Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to the City CouncillOA 98-3 <br />April 19, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Issues <br /> <br />1. How much buildable land should be preserved as open space protected by <br />a conservation easement? <br />. Sherburne County requires that 50% of the gross area, inclusive of <br />wetlands etc., be preserved as open space protected by a conservation <br />easement while the MN Land Trust requires that 50% of the buildable <br />land be preserved as open space protected by a conservation easement <br />if they are the conservation easement holder. <br /> <br />2. Who or what organization will hold and protect the conservation <br />easement? <br />. Several developers criticized having the MN Land Trust as the <br />conservation easement holders, and prefer having the Homeowners <br />Associations hold and protect the easements. At issue is that much of <br />Elk River's remaining developable land has hills and wetlands <br />making it somewhat restrictive for development. The MN Land Trust <br />criteria may add such an additional burden that the result might be <br />that those open spaces we want to protect might then be developed <br />conventionally with no preserved open space. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />On the other hand, Homeowners Associations may not be the best <br />protectors of conservation easements as they may be less willing to <br />move against their neighbors to protect the easement, or the <br />homeowners association might break down over time, leaving only <br />the city to enforce easements. <br /> <br />At this time, there are few Land Trust organizations in MN to protect <br />conservation easements. In time there might be others with differing <br />criteria. The MN Land Trust criteria was established based on <br />situations in the Lake Elmo area and may not be applicable to Elk <br />River. When asked about this point, the MN Land Trust said there <br />may be flexibility with these criteria. <br /> <br />3. To encourage open space preservation development, more incentives and <br />the fewer disincentives need to be built into the ordinance. Some <br />examples include: <br />a) Have Open Space Preservation Development plat submittals <br />closely match those for traditional plats. <br />b) Base park dedication requirements on the "yield plan" rather <br />than with density bonuses (recommendation by park and <br />recreation commission on April 14, 1999). <br />c) Add more standards to allow density bonuses such as if possible: <br />. i) Tree preservation. <br /> <br />\ \elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\stevewen \ccmmo \oa98- 3 cc. doc <br />