4a 2 comment submitted regarding Gacel IUPLarkin
Hoffm~ Larkin Hoffman
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 1000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437-1060
GENERAL, 952-835-3800
FAX, 952-896-3333
WEB, www.larkinhoffman.com
July 29,2016
Neil Soltis
City Administrator
14727 209th Street North
Scandia, Minnesota 55073
VIA U. S. MAIL and
EMAIL
n. soltis@ci.scandia.mn.us
Re: Gacek Interim Use Permit
Rural Event Facility
Dear Mr. Soltis:
Our firm represents Tom and Joanne Benick, 12400 213th Street North, Scandia, Minnesota, with
regard to the pending applications for an Interim Use Permit ("IUP") and Annual Operating
Permit for an outdoor event facility at'12680 Scandia Trail, Scandia, Minnesota ("the Site"). The
Benicks have a number of concerns with the proposed use which are set forth in this letter.
Please distribute this to the Planning Commission in connection with its meeting on August 2,
2016. The Benicks will also be present at the meeting.
Benicks respect the right of their neighbors to use their property in accordance with the City
regulations; however, the City possesses substantial discretion in reviewing the proposal in the
context of an IUP. Our request is that the proposed use not be allowed at the Site. Introducing a
commercial business venture into a rural setting, with an emphasis on nighttime outdoor events
coupled with music amplification, will dramatically affect the peace and quietude of the area.
At the outset we note that City staff has administratively determined the proposed Site to be
compliant though it clearly falls below the minimum 20 acre threshold. While we understand
staff's decision to qualify the Site, nothing in the record bears out why the applicants are unable
to cure the seemingly minor deficiency in land area.
The application states that the proposed facility will be used for church services, weddings and
marriage retreats. As we read the proposed conditions, these use limitations are not reflected.
Given the unusual nature of an IUP, which approves a specific use for a defined "interim", it
would seem appropriate to condition the IUP, if approved, on the applicants' stated intention for
its use.
Neil Soltis
July 29,2016
Page 2
The application states that between 35 and 75 events would be held each year; we do not see any
comparablerestriction on the number of events in the proposed conditions. Allowing an event to
occur on the Site each day of the year is very unreasonable given the rural character of the area
and the applicants' stated need.
Similarly the applicants state that they anticipate attendance of approximately 150 guests and up
to 10 staff members for a given event. It would seem appropriate to cap the number of attendees
at that number proposed by the applicants versus allowing 300 attendees as provided in the IUP
conditions.
The IUP imposes a condition of 100 parking spaces on the Site; first, placing the parking
adjacent to Meadowbrook Avenue is unnecessary. We ask that the parking lot be relocated north
of the facilities to be used, with access provided from Highway 97. In addition, assuming the use
is approved for 150 guests as requested by the applicant, 100 parking stalls mayor may not be
sufficient. It would seem that 100 stalls will likely not be adequate to accommodate up to 300
attendees plus on site staff. We agree with the condition that prevents parking on public streets,
including Meadowbrook, but what is the fallback if additional parking capacity is required? This
should be confirmed in advance of any approval being granted.
The IUP conditions state that all amplified sound be halted by 10PM; given the rural setting, it
would be reasonable to require that the amplification occur only inside a building so as to limit
the noise disturbance to the Site and event itself. It is not unreasonable to limit off-site noise
impacts, particularly duringevening conditions.
The application and staff report do not discuss whether alcohol will be available either for sale or
"hosted" for any given event. If so, what security arrangements will be provided, particularly
with regard to incoming and departing traffic? It is customary and not unreasonable to require
this for such a commercial use.
It is not clear from the application to what degree the boundaries of the Site will be landscaped to
screen the activities from adjacent properties, including along Meadowbrook Avenue. This
should be confirmed in advance of any approval being granted.
Finally, the IUP conditions do not confirm how revocation will occur based on violations of the
terms. Moreover, requiring termination of the IUP only with the sale of the Site essentially
allows a perpetual use as to the applicants. It would be reasonable, in the context of an IUP, to
limit the "interim" to some defined period, including when the Site is closed.
We urge the City of Scandia to exercise its discretion in reviewing the proposed facility with an
eye to protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Our request is that the use not be allowed
at the Site; if, however, the City chooses to approve the IUP we strongly recoIinnend that the
proposed conditions be strengthened as noted above, especially given the self-imposed limits
identified by the applicants.
2
Neil Soltis
July 29,2016
Page 3
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, \;/:) _j_ A. ' V~J9-? /!: / ~r~ LA.; ';7~ (wJ
Peter J. Coyle, for
LARKIN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Cc: Tom and Joanne Benick (via email jkbenick@aol.com)
4837-6136-9141, v. 1
3