people who may be dealing with abuse, sickness or other troubles through work with horses. Guests and volunteers care for the horses by exercising, grooming and feedirw, them: which in turn is meant to provide a sense of accomplishment and improved self-confidence. The proposed hours of operation would be primarily "after school" and weekends by appointment. -- pave 2 -- City Council Meeting Interim Use Permit Renewal for Common Ground Church December lst, 2009 Agenda Item #4 RECOMMENDATION: Based on our analysis of the request, staff is recommending approval of Resolution 2009-046 (with conditions identified below) as the keeping of horses is listed as an interim permitted use in the PF zoning district and limiting the site to two horses would comply with applicable regulations. a) No more than two horses shall be allowed; b) All riding of horses shall be done in accordance with section 95.01 and 95.02 of city code; c) The Interim Use Permit shall expire on December 31, 2011; at such time, the applicants may apply for another two year rup. d) Applicant must sign a consent agreement with the city. The City Council does have the option to not renew the Interim Use Permit and, should this prove the desired course of action, may simply not take action on Resolution 2009-046, thereby allowing the current Interim Use Permit to expire. The City Council could also formally move to deny the ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2009-046 2. Applicant's Written Narrative 3. Location Map SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS (if removed from Consent Agenda): Questions from Council to Staff Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion Mayor & City Council Discussion Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ...... ............ .......... ............... ................... ............Mayor Facilitates Discussion/Action Mayor facilitates -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2009-046 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE KEEPING OF HORSES AT 10240 STILLWATER BOULEVARD NORTH WHEREAS, Common Ground Church has requested an Interim Use Permit at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North to allow the keeping of horses in conjunction with the Hoof Prints Ministry Program in the PF zoning district. WHEREAS, the required mailing was completed in compliance with Section 154.019. No objections were received within ten days of the mailed notice. WHEREAS, the applicants are not requesting any changes to the originally approved permit. FINDINGS 1. Two horses would be in compliance with all livestock requirements and MPCA requirements for this type of facility; 2. A maximum of two horses will be in conformance with all interim use permit criteria outlined in code. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council hereby approves an Interim Use Permit at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North to allow the keeping of horses, based on the Findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. No more than two horses shall be allowed; 2. All riding of horses shall be done in accordance with section 95.01 and 05.02 of city code; 3. The Interim Use Permit shall expire on December 31, 2011; at such time, the applicants may apply for another two year IUP. 4. The applicant must sign a consent agreement before expiration of the existing permit on December 31, 2009. This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on the 1 day of December 2009, by a vote of Ayes and Nays. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator (SEAL) The members ofCommon Ground take great care hnlooking after both horses, Jasmine and Opal, Designated members have selected times where we each take turns mornings and evenings to provide food and check their water supply, as well as an overview of the land. Some members go more than 2 or 3 times a week to spend additional time to brush and work with the horses, in addition to looking after the grounds. VVeare currently looking atalternatives that will ensure the horses have proper care during the winter months. In doing so, we are considering options that will either place the horses inanother facility temporarily until the spring or continuing with their stay mtCommon Ground. Our goal in researching alternatives isbmensure their wVeU'bming.Water and protection isour main concern. Since there isno electricity that reaches the pasture, we are looking at how we can accomplish this through viable options. Inthe past year, the horses and the land have been well taken care of. Since their arrival, the horses have reached a healthier status than when they first came to Common Ground. They are friendly, approachable and provide a comfort to those who corne to the pasture. Through the Hoof Prints Ministry we have successfully engaged groups of young teenagers and adults to come and meet the horses under the supervision of Common Ground members, while spending time caring for them in an environment that offers acceptance and comfort. Having the horses and maintaining the land inIts most natural state helps provide abackdrop that touches the life ofLake Elmo residents . We look forward t#continuing tokepart of the comrnunity and abackdrop tothe rural beauty mfLake 3530 941 2525 Location within the City of Lake Elmo 10350 3503 3505 10472 10550 108130 10732 336o 3150 Common Grounds Church. 10240 Stillwater Blvd N. (MD 14-029-21-32-0024) Ct TY OF ELMG / DATE: 12/01,2009 REGULAR ITEM #: 5 INFORMATION AGENDA ITEM: Update on Friends of Washington County by Marc Hugunin SUBMITTED BY: Friends of Washington County THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator c) SUMMARY AND ACTIONREOUESTED: The City Council is asked to receive and update from Mr. Marc Hugunin, Executive Director of the Friends of Washington County regarding efforts to address state-wide rulemaking on landfills that will have an impact on the proposed Xcel fly ash landfill in West Lakeland Township, Recommended Motion — None, on purposes only. STAFF REPORT: On March 17th, 2009, Mr. Marc Marc Hugunin, Executive Director of the Friends of Washington County reported on efforts to address state-wide rulemaking on landfills that will have an impact on the proposed Xcel fly ash landfill in West Lakeland Township. At that time, the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2009-008 in support of these efforts and authorized City expenditure of S2,500 from the General Fund to the Friends for technical services and for the Friends' participation in the MPCA's Landfill Advisory Group. RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Hugunin has requested time on the City Council's agenda to update the Council on the efforts of the Friends relating to this issue. It is recommended that the City Council receive Mr. Hugunin's report and update. ATTACHMENTS: Mecting Minutes from March 17th. 2009 City Council Meeting. SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction....... ....... ............. Bruce Messelt. City .Administrator Report by Friends__ ...... ......... ............ ........ . ...... Marc Huginen Questions from the Council ...... ...... ...... Mayor & Council Members Discussion Action ....... .......... ......... ....... ...... ..... ..„. Nilayor facilitates page 1 -- REGULAR AGENDA: Requests by Friends of Washington County (Resolution and Funding) Marc Hugunin. Executive Director of The Friends of Washington County, reported his organization was seeking support for its efforts related to state-wide rulemaking on landfills that will have an effect on the proposed Xcel fly ash landfill in West Lakeland Township. It is requesting that the City Council adopt a resolution to support the Friends' efforts to participate in the rule -making process and to authorize $2,500 toward its funding of technical support by a hydrogeologist. MOTION: Council Member DeLapp moved to adopt Resolution No. 2009-008 supporting the efforts of the &fends of YVashington County in the Landfill Advisory Group of the MPCA to protect groundwater resources in the siting of landfills and authorize S2,500from the General Fund for The Friends to use for technical service,s for its participation in the MPCA's Landfill Advisory Group. Council Member Smith seconded the niotion. The motion passed 5-0. Consider an application from Vladimir and Silvia Hugec to allow construction of a pool, pergola, fireplace. and spa within the required 100 foot buffer setback in Open Space Preservation (OP) development at 2931 Jonquil Trail North This agenda item was postponed to the April 7th Council meeting per the request of applicants, Vladimir and Silvia Hugec. Presentation of the 2009 Street Improvements Feasibility Report — Resolution accepting, the report and calling of a public improvement hearing City Engineer Griffin provided three options for repairing the streets. The first is to repair the streets, leaving the current curb in place; the second is to repair the streets and build new bituminous curbs: and the third is to repair the streets and build concrete curbs into the project. The City Engineer recommended the second option, although all three options remain on the table until after the City's public hearing. Council Member DeLapp asked why should each property owner pay the same amount, when some property owners live on large cul-de-sacs and others live on smaller lots with less frontage. He also asked that the City Engineer present at the public hearing the cost per each project. Council Member Emmons suggested the integrating ofrain gardens as part of this project. City Engineer Griffin explained an open house will be held on March 30, 2009. from 6:00-7:30 p.m. to present the property owners/residents the scope of the proposed project, LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 17. 2009 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: THROUGH: REVIEWED BY: DATE: 12/01/09 REGULAR ITEM #: 6 MOTION: Resolution 2009-048 Final 2009 Tax Levy Certification, Payable 2010 Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Bruce Messelt, City Administrat Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to State law and following its September 2009 adoption of the proposer/ 2010 Budget and Levy Certification, subsequent deliberations by and recommendations emanating- from the Budget 8.: Finance Sub -committee, and Council discussion of the proposed 2010 Budget, CIP and Tax Levy at a recent Workshop, the City Council is asked to affirmatively consider and adopt the Final 2009 Tax Levy Certification, Payable 2010. To do so, the Council motion and consideration/action should be to: Move to approve Resolution 2009-048 authorizing certification to the Washington Count!' Auditor of the 2009 Tax Levy (collectible in 2010) STAFF REPORT: On September 1st, 2009, the City of Lake Elmo adopted for submission to the Washington County Auditor the proposed 2010 general fund budget (discussed as Agenda Item #7 immediately following this item) and proposed 2009 Levy Certification. payable 2010. The specific elements of September's proposed 2009 Levy Certification. Payable 2010 included: General Fund Levy 52.360.790 2008 Unallotment Recovery 19.365 2009 Unallotment Recovery 35,475 2004 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 31 9,764 2006 G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness 56.716 2009B G.O. Improvement Bonds 51.000 TOTAL 52,843,110 paQ-e 1 -- City Council Meeting Final 2009 Tax Levy Certification. Payable 2010 December 1st. 2009 Agenda Item #6 Subsequent to the preliminary levy certification, it was determined that approximately $1,000,000 of unspent 2004 bond proceeds may be transferred from the City Facilities capital projects fund to the 2004 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds debt service fund in 2009, thereby increasing the debt service fund balance and reducing the pay 2010 and future scheduled annual property tax levies to $220,000. This proposal was introduced by the Budget and Finance Sub -committee and received positive feedback from the City Council at its Workshop. It addition, the City Attorney and Bond Counsel have reviewed and concurred with this proposed action with respect to both legal and fiduciary authority and prudence. As such, the recommended Final 2009 Levy Certification, Payable 2010, is as follows: General Fund Levy S2,360,790 2008 Unallotment Recovery 19,365 2009 Unallotment Recovery 35,475 2004 G.O. Capital Improvement Plan Bonds 220,000 2006 G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness 56,716 2009B G.O. Improvement Bonds 51,000 TOTAL $2,743,346 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The overall 2010 property tax levy of S2,743.346 is 1.3% higher than the 2009 total levy of S2.708,203. The general fund levy of S2,360,790 for 2010 (not including unallotment recovery levies) is 1.2% higher than the 2009 general fund levy of S2,332.130. While maintaining basic levels of government services. the City is proposing to only marginally increase the payable 2009 city tax rate by 2.5% from 19.878% in 2009 to 20.376% in 2010. In other words, property owners with no change in market values from payable 2009 to payable 2010 should experience a 2.5% increase in the city portion of their overall property tax bill. For example, a S500,000 home that has experienced no net increase or decrease in market value over the last year would see its City property tax bill by approximately S25, or some S2 per month. However, in the event of a market value decrease or increase for this same home from payable 2009 to payable 2010. City property taxes would change proportionately. As Washington County has noted an overall market value decrease of approximately -4.9%. the proposed 2009 Levy Certification for the City of Lake Elmo should actually decrease average property taxes paid to the City by approximately 2.5%, or approximately a S25 decrease in City property taxes the same home. This information is shown in greater detail in Table 1 on Page 3 of this report. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution 2009- 048, authorizing certification to the Washington County Auditor of the 2009 Tax Levy (collectible in 2010). Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to adjust the Final page 2 -- City Council Meeting Final 2009 Tax Levy Certification, Payable 2010 December lst, 2009 Agenda Item I#6 2009 Tax Levy Certification, Payable 2010, either tonight or during subsequent action prior to December 17th, 2009. However, the City may not increase its Tax Levy higher than that submitted to Washington County on September 1st, 2009. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2009-048 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction ........... ............ Staff Report/Presentation Questions from Council to Staff Call for Motion ........... ............. .. Discussion . ..... . ............ „...,......... Action on Motion. ............ .... 2009 CITY PROPERTY TAXES Market Tax Value Capacity* 2009 2009 $100,000 $1,000 $300,000 $3,000 $500,000 $5,000 $700,000 $7,500 ......... Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant Mayor Facilitates ....... ........ . ........... ........ Mayor & City Council ...... ........ .............. Mayor & City Council .. ........ ......... ......... Mayor Facilitates City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2009 19.878°/0 19.878% 19.878% 19.878% City Property Taxes 2009 $199 $596 $994 $1,491 2010 CITY PROPERTY TAXES IWITH NO MARKET VALUE CHANGE Market Value 2010 NO CHANGE Tax Capacity * 2010 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2010 City Property Percentage Property Taxes Tax Taxes Increase Increase 2010 (Decrease) (Decrease) $100,000 $1,000 20.376% $204 $5 2.50/0 $300,000 $3,000 20.376% $611 $15 2.5% $500,000 $5,000 20,376% $1,019 $25 2.5V0 $700,000 $7,500 20.376% $1,528 $37 2.5% 2010 CITY PROPERTY TAXES IWITH 4.9% MARKET VALUE DECREASE Market Value 2010 DECREASE OF -4.9% $95,100 $285,300 $475,500 $665,700 Tax Capacity 2010 $951 $2,853 $4,755 $7,071 City Local Tax Capacity Rate Pay 2010 20,376% 20.376% 20.376% 20.376°/0 (Table 1) City Property Percentage Property Taxes Tax Taxes Increase Increase 2010 (Decrease) (Decrease) $104 ($5) -2.6% $581 ($15) -2.5% $969 ($25) -2.5% $1,441 ($50) -3.4°/0 -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2009-048 RESOLUTION ADOPTTh G FINAL TAX LEVY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, County of Washington, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for the current year, collectible in 2010, upon the taxable property in the City of Lake Elmo for the following purposes: General Fund Levy $ 2,360,790 2008 MVHC Unallotment Recovery $ 19,365 2009 MVHC Unallotment Recovery $ 35,475 2004 G.O Capital Improvement Plan Bond $ 220,000 2006 G.O Equipment Certificate of Indebtedness $ 56,716 2009B G.O. Improvement Bond $ 51.000 Total Levy $ 2,743,346 ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the 1st day of December. 2009. Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator C;TV LA 7 ELM Y v‘ C4' L C DIVT M Uflt DATE: 12/01/09 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 7 MOTION: Resolution 2009-049 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing - 2010 Budget and Action on 2010 Budget & 2010-14 CIP SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director THROUGH: Bruce Messelt. City Administrato REVIEWED BY: Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant Dave Snyder. City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Pursuant to State law and following its September 1st, 2009 adoption of the proposed 2010 Budget, subsequent deliberations by and recommendations emanating from the Budget & Finance Sub -committee, and Council discussion of the proposed 2010 Budget and CIP at a recent Workshop, the City Council is asked to convene a Public Hearing on the proposed 2010 Budget and then take action on the 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 CIP. Following said Public Hearing, the City Council is asked to affirmatively consider and adopt the 2010 Budget and 2010-14 CIP, as presented and attached herein. To do so, the Council motion and consideration/action should be to: Move to approve Resolution 2009-049 adopting the 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 Capital Improvenzent Plan. STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has both the legal and fiduciary responsibility under Minnesota State Statue to adopt a final Budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). On Septeniber 1st, 2009, the City of Lake Elmo adopted for submission to the Washington County Auditor the proposed 20] 0 general fund budget and CIP, as required under state law. The specific revenue elements of September's proposed 2010 Budget and CIP included: Constrained Tax revenues due to levy limits the Governor's unallotting of Market Value Homestead Credit; Limited or no growth in non -tax revenues due to the economic recession: and City Council Meeting Public Hearing/Action — 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 CIP December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #7 Flat or lower property tax capacity due to market value adjustments to most residential and commercial properties and land. The specific expenditure elements of September's proposed 2010 Budget and CIIP included: • Leaving unfunded the position of Building Official, saving some S101.600; • 1 week of unpaid furloughs for employees, saving approximately S18,000 and a 1.5% economic adjustment for employees, based upon budget performance costing S22,500; • Additional required City contribution of $17.864 to the Lake Elmo's Firefighters' Relief Association; • Additional expense of S11.000 for 2010 municipal elections; • Additional across-the-board reductions of $58,400; and • No transfer to capital infrastructure or equipment funds; the latter is particularly problematic due to aging infrastructure and equipment. At the time, and at the request of the City Council and its Budget & Finance Sub -committee, City staff identified an additional $96,830 in possible additional cuts in an effort to decrease the potential Tax Levy. Fortunately, a projected 5% decrease in tax capacity preliminarily calculated by Washington County did not materialize, as a lag in recently -constructed properties corning on line for taxation offset much of the market value adjustments and resulted in a net decrease in overall tax capacity of approximately 1.1%. As a result. the Budget & Finance Subcommittee was able to ameliorate many of the more draconian budget cutting measures and restore key program support in certain areas, even while reducing the proposed Tax Levy. Included, therefore in the proposed Final Budget and CIP are: No employee furloughs but also no pay grade or cost of living increases; • Reduction in Assistant Planner position from 1.0 FTE to 0.8 FTE; • Reduction in Parks/Public Works seasonal positions from 4 to 3 FTE; • Reduction in Forestry Program from S ] 4,000 to S10,000; • Utilization of the reapplication of 2004 Bond proceeds against remaining debt to reallocate General Fund monies to needed capital infrastructure and equipment funds; • Prioritization and identification of funding sources for the 2010 year of the 2010-2014 CIP; and • Development of a strategy to address structural deficiencies in the Water Utility Budget. As a result, the overall 2010 general fund expenditures and transfers out are budgeted at S2.849,011, or a 1.5% decrease from the 2009 general fund budget. The 2010 general fund budget is considered balanced, with overall general fund budgeted revenues also at S2,849,011, or a I .5% decrease. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting Public Hearing/Action — 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 CIP December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #7 The 2010 CIP is recommended at approximately $2.2 million, with significant programs and related expenditures emanating from Parks (Park Dedication Fees), Seal -coating and Transportation Improvements (General Fund, MSA Funds, Property Tax Levy and Special Assessments), Water utility Improvements (MDH Loan or other revenue source). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: State law requires the holding of a public hearing, commonly referred to as "Truth in Taxation," for the purposes of allowing public input and discussion on the proposed Budget, Official Notice for tonight's Public Hearing was published in the Oakdale / Lake Elmo Review on November 26th, 2009 (attached). As required by State law, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed 2010- 2014 CIP on November 23rd, 2009. The CIP was also reviewed in detail prior to tonight's presentation by the Parks Commission, Planning Commission, City Council, City Engineer and City Departments. State law requires submission to Washington County of the City's final 2010 Budget and 2010- 2014 CIP by December 23rd, 2009. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council convene the required Public Hearing on the 2010 Budget. Upon completion and closure of the Public Hearing, it is recommended that the City Council pass Resolution 2009-049, thereby approving the 2010 Budget and 2010-14 CIP. The suggested motion is as follows: Move to approve Resolution 2009-049 adopting the 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan [as amended (if needed)]. Alternatively, the City Council does have the authority to adjust the Final Budget, either tonight or during subsequent action prior to December 23rd, 2009. However, the City may not increase its Tax Levy higher than that submitted to Washington County on September 1st, 2009, thereby constraining somewhat major increases in the City's budget. It should also be noted that both the Annual Budget and 2010 CIP can be amended and/or modified by the City Council during the 2010 fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: I. Resolution 2009-049 2. 2010 Budget and 2010-14 CIP 3. Public Notice -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting Public Hearing/Action — 2010 Budget and 2010-2014 CIP December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #7 SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction......... ........ .............. .................. Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Tom Bouthilet, Finance Director Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant Questions from Council to Staff... ..... .................. ........ ...... Mayor Facilitates Public Hearing Mayor Facilitates Call for Motion ........ .............. ...... ......................... Mayor & City Council Discussion. Mayor & City Council Action on Motion ............... ................... ................... ........... Mayor Facilitates Staff ReportlPresentation -- page 4 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2009-049 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2010 GENERAL FUND BUDGET & 2010-2014 CAPITAL IMPROVE1VIENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is required to adopt a formal budget for the general fund expenditures; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is required to adopt an annual Capital Improvement Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo held a Budget & Tax Hearing on December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake City Council closed the public hearing on the 2010 general fund budget at the close of the meeting on December 1, 2009 without need for continuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council adopts the 2010 general fund budget in the amount of $2,849,011 and the 2010- 2014 Capital Improvement Plan. ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on this, the 1st day of December, 2009. Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Inc., a Minnesota against Janette sent occupants of as 15057 Forest Minnesota, has by the edit The amount bst the above Is $2,170,13 of sale, exclusive lid sale, together es el making said ,2009 Is, ASSOCIATES Brad Cashman ert & Associates uth Water Street water.MN 550B2 lievieikt Nov. 25, INESOTA ISHINGTON ;OURT IVISION I. DISTRICT f R-09-7359 FORMAL MU AND INTMENT OF ESENTATIVE CREDITORS ells Wondra aka to, aka Dorothy application for Decedent's Will, arid ("WIli"), has Registrar. The 'anted. 8t the Registrar kited Karin L. ass Is 2595 Ariel- ocl, MN, 55109, fee of the Estate hair, devisee or ;stay be entitled es personal I object to the he personal objections are Want to Minn. Po the Court - the personal power to Ousting, after 30 sance of letters, rnber, lease .or probate of the the Personal i filed with this by the Court epriate petition ;trig, let (subject to aditors having are required to he personal the Court i months after 'the claims will rnay request ioceedings be reral pursuant Ike 5. 09 ti A nnunziata Registrar Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2009 Page 15 Notice of proposed Total Budget and Property Taxes -'The Lake Elmo City Council will hold a public hearing on its budget and on the amount of property taxes it is proposing to collect to pay for the costs of services the city will provide in 2010. Attend the Public Hearing All Lake Elmo City residents are invited to attend the public hearing of the City Council to express their opinions on the budget and on the proposed amount of 2010 property taxes. The hearing will be held on: Tuesday, December 1, at 7:00 p.m. Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue Lake Elmo, Minnesota You are invited to send your written comments to: City of Lake Elmo, Mayor's Office 3800 Laverne Avenue, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (Oakdale -Lake Elmo Review; Nov. 25, 2009) Victorian Christmas event. Community Services Approval of the following actions: nio-zoil contracts with East Suburban Resources Opportunity Services, and Phoenix Alternatives for day training and habilitation and related aervices for persons with disabilities; - 2010-2011 contract with Lifeworks Services, Inc., Orlon ISO, Inc., and Partners In Community Supports for services for Individuals on Medical Assistance, General Administration Approval of -the following actions': - October 20, .2009 Board meeting minutes; - Executive Session held to discuss the Land and Water Legacy Program for the Daley conservation easement acquisition; -.Board correspondence was received and placed on file; - Board workshop held to discuss next steps In the 2010 budget development. Housln a and Redevelooment ALdicaility Adoption of Resolution No. 2009-130, proposed amendment to the custodial agreement HRA governmental housing revenue refunding bonds (Washington County General Obligation — Woodland Park Apartments Project) Series 2002 and affirming the Pledge of the General Obligation of Washington County, Human Resources Approval to ratify the 2010 health insurance for Teamsters 00/911 employees. Public Health and Environment Board workshop held to review the Washington Conservation District's 2010 budget and program services; and, the Watershed Management Organizations2010 budgets and disabled persons and located at the following locations; Locatio Approximate Refinancing Amount 5570 — 129th Drive N., Hugo, MN $183,457 5572 — 12.9th Drive N., Hugo, MN $183,169 600 La Bore Road, Little Canada, MN $165,576 410 E. Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN $385,697 • 549 Allen Avenue, Little Canada, MN $241,304 2083 Arcade Street, Maplewood, MN $ 80,817 785 Belmont Lane E., Maplewood, MN $233,101 2707 — 9th Avenue E., North St. Paul, MN $294,862 2137 Hale Avenue N,, Oakdale, MN $136,091 2646 Virginia Avenue, Roseville, MN $ 73,933 1492 Bremer Avenue, Roseville, MN $174,098 457 Minnesota Avenue, Roseville, MN $187,368 909 Edgewater Street, Shoreview, MN $259,640 4430 MornIngside Avenue, Vadnais Heights, MN $157,977 1995 Oak Knoll Avenue, White Bear Lake, MN $ 67,569 3518 Rollingytew Court, White Bear Lake, MN $ 80,817 4095 White Bear Avenue, White Bear Lake, MN $121,103 1485 Highway 96, White Bear Lake: MN $224,826 2420 — 5th Street, White Bear Township, MN $150,283 2580 Norway Pine Drive, White Bear Township, MN $260,130 5317 Ceciarwood Court, White Bear treessehin. MN $204,267 - Stacy Lauzon, Books, Castle — use for the kids Jack Anderson, Markers and tape, Castle — student Kempe Nickels for Schools, $137,50, Oakdale — general use Oakdale PTO, $1,077.64, Oakdale — student Held trips and other activities relating to teaming and curriculum Target Take Charge of Education, $701.57, Oakdale — general use Anonymous, $100.00, Oakdale — student use In 5th grade 622 Education Foundation, $405.00, Oakdale — assist students whose education may be in jeopardy because of family's financial situation Lowe's Charitable and Educational Foundation, $5,000.00, Richardson — purchase Wells Fargo, $274.05, Skyview elementary — literacy materials for grade 4 Kim Elvecrog, Clarinet and case, Weaver — Weaver diversfty band Webster PTO, $3,000.00, Webster — two (2) smartboards Webster PTO, $2,069,64, Webster — field trips Costco @ Maplewood, 700 Backpacks loaded with school supplies, Webster — each student to have a backpack for the 2009-2010 school year Crystal Harrington, Music stand, John Glenn Richard Surbeok, $25,00, Skyview Middle — supporting grandson In school fundraiser instead of purchasing a magazine or food Item Abdalla & Debra Battah, $50.00, Skyview Middle — student use Joe & Sandra Payne, $400.00, North — Northam Lights scholarships Ben Dexter, 1986 Oldsmobile Gutless, North — education Candy Peterson, $500.00, North — FOR PUBLICATION ONE TIME Oakdale -Lake Elmo Review, November 11, 2009 Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice for November 23, 2009 (Original notice) KeIII Matzek — Planner 11-6-09 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DATE: November 23, 2009 TIME: 7:00 p.m. or after PLACE: Lake Elmo City Hall 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Phone: 651-777-5510 Fax: 651-777-9615 PURPOSE: The Lake Elmo Planning Commission is holding public hearings to consider the following items: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: Review of a capital improvement plan for the city of Lake Elmo for the years 2010 to 2014. 2. BUFFER SETBACKS IN OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENTS: Consideration of an ordinance to amend the buffer setbacks for the following developments: St. Croix's Sanctuary; Discover Crossing; Whistling Valley I, II, and III; Farms of Lake Elmo; Prairie Hamlet; Fields of St. Croix! and II (including Little Bluestem); The Homestead; Tapestry at Charlotte's Grove; Tamarack Farm Estates; Sunfish Ponds; Hamlet on Sunfish Lake; Cardinal Ridge; Wildflower Shores; Heritage Farms; Tana Ridge; and Parkview Estates. The buffer setback is measured from the edge of the development and precludes the construction of a building. Written comments regarding the proposals may be submitted to the City no later than noon on the day of the meeting. Materials regarding the above items are available for review at City Hall (Monday — Friday; 8:00 a.m. — 4:30 p.m.). Please call City Hall if you have any questions. Kelli Matzek Planner Vir121749152.,ASIb, OF LAKE ELMD A A r r , DATE: 12/01/09 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #: 8 MOTION: Resolution 2009-050 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearing - Action on Delinquent Water and Wastewater Utility Bills SUBMITTED BY: Tom Bouthilet. Finance Director THROUGH: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant Dave Snyder, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to convene a public hearing, as required under State law, to consider recommended action to assess property owners for delinquent 2009 Water and Wastewater Utility bills. Recommended Motion #1 — Move to open Public Hearing Recommended Motion #2 — Moved to close Public Hearing Recommended Motion #3 — Move to Approve Resolution # 2009-50 STAFF REPORT: The City of Lake Elmo has the legal and fiduciary authority under Mimiesota State Statue 444.075, subd.3. and City Ordinance to assess property owners for unpaid utilities and services. Exhibit A provides a listing of those properties with delinquent water and wastewater utility bills for 2009. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: All affected homeowners with past due balances have been sent formal notification of the proposed property assessment, following previous unpaid billings. Official Notice of tonight's Public Hearing for unpaid utilities was published in the Oakdale Lake Elmo Review on November 25th, 2009 ( attached). Even following tonight's action. homeowners will still have until December 10th, 2009 to pay their bills without additional fees or incurring, of said assessment. Payments received after December 10th. 2009 through December 31st, 2009 will be subject to an eight percent interest charge on the balance due, or a fee of $25.00, whichever is greater. paue 1 -- City Council Meeting Public Hearing - Delinquent Utility Bills December 1st. 2009 Afenda Item #8 After December 31st, 2009, all unpaid accounts will be certified with Washington County for assessment against the property, including the eight percent interest charge on the balance due, or a fee of $25.00. whichever is greater. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council convene the required public hearing to receive public comment and, upon closure of said hearing, move to approve Resolution 2009-050, authorizing certification to the Washington County Auditor for unpaid Utility (water and wastewater) Bills. While assessment of such delinquent utility bills against the serviced property is both the predominant industry norm and the past practice of the City of Lake Elmo, the City Council does have the discretion to not assess these properties. Such action would still require the City to either write-off this lost revenue or seek remuneration through alternative means, such as private bill collection or perhaps civil action. However, it is staffs assessment that any action other than assessment of delinquent bills against the services property will he both more expensive and less successful. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2009-050 Exhibit A Public Hearing Notice SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction.. ........... ...... ............„.... ...... Staff Report/Presentation ................. ...... ...... Questions from Council to Staff Public Hearing ................ ................ . ..... ...... Call for Motion ........... ....... ....... .............. Discussion ........ ...... ,......„.... ...... ............ .Action on Motion ........ ..... ....... ......... . ..... . ...... Bruce Messelt. City Administrator . . Torn Bouthilet, Finance Director Joe Rigdon, Financial Consultant .............. Mayor Facilitates ..... .......... ....... Mayor Facilitates .................. Mayor & City Council ...... . ......... Mayor & City Council ... . ..... .......... ....... Mayor Facilitates -- pale 2 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2009 — 050 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTIFICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR UNPAID UTILITY BILLS WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 444.075, subd. 3, permits certification of unpaid charges to the county auditor for collection with taxes payable; WHEREAS, the Municipal Code for the City of Lake Elmo contains a provision to certify delinquent accounts to the County Auditor for collection with taxes payable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA, THAT: The list of delinquent accounts, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall be certified to the Washington County Auditor for collection with taxes payable. 2. The certified amount shall be payable over a period of one year, and one installment with interest as provided in Exhibit A. 3. The owner of the property may, at any time prior to certification to the County Auditor, pay the delinquent amount to the City Finance Director. 4. The Deputy Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of Exhibit A to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of Washington County. Such delinquent accounts shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED, by the Lake Elmo City Council on the lst day of December, 2009 Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Exhibit A Address 10867 33RD ST 11240 32ND ST. 11328 32ND ST, 11267 32ND ST, 10941 32ND ST. 10865 32ND ST, 11334 31ST ST. 11259 30TH ST, 11356 30TH ST, 11397 30TH ST, 3624 LAYTON AV. 3604 LAYTON AVE. 3617 LAVERNE AVE. 3417 LAKE ELMO AVE. 3258 LAKE ELMO AVE. 2813 LAKE ELMO AVE. 3250 KRAFT CIRCLE 3265 KRAFT CIRCLE 10902 33RD ST,LANE 2939 LEGION AVE. 2903 LEGION AVE. 2764 LEGION AVE. 2932 LEGION AVE. -11223 32N0 ST. 3010 LISBON AVE. 3040 LISBON AVE, 11229 STILLWATER BLVD 11090 UPPER 33RD ST 3537 LAKE ELMO AVE. 3515 LAKE ELMO AVE. 3459 LAKE ELMO AVE. 10961 32ND ST, NO. 3328 KRAFT CIRCLE 3100 LAKE ELMO AVE 10925 33RD ST LN 8004 50TH STREET 7990 50TH STREET 9393 JANE ROAD N. 9395 JANE ROAD N. 2952 30TH STREET CIR N 2632 LISBON AVE CT 2660 LISBON AVE CT 2753 LISBON AVE CT 2769 LISBON AVE CT 8921 HIGHWAY 5 8925 HIGHWAY 5 8839 36TH STREET N 9165 JAMACA COURT 9115 JAMACA COURT 9089 JAMACA COURT 3351 JAMACA AVENUE 8914 37TH ST 8928 36TH ST BACK 9340 STILLWATER BLVD 9402 STILLWATER BLVD FRONT 3455 ISLE COURT N. 3435 ISLE CT 4605 LILY AVE N. 4758 LILY AVE N. 4938 LILY AVE N. 11792 44TH STREET N. 11598 44TH STREET 4415 LILY AVE 4488 LILY AVE N. 4442 LILY AVE N. 4365 LILY AVE 11622 LITTLE BLUESTEM CIR. N. 5061 MARQUESS TRAIL CIR N. 5091 MARQUESS TRAIL CIRCLE N. 5203 MARQUESS TRAIL N. 5294 MARQUESS TRAIL N. 5307 MARQUESS TRAIL N. 5328 MARQUESS TRAIL N. 12038 MARQUESS LANE N. 12324 MARQUESS WAY N. Total Due 90.24 94.05 47.25 103.21 731.67 110.20 113.39 162.35 65.17 385.15 264.94 201.39 76.57 491.00 88,98 285.70 98.57 200.32 154.38 290.00 108.77 613.98 75.30 '360.16 588.44 139.73 77.54 $ 144.59 53.13 690.31 123.22 159.27 178.06 76.57 775.45 165.00 300.00 567.00 100.00 51.50 $ 187.29 261.17 89.99 293.89 $ 3,854.66 112.68 287.66 69.73 58.00 542.48 462.26 141.32 189.83 67.48 144.52 272.49 65.17 434.74 589.38 189.54 373.20 479.76 571.00 676.30 $ 1,178.25 708,83 341.50 566.33 402.79 188.28 487.08 142.66 215.59 923.71 395.36 Property ID No. 1402921410018 1302921310013 1302921310014 1302921340004 1402921440012 1402921440018 1302921340015 2402921210004 1302921340007 2402921210009 1302921240005 1302921240003 1302921230016 1302921320032 1302921320084 2402921220003 1402921440004 1402921410012 1402921410016 2402921120004 2402921120009 2402921210027 2402921210013 1302921330005 1302921430007 1302921430010 1302921240017 1302921320048 1302921230054 1302921230056 1302921320041 1402921440010 1402921410027 1302921330019 1402921440020 502921440016 502921440015 1002921240008 1002921210016 2402921110010 2402921140010 2402921140008 2402921110013 2402921110012 1602921410025 1602921140025 1502921320020 1502921320021 1502921320022 1502921320031 1602921140005 1602921140015 1502921310002 1502921310011 1602921410012 1602921410010 1202921130010 1202921120017 1202921120020 1202921410009 1202921420019 1202921420020 1202921420024 1202921420026 1202921420031 1202921430018 602920320057 602920320055 602920320011 602920320051 602920320013 602920320040 602920310020 12521 MARQUESS WAY N, * 146J4 602920310035 124A055THSTREET N. $ ' 201.68 602820310051 1242b55THSTREET N. $ 150.40 2g3VJONQUIL TRAIL N. 0 713.72 2202821220026 1183V5VTHSTREET N $ 884.35 182921110012 1VV71TAPESTRY ROAD N. $ 598-25 1102921830021 1170050TH STREET $ 724.49 103921130027 5725LILY AVENUE N. $ 1,582.43 10292113008* S712LILY AVENUE N. $ 30828 1V2821130010 11671 5VTHSTREET N. $ 712.80 102921130008 110oo56THSTREET m. * 358.44 102821140013 5683LINDEN AVENUE N. * 506.12 102921140011 11V8n5oTHSTREET $ V16.1e 102921110008 5647 57TH STREET N. $ 451.95 2oe5LAKE ELMOAVE o 130.42 3995 JONQU|LTRL $ 7$.59 2202821210008 1V92857THSTREET N. $ 139,35 202921140018 564757THSTREET CIRCLE N. $ 75.00 203921140011 85U5EAGLE POINT CIRCLE $ 4.441.64 3302921430008 aV15EAGLE POINT BLYD $ 338.09 3002921440029 8n57EAGLE POINT BLVD $ 00e.00 3302921440023 ycoo31STSTREET N. $ 135.20 V224n1oTSTREET N. $ 75.010 g%4031STSTREET N $ 75.00 ao1uJ4NERVAVE N. $ 96.50 1502821330021 2S90JANERQAVE N. $ 378.08 1502921330022 2940JAMLEY«VENUEN. $ 62.90 2202921220012 2V35JAMLEYAVENUE N. $ 118.80 2202921220005 u8O9JAMLEYAVENUE N. $ 148.10 2202821220014 2751 JAMLEYAVENUE N. $ 79.80 2202921220013 2742IVY AVENUE N. $ 75.00 900o2VTHSTREET N. $ 103J5 2202921230018 87405T|LLVVATER8LVDN. $ 67.20 1602921430007 8659GT|LLVVATER8LVDN. $ 131.34 2102921120004 000xOT|LLwATERBLVD N. $ 163.95 2102921210023 8255 ST|LL*ATER BLVDN. $ 122.30 2102921210004 2878|NmSDALEAVENUE N. * 12525 2102921210008 3V33|NVVOODAVENUE N. $ 79.30 1802821430010 2961 |NVVUODAVENUE N. $ 225.50 2102921120001 2773|NYVVODAVENUE N. $ 122.30 2102921120017 020426TH STREETN. $ 116.65 2102921240013 u2262OTHSTREET N. $ 138.50 2102921230014 81u4naTHSTREET N. $ 300.75 2102921230013 252VIMPERIAL AVENUE N. $ 259.90 2102921230006 un80IMPERIAL AVENUE N. $ 135.20 2102821230007 27e0 IMPERIAL AVENUE N. $ 412.88 2102931220005 V35227THSTREET N. $ 95.15 2102921210016 2O21\NNSDALEAVENUE N. $ 266.35 2102921240000 o57V27THSTREET N. $ 858,03 2102921130019 V00SoTTHSTREET N. $ 221.20 2102921130016 868527TH STREETN. $ 257.75 2102921130004 8780 2TTHSTREET COURT N. $ 82.25 2102e21140007 u77n|R|GHAVENUE N. p 1n3.05 2102921120056 w6400uTHSTREET N. $ 105.90 2102921120046 45,679.21 CITY OF LAKE ELMO NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR CURRENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND/OR MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers in the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, on the 1st day of December, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. to consider, and possibly adopt the proposed assessment for unpaid municipal services or municipal utilities. You may prior to certification of assessment to the County Auditor, pay the entire assessment. If the assessment is not prepaid before December 10, 2009, the rate of eight percent (8%) interest or a charge of $25.00, whichever is greater, will be applied to the assessment balance, The assessment will be due in full for the taxes payable 2010 calendar year. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the Finance Director's office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the City Administrator prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The Council may, upon such notice, consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment to the affected owners as it deems advisable. Sharon Ltunby, City Clerk November 11, 2009 Publish in the November 18, 2009 Oakdale/Lake Elmo Review City OF LAVE • ELK 7-11-2)- DATE: 12/01/2009 REGULAR ITEM #: 9 MOTION: Resolution 2009-45 AGENDA ITEM: Consider an Application from James Burns for a Variance from the Front Yard Setback Requirement in an RI Zoning District to Allow the Construction of a Building Addition - PID 09-029-21-23-0006 SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt. Planning Director THROUGH: Bruce Messelt. City Administrator REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek. City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is asked to consider a request from James Burns for a variance allowing the construction of an addition to an existing residence at 11140 201 Street Court North. The addition would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, or 3.2 feet closer to this line than allowed under the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District requirements and related provisions for established neighborhood setbacks. Recommended Motion - Move to approve Resolution 2009-45 relating to a requested Setback J'arianceliv James Burns STAFF, REPORT: The variance has been requested to allow an expansion and improvement of the primary structure on this site that would otherwise not he able to take advantage of access to sunlight from the south. For variance applications, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate why this situation is unique and necessitates flexibility to code requirements. To make this case. a variance can only be granted by the city when strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship on a property owner. "Hardship- is broken down into the following three components: a. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the cirv's :oning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; b. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure. or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same _-..-uning district,- the unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted bv the landowner after the effective date of the city's :oiling regulations,. and -- page 1 -- City Council Meeting Resolution 2009-45: Setback Variance Request December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #9 c. The variance, if granted, will not change the essential character of the neighborhood In reviewing the request against the three criteria listed above, staff determined all criteria were not met, as strict adherence to the code would still allow reasonable use of the property. As such, Planning Staffs recommendation was for denial of the variance request. The basis for staff s findings is included in the attached report. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: The Planning Commission reviewed the request at its November 9th and 2311 meetings and is recommending that the Council approve the request based on the following findings: 1) That the applicant is not able to build elsewhere on the site and still provide for access to direct sunlight. 2) That previous placement of fill and the resulting topography greatly limits the ability to construct an addition to the living areas within the home. 3) That the placement of the paved road surface within the street right-of-way has created an unusually large boulevard area in front of the applicant's home and that the proposed addition will still be set back further than other structures along the street in relation to the curb line of the road. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: • Two of the neighboring property owners have submitted letters in support of the requested variance. These letters are attached for consideration by the Council. • The applicant provided the Planning Commission with a folder of material that has been reproduced for the Council. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the variance request and take appropriate action. While not as strict an interpretation as that of the City's Planning staff, the Planning Commission's discussion and recommendation represents an equally reasonable interpretation and application of the City Code. City staff also notes that there is no undue precedent set or inconsistency created by following the Planning Commission's recommendation. As such, it is reconmiended that the City Council: More to approve Resolution 2009-45 relating to a setback variance requestJor James Burns, 11140 20th Street Court North, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing residence at this address that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, or 3.2 .feet closer to this line than allowed under the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District requirements and related provisionsfor established neighborhood setbacks. -- page City Council Meeting Resolution 2009-45: Setback Variance Request December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #9 Should the City Council elect to not follow the recommendation of the Planning Condition, the motion should be to "Deny the requested Setback Variance for James Burns based upon the original findings and justifications of the City Planning Department." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2009-045 2. Staff Report 3. Area Map 4. Application Form 5, Applicant's Narrative(1 page) 6. Certificate of Survey 7. Letters from Neighboring Property Owners (2) 8. Aerial Image of Site 9. Representation of 26' Setback Line on site plan 10. Information Package from Applicant SUGGESTED ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction.,.......„. .......... ...... ........ ........ Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Report by staff ...... ....... ................... Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions from the Council Mayor & Council Members Questions/Comments from the applicant........ .............. ........... Mayor facilitates Questions/Comments from the public ...... ............... ......... Mayor facilitates Call for a Motion (required for further discussion, ..... .............. ............ .......... does not imply approval of the motion) ...... ......... ......... ...,....... Mayor facilitates Discussion Mayor facilitates Action on motion City Council -- page 3 -- CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2009-045 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 11140 20th STREET COURT NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, James Bums, 11140 20th Street Court North (the "Applicant") has submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for a variance to allow the construction of an addition to an existing residence that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, a copy of which is on file with the City; and WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 9, 2009 and continued this hearing to its November 23, 2009 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009 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 154.017. 2) That all the submission requirements of said 154.017 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed variance is to allow the construction of an addition to the existing residence at 11140 20t11 Street Court North that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, which is 3.2 feet closer than would be required using the average setback of the immediately adjacent structures. 4) That the Variance will be located on property legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Schwartz-Martinco Addition, Washington Co., Minnesota. 5) The proposed addition cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists. It is not possible to build an addition in another location on the property and still have adequate access to sunlight. The applicant had to reconfigure his plans for the house when it was built due to the previous placement of fill material on the property and the proposed addition follows the current topography of the site. The additional living area cannot be moved to another location and still connect properly to the existing living areas in the home. The paved portion of the cul-de-sac is not centered within the public right-of-way and leaves an unusually large boulevard area in front of the applicant's house. 6) The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district. The previous placement of fill on the property before the home was built and the irregular placement of the paved street within the right-of-way (and resulting large boulevard area) are unique to this site. 7) The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. The applicants' lot was created before the City's current zoning regulations were adopted. The placement of fill on their property and the construction of the street took place before the home was built on the site. The reconfiguration of the house due to the previous placement of fill limits access to the sun due to the orientation of the lot. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Variance is granted. Passed and duly adopted this lst day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Variance Review To: City Council From: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning Meeting Date: 12/1/09 Applicant: James Burns Location: 11140 20th Street Ct, North Current Zoning: R1 — One Family Residential Introductory Information Request: The City of Lake Elmo has received an application from James Bums, 11140 20th Street Court North, for a variance from the front yard setback requirement in an R-1 Single Family Residential distinct to allow the construction of a new addition to the existing home at this address. Specifically, a valiance has been requested as follows: • To permit an addition to the applicant's house that will extend to within 22.8 feet at one corner and 28 feet at another comer from the front property line. The City's R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district requires a front yard setback of 30 feet; however, the Zoning Ordinance allows for the averaging of the two adjacent structures which in this case means the required front yard setback is 26 feet. Please note that the site plan as submitted also indicates that a front entry porch will also encroach into the required front setback area; however, a recent amendment to the City Code approved by the Council will allow for this encroachment as long at the it is for an open porch that will not encroach more than 6 feet into the required setback. The proposed porch addition will meet this requirement and is therefore in compliance with the City's regulations. Background: The applicant's property is located within the Schwartz-Martinco Addition and at the end of the 20th Street Court North cul-de-sac about 700 feet east of Lake Elmo. There are only four homes located along this street, which provides access to these properties from 20th Street. The neighboring house immediately to the west of the applicant's site was built at a setback of approximately 20 feet, while all of the other homes have maintained the required front yard setback. There is no record on file that this property received a variance from the City, and staff is not sure why this property would not have been required to build at the required front yard setback. The proposed addition is shown on the attached site survey, and would add space to the house around the northwest comer of the structure. At its furthest point, the new Variuncr Rcvicw; Rums Council Report: 12-1-09 Page 2 addition would extend 18 feet from the current front wall of the house and 9.5 feet from the side exterior wall, The additional space would be used to accommodate a larger kitchen, great room, and would provide space for a new sun room addition as well. It is the sun room addition that encroaches into the required setback area, and is the focus of much of the applicant's suggested justification for the variance. The applicant has provided the City with a large packet of information with details concerning the history of the site and the rationale for the variance request. As part of this packet, Mr. Burns has indicated that when the street was built in the mid 1970's, fill material from the street construction project was pushed beyond the edge of the cul-de- sac and onto his property. He notes that this alteration of the topography on the lot caused him to reconsider the original plans for the site and to eliminate much of the planned southern exposure for the home. The initial issues associated with the past placement of fill on this lot and the subsequent changes to his building plans to accommodate these conditions forms the basis of the applicant's suggested hardship. Other hardships that are cited by the applicant as part of the reason for making the variance request can be summarized as follows: The inability to build any where else on the property to achieve a reasonable level of sun exposure. The additional expense that would be required to move the proposed addition to the back portion of the house due to the previous placement of sand in this area. The incompatibility of an addition elsewhere on the premises with the rest of the house, and specifically, that a sun room would not fit within the current floor plan in any other location. The additional cost that would be incurred due to the reconfiguration of the addition to meet setback requirements. The loss of value associated with the project to accommodate the required front yard setback. The change in topography that does not allow the addition to be moved elsewhere on the property and still fit architecturally with the rest of the structure. The location of the paved street in relation to the right-of-way line, which in this case results in an unusually large boulevard area in front of the home. The applicant further notes that the adjoining property owner was allowed to build at a reduced setback in part due to the inability to move the home further back on the lot due to the previously placement of fill in this area. In order to support his request, Mr. Burns has provided historic drawings, photographs, and other information related to this property as part of the submission packet to the City. In addition, the applicant has constructed a scale model of the house that he would like to display at the Council meeting to further illustrate the changes being proposed to the house. 5ivcri f 201h St CtN - fhpent:18,(7,Couitcil Burit'; Piallee RC B11171S Council Repuri: 12-1-09 Page 3 Applicable Section 154.041 R-1 One -Family Residential Zoning District Codes: Subd, C. Minimum District Requirements The R-1 Zoning District has a building setback of 30 feet from the front property line, 10 feet from the side (interior) property lines, and 40 feet from the rear property line. Section 152.048 Setbacks (A) Front setbacks. Where adjacent residential structures on the same side of the street between intersections have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the immediately adjacent structures. If there is only 1 immediately adjacent structure, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the required front yard setback exceed the required minimum established within the districts of this chapter. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Existing Zoning — R-1 (One Family Residential) Land Use Guidance — NC (Neighborhood Conservation Distriot) Parcel size — 43,560 square feet (1.0 acres) Property Identification Number (PID): 24-029-21-33-0009 Application Review: Applicable BUILDING SETBACK LINE. A line within a lot parallel to a public right-of-way Code Definitions: line, a side or rear lot line, a bluff line, or a high water mark or line, behind which buildings or structures must be placed. BUILDING SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between 1 building and the lot line. HARDSHIP. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; that the plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; and that these unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations. isetV( lan c1J140 20 sIR,,,pc-olowil Bums5Iacl Vrrriance 12-/-09.doc ruyiancc Revicw; BurnA Council Rcport: 12-1,09 Variance Review: Page 4 LOT LINE, FRONT. The boundary of a lot which abuts a public street. In the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension of a public street. If the dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be designated by the owner. In the case of a corner lot in a non-residential area, the lot shall be deemed to have frontage on both streets. LOT LINE. A lot line is the property line bounding a lot except that where any portion of a lot extends into a public right-of-way or a proposed public right-of-way, the line of the public right-of-way shall be the lot line, LOT. A parcel of land designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by the description for the purpose of sale, lease or separation. SETBACK. The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Distances are to be measured perpendicularly from the property line to the most outwardly extended portion of the structure at ground level. VARIANCE. A modification of a specific permitted development standard required to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only as applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship as defined in Section 300.06, Subd, 3. Economic considerations along shall not constitute a hardship. [sic] Staff has reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant and the City's criteria that must to be met in order to grant a variance. In this case, the applicant has provided several reasons to support the request, which have been summarized in one of the preceding sections. Based on the information presented and Staff s review of the City's variance criteria, Staff recommended denial of the request because the information presented does not appear to adequately establish that these is a hardship associated with the City's setback requirements. In order to document that a hardship exists, the applicant needs to demonstrate that the property cannot be put to reasonable use without granting the variance, It is staff s opinion that the property can be put to reasonable use under the zoning regulations for the following reasons: 1. The house in its current location meets all applicable setback requirements and the City's regulations allow for the continued use of a single family residence in this location. 2. An addition can be constructed to extend the existing footprint outwards on nearly every side of the structure, including up to 11 feet from the front of the building. S-1Lared aric I C": A"- HurnNIA,:p rzfriarfCC 1 V6Tiance Revi6w: Burns Council Report: 12-1-09 Page 5 . While the topography and soil conditions, whether natural or a result of previous filling on the site, may increase the cost to build in other locations, these conditions would not otherwise prohibit building from occurring on the lot. The City Code is clear that economic considerations alone cannot be used to justify a hardship. After reviewing the submitted materials, it is clear that the applicant does not prefer to reduce the size or location of the sunroom portion of the addition; however, in lieu of these preferences, there are other ways to build an addition on the lot that complies with the City's zoning requirements. A review of the City's variance criteria follows, focusing on the information submitted by the applicants. By code, a variance can only be granted where the city finds the request can successfully address the three criteria as outlined below for the septic system. I. The proposed use qf the property and associated structures in question cannot he established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no other reasonable alternative use exists; As staff notes above, there does appear to be reasonable use of the property should the variance not be granted by the City, and that specifically, there is a fair amount of space around the current structure that could accommodate an expansion. In response to each of the hardships suggested by the applicant, Staff offers the following comments: a. Soil conditions. The proposed site plan and architectural drawings show that there are three sides of the structure that will be expanded out from the current footprint (east, north, and west). The issues associated with building in these areas will need to be addressed whether or not the variance is granted. Denial of the variance would not prohibit an expansion to occur on other portions of the site, and it appears that sub -grade issues need to be considered on any portion of the site around the home, b. Solar access. Although the City's Comprehensive Plan does encourage the City to allow for access to solar energy in residential areas, it does not specifically address the siting and design issues associated with passive heating and cooling mechanisms on a property. The applicant's proposed site plan would clearly allow more sunlight into the addition area, but not having this particular configuration of rooms with the associated south -facing windows does not mean the property cannot be out to reasonable use. c. Building expense. The current soil conditions on the site will need to be addressed regardless of where an addition will be built. It does appear that while there is less fill in the front of the lot based on the old topographic information provided, the sand in other portions of the site would not otherwise prohibit an addition from being built. d. Incompatibility with existing floor plan. Although it might be an I I 40 201h Sr Crc w - BurnsVi';i77 814171.:)Sc511.10:,4, 2- 1-0 9.tio“ Variance Revicw; Burns Council Report; 12-1-09 Page 6 inconvenience to the property owner, there is room on the site to reconfigure an addition to better integrate with the rest of the house. An addition built elsewhere on the site may not have the same level of access to sunlight. e. Expenses associated with the reconfiguration of sun room, As a potential solution to the setback issue, the applicant has considered cutting off the front portion of the addition and angling it roughly parallel with the setback line, There would be additional expenses associated with this change in plans, including the loss of windows that would have otherwise been provided for free to the applicant. As noted in the previous staff comments, there is nothing in the City Code that would prohibit the relocation of this room to another portion of the site (albeit without as much southern exposure). f. Loss of value. The applicant has stated that the inability to construct the addition as proposed would reduce the value of the project by $20,000. All properties in Lake Elmo are subject to zoning restrictions, which by their nature reduce a property owner's ability to use certain portions of their site for buildings and other activities. The inability to construct a specific improvement does not take away other reasonable use of the property. Topography of site. Even with the fill that was placed on the applicant's site, the land in back of the house levels off fairly quickly. An addition to the side of the house may require some additional excavation, but could otherwise match the existing grade of the rear building line of the house. The topography was likely more of an issue during the initial planning for the location and orientation of the house. Of the issues noted above, the topography/soil conditions and sunlight access were two issues that the Pluming Commission considered as findings of fact for an approval of the request. Staff otherwise finds that there are other alternatives available that would allow for an expansion of this home and that granting the variance is not required to assure reasonable use of the property. Stalffound that this criteria is therefore not met. g. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land, structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district; the unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner after the effective date of the city 's zoning regulations. The fact that the applicant bought a lot that later had fill placed on it is somewhat unique and could form the basis of a finding that there are unique physical conditions on the property, and that the location of this fill very likely impacted the placement and orientation of the home on the lot, The applicant does not appear to have had any responsibility for the resulting topography of the lot, This criteria is met. The property owner was not responsible for the fill placed on the property, and has indicated that this placement of fill impacted his ability to build his preferred t.iSf?''-rar1.(117CC.i ',1.1.1.10 _10111 Si' Colorcif variorgv railance Review: Burns Page 7 Counc0 &Ton: 12-1-09 orientation for the house (which reduced the ability to take advantage of natural sunlight). 3. The variance, if granted, will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. In the area immediately surrounding the applicant's property 1) there are few homes along the street, 2) the neighboring property is set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line, and 3) non of the homes share the same orientation with regards to the street. Based on these existing conditions, the front yard setback reduction will not alter the character of the neighborhood in any manner. Staff finds this criteria is also satisfied. Variance Based on an analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff recommended denialof Conclusions: variance to allow a building addition to be located 22,8 feet from a front property line at 11140 20th Street Court North. Resident The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on November 9, Concerns: 2009 to consider testimony from neighboring property owners. The applicant has submitted letters from two of his immediate neighbors along 20th Street Court North, both of which are supportive of granting the request. Two of the neighbors also spoke at the public hearing in favor of the request, and noted that the proposed addition would not have any negative effects on the neighborhood and would improve the appearance and aesthetics of the area. Staff is not aware of any other corners or issues from other residents regarding this proposal. Additional • There were no other comments submitted from reviewing adjacencies or other City Information: Staff. Planning The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed request at its meetings on November Commission 9th and 23'd of 2009. At its second meeting, the Commission received additional Report information regarding the City's zoning provisions that allow for the averaging of setbacks based on the location of adjacent structures along the same street. Staff was able to confiuiu that the measurements provided by the applicant were correct, and in particular, that the two adjacent structures are set back 20 and 32 feet from the front property line. The resulting setback for the applicant's property is therefore the average of these amounts or 26 feet. The Commission adopted findings that did not match the ones provided by Staff. Specifically, the Commission found that the applicant's inability to build an addition Cils';?',Variortr:es',.1/ /-70 ..71.1117 Sr C: - BrI)-11-6:p Council Burns Setbacl, Variance 12-1 -09.doc Vco 'Ian cc Re vv: Burns Council Report 1 2- I OY Conclusion Page 8 elsewhere on the property that would provide for direct access to sunlight constituted a hardship, The Commission further indicated that the existing topography of the lot and the location of the house in relation to the street also represented a hardship for the property owner. These conditions were not created by the home owner and were the result of decisions that were made during the construction of the street. The applicants is seeking approval of a variance to allow the construction of an addition to an existing residence that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, or 3.2 feet closet to this line than allowed under the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District requirements with allowances for averaging based on adjacent structure setbacks. Planning The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the variance Commission request by James Burns, 11140 20th Street Court North, to allow the construction of an Rec.: addition to an existing residence at this address that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, or 3.2 feet closet to this line than allowed under the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District requirements and related provisions for established neighborhood setbacks, based on the following: 1. That the applicant is not able to build elsewhere on the site and still provide for access to direct sunlight. 2. That previous placement of fill and the resulting topography greatly limits the ability to construct an addition to the living areas within the home. 3 That the placement of the paved road surface within the street right-of-way has created an unusually large boulevard area in front of the applicant's home and that the proposed addition will still be set back further than other structures along the street in relation to the curb line of the road. The deadline for a Council decision on this item is December 23, 2009 which can be extended an additional 60-day if needed. Approval To approve the requested variances as recommended by staff, the City Council may use Motion the following motion as a guide: Template: Move to recommend approval of a variance to allow the construction of an addition to an existing residence that would be set back 22.8 feet from a front property line, or 3.2 feet closet to this line than allowed under the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District requirements and related provisions for established neighborhood setbacks based on the findings as recommended by the Planning Commission. cc: James Burns, 11140 20th Street Court North 11.(1/7 el. Use r tt7.ia frt-c c',/ 4i";2w1 Si - Bun), ey, Cowl BUM- Sell„lad, I' rio ncc 2 -1 )(), (I 0,- City of Lake Elmo DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM Fee $ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Zoning District Amendment E] Text Amendment E Flood Plain C.U.P. Conditional Use Permit E Conditional Use Permit (C.U,P.) Variance (See below) Minor Subdivision E Lot Line Adjustment El Residential Subdivision Sketch/Concept Plan El Site & Building Plan Review Tx/ APPLICANT: 7ff3 41eNk.5 iCt9 (.9 L5-7-, NeLe TO/ (Name) (Mailing Address) TELEPHONES: 657 7 70 - 6 /SY (Home) (Work) FEE OWNER: TELEPHONES: (Name) (Home) (Mailing Address) (Work) E Residential Subdivision Preliminary/Final Plat O 01 — 10 Lots O 11 — 20 Lots O 21 Lots or More Excavating & Grading Permit E Appeal C57 2 1/ 60 (Mobile) (Fax) (Mobile) (Fax) PROPERTY LOCATION (Address andCompilete (Long) Legal Description): .0177/f2c,./a.e4-7,2 R2 2/, 3,3 000.9 raPA/ .477 o:,.2 25'z op/ 4* -(//va Z2z/7-/ 477 p DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: /2/77C/./0 E PUD (Zip) (Zip) *VARIANCE REQUESTS: As outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, the Applicant must demonstrate a hardship before a variance can be granted. The hardship related to this application is as follows: /5177////1.---9 In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the applicable provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and current administrative procedures. I further acknowledge the fee exPlanation as outlined in the application procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the Citv pertaining to additional application ex e. /4 /4/-o9 of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant Date 10/1/2003 City of Lalce Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North • Lake Elmo • 55042 • 651-777-5510 • Fa 651-777-9615 DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: Our house was originally built under extreme hardship because of sand illegally dumped on the lot after we had purchased. (pictures, documentation, clarification to be included in multiple booklets provided at planning meeting) This created a ravine like slope that forced us to alter our plan and location and to forego a Southern exposure that was inherent in the original plan. After 35 years of wishing and dreaming, hundreds of design hours, five architects/designers, eight contractor bids/estimates, we finalized the plans with completed drawings, knowing there was no setback problems as the neighbor's entire front of the house is much closer to the centerline of the cul-de-sac than one corner of our proposed addition. ( The neighbors home was built a year later-- after the road was completed -no road when we built) VARIANCE REQUEST: Fundamental to our remodeling plan is the ability to have some small amount of natural light and warpath with a southern exposure. This was one of the main items when we prepared our wants for the architects — and certainly desirable in today's need for energy conservation. No other location for the sun room addition works, or it is prohibitively expensive. On the back north east side for example, 13 levels (8'-8") of blocks are required below the basement floor level to reach virgin soil, because of all the sand that was pushed onto our lot. (pictures). This represents a $ hardship of about $6000. Also, because the house sits at 30 degrees northwest/southeast, the sun room would only see sun in the morning until about 10 A.M. It also does not flow with the floor plan. Another option would be to mount a cubicle on top of the roof to see the sun. This also represents a huge $ hardship, as an extra entire floor, stairs, would be required, plus the final appearance would be disastrous. To have a severely truncated odd shaped appendage on the desired north east corner would eliminate our ability to utilize two free ($850 value each) windows, would cost $2000 more for the now six smaller windows, and $1000 more to build, and a loss of $20,000 in value. (Costs are from Steve Standish @ Arrow Building Center in Stillwater.) Plus the "sunroona" would now be like a closet (3' 4" ) long. Finally, to extend the room farther north would force the addition down the slope, causing extra foundation depth ($ 3000 ), and completely destroy the cohesiveness of the plan ($ ) — it would be more like an outbuilding. All we are asking for is 60 "AI of the deviation that our neighbor was accorded - and for the same reason — both lots were rendered impractical to build on between the constraints of the lot set -back and the altered topography. (pictures, clarification to be provided in multiple booklets) NOTES REGARDING THE FOLLOWING PAGES; Page 4 is the topographical map of the four lots when we purchased lot #2 in 1974, Note the green line as it proceeds north within the boundary of 20th. St. Court. North, then at the center of the cul-de-sac, proceeds northeast at 40 degrees from North. This was the intended location for our first (and as it turns out —only home we have ever owned) Page 5 illustrates the contour of the land as you proceed north along the green line to the center of the cul-de-sac. The elevation rises from 916 ft. to 934 ft., then drops to 919 at the center of the cul-de-sac. Page 6 shows the contour of the land as you proceed northeast at the 40 degrees. Note how the slope of the land was quite gentle, and ideal for a walk -out style home. See Page 7, picture "A" of this land along the 40 degree line, showing wife Beth with our new son Mark, and the gentle sloping land that was a corn field. Also note on page 5 how the contour is derived from the perpendicular lines dropped of the 40 degree green line, with the centerline coinciding at the same 119 ft. cul-de-sac centerline as from the previous page 4. Page 5,6 Combined shows the combined contours of page 5 and 6, and also shows the contour in a red line that we found after we had purchased the land. Lake Elmo had declared that the rise was too great (18') along the north — south section, as so the land (sand) was bulldozed unto lot #2 (ours) and lot #3, leaving us with a flat section of 15 ft beyond the perimeter of the cul-de-sac, and then a 9 ft. drop --off ! a totally altered lot that was now hugely impractical , if now impossible to build on. See Page 7, picture "B" of the contour we now had to deal with. Note the stakes showing the boundary of the 120 ft. diameter cul-de-sac, with the 15 feet beyond before the drop off. How can we build here, with a 30 ft. setback from these boundary's? We can't. So we now had to completely change the location and layout of our new home, forcing us to forgo the very southeast exposure that we had planned, moving the house as far south as possible, and forcing us to spend an additional $9,700 in today's money ( $13,000 if compounded at a conservative 5%) for the huge amount of extra foundation and block work that was required to reach virgin soil Page 8 gives some idea of the issues and magnitude of the dumped sand.. Page 9 (looking south) shows the stepped foundation and extra block work at the front of the house after we were forced to abandoned our original plan layout, and move the location of the house as far south as possible. Page 10 (looking north) - Picture "G" shows the stepped foundation and "H" the extra block work at the back of the house. Note Beth's head below Mark on "H". There are 13 rows of blocks below the basement floor at this corner. Picture "I" illustrates a sink hole after a rainfall four years after the house was built — a result of the sand below. Page 2 CONTINUED —NOTES REGARDING THE FOLOWING PIAGES; Page 11 is a partial listing of documentation of the five architects/designers that we consulted with to come up with a design that allowed natural light and warmth with a southern exposure. Page 12 is the front view of the home we had planned to build, with the garage on the northwest end. The set of drawings accompanying this elevation were used to obtain financing ( SO% down was required at that time for a construction loan.!) Page 13 shows the above drawing turned over. With the blue print machines of that time, the paper was essentially transparent , so all that was required was to erase the written dimensions, etc on the bottom side, re -write on the top side, and the drawings remained relevant for the financing and construction bid, The house was then shifted with the garage on the south end, and driven as dose as possible to the lot line — to minimize the extra costs of the foundation system, and allow some sort of front lawn. Page 14 Picture "J" shows our existing hoHe. Pkase oteLBeth is holding a vertical_Board at the location of the nearest corner of the proposed addition to the center of the cul-de-sac. Please compare that distance to picture "K" and "1(.2" (Pg. 15) of our neighbor's home. A glance at the side view of our neighbors home -Page 15 ( picture "I" ( and also a look again at picture "II" — page 7) reveals why they were accorded a shortened distance to the center of the cul-de-sac. it was impossible/impractical to build further back. Page 16, Picture "M" shows our drop-off— (and the effects of a newly installed septic system) Picture "N" is another view of the dista ce from the nearest corner of the proposed addition to the cul-de-s c. Please see the vertical surveyor stake, with small! flag, somewh t in line with the distant ash tree. Page 17 is the'front elevation of our proposed remodeling and additio. Page 18 is the upper floor plan . Page 19 shows the relationship and distnee to the existing cul-de-sac. Page 3 ILJi ILII 111111111 piIj, /2a Di? COM 5/NED Picture "A" Picture "B" Note the stakes defining the boundary of the 120 ft. diameter Cul-de-sac. P6'. 7 Picture "C" Some of the sand washed out after a rain storm Picture "D" Note the new level of tbe cul-de-sac. Note also, that even after Moving the location of th house to higherVirgin soi the huge amount of extra Foundation depth Note also the hill from points X to Y. that was removed and shoved unto the cul-de-sac and our lot. _Pc. 8 Picture "E" vtlgrAtiAgh:qt;',-4:Q Picture "F" This is the height Of the basement filo kr 9 Picture "G" Picture "I" Picture "H" /0 JAMES A. OR BETH R. BURNS 11140- 20TH ST, CT., N. LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 Pay tp the Ord o Bank Mi ne_scita, Minolis, MN 55479 67-9378 weIIsfrgocorn - • Wrnt!P. E:CAL0000191:72(1115G43 TT) --- MILK SMNS =11.0134.6143, 1101.711,21..CC.11, 0147.0.1 t...kittl14% --` uwark4051%.._ WY, 6,14 c ( 17-1 2073 910 7291156W_, Date 8660 eldn--i4e) Dollars 0 ol 0000010000 Ii124 &imitrirVirve flU41-1,-rjuggstg= •I ra D ° k 1 jlt �_._..�._.._.___.__ Picture "J" Note nearest corner of proposed addition Picture "K" Neighbor's Home Picture "K 2' Picture "L" F. /5 Picture" iL Picture "N" Note surveyor's stake in line with this distant ash tree. St ..nre1:111601•71v t s, v. re.21-51 2,71111 !Ir. I co, ??-c-6 a-JAI:I-157A CITIAM -nv '4 rilltlx..,415.v.Mt , PtitliNint411.1111 V ,t, .-24,ivn, Jg Notiaarx-x: I ,Am amzquiw * tia ,J11O , --216N .10121.1,60,7— ,81140 ..> 7 7.11111.1.1,.. A.R. .41:09.1 .11, WM ITV 1.0104,,111,1113.a.1013. VeSt1.711,M.4 ...OW Mk,. 119 1.4111A 111,.- ei.Vni... M. WV 9.5.141.04,1,71MAllil OXT le....,-, ,..... My, an,...m. n wte.r. WA U... el rw ...., wtota ... AV 1.....0 N.M.. a W Vaug NW. O... ors0 iw W.o....nt piww,..0 P.M ZIGTU.41). OW 11.9 (.0al `Mr 7an,..,snos. raw. un ma ..........,. ...as, .N.3., ...-.6 T.* ...........1M WM vocno.x.or .........w.w worwo..ra wou-wwwcwolan atv c.w.o. ow slow. -nr• .. ...... . 'A... t1.11 ON. .3.0.11/0.00, wra;........s.4 fa. 1.0.4 wia ...R. .....qt .....11,1 J Jr 0 sn Et J Wic LARli I xtui 1=11 IVITJ .40 116t1.9iO4-13 WIMP.. TA ctrt0121711.t I aanorr_utcy r9 1 '11 tat1Ltr99019r)-- I 99,9 994491 it, 114^111119999t.o11 ffY9111,09.7,41;;;; 49911199.199 99 900 191191 911. ram 9,1,7999 999,....1 Navy.. Try 19‘an "yea; 1.919111911 ,1.199911 9 99.111.0 oat 9 19 +.99 *9.9 'Maya eatua 1901919v .99999 9919 10019 9119,9‘9. -999.9-9.. =won 4,1999! 91 99 itri1119.090919t9 Ott .999 90110109 9919 3914999 Try yta 1.99,90919991.9.9111911491 9.11 V9419911certYytatt9 "199 -991/9 19991 .0V 1991.9 4.19. ara sayyti trrayratt laymay gay,. way 4911.9914 actrya ane V•O7tY 4ati4 99 99.99. 9 otwer 1199,90 ay lac. Ty, N.ty 9 sat. natart19.9/ y9,1ayertty,194 ats. antrals aro Peru ray 4 ytt 11 1 91:14 11199191119,9911 191C 31/ ,1111 1 tnat91991zZat,:71 R;;, amyl -n ......... 119 / 19.9 Tay dra posED 1700/7IoN EXIsTiNg 90 ,DIR CIIL—DE— SAC SCRZ: leyilACC Lr (.141±6„ ')..5z7fi5 PAtZ---- 9 Item 10. AGENDA ITEM: CUP Amendment Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse The Lake Elmo Staff is currently drafting the Report for Council which will be sent electronically to City Council members on Friday, November 27 and posted on the City website. A hard copy will be delivered to the Council on Monday, November 30. AGENDA ITEM: REQUESTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: T T t TT jTri-Th .4 'TIT( DATE: l 2/01/09 REGULAR ITEM #: MOTION: 10 Resolution 2009-047 2009-052 Ordinance 08-021 To consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for 67 acres to allow an Agricultural Entertainment Business. to rezone a portion of the property from Rural Residential to Aaricultural, to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit to include approximately 24 acres, and to approve the construction of a 39,900 square foot parkin- lot (via either CUP) for Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse. which operates at 11211 60th Street. Country Sun Farm & Greenhouses Bruce Messelt, City Administrator p Kelli Matzek, City Planner i,2 • Kyle Klatt. Planning Director Dave Synder, City Attorney Ben Gozola, Planning Advisor SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: An application for consideration of potentially significant land use changes, including- renewal, update and expansion of an existing Conditional Use Permit, as well as a related re -zoning request and new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) has been received from Sun Country Farm and Greenhouse. Pursuant to State law and City regulations and procedures, the City Council is asked to consider this request from Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse for the following: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: To issue a CUP for the entire 67 acres of property under consideration, or specified portion thereof, thereby allowing, an "Agricultural Entertainment Business- on the property. At this time it would be appropriate through the issuance of such CUP to clearly delineate the specific uses existing on the site and to clarify which uses are legally permitted, either outright or under the current anePor proposed updated and expanded CUP. This issuance could include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) which is accessory to the other uses on the site, REZONING: To rezone a 33,44 acre parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Agricultural (Ag). This rezoning could allow the future movement of an existim-,,, greenhouse from the original CUP area to the new proposed area, as greenhouses are not permitted in the RR zoning district, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: To amend the existing conditional use permit currently allowing operation of Country Sun Faint & Greenhouses at 11211 OOth Street North to add approximately 24 acres of land (as the rest is in a roadway casement) for the "greenhouse- -- pale 1 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning Sz CUP Requests December lst. 2009 Agenda Item #10 and "food concession" uses currently permitted. This land would be added to allow the eventual future movement of existing uses for the business. This 'amendment would include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) which is accessory to the other uses on the site. The Planning Staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the application and their recommendations are denoted within this report, as are the additional comments and recommendations from the City Attorney, Administrator and Planning Advisor. The City Council is asked to consider the following three separate motions as part of tonight's action: Action #1 - On the proposed New CUP establishin2 an Agricultural Entertainment District; Move to approve Resolution 2009-47 (Option A) whereby issuing a Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms d: Greenhouse on the entire 67 acres, as recommended by the Planning Commission; 01 Move to approve Resolution 2009-47 (Option B) whereby issuing a Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouse on the identified 65 acre portion of the requested 67 acres, with the original conditions identified in the Planning staff report`, and to include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) accessory to the other uses on the sire, as recommended by the City Administrator, Attorney and Planning Advisor; 0 1" Move to approve Resolution 2009-047 (Option 0 whereby denying the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Counny Sun Farms & Greenhouse, with the specific finding,s of fact denoted within Resolution 2009-047 (Option C) and herein read into the record by the City Clerk. Action #2 - On the Re-Zoninf.F. of 33.44 Acres from Rural Residential to Agricultural: Move Ordinance 08-021 approving the rezoning of the identified 33.44 acres of property Residential to Agricultural. 01* Rural Move Resolution 2009-052 denying the rezoning of the identified 33.44 acres of property from Rural Residential to Agricultural, with the specific findings ffact denoted within Ordinance 08-22 and herein read into the record by the City Clerk. Action #3 — On the Requested CUP Amendment to Extend CUP uses to newly re -zoned propertv: Move Resolution 2009-051 (Option A) approving the CUP amendment request with the conditions identified in the City Planning staff report. or Move Resolution 2009-051 (Option B) denying the requested CUP amendment, with the specific findings of fact denoted within Resolution 2009-051 (Option B) and herein read into the record. -- page 2 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 In addition, due to recent ordinance changes and the evolving nature of these types of requests, City Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council direct greater scrutiny of this issue as part of the Department's 2010 Workplan. As such, it is recommended that the City Council: Move to direct the inclusion of the recommendations promulgated by the City staff and Planning Commission and delineated in this Communication in the Planning Department's 2010 Workplan. BACKGROUND & PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The City's files identify a history of a greenhouse operation at the site dating back to the 1970's. A letter from 1979 to Mr. Bergmann states that a new ordinance was adopted in October of 1979 allowing "agri-business," such as theirs, as a Conditional Use Permit and indicated that Mr. Bergmann must apply for such if he wished to continue that use on the property. This is the first record indicating such a use on the property, though "agri-business" is no longer defined or mentioned in the existing code. In 1980, a letter was sent to Mr. Bergrnami extending the CUP for a greenhouse (the "agri-business"), which was renewed annually until 1983 when the CUP was amended to include "sales lot." Since then, the records at both the City and the County show a number of resolutions amending the CUP to include additional acreage, specific additional uses (such as food sales), and expansion of existing structures. A complete history of the City's actions on this property is included in the Planning Staff Report. The CUP was reviewed annually for a number of years by City planning staff, primarily in the 80's and 90's. The staff at that time found the uses on the site to be generally acceptable and recommended approval to the City Council of the annual review for the Country Sun Farin & Greenhouse CUP. However, City staff could not find mention in the existing CUP of the uses on the property beyond the greenhouses, sales lot, and sale of food, Although there was no mention of uses such as the haunted house, hay rides, corn maze, or petting farm in the annual resolutions approving continuance of the CUP, there was mention in past staff reports to both the Planning Commission and the City Council that those uses did exist at that time. The lack of documentation within the CUP or continuing resolutions for those uses was not addressed at the time, though such uses clearly played a large part in the formulation of the new Agricultural Entertainment Business CUP. It should also be noted that significant volume of sales of produce grown off -site was not mentioned in either staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council or in annual resolutions granting continuance of the CUP. Staff research and available community history indicates that this is because such activity is relatively new and/or that recent volumes are large enough to warrant recent attention, as has also been the recent addition or expansion of children's games and activities unrelated to agriculture. Current Application: City Planning Staff reviewed the list of existing uses, as identified by the applicant, and classified if the uses were permitted, conditionally perrnitted, or not permitted by code. This review is outlined in the chart on the following page. It is important to clarify this information at this time, as both City staff and the applicant have found no clear record in the existing conditional use permit or its periodic renewal outlining many of the uses that have either been recently added to or existed on the site for some time. -- page 3 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 Agricultural Entertainment Business (CUP) Permitted Use in Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning District Agricultural Sales Business OR Wayside Stand (Permitted) Existing CUP Incidental Use (Permitted) Not Allowed/Permitted Existing Use Classification Corn Maze Hay Ride Petting Zoo / Farm Haunted House Seasonal Sale of related Christmas decorations (such as wreaths or other agricultural -type creations) Children Activities and Gaines with an Agricultural component Growing of Field Crops Housing and Care of Livestock Growing of Flowers Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material (if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand") Seasonal Sales of pumpkins (if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand") Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees (if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand") Greenhouse growing range Sale of concessions (as previously outlined in CUP amendment approvals) Halloween/Holiday decorations Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material (if the products are NOT produced onthe premises and can. NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand") Seasonal Sales of pumpkins (if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand") Seasonal Sales of Christmas trees (if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand") -- page 4 — City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 As such, City Planning staff is recommending approval of the New CUP allowing conduct of an Agricultural Entertainment Business on the entire 67 acres, with the specific conditions identified in the original staff report. Such new CUP, with the specific conditions included in the original staff report, would supplant past confusion by bringing the CUP into conformity with current city codes, cleans up a myriad of past confusion over appropriate use of the property, extends reasonable and compatible use to identified adjoining properties for the purposes intended by the Ag Entertainment District, and represents the good -faith effort of the applicant and the City to address past considerations regarding inappropriate use of the current CUP and covered property. Similarly, City Planning Staff is recommending approval of the re -zoning request and related conditional use permit amendment, thereby allowing future relocation of the greenhouse to the newly re -zoned property. Justification for this affirmative Planning staff recommendation is that the application appears to meet the technical criteria outlined in code, which is more fully explained on pages 5, 6, and 7 of the full staff report attached. However, it should be noted that the City Planning staff also believes sufficient rationale exits for denial of the re -zoning request, as much of the applicant's purpose for the requested re- zoning is pre-emptive and speculative in nature and no current or anticipated hardship exists in terms of reasonable land use. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW/RECO1VIIVIENDATION:, The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its November 23rd meeting. At that time, a public hearing was held at which no one spoke for or against the application. The Planning Commission recommended, by majority, approval of all three components to the application (CUP for Agricultural Entertainment Business, Re -zoning, and Re -zoning -related CUP amendment). In addition, the Planning Commission recommended a more liberal interpretation of the current CUP and applicable City Code than Planning Staff had outlined and recommended the inclusion of the uses identified above by staff as "Not Allowed/Permitted" as a part of the New Ag Entertainment Business CUP. The reason identified behind the recommendation was the belief that the children's activities and various and sundry games without an agricultural component are incidental to the other uses on the site and were not intended to be excluded by the ordinance. In general, the Planning Commission spoke to the belief that the sales of agricultural products - in this case, flowers, pumpkins, and Christmas trees - that were grown off -site and brought to the property for sale was a use that the City had been or should have been aware of in the past and had been allowed on the site for years and, therefore. should be identified as now allowed in the CUP. RECOMMENDATION OF ADMINISTRATOR (in consult with Attorney and Planning Advisor): Because extensive concern has been expressed regarding existing uses on the site and the future guidance of the property (non-sewered higher density residential — OP development), City Administrative, Legal and external Planning staff has spent extensive time reviewing this request and the issues surrounding the current and historical record as to uses of this property within the parameters of applicable CUPs, ordinances and state law. Below are the findings and recommendation of the City Administrator, in consult with the Attorney and Planning Advisor, with respect to the three actions under consideration: Action #1 - New CUP establishing an Agricultural Entertainment District: Citywide administrative and legal/planning leadership find the City Planning Department staff's recommendations to be the most appropriate and reasonable approach to the suggested new CUP, Reasons include the following: -- page 5 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 Clearly, the Agricultural Entertainment District is the most appropriate designation for the majority of clearly -identified past and present uses on the property, especially when considering the conditions promulgated by the Planning Department staff; As Conditional Use Permits may be reviewed on a periodic basis, City Councils have discretion to evaluate current and past uses against egregious violations and evolving community norms and standards; The opinions of the Planning Commission, though well intended, regarding alleged ancillary uses and alleged historical precedent are not well grounded in fact or reflected in the official record. Moreover, "prescriptive use" defense is not well defined with respect to Conditional Use Permits; Even a cursory review of recent events indicate a significant increase in commercial and related activity on the site, including expansion of children's activities unrelated to agricultural business and dramatically increase of sales of plants, pumpkins and Christmas trees grown offsite; It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate a historical record in variance to that researched and identified by the City. To date, no such record of clear City authorization for such activities or equivalent historical activity has been demonstrated or provided; Related, is the failure of the applicant to justify the inclusion of the approximately 2 acres of remote property in the requested Agricultural Entertainment Business. As Conditional Use Permits may be reviewed on a periodic basis, City Councils have discretion to evaluate current and past uses against egregious violations and evolving community norms and standards; Moreover, applicants own material indicates in a letter from the Washington County Sherriff s Department recently increased concern over traffic issues and enforcement. As such, it is believed that the City has sufficient information to initiate immediate review of the existing Conditional Use Permit, based upon concerns over the health, welfare and safety of the community. Should a reasonable compromise not be reached, it is recommended that the City initiate the official process for the review, and if appropriate, modification/revocation of the existing CUP, based upon these criteria; Regardless, approval of additional acreage, while clearly and mutually defining acceptable activities and uses, is a reasonable and defensible compromise. As such, it is highly desirable for the City and applicant to jointly migrate to such new CUP, which fully supplants and updates the existing CUP for the majority of the requested acreage. Consideration can then be given at a later date for expansion of the new CUP to the remaining approximately 2 acres, upon clearer demonstration of need. Inclusion of approval of the proposed overflow parking is also considered desirable in addressing significant elements of the City's and County's current life, health and safety concerns. The recommendation of the City Administrator on Action Item #1 is to approve Resolution 2009- 047 (Option B) whereby issuing a Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farnts & Greenhouse on the identified +/-64 acre portion of the requested 67 acres, with the original conditions identified in the Planning staff report, and to include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) accessory to the other uses on the site. -- page 6 — City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 Acton #2 — Re -zoning of additional 33.44 Acres from Rural Residential to Agricultural: The City Administrator, upon consultation with Legal/Planning, find the City Planning Department's and Planning Commission's recommendation to be premature and not grounded in good public policy: Both the current Rural Residential and Agricultural zoning designation are ultimately consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Little or no effect on current or future land use opportunities within the long-range objectives of the Comprehensive Plans for potential development of specific numbers of non-sewered higher density residential — OP development — are anticipated; • However, re -zoning to Agricultural may affect, in the long -run, desired open -space development. Additionally, Agricultural re -zoning may result in a significant increase in allowable accessory structures and agricultural uses, both significantly expanding the existing business activity and increasing its inconsistency with long-range Comprehensive Plan objectives for well -planned open space development; • Relocating the greenhouses would still allow for reasonable use of the current property, thereby resulting in a de facto expansion of business activity and, with it, traffic concerns and other public health, life and safety considerations. This concern with alleged past, suspected current or feared future expansion and more commercial type uses on the site is of significant consideration in this CUP renewal and rezoning and new CUP request. • • The applicant is seeking re -zoning and the related CUP amendment to relocate existing greenhouses out of concerti for a potential Highway 36 road project that is neither designed, nor currently even scheduled or in the preliminary planning stages. As such, this zoning would be considered highly premature and speculative and may result in significant redundant efforts, should any future Highway 36 project not be in conformity with the changes made by the applicant; • Moreover, the applicant misreads and prematurely seeks to establish long-standing legal and policy and procedures by both MNDOT and the City of Lake Elmo in working with the any potentially impacted property or business at the time such potential impacts are identified and become reasonably known. Neither MNDOT nor the City are anywhere near this stage at this time; • As significant public infrastructure would be significantly impacted by any re -zoning and subsequent access road and greenhouse relocation, the public stands to have such disruption of public services occur on multiple times and at significantly increased cost due to this premature rezoning; • The applicant retains reasonable use of the affected property today and, with approval of the Agricultural Entertainment Business CUP, is allowed for reasonable expansion of said business within the acceptable parameters established by the City; • The recommendation of City Administrator on Action Item #2 is to enact Resolution 2009- 052 denying the rezoning of the identified 33.44 acres of property .from Rural Residential to Agricultural, with the specific findings of fact denoted within Resolution 2009-52 and herein read into the record by the City Clerk. Action #3 — On the Requested CUP Amendment to Extend CUP uses to newly re -zoned property: • Given the above recommendation for denial of the re -zoning, it is reasonable for the City Council to not approve the CUP Amendment for property for which the CUP no longer applies; -- page 7 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December 1st, 2009 Agenda Item #10 Should a future legitimate need arise for the applicant to seek re -zoning and a CUP Amendment, such as movement on a planned MNDOT project on MN Highway 36, it would be appropriate to reconsider this request at that time. The recommendation of City Administrator on Action Item #3 is to enact Resolution 2009-051 (Option B) denying the requested CUP amendment, with the specific findings of fact denoted within Resolution 2009-051 (Option B) and herein read into the record. The recommendation of the City Administrator is also to direct the inclusion of the recommendations promulgated by the City staff and Planning Commission and delineated in this Communication in the Planning Department's 2010 Workplan. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: The City is bound to address the re -zoning and CUP requests within the legal and timeframe parameters delineated in State Law. While City Council does not have to take final action tonight in order to comply with the 60-day and 120-day rules, a special meeting of the City Council would have to be convened should the Council wish to table this Agenda Item tonight and address it at a later date, Failure of the Council to take timely action results in an automatic approval of the requested re -zoning and CUP actions. In accordance with the discussions at the time the ordinance was approved regarding Agricultural Entertainment Businesses and Agricultural Sales, the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate for the Commission and City Council to add the evaluation of these (and similar) uses to the 2010 Planning Commission Work Plan. This would allow the Commission and Council to: • Evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ordinance; • Further review how agriculture sales businesses should be regulated within the community; • Study options for regulating these uses as a commercial business; • Investigate alternative regulation mechanisms that would allow specific activities on an interim basis (i.e. a special event permit or interim use permit); • Review the differences between wayside stands and seasonal sales, and specifically whether or not the sale of produce grown off -site should be allowed; • Consider adding greenhouses as an allowed use in rural residential and other zones and establishing a size limitation, for "residential" greenhouses; and • Evaluate greater use of Interim or Temporary Use Peimits, as opposed to Conditional Use Permits, where the City believes such permits will allow for greater immediate applicant and community benefit while still preserving long-term community -wide goals arid objectives. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Notwithstanding the good work of the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff, as larger considerations are at play here, it is the recommendations of the City's Administrator, in consult with its Legal and Planning staff, that the City Council undertake the following: Action #1 - New CUP establishing an Agricultural Entertainment District: Move to approve Resolution 2009-047 (Option B) whereby issuing a Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouse on the identified +/-64 acre portion of the requested 67 acres, with the original conditions identified in the Planning staff report, and to include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) accessory to the other uses on the site. -- page 8 -- City Council Meeting Sun County Farms Re -Zoning & CUP Requests December lst, 2009 Agenda Item #10 Action #2 — Re -zoning of additional 33.44 Acres from Rural Residential to Agricultural: Move to enact _Resolution 2009-52 denying the rezoning of the identified 33.44 acres of property from Rural Residential to Agricultural, with the specific findings of fact denoted within Ordinance 08-22 and herein read into the record by the City Clerk. Action #3 — On the Requested CUP Amendment to Extend CUP uses to newly re -zoned nronertv: Move Resolution 2009-51 (Option B) denying the requested CUP amendment, with the specific findings of fact denoted within Resolution 2009-051 (Option B) and herein read into the record by the City Clerk. Additional Action: Move to direct the inclusion of the recommendations promulgated by the City staff and Planning Commission and delineated in this Communication in the Planning Department's 2010 Workplan. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction... ............. .................,........,......... .......... Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions from the Council Mayor & Council Members Applicant Comments ...... .. .. ............... ..........,.... ........... „..... ........... Mayor facilitates Questions of the Applicant Mayor & Council Members Call for a motion ................ . ...... ............ „..,..., ..... ........... ..,............Mayor Facilitates Discussion of Council on the motion Mayor Facilitates Action by the City Council Mayor & Council Members ATTACHMENTS (71: 1. Staff Report 7, Applicant's Submittals (Narratives & Maps) 3. Resolution 2009-047 (Option A — Planning Commission Recommendation on Ag Entertainment District) 4. Resolution 2009-047 (Option B — City Staffs Recommendation on Ag Entertainment Business) 5, Resolution 2009-047 (Option C — Denying Ag Business CUP) 6. Ordinance 08-021 (Approving Re -Zoning) 7. Resolution 2009-052 (Denying Re -Zoning) 8. Resolution 2009-051 (Option A — Approving CUP Amendment) 9. Resolution 2009-051 (Option B — Denying CUP Amendment) 10. Letter from MnDOT 11. Resolution 83-8 12. Resolution 2004-039 page 9 — City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Rezoning, And Additional Conditional Use Permit Request To: City Council From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner Meeting Date: 12-01-09 Applicant: Country Sun Farm & Greenhouses Owner: Richard and Eileen Bergmann; Keith Bergmann Location: 11211 60m Street North Zoning: A — Agricultural and RR — Rural Residential Introductory Information Requested The applicants have submitted an application for consideration of the following three Application: components: REZONING: To rezone a 33.44 acre parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Agricultural (Ag). This rezoning could allow the future movement of an existing greenhouse from the original CUP area to the new proposed area as greenhouses are not permitted in the RR zoning district. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: To amend the existing conditional use permit currently allowing operation of Country Sim Farm & Greenhouses at 11211 60th Street North to add approximately 24 acres of land (as the rest is in a roadway easement) for the "greenhouse" and "food concession sales" uses currently permitted. This land is proposed to be added to allow the eventual future movement of existing uses for the business to this property. This amendment would include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls) which is accessory to other uses on the site. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: To add a CUP for the entire 67 acres (original 43 plus 24 proposed) of property allowing an "Agricultural Entertainment Business" on the property as conditionally permitted. At this time it would be appropriate to list the specific existing and proposed uses on the site to clarify which current uses are permitted under the existing and/or proposed CUP. Property The City's files identify a history of a greenhouse operation at the site dating back to Information: the 1970's. A letter from 1979 to Mr. Bergmann states that a new ordinance was adopted in October of 1979 allowing "agri-business" such as theirs as a CUP and CU P .4nrendrneln, CUP, Rezoning, Country Sun Farm 61 Greenhouses City Council &poll: 12-01-09 indicated that Mr. Bergmann must apply for such if he wished to continue that use on (cone.) the property. This is the first record indicating such a use on the property, though "agri-business" is no longer defined or mentioned in the existing code. In 1980, a letter was sent to Mr. Bergmann extending the CUP for a greenhouse (the "agri- business") which was renewed annually until 1983 when the CUP was amended to include "sales lot." Since then, the records at both the city and the county show a number of resolutions amending the CUP to include additional acreage, additional uses (such as food sales), and expansion of existing structures. Abbreviated History of the CUP amendments: Resolution 83-8 (January 1983): authorizes the operation of a greenhouse and sales lot Resolution 84-43 (July 1984): expanding the area covered by the CUP for the use of greenhouses and sales lot; to relocate the greenhouse and sales building; variance approval to side yard setback Resolution 87-27: allowing a temporary use for the operation of an asphalt mix plant (since expired) Resolution 2003-070: allows the sale of food items such as snacks and carnival type foods/beverages Resolution 2004-039: allows the expansion of the greenhouses The CUP was reviewed annually for a number of years by city staff, primarily in the 80's and 90's. The staff at that time found the uses on the site to be acceptable and recommended approval to the City Council of the annual review for the Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse CUP. Staff could not find mention in the existing CUP of the uses on the property beyond the greenhouses, sales lot, and sale of food. Although there was no mention of uses on the site such as the haunted house, hay rides, corn maze, or petting farm in the resolution, there was mention in past staff reports to both the commission and the council that those uses did exist at that time. The lack of documentation for those uses was not addressed at the time. The applicant has identified with this application a list of existing uses on the site which will be analyzed later in this report for conformance with the current city code. Existing Uses on the Site as identified by the applicant Greenhouse growing range Corn maze Petting zoo/farm Growing of field crops House and care for livestock C''tisvP,5V,ruce2,nicsAell'.DocurneixtsiCo U ,91;:( , 2 CUP Amendment, CUP, Rezoning; Country Sun Farm Greenhouses City Council Report; 12-01-09 Raise flowers cont.) Hayrides Halloween decorations Haunted House Children Activities and Games Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees and related Christmas decorations Seasonal Sale of pumpkins Sale of concessions (as previously outlined in CUP amendment approval) Activity locations are depicted in the applicant's submittals which are attached at the end of the report. Applicable § 154.018 CONDITIONAL USE PERMII'S. Codes: (A) Granting/denial. Conditional use permits may be granted or denied in any district by action of the governing body according to the standards for that district in granting a conditional use permit, the governing body shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, the effect on utility and school capacities, the effect on property values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. If it determines that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, morals, or general welfare of the community nor will cause serious traffic congestion, nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the Comprehensive Plan, the Council may grant the permits. § 154.020 AMENDMENTS. (H) Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Any amendment to this chapter shall amend the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with the amendment. The Planning Commission shall inform the Council of any zoning proposal which does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and inform the Council as to why the plan should or should not be amended. (J) Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. In granting or recommending any rezoning or other permit provided for in this chapter, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, or Council shall find that the proposed development conforms substantially to the policies, goals, and standards of the Comprehensive Plan. C:'11:1.vrstbruce.mcs..03V)ocumentslroun;11 DEC Ilfler,gman Finalinem-Cownry .C_12-01-09.doo Pilgf' 3 CUP Amendment, CUP, Rezorung; Country San Farm cg: Gnenlfouses City Council Report: 12-0'14V (cont.) § 11.01 DEFINITIONS. AGRICULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS. An agricultural sales business that combines the elements and characteristics of agriculture and tourism, which is not necessarily located in an existing building. Examples of agricultural entertainment include: corn mazes, hay rides, sleigh rides, petting farms, on -farm tours, agricultural related museums, demonstrations of farming practices, techniques and methods, fee - based fishing and hunting, horseback riding, nature trails, haunted barns and similar activities which are related to agriculture. AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS. The retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products produced on the premises. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick - your -own opportunities, and may involve accessory sales of unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked goods and homemade handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25% of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or • commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as accessory items. No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the AGRICULTURAL SALES BUSINESS. OPEN SALES LOTS. Lands devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade, where the goods are not enclosed within a building. WAYSIDE STAND. A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods, floriculture, and horticulture produced by the operator of the WAYSIDE STAND on site or on other property in Lake Elmo. § 154.033 AG OR A — AGRICULTURAL. (A) Permitted uses and structures. (8) Wayside stands; (9) Agricultural sales businesses subject to performance standards outlined in § 154.110; (B) Uses permitted by conditional use permit, (1) Greenhouses; (8) Agricultural entertainment businesses subject to the following performance standards: {see analysis on page 7 below} § 154.036 RR — RURAL RESIDENTIAL. (A) Permitted uses and structures. (3) Wayside stands; and (4) Agricultural sales businesses subject to performance standards outlined in § 154.110. (C) Conditionally permitted uses. (4) Agricultural entertainment businesses subject to the requirements outlined in § 154.033(B)(8). Lls'er,Y ihruce.aa L,1n1slColinai DEC l',Eteirrtar, CC_ 12-0l-09,tioc- CUP Amendment, CUP, Rezoning; Country Sun Farm & Greenhouxes City Council Report: 12-01-09 Findings & General Site Overview Site Data:" Existing CUP Property Lot Size: Approximately 43 acres Existing Use: Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse operations Existing Zoning: A (Agricultural) Property Identification Number (PID): 01-029-21-22-0002,, 01-029-21-22-0008, 01- 029-21-23-0004 Parcel 01-029-21-22-0002 is taxed at both an agricultural and commercial rate. Proposed Additional Land for CUP Lot Size: Approximately 24 acres (this does not include the road right-of-way which when added totals 33.44 acres) Existing Use: Farm/Construction Site for Northern Natural Gas Project Existing Zoning: RR (Rural Residential) Proposed Zoning: Ag (Agricultural) Property Identification Number (PID): 01-029-21-21-0007 Application Review: Rezoning: Rezoning from Rural Residential to Agricultural The applicants are requesting the currently farmed property at 01-029-21-21-0007 be rezoned from Rural Residential to Agricultural. The entire property (including State Highway 36 road right-of-way) is 33.44 acres. The property currently may be subdivided into at least two, if not three, 10-acre parcels with regards to lot size only. The applicants are requesting this property's zoning be changed to Agricultural which has a 40 acre minimum lot size. This significant change in minimum lot size eliminates the ability of the property to be subdivided. The applicants are aware of this change, but are requesting the rezoning to occur as the intent is to leave the property intact and to utilize the land -for the Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse business. The applicants state in their application that the intent is to move the existing greenhouse, corn maze, and hayride area to this new property in the event that the potential future reconfiguration of the Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) and State Highway 36 interchange and additional frontage road would eliminate the area the uses are currently occupying. Because this parcel is zoned Rural Residential (the property on which the business runs is currently zoned Agricultural), the applicants do not have the option of moving the existing greenhouse to this property. In looking strictly at the rezoning request without consideration of the intent, the rezoning of this parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with regards to the future land use guidance. The Land Use Plan classifies this area as guided for Rural Agricultural Density (RAD), which is consistent with both the Rural Residential and Agricultural zoning districts. C.',1,isersibrucemtzw,v1RDocumemsCouncil DEC 1113orginan SirriCc).,?-01-09.doe Page 5 CUP .4.moulment, CUP, Re2oning; Country Sun Farm &Groenholis Counc;i1 Report: (cont.) Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning from Rural Residential to Agricultural as it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicants request that if the CUP amendment is not approved, that the property be retained as a Rural Residential parcel and not rezoned. The approval of the rezoning request would not outright allow the movement of the greenhouse as it is a conditionally permitted use in the Agricultural zoning district. The proposed CUP amendment would also need to be approved. CUP Land Addition, Overflow Parking Amendment The applicants are requesting to add an additional approximately 24 acres to the area Review: currently operating under a CUP (33.44 acres minus the State Highway 36 road right- of-way area). The reasoning for the request as stated by the applicant is to prepare for a future improvement to the Lake Elmo Avenue and State Highway 36 interchange. The alteration to the intersection and a potential service road could displace some of the applicant's property currently utilized for the hay ride, corn maze, and greenhouses. That land would instead be utilized as a frontage road for Highway 36. The existing uses (greenhouse, hay ride area, and corn maze) that would be displaced are proposed to be relocated to the proposed additional land to the East. The applicants are also interested in adding an overflow parking area. The proposed 39,900 square foot area is to be created of crushed limestone and/or recycled pavement millings. The parking lot is being proposed at this time to take advantage C s ru fr-Doct c: IsCouncii DEC l'.13erginart FhlOrinep--Coitn!r): Suir,,CC__12-0/ (10 CUP Amendment, CUP, Rezoning; Country Sun Faiin & Gree.ohooses Chy (mineil Report; 12-01-09 c n ) of work recently completed in that area by the Northern Natural Gas company within their easement. The company has utilized that portion of the applicant's land as a parking area for vehicles associated with the work. The property owners would like to utilize a portion of this as an overflow parking area as the area is already compacted and disturbed. The remaining area will be restored. If additional overflow parking is needed beyond what is proposed, the grassy area will be utilized. This will minimize the impervious surface area, the resulting runoff, and reduce or eliminate the potential for vehicles visiting their business from parking on State Highway 36. However, the land on which the current CUP operates is zoned Agricultural while the property proposed to be added to the CUP is currently zoned Rural Residential. While the Agricultural zoning district currently identifies greenhouses as a conditional use, the Rural Residential zoning district does not — thus the earlier identified rezoning request. Although neither zoning district currently identifies a "sales lot" as either permitted or conditionally permitted, the CUP for the existing Agricultural zoned property will continue to allow that use on the existing property if, and until, it is discontinued for a year at which time that use will no longer be permitted. If the property is rezoned to Agricultural, a greenhouse could be conditionally permitted on the additional 24 acre property. Staff would find that the movement of the existing greenhouse to the property would meet the requirements of a conditional use permit and would therefore recommend approval. The movement of a corn maze and hay ride area will be analyzed in the third section of this application — the reclassification of existing uses as an Agricultural Entertainment Business. CUP Review: Reclassification of Some Existing Uses as Agricultural Entertainment Business Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse has existed in some form since at least the 1970s according to previous staff reports and other city documents. Since then, the land area and the uses on the site have evolved over time. The original CUP was for the greenhouse to be utilized at the property on just a few acres. Resolution 83-8 identifies granting of a conditional use permit to allow a greenhouse and sales lot at the Bergmann's property. Other amendments have allowed the expansion of the existing greenhouses and sale of limited foods and beverages. Although there are a few gaps in documentation, staff's interpretation is that the current operation of Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse occupies the existing approximately 43 acres under the resolution conditionally permitting greenhouses, sales lot, and food sales (as specified). It is assurned that previous staff interpreted the uses such as the corn maze, petting zoo, hay rides, agricultural sales, and children's activities being utilized on the existing site as being considered permitted under the conditional use permit or an incidental and accessory use to those permitted C:1Us'ersIbwce,nie,,,•s,i,11DocIrmentsiCom»cli DEC l'tfierolla CC_12-01-09A)c CUP Amerultneni, CUP, Rezoning; Country SuflPufn & Cy'reen houses City Council RTort. 12-0.1- 09 (cont) uses. Staff sees this as an opportunity to clarify and catalog the acceptable uses on the site and to put in place reasonable conditions to protect adjacent properties. At this time, staff will reevaluate the existing uses on the site and suggest clarifying what uses are permitted on the site — either through the existing CUP or through the proposed Agricultural Entertainment Business CUP being proposed. In 2008, the city code was amended (Ordinance 08-006) to include definitions for Agricultural Entertainment Business and Agricultural Sales Business. The Agricultural Entertainment Business use was added as conditionally permitted in both the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts at that time, The Agricultural Sales Business use was added as a permitted use (not a CUP) in both districts. As mentioned earlier in the report, staff suggests taking time to clarify what existing uses on the site will be considered conditionally permitted as an Agricultural Entertainment Business, what existing uses (if any) are outright permitted as an Agricultural Sales Business, and what existing uses (if any) are not permitted on the site. This analysis is intended to provide further clarity for both the city and the property owners in the future as to what is acceptable on the property. This separate Agricultural Entertainment Business CUP would function in parallel with the existing CUP for the greenhouse, sales lot, and food sales as permitted on the "original" 43 acres and for the amended CUP, should that be approved. Analysis of Existing Uses on the site: Staff recommends that the following uses fall under the classification of an Agricultural Entertainment Business as defined in the code: 9 Com maze 9 Hayrides A Petting zoo/farm 9 Haunted House 9 Seasonal Sale of related Christmas decorations (such as wreaths or other agriculttral-type creations) 9 Children Activities and Games with an Agricultural component Staff recommends that the following uses fall under the category of a nermitted use in the Agricultural or Rural Residential zoning district (a CUP not required): 9 Growing of field crops 9 Housing and care for livestock 9 Growing flowers Staff recommends the following uses fall under the category of Agricultural Sales Business OR Wayside stands (which is allowed/permitted): 9 Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [ifthe products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand". 9 Seasonal Sale of pumplcins [if the products are produced on the premises or C::Uvrbrtrunta.s.scInDooraiciw,iCouircil DEC ittlor,Q,Ilati FinaMep—Coleimy Sun_ CC_ j'f.fge - CUP Amendment, CLIP, Rezoning; Counity Sun 11 Give City Council Report; 12-01-09 S(!S (cont.) can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] > Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] Staff recommends that the following uses be analyzed as part of -Drowsed amendment to the existing CUP. The City's records indicate that these uses have previously been granted approval. > Greenhouse growing range > Sale of concessions (as previously outlined in CUP amendment approval) Staff recommends the following use be classified as incidental to the oronertv as residents are allowed to celebrate holidays with outside decorations: > Halloween/Holiday decorations Staffrecommends the City clarifies that the following uses are not allowed/permitted, nor conditionally permitted on the site: > Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component > Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] > Seasonal Sale of pumplcins [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] > Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] Staff utilized the previous analysis in moving forward with which uses to utilize in the following review: CUP Review Criteria (Section 154.018): The following review criteria (in italics) are taken directly out of the Lake Elmo City Code for all CUPs: • Effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, convenience, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. The permitting of an Agricultural Entertainment Business on the entire 67 acres (existing plus proposed acreage) would not have a negative impact on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. The proposed addition of approximately 24 acres for movement of existing uses and the inclusion of an overflow parking area will not negatively effect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. The movement of the existing uses (hay ride, corn maze, etc.) in the future to this site will create more of a buffer between the seasonal uses and the existing residential homes along Lake Elmo Avenue. The property being requested to be considered for inclusion is currently bordered to the North by State Highway 36, to the South by vacant land previously used for agricultural purposes and to the East by a residential C-!Userslbrvec,mc:„velll .c u, nT(ouncil DEC ilfierpnarr FiriallRep--Counfly 12-01-09Ar, Page 9 CUP ..4.inendreni, C'UP, Rezoning; Country Sun fin & Greenhouses City Council 16..por(: 12-01-09 nt. home owned by the applicant's son and dedicated open space property owned by the applicants. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the movement of the uses further from the more densely built homes along Lake Elmo Avenue (County Road 17) would reduce the impact of the uses. At this time the applicants are not proposing to increase the intensity of the uses on the existing property, but to maintain what is on the site. • Existing and anticipated traffic conditions (incl. parking facilities on adjacent streets and land) The applicants' proposal includes the construction of a 39,900 square foot overflow parking area of 87 designated parking stalls as well as a designation of an additional grassy area if additional parking is necessary. This proposal will address existing and anticipated parking needs by providing additional parking for visitors on the site. By allowing additional parking, the applicants are working to address concerns expressed in the past of parking that has occurred on State Highway 36. A letter received from MnDOT regarding the application confirms that the owner's plan for parking expansion should provide enough parking on site to eliminate the need for parking on the TH 36 shoulder, which has serious safety concerns. The letter also briefly mentions that a future interchange at the interchange of Lake Elmo Avenue (CSAH 17) and TH 36 will impact this property and its current access locations. At this time, staff believes the applicant's proposal does not warrant addressing the access to the site. • Effect on utility and school capacities The addition of land and an overflow parking area to the existing CUP will have no effect on utilities or school capacities. • Effect on property values ofproperty in the surrounding area The property values of the surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted by the addition of the land to the existing CUP or the continued uses on the existing land. The Bergmanns' or their relatives own property to the East of the proposed additional land, State Highway 36 is to the North, and vacant/agricultural land is to the South. Should the land to the South be developed someday as an Open Space Preservation development (for which it is eligible by standards of minimum lot size), a buffer setback will likely be established which will serve as a barrier to the seasonal uses nearby, should that be a concern in the future. • Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan (in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the Comp Plan) Both the property under the existing CUP and the proposed additional property are guided in the Future Land Use for "RAD — 0.45 DU/Acre" as designated in the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The RAD designation stands for Rural Agricultural Density and is related to the zoning classifications Agricultural (AG or A) and Rural Residential (RR). The city does not have a slated timefrarne for which this property (or any property C.''.1.,serslilatcc.,Puc..,,,,,(,,',011.)0C7Inieltri',C011111.711 DEC CC_ .7-01-06.,h)c Page 10 CLIP Amendment, CUP, Re7oning,Country Sun Farm, Greenhousos Cliy Council Report: 12-0:1-0P (cont.) outside of the future sewered areas) is scheduled to convert to a higher density residential use as an Open Space Preservation development, which is the 0.45 DU/Acre mentioned in the Land Use guidance section of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that the city has a "desire to preserve its rural character, open space and green corridors." In keeping with this statement and the verbally stated intent to allow owners of larger properties in the city to continue to make a living from their land, staff is interpreting the continued use of the existina Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse activities as compliant with the city's intent for large rural lots, agricultural -type uses, and the Comprehensive Plan. The Agricultural Entertainment Business use was specifically included as a conditionally permitted use in the A and RR zoning districts in 2008, but not the commercially oriented zoning districts (HB, LB, GB) in the city. This action taken by the city provides direction to staff to continue the interpretation that an Agricultural Entertainment Business is considered, in fact, agricultural in nature and not commercial. Because the city code must be in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, staff would find the addition of this language to the code in 2008 to be in accordance with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Because the city code has listed Agricultural Entertainment Businesses as a conditionally permitted use and as the city has received an application for such, the city must permit the use if it is found to meet all the outlined requirements for both a conditional use permit as well as the individual requirements listed for an Agricultural Entertainment Business. Staff s interpretation that the corn maze, hayride, petting zoo/farm, haunted house, and seasonal sale of related Christmas decorations that are agricultural in nature at Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse are in accordance with the Agricultural Entertainment Business use as defined and allowed by CUP in the A and RR zoning districts and therefore compliant with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The following review criteria (in italics) are taken directly out of the Lake Elmo City Code for all Agricultural Entertainment Businesses: Agricultural and Rural Residential Zoning District Review Criteria (Section 154.033) (a) The property proposed to be used for agricultural entertainment must be located with direct access to a collector or arterial street as identified in the comprehensive plan; Currently, the property has right -in right -out access off TH 36 as well as reasonable access off of Comity Road 17. (b) All parking must occur on -site, be on a primary surface such as class five gravel or pavement; and must be set back at least 30 feet from all property lines; C :1 1:1:x 'th cv. n ie.sw t2 It DOCUITI eltIS CO4 DEC IBet:(viwirn Pnial'IRep--Cormay Page 1.1 CUP Arnenthnent, CUP, Rczoning; Counhy Sun FOon & Greenhouses City Council Report: 12-01-09 As mentioned previously in this staff report, the applicants are proposing to add two overflow parking areas — one of which would be improved and the other to remain grass. The applicants are proposing to construct the improved parking lot of crushed limestone and/or recycled pavement millings. This is consistent with the requirement for surface type. Staff will add as a condition of approval that the parking area be 30 feet from all property lines. (c) No more than 25% of the site may be covered with impervious u ace and the remainder shall be suitably landscaped; The applicants are no where near the 25 percent maximum impervious surface coverage as all the area proposed to be covered under this CUP is largely open or used for agricultural purposes, (d) Roof top or outside building mechanical equipment must be screened from view from adjacent properties and rights -of -way with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building(s); The applicants are not requesting to add any buildings at this time, (e) Trash containers must be located inside or screened in an acceptable manner; Staff will add this as a condition of approval. (1) Discharge offirearms, including blanks, shall not be allowed on the property; The applicants are requesting this condition be modified to allow the discharge of firearms during times and dates that the business is not open to the public. This would allow the property owners to continue utilizing their land for private hunting purposes. Staff would find this request to be reasonable and would recommend adding this to an approved CUP. (g) The property owner shalt give the city permission to conduct inspections of the property in order to investigate complaints; Staff will add this as a condition of approval. (h) The property owner must take reasonable steps to prevent trespassing on adjacent properties by employees, contractors or patrons; norimin;r,,,CruinCil DEC: i',Iiergnion Final J<:?p,--.Coltrir;.:1, Sun_CC:12-01-00„4-loe age 12 CUP .-Imenchneni, CUP, Reaming; Count!), Sun Farm &Greenhouses City Council 1 Report; 12-01-09 Existing buffers such as a tree line as well as a fence do provide a vegetative and fenced buffer of the property. (i) Usable primary and alternate well and septic sites sized for the maximum anticipated usage of the property shall be identified on the property, Alternatesites shall be protected in the site plan design, and will only need to be used upon failure of a primary site; and The applicants are currently operating with an existing well and septic system. Because they are not asking to add any buildings at this time which would require sanitary facilities or a water supply, staff would suggest this be addressed in the future if such a building is added. Adherence to the general review criteria applicable to all CUP applications. Staff finds this criteria is met, as analyzed earlier in this report. Resident Staff has been made aware there are concerns regarding what uses have been allowed Concerns: to occur on the site for the Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse property as well for the rezoning request. Additional Information: The applicants may choose to perform such activities as listed in the Agricultural Sales Business definition on either properties as that is listed in both Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts as permitted uses. A greenhouse connected to a sales area may be considered an Agricultural Sales Business. Assuming the standards outlined in code are met, the applicants are allowed to do so without a conditional use perinit. Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the proposed application. The proposed overflow parking area will require a permit from the Valley Branch Watershed District as the impervious surface area proposed would exceed 6,000 square feet. A Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to Mn/DOT right-of-way will not be increased. Future Because some concern has been expressed regarding existing uses on the site and the Consideration: future guidance of the property (non-sewered higher density residential — OP development), staff has suggested multiple options for consideration if the city is concerned with past or future expansions and more commercial type uses on the site (page 11 and 12 of the full staff report). In accordance with the discussions at the time the ordinance was approved regarding Agricultural Entertainment Businesses and Agricultural Sales, it is recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council add the evaluation of the these (and similar) uses to the 2010 Planning Commission Work Plan. This would allow the (7:-'-itisea'ibruce,ntesseltiDociononts‘Cowwil DEC ltllergnlah Firrr.dtrfiep--Colr Fury StmCC__12-01,-09.dor, Pege 13 CUP Amendment, CUP, Re7oning; Country Sall Fwrn VGraP111011,YeS Ctn' Council Ri.porl; 12-01-09 commission and council to: - evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ordinance - further review how agriculture sales businesses should be regulated within the Community - study options for regulating these uses as a commercial business - investigate alternative regulation mechanisms that would allow specific activities on an interim basis (i.e. a special event permit or interim use permit) - review the differences between wayside stands and seasonal sales, and specifically whether or not the sale of produce grown off -site should be allowed - consider adding greenhouses as an allowed uses in rural residential and other zones and establishing a size limitation for "residential" greenhouses Given the discussions resulting from the application, we understand the Council may wish to discuss other future options for consideration. Option One: One option would be to change the zoning for all Agricultural and Rural Residential zoned properties guided for this unsewered higher density residential land use in the future into a holding district. This holding district could restrict what can be done on the properties to ensure they are in keeping with the planned future residential development on the property. The Comprehensive Plan identifies approximately 1,000 properties within the city as guided for this type of land development (although this number includes some existing OP development parcels, which would not be included). Option Two: A second option would be to re-evaluate what is considered an agricultural use and identify if an Agricultural Entertainment Business is something the city would like to see in the rural areas of the city. Option Three: An option would be to explore the interim use of properties guided for higher density non-sewered development — Open Space Preservation Developments. This would require amendments to the existing code to identify interim uses in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning district. In this particular situation, a legal opinion would be requested to identify if there are any legal rights of the applicant to continue those uses not specified in the CUP (such as the corn maze, haunted house, etc.) Option Four: An option would be to consider those properties along major roadways such as Interstate 94 and State Highway 36 that are operating as more of a commercial type use to be rezoned. This would require major changes to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning map, and zoning ordinance. Option Five: To direct staff to research if a different taxing system could be used on properties that are zoned of a rural or residential nature, but function more like a semi -commercial property seasonally or year-round. C'-(iscYst.on.wc..ma-oeli-Oorunion:,'.(Touncif /.,Bor.,2nion Pi/writ:op—Cow/v:1. 12-61-09.iior CUP ..,,Iniendment, CUP, Rezoning; Country Sun Eum (Q. GIVelth011NeS City Council Report: J2-01-09 Conclusion: The applicants are seeking approval of the following for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouses: REZONING: To rezone a 33.44 acre parcel from Rural Residential (RR) to Agricultural (Ag). This 'rezoning could allow the movement of an existing greenhouse from the original CUP area to the new proposed area as greenhouses are not permitted in the RR zoning district. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: To amend the existing conditional use permit currently allowing operation of Country Sun Farm & Greenhouses at 11211 60111 Street North to add approximately 24 acres of land (as the rest is in a roadway easement) for the "greenhouse" and "sale of concessions" uses currently permitted. This land would be added to allow the eventual movement of existing uses for the business. This amendment would include the construction of an overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet (87 parking stalls). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: To add a CUP for the entire 67 acres of property allowing an "Agricultural Entertainment Business" on the property as conditionally permitted. At this time it would be appropriate to list the specific existing and proposed uses on the site to clarify which current uses are permitted under the existing and/or proposed CUP. A CUP Amendment to add approximately 24 acres to the existing CUP for Greenhouses and Open Sales Lot. Council The City Council has the following options: Options: A) Approve the rezoning request, CUP amendment and improved overflow parking area, and additional CUP for Agricultural Entertainment Business uses including those uses specified in the staff report as not allowed (as recommended by the Planning Commission); B) Deny the rezoning request, CUP amendment, improved overflow parking area, and additional CUP for Agricultural Entertainment Business uses request; C) Deny the rezoning request and CUP amendment, but approve the CUP for the 'Agricultural Entertainment Business uses and the overflow parking area. The 60-day review period for the CUP amendment and CUP for Agricultural Entertainment Business application expired on 10-19-09, but was extended an additional 60 days to 12-18-09. If an additional extension is needed, the applicants must approve the request. The 60-day review period for the rezoning will also expire on 12-18-09, but can be extended an additional 60 days if necessary. C:'‘Tisersibrucc.ind,s-seirtfloonnenisiCouncil DEC 1113eiTinan Filna1;Rtyy--CouptrySial_CC_12-0.11) 9. doe Page 15 CUP Amendment, C't IP, Rezoning; Count!), Sun F(0717 & GieenhOLISCS City Council &port' 12-01-09 Planning The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to rezone the 33.44 Commission acre property at 01-029-21-21-0007 from Rural Residential to Agricultural. Rec.: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP amendment request (dependent upon approval of the previously stated rezoning) as the Agricultural zoning district conditionally permits greenhouses. This would include approval of the improved overflow parking area of 39,900 square feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval of an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouses at 11211 60th Street North for the entire 67 acres. The commission recommended by majority to add to the CUP the following uses identified previously by staff as not allowed/permitted: A. Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component A Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] A Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] A Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] The reason identified behind the recommendation was the belief that the children activities and games without an agricultural component are incidental to the other uses on the site and were not intended to be excluded by the ordinance. A commissioner spoke to the belief that the sales of agricultural products - in this case flowers, pumpkins, and Christmas trees - that were grown off -site and brought to the property for sale was a non -conforming use that had been allowed on the site for years and thus should be identified as allowed in the CUP, Summary The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the request to Rec.: rezone the 33.44 acre parcel from Rural Residential to Agricultural based on the following: 1. The rezoning would be in conformance with the land use guidance identified in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. By allowing the rezoning, the minimum lot size would increase (a "down - zoning" of the property) thereby eliminating the ability to subdivide and retaining larger agricultural lots. This parcel would be retained in its current configuration, easing the transition to its future guided use as an Open Space Preservation development as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval of the CUP amendment to add 24 acres and an overflow parking area based on the following: 1. If the rezoning is approved, the Agricultural zoning district conditionally permits the use of greenhouses on the property. C:' bSCrS'PrtICE 12S,V7b1)0:_ilineltIS,Catiiiiji DEC InBorpnart FineRq)--CoLruity ,'")7,;!, (C 12-(r Pug 16 CLIP Amendment, CUP Re:oning; Country Sun lain & Greenhouses City Council kivort: 12-01-0g ont) 2. The movement of a greenhouse to a location more remote from existing residential homes will reduce negative impacts. 3 The applicants are proposing to have the additional 24 acres available for use by Country Sun Farm & Greenhouse in anticipation of needing to relocate existing uses from one property to another in response to potential future construction of a frontage road and reconfiguration of the intersection of County Road 17 and State Highway 36. 4. The proposed overflow parking areas (both improved and grass) would reduce or eliminate the parking that may take place on State Highway 36 by visitors to the site. Staff is recommending approval of the additional CUP for the entire 67 acres (existing 43 acres plus proposed 24 acres) to reclassify some of the existing uses (as specified earlier in the report) on the property to Agricultural Entertainment Business: 1. In 2008, the City of Lake Elmo approved Ordinance 08-006 which defined Agricultural Entertainment Business and identified the use as conditionally permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts. 2. The expansion of land and potential movement of existing uses would reduce the impact to adjacent neighbors. 3 The addition of the overflow parking area would take advantage of existing disrupted areas as a result of work done by Northern Natural Gas. 4. The CUP for an Agricultural Entertainment Business at this time does not permit the increase of intensity of the uses, but instead clarifies the permissible uses on the site for staff and the property owners. 6. The conditions outlined in both Section 154.018 for Conditional Use Permits and Section 154.033 for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses are met. As mentioned on the previous page, the Planning Commission also recommended approval of the CUP for the Agricultural Entertainment Business on the entire 67 acres, but has recommended the following uses (identified as not allowed/permitted by code) to be included in the CUP for the property for clarification. • Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component • Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] )> Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] )=. Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] With the following conditions: 1. The applicants must obtain any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2. The designated parking area shall be 30 feet from all property lines. 3. Trash containers must be located inside or screened in an acceptable manner. 4. The property owners may allow the discharge of firearms during times and C:V4!):','er,OhcuccdnesselrDocurnenr,s1Councel DEC llier;man FlualiRep—Couinly Sint_Cr_12-01,09.doe CLIP .,.Irnentirent, CUP, Rezoning,' Country ,C1,01 .N11711 & GICellhOilSOS C COUrteii RCpOrt," 2-01 -09 dates that the business is not open to the public. This would allow the property owners to continue utilizing their land for private hunting purposes. The discharge of weapons must be in conformance with Lake Elmo City Code requirements. 5 The property owner shall give the city permission to conduct inspections of the property in order to investigate complaints or to provide necessary updates to the city files or City Council. 6. The physical relocation of the existing greenhouse would not require a further conditional use permit amendment as the applicant has identified a future location with this application. Instead the applicant must comply with the process outlined in Section 151.070 Plan Review. 7. If the approved activities are expanded or additional activities or buildings are added, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved. 8 If dust complaints are received from the improved parking lot being proposed, the property owner shall implement an acceptable dust abatement technique. Motion To recommend denial of the requests, you may use the following motion as a guide: Template: Move to recommend denial of the CUP,for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouse on the entire 67 acres. Move to recommend denial of the rezoning from Rural Residential to Agricultural. Move to recommend denial of the CUP amendment request. ,ase site reasons for the recommendation) Approval To recommend approval of the requests, you may use the following motion as a guide; Motion Template: Move to recommend approval of the CUP for an Agricultural Entertainment Business for Country Sun Farms & Greenhouse on the entire 67 acres with the conditions identified in the staffreport. Move to recommend approval of the rezoning front Rural Residential to Agricultural. Move to recommend approval of the CUP amendment request with the conditions identified in the staff report, ...(use staff's findings provided or cite your own) cc: Richard and Eileen Bergmann, applicants Keith Bergmann C:)1L.,:svr,,,'d,ctioc,nwsseir',DocumenulCouncii DEC j L09,doc Page 18 To whom it may concern: After recent discussions with City Staff, I have prepared somendditional maps of Country Sun Farm's layout, to better describe the activities.taking place at Country SuFarni First, we are actually asking about two different issues with respect to what we are requesting on our CUP requests, First we would Ince to place additional property which we own into our CLTP as the highway 36, Lake Elmo Ave. intersection plans we have been looking at with the city, county and state, essentially wipe out a.large portion of our property which is currently in CUP. Basically, when the project goes through, our greenhouse growing range, corn maze, and most of our petting zoo area willbe part of a road. system. It is for.these reasons that we are requesting to add the additional land under our CUP so that when the time comes, we can make plans with the city on how to best move some of these activities from one location to another. We would like to do this at this time, and not wait for the roads to aotually start pushing there way through., so that we can make better plans and preparations as we await this projects arrival and completion.. Secondly, we are asking that we be placed under the Agricultural Entertainment Business category, as it was brought to our attention that this new category was treated to basically address businesses such as ours. Our current CUP does not outline very well what we are and are not allowed to do on the property, and it would seem that what we have previously been allowed to dc would fit very well into this new category. Essentially we are not asking that we change anything other than to categorize our business as something which the city has recently so well defined. Finally, the maps irkeluded: The red highlighted area shows our existing area under the.cutTent CUP. Within this area, we grow field crops, house and care for livestock, and raise flowers, Our fall hayrides also drive around this area and show people our fields and animals; and Halloween decorations which we seasonally put up and take down, The orange highlighted area shows where on the, property we have activities and decorations for the public to walk around at their leisure and explore. Included in this area is our haunted house.(which is only viewed frorn the outside), our petting zoo, our corn maze, the loading and unloading area for the hay ride, and area for kids activities and games. The blue highlighted area depicts the property hich we are asking be placed under our current CUP. The plans for this area would be to move some or all of the. existing activities from the orange area to this location depending on what is done with the highway 36, Lake Elmo Ave, intersection project. Also, the greenhouse growing range, and some parking area would possibly have to be moved due, to the road project Filially, the hayrides would drive through fields in this area as the pick up and drop off location for the hayridewould possibly also need to be rnoved. The green highlighted area shows property owned by Country Sun Farm which will be maintained as a buffer area between the. activities taking place at Country Sun Farm, and newly built houses in recently added developments. This land is currently in the Minnesota. Land Trust, and has been set aside to perpetuate and maintain its current green space and natural elements and features. - "CI co' --\-0 2Au k1 41126 1/tts ot Itr 0.g,, .44 vrkve_wrke.NA. kokyr Cr4ie,tlis RECEIVED AUG t 2009 itm4 ' V1/44 e,s,"4,-4` P\ iA<1 Agricultural Entertainment Business - OPTION A STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-047 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS ON 67 ACRES FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ofMinnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60th Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Ehno (the "City") for an Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit for the entire 67 acres, to clarify existing uses on the site, and to build an overflow parking lot; a copy of which is on file at city hall; WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a StaffMemorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would include the construction of a 39,900 square foot parking lot. 4) The proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would encompass all 67 acres and supplant and update all previous CUP permits for this or portions of this property and permit the following uses: a. Corn Maze. b. Hay Ride c. Petting Zoo / Farm d. Haunted house e. Seasonal Sales of related Christmas decorations (such as wreaths or other agricultural -type creations) f. Children Activities and Games (both agricultural and non-agricultural in nature) as it is considered incidental to the primary uses on the site 5) That the proposed Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit meets the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Section 154.018) and the review criteria for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses (Section 154.033). a. In 2008, the City of Lake Elmo approved Ordinance 08-006 which defined Agricultural Entertainment Business and identified the use as conditionally permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts. c. The addition of the overflow parking area would take advantage of existing disrupted areas as a result of work done by Northern Natural Gas. d. The CUP for an Agricultural Entertainment Business at this time does not permit the increase of intensity of the uses, but instead clarifies the permissible uses on the site for staff and the property owners. e. The conditions outlined in both Section 154.018 for Conditional Use Permits and Section 154.033 for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses are met. f. The proposed overflow parking areas (both improved and grass) would reduce or eliminate the parking that may take place on State Highway 36 by visitors to the site. 6) That the following uses on the site are identified as a permitted use in the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning Districts: a. Growing of field crops b. Housing and Care of Livestock c. Growing of Flowers 7) That the following uses on the site are identified as an Agricultural Sales Business or a Wayside stand, both of which are allowed/permitted within the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning District: a. Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] b. Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"' c. Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] 8) That the following use on the site is identified as incidental to the property and is permitted in all zoning districts, a. Halloween / Holiday decorations CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Conditional Use Permit is granted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) The applicants must obtain any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2) The designated parking area shall be 30 feet from all property lines. 3) Trash containers must be located inside or screened in an acceptable manner. 4) The property owners may allow the discharge of firearms during times and dates that the business is not open to the public. This would allow the property owners to continue utilizing their land for private hunting purposes. The discharge of weapons must be in conformance with Lake Elmo City Code requirements. 5) The property owner shall give the city permission to conduct inspections of the property in order to investigate complaints or to provide necessary updates to the city files or City Council. 6) No additional structures or facilities related to the operation of agricultural entertainment activities shall be installed or utilized without written approval of the City. 7) Prior to the commencement of any further agricultural entertainment activities on the land approved hereunder, the applicant shall furnish a detailed sketch depicting the placement of structures and activities for review and approval by the City for conformity with the approval. 8) No activity that is not authorized or permissible on the existing lands shall be expanded or relocated onto the additional land approved for an agricultural entertainment use hereunder, 9) If dust complaints are received from the improved parking lot being proposed, the property owner shall implement an acceptable dust abatement technique. Passed and duly adopted this 1s1 day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A, Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Attachment A; Resolution 2009 - 047 - Proposed • Additiona CUP Area Agricultural Entertainment Business - OPTION B STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-047 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS ON 65 ACRES FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60th Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for an Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit for the entire 67 acres, to clarify existing uses on the site, and to build an overflow parking lot; a copy of which is on file at city hall; WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and infoiniation received, the Boat of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission req-uirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would include the construction of a 39,900 square foot parking lot. 4) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would encompass 65 acres (this does not include the approximately two acres of the parcel that falls to the south and east of 11459 60th Street). 5) The proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would supplant and update all previous CUP permits for this property and permit the following uses: a. Com Maze b. Hay Ride c. Petting Zoo / Farm d. Haunted house e. Seasonal Sales of related Christmas decorations (such as wreaths or other agricultural -type creations) f Children Activities and Games with an Agricultural component 6) That the proposed Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit meets the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Section 154.018) and the review criteria for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses (Section 154.033). a. In 2008, the City of Lake Elmo approved Ordinance 08-006 which defined Agricultural Entertainment Business and identified the use as conditionally permitted in the Agricultural and Rural Residential zoning districts. c. The addition of the overflow parking area would take advantage of existing disrupted areas as a result of work done by Northern Natural Gas. d. The CUP for an Agricultural Entertainment Business at this time does not permit the increase of intensity of the uses, but instead clarifies the permissible uses on the site for staff and the property owners. e. The conditions outlined in both Section 154.018 for Conditional Use Permits and Section 154.033 for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses are met. f. The proposed overflow parking areas (both improved and grass) would reduce or eliminate the parking that may take place on State Highway 36 by visitors to the site. 7) That the following uses on the site are identified as a permitted use in the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning Districts: a. Growing of field crops b. Housing and Care of Livestock c. Growing of Flowers 8) That the following uses on the site are identified as an Agricultural Sales Business or a Wayside stand, both of which are allowed/pemfitted within the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning District: a. Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] b. Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] c. Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] 9) That the following use on the site is identified as incidental to the property and is permitted in all zoning districts. a. Halloween / Holiday decorations 10) That the following uses on the site are not allowed/permitted, nor conditionally permitted on the site: a. Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component b. Seasonal Sales of -fresh flower and plant material [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] c. Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] d, Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Conditional Use Permit is granted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) The Applicants must obtain any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2) The designated parking area shall be 30 feet from all property lines, 3) Trash containers must be located inside or screened in an acceptable manner. 4) The property owners may allow the discharge of firearms during times and dates that the business is not open to the public. This would allow the property owners to continue utilizing their land for private hunting purposes. The discharge of weapons must be in conformance with Lake Elmo City Code requirements. 5) The property owner shall give the city permission to conduct inspections of the property in order to investigate complaints or to provide necessaiy updates to the city files or City Council. 6) No additional structures or facilities related to the operation of agricultural entertainment activities shall be installed or utilized without written approval of the City. 7) Prior to the commencement of any further agricultural entertainment activities on the land approved hereunder, the applicant shall furnish a detailed sketch depicting the placement of structures and activities for review and approval by the City for conformity with the approval. 8) No activity that is not authorized or permissible on the existing lands shall be expanded or relocated onto the additional land approved for an agricultural entertainment use hereunder. 9) If dust complaints are received from the improved parking lot being proposed, the property owner shall implement an acceptable dust abatement technique. Passed and duly adopted this l day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator Attachment A; Resolution 2009 - 047 ( Agricultural Entertainment Business - OPTION C STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-047 A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AGRICULTURAL ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS ON 67 ACRES FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60th Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for an Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit for the entire 67 acres, to clarify existing uses on the site, and to build an overflow parking lot; a copy of which is on file at city hall; WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Boat of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the' Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would include the construction of a 39,900 square foot parking lot. 4) That the proposed Conditional Use Perinit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would encompass 67 acres. However, the applicant has failed to justify the inclusion of approximately 2.5 acres of remote property in the requested Agricultural Entertainment Business. 5) The proposed Conditional Use Permit for an Agricultural Entertainment Business would permit the following uses: a. Corn Maze b. Hay Ride c. Petting Zoo / Farm d. Haunted house e. Seasonal Sales of related Christmas decorations (such as wreaths or other agricultural -type creations) f. Children Activities and Games with anAgricultural component 6) That the proposed Agricultural Entertainment Business Conditional Use Permit does not meet the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Section 154.018) and the review criteria for Agricultural Entertainment Businesses (Section 154.033). a. The inclusion of the 67 acres as an Agricultural Entertainment Business is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as the use is commercial in nature whereas the property is guided for residential development. b. Moreover, applicants own material indicates in a letter from the Washington County Sherriff s Department recently increased concern over traffic issues and enforcement. As such, it is believed that City has sufficient concern over the health, welfare and safety of the corrununity, which will increase with expanded operations. 7) That the following uses on the site are identified as a permitted use in the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning Districts: a. Growing of field crops b. Housing and Care of Livestock c. Growing of Flowers 8) That the following uses on the site are identified as an Agricultural Sales Business or a Wayside stand, both of which are allowed/permitted within the Agricultural or Rural Residential Zoning District: a. Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] b. Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] c. Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are produced on the premises or can meet the definition of "wayside stand"] 9) That the following use on the site is identified as incidental to the property and is permitted in all zoning districts. a. Halloween / Holiday decorations 10) That the following uses on the site are not allowed/permitted, nor conditionally permitted on the site: a, Children Activities and Games without an Agricultural component b. Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"_ c. Seasonal Sale of pumpkins [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] d. Seasonal Sale of Christmas trees [if the products are NOT produced on the premises and can NOT meet the definition of "wayside stand"] CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Conditional Use Permit is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 1 day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO ORDINANCE NO. 08-021 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REZONING APPLICATION OF THE 33.44 ACRE PROPERTY AT 01-029-21-21-0007 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo received an application from Richard and Eileen Bergmann to rezone from Rural Residential to Agricultural the 33.44 acre parcel found at: Sect-O 1 Twp-029 Range-021 PT NE 1 /4-N W 1 /4 & PT W 1 /2-NW 1 /4 NE 1 /4 012921 EXC THEREFROM PT DESC AS FOLL COM AT NE COR SD W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 THN S01DEG09' E ALG E LN SD W1/2 DIST 293.43 FT TO INTER WITH SLY R/W HWY 36 THN S88DEG57'44"W ALG SD SLY RIW DIST 557.70FT TO POB THN SO1DEGO9'E PARL WITH SD E LN OF WI/2 DIST 360.83FT THN S82DEG28'34"W DIST 318.69FT THN WLY & NWLY DIST 333.S1FT ALG TCRV TO RT RAD 197.62FT CENT ANG 96DEG41'43" THN NODEG 49'38"W TANG TO SD CRV DIST 199.75FT TO INTER WITH SD SLY R/W THN N88DEG57'44"E ALG SD R/W DIST 535.14FT TO POB SUBJ TO EASE EXCEPT THAT PT NE1/4-NW1/4 & PT OF W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 S01T29R21 AS FOLL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 THN ON BRG S89DEG47'30"W ALG N LN OF SD W1/2- NW1/4-NE1/4 DIST 353.59FT THN SODEGI9'54"E DIST 294.59FT TO INTER OF SLY R/W LN STATE HWY 36 THN CONT SODEG19'54"E DIST 292.32FT THN S61DEG31'55" W DIST 226.42FT THN S83DEG2O' 18"W DIST 323.13FT THN S89DEG 45'35"W DIST 257.62FT THN SODEGOO'32"E DIST 675.77FT TO S LN OF SD NE1/4-NW1/4 THN N88DEG59'11 "E ALG S LN 474.94 FT TO SE COR OF SD NE1/4-NW1/4 THN N88DEG58"56"E ALG S LN OF SD W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 DIS 660.99 FT TO SE COR OF SD W1/2-NW1/4- NE1/4 THN NODEG19'54"W ALG E LN OF SD W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 DIST 1095,94FT TO INTER OF SD STATE HWY 36 THN N0DEG19'54"W DIST 294.39FT TO POB SUBJ TO EASEMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application, held a public hearing at their regular meeting held November 23, 2009, and recommended approval of the rezoning request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Lake Ehno, Washington County, Minnesota, the rezoning of the parcel from Rural Residential to Agricultural is approved for the following reasons: The rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Agricultural is in conformance with the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. By allowing the rezoning, the minimum lot size would increase, thereby eliminating the ability to subdivide the property. This parcel would be retained in its current configuration, easing the transition to its future guided use as identified by the Comprehensive Plan for RAD — 0.45 DU/Acre (Rural Agricultural Density). ADOPTION DATE, This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo This Ordinance No. 08-021 was adopted on this 1 si day of December, 2009, by a vote of Ayes and Nays. Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce Messelt, City Administrator This Ordinance No. 08-021 was published on the day of , 2009. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-052 A RESOLUTION DENYING A REZONING APPLICATION OF THE 33.44 ACRE PROPERTY AT 01-029-21-21-0007 FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO AGRICULTURAL FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and exis under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and g WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60`h Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") to rezone a 33.44 acre parcel from Rural Residential to Agricultural. The parcel is described as follows: Sect-01 Twp-029 Range-021 PT NE1/4-NW1/4 & PT W1/2-NW1/4 NE1/4 012921 EXC THEREFROM PT DESC AS FOLL COM AT NE COR SD W1/2-NW l/4-NE1/4 1'1-IN SO1DEGO9' E ALG E LN SD W1/2 DIST 293.43 FT TO INTER WITH SLY R/W HWY 36 THN SS8DEG57'44"W ALG SD SLY R/W DIST 557.7OFT TO POB THN SOIDEGO9'E PARL WITH SD E LN OF W1/2 DIST 360.83FT THN S82DEG28'34"W DIST 318.69FT THN WLY & NWLY DIST 333.51FT ALG TCRV TO RT RAD 197.62FT CENT ANG 96DEG41'43" THN NODEG 49'38"W TANG TO SD CRV DIST 199.75FT TO INTER WITH SD SLY R/W THN N88DEG57'44"E ALG SD R/W DIST 535.141,T TO POB SUBJ TO EASE EXCEPT THAT PT NE1/4 NW 1/4 & PT OF W1/2 NW1/4-NE1/4 S01T29R21 AS FOLL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD W1/2-NW1/4- NE1/4 THN ON BRG S89DEG47'30"W ALG N LN OF SD W 1/2 NW 1/4-NE1/4 DIST 353.59FT THN S0DEG19'54"E DIST 294.59FT TO INTER OF SLY R/W LN STATE HWY 36 THN CONT SODEG19'54"E DIST 292.32FT THN S61DEG31'55" W DIST 226.42FT THN S83DEG2O' 18"W DIST 323.13FT THN S89DEG 45'35"W DIST 257.62FT THN SODEGOO'32"E DIST 675.77FT TO S LN OF SD NE1/4-NW1/4 THN N88DEG59'I 1"E ALG S LN 474.94 FT TO SE COR OF SD NE1/4=NW1/4 THN N88DEG58"56"E ALG S LN OF SD W1/2-NW1/4-NE1/4 DIS 660.99 FT TO SE COR OF SD W1/2-NW1/4- NE1/4 THN NODEG19'54"W ALG E LN OF SD W1/2-NW1/4- NE1/4 DIST 1095.94FT TO INTER OF SD STATE HWY 36 THN NODEG19'54"W DIST 294.39FT TO POB SUBJ TO EASEMENT WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Map Amendment are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.020. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.020 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed rezoning of the property is from Rural Residential to Agriculturai for the entire 33.44 acres. 4) The. Rural Residential zoning district has a 10 acre minimum lot size requirement while the Agricultural zoning district has a 40 acre minimum lot size. The rezoning of the parcel to Agricultural would result in non-conformance to the minimum lot size as the parcel is 33.44 acres. 5) Relocating the greenhouses would still allow for reasonable use of the current property, thereby resulting in a de facto expansion of business activity and, with it, traffic concerns and other public health, life and safety considerations. 6) The proposed rezoning would be preemptive in nature as the applicant's intent is tOinove a greenhouse to the property which may or may not be in conflict with a currently unknown, unplanned or unscheduled future reconfiguration of the intersection of County Road 17 and State Highway 36. 7) As public infrastructure would be significantly impacted by any re -zoning and subsequent access road and greenhouse relocation, the public stands to have such disruption of public services occur on multiple times and at significantly increased cost due to this premature rezoning; 8) The applicant retains reasonable use of the affected property today and, with approval of the Agricultural Entertainment Business CUP, is allowed for reasonable expansion of said business within the acceptable parameters established by the City. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for rezoning the 33.44 acre parcel is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A, Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator Conditional Use Permit Amendment — OPTION A STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-051 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE 24 ACRES TO THE EXISTING 43 ACRES FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE AT 11211 60TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60th Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit to add 24 acres to the existing 43 acres and to build an overflow parking lot; WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit Amendment and are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment is to include an additional 24 acres to the existing 43 acres (See Attachment A) and to allow construction of a 39,900 square foot overflow parking lot. The applicants are intending to move existing structures (greenhouses) and uses (hay ride and corn maze) to this area at a time in the future if and when the reconfiguration of County Road 17 and State Highway 36 and a subsequent frontage road displaces those uses and structures. The Conditional Use Permit amendment would allow the movement of the following use and structure: a. Greenhouse growing range b, Sale of concessions c, Seasonal Sales of fresh flower and plant material, pumpkins, and Christmas trees (This is not contingent upon whether or not the produce was grown on the site. Produce can be grown elsewhere and sold on this property.) 4) That the Conditional Use Permit Amendment meets the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Section 154.018). a. The movement of a greenhouse to a location more remote from existing residential homes will reduce negative impacts. b. The proposed overflow parking areas (both improved and grass) would reduce or eliminate the parking that may take place on State Highway 36 by visitors to the site. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Conditional Use Permit amendment is granted, provided the following conditions are met: 1) The applicants must obtain any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2) The designated parking area shall be 30 feet from all property lines. 3) The property owner shall give the city permission to conduct inspections of the property in order to investigate complaints or to provide necessary updates to the city files or City Council. 4) The physical relocation of the existing greenhouse would not require a further conditional use permit amendment as the applicant has identified a future location with this application. Instead the applicant must comply with the process outlined in Section 151.070 Plan Review. 5) If the approved activities are expanded or additional activities or buildings are added, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment must first be approved. 6) If dust complaints are received from the improved parking lot being proposed, the property owner shall implement an acceptable dust abatement technique. Passed and duly adopted this 1 st day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Ehno, Minnesota, Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator Attachment A; Resolution 2009 - 051 Proposed Additional ) CUP Area 4 Acres r .4Y.,,,,saqaFeek .7• Conditional Use Permit Amendment — OPTION B STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF WASHINGTON CITY OF LAKE ELMO Resolution No. 2009-051 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE 24 ACRES TO THE EXISTING 43 ACRES FOR COUNTRY SUN FARM AND GREENHOUSE AT 11211 60TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, the City of Lake Elmo is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State ofMinnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard and Eileen Bergmann on behalf of Country Sun Farm and Greenhouse (the "Applicants"), 11211 60th Street North, have submitted an application to the City of Lake Elmo (the "City") for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit to add 24 acres to the existing 43 acres and to build an overflow parking lot; WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.017; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a public hearing on said matter on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission has submitted its report and recommendation to the City Council as part of a Staff Memorandum dated December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said matter at its December 1, 2009, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Board of Adjustment makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1) That the procedures for obtaining said Conditional Use Permit Amendment and are found in the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance, Section 154.018. 2) That all the submission requirements of said Section 154.018 have been met by the Applicant. 3) That the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment is to include an additional 24 acres to the existing 43 acres (See Attachment A) and to allow construction of a 39,900 square foot overflow parking lot. The applicants are intending to move existing structures (greenhouses) and uses (hay ride and corn maze) to this area at a time in the future if and when the reconfiguration of County Road 17 and State Highway 36 and a subsequent frontage road displaces those uses and structures. The Conditional Use Permit amendment would allow the movement of the following use and structure: a. Greenhouse growing range b. Sale of concessions 4) That the uses identified in the existing Conditional Use Permit are not allowed without the rezoning of the property to the Agricultural zoning district. 5) The proposed amendment, as stated by the applicant, is intended to allow the movement of an existing greenhouse to the property due to a future reconfiguration of County Road 17 and State Highway 36. This is preemptive in nature as a plan for the reconfiguration has not been approved, nor is a timeline identified for when the project will take place. a. The area identified for movement of the greenhouse may be in conflict with a future frontage road, public utilities, or other improvements in conjunction with a future reconfiguration of the interchange. 6) That the Conditional Use Pennit Amendment does not meet the review criteria for Conditional Use Permits (Section 154.018). a. Without road reconfiguration, and/or until such road reconfiguration occurs, the applicant would still have reasonable use of existing property, in addition to the property identified within this CUP. 7) The expansion of the CUP property will likely lead to an expansion of the existing uses which would negatively impact traffic conditions on the site. a. Applicants own application material includes MNDOT concern over increased traffic problems, leading the City to conclude serious community life, health and safety considerations would be detrimentally harmed by approval of this CUP. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Based on the foregoing, the Applicants' application for a Conditional Use Permit amendment is denied. Passed and duly adopted this 1st day of December 2009 by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Dean A. Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Bruce A. Messelt, City Administrator ( Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113-3174 September 15, 2009 Mr. Kyle Klatt Planning Director City of LakeEhno 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake E1mo, MN 55042 EV SEP 1 2009 CITY OP LAKE Ei SUBJECT: Country Sun Farm and Garden Center OVin/DOT) Review #509-034 SE Quadrant of TH 36 and Lake Elmo Ave (CR 17) LakeElmo/Washington County Control Section 8204 Dear Mr, Klatt: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced site plan, Please address the following comments before any further development 'Mn/DOT supports the owner's plan for parking expansion. This shouldprovide enough parking on.site accessibility to eliminate the need for parking on the TB 36 shoulder, which has serious safety concern. Currently, the propertylias right -in right -out access offTH36 as well as reasonable access off CSAH 17. Washington County has been reviewing concepts for a potential interchange at Lake Eh() Ave (CSAH17) /TH36 in the future. A future interchange at this location will impact this property an1 its current access loeations. Water Resources: A Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to Mn/DOT right-of-way will not be increased. The additional parking area will add impervious surface, which could increase flow to Mn/DOT Right -of -Way, Also, with the current it. is unknown if any drainage work or grading is proposed on Mn/DOT Right -of -Way. The drainage permit application along with a current plan sheets, site layout, and copies of the information listed. below, should be submitted to: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Permit Office 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: . 1) A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours, 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off -site areas that draM tothe project area should also be includ.ed in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be,indicated by arrows, 3) Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2,10, 50 and 100 year rain events, and An equal opportunity employer 4) An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. Please direct 'questions concerning drainage issues to Bryce Fossand (651-234-7529) or (brvcelossandedot.state,mri.us) of MniDOT's Water Resources section, Permits': As noted previous, a drainage permit is required. Further, any work that impacts MulDOT right- of-way will require a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's utility website at httn://www.dot.state.rnmushrtilitv/fonns/index.htrnl, Please include 1 NJ size plan set and 1 • 11x1 7 plan set far each application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig, MnDOT's Metro Permits Section, at (651} 234-7911, As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plats and site plansto: Development Reviews Kin/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require either: 1, One (1)electronic pdf, version of the plans (the electronic version of the plan needs to be developed for,11" x 17" printable format with sufficient detail so that all features are legible); 2, Seven (7) sets of full size plans, if submitting the plans electronically, please use the pdf. format. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviewsastatesin.us provided that each separate e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. Otherwise, the plans can be submitted -on a compact disk, If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7792, Sincerely, Jon P. ,Solberg Senior Planner fl Copy via G roupwise to: Ann Braden Richard Scarrow Adam Josephson Buck Craig Douglas Nelson Wayne Lemaniak Tod Sherman Bryce Fossand RESOLUTION CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE.PERMIT TO Richard Bergmann - Berry Farm Greenhouse 1'OR qrppnhnusP, and sales_ lo+ IN THE AG ZONING DISTRICT FROM JANUARY' , 198 3 through DECEMBER 31, 198 WHEREAS, Richard Bergman has applied for a Conditional Use:Permit for Greenhouse 6, sales lot On: 5 534.9 ft of the N 925.9 ft of the W 1/2, of the NW 1/4 of Sec. 1. T 29, t.21W. at 5833 Lake Elmo Ave. N. in, the City of,Lake Elmo from rmary 1, 198 3 • through December 31, 198 3 ; and has submitted all required information and fees for the application for'such permit; and, . , WHEREAS, Section 301.070 D. 1. b. (1) and (5) of the Municipal Code of Lake Elmo requires a Conditional Use Permit to operate a trreenhouse and sales lot in the City of Lake Elmo; and, WHEREAS, Sections 302.130 C. D. E. F. G. of the Municipal Code of Lake Elmo sets forth the conditions under Which said permit may be granted and such use permitted; and, WHEREAS, the applicant meets or exceeds all the conditions set Eorth above; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo, THAT, the Conditional Use Permit for a greenhouse and sales at .5833 Lake Elmo Ave, N. is hereby granted to Richard Bergman from January 1, 198 3 through Decetber 31, 198 subject to the followinconditions: 'This Conditional Use Permit may be rescinded, after a 2 week notice and a public bearing, if the City Council finds that the public health, safety, or welfare is jeopordized. ADOPTED, this the • 4th day of JanuarY 198 3 , by the City Council of the City of Lake 'Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota A kAki, Laurence, E. Whittaker City Adminis ator CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2004-0Z9 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COUNTRY SUN FARM GREENHOUSE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND APPROVING THE SECTION 520 SITE PLAN WHEREAS, Richard Bergman, Country Sun Farrn Greenhouses, at 11211 60th Street North, has made application to amend their Conditional Use Permit to add green house structures of 1,920 square feet (each) to either end (east and west) of the existing retail structure. WHEREAS, at its April 26, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission • recommended approval of Richard Bergman's request to amend the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of two green houses at Country Sun Farm based on the following Findings: 1, Although the additional growing function at this facility may also result in additional retail function, the traffic safety concern is mitigated by the traffic light that is about to be, installed at Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue. 2. The planned addition to the facility will be used as a growing space, though it may have a duplicate retail use The applicants are a family whose business is deeply rooted in agriculture. They are trying to pass on an agricultural business from one generation to another, and with the hope to pass it on t the next generation in the future. Their business is primarily growing and the sale of agricultural products grown on site. WHEREAS, at its May 4, 2004 meeting, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the application for a Section 520 Site Plan amendment of Richard Bergmann and Country Sun Farm, plans staff dated April 22, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo City Council approves the application of Richard Bergman, Country Sun Farm Green houses, to amend the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for two additions to the retail sales building of approximately 2,000 square feet each, per plans staff dated April 22, 2004, and based on the Findings recommended by the Platming Commission, ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council an the 4th day of May, 2004. ATTEST: Acting City Administrator