Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-20 Council Minutes CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 1 The Corcoran City Council held a Special Joint meeting with the Parks and Trails Commission and the Planning Commission on April 20, 2004 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were City Councilors Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner, Lymangood and Thomas. Present members of the Planning Commission (PC) included Commissioners David Andersen, Ebert, Spaeth, and Stieg. Planning Commissioner Kluck and Alternate Johnson were absent. Commissioner Kohnen arrived later in the meeting. Present members of the Parks and Trails Commission (PTC) included Commissioners Thomas Anderson, Dorethy, Johnson, Lamond, and Robran. Parks and Trails Commissioner Brolin was absent and Commissioner Brent Anderson arrived later in the meeting. Also present were Administrator Vergin, Clerk Tillmann, Planner Lindahl, Engineer Vander Top and Parks Consultant Buss. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., advising the audience that this was a joint meeting between the City Council, Parks and Trails Commission and Planning Commission, which is being held on the regular meeting date of the Parks and Trail Commission. The meeting would be co-chaired by Mayor Guenthner and Parks and Trails Commission Chair Stieg. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to approve the agenda as presented. Open Forum There were no requests from the public to speak during open forum. Composition of Parks Commission PTC Chair Stieg advised the audience that the Parks and Trails Commission is comprised of Corcoran citizens ranging from new residents to members of century families. The PTC will be a valuable resource to the community for many years to come. The members are deeply committed to the community and have spent a great deal of time developing a plan to ensure that the City develops its parks and trails properly. The PTC is comprised of many talented individuals with a passion for parks, but also required more expertise than any one member had, so the City Council allowed Consultant Buss to assist the PTC by providing data and leadership. Consultant Buss has been a tremendous asset to the PTC. The Parks and Trails ordinance is not perfect, but has been carefully thought out and put together. The development of the parks and trails system will be an ongoing project, and the map and ordinance will need updating in the future as circumstances and conditions change, but the PTC took their charge very seriously and spent many hours considering how the parks and trails system should look. Meeting Protocol Mayor Guenthner advised the audience that the three bodies included in tonight’s meeting have not had an opportunity to discuss the agenda items in this type of setting. The intent of the meeting was to allow for questions from the various bodies to be answered and to allow all members to discuss concerns and issues relating to the ordinance, system map and park dedication. Commission D. Andersen questioned what protocol would be acceptable in relation to decision making amongst the three bodies. Mayor Guenthner Call to Order Roll call Pledge of Allegiance Agenda Approval Open Forum Composition of Parks Commission Meeting Protocol CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 2 responded that the intent of the meeting was not necessarily to make decisions regarding the issues, but discuss and further refine the issues, and schedule action on them for a future time. Proposed Park and Trail System Mayor Guenthner asked the panel if there were specific issues that should be addressed by staff. Councilor Lymangood advised that he had a question regarding the community park in the NE area and also advised that certain park facilities may become revenue generating once in place and those issues should also be referred to the PTC for further review in the future. Mayor Guenthner questioned how the PTC determined the number of facilities and acreage of park areas versus the needs of the residents in specific areas. Consultant Buss provided an overview of the development of the Parks and Trails ordinance. In September 2003, the PTC was directed to plan for a system of parks, trails and open space within the City and to draft an ordinance that would encompass such a system, with emphasis on the 2020 development area. The PTC reviewed other community plans and ordinances to determine basic standards and needs of the various areas of Corcoran, based on current and future population, size and geography. Commissioner Brent Anderson was present at 7:17 p.m. The PTC feels that the plan they have developed and the identified facilities are appropriate for the proposed area (2020) and expected densities in that area. The PTC has also identified potential parks, trails and open space areas in the rural, but it is not expected that the rural area will be ready for development by 2020. However, those locations have been identified on the map should such opportunities arise as property owners develop properties, or if grant monies become available for projects. Trail easements are being requested as properties develop, as there is no cost to the property owner or to the City. Councilor Gageby requested that Consultant Buss address the Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Trails Plan Consultant Buss advised that the NRI was done at the beginning of the comp plan process. The City of Corcoran has many high quality natural areas and opportunities for preservation. The Council and the NRI committee wanted to ensure that those areas, as well as linkages between those areas, would be maintained and protected as development occurs throughout the City. Various tools were also put in place to ensure protection of these resources, including a wetland ordinance, shore land ordinance, floodplain ordinance, and now the Parks and Trails Ordinance. The NRI and the Parks and Trails ordinance are logically linked together. Councilor Lymangood questioned the thought behind the location of the community playfields in the NE area, pointing out that there is no neighborhood park in the area. Lymangood questioned if two smaller neighborhood parks would serve the area better than the larger community playfield. Consultant Buss advised that the PTC conducted a field trip and physically visited all the Proposed Park and Trail System CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 3 park locations on the map, making adjustments to the locations based on the natural characteristics of the area. In this particular area, there is significant woodland that the PTC felt should be preserved as an open space park, adjacent to a very flat, well drained area that would be ideal for a park and ball fields. The site identified on the map as a community play field offered an excellent alternative to a neighborhood park somewhere else in the area. It is a more centralized location and a better use of the natural resources. The intent is to include features of a neighborhood park in that community play area. It was suggested that the designation of a Neighborhood Park be included in that location on the map so that people are aware of the types of facilities that could be available at that location. Buss advised that the same thing was done with the park area at Lions Park. The PTC thought it would be appropriate to work with the Corcoran Lions to add neighborhood type park facilities and features at, or in close proximity with a link to Lions Park. Mayor Guenthner questioned what criteria the PTC used to designate an area as a neighborhood park. The PTC identified obvious trail connections and open space areas, as well as potential linkages to other identified parks or trails. Other criteria included visibility and proximity to significant natural resources. There are five identified within the boundary of the 2020 area, and two outside the 2020 area. The costs associated with the two locations outside the 2020 area were not included in the cost analysis. Buss advised that all field notes have been included as an attachment to the plan, to be used when those areas are being considered for development. Commissioner Thomas Anderson added that the PTC felt they needed to be somewhat specific when identifying trails and park areas, however, the locations are not cast in stone. Mayor Guenthner questioned what density assumptions, such as 3 units per acre, were made in the southern part of Corcoran in the MUSA area. Buss answered that in all areas, the PTC considered population density and how close people were to the identified areas. The PTC wants to ensure that parks are within walking distance (within approximately ½ mile) so that people won’t have to drive to them because parking areas will be limited, and that people won’t have to cross major roads. Most often, the density assumption was 3 units per acres because it is hard to tell what t he actual densities will be in the future. Mayor Guenthner suggested that the density pattern might be similar to what is there right now. Commissioner Stieg reiterated that the map is a fluid document and that the locations of parks and trails may change, depending on how development occurs. He stated that it is better to have areas identified now, rather than retrofit an area with a park or a trail after the fact. For example, in order to secure grant funding for parks and trails, it is required that the area be already identified as part of an overall park plan. If development occurs differently, then changes can be made and locations can be adjusted. Commissioner Robran added that changes were made to the map once the PTC conducted the field trip. Based on the natural features of the area, some locations changed. People have to use the map, together with the layout of the land in order to fully understand the determinations made by the PTC. Trail locations were just as important as Park locations. The parks are located based on their proximity to CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 4 trails and trail connections. Commissioner Ebert questioned the reasoning behind the location of the Open Space Park on 40 acres in the southern quadrant, and why that park was not located closer to the Maple Hill Estates Mobile Home Park. Buss advised that there are Oak woods in the area that the PTC felt should be saved and also a significant wetland area that is not developable. The park would not entirely be open space. The park at Maple Hill Estates is closer, but the area identified is nicer. It was also unknown if the park at Maple Hill Estates was a private park for residents only. Buss also added that locations could be negotiated when development occurs. Commissioner Stieg added that the PTC is very satisfied with the map and locations they have developed. They also acknowledge that some things could be better and are willing to change the map as needed and as development occurs. Commissioner David Andersen also added that the PTC has put a great deal of thought into the process, including field trips to all areas identified on the map. They have been very creative with their thinking and the plan reflects that thoroughness and creativity. It is not a perfect plan, however, it is thorough and he is impressed with the finished product. Commissioner Spaeth stated that the PTC has indeed put in a lot of time and energy in developing this plan, and has done a good job! It gives the City an opportunity to work with developers and property owners as development occurs as a starting point for discussion and negotiation. The following public comments were heard: Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road – Questioned if residents west of the MUSA line wanted parks and trails. Stated that according to a survey appearing in the Crow River News in 1990, 85% of Corcoran residents wanted to retain the rural atmosphere of the City, and 75% felt that the park facilities in the area are good. Eight of ten PTC members live east of the MUSA line. In the rural area, trails are invasive the way they are diagrammed on the map, particularly in relation to his property. Halverstadt encouraged the Council to not move forward with the Parks and Trails plan because of its invasiveness. Feels that residents east of the MUSA would mostly use parks and trails, and that the Council should cut back on trails and facilities west of the MUSA because most residents don’t want them. Council should be more sensitive to private interests and feels that the plan ruins the privacy and sanctity of rural Corcoran. Mayor Guenthner questioned how park and trail development related to property that would most likely not be subdivided, particularly west of the MUSA. Consultant Buss noted that there is nothing planned to be developed prior to 2020, however, the PTC wanted those amenities identified on the map when and if property owners decided they wanted to develop property. There is no intent for the City to buy land or force people to give land for parks and trails. Condemnation has never been assumed, nor would the PTC recommend condemnation for land acquisition. Parks and trails would only be developed if property owners were willing to do so as part of the development process. Commissioner Robran reiterated that any development of parks and trails west of the MUSA would be strictly voluntary. However, it was identified on the map because the City needs to plan for the future and people have to have an idea of what could be available. Public Comments Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 5 Gary Scharber, 7970 Strehler Road – Questioned if the City had surveyed residents to determine the desire for park and trail facilities. Consultant Buss advised that the city had conducted a survey, which was available to people that attended the open houses and was also available on the City’s website and advertised in the Crow River News, which is the City’s legal newspaper. Commissioner Robran added that many of the respondents to the survey addressed trails and the importance of trails and linkage between facilities. Robert Staplin, 6760 Olde Sturbridge Road – Questioned if the map could be adjusted based on the needs or desires of private landowners, or just developers. Wondered if the City could proceed to acquire property to protect natural areas before a developer comes in with a project. Consultant Buss advised that the City does not have to wait for development. The city is very willing to work with private landowners to preserve open space and natural areas, and there are several options available. If grant funding is available to the City, land could be purchased, or landowners could gift land to the City to be preserved. Administrator Vergin added that Corcoran is working with several other municipalities and the Three Rivers Park District to develop a regional trail along County Road 19. A joint meeting will be held next month to further discuss. Commissioner Kohnen was present at 8:13 p.m. William Riess, Sr., 22202 Horseshoe Trail – There is a trail identified on the map that will go completely through his farm from North to South. Questioned how many people responded to the survey. Commissioner Stieg reported that there were 67 responses to the survey, identifying that residents were primarily interested in walking trails and the preservation of open space areas. Mayor Guenthner responded that in actuality, the trail lines would follow natural property boundaries and would not be put through properties. Commissioner Thomas Anderson reiterated Mayor Guenthner’s comment that the PTC tried to draw the trails on property line and they would go not through anyone’s property. Councilor Lymangood suggested that the ordinance read that trails outside the 2020 development area be voluntary when not in the Right of Way. Park Dedication Fees/Funding Sources Consultant Buss advised that the PTC began looking at developing a Park Dedication Fee in December of 2003. According to the City Assessor, there are no identifiable trends in the City to help determine a per acre value. After discussion with Assessor Risch, staff and the PTC determined the value to be $100,000 per acre within the 2020 service area. State legislation requires Cities to provide a rational basis for what is charged for Park Dedication fees, as identified in Attorney Carson’s memorandum. Buss also advised that a park system is considered to be infrastructure much like a sanitary sewer system is considered infrastructure, as it is a connected system to provide for the welfare of the citizens. The Park Commission recommend adoption of language similar to what is in state statute, including requirements for both land dedication and Gary Scharber, 7970 Strehler Road Robert Staplin, 6760 Olde Sturbridge Road William Riess, 22202 Horseshoe Trail Park Dedication Fees/Funding Sources CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 6 cash-in-lieu of land. The PC recommended a flat fee for park dedication. The PTC does not feel comfortable with a single fee based on an average of land values across the city, but did come up with a fee range based on land values, which Attorney Carson feels is legally supportable. Consultant Buss cited the City of Minnetrista as an example of a city dealing with similar issues. Minnetrista was also not comfortable with a single fee for park dedication, so they developed a fee range based on density. Councilor Thomas advised that he had discussed park dedication with Attorney Carson, who stated to Thomas that the City could establish a single fee for park dedication. Thomas presented an overhead identifying park dedication fees in various areas of the City if based on density calculations. He feels that because of the inequity of land values, higher density areas are charged less in park dedication fees because the cost is spread out amongst a larger number of families. Developers should be held responsible for the neighborhood level parks and feels that the City has a right to take 1% of the land for neighborhood parks. Thomas developed a formula using a blended rate to determine a park dedication fee in the MUSA area, and added that he had reviewed this information with Attorney Carson, who advised him that this formulation is appropriate. He calculated a fee of $5,000 per unit by dividing the total cost of the park system in the MUSA area ($45 million) by the 9,000 new units in the area (3,000 acres * 3 units/acre = 9,000 units). Feels that this is a fair and equitable way to determine park dedication. Commissioner Spaeth concurred with Councilor Thomas’ calculation, stating that it was easy to understand. Commissioner David Andersen expressed his concern over the process followed, stating that the PTC has worked long and hard to determine an appropriate and legally supportable way to calculate park dedication and feels that Councilor Thomas’ presentation did not take their recommendation into consideration. Feels that the PTC recommendation and the logic behind their recommendation should have been taken into consideration and Thomas’ proposal should have been discussed with the PTC prior to presentation during this meeting. Thomas responded that there has been no opportunity for discussion or feedback with the PTC until this time. Councilor Lymangood pointed out that staff had calculated a per unit fee of $4,950, as noted on one of cost analysis spreadsheets, and also noted that 84% of the cost for the parks and trails system is land and the remaining 16% is for facilities and amenities. Lymangood added that 10% of land value for dedication i s appropriate and is in line with what other communities are doing. Commissioner Robran added that a different formula would have to be used in the non-MUSA area because the needs and the development schedule are different. Consultant Buss added that one couldn’t assume that people living in multi - family housing will use the park facilities more. Often times, those residents are empty nesters, or young people with no children. Planner Lindahl also added that by using a flat fee, the City is not recouping its expense if trying to purchase land. Councilor Thomas’ example uses a fee of $5000 per unit, or $15,000 per acre if three units per acre. Lindahl further stated that the City would not be able to purchase land for parks and trails anywhere in the City for $15,000 an acre. CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 7 Commissioner Ebert concurred with Councilor Thomas’ formulation, stating that the formula is simple and that developers would rather pay a fee than give up land. Feels that the City will end up with too many undesirable chunks of land if we choose land over cash. Mayor Guenthner stated, and Consultant Buss concurred, that the City would only take land if a park area were identified on the plan in a specific development area. If an area was to be developed, and there was no park area identified on the plan, than the City has the option of taking cash-in-lieu of land. Buss also suggested that the City Attorney, as well as the PTC and the PC, review Councilor Thomas’ memo and formulation in further detail. Engineer Vander Top responded that the two options (PTC formulation and Councilor Thomas’ calculation) are very close. The percentage calculation is legally defensible. With a set fee of $5,000, it could be argued that the fee is too high. With a lower fee, the City may not generate enough revenue to pay for the park system. Consultant Buss added that Council should be comfortable with the fee and the defensibility of the calculation. Recommended again that Attorney Carson review both formulations. Planner Lindahl added that the Park Dedication fee is a key piece to the development process. The City has already begun receiving development applications for the rural area. The Engineering tools need to be in place before the moratorium can be lifted. The following public comments were heard: Terry Forbord, Laurent Development, 100 S. Fuller Street, Shakopee, MN – Council is overlooking the disparity due to the number of school districts in the MUSA area. Regarding valuation, there needs to be a level playi ng field for all applicants. Valuations are extremely disproportionate in Corcoran, which begs for litigation if the City proceeds with park dedication fee as presented. Consultant Buss stated that according to the City Assessor, there is no disparity in land values between the school districts. There are no sales trends or data to support such a claim. Suggested that Council confer with the City Attorney then set a fee, to be reviewed in a year or the next time the City reviews the fee schedule. Planner Lindahl added that the ordinance in its current form states that the City can taken 10% of the land or has the discretion to take cash in lieu of land. Per statute, the City has to look at taking land first. Lindahl will clarify statute with Attorney Carson. Councilor Lymangood thanked Laurent Development for the spreadsheet included in the Council packet, which showed that the vast majority of communities have a park dedication fee set at 10% of land or cash in lieu of land. Commissioner Kohnen suggested that the park dedication fee be 10% of the land, not to exceed $5,000 per unit. Credit for Private Parks Consultant Buss reported that the PTC does not recommend that credit be given for private parks within a development. Commissioner Robran added that in Public Comment Terry Forbord, Laurent Development Credit for Private Parks CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 8 their discussions with other communities, the PTC found that it seemed private parks created more of a burden for the City. Commissioner Lamond added that there doesn’t seem to be a benefit for the community, so why would the city give credit? Commissioner David Andersen also noted that a park is a community asset. A private park is treated more like an amenity to the community that it is in, like a gated community. Parks should promote connectedness, not exclusivity. Commissioner Ebert feels that a percentage credit should be given, because the developer is alleviating some of the pressure on city parks by including a park in the development. Developers should be given an incentive to create parks. The City would have a higher tax base because most likely, private parks would be in neighborhoods with more expensive homes, which benefits the City in the long run. Councilor Lymangood added that an excellent example of a private park in a development is the Dancing Waters Development in Woodbury, He has concerns, however, with the facilities being exclusive. A compromise may be reached if there is a large central private park faclility with smaller satellite areas being open to the public. Credit should only be considered if the facilities are not exclusive. Commissioner Robran stated that the challenge with private parks is that a private park may not be better than what the City may provide. The following public comments were heard: Terry Forbord, Laurent Development, 100 S. Fuller Street, Shakopee: Many people on the PTC don’t have the benefit of fully understanding what a Master Planned Community is or the value it provides. There are hundreds of Home Owner Associations (HOA) in developments throughout the United States that operate extremely well. The Twin Cities is behind the curve in this respect because there are many successful and beneficial HOA in developments. Feels that the City is participating in reverse discrimination as many people moved here for exclusivity and paid for that benefit, now the City is trying to take that away from the people that are willing to pay for it. Trends in the real estate market are moving towards more exclusivity. Laurent provides choices to people who want to live in a Master Planned Community. New residents are going to be making demands for park and trail services. The city should allow credit for a variety of different features, including open space, especially in a PUD. Commissioner Stieg asked Forbord if Laurent was given credit for the private park in Dancing Waters. Forbord responded that they were given credit for open space preservation and other amenities, but not the private HOA Park. Added that the City should be grateful for developers that are willing to assemble larger tracts of land for development, such as what Laurent did with Dancing Waters. Consultant Buss added that according to the City of Woodbury, the HOA Park was considered private and no credit was given. However, credit was given for the greenways and open space preservation in the development plan. Planner Lindahl added that Corcoran’s PUD ordinance does give the City the discretion to allow development similar to Dancing Waters, in areas that are identified as PUD. Mayor Guenthner added that there is not Public Comment Terry Forbord Laurent Development CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 9 consistent support of credit for private parks in other communities. Robert Staplin, 6760 Olde Sturbridge Road – Encouraged the council to not get hung up on the numbers. Go back to the basics. Revisit what the community wants and then do it. The community wants the rural community preserved. Is the City being driven by development? Planner Lindahl added that the ordinance is written in such a way to allow review of development and proposed park and trails on a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:33 p.m. _______________________________ Kary Tillmann, Clerk/Treasurer Robert Staplin, 6760 Olde Sturbridge Road Adjournment