Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/03CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda April 8, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 a.m. 1. Call to Order 2: Approval of Minutes - March 25, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -02) to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) to include property located at 16150 Crosstown Boulevard NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning (03 -03) to change the zoning designation from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban •_ Residential (R -4) for property located at 1.6150 Crosstown Boulevard NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split (03 -03) to create a new rural residential property from property located at 838 Crosstown Boulevard NW. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -02) to consider amending Ordinance 266 to modify existing rental licensing requirements. 7. PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -03) to adopt Park Study as a component of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan.. 8. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER . 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 - 5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes March 25, 2003 DATE: April 8, 2003 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the March 25, 2003 meeting. • r • CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MARCH 25, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on March 25, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent:. Commissioner Tony Gamache Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others • APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 11, 2003 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carved on 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Daninger), 1- absent vote. PUBLICHEARING. LOT SPLIT (03 -02) TO CREATE TWO URBANLOTSAT PROPERTYLOCATEDAT 16034 CROSSTOWNBOULEVARD FOR REYNOLD N. ORSTAD. Mr. Bednarz explained that the property owner is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two parcels. The purpose is to create separate lots for , .existing home and business uses. This property will be further subdivided into 42 single- family lots into the Constance Comers plat. Mr. Bednarz stated both lots will exceed the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R4 Zoning District. ' Staff has approved the preliminary plat for Constance Corners, and is now going through the feasibility study. This property owner, as well as two adjoining property owners are also submitting an interior lot line adjustment which would allow parcel's A -1 and A -2 to become part of the church property to the northeast and parcel D would become part of the property to the 1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2003 Page 2 southwest, while parcel E would become part of parcel C. All of this would be a condition of the lot split resolution, as to avoid the presence of any out lots. Commissioner Vatne asked if the tax standpoint was the sole purpose of the lot. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Greg Schlank, Brueggeman Properties, 3564 Rollingview Drive, White Bear Lake, stated he was representing Mr. Orstad in the lot split request. He stated they have requested to split the property into two lots. One lot for the income property, which was for the horses on the property, and the other lot was for the homestead. He stated this helps him facilitate a 1031 tax re- exchange on the income portion of the property. He stated it was housekeeping for Mr. Orstad in keeping the property separate. When the final plat is done, it will match the lot split line exactly and the forty-two lots will be created. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Vatne asked as a review, on the Resolution, there was a reference made to Criteria of Ordinance 8 and 40. There were several conditions regarding lot splits in the • Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated that if Commissioner Vatne wanted to know if they needed to make findings, the answer is no because they have met all of the requirements in terms of area, width and depth, and there is not a variance. It is more a matter of evaluating its compliance with the Ordinance and making sure everything matches up. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the lot split request subject to the conditions of the resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 1, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING: ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (03 -03) CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 7.03 SPECL4L USES TO ALLOW SERVICE STATIONAND CAR WASH USES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER ZONING DISTRICT BEFORE 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL FLOOR SPACE IS CONSTRUCTED AS PART OFANAPPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the development of Hamilton Square, a commercial plat located at • the northeast comer of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. .A Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2003 Page 3 • Staff has discussed the potential development of the property with the owners of the property, their marketing firms and potential developers over the past two years. A recurring theme of the discussions is that the initial retail floor space requirement is too large for the first stage of development. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald explained he thought the idea is the applicants would like the Commission to consider a small area so a car wash and service area could be constructed before any other retail space. He stated he liked this. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this would be an amendment to the Ordinance for PUD's. Mr. Bednarz stated it would be an amendment for the Shopping Center District so that the car wash and service station uses for that district would be changed. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was something in the process to ensure they would complete the rest of the shopping center after the service center went in. Mr. Bednarz stated with the PUD there is a contract between the developer and the City and the various aspects of the contract can be negotiated. However, it is difficult to place a timeframe or some other requirement but they could ask the developer to place a bond or • performance guarantee. Commissioner Jasper wondered how the City would make sure after the car wash and service center was in, they could make sure the rest of the shopping center was developed. He asked if there was anything written into the PUD Ordinances that would address that issue. Mr. Bednarz stated the PUD Ordinance is more general in nature and talks about what they are trying to achieve and not necessarily the specific methods of getting there. The specific development standards are established with the contract Commissioner Greenwald if the people who are planning th center will also be the owners of the service center. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Planner for Landform, stated they are requesting the zoning ordinance text amendment but they are not yet prepared to request the PUD. They did include in the packets a concept plan on how the site may develop. She stated when they come in with the PUD application, they will have tenants lined up for many of the sites and they will not speculate on tenants. As part of the PUD, the City requires a little higher design and amenities. She stated they request this amendment as part of the PUD to be flexible. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the square footage would be. Ms. Lindahl stated they • estimated 40,000 square feet with a mix of office and retail. Commissioner Vatne asked how soon they would begin with some of the patios and fountains. Ms. Lindahl stated all of this is part of the discussion as they move forward and part of the negotiation that wilt happen. She explained it will be very appealing to people and they would like to get an anchor store in as soon as possible. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff to close the public hearing at 7;23 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper asked if it was appropriate to add language to the end of the amendment or are they shackling the amendment too much to allow a PUD process. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he thought with the PUD process this would be handled. Commissioner Greenwald stated he like the concept of giving some flexibility without putting too much language into it and it is a benefit to the community. He stated he was in favor of recommending this. Mr. Kirchoff asked if a performance bond would be held as a part of the approval. Mr. Bednarz stated in terms of performance bonds, this is geared more towards site improvements and not the establishment of specific uses. Commissioner Jasper stated what he understood Mr. Bednarz to say is that normally a PUD would not include performance guarantees that if they let the developer to do a gas station first, they will be sure to do the rest. He stated his gut feeling is that he would be more comfortable including that language because they will be doing an exception to the general rule and they want some way to enforce it. Commissioner Kirchoff stated this was not an exception but a change to the Ordinance. Commissioner Greenwald stated he thought they needed to give them some flexibility because he did not think they would start building without a thorough plan. Chairperson Daninger stated a PUD does have a higher level of standards. Ms. Kendra Lindahl stated that much of the uncertainty will be resolved through the PUD process in terms of how the center will look and because they will likely have other users lined up by that time. Mr. Darren Lazan with Landform stated their intent is to create some flexibility to assemble the users because there is no doubt that the gas user will be the most likely one to step forward first. That use will take on a significant part of the infrastructure to kick the development off and make the other ones fall into place. He stated he thought this property has been empty for a number of years because it was tied to this requirement. He stated their goal is to go out and assemble the largest number of users. Commissioner Jasper asked what Mr. Lazan's reaction would be to the idea of requiring • performance guarantees or performance bonds that guarantee the rest of the development Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2003 Page 5 • would be built after the gas station. Mr. Lazan stated he thought it was redundant and inherent in the PUD process. He stated the flexibility they gain by sequencing this in a different order could be easily removed if there is a financing requirement or bonding requirement and it would cancel that flexibility out He stated the gas user will likely be ready sooner and will pay more per foot for this land. He added that he is a resident of Andover who lives in this neighborhood and is just as interested in creating a quality development. Commissioner V atne asked why they would not approve a variance on this property instead of an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated typically they do not approve a variance to uses; they approve variances to a standard that, due to a characteristic of the land, causes undue hardship. Chairperson Daninger stated this is going to be a PUD and when they get PUD in front of them they do set high standards. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed ordinance amendment to allow flexibility in the staging of developments within the SC District provided a PUD is approved to ensure the centers will achieve the intent of the SC District as they mature. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 15, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA 99 FOR ANDOYER STATIONNORTH, CONCERNING THE ANDOVER EDA'S 100 ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF BUNKER LAKE BOULEYARD AND JAY STREET. . Mr. Bednarz explained that as directed by the EDA, staff has been working with Short Elliot Henrickson (SEH) to prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Andover Station North- The EAW is a technical environmental review used for purposes of determining whether there is a need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) based on the proposed development. The City staff has prepared an "Executive Summary" for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Commissioner Greenwald stated this was presented to them a few months ago. Mr. Bednarz stated this has been an extensive process and EAW is just one step they take in preparing the land for development. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 25, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Vatne explained there was reference on the last page that spoke about the • VPIC program. He asked if this meant that through the action plan this site can be satisfactorily cleaned up to remove the contamination. Mr. Bednarz stated the majority of the contamination is from fuel and oil from vehicles and the question is more how the site will be cleaned. He stated the EAW confirms that the contamination is relatively minor and the site can be effectively cleaned. Commissioner Vatne asked if the City agreed to take on the burden of the clean up. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. A map of the area was shown and Mr. Bednarz explained what the map consisted of Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this matched with their traffic study. Mr. Bednarz stated it did. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, I - absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. • Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they will be looking at residential plats in the near future. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver QFSite Secretarial, Inc. E CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City PlanneOf SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -02) to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) to include property located at 16150 Crosstown Boulevard NW. DATE: April 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend the Municipal Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) to include the subject property. The existing MUSA boundary runs along 161 St Avenue NW (CSAH 20) as illustrated in the attachments. The purpose of the amendment would be to allow municipal utilities to be extended to the subject property. DISCUSSION As discussed at the February 11, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant will be expanding the size of the existing church. It will be most cost effective for this project to include municipal sewer and water. Municipal utilities will become available as the Bluebird Sanitary Sewer Trunk will be extended to serve the Constance Corners development on the south side of 161" Avenue NW (CSAH 20). If approved, this land use change will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review. This would be considered a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Attachments Resolution Location Map ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive P' Amendment. Z submi ed, en Cc: Jim Barber, Constance Evangelical Free Church, 16150 Crosstown Blvd NW U CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -03 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER TO EXPAND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE CONSTANCE FREE CHURCH PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 16150 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW (P.I.D.14- 32- 24 -14- 0001,0003,0004,0005 and 0006) LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT A; WHEREAS, The Constance Free Church has petitioned the City of Andover to extend municipal sewer and water to the subject property, and; WHEREAS, The 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) does not include the subject property, and; WHEREAS, analysis of the Bluebird Sanitary Sewer Trunk has determined that sufficient capacity exists to serve the subject property, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the amendment as requested, and; WHEREAS, The Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and adopts the following amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, subject to review by the Metropolitan Council: 1) Extend the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) to include the Constance Free Church properties, legally described in Exhibit A. 2) Subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council. opted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of , 2003. ' OF ANDOVER ST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor l� Volk, City Clerk —Z- Exhibit A '1 y PARCEL ONE • The east 198 feet of the north 330 feet of the south 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, except Parcel 53, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 20, fded as Anoka County recorder document No. 655265. FeR� That part of the east 971.35 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 103.00 feet thereof, except the following four described parcels:. 1. The east 330 feet of the south 66020 feet of the north 76320 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. 2. The east 198 feet of the north 330 feet of the south 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County. Minnesota. 3. The east 396 feet of the south 165 feet of floe Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, M'inrresota. 4. Parcel 51, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF- -WAY PLAT NO. 20, filed a&Moka County recorder docjment No. 655265. . PARCELTHREE e east 132 feet of the south 165 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Mange 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. except Parcel 53, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 20, fled as Anoka County recorder docurent No. 635265. . All that pmt of floe SouthoW Quarter of the Norther Quarter of Section 14, Towns* 32, Range 24, Anoka County, br=mM descrg)ed as foDow= 13eginuistg at a point on the East lime of said Southeast Quarter of Ere Nartt"t Quarter distant 103 feet South of the Northeast comer thereof &On= South along the East One of said Southeast Quarter Of floe Nord"A Quartet for a distance of 66020 feet; thence West and parallel with floe North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for a distance of 330 feet; t an= north parellal with the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for s distance of 66020 feet; thmx East and ParkM with the North l of said Southeast Quarter of 1110 Northeast Quwter to the PODt of bepnung, Anoka County, i`+Nota- Abstract Property 16234 Crosstaw' Boulevard NW, Andover, WMnesota Parcel Torrens Property Certificate of Title No. 67102 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 32, • Range 24, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 132 feet west from the southeast cornea of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence west, along said south line, a distance of 264 feet; thence north, at a right angle, a distance of 165 feet; thence east, at a right angle, a distance of 264 feet; thence south, at a right angle, a distance of 165 feet to the point ofbeeinnina. —3 \ Constance Free Church I f-- I I - -~/ e - - -I '/ \f'\.'- ~ f-- 1'- "'\. -~- ->- - - ~ - - -,; ~/-:..; III -~-_., - // - , // II Iff _ I - - - ~'" --- IA ~ -=- . - - --\ - - -. .-'" - - -=- - --- - - - - - - - 1/- / - - \ - - N.\ - "7 _ Proposed 2020 L l.,..=.,t/ - _ - =:= MUSA Boundary - _ -w - I Expansion - \.7'- Ef;;1''''Y.iP' . - 1- -I-W-I Existing 2020 - I- - ~ ~ MUSA Boundary ~ r- a . . . - -1- \- ,. ~ ~ . - . ---=-. . - rl... n: ~ ~ e ---"'g- - - . - ~ l' - _ _ I _ -1' _ - - ~ I _ - ..J)~ ''''''~ - - - r--- ....: '\ - - - - ---..: \ - - >=' ~r-.Y\Q;}. - -- f- :. ",_" ~"lll~~6\ L::J - -'- - - - ~- " _''''i~ Illli~<>;:':' _ _ . - - - - _ I ':: I '~~ _ -=- ~ ~ ~ _ . . - - - . - - _ I -~J ~ ~ ~::?-.~- _ -:. i I v' _ _ (-=. - . - -?-. ::-- /~ -; ~ _ 11- f': - - I - -. . -r.1 - l.s:? ~ ~"'i ~"l! ~4- - . I-- - . .. . If. . - _ I--' I ,~ _)'~ ~ - ,dr- _ - I - '\ . I--- Ir_ _ - 1--1-0' ii; -1'_- - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ iii'1.~- ,,- - :/' 0 - - ! - . .~: - - J: :L::" -: 1iI)I' :::''=: ~ _ ~ 1" ~Ir. "''&- -= .~ "" ~ __ ~_ ..._11:: ~ _ ~ _ ~ - ~ : ~~ R~"- - ';!w ):;::: I -'-,-'~""'--'~~.~I ~ ~,- -- ~~- _~ - - - I _ . f-- I ,It._- - - ~ \ - I 'x - Project Location Map - - - - - - - - Existing 2020 MUSA Boundary N e W~E ................ Proposed MUSA Boundary Extension . Andover Planning -1-- A CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8423 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City PlanneO SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning (03 -03) to change the zoning designation from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) for property located at 16150 Crosstown Boulevard NW. DATE: April 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to change the zoning of the subject property from rural residential to urban residential for the subject property to reflect the availability of urban services (municipal sewer and water). DISCUSSION As with all rezonings, the City must meet one of the two following findings that are provided by state statute: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the rezoning. If the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved, the subject property will be included within the 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). At this point times and conditions will have changed and it will be appropriate to change the zoning district to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4), a district that allows municipal utilities. Attachments Ordinance Amendment Location Map ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. /'V Cc: Jim Barber, Constance Evangelical Free Church, 16150 Crosstown Blvd NW A CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone land from R -1, Single Family Rural Residential to R-4, Single Family Urban Residential on approximately 25 acres legally described on Exhibit A. 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this ^ day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER . ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 —Z_ _ Exhibit A . PARCEL ONE • The east 198 feet of the north 330 feet of the south 495 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14. Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. except Parcel 53. ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 20, filed as Anoka County recorder document No. 665255. pARC LI That part of the east 971.35 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32. Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. lying southerly of the north 103.00 feet thereof, except the following four described parcels: 1. The east 330 feet of the south 66020 feet of the north 76320 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. Section 14, Township 32. Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. 2. The east 198 feet of the north 330 feet of the south 435 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14. Township 32, Range 24. Anoka County. Minnesota. 3. The east 396 feet of the south 165 feet of the Southeast O0arter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32. Range 24, Anoka County, W*nnesota. 4. Parcel 51, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 20, teed asAnoke County recorder doctz tent No. 655265. PARCELTHREE • The east 132 fed of the south 165 feet or tare Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, except parcel 53, ANOKA COUNTY IdIGHWAY RIGHT -0_F -WAY PLAT NO. 20, filed as Anoka CountY recordK doc un d No. 655285. All that part of the Soutbast Q=xW of the 14"*ad Quadw of Section 14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka Coaaty, MmnesoM dao too as f0llovirx d a Poia on the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Qmrtor distsat 103 feet Sou@? of the Numbest mm the thence South along the East lice of mid Southast Qufftff of the Nosdreast Qwrw fa' a distance of 66020 feck &*we West cad parallel with the North line of said Souther? Qaatter of the Northeast Quarter for a d'is�ee of 330 feet; dram twrth 1 e1 with the East line of said Sow Q� rtL Of the Noeart Qtreroer for s distmce of 660.20 feet; hence East aad ParliIlel with the North fore of said Southem Quarter of the Narthex? Quartx to the Point of beg mm& Anoka C49MY Data Abstract Property 16234 Ccontm Bonkvazd NW, Andover, Ma D=ft Parcel 4 Torrens Property Certificate of T No. 67102 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 32, • Range 24, descnW as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 132 feet west from the sotrthea a caner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, thence west along said south line, a distance of 264 fed; them north, at a right angle. a dstmice of 165 fed; thence east, at a right angle, a distance of 264 fed; thence south, at a tight angle; a distance of 165 feet to the point of be¢innina. -3 Constance Free Church Project Location Map M N W E 6 Andover Planning 0 • • o000 �� ova s. a eavAO aavoOee a � �o�o oeo v � 0 �� v o� ed o _ from r te_ NINE �.uuu onoonn � C .. � i� e3 �a€ 7€ CC `�(�f f 1� E �c H F�F; -. oe ee ooe oe o 000E €D�� d dd e, vE¢asfot. ti ,s ►i ...■.. ` , �' ��` oo �o pry M E a C o oE© ®doe I� ��C' Project Location Map M N W E 6 Andover Planning 0 • • • Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Resppctfully subMlitte d, 404 Z arz Cc: Sharon Thompson, 838 Crosstown Boulevard NW • • r CITY OF ANDOVER . COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR SHARON THOMPSON TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO PARCELS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 838 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW (23- 32 -24 -11 -0018) LEGALLY AND DESCRIBED AS: THAT PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 23 TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NE CORNER OF SAID 1/4,1/4, THENCE SOUTH 58 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST ALONG CENTERLINE OF CSAH NO 18 (ALSO KNOWN AS CROSSTOWN BLVD NW) 613.86 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 31 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 268.49 FEET, THENCE SOUTH PARALELL WITH EAST LINE OF SAID 1/4 1/4, and; To be divided into properties to be described as illustrated on Exhibit A stamped received by the City of Andover WHEREAS, Sharon Thompson has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 838 Crosstown Boulevard NW, and; . WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 40, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a separate easement document to dedicate to the City ten foot wide drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both properties and outside existing roadway easements. 2. The applicant shall provide a separate easement document to dedicate to Anoka County • an additional ten feet of road easement for the portion of the subject property with a fifty foot wide existing road easement. I • 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a park dedication fee in the amount of $2155. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay a trail fee in the amount of $523. 5. The driveway access for tract B shall be required to be located on Prairie Road. The new access shall be a minimum of sixty feet from the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Prairie Road. 6. The new deeds for the Tract A and Tract B shall contain the legal descriptions described in Attachment A stamped received by the City of Andover 7. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Mike Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • cL1 X 4 CT A 4l 4) A 4-J 4J t7l NN N 0 0 0 4rAP4 �r4 -A 4j O '4j M r4 C o 4J W 4J 0 W 44 4J •ra T •• N i, N fa 0 0 01 4J 4J 44 0 44 0 a 0)0) U04400)dHt7 4) M N u r•4 v 4) ON 41 Z a 0 -A A 1 aU 4 U 9 U�J: U .r4 N 4) cd 00 41 0 ro •r4 L" 4J Q N .0 4J %O •ri 4) 4J •r4 'M 0 0 N44 'F4 '3441 O I 0 OA N ° to 0 0 x w .. W W E 4J a4) 00 r-4 W 4) 0 0 44 a U A 4) r4 4) U Mx 44))0W0 In N 4) U •r4 m 10 4 •r♦ •r1 Gr' C 41 •r4 4) W 0 a N .. $4 4 tm 4J 0M 4 Nn 41 W W Cl Ca > 0 •r4 r•4 4) cd O H %)) ro r O 4.. d V A H44 W 4 0 y r ro , r -I v ro mro OMA 0 A w •r4 4.) A •H cd A 0% 4J N ° 0 4) 0 4) N W Uw44 0 aJ3xA WA AM4 4J Z 0 K ro 4J 0 r-4 'r4 W q )I � r ° 4 0 N•r 0r-4 4-) 41 -I N N 0 A b b 4) ro 4) W AN "O✓QN) M 4W4.�o'Ow3J��4.) ro� ° 00 ,, I M r4° N ;Q J r I M a WN WroW 0y'OCcMV o pp, ,, A N41140JIud 0 az(dro• r4cn 140 4JldptdHU• w 4) W b C y ° 4J N A 0 MX Q �" 10 >44 0 �ANWWMO r04Z+°�'0 U b \ 4•I to 0 O cC v W ra U 0 w tO Ql Id 4) '0 J b 0m000 0V4934J4J 0 .. 4J 4) 4) U 4J 44 A 4J 0 O N 44 4J u 0 •r4 4. N b b N -• 5 p b it 44 4) LO U 44 O ro r-I 0 V In Fi ro ro at7l 9 44 N b • rl N M •r1 \ E•1 0 4) 00 > I�M In > r4 \ 4 it z t+" r-4 N 4J4 N 4) W+J 104 r, X 4AJOw4)041cd00 N 4)0% E 4J 0 C 0WrA lc mrd a 04.) g r 0U� IW4 � 04AJ ro+) C? aa�orl aId 0� w 00 ° M tT 0 4J ro 444 0 0 m anA IQ 0 z W 4U A aV40 Wob 4)$40 U44 ctl O (00 O '• u •N p 4 ) : Im.0 A Id W A M wu04)Ow 4) w O0) a E c� N 0 cd to w v1 O ro b 0 I N � 40 4) t7T 4) 1 4) $4 •ri O -H 4 A +� U 0 OT 44 a ro W H N y q O G ro A A b 0 0 x q0 W �do Owl 4) r4 OS W 44 4 0 W 4 0 +� ° w N 0 O r, 4) N -r4 v N b 4 d a u 40J A C 4l N H 0 4- 0) W .r4 4J M 4J 4"i C. cd 0 N rI 4J .E; N N •r4 4) •r4 Q) V, 4J O tT 4) N 4J 41 4) 4) td w 04 U O 4) '• 0 A 4J 44:04Jo E 0 � 4) t-4 4) 0 44 t b+M m b 0 4 H ° r-44 w� `V A A 4J 04 P% 19 N \ ° > +j 4j O +� W N 4 dl 8 %w 1., r-4 4-) .ri W . tT ro r, M 0) 0 4 4) 4) ro i�7 V 0 cd .0Ln04)QN) 4.) 44 4U44J N A Id — A 44 J~4 • S p N 4 •r1 m 'O 0 4J r•I 4J A M Id 0 q w� c 4) '•+� 0 �� 0 0 a 3 04 0 w to VA 0 Z 4J 0 4J r-4 0 N O4.)44 H4 Q) to m u ro >4 o N 4) it 0 A F4 4J r3 Io 0 3l ro 0 4A1 W Q) 'U cd •' 0410 44 0 44A 0 QJ N 0 471 Cl cd N 0 0 0 4) 4J •r4 t. it N •rl 0 w 4 47 > o >4 0 eW r.4 4) 4) 0 w In H 0r-4MV4 - Iw 0-H I N ° >4J Z W 000 ° 44 0 004401 4) 4) 0 N 4) 4J O •r4 4) $4 J: N 4J 4) Id U O N w a r4 4J 4J r{ r-I r♦ 009mtT 4) a N x cd A A 0 •r4 ►"i •r4 ro 4) 4J N •d N >I •rl Z ro w 4J 0 0 4J H \ 44 In 4J N 0 a 0 N 044 �IJ N "ad)4 4)rla) 443r�r0 .. mro 4 W Lo gr444JJ 0 4JA $$4 E 44)tvtp cd0 w 0N0+ 441 4) ro O+ N 4J W 4J 0 ro 44 Iy N •r4 4J 9 0) 4 N N O • r4 \ ro ro 44 4J 4) ro> Id E Zjnq)(d 0cd Z4) 11 4j ro p 4) •r4 4 0 A m W 4J 41 w cd N o w E 44J �G°Q0a) 44))CU,')Ln 4)40JCd0 6 W J CA r 4 W ^I 'd 4 N 9 r-4 • ri f ° 1 0 0 cd 0 N A w 0 r-1 r-I 0 4J CA 44 o 0 t0 O V W W A N >+ A 0 4 0 H r O � m f -44 0 4) 14 4Jr u4JJ 0 g V - r).'i4JJ4JJ cd 00 ., 0 N €: ACT 44 N a E -4 N0cAOM04)4JJ c0ANz3 -5— W W t. c= 4 z 838 Crosstown Boulevard NW Lot Split N Project Location Map w�E a Andover Planning 51-IAFON THOMP6UN SK ETCH OF PROPOSED TRACTS IN SE CTION 23, TowS6 32, RA NGE 24 9 SCALE: 1 inch = 60 feet Q Denotes iron set N OV- 10, 1969 and April 14, 1992 o — Denotes 10 foot utility and drainage easement 3 v 052 � i n i y 5 155 i .\ AL 0 A SN k- -� , II I tii IL I V 183, W I U 3o o F I 1p p � /a pg cy: I �.SoIND RCA s� I SN` I d� I it �I /9l. o I I I �E c No % .INCA. vDE 140 i, ti 30 Q O 0 O 1 30 m V W z w 0 t�J • •O TO: 0 0 FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX(763)755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning Commissioners Will Neumeister, Community Development Director ea-.— SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -02) to consider amending Ordinance 266 to modify existing rental licensing requirements. DATE: April 8, 2003 At the January 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, several issues involving the proposed changes to the Rental Housing Ordinance were raised that needed further discussion. Each of the issues that were raised is paraphrased below and following it is commentary that explains the staff's recommendations. Issue #1: Imprecise /ambiguous wording involving the "rental units", "multiple dwellings", "rental housing units ", "living unit" and "rental dwellings" were being used. The suggestion was to make it consistent and remove the interchangeable way they were being used to avoid confusion. Staff has resolved the above issue by being consistent and using the definition "rental dwelling" wherever there were other words used. Issue #2: Comments were made that all rental units should obtain a license. Some of the Commissioners, as well as property owners in the audience, indicated that all rental dwellings should be required to obtain a license. Based on the definition in the ordinance, duplexes that were owner occupied were not required to obtain a license for their building. This is a policy question. The history on this issue reveals that the Council directed that the owner occupied duplex units have not been required to obtain a rental license. The wording in the Ordinance exempts these types of units. Issue #3: One of apartment owners indicated that the new ordinance would require the landlord to be held responsible for the actions of the tenant, and he thought it would be tough to do when they cannot evict for the types of violations that are listed. The Acting Chairman stated that eviction laws would be the primary way landlords could evict and that this ordinance was just a backup to the state statutes. The staff recommends that the rental owners modify their lease agreements to include specific language that may be in the Ordinance that explains that violations of the Ordinance sections would also become grounds for eviction. Issue #4: One of the Commissioners was concerned that the reporting of violations and the details that may be in the reports needs to be evaluated, because ofprivacy laws. To share • the information with all the landlords in Andover we may want to be careful how that information is disseminated. The landlords need to be aware of what violations their tenants have and then they can be a little more proactive in managing their complexes. The City Attorney has responded to this issue and indicates, "the distribution of information the City collects is governed by the data practices act and the City needs to make sure that we comply with those provisions ". The written information of a violation will only be sent to the landlord of the unit where an offense occurred. The written information will be generic in nature. The specific details of the criminal report will require that the owner come to City Hall and only then will a limited amount of more detailed information be given out. Until a person has been charged with a crime, the offending party only allegedly committed an offense. Issue #S: One Commissioner wanted to know the costs involved in having this ordinance become law. For instance, how much more reporting, inspections, law enforcement staff time would be spent to enforce this ordinance. This is an administrative question. City staff who have the duty of enforcing the Ordinance said that this will not take any more time than it currently does to administer. The Sheriff has indicated that they have their reporting system working properly and this should not pose any undue burden upon them. Issue #6: One Commissioner indicated that there should be a review of section ]]as it relates to possession of controlled substances and he indicated that there is a difference 41 between possession and sale. Do we need to be concerned about making that distinction? The words "or sale" have been added to the section that governs this. Revised Ordinance Various word changes have been made to the Rental Housing Ordinance and it is attached for your review and consideration. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to once again hold a Public Hearing regarding the proposed Amendments to the Rental Housing Ordinance. Upon further public input, staff requests the Planning Commission make comments and any necessary changes and forward the Rental Housing Ordinance to City Council for adoption. In attendance at the meeting will be representatives of the City Code Enforcement staff as well as the Sheriff's Office to answer your questions. Attachments Minutes of March 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting i Proposed Amendment (March 27, 2003 version) (Rental Housing Ordinance #266) • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 266 A An Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 99 adopted April 21, 1992 and further amended in (date) , 2003. AN ORDINANCE LICENSING AND REGULATING RENTAL 14OUSING DWELLINGS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. (Added sections are shown in bold, deleted sections are shown with strikeouts.) The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City who have as their place of abode a leg dwelling unit famished to them for the payment of a rental charge to another. This ordinance is the initial step in the City's effort to provide a housing maintenance code. It is the intent of this ordinance that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the City. Section 2. Definitions. The following words and terms used in this ordinance are construed and defined as follows: Rental Dwelling any dwelling unit with two (2) or more living units for hire. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels and hospitals. Operate to charge a rental charge for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Section 3. License Required. No person, firm or corporation shall allow to be occupied or let to another for occupancy units in a rental dwelling for which a license has not been granted by the City eperate a rvaW dwelling in the G4y �Ai�eu4 first having obtained a keense as -hereinafter- pr-evided the Building O ffieial of d ...ee There shall be two types of licenses: regular and provisional Afte e _ i f initi li o g pe r i od e f l ess .�, twe (2) year-s as . at o n r . .. deteEm ned b y the Building ^ ffeial, Each regular Such operating license shall be issued biennially and shall expire on June 30 the afhniver- ff date of ssuanee License renewals shall be filed at least sixty (60) days prior to license expiration. A provisional license shall be issued only upon approval by the City Council and shall expire six (6) months after issuance; reference Section 12 (2)(A) that sets forth criteria as to how a regular license may be re- established. • Section 4. License Fees. License fees, as set by City Council resolution, shall be due sixty (60) days prior to the license expiration date. In the case of a new unlicensed rental dwelling, the license fee shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. In the case of licensing periods of less than two (2) years, license fees shall be prorated monthly. A license fee shall be collected for each unit in a rental dwelling, except owner occupied units. (A) Filing Due Date and Penalty If an application is made less than 60 days before the beginning date of the license period applied for then the fee shall be accompanied by an additional amount equal to 100 percent of such license fee. The additional amount shall be a penalty for a late application with the exception of the first year of the adoption of this ordinance In no case shall there be a lapse in the license period. The late penalty is established for those licensees who have failed to submit an application as specified in this section. All new owners must submit an application and obtain a new rental license, the old license is not transferable.. o % 4heut a lid h eense s h a ll b el arged to the a r e rater- of the r-e«.t d O ee a e e the lieensee shall be eafi4l h eense f: d t .1 e«thl,. J , Y' f' eef' t faas f f' e- ele ., .,t..el a e,...l,;., leg a4 Re- inspection Fee A fee as set by City Council resolution, shall be charged for all re- inspections necessary after the first re- inspection. The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property. Section 5. Application for Rental Dwelling License. Applications for Rental Dwelling licenses shall be made in writing to the City Building Offle3al by the owner of the rental dwelling units or his/her legally constituted agent. Before any Rental Dwelling license shall be issued or renewed, the owner shall complete an application The following persons shall be authorized to sign and submit the application: A. If the owner is a natural person, by the owner thereof. B. If the owner is a corporation, by an officer thereof. • 2 C. If the owner is a partnership, by a partner thereof. The registration statement shall be made on forms prescribed by the City and shall • include: A. The name and address of the owner of the rental dwellings B. The name and address of any operator or agent actively managing the rental dwelling. If "off- site" provide further data as to whom it is. C. If the operator or agent is a business entity, the application shall include the names, telephone numbers and addresses of individuals who will be involved in such management, together with a description of the scope of services and manner of deliving these services by the manager. A If the registrant is a partnership, the name and address of all partners. E. If the registrant is a corporation, the name and address of all officers. F If the rental dwelling is being sold on a contract for deed, the name and address of the vendees. G. The legal address of the rental dwelling. H. The number of units within the rental dwelling. Notification by the rental operator shall be given to the City Building Offieial within five (5) business days with any change of information as required and stated in the initial application. Section 6. License Issuance. The City shall issue a rental dwelling license if the building and the application are found to be in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 7. Renewal of License. T he license period shall commence on July 1. A regular license shall be issued for a period of two years A provisional license shall be issued only upon approval by the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Section 12 of this ordinance for a period of six months; reference Section 12 (2)(A) that sets forth criteria as to how a regular license may be re- established. Section 6- 8. Conformance to Laws. No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the rental dwelling and its premises conform to the ordinances of the City and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section -7 9. h ispee fi n G,.. elide ^.Inspections and Investigations No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the owner of rental units agrees in his/her application to permit inspections pursuant to this Section. 0 The Building Official and Fire Chief and / or their designated hisser representatives are is hereby authorized to make inspections reasonably necessary to the enforcement of this ordinance. Persons inspecting any rental dwelling as provided herein shall notify the license holder of all • violations, if any, by issuing a written Compliance Order. Said Compliance Order shall direct that compliance be made in no more than fifteen ( 5) seven days, unless extended by the Building Official and /or Fire Chief based on good cause. Section $ 10. License Not Transferable. No operating license shall be transferable to another person or to another rental dwelling. Every person holding an operating license shall give notice in writing to the City ling Offleial within five (5) business days after having legally transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of such dwelling or dwellings. Section 4-3 11. Conduct on Licensed Property. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For the purpose of this Section, a premises is disorderly at which any of the following activities occur: Violation of the City's Noise Ordinance. 2. Violation to State laws relating to the possession or sale of illegal drugs or controlled substances. Violation of Disturbing the Peace. 4. The unlawful sale of liquor. Violation to laws relating to gambling. 6. Violation of State laws relating to acts of prostitution. The unlawful use or possession of a firearm as per State law. Enforcement Authority. The City Administrator shall be responsible for enforcement and administration of this Chapter. Authority to take any action authorized by this Chapter may be delegated to the City Administrator's designee. Landlords and Tenants should also be aware of other rules and regulations as stiplulated in State Statutes Section 504B (Tennant and landlord rights); and Section 609 (i.e. Disorderly Conduct; Unlawful Assembly; Riot; Terroristic Threat; Presence at Unlawful Assembly. • Notice of Violation Upon determination by the City Building Offisial that a licensed . premises was used in a disorderly manner, as described in this Section, the City leg 9€fteial shall give notice to the licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. The disorderly manner shall be as defined in this Section. (5 ) Second Instance. If a second a Re�her- instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three (3) months of an incident for which a notice was given as specified in Section 11 (3) by the Building Offiei °1 . the City Building 9f eial shall notify the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and proposed to be taken, by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report shall be submitted to the City Building A€€sial within five (5) days of receipt of the notice /report of disorderly use of the premises and shall detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all notices of disorderly use of the premises within the preceding three (3) months. M Third Instance. If a third another instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three (3) months after any two (2) previous instances of disorderly use for which notices were given to the licensee pursuant to this Section 11 (4) the rental dwelling license for the premises may be denied, revoked, suspended or not renewed. An action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license under this Section shall be initiated by the C� Building 9 who shall give to the licensee written notice of a hearing before the City Council to consider such denial, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal. Such written notice shall specify all violations of this Section, and shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing. The hearing shall be Is held no less than ten (10) days and no more than thirty (3 0) days after giving such notice. L1 Action of the City Council Following the hearing, the City Council may deny, revoke, suspend or decline to renew the license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises or may grant a license upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Section. (8) Instances Derined. For purposes of this Section, instances of disorderly use shall be those which: A. Occur at the same rental dwelling; or B. Involve tenants at the same rental dwelling; or C. Involve guests or invitees at the same rental dwelling; or D. Involve guest or invitees of the same tenant; or E. Involve the same tenant. Eviction Proceedings No adverse license action shall be imposed where the instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs during the pendency of eviction proceedings (unlawful detainer) or within thirty (30) days of notice given by licensee to a tenant to vacate the premises where the disorderly use was related to conduct by that tenant or by other occupants or guests of the tenant's unit. Eviction proceedings shall not be a bar to adverse license action, however, unless they are diligently pursued by the licensee. Further, any action to deny, revoke, . suspend, or not renew a license based upon violations of this Section may be postponed or 5 discontinued at any time if it appears that the licensee has taken appropriate measures which will prevent further instances of disorderly use. Evidence ofDisorderly Manner A determination that the licensed premises have been • used in a disorderly manner as described in this Section shall be made upon substantial evidence to support such determination. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought in order to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this Section. 11 ServinLr of Notice All notices given by the City under this Section shall be personally served on the licensee, sent by certified mail to licensee's last known address or, if neither method of service effects notice, by posting on a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. Council Action Not Exclusive Enforcement actions provided in this Section shall not be exclusive, and the City Council may take any action with respect to a licensee, a tenant, or the licensed premises as is authorized by this ordinance or State law. Section 12. Provisional License. (1) Police calls Licensed rental dwellings that have generated 3 or more police calls during the license period shall only be eligible for a provisional license at the time of next renewal, as specified in this Section. (A) Police calls that are counted in determining whether a provisional license is required include the following types of calls or events: (1) Calls or events listed in Sections 11 or 12. • (2) Calls or events categorized as part one crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System, including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burgurlary, theft, auto theft, and arson. (3) Calls or events categorized by the Public Safety Department: miscellaneous juvenile status crimes; liquor offenses or curfew violations; disturbing the peace or harassing communications; property damage; criminal damage to property or trespass; domestic incidents; public disturbance or disorderly conduct; loud party or noise complaints; disorderly iuveniles; assault in the fifth degree or non - domestic related assaults. The Sheriff shall maintain for public inspection a description of the coding system and a list of the codes and crimes included within each of these categories or calls or events. The Sheriff may determine that multiple incidents shall be counted as a single call in appropriate cases. (B) Calls not counted for purposes of determining whether a provisional license is required where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518 B.01, Subdivision 2(b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic • Abuse Act Minnesota Statutes, Section 518 B.01, Subdivision 2(a). (C) The City will provide a violation report by mail to each licensee for all calls described in Section 11 subsection (A)(1). The violation report will describe the • nature and type of call that became an instance which will be counted for purposes of determining whether the license will be denied, revoked, suspended or not renewed. (2) Mitigation Plan. Prior consideration of a provisional license, the applicant for a provisional license must submit a mitigation plan to City staff to work out the details of a mitigation plan and it must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. ( A )The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police or fire calls described in Section 11, Subsection (A)(1) over the six month period of the provisional license to a level that would entitle the property to qualify for a regular license at the end of the six month provisional license period. (B)The mitigation plan may include such steps as: changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, and security personnel. (3) Decision of City Council. The application and a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a disposition recommendation by the City Administrator. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence the City Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the mitigation plan and the provisional license. If the City Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves a provisional license with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. 4) Monthlv Reports. The provisional licensee shall comply with the approved mitigation plan No later than the tenth day of each month the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month If the required monthly reports are not submitted in a timely fashion by the property owner, then the City may begin proceedings to revoke the provisional license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises. Section 4-0- 13. Maintenance Standards. Every rental unit shall maintain the standards as stated in Ordinance No. 267, the Housing Maintenance Code. Section 44 14. Landscape Condition. Each rental dwelling tmk shall be maintained by its owner, occupant, operator or agent so that the yards, open spaces and parking facilities are kept in a safe and attractive condition. 441er-e plan shall be sensidefed as minimal and sha4l be maintained aeeer-dingly. Any devia4ion * In addition, adequate . lighting faculties shall be provided and operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise; and snow plowing or snow shoveling shall be regularly accomplished to maintain all sidewalks and parking areas in a safe condition. Section 4-2 15. Safety from Fire. • An owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling shall be responsible to comply with the applicable provisions of the Fire Code of the City, including the keeping of all fire lanes open for emergency purposes. Section 4-5 16. Revocation or Suspension. ;t i ,ed .„der- this E ver y o dinanee . u bje e t to the ....,1.t ,. Met, i he a e lie ense or r r-esefyed, te suspead er- revoke the same should the lieense helder- or- their- agents, , the le the State Mip City ete th eF of o f r . WAIM. Mrs= At sue L. g 1. f e the City G ;1 the h a holde r- thei a#e e� „ e ,. s ubmit and a pfes ent witnesses in the;f defense Aft a h eaT i ng th G4y Go i e,, r spe «d e 1; ... o ke the a if deem o ee e ss . to • or- pr-eteet the pubhe health, sa4ty or- general ,r . (1) Reason for Action. The Council may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to renew any license issued under this Ordinance upon any of the following grounds: A. False statements on any a ppli c ation or other information or report required b this Ordinance to be given by the applicant or licensee. B. Failure to pay any application, penalty, reinspection, or reinstatement fee required by this Ordinance and resolution. C. Failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. D. Failure to comply with the Pr of an approved mitigation plan in the case of provisional licenses. E. Any other violation of this Ordinance. (1) Applicable Sections. Revocation, suspension, and non - renewal may be brought under either this Section or Section 11 (1). (2) Regular License. A regular license may be revoked, if at mid -term, or not renewed, if at the end of a term, upon a finding that the premises are only eligible for a provisional license as provided in Section 11 (1). • (3) Written Notice. A decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license shall be preceded by a written notice to the applicant or licensee of the alleged grounds therefore and the applicant or licensee will be given the opportunity for a hearing before the City • Council before final action to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license. (4) Action of City Council. The City Council shall give due regard to the frequency and seriousness of violations the ease with which such violations could have been cured or avoided and good faith efforts to comply and shall issue a decision to deny, not renew, suspend or revoke a license only upon written findings The City Council may suspend or revoke a license or not renew a license for part or all of the facility. (5) Reinstatement of License. Upon a decision to revoke, deny, or not renew a license, no new application for the same facility will be accepted for a period of time specified in a written decision of the City Council, not exceeding one year. Such new applications must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee as specified by resolution, in addition to all other fees required by this Ordinance. (6) No New Rentals. A written decision to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license or application shall specify the part or parts of the facility to which this applies. Thereafter and until a license is reissued or reinstated, no rental dwelling becoming vacant in such part or parts of the facility may be relet or occupied. Revocation, suspension, or non - renewal of a license shall not excuse the owner from compliance with all terms of this Ordinance for as long as any units in the facility are occupied. (7) Failure to Comply. Failure to comply with all terms of this Ordinance during the term of revocation suspension or non - renewal is a misdemeanor for extension of the term of such revocation or suspension or continuation of non - renewal, or for a decision not to reinstate the license, notwithstanding any limitations on the period of suspension, revocation or non - renewal specified in the City Council's written decision or in Section 16, Subdivision (6). Section 17. No Retaliation. No licensee shall evict, threaten to evict, or take an other punitive action against an tenant by reason of good faith calls made by such tenant to law enforcement agencies related to criminal activity, suspected criminal activity, suspicious occurrences, or public safety concerns. This Section shall not prohibit the eviction of tenants from a rental dwelling for unlawful conduct of a tenant or invitee or violation of any rules, regulations, or lease terms other than a prohibition against contacting law enforcement agencies. Section 4H 18. Summary Action. When the conduct of any license holder or their agent, representative, employee or lessee or the condition of their dwelling is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition and thus give rise to an emergency, the City Building Offleial shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close • off such area of the rental dwelling. Vj Any person aggrieved by a decision of the City Buildiftg Qffieia4 to cease business or revoke or suspend the license or permit shall be entitled to appeal to the City Council immediately by filing a Notice of Appeal. The City Building Offie-ial shall schedule a date for hearing before the City Council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. • The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. The decision of the City BW!ding9ffieial shall not he voided by the filing of such appeal. Only after the City Council has held its hearing will the decision of the City Buil be affected. Section 4-7 19. Applicable Laws. Licenses shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the City and laws of the State related to rental dwellings. This ordinance shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. Section 4-9 20. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2003. ATTEST: CITY OF ANDOVER 0 Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael Gamache, Mayor • 10 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 11, 2003 Page 4 • EEkkat this time. He stated that when they established the design standards, those were some Zf4be guidelines or covenants that people that owned property in the area had to abide by so n they made this decision, they would be making this as a group reviewing their o ovenant documents to see if this would allow for it and they felt it did not and they were n lling to change it. Commissioner Gamache asked if lans, when they built the store, knew they were not allowed to set up a greenhouse per th venants when they moved in there. Mr. Neumeister stated they had to agree to the guiaskes when they moved in but he did not think anybody read these. Commissioner Gamache ed they are putting one of their grocery stores at a competitive disadvantage for the summ ecause of this. Mr. Neumeister stated there was some mention by one of the EDA issioners about other greenhouse operations in the City that are taxpaying entities an t this would not be a taxpaying nursery or greenhouse operation because it is considered to ary and not taxed as such. d PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -02) TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE 266 TO MODIFY EXISTING RENTAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. Mr. Neumeister explained that the Council discussed this issue in October 2002 and directed staff to provide additional research on potential changes to the Rental Housing • Ordinance. The City Council reviewed a draft of the potential changes on February 26, 2003. Council directed staff to bring it forward to a public hearing at the Planning Commission on March 11, 2003. During preparation of the changes, staff reviewed other cities that have adopted more stringent ordinances. The City of New Brighton was contacted, since they made such changes to their Rental Housing Ordinance in February 2001. There have been no legal challenges to their ordinance, at this point in time. This is partly due to significant discussions they had with the landlords before they adopted it in 2001. Mr. Neumeister discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache asked if it was automatic according to the Ordinance being amended that it would automatically go to a provisional license after the second call or at the next renewal. Mr. Neumeister stated it is listed under provisional licenses in the Ordinance. He stated the fire indication under this section in the Ordinance, should be stricken. He stated the Ordinance does allow for an exemption of certain calls. Discussion ensued in regards to the number of calls per unit in the Ordinance before a license can be revoked. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 11, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Greenwald asked if the City expected any more rental units coming into the City in the future. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not expect anymore than what has • already been approved. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the $75.00 fee was arbitrary or was it taken from another Ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated about a year ago they worked through the building department, fire department and they arrived at the $75.00 fee is an accurate number for the amount of time spent doing inspections on the units and when there are problems and violations, they have to inspect the units again. He stated they did a very detailed analysis and it was determined the number was correct. Commissioner Jasper asked if it was the intent when drafted. That it would be two calls to any apartment as opposed to any building. Mr. Neumeister stated it is two calls to any unit. Commissioner Jasper stated there needed to be clarification in regards to the use of units. He stated there were too many different ways dwelling/rental units are being used and is very confusing. Discussion ensued in regards to the wording in the Ordinance in reference to the different units and the wording that should be used. Commissioner Jasper stated they exempt domestic assaults so the statute would not apply if they had a single woman living in an apartment and the estranged husband came over and assaulted her but the Statute would apply if a stranger would come and threatened the woman. Mr. Neumeister stated that was his understanding. • Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Eric Nyland, 2110 140'' Lane NW stated he was an owner occupant of a rental unit on the street. He stated he would like to clarify a couple of things. He asked if the copy of the Ordinance he received was the final copy. Mr. Neumeister stated this was the latest version. Mr. Nyland stated to his understanding, he would pay seventy -five dollars to rent out one unit in his building. Mr. Neumeister stated he would not pay any fee because he would be exempt. Mr. Nyland stated he believed he should have to hold a license so he would be covered under the Ordinance. Commissioner Gamache stated he agreed. He stated if a person is renting out a unit in Andover, they should hold a license on the property. Commissioner Vatne stated he understood exempt units to be different than what was discussed. Mr. Neumeister explained the definition of exempt units. There was discussion in regards to exempt units in owner occupied rental houses. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 11, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Nyland stated he was assuming that after adoption of this Ordinance, there would be • inspection of all the units, would they be inspected immediately after this. Mr. Neumeister stated every two years they would be inspected with the license renewal except owner occupied units. Mr. Nyland stated he would like all units inspected, including his. He stated as far as conduct on licensed property, holding the landlord responsible is tough to do when the landlord can not even evict for these types of violations, how can his license be taken away from him on those grounds. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated this Ordinance is being used as a backup to help with evictions. Commissioner Greenwald stated Dave Almgren stated they can evict and the ordinance is only backup so the resident is making a valid point. Mr. Nyland asked if they knew what the State Statute says because he does not think they should write this Ordinance without knowing what the Ordinance states. Commissioner Jasper stated it would be advisable to put into a rental agreement regarding this Ordinance. He stated it was a legitimate concern because the Ordinance does not make it a violation of the Ordinance to have a disorderly juvenile. Mr. Nyland stated on section 14, landscape conditions, are these different standards than that of the single family home in Andover. Mr. Neumeister stated the units have to be kept up and are not necessarily the same as the single family homes. Commissioner Gamache stated his understanding of this was that any deviation to species or material be equal or better than what was previously approved. Mr. Nyland stated different standards for rental units are fine but they need to be fair. • Commissioner Greenwald stated there is a difference with residential in landscaping because they approve each one on a case by case basis. Mr. Jason Shutz, 1970 147 Court stated there is a lot of emphasis on what the landlord should do and he was wondering when there is police incidence, how soon would the owner be contacted to an occurrence. Mr. Neumeister stated if they are going to institute these changes, they need quicker report from the Sheriffs' Department which the Sheriffs' Department agreed to. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they should put in the Ordinance a requirement for timely reports from the Sheriffs' Department. Mr. Neumeister stated they could do this. Commissioner Gamache asked if they could put into the Ordinance that the owner of a building would have a police report in their possession within thirty days. Commissioner Greenwald indicated they would probably need to find out from the Sheriff s if this would be possible. Commissioner Gamache stated he did not know if this would be possible because of possible investigation in a case. Mr. Shutz stated he would like a report within five days every time there would be an incident because then he could issue an eviction notice and have time to clean up the unit and try to rent it out again with a minimal loss of income. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 11, 2003 Page 7 Mr. Bednarz recommended putting the information and reports on a shared website for the owners to see. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not know if this would be possible • because of privacy concerns and laws involving privacy. Mr. Bednarz stated he agreed that there were privacy issues and that would need to be addressed. Discussion ensued in regards to privacy and sharing information with the owners. Commissioner Vatne stated he believed the Ordinance was a database issue also with fairly complex reporting they were talking about and they need to have it work rapidly. Mr. Neumeister stated in New Brighton, the owners of the buildings formed a co -op to share information with each other regarding the tenants. Mr. Shutz stated he did not know if thirty -six owners would want to form a co -op. Mr. Neumeister suggested they could continue this item until they received more information from the sheriff and Mr. Amdahl regarding this discussion. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated this was a good idea. Mr. Matt McBride, 2600 138' stated he lived in one of the units for four years. He stated he was concerned about telling a tenant they were being held responsible for police calls, which would be grounds for eviction, what is going to stop them from calling the police two or three more times before they are evicted and making him lose his license. Commissioner Gamache stated it indicates in the Ordinance that if the owner is working on an eviction, the owner would not have any adverse license action brought against the • owner. Mr. McBride asked if there is a problem with a building down the block and they called the police, would the call count against the caller. Commissioner Gamache stated it would not count against the caller; it would count against the offender, which is in section seventeen of the Ordinance. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he thought it would be advisable to have the City Attorney and the Sheriff come to help them with this before it is sent to the City Council. Commissioner Greenwald stated he would not feel comfortable passing this onto the City Council without more information. He asked in regards to the landscape condition, do they need to be more specific. Commission Gamache stated he did not think any of the properties have an approved landscape condition. Commissioner Greenwald stated it was brought up in the public hearing and thought it should be looked at. Commissioner Vatne stated when he reviewed this, the discussion with the process in New Brighton, it took extra time to put this in place, but it saved time by reducing the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 11, 2003 Page 8 number of calls. He thinks there is a fixed process that would be similar for Andover to • install but the problem is they would not get the benefit by the number of call reduction because of the number of units. He stated there is a cost involved and he would like to get a better understanding of what the cost would be. He stated he would also like to find out what the turn around time would be for reports. Commissioner Vatne stated he was concerned with the strictness of the Ordinance on the landlord when the landlord can not be that strict with the tenants. Commissioner Jasper stated he is concerned with the reference to all the different units and he would like these better defined in the Ordinance. He stated he would support tabling this for further information. Commissioner Jasper stated in section eleven, it talks about violation of State law relating to possession of controlled substance, the State law differentiates between possession and sale and he would add this because a person can sell controlled substances without actually having them. He stated they should give a notice within a certain number of days and then give a certain amount of days to take the preventative steps. He thought it should be explicit and it should be a second incident after a notice is given. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought they should not require a landlord to respond any quicker to a notice than the City can respond to them. • Commissioner Jasper stated they need to clarify the number of police calls to a building. It should be "two police calls per unit" and not "two police calls per building ". Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to table this item for further discussion after revisions are made and to have a representative from the Sheriff s Department and City Attorney at the meeting. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz dated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by ache, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -abs en ote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • F IE • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Todd Haas, Parks Coordinator SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt Park Study as a component of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan DATE: April 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION This item is in regard to a public hearing to consider adopting the Park Study as a component of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION At the March 11, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held to consider amending Ordinance 10, Section 9.07 to incorporate recommendations from the Northwest • Associated Consultants, Inc. (NAC) study. In further review of Ordinance 10, Section 9.07, the ordinance refers in a couple sections to the Comprehensive Plan. To ensure standards for how the parks will be developed and/or how the park dedication fee is being determined, the Comprehensive Plan is requested to be amended to add the Park Dedication Study as an addendum. The City Attorney's letter explains that this is needed to withstand any judicial scrutiny in the event an applicant brings a court challenge to the dedication requirements for residential developments. A copy of the study that is being requested to be included in the Comprehensive Plan is included in the packet. After the Planning Commission reviews and recommends the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, this will be presented to the City Council along with Ordinance 10, Section 9.07 amendments that have been recommended to the City Council at a meeting in May for their review and approval. This would then establish the "essential nexus" between the development of land and the need for park dedication. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to review and recommend approval of adopting the Park Study as a component of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted, Tod H, • Attachments: • Letter from Bill Hawkins • Park Dedication Study LAw OmcEs OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WnL" G. HA wmNs BARRY A. S ULuvAN 2140 F OuRTH AvENuE Norm AN OKA, MlNNEsom 55303 PHONE(763)427 -8877 FAx (763) 421 -4213 E-MAiLHawkLawl@aol.com • Legal Assistant TAMMi J. UVEGES HoLLY G. PRovo December 2, 2002 Will Neumeister Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Andover Park Dedication Study Dear Mr. Neumeister: od at Cowtc.i 1 QA.�k L �.G Co✓ca.witf t6K I have had the opportunity to review the Andover park dedication study dated November 25, 2002 and conducted by Alan BrNius and Deb Garross at Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (NAC). I wish to take this opportunity to summarize my review of that study. THE STATUTE The municipal planning and zoning statutes contained in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 462 specifically authorizes a municipality to adopt regulations which impose park dedication requirements as part of the plat approval process. Specifically, 462.358, Subd. 2b (2000) provides, in relevant part, as follows: "... the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in Section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, 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, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision." is C� c'— Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -2- • This statute sets forth some important points: 1. The City is authorized to impose park dedication requirements as part of the plat approval process. 2. it must do so pursuant to regulations adopted as part of the plat review process. 3. The dedication amounts must be "reasonable." 4. At the option of the City, the dedication may be accepted in a cash equivalent amount. 5. The amount is to be determined based upon the "fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval." 6. A special fund is to be utilized. 7. The regulations should take into account the facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision. 8. The City must make a reasonable determination that the acquisition is necessary as a result of the subdivision. COURT DECISIONS. The study prepared by NAC effectively summarizes some of the relevant caselaw regarding dedications. It should be remembered that a dedication is in the nature of an exaction, i.e., private property is being acquired by the government without compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a two-step analysis that is to be applied when determining whether or not a dedication requirement is lawful. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). The catch phrases for the two-step analysis adopted by the Supreme Court are "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality." In other words, to what "degree" is there a connection between the development and its impact on the park system. 114 S. Ct. at 2317. In the first or "essential nexus" step, the City must demonstrate that a sufficient relationship exists between the property to be developed and the City's need for the dedication. In other words, the city must be able to demonstrate that it will experience an increase in demand for or burden upon its park system as a direct result of the development. Can the City demonstrate that as a result of the project there will be an increased demand and burden placed upon the park system? In the second or "rough proportionality" step, the focus is not on the need for the dedication, but on the amount of the dedication. The Supreme Court did not indicate that a precise mathematical calculation is required but indicated that "the City must make some —.3 Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -3- • sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." 114 S. Ct at 2319 -20. In other words, the size of the amount of the dedication must be roughly proportionate to the size of the burden placed upon the park system as a result of the development. Minnesota courts have adopted the two-step analysis from Dolan. Kotfschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct App. 1995). See, also, Middlemisf v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); and Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976). Consequently, the two-step "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" test is the standard to be applied in Minnesota when determining the legality of platting dedication requirements. CITY OF ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ORDINANCE. The Andover Comprehensive Plan contains a chapter on parks and open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan catalogues existing park facilities and provides goals and standards for expanding the system as the City continues to develop. The NAC study does an excellent job of summarizing the system and detailing the anticipated costs and needs for expansion of the park system in light of the anticipated growth of the City. The study adequately demonstrates the demands that anticipated growth will have upon the park system and the need for future additional funding to meet these demands. While the two- • step Dolan analysis anticipates an "individualized determination," the study, comprehensive plan, and related documents effectively establish the "essential nexus" or first step required showing of a link between development and the need for dedication. The Andover subdivision ordinance sets forth the procedure the City currently follows in determining the park dedication requirements in the plat approval process. The ordinance correctly requires dedications to be reasonable, allows for cash equivalents, defines "market value," and allows for consideration of private open space development plans. The NAC study recommends some amendments to the subdivision ordinance. The recommended amendments are sensible and two recommendations merit further discussion. First, it is recommended that in calculating the amount of cash payments made in lieu of land dedications, the land be valued as of the time of final plat approval rather than as raw undeveloped land as currently contemplated by the ordinance. Minnesota law authorizes municipalities to value land for dedication purposes at the time of final plat approval. Section 462.358, Subd. 2 b (a) (2000) provides: "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...." 0 Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -4- In the Collis case, the Supreme Court upheld the determination by the city to value the land as of the date of final plat approval rather than as raw undeveloped land stating: "The ideal point to evaluate the land for recreational purposes... is when the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size, and other relevant factors can be reasonably known." 246 N.W.2d at 28. It is true that evaluating the land at the time of final plat approval will result in a greater dedication dollar amount. Importantly, it is also true that by evaluating the land at the time of final plat approval, the City will be in a better position to comply with the two-step Dolan analysis by making a more precise determination of the impact of the development upon the park system. Second, the NAC study illustrates the legal issue associated with the practice of charging a . park dedication fee for commercial/industrial developments. This is because it is more difficult to calculate the impact that commercial/industrial development will have upon the park system and satisfy the two -step Dolan standard. While it may be that the high quality of life offered by the City of Andover, which is in part based upon an excellent park system, is a factor considered by commercial/industrial developers locating in the City, the connection between the existence of a commercial/industrial development and an increased burden on the park system seems less obvious. Can the City articulate to what is degree a particular commercial/industrial development will burden the park system? The law mandates an "individualized determination" which may be challenging for the City to achieve. I have concerns about the ability of the City to sustain dedication requirements for commercial/industrial developments if a challenge is brought. However, I am not aware of any court decisions on this point. In the NAC study, it is recommended that the commercial/industrial property in the City pay a proportionate share of the anticipated future park system costs. The assignment of a portion of the overall cost to the commercial/industrial property has the effect of decreasing the amount of the residential share. I have two concerns. First, a park dedication requirement for commercial/industrial development will be more difficult to sustain if challenged. Second, should the commercial/industrial dedication requirement be successfully challenged, a shortfall will exist and the City will have to either rework its park dedication policies or provide funding from other sources. The NAC study does an excellent job of calculating the anticipated growth of the City and the concurrent financial needs of the park system. The study is consistent with the requirements of Dolan and demonstrates that the anticipated dedication requirements are roughly proportionate to the distribution of park system costs. I believe that this study, when combined with the comprehensive plan, its related documents, City ordinance, and appropriate meeting minutes and findings will be abundantly adequate to withstand judicial —S— Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -5- • scrutiny in the event an applicant brings a court challenge to the dedication requirements for residential developments. I trust this addresses the issues which you have raised. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to call. TP !ns cc: John Erar Todd Haas Alan Brixius n 9 Ft� ropy NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com C C - Cvi 4)WA& 1 - pons i iZEG eawm iXwn MEMORANDUM ' �' � aww++�, e,4-y ANOVO4ey - �Fi4X�o a /rte /o s, TO: Todd Haas /Will Neumeister FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross DATE: November 25, 2002 RE: Andover Park Dedication Study FILE NO: 111.06 On November 14, 2002, the Andover City Council and Park Commission met to discuss the November 11, 2002 Andover Park Dedication Study. At that meeting, a number of issues were raised that required further attention. This memo is intended to provide response to the outstanding issues related to that meeting. The City Council and Park Commission discussed whether it was more appropriate to have a percentage of land value versus a cash per unit or acre dedication. In the discussion, the Council cited the Collis vs City of Bloomington 1976 lawsuit as the rule of thumb for park dedication and believed that the 10 percent dedication in relationship to current land values in Andover would provide adequate funds to cover future park expenses. It is important to note that in that finding, the court indicated that the 10 percent requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the particular subdivision and the recreational need of the community. Subsequent lawsuits, both Dolan vs Tigard 1994 and Kottschade vs City of Rochester 1995 indicated that the City has the burden of proving the required relationship between property development and the City's need for the land dedication that an essential nexus exists between the land and /or park dedication and the land use and that the distribution of cost is roughly proportionate to benefit received. In this respect, it is imperative that whether the City chooses a percentage of land value or a cash per unit or acre dedication, that we demonstrate a roughly proportional benefit to each land use that contributes to the park system demand. To accomplish this objective, the study took the following steps: 1. We identified the City -wide ultimate park system and assigned a value to . allow us to define the system benefit throughout the community. I t 1 ,R 2. We examined the City's existing and forecasted population, household characteristics. The growth assumptions within the study are reflective of • the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan related to future residential densities and household sizes. These documents provide us with continuity between the City's planning efforts. 3. We examined the proportional distribution of the ultimate park system value between existing development and future growth. This analysis indicates that the park system is currently overbuilt, providing capacity within the existing system for new growth. This is exhibited in Table 8 of the report on page 14. 4. Tables 9, 10, and 11 of the November 11, 2002 study provides estimated park dedication fees per residential unit based on three different growth scenarios and three different park systems scenarios. Based on the aforementioned factors, staff recommended that Table 10 be considered as the most likely development alternative that the City may pursue. This includes build out of the 2020 system with one additional community ballfield complex. The result of this would be a 2020 park dedication fee per residential unit of $2,607. This fee would be reduced if either Rural Service Area 1 or Rural Service Area 2 were added to the 2020 MUSA. At the November 14, 2002 workshop meeting, the City Council and Park Commission suggested that we will maintain the park dedication requirements for commercial/ industrial land uses in the current position. In making this decision, the recommended cash contribution per residential unit will be reduced with the introduction of additional fees being collected from the commercial /industrial land uses in the future. The attached tables reflect the anticipated commercial /industrial park dedication fees that will be collected from future development and have been applied to the calculation for park dedication fees per unit. The following tables illustrate the impact that commercial /industrial park dedication fees will have on reducing the fees per unit for residential development. 11 2 0 TABLE 12 COMM ERCIAUINDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION FEE FORMULA Average Value Per Acres Park Dedication Per Acres 120,000 / per acre X 10% _ $12,000 Park Dedication Per Acre Remaining C/I Land Eligible Total C/I For Park Dedication Future Park Dedication $12,000 X 125 acres $1,500,000 TABLE 13 ESTIMATED PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ NO ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES Total Estimated System Value C/I Park Dedication Residential Share of Park System No. Housing Units Park Dedication Fee /Unit Residential 2020 $35,178,322 1,500,000 33,678,322 14,516 $2,320 Area 1 $36,312,502 1,500,000 34,812,502 18,086 $1,925 Area 2 $36,879,592 1,500,000 35,379,592 19,042 $1,858 Rural Reserve Area 1 — Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 — Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,701,270 TABLE 14 • PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 1 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEX 3 Total Estimated System Value C/I Park Dedication Residential Share of Park System No. Housing Units Park Dedication Fee /Unit Residential 2020 $37,847,413 1,500,000 36,347,413 14,516 $2,504 Area 1 $38,981,593 1,500,000 37,481,593 18,086 $2,072 Area 2 $39,548,683 z 1,500,000 38,048,683 19,042 $1,998 "Rural Reserve Area 1 and 2 — households per Area added to 2010 Census Data Rural Reserve Area 1 — Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 — Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 One Additional Community Playfield (similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $2,669,091 3 r TABLE 15 PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 2 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES 3 Total Estimated I C/I Park Residential No. Park Dedication System Value Dedication Share of Park Housing Fee /Unit System Units Residential 12020 1 $40,516,504 1 1,500.000 1 39,016.504 1 14.516 1 $2.688 1 Area 1 $41,650,684' 1,500,000 1 40,150,684 118,086 1 $2,220 Area 2 $42,217,774 1,500,000 1 40,717,774 19,042 $2,138 :d *Area 1 and 2 — households Der Area added to 2010 Census Data ' Rural Reserve Area 1 — Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 — Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 Two Additional Community Playtields ( similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $5,338,182 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on discussions at the November 14, 2002 City Council /Park Commission workshop, the following amended recommendations are offered: 0 To support the value of proposed cash dedications it is recommended that the City update its Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate the Minnesota Statute language specifying that land value (for the purpose of calculating park dedication) will be • determined based upon the value of the land at the time of final plat The following language is suggested: Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established at the time of final plat approval. The City Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time under terns agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by the City. 2. The current park system and plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and the City Council has determined that the value of this system should be equitably distributed among each of the benefited land uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. The City will maintain its current commercial and industrial park dedication requiring 10 percent of land value. Factoring the commercial /industrial dedication into the overall park land dedication fee formulation, we would recommend that the City select the park dedication fee of $2,504 per residential unit to cover build out costs of the City's planned park system and the development of one additional community playfield. This per unit dedication amount may be adjusted per the alternative fee illustrated in Table 14 if the City chooses to expand its 2020 MUSA to include either Rural Reserve Area 1 or 2. A periodic review of land values and facility costs should be done to ensure that the park dedication fee remains current based upon market conditions. Staff recommends • S that the Engineering News Record Cost Index (ENR Cost Index) be utilized as the source to annually update facility values to account for inflationary factors. • 3. In the event that the City Council chooses to add 2 additional Community Playfields to the overall system, a residential park dedication fees from Table 15 should be instituted. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to provide an alternative to the developer to conduct an individualized study for the subdivision to determine park needs, should there be a question as to the applicability of the residential unit fee. The following language is suggested: If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in the City fee schedule (pursuant to this park dedication analysis) fairly and accurately represent the effect of the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request that the City prepare an in -depth study of the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in money andlor land. All costs of said study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision. Based upon the experience of NAC Inc., no developer has requested a special study • to determine individual subdivision impacts to a municipal park system to date. In the event that a developer requests a special study, all costs of the study would be paid for by the developer. The study would consist of an analysis of the park system to define the improvements needed to complete the affected facilities. The analysis would include a review of the specific impacts the development project would have on the planned park facilities, current land value, current facility costs and other pertinent information. The resulting costs of the land and facilities needed to provide for the development project would be estimated and assigned accordingly to the development project. The recommended park dedication fees are based on the costs identified in Exhibit D. 5. The City should consider incorporating park redevelopment infrastructure planning as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan. Minnesota Statutes specify that park dedication fees may not be used for maintenance purposes and therefore it is important for the City to continue to provide a separate budget fund for maintenance. In conferring with the City Attorney, it is possible to use park dedication fees for new or replacement of facilities. However, any park improvements above those identified in Exhibit D will need to be financed outside of the park dedication funds. As the park system ages, there will be an increased need to retrofit existing facilities, as they will have aged beyond their useful life in the older parks. Park dedication fees can be used to replace some facilities and infrastructure however, the City will need 5 to establish other sources to pay for replacement of the park system facilities in full developed neighborhoods or park service areas. 6. The City has accepted a number of Mini and Neighborhood Park areas (65 acres or • 12% of the total parkland), in the past which are not developable due to topographic and natural features constraints. These parks, while not providing active park facilities, contribute to the overall park system through the provision of aesthetic natural open spaces and passive recreational areas. Future land dedication shall be done in accordance with the following language: Land dedication shall be selected based on the park land need defined by the Andover Park System Plan. Active park land areas shall be exclusive of wetlands, slopes exceeding 92 percent ponding areas, or other features unsuitable for active park development. The City may accept natural open space or passive park containing unique natural environmental features as part of the park land dedication. Selection of park land for dedication shall be at the discretion of the City Council, based on the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive - Plan and the Comprehensive Park System Plan. CONCLUSION These changes represent the requests from the November 14, 2002 workshop meeting. Please review and contact me if you have any further questions on this material. • • 21 F��E GoPY NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC... • 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Haas FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross DATE: November 11, 2002 RE: Andover— Park Dedication Study FILE NO: 111.06 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to provide recommendations to the City of Andover concerning park dedication standards and the ordinance amendments suggested to implement the Park Plan Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The City's existing park • system has been developed based upon the current Comprehensive Plan (which describes land use, transportation, parks and community goals and objectives as well as demographic projections to the year 2020). The City is currently conducting a Rural Reserve Study which may result in a future Comprehensive Plan amendment adding additional land to the City's urban service area. The park dedication study also addresses future park needs and dedication standards for the two potential rural reserve areas. ISSUES / ANALYSIS Andover has been successful in acquiring land during the subdivision process to provide neighborhood and mini parks throughout the community. Athletic fields and other recreation improvements have been provided based upon a combination of City, School District and regional park facilities. The City is in a good position with respect to its park and recreation system in that the variety, location, number and facilities provided by the system exceed national guidelines. The existing Parks and Open Space Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan utilized both Metropolitan Council and National Recreation and Parks Association' Guidelines to develop the park system standards identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The current City park system exceeds the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) guidelines were utilized to analyze the park system by park type and the number of acres of parkland per 1,000 population because these guidelines were utilized in the 1999 Park Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The NRPA is a professional association that provides accreditation programs for universities and advises national lawmakers on policy matters, programs and legislation related to public parks and recreation. City of Andover Park Dedication Report 1 of 1 r � national standards (based upon the number of acres of park land provided per 1,000 population), identified by the existing Comprehensive Plan. The City has provided parks • throughout the community which allow residents good access to the system and there are a variety of recreational facilities to choose from including natural areas, linear parks, playgrounds and athletic facilities. Andover has also done an excellent job of mapping and maintaining an inventory of its park facilities and providing clear guidance through the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process for implementation of future facilities. The purpose of this study is to identify the cost or value of the Andover ultimate park system and distribute the costs of developing this system equitably to the existing and future households and land uses that benefit from the City's park system. The following points summarize the key issues that will affect the City's park system: 1. Andover is considering three future growth options. The 2020 MUSA will have a build out population of 39,000 people and 14,516 households. As part of the Rural Reserve Study, two additional growth areas are being considered in addition to the 2020 MUSA. If Rural Reserve Area 1 (1,020 acres) is selected, the forecasted build out population may reach 48,639 people and 18,086 households. If Rural Reserve Area 2 (1,293 acres) is selected, the forecasted build out population may reach 51,220 people and 19,042 households. 2. The community has done a good job of acquiring land for park and recreation purposes and providing equipment/facilities to serve the recreation needs of the • City. The location and type of parks within the existing system exceed national standards (suggested by the National Recreation and Park Association), based upon the current population of 26,588 residents (2000 U.S. Census). 3. Based upon a staff review of the existing land areas which have been acquired or dedicated to the City over time, staff believes that about 65 acres of the 545 acres or about 12% of the total parkland will never be developed due to topography constraints such as steep slopes, wetlands and lakes. 4. The existing park system is predominantly comprised of smaller Mini and Neighborhood Parks which are located throughout the community. City staff has indicated that the number and proximity of smaller parks are expensive to maintain and as such, the City may choose to limit further acquisition of small park sites within the community in favor of larger Neighborhood Parks. 5. The 2000 U.S. Census data indicates that over 67% of the City's population is comprised of young residents between the ages of 5 to 44 years of age. Almost 20% of the population is comprised of children under 10 years old. The Census figures indicate that the community has a large population of young active residents who typically generate park and recreation demands on the community. Considering the large number of children, teens and young adults, it is anticipated that park and recreation use will be strong for the foreseeable future. • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 2 of 2 • 6. As the community develops and lands within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) decline, future growth will occur in the rural service area and the density of development will ultimately decline. While the need for parks will continue to be strong, the financial resources that will be dedicated to the park system are expected to decline. The anticipated decreased density of development in the rural areas will result in a decline in the amount of park dedication fees that will be collected over the long- teri•n. The land supply within the MUSA is limited and the cost of land for park acquisition is high. 7. The current City park system contains about 545 acres of parkland, which is divided into 59 separate park facilities, (including the 15 acre site located south of WDE Landfill). The total value of the park system based upon full build out (including existing and future planned facilities, land costs and 30% design /administration costs) approximates $35,178,322 dollars. The existing park system is valued at $22,168,389 dollars with approximately $13,009,933 dollars of future improvements to be constructed to complete the 2020 Comprehensive Plan park system. 8. The planned park system (based upon the 2020 Comprehensive Plan), is about 63% developed at this time and has been paid for by existing development (through taxes, Community Development Block Grants, other grants and park dedication fees, donations etc). As the City is currently only about 56% • developed, (8,200 households based upon the 2000 Census out of the potential 14,516 projected 2020 build out households), existing development has already paid for over 63% of the total planned system. Future development should be responsible to pay for the remaining 37% ($13,009,933 dollars) plus a percentage of the existing system (including some facility upgrades and replacement), in order to provide for their proportionate share of the total system costs. STATUTE / CASE LAW The City authorized this study to be conducted by NAC to review current regulations and dedication requirements to determine if current practices are adequately providing for existing and future anticipated park demands. This Report will summarize the objectives of the current Park Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and provide updated inventory information to establish a base line for future dedication needs. Factors including property valuation, service area needs, facility cost analysis, future development and implementation strategies will be reviewed. Recommendations will be set forth establishing mechanisms for the City to provide park facilities in a manner that meets Comprehensive Plan goals, establishes a relationship between park need and development impact and that will build out the system in an equitable manner, consistent with Minnesota Statutes and recent case law. It should be noted that the City requested that this study exclude analysis of the community trail system therefore this aspect of the community park and recreation system will not be analyzed. E City of Andover Park Dedication Report 3of3 L Minnesota Statutes — Park Dedication Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b. provides the enabling legislation that allows . municipalities to extract parkland or cash dedications for park acquisition and development. The statute specifically provides: " that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks recreational facilities playgrounds trails wetlands, or open space The statute further provides that the municipality may: a. 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 b. any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained C. in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and d. the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in Subd. 2b. as a result of approval of the subdivision. Collis v. City of Bloominaton (19761 The statute described above was further interpreted by the case of Collis vs. City of . Bloomington. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Bloomington's Ordinance, which set forth a ten (10) percent park dedication requirement "as a general rule." The Court found for this particular case and developer /project, that "as a general rule, it was reasonable for the City to require dedication of ten percent of land or payment of ten percent of the value of undeveloped land for park dedication." The Court noted that the ten percent requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the particular subdivision and recreational need in the community. The Court was not, however, prepared to say that the ten percent requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). Dolan vs. Tigard (1994) The enabling legislation of Minnesota Statutes 462.358 Subd. 2b cited earlier in this report has been further influenced by case law. The U.S. Supreme Count (Dolan vs. Tigard) found that land use extractions must be reflective of a development impact on the infrastructure system. In this respect, park dedication extracted from a land use must reflect the demand they generate for park and recreational facilities. This case established that a rational nexus or relationship must exist between the fees charged for parks and the related impacts that are generated by the use City of Andover Park Dedication Report 4 of 4 1 , Kottschade vs. City of Rochester (1995) . In this case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that in the case of a dedication, the City is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right - the right to receive just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the City has the burden of proving the required relationship between the property development and the Citv's need for land dedication the City must also demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the development and the City's dedication requirement. (Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). In other words, the City must be able to prove that the proposed project will create a need for additional park facilities and that the amount of dedication required is roughly proportionate to the need that will be generated from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required, however, the City must demonstrate that an individualized determination has been made to support the land /cash dedication requirement. City Attorney Comments — (Exhibit E, Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999). "In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the ' dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. A precise mathematical calculation is not required; what is required is some sort of individualized determination. It should not be difficult for the City to meet the first or nexus part of the standard, i.e., that the proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does not pass the second part of the test. A flat fee. charge that is not based upon a community park plan and facilities analysis, does not provide an individualized determination that the amount of the charge is roughly proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be reasonable and must be based on the fair market value of the land." 1999 PARK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Andover Comprehensive Plan including the Parks and Open Space Chapter, sets forth goals and objectives for the park system. The objectives of the plan are to: 1. Provide areas that meet present park needs and plan for future needs of the City. 2. Maintain, upgrade and expand community recreational facilities and trail systems to serve all residents of the City. • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 5of5 I 3. Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's rural and open space and amenities. . The City of Andover contains 59 parks (including the 15 acre site located south of the WDE Landfill), ranging in size from under 1 acre to over 130 acres. Anoka County operates two Regional Parks, Bunker Hills Regional Park and Rum River Central Regional Park that abut the City. Exhibit A, Park Service Area Map indicates the location of all of the existing parks and developable planned future parks within the City. The park system contains land areas that are designed to meet varying recreational needs of residents. The parks are classified according to factors including size, use, service area, location and site improvements. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the following parkland classifications: Mini Park. This type of park is intended to provide specialized facilities that serve a concentrated or limited population or specific group such as tots or senior citizens. Mini parks are typically located within neighborhoods and serve people living within less than % mile of the Mini Park and have an area of 2 acres or less. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 20 Mini Parks (30 acres) throughout the City. Neighborhood Park. This type of facility is intended to provide areas for intense recreational activities such as field games, courts, apparatus areas, skating, etc. The majority of the City parks fall into this classification. The service areas range from % to '/z mile and this type of facility is generally intended to serve a population of 4,000 to 5,000 people. Park sizes for existing Neighborhood Parks within the City range from 2.17 acres (Northwoods. East Park) to almost 20 acres (Prairie Knoll Park). The Comprehensive Plan contemplates development of 33 Neighborhood Parks (approximately 254 acres) throughout the City. Linear Park This type of facility is typically developed for one or more varying modes of recreational travel such as hiking, biking, skiing, canoeing etc. There is currently only one Linear Park within the City (Coon Creek Park). The park contains bituminous trails that follow Coon Creek between Hanson Blvd. NW and the Burlington Northern Railroad. Non - motorized uses including biking, hiking, roller blading and cross - country skiing are permitted in the park. Coon Creek Park contains 38 acres of land. Special Use Park. Special Use Parks are generally areas established to provide specialized or single purpose recreational activities such as golf course, nature center, marina, zoo, display gardens etc. The Round Lake and Crooked Lake Boat Landings are designated as Special Use Parks. Crooked Lake has a picnic shelter and play equipment; Round Lake contains no recreational equipment. Undeveloped Parks. The City has a number of Undeveloped Parks where land has been dedicated or acquired but facilities have not yet been installed. The Undeveloped Park areas range from less than 1 acre to over 10 acres in size. Many of the areas contain wetlands and are unsuitable for active plan and /or recreational equipment. • City of Andover Park Dedication Report ( r � � Larger areas may be suitable for future trail development. A total of 98 acres of land are • owned by the City but are currently undeveloped. Of these acres, approximately 65 acres will likely not be developed due to topographic conditions and wetlands which leave approximately 33 acres of parkland to be developed in the future. Community Parks. The Comprehensive Plan includes both parks and playfields within this park classification. Community Parks are generally intended to provide areas of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation activities including walking, picnicking, fields and court athletic activities. Three parks are designed for community use. These parks serve the City as a whole and typically include between 25 to 50 acres of land. Kelsey Round Lake Park and Coon Creek Park are both designated as a Community Parks. Sunshine and City Hall parks are designated as Community Playfields. Both are active use parks with recreational facilities designed for league play in baseball, softball, soccer and tennis. Kelsey Round Lake Park is a passive use park containing bituminous, gravel and wood chip nature trails. The City has about 245 acres of land currently developed for Community Park purposes. Regional Parks. Two Regional Parks, (Bunker Hills Regional Park and Rum River Central Regional Park) are located adjacent to the City. Bunker Hills Regional Park is located in the southwest comer of the City and extends into the adjacent cities of Blaine, Coon Rapids and Ham Lake. The park includes numerous recreation facilities such as picnic areas, playgrounds, camping, swimming, bituminous and hiking trails. Rum River Central Regional Park is located adjacent to the northwest comer of, the City on the west bank of the Rum River in the City of Ramsey. Construction has begun on developing recreational activities and trails. Trails. The City is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive trail system for the community. As this planning is currently underway, the City requested that this park dedication analysis not include trails as part of the study. The study does however contain trail access for the individual parks, which is needed to comply with the ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan identifies open space as a part of the overall park system. Open space is defined as areas set aside for the preservation of natural open spaces to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony. "Many new citizens cite Andover's natural amenities as a reason for moving into the City. ° As such, an objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect, preserve and enhance the open space character of the City. Unbuildable Parks. Within the existing park system, there are nine parks totaling 65 acres, currently shown on Exhibit C, Andover Park Facilities Chart and illustrated on Exhibit B, Andover Park Map that will not likely be developed due to the fact that the land dedication consists primarily of wetlands, lakes, or steep slopes and there is insufficient upland area to develop an active park. This unbuildable park land generally is 2 City of Andover Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 8 pg. 4 of 9, Draft Copy - December 1999. City of Andover Park Dedication Report 7of7 fills the classification of Mini and Neighborhood Parks. The specific parks and acreage are identified in Table 1. • TABLE 1 UNBUILDABLE PARKS PARK NAME PARKS MAP NUMBER I.D. PARK CLASSIFICATION EXISTING ACRES Mini Parks Tulip Park 13 UM 1.85 Meadow Wood South 29 UM 0.45 Hartfields 32 UM 1.47 Subtotal Mini Parks Acreage BUILDABLE* 3.77 Neighborhood Parks Birch Ride 1 UN 13.99 Grow Oak View 8 UN 12.77 White Oaks 9 UN 9.30 Valley View 11 UN 8.74 Redwood Park 45 UN 5.59 Shadowbrook West 47 UN 11.39 Subtotal Neighborhood Park Acreage 530 465 61.23 Total Unbuildable Park Acreage 1 65.00 In addition to the stated park system objectives, the 1999 Comprehensive Plan also provides recommendations for park system acreage to accommodate community . growth through 2020. Table 2 compares the Comprehensive Plan acreage recommended with the existing park system to illustrate where the City stands in relationship to its build out park system. TABLE 2 PARK TYPE 1999 COMP PLAN EXISTING PARK EXISTING SURPLUS/ ACREAGE ACREAGE PARK DEFICIT** RECOMMENDATION GROSS ACRES ACREAGE NET BUILDABLE* Mini 30 30 26 -3.77 Neighborhood 165 254 193 +27.77 Common Park 358 174 174 -184.66 Community 124 72 72 -52.00 Playflelds TOTAL 677 530 465 -212.00 * These figures represent adjusted acres subtracting out unbuildable park acreages from Table 1. ** Surplus/Deficit represents 1999 Comprehensive Plan acreage recommendations minus existing park acreage net buildable. is City of Andover Park Dedication Report 8of8 City staff indicated that although the existing parkland consists of a multitude of smaller . Mini and Neighborhood Parks, the City may not continue acquisition of similar land in the future due to the high cost of maintenance associated with the dispersed locations of these parks within the community. The system is adequate to provide for lands within the projected MUSA boundary. The bulk of the lands outside of the ultimate MUSA are planned to develop with 2.5 acre residential lots. The acreage lots provide land area for private recreation purposes that is larger than that typically dedicated for mini parks (2 acres or less). As such, the City may choose to add additional property to some of the mini park areas or look to acquire neighborhood parks in the future. Table 2 and Exhibit A, Park Service Area Map, illustrates that as the City grows within the 2020 MUSA, the current Neighborhood Parks provide sufficient acreage and distribution to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. Additional community parks and community playfields must yet be acquired and developed. ANDOVER PARK ACREAGE COMPARISON WITH NATIONAL STANDARDS The existing park system was further analyzed in terms of the service area per 1,000 population guidelines established by the National Recreation and Park Association. The U.S. Census (2000) population figure of 26,588 was used to evaluate the park system acreage. The following table indicates that the City currently exceeds the park acres per 1,000 population guidelines in all park categories with the exception of Community Parks where the current system is about 2 acres short. It should be noted that the park acreages listed in the "Existing Park Acres" column in Table 3 represent the amount of acres of park owned by the City and net buildable park acres. However, even when the existing unbuildable acres are deleted, the existing park system still has more park acres than suggested by the National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines. TABLE 3 PARK TYPE SERVICE AREA' NRPA STANDARD Z EXISTING PARK ACRES NRPA SUGGESTED ACRES GROSS BUILDABLE Mini Park '/. Mile .38 ac/1000 30 26 10 Neighborhood Park Y. - %z Mile 3 ac/1000 254 193 81 Community Park 2 Mile 6.5 ac/1000 174 174 176 Community Playneld 2 Mile 2.25 ac/1000 72 72 61 Totat Acres 1 530 465 328 'Metropolitan Council Guideline (Park Facility Service Area) 2 National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines (Acres of Park per 1,000 Population) 3 National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines (Based upon 2000 Census Population of 26,588) • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 9 of9 y COMMUNITY GROWTH The City s existing and future population and household growth will be compared to City • park system value estimates to provide a proportionate park dedication fee. The Andover 2020 Comprehensive Plan forecasts a 2020 population of approximately 39,000 people in 14,516 households. This anticipated future development is in both the 2020 MUSA and the City's rural service areas. Andover's 2000 household count of 8,205 represent approximately 56% of the City's 2020 household forecast. As a requirement of Metropolitan Council approval of Andover's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the City is undertaking a Rural Reserve Area Study that identifies two options for potential future urban growth beyond the 2020 MUSA. The two additional rural reserve areas under consideration are indicated on Exhibit A, Park Service Area Map as Area 1 (1,020 gross acres) and Area 2 (1,293 gross acres). Table 4 illustrates the population and household estimates of the City based upon 2000 U.S. Census data, 2020 population and household projections cited in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and projections for either of the two potential MUSA expansion areas to determine total community build out population. TABLE 4 ANDOVER POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATES This park land dedication study will rely on the following demographic statistics. The City will have a 2020 population of 39,000 people and a 2020 household count of 14,516. according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the City selects either of the rural reserve areas for future MUSA expansion, the following forecasts will be applied. Area 1 has approximately 1,020 gross acres of land, assuming a density of 3.5 units per acre. This will generate 3,570 households. At an average of 2.7 people per household, this will result in a build out population of 9,639 people. The rural reserve area demographic forecasts in addition to the 2020 forecasts will provide Andover with a City-side build out population of 48,639 people and a household count of 18,086. The 2000 demographic estimates represent 54% of this build out population and 45% of the build out households. Area 2 has approximately 1,293 gross acres of land, assuming a density of 3.5 units per acre. This will generate 4,526 households. At an average of 2.7 people per household, this will result in a build out population of 12,220 people. Rural Reserve Area 2 • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 10 of 10 POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS 2000 Census 26,588 8,205 2010 Estimate 33,007 12,091 2020 Estimate 39,000 14,516 Rural Reserve Area #1 9,639 48,639 3,570 18,086 Rural Reserve Area #2 12,220 51,220 4,526 19,042 This park land dedication study will rely on the following demographic statistics. The City will have a 2020 population of 39,000 people and a 2020 household count of 14,516. according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the City selects either of the rural reserve areas for future MUSA expansion, the following forecasts will be applied. Area 1 has approximately 1,020 gross acres of land, assuming a density of 3.5 units per acre. This will generate 3,570 households. At an average of 2.7 people per household, this will result in a build out population of 9,639 people. The rural reserve area demographic forecasts in addition to the 2020 forecasts will provide Andover with a City-side build out population of 48,639 people and a household count of 18,086. The 2000 demographic estimates represent 54% of this build out population and 45% of the build out households. Area 2 has approximately 1,293 gross acres of land, assuming a density of 3.5 units per acre. This will generate 4,526 households. At an average of 2.7 people per household, this will result in a build out population of 12,220 people. Rural Reserve Area 2 • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 10 of 10 forecasts, in addition to the 2020 demographic forecasts, will provide Andover with a • City -wide build out population of 51,220 people and a household count of 19,042. The 2000 demographic estimates represents 52% of this build out population and 48% of the build out households. RURAL RESERVE AREA PARK NEEDS Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the park needs for both of the rural reserve areas. Table 5 illustrates the NRPA guidelines for park land acres per 1,000 population and acreage by park type. TABLE 5 RURAL RESERVE AREA PARK LAND NEEDS PARK ACRES PER 1,000 POPULATION 0 PARK TYPE NRPA AREA 1 AREA 1 AREA 2 AREA 2 STANDARD BUILD OUT PARK BUILD OUT PARK POPULATION ACREAGE POPULATION ACREAGE 1,000s NEEDED 1,000s NEEDED Mini .38/1,000 9.6 4 acres 12.2 5 acres Neighborhood 3/1,000 9.6 29 acres 12.2 37 acres Community 65/1,000 9.6 63 acres 12.2 80 acres Community 2.25/1,000 9.6 22 acres 12.2 28 acres Playfield TOTAL 118 acres 150 acres NRPA National Recreation and Park Association (Standards #Nacre per 1,000 popuiaoon. Based on national standards and the City's forecasted population, the City has sufficient acreage of Mini and Neighborhood Parks to meet future demand. However, the location of existing Mini and Neighborhood Parks do not provide service area coverage for either of the two rural reserve study areas. The addition of Neighborhood Parks will be required to meet the location and park service area needs of the rural reserve area selected by the City for future urban growth. There will also be a need to provide additional Community Park and Community Playfield facilities to the system to accommodate the future growth from either rural reserve selected for future MUSA. Depending which rural reserve area is selected, the City will need to add either 63 or 80 acres of Community Park and either 22 or 28 acres of Community Playfields. Based upon the Comprehensive Plan Soil and Slope Map, there are substantial areas within both Rural Reserve Area 1 and 2 that contain restricted soil types and therefore the potential locations for additional playfields are limited. The information in Table 6 illustrates the number of parks anticipated to be needed to provide park and recreation service to the two rural reserve areas, (utilizing National Recreation and Park Association Guidelines). • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 11 of 11 TABLE 6 NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKS NEEDED RURAL RESERVE AREAS FOR POTENTIAL 1 AND 2 Park Type Park Size Area 1 # Parks Needed Area 2 # Parks Needed Mini Park 2 acres 2 3 Neighborhood Park 18 acres 2 2 Community Park 40 acres 2 2 Communi Pl3yfield 40 acres .5 .5 National Recreation and Park Association Guideline (Average Park Size per Park Type) 1 U PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS - RAW LAND VALUE VS. VALUE AT FINAL PLAT Pursuant to State Statute, the City can collect park dedication based upon the value of land at the time of final plat. It is NACis opinion that value should include raw land value plus the value from lots created by final plat approval. The land value at final plat should comprise the retail value of the lot less improvement costs. Residential developers were contacted to identify typical lot improvement costs (assuming an 80 foot wide lot), associated with single - family subdivisions. Typical improvement costs for single - family developments consist of utilities, roads, grading, engineering, area connection charges and fees, which approximate 48% of the total vacant lot sales price. The developers that were contacted also indicated that a development must yield a minimum 20% retail value added per lot to be a viable project. For illustration purposes, • the following table provides an example breakdown of land values as they relate to the collection of park dedication based upon raw land value versus the value of land at the time of final plat. TABLE 7 PARK DEDICATION / RAW LAND VS VALUE AT FINAL PLAT LAND RAW LAND VALUE VALUE AT FINAL PLAT Typical vacant lot sales price -$42,995 $ 28,000 p /acre Typical development costs for utilities etc. (48% lot sales price) -20,637 $22,358 Or $14.000 pilot' Lot cost + 20% Retail Value X 10% Park Dedication Fee X 10% X 10% Park Ded. Park dedication collected at the time of final plat $ 2,235 1 $1,400 per unit * Based upon 2 units per acre The application of park dedication at the time of final plat, based upon the retail value of the lots, results in an equitable dedication policy in that the same value will be applied regardless of whether cash or land is required from a development project. City of Andover Park Dedication Report 11 12 of 2 • RESIDENTIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS Exhibit C, Andover - Park Facilities Chart identifies the park sites pursuant to the City Parks Map. The name and address of each park including existing and future acres, facilities and values are also identified. City Staff provided the list of facilities and corresponding cost estimates. The park system analysis included a land use review to determine the service areas for the existing parks and to identify the proportion of existing and future development that will impact the system. As stated earlier, the current park areas are spread throughout the community and are relatively evenly distributed. Many of the existing parks are located in areas of the community where future development will occur and as such, a proportion of the park infrastructure should be paid for by new development. In fully developed areas in the southern part of the City, improvements to existing parks should be and have been paid for by current development within the service area of the specific park facility. City Staff provided a list of existing and future planned park facilities, which was used to establish the value of the existing park system and to identify costs reasonably expected to complete the future park system based upon full build out contemplated by the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted that the information contained herein is the best estimate of future facilities that can be made at this time and that the specific facilities and dollar figures may be subject to change /revision as time goes by and market conditions fluctuate. See Exhibit D, City of Andover 2002 Existing and Future Park Facilities Chart for reference. Based on the estimated value of the complete 2020 • park system, Table 8 illustrates that the park system is 63% developed and has been paid for by existing development through taxes, park dedication donations, grants etc. Future development will benefit from the infrastructure that is currently in place and as such, should be responsible to pay a proportionate share for replacement of the existing system. A major component of the park system is land and to determine present land values for Andover, recent sales indicated that the average value for land within the MUSA approximates $50,000 per acre and average land value in the rural service area approximates $33,000 per acre. The Anoka County Assessor's database was utilized to establish the land value for park areas that contain a large percentage of wetland or lakes (generally the 65 acres of parkland that staff believes will not be developed due to topographic constraints). The 1999 Andover Comprehensive Park Plan recommends 358 acres of Community Park and 124 acres of Community Playfield by 2020 is illustrated in Table 2. The City will need to add 194 acres of Community Park and 52 acres of Community Playfield to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. The inclusion of one of the rural reserve areas as future MUSA will also generate demand for between 63 to 80 acres of additional Community Park and between 22 to 28 acres of additional Community Playfields. • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 13 of 13 The Rural Reserve Areas are not however, adequately served by Neighborhood and Mini Parks. The recommendation of this report is for the City to plan for 1 or 2 • additional Community Playfields and five additional Neighborhood Parks to accommodate the additional population that will be added from the selected rural reserve areas. Table 8 illustrates the values of the planned park system based upon the current Comprehensive Plan and two rural reserve area options along with the recommendation to add one additional Community Playfield (similar to the City Hall complex) and five Neighborhood Parks to the system. To calculate the values of the existing and future system, staff utilized the City of Andover Directory of Parks, City Capital Improvements Plan, and research of facility vendors as well as comparable improvements within the City. A list of the future facility acquisitions and values is attached as Exhibit D, City of Andover 2002 Existing and Future Park Facilities Chart. TABLE 8 PARK SYSTEM ESTIMATED VALUE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & POTENTIAL RURAL RESERVE Total Park System Estimated Value of % of Estimated Value of Future % of Value Existing Park Facilities Total Park Facilities Total $35,178,322 $22,168,389 63% $13,009,933 37% $38,981,593 $22,168,389 57% $16,813,204' 43% $39,548,683 $22,168,389 56% $17,380,294 mow. in• •nn 44 /o ' Rural Reserve Area 1 - Two additional Neighborhood Narks needed at a total cost of " i, irr, IOU 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 - Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 One Additional Community Playfleld (similar to the City Hall complex) at a total cost of $2,669,091 Park dedication is collected as conditions of subdivision approval. In this respect, the park land dedication fee is estimated on the basis of new housing units or households. Currently, the City has completed approximately 63% of its 2020 park system based estimated value and future improvements. As described in pages 10 and 11 of this report, the household count compared to the City's build out option range from 56% within the 2020 MUSA to a low of 43% of Reserve Area 2 build out. This indicates that the current park system is over built for its current population and has capacity to accommodate future growth. Future household growth should pay an equitable share in providing the City's ultimate park system. To determine the equitable distribution of future park system value to residential units, the ultimate system value is divided by projected household counts. Tables 9, 10, and 11 provide alternative park dedication fees per unit based on different park improvement assumptions and three different growth options. City of Andover Park Dedication Report 14 of 14 I� TABLE 9 ESTIMATED PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES FEE W/ NO Total Estimated System Value Total Estimated System Value # Housing Units # Housing Units Park Dedication Fee Per Unit Park Dedication Fee Per Unit 2020 $35,178,322 _ 14,516 = $2,423 Area 1 Area 1 $36,312,502 18,086 18,086 - $2,008 Area 2 $36,879,592 2 - 19,049 = $1,937 ' Rural Reserve Area 1 - Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 - Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,701,270 TABLE 10 PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 1 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEX 3 Total Estimated System Value # Housing Units Park Dedication Fee Per Unit 2020 $37,847,413 - 14,516 = $2,607 Area 1 $38,981,593 - 18,086 = $2,155 Area 2 $39,548,683 - 19,042 = $2,077 'Rural Reserve Area 1 and 2 - households per Area aaaeo to zuiu IL,ensua Daw ' Rural Reserve Area 1 - Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 z Rural Reserve Area 2 - Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 One Additional Community Playfield (similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $2,669,091 TABLE 11 PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 2 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES 3 Total Estimated System Value # Housing Units I Park Dedication Fee Per Unit 2020 $40,516,504 14,516 = $2,791 Area 1 $41,650,684 - 18,086 = $2,303 Area 2 $42,217,774 2 - 19,042 = $2,217 'Area 1 and 2 - households per Area added to 1ui u census Data ' Rural Reserve Area 1 -Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 - Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 Two Additional Community Playfields ( similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $5,338,182 Table 9 represents park dedication fees based on the build out of the 2020 Andover park system and neighborhood parks for either of the rural reserve study areas. Tables 10 and 11 expand on Table 9 assumptions illustrating the inclusion of one or two • Community PlayFields. City of Andover Park Dedication Report 15 of 15 4 r 1 , Exhibit F provides a comparison of park land fees from other metropolitan communities. • The suggested fees in Tables 9, 10 and 11 are high when compared with neighboring communities of Blaine, Anoka, and Coon Rapids. However, the fees are in line with some of the larger, fast - growing communities such as Brooklyn Park, Eden Prairie, and Plymouth. The City Council will need to select both the park system development option and growth options that best suits the City of Andover.to determine the park dedication fee. - In discussion with staff, it appears Table 10 represents the preferred park dedication option. The per unit charge outlined in Table 10 above, assumes that all of the land area needed for the park system will be in place by the year 2006 with the exception of one additional Community Playfield (similar to the City Hall Complex) and two Neighborhood Parks (under potential Rural Reserve Area 1 expansion) or three Neighborhood. Parks (under Rural Reserve Area 2 expansion). The current system and future planned improvements are consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. It is fair to assume that the park system will likely continue to be upgraded in the future to maintain the user capacity of the system. The $2,607 dollar per unit charge should reasonably cover the costs for complete development of the system and carrying costs through system build out. In the event that the MUSA is expanded to incorporate Area 1, the residential park dedication charge could be reduced to $2,489 dollars per unit. In the event that the MUSA is expanded to incorporate Area 2, the residential park dedication charge could be reduced to $2,380 dollars per unit. The charge of $2,607 dollars per residential unit is the level of funding that will need to i be generated to provide for the planned park system for Andover, based upon implementation of the plan with the lands and facilities described in Exhibit D, City of Andover 2002 Existing and Future Park Facilities Chart, which are based upon the Comprehensive Park Plan. The $2,607 dollar figure takes into account the park service areas (% of park need associated with new vs. existing development), existing and projected costs for the park system, design /administrative costs and future population/household projections and is therefore our best estimate of park need per unit. It is important to note that the City should re- evaluate the system value; current land values and system needs on a periodic basis and adjust the park dedication accordingly. City Staff suggests that park facilities costs be reviewed and updated annually based upon the Engineers News Record Cost Index. The City may desire to adjust the park dedication per residential unit based upon formal adoption of the potential rural reserve area(s) pursuant to the rate of $2,489 per unit under Area 1 or $2,380 per unit under Area 2. Park maintenance and future improvements above and beyond those identified in Exhibit D should not be financed using park dedication funds. The operational and future improvement costs must be budgeted within the City's general funds with costs shared by all community residents. City of Andover • Park Dedication Report 16 of 16 I I COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS • Minnesota Statutes and recent case law have identified that Cities must now be able to articulate and justify dedication requirements on a project -by- project basis. Cities have the burden of determining that the park dedication requirement is related to the park benefit that will be derived due to the development. Individualized determinations must be made for each project and the City has the responsibility to demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the dedication requirement and the park needs generated by the development. As illustrated in Exhibit F, many metropolitan communities have a commercial/ industrial park land dedication. The general issue in establishing a commercial/ industrial park land fee is establishing a nexus between commercial and industrial use and the benefit they receive through the City's park system. In the case of Andover, City staff has indicated that the City has no commercial or industrial league programs, with the exception of a couple of local bar /restaurant sponsored tournaments. In this respect, there is no empirical data that currently illustrates whether a direct park benefit to the commercial and industrial properties either exists or does not exist. There are discussions that suggest that there is intrinsic benefit to all land uses from a quality park system related to quality of life within a community. The issue at hand is to determine the proportionate need that commercial /industrial developments generate for the community park system. The current City park dedication requirement for commercial /industrial projects is 10% which is the same as the requirement for residential projects containing up to 3 units per acre. For example, the current dedication requirement equates the park impact of 10 acres of commercial /industrial land to 71 residential units or (192 people). The following formula illustrates the relationship of the current commercial /industrial park dedication requirement to residential development: $120,000 per acre (C /1 land value) x 10% (park dedication requirement) _ $ 12,000 $12,000 dollars x 10 acres = $ 120,000 - $1,700 (current park dedication fee /residential dedication equivalent) = 71 residential units 71 units x 2.7 persons per household = 192 people As the City Staff has indicated that there is some tournament play use of athletic fields it is reasonable to state that commercial /industrial developments have some benefit from the City park system. It is likely that employees of local businesses use parks for lunch breaks,, walking and/or recreating. The question is, does the commercial development generate the same need on the park system as an equivalent residential development? The proportionate benefit is unknown for the City of Andover, due to the lack of information about the degree to which the commercial /industrial developments use the system. If the City desires to continue collection of commercialfindustrial park dedication fees it is suggested that the City consider establishing a fee structure that approximates charges of other similarly situated communities and/or modify the City of Andover Park Dedication Report 17 of 17 0 1 percentage of dedication associated with commercial /industrial projects. Table 12 illustrates commercial park dedication fees which are currently charged by other . developing communities. If the City implements a commercial /industrial park dedication, the residential unit fee may be reduced. TA13LE 12 COMMUNITY $ PER C11 ACRE Blaine $5,000 per upland acre flat fee Brooklyn Park Champlin Chaska $6,000 flat fee $12,000 7.5% of commercial land value - $120,000 per acre $9,000 10% of commercial land value - $9,000 per acre Coon Rapids 1 $3,350 flat fee Eden Prairie $6,600 flat fee Maple Grove $6,500 flat fee Shakopee $4,280 flat fee SUMMARY • Case law and Minnesota Statutes provide that dedication requirements can only be applied to facilities that will be impacted by the specific project. Future park dedication fees cannot be utilized to improve or maintain existing park and trail systems in fully developed neighborhoods unless a correlation can be made between the new development and park use. However, park dedication fees can be used to replace or upgrade equipment within City parks. • The current park system has more land and facilities than is needed to serve the current population based on national park per capita standards. The existing system provides for more land acreage per 1000 population than is required (based upon National Recreation and Park Association guidelines). • The City of Andover is currently considering three future growth options. If the City holds to its 2020 MUSA, the projected population is 39,000 with a household count of 14,516. The 2000 population and household represents 68% of 2020 population on 56% of the 2020 household count. • With the inclusion of one of the rural reserve areas in the future MUSA, the build out population may range from 48,639 to 51,220, and the household count would range from 18,086 to 19,042. Andover's 2000 population and household counts represent 55% of the build out population and 45% of the household count for Rural Reserve Area 1 and 52% of the build out population and 43% of the household count for Rural Reserve Area 2. In the event that the City extends the MUSA pursuant to Areas 1 and 2 on Exhibit A, Park Service Area Map, additional facilities and land will be.needed to accommodate the projected future population. • City of Andover Park Dedication Report 18 of 18 • A minimum of one additional Community Playfield (comparable to the current City Hall complex) is recommended if the MUSA is expanded. Should Rural Reserve Area 1 be pursued, two additional Neighborhood Parks will be needed and a total projected system value of $38,981,593 is anticipated. A park dedication fee of $2,489 per residential unit would be needed to provide for all of the facilities (including 2 additional Neighborhood Parks and 1 additional Community Playfield, comparable to the City Hall complex). • Should Rural Reserve Area 2 be pursued, three additional Neighborhood Parks will be needed and a total projected system value of $39,548,683 is anticipated. A park dedication fee of $2,380 per residential unit would be needed to provide for all of the facilities (including two additional Neighborhood Parks and one additional Community Playfield, comparable to the City Hall complex). • The amount of cash /land dedication required from new development must be proportional to the need that the project will generate on the park and trail system. Minnesota Statutes also provide that park dedication may be based upon the value of land at the time of final plat. As Table 7 indicates, the value of land at the time of final plat is generally higher than raw land value. • It is recommended that the City consider amending its Subdivision Ordinance to • change Section 9.07.1 to delete reference to "equivalent amount in cash based upon the undeveloped land value of that portion of said land that would have otherwise been required to be dedicated" and to add "Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established based on land value at time of final plat." The total planned park system is estimated to cost $35,178,322 dollars, based upon the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, land values, current and projected facility costs. • While the 2000 Census household count represents 56% of its 2020 household build out, the City has about 63% of its 2020 park system in place. The park system is in place and has been paid for by existing development through taxes, park dedication, donations, grants, etc. • As illustrated in Tables 9, 10, and 11, the City's residential park dedication fees will depend on the City Council decision on future park improvements and community growth options. Table 10 represents the recommended residential park dedication fee. • With the exception of additional land that may be needed to accommodate potential expansion of the MUSA, (Rural Reserve Areas 1 and 2 illustrated on Exhibit A, Park Service Area Map, the land acquisition for the park system is reasonably expected to be completed by the end of 2006. Provided the planned improvements ($13,009,933 0 City of Andover Park Dedication Report 19 of 19 dollars of infrastructure and equipment) are installed by that time, the system is reasonably expected to provide for community needs through the year 2020. • • The current policy of the City to charge commercial and industrial developments the same proportion of park dedication as is charged to residential projects containing up to 3 units per acre, should be further reviewed by the City Council. If the City desires to charge park dedication fees for commercial and industrial development, it is suggested that the fee amount should approximate that charged by other similarly situated communities and/or that the percentage should be reduced to less than 10 %. If the City implements a commercial industrial park dedication fee, then the residential fee should be reduced to reflect a proportional distribution of costs. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. To maximize the value of cash dedications it is recommended that the City update its Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate the Minnesota Statute language specifying that land value (for the purpose of calculating park dedication) will be determined based upon the value of the land at the time of final plat The following language is suggested: Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established at the time of final plat approval. The City Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by the City. 2. The current park system and plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land • Use Plan and as such, the park dedication fee structure for new residential developments should be based upon the analysis provided for in Table 10. Based upon this analysis, a park dedication fee of approximately $2,607 dollars per residential unit should be instituted to cover build out cost of the City's planned park system and to develop one additional community playfield. Depending on the selected growth option, the City should amend its Subdivision Ordinance and fee schedule to incorporate the residential unit charge from Table 10 and discontinue the practice of utilizing raw land value to determine park dedication. A periodic review of land values and facility costs should be done to ensure that the park dedication fee remains current based upon market conditions. Staff recommends that the Engineering News Record Cost Index (ENR Cost Index) be utilized as the source to annually update facility values to account for inflationary factors. 3. In the event that the City Council chooses to add 2 additional Community Playfields to the overall system, a residential park dedication fee from Table 11 should be instituted. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to provide an alternative to the developer to conduct an individualized study for the subdivision to determine park needs, should there be a question as to the applicability of the residential unit fee. The following language is suggested: City of Andover Park Dedication Report 20 of 20 If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in the City fee schedule (pursuant to this park dedication analysis) fairly and accurately represent the effect of the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request that the City prepare an in -depth study of the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in money and /or land. All costs of said study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision. Based upon the experience of NAC Inc., no developer has requested a special study to determine individual subdivision impacts to a municipal park system to date. In the event that a developer requests a special study, all costs of the study would be paid for by the developer. The study would consist of an analysis of the park system to define the improvements needed to complete the affected facilities. The analysis would include a review of the specific impacts the development project would have on the planned park facilities, current land value, current facility costs and other pertinent information. The resulting costs of the land and facilities needed to provide for the development project would be estimated and assigned accordingly to the development project. The recommended park dedication fees are based on the costs identified in Exhibit D. 5. The City should consider incorporating park redevelopment infrastructure planning as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan. Minnesota Statutes specify that park dedication fees may not be used for maintenance purposes and therefore it is important for the City to continue to provide a separate budget fund for maintenance. In conferring with the City Attorney, it is possible to use park dedication fees for new or replacement of facilities. However, any park improvements above those identified in Exhibit D will need to be financed outside of the park dedication funds. As the park system ages, there will be an increased need to retrofit existing facilities, as they will have aged beyond their useful life in the older parks. Park dedication fees can be used to replace some facilities and infrastructure however, the City may need to establish other sources to pay for replacement of the park system facilities in full developed neighborhoods or park service areas. 6. The City has accepted a number of Mini and Neighborhood Park areas (65 acres or 12% of the total parkland), in the past which are not developable due to topographic and natural features constraints. To avoid this situation in the future, the City should consider amending its Subdivision Ordinance to identify the type of land that will be acceptable for parkland dedication, should the community decide to acquire additional land. The following language is suggested: To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of drainage ways, or pond areas. Grades exceeding twelve (12) percent or areas City of Andover Park Dedication Report 21 of 21 unsuitable for park development shall not be considered for dedication as defined by the City Engineer. Parkland to be dedicated shall be above the ordinary high water level as approved by the City Engineer. 7. The City should further evaluate its commerciallindustrial park dedication standards to determine the proportional need that said uses place on Andover's park system. In the event that the City chooses to continue the commercial/industrial park dedication, the residential dedication fee should be reduced accordingly. 8. In the event that the City is contemplating park improvement upgrades, facility or equipment replacement in the future that have not been identified in Exhibit D, the City should include these improvements in the Capital Improvement Plan and budget for these improvements in the City's general funds. These improvements should not be funded out of the park dedication fees. Attachments: Exhibit A: Park Service Area Map Exhibit B: Andover Parks Map Exhibit C: Andover — Park Facilities Chart Exhibit D: City of Andover 2002 Existing and Future Park Facilities Chart Exhibit E: Letter from William G. Hawkins and Associates to Mr. Todd Haas, dated March 3, 1999 Exhibit F: Survey of Park Dedication Fees City of Andover Park Dedication Report 22 of 22 ■ ■r f-- ■ ■ IRRAP A Al _M. all 1p if mu g ��II�i1� III ''�. f■ ■b , l r� r:« .I4 ■■■■ rr�■ Mow i■ i,.u.. ■ ■I■ - �. MISSION It 7 11 ����_� ■�= ■ ■� ; .., &jA IN NINE CUT: 'j;., ���'ri +■L,�j*� �' `1y �� ` yr 4 ■ ■ 0 1 rrJ ■■ w 1. OW to 1 s ,ruu,1ir. ■■.a `�j NO VA-lea ■a■ ■.�r �4 i�7i wff�BR�. �iFa2ew�a��one�oA: GAa�a�Fes.' �i3�." �e `+JE3N3ana�xc$�i.�io8b10�^�,Ea ri ��w/� �V _J �7 !1 �L a • w 6 9 '�1 M p a mane..mc gFJRgY- '� ?80RFFJAAAlBA AA R�W�i AtiRFW A8 Lg2Lg$68 &S{rp0S8A681 �e. ao ao f! 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I f 1 1 1! 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 t 1 t! 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1$ 1! 1 1 .— ..111611 9111 �1 1 111194!!!l16lSIll�ItlSllll� {911 a � • t.r�. 00 , W ON y" d 01 .r w .r b Hill I n Is • la • � V 0 • O 7 O O r • z s U d w V R LL Y W 0 O MO c e a r a S M ° e s d � a � W P e z �3 a � � 5 ° QS all e 2 ¢ < ¢ ayQ � u �t4s� �$aa s`e @ ornulr0000tD Or ti) n OD r CD n0moMOO(n 00N n0 CV) f0 OOOm mr Om no CD cD �roo r . 7 4/n7m7n tO 0 r tDN W rOO CD t0 <O 1(i 0co U) r OOn W EL W ('j O M(07(00)N N LIT c0 N _tD U ti! V V (O Nrn n69 to W r 7 o 7(0704 m (0 _IV 7 7 O CO 04 m (O nn O) (O r m N (+l 7 in 0 CD 0 44 04 r O rr 69 m(D 6% 64 V) V9. V! 69 V369 M 4% NN 01 r f9 69 V1 V 1 NN V3 r-- CD V► - V N 1• rmN C 4% 401rN Mr z E9 V3 69 F9 0 69 V) V3 V► 0000 69 tO 0(OO 0 0 Vl 0 O 0 0 0 0000000000000 69(90 to 69000000 0 0 0(90000(900 0 0000 ' W N N N(O (O um) n 000(0(00 _(On O CD LL](D OO r 0 01 1000104 (D � CD (•i O CD 436' N M r N cri m n mNO1 cr r r h 0) C CD nr (O CO r (o CD C (O 7t043D Oln 3 'V (D r M V! 6% 01 N 69 Vf N V) r N 7 M M LO V3 O 0► V! V3 V3 H V) @ 7 tp V} 69 V) V3 V) V) V} 69 69 > 7 LL LL Or 69NrnN n 0000 V)0) n0 V!V)m U76%N M Omao V!N 69 W) co Mr V 00 noto 0469(0 (D r m070 O U) V3•N tD (C (0 n N In 1D 10 N um) r r CO (y r CO CO 69 r O n O C N (DNCDm 69 O ( V3 7 O (D r (D 7m r 7 M n n t[i n 7 M Vi 7 N r 7 w 0 ( tO » r 69 N 6% r V! r 69 69 V► V3 M V) UM) 1 69 69 69 69. O N (0 X W LL 0 0 077tO 0 0 0 to 0 rr 0 0 0 0 0 007 nor 0 0 0 0 0 m m 00N 0 0 O O rO 0 0 Om0700000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @ W m m 1O070 lo LO I C) UM) LO 1O r m00000 C6 7 m7Nm m N m t0 a N r 0) W In a CD NrN N69m m 7 tO r r mN7r N n 04 7 N0)m(D Y"1 (0 rn M N 01 r 04 0 41 Go c') C) 00 V) ON > 'O r 70404(969 69 69 69 6% V )69694% r 69 r r769r 69 V) 69 V; V! Mn 7 V) mm V) (D 69 V ► r 0469 V! V) 6% C V! r V) @ J N fO�l m n tO n CD N M (O mOm r N ti m mNm M 7 N 7 ('i m O m O m W t07 lO O C m n I CN I f-- r Cl N Ci O r< to C G N C M F M N O m (O C 7 G m N � m - Q LL G N O CA m t0 N n n n 0 m O N n N m m N 01 7 O ON r r m � m 0OtoV n m O M tD 0 m 'p m m Loco DnmNm I [-- o to WQ mmmn�0(V (N tCJ� C(VO �f�7 M�COJ G(')l'iG�O Z @ Z.+ ZZ�� Z 2m Z� / - O" Zfa mZ @�Z (p (AZ Z cf) c0ii i- - >: CO 3: 3 V Q C Q OQQ QOQ O . i+-' O@@ fA O O 4C.. O_I w V JJJ w> C C w .. W X W ._ 7 M G O 3 @ r@ m 0 >nQnnnZnn y 7 7 M N N (D m 04 L r r. O O (001LL �D.- O cY U O L - n 7d7d'm7N r r r r r r r r r r r N r O CD (.� O V U r O r 7 n r 0 l O ID 00(0 O r n rit0 7 9k m O 001 ON r 7 m 7 7 M n r 0 Co t0 O yl N(O �� #tR @ 7 m 7(00010 m w CD O M m r 0 n (O m T m r O r V 7 r f f N N N N 1' R r 7 r C Y @ L C L J @ y 3 m o Z @ o c Z 6 p @ N W o v O O m to.2(L Y U W w co o 0 O m OYa 0 4) Y� c CL �E Co c -z @__ m c c �°Y 3J 3 c @ @" W UU O O m @ a o@ w = S m p 0 m E ca @@ t F @ o v o@ o ° � W omw > m 0m020 g c, ) 4 "E c @ a�i ° @ LL I -J0007 @���m0 3 JFa OLL �JZ wU > Cn�a2m0gaZ a ZZ2» � z z�z»gc�ZLLv�z2 2 (D n co co O NC 7tO O 01OrN N m 7 NNN tO 0( O M7tO N N N M m r r r rrrtrN N N U O F. S n s 00 az0� N O IT O O r 3 g �3 $�Z e o� I S. a e 8� a�s J ` H N U ~_ N m 9 f UU�ZZmO . O 0001 O Ch O n N mO100)tOOO m O O t0 I O GO r01 O O t0 W 0 OI11 O O C7 n V t0 � t0 0U')N r V` V'NCO O m W EL W OtA Lo lb CO tti 117 N (D %1 t0 ? I� CD N (O r V'r CD t0 O) 10001 N Cr _G00 _m aG L6 m ad m _ _M r r _ _O I� Q O N O O m 69 t0 Ica r co 1- r N Lo h W 1'. t0 0) M) co en Lo W K! N Q7 Nt 10 1- Of N O N a Z� !ry m 49 4 9 r 69 rN 69 t0 0. 6% N V) N t0 60 6 N V�ioh 69 69 rt0 H V) 69 N V) r 69 Nml0 L0 r V) V! V) to rN V3 r O O 0 � H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o l fi o 0 o r w O m m V)OOOOOOO 6 O tp O to Lo 00 0 t O t000fo0 11 N to O 00 O U1 O O Ln O O t0 t0N 00 t- t 0) O t0 _ O V` O t0 �. an d t: O NCgr r N t- O0 Go r Lo GD t` r V' ON r c to I1 t� O GD m !p r 0)C7 C0 GD C0 r O C7 .4 GO n 0 IT aNN(Q O n 00 0 U V) N 69601 V) r Vl Nrr Vl Vl Vl N Vl W90 VT V) 603 G% for 6 rr V'N til 69 Vl Co r0 44 11 Vl 0 LL OOGDO m NCOO)Otl1vOGDOOOtA 06 Q 409. r--0 0 V' 010 O 0 00 r N V' Or 00 691 m 0 n V' M O 0 V' 0 M r O 603, r�7 W V' t0 co M M' O 0 m f0 N M N r CV) O O N r C r ti V' N M co r r m N V' m'. C 7 M *91 69r Vl r 69 NNt0 Vl Vl W9 0769 0 c) 04 to r r 0 3- r 6o N t0 6 6% V't-- Vl 64 rVl Vl tli •V 0 m co CNI LU LL ci Vl Q 0 00000000000000 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 (D 0 O O O O Q 0 0 0 V' N O M m $ O 10100) 10100 O to t0 O t0 O to O t0 Do O $ _O OW)C0 _ n W tO N Cr CM C-4 C V NCa r N C7 t0 t0 O C.4 0 Co Orr C6 Ch > Vl Vl n Vl P� Vl r� 41 Cr) 401 C0 69 0 04 V O N M O W r r C'e) 0 t0 r 0 69 t0 Vl IT (+) r r Vl C co Q C7 M Cry r N H f0 O -0 Vl 69 Vl 60 6% Vl Vl V3 Vl r Vl Vl Vl Gp^ C (A r H J mtO1[y C�C70 n cn 0 n n 6D ; . CNCV�'C t�O C G�D��t�D CC4 Go co F Q r N r r N C r 6 N CV t0 M of to r 06 - N O N h CV ti G t m a M U LL a m f�c9 rl� rt0 O0 V't t0IT t-01 t0 mt0 C j 0 N ON N n C0 C pNN Pi V) GD O mmOtp q'. m • V1 `ttN V:� Nf0 N 0 co r V' LLa rc r cq ui CV N C C7 t7N� rGG CV G C & P- CN t�G %. O > c w . C Q 0 0 5 � m _ m 3 Z m 3 Z p Z M c a N w c cno3: 0 mca m m� °a .mz w CD �► Q o r C o cZ ° o (0 "` "' mZ tAY .� ZY m to Z m • D m �. c m W m Q C i c v r c CIIJ >J > Q Y p J m Q G � C L 9 p m m O C L L m m m L m m c m m 7 W 2 7 N o 0 3 -- S C m , co C 0 0 r to (� m C O j m Lo d mr y� (7 U ov_�� -0ZVm m C7 c < O C C N 7 =) tO r CO N COr r r� V'Uo co in 10 m to V'r r m m r m 0) NO r r'G 0 m 0 m 0 w co C0 ?o-0 m = �Cp�rCpr000 r CO N of r N [7 N r V' r V' r V' r V' r V' r O V• t� r NdOOddd111555r COO C'O r 7 Cp CD N r C7 N N t0 t0 04 - Lo m t0 a1 O r m O cm c m 0- m m LL -� m 0 EL N W w O w m c a z U) wto -, m ui .. aZ m LU oa o w " m U m m o 0 o m o m m o o m U tm tm m w m W d o c m m m m m m o c m c £ 'O O w 0= w 0 m r. UUm J jL `m m wwYWC m O Y C O m O 0 3 aU o L m >+ m m m m3�r > U O m m m ' N C _ - 0 m m m m L Y L � `° 9, p •O a c 0 w 0 0 ° o m e `m '0 m t r o m m o 0 0 = 0 0 0 O V e c m E t ° m m =ptAF -00(7 mmzmm zx r2 == QI- -WPL) J O a ������zzzzzzz mzzm zz�z� a r m .. Cy C9 C9 COC')c�c�COCOmRV V'tn ml�m 01 orN['7 V cervv RClpm mQ1 IV r into N V'tO Cp rw tntntnu,tn am N U ~_ N m 9 f UU�ZZmO . S a 9 F! U a� O w ow U` . w N O O N • O r 6 N Q N 0 • a U ai w O� a 0 w N O O N N O O 11 N � 0 m m IL 0 G! U En di �i w O `'1 w . w N O O N 0 O N N Q M 0 a R U a w O� a O k^ V k W N O O N 0 IF m 6 0 U • 0 P', U W O k W N O O N 0 0 m N m a 0 P', U W O k W N O O N 0 0 m Nq m c h � a R, U a� �i w a 0 v W N O O N E • E R U w lu w O� Aa �w 0 on w N O O N 0 N `o m a R U w lu w O� Aa �w 0 on w N O O N 0 O N N O O S a IR U rA (U ai O 0 vk W N O O N m W 0 0 0 0 9 8 Z R / �\ U� 2� % � \ �2 �.E 2\ w \ # # §# §NKm § ;■g§ ■2■§ d k � k S § ( B 0 .5 `��2!\ CIA no m§#m# mm#■@ m■m# mmm■ mqm #@amm# #a ■# ■mmm # #m ## ■m# ■ ■m ■ ■ ■mm# # # #§�&#i §$■§ ■!#K §■#■m e■J #a § ■ ■■# # ###■#m 2 q ; e; Cq �� =q �^ - " m • k --®---------®-----®------ �------- •------------ - - - - -- m° nmm ma#am■@m■m#■m■!m @ # ##�mmmm# ■ # # ■m ■mm ## ■ ■S ■m #m ■# ■m , §# m# mG® �K#` S##;■ Kk� # #92m §# ® ■Rmr'm ° m# ® ■#■§ # §## #■# § ® 7§ ---®--®--®-®----- ®- ®-- ..�---- ®--------- - ® - - -- . � 2 a 7 '12 ® §m\ - ! us /!! rL all - 2 °'° !! �$■ �_ m■ !0 � -�!'c .. 2 2 e.m! � , . ■ ! 2 !CO` �0 , !_•,� "-5 , ! ! !l12;l ;. ��&. . :1 . ■! lk !)!` : ! ;§!�■ /ak)=wX ��ƒ!!lirm !!|!!§J! :9 wig will G `o$ S o m a P G: U w O� a a� o w Gk w N O O N 0 E 0 0 P, . U N N ca w A � a N ow C •X W N O O N R� a H� o rv t EN�Vy Otl N19N8MHN m� d 0 0 P, . U N N ca w A � a N ow C •X W N O O N R § RUNS H� o rv t EN�Vy Otl N19N8MHN Q Q f n W LL O W C s 'z` a m dq Z . s L N EP W 4 O 8 ¢ m �m p a m$ m S C L f N m o W jy C � U U O ° nm¢d d SS ° o,ggg$$g$$$$$$$S$$Sggg p ° o p ,g N I G SS o,$$ G B $�opS 8 g iV G �S x00000 S � G Y l� Y l G G S ONO m� SAS 0 0 g ry � N g$ � � � Sp O S Y f G 8S S 8 C O O Y S O Y e'10 N l7 S S OOYPl RiN00 O �R O� A � N SON < tON NLd ufg] c fV N rN a tl O� NM R OlV Ory N010 N V F YI I� N N N N Y N N Y H N N N N N N Y Y N H N N M Y N N H N Y M M N N N N N N N N N N Y M N N N N N N N N M p p S S S O O O S S O S (G�pp OO 8 5� N S p O O N O V p S S S O S O S Gh YryryI p O SNR m W O W S � p S S S O p O S S O O O S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Opp S O O N SN p O S S O N S < O S p 0S Ytt NR O RSSy O 1 YNS O 8 5 � S 5 � fO NOI Nm ^ S SON NO S25 �t'Ci m5? iGS YfS OI�U 14 N M N S N N tl M r a G NOI N��l N R N � N N H M IM N N N H N N N N N N N N N N N H M Y N N N Y Y N N N 1M1 N H N N N N N H N N N Y N M N M Y N O O f > O [Q m U � U e M € -4.9 in om �mm m C tai > C m o.r� m�'� ym lBY�d g j LL w 0§ C7 e aac�i a `- n89 C N Q d a@ cg m yaQ�• m � mm8o¢c7���cmo —d cg 4 m$���B�' � m �9 m -5 'ES 9 @2E> O O O E t w ��tm$¢Emm3lamdad L d. x m a d% m 0 0 0 mmy V . O gg a gyp } @Qyq� $ m L gg L gg ZZ m o a p yy gq Q ¢¢ m m m m m m m m f0 U m a O¢¢ LL S Z Z- 2 d dad A. d d d m N m m N F F >> f K m m tl�b��. �tOeN��n�a��ONroYtlNYN .Nn�NN�eD�n �tO���n e� NY�Ym������ .= °a 0 m a l U ai r. a o w ,, .r. v= W N O O N I I . , 1 p U a� 4i w O a 0 W N O O N • O Y m W a p U a� 4i w O a 0 W N O O N • e S a G u ti N w O� O w N O O N Q 0 q a a R U w O� A 0 �n UX w N O O N F m `o m d F L is U y AJ RI W O A - N vk W N O O N 0 N 0 l* h w 0 P vk W N O O N 0 0 a 0 N 0 l* h w 0 P vk W N O O N 0 U. O 0 � m a OR, U Lz o w ` w o � U� w N O O N O X w 0 0 0 0 1 u w O� Aa O U •k w N O O N O 1 m a 0 1 u w O� Aa O U •k w N O O N R� 4� a C� S1 ., w O� a � � `'� w O � .� vN W N O O N 0 n � � o- 0 Ri y N .. c P" O1�4 Aa o w ou U� w N O O N u m a 0 Ri y N .. c P" O1�4 Aa o w ou U� w N O O N u k/ I § � kk 2� A2 o� V 7 w \ � � 9 0 � � A �� ■■m m k � § � § \�( ■ �■ B 5A § IL �!5 § !§ 14 )w !! � .!- JJ)! n ..l�k�J!- . mom ©a■ § §»k / § § 700 - Q§ '3k 2 � | E \§ § 2� % � 9 0 � OCT-07-2002 15:43 .� ,. NRC egad 41H RUE 651 464 4568 u 612 595 9e:? P.02/05 NO. 592 D02 LA W 017=3 OF H'W&m G. Hawkins and Associates 2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORT34 WILLIAM G. H AW KfNs TAMMi J. UVEGEs 'ANOIKA. MINNESOTA 55303 BARRY A. SULUYAN PHONE (6I2) 427 -3877. FAX (6IZ) 421 -4113 March 3, 1999 Mr. Todd Haas City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Park Dedication Fees and Trail Dedication Fees Dear Todd: You have asked for our analysis of the proposed use of park dedication fees and trail dedication fees in the City of Andover. We have reviewed the applicable statute and case law and would ask that you consider the following information. The current situation is as follows: the City imposes a park dedication of 10% for new plats. The developer is asked to dedicate either 10% of the land or an amount in cash equivalent to 10% of the value of the land. Developers are directed to choose from a panel of appraisers and pay an amount based upon that appraisal. The City is considering a change in the park dedication fee from a percentage calculation to a per unit charge. The proposed charges are as follows: I Tvne Amount Single Family $1,350 Townhouse $1,000 Mobile Home $1,200 Lot Splits 51,350 Commercial $4,000 (acre) In the typical residential urban zoning district, we would expect to see two _ lots or units per acre. Consequently, under the new unit charge system, the unit charge per acre would be $2,700. 1 understand that an acre of land in the City of Andover suitable for a residential development would typically sell for 513,000. The City is also considering the imposition of a trail dedication fee. This fee was Imposed previously but discontinued some months ago. The City is contemplating the renewed use of this fee. h is anticipated that the fee would be imposed at the rate of $250 per unit payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, .• EXHIBIT E i i r4n C oc co P90-: .02 _ OCT -07 -2662 15:43 NRC V . .. _ ._ - .. . -.., "-w i n T+c + wt tio+ 47oe v , i'A . Todd Heas March 3, 1999 Page 2 developers are expected to pay 50% of all trail construction costs for trails located in the plat. For the reasons discussed herein, l have strong concerns about each of these dedication fees. Minnesota law specifically authorizes municipalities to require dedication for parks and trails in the subdivision approval process. Minn. Stat. 3 462:358, Subd. 2d (19981 provides: 'Dedication... In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation• purposes or for public use as parks,...vails...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....° h is obvious from the statute that the City may impose a dedication requirement and accept either land, cash or a combination of land and cash. However, the statute sets forth two important conditions. First, the size of the dedication must be reasonable, i.e., the City may require that '...a reasonable portion of any proposed subdMsion be dedicated....' Second, the statute also makes clear that the amount of the dedication must be '...based on the fair market value of the land.... The statute has been interpreted by Minnesota appellate courts and a review of those decisions is instructive. In Collfs'v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976), the Minnesota Supreme .Court upheld the constitutionality of 11 462.358 as applied to a Bloomington ordinance that provided: 'as a general n.ile, it is reasonable to require dedication of 10% of the land or payment of 10% of undeveloped land value.' The Court noted that the 6loomington ordinance set forth the 10% requirement as 'a general rule" and that the developer could obtain judicial review. Under .the facts of that case, the Court was not prepared to say that the 10% requirement was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Court did note, however, as follows: 'Thus, there exists the possibility that the developer...will be forced to pay a disproportionate share of the chys park and recreation costs. While the city has apparently made a 612 595 9837 P, W. 592 0 ii ; L� y OCT-07-2002 15'44 • Todd 1 zaz March 3, 1999 Page 3 R 612 555 9837 P.04/06 nu. =tW 904 record in this case showing that 10% is not unreasonable as to the property of these plaintiffs, given the particular needs of Bloomington, the 10% requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider The relationship between this particular subdivision and recrezdor)al need in the community." Not surprisingly, since the Colts decision, many if 'not most municipalities have adopted a 10% park dedication fee requirement. The Coles case stands for the principal that a municipality may require dedication of land for public use as a condition of plat approval if a reasonable relationship exists between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land. In Kotrschade V. Ciry of Rochesrer, 537 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995f, the Minnesota Court of Appeals returned to this issue in the context of a right -of -way dedication requirement. The Court in Korrschade analyzed and applied the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Dolan v. Ciry of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 11994). The Court noted that in the case of a dedication, the city is requiring a property owner to give up a constitutional right —the right to receive just compensation when private property is taken for a public purpose. In order to uphold a dedication requirement the city "has the burden of proving the required relationship. between the property development and the city's need for land dedication." To meet burden, the city must prove two things. First, the city must show that an 'essential nexus" exists between the legitimate state interest (the need for the land) and the condition exacted by the city (the dedication of the land). Second, if the nexus can be demonstrated, the city must demonstrate a 'rough proportionality" between the plan development and the city's requirement for a dedication of land. 'No precise mathematical calculation is required; but the Cry must make some sort of ind vfdualized dererinmation that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.' In a park dedication situation, the City must be able to prove two things. First, that the proposed development will create a need for additional park facilities. Second, the City must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to the impact from the development. It is important to reiterate some of the language used by the courts. A 'precise mathematical calculation" is not required; what is required is "some sort of individualized determination.' c-- It should not be difficult for the City of Andover to meet the first or "nexus' part of the standard, i.e., that a proposed subdivision will create the need for additional park facilities. However, it is my opinion that a unit charge for park dedication fees does I I OCT 07 2002 15 :2e 612 595 5837 PRGE.04 OCT- 07-2eO2 1544 NHC y � r -• •A 6 "..0 e-060 w i n Niue i b.71 464 4566 Mr. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 4 not pass the second part of the test. 1 do not see how the fiat fee charge can be seen as an individualized determination" that the amount of the charge is roughly Proportionate to the need created by the development. The statute makes clear that a dedication must be 'reasonable' and must be 'based on the fair market value of the land.' I do not see how a unit dedication takes into account the value of the land or takes into account the impact of the subdivision upon the City's park requirements. 1 believe the City has to conduct a study that wiJI allow the City to make a finding that the subdivision will create an increased need for park facilities. The City must then determine what amount the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the City must take into account the fair market value of the undeveloped land. 9 The amount of the proposed unit dedication demonstrates my concern. At $1.358 per unit for single family residents, and assuming two units per acre, this is a park dedication requirement of $2,700 per acre. If we use- the 10% figure from before, this means that the value of undeveloped land in Andover must be at least $27,000 per acre. I do not believe this is the case. The trail dedication fee is a charge that is in addition to the park dedication requirement. The same law discussed above is applicable , to the trall dedication fee. Assuming that a new subdivision creates an impact and a need for additional trap facilities. the City must 1 still be able to demonstrate that the• amount of the trail dedication fee is roughly proportionate to that impart. A unit charge may be an appropriate starting point as k takes the element of density into account. However, it does not take into account the fair market value of the land or the impact on a trail System from the particular subdivision. Another problem 1 have with the trail dedication fee. is that it is not a plat dedication fee It at all. is not a fee' imposed upon the developer as part of the platting process but is a proposed to be a fee i mp °sue upon land } the owner at the time of application for a building g permit. I see no authority for the City to impose this ' charge at the time of building permit application. The statute clearly authorizes the City to impose a trail dedication as part of subdivision approval. It is my recommendation that a trail dedication fee be a condition of plat approval and i not a charge assessed at the time of a building permit application. CONCLUSION. Minnesota law clearly authorizes a municipalities to require developers To dedicate a reasonable I portion of their subdivisions for park and trail purposes. In order to sustain such a dedication, Vie city must prove that a relationship exists between the proposed subdivision and the city's requirements. That is, that the Proposed subdivision will have impact i an and increase demand upon park facilities. Second, the city must be able to prove that the amount of the dedication is roughly proportionate to that impact. In doing so, the city must make some sort of individualized determination that is based i upon the fair market value of the land. • I do .not believe that the proposed per unit park dedication fee meets this legal standard. . I L 612 595 9837 No 592 ! y s i UCT -07 -2062 15:44 NAC -• -`• W.tiw urrt 61410 41H HUE 651 464 4566 r • MI'. Todd Haas March 3, 1999 Page 5 612 595 9637 P.06/06 NO.5922 Me 1 would hike the opportunity to discuss this issue with you and to review ways in which the City may lawfully impose park and trail dedication requirements. Yours very trul , William G. Hawkins WGHtqu 0 U i 0 TOTAL P.06 OCT 07 2002 15:29 F,17 545 X117 PAGE.06 W W LL Z 0 Q V 0 LL W H m xa W LL O N Q a V N O N t0 m J2 E 0 u r r m� =a W 0 0 > m° &C m m o m m> m m m m m m m> L 2 c > G °. m oA =8 L L N V L 2 L L L L L L L 2 3 0 o c 0 'O a C. m C. o C. a a a C. 0. e V 0 o v_ m T o o° ,� L m o Ln o O O o u, o C M �.- o o a � cn r o O O r- rn _ r' 3 U) O o O M 0 CO O 0 o N r CO 0 N (O ^ M (6 (O r C M N Sf 0 0L4.) m O p m N m N d `1 N m U > L m U O p O. U m U m O p m U m > U m U m U m U m U m U m U m > L c > L O. m— L L N () L 2 L L L L L L L m E LL LL O a L w- m e. m CL r m m a - m n m n. m O. m a m a m O. m 0. U E o o ° o m ° O O° m o o oo o o o o LO o M i° - O O o a LO 0 0 0 LO O ti O CD v r o o L M LO W O 0) v_ •- LO t0 (O M V (0 r CM 1A N (O d1 � m 0 _ � Q p p Q Q $ Q p p Q Q b N O Q O O Q m +� Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ti Z l0 Z Z r N O L m 0 0 O O O u rL o 0 "0 O O L O O O O m O m O E ti O W) O U co ^ v M N 0 Lq 0 ti r r N N r ct m r N r r r N LL ` O m At a ` Q 0 O O Q O v o O o o t o N C. Z P- r O w Z IA M N v_ W 0 N r 0 g (+j N r r N r r r N r LO c m 3 E M o O 0 O 0 0 _� o 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 c 0 u 0 F= M N r T N r r r N m �_ p p O O fl- O 0 V r` O O O O O O 0 O O CEO O F- C O o O m 0 11) co ( V- 0 t w O Ln IL ~ r n0 r M N r La m CL r r r N r r r r N r w L to > _ C R '0 C O m V L 0 C m C 12 O m Y O m > m E Y y O E c0 O C O_ ! > J N N O ' ° ° E O O m 8 m Y O O Q C Q C Q m m ° O] G CO 7 m L V O U O U m W 'G W U. > = m J C J m m u r r m� =a W 0 0 u LL CD r 11 u U) W W LL O Q V W O Q IL LL O z O U) IL 2 O Q N O . O N t0 m m 0 z LL N v- O N m 01 N X W 0 W U C6 U CC > � U lII O O Q � O 3 M 0 O 0 � M L: OR O O 00 N N lD Ch U U U i C6 C6 > > CE m O N N LL LLL N G It D. Q o ° D_ E CV O O O o O N v LO o U N CD M m O 4) Z O M Z Z r N �- O m •W O M tC) U') a LL r N r m ° o o °o C 0 O M v 0 LO 0 r N r C d 3 E° O o O 0 0 0 O 0 O p M O O O r - H 2 N C O O O O M p O p L m o U) 0) N LL N r N C O M N U V N Y 7 O E > N 7 J .6 O m O a w c1) a3: LL N v- O N m 01 N X W 0