Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Untitled
Enclosure 5 • 411 OAK PARK HEIGHTS PARK AND TRAIL SURVEY TABULATIONS 1 . Overall , how important do you feel it is for the City to provide park and trail opportunities for community business? 22% - Very Important 22% - Somewhat Important 48% - Not Important 8% - No Opinion 2 . In the past three years , how often do you estimate that your business ( or employees of your business ) have made use of Oak Park Heights park and trail facilities ( in association with the business , i.e . company picnics , etc . ) ? 70% - None 11% - 1-3 Times 4% - 4-6 Times 4% - 7-9 Times 11% - 10+ Times If you have utilized those facilities in the past year, would you consider using them again? 30% - Yes . All surveys that indicated park usage stated that they would utilized them again. 3 . Please indicate the extent to which your business (or employees of your business ) utilize the following City park facilities . Valley View Brekke Park 4% - Use Regularly 8% - Use Regularly 15% - Use Occasionally 15% - Use Occasionally 81% - Never Use 78% - Never Use Swager Park Cover Park 4% - Use Regularly 0% - Use Regularly 4% - Use Occasionally 4% - Use Occasionally 92% - Never Use 96% - Never Use 4. From a business owner/operator perspective, which of the following park facilities do you (or your employees ) use on a regular basis (more than six times per year)? 9% - Trails 17% - Picnic Tables 12% - Picnic Shelters 9% - Benches 5% - Tennis Courts 9% - Baseball/Softball Fields • • 0% - Basketball Courts 12% - Swing/Play Sets 0% - Horseshoe Pits 3% - Hockey Rinks 9% - Grills 3% - Warming Houses 12% - Other: "None" ** NOTE: 63% of surveys returned did not check any item( s ) . Percentages listed in question #4 are based upon the 34 responses received. 5 ) . Approximately, what distance does your business lie from the nearest park facility? 37% - Less than one-quarter ( 1/4) mile. 19% - Between one-quarter ( 1/4 ) and one-half ( 1/2 ) mile. 30% - Between one-half ( 1/2 ) and one ( 1 ) mile . 7% - Over one ( 1 ) Mile 7% - No response . ( * ) ( * ) One no response indicated, "Don't know - don' t live here, so not sure where parks are. " 6 ) . In the past three years , how many civic organization ( i.e. , Lions , American Legion, etc. ) events have you attended at the City' s park facilities? 89% - None 11% - 1 to 3 0% - More than 4 7 ) . How many persons are employed by your business? 55% - 1 to 5 19% - 5 to 10 7% - 10 to 20 19% - More than 20 8 ) . What type of business service do you provide? 18% - Office 0% - Pharmaceutical 7% - General Merchandise 0% - Lumber/Hardware 4% - Apparel 4% - Eating/Drinking 4% - Furniture/Home Furnishings 4% - Automobile 0% - Automotive 4% - No Response 4% - Food 51% - Other ( * ) (* ) Others Listed: Electric Utility Medical/Dental Dance Classes Marina & Service Hair Salon Service Boats & Cycles Child Care/Nursery School Prison Manufacturing • • 9 ) . Approximately, what percentage of your business ' employees reside in the City Of Oak Park Heights? 4% - 100 Percent 7% - 50 to 75 Percent 0% - 75 to 100 Percent. 89% - Less than 50 Percent 10 ) . Does your business sponsor/support any recreational league activities? 15% - Yes 85% - No ( * ) ( * ) One no respondent reported that they sponsored/supported hockey in the past If yes , what activity? Baseball/Hockey, Valley Sports Association-High School Sports , V.A.A. and one said softball (not on a regular basis ) 11 ) . Do you or any of your employees utilize any City park or trail facilities during the business day ( i.e . , lunch break, etc. )? 15% - Yes 85% - No 12 ) . Do you or any of your employees utilize parks in other cities during the business day or for business functions? 15% - Yes 85% - No If yes , where? City of Stillwater, City of Bayport, City of Somerset ( specifically waterslide location) 13 ) . In the space following, please provide any general comments you may have in regard to the relationship between community businesses and the City' s park and trail system. "I haven't seen any park close to my business . " "We have no need to conduct business ! " "Parks are ok as is - forget the trails ! A waste of our tax money. " "Businesses should not influence the City' s parks . It should be the residents . " "A trail near a business would allow employees to utilize it much easier before, during, and after work. " "A great benefit for the whole community. " S • "We have limited use as a business , but our employees and their families use them often for non-business events , especially when their children are of grade school age . " 14) . What improvements/changes , if any, can be made to Oak Park Heights ' system of parks/trails/walkways/recreational areas that would be useful to you or your employees? "Most people have to go to a fast food place to get their food. By the time they get that and go to a part to eat, it is too late. If you could put food trucks at different parks , I think people would go to them and spend their lunches and maybe bring their families there on the weekend. " "A bike path/running path linking all area communities would be useful and well used. " "Would like to see river trail from north of Stillwater to Lakeland trails to Afton State Park. " "Maps . " "None. No "trail system" No more city taxes ! " "None! Save your money! " "No idea. " "Distribute a one page map of all areas . " "Build a practice sand trap for golfers . " "Sidewalks in residential areas" SUMMARY: 160 Surveys were mailed to local businesses . Three were returned as undeliverable . 27 of the surveys were received back for a 17% response back from our business community. 110 Page 2 - Minutes 11/27/95 Park Dedication Fees - City Planner Richards reported on the results of the study completed by Northwest Associated Consultants regarding Park Dedication Fees . Richards reported that no metro area community has specifically studied how to change their park dedication process in light of recent U.S . Supreme Court decisions . Richards requested Council allow city staff to compile additional information on Park Dedication Fees . Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Robert, moved to table discussion on Park Dedication Fees until the City Council meeting on January 8, 1995 . Carried 4-0 . Proposed Fire Substation - Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Swenson, moved to' set a workshop to discuss the proposed Fire Substation cost estimates for Monday, December 11, 1995, at 5 : 30 p.m. Carried 4-0 . Proposed Changes in Brown' s Creek Joint Powers - Council discussed the proposed changes in the Brown' s Creek Joint Powers agreement . Council reviewed City Attorney Vierling' s memo noting concerns regarding ambiguous language in the agreement . Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Schaaf, moved to table discussion on changes in the Brown' s Creek Joint Powers Agreement until the December 11 Council meeting, and directed Robertson to send a letter to the Brown' s Creek Board asking that they address the Concerns raised by Vierling. Carried 4-0 . Proposed 1996 Salaries - Mayor O'Neal, seconded by Swenson, moved to reconsider previous approval of 1996 employee salaries . Motion failed 2-2, Schaaf and Robert opposed. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Schaaf, moved to suspend parliamentary rules so as to discuss the issue. Carried 4-0 . Councilmember Swenson said that he would favor the original recommendation of the City Administrator for 1996 salaries . After discussion, Council was in consensus that the issue would be discussed at the December 11 Council meeting. Mayoral Term - Mayor O'Neal requested consideration be given to extending the mayoral term from two years to four years, starting after the next election. City Attorney Vierling advised Council to hold a public hearing on the issue in December and then vote in January. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Schaaf, moved to set a public hearing date on December 11, 1995 to discuss extending the mayoral term from two years to four years. Carried 4-0 . Review Minutes — November 6, 1995: Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Robert, moved to approve minutes as presented. Carried 4-0 . Review Minutes - November 13, 1995 : Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to approve minutes as presented. Carried 4-0 . IINAiated !onsultants Inc . • Northwest Assoc ,C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM D NI6 2 5 1995 TO: Mike Robertson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication/Annexation Area Park FILE NO: 798.02 - 95.12 BACKGROUND Due to quickly escalating land costs within the area annexed to the City in 1991, the issue of whether to update park dedication fees has been raised by Council members. The existing fee system is consistent with many older communities in the Metropolitan Area which are not experiencing growth and rising land costs. Many of the developing communities our office represents both within and outside the limits of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) are addressing the issue of park dedication fees as the costs of building park and trail systems increase. The issue is further compounded by the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Doland V_ City of Tigard which establishes the precedent that a governmental taking must be roughly proportional to the legitimate governmental interest. In order to address these issues, the City of Oak Park Heights must examine the costs of developing the park system in the annexation area versus the anticipated land/cash dedication-from future development in this area. Park fees must make up a reasonable proportional cost of developing a park system. If the park land/cash dedication from an area exceeds the total cost of investment in the park system for the locale then the issue of a "taking" without fair return becomes a concern. Park and trail fees from other developing communities are also presented here for comparison purposes. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Updated Cost Estimate for Annexation Area Park Exhibit B - Annexation Area/Park Plan Map Exhibit C Memo - Dolan V. Tigard - Impacts for Municipalities Exhibit D - Park Dedication Comparative Analysis • 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 410 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS - ANNEXATION AREA PARK A preliminary estimate of costs was calculated in 1994 for the annexation area park. The numbers have been slightly revised and updated as found in Exhibit A. The total cost of the annexation area park as currently configured is $1,815,120 of which $1,045,445 is credited to land costs estimated at$43,560 per acre. It is assumed that land dedication will be required of Elmer Haase for the residential property south of 58th Street. That land dedication would consist of 7.46 acres with a value (again based upon a value of$43,560) of $324,522. PROJECTED PARK DEVELOPMENT REVENUES Existing Park Dedication Requirements The current park dedication requirements from the Oak Park Heights Subdivision ordinance are as follows: 402.08 Park Land Dedication Requirements Subd. I. In residential plats one acre of land shall be conveyed to the City as an outlot by warranty deed for every seventy-five (75) people the platted land could house based upon the following population calculations: Single Family Detached Dwelling Lots 3.5 persons Two-Family Dwelling Lots 6.0 persons Apartments, Townhouses, Condominium and Other Dwelling Units 1 person per bedroom Subd. J. In lieu of a park land donation, the City may require the following cash donations: Single Family Detached Dwelling Lots $450.00 Two-Family Dwelling Lots $800.00 Apartments, Townhouses, Condominiums $250.00 per unit plus and Other Dwelling Units $ 85.00 per bedroom above the first bedroom of each unit Commercial and Industrial $1,750.00 per acre - pro-rated • • 2 • • • Depending upon the density of development, the current park dedication formula results in a yield of approximately 8 to 10 percent of the total acreage which is in line or slightly below most of the communities that were surveyed. The cash dedication yields a proportionately lesser amount. In a 40 acre parcel with a development of 75 lots, the land dedication would be 3.5 acres which has a current value of $152,450. If cash were required under the current formula, the dedication would be $33,750. Park Dedication Yields To determine the overall park dedication yield from the annexation area, a review of the cash dedication that has been received and the cash and land to be dedicated is as follows: Cash Cash Dedication Received: River Hills $24,750.00 WalMart $36,750.00 Brackey $98,735.00 Applebees/Haase $25,795.00 Subtotal $186,030.00 Cash Dedication Potential: Kern - 40 acres (commercial) 40 x $1,750.00 = $70,000.00 Haase - 30 acres (commercial) 30 x $1,750.00 = $52,500.00 Other - 5.5 acres (residential) 10 lots x $450.00 = $ 4,500.00 Subtotal $127,000.00 TOTAL CASH DEDICATION $313,030.00 Land Haase - South of 58th - 7.46 Acres Cash Value at $43,560 per Acre $324,958.00 TOTAL DEDICATION FROM ANNEXATION AREA (IN CASH) $637,988.00 3 • The significant shortfall in the potential costs of an annexation area park ($1,815,120.00) vs. the yield from park dedication ($637,988.00) indicates that at least one or a combination of the following steps must be taken: 1. Scale back the annexation area park plan. 2. Extend the time over which the program is to be implemented. 3. Seek to maximize park revenues through fee structures, grants and other sources. 4. Develop the park in conjunction with an elementary school. COST DISTRIBUTION It is expected that the cost of the park would not be funded by park dedication alone. The assumption is that over time 15% of the development funds will be from grants, 25% from the general fund or special financing, 10% from private contributions or volunteer labor, with the remaining 50% from park dedication. The cost distribution would be as follows: Total Park Cost $1,815,120 Grants 15% $272,268 General Fund 25% $453,780 Private Contributions 10% $181,512 Park Dedication 50% $907,560 Actual park dedication anticipated from the annexation area is estimated at $637,988, resulting in a shortfall of$269,572 from what will be required from this funding source. To make up the shortfall, the dedication structure within the Subdivision Regulations would need to be altered, but not exceed a level that is deemed appropriate for dedication purposes. Ten percent of the property has been determined as the amount of land necessary to reasonably provide park facilities for residential development. To comply with the Doland ruling, the City would still utilize the formula method which individualizes the percent for each development based upon overall density. The current schedule allows for a land dedication of .088 percent from the Haase property south of 58th Street. Revising the formula to a minimum of 10% would increase the dedication to 8.46 acres for an additional value of$43,995. To raise the cash dedication to a level equal to a 10% land dedication, a fee of$2,178 would need to be paid per lot. A cash dedication fee at that level would likely be difficult to implement at this time. Most communities' cash dedication fees do not equal the value of the land dedication. This is acceptable based on the rationale that residents living in a development adjacent to park land would be in closer proximity and benefit greater than those residents in developments that need to walk/ride a greater distance to use the facility. An adjustment to the cash fee would be acceptable to reach a level consistent with other developing communities. For instance, raising the fee to $900 per unit would increase the park dedication revenue total approximately $4,500 for the annexation area. • • 4 Cash dedication amounts for commercial and industrial property should also be increased to account for rising land values. Many communities do not charge commercial and industrial development park dedication fees, but supporters of this type of fee argue that business generates demand on parks due to league play or utilization of employees during breaks or at other times. Raising the fee to $3,000 per acre would raise an additional $87,500 for the annexation area park. Justification for raising the land/cash dedication amounts exists, but not to a level that would reach 50% of the total park costs. The shortfall with the revised fee schedule would amount to approximately $133,500. Other funding sources or a reduction in the park facilities would need to be considered. COMPARISON OF PARK FEES A comparison of fees for other developing communities has been provided in Exhibit D for review in conjunction with this study. The fee schedules of other communities are being provided only for comparison and not as the basis for establishing a revised fee schedule. TRAIL FEES The City of Oak Park Heights has not in the past charged a separate trail fee as a part of the park dedication process. Of the communities surveyed, only Eagan has a separate trail dedication requirement. The cost to build a trail adjacent to the front or rear of residential lost in Oak Park Heights is as follows: Construction 80 foot lot @ $15/LF = $1,200 100 foot lot @ $15/LF = $1,500 Land Cost Trails will be within parkland or roadway right-of-way in the Annexation Area. Eagan's requirement for cash contributions of$105 per residential dwelling unit and $880 per acre for commercial, industrial and public facilities covers only a fraction of the cost of building trail facilities. Our office will need to review this issue further and examine other trail fee examples to make a specific recommendation for Oak Park Heights. • • 5 • a CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Based upon the analysis provided above, our office would recommend increasing the park dedication requirements/fees as follows: Residential Land Dedication. The formula in the current regulations be revised to provide at least 10% of the gross land area that is being subdivided. The formula method will individualize each development proposal based upon the density proposed to comply with the Doland ruling. Cash Dedication. $900 per unit for all types of residential units. Commercial/Industrial Dedication $3,000 per acre with no specific land requirements. The City Council should review the information presented, schedule a public hearing to revise the subdivision regulations, or allow the Park board to review the issue first and make a specific recommendation. Additionally, if the Council would like additional information on park dedication, in particular what other communities have established, our office could do more research on this topic. We do intend to review the issue of trail fees/dedication further and provide a specific recommendation if requested by the Council. pc: Mayor and City Council Mark Vierling Joe Anderlik • 6 411 110 City of Oak Park Heights Cost Estimate for Park/Playground Facilities Based Upon Approved Annexation Area Park Layout Unit Est. Item Description Price Qty. Cost Baseball/Softball (per field) : Strip &stockpile topsoil $ 500/LS 1 $ 500 Rough/fine grading, spread topsoil 5, 000/LS 1 5, 000 Limestone Infield, 4" deep 4,200/EA 1 4,200 Outfield, seeded 1, 600/AC 1.4 2,240 Infield, sodded 1 . 80/SY 400 720 Backstops, 30 ' wide back, 10 ' wings, hooded, 4 ' overhang, chain link 4, 500/EA 1 4, 500 Fencing, 1, 400 linear feet per field, 9 . 00/LF 1400 12, 600 4 ' high $29,760 Soccer (per field) : Strip/stockpile topsoil 500/LS 1 500 Rough/fine grade, spread topsoil 5, 000/LS 1 5, 000 Seeded 1, 600/AC 3 . 8 6, 080 Sodded 1. 80/SY - - Goal Nets 2, 000/PR 1 2, 000 $13,580 Football (per field) : Strip/stockpile topsoil 500/LS 1 500 Rough/fine grading, spread topsoil 5, 000/LS 1 5, 000 Seeded 1, 600/AC 3 .8 6, 080 Sodded 1. 80/SY - - Goal Posts 3 , 000/PR 1 3, 000 $14,580 Basketball (per full court) : Rough/fine grading, asphaltic concrete, hoops/poles, color finish $13,500 Tennis (per court) : Rough/fine grading, asphaltic concrete, net and posts, color finish 3 54, 000 Periphery Fence, 360 linear feet, 10-12 ' high, 9 gauge 16 . 00/LF 3 17,280 $71,280 1 EXHIBIT A (3 PAGES) S • Freeskate/Hockey: Grading and Finish 5, 000 Hockey Boards 5, 000 $10,000 Picnic Tables/Shelters: Picnic Table, 8 ' pine w/metal legs 300/EA 6 1, 800 6 ' metal coated 400/EA Picnic Shelter, single, pine/metal, 8 ' 2, 500/EA Picnic Shelter, 15x24, wood/shingles 6, 000/EA 1 6, 000 Picnic Shelter, 28x34, metal 8, 000/EA $7, 800 Playground Equipment: Modular Tot Play Structure, 8x17, 20x30 protective area, 16-18 kids 7, 000/EA 1 7, 000 Deluxe Modular Play Structure, 24x30, 37x42 protective area, 25-30 kids 14, 000/EA 1 14, 000 Spring Toys 400/EA See Saw 900/EA Swingset, standard metal, 4 seats 700/EA Slide, metal, 70" 1, 000/EA Swing, adult bench 600/EA $21, 000 Seating: Bench, backless, wood, 8' 350/EA 6 2, 100 Bench w/back, 6 ' metal 520/EA Player benches, 14 ' metal w/back 400/EA 2 800 Player benches, 14 ' w/out back 250/EA Bleachers, 5 rows @ 15 feet, wood/metal 1, 000/EA 2 2, 000 $4,900 Support Elements: Bike Rack, 10 ' wood & metal (14 bike cap. ) 350/EA 1 350 Trash Receptacle w/lid (metal or wood) 200/EA 10 2, 000 Water Fountain, metal ground mounted 1, 130/EA 1 1, 130 Grills, black metal 140/EA 5 700 Fencing, 1, 700 linear feet, 9 gauge (along residential lots) * 4 ' high, $9/linear foot 6 ' high, $12/linear foot 20,400 $24,580 Trails, approximately 10, 000 linear feet: 6, 000 linear feet bituminous paved, 8 foot width, 3" asphalt on 4" gravel base 15/LF 90, 000 4, 000 linear feet crushed limestone paved, 8 foot width, 4" deep 6 .50/LF 26, 000 $116,000 2 4 • Parking Lot: Paving, 60 stalls, 24, 000 sf, 3 " finish layer w/ 4" asphaltic base and gravel subgrade 1 .35/SF 32 , 400 Curbing, 6x18 concrete, 1000 linear feet 7 . 00/LF 7, 000 Striping, 4" wide .20/LF 1, 500 300 $39,700 Structures: Restroom, storage, warming house building, picnic shelter, 50x75 wood construction 65/SF 3 , 800 247, 000 Footbridges, steel arch type w/ wood deck, 8 feet wide, 60 ' span 50/SF 480 24, 000 80 ' span 50/SF 640 32, 000 Landscaping, Signage, and Lighting: (Estimated High Total) *$100,000 Subtotal - Park Facilities/Improvements $769, 680 Land Cost: East Area 16 Acres $43, 560/Acre 696,960 West Area 8 Acres $43 , 560/Acre 348,480 Wetlands 11 Acres 0 0 Subtotal - Land $1,045,440 TOTAL $1, 815,120 * Indicates options, types or quantities of items which are currently unknown which will vary depending upon what is chosen by the Park Board/City 3 - ((\• ''.. lalpire, -"::- :7 . r . , .. 13 Alli ---..,,...._Of K • N‘'‘.\\I„\ 9;4 OA. i" i . . . '., 1 $44 lotiwig,, .. : .,. _ , ) , : . iiii,, . \ 14- = /,‘‘. 3.!,. .N/ t.:.7 re ii0 \011. .., .1:-.,,, 1 •-• ,I . .. . " O' . ‘i ' -....------ _—_"11.-=.A. .., >,.....,,, „ t, ...,. P.or _„ ... .. , , l)Li,, ,,,,,,ip,P, :.. .... . _ 0„,._ ..... . ., , ,„„...,\ , . , fp. : 1 L./, „ 0. - i i f dik°1 --,0000 AA 7 i -,, ,-,_ _Ar.el ..i/ .... Agfirat---- . , , a te 1 _..„ / „kw„ 'ir -----------____----,lv .A ............." --- 4 i\,1.\-:-; , .! i .'"'"*P-6114-#7 of /i., 4111.:, ..,.. . ••• 1 1 I . --1- ‘, ill . -... \- -)7--) 04 . v. • 11.-, ‘ ‘kiNT • • : e•-. '"----- )do )* ' • .40 ori.,4 i .. -7. ., ,46. e .: , ‘4' - ( f$ . - : e4V lom4 !.-. \ ._-- , gia...z. li f 10 ' ' ' ___ .. 4.4 ...... ..- Wu. 1' ; . i ., ri. '111Se ',.,',,),, 44 1 i , , --- __(/- --00) ' -7, . . . o - .►�� ? Pdtil/, Ii.,A\, ,..0,„,.., . -- .tir • ":: x b•. . . • . • .111 (.....: 131, III \..\N14...1. -.. 73 yr rWS '11tk?if ,) IF- i r * ..L. )Iiii 1 4-4 WIR :. '.:: t'" - / 05: WO 1, '.. ..t° i:/".3e e --- � ..�:� mss. - 0 �-� JSP f /7. .:.:':'..:;'•::':'.... .op-_, _„,,,i ,?. 'w Wrmum...." ""1""Pb3''..ittestr.Vis-",,lesix x :,,...___ _ __- „....0:__--;- , re . 11( Et, ".: , 1 '-' I '••'.2 .:..•:.it -00. 4). ---" ---......-,K. r•••,./ /hi 4,,* . . ,,. , ,, ••, >, i, . ... , , ; . .. p.,.. , z, I____,. ..--. , ._ .r.y. \. ,44torjo, . lot ..‘. „..... .. . .<:), t-- ‘ . r 1.. --‘1 ,....gle_iiii " io.„„1---r,„4,-- ....._ ..,r 1.1. i: i II te• /� i Wir -- 1d11111811111614 Pr,/ r7 li 0 T 4 1,,st L, •.,,,.. ...... , •,• ..,4,.... .... ..,'IOVI 1 ill osii A...„. ., :. . . _.. _..0 , . .„,„„„.. , wt. Mill r AI ° (Ti. ....i. :,/. _ i . . _ _ _. . _____ ___ 1 i• t 4, _ : ...,i .1 1 cr) i _ z Ai , , „, o z (-ri 1 1 . •••=1L._.‘” ig • .1\------• 7 J >. r,,, 7 's )11 ' cill 5 HP ' ‘t TI ...i .........%. i 1 "FA 1 ',:, i . 1 g \ r_..\ , , „ ,. ) .„ /,.. ., 4 , .::, • , ,,, ,., r,... . r 7..iiiior it . r uTmi,, o -‹ ° 72 � __._rpm \ . ® iiitieci„ -0. •-\, 1 O ` .. I O Eli 4 .... ;, ( 1 . CO 7 • i .: E. . io . 1„ :-.1 —I . - :::: st b L imi _ *-44.::" k i , 17. - ; ) v .1. 1 q-l- �� ., -_ ` ,___ ›„ i - .I _ n ; ,iii „,', - U I--1-.. LI 1 SII I i ... \ / •• ' � Northwest Associated Consultants , Inc . q C COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Grittman/Scott Richards DATE: 24 August 1995 RE: Administration - Dolan v Tigard - Impacts for Municipalities FILE NO: 801 BACKGROUND In June of 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Dolan V City of Tigard. As you may know, Dolan was a case in which a landowner (Dolan) was required to dedicate a floodplain area and a bike/pedestrian trail easement as condition of development approval on her lot, in this case, the reconstruction of a new and larger hardware store. She contested the exactions, claiming that the dedications were unconstitutional takings without compensation. The Supreme Court agreed that the takings were legal, that is, that the governmental purpose was a legitimate one. The Court focussed instead on the amount of taking as compared to the impact created by the development on the lot in question. In a previous case, Nollan v. Cal Coastal Commission, the Court established the rule that there must be an essential nexus between the taking and the "legitimate governmental purpose". Thus, California's exaction of a beachfront walking easement was not reasonably related to its professed purpose of "increased visual access to the ocean", even though that purpose was legitimate. In Dolan, the issue became: Are the exactions reasonably related in degree to the legitimate governmental purpose, and especially those exactions which deprive a property owner of "the right to exclude others", such as trail easements? The majority of the Court ruled 5-4 that they were not in this case. They established a new rule that a governmental taking must be "roughly proportional" (as opposed to merely related, or exactly proportional) to the legitimate governmental interest. Many development interests have considered Dolan to be a major victory with regard to property rights. This may be true with regard to theory. However, it would seem that the real-world impacts may be less dramatic than advertised. EXHIBIT C (4 PAGES) 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 , (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 • IMPACTS IN MINNESOTA There appear to be two primary upshots of this ruling for municipalities in Minnesota: 1) Cities must make individualised determinations as to the project impacts in relation to the level of dedications and other exactions required. Since most cities make these requirements at subdivision approval stage, this is where the determination of "rough proportionality" must be done; 2) The burden is now on the City to show that the exaction is roughly proportional to the proposed project's impacts. Formerly, there was a presumption that the City's exaction requirement was legitimate. The developer challenging the City's exaction was burdened with showing that it was either not a legitimate purpose, or there was no essential nexus. The technical application of this new rule is that when a plat proposal comes in, the City's response would be to analyze its impacts, determine what dedications are required, then show the developer that the project impacts are roughly proportional to the dedications to be required. If the City cannot do this, it would presumably have to pay for the excess taking. [See comment below as to"Practical Effects"] As noted, the net impact for the City is that any development exaction which goes beyond that necessary to accommodate the development itself will have to be purchased. This includes street rights-of-way, utility easements, area-wide ponding, park dedications, etc. This will almost always be in cases of exactions for regional facilities, such as collector roads, sewer trunk line easements which are wider than that necessary for a smaller lateral, or a park which is sized and intended for service to portions of the City not a part of the proposed development. PRACTICAL EFFECTS There are a few things Cities apparently must do in order to comply with the Dolan ruling: • Eliminate language in the park dedication sections of the Subdivision Ordinance which prescribes a specific percentage land dedication. The previous Minnesota Court of Appeals decision which resulted in a presumption that a 10% park dedication was reasonable is overruled to the extent that it would endorse a blanket requirement. The determination must be individualized to the project being proposed. • Park dedication requirements may be "easy" to calculate for residential projects, due to available national standards for park requirements. However, for cities which also assess a park dedication fee for commercial development, the calculation will be more difficult. Somehow, it will have to be established that the business places a quantifiable demand on the recreation facilities through league play, etc. 2 S • • • Although it is less clear, cities should assess and collect any dedication fees at the time of subdivision approval, and tie their payment to some recordable document such as a development agreement. In the event that the City does not wish to require full collection of the fees at the time of platting, the charges should definitely be recorded through a development agreement. If a City cannot point to a previous agreement to pay a park dedication fee, presumably based on some sort of study, a subsequent buyer/builder may be able to challenge the fee, requiring a new study for that particular building. There are a few things which Cities may (or should) do, as well: • Some people familiar with Minnesota law believe that it will be plausible to aggregate the effects of local development in determining the need for area-wide dedications. This theory assumes that one area will dedicate the parkland, a second will dedicate the collector street ROW, and another will dedicate the ponding area, for example. In aggregate, the dedications are "roughly proportional". If such aggregation were to occur, it would seem most likely under the process described in the next paragraph. • The bottom-line impact would seem more likely to be the following scenario: A developer will come to the City to propose a project. If the City has done a thorough job of Comprehensive Planning for all of its infrastructure requirements, such as collector/ arterial streets, trunk water and sewer, stormwater control systems, and parks, the City will say to the developer: "We think that the dedications for your project, based on our Comprehensive Plan, are roughly proportional to your project impacts. If you design your project to accommodate them, you will be able to get a preliminary plat request on the Planning Commission agenda in two or three weeks. If, on the other hand, you would like us to do a more individualized study, we will, per our responsibility under Dolan. However, it is going to take us at least 60 days, and you will have to agree to escrow for the cost of our consultants (just as many cities do now for §429 feasibility studies)." In this scenario, the City needs to make sure that its Comprehensive Plan is complete with regard to the infrastructure dedications it will want to require, including Park and Trail locations, sizes, and service areas. The vast majority of developers are not likely to embrace the idea of the cost or the wait, and will agree to abide by the City's Comprehensive Plan. This assumes that the Plan is clear, reasonable, and is complete with regard to all of the exactions the City will want to require. If the Plan is not complete, then at least one individualized study will have to be done anyway, in which case the developer may choose to require all of them. It is assumed that with individualized studies, the City will have a difficult time showing rough proportionality in all cases, and will have to buy some of its easement acquisition formerly gained through dedication requirements. • 3 • , • This latter approach would seem to be better for both the City and the developer. The developer would not be held up, nor have to assume the costs of an uncertain study, and the City would not have to end up purchasing easements and rights-of-way which previously were dedicated as a part of the platting process. The City has two options under the Dolan rule: (1) The City may proceed under their current Comprehensive Plan, and conduct the individualized studies as each development proposal comes in. As noted above, this process may be more expensive and time consuming than previous plat approvals. To the extent that developers are dissatisfied with this impact, it may tend to discourage development activity. (2) The City may update the various sections of its Comprehensive Plan which may result in a physical or regulatory taking. For most communities, this may mean some general tinkering with the utility, stormwater control, and transportation plans, and major work in the areas of parks and trails. In either of these cases (but especially the latter), the City should consider the use of Development Agreements much more routinely where exactions are made. In this way, exactions which are actually collected later than the filing of the final plat will be of record, and the property owner will have notice of them. pc: Mike Robertson • 4 • City of Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication Analysis Metropolitan Area Comparison August 15, 1995 City/ Residential - Land Residential - Cash Commercial Industrial Township Dedication Dedication Dedication Dedication Afton 10% of gross land area $2000/residential $1500/acre (there $1500/acre (there being subdivided dwelling unit are no land are no land requirements) requirements) Baytown $300/lot $300/lot $300/lot $300/lot Township Buffalo One acre of land for $800/unit for single None None every 75 persons the family lots, platted land could $800/unit for two- house based upon 3.5 family lots, and persons per single $400/unit for family lot, 6 persons multiple family per two-family lot, and dwellings 1 person per bedroom of multiple family units Eagan The City has adopted a $875 per single Land up to 7.5% Land up to 7.5% general standard of 15 family unit, $791 of net land area or of net land area or *See foot- acres of land that is per duplex unit, .65 cents per .65 cents per note and needed for every 1000 $723 per square foot/$2831 square foot/$2831 attached residents, of which 12 townhouse or quad per acre of net per acre of net copy of acres shall be unit, and $726 per land area. A land area. A subdivision designated as park. apartment or credit of up to credit of up to ordinance multiple family unit. 25% of the 25% of the section. 0-1.9 units/ac=8% required required This comm- >1.9 units/ac=10% dedication may be dedication may be unity has a >3.5 units/ac=12% allowed by the allowed by the very detailed >5.9 units/ac=14% City Council for City Council for park and Add .5% for each unit stormwater stormwater trail dedica- over 10 control facilities. control facilities. tion process. Eden Up to 10% of $945/unit for all Up to 10% of the Up to 10% of the Prairie subdivision area residential units subdivision land subdivision land area or$3410 per area or$3410 per acre cash acre cash contribution contribution EXHIBIT D (9 PAGES) • • Page Two, City of Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication Analysis 15 August 1995 Lakeville <2.5 units/ac=10% Single and Multiple 5% of gross 5% of gross 2.5-4 units/ac=11% Family= $650 per land area or 5% land area or 5% 4-6 units/ac=13% dwelling unit of current market of current market 6-8 units/ac=15% value of value of 8-10 units/ac=17% unimproved land unimproved land 10+units/ac=17-20% as determined by as determined by the County the County Assessor Assessor Minne- Reasonable portion of $400/unit for single 10% of gross land 10% of gross land tonka gross land area being family, $300/unit area or 10 cents area or 20 cents subdivided, but not for townhomes & per square foot of per square foot of less than 10 percent duplexes, $250/unit building area building area for apartments Stillwater 7% of gross land area 10% of County None None Township Assessor's unimproved value of property White Bear 10% of gross land area $500/unit for single 10% of gross land 10% of gross land Lake family, $1000/lot area or 7% of area or 7% of for two-family lots, land value or land value or and$325/unit plus $2500/acre $2500/acre $75/bedroom (2+) for apartments and other mult. family Woodbury A reasonable portion A cash amount Same as for Same as for in compliance with equivalent to the residential uses residential uses comprehensive plan, amount of land determined on a case- required, by-case basis determined on a case-by-case basis * Eagan is the only community that has a separate trail dedication requirement in addition to the above outlined park dedication requirement. If land is identified within the City's Trail Plan as a trail route, then land will be required, either as the sole means of dedication or in combination with a cash dedication (the land dedication must be equal to or greater than the cash requirement). Cash contributions are$105 per residential dwelling unit and $880 per acre for commercial, industrial and public facilities. Ji- ^i FIRE LEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Hug 14 ' fD iu : uZ No . UUl r . uc • • .• CITY OF EAGAN TRAIL DEDICATION 1995 POLICY ADOPTING STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING THAT PORTION OF LAND BEING PLATTED,SUBDIVIDED OR DEVELOPED WHICH IS TO BE CONVEYED OR DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR TRAIL PURPOSES OR WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CASH IS TO BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE CITY IN LIEU OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION, ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 13.20 OF THE CITY CODE. 1_ PURPOSE The City Council recognizes that in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Eagan, a standard be adopted to complete the Park Trail as set forth in the Eagan Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Eagan trail system is designed to provide links between the various points of interest and public facilities which exist and are planned within the community. To more adequately assure the timeliness and priority.of the completion of segments of the trail system, the Council has resolved that as a prerequisite to plat approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for trails and/or shall make cash contributions to the City's park trail fund as provided by this section. 2. TRAIL LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS A. Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suited for its intended use and shall be at a location identified upon the City of Eagan's Trail Plan. B. The Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission shall recommend to the City Council the trail land dedication and/or cash contribution requirements for proposed subdivision. C. Changes in density of plats shall be reviewed by the Advisory Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for reconsideration of trail land dedication and cash contribution requirements. D. When a proposed trail has been indicated in the City's official map or Comprehensive Plan, and it is located in whole or in part within the proposed plat, it shall be designated as such on the plat and shall be dedicated to the City of Eagan. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land required hereinunder for such a proposed trail, the City may consider acquiring the trail land through purchase or condemnation. E. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculated density requirements of the City zoning ordinance. JRN FIRE DEPT . TEL : 612-681-4777 Rug 14 ' y 10 : 43 No .001 P . u > • • • 1995 Trail Dedication Page 2 3. CASH DEDICATION A. In lieu of trail land dedication as set forth on the City's Trail Plan, the City may require the following case donations: Residential Dwelling Units $105.00 per dwelling unit Commercial/Industrial/ Public Facility $880.00 per acre • B. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash and land for trail use. The fair market value of the land the City requires for its trail system shall be subtracted from the cash contribution requirement set forth in paragraph 3(a). The remainder shall be a cash contribution requirement. C. The fair market value shall be determined as of the time of preliminary plat approval in accordance with the following: 1 . 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 submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider's expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of the MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. 3. If the City disputes such appraisal, the City may, at the subdividers expense,obtain a second appraisal of the property by an appraiser who is a member of the MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. The second appraisal shall be conclusive evidence of the fair market value of the land. D. Planned Developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or trail land contributions in accordance with this section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. E. Cash for trail contributors are to be calculated at the time of final plat approval. With respect to a cash dedication for residential units, payment shall be required prior to the City releasing the final plat for recording • purposes. With respect to commercial/industrial/public facility property, payment for the cash dedication shall be made at the time of the application for the building permit. F. Cash contributions for the trail dedication shall be deposited in the City's Park and Recreation Trail Development Fund and shall only be used'•for trail planning, acquisition or development. PROCEDURES93TRASLDED E-JHN FIRE DEPT . TEL : 612-681-4777 Hug 14 ' No . UU1 • • • CITY OF EAGAN PARK DEDICATION POLICY 1995 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 LIES OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION, ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 13.20 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 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. 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 Eagan 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. El- _=1N, FIRE DEPT . TEL : 612-681-4777 Rug 14 ' 95 10 : 44 No .001 P . 05 • • 1995 Parks Dedication Page 2 2. RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND 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 unit per acre 2) zones 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 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 and Recreation Director prior to dedication , or at such time as reasonably determined. ERGANFIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Rug 14 ' 95 i0 : 44 No . 001 P . Gc, r • 1995 Park Dedication Page 3 F. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of drainways, flood plains or ponding area the site has been developed. Grades exceeding 12% or are unsuitable for parks development shall be considered for partial dedication. 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 subdivider's and developers of land provide significant amenities such as, but not limited to swimming pools,tennis courts, handball 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 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, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that the amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground and public open area 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 play space. This requirement may be in addition to the land or cash dedication requirement. 4. CASH DEDICATION 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, Recreation and Natural Resources 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. ERoAN FIRE DEPT . IEL : b11-01-4( rr r+ug 14 • • 1995 Park Dedication Page 4 Said cash dedication, effective January 1, 1995 shall be: Cash Equivalent Units Per Per Residential Housing Type Average Market Value ]00 Population Unit Single Family $20,400 per acre 28 $875.00 Duplex $23,070 per acre 35 $791.00 • Townhouse/Quad $28,317 per acre 47 $723.00 Apts/Multiple $31,460 per acre 52 $726.00 Cash dedication shall be determined/computed at the rate in effect at the time of final plat. • 5. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DtDICATION REOUIREMENTS Subdivider's 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 $.065 per square foot/$2,831.00 per acre of net land area, or such amount as determined by the City Council. Cash shall be contributed at the time of approval of each final plat or at the time of site plan or building permit approval, as determined by the City. The fee dedication requirement for all commercial/industrial plats which have received site plan approval prior to January 1, 1983, but have not been issued building permit, approval from the City shall be in an amount equal to$.0325 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, Recreation and Natural Resources 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. EHloRRN FIRE DEPT . IEL : 611-681—L ? Hug 14 " yu lu : 40 tvo . uul 1995 Park Dedicatio. Page 5 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. 7. AUTHORITY 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 its 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. PROCCDURES93 PAR K.DED r /Pr Enclosure 1 • ACNorthwest Associated Consultants , Inc . COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Robertson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 21 November 1995 RE: Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication FILE NO: 798.02 - 95.12 Over the past month we have been surveying communities to determine how they are addressing park dedication fees since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dolan V. City of Tigard. Our main interest was to see if other developing communities in the Metropolitan Area have conducted studies to estimate parkland demand for various types of development. Of the communities surveyed (see Park Dedication Analysis - Metropolitan Area Comparison - attached), none have initiated an in-depth study to justify existing or increased fees. Apparently, the City of Cottage Grove is working on a study and Minnetonka is in the beginning stages. Other communities have developed methods of addressing the issues, but it is questionable at this time what would hold up in court if challenged by developers. The City of Eden Prairie has provided justification through a study done in the 1980's based on estimated needs and costs for residential development and the demand created from commercial office and industrial sites (see attached). The study is outdated and does not address many of the issues raised by Dolan, but it provides a rationale for establishing fees that most other communities do not provide. In addition, Eagan, which updated its park policies in 1995 specifies a justification for residential dedication based on density and market values of land (see attached). This method for residential land use likely comes the closest of the communities surveyed in addressing the Dolan issues. The industrial and commercial fees do not appear to be backed with any similar justification. Other communities, such as Woodbury, do not specify formulas but indicate a reasonable dedication in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as determined on a case by case basis. This option is also likely defensible under the Dolan case, depending upon the way staff determines a "reasonable dedication". A more in-depth study of Woodbury's methods should be pursued. • 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 • • We have concluded it may not be advisable to proceed with an increase in park dedication fees at this time until other cities such as Cottage Grove or Minnetonka have completed a park dedication justification analysis. Further, I would suggest that we, in cooperation with the City Attorney, further examine the policies of Eagan, Eden Prairie or Woodbury to see if their approaches are defensible under the current Dolan ruling. pc: Mayor and City Council Mark Vierling NOV-22-1995 11:46 qC 612 595 9837 612 595 9837 P.81/03 410 City of Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication Analysis Metropolitan Area Comparison • November 1995 City/ Residential - Land Residential- Cash Commercial Industrial Township Dedication Dedication Dedication Dedication Oak Park One acre of land for $450 for single $1750/acre (no $1750/acre (no Heights every 75 persons the family lots, $800 land Iand platted land could for two family requirements) requirements) house based upon 3.5 lots, and $250 per persons per single unit plus $85 per family lot, 6 persons bedroom above the per two-family lot, first bedroom for and 1 person per multiple family bedroom of multiple units. family units. Afton 10% of gross land $2000/residential $1500/acre (there $1500/acre (there area being subdivided dwelling unit are no land are no land requirements) requirements) Baytown $300/lot $300/lot $300/lot $300/lot Township Buffalo One acre of land for $800/unit for None None every 75 persons the single family lots, platted land could $800/unit for two- house based upon 3.5 family lots, and persons per single $400/unit for family lot, 6 persons multiple family per two-family lot, dwellings and 1 person per bedroom of multiple family units Chanhassen One acre of land for 10 percent of fair 10 percent of fair 10 percent of fair every 75 persons the market value of market value of market value of platted land could undeveloped undeveloped undeveloped house based upon 3.0 property. property or 10 property or 10 persons per single percent of gross percent of gross family, 6 persons per area being area being two family lot, and 1 platted. platted. person per bedroom of multiple family units. NOV-22-1995 11:46 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/03 • Eagan The City has adopted $875 per single Land up to 7.5% Land up to 7.5% a general standard of family unit, $791 of net land area of net land area *See foot- 15 acres of land that per duplex unit, or .65 cents per or .65 cents per note and is needed for every $723 per square square attached 1000 residents, of townhouse or quad foot/$2831 per foot/$2831 per copy of which 12 acres shall unit, and $726 per acre of net land acre of net land subdivision be designated as park. apartment or area. A credit of area. A credit of ordinance multiple family up to 25% of the up to 25% of the section. unit. required required This comm- 0-1.9 units/ac=8% dedication may dedication may unity has a >1.9 units/ac=10% be allowed by the be allowed by the very >3.5 units/ac =12% City Council for City Council for detailed >5.9 units/ac=14% stormwater stormwater park and Add .5% for each control facilities. control facilities. trail dedica- unit over 10 tion process. Eden Up to 10% of $945/unit for all Up to 10% of the Up to 10% of the Prairie subdivision area residential units subdivision land subdivision land • area or $3410 per area or $3410 per acre cash acre cash contribution contribution Golden 10 percent of gross Equivalent cash 10 percent of 10 percent of Valley land area being amount based on gross land area gross land area subdivided fair market value being subdivided/ being subdivided/ of undeveloped equivalent cash equivalent cash land amount based on amount based on fair market value fair market value of undeveloped of undeveloped land land Lakeville <2.5 units/ac=10% Single and 5% of gross land 5% of gross land 2.5-4 units/ac=11% Multiple Family= area or 5% of area or 5% of 4.+-6 units/ac=13% $650 per dwelling current market current market 6.+-8 units/ac=15% unit value of value of 8.+-10 unimproved land unimproved land units/ac=17% as determined by as determined by 10.+units/ac=17- the County the County 20% Assessor Assessor NOV-22-1995 11:46 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/03 Minna- Reasonable portion of $400/unit for 10% of gross 10% of gross tonka gross land area being single family, land area or 10 land area or 20 subdivided, but not $300/unit for cents per square cents per square less than 10 percent townhomes & foot of building foot of building duplexes, area area $250/unit for apartments Plymouth <2.0 dwelling units 1,150 per dwelling $3,850 per acre/ $3,850 per acre/ = 10% unit 10 percent of net 10 percent of net 2-12 dwelling units = acreage acreage 10% + (actual density - 2) >12 dwelling units = 20% + (1/2 actual density - 6) St. Louis None None None None Park Stillwater 7% of gross land area 10% of County None None Township Assessor's unimproved value of property White Bear 10% of gross land $500/unit for 10% of gross 10% of gross Lake area single family, land area or 7% land area or 7% $1000/lot for two- of land value or of land value or family lots, and $2500/acre $2500/acre $325/unit plus $75/bedroom (2+) for apartments and other mult. family Woodbury A reasonable portion A cash amount Same as for Same as for in compliance with equivalent to the residential uses residential uses comprehensive plan, amount of land determined on a case- required, by-case basis determined on a case-by-case basis TOTAL P.03 +6129498390 CITY EDEN PRAIRIE 533 P02 NOV 17 '95 15:06 • EDEN PRAIRIE F. Park Dedication} The City of Eden Prairie requires a park dedication fee or dedication of land as a condition of plat approval. The city has determined that 10 percent of a subdivision should be set aside for open space to provide for the health, safety and general welfare of all residents. This amount of • land is required to meet goals of the community in the area of providing park and recreational services to the new residents that will be living within the proposed subdivision. The formula for the amount of land is based on providing new residential neighborhoods with the same recreational amenities planned for the entire community. The amount of land and number of amenities are based on comparisons to national standards and other metropolitan communities, as well as an in-depth review of the City of Eden Prairie's needs based on the infrastructure makeup of this community. The general formula for establishing a residential fee is based on the city ordinance requirements on density per acre and the average market value of that land prior to improvements. Formula for Determining Park Fees The standard for providing neighborhood parks is to provide a neighborhood park within a half mile radius of all residential hares. A neighborhood park should accardredate the games, activities and play space required of neighborhood children and adults. The city standard for each neighborhood park includes a regulation soccer field, a softball field, two tennis courts, and a playstructure. A warming house/park shelter, a skating rink and lighted hockey rink should occur within a two mile radius. In a one half mile service area, a neighborhood park would be required for each one square mile area (640 acres) of residential area. The city could require 64 acres frau that amount of land for a cca t pity park that would serve the entire community and require the entire community to pay for development of that park through bond referendums. Cr, the city could require a smaller neighborhood park serving the residents within that half mile radius, and require those residents to pay for the park * develoent through cash park fees payable as part of the building permit. If the entire 640 acre area was low density residential, the city could anticipate development at the rate of 2.5 units per acre. Therefore, there would be 1,600 single family hates within that 640 acres. A typical neighborhood park to serve that population would require approximately 20 acres. The average market value of property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (NUSA) planned for single family residential is approximately $18,000 to $20,000 per acre. At $20,000 per acre, the 20 acre cost would equal $400,000. The average cost to grade and seed a neighborhood park, with parking for 20 cars, two tennis courts, a playstructure and two ballfields is approximately 159 +6129498390 CITY EDEN PRAIRIE 533 P03 NOV 17 '95 15:06 • • $300,000. This amount assumes that the lard is relatively flat and there are no soil corrections required. The cost for the property, street, water and sewer assessments and development of the typical 20-acre neighborhood park is currently around $700,000. This neighborhood park can serve approximately 1,600 families and the cost per family would be around $440. The city, in most cases, requires cash in lieu of land frac developers in order to acquire neighborhood park sites several years ahead of develcpment. The city uses the cash to acquire the land that is most suitable for park development prior to development within the area. The remaining park fees are used to develop the park. The cash park fee is not required from the developer until building permits are issued. This alleviates a significant burden on the developer; however, it adds a delay of receiving the fees to the city when park lard should be acquired previous to development. The City of Eden Prairie had an unusually high ratio of businesses to residents compared ared to typical suburban communities. The high number of carramercial, office and industrial sites does add to a wide tax base, but also requires a unique burden to the park system. The people that work at these offices or industrial complexes often wish to participate on company teams such as softball, volleyball and basketball. Companies also require facilities for cxanpany picnics and other social functions that require large community park spaces. For this reason, the city requires commercial, industrial and office development to pay a park fee based on approximately five percent of the parcel's value. The word "approximate" is used because of the wide range of value of property between industrial, commercial and office use. The city has established a fee based on caparison of other suburban community fees for commercial, office and industrial use. The formula estimates the cost of the facilities used by crnnercial, office and industrial users and their percentage of use capered to residential use of these community park foci l ities. Approximately 65 to 70 percent of picnic reservations and adult softball field use carnes f em the commercial, office and industrial area. These facilities make up approximately 75 percent of the developed community park space. Cash park fees generated from cxxtamercial, office and industrial pay for approximately 50 percent of the development of Eden Prairie's community unity parks and community park and acquisition. The other 50 percent cost is accommodated through residential cash park fees and Barn bond issues paid for by the entire cxamrunity (including the commercial, office and industrial companies) . G. Tree preservation Policy Purpose It is the intent and desire of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment and beauty of Eden Prairie by encouraging a resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas. To be utilized first as a site planning tool, the Tree Preservation Policy was 160 ERGAN FIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Aug 14 '95 10 :43 No .001 P . 04 • • EAGAN CITY OF EAGAN PARK DEDICATION POLICY 199S 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 LIES OF SUCH CONVEYANCE OR DEDICATION, ALL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 13.20 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 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. 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 Eagan 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. ERGRN FIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Rug 14 '95 10 :44 No .001 P . 05 110 199S Parks Dedication Page 2 • 2. RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND 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 unit per acre 2) zones 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 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 and Recreation Director prior to dedication , or at such time as reasonably determined. EAGAN FIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Rug 14 '95 10 : 44 No .001 P . 06 • • 1995 Park Dedication Page 3 F. To be eligible for park dedication credit, land dedicated is to be located outside of drainways, flood plains or ponding area the site has been developed. Grades exceeding 12% or are unsuitable for parks development shall be considered for partial dedication. 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 subdivider's and developers of land provide significant amenities such as, but not limited to swimming pools, tennis courts, handball 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 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, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that the amount of land to be dedicated for park, playground and public open area 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 play space. This requirement may be in addition to the land or cash dedication requirement. 4. CASH DEDICATION 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, Recreation and Natural Resources 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. ERGRN FIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4??? Hug 14 'Y5 1u :45 No .UU1 r . U( • • • 1995 Park Dedication Page 4 Said cash dedication, effective January 1, 1995 shall be: Cash Equivalent Units Per Per Residential Housing Type Average Market Value 100 Population Unit Single Family $20,400 per acre 28 $875.00 Duplex $23,070 per acre 35 $791.00 Townhouse/Quad $28,317 per acre 47 $723.00 Apts/Multiple $31,460 per acre 52 $726.00 Cash dedication shall be determined/computed at the rate in effect at the time of final plat. 5. INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL DEpICATION REOUIREMENTS Subdivider's 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 $.065 per square foot/$2,831.00 per acre 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 $.0325 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, Recreation and Natural Resources 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. ERGRN FIRE DEPT . TEL :612-681-4777 Rug 14 '95 lU :4b No . UU1 1-' . U6 1995 Park Dedication • . Page 5 6. REQUIRED IMEROVEMENTS 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. 7. AUTHORITY 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 its 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. PROCCDURES9JPARK.DED Enclosure lA 410 w LAW OFFICES OF Ce ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIER LING, P.L.L.P. 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 LYLE J. ECKBERG (612) 439-2878 JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX(612)439-2923 ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A.WOLFF MARK J.VIERLING GREGORY G. GALLER KEVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J.WEIDNER SUSAN O.OLSON September 22, 1995 THE HONORABLE BARBARA H O'NEAL MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST 5495 OAK GREEN PLACE NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID SCHAAF MS JANET ROBERT 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DEAN KERN SR 5885 OLDFIELD AVENUE NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 • RE.: Proposed Modification of Oak Park Ordinances Affecting _8*ik Dedication Fees Annexation Area Park Planner' s Report of 8/24/95 Dear Mayor and Council: We have reviewed the Planner' s Report of August 24, 1995, affecting his analysis of the need to increase the Park Dedication Fees which are assessed currently under the City' s zoning and subdivision codes. State statute allows municipalities to promulgate rules for the subdivision of land and to adopt regulations requiring that portions thereof be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use. With respect to park dedication, the statute allows cities to adopt regulations that require "a reasonable portion" of any proposed subdivision to be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, "playgrounds, tails, wetlands or open space. " Most, if not all, cities in Minnesota have enacted regulations that take advantage of this enabling statute. In applying the regulations, the cities have been generally aggressive in requiring developers to dedicate land for public purposes throughout the 411 411 MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Two September 22, 1995 subdivision process. The statutory authority, as well as the concept of municipal regulation requiring parkland dedication, has long since been sustained by our Supreme Court in Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976) . The battle ground between developers and cities, over parkland dedication, has been waged over statutory limitation, which allows municipalities only to require "a reasonable portion" of the developer' s land which a municipality would reasonably require for parkland purposes . Up until recently, very few developers, following the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Collis took opportunity to challenge the municipal requirement . In 1994 the situation changed with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 Supreme Court 2309 (1994) . The Dolan decision challenged the determination of the Oregon Supreme Court which held that the City could reasonably impose the condition on approval building permits on the dedication of portions of the developer' s property for flood control and traffic improvements . The State of Oregon had also adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan not dissimilar to the State of Minnesota and the City of Tigard under the provisions of its Community Development Code adopted under the authority of that statute, required property owners, within the central business district, to comply with a 15% open space in landscaping requirement on parcels that would be developed. In a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the city' s dedication requirements, under its Ordinance, constituted an uncompensated taking of property. The Supreme Court required municipal ordinances to establish a "essential nexus" between the interest to acquire the property and the property owners need to obtain a permit from the city for the particular use that it wishes to impose upon the property, i .e. whether the degree of the municipal extraction for land dedication demanded by the ordinance bears a required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development of the landowner. The practical implications of the Dolan, decision is that it has changed the rules regarding parkland dedications and municipal extractions from developers. Specifically, local government now has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the degree of parkland dedication or other extraction demanded by the permit condition, bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development . A municipal extraction from the developer must be reasonably related both in nature and extent to the proposed impact of the development . 1 i MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Three September 22, 1995 To some extent, we must determine whether or not the demanded parkland dedication, in each case, is roughly proportionate to the proposed developments impact on the need to provide those municipal facilities to the public. The Dolan case specifically provides that no precise mathematical calculation is required, but that the city must make a form of individualized determination that the required dedication is both related in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development . In this particular instance, the City Planner has recommended that we revise the land dedication formula to a minimum of 10% of the value of developable properties because the rate is consistent with other communities. We would forewarn you, however, that under the Dolan decision, it is probably not wise to base a land dedication on the calculation on the assumption that a 10% dedication will be required as that specific rate is not per se valid under Dolan scrutiny. The test of reasonableness, if required under judicial scrutiny, will not be limited to a fixed percentage of land, which a subdivider is asked to dedicate, but must include an analysis as to whether or not the subdivider' s contribution to the demand for public use of dedicated land within the area is justified by the proposed development. Of some concern, is a suggestion within the report that the cash dedication amount for commercial and industrial property be increased from $1, 750 . 00 per acre to $3, 000 .00 per acre. The Planner does note that many communities do not charge commercial and industrial park development dedication fees, but the theory of the charge is that business does generate demand for parks due in part to league play or utilization by employees. We do not have currently, within the proposal, any specific data regarding demand or use generated by commercial or industrial development for parkland purposes. Without that data, if a challenge would pursue from a developer, it is unlikely that the city' s proposal increasing the park dedication demand on commercial and industrial use would be sustained. Indeed, under the Dolan decision it is unlikely that any municipal ordinance would survive judicial scrutiny, if it were not supported by specific factual and statistical analysis as to the demand placed upon the municipality to provide parkland services by various developments . The safest course for the City to pursue on any issue of parkland dedication, either under the existing ordinance or under any proposed amendment to it, would be to generate a specific study that would reasonably estimate the demand for municipal services and parkland demand generated by various types of development. 411 411 MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Four September 22, 1995 This study could be based upon wide-based metropolitan data and would not be limited or confined purely to the boarders of the City of Oak Park Heights . Additionally, if other cities have conducted similar studies, the City could certainly utilize their analysis as part of its own analysis in modifying the parkland dedication provisions of your ordinances. I would suggest to the Council that you establish a public hearing before the City Council in November or December to deal with the issue of parkland dedication, but also instruct the City Planner to research what available studies have been completed by other jurisdictions affecting the issues that the City is required to address now under the Dolan decision and provide that information back to the Council by written report. Additionally, the City may wish to authorize the Planner to conduct its own study with regard to reasonably attempting to assess the critical element of the demand that is placed upon the City to provide parkland dedication and related trails and services by residential, commercial and industrial developments. rf you should have any questions in the matter, please feel free to contact me directly. Yours very truly, 4) I Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc: Mr. Michael Robertson ✓A, Mr. Scott Richards • - HOU]m4on@i 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone(612)939-8200•Fax(612)939-8244 i.i\Jib, E C ED i\,..5 2_7.- I DEC - 41995 J November 29, 1995 Mr. Mike Robertson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Dear Mike: Enclosed is the information you requested from Dave Childs regarding park dedication fees. If you have any questions, please contact me at 939-8200. Sincerely, iveutir:7e . a'")/(— Geralyn R. Barone Assistant City Manager /k Enclosure 411) _ . . FM '.:::: K' 1 r r 1741111 • t;tti- .. cash in lieu of the land. Under the place on new development,it is • Dedication ! subdivision regulations,cities often important to consider that government requirements for require developers to put in place may not require a person to give up a public improvements such as roads, constitutional right in exchange for a r-. developments sewer,and water and then dedicate discretionary benefit conferred by the these to public use. government where the property sought •. -': • While these regulations are still by the government has little or no cause new • permitted,the United States Supreme relationship to the benefit. There must _,: concern Court recently issued an opinion which be"an essential nexus"existing • requires cities to justify the conditions between the legitimate state interest imposed on developers. Although the and the permit or zoning condition. If - CARLA HEY/. U.S.Supreme Court was considering this essential nexus exists,the court will conditions placed on building permits then examine the regulation to under Oregon law in Dolan v. City of determine whether the degree of ; .._:=.. Tigard,the sakpe rationale will be exaction under the subdivision regula- = :i Y 4 nder Minnesota law,cities applied to Minnesota cities in deter- tion bears the required relationship to stva iii k. : can require subdividers mining that the conditions they impose the projected impact of the proposed • ; t r-4. requesting platting or on new development are justifiable and development. '.. • M • t replatting of land to. permissible under the United States What does an"essential nexus"and ��-`"•': dedicate land for parks, Constitution. the"required relationship"mean to --�: z public open space,storm In considering what restrictions and specific cases in Minnesota? In the ; , water holding areas or to contribute ' dedication requirements a city may Oregon case,the U.S.Supreme Court - i ▪ Providin Public Financehew F'thril- •g . Greater Protection-By-Annual Attention n; -- =. Solutions for Nearly A Proven Yearly Maintenance ,g . 4,4*-tl "Half a Century �: � , ,,, Plan For Your Elevated •Represent issuers on competitive and negotiated Watertowers general obligation and revenue bond issues — •C• oordinate capital improvement program �"' preparation. Servicing • I' I ',' Municipalities:" i 1,s„� • Develop cash flow modeling for.capital projects . Since < ;ar'H-. 1921IS Ii , .• •~Evaluate refunding and restructuring of i:�i'' �'+;, • bond Issues.- - id I Develop debt management policies. •Watertower Paint& Repair Co., Inc. • • Review economic development and "The Tank With the Red ioof” • public/private partnership projects. - Providing dependable service to municipalities since ",- 11 •Assist in referendum approval of capital 1921 and offering the experience,skilled workmen, . projects. adequate insurance coverage and the best of equipment • and materials to perform the highly specialized trade of• painting and repairing elevated watertowers.Prompt . SPRINGSTED service on emergency winter work. redlPUBUC FINANCE ADVISORS Inspection ByColor Interior p 85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100 Video Camera Available. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2143 Area Code P.O. Box 67 (612)223-3000 515-357-2101 Clear Lake, Iowa 50428 • - 1 Saint Paul•Milwaukee*Minneapolis•Kansas City•Washington,DC Member of American Waterworks Association - • 14; x; . l.,..<_,3T:. CITi_; , .:77_r>.... . • ec+ found that preventing flooding and Citiust now be able to specify In the Or1case before the U.S. ° � reducing traffic congestion arc legiti- cally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court,the city did not mate purposes. The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular attempt to make any individualized existed between preventing flooding development. Certainly,standards determination to support the require- and limiting development within the stated in the subdivision regulation will ment that the landowner leave 15 creek's floodplain. The essential nexus give guidance for the need of requiring percent of her property as open space, ;' also existed between traffic congestion public dedication for necessary public and dedicate a public greenway in the reduction and providing alternate improvements and open space. But flood plain when a private greenway I means of transportation such as bicycle cities will be required to articulate and could also have been an effective flood paths. justify the particular street,park land, control measure. The city also failed to . In Minnesota,cities should be able to sewer,and water conditions proposed meet its burden of demonstrating that n1, meet the essential nexus requirement on particular developments. the additional number of vehicles and by enforcing their present subdivision Minnesota courts have also been bicycle trips generated by the develop- regulations as they have in the past. In requiring cities to make clear their ment was reasonably related to the general, the essential nexus test would findings in zoning matters,so the U.S. city's requirement for the dedication of , be met if the city has a legitimate Supreme Court's requirement for a pathway easement. The Court stated public purpose in reducing the •-.._ findings should not be that onerous to the city must quantify its findings negative effects of development and cities. Proving the need for specific beyond a conclusory statement that the the regulations are geared to merely development dedication requirements pathway dedication could offset some '; reducing these negative effects. also should not be very difficult for of the traffic demand generated by the However,the second question may cities. This new zoning requirement is development. (See also Legal notes, be the more difficult one to answer in somewhat analogous to cities having to page 26.) determining whether the required prove special assessments for individual Under these guidelines,Minnesota condition bears the proper relationship lots,and show that the burden imposed cities must be able to state with some to the projected impact of the pro- on the property owner does not exceed particular specificity,the reasons for posed development. The city must the benefit granted by the city's action. requiring subdivision dedications and have findings sufficient to justify the Arguably,the same standard will be regulations to particular development conditions imposed through the applied in determining that the burden proposals in order for their actions to subdivision regulations. There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. a"rough proportionality"between the not exceed the benefit to the develop- Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney city's conditions as they relate to the ment by the subdivision requirements. with the League of Minnesota Cities. k14 impact of the development. No precise mathematical calculation is required, • k`> but the city must make some type of A PREVENTIVE individual determination that the APPROACH TO required dedication is related to the. TALENT proposed development's impact. This PUBLIC LAW. determinationmust consider both the nature and extent that the condition will impact the proposed development. E M E R Y The United States Supreme Court '"''•'` views this testas"a reasonable relation= =-' Anticipating problems is a critical aspect of - ship"test. This is the same standard .: ..._ ._ our government practice Our attorneys I , that the Minnesota Supreme Court has • -- -- • applied in approving subdivision WISDOM assist clients in applying strategies to t1s. regulation and exaction: In theory, theminimize risk and avoid Liability. We rev lations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S.Supreme Court standard, serve public clients with sensitivity toward . because they have met the reasonable INTEGRITY costs and with a desire to help governments relationship test used by the Minnesota < function more effectively. Call SI vey. uesan Lea Supreme Court. -; However,the U.S.Supreme Court Pace for more information. i requires findings by the city to show theI t I 612 333 4800 reasonable relationship between the " s",G;. city-imposed condition and the TO -" proposed development. Minnesota ! P L P I-I A M H A I K At have not previously required u.... cities to have written findings justifying * �c SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN. LTD. _the conditions imposed or to articulate I: :. the specific reasons the conditions are ON, 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET,SUITE 3300 f I required. • •' MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55402 .-.s eeW NESOTA CITIES / 5::--7...'. ,. t- ..;_, :,=2..--..:,,,-..r cd i • i oz S r 0 Cg 4 i ..2 . ,.... I: ;1: U I O r 1O , . p a � 0 8 & a gi a .. .. h -V r jijj Qr • _ C 8 - $ ; s 8 ",J 4. r+ Qg eR• g = e = o - ° 8 N OD A V! N Y ., N r C Y c"' 2 irz. E ▪ `o • r. foo 10 ■ �tCo L e: 40 11 Y O o r. d o f7S C t O H C'^. W V Go Y C;r4 lo Ca Y CtoC g c e ; c u) v c CYN O , � c s 1.. ( Oml >44 F Ud w ` g ..cttnat — ., _ � � c o di � • y O N M O < ka2� a )" . .14, benin gego S Y el in 11 ""' ` .° 88 'fl mpg op- zp-a r V _3 3 ei tel ? T 'Q `t �; a a 3 -' r 4, . as O ` c; 3 s in Uow 1 Aenie .. ern ♦ vnv vl �vHF Z `o x H a .,( I RI aS I It 2 .• '2 $ � � .1 i � Coerato. r a S H E a.. Y u r r = O J V1il 'D• e• t • c .0 •w l v > m .S4 Y `o Z � < U• t z O r C3 gs0. Q Y } r C y S r. i = c.... r O m• YO. m U ! i- • I. a. z a• a. y .E .E e O C O C `e Y e • E E S 1 , -' E 2 u tq a �, = Y 6 Zf Ci E E Ci 8 Y O ▪ �Ti �c a E z E w c tR de a � a E C E > > vii CJ a e e . v2 u1 i C ry a e ■ w Y > 7 a V t. r4 > a M — H VJ .. Er 1 T. Y C le, m.0 m i C .. C C . 0 o ' E40 t 1 = w le 415 si Y • E 3 _ a `g e 3 Cp E a E ao 7. `e 1. . e L C 9 I. a > p . C • o . C.= . C e Yr3 a d Z.; I—C. < G. <- -s .2 6) 7 0 Y el a • 22 Y .. ... C Y C C m 2 m te E L CY C C C 3. u 0 0 0 a m . C . C tl 6` V — Y C . E ; •t ° 1' 0 E li O. p �' a C y C 6w Y gde � ., � nA as ° e otl !R as ¢va a a y y Ny2 + + + C tl 1 E3 a ..P7 t C ■ 1 w g t ▪ < .d N 4 v of, • i r et 2 = "ri -es a CC V • E r 4 $ $ $ 7 01 gYa y Y Y Ioii Y a.. • .. .. • L Y . 2... .r C C tl C yC -0 -a ,. 1 " 8 5 1 yo ^ el e4 .CI E C _ C > s Y _ ua a aa 15 -am - -. e 7NA — N C7OEa a = E 8 4, i to 1:17 a 1 o i1i1 r. e; oeeyE,O .. C — O E 7 r aamyj .• a N �f a � b Lg ^ s16rr C HVpO ppa H pp N 62 ` ` Y p ... .iN 3 ! H Lv y0 . a E 9 T. VE. VE. < .rE = OA Al C 0 O N r1 ? O .tl. E 0 9 a • E � `E iy =u .c a V pp a ,Qu C V •= C 4.6. Y Y .E Z < <M OC Z U CLL I" 1 < r a. 3.Yp = G S 0 I 'O . 95 se• I. o C S C x E x x • ! • • r r r • • a gC t Y {. Z i - 1; I' " C Q C .. 0 u E � • ° > S = avi $ a de� 8 , 6 Ce., € j z r► at2 ` a 3 a v z ;- Cae ° � a. 00 Q • Y O 2.• a °O 1. • a aC p Q L V .a a y a 4 S. C C i G a s ° ° �' _ . Iar r t6. • C E € Y Q G ' € Y E E a E 'C — o a. : o o. r s e. Ea < S. z < w S. z < a e a a sa c e a a aW go B 2 m m �� _�Y 1 Y� a a V U V V • 9 'Cy i b 7 a '0 o Q Q Y o Y r > r Q Q . a a • ° C s �°+ a' C °' E a 10 E a i GI • E G Q a • S .0 0 : y Y i ..y >A T. �. 11II1I! III `a p !; J' j1 o a r ztl Y ii-I 6 o E r 7 ° E Q• Y • a '7 Q ° E Y I a g a a a ' ph. v a E a. C ° ° .5 E C i0 v a 1.a a 3 2 7 i Y pp mNtN Y. N r ptr hba pe '� ii a To it S. o ■ Y Y v a > E e w2 2 ° < a II .T5 s 3 E e C o a II > y.rte� Y M Y V Y Z `�S 0 E 2 4 V Y • o C 5.. lc 1 < 0 It • 1 a a Y A g t a a. Z Y r Tp a Qi o O C • S C n E• a : . : ;ii ›. . ),..: be . .a 'd • i E ■ ,o s t .1A g Y 0 40 JE Cd 00 i `o1 e S m s a S • C C e t C —L, C m Y = tois e s �E � s Y7. 31 • .r E 7 11 1 C C Y Y V y Y E C S G cc 2 m C m E E E "e t E E S C C t y a C 6 • t `. c L. • C C y ` N r+ a a aC C 7 O C t L 4 flit°�e• Y t us E Y j . m Y ca Y Y 7 0 17 O Y .r Y g 21! Irs a � a O C Ys Y a 3 Qa 1 8o E ek i g '5. `j 12 4/ 4432. 4 .r4481 .1a E b g dg �' ° �i '° y e " mp H > 7 R �+ m N 8 + .moi O a ' m b C ^ y Y .� pe k A4 .4 .11'.4a O Y N • ie O 3 .4 N '�i = d �'� YlaN4N h > � V) NE. 9 'neV yN � " a cam c .a + 7 y < .• 2 Y '3 8a e2q o 1 s = "s a _ a 1g lc 4e e = : 1 4. . a y 1 3 . . OCT 17 '94 04:0541fITY OF BLOOMINGTON • P.3 • • PARK DEDICATION FEE --•—• RESEARCH SURVEY • 07/08/1993 • , .ocatio ;r ` r e a t a.; -moon e a o n• • ;J'ecce �b : , -ercen 'O \•rtun c li '.'' -Re� °,�t : •Aa ue ` Res%•o "C' W.. " :- IA'" L7.C/bA ear:- • . Bloomington 10% 6%. 5700 — $1500 varies 10% 5% . 1 Brooklyn Center n/a . n/a -' n/a n/a n/av n/a Brooklyn Park 10% 4% 5500 • n/a 10% • 5% • • Burnsville varies • varies varies . varies ( varies 51 6 Eagan * varies varies $553 -- S700 $.055/sgft lands. '8-1.4% 7.5% Eden Prairie n/a n/a $840 52965 n/a n/a Edina , 8% ' 8% n/a 7 • n/a n/s n/a Golden Valley 10% n/a $450 n/a • 10% n/a iopkins 10 — 13% •I 5% $200 — $500 varies . 10 — 13% • 5%0 Maple Grove 10% 7.5% $638. I $2250 —$3150 n/a n/a Minneapolis** . • , Minnetonka n/a n/a $250 — $400 $.20/sgtt bldg 10% 10% Plymouth 10% 10% 5885 7 $3600/acre 10% 10% Richfield varies ' n/a varies • .n/a varies •n/a _ . St. Louis Park** . .I . St. Paul . n/a I n/a I n/a I • n/a ! n/a n/a [Shakopee 10% I 10% I n/a n/a • 1096 10% v * Additional trail dedication amounts of$109 per Res unit, and$854 per C/I acre • . . .**Did not supply requested information . • • • OCT 17 '94 04:215PM CITY 111LOOMINGTON 411 P.4 12.' 9'93 10692 !f 412 42? 14 CITY OF RAMSEY P.92 PARK DEDICATION SURVEY-CASH CONTRIBUTIONS CfTY ytE.strlENTiAL DOMMt_iV1AL/TNDUSTRiAL Ramsey ' ' $450.00 less than 1 unit 5% of gross land area as per 3.3 acres determined by Council 8650.00 all other dwellings • Eagan Single Family $700.00 per unit 50.05$ per square foot Duplex $821.00 per unit of net land Quad $553.00 per unit . . Multi $559.00 per unit Eden Prairie • 'Single Family $900.00 per unit $3,250.00 per acre Plymouth - Single Family 5885.00 per unit 13.600.00 per acre Lakeville Single Family 5350.00 per unit plus 5.00% of assessed $150.00 trails fee per unit valuation Maple Grove Single Family 5638.00 per unit industrial $2,058.00 per acre • Commercial 13.084.00 per acre Champlin ' •Single Family 11.650.00 per acre $6,750.00 per sore Multi Family $4,500.00 per acre •tam Lake 10% of market value of land or S40D per lot - based on recommendation from Park Commies Coon Rapid; Single Family $384.00 per unit $1,152.00 per acre Townhomet 5286.00 per unit (includes offices) Apartments $238.00 per unit Blaine Single Family $620.00 per unit Industrial $1,630.00 per acre Duplex S530.00 per unit Commercial $1,860.00 per acre Townhouse/Ouad $460.00 par unit Multi Family $390.00 per unit Mobile Home $475.00 per unit Andover Cash contribution based on Commission recommendation • calculated on the "market value' of the undeveloped land that would othorwise have been conveyed or dedicated. Brooklyn Park 10% of assessed value per parcel 4% of assessed value per parcel (FMV range: $20,000 - 830,000/acre) (FMV range: $65,000 • $400,000/acre) NOTE: Plats with 4 or less lots $500.00 per lot Inver Grove Heights _A.Sr-i=--Diotrlot>:"---5850:00••per-unit P&A $175.00 per '000 sq R.1 & R-2 $850.00 per unit B-1 $175.00 ft gross floor R•3 3850.00 per unit 8-2,3 8 4 $125.00 area 1-t & 1-2 575.00 12/7/83 2-96% - 6124271410 12-09-93 10:03AM P002 Cie OCT 17 '94 04: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON • P.5 . 1.7,89,93 1ete3 2 42P 1419 Cfl? Of RRMSEY P.83 PARK DEDICATION SURVEY-CASH CONTRIBUTIONS 1� :ITY FERIDEIMI. coMMERCIAL/JMDUSTRIAL Apple Valley 10% of assessed land value 5% of land or cash in lieu of land (currently using 520,000/acre) (currently using 520.000/acre) Lino Lakes ' •Formula using raw land value, housing density $200.00 per 1.000 sq to arrive at amount equal to what a parcel ft gross floor could be purchased tor. area • Chanhassen • •Single/Duplex $800.00 per unit park $3,000.00 per acre park 83% or $200 per unit trail $1,000.00 per acre trait - Multi/Apia 1525.00 per unit park • $175.00 per unit trail Minnetonka Single Runny $400.00 per unit Office/Ind $0.20 per square foot Town/Duplez 5300.00 per unit Commercial 80.10 of buiican area Apartments $250.00 per unit Oakdale Single Family $525.00 per unit $1.575.00 per acre Multi Family $425.00 per unit (cash dedication In lieu of 10% land dedication) Burnsville Single Family $512A0 per unit Commercial $8400.90 per awe • Duplex $581.00 per unit Industrial $2,000.00 per acre Multi Family - 3.4 units 1596.00 per unit • Apt Complexes $752.00 per unit Chaska Greater of 51,000 per acre or $1.750.00 per. acre Single/Duplex 5475.00 per unit Townhomes/Ouadr $300.00 per unll Apia/Condos $250.00 per unit • Woodbury Single Family $725.00 per lot $1.600.00 per acre Multi Family 8500.00 per unit Mobile Home $350.00 per lot (land contribution is 10% of value of gross acres) Elk River ' *Single Family $450.00 per unit w/o S&W $1.000.00 per acre with SSW $1500.00 per acre Rosemount Single Family $520.00 per unit $1.100.00 per acre (based on 5% of land value at $22,000 per acre) Prior Lake Single Family $800.00 per unit $1.00 per square foot (plus $300 on each bldg permit new construction) rE: • Rates will be proposed to change during 1904 at some point • recommendations not yet mad • 'These are the recommended rates for 1094 - not neoeeearey adopted at this lime. 1217/93 R-113% 01242414 10 12-02-23 10'O3Au ,P003 1r311 • TO ▪ GERALYN BARONE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER THROUGH : RONALD S. RANKIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM KIM LINDQUIST, SENIOR PLANNER DATE ▪ DECEMBER 2, 1994 SUBJECT PARK DEDICATION FEES In 1986, the City Council adopted an ordinance which permits the City to obtain park ' dedication fees in conjunction with subdivision approvals. The ordinance requires dedication to the City of at least 10% of the land being subdivided, excluding wetlands and floodplain. The City, at its discretion, can obtain fees rather than land which would be used for park purposes. Fees are based upon the type of development proposed for the property being divided. Generally, the City has requested fees rather than the dedication of land. There are two main reasons for this approach. One is that neighborhood parkland acquisition, based upon previous studies, was nearly complete by the time the park dedication ordinance was adopted. Secondly, although the ordinance permits the City to obtain at least 10% of the land being subdivided, this has generally been interpreted to mean dedication of 10%. Therefore, this option was not proposed given the fact that the majority of the subdivisions reviewed in the last several years are relatively small. In certain instances where staff was aware that the subdivision would enhance the City's park or trail system, land dedication was requested. Currently, Planning Department staff works with developers to dedicate trail easements consistent with the City's approved trail concept. Easements are not credited against the required park dedication fees.However, developers have been reimbursed for any costs incurred by trail construction. • • • PAZK DED 1 C4T1Dt3 5veuE`f 02'/ COMmovirf (-we . A4-7-KA) RESIOGNMAL ( PE. U N LT) T1�4 A VE SAGE 31NGt-E- 400 5C'7 T©wN ( DoP 300 5i121 PT-S. - a5o 516 CooN RANDS 15 dNL't ooE LOWER 38'/ P412 5.1N6 TOwN I OUP - oNE 15 i ss, ONE is s:aME ALA_ oTTRS i`1 IGNE QMMEgCtAL J 1NOUS-mtAL MTA - . 204 o Pc tC / 1 N D. peg. . Pr ( irvic :4k -4) . i0 COMZviEQciAL Pee. Sq . * 5 VsG SCS. - AUEF-A6E . 39 4 I c3Q . F?' C 8UILO>NG 412E4) * 1C0 USE 4Ef2, ;QUEZAGE ` a343/AcgG 3 v3e. .4 1'(✓PC N NAGE- 5% ov- LAwo VAws ( ER & 4a � i10 Acrzg j z /650/4cAE 1110 • •PAZK DEv'C4Tio0 5uQvE- 1 075/ Com/nOWT/CS 0/VC. /147--K4) DENTIA I- CLQ U N c r) n TVA AVE-Pace 1NCSLE- 440 a&7 T owiv ( DOP 5y2f A P-rs . - a50 5/6 COo N -RA N DS 13 ONLY ONE Louse ) 381/ x ok 57 NGCE TOwN ( cw - ONE 1$ LESS, oNE is S4M.E ASL OTUCZ LelIGNEa AA/vt✓RCIAL 1NOUs-rgiAL MTKA - . ao4- oPcIcE j1cva, pet- 5q . Fr ( Owl-DING ;4Rc ) . t0 CoMZvieCciAL Pee az . T * 5 u5E sq . r - Av5PAcE . 39 4 / sq. p7' ( 80/LopN6 ?0;26,40) ' 1Co USE PE12 Aci2G- ;QVECAGG 4,2343/AcgS 3 V 3 G i' PCZ N CAGE- 5 . o- LAt O V A LU C A MR.AGE 4 a t, Oco /A c 2E i ', /650/4CRE LIfflffi1t ° nl@i 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone (612) 939-8200•Fax(612)939-8244 OEC — 41995 i I November 29, 1995 Mr. Mike Robertson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Dear Mike: Enclosed is the information you requested from Dave Childs regarding park dedication fees. If you have any questions, please contact me at 939-8200. Sincerely, ive,(*7 - la.A/CrYLe.' Geralyn R. Barone Assistant City Manager /k Enclosure ��L Illk.;;. t •-.... ;,: 1-:-.:q1 ,..., il `Y. .v!Nbi45? ! I t. l''. 11,-, IN:;.:=';,i2,,,.0 rzz,-...... ,IP ?v, v,- .:.,,„,... .,, •in. • • F: - Dedication cash in lieu of the land. Under the place on new development,it is •• subdivision regulations,cities often important to consider that government requirements for require developers to put in place may not require a person to give up a public improvements such as roads, constitutional right in exchange for a developments sewer,and water and then dedicate discretionary benefit conferred by the �. these to public use. government where the property sought F'cause new • While these regulations are still by the government has little or no permitted,the United States Supreme relationship to the benefit. There must •: Concern Court recently issued an opinion which be"an essential nexus"existing requires cities to justify the conditions between the legitimate state interest imposed on developers. Although the and the permit or zoning condition. If "= CARLA HEYL U.S.Supreme Court was considering this essential nexus exists,the court will conditions placed on building permits then examine the regulation to 44 "' =.. under Oregon law in Dolan v. City of determine whether the degree of «_ - Tigard,the sa4pe rationale will be exaction under the subdivision regula- •` ='=F= nder Minnesota law,cities applied to Minnesota cities in deter- don bears the required relationship to - - can require subdividers mining that the conditions they impose the projected impact of the proposed • .: ;= --1 C•= requesting platting or on new development are justifiable and development. . : =,� a replatting of land to permissible under the United States What does an"essential nexus"and f.•_ -: dedicate land for parks, Constitution. the"required relationship"mean to 14."' �-_'. = =: public open space,storm In considering what restrictions and specific cases in Minnesota? In the = water holding areas or to contribute = dedication requirements a city may Oregon case,the US.Supreme Court • *• Providing Public Finance . fit v ` ;` Greater Protection-By-Annual Attention w., { , Solutions for Nearly A Proven Yearly Maintenance -"Half a Century Plan For Your Elevated - " , -^=.Represent issuers on competitive and negotiated Watertowers - • L :-=.general obligation and revenue bond issues - , -y`-t -tom'' --ce•'— yrs.-..--• . '--.. - - • , • •Coordinate capital improvement program • • VI y I _... : : _ Servicing "`s��• Municipalities ��� IPI�s�1 • Develop_ cash flow modeling for.capital projects. Since = ��; 1921, . _ Evaluate refunding and restructuring of : �tv-• • bond issues.. . • ' �iI • Develop debt management policies. Watertower Paint& Repair Co., Inc. • • Review economic development and _ "The Tank With the Red,Roof" , • public/private partnership projects. `'• Providing dependable service to municipalities since =" •Assist in referendum approval of capital 1921 and offering the experience,skilled workmen, projects. adequate insurance coverage and the best of equipment - • and materials to perform the highly specialized trade of _ - painting and repairing elevated watertowers.Prompt _ SPRINGSTED service on emergency winter work. PUBUC FINANCE ADVISORS • .. Interior Inspection By Color 85 East Seventh Place,Suite 100 • Video Camera Available. Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101-2143 Area Code P.O. Box 67 (612)2233000 515-357-2101 Clear Lake, Iowa 50428 Saint Paul•Milwaukee•Minneapolis•Kansas City•Washington,DC I4- • Member of American Waterworks Association 2::t =:.=0137.7"i`T .-y.. .<>->_..-. .,_ . --.._._-..• ..-7:-'.•'•::'-'. -..,._S3TACMZ . :_'-_,..-._ . is__ Si: found that preventing flooding and 4111 Cities must now be able to specify le Oregon case before the U.S. ' ,l` reducing traffic congestion arc legiti- cally articulate their reasons for Supreme Court,the city did notit mate purposes. The essential nexus imposing conditions on any particular attempt to make any individualized . „ existed between preventing flooding development.. Certainly,standards determination to support the require- and limiting development within the stated in the subdivision regulation will ment that the landowner leave 15 creek's floodplain. The essential nexus give guidance for the need of requiring percent of her property as open space, • also existed between traffic congestion public dedication for necessary public and dedicate a public greenway in the ° reduction and providing alternate improvements and open space. But flood plain when a private greenway means of transportation such as bicycle cities will be required to articulate and could also have been an effective flood .paths. justify the particular street,park land, control measure. The city also failed to • In Minnesota,cities should be able to sewer,and water conditions proposed meet its burden of demonstrating that meet the essential nexus requirement on particular developments. the additional number of vehicles and ;t by enforcing their present subdivision Minnesota courts have also been bicycle trips generated by the develop- regulations as they have in the past. In requiring cities to make clear their ment was reasonably related to the general, the essential nexus test would findings in zoning matters,so the U.S. city's requirement for the dedication of be met if the city has a legitimate Supreme Court's requirement for a pathway easement. The Court stated ;;: public purpose in reducing the :.•_ findings should not be that onerous to the city must quantify its findings r negative effects of development and cities. Proving the need for specific beyond a conclusory statement that the the regulations are geared to merely development dedication requirements pathway dedication could offset some +" reducing these negative effects. also should not be very difficult for of the traffic demand generated by the z s However,the second question may cities. This new zoning requirement is development. (See also Legal notes, be the more difficult one to answer in somewhat analogous to cities having to page 26.) `'t. determining whether the required prove special assessments for individual Under these guidelines,Minnesota r' condition bears the proper relationship lots,and show that the burden imposed cities must be able to state with some to the projected impact of the pro-._. on the property owner does not exceed particular specificity,the reasons for - posed development. The city must the benefit granted by the city's action. requiring subdivision dedications and . have findings sufficient to justify the Arguably,the same standard will be regulations to particular development conditions imposed through the applied in determining that the burden proposals in order for their actions to .- subdivision regulations. There must be of the subdivision requirement does be constitutional. ' a"rough proportionality"between the not exceed the benefit to the develop- Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney city's conditions as they relate to the ment by the subdivision requirements. with the League of Minnesota Cities. kii impact of the development. No precise • • : mathematical calculation is required, - • but the city must make some type of A PREVENTIVE individual determination that the APPROACH TO required dedication is related to thea TALENT proposed development's impact. This PUBLIC LAW. determination-must consider both the -- _.. nature and extent that the condition - - . will impact the proposed development::. . = ENERGY The United States Supreme Court views this test as"a reasonable relation- =c= - Anticipating problems is a critical aspect of - ship"test. This is the same standard • our government practice. Our attornrys I 'a that the Minnesota Supreme Court has • -•-.- - - -- wISDOM assist clients in applying••strate ies to' ii applied in approving subdivision , 8 regulation and exaction: In theory,theliability. gu rY minimize risk and avoid We „ regulations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S.Supreme Court standard, serve public clients with sensitivity toward because they have met the reasonable INTEGRITY costs and with a desire to help gov>°rnments 7 relationship test used by the Minnesota / _•. function more effectively. Call Suesan Lea Supreme Court. - : _ However,the U.S.Supreme Court Pace for more information. , I rt, requires findings by the city to show the I ; 612 333 4800 reasonable relationship between the I --1 ._city-imposed condition and the •.t proposed development. Minnesota • = P L I' I3 A �I H I K courts have not previously required �� 'cities to have written findings justifying - * SCNNCBR ICN & KAUFMAN, LTD. _the conditions imposed or to articulate IP-'�� 1 IP- ,,the specific reasons the conditions are ON • �is` ' 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET.SUITE 3300 :required. • $ MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55402 7,4 • I f r i • ,. M (y ZY oz o � Y 4, i < U 2 a L / •• Lyi:' El C v �. H • I g $ Q8Z8 , _ 74 ` t TT . g o g i ..Ni ~ N OD• . M - M Y - H i C fs c E _w2 m _� F Q. ' �. �' 7g a ,t `11 ; € x. a L ` .o Y o 'Sc o 7 le. X C G a TA < 's w, W U .r ›•t Z F �I = • r Y Y V • a m { b y •L - t C e L w Q A V. ON 01. 1 0 __ U .. 'e d ZtC E = - ' a4' e - e A A z = _ yin ,_ '1 E. �p Q sl.; 4g4> � � 2 2 O N O < it CC A h" -. tl :7 PodH Y 8 0 a- A ., ... .. , ,, N z E zr d I Aee0) .reanelnv v» "'E. E •. o"o a •� a1 F �. o H o < H g •00if Y N C-sr a • . NeA S1 g ; E E =;C .4 iii 44 pp■ et 006 a V x .k �. � 7, 170 '' • I i C Y •"' O C - ` O z 0 E gE ew aA u I Y e > a . s G7 a 6t A . a Y J ... 1111 • • • ^y r Y 0 y . WA z } A" is S >. 1q�. Y >. 7 C C + O ... Y C e ■ O ■ 7 9 ° .`t y E 9 S o f e * t 'r a ... •■ g. u .0 E _ u t "• ° o. ! ± • k Y . t C y • � . {4.� Y Y C �p �p > 7 C ■ C 4 .. 10 C` G^ g Y • C ■ y ■ wl U u i a i U n > ; ry a e i g p ■ y ■ C m C . C 00 • C _ O r C L C Y L ` 2 ° E ■ Y 2 o _ O C Y E m '3 `o ` ° a- C sY. � � o aY '' . >pT Y 3 G J ■ L < L < O C.) 7 0 ... 3.3 O . O 2 C C Y Y S e _tl m Y L C Y• C g 1 C Y C C Y C; C.,w C✓ w V • m o. ! h1 . Cy �1O. G E ea -e ca Q C 00 Y 7 •. < d N T vO OO .0 Y O C C Y �O L' E 7 ■ r Ol 7 — a Q m G'. r 7 _ .1 R A v... 'CY. K C ■ .0 p p O . S O O g _ a E � u E S - S — = � r,•,. y' C > O cr — N N` C C r C ..e.g p i - . C C ■ o � 00 i u_HpHC C . C yC _ 7 � O 3 O C 9 � E ° ° > r erg 'T E . t, 4! 8 Ea 3 � ` O ES '' _ e. 0 0t. E 2S . 7C CIaO -' O � C O ° Y 7 � i co rStSTO O .Y VE7Oa O O O O hmE "". F O ` 6. C in O N ■ OY s HHH HlNaH g E a H47 ■ >. O Q ... ...i .: • 1 0 r aw Y. Y. . y Y 4. w l at rc 9 .0 y .r t 44 O 2 C o at � a - FLi � • • o g • = d. v 41 EC O ' E mC Yw o(. •YN f) C 2 O J v 2 Y Z • Y O 1° = O C • r O Y e 9 6 Y V o .; a Z O j r i C �' r+ J O 1C E. Oa O >, L F ^ C C G ; € •Y E Y i E a < LCE. Z c.< a E. C Z ! i c a Y Y • C C y ... = is .! a . • C Y Y C C C C C 0 w vy rr o r O i 2 To Q to C Y j y — w C .O. L C .. e 0 'D O a ft a O Y , Y OY2 ■ m jL fQ ■ O C flY SV O I"• 3 o yEI C � Gi y1C ` $ - ■ y m • • v e . v.CsO •mo ' y ,qL7 ba vaoa Y Y . G ■ GYC saY C ? uo. J9. E � � by > � v > E a-oOC • -. / w Y Y 41r 64 YY wO V'Y E Y O Y L C ■ E Ts J et pe : e ' Y� vOy CsO% OhE a . r C rY 1N = N L N Q ; C 40 in 0 az to C G 16 O E E aa- -0 GD > 9 N S WI t i a ... > .r v a or I. Lw — .0a ° S •a 7_ ■ a 4 ■ t Y C C rr Y 3 f ! I L E w 0 ■ f ,. Y i . e C t o 3`'0> 4. .. E 1 vo E g .rte-L ...-r, E {,. Y S V e 7 v. • > • Y b Y Z o C EZS4 0 S i 1 5 c' `o < � •• z 1 3 Z C ■ w w a • •• s. •Y Y O y w Y. Y.ft Y. Y. Z nM Y. Y. a r t f ca • = a = 0 o3 C > T. Z a E s .s d Z in y • I • •. 4 4 V Y Y . r Y .rt a a To w ft a `d O .: > Y = p Y a s '� ": a y 0 Y' t Y! O h H C U4, a M • .... 00 C i 4. ii d : so = G Y _ ■ E v E ■ Y C c O z c . Y C. i. ` ••• %.: e ° a E € .5 S _ c m >` SLt ate. E < $ C C Q Y ow. 00 ck2 m cc c E � ; c Y Y r C V YC v a 6 GO m s y o r 'a _ ° � s .. > ... ' r- n 00 h " + 7 L O e C 013 �YL `foi x a fill r ao ea o. v Sn L .r L _, L.iii _ _ Y + > ,. 0 a • aE Q e c E o� � � � as a ° = `° L = 6 ` YC= °: ` g _ rS d` + ET.° `! $ -.•r $ $ " gYC O C Qc ppv Q ° Qao ° eo _0 -"r• Y L T Oayl _ Cp C •IV iv O > T R V 00 h in N _ O — p !S gpC C � N < i8 �_ N bit;LG M p Yl `O > 9 N c NVE" yt V y O h 9 r 7 XN .. = q Ha . a o E s 1 -O ga, :; To 4E .o � 9> • • • Y. p" Y. Y Y a Si Y 6 7 8 `� a1 LO v, 3 • • OCT 17 '94 04: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON . P.3 • PARK DEDICATION FEE -----• RESEARCH SURVEY • 07/08/1993' • .ocatlorllo .,,,l•-,t,.' -.arca Co , ercent o Amo .pe F 0 •a r$t,y�ercen �-o ; errcent do • Municipality ," .Res;Yalu e: •'r • :�'"a uQ` AReswLoi %'•i:C/h1%- R''t R to a'` CfitAielift- . Bloomington 10% 5%• $700 -- 51500 varies 10% 5% . • Brooklyn Center n/a . •n/a - n/a n/a n/a n/a Brooklyn Park 10% 4% 5500 • n/a 10% 5% • ' , Burnsville varies • varies varies . varies varies 5% Eagan* varies varies $553 — 5700 5.055/sgft land '8-14% 7.5% Eden Prairie n/a n/a $840 $2965 n/a n/a Edina . 8% • 8% n/a n/a n/a n/a ` ' Golden Valley 10% J ri/a $450 n/a . 10% n/a fYrlopkins 10 — 13% • 5%• $200 — $500 varies . 10 — 13% • 5% Maple Grove 10% 7. % $638. ( $2250 —$3150 nja .n/a Minneapolis** - • Minnetonka n/a n/a $250 — $400 5.20/spit bldg I 10% 10% i Plymouth 10% 10% $885 I 53600/acre 10% • 10% Richfield varies ' •n/a varies • n/a varies •n/a I St. Louis Park** ' . . . • 'i . St. Paul n/a ' • n/a I . n/a I • n/a n/a n/a I Shakopee 10% 10% n/a n/a • 10% 10% * Additional trail dedication amounts of$100 per Res unit, and$8.54 per C/I acre .** Did not supply requested information • i . ` • ,� _ •• • • • OCT 17 '94 04:051111ITY OF BLOOMINGTONIII P.4 • 12'e9'93 18162 Z; 4 27 1416 CITY Of RAMSEY P.92 PARK DEDICATION SURVEY-CASH CONTRIBUTIONS CFTY RESIDENTIAL 0OMMERCIAL/IND11STRt&L • Ramsey ' - $450.00 less than 1 unit 5% of gross land area as per 3.3 acres determined by Council $650.00 all other dwellings • Eagan ' Single Family $700.00 per unit 50.055 pat square fool Duplex 5821.00 per unit of net land Quad 5553.00 per unit Multi $559,00 per unit Eden Prairie ' 'Single Family $900.00 per unit $3,250.00 per acre Plymouth - Single Family 5885.00 per unit $3.600.00 per alae Lakeville Single Family SA50.00 per unit plus 5.00% of assessed 5750.00 trails fee par unit valuation Maple Grove Single Family " 5638.00er unit Industrial p 52,058.05 per acre Commercial $3,084.00 per acre Champlin ' •Single Family $1,850.00 per acre 56,750.00 per acre Multi Family , $4,500.00 per acre • •tarn Lake 10% of market value of land or 5400 per lot - based on recommendation from Park Commies Coon Rapids Single Family 5384.00 per unit $1,152.00 per acre Yovvnhomrart 5286.00 per unit (includes offices) Apartments $238.00 per unit • Blaine Single Family $620.00 per unit Industrial $1,630.00 par acre Duplex 5530.00 per unit Commercial $1,860.00 per acre Townhouse/Quad $460.00 per unit Multi Family $390.00 per unit • Mobile Home $475.00 per unit Andover Cash contribution based on Commission recommendation - calculated on the "market value' of the undeveloped land that would othorwiss have been conveyed or dedicated. • Brooklyn Park 10% of assessed value par ;weal 4% of assessed value per parcel (FiAV range: $20,000 • $30,000/acre) (FMV range: 565,000 • $400,000/acre) NOTE: Plats with 4 or less lots $500.00 per lot Inver Grove Heights _A-&-C--Bistrictr5850.-00••per•unit P& A $175.00 per 1.000 sq R•1 & R•2 $850.00 per unit B•1 $175.00 ft gross floor R-3 $850.00 per unit B-2,3 8 4 $125.00 area I-1 & 1-2 S75.00 1 2/7/93 p-96x - • - _ 6126271410. 12-09-93 10:03AM P002 536 OCT 17 '94 04:VII CITY OF ]3LOOMINGTON . P.5 • . 1 '09/93 1e1e3 zillr 42p 1418 ertY OF RAMSEY P.83 PARK DEDICATION SURVEY-CASH CONTRIBUTIONS RESIDENTIAL C.O.MMEargaLfiliMMIAL Apple Valley 10% of assessed land value 5% of land or cash in lieu of sand (currently using S20,000/acre) (currently using $20.000/ase) Lino Lakes • •Formula using raw land value, housing density $200.00 per 1.000 sq to arrive at amount equal to what a parcel tt gross floor could be purchased for. area • Chanhassen • •Single/Duplex 5600.00 per unit park $3,000.00 per acre park 33% or $200 per unit trait $1,000.00 par acre trail M u t tl/Ap t e $525.00 per unit park • $175.00 per unit trail Minnetonka Single Family $400.00 per unit Office/Ind $0.20 per square foot Town/Duplex $300.00 per unit Commercial • $0.10 of builds area Apartments $250.00 per unit Oakdale Single Family $525.00 per unit 31.575.00 per acre Multi Family $428.00 per unit (cash dedication In lieu of 10% land dedication) BurnsvilleSingle Family $512.40 per unit Commercial S3.500.00 per sore • Duplex $581.00 per unit industrial 52.000.00 per acre Multi Family - `-• 3.4 units 0596.00 per unit Apt Complexes $752.00 per Unit Chaska Greater of $1,000 per acre or 51.750.00 per. acre Single/Duplex S475.00 per unit Townhomes/Ouad1 $300.00 per Unit Apts/Condos S250.00 per unit • Woodbury Single Family 5725.00 per lot $1,600.00 per acre Multi Family *500.00 per unit Mobile Home $350.00 per lot (land contribution is 10% of value of gross acres) Elk River - 'Single Family $450.00 per unit w/o S&W *1.000.00 per acre with Saw 31,500.00 per acre Rosemount Single Family $520.00 per unit 51,100.00 per acre (based on 5% of land value at $22,000 per acre) Prior Lake Single Family $800.00 per unit 51.00 per square foot (plus $300 on each bldg permit new construction) rE Rates will be proposed to change during 1954 at some point • recommendations nal yet mad • "These are the recommended rates for 1994 - not necessarily adopted at this time. 12/T/93 . • • • • 8 sex • 5124271410 12-09-03 l0!034M P003 #36 • • TO • GERALYN BARONE, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER THROUGH : RONALD S. RANKIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR • FROM ▪ KIM LINDQUIST, SENIOR PLANNER DATE ▪ DECEMBER 2, 1994 SUBJECT PARK DEDICATION FEES In 1986, the City Council adopted an ordinance which permits the City to obtain park ' dedication fees in conjunction with subdivision approvals. The ordinance requires dedication to the City of at least 10% of the land being subdivided, excluding wetlands and floodplain. The City, at its discretion, can obtain fees rather than land which would be used for park purposes. Fees are based upon the type of development proposed for the property being divided. Generally, the City has requested fees rather than the dedication of land. There are two main reasons for this approach. One is that neighborhood parkland acquisition, based upon previous studies, was nearly complete by the time the park dedication ordinance was adopted. Secondly, although the ordinance permits the City to obtain at least 10% of the land being subdivided, this has generally been interpreted to mean dedication of 10%. Therefore, this option was not proposed given the fact that the majority of the subdivisions reviewed in the last several years are relatively small. In certain instances where staff was aware that the subdivision would enhance the City's park or trail system, land dedication was requested. Currently, Planning Department staff works with developers to dedicate trail easements consistent with the City's approved trail concept. Easements are not credited against the required park dedication fees. However, developers have been reimbursed for any costs incurred by trail construction. • PA ZK DEv t C4T tw0 c25/ Co/V1n IT/<=S (!/VC • .4477:4) Res De 3T1AL- ( R UN(.. ) VtTts✓4 AVEeAce 400 II 5(07 Tow , DuP 300 52/ ()TS _ aso 5I C OU o P t PS 15 d N L_Y o N E LD tx E R , d 389 FO k 6 1 NG LE TOWN 1 ()UP - ONE 15 LESS, DNG tS 6;4ME * A L OARS 'Nee. �JVIME(LC .A L / 1 N OCJSTtA L ATA - . ao4 0Fc1cEf tNO. pec. 5c? . F ( Ouic,Dl06 :MOO . tO COMAAGQ.CiAL PE2 Sq . �-T if 5 u5G - vEPA6E . 39 4 / c5Q • i (. g01LoiNc 4 ) 1C0 USE PES :4VERAGe ,2343/AC .G '- 3 ' c; -A ? P.0 N cAGG-- 51/ O LAb O V A L US ( AVERAGE 4R (tow `✓�C 2E ` /65D/eOcAE" • PACK Dav C4T1o0 SvevE� c2'/ CoMmv,V,r/gs (//vc . A4-7-Ka) RGSIDGPTLAL. C PER. U N c t) MI-KA AvEgAGE 440 5'&7 Towiv ( DO? .. .. ...... ... . CootJ 'RANI'S PS i S ONLY &N E LOU)ER d 38 V 1=012 51 NG L8 Tow l ()UP - ONE is LESSi ONE is SAME - At.L OTUCRS kAtGNEa ZoMMERC to L / 1 N DUST to t, MTA — . ao 6 Pc tcE l i cv D, pec 5c? . ( 0u r 1.D trv6 ;44) 10 CoMM &CiAL pet? az , FT * 5 USE SC . - AvEZAvE . 394 / c5Q • FT. . 61)11-01A/6 4W-13) ICo usE PEt Aczc-- ;AUERAGE .2343/Acg_c 3 v 3 G -A MP. N A - 5%• co . LA00 VALU ( 4UER3 44:9 (fo `ACieE ) //5o/ y4cAE. Enclosure lA r- s • • LAW OFFICES OF Co ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, P.L.L.P. 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (612) 439-2878 DALE J. ECKBERG FAX (612) 439-2923 JAMES F.. LAMMERS ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A.WOLFF MARK J.VIERLING GREGORY G.GALLER KEVIN K. SHOEBERG THOMAS J.WEIDNER SUSAN O. OLSON September 22, 1995 THE HONORABLE BARBARA H O'NEAL MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST 5495 OAK GREEN PLACE NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID SCHAAF MS JANET ROBERT 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DEAN KERN SR 5885 OLDFIELD AVENUE NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 . RE.: Proposed Modification of Oak Park Ordinances Affecting Park Dedication Fees Annexation Area Park Planner' s Report of 8/24/95 Dear Mayor and Council : We have reviewed the Planner' s Report of August 24, 1995, affecting his analysis of the need to increase the Park Dedication Fees which are assessed currently under the City' s zoning and subdivision codes . • State statute allows municipalities to promulgate rules for the subdivision of land and to adopt regulations requiring that portions thereof be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use. With respect to park dedication, the statute allows cities to adopt regulations that require "a reasonable portion" of any proposed subdivision to be dedicated to the public or preservedfor cconservation purposes or for public use as parks, "playgrounds, tails, wetlands or open space. " Most, if not all, cities in Minnesota have enacted r lgl tions that take advantage of this enabling statute. In applying regulations, the cities have been generally aggressive in requiring developers to dedicate land for public purposes throughout the MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Two September 22, 1995 subdivision process . The statutory concept of municipal regulation requiring utority, as well as the long since been sustained by our Sureme Court in Coll isca.tionCi has ty of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976) . The battle ground between developers and cities, over parkland dedication, has been waged over statutory limitation, which allows municipalities only to require "a reasonable portion" of the developer' s land which a municipality would reasonably require for parkland purposes . Up until recently, very few developers, following the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in Collis took opportunity to challenge the municipal requirement . In 1994 the situation changed with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 Supreme Court 2309 (1994) . The Dolan decision challenged the determination of the Oregon Supreme Court which held that the City could reasonably impose the condition on approval building permits on the dedication of portions of the developer' s property for flood control and traffic improvements . The State of Oregon had also adopted the Comprehensive Land Use Management Plan not dissimilar to the State of Minnesota and the City of Tigard under the provisions of its Community Development Code adopted under the authority of that statute, required property owners, within the central business district, to comply with a 15% open space in landscaping requirement on parcels that would be developed. In a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the city' s dedication requirements, under its Ordinance, constituted an uncompensated taking of property. The Supreme Court required municipal ordinances to establish a "essential nexus" between the interest to acquire the property and the property owners need to obtain a permit from the city for the particular use that it wishes to impose upon the property, i .e. whether the degree of the municipal extraction for land dedication demanded by the ordinance bears a required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development of the landowner. The practical implications of the Dolan decision is that it has changed the rules regarding parkland dedications and municipal extractions from developers. Specifically, local government now has the burden of proof to demonstrate that the degree of parkland dedication or other extraction demanded by the permit condition, bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development . A municipal extraction from the developer must be reasonably related both in nature and extent to the proposed impact of the development . • MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Three September 22 , 1995 To some extent, we must determine whether or not the demanded parkland dedication, in each case, is roughly proportionate to the proposed developments impact on the need to provide those municipal facilities to the public . The Dolan case specifically provides that no precise mathematical calculation is required, but that the city must make a form of individualized determination that the required dedication is both related in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development . In this particular instance, the City Planner has recommended that we revise the land dedication formula to a minimum of 10% of the value of developable properties because the rate is consistent with other communities . We would forewarn you, however, that under the Dolan decision, it is probably not wise to base a land dedication on the calculation on the assumption that a 10% dedication will be required as that specific rate is not per se valid under Dolan scrutiny. The test of reasonableness, if required under judicial scrutiny, will not be limited to a fixed percentage of land, which a subdivider is asked to dedicate, but must include an analysis as to whether or not the subdivider' s contribution to the demand for public use of dedicated land within the area is justified by the proposed development . Of some concern, is a suggestion within the report that the cash dedication amount for commercial and industrial property be increased from $1, 750 . 00 per acre to $3 , 000 .00 per acre. The Planner does note that many communities do not charge commercial and industrial park development dedication fees, but the theory of the charge is that business does generate demand for parks due in part to league play or utilization by employees . We do not have currently, within the proposal, any specific data regarding demand or use generated by commercial or industrial development for parkland purposes. Without that data, if a challenge would pursue from a developer, it is unlikely that the city' s proposal increasing the park dedication demand on commercial and industrial use would be sustained. Indeed, under the Dolan decision it is unlikely that any municipal ordinance would survive judicial scrutiny, if it were not supported by specific factual and statistical analysis as to the demand placed upon the municipality • to provide parkland services by various developments . The safest course for the City to pursue on any issue of parkland dedication, either under the existing ordinance or under any proposed amendment to it, would be to generate a specific study that would reasonably estimate the demand for municipal services and parkland demand generated by various types of development . • . MAYOR and COUNCIL Page Four September 22, 1995 This study could be based upon wide-based metropolitan data and would not be limited or confined purely to the boarders of the City of Oak Park Heights . Additionally, if other cities have conducted similar studies, the City could certainly utilize their analysis as part of its own analysis in modifying the parkland dedication provisions of your ordinances . I would suggest to the Council that you establish a public hearing before the City Council in November or December to deal with the issue of parkland dedication, but also instruct the City Planner to research what available studies have been completed by other jurisdictions affecting the issues that the City is required to address now under the Dolan decision and provide that information back to the Council by written report. Additionally, the City may wish to authorize the Planner to conduct its own study with regard to reasonably attempting to assess the critical element of the demand that is placed upon the City to provide parkland dedication and related trails and services by residential, commercial and industrial developments. If you should have any questions in the matter, free to contact me directly. please feel Yours very truly, C� Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc: Mr. Michael Robertson Mr. Scott Richards • Page 3 - Minutes 8/28/95 Anderlik said that they had made the contractor go in and repair some work and that the contractor would be repairing additional problems with the sod. He said that at this time of the year, it was difficult to get contractors to finish- jobs in a timely manner because they were working in so many cities . He said the main leverage the City had to get the job finished that was if it was not finished by September 8th, the contractor would be subject to penalty. He felt that the contractor' s pay request should be granted because that work had been done and that the - contractor was not asking for payment for sod work because that work had not been completed. Councilmember Schaaf, seconded by Kern, moved to approve the pay request in the amount of $197, 505 . 10 . Carried 5-0 . Cable Commission - Councilmember Swenson asked if anyone had problems with any content on the cable channel to contact the access center, that they were keeping a specific log of complaints and would be discussing them at each Cable Commission meeting. Unfinished Business: Joint Elementary School/Park Proposal - Mayor O'Neal discussed the workshop before the Council meeting with the School District . She said that staff from the District would be meeting with city staff in an attempt to provide cost estimates and that the school district was looking at possibly making a decision on whether to proceed at its next board meeting on Thursday, September 14, 1995 . Park Dedication Fees - Proposed Changes - City Planner Richards described his report and the proposed changes in the park dedication fees . City Attorney Vierling noted that his office was reviewing the report and examining recent developments in State and Federal laws governing park dedication. Council was in consensus to refer the matter to the Parks Commission for their review and comment . Design Review Committee Update - Councilmember Robert showed pictures of the proposed Highway 5 bridge and the proposed Highway 36 retaining wall . She noted that there will be a meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 1 : 00 p.m. at MNDOT Oakdale offices to discuss a potential boat access to the St . Croix River down by the NSP plant . Vision Committee Report - Mayor O'Neal noted receipt of the Vision Committee minutes . She also noted that approximately 70 community surveys had been filled out at the Community Party at Brekke Park. She thanked everyone who had filled out the survey and noted that at this point, public safety was clearly identified in the survey as the number one priority for the City Council . • • Enclosure 11 Northwest Associated Consultants , Inc . AC COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH ZE © [E MEMORANDUM AUG - 7 1995 TO: Mike Robertson FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 4 August 1995 RE: Oak Park Heights - Park Dedication/Annexation Area Park FILE NO: 798.02 - 95.12 In reviewing park dedication issues for the annexation area park, I felt that the following information regarding the Arcon's Autumn Ridge and potential development of the Haase property would be of interest: Autumn Ridge Cash park dedication for the Autumn Ridge development yielded the following amounts: Phase I 26 lots x $450.00 $11,700.00 Phase II 26 lots x $450.00 ($11,700 - $7,406*) 4,294.00 Phase III 25 lots x $450.00 11,250.00 Total for Autumn Ridge $27,244.00 * Appraisal value of Outlot A wetland By comparison, if the City had requested a portion of this land for park dedication, the overall lot count would be reduced to 69 to accommodate the park land and the following would be the yield: 69 lots x 3.5 persons = 242 persons =75 persons per acre = 3.2 acres of park dedication Based upon the purchase price of this property, the 3.2 acres would have a cash value of $139,392.00. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 • • • Haase In regards to the Elmer Haase properties south of 58th Street, acreage and number of dwellings were estimated for the three distinct areas surrounding the proposed park area. The acreage and number of dwellings to be built are rough estimates at this time. Until actual development proposals are submitted, the amount of park dedication cannot be exactly calculated. Parcel 1, consisting of the approximately 40 acres south of the proposed park, could accommodate 75 lots of roughly the same size as those in Autumn Ridge. Development of this parcel would result in land park dedication of 3.5 acres. If cash was accepted, the amount would be $33,750.00. Parcel 2 is approximately 25 acres and consists of the property between the wetland complex in the proposed park and Autumn Ridge. This piece of property would yield a 1.96 acre dedication from 42 lots. The cash dedication for this piece of property would be $18,900.00. Parcel 3 consists of that area south and east of the active portion of the park and consists of approximately 19.6 acres. Park dedication would be 2.0 acres from the 43 lots. The cash dedication would be $19,350.00. In total, the Haase property south of 58th Street would yield 7.46 acres of land or$72,000.00 in cash. Again, based upon the purchase price of the Autumn Ridge property, the 7.45 acres would have a cash value of$324,522.00. Conclusion Due to quickly rising land values, it will be important for the City to secure ownership of the land desired for the annexation area park as soon as possible. The adopted park plan sets aside 16 to 17 acres in the east end and 8 to 9 acres in the west end for park development. It is assumed that the approximately 11 acres of wetland will be dedicated to the City at no cost for storm water retention. The land necessary to be purchased or dedicated is 24 to 26 acres. The City will need to look at two options to assist in its attempt in securing the property for the park. One would be to increase park dedication fees and secondly, encourage the School District to join into the land purchase with the City for the Haase property. 2 j \ 7 -\ , el ) . hillio 6 .••Is. );.: f-- \ , ,,,,..\---- 0) , . ,.. .r, _,„,,,...___ 1 .. iri i 1 . '. \,_„-1itC5A.•1I C.. __:,r_/,4_,_0__„__•_-: I1I: Imo_ _ -./)- „ -. \.- ' \_N:__N ,_:_-_,-.:zr...--___,.--;7,-,-_,..-7._.___-.7__:___--:-0w_,_.=--.7•-,_)_.-=._--_._-v.,7--I--_fs-p_i-,=it ,, 4 _H,\",„-..,\-_1 r-.-,--.1-1•:--7I-s--- .:\---1-- :.'.__•_ '._..___.._.._.?c-).,..S:.. ,N• ..i. :=... -1--,i1._.,1 1,,:•.,...S_iik__r _,• -_-.•._.-.----..-......•..' .N,‘..,.- '-,s,'S- ‹_.:•1-4,,., ,K„/,.r11)1 ,:, ...... .. _, m m , , . 3, iii. i ,. e ';. j/j/A ir % ' ''t :r'%) ".>,--1/4V. ' ‘' .---' lio r i 1 - --N.Litz.1...,,,INA, ,____ s--i • 1-----?--'x' , 1 ' o p -l ' ' i COkl C° 9) P.', j4411 ! ti," . ., . , ,,. .., ,4„. , ,......______ .,,, , _______-- ....k ,1r‘vierer-40,0001.1. 01, ('1,‘\:�U ! . . L---,: iti , 1 ,,,,,,. ,, ..v , : , . ...§3 - . ,. . _....,,:-... i . .,.. ) \.i, ‘,Arp, ------ , _CI Nit ' % i , • I(Ow - ,._____ _ ,itr. 1 \ -4, ...„..- lit Cr c.- . 1 - . . , ..-,. „...- .;,- .- _______,2.,',;..-i z_.______<____[rit, ___. ....004 • I.,@i , , . , .:, .„ . c----0 .1.1 .. ..0 -- :,..,.. ,, ._i!.,- 41 .,_ ,- . i .,.... ...„.........„. • 1 1 x 1 •. 11)f”' ^ I R� _, --1- ___-----_-----/f i i, ', ------ 1 "?,q ...?-fr. 4- _-;__-__-- ,. .,--____. --- . Y _--, --_---,...--- 1 ,,, " 7 7-.n 11, � ,- 7, ,.\ _ 1 Sib 1 \ lir ( ‘111P,,-- 46s,,, ,--__-- '----TJ- b \‘,.."‘ \c\;. • /AI, "1111°11111------- ).... ,. '.-7//' 4.4 7: .. - I 4-_) , i z-40., ....,........_ „\ - , ,,..___,..,N, „I _. - Q‘ii: .• 1 • .• .,1,0 .. . Ili Ltrj. 1 C",' ' • 414 4 , , , . . „,, , . g„... „ , a, . "i\...\.s` /;, ., ,, ti .. : .. ......, ,. • .x. 4 I f. l1411°. ... . I fir;„ ,, . •�; 1�.” ;�' _ ., ...0 \\-----=-------c-'_____, , ...,.. :, • • • • , ---,— , : _ .. . •:,. .. a. ,..,..... ,,,\... (..,,, _x _.,,,N c-:_i.:____) ,....),, ,. ,,,,..,--,,-,___„__._,, _110(a-, „, _ :-,--1;.,3,. : ''1.-..--...,-/ .1 \ .N.:- ,-, .\,-' ' e ____z.________-:.- _x------( \ ,.,, ., ,.. ..„.1. ‘,,.:, 1.... , . .:. )1,‘....\\,.\ , . . ... -,. ,,-. ,,, . :,.- -.,\,,„ ., - - -1 )1,/ci,. , , i, „. _.• . , „...,,....,..i ,_ ... ...:_____._______\,...141 ,.. . .... ... \ ._,.. .... ,, ,.. . ... Ar• a -- '!SIr I. R \ � m YS ------*:- 1 0 R )6,91 402 . 08 PARK LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT Subd. A. As a prerequisite to plat approval, subdividers shall dedicate land for parks , playgrounds, public open spaces or trails and/or shall make a cash contribution P, to the City' s Park Fund as provided by this Section. Subd. B. Land to be dedicated shall be reasonably suitable for its intended use 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, hydrology, tree cover, access and location. Subd. C. The Park Commission shall recommend to the City Council the land dedication and cash contribution requirements for proposed subdivisions. Subd. D. Changes in density of plats shall be reviewed by the Park Commission for reconsideration of park dedication and cash contribution requirements. Subd. E. When a proposed park, playground, recreational area, school site or other public ground has been indicated in the City' s official map or comprehensive 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 appropriate governmental unit. If the subdivider elects not to dedicate an area in excess of the land required hereunder for such proposed public site, the City may consider acquiring the site through purchase or condemnation. Subd. F. Land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit developments. Subd. G. Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed subdivision, 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. Subd. H. The City, upon consideration of the particular type of development, may require larger or lesser parcels of land to be dedicated if the City determines that present or future residents would require greater or lesser land for park and playground purposes. In addition, the City Council may also require lots within 25 • • the subdivision be held in escrow for future sale or development. The moneys derived from the sale of escrowed lots will be used to develop or to purchase park land in the future. Subd. I. In residential plats one acre of land shall be conveyed to the City as an outlot by warranty deed for every seventy five (75) people the platted land could house based upon the following population calculations: Single-Family detached dwelling lots 3 .5 persons Two-family dwelling lots 6 . 0 persons Apartments, townhouses, condominiums and other dwelling units 1 person per bedroom Subd. J. In lieu of a park land donation, the City may require the following cash donations : Single-family dwelling lots $ 450. 00 Two-family dwelling lots $ 800.00 Apartments, townhouses, $ 250.00 per unit plus condominiums and other $ 85.00 per bedroom dwelling units above the first bedroom of each unit Commercial and industrial $1,750 .00 per acre--pro- rated Subd. K. The City may elect to receive a combination of cash, land and development of the land for park use. The fair market value of the land the City wants and the value of the development of the land shall be calculated. That amount shall be subtracted from the cash contribution required by subsection J above. The remainder shall be cash contribution requirement. Subd. L. "Fair market value" shall be determined as of the time of filing the final plat in accordance with the following: 1. The City and the developer may agree as to the fair market value, or 26 411 2. The fair market value may be based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider at the subdivider' s expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of the SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. 3. If the City disputes such appraisal the City may, at the subdivider' s expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which shall be conclusive evidence of the fair market of the land. Subd. M. Planned developments with mixed land uses shall make cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the percentage of land devoted to the various uses. Subd. N. The cash contributions for parks shall be deposited in the City' s Park and Recreation Development Fund and shall be used only for park acquisition or development. 402 .09 REQUIRED BASIC IMPROVEMENTS Subd. A General Provisions. 1. Before a final plat is delivered by the City to the subdivider, the subdivider of the land covered by said plat shall pay all applicable fees and execute and submit to the City Council a Developer' s Agreement which shall be binding on his or their heirs, personal representatives and assigns , a part of which agreement shall be set forth that the subdivider will cause no private construction to be made on the lands within said plat, nor shall the subdivider file or cause to be filed any application for building permits for such construction until all improvements required under this Ordinance have been made or arranged for in the manner and conforming to the requirements as set forth herein. 2. Prior to the delivery of the approved final plat, the subdivider shall deposit with the City Clerk an amount equal to a minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125%) percent of the City Engineer's estimated cost of the required improvements within the plat, either in a cash escrow fund , performance and indemnity bond, or letter of credit. The surety involved in said financial guarantees shall be approved by the City. The 27