05-02-2002 Parks Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Parks & Recreation Commission May 2, 2002 • Culvert in the area should be checked or cleared to make sure that it is flowing. The high water mark of the wetland is one foot lower than the wetland boundary. If the level keeps increasing, residents will have to buy flood insurance. • Development would result in removal of the forest causing disruption to the homes of many animals such as deer, eagles, and the rare spotted skunk. Minnesota's State flower, the Lady Slipper, has also been seen on this property. This forest is critical for wetland preservation. If the trees are removed and there is a 100-year event, the sun•ounding homes would be affected. Also, the Watershed rates wetland according to how well it is forested. • Development would negatively impact the wetland, which would also impact the bodies of water connecting to the wetland such as Gervais Lake, and eventually the Mississippi River. Residents living adjacent to the wetland could also potentially feel the impact of a change to the wetland such as experiencing higher water levels causing them to have to buy flood insurance. The current owner has already filled in a portion of the wetland now known as the Mid Oaks Addition development. (The residents presented pictures of this property before it was filled in showing standing water on the site.) • The property has positively impacted many residents with its beauty. Development would cause the loss of a great educational tool for teachers, grade school children, and the community to have a scientific nature experience. • The property is an asset to the City and should be protected. Little Canada needs not only athletic parks, but also natural parks for mind stimulation. The City should not miss this opportunity to give Little Canada residents a natural park that is different from other City parks. A wild area within an urban setting would be very nice. Other cities are actually "adding" wetland to their existing parks. Much of Little Canada has already been lost to development. Letting what little backyard Little Canada has left be destroyed, would be irresponsible of us. • Property may have historic value since it was believed to be inhabited by Indians and an Indian burial ground may have been located on the site. • Palmen purchased the property from the Turnquists for $30,000 and filed for tax-exempt status approximately ten years ago. The property was declared negligible which means the property available for development is so small that tax laws do not apply. Owner just recently applied to get the properly back on the tax rolls since they have a signed purchase agreement with a developer. Even though the purchase agreement is for $525,000, the actual value may be a lot less since the developable property is so small. There may not be enough room to build anything. • Many years ago, Palmen tried to develop the property for his sister and himself, but the City turned him down due to the lack of land for development. • Residents are in favor of the City's purchase of the property for parkland. Money can always be fotimd to buy the land, but if the owners are allowed to develop the land, the City will never he able to recoup the loss of the forest, animals, etc. Sackett Glaser stated that she received a phone call, e-mail and a letter from additional residents expressing similar sentiment. Page 2 of 6