HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-16 Planning Commission Packet
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 September 26, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. September 12, 2016
4. Public Hearings
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: A request by Scott Wyckoff of Wasatch Storage
Partners for a Conditional Use Permit for a self-service storage facility and
exterior vehicle storage for the property located at 9200 Hudson Boulevard N in
the Commercial Zoning District, PID No. 34.029.21.33.0005.
b. INTERIM USE PERMIT: A request by Dawn Oswald of Common Ground
church for an Interim Use Permit for the keeping of horses in conjunction with a
church for the property located at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard N in the Public and
Quasi-Public Open Space zoning district, PID No. 14.029.21.32.0024.
5. Business Items
6. Updates
a. City Council Updates – September 20, 2016 Meeting
i. Solid Wall Fence Text Amendment
ii. OP Ordinance Amendment – Tabled.
b. Staff Updates
i. Upcoming Meetings:
October 10, 2016
October 24, 2016
c. Commission Concerns
7. Adjourn
***Note: The Public is advised that there may be a quorum of City Council Members in
attendance as observers. No official action can or will be taken by the City Council at this
meeting.
2
***Note: Every effort will be made to accommodate person or persons that need special
considerations to attend this meeting due to a health condition or disability. Please contact the
Lake Elmo City Clerk if you are in need of special accommodations.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of September 12, 2016
Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Dunn, Williams, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer,
and Lundquist
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & City Planner Becker
Approve Agenda:
Amendements suggested are to add discussion of the Tartan Park Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and to request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding majority vs
super majority.
M/S/P: Dunn/Fields, move to approve the Agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion
carried Unanimously.
Approve Minutes: August 22, 2016
M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to approve the August 22, 2016 minutes as amended,
Vote: 6-0, motion carried with Dunn not voting.
Public Hearing – Variance Suzanne Horning
Becker started her presentation regarding the variance request from Suzanne Horning
for Lot 9 of Krause’s addition. This property is located at the intersection of Jamaca Ave
N and Jane Road N. This application is for a variance from the 12 month time limit for
the commencement of work associated with a lot size variance. A variance was granted
on April 2014 for a variance from minimum lot size requirements. At that time, the
applicant had requested that it be in perpetuity, but it was approved for a period of five
years.
This lot is located in the RS zone, is located in the shoreland district, but is not a riparian
lot. The applicant has owned the property since the mid 1980’s and would like to
convey the lot within the family as a buildable lot. The variance expires in April of 2019
and the owner will need to make a decision to build on or sell it now.
2
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
The applicant provided a survey showing existing conditions and that the site can
support a home and septic system. The surrounding properties are of similar size, some
being even smaller. The applicants have noted that without the variance, the property
cannot be put to a reasonable use. The property has been taxed over time as a
buildable lot and the applicant does not want to sell, but would like to convey the land
to her children. Staff consulted with the City Attorney and found that it is possible to
grant this as variances by nature run with the land. The applicant is requesting this so
that they do not have to go through this process again. They have now been granted
two variances, one in 1985 and one in 2014.
Staff went through the findings and how they relate to the four variance criteria of
Practical difficulties, Unique circumstances, Character of locality and Adjacent
properties and traffic. There was one call received with the caller concerned that
allowing this lot to be built upon will set a precedent. Staff is recommending approval
of this variance application with a number of conditions, most of which were conditions
of the previous variance. A condition was added that states that the variance will be
valid until any one of the conditions occurs: The properties planned use changes in the
Comp Plan, the property is rezoned, zoning regulations in RS change that would make
the lot more non-conforming, included but not limited to an increase in minimum lot
size requirements; or an increase in minimum lot width requirements.
Dodson is wondering why this is an issue when this was originally platted as a buildable
lot. Becker stated that it is because it does not have a home on it and would not be
considered a legal non-conforming lot.
Bridget Eubank, 9960 57th Street, and Brent Weyer, Suzanne Hornings children, spoke
on behalf of Suzanne who was unable to attend. They would like to maintain the
flexibility to ensure that this lot is buildable in the future.
Public Hearing opened at 7:29 pm
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public hearing closed at 7:30 pm.
Dunn supports the motion as this is a developed area and this lot is consistent with the
other lots.
Williams would like to propose an additional condition that all other City, Zoning and
development regulations must be satisfied before a building permit is issued.
M/S/P: Williams/Larson, 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 i s valid,
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the additional
condition recommended by the Planning Commission , Vote: 7-0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Solid Wall Fences
Becker started her presentation by explaining the current fence code regulations as it
relates to solid wall fencing on lots under ½ acre and what the exceptions are. Becker
went through some of the history on the fence code. Anticipated higher density
residential development was cited as the reason for the recommendation for allowing
privacy fencing. After discussion over the course of five meetings, the current ordinance
amendment was adopted.
Section 154.081 requires that fences in side and rear yards need to be at least 30% open
to air and light. Even if the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet on lots under ½
acre is removed, fences would still need to adhere to this requirement unless this
requirement is removed. Staff researched other Cities that allow solid wall fences over
4’ and there were quite a few. Staff presented two different options to the Planning
Commission for discussion. Option #1 eliminates the prohibition of solid wall fences on
lots under ½ acre altogether and also eliminates requirement of permitted
encroachments on required yards. Option #2 eliminates the requirement for adjacent
property owner to give permission. It also exempts fences that do not exceed one-
fourth of the linear distance of the permimeter of a lot from the 30% openness
requirement. It also eliminates the exception which allows fences that are erected
under other circumstances when a solid wall fence is warranted due to safety, etc.
which could be considered subjective and discriminatory. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt option #2.
Fields asked if this allows privacy from one neighbor, but not three. Williams is
wondering why we would not want to allow it on 3 sides of the lot, but not in the front
yard. Becker stated that there is already a provision on front and side on corner lots.
Option #2 is much more restrictive and there is only exceptions for when solid wall
fences can be erected.
Public Hearing opened at 7:51 pm
Denise Thompson, 9077 Jane Road N, tried to get a fence permit for their dog and they
were not able to get the neighbor signature. They feel that they are not able to have
enough privacy. She also did some research and she was not able to find another City in
Minnesota that does not allow the 6 foot high privacy fence.
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 7:57 pm
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
Dodson prefers option #1 because it is easier to understand and option #2 is too much
in the design area of the fence. Williams agrees, but is struggling with why we would
restrict it to ¼ of the permimeter. They should be allowed anywhere be hind the front of
the house on any lot.
Kreimer would prefer to take the smaller step and go for option #2. Larson likes the
simplicity of option #1. He doesn’t think the difference between 4’ and 6’ makes that
much difference. He is wondering if it should be done different for urban vs. rural. This
is Shoreland which might be different also. Fields prefers the step of option #2 because
the City has not been inundated with requests, but this is based on one circumstance.
Williams is thinking that the CIC have their own restrictions on fences. Dodson doesn’t
see a need to restrict fences in other areas as other Cities do not do it. Kreimer feels
that there was a lot of discussion a few years ago and is not in favor of changing it much
because of one circumstance.
M/S/F:Williams /Dodson, move to recommend approval of option #1, Vote: 3-4, motion
Failed.
Larson is wondering if the Planning Commission picks option #1 if the City Council won’t
accept it. Becker stated that staff has recommended option #2 because they felt that
out of respect for previous work done on the code, it might be better received.
M/S/P: Fields/Dunn, move to recommend approval of Ord. 08- (Option #2), which
amends Sec. 154.205: Fencing Regulations; Subd. (E) (3), by repealing language of Subp.
D that requires permission from and adjacent property owner to erect a solid wall fence
up to six feet in height for screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement
of the fence does not exceed one-fourth of the linear distiance of the permimeter of the
lot on a lot under half an acre; and which repeals subp. e., Vote: 5-2, motion carried.
Dodson voted no because he feels option #2 is just a little too complicated.
Business Item – Conditional Use Permit – 9200 Hudson Blvd
Becker started the discussion by stating that this item will be a public hearing at the next
meeting. This is just for an introduction to give the Commission the opportunity to ask
questions prior to that.
Scott Wycoff, Wasatch Storage Partners, they have submitted an application for a
conditional use permit for a storage facility and exterior storage. Mr. Wycoff went
through a rendering of the site and what they intend to do on the site.
Wensman stated that this is right next to Boulder Ponds. This requires a conditional use
because it is a storage facility. Williams is concerned about the impervious surface
coverage. Planner Becker stated that it meets the impervious requirement of 75%.
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
Williams stated that the design of the buildings are pretty minimal. He would like to see
something to break up the surfaces that face the streets. Dodson would like to see
what the screening is between this and Boulder Ponds. Wycoff stated that there is a
pretty heavy screen along that side of the facility. Dunn asked how many units are
being proposed. Wycoff stated there would be somewhere around 700 units. Dunn
also asked about security. Wycoff stated that there is gated control, there are close
circuit TV’s and there are burglar alarms and it is well lit. They use “dark sky” light
fixures and motion sensor lighting. Fields stated that this is a dramatic improvement
for what is currently there. But he feels that this is at the bottom of the scale though for
what could go there for providing tax base and employment. Wycoff stated that the
property has been for sale for awhile and there has not been any interest until now.
Business Item – Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan for Tartan Park Property
M/S/: Williams/Dunn, a motion to request three things in regards to the Tartan Park
property. 1) The Council to direct the Planning Commission to look at the
Comprehensive Plan for the appropriate density of housing 2) proof that the property
cannot be developed under OP or RE standards due to regulatory requirements 3) City
staff should require such proof from the applicant before any request for changing the
Comphrehensive Plan is deemed complete.
Dodson stated that the OP ordinance states that it cannot be sewered. He feels this
property could be an exception to the provision because of proximity. Larson asked if
we have considered this being an urban vs. rural zoning classification. Williams stated
that the zoning classification would be a next step after figuring ou t the Comprehensive
Plan. Wensman stated that the property owner has made application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property. If this is a City driven
discussion, this would be quite costly. If it is applicant driven, they would pay for it.
Dunn thinks there could be a hybrid of something that could be very nice. It is so unique
and challenging and we need to make sure that it is done right.
Williams is wondering if the motion passes as written, the burden of the OP question
would fall to the applicant. Why would there be a lot of staff time? Wensman stated
that coming up with proof is one thing, but coming up with the proper Comprehensive
Plan amendment, drafting it and getting it through the process and potentially coming
up with a zoning district that is not one of our current ones, would be a considerable
amount of staff time. Williams is wondering if the applicant is the driving force, would
we be restricted to just looking at their proposal for the area. He would lik e the City to
look at all possibilities and not just one possibility. Wensman stated that you can look at
all possibilities and accept or reject what they are proposing. Wensman also stated that
the City Council has already discussed this topic. By rules of the Council, in order to
discuss a topic that has already been discussed by the Council, two members of the
Council would need to ask to put it on the agenda. Williams stated that based on the
discussion, it is very likely that there would be two Council members willing to put it
6
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
back on the agenda. Wensman stated that it was actually a 4-1 vote in the end, so there
might not be two willing to put on agenda.
Williams asked if the City could require the proof that the property cannot be developed
under OP ordinance before the application can be deemed complete or is that
something that would be asked during the discussion. Wensman stated that it would be
the later. It should be brought up during the discussion at the time comments are being
made on the application. When giving feedback, clear direction can be given that you
want that information. Williams feels that we probably can’t require this because th e
application is already in hand. He feels he should withdraw the motion.
Business Item – Things for the City Attorney to address
Williams would like the City attorney to address the history and status of majority vs.
super majority votes at the City Council level. What circumstances require majority and
which ones require super majority? In addition, PUD deviations were changed to say
that they could be approved by a simple majority vote, when previously it was super
majority. He would like the City attorney to address if that applies to all provisions of
the PUD ordinance, or only some of them. He would like this information to be
presented to the Planning Commission in a brief form. Wensman stated that currently
the Comprehensive Plan requires super majority. The super majority vote requirement
was in the OP ordinance, but was not required to be. A PUD is a negotiated ordinance
and is not required to be super majority.
M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to request information from the City Attorney regarding
City Council majority votes vs. Super majority votes, Vote: 7-0, motion passed,
unanimously.
Dunn is concerned about the 20% bonus in housing for the PUD’s. She feels that is a
very high number when you are talking about housing. Wensman stated that it is a City
ordinance and something the City chose to include to try to get a higher quality
development.
City Council Updates – September 6, 2016 Meeting
i) Royal Golf Course at Lake Elmo Concept PUD Plan – passed.
ii) OP Ordinance – tabled.
iii) Boulder Ponds LLC – Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment – Ordinance
08-149 – tabled.
Staff Updates
1. Upcoming Meetings
a. September 26, 2016
b. October 10, 2016
7
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16
Commission Concerns
Kreimer stated that he has noticed that the Asian beetles are back again this year with a
vengeance. He is wondering if when the landscape plans are reviewed, we should be
avoiding certain types of trees that are affected. Wensman stated that he will do some
research on the topic.
Kreimer is also wondering if the met council will let us go to 1.7 units per acre for Tartan
Park. Wensman stated that Met Council will allow Tartan Park to go lower, but it might
affect density somewhere else. Williams stated that he heard that all they care about is
the overall average of the sewered area of the City.
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM __ – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/26/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 4A – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2016-31
ITEM: Conditional Use Permit for Self-Service Storage Facility and Exterior Vehicle
Storage at 9200 Hudson Blvd N
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a self-service
storage facility and exterior storage for the property located at 9200 Hudson Boulevard North.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Scott Wyckoff, Wasatch Storage Partners
Property Owners: Brian Livingston, Star River Holdings
Location: 9200 Hudson Boulevard North
Request: Conditional Use Permit for Self-Service Storage Facility and Outdoor
Vehicle Storage
Existing Land Use: Commercial With Outdoor Storage and Display
Surrounding Land Use: Commercial to the West and Southeast, Rural Transitional to the
Northeast, Limited Density Residential – Planned Unit Development
to the North, and Hudson Boulevard and I-94 to the South
Existing Zoning: Commercial
Comprehensive Plan: Commercial
History: Prior to 1978, the site was used for agriculture purposes and a
farmstead was located on the south side. The east building has been
present since 1978 with storage of boats/trailers/vehicles on the west
side of the site. The west building was built around 1984 with parking
to the west and south and storage along the far western site border.
Beginning in 1997, storage was expanded north on the site. According
to historical sources, the site was occupied by J & W Marineland/J &
W Boat and Motor from 1973 to 1992; Dolan Marine from 1992 to
2005; Link Recreational from 2005 to 2010. Cranky Ape now
operates at the site as a sales and storage lot for on-line auction items.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/25/2016
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
60 Day Deadline – 10/24/2016
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Article III – Administration and Enforcement
Article XII – Specific Development Standards
Article V – General Regulations
Article VI – Environmental Performance Standards
Article XI – Commercial Districts
REQUEST DETAILS:
The proposed project consists of the addition of four new storage buildings with the possibility of
two future storage buildings located on the north end of the site. The two existing buildings on the
site will be refinished to complement the proposed new buildings.
The back of the property is proposed to be an exterior storage area for recreational vehicles with a
total of 170 parking spaces, a number of which are proposed to be replaced with possible future
buildings.
The perimeter of the property will be fenced in, and motorized gates with keypad-only access are
proposed. There will also be security cameras and an office burglar alarm. In addition to fencing, the
perimeter of the property will be landscaped for added screening.
The south end of Building A will be utilized as an office, which will be open between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. The office provides a location for existing and potential customers to interact
with employees, lease units, make payments, and to purchase boxes, tape, locks, and packing
material. The facility will staff two to three employees at a time; regional operational and facility
managers will also frequent the site. The storage units are accessible through the secured gate at any
time.
A 4-space parking lot is proposed to the west of Existing Building A, accessible through a new
driveway off of Hudson Blvd. The main drive aisles between the two existing buildings will remain
as two-way traffic and the drive aisles between the proposed storage buildings will provide one-way
traffic.
If the Conditional Use Permit is approved by Council, the applicant intends to proceed with
construction drawings and seek approval for building permits. Construction would start as soon as
possible, and project completion is anticipated in the second quarter of 2017.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES:
Proposed Uses and Applicable Definitions.
Sales and Storage Lots. Establishments engaged in the display for sale or lease of automobiles,
trucks, machinery, recreational vehicles and manufactured homes, including auto dealerships or the
farm commercial storage of privately owned trailers, boats, campers, or similar vehicles.
Self-service Storage Facility. An establishment designed and utilized for the purpose of renting or
leasing individual storage spaces to tenants who have sole private access to such space for storing
personal property.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
Both of these uses are conditional uses in the Commercial zoning district.
Current Use. Midwest Recreation Clearinghouse, LLC (Crank Ape Powersport Auctions), which
remarkets bank repossessed, insurance repairable recreational vehicles along with consignments,
provides these items for purchase by the general public via an online bidding system and stores these
items at the subject property. Existing conditions and photos of the site are included in the
attachments.
Midwest Recreation Clearinghouse, LLC had originally applied for a Conditional Use Permit for the
property to allow the outdoor display of merchandise for public viewing in 2010, but the City
Council tabled the application. In order for Staff to prepare amendments to the City’s holding
districts changing all conditional uses to interim uses and to amend the general standards for interim
uses. The intention was to provide the City with more control over the future uses that will be located
in areas subject to new development or land use changes. At that time, the property was utilized for
commercial purposes but was in a holding district to be developed for residential uses.
Because of this direction of Council, the applicant submitted an application for an Interim Use Permit
for open sales lot activity and withdrew the application for the Conditional Use Permit request. The
Interim Use Permit was granted by Council in November of 2010, subject to a number of conditions,
including the provision that the Interim Use Permit would be valid until any one of the following
events occurred: after ten years from the date of approval; upon the sale or transfer of ownership;
violation of the conditions of this Consent Agreement; or until the redevelopment of the Property for
a permitted or conditional use as allowed by the City’s zoning regulations.
Based on the aforementioned, the transfer of ownership of the property would make the Interim Use
Permit invalid. Subsequent to obtaining its Interim Use Permit, the property was re-guided and
rezoned to Commercial, and self-service and exterior storage are conditional uses in this district.
Therefore, the new owner must obtain a Conditional Use Permit for redevelopment with such uses.
Existing Conditions. The applicant has provided a layout of the site’s existing conditions but must
provide a complete depiction of the Hudson Boulevard right-of-way and all existing conditions for at
least 150 in each direction in order to identify downstream drainage facilities.
Tree Preservation.
The applicant has provided an adequate tree removal plan. The Existing Conditions & Tree Removal
Plan detail where significant trees exist that will be removed, and the Landscape Plan explains tree
replacement. A total of 592 inches of significant trees are proposed to be removed, 30% (177.6
inches) of which may be removed without replacement. All of the significant trees are Common
Trees per the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance: 345 inches of Boxelder; 60 inches of Cottonwood;
and 187 inches of Poplar. The City’s Tree Replacement Schedule requires that Common tree species
shall be replaced with new trees at a rate of one-fourth (1/4) the diameter inches removed. The total
number of inches subject to replacement is 414.4 inches, requiring 103.6 inches to be replaced. A
total of 160.5 inches are proposed, and include a combination of common, coniferous, and deciduous
hardwood. A total of 60 trees are proposed; the deciduous trees will have at least a 2.5” caliper; and
the conifers will be six feet in height. No more than 25% of the replacement trees are of the same
species.
Replacement trees shall be subject to the warranty requirement of the City’s Tree Removal
Ordinance two years following project closure. If irreparable damage occurs to a healthy significant
tree that is designated to be preserved as part of the Tree Preservation Plan, the tree shall be removed
and replaced. Applicant has indicated on the plan details that all restricted areas shall be fenced off
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
with bright orange polyethylene safety netting and steel stakes but the plans do not indicate restricted
areas.
Landscaping.
The applicant has provided a landscape plan that details all ground covers, deciduous trees, conifers,
and perennials. The perimeter of the site will be landscaped using low maintenance turf; the ponding
area and infiltration basin will be landscaped using a stormwater basin seed mix; and the southeas t
corner will be covered with sod. The plan indicates that turf establishment shall be accomplished in
accordance with provisions of MN/DOT 2105 and 2575, with specific exceptions. The landscape
plan does not show provisions for irrigation but does indicate a watering schedule of once a week or
more often in dry, hot weather. A retaining wall is proposed as special treatment near the southwest
corner of the property with steeper slopes. The irrigation will need to comply with the City’s general
irrigation specifications and comply with the water supply connection detail.
The front property line has approximately 328 feet of street frontage, requiring at least six trees;
seven trees are proposed. The site plan meets the requirement that at least 5% of the interior area of
the parking lot with more than 30 spaces be devoted to landscape planting areas as the ponding area
and infiltration basin cover approximately 26,700 square feet within the approximately 151,000
square feet of storage lot. There are no shade trees provided within the interior of the parking
lot/storage area. One tree per 15 spaces is required, and because 170 parking spaces are proposed, 12
trees are required in this area.
Perimeter parking lot landscaping and screening is provided through deciduous and coniferous trees
as well as fencing. American Elms as well as a cluster of Sierra Glen Maples are proposed along the
north side of the parking lot as it abuts 5th Street North and Boulder Ponds. A combination of
Norway Spruce, Black Hills Spruce, and Common Hackberry is proposed on the west side of the
parking lot perimeter as it abuts Jade Trail North, and Sierra Glen Maples , Swamp White Oak, and
Common Hackberry line the remaining west side of the perimeter of the parking lot going south.
Driveway.
The driveway is proposed to be 35 feet in width at the right-of-way, which exceeds the maximum-
allowed commercial width standard. This will need to be decreased to meet city sta ndards. The
proposed driveway connects to Hudson Boulevard North.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
Parking Area Design and Maintenance. The off-street parking provided is directly off the proposed
driveway, providing safe and efficient means of vehicular access to the parking space. The parking
lot provides a 30 foot aisle width, which exceeds the City’s 2-way aisle width of 22 feet. The
driveway is proposed to be constructed of standard duty asphalt paving. The site plan designates
parking spaces, but it is not clear if the spaces will be striped. Striping is required to be comprised of
comprised of lines at least four (4) inches wide. Bituminous curbing is proposed in the front parking
lot area, and a flat curb section is proposed in the area of the entrance driveway that is nearest
Existing Building A to provide barrier-free access to the office.
Dimensions. The proposed front parking lot’s parking space measurements of 9 feet wide by 20 feet
long and the longer and wider recreational vehicle parking spaces meet City standards. All aisle
widths exceed the City’s standards for 2-Way Aisle Widths, and the 24 foot aisles will be designated
as one-way. These should be striped with arrows to indicate this.
Setback requirements. The proposed parking lot is set back about 80 feet from Hudson Boulevard
and 100 feet from the east side yard, meeting City standards. The vehicle storage lot is set back 15.5
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
feet from the side corner yard and 40 feet from the rear yard. Commercial zoning district
requirements mandate a 35-foot separation from residential zones. This is met, as the vehicle storage
area is separated, at a minimum, by a 75 foot right-of-way from neighboring residential property.
Number of Spaces Required – Self-Service Storage Facility. The site plan proposes four total parking
spaces with one handicap parking space. The site provides adequate parking for the office space for a
self-service storage facility. The office totals approximately 500 square feet, which would require
two parking spaces. This leaves an extra two spaces.
Number of Spaces Required – Sales and Storage Lots. The site plan does not, however, meet the
required number of parking spaces for sales and storage lots. Off-Street Parking Requirements
require 1 space per 2,000 square feet of storage area. The proposed recreational vehicle storage area
totals 68,400 square feet, which would require an additional 31 parking stalls, taking in to account
the two extra stalls provided by the parking near the office area. The addition of the future buildings,
which would reduce the area of the outdoor storage area, would reduce the number of required
parking spaces to 22.
Proof of Parking Option. The Commission should consider the necessity of requiring these parking
spaces for such a use. It may allow parking requirements for this facility to be relaxed or lessened in
response to an expectedly lower demand of parking for this facility, as sufficient open area
(recreational vehicle storage area) is set aside if it determined to be necessary at a later date.
Off-Street Loading Areas. Off-Street Loading Requirements of the City Code requires that off-
street loading space shall be provided in all districts for any non-residential use which will involve
the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by trucks or similar vehicles and has a gross
floor area of 5,000 square feet or more. This section does not spell out, as the Off-Street Parking
Requirements Section does, specific uses that require a loading berth. As such, it is essentially left up
to interpretation if a loading berth should be required. Staff’s interpretation is that this requirement
does not apply.
Building Setbacks.
The site plan shows the existing and proposed buildings to meet all setback requirements of the
Commercial zoning district. The property is separated from all residential zones by a minimum of a
75-foot right-of-way. The parking lot setbacks are described under Off-Street Parking Requirements
in this report.
Building Height. The tallest point of all the buildings is 21 feet high. This meets the Commercial
zoning district height maximum requirements.
Building Design
The proposed project is located in the I-94 Corridor and is therefore subject to standards set forth in
the City’s Design Guidelines & Standards Manual. An exterior perspective is provided in the
attached packet for reference.
Form and Façade. The City’s Design Guidelines & Standards Manual encourages architectural
variety and creativity in building façade through changes of building materials, fenestration height,
and roof lines, especially on primary facades that face the right of way. Windows and door styles
shall reflect the prevailing architectural style of the structure, and ground level commercial uses
should employ a significant amount of transparent glass.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
Building A minimizes continuous expanses of wall through a metal awning and tiebacks and
prefinished metal parapet cap flashing. It also has, as recommended in the Manual, a
significant amount of transparent glass in the form of windows and doors.
Buildings #1, #2, and #3 lack architectural variety in that there is no façade articulation on
these buildings.
Building Materials. Though it is not listed as a prohibited material, the proposed material of the
fronts of the buildings is exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS), which is not a recommended
building material. The existing buildings’ front exterior consists of EIFS, and will have a new color
as depicted in the architectural renderings. The sides of the buildings will be mostly metal siding; the
existing buildings’ metal siding will be repainted. The access doors for storage will be prefinish ed
metal overhead doors.
Scale and Mass. There are four separate buildings instead of one larger building, which breaks down
the appearance of mass, as guided by the Manual.
Roof Design. The design of the roof is consistent with the overall architecture and design of the
structure and the buildings utilize parapets. The parapets are not, however, of varying height, as is
suggested in the manual. Mechanical equipment must be screened by the roofs of the buildings.
Delivery, Service, Storage and Utility Areas. Storage and trash collection areas are proposed to be
screened as required, as the proposed trash disposal area behind Building A adequately screens the
trash area, and an enclosure is proposed.
Pedestrian Access. There is an existing on-street bike route on Hudson Boulevard. Staff does not
find it necessary to require pedestrian access to the facility, as the use normally requires vehicles for
hauling items to be stored.
Fencing. Aluminum fencing is proposed as outlined in the Site Plan connecting to Building #1, in
front of Building #2, and connecting to Building #3. This will provide security as well as some
screening. Additionally, an aluminum entry gate is proposed between Building A and Building #1. A
six-foot high vinyl coated chain link fence is proposed
Signage. The tenant (Wasatch Storage Partners) will be required to apply for all applicable sign
permits. The sign shown in the Exterior Perspective, attached, on the west side of Building A, would
not be permitted as each building occupant is only allowed one sign per street frontage. The Site Plan
also indicates that a pylon sign is proposed at the southeast corner of the property. Pole signs are
prohibited unless the pole portion of the sign is enclosed in a shroud that causes the sign to a ppear to
have a monolithe base or support structure. This sign will need to meet all size and height
requirements of the City’s Sign Regulations.
Additionally, “No Parking” and “Fire Lane” signs are proposed to be erected on all driveways as
required by the city. These exact locations must be updated on the Site Plan for City Review.
Lighting. The photometric plan provided meets all requirements set forth in the City’s Lighting,
Glare Control, and Exterior Lighting Standards. No direct or sky-reflected glare is proposed to be
directed onto adjoining property of right-of-way. 165 Lumark Xtoria lights are proposed along the
storage buildings. The street-facing storage units will have downcast wall sconces. Twelve 25-foot
high pole lights with three-foot bases are proposed within and surrounding the recreational vehicle
storage area, with an additional two along the entrance driveway. All lights appear to have a total
cutoff of less than 90 degrees. Such lights are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet in non-
residential districts, and this requirement is met. According to the photometric plan, no light exceeds
3.0 foot candles, as is required by the Lighting Ordinance. Additionally, no light cast on the public
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
street is shown to exceed one foot-candle. Aside from the front property line, no light is shown to be
cast outside of property lines whatsoever.
Standards for Self-Service Storage Facility (154.303 (D))
1) No commercial transactions shall be permitted other than the rental or sale of storage units.
It is recommended that a condition of approval be that no commercial transactions out of
storage units be permitted, and that this provision be included in the lease agreement with
tenants. The office does sell packing and security supplies, but this would be considered
general retail sales, which is permitted in the Commercial zoning district. Additionally, these
sales are ancillary to self-service storage.
2) No more than one (1) unit shall be accessed directly from the public street.
No units will be accessible directly from the street. All access to units will require entrance
through a motorized gate with keypad.
3) Site design shall accommodate a logical and safe vehicle pedestrian circulation pattern.
The 24-foot wide aisles between the new storage buildings will be limited to one-way traffic.
This exceeds even the two-way minimum aisle width requirement of 22 feet per the City’s
Off-Street Parking Requirements. The drive aisle width between Existing Building A and
Building #1 is proposed to accommodate two-way traffic. This aisle width is proposed to be
38.2 feet and is minimized to 26.7 feet where a transformer pad, protected by bollards and an
opaque maintenance free panel screening fence, is proposed. Aisle widths between Existing
Building A and Existing Building B will remain 28.4 feet in width and will also
accommodate two-way traffic. Proposed aisle widths in the vehicle storage area also meet
two-way traffic standards, as they are proposed at 27-45 feet. Additionally, the applicant has
provided fire truck turning radius for a pumper fire truck 40 feet in length and 8.16 feet in
width.
Standards for Exterior Storage – Commercial District
It is required that exterior storage be screened from view and adjacent public streets and adjacent and
residential properties from view at eye level (measured at 6 feet above ground level) on adjacent
street or property. The Commission should consider if the proposed chain link fence enclosing the
exterior storage, along with the proposed landscaping, would be sufficient to screen exterior storage.
Staff would recommend more screening be added along 5th Street North.
Standards for Sales and Storage Lots.
The Standards for Sales and Storage Lots seems to be written more specifically for a car dealership
and repair shop, and do not necessarily apply to storage of personal recreational vehicles.
1) Size and Location. The site shall be a minimum of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in
size and shall have access to a collector or higher classification street. Vehicular access to
the outdoor sales area shall be at least sixty (60) feet from the intersection of any two streets.
The site is at least 20,000 square feet and has access to Hudson Boulevard, which is
designated as a Major Collector Street in the Comprehensive Plan. Vehicular access to the
outdoor storage area is at least 60 feet from any intersection.
2) All vehicle repairs shall be conducted in a completely enclosed building.
This standard does not apply. All vehicles stored are expected to be operable.
3) A site plan shall be submitted showing the layout of vehicles for sale or rent, employee
parking and customer parking.
This has been provided.
8
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
4) Sound from any speakers used on the premises shall not be audible above a level of normal
conversation at the boundary of any surrounding residential district or on any residential
property.
It is not expected that there will be speakers on the property.
Impervious Surface Requirements. The project meets the City’s maximum impervious surface
requirements of 75% as 2.79 acres of the 9.38 acre site is proposed as pervious. The proposed site
plan only add approximately 0.19 acres of impervious coverage.
Drainage and Stormwater Management.
Required Permits. City and South Washington Watershed District permits are required for this
project. All standards for permanent storm water quality and quantity measures will need to be met.
Additionally, a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP)/ National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit will be needed, though State Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA)/NPDES permanent treatment standards are not required as less than an acre of new
impervious area is being added to the site.
Stormwater Facilities. The applicant has provided a preliminary stormwater management plan. The
proposed system consists of a stormwater retention pond, three infiltration basins, and a grassed
swale with check dams prior to the storm water being discharged to Hudson Boulevard right-of-way,
across I-94, and to Wilmes Lake in Woodbury.
SWWD Requirements-Phosphorus Loading. The SWWD limits post-construction phosphorus
discharge to a maximum of 0.10 lbs/acres/year. The proposed stormwater management plan does not
meet this requirement; The storm water practices also provides a net reduction in total suspended
solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) from the existing conditions, however the SWWD annual
pollutant discharge goal of 0.1 lb/TP per acre is not met for maximum allowable TP loading
prescribed for Wilmes Lake. Additional treatment may be necessary as determined by SWWD. The
TP leaving the site will be reduced from anexisting 13.2 lbs to a proposed 1.1 lbs per year.
Rate and Volume Control Reduction. The storm water practices provides rate and volume control that
reduces the rate of runoff for the 2, 10, and 100‐year storm events and provides volume reduction
consistent with SWWD rules.
Assumed Infiltration Rates. Soil borings must be provided at all infiltration locations to determine the
infiltration rates for design purposes and additional infiltration capacity must be provided if
determined to be necessary.
Additional Plan Revisions Needed:
The storm water pond and infiltration basins must be labeled to match the storm water
management plan.
Correct discrepancy between the plans and the submitted model for Pond 9 outlet pipe.
Infiltration Basin 7P discharges directly to Hudson Boulevard right ‐of‐way using a riprap
EOF as the only outlet. Grading clarification, detail and revisions are needed around the
south and west sides of Infiltration Basin 7P to ensure the HWL is contained and the
discharge is limited to a controlled point. The HWL contour must be located entirely within
the site and may not encroach upon the drainage and utility easements or right-of-way. A
pipe outlet must be used instead of a rip rap overflow, which may lead to erosion issues.
The grading must be revised to remove the depression at the north end of the site and at the
northwest corner of the site to avoid any potential standing water.
9
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
Reinforced EOFs should be provided to match the functioning crest length up to the 100 ‐year
event (eg, Pond 9 EOF has an active flow width of >20’ above a 10‐year elevation).
Reinforcement must be added to Infiltration Basin 4P overflow outlet with EOF elevation
noted.
Riprap areas should include fabric and riprap quantities should be listed on the plans. Plan
details should be included in the plan set.
Add plan note to subcut infiltration basin bottoms 6‐inches, scarify 8‐12‐inches deep and add
6‐inches of Rooting Topsoil Borrow (Mn/DOT 3877.2E) to grade.
Temporary blanket should be placed over seeded infiltration basin bottoms to maintain
moisture and aid in seed establishment.
Areas to receive temporary erosion control blanket (eg, swales) must be identified on the
plans.
City Standard Plan Notes for Grading and Erosion Control must be placed directly on the
Grading and Drainage Plan. All non‐City plan notes that duplicate or contradict the City plan
notes must be removed.
Utilities
The site plan does not show all utility easements. These must be added.
The hydrant at infiltration basin 5P must be relocated to be fully outside of the infiltration
basin area and must be placed on a fully protected raised curbed median area with protective
bollards.
The proposed hydrant along Hudson Blvd. will be city owned and maintained. The
watermain must be configured to be publically owned up to the hydrant/gate valve. A second
gate valve should be installed to start the 8‐inch private service to the site. The 8‐inch
watermain service must be labeled on the plans “8‐inch DIP CL 52 water service”.
City Standard Plan Notes for Watermain must be placed directly on the Utility Plan to apply
for all City owned watermain and hydrants. All non‐City plan notes that duplicate or
contradict the City plan notes must be removed or specifically called out to apply for service
pipe only.
The Site Plan must detail the street cut and restoration plan, including the construction limits
and street section requirements for the watermain connection at Jade Trail. The street cut and
restoration must be competed at full street width.
The 30‐inch driveway culvert in city right‐of‐way must be RCP pipe.
CB‐06 must be relocated to avoid conflicts with the existing sanitary sewer along Hudson
Blvd.
Minimum storm sewer pipe size is 15‐inch. Storm sewer must be revised from CB‐04 and
MH‐05.
Fire Access.
The site plan depicts four hydrants on the site. The two northerly-located fire hydrants will create the
need for removal of some parking stalls/vehicle storage areas in order to provide 24-hour access. The
proposed future Building #5 will also need to be relocated or resized in order to accommodate proper
access. Additionally, the Building Official and Fire Chief have provided comments on the proposed
locations of the fire hydrants. The locations and quantities of the fire hydrants will need to be
readjusted according to these comments.
10
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
All fire hydrants on the site will be city owned and maintained. The plans must be updated to include
a minimum 30‐foot easement centered over the pipe to all hydrant locations. A 15‐foot easement is
also required in all directions around each hydrant.
As previously mentioned, the Site Plan must be updated to identify all fire lanes and fire lane signage
for City review.
Environmental Issues.
The MPCA became aware of a petroleum tank release at the subject property. The property owner is
required by the MPCA to investigate and address such contamination by hiring a qualified
environmental consulting firm and submitting a report within a required time period; the time period
is determined based on the risk the release poses. Staff spoke with the MPCA regarding this property
and has confirmed that the proper report has been received. High soil vapors were found in the
sample provided. While MPCA Staff require more information and details from the applicant to
better determine risks involved, they don’t see an environmental risk at this time.
The City should require a copy of this report as well as ensure that all required remediation has been
performed satisfactorily to the MPCA.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
In order to approve a conditional use permit, the city is required to find the proposal compliant with
the following (staff comments in bold):
1. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use is very
similar to the current use of the property. Storage of hazardous materials is prohibited
in lease agreements with tenants. Vehicle trips to the site are not expected to increase
and may even be reduced. Site improvements will likely reduce nuisances such as
weeds, dust and debris migrating to neighboring properties.
2. The use or development conforms to the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. The
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the property is guided for
commercial use. Self-service storage and vehicle storage are conditional uses in the
Commercial zoning district.
3. The use or development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The use is
compatible with the existing neighborhood, as the property is located in a commercial
zoning district. Furthermore, self-service storage and vehicle storage will serve an
expected increase in the number of residents resulting from new housing developments
and could potentially help reduce the amount of exterior storage on residents’ lawns
and in their garages.
4. The proposed use meets all specific development standards for such use listed in Article 7 of
this Chapter. The proposal complies with development standards as outlined in this
report, though some standards set forth in the Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and
Standards Manual are not met.
5. If the proposed use is in a flood plain management or shoreland area, the proposed use meets
all the specific standards for such use listed in Chapter 150, §150.250 through 150.257
(Shoreland Regulations) and Chapter 152 (Flood Plain Management). The property is
located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
6. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
11
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed project is a
redevelopment/repurposing of an existing site. Proposed site improvements should
enhance the appearance of the property.
7. The proposed use will not be hazardous or create a nuisance as defined under this Chapter to
existing or future neighboring structures. The proposed development will be fenced and
landscaped so as to not create a nuisance for existing and future neighboring properties.
Additionally, the site is proposed to be well-secured through security cameras, key-pad
only access, and an office alarm.
8. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems and schools or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
This is addressed throughout the Planning and Zoning Issues section of this report. The
applicant has addressed concerns of the Building Official and Fire Chief by providing
adequate turning ratios for a fire truck. The applicant will need to provide fire hydrant
locations as specified by the Building Official and Fire Chief in the attached document
entitled “Building Official and Fire Chief Comments.” If the applicant also addresses
the comments provided in the City Engineer Memo, this criteria will be met.
9. The proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The proposal will pay sewer and water service charges, benefiting the community.
10. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Traffic to the site is expected to be minimal, and visits are expected to be short. Minimal
noise is expected to come from the site, short of the sounds of unloading and loading
items. Hazardous materials are prohibited from being stored on site, and lighting has
been evaluated and determined to not cause a nuisance as proposed.
11. Vehicular approaches to the property, where present, will not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. The proposed use will likely
create no more traffic congestion than already exists at the site.
12. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance. N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the aforementioned, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the requested Conditional Use Permit for a Self-Service Storage Facility and Outdoor Vehicle
Storage for the property located at 9200 Hudson Boulevard North, subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions:
1) Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits including but not limited to all applicable
city permits (building, grading, sign, etc.), NPDES/SWPPP permits, South Washington
Watershed District approval.
2) Applicant must address all engineering review comments outlined in Engineering
Memo dated September 8, 2016.
3) A copy of the lease agreement shall be provided to the City and include prohibition of:
the storage or handling of hazardous materials; commercial transactions; inhabitation
12
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM
of storage facilities or recreational vehicles; inoperable and unlicensed vehicles. Such
prohibitions shall not be removed from the lease.
4) The City should be provided confirmation from the MPCA that the site poses no
environmental risk associated with the petroleum tank release.
5) Landscape Plans shall be revised with an additional 12 trees added to the internal
parking/storage area. These plans shall also include additional trees providing top-
down screening and approved by Landscape Architect.
6) Applicant shall provide financial security for 125% of landscaping materials.
7) The Site Plan shall be modified to show a proof-of-parking area of at least 28 21-foot
wide stalls in the vehicle storage area. These need be converted only if so directed by the
City.
8) Exterior storage shall be limited to recreational vehicles as defined by the City’s Zoning
Code.
9) Location of Proposed Building #5 must be changed, as it proposed to encroach needed
watermain and hydrant easements.
10) The Utility Plan must be revised according the Building Official and Fire Chief
Comments dated September 14, 2016.
11) Drive lanes shall be painted with one-way drive arrows and parking spaces are to be
marked with painted lines at least four (4) inches wide.
12) The plans shall comply with the City’s recommended building materials and design
standards as recommended by the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
CUP Application and Materials
Engineering Review Memo Dated September 8, 2016
Building Official and Fire Chief Comments Dated September 14, 2016
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
131 S. 700 E., Suite 102
American Fork, UT 84003 www.wasatchstoragepartners.com
Phone: 801-692-1474
Conditional Use Permit Application
9200 Hudson Blvd. Self Storage Project
2. Written Statement
A. Developer/Applicant: Scott Wyckoff
Wasatch Storage Partners
131 S. 700 E., Suite 102
American Fork, UT 84121
Direct: 801-707-6976
Office: 801692-1474
swyckoff@wasatchstoragepartners.com
Owner/Seller: Brian Livingston
Star River Holdings, L.L.C.
9200 Hudson Blvd
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
651-292-4209
blivingston@crankyape.com
Civil Engineer: Mike Bultman, PE
Sambatek Engineering
12800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 300
Minnetonka, MN 55343
763-398-0867
MBultman@sambatek.com
Architect: Chris Whitehouse
DJR Architecture Inc.
333 Washington Avenue North
Suite 210 Union Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55401
612-676-2736
cwhitehouse@djr-inc.com
B. Address: 9200 Hudson Blvd N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042.
Zoning classification: Commercial (Per the City of Lake Elmo Zoning Code.
Parcel Size: 408,645 Square Feet (9.381 acres)
Property Identification Number (PID): 34.029.21.33.0005
Legal Description per Title Commitment: The West ½ of the East ½ of the Southwest ¼
of the Southwest ¼ of Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County,
Minnesota, except for that part taken for Minnesota State Trunk Highway No. 12 in
Right of Way Plat 82-43, files as Document No. 429592
131 S. 700 E., Suite 102
American Fork, UT 84003 www.wasatchstoragepartners.com
Phone: 801-692-1474
C. Prior to 1978, the site was used for agriculture purposes and a farmstead was located on
the south side. The east building has been present since 1978 with storage of
boats/trailers/vehicles on the west side of the site. The west building was built around
1984 with parking to the west and south and storage along the far western site border.
Beginning in 1997, storage was expanded north on the site until 2008. According to
historical sources, the site was occupied by J & W Marineland/J & W Boat and Motor
from 1973 to 1992; Dolan Marine from 1992 to 2005; Link Recreational from 2005 to
2010.
The property is currently operating as, “Cranky Ape”. They specialize in remarketing
bank repossessed, insurance repairable recreational vehicles along with consignments.
CrankyApe.com provides these items for purchase by the general public via an online
electronic bidding system. They have occupied the site from 2011 to the present time.
Multiple conversations and communication between the applicant, their consultants
and city planning have occurred. Initial discussions included an explanation of our
project and what we wanted to do, followed by conceptual drawings and renderings,
and more recently discussion and review of Application materials. We were told in
these conversations that Self Storage was a conditional use and that an investment in
upgrading the existing buildings, adding new building and enhancing the properties curb
appeal would probably be well received.
D. i. The proposed project consists of the addition of 4 new storage buildings with the
possibility of 2 future storage buildings located on the north end of the site. Our site
will comprise of roughly 30% of new green space/landscaping area. This is well above
the 25% minimum requirement for green space on a commercial site.
The site layout will be improved for better traffic circulation and well defined drive
aisles. One way traffic will be utilized between the new storage buildings that are 24
feet wide, which is sufficient room for one-way traffic. The main drive aisles will remain
as two-way traffic.
Building and parking setback requirements will be met with the proposed site layout,
allowing for adequate transitions between the adjacent properties. The perimeter of
the property will be landscaped to compensate for any loss of trees. Extra landscape
and screening will be given to the west and north sides, where the site is adjacent to
residential districts.
A majority of the existing stormwater runoff leaves the site untreated. The proposed
project will utilize pre-treatment devices and ponding areas to provide infiltration,
volume control, and water quality to help meet the requirements set forth by the South
Washington Watershed District.
131 S. 700 E., Suite 102
American Fork, UT 84003 www.wasatchstoragepartners.com
Phone: 801-692-1474
ii. The self-storage business will have office hours between 8:30 am and 6:30 pm. The
office is outside of the gate and has open access to the public. The office provides a
location for existing and potential customers to interact with employees, lease units,
make payments and purchase boxes, tape, locks and packing material. Existing
customers will be able to enter an access code at the gate, drive into the facility to their
leased unit without having to enter the office. This access to units through the secured
gate is available at any time. The facility will be staffed with 2 – 3 employees at a time
with regional employees frequently visiting and working at the site (Operational and
Facility Service Managers). Security features include perimeter fencing, motorized gates
with keypad only access, security cameras and an office burglar alarm.
The applicant intends to proceed immediately with Construction Drawings and seek
approval for Building Permits pending the approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Construction would start as soon as possible and project completion is anticipated in the
second quarter of 2017.
E. i. The proposed use will not be detrimental the health, safety, morals, convenience, or the
general welfare of the surrounding lands. The environmental impact will be significantly
reduced on the site. There will be no storing or handling of hazardous materials, it is
strictly prohibited in our lease agreement with customers. There will be no
maintenance or repair of vehicles trips to the site will be reduced, creating less traffic
congestion and impact on the cities road and street infrastructure. In addition during
the environmental investigation by the Applicant, underground storage tanks were
identified. The owner removed those tanks eliminating a recognized environmental
conditions. In addition improvements to the site and recreational vehicle storage area
should reduce the number of nuisance animals, weeds, dust and debris that would
migrate from the site to the neighboring properties.
ii. The proposed project conforms with the City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan and the
2030 Land Use Map.
iii. The self-storage business will be compatible to the existing neighborhood and
surrounding properties.
iv. The specific development standards for this use will be met.
v. The development is located outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
vi. The project is redevelopment/repurposing of an existing site. The new streetscape
elevations and site improvements should dramatically improve the appearance of the
site from all neighboring property owners and the freeway. The new look will also be
dramatically more modern and current than the neighboring lumber yard and consistent
with residential development.
vii. The proposed development will be adequately fenced and landscaped as to not create a
nuisance for existing or future neighboring structures. The site will operate during
normal business hours as well.
viii. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities. An
accessible parking stall will be provided as required by ADA code. Drive aisle widths will
131 S. 700 E., Suite 102
American Fork, UT 84003 www.wasatchstoragepartners.com
Phone: 801-692-1474
be adequate for police/fire protection and customer vehicles. All drainage structures
will be sufficiently drain rainwater and can be accessed for maintenance purposes. A
perimeter fence will be provided to help protect public safety as well.
ix. The storage use is very low impact and should not cause any additional burden on public
facilities or public cost.
x. The use will not involve activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operations that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. These
impacts should be less than the existing facility because of the decreased vehicle traffic
and business operation.
xi. Traffic congestion should not be an issue on the site or on the surrounding streets.
xii. The proposed project will not impact any natural or scenic features of major
importance.
PAGE 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 8, 2016
To: Emily Becker, City Planner Re: Wasatch Storage (9200 Hudson Blvd)
Cc: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director Site Plan Review
From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
A Site Plan engineering review has been completed for the Wasatch Storage improvements at 9200 Hudson
Boulevard. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Sambatek:
Preliminary Civil Site Plans dated 08/25/2016.
ALTA Survey dated 07/28/2016.
Landscape Plan dated 08/25/2016.
Storm Water Management Plan dated 08/24/2016.
CUP Application Narrative.
Building renderings and Photometric Plan dated 08/25/2016.
Engineering review comments are as follows:
Existing Condition Plans
1. The existing conditions plan must be revised to provide a complete depiction of the Hudson Boulevard right‐
of‐way. All information must be shown on one plan sheet located in the Site Plan set (not supplemented by
the ALTA survey) and must be presented at a scale that provides a legible plan. As presented, staff cannot
c o m p l e t e a t h o r o u g h r e v i e w t o i d e n t i f y a l l i m p a c t s f o r t h e p r o posed improvements. Upon resubmittal,
additional site plan review will be necessary.
2. The existing conditions plan must be revised and resubmitted showing the existing conditions for a minimum
distance of 150 feet in each direction from the property limits or project limits. Information beyond 150 feet
may be necessary to identify downstream drainage facilities.
Hudson Blvd lane widths and shoulder widths have not be added to the plans.
The existing conditions must be detailed along Jade Trail where the project proposes to connect to the
existing city watermain.
Site Plans
1. Utility Easements. All easements must be added to the Site Plan.
2. Fire Access. The Site Plan must be updated to identify all fire lanes and fire lane signage for city review.
Parking stalls/vehicle storage areas must be eliminated to provide 24‐hour access to all hydrant locations.
Drainage, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control
1. City and SWWD Storm Water Permits required. The site redevelopment is located in the South Washington
Watershed District (SWWD) jurisdiction and will require permanen t s t o r m w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y
measures compliant with City and SWWD standards. The proposed parking and storage facility
improvements will add approximately 0.19 acres of impervious coverage to the existing property for a total
of 6.6 impervious acres.
FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc.
Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261
Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264
Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267
Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285
PAGE 2 of 3
2. State MPCA/NPDES Permit. A SWPPP/NPDES Permit will be needed for the project, however permanent
treatment standards are not required by the state MPCA/NPDES permit since < 1 acre of new impervious
area is added to the site.
3. Proposed Storm Water Facilities. The site plan proposes a series of storm water management practices
consisting of a storm water retention pond, three infiltration basins, sump manholes and a grassed swale
with check dams prior to the storm water being discharged to the Hudson Boulevard right‐of‐way, across I‐94
and to Wilmes Lake in Woodbury.
4. Rate and Volume Control Reduction. The storm water practices provides rate and volume control that
reduces the rate of runoff for the 2, 10, and 100‐year storm events and provides volume reduction consistent
with SWWD rules.
5. Assumed Infiltration Rates. Soil borings must be provided at all infiltration locations to determine the
infiltration rates for design purposes and additional infiltration capacity must be provided if determined to
be necessary.
6. Water Quality. The storm water practices also provides a net reduction in total suspended solids (TSS) and
total phosphorus (TP) from the existing conditions, however the SWWD annual pollutant discharge goal of
0.1 lb/TP per acre is not met for maximum allowable TP loading prescribed for Wilmes Lake. Additional
treatment may be necessary as determined by SWWD. The TP leaving the site will be reduced from an
existing 13.2 lbs to a proposed 1.1 lbs per year.
7. The storm water pond and infiltration basins must be labeled to match the storm water management plan.
Correct discrepancy between the plans and the submitted model for Pond 9 outlet pipe.
8. Infiltration Basin 7P discharges directly to Hudson Boulevard right‐of‐way using a riprap EOF as the only
outlet. Grading clarification, detail and revisions are needed around the south and west sides of Infiltration
Basin 7P to ensure the HWL is contained and the discharge is limited to a controlled point. The HWL contour
must be located entirely within the site and may not encroach upon the drainage and utility easements or
City/County R/W. A pipe outlet must be used instead of a rip rap overflow, which may lead to erosion issues.
9. The grading must be revised to remove the depression at the north end of the site and at the northwest
corner of the site to avoid any potential standing water.
10. Reinforced EOFs should be provided to match the functioning crest length up to the 100‐year event (eg, Pond
9 EOF has an active flow width of >20’ above a 10‐year elevation).
11. Reinforcement must be added to Infiltration Basin 4P overflow outlet with EOF elevation noted.
12. Riprap areas should include fabric and riprap quantities should be listed on the plans. Plan details should be
included in the plan set.
13. Add plan note to subcut infiltration basin bottoms 6‐inches, scarify 8‐12‐inches deep and add 6‐inches of
Rooting Topsoil Borrow (Mn/DOT 3877.2E) to grade.
14. Temporary blanket should be placed over seeded infiltration basin bottoms to maintain moisture and aid in
seed establishment.
15. Areas to receive temporary erosion control blanket (eg, swales) must be identified on the plans.
16. City Standard Plan Notes for Grading and Erosion Control must be placed directly on the Grading and
Drainage Plan. All non‐City plan notes that duplicate or contradict the City plan notes must be removed.
Utility Plans
1. All fire hydrants on the site will be city owned and maintained. The plans must be updated to include a
minimum 30‐foot easement centered over the pipe to all hydrant locations. A 15‐foot easement is also
required in all directions around each hydrant.
2. The hydrant at infiltration basin 5P must be relocated to be fully outside of the infiltration basin area and
must be placed on a fully protected raised curbed median area with protective bollards.
3. The proposed hydrant along Hudson Blvd. will be city owned and maintained. The watermain must be
configured to be publically owned up to the hydrant/gate valve. A second gate valve should be installed to
start the 8‐inch private service to the site. The 8‐inch watermain service must be labeled on the plans “8‐inch
DIP CL 52 water service”.
PAGE 3 of 3
4. City Standard Plan Notes for Watermain must be placed directly on the Utility Plan to apply for all City owned
watermain and hydrants. All non‐City plan notes that duplicate or contradict the City plan notes must be
removed or specifically called out to apply for service pipe only.
5. The Site Plan must detail the street cut and restoration plan, including the construction limits and street
section requirements for the watermain connection at Jade Trail. The street cut and restoration must be
competed at full street width.
6. The 30‐inch driveway culvert in city right‐of‐way must be RCP pipe.
7. CB‐06 must be relocated to avoid conflicts with the existing sanitary sewer along Hudson Blvd.
8. Minimum storm sewer pipe size is 15‐inch. Revise storm sewer from CB‐04 and MH‐05.
SC
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T08
0
40
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Sh
e
e
t
T
i
t
l
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
Sh
e
e
t
N
o
.
Re
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
Da
t
e
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
/
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
No
.
By
De
s
i
g
n
e
d
:
Dr
a
w
n
:
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
:
B
o
o
k
/
P
a
g
e
:
Ph
a
s
e
:
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
I
s
s
u
e
d
:
Cl
i
e
n
t
WA
S
A
T
C
H
ST
O
R
A
G
E
PA
R
T
N
E
R
S
13
1
S
.
7
0
0
E
,
S
U
I
T
E
1
0
2
AM
E
R
I
C
A
N
F
O
R
K
,
U
T
8
4
0
0
3
92
0
0
H
U
D
S
O
N
BL
V
D
RE
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
LA
K
E
E
L
M
O
,
M
N
MG
B
JM
W
MC
A
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
07
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6
WA
S
2
0
6
0
2
7/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6
C
U
P
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
8/
2
5
/
2
0
1
6
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
C
U
P
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
1.
T
H
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
F
O
R
T
H
I
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
I
N
AC
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
"
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
"
A
S
P
U
B
L
I
S
H
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
CI
T
Y
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
A
S
S
O
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
(
C
E
A
M
)
,
E
X
C
E
P
T
A
S
M
O
D
I
F
I
E
D
H
E
R
E
I
N
.
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
O
B
T
A
I
N
A
C
O
P
Y
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
1.
1
.
A
L
L
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
C
I
T
Y
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
1.
2
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
N
O
T
O
P
E
N
,
T
U
R
N
O
F
F
,
I
N
T
E
R
F
E
R
E
W
I
T
H
,
O
R
A
T
T
A
C
H
A
N
Y
PI
P
E
O
R
H
O
S
E
T
O
O
R
T
A
P
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
B
E
L
O
N
G
I
N
G
T
O
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
U
N
L
E
S
S
D
U
L
Y
AU
T
H
O
R
I
Z
E
D
T
O
D
O
S
O
B
Y
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
.
A
N
Y
A
D
V
E
R
S
E
C
O
N
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
S
O
F
A
N
Y
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
D
O
R
U
N
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
D
D
I
S
R
U
P
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
T
O
T
H
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
R
E
T
H
E
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
O
F
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
.
1.
3
.
A
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
V
E
R
T
I
C
A
L
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
1
8
I
N
C
H
E
S
A
N
D
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
OF
1
0
-
F
E
E
T
B
E
T
W
E
E
N
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
P
I
P
E
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
S
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
A
T
A
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
AN
D
S
E
W
E
R
M
A
I
N
(
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
,
S
T
O
R
M
A
N
D
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
)
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
S
.
2.
A
L
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
A
S
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
E
D
I
N
C
E
A
M
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
X
C
E
P
T
A
S
M
O
D
I
F
I
E
D
HE
R
E
I
N
.
2.
1
.
A
L
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
C
I
T
Y
.
2.
2
.
A
L
L
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
T
O
B
E
P
V
C
S
D
R
-
3
5
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
N
O
T
E
D
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
.
2.
2
.
1
.
A
L
L
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
T
O
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
P
V
C
S
C
H
4
0
CO
N
F
O
R
M
I
N
G
T
O
A
S
T
M
D
2
6
6
5
.
2.
3
.
A
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
T
O
B
E
D
U
C
T
I
L
E
I
R
O
N
-
C
L
A
S
S
5
2
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
N
O
T
E
D
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
.
2.
3
.
1
.
A
L
L
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
T
O
H
A
V
E
7
.
5
-
F
E
E
T
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
O
V
E
R
T
O
P
O
F
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
.
2.
3
.
2
.
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
T
H
R
U
S
T
B
L
O
C
K
I
N
G
A
N
D
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
J
O
I
N
T
R
E
S
T
R
A
I
N
T
S
O
N
A
L
L
WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
J
O
I
N
T
S
P
E
R
C
I
T
Y
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
.
2.
4
.
A
L
L
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
T
O
B
E
S
M
O
O
T
H
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
D
U
A
L
W
A
L
L
H
D
P
E
P
I
P
E
W
I
T
H
WA
T
E
R
T
I
G
H
T
G
A
S
K
E
T
S
,
U
N
L
E
S
S
N
O
T
E
D
O
T
H
E
R
W
I
S
E
.
2.
2
.
1
.
A
L
L
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
F
O
R
R
O
O
F
D
R
A
I
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
T
O
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
PV
C
S
C
H
4
0
C
O
N
F
O
R
M
I
N
G
T
O
A
S
T
M
D
2
6
6
5
.
2.
3
.
R
I
P
R
A
P
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
M
n
/
D
O
T
C
L
A
S
S
3
.
3.
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
A
L
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
I
N
V
E
R
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
WI
T
H
M
E
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
.
4.
A
L
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
(
S
T
O
R
M
,
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
,
W
A
T
E
R
)
W
I
T
H
F
I
V
E
F
E
E
T
O
R
LE
S
S
C
O
V
E
R
A
R
E
T
O
B
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
E
D
F
R
O
M
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
T
O
P
O
I
N
T
W
H
E
R
E
5
-
F
E
E
T
O
F
C
O
V
E
R
I
S
AC
H
I
E
V
E
D
.
5.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
T
A
K
E
A
L
L
P
R
E
C
A
U
T
I
O
N
S
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
T
O
A
V
O
I
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
D
A
M
A
G
E
TO
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
D
U
R
I
N
G
T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
H
A
S
E
S
O
F
T
H
I
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
W
I
L
L
B
E
H
E
L
D
S
O
L
E
L
Y
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
A
N
Y
D
A
M
A
G
E
S
T
O
T
H
E
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
PR
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
O
C
C
U
R
R
I
N
G
D
U
R
I
N
G
T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
H
A
S
E
S
O
F
T
H
I
S
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
6.
S
A
F
E
T
Y
N
O
T
I
C
E
T
O
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
:
I
N
A
C
C
O
R
D
A
N
C
E
W
I
T
H
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
L
Y
A
C
C
E
P
T
E
D
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
A
C
T
I
C
E
S
,
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
W
I
L
L
B
E
S
O
L
E
L
Y
A
N
D
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
L
Y
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
O
N
T
H
E
J
O
B
S
I
T
E
,
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
S
A
F
E
T
Y
O
F
A
L
L
P
E
R
S
O
N
S
AN
D
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
D
U
R
I
N
G
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
O
F
T
H
E
W
O
R
K
.
T
H
I
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
W
I
L
L
A
P
P
L
Y
CO
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
L
Y
A
N
D
N
O
T
B
E
L
I
M
I
T
E
D
T
O
N
O
R
M
A
L
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
H
O
U
R
S
.
T
H
E
D
U
T
Y
O
F
T
H
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
O
R
T
H
E
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
R
T
O
C
O
N
D
U
C
T
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
R
E
V
I
E
W
O
F
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
PE
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
I
S
N
O
T
I
N
T
E
N
D
E
D
T
O
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
R
E
V
I
E
W
O
F
T
H
E
A
D
E
Q
U
A
C
Y
O
F
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
S
A
F
E
T
Y
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
I
N
,
O
N
O
R
N
E
A
R
T
H
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
I
T
E
.
7.
A
L
L
A
R
E
A
S
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
T
H
E
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
I
E
S
T
H
A
T
A
R
E
D
I
S
T
U
R
B
E
D
B
Y
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
R
E
S
T
O
R
E
D
I
N
K
I
N
D
.
S
O
D
D
E
D
A
R
E
A
S
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
R
E
S
T
O
R
E
D
W
I
T
H
6
I
N
C
H
E
S
O
F
T
O
P
S
O
I
L
P
L
A
C
E
D
B
E
N
E
A
T
H
T
H
E
S
O
D
.
8.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
P
R
O
V
I
D
I
N
G
A
N
D
M
A
I
N
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
CO
N
T
R
O
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
S
S
U
C
H
A
S
B
A
R
R
I
C
A
D
E
S
,
W
A
R
N
I
N
G
S
I
G
N
S
,
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
I
G
N
S
,
FL
A
G
M
E
N
A
N
D
L
I
G
H
T
S
T
O
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
T
H
E
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
W
H
E
R
E
N
E
C
E
S
S
A
R
Y
.
TR
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
D
E
V
I
C
E
S
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
N
F
O
R
M
T
O
A
P
P
R
O
P
R
I
A
T
E
M
I
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
DE
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
O
F
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
.
9.
A
L
L
S
O
I
L
S
T
E
S
T
I
N
G
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
D
B
Y
A
N
I
N
D
E
P
E
N
D
E
N
T
S
O
I
L
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
.
EX
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
T
H
E
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
O
F
R
E
M
O
V
I
N
G
U
N
S
T
A
B
L
E
O
R
U
N
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
S
O
I
L
S
S
H
A
L
L
BE
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
D
A
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
.
T
H
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
B
A
C
K
F
I
L
L
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
Y
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
.
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
I
N
G
A
L
L
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
T
E
S
T
S
AN
D
S
O
I
L
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
W
I
T
H
T
H
E
S
O
I
L
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
.
A
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
R
E
P
O
R
T
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
C
O
M
P
L
E
T
E
D
B
Y
:
CO
M
P
A
N
Y
:
T
E
R
R
A
C
O
N
AD
D
R
E
S
S
:
1
3
4
0
0
1
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
P
L
Y
M
O
U
T
H
,
M
N
PH
O
N
E
:
(
7
6
3
)
4
8
9
-
3
1
0
0
DA
T
E
D
:
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
1
6
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
O
B
T
A
I
N
A
C
O
P
Y
O
F
T
H
I
S
S
O
I
L
S
R
E
P
O
R
T
.
10
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
S
U
B
M
I
T
S
H
O
P
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
F
O
R
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
A
N
D
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
T
O
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
A
L
L
O
W
5
W
O
R
K
I
N
G
D
A
Y
S
F
O
R
S
H
O
P
DR
A
W
I
N
G
R
E
V
I
E
W
.
11
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
A
N
D
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
U
P
P
L
I
E
R
S
H
A
L
L
D
E
T
E
R
M
I
N
E
T
H
E
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
F
O
R
E
A
C
H
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
.
12
.
A
L
L
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
,
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
A
N
D
G
A
S
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
L
I
N
E
S
T
O
B
E
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
E
D
T
O
T
H
E
A
P
P
R
O
P
R
I
A
T
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
S
P
E
C
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
SH
A
L
L
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
A
P
P
R
O
P
R
I
A
T
E
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
R
S
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
PR
O
V
I
D
E
C
A
R
R
I
E
R
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
S
F
O
R
G
A
S
,
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
N
D
T
E
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
S
A
T
P
U
B
L
I
C
ST
R
E
E
T
S
A
N
D
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
13
.
G
A
S
E
N
T
R
Y
W
I
T
H
G
A
S
M
E
T
E
R
:
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
I
N
G
P
I
P
E
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
PR
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
T
M
E
T
E
R
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
G
A
S
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
F
O
R
TY
I
N
G
O
F
I
N
D
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
M
E
T
E
R
.
14
.
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
R
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
P
A
D
:
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
T
O
V
E
R
I
F
Y
E
X
A
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
AN
D
S
I
Z
E
W
I
T
H
P
O
W
E
R
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
B
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
F
O
R
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
D
,
C
O
N
D
U
I
T
,
A
N
D
P
I
P
E
B
O
L
L
A
R
D
S
A
S
RE
Q
U
I
R
E
D
B
Y
T
H
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
.
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
H
A
L
L
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
S
A
I
D
W
O
R
K
WI
T
H
T
H
E
E
L
E
C
T
R
I
C
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
.
15
.
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
W
I
T
H
I
N
3
0
'
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
T
O
B
E
P
U
B
L
I
C
L
Y
O
W
N
E
D
A
N
D
M
A
I
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
.
A
L
L
OT
H
E
R
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
T
O
B
E
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
L
Y
O
W
N
E
D
A
N
D
M
A
I
N
T
A
I
N
E
D
.
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
GA
S
L
I
N
E
FO
R
C
E
M
A
I
N
(
S
A
N
.
)
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
ST
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
CU
R
B
&
G
U
T
T
E
R
DR
A
I
N
T
I
L
E
D S
S S
LS
LE
G
E
N
D
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
N
O
T
E
S
A
u
g
2
5
,
2
0
1
6
-
1
1
:
0
7
a
m
-
U
s
e
r
:
5
9
3
L
:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
W
A
S
2
0
6
0
2
\
d
w
g
\
C
i
v
i
l
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
2
0
6
0
2
-
C
6
-
U
T
I
L
.
d
w
g
C6
.
0
1
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
P
L
A
N
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
GA
S
L
I
N
E
FO
R
C
E
M
A
I
N
(
S
A
N
.
)
EA
S
E
M
E
N
T
WA
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
SA
N
I
T
A
R
Y
S
E
W
E
R
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
ST
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
CU
R
B
&
G
U
T
T
E
R
DR
A
I
N
T
I
L
E
D S
S S
LS
LE
G
E
N
D
In
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
20
1
5
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
St
a
t
e
F
i
r
e
C
o
d
e
f
o
r
Fi
r
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
wi
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
ad
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
to
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
s
p
a
c
i
n
g
ca
l
l
e
d
o
u
t
i
n
M
S
F
C
50
7
.
5
Du
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
t
h
e
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
on
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
e
f
i
r
e
hy
d
r
a
n
t
s
p
a
c
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
ne
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
to
a
d
d
a
f
i
r
e
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
in
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
t
o
m
e
e
t
th
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
MS
F
C
5
0
7
.
5
Du
e
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
t
h
e
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
to
o
n
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
e
fi
r
e
h
y
d
r
a
n
t
s
p
a
c
i
n
g
wi
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
re
v
i
s
e
d
t
o
a
d
d
a
f
i
r
e
hy
d
r
a
n
t
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
to
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
MS
F
C
5
0
7
.
5
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
a
F
i
r
e
C
h
i
e
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
9
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: 9/26/2016
AGENDA ITEM: 4B – PUBLIC HEARING
CASE # 2016-33
ITEM: Interim Use Permit for the Keeping of Horses in Conjunction with a Church
in the Public and Quasi-Public Open Space Zoning District
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Common Ground Church, located
at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North (PID # 1402921320024), for an Interim Use Permit for the
keeping of horses in conjunction with a church. The property is zoned PF – Public and Quasi-Public
Open Space and is currently being used as a place of worship. Horses are also kept on the premises,
which is allowed in this zoning district by Interim Use Permit. The Interim Use Permit to keep horses
in conjunction with the church was first issued in 2008, again renewed in 2009, but expired at the end
of year in 2011. The Interim Use Permit has not been renewed since. The applicant is requesting the
City issue an Interim Use Permit so that the property may be brought in to compliance with City
Code.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Dawn Oswald
Property Owners: Common Ground Church
Location: 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North
Request: Interim Use Permit for Keeping of Horses in Conjunction with
Church
Existing Land Use: Place of Worship and Keeping of Horses in Conjunction with Church
Zoning: PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
Comprehensive Plan: Rural Area Development
History: The property was granted a Special Use Permit for a church in
1978. In 2007, Common Ground Church applied for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow the keeping of horses on their property, but this
was denied, as “horses” and/or “stables” were not listed as an
allowable use in the PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
Zoning District. Staff was, however, directed to prepare an ordinance
amendment to allow horses as an interim permitted use in conjunction
with churches in the PF zoning district, and this ordinance
amendment was approved later that year. After the aforementioned
2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
amendment was passed, Common Ground Church reapplied and was
granted an Interim Use Permit to keep horses on their property. This
permit was granted for a period of two years with the condition it may
be renewed. It was then renewed in 2009 for another period of 2
years. This Interim Use Permit expired at the end of 2011 and has not
been renewed, though horses have continued to be kept on the
property.
Deadline for Action: Application Complete – 8/26/2016
60 Day Deadline – 10/25/2016
Extension Letter Mailed – N/A
120 Day Deadline – N/A
Applicable Regulations: Section 154.107: Interim Use Permits
Section 154.600: PF – Public and Quasi-Public Open Space
Section 95.060: Horses
Section 95.090: Livestock
Section 154.914: Livestock
REQUEST DETAILS:
The property was granted an Interim Use Permit that was valid from late 2007 through late 2011. At
this time, the Interim Use Permit has expired. Staff can find no record of the property being notified
that the Permit was due to be renewed, though Resolution 2009-046 that granted the Interim Use
Permit and the Consent Agreement both state that the expiration date of the Permit was December
31, 2011.
Although the Interim Use Permit expired almost five years ago, horses have continued to be kept on
the site. Earlier this year, Staff conducted a City-wide review of Conditional and Interim Use Permits
to ensure compliance. It was during this review that Staff discovered that the Interim Use Permit for
the subject property had not been renewed, yet the use has continued. Since 2009, to Staff’s
knowledge, no complaints have been received about the use.
Terminated or suspended interim use permits cannot be renewed unless the Director of Planning
received an application for and approved a 1-time 30-day extension to continue processing the
renewal application. As such, this property cannot technically “renew” their Interim Use Permit
following the process outlined by Section 154.107 (H), which allows an Interim Use Permit to be
renewed by sending notices of the requested renewals to all property owners within 350 feet of the
parcel containing the use. As such, this application must be processed in the manner of a new
application, and therefore Common Ground has submitted an application for an Interim Use Permit.
PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES:
Property Size. The property totals 24.5 acres in size, divided by Kelvin Avenue North. The church is
to the west side of Kelvin Avenue North, and the horses reside to the east side. Approximately four
acres have been identified for the pasture of horses.
3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
Requirements of Section 154.600: Public and Quasi-Public Open Space; Subd. C. Per Section
154.600: Public and Quasi-Public Open Space; Subd. C, the keeping of horses in conjunction with
churches is allowed by Interim Use Permit, provided that:
(1) The keeping of horses does not constitute a feedlot per Minn. Rules.
The definitions of feedlot and pasture are provided below. Because a pasture is not considered to be a
feedlot, if the property can be defined as a pasture, it would not constitute a feedlot.
Minnesota Administrative Rule 7020.0300 Definitions
Subp. 3. Animal feedlot. "Animal feedlot" means a lot or building or combination of lots
and buildings intended for the confined feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and
specifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may accumulate, or where the
concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the
enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for the feeding and rearing of poultry
(poultry ranges) shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall not be considered
animal feedlots under these parts.
Subp. 18. Pastures. "Pastures" means:
A. areas, including winter feeding areas as part of a grazing area, where grass or other
growing plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of animals allows a
vegetative cover to be maintained during the growing season, except that vegetative cover is
not required:
(1) in the immediate vicinity of supplemental feeding or water de vices;
(2) in associated corrals and chutes where livestock are gathered for the purpose of sorting,
providing veterinary services, loading and unloading trucks and trailers, and other necessary
activities related to good animal husbandry practices; or
(3) in associated livestock access lanes used to convey livestock to and from areas of the
pasture; or
B. agricultural land:
(1) where livestock are allowed to forage during the winter;
(2) that is used for cropping purposes in the growing season; and
(3) where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative cover, whether of grass,
growing plants, or crops, is maintained during the growing season, except in the immediate
vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding or watering devices.
According to this property’s 2008 Interim Use Permit Staff Report, the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency defines a pasture as land that designates two acres per horse. Because the church can
designate four acres for the keeping of horses, if they limit the property to two horses, the land would
be considered a pasture, and therefore not a feedlot.
(2) The property is directly adjacent to only Agricultural (A) and Rural Residential (RR) zoned
properties that are not developed as open space preservation subdivisions. Roadways shall be
considered an adequate buffer.
The portion of the property that keeps the horses is directly adjacent only to properties zoned Rural
Residential, and they are not developed as open space preservation subdivisions. Stillwater
4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
Boulevard provides a buffer between the property and another property zoned Public and Quasi-
Public Open Space.
(3) Evidence is provided to show adherence to all livestock and horse regulations in city code.
The specific regulations for livestock, found in Section 154.914: Livestock, of the Zoning Code, are
below:
(A) Prohibition of manure deposition without safeguards. No manure or livestock waste shall be
deposited, stored, kept, or allowed to remain upon any site without reasonable safeguards adequate
to prevent the escape or movement of the manure or wastes or a solution of the manure or wastes
from the site which may result in pollution of any public waters or any health hazard.
When the MPCA previously reviewed this site, it found no reason to believe that the amount of
manure generated by the two allowable horses will pose any risk for area water bodies.
(B) Pollution Control Agency standard minimum requirement. All regulations imposed by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency relating to keeping of livestock shall be adhered to and the
regulations shall be considered the minimum safeguard necessary to prevent pollution of public water
or creation of a health hazard.
(C) Inadequate safeguards. In case the Zoning Administrator shall find that any manure is stored or
kept on any lot or storage site without a safeguard, or that any existing safeguard is inadequate, the
Zoning Administrator may order the owner or other responsible person to immediately remove the
manure from the storage site and refrain from further storage or keeping of any manure at the site
unless and until an adequate safeguard is provided.
The applicant has been made aware, upon the granting of the initial Interim Use Permit, that the
property would be subject to periodic inspections to ensure that unexpected manure issues do not
arise.
(D) Hazards and nuisances. On parcels of less than 40 acres which are not part of a larger crop-
producing commercial agricultural farm, the keeping of horses, cattle, or other grazing animals on a
site with less than 2 acres of existing grazable land per animal is, by this section, d eclared to be a
nuisance. Horses may be kept on any parcel larger than 5 acres. No other domestic farm animals,
livestock or commercial kennels shall be placed on any site of less than 10 acres.
The portion of the parcel on which horses are being kept is over two acres, and the overall parcel size
is far greater than five acres. Therefore, the keeping of horses on this parcel should not be considered
a nuisance.
E) Grazable acres. Grazable acreage shall be defined as open, non-treed acreage exclusive of the
homesite and yard that is currently providing enough pasture or other agricultural crops capable of
supporting summer grazing at a density of 1 cow, or its equivalent, per 2 acres. Grazable acreage
shall not include non-jurisdictional wetlands or slopes over 12%.
(1) For purposes of these regulations, the following animal equivalents apply: one slaughter steer,
heifer or horse - 1.0; one mature dairy cow - 1.4; one swine over 55 pounds - .4; one sheep -.1; one
turkey - .01; one chicken - .01; one duck - .02.
5
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
(2) For all other animals, the number of animal units shall be defined as the average weight of the
animal divided by 1,000 pounds.
As previously mentioned, the property has been determined to have four grazable acres. As two
grazable acres are required per horse, allowing the keeping of two horses on the property is in
compliance with this Code.
Previous Comments from City Engineer, Valley Branch Watershed District, and Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. At the time of the initial Interim Use Permit application and its
renewal, there were no foreseen issues with the current number of horses on the property. The Valley
Branch Watershed District had stated that at least a two-inch high vegetative cover such as Kentucky
Bluegrass to properly maintain pastures to prevent negative environmental impacts. The City
Engineer determined existing drainage conditions would not be adversely affected by the proposed
use but that adequate fencing should be confirmed to keep animals off of adjacent roadways. The
parcel of land complies with this suggestion as it is completely enclosed by animal fencing that has
proved to be adequate thus far. The present application has been forwarded to these parties and no
further issues have been communicated.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS:
If approved, the proposal would authorize the horses to continue to be kept on the property
throughout the year as part of the “Hoof Prints” organization, which is a non -profit, faith-based,
volunteer-run group. The purpose of the organization is to benefit people who may be dealing with
abuse, sickness, or other troubles through work with horses.
Guests and volunteers care for the horses by exercising, grooming and feeding them; which in turn is
meant to provide a sense of accomplishment and improved self-confidence. The hours of operation
are primarily “after school” and weekends by appointment. The organization has served the Lake
Elmo community throughout the years, working with Willow Haven Group Home, Washington
County Adult and Youth Bureau Services, and many others.,
The granting of this Interim Use Permit would affect no change of use on the parcel, as it has been
used as such for the past nine or so years. Granting the Interim Use Permit would, however, bring the
property in to compliance with City Code.
DRAFT FINDINGS
An interim use permit may be granted only if the City makes the following findings. Recommended
draft findings are italicized:
1. The use is allowed as an interim use in the respective zoning district and conforms to standard
zoning regulations.
As previously outlined in the Planning and Zoning Issues section of this report, the property is
located in the Public and Quasi-Public Open Space zoning district, and the keeping of horses in
conjunction with churches by Interim Use Permit is allowed in this zoning district. The property
meets all the provisions set forth for such use.
6
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
2. The use will not adversely impact nearby properties through nuisance, noise, traffic, dust, or
unsightliness and will not otherwise adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
As previously explained in the Planning and Zoning Issues section of this report, the property should
not be considered a nuisance because it meets the minimum criteria for the keeping of horses set
forth in City Code. The impact of two horses has proven and is expected to continue to be minimal.
3. The use will not adversely impact implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan shows that the property is guided for Rural Area Development. The keeping
of horses on this property would not adversely affect this, as no structures are bein g built on this
portion of the property nor are any major changes to the land being made.
4. The user agrees to all conditions that the City Council deems appropriate to establish the interim
use. This may include the requirement of appropriate financial surety such as a letter of credit or
other security acceptable to the City to cover the cost of removing the interim use and any interim
structures not currently existing on the site, upon the expiration of the interim use permit.
The applicant will need to sign another Consent Agreement that shows agreement to all conditions
set forth.
5. There are no delinquent property taxes, special assessments, interest, or city utility fees due upon
the subject parcel.
The Finance Director has been contacted to verify this and has stated that no substantial amount of
the aforementioned is due to the City that should prevent the property from being granted the Interim
Use Permit.
6. The date or event terminating the interim use shall be set by the City Council at the time of
approval.
At the time the Interim Use Permit for this property was first issued, and even at the time it was
renewed, there were restrictions that limited terms of interim use to two years. These restrictions no
longer apply to current Code. Therefore, the applicant has requested, and Staff recommends, that the
Interim Use Permit for the keeping of horses on this property should be granted for a period of ten
years, provided that all other conditions of the permit are met throughout this time period. The
termination date of December 31, 2026 is specifically recommended, as the end of the year is often
associated with the renewal and review of many city projects and applications. Additionally, the
property’s previous Interim Use Permits expired on the date of December 31, and choosing this date
as the expiration date will keep this consistent.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit for
the keeping of horses at 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North with the following conditions:
1) No more than two horses shall be allowed on the property;
7
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4b – ACTION ITEM
2) The keeping of horses shall be limited to that side of the property that is located to the East of
Kelvin Avenue North;
3) All efforts to maintain at least two inches of vegetative cover shall be made in order to
properly upkeep the pasture area;
4) All riding of horses shall be done in accordance with Section 95.060: Horses, of the City
Code, and the property must maintain compliance with regulations pertaining to Livestock:
Sections 95.090 & 154.914 of the City Code;
5) The Interim Use Permit shall be valid until any one of the events listed below occurs,
whichever occurs first:
1. Until December 31, 2026;
2. Upon the sale of the property;
3. Until a violation of the Consent Agreement;
4. Until a change in the City’s zoning regulations, which renders the interim use non-
conforming; or
5. Until the redevelopment of the Property for a permitted or conditional use as allowed
by the City’s zoning regulations.
6) The applicant must sign and submit to the City a consent agreement before December 31,
2016.
ATTACHMENTS:
Interim Use Permit Application
Location map and site plan
Resolutions 2009-046 & 2008-012
Consent Agreement Draft
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
CONSENT AGREEMENT
INTERIM USE PERMIT
1.0 Parties. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit (“Agreement”) is
entered into by and between the City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota statutory city
(“City”); Common Ground Church, (“Applicant”).
2.0 Recitals.
A. Applicant is the record fee Owner of the following described property
situated in Lake Elmo, MN (“Property”): THAT PART OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH, RANGE 21 W EST,
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, BEARING
ORIENTED TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM,
SOUTH ZONE, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 992.71
FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF STILLWATER LANE, FORMERLY
TRUNK HIGHWAY 212, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NORTH 67 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID
CENTER LINE, 501.43 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID
CENTER LINE AND A TANGETIAL CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTH, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24 DEGREES 08 MINUTES
07 SECONDS AND A RADIUS OF 881.47 FEET, A DISTANCE OF
371.31 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 39
SECONDS EAST ALONG TANGENT AND ALONG SAID CENTER LINE
491.30 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 50
MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 454.45 FEET
TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE CHICAGO NORTH
WESTERN RAILROAD, SAID POINT BEING 44 FEET NORTH OF THE
CENTERLINE OF THE MOST NORTHERLY TRACT OF THE CHICAGO
NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD; THENCE SOUTH 86 DEGREES 11
MINUTES 42 SECONDS W EST ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE 1322.01 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 42 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE
293.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 13.48
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF WHICH 7.74 ACRES, MORE OR LESS IS
NOT ENCUMBERED BY ROAD OR HIGHWAY EASEMENTS. SUBJECT
TO A ROAD EASEMENT OVER THE NORTHERLY AND NORTH-
WESTERLY 33.00 FEET THEREOF FOR STILLWATER LANE. ALSO,
SUBJECT TO A ROAD EASEMENT OVER THE EASTERLY 33.00 FEET
2
THEREOF FOR KELVIN AVENUE. ALSO, SUBJECT TO A ROAD
EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN
THE FINAL CERTIFICATE DOCUMENT NO. 17469 FOR TRUNK
HIGHWAY 212., commonly known as 10240 Stillwater Boulevard North,
Lake Elmo Avenue North.
B. The Property is zoned Public and Quasi-Public Open Spaces.
C. The interim use of keeping horses in conjunction with churches is allowed
in the Public and Quasi-Public Open Spaces zoning districts subject to the
regulations contained in Lake Elmo City Code Section 154.600.
D. The applicant has requested that the City allow an interim use of the
keeping of horses in conjunction with Common Ground Church as part of
the “Hoof Prints” organization, which is a non-profit, faith-based, volunteer-
run group.
E. On the 26th day of August, 2016, the Applicant submitted a completed
application for an Interim Use Permit.
F. On the 26th day of September, 2016, the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission, at a public hearing, reviewed the Interim Use Permit
application, city staff comments and reports, Applicant’s comments and
reports, and public comments, and recommended approval of the interim
use permit to allow the keeping of horses in conjunction with a church
subject to certain conditions.
G. On the ___th day of _______, 2016, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed
the Interim Use Permit application, city staff comments and reports,
Applicant’s comments and reports, public comments, and the
recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, and agreed to
authorize the interim use subject to the terms and conditions as specified
in Section 154.600 of the Zoning Ordinance and Resolution 2016-__
approving the interim use permit.
3.0 Terms and Conditions. The Lake Elmo City Council and Applicant, for itself,
and its successors and assigns, agree that the interim keeping of horses in
conjunction with a church shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. The Applicant, and its successors and assigns, shall have no
entitlement to future re-approval of the Interim Use Permit.
B. The use will not adversely impact nearby property properties
through nuisance, noise, traffic, dust, or unsightline ss and will not
otherwise adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
3
C. The use will not adversely impact implementation of the
comprehensive plan.
D. No more than two horses shall be allowed on the property.
E. The keeping of horses shall be limited to that side of the parcel to
the east of Kelvin Avenue North.
F. That all efforts to maintain at least two inches of vegetative cover
shall be made in order to properly upkeep the pasture area.
G. All riding of the horses shall be done in accordance with Section
95.060: Horses, of the City Code, and the property must maintain
compliance with regulations pertaining to Livestock: Sections
95.090 & 154.914 of the City Code.
H. That the applicant maintain compliance with all applicable City
Code standards for the duration of the interim use.
I. That the interim use is valid for a period of ten years and must be
renewed by the City Council prior to the end of this time period in
order to continue operating from the site.
J. The Interim Use Permit shall be valid until any one of the events
listed below occurs, whichever occurs first:
1. Until December 31, 2026;
2. Upon the sale of the property;
3. Until a violation of the Consent Agreement;
4. Until a change in the City’s zoning regulations, which
renders the interim use non-conforming; or
5. Until the redevelopment of the Property for a permitted or
conditional use as allowed by the City’s zoning regulations.
4.0 Renewal of Interim Use Permit. The interim use permit may be renewe d by the
Council prior to the expiration.
5.0 Acknowledgement of the Permitted Uses. Any Permitted Use that was
previously conducted on the Property is allowed to continue in conjunction with
the Interim Use Permit.
6.0 Acknowledgement and Consent. Applicant acknowledges that this is a legally
binding agreement and that Applicant has had an opportunity to review the
Agreement with legal counsel. Applicant consents to the terms of this Agreement
and its restrictions on the use of the Property and the Interim Use Area.
7.0 Effective Date. This Consent Agreement/Interim Use Permit shall be effective
upon execution by all parties.
4
Date: ___/___16
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
By: _______________________
Mike Pearson
Mayor
Dawn Oswald of Common Ground
Church
By: _______________________
Dawn Oswald
Its: _______________________