I'm waiting for 9 6:30. So, I almost start early. And now it's 6:30. And with that, I will call the July 13, 2026 uh Lake Elmo Planning Commission meeting to order. First item is to rise and say the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> And I need a motion to approve tonight's agenda. Make a motion to approve tonight's agenda July 13, 2026. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I agrove our minutes from uh June 8th of 2026. >> Motion to approve the minutes of June 8th, 2026. >> Second. >> Any concerns? All in favor? >> I. >> All right. The minutes are approved from that meeting. All right. First up, we have a public hearing on 9591 60th Street zoning text amendment and conditional use permits. Sophia will give us the skinny. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant for tonight's application is Yama Gonzalez. She represents Cuban Properties, NYP Landscape Supply in Valdez Lawn and Snow. The property is located at 959160th Street. It is almost 24 acres. 6.33 of that is over Highway 36. So if you net that out, you're looking at about 17 and a half acres of the usable site. It is currently zoned agriculture and guided in the city's comp plan as rural area development. And then a little history on this site. So it's been operating as an open sales lot and landscape supply business since 1988. um they came forward in 2023 or 2024 for a text amendment for yard waste and landscape supply. Um that was denied and they came into compliance after that denial um to meet the current or the 1988 uh cup requirements. Uh that was achieved in 2024. Before you tonight is a zoning text amendment for landscape supply and then a cup for an expansion to their existing facility. There's nothing with yard waste recycling with this application before you this evening. To get your sight bearings, north is highway 36. To the west is rural single family homes and some power company property. To the east is an existing farmstead in prairie hamlet neighborhood. And to the south is rural single family homes and 57th street. So this slide shows the existing and proposed cup area on the property. Uh the area in red is the existing cup footprint. Um, the old CUP references a 1979 footprint. City staff is not able to find records of what that exact site planner footprint is. So, we used Google image to go back and try to define the area. So, that's generally shown in red. It's about 2.95 acres. And then the proposed area is shown on the right side. Um, that is with the yellow polygon. And that would be about 6.21 acres. So, this slide shows a breakdown of what's in that cup footprint area. Uh, the left is the survey. It's a little bit hard to read with the topography, but I highlighted the green polygon, which is the tree nursery area. Pink is the softscape storage, and black is the hardcape storage. And the image on the right is more of just a rendering of what that same design or layout would look like. Um, and I will note there is a white star at the north end of that rendering and we'll circle back to that. It's an isolated home around the my property. We'll circle back to that when we get to the conditions. So, the applicant is requesting to amend three sections of city code. The first is 10512110 and that's adding the definition of landscape supply into the city code. The next section is 10512620 and that's just the table 9-1 adding a C um in the table for this type of use. The final section is 10512650K and that's adding specific performance standards to the type of use. So staff finds this request to be consistent with the past use of the property. Staff also finds the proposed use with conditions and performance standards consistent with the intent of the egg zoning district. The standards proposed are generally based off the intent of the non- egg low impact section, which allows a large property owner an economical use of a portion of their property that is zoned agriculture. Staff also finds this request consistent with the 2040 comp plan as it relates to the goals and intent of rural area development guidance, land use transitions, and natural resource systems. And lastly, since a zoning text amendment applies to all properties within the agricultural zoning district, the performance standards provide highle guidelines. And then if and when a cup comes forward, the city can add sight specific conditions um based on the unique characters of that area. So this slide just shows the exact language that they're proposing. Um I will spare reading it to you. We can circle back though if there's any questions. So looking at the performance standards uh and existing operations, first is hours of operation. So they're not proposing to change any um approved hours of operation that were outlined in the 1988 CUP. Looking at parking, the 1988 cup limits parking to 30 cars on site. They're not proposing to change that. Um just a note that this does not include heavy equipment like skid steers, forklifts, or the like. Next up is zoning. So, the property must maintain its agricultural zoning to qualify for this this use. Uh, minimum lot area is 15 acres in size. Again, if Highway 36 is netted out, this is at 17, so it would still meet that threshold. Looking at traffic, the use may not generate more than three trips per acre per day, which is about 71 trips. Um, the request should not increase traffic above normal operations since most of the proposed amendment is related to storage of materials. Insight access is not proposed to change with this request. Next item is exterior storage. Exterior storage of vehicles, equipment, and goods must be located a minimum of 200 feet from public roadways and 50 feet from residential properties. The property and the storage must be screened via landscaping and BMS. The applicant is proposing to add arbor vites and a retaining wall in addition to existing mature vegetation which provides natural screening. Um, no trees are planned to be removed with this proposed request. And then lastly, a condition of approval has been added regarding 959760th Street, which is that star parcel that's basically enclosed by the property. So they'll need to maintain the spacing and screening from that parcel. Continuing on, looking at sack units. Um, so the use may not generate more than three sack units or um 235 gallons per day per net acre of land. sewer is not available here. So, it would be related to sewer. Just a note that they do have a new septic system that was installed and verified in 2025. Next, looking at uh non-b businessiness related land area. The performance standard is that the area outside of the cup must be maintained consistent with the egg zoning district. In this case, they're just proposing to leave it in its natural state um and leave the mature vegetation. Storm water rate and volume of storm water must meet the city and valley branch requirements. Structures, there are currently four buildings on site. The applicant is not proposing to add or change any of those existing structures. And lastly, noise and light. So, they must meet the city's noise and light ordinance. similar to any other uh business in the city. The request was sent out for agency review on June 15th. We received a comment memo from the city engineer providing comments on stormwater management and access management. We've added added a condition where applicable. Watershed provided comments on Cowwater Pond and access feasibility and we also added a condition regarding that memo. The DOT and fire department did not have comments. Staff is recommending five findings of fact for the text amendment. The first is that the applicant meets the application requirements for a text amendment. The second is regarding the exact three code sections that are proposed to be changed. The third is that this amendment would allow for expanded cup. Fourth is that it is consistent with the comp plan and fifth is that it meets the intent of the egg zoning district with those added performance standards. Staff is recommending 12 findings of fact for the CUP. In summary, those relate to public health safety, comfort, not creating nuisances, consistency with the comp plan and zoning code and flood plane management. Uh compatible with the existing neighborhood, and not impacting natural or scenic features, and lastly, um adequately served by public facilities and not creating additional public cost. So staff is recommending 12 conditions. Some of this is carryover from the 1988 CUP. So those are shown in bold. The new conditions are underlined. We'll just run through these briefly. The first is regarding hours of operation, 8 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. There are only allowed one business sign. Uh material should not be stored closer than 210 ft south of the Highway 36 rightway. There shall be no more than 30 cars parked on the site. They need to maintain screening and any expansion or changes would trigger a CU amendment. Moving on to the new conditions, the applicant needs to amend their plans to meet the screening requirements and spacing requirements for 959760th Street. They need to meet all of the performance standards outlined in this new section. They need to obtain any necessary wershed permits and meet cowwater pond regulations set forth by the wershed. uh they shall address the plan revisions and future considerations outlined by the engineer memo. Since there is an existing cup, we added a condition that um if approved, this would be the new governing cup. So you don't have old documents conflicting with new documents. And lastly, our standard condition regarding um expiration public notification. So the applicant or the public hearing was sent to surround property owners on June 29th and published in the paper on July 3rd. We also sent this out via the city's website uh push notification tool. We received written comments from Peter Castler. He provided written comments regarding concerns with highway 36 access safety, regulating heavy equipment, property maintenance and definition concerns, and concerns with the zoning and proposed screening. Harvey Taipel provided written comments regarding the scope of the property maintenance service and limit on vehicles. Provided additional comments on egg sales and access. Bonnie and Leonard Duran provided comments regarding concerns with access on Highway 36, environmental impacts, and conflicting land uses. And John and Lisa Bourbon provided written comments regarding concerns with the text amendment language and generally against the expansion of the business. So I have two recommended motions here. And then um I did receive a request to add a note about the Highway 36 frontage road that's going in on the city side. So I just wanted to add a visual here. So the red roads are the new roads that are being reconfigured. And then just a note that that red star is generally where the my location is. So it it doesn't have access to this fronted road. The front of road is not extending that far. So I can stand for any questions. And we do have the applicant here tonight. Let me go back and look at the talking about the text changes. text >> the exact language. >> Yeah. So right now landscaping supply landscape supply sales is not part of the zone use and classification is not that doesn't exist at all. >> Correct. So that screenshot would have just been a word document that we created to mimic what it would look like if it was approved. >> And then because of that then we're adding table 91. >> Table 91 exists. You're just adding another row in it. What's the name of that um greenhouse that's up on 36? >> I can't hear you. Sorry. >> Is it country? >> Country Sun Farms is another business. >> What's their category? >> They're egg sales and egg entertainment. >> Okay. So, egg sales business. So the question there so the way it's written now there is no limit on the the the the equipment uh parking 30 cars per correct >> do we have any anticipation >> what that might drive is there any rules or regulations around that >> that's a a good question. So, the city is maintaining that 30 cars. Um I think it's a hard thing to regulate because it's borderline regulating private property similar to for an egg use. You wouldn't regulate how many tractors a farmer can have for their business. So, it's hard to monitor that and enforce that. >> Okay. >> The 30 cars are anticipated to be employees and guests or >> between employees and customers, correct? And this is also a residential property. It's a agriculture and residential together. >> Um I don't believe there's a residential component. >> I thought that they lived on >> I believe their home is in the next parcel. >> Correct. Okay. >> There is a home on the site but it's not occupied. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? I think we should hear from the property owner. >> I do have one more. Um, are there any requirements for impervious? >> No, there's not in the egg zoning district. The egg zoning district is exempt from an impervious surface maximum. There are thresholds that require a Valley Ranch waters waterershed district permit which includes 6,000 square feet. Um if they exceed that which the wershed will review then they would need a permit but not a city permit. >> Okay. real real quick. Are there and I might have missed this in the documents um earlier is is there any requirements as is as they talk about the the screening and arborite like size and what's being planted those typically have sometimes well somebody had mentioned to the deer I know they're disease prone too. Is there any requirements the city can have on on those or do we care how big those are as they're being planted? >> Yeah, so it's outlined in the city's landscape ordinance. screening needs to be six feet in height and 90% opaque year round. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And so if the trees die back or they're eaten, they need to replace the species. >> I missed that. Okay. Thank you. >> It it almost looks like that that those are already in place. Are there is there screening on that east side already? Must >> looks like it from the pictures. >> I know there was mention of storage of the Valdez landscaping equipment. Is there any idea of how many vehicles are going to be stored there and is that factored in with the maximum allowable trips per day as well as business hours? >> Correct. So, it is in the 30 cars and the trips include their whole proposal. Um, I can let the applicant though speak to exactly what that would look like on site if you'd like. >> Any more questions for me? Okay. Hello everyone. Thank you. Um, can we address your question right away because I think that's a a big concern that we keep hearing from all the neighbors. >> Can you introduce yourself please? >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh, Jamele Gonzalez and I am um part owner of the property at NYP and Cuban properties. So um big concern we keep hearing vehicles um equipment. We have a property in Wisconsin. That's where we keep um most of our uh equipment and um that's where we have a re a repair shop. We have storage over there. So the way it works is that we bring our equipment that is offseason because we do snow removal, landscape and land service. So the winter equipment right now will be ser in uh Wisconsin repair there and then when it comes uh time for that season it it is actually brought to our customer site. Those equipment never touch Lake Elmo. So the same thing happens you know in the season. So to answer that question no we are not planning on increasing baldes care and snow removal. What we are trying to do basically is for allowing um administrative people to have access to a place of business at Lake Elmo and to be able to have a business address in Lake Elmo. So I am not planning on bringing any extra equipment. The equipment that we do have on site is because it's um basically assisting MIP lines supply to load or unload um the product and um if we have to do any sort of delivery for a customer but that's the only reason why we have equipment there. Is there any other specific question for me? is I wanted to try to answer to all all the neighbors um about some of the comments that they had for us. >> Could you speak to fertilizer sales and storage and how that would be done? I know that's one of the concerns of some of the neighbors. >> I'm sorry. Can you >> fertilizer storage and sales? >> Well, um we don't currently do any of that. Um we wanted to make sure we had everything to avoid any u questions. We want to be as transparent as possible. Right now we are not doing any fertilizer. So um if that were to happen, I mean we don't foresee that happening, but if that were to happen, we do have u a storage unit um that is not being used currently. We just use it basically to keep a small parts for the store. Um and and we will obviously uh follow the guidance to to go through with that. But as of right now, we don't do any of that. >> You said you didn't plan to. I we are not planning on that. >> I would imagine that Valley Ranch wershed would have some input on that as well. >> We would like to know about that. Yes, I'm sure >> kind of a spring off of Did you have another question? No. Go ahead. >> Okay. A spring off of that. Um so it um if you're approved to put the trees and shrubs and grow them there, will you be using fertilizers on them? And how would that application go? >> I don't believe um so what we use um we use manure, right? Organic manu manure from the University of Minnesota. Uh so that's the kind of fertilizer we use currently for our um our trees that we have right now. So we are not planning on using any >> there's not going to be any spraying or head watering with chemicals in it. It's it would be trickle or or in the soil already. >> Good. I think that's another concern that people >> I am uh very do you need to uh be part of the record for that. >> Okay. I'm I'm Joe Valdes the owner >> the the other owner of the property. Let's make something clear for the fertilizer we control. We've been in business for 26 years. We not do any application ourselves. We stop everything. We not have any fertilizer or we control in our property for the last 26 years. We sub that up. So I see the comments there. We try to be a clarify and this is one of the reason we here. We want to make sure every in the table to get you feedback to make sure we clear. >> Sure. >> We're not planning to do anything for life. So I'm against myself to do for we control and I like that. >> Um just a little bit more on that side. We um we work very closely with the University of Minnesota um to try to do everything as organically as possible. We are very pro um organic and we are looking at all the new research that is coming up. Um and I think there's enough talks and um enough information online if people truly in our line of business want to learn about it uh that they can do to do better for the environment and for our own health. So >> perfect. something that I'm wondering about. Um, so you've got 6.33 acres that are over the top of Highway 36. Have you had any conversations with the county or any anybody regarding um that? And then or also questions about ing, you know, ingress and egress. um the C in 2021 I believe was like that mayor major project they had on on Highway 36 that impacted us. Um we did talk to Mindad. Um because when we moved into the property there was no right turn lane into the property and that was definitely a concern for us. Um, the other thing that we talked to them about was the possibility of an acceleration lane and we were hoping to see if they could help us post some sort of sign um ahead of our property uh not just for our property but for the upcoming commercial properties that um that could let you know public that is not used to driving around that area that you know there's commercial property that could be truck entering or exiting. And um to our request uh they only approved uh the um right turning lane which we we had to pay oursel um but they wouldn't give us an an acceleration lane. They denied us and no additional sign. So I mean as we are hearing talks about this a possibility of a frontage road um that could affect our property. We are super happy to hear that and we have been um you know approaching the city if that's a possibility we absolutely want to be on board. Um we have implemented and I know safety keeps coming up um and that's something that we have tried actively to work on. So um we have implemented so many policies for our employees. So we have gone as far as where they can turn within Highway 36 to go back so say towards St. Paul or if there's any construction around the zones. Uh we have like group notifications of how things um are to be managed during that time of construction. Uh we have GPS and our mobile equipment all of our trucks. Um we have cameras that we can access. So, um, we even reached out to our own insurance to make sure and see if there was a possibility of somebody on the road to, uh, to wash our trucks and we have somebody assigned directly from our insurance, which we were actually given discounts, right? Because we were so actively approaching uh, safety and security, right? Um, so we all the time we try and we talk to our customer as they come in and they request to be loaded, you know, more than they are supposed to. We deny that. Um so safety is very important to us. We are looking at everything more than anything as we are approaching the city. It's we want to have a clear understanding. We want everybody to be aware of what's happening with the neighbors. We uh tried to have a conversation. last year more than anything because we wanted to put in front of them ahead of this meeting what are what we had as an idea because we heard the previous comments and they were not very good for us right and so we felt that the communication between the neighbors and us was not very active so I wanted to have that opportunity um it started very well didn't end up well and we always seem to end up in the same in the same point. So all we are trying to do is to make everything clear. Um we are not trying to be an enemy of the community. If anything, we just want to be a small business operating. We we live here as well. So >> any questions? >> I just one last thing. So, so you have there 23.75 acres and after you take out the highway 36, you're left with 17.42. Looks like you're really only looking to expand to use approximately a third >> of your acreage. >> That is correct. >> For your additional facility. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Just want to make sure I'm clear on that. From an operational standpoint, is it just the big change is the nursery >> basically? >> Yeah, it's just growing trees. >> Um, which we are not going to put on the ground. I think we put that in our um, uh, explanation there. Um, we are going to keep them in pots to make sure that we are not disturbing the soil or anything like that. >> All right. >> So, >> who are your customers? >> Uh, mostly um, >> besides Valdez Landscaping mostly small business and and residentials. We do get a lot of um a lot of residentials from Lake Elmo. And to be honest, as all this situation started um I feel very humbled because I've received very positive comments from a lot of our customers from the surrounding areas that very, you know, sad to hear what is happening. Um we we service the church um on gates and they were um very uh very upset to hear too what is happening. But again I think more than anything what is happening is misunderstanding. So I'm hoping that as we communicate we can all get to a point where again we can just be part of our community. So >> thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else for Sophia? Other than that, we can >> motion open the public hearing. >> Second. >> Uh, all in favor of opening the public hearing. >> I All right. and we will open the public hearing at 7 o'clock. Uh beginning with the public hearing, uh we will read the four emails that got sent in to staff and Jane, if you want to start with the first one. >> Sure. I have uh Leonard Jirean to the planning committee. Because of health concerns, I am not I cannot attend the planning commission tonight. I submit the following concerns regarding MP my expansion. One, the Highway 36 entrance and exit to my is very dangerous, especially with the addition of faster and increased traffic past my location on Highway 36. It is a danger to anyone entering or exiting my NYP's location. vehicles would be trucks, trailers, private cars coming and going. There is no easy way to enter the location. There is no acceleration lane or a way to merge into 70 70 mph traffic. Two, I'm opposed to my desire to increase business with bulk fertilizer, pesticides, and other hazardous supplies. It's unsafe, not environmentally sound, and I don't want additional air and water pollution in the adjacent neighborhood. Halawatt Pond is within 25 yards of the MyP site. We need less pollution, not more. My wants to expand in what is a residential area, and that doesn't make sense. Four, more storage of vehicle equipment on the property means more noise, pollution, and irregular hours. Doesn't fit the property or surrounding properties. I submit this information for review for tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Bonnie and Leonard Geran. They're located at 9784 57th Street North in Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042. >> All right. This was sent by Harvey Taipel at 927557th Street North, Lake Elmo. I am contacting you to express a couple of concerns regarding the proposed change in permitted land use. While I have no basic objection to the MYP proposal to operate a landscape sales business at this location, I also want to limit potential impacts to my home on 57th Street North and any other homes that may be impacted in the future by others wishing to take advantage of the citywide zoning revision. I have two concerns relating to the text provided by the petitioner highlighted in yellow in their application. First, I recommend the second sentence be revised to ancillary uses uses may include nurseries and supply storage. Deleting or property maintenance services is essential. The rationale for this is straightforward. The petitioner has previously attempted to secure approval to use this site for processing composting landscape waste and using the site as a landscape waste collection and transfer site. Local residents objected, citing noise, odor, and traffic concerns resulting in council's denial of the application. Property maintenance services is sufficiently broad to include the previously unacceptable activities. Property maintenance services are not normal components of sales operation. Given the proposed language, a future further revision of the cup to include these type of activities would be difficult to deny. This back door must be closed. Second, the text allows for equipment for loading, delivery, and sight placement of materials. This is an open-ended permission. The number of site vehicles proposed in the petitioner's previous application was also a negative issue. Some reasonable limitations on the number of business vehicle using the site is needed. As a side comment, the requested use is quite similar to the currently defined agricultural sales definition and the requirements for both should be similar. Finally, outside of the direct code requirements, there is an overall question of access. The property is currently only accessible via a driveway directly entering and exiting Highway 36. Additional traffic into sales yard sub substandard entrance and egress to the site and the ongoing efforts to upgrade highway 36 to almost a freeway class highway suggests that a significant future traffic conflict will need to be resolved. The cup needs to include language to prohibit local residential streets from becoming part of any future access solution. All right, Daniel read that one. >> Oh boy. Yeah, they get longer. That's all right. I'm holding on to the last one. I'll read it. >> The following is The following is comment regarding 9591 60th Street zoning text amendment and conditional use permit. Please consider these changes before approving any permit. A regarding staff report finding number one. The proposed use should not be detrimental or in any way endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. This property enters and exits directly onto Highway 36. It is more likely that not the increased traffic exiting directly onto a 65 mph highway will decrease safety. B. Likewise, staff report finding number 11, the driveway width and location is not proposed to change. The proposed use should not create a traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughares. Seems implausible. Vehicles leaving this business regularly interfere with the flow of traffic creating safety concerns. Expanding the type of business here will increase customer traffic. Adding a lawn care business with heavy equipment will likely interfere with traffic. A merge lane onto 36 should be required before any approval. C. The staff report indicates that they will add Valdez Lawn Care to the location which will store vehicles and equipment to be used on site for customer vehicle loading and delivery and placement services for purchase materials. This seems disingenuous as the lawn care and snow removal business would likely be storing more than just loading and unload unloading delivery equipment. The applicant indicates no more than 30 cars/traers will be parked on site and this total does not include heavy equipment. There should be a limitation as to the number of equipment units that are allowed to be stored if any. D. The proposed definition of landscape supply sales under sales of merchandise use types and classifications is not consistent with industry standard definition of landscape supply. It should not include the language from the garden center retail agriculture definition that already exists in zoning code and should be kept separate. Instead, it should be a separate use with a definition something akin to landscape supply centers means places of business primarily engaged in retail sales from the premise of bulk aggregates, organic materials, hardscape products, landscape products used to improve structure and maintain outdoor spaces. Additionally, property maintenance services should be removed from the landscape supplies definition. This is a separate business and separate use. It is not ancillary to landscape supply sales. It is evident from the application that the applicant intends to run a lawn care and snow removal business out of this location. Any language change should be clear and done in consideration of all land use applications. If they want to do both uses, that may be fine, but the use type should not be combined. E. It is unclear why this parcel is zoned agricultural when no agricultural activity is occurring on it and Washington County does not classify any of the land as productive archite agricultural land. F. Unless it is already established, unless it's already well established, it is unlikely that the arborvite berm along the east property line will be a viable screening solution as arborite are highly susceptible to deer browsing and deer are prolific in the area. respectively. Peter Castler, 9130 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. >> All right. Our final letter. We, John and Lisa Bourbon, are longtime residents of Lake Elmo since 1984 and reside at 961257 Street North, a property near MYP. We're out of town and not able to attend tonight attend the meeting tonight and wish that in our absence you consider these comments as well as permit our friend and neighbor Pat Barrett to read these in place of them in the record of the meeting. Pat, I believe I'm doing that for you. Um, please allot our sixth minister or Pat you can have your own. Regarding the zoning text amendment language for landscape supply sales, we are certainly in support of folks engaging in farming in an azoned area to use their land for additional economic opportunity. However, we have issues with the proposed definition. The retail sale of goods should be good should be goods made or grown on the farm, not those that are purchased from supplier and then distributed. That just create a distributorship which is purely commercial use of the land and has nothing to do with agriculture. The list of permitted items includes pesticides and fertilizers which are totally incompatible with an open space lot. Runoff from these are certainly to create pollution for the outside boundary of any property and hence these uses should be strict from the list. These sorts of materials are generally sold within covered building protected from the elements. For example, collateral pond is already is nearby and already in decline and further ingress would be harmful. Similar situations exist also in Lake Elmo. Three, property maintenance services do not have any connection to egg farming or the like and is basically operating a commercial business from land zone to agricultural and blur the distinction of zoning of properties and hence that should be removed from the definition. Four, minimum parcel is the minimum parcel is of land is defined as 15 acres. If that is the case, suggest there be a defined portion of the Azone land to be used for these non-ag related business such as landscape supply sales as a percentage of the total land. The allotted are should be a minor percentage less than 25% of the overall land area since the primary zoning is agricultural not commercial. Otherwise, what prevents all the land from being used is essentially commercial enterprise rather than the intended egg usage. In conclusion, we are in support of permitted use of land for landscape supply sales. However, feel the current definition needs work and the planning commission should instruct city staff to reconsider a rework. For example, we are fine with the actual growing of trees and shrubs that is consistent with farming, not to be confused with the storage of containerized trees and shrubs, much like a Christmas tree farm. Regarding the second topic of the request to expand the cup, we are not in favor any such of any aspect of the request at all. NYP's inclusion of their cost to restore the land into compliance and their narrative were solely precipitated by their lack of adherence to the original CUP and the establishment of of recycling business on the site. Had they not done that, they would not have had the expense. And so any mention of the expense seems like a request for consideration due to hardship inflicted and has no bearing on this discussion. We don't know the history behind the first cup in 1988, but we can only assume the city limited the use of the land because the impeding development that was occurring and thus worked to minimize the incompatibility of a commercial enterprise next to residential neighborhoods. Now that that area is vastly more developed than in 1988, NYP wants to expand their land use area. This makes no sense as it exaggerates exasperates the incompatibility of commercial businesses adjacent to residential neighborhoods. We personally don't have any issue if they sold trees, shrubs, etc., no fertilizer or pesticides, but in our opinion, they should do so on the land that was designated for them to con to use in a way consistent with an open lot approach that won't create hazards, not expand their land use beyond what they have to use. When they bought the property, they knew the limitations of the property and the usable land. They certainly could have seen with their own eyes what part of the land was an open sales lot and what wasn't and probably paid accordingly giving the limitations now they want to expand beyond what they had agreed to when they bought the property. We therefore oppose any expansion of land use and ask that they rem it remains as it was defined in 1988. We also are not in favor of their request to park Valdi's lawn care vehicles and equipment on the site as it appears to be a convenient commercial use of the land and also since the request is unbounded in number. Note while we have experienced the noise of tailgate slamming before 8 a.m. on many occasions and have reported these, we will do so in the future so the city can have an accurate record of issues. Allowing expansion at this time is similar to buying a home in the flight path and existing airport and then complain about the noise and wanting the government to install soundproofing in your house. My knew what they were getting themselves into and they should stick to the agreement they inherited when they chose to purchase the land. Like Elmo residents have many options for purchase of trees and shrubs from local businesses and the request does not satisfy any unmet in the area. Additionally, the expansion of businesses will certainly lead to more traffic entering and exiting from Highway 36. With most of the vehicular traffic being slower, moving trucks or vehicles with trailers creates a safety issue using Highway 36 in the area. There's already been one vehicular death right in front of your MYP involving a semi-truck trailer. Please consider the risk associated with traffic and your determination. Thank you for your time and attention, John and Lisa Bourbet. All right, those are the public comments that got emailed in to staff. Uh, let me >> There's one more from Peter. >> Is there one more from Peter? >> I think that one got read in >> and we already did. >> I read it. >> Yeah, >> that was his. Okay. >> No, we had four. >> Okay. >> Public comment person. >> Uh, Alex Hughes. My turn. >> Yeah, you're up. >> Please introduce yourself. Name and address, please. >> Uh 974755th Street North, Lake Elma, Minnesota, 55042. >> Excellent. >> So, I want to first address the Well, I want to first say I think that's great. You guys say the pledge of allegiance when you start it. That's I don't know where that seems to be going, but I'm glad we're still doing it here. >> Me, too. >> Um >> Amen. I built a new house there 12 years ago, right between the power lines, right between the two ponds. And and um uh they moved in shortly after before I was even finished with my project. And Joel himself came over to visit me, introduced themselves to me, shortly thereafter introduced me to his sister, and gave me their home phone numbers, their personal cell phone numbers in case I was to have any trouble with what they were doing or making noise moving in or whatever they were going to do. I feel as though there's more trouble with the metaphlight helicopter that comes from St. Paul every day two or three times a day rattling my roof. The sound of the train like in Lake Ammo with winds coming from the south. Cars screeching on brakes to do a dangerous U-turn just feet away from their right-hand turn only. um motorcycles drag racing once they get past their place down Highway 36 and cars because they can see so far down to Lake Elmo Avenue beyond. And that's where they drag race every night and every day. And I'm the closest to that of anybody without a doubt. And I don't call the city and complain about that. I don't call the airport. I don't call the train station. I don't call the hospital. I don't do any of that because some of it's just life. As far as the risky turn at their property, I see lots of traffic slowing down to go into their property and they slow down plenty. What I don't see is the U-turn that's right there that we all have to use now is a much 10 times more dangerous situation. And I I've heard people locking up their brakes. I've heard people squealing tires. I've heard people and I can tell the difference between in front of their place or in front of my place, behind my place, I should say. So there's a lot more dangerous things going on than there is people coming and going from hit their place. I know there's one incident. I understand that. As far as the noise, I called Joel one time a few years back. I think I might have called her, but I don't remember. But and said, "These dump trucks, trailers, uh, tailgates are driving me crazy." And they almost immediately stopped. I mean, I think a couple time couple days later, there was a couple that were pretty loud. She actually texted me and said, "Sorry about that. We're still working on that." So, they're very attentive to the neighborhood and the people in the neighborhood. I've sent dozens of people, neighbors of my property in Wisconsin, neighbors of my property here in Lake Elmo. Um, I've had my family come out from Bloomington to buy stuff from them. They're reasonably priced. They're fairly priced and they're fantastic people to do business with. So, I don't Anybody that would suggest otherwise would be hard for me to understand. Um, I mean, my neighbors mowing their grass three times a week, but these great big lawnmowers are much more of a nuisance than what these people are doing in my neighborhood. So, I find it kind of um it's irritating. I feel like they're getting bullied a little bit and that's why I'm here. Um, I uh I just don't understand it. They're just a family trying to make a living. And I it's it's I read about some of the stuff people say. Um I don't quite get it. I don't think what's the big grind. And you know, I'm going to leave with I think they're great neighbors. I think they're great for our community. And I've heard a comment in the neighborhood a couple years ago. It was a racial comment. If that's why any part of this, that's going to be pretty sad. And I heard it and I know where it came from. And I'm not going to say who it was today. But if you read far enough, you probably figure it out. And I hope to God that's not what's going on here because they're wonderful people and they're wonderful business and they're just trying to make a living. And I've had nothing but great experiences with them as my neighbor. So, and I got the closest to them of anybody. and I think noise complaints and traffic complaints, but we got to look at some bigger things than that because they're not creating much of either. So, I hope they can get what they want and they're only a phone call away and they've done that with all the neighbor all the neighbors at least that I'm aware of when they moved in. So, I wish them the best and I thank you for listening to me. >> You Thank you, Pat. Pat Barrett, 969257 Street. Um, that's all. Right. Okay. So, I'd like to thank the commission members for all the time. I know you have a lot of prep time before the meetings, let alone the meetings. I appreciate that. I appreciate the time and effort you guys have put into this plan. I can tell that you really worked on it. Um, I I see value in what my neighbors have said and I agree with most of what they've said, but I want to highlight a couple concerns that I really feel strongly about and one it sounds like you guys are also concerned about, everybody is about the traffic. Um, it it's terrible. You see those big trucks hauling out waiting to come out onto 36 or or coming off of 36 into this and the traffic is terrible. I'm glad you mentioned the J turn, too, because that's also traffic going on. People not knowing how to use the J turn, stopping right there in 36 instead of turning to the west and going forward. So, there's a lot going on there. >> But I I I'm really surprised that Mandot didn't say anything because it's so dangerous. They they should have um dedicated right away on and off out of there. And I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse, especially since the traffic sign, the traffic lights are gone now on Lake Elmo Avenue. The speeds are going even higher. It's not backed up for miles like it is usually in the afternoons anymore. So, there's high speeds going and cars going in and out. I'm I'm really concerned about that. Um, also have a question about the 30 cars parked in the lot with a maximum of 71 in-n-out trips per day. You got 30 car 30 vehicles parked there. That's 60 trips if they're going in and out every day. Plus the customers. I hope you're going to have more than five customers. That would bring you up to 70 trips alone with with the work vehicles going in and out. A really big concern is Clawer Pond. Bonnie Dan, my neighbor since 20 2002 and I in the last 19 years have been doing we do it about 15 times a summer. We do water quality testing samples for the valley wershed watershed branch. Um and it goes to the uh pollution control agency. It goes to four different agencies at any rate. And we've been colle collecting these you know we take the sec in water samples and it is always at a level D A being the best. It's not in good shape. Um neighbors have tried to do certain plantings. Doug Love it tried plain bail haze bales of barley. Thank you. To help clear it up and it's just a sad case. It's getting worse since they did the project on 36 about 5 years ago. The quality has declined. I was out there today testing samples. We haven't seen muskrats on the pond for the last three months. We see very if an e-grid or or a heron lands, it's there for about 15 minutes and it's gone where they used to be there all the time. The quality is getting worse and worse and I'm really concerned with this project that there's a potential for drainage whether it's from fertilizer if you do that or other things runoff. I'm concerned that it's going to be even worse. And I hope that the um watershed implements stringent guidelines so that doesn't happen. But I'm really concerned about that. Um thank you for listening. I appreciate that that you're trying to do something and you're working with the neighbors, but I think these are really valid concerns. Thank you. >> Thank you, Pat. >> Thanks. Anyone else? >> All right, with that >> one more coming. >> Sure. I'll give you a quick 30 seconds. Alex, >> um I'll just >> you got to come up with the microphone. >> They didn't put an access and for whatever reason, but I don't understand why, but they put an acceleration lane on Deontraville Trail going up the hill, right? And that makes sense. But they never put an acceleration lane on Keats ever since they put the church in. I went to the church to talk to them about that ahead of time. I'm hoping they had talked to the to Mindot that never took place. I think the acceleration lane's a good idea for everywhere this but at the same time I think the speed limit on Highway 36 is going too fast. Anyway, I just want to go on record. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Motion to close the public hearing. >> Thank you. >> Second. And we'll close the public hearing at 7:23. >> Thank you. >> Call the question. >> What's that? >> Call the question. >> To close the hearing. Close. I thought Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah. All in favor of closing the public hearing. >> I >> Thank you. All right. 7:23. End of the public hearing. Uh, do we have a motion on the table? So for discussion >> move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to section 105.12.620 table 9-1 section 105.12.110 zoning use types and classifications and section 105.12.650 650 site design and development standards as presented by city staff. Focus on one at a time. >> I'll second it. >> Yes, I think we can do that. That's fine. Okay. Discussion. >> You don't have to start. They usually start to whoever. >> I know. Someone else go first. I just got to think about what I >> I was the one that brought up and asked that you put the accelerate the uh the highway 36 schematic up there and and that is that is an interesting and concerning thing for me. Uh speed has always been a problem as have been other things. But why couldn't we get a merge lane or acceleration lane or at least a sign with working with Mind DOT on that site? Is that something that would be feasible or not? I mean, obviously they went to him and asked before and it didn't happen, but if it came from the city, would it have any more oomph? >> It's something we have not looked into just since this is a new application before us. Good. I guess I've never pulled into the um that greenhouse business. Do they have an acceleration lane >> into Country Sun? No, there is not. >> N there are a number of driveways for homes along there yet still. I wonder what their plans are for them. That's an interesting uh comment because now since the signal lights gone because before the signal lights would be slowed down at County Road 17 and Highway 36 and that's just right before you would get to Sunount. So they wouldn't be going at such a fast speed. >> Now now it's all going to be wide open. >> Okay. Okay. I think right now the motion on the table is regarding around the the text amendments. Um not initially the conditional use permit. So I think it's we need to focus on >> one thing at a time >> is adding the definition of landcape supply sales to the zoning use and types. uh the additioning the PCU and interim uses to the a district table and site design and development standards adding performance standards to the for the use that's the discussion and I guess I feel like this business fits into the egg um and it's it's been a business that's been there since 1988. They did they were bringing in materials um that they sold from that property at that time. Um I just don't see this as a big expansion for what they're looking to do there. They're only increasing um the use of that property by is it three acres or something like that. It's not a big increase. Um it's not the full acreage that they're using. Um, I don't know if there's a way to better write that uh landscape supply sales or if there's a better way to describe the property maintenance services that are connected with the landscape supply. I I don't have ideas for that. I I'm I'm at a loss there. But I I can see how they work together. I can see how um you're you're basically, you know, whether you're doing landscaping or you're taking care of a property, it's all related to care of properties. Um so I can see the relationship. I just don't know if the wording is just right. I think there's a couple ways to go about this. One of which is we can make the changes to the amendment or the the text amendments, make those changes and then when we go to the PUC approval, we can put additional requirements within the PUC that would further define that. Is that correct, Sophia? Correct. So the opportunity is there to move forward with killing me. go there with the first motion, the initial proposal and the text amendments and then as we go to a PUC to define this further to try to address some of the issues that are at hand. uh the the risk there is do we create an open-ended problem with in that text amendment of a land and if that definition is too broad uh that somebody does need a PUC to go through to apply within it but I feel that that's pretty well set up that landscape supply and an if you were going to do landscape supply in an a from administrator ative point of view, you're going to have to get a PUC because conditional use requires. >> You don't have you don't have a way around >> CU PUC. >> Generally, the the definitions are more vague. Y and then you hone it in with the performance standards and the conditions >> because we've got a conditional use. >> The definition just says it may have >> property maintenance and then you could define that >> on a case by case basis as they come in. You can also try to define it right now. You just run that risk of maybe creating a problem down the road. >> Right. Right. I I I I like the idea of keeping the general text somewhat broad and then with the cup requirement and then when the cups come through then you can >> narrow that down for the specific requirements and concerns that are existing. >> Yep. >> For the specific sites additional specific conditions to mitigate any unique site >> concerns. Right. So with that, if you can go back to the suggested motion. Does anyone else have concerns about the motion on the table? All right. With that uh all in favor of the motion as it's written by city staff, I can read it. Move to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to section 105.12.620 table 9-1 section 105.12.110 zoning use types and classifications and section 105.12.650 site design and development standards is presented by city staff. All in favor I >> there are no opposed. The motion passes for the text amendment. >> Text amendment. All right, moving on to phase group two here. >> Move to recommend approval of the request for a conditional use permit amendment for expansion of a landscape supply sales business at the property located at 959160th Street based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> Very good. Sophie, can you pull up the conditions, please? >> Oh, we need a second. Thank you. Second. >> Thank you. >> Discussion. >> Well, again, this is just a this is a uh conditionally use permit that was already um given on this property uh back in 1988. I don't see a big um they're not rem doing something completely different there. Uh, I, you know, I see the landscaping and the, um, the nursery as, um, a nice combination of business, um, and the idea of having some extra vehicles parked there. It sounds like the majority of the vehicles are going to be over in Wisconsin having their maintenance and storage there. So, um, you've addressed the the bulk fertilizers and pesticides that people were concerned about. So, I I just don't see a problem with um the um extra acreage that you're looking to use on your property. >> I would I would agree with most what everything you said. I think the the expansion details seem pretty modest. Um with no additional buildings and things like that, I I think um the hours of operation I I believe are unchanged. um and uh think it meets all the specific standards of our acreage and and qualifications we have. So I I agree. I don't not to minimize the concerns that have raised. I I think um I think that the changes are fairly I think they're doable. I say my biggest concern is the traffic on 36. Yep. But I suspect that'll be discussed. I'm not sure there's a real good short-term an easy solution there. Sure. But yeah, >> I think they've already addressed the concerns too as far as the um the recycling and the the um stump grinding and things like that. That's not a part of this. So that seemed to be a big problem for the neighbors and that's no longer occurring. So I I don't think we should be that shouldn't be part of the conversation. I'm always sensitive to the uh Valley Branch Watersheds concerns and I think what was brought up is is concerning because there are some land that pond I believe is landlocked. So just make sure that that's taken care of properly. >> Yeah, I'm in favor of this proposal and the the applicants are are trying to do it the right way. You know, this is their second time back around going through all this and it's not an easy task. um it seems they have the best interest of the neighbors in the community and they've been longtime business owners here in in Lake Elmo and I want to support that as well too. So um I think it's being done the right way. So therefore I'm in favor of it. >> Yeah, I'm in favor. It clarifies what seems to be a little bit of um muddiness from the previous site plan from 1988. to this actually codifies it and makes it even more clear the intent of the CUP and the owners have put effort in for traffic mitigation already. They have at their own expense put a turn lane in and other businesses in that cor corridor have not even done that. So they've approached MDOT trying to make improvements, but you know, we're the city of Lake Elmo, not MDOT here. So we can only, you know, work within our own jurisdiction and not throw demands on Highway 36 that we can ask but politely and only get so far. And with the concerns of them, you know, with the the fertilizer and the pesticides, herbicides is, you know, whether they intend to or not, there are runoff rules in the watershed and already built into other mechanisms with much more quantifiable items that we could probably put on there and enforcable that are already in should they go for that. that you can't have runoff exceeding certain amounts of constituents that already exist. So I guess it's a maybe a question back to staff and if they know uh for pesticide herbicide fertilizer sales who does the who's the licensing who who does the checks and balances if I wanted to wanted to create a you know sell that is that a city responsibility or >> I assume it's the MPCA but I haven't had >> is there a requirement to get a permit from the MPCA before you can sell these items? I I know you're on your head, but I can't I can't look at you. >> I would have >> I can't acknowledge that. >> I'd have to get back to you on that. I >> I think that's one of the the key factors for the for the neighbors is who's who has that jurisdiction and who has that requirement to license someone to sell that for selling that materials to make sure those checks and those controls are in place. And it doesn't feel like it's a city responsibility. Um, but I want to make sure or I guess I'm asking if those checks and balances exist if we were to approve the PU the way it's written. CUP, I do that all the time. H, you know, it's hot outside. All right. Um, anyone else? I'm rolling here. All right. Um and I the is there an opportunity to amend this to say that there's no storage of seasonal equipment on site these the applicant is saying they don't do it already but we can we make that a requirement of the PU ce >> you could make it a requirement I'd be curious you'd have to put some sort of date on it or some period >> absolutely it's it's too broad it's too general but I I think the concern had is out there and has been addressed to some degree already by the applicant. Um, and then same with the property management company, the lawn care, that the applicant's indicating they're only going to use it this site for administrative purposes, not for um actual storage or workers or trucks to come through so that it's so that they can have a address in Lake Elmo for that business. um you know so make sure that Minnesota gets its piece of the action uh and that may be is that possible something we'd want to do to amend it and to say administrative use only for property management company >> if the chair would like you to >> what's up Can I ask for clarification on what you're mentioning? >> Sure. >> Um, I can do it from here. >> I just want to make sure. So, would my employees will be able to come in their personal vehicle, leave it there, which will be under that 30 cars that we are >> requesting. Yep. >> And then leave in a work truck. >> So, that it's not administrative then. >> Okay. So, that's that's one of the things that we are hoping. Okay. I I and just want to be clear and that's >> clear up my what I thought was happening and what you're looking for is is it's just not people. It's not the accounting team coming to do work, but you're actually going to do a pickup and drop off there of just employees that'll go out with the trucks. >> Correct. And again, we are keeping it under that count of vehicles that we have been discussing this entire time. >> All right. >> So, >> okay. Thank you. just that >> Sophia could you just clarify on that number of trips for the number of vehicle it was per acre a certain number of trips >> correct so that that section came out of the non-agglo impact so it's not a unique for this use it's it's been used in other land uses so it's three let's see yeah more than three trips per acre per Okay. So that's a similar requirement that the other non- egg low impact businesses follow. >> So it' be 71 based on their current configuration. >> Any idea how many vehicles currently? >> Uh less than 30 really. Um >> not even 12 vehicles. >> Yeah. So out of the company itself not even 12. So >> per day. Okay. maybe three to four. >> We have all our >> majority of work is delivery and not >> customer pickup, right? Okay. >> Any other discussion on the motion on the table? I'm I'm in favor of this. Um, I think that the business owners have been very transparent and also I like the lines of communication that they've kept open between them and the neighbors. >> Y I commend them on that also. They really worked hard with the neighborhood. >> All right. Uh, call the question on the motion. Move to recommend approval of the request for a conditional use permit amendment for expansion of a landscape supply sales business at the property located at 959160th Street based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> All in favor? >> I need a second. Well, we were already in second mode. We were we were we went from motion second discussion to call to question. We're good. >> Six 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> No opposed. Uh motion passes. Thank you. >> Let me get back to my agenda. >> City council will hear this when? >> Yep. Sophia want city this go to the city? >> First meeting of August. >> Okay. understand all we do is give recommendation and have the public hearing. Uh city council has the final say they'll vote on this as well. So thank you. If you want to stick around for the rest of the meeting, it's a packed fun agenda. Actually, not a whole lot on it, but uh if you want to want to get up and leave, you're more than welcome to. We'll give you a couple minutes. Thank you. >> I'll take a flyer on that one. All right. >> There aren't any there are there aren't refreshments and cookies afterwards. So, >> All right. Uh, next is new unfinished business. >> We have nothing. >> Nothing. >> Oh, it's kind of disappointing. Um, communication updates, city council updates. >> Yes. At the June 9th city council meeting, the city council approved the 2040 comprehensive plan amendment for density, those projections into 2030 and 2040. And then Inwood commercial preliminary plat, which is that five lot commercial subdivision between 10th Street and Fifth Street, that was also approved. >> Okay, very good. Um, and any other updates on developments just from a knowledge point of view? Um, I do believe the city is working to update its development tracker page on the website. I think those updates should be live in the next week or so. >> All right. Because that was still at 20 of those from last year. I was looking today. >> Correct. >> All right. Awesome. Okay. Uh, upcoming meetings July 27th is canceled. >> We'll see you in August. >> All right. >> August. And with that, >> we will >> do it. >> Unless you someone else has something they'd like to add down there, Mike. >> All right. >> Just encouraging. >> How big was the biggest fish you caught? It's on the record. >> I can't tell. I can't tell. >> All right. Well, adjourn the I'm going to journ the Monday, July 13, 2026 Lake Elmer Planning Commission meeting at 7:45. Thank you.