Loading...
10/03/02 LCEC AgP Notice Land Conservation & Environment Committee Will meet Thursday, 3 October, 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 September 5, 2002 2. Review Draft conservation Open Space Plan 3. Adjournment Notice Land Conservation & Environment Committee Will meet Thursday, 3 October, 2002 At 5:45 P.M. at Shorewood City Hall 5735 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes of September 5, 2002 2. Review Draft conservation Open Space Plan 3. Adjournment • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • LAND CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL CHAMBERS_ COMMITTEE (LCEC) MEETING 5:45 P.M. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2002 MINUTES ItA CONVENE LAND CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEE. afT Commissioner Woodruff called the meeting to order at 5:57 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Committee Members Woodruff, Kircher, Berndt, Ranallo, and Downs; Consultant Dan Dickel; Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Committee Member Pini; and City Council Liaison Mayor Love 1. Approval of August 27, 2002 LCEC Minutes Downs moved, Kircher seconded, to approve the LCEC Regular Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2002 as submitted. Motion passed 3/0/2, with Ranallo and Berndt abstaining. 2. Review Draft Conservation Open Space Plan • Nielsen presented Part I, the Conservation Open Space Plan for the City of Shorewood, after Consultant Dickel discussed changes made to Appendix A, the Environmental Review and Recommendation of Open, Developing and Undeveloped Land in the City of Shorewood. To begin with, Dickel pointed out minor changes on p.3, changing Lake Victoria to Lake Virginia, and the word Appendix to Exhibits on the last line of the same page. Changes to p.5 included the removal of the cemetery reference altogether, and the addition of the word land in the first line of the last paragraph. Dickel questioned removing the last line on p. 6, which referred to a University of Illinois study, the only scientific study of its kind, demonstrating that areas of greater canopy statistically have lower crime rates, particularly violent crimes, when compared to treeless areas of equal demographics. The final change Dickel referred to was on p. 11, in which Carmichaels junkyard was changed to Carmichaels Auto Salvage Yard. Downs questioned the legality of identifying Carmichaels as an operation with the potential for strong problems on its site due to its past history. He asked if the City had any data to support that case. Dickel stated that there is data based on site characterizations that happen along with Phase I sites, as well as, conversations with Carmichael himself who relayed information regarding the early history of the site prior to containment in which there was open junking, cutting of cars on site, etc. Based on other locations in the past, with a similar length of service, there have been contamination and leakage from car antifreeze, break fluid, and transmission fluids, typically. Downs stated that the concern he has, when this becomes public, is whether the City runs the risk that Carmichael might consider this libel. Dickel felt that by saying the potential itself is strong for problems • on this site, when in fact Carmichael has said he is aware that there are issues and he's been working with MPCA about it, (although there hasn't been a formal Phase I performed) is legitimate. • Nielsen stated that in the Comp Plan they refer to the environmental concerns surrounding this parcel based on its past history. As a matter of fact, there have been some studies performed related to the wetland on the property that have proven inconclusive at best. Dickel indicated that the study was prompted by individuals who at this site, had caught z-back fish, where the spine is deformed typical of fish that have been exposed to distillates or contamination runoff. Dickel stated that he could remove the word strong from the text, and just say that there is potential for problems at the site. Dickel maintained that, if the City is asking for his opinion, his opinion is that not only is there a strong probability, but based on its history and site use, and what he knows of the site, he would lay odds that there is a pretty strong chance there are going to be problems. Dickel stated that the salvage yard used to be a quarry, which they started filling with junk cars many many years ago, cutting them up, and sending the scrap metal to processors in Minneapolis. That alone, indicated to him, that the propensity is very high for problems. Woodruff asked how long containment had occurred. Dickel indicated that containment began about ten years ago, after fifty years of non-containment. Based on site use histories, put out by the EPA, virtually all gas stations tested that were in existence for ten years or more, all had leakage because they all used metal tanks, and 100% of metal tanks had leakage. Nielsen stated that he had met with Carmichaels nephew, who is interested in building townhomes on the property, and knows it is going to take a Phase II study at least. • Dickel noted that on p. 12 he added the recommendation to create a voluntary corps of representatives or task force as an extension of the Shorewood staff with regard to Carmichaels. Woodruff questioned whether the impact milfoil has had on the lake and the environment should be a part of the study. Dickel indicated that his focus was land related. Nielsen stated that the DNR and LMCD are already actively researching the affects of milfoil. Kircher asked if a statement with regard to development and its impacts should be added to the study. Dickel pointed out that there are recommendations made within the study with regard to development. Nielsen maintained that the objective is not to stop development altogether, however, by managing development there is hope that the water runoff and erosion concerns will be addressed as well. Dickel indicated that in any hydrological study or impact assessment it is clear that impervious surface anywhere shifts the water out, therefore, drainage should be a priority in any development. Furthermore, Dickel reiterated the importance of holding on to the Ridinger property in order to maintain the original quality of life in Shorewood, and institute tree heritage programs. Berndt stated that this summer had truly been a benchmark season with regard to water, runoff, and erosion. She asked if the City could provide citizens with information regarding the effects of runoff, especially, when neighbors build homes, which accentuate the problem, directing water flow off of newly created impervious surfaces. • Nielsen indicated that when there are legitimate concerns, that can be supported, these should be heard at public hearings the City holds. If there is new information regarding development, not just objections, people need to come to public hearings. Oftentimes, Nielsen noted, the public does not care until • something is in their own backyard. Dickel believed the community will still have questions, even when information is available to them in the newsletter and on the website. Berndt maintained that people need to stay informed. She asked if the newsletter did a good enough job informing people that it is their responsibility to be involved and informed. Nielsen stated that the City and staff do their best to provide the opportunity for people to comment and they simply don't care enough. Nielsen added that not enough people realize that a public hearing is not simply a place to take a vote, seldom do people come prepared, having done their homework on an issue. Conservation Open Space Plan for the City of Shorewood Nielsen explained that p. 13, section IV, is an outline of the Implementation stage of the LCEC Report. Within the report itself, Nielsen indicated there are areas that reflect the Comprehensive Plan, specifics related to certain policies, and recommendation for expansion of policy. Berndt asked what the floodplain for the area was. Nielsen stated that 931.0 is the elevation for Lake Minnetonka. Due to the continued series of storms this year, and not the severity of storms, the soil maximums have been met. He indicated that a separate floodplain ordinance will be designed to address development. • With regard to development, Nielsen noted that the City is always reviewing their ordinances, for example, a new restriction for residential properties that are non shoreland properties has been adopted to meet a new standard of 33%, for drainage purposes and concern over mansionization. This is a further effort to keep scale in check. Downs suggested that p. 2 and 3 of the comprehensive goals and objectives, #1-9 of the natural resource policies, and select item numbers be bulleted for easier comprehension. Furthermore, he recommended a way to differentiate the recommendations section, other than numbering as well. Nielsen indicated that he would renumber the policy points to make them clear and clarify the next section by using letters of a qualifying opening paragraph. Downs questioned how the City could be further challenged to continued to provide community education. Nielsen pointed out that this would be added to the Implementation section of the report. He asked the Committee what more should be done, and suggested that a quarterly article run in the newsletter regarding land conservation in order to keep the effort alive. Downs handed Nielsen several resources and article idea starters for the newsletter. He indicated that many resources are publicly available which can be almost inserted in the newsletter as is. Berndt encouraged staff to feature LCEC accomplishments in the newsletter, acknowledging where the grassroots phosphorous free lawn fertilizer campaign began, the open houses, Gideon Glen, and • conservation easement efforts. Nielsen agreed that there was a need for someone to carry on and implement these plans after the LCEC • disbands. He suggested an ad hock volunteer group made up of representatives from each existing commission be assembled to provide follow-up. Woodruff voiced her concern that the environmental piece of the LCEC will not get done. The efforts related to rain barrels, composting bins, phidoremediation, etc. She feared what would happen to these projects and who would further them without the LCEC and staff personnel. Nielsen stated that, in the beginning of the LCEC, no one was an expert in conservation, they have learned a great deal and the environmental projects have been phenomenal. He hoped that the ad hock group of representatives would continue in this vein. Kircher concurred, stating that individuals will continue to provide stewardship. Dickel suggested that a marketing theme be employed emphasizing the hesitation for change, a heading could be created in which to run environmental and conservation articles. Something like, control the change, as a heading that people would recognize. Downs stated that, while he believed the ad hock group would have no problem focusing on land conservation, he didn't believe they would continue with the environmental side of the LCEC's efforts. Downs asked if the City couldn't just allow interested parties to join in the effort in order to continue the education. Nielsen asked if such a group would need staff representation and direction. • Berndt suggested the current LCEC group stay in contact with one another and email ideas informally back and forth to further pet projects. Dickel reiterated that by marketing all the different topics under one familiar heading or theme, collaborative efforts would be favorable. Downs stated that he would be interested in participating in a group to further the implementation process. Ranallo liked the idea of meeting informally when emailed about a particular idea or project. Nielsen asked if there was a way in which they could draw out these kinds of ideas from residents. Berndt asked what kind of response the City gets when it puts a question out to residents on the website or newsletter. She recommended running a series of "did you know" articles explaining efforts of the LCEC and where to go next. Ranallo questioned the way in which people could propose projects to the City and a way to judge their viability. Nielsen inquired how one projects were proposed they would be accomplished without the LCEC. He stated that he could see value in having an LCEC type group in order to get something done, otherwise who would spearhead an effort. Better yet, Nielsen pointed out the City would be likely to pursue a project if several people approached them with the idea. • Kircher cautioned that there is a fine line between stewardship and commercialism. • Nielsen asked if it would work to keep this group together in some fashion. Although the sunset date has passed, when a project arises, Nielsen questioned whether members would be willing to be pulled together once again. He asked how, as a group, they would react to this proposal. Woodruff questioned how staff would be involved. Nielsen stated that, if it were on an occasional basis, it could work. Berndt pointed out that, even after four months of nonmeetings, here they were today. Woodruff concurred, stating that there is a corps of people here who want to be involved, and the City would be remiss if they let this opportunity pass them by. Nielsen stated that his original recommendation was going to be an ad hock group of Commission or present representatives, however, if this group is open to be involved, he would add that to the report. Downs indicated that he could see that work. If there were a mission, like a need to meet with citizens regarding conservation easements, Downs felt the committee would be willing to help with that effort. Kircher suggested interviewing members of the LCEC to identify their areas of interest or expertise in relation to this effort. Nielsen invited Committee members to attend an Open House regarding Planning Districts on September 24, from 5-7 P.M. • Ranallo left at 7:31 P.M. Downs corrected p.9 to read the West side of Smithtown Road. Nielsen asked the Committee for their thoughts on including an example of the costs associated with obtaining a conservation parcel based on market values of $100,000 per acre. For instance, the Ridinger property, although a portion was only assessed at $96,000, multiply that by 17 acres, the City is looking at $1.7 million to purchase this property. Downs questioned putting the actual assessed value in the report and suggested using general per acre terms. Dickel stated that by including those figures, one presupposes that the City will have to buy the property versus getting a donation for part of it. He encouraged the City to contact Mrs. Ridinger as soon as possible to further discuss the opportunities. He believed the overall value detracted from the purpose. Nielsen reminded the Committee that the City currently has 0$ for conservation, although he will be working to encourage the City Council to begin setting aside a budget for seed money. Dickel asked if Nielsen believed a referendum would be successful. Nielsen cautioned that even a referendum needs to be sold to the public in order to gain support. • Dickel pointed out that obtaining the whole amount may not be necessary by referendum, but merely for a portion. He indicated that other sources for funding exist, options, loans, or seed money from organizations designed to assist City's by putting up the money to buy conservation land so that it doesn't • end up in development, and allowing City's years to repay the loans. Dickel believed the Ridinger property to be an ideal example where outside organizations would happily save it from development. 3. Schedule Next Meeting September 16, 2002, at 5:45 P.M. will be the next LCEC work session. September 23, 2002, the City Council will meet, finalization and adoption of the report is expected. Nielsen encouraged all LCEC members to be present. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Kristi B. Anderson Recording Secretary • •