The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-06-28 - Parks and Trail Agenda PacketCorcoran Parrs and Trails Commission Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:00 to 9:00 PM Corcoran Community Room ************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1) Convene Regular Parks & Trails Commission Meeting —Chair Krueger 2) Approval of- a) Agenda b) Minutes of 05/17/11 Meeting* 3) Open Forum 4) Old / Unfinished Business: a) TDKA Consultant Buss and the Park Dedication Ordinance Discussion* b) Corcoran Athletic Association Discussion 5) New Business a) None 6) Subcommittee & Miscellaneous Reports a) City Council Liaison b) P & T Subcommittee on Signage c) Park Dedication Fund Balance* 7) Other Business 8) Announcements 9) Adjourn Next Meeting July 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. Please contact City Administrator at 763 - 420 -2288, Ext 13(work) or 763 - 238 -0219 (cell) if you are not able to attend the meeting, so that an alternate can be contacted to assure a quorum of members are preset for the meeting. *Includes information for packet Memorandum To: P & T Commissioners From: Dan Donahue, City Administrator Date: 6/21/2011 Re: Agenda for June 28, 2011 Please review the material in your packet submitted by Sherri Busse. If you have any questions or concerns, email or call me ASAP and I will relay to Sherri before the meeting. I Od. Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Tuesday, May 17, 2011 7:00 PM Present: Trish Krueger, Tom Anderson, Kevin Dale (7:12), Chad Robran (7:15), Student Lindsay Jacobs, Rachael Tessmer, Val Nybo, Student Michelle Hansmann, Student Charles Jacobs (8:45) Absent: Robert Vassello Others: Council member Rich Asleson, City Administrator Dan Donahue, Cpl John Hamilton, Corcoran PD 1. Convene. Chair Krueger called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM in the Corcoran Community Center N 2. Approvals: a. Agenda. i. Add 4a Ryan/Street Proposal Update ii. Add 4b Tree Give a Way Update iii. Add 5b. Discussion of Resignation of Kevin Dale as President of Athletic Association iv. Add 5c. Public Works Facility Discussion v. Add 5d. Discuss Interest in Snowmobile Trail Grant vi. Add 5e. Idea for Student Project for 2012 vii. Add 7a. Discussion of Open House for Memorial Garden viii. Motion: Nybo / Tessmer to approve agenda as amended. All voted Aye N inute (4:0). s of 04.26.11 Commission Meeting: Motion: Anderson/Nybo to approve minutes as presented. All voted aye (4:0). 3. Open Forum. None 4. Old/Unfinished Business a. Ryan/Street Proposal on Property Turn back Proposal. Donahue updated the Commission on activities. The city engineer is pursuing the wetland requirements so he can advise the city on any obligations that the city might be taking on by accepting the property. Donahue said he would keep the Commission advised. i. Donahue asked the Commission to allow him to update them on two other property issues. Both involve the Commissions recommendation to the council on parcels that the County was making available for public use. Parks & Trails Minutes 05.17.2011 1. The parcel on Co. Rd. 10 & Co. Rd. 19, which the council requested in Resolution 2011 -011 that Hennepin County approve the deed transfer to the city, may have been improperly made available to the city. The county advises that this parcel will probably not be available at all. They are still investigating and will advise the city. 2. The parcel at 9824 Creek View Circle was made available to the city and the city approved Resolution 2011 -012 asking for the deed transfer. The county advises that the City Council amend its resolution to include the specific public purpose as detailed in SS 282.01 and send them $250 (this is a new fee) for the deed transfer. b. Tree Give A Way Program. Anderson updated the Commission on this year's program. He said the trees came in early and had to be given out before the normal giveaway date at the City Clean up. All were taken. He did receive one rather harsh complaint from a resident chiding him for operating a flawed program. Commissioners thank him for the wor he did under difficult and unforeseen conditions. 5. New Business a. Cpl John Hamilton, Corcoran Police Department i. Discussed the park activities from the public safety perspective. He said that in the previous year or since the PD came to the last P & T Commission meeting, there have been very few if any issues, events, problems: 1. No calls received about alcohol related problems. However, it is noted that the adult ball leagues that use the Rockford School property field are probably consuming beer products which are in violation of the Rockford School policies. There is a sign as to this policy posted near the ball field entrance. Additional signs to be posted will be requested (by the Corcoran PW Superintendent) of the Rockford School District. Other types of park related issues were discussed. Hamilton noted that: a. Vandalism was very rare and no call received b. Teams are doing a good job of policing themselves and the grounds after events c. No disorderly conduct by anybody was noted d. No parking complaints were received or found e. No trail related complaints were noted ii. The commission discussed the alcohol policies of the Civic Center. The current policy requires that if the lessee of the Civic Center is to serve alcoholic beverages of any type, a police officer must be in attendance. 2 Parks & Trails Minutes 05.17.2011 There were no events during the past year were this was done. The Commissioners discussed the overall alcohol policy for the Civic Center of which the major points being that a lessee must: 1. Have an officer present 2. Hire a licensed caterer who must furnish a bartender to serve any alcoholic beverages 3. Provide the city with a copy of Dram Shop insurance and general liability insurance obtained by the lessee iii. Commissioners discussed the policy and Donahue explained the request the city recently received to moderate the policy to allow the lessee to serve beer and wine without the requirement of a licensed caterer and without the need for a bartender. Donahue explained the recommendations from the League of MN Cities Insurance Trust. At a minimum, the League recommends that cities: 1. Require the Dram Shop and Liability Insurance hall the cities harmless 2. Do not allow barrels or kegs of beer or wine but only allow bottles or cans of the beverages 3. No alcoholic beverages are to be sold to attendees iv. Donahue presented background information that had been relayed to him on the origins of the current alcohol policy that were developed when the City Hall /Civic Center complex was built in 1995. At that time, the city council adopted the current policy because they did not want the Civic Center to be a venue for large gathering (i.e. weddings and other similar celebrations) where alcohol would be a centerpiece of the gathering. The general policy was that the principal focus of the Civic Center was to be a place for the residents to gather for "community" events such as presentations, neighborhood meetings, training, etc. v. Donahue recommended that if the Commission wanted to recommend to the City Council changes to the existing policy that the city require the above recommendations from the League; and also require the retention of the requirement for a police officer to be hired by the lessee. vi. The Commissioners discussed that fairness of the existing policy and concluded that the policy should stay in place except the requirement for a caterer and bartender if just beer and wine was to be served to attendees. vii. Motion by Robran/Dale to recommend the amendment to the existing Alcohol Policy by amending #1 of the policy to only require a licensed vendor if alcoholic beverages stronger than beer or wine were to be served. All voted aye (6:0) b. Athletic Association. President of the Association Kevin Dale told the Commission that he had announced to his board that he was stepping down as 3 Parks & Trails Minutes 05.17.2011 president effective the end of the ball season later this summer. He said he would remain on the Board but not as their president. Commissioners discussed the looming issues that might be before the city regarding recreation activities and youth sports. Concern was expressed about the: 1. Ability of the city to coordinate in the future with the many different sports directors. Without a strong president, the association would become a collection of sports each with their own directors and each dealing with the city for space 2. City must become more actively involved in guiding the future of team sports and the use of city facilities 3. Use of the city and Rockford School fields is bulging. Conflicts in scheduling and overuse are occurring and will only get worse ii. Commissioners agreed to continue this discussion at the next meeting iii. Motion: Robran/Dale requested that Donahue send out a letter inviting all of the Athletic Association sports directors to come to the October P & T Commission meeting to discuss way to go forward in the future to better coordinate their activities with the city. All voted aye (6:0) Dale indicated that he would draft a sample letter and give to Donahue Public Works Facility. Commissioners expressed interest in being updated on the progress of the facility search and would like to have input to the council on possible sites before approval d. Snowmobile Trail Grant. Student Commissioner Charles Jacobs had previously shown interest in possibly going after a grant to investigate the feasibility of establishing a snowmobile trail along the Northern Natural Gas pipeline. Since he was not present at the time of this discussion, the Commission asked that this be put on the next agenda. Student Project Idea. Student Commissioner said that her idea is to explore the possibility of laying down a concrete base foundation at the city's ice rink. The concrete would allow for the year around use of the ice rink for summer roller bladers. The city's park and road infrastructure does not readily allow for roller bladeing. She believes it will be greatly used. She also expressed interest in making available more snacks and drinks for park users. She will explore this idea further and talk to the City of Hanover which recently put in a concrete base at this ice rink. This will be put on the next agenda. 6. Committee Reports a. City Council Liaison. Council member Cossette could not attend. Council member Asleson presented and update on: the Public Works Facility search, the sewer and water project. He updated the Commission on the major activities of the City Council which were: Parks & Trails Minutes 05.17.2011 The Public Works Facility development. He discussed the current feasibility study on the city owned property immediately south of city hall; and the two additional proposals (property west of the city park along Co. Rd. 50 and the property west of Cain road and south of Co. Rd. 30). ii. Sewer and Water project. He talked about activities to date and the beginning discussion by the council at their meeting on April 28, 2011 iii. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the efforts to finalize the editing of the document that was accepted by the Met Council at the end of 2009. The council was finishing their review and the document would be soon assembled for the council's final approval in the near future. b. Park Dedication Fund Report. Commission acknowledged receipt of report — no action taken. Aial 7. Other Business a. Memorial Garden Open House. Student Michelle Hansmann expressed interest in having an Open House for the Memorial Park. This was discussed.and the conclusion was that the Open House held on October of 2010 w'"sufficient and that another such event was not needed. b. Consultant Sherri Buss requested feedback on recent email. She had included points of understanding on her work product to date and was asking the Commission to comment if there was any misunderstanding on her part. Any comments by the commissioners were to be directed to Donahue and he would forward on to Ms. Buss. Announcements. The three student Commissioners reminded the Commissioners that all would be off to college in the fall and would be retiring in August. The Chair asked that the usual notices be placed to seek new students Commissioners. 9. Adjourn. Motion by Robran /Anderson to adjourn. All voted aye (6:0) at 9:07 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Daniel J. Donahue City Administrator 5 tV.,37-T1 The right time. The right people. The right compaiW To: Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Copies To: Dan Donohue, City Administrator Kendra Lindahl . City Planner 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com Reference: Park Dedication Ordinance Update Proj. No.: 14855.000 From: Sherri Buss, R.L.A., TKDA Routing: Date: June 20. 2011 This memo provides an updated estimate of park and trail system costs through 2030, and an estimate of park dedication fees that could be generated using the current ordinance and a revised fee schedule that is based on the land uses and growth anticipated in the Corcoran 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The memo also discusses potential changes to the City's existing Park Dedication Ordinance. A draft ordinance is included for discussion. I. PARK AND TRAIL, SYSTEM COST ESTIMATE Background. The Minnesota Statutes that govern establishment of park dedication fees require that there be an essential nexus (nexus means a "substantial connection ") between the fees or dedication and the municipal purpose. Cities use a variety of formulas to determine the required dedication of land or the cash in lieu of dedication. The formulas are based on the projected cost of the parks, trails and open space areas that will be provided in the future, and the development projected in the comprehensive plan that may provide demand for additional parks, trails and open space. The calculations result in a percentage value for the amount of land that the City will require to be dedicated in each new subdivision. The City may then determine a cash in lieu amount that may be required, based on the required land dedication. Revised Table of Park and Trail System Costs through 2030. The table attached identifies the estimated costs for development of the City's proposed Park and Trail System through 2030. At our last meeting, we discussed the table that was developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan process, and the needs to revise the table based on: ® More realistic estimated land costs 8 Level of system development that could be achieved based on the fees that could be generated by the types of development and number of developable acres estimated in the Comprehensive Plan. The table attached includes the following revisions from the previous table: ® Reduced the number of proposed new community parks from 3 to 2, reflecting the actual number of new parks shown on the 2030 Park and Trail plan map. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Page 2 Park Dedication Ordinance Update June 28, 2011 Assumed that 1 new open space park may be developed in the non -MUSA area by 2030. The other two parks shown on the plan are more likely to be developed after 2030 Assumed that the "on road" trails in both the MUSA and non -MUSA areas will have no land acquisition costs or development costs other than signage. These trails would be created by restriping existing roadways, or as roadways are reconstructed. The costs for striping or roadway reconstruction would not be funded through City park dedication funds. Assumed land values of $80,000 per acre in the MUSA area and $20,000 per acre in the non -MUSA area. It is difficult to estimate current land values in Corcoran due to the low level of land sales in recent years. The land value assumptions are based on land values in adjacent communities with sales in MUSA and non -MUSA areas, and by looking and values before the recent recession. The revised cost estimate indicates a total system cost of approximately $42,000,000. II. FEE CALCULATION The Park and Trail Commission discussed some options for park dedication fees at its meeting in April. Based on the discussion, members suggested that the fee structure should be a graduated structure based on development densities, and that it should reflect the land use categories included in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Graduated structures are used by many growing communities in the Metro Area. They reflect the assumption that the level use of park and trail facilities is related to the density of people in a developed area. Several examples of graduated structures used by neighboring communities were included in the memo for the April 18 Commission meeting. Corcoran's current ordinance includes a fee structure that provides for land dedication based on land use: ® Up to 6 units per acre: dedication requirement is 10% of land or cash equivalent ® 6 units or more: 12 percent of land or equivalent m Maximum dedication: $6,000 per residential unit 0 Commercial /industrial: 5% of land or cash equivalent 0 The City's current fee structure does not reflect the land use categories included in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Fee Calculation Options based on 2030 Comprehensive Plan The Corcoran 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes the following land use categories: ® Rural/Ag Residential Existing Residential—no further development expected in these areas Low - Density Residential (3 -5 units /acre) ® Medium Density Residential (6 -8 units /acre) ® Mixed Density Residential (8 -10 units /acre) ® High Density Residential and Mixed Use (10+ units per acre) Land Use Assumptions regarding developable acres in the 2030 Com rehensive Plan include the followin Rural /Ag Residential 1240 Acres /632 units maximum —non -MUSA area Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Page 3 June 28, 2011 Park Dedication Ordinance Update Low Density Residential (3 -5 U /A) Medium Density Residential (6 -8 U /A) Mixed Residential (8-10 U /A) High Density and Mixed Use (10+ U /A) Commercial Industrial 2716 Acres - -MUSA 147 Acres - -MUSA 555 Acres - -MUSA 386 Acres - -MUSA 5044 Acres Residential 222 Acres - -MUSA 506 Acres —MUSA 5772 Acres - -TOTAL Land Value Assumptions for new fee calculations- -$80,000 per acre MUSA for lower and medium density residential uses; $20,000 per acre non -MUSA; $100,000 high - density and commercial/industrial uses. The assumptions are based on land sales in adjacent communities (MUSA and non -MUSA areas) and conversations with the Assessor and City Planner. Fee Calculation 1: Current Ordinance 1240 Acres x 10% -124 Acres x $20,000 = $ 2,480,000 2716 Acres (3 -5 /Acre) x 10% =271.6 Acres x $80,000 = $ 21,428,000 1088 Acres (6+ /Acre) x 12 %= 130.56 Acres x $100,000– $ 13,056,000 728 C/I Acres x 5% = 36.4 Acres x $100,000 = $ 3,650,000 $ 40,904,000 Fee Calculation 2: Potential Fee based on 2030 Comp Plan Land Use Categories 1240.0 acres non -MUSA x 10% = 124 Acres x $20,000 – $ 2,480,000 2716 low density acres x 11% = 298.76 x $80,000 = $ 23,900,800 147 medium density acres x 12% = 17.64 x $80,000 = $ 1,411,200 555 mixed density acres x 13% = 72.15 x $80,000 = $ 5,722,000 386 high/mixed use acres x 14% = 54.04 x $100,000= $ 5,404,000 728 C/I Acres x 5% = 36.4 Acres x $100,000 = $ 3,640,000 $ 42,550,000 The total amount of park dedication that could be generated using this fee schedule is approximately equal to the fees needed to support the proposed park and trail system The fee schedule is similar to the schedule used in adjacent communities The rationale for the fee schedule would include the following: • It generates the fees needed to support the proposed system, i.e. there is a nexus between the needs for parks and trails and the proposed fee • The proposed fee schedule acknowledges that areas with a higher population density are likely to generate a higher level of demand for parks, trails and open space • Commercial and Industrial land uses may generate demand for Trails and Cornrnunity Parks, but are unlikely to generate demand for Neighborhood Parks and Open Space Parks, so the proposed fee for these uses is proportionately lower than for residential land uses. Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Page 4 June 28, 2011 Park Dedication Ordinance Update Some potential issues for the Park Commission and Council consider related to the proposed fee schedule include the following: ® The City could allow a reduced fee for some types of senior housing projects, such as the Maple Grove ordinance. The ordinance could be amended to allow the Council flexibility in determining the fee if the developer can show that the proposed development is likely to have lower than average demands for parks and trails. Proposed language is included in the draft ordinance, attached. Revising the maximum dedication fee per residential unit in the non -MUSA area. The maximum park fee required per residential unit in the current ordinance ($6,000) was based on higher land costs at the time that the ordinance was developed. Based on the number of potential units in the non- MUSA area, current estimated land costs, and the formula utilized to calculate potential fees, a maximum fee of $4,000 per unit could be used. The amount could be reduced further if the City could identify a rationale based on lower utilization of park and trail facilities by those living in the non -MUSA areas. ® An option for differentiating between MUSA and non -MUSA fee dedication would be to assume that those outside the MUSA should pay for development of the trail system, open space parks and athletic complex, but not for the neighborhood and community parks that would more likely serve residents of the MUSA area. The value of the "non- MUSA" facilities is about 68 percent of the total estimated cost of the 2030 park and trail system, and 60 percent of the total estimated cost of the 2020 park and trail system. So the park fee dedication for those outside the MUSA could be 60 or 68 percent of dedication required within the MUSA area, on a per acre basis. This could be combined with a maximum per unit cap on dedication fees, if desired. The Commission should discuss whether it wishes to recommend a lower per unit fee in non -MUSA areas. 68% of $4,000 is approximately $2700. Other Non -Fee Ordinance Issues The Park Planner discussed the current ordinance with the City Planner, to determine whether there were other issues that should be addressed, based on implementation of the ordinance since its adoption. The City Planner noted the following: ® The current ordinance is relatively easy to implement and is very defensible. ® If the Parks Commission recommends differing dedication requirements by density or land use type, it should have a rationale for the differences based on estimated demand for park and trail facilities. The rationale does not need to be in the ordinance, but should be available in a background memo if questioned by developers. The ordinance should be clearer about trail dedication requirements and construction costs (Section 7, Item A). Most ordinances require that developers provide grading and ground cover for dedicated park and trail areas, but do not necessarily require developers to construct trails at their own cost. An example from Maple Grove is the following: Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Page 5 June 28, 2011 Park Dedication Ordinance Update o Installation of improvements. As part of their development contract or site plan approval responsibilities, owners and developers shall be responsible for making certain improvements to the developments for park, playground, trail and public open space purposes, including, but not limited to, finished grading and ground cover for all park, playground, trail and public open spaces within their developments. " This language was included in the draft ordinance for discussion. The Consulting Park Planner recommends that items D and E in Subdivision 2 be taken out of the ordinance. The rationale for the percentage of Commercial and Industrial park dedication would be moved to a memo that will discuss the rationale for the requirements for all land uses. Dedication credit for "private" parks. (Corcoran Ordinance Subdivision 8.) Minnesota Statutes 462.358 requires that "In establishing the portion to be dedicated or preserved or the cash fee, the regulations shall give due consideration to the open space, recreational or common areas and facilities open to the public that the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision." The Commission may wish to discuss whether they want to recommend changes to this section of the ordinance to the Council. A draft revised ordinance is attached that includes potential language to address the items identified above, for discussion at the Parks and Trails Commission meeting. SECTION 955 — PARK DEDICATION 955.010 - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and .Statement of Purpose Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358.Subd.2b provides that municipal subdivision regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space, and that the municipality may alternatively accept an equivalent amount in cash based upon the undeveloped land value. Subd. 2. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that: A. The preservation and development of parks, playgrounds, trails and open space areas within the City are essential to maintaining a healthy and desirable environment for residents and persons employed within the City. The presence of parks, trails and open space amenities also enhances the value and attractiveness of residential and commercial /industrial developments to landowners, developers, purchasers, employers, and employees, The City must not only provide for its present citizens, but it most also provide for the future. S. New developments place a burden upon the City's parks and open space system. New facilities must be developed concurrently with development in order to provide the desired level of service and the quality of the environment for all. Therefore, new developments shall be required to contribute toward the City's park system in rough proportion to the relative burden they will place upon the park system. C. The City Council recognizes that the need for such parks, trails, and public open spaces is directly related to the density and intensity of population and development permitted and allowed in the City. Urban development results in increased population, increased intensity of use and greater demands for such public areas and facilities. D. Development of land for schools, religious institutions or other non- profit organizations may create additional demand on the City's park and recreational land and facilities. The City may create partnerships with these organizations that foster cooperative use of school, non- profit and park properties for recreational activities. 955.020 - Required Dedication Subd. 1. Dedication of Land or Cash A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, the City requires all subdividers as a prerequisite to approval of a final subdivision plat, land division, or development of any land previously divided by plat, metes or bounds or any other means, which has not provided park dedication, to convey to the city or dedicate to the public use for park, playground, open space, or trail a reasonable portion of the land being platted, divided, or developed as hereinafter specified. The portions to be dedicated will be approved by the City; or in lieu thereof the subdivider shall at the option of the city pay to the city, for use in the acquisition or development of public parks, playgrounds, or in debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the undeveloped land value. Park Dedication is only due in cases where additional new parcels are created. Park dedication would not be due in situations where a replat or lot line adjustment is required to modify lot boundaries without creating any additional lots. B. The form of contribution (cash, land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon need and conformance with the comprehensive plan. Subd. 2. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary and required to irnplement the provisions of this chapter. Subd. 3. Parks and Trails Commission Recommendation. A. The Parks and Trails Commission shall, in each case, recommend to the City Council the total area and location of such land that the Parks and Trails Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the development for the above public purposes. These recommendations shall be based on the recommendations included in the City parks and trails plan. B. The Parks and Trails Commission shall, prior to the time that the Planning Commission completes its public hearings on the preliminary plat, review the preliminary plat and recommend to the Planning Commission the total area and location of the land the Park and Trails Commission determines should be dedicated for park use. The Parks and Trails Commission shall present these recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. In those instances where the Parks and Trails Commission concludes that a cash equivalency payment should be made by the applicant or owner in lieu of dedication of land, the Parks and Recreation Commission shall recommend to the Planning Commission the percentage of the total park dedication requirement to be paid to the City in cash. In the event that review at a regular meeting of the Parks and Trails Commission would result in a delay in the review and approval process so that the time limitations of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358 may not be met, the requirement of review by the Parks and Trails Commission may be waived by either the applicant or by the City Council at the time of its review of the application. Subd. h. Standards for Determination. A. The Parks and Trails Commission shall develop and recommend to the City Council for adoption standards and guidelines for determining which portion of each such development should reasonably be required to be conveyed or dedicated. Such standards and guidelines may take into consideration the zoning classification to be assigned to the land to be developed, the particular use proposed for such land, amenities to be provided, and factors of density and site development as proposed by the subdivider. The Parks and Trails Commission shall further recommend changes and amendments from time to time to such standards and guidelines to reflect changes in the usage of land which may occur, changes in zoning classification and concepts and changes in planning and development concepts that relate to the development and usages to which land may be put.. B. The Parks and Trails Commission shall develop and recommend standards for design and construction of public parks, trails, and open space areas in the city. These standards shall be included in the parks and trails plan. Subd. 5. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this chapter shall be reasonably adapted for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedication areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, rare species and other significant wildlife habitats, access, and location. Subd. 6. Minimum Area of Dedicated Land. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the city for park, trail, playground, open space and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of net land area or equivalent market value in cash as set out below: Residential land uses: Land Use Category— Units per Percentage of land or Comprehensive Plan acre equivalent market value in cash Rural /Ag Residential Less than 10% 3 Low Density Residential 3 -5 11% Medium- Density Residential 6 -8 12% Mixed Residential 8 -10 13% High- Density Residential 10+ 14'%0 and Mixed -Use Commercial and Industrial N/A 5% or purposes of park dedication, density shall be rounded down to nearest whole number. For example a development at 8.5 units per acre would be required to pay 14% park dedication. A. In no event shall the cash in lieu of land payment exceed $64,000 per residential unit. S. The City Council shall review the maximum cash in lieu of land payment at least every 2 years, to ensure that it remains consistent with park and trail system development costs. G. Commercial and industrial land uses: Dedication requirement is five - - -- Formatted: Numbered + Level: I+ percent (5 %) of land or equivalent market value in cash. in no event slia44 Numbering Style: A, ®, c, .. + Start at: I + _ Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.5" *- - - Formatted: Indent: Left: 0 ", First line: 0" C. Developments that include memory care and assisted living units shall apply the ' ' - - Formatted: Numbered + Level: I + conunercial rate to the percentaKe of memory care and/or assisted living units that are in Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start at: I + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab the project, multiplied by the project net acres. after: o.s" + Indent at: 0.5" D. Schools, religious institutions and other non - profit organizations: Dedication requirement shall be determined by the City Council based on discussion with the School District or non- profit agency. Recommendations will be based on anticipated use of City park facilities by the school or organization, and shall consider agreements for cooperative use of school recreational facilities. I3. Determination of Fair Market Value. To determine the fair market value of the undeveloped land, the Developer shall submit an appraisal at the time of preliminary plat application. The city will then obtain a review appraisal as a validation of the Developer's appraisal. If staff and the Developer are unable to agree on fair market value, the City Council will make the determination of fair market value. F. Lands Designated On Official Map or Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Where a proposed park, playground, trail or open space area indicated in the city park and trail plan or comprehensive plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, all or pall of the proposed public site shall be designated as such and should be dedicated to the city, based on the area ofland dedication required by this ordinance. C. Deviation from Required Dedication. The dedication requirements based on the development's proportional share of the City park system are presumptively appropriate. H. Wetlands and Ponding Areas. Existing wetlands drainage ways accepted by the city shall not be considered inthe parkland and/or cash contribution to the city. Subd, 7. Land Dedication /Payment of Fees Land Dedication. When land is to be dedicated to satisfy the park dedication requirement, separate lots or outlots shall be indicated on the plat drawings for the area(s) to be dedicated. Permanent trail easements may be allowed for dedication of trail corridors shown on the Parks and Trails Plan. Such lots, outlots or easements shall be deeded to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits within the plat. The d pe" shall he sible for fi., ishe- _i,addin-g -, ground covei= -and-c-onStFUCti011 of trails in all 1...,.7s to be d.,,7ieated the E Ne eredit to r• and the ed dedication shall be given F ,• 44 f . the i 1 t. fl -fe this Nyork,,- @- ?t�,G area within - cr�a,r rrerrts- trails ine4wied in the City's adopted trail_„lal F- - - Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.25 ", No bullets or A. Installation of Improvements. As part of their development contract or-- numbering site plan approval respons'ibil'ities, owners and developers shall be Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Numbered + responsible for making certain improvements to the developments. For p p Level: 1 li Numbering Style: A, 8, C, ... +start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25.1+ park, playground, trail and public open space purposes, including, but Tab after: 0,5" +Indent at: 0.5", Tab stops: not limited to, finished grading and ground cover for all park, 1.25", List tab playground, trail and public open spaces within their developments. No credit toward the required dedication shall be given for this work. - - - Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 1.25" A—B. Cash fee. When a cash fee is to be paid in lieu of land dedication, the payment of such fee shall be required as follows: For residential developments, the fee shall be paid prior to the City's release of the signed final plat mylars for recording with Hennepin County. 2. For commercial and industrial developments the fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits within the subdivision. 3. Park dedication is required for all newly created lots or parcels. 4. In plats that include outlots for future development, the subdivider may pay to the City 1} the development's proportional share for the entire subdivision, including the outlots, or 2) the development's proportional share excluding such outlets, providing that the park dedication requirement shall be satisfied when such outlots are replatted. Subd. 8. Credit for Private Parks A. Standards for Credit. At the City Council's discretion, Park dedication credit may be given where private parks and facilities are provided in a proposed subdivision, and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the future residents of the subdivision. Credit may be considered when the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so, and that the following standards are met: 1. Such credit maybe given only for park areas within the proposed subdivision that are designated on the Parks and Trails Map as Neighborhood Parks. 2. The facilities proposed for the private parks and facilities shall be in substantial accordance with the provisions of the Parks and Trails Plan, and approved by the City Council, 3. In no circumstances shall such credit for private facilities exceed 20 percent of the amount required to be dedicated to the public under this chapter. The council and Parks Commission will consider the proportion of neighborhood park needs provided by the proposed facility, and the proportion of new neighborhood residents to be served by the facility in determining the credit to be given for private park facilities. 4. Yards, court areas, setbacks and other open space required to be maintained by the zoning ordinance shall not be included in the computation of such private open space. 5. The private ownership and maintenance of the parks is adequately provided for by written agreement. 6. The private parks are restricted for park and recreation purposes by recorded covenants that run with the land in favor of the future owners of property within the subdivision and which cannot be modified without the written consent of the City Council. 7. The proposed private parks are reasonably adaptable for use for park or recreation purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, drainage, access, and location of the proposed facilities. Subd. 9. Park Fund. A. Purpose of Park Fund. Cash payments shall be placed by the City in a special park fund and used only for the acquisition and development of land for parks, trails, playgrounds, public open space; development of existing park and playground sites, public open space; and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for park purposes. B. Annual Financial Report. Each year, the Parks and Trails Commission shall present to the council, in such detail as the council shall require, its estimate of the financial needs of the Parks and Trails Commission for the ensuing fiscal year. C. Gifts and Donations. The Parks and Trails Commission is authorized to receive gifts, devises, bequests, endowments, or other donations of money and property on behalf of the City. All moneys received shall be deposited in the Park Fund. (Ord. 196, passed 06- 24 -04, Ord. 223, passed 08- 11 -05) 2030 Park Facility Needs 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs Existing Parks Future Parks Additonal Needs 2020/2030 Distribution Parks Total # of Existing Park Facilities Total # of Existing Park Acres Total # of Future (2030) Park Facilities Approx. acres per park Total # of Future (2030) Park Acres Total # of Additional Parks Total # of Additional Acres 2020 Parks to develop 2030 Parks to develop Neighborhood Parks 0 0 6 7 42 6 42 4 2 Community Parks 2 23 4 25 73 2 50 2 1 Athletic Complex 0 0 1 120 120 1 120 1 0 Community Pla fields 1 40 2 15 70 1 30 1 0 {open Space Park 0 0 1 20 60 1 60 1 2 Totals 63 On Road Trail (LF) 82,000 365 $1,066,000 302 Athletic Complex 1 Notes: 1. Approximate acres per park are based on park classification range of acres. 2. This estimate is based on a forecast population of 17, 600 by the year 2030. 3. The Rockford School District currently owns the existing Community Playfield Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfrelds, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilitiesfirrigation, trails, picnic shelterlrestrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball/soccer/basketball/tennis/volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7, Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010. 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs Trails 2020 Park Facility + Land Costs Land Cost 2030 Park Development Costs Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost 2030 Park Facility + Land Costs Acres Required Parks Land Cost Facility Costs On Road Trail (LF) Land Cost Land + Facility Cost Facility Costs $0 Land Cost Land + Facility Cost Inside MUSA of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost # of Parks to develop Unit Cost Facility Cost Approx. acres per park Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost Neighborhood Parks 4 $400,000 $1,600,000 7 28 $5,000 $80,000 $2,240,000 $3,840,000 2 $400,000 $800,000 7 14 $80,000 $1,120,000 $1,920,000 Community Parks 2 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 25 50 19,500 $80,000 $4,000,000 $7,000,000 $253,500 On Road Trail (LF) 82,000 $13 $1,066,000 Athletic Complex 1 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 120 120 $2,900,000 $60,000 $9,600,000 $12,100,000 0 Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF) 15,500 $25 $387,500 7 $20,000 $140,000 Community Pla fields 1 $500,000 $500,000 15 15 $80,0001 $1,200,000 $1,700,000 0 $50 $750 $750 Road Crossings (Each) Open Space Park 0 $100,000 $100,000 Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,024,7501 0 Outside MUSA Open Space Park 1 1 $40,0001 $40,0001 20 1 20 1 $20,000 $400,000 $440,000 Total Park Development Costs to Year 2020 24,640,000 Total Park Development Costs to Year 20301 $2,360,000 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,000 (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each land parcel will vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Neighborhood Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilities, picnic shelter, benches, playground, play court, a special amenity such as a mini splash pad, and design fee 3. Community Park Cost Estimate would account for parking, lighting, utilites, picnic shelter, benches, trails, Ig. playground, restroom building, and a special amenity such as a hockey rink/performance area and design fee 4. Athletic Complex Park Cost Estimate would account for 3 full size soccer fields, 4 adult softball fields, youth playfrelds, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilitiesfirrigation, trails, picnic shelterlrestrooms /concessions, and design fee 5. Community Play Fields Cost Estimate would account for a combination of play fields and courts of softball/soccer/basketball/tennis/volleyball, parking, lighting, restrooms, picnic area, and design fee 6. Open Space Park Cost Estimate would account for trails, signage, parking, and natural resource enhancements 7, Cost Estimates are based on current rates as of 2010. Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,0001acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On --road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030 2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs Trails Facility Costs Land Cost 2030 Park Development Costs Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost Facility Cost Acres Required Unit Cost Land Cost Land + Facility Cost On Road Trail (LF) 167,000 $0 $0 Off Road Trail (LF) 132,000 $25 $3,300,000 61 $80,000 $4,880,000 $8,180,000 Off Road Trail _Gasline (LF) 8,000 $25 $200,000 4 $80,000 $320,000 $520,000 Signs (Each) 50 $100 $5,000 $5,000 Road Crossings (Each) 3 $100,000 $300,000 300,000 Outside MUSA County Bike Trail (LF) 19,500 $13 $253,500 $253,500 On Road Trail (LF) 82,000 $13 $1,066,000 $1,066,000 Off Road Trail (LF) 116,000 $25 $2,900,000 53 $20,000 $1,060,000 $3,960,000 Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF) 15,500 $25 $387,500 7 $20,000 $140,000 $527,500 Horseback Trail (LF) 14,000 $8 $112,000 $0 $112,000 Signs(Each) 15 $50 $750 $750 Road Crossings (Each) 1 $10o,0001 $100,000 $100,000 Total Trail Development Costs to Year 20301 $15,024,7501 Notes: 1. Land costs: $80,000 /acre (MUSA) and $20,0001acre (Non -MUSA) based on information from surrounding communities and Assessor's Office. Costs of each parcel may vary depending on location, size and site features. 2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement 3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding. 4. Above costs are based on purchased easements. Opportunities may exist to obtain less expensive or donated easements. 5. On --road trails assume no acquisition of additional land or easements. Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030 System Itern Cost 2020 Park Development Costs $24,640,000 2030 Park Development Costs $2,360,000 2030 Trail Development Costs $15,024,750 Grand Total Costs $42,024,750 5a. CITY OF CORCORAN 6/20/11 PARK CAPITAL FUND REPORT jheinecke MONTH ENDED JUNE 20, 2011 6d. Date Park Pat Puhle Memorial Park T -ball field Parks Balance Dedication Memorial 2011 BEGINNING BALANCE 384,090.46 (1,617.65) 331,391.63 895.84 (3,819.75) (48,157.27) Jan -11 Kelly's West Oaks 07 -003 6,000.00 337,391.63 Mar -11 Interest Earned 1,290.66 338,682.29 Mar -11 Interest Earned (savings) 11.51 338,693.80 Apr -11 TKDA (100.78) 338,593.02 Apr -11 Klersey- Memorial Brick 50.00 338,643.02 Jun -11 Monumental (645.10) 337,997.92 Jun -11 Stone & Steel (25.60) 337,972.32 Jun -11 TKDA (824.79) 337,147.53 2011 YTD ACTIVITY 6,681.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 (925.57) 04/30/11 ENDING BALANCE 390,771.93 895.84 (48,157.27) (1,617.65) (3,819.75) Fund Balance as of 06/20/2011 1 of 1 337,147.53 CITY OF CORCORAN 6d. FARMERS STATE SAVINGS QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2011 Savings Date Interest Revenue Balance 12/2007 Year end balance 1,532.81 3/2008 3.83 1,536.64 6/2008 4.30 1,540.94 6/2008 Milbrandt Donation 5,000.00 6,540.94 9/2008 12.38 6,553.32 12/2008 9.57 6,562.89 3/2009 8.10 6,570.99 6/2009 6.84 6,577.83 7/2009 Milbrandt Donation 5,000.00 11,577.83 9/2009 16.81 11,594.64 12/2009 17.55 11,612.19 3/2010 15.63 11,627.82 6/2010 14.50 11,642.32 9/2010 13.98 11,656.30 12/2010 11.76 11,668.06 3/2011 11.51 11,679.57 $ 11,679.57 TOTAL $ 146.76 $ 10,000.00