Re_ URGENT_ Proposed Comprehensive Plan 6_20 Planning Commission agenda itemThanks, Mary. I am in a meeting with the League of Minnesota Cities all day, but I wanted to acknowledge receipt your email. Eric Maass will be in touch.
Laurie Hokkanen
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 20, 2023, at 11:37 AM, Mary Sumners <mary.s.sumners@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr Generous, Mr Maas & Ms Hokkanen,
(Mr Maas & Ms Hokkanen, you are included in the address lines to be sure these comments reach the City and Planning Commission before tonight’s meeting as I understand Mr Generous is
out of the office)
I am writing to you as an impacted resident from the proposed changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Crimson Bay Rd that will be discussed at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting.
The proposal is factually inaccurate, is not a true reflection of the circumstances and DOES NOT reflect the desire of Crimson Bay residents. I have spoken to several of my neighbors
and I know that some have already brought this to your attention but, for the avoidance of doubt, I felt it was important to also share my point of view in writing to be part of the
record in case we are unable to speak at the meeting tonight.
The issue is this: The proposal does not reflect the true request and, more importantly, there are errors and omissions in the documentation before the Planning Commission that may
seem to portray a desire for --and a majority opinion in favor of --the unwanted proposed zoning change. Specifically, these issues need to be addressed: the true applicant never
asked for a zoning change in her original letter. We assume the City gave her the language for a separate written request. Secondly, in the final paperwork, three applicants are listed
when there is actually only one applicant, and thirdly, a statement is made that 3 out of 5 residents are requesting a zoning change suggesting that a “majority of residents” are in
favor which is not true.
1. THE ORIGINAL REQUEST DOES NOT ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE BUT ONLY PERMISSION TO SUB-DIVIDE ONE LOT. It is clear that Darlene Hanson, in her hand-written request, is only asking for
the ability to sell off part of her own property. She writes extensively about the fact that her request should be approved because it does not impact her neighbors and that she desires
to maintain the “setting" and “integrity" of the neighborhood. Her desire was not, and is not, intended to impact all of Crimson Bay or speak for a majority of the residents. She
comments several times that she does not believe that approving her request (to sub-divide only her lot) would have any impact to others, going so far as to say that other residents
won’t even SEE a single newly added house next to hers. Her motivation is clearly personal and financial as she writes in her letter. I believe that someone at the City guided her
to the idea of re-zoning the whole street and gave her the language for the separate statement that you are using as the proposal request.
2. THERE ARE NOT REALLY THREE APPLICANTS. Two of my neighbors are mistakenly listed as applicants. There are two additional signatures on the City-drafted request, Rose Mastricola
and Rob Olson. As a result, three names are listed in the final paperwork as “applicants”. The final paperwork actually mistakenly names one of these applicants as Mary Hageman, another
property owner on Crimson Bay Rd. Ms Hageman’s daughter, Jen Graves, who currently resides at the Crimson Bay Rd property, told me that Ms Hageman has never communicated to the City
related to sub-dividing her Crimson Bay Rd property and has not expressed support for Darlene’s request in writing. Ms. Hageman can address her own situation but in my view, her name
should not be included in the public record as an applicant requesting a zoning change. This is just untrue. The other (Rose Mastricola) told me that she did not intend to be listed
as an applicant — she was simply intending to show her support for what we all thought would be a VARIANCE impacting Ms Hanson’s lot only, as, I believe was also the case for Rob Olson.
I know that Rose has already communicated with the City directly about the fact that they are supportive of Darlene’s request to sub-divide but ARE NOT an applicant and ARE NOT in
favor of the City-drafted request involving a complete zoning-change for the whole street. I do not know if Rob Olson has written to clarify his position but Ms Mastricola told me
they share her position.
3. THE STATEMENT THAT A MAJORITY 3 OUT OF 5 RESIDENTS ARE REQUESTING A CHANGE IN ZONING IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE. Per the paragraph above, 2 residents never intended to be applicants
so to say 3 are requesting anything is inaccurate. Furthermore, the City has never communicated with one of the people listed as an applicant. To my knowledge, all owners on Crimson
Bay Rd may be willing to support a variance for Darlene Hanson but they are OPPOSED to the City-drafted version of the request that proposes a zoning change for the whole street. In
addition, the neighboring properties that I spoke to (listed below) are also opposed and gave me permission to include their names in this letter.
In summary, I do not believe that the information package going before the Planning Commission is an accurate or true reflection of the circumstances or aligned with the original request.
It should not be used to make any decisions. It is certainly not aligned with the desire of the residents.
There is no other rationale for making the zoning change and my view is that this proposal should be redrafted as a request for a variance on a single lot (maintaining the existing
large lot zoning for Crimson Bay Rd). Darlene Hanson wants to sub-divide her lot. There is nothing in our association documents that speaks to the topic of lot size. The large-lot
zoning, however, requires a minimum of 2.5 acres so we understand that her request needs to come before the Commission but it should be before you as a variance. The residents are
supportive of the variance for Darlene Hanson but all of us have communicated to her that our support is conditional on the fact that her request does not impact the rest of us. We
are all OPPOSED to a zoning change for the whole street and request that the Planning Commission REJECT this proposal as factually inaccurate and that the City redraft the proposal
as a variance for consideration.
Kindly,
Mary & Greg Sumners
7620 Crimson Bay Rd.
612-382-1699
Others on the notice list who have communicated that they are OPPOSED to the proposed zoning change:
Rose & Jack Mastricola — 7640 Crimson Bay Rd
Jen & Michael Graves — 7660 Crimson Bay Rd
Rob & Calli Olson — 7680 Crimson Bay Rd
Joe & Melissa Biller — 7580 Dogwood Rd
Derek & Jen Gearman — 7600 Dogwood Rd
Rob & Wendy Duff — 3341 78th St W
onClick" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "EWSLibletCalls" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "DeepLinkingCheck" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "DeepLinkingDocumentOpen" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "DeepLinkingDocumentShowTrus
tUI" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "DeepLinkingTrustResult" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "EwsLastUpdateStatusItemClick" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "EwsLastUpdateStatusItemShown" : { "EventFlag"
: 256 }, "Gen1ActivityAggregatedBaseSubrule" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "Gen1ActivityAggregatedFailureCount" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "Gen1ActivityAggregatedSuccessCountWithTag" : { "EventFlag"
: 256 }, "ODPAppManagementMenu" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPInsertionDialog" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPParseNewManifestError" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPRecommendedGalleryClick"
: { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPRibbonBridgeRibbonClick" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPSandboxActivation" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "OEPManifestParsing" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "RibbonButtonClick"
: { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "StoreUserStatus" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "StoreUserStatusError" : { "EventFlag" : 256 }, "ODPActivationForTaga55rq" : { "EventFlag" : 48896 }, "ODPLatency"
: { "EventFlag" : 48896 } } }