Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2007 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Present Present Present Present Present Present (7:04) Present Present Present Staff Present:Ken Roberts, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - All Approval of the planning commission minutes for the meeting of September 4, 2007 will be considered at the next meeting due to the minutes not being finished. V. PUBLIC HEARING None VI. NEW BUSINESS a) Discussion on Conservation Easements (Ginny Gaynor) Ken Roberts, city planner, introduced the item. The city is studying the idea of using conservation easements as a method of protection for some of the city owned properties. Specifically, there are fourteen spaces that are identified as potential properties for having the use of conservation easements placed on them. The city council will be considering this idea at their next council meeting, Monday, September 24,2007. City staff and the city council are requesting that various boards and commissions give recommendations on the idea of using conservation easements as a protection method for these sites. On August 14, the city hosted a joint meeting of the planning, parks and recreation, and the environmental and natural Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 2 resources commissions which had a presentation about conservation easements by Sarah Stromen, who is with the Minnesota Land Trust. That discussion will be continued this evening. Conservation easements are permanent and site specific and would provide clear direction to limits for the use and non-uses on a particular property. City staff is looking for recommendations from the planning commission on what type of protection method, if any, should be used for each of these properties. These recommendations will be passed onto the city council. On Monday, September 24, the city council will be reviewing an update from Ms. Stromen on what some of the costs would be to write, implement and enforce conservation easements on some, if not all, of the sites listed as neighborhood preserves. City staff has not seen that final document which will be presented to the city council. Mr. Roberts noted that Ginny Gaynor, city naturalist, is here to help answer questions. Commissioner Hess asked iflhere are any other options for protecting these properties. He is concerned about the permanence of a conservation easement. He also questioned if the city has ultimate control over the parcels. Mr. Roberts stated the city will retain ownership if a conservation easement is placed on it. The land trust would then oversee the easement and check the enforcement of the easement by visiting the site. To change the easement, it would take a court action. Mr. Roberts pointed out there are some options listed in the packet that would be more flexible but would still show that the city wants to ensure that these properties remain protected. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on what will be presented to city council at the next meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that the second proposal will be actually writing and starting to prepare conservation easements for some, if not all, of the fourteen neighborhood preserves for the city. This will specifically address the cost and give a timeline of that process. Commissioner Martin asked how the planning commission is supposed to give a recommendation when the city council will have more information than the commission. Mr. Roberts stated staff and city council are looking for recommendations on the use of conservation easements as a tool, not the cost. Commissioner Martin stated he would like to see the proposal before giving a recommendation. Chairperson Fischer stated the joint meeting ended recognizing that there were several possibilities that might be utilized to create a solution to some of the perceived problems. Commissioner Trippler stated he is concerned that the council is asking the planning commission to decide whether or not this is the right tool to use if the commission has not looked at any other options available. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 3 Mr. Roberts stated the planning commission could make a recommendation to the city council requesting that they give the commissions more information on the issue. Commissioner Walton asked if Ms. Gaynor would speak on iflhere are any other options available. Ms. Gaynor stated she is here to answer questions on conservation easements and the open space sites. If the commission feels that there is a lack of information and it cannot move forward, then the commission should request more information on iflhere is enough protection on the open space sites and then move forward from there. The conservation easement should only be used when the city wants to protect the site permanently. There are some sites that are owned by the city that should be permanently protected. Chairperson Fischer stated when the council was looking over the open spaces in the city, there was an extensive study done which evaluated all of the open spaces owned by the city. She would like to know if the city still has a copy of the original criteria and site listings. This may aid in this decision. Ms. Gaynor stated the document is available. The whole open space and neighborhood preserve system needs to be reevaluated to make sure that it is doing what the city needs it to be doing. Commissioner Trippler asked why this is taking place and why it is taking place now. Has there been any attempt to develop any of these properties? Mr. Roberts stated he thought this discussion was triggered by the early Gladstone Master Plan that showed 3 or 4 acres of the savannah as a potential development site. He said he was not aware if the city has been approached by anyone requesting to develop any of these open spaces. Commissioner Trippler stated if city staff feels that there is a specific parcel that is extremely valuable to the city, then the commission should focus on protecting those parcels. He does not feel that all fourteen sites should be locked into a conservation easement unless they have significant value to the city. Commissioner Boeser stated the commission should look at whether or not conservation easements are a tool that can be used at all. Very specific criteria for the use of the conservation easement should be written out that would clarify what types of land should be considered for this process and then go through the process of identifying those properties. Commissioner Yarwood stated he is concerned about protecting important pieces of properties in the city but does not feel qualified to judge whether or not each one of these properties should be protected. He would like to have each one of these parcels brought before the commission individually and have a public hearing to make that decision. Commissioner Pearson stated he would like to have seen some suggestions from staff for tonight's discussion on this tool and other possible tools that can be used to protect these properties. He stated concerns about the types of restrictions that would come with the use of Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 4 an easement in regard to public use of the property. If a property was already voted on by citizens on the protection of that property, then the council should not have the right to change the protection. Mr. Roberts stated city staff is not at a point to suggest which properties should be considered for the conservation easement. The city council is looking for recommendations on whether or not the city should even consider using easements as one of the tools for protecting open spaces. Once that decision has been made, then the city can look at each individual property and decide whether or not an easement should be placed on that property. The city will have the right to write the specific details of requirements of the easement. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification on what phase 1 of this proposal was. Mr. Roberts stated that phase 1 was hiring Ms. Stromen to do an initial analysis and work with Ms. Gaynor to identify the parcels and start putting a work program together and have the joint meeting. Phase 2 is finding out what it will take to start implementing easements. Commissioner Desai asked if the city council has already decided that this is the direction the city council wants to go in order to try to protect the open spaces. He questioned why the city council has directed the staff to go to this step before looking at other options because an easement should be a last resort. Mr. Roberts stated the commission could point out to the city council that other options should be investigated before considering a conservation easement. Chairperson Fischer stated the commission should also point out the challenges that come when trying to write the specific restrictions for the sites. Commissioner Boeser stated the conservation easements can be structured in such a way that can be as restrictive or as non-restrictive as necessary for each property. Commissioner Yarwood stated that if the question is whether or not the commission believes a conservation easement should be an option as a tool for protection, then the answer would be yes, but this is not a one size fits all solution. He also asked for staff to look into what other cities and communities do in order to protect their open spaces. Ms. Gaynor stated the City of Maplewood is the first city in the region to attempt to put a conservation easement on the open spaces in the city. She then went over what other areas have done to protect their open spaces. Ms. Stromen has worked with other communities to put conservation easements on parkland. Chairperson Fischer asked for clarification on which open spaces would be considered for this process. Ms. Gaynor stated the only sites in the neighborhood preserve are the spaces being considered for this process. Commissioner Hess asked iflhere is any extra funding that would be involved in trying to preserve these sites. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 5 Ms. Gaynor stated the funding in terms of the easement process will be in the proposal which will be brought to the next city council meeting. That will include all of the upfront costs of writing and implementing an easement, all of the legal and survey work necessary and a lump sum cost of management and enforcement of the easement. That number will be made known at the next council meeting. She does not know how the proposal will present the breakdown of the costs. Commissioner Walton agreed with what Commissioner Pearson said about protecting the land that has already been voted on by residents. He then referred to a book he had that was published by the Minnesota Land Trust which gave options to protect open spaces. He questioned if the city has to pay taxes on these properties. Mr. Roberts stated no. Most of the described options in that book are for private land owners. Commissioner Pearson asked what would happen if the county decided they had an imminent use for a property and wanted to go through an imminent domain process on that property. Mr. Roberts stated he did not know and that the city attorney and Ms. Stromen would have to answer that question. Commissioner Trippler stated there are 3 things he would like staff to take to the city council. He would like the city council to direct staff to look at all of the tools that are possible for the purpose of ensuring that properties are maintained for their current use into the future. While looking at those tools, they should focus on what the benefits and the negative aspects of each tool and what are the costs associated with each tool. He would ask that the city council act more cautiously with use of conservation easements. He also would like to have each site considered individually and to have a public hearing for each site. Commissioner Desai stated staff should also investigate if the other tools have been used in the past by other cities and if those tools were found to be deficient, did the city eventually lose the use or protection of that land? Commissioner Yarwood asked if there is any requirement that each of these would have to go through individual public process in order to place a conservation easement. Mr. Roberts stated there is not, but there would be a public hearing to consider a development plan for a site. Commissioner Yarwood recommended the city ordinance be modified to require a public hearing process for each site, if a conservation easement is considered a tool to protect the property. Commissioner Pearson added that the public hearing be held in addition to a referendum if the city wants to do something different with the site other than preserving. Commissioner Martin asked how the other commissions feel about this topic. Mr. Roberts stated not all of the commissions have discussed this yet, and the ones that have, he is not sure of the outcome. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 6 Commissioner Hess added that the jurisdiction of Ramsey County and the state should be verified. Commissioner Walton asked what the process is if a developer wants to develop a city-owned piece of property. Mr. Roberts stated the developer would have to convince the city council to sell the piece of property, which would require a public hearing. Ms. Gaynor stated it would require 3 public hearings and a 4-1 vote in order for the city to sell a city-owned property that was purchased through the $5 million referendum. A conservation easement can also be written to allow some flexibility on the use of the land. Commissioner Trippler motioned that the planning commission recommend to the city council: 1. The city council should proceed more cautiously and slow the process down. 2. Direct staff to look at all of the possible tools that could be used to achieve the goal of trying to protect these open spaces. In looking at those tools, they should identify the costs, the benefits and the negative aspects associated with those tools. 3. Each individual site to be considered for a conservation easement or any of the other tools should go through individual public hearings and should be discussed by each of the following commissions: the environmental commission, the community design review board, the planning commission, the parks and recreation commission and the historic commission. 4. Should look at whether there are any court rulings that have affected any of the tools that are being proposed and what the outcome of the court rulings were. 5. Staff should look at what the county and state rights are relative to imminent domain or in using any of the pieces of properties in question with or without the easement. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Nays - Walton The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 7 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a) September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai Mr. Desai attended the meeting. The two items discussed included the code amendment to the planning commission, which passed unanimously, and the Regents Senior Housing Development, which passed with a 3-2 vote. Staff is also directed to research room sizes for senior developments and number of parking stalls and widths. b) September 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Walton Mr. Walton will attend this meeting. The items to be discussed include conservation easements. c) October 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. d) October 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin Mr. Martin will attend this meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There will be a PC meeting the first week in October. The meeting will have two public hearings and there should be some preliminary discussion on the next findings of the South Maplewood Study. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. If one would like complete coverage of the meeting, a DVD copy of the meeting may be purchased from City Hall for $5.