Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-28 FCG Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD FISH CREEK GREENWAY AD-HOC COMMISSION Friday, August 28, 2009 1 :00-3:00 p.m. Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes 4. CoPar property 5. Update on grants 6. Funding - discuss strategies identified at previous meeting a. Grants b. Bonding referendum c. Donations d. Develop a fund dedicated to acquisition/protection e. Legislative funds f. Fees - new g. PAC h. Development charge (such as special charge for service district) 7. September public meeting a. Logistics i. Time, date, facilities ii. Meeting format iii. Review draft letter to residents 8. Resident questionnaire - review draft 9. Fish Creek Tour - October 17 10. Visitor Presentations 11. Next meeting: September 11 Sarah Strommen from MN Land Trust and Jenna Fletcher from Trust for Public Lands will join us September 11th to discuss their organizations and protection options (conservation easements, acquisition, purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights) 12. Adjourn MINUTES CITY OF MAPLEWOOD FISH CREEK GREENWAY AD-HOC COMMISSION Friday, August 7, 2009 1 :00-3:00 p.m. Maplewood City Hall - Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Meeting commenced: 1 :05 p.m. 2. Commissioners Present: Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Ron Cockriel, Friends of Maplewood Ginny Gaynor, City of Maplewood John Moriarty, Ramsey County Carolyn Peterson, Parks Commission Ginny Yingling, Environment and NR 3. Ex-Officio Members Present: Bob Spaulding, Friends of the Mississippi River Chelsea Magadance, Office ofSenatorWiger 4. Action Items: a. Motion: To Approve 7/10/09 Commission meeting minutes. Motion made by Commissioner Aichinger, seconded by Commissioner Moriarty, approved 6 to O. b. Motion: Commission shall work with Friends of Maplewood Nature and Maplewood Nature Center on tour and hike in the Fish Creek area. Motion made by Commissioner Cockriel, seconded by Commissioner Aichinger, approved 6 to O. c. Decision: We will hold a public meeting in September to gather input from residents, ideally at Carver Elementary. 5. Discussion Items: a. Update ohmeEHing regarding Lessard Heritage Fund b. Status report on grants submitted for funding for acquisition c. Resident involvement in process d. Protection priorities (see attached list) e. Protection options commission will investigate (see attached list) f. Funding options (see attached list) 6. Follow-up Items: a. Commissioner Yingling: Draft letter to residents and survey b. Commissioners Moriarty, Cockriel, Gaynor: Confirm date for public tour to avoid conflict with deer removal dates c. Commissioner Gaynor: i. Contact Washington County. ii. SChedule a person to discuss with commission purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights and how they relate to conservation easements and conservation design development. iii. Provide commissioners with resident comments from meetings associated with the development moratorium in south Maplewood. iv. Find meeting location and set date for public meeting in September. 7. Adjourn: 2:50 p.m. Lists Developed at 8/7/09 Fish Creek Greenway Commission Meeting These are working lists that may be added to. Priorities for Protection (not in order) 1. Willing seller/partner 2. Creek - channel, bank, bluffs 3. Extension of creek buffers 4. Land adjacent to creek 5. Woodlands 6. Wetlands 7. Bluff lands 8. Land with potential for restoration 9. Land contiguous to protected open space 10. High quality habitat 11. Land that provides protection of whole 12. Land that helps protect water quality 13. Land that has potential for public 14. Land that helps make connections to 15. Land with historic or cultural features 16. Land with scenic vistas recreation Protection Options Commission Will Investigate 1. Acquisition 2. Conservation easements for interested private landowners 3. Conservation subdivisions 4. Purchase of development rights 5. Transfer of development rights 6. Education and incentive programs for protection of private land 7. Education and incentive programs for stewardship of public and private lands Potential Funding Strategies 1. Grants 2. Bonding referendum 3. Donations 4. Develop a fUi1d dedicated to acquisition/protection 5. Legislative fuhds 6. Fees - new 7. PAC 8. Development charge (such as special charge for service district) "The Parking Lot" - Items to Discuss Some Day 1. Ski jump property 2. Utility/powerline easements 3. Haller's Woods easement DRAFT ** * * DRAFT* ** * *DRAFT* ** * **DRAFT* * ** * DRAFT* * * **DRAFT* * ** * Letter to residents August 27, 2009 Draft Prepared by Ginny Yingling Dear Maplewood/St. Paul Resident: I am writing to invite you to join with your friends and neighbors in a unique process to determine the future of the Fish Creek Greenway Corridor. Never heard of it? You may be surprised to learn that you actually live in the greenway and we would like your input on how best to protect and enhance the area where you live. A greenway is an area where large blocks of parkland and natural areas form a nearly contiguous corridor, often following the path of a stream or a series of lakes. Greenways can provide unique recreational opportunities as well as provide larger blocks of habitat in our nearly fully developed suburban setting. The City of Maplewood, in their revised Comprehensive Plan, has identified four such corridors within Maplewood, including the Fish Creek Greenway. The Fish Creek Greenway presents some special opportunities because ofthe potential availability of several large blocks of natural area which could be purchased and protected, including portions ofthe "Co Par" development. But the city's financial resources for such purchases are limited and there are other ways to enhance the greenway beyond outright land acquisition. Private property owners have a unique role in the greenway. While large blocks of natural areas and park land may form the "building blocks" of the greenway, private property is the "glue" that holds the corridor together. Every backyard provides an opportunity for residents to participate, as they see fit, in helping to enhance the natural community along the corridor. To that end, the city hopes to provide technical assistance and incentives to homeowners who want to learn more and undertake projects that help extend the natural areas ofthe greenway beyond publicly held lands. That's where you come in. Because of the unique opportunities in the Fish Creek area, the Maplewood City Council formed an ad-hoc commission to identify and make recommendations to the city on ways to protect and enhance the Fish Creek Greenway. This will include looking at funding options for land purchase, but it will also involve discussions with residents about their vision for Fish Creek and how you want to be involved. We want to hear from you about how you use the existing open space along Fish Creek and how you envision the area in the future. Are there recreational uses that you think should be enhanced? Should the city pursue purchase of lands along the greenway, if available? How should the city interact with and support efforts of individual residents to "extend" the greenway into their own backyards? There are a number of ways that you can provide input to this process: . On September _, 2009, the Fish Creek Greenway Corridor Commission will hold a public meeting where you can learn more about the greenway and tell us what you would like to see happen there. The meeting will be held at [ ] from _:_ to _:_ pm. We also hope to hold another meeting later in the year to provide an update on our work and to get further input from you. . You can attend the commission's regular meetings at the Maplewood city hall council chambers [address]. We are meeting on the following Fridays, all at 1:00 - 3:00 pm: September 11 October 2 October 16 November 13 December 4 December 18 . You can complete a questionnaire on the city's website at: [address] . You can join us on a tour ofthe Fish Creek Greenway on Saturday, October _' For more details, please contact at We look forward to meeting you and hearing from you about your vision for the future of the Fish Creek Greenway. Sincerely, Ginny Yingling, Chair Fish Creek Greenway Corridor Ad-hoc Commission DRAFT ** * * DRAFT* ** * *DRAFT* ** * **DRAFT* * ** * DRAFT* * * **DRAFT* * ** * Fish Creek Survey August 27, 2009 Draft Prepared by Ginny Yingling 1) Approximately, how far do you live from the Fish Creek open space? _ property is adjacent to it within 1 block within 2 blocks within 3 blocks more than 3 blocks 2) How often do you use the Fish Creek open space? _ every day once a week once a month _ 2-3 times per month _ a few times a year never 3) If you use the Fish Creek open space, what activities do you engage in? _ walking/hiking _ bird watching _ cross-country skiing _ mountain biking _ other (please describe) 4) Are there other recreational or educational activities you wish were available in the greenway? 5) Ifthe city could obtain grants to purchase available land in the Fish Creek Greenway Corridor, would you support this? _yes _ no (if not, please explain why) 6) Ifthe city does purchase additional land along the greenway, how would you like to see those lands managed? _ open space with no developed recreational features and passive use only (i.e. hiking, bird watching, etc. - no maintained trails, just existing foot paths - this is how the area is currently managed) _ semi-managed (i.e. mowed trails, informational signs, etc.) _ managed (i.e. paved or graveled trails, educational programming, etc.) _ active use (such as......) 7) What problems should the city be aware of with respect to Fish Creek or possible purchase oflands in that area? 8) Ifthe city were to provide technical assistance and/or incentives (such as.. ...), how likely would you be to participate in the following activities to "extend" the greenway beyond public lands: Very Likely Likely Not Likely Plant native plant species in your yard and/or gardens Enhance habitat for native animals Remove buckthorn and other invasive species from your property Establish a conservation easement on your property Allow a public foot-trail to cross a portion of your property MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Fish Creek Greenway Commission Ginny Gaynor, Maplewood Natural Resources Coordinator Resident Comments from Moratorium Meetings August 26, 2009 Commissioners requested that staff provide copies of comments that residents submitted during the public meetings for the development moratorium in south Maplewood. Attached are residents' comments from two of the meetings: Attachment 1 - Comments from the January 29, 2007 meeting, summarized by staff Attachment 2 - Comments from a March 13, 2007 breakout group, notes from staff Attachment 3-Comments from a March 13, 2oo7breakout group, notes from a resident Attachment 4 - Email comments from a resident after the March 13, 2007 meeting. These are the only comments from residents from the public meetings that I found in our project file. There were two additional public meetings (May 13, 2007 and June 4, 2007). The consultant on this project, Schoell Madson, Inc., did not include an appendix of resident comments in their final report. The meetings were taped but not transcribed. A copy of the tapes can be provided if commissioners wish to review them. Attachment 1 South Maplewood Neighborhood Meeting January 29, 2007 The attached comments were received by participants at the January 29, 2007 neighborhood meeting regarding the South Maplewood Development Moratorium held at the Londin Lane Fire Station. If you have questions or comments about this data, please feel free to contact Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner by telephone at 651-249-2302 or by email at tom.ekstrand@ci.maplewood.mn.us or Ken Roberts, Planner by telephone at 651-249-2303 or by email atken.roberts@ci.maplewood.mn.us. p:com_dvpt\moratorium 2007\1 2907 neighborhood meeting resident input Attachment 1 Semi-Rural Group Sessions Facilitated by Shaun Finwall Group I 1. Environmental concerns -leave existing open space. 2. Leave R-IR zoning. 3. With more development there are concerns about additional infrastructure (i.e., more sewer/water/roads). 4. Save land for future generations. 5. Smart development - the city has enough high density. 6. Preserve wildlife corridors. 7. Development - does it have to happen? 8. Ensure existing zoning codes have strength. 9. Enforce and improve upon environmental ordinances. 10. Keep two-acre minimum lot size. 11. If south Maplewood stays semi-rural, what will happen to broader Maplewood? Will there be more density there? 12. No need for any type of neighborhood commercial zoning - so close to commercial now. 13. Tax concerns, some residents feel that they are forced to sell. Group II 1. Traffic seems to have calmed on Carver now that the interchange on Highway 61 is altered. 2. Semi-rural is whey people moved to the area. Keep it that way. 3. Keep future development consistent with existing development -larger lots. 4. Ensure existing zoning ordinances are enforced and have the strength to withstand developer pressures. 5. Preserve open space. 6. Semi-rural for future generations. 7. Protect wildlife corridors. 8. Low density. 9. If development happens they should have wildlife corridors and green space. 10. Roads have limited traffic now so no real need for trails in the area, unless there is more development. 11. Development will bring traffic. 12. Close to commercial- no need for more in the area. 13. Traffic headlight concerns. Attachment 1 *P ARKS/ TRAILS/OPEN SPACE South Maplewood Moratorium 1/29/07 Public Meeting Notes from Parks, Trails and Open Space Discussion Submitted by Ginny Gaynor 1. Groups reviewed maps showing parks and open space in south Maplewood. 2. First group tallied how often people in the group use south Maplewood parks: Site # people that # people that # people that never visit visit often use regularly Neighborhood parks 2 1 10 with playgrounds Battle Creek 4 5 4 Carver or Fish Creek 3 4 8 open space sites One person no longer walks at Battle Creek because of the rapes that occurred there. Second group had four or five participants. One person uses parks regularly; one person uses open space sites regularly. 3. Both groups acknowledged that we have a good amount of open space in south Maplewood, but attendees believe existing open space sites are underutilized. 4. Both groups believe there should be more trails at existing open space sites. However, we need a balance of areas with trails and without trails-i.e. not all open spaces need trails. In addition, location oftrails must be sensitive to ecologically fragile areas and to proximity to homes and property lines. 5. Comments were made about current improper use of sites by 4-wheelers. 6. First group advocated strongly that we need to connect existing sites together with a green corridor to serve wildlife and hikers. We especially need to explore opportunities to connect Carver Preserve and all the Fish Creek parcels. A citizens group, the Fish Creek Initiative, has been working on this. 7. Both groups want the bluff lands preserved. Most of the attendees felt it did not matter if ownership was public or private, the important issue is preservation. One person, however, wanted the city to own the bluffs on the west side of COP AR property so there would be a continuous green corridor in Maplewood (since part ofthe Fish Creek parcel is in City of St. Paul). 8. Staff explained the existing Park Master Plan suggests a 3-mile bike trail through south Maplewood along the pipeline. Discussion ensued about benefits of on- road bike trail vs. a bike trail along the pipeline. No conclusions were made. This is a topic that needs more discussion and study. 9. A council member mentioned that there are no conservation easements on the open space sites in the area so they are not completely protected from development. Group did not have a chance to discuss this topic. 10. Resident Joe Bailey provided a digital slide show of the area. This included many slides of remote parts ofthe natural areas. Attachment 1 UTILITIES South Maplewood Area Town Hall Meeting on South Maplewood Moratorium Information Gathering Session Monday, January 29, 2007 Londin Lane Fire Station Discussion Notes and Resident Concerns "Utilities" Table There were basically 3 main topics of discussion that carne up relative to Utilities: 1) Private well contamination from a PFCP plume in Washington County and, also the impact of development on private wells (water quality). 2) Hooking up to sewer and water when it becomes available and the decisions associated with requiring residents to hook up. 3) General conversations about the public improvement process. Private well contamination: . Will the PFCP pollution impact me? It was noted during the meeting that the groundwater generally flows toward the Mississippi River. . Consult the State Department of Health regarding industrial pollutants in well water. . Stress on the ground water aquifer and private well water quality. . Well water should be tested on a regular basis for coliform and nitrates. Sewer and Water Availability and the public improvement process: . What will happen to my existing well and septic system should the area be developed and sewer and water become available? . City has comprehensive sewer plan for the area. . Public improvements and installation of utilities are driven by the Public Improvement process. Ifthe need exists or it is requested by residents, then the City will develop a plan to serve the area. Cost would be assessed to the homeowners, who have 12 months to hook up to sewer and abandon their septic system after the sewer becomes available. . Ultimately, with staff recommendation, the City Council decides if public improvements will be installed by the City if development does not occur. . If public improvements are developer-driven, it may be incidental that sewer becomes available to certain properties. Residents with existing septic systems are required to hook up to the sewer when their system fails. . Residents are not required to hook up to City water when it becomes available. . Developer will pick up a large portion ofthe cost of sewer and water utility improvements to the area if development occurs. HISTORICAL South Maplewood Moratorium Meeting Londin Lane Fire Station January 29, 2007 Historical Commission Notes from Al Galbraith Concerns of the Citizens 1) Location of early grist mill on fish creek. 2) Environmental study of flora and fauna needed. 3) Location of prehistoric dwelling sites, camp areas. 4) Concerns of residents on locations of hazardous waste dump sites. 5) Watershed problems. 6) Open space. 7) Life style changes. Attachment 1 Attachment 1 ZONING/LAND USE/DENSITY From Ken Roberts, Planner I had the groups that talked about density, zoning and land use. I was the note taker as no one in the groups at my table volunteered to take notes or write down comments. From the first set of participants, these are the comments I noted: 1. They want the city to keep the area south of Carver Avenue rural. 2. They did not want any public sewer or water extensions. 3. One resident said he liked lot sizes between % of an acre to one acre for single dwellings. 4. They support the preservation of the natural features in the area - including trees. In summary, I felt that those who spoke from this first group did not want to see any changes to the area. From the second group, I noted the following: 1. They want the city to strive to balance the open space dedications in developments versus the number of total units within a site. They did not support giving developers extra or more units within a project in exchange for the developer dedicating open space to the city or county. 2. They want the city to be smart about development (whatever that is). 3. They want to make sure that current and future open spaces are preserved. They fear that the city or the county may allow such spaces to have development occur on them in the future (whether a developer, the city or the county owns the property). One thing I noted for myself is the question of the Met Council's role in shaping land use and development in Maplewood, especially south Maplewood. Specifically, will the Met Council require the city to plan for sewer extensions for all areas that do not now have them or will they allow the city to have some areas that will never have public sewer and water? If they require the city to plan for the eventual extension of sewers throughout all the city (and especially south of Carver Avenue), will they allow the city to establish a staging or a timing plan for such extensions? If so, over what timeline (10 years, 20 years, 50 years) would they allow the city to plan for such extensions? Attachment 1 FINANCIAL From: David Fisher, Building Official Comments from the meeting of January 29, 2007, Maplewood Fire Station number 4, 2501 Londin Lane. Comments about the building and location: -First the building lighting, heating and acoustics were very poor. Not a good place to have such a meeting. -Location was good for the people that lived in the area. - Need name tags. Financials Comments: - The City needs to look into growth with the relationship to City services - police, fire, snow plowing & street maintenance. - How does the service get paid for? - What is the cost? The city should break this down by number of units or number of unit per acre. - Ifthe City of Maplewood keeps what we have how does that effect cost? - At what point is the tipping point of needing to add staff to provide services in south Maplewood? Such as police, fire or street maintenance workers for the city services required. -All the questions above need to be kept in mind when land is developed. - Traffic & cost? - There is two parts balance the cost with life style. - Taxes always go up. - What ifthe City of Maplewood leaves it as it is farm RIR 2 to 2.5 acres? What is that tax base? Can the City of Maplewood do it? Need a study on this to verify if it is feasible. - At what density does the City of Maplewood break even? - The City of Maplewood need to do a value to density study to break down the numbers per unit for taxes and assessment to install roads and utilities. - Can the City of Maplewood afford the RIR 2 acre lots? - What is the existing land owner impact cost? Taxes, adding water and sewer? - Some homes were built in the 90's on 2.5 acre lots with septic and well. Would they be required to tie into the city water and sewer if it is in the road in front oftheir homes? The expense may be greater because ofthe larger lots the distance is farther. -How is the sale of all the land affecting the existing homes on the 2.5 acre lots with well and septic? - Is there a way to keep the taxes down? - What is the environmental impact of development and the cost? - PAC funding comes from the development. Typically the number of units is what brings the dollars in to the City of Maplewood. More units more PAC funds and less units less PAC funds. Attachment 1 - One comment about open space in south Maplewood was that there is 22% of existing public owned property. This is tax exempt property. - Some hypothetical comments - what if we had 5 acre lots with $6,000,000 homes. What would this do to the tax base? Or what if we had 2.5 acre lots with $2,000,000 homes what would this do for the tax base? Notes: I had from meeting with County Assessor - Tax cost factors - Ifthe lots can be split the land is worth more. If City sewer and water is close or provided the land is worth more. Ball park for assessed value for land the first acre ~ $130,000. The second and there after acres ~ $100,000. This was based on sales in the south Maplewood area from the Ramsey County Assessors office. Attachment 1 FOLLOW-UP COMMENT RECEIVED AFTER THE 1-29-07 MEETING The meeting was good and a start. Need testing of soil around the places near development and do not need any developments at this point. To look at the problems to our creeks and river. More testing to be done. This is a worry. Attachment 2 Special Maplewood City Council Meeting South Maplewood Study - 2007 Neighborhood Meeting Number 2 Carver Elementary School, 2680 Upper Afton Road March 13, 2007 Small Group Discussion Meeting Notes Small group discussion about zoning, land use and density - noted by Ken Roberts, City Planning Department After the break in the regular council meeting, the participants and city council members broke into small groups for discussion on a variety of topics. There were about 18 people in the group I moderated to discuss land use, density and zoning. This discussion started at about 8:25 p.m. and city staff noted the following comments and themes from this group: 1. What are the market and the needs for different types of housing in Maplewood and in the metro area? 2. When looking at a site for housing, (especially for seniors) one has to note the availability of services - medical, busses, commercial - that could serve the residents of the new development. 3. A participant noted a concern about density - how much housing is really needed in this part of Maplewood (and can the roads really hande the expected increase in traffic)? 4. The Mayor asked if it would be possible to find out what the housing trends are and the new developments in Woodbury (especially near Century Avenue?) She also asked if it is possible to determine what affect these have or will have on housing in Maplewood (including housing costs). 5. Another participant noted that Option 3 as presented by Mr. Ahl earlier in the evening looks like a bad option for this part of Maplewood. It was their opinion that such a plan would not be feasible because of the topography and natural features in the area. 6. Pat Bailey of Bailey Nursery spoke to the group. Mr. Bailey indicated that they (the business) plan to stay in their current location and continue their current plant and nursery operations. He also said that they (the business) expect to be eventually squeezed out of their location in Maplewood and in Woodbury (north of Bailey Road) as they think the land will become too valuable to use for a nursery or that the property taxes will be too high, or possibly both. The small group broke their discussion at about 8:55 p.m. and the entire meeting ended at about 9:05 p.m. Attachment 3 The Semi-rural lifestyle - What does this mean to the area and how should it be defined? Note: For the purposes of presentation and the clarification of citizen comments, semi-rural lifestyle and rural-residential lifestyle have been deemed one and the same. The majority of the comments listed below were compiled from the verbal and written comments of Maplewood resident landowners. . Perhaps the best place to start is to examine what the City of Maplewood has already defined. Under the R1-(R) "Rural-residential" zoning classification it states: "To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style . It is extremely important for the City to understand that "rural-residential" provides for and fulfills a much needed lifestyle choice to the residents of Maplewood. Many cities, including neighboring Woodbury and Newport have an areas, not to far from South Maplewood which would be considered "rural residential" It is a natural area in which the beauty, rolling hills, old trees and nature have been preserved. Houses sit back from the road on large wooded lots. . A semi or rural residential living is also not defined by the availability of public utilities. such as water & sewer. . Many of the current residents moved to this area for very specific reasons. It is the lifestyle they chose for themselves and their families. These reasons include: . A wide variety of nature you do not experience in a high density areas. . Privacy, not looking right into your neighbor's window, . The beautiful vistas. For some it is the flowing Fish Creek and for others rolling hills or beautiful woodlands . What a wonderful place to experience a tiny piece of paradise with close access to the cities. . It is a daily source of pleasure to many of us who live here. It helps us wind down from the stresses of life. . Universally, everyone has equated low density to larger lots. Two or 2 % acre lot minimums seemed the most agreeable, with some leaning towards five acre and even 10 acre minimums for future subdivisions. Attachment 3 . Many residents are irritated with the fact that zoning keeps changing over the years. It use to be 10, then 5 and then lowered to two. There was a long term vision for this area. Keep it! . Strong policies need to be put into place that would discourage rezoning or infill projects in this area. We need to support the RI-R vision and strengthen the policies to keep the zoning the way it is. . Create a distinct and identifiable community for South Maplewood. Identify policies and strategies for land use. We need concise planning and decisions to preserve the character of South Maplewood . It is a non-commercial development area. A sustainable, master vision - not a patch work of independent developers working in isolation. Or in this case purchasing land they know full well is zoned one house per 2 acres then they try to blackmail the City and hold them hostage. Yes, they are land owners and have a right to develop. However, they need to develop to what was planned for the area and be respectful to those of us who are also land owners as well as residents of the city. . We should be respectful of natural topography - non-engineered. The retention of the areas natural/rural landscape was also at the top of most lists. There would be tough controls on the removal of tree and native vegetation. The preservation of old growth areas, water and soil conservation. An eco-base trail system the blends into the area was mentioned by several people. . It needs to define the buildable areas, example for a two acre or larger lot, 60% of the lot would have to remain in its natural state. It would support out buildings. . With any construction, this area should promote green and sustainable building practices. . A geographic area containing R1 (R) Rural -residential, RE40 Residential estate and F, farm... The area needs to include mature vegetation, natural streams, and parcels/lots with large open space around the houses matched with open area providing wildlife habitat. Let's learn from the past, that over time there has been a profound losses of wildlife. Let's preserve what we have. . Wildlife is important to the semi-rural life style. It would mean wildlife corridors would be protected. Attachment 3 . Projects within the identified area should be developed using the existing R1 (R) zoning of one home per two acres or larger. Strongly discourage rezones to preserve the semi-rural character and encourage retention of larger lot sizes and setbacks consistent with the neighborhood. . In addition to protecting heritage trees, strictly monitor and limit the removal of other large trees in neighborhoods. In short, much stricter guidelines than the city currently requires. . Maintenance of natural water sources and stream beds. The preservation of historical buildings and, landmarks and sites, . There needs to be developmental setback, buffered from adjoining streets and neighborhoods. . Semi-rural lifestyle also brings with it low traffic volumes within the residential area. .~ , From: Joseph Bailey [mailto:hrcbailey@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:59 AM To: South Study Group Subject: Open space and alternative scenarios Dear Mayor, City Council members, and employees of the City of Maplewood, I am deeply appreciative of the continued efforts on your part to implement the moratoriumr listen to the neighbors of south Maplewood and gather our input on future development in our area. I felt the meeting on last Tuesday at the Carver School went much better than the previous one at the fire station, mostly due to acoustics and temperature, but also better organization of the meeting format. I was also very pleased that you hired an outside facilitator, Rose Lorsum. She listened well and had many creative ideas to bring to the table. Secondly, it is my hope that you will include our input and others as you construct the various scenarios for development in our area. I know Chuck Ahl was just doing his job as city engineer in presenting the four scenarios he constructed, but they were very limited in scope, in my opinion. It is easy for any of us to develop a mindset to anything we do in our jobs, our families and our lives. However, it is important to not be limited in our mindset to the past ways in which things have been done. That is why we have taken this "step back" that the moratorium has provided us-an opportunity to open our minds to other possibilities, educate ourselves to unimagined options, and come up with a solution for South Maplewood development that takes into account the following: 1. The housing needs of development 2. The need to pay expenses of the city 3. The need to preserve the quality of life as it exists in Maplewood 4. The need to balance development and open space needs 5. The need to respect the lifestyles of the residents that drew them to live in this unique area When I listened to Chuck Ahl's presentation I didn't hear reflected the possibilities of preserving some or all of this area for open space and trails. It just may be more economical for the city to do this and it should at least be in the list of scenarios to be studied. I believe that in doing your various jobs you must balance a lot of agendas, priorities, and values. Please include the notion that not developing and creating more open space is a viable option. Also, include the possibility of a balance of ample open space with some form of ecologically friendly development that preserves the jewels of the area (the Mississippi River bluffs, Fish Creek, and the green corridor to Carver Lake) as a viable option and one that may actually save the city money. There is much yet to explore here in terms of ways of buying this land or a portion of it from the developers without any cost to the City of Maplewood. As a member of the open space and trails committee on the moratorium study, we are looking into this. Allow me to quote from a recent study and report called, The Economic Value pf Open Soace-[mplications for Land Use Decisions. This study was commissioned by Embrace Open Space, a group of non-profit organizations conducting a campaign to encourage Twin City residents to become more involved in land use decisions. (see their website for more information and to get a copy of this study) This may be helpful as you consider the balance of open space and development. 3/19/2007 Open space and alternative scenarios Page 2 of2 Attachment 4 Minnesotans value open space and that value is reflected in higher values for properties located in close proximity to open space amenities. . Twin Cities research confirms that many types of open spaces, from parks and nature preserves to green ways, wetlands and lakes, have a positive effect on nearby property values. . Moreover, the resutts of referenda conducted in Minnesota indicate that Minnesotans vatue open spaces enough to raise taxes to pay for open space acquisition and preservation. Local governments should take that value into account in land use decision-making, but are not always able to do so. . Decision-makers who understand the vatue of open space wilt be more likely to take the time to assemble the tools needed to implement their open space plans before priority lands are devetoped. They wit! pass ordinances and a land protection plan and wit! invest in at tand protection fund. . It is often hard to futly reftect the vatue of open space in the financiat analyses undertying local land use decisions. . The pressure for development sometimes makes communities commit to devetopment before they implement comprehensive open space ptans, especiatly in areas at or beyond the urban fringe. This paper puts forward a more complete framework for evaluating the value of open space in land use decisions by adding several more financial impacts: . The added property taxes paid by nearby properties, . The avoided cost of pubtic services generated by alternative development, and . The potentiat cost saving from better storm water management Applying this framework can lead to better-informed local open space decision, as several included examples show: . A city making or updating its comprehensive plan may decide that it can afford to ptan or protect more open space when it considers the cost saving on storm water management and the taxes generate from the higher vatues of homes located near open areas. . A city considering a proposed subdivision may offer the developer a density bonus in exchange for the builder's ceding open space to the city, thus protecting or creating open space at a much lower cost to the city because of the reduced cost to acquire the land and the increased taxes to be paid by the additional housing units. . A developed city that initiatly considers the purchase of a smatl, surrounded parcel of wooded tand as too expensive may change its decision when it considers the futl financial implications of protecting it (and may be able to protect it at lower cost through purchase of the devetopment rights or conservation easements.) Communities that have a more complete understanding of the fiscal implications of open space will be better equipped to set priorities and strike a balance between open space and other objectives that will lead to a higher quality of life for their residents now and in the years to come. I look forward to our continued work together on the moratorium study group. Thanks for all your efforts and your willingness to listen to those of us who live in Maplewood and make it our home. Sincerely, Joe Bailey 1615 S. Sterling St. Maplewood, MN. 55119 3/19/2007