4.b) Draft Ordinance No. 122, Amendment to Scandia Development Code Chapters 1 & 2 Meeting Date: 10/5/2010
Agenda Item: Bi��" �C�!"�� .
��� c��.����
Planning Commission/City Council
Agenda Report
City of Scandia
14727 209th St. North
Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274
Action Requested: Hold a public hearing on Draft Ordinance No. 122, an Amendment to
the Scandia Development Code Chapter 1—Administration and
Chapter 2—Zoning.
Deadline/Timeline: N/A
Background: • Scandia adopted its Comprehensive Plan on March 17, 2009.
State law requires that the city's "official controls" (which include
all of the codes and ordinances relating to the development of
land) must be made consistent with the plan within 9 months.
• This is also the first update since Scandia changed its form of
government from Township to City. The Administration Chapter,
in particular, was based on the county code and needed significant
changes to reflect the change.
• The Planning Commission, City Council, staff and consultants
have been working on the update of the Development Code since
before the first work session was held in December, 2009.
• The ordinance currently under consideration will replace Chapters
1 and 2 of the current code in their entirety. A new Zoning Map
will also be adopted.
• Chapter 3 of the Development Code, the subdivision regulations,
is currently being drafted by staff and consultants and should be
ready for review by the Planning Commission and Council later
this year. The other Chapters of the Development Code(Chapter
4, Mining and Related Activities (2007); Chapter 5, Shoreland
Management (2007); and Chapter 6, Floodplain Management
(2008)) will remain in place. The City will continue to adopt by
reference two chapters of the county code: Subsurface Sewage
Treatment System (SSTS) Regulations, and the Lower St. Croix
River Bluffland and Shoreland Management Regulations.
• The update process included an open house-format public meeting
on September 14, was attended by about 20 residents. Several
Page 1 of 2
09/29/10
comments were received from residents who attended the meeting
and/or reviewed the draft ordinance, which was available on the
city's web site. Their comments are summarized on the attached
chart, and all written communications are attached.
• Staff has also noted a number of non-substantive edits (such as
typographical errors) that will be corrected in the final draft for
adoption. Other substantive changes identified by staff are
included on the chart.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public
hearing. We suggest we begin with a brief presentation/overview by
City Planner Sherri Buss and then take public comments. After the
public comments, you may wish to review the comments summarized
on the chart and give direction for changes to the code.
We recommend that you continue the hearing to the November 3,
2010 meeting. The public should be encouraged to make any
additional comments not later than one week prior to that meeting
(Tuesday, October 26) so that we can review them before the
November 3 meeting.
At the November meeting, staff and consultants will provide you with
a"final" draft of the Code based on direction received at the hearing,
along with any additional suggestions for changes that may arise from
any other comments that are received.
Attachments/ • List of Comments Received through September 30, 2010
Materials provided: . Comment letters from Grant & Christine Erickson, Gary & Dawn
Gillespie, Bill Clapp and Jim Simpson
ContaCt(s): Sherri Buss, TKDA (651) 292-4582
Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator
(development code public hearing)
Page 2 of 2
09/29/10
Scandia Development Code Updates: Chapter 1—Administration and Chapter 2—Zoning
Comments on Draft for Public Hearing
Through September 30, 2010
• • � . �- • • . •. •
1 Staff Chapter 1,Section 6.6, Under the new code, unless the city specifically approves The first sentence of Chapter 1,Section 6.6 should be
page 1-38 a different timeline,variances will expire unless the revised as follows:
(expiration of variances) applicant commences the authorized use or "Un/ess the variance was approved prior to the effective
improvement within one year. Extensions of up to two date of this Chapter, or the Board specifically approves a
years are allowed. Variances issued under the current different time when oction is officially taken on the
code did not have any expiration date.Staff identified ten request..."
(10)variances approved within the last 10 years which
have not been used. It is possible that the owners have
abandoned their plans in several of these cases.
However,there are several cases where variances
necessary for new homes on shoreland lots have been
approved within the last several years. Given that the
variances were issued with no expectation that they
would expire,the city should consider clarifying its intent
regarding expiration of variances issued prior to adoption
of the new code.
2 Staff Chapter 2,Section 2.4 In the AG-C,AP and GR Districts, "Feed and Seed Sales The Commission and Council should clarify their intent.
(3)(E), page 2-3 and Accessory to an Agricultural Business" is an allowed Should all types of farms(such as a farm that produces
Chapter 2,Section 2.5 accessory use. The only types of"agricultural crops or a dairy)be allowed to sell feed and seed as an
(3)(D),page 2-6 and businesses"defined in the code are"agricultural accessory use? If so,then the text should be changed to
Chapter 2,Section 2.6 business,seasonal"and "agricultural direct market read "Feed and Seed Sales Accessory to an Agricultural
(3)(G),page 2-9 business." Are these the only types of agricultural Use"
(Feed and Seed Sales enterprises than can sell feed and seed?
Accessory to an
Agricultural business)
3 Staff Chapter 2,Section 2.5, The City Attorney has reviewed the list of uses allowed in Only land enrolled in the Ag Preserves program will be
page 2-7(uses in the AP district and questioned whether several of them placed in the AP zoning district. Uses must follow the
Agricultural Preserves are consistent with the state Agricultural Preserves Law: statute. The listed uses should be eliminated from the AP
District) • Recreation,Outdoor Private zoning district.
• Wireless Communication Antennas and Towers
• Horse Training Facility,Commercial(10 or fewer
horses)
1
• • � • �' • • �' • •. •
4 Greg&Christine Chapter 2,Section 2.6(7), The Erickson's submitted a letter suggesting that the 20- The Ericksons make a good argument for reducing the
Erickson page 2-11 foot side yard setback in the GR district be reduced to 10 side yard setback for smaller lots. The Commission and
(side yard setbacks in GR, feet for lots smaller than 2 acres in size. They detailed a Council should discuss whether a change should be made
General Rural district) problem they have with relocating a garage on their to the GR district and whether it should also be
narrow, 1.28-acre lakeshore lot. implemented for smaller lots in other districts.
Currently,the Shoreland Overlay district allows a 10-foot Even if the exception is added,the 20-foot side yard
side yard setback for lots less than 1 acre in size on setback would continue to apply in Shoreland districts on
Recreational Development Lakes(Big Marine, Bone& Natural Environment Lakes and Tributary Streams,until
Sylvan) and unless an amendment would also be made to the
Shoreland Overlay District.
5 Gary& Dawn Various sections— The Gillespie's sent a letter(attached)asking if they could The Planning Commission and Council should discuss
Gillespie (exception to subdivide their property using an exception in the current whether or not this exception is appropriate to include in
requirement for lot code(Section 3.3(2), Minimum Frontage on a Public the new code,and if so, under what circumstances it
frontage on a public road) Road),which is not in the draft code. It reads as follows: should be allowed.
(C) Exception:A property owner,with the consent of the Making exceptions to the road frontage standard and
Township,may subdivide one new lot of 20 acres or greater in allowing what may become permanent private roads
size with no or minimum public road frontage,with the seems to violate some of the basic requirements of the
following requirements: code. Staff understands that this was an exception
i. The property from which the parcel is to be subdivided crafted for a specific property owner in the past. There
shall have a minimum of 40 acres. appear to be good reasons not to do this in the future.
2. A concept subdivision plan for the entire property shall be
submitted showing future public road access for all of the �ssuing a variance to allow this to oCcur would probably
parcels,including the subdivided parcel.The concept not be possible,as the current definition of a hardsh'Ip
subdivision shall be determined to be feasible by the may not be met.
Township.
3. No further subdivision of any of the parcels shall be
permitted without the required public road access.
4. A right-of-way easement for access to the newly
subdivided parcel shall be conveyed to the Township.
5. The right-of-way may be used for driveway access to the
subdivided parcel but shall be maintained by the owner of
the property served by it.
6. Any driveway to the subdivided parcel shall be constructed
to Township standards to accommodate emergency
vehicles.
7. The Township may require that the right-of-way easement
conveyed to it be upgraded to Township public road '
2
• • � • �' • • �' • •. •
standards when the property is further subdivided.
8. A development agreement between the property owner
and the Township must be recorded with the property '
covering the restrictions and obligations of this
subdivision.
6 Bill Clapp Chapter 2,2.11/pages 2- "In the Comprehensive Plan it says that the Rural No changes are recommended. The Comprehensive Plan
24 through 2-28 Commercial districts shali be kept sort of as they are, not does not state that the Rural Commercial districts are to
(Rural Commercial R- getting out of character with their historic uses or be"kept sort of as they are." New or different uses than
COMM zoning district) neighboring uses. I don't see any of that language in the those that are existing or have historically occurred are
Development Code. Can I assume that the Plan language allowed,and the plan allows for expansion of the
will guide decision making on CUP applications on the commercial area on Manning. The Comprehensive Plan
Abrahamson and Trails End and Manning Avenue states that the Rural Commercial Nodes future land use
properties? Or should the Comp Plan language be area is intended to support commercial development in
written into the Code?" places of historic commercial activity,and allow
commercial uses reflecting the historic nature of the
commercial node and compatible with the surrounding
rural character. The list of allowed uses in the R-COMM
district was written to be consistent with the plan.
Because compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is the
first criteria for review of all Conditional Use Permit(CUP)
applications(see Chapter 1,8.4/page 1-41)no additional
Code language is needed.
7 Staff Chapter 2,3.1(3)(F)/ The Commission&Council previously gave direction to Section 3.1(3)(F)on Page 2-31 provides a general
page 2-31 exempt agricultural buildings such as barns and silos from exemption from the height limit for church spires,
(height of accessory the provision that"all accessory structures...shall be chimneys,flag poles up to 45 feet in height and wind
structures) limited to one story in height except by approva/of a generators. Rather than waiving the height limit,
conditional use permit"(see Section 3.2(3)(A), page 2-32.) agricultural buildings including barns and silos could be
A question has arisen whether such buildings should also added to this list. Or,a specific height limit could be
be exempted from the height limits of the zoning district specified in the ordinance. This would require some
in which they are located(i.e. 35 feet in the AG-C and GR research into the likely maximum height of a silo.
districts.)
8 Jim Simpson Chapter 2,3.2(3)(B)/ The table of permitted square footage and number of Clarify that for parcels more than 80 acres the limit is a
page 2-33 accessory buildings for lot sizes of more than 80 acres is total of 8,000 square feet for non-agricultural buildings,
(size and number of confusing. but unlimited for agricultural buildings.
accessory structures on
parcels of 80 acres or
larger)
3
• • � • �' • • �' • •. •
9 Jim Simpson Chapter 2,3.2 (3)(B)/ The permitted square footage and number of accessory Consider adding the following language to section 3.2(3):
page 2-33 structures is based on a "lot",which is defined as the tax "(G) For the purpose of determining the size,number and
(size, number and parcel. It is common for large farms to consist of several /ocation of agricultural buildings on farms 40.00 acres or
location of accessory tax parcels,and may be owned by multipie family greater, the lotshall include oll contiguous tax parcels
structures on farms of inembers or other entities owned by the family for many farmed os a unit as evidenced by common ownership
multiple lots/tax parcels) reasons, including estate planning.They should be within a family or other entity comprised of some or all of
treated as a single parcel for the purposes of this section. the family members, or a combination thereof. "
Buildings need to be located within a farm where it
makes the most sense for a successful operation,which
may be a different tax parcel than the one with the
principal structure. (Mr.Simpson was issued a Certificate
of Compliance to allow this interpretation of the current
code. Under the proposed code, staff would not be able
to issue an Administrative Permit if it is not in strict
compliance with the code.)
10 Staff Chapter 2,Section 3.6(4) Some additional language should be added to these two The following changes should be made in the final draft
and (4)(A), page 2-39 paragraphs to clarify submission requirements for of the ordinance:
(permit applications for grading plans. • At the end of paragraph(4),add: 'The first sheet of
grading permits) the plans sholl give the location of the work and the
name and address of the owner and the person who
prepared the plans."
• At the end of paragraph(4)(Aj,add: "The grading
plan shall c/early indicate the proposed land
disturbing activities. Both existing and proposed
topography shall be shown. Drainage patterns shall
be clearly shown using arrows depicting the direction
of flow. Other information shall be shown as
required by the City based on specific project
characteristics."
il Staff Chapter 2,Section 3.6(7); This section was modeled on a process used in another Staff recommends that violations of this section be
pages 2-41 and 2-42 community,where permit applicants may appeal a stop handled without the appeals process in the draft code.
(enforcement of land work order and provide documentation of compliance to The city would simply issue stop work orders,and inspect
alteration and grading the enforcement official in lieu of an inspection by the to determine compliance before allowing work to
requirements) City. proceed. Paragraph (7)(D)should be deleted,and
paragraph 7(F)should be revised to state that"If the
applicant corrects the identified violations within the
designated period, the applicant may immediotely
commence further activity at the site. The City will
inspect the site to verify correction of the violations."
4
• • ' • �- • • • �. •
12 Staff Chapter 2,Section 3.7 The draft code specifies that the lowest ground floor Staff recommends that the standard be changed to three
(4)(G), page 2-44 elevation of a structure adjacent to a landlocked basin feet before the code is adopted,to be consistent with
(stormwater shall be a minimum of five feet above the calculated high watershed district requirements. -
management design water level. This is inconsistent with the requirements of
criteria) the city's watershed districts,which require a minimum
of three feet.
13 Staff Chapter 2,Section 3.7 This section prohibits illicit discharges to the storm sewer Even though it is unlikely that enforcement actions would
(6)(A), page 2-44 system or a surface water body;exceptions are made for be taken for these activities, staff suggests an additional
(stormwater non-stormwater discharges authorized by an MPCA exception be added to this section as follows:
management,illicit permit or associated with firefighting or other public "3. Is associoted with normal household activities such os
discharges and safety activities. car washing,lawn watering or draining a swimming
connections) pool."
14 Jim Simpson Chapter 2,3.12(4)(G)/ Mr.Simpson questions whether it is appropriate to limit No change is recommended. The list of trees is an
pages 2-61 through 2-62 or suggest"native only"trees. The push by some for update of the current code. It follows NR Policy 7.1 in
(recommended list of "native only"trees is a marketing tactic.There are many the 2030 Comprehensive Plan,which states: Encourage
native trees for wonderful trees that are proven,solid,low maintenance public and private development to landscape with
landscaping and (low cost), long-term varieties that are not on the list. noninvasive, native species. The City's Design Guidelines
screening) Suggested that instead of including the list that the city also encourage the use of native plants and native
could reference materials from the University of landscapes to maintain the rural and historic character of
Minnesota Extension Service that list trees recommended the City. Use of native species in landscape plans is not
for Minnesota. Nurseries in Scandia are growing trees mandated in the revised ordinance, but rather the list of
that are not on the list but are approved by the recommended plant materials includes native species,
U of M for our growing zone. cultivars of native species,and non-invasive plant
materials. If a tree not on the list would be proposed in a
landscape plan,the City could review the species at that
time to determine whether it is consistent with the plan,
the code and the design guidelines.
15 Staff Chapter 2,Section 3.13 The current and draft codes contain the following: This section should be deleted.
(4)(P), page 2-66 "Any sign for which no permit has been issued shall be
(general standards for taken down and removed by the owner,agent or person
signs) having the beneficial use of the building, or/and upon
which the sign may be found within thirty(30)days after
written notice from the Zoning Administrotor." This
language is a problem for a couple of reasons. It is
somewhat unclear what signs it applies to;not all signs
require permits. And it appears to allow 30 days for a
property owner to remove an illegal sign,restricting
enforcement.
S
• • � • �' • • �' • •. •
16 Staff Chapter 2,Section 4.9, Other than requiring setbacks be met,the only This provision should be eliminated. There are other
page 2-72 performance standard for government uses,buildings sections of the ordinance that cover exterior storage and
(government uses, and storage is that "the site shall be landscoped to screen landscaping and screening,which such facilities would be
buildings and storage) the facility from view from property lines and road." It is subject to. Since the only other requirement is that
not practical to expect that the entire"facility" (including setbacks must be met,Section 4.9 can be deleted
buildings)be screened completely from view. completely.
6
��.
sePtember 2�, 2010 RECEI\/ED
�;_�� '> �rfli��
Grant& Christine Erickson
13090 182°`' Street N CITY OF SCANDIA
Marine On St. Croi� MN 55047
Scandia City Council and Planning Commission
14727 209th St. N.
Scandia, MN 55073
Re: Development Code Amendment Request
Dear Scandia City Council Members,
We are writing this letter to express concern regarding the proposed development code changes
scheduled to be finalized and adopted at the November 3 City Council meeting. During this period
of public comment, we would like to take the opportunity to request that the Council and Planning
commission revisit the General Rural Setback requirements and add an additional classification for
those property owners who do not meet the minimum 2 acre lot size that is currently in the zoning
ordinances. Because of the recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on granting variances, we
believe that if this component of the ordinances is not addressed now, this will cause undue
hardship and unfair restrictions to those properiy owners that have smaller parcels of land than
current restrictions. Our understanding is that in the past, property owners under the 2 acre lot size
have routinely requested variances from the 20 foot side setback requirements, and in many cases,
these variances were granted and justified. However, given the new case law that exists with the
recent Minnetonka Supreme Court Ruling, going forward these variances will be e�remely
difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Because of this, we believe that now is the time to act in order
to preserve our rights as t�payers, while still maintaining adequate controls over the City's
development vision.
In reading through the current zoning ordinances, we agree that any lot of a size of 2 acres and over
should be able to easily fit any development requirements within the 20 foot side setbacks.
However, on lots that are less than 2 acres, this may not always be possible due to the shape and
size of the property. Because of this, we would like to propose that an additional classification be
added to address the setback variances for lots under the two acre minimum. Specifically, we
would like the City Council to update the Development code so that a 10 foot side variance is the
standard allowed side setback on lots under 2 acres in the General Rural District.
As to why we are requesting this change, we would like the City Council to consider our current
circumstances as an example. It is our wish that the Council reflect on how not acting on this
requested change will impact future Council members in their decision making, as well as other
citizens who are in similar circumstances to our own in the future.
We currently live in the Big Lake Addition on Big Marine Lake. These lots are a little over an acre
in size and are long and nanow. Ours is 1.28 acres. The homes on them were built many years ago.
Many of them, such as ours, started as cabins and then were added onto over time to become year
round homes. Because of the age of the area, the neighborhood does not meet many of the City's
current zoning ordinances, with many of the structures being "grandfathered in" on the properties in
our neighborhood. One such requirement not met is the minimum lot size of two acres for our
District.
Our property has a detached garage that was built by the previous homeowner in 1998. This garage
does meet the 20 foot setback requirements. However, to do so, the previous landowner needed to
build the garage in almost the center of the property, which unfortunately is a low spot. We are
including a diagram of our property so that the Council Members have a better idea of our lot
layout.
Since we have moved into our home, we have since deternuned that this garage is built on an area
that contains springs. The low land behind the garage is perpetually wet, even in the driest of
months. This is causing the garage to sink over time. In addition, due to the amount of moisture in
the soil(which depends on the season), the garage shifts constantly. We have found that the worst
season is the winter, as the garage apron actually becomes higher than the garage itself and the
garage tilts backwards and fills with water and ice. During spring thaws our entire garage has been
filled with 2 inches of water from the front of the garage doors to the back wall. Because of the
repeated flooding, and standing water in it, the wood is now starting to rot. Over time, we fear that
the garage will become structurally unsound. Needless to say, this is not what we would expect for
a garage only 12 years old. However, because of how serious the situation has become, we do feel
that we have no alternative but to remedy it by moving it to a better spot within our property. Not
exactly a planned expenditure when we bought the properiy, and one we would prefer to avoid if
there was any way of doing so. However, after talking with many contractors, this is the
unfortunate conclusion that we have reached.
As we consider our alternatives on where to move the garage given the current 20 foot side setback
requirements, we have found we really have very limited options to do this without requesting a
variance from the City. Hence our dilemma and the request in this letter, since our understanding
that coming to the City Council to request a variance will no longer be an option for us (or any other
property owner in our situation) going forward.
If we were to follow the current restrictions that apply to the two acre lot size and larger, our only
option is to move the garage to the right approximately 20 feet. This creates new challenges for us
that we are not sure how to solve for it, i.e:
1. It would place the garage directly in front of our home blocking our main entry door.
Not only would the aesthetics be extremely poor, but this could potentially cause a safety
issue in the event of a fire or other emergency if our main door was not readily
identifiable and accessible from the street.
2. It would obstruct our driveway, causing us to have to tear it up and re-route it to gain
entry to the garage in its new location. Because of this, it may force us to cut down the
majority of our oak trees in our front yard (thus running counter to a different ordinance)
and also potentially add onto the impermeable surface coverage since the driveway
would now be winding, rather than a straight shot into the property.
However, our options increase with a ten foot side setback. If this were the standard setback, we
would be able to move it to a similar location in front of aur house but 10 feet off of the property
line on the eastern side of our properry. This would preserve the majority of the trees on our
property, maintain a view of our main door facing the street, and preserve the majority of our
current driveway, thus limiting any change in the impermeable surface on the property. We have
included additional diagrams to show both of these options in order to give you a sense of the
changes.
Our conclusion is that the best way to solve for cases such as ours, where any future variance
requests that would no longer be legally allowed, is to add the additional classification of property
to the Zoning District and lesson the setback restrictions for properties under the two acre minimum
lot size. In this way, the City and Property Owners will have more options to work with when
dealing with the smaller lot sizes. We believe that the rnajority of property owners, including
ourselves, can easily work within a ten foot side setback restriction, whereas a twenty foot setback
may cause undue hardship on the smaller property sizes.
In addition, as we look at Qur current neighborhood, we can't help but notice that in many cases, the
current 20 foot setback is not honared due to the age of the neighborhood. By granting this
additional classification, we believe that you would not be changing the character of a neighborhood
because even a ten foot side setback restriction is in many cases more restrictive than what was in
place many years ago with existing structures that are now grandfathered into the current code.
Alternatively, by not granting this change, there may be unforeseen consequences if property
owners are not allowed options through this lesser side setback, such as deforestation of lots and
aesthetic impairment of a property that goes counter to what the development code is trying to
accomplish.
We respectfully request that the Council review our request for this change and have some
thoughtful discussion on it. We believe this is the most cost effective solution for the people of the
City, and a timely change given the phase that the development code proposal is currently in.
If our request is not granted, we would like the Council Members and Planning Commission to help
us understand what our options are as property owners going forward under a new legal reality of
limited variance granting�, since we are in somewhat of a bind. We do plan on attending the public
hearing at the October 5 planning meeting, and will be addressing the Council and Planning
Commission at that time. We are open to dialog on this topic, and look forward to speaking with all
of you about our proposed change at that time.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
� ,,��`.�' ' /� ^ �,� .
�� ��.��.-�. ���u���
Grant Erickson Christine Erickson
CURRENT LOT DIAGRAM
Big Marine Lake
Home
Drive�vati-
_ - - - ,
�
�
�� �
� Spririgs � ; Garage
', Area � �
;
�
;
;
;
;
;
Heavily Treed
Area Driveway
Septic
182°`� Street
20 FT SETBACK DILEMMA
Big Marine Lake
Home
- ---- - Drive�va}-
�.
; Springs �;
', Area � Garage
Heavily Treed
Area Driveway
Septic
l 82na Street
PROPOSED 10 FT SETBACK DRAWING
Big Marine Lake
Home
Drivewa�-
Springs Garage
Area
Heavily Treed
Area
Driveway
Septic
]82n`� Street
. . 10 a�. �-. � a f2
�j �Y �.' �/Iwni �iCL�=Sj�/ � +
7
,
� C> 2 �iC� O ��rr�J� T�2.
I"I �i2���� /'°?n� s�5 a `� 7
v.��- y.j 3 -�7��r
s`�t � Z�` o RECEIVED
`�:-� �►►�;'�
S TC-uC-� T N��k�f CITY OF SCANDIA
�3�: c �i, w� � ���� ,� L
� �! 7Z 7 zd4fi� 5t, M� .
S ��,,,,�,� M,., ��y o 7 3
�Y U.. �- S f�(.i C �
f
)�Cy W� si � � O�✓ t G�t1 i" I � � ` 7 �U
/ b��r.rt �
,
cl� s � �-�-s 5, .� ^ ra f 'f �, -� � � s�r , � ��` �� a� s� �� t�-�
/ � ,_j_ T�(
�t,�r S D 6� �'/� �' ;J r m�� N r- T � r -1 �ti ( LG9 jJ S �`� .p y-� /r
L�J �5 • W � G � --� C.m C�+�. f�c� a � .2 C7iz �l� d L�/�!/�/''�
"��Z� 1 L ,
c-t� � iJ a ht �i 1ti'7 E c-=i �� t' 3� t� -��-o o�f �-c1 � c�
i �"c� c{ o � �. , S � � f c� � �c� w ��/��
'�y-v�l �dc�.�t C' i,.�. L C
�a v .0 w. 3 C� �"� C'a-r�u,,�J -� � T r-�.^ c c a f�F c�'�
t
� � �iv r� �1 7�z� t �
�r c �.� -� t�� �-�p � �{ •-t � � `7�,K .� �- �� .� l�. �, o... s
� l r tt c,��r v`-� ,�.�..f) ca,r � y-�:,� �� � , i � S�c7 W 5
5 �'G . � � 3 �4 � � �
' � � t�v� �c r� ��Li f C i� L T f��-.- � L o� ,�S� ,
�J f �t ��"' l
T /�� �c�n s-r-s.� c � ��` 1..-c
�� � �r d�� �.T �� b u� �. ��- �-U � l
"���.-.S L. �j 7 r•-i.a � s �.�.�o c�r v�c(�-r 0 .-� -� r� �- w �c7 't 6� �
c `
2, 6 (.0 C�i'�'� � r- C� T t tt't t r i '-� s i 2 t LV 1a�� �d � O r' )
. , ( � p �
W1 i r� t m�t ��v !O(,1.7 �.. � C_ R 0 G� `�J'C�•-i ��'� •
1 / f �
{� � C c_��c c c3 � %^'1 F° -� f ��-t r `�( � a e.f C ivt ,�vt i � •y^ (
� iU 'P C Lc u `j< W t C G%>� 5'`�c7�.C� �- �c.t {u v't j��+47 Lr V
Ct�-� I
.
r�tt C /
� G- t'_C •t S } > � t w r -� G� 5 1 K�' �:' cx � C��I v�/ r�•'�.
�p, (.. � �� s �Gl...� v' L ��J � 1.1Q /�! r'w� Y
o .�, f i. � �o.�� < < , 7
c
r .fi �,�, 5 �—�� � ����:
"I O''
� � �L c�- i.� 5 � O� C�.
�� � 5 � �C � � � Gt- `J� f "� q
�
��a�t Z �-'� L
�a-�-dr S � ' � ��� �J � ,, �--- � � b � r �iJ iv�.Gi y' �rr 1 � c:,�/—
ro � �� � � � w = �� � � ��� 7� � � � ,�� � �^�- � � s
� � � / r �
��.c.J � S��� c'd��'Tc �O Q�^ � -� � S �v o �.c. � d /r-��J r v v �
�
�` � r� f� 5� � L
C� i.� ,� a ' ' �
r
SrK Cf� { �
�
.� �,���' .
�
y�'�
/
, .
� �
Anne Huriburt ��""��
From: Bill Clapp [bill.ciapp@me.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:34 PM
To: a.hurlburt@ci.scandia.mn.us
Subject: Proposed new development code
This is with reference to the Crabtrees Country Store and old schoolhouse properties on 95 at
Quinnell. The proposed zoning map shows them as a Rural Commercial zone. But it looks like
the Riverway overlay district overlays that orange piece. If so, then I am okay, because the
overlay district's stricter limits on uses would apply. The commercial uses there now would
be treated as nonconforming uses. But if the riverway district does not overlay the orange
piece, then I have a problem. Can you tell me whether it does or not?
Thank you.
Also, in the Comprehensive Plan it says that the Rural Commercial districts shall be kept
sort of as they are, not getting out of character with their historic uses or neighboring
uses. I don't see any of that language in the Development Code. Can I assume that the Plan
language will guide decision making on CUP applications on the Abrahamson and Trails End and
Manning Avenue properties? Or should the Comp Plan language be written into the Code?
Bi11=
i
� � � /y
�, �_,. ,
Anne Hurlburt
From: Jim Simpson [jim@headnut.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:10 AM
To: Anne Hurlburt
Cc: Dennis Seefeldt
Subject: Development code update comments
City of Scandia
As a resident of Scandia l would like to draw your attention to some concerns I have regarding the City of Scandia Development code update.
1.On page 2-33(B)of the draft document regarding allowed square footage of accessory buildings it states:
"More than 80 acres=8,000 SF"
Then directly below that it states:
"Agricultural buildings on parcels 80.00 acres or greater+unlimited SF"
So if I have 81 acres which is it-8,000 or unlimited?
2.If I read the development code draft it technically says accessory building size is dependent on the"lot size"the building is to be built on.
According to the draft,a"IoY'is a parcel.
This is a problem because many of the farms in Scandia are owned by multiple family members or entities owned by the family for many reasons
including estate planning purposes etc,and most farms in Scandia are certainly more then one parcel.The way the draft is written is too limited.
Buildings need to be located within a farm where it makes the most sense for a successful operation.When I worked on the new Green Acres program
the state had the same issues totaling up acres within a family farm. In the end they wrote the statute in a way that makes more sense,I would suggest
Scandia counts contiguous ownership within a family for building SF limits.I just spoke to Lynne Freezy,Senior Real Estate Technician from
Washington County to confirm how they view it.She said they use"common sense"when counting acres on a given farm,they never look at individual
parcels and look beyond entity ownership of given parcels within a family farm.
Here is a link to the Green Acres ownership requirements found on page two of this document:
htta�//washinqton minnesotaassessors com/areenacres fsheet 20090611 pdf
3.Trees
While I appreciate the"recommended"list of trees in chapter two(G), I think it is a mistake to limit,or suggest"native only"trees in any way shape or
form.The majority of trees on the list are natives.As a grower of both native and non-native trees for 25 years I completely understand the push by
some for"native only"trees,but I view it as a marketing tactic.There are many wonderFul trees that are proven,solid,low maintenance(low cost),long-
term varieties that are not on your list.Below is the link to U of M recommended tree lists for MN,which I suggest you point people to in the code book,
they are a leading horticulture University and keep the list current.I think by even vaguely suggesting to limit planting to only natives the city is asking for
trouble...unless you are willing to back it up with sound research and are willing to update the list every two years. I'm sure you don't have time for that.
There are thousands and thousands of trees currently being grown at nurseries in Scandia that are not on your list but approved by the U of M for our
growing zone. Heck the U of M created several of them!
Please help support Scandia farmers.
htto�//www extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/M1277.html
Thank you.
Jim Simpson
iim(ilheadnut.com
Jim Simpson
23393 Nolan Ave N
Scandia,MN 55073
Cell 612-770-2222
Fax 651-433-8181
1