HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1990 Park Board Packet 6: 00 P. M.
TOUR OF PHEASANT HILLS AREA
MEET AT THE SITE
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED MAP
BOOTS WILL BE PROVIDED
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PARK BOARD MEETING
i
June 4, 1990
7 : 00 p. m.
Lino Lakes City Hall
AGENDA
1 . Roll Call and Call To Order
2 . Consideration of :Minutes
3 . Open Alike
4. Consideration of Proposed Park Dedication for Rice Lake
Estates/Marty Asleson
b . Parh Dedication. Proposal for PineRidge, Rick Carlson ' s
Subdivision/Rick Carlson & Ted Mahtke
6. Consideration of Pheasant Hills Park Dedication/Larry
Sieberlich
7. Proposal for Irrigation at Birch Park/Marty Asleson
8. Consideration of Amending Park Dedication Ordinance.
A. Review of Park Dedication Survey
9. Discussion of Initiating Comprehensive Master Park Plan.
10. Old Business
11 . New Business
12 . Adjournment
PARK BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
Chairperson Ray Johnson called the regular meeting of the
Lino Lakes Park Board to order at 7: 00 p.m. on May 9, 1990 at
the Lino Lakes City Hall. Members present were: Candy
Toffoli, John Bauman, Ray Johnson, Bill Nissen, Ken Johnson.
Member Absent: George Lindy. Also present was Council
Member, Andy Neal, and Park Superintendent, Marty Asleson.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Page 4, should read 1, 000, 000.00 not 1,000, 000, 000. 00.
MOTION: Ken Johnson moved to approve the April 2, 1990 park
board minutes as corrected. Bill Nissen seconded the motion
and the motion was approved.
OPEN MIKE
John Tennesen, along with other residents from Rice Lake
Estate were present at the meeting. He was also present at
the April park board meeting and expressed his concerns
regarding Rice Lake Estates park.
Marty Asleson visited with Mr. Tennesen and Marty gave him
some options for improving the drainage easements within the
development and discussed options for the park.
John Tennesen's main concern initially was not only the park
dedication, but areas within the development, one is a
settling pond, and a ditch on the property.
The two lots on Rice Lake Estates dedicated as park land are
buildable lots.
The group discussed the original park dedication of Rice Lake
Estates.
Marty stated that he does want to do something to the
drainage area. He would like to wait until the fall planting
season, and plant some grass seed and trees in the area.
John Tennesen stated that he would like to see play ground
equipment in the two lots dedicated as park land, he said
that there are a lot of kids in the area.
Marty stated that the best thing to do is when the land is at
least 50% developed, sit down with the neighbors and ask them
what they would like to see in their park.
options were discussed as to where the park would be located.
Purchasing land within the Circle Pines City limits, and
installing a trail to that site was an option.
Page 1
PARK BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
Another option was leasing the land from Anoka County for
park land.
One of the Rice Lake Estates resident felt that if they
leased land from Circle Pines, it would only have street
access from Circle Pines. Marty explained that trails could
be constructed leading to the park from Rice Lake Estates.
John Tennesen likes the idea of the intersection of Blue
Heron Drive and Sandhill creating a tot lot.
The option of selling the two lots that were part of the park
dedication, and claiming the outlot as park dedication. Then
tennis courts could be installed in that parcel.
Marty Asleson felt that Anoka County would be willing to
incorporate part of their land for a tot lot.
Marty stated that he will check in to all the options and
pole the neighborhood, get the residents together and find
out what they would like for the park.
Candy Toffoli stated that she considers herself a citizen of
the City of Lino Lakes and she doesn't feel that each
neighborhood should have a say as to where their park should
be and what should be in it, because no one would want to
^ have the park in "their back yard" . She also felt that it
isn't good practice to wait until the development is 50%
completed, because of course, nobody would want the traffic,
and park next to their lot.
Marty stated that ideally the land should be dedicated before
the houses go in. Then have a neighborhood meeting to decide
what to put into the park land that was dedicated.
Ray Johnson stated that the park dedication at this site has
a little different circumstance than the usual.
Marty stated that normally, residents do appreciate being
included in deciding what will be in their neighborhood park.
Ray Johnson disagrees with a neighborhood meeting once the
development is 50% complete.
CONSIDERATION OF PARK DEDICATION FOR BRANDYWOOD/STEVE
JOHNSTON FROM MERILLA & ASSOCIATES.
At 6: 00 the park board members toured the proposed park site
for Brandywood.
This is a 70 lot subdivision of 37 acres.
r Development will occur in phases. the plat is heavily
Page 2
PARR BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
wooded, populated with wetlands. There will be some wetland
fill. The wetland by the proposed park land will be
partially filled.
Within the site is a 2.75 acre parcel proposed for park.
This is 75% percent of the park dedication required. A
wetland area will be adjacent to the park land, but not used
as part of the park dedication requirement.
The developer proposes a park trail through the park, a play
area for children, horseshoe pits, picnic tables, and a
viewing stand along the trail.
Ray Johnson asked for clarification that the trails are not
part of any park dedication requirement.
Ray Johnson stated that when Dennis Ericksons developed D.
Erickson's 2nd Addition, the park issue was not completed as
was expected. And the park board wants to be sure that the
park is completed as promised for Brandywood.
Steve Johnston's proposal is for the land, along with $7, 000
cash to complete the park dedication requirement.
Mark Fitzgerald, Developer, was also present at the meeting.
They have been negotiating with the property owners in
purchasing land immediately south of this parcel, they have
not resolved this issue yet.
Mark Fitzgerald stated that he talked with the adjacent land
owners twice, and they made no decisions regarding whether or
not they can purchase the land for park. They said they
wanted to think about it but wouldn't rule it out. They
consider their property a hobby farm. If they sell a portion
of their land, they want to still be able keep their horse.
If he could get that in writing, from the city, then they may
be more willing. City code requires a five acre minimum to
allow the resident to have a horse. If they sold enough of
their land to meet the park dedication, the property owners
would be shy of their five acre requirement by 4/10 of an
acre.
Bill Nissen pointed out that if they do accept the park
dedication and the $7, 000.00 cash. They could use that money
towards putting something nice into that park.
Steve Johnstone stated that he is proposing to develop
approximately 1/3 or the site now.
John Miller joined the meeting to answer some questions
regarding this plat.
He said that this parcel is zoned rural.
Page 3
PARR BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
John Miller feels that if the property owners adjacent to
Brandywood wanted to sell a portion of their property for
park purposes, the owners could still keep their horse
providing that when the horse dies, then they could not have
another horse, because it doesn't meet the requirements.
Andy Neal stated that the park dedication requirements will
be looked at, and the rates may increase by the time phase
two is developed. John Miller felt that this is a good idea.
Ray Johnson said that the property owners could have the
rights to the land until the park development started. The
estimated time is three years.
Steve Johnston suggested that the park board accept the full
land dedication within Brandywood Plat with phase 1. When
the developer starts construction on phase 2 then they will
give the park board a cash dedication at the current rate or
purchase that 1/2 acre parcel from the adjacent property
owners.
Bill Nissen feels that the additional land would be nice, but
feels that the cash dedication would be beneficial to put
into the existing Brandywood park.
Bill Nissen added that phase 3 's construction should not
begin until the park is completed.
Steve Johnston asked how the park board would like to see the
park, what improvements would they like to see before phase
3 's construction begins.
Ken Johnson explained that the trails should be brought to
grade and completed through the park.
MOTION: Bill Nissen moved to recommend to the city council
park dedication for Brandywood Addition. The land specified
in proposal A, a 2.75 acre parcel, be dedicated immediately
for acceptance in phase 1, and the balance of either B, the
parcel immediately south of the site, or a cash dedication of
the current park fee at the time of phase 2 's construction be
dedicated. Before phase 3 is constructed, the plat will come
before park board, to assure the board that phase 1 and 2
park dedication requirements have been met. Also trails have
to be benched in before construction of phase 3 . John Bauman
seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously.
Bill Nissen requested that the section of park land that the
developer hopes to purchase to the south of the plat not be
shown on the plat until it is purchased from the land owner.
PARR DEDICATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR STEVE AND LINDA
BAILEY.
Page 4
PARK BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
The Bailey's own a 20 acre parcel on 20th Avenue. They wish
to subdivide, creating two - 10 acre parcels - a $400. 00
dedication may be obtained.
MOTION: Ken Johnson moved to recommend to the_ city council
acceptance of a $400.00 cash dedication. Bill Nissen
seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously.
SUNRISE PARK
City water was installed to the park shelter and that needs
to be hooked up.
Marty acquired quotes on materials for rehooking the system
and for running 300' of 2 1/2" pipe out to the next ballfield
over, and to install irrigation on that ballfield.
1. Rehook up irrigation system. $1,945.00
2 . To extend pipe 300 ' 267. 00
3. Irrigation to additional Ballfield 2 ,782 . 00
Marty will research what the cost was for hooking up water to
the park.
MOTION: Ray Johnson moved to recommend to the city council
that the irrigation be completed on the new field, plus
complete the irrigation on the little league field
immediately north of the pleasure skating rink. John Bauman
seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
Marty added that he noticed the infield on the new ballfield
may be sitting a little high. He is thinking that may have
to be leveled out. He will look at the area.
PROGRESS REPORT ON BIRCH PARK IRRIGATION
Ray Johnson stated this park is in the process of being
developed. Before we seed this park we should put the
irrigation in this park also. Otherwise we may be spinning
our wheels trying to get the grass to grow.
Marty is in favor of the irrigation system to that park.
Marty said that he hasn't received quotes yet as to what the
cost would be for installing the irrigation system. He said
that the area needs to be walked and rocks need to be picked
up first. The city could ask that youth from the correctional
facility could help with that project.
Marty estimated the cost of irrigation would be approximately
$8, 000. Ray would like to have the irrigation put in before
the grass is seeded.
Page 5
PARR BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
Marty stated that compost may be obtained from the Anoka
County compost site.
It was decided that the irrigation system would be started at
Birch Park.
IRRIGATION AT CITY HALL PARR
Irrigation at city hall will wait until a later date.
Irrigation at Sunrise and Birch Park should be completed
first.
ARBOR DAY/EARTH DAY
John Bauman discussed the celebration.
The city gave away approximately 1,000 trees.
Marty said that he thought it was a real cooperative effort
of the different communities involved.
Next year there may be a cooperative effort towards tree
planting near Rice Lake Plaza.
Marty stated that 9 tons of garbage was picked up within the
^ community.
This truly was a huge success!
PARR DEDICATION ORDINANCE
Ray Johnson, Don Volk, and Marty Asleson met to discuss park
dedication.
The cash dedication is now $400. 00 per lot.
Ray Johnson wants developers to pay their park dedication
when construction of each individual phase begins.
Marty said that the land acquisition is the biggest issue
right now. $400. 00 per lot just doesn't buy the land.
The developer's want to give the cash dedication. That is a
lot less expensive for the developer than claiming 10% of the
land.
Marty stated that Inver Grove Heights contracted a company to
do a land use study on city parks. He felt this would be an
excellent idea for the City of Lino Lakes. Marty will try to
get these people on the next agenda.
Ray Johnson wants a survey completed to find out what other
Page 6
PARK BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
communities charge for park dedication.
Marty Asleson also suggested asking the other communities if
they are feeling the same type of pressure as we are as far
as dedicated park monies verses the land acquisition. And
are they considering changing their park dedication
requirements.
Ken Johnson stated that he would like to see what the other
cities charge for their park dedication fee, and find out if
$400. 00 per lot would purchase 10% of the land.
Ray Johnson stated that the lots in Parkview Estates are
selling for $42, 000. So two or three times the $400. 00 per
lot park dedication would be equivalent to the land
acquisition.
Bill Nissen asked about the status of the picnic tables and
trash bins at Shenandoah. Marty stated that a picnic table
and trash container has been installed there.
Bill Nissen also asked that the port-a-potty be moved at
Country Lakes Park so that it is not in such a focal area.
FORESTRY
Tree Preservation Policy
Marty has been working on this for quite some time.
The Tree Preservation Policy is something that the Park
Department wants to furnish to developers and builders,
giving them some guidelines and policies to preserving trees,
and help prevent the spread of oak wilt control.
This would require the developer to submit a tree
preservation plan, and also gives us the ability to request
that a private consultant do that plan for them.
Marty has been on a shade tree advisory committee for several
years now, this is an issue that continually comes up.
The tree preservation policy will be discussed with
developers and builders first. Then it will have to go to
the city attorney for his comments before seeking council
approval.
Bill Nissen said that there are some variety of trees that
should not be planted.
Marty stated that the city will generate a tree list for
suitable species.
TREE SPADE PURCHASE
Page 7
PARR BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
When the city sewer was installed, some significant trees
were damaged in Wollen Park, Sunrise Park and a Landscape
plan around the lift pump was approved.
Wollens Park $2,933.00
Sunrise Park 12,561.00
Landscaping 6,000.00
around the Lift Pump
Marty stated that we could use this money to purchase new
trees, or we could use this money to purchase a tree spade to
salvage trees from developments for restoration projects.
A 44" tree spade would cost $17,334.00. This size tree spade
would handle a 2" oak tree, or 4" on different species.
Bill Nissen doesn't see the need for it. He would rather see
the city use the money to purchase new trees.
He wanted to know if there would be enough trees to justify a
tree spade. Bill feels this is a luxury.
Ray Johnson said we are speaking as a forestry committee now,
not as a park board and feels the spade is justified.
Marty stated that he feels the city does have a need for
this. He feels this is a good use of the money.
Bill Nissen suggested a cooperative effort with other
communities.
He said the city could purchase a lot of trees for $20, 000.
If we purchase a tree spade, we will have only the spade, and
no trees.
Candy Toffoli stated that she would like to check in to the
other cities that do have a tree spade, and ask them how they
like theirs and how often does it get used.
Marty said that Coon Rapids is very happy with their tree
spade. In the planting season Coon Rapids needs their tree
spade, but it may be possible that Lino Lakes could use it
when they aren't.
Marty said that the city will be purchasing a lot of
boulevard, nursery grown trees, but there would be a lot of
trees that we could save in developments, that otherwise
would be lost.
MOTION: John Bauman moved to recommend to the city council
the purchasing of a tree spade. For a price not to exceed
$18, 000 with the refund money from tree damage to the city
parks. And the park board wishes to use the balance of the
money to be put into a tree fund to replace trees wherever
Page 8
PARR BOARD MEETING
May 9, 1990
needed.
Candy Toffoli seconded the motion and the motion was approved
unanimously.
OAR WILT CONTROL
Marty has been working on a committee with the state for the
last three months. The State has come up with funding that
will match city money to control oak wilt in the State of
Minnesota. Since Anoka County has been deemed the oak wilt
county of the world, Anoka County is given a considerable
amount of money.
A RFP has to be submitted by the llth. Through the State
funded money the county will probably purchase a vibratory
plow to help communities out.
If the county does purchase a plow, then the county will
probably use all of their money given to them from the State.
That will probably leave the City of Lino Lakes approximately
$12,000 to work with developers, property owners, and running
the program.
The city would have to cost match the $12,000, leaving us
with $24, 000. This basically covers Marty and Mike's time to
work on this project and the cost for us to use the vibratory
plow.
Marty stated that we may need to hire an Urban Forestry
Intern to help out with the tree preservation policy.
MOTION: Ray Johnson moved to recommend to the city council
to authorize Marty Asleson to submit a RFP for a cost share
program. John Bauman seconded the motion and the motion was
approved unanimously.
Meeting Adjourned.
Page 9
DATE : MAY 30 , 1990
TO: ALL PARK BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MARTY ASLESON
RE : RICE LAKE ESTATES PARK LAND
Please find attached copies of three maps that Jon Tennessen
sent me that illustrate his neighborhood park concerns .
These concerns were talked about at the last Park Board
Meeting.
Since that time these options have been and still are in the
evaluation stage.
The Corps of Engineers has been contacted and there should be
an answer on the low land issue by Monday. North Star Risk
Services was contacted and looked at all the sites . North
Star Risk Service is the League of Minnesota Cities insurance
carrier. They seemed to favor the park 2 site and/or the
Baldwin Park north area.
Contact was made with Jim Keinath from the City of Circle
Pines and discussion started on the possible use of (joint
powers ) their park area to the north of the well house to
plan a tennis court and/or playground equipment that could
compliment the Baldwin Park area ( including a trail to the
park and possibly around the swamp) . An exercise trail could
be incorporated into this type of trail . Jim seemed to like
this idea in concept and would bring it up at their Park
Board meeting.
AMr
ANk
auk
0 v
y �075 0,_0 -Da; u
LAKE ESTATES
Mci? Uice Esbtes
SOLD i To Be
2. i Developed
3 s
3 i4 PAkK 1
4 2 y
1 6 Z 3 37
r 7 7- 34 36
d 8 35 7 7312
90
h a
16 10
1.0 1,0
31y 1 GPI s;< !_ HOLD 9
Z 18 8�9
0 30 � Q�J 5 7 y/C
= 29 t9 4. 9 HOLD 6-
9}-�
PARK 2 9
2&7 20,' 3 10 s. 5
//,
Lu 27 ..
SOLD
HOLD � J
6 j 7 CD '. 'j�' 3 4
5 26 25 24 23 22 1 15 x 13 12
4 !'
EGRET LANE
HOLD SOLD y SOLD r� ! X
3 2 1 1 2 _ 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 4 5 6
{ x� x 5 x x x 6
'1 IS of)riotil w'LD_ xio-r DtsT2oY fl� Y IJZce�-rAr,a�-a T—_ X-C tP'r 9tJgtoS
PAL
D ME�vs/vnJS (IOvL !J _qs t LY y®F 7- X (�F7'
a2 1.A2Q,rk_
t E. 4pFw yu c� �oT Rcc ore-'Cis i94,� !$ Fl X /K7 err/CN r5 TaiE ��+E 02 Re��.L
tf;7 o
so
-` - RICE �E ESTATES
l
v% Mce blice Esbtes
4
"y
C') SOLD To Be
2 Developed
3
3 4 PARK .1
a 5 2 1 yob
N
5 Z 6 2 38
6 Z 3 37
7, 3
7 z < 36
,�Ci 7 13
O 6 ' \ �
y:
6 14 12 -yO
rn
9
16 10
10 17 A� HOLD
J 31 GP s C��. 9 9J�
o 78 Q�J , 8 y�c
° a: 5 8, 7' 'S`L
w
1: 29 19_ a. 9 HOLD 6. 9yti
PARK 2 9 0
3 10 y
-7 zo 21 7 p 5 199
8 O 11
27
'
SOLD '
HOLD 6 7 m
5 26 25 24 23 22 1 15 13 12 3 4
4 EGRET LANE
HOLD SOLD SOLD
a
3 T21 1 2 _ 3 1 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 6
4 5 6
4
Pc..�Yeo�'ou a o,J C'O
o ±Icy 2 u� CV-iO ►) 8I-H
i� C12C�t �rfS �A✓ O -�� £A> �1
l�n.*t �eet �.vt � 02 �O�ioJ �� Tc��uAeoS _�1} 7r4 or
L,3ILj— 4104s (oP Io j *�3� o� for r t� o� ��acc:: L — u -5 wfC-c- F4atis� Za—
/ �,
c
/�'� D`a
5 !/� L
U ✓ u v
- ---------
ICE LAKE ESTATES
i
M
CCU blice bbtes
1
SOLD
To Be
2 r fir`
3
3 4 2 PARK 1
4 5 5 1 yo
a 6 i�
6 2 38 �3 37 v�
t' 7
7 --. 34 36 35 7
8 O 8 c� �1�' / 13 'QO
4' OP t4
12 9
15
�, 1s 10 ai` `Y 17 10
A!�
31 9 HOLD 9 SST
0 30 78 Q�JG s 1 7 C� 8 9T�ti
-05
B T cti�
PARK 2 9 29 19 4' 9 HOLD 6- 9y�
28.7 20 3 10
8 8 5 9j
27 21' 2. 11
W SOLD
HOLD 6 7 m
_ 5, 26 25 24 23 22 1 15 13 12 3 4
4
EGRET LANE
d d HOLD SOLD SOLD
-
3 2 1 1 2 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 y G4 5 .6
Di.RYme�u�0 S� f-
HS Dl�iro� 0 .1 C'o�.rLa o �wc �'42ora 'f
to 2 Co rl m ce r ,10. f}co.� !�w Y `�7 w Tr{
/,A— 7-t7 D$.. o� �L w E. ��z ea.J �•,r� %�.�...,rs �u i�;� C?2 rf.,..O l"�e'�-AC,n fs
�07 /)c o_re f w`t '4
UICt AUX S. CAULSCN
7671 Old Central Avenue
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
(612) 786-1218 - (612) 574-0544
May 30, 1990
City of Lino Lakes
1189 Main Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Re: Pineridge Park Program
Dear Chairman and Commissioners,
Enclosed are the copies of my proposed plat with the following
park dedication options.
A. $400 . 00 per lot cash contribution with the City of Lino
Lakes leasing an area outlined in red as a temporary
tot lot.
B. 10% land dedecation.
If- additional information is required please call me at
786-1218.
Sincerely,
Ricliar ar son
RSC:kc
?¢ May 1990
Park Board
Lino Lakes, MN
Chairperson and Members:
The following report and graphic documents constitute the proposal for
park land dedication for the proposed Pheasant Hills residential
project .
Sincerely,
Lawrence Seiberlich Ph .D. AIA
Representing Pheasant Hills
PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
PARK DEDICATION PROPOSAL
29 MAY 1990
When considering the park requirements for the proposed Pheasant Hills
Preserve, it is important to identify and acknowledge the uniqueness of
the residential concept within the context of the current and future
development of Lino Lakes.
Pheasant Hills Preserve :
1 . Is the largest residential development to be proposed and/or
constructed in the City of Lino Lakes
2. Is bounded by a 2700 acre Regional Park which offers extensive
active and passive recreational opportunities_.
3. Is located such that it virtually surrounds a 38 acre site owned by
the Centennial School District #12 on which the City's
Comprehensive Plan has designated an active recreation facility
4. Is essentially a grouping of upland knolls distributed throughout
an extensive wetland, including two lakes. Of the 307 contiguous
acres in the site, only approximately 210 acres will be platted as
Pheasant Hills Preserve . Of the 210 acres, only 43': will be
actually platted as lots.
5. Is conceived as an "upscale" residential community based upon an
"ecological theme." As such, the focus of the environment is to
preserve as much of the existing ecology as possible, which is
essentially an extension of the wildlife habitat that has been
established, and is maintained, in the Regional Park located on the
north boundary of the site . The site currently shares the wildlife
which proliferates the Park and it is the deveopers' goal to
maintain this ecology. In doing so, it is important that a maximum
amount of land not dedicated to lots be used to support this
existing ecology.
b. Is planned to incorporate an extensive series of ponding areas,
waterways, trailways and other amenities for the residents.
7. Is actually a fairly low density proposal at slightly more than one
home per acre .
8. Is a unique parcel of land in the Northeast sector of the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area in that it contains a considerable amount
of quality woodland.
9. Is entering a different market than the major subdivision which
have been developed or proposed in Lino Lakes. As such, it is a
high risk venture for the developers. It will provide a unique
type of housing in Lino Lakes; a type which the City has been
pursuing for some time . To be successful , it will require the
support of all players and regulating agencies involved. It should
be considered on its unique conditions, and potentials for
enhancement of the City and its environmental and economic
dimensions.
PROPOSALS
Following an extensive evaluation of alternatives for meeting the active
and passive recreational needs of the residents of Pheasant Hills
Preserve , including discussions with John Miller and Don Volk , four
options appear to be viable approaches to these needs:
1 . Regional Park - The most appropriate proposal appears to be the
development of an active recreation area in the Regional Park
immediately north of the Pheasant Hills site . This facility could
be ]eased by the City and it will be connected by a trail system
from Pheasant Hills for direct access for these residents and other
developments west and south of Pheasant Hills.
Preliminary discussions have been held between Don 'folk and Gene
Torgelson , the Anoka County Park Director , concerning this option .
It appears to be conceptually acceptable but requires s period of
time to gain the necessary approvals.
A park dedication fee would then be submitted for each lot , by
phase , for all lots platted in Pheasant Hills.
2. School District Property - A second option will also provide a
significant recreation facility for not only the Pheasant Hills
community but also many of the citizens of Lino Lakes. The
District 12 Property is bounded on three sides by Pheasant Hills,
and has been designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a
location for a recreation area. If a school is built on this site ,
a joint facility could be provided. Another alternative is for the
developer to purchase the School District site or a portion thereof
and dedicate it for park use.
S. Off Site - The developer is currently considering an option to buy
a parcel to the south of Birch Street for the purpose of park
dedication. The size and location of this site would be based upon
the actual needs of the Park Board and the cost and availability of
certain parcels.
4. The Island - An island of approximately 5 acres is located in the
western portion of the Pheasant Hills property. This island,
actually an upland located in a transitional wetland area, has been
used in the past for recreational purposes. It is heavily treed
and has a topographic relief of 12 to 14 feet . It is accessible
from the southwest .
,.� Mr. Vaughan has desired to keep this parcel out of all development
as a future location for his own retirement home. The property is
quite valuable and Mr . Vaughan does not want to give it up for park
dedication if any other alternatives appear to be 'Diable.
If necessary at this time, it is proposed that the land could be
put into escrow for future park dedication until other options
could be realized, which may require an extended period of
negotiation with other agencies and land owners.
5. The Peninsula - This area is located in the eastern portion of the
Pheasant Hills site . It contains approximately 2.5 acres of upland
located adjacent to the wetland area. It is accessed by the
proposed trail system. This land is both treed and open. It is
suitable for both passive and certain types of active recreation .
These proposals for park dedication provide a variety of options from
which the Park Board can develop a comprehensive and sensitive approach
to the recreational needs of the residents of Pheasant Hills and other
citizens of the greater Lino Lakes community.
It will obviously be necessary for all groups involved in these
decisions to consider the unique features of the Pheasant Hills project
and the opportunities available , as outlined in this proposal .
It is Mr• . Vaughan's desire to minimize the taking of sites within the
project because of the limited amount of developable land. The proposed
waterway and substantial trailway development , and the theme of
maintaining the natural environments to support the existing ecology
should be considered as partial satisfaction of park dedication needs.
n In lieu of , or in addition to, certain amounts of parkland dedication ,
Mr . Vaughan will pay park dedication fees for a negotiated number of
lots on each phase .
DATE: MAY 30, 1990
TO: ALL PARK BOARD MEMBERS
FROM: MARTY ASLESON
RE: BIRCH PARK IRRIGATION ESTIMATE
Please find attached a copy of the estimate for the materials
only for Birch Park irrigation. This estimate is for the
entire park area, including the area to the south that has
not yet been dedicated.
cc Don Volk
i
r
f
i
I
r
I
Ti
w ,
Vi Ty
0 gap
r--4CI Cl
IF-IT}
_ F.
14S
6-1
DATE . MAY 30 , 1990
TO: DON VOLK
FROM: MARTY ASLESON
RE: PLAN REVIEW PROCESS - PARKS
Recently much discussion has been generated around the topic
of the Plan Review Process , particularly on newly dedicated
park parcels .
Although the results of the recent phone survey indicate that
many have Parks and Recreation Departments , felt negative
about neighborhood meetings , I believe that this was in
response to the preliminary planning process . Somehow each
Parks and Recreation Department looks at their neighborhood
statistics and receives input on their parks design, or at
least th-ev should.
Please find attached a copy of the Design Re--,-iew Process ghat.
t;ie Cite of Co,_orado Springs follows . This process was used
as an exercise at a recent National Parks and Recreation ,
Parks Planning Conference that I attended. Although not
everyone would use this exact format, nor have the staff that
this Parks and Recreation Department has , the idea is sound.
I have personally used a modification of this process with
good results . I also believe that the City of Lino Lakes
would benefit from following this type of format .
Please enclose this with the Park Board Agenda.
PLAN REVIEW PROCESS
SUMMARY FLOW CHART
ra
DIVISION REPES. CONCEPT PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD
Supporting Data Staff & Neighborhood Q MEETING
Input
DIVISIONS REVIEW PRELIMINARY
Minor Adjustment D PLAN
Final Input 0
DIVISIONS MASTER SITE PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD
SIGN OFF D Q PRESENTATION
DIRECTOR'S REVIEW limit of
Final approval process used
in Practicum
PARK BOARD PRESENTATION
MASTER SITE PLAN WORKING DRAWINGS
SPECIAL REQUIRE. SPECIFICATIONS
LA. Coordinate by L.A.
_an i.h divisions
DIVISION REVIEW CD'S
Distributed to city
agencies for review
V _
BIDDING
q L.A. Coordinated
17
PRE-CONSTRUCTION
It CONFERENCE
L.A. Eng Tech Contractor
SCHEDULED SPECIA CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENTS D INSPECTION
L.A. Eng Tech = L.A. Eng Tech
Div Reps
REVIEW w/DIVISlON CHANGE ORDERS
Div supt. and/or D SCHEDULE CHANGES
Reps L.A. Eng Tech
FINAL INSPECTION
& ACCEPTANCE
L.A. Eng Tech
PROJECT BECOMES
_ P &= R RESPONSIBILITY g' .
or 'maint,., prog, policing
MEMORANDUM
TO: Park Board Members
FROM: Laura Elken, Planning Secretary
DATE: May 25, 1990
SUBJECT: Park Dedication Requirements
At the May 9th Park Board meeting the board members asked
that a survey be taken to find out what area cities charge
for park dedication.
The cities I contacted were as follows:
Inver Grove Heights
Maple Grove
Apple Valley
Burnsville
Andover
Lake Elmo
Lakeville
Woodbury
Plymouth
Cottage Grove
Ramsey
Eagan
I told each city that the Lino Lakes Park Department was
considering updating their park dedication requirement. I
asked them what their requirements were, if their city had
completed a land use study for their city parks, and I also
asked them if they ever held neighborhood meetings to ask the
residents what they would like to see in their neighborhood
park.
Attached you will find park dedication policies from
different cities that agreed to send or fax me copies.
Ok, lets get started!
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
Page 1
November, 1989 Inver Grove Heights completed an amended park
dedication ordinance covering lands for public parks, trails,
playgrounds and open space areas. Please find that enclosed.
I visited with Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director.
He stated that in 90 - 90% of the time the park department
requires a cash dedication. The only time land is acquired
is when it is adjacent to an existing park.
Cash dedication for Inver Grove Heights is as follows:
Residential:
$400. 00 in sewered & watered area
$200. 00 in unsewered & unwatered areas
Commercial:
$2 ,178 .00 per acre in sewered and watered areas
$425. 00 per acre in unsewered areas.
There are no separate fees for trail systems.
Land dedication is 10% of the plat.
Inver Grove Heights does not hold neighborhood meetings to
discuss what they would like to see in their park.
Maple Grove
I spoke with Patti Anderson, Administrative Management Aid at
Maple Grove. Their park dedication requirements are as
follows:
Residential: $610. 00 per unit
Industrial: $1,998. 00 per acre
Commercial: $2,975.00 per acre
Apple Valley
Randy Johnson, Park/Recreation Director stated that Apple
Valley requires 10% of the land for park dedication.
Based on the average cost of $15, 000 per acre, the city
collects 10% of that amount ($1,500) per acre for a cash
dedication.
Apple Valley does have a Park Master Plan as part of their
overall city Comprehensive Plan.
For commercial and industrial areas park dedication consists
of 5% of the land or cash value is required.
Burnsville
Randy Oppelt, Park/Recreation Director faxed me a copy of the
Page 2
'^ park dedication requirements for Burnsville. Please find
that attached. Also find the formula for which park
dedication is determined.
Andover
Todd Haas, Parks Director in Andover sent me a copy of
Andover's park dedication requirements. Please see enclosed.
They have a different way of approaching the cash dedication.
If the park board wishes to collect a cash dedication, they
hire an appraiser to go out to the site, give a value of the
land to the park board, and then the city collects 10% of
that land value. Mr. Haas told me that there is problems
with this. He said that the city council does not like that
extra expense for the appraiser. The cost is at least
$250. 00 depending on the size of the plat.
The city requires 10% of land to meet park dedication
requirements.
One more interesting point regarding Andover. Bill Hawkins
is also the attorney for that city. Bill Hawkins informed
Andover that he does not recommend the city ask for a cash
dedication based on a "per unit" basis. Based on Mr. Hawkins
recommendation, they take 10% of the value of the entire
parcel.
Lake Elmo
Marilyn Banister informed me that the city charges $450. 00
per lot to meet park dedication requirements.
She told me that the parks within the city are established.
And the city only asks for a cash dedication for park
improvements.
Lakeville
In March of 1988 Lakeville amended their Park dedication
requirements. Please find their park dedication ordinance
enclosed.
The City of Lakeville requires $550.00 per dwelling unit for
single and multi-family or between 10% - 20% of land based on
units per acre density. You can find the chart enclosed that
discusses the land dedication percentage.
Lakeville also requires $150. 00 per dwelling unit towards the
construction of trails. The ordinance reads as follows:
In lieu of a trail land donation, the city may require
the following cash donation for the comprehensive
multipurpose pedestrian trail system.
Page 3
For each dwelling unit $150.00
Lakeville does not hold neighborhood meetings to obtain
resident input for their park.
Lakeview also has a Park System Plan for the city's park
system.
Woodbury
I spoke with Bob Klatt from Woodbury. They accept 10% of
land for park dedication or $450.00 per lot.
They are in the process of updating their park dedication
requirement. Mr. Klatt also felt that $450. 00 was low
because the value of land has increased since this figure was
established.
A comprehensive plan was completed for an overall park system
in Woodbury.
Woodbury does not hold neighborhood meetings. Mr. Klatt
stated that the city has an overall plan for the parks
system. He felt this would be messy and that you can never
satisfy everyone.
He added that in a few instances the park was completed, and
play ground equipment installed before any lots were sold.
The developer's liked it for marketability of the site. The
city requires the developer to bring the park to grade and
seed the park.
Plymouth
Mary Patterson sent me their park dedication policy. She
stated that a park land plan was completed in 1982 and will
be updated this year.
The City of Plymouth looks at the park plan in deciding
whether land should be dedicated or cash. Plymouth requires
10% of land if the development is no denser than two
dwellings per unit.
The cash contribution is $825. 00 per dwelling unit. This is
based on 10% of the average value of undeveloped residential
land in the city. It was decided that at Plymouth's first
City Council meeting in February the city manager provides
the council with a report from the city assessor indicating
his estimate of the average value of undeveloped residential
land in the community and a survey of residential fees in
effect in other comparable communities.
Cottage Grove
Page 4
0
Cottage Grove asks for $450. 00 per unit as their park
dedication or 10% of land.
Ramsey
I visited with Mark Banwart, Community Development Director
at the City of Ramsey. The park dedication ordinance is
attached.
The City of Ramsey asks for 10% of the land for park
dedication. Cash contributions are $350.00 per dwelling unit
if the density is one unit within 3.3 acres. All other
dwelling units would be asked for $500.00 per unit.
According to Mark Banwart, Parks Director at Ramsey, Trail
corridors are also considered park dedication. A developer
may dedicate a strip of land that remains untouched with the
exception of a bituminous surface trail running through the
middle of it. Often times benches will be scattered along
the trail.
Eagan
The park dedication policy for Eagan is attached. Eagan
bases land dedication according to the units per acre.
The City of Lino Lakes creates four lots per acre, and
according to Eagan's formula 12% of land could be dedicated
as park land.
A new cash dedication policy effective January 1, 1990 has
been established. For a single family home with the average
market value of $16,000 per acre, the cash equivalent per
residential unit would be $685.00. This fee was determined
by the average market value of undeveloped residential
property by zoning classification, served by city utilities.
Then they divided that amount by the number of units per acre
which shall provide the equivalency of twelve acres per
thousand population. Please see attached policy.
The majority of the cities do accept 10% of the land and 10%
of the average value of undeveloped, sewer available land.
I visited with Jeff Nienaber, Anoka County Assessor on this
subject. He informed me that the average cost of an
undeveloped acre of land within the MUSA boundary would be
$10, 000.
I also asked him what developer's are asking for their lots,
once the land has been graded. He informed me that they are
as low as $21,000 and as high as $35,000. A lot that is not
within the MUSA boundary would be between $16, 000 up to
Page 5
$20,000 for an one acre lot.
Several of the cities that did have a cash dedication close
to our stated that they realized it was low, and were
planning to update it.
None of the cities I surveyed held neighborhood meetings to
discuss the area park. In fact, I did hear negative
responses when asked about it. I can see merit to receiving
neighborhood input, but if the city waits until the
development is 50% complete before holding the meeting, that
could be a year or better before the park is installed.
Almost every city did complete a land use study to create an
overall city park plan.
The City of Woodbury's goal is to complete the park before
homes move in. Mr. Klatt stated that he determined what was
installed in the park by what type of housing was being
developed. Smaller, single-family homes may require a tot
lot, where larger, executive homes may prefer a picnic
shelter and volley ball court.
options:
1. Move to recommend to the city council to initiate a
Request for Proposal for a Land Use Study to be
completed to create an overall city park master
plan.
2. Move to recommend to the city council to increase
the cash park dedication requirement.
Please review this information. Highlight areas that you
would like to see Lino Lakes incorporate into their park
dedication policy. The June park board agenda looks small,
and there should be ample time to discuss this issue.
Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor, City Councilmembers, Park
Boardmembers, Randy Schumacher, John Miller, Don
Volk
FROM: Laura Elken, Planning Secretary
DATE: September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Park Dedication for Commercial/Industrial
Companies
To survey area cities to get information about commercial and
industrial park dedications. The cities I contacted were as
follows:
Vadnais Heights
Blaine
n Oakdale
Shoreview
Maplewood
In visiting with the city planner at each of these cities I
asked how they handle park dedication for commercial and
industrial businesses that bought a parcel of land, did not
plat or subdivide the land, and simply built their structure
on a parcel.
Before I begin to tell you what their response was, I have to
explain that with each city I discussed the fact that under
the Minnesota Statutes chapter 462 . 358 Subd. 2b it states
that park dedication can be claimed only when land has been
subdivided. It states:
Dedication. The regulations may require that a
reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated
to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads,
sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water
drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and
improvements.
In addition, the regulations may require that a
reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated
to the public or preserved for public use as parks, play-
grounds, trails, or open space; provided that (a) the
municipality may choose to accept to be dedicated to such
public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the
Page 1
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.
Every city that I spoke with was aware of this statute.
Randy Johnson, City Planner in Shoreview stated that he does
require the applicant to replat the land. This ensures park
dedication, dedicates right-of-ways and cleans up the title
to the land. The City of Shoreview requires 3% of the value
of the land as a cash dedication for Commercial/Industrial
sites.
Brian Schafer, City Planner in Blaine has a different formula
to follow. They do claim a cash park dedication even if the
land is not subdivided. It is based on 3% of the fair market
value of the land. The cash dedication cannot exceed three
times the park dedication fee charged for a Single-Family
unit ($395.00) . I thought this was complicated, but
reasonable.
The City, of Oakdale asks for $1, 200 per acre of land for
commercial and industrial lots. The parcels do not have to
be subdivided.
I spoke with the City Clerk in Vadnais Heights, Gerald Urban.
He sent me a copy of their dedication ordinance. It states
that the developer will pay $300. 00 for each 4, 000 square
feet of proposed building for uses as follows:
1. Retail
2 . Office
3 . Office-Showroom
4. Restaurants/Liquor Establishments
5. Light Manufacturing/Assembly uses of high
labor intensity in which there would normally be
more than one employee per 500 square feet at full
planned capacity.
It goes on to state: The developer shall pay to the city
$200. 00 for each 4, 000 square feet of proposed building for
uses as follows:
1. Warehousing
2 . Low Labor Intensive Light Manufacturing/Assembly
r.,
3 . Other Low Labor Intensive Uses
Page 2
The developers of hotel and motels pay to the city $150. 00
per hotel unit.
All such money must be paid prior to the issuance of building
permit.
This is an interesting way of handling park dedication. A
copy of this ordinance is attached.
The City of Maplewood asks for 7% of the Market Value of the
land for park dedication. Land does not have to be
subdivided.
After each city told me its park dedication requirements, I
asked them how they get around the Minnesota State Statutes.
Vadnais Heights City Clerk explained to me that he felt their
park dedication was reasonable, and there were no complaints
from developers.
Brian Schafer from Blaine told me that if a commercial
company wanted to dispute the park dedication it would delay
his project, and the developer would rather pay the extra
money to the city than lose the money due to the delay caused
by going to court. Brian also explained that the city would
waive park dedication for churches.
Before Gethsemane Methodist Church applied for their Site and
Building Plan the City of Lino Lakes had no problems imposing
a park dedication to commercial and industrial developers.
options:
1. Clarify the Park Dedication Ordinance, specifying
residential and commercial and industrial
requirements.
2 . Consider changing Lino Lakes park dedication fees.
Are they too costly?
3 . Consider requiring the developers to plat their
land.
A. This would cost the developer application
fees for something that may not be
necessary, extra surveyor costs, etc.
4 . Overlook Minnesota State Statutes like all (but
one) other cities I spoke with.
5. Consider claiming park dedication fees when
building permits are issued.
."r
A. If this is done it may be tricky if 10%
Page 3
of land is dedicated rather than a cash
dedication.
According to the Schilling report on the analysis of park
dedication fees of cities in the metropolitan area completed
January 1988 the following cities have compatible rates to
Lino Lakes. (10% for both residential and commercial) :
Little Canada
Roseville
Shoreview
White Bear Lake
White Bear Township
There are many issues to consider, if you would like me to
help in any additional way, please let me know.
r'1
Page 4
ii—
Schilling Environmental Consultants, Inc.
2785 White Bear Avenue, Suite 210 . Maplewood, MN 55109 . (612) 777-6606
REPORT ON THE ANALYSIS OF PARK DEDICATION FEES
OF
SELECTED CITIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA
Joel G. Schilling, Principal
January, 1988
INTRODUCTION
The following report presents a short review of park dedication authority and
judicial review along with a park dedication fee analysis of seventeen (17)
cities selected from within the Seven County Metropolitan Area . The cities
included are as follows:
Arden Hills Coon Rapids
Eagan Eden Prairie
Fridley Lakeville
Lino Lakes Little Canada
Mahtomedi Oakdale
Plymouth Roseville
Shoreview Vadnais Heights
White Bear Lake White Bear Township
Woodbury
The selection process included as a first priority those local governments
immediately surrounding or near the City of Vadnais Heights, second those cities
in which substantial residential and/or commercial-industrial development is
occurring (Eagen, Eden Prairie, Plymouth, and Woodbury) and finally some
randomly scattered cities (Coon Rapids, Fridley, Lakeville, Mahtomedi, and
Oakdale) . The analysis includes an examination park dedication schedules for
land as well as formulas for cash fees. Alternative approaches are discussed
along with a recommendations for amendment of Vadnais Heights, Ordinance No.
288 .
-2-
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW
A municipality's -authority to require property dedication or an equivalent cash
amount for park and playground purposes resides in Minnesota Statutes as amended
(MSA) , Chapter 462.358, Subdivsion 2b, which in part states:
go (-Subdivision regulations) . . . . may require that a reasonable
portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or
preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open
space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an
equivalent (emphasis added) 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."
In 1972, the City of Bloomington adopted a park dedication regulation pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes and implemented it on a 33 lot residential subdivision by
requiring the developer to make a cash dedication of $ 19,200
($ 582/dwelling) . The City was subsequently challenged by the developer in
district court on the constitutionality of both the City Code and Minnesota
Statutes. The district court ruled in favor of the City and plaintiff appealed
to the Minnesota Supreme Court on the on the constitutional question of taking
property without just compensation (Minnesota, Art. 1, Sec. 13; and United
States, Fifth Amendment) and the inappropriate delegation of legislative powers
to municipalities pertaining to subdivision dedication requirements . The
Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the lower court on August 13, 1974 [246 N.W. 2d
19] on all the issues raised on appeal.
Bloomington's ordinance provided that, as a general rule, "it is reasonable to
require" as a condition of subdivision approval, dedication of 10 % of
subdivision property for parks or the contribution of an equivalent amount of
cash. The Court ruled that this legislation was not on its face a taking of
property without just compensation.
_3-
A municipality's authority over private property through outright acquisition or
zoning control is considered a normal exercise of its police power based upon
language in MSA, .Chapter 462.358, Subd. 1. :
"Authority. To protect and promote the public health, safety, and
welfare, and to facilitate adequate provision for
transportation, water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks,
playgrounds, and other public services and facilities, a
municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations
establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for the review
and approval or disapproval of subdivisions."
The test of whether it is reasonable to to require such dedication resides in an
understanding that the municipality by approval of a proposed subdivision plat,
which meets alb the typical zoning requirements (e.g. set-backs, easements,
right-of-ways, etc.) enables the developer to profit financially by selling the
subdivision lots as building sites and thus realize a greater price than could
have been obtained if he had sold his property as unplatted lands. In return
for this benefit the municipality may require the developer to dedicate part of
his platted land to meet a demand for park usage which the municipality would
not have encountered except for the influx of people into the community from the
occupancy of such building sites [28 Wis. 2d 619, 137 N.W. 2d 4483 .
The Statute (MSA Chapter 462.358, Subd. 2b) authorizes municipalities to require
for subdivision approval, dedication of a "reasonable portion" of subdivision
property for parks. The language "reasonable portion",. the Court ruled would be
construed as that land portion which a municipality has determined that it will
need to acquire for park and recreation purposes in its Comprehensive Plan (MSA,
Chapter 462.355) resulting from subdivision approval.
Since this landmark decision, many local governments, as well as those listed in
this report have generally followed this decision in the promulgation of park
dedication ordinances . This court decision, the accompanying judicial
interpretation, along with the state statute recognize that there is an
important factor of "value equivalency" in the dedication of either land or cash
for a specific development. In other words, a park dedication ordinance should
"` to the degree possible treat everyone equally irregardless of a land or cash
contribution. ordinance No. 288 was adopted by the Vadnais Heights City Council
in 1982 and requires land or cash dedication for park and recreation purposes
from residential, commercial or industrial development.
-4-
LAND OR CASH DEDICATIONS
Table I depicts land dedication formulas for fourteen of the seventeen local
governments. Approximately one-third of the seventeen have a land dedication
formula for residential properties based upon a sliding scale in which a
percentage of the dwelling site is required for parks depending upon the density
of the development area. The other local governments use of a formula which is
a set percentage of the site (7 to 10 percent) to be dedicated, similar to the
Bloomington example. Similarily for commercial/industrial landuses, nearly
three-quarters of the local governments make use of a formula based upon a set
percentage applied to a proposed site with the most common level being 10 %.
Those cities which do not show a land dedication formula, rely instead upon cash
dedications being adequate for the outright purchase of needed park property. In
both Tables I and II the park dedication requirements are shown for both
residential (single and multi-family) and commercial/industrial landuses.
Table II illustrates the formula or fee schedules used by all seventeen local
governments for cash dedications. In contrast to the land dedication table, only
three of the seventeen local governments (Oakdale, Shoreview, and Vadnais
Heights) make use of a density based cash dedication formula for residential
landuse. The most common method used is a set fee per dwelling unit based upon
the type of residential landuse (e .g. single family or multi) . For
commercial/industrial landuses, the situation is not quite as conclusive. The
method used by ten of the seventeen local governments is formula applied as a
percentage of the total site required in cash based upon the equivalent
undeveloped land value. A group of six cities (Eagen, Eden Prairie, Lakeville,
Plymouth, White Bear Lake, and Woodbury) apply a set fee based upon either the
area of the site or the square footage of the building.
ANALYSIS
A major difficulty facing local governments in applying park dedication
ordinances is the effect of "value equivalency". As development rapidly occurs
in a local government, land values tend to increase as various market forces
come into play: Some of the forces include the sellers of undeveloped land
demanding higher values; buyers becoming attracted to developing areas and are
willing to pay higher values; increasing land development costs; and finally
the developer may elect to take a higher profit. A hypothetical example of a
residential development serves to show this problem:
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE
A residential development of 25 single family homes is proposed on
10 acres (0.4 acres per lot) . The developer paid an undeveloped
fair market value of $ 15,000 per acre or $ 150, 000 for the land.
The local government requires a land or equivalent cash park
dedication of 10 % which translates into 1 acre with a value of
$ 15,000. If the local government requires cash instead, it has set
a fee of $ 400 per dwelling unit which would be a total of
$ 10,000.
Obviously, in this example the two dedications are not equal as the land
dedication is in effect costing the developer $ 600 per dwelling unit while if
he paid cash alone it would only cost $ 400 per unit. The other factor which
comes into play is development density. If the number of homes on the site is
increased to 40 units (0.25 acres per lot) , then the total dedication increases
to $ 16,000 (40 units x $ 400/unit) which is closer to the value of the land.
The important point in this example is not that development density should be
increased as this is often determined by the overlying zoning and property
characteristics such as site location, topography, vegetative cover, and lastly
market acceptance. In other words, the developer will usually build what the
market will accept within that zoning class. Rather, the cash park dedication
formula selected should reflect the value of the land, if possible. Table III
lists the established single family fees for cash dedication if applied to
developments within thirteen of the seventeen local governments. A substantial
range of values is shown with the descriptive statistics indicating that the
average fee would be $ 465 per dwelling unit. Because of the relatively low
number of values included in this analysis, the median (fiftieth percentile) of
$ 400 may be more representative. However, it should be noted that many of the
recent changes by communities in their ordinances has taken place in those which
already had units fees which were relatively high. Finally, it should be
pointed out that the fair market value of the undeveloped land does not always
increase in direct proportion with the upgrading of a zoning classification
[single family to multiple family] . Care should be taken so that there is not a
reverse of the above hypothetical example in the application of cash dedication
formulas where the developer may pay far in excess of the value of the
6-
equivalent amount of land which could be required.
Next an attempt is made to provide a perspective upon the various local
government park dedication fees by using specific development examples. Table
IV presents three different examples of actual developments within the City of
Vadnais Heights together with the actual or probable resultant park dedications
for the seventeen local governments.
Example No.l
This a single family residential development of 81 homes upon 42.84 acres. The
park dedication for the City of Vadnais Heights was $ 33,544 which was in the
lower half of the seventeen local governments surveyed. This cash dedication
amount translates into $ 414 per dwelling which is similar to the set fee
amounts used by a number of cities (Eagan, Eden Prairie, Coon Rapids, Lino
Lakes, and Woodbury) . It is interesting to note (see Table II) that small
residential developments in Vadnais Heights (less than 5 acres, both single
family and multi-family) are not treated equally with respect to cash
dedications per dwelling unit for developments greater than 5 acres in area.
The cities of Shoreview, Oakdale, Little Canada and White Bear Township would
likely find it very difficult to require land dedication instead of cash in the
above example when the value of the land is more than 10, 000 greater than the
cash dedication. Therefore it's not surprizing that cities sometimes have
considerable difficulty in taking a land dedication (even though the future park
may appear on their Comprehensive Plan) , because the developer realizes that
this disparity exists. Finally, it important to raise the issue of the actual
fair market value of the site used in this example (See note in Table IV) . If
the fair market value of $ 16, 000 per acre is used instead of the appraised
undeveloped land value shown ($ 8,700 per acre) , it is apparent that the cities
of Arden Hills, Mahtomedi and Roseville would have park cash dedications of
$ 68, 544 or 10 percent of the fair market value. While this is a very large
increase in dedication, it must be stressed that it is perfectly equitable in
the context of an ordinance which requires land or an equivalent amount in
cash !
Example No. 2
This a multi.-family residential development of 113 apartment units on 7 .25
acres. It is evident in this example that there is a much larger spread of park
dedication cash amounts. Vadnais Heights is in the lower half of the fourteen
-7-
cities with a cash dedication equal to $ 154 per unit. In addition to Vadnais
Heights, Arden Hills, Little Canada, Roseville, and Shoreview all have
dedication formulas which are perfectly equitable in terms of taking the same
amount of land. Some local governments, Vadnais Heights included, may require
an additional expenditure by requiring the multi family housing developer to
construct a small playlot on the same site. In nearly all the cities examined in
this study, multi-family developments contribute less cash on a per unit basis
than single family residences. Therefore it may be argued that this approach is
not equitable in the sense that the single family homeowner has paid a much
higher park fee even though both families (single & multi family) may equally
use a park. Two pieces of information seem to ameliorate this concern. First,
the alternative approach of requiring the construction of a playlot as part of
the proposed multi family development is a reasonable additional expense.
Secondly, having a reduced unit fee for multi family developments as many of the
cities in the upper half of Table IV require seems to be logical from a resident
and developer perspective, but may not be entirely equitable.
Example No. 3
This a commercial/industrial development consisting of a light manufacturing
building of 24, 644 square feet (S. F.) on 1. 9 acres. It is this landuse in
which there is the greatest difference among cities in how cash dedication is
handled. Two thirds of the cities require a percentage of the land in equivalent
cash value on the order of 3 - 10 %. Other cities have required a fee based
upon a per acre or square footage of development. The former example seems to be
logical in that it equates the value of the dedication with the value of a
similar amount of land which could be taken. In the case of Vadnais Heights, it
would appear to be impossible to take a land dedication when the land value is
$ 16, 553 but the required cash dedication is only $ 1,200. Conversely, white
Bear Township could take either land or cash as they would be equivalent. The
requirement for any land or cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse
arises occasionally and should be discussed. First, it would seem that many
cities have been requiring a substantial cash dedication for some time with no
problems with respect to development (Roseville, Arden Hills) . Second, a
commercial or industrial enterprize has no direct need for parks and recreation
in contrast to the more obvious police, fire and public works services a local
government provides. Indirectly however, its workers may choose to relocate to a
city whoose park system is adequate and well maintained.
-8-
Therefore, a local government's attractiveness for commercial/industrial and
residential development is dependent upon its ability to acquire necessary park
funds from all its residents. Because this landuse does not directly require
parks , it seems that a plausible alternative approach would be to require half
the percent amount (5 %) which could be taken if the same site was residential
landuse.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . The land dedication section should be amended to reflect a formula based
upon 10 percent of the development area.
2 . It is recommended that the complex cash dedication density based system for
residential properties be dropped and instead be replaced by a simple
fee per dwelling unit formula as follows:
Cash dedication based upon
Single Family - $ 460/unit
Duplex - $ 360/unit
Multi-Family - $ 260/unit
OR
10 percent of the fair market value of the undeveloped site, whichever is
greater.
3. The cash dedication for commercial/industrial landuse should be changed to
a percentage fee based upon 5 percent of the fair market value of
the undeveloped property.
L
-9-
TABLE I
PARK - LAND DEDICATION
CITY RESIDENTIAL COrMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Arden Hills 10 - 15 % of site, density based. 0 - 15 % of the total site
Coon Rapids 5 - 18 % of site, density based. 3 - 5 % of the total site
Fridley 10 % of the site 3 % of the total site
Lakeville No. of Dwelling units x 3.5 - - - - - - - -
75
Lino Lakes 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Little Canada 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Mahtomedi 7 % of the total site. 7 % of the total site
Oakdale 5 - 17 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Plymouth 0 - 25 % of site, density based. 10 % of the total site
Roseville 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Shoreview 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
Vadnais Heights 9 - 20% of site, density based 10 % of the total site
White Bear Lake 10 % of the total site. 5 % of the total site
White Bear Twp. 10 % of the total site. 10 % of the total site
CITY DENSITY: UNITS/ACRE LAND DEDICATION M
Arden Hills 0 - 2 units/acre 10 %
2 - 3 It 11 %
3 - 4 to 12 %
4 + to 12 - 15 %
Coon Rapids 0 - 1 -units/acre 5 %
2 - 3 10 %
4 - 5 12 %
6 - 7 13 %
8 - 12 14 %
13 - 16 18 %
16+ " 18+ %
-10--
TABLE I (cont 'd)
Oakdale 0 - 1 units/acre 5 %
1.1 - 3 10 % �..
3.1 - 4 11 %
4.1 - 5 12 %
5.1 - 6 13 %
6.1 7 " 14 %
7.1 - 8 15 %
8.1 - 9 16 %
9.1 - 10 17 %
10.1 + 17+ %
Plymouth 0 - 2 units/acre 10 %
3 - 4 to11 %
5 - 6 it14 %
7 - 8 V115.5 %
9 - 10 of17.5 %
11 - 12 it20 %
Vadnais Heights 0 - 2 units/acre 9 %
2 - 4 it11 %
4 - 6 13 %
6 - 8 15 %
8 - 10 • 17 %
10+ 17+ - 20 %
r..
Note: Information on the cities of Mahtomedi, Eagen, Woodbury, Eden Prairie, and
Lakeville was acquired from a White Bear Township memorandum of September 15,
1987 from Jan Regan to the Town Board/Park Board.
-11-
TABLE II
r1 PARK - CASH DEDICATION
CITY DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION
Arden Hills
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped land value using the same percentage as
land dedication formula.
Coon Rapids
Single Family $ 384/unit
Two Family $ 326/unit
Townhouses $ 286/unit
Mobile Homes $ 291/unit
Multi $ 238/unit
COMMERCIAL
3 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
INDUSTRIAL
5 % of the fair market value with a maximum of $1152 (3x Single Family)
Eagan
Single Family or duplex $ 471/unit
Townhouse $ 385/unit
Apartments & condominiums $ 309/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 0.044/S.F. of development less roadways.
Eden Prairie
Single Family $ 420/unit
AU other $ 320/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 2,300/acre.
Fridley
Single Family $ 1,500/unit
Multi Family $ 500/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of 3 % of the undeveloped land value.
Lakeville
Single Family* $ '500/unit
Duplex* $ 11000
Apartments/Townhouse/Condominium* $ 335/unit + $ 100
above the first bedroom.
*In addition, a $ 135/dwelling unit trail fee is required from all developers
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $ 2,500/acre.
-12
Table II (cont 'd)
Lino Lakes
Single Family $ 400/unit
Multi Family $ 400/unit
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site
Little Canada
Single Family $ 300/unit
Multi Family $ 100/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
5 % of the fair market value of the undeveloped land.
Mahtomedi
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the undeveloped fair market value or $ 200/lot whichever is greater.
Oakdale
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE CASH DEDICATION
0 - 1 units/acre $ 275/unit
1.1 - 3 it $ 275/unit
3.1 - 4 is $ 250/unit
4.1 - 5 it $ 250/unit
5.1 - 6 if $ 250/unit
6.1 - 7 it $ 220/unit
7.1 - 8 it $ 220/unit
8.1 - 9 $ 220/unit
9.1 - 10 $ 220/unit
10.1 + $ 220/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
None
Plymouth
Single or Multi Family $ 575/unit
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of 10 % of the undeveloped land value or $ 2,700 per acre,
whichever is less.
Roseville
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of the undeveloped fair market value of 10 % of gross site
area.
-13-
TABLE II (eont'd)
Shoreview
DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE
0 - 2 units/acre 4 %
2.1 - 3 if 5 %
3.1 - 4 itb %
4.1 - 5 we7 %
5.1 + of 10
* undeveloped land value with utilities included on or near the site.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
Vadnais Heights
0 - 3 units/acre $ 200/unit
(Development sites 3 - 6 of $ 250/unit
of 0 - 5 acres) 6 - 8 It $ 300/unit
• DENSITY UNITS/ACRE $ OF LAND VALUE
(Development sites 0 - 2 units/acre 9 %
of 5 or more acres) 2 - 4 to 11 %
4 - 6 If 13 %
6 - 8 if15 %
8 - 10 it 17 %
10 + to 17 - 20 %
* undeveloped land value without utilities.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 200 per 4, 000 S.F. of building or 5 % of value of appraised undeveloped site
White Bear Lake
Single Family $ 375/unit
Duplex $ 750
• Apartments, townhouses,condos. $ 250/unit + $75/bed
added above the first bedrm
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
$ 1, 500 per acre, excluding streets and roads.
White Bear Township.
Single Family $ 325
Multi Family $ 325/dwelling unit
undeveloped land value with utilities not included.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
10 % of the fair market value of the land.
Woodbury
Single Family $ 400/unit
Duplex $ 300/unit
Multi Family $ 200/unit
CONMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
The cash equivalent of $- 1,200/ae-re - industrial, $ 1,500/acre - commercial,
$ 1, 800/acre office.
-14-
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF UNIT FEES FOR SINGLE FAMILY LANDUSE
CITY UNIT FEE
Coon Rapids $ 384
Eagen 471
Eden Prairie 420
Fridley 1,500
Lakeville 500
Lino Lakes 400
Little Canada 300
Mahtomedi 200*
Plymouth 575
Vadnais Heights 200*
White Bear Lake 375
White Bear Township 325
Woodbury 400
Statistics: n = 13, average fee = S 465, median(.5) = S 400
* or the land value equivalency.
-15-
TABLE IV
PROBABLE PARK DEDICATION EXAMPLES
EXAMPLE No. 1 - Single Family Residential
This example consists of a single family residential development in the City of
Vadnais Heights. Site construction was begun in 1986 and consisted of 81 homes
on 42.84 acres (density: 1.89 units/acre) . The appraised undeveloped land value
was $ 8,700/acre for a total value of $ 372,708. The following is a summary
table listing each city's probable park - land or cash dedication based upon the
information within tables I and II which would be required if the development
took place within their corporate boundaries.
CITY CASH. DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION
Fridley $ 121,500 1.28 acres
Plymouth $ 46,575 4.28 to
Lakeville $ 40,500 3.78 to
Eagen $ 38,151 ----
Arden Hills $ 37,271 4.28 of
Mahtomedi $ 37,271 4.28 of
Roseville $ 37,271 4.28 is
Vadnais Heights* $ 37,271 4.28 "
Eden Prairie $ 34,020 ----
Vadnais Heights** $ 33,544 (actual amount paid) 3.86 "
Lino Lakes $ 32, 400 4.28 "
Woodbury $ 32,400 ----
Coon Rapids $ 31, 104 4.28 "
White Bear Lake $ 30,375 4.28
White Bear Twp. $ 26,325 4.28
Little Canadp $ 24,300 4.28 "
Oakdale $ 22,275 4.28 "
Shoreview $ 14, 908 4..28 "
* Estimated park dedications based upon the recommendations in this report.
** Park dedication based upon existing ordinance.
NOTE
The above table is based entirely upon an appraised undeveloped land value.
The actual fair market value of the site was approximately $ 16, 000 per
acre or a total of $ 685, 440. This would substantially affect the three of
the above local units (Arden Hills, Mahtomedi, and Roseville)
-16-
TABLE IV (cont 'd)
EXAMPLE No. 2 = Multi Family Residential
This example consists of an apartment complex of 113 dwelling units upon 7.25
acres (density: 15.6 units/acre) . The complex is in the City of vadnais Heights
and has begun construction in late 1987. The park dedication is an estimate
based upon an appraised undeveloped land value of $12, 000/acre or a total land
value of $87, 000.
CITY CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION
Plymouth $ 64, 975 1.56 acres
Fridley $ 56,500 0.72 "
Lakeville -$ 48,720 ----
Lino Lakes $ 45,200 0.72 "
White Bear Twp. $ 36,725 0.72
Eden Prairie $ 36,160 ----
White Bear Lake $ 35,000 0.72
Eagan $ 34, 917 ----
Vadnais Heights* $ 29,380 0.72
Coon Rapids $ 26, 894 1.30
Oakdale $ 24, 860 1.81 "
Woodbury $ 22, 600 ----
Mahtomedi $ 22, 600 0.50 "
Vadnais Heights** $ 17, 400 1.45
Arden Hills $ 13,040 1.09 "
Little Canada $ 11,300 0.72
Roseville $ 8, 700 0.72 "
Shoreview $ 8,700 0.72 "
* Estimated park dedication based upon the recommendations in this report .
** Estimated park dedication based upon existing ordinance.
-17-
TABLE IV (cont 'd)
EXAMPLE No. 3 - Commercial/Industrial
This example consists of a light manufacturing building of 24, 644 S.F upon 1.9
acres. The complex is in the City of Vadnais Heights and was constructed in
late 1986. The park dedication is an estimate based upon an undeveloped land
value of $ 65,340/acre or a total land value of $ 124, 146.
CITY CASH DEDICATION LAND DEDICATION
Arden Hills $ 18,295 (probable maximum) 0.28 acres
Lino Lakes $ 12,415 0.19 if
Mahtomedi $ 12,415 0.19 if
Roseville $ 12,415 0.19 "
Shoreview $ 12,415 0.19 "
White Bear Twp. $ 12, 415 0.19
Coors Rapids $ 6,207 0.09 "
Little Canada $ 6,207 0.19 "
Vadnais Heights* $ 6,207 0.19 "
Plymouth $ 5, 130 0.19 "
Lakeville $ 4,750 ----
Eden Prairie $ 4,370 ----
Fridley $ 3,724 0.06 "
Eagen $ 3,277 ----
White Bear Lake $ 2, 850 0.09 "
Woodbury $ 2,280 ----
Vadnais Heights** $ 1,200 (actual amount) 0.19 "
* Estimated park dedication based upon the recommendations in this report.
** Park dedication based upon existing ordinance.
r�s
ORDINANCE #89- 17
CITY OF RAMSEY
ANOKA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT TO C11APTER 170. known as the Planning, Subdivision and
Signs Chapter of Chapter 170. of the City Code.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 170. 06 to the City Code and repealing
Se^tion 170. 038F of the City Code and repealing Ordinance 88-4.
The City of Ramsey ordains:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
Chapter 170. 06 of the City Code is amended as follows:
170. 06 PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION
170. 061 PURPOSE
The City Council recognizes it is essential to the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of Ramsey and
persons working in Ramsey, that the character and quality
of the environment be considered to be of major
.� importance in the planning and development of the City.
In this regard, the manner in which land is developed and
used is of high priority. The preservation of land for
park, playground and public open space purposes as it
relates to the use and development of land for
residential, commercial/industrial purposes is essential
to the maintaining of a healthful and desirable
environment for all citizens of the City. The City must
not only provide these necessary amenities for our
citizens today, but also be insightful to the needs of
our future citizens.
It is recognized by the City Council that the demand for
park, playground and public open space within a
municipality is directly related to the density and
intensity of development permitted and allowed within any
given area. Urban type developments mean greater numbers
of people and higher demands for park, playground and
public open space. To disregard this principle is to
inevitably over-tax existing facilities and thus,
diminish the quality of the environment for all.
1
' r
The City' s Park Systems Plan has established minimum
community criteria for meeting the needs of the residents
,.� of Ramsey.
It is the policy of Ramsey that the following standards
and guidelines for the dedication of land for park,
playground, and public open space purposes (cr cash
contributions in lieu of such dedication) in the
subdividing and developing of land within the City shall
be directly related to the density and intensity of each
subdivision and development.
170. 062 RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION
The amount of land to be dedicated by a subdivider for
residential development shall be based on the gross area
of the proposed subdivision, proposed type of dwelling
unit and density.
T::e formula-- for land dedication shall be based on the
number of proposed units per acre.
DWELLING UNITS LAND TO BE DEDICATED
0 - 0. 3 units per acre 7%
0.31 - 3. 0 units per acre 10%
3. 1 - 6. 0 units per acre 12%
6. 1+ units per acre Add . 5% for each unit
over 6 (maximum of
16. 5%)
170. 063 INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL PARKLAND DEDICATION
Subdividers of commercial/industrial land, including
commercial/industrial portions of Planned Unit
Developments, shall be required at the time the final
plat is approved to dedicate to the City for park,
playground, and public open space purposes, an amount of
land up to 5% of the gross land area as determined by the
City Council.
170. 064 PLANNED UNIT-" DEVELOPMENTS (PUD' s)
Parkland dedication requirements for PUD' s shall provide
a minimum of ten percent (10%) for public open space and
recreational uses or cash in lieu of land in addition to
those special requirements in City Code Section 170. 016K.
2
170. 065 STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC
PARK PURPOSES
A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes
shall meet identified needs of the City.
B. Prior to dedication for public purpose, the
subdivider shall deliver to the City Attorney, an
abstract of title or registered property abstract
for such dedication. Such title shall vest in the
City good and marketable title, free and clear of
any mortgages, liens, encumbrances, assessments and
taxes. The conveyance documents shall be in such
form acceptable to the City Council.
C. The required dedication shall be made at time of
final plat approval.
D. The removal of trees, topsoil, storage of
construction equipment, burying of construction
debris, or stockpiling of surplus soil is strictly
forbidden without the written approval of the City
council.
E. Grading and utility plans, which may affect or
impact the proposed park dedication, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Parks and Recreation
r� Commission prior to dedication, or at such time as
is reasonably determined.
F. To be eligible for park dedication credit, any land
to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section
shall be useable, developable land for use for park
and recreation purposes and shall be at a location
convenient to the people to be served.
170. 066 CASH PAYMENT
In lieu of land dedication, the City Council may require
the subdivider to contribute a cash payment. The value
of such payment shall be either the greater amount
established by a specified contribution per dwelling unit
or a percent of fair market value of the undeveloped land
commensurate with the percent of land which otherwise
would have been required under Sections 170. 062 and
170. 063 of this chapter. "Fair Market Value" , for
purposes of this Section 170. 066, shall be determined as
of the time of filing the final plat in accordance with
the following:
A. The City Park and Recreation Commission and
subdivider may agree upon a recommendation to the
City Council as to the fair market value.
3
B. The City Council after reviewing the Park and
,.� Recreation Commission's recommendation, may agree
with the subdivider as to the fair market value.
If agreement is not reached in this manner, then
fair market value shall be determined in accordance
with the following:
The fair market value as determined by the City
Council based upon appraisals, accepted
purchase agreements, comparable market
transactions or other pertinent records as
determined by the City Council.
The cash contribution per dwelling unit, effective upon
the effective date of this ordinance shall be in
accordance with the following schedule:
CASH CONTRIBUTION PER
HOUSING TYPE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT
Single Family Rural $350. 00/dwelling unit
Densities <1 unit/3 . 3 acres
All Other Dwelling Units $500. 00/dwelling unit
,•� The City Council, upon review and recommendation of the Park
and Recreation Commission shall annually determine by
resolution the park and dedication fee per residential unit.
If, at the option of the City Council it is determined that
a cash dedication shall be made, said cash shall be placed in
a special fund for Parks and Recreation use and deposited by
the developer with the City prior to final plat approval.
170. 067 COMBINATION OF LP.ND DEDICATION AND CASH PAYMENT
In appropriate plats, a combination of land and cash may be
required by the City Council. In the event a combination of
land and cash is required, the amount of land to be dedicated
shall be credited against the total park dedication
requirement and the remaining cash contribution shall be based
on the greater of the specified cash contribution per dwelling
unit or the fair market value of the land. When determining
the cash contribution for the remaining acreage, the overall
density of the plat shall be the basis for determining the
potential number of dwelling units per acre.
4
170. 068 SCENIC EASEMENTS
In appropriate plats, as determined by agreement between the
City Council and the subdivider, the subdivider may dedicate
to the public a scenic easement in combination with the
requirements of Sections 170. 062 and 170. 063 above or, if the
subdivider and City Council agree, the scenic easement
dedication may be in lieu of up to 25% of the requirements in
Sections 170. 062 and 170. 063 above.
170. 069 REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
Subdividers shall be responsible for making certain
improvements to the parkland they dedicate within their
development for park, playground and public open space
purposes as follows:
A. Provide finish grading and turf establishment for all
park, playground, trail and public open spaces and
provide-. landscape screening in accordance with City
Policy.
B. Complete, construct and pave trails which are identified
in the City' s Trail Corridor Plan in accordance with City
Standards concurrently with the roads in their
developments (i.e. , grading with site grading and paving
with street or parking lot paving) . Park dedication
credit will be given for right-of-way connecting these
trails to existing or proposed trails identified in the
City' s Trail Corridor Plan as well as for construction
of the trail(s) and associated improvements.
C. Complete, construct, and pave walkways which may be
required as a trail link connector in accordance with
City Standards. Such walkways may be within or abutting
residential street right-of-ways. No park dedication
credit will be given for these connecting links or
construction thereof.
D. Establish park boundary corners for the purpose of
erecting park limit signs. The developer shall cont-act-
the appropriate Parks and Recreation Department personnel
for the purpose of identifying park property corners.
E. Provide sufficient public road access of no less than 300
feet for neighborhood parks, and additional frontage for
community parks.
F. Where improvements are to be made, the subdivider shall
submit a site, grading and landscape plan prepared by a
registered engineer or landscape architect to the City
for approval during the preliminary plat process.
5
170. 069a EXCEPTION TO REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
No subdivider shall be required to construct or make
improvements on the Mississippi River Corridor Trail.
170. 070 AGREEMENT AS TO DEDICATION
Agreements as to the requirements in Sections 170. 061 through
170. 069 above shall be made prior to preliminary plat
approval. Failure of the City Council and subdivider to reach
agreement regarding the matters in Sections 170. 061 through
170. 069 above shall constitute denial of the preliminary plat.
170. 071 EXCEPTIONS
In the case of a request to divide a lot which is a part of
a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of
a parcel of land to an abutting lot which does not create a
new buildable lot, the subdivider shall be exempt from
complying with any procedural requirements of this ordinance.
170. 072 APPLICATION TO MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
In the event of a minor subdivision, the provisions of this
Chapter shall apply to the new lots being created rather than
the gross area being subdivided.
170. 073 APPLICATION TO RESUBDIVISION
A. In the event of a resubdivision of a parcel for which
park dedication requirements have previously been met,
no additional park dedication requirements shall be
imposed as a result of the resubdivision providing the
overall density of development of the parcel remains the
same as the density allowed under the zoning in effect
at the time of the initial subdivision.
B. In the event that park dedication requirements were met
through the use of a fee per dwelling unit or based on
the value of the improvement, additional park dedication
shall be made for each new lot created under
resubdivision.
The park dedication fee shall be based on the specified
contribution per dwelling unit for residential properties
resulting from the resubdivision.
6
SECTION 2 . REPEAL
r-� Section 170. 06 of the Ramsey City Council entitled Dedication of Parks
and Open Spaces adopted by Ordinance 83-13 , 88-4 , and 88-15 are hereby
repealed only to the extent that it is not applicable to subdivisions
filed with the City for approval after the effective date of this
Ordinance. Ordinances 83-13 , 88-4 , and 88-15 shall remain in effect
for all plats filed after the effective date of said Ordinance 83-13 ,
88-4 , and 88-15 and prior to the effective date of Ordinance 89-
SECTION 3 . EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance becomes effective upon its passage and thirty (30) days
after its publication according to law, subject to City Charter
Provision, Section 5. 04 .
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Ramsey, Minnesota the
22nd day of August 1989.
Gary R. Reimann
ATTEST: Mayor
David R. Hartley
City Administrator/Clerk
Introduction Date: June 27, 1989
Posting Dates: June 27, 1989 - August 22, 1989
Adoption Date: _ August 22, 1989
Publication Date: September 1 , 1989
Effective Date: October 1, 1989
7
B7,L9 APPLE VALLEY CODE APPENDIX B—SUBDIVISIONS §B1-21
;i) That the subdivision has been properly oriented for possi- to the city. Such payment shall be based upon a formula
ble solar energy system use within the subdivision or as it established by the city council in effect at the time of
relates to adjacent property. approval of the final plat.
(j) That the design of the subdivision is compatible and con- (3) Dedication credits for construction. Dedication credit shall
sistent with the platting or approved preliminary plat on not be granted for the construction of recreational facili-
adjacent lands. (Ord. No. 293, § 1, 4-21-83) ties unless a specific agreement granting credit is approved
by the city council.
Sec. 131-20. Platting additions. (4) Dedication of ponding areas.
(a) Prior to granting final plat approval, the city council may (i) Ponding areas, needed as a part of the overall city
permit or require the plat to be divided into two (2) or more storm drainage plan, shall be dedicated as land or
additions or may impose such conditions upon the filing of the easement at the option of the city and as accepted by
additions as it may deem necessary to ensure the orderly devel- the city. However, no credit shall be given for park
opment of the plat.
dedication unless said area meets the criteria for pub-
(b) The city may also require the developer to plat all areas not lic parks as stated in the city's park dedication resolu-
developed at the time of platting the first addition into outlots tion and is approved by the city council. Said dedica-
and the city may require all streets therein to be dedicated at the tion of land or easement shall be in a form approved
time the final plat is approved for the first addition in order to by the city council. '
ensure continuity of a public street system. (Ord. No. 293, § 1, (ii) Owners or subdividers shall be required, as a prereq-
4-21-83) uisite to approval of a plat or subdivision, to dedicate,
as land or easement for ponding,a minimum of five(5)
Sec. B1-21. Public uses. percent of the area to be platted or subdivided. In the
(a) Designation on preliminary plat alternative, the city council may require a cash dona-
tion for use in acquisition of ponding areas. Such pay-
(1) Where a proposed park, trailway, ponding, or open space ment shall be based upon a formula established by the
area, shown on the city's comprehensive guide plan, park city council in effect at the time of approval of the
development guide, comprehensive storm sewer plan or final plat.
official map, is located in the whole or in part in a subdivi- (5) Land in excess of dedication requirements. Where land
sion, such area or areas shall be shown on the preliminary proposed for public use exceeds the percentage normally
plat. Such area or areas shall also be dedicated to the city required by the city and the subdivider will not dedicate
by the subdivider if the city council requests such dedica- the additional amount, the city council shall have six (6)
tion under the provisions of paragraphs below.
months from the date of initial consideration by the city
(2) Park land dedication. Said dedicated land shall be in an council to proceed and purchase said additional amount.
amount determined to be reasonable by the city council. Where a purchase is not initiated within said six(6)months,
Said land must be suitable and acceptable for said use(s), the plat shall be revised to permit another use and the
as determined by the city council. In lieu of the conveyance processing of the plat shall continue.
of dedicated land as provided above, the owner or subdi
subdi-
vider may, at the option of the city, pay to the city, for use (6) Land dedication; commercial, industrial and other
visions.
in acquisition and development of parks, a cash payment
Supp.No.3 1484 Supp.No.3 1485
1, l
§ B1-21 APPLE VALLEY CODE APPENDIX B—SUBDIVISIONS §B1-22
(i) The city shall require park or public land dedication grass by weight and a minimum of ninety (90) percent of
in commercial, industrial or other nonresidential sub- permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight. All
divisions where deemed necessary to fulfill a demon- seed shall have been tested for germination within one
strated need. In those instances where the city council year of the date of seeding and the date of testing shall be
deems it is in the public interest to require park dedi- on the label containing the seed analysis.Between October
cations from such subdivisions, it may require dedica- 1 and March 15, and between May 15 and August 15, the
tion of an amount of land equal in value to five (5) applicant shall submit an agreement in writing signed by
percent of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdi- the developer that respreading of soil and seeding of lawn
vided. Said dedicated lands shall be reserved for pub- will be done during the immediate following planting sea-
lic use as parks, bus stops, playgrounds, public open son as set forth in this section and provide a performance
space, or any combination thereof. bond to guarantee said seeding. Said condition shall also
(ii) As an alternative, the city may require the subdivider be in accordance with the city's resolution on condition of
to contribute an amount in cash equivalent to the acceptance of public parks in Apple Valley.
value of the land required to be dedicated by this (b) Title and survey requirements.
section. Cash donations shall be used only for the ac-
quisition or development of land for parks or playgrounds. (1) Lands so dedicated shall be accompanied by a certificate of
(7) Timing of park dedication. If a new subdivision is designed survey or shall be designated as a lot or outlot on the plat
to be platted into more than one addition, all park and as determined by the city.
other public use lands contemplated under this section in (2) Further, such lands shall be free and clear of all liens and
the total subdivision area, except streets, alleys or ease- encumbrances including special assessments as evidenced
ments other than those leading directly to such sites, shall by an up-to-date abstract of title or registered property
be dedicated by the time of approval of the final plat for abstract to be submitted at developer's cost to the city for
the first addition unless otherwise approved by the city its examination.
council. All other lands contemplated to be dedicated under (3) Such dedication shall be in the form and manner as pre-
this subdivision shall be dedicated by the time of final plat scribed by the city attorney. (Ord. No. 293, § 1, 4-21-83)
approval by the city council.
(8) Condition of areas to be dedicated. Areas to be dedicated Sec. B1-22. Landlocked parcels.
for public park, trail, or ponding shall be brought to a As a general rule, the city shall not permit landlocked parcels
suitable condition by the subdivider prior to acceptance by or parcels that are only served by private easements. However
the city. All dead trees, trash, junk, unwanted structures the city may permit the following:
or similar undesirable elements shall be removed by the
owner at his expense. On grades or exposed areas which (a) Landlocked parcels in a multiple dwelling or commercial
are not sodded, lawn grass seed shall be sown at not less complex provided said parcel(s) have access to a public
than four (4) pounds to each one thousand (1,000) square street by an easement over another parcel within the same
feet of land area. In the spring, the seed shall be sown multiple dwelling or commercial complex.
between March 15 and May 15; and in the fall, the seed (b) Landlocked parcels which are unbuildable (outlots) and
shall be sown between August 15 and September 30. The reserved as permanent public open spaces such as ponding
seed shall consist of a maximum of ten (10) percent rye areas may be permitted. A scenic easement may be re-
Supp.No.3 1486 Supp.No.3 1487
t
C flly
11=4-5
1 t-4--5: EASEMENTS:
t
(A) Width and Locatst.n: An easement for utilities at least ten feet ON wide
shall be provided along the front lot lines, Easements along side and rear lot
lines shall be five feet (a'1 in width on each side of the lot line. If necessary
for the extension of main water or sewer lines or similar utilities, easements
of greater width may be required along lot lines or across lots.
(B) Continuous Utility Easement Locations: Utility easements shall connect with
easements established in adjoining properties. These easements when
approved, shall not thereafter be changed without the approval of the City
Council after a public hearing.
(C) Guy Wires: Additional easements for pole guys should be provided, where
appropriate, at the outside of turns, where possible, lot lines shall be
arranged to bisect the exterior ang'a so that pole guys will fall along side lot
lines.
11-4 STORM DRAINAGE: All subdivision design shall incorporat%
adequate provisions for storm water runoff consistent with L
Burnsville Drainage Plan, as amended, and be subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
11-4-7: PROTECTED AREAS: Where land proposed for subdivision isdeemed
environmentally sensiti�a by the City, due to the existence of
wetlands, drai .Jge ways, watercourses, f )odable areas, steep slopes or other
environmental features, the design of said subdivision shall clearly reflect all
necessary measure of protection to insure against adverse environmental impact, in
accordance with the provisions of Title 10, Chapter 8, of the Burnsville City Code.
? 11-4--8. DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE:
(A) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 1971, section 462.358, subdivision 2, as
amended in chapter 176 Minnesota laws, 1973, the Ciry Council of the City
shall require all developers requesting platting or replatting in cases where no
previous dedication has been made, or the development of unplatted land in
the City to contribute lands, in the amounts listed below, to be dedicated to
L public for Poheir use as either parks, playground, public open space, trail
C ITT !J,,_
98
11-4-8 11--4$
�,. A) systems, water ponding, public lands or to contribute an equivalent amount
of cash, based upon the conditions outlined below. The form of
�^ contribution (cash or land, or any combination of) shall be decided by the
City Council based upon need and conformance with approved City plans.
(B) All monies collected from cash contributions shall be placed in a special fund
from which only those public uses, as listed in subsection (A) of this Section
may be' constructed or improved, or land for those same uses may be
acquired. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land and
development of the land for park use. Cash contributions shall be due prior
to the issuance of the first building permit in the subdivision.
(C) Where a proposed park, playground or other recreational areas, proposed
school site or other public ground that has been indidated in the official map
and/or master plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed
subdivision, such proposed public site shall be designated as such and should
be dedicated to the City, school district or other proper governmental unit.
If the subdivider chooses not to dedicate an area in excess of the land
required under this Section hereof for such proposed public site, the Council
shall not be required to act to approve or disapprove the plat of the
subdivision for a period of ninety (90) days after the subdivider meets all the.
provisions of the Subdivision Title in order to permit the Council, school
board or other appropriate governmental unit to consider the proposed plat
and to take the necessary steps to acquire, through purchase or
condemnation all or part of the public site proposed under the official map
or master plan.
(D) In such cases where the developer is required to dedicate land area, the City
Council shall have the right to determine the geographic location and
configuration of said dedication.
(E) dedication Formula: The dedication formula for residential land shall be
based on the national standard of providing ten (10) acres of parks and open
spaces per one thousand (1000) population and residential subdivisions shall
be computed on the proposed number of dwelling units in a project and
the average population for dwelling unit type as established by the
Metropolitan Council. The dedication formula for commercial and industrial
district development shall be five percent (5%) of the gross land area. Where
the City Council elects to take cash in lieu of land, such contribution shall
be based upon land dedication requirement multiplied by the average cost
per acre by zoning district as established from time to time by the City
Council.
983
11 -8 11,4-9
(F) In no case shall dedication of lands for public uses as listed in subsection (A)
of this Section restrict or limit proposed density or floor area coverage where
proposed plans are found to be in total compliance with this Code.
(G) In residential subdivisions where active parr and recreational facilities are
proposed (specifically designated on development plans) for either public or
private use, and where a cash contribution or combination dedication is
required, the City Council may waive up to two percent (2%) of the
dedication requirements as listed in subsection (E) of this Section.
(H) Wetlands, ponding areas and drainage ways accepted by the City shall not be
considered in the open space land and/or cash contribution to the City.
11-4-9: MINIMUM DESIGN FEATURES: The design features set forth in
this Chapter are minimum requirements. in keeping with the spirit
and intent of this Title, the City may impose additional or more stringent
requirements or safeguards concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed
appropriate considering the property being subdivided. (Ord. 250, 2-22.83)
983
C •1 �
r
D E M A N D F O R M U L A
F O R P A R R D B D I C A T Z O N
(RERDENT AL Z0:1T-NG)
L A N D D E D I C A T I O N
Proposed. .Pro�- ec' x Average Pop_ - Project
Criit, Count per unit Population-
.
Project _ 1.f1f�0!Pop. x 10 Acres = Tota1 z,a_nd
PO-Ulation i 110 acresj3000 Pop. ) (Nat'l Park Dedication
- Standard) Required
C A S H E Q U I V A L E N T
Land � x Average Cost Park
Dedication, per Acre Dedication_
Requirement (by Zoning Dist_) Funds Due _
1989
BURNSVILLE
POPULATION PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT
Structure Total Total People Average
Category Population Units Per Unit 2.65
1 Unit 24, 133 6,591 3. 66
2. Unit 362 109 3.32
(duplex)
3 & 4 367 169 2.17
5 or more
Unit Bldg. 6, 657 3,535 1.88
Mobile Hoene 1,424 571 2.49
990 &VERAGE LAND COSTS EER ACRE FOR pME DEDICATION FO
ZONING DISTRICT AVERAGE VALUE
R-IA $ 7,500
R-1 $12,500
R-2 $14,000
R-3A $22,500
R-3B $32,500
Commercial $55,000
Industrial $25,000
CITY OF EAGAN
PARK DEDICATION POLICY
POLICY ADOPTING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR
DETERMINING THAT PORTION OF LAND BEING PLATTED,
SUBDIVIDED OR DEVELOPED WHICH IS TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO
THE CITY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION, ALL
AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 1310 OF THE CITY CODE.
1. PURPOSE:
The City Council recognizes it is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of
Eagan and persons working in Eagan, that the character and quality of the environment be
considered to be of major importance in the planning and development of the City. In this
regard the manner in which land is developed and used is of high priority. The preservation
of land for park, playground and public open space purposes as it relates to the use and
development of land for residential, commercial/industrial purposes is essential to the
maintaining of a healthful and desirable environment for all citizens of the City. The City must
not only provide these necessary amenities for our citizens today, but also be insightful to the
needs of our future citizens.
It is recognized by the City Council that the demand for park, playground and public open
space within a municipality is directly related to the density and intensity of development
permitted ad allowed within any given area. Urban type developments mean greater numbers
of people and higher demands for park, playground and public open space. To disregard this
principle is to inevitably over-tax existing facilities and thus, diminish the quality of the
environment for all.
The City's Park Systems Plan Study has established minimum community criteria for meeting
the needs of the residents of Eagan. In order to meet the community needs for parks and open
space,15 acres of park shall be required for each 1,000 residents, of which 12 acres shall be
designated as neighborhood parks.
This shall be the standard upon which the City shall establish its parkland and parks cash
dedication.
It is the policy of Eat,n that the following standards and guidelines for the dedication of land
for park, playground, and public open space purposes (or cash contributions in lieu of such
dedication) in the subdividing and developing of land within the City shall be directly related
to the density and intensity of each subdivision and development.
1
2. RESEAL PARKtD DEDICATION
The amount of land to be dedicated by a developer shall be based on the gross area of the
proposed subdivision, proposed type of dwelling unit and density. Census data for 1985 of 3.5
residents for single family, 2.8 for duplex, 2.1 for townhouse/quad. and 1.9 for apartments has
been used as density standards for formulating calculations in meeting the criteria of park needs
of Eagan residents.
The formula for land dedication:
The greater of 1) proposed units per acre or 2) zoned density.
DWELLING UNITS LAND- TO BE DEDICATED
0 - 1.9 units per acre 8%
1.9 - 3.5 units per acre 10%
3.5 - 5.9 units per acre 12%
6 - 10 units per acre 14%
10 + units per acre Add .5% for each unit over 10
3. STANDARDS FOR ACCEPTING DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES
A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes shall meet identified needs of the
City as contained in the Park Systems Plan and Comprehensive Guide Plan.
B. Prior to dedication for public purpose, the subdivider shall deliver to the City Attorney,
an abstract of title or registered property abstract for such dedication. Such title shall vest
in the City good and marketable title, free and clear of any mortgages, liens,
encumbrances, assessments and taxes. The conveyance documents shall be in such form
acceptable to the City.
C. The required dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication shall be made
at time of final plat approval.
D. The removal of trees, topsoil, storage of construction equipment, burying of construction
debris, or stockpiling of surplus soil is strictly forbidden without the written approval of
the Director of Parks and Recreation.
E. Grading and utility plans, which may affect or impact the proposed park dedication, shall
be reviewed and approved by the Parks ad Recreation Director prior to dedication, or
at such time as is reasonably determined.
F. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of
drainways, flood plains or ponding areas after the site has been developed. Grades
exceeding 12% or are unsuitable for parks development shall be considered for partial
dedication.
2
Where ponding has been determined to have a park function, credit will be given at.,a
rate of 50% of the pond and adjoining land area below the high water level; a minimum
of 70% of land above the high water mark shall be dedicated before pond credit is
granted. Other City park dedication policies relating to pond dedication must also be
complied with.
In those cases where subdividers and developers of land provide significant amenities
such as, but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, handball courts, ball fields, etc,
within the development for the benefit of those residing or working therein, and where,
in the judgment of the Director of Parks and Recreation, such amenities significantly
reduce the demands for public recreational facilities to serve the development, the
Director may recommend to the Advisory Parks and Recreation Commission that the
amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground and public open space (or cash
contributions in lieu of such dedication) be reduced by an amount not to exceed 25%
of the amount calculated under paragraph 2 above.
G. The City, upon review, may determine that the developer shall create and maintain some
form of on-site recreation use by the site residents such as tot lots and open place space.
This requirement may be in addition to the land or cash dedication requirement.
4. CASH I?FDICATIUN
If, at the option of the City, it is determined that a cash dedication shall be made, said cash
shall be placed in a special fund for Parks and Recreation use and deposited by the developer
with the City prior to final plat approval.
The City Council, upon review and recommendation of the Advisory Parks and Recreation
Commission, shall annually determine by resolution the park cash dedication fee per residential
unit. Said fee shall be determined by the average market value of undeveloped residential
property by zoning classification, served by major City utilities, divided by the number of units
per acre which shall provide the equivalency of twelve acres per thousand population.
Said cash dedication, effective January 1, 1990 shall be:
Cash Equivalent
Units Per Per Residential
Housing Type Averagg Market Value 100 Population Unit
Single Family $16,000 per acre 28 $685.00
Duplex $17,500 per acre 35 600.00
Townhouse/Quad $21,000 per acre 47 535.00
Apts/Multiple $23,500 per acre 52 540.00
Cash dedication shall be determined/computed at the rate in effect at the time of final plat.
3
S. INDUSTIIAISOMMERCIAL DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
Subdividers and developers of commercial/industrial land,including commercial/industrial
,-� portions of Planned Developments, shall be required at the time the site plan is
approved and building permits are issued to dedicate to the City for park, playground
and public open space purposes, an amount of land up to 7.5% of the net land area
within the development as determined by the City.
In those cases where the City does not require park or open space within such
developments, the City shall require payment of fees in lieu of such land dedication in
an amount equal to $.055 per square foot of net land area, or such amount as
determined by the City Council. Cash shall be contributed at the time of approval of
each final plat or at the time of site plan or building permit approval, as determined
by the City. The fee dedication requirement for all commercial/industrial plats which
have received site plan approval prior to January 1, 1983, but have not been issued
building permit approval from the City, shall be in an amount equal to $.025 per sq.
ft. of net land which shall be contributed at the time of building permit approval.
A credit of up to 25% of the required dedication may be allowed by the City Council
for on-site storm sewer, water, ponding and settling basins provided that such
improvements benefit identifiable park and recreation water resources.
The City Council, upon review and recommendation of the Advisory Parks and
.-� Recreation Commission, may annually review and determine by resolution, an
adjustment to the industrial/commercial fee based upon the City's estimate of the
average value of undeveloped commercial/industrial land in the City.
6. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS
Developers shall be responsible for making certain improvements to their developments
for park, playground and public open space purposes as follows:
A. Provide finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail and
public open spaces within their development as part of their development
contract or site plan approval responsibilities. Landscape screening shall be in
accordance with City Policy.
B. Establish park boundary corners for the purpose of erecting park limit signs.
The developer shall contact the appropriate Parks and Recreation Department
personnel for the purpose of identifying park property corners.
C. Provide sufficient public road access of no less than 300 feet for neighborhood
parks and additional frontage for community parks.
ro
4
i
7. Aj=QRTTY
The State of Minnesota has recognized the importance of providing for parks and open
space in M.S.A. 462.358, Subdivision 2 (b) which clearly gives the right to cities in it's
subdivisions regulations to require reasonable portions for public use. The City of
Eagan has, by this dedication policy, chosen to exercise this right in establishing
minimum requirements for meeting the public needs.
1990
5
•. II^I_C.J-177CJ KJQ•QK1 I I\QI 1 Li 1 1 VI n111J4.J.'LI`-. V �V���r r •Vi
1
t
AL
rX of ANDOVER
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Date: Jr.2S-9a
To., 4 4U.M
Company: Line laKes
w
Fax Number: ( ) - YGy - y C4>@
From: 7-odA 14cL4.5
Company: City of Andover
Fax Number: ( 612 ) - 755 - 8923
Number of Pages ( including this transmittal form)
Comments: 44'kru.,
r„ - Qv. � , . ►s ...1 � .
woo•+ 1e r p v i ew ti%G V&4-e
.tv�G a lLwa 4r p aeK Aa di owkbn.
If all pages were not received or if there are question.,
regarding this information, please call the person listed
above at (612 )-755-5100.
f`IHT—G�-"177YJ rJo•rara rr�ui-i :i i i ui niiuUvu. , .: ._—a .--
h. Natural Features. In the subdividing of land, regard
shall be shown for all natural features, including tree growth,
water courses, historic places and similar amenities of the area,
which if preserved will add attractiveness and stability to the
area.
i . Lot Remnants . Lot remnants which are below minimum lot
area or dimension must be added to adjacent or surrounding lots
rather than be allowed to remain as an unusable outlot or parcel .
9 . 07 Parks, Playgrounds, Open Space and Public Usel . ( 10A,
9-13-74 )
9 .07 .1 Lands of Public Use or Other Provisions. Pursuant to
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462 . 358 , as amended, the City Council
of the City of Andover shall require all owners or developers, as
a prerequisite to approval of a plat, subdivision or development
of land, to convey to the City or dedicate to the public use , for
park or playground purposes, a reasonable portion of the area
being platted, subdivided or developed as hereinafter specified.
Said portion to be approved and acceptable to the City or in lieu
thereof, the owners or developers shall, at the option of the
City, pay to the City for the use in the acquisition of public
parks, open space and playgrounds, development of existing public
park and playground sites, and debt retirement in connection with
n land previously required for public parks and playgrounds, an
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. The form of contribution ( cash or land) shall be
decided by the City based upon need and conformance with approved
City plans .
9 . 07 .2 Dedicated Land Requirements . Any land to be dedicated
as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for
use for active park and recreation purposes and shall be at a
location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used in
evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas
shall include size, shape, topography, geology, tree cover , access
and location.
9.07 . 3 Standards for Determination. The Park and Recreation
Commission shall recommend to the City Council adoption of the
Comprehensive Park Development Plan for determining what portion
of each such development should reasonably be required to be so
conveyed or dedicated. Such Comprehensive Park Development Plan
may take into consideration the zoning classification assigned to
the land to be developed, the particular proposed use for such
land, amenities to be provided and factors of density and site
development as proposed by the owners or developers . The Park and
Recreation Commission shall further recommend changes and
amendments to the Comprehensive Park Development Plan to reflect
changes in the usage of land which may occur , changes in zoning
classifications and concepts and changes in planning ane
development concepts that relate to the development and usages to
which the land may be put.
Page 15
MAY-25-1990 08:Ul F-KUM [ 1 I 'f Ut- HNLJUVtK l u tio4ti goo ��
9 .07 . 4 park and Recreation Commission Recommendation. The
Park and Recreation Commission shall , in each case, recommend to
the City Council the total area and location of such land that the
Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the
development for park, playground, open space and public use
purposes .
9 .07 . 5 Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands . In those
instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the owners or
developers in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land for park,
playground, open space or public use purposes, the Park and
Recreation Commission shall recommend to the City Council the
amount of cash said Commission feels should be so contributed.
Such recommendation shall be based on the market value of the
undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or
dedicated.
9 . 07 .6 Market Value of Lands. "Market Value" , for the
purposes of this Ordinance shall be determined as of the time of
the final plat without improvements in accordance with the
following:
a. The Park and Recreation Commission and owners or
developers may recommend as to market value.
b. The City Council , after reviewing the Park and Recreation
r-� Commission' s recommendation, may agree with the owner or
developer as to the market value. if agreement is not
reached in this manner, then the market value shall be
determined by an accredited appraiser chosen by the Park
and Recreation Commission, at the expense of the owner or
developer. Such appraisal shall be accepted by the City
Council and the owner or developer as being an accurate
appraisal of "market value" . ( 10N, 3-07-89 )
9 .07 .7 Density and Open Space Requirements. Land area so
conveyed or dedicated for park, open space and playground purposes
may not be used by an owner or developer as an allowance for
purposes of calculating the density requirements of the
development as set out in the City Zoning Ordinance. The land
shall be in addition to, (except for 9 . 07 .8 ) , and not in lieu of,
open space requirements for Planned Unit Developments pursuant to
the City Zoning Ordinance.
9 . 07 .8 Credit for Private Open Space. Where private open
space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed
non-residential development and such space is to be privately
owned and maintained by the owner of that non-residential
development, such areas may be used for credit at the discretion
of the City Council against the requirement of dedication for park
and recreation purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in
the public interest to do so and that the following standards are
�0'*N
met:
Page 1 .
MAY-25-199a 08:U1 rl-�Um �.iiY Ur HNLUVLM lu wo4��oo r,vti
a. That yards, court areas, setbacks and open space required
to be maintained by City Ordinances shall not be included
in the computation of such private open space;
b. That the private ownership and maintenance of the open
space is adequately provided for by written agreement;
c. That the private open space is restricted for park and
recreation purpose by recorded covenants which run with
the land in favor of the owners of the property within the
non-residential development and which cannot be eliminated
without the consent of the City council ;
d. That the proposed private open space is reasonably
adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes,
taking into consideration such factors as size, shape,
topography, geology, access and location of the private
open space;
e . That facilities proposed for the open space are in
substantial accordance with the provisions of the
recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan, and are
approved by the City Council and;
f. That where such credit is granted, the amount of credit
shall not exceed one hundred ( 100% ) percent for the non-
residential development of the amount calculated under
Section 9. 07 . 10 .
9 . 07 .9 Park and Recreation Commission Administrative
Procedures. The Park and Recreation Commission shall establish
such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary and
required to implement the provisions of this Ordinance .
9 . 07 .10 Dedicated Land, Minimum Area. Developers of land
within the City of Andover shall be required to dedicate to the
City for park, open space and playground purposes as a minimum
that percentage of gross land area as set out below:
a. Residential Requirement
Dwelling Units/Acre
(Gross Density)
0 - 3 10%
over 3 Add two ( 2% ) percent to
dedication requirements
for each additional
dwelling unit over three
( 3 ) units per gross
density.
b. Commercial-Industrial 10%
( 10D, 8-07-79)
Page 17
9 . 07 .11 Metes and Bounds Lot Splits. The Park and Recreation
Commission may recommend cash payment in lieu of park land on
metes and bounds lot splits less than twenty ( 20 a. ) acres in
size. The amount shall be determined through the same process
outlined in Section 9 . 07 . 05. ( 10P, 12-19-89 )
SECTION 10. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS.
10 . 01 General Conditions. Upon receipt of preliminary plat
approval by the Council and prior to Council approval of the final
plat, the subdivider shall make provision, in the manner
hereinafter set forth, for the installation, at the sole expense
of the subdivider, of such improvements as shall be required by
the City, which improvements may include, but are not limited to,
streets, sidewalks, public water systems, sanitary sewer systems,
surface and storm drainage systems, and public utility services.
The installation of said improvements shall be in conformity with
approved construction plans and specifications and all applicable
standards and Ordinances.
10. 02 Performance Contract. Prior to the installation of any
required improvements and prior to approval of the final plat, the
subdivider shall enter into a contract with the City which
contract shall require the subdivider to construct said
improvements at the sole expense of the subdivider and in
accordance with approved construction plans and specifications and
all applicable standards and Ordinances. Said contract shall
provide for the supervision of construction by the Engineer ; and
said contract shall require that the City be reimbursed for all
costs incurred by the City for engineering and legal fees and
other expenses in connection with the making of such improvements.
The performance of said contract shall be financially secured by a
cash escrow deposit or performance bond as hereinafter set forth.
10.03 Financial Security. The performance contract shall
require the subdivider to make a cash escrow deposit or in lieu
thereof to furnish a performance bond in the following amounts and
upon the following conditions:
a. Escrow Deposit. The subdivider shall deposit with the
Treasurer a cash amount equal to one hundred fifty ( 150%) percent
of the total cost of such improvements as estimated by the
Engineer , including the estimated expenses of the City for
engineering and legal fees and other expenses incurred by the City
in connection with the making of such improvements . ( 10A, 9-10-
74 )
b. performance Bond. in lieu of a cash escrow deposit, the
subdivider may furnish a performance bond, with a corporate surety
satisfactory to the City in a sum equal to one hundred fifty
( 150% ) percent of the total cost of such improvements as estimated
by the Engineer , including the estimated expense of the City for
engineering and legal fees and other expenses incurred by the City
in connection with the making of such improvements. ( 10A, 9-10-
^� 74)
Page 18
TOTAL P.05
w vt:
FACSIMILE REQUEST FORM
SENT TO: �p
OFFICE:
FAX NUMBER: � r0
FROM.- l
DEPARTMENT
Dom:
TIME:
SUBJECT:
NUMBER OF ,f
PAGES 1�
Return original copies to sender? Circle one: yes NO
Additional Comments/Instructions:
If you do not receive all of the pages, please ' L us as soon as
possible for retransmission (612-469-4431)
FAX
City of Lakeville
20195 Holyoke Avenue West • P 0. Box 957 • Lakeville, MN 55044 . (612)469-4431 . FAX 469 3815
ORDIR NCE No. 340
cat of LAB
wom Cmviy, Mnomsm
AN CMnMNCE AMMMI IG TSTiE 10, CM2 4
OF ME LAMtr = CITY CODE C CKCIRUM
OLSK DMIA=CNS AIM MAIM IEAICATICU -NIS FM PAMS
r2m City Cout=il of Le3Ceville, Minnesota ardains:
Sectiart 1. Title 10, Chapter 4, Section a, of the Lakesl1e City Code
z anted to read as follows:
10-4-8: PARK LAND DMIC ATION RF7QQIREMENl5:
A. As a prerequisite to subdivision approval w:ithi.xt the 2olo thimn service
Area, subdividers shall dedicate land for par1m, pIaygtoun s, public
open spasms and trails and/or shall malm a cash amp- ibut;cii to the
City's Park Fund and Trail Fund as prsd by this section.
B. Tad to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use
and shall be at a location. =mnient to the people to be served.
Factors used in evaluatinj the adequacy of proposed park and recreation
axis shall include size, shape, tQpoc aphy, geology, logye tree
caner, acx ss and location. Topography that exceeds 12% slopes shal 1.
not receive credits unless approved by the City Com cil.
n C. The Park and Recreation Advisory co=i ttee shall reramend to the City
Cacnzcil the land dedication and CSC sb =tributim requirements .i.-
proposed subdivisions_
D- C ranges in density of plats shall be reviewed by the Parks and Racre-
ation Cc ittee for reconsideration of park dedication and, cash i
buti m rec�zir� nts.
E. WaEm a proposed park, playground, tecreation area, school site or tether
public gr=xxi has been indicated in the City's official map or c pre-
hensive plan and is located in whole or in part within a proposed plat
it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be dedicated to
the Tr prrmr;a goVe,-neti rtal unit. If the subdivider elects not to
dedicate an area in excess of the land required heretnxler for such
proposed public site, the City may acrosicier acquiring the site tbrouga
rxuxhase or condemnation.
F. Land area =weyed or dedicated to the City shall not,be used in calcu-
lating lating density regArments of the City Zoning Ord=ars - and shall be
in addition to and wt in lien, of open space regu i nts for planned
unit developments.
S. W-iere private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided
�.n a proposed sWx vision, such areas may be used for credit, at the
lisr - - an of the City Coil, against the requirement of dedication
.,01 f- ..x _ nd recreation purp► as, provided the city council finds it is
public i nt-c-vist to do so.
F. The City, upon consideration of the parting?ter type of development, may
req=e larger or lesser parcels of ].and to be dedicated if the City
deteimines that present or future ras'id r&s wwld requiregates or
lesser land for park and p3.aygxrxud per. in addition, tbp- City
C==il may also requires lots within the subdivision be held in escrow
for fixture sale or developoent. The moseys derived from the sale of
es=owed lots will be ussi to develop yr to purcbase park land in the
fab=e. (Ord. 120, sec. 1,6-19-78)
1. 7n resie3 n-ia1 plats v6eie a land dedication is rewired, the following
formula will be used to t irtQg-R!l ie the park land dedicaticn:
- UN.ITS PER ACRE ralvn DIDICATICK P�
0 W 2-5 lot
2.5+ - 4 11%
4.+ - 6 13%
6.+ 8 M
8.-+- - 10 17%
10.+ 17-20%
In vial or in1istrial plats where a lanai dedication is required
the follow fb=wla w3-U be used to d tP*^mnxi the park lard
de dic ticn.
lot of the gig area of land beincj platted.
J. In lieu of a park land donation the City may require the following cash
dmaticns:
Single tw ly dwelling units $550.00 per dwelling unit
fit=fg++i 3 y dwelling units $550.00 per dwelling unit
Cacme*cil / ib&mtrsai $2,500.00 per acre
in lieu of a trail land dcnzation, the City may reC nxe the follaaing
cash dcmtion for the -abonsive mint'- pedestrian trail.
For each dwelting unit $150.00
K. 'Ze City may eleot to receive a c®bittion of cash, land and develop-
ment of the land for park use- The fair market value of the I nd the
City wants and the value of the development of the land shaL1 be calcu-
lated. That amourrt shall be fram the cash Q
required d by stAsec-t,o J above. Ma shall be ttie cash cx'axi-
butic n �Yt.
L- "Fair market value" shall be dete=Tea as , the time of f;?i*x the
p 3 imiriary plat in ac=rdance witth the follaaing:
I. The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market value,
or
2. The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal submit-
r1 tz- to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense. The
;sal shall be made by a;pz i rs who are aancved mEmbers of the
r MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies.
�I 'UXL BUFU
=E8
allrAmm 90
886T
' u�z2y -;Q AEp —as-f—z sign T? XMDD j4m aTrc&v Z Wq4 Aq peza0pv
Pue abed
S4T IFUdC'l 1LTaga'C t aliT 72 2 ;Sq Ttegs aOtreLr.rpM SY,qL 'Z UO
„' ) P q�fmTeo 3o sasodmid �3 �L
t l+5r )TSE= ;�)q TL L> a-ICYP Wt) P=44--%w q3va uaq, . ,S-W-E
TeUL. ip ll� a4RU= qou snap PIL"[ Tom? TPPe al;4 3T -qVTd eq4 CC4 POW
b«--.q tJL-C TEUaT4TPP2 MT4 zm Pa'2I aq T ew FOP Pcu--L x=d el�
'Micro. ST geTd Pap=o;a dTsmTtmad S144 wTs m PST 3'c ao pasm==
S7 S740T .4o ragMrU a1:4 _ZT uotgZTgVp PST TCe
g :�dmexa aq TTeqs savr ;o aq=ai ��s alp �Tft P&-14VTdax ftx[e' A42adoad -ZS
(8L-6T-9'T-Oes 'OZT 'P20) 'kq-!b
974 o:� uoTqnq=:uco zc>Axm pue,[ %xed aq4 ur paxYgTsi= aq qou
TTegs PTO aq4 Aq pa,�a sxeft abeuTR p put, seaxe buzpod 'sEXMT4am 'cl
quaadoTanap :xo
mi-4*psTrrboe 'bxnweld Azad _zo3 Pasn eq dTuo Ttags Ptm PLxg qxau oT_vsDP
UoTgvaalzma tare axed s,A,4r3 ;V 4 ur PO4'rs=wp aq TC7cp SuaT4rqm-�'= -qs- •p
(£8-L Z 'T 'Oas 'Q2Z -PXO) '14-.M Vq4 Aq
qas aq a qe gsarfi4uT apnTotrr T etls quawRad parCaT.-C -quwOQZbz qusc
dolaeap uq4 u r uocln pa=BF a --=-,q upon x.-q'e•C -e qE .xo Tema gaTc,
T n3 30 ;zmrq aq} qu gmmllad eqq axrr az Aunt 7. eta •Tena�dd2
gaTd T ?3 30 amM4 u44 qE P a'CroT= aq m are suor4rqT_-qi= vw IN
- (8L-61-9`-t Ines 'OZT 'pz0) 'sash snare eqq cq pa4a&sp ptreT go
uoffn peseq uoTgoas srI4 t4T^ aOUVPz000a UT
•PAC -=/Pcre lq� ax= TTeIS SEOSM Pam£ Pwc=. �q4Tri squamffnTeAup PMXPTd _R
L
(08-GE-Z 'T 'CPS '4ST •PzO) 'p�MT Vq4 _4,- eqTP--,. 4Mp= X�M3
3c =WPUB an'csnT== ; LZ wLF- TeSTQ=ld2 'qD:� ' Z a4m4sa
Teax Pam E J&q Aqxedald --74 3o -legimmme ue UTM�cp `*sued zm
P ' ICY ADOPTINu STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR ONETERNINING
t
THAT WIN V LANES BEIRd ISCME5. SUBDI V1. OR
WHICH I- TO EYED OR DEDICATED 0 IC
R F7YGR PURFOSE9 ,
B U E F �
DtDICXTIOW--X-
L7XrPROVIDEDF77
OF THE
Resolution No. 90-115
February 8, 1990
(Supersedes Res. 72-4i, jan. 17, 1972; Res. 73-1450 April 6,
1973; Res. 73-243, duly 2, 1973 Res. 74-51, San. 21, -1974;
Res. 78-292, May 15, 1978; Res. Ao. 78-306, May 229 1978:
Res. No. 79-419, duly 23, 1979; Res. No 79-738, Nov. 5, 1979;
Res. No. 80-344, May 19, 1980; Res. 81-198, March 16, 1981:
Res. 62-44, aan. 150 1982; Res. 83-84, Feb. 70 1983; Res.
64-850 Feb. 61 1964, Res. 85-148, Feb. 25, 1985; Res. 86-89,
Feb. 3, 1986; Res. 86-2751 May 5, 11-56; Res. 87-92, Feb. 2,
1987; Res. 88-69, Oan. 25, 1968; Re-s- 89-65, Ian. 23, 1989,
Res. 89-1299 Feb. 27)
irt. Purposes The City Council recognizes it is essential to the health, safety,
and we are of the residents of Plymouth that the character and quality of
the environment be considered to be of major Importance in the planning and
'velopment of the City. In this regard, the manner in which land is
-eloped and used is of high priority. The preservation of land for park,
iyground, and public open space purposes as it relates to the use
velopment of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes
essential to the maintaining of a healthful and desirable environment for
all citizens of the City. We must not only provide these amenities fo., our
citizens today, we must also be mindful of our future citizens.
It is recognized by the City Council that the demand for park, playground
and public open space within a municipality is directly related to the
density and intensity of development permitted and allowed within any given
area. Urban type developments mean greater numbers of people and higher
demands for park, playground and public open space. To' disregard this
principle is to Inevitably over-tax existing facilities and thus diminish
the quality of the environment for all.
It is the policy- of Plymouth that the following standards and guidelines for
the dedication of land for park, playground, and public open space purposes
(or cash contributions in lieu _of such dedication) in the subdividing and
developing of land within the Citj shall be directly related to the density
and intensity of each subdivision and development.
2. Standards for Accepting Dedication of Land for Public Purposes; In the
consideration of accepting the dedication"of land for public purposes the
following special provisions shall apply:
A. Land proposed to be dedicated for public purposes shall meet identified
needs contained in the City's Comprehensive Park and Trail Corridor
r1 Fl
916*
4 cis - A0
41
(�,'� aabod to N U&owaw 1,041LUSUV )MI pupiq x•!
rV
B. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated to be located
outside of drainways, flood plains or ponding areas after the site has
E been developed. i
C. In those cases where subdividers and developers of land provide signifi-
cant amenities, such as, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis
courts, handball courts, balifields, etc., within the development for
the benefit of those residing or working therein, and where, 'in the
Judgement of the City Manager, such amenities significantly reduce the
demands for public recreational facilities to serve the development, he
may recommend to the City Council that the amount of land to be dedica-
ted for park, playground, and public open space (or cash contributions
In lieu of such dedication) be reduced by an amount not to exceed seven-
teen percent (17%) of the amount calculated above.
D. Exceptions to these provisions shall be reviewed and recommended by the
Park and Recreation Advisory Commission.
3. Residential dedication Requirements: To satisfy park dedication require-
ments, subdividers and dev- opera of residential land shall be required to
dedicate land to the City for park, playground, and public open space, in
accordance with one of the following three criteria, at the option of the
City.
The required land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedica-
tion shall be made at the time of final subdivision approval, except in the
case of multiple residential developments where required site plan approval
n occurs other than at the time of final subdivision approval; In that case
the required land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-liou of land dedica-
tion shall be made at the time the site plan is approved and building per-
mits are issued._
A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement when it is
verified that park dedication requirements have not been applied to the
parcel.
A. The dedication of that amount of land required by the City for park,
playground, and public open space based upon the approved density of the
development in accordance with the graph on attached Exhibit A. The
percentage derived from Exhibit A shall be applied to the area of the
site for which density is calculated.
B. A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication based upon the sum of
$825 per dwelling unit and not less than two dwelling units per acre.
This sum represents the City Assessors periodic estimate of the average
value of undeveloped residential land in the City of Plymouth based on
the assumption that (1) such land develops at two dwelling units per
acre and that (2) the developer is required to dedicate ton percent of
the land for park, playground, and public open space. The City Manager
shall provide the Council, at its first meeting in February each year,
or such other tunes as the Council may direct, with a report from the
City Assessor indicating his estimate of the average value of
undeveloped residential land in the community and a survey of
residential fees in effect in other comparable communities.
-2a.
C. When determined by the City, the developer shall be required to dedicate
a portion of the area in land with the balance to be made in Oees in
lieu of such dedication. In such cases the following procedure All be
used:
/\ f
(1) The City *hall calculate the total amount of land for park area '
which could be required in accordance with this policy. (Item
3.A.)
i
(2) From the total amount of land calculated in (1) above, the City
*hall subtract the actual amount of land the City needs for park,
playground or public open space in the proposed development.
(3) The balance of the park area otherwise required shall be cal =seated
as a percentage of the total park dedication obligation. This
percentage shall be multiplied by the approved project density, net
area for which density is calculated and current per dwelling unit
park dedication fee to yield the total cash park dedication
requirement.
4. Industrial/Commercial Dedication Requirements: Subdividers and developer*
of commercial and Industrial and, Including commercial and industrial
portion* of Mixed planned Unit Developments (WUD's), shall be required at
the time the Site Plan is approved and Building Permits are issued, to
dedicate to the City for park, playground, and public open space purposes
that amount of land equal to ten percent of the land area within the
development upon which the maximum building coverage was calculated in
accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
�. A vacant or developed parcel shall be subject to this requirement whtaIt is
verified that park dedication requirements have not been applied to the
parcel.
In those cases where the City shall require payment of fees in lieu of such
land dedication, the fees shall be in an amount equal to ten percent of e
Assessor's estimated undeveloped land value for such property toned in the
classification requested by the developer; the land used for this
calculation shall be that upon which the maximum building coverage was
calculated in accordance with the .Zoning Ordinance. These values shall be
determined based upon the City Assessor's estimate of the average value of
undeveloped commercial and industrial land in the City. The City Manager
shall provide the Council, at its first meeting in February each year, or
such other times as the Council may direct, with a report from the City
Assessor indicating his estimate of the average value of undeveloped
commercial and industrial land in the community and a survey of
industrial/commercial fees in effect in comparable communities.
In any et , the park dedication fees required shall not exceed $39300
per acre. If the City determines that a developer shall be required to
dedicate a portion of the land proposed for development for park or public
open space purposes and such dedication does not satisfy the requirements of
th' policy, the balance due the City in cash shall be based upon *he
A sor's estimated value of the undeveloped land proposed for develor
• h
The City may permit easements to be dedicated by developers for trail JI
corridors identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan thereby allowing the '^
developer to include the land area in the determination of setbacks and
building density on the site. In such cases, park dedication credit will
not be given.
5• Required Improvements: Developers shall be responsible for making certain
Improvements to their developments for park, playground, and public open
space purposes:
A. To provide finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground,
trail and public open spaces within their developments as part of their
development contract or site plan approval responsibilities. No park
dedication credit will be given for this work.
B. To complete construct and pave all trails not identified in the City's
Trail Corridor Plan concurrently with the roads In their developments
(i.e. , grading with site grading and paving with street or parking lot
paving). No park dedication credit will be given for connecting these
trails to existing or proposed trails Identified in the City's 'frail
Corridor Plan.
C. To construct and pave all trails through and abutting their developments
Identified in the City's Trail Corridor Plan. Such trail improvements
shall be undertaken at the same time as other public impovements are
,..� installed within the development, (i.e. , grading with site grading and
paving with street or parking lot paving). The City staff may recommend
deviation from this policy in the case of individual hardship in terms
of the timing of installation of ouch trail facilities. The City will
credit the cost of paving trails identified in the City's Trail Corridor
Plan against the development's total park dedication requirements. The
amount to be credited will be established at the time the final plat or
site plan is approved based upon prevailing engineering cost estimates
for such work as determined by the City. This work will be built
according to engineering standards as provided by the City's engineering
department.
D. If sidewalks are constructed in the street right-of-way in lieu of
trails within the development, no park dedication credit will be given.
A sidewalk is defined as a public walkway constructed within the street
right-of-way.
6. This policy Is to be construed as part of and administered in conjunction
with Section 500.25 of the City Code.
-2c-
wr» •s sr■#rw
■�■■wraw■■■srwrs�sffr##w�#M#w■■rw■wwrr■wriwRf■rwlf
■w■ ■ ■■■/■lrrr■w■■.■ ■■■r■rrl.srw.■r■�ww■■rfw■ .!/■.wwMw■sflrrr..!■f
as■f■fM■■s!■rrww■!■■■■■rr wrs■rrrllsr�rrr■#rsasr■fra�srws/■rris■■srr■,r�
■sa■rr■rrwww■/■■s■slrr#w■■ rrrr�■rr/s■�w■rw#�w■/rw!■r# !fw■/ra■i#rfrr■/wr■*■,■,r„
wiM#■■rlrww■■rr■s■rflwR#■■■ra■i■■rr■■#■fr•#■/frrrw/■#■ ■#/■riw#wwwM#MMtf/■■r#�rw
a■rrsrfw■!/srrr�r•ww■./■■•wM■rf■!■■■filA■rMw.■r■rr■■fff.�rrr�rffrrw■s.sf/r■r■,r/f
■.r■wMw!■ws■■!f■r■■■■/#w■lsrwww■wM■■rrr■fsin►!!/!rr■■#wnwsr�MA�■■■lrif/r//■�r
w■#r!!�/!■■f■■r■rswr w■■swami/r s//R!■M//!■!ltAlfl riff■f i/■■!■�ff� ■i
w■■sr�■■s ■rrr �s/r�sa_rfsr■srra■ s■ri�ww■,/■w wwsr■sOn lar�r
■/■M/o/�■!f!■#t# r#wmo■��I■f■*Rw/ir rlef���■iM��■/fra■f
■■i!!�i!!!!!rr■*■lfri!■■�/!!/riar■�#*Or!■rwR■rw#!/�/tafr�I# #i _
■rwl,■�/rrwr �rw■r/fii
■■■rwR■■#■■f■■M■i■/rrr=!■ffrrr rr■!f/#■lrrfirf#■/!wN■!##«lfifr/■a�
!■rw■■■sln�rf rarraa■s■w#w!lsrww/aln wf/safwtf■s rwl�fs■1aw7■rrr//!#rrr ur■■
rwss MON 0"010 a frl.low s+arrr wwwo■p�m
Aa■wM■-} •.'/r ■sr■/■r ■a!!!r/arw ■Mrrfrr !# ifMf■!f■r!
wrrrs#- 11-r.� WIF!■■■■wI p I I Mass■■!■ l�.rw�.■■f
wffi■■■rsr �rrJ�ir4■�Mlrw■■iwlr■rlr# rirwRa■III■f* rlrlrrrrrr
■rA■rfw■■rsirrlr■■rrr■f//■ r•/ rr .�Mwf=/##
w#swlff!■■r/ MONISM rrwwwlirM WIN
fa*w■frr■rw■ rwwwrwrlrl#rw■ff■rsr#r*rf■srr"f■!�-��rrr!/iw/�#i■■
■■w!■■rNlfw■■ �rlf//■rwwaY■r�lwf■■/f■rirrrrrlr�''�►rtrafirrr/rrffr
w■■rww■/m &MUM r■rs'r mwm r- s■rr/srwirr+�eslr
■■rwwwws■■ ww-_ rEel
#srw■w■EMMU ■rrrYwwww", w�'��r / ■rrrw/■�i ■rr
M■ss!-Y.t% i■ila _dMMOr mmumm
100 Ao ffi•) ■/lrrrww■assrrr■r�rMww■!■rr!!f#a■ ON
■rrw■firmmrw■��■rrr■lr�erlr�■nww'w�rrrw■iwrrw■■swrsrrrslrrw#rw/�r■rr�
■ewf ■■rrurrOleffis so rirrrwR■ri�w�r��irw■■frwrrlfrfrf�r ■/■iwllwR
Mw �
w�■rpsr■r�rslram= M In
■/rrriwiiila ■i•lNwwwT/ ws/!w Irri /rrlwlIR
Nrww■rsim M rwr I■rrrlrrrluairw
■■rs■f �flr��■■I■I�rrswrlrw►fir l■1►I WMEMM mummm" ■ommov ■ Now
rw■ �w•�rMINMENION OR
r■ENOW I-.17/am rwir ' NOW
ONOW
■!■rwr■■'■f■r rllgrrrwwf �■wtww■■rrrw■Yn.rf■i.!/■rrrw�w
■f Man— # IN# MUM
r■sr ■frrr�■rrw r�rwrw■■r■
.ww■■o■rrrs�■iwwAss►�wiais�■■rrw� rs■rwwa�■rrmm■w�rarw�wr
rrr■■rrir■irs fr
w■rlr+■r�rrs�■r�/���s�ufrsr*wu�r■rrrrwf/rlrw■rf�rMrw�r* r
rr �-Arw■rrrsrrr�lr�■rrrw�■�srrslrrrrswwe�rr
■■ I/ibL•'w A ON /■■■rw r an
■■r!■[e %,04,4 !■f■rrwNNfrrrAtw■■rrw■frf/rrw■lfr ■■!r*wr l
mum rrrr■w■rra�w•rrswwsrrrrrwa
lwIMM■■a!r ■■�rrsr�wlfrrrwwrfrrrr�r ■rrwrlfrrrwr=■■#rrreA■!!!/rflfr�rr
rw■■rlMsf t�■r�■lrww�rrr�su�rwirrrrri�arrw■lrrrswwrrrrwrwlrr�rwsw■ _
R■/asr�r# rwrwlrM�w r -
wa■�oarrrs ON as1■rrrMMISOMrwla■r1r�w■.rnrrw■.■ r ■warfiir rr.rrf■r r!
.rrsrr�■ rr�www�rrrrrr■rr�wr�rwarrrwwarasrrM■rr��wrr+�■�nwrrw■ra� -
w!r■frrri■r■ w■r■■■rr■rw■■rrr■wrwrrrw!/rrrsr■a�rrrw■w.rmr■sw■rr�l�rr■iw __
w■!fr■rsr �r�rr■r■IINrr�Mi■rrir##irrr/■■rrr�w■l�rMr#�■iN� _
■■ram 4'1/rrir■/raw■isrrrwrlrrl /rrrfi ■rfiFr
■omme■ -1.7ma-
WARMra sr�r■rrwrir■r!r
MrrrwwwdBMWBMW
rrwrwt�rrr
r �wrrf■�srwwasrrrwllrrw�awrts■ia�wa�nrrww�rr�rrM
NEW
MIN
■ �urrww!■ar■■F■rrrrswoassrw■rrwrrw■■�■rr
■■rr�srrr■ wrrrww■rMr�wwrrwufsrrr■■rrrr�rrwsrrr�rr�r■�rrM ■rir
�s�.�ai..r■�■srrrw��■aFrwwrrl�rsau`�rarrw
rwwwrrrrsrwwrrwwsirrsr ■wrrw
rw�ws■�rwww■�rrww.■■■r�rww■rrrrrlrrrw■frrsrwnr�rwwr■rrr�rtsw!!f
■ raa■rrir■iu�rrrwr■rrrw�rlrrw■�wr■r�tow�■rr��n�+r■�r■■
rrur■■wa■
■r■isr�!■w■ 1 rMINr■ . ■rwwlm [r ■rwwo ap ■ ■ lrir iW
#r �!i■rw rrwfr.rNOW
srww�■�r rrrrutrr■l raw/rarrw+nrs�rwfrrrs� r
�rWb ANIi�i_r �t w!■r
wrwrwrrrrrw�r�w�wrr -
rrrr�/rrw■■®rwww■rrrw
ROMMINEW
w■i■i�an rrrwi■ wt/ri■f
rfssrrrrrrrrr!■■s■srwwrw■sw■■#�/srwf■s�r�rrsr.rr■rrrrrr/s■ra,�w�■rw�rrsr�■� _
■rrrrwrr■�srrrrrrrrrrMww■frrfrrrrrwwwfMrw� rrffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrw�rr
Alm■f■■wwf■■■mmmosrwrwa!■rr#wsrr■sww■!lfrw■ rwr■#rrwwwwrwtwir rr
■■rr■rlrrrrrr■■r/ww/wrrrrrwlrw■rrrrslrrw■■rr■frrwwMrwrwirw■
■lrrrrwwwrrr■/r■!■■/rirrwww■rwsww■ ■/wrrrrw�rrwlww■rw�wf■rww
■■■■fas■lwwswrrrrrrrwws■a!■■wsrww/ f■r!f/rwwwfrr�fr�rwr
f#r■■!i/rsrrw■wwrrw■w■r/slr�w■rMw. _- w■rs■rww■■■#rwsri■f■� _
■■wrMrrw#Irr1r■f■■w!r/rrrrrww■rN■!/ ffr■r/lfs- mumir
■rrr//rrrtir�sMrrff■■+■!Is
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ronald Schmidt, Edward Lehmann, Sr. , Jerome
Stiffler, Jon Larson, Guy Sherwood, David Fitch,
James Mueller, Paul Tatone.
. SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510. 09 SUBD 9
DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PARKS, TRAILS,
PLAYGROUNDS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS
Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, described the bi-
-`annual review process and summarized the Parks and Recreation
" Commission' s recommendations as follows:
An approximate 10% increase in park dedication fees in
residential districts.
Adoption of the MUSA boundary to replace the map previously
used to determine the level of park dedication fees
collected.
Mr. Anderson continued by addressing each of the areas of concern
identified by the SSP-IGH Chamber of Commerce.
1 . Use of Park Dedication Funds
Mr. Anderson noted that the Chamber supports the use of
park dedication funds solely for the purpose of land
acquisition. Mr. Anderson stated that the basic position
of the Parks Commission is that land acquisition is the
first priority and that the informal policy of the Parks
Commission is to use park dedication fees only. for
acquisition. He noted that there have been two exceptions
to that rule: Salem Hills and Sleepy Hollow; he added that
development of these two parcels was directly related to
a great deal of neighborhood pressure over a number of
years .
2 . Credit for Private Development Amenities
Mr. Anderson noted that the Chamber .is advocating a credit
of up to 50% for private development amenities; he added
that the credit for private development amenities was
increased from 15% to 25% in 1987 to provide additional
credit for facilities specifically requested by the Parks
Commission (tot lots, creative play areas, picnic areas) .
Mr. Anderson stated that it is the belief of the Parks
Commission that private amenities ( such as pools, saunas,
shuffleboard courts ) do not relieve pressure on public
facilities .
r-1
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - PAGE 2
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510 .09 , SUBD 9 ,
PARR DEDICATION
,. 3 Timing of Payment
Mr. Anderson commented that the Chamber would prefer to see
park dedication fees collected at the time of building
=a . permit-. He noted that the major reason for requiring
dedication at the time of platting is to accommodate land
dedications; it is difficult to acquire contiguous small
portions of land for parks at the time of building permit.
` He added that collecting fees at the time of platting also
-` avoids confusion andallows .for the purchase of land before
.°: values- increase.
-
4 . Form of Dedication
Mr. Anderson said that the Chamber suggests cash
dedications in lieu of land dedications . Mr. Anderson
stated that land dedications are required only in cases
where there is land adjacent to existing parks or when
trail access is needed to provide contiguous development.
He estimated that cash only dedications are required in 90-
95% of all cases .
Mr. Anderson concluded by saying that, in general, the Parks
Commission wants to retain its ability to acquire contiguous trail
and park property.
Mr. Stiffler asked if amenities for public use are given
consideration when park dedication fees are being calculated (i.e. ,
the Cenex ball field) .
Mr. Anderson commented that the Cenex ball field is not public in, the
sense that its use cannot be scheduled by the City. He added that
as one of the larger firms in the area, Cenex is also a heavy user
of public facilities; they have a number of teams involved in
recreation programs and use public facilities for company picnics,
etc .
Mr. Stiffler noted that several ball teams use the Cenex ball field
for practice.
Mr. Anderson commented that this is a legitimate case for a park
dedication credit of some type.
Mr. Fitch asked if Mr. Anderson saw any potential for a credit
greater than 25% .
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - PAGE 3
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510 . 09 SUED 9
PARK DEDICATION
Mr. Anderson responded that there are some exceptions to any general
rule.'` He identified the Rottlund Development as an example; there
is a desire for a public trail system through the development that
would tie into the rest of the public system.
rResponding to a question from Mr. Fitch, Mr. Anderson said that there
may be unique circumstances that would warrant a credit of more than
y :i=., 25%.
Mr. Fitch asked if general tax funds are used for. park development.
Mr. Anderson responded that currently the only monies available for
' development are via the park acquisition and development fund. He
noted that this is under review and that other methods of funding are
being researched.
Mr. Fitch asked if, at some future point in time, cash dedications
would become more appropriate than land dedications .
Mr. Anderson noted that after core areas have been acquired, the
Parks Commission would desire the phasing out of land dedications .
He noted that as a developing community, the Parks Commission prefers
to keep options open; however, serious discussion of the phasing out
of land dedications could occur, if lands are acquired based on a new
Parks plan, possibly as early as 1991 .
George Kassan (2125 Upper 55th St. ) , representing the SSP-IGH Chamber
of Commerce i- commented that he' had been a part of the Chamber ' s Park
Dedication Subcommittee. He commented that the Chamber does seea
correlation between private amenities and a lessened demand on public
amenities; he noted that residents generally use public amenities
when those amenities are not offered within the development . Mr.
Kassan added that the Chamber' s rationale for suggesting payment of
park dedication fees at time of building permit is to assess fees at
the time of impact on public facilities .
Responding to a question from Mr. Mueller, Mr. Kassan said that there
is a possibility that a property could go tax forfeit and that park
dedication fees would not be collected. He added, however, that
eventually the property would be purchased and developed and that an
appropriate time to assess park dedication fees still appears to be
at time of building permit.
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - PAGE 4
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510 .09 , SUBD. 9 ,
PARK DEDICATION
Mr. Stiffler asked if there was a general rule regarding what percent
of a City' s land should be dedicated for parks .
Mr. Anderson responded that the national standard is 10-20 acres per
1000 . He added that in the metro area the standard is close to 20
:5acres per 1000 .
Mr. Stiffler asked if this figure is based on the fact that at some
point parkland can become a burden rather than an asset.
Mr. Anderson replied that the national standard is primarily based
on usage.
Mr. Stiffler asked what percent of the City is now dedicated for
parks .
Mr. Anderson said that if parks such as North and South Valley Park
(which were actually platted as public property for well fields) are
included, there are approximately 336 acres of land dedicated for
parks .
Mr. Meeker added that the City encompasses approximately 19 , 000
acres .
Mr. Kassan responded to a question from Mr. Fitch by saying that the
Chamber is recommending that park dedication fees be used only for
acquisition as a means of insuring reasonableness . He noted that if
dedication. fees are used for acquisition, development, maintenance,
etc . , costs will spiral .
Mr. Larson asked if Mr. Kassan was aware of any community that gave
greater than a 25% credit for private amenities .
Mr. Kassan said that he did not have that information with him.
Mr. Sherwood commented that Eden Prairie appears to . be developing
quickly regardless of their relatively high park dedication fees .
Ms . Kassan noted that the communities to the west of the Minneapolis
are "hot" areas for development; they cannot be compared to eastern
suburbs .
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - PAGE 5
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510.09 , SUBD. 9 ,
PARR DEDICATION
Todd Stutz (5201 E. River Road, Fridley) , representing the Rottlund
Company, stated that the Rottlund Company is supportive of the
Chamber' s recommendations relative to increased credits for private
development amenities and payment of park dedication fees at time of
building permit. He added that the proposed fee increase will have
a great impact on the 450 acre Rottlund development planned in Inver
Grove Heights .
Mr. Anderson noted that there is a_ great range of park dedication
fees within the state. He explained that much of the difference is
attributable to whether the community is emerging or fully developed.-
He added that in some cases (e.g. , Eden Prairie, Plymouth) park
dedication fees (and subsequent public facilities) have enhanced
development and, thus, been beneficial to developers .
Mr. Anderson added that if park dedication fees were collected at the
time of building permit, the fee in effect at the time of building
permit (not time of plat) is what should be collected to reflect any
increase in land value. Mr. Anderson stated that this is not the
preferred approach of the Parks Commission, but that if it is deemed
appropriate, the fee should not be locked in at time of plat.
Sheila Tatone (3764 - 74th Street E. ) , Parks Commission Chair, stated
that the Parks Commission would strongly oppose a change in the
ordinance to allow collection of park dedication fees at time of
building permit.
Mr. Tatone and Mr. Sherwood asked if any of the studies done
identified cities that collect. park dedication fees ..at time of
building permit.
Mr. Anderson responded that he did not have the information with him,
but that he could provide it at a later date.
Brian Olson ( 18133 Cedar Ave. So. , Lakeville) , representing Joe
Miller Homes, commented that the increase in the dedication amount
(to $400) seems appropriate. He added that the time of payment (at
plat vs . building permit) does not greatly affect a large developer;
however, it does hurt a small builder who does not have the same type
of cash flow resources . Mr. Olson also said that amenities that are
accessible to the general public (i.e. trails) should account for
some type of park dedication credit.
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS - PAGE 6
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1989
SUBJECT: AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE SECTION 510. 09 , SUBD.9 ,
PARR DEDICATION
Mr. Larson commented that there -appears to be no dispute with the
changes recommended by the Parks Commission; the question is whether
to include any of the Chamber's recommendations .
MOTION by Tatone, seconded by Sherwood, recommending to City Council
Y approval of Amendments to City Code Section 510 . 09, Subdivision 9,
as recommended by the Parks Commission.
: Mr. Fitch noted that he strongly favors one suggestion_ made- by the
Chamber. He stated that he believes there is the potential for
a justification of park dedication credits in excess of 25% . He
' _ believes this should be recognized in the ordinance.
Mr. Sherwood agreed.
Mr. Tatone stated that at present there is no evidence to suggest
10"N that a credit of more than 25% is appropriate. He noted that this
issue could be presented and considered as an additional amendment
to City Code at a later date.
Mr. Schmidt concurred with Mr. Tatone.
Mr. Stiffler expressed a concern regarding collection of park
dedication fees; he commented that it does not seem appropriate to
"favor" large business over small business by requiring fees at time
of plat.
MOTION-CARRIED - (5-3) Nay: Stiffler, Mueller, Fitch
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DATE - DECEMBER 11 1989
PLANNING COMMISSION OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
Ir6uise A. H nz ecord' g Clerk
�'q
,*OWN
November lei , 1939
TC) Cit Planning Cc r::Iii=si�y�
Parks and Rec. '- o :
P,E Park Ded icat i QIi dreI1-I-KIice
The ='Wks and Rer1e-a Co IL Ir 11 s _ i _I't l = _'.:,1_; 1'"::`, i •'• =.'] the r,, rl-
DedlcatiCi1 rrdinaliCe _ II DI-- 12 � �:':� . !lie _ i
cur rents y ca11_ fC..: f _ r;,.=tl rr-v r•. _ _ t1i' Pa_': n'_t;�c-tti=:�
Ordinance ever;every two vears to t e Con id_ r then f_ef:,c :d I''; Other
_S"SUC- _ t11a.t the L'a1- ( o!-., .i s si on d s a: _'rop ?.+ _ % ',f f
• forwarded a iremo to titre Cit; Plannin C_ .. mission on 2+ ,
1989 o u t 11 nines the Parks aiid Recreation Cc;Mamission `s- pis -t-ion
which was based on a staff memorandum dated '-!arch 21 , 1989 .
:fit the time it t;as reviewed by the Parks nd Recreation
Commission , :l staff re _'rt had beeIl pre'-%tired by ti-:e C11? b•er O-
Commerce E`<ecuti•,-e Director , Larry Dowell dated January- 10 , 1939
which was reviewerl and discussed . It was the conseiisus b;, the
Parks and Recreation Commission that thee Cha-:b-er' s rtosition cc'uld
not. be substantiated! and th•�tt t o_''-?in�.Ii_ = G1":-n_I' ci not ':)e
rl Of
tile
±lie pc`iri: iie:3iCaI _;y: _l�d1lilii':e CLl'_'I'_Iiy i \ i _ t1lE _'1'_..._tT'; s^ .._CE
Z .:a1 o: mom.:'it - -- '=-'''- -•� - S •.I ',•- - - •- •.• - - - - - - ' ..
c u r r e n t 1 y has an "unwritten' _�c1ic� - ..I_ i li_ � :?: _ :t.?I;':? _
ri11La= _ '_,v or :cp.ilsi= _on f_:f - ter:. 1c`1nds Ie -�•St 1'?C=i:� s-.a l -e
C'= t1:e ac ;11"S.-ti _ ;1 _ if, t17C _C..:._ _ .:1: .i _ i = _ �''_•': _ _ :.I':.
?I^oi:,el' _'+' tali-Ch S:a.s .:zcc!uired ~Atli th.e :i:' 0f -a t i n. an,J
Deve-lo ,ment :rind moniEs . The Chaia•e i?i�;C , _e= that- tliC , 1!!-.1 C•`. _
that. the origin m1 use of Part-_ hedication =u! ,3s t::_:S t Cc-nt- rc•1
land use and ac':iuil'e land f,r need?d z .ail =�'St•=r? i t' i
v.-as I1rt nec _ ecgari interjdao o by .) _ r {l.li-t��� _ _ '.:.'r•r'_ 'tnf-
is not sure t:!;ere thi : tibe11-2- : stP':IS _` ? On , t-At that 1-1-_t• I C. 1• :
` -e =,0== - i _ .. Y.et='1'r •'t _ = :i rl'^M_ _ ._ -r'I"1n C. tIn ('j+ -
Ounc 11 .
the arks d:.'3 L.e'=r_ :-:It C I Cr•;r...IisSI =rl:
1 :) percent to _:' _ . _ : Ilt is"! . .'� tt;I,i i 1;.-,: is ';"1 t: � i it- 1.•. iti01
that 21 percent is i _ '"j'.l;?t< ; ..-s tl:; i
i
ID a 1 I"_ a ' c1E'\ r?tC'' _ I' C1C I:Ot ed1.: .c- + ;:C' i ee-J ! _ _
Creat '_ 1 ,. filr_ 111t 1 _ 11 t, t•I - c �11' !.' . _ ..
ac . i\"t an'3 := 1\'i•
localiZed 1,1.i \ :, te ;mc ;Iitics , i . e-. s1, i •.,,,, _ i'.. c' '_ : :-1d : . - . _ i
_cloms Which ::,rr_ not epf_n tc the pi.;bIic . staff dol_•s nct feel that
Pas,
e 2 ( Cont . )
Planning Commission
there is a direct relationship of reducing user impact can public
facilities , based on the types of facilities that are
traditionally included in private developments .
The Chamber has requested that Park Dedication Fees be accepted
at the time of building permit rather than at the time of plat .
The rationale for having the payment be made at the time of Mat
is so the developer pays the fees up front . There is a ;rent
deal of difficulty in communication beti,een the developer and
the actual lot owner at the time of building permit as to who is
responsible for paying the Part: Dedication Fee . In addition,
when land is requested for residential development , it obviously
mattes more sense to acquire the entire parcel at the time of
platting rather than at the -time of building permit .
In regards to the Chamber' s concern about not accepting land, the
Chamber made a statement that an increasing number of cities are
requiring cash only. The studies that staff have conducted do
not confirm this and dedication of land is still utilized as a
legitimate option for "growth and emerging" Cities to consider.
Staff does not feel that this option should be completely-
removed . It should be noted, that land has been accepted in very
few cases in the City, and usually only when the properties are
directly adjacent to an existing park or in the acquisition of a
trail corridor.
The City Parks and Recreation Commission is currently conducting
Ia Park:s and Onen Ctiace plan wl,ich will ,•cry clearly" defiler'
future park acclui sit ion will occur . It is the hone of the Part.
and Recreation Commission 41-0 have a re e:en!1,7i i17
two years which would provide for acquisition of -our future park
land, possibly making the issue of park land dedication a moot
point .
In conclusion, staff feels that the City ' s Part: Development
Ordinance is consistent with the 'iinnesota State Statute and
meets the Chamber ' s concern that i.e remain consistent with
surrounding communities . I ' ve included a copy of a Part,
Dedication Surrey that was completed in 19c9 for the Commission' s
consideration . In addition , staff :ill be in attendance at
Tuesday ' s meeting to respol":d to an;• specific questions _rd/or
concerns you may have .
PARK DEDICATION ORDDZ1ICE SURVEY
W.\TtJCI'ED BY: City of Lakeville
October, 1989
CM OF: 1989 1990
i-PPLE VAJ. LE-Z Residential: Residential:
Cash or land based upon a formula
in effect at the time of final
plat.
Commercial/Industrial: Co-riercial:
Amount of land equal in value
to 5% of the undeveloped land/
land to be reserved for public
use - parks, bus stops, playgrounds,
public open space or combination
BROOMIN PARK Residential: Residential:
10% of land or cash in lieu
of land based on fair racket
value of $20,000/acre
Commercial / Industrial: Commercial:
Same as above
6,RVSVIL Z Residential: Residential:
R-1 - $439.20/unit
R-2 - 448.20/unit
R-3A - 434.00/unit
R-3B - 564.00/unit
(based on population
fo .m a)
Co=aercial: Commercial:
$2,625/acre
Industrial:
$1,125/acre
(C/I based on average
land value X 5%)
CH SK k Residential: Residential:
$350.00/unit (1-2 fam ly)
275.00-townhouses/quads
200.00-apartments/condos
Co-,mercial: Commercial:
$1,400 per acre
Trails:
In process of adopting
CITZ OF: 1989 1990
,-.,CvTTAGE GROVE Residential: Residential:
$450.00-single family
$120/bedroom-all others
Commercial: Commercial:
Up to 100 of land or
cash amounts in lieu of
land not to exceed 100
of fair market value
Trails:
None
EAGAN Residential: Residential:
Single Fam: $525
Duplex: 488
Tcre.Tbouse: 414
Fqparl t: 427
Cor- ercial: Commercial:
$2,178 per acre
Trails:
$100/unit proposed
EDP: PRAIRIE Residential: Residential:
$720/unit - for
single/multi family
Ca-mercial: Commercial:
$2,560/acre for
co-e rc i s l/industr i a l
Trails:
None
I!17VT-R GROVE Residential: Residential:
FEIG= $400.00 in se,,,ered & watered area
$200.00 in unse,:ered & unwatered
areas
Com--rcia1 Commercial:
$2,178.00 per acre in se,,Tered and
ester-ed areas
$425.00 per acre in unsewered areas
Trails:
•� No separate fees
CITY OF: 1989 1990
i"N
L KEVILLE Residential: Residential:
Cash: $550.00 per dwelling unit
for single and rlti-family; OR
Land: 10-20% based on units per
acre density formula
Commercial: Commercial:
Cash: $2,500 per acre; OR
Land: 10% of gross area being
platted
Trails:
$150.00 per (twelling unit
MAPLE GROVE Residential: Residential:
$518.00/unit
Commercial (or C/I) : Commercial:
$2,850/acre
Industrial:
$1,650/acre
Trails:
None
PLYI,K)LPI'H Residential: Residential:
$825.00/unit
Commercial: Comercial:
$3,300/acre '
Trails:
not a separate fee
SHAKOPEE Residential: Residential:
$250/single family unit
(City comp plan $400/duplex
in revision - $75/bedroom-multi family units
:,ill be ready up to & including 8 units/acre
in 1990)
Co mercial: Commercial:
Up to $200,000: 5%
$200,000-1,000,000: $10,000 plus
2% of value over 200,000
$1,000,000 or r.�ore: $26,000 plus
1% of value over $1,000,000
Trails:
None
CITY OF: 1989 1990
,TILIAgATER Residential: OTWITS PER ACRE Residential:
0=4 - $400 per dwelling unit
5-8 - $250 per dwelling unit
9-15 - $200 per dwelling unit
16+ - $150 per dwelling unit
Commercial: Conunercial:
$.10 per square foot of net
land area
Trails:
None
`1
r
TO Planning Commission, City of Inver Grove Heights
FROM Bill Meeker, Planning Supervisor
DATE November 2, 1989
SUBJECT CITY CODE AMENDMENT - Amendment to City Code Section 510.09,
Dedication of Lands for Public Parks, Trails, Playgrounds and
Public Open Space Areas.
A public hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 1989 to consider
proposed amendments- fo� the City' s Park Dedication Ordinance. As you will recall,
Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, appeared before the Planning
Commission on October 3, 1989 to summarize the changes to be made. (A memo from
Mr. Anderson was provided with your October 3, 1989 packet to provide background
information. )
Basically, two changes are proposed as follows:
1. Park dedication fees for residential lots lying within the City's
Urban Service Area (MUSA) are to be increased from $330.00 to
$400.00 per dwelling unit. Fees for residential lots lying
outside of the MUSA are to be increased from $200.00 to $240.00
per dwelling unit.
2. Formerly, the Park Dedication Ordinance included a map which
divided the City into two areas, the "Red" area and the "Green"
area. The boundary between the "Red" and "Green" areas generally
conformed to the City' s MUSA boundary as it exists today. At the
time the map was incorporated into the ordinance, however, the
boundary simply represented the staff's best guess as to where
urban development would occur in years subsequent to the adoption
of the ordinance. The elimination of the map will permit the
City to expand the area in which "urban" park dedication fees
are collected when areas are incorporated into the MUSA, without
the necessity for amending the ordinance. This change affects
both residential and commercial/industrial fees.
If you require additional information regarding this matter, please contact me
prior to the meeting on November 7, 1989.
BM
enclosure: Proposed Park Dedication Ordinance
�-t CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING INVER GROVE HEIGHTS CITY CODE
SECTION 510 . 09 , SUBDIVISION 9 , SUBSECTIONS 9 , 18 AND 19
RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CONTRIBUTION
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLATTING OF PROPERTY
The City Council of Inver Grove Heights ordains :
Section 1 . AMENDMENT. Inver Grove Heights City Code ,
Section 510. 09 , subdivision 9 , subsection 9 is hereby amended
to read :
Subsection 9 . Residential Dedication Requirements . To
satisfy park dedication requirements, owners and
subdividers of residential land shall be required to
dedicate land to the City for park, playground, 'trails and
public open space , in accordance with one of the following
three criteria, at the option of the City .
The required land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu
of land dedication shall be made at the time of final plat
approval , except however , in the case of multiple
residential developments requiring a conditional use
permit , where the conditional use permit approval occurs
other than at the time of final plat approval , the required
land dedication and/or payment of fees-in-lieu of land
dedication shall be made at the time the conditional use `
permit is approved . Provided, however , that the City
Council , by written agreement with the landowner , may allow
up to two years after final plat to pay the contribution
fees upon such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by
the Council .
Option A. The dedication of that amount of land required
by the City for park , playground trails and
public open space based upon the approved
I
ensity of the development in accordance with
the chart below. The percentage from the chart
below shall be applied to the area of the site
for which density is calculated .
Land to be Dedicated
Dwelling Units Per Acre ( % of Total )
2 . 5 or less 10
Greater than 2 . 5 through 10+ ( actual density
12 - 2 )
More than 12 20+ ( 1/2 actual
density - 6 )
Option B . A cash contribution in lieu of land dedication .
The cash contribution shall be $?}(}-&,& $400 .00
per dwelling unit for land shown -i-n -tire- z-e-d-
s-kre e-d -area -o-n €h e ma-p 4-n t h e
4e-s44�na-te-d -a-s -t4-�e Par-k- -Ded-i-ca-ti-cxi - map- in the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area . he cash
contribution shall be $200,00 2 00 per
dwelling unit for land -a ro- rn- tke green -s-§-ad-ee
area- oinr t4 4_- ma-p- i-n- t-h-e C-let}-=e 9€€°ee 4e-s3-gna-t-e-d
-a-s the -Par-it -trap- outside the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area . This sum is
derived from the City Appraiser ' s periodic
estimate of the average value of undeveloped
residential land in the City of Inver Grove
Heights based on the following : ( 1 ) such land
potentially develops at -2 . 5 dwelling uits per
acre and (2 ) the developer is required to
dedicate- ten (10% ) percent of the land for park ,
playground and public open space . The Park
Commission , after consultation with the City
Planner , Attorney and Director of Public Works
and after consultation with an independent Lee
appraiser retained by the City, shall provide
the Council , at it first meeting in February of
11"N each odd-numbered year, or such other times as
the Council may direct, with a report from the
City appraiser indicating his estimate of the
average value of undeveloped residential land in
the community and a survey of residential fees
in effect in other comparable communities .
Option C . When determined by the City , the subdivider
shall be required to dedicate a portion of the
area in land with the balance to be made in fees
in 1'ieu of such land dedication . In such cases ,
the following procedures shall be used :
( 1 ) The City shall calculate the total amount
of land for park area which could be
required in accordance with this section .
( 2) From the total amount of land calculated in
Step 1 above, the City shall subtract the
actual amount of land the City selects for
park , playground , trails or public open
space in the proposed development .
( 3 ) The balance of the park area otherwise
required shall be calculated as a
percentage of the total park dedication
obligation . This percentage shall be
multiplied by (a ) the approved total
project density for the net area for which
density is calc-ulated and ( b) current- per
-2-.
dwelling unit park dedication fee to yield
the total cash park dedication requirement .
Section 2 . AMENDMENT. Inver Grove Heights City Code,
Section 510 .09 , subdivision 19 is hereby amended to read :
Subsection 19 . Industrial/Commercial Dedication
Requirements . As a general rule, owners and subdividers
of Commercial, Industrial and Institutional land, including
Commercial , Industrial and Institutional portions of PUD' s,
shall be required at the time the building permits are
issued, to dedicate to the City for park , playground,
trails and public open space purposes that amount of land
equal to five ( 5% ) percent of the land area within the
development . As a general rule, in those cases where the
City does not require parks, playgrounds , trails , or public
open space within such developments, the City shall require
payment of fees-in-lieu of such land dedication . The cash
contribution shall be $2, 178 per acre for each acre within
the development for such property located -Gf -t4,re-
-rre-ri-h- 1-ii:e- o-r Seet-i7& rs -2 thre -g-h fl o Tovrrshrp �-7 3`�rtrr,
7 zz ;vest in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and
$425 per acre for each acre within the development for such
property located so- ti; of tre line- outside
the Metropolitan Urban Service Area
These sums are based on five ( 5% ) percent of the City
Appraiser ' s estimated average undeveloped land value per
acre for such zoned property . The Park Commission, after
consultation with the City Planner , Attorney and Director
of Public Works and after consultation with an independent
fee appraiser retained by the City, shall provide the
Council , at its first meeting in February in each
odd-numbered year , or such other times as the Council may
direct , with a report from the City Appraiser indicating
his estimate of the average values of undeveloped
Com-mercia1 , Industrial and Institutional land in the
community and a survey of Industrial/Commercial
/Institutional fees in effect in comparable communities .
If the City determines that a developer shall be required
to dedicate a portion of the land proposed for development
for park or public open space purposes and such dedication
does not satisfy the requirements of this section , the
balance due the City shall be in cash based on the amount
per acre established above for the acres required to be
dedicated but not selected by the City .
Section 3 . AMENDMENT. Inver Grove Heights City Code ,
Section 510 . 09 , subdivision 9 , subsection 18 is hereby amended
to read :
-3-
Subsection 18 . On file in the Clerk ' s Office is a map
labelled Park Dedication Map on which ---r-e- -fed a-.�d- -gree-n
-sh 4e-a area-s- is shown in the Metropolitan Urban Service
Area . This map shall be used to determined the per unit
contribution fee pursuant to Subsection 9 hereof . This map
is hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference .
As the Metropolitan Urban Service Area is expanded , the map
shall be undated to also incorporate the expanded area .
Section 4 . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in
full force and effect from and after its passage and
publication according to law.
Passed this day of , 1989 .
William Saed, Mayor
Attest :
Loretta Garrity, Deputy Clerk
ID819I
-4-
(612) 451-2266
South St. Paul
Inver Grove Heights
Chamber of Commerce
633 South Concord Street, Suite 304
South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075
TO: IGH Planning Commission/City Council
FROM: IGH-SSP Chamber of Commerce
SUBJECT: Chamber Testimony on IGH Park Dedication
DATE: November 1, 1989
General Recommendations
1. The primary focus of the Chamber's recommendations will be commercial/
industrial oriented, but certain residential dedication issues will
be addressed.
2. We are basically in support of the basic framework embodied in the
existing ordinance and are not recommending a totally new ordinance
on Park Dedication.
3. The Chamber of Commerce again accepts the premise that some commer-
cial/industrial park dedication and appropriate levels of residential
dedication should be made, but at the same time we support a park
dedication ordinance that is competitive with other communities and
clearly support development of quality facilities rather than dis-
couraging it.
4. Park dedication should be paid by developers consistent with the in-
tent of the Minnesota State Statutes which indicates that fees paid
should correlate with demands placed on park and recreational facil-
ities by this new development. We also support an education program
in our community which the intent would be to adequately explain
that park dedication fees are not, and should not be, the sole fund-
ing source of park and recreational facilities, and local residents
must be willing to accept a significant portion of the financial
burden relating to park acquisition, development, and maintenance.
Use of Park Dedication Funds
The Chamber believes that the original use of park dedication funds
coming from the commercial/industrial area was to control land use and
acquire needed land for trail systems, and was not necessarily intented
to be a major funding source. Currently however, the City perceives the
commercial/industrial funds to be used for acquisition, development , and
bond repayment of the park system.
Park Dedication
11/1/89
Page 2
The limited resources available to park dedication suggests that the park
dedication funds be used only for acquisition. To continue to use the
funds for improvements would:
a) Cause pressure to increase the fees;
b) Not appropriately reflect who uses park and trail facilities.
Therefore, the Chamber supports the development of an ordinance that would
require that park dedication funds be limited to the acquisition of park
and trail facilities and not be used for improvement of parks and/or trails,
or maintenance.
Credit For Privately Development Amenities
Currently a credit up to 25% is available when providing amenities onsite
with developments that lessens the impact on local recreational facilities.
-
We recommend that this credit be increased to a maximum of 50% for either
residential or commercial/industrial projects based on appropriate factors
including the number and type of amenities provided. This reform enhances
both the developer and the city's objectiv-es.
We believe it is in the city's best interest to encourage projects that
have significant amenities. By increasing the credit, the overall objec-
tive by the Park Commission and the City is strengthened by encouraging
developers to enhance their projects by adding amenities which would
eventually reduce the impact on the community's park system.
We also remind policymakers that the credit language is for a maximum.
In most cases, the credit would not be used at all or significantly less
than the maximum.
The Chamber believes that the evidence suggests that a credit up to 75%
is justifiable, but that during this year's ordinance review we are recom-
mending 50%.which is perceived as a major step forward.
Timing of Payment
The Chamber believes that commercial/industrial park dedication fees
should continue to be paid as currently established, ie. at the time of
building permit. The Chamber further recommends that residential park
dedication fees also be made at the time at which the building permit
issued.
The aforementioned recomemndation is based on the state's statute which
suggests that fees are a reasonable exaction because of additional pres-
sure place on city facilities when development occurs. By accepting the
state's statute, we believe that payment should be made when there is a
legitimate impact on the City Park and Recreation program, not years
ahead of such impact. Currently, the City requires that fees be paid
n at the time of plat.
Park Dedication
I1/1/89
Page 3
''I Form of Dedication
Currently, the park dedication ordinance allows for either land or cash
dedication. The Chamber strongly recommends that Inver Grove Heights
follows the lead of an ever increasing number of cities which are requir-
ing cash only. We believe cash dedication is preferable to land dedica-
tion because of fairness to develoeprs, planning consistency, and certainty
to the developer.
We support the development of a currently commissioned park plan which
will specifically identify properties needed for an overall city park
system. We believe that the city, after appropriate citizen input, should
adopt such a park plan, and the City then should not seek to use property
outside of those identified in the park plan for park or trail use.
We believe that the- park plan should be relied upon and used as a planning-
and implementation tool -for a period of years from its adoption. We be-
lieve the City should require cash park dedication fees and then in turn
acquire the properties necessary for the implementation of their overall
park plan.
Appropriate Level of Fees
Currently a formula exists which every two years readjusts the park dedi-
cation fees with C and I property paying 5% of value and residential
property paying 10% of value. The Chamber believes that the earlier
recommendations outlined above, if accepted, would significantly enhance
our park dedication system. And based on our assumption that the afore-
mentioned reforms take place, we can support the existing park dedication
fees. If however, the aforementioned reforms do not take place, signifi-
cant reductions in the per acre fees must be considered.
September 29 , 1989
TO City Planning Commission
FROM Bruce K. Anderson, Director
Parks and Recreation
RE Park Dedication Ordinance
The Park Dedication Ordinance calls for a review of the fees
chars-ed in lieu of lend dedication in each odd numbered year.
Staff has attached a copy- of the initial staff memor.-- ndum chick
was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission in Anril of
this year.
The proposed Park Dedication Ordinance for 1989 and 1900 remains
i-y basically the same as in previous ::ears w-Jth three proposed
changes :
1 . The residential severed rate is nrorosed tr increa. frc•:n
S8 , 250 . to 510 , 000 . acre i-.hich w _..ild reflect an. nc_e -e :f
S70 . per unit over a t::o yec:r period or S 100 . /1.:nit .
2 . The residential unse-ered rate is -roposed to in--real? to
?6 , 000 . per acre or Pe --„_+ j._.i it
increase of over a two year period .
3 . The map which determines sewered and unseuered areas is also
proposed to be eliminated and in its place , -,:e i:ill use the
MUSA line so that we do not have to ur_,d_.te :r.d modify th-
maD on an annual basis .
Staff .ill be in attendance at Tuesday' s meeting to
issue . If you have any questions prior to the feel free
to contact myself directly at 45 -2111 , ext . =80 .
March 21 , 1939
TO Inver Grove Heights Parks and Recreation Commission
FROM Bruce K. And,_ sort;� ffirect , r
Parks and Recreon ommismion
DR Park Dedication. Ordinance U.,--date
BACKGROUND. The ' Park Dedication Ordinance calls for a review of
the fees charged in lieu of a land dedication in each odd
numbered year. The_ Parks and Recreation Commission is
responsible to report to the City Council the average value *of
undeveloped land within the City. The figure that is ascertained
is what the -Park Dedication Fee per acre cash contribution is
based .
The ordinance divides the City into four separate Park Dedication
.1 fee structures based on sewer and unse::ered property as well as
contrasting residential and industrial lard . The existing
ordinance divides the City somewhat inexactly, bu basi cl; it
corresD_ onds to unsewered and severed areas within the Cit . On.e
of the changes staff :OLlld prCnose in th.e ordinance this ;'ear is
to n _ :e the de'--..ea_ ion b.e.wee.1 tae t,:o :ees be c-earl •
establis*-= 4 as proper;.. inside or out Le MUSA line . The
average land values used are for unplatted or raw land . The
value of land ,:ith improvements including streets ,. sanitary
sewer , water service , etC . 0DVIOtls1y greatl}' in.creases the val,.le
0: the property. The Current Ordinance bases the cash
contribution on a required 10 percent land dedication and the
assumption that an average of 2 . 5 single family- lots can be
created out of each acre of raw land . The 1 -087 - ' 89 Park
Dedication requirements are as follows :
I . Sewered residential prorert•: - the average land vn1u,e
utilized was 58 , 250 . which based on our formula derives a
cash contribution of $330 per residential unit..
2 . U::se,:ered property - the average land value was based on
S5 , 000 per raw land per acre ,:hich rased on the formula
establishes a S200 per residential unit park, dedication fr-e .
In the case of commercial and industrial t•.,o separate land al.:es
based on the severed and urF,ewered areas have also been
established . P-nsed on studies of market sales there is a
difference in land -,•clues tb2t,:eerl commerc•inl
property in the somhern half of the Cit.%- or Pine Lend are: and
the remainder of the Cit>' . This is largel .: due to the lnrl: of
sanitliry sc, er and water service south of 55 10ut also its
Page 2 ( Cont . )
proximity to the urban area. The commercial and industrial
property values are currently determined on a land dedication of
6 percent of the total area being required for commercial and
industrial property. Using this figure , the prices that were in
place for the past two years for commercial/industrial property
were based ' on the. urban area of the City having an average land
value of S43 ,-000 per acre or $1 . per sq. ft . which would require
a cash contribution of S2 , 178 . The Commercial/industrial area in
the south is based on S•3 , 504 . per acre or $425 . per acre .
CURRENT * LAND VALUES . During the past three months staff has been
reviewing the existing park dedication fees to determine the
average value of land within the City. A number of issues have
been studied including :.
I . Land sale records on file at the Dakota County :assessor ' s
Office .
2 . Appraisals of existing parcels were analyzed .
3 . An independent appraiser was retained to assist staff .
4 . Three staff meetings were held with the City ttorney,
Chamber of Commerce and. local developers to ascertain their
opinion .
As a result o= t _s - _ 7,.e __.1 _C _.'.g ^e:'al statE:;:�:,ts Can
be made :
1 . • The value of severed residential land is increasing at .a
..91
taster :ate than the other three areas
2 : The value of unsewered residential land has increased at a
moderate rate .
3 . The value of commercial property in the northern area of the
CiLI._? - extremely Variable . Staff discovered recent sales
ran-in-, from S-'. . 60 per sq. ft . to . 60 per sq . ft . depending
upon the area that comparables were reviewed .
4 • Commercial and industrial land values in the Pine Send are-
have remained static in recent % ears .
As a result of this study staff recommends the folloti:in 131,d
values and fees to be charged for the 1939-91 Pnrlc Ordinance .
RECOMMENDATION TO: CITY COUNCIL OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
FROM: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING HELD; APRIL 12 , 1989
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON SHEILA TATONE ,.
COMMISSIONERS MARTIN SILVI , COLLIN
O'NEILL, L•YNDA BEERMANN , RENEE
KATH, CONRAD MUELLER, AND ROGER
TONDERL'M.
SUBJ: PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE
Staff highlighted the memorandum regarding the park dedication
ordinance and indicated that the Parks and Recreation Commission
wgs responsible to report to the City Council the average value
of undeveloped land within the City every two years . Staff had
proposed a recommendation for the park dedication fees based on
the following criteria:
1 ) Recent land sales within the City.
2 ) Comparison of other suburban community' s park dedication
fees .
3 ) A report prepared by an independent appraiser.
4 ) The existing park dedication fees .
As a result of this process staff indicated the following :
1 ) The value of severed residential land is increasiniz at a
faster rate than the other three areas .
2 ) The value of unsewered residential land have increased at a
moderate rate .
3 ) The value of commercial property in the northern area of the
City is extremely variable .
4 ) Commercial industrial land values in the Pine Bend area have
remained static in recent rears .
Based on the information , staff recommended the following :
1 ) Residential severed land values should be increased to
S9 , 250 . per acre or a 11 percent increase over a 2 year
period .
2 ) The residential unsewered land Value should increase to
S5 , 250 . per acre or a 5 percent increase over 2 rears .
3 ) The commercial industrial land -aloes remain the same
as they were in 1989 . )
4 ) The commercial industrial land values in the southern
half of the City should remain the same as they were in
'1 1989 .
A lengthy discussion ensued by the Parks and Recreation
Commission which reached the following consensus :
Page 2 ( Cont . )
1 ) The rates as proposed by staff were too conservative
and do not reflect the information and documentation
that was provided in the staff report .
2 ) The Commission felt that the value of City land would
increase dramatically over the next two years ,
justifying a larger increase at this time .
MOTION was • made by Commissioner kath and seconded by
Commissioner Beermann to recommend to the City Council to
adopt the 1989-91 Park Dedication fees as recommended by
staff and furthermore , to modify the ordinance to follow the
MUSA boundary for sewered and unsewered areas . The original
motion was amended made by Commissioner Silvi , seconded by
Commissioner Tonderum to increase the rates recommended by
staff to $10 , 000 . for the sewered residential area and
$6 , 000 . per acre for the unsewered residential area based on
the data and information as prepared by staff .
MOTION CARRIED: i AYES ,
0 NAYS
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DATE: APRIL 24 , 1939
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIOti OF INFER GROVE HEIGHTS
BRUCE K. ANDERSON , DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION
n
s-� Pagc 3 ( Cont .
1 . Residential Ses;ered - S9 , 250 . per acre or S370 . / unit , which
reflects a change of S40 . per tin it or an 11 percent
increase over a
two year period .
2 . Residential L7nsewered - S5 , 250 . per acre or S210 . /:.init
reflects an increase -f S10 . -,er tlni t in t:1= residential
unSe:;ered area or a 5 percent _ncrease over two years .
3 . - Commercial/Industrial - the northern area of th• e Cit
:.-ould reamin at S1 . per sq. ft . or S43 , 000 per acre or
$2 , 178 . per acre which remains the same as the past two
rears .
4 . Commercial/Industrial - the southern area of the City would
remain at S425 . per acre park charge .;hich also remains the
same as the past two years .
:attached is a listing of ParK Dedication fees currently being
charged in a variety of second ring suburbs that ha`.'e been
utilized as a point - of reference during the past four % ears . in
addition , I have attached copies of real estate sales that were
received from the Dakota County.
Staff will be on hard _c= _e• the -.nc_osed infor-iation at tL-e
regularly scheduled April Park Commission Meeting .
1929 Park Dedic-ition Land Values
Jan. 23 , 1989 - Dakota Co . :assessor' s Office
The following land sales were made within the last 18 months and
provided City staff with comparable values to establish the park
dedication fee .
Unsewered residential area:
There were a number of 1andl sales in this area the recent
activity of the proposed Rottlund Development . There were seven
land parcel sales by Rottlund acrsuired between 3-36 to 4-87 ,
ranging from a low of 53 , 936 . to a high of 510 , 000 . Der acre for
Hwy. 55 frontage .
Additional comps in this area:
I . eith and Ccncord/Springwood Ponds - 510 , 000 . per acre - 1936
2 . 90th and Barnes/Harstad Property - $4 , 200 . per acre - 1987
3 . Wildridge Estates - S2 , 851 . - March 1988
4 . Property west of 55 purchased by Ben Oerlein - S5 , 819 . per
+-� acre .
Residential sewered pronert •:
The best comp for this w_-s the Gopelt --arm Property acquired in
19^6 til` - - `-?1 r` .i - _ � rr� ^?_ cCre . _ ..==e a'ie cn a
number of" 1 = m - - .- .-_ .._ -.. '...c �_�ti --sti :l- L. »- ..7
large parcels . The other corm) for sec:ered residential pror_erty
is Salem Hills Farm which was 56 , 000/acre Dec . 1936 . The
propertly sold for more once utilities were in place .
Unsewered commercial/industrial property:
The comps again varied a great deal for the unse::ered
commercial/industrial property and ranged as follows :
1 . She property ..t 7 0t:i and t St , commonly re=erred t^ ..S
the "Rugby Property- - S9 , C00 . r.er acre .
2 . Property- north of r;och Re inery , east of Wayne Transit-SI4-
1 r , 00 per acre .
3 . 'i . 3 and Rich Va 11 ey Bl - 515 , _ 3 , r_er acre - 1986 .
Commercial industrial property in the sewer district :
A-_-:,aln , . there was a great dis reha:)c' in this rtin(ging from 65 to
70 cents ,,or sq . ft . for projerty In the 1ndiistrial PIK . basod or:
S30 , 000 . per .:cre to ;t high of S1 . 55 t-•cr sc, ft . -or the KI - in
Che\• rolet Property .
Page 2 ( Cont . )
The following additional comps were considered for the
commercial/industrial property in the severed district .
1 . Plywood Minnesota Property - $2. 36 per sq. ft . - 1986
2 . :fiction Disposal - $I . per sq. ft . - 12/86
3 . Am/Natl . Can - Industrial Park - 81 cents per sq. ft .
1989 SURVEY OF PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCES
MAPLEWOOD Robert D. Odegard 770-4570
Residential
Land Dedication - Credit based on cash donation
Cash Donation - S79.50 per person
- Single family home 4. 1 x 79. 50 = $326
- Mobile home 2. 1 x 79.50 = $167
- Townhome 8.2 x 79.50 = S652
Commercial and Industrial - 7% of market value of land
MAPLE GROVE Terry_ Just 420-4000
C Residential
Land & Cash Donation - 7.5% base for fair market value
- $518/unit
Commercial and Industrial - Commercial = S2050/acre
- Industrial. = $1,650/acre
PLYMOUTH Eric Blank $fl
Residential
Land Dedication. - 10% and up depending on nu,:,ber of units
• Commercial and industrial - $3,300/acre
EA:GAN Ken Vraa 454-8100
Residential
Land Dedication - Sliding scale (higher density = higher scal
- 10% of total area for home
- 11-14% of total area for apartr:ents
Cash Donation - Single family = S525/unit
- Duplex = S488/unit
- Apartments = S427/unit
- Townhouse = S414/unit
Commercial and industrial - Cash donation of 5c/sq. ft . of developable
land
- is collected with building permit
1-I
1989 Survey of Park Dedication Ordinances
Pale' 2
BURNSVILLE Randy 'elt 9 S- U
Residential
Land Dedication - Nu-...ber of dv.elling units r, estimated
household size
Cash Donation - R-lA = $ 7,500/acre.
- R-1 = $12,000/acre
- R-2 = S13,500/acre
- R-3A = S20,000/acre
- R-33 =.$30,000/acre
Commercial and Industrial - Commercial = $52,500/acre
- Industrial = $22,500/acre
APPLE'VALLEY Randy Johnson 431-8800
Residential _
Land Dedication - 10% of total area
Cash Donation - 101 of-assessed land value (currently
using $15,000/acre)
Commercial and Industrial - 5% of land or cash in lieu
BROOKLYN'PARK Dennis Palm 424-8017
Residential
Land ;cation - zr-;. of total ere-
Cash Donation - 10% of assessed value
Commercial and Industrial - 5% of land or cash in lieu
BLAINE Jim Peterson 784-6700
Residential
Land Dedication - Based on number of &,,ellincs/acre
0- 1 = 5%
- 2- 3 = 10'0
4- 5 = 12n
6- 7 = 14';
8-12 = 16;�
13-16 = 18 (add . 5%� for each additional
dwelling above 16)
Cash Donation Single family = S395/u nit
Duplex = S33S/unit
•'* - To%gnhouse/Quad = S293/uni t
Apartment = S248/unit
Commercial and Industrial - 5% of fair market value of land
19g9 Survey of' Park .Dedication Ordinances .
Pace 3• G
COTTAGE GROVE John Friedrickson 466-2-8o--- -( � re
Residential
Land Dedication - One (1) acre per estimated 75 residents
in subdivision. Based on 3.8 acre/unit.
Cash Donation - S275/unit -
- 2+ Family unit = $75/bedroom
Commercial and Industrial - 5% but never implemented.
EDE14 PRAIRIE- Bob Lambert 937-2262 •
Residential
Land Dedication ' - 10%
Cash Donation - $720/unit
Commercial and Industrial - $2,560/acre
COON RAPIDS- Rick Pearson - 755-2880
Residential
-� Land Dedication - 0- 1 (units/acre)• = 5%
2- 3 (units/acre) = 10%
4- 5 (units/acre) = 12%
6- 7 (units/acre) _ 14%
8-12 (units/acre) = 16%
- Add zn for each unit/acre cf mcre than 15.
Commercial and Industrial - $1,152/acre
-
'
- ~
_
Communities whom answered : Park Dedication Policy Questions :
a: Does your community accept land dedication in sddition t: 2
cash option?
b: For residential park development charges do you receive
them at time of final plat or when they apply for building
permits?
'
c : Does your ordinance provide for credit for on site
recreation amenities if yes how much?
It: their choice
* b: final plat/if large land development-cost is spread out
c : yes, up to 2% of total dedication
APPLE VALLEY:
a: yes
b: building permits
c : doesn ' t specify it
if yes: individual (case by case)
a: yes
b: can ' t get building permit, until they pay
c : no / cash dedications in-lieu-of land dedications
^ BLAINE:
a: either or / yes, but cannot exceed the value of the land
^ b: final plat
c: yes , up to 25%
EDEN PRAIRIE:
a: yes, sometimes
b: building permit
c : yes, does not spell it out( happened once in the last ! 0
years )
a: yes
*o' " b: at the time they release the plat
cc would dQpend ; which site, what kind of site wori
would rather gst raw land : ( free or for a fee)
would have more control over the land
yr° '