Laserfiche WebLink
original owners, or transferred to another party. The City would not be <br />involved in this type of transaction, since no subdivision would be required. <br />4. Transfer the subject property to a conservation group, such as 1000 Friends <br />of Minnesota, or Minnesota Land Trust. These are non - profit organizations <br />that hold property, sometimes in fee and sometimes in trust, for the purposes <br />of open space or environmental preservation. They have standards for which <br />properties they will accept, based on size, location, and characteristics. If the <br />parcel to be protected is not a separate parcel, the City would need to <br />approve a subdivision. These organizations may accept easements, but the <br />circumstances vary. <br />5. The City could create a zoning classification, such as a "Conservation <br />District ", intended to protect environmentally sensitive lands. It should be <br />noted that floodplains, shorelands, and wetlands already have such <br />protection. It should also be noted that to the extent that a new zoning <br />classification had the effect of making a property unusable, the City would <br />need to consider the potential for a "takings" claim. The City would either <br />need to unilaterally identify candidate areas for this district, or consider private <br />applications for this zoning designation. <br />If the City considers owning property through donation, it should consider what public <br />purposes might be important in considering whether to accept a particular donation. <br />Issues may include public access, public views, sensitivity of the property to <br />environmental degradation, and any other public values that would make acceptance of <br />the property worthwhile. <br />Factors in establishing a policy might include minimum sizes, likelihood of future <br />development, potential property liability and need for maintenance, and if any public <br />improvement costs would be incurred in accepting or owning the land. <br />In summary, it is unclear what specific benefit might be realized by the City in accepting <br />property through either donation or tax forfeiture, except in occasional circumstances <br />where there was a clear public interest in public use or ownership. For property owners <br />seeking protection of their property from future development, there are options that <br />could include City participation through subdivision approval, and others that would not <br />even require City review. Assuming that the City is not interested in becoming the <br />owner of the subject parcel, staff would encourage the applicants in the McMenemy <br />case to pursue private solutions such as options 2, 3, or 4 above to minimize the City's <br />concern over eventual tax foreiture. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />Steve Westerhaus <br />Lee Elfering <br />Greg Schroeder <br />