Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08June 4, 2012 Overview Item No. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 10 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve amendment to Title 10 of the Lakeville City Code subdivision ordinance. The proposed ordinance change will update ordinance language to meet legislative requirements and set the park dedication fees for the remainder of 2012. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee recommended against the reduction of the park dedication fee on a 4 -3 vote at their May 2, 2012 meeting. The Planning Commission on May 24, 2012 5 -1 to support staff's recommendation to lower the fee. Primary Issues to Consider • Does the proposed decrease in park dedication fees provide adequate funding to meet current and future system -wide needs Supporting Information • April 24, 2012 EDC meeting minutes - draft • May 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting packet • May 24, Planning Commission meeting minutes - draft w s. Gerald S. Michaud Parks & Recreation Director Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: 1. Call Meeting to Order City of Lakeville Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes April 24, 2012 Marion Conference Room, City Hall Members Present: Comms. Tushie, Smith, Brantly, Schubert, Emond, Longie, Starfield, Vlasak, Ex- officio member Mayor Mark Bellows, Ex- officio member Lakeville Area Chamber Executive Director Todd Bornhauser, Ex- officio member City Administrator Steve Mielke. Members Absent: Comm. Matasosky, Starfield. Others Present: David Olson, Community & Economic Development Director; Adam Kienberger, Economic Development Specialist, Steve Michaud, Parks & Recreation Director; Dan Licht, Planning Consultant, TPC. Vice Chair Tushie called the meeting to order at 4 :30 p.m. in the Marion Conference Room of City Hall, 20195 Holyoke Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota. 2. Approve March 27, 2012 Meeting Minutes Motion 06.12 Comms. Emond /Schubert moved to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2012 meeting as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Election of Officers The EDC discussed voting in new officers for 2012 and decided to allow additional time to consider who would be willing to fill the elected positions. Motion 07.12 Comms. Emond /Longie moved to defer the election of officers to the next regularly scheduled EDC meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Update on Review of Park Dedication Ordinance and Fees Mr. Mielke reviewed background information on the park dedication ordinance and introduced Dan Licht to review the EDC memo outlining an analysis of Lakeville's park dedication fees. Park dedication rates for single - family versus multi - family dwelling unit developments were discussed and the calculations used to determine the fees were detailed by Mr. Licht. Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes April 24. 2012 Vice Chair Tushie noted that multi - family park dedication rates make it difficult to finance an apartment building project in Lakeville. He also asked if a reduction or exemption from the park dedication fee could be considered for affordable housing projects. He also asked about senior housing provisions and if different types have different park dedication fees. Mr. Licht responded that changes to the park dedication fee structure have been included to reflect different types of senior care levels (independent, assisted living, memory care). Mr. Michaud added that the revised park dedication fees are all based on demand formulas and are established to fund the remaining build out of the Lakeville parks system. He noted that the existing system is already overtaxed and will need to accommodate an additional 30,000 residents that Lakeville is expected to grow to at full build out. Vice Chair Tushie commented that he didn't think the revised formulas for calculating park dedication fees is defensible if it were to be challenged again. Mr. Licht reviewed the state statute park dedication fees are based on and noted that it has been reviewed and supported by the City Attorney's office. Mr. Mielke added that the challenge made by Shamrock development to cause this study is supported by the results presented in the memo which recommends an overall 38% reduction in land values between 2008 through 2012. This land value reduction when applied to the calculation of park dedication fees in lieu of land results in a 25.6% reduction in park dedication fees for single - family units and a 29.7% reduction for multifamily units. The EDC discussed several components of the Lakeville parks and trails system and Mr. Michaud noted that the individual components are continually reevaluated based on demographic and usage trends. Comm. Vlasak asked if the park dedication fees can pay for anything besides new park development. He also commented on the demand for ice rinks and basketball courts in the city and how demand is prioritized for new park components. Mr. Michaud responded that park dedication fees can be used to purchase park land and other capital costs, but not for park maintenance. He noted that certain activities and uses such as ice rinks have an incredibly high peak demand, but that balance is needed in the types of facilities that are built into the system. Comm. Brantly noted the challenges in balancing the fee structure for park dedication. You have to try and please everyone while maintaining a balance that is both legally acceptable and salable to the general public. Mr. Mielke added that staff will pursue a similar analysis of park dedication fees for commercial and industrial development. Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes April 24. 2012 5. Update on Business Marketing Strategy Project Mr. Kienberger and Mr. Olson reviewed the EDC memo providing an update on the Business Marketing Strategy. Staff will be making a presentation to the Lakeville CVB regarding the strategy and has set up the next Partners meeting to discuss sharing portions of the new brand components. Comm. Longie requested additional detail on the timeline for individual components of the implementation strategy. Comm. Brantly suggested at some point retaining an additional consultant to provide additional details and ideas on selling the Lakeville brand. 6. Business Retention Visits Program and Spotlight on Business Program Mr. Olson reviewed the EDC memo and Mr. Bornhauser expressed his support for coordinating additional business visits in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce. Motion 08.12 Comms. Emond /Smith moved to support the business visit and Spotlight on Business program as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Director's Report Mr. Olson reviewed the Director's Report. 8. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Attested to: Adam Kienberger, Recording Secretary R. T. Brantly, Secretary 3 Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Steve Michaud, Parks & Recreation Directo Date: May 15, 2012 Subject: Park Dedication Ordinance Review City of Lakeville Parks & Recreation The City of Lakeville received a letter August 17, 2011 from Shamrock Development, Inc. requesting the City review park dedication fees due to a reduction in land values of undeveloped properties in Lakeville. The letter is specifically written as a result of a platting action associated with Crescent Ridge 2n Addition. Since that time, staff has worked with Dan Licht of The Planning Company and completed a thorough review of all aspects associated with establishing a park dedication ordinance. We all agree that land values in Lakeville have decreased due to the recession. Following a review of several different approaches in our attempt to establish what a fair market value is for land in Lakeville and working with an appraiser, and more importantly Roger Knutson as our legal counsel, staff has prepared the attached report. The report was presented to the Lakeville Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee at their April 18, 2012 meeting. As expected, the committee was somewhat disappointed, but realized lowering the fee due to current economic times and the effect it has had on land values necessitated a reduction in order to be compliant with state statutes. The report was reviewed by City Council at their April 23 work session and directed to forward the report to the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee and the Planning Commission for review. At their May 2' meeting, the Parks Committee voted 4 -3 against the staff recommended fee reduction. The negative votes expressed concern on lowering the fee and the subsequent effect on meeting future planned park expansion to meet future growth and associated park needs. The report will now be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 24 meeting and, tentatively, the City Council on June 4. EXHIBIT A — Shamrock Development letter EXHIBIT B — The Planning Company report EXHIBIT C — Redlined Ordinance EXHIBIT D — 2011 Park Dedication Fee Survey EXHIBIT E — Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee Minutes, April 18 EXHIBIT F — Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee DRAFT Minutes, May 2 August 17, 2011 Mr. Steven C. Mielke City Administrator City of Lakeville 20195 Holyoke Avenue Lakeville, MN 55044 Dear Mr. Mielke: Re: Park Fees — Crescent Ridge Second Addition EXHIBIT A As we discussed in my meeting with you and your staff I have some concerns regarding the present park dedication fees. I think we are very aware that land prices have plummeted and development has substantially slowed. In most cities they base their fees at approximately 10%0 of the raw land cost. On the Crescent Ridge Second Addition plat the land cost would be roughly $43,000 per acre on the southern portion and $30,000 per acre on the northerly portion. The asking price on the northerly portion was $30,000 per acre without any negotiation. Based on approximately 2.2 lots per acre and at your present park fee of $4,747 per lot, the park fee would be 33% of the land cost. As you can see such flees are prohibitive. I am aware that to change such fees require Council action and that the City would probably want to study the fees before arriving at a revised number. In order to proceed with the final plat of Crescent Ridge Second Addition, I would propose that 1 escrow an amount equal to the present fee but that my fee would be adjusted with the new fee when determined by the City Council and the excess would be refunded. Hook forward to working with the City of Lakeville in coming to a mutual outcome that will best serve both the City and Shamrock Development. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Any questions can be directed to my cell at (612) 363-5622. Sincerely, ajz/JMS 3200 Main Street NW Suite 300 • Coon Rapids. Minnesota 35448 (763) 421-3500 Fax (763) 421-1105 www.shamrockcompantes.com TPC MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald S. Michaud FROM: Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 15 May 2012 RE: Lakeville — Park Dedication TPC FILE: 135.01 - 11.03 BACKGROUND The City of Lakeville has initiated a review of its park dedication requirements applicable to new subdivisions as provided for in Section 10 -4 -8 of the Subdivision Ordinance. This review has been initiated after Shamrock Development Inc. disputed the park dedication fee in lieu of land for Crescent Ridge 2 Addition as required under the current Subdivision Ordinance and fee schedule. Shamrock Development Inc. has placed funds for the park dedication fee in lieu of land in the amount calculated based on the current fee schedule in escrow with the City in accordance with the process outlined by Minnesota Statutes 462.358. Subd 2c(c). The park dedication requirements are being reviewed to ensure consistency with requirements established in State Statute. Exhibits: A. Community Survey B. Proposed Park Fee Calculations C. Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment ANALYSIS 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 65303 Phone: 763.231.5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPC@PlanningCo.com EXHIBIT B State Statute. Minnesota Statutes 462.358, Subd. 2b enables the City to require dedication of a portion of a subdivision to the public for parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open space. Minnesota Statutes 462.358,Subd 2c. further requires that there be an essential nexus between the dedication of land or payment of fees based upon the City's purpose for the dedication and that the dedication or fee must be roughly proportional to the need created by the development. Density Du /Ac. Land Dedication 0 -2.5 $4,747.00/lot 10% 2.5 -4.0 Commercial 11% +4.0 -6.0 $4,558 /net acre 13% +6.0 -8.0 15% +8.0 -10.0 17% +10.0 17 % -20% Land Use 2011 Single Family $4,747.00/lot Multiple Family $4,153.00/du Commercial $7,693 /net acre Industrial $4,558 /net acre Current Dedication Requirement. In residential subdivisions where a land dedication is required, Section 10 -4 -8.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance establishes that the following formula will be used to determine the dedication requirement: In commercial or industrial subdivisions where a land dedication is required, five percent of the buildable land being subdivided is required to be dedicated. The current cash fees in lieu of land dedication established in Section 10 -4 -8.J of the Subdivision Ordinance are shown below. These fees were established based on a detailed study of planned park capital improvements and land acquisition undertaken by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee and Economic Development Commission and approved by the City Council. The current fee schedule has not been adjusted since 2008. Community Survey. Communities within Lakeville's region of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area were surveyed for park dedication fees, with this information shown in the table attached as Exhibit A. This information is not to be used in establishing dedication requirements in Lakeville. However, the information is useful for comparison purposes to ensure that the City's dedication fee does not put it at a competitive disadvantage with comparable communities in the region relative to economic development objectives. Projected Growth. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan included updated population, household and employment projections for Lakeville through the year 2030 approved by the Metropolitan Council. These projections estimated that there will be 14,817 new households added in Lakeville between 2011 and 2030. However, it is likely that these estimates will be revised lower when next updated by Metropolitan Council due to the development slowdown experienced since they were prepared in 2005, which is evident by comparing the actual 2010 census figures with the 2010 projections from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan utilized population and employment estimates from 2005, also shown on the table below, as a baseline. 2 City of Lakeville Population, Household and Employment 1990 — 2030 Actual Estimates /Projections 1990 2000 2010 2005 2010 2020 2030 Households 7,851 13,609 18,683 16,905 20,200 28,400 33,500 Population 24,854 43,128 55,954 52,466 59,500 78,400 88,800 Employment 6,563 9,885 13,862 13,219 18,503 22,945 27,387 Source: 2030 Lakeville Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 2006 Parks, Trails and Opens Space Plan, 2010 Census, Metropolitan Council City of Lakeville Parks, Trails and Opens Space System Acreage Per Capita/Employment 2030 Proportional Acres 2030 Population/ Employment Acres/ Capita or Employment Residential 1,829ac. 88,800 0.021 Commercial /Industrial 203ac. 27,387 0.007 Source: 2006 Lakeville Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Metropolitan Council, TPC Population estimates will be updated in 2012 to reflect the current growth projections and reevaluate planned system needs and improvements. Parks, Trails and Opens Space Plan. The City's Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, updated in 2006, establishes the planned development and continued buildout of the parks and trails system taking into consideration projected population and household growth, national standards for park system facilities and community priorities. The parks, trails and open space system in Lakeville consists of neighborhood parks, community parks, playfields, trails adjacent to roadways and off - street trail systems, greenways, conservation areas, special use areas, facilities such as the Lakeville Area Art Center and Heritage Center and partnerships with School Districts. The development of system improvements set forth by the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan is dependent upon dedication of land or payment of cash fees in lieu of land dedication at the time of final plat approval for new subdivisions. Lakeville had 1,551 acres of park land in 2005. The 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan recommends acquisition of up to 481 acres of additional active park land for a total system of 2,032 acres, which would not include additional greenways or conservancy areas. Based on the recommendations of the 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, it is possible to allocate specific demand for additional park areas proportionally to future development based on adopted population, household and employment projections. A Study completed by the City of Bloomington indicates that 90 percent of the demand for park land is generated by residential uses and 10 percent is attributed to commercial or industrial uses. On this basis, the following per capita and employment calculations are established for the 2006 Park, Trails and Open Space Plan: 3 City of Lakeville Parks, Trails and Opens Space System Acreage Per Household Type Persons Per Household 2030 Per Capita Park Acreage Acres/ Dwelling Unit (Share) (a) 0.063ac. Single Family 3.0 0.021ac. Multiple Family 1.9 0.040ac. Source: 2006 Lakeville Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, Metropolitan Council, TPC The per capita estimates for park land demand based on the 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan are translated to per household estimates below. The City estimates household sizes of 3.0 persons per household in single family dwellings and 1.9 persons per household for multiple family dwelling units based on 2010 Census data and Metropolitan Council projections. For commercial and industrial uses, the 2030 Land Use Plan projects development of 3,094.4 acres of such uses by 2030. The estimated density of employees in 2030 is therefore 8.85 employees per acre. Multiplying the estimated density of employees by the commercial /industrial per capita acreage demand of 0.007 equals a park dedication share of 0.06 per acre of development. Proposed Land Dedication Requirements. Park dedication requirements are one tool the City has to implement the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan. The decision as to whether a specific development is required to dedicate land is the City's and is based upon the search areas for future parks set forth by the 2006, Parks Trails and Open Space Plan. City staff would advise establishment of park dedication requirements utilizing the per residential unit or per employee share of the park system calculated above based on the 2006 Parks, Trails and Opens Space Plan as a means of implementing the system plan. This method will allow for a consistent, proportional dedication of land for the planned expansion of the City's park system. The revised Subdivision Ordinance must retain flexibility to adjust park dedication requirements in consideration of the benefits of a proposed use to the City's park system (e.g. school playfields). Land dedication requirements would be determined based on the following formula for Acres /Housing Unit x Density = Ratio of Park Land / Acre of Development, then converted proportionally into a percentage for one acre of development and park (using low density residential land uses as an example): Share (a) x density (b) = demand (c) Demand (c) / 1 ac. = % park dedication /ac. development (d) 4 Land Use Plan — Residential Proposed Park Land Dedication Requirements 2030 Land Use Plan Share (a) Demand (c) % Park Ded/ Ac. of Development (d) Land Use Category Allowed Uses Density (b) Low Density Residential Single family dwellings Less than 3.0 du /ac. (Average= 2.6du /ac) 0.063ac. 0.136ac. 12% Low to Medium Density Residential Single family, two family and detached townhouse dwellings 3.0 to 5.0 du /ac. 0.040ac. 0.120ac. 11% Medium Density Residential Two family dwellings, detached townhouse and quad or row townhouse dwelling units. 4.0 to 7.0 du /ac. 0.040ac. 0.160ac. 14% Medium to High Density Residential Detached townhouse, quad or row townhouse or back -to -back townhouse dwelling units. 5.0 to 9.0 du /ac. 0.040ac. 0.200ac. 17% High Density Residential Back -to -back townhouse and multiple family dwelling units. More than 9.0 du /ac. 0.040ac. 0.360ac. 26% Manufactured Home Park Manufactured home dwelling units. 4.0 to 7.0 du /ac. 0.040ac. 0.160ac. 14% Source: 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, TPC 0.063(a) x 2.2 du /ac(b) = 0.139ac. park for each lac. of single family development(c) 1.139ac. single family and park (c)/ lac. = 12% park dedication (d) The following table reflects the per capita share for additional park land based on the 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan multiplied by density established by the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan using the lowest density within the given range as the multiplier. The required land dedication for commercial and industrial development would be set at 6.0 percent of the developable land to be subdivided based on the proportional share for park land calculated above. 5 Proposed Cash Fee In Lieu of Land Dedication. The City may elect to receive payment of a cash fee in lieu of land for all or a portion of a specific development's park dedication requirement. City staff interprets the Statute provisions outlined above literally that the cash fee in lieu of land must be calculated specific to the amount of land to be dedicated and the value of the land required to be dedicated outlined in the following formula applicable to all land use types: Acres Required to Dedicate x Land Value = Cash Fee In Lieu of Land The paragraphs above outline a methodology to determine park land dedication factor by land use to be used in the formula. The challenge that arises is determining a means of establishing land value to be used in the calculation. To this end, City staff has researched the following options to determine the method for establishing property value: 1. Individual Appraisal. Land value at its most basic definition is the price agreed to between a willing seller and willing buyer. Under this simple concept, actual sales data could be used to establish property value. However, the timing of sales for development parcels varies and would not be a reliable indicator of property value across the City. Determining if a sale value is a reliable indicator of market value is also problematic due to the number of distressed sales by banks, lenders or failed companies that have occurred during the market downtum which artificially has deflated property value. The actual market value of a specific property at the time of final plat approval can only be determined by commissioning preparation of a individual property appraisal. The City may implement this process to determine the cash fee in lieu of land by contracting with an appraiser of its choice with the costs of the appraisal passed through to the developer. This approach would take additional time to complete during the final plat process, which may cause conflicts with the Statutory requirement for the City Council to act upon a final plat application within 120 days after receiving a complete application for final plat approval. This approach would also result in varied park dedication fees in lieu of land from plat to plat eliminating the ability of a developer to anticipate their costs for a project until such time as they are receiving final approvals. City staff recommends that a flat value be established for properties to provide consistency rather than the individual appraisal method. 2. Dakota County Assessor Data. The City has in the past utilized Dakota County Assessors data to establish base property values and trends in property value changes in determining park dedication fees in lieu of land. This approach is rational in that State law requires that property tax assessment values be based upon market value trends and be accurate within a reasonable percentage of market value. Furthermore, the size of the data base ought to provide for a more consistent analysis from year to year than does actual sale transactions. 6 However, review of current year Dakota County Assessors data finds wide variation in estimated property values between abutting parcels as well as across the City. This variation means use of Dakota County Assessors data on a specific per parcel basis would not result in an equitable park dedication requirement for the same type of land use for different parcels within the City. However, Dakota County Assessors data is an area wide evaluation of property values that could be averaged to provide a community wide estimate of property value. City staff remains concerned that the variation seen in current estimated property values of adjacent parcels reduces the accuracy of the data for the City's purposes in establishing a park dedication fee in lieu of land. 3. Appraiser Consultation. A third option City staff has discussed to establish property values for the purpose of calculating park dedication fees in lieu of land would be to obtain a consultation from an appraiser as to the values of undeveloped properties within the MUSA by Comprehensive Plan land use designation and land use type. This base value for five distinct land use categories would be used as a consistent factor in the formula to determine the cash fee in lieu of land for the various types of land use multiplied with the area of the land required to be dedicated. A mechanism would also be established for year -to -year adjustments in the base value with additional consultations from an appraiser sought when more significant changes in property values are believed to have occurred. City staff believes that consultation with an appraiser as to community wide market values of properties within the MUSA based on land use designation would establish an accurate, consistent property value to be used as the basis for calculating park dedication fees in lieu of land. The consultation option would be anticipated to cost up to $20,000 in fees from an appraiser. The process to complete a consultation on market values would also take approximately three months to complete. 4. Market Value Percentage Adjustment. City staff has established that there has been a consistent 38 percent reduction in Dakota County Assessor's estimated land values across properties from their peak prior to the economic slowdown to today. The following exhibit illustrates the decline in Assessors Market Value: 7 Property number 22- 00200 -76 -011 22- 00800 -01 -011 22- 00900 -52 -010 22 -01200 -02 -010 22 -01700 -02 -010 22- 01700- 25-020 22- 01700 -75 -020 22- 01800 -06 -012 22- 02000 -01 -022 22- 02000 -01 -040 22- 02000 -79 -011 22- 02100 -30 -011 22- 02100 -50 -010 22- 02300 -75 -013 22 -02600 -05-010 22- 02700 -26 -010 22 -02800 -30 -020 22- 11995 -00 -060 22- 38200 -00 -030 22- 41600 -00 -030 Assesors Es Taxes 2008 1,750,000 375,400 1,042,200 1,224,200 1,956,400 745,300 980,500 2,481,200 1,164,000 752,000 1,194,300 534,100 2,232,700 885,000 636,200 3,485,100 477,200 1,734,500 537,000 302,700 t. Market Value Payable 2012 1,271,800 272,900 757,400 889,700 1,421,800 540,500 712,600 1,803,200 845,900 546,500 868,000 388,200 1,622,600 643,200 462,300 2,532,800 346,800 1,260,500 390,300 220,000 Single Family Lot: $3,532/lot 8 Decrease (478,200) (102,500) (284,800) (334,500) (534,600) (204,800) (267,900) (678,000) (318,100) (205,500) (326,300) (145,900) (610,100) (241,800) (173,900) (952,300) (130,400) (474,000) (146,700) (82,700) - 38% -38% -38% - 38% -38% -38% -38% -38% -38% -38% - 38% - 38% -38% -38% -38% -38% -38% -38% - 38% - 38% As such, the park dedication fees in lieu of land for single family and multiple family development could be reduced by a corresponding amount to reflect changes in market conditions as the current fees were also established during the same peak period. This approach is rational in that is based on community wide changes in land value that provides consistent expectations for developers. The park dedication fees in lieu of land can also be adjusted annually on an as needed basis to reflect current market trends using this approach without the time and expense of the consultation option. Calculating the current park dedication fees in lieu of land based on a 10% land requirement and applicable density guided by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, reducing this amount by 38 percent and then again multiplying by the applicable land dedication requirement equals the following cash fees in lieu of land: Based on input from the Economic Development Commission, City staff further reviewed the park dedication fees applicable to attached dwelling units. Adjustments were made to reflect the dedication percentage applicable to medium density townhouse units and the development density of multiple family developments to establish separate fees for each land use type: CONCLUSION Townhouse: $2,403 /du Multiple Family: $1,824/du Specialized Housing. The City completed a study of park dedication requirements applicable to senior housing in 2007. The study concluded that from a land use perspective, it is reasonable to make a distinction between senior housing accommodating active adults within independent living, housing with services and more institutional care facilities such as nursing homes relative to other types of residential uses. The City implemented a weighted dedication requirement for senior housing as follows: • Independent living facilities are considered the same as multiple family residential dwellings for the purpose of park dedication requirements based on the number of proposed units at the time of final plat approval. • Housing with services with less than 24/7 care programs shall be considered the same as multiple family residential dwellings for the purpose of park dedication requirements except that each dwelling unit is calculated for the purpose of density and /or cash fees in lieu of land paid on a per unit basis at a rate of 1= 0.25. • Housing with services providing 24/7 care programs and nursing home facilities are exempt from park dedication requirements. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on 24 May 2012 to consider amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance modifying the City's park dedication requirements. City staff recommends amending the Subdivision Ordinance to modify the land dedication requirements for new subdivisions based on the percentages of park land dedication needed for every one acre of development in order to implement the 2006 Parks, Trails and Open Space System Plan as outlined herein. City staff further recommends adjusting the park dedication fees in lieu of land based on the percentage change in market value approach to yield a fee consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of State Statute based on the best information available. c. Steven Mielke, City Administrator Roger Knutson, City Attorney Dennis Feller, Finance Director Daryl Morey, Planning Director David Olson, Community and Economic Development Director 9 Single Family Fee Peak Fee: $4,747/lot 2006 Housing Units: 13,232 2006 Acreage: 5,084.79 2006 Density: 2.6 du/ac. Peak Fee: Land Value per acre (V) x 10% dedication / 2.6 du /ac. = $4,747 fee /lot V = $123,422/ac. Value Based on Decline from Peak: $123,422/ac. x 38% reduction in value = $76,522/ac. Proposed Fee: $76,522/ac. x 12% dedication / 2.6 du /ac. = $3,532 fee /lot Townhouse /Multiple Family Fee Peak Fee: $4,153/1ot 2006 Housing Units: 4,277du. 2006 Acreage: 567.86ac. 2006 Density: 7.5 du /ac. Peak Fee: Land Value per acre (V) x 15% dedication / 7.5 du /ac. = $4,153 fee /lot V = $207,650/ac. Value Based on Decline from Peak: $207,6501ac. x 38% reduction in value = $128,743ac. Proposed Fee: Townhouse: $128,743/ac. x 14% dedication / 7.5du /ac. _ $2,403 fee /du Multiple Family: $128,743/ac. x 17% dedication / 12du/ac. = $1,824 fee /du ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10- 4-8(h) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: Request For Change: The dedication and cash contribution requirements are presumptively appropriate. A subdivider may request a deviation from the presumptive requirements based upon the anticipated impact of that particular subdivision or average land values for the category of and being subdivided. The request must be made before final subdivision approval by the city SECTION 2. Section 10-4-8(1) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: Residential Subdivisions: In residential subdivisions where a land dedication is required, the following formula will be used to determine the dedication requirement: r I Donsity: Units Per Aere- f r3 2.5 Tr 10 porcont 12.5 4 11 porcont r ^,l +- 6 - - -- - - 6 + 8 t- - ,Eg} 10 porcont 164095v02 1 RNK:r05/07/2012 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA, COUNTY, MINNESOTA Land EXHIBIT C Cateaory Units Per Are % Park Ded.(Acres of Development Low Density Less than 12% Residential I0 Medium Density More than 14% Residential 3.0 to 9.0 High Density More than 9.0 17% Residential In commercial or industrial subdivisions where a land dedication is required the following formula will be used to determine the dedication: sixt<ive percent (6.4%) of the buildable land being subdivided. SECTION 3. Section 10- 4-8(J) of the Lakeville City Code is amended to read as follows: J. In lieu of s4aFk land dedication the city may require the Ordinance: following cash contribution: Commercial Industrial High Density Residential Per dwelling Unit Medium Density Residentia Per Dwelling Unit Low Density Residential Per Dwelling Unit 164095v02 2 RNK:r05/07/2012 $7,693 per acre $4,558 per acre $1,824 Per Dwelling Unit $4,7173,532 2,403 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon Its passage and publication. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.38 ", Tab stops: 0.38 ", Left + Not at 0.5" City of Lakeville, Minnesota. ATTEST: ADOPTED this day of , 2012, by the City Council of the Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 164095v02 3 RNK:r0M 7/2012 CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Mark Bellows, Mayor SINGLE FAMILY Rosemount Farmington Shakopee Lakeville (current) Apple Valley Savage Eagan Lakeville (proposed) Burnsville MULTI FAMILY Farmington Rosemount Shakopee Lakeville (current) Savage Eagan Burnsville Lakeville (proposed) Apple Valley Park Dedication Fee Survey October - 2011 $85,000 /acre Varies — Appraised value /acre $5,340 /unit $4,747 $4,584 $3,591 $3,558 ($3,308 for Park; $250 for Trail) $3,532 $2,860 Varies — Appraised value /acre No category $4,450 /unit $4,153 $3,591 $3,558 ($3,308 for Park; $250 for Trail) $3,450 $2,918 $2,841 EXHIBIT D ITEM 1 Call to order Meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. EXHIBIT E CITY OF LAKEVILLE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2012 ITEM 2 Roll call of members Present: Judy Hayes, Scott Kelly, Howard Lovelace, Tom Goodwin, Jeanne Peterson Absent: Matt Dinslage, Bob Swan, Jerry Zell Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Steve Michaud, Recording Secretary Patty Ruedy ITEM 3 Approval of March 14, 2012 meeting minutes The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee meeting minutes were approved as presented. ITEM 4 Citizen Comments There were no citizens present. ITEM 5 Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan update Liz Stockman and Dan Licht from The Planning Company reviewed handouts and gave an overview of current Lakeville demographics and progress to date on updating the Parks System Plan. Committee members will meet at a later date to discuss the plan in more detail. ITEM 6 Park dedication fee draft review Dan Licht presented a draft review of Lakeville's Park Dedication fee study. Staff gave a background on the City's park dedication fee and committee members had a lively discussion of the options. Topics discussed by committee members included state statutes, the feasibility of land appraisals, assessor's market value vs. market value, land values vs. purchase price in a weak economy, past park dedication fees in Lakeville when land values were higher, and fees in Lakeville vs. other cities. No consensus of committee members was reached on the issue. Some committee members commented that the approach of the study was sound, while other members oppose the reduction of park dedication fees. Proposal will be presented to Council at April 23 work session. ITEM 7 Staff Report Staff had no additions from the packet. ITEM 8 Unfinished business • If you'd like to volunteer for Tree & Shrub Sale distribution at CMF on April 28, please let Patty or John Hennen know. • Lakeville cleanup is scheduled for Saturday. ITEM 9 New business Tom is on the Blackdog Watershed management organization. Please see article in newsletter on page 4 regarding water quality and the decrease of phosphorous levels on Orchard Lake. ITEM 10 Announcements Next Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee meeting, May 2. ITEM 11 Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Patty Ruedy, Recording Secretary Scott Kelly, Chair CITY OF LAKEVILLE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2012 ITEM 1 Call to order Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. ITEM 2 Roll call of members Present: Matt Dinslage, Tom Goodwin, Scott Kelly, Howard Lovelace, Jeanne Peterson, Bob Swan, Jerry Zell Absent: Judy Hayes Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Steve Michaud, Recording Secretary Patty Ruedy ITEM 3 Approval of April 18, 2012 meeting minutes The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee meeting minutes were approved as presented. ITEM 4 Citizen Comments There were no citizen comments. ITEM 5 Staff Report Staff had no additions from the packet. ITEM 6 Parks, Trails & Open Space Plan review Staff reviewed the park facilities matrix, the trail handout and the current park system map with future park search areas. Staff said that TPC will work on re- classifying trails and bring them to a future meeting for discussion by the committee. Goodwin asked about the percentage of people using parks and trails. Staff said there may be statistics from previous surveys. Dinslage inquired about the cost difference to construct a 10' trail vs. an 8' trail. Staff replied that cost was minimal. Also, regional trails built will be paid for by the county on a 55-45% split, with the county paying for 100% of the future maintenance costs. Staff added that Lakeville has the lowest per capita costs on park maintenance. Staff also informed the committee that with the current trail project, they are adding two major pedestrian crossings, one at Greenridge Park and one at East Community Park across 170 Goodwin would like to see more on -street bike lanes incorporated into the next plan revision. Staff would like to add more health /active living concepts to the next revision. Committee members should let staff know if they have additional feedback on these items. ITEM 7 Park dedication ordinance update Committee members reviewed the TPC report at their last meeting. Staff asked for a recommendation. Chair Kelly responded to questions regarding the defensibility of the state statue and reviewed state statutes in regards to park dedication. Swan argued that Lakeville has a long history of partnership and has followed a very well thought out plan in regard to development. Zell responded that there will still be fees, it will take much longer to build a park. There were questions raised by the committee regarding feasibility of taking land instead of fee and the likelihood of future challenges by developers. Staff also shared with the committee that the park dedication fees are reviewed annually. The next step is a public hearing at the May 24 Planning Commission meeting. continued EXHIBIT F DRAFT Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee Meeting Minutes, May 2, 2012 Page 2 (12.05) Motion made by Swan, seconded by Lovelace to recommend against supporting amendment of Title 10 of the Lakeville City Code, the Subdivision Ordinance, and keep park dedication fees where they are currently. Ayes -4 Nays -3 Nays: Tom Goodwin, Scott Kelly and Jeanne Peterson Tom Goodwin stated that he voted nay based on discussion at the previous parks meeting and this meeting and that although it's a bitter pill to swallow to succumb to the wishes of one developer, he voted to accept the recommendation of the consultant and staff. Peterson agreed. Kelly had no comment. Zell left the meeting at 7:30. ITEM 8 Bob Jensen nomination to Pioneer Plaza Staff reviewed handouts on Bob Jensen, a resident of Lakeville for over 60 years. (12.06) Motion made by Peterson, seconded by Swan to recommend Oty Council consider approval of Bob Jensen induction Into Pioneer Plaza. Ayes -6 Nays -0 ITEM 9 Senior Center membership fees Staff reviewed proposed Senior Center fees. Committee members commented that the prices seem very reasonable. There will be a membership meeting on Thursday, May 10 at the Arts Center. (12.07) Motion made by Dinslage, seconded by Kelly to recommend City Council consider approval of resolution establishing membership fees for Lakeville Senior Center. Ayes -6 Nays -0 ITEM 10 Unfinished business Staff reminded committee members that final plats will no longer be reviewed by the Parks Committee or Planning Commission based on the results of the developer forum to streamline the process. Final plats will be forwarded to members only as an FYI, unless there are significant changes from the preliminary plat. ITEM 11 New business There were no items to discuss. ITEM 12 Announcements Next Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Committee meeting, May 16. ITEM 13 Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Patty Ruedy, Recording Secretary Scott Kelly, Chair Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 family home with an existing non - conforming front yard setback within the Shoreland Overlay District of Crystal Lake, located at 9845 Oak Shore Drive, subject to the following 4 stipulations: 1. The house and site improvements shall be constructed as shown on the plans approved by the City Council. 2. The total impervious surface area of the property shall not exceed 25 %. 3. A financial security of $1,000 shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit to guarantee the following: a) Removal of the accessory building from the property. b) Removal of impervious pavers to achieve a maximum impervious surface area of 25 %. c) Installation of the pervious pavers in accordance with the approved plans. d) Removal or relocation of the kennel to a location in compliance with setback requirements. 4. A building permit shall be required prior to commencing any construction on the property. Ayes: Boerschel, Lillehei, Reuvers, Grenz, Drotning, Maguire. Nays: 0 ITEM 6. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Chair Lillehei opened the public hearing to consider an ordinance amending Title 10 of the Lakeville City Code (the Subdivision Ordinance) concerning park dedication fees. The Recording Secretary attested that the legal notice had been duly published in accordance with State Statutes and City Code. Parks and Recreation Director Steve Michaud stated that he updates the Lakeville Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan approximately every five years, which requires review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee and the Planning Commission as an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that the next Plan update is currently underway and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission in the next couple of months. Mr. Michaud stated that the City has received a formal challenge to the park dedication fee component of the Subdivision Ordinance and by State Statute the City needs to respond to this action. He indicated that City staff has been diligently researching various options to address this issue and have prepared a detailed report which Dan Licht of TPC will present to the Planning Commission. 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Planning Consultant Daniel Licht presented the planning report. Mr. Licht stated that a review of the park dedication requirements applicable to new subdivisions has been initiated due to Shamrock Development Inc. disputing the park dedication fee in lieu of land for Crescent Ridge 2nd Addition. He indicated that the park dedication requirements are being reviewed to ensure consistency with requirements established in State Statute. Mr. Licht reviewed the State Statute, the City's current dedication requirements, the Community Survey contained in the planning report, projected growth, the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan, which was last updated in 2006, the proposed land dedication requirements, the proposed cash fee in lieu of land dedication, including various options to determine the method for establishing property value, and requirements for specialized housing, all of which are explained in detail in the May 15, 2012 planning report. Mr. Licht stated that City staff recommends approval of the Subdivision Ordinance amendment to modify the land dedication requirements for new subdivisions and recommends adjusting the park dedication fees as outlined in the May 15, 2012 planning report. Mr. Michaud stated that the proposed ordinance amendment is very well thought out. He indicated that the current Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan states that there should be a neighborhood park every 3 /4 to one mile in developed areas. He explained the evolution of the parks system over the past 35 years. Mr. Michaud stated that many of these parks were constructed through park dedication as the city was developing and demand for parks was increasing. Mr. Michaud stated that there have been two bond referendums in the past 30 years which helped develop major athletic complexes, which the park dedication does not cover. He stressed that the City's development of the park system must keep pace with growth and demand. He feels that development of the park system has been by a conservative approach and the City has done very well with the capital expenditures and development of the park and trail system through millions of dollars' worth of grants and with the efficient administration of the system. Chair Lillehei opened the hearing to the public for comment. He explained that the Planning Commission's purview is to recommend a process to the City Council that is reasonable in doing two things: 1) assessing what percentage of property should be dedicated when there is a subdivision of land, and 2) the value of that land when there is a cash contribution in lieu of a land dedication. Michael Smith, 9566 176th Court, Active board member of the Lakeville Outdoor Sports Association (LOSA) and Jason Mahlman, 20584 Hartford Way, Commissioner of the Lakeville Football Association 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Mr. Smith introduced the others that he would be representing at tonight's meeting. C.J. Harrison from the Soccer Club, Jeff Taylor, the Lacrosse Association, Dan Brettschneider, the adult league, and the softball teams are also represented. Mr. Smith and Mr. Mahlman presented a PowerPoint summarizing the following: What their organization does; why they are part of Steve Michaud's "team "; the number of their volunteers, the number of players and practices that take place on City park facilities and school district fields; examples of how the fields are being used; where the growth is and where do we go from here. Mr. Mahlman commented that they work with the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain and improve the facilities to attract tournaments to the city. He stated that they do not want to take a step backwards with a reduction in the park dedication fee. They indicated that the athletic fields are busy from April through October, with some fields experiencing over use due to a shortage of facilities. Mr. Mahlman stressed that they were not here tonight to ask for another sports complex, rather they would just like to keep pace with the current levels of activity. Chair Lillehei asked Mr. Smith and Mr. Mahlman what LOSA's position is with the proposed park dedication fee reduction. Mr. Smith commented that they have focused most of their attention on working with Mr. Michaud to maintain current levels and have not spent that much time on the proposed numbers. Mr. Mahlmari s concern was where the reduction in funds will be made up. Chair Lillehei clarified that the current park dedication is 10 percent of the land. Based on the proposal being considered at tonight's meeting it would be amended to 12 percent of the land for single family subdivisions. Then the value of that land is considered if there is a cash contribution in lieu of a land dedication. That represents the recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council. Chair Lillehei indicated that Mr. Michaud has spoken very favorable of LOSA in the past. Del Stein, 20641 Hampshire Way Mr. Stein indicated that he moved to Lakeville nine years ago. The Lakeville parks and trail system impressed him and his wife very much and was a big part of their decision to move to Lakeville. He feels that the leaders of this community have definitely planned into the future. He stated that he can virtually ride his bike anywhere in the City and wants to be able to continue doing that. 5 Todd Bornhauser, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce Robert Swan, 16675 Lakeview Ct Wally Potter, 10691 202nd Street W. 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Mr. Bornhauser acknowledged Mr. Michaud and his staff for the great park system that has been established in Lakeville. He commented that it's great for tourism when the City hosts various sports tournaments and developing the park system is a great selling point to prospective new residents. Mr. Bornhauser commented that what is being considered tonight is the cost of land and the park dedication fee that it is based on, which over the years has been adjusted accordingly. He stated that many home developers have gone bankrupt with the tough economic times and the drop in the cost of land. He also felt that the kind of parks, whether they will be sport complexes or neighborhood parks, needs to be addressed. He further mentioned the cost of on -going maintenance of the park facilities, which is not covered by the park dedication fees, to the taxpayers. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce is in support of our park system. Chair Lillehei asked Mr. Bornhauser if the Chamber has a recommendation as to how to assess the value of property being subdivided. Mr. Bornhauser indicated that is a very difficult question to answer. Some of the Chamber members who are in the development business would say that it should be based on the cost of land today. Commissioner Boerschel felt that the City is being responsive by reducing the residential land value for the purpose of establishing the park dedication fee by 38 percent. Mr. Bornhauser felt that the cost of land is lower than the County Assessor's market value. Mr. Swan is a member of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee, but tonight he is speaking as a Lakeville resident. He asked that the Planning Commission not reduce the park dedication fee. He indicated that the park dedication fee has always been in the middle when compared to other cities. He feels the fees need to be looked at from the broader perspective that what's happening now with land values is just a minor dip if one looks at the overall history of land values. He indicated that the Planning Commission needs to listen to the majority of its citizens, not just the business people. Mr. Potter lives adjacent to the Juno trail that runs along the west side of Lake Marion. This trail is one of the most highly used trails in Lakeville. Without a doubt he feels that a very high percentage of people moved to Lakeville because of the trail system. He reasoned that five or six years ago the park dedication fees were probably too low. He hopes that the Planning Commission votes against the park dedication fee reduction. 12.34 Motion was made and seconded to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Ayes: Lillehei, Reuvers, Grenz, Drotning, Maguire, Boerschel. Nays: 0 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 Chair Lillehei wanted to thank everyone for their passionate comments tonight. They are appreciated. Per Commissioner Davis' request, the following are Commissioner Davis' e- mailed comments regarding this agenda item: "Mr. Michaud, Mr. Licht, Parks Committee, Economic Development Committee and City Staff have exhaustively reviewed Lakeville's Park Dedication Fee structure as well as those in neighboring communities. The staff report was a clear and concise summary of the options to ensure that • Lakeville's Park Dedication Fee structure reflect the current market conditions without jeopardizing the long -term vision required for Lakeville to continue Mr. Michaud's vision of a best -in -class park system. Lakeville's park system is best - in -class and is a valuable asset to our community." "Unfortunately, I see how the current Park Dedication fee structure might put pressure on the development community to remain competitive in today's market. However, it is incumbent on us to avoid knee jerk reactions to short - term pressures of the market." "I agree with staff's recommendation to adjust the Park Dedication Fee Structure while maintaining Lakeville's ability to review on an annual basis and adjust the Park Dedication Fee Structure to reflect market condition fluctuations. If I was present, I would vote aye to staff's recommendation." Chair Lillehei asked for comments from the Planning Commission. • The Planning Commission feels our park system is excellent and that staff has done an exceptional job of finding cost effective ways to build the park system. • The Planning Commission stressed that the existing park dedication is not enough to fully build out the park system recommended in the current Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. • Mr. Michaud stated that the City of Lakeville has never adjusted the park dedication fee to the peak level of land values. The City has tried to keep the park dedication fee competitive with surrounding communities. 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 24, 2012 • The park dedication fees are an important component of growing our park system. It is the method to pay for the park system as opposed to raising taxes. • The Planning Commission must make a recommendation consistent with State Statutes. • The Planning Commission felt comfortable recommending the land dedication percentages presented at tonight's meeting. • The Planning Commission had a discussion regarding whether the park dedication fee reduction should be retroactive to the date of the Shamrock Development request. Commissioner Grenz felt that perhaps other developers will try to be reimbursed for the park dedication they paid previously. City Attorney Roger Knutson stated that this cannot happen per State Statute since those developers did not make a formal request such as the one made by Shamrock Development. • The entire Planning Commission commended Mr. Michaud for his outstanding efforts over the years to build and support the park and trail system. 12.35 Motion was made and seconded to recommend to City Council approval of an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance concerning park dedication as presented. Ayes: Reuvers, Drotning, Maguire, Boerschel, Lillehei. Nays: Grenz: Commissioner Grenz reluctantly supports the proposed park dedication fees, but not the process. Chair Lillehei commented that the proposed park dedication formula is very sound and he applauds the City staff that put this formula together. He felt that this formula will be looked at by other cities as a base for their park dedication fees. Mr. Michaud commented that his decision to retire is a very emotional one. He wanted to thank the Commissioners for all their support over the years. He felt that if the City doesn't keep good people on the Commissions, people that can fairly weigh these types of decisions, that things could tumble downhill quickly, as has happened in other cities, and the City will not move forward in the future. Mr. Morey also wanted to recognize Finance Director Dennis Feller and City Administrative Steve Mielke, in addition to Mr. Michaud, Mr. Knutson and Mr. Licht, for their tireless work on the park dedication fee study. ITEM 7. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Chair Lillehei opened the public hearing to consider an amendment to Title 11 (the Zoning Ordinance), Chapters 57, 58 and 59 concerning design and construction 8