HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.10.07 meeting packet
- - __n___
C I T Y o F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. -ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 - (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 - WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
Meeting Agenda
October 10, 2007
Andover City Hall
Conference Rooms A & B
7:00 n.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes - September 12, 2007 and September 26,2007
3. Discuss changes to Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
4. Other Business
a. Next meeting
5. Adjournment
.'
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann~
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes - September 12, 2007 and September 26, 2007
DATE: October 10,2007
INTRODUCTION
The Commission is asked to review and approve the minutes from the last two meetings.
DISCUSSION
Please share any changes to the minutes at the meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
A motion, second and vote are necessary to approve the minutes.
.
C I T Y o F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 · (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannl(
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes - September 12, 2007 and September 26, 2007
DATE: October 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The Commission is asked to review and approve the minutes from the last two meetings.
DISCUSSION
Please share any changes to the minutes at the meeting.
ACTION REOUESTED
A motion, second and vote are necessary to approve the minutes.
---------------
.
1
2
3
4
5
6 REGULAR ANDOVER OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
7 SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
8 MINUTES
9
10
11 The Regular Meeting of the Andover Open Space Advisory Commission was called to order by
12 Chairperson Deric Deischle, September 12, 2007, 7:05 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685
13 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present: Chairperson Deric Deischle, Commissioners Gretchen Sabel, Jody
16 Keppers, Winslow Holasek, Bruce Perry and Kim Kovich
17 Commissioners absent: Commissioner Jim Olson
18 Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
19 Others
20
21
22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
23
24 August 9,2007
25
26 Commissioner Keppers indicated Chairman Deischle's name was not listed under
27 Commissioners present.
28
29 Motion by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Keppers, to approve the minutes as
30 presented. Motion carried on a 4-ayes, O-nays, 3-absent (Holasek, Olson, Sabel) vote
31
32 Commissioner Sabel arrived at 7:07 p.m.
33
34
35 PRESENTATION OF NATURAL FEATURES INFORMATION/ANOKA CONSERVATION
36 DISTRICT
37
38 Mr. Bednarz introduced Josh Williams from the Anoka Conservation District who made a
39 presentation to the Commission regarding Natural Features Information.
40
41 Commissioner Holasek arrived at 7:11 p.m.
42
43 Mr. Williams reviewed two Conservation Opportunities in Andover maps with the Commission.
44
45 Commissioner Perry wondered what the definition of Conservation Corridors was. Mr. Williams'
46 explained the definition to the Commission.
47'
48 Mr. Williams reviewed with the Commission the potential scope of services that are provided by the
--~---- -------- - ------
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 12, 2007
Page 2
1 Anoka Conservation District along with a Memorandum ofDnderstanding.
2
3 Commissioner Kovich stated when making up the maps, it may be nice to break down ownership,
4 current parks, State or County land, school land, etc: He wondered if a map like this could be put
5 together. Mr. Williams stated they could put together a pretty up to date map and they can do
6 different things with the data.
7
8 Commissioner Kovich wondered what materials would consist of. Mr. Williams stated they would
9 charge for printing of large maps and other items along with !ime.
10
11 Chairperson Deischle stated he would like to further discuss the Memorandum of Understanding
12 (MOD) because he thought this would be a recommendation to the City Council.
13
14 Commissioner Kovich asked if Mr. Bednarz reviewed the MOD. Mr. Bednarz indicated he reviewed
15 it at the meeting. Commissioner Kovich wondered if the City Attorney should review this. Mr.
16 Bednarz stated they could have the City Attorney review this if needed.
17
18 Mr. Williams indicated he forgot to print out Exhibit A and would email it to Mr. Bednarz for
19 Commission review.
20
21 Chairperson Deischle stated he envisioned the scope of service to be similar to what was presented
22 and he did not see any reason why they would turn this down. He stated he did not have a problem
23 with green lighting this project. Commissioner Keppers agreed along with Commissioner Sabel.
24
25 Commissioner Keppers stated since Mr. Williams will only be here until the end of the year and the
26 project would be done in June 2008, he thought they should move forward on this sooner than later.
27
28 Commissioner Sabel wondered if they could use the potential scope of services to indicate what they
29 would be interested in.
30
31 Commissioner Kovich stated being on the Board at the Anoka Conservation District, he thought they
32 should approve Mr. Williams because the main cost to them would be the cost of materials but he
33 thought the City could print out a lot of the items. He stated Mr. Williams is the grant person but
34 there are other people in the organization that can carry on after Mr. Williams is not there.
35
36 Chairperson Deischle indicated he would be willing to recommend to the City Council requesting
37 Anoka Conservation District (ACD) to write up attachment A with the Scope of Services. Mr.
38 Bednarz indicated before a motion can be made, they need to get the Exhibit A from Mr. Williams in
39 order for the City Council to review and possibly approve it.
40
41 Commissioner Sabel wondered if City Staff would have time to work with ACD on this. Mr.
42 Bednarz indicated they would.
43
44 Commissioner Sabel asked what the zones would mean. Chairperson Desichle thought it was just a
~----- -- ------
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 12, 2007
Page 3
1 way to pair down the area and did not have significant differences. He thought it was a mapping of
2 keeping track of where things are. Commissioner Sabel wondered why they cannot look at this as
3 corridors instead of zones. Mr. Bednarz thought they would still use corridors but zoning was to
4 prioritize areas and to figure out who was in the phases they needed to work with.
5
6 The Commission discussed what they wanted to have the ACD to work on for them.
7
8 Commissioner Sabel thought a use for the zones would be to have goals for each zone and look at
9 this before they look at parcel by parcel.
10
11 Chairperson Deischle thought they would not be getting review of any of the platunless they indicate
12 they would like to review ones they were interested in for open space. Mr. Bednarz stated they could
13 indicate areas within the development corridor they should be communicating through the
14 development process.
15
16 Mr. Bednarz indicated they would refine the Exhibit A and refine the map and come to the next
17 meeting for recommendation to the Council.
18
19 Mr. Bednarz stated staff would like to have more collaboration with ACD throughout the process.
20
21 Motion by Commissioner Perry, seconded by Commissioner Keppers, to allowiACD to continue to
22 work on what was previously agreed to. Motion carried on a 5 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstain (Kovich), 1
23 absent (Olson).
24
25
26 DISCUSS SITE SELECTION CRITERIA/PARKS AND OPEN SPAde CHAPTER OF
27 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
28
29 Chairperson Deischle reviewed what was discussed at the previous meeting with the Commission.
30
31 Commissioner Keppers thought a lot of what they have been talking about relates to this.topic.
32
33 Commissioner Perry wondered if they were looking at the criteria from the Comprehensive Plan.
34 Chairperson Deischle indicated that was correct. Mr. Bednarz stated the langUage came from their
35 existing Comprehensive Plan and is a draft form of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He
36 thought they could be more specific in the criteria if they want to be.
37
38 Chairperson Deischle did not think the Comprehensive Plan needed to have their point system and
39 grading for potential open space areas but it could have more detail. He thought they could apply
40 criteria as a bullet point in the plan. He stated their criteria may be more specific than what is listed.
41
42 Commissioner Sabel wondered if they should have their criteria done and in the update for public
43 hearing of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment this fall. Mr. Bednarz thought it would be a good
44 idea. He stated there is room in there to discuss this monthly until they get the criteria figured out.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 12, 2007
Page 4
1
2 Commissioner Kovich thought as a group they should put up all the criteria they wanted and then go
3 through them individually.
4
5 Commissioner Sabel wondered if it would be better to have a worksession rather than a formal
6 meeting in a couple of weeks to go over the criteria they have started to mention and this would give
7 them some traction because she did not think they were getting very far at their meetings.
8
9 Commissioner Keppers stated he would be in favor of a worksession in a couple of weeks rather than
10 waiting an entire month before meeting again. Commissioner Sabel thought it was a way to sit down
11 and go over the specific criteria.
12
13 Commission concurrence was to have a worksession for September 26,2007 at 7:00 p.m.
14
15 Motion by Commissioner Sabel, seconded by Commissioner Kovich, to schedule a worksession for
16 September 26, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1 absent (Olson).
17
18
19 RECEIVE INFORMATION ON 2006 CITIZEN SURVEY
20
21 Chairperson Deischle thought the survey was very interesting. Commissioner Perry stated he found
22 it interesting that Parks and Open Space were high priority on the survey.
23
24 Commissioner Perry wondered how much per household the cost was for the Open Space
25 Referendum. Commissioner Sabel thought it was around $8.00 per$100,000.
26
27 Commissioner Sabel thought Item 3 was the most important item in the survey regarding open space.
28 She thought people in Andover thought differently than other communities in the area because they
29 have different site lines and a blend of forests, wetland and communities.
30
31
32 OTHER BUSINESS
33
34 Mr. Bednarz reviewed the 2007 Conservation Seminar with the Commission and recapped what was
35 discussed at the seminar and the different areas and places they can look for help in planning the
36 Open Space. He stated there are people who can assist them with communicating with the
37 homeowners on an individual basis. They need to fmd out what the property owners vision for their
38 land is and there are people out there that can help them with this. There are a lot more approaches
39 out there beside Conservation Easements. There are a number of different tax incentives and
40 programs that people can take advantage of for sales of properties and the City has different
41 resources they can use to communicate this to the property owners who are looking to sell.
42
43 Commissioner Kovich asked if Mr. Bednarz would recommend attending this. Mr. Bednarz stated
44 he would because it was very helpful.
.
Regular Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 12, 2007
Page S
1
2 A. Next Meeting
3
4 October 10, 2007 will be the next Open Space Commission meeting.
S
6 Motion by Commissioner Perry, Seconded by Commissioner Kovich, to adjoUrn.. Motion carried
7 unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
8
9 Respectfully submitted,
10
11 Susan Osbeck, Recording Secretary
- - ~-
,
.
I DRAFT
2 ANDOVER OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 26,2007
3 MINUTES
4
5
6 The Regular Meeting of the Andover Open Space Advisory Commission was called to order by
7 Chairman Deric Deuschle, September 26, 2007, 7:12 p.m., at the Andover City Hall," 1685
8 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
9
10 Commissioners present: Gretchen Sabel, Bruce Perry, Jim Olson, Jody Keppers, and Kim
11 Kovich. Winslow Holasek (arrived at 7:15 p.m.).
12 Commissioners absent: Jim Olson
13 Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
14
15
16
17 REVIEW REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH ANOKA
18 CONSERVATION DISTRICT
19
20 The Commission discussed the proposed agreement with the Anoka Conservation District
21 (ACD). It was noted that the timetable was left open ended and that the agreement indicated that"
22 ACD would provide a staff planner to assist the city as necessary to complete the project. The
23 Commisison also discussed the June 8, 2008 deadline for payment and observed that this was the
24 deadline for the grant ACD has with the Legislative Citizen Commission on Minnesota
25 Resources (LCCMR). The Commission corrected the discrepancy regarding the number of hours
26 necessary to complete Task C from 18 to 16 hours in the table as indicated in the text of the
27 agreement. The Commission also corrected the billable hours for Task B listed in the table from
28 13 to 15 hours. The total billable hours remained 62 hours.
29
30 Motion by Sabel, Seconded by Perry, to recommend approval of the agreement with the Anoka
31 Conservation District. Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 REVIEW NATURAL RESOURCE MAPPING
34
35 The Commission discussed the maps that were included in the packet. Various methods for
36 presenting information in the future were discussed, including showing wetland and floodplain areas
37 in gray along with unprotected natural features to illustrate their relationship. The use of smaller
38 zones to evaluate parcel level detail was discussed. It was noted that the city looks much more open
39 as you travel through it than the patches of natural areas on the maps indicate. The use of a projector
40 to allow layers of information to be turned on and off was suggested.
41
42
43
----
.
.
Open Space Advisory Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 26, 2007
Page 2
1
2 DISCUSS CHANGES TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CHAPTER OF THE
3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
4
5 The Commission discussed and edited each of the open space site selection criteria and noted
6 that these items are better described as evaluation criteria. The Commission indicated that
7 definitions for the evaluation criteria would be helpful and that a ranking system within each
8 criterion may be necessary to objectify the evaluation process. The Commission discussed the
9 evaluation criteria as a guide for the natural resource inventory to be conducted by the Anoka
10 Conservation District. It was determined that staff would edit the plan as discussed by the
11 Commission for review at the next meeting.
12
13
14 OTHER BUSINESS
15
16 There was none.
17
18
19 ADJOURNMENT
20
21 Motion by Kovich, Seconded by Keppers, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
22 adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
23
24 Respectfully submitted,
25
26
27 Courtney Bednarz
28
-.---
-.---- -
5'\NDbVE~
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 · (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann~
SUBJECT: Discuss changes to Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan
DATE: October 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The entire chapter, including the changes discussed at the last meeting and a few other
changes suggested by others, is attached.
DISCUSSION
The Commission also discussed providing definitions for some of the terms. Staff
believes that the clarifications suggested by the Commission at the last meeting already
serve this purpose.
The Commission also briefly discussed a ranking system at the last meeting. The ranking
system used by Washington County is attached as an example. The Commission is asked
to determine the extent of the ranking system that will be used.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is asked to review and discuss the attached information.
Attachments
Parks and Open Space Chapter
Washington County Project Evaluation Criteria
--.-- - - -
)l.\NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
Parks and Open Space Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1: Provide parks and facilities that meet present park needs and plan
for the future needs of the city
Objectives:
a. Maintain and upgrade current park facilities
b. Evaluate existing conditions and future growth projections to determine
the types of parks and facilities needed to complete the park
system
c. Provide more passive recreation opportunities
d. Provide for a balance among active and passive recreation areas and
activities
e. Provide recreation facilities for all age groups and abilities within the city
f. Design and maintain recreation areas with appropriate lighting,
landscaping, parking, and shelter design
g. Consider the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks and Open
Space Plan and the standards of the Nationa/ Recreation and Park
Association in the planning and design of the park system
Policies:
. Implement a maintenance schedule for the grounds and facilities within the
current park system
. Aggregate resources from local, state and federal sources to complete planned
improvements as scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan
. Maintain and Update the Park Study as a guide for the number, size, type and
location of parks and facilities needed to complete the park system to serve the
needs of residents
. Accept only lands suitable for park and recreation purposes as fulfillment of the
parkland dedication requirements.
. Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule replacement of existing park
facilities and installation of new facilities
. Utilize the Park and Recreation Commission to advise the Council on matters
relating to parks, recreation and park facilities
------- - - .-
5'\NDbvlf~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
. Provide regulations and policies for park use and park dedication
. Consider the adopted Guidelines for Field Usage by Youth Athletic Associations
. Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to
enhance local and regional park systems
Goal 2: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's natural
and open space for the enjoyment of residents, protection of water
and air quality and the preservation of wildlife habitat
Objectives:
a. Consider development of passive, nature-related recreation or
conservancy areas on sites otherwise considored unsuitablo for
development found to be suitable for these purposes
b. Identify appropriate areas for preservation through analysis of
natural features, the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks
and Open Space Plan and the Land Use Plan
c. Plan for and Provide connections with the park and trail systems in a
manner that both preserves and allows public enjoyment of natural areas
d. Seek to provide buffer areas adiacent to sianificant natural resources
and parks
Policies:
. Work collaboratively with property owners in the preservation of open space
. Utilize conservation easements, fee title acquisition and other methods as
necessary to permanently protect open space
. Prepare, implement and monitor the effectiveness of conservation plans that
address the specific characteristics of the various types of natural areas
. Utilize the Open Space Advisory Commission to advise the Council on matters
concerning preservation of open space
. Prevent incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to parks and
open space areas through implementation of the Land Use Plan and
zoning regulations
. Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to acquire
and enhance open space areas within the city
2
~NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
Open Space
A plan for the preservation of open space is necessary to protect natural areas from
development, as well as to protect water and air quality and to preserve wildlife habitat.
The city has worked cooperatively with a variety of resource protection organizations
and government agencies to enhance natural areas within the existing park system and
to protect floodplain and wetlands.:. in areas outside of the park system. In 2006, tRe
voters Andover residents approved a bond referendum to provide a dedicated funding
source for the preservation of open space. INSERT PROGRESS PRIOR TO FINAL
DRAFT... Since that time the city has establishod an Open Space Adyisory
Commission, prepared a community wide natural resource inventory and established
policies to guide this effort... The Council subseQuently established an Open Space
Advisory Commission to develop preservation recommendations. The
Commission. in cooperation with the Anoka Conservation District, prepared a
natural resource inventory as a basis for these recommendations.
Open Space Evaluation and Site Selection Criteria And Acquisition Policies
The city has established criteria to evaluate sites for their potential to fulfill the needs
identified by the plans and studies described earlier in this chapter. preservation
opportunities. The following criteria are used to properly evaluate sites for the location
of parks, recreation facilities and open space preservation afeaS.
a) Open Space: The City of Andover will select evaluate open space sites for
open space preservation opportunities based on the following criteria:
i) The area provides an opportunity to protect and preserve significant
local natural resources, including:
. Sensitive Groundwater recharge areas and natural hydrological systems
. Natural hydroloaical systems
. Forests :md Native plant communities
. Buffer areas adjacent to lakes. streams and wetlands
. Natural buffer areas adiacent to upland natural plant and animal
communities
. Unique biological, geological, historical and archaeological sites
. Lands important as wildlife oontaining signifioant areas of natural habitat,..-aAG
thre::Jtened or corridors or endangered species of plants or animals
. Threatened or endanaered species of plants or animals
. Educationally valuable features
. Sites of exceptional aesthetic quality
. Other Notable Features. includina historical. educational. archaeoloaical.
aesthetic, and other features
3
- -- ------- - --- ---- -- -
~NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
ii) The area to be protected is of Sufficient in size to preserve and
enhance natural resources
iii) The area presents an opportunity to protect significant natural
resources that would otherwise be negatively affected by urban
development or negligence
iv) The area connects or expands corridors of floodplain and wotlands.
iv) The area provides opportunities for passive recreation and observation
of the natural environment along trail corridors
Vf) The area provides views of the natural environment along majGF
transportation corridors includina roads and trails.
b) The City of Andover will select sites for open space preservation
based on the number and value of the evaluation criteria present.
Other factors may be considered, includina the amount of similar
resources that exist, the location of the area, the amount of fundina
available, and others.
Park Land Site Selection Criteria
9!) P::uk Land: The City of .t\ndover '....i11 select park sites based on the following
criteria: The city has established criteria to evaluate sites for their
potential to fulfill the needs identified by the plans and studies described
earlier in this chapter. The followina criteria are used to properly
evaluate sites for the location of parks, recreation facilities
i) The area is in close proximity to particular natural resources, such as
lakes, rivers and other unique features
ii) The area is sufficient in size to allow the user to experience the natural
resource and enjoy compatible recreation activities without degrading the
natural resource or the visitor's experience
iii) The area is suitable for recreation opportunities that complement those
provided by other city parks and county and regional agencies
iv) The area is geographically located to fulfill and not duplicate the type of
ark and facilities needed to serve the present needs of residents and
the needs of the long range projected population in the service area
v) The area is located where it will be easily accessible
4
- - - - - - -- .-
)l.\NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
vi) The area is physically suitable for types of facilities that are needed in
the service area
vii) The area has sufficient size and flexibility to provide a
variety of recreation opportunities and the capacity to be
adapted to the changing needs of residents in the future
viii) The area can provide linkage to the trail system, open
space corridors or other parks
Public Controls or Ownership
e!) Public Controls or O'.Amership: The City of Andover recognizes that official
public controls and/or public ownership may be desirable and in some cases
essential to:
i) Assure public land availability for future generations although the current
need may not be imperative
ii) Protect a significant resource threatened by development,
deterioration, neglect or inordinate increase in land values
iii) Preserve unique or significant landscape features, including
geographical, historical and archaeological
iv) Provide open space
v) Meet both active and passive recreation needs
al;!) Methods of Acquisition: To assure protection and availability of public land,
the City of Andover shall utilize various methods of acquisition, including but
not limited to:
i) City purchase
. Negotiated purchase with willing seller when possible
. Eminent domain may be utilized if an overriding public need can be
established and 2006 Open Space Bond Referendum funds are not
utilized
ii) County or regional funding
iii) State purchase
iv) Conservation Easements
v) Purchase or transfer of development rights
vi) Assistance and/or cost-sharing with other agencies
vii) Donations/bequests/foundations
viii) Tax forfeited land
5
--~_._- _._-~--_.__.._- -
WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND AND WATER LEGACY PROGRAM
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be used to evaluate proposals for the Washington County Land and
Water Legacy Program. At its sole discretion, the county reserves the right to reject any or all
proposals.
I. GENERAL
For parcels to be considered for the acquisition and improvement of the land or an interest in the land
through the Land and Water Legacy Program it must meet one of the program purposes: improving
water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; protecting drinking water sources; purchasing parklands,
including trail corridors; preserving wetlands and woodlands; and protecting land along water bodies
from development. The following factors should be present for a parcel to be considered for the Land
and Water Legacy Program.
A. Purchase of Parkland and Trail Corridors
Acquisition of land or interests in land within the mapped boundary of actively developing
county parks and trail corridors will be considered outside the competitive process. For these
parcels, the county's highest priority is for fee acquisition. When the landowner is not willing
to sell fee title, the county may pursue a partial interest in the property through the purchase of
a conservation easement.
B. Competitive Purchase of Development Rights Process
A voluntary application is submitted by the landowner or on the landowner's behalf. The
applicant is willing to sell or place a permanent conservation easement on the parcel. The
criteria contained herein will be used to prioritize applications and determine which projects to
pursue.
C. Opportunity Purchases
The county may act upon a proposal needing immediate action without going through the
Competitive Purcbase of Development Rights Process. These projects must have time
constraints sucb as a limited time to purchase an interest in the land due to imminent sale or
development or a limited time to use or apply for outside funding.
D. Local Matching Grant Program
The following criteria shall be met for a local unit of government to receive funds from the
Purchase of Development Rights Local Matching Grant Program:
(1) The county will approve funding on a parcel-by-parcel basis; and
(2) The funds are to be used to protect property consistent with an officially adopted land
protection plan or policy; and
(3) To be eligible for the funds, the local unit of government must demonstrate a commitment
to raising funds to cover at least 50% of the cost of the project (eligible costs include
interests in property as well as any real estate transaction costs); and
(4) The owner of the property must be willing to have the county or another unit of
government hold a perpetual conservation easement over the parcel that limits future
development of the parcel; and
1
(5) Payment to the local unit of government shall be made after the costs are incurred and paid
for upon receipt of an invoice and proper documentation of the costs.
II. EcOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
Natural areas and other open spaces provide a wide variety of environmental benefits to people.
Potential parcels, if protected, could improve surface and ground water resources, stabilize soils,
preserve woodlands and create natural flood storage capacity. Current and anticipated use oflands
adjacent to the site should not, over time, significantly diminish the ecological quality of the site.
A. Shoreland Frontage
The parcel is located adjacent to an intermittent or perennial stream, river or lake.
Ravine drains into water body: low
Less than 1/4 mile offrontage: mediwn
More than 1/4 mile offrontage: high
B. Ground Water Sensitivity
The parcel is located within an area identified on the Washington County Geologic Atlas as
sensitive to ground water contamination.
High sensitivity to ground water contamination: mediwn
Very high sensitivity to ground water contamination: high
Within a wellhead protection area: high
C. Erosion-prone Soils and Steep Slopes
The parcel is identified as being erosion prone or a steep slope according to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service classifications. These are soils with a class greater than or
equal to "Se".
Some coverage: low About 50% coverage: mediwn 100% coverage: high
D. County Biological Survey Sites
The parcel contains one or more native plant communities, is relatively undisturbed and
provides habitat for a wide variety of resident and/or migratory wildlife. The presence of a
"state listed" species is an added value. These areas are identified on the National Areas Map
created by the Department of Natural Resources Minnesota County Biological Survey project.
County Biological Survey Site: low
County Biological Survey Area: mediwn
E. Forest Interior
The parcel is a relatively large tract with a high interior to edge ratio. The parcel is located
within a large block of forest interior, as shown on the "Forest Interior Criteria" map of the
Green Corridor Project analysis.
Some woods: low About 50% woods: mediwn 100% woods: high
m. LOCATION
A. Parcel Size
Relative size is considered in the ranking. Multiple contiguous parcels under single ownership
or a single application would be considered together.
< 10 acres: low 10-40 acres: mediwn > 40 acres: high
2
-----------------
B. Connectivity
The parcel is near or adjacent to other land which has already been permanently protected from
development through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or public ownership. The
parcel provides a corridor that promotes the movement of wildlife.
Within 1/2 mi of private conservation easement or public protected land: low
A4iacent to protected land and creates a corridor of local significance (shorter): mediwn
A4iacent to protected land and creates a corridor of county significance (longer, contained in a
state, regional or county land protection plan): high
C. Buffer
The parcel adds value to an existing public facility by buffering the facility from encroaching
development The parcel protects the adjacent natural areas, important open spaces, rivers,
streams and lakes by reducing current or future negative impacts.
Some visual or ecological buffer: low
Significant visual or ecological buffer: mediwn
A4iacent to a county park: high
D. Imminence of Threat
The parcel is threatened by development pressure and fragmentation. Only a short period of
time may be available to protect an area from being permanently lost or degraded.
Is in no threat of development: low
Only a short period of time may be available to protect the area from being permanently lost or
degraded: mediwn
Has been offered for sale; other offers have been made on the property: high
E. Showcase
The parcel, because of its size, location, ecological characteristics, or history, can further
natural resource protection and provide attention, identity and stature to the Land and Water
Legacy Program. The parcel is a good 'showcase' for the program e.g. it is visible to and/or
useable by the public; it creates ecological connections and corridors of natural space; or it
demonstrates good water quality practices.
No opportunity to showcase the program: low
Has one of the 'showcase' characteristics: mediwn
Has more than one of the 'showcase' characteristics: high
IV. PuBLIC PuRPoSE
Many natural areas have the potential to serve many public purposes. In order to maximize the public
investment, propriety will be given to parcels that meet the needs of multiple partners.
A. Public Use/ Access
Applicants who are willing to provide public access to the parcel for purposes of education,
stewardship or recreation will receive additional consideration.
Public use allowed but will not be in public ownership: low
In public ownership but will offer limited recreational or educational opportunities: mediwn
In public ownership allowing unrestricted use, and enhances cwrent recreational or
educational opportunities: high
3
-------------------------
B. Multiple Public Purpose
The parcel has ability to serve multiple public purposes, such as water management, recreation,
environmental education, etc.
One purpose: low 2 purposes: medium 3 or more fJW"poses: high
C. Preservation Plans
The parcel is within an area that is included in a land preservation program or plan (e.g. wild and
scenic river district, local greenways plan, conservancy zone district, historic preservation district,
scenic roadway, county park, etc.). The parcel is located within a corridor designated as scenic by
congressional or state legislative action, by local unit of government resolution or ordinance, or
some other formal method. Existing corridors include St. Croix Riverway, Mississippi National
River Recreation Area and County Road 21.
Within a local plan: low
D~i~on~mploce:memum
Regulation or other tools such as zoning in ploce to protect the surrounding area: high
D. Historical Characteristics
The parcel is listed as a historical site on the State Register of Historic Sites or the parcel has
been registered as a Century Farm.
Preserves a segment of the county's cultw'allandscape: low
Century farm or other historical feature: medium
On national or state register: high
E. Local Support
Protection of the parcel is supported by the local community and other governmental agencies,
and other interested groups.
Some support: low moderate support: medium great amoW'lt of support: high
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Additional factors may warrant consideration in evaluating the project. Such factors will be
reviewed, evaluated, and documented on a case-by-case basis.
VI. FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL AsSISTANCE
Some parcels may quality for other financial resources such as contributions of in-kind services or
matching funds from other public agencies; private or non-profit sources of funds; or a landowner
willing to accept a payment of less than the value of the property or development rights. If other
resources have been committed, a letter or other documentation of the commitment must accompany
the application. If other resources will be available at a future time, a statement describing the
availability of the resources should accompany the application.
A. Likelihood for Leveraging .
No opportunity for leveragingjunds has been identified: low
Funding may be available from another organization: medium
Funding has been committed by another organization: high
B. Percent of Leverage
A portion of the total project cost is contributed from non county sources.
More than 0 but <50%: low 51% - 75%: medium > 75%: high
4
C. Technical Assistance
Another organization is contributing staff time to complete the real estate transaction activities,
the project documentation or the landowner negotiations.
Some county staff time is reduced by the assistance of others: low
County staff time is needed to coordinate the activities to ensure completion: medium
Minimal county staff time is needed: high
VII. LIABILITYffIMELINESS
The parcel will not become an unacceptable legal or financial liability due to known public health or
safety concerns (e.g. pollution concerns, abandoned wells, open dump sites, hazardous waste,
unoccupied or degraded structures), or real estate problems or issues which would prevent reaching
an agreement (e.g. title problems, survey problems, property encroachments, boundary disputes).
The parcel has known public health or safety concerns: high concern
The parcel has problems that will create difficulties in reaching an agreement: medium concern
The project is ready to go and the acquisition can be expedited sooner than expected because
some of the work is done, e.g. Phase 1, appraisal, draft conservation easement, etc.: low concern
N:\WP\legacyprog\OfIControls\LegacyCriteria2007.doc
5
--
1 .
C I T Y o F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Andover Open Space Advisory Commission
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann4
SUBJECT: Discuss changes to Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan
DATE: October 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The entire chapter, including the changes discussed at the last meeting and a few other
changes suggested by others, is attached.
DISCUSSION
The Commission also discussed providing definitions for some of the terms. Staff
believes that the clarifications suggested by the Commission at the last meeting already
serve this purpose.
The Commission also briefly discussed a ranking system at the last meeting. The ranking
system used by Washington County is attached as an example. The Commission is asked
to determine the extent of the ranking system that will be used.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is asked to review and discuss the attached information.
Attachments
Parks and Open Space Chapter
Washington County Project Evaluation Criteria
, .
9\NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
Parks and Open Space Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1 : Provide parks and facilities that meet present park needs and plan
for the future needs of the city
Objectives:
a. Maintain and upgrade current park facilities
b. Evaluate existing conditions and future growth projections to determine
the types of parks and facilities needed to complete the park
system
c. Provide more passive recreation opportunities
d. Provide for a balance among active and passive recreation areas and
activities
e. Provide recreation facilities for a/l age groups and abilities within the city
f. Design and maintain recreation areas with appropriate
lighting,
landscaping, parking, and shelter design
g. Consider the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks and Open
Space Plan and the standards of the National Recreation and Park
Association in the planning and design of the park system
Policies:
. Implement a maintenance schedule for the grounds and facilities within the
current park system
. Aggregate resources from local, state and federal sources to complete planned
improvements as scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan
. Maintain and Update the Park Study as a guide for the number, size, type and
location of parks and facilities needed to complete the park system to serve the
needs of residents
. Accept only lands suitable for park and recreation purposes as fulfillment of the
parkland dedication requirements.
. Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule replacement of existing park
facilities and installation of new facilities
. Utilize the Park and Recreation Commission to advise the Council on matters
relating to parks, recreation and park facilities
----------
--- - - - -
. .
~NDbVEh 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
. Provide regulations and policies for park use and park dedication
. Consider the adopted Guidelines for Field Usage by Youth Athletic Associations
. Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to
enhance local and regional park systems
Goal 2: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's natural
and open space for the enjoyment of residents, protection of water
and air quality and the preservation of wildlife habitat
Objectives:
a. Consider development of passive, nature-related recreation or
conservancy areas on sites othort/ise considered unsuitable for
dev.elopment found to be suitable for these lJurlJoses
b. Identify appropriate areas for preservation through analysis of
natural features, the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks
and Open Space Plan and the Land Use Plan
c. Plan for and Provide connections with the park and trail systems in a
manner that both preserves and allows public enjoyment of natural areas
d. Seek to IJrovide buffer areas adiacent to sianificant natural resources
and lJarks
Policies:
. Work collaboratively with property owners in the preservation of open space
. --:=, ~V.(.;.J WHeN
PeA.,.mAt'F~ . .~ze conservation easements,/ke title acquisition and other methods as
'~':$pA~A'Cbl'4,ecessary~permanentIY protect open space~ fML. vs~,
"" t n-f- C~ r-<7 ~ "
J::3~<;' ~ (Il"'t:,J · Prepare, implement and monitor the effectiveness of conservation plans that
- address the specific characteristics of the various types of natural areas
. Utilize the Open Space Advisory Commission to advise the Council on matters
concerning preservation of open space
. Prevent incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to parks and
open space areas through implementation of the Land Use Plan and
zoning regulations
. Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to acquire
and enhance open space areas within the city
2
!
~NDOVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
Open Space
A plan for the preservation of open space is necessary to protect natural areas from
development, as well as to protect water and air quality and to preserve wildlife habitat.
The city has worked cooperatively with a variety of resource protection organizations
and government agencies to enhance natural areas within the existing park system and
to protect floodplain and wetlands.:. in are3S outside of the park system. In 2006, tRe
~ Andover residents approved a bond referendum to provide a dedicated funding
source for the preservation of open space. INSERT PROGRESS PRIOR TO FINAL
~J;v DRJ\FT... Since that time the city haE: established an Open Space .^.dvisory
Commission, prepared a community 'Nide natural resource inventor" and established
policies to guide this effort... The Council subsequently established an Open Space
l. e..~ IE Advisory Commission to develop preservation recommendations. The
/KMc-.;vr Commission. in cooperation with the Anoka Conservation District. prepared a
o~:'r natural resource inventory as a basis for these recommendations.
Open Space Evaluation and Site Selection Criteria And Acquisition Policies
The city has established criteria to evaluate sites for their potential to fulfill the needs
identified by the plans and studies deE:cribed earlier in this chapter. preservation
opportunities. The following criteria are used to properly evaluate sites for the location
of parks, recreation facilities and open space preservation areas.
a) Open Space: The City of Andover will celect evaluate open space sites for
open space preservation opportunities based on the following criteria:
i) The area provides an opportunity to protect and preserve significant
local natural resources, including:
. Sensitiv G undwater recharge areas and natural hydrological systems
. Natural hv roloaical svstems
. Forests and Native plant communities
. Buffer areas adjacent to lakes. streams and wetlands
. ..f'A-L....o;ol Suffer areas adiacent to upland natural plant and animal
communities
. Unique biological, geologic31, historical and archaeological sites
. Lands important as wildlife containing significant areas of natural habitat,..-aR9
threatened or corridors or endangered species of plants or animals
. Threatened or endanaered species of plants or animals
. Educationally valuable features
.
historical educational archaeolo ical
-~
3
-- ---- -- --- - - -
,
~NDbVE~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
(~he =~ be prOleGle~Ufficienl in size 10 preserve and
en anc atural resources
iii) The area presents an opportunity to protect significant natural
resources that would otherwise be negatively affected by urban
development or negligence
i'l) The area connects or expands corridors of floodplain and wetlands.
Iv) The area provides opportunities for passive recreation and observation
of the natural environment -aIOFlg tr-ail sorFiefers.-.
vi) The area provides views of the natural environment along majef
transportation corridors includina roads and trails.
b) The City of Andover will select sites for open space preservation
based o.n..tbe ntllnlser _REI -;ala& of the evaluation criteria.... 65ftl't.
~ther factors may be considered, includina the amount of similar
resources that exist, the location of the area, the amount of fundina
available, and others. OPF.>oof sptt<~ Cq~I'?51f:)N vV;/1 Ec;rr-IJ.fbLJSJ..-i
AN o~..J"l:2cn l-€: $- Y s7fY'r' 4 fL R..e Co tyl'fl-VI 0 Q{) ~ekenorJ ~
Park Land Site Selection Criteria <;1 ~.'7:.
9!) Park Land: The City of Andover ,,".:i11 select park sites based on the following
criteria: The city has established criteria to evaluate sites for their
potential to fulfill the needs identified by the plans and studies described
earlier in this chapter. The followina criteria are used to properly
evaluate sites for the location of parks, recreation facilities
i) The area is in close proximity to particular natural resources, such as
lakes, rivers and other unique features
ii) The area is sufficient in size to allow the user to experience the natural
resource and enjoy compatible recreation activities without degrading the
natural resource or the visitor's experience
iii) The area is suitable for recreation opportunities that complement those
provided by other city parks and county and regional agencies
iv) The area is geographically located to fulfill and not duplicate the type of
ark and facilities needed to serve the present needs of residents and
the needs of the long range projected population in the service area
v) The area is located where it will be easily accessible
4
~NDbv]f~ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 10/10/07 DRAFT
vi) The area is physically suitable for types of facilities that are needed in
the service area
vii) The area has sufficient size and flexibility to provide a
variety of recreation opportunities and the capacity to be
adapted to the changing needs of residents in the future
viii) The area can provide linkage to the trail system, open
space corridors or other parks,
Public Controls or Ownership
. : The City of Andover recognizes at official
public trois and/or public ownership may be desirable and' some cases
essential t .
i) Assure public nd availability for future erations although the current
need may not be
iii) Preserve uni or significant landsca
geographic , istorical and archaeological
v) Meet both active ar:1d passive recreation needs
'f'~~ ..,. "r PN $ pA C'E
4121 Methods of Acquisition: To assure protection and availability of public land,
the City of Andover snail utilize various methods of acquisition, including but
not limited to:
.
i) City purchase
. Negotiated purchase with willing seller when possible
. Eminent domain may be utilized if an overriding public need can be
established MKl2005 Open Space Bond Referendum funds,aft) not
utiliZ~'~ ~AtN f>VU~S flt.v<;.r
ii) Coun or regional funding
iii) ~tat ~-
iv) Conservatio sements
v) Purchase or transfer of development rights
vi) Assistance and/or cost-sharing with other agencies
vii) Donationslbequests~oundations /.,,--------....,...
viii) Tax forfeited I~ ;"
(~_ _"""" ~_..:.-So~ '9z;-p Leo ~ / 4- ~"N $
!)cTlOIli<; 'if )c~k ~.wI"M-nOI\l ~~~-_!!!:fV
---- ---- --- ----------- - -- -- -
,
WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND AND WATER LEGACY PROGRAM
PRo~cTEVALUATIONCmrrEmA
The following criteria will be used to evaluate proposals for the Washington County Land and
Water Legacy Program. At its sole discretion, the county reserves the right to reject any or aU
proposals.
L GENERAL
For parcels to be considered for the acquisition and improvement of the land or an interest in the land
through the Land and Water Legacy Program it must meet one of the program purposes: improving
water quality of rivers, lakes, and streams; protecting drinking water sources; purchasing parklands,
including trail corridorS; preserving wetlands and woodlands; and protecting land along water bodies
from development The following factors should be present for a parcel to be considered for the Land
and Water Legacy Program.
A. Purchase of Parkland and Trail Corridors
Acquisition ofland or interests in land within the mapped boundary of actively developing
county parks and trail corridors will be considered outside the competitive process. For these
parcels, the county's highest priority is for fee acquisition. When the landowner is not willing
to sell fee title, the county may pursue a partial interest in the property through the purchase of
a conservation easement
B. Competitive Purchase of Development Rights Process
A voluntary application.is submitted by the landowner or on the landowner's behalf. The
applicant is willing to sell or place a permanent conservation easement on the parcel. The
criteria contained herein will be used to prioritize applications and determine which projects to
pursue.
C. Opportunity Purchases
The county may act upon a proposal needing immediate action without going through the
Competitive Purchase of Development Rights Process. These projects must have time
constraints such as a limited time to purchase an interest in the land due to imminent sale or
development or a limited time to use or apply for outside funding.
D. Local Matching Grant Program
The following criteria shall be met for a local unit of government to receive funds from the
Purchase of Development Rights Local Matching Grant Program:
(1) The county will approve funding on a parcel-by-parcel basis; and
(2) The funds are to be used to protect property consistent with an officially adopted land
protection plan or policy; and
(3) To be eligible for the funds, the local unit of government must demonstrate a commitment
to raising funds to cover at least 50% of the cost of the project (eligible costs include
interests in property as well as any real estate transaction costs); and
(4) The owner of the property must be willing to have the county or another unit of
government hold a perpetual conservation easement over the parcel that limits future
development of the parcel; and
1
- --- -------------------- -- ----
...
(5) Payment to the local unit of government shall be made after the costs are incurred and paid
for upon receipt of an invoice and proper documentation of the costs.
n. ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS
Natural areas and other open spaces provide a wide variety of environmental benefits to people.
Potential parcels, if protected, could improve surface and ground water resources, stabilize soils.
preserve woodlands and create natural flood storage capacity. Current and anticipated use of lands
adjacent to the site should not, over time, significantly diminish the ecological quality of the site.
A. Shoreland Frontage
The parcel is located adjacent to an intermittent or perennial stream, river or lake.
Ravine drains into water body: low
Less than 1/4 mile of frontage: medium
More than 1/4 mile offrontage: high
B. Ground Water Sensitivity
The parcel is located within an area identified on the Washington County Geologic Atlas as
sensitive to ground water contamination.
High sensitivity to ground water contamination: medium
Very high sensitivity to ground water contamination: high
Within a wellhead protection area: high
C. Erosion-prone Soils and Steep Slopes
The parcel is identified as being erosion prone or a steep slope according to the Natural
Resources Conservation Service classifications. These are soils with a class greater than or
equal to "5e".
Some coverage: low About 50% coverage: medium 1 00% coverage: high
D. County Biological Swvey Sites
The parcel contains one or more native plant communities, is relatively undisturbed and
provides habitat for a wide variety of resident and/or migratory wildlife. The presence of a
"state listed" species is an added value. These areas are identified on the National Areas Map
created by the Department of Natural Resources Minnesota County Biological Swvey project.
C07mty Biological Survey Site: low
County Biological Survey Area: medium
E. Forest Interior
The parcel is a relatively large tract with a high interior to edge ratio. The parcel is located
within a large block of forest interior, as shown on the "Forest Interior Criteria" map of the
Green Corridor Project analysis.
Some woods: low About 50% woods: medium 100% woods: high
m. LOCATION
A. Parcel Size
Relative size is considered in the ranking. Multiple contiguous parcels under single ownership
or a single application would be considered together.
< 10 acres: low 10-40 acres: medium > 40 acres: high
2
...
B. Connectivity
The parcel is near or adjacent to other land which has already been permanently protected from
development through a conservation easement, deed restriction, or public ownership. The
parcel provides a corridor that promotes the movement of wildlife.
Within 1/2 mi of private conservation easement or public protected land: low
Adjacent to protected land and creates a corridor of local significance (shorter): medium
Adjacent to protected land and creates a corridor of county significance (longer, contained in a
state, regional or COW'lty land protection plan): high
C. Buffer
The parcel adds value to an existing public facility by buffering the facility from encroaching
development The parcel protects the adjacent natural areas, important open spaces, rivers,
streams and lakes by reducing current or future negative impacts.
Some visual or ecological buffer: low
Significant visual or ecological buffer: medium
Adjacent to a COW'lty park: high
D. Imminence of Threat
The parcel is threatened by development pressure and fragmentation. Only a short period of
time may be available to protect an area from being permanently lost or degraded.
Is in no threat of development: low
Only a short period of time may be available to protect the area from being permanently lost or
degraded: medium
Has been offeredfor sale; other offers have been made on the property: high
E. Showcase
The parcel, because of its size, location, ecological characteristics, or history, can further
natural resource protection and provide attention, identity and stature to the Land and Water
Legacy Program. The parcel is a good 'showcase' for the program e.g. it is visible to and/or
useable by the public; it creates ecological connections and corridors of natural space; or it
demonstrates good water quality practices.
No opportunity to shuwcase the program: low
Has one of the 'showcase' characteristics: medium
Has more than one of the 'showcase' characteristics: high
IV. PuBLIC PuRPoSE
Many natural areas have the potential to serve many public purposes. In order to maximize the public
investment, propriety will be given to parcels that meet the needs of multiple partners.
A. Public Use! Access
Applicants who are willing to provide public access to the parcel for purposes of education,
stewardship or recreation will receive additional consideration.
Public use allowed but will not be in public ownership: low
In public ownership but will offer limited recreational or educational opportunities: medium
In public ownership allowing unrestricted use, and enhances current recreational or
educational opportunities: high
3
.
~
B. Multiple Public Purpose
The parcel has ability to serve multiple public purposes, such as water management, recreation,
environmental education, etc.
One purpose: low 2 purposes: medium 3 or more purposes: high
C. Preservation Plans
The parcel is within an area that is included in a land preservation program or plan (e.g. wild and
scenic river district, local greenways plan, conservancy zone district, historic preservation district,
scenic roadway, county park, etc.). The parcel is located within a corridor designated as scenic by
congressional or state legislative action, by local unit of government resolution or ordinance, or
some other formal method. Existing corridors include St. Croix Riverway, Mississippi National
River Recreation Area and County Road 21.
Within a local plan: low
Designation is in place: medium
Regulation or other tools such as zoning in place to protect the surrounding area: high
D. Historical Characteristics
The parcel is listed as a historical site on the State Register of Historic Sites or the parcel has
been registered as a Century Farm.
Preserves a segment of the county's cultural landscape: low
Century farm or other historical feature: medium
On national or state register: high
E. Local Support
Protection of the parcel is supported by the local community and other governmental agencies,
and other interested groups.
Some support: low moderate support: medium great amount of support: high
v. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Additional factors may warrant consideration in evaluating the project Such factors will be
reviewed, evaluated, and documented on a case-by-case basis.
VI. FINANCIAL AND TEcHNICAL AsSISTANCE
Some parcels may quality for other financial resources such as contributions of in-kind services or
matching funds from other public agencies; private or non-profit sources of funds; or a landowner
willing to accept a payment of less than the value of the property or development rights. If other
resources have been committed, a letter or other documentation of the commitment must accompany
the application. If other resources will be available at a future time, a statement describing the
availability of the resources should accompany the application.
A. Likelihood for Leveraging
No opportunity for leveragingfimds has been identified: low
Funding may be available from another organization: medium
Funding has been committed by another organization: high
B. Percent of Leverage
A portion of the total project cost is contributed from non county sources.
More than 0 but <50%: low 51% - 75%: medium > 75%: high
4
- ..~--.__. ._-~
.
I
c. Technical Assistance
Another organization is contributing staff time to complete the real estate transaction activities,
the project documentation or the landowner negotiations.
Some county staff time is reduced by the assistance of others: low
County staff time is needed to coordinate the activities to ensure completion: medium
Minimal county staff time is needed: high
VII. LlABlLITYffIMELINESS
The parcel will not become an unacceptable legal or financial liability due to known public health or
safety concerns (e.g. pollution concerns, abandoned wells, open dump sites, hazardous waste,
unoccupied or degraded st:ructmes), or real estate problems or issues which would prevent reaching
an agreement (e.g. title problems, survey problems, property encroachments, boundary disputes).
The parcel has known public health or safety concerns: high concern
The parcel has problems that will create difficulties in reaching an agreement: medium concern
The project is ready to go and the acquisition can be expedited sooner than expected because
some of the work is done, e.g. Phase 1, appraisal, draft conservation easement, etc.: low concern
N:\WP\legacyprog\OffControls\LegacyCriteria2007.doc
5