Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 09-24 600 CMWAMENDED AGENDA CITY COUNCIUMANAGER WORKSHOP Monday, September 24 2007 Council Chambers, City Hall 6:00 p.m. • exel :4 51 B. ROLL CALL C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. NEW BUSINESS I • q 11 1. Maplewood Open Space Protection Plan F. ADJOURNMENT Council Manager Workshop TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager FROM: Chuck /\hL Director Df Engineering and Public Works GiOOV Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist SUBJECT: City Council Work Shop — Discussion of Conservation Easements DATE: September 14.2007 Earlier this year, M8o|Hvvo0d hired K8inn9GVtG Land Trust to work with the City and explore the Use of conservation easements 8So land protection tool for the Maplewood Neighborhood PneSeneS. K8S. Sarah Stn2[nnlenfnJrn k8iDnRsOtG Land Trust has been working with the City bJdetermine if conservation easements are 8 viable land protection tool for the Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves. Currently protection tools for the preserves 8n8: public ownership, public support for the preserves, and an ordinance requiring 84-1 majority and 3 public meetings if the city wants to sell one of the parcels. On August 14 Strommen and Ginny Gaynor did a presentation on the Neighborhood Preserves and conservation easements for Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation ConnnniSsion, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and Open Space Technical Advisory Committee. |n addition, on August 27,2OO7 Ms. Stn][nnl8n and Ms. Gaynor provided the City Council with @D overview Of k88p|8vvOOd'S Neighborhood Preserves and conservation easements. Attached iS8proposal from Minnesota Land Trust for review by the City Council to continue working with the City and begin the evaluation and discussion process as it concerns possible sites that might be candidates for conservation easements. The proposal focuses on the four sites that have master plans (Priory, Applewood, Joy Park, Beaver Creek) as well 83 Jim's Prairie. The master plans for these preserve were created through 8 pnJC83s that included public input regarding [8Cr88dODG| uS8 type of trails, 8QD8Oiti8S. as well as restoration and rn8n8g8nnRnL Thus, the master plans will serve as a guide in the development of the conservation 88senn8nL. The remaining Neighborhood Preserves have not yet undergone the master planning pnJ&8sS and are not included in this phase Of the project. DISCUSSION |D her presentation tO commissions and City Council, Ms. StR}[DnlGm explained that there ia@O array Ofland protection tools available to the City and vvR need k} select the appropriate tool for each site. Conservation easements are the best tool for specific sites that vv8 want k] protect forever aS conservation land. They are not the proper tool ifvve need flexibility in the future. There are two main issues tnconsider. 1 Determining the right tool. Ms. Strommen's expertise and role is to help the City understand conservation easements and why this k}o| may or may not work for 8 particular site. [)Vhng meetings with various c0rnnnisG|0mers Ul8ne was o strong C8U for taking time to look at other land protection tOO|S. such 83 3upenn johtv vote, no-net loss policies, and zoning. Some commissioners wanted to better understand the other options before pursuing conservation easements. Staff believes conservation easements are G tool we should pursue for some of our Neighborhood Pr8S8nv8S. But we see value in broadening the discussion so everyone better understands the other land protection tools—what each tool can or cannot do and the pros and cons Vfeach. Staff would like to secure stronger protection for all the Neighborhood Preserves, not just those that are appropriate for conservation easements. Staff also supports developing management plans for each 0fthe neighborhood preserves and identifying funding sources to implement these plans. The Environment and Natural Resources Commission and the Park Commission reviewed the Conservation Easement issue and are both recommending that the Council proceed with Minnesota Land Trust to investigate conservation easements 8S@ possible tool. The Planning Commission will bG reviewing this issue OD September 18 m 2 Flexibility vs. permanence Ms. StnommeD asked commissioners and council members to think carefully about the need for permanence vs. flexibility. Can vve know today what our needs will bein5Uor75years? Conservation easements will permanently restrict developing the land. VV8 need to carefully consider the ramifications Vf restricting future |8nU use. Over the past 15 years, Maplewood has seen 8n evolution iO thinking about what open space iSall about, especially regarding trails and the need for restoration and management. Staff believes that in the coming years there will be continued change in philosophy, as well as an increase in scientific knowledge (both social sciences and natural sciences), regarding urban natural areas. |ti3important that we have enough flexibility to incorporate future philosophies that make sense for Maplewood. Having said that, staff believes there are now five sites, and will possibly Le several more, that are so valuable as conservation areas or nature parks that the city should consider permanent conservation 8GSe[nSDtS. We believe a city of the size of Maplewood must reserve high-quality amenities such as these open spaces and b8 willing b] preserve, pn}L8[t, restore and manage them forever. Staff recommends that the City Council approve Minnesota's Land Trust Proposal. The monies tO pay for this proposal are recommended to come from PAC proceeds. In approving this proposal, staff also recommends that the City Council review other land protection tools to ensure adequate protection for those Neighborhood Pr8G9nxeG.vvhichm8ynVtU|Unn8L8k/be8ppnJpriat8[0r protection under 8 conservation easement. Attachment: 1. Proposal from Minnesota Land Trust Open Space Protection Plan Proposal for Phase 2: Implementation City of Maplewood September 24, 2007 Prepared by: The Minnesota Land Trust 2356 University Avenue West Suite 240 St. Pau(, MN 55114 651- 647 -9590 I. Background and Purpose The city of Maplewood is a first -ring Twin Cities suburb located near the convergence of several major interstates and highways to the cast of St. Paul. The City's central location made it a desirable place for development of both commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. Concerned over the fast pace of development, Maplewood residents in 1993 approved a $5 million referendum to acquire and set aside open space. The acquisition process was overseen by a citizen Open Space Committee. The Committee inventoried potential sites, completed an assessment process to prioritize and rank sites, and ultimately selected sites to be acquired. The result of that effort is seen today in the City's 14 Neighborhood Preserves (see attached map). Neighborhood Preserves are distinct from City parks, which are characterized by more active recreational use. The purpose of the Neighborhood Preserves is: The Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves were set aside by and for the citizens of Maplewood to preserve natural resources, scenic areas, and landscape buffers, They are protected natural areas where people can enhance their understanding and enjoyment of the natural world through passive -use activities such as nature study and hiking. (Maplewood Neighborhood Preserves Statement of Purpose and Policy, 2.26.01) To that end, the City has developed management or master plans that address restoration, management, recreation, access, and amenities for most of the Neighborhood Preserves. Management of the Neighborhood Preserves is coordinated through the City's Public Works Department and Parks and Nature Center program. Recently, however, the City began considering whether and how to address permanent protection of the Preserves in that planning process. The goals for this project were to: • Determine whether conservation easements are a potential tool to achieve permanent protection of the Neighborhood Preserves. • Develop a proposal for implementing conservation easements on the Preserves. 1Q. Proposal Determine whether conservation easements are a potential tool to achieve permanent protection of the Neighborhood Preserves. 1 ICIINN ESOTA ta��p 7"r€rrs'r This portion of the project involved two informational worksessions with the City Council, one joint informational session with members of the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, and Open Space Task Force, and numerous meetings with City staff. It also involved preliminary site visits of the Neighborhood Preserves as well as a review of the various planning and management documents available. Following the joint informational sessions with Commission members, each of the Commissions determined that conservation easements are a potential tool for the City of Maplewood and recommended continuing to explore how the tool might best be used in the context of the City's Neighborhood Preserves. City and Minnesota Land Trust staff also believe that conservation easements are an appropriate Iand protection tool for the City of Maplewood to explore and implement. The following summarizes the Land Trust's recommendation for moving forward. Develop a proposal for implementing conservation easements. Because the Minnesota Land Trust accepts only permanent conservation easements, once completed, the easement will forever restrict the future use and development of the land and protect its natural or scenic features for generations to come. However, the permanence of this commitment requires that the easement document be written with a great deal of care and detail. Therefore, conservation easements can best and most easily be crafted when the future vision and goals for the land are clear. The Neighborhood Preserves have received differing levels of analysis and planning. While all sites have had a basic site analysis at a minimum, many sites have had more detailed site analyses, interim management plans, or even master plans. Master plans provide the best template for conservation easement drafting because they provide the highest level of detail for future use and development. Furthermore, master plans typically involve at least some level of public involvement and thus reflect the sentiment of the community. In Maplewood, four Neighborhood Preserves (Priory, Beaver Creels, Joy Park, and Applewood) have master plans. It is our recommendation to continue to explore conservation easements on these four sites as a set of "Tier I" projects. We also recommend including Jim's Prairie as Tier 1 project because of the site's ecological importance and because it is a key component of a larger corridor along with Priory and Beaver Creek. 2 l M I N N Ls o °rn LAND Tausr We recommend evaluating the remaining sites at a later date as "Tier 2" projects. It also is important to note that we have removed the Trout Brook Preserve from the list since the City is not the fee title owner of that site. The table below summarizes the recommended Tier for each project, as well as any special issues that will need to be discussed and resolved during the process. These issues are in addition to the proposed terms discussed below in Section IV. Site Tier Issues to be discussed /resolved Priory 1 We will need to determine whether the easement should require some minimum level of management. Jim's I Active management is essential to Prairie maintaining the ecological and habitat value of Jim's Prairie. We will need to determine whether the easement should require some minimum level of management. Beaver 1 Need to review DNR involvement Creek with this site. Joy Park 1 Joy Park has existing restrictions on its use as public open space. These restrictions will require additional legal review to determine whether a conservation easement is redundant or adds value as a protection tool. Applewood 1 We will need to determine whether the easement should require some minimum level of management, Nature 2 Need to resolve issue with cemetery Center and environmental issues. Prairie 2 Need to address the farm buildings. Farm Gladstone 2 Complete detailed design for improvements. Carver 2 Need public master planning p rocess. Kohlman 2 Need public master planning Creek rocess. Spoon 2 Need public master planning Lake process. Fisher's 2 Need public master planning Corner process. Hidden 2 Need further evaluation of Marsh conservation value. 3. . " MANOTRUST i I1VNIis ©°rn 111. Process The following outlines the general steps that make up the conservation easement process. Task Responsibility Timeline Review /Establish Goals City staff, Commissions, Completed • Maintain character of City Council with community by assistance from the Land providing visual Trust contrast to development • Provide opportunities for low impact recreation, outdoor education, interaction with nature • Restore and maintain habitat for the diversity of the City's plants and animals Resource /Data Review Land Trust with November assistance from City staff GIS Mapping Ci staff October - December Prioritization and City staff, Commissions, October - January Selection of Sites to be City Council with Protected with assistance from the Land Conservation Easement Trust Title Review Land Trust attorney and October - December City attorne Review/Finalize Terms City and Land Trust November-Janua Approval of Terms and City and Land Trust December - January Commitment Letter Legal Review Land Trust attorney and January -March • Drafting review City attorney Survey work if necessary) Ci Approval of Easement City and Land Trust March -April Document Baseline Reports Land Trust March-April Recording Land Trust May-June _ 4 M INNESOTA l..�i�n I`If l35'I IV. Proposed Terms Each conservation easement completed by the Minnesota Land Trust is unique. Each is crafted to protect the conservation values of each special parcel of land as well as meet the goals of each individual landowner and the Land Trust. The Minnesota Land Trust accepts only permanent conservation easements. Once completed, the easement will forever restrict the future use and development of the land and protect its natural or scenic features for generations to come. It represents an important commitment by both the landowner and the Land Trust. The importance and permanence of this commitment require that the easement document be written with a great deal of care and detail. While typically the Minnesota Land Trust works with private landowners, the Land Trust does hold a number of conservation easements on public land. Detailed discussions about the goals for protection and future use of each Neighborhood Preserve will occur during Phase iI (Implementation) of this project, however, the following summarizes the typical components of a Minnesota Land Trust conservation easement and proposes a starting place for discussing potential easement terms for Maplewood's neighborhood preserves. Land Use Restrictions & Rights Detail Industrial or commercial use Prohibited. Agricultural use Prohibited — this includes cultivation, forestry, livestock ... g razing or animal husbandry. Residential use and development Prohibited. Structures and improvements All permanent and temporary buildings, structures, fences, docks and other improvements must be specifically addressed to be allowed. Often these structures are subject to restrictions on Iocation and size. Rely on park master plan where available. Specifically, will need to address Nature Center and Historic Farm facilities. Utilities Utilities are allowed to serve those activities permitted by the easement but otherwise Limited. 5 MITI ROTA t..ANi) TRus`r Division of the property Prohibited. Density Prohibit transfer of development ri hts to another property. Rights of way Access across the property to develop adjacent land is typically rohibited. Mining Prohibited. Signs Small, unlighted signs for informational or interpretive purposes are typically allowed. Would need to address entry signs if appro riate. Roads and trails Locations of new and existing roads or driveways, if any, must be addressed. Unpaved paths or foot trails are typically allowed without restriction. Would need to address where paved trails are appropriate. Surface alteration Alteration of the natural topography or surface of the land is limited as much as possible. Vegetation and habitat Management of natural vegetation management to improve its habitat values always is allowed, though often subject to an approved management plan. Would need to discuss whether restoration and management should be required. Water Alteration of natural water bodies and wetlands, or actions detrimental to water quality are rohibited. Dumping No trash or other unsightly material is allowed on the ro erl . Vehicles Typically allowed only on authorized roads or driveways or in conjunction with otherwise authorized activities (i.e. habitat restoration or management). Focus on prohibiting erosion or 6 I �vMiNNLSOTA W "MI R LAM) Taus r Additionally, each easement document will include numerous legal provisions necessary to ensure the long -term viability and enforceability of the easement. Many of these provisions are governed by state and federal law. V. Costs Costs are determined based on the number of parcels and the complexity of specific terms. Cost of completing Tier l projects: Initial project costs $15,000 • Property evaluation - initial site visit(s) • Project planning, design, easement negotiation and drafting, review and closing • Transactional costs • Baseline reports • Easement stewardship and enforcement $40,000 This cost does not include City expenses for staff, GIS, attorney, title work, surveys. VI. Other Issues and Opportunities The current discussion regarding conservation easements and Neighborhood Preserves has spurred additional interest in land protection in Maplewood. Both City staff and Land Trust staff have received numerous inquiries from Maplewood residents inquiring about conservation easements on private lands. City staff has indicated an interest in identifying environmental corridors in the city. A variety of private land conservation tools might be used to enhance existing or future public investments. Once these corridors are identified, the City could then sponsor a landowner information meeting for Maplewood residents who might be interested in obtaining more information. 7 Ilt��vGSCs't�n Ian�vn Trrvs�€' other damage from vehicles. Recreational and educational use Recreational and educational purposes that do not impact the conservation values of the land are allowed. Additionally, each easement document will include numerous legal provisions necessary to ensure the long -term viability and enforceability of the easement. Many of these provisions are governed by state and federal law. V. Costs Costs are determined based on the number of parcels and the complexity of specific terms. Cost of completing Tier l projects: Initial project costs $15,000 • Property evaluation - initial site visit(s) • Project planning, design, easement negotiation and drafting, review and closing • Transactional costs • Baseline reports • Easement stewardship and enforcement $40,000 This cost does not include City expenses for staff, GIS, attorney, title work, surveys. VI. Other Issues and Opportunities The current discussion regarding conservation easements and Neighborhood Preserves has spurred additional interest in land protection in Maplewood. Both City staff and Land Trust staff have received numerous inquiries from Maplewood residents inquiring about conservation easements on private lands. City staff has indicated an interest in identifying environmental corridors in the city. A variety of private land conservation tools might be used to enhance existing or future public investments. Once these corridors are identified, the City could then sponsor a landowner information meeting for Maplewood residents who might be interested in obtaining more information. 7 Ilt��vGSCs't�n Ian�vn Trrvs�€' 9 t ....... ;, .... "a 7 IiAr- . ............... ............... t . xk� ;i Kenw A - 1864 W. Ke —,d Dr. 5 Kohln>aril- 16X7(') U, Rd .0 7 loons 618lwre:l ° tcasa.tuvtcw - t tU.! rvuinuc RobinhotA - 2139 M —ton 4 Rosdawm 39 Rosclawn Shows W 2231 Ket m d 15 St "img0.Jv< 144 o Swdmg St. Na 5 SunsaR i °_302)1€ }ank5t, Timber - 2133 All —tic .5 b3sta. H;ils 2 41ailattd 14 s 41 t$'eslern HAI, 175S)Adolpl— 6 a. :ltizrn I letghta - 63 N. St.lmg. 12 il 40 40 Applewood 832' telling St.'r,. 8 City C—lpas 1430 L. Co. Rd. B 34 Crestview 2540I ;xndin Ia,. hdgerton- 1929Fdgfftcan 10 HL ,,k- 1141 Frost § Foi ' Smsons 1685 {;ei '.'. to Gcntmmn, 568 G-ani n 9 G,thsC9 a— 2410 Sttllw'.Ita R& III 61,nte - IR34Pcu,k fi Kenw A - 1864 W. Ke —,d Dr. 5 Kohln>aril- 16X7(') U, Rd .0 7 loons 618lwre:l ° tcasa.tuvtcw - t tU.! rvuinuc RobinhotA - 2139 M —ton 4 Rosdawm 39 Rosclawn Shows W 2231 Ket m d 15 St "img0.Jv< 144 o Swdmg St. Na 5 SunsaR i °_302)1€ }ank5t, Timber - 2133 All —tic .5 b3sta. H;ils 2 41ailattd 14 WA,efield 1590 Frost 41 t$'eslern HAI, 175S)Adolpl— 6 ) NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVES proem Acres 16 ? 9 E b altar} y �s�,:i ne