2. Coleman Brenda Eklund
Fomnn: Anne Hudburt. City ofSoondia [o.hudburt@ci.xcandka.mn.uu]
Sent: Monday, November 24. 20OG7:OAAM
To: b.ek|und@oiscandio.mnuo
Subject: Fw: Draft Comprehensive Plan
Brenda, now that I see that lean will be at the Tuesday meeting, I am not planning to rush
back. I will leave here Tuesday PM and be in the office all day Wednesday. Are you still
able to attend on Tuesday to do minutes?
Thanks,
Anne
Original Message
From: "Jean Coleman" < 'cnlemam@crplanning.com>
To: ''Anne Hurlhurt^ xa.hurlburt@ci.scandia'mn.us>; "Chris Ness"
<cness200l@vahno'com>; "Christine Maefskv^ <christine@pnplarhillfarm'com>; "Peter Schwarz"
<petschwa@msn.com>; "Susan Rods 'o^
<susan.rnds 'o@frontiernet.net>; "Thomas Krinke" <tkrinka@msn'cnm>; ''Dennis Seefeldt^
<DennyKom@frnntiernet.net>; ^Donnette Yehle^ <sdrl@citlink'netv; "Michael Harnetty^
xmike1130@frontiernet'net>; "Pete Crum"
xpetecrum@email'com>; "Pete Crum" <peter'crum@ci'stpaul'mn'us>
[c: "Brian Ross" <bross@crplannin8.com>; "Brenda Eklund"
<h'eklund@ci.scandia'mn'us>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: Draft Comprehensive Plan
> Dear Scandia Planning Commission members:
�
> I will be attending the Planning Commission meeting on November 25th,
> 6:30 p.m. I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting last
> week due to a previous out-of-town commitment' Brien Ross conveyed to
> me items that were discussed at the November 18th meeting' These
> items are listed below with my suggested actions since Brian did not
> believe Planning Commission votes were taken on any of the items' In
> order to keep the discussion focused on new changes, my suggestion for
> the November 25th meeting is to use the list below and the cover memo
> on changes that was distributed at the meeting to vote on specific
> changes to the draft comprehensive plan. At this point in the process
> with the draft being considered by the Planning Commission, I need
x very specific direction on changes to the draft such as specific
/ language and page numbers to change,
v
> l. Changes to the map - We have rechecked the hard copy map changes
x that were accepted by vote at the October 22nd joint Planning
x Commission and City Council work session' All the changes are
> accurate in the 11/14/08 draft.
> I will bring the hard-copy map to the meeting on 11/25. At the 11/25
> meeting there was discussion of including or excluding the triangle
� > east of parish' It was included because it is not currently developed
x at 2.5-5 acre lots and including this triangle would allow for
> expansion of the VN at a density of 1 dwelling per 2.5 acres which is
�
^ fairly compatible with the pattern of the parcels to the immediate
> north of this triangle.
�
1
> 2. Bonus density difference between 4G [ore and GR districts The
> Planning Commission needs to base its decision about the bonuses on Z
> factors.
> First
> and foremost, what pattern of development do you wish to see in each
> of these districts given the primary purpose of the districts? Does a
> 100%, 75%, or 50% bonus achieve this pattern of development? Second,
/ knowing that the Met Council density is exceeded by increasing amounts
^ with higher bonuses, are you willing to increase the risk of the
> comprehensive plan not being accepted with higher bonuses? The
> projected build-out numbers with full bonuses on page 118 show an
> average density of l dwelling unit per
> 5.8
> acres. This is far below the Met Council target of l dwelling unit
> per 10 acres. You may also consider that if bonuses are being used to
/ provide an incentive for open space conservation development, are
> there other means of achieving open space conservation development
> without bonuses, such as directly requiring open space conservation
> development for developments over a certain number of units?
�
> 3. Is lot averaging required in the GR district? No. The
» description of the GR district does not say that lot averaging is
> required because previous decisions were to not require it. I felt
> the statement in the last sentence on page 110 described the intent
> and gave direction for drafting a new zoning district - "Development
> in this area is anticipated to be a mix of open space conservation
> subdivisions and large acreage parcels depending on the nature of the
> land." I did not feel that including statements about what is not is
x in a district was necessary, however, if a statement to clarify this
> is needed, it could be added to both page 111 and the summary matrix
> in Appendix D on page 195. Since lot averaging is not required, a lot
> could he 10 acres or larger to meet the stated density of no more than
/ 1
> dwellings per 10 acres' Smaller lots could he achieved by using the
� x open space conservation subdivision process which is specifically encouraged.
�
�
> 4. The picture at the bottom of page 110 - This picture can easily he
> removed, however we can not easily replace it with m comparable
> picture from Scandia because the picture is an overhead perspective.
> The intent was to show an open space conservation development with
> aspects of both clustered housing and protected open space in the
x background.
> 5. On 11/19 we received a minor comment from Rice [reek Watershed
> District - to modify NR Policy 2.3 to include reference to the newly
> adopted R[WD rules. The change to NR Policy 2.3 on page 122 could �
�
> easily he made by modifying to read "The City will work with local
> watershed districts that have permitting authority in the
> [ity(including rules and standards adopted by Rice [reek Watershed
> District and Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District)to jointly
> review development permits for impacts on surface waters." This
> language change would also be made in Appendix B and Appendix E where
> the NR Policy also shows up'
�
> 6' Christine Maefskv's comments should be considered and voted upon
> by the Planning Commission.
�
2