5.a 4 Additional comments submitted after distribution of materials to CommissionMembers of the Planning Commission:
As a long time Scandia resident and the owner of the largest developable parcel on
Meadowbrook (131 acres) north of the proposed use, with sole access off of Meadowbrook, we
remain very concerned about the proposal. This use is not compatible with the area, its
roadways and current and prospective uses and, most importantly, the ordinance itself.
We believe when the inevitable redevelopment occurs on our parcel with higher value homes,
this will both be a nuisance and also will greatly impede our marketability and ability to obtain
financing. The staff report and the application gives no analysis to the comprehensive plan and
the concepts on which our City has consistently based its planning—maintenance of the rural
character and orderly development of the area as a low density, higher quality residential
community. Ironic given our parallel discussions on the aging of the Scandia population and
decline of school attendance.
First, the ordinance. This use is allowed ONLY as an accessory use to an agricultural use in our
district. That is not what is happening here. This is clearly a development of an event centera
very high intensity use, suitable only for our town center. The ordinance requires what the
author of the ordinance indicated in an earlier PC comment: this use was intended as an adjunct
to a working farm, as an "Interim" use (for a short timeframe while the farm was actively used)
to help keep family farming viable in Scandia. Instead, we have the movement of buildings to
the site, construction of a large surface parking area, intended uses that are very large in scale
with large catering suppliers, liquor, amplified music, potentially unruly crowds, etc. Further the
total disregard of this developer for our community and its standards has been shown by the fact
he is also using the premises for hotel purposes already and did all this construction work
without any prior City land use approvals. This was at his own risk. AND the owners have
never used the premises for any material other uses. Even if there were occasion residential use
of the site in the future by the owner or incidental farming of a small area, this would not meet
the test. Accessory is defined as a minor use when all utilization of a property is taken into
account. The use here, given the small parcel size and intensity of the event use, clearly makes
the event use—basically akin to a restaurant or a regular event center like dozens in the region
the primary use. The intent here was clearly from the start to hold larger events and to
artificially create a farm -like atmosphere to attract such uses. The bottom line is that this will
function much more like a restaurant and bar or a large event venue vs. an accessory, incidental
or minor use, adjunct to a use (rural agriculture) we want to preserve.
Second, the information in the application remains incomplete. Particularly regarding the traffic,
the information is incomplete and inaccurate. Our City engineer notes that using the MN DOT
standard for this type of intersection and use, a left turn lane is warranted. The traffic report fails
to accurately analyze the traffic issues and fails to fairly and fully report to the PC and City on
this standard and the appropriateness of requirement of a turning lane on 97. Based on the
report and the City traffic engineers comment, a turn lane should be required at applicant's cost,
if the proposal is approved.
More importantly, the report focuses entirely on 97 and the entry turn movement. That is not the
primary issue for the current residents or future development. That issue is the interruption of
traffic movement in or out from Meadowbrook during entry and exiting of events. On entry,
imagine trying to turn East when there is a line of left turning entering cars for the event, or
coming home and waiting for a long time to make the left turn onto the rural road you live
on. And imagine the logjam when one left turning exiting car is waiting to turn East onto 97,
with a line of cars waiting to turn right on Meadowbrook. These movements, when traffic
arrives and departs in a large cluster has zero analysis in the traffic study. Similarly the problem
of trying to leave Meadowbrook from the South to go West during the arrival times. Yet these
are the meaningful measures of compatibility to the present and future Meadowbrook residential
uses. This analysis must be done before any use can be approved.
There is also no analysis of the risk factor of the road crest to the West. Simply a bland
statement that use of Meadowbrook is the safer alternative vs. Mr. Gasek's current
driveway. This again is not the measure or the needed analysis. I again suggest that this owner
(I see he has agreed to a re -plat to meet FAR requirements by adding some area from his second
20 to the East) be required to fully combine his two parcels and provide the access from his
property further to the East off of 97. The parking should also be to the East and more fully
buffered. Many other cities require uses of this type to only be accessed off County or State
highways, intended for heavier traffic. I appreciate that an access close to Meadowbrook at his
current drive may be somewhat more problematic, but moved further to the East, I believe the
entry would be both safer and all exit stacking could be better accommodated on Mr. Gasek's
own property. Finally, my instinct is that in the future a road to the East will be needed in any
event as our town develops. The stretch to the East to the next road access is substantial and
there is considerable developable area there that would warrant such an access. On the South
side of 97 there is common property, so this would be a 3 way intersection, not 4, so safer on that
measure as well. This would critically solve the unsafe visibility issues caused by the crest on 97
West of Meadowbrook.
Finally, I question if this building, falsely renovated by the applicant as a "farm" building taking
advantage of the agricultural FAR and building code, meets the requirements for a large
assembly use. I raised this question previously. Has our City required sprinklering of the
premises, for example? Does it meet the energy code for an occupied building being used year -
around for large events? Does it fully comply with bathroom and handicapped codes? We
would not allow a business in the town center to operate as a restaurant or catered event venue
without meeting these codes. I was shocked to see that portable toilets and pumped septic were
being considered, given that this will be a regular use throughout the summer and fall. This is
hardly a venue for an occasional hayride or a few events. Given what is proposed, in a relocated
structure, the facility should, if allowed at all, meet the codes for the intended actual use. I
simply cannot see how we as a City would allow a church use and many weddings and large
music events without a fully compliant building.
While I feel there cannot be a justified case made that this use is accessory or compatible, the
report of the staff and the application simply gloss over or do not address these primary
concerns. This application should be rejected unless and until it responds on these issues. And
in such consideration, the future and current uses of the area should be primary. This is the side
of Scandia most suitable in the near future for more intensive rural residential development. We
should not foreclose or prejudice this future for one bad use. This use, intended from the start, is
quite obviously a high intensity restaurant use and should not happen in this location. It is out of
place and out of character. Why would we introduce this incompatibility because one person
acquires a minimal sized parcel and moves a barn here to run an event business?
Please also consider my other comments if the PC recommends the permit: These included off-
duty police or other security for any event serving liquor, due to the rural location and risk of
neighbor disruption (by the way, will we have to add sheriff coverage for these event
nights? and if so, who pays for that?); mandatory Meadowbrook turning lane to right off
Meadowbrook built at applicant's expense; signage at exit to prevent wayward persons from
turning North to the dead end; and, most importantly, a prohibition of any self -generated events
by the applicant.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
John Herman
Herman Real Estate Advisors LLC
23355 Quentin Ave. N
Scandia, MN 55073
0ohnherman(dhermanadvisors.net
612-718-3616
Neil Soltis
From: Liz Tarlizzo <Itarlizzo@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 9:52 AM
To: christine@poplarhillfarm.com; n.soltis@ci.scandia.mn.us
Subject: Proposed Gacek Event Center
October 3rd, 2016
TO: Scandia Planning Committee
Scandia City Council
Mayor of Scandia
FR: Joe and Liz Tarlizzo
13230 Scandia Tr. N., Scandia, MN 55073
RE: Gacek Rural Event Center Permit Application
As a property owner/resident who lives near the Gaceks, we are asking that the City of Scandia deny this permit
application. I grew up in Scandia and my husband and I moved back in 2008 when our 4 kids were little
because we wanted to raise them in a small, peaceful and safe environment with lots of space to run and a
community to rely upon. This past winter we allowed the Gaceks to move the "redeemed" barn through our
field having been told that they were fixing up their hobby farm and wanted to build a spiritual retreat in which
to reflect on their time volunteering in Haiti. Opening a large, loud and potentially destructive reception center
that would disturb the peace of our countryside was not mentioned. Also not mentioned was the fact that they
don't actually live in Scandia. On an ethical level it bothers me that they appear to have purchased this property
with the intention to create a for profit business without prior approval regardless of the feedback of those that
live in the community and abused the kindness of the neighbors by misleading them into helping with the barn
move while disguising their true intention.
On a more pragmatic level, upon reading the latest version of their permit, I have some major concerns. It
seems as if they have addressed code concerning the number of guests, parking, sound amplification, setbacks
and screening, but I do think, based on prior behavior, that the Gacek's are quick to tell you what you want to
hear to achieve their goals and less likely to actually carry through with what they have promised. Our main
concern is with safety as there is no mention of the potential for liquor to be served or any security required to
monitoring people's intake and drivers. Three of my kids are approaching driving age and it terrifies me that
they might have to deal with negotiating a busy highway suddenly crowded with drunk wedding
guests. Wedding receptions are a notorious occasion for overindulging on alcohol and without public
transportation all those cars are going to be pulling out onto highway 97, in the dark, potentially impaired.
The code requires the party shuts down at IOpm, who is going to enforce that? Who is going to enforce that the
sound amplification parameters are met? In July who is going to make sure that the windows and doors stay
shut as code requires during the dance when it is 95 degrees and all the guests are propping open the doors?
Who is going to tell the best man that he is cut off and can't drive home? Shouldn't there be some requirement
for the property owner to be represented or present at an event on their property that is supposed to be a
secondary use?
Most importantly, what parameters are set to allow the city and residents some recourse if the conditions of this
application and permit are not met? The Gaceks need to be held financially and legally responsible for the
guests at their location and need to come up with a comprehensive, applicable, and appropriate plan to deal with
the monitoring of event guest behavior. Moreover, the members of the planning commission and city council
are obliged by common sense and required by the code of their elected position to protect the safety and sanctity
of our community, and that can only logically mean the rejection of the current Gacek proposal.
I also apologize for the tardiness of this letter, I have been meaning to write it for over a month but running my
mom taxi has kept moving it down my to do list. I hope that I haven't inconvenienced any of you with its late
arrival as I appreciate and respect the work you do for our city.
In addition to my above stated concerns following is a list of issues that have been brought forth by a group of
neighbors detailing various reasons why we ask the planning commission to deny Gacek's permit.
1. This proposed event center would create a traffic and public safety scenario on Hwy 97 would be
extremely dangerous and put myself, my family, my neighbors and anyone else traveling on Hwy 97 at a
very high risk of injury or death.
2. This would be a deadly risk for all of the children that live on Meadow Brook Ave.
3. I'm requesting that a formal traffic and safety study be conducted.
4. I'm requesting that an environmental study be conducted.
5. I'm requesting that a noise and light pollution study be conducted.
6. It appears that the setback requirements do not meet codes.
7. It appears that the noise amplification distances will not meet codes.
8. It appears that the large historical barn was moved onto the property without a permit.
9. This proposed event center would decrease my property value significantly so that one individual could
run a for-profit business in a zone that is specified for agricultural purposes.
10. This proposed event center would destroy my ability to enjoy the rural character, scenic views, open
windows, nature sounds and quiet countryside that I moved here for.
11. This applicant is already running this business. You can book a wedding reception today at:
ht1p://redeemedfarm.org/
12. The applicant's website includes information about rentable buildings for overnight stays which is never
mentioned in the application.
13. This applicant has demonstrated blatant disregard for the codes and regulations that all others are
expected/required to adhere to. The City is setting a dangerous precedent if someone is allowed to build
and launch any business they like and then ask for a permit after the fact.
14. This applicant is not a resident of Scandia.
15. This applicant's existing investment in his proposed event center should not be a consideration for
approval. If the applicant failed to follow the proper process, or the proposal does not meet the codes of
the city — that is the applicant's responsibility.
16. This proposal was met with 100% vehement opposition at the first public hearing. There were no
attendees in favor (with the exception of the applicant) whatsoever.
17. As a resident and neighbor to the applicant, I plead with the City Council, our Mayor and The Planning
Committee to not allow one individual to destroy this beautiful, peaceful, rural neighborhood that so
many enjoy for personal profit.
Sincerely,
Liz Tarlizzo & Joe Tarlizzo