3.Memo Summary of Issue ID Community Survey _12312020
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 1
City of Scandia
Results of Issues Identification Community Survey
12.28.2020
TO: Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members
CC: Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator
Evan Monson, City Planner
FROM: Julia Paulsen-Mullin, SHC
Jennifer Haskamp, AICP, SHC
RE: Results of Issues Identification Community Survey
Dear Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members:
We released the Issue Identification survey on October 22, 2020 to gather input from the community about
zoning issues: zoning administration, zoning regulations, and concerns in the community that zoning can
address. The survey was sent to households in Scandia using the City’s email list, and notices publicizing the
survey were placed on the city and project websites. The survey was open for four weeks and we received 130
responses. (126 online and 4 hard copy responses.) This response represents 8.8% of the households in
Scandia.
This memo provides
• Summary of Survey Results
• High-Level Observations
• Recommendations for the Revised Code
The complete results of the survey are attached here for your review.
Who Responded?
Residents who live on lakefront property (33%), 5-10 acre lots (27%), and on agricultural property (21%)
made up the majority of survey respondents (81%). Residents living on 1-5 acre lots made up 18% of the
respondents, and those who live in or near the Village Center are 2% of respondents.
The majority of respondents live in Scandia while 32% work from home, 26% work outside Scandia, and
25% are not employed. Of those who work from home, 62% have always worked at home. 14% began to
work at home during the pandemic and expect that they will continue to work at home. 25% of those
working at home will likely return to work elsewhere post-pandemic.
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 2
General thoughts on zoning
At the beginning of the survey, we posed some broad questions to gather general impressions about zoning in
Scandia. 76% of respondents replied that zoning in the City makes sense, or somewhat makes sense. The
“use” of a property matters to 53% of respondents, and for 47% of respondents, how a property looks matters
more than its “use”. Approximately 65% of respondents believe that Scandia has a good mix of housing and
35% state the City does not have a good mix. By far, the majority of respondents consider their homes the
most important place in Scandia and want flexibility in how they use their property. 75% of respondents
believe it’s important that the City follow the zoning Code consistently while 25% disagreed or somewhat
disagreed that it is important.
Zoning and Code Enforcement
68% of respondents have used Scandia’s zoning code to understand what they can do with their property.
Most of the comments from those who have used it described some frustration with the experience:
“challenging”, “difficult”, “contradictory”, “could be more user friendly”, “not a transparent process”, reached
out for help. And 60% of respondents said they would be comfortable filing a complaint with the City about
a problem on a neighbor’s property. However, of those 60%, many of the comments indicate a lack of
confidence that the City would resolve the problem.
The top concerns respondents have about properties in their neighborhoods are:
Outdoor lighting (45%)
Noise related to businesses (trucks, visitors, etc.) (42%)
Outdoor storage (41%)
Landscape maintenance (16%)
Individual Neighborhoods
We asked a series of questions about respondents’ own neighborhoods. Regarding accessory uses, respondents
split evenly between yes, there should be limits on the number, size and use of accessory buildings (49%) and
no, there should be no limits (51%). Comments included: number of accessory buildings should be related to
property size; lakeshore properties tend to need more storage so should be permitted more accessory
buildings; as long as a property does not look “junky”, limits are not needed on accessory buildings.
We asked about the “use” of buildings: does use matter? Or is it not important as long as the feel of a
neighborhood remains the same? Responses included: use is not important as long as neighboring properties
are not impacted; rural properties that are bigger should have fewer limitations that smaller residential
properties; City needs to control the use of structures because we don’t want to lose the rural charm of
Scandia; often, buildings on residential properties are for storage and enclosed storage is better than stuff
around the yard.
The greatest concerns about how the neighborhood looks:
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 3
Too much clutter and junk in yards
Too many vehicles
Would rather see more buildings that would store stuff out of sight
Solar parks and farms
Homes not keeping up with basic maintenance.
The Larger Community
General Rural
There are a variety of property types in the General Rural areas of Scandia. We asked whether smaller
properties should have different standards than larger properties. 54% said yes there should be different
standards for smaller properties than larger ones that are in the same land use category; 46% said no
distinction is needed. Respondents said that lakeshore properties are unique; they often have greater outdoor
storage needs and water quality protections are critical. Another comment stated that impervious surface
standards must apply to all properties.
Village Mixed-Use
56% of respondents said that the Village Mixed Use area is their favorite part of Scandia and that it defines
the City’s character; respondents split evenly on the question of whether there is a good business mix in the
Village Mixed Use area (52% said no; 49% said yes). Respondents also split evenly on the question of
whether there should be more multifamily housing in the Village Mixed Use area (53% respondents said no
and 48% said yes).
Three-quarters of respondents said it is important for the village mixed use area to be walkable and bikeable,
and that this is the most important area of the city to apply design and architectural standards to.
The response in the Village Mixed-Use area to whether “use” matters, or whether how a building looks is
enough, is split 50-50.
The survey asked about what type of housing would people prefer in the Village Mixed-Use area, in the
context of current and future residents of Scandia:
Small lot single family (75%)
Senior housing detached (48%)
Senior housing attached (44%0
Villa style single-level townhomes (43%)
Assisted living (41%)
Affordable housing options (27%)
Uses respondents would like to see expanded in the Village Mixed Use area include:
Restaurants/coffee shops (74%)
Retail (57%)
Professional Services (44%)
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 4
Uses respondents believe are about the right amount:
Community-gather spaces indoor and outdoor (68%)
Medical/clinical services (69%)
Single-family housing detached (64%)
Light industrial manufacturing (58%)
Professional Services (53%)
Uses respondents state there should be less of or should not be here at all:
Multifamily housing (attached) (45%)
We asked an open-ended question about ideas for making the Village Mixed Use area better. Responses
included: keep it the same; create more reasons to stop such as restaurant with outdoor seating, more social
activities, picnic grounds; figure out how to retain restaurants.
Rural Mixed-Use Area
Uses to be expanded in the Rural Mixed-Use Area (there is no use that more than half of respondents want
expanded)
Restaurants/coffee shops (35%)
Agritourism businesses (33%)
Community gather spaces – outdoor (31%)
Single-family detached housing (28%)
Uses that have about the right amount:
Single-family detached housing (60%)
Medical/clinical services (53%)
Community gather spaces – indoor (53%)
Community gathering spaces -outdoor (50%)
Retail (50%)
Professional services (50%)
Uses that should not be here at all:
Multi-family housing – attached (38%)
Medical/clinical services (30%)
Professional services (29%)
Retail (26%)
Light industry/manufacturing (27%)
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 5
Summary “High Risers” and Key Observations
After compiling the responses several trends and observations became apparent. For purposes of this analysis a
“High Riser” is a theme or trend that was repeatedly identified in the survey responses, while key observations
relate to how/or if the issue should be addressed within the Development Code Update. The following draft
High Risers and Key Observations are provided for your consideration and discussion.
Most respondents like Scandia the way it is. Respondents clearly like the current development
patterns and enjoy the character of the existing community.
Most respondents agreed that additional architectural standards and/or the Design Guidelines should
be applied to the Village Mixed-Use area. This is an important character area or district, and a
corresponding level of regulation should apply.
There are specific zoning issues that need attention and revisions in the Development Code update:
two primary examples noted in the responses include the accessory buildings (number, size); and
lakeshore properties especially regarding dimensional standards and storage requirements.
There is general difficulty using the zoning code; the revised Code needs to be more user-friendly
There are contradictions in the code today which makes it confusing. Special attention and focus
should be given to the update to ensure consistent regulations are implemented.
Responses were mixed regarding the types of housing desired in the Village Mixed-Use areas. While
there was general agreement that single-family detached housing and senior living options are
desirable, there was less agreement regarding the need for multi-family housing.
Respondents generally agreed that uses that will draw people into the Village Mixed-Use area are
desirable. Examples of such uses include coffee shops, outdoor seating at restaurants, picnic areas, etc.
Respondents were from a mix of property types within the City. However, only 2% of responses were
from residents or businesses in the Village Center area. We are missing key information and responses
from this stakeholder group, making it difficult to draw conclusions about how this area should be
developed (or redeveloped).
Recommendations
Based on the High Risers and Key Observations we were able to develop a set of draft recommendations
regarding Development Code update. We present the following list of draft recommendations for discussion
at the next meeting.
1. We believe that we need to hear from more people who live, work or own businesses in the Village
Mixed-Use areas; we recommend some targeted outreach to businesses and residents in this area
(possible strategies include zoom roundtable; zoom interviews; on-line survey).
2. The responses to the questions about the Village Mixed-Use area are varied. Respondents made clear
that they like and support the Village Mixed-Use area. However, respondents are split on whether
there is a good mix of businesses and are divided as to whether there should be more multi-family
housing in this area. We need to gather more information from business and property owners in this
area about what they need to be successful. Since we do not have this information, we believe it is
City of Scandia – Summary of Issues Identification Community Survey, 12/28/2020 6
premature to make any conclusions regarding the strategy for density and timing of such density in
the Village Center.
3. After we achieve some clarity as described in #2, we can bring back the conclusions and resume the
density question for the Village Mixed-Use area. For example, if our conclusion is that no change is
desired in this area, that existing housing and businesses are sufficient the city may conclude that the
best approach is to create a holding district that allows limited developed entitlements until such time
that new infrastructure is developed. However, if we hear from Village Mixed-Use area stakeholders
that new housing, for example, would support their businesses (which survey respondents want), and
there is a desire for more housing or more business opportunity, then the city may conclude that we
should amend the land use plan now, and create the supporting zoning as part of this process to
ensure properties do not prematurely develop with lower intensity uses than desired.
4. Survey respondents indicate that there are specific issues related to lakeshore properties such as
outdoor clutter, permitted storage and accessory buildings. We know that the majority of the
nonconforming parcels in Scandia are in the lakeshore areas and that these properties don’t meet the
standards for minimum lot size, setbacks, and/or frontage. As a result, it is difficult for property
owners to make improvements and variances are often needed to allow for reinvestment in these
areas. We recommend that through this process we create new standards that will bring the majority
of these properties into conformance thereby reducing the need for variances, and subsequently make
the granting of variance more consistent. We continue to explore the best methodology to achieve
this recommendation but are considering the use of an overlay district or a new zoning district to
address the lakefront properties and associated neighborhoods (most of which were platted pre-
1970). Whichever tool is selected, the objective is to recognize the existing development patterns, and
to minimize the further development of small lots (less than 1 acre) on lakes in the future.
5. Based on the survey respondents, we recommend eliminating or removing sections of the code that
are unneeded to make the code more user-friendly. It was clear from respondents that the code is
cumbersome, and that assistance was often needed to understand the requirements related to
property. Removal of repetition, and non-essential parts of the code would clean up and make the
code more concise.
Attachment:
Survey Results