Loading...
09/05/02 LCEC AgP Notice Land Conservation & Environment Committee Will meet Thursday, 5 September, 2002 At 5:45 P.M. at Shorewood City Hall 5735 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 A G E N D A 1. Approval of Minutes of August 27, 2002 2. Review Draft conservation Open Space Plan 3. Schedule Next Meeting 4. Adjournment Notice Land Conservation & Environment Committee Will meet Thursday, 5 September, 2002 At 5:45 P.M. at Shorewood City Hall 5735 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of August 27, 2002 2. Review Draft Conservation Open Space Plan • 3. Schedule Next Meeting 4. Adjournment • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD LAND CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMITTEE (LCEC) MEETING 5:45 P.M. TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2002 MINUTES CONVENE LAND CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Commissioner Woodruff called the meeting to order at 6:06 P.M. A. Roll Call A Present: Committee Members Woodruff, Kircher, Pim, and Downs; ii ` i4 , Consultant Dan Dickel; Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Committee Member Ranallo and Berndt; and City Council Liaisoi Mayor Love 1. Approval of Minutes of August 13, 2002 Woodruff asked to have Commissioner Berndt included under the absent section of the roll call. Nielsen noted that Chair Schmid had resigned his position. • Downs moved, Kircher seconded, Approving the Minutes of the August 13, 2002 meeting as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. Reports Kircher reported that she had received 4-5 nominations for Garden awards since spring. She added that Julie Moore would be able to provide the Committee with photos for further judging. Woodruff suggested an article be submitted to the newsletter explaining what the LCEC has accomplished since its inception. She believed that much had been achieved over the past three years and felt the community should see what the LCEC has done and what it's goals were. Downs encouraged the Committee to communicate and educate City residents with regard to conservation open space and easements. Woodruff stated that attaining 6-7 parcels or easements has been a remarkable achievement. Kircher stated that 350 compost bins distributed throughout the City was also a tremendous feat. 3. Review Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Land Inventory Consultant Dickel distributed a rough draft of his Environmental Review and Recommendation of Open, Developing and Underdeveloped Land in the City of Shorewood to obtain comments from the Committee. He reviewed the summary and different classifications and acreages within Shorewood. • Overall, there are approximately 3,600 total acres in Shorewood. Of which, Dickel noted 350.84 acres are open space with no further development in the zone and a total of 987.1 acres of open space land in general. Reflected total land in the database and maps are 1,342.82 acres. • Dickel noted in his summary that there are large natural areas of wetlands, adequately protected, with some recommendations made to assist in, or enhance the protection and/or restoration of some of the them. With regard to environmental recommendations and considerations, Dickel reviewed the issues of exotics, canopy, and wetlands during the last LCEC meeting. Under general recommendations, he suggested that Shorewood should stand ready to join in a metro wide effort of support for a legislative initiative to offer property tax credits for donors of pivotal properties who participate in conservation easements. In the interim, Dickel encouraged the City of Shorewood to create a program that might offer to purchase easements under certain circumstances. Although it would be hoped that most owners might consider providing an easement without an incentive, in order to protect certain natural features, Dickel pointed out it might be prudent to have the ability to buy an easement. With regard to property recommendations, Dickel maintained that, of all the properties reviewed, the one block of properties that stand out, as very unique and outstanding community resources are # 98, 99, 100, 101, and 102. Representing a total of 33.853 acres. Privately held land by the Ridinger's and Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. I Across Smithtown Road from the above-mentioned properties, are three privately held properties, #90, 91, and 92, a total of 8.04 acres that front Lake Minnetonka. While this land would, no doubt, be very expensive, it presents the opportunity for a community access to the lake. Beyond these, Dickel noted that the Minnetonka Country Club, #455, represents another large, open land with a current recreational use. And finally, Carmichiels Junkyard, #16, 314, 349, 45, represent the potential for contamination as a • brownfield. Dickel suggested that two task forces be formed to, first, explore the possibilities with the Country Club owner to keep in tact as much green space as possible, and second, work with the Carmichiel owners and MPCA to determine what can be done about a possible clean-up strategy. The database itself was broken down into many categories; by map number, classification, open land, possible development, City owned land, City owned parks, conservation easements, no further development, Hennepin County forfeited land, and noted parcels. Committee Comments Woodruff asked what would need to be done to obtain the Hennepin County forfeited land. Nielsen stated that the City attorney indicated that in order to take forfeited land, the City needs to have a legitimate public purpose, of which conservation open space is acceptable. Woodruff inquired who would be responsible for the back taxes. Dickel pointed out that many times the assessments are City driven, and can be excused once the City obtains rights to the property. Nielsen pointed out that, with regard to the forfeited land, the City needs to evaluate where they are located and if they connect to anything. Nielsen stated that, in his opinion, high priority should be given to obtaining the conservation easements • surrounding the Gideon Glen project, in essence doubling its size. He pointed out that Gideon Glen will contain a series of water quality improvement features with an interpretive trail designed for education, however, the Watershed District has recently indicated that they don't believe the grit chamber is a • necessary addition to the project. Pini maintained that a grit chamber is much easier to clean sediment out of than the nur pond or wetland, and cautioned against its removal. Dickel stated that it was the MCWD engineering department's recommendation that the grit chamber be removed. Dickel handed out self-addressed stamped envelopes and encouraged the Committee members to send him any additional comments or thoughts for inclusion in the report. 4. Review Conservation Open space Plan Nielsen reiterated the need to complete the final LCEC report as promised to the City Council. He indicated that further definition and distinction need to be made with regard to conservation open space versus active or recreation space. Nielsen distributed a rough draft of the LCEC summary and information adopted from the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that many natural resource and land use policies and objectives already exist and can be incorporated to the final report. With regard to specific Land Conservation Policies, Nielsen explained that much would be compiled by the City to assist property owners in donating land or granting conservation easements. Dickel suggested that, in addition to the resource library, the City could compile a list of professionals who are versed in conservation and easements to act as advisors to potential donors. • Nielsen indicated that the City needs to be extremely cautious, recommending professionals, so as not to appear bias in any fashion. He did acknowledge that a list of legal advisors supplied by the American Bar Association could be an acceptable alternative. Nielsen stated that, while the City will supply resources to landowners, they would likely refer them to representatives of the Land Trust or Nature Conservancy, etc. The last thing the City wants is to look as if they want to grab people's land for their own purposes. He added that much of Dickel's final text would be incorporated into the LCEC report. Pini asked for further explanation of the Owners and Encumbrances (O&E) Report. Nielsen explained that the City does not want to be burdened by accepting any liabilities that might accompany a donation. Similar to a brief version of a title search. Dickel noted that, furthermore, a Phase I Environmental Report should be considered for inclusion in certain situations and cost no more than $1,500. Downs stated that these are effective baseline investigative reports of past land uses. Nielsen indicated that the City will likely have to front the money for that cost and hopefully recoup those from available grant dollars. Dickel noted that EPA grants do exist and agreed this would be a good item to include on the check off list for certain properties. Nielsen stated that the O&E Report only runs about $100 and would be well worth the investment for the • city. With regard to Land Conservation Policies, item #2, Nielsen maintained that in order to attain high • quality open space a small financial stipend or incentive could be invaluable. Item #3, the consideration of public access to open space must be given. With regard to referendum, Nielsen pointed out that, in his opinion, in order for greater public buy-in, people might want to have access to see what it is they are preserving. Woodruff felt that open space development and access must be limited to minor trails by definition. Nielsen stated that the policies as reviewed were merely a part of the initial stage, and admitted that there would be others as the process continued. Appendix A and B would be added later. Nielsen stated that the number of parcels that have been singled out thus far have been relatively few, and asked if the LCEC saw a need to create a list of criteria when considering adding to that list. Downs stated that he felt the list had been created already between the Dickel report and environmental summary supplied at the last meeting. Dickel concurred stating that it is noted that there is a shortage of natural areas in Shorewood. Downs stated that it was unlikely to him the LCEC would recommend purchasing any land other than what had been prioritized thus far. Nielsen acknowledged that there might be some criteria deemed more valuable than others when • evaluating parcels. Pini agreed that it could be valid to make a statement of what characteristics might be viewed as more valuable when reviewing parcels. A worksheet containing pros and cons could be an evaluative tool to guide or prioritize properties. Downs suggested a priority ranking based on certain criteria in the environmental summary. Kircher asked if the City should eliminate a parcel just because of it's past history. Dickel stated that a parcel would need to be an extremely severe case in order for federal or county funding to reclaim forfeiture for clean up. Nielsen continued and questioned the element of education. While setting up the resource library is step one in the education process, Nielsen felt further effort was warranted. He suggested articles in the newsletter, which publicize contributions of land, and donations of conservation easements were beneficial in educating the public. Downs stated that he was unaware that the process would continue through joint efforts of the other commissions. He believed there to be a great opportunity to educate the community once the priorities were set. Downs urged the City to investigate partnerships with organizations to further this commitment, providing links, the website, newsletter, who ever else could make a difference. Kircher suggested continuing to hold open houses, tree care clinics, shoreline seminars, or monthly group • meetings. Dickel pointed out that the education element would provide a great opportunity to link with the extension • services to promote joint efforts. He further encouraged community partnerships with neighboring communities to advance the overall improvement of the lakes area. Nielsen indicated that there were many organizations out there that were better equipped, staffed, and more knowledgeable to handle some of this. He felt the arboretum or watershed may already offer some of these educational opportunities for the public but may merely need to be publicized. Woodruff pointed out that governmental agencies are more than willing to help with education and she felt getting the entire lakes communities involved in this effort would be highly effective. Dickel suggested there was value in creating a database of people resources. Nielsen felt that by building a conservation link into the City's website, Shorewood could hook up landowners with the appropriate conservation resource. Woodruff, once again, suggested providing the public with a wrap up of the LCEC's accomplishments in a newsletter article. She stated that, from Dickel's summary and review alone there were many good topics for future newsletter articles. Nielsen concurred stating that an LCEC corner could be continued in the newsletter to keep its focus in the forefront of people's minds. 5. Schedule Next Meeting • Nielsen explained that the City Council would be meeting in work session on September 9, 2002 and would like a rough draft of the final LCEC report at that time. Nielsen stated that prior to that meeting, the LCEC members should be given the opportunity to review the draft themselves. September 5, 2002, 5:45 P.M. was scheduled for a rough draft review meeting. Followed by a meeting on September 16, 5:45 P.M. as final discussion and review before the City Council adopts the final draft. Nielsen invited representatives of the LCEC to attend the September 23, 2002 City Council Meeting when the final draft is adopted. 6. Adjournment Kircher moved, Pini seconded, adjourning the LCEC Meeting of August 27, 2002, at 7:22 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary •