Loading...
07-11-95 PRCITY OF OTSEGO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT. MEETING DATE ANDY MACARTHUR,CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE I JULY 24, 1995 ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY 6.1 CONSIDERATION OF PARK & TRAIL FEE RECOMMENDATION P.Boediaheime At the July 10, 1995 City Council meeting, the City's attorney addressed the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation for park & trail dedication fees. Andy MacArthur requested that the City Council reconsider the Commission's recommendation prior to the Planning Commission conducting the public hearing. Andy further recommended that the City Council request a formal letter of recommendation from the Park & Recreation Commission and that the letter should also include discussion regarding the process the Commission used in their decision. Councilmember Fournier motioned to recommend the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing= scheduled for July 19, 1995 to the next Planning Commission meeting, August 2, 1995 to allow the Park & Recreation Commission to provide information including discussion and process in the recommendation for park and trail dedication fees. Attached is the memorandum that was sent to the Park & Recreation Commission members requesting a formal letter of recommendation from the Commission. The Commission, at their July 11th meeting, requested Merland Otto, Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc., to write a letter on behalf of the Commission to the City Council incorporating the process and final recommendation for park and trail fee dedication. The attached letter from Merland Otto includes the background of the issues, the rationale the Commission used in their decision process and their recommendations to the City Council. Andy MacArthur's recommendations have not changed regarding the proposed dedication fees submitted by the Park and Recreation Commission. Attached is a copy of his memorandum dated July 5, 1995, which was discussed at the July 10, 1995 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission has continued the public hearing until their August 2, 1995 meeting, therefore it is recommended that the City Council consider the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations, the city attorney's concerns, and provide direction regarding an amendment to the subdivision ordinance addressing park and trail dedication prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Park & Recreation Commission Members FROM: Phyllis Boedigheimer, Business/Finance Director DATE: July 11, 1995 SUBJECT: Park and Trail Dedication Fees In accordance with the City Attorney, Andy McArthur's recommendation, the City Council is requesting that the Park and Recreation Commission submit a letter to the City Council formally recommending the new proposed park and trail dedication fees. Andy McArthur further indicated that the letter should include the process the Commission used in the ultimate consensus of their recommendation. Andy McArthur further informed the City Council that he had some concerns with the fee structure recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission and has asked that the City Council further review the fee recommendation. The public hearing has been scheduled and notice published for the July 19, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, therefore, the Planning Commission will be requested to continue the public hearing until their August 2, 1995 meeting to allow time for the City Council to receive the Park and Recreation Commission letter and to further consider that recommendation prior to the public hearing meeting. The next City Council meeting is scheduled for July 24, 1995. Acceptance of the Park and Recreation Commission's letter of recommendation and further consideration of that recommendation will be on the agenda for that meeting. Please forward your letter to the City Staff by July 19th for inclusion in the City Council packet. Thank you in advance for your follow up of this issue. If you have any further questions or if I can be of any help, please feel free to call me at the city offices. William S. Radzwill Andrew J. MacArthur Michael C. Couri July 5, 1995 City Council Members City of Otsego c/o Elaine Beatty 8899 Nashua Avenue NE Elk River, MN 55330 RADZWILL LAW OFFICE Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael, MN 55376 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) RE: Amendment To Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Park and Trail Dedication Dear Council Members: Upon further review of the motion made and passed at the last Council meeting regarding the Park and Recreation recommendations for increased park and trail dedication fees I would ask that the City Council reconsider setting a public hearing on the issue based upon the proposed changes contained within that motion. My reasons for requesting such action are as follows: 1. Prior to a hearing there should be a written report from the Parks and Recreation Commission or other City Staff indicating that the City has looked at park and trail dedication fees in surrounding communities and has reviewed the effect of other developments within the City on the city parks and trail system and that the proposed changes are the City's best estimate of the effect of the development on said systems. 2. I believe that relative to proposed changes in Park fees (proposed amendment to 21-7-18, Section I; 1 ) that the proposed fee would be fairer and more defendable if it was merely $700.00 per lot across the board instead of a set fee or a percentage of market value. The market value determination on a residential property leads, in my opinion, to potential problems with fairness since each residential unit has the potential for the same number of users despite its valuation. Also, if 2.5% of the fair market value is lower than $700.00 than it brings in question the rationale for using the higher figure. Regarding, No. 2 of the same section, I think it is easier to justify a straight fair market value to commercial/ industrial since they will usually bring a fair number of people into the community who could potentially use the City's parK sy5'Lem. 3. Relative to the proposed changes in 21-7-18, Section K it would be my recommendation that, as with the park dedication fees, that Letter to Otsego City Council July 6, 1995 Page 2 the proposed amount be a standard numerical figure per lot for residential. Once again I have no problem with a percentage of fair market value for commercial/ residential but I do question the percentages recommended ( .01% and .005%) since they do not come close to the same ratio between park and trail fees previously established, i.e. $300.00 to $50.00 or 6 to 1 as opposed to 2.5% to .005% or 250 to 1. (I would assume that it was intended that the figures in this section be 1% and .5% respectively, but even if this is the case I still feel that a flat over all fee per lot for residential is more defendable and is fairer. 4. The proposed ordinance needs to be more consistent, i.e. if multi -family residential is to be included with commercial/ industrial in the trail dedication section it should also be included in the section dealing with park dedication. 5. If it is intended that no fees be attached to 1 per 40 splits or minor subdivisions within the agricultural areas that should be referenced in the proposed ordinance amendment. I am sorry to have to bring action was taken so quickly adequately voice my concerns. Very truly yours, Cie Andrew J. acArthur RADZWIL LAW OFFICE cc: Larry Koshak, Merland Bob Kirmis, NAC Planning Commission Parks and Recreation these concerns after the fact but at the last meeting that I did not Otto, Hakanson Anderson commission JUL 20 '95 16:05 HAKANS-" ANDERSON P.1 222 Monroe street Hakanson Anoka. Minnesota 55303 Anders,on e17J417-5860 ■■ Assor—Inc. taX617J z7-3ao1 July 20, 1995 Mayor Norm Freske and City Council Members 8899 Nashua Avenue N -E. Otsego, MN 55330 RE: Otsego Park Dedication Dear Mayor Freske and Council Members: in a July 11, 1995 memo from Phyllis Boadigheimer, the Parks Commission was requested to submit a letter to the City Council outlining the rationale for the proposed Parks Dedication Fee structure. The Commission. in turn, requested that I help by preparing a response. In essence, the Commission has looked at the cost of developing the City's park and trail system, the anticipated revenues from future development, and park fee structures in surrounding communities. it was concluded that projected park dedication receipts (cash and land) are expected to fall well short of that necessary to develop a system as envisioned In the City's comprehensive plans. After reviewing other communities' fee structures it was recognized that our current structure should be changed, that adequate justification supports an increase, and that the City would not necessarily be at a competitive disadvantage by restructuring the fee dedication requirements. As you are aware, the Parks Commission has been working on putting the 90316 expressed in the City's adopted Comprehensive Parks Plan ( and applicable goals from the City's Comprehensive Flan) into an implementation program. One of the aspects of such as implementation program is to develop a oust estimate and a capital irnprovements program, The CIP develops costs associated with parks and trails development as outlined in the Comprehensive Parks Plan. The costs are not all Inclusive (e.g. development costs for Engineers LamdscapcArchltects Siuveyors JUL c0 195 16:06 HAKANQ ANDERSON Mayor Norm Freske and City Council Members Page 2 July 20, 1995 neighborhood parks are not included) nor is the C1P necessarily time specific. It does provide a basis for understanding the costs associated with system development. The cost of system development as currently identified is approximately $3,100,000. The CIP assumes that some land will have to be acquired for system development. Park dedication often will be land but may be cash or a combination of land and cash at the City's discretion. For this exercise, we assume that the value of land received washes with the cost of land if it were to be acquired. The City's Comprehensive Plan projects that development growth from 1991-2000 would include approximately 330 homes and eight acres of commercial development. While growth has been somewhat slower than this, a reasonable basis would be that a 20 year period may include 700 homes and 20 acres of commercial/industrial development. It's also recognized that this may be conservative if extensive areas of the City receive sanitary sewer allowing for higher densities. The total anticipated parks revenue (assuming all cash) at the current rate structure would be in the area of $268,000. Urban res., 600 x 0350 + $50) = $240,000 Rural res. 100 x ($175 +$25) = 20,000 Comm. 20 x ($350 + $50) = 8.000 $268,000 This obviously is a severe shortfall necessitating at least one or a combination of several steps. 1) Scale back the Comprehensive Parks Plan 2) Extend the period of time over which the program is implemented 3) Seek to maximize park revenues thru fee structures, grants, other sources The costs associated with system development will include funding from several sources as well as land, itself. If we assume that over time, 15% of the development funds will be grant funds and that 50% of the costs will eventually be from the general fund or special financing, approximately $1,089,000 remains to be derived from park W JUL 20 195 15:53 HAKANS' ANDERSON P•2 Mayor Norm Freske and City Council Members Page 3 July 20, 1995 dedication to fund a $3,110,000 system, Since only new development is subject to park dedication, the cost distribution appears to be: System Cost: $3,110,000 Less Gen'l Fund (50%) 1,555,000 Grants (15%) 466,500 Commercial/Ind- " 20,000 $1,068,500 *Commercial/Ind'] based on 20 acres @ avg. value of 910,000/acre, one acre lots and park dedication cash in lieu of at 10% of fair market value. The approximate cost per dwelling unit thus is $1,068,500 -:- 700 units or approximately $1500 per unit. This figure is recognized as being difficult to implement at this time. laW ♦ •fiWNUIWOETAIAWN ► :: The Commission reviewed information from a NAC survey which outlined the fee structure of a number of nearby Communities_ (See attachment). The $1500 fee per dwelling unit required to implement the City's parks development is significantly higher than most communities_ The Parks Commission reviewed the fee structure of a number of communities and determined that albeit a higher fee could be justified, a fee of approximately 5700.00 per dwelling unit would be the maximum acceptable to the market at this time. Realizing that this lower fee structure will result in a shortfall, it was determined that the 10% park dedication of "cash in lieu of° should also extend to all commercial and industrial development. Since one of the goals of the City's comprehensive plan is to create a multi -model City linking neighborhoods to activity areas, business centers, and areas of work, the commercial and Industrial areas should contribute a fair share towards creating such an environment. Based on the Commission's evaluation the following recommendations were made: JUL 20 '95 15:53 HAKANSCANDERSON Mayor Norm Freske and City Council Members Page 4 July 20, 1995 -3 _ • ! ll • t No distinction should be made between urban and rural. • Park fees should be 10% of the gross area being subdivided or 10% of the fair market value of the undeveloped land or 0700 per dwelling unit, whichever is greater. • Park fees should be 10% of the gross area being subdivided or 10% of fair market value of the undeveloped land. KWIS �•• .� Residential development shall be subject to an additional one half percent of the gross arca being subdivided or one half percent of the fair market value of the land(?) I'm not certain of how this figure came into being, but at this level it does not generate significant revenues_ This may more appropriately be a set fee. No distinction should be made between urban or rural residential. • Commercial & Industrial areas are not subject to trail dedication aince they would be subject to park dedication. The focus in theso areas is likely to be linear parks and trail development linking these areas with the rest of the community. P.3 JUL 20 '95 15:5-54 HAKANF-' ANDERSON Mayor Norm Freske and City Council Members Page 5 July 20, 1995 P.4 Thank you for your interest In the Commission's deliberations. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOCIATES INC. cc: Tom Baiilargoon, Chairman Otsego Parks and Recreation Commission Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Adminlsuator Phyllis Boedigheimer, Finance Director Andy MacArthur, Radzwill Law Office Flo: OT708.hr JUL 20 195 15:98 HAKANSO" ANDERSON P.2 TABr2 1 1990-2000 RBSIDWTIAI& LAND MUMS (Acres) (Acres) Number Total Demand of omits Land nemand With Overaae Urban Residential 17 17-D 25.5 Suburban Residential (R-2) 185 462.5 693.9 Suburban Residential (R -2A) 79 396.0 594.0 Rural Residential 49 490.0 735.0 TOTAL 330 1,365.5 2,048.3 SOURCE: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Commercial Otsego is in the early stages of urban development that has resulted in a significant increase in population since 1980. in looking to the fuLurH, the City must give attention to the commercial retail needo of its residents. This will become even more critical 3r public sewer and water becomes available and more incense urban development begins. In identifying retail Commercial locations and land absorption, a number of criteria must be considered. These critarda give attention to trade area, retail locations, amount of commercial land, and type of commercial uses. Using a land absorption model developed by the Metropolitan Council, the following commercial land use denarn s were developed based on Otsego population and household projections. It should be nnted that the following model is based on local demand only and that additional Craffic upon an upgraded Ilighway 101 may escalate commercial demand. TART -R 2 3.980 TO 2000 a 2M=C1ZL LAMB? USE ABSOgR=w 1980_ 199n 2000. PopulaLdon 4,769 5,1935 6780 Eouse.cld 1,395 1,725 2,055 Cc=crcial Demand 23 acre~ 30 acres 35 acres neivaud w/Overage 34 acres 45 acres 53 acres SOMCE' Northwest A2sociated Consultants, Inc. 83 OTSEGO PARKS ESTIMATED PARK TRUST FUND REVENUES 1991-2000 OT73 11/29191 Extension Combined Trait Feed F=s $14:050 $112,400 1,225 _-_9.au $15,275 $122,200 NOTES: 1. HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS FROM COMP. PLAN 2. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES BASED ON SUB -DIVISION ORDINANCE 3. IF STEADY GROWTH IS ASSUMED, kKNUAL GENERATION OF FEES IS APPROX. 512,220 4. S12,220 ANNUAL FEE GENERATION IS LESS THAN THAT PAID OUT ONLY FOR JOINT REC. HOARD SERVICES Unit Unit PROJEMI) Park Extension Trail NE�I*H4LI2 E Parc Fees URBAN 281 S350 S 98;350 $50 RUFt9L 5175 s,s?; $25 TOTAL 330 SI06,925 OT73 11/29191 Extension Combined Trait Feed F=s $14:050 $112,400 1,225 _-_9.au $15,275 $122,200 NOTES: 1. HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS FROM COMP. PLAN 2. PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES BASED ON SUB -DIVISION ORDINANCE 3. IF STEADY GROWTH IS ASSUMED, kKNUAL GENERATION OF FEES IS APPROX. 512,220 4. S12,220 ANNUAL FEE GENERATION IS LESS THAN THAT PAID OUT ONLY FOR JOINT REC. HOARD SERVICES JUL 20 '95 15:39 HAKANS' ANDERSON OTSEGO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION PARK DEDICATION FEES MEETING 5/9/95 Thi: Parks Commission has lirpviously discussed the need to generate more revenue for parks development. One of the primary touts fur communities to develop a park system is through dedication requirements as part of the subdivisiuri pruue!is. Typically, this requires a percentage of the gross area being subdivided or a cash in lieu of land donation. The attached excerpt from Otsego's subdivision ordinance includes the following requirements: 10% of land or $350/lot + $50/lot for trail development in the Urban Service Area. 10% of land or $175/lot + $25/lot for trail development in the Rural Servico Area. ISSUES and CONCERNS Several concerns have been raised or need to be reviewed with respect to the existing ordinance including, • Are the dedication requirements adequate and equitable? • Otsego is at a significant competitive disadvantage to other surrounding communities as long as it has no sewer or water. Competing for development (and expanded tax base) may be difficult for many years to come. Is the cash in lieu of requirement commensurate with land donations? ■ Why is the land requirernent the carne in bath rural and urban service areas yr -t the caste in lieu of is significantly reduced in the rurai servic8 arra? P.4 JUL 7-0 '95 151:39 HAKANSC' 'ANDERSON 70NI1\lG DESIGNATION Park Fee Min, lot @ 10,6 Current Size FMV Fe _ R-1, R-2 Urban low density Residential 2.5 A 5550 5350 R-3 Urban low -medium density Residential 1A 5220 0350 A-1, A-24 Rural Residential 1A $220 0175 &2,3 Commercial 1A X220 9350 ---- Industrial (None in City) " A-1 density 1/40 acres, A-2 density 4140 acres As oip ordinance is currently structured, park dedication fees are less than 10% of fair market value for R-1, R-2 and A-1, and A-2 rpsidpntial rlassifications (all low density). Based un ininirrItirr► lot si/,y at current land vahiNs, R -R and commercidl properties are above 10% of fair market value. If the lots are larger than 1.5 acres, however, the current fee is louver than 10% of fair market value. This comparison should change dramatically as the value of land in Otsego Increases. In almost every instance commercial property would be significantly higher In value than residential property. The average lot width in the urban service area is 160'-200' while lots in the rural service area generally are 10 acres plus with 330' or more of road frontage. The average costs for trail development applied to typical lots are as follows: Bike Lane/Trail Urban 160' lot @ $13.00/LF* 52.080 Urban 200' lot @ S13.00ILFt y2,600 Rural 330' lot @) 013.00/LF* 54,290 May vary dependent on shoulder construction, grading, right-of-way acquisition, etc. The City's requirement of 050/1ot in the urban area and Y25/lot in the rural area is clearly too low to fund a trail system in a substantive way unless major outside funding IMSA, ISTEA or street assessments) is used. P.5 JUL cO '95 1-55:40 HAKANS— ANDERSON M The Commission should review each of the issues, make recommenclochanges, and develop the supporting background for council consideration. /Among the changes which might be ccnsidcrcd arc: Change park dedication in rural areas so that land and cash in lieu of are commensurate. Base the cash in lieu of payment on fair market value TMV) of land instead of simply a set fee. Alternatively base it on rMV or set fee, whichever is higher. Trail fee structure in urban vs. rural area. Filo; ot703JU JUL 20 195 15:40 HAKANS' ANDERSON _ P.7 21-7-17: PROTECTED AREAS: Where ldnd proposed for Subdivision is deemed environmentally sensitive by the City, due to the existence of wetlands, drainageways, watercourses, floodable areas, vegetation, or steep slopes, the design of said subdivision shall clearly reflect all nPcpPsary maasttrRs of prorpr..r,ian to ensure against adverse environmental impact. Based upon the necessity to control and maintain certain sensitive areas, the City shall determine whether said protection will be accomplished through lot -and redfesigrc car. diz-di.c iil..iorr uE C}ury ccnuitivc arcau in the form of outlots. In general, moasuras of protection shall include design solutions which allow for construction and gi:ading involving a minimum of alteration to sensitive areas. Where these areas are to be incorporated into lots within the proposed subdivimicrr, Lhe dppliudnL shall lis required to demonstrate that the proposed design will not require construction on slopes over eighteen (10) percent, or. result in significant alteration to the natural drainage system such that advdrse impacts cannot be contained within rhe plat hou ndary. 21-7-18: PUBLIC SITES AND OPEN SPACES (PARK LAND DEDICATION), A. As a • prerequisite to final plat approval, And nr. the sole determination by the City, applicants and/or developers shall ie iicLeieltcl Tor parks, playgrounds, public open spaces or trails and/or shall make a cash ccrrLribuLiurt Lo Lhe C!Ly's Park and Multi -Purpose Trail Funds as provided by this Section. The requirRmPnr_ may be a combination of land and cath as determined by the City Council. B. Land Lu be dedicated shall be reasonabiy suitable for its intended use as determined by the City and shall be at a location convenient to the public to be served. Factors used in evd1udt..i.r1rj the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, tupuyrdphy, yeology, hydrology, tree cover, access and location. C. The applicant shall confer_ wit -h City Staff and the Pork.- and Recreation AdvisorCommittee at the time rJh relim inary plat is undez consideration, to secure a recommenaa ion as to tne y L�ra should be dedicated to the public, such as parks, playgrounds or other public pr(.)E.)c4r•t_y _ The preliminary plat shall show the location and dimensions of all areas to be dpH 1 r'at2d in Lhis manner. such b2 JUL SD '95 15:41 HAKANSn" ANDERSON P.S conrri.buCion requirement recommendation(o) will be sent to the Planning Conuni;ssion for review and continent and subsequently to the City Council for their approval. n. wlien a proposed park, playground, recreational area, or other public around lids been indicated in the City's official map or Comprehensive Plan and is lcar-ared in whole r -)r in part within a proposed plat, it shall bo dedicated to the appropriate cjr)vrrnmental unit. If the applicant elects not to dodicate an area in Excess of the land rcquired her.Riinder trr a proposed public site that the City feels is in the public inueresn to acquire, the CILY may consider acquiring the oxcess land through purchase or condemnation. E. Land area conveyed or dedicar.Rd to the CiLy shall not he used in calculating dencity requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance anti shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open ppaco requirements for planner) u0it d2velopmenrs_ F_ Where- private open space for park and recroation purposes is provided in a propr.► Aci suL-division, such areas shall not be used for credit against the requirement of dedicarJon fur park and recreation purposes, unleso the City Council finds it is in the public interest Lu dO so. �- G. The City, upori consideration of the particular type of development, may require lessor pa.ru&15 of land to be r.ir rl i sated if the City determines that pres6nt or futLll'P residents would require Ureater or leaser land for park and recreational purposes. In such cases, a cash contrihnr.ion slidll _ be_ required to compencato for the reduced land dedication-. H. In all new subdivisions ten 10 'Hrr.cent of the aroco Bred su aavi a or a i trent ercanta e as the Cir_v Council shall determine to be reasonably necessary as a result of the c,ubdivision approval, shall. hR diad icated for ublic recredl-iOnsj ace or other ublic use as estab lanco. by City c:oune reso uLiorr_ T ie a icdCe pRrr:ent oi L "ie gross area suDc1,Lvjdcd shall be in addition to property dedicated for streets, alley:,, easements, or other public ways. No areas may be dedicated for public-: use until such areae have been approved by the City.Council as suitable. Wird necessary for the lsealth, safety, convenience and general welfare of the City. I. When, in the opinion Of the City and its sole discretion, it io =impractical or inapprupri.ar.r for a subdivision to make n dedication of land for public use, or if no land irr the subdivision is Suitable for :1 53 JUL 20 '95 15:41 HAKANEz' ANDERSON P.9 such use, the a licant sha l 1. hP rpr u i rpri Co J -IAV A donation or the City's park system of three hundred fifty (350) chillers for each lot or dwelling unit when the subdivision is located witnin r.ne Urhan Service? Area of the City, M' or one hundred covent - ivo7 } -,dollars for each ()1 car dwc? I I art unit when the Subdivision is .located wi5 tnin the Mural GKY.=. ArFa of to Cl Ly . J. All land proposed for trail and/or bikeway dedication Su0ject tu 1N r-ec:ommen a .ions or the Pa s and Recreation Advisory Hoard and the approval of the City C+ntinci T. Such lands must also correspond and conform with the City's bikeway Plan. K. in lieu of a trail land donation, the City .+F. i.I.s sole discretion may require a cash donation for the City s bikeway lano if ..50) dooliars tor each o_ or dwelling unit when the sunalvision is located within the Urban Service Arpa of the City ortwenty-tive dollars ror each o or <17511inq [3nIU-- =-r-m subdivisiurt is located exit In the aural Service rca or the City. L. The City may elect at its solr.. c! i sc.re?tion to receive a combination of cash, land, and developmEnt of the land for park nqp_ The puLerlLial cash donation generated by the dedicated land and/or the va1nP of the developrllent of Land shall be calculated. That amount shall be; subtracted From the cash contribution required by the Subsection I above. M. Planned unit developments with mixed land uses shall mAk.R cash and/or land contributions in accordance with this Section based upon the perc.:Hntage of ldnd devoted to the various uses. N. Park cash contributions aro to ba calculated and established at titµ i.J.mP of final plot approval. Tho Council may require the payment at the tirnF of final plat Approval cr dL a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreempnr.. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate act by the City. 0. Cash contributions for parks and trails shall be deposited .Lri either the City's Park Fund or multi- purpose trail fund and shall only be used for park acquisition or development, and trail acquisition or development as determined by the City. Additionally, said funds moy be utilized anywhere within I.hp rity park and trail. sysLems. 54 JUL c© '95 15:42 HAKAN""N ANDERSON P.10 P. Wetlands, pondinr� areas, and droinageways accepted by the City may not be considered j.,, t -.he park land and/or cash contribution to the City. Q. Proper-ty being xeplattod with the same number of logs and same number of dwolling units shall be exempt from all park land dedication requiremerrt:s. If the number of lots or the numbe- of dwelling units is Increased, or it land outside the pr.eviuusly recorded plat is added, then the park land dedication and/or park cash cont-ributions shall- be b4sed on the additional lots and on the additional land being added to the frlat. If the additional land ones not create additional lots, then each one-third (1/3) acre added shall be considered a new lot for prlr-poses of calculating the dedication requirements. [Z. Whon land is dedicArpd dttd deeded to the City for park purposes, it shall be the responsibility of the City to maintain such dedic-ated property. S. Land dedication to the City ohall be in the form of loto or outlots with approvec.l lot and block numbers. 21-7"19: DEDICATION OF STORM WATER HOLDING AREAS OR PONDS: Upon approval by the City Councii, the applicant may be required to dedicate to the public up to tive (5) percent. rrf the land proposed to bo subdivi-dari Cur storm water holding aroas or pi.nids. The five ( 5 ) percent dedication shall not be considc4r"d part of the dedication for parks and recreation purposes r,r trail/bikeway purposes. 21-7-20: MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: Operat..i.ng and Maintenance Requirements for Residential Subdivision private Open Space Facilities. In the event certain land areas or structures aro provided wit.lrin. the subdivision for private recreational use or as serviLe facilities, the owner of such ]and and buildinqu shall entor into dri agreement with the City to assure the continued operation and maintenance to a predoterMined reasonable standard. These Common areas ntay be placed under the ownership of one of the following depP-rldiI19 upon which is most approprie t -e : A. DPriicdted Co public where a community -with use would be anticipated; B. Applicant's owrikr-ship and control; ox 55 i Z X Otsego, Minnesota SCALE IN MMES r.r "X SEPTEMBER 109 w,v ua r.s s Non—." nwM 2 euIP •.0 pam NO? K W4D w"M M tWh VCAAIwMMa iK nawo i SASE MAF SOLML YIRCLQ CO:MY Sts WVCRJ CFF= MUD ` S7 v -f -.r ti C r N m T_ D D Z (n D Z d frl �J CD O Z HImmediate Urban Service Area Urban/Rural ❑ Lang Rang# Urban Servlcs Area PREPARED BY; Service Concept ❑ Rural Servlce Area a �.. 8peclilc Immediate Urban Service Atea Boundaryorthwest to be determined by Engineering Study Associated Consu3tants, Inc, JUL 20 '95 15:43 HAKANF-N ANDERSON P.12 t-'�gN c°✓Ty' a� oTS�Go 2. Parking facilities shall be developed so as to conserve' land, prOinOte joi.nc use and minimize conflicts with vehicular, pcde3trian and bicycle traffic_; 3. Parking lot access to public streets shall be limited to the functional minimum. 4. Parking shall be designed in functionalTC2usters avoiding irregular and inefficient lots. 5. Park and ride facilities shall be pursued iu the upgrade of Highway 101. Pedestrian/bicycle 1. Pedestrians and Lir_ rlisr_.s shall be afforded ri hts-of way -separated tr= Motorizcd traffic at a minj=um along arterial and hiqer r_lasaa ied streets. en - plrpzca y ana 7 or economically fear aand in compliance ;Vith State law, pedestrian and bicycle traffic shall be aeparatcd. 2. Adequate lighting and outdoor turnitur4-shall be provided in _:all urbanized areas of tsNavy pedestrian movwent. 3. Pedestrian street- crossiucis on heavily travelled streets shall be clearly marked and lighted. 4. Priority shall be given to the estahl.isiunent- of pedescrian al"d bit c e fat cies is areas Iz an suzz-gun ing c urc es, parks, isolated neighborhoods, and commercial development. 5. Streets designated as utajor arterials shall be dcoigned to prevent unregulated pedeaLrian and bicycle arossi_ngs and „,prOtect pedestrian and bicycle movement para-Ilcling traffic. 6. When finaricially feasible, facilities for pedestrians and - bicyclists shall be provided in conjuncon with street itttprrnrement projects. 7. when Possible, bit gists shall be rovidar3 a ri ht -of -way separated from Loth pedestrian and �veniculaa tra =�c. 8. New -development shall be encouraged to respect the pedestrian/bicyc a System and where pt_tssibl.e to contribute to the righns-cf-way and development Costs. 42 JUL 20 '95 lc -5:43 HAKANF'IN ANDERSON H. .1— C c CA P.13 U LA mc 'U'us 5.O IM 9 1 W ILL :s P rn 0 YWC 4) cn -Z C .5 0 c v ca el cm Q do G* -0 0) 40 fn 4) do 0 r Z la > IL qw z IM CL JUL 20 '95 15:44 HAKANcnN ANDERSON GovpmnEAT+tal Buildings, Facilities and Services P.14 1. Cooperation and coordination between gove-r•nrnental uaits shall be promoted and encouraged in the provision of public facilities and services. 2. The full utilization of investments in public facilities and servicas shall. be achieved prior to making new public investments. 3- Public facilities and services shall be located and centralized so as to offer ease of access and minimal response rime_ The facilities shall be readily accessible to both the 'cxisting and planned street system. These facili-ttes shall also be designed.. to erxhance community identity and recognition. 4. All public facilities shall be developed, improved and maintained -according to the highest adopted standards of design and performance to serve as cxamplce for private development. Public facilities shall, present a positive aPst_heklu expression and strive to create a source of community pride. S. Design and maintain all public buildings to be resistant to personal and property crime opportunity while maximizing public and City usability. 6_ Those areas, places, buildings, structures and other featuxez having significant architectural, historical., cuumuun.ity or aesthet ic-. interests and values shall be preserved to the extent possible. 7. All public facilities shall be located where the proposed use is compatible with the existing and proposed land use of the area. 8_ Public facilities shall be developed upon sites which offer ample laud area for any necessary expansion. 9. Potential public facility sites shall be evaluated for their compatibility to the City's sariitary seWYr. plan. 10- The displacement and relocation of resi.di-nrs resulting from the development service facility shall be discouraged. ParX9 and Open Space 1. The needs and passible opportunities for a local park and recreation system shall be evaluated and a program for long range development shall be implemented. 46 JUL 20 '95 15:44 HAKAN� ANDERSON P.15 2. Otsego shall work cooperatively with the County and State governments on the provisions of park, recreation aLid trail racilities. 3. Park and recreational facilities shall be utilized tc, promote community identity and recognition. 4. Recreation open space improvemOnts in accordance with a__ _Capital Ymorovement_ Program shall be progratimed and updated_ on an annual basis. l�n�rrsra�r7nrr f�ai a 1. Ensure that all development and/or redevelopment that occurs in the community is in. accordance with the Camprehensive Plan, however, amend the Comprehensive Plan and related ordinances as ,nPCFssarx;.td reflect. changing community needs and priorities. 2. Pursue means and measures to provide more local controland a direct response to development proposals and on-goinq community needs and problems. 3. To the extenr- possible, allocate administrative and improvement costa to those generating the demand or uLilizing rhe serviCe . Policies 1. The Otsego Comprehensive. Plan sha1.7. be evaluated on an annual basis. The plan shali be expanded ,and updated when such action is approved by the City. 2. Codes addressing zoning, subdivision, building, and building/ property maintenance shall be locally esLablished and enforced_ 3. A program for the transition of local responsibility of duties from the Cou11ty to the community shall be formulated and implemented in cooperation with Wright County. 4. An application, fee, and processing procedure and system shall be established which assigns financial cost of any and all related project consideration to the applicant. 5. An impact fee system covering all possiblem concerns shall he established and required of new development projects. 17 JUL 20 195 15:45 HAKAM ANDERSON P.16 Communities with No Park Dedication Requirements on Commercial/ Industrial: Annandale Hanover Maple Lake Monticello Communities with Park Dedication on Commercial/Industriai Treated Differently than Residential Champlin 7.5% of land area or Same as commercial 7.5% of FMV 1$90,000 Ac) Elk River $1, 500[Ac w/sewer & water None $1,000/Ac w/out sewer & water Rockford 10% of W-0 or 10% of estimated Same as commercial value/acre Rogers 5% of land value based on 596 of land value $18,000/Ac; 5% gross land area based on $14,000/Ac Communities with Some Dedication Requirements for Resklm all Commerciall Industrial Delano 10% of land or cash equivalent Medina 10% of land or FMV Otsego 10% of Iand or $350/1ot (urban), $175 (rural) St. Michael As determined by City Council Frankfort $4501lot -`eased on 1/94 survey done for Frankfort Township compiled by NAC. JUL 20 195 15:45 HAKAN, . ANDERSON As a means of evaluat:.ng the adequacy of park dedication requirements in Fraziforc Township, a study was completed in January of 1994 which ,provides an inventory of park dedication fees for co=unitieo in the Wright and western Rennepin County areas. Additionally, some comparative research was done for the City of Buffalo which Looked into the benefit of land dedications over fees by estimating typical developer costs, land values, and improved single family lot; prices.. (CurretlC park dedication fees in Buffalo appear to be on the low side which makcs it more economical for developers to pa.y a cash contributi.an rather tliari donate land.) This information directly applies to Frankfort Township and should be helpful in making a determination as to whether or not changes are des -4 --ed trom Frazkfort's current park dedication requirements. Park Dedication Fee Inventory AlbertvilZn Residential: 5s 'of gross land area For subdivisions with less than 9 dwelling units per acre 5' of gross land area for subdivisions with 9 or more dwelling units per acre plus an additional V for each dwelling unit over 9 $170 ppr dwelling unit or lot Collmler� i.:{1/ Induotrial: 50 of,total land area 51v of the fair market value as if zoned in the classification requested by the developer AnnandalA No Dedication Requirements Chamm 1 in Aeeidential: 10% of total land area (single or mult-_iplR family) los of fair market value ($!5,000/ac single family) ($45,000 -/ac mult. family) co=ercia,l / Industrial= 7Mt of toCal land area 7%', of fair market valile ($90, 000/ac) eland Rcsidential/ 105 of the gross land area or a cash dedication Commercial/ equivalent to the fair market value of the land area industrial: r-'er_juired y P.17 JUL 20 195 15:46 HAKAN: ANDERSON E7.7c� River- Residential: iverResidential: carnmercial : industrial: Sa.nov?r Residential: commercial/ Industrial: bi,2ple Lake Residential: Commercial/ Industrial: Mycil.na Residential/ commercial/ Industrial: Monticello Residential: * 1:11 all subdi'v'isions, 5 fact siclewalks or 8 Foot trails may be required as deemed necessary by the City * No weclands or ponding areas $350/1.40 or dwelling unit $1,500/ac with sewer & water $1,000/ac without sewer and water None" $350 per lot I acre per 75 people to 3 persons Per unit None R-1 zoning a 7a of land or fair market value zoning V 10% of land or fair market value None lat of total Land area or fair market value as determined by the City Coxinc:il 1px of total land area 10:t of the developers purchase price of the land unless otherwise specified by the Park Board & City Council Land dedications must have two or more sides along a public: roadway No powerline. easements may cross properr_y No wetlands in place of required land * Park dedication credit is givem for construction of city -designated trails as spAcified in their plan Commercial/ Industrial: None P.18 JUL 20 195 15:46 HAKAN� ANDERSON LJ SJR = Residential/ 10% of the gross land area co=nercial/ Industrial: $35ollot or dwelling unit far subdivisions within the urban service area $175/lot or dwelling unit for subdivisions within the rural, service area Trai.lway dedication is required to either* be constructed by the developer at the City's diocretion Or the developer must provide a Cash contribution of $$50/lot in the urban service area or $25/lot in the rural service - area * No wetlands in-place of required land Roak f Ord- Resideacial: Land dediCatiOns are as follows: Up to 3 unit. /acre: sk Less than 5 units/acre: 10$ Less than 10 uni_tE/acre: 14t 10 or more units/acre: la"a Casio contributions are calculated using the average value per acre of land based om records of the County Assessor for the current tax year multiplied by the percentage Ccrresponding to the net densities listca above multiplied by the net site area of the development= commercial/ Industrial: 10!k of the total. land area or IOV of the estimated value per acre of undeveloped land zoned for the same use when nuiltipled by the gross site area k No drainageways., iloOdplain or ponding areas * If developers providc Other recreational am=ities ouch as swimming 90015, tenni3 Courts, etc_ . within the develcxpment, the required amount Of land Co be dedicated may be reduced by up to 20t P.19 Roger= Residential: $350/1.1c1it or 7:% of gross laird area Commercial/c4 Ono/ac: for co=ercialA0'n/A) Industrial: 5-o of land value (based on $7C8, . c and $14, 000/ac fur. industrial 1700/k) 51 gross land area I JUL 20 '95 15:47 HAKANL ANDERSON P.20 3t. Michael. Residential./ Land, cash, or a combination thereof as determined Commercial/ on a Case by case basis by the City Council Industrial: * Tn all areas trails that be constructed according to the city- s Man at 8 feet wide on outlots not less than 20 feet in width and provide for handicapped access It should be noted that the majority of cities require that satisfaction of park dedication regirmencs occur at the time of final plat approval and/or prior to the city's release of the plat for filing at the County. Developer Cost Analysis Land Costs Contact was made with several realtors j= the Buffalo area to get an idea of thr. price at which raw land is currently selling. It was determiucd that an average, tracts of Land gzuater than about 10 acres have been selling for between $5,000 and $6,000 per acre. Land Preparation/TmMx'ovement Coeto Two recent subdivisions in the City were utilized to get an idea of the costs incurred by devcloper3 to do site grading, clearing, utility instal lanl.ori, and street construction. Me Rett -Can golf course area utilized city -installed i=provements, while Pulaski Ponds completed the improvements privately.' Rr-.m-t-on golf CQuzse Botimated Land Costs of $5,500/ac x 37-1 acres = $204,050 Improvement Costs' of $11,000/101: x 107 lots - $1,177,000 Total CosLe'af $1,381,050 + 107 lots - $12,907/lot Pulaski ,?onds (Igt: Phase' - Estimated Land Costs of $5,500/ac x 23 acres a $126,500 improvement Costs' of $9,651/lot x 43 lots $415,000 Total Costoz of $541,500 . 43 lots = $12,593/lot ' Improvement Costs Include clearing, grubbing, grading, installation of utilities, and street construction. z Total Costs are not inclusive of application fees, pian drawings, legal/technical asuictancc, etc. but only include the raw land and improvement costs ouatlined above.