Loading...
2. Maefsky Date: November 19, 2008 To: Planning Commission Members From: Christine Maefsky Re: My thoughts to date on the changes made and being considered in the "final" Comprehensive Plan document. Although I've noted a lot of items, I think that's because the document is so comprehensive and thorough; there's just a lot to it. And, when we make a change in one place, that change often impacts other provisions. So, here's my best thinking at the moment. I welcome yours now or at next Tuesday's meeting. Thanks. Items agreed to by consensus at the November 18 meeting: 1. In the Lot Averaging provision, change the 2-4 acres to 2-5 acres. Rationale: In the Ag Core area there would be smaller "hobby farms" with limited livestock allowed to complement the rural character of larger farms and residential. 2. Remove the word "Residential" from the General Rural district name. Rationale: Residential dwellings are key uses in most districts 3. Either eliminate or change the bottom picture on page 110 to one from Scandia. (Actually, the top house picture could be one with more "community character" landscaping.) Big issue: should we continue to support two separate "rural" districts — the Ag Core District and the General Rural District? 1. If"yes" how should they be the same and how should they be different? 2. Are the differences distinct? Are they positive? Do they lead to the desired direction for future development of Scandia? 3. What is our rationale for the different provisions? 4. We discussed the concept of several vs. few districts at multiple meetings including two public meetings. While not unanimous, there was more than majority support for creating several districts. Rationale: residents and potential developers would be clear about the direction the city was going in guiding development. Residents could have more assurance about how their neighborhood and the city would look in the future; developers would have more assurance about the parameters they had for planning development in different parts of the city. If we have two separate "rural districts": 1. Should potential bonus densities be the same? a. If so, should they be 50%, 75%, or 100% earning potential? b. If so, should conservation design development automatically start with a 25% bonus? - or— is this not even a question to decide now? c. Either way, should bonuses in the Ag Core district be different from those in the General Rural, for example, in the Ag Core give larger bonuses for promoting agricultural use? Actually, this is already suggested in LU Implementation Strategy 5.3. 1 (p.177 new) (and p. 194 new) 2. It would be helpful if we all read over the current New Scandia Township Development Code regarding bonus densities (pp 2. 12.9 - 2.12.11.) 3. It would also be helpful if we all read over the "Goals, Policies and Strategies section regarding the two districts (pp. 131 - 132 - new) (Sorry, once a teacher... ) 5. What are the differences in the two "rural districts": a. Ag Core -Allows Conservation Design Development or Lot Averaging only General Rural - Allows Conservation Design Development or 10 acre lots only Rationale: Ag Core development design promotes larger tracts of land being preserved for larger scale agriculture; General Rural design promotes smaller tracts of land used for residential and smaller hobby farms. (This was the reasoning put forth at the meeting where this difference was decided.) OR could we add Lot Averaging to the General Rural area also, but keep the 10 acre option only in the General Rural, still a difference that could support the rationale. b. ? c. ? 6. Shouldn't the boundaries on the page 55 map (Map 15) be consistent with the final Ag Core boundaries pp. 105 and 107 (Maps 26 and 27)? 7. P.57 - first line should be "road networks" (plural) 1 think. 8. P.110 - Within the General Rural description, 10 acres needs to be spelled out as OK. Perhaps it could simply be added as a modifier to final paragraph reference, making that - "large acreage parcels of 10 acres or more". (also on p. 195 "Density/Intensity") 9. P. 111- top paragraph: need to address the density bonus percentage. 10. LU Policy 6.2 (p. 132 new): Change "Require" to "Encourage" or some other word between the two. II. LU I.S. 6.2.1: need to address the bonus density 12. P. 132, Add 6.2.2: add a "right to farm" provision, at least for existing farms. 13. LU Goal 7: (p133 new): What does "in developed areas" mean? Need to define it better. 14. and Policy 7.1 If we've already provided ways to increase density via bonuses, when would TDR be more useful? (Note: I do not remember talking about this and wonder where it came from?) and 15. p. 178, LU Implementation Strategy 7.1.1: in reference to the preceding #13, Shouldn't "Semi-Rural" land use area be "General Rural"? (And, as in #13, I still question whether this makes sense.) 16. Within this Land Use Section we need reference to 10 acre lots. 17. P. 134 (new) LU Implementation Strategy 9.1.2: Change "Require" to "Encourage" 18. P. 142 (new) ED I,S. 2.3.3 What are "arts incubators". Perhaps define it in glossary. (and p. 182 new) 19. P.143 (new) ED Policy 4.2: Where ag is the primary use?? Or secondary perhaps?? What if we wanted to create a small "farm store" for our products as say Pat Daninger did in Forest Lake? Would the provision in ED I.S. 4.2.1 "in or near ag core areas" cover us and others like us? (and p. 183 new) 20. Pp. 147 and 150 (new), Maps 30 and 31: The Ozark Avenue extensions don't seem the same. 21. Pp. 161-168 (new), Maps 33-40: On the colored scores for rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands: is the highest number most desirable? I presume so, but don't see a Key. 22. Is it correct to assume that, even if an Implementation Strategy is to he completed within 10 years, it could be worked on and completed much sooner if the interest and will to do so exists? 23. P.176 (new) LU I.S. 5.1.1: need to change densities to 4 per 40 and lot averaging sizes to 2 to 5 acres or 20 acres. 24. P. 180 (new), H Implementation Strategy 1.4.1: should accessibility be described as "the preferred internal design for new houses."? Would that mean we support only one-story houses or perhaps also walk-outs? 25, P.193 (new) — Village Neighborhood, Density/Intensity: Is the description of lot sizes on Goose Lake consistent with our now having added it to the Village Neighborhood area? 26. P. 194 (new) — Density/Intensity: change "lots of 2 to 5 acres". 27. P. 195 and 196 (new): why are we allowing two-family residential in the Lakeshore Conservation overlay and not in the Lakeshore Traditional or the General Rural or Ag Core? 28, P. 196, Lakeshore Conservation Overlay: last column: put in specifically "no bonuses" as is stated in the St. Croix River Corridor below. 29. Pp. 191 — 197, the Future Land Use Areas Summary Matrix: I thought this was supposed to be a summary of the Land Use descriptions and Policies and Implementation Strategies that came before. Yet, it seems to add new information such as "Single and two-family residential" as a primary land use. 30. Aren't pp 234 — 250 basically repeats of pp 121-151 — "Goals, Policies and Strategies"? Why are they needed?