HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet; 12-13-10NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, December 13, 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. November 8, 2010
4. Public Hearings
a. D &T TRUCKING INTERIM USE PERMIT RENEWAL: Review of a request
to renew an Interim Use Permit for a Bus /Trucking Terminal facility at 11530
Hudson Boulevard South.
5. Business Items
a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Discussion of potential review
committees and update process.
b. ZONING DISTRICT UPDATE: Discussion of deficiencies with the existing
Zoning Ordinance and consideration of a revised use classification system.
6. Updates (Verbal)
a. City Council
i. December 7th — Response to Detachment Petition; Special Event Permit
Ordinance, 5 -year Capital Improvement Program
b. Staff Updates
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
DRAFT
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of November 8, 2010
Chairman Van Zandt called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sidon, Britz, Hall, Pearson,
McGinnis,Van Zandt, Williams and Ziertman. Absent: Fliflet, Pelletier and Van Erem.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt.
Agenda
Minutes —September 13, 2010
M /S /P, Pearson / Bidon, move to approve as presented. Vote: 7:0. Williams abstained.
September 27, 2010
Commissioner Williams said "now" should be changed to "not" on page three,
"commend" should be "comment" on page five, and the lines should be removed from
the bottom of page four.
M /S /P, Williams /Ziertman, move to approve as amended. Vote: 6:0. Britz and
McGinnis abstained.
Public Hearing — OP Buffer Setback for Meyers Pineridge Development
Planning Director Klatt summarized the proposed revisions to the buffer setbacks for the
Meyers Pineridge development.
Commissioner Williams identified that a 100 foot buffer setback from the North side
would not impact existing structures.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:09 P.M.
No one spoke.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M.
M/S /P, Bidon/Pearson, move to recommend approval of the buffer setbacks suggested by
staff.
Commissioner Williams suggested leaving the setback at 100 feet from the North.
Vote: 7:1. Commissioner Williams voted against.
Public Hearing — Zoning Text Amendment: Addition of Rear Yard Setback and
Reference to Buffer Setback for OP Developments
Planning Director Klatt identified this as a follow up to previous work the commission
has accomplished and direction given to staff. Staff is suggesting the addition of a 15-
foot rear yard setback as all other zoning districts have a rear yard setback identified. He
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11 -8 -10
r•�
said staff is also suggesting the addition of a reference to the buffer setbacks within the
chart for clarification and ease of use.
Commissioner Williams asked for the rear yard setback in other residential zoning
districts.
Planning Director Klatt said the R -I district's rear yard setback was 40 feet and the RR
district was 40 feet, but they are typically larger lots. He said those are setbacks for the
primary structure, but the rear yard setbacks for accessory buildings are 10 feet.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:21 P.M.
No one spoke.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:21 P.M.
Commissioner Williams stated he believed 15 feet was too small as the R -1 zoning
district has lot sizes relatively close to that of Open Space Preservation developments and
has a 40 foot rear yard setback.
M /S /P, Williams /Hall, move to recommend approval of the suggested changes, but with a
20 foot rear yard setback.
Commission Britz suggested changing the text to "See city staff or website for individual
development requirements."
Commissioners Williams and Hall approved the suggested change.
Vote: 8:0.
Public Hearing — Special Event Permit Ordinance
Planning Director Klatt noted that the commission discussed this item roughly a year
prior, but changes have been made to the draft since then. Mr. Klatt asked the
commission to review and consider a special event permit ordinance which regulates
temporary, outdoor privately- sponsored events open to the general public where such
event would not otherwise be permitted under the City's zoning regulations. He said this
ordinance has been revised to allow a temporary agricultural sales business in certain
circumstances.
Commissioner Britz said the proposed text requires an application not less than 30 days
before the event, but asked if a case for an appeal occurs, would the 30 days be long
enough.
Planning Director Klatt said the 30 days is a minimum, but if there was some question
that an application may be denied, the applicant should be in talking to staff early.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11 -8 -10
Commissioner Bidon asked if there should be a minimum attendance threshold for a
required permit.
Planning Director Klatt said he thinks there is room for staff discretion to determine if a
permit is not needed. He said a private event may have a known number of people
expected to attend whereas a public event may be more difficult to judge.
Commissioner Williams identified that on page three, a Council waiver could be
requested. He asked what would happen if an event spilled outside due to the number of
people who attended.
Planning Director Klatt said that there is no way to regulate everything and there will
always be some grey areas, even with this ordinance and permit in place. He said other
regulations such as noise and odor can still be enforced, even in cases where a Special
Event Permit would not be required.
Commissioner Ziertman asked about the agricultural sales component of the Special
Event Permit. She said she thought the intent was to supplement a failed crop and was
therefore wondering why the proposed fee is higher than the regular Special Event Permit
when the review should be less intensive of staff s rime. She also asked why there are
additional requirements proposed for the agricultural sales Special Event Permit that are
not imposed upon the initial farm.
Planning Director Klatt said the Council has the ability to waive requirements. He said
staff can review the fee schedule again.
Commissioner Williams identified that the city had previously discussed administrative
fees, but on page four it references a misdemeanor under enforcement and penalties. He
asked how the administrative fees would relate to the enforcement of this ordinance.
Planning Director Klatt said he would add reference language to the appropriate section.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59 P.M.
Neil Krueger, 4452 Lake Elmo 4venue
Mr. Krueger asked how the interim use permit was related to the Special Event Permit.
He asked what were the steps to sell Christmas trees at Krueger's Christmas Tree Farm.
He said he has not been informed about the rules as they are being made and thinks it
may harm fanners' businesses.
Planning Director Klatt said that selling materials grown on site does not require a permit
from the city, bringing in materials from off -site requires an Interim Use Permit, and a
Special Event Permit is a secondary tier to do interim sales for up to three months.
Planning Director Klatt said it is his understanding that the Krueger Christmas Tree Farm
sells what is grown on site, so Mr. Krueger would not need any permits from the city.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11 -8 -10
Wa
Mr. Krueger asked if he would need a Special Event Permit to sell wreaths and Christmas
tree stands.
Planning Director Klatt said he believes there are provisions in code that allow them to
sell those items and the Special Event Permit relates to agricultural products brought in
from off -site.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:08 P.M.
Commission Williams suggested adding language to 2F1B "and playback devices."
M /S /P, Van Zandt/Williams, move to table the ordinance to incorporate the many
changes suggested by the commission. Vote: 8:0.
Business Item — Interim Use Permit for Open Sales Lot at 9200 Hudson Boulevard
Planning Director Klatt informed the commission that this application was in front of
them at the last meeting and was tabled due to some issues the applicants wanted to
review with staff. He said staff has since met with the applicants, the attorney has
reviewed the terms and conditions of the Interim Use Permit, and it is believed there is an
agreement both sides can agree to. He summarized the application and recommended
approval of the Interim Use Permit with a few additional conditions.
Chairman Van Zandt said he visited their site, but found even vehicles that were deemed
totaled were still of nice quality and were not an eyesore.
Commissioner Pearson asked if the Interim Use Permit (IUP) would be void if the
property was sold.
Planning Director Klatt said it is possible the applicants could transfer ownership of the
business just by informing the Council at that time and would not be required to apply for
a new IUP. He said typically an IUP could be worded to end when a transfer of
ownership occurs. He said it would be likely the IUP would be revised to reflect the new
ownership.
Commissioner Britz said there may be a discrepancy in the length as in the permit
agreement it states 10 years, but the other references state 5 years.
Planning Director Klatt said it should be 10 years.
Commissioner Britz asked what was the estimated timeline for sewer being extended to
this property.
Planning Director Klatt said the Comprehensive Plan says 2015 — 2020, but it is a guess
at this time.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11 -8 -10
DRAFT
M /S /P, Williams /Pearson, move to recommend approval of Interim Use Permit for an
Open Sales Lot at 9200 Hudson Boulevard. Vote: 8:0.
Business Item — Election Results
Planning Director Klatt congratulated Commissioner Pearson on his election to the City
Council, which will become effective January Is`. He said Councilmember Park was
reelected and Couneilmember DeLapp was not. He said Mayor Johnston was not elected
to the County Commissioner position and will finish his term as Mayor.
Business Item — Commissioner Terms
Planning Director Klatt identified five commissioner terns that are expiring at the end of
2010 with one commissioner unable to reapply for a full voting member position. He
asked the commissioners to let staff know if they were interested in reapplying.
City Council Updates
Planning Director Klatt said the Interim Use Permit and Holding District ordinances were
approved by the City Council.
Staff Updates
Planning Director Klatt asked the commission if they would like to cancel or reschedule
their December 27a' meeting.
Chairman Van Zandt asked for a straw vote to cancel the second meeting of December.
There was unanimous support.
Commission Concerns
None.
Adjournment:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11 -8 -10
Planning Commission
Date: 12/13/10
Comprehensive Plan Discussion
Business Item
Item: 5a
ITEM: Discussion concerning Comprehensive Plan Update committees and process
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
REVIEWED BY: Kelii Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to spend a brief amount of time at its next meeting discussing future
planning efforts related to the Village Area and other potential Comprehensive Planning issues. As a
follow -up to the Commission's discussion from its last meeting, Staff is suggesting that the Planning
Commission consider the creation of two separate work groups that will be responsible for future planning
efforts concerning the Village Area and 1 -94 Corridor. Staff is also recommending that the City begin
preparing for a public open house sometime early next year to provide an update to the community on the
Village and 1 -94 area planning process.
WORK GROUP DISCUSSION:
In general, the Planning Commission has been very supportive of creating separate work groups to help
move planning efforts forward both in the Village Area and along the 1 -94 Corridor. There have been
some questions raised, however, concerning the goals for each group in addition to the specific functions
that they would be asked to accomplish. This is especially critical given the amount of planning work that
has been accomplished to date in the Village Area compared to the 1 -94 Corridor. It is anticipated that the
Village group will be heavily involved with developing implementation strategies while the 1 -94 group will
be asked to create an overall vision and plan for the corridor that is generally consistent with the City's
Future Land Use Map.
With these differences in mind, Staff is working on some suggested goals and tasks for each group, and
offers the following as a very general beginning for documenting these goals and tasks:
Village Area Group:
GOAL: Implementation of the Village Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan for the Village
TASKS: Development of design standards
Adoption of revised zoning map
Consideration of plans for streets, parks, and public lands
Identification of primary and secondary park areas
Review of trail and pedestrian connections
Creation of road and sidewalk standards
Tracking of the AUAR mitigation plan
Review of development phasing
Research of alternative zoning approaches (i.e. form -based zoning)
Integration of airport zoning into City codes
Recommendation of green belt preservation strategies
Review of applicable past planning documents
Discussion of impacts to existing Village residents
1 -94 Grouo
GOAL: Development of a revised land use map for the 1- 94/101h Street Corridor.
TASKS: Review of existing future land use map
Development of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Research of current and future market trends
Analysis of areas most suited for housing
Analysis of areas most suited for commercial activity
Investigation of high employment commercial uses
Review of proposed road network
Consideration of mitigation strategies for existing development
Determination of appropriate role for existing commercial land uses
Review of development phasing timelines
Review of potential public improvements
Consideration of transit opportunities
Development of design and development standards
Staff is presenting the above list for discussion purposes only, but will use any feedback from the
Commission to refine this draft list and to prepare a document that can be adopted prior to the creation of
each planning group.
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission consider promoting an open house early next year to
provide a forum for dialogue with residents of Lake Elmo concerning the current status of the Village and
1 -94 Corridor planning efforts. There has not been a public open house specific to these planning areas
since the review of Village AUAR development scenarios that was conducted in 2008, and Staff believes
that the timing is appropriate for additional public discussions in advance of any formal public hearings.
An open house would give Staff an opportunity to discuss the City's ongoing planning efforts with any
interested parties (and specifically the land use plan updates that the Planning Commission will be
developing in 2011) in a more informal setting.
Staff would like to plan for a late January or early February open house, and could bring the Commission
more information concerning the topics to be covered at its first meeting in January. This timing will also
correspond well with the development of the Commission's work plan for 2011, which will also be brought
forward in January.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational item and no action is necessary from the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS: (None)
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Introduction and Presentation by Staff......
Questions from the Commission ...............
Planning Commission Discussion
...........Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Chair & Commission Members
. ............................... Chair Facilitates
Planning Commission
Date: 12/13/10
Public Hearing
Items: 4a
ITEM: Hold a public hearing to consider the renewal of an Interim Use Permit for
a truck terminal within a HD -A -BP zone at 11530 Hudson Boulevard.
REQUESTED BY: Terry Emerson, E &E Properties, plicant
SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
REVIEWED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Terry Emerson of EN
Properties to renew an Interim Use Permit for a Bus/Trucking Terminal Interim Use Permit at
11530 Hudson Boulevard North that was originally approved by the Council on December 91h of
2009. At the time this permit was approved by the City, the City Code specified that an Interim
Use could not exceed two years in duration; furthermore, this provision was incorporated into the
Interim Use Agreement for the applicant's Interim Use Permit. Staff has conducted an on -site
review of the site with the applicant, and is recommending that the City grant a two -year renewal
to allow the trucking terminal to continue operating on this location.
I ieTa3fto37iI / 1
Because the Interim Use Permit is not operating under circumstances that are different than
originally described in the initial permit request, Staff will not be providing the Planning
Commission and City Council with a new Staff report. Instead, the original report filed with the
Council in December of 2008 is reprinted for review. Please note that although the City's
regulations pertaining to Interim Uses has been updated since the applicant's permit was granted,
the general findings and conclusions from the original report are still valid.
The trucking terminal currently operating from 11530 Hudson Boulevard is allowed as an Interim
Use subject to the standards for a non - agricultural low impact use. The trucking company has
been in operation since early 2009. As part of its initial approval of the Interim Use Permit, the
City Council specified that the permit be reviewed after a one -year interval of time. A review was
completed by the Council in February of 2010 and no issues were identified that impacted the
applicant's ability to continue operating on the site.
The City's Interim Use Ordinance includes special requirements for the review of a renewal
request that requires notification of the renewal be sent to surrounding property owners. If there
are no objections to the interim use permit renewal expressed within 10 days of this notice, the
City Council can approve the request by resolution. Should any objections be filed with the City,
the permit must be reviewed as a new application. The 10 day comment period will end on
December 13, 2010, which is the date scheduled for the public hearing. Staff has not received
any comments to date, and will be preparing a resolution of approval for consideration by the City
Council at its December 14, 2010 meeting.
STAFF REPORT:
Staff recently toured the site, reviewed the City's ordinances regarding interim uses and non-
agricultural low impact uses, and examined the conditions included as part of the resolution
approving the bus /trucking terminal operation. Based on this review, it appears that the use is in
conformance with all applicable requirements. Staff would like to specifically note the following:
Traffic: The non - agricultural low impact use standards specify that the daily vehicle trips
from the site cannot exceed 6 trips per acre of agricultural land. Because the agricultural
area owned by the applicant is 70 acres in size, the total number of vehicle trips cannot
exceed 420 per day. The applicant has estimated that there are no more than 120 trips
in and out of the site every day by trucks and employee vehicles. Staff's own
observations during visits to the site since it began operations, in addition to daily trips
along Manning Avenue, have supported this estimate. For example, during a visit to the
site that lasted one -half of an hour on December 9th (mid- morning), Staff observed only
three trucks entering and none leaving the site.
Site Operation. The daily use of the site has not changed substantially from the way it
was originally run as a bus garage. Although the semi - trailers being parked on the site
are generally larger than the school buses that previously were stored and serviced here,
the number of daily trips is substantially lower now than in the recent past. The overall
site activities, including exterior storage, light maintenance /servicing of vehicles, and
refueling are very similar to past activities, but with fewer vehicles and trips into and
outside of the property.
Landscaping. One of the conditions of approval stated "that additional screening be
provided in all locations recommended by the City Forester in order to replace vegetation
that has either died or been removed ". The applicant did plant some additional trees on
the site in early 2009, and replaced more trees in the fall of this year along the northern
and eastern site boundaries. Given the replanting that has occurred since the Interim
Use Permit was issued, the applicant has been demonstrating a clear intent to comply
with the original landscape plan since the issuance of the Interim Use Permit
There is a gap in the landscaping screen immediately north of the office /maintenance
building on the property, but the Council has thus far allowed this gap to exist because it
is in a potential expansion area for the facility. Since the condition of the trees and other
landscaping on the site will vary over time, Staff is recommending that a landscaping
maintenance clause continue to be included as a condition of the Interim Use Permit
renewal and further evaluated as part of any future reviews or renewals.
Interim Use Permit/ConsentAgreement. The Interim Use provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance (and the resolution of approval) require that an applicant for an interim use
permit enter into a consent agreement with the City that clarifies the terms and
requirements under which the interim use can operate. The City Attorney drafted an
agreement for consideration by the Council last year, which was executed in early 2010.
With the request for renewal, the City will need to consider and approve a revised
consent agreement, which at a minimum, should reference the new termination date for
the interim use.
Please note that in accordance with the Planning Department's work plan for coming year, the
City Council will be reviewing the future land use plan along the 1 -94 corridor. This land use
review will give the Council an additional opportunity to consider the interim use activity within the
context of the larger 1 -94 corridor plans before any further renewals are needed. The applicant's
site is also one of the properties that could be impacted by the trunk sewer project, which would
make sanitary sewer service available to this site earlier than would otherwise have been
possible. In the short term, the potential sewer project should not have any immediate impacts
on the operation of the interim use.
The findings described in the 2008 Staff report are all still relevant and applicable to the current
request; and therefore, these general findings will be referenced in the draft resolution of approval
for the Interim Use Permit renewal.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A revised consent agreement noting the renewal request and revised termination date has been
drafted for consideration by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit renewal request to allow the applicant to
continue operating a truck terminal at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South based on the following:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a non-
agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code standards
for the issuance of an Interim Use.
Staff is further recommending that all previous conditions of approval as referenced in the
approved Interim Use Permit Agreement be included with this recommendation:
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
- Introduction ............... ...............................
- Report by staff .......... ...............................
- Questions from the Commission .............
- Applicant Comments ...............................
- Questions of the Applicant ......................
- Open the Public Hearing .........................
- Close the Public Hearing .........................
- Call for a motion ....... ...............................
- Discussion of Commission on the motion
- Action by the Planning Commission........
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Application Form (renewal)
2.
Legal Description
3.
Application Update
4.
Draft Resolution No. 2010 -074
5.
Draft Consent Agreement (revised)
6.
Location Map
7.
Staff Report — From 2008
8.
Site Plan (submitted in 2008)
........................ Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
........................ Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
.................... Chair & Commission Members
................... ..........................Chair facilitates
.................... Chair & Commission Members
.............................. ............................... Chair
......................... ............................... Chair
............ ............................... Chair Facilitates
............ ............................... Chair Facilitates
.................... Chair & Commission Members
City of Lake Elmo
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
j Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑ Zoning District Amendment
❑ Text Amendment
❑ Flood Plain C.U.P.
Conditional Use Permit
❑ Conditional Use Pennit (C.U.P.)
APPLICANT:
TELEPHONES:
FEE OWNER:
TELEPHONES:
❑ Variance * (See below)
❑ Minor Subdivision
❑ Lot Line Adjustment
❑ Residential Subdivision
Sketch /Concept Plan
❑ Site & Building Plan Review
(Mailing
(Work)
0
PROPERTY LOCATION (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Description):
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST:
l—
DEC — 2 zujUee
Preliminary/Final Plat
O 01 — 10 Lots
O 11 —20 Lots
O 21 Lots or More
❑ Excavating & Grading Permit
}ppeal ❑ PUD
leiAee)M dye le Ai-t
(Fax)
N
*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:
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 a lication procedures and hereby agree to pay all statements received from the Citv pertaining to
additlao —alla nlication ex ense.
signet ur Applicant Date Signature of Applicant
Date
1/22/2004 City of Lake Elmo • 3800 Laverne Avenue Nonh • Lake Elmo • 55042 . 651 -777 -5510 • Fax 651 - 777 -9615
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 36, To- -nship 29
North, Ra2ge 21 West, Washington County, M nmesota hi= eare:ly- of the Wes
33.CC feet (2 rods) thereof, EXCEPT that par des:gnated as Parcel 4-1 on Minnesota
Department of Transportation Righz of Way Plat No. 32 -357 State Project No. 3292
(94- 392)9C4, recorded as Document No. 42155/ in the office of the Counr�-
Recorder, Washington County, Mnnesota.
Subject to highway easements in favor of Washington County as described in Book
253 of Deeds, page 91, and Book 309 of Deeds, page 331, of record, and on file in
said office of the Counter Recorder.
Also, subject to highway easements in favor of the State of NErmesota as described in
Book lC9 of Deeds, page 622, Book 109 of Deeds, page 638, and Book 220 of
Deeds, page 11, of record and on file in said office of the County Recorder.
December 2, 2010
City of Lake Elmo,
For the past two years E &E Properties has leased its' building /yard to D &T Trucking.
They have been excellent tenants. I have not received one complaint in regards to their
operation from the surrounding land owners or the City of Lake Elmo.
D &T currently is operating at less than previously submitted trip calculations. They are
hopeful and project business to pick up. They do not anticipate surpassing the estimated
totals submitted originally.
Heins Nursery has replaced 3 trees that had died this year. I believe that I have met all
requirements the City had asked of me.
Respectfitkly; - "`
Terry E er
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -74
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A RENEWAL FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A BUSITRUCK TREMINAL AT 11530 HUDSON BOULEVARD SOUTH AND
APPROVING A REVISED CONSENT AGREEMENT FOR THE INTERIM USE
RENEWAL TIME PERIOD
WHEREAS, Terry Emerson, E & E Properties, 11530 Hudson Boulevard South,
has submitted a request to renew an Interim Use Permit related to a non - agricultural low
impact use at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South establishing a bus /truck terminal in a HD-
A-BP zoning district.
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on
November 10, 2008, and reviewed and recommended approval of the Interim Use
Permit for a bus /truck terminal on the site based on the following findings:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a non-
agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
WHEREAS, Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code requires the applicant to
enter into a consent agreement with the City the specifies the terms and conditions of
the interim use; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the Interim Use Permit request
and consent agreement at its December 1 and December 9, 2008 meetings and
approved the Interim Use Permit and consent agreement at its December 9, 2008
meeting;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 13,
2010, and reviewed and recommended approval of the renewal request concerning the
Interim Use Permit for a bus /truck terminal on the site based on the findings that were
included in the City original approval; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the renewal request concerning
the Interim Use Permit request and revised consent agreement at its December 14,
2010 meeting;
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lake Elmo City Council hereby
approves the renewal of the Interim Use Permit at 11530 Hudson Boulevard South to
establish a bus /truck terminal as a non - agricultural low impact use and authorizes the
execution of the revised consent agreement for this interim use subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the applicant signs the approved consent agreement with the City in
accordance with Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code.
2) That additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the City
Forester in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been removed.
The intent of this condition is to provide for full screening of the interim use.
3) That the interim use will be valid for a period of 2 years from the date of the
renewal of the Interim Use Permit (December 14, 2012).
4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned or
when public sanitary sewer is provided to the site.
This resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo on the 14`h day
of December 2010, by a vote of _Ayes and _ Nays.
Dean A. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Bruce Messelt, City Administrator
(SEAL)
TO] I.
1.0 Parties. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit ( "Agreement ") is
entered into by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota statutory
(`City "); and E & E Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation
('Applicant').
2.0 Recitals.
A. Applicant is the record fee owner of the following described property
situated in Lake Elmo, MN (`Property'):
That part of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, Washington
County, Minnesota lying easterly of the West 33.00 feet (2
rods) thereof, EXCEPT that part designated as Parcel 44 on
Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat
No. 82 -35, State Project No. 8292 (94 -392) 904, recorded as
Document No. 424557 in the office of the County recorder,
Washington County, Minnesota.
Subject to highway easements in favor of Washington
County described in Book 258 of Deeds, page 91 and Book
309 of Deeds, page 831, of record, and on file in said office
of the County Recorder.
Also, subject to highway easements in favor of the State of
Minnesota as described in Book 109 of Deeds, page 622,
Book 109 of Deeds, page 638, and Book 220 of Deeds,
page 11, of record and on file in said office of the County
Recorder.
B. The Property is zoned HD -A -BP.
C. Interim uses are allowed in the HD -A -BP zoning district subject to the
regulations contained in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.019.
D. Applicant has requested that the City allow a portion of the Property to be
used as a bus /truck terminal as illustrated on the Site Plan attached as
Exhibit A (Site Plan):
E. On the 30`h day of October 2008, Applicant submitted a completed
application for an Interim Use Permit.
F. On the 10th day of November, 2008, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission,
at a public hearing, reviewed the Interim Use Permit application, city staff
comments and reports, Applicant's comments and reports, public
comments, and recommended approval of the interim bus /truck terminal
use subject to certain conditions.
G. On the 1 st day of December, 2008, and on the 9th day of December, 2008,
the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the Interim Use Permit application,
city staff comments and reports, Applicant's comments and reports, public
comments, and the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission, and agreed to authorize the interim use subject to the terms
and conditions as specified in Section 154.019 of the Zoning Ordinance
and Resolution 2008 -056 approving the interim use permit.
H. On the 2"d day of February, 2010, the Lake Elmo City Council completed a
one -year review of the interim use permit and authorized the Mayor to
execute a consent agreement with the Applicant.
I. On December 14, 2010 the Lake Elmo City Council approved a request to
renew the Interim Use Permit for an additional two years, and authorized
the Mayor to execute a consent agreement with the Applicant that
includes the new termination date.
3.0 Terms and Conditions. The Lake Elmo City Council hereby authorizes and
Applicant, for itself, and its successors and assigns, agree that the interim
bus /truck terminal use shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. The Applicant, and its successors and assigns, shall have no
entitlement to future re- approval of the Interim Use Permit.
B. Applicant and its successors and assigns, agree that in the event of
a full or partial taking of the Property by a governmental unit that
the value of the Property taken will be based on its highest and best
use as it existed prior to the approval of the Interim Use Permit.
C. The interim use shall be located on that portion of the Applicant's
Property illustrated on the Site Plan. The remainder of Applicant's
Property shall continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
D. Applicant shall replace any trees that have died or been removed
from the site in order to maintain the site landscaping as depicted
on the original Site Plan for the property.
E. The Interim Use Permit is valid until the first occurring following
event:
1. For two (2) years from the date of the renewal of the Interim
Use Permit (December 14, 2012);
2. Until a violation of the conditions of this Consent Agreement;
2
3. Until a change in the City's zoning regulations, which
renders the interim use non - conforming; or
4. Until the redevelopment of the Property for a permitted or
conditional use as allowed by the City's zoning regulations.
4.0 Rescission of the Conditional Use. The Conditional Use Permit, which was
previously issued for the Property has been rescinded and replaced by this
Consent Agreement /Interim Use Permit.
5.0 Acknowledgement and Consent. Applicant acknowledges that this is a legally
binding agreement and that Applicant has had an opportunity to review the
Agreement with legal counsel. Applicant consents to the terms of this Agreement
and its restrictions on the use of the Property and the Interim Use Area.
6.0 Effective Date. This Consent Agreement /Interim Use Permit shall be effective
upon execution by all parties.
Date: 12/9/10
0
Dean Johnston
Mayor
0
Its:
Terry Emerson
5: \Land UseMmerim Use \11530 Hudson Blvd Wnterim Use Agreement Renewal 12- 14- 10.doc
3
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Interim Use Permit Request: Non - Agricultural Low Impact Use
To: City Council
From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director
Meeting Date: 12/1/08
Applicant: Terry Emerson, E & E Properties, LLC
Owner: E & E Properties, LLC
Location: 11530 Hudson Boulevard South
Zoning HD -A -BP (Agricultural District Holding Zone)
Requested The applicant has submitted request for an Interim Use Permit to establish a
Permit: Bus /Truck Terminal facility as a non - agricultural low impact use at 11530 Hudson
Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo. This application was submitted concurrently with a request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically allow the proposed interim use. For the
purpose of this review, it is assumed that the amendment will be approved by the City
Council. If it is not, the application for an interim use will be invalid.
Application The requested interim use would allow a bus /truck terminal to be established on this
Summary: property as a non - agricultural low impact use. The site has previously been used as a
school bus garage and office; however, the bus company did not renew it lease with
the property owner for this past year and the previously approved Conditional Use
Permit for this particular activity is no longer valid. In the interests of finding a
suitable use for the old garage building and parking area, the applicant is proposing
bring a truck terminal and storage operation on to this site.
The attached application proposal, with the October 30, 2008 update, provides
information about the trucking operation that is proposed fort his site. Details include
the following:
Name of company: D & T Trucking
Type of business: Regional and long haul trucking
On -Site Activity: Trailer storage, dispatching, minor repair and maintenance,
fueling station
Materials transported: Light refrigerated and dry goods
Daily Trips: 120 trips per day
Truck traffic: 20 -25 per day /40 per day peak
Applicable
Codes:
Truck Traffic Origin: Primarily outstate, all traffic coming to the site will
originate from the interstate highway
Employees: 17 office, 3 mechanics
Hours of operation: 6:00 am to 6:00 pm, limited truck access after 6:00 pm
Zoning Classification: Bus /Truck Terminal under the Non - agricultural low
impact use standards
The applicant has not proposed any changes to the site plan that has previously been
approved by the City for the bus garage, and will make use of the existing building,
driveway, and parking areas that were used formerly by the bus company. A fueling
station will be included as part of the site plan in the same location as a similar facility
that served the bus garage.
Section 154.033, Subd. (F) Non - agricultural low impact use standards
This section is referenced in the HD -A -BP zoning district to determine the
standards for non - agricultural low impact uses within the holding zone.
Section 154.034 HD -A -BP - AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS PARK HOLDING
DISTRICT (as amended)
Specifies that a bus /truck terminal is allowed as an interim use under the
requirements for a non - agricultural low impact use.
Section 11.02 Definitions (as amended)
NON - AGRICULTURAL LOW IMPACT. The outdoor storage of off-road
mobile construction equipment of any weight; the indoor storage of the
aforementioned items and other goods and materials which, in the determination of
the City Council, do not jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the city; nature
farms; agricultural museums; farmer's markets; small engine repair shops;
contractor maintenance shops; or office space as an accessory use to the
aforementioned uses.
TERMINAL, BUS /TRUCK. An area and building where buses, trucks, and
cargo are stored, where loading and unloading is carried on regularly, and where
minor maintenance of these types of vehicles is performed.
& General Site Overview
Site Data:
Lot Size: 70 acres (excludes road right-of-way)
Existing Use: Agriculture /Vacant school bus garage
Existing Zoning: HD -A -BP: Agriculture District Holding Zone
Property Identification Number (PID): 36- 029 -21 -43 -0001
Although this site is Less than 70 acres once road right -of -way and road easements are
deducted from the total land, all previous reviews for non-agricultural low impact uses
on the site have used the net total of 70 acres for purposes of determining compliance
with the standards. This is the amount used in the current review to maintain
consistency with past decisions on the property.
Review:
Permit Under the present ordinance, the storage or maintenance of semi - trailer trucks is not
Review: permitted as a non - agricultural low impact use based on the definition that excludes
such uses. Should the ordinance be amended in accordance with the request submitted
by the applicant, a trucking terminal would be permitted as an interim use in the HD-
A-BP district subject to the same requirements for non - agricultural low impact uses.
A review of the current request compared to these standards is as follows:
a) All of the property owner's real estate that is contiguous to the non-
agricultural low impact use must be zoned Agricultural and remain so zoned
while the conditional use permit is in effect. Because this use is classified as
an interim use under the HD -A -BP district, any rezoning of the property would
terminate the property owner's ability to continue operation of the use.
b) The area where the non - agricultural low impact use is located shall be
legally defined as approved by the city and is hereafter known as the "Non -
Ag Area. " The Non -Ag Area shall not exceed 4% of the property owner's
contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area. The building footprints and
asphalt and concrete surfaces within the Non AgArea shall not exceed ].5%
of the property owner's contiguous agricultural zone gross lot area.
Landscaping, berms, ponds, gravel driveways, and other improvements that
would otherwise be permitted in the Agricultural zone may be located outside
of'the Nan AgArea. The HD -A -BP interim use requirements follow these
standards, but allow the "Non -Ag" area to be a maximum of 5% of the gross
lot area. Of the applicant's 70 acres, 3.5 acres may be devoted to the "Non -
Ag" portion of the site. The total area that is currently devoted to the non-
agricultural activities is slightly less than 3.3 acres. With no changes proposed
to the parking areas, driveways, or buildings, the applicant will be able to meet
this requirement.
A review of the building footprint and asphalt /concrete surfaces on the
applicant's site plan shows that building is 15,360 square feet in size and the
other asphalt and concrete surfaces total 9,500 square feet which is 0.8% of the
continuous agricultural gross lot area. The total area for these surfaces fall
under the maximum permitted by this section.
c) Non - agricultural low impact uses shall only be allowed on a parcel of a
nominal 40 acres or larger. The applicant's parcel is 70 acres in size and
therefore meets this standard.
d) Non - agricultural low impact uses shall not generate more than 3 trips per
aay per acre of contiguous agriculturally zoned area, with the exception of
land, with sole access to Hudson Boulevard that shall not generate more
than 6 trips per day per acre. Since the applicant's property has frontage
along Hudson Boulevard, he is allowed to have 6 trips per day per acre for a
maximum of 420 vehicle trips per day. The description for the trucking
operation indicates that there will be a total of 60 vehicles accessing the site
everyday for a net total of 120 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has also
stated that there is potential for additional truck traffic during peak times which
would push the total vehicle trips closer to 200 per day. Even factoring in
additional trips by employees working in the office, the total trips under the
proposal presented will be well under the maximum for the site. The estimates
for the bus garage, in comparison, showed that there had been 328 vehicle trips
each day on this site. The proposed truck terminal should generate a fewer
number of vehicle trips based on this and fall within the required limits
prescribed by the Ordinance.
e) Any uses under this section involving the outside storage of vehicles,
equipment, or goods shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any public
roadway or adjacent landowner's boundary, except that the setback from the
1- 94.frontage road shall be not less than 50 feet In addition, any such
outside storage shall be screened.from view from adjacent property and the
public roadway by berms and landscaping. A plan for such screening shall
be submitted with the application,for the conditional use permit which shall
clearly demonstrate by view cross - sections that said screening will be
effective immediately, and in all seasons. Degradation of such screening by
loss of'landscape materials, outdoor storage of items that exceed the
screened height or for any other reason shall be grounds for rescinding the
outdoor storage portion of the conditional use permit. The current parking
areas are located at or beyond 50 feet from the Hudson Boulevard right -of-
way, an the building is set back a distance of 100 feet. A landscape berm with
plantings has been provided around the perimeter of the site and provides an
effective screen from the adjacent property and roads. There are a few areas
within this screening area where plants have recently died; there plants should
be replaced to fill in any screening holes as a condition of approval for the
interim use. As the berm and screening is presently in place, Staff has not
recommended that the applicant be required to submit a cross section diagram.
With no changes proposed to the current site the applicant will be able to meet
this condition.
f) Non - agricultural low impact uses may not generate more than 3.0 SAC units
per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons per day per net acre of land based upon design
capacity of facilities, whichever is more restrictive. Based on the past use of
this property, the proposed truck terminal should not generate any additional
impact than the bus garage. The usage by the site will need to be monitored to
ensure that the total limit established by this provision is not exceeded.
g) The property owner shall maintain the remaining land or farm outside of the
CUP Area in accordance with the permitted uses of the Agricultural zoning
district and the required practices of the Soil and Water Conservation
District. There are no changes proposed with the applicant's request.
h) All lighting shall comply with the city's regulations. No changes to the
current lighting situation is proposed; any such changes would need to be
approved after submission of a revised lighting plan for the property.
i) All signs shall comply with the city's regulations. The business owner will
need to secure the proper sign permits before installing any new signage on the
property.
j) Rate and volume of runoff from the CUP shall not exceed the I % rule and
shall be verified by the City Engineer. Because there are no site changes
proposed under the applicant's proposal, the City Engineer was not asked to
revisit the storm water calculations submitted with past proposals on the
property. There is a storm water pond on the site that should continue to
function the way it was originally designed.
k) In the event that the property owner, or future property owner, initiates a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of'any or all of the
contiguous real estate from Agriculture to a more intensive use, the
conditional use permit shall terminate and all non - conforming structures
shall be removed from the site within 1 year, from the date of the City
Council's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning,
unless the city agrees otherwise. This section shall not apply if the city
initiates rezoning or if property owner is forced to transfer title to any part of
the contiguous real estate due to eminent domain. The City's interim use
requirements are somewhat different than this section in that an interim use
will terminate if any of the following occur: 1) the date stated in the permit; 2)
upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; 3) upon
change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming;
or 4) the redevelopment of the use and property upon which it is located to a
permitted or conditional use as allowed within the respective zoning district.
Because this use is classified as an interim use under the HD -A -BP regulations,
the interim standards should be applied to this particular use. The major
differences between these two sections are that the property owner is not given
one year to remove the business when the comprehensive plan or zoning is
changed for the site and the City may initiate a rezoning that requires the
removal of the business.
1) Iron- agricultural low impact uses may not include the parking or storage of
semi - trailer trucks or a Bus /Truck Terminal except as otherwise permitted as
an Interim- Use in the HD -A-BP zoning district. As a interim use in the HD-
A-BP district the applicant is permitted to request a truck terminal.
m) All conditional use permits granted to a non - agricultural low impact use
shall be reviewed on an annual basis, and may be rescinded, after a 2 -week
notice and a public hearing, if the Council, finds that the public health,
P
safety, or welfare is jeopardized. As an interim use, the property will be
subject to the violation and termination requirements for interim uses.
n) The standards for buildings or structures, as listed in the minimum district
requirements of the Agricultural Zone, shall not apply to structures built
prior to the effective date of this chapter. This section is not applicable to the
current request.
The City Engineer was asked to perform a traffic review for the proposed business and
noted that the proposed traffic that will be generated by the proposed business falls
well below the threshold for a MnDOT traffic impact study. The most significant area
of concern indentified in this report is the turning movements on and off of Maturing
Avenue. Additional study of these intersections is encouraged as part of the City's
ongoing transportation planning efforts.
Permit Staff is recommending approval of the request for an interim use permit primarily
Review: because the proposed use is not intended to have any additional impacts beyond the
former use of the property, and in some instances, should reduce the overall impacts
that can be observed. The most significant change from the previous operation on this
site is the size of the vehicles that will be stored on the site. Given its close
proximately to an interstate highway; however, this area seems well- suited for the
traffic that is anticipated compared to other portions of the City. The bus garage also
generated a fair amount of additional traffic (beyond normal bus routes) since it was
located in the extreme southern portion of the City. The truck tenninal is anticipated
to produce very little traffic outside of the immediate connecting roads to Highway 94.
In reviewing the standards for granting an interim use, Staff has made the following
findings:
I The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district and
conforms to standard zoning regulations. This criterion is met.
2) The use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, noise,
traffic, dust, or unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the
health, safety, and welfare of the community. Although the truck terminal
will produce noise and other impacts associated with the entering and
existing of semi trailer truths, its isolated location and close proximately to a
major interstate corridor will help the use remain compatible with the
surrounding land uses until such time the zoning regulations change on the
property. Given the restrictions on the size and net traffic generated by the
use under the non - agricultural low impact use provisions, the impact to
adjacent properties will be minimal. This criterion is met.
3) The use will not adversely impact implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The improvements occupy a minor percentage of the overall parcel and may
not be expanded beyond the current limits. This criterion is met.
4) The date or event that will terminate the use is identified with certainty. The
applicant has specified in the application materials that the use will terminate
Interim Use
Permit
Conclusions:
once the property is sold or developed under future zoning. Staff is
recommending that the termination date be set at either 1) when the properly
is rezoned or 2) at such time that sewer service is provided to the site. Either
of these actions will be required before the property may be redeveloped into
some other use. With the proposed change in language staff finds that this
criterion is met.
5) The applicant has signed a consent agreement agreeing that the applicant,
owner, operator, tenant and /or user has no entitlement to future reapproval of
the interim use permit as well as agreeing that the interim use will not impose
additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to fully or
partially take the property in the future. A consent agreement will need to be
approved by the City Council as a condition of approval.
6) The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for
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. This item can also be addressed as
part of a consent agreement with the City.
7) There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or city
utility fees due upon the subject parcel. This criterion is met.
8) The term of the interim use does not exceed 2 years. The interim use permit
will need to be revisited by the City in two years.
Based on a review of the applicable code sections, Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the interim use permit based on the
following:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a
non - agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
Staff is further recommending that the following conditions be included with this
recommendation:
I) That the applicant enters into a consent agreement with the City in accordance
with Section 154.019, Subd. (B, 5) of the City Code.
2) That additional screening be provided in all locations recommended by the
City Forester in order to replace vegetation that has either died or been
removed. The intent of this condition is to provide for full screening of the
interim use.
3) That the interim use is valid for a period of two years and must be renewed by
the City Council prior to the end of this time period in order to continue
operating from the site.
Other
Options:
4) That the interim use will terminate when any portion of the property is rezoned
or when public sanitary sewer is provided to the site.
5) That the interim use permit commence upon the effective date of the
applicant's current request to amend the non-agricultural low impact use
sections of the City Code.
The City Council may consider denying the request for an interim use provided it can
demonstrate that the applicant has failed to comply standards of the non - agricultural
low impact use provisions or the interim use ordinance. These requirements are
detailed in the preceding sections of this report.
Examples of information that would support a recommendation for denial include:
• that the use will generate more vehicle trips per day than allowed as a non-
agricultural low impact use,
• that the interim use will adversely impact the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan
This list is not intended as an exclusive recording of all possible findings that could be
made and should be used as an example to formulate findings that are not in or differ
from the Staff report.
Resident There have been no letters or other comments submitted to the City in advance of the
Concerns: I public hearing on this matter.
Additional Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the
Information: proposed interim use permit. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has
submitted comments and found the site plan to be acceptable.
Conclusion:
Council
Options:
Terry Emerson of E &E Properties, LLC has submitted request for a Interim Use Permit to
establish a Bus /Truck Terminal facility as a non - agricultural low impact use at 11530 I3udson
Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo.
The City Council has the following options:
A) Recommend approval of the interim use permit request;
B) Recommend denial of the interim use permit request.
The 60 -day review period for this application will end on 12/30/08 and may be
extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed for the City's review of this
Planning
Commission
Rec:
application.
The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the interim use permit for
a Interim Use Permit to establish a Bus /Truck Terminal facility as a non - agricultural
low impact use at 11530 Hudson Blvd. S. in Lake Elmo based on the following:
1) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the standards for a
non - agricultural low impact use; and
2) That the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all applicable City Code
standards for the issuance of an interim use.
Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template. I move to deny the requested interim use permit based on the following
findings ... (please site reasons for the recommendation)
Approval
Motion
Template.
To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
I move to approve the requested interim use permit based on the following
findings ... (use staff's findings provided above or cite your own)
cc: Terry Emerson, E &E Properties, LLC
SCALE;
fntlr � 30 Feet
I
i
I
1
N �
S � I
I
o^ z _ 6 (ovt nigh
E�
1 _
( J4.
k� I�
I�
f a
O
w
�O
4
�o
9
b"
¢3
s 4 I v
3 �
3.
91
/ / / / / / /! / /!i
CC Z /
LN 11 I 11 I f 1 1 f I� I
o / /
BO X 160
_ st_/ Sum /
F1vw flewtivn 904,0 /
f P
bou 1¢
�0
I
Bvrk'�Mm IHUx�POr.
. .........
�� 1 b W l♦ _r__ /'\ J6 p0 �Y .. � I 1 I 1 I/
a 1 eBT _
1
1SBf Fmw
v-a /. moan v �c x, iaex, rza>
I \ '- Ewfnp xgnar ary {!w � 9 F.1 Hi
Inv 9OI-0
/ I
I PARCEL
I
TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 -- I -94
01 Bmn
I I I f I I I I I
1 12J -r
wnq I 1 J µg N
i IHvs lP I I I I �/
I `s
<p
wa uaiu Pole �•� ���\`� /,
d
S. CO Z G
Ak
1
\
TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL = 70 ACRES (PARCEL 10.,¢36.029,21.43.0001)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 0.64 ACRES = 0.97
SITE AREA = 276 ACRES - 3.947
a
El
1t /__t T —
Pond
(Sized for IX Rules)
FO1z, Freeman, D¢pap & Associates, Inc
LAND SUIZ E NG • W D PI.PNNIN
1815 NQ(IIttESIdpd AVEM£. S1{CPAIiR, W A lvdq
(812) A3 _-
Irz ems,¢¢
4e Cars
3 HcndicoP Lvrs
s von p¢¢ide)
South To ,North Cross — Section
Depicting Typicol Line Of Site Across Gravel Area
Ilk 011tlef St]IlLt -l_
LEGEND
Elevations Are Based On N. C. V.0. - 1929 Adf
�pmvfex 6isMg Lonlvlry.
X(90J.5)pmroms Propmey SPOT Elerolims
`V pevafes %¢pva¢p Orvi�age pveclivn
emotes PrepoxeU Ervgram irm
d panotas Propas¢t7 DecNluw¢ iree
® Omofo 4 ReceptoC¢ pu6¢I Bos
01 2 Rec t.u/ wtkf Bar
x.— �1. _ .mod wd., � A. .d,. ,
��er mrm nw sm.cY w w.v as.s rws.mn e.l¢
wm � ur wxEre amEp..sm .wo i .e n o-rtr flmapD
wsa wxn ,xE u¢s w me n.tiE v wwEwrw
:w
�,
r
Planning Commission
Date: 12/13/10
Business
Item: j ,b
ITEM: Provide staff direction on moving forward with revising the zoning districts
and moving forward with writing future sewered districts.
REQUESTED BY: Planning Department
SUBMITTED BY: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Director of Planning
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff
requested direction from the commission on moving forward with revising the zoning district
regulations and ultimately moving forward with writing future sewered district requirements. At
that time the commission requested information from staff on what difficulties staff had with the
existing outline and content of the zoning districts.
Below is a list outlining the main concerns staff has with the Lake Elmo City Code with some
specific examples.
Inconsistency among districts
- Some zoning district requirements are very detailed, while others are broad. This
provides staff difficulty implementing the uses as oftentimes the use not listed would
make sense in another district as well. In addition some uses listed are very specific
while others are very generic and left to interpretation.
• The General Business (GB) district has a list of 108 permitted uses and 11
conditionally permitted uses while the Limited Business (LB) District only has 4
permitted uses listed and 19 uses conditionally permitted.
• Sixteen types of contractor offices (excluding equipment storage) are listed in the
GB district. The uses are very specific, such as plastering contractor and
wallpaper contractor, but an electrical contractor is not listed. The code goes into
such detail that it would be difficult to find a listed use which could include an
electrical contractor even though the use makes as much sense as one
specifically listed.
- Uses are not mentioned uniformly in districts
• Home occupations are listed as an accessory use (therefore not requiring any
action from the city other than a standard building permit in some cases) in the
Agricultural (Ag), R -1, and Residential Estates (RE) District, but are conditionally
permitted in Rural Residential (RR) district which requires a public hearing,
neighbor notification and Council approval.
• Poultry facilities are listed as a permitted use in the Ag District, but is not
permitted or conditionally permitted in the RR District (generically, "farms" are
permitted). However, another section of code states only ten acres are needed
to have chickens, which is the minimum lot size for the Rural Residential District.
Staff has been allowing chickens in the RR district if they have ten acres (and
meet other requirements) as chickens are a normal component of a farm.
- The Shoreland District (an overlay district with additional requirements for properties near
lakes and streams) identifies specific uses that are permitted or conditionally permitted.
Unfortunately, there are inconsistencies between what is stated in the shoreland district
and the underlying district. For example, the shoreland district regulations identifies
restaurants as a permitted use in the Highway Business (HB) District and conditionally
permitted use in the LB and BP districts. However, in the individual districts, it is only
identified as a conditionally permitted use in the BP district.
Lack of uniformity among districts
• The Ag district references the sign code, while other sections do not. The sign
district requirements apply to all zoning districts, although it is utilized more often
in relation to commercial properties.
• Parking regulations are identified for various uses in the GB district, but not in LB.
• Accessory building setbacks are listed in RR zoning district, but not in the RE or
R -1 district.
• There is a specific listing of "landscape buffers, wildlife areas, internal picnicking
areas, and walking /jogging trails" as accessory uses in the LB District, but not in
the GB district. Instead there is a generic phrase "Uses which are clearly
incidental and subordinate to the allowed uses." It is unclear to staff why it would
be listed specifically for one district and not the other as the accessory uses
listed are typically encouraged in all areas of the city, even residential.
Outdated information / Repetition and Unnecessary Information
- Septic regulations vary by district or are silent in some cases. This should be removed
entirely as it is outdated given new technology. In some instances, the required land size
for a septic system is multiple times the size required under the new ordinance enforced
by Washington County.
- Some zoning districts mention footing requirements, but those requirements are covered
in the State Building Code.
- Many districts reference the same sections of code elsewhere (signage, driveways, etc.).
It would be nice to have the references written in one convenient location.
Inconsistencies with Comprehensive Plan
- Properties guided for open space preservation developments (at a much higher density
than the underlying district) in the Comprehensive Plan are allowed by code to develop at
much lower densities.
• The Ag district allows one non -farm dwelling at just 1.5 acres in size.
• Cluster developments (NOT OP developments) are allowed in the Ag and RR
District with lot sizes of 5 - 7 acres for the RR district and 1.5 — 2 acres in size for
Ag with requirements for dedicated open space. Open Space Preservation (OP)
developments are designated for 18 housing units per 40 acres of buildable area,
which is what the areas are guided for in the Comp Plan.
- It is not clear in the district requirements that the R -1 zoning district is not intended to be
added in any area of the city, even through the rezoning of existing parcels - as stated in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Unclear and Confusing / Difficult to Utilize
- Some of the uses listed have definitions, but a majority do not.
• This is confusing to the residents trying to determine what the difference is
between "medical" and "medical services" or what a "boarding care facility' is.
• "Beauty Shop" is listed as a permitted use in the GB district, but the only
definition is for "Beauty Salon." While on the surface they may appear to be the
same, the term "shop" lends itself to an interpretation of a retail sales focused
business whereas a salon's emphasis is on the services. If this is intended to be
the same, the terminology should be succinct.
- Some uses listed not only lack a definition, but more specific requirements as well.
o Staff has worked with a few interested parties to bring a cafe into the downtown,
at properties where it is listed as a permitted use. However, "cafe" and
"restaurant" are listed on the same line and it therefore appears the requirements
listed would apply to both, which limits the use to full table service operations.
Staff believes this requirement should be revisited as this would not permit
someone to order a beverage inside the building and receive it without sitting
down at a table and being served.
Requirements for one project (even a seemingly simple one such as a shed) must be
found in multiple locations throughout the code. It would be helpful to residents, builders,
developers, and staff to reduce the number of locations information is located or at least
reference the applicable sections.
o Some zoning districts have parking requirements identified, but an additional
parking section is found outside the zoning districts and must be referred to in
addition to the districts. It is difficult when the code is silent on parking
requirements; staff has looked in other districts to find similar type uses to utilize
when calculating parking requirements.
o If a property owner wants to build a shed on their non - lakeshore property, but is
still within the Shoreland District, the following are all the sections of code they
would need to reference (assuming no variance and use is permitted):
• 154.041 R -1 District — to determine setbacks, impervious surface
requirements, etc.
• 154.092 Accessory Buildings and Structures — to determine
miscellaneous requirements
• 154.093 Number /Size of Accessory Buildings — to determine how
many and how large the accessory building(s) can be
• 150.255 Shoreland Standards — to determine impervious surface
requirements
• Chapter 51 — to determine setbacks to septic system (Washington
County)
There are grammatical errors throughout the code. This happens through normal human
error, but in some cases it has become an issue in legal interpretations.
In the LB District, the code states that accessory uses not specifically listed could be
allowed if they are "customarily associated with and clearly incidental to a permitted use,"
but then it goes on to say that the City Council is the group to make that determination.
Therefore, if an applicant wanted to add a landscape buffer to their property and it was
not specifically listed (which it is), they would have to appear before the City Council to
have them determine that it was an accessory use. This would delay any action until it
could be put on a Council agenda (typically 2 weeks). An accessory use does not
outright require a permit from the city.
Many of the uses listed as a conditional use permit, such as a fitness studio, therapeutic
massage, the sale of ski equipment, and the keeping of horses, do not appear to need
such a thorough scrutiny, especially when the use is entering an existing building. Those
uses could be managed through the regular requirements for parking, impervious
surface, etc. or additional requirements could be written. Keep in mind, the purpose of a
CUP is to allow a use that may be desirable, but which could have detrimental effects on
the city or neighboring properties.
There are uses existing in Lake Elmo today that are not identified anywhere in the code
as either permitted or conditionally permitted such as computer repair and services.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Over the past 30 plus years, the Lake Elmo zoning districts have
been revised, added to and subtracted from in such a way as to leave a hodge -podge of various
districts with little to no uniformity among the districts as explored in more detail on the previous
pages of this report. For residents and staff alike, this results in difficulty using the information
productively.
The original Lake Elmo city code was adopted from a basic template in 1977. Since then,
individual zoning districts have been revised individually, or in some cases, a few at a time. In the
1990's, open space preservation districts were added as a distinct zoning district; years later it
was decided that use would instead be permitted by conditional use in certain zoning districts and
was no longer a separate district. In 2006, the city began to take a large -scale overhaul of the
entire zoning district, which was then abandoned due to unforeseen staffing circumstances. In
2008, nineteen new holding districts were added to account for land guided for future sewered
development. Although zoning text amendments are inevitable, the remaining framework is still
from the 1977 code and may not be functioning as efficiently as it could be.
Staff's Goals
Staff is seeking to retool the city code layout, specifically with regard to the zoning districts, in an
effort to streamline information and increase usability for residents and staff alike.
Staff is interested in creating a single master use list from which an interested person or group
could look through and determine in which zoning districts the use they would like to bring to the
city is allowed. By creating this one -stop shop, the resident/builder/business owner saves time
and, in some cases, much frustration.
A master list of uses would also be beneficial to staff as it would be an easy handout for those
who are interested. Instead, staff has often looked through all the non - residential zoning districts
(including the PF district) to find if a use could be interpreted as one of the 170 non - residential
uses listed throughout the code. With the sheer volume of uses listed and the multiple pages
(districts) to be flipped through, it is often the case in which staff must do the research and get
back to those looking for the information. Staff rarely offers up the individual lists to those
seeking inquiry as it is a challenge to work through and creates confusion.
The master use list could then be tied to the various other applicable sections of code in one spot
instead of repeated in each district. In addition, the various regulations pertaining to a use could
be written once instead of repeated in each district it would otherwise be listed as a use.
Moving forward, staff would also like to find a way to encourage residents and developers to
develop their non - sewered properties, should they choose to do so, as Open Space Preservation
developments in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as opposed to large lot
developments. This will be a conversation for a future time, but is a goal relating to the zoning
districts, nonetheless.
Existing Uses
Staff has attached a master use list of the existing uses for the various non - residential districts -
an incredible 170 uses. This list was recently compiled by staff and has not previously been
available, nor is it available in our city code. Staff would suggest a similar format be used in the
revisitation and revision of the zoning district with a reduced list of uses that are, in some cases,
more general in nature.
Staff did not have time to group together uses that may be similar in the existing master list, so
there may be a few uses listed that could be combined.
RECOMMENDATION: At this time, planning staff is asking for feedback from the commission in
starting with a new format from which to pull the relevant and important information from the
existing code, but to largely make a fresh, uniform start for the zoning districts. This will greatly
help staff in moving forward with creating district requirements for future sewered districts as we
hope to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. In addition, staff is asking the commission to
review the attached list of uses (taken out of the existing non - residential zoning district chapters)
for discussion.
No formal recommendation is requested at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Please find attached a chart of non - residential uses in various districts (zoning and shoreland).
1. Use Chart for Non - Residential Lake Elmo Zoning Districts
y
• ._tall
C)
-- - - -_- - - - - - - - - - - U- LLIIL 0-0- [L'ID 0- (L Q-, EL, CL� 2_ EL 10- 1 a, , 0- CL I a� 10- 0- a- I IL 0, (L
IL
IL IQ- I
ca
Q a- I CL 0- IL IQ- 0- JCL a- 3- (L 0- in- CL
0- EL CL 1 a- � (L IL I EL [L 0- Q- CL 0- 11L
NI
---, -- 0- ' 0- CL I aka (L EL 10- 0- EL CL 0- CL (L IL 0- IL a_ 0- 0- CL i IL 0- IL'()InICL 000aCL 0
I I — I — ktt — -- — - - cLimlo- 0-10-i
I
------
Q- 0- fL 0- 0- (L Q-IfL (L Q-, 0- CL CL
a)
01 C)
tt=
>
co
0,
a)
cf)
10]
.2
0
IUIa
T)
N
L) ow
a -;
u a) a)
Lij
1 0,
cc
<
ao))
lo
"E'
0
5 -
W,
�C 10D
u oiwl
LE '6 E w
m
"S T
I
z
E!
Q3
UO
co L)
0, >
CL a� 0) 0
a) n
w 0
w
1 Z
Q
d:
o.,@
7�5 0
-0
(D
-0 a
0 5 u 0
Z 6), w 2!'1 Q� 0 of
U)
'o m
'00, u U) L-- I
� Cl) Iy)
m -�
c.
LL
a)
-6
I
c
[w i o m ZL1
"Co C[M
I — , I "a
cil �6
1�
I
< 0)
I
- I
C)
I I I
I , I
u m 'Fu
0=1-ice
1-2
� w
c
M
11
o
a-
-0
0)
<
-I
1 Q) [ cau)
I , I U
U) cn
S 'Fu E
m X
E— m,—
E
CL M
a5l 0.
a') (D
>; M C�
0 -
I
I i-�
I m
0
21 0
00) aaf) a)
0��
m
21 1 o Q) a
4- = m m (Di w
M
0
'Broia) 61-
0) 0) W!D E2
5 i>-'
0
a)
IM 0
I
-Fu 0)
IN,
c
a),
w 0 ICL 1 a)
0�
jdf � wi,� ,
a -1 0
Ic C�c jr
0) 1 0
1-0
JU) U)
M (
0
I 'D 0
=
E:
a)
(L); 5 2
f
U) fol
= C U) c CD
a) � w c-) c ,
, lu
LU -
0)
-�z
,4
G)(ou
E
G'a),
0
Of Q) w
0)
co (3 0)
010 W M M
w 0 0
T
cu
u =
c
0
L 0
m h-
1 c 5-lo O'w
0�w 0 m
E2
E
LL I i>l —ia
0) a) CL,jr I W
m U
(D
-5 EL m
El=I O @@
m 0 0 0 cu i.�
Q) 0 1 co cc 1
i6i 7�:
-i CL
0
1
j
Wim
m i
U)i �I� 0 - M-
0
0 L) -0 a)
(D a) 0
li5
¢¢ ¢I¢
I 1 n
02 ca
Ulu m
0 Q:
Q) D
M:
Lu LI I u 1 1, i(r)
0
Im
w -Im
c c I
CL 0 0
2 :E 2 0 0 m (L im at
I
, ,
m 1
I o m .2) - Q) I
0 .7 m 76
�10 0�0
.2 a B 2.2
-j
< 3 lmim�a 0 1 0 w LL u- LL 0 FD m
T �:2 ;z Zio fLICL
0- 1 U) I (n 3: 1 () w
a
QI,
Q
QI
Q
U,I
Q
Q
Z
o
)
E
O
N
0
03
C�I Q� n $I, plc
m >, p UI�IU v cIU o p
a
aw)
o U'I, Flo ' >,,° �ICOiIa� ° cl� a� U'coi'� ,� ° 0101
O
N Im o i0 ° .� ° o --
° m �1N U) S-0 Ca 010 iw1Op. O c - )
.m
o
',m
��> w
maO�ca. 'FalcomCmooO °loU
",gym
)- o I�o0 LmL= c
mOld'NCOam
016. 1180 E2 (6 O)p
I
_ mm
'.O
'.E
'°
a)
ru
I'D C) U',UlmOOI y°m_!U N!UNN
O a m U) X cl. m 2' c° M, � m c c _ UI�a w c
m �I'� N
cNi
m
mu
m m a - °- ' a) o m ° ° ml
'Fa l U U U o m '� o
o ca
o)I
c c
o
a)
aai Q o. m' '� c c° U c° p p` c I
�lX-o°c. am a OloU 00 _F imp ��
c>
Id mo°
N N O d' a'', O) ° h C O U i C O U.O mii IZ Olc.,� a) $1m',O a)
a
U a) `O, j
T,.,�
—
O,C
110
�, .m tall m c c o 0, 3: tL alI°c w N'
E U _ m_C ml o°
o o m m
ml�
E
','N
2
a,a......c w (D -0 v m'.,ao �lo.� ��. �Ia),�o'Q.�'OmaIUZ'N'c
c c!� �.1,cio
old
m O o Elmlc ml�a °1m mU S!`m a-i ami m'G m ° °�,co a)',m m °o"o!`m TE c..cl�
h o- o - a� o m O ',m o.c m o m
o',c `ml�'
a)IO a',m.cIQ)
m
m �I�,aN).al.-
o1o',.N
m
w ILL LL1Tim -, 10_ � of Q m UID S :;wed CL QLL co 1U) P,'5 �.m m O wlu =,,Y Z 011�1i- >'.Z
c S 2i LS
m Of
a
c m
a) O U U
N y m Z, a)
0 0 N o c a 0
3 "O o o c N
m o c ILL IC o m 1 �' m c .� Z5 0 c E2 o a N
m c m m
m O O Jl N U " N C m
U I'C c1 X O N O cl, N .0 N
o N Lij aa)i! m o m a) U l m � 'Z �- c'� a' � o 'a)
E c m o a) E! L-) o S o -1 0 o ° m- m
E - G U O ail O L L a) m m O N U) ,2 6 O .-
U '° cOlm LL Qm 2 E mO cmi )o-' m o',, o
U ILL 'O I'E w W ml'„ N L LL N N N _ a, N` N
C m C a) C m- 'O N m N a) ° E
° 1c m NIE a) c �,> m ml� m mS...m a>IUaciLi�,,,,. Q�''� cd-Oc
> o m e Q m c u- Q) c = m�a m vl,. a)! LmLl a�a� ola, N ami.m Q ami
N m N al
U o m m �,1,.N m m1,'' mI'Iw O v; j E �Ii �11� WI'E EIS �-o Q m:o
�_ a°;m EIC� ��_� mI a Slacm ac1� E� °N m!oc,m ° °o
O -I(0 aml2l0 mU)N CO mOLwILLL WiU a.mi :2 in- IV) coH> co -i -1 w
QI,
Q
QI
Q
U,I
Q
Q
c m
a) O U U
N y m Z, a)
0 0 N o c a 0
3 "O o o c N
m o c ILL IC o m 1 �' m c .� Z5 0 c E2 o a N
m c m m
m O O Jl N U " N C m
U I'C c1 X O N O cl, N .0 N
o N Lij aa)i! m o m a) U l m � 'Z �- c'� a' � o 'a)
E c m o a) E! L-) o S o -1 0 o ° m- m
E - G U O ail O L L a) m m O N U) ,2 6 O .-
U '° cOlm LL Qm 2 E mO cmi )o-' m o',, o
U ILL 'O I'E w W ml'„ N L LL N N N _ a, N` N
C m C a) C m- 'O N m N a) ° E
° 1c m NIE a) c �,> m ml� m mS...m a>IUaciLi�,,,,. Q�''� cd-Oc
> o m e Q m c u- Q) c = m�a m vl,. a)! LmLl a�a� ola, N ami.m Q ami
N m N al
U o m m �,1,.N m m1,'' mI'Iw O v; j E �Ii �11� WI'E EIS �-o Q m:o
�_ a°;m EIC� ��_� mI a Slacm ac1� E� °N m!oc,m ° °o
O -I(0 aml2l0 mU)N CO mOLwILLL WiU a.mi :2 in- IV) coH> co -i -1 w
m
n
=
U
aom
CO
�LL
v u
�
Ia a
m
�
p'
Imlro
C7 CD
Im �
I (7
o U m
o �'-
mmJ
d
m =a
=m
a) CL
hO
�-
m
Ism
UUI
_UU0IUU
m
¢I U UIUI
U U
U I
ma
y
1
2
m
N o
m
m
cq
m
1 0c aai
cr
U d
.�
o
m
p
' =
EK
N O N
CL I
m
>
n a)
a
m
f
y
Z Q
c0
N
CO
CN
J
m
c � y
'� of
1a
C7
y'
a�.2 aNi
o
a
o
Co
CL
c
'
m
U '
O
o'
L O_
U. (
"
010
o
U)
i v a
a?c
a
��
v
mom
m�0
Z6 <
.fl
co
U
.N.
m (D IU'��
�Imiw
o
m
2
uoi
o h m
a........�s�.
o'.=
o N.,,,
m
�........o�11a�
2
.aIEIm2 Q) LL
a�i
h
>,'I `c
-oo E coi l
voi ;n ° a°i
E
v
m
aid D E
�1
MI O a) a)
CIOIU 2 �I
a) L ul
wIi-�O a31U a..
a)
U- d 21` -C,LL
o
Of
' m a' CO)
,1a i(D U) a