Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP May 29, 1990 :,) " ) .~~. 7:00 P.M. CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL/PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - MAY 29, 1990 1. Call to Order 2. Park Dedication Requirements - Ordinance 10 3. Kelsey - Round Lake Park 4. capital Budget for 1991 5. Comprehensive Plan 6. Future Maintenance for Parks 7. 8. Adjournment \ ) Page Two May 29, 1990 March 3, 1989 - Opinion letter from Bill Hawkins regarding park dedication requirement fees. March 7, 1989 - City Council approved Ordinance amendment giving the Park and Recreation Commission the authority to hire an appraiser in order to ascertain the fair market value. December 12, 1989 - City Council amended the ordinance to all the Park and Recreation Commission to collect park dedication on metes and bounds lot splits less than 20 acres in size. The amount to be determined through the same process outlined in Section 9.07.05. April 16, 1990 - Opinion letter from Curtis Larson on how to determine marked value of lands. April 17, 1990 ~ City Council is concerned with the Park Commission utilizing an appraiser for each property where park dedication would be collected. May 1, 1990 - City Council requests Park and Recreation Commission to review current ordinance standards. Park Commission requests Work Session with City Council. If the City Council has any questions prior to this meeting, please contact me at City Hall. , ,~ ':,J CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION May 29, 1990 AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO. 2. Park Dedication Requirements - Ordinance 10 <5~ FOR BY: BY: The City Council is requested to discuss with the Park and Recreation Commission the park dedication requirements; specifically, Section 9.07.6(b) (hiring of an appraiser) and Section 9.07.11 (Metes and Bounds Lot Splits). Here is an update of what has happened in the past two years. March 17, 1988 - Park Commission made motion to pursue bids for updating the Comprehensive Plan. May 5, 1988 - Park Commission prepared a priority list. The top four priorities are as follows: 1. Park dedication - analysis of similar communitie~. 2. Inventory analysis - demographics. 3. Development strategies - urban and rural. 4. Trail systems. July 12, 1988 - Westwood Planning and Engineering was hired to complete priorities 1 & 3. October 14, 1988 - First draft from Westwood Planning and Engineering. January 24, 1989 - Public hearing, Ordinance 10 amendments with Planning Commission. February 21, 1989 - City Council reviews amendment to Ordinance 10, Section 9.07 (Park Dedication). Item was tabled to allow City Attorney to look at the legalities regarding park dedication on a per dwelling unit. continued COUNCIL ACTION "J MOTION BY TO SECOND BY " ~- I IV. ANALYSIS OF SURROUNOING COMMUNI..~S OF PARK DEDICATION FEES CCMI1UNITY Andover ',,) 1r 81a1ne RESI DENT! l>L Land' Dedication. 10~ ot Qro.. l~nd araAI' 0-3 units/"era 12~ of gro.w areA' " unlta"ac:ro :s units/acl-. and so on or for lot. up to :s _c:...... Cash Dedication. IO~ of market value COMfIIERCIAL. tot. of gro.. .r~. O~ 10% of market value ,,' .39~/.lnal. ~.Ml1y unl' 3~ of the ~.lr M.rk.' .33S/dupl_N unl. ..,.1-... In land or Mon_)'. '293/townhou.. unl~ 'e~8/Multl-r.mlly unit '30~/MObllD home unit Land d.dlc:atton based on qnlt density. 0-1 unit./.cre :S~ o~ land 2-3 unita/aera !O~ of land 4-~ unit./acre 12~ of land &-7 unlts/acr. 14~ or land 8-12 unlts/aere 16~ or land 13-16 unit./acr. lOt. of land Each unit over 16 unltn/acre t. an additional O.=~ Brooklyn Park SOt. 0' ~.lr m.rko~ valu. 10~ of gros. land ar.a ChamplJn IO~ 0' gro.s area or '14001.1ngl. ramlly acr. '2~OO/M.djum d.nalty Acr. * Coon Rapid. C.allh. Single fa",lly Duplex Townhous./Duads Mobile Homes Multlpl.s ,,3841dw. .326/dw. "P.8&/dw. S291/dw. S238/dw. .,nit unit unit unit unit 4~ of 'aIr mark.t value lOX or gro.. are. or .....:OO/.acr. 3~ or 'aIr rn.rk.t vAlu. _ not to _Nc.ed ~11:2/acr.. INDUSTRIAL DATE OF LATEST REVISION lO~ or gro.. <<ro. or 1u% uf market value 1979 3~ o~ the ralr Mark.' value in land or MO".~.. 1986 4~ or ralr mark.t value 1973 10~ of gross are. or .":SOO/acr. 1989 =~ or fair market v.lue _ hOt to eMce.d $ll~2/.ac:r.. 1984 land-only at City'. agrewNent. 3~ of land :5;( of land 0-1 unlt./acrt! :5~ or land 2-3 unit.lllcr. IO~ of land 4-:5 unlh/acr. 1210 or land .> 6-7 unlts/l\crlJ l4~ of land . -.~.I .. 8-12 units/aere 1611 of land 13-1& unlts/acr. IBlI or land Each additional unit per aera .:5;( of land EagAn Eden PraIrie Elk Rlvcr H.. Lake * Lakevl11. \. .J Slngla, Family DupleK Townhou.e/Qulld ApartMent/Multiple Fees are to be paid of final plat. $:2':/unJ t SIt8S/lJn i t S41..../unl t S427/unlt At the time 91ngle FaMily .7~O/unJt Multiple FaMily ~7~O/~nlt .3=0/unit or 10~ of pro.. land are. Sl~O laer. or 10~ of gross lAnd area s=~O/unft or ].~ dedication b~s.d on density 10~ 0 -2.~ un. lac. 11~ 2.~+ -4.0 un. lac. IJt. 4.0+ -6.0 un./ae. 1~f. 6.0+ -9.0 un. lac. 171. 8.0+ -10.0 un./.e. 17-20~ 10.0+ un. lac. 'Plus Sl~O/un. for multi- purpose tr.all 'Y9tem. S.O~/sq. ft. based on not developable land 1a;:iSO/"cre tt:500/acr. or lOll or gt'"055 area t.O:5/sq. ft. based on net dev.lopablG land 1989 .2~E:.0/Ac:r. 1989 1989 1989 1988 .. Mapl. Gt"ove Oak Grove '\ 'J R.....sey St. Franei. Woodbury , \ .J $~18/unit or lO~ of lAnd ar.. 7~ of grow. land ar... .~O/unlt O~ 10~ of th. 'air market value, which.vol"" is great.r. 10~ of grQss area. 10~ or the '.lr market value or ,~OO per dw~111~g unit ct-..ted. whichever Is gr.ater. 10" of gro.. land ..-.. or e..h In lieu of land equal to 10~ of the ..se...d Market value or.~OO per lot "hlchev.r 15 gr..ter. Slngl. FAMily 10" ot 'aIr market value/lot - not to exc.ed "450/10t Mul.t lpt. ,..",t ly 10" or 'atr market v.lue/lot - not to excead *3~O/lot 'Z8~O/.er. or 7-1~" of land .re. S16::ic)/aere 1989 (Currently updating park dedication fees) 1978 1988 10~ of talr Market value of lan4'- not to exceed .1200 per ac:re 1987 :% of gro.. ar... 10~ o( fair Markot value of land - not to eMce.d .1~OO per aer. *'Researched by Westwood Development (others researched by city staff). ~J Regular City Council Meeting March 7, 1~89 - Minutes Page 6 ("No-Wake" Ordinance Public Hearing, Continued) Motion carried unanimousiy. Councilmember Orttel also recommended asking the county that all landings be posted. Council agreed to wait with the posting until the County acts on an ordinance. Pubiic Hearing closed at 8:52 p.m. > ORDINANCE 10 AMENDMENT/PARK DEDICATION Park Board Commissioner Ron Ferris explained the Park Board has reviewed their recommendation and the Council's proposal at the last meeting. It is still their opinion that $466 per lot is reasonable, showing Justification for it. He noted that based upon al I the transaction of the past few years, the average park dedication per lot is $464; so the number they are aiming for is no different than the present ordinance except it is a smoothing of the urban and rural areas. Secondly, the reason less per lot is charged in the higher denisty areas is because it is required that those areas have their own park. So there is less usage of the parks from those areas. Thirdly. Councilmember Orttel had thought the $466 dedication in the rural area was too low since no further dedication can ever be collected if the land is subdivided. But they are recommending the dedication be $466 per lot or 10 percent of the fair market value, whichever is higher. So if the per-lot dedication is too low, the 10 percent factor would be applied. Attorney Hawkins reviewed the statutory framework that authorizes cities to impose these requirements on developers. For park dedication, the City may choose an equivalent amount to the land dedication based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approvai. It was his opinion that if land is not desired. the City can require cash in the amount equivalent to the amount of land given at the time of final approval. He didn't think the per-dwelling unit cash dedication complies with the State Statute. With the varying land values in Andover, he felt the per-dwel ling unit of cash park dedication is inequitable. Mayor EI ling stated at the last meeting the developers testified the park dedication may be too low, but the proposed amount is too high. Attorney Hawkins thought the value of land being used to determine park dedication is too low. Mr. Ferris stated they have not been able to determine what much of the land is worth. Attorney Hawkins then suggested to determine the fair market value at the time of approval, the Commission wii I have to go to an appraisal method. / . ". .~ ." ~~ Regula~ City Council Meeting Ma~ch 7. 1989 - Minutes Page 7 (O~dlnance 10 Amendment/Pa~k Deducatlon. Continued) M~. Fe~~ls explained the p~esent o~dinance ullows the Commission to take cash in lieu of land by dete~mining which land It would take fo~ pa~k dedication and then negotiate with the develope~ a fal~ ma~ket value at the time of final plat. If an ag~eement cannot be ~eached. the Council is to hi~e an outside app~aise~. If the pe~-dwelling-unit method of pa~k dedication Is not app~oved. they ~ecommend amending the o~dlnance to allow the Pa~k Boa~d to hi~e the app~aise~s. They would ~ecommend having th~ee app~aisals done. Afte~ a pe~lod of one yea~. they will be able to dete~mine with g~eate~ accu~acy Just what the land Is wo~th In the City. The Pa~k Boa~d believes, howeve~, that this method will be mo~e costly to the develope~ than the pe~-dwelling-unit method. Council discussed the last p~oposal to have an app~aisal done to dete~mine the fai~ ma~ket value at the time of the final plat, though the Council gene~ally felt that one app~alsal would be sufficient. The Pa~k Boa~d could have a list of acceptable and qualified app~aisers from which both they and the develope~ could ag~ee to use fo~ the app~alsal. The fees fo~ that app~aisal would be cha~ged back to t~e develope~. . Discussion continued on the p~oposals before the Council plus othe~s. after which it was ag~eed the Pa~k Boa~d should be given autho~ity to hire an appraiser to determine fair market value of the land when cash in lieu of land is ~equested fo~ pa~k dedication. The item is to be reviewed again after one year. * MOTION by Pe~~y, Seconded by Knight, that the Andover City Council give to the Andove~ Pa~k and Rec~eation Commission the autho~ity to hire an app~aise~ in o~de~ to asce~tain the fair market value p~io~ to final plat approval so that the pa~k dedication fee can be based on that fair market value: and amend O~dinance 10, Section 9.07.6, Subsection b. Motion ca~~ied unanimously. Council recessed at 9:37: reconvened at 9:48 p.m. NORDEEN SPE~IAL USE PERMIT M~. Haas explained M~. No~deen has been mlnlng di~t on the p~ope~ty since 1960, which was allowed by o~dinance. But since then the operatIon has enla~ged and an amended Special Use Permit is ~equi~ed. The Planning Commission has ~eviewed the ~equest and ~ecommends app~oval . , ~ MOTION by Knight, Seconded by O~ttel, int~oducing a Resolution app~ovlng the Special Use Pe~mit ~equested by Go~don No~deen to mine soil from the property at 15357 Pralrl~ RnMrl NW_ -reDO ......w 0I'I'1CES OT ~,) Rurke ond ..Howkins 5UlTl: 101 2" COON MPlC5 BOUl..EVAftD COON ftAPID5. MI'lHESOTA Dll433 I'HONI: 101217__ JOHN M. OURKE W1UJAM G. HAWKINS BARRY M. ROllINSON March 3, 1989 Andover Mayor and City Council Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 Re: Park Dedication Changes Dear Mayor and City Council Members: This letter is written in response to your request for our review and opinion concerning the proposed change to the park dedication requirements wherein fees would be established for cash contributions based upon the number of single family dwelling units that are to be constructed in a subdivision. The authority for the dedication of park land or, in lieu thereof, cash is found at Minnesota Statute 462.358, Subd. 2b. The statute reads as follows: .) "In addition, the regulations may require that a reason- able portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, play- grounds, trails or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval...." The state statute has been reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1976 in a case entitled Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19. In this decision the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state statute granting cities the right to require dedication of property or cash contributions and furthermore determined that dedication of lO% of a subdivision for property or parks and playgrounds or con- tribution of the equivalent amount in cash was reasonable and within the scope of the state statute. ~ '\ '--~ Andover Mayor and Council Members March 3, 1989 Page 2 The proposal by the Park Commission is to impose fees based upon the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision ranging from $466 per single family unit to $363 for a mobile home unit. The research provided by the Planning Commission indicates that a number of communities throughout the metropolitan area are now establishing cash contributions for parks based upon single family dwelling units created by the subdivision. The cities surveyed indicate dedication per dwelling unit ranged from $50 to $750. While this is common in the metropolitan area, never- theless I believe it can be argued that the imposition of these amounts are beyond the scope of the enabling legislation which allows municipalities to collect fees for park purposes. The state statute provides that the cash equivalent must be based upon the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of the final plat. The amounts established by dwelling unit bear no relationship to the value of the land that is being developed. Furthermore, the research by the Planning Commission indicates that at least three subdivisions in the urban area had purchase price evaluations of between approximately $2,000 to $3,500 per acre. If we assume 2.3l4 dwelling units per acre on a residential subdivision in the urban area, we would be col- lecting approximately $l,070 for park dedication fees on land which supposedly had a valuation of $2,000 at the date of final plat approval. This would amount to nearly 50% of the land value at the time of final approval. While that in and of itself may not be deemed an unreasonable portion of the proposed plat, it nevertheless is substantially greater than the amount approved by the Supreme Court in the Collis decision. I believe if the City Council wishes to consider this type of an approach it should have at least some substantiation for the amount proposed per dwelling unit. This may have to relate to the cost of capital improvements for parks that the City currently is exper ienc ing. I also see the potential challenge as to the constitutionality of this type of provision based upon a denial of equal protec- tion. A developer ~ho must contribute cash based upon this formula is required to grant to the City considerable more value than an individual who merely gives lO% of his entire plat in land. In summary I cannot guarantee that the amount established by the city method would be free from challenge since park dedication utilizing this method has been untested in court. If the city wishes to utilize this formula, it should make every effort to base their decision upon facts which indicate the reasonableness of these charges as they relate to each specific development under consideration. / SinCerelY'~ S~~ Ba~ i :- WGH:mk , '\ '-) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 MEMORANDUM TO: COPIES TO: FROM: DATE: REFEREN CE: Jeff Kieffer Mayor and City Council, Jim Schrantz Todd J. Haas, Parks ~M May 1, 1990 Park dedication for various properties I have determined the park dedication for the following properties as determined by the appraiser, Curtis Larson, since the Ordinance has been in effect. Plat or Park Park Property Dedication Dedication Date Total Area Owner Paid Per Acre 9-11-89 (5.98 acres) Kirby Estates $4840 $809 (Urban) 8-14-89 (18.17 acres) Echo Hill Phase $6920 $380 One (Rural) 4-2-90 (0.73 acres) Eugene Brown $2464 $3375 (Urban) 4-3-90 (8.97 acres) Mike Walker $2420 $269 (Rural) 3-30-90 (10.05 acres) James Deal $5000 $497 (Rural) '\ .-J , \ "-) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION May 29, 1990 AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM 3. Kelsey - Round NO. Lake Park ;('1~ BY: 'T'nnn:r U""", APtOVR. FOR AG DA' y,{/ / The city Council is requested by the Park and Recreation Commission to discuss Kelsey - Round Lake Park. The Park and Recreation Commission is looking at the possibility of developing the park and acquiring property as part of a grant and would like some direction from the City Council. As part of this discussion, each City Council and Park Commission member is asked to bring other ideas or thoughts for the development of this park. ,-J MOTION BY TO COUNCil ACTION SECOND BY ~ ) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION May 29, 1990 AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.4. Capi tal Budget for 1991 .'("1"'" BY: Tonn.1 Hnn!:: APPROVED FOR AGEN): A '1 (YfJ) I. 1/ BY:! \ / The City Council and Park Commission is to discuss the Capital Budget for 1991. It is getting to that time of the year where the Park Commission will begin looking at a Wish List for 1991. COUNCIL ACTION MOTION BY - '\ ,) TO SECOND BY \_) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION May 29, 1990 AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO. 5. Comprehensive Plan ~ BY: The City Council and Park Commission is requested to discuss the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION BY ) TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY , '\ "..,/ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION May 29, 1990 AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NQ 6. Future Maintenance for Parks BY: -(51{\' 'l'nnn:r H...... '" APPROVED FOR AGENn.A,.~' VI ' BY: /'~ / The City Council and Park Commission is requested to discuss future maintenance of parks. There is some concern from the Park Commission that parks may not be getting enough attention. MOTION BY '\ ) TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY