Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet; 3-24-14 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, March 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. March 10, 2014 4. Public Hearing a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – 901 LAKE ELMO AVENUE The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to consider an application by Family Means to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park to allow the construction of a 4,000 square foot community center to serve as an accessory use to the approved manufactured home park. b. VARIANCE – 09.029.21.11.0015 (Lot 9, Krause’s Addition located at the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Jane Road North). The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to consider an application for a variance from the minimum lot area requirements of the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. c. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND PUD CONCEPT PLAN – LAUNCH PROPERTIES. The Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing to consider a request by Launch Properties for planned unit development business park on a parcel at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue North and Hudson Boulevard North (PID 36.029.21.33.0000). The applicants are also requesting to rezone the property to Business Park (BP). 5. Business Items a. OUTDOOR WEDDING VENUE ORDINANCE – The Planning Commission is asked to review an updated draft ordinance of the Outdoor Wedding Venue Ordinance in advance of a future public hearing. 2 b. SITE PLAN REVIEW ORDINANCE – The Planning Commission is asked to review the Site Plan Review Ordinance (§151.070). c. EASTON VILLAGE SKETCH PLAN – 2ND REVIEW. The Planning Commission requests to review the updated version of the Easton Village Sketch Plan. 6. Updates a. City Council Updates March 18, 2014: i. Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Ordinance passed. ii. The City Council reviewed the Schiltgen Farms, Parcel B Sketch Plan. b. Staff Updates i. Planning Commission Discussion Series – “Meaningful Dialogue with the Public” ii. Upcoming Meetings: • April 14, 2014 • April 28, 2014 c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2014 Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Yocum, Dodson, Haggard, Dorschner, Kreimer, Larson and Lundgren; COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Morreale; STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Klatt and City Planner Johnson. Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: February 24, 2014 Chairman Williams noted that he did not abstain from voting regarding the February 10th minutes, he did not vote on the minutes because he was not in attendance at the previous meeting. M/S/P: Kreimer/Lundgren, move to approve the minutes as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Building Ordinance Johnson reviewed various revisions to the draft Accessory Building Ordinance, made as a result of the last meeting. He noted that the draft was revised to allow for additional accessory building square footage through a Conditional Use Permit process. He also stated that Staff is still researching the potential impacts of the 60/40 house to garage ratio in urban residential and mixed-use districts. Williams questioned why garages are encouraged to be side or rear loaded when this would be difficult to accomplish with smaller lots. Johnson stated that this was intended to communicate the City’s design preference at the time, but that it would not be something that could be enforced. The Commission generally discussed the implications of the existing language concerning garages. Williams suggested revising this provision so that the garage could be set back from the primary façade or be side or rear loaded. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 2 Klatt noted that the City Engineer also provided input to ensure that vehicles parked on driveways would not interfere or encroach onto sidewalks. Yocum questioned whether or not Lennar had given the City any feedback on this provision. Johnson noted that Lennar was more concerned about the lot width and side yard setbacks. Klatt noted that the code was intended to prohibit “snout houses” so that garages were not the dominant feature of the landscape. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to add language to 154.456.B.1.a and b to state “unless the garage is side loaded”. Dorschner stated that the City is not gaining much by adopting this language. Larson commented that the best examples of side-loaded garages occur on curved streets. Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Dorschner voting no. Dodson noted that the same provision should be applied to the VMX district. Williams noted that they should not have taken any action until after the public hearing. Williams asked if the City allows accessory apartments or secondary swellings in accessory buildings. Johnson replied that the City Code allows for secondary dwellings as a conditional use. Williams questioned the language concerning accessory building height compared to the principal building. Klatt stated that the intent of this provision was to restrict the height of the accessory building to either 22 feet or no higher than the principal building. Public Hearing opened at 7:30pm. Dave Gonyea, Gonyea Company, asked whether or not the code would require garages to be side or rear loaded. Williams stated that the code language encourages, but does not require this. Gonyea stated that front loaded garages are often required on a smaller lots. Staff noted that there were not written comments submitted for the public record. Public Hearing closed at 7:34pm. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 3 MSP: Williams/Dodson, move to add similar language regarding side loaded garages within the VMX district (see above), Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Dorschner voting no. There was a general discussion concerning the provision that requires a detached accessory building to be 22 feet in height or no higher than the principle building, whichever is higher. M/S/P: Dodson/Williams, move to strike “whichever is higher” in 154.08 C2 and 154.4563c.2, Vote: 6-1, motion carried, with Dorschner voting no. Dorschner stated that he feels that 22’ in height is an adequate standard regardless of the height of the principal structure. M/S/P: Dodson/Dorschner, move to recommend approval of the accessory building ordinance as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Business Item: Schiltgen Farms Parcel B Sketch Plan Johnson reviewed a sketch plan that has been submitted by Gonyea Homes for a proposed residential development in the northern portion of the Village Planning Area consisting of 101 single family sewered homes on approximately 40 acres of land presently owned by Pete Schiltgen. He noted that the project includes a portion of Lake Elmo Avenue, which will need to be platted as road right-of-way as part of the subdivision. Johnson reviewed staff comments concerning the plan: access and access spacing on Lake Elmo Avenue; park dedication, trails and landscaping/buffering along CSAH 17. Haggard asked if roads taken out of the calculation when calculating net density. Johnson noted that different cities define net density differently. However, generally roads are not counted towards the area in a net density calculation. Staff is working on this definition to make sure that it is consistently applied throughout the City. Lundgren asked if there is any plan to do construction on Lake Elmo Avenue. Johnson noted that no construction is currently planned in the County CIP north of Trunk Highway 5. Williams noted that there would be improvements required as part of the proposed subdivision such as a turn lane on Lake Elmo Avenue. Johnson sated that Staff is asking that the developer provide a trail along Lake Elmo Avenue. Kreimer asked if the trail would continue north. Johnson said that extending the trail north makes sense if the northern parcel is developed as a nature preserve. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 4 Dodson questioned why 39th street could not extend across Lake Elmo Avenue and serve that parcel. Johnson stated that it would in the future and would provide secondary access to the future residential neighborhood west of CSAH 17. Williams expressed concern that the proposed subdivision represents a typical suburban layout and not a traditional grid pattern that would be expected as part of the Village Land Use Plan. Johnson replied that the gridded street pattern can be challenging because of constraints of the property such as access management required by the County. The gridded street pattern also does increase the amount of infrastructure and impervious surface. Nevertheless, the land use plan calls for greater connectivity. Klatt provided comments concerning gridded and traditional neighborhood design. Klatt stated that there needs to be some flexibility in the plans while still meeting the intent of the Comp Plan. Staff would like to see connectivity through sidewalks and trails. Williams stated that he feels that the Land Use Plan encourages more uniformity between neighborhoods. Haggard asked how the housing would be consistent with the Old Village character. She shared her concern that it will not be consistent. Johnson discussed general market trends of housing and its application to this site. Alley loaded homes are not in demand right now. The City needs to be careful about over programing these developments where the market won’t support them. Larson shared some comments concerning park and lack of play areas for children within the development. Johnson noted that the applicant is not opposed to looking at a neighborhood park, but has been focusing on expansion of Reid Park. The City is currently looking at joint powers agreements with the school district for parks at Lake Elmo Elementary and Oakland Junior High. Klatt stated that the property to the North is guided for open space in the Comprehensive Plan and they are looking to put in a Nature Preserve with bees and butterflies and natural plantings. Haggard stated that she would like to see better access to parks. Yocum stated that she would like to see a smaller park for neighborhood kids. Williams asked if the northern portion that is covered by trees buildable. Johnson stated that it is not, and the area was not included in net density calculations. Dodson would like to see a trail connection with the Cul-de-sacs for a more walkable neighborhood. Dave Gonyea noted that they are not opposed to putting in a small park and are looking for feedback from the Park Commission. Williams suggested putting in a shared park with adjoining property owner to the east. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 5 Williams questioned the objectives of the builder and stated that it is not the objective to have a series of monumented developments that feel separate from the Village. Gonyea commented that the proposed layout does create more connectivity and provides for a different feel to the neighborhood. In his opinion, it is much more walkable neighborhood than if it was in a grid pattern. Williams stated that he would like to see additional roads that connect to adjacent development and would recommend that one of the cul-de-sac roads go through the development to the east. Gonyea stated that they would consider the road connection, and that it may not significantly alter project. Haggard asked how the proposed is consistent with the existing Old Village. Gonyea stated that they are trying to make as consistent as possible by making it walkable, providing connections to school and other points of interest, adding trees and fencing and other elements to the plan. Johnson stated that the County’s likely request to move the access further north will have some implications on how the streets flow through the development. Kreimer asked what the typical lot width is for Gonyea. Gonyea stated that is between 80 – 95 feet in width for custom lots and they have gone down to 65-70 foot in some instances. They generally build larger homes. Kreimer asked if Gonyea is planning on working with different builders. Gonyea stated that on a project like this they will probably bring in 5-6 different builders with different home plans. Dodson asked if the 65’ wide lots will be starter homes. Gonyea stated will be in the 400k to 550k range. Williams noted that drainage on the property slopes northwest to southeast. Pete Schiltgen commented that storm water flows more to the east and then south. Gonyea stated that there was a wetland delineation done for the site. Dorschner would like to see connectivity to the east. Feels that if we can get connectivity to flow towards the downtown that would be the goal. Kreimer also want to see better walkability. Would like to see trails through cul-de-sac in cases where streets do not extend through. Would like to see a park in the development and a trail along Lake Elmo Avenue. Johnson asked the Planning Commission to clarify expectations and direction. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 6 Williams suggested the Commission come up with street alternatives: Street alignment alternatives 1) As presented 2) Trail from middle cul-de-sac the North/South street to the east 3) Connected road through to the east (extending cul-de-sac to neighboring property) Yocum suggested looking at Interlochen parkway in Woodbury as an example. Dorschner state that he would rather see trail connection if Lake Elmo access needs to move further to the north, otherwise it may generate too much through traffic. Dodson not as concerned with curvilinear pattern. There was a general consensus to make road connectivity a priority, and to otherwise provide trail connections where direct road access would not be possible. Business Item: Outdoor Wedding Venue Ordinance Klatt started his presentation by reviewing the draft ordinance of the Outdoor Wedding Venue Ordinance that was discussed at the last meeting. Klatt presented the specific standards in order to allow the accessory use of weddings to proceed. The specific performance standards include food, alcohol, noise, lighting, and other standards that are intended to mitigate potential nuisance. Klatt noted that the use would be processed under the interim use permit process. Related to potential nuisance, Klatt noted that amplification of noise would only be allowed during the wedding ceremony, not during the reception. Dodson asked if other types of events would be allowed, such as anniversaries, graduation parties, bar mitzvahs, etc. He asked why the events have to be restricted to religious events. Dodson noted that it may be a slippery slope allowing only certain types of events, but not others. The Planning Commission noted that not all weddings are religious events. Dodson noted that to allow some type of use on agricultural sites, he would like to expand the types of uses that occur. Larson asked about the timeframe of when the events would be allowed. Klatt noted it is May through October. Larson also asked if it would be appropriate to require notification of adjacent properties. Klatt noted that notice is sent out to all properties within 350 feet for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. In addition, the interim use permit allows for the City to review the permit when it expires. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 7 Williams noted that he is in agreement with Dodson in that there may be other events that should be allowed in addition to weddings. Haggard noted her concern about the level of noise with other events. She added that enforcement of the City’s noise ordinance is difficult. Kreimer noted that he supports limiting the activity to weddings, as well as limiting the number of activities per week. Kreimer noted that he would be interested in the thoughts of the City Council so that the Planning Commission does not invest too much time before learning their perspective. Klatt noted that the frequency restriction of limiting the number of events per week could be added back into the ordinance. Dorschner suggested limiting the number events per year, such as 10 events. Williams suggested restricting the number of hours per day as well to minimize the impact. Williams asked the Commission if everyone is in agreement that there should be some allowance for these special events. Everyone agreed that there should be some allowance. Williams noted that some more thought into mitigating potential nuisance, particularly hours and frequency of operation, noise and the provision of alcohol. Williams asked about State Statutes with regard to serving alcohol from grapes grown on-site. Klatt noted that Staff is doing additional research. Dodson noted his confusion between the various types of wines. Klatt noted that if alcohol is sold, a liquor license is required. There was a general discussion about alcohol. Staff will research this issue more. Williams noted that the Planning Commission would like some feedback from the City Council. Haggard asked about a number of provisions, including portable toilets, lighting, and signage. Williams suggested providing links to the other ordinances. Kreimer suggested being more specific with regards to having portable toilets. Klatt stated that the specifics would be spelled out as part of the IUP. Haggard asked how hard it is to revoke an interim use permit. Klatt noted that if the conditions of the interim use are violated, it can be revoked. Klatt explained that it depends on how the IUP agreement is written up, but it is not as difficult to revoke as a CUP. Haggard also asked about the number of cars allowed to park on the site. Klatt noted the interim use permit review process can address many of these concerns. Each permit will be written based on site conditions. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 8 Dodson asked about security. Klatt stated that an applicant would need to provide contact information for any security that is required. Klatt asked if the Planning Commission would like to see a revised draft before a public hearing is scheduled. The Planning Commission confirmed that they would like to see a draft before setting up a public hearing. Updates and Concerns Council Updates 1. No updates from the previous City Council meeting 2. City Council is planning a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss Thrive 2040 population forecasts – April or May. 3. The 3/11/14 City Council workshop is dedicated to downtown planning. They will be talking about a market study for downtown, business improvements, EDA and discussion of TIF and the County reconstruction of Lake Elmo Avenue. 4. The first open house for the Lake Elmo reconstruction project will take place 3/13/14 at Christ Lutheran Church from 4-7pm. This will be a good information gathering process for the City, VBWD, and Washington County. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. March 24, 2014 b. April 14, 2014 Commission Concerns - Williams suggested that the Planning Commission take another look and discuss the sketch plan for Easton Village after the Park Commission review. Klatt stated that it could be brought back at a future meeting, but to keep in mind that they could come in with the preliminary plat at any time. Kreimer thinks if it is more than a few tweaks it should come back. Larson stated that some of the changes were based on Planning Commission recommendations and the larger changes were based on the Park Commissions recommendation that there not be a park in the northwest corner. Dorschner is wondering if there has been any thought put into the need for schools with all of the upcoming development. Johnson stated that staff made a presentation to ISD 834 and they have the City’s projection for growth. They could possibly put a school down along the I94 corridor and that would accommodate new growth down there along with the kids that currently go to Lake Elmo Elementary from Woodbury. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 9 Dorschner would like to see the schools integrated more into the neighborhood areas so that they would feel more like neighborhood schools and the kids could walk to them vs. in the more commercial areas. Yocum was wondering if they could get a map that shows all the developments and what currently surrounds them. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-10-14 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-13 ITEM: Family Means Conditional Use Permit Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director Jack Griffin, City Engineer Rick Chase, Building Official Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to hold a Public Hearing to review an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. The proposed amendment to the CUP is to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center to serve as an accessory use to the existing manufactured home park. The youth center will be run by the Family Means organization to accommodate after-school and summer programming for young residents of Cimarron between the ages of 6-18. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the CUP amendment request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Family Means (Arba-Della Beck); 1875 Northwestern Avenue, Stillwater, MN 55082 Property Owners: Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (Kate Yunke); 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Location: Part of Sections 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West in Lake Elmo, immediately east of Lake Elmo Avenue (CR-17) and immediately south of 10th Street (CSAH 10). PID Number: 36.029.21.21.0001. Request: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment Existing Land Use: Manufactured Home Park w/various accessory uses Existing Zoning: MDR – Urban Medium Density Residential Surrounding Land Use: North – gasoline station and neighborhood convenience store, and Tartan Meadows rural single family neighborhood; west – Midland Meadows rural single family neighborhood; south – vacant land guided for Urban Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Business Park (BP); east – Oakland Jr. High School and vacant/agricultural land guided for Urban High Density Residential (HDR). PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 2 Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family (west and north); CC – Convenience Commercial (north); RT – Rural Development Transitional District (south and east) Comprehensive Plan: Urban Medium Density Residential History: Property was given approval through a Special Use Permit to operate a manufactured home park in 1967. As part of the approval for the manufactured home park, various accessory uses were also permitted, including a golf course, utility buildings, and a community center. As the park proceeded with the construction of the various accessory uses, such as the golf course in 1988, the City processed that additional uses via a Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the proposed community center related to the Family Means youth programs is being processed as an amendment to Cimarron Park’s existing Conditional Use Permit. It should be noted Special Use Permits have been replaced by Conditional Use Permits in current land use law or best practice. Deadline for Action: May 1, 2014 (60 day time deadline per State Statute) Applicable Regulations: §154.106 Conditional Use Permits REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo is in receipt of a proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. The CUP amendment has been submitted by Family Means, a non-profit organization that runs after-school and summer programming for youth in the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park. Family Means currently runs similar programming inside the existing clubhouse and office of Cimarron Park. However, due to a lack of space (900 square feet) within the existing facilities, the applicants have noted that they are unable to expand programming in Cimarron Park to provide a greater variety of programs and services. Due to this limitation, Family Means is proposing to construct a 4,000 square-foot youth center in the southeast corner of the existing parking lot that serves the clubhouse and office. As guided by the established procedure of adding other accessory uses to the manufactured home park in the past, the proposed use requires an amendment to Cimarron’s existing CUP. BACKGROUND The building proposed by Family Means is intended to increase capacity for after-school and summer programming for youth within the Cimarron manufactured home park. Family Means is currently providing some programming within a 900 square-foot space in the basement of the existing clubhouse/office of Cimarron Park. However, as stated in the provided narrative, they would like to expand their capacity and programming to serve greater numbers of youth with expanded activities. The proposed youth center would allow them to accomplish these goals. The applicants first met with staff in 2012 to discuss this proposal. At the meeting, staff instructed the applicants that the review of the youth center would be processed as an amendment to their existing CUP (formerly Special Use Permit). As instructed by staff, the applicants are now moving forward with their proposal by submitting an application for an amendment to the existing CUP. The applicant’s submission to the City includes the following components: PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 3 • Narrative. The attached narrative includes a general overview of the project with additional background information regarding the organization and the intended use of the structure. The structure will have a teen area and a children’s area, as well as additional space for quiet study, computer stations and a commercial grade kitchen. The applicants have noted that there is adequate parking for the facility with 108 total parking spots at the end of construction. In addition, the narrative provides important details about how the structure will be served by the domestic sanitary sewer and water systems within Cimarron Park. Finally, it is noted that the project will result in an overall reduction in the amount if impervious surface. • Lease Agreement. Family Means have entered into a 30-year lease agreement with Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., the owners of Cimarron Park, to lease the area needed for the construction of the new youth center. In addition, the lease also provides access to common areas surrounding the building, including the dedicated parking spots for the facility. • Plan Sets o Lease Description Sketch. The sketch includes a description of the area to be leased for the youth center, as well as information relating to existing conditions and topography. o Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plan w/Details. The grading and utility plan shows the proposed grading as well as the proposed utility connections. The sanitary sewer service for the building will connect to the existing 6” service line for the clubhouse and office. The proposed water service will be connected via a 6” service line on the northern side of the structure. The plan also show a proposed rain garden on the east side of the site to address updated conditions related to drainage and storm water runoff. It is the City’s understanding that the applicant has prepared the submitted plan in coordination with the Valley Branch Watershed District. Finally, the plan includes measures to address erosion and sediment control. o Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan includes the species and location of a variety of plantings proposed for the site. The plan includes 6 trees and multiple varieties of shrubs and perennials. Upon review of the City’s landscape ordinance, Staff found the proposed landscape plan to be consistent with the City’s requirements. o Building Plans and Elevations. The applicants have provided elevations from the south and west sides of the proposed youth center, as well as the out or storage building. Building plans are also provided, showing how the interior space will be utilized in the youth center. o Site Plan Sketch. The Site Plan Sketch shows consistent information that supports the other documents in the plan sets. The sketch also demonstrates how the resulting parking lot will be striped in order to accommodate adequate parking facilities. The sketch and narrative note that 108 parking stalls will result from the redesign. However, when counting the stalls on the sketch, staff counted 95 parking stalls. Staff would request that the applicant verify the final number of parking stalls in advance of the building permit being approved. In reviewing the submitted materials, staff has determined that the applicants have provided a complete and thorough application to review the proposed amendment to Cimarron’s CUP. In order to further review the proposed use, staff reviewed the application in accordance with the City’s PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 4 ordinance pertaining to conditional use permits. In addition, staff did review the history of the site to better understand how to process the request. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS: In terms of the history of the manufactured home park, Cimarron Park was granted a Special Use Permit by the Town of East Oakdale in 1967 (Attachment #4). As part of this approval, various accessory uses were identified that could be constructed accessory to the manufactured home park at a later date. These accessory uses included a nine-hole golf course and a community center/office. In reviewing this application, staff has determined that the proposed youth center is an accessory use that is consistent with the original approval of the park. It should be noted that cities no longer issue special use permits, as these types of approvals have been replaced by conditional use permits (CUPs). In reviewing the proposed amendment to the CUP, staff reviewed the request according to the required finding of the City’s CUP Ordinance. The required findings include 12 findings that relate to minimizing potential impacts or nuisances associated with the proposed use. For the convenience of the Planning Commission, staff has provided the 12 required findings in Attachment #5. In reviewing the 12 required findings for granting a conditional use permit, or an amendment to that permit in this case, staff has found that the proposed use meets all of the required findings. In the judgment of staff, the proposed use is an expansion of a use that is currently occurring within the Cimarron clubhouse/office that will positively impact the community. In addition, there are no nearby land uses in close proximity that would be negatively impacted by the construction of the youth center in this location. After reviewing the required findings, staff finds that the proposed use would not conflict with the City’s requirements for granting an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the CUP. To facilitate the review by the Planning Commission, staff can address any questions related to specific findings if needed. The Fire Chief also reviewed the proposed youth center. The site will contain a fire hydrant in close proximity, and the structure will be sprinkled. The Fire Chief also wanted to know whether or not the facility could serve a dual purpose as an additional storm shelter in cases of extreme weather. Staff will follow up with the applicants and representatives of the manufactured home park to discuss any possibilities. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park to allow the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center through the following motion: “Move to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment submitted by Family Means to allow for the construction of a 4,000 square-foot youth center at the Cimarron Manufactured Home Park” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM 5 2. Application Form & Narrative 3. Youth Center Plan Sets 4. Cimarron Park’s Approved Special Use Permit 5. CUP Required Findings (§154.106.A) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING 4A – ACTION ITEM Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Scource: Washington County, MN 3-19-2014 Location Map: Family Means CUP Amendment K 456717 456710 Project Location 901 Lake Elmo Ave N 0 400 800200 Feet 1"=400' Cimarron Manufactured Home Park 10th St N La k e E l m o A v e N City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN MN 55042 03/03/2014 REVISED -03/18/14 Application for Conditional Use Amendment: Cimarron Community Building 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Cimarron Park Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. Kate Yunke, Property Manager 901 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042 651-436-6188 Owners/Lessees: Arba-Della Beck, President FamilyMeans 1875 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 651-439-4840 Architect: Brian Larson, AIA Larson Architects, LLC 807 N. 4th Street Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-0056 Project Background FamilyMeans is a private nonprofit social services agency founded in 1963 by Stillwater area community leaders. Their Youth Development Initiative provides on-site after-school and summer enrichment programs for Cimarron children and teens. FamilyMeans has 20 years of experience providing high quality youth programs. Local law enforcement and Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) management have publically credited their Cimarron program as instrumental in reducing juvenile crime within the community. The Cimarron youth programs have outgrown their existing space, located in the basement of the Cimarron golf clubhouse and business office. This 900 square-foot space limits the number of youth who can participate, as well as the variety of programming that can be offered. FamilyMeans and ELS have entered a 30-year lease agreement, allowing FamilyMeans to construct a new 4,000 sf one-story building and 500 sf outbuilding at the south end of the Cimarron clubhouse parking lot. The larger building will support and allow for the growth of Cimarron’s youth programming. Youth currently have the opportunity to explore art, science, music, sports, cooking and computer skill-building in an open free-choice environment. Expanded summer programming offers a soccer club, bike program and entrepreneurial garden project. Activities also include field trips and community service efforts. Help with school work is available daily, and teens explore post-secondary education options. Project Narrative As noted above, the proposed Cimarron Community Center building is located near the community entrance and existing offices and golf clubhouse. The new building and its yard occupy one end of an existing parking lot adjacent to existing playground and court areas, and are a short distance from the offices and the community pool. With its rear yard greenspace, the project reduces the overall impervious area of the site, and its location allows shared use of the existing parking lot. When striped as indicated, the remaining parking lot could provide 108 parking spaces ( including the 15 spaces needed for this new facility) . The plans have been developed in consultation and with support from the ELS/Cimarron local staff, who have concluded that this number of spaces will be more than adequate for all parking needs. The main building is a gable-roofed, slab-on-grade wood-framed structure with porches on both sides. Adjacent to the main building is an outbuilding with a seasonal bike shop and storage areas for outdoor recreation. The two buildings form edges to an outdoor play area bounded on the remaining sides by a earth berm and the playground areas. The main building’s plan is symmetrical, with a teen area and a children’s area on each side separated by a movable wall partition . Each side has its separate entrance from the parking lot/drop-off area to the north, as well as direct access to the outdoor play area to the south. In the center of the building are large activity multi-use spaces , with high (12’-0” ) ceilings. The center movable wall partition can be folded into a pocket, allowing the entire center area to be opened for special events. There are also quiet rooms to the south, facing the play yard, for study, art or small group activities. A central commercial-grade kitchen will be used for preparing food and for teaching purposes. On both the north and south sides of the building there are outdoor porches protecting entrances and providing space for small gatherings out of the elements. The site development of the building and yard will result in removal of some existing parking , and a net gain in pervious green space. As part of the reconfiguration of parking lot stormwater systems, a raingarden/bioswale is proposed that can help infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff from site and building. Smaller nearby raised bed gardens may be constructed to support the program’s gardening and produce initiative. A new 6” PVC line sanitary sewer service for the new building will be connected to the existing 6” sanitary sewer line running from the existing clubhouse/office building to the sanitary main in the street. Most of the usage from toilets, sinks, kitchen and other wastewater will be simply transferred from the program’s current use in the existing building to the new building. Any increase in usage from the new facility should easily be accommodated: according to the Chris Chvala, Cimarron Utility Director, the Cimarron wastewater treatment facility has an average flow of 72,000gal. with a capacity of 120,000 gal. The water service to the new building will via a new 4” line connected to the existing water service near an adjacent fire hydrant. Chris Chvala indicated that water pressure in this area is good, with few other sites using the existing 6” main in the street. Once a sprinkler contractor is engaged, water flow rates at the site will be verified. Summary The primary use of the proposed new Community Building for after-school and summer programs (currently housed by the existing clubhouse) appears to conform and be compatible with uses in the immediate area. Its scale, appearance and character differentiates enough to provide its own identity, but is also compatible with the existing office/clubhouse and the surrounding residential neighborhood. No additional parking will need to be created, with the existing parking lot providing all of the spaces needed. The overall net impervious surface area will decrease as a result of this project, with the addition of green space in the rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT All applications for Conditional Use Permits in the City of Lake Elmo shall be reviewed according to the following required findings (§154.106.A): 1. The proposed use will/will not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city because:____________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2. The use or development does/does not conform to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan because: ____ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. The use or development is/is not compatible with the existing neighborhood because: __________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. The proposed use does/does not meet all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance because:____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain or shoreland area, the proposed use does/does not meet all specific standards for such use in §150.250-257 (Shoreland Ordinance) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management) because: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 6. The proposed use will/will not be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will/will not change the essential character of the area because: _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 7. The proposed use will/will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to existing or future neighboring structures because: ________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 8. The proposed use will/will not be served by adequate public facilities because: ________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 9. The proposed use will/will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will/will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community because: _________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 2 10. The proposed use will/will not include excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors because: ________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Vehicular approaches to the property will/will not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares because: ____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 12. The proposed use will/will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance because: _________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Revised 3-20-14 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-08 ITEM: Horning Lot Size Variance – Krause’s Addition, Lot 9 SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Suzanne Horning (as Trustee of the Suzanne R.W. Horning Trust) for a variance that would classify Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo as a buildable lot. The lot currently does not meet the City’s minimum lot size for a lot of record in a RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District. The applicant has also requested a variance from Section 154.017 of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that any variance granted by the City “shall expire if work does not commence within 12 months of the date of the granting of the variance. The applicant has asked that the 12-month time limit be waived for this request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Briggs and Morgan (Christine Cirilli), 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN acting on behalf of: Suzanne Horning (Trustee), 8991 Jane Road North Property Owners: Suzanne and Robert Horning Trust, 8991 Jane Road North Location: Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition to Lake Elmo. PID Number 09.029.21.11.0015 Request: Variance – Lot Size and Time Limit for Completion Existing Land Use: Vacant parcel, prior recreation use (tennis courts) accessory to 8991 Jane Road North Existing Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Surrounding Land Use: Single family residential Surrounding Zoning: RS – Rural Single Family Comprehensive Plan: Rural Single Family Proposed Zoning: No Change History: Krause’s Addition was platted in 1963. The home at 8991 Jane Road North (across the street and also owned by the applicant) was constructed in 1979. The City granted a lot size variance for the subject property in 1985, but no home was ever PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 2 built on the site. A permit to install a tennis court on the subject property was approved later in 1985. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 2/3/14 60 Day Deadline – 4/3/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 6/3/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.450 – RS – Rural Single Family Residential Zoning District 154.109 – Variances (Administration and Enforcement) 150.250 – Shoreland Overlay District REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district. The application also includes a request for the City to waive the one-year deadline for completion of the work proposed under the variance. In this case, the applicant has requested that the variance be granted without a deadline so that a home could be built on the lot at an unspecified time in the future. The applicant is therefore not proposing to construct any buildings on the property, and is instead seeking a variance to classify the lot as a buildable parcel in advance of any specific building plans for the property. The lot under consideration is 0.785 acres (34,195 square feet) in size and the minimum lot size within the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district is 1.5 acres. As an existing lot of record, otherwise known as a lot that was platted prior to the City’s zoning regulations becoming effective, this property would be considered buildable if it met 60% of the district’s minimum lot size. The applicant would therefore need at least 0.9 acres (39,204 square feet) for this lot to be considered buildable under the current zoning regulations. The site is currently occupied by a tennis court that was built in the mid-1980’s, and has served as an accessory use to the home located at 8991 Jane Road North. Should the variance be approved, the applicant intends to convey the lot to her children as a buildable lot, although she has not provided any specific time frame for a home to be constructed. The application materials include a septic system analysis documenting that a system compliant with Washington County septic regulations may be constructed on the property. For the purposes of this report, the septic designer assumed that a new home would be built on the same area presently occupied by the tennis court. In addition to the above-referenced septic report, the applicant has provided a detailed project narrative with an analysis of the required variance findings. The applicant has also provided a detailed survey of the lot showing the existing topography, drainage patterns, tree cover, and improvements that are currently situated on the property. There are no specific site development plans, and any future construction on this property will need to comply with the City’s zoning and subdivision requirements (with the exception of minimum lot size should the variance be granted). BACKGROUND The lot that is the subject of the variance request is part of Krause’s Addition to the City of Lake Elmo, which was platted in 1963 when this area was still part of East Oakdale Township. The attached copy of the plat shows that the lot is the same size as it was when originally subdivided. It PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 3 likely would have been considered buildable up to the incorporation of the area into the City of Lake Elmo and the adoption of City zoning regulations in the late 1970’s. The home at 8991 Jane Road North was constructed in 1979, and it appears that this property (Lot 7) and the subject property (Lot 9) have been under common ownership since at least this time. In June of 1985, a previous owner applied for and was granted a variance by the City to grant Lot 9 status as a buildable lot. It appears that this action was taken in response to the City’s adoption of the 1.5-acre minimum lot size for single-family residential lots in this neighborhood. No home was ever constructed after the granting of the variance, and a tennis court was installed on the property later in 1985. As noted in the application materials, the present owner acquired the property sometime in 1985. It appears that the property transfer occurred after the construction of the tennis court. Additionally, the applicant has described that City assessed the subject property as a buildable lot in 1985 for a City project. Based on this information, it does appear that the City would have considered the lot to be a buildable lot at the time the property was purchased by the applicant. The applicant has also pointed out that the property has been assessed as a buildable lot the entire time that they have owned it. When the City was planning for the reconstruction of Jane Road North in 2012, the Planning Department was asked to review the assessment rolls for the project and to identify vacant, buildable parcels that would need to pay an assessment. Lot 9 of Krause’s Addition was not deemed buildable because it does not meet the 60% size requirement referenced above. Because the current Zoning Regulations include a one-year time limitation concerning the time frame for construction of projects subject to a variance, it is Staff’s opinion that the 60% requirement does apply in this situation. The applicant has therefore submitted a variance request in order to re-classify this property as a builable lot. The applicant’s parcel is situated at the intersection of Jamaca Avenue North and Jane Road North, and is approximately 230 feet north of Lake Jane. Other than a tennis court, there have been no other improvements constructed on the site. There is a fairly heavy amount of tree cover surrounding the tennis court around the periphery of the lot. All of the surrounding lots are occupied by single family residential homes. In general, the properties to the north and west are larger lots (1.5 acres), while the properties to the south and east are smaller lots (generally under 1 acre). In particular, there is a cluster of homes along the northern edge of Lake Jane than are very similar in size, and sometimes smaller, than the applicant’s parcel. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES In reviewing the applicable codes that apply to the subject property, Staff would like the Planning Commission to consider the following as it reviews this request: • RS District Setbacks. Any new construction on the lot will need to comply with all required setbacks for the RS District. The portion of the lot that abuts Jamaca Avenue North is considered the front property line, and is therefore subject to a slightly larger setback. • Driveway Access. Although the City Code does not include any restrictions on the location of a driveway on the property, Staff is recommending that any future driveway access Jane Road North instead of Jamaca Avenue North, since the latter is the less traveled roadway in adjacent to the lot. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 4 • Impervious Coverage. The RS District allows a maximum impervious coverage of 25% while the Shoreland Ordinance limits lot coverage to 15% or 6,000 square feet, whichever is greater. The tennis court currently occupies 7,395 square feet, which is 21.6% of the lot. At the time a new house is constructed on the property, the applicant will need to comply with the maximum impervious coverage allowed under the Shoreland Ordinance. • Shoreland Setbacks. The lot is far enough away from Lake Jane that any new structure will be able to comply with structure and septic system setbacks. • Drainage Area. There is an existing drainage area immediately to the west and to the northwest of the applicant’s lot, and it appears that a portion of the drainage area is also located on this lot. While the adjacent Sprinborn’s Green Acres plat includes a drainage easement over the adjacent lots, there is currently no such easement in place on the applicant’s property. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to provide a drainage easement over the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff as a condition of approval and prior to the issuance of any building permits for the property. • Septic and Drainfield Areas. The subject parcel is large enough to meet the City’s minimum requirement of 20,000 square feet for a primary and secondary septic system site. • Surrounding Lots. The neighboring lots within the public hearing notification area range in size from 11,424 square feet (0.26 acres) to 83,025 square feet (1.9 acres), and of these 13 lots, the average size is 41,592 square feet (0.95 acres). • Variance Expiration. The City Code specifies that variances are valid one year from the date a variance is issued. If construction has not taken place within one year, the variance becomes void. While the applicant has requested a full waiver of this requirement, Staff is recommending that the City maintain a specific deadline for construction of a home on the parcel. Staff is suggesting five years as a reasonable expectation. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.017 before an exception or modification to city code requirements can be granted. These criteria are listed below, along with comments from Staff regarding applicability of these criteria to the applicant’s request. 1) Practical Difficulties. A variance to the provision of this chapter may be granted by the Board of Adjustment upon the application by the owner of the affected property where the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration and then only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Definition of practical difficulties - “Practical difficulties” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. Under this standard, the City would need to find that the classification of the subject parcel as a buildable lot is a reasonable use of the property not otherwise permitted under the zoning ordinance. In this instance, the property was originally platted as a buildable lot and there is evidence in the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 5 City’s records that the current owner purchased the property with the understanding that it was a buildable lot. Additionally, the lot is consistent in size with other parcels platted at the same time and that have subsequently been built upon. The property has direct access to a platted and improved street, and a house can be placed on the property in manner consistent with the surrounding homes. Concerning the time extension associated with the variance request, Staff is recommending that a 5- year deadline is a reasonable expectation for construction of a new home. Proposed findings related to this criterion are as follows: FINDINGS: That the proposed use is reasonable because the lot was platted as a buildable parcel and all other parcels of similar size have had houses constructed on them since the subdivision was approved. The property is very close to meeting the required 0.9 acre minimum lot size requirement, and construction of a home on this lot will not be any more obstructive than structures built on lots meeting the 0.9 acre requirement. The applicant also purchased the lot at the time is was a buildable parcel, and the continued use of the property for a tennis court is not reasonable given the separation of this parcel by road right-of-way from any others under common ownership. The applicant has demonstrated the ability to install a complaint septic system on the property. A five year deadline for construction of a home on the property is a reasonable period of time for this work to be completed. 2) Unique Circumstances. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In order to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the Planning Commission would need to identify those aspects of the applicant’s property that would not pertain to other properties within the same zoning classification. In this case, the lot was platted as a buildable lot within an older subdivision. Other properties in the area were platted at a later date and under a different set regulations. The property owner also purchased the lot as a buildable lot, and the site has been assessed as such for the past 25 years. Again, Staff is suggesting some findings that could be considered by the Planning Commission as follows: FINDINGS: That the applicant’s property is unique due to former platting of this property as a buildable lot and continued classification of the property as buildable since the lot was subdivided. The applicant purchased the property with the understanding that a house could someday be built on the property, and City records indicate that the lot was indeed buildable at the time of purchase. Other homes on neighboring smaller lots were constructed prior to the adoption of the City’s zoning regulations. 3) Character of Locality. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality in which the property in question is located. A formal set of findings related to this standard is suggested as follows: FINDINGS: The applicant’s lot is larger than many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood and is close to the minimum size needed to be considered buildable. The lot is of sufficient size to allow the installation of a compliant septic system and to allow the placement of a home on the parcel consistent with neighboring structures. 4) Adjacent Properties and Traffic. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property adjacent to the property in question or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Propose findings for this criterion are as follows: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 6 FINDINGS. No impacts above and beyond those considered normal for any other single-family lot in the surrounding neighborhood would be expected should the variance be granted. Please note that the applicant has also provided a set of findings as part of the attached narrative and supporting documentation included with the application. Considering the potential findings of fact as suggested in the preceding section, Staff is recommending approval of the variance request based on the findings noted in items 1-4 above and with conditions of approval related to the drainage area on the site, the location of the driveway access, and the time limit for the expiration of the variance. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will be reviewing these findings with the Commission at its meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Briggs and Morgan, PA acting on behalf of Suzanne Horning, for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The driveway for the future home of the lot shall access Jane Road North. Driveway access to Jamaca Avenue North shall be prohibited. 2) The applicant shall provide a drainage easement for the portion of the lot that collects storm water runoff from the subject property and adjacent parcels prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. The specific location of the drainage easement shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3) The variance shall be valid for a period of five years, but may be renewed upon review and approval by the Board of Adjustment. 4) A grading, erosion control, and storm water management plan shall be submitted in conjunction with a building permit for the property. 5) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. The suggestion motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Application and Project Narrative PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING 7 3. Existing Site Conditions/Survey 4. Location Map 5. Krause’s Addition Plat 6. Septic System Report – Tom Trooien ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4B – PUBLIC HEARING Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Data Scource: Washington County, MN 2-26-2014 Location Map: 09.029.21.11.0015 K Ja m a c a A v e N Jane Rd N Variance Request 09.029.21.11.0015 0 200 400100 Feet 1"=200' PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 4C – PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2014-17 ITEM: Launch Properties Zoning Map Amendment and PUD Concept Plan for a Light Industrial Business Park SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Jack Griffin, City Engineer Mike Bouthilet, Public Works Director Jim Sachs, Public Works/Water Greg Malmquist, Fire Chief SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The initial phase will include the construction of a 125,000 square foot building on the western portion of the site, which will be occupied by a tire distribution business. The proposed zoning of BP – Business Park/Light Industrial allows for a range of office, light industrial, and non- production industrial uses on the site. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN Property Owners: Reco Real Estate, LLC, 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN Location: Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36. Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Lake Elmo Ave. N. and Hudson Blvd. N. PID Number 36.029.21.33.0001 Request: Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Existing Land Use: Vacant/agricultural fields Existing Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional Surrounding Land Use: Agricultural fields, single family residential, golf driving range, drive-in theater Surrounding Zoning: RT – Rural Transitional, RS – Rural Single Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: Business Park PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 2 Proposed Zoning: BP – Business Park/Light Industrial History: The site has been used for agricultural fields for a long time. The property has been placed on a holding zone since the adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 3/6/14 60 Day Deadline – 5/6/14 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – 7/6/14 Applicable Regulations: 154.051 – BP Business Park Zoning District 154.800 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regulations 154.105 – Zoning Amendments REQUEST DETAILS The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan for property located northeast of the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue North and Hudson Boulevard North. The details concerning the two different aspects of the request are as follows: • The zoning map amendment would change the zoning designation of the parcel from RT – Rural Transitional to BP – Business Park/Light Industrial. This zoning is consistent with the City’s land use plan for the I-94 Corridor. • A request for a PUD Concept Plan to allow the construction of two light industrial buildings with a net area of 385,000 square feet. A PUD has been requested in order to allow for a zero lot line build out of what will eventually be two separate parcels and to allow for a waiver of the City’s current setback requirements for certain portions of the property. If the City decides to approve the request, the applicant may then proceed with the preparation of preliminary development plans and preliminary plat for the site. Under the City’s PUD Ordinance, the applicant must also submit final development plans as part of the review process. The applicant has requested to submit the preliminary and final development plans at the same time, which may be allowed by the City for smaller development projects. Because the proposed development is confined to one existing parcel and will not require the construction of any public roads through the project area, Staff is supportive of a combined preliminary and final plan submission should the concept plan be approved. The attached application narrative and site plans provide an overview of the applicant’s request, which will be built out in two phases. The first phase will include the construction of a 125,000 square foot building for a perspective tenant that intends to use the space for a tire distribution center. The bulk of the building will be used as a warehouse/distribution area, with a smaller office area located at the front of the building facing Hudson Boulevard North. The plan includes the reservation of space on the site for a future 25,000 square foot expansion of this building, along with an automobile parking area for employees near the front entrance and a truck loading area along the western portion of the building. Because the proposed tenant is expected to need a relatively small amount of customer/employee parking, the applicant is proposing to depict a portion of the parking area as “proof of parking” that could be constructed at a later date when needed. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 3 The second phase of the project includes a much larger building of 235,000 square feet that would be located in the western portion of the lot. There is no specific use identified for the building, but it is being planned to handle businesses looking for “flexible, functional space in an accessible location along the I-94 corridor” in accordance with the applicant’s project narrative. Both buildings would be accessed via a shared driveway entrance off of Hudson Boulevard North, with ancillary access provided through driveway in the extreme western and northern portions of the site. The site plan includes shared storm water facilities that will be located along Hudson Boulevard North and along the western boundary of the property. As part of the application for a PUD, the applicant has requested flexibility from some of the current BP zoning district requirements as follows: • The establishment of a zero lot line configuration for the parking lot between the two proposed buildings and lots. If the zero lot line configuration was not approved as part of the project, the applicant would need to set the parking areas back 15 feet from the adjoining lot line (which would leave 30 feet of space between the two parking areas). The PUD will allow the creation of a common parking and truck loading area, all of which will be internal to the proposed development. • A reduction from the required setbacks along the northern property boundary and the area guided for urban low density residential development. The applicant is proposing a building setback of 96 feet from this property line, with a drive aisle (fire lane) located 56 feet from this line. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum building setback of 150 feet from residential zones for buildings and 100 feet for parking areas (which would include maneuvering lanes and driveways). The applicant is proposing a berm and landscaping along this line to help compensate for the reduced setbacks. BACKGROUND The proposed development site is 29 acres in size and located within the City’s I-94 corridor planning area. This property, as well as the property to the north, west, and east is included in the City’ future sewer service area, with these parcels being guided for urban low density residential, commercial, and business park respectfully. The site has historically been used for agricultural fields except for the southern portion, which is lower in elevation and covered with vegetation. The surrounding existing uses include the Vali-Hi drive in theater, the Country Air golf practice facility, and the Forest residential subdivision. All but the Forest subdivision are guided for future public sewer service and are expected to be redeveloped at some point in the future. The City has recently reviewed a sketch plan for the property immediately north of the applicant’s site (the golf practice facility) for a 50-unit residential subdivision. A portion of the City’s trunk sewer line extension project that will provide sanitary sewer service to the Village Area crosses the western portion of the applicant’s property. This portion of the sewer is a gravity line that will allow the applicant to immediately connect to service the proposed buildings. The City Engineer has noted that this service line will need to be extended to Lake Elmo Avenue in order to provide service to other properties in the area. Any properties that use the sewer connection will need to plan for the future extension of service through their properties as a requirement for being allowed access to the service. Water service is not to the site, but will be extended to the eventual location of 5th Street as part of a planned City project later this year. The applicant will be responsible for providing a plan for the connection to public water service as part of the preliminary plan submissions. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 4 The City’s future land use plan guides the subject parcel for Business Park, and this land use classification extends for the entire length of Hudson Boulevard North between Lake Elmo Avenue and Manning Avenue. The specific description for the land use category from the Comprehensive Plan reads as follows: BUSINESS PARK – The Business Park land use category is intended to encourage the creation of significant employment centers that accommodate a diverse mix of office and light industrial uses and jobs. Specific desired attributes of this land use include a diversity of jobs, high development densities and jobs per acre, high quality site and building architectural design, and increased tax revenues for the community. Office, office showroom/warehousing, research and development services, light and high-tech electronic manufacturing and assembly, and medical laboratories are typical uses appropriate for this land use category. Some retail and service uses may be allowed as supporting uses for the primary office and light industrial uses of the employment center. In addition to the Eagle Point Business Park, much of the land between Manning Ave and Keats Ave adjacent to I-94 is guided for this land use classification. [Corresponding Zoning District(s): BP] As part of the request, the applicant is asking that the City rezone the parcel to the BP – Business Park/Light Manufacturing District consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed activities are either permitted or conditional uses within this district. As part of the request for a planned development, Staff is recommending that the City structure the PUD so that the allowed uses within the development are consistent with the permitted and conditional uses within the BP zoning district. The final PUD should also specify any of the zoning exceptions being sought by the applicant as described in the preceding section. PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES/STAFF COMMENTS Members of the Community Development, Public Works, Engineering, and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed PUD Concept plan and provided comments in the following areas: • Land Use. The proposed Concept Plan and the buildings/uses proposed are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance concerning the Business Park land use category. The PUD Ordinance does provide for flexibility form the underlying zoning standards with the understanding that this flexibility will help a developer better utilize site features and obtain a higher quality development. The objectives related to a PUD are noted in the findings section below. • Zoning. With the extension of sewer and water service to the site, the City is able to take action rezone this parcel in a manner consistent with the future land use designation of Business Park. • Lake Elmo Theming Study. The applicant is proposing to incorporate design elements form the City’s Theming Study, including an enhanced corner treatment (signage and landscaping) at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North and the installation of white horse fencing extending out from this corner area. • Impervious Coverage: The proposed coverage of the parcel falls well within the allowable amount of impervious coverage (75%) for a BP zoning district. The site plan preserves 39% PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 5 of the site as open space, including storm water ponds, screening buffer areas, and general landscaping. • Access/Driveways. The City Engineer has noted that the driveways will need to comply with the City’s access spacing requirements and that the entrances along Hudson Boulevard North will likely need to be modified to meet these requirements. The County has questioned the future usage of the Lake Elmo Avenue access point, and has requested that a traffic study be conducted to more fully understand the expected traffic impacts from the development. Staff is recommending that access to the Lake Elmo Avenue driveway be limited to automobiles, and that all truck traffic be required to use the Hudson Boulevard entrance. • Setbacks. The proposed buildings and driveway areas will comply with the setback requirements of the BP zoning district with the exception of the internal side yard parking setback and the building and parking area setbacks from the northern property line. The applicant is proposing to mitigate the northern property line setback by constructing a berm and additional landscaping in this area. • Screening and Buffering. Because the northern property line represents the boundary between a light industrial and residential development, Staff is recommending that the proposed berm and landscaping as proposed be incorporated as a requirement of the PUD. The applicant should submit additional details, including a proposed cross section view of the berm, as part of the preliminary and final plan submittal. • Design Standards. The proposed buildings will be subject to the City’s Architectural and Design Standards and Guidelines Manual. The Planning Commission will be the reviewing body for the design review associated with these buildings, which will be incorporated as part of the preliminary and final plan review for the site. The applicant will need to provide the required information to complete this review with as part of any future plan submissions to the City. • Water and Sewer Services. The applicant will need to submit a plan for the extension of water services to the site as part of the preliminary and final plan submission. The Engineer has noted that the applicant will be responsible for extending these service across the site as part of these plans. • Storm Water and Erosion Control. The applicant will need to submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans with the preliminary and final development plans. These plans will need to conform to City of Lake Elmo and Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) requirements. The applicant is strongly encouraged to meet with VBWD to review the district requirements prior to preparing this plan. The applicant and City will also need to determine whether or not the proposed ponds will be deeded to the City or left under private control. • Parking. The City’s Parking Ordinance would require 60 parking stalls for the proposed use, including 18 associated with the office area and 42 for the warehouse portion of the building. The applicant has depicted 47 stalls adjacent to the first phase building, with another 85 stalls shown as “proof or parking”. The parking ordinance does state that the Planning Commission may allow parking requirements for a particular use to be relaxed or lessened in response to an expected demand that is lower than the required standard in this section, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 6 provided that sufficient open area is set aside on the parcel to meet the required standard, if determined to be necessary at a later date. With the expected demand for parking to be low for the proposed use, Staff is recommending that the site plan be approved as presented with the proof of parking concept. • County Review. Washington County has submitted its review comments, which are attached for consideration by the Planning Commission. The most significant of the County’s comments is the request for a traffic study, which Staff is recommending be included as part of a preliminary and final plan submission. • City Engineer Review. The City Engineer has reviewed the concept plan and provided comments in a review letter to the City dated March 18, 2014. The applicant will need to address the Engineer’s comments as part of the preliminary and final plan submission for the site. • Sidewalks and Trails. The concept plan does not include any trails or sidewalks within or adjacent to the development area. Although this is a commercial development, Staff is recommending that the plans be amended to include a trail along Lake Elmo Avenue within the County right-of-way. This trail will provide a connection to the planned multi-purpose trail along 5th Street immediately to the north of the subject property. At this time, the City’s plans do not include any trails or trail corridors along Hudson Boulevard North. • Landscaping. The applicant has not provided any details concerning landscaping for the site, which must be submitted at the time of preliminary and final plan submission. The applicant will also need to submit a tree preservation and protection plan as part of this application. • Environmental Review. The proposed project does not meet any threshold for a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet. • Fire Chief Review. The Fire Chief has asked that the fire lanes within the development be designed in accordance with Minnesota Fire Code standards. The fire chief will need to review the placement of fire hydrants within the project site. • Park Land Dedication. The City has established a fee in lieu of land dedication for commercial land development. This fee will need to be paid at the time a final plat is approved by the City. • Lighting. A specific lighting plan has been not been submitted and should be included with the preliminary and final development plans. • Signs. The applicant has not provided a signage plan, which will be needed as part of future submissions to conform to the City’s Sign Ordinance. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two- phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 7 City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the applicant’s use of a PUD will provide the applicant with flexibility to design a more unified and cohesive development than could be accomplished with the underlying zoning district. In particular, the proposed setback waivers will allow the loading areas to be configured to the center portion of the site and internally screened from adjacent properties. The proposed location of the buildings will also provide for a shared main access point to Hudson Boulevard, while eliminating truck traffic at the peripheral access driveways. The project includes a substantial buffer from the residential property north of the site, which in conjunction with the expected landscaping within the proposed residential subdivision will provide for an effective transition between these uses. The proposed use will be subject to the recently revised required findings for Planned Developments. When reviewing requests for approval of a planned unit development, the PUD Ordinance notes that the City should consider whether one or more of the objectives listed below will be served or achieved: 1) Innovation in land development techniques that may be more suitable for a given parcel than conventional approaches; 2) Promotion of integrated land uses, allowing for a mixture of residential, commercial, and public facilities; 3) Provision of more adequate, usable, and suitably located open space, recreational amenities and other public facilities than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development techniques; 4) Accommodation of housing of all types with convenient access to employment opportunities and/or commercial facilities; and especially to create additional opportunities for senior and affordable housing; 5) Preservation and enhancement of important environmental features through careful and sensitive placement of buildings and facilities; 6) Preservation of historic buildings, structures or landscape features; 7) Coordination of architectural styles and building forms to achieve greater compatibility within the development and surrounding land uses; 8) Creation of more efficient provision of public utilities and services, lessened demand on transportation, and the promotion of energy resource conservation; 9) Allowing the development to operate in concert with a redevelopment plan in certain areas of the City and to ensure the redevelopment goals and objectives will be achieved; and 10) Higher standards of site and building design than would otherwise be provided under conventional land development technique. Please note that the Staff recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The preliminary and final development plans shall address all comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated March 18, 2014. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 8 2) The applicant shall prepare a traffic impact study prior to the submission of preliminary and final plans that addresses the concerns and comments included as part of the review letter from Washington County dated March 19, 2014. This study shall clarify the intended use of the secondary access driveways providing access to the automobile parking areas. 3) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. 4) The final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans that conform to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and that conforms to the City’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a cross section view of the proposed berm and landscaping along the northern property line as part of these plans. 5) The applicant shall submit detailed architectural plans at the time of the preliminary and final development plan review by the City. These plans shall conform to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. 6) The final preliminary and final development plans shall include a signage plan. 7) The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication as determined by the City prior to the final plat being released for recording. 8) The final plat shall include all easements for drainage and utility and other purposes as required by the City Engineer. 9) The storm water plans shall differentiate between storm water retention and storm water infiltration areas. 10) The preliminary and final development plans shall include a specific land use plan for the property clarifying the uses allowed under the PUD, the dimensional requirements for the site, including any deviations from the underlying zoning, and other information deemed appropriate by the City. DRAFT FINDINGS Please refer to the comments in the previous section. Staff will review the recommended conditions of approval with the Commission at the meeting. RECCOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request from Launch Properties (Dan Regan), 1875 Highway 36 West, Suite 200, Roseville, MN for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North. This recommendation includes the following conditions of approval: 1) The preliminary and final development plans shall address all comments from the City Engineer in his review letter dated March 18, 2014. 2) The applicant shall prepare a traffic impact study prior to the submission of preliminary and final plans that addresses the concerns and comments included as part of the review letter from Washington County dated March 19, 2014. This study shall clarify the intended use of the secondary access driveways providing access to the automobile parking areas. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 9 3) The applicant shall secure any required permits from the Valley Branch Watershed District prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the site. 4) The final development plans shall include detailed landscape plans that conform to the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and that conforms to the City’s Tree Protection and Replacement Ordinance. The applicant shall provide a cross section view of the proposed berm and landscaping along the northern property line as part of these plans. 5) The applicant shall submit detailed architectural plans at the time of the preliminary and final development plan review by the City. These plans shall conform to the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. 6) The final preliminary and final development plans shall include a signage plan. 7) The applicant shall pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication as determined by the City prior to the final plat being released for recording. 8) The final plat shall include all easements for drainage and utility and other purposes as required by the City Engineer. 9) The storm water plans shall differentiate between storm water retention and storm water infiltration areas. 10) The preliminary and final development plans shall include a specific land use plan for the property clarifying the uses allowed under the PUD, the dimensional requirements for the site, including any deviations from the underlying zoning, and other information deemed appropriate by the City. The suggested motion for taking action on the Staff recommendation is as follows: “Move to recommend approval of the request for a Zoning Map Amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan related to a two-phase, 385,000 square foot light industrial development that will be located at the intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and Hudson Boulevard North subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Form 2. Legal Description 3. Application Description and Project Narrative 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Concept Layout 6. Building Renderings 7. City Engineer Review Comments 8. Washington County Review Comments ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ....................................................... Community Development Director - Report by Staff .................................................. Community Development Director - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING 10 - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4C – PUBLIC HEARING HUDSON BLVD L E V A R D B O U HUD S O N N O R T H PARCEL 42H LA K E E L M O A V E N U E N O R T H C. S . A . H . N O . 1 7 © 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved N 120 FEET600 GRAPHIC SCALE ERICKSONIVILC HUDSON BLVD L E V A R D B O U HUD S O N N O R T H w H I T E P I C K E T F E N C E M O N U M E N T S I G N W E L C O M E T O L A K E E L M O PARCEL 42H LA K E E L M O A V E N U E N O R T H C. S . A . H . N O . 1 7 © 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved N 120 FEET600 GRAPHIC SCALE ERICKSONIVILC © 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved ERICKSONIVILC PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5A – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014-15 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Commercial Wedding Venue Draft Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review an updated draft ordinance that would allow commercial wedding venues as an interim use permit on certain properties that are zoned A – Agriculture and RT – Rural Transitional Zoning. This ordinance has been revised at the direction of the Planning Commission based on the discussion from its last meeting. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance set a public hearing date of April 14, 2014 in order to continue moving forward with the ordinance. REQUEST DETAILS The attached draft ordinance has been revised from the last Planning Commission meeting in accordance with the comments received at the meeting. Most significantly, the ordinance now includes a time provision that limits wedding ceremonies to the month of May through October and for no more than two occurrences in any week during this time period. Please note that Staff did present an update to the City Council concerning the proposed ordinance at the last Council meeting, and the Council supported the efforts of the Planning Commission to prepare a Commercial Wedding Venue ordinance. At this time, Staff is seeking additional feedback from the Commission concerning the preliminary draft ordinance and will proceed in accordance with any further direction from the Commission. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission proceed with a public hearing concerning the proposed Wedding Venue Ordinance at its April 14, 2014 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Commercial Wedding Venue Ordinance (3/10/14) BUSINESS ITEM 5A 2 ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5A CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08-_____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING PROVISOINS CONCERNING COMMERCIAL WEDDING VENUES AND ALLOWING SUCH USES AS AN INTERIM USE IN A AND RT ZONING DISTRICTS SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: §154.012 Zoning Use Types and Classifications B. Use Types and Classifications. 12. Accessory Uses Commercial Wedding Venue. A use involving a location to conduct wedding ceremonies, not including receptions, and operated with the intention of earning a profit by providing the venue to the public. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: §154.400 Permitted and Conditional Uses. Table 9-1 lists all permitted and conditional uses allowed in the rural districts. “P” indicates a permitted use, “C” a conditional use, and “I” an interim use. Uses not so indicated shall be considered prohibited. Cross-references listed in the table under “Standards” indicate the location within this Ordinance of specific development standards that apply to the listed use. Table 9-1: Permitted and Conditional Uses, Rural Districts RT A RR RS RE Standard Accessory Uses Commercial Wedding Venue I I - - - 155.111.C 1 SECTION 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Title XV: Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code, is hereby amended by adding the following: § 154. 310 Standards for Accessory Uses D. Commercial Wedding Venue. A commercial wedding venue is allowed as an accessory use with an interim use permit in the A – Agriculture and RT – Rural Transitional on parcels greater than 10 acres size. The suitability of a parcel for a wedding venue shall be determined by the characteristics of the site and by the unique capacity of the parcel to accommodate the use while preserving the essential rural character of the neighborhood and the site on which the use is located, by the ability of the parcel to accommodate the use without negative impact on the general health, safety, and welfare of the community, and by other factors the City may deem appropriate for consideration. 1. Ownership. The property will be the primary residence of the venue operator(s). The operator must be on the premises for the duration of each event. 2. Maximum Number of Guests. The maximum numbers of guests is limited to 150 for each event. 3. Food Handling. Any on-site preparation of food or beverages must comply with all applicable federal, state, or local requirements. a. Kitchen Facilities. No commercial kitchen facility is allowed. b. Catering. Caterers must be properly licensed. 4. Serving of Alcohol. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to table, fortified, or sparkling wines. The serving of such beverages shall following proper City and State licensing requirements. a. Bartenders serving guests must be properly licensed. 5. Seasonal Operation. Events are limited to no more than twice per week and are permitted only during the months of May through October. 6. Hours of Operation. Events shall only be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. All guests and staff must vacate the premises by 10:00 p.m. All lights associated with the event must be turned off by 10:00 p.m. 7. Overnight Accommodations. No overnight accommodations are allowed. 8. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking shall be required in the ratio of one (1) parking space for each three attendees based on the maximum number of attendees planned for the site. The off-street parking area and the number of parking spaces shall be documented on the required site plan. 9. Setbacks. The minimum setbacks from neighboring houses and property lines for the various activities associated with the wedding venue shall be as follows: a. Parking: 100 feet from residential property lines; 200 feet from neighboring houses. b. Outdoor Activity Spaces: 300 feet from residential property lines; 400 feet from neighboring houses. c. Indoor Activity Spaces: 300 feet from residential property lines; 300 feet from neighboring houses. 10. Landscaping/Screening. Landscaping may be required to buffer the use from adjacent land uses and to provide screening when such screening does not presently exist on the site. A landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of application for an Interim Use Permit. 2 11. Grading. Any proposed grading shall observe all requirements of Section 151.017 of the City Code. If a grading plan is required, it shall be submitted in conjunction with an application for an Interim Use Permit. 12. Traffic. A transportation management plan shall be submitted as part of an application for an Interim Use Permit. The plan shall address traffic control, including traffic movement to the public street system and impact on the surrounding roadways. 13. Structures. All existing or proposed structures to be used for the wedding venue shall be inspected by the City’s Building Official and must meet applicable Building Code requirements. a. Temporary Structures. Temporary structures, including tents and canopies, may be allowed. Tents and canopies may be erected no more than two days prior to an event and must be removed no more than two days following the event. 14. Application. An application for a commercial wedding venue shall follow the application and review procedures for an Interim Use Permit as specified in Section 154.107. In addition to the submission requirements of Section 154.107, an application for a commercial wedding venue shall include the following information: a. The expected number of attendees per ceremony; b. The number of ceremonies per year; c. The number of employees; d. The hours of operation; e. Sanitary facilities; f. Lighting; g. Sound amplification to be used; h. Temporary structures or tents to be used in association with the planned events; i. Signage; j. Security to be provided; k. Location of all trash receptacles; l. Other documentation as specified herein; 15. Sanitary Facilities. Sanitary facilities adequate for the number of attendees shall be provided. Portable toilets may be approved for temporary use, and must be screened from view from roads and neighboring properties by landscaping or a wooden enclosure. No portable toilets shall be located closer than 400 feet from a neighboring residential structure. 16. Lighting. Lighting associated with the wedding venue shall be limited to downcast and shielded fixtures so that the source of the light is not visible from adjacent roads or neighboring properties. Lighting shall comply with Section 150.035 of the City Code. 17. Noise. All wedding venues shall comply with City’s noise standards found in Section 130.045 of the City Code. 18. Sound Amplification. Amplification of music and participants and is allowed only in conjunction with a wedding ceremony. There shall be no other amplification of music outside of the ceremony. 3 19. Waste. All solid waste must be stored in a manner that prevents the propagation, harborage, or attraction of flies, rodents, or other nuisance conditions and must be removed at least once every seven days by a licensed solid waste hauler. 20. Liability. The applicant shall secure adequate liability coverage, which shall be in place at least one week prior to any event. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. SECTION 5. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-_____ was adopted on this __________________ day of ___________ 2014, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ______________________________ Mike Pearson, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Adam Bell, City Clerk This Ordinance 08-_____ was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2014. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 3/24/14 AGENDA ITEM: 5B – BUSINESS ITEM CASE # 2014 - 19 ITEM: Zoning Text Amendment – Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance SUBMITTED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Kyle Klatt, Community Development Director SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance. Staff is recommending to strike the ordinance with the intent of improving operational efficiency by administratively processing construction projects for permitted uses on existing platted lots. This recommendation is based upon the fact that the City has a full-time administrative, planning, engineering and building staff who are able to process these requests administratively. In addition, the newly adopted design review process should aid staff in the review of building permits for permitted uses on existing platted lots. The requested action does not require a public hearing, as the ordinance is not located in the Zoning Code. Staff is recommending that the ordinance be struck. REQUEST DETAILS City staff has been working on an updating the Zoning Code and other Code sections to prepare for what is anticipated to be a busy growth phase for the community. In order to improve operational efficiency in advance of this growth period, staff is proposing to strike the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance. The main reason to strike the ordinance relates to Section B, which reads the following: “(B) Review of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the site and building plans for the purpose of determining their compliance with this section and other applicable city ordinances. The Zoning Administrator shall have 60 days in which to complete the review of the site and building plans. During the same 60-day period, the Council and Planning Commission shall also review the site and building plan and refer the plan to other city staff for review for the same purpose.” Per the required procedure established under this ordinance, permitted uses on pre-existing platted lots also have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. When reviewing this procedure compared to other communities, this requirement can only be described as atypical. In staff’s judgment, this ordinance language is likely remnant when the City did not have a full-time planning, building and engineering staff to review the construction projects in the community. In addition, now that the City has developed and adopted a design review process, staff is more prepared to assume the responsibility of processing these types of requests administratively. To be clear, staff would only process construction projects administratively in cases where the proposed use was a permitted use under the City’s Zoning Code, and the property is a pre-existing platted lot. In a significant proportion or majority of development projects, some platting or land subdivision will be required. In addition, applicants proposing a use that under the City’s Code is a conditional use will always be required to apply for a conditional use permit, which addresses many of the uses that have BUSINESS ITEM 5B 2 potential impacts or nuisances associated with them. Both of these processes require a public hearing. It is only in cases where the proposed use is permitted and the lot is already platted where the staff administrative review would occur. In addition to the improving operation efficiency component, there are other provisions within this ordinance that are no longer applicable. For example, the City has adopted new landscaping provisions and requirements. Therefore, the landscaping provisions within the Site Plan Review Ordinance are no longer necessary. Other requirements included in the ordinance, such as lighting, surveys, building plans, storm water management plans and other requirements are already addressed by other ordinances and by the City’s building permit process. In other words, the Site Plan Review Ordinance is currently outdated and only adds additional unnecessary review. Staff would recommend striking this ordinance to improve efficiency and reduce confusion. As stated in the summary, the proposed action does not require a public hearing because the ordinance is not in the City’s zoning code. Staff is bringing the proposed action before the Planning Commission because it does relate to land use and development. Now that the City’s design review process is in place, staff recommends proceeding with removing this ordinance to improve operational efficiency. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend striking the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance (§151.070) through the following motion: “Move to recommend striking the Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance.” ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site and Building Plan Review Ordinance (§151.070) ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission ..................................... Chair & Commission Members BUSINESS ITEM 5B Print Lake Elmo, MN Code of Ordinances § 151.070 SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW. (A) Information required. Except has hereinafter provided, every person, before commending construction or alteration of a structure, shall submit to the Zoning Administrator the following documents and information: (1) A survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing conditions, accurately dimensioned; (2) A complete set of preliminary drawings prepared by an architect, landscape architect, engineer, or planner showing: (a) An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating parking layout including access provisions, designation of locations of principal and accessory buildings, landscaping, in conformance with the zoning code and division (A)(3) below; (b) Fences or walls or other screening, including height and type of material in conformance with Chapter 1500 and the zoning district regulations; (c) Lighting provisions, type, and location; (d) Curbs; (e) Building elevations, sections, and outline specifications, including material proposed; (f) Existing and proposed land elevations in 2 foot contours, drainage provisions, and utility provisions as may be required, including water, sewer, drainfield, lake shore, flood plain, airport or environmental overlay districts; and (g) Existing limitations imposed by zoning. (3) Landscaping and screening plan. (a) Complete landscaping, screening, and erosion control plans shall be prepared and signed by a professional landscape architect or professional site planner with educational training or work experience in land analysis and site plan preparation. These plans shall include: 1. Detailed natural land analysis, including vegetation, soil types, and slopes; 2. Man-made features (berms, fences, and the like); 3. Details of all proposed vegetative landscaping materials including: placement, Latin name/common name, caliper/height, and quantity; 4. Details of proposed non-vegetative landscaping materials; and 5. Planning and construction schedule for completion of landscaping and screening plans. Page 1of 2CHAPTER 151: BUILDING REGULATIONS 3/20/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx (b) The final landscaping and screening plan must be approved by the Council/engineer at the time of the site plan review. (c) The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, fountains, decorative walks, or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Project Value (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements) Percentage of Total Project Value to Be Allocated to Landscaping Below $1,000,000 2% $1,000,001 to $2,000,000 1 and 3/4% $2,000,001 to $3,000,000 1 and 1/2% $3,000,001 to $4,000,000 1 and 1/4% Over $4,000,000 1% (d) All landscaping must be guaranteed for 2 growing seasons, with a bond or security . (4) A Storm Water Management Plan and/or and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan as required in § 150.273. (B) Review of Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator shall review the site and building plans for the purpose of determining their compliance with this section and other applicable city ordinances. The Zoning Administrator shall have 60 days in which to complete the review of the site and building plans. During the same 60-day period, the Council and Planning Commission shall also review the site and building plan and refer the plan to other city staff for review for the same purpose. (Am. Ord. 9764, passed - -) (C) Exceptions. The following types of construction or alteration are exempt from the site and building plan review provisions of this section: (1) The construction or alteration of a single or double family detached dwelling and buildings accessory thereto; and (2) The construction or alteration of any building where the Building Inspector estimates that the total cost of the construction or alteration will not exceed $2,500, provided that in no event shall buildings be constructed or altered in violation of the Uniform Building Code or city ordinances. (1997 Code, § 520.01) (Am. Ord. 08-024, passed 4-20-2010) Penalty, see § 10.99 Page 2of 2CHAPTER 151: BUILDING REGULATIONS 3/20/2014http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx © 2014 — T. Erickson, LLC — EricksonCivil — All Rights Reserved ERI C K S O N I V I L C 0200 FEETGRAPHIC SCALE 100 N PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 73 / WINTER 2009 1 THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING COMMISSIONER Meaningful Dialogue With the Public by Elaine Cogan who wish to speak to sign in ahead of time and refer to that list throughout the meet- ing. You can then call on each one by name. If you accompany your words by a nod or a smile, you show a welcoming acceptance. Answer questions succinctly and to the point. Be careful not to digress into irrelevancies that do not advance the dis- cussion. Avoid plannerese and jargon, always keeping in mind you are talking with laypeople. Show by your body language that you are listening. Lean forward, with hands discretely on the table or in your lap. Never roll your eyes, shake your head, or tap a pencil or pen – all sure signals you are impatient or distracted. Do not fall for “red herrings” or baited questions. If necessary, repeat what you or other commissioners have said or explain your answer in more detail. Avoid a “one on one” with any ques- tioner, broadening your answers so they are general and relate to the concerns of most or all the people in the audience. Always be polite. You may have to agree to disagree, but insults and innuen- do are never appropriate. Do not be afraid to say you do not know, but add, “We will get the informa- tion for you.” Ask the questioner to see you or the staff afterwards. Never bore everyone else by asking a person’s name, phone number, etc., at the time. Sum up before you go on to the next agenda item. “Thank you for talking with us today. We have taken down all your comments and questions and will consid- er them carefully.” By engaging in a true dialogue with the public, you may learn some useful information and actually enjoy the give- and-take. ◆ Elaine Cogan, partner in the Portland, Oregon, plan- ning and communications firm of Cogan Owens Cogan LLC, has worked for more than thirty years with communities under- taking strategic planning and visioning processes. T o keep and maintain the trust of the public, it is imperative that your planning commission understands – and practices – the fine art of inviting their comments and questions and responding in a cordial and respectful manner. This begins with the environment, the scene you set when the public comes to visit. If you conduct business while sitting on the same level as the audience, you send a nonverbal signal there is no “we” and “they” and you are all in this together. If, however, the protocols in your commu- nity dictate that you are on a dais above the people, and you cannot change that arrangement, it is more difficult to create an atmosphere that invites productive public dialogue. The word “dialogue” is chosen careful- ly. You should want to engage in a conver- sation with the public, not a monologue where either side – the planning commis- sioners or the public – monopolizes. One caveat: in some states, public hearings are formal procedures, requiring sworn testi- mony and other legal processes that may preclude a meaningful conversation between commissioners and the public. While some of the advice in this column is also pertinent to these type of hearings (e.g., being clear about the ground rules, listening with respect), the primary focus is on those less formal situations where you invite people to give their opinions on various matters on your agenda, and a two-way dialogue is appropriate. Although many of the points made below are addressed primarily to the chair and how that person handles the meeting, the rest of the commission has an active role to play, also. All members should interact freely with the public, although the chair is expected to be the primary person in control. It is most important to establish ground rules and enforce them. Ask people BECAREFULNOTTO DIGRESSINTO IRRELEVANCIESTHATDO NOTADVANCETHE DISCUSSION. This orderly process allows you to pace the meeting. If many people are signed up to speak on the same issue, divide the allotted time for comments equally and sound a buzzer or a bell when the time is up. A 20-30 second warning is usually appreciated. Do not hesitate to interrupt a loquacious lecturer with a polite but firm, “Thank you, now it is time to hear from (with the name of the next person)….” Encourage people not to reiterate what someone else has said, but be patient with repeaters. They may have been concen- trating on their own presentation and not listened to those before them. It helps to move matters along by keeping brief notes of the salient points each person presents. At an opportune time, sum up what you have heard and request those following to confine their remarks to something new. If you are asked a question that is somewhat long or ambiguous, paraphrase it. “As I understand it, Ms. Carlson, you want to know…” If Ms. Carlson nods, you can proceed. If she shakes her head, invite her to rephrase her question. Some people just have a statement to make. Hear them out in the allotted time and move on. Do not invite their further loquaciousness by asking if they have a specific question. P.O. Box 4295, Burlington, VT 05406 -- Telephone: 888-475-3328 -- FAX: 802-862-1882 License Fee to Print or Make Up to 20 Copies of Article Please note that if you initially paid for the right to print one copy of this article (and/or store on one computer) and you now want to print or make additional copies of this article (up to 20 copies) you need to return this form to us with an additional payment. The license fee depends on the length of the article. Use the following table for calculating the license fee for each article:* 1 page article: add'l $5.004 page article: add'l $9.50 7 page article: add'l $14.00 2 page article: add'l $6.50 5 page article: add'l $11.00 3 page article: add'l $8.00 6 page article: add'l $12.50 8 page or longer article: add'l $15.50 * Partial page is considered a page when determining article length (e.g., fee for 2½ page article would be $8.00). Call us for fee if you want to make more than 20 copies of an article. You can either enclose a check (payable to: Champlain Planning Press, Inc.) or use your credit card (Visa, Master Card, or American Express). List article(s) you are enclosing payment for (you can use one form if you want additional copies of more than one article; list each article, using reverse if necessary): _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Your name & address: _____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Your e-mail address: _______________________________________________ Please return this form with your payment. Mail to: Planning Commissioners Journal, P.O. Box 4295, Burlington, VT 05406 If you are paying by charge card, please complete below: Card # __________________________________________ Exp.:______ (mo/yr) Name on card:_______________________________________________ Cardholder address:__________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Phone #: ( ) _____________ Authorized signature: __________________________ Please call us if you have any questions: 888-475-3328 (toll free)