2007 12-10 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Comcast Webmail - Email Message Page 1 of 2 From: James Lindner <lindner1858@yahoo.com> To: Paul Emeott <pemeott@comcast.net>, Dan Jochum <djochum@sehinc.com>, "Craig E. Rafferty" <crafferty@rrtlarchitects.com>, Tom Rasmussen <Odyrestorations@aol.com>, Hutch Schilling <hutch@nexengroup.com>, Bill Short <bill.short@ci.white-bear-township.mn.us>, Gretchen Swomley <gretchenas@comcast.net>, Chuck Watson <charles.watson@bdk.com>, Derek Wippich <derekw@aeiomed.com> Subject: SEH meeting Date: Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:10:46 AM I met with Dan Jochum of SEH regarding the Gem Lake comp plan Friday afternoon and want to report a very successful meeting. Here is what we discussed: Overall, SEH is about 75% complete with the comp plan draft. Some sections are further along than others, but overall, we are in good position to have a draft by my March/April deadline. Much of the work SEH has left to do involves land use and how that will impact various sections. We had a good discussion on land use, mainly how to incorporate Marc Putman's ideas into a comp plan. Dan thinks Marc has some good points on mixed use and housing densities (Marc's chart on page 15) so we worked at putting numbers to the land parcels. For planning purposes, Dan likes Marc's overall intent of mixed use throughout the Gateway area. Keep in mind mixed use is not only residential/commercial, but different types of commercial. For the plan we like keeping all options open. It is important to remember that the plan is big picture so getting bogged in details is contrary to what a plan is supposed to be. We looked at each section the met council requires of a plan and decided that for planning purposes it is politically prudent to target certain areas of Gem Lake for development beyond the 2030 timeframe of the current plan. The met council uses sewer plans to drive densities. If we show sewer in any area, then the residential densities will need to be in the 3-6 units per acre range. In the Gateway district we have no problem showing sewer and the related houing ratios. We already have sewer along Schueneman Road and our plan can reflect sewer moving into the northesast part of the city (current R-4, where I live) without pressures to get greater densities. We can leave the golf course as is but keep the plan flexible so that if the golf course decides to go away, we can amend the plan to reflect any future changes. As we move into the western half of Gem Lake Dan likes my "Estate" planning area idea. "Estate" is a preferred term over "Residential" because in Dan's mind, the Met Council thinks of "residential" as more intense housing uses. The term "estate" conjures images of large tracts of land. Again, by naming the western R-1 areas of Gem Lake "estates" without sewers allows the city to avoid the pitfalls of more intense development in our plan right out of the starting gate. If people in this area choose to develop their lands within the 2030 timeframe, we can always amend the plan to reflect any changes in land use. It is important to keep in mind cities amend their comp plans regularly throughout the life of the plan. Gem Lake has not done this in the past, but look at any city council meeting minutes from any given year and you will find comp plan amendments pretty standard fare. Since the comp plan drives zoning, cities will amend their comp plans to allow for a new zoning area as those are presented by developers. A comp plan is to be fluid, not rigid. We also discussed parks and trails and how our plan needs to reflect Gem Lake's trail system as connecting our neighbors trails to each other. Dan is comfortable with our plan of trails around the perimeter of our city as they serve to connect VH, WBL, and WBT to the regional trails and parks in the area. Gem Lake's plan does not need to include a regional park, but rather reflect the overall accessibility to parks and trails via portions of Gem Lake. From our meeting I now have a clear idea of what to include on my two planning commission agendas for January and February. Dan and I also discussed the idea of SEH working with Putman. Dan is willing to do this though he did add that such a meeting may not be really necessary. If Putman is going to charge X thousand dollars for such a meeting, Dan thinks SEH can clarify any issues with Putman via telephone or email. It remains up to the city, but such a meeting may not be really necessary. So there is a recap of our meeting. We met for about an hour on Friday afternoon (Dec. 14). We will meet again in March and finalize the draft SEH will have by then. Since the comp plan is the responsibility of the planning commission, I feel it is my responsibility to guide this process. In my opinion, SEH is on target and has a clear plan for getting the comp plan complete, and I look forward to the coming three months of work. The keys to remember are the http://mailcenter3.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/4763EO8F000965AlOOOOl 8A622155538949B... 12/15/2007