HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-17 Parks and Trails Agenda Packet CITY OF CORCORAN
Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission Agenda
May 17, 2016 - 7:00pm
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Agenda Approval
4. Minutes
a. Minutes – April 19, 2016*
5. Open Forum
6. Presentations
a. Annual Police Report – Matt Gottschalk, Public Safety Director
b. Introduction – Zoe Kesselring, Seasonal Recreation Coordinator
7. Unfinished Business
a. Pollinator Plot Installation Project Update
8. New Business
a. Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment*
b. Neighborhood Park Research*
c. Downtown Utility and Street Improvement Project Update
9. Reports/Information
a. Memorial Garden Maintenance – Mulching Project
b. Active Planning Applications – Informational only*
10. Subcommittee & Miscellaneous Reports
a. City Council Report – Councilmember LaFave*
b. Athletic Association
c. Park Dedication Fund*
11. Other Business/Announcements
12. Adjournment
*Includes Materials - Materials relating to these agenda items can be found in the House Agenda Packet by
door.
CITY OF CORCORAN
Item 4a.
b
Parks and Trails Commission Meeting Minutes
April 19, 2016 - 7:00pm
The Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission met on April 19, 2016, at City Hall in Corcoran, MN.
Present were, Commissioners - Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, Regan, Strehler, and Student
Commissioner Beck
Absent: Commissioners Robran and Tessmer
Also present were Mayor Guenthner, Public Works Superintendent Meister, and City Administrator
Martens.
1. Call to Order / Roll Call
Chairperson Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
Chairperson Anderson invited all in attendance to rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Agenda Approval
a. Agenda
Motion: Made by Meister, seconded by Regan, to approve the agenda with the addition of the
following:
4b. Minutes – January 19, 2016
8c. County Road 10 Bike Trail
Voting Aye: Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, Regan, and Strehler
(Motion carried 6:0)
4. Minutes
a. Minutes – February 16, 2016
Motion: Made by Nybo, seconded by Strehler, to approve the minutes with correction to one typo in
item 8a.
Voting Aye: Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, Regan, and Strehler
(Motion carried 6:0)
b. Minutes – January 19, 2016
Motion: Made by Nybo, seconded by Meister, to approve minutes as presented.
Voting Aye: Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, and Regan Abstain: Strehler
(Motion carried 5:0)
5. Open Forum - None
6. Presentations
a. Annual Park Update – Pat Meister, Public Works Superintendent
Public Works Superintendent Pat Meister updated the Commission on current conditions of the park
and the priorities for 2016 which includes work in the ice rinks and the addition of supplemental
wood fiber at the playground. Commissioners discussed various park maintenance projects and
provided feedback to Pat on the upcoming projects.
7. Old/Unfinished Business
a. Pollinator Plot Installation Project
Commissioner Meister informed the Commission of the status of the project and of a planting event
scheduled for Saturday, May 21, 2016. Commission members and Superintendent Meister
discussed the preferred process for preparing the plot in advance of the seeding. Commissioners
directed Superintendent Meister to coordinate two roundup applications to remove unwanted
species in advance of the planting.
CITY OF CORCORAN
Item 4a.
b
b. Park Planning Discussion
Administrator Martens updated the Commission on the status of various park planning activities
taking place in the City.
8. New Business
a. Corcoran Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines
City Administrator Martens presented the updated Southeast District Plan and Design Guidelines.
Commissioners discussed the proposed additional parks and how they will be incorporated into the
comprehensive plan. Additional discussion took place regarding housing types and for the need to
effectively manage stormwater on-site.
Motion: Made by Krueger, seconded by Regan, to recommend approval of the updated Southeast
District Plan and Design Guidelines as presented.
Voting Aye: Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, Regan, and Strehler
(Motion carried 6:0)
b. Memorial Garden Maintenance – Mulching Project
Administrator Martens presented a quote from Chelsea to complete a mulching project in the
Memorial Garden. Commissioners directed staff to obtain an additional quote for review and move
forward with the most cost effective option.
c. County Road 10 Bike Trail
Commissioner Krueger informed the Commission that she had met with Brian and Jill Dejewski of
Mobile Hope who shared their concern for the lack of a bike trail on County Road 10. The
Commission discussed the lack of a bike trail and agreed that the road needs improvements in the
future. Staff informed the Commission that there was no project currently under consideration
however the Comprehensive Plan does include a future on-road trail.
9. Reports/Information
a. Tree Giveaway Update
Chairperson Anderson informed the Commission that all 500 trees have been reserved and that the
giveaway would take place on Saturday, April 23rd.
b. Recreation Coordinator Update
Administrator Martens informed the Commission on the work being completed by Zoe and her
priorities for the summer. It was also shared that Zoe is doing a great job and her work thus far has
been impressive.
c. Active Planning Applications – Informational only, no action taken
10. Subcommittee and Miscellaneous Reports
a. City Council Report – Mayor Guenthner updated the Commission on City Council activities
b. Athletic Association – Administrator Martens updated the Commission that registration for
the CAA has been completed and that the CSA registration is now open.
c. Park Dedication Fund – Informational only
11. Other Business/Announcements
Commissioner Regan thanked Chair Anderson on behalf of the Parks and Trails Commission for
the work he has done to coordinate the tree giveaway program.
12. Adjournment
Motion: Made by Krueger, seconded by Nybo, to adjourn the meeting at 8:51 pm.
Voting Aye: Anderson, Krueger, Meister, Nybo, Regan, and Strehler
(Motion carried 6:0)
Submitted by
Brad Martens City Administrator
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
www.landform.net
Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
TO: Corcoran Parks and Trails Commission
FROM: Anne Hurlburt through Kendra Lindahl, Landform
DATE: May 11, 2016 for the May 17, 2016 Commission Meeting
RE: Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 16-006)
60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE:N/A
1.Request
Review and comment on an update to the park dedication requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations, Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code.
2.Background
At its March 28 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to conduct a review of the park dedication
ordinance to:
a)Update the 2011 calculations of park system costs, based on changes in construction costs
and any new information about proposed parks and trails available since the 2011 update.
b)Update the land value information used in the 2011 analysis with available data for Corcoran
and the surrounding market area from city and county assessors.
c)Examine the current residential dedication formula to determine whether the percentages of
land or equivalent cash dedication are adequate to meet the city’s needs.
d)Provide an alternative formula to address the concern about the equitable application of
residential dedication requirements to land outside the MUSA. Specifically, consider whether
the formulas could incorporate a measure of the expected population growth from various
types of residential development. Use the results of this exercise to propose a revised
formula for consideration by the city.
e)Evaluate and recommend the appropriate maximum cash-in-lieu of land fee.
f)Determine what ordinance amendments are necessary for conformity with the 2013 state law
changes.
On April 28, the Council received a report and draft amendments. Copies are attached to this
memo. The report sent to the Council has been updated to correct an error in one of the tables, and
to include an attachment of Park Dedication Examples (Attachment E) which was provided to the
Council at their meeting.
The Council directed staff to refer the report and draft amendments to the Parks and Trails
Commission for review at its May 17 meeting. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the ordinance amendment at its June 2 meeting.
Agenda Item: 8a.
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 2
May 9, 2016 for May 17, 2016 Parks and Trails Commission Meeting
3. Requested Action
Staff requests that the Commission review the attached report and forward any comments to the
Planning Commission for their consideration at the June 2 public hearing.
Attachments:
Report to the Corcoran City Council for the April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting, Updated
May 9, 2016
105 South Fifth Avenue
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
www.landform.net
Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
TO: Corcoran City Council
FROM: Anne Hurlburt through Kendra Lindahl, Landform
DATE: April 20, 2016 for the April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting (Updated May 9, 2016)
RE: Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 16-006)
60-DAY REVIEW DEADLINE: N/A
1. Request
Provide feedback to staff on draft amendments to the park dedication requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 9 of the Corcoran City Code, and give direction on the next steps
for considering the amendments.
2. Background
Corcoran’s current park dedication standards were developed in 2011 based on the park and trail
system needs identified by the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Amendments in December of 2014
addressed specific concerns about the method for calculating density, how park dedication credit
would be given for trails and what trail improvements developers must make. Language was also
added to clarify that “park dedication is not due for parcels that have previously paid park dedication
(land or cash-in-lieu)” Ordinance 2014-291.
At its March 28th meeting, the Council authorized staff to conduct a review of the park dedication
ordinance to:
a) Update the 2011 calculations of park system costs, based on changes in construction costs
and any new information about proposed parks and trails available since the 2011 update.
b) Update the land value information used in the 2011 analysis with available data for Corcoran
and the surrounding market area from city and county assessors.
c) Examine the current residential dedication formula to determine whether the percentages of
land or equivalent cash dedication are adequate to meet the city’s needs.
d) Provide an alternative formula to address the concern about the equitable application of
residential dedication requirements to land outside the MUSA. Specifically, consider whether
the formulas could incorporate a measure of the expected population growth from various
types of residential development. Use the results of this exercise to propose a revised
formula for consideration by the city.
e) Evaluate and recommend the appropriate maximum cash-in-lieu of land fee.
f) Determine what ordinance amendments are necessary for conformity with the 2013 state law
changes.
State law allows cities to require that a reasonable portion of the buildable land of any proposed
subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use, including parks, recreational
Agenda Item: ___
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 2
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
facilities, playgrounds, trails or open space. The city must have a capital improvement budget and a
parks and open space plan, upon which the dedication requirements shall be based. Cash in lieu of
land dedication is permitted and must be related to the fair market value of the land. The land
dedication or fee must be roughly proportional to the need created by the proposed subdivision or
development.
In 2013 there were amendments to State Law (Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b) to clarify how
cities must calculate park dedication fees. The law previously required fees to be based on the fair
market value of land, although fair market value was not defined. The new law defines how it must
be calculated on an annual basis, and provides a process for resolving disputes over valuation.
3. Update of 2011 Data and Assumptions on Park Dedication
The 2011 park dedication report, on which the current ordinance is based, included assumptions
about land values, construction costs, the City’s parks plan and future land use and development.
This report updates the 2011 analysis, as follows:
a) Land Values
The City Assessor was consulted on current land values, based on land sales in Corcoran and
adjacent communities (MUSA and non-MUSA areas.) Table 1 shows the values used in the
2011 report and the recommended values for the 2016 update.
Table 1: Land Value Assumptions
Land Use
2011 Assumption
Land Value per Acre
2016 Assumption
Land Value per Acre
Non-MUSA Residential $ 20,000 $ 10,000
Low and Medium Density Residential
(MUSA) $ 80,000 $ 80,000
High Density Residential and
Commercial/Industrial $ 100,000 $125,000
The assessor noted that land values may differ within the city based on location and factors such
as the school district in which the parcel is located. There have been very few recent sales but
these are the best estimates that can be made at this time. It will be important to update these
assumptions on an annual basis, as required by the state law. Land values are used to calculate
the appropriate park fee and are also a factor in projecting the cost to acquire land for parks and
trails.
b) Construction Costs
The 2011 report included an estimate of the cost to acquire and construct the park system
envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A.) Attachment B updates the estimate for
2016. Park facility costs were updated using the Turner Construction cost index which shows an
approximate 21% increase in non-residential construction costs from 2010 to the first quarter of
2016. Trail facilities costs were updated using recent trail planning estimates developed by
Hennepin County.
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 3
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
After reviewing the 2011 cost estimates in detail, it was found that the table included several
errors that were corrected on the 2016 update. Construction and land cost estimates were
missing for one community park and two open space parks, which led to an understatement of
the total park costs. In 2011, the total Park Facilities and Land Cost was estimated at
$42,474,750. In 2016, we estimate the cost to be approximately $60,216,200.
c) Park Plan Assumptions
The 2011 report assumed construction of the parks system identified in the City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan, and no changes have been made for this report. None of the facilities
identified in the existing plan have been built, so the future needs are assumed to be the same.
While the City is currently considering adding parks as part of new design guidelines for the
downtown area, those are not yet part of the Comprehensive Plan so are not considered in this
updated report. If the Comprehensive Plan is amended to add new facilities, this report will need
to be updated to include them.
d) Land Development Assumptions
The 2011 report used data on developable acreage within the MUSA to estimate the potential
amount of park dedication that would be generated by new development, at full build-out of the
MUSA area. Since that report was prepared, most of the new development has occurred on lots
that existed at that time, so the data from the 2011 report has been carried through to this report,
with one exception.
The 2011 report assumed that there were 1,240 acres of Rural/Ag Residential land outside the
MUSA that could be subdivided to allow a maximum of 632 dwelling units. This appears to
significantly overestimate the potential for subdivisions outside the MUSA. Therefore, we have
changed the assumption of 632 units to a maximum of 124 (an average of one unit per 10 acres)
to avoid overestimating the amount of park dedication that could come from outside the MUSA.
d) Population Forecasts
The Comprehensive Plan is based on the Metropolitan Council’s forecast that Corcoran’s
population would be 17,600 people by the year 2030. The Council’s most recent forecast
(adopted May 28, 2014 and updated July 8, 2015) is for a population of 8,900 by 2030, and
11,300 by 2040. This is a significant reduction. If the Metropolitan Council is correct,
development and extension of public facilities (including parks) will happen more slowly than the
city has previously assumed. It does not change the facilities that would be needed when the
development occurs, only the period of time over which they would be needed.
The 2011 report assumed that full build-out of the MUSA would generate enough park dedication
contributions to develop the park system. The land in the MUSA has the capacity, if it develops
at the densities specified in the Comprehensive Plan, to accommodate significantly more
development than is expected by the Metropolitan Council forecasts. The next update of the
Comprehensive Plan will need to consider the Metropolitan Council’s forecast at the time of the
update, and this analysis will need to be repeated based on the updated plan.
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 4
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
4. Current Park Dedication Requirements
The current ordinance requires each new development to contribute a percentage of the land to be
subdivided, or cash in lieu, to the City’s park system. The percentages range from 10% to 14% for
residential land and vary by the designation on the City’s land use plan. The ordinance recognizes
that as the population density increases, there is a higher demand for parks per developed acre.
The lowest percentage for residential development applies in the non-MUSA area where new
development will be single family detached homes on large lots at the lowest density. The highest
percentage applies in areas where housing types are expected to be multiple family residences at
the highest allowable densities.
Commercial and Industrial land uses are required to dedicate 5% of their land area or cash in lieu.
The current ordinance states that “Commercial/Industrial development of land will create
approximately five (5) percent of the need for park and recreational land and facilities within the
City.”
Table 2, below, shows the potential cash value of park dedication based on the 2011 report and the
current adopted ordinance, and compares it to the cost of the park system as it was estimated at
that time. The difference between the potential value of dedication and park cost was small and
probably within the margin of error for the cost and land value estimates in the report.
The 2011 report concluded that because the total amount of dedication that could be generated
using this fee schedule is approximately equal to the cost of the park and trail system, it provides the
“nexus” that the law requires between the needs and the fee. The land value is part of the
calculation, so it was deemed to satisfy the requirement that land dedication be related to the fair
market value of the land.
Table 2: Current Land Uses and Dedication Requirements, 2011 Costs and Values
Land Use Category Acres
% Land
Dedicated Land Value Cash Value
Rural/Ag Residential 1,240 10% $ 20,000 2,480,000
Low Density Residential 2,716 11% $ 80,000 23,900,800
Medium Density Residential 147 12% $ 80,000 1,411,200
Mixed Residential 555 13% $ 80,000 5,772,000
High Density Res./Mixed Use 386 14% $ 100,000 5,404,000
Commercial and Industrial 728 5% $ 100,000 3,640,000
Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu
$ 42,608,000
Approximate Cost of Park System $ 42,475,000
Difference: $ 133,000
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 5
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
Table 3, below, calculates the potential cash value of park dedication based on the 2016 updated
land values, and compares it with the approximate cost of the park system based on the updated
land and construction costs. There is now a significant ($16.587 million) gap between the value of
potential park dedication and the cost of the park system because of the cost increases and the
corrections to the 2011 estimates.
The City can deal with this gap in a couple of ways. The dedication requirements may be increased
to ensure new development contributes enough land and cash to fill the gap; or, the parks plan could
be scaled back to a more affordable cost. The latter option is beyond the scope of this report and
would need to be addressed as part of the next Comprehensive Plan update.
5. Equity of Current Park Dedication Requirements
A key issue with the current formula is whether or not the dedication requirements for the various
residential density categories are equitable, particularly for the lowest density residential
development outside of the MUSA.
The equity issue can be illustrated by comparing two hypothetical subdivisions. The first is a rural
subdivision dividing a vacant 20-acre parcel into 2, 10-acre building lots (A.) The second is a
subdivision of a 20-acre urban parcel at low density residential into 60 building lots (B, 3 units per
acre.) Land values have been updated to the 2016 estimate.
Table 4: Hypothetical 20-Acre Subdivision Example #1
Land Use Category Ac
%
Dedication
Land Value,
Per Acre
Cash Value of
Dedication
#
Lots
Per Unit
Dedication
A Rural/Ag Residential 20 10% $ 10,000 $ 20,000 2 $ 10,000
B Low Density Residential 20 11% $ 80,000 $ 176,000 60 $ 2,933
Table 3: Land Uses and Dedication Requirements, 2016 Costs and Values
Land Use Category Acres
% Land
Dedicated Land Value Cash Value
Rural/Ag Residential 1,240 10% $ 10,000 1,240,000
Low Density Residential 2,716 11% $ 80,000 23,900,800
Medium Density Residential 147 12% $ 80,000 1,411,200
Mixed Residential 555 13% $ 80,000 5,772,000
High Density Res./Mixed Use 386 14% $ 125,000 6,755,000
Commercial and Industrial 728 5% $ 125,000 4,550,000
Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu
$ 43,629,000
Approximate Cost of Park System $ 60,216,200
Difference: $ (16,587,200)
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 6
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
In this example, the rural subdivision (A) would contribute more than three times more per lot for
park dedication than the urban example (B.) This suggests that the required percentage dedication
should be significantly adjusted to make the per unit contribution more comparable between the two
land use categories.
There is also an equity issue regarding how the current standards apply to single family
developments compared to other housing types such as townhomes or apartments. Density is used
as a factor for park dedication requirements as a proxy for estimating the number of dwelling units
and thus the demand on the park system by new residents. It may be fairer to consider the need for
parks on the basis of population, not simply the number of dwelling units.
In the examples in Table 4, above, the expected population (aka “household size”) of each dwelling
unit would probably be about the same. Single family household sizes in Corcoran are expected to
average about 2.8 persons per dwelling unit. However, townhomes and apartment household sizes
would be expected to average approximately 1.9 persons per dwelling unit (based on data from
other communities that have significant amounts of multi-family housing types.)
Table 5 shows another hypothetical housing development, showing how different household sizes
result in different park dedication contributions by population (“per capita”.) Here we compare
subdivision B (single family, 3 units per acres) to a medium density townhome development (C, 6
units per acre.)
Table 5: Hypothetical 20-Acre Subdivision Example #2
Land Use Category Ac
%
Dedication
Land
Value,
Per Acre
Cash Value
of Dedication
#
Lots
Per Unit
Dedication
Per Capita
Dedication
B Low Density Residential 20 11% $ 80,000 $ 176,000 60 $ 2,933 $ 1,048
C Medium Density Residential 20 12% $ 80,000 $ 192,000 120 $ 1,600 $ 842
In this example, the Medium Density multi-family development would contribute a higher cash value
of park dedication, but the per-unit dedication would be about 55% of the Low Density project. The
per capita dedication would be about 81% of that for the Low Density project due to the smaller
household size in the multi-family project.
Making assumptions about household size, the characteristics of the residents and what type of
parks facilities they may demand is difficult. Single family homes may initially tend to attract larger
households, such as families with children who may play organized sports which generate a lot of
need for active park facilities. But those families will age and the child ren may leave home, reducing
the population in those homes. Resident’s recreation preferences will change over time as they age
and as homes turn over to new residents. Apartments may attract singles, whose demands on
parks may be different than those of families. But on the other hand, economic changes may
encourage families to occupy multi-family dwellings, making it difficult to predict the park needs of
higher density developments.
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 7
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
In communities like Corcoran with large rural areas, there may be a concern that residents in the
rural portion of the community do not benefit from the park system in the same way as the residents
of the urban area. Residents may have room for some amenities (such as play equipment or sport
courts) on their own property, or may be scattered long distances that make walking to
neighborhood parks difficult. However, these rural residents may derive greater benefit from trails
than residents in more densely populated areas, and will benefit from the community-wide facilities
(for example, athletic fields) that cannot be provided on an individual basis. Conversely, residents in
the urban area may live in developments that provide amenities to residents (such as a play
structure or a swimming pool) that could replace their use of some public park facilities. One way of
dealing with this is to ensure that each new resident contributes equitably to the planned public
facilities that they all will share regardless of the private amenities available at their homes. The
current ordinance also gives the city discretion to give some credit if developments provide facilities
that meet the need for neighborhood parks within a development.
6. Alternative Park Dedication Schedule
It appears that some changes to the percentage dedication required for each land use type should
be made to ensure that each type of development contributes its proportionate share of park
dedication for the new residents it will bring to the community. The percentages of land to be
dedication will also need to increase to provide sufficient funding for the planned park system.
Table 6 shows the population that could be added to the community in the various residential land
use categories, assuming that the lowest density areas are all single family detached units and the
highest density areas are all multi-family housing types. A minimum, maximum and average are
shown for each category.
Table 6: Expected Population Density by Land Use Category
Units per Acre Persons per Acre
Land Use Category HH Size Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
Rural/Ag Residential 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.28 0.28 0.28
Low Density Residential 2.8 3 5 4 8.40 14.00 11.20
Medium Density Residential 1.9 5 8 7 9.50 15.20 12.35
Mixed Residential 1.9 8 10 9 15.20 19.00 17.10
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 1.9 10 20 15 19.00 38.00 28.50
For the purpose of long range planning, it may make the most sense in this case to use the
minimum population density. The acreage figures used in the park dedication analysis did not
appear to include any allowances for undevelopable property, such as wetlands. Also, the
Comprehensive Plan assumes that planned park facilities are needed at full build-out of the MUSA,
so the development in the MUSA needs to provide sufficient park dedication to fund the system,
even if actual development occurs at the low end of the range permitted.
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 8
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
Table 7 shows the maximum population at full build-out of the MUSA, using the minimum of the
density range allowed in each land use category.
Table 7: Expected Population at Build Out, Average Densities
Land Use Category Acres
Persons
per Acre Population
Rural/Ag Residential 1,240 0.28 347
Low Density Residential 2,716 8.40 22,814
Medium Density Residential 147 9.50 1,397
Mixed Residential 555 15.20 8,436
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 386 19.00 7,334
40,328
Each new resident’s proportionate share of the park system would be the cost of the park system
($57,205,390 after deducting the 5% share for non-residential development) divided by the
population served (40,328) to equal the per capita share: $1,418.
The per capita share can then be multiplied by the number of persons per acre to determine the park
dedication that must be contributed for each acre of land to be developed. Comparing that amount
to the value of the land yields the new percentage of land value to be dedicated in each land use
category, shown on Table 8.
Table 8: Proposed Dedication by Land Use Category
Land Use Category
Person
s per
Acre
Dedication
per Acre ($1,418
per capita)
Land Value per
Acre
% Land
Value
Rural/Ag Residential 0.28 397 $ 10,000 4%
Low Density Residential 8.40 11,915 $ 80,000 15%
Medium Density Residential 9.50 13,476 $ 80,000 17%
Mixed Residential 15.20 21,561 $ 80,000 27%
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 19.00 26,951 $ 125,000 22%
For Commercial/Industrial Development, the % of land value may be calculated by dividing its share
of park costs (5% of the total cost, or $3,010,810 ) by the total acres (728) to yield the contribution
per acre ($4,135.) This is approximately 3% of the land value ($4,135 divided by $125,000 per
acre.)
Table 9 on the next page is the same as Table 3, except that the new percentage land dedication
requirements, as were calculated above, have replaced the percentages of the existing ordinance.
The total amount of dedication that could be generated is close to the projected cost of the park
system. (The difference is due to rounding of calculations.)
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 9
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
7. Cash in Lieu of Land Contribution
In many cases, the park plan will not call for land to be dedicated in a particular subdivision and the
city will request cash in lieu of land. The current ordinance states that:
“The City Council may identify a maximum park dedication fee per residential unit. The
subdivider shall pay the lesser of the per unit fee or the equivalent cash market value
calculated using the table above [the percentage of land value] for residential land use
dedication requirements.”
For 2016, Corcoran’s cash park fee is set at $4,000 per unit in the MUSA, and $3,000 outside of the
MUSA (Ordinance No. 2015-312.)
In practice, cities often have set this fee by considering what neighboring cities charge. While it may
be comfortable to know what the “market” is for park fees, it is probably not defensible given the
statutory requirements as it has no relationship to local land values or to the city’s park plan.
A simple approach would be to set the cash-in-lieu of land fee based on the per capita share of park
costs calculated above ($1,418 .) The fee for single family units would be $1,418 X 2.8 (the average
household size) or $3,970. The fee for multi-family units would be $1,418 X 1.9, or $2 ,694 .
The current ordinance states that the current fee is the maximum that may be charged. If the City
determines that the per-capita fee is the equitable basis for estimating the demand on the park
system, this fee could be set as a minimum, not the maximum.
The existing ordinance allows for the fee to be determined on a case-by-case basis requiring that an
appraisal of the land be submitted and the cash contribution calculated on the percentage of the
land value. This is a sensible approach given the variation in land values, and gives the City and
developer some room for negotiation. In the case of small land divisions where the cost of an
Table 9: Proposed Dedication Requirements with 2016 Costs and Values
Land Use Category Acres
% Land
Dedicated Land Value Cash Value
Rural/Ag Residential 1,240 4% $ 10,000 496,000
Low Density Residential 2,716 15% $ 80,000 32,592,000
Medium Density Residential 147 17% $ 80,000 1,999,200
Mixed Residential 555 27% $ 80,000 11,988,000
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 386 22% $ 125,000 10,615,000
Commercial and Industrial 728 3% $ 125,000 2,730,000
Total Potential Value of Land or Cash in Lieu
$ 60,420,200
Approximate Cost of Park System $ 60,216,200
Difference: $ 204,000
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 10
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
appraisal might be excessive, the city could waive that requirement and accept the minimum fee
based on the per capita share, as described above.
8. Draft Ordinance Amendments
A draft amendment to Section 955.020, Subd. 6 , of the City Code has been prepared to reflect the
alternative park dedication schedule as described above. The amendment would make the following
changes:
• The table of land use dedication requirements would be revised to incorporate the
percentage requirements listed in Table 9, above.
• The maximum park dedication fee per residential unit would become the minimum fee.
• The text of Section C below the table (commercial and industrial uses) would be amended to
match the dedication requirement (3%) as shown in the amended table.
• A new paragraph (new Section D) has been added to clarify that for mixed use development,
park dedication requirements will be pro-rated based on the acres of land devoted to each
type of land use.
• The text of Section D, Determination of Fair Market Value, would be replaced with new
language from the 2013 amendment of Minn. Stat. Section 462.358, Subd. 2b, as follows:
“The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by the City
annually based on tax valuation or other relevant data. If the City’s calculation of
valuation is objected to by the applicant, then the value shall be as negotiated
between the City and the applicant, or based on the market value as determined by
the City based on an independent appraisal of land in a same or similar land use
category.”
Changes to the cash in lieu of land fee would also require an amendment to Ordinance No. 2015-
312, the ordinance that adopted the City’s 2016 fee schedule.
Annually, when the City updates its fee schedule, the assessor should be consulted on any changes
in land values, cost estimates should be updated for inflation, and the minimum park fee
recalculated.
9. Next Steps
After the Council has completed its discussion of this report and the draft ordinance amendments,
the next steps would be:
• Parks and Trails Commission meeting—review report and draft ordinance (tentative date:
May 17)
• Planning Commission meeting—public hearing on draft ordinance amendment (tentative
date: June 2)
• City Council adoption of ordinance amendment (tentative date: June 23)
Park Dedication Ordinance Update 11
April 20, 2016 for April 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Updated 5/9/16
Attachments:
A. Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2011 Report
B. Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2016 Update
C. Population, Dedication and % of Land Value Calculations
D. Draft Amendment to Section 955, Park Dedication
E. Park Dedication Examples
Attachment A: Corcoran Park Dedication
Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2011 Report
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 Playfields 1 40 2 15 70 1 30 1 0
Open Space Park 0 0 1 20 60 1 60 1 2
Totals 63 365 302
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
Parks
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 $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 $80,000 $4,000,000 $7,000,000
Athletic Complex 1 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 120 120 $80,000 $9,600,000 $12,100,000 0
Community Playfields 1 $500,000 $500,000 15 15 $80,000 $1,200,000 $1,700,000 0
Open Space Park 0 0
Outside MUSA
Open Space Park 1 $40,000 $40,000 20 20 $20,000 $400,000 $440,000
$24,640,000 $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, lg. 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 playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities/irrigation, trails, picnic shelter/restrooms/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.
Trails
Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost Facility Cost
Acres
Required Unit Cost Land 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)4 $100,000 $400,000 $400,000
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)130,000 $25 $3,250,000 60 $20,000 $1,060,000 $4,310,000
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 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
$15,474,750
Notes:
2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement
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.
Land + Facility
Cost
2030 Park Facility + Land Costs
Land CostFacility Costs
Land + Facility
Cost
2020 Park Facility + Land Costs
Facility CostsLand Cost
Total Park Development Costs to Year 2020 Total Park Development Costs to Year 2030
2030 Park Facility Needs
Existing Parks Future Parks Additonal Needs 2020/2030 Distribution
Land +
Facility Cost
Land Cost
2020 Park Development Costs
2030 Park Development Costs
2030 Trail Development Costs
$24,640,000
$2,360,000
$15,474,750
$42,474,750
Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030
CostSystem Item
Grand Total Costs
Total Trail Development Costs to Year 2030
2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs
1. Land costs: $80,000/acre (MUSA) and $20,000/acre (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.
3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding.
Facility Costs
Attachment A Park Dedication Facilities and Land Cost 2011.xlsx 4/18/2016
5a.
Attachment B: Corcoran Park Dedication
Park Facilities and Land Cost Estimates, 2016 Update
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 Playfields 1 40 2 15 70 1 30 1 0
Open Space Park 0 0 1 20 60 1 60 1 2
Totals 63 365 302
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
Parks
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 $484,000 $1,936,000 7 28 $80,000 $2,240,000 $4,176,000 2 $484,000 $968,000 7 14 $80,000 $1,120,000 $2,088,000
Community Parks 2 $1,815,000 $3,630,000 25 50 $80,000 $4,000,000 $7,630,000 1 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 25 25 $80,000 $2,000,000 $3,815,000
Athletic Complex 1 $3,025,000 $3,025,000 120 120 $80,000 $9,600,000 $12,625,000 0
Community Playfields 1 $605,000 $605,000 15 15 $80,000 $1,200,000 $1,805,000 0
Open Space Park 1 $48,400 $48,400 20 20 $80,000 $1,600,000 $1,648,400 1 $48,400 $48,400 20 20 $80,000 $1,600,000 $1,648,400
Outside MUSA
Open Space Park 1 $48,400 $48,400 20 20 $10,000 $200,000 $248,400
$27,884,400 $7,799,800
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, lg. 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 playfields, tennis court, parking, lighting, fencing, utilities/irrigation, trails, picnic shelter/restrooms/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, 201restrooms, picnic area, and design fee. 2016: added 1 Community Playfield to 2030 Facility and Land Costs.
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 2016; Turner Construction cost index for Park Facilities shows an approximate 21% increase in non-residential construction costs from 2010 to the first quarter of 2016.
8. Added estimate for 2 Open Space Parks in MUSA missing from 2011 estimates.
Trails
Inside MUSA Qty Unit Cost Facility Cost
Acres
Required Unit Cost Land Cost
On Road Trail (LF)167,000 $0 $0
Off Road Trail (LF)132,000 $55 $7,260,000 61 $80,000 $4,880,000 $12,140,000
Off Road Trail -Gasline (LF)8,000 $55 $440,000 4 $80,000 $320,000 $760,000
Road Crossings (Each)4 $41,000 $164,000 $164,000
Outside MUSA
County Bike Trail (LF)19,500 $55 $1,072,500 $1,072,500
On Road Trail (LF)82,000 $20 $1,640,000 $1,640,000
Off Road Trail (LF)130,000 $55 $7,150,000 60 $10,000 $530,000 $7,680,000
Off Road Trail - Gasline (LF)15,500 $55 $852,500 7 $10,000 $70,000 $922,500
Horseback Trail (LF)14,000 $8 $112,000 $0 $112,000
Road Crossings (Each)1 $41,000 $41,000 $41,000
$24,532,000
Notes:
2. Trail Costs are based on a 10' bituminous trail with a 20' wide easement
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.
6. Road crossings assume rapid flashing beacon (2 per) and countdown timers on signals (4 per) at an existing signal.
7. On Road trails assume 4-travel lanes to 2 -travel lanes with blackout of existing lines and striping new lines including bicycle lanes. Assumes no signal modifications.
8. Off road trails include associated signage.
9. Costs updated April 2016 using using trail planning estimates developed by Hennepin County.
Total Trail Development Costs to Year 2030
2030 Trail Facility + Land Costs
1. Land costs: $80,000/acre (MUSA) and $10,000/acre (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.
3. On Road & County Bike Trail Costs assume a 50% cost share with County, State Aid, or other participant funding.
Facility Costs
Land +
Facility Cost
Land Cost
2020 Park Development Costs
2030 Park Development Costs
2030 Trail Development Costs
$27,884,400
$7,799,800
$24,532,000
$60,216,200
Grand Total Park + Trail Facility Costs through 2030
CostSystem Item
Grand Total Costs
Total Park Development Costs to Year 2020 Total Park Development Costs to Year 2030
2030 Park Facility Needs
Existing Parks Future Parks Additonal Needs 2020/2030 Distribution
Land + Facility
Cost
2030 Park Facility + Land Costs
Land CostFacility Costs
Land + Facility
Cost
2020 Park Facility + Land Costs
Facility CostsLand Cost
Attachment B Park Dedication Facilities and Land Cost 2016 Update.xlsx 4/18/2016
Attachment C: Corcoran Park Dedication
Population, Dedication and % of Land Value Calculations
Land Use Category HH Size Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average
Rural/Ag Residential 2.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.28 0.28 0.28 347 347 347
Low Density Residential 2.8 3 5 4 8.40 14.00 11.20 22,814 38,024 30,419
Medium Density Residential 1.9 5 8 7 9.50 15.20 12.35 1,397 2,234 1,815
Mixed Residential 1.9 8 10 9 15.20 19.00 17.10 8,436 10,545 9,491
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 1.9 10 20 15 19.00 38.00 28.50 7,334 14,668 11,001
40,328 65,819 53,073
Residential Per Capita Share of Park System Cost:1,418$ 869$ 1,078$
Residential Share Park System Estimated Cost (95%):57,205,390$
Land Use Category Acres
Land Value per
Acre Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average
Rural/Ag Residential 1,240 10,000$ 397$ 243$ 302$ 4%2%3%
Low Density Residential 2,716 80,000$ 11,915$ 12,168$ 12,072$ 15%15%15%
Medium Density Residential 147 80,000$ 13,476$ 13,211$ 13,312$ 17%17%17%
Mixed Residential 555 80,000$ 21,561$ 16,514$ 18,431$ 27%21%23%
High Density Residential/Mixed Use 386 125,000$ 26,951$ 33,027$ 30,719$ 22%26%25%
Dedication Per Acre
Units per Acre Persons per Acre Population at Build-Out
Percent of Land Value
Dedication Percentages.xlsx 4/18/2016
City of Corcoran Attachment D
County of Hennepin Report to City Council for April 28, 2016 Meeting
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-XXX
Page 1 of 3
Motion By:
Seconded By:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE CORCORAN CITY CODE,
ENTITLED CORCORAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CORCORAN ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Amendments. The text of Section 955.020, Subd. 6 of the Corcoran City Code is
hereby amended by deleting the stricken material and adding the underlined material as follows:
Subd. 6. Area of Dedicated Land. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the
City for park, trail and open space the percentage of net land area or
equivalent market value in cash identified below:
Residential Land Uses Dedication Requirements:
Land Use Category
based on the
Comprehensive Plan
Units per acre
(Density, Net – Pre-
Development)
Percentage of land
or equivalent market
value in cash
Rural/Ag Residential Less than 3 10% 4%
Low Density Residential 3-5 11% 15%
Medium-Density
Residential
6-8 12% 17%
Mixed Residential 8-10 13% 27%
High-Density Residential
and Mixed-Use
10+ 14% 22%
Commercial and
Industrial
N/A 5% 3%
A. The City Council may identify a maximum minimum park dedication
fee per residential unit. The subdivider shall pay the lesser of the per
unit fee or the equivalent cash market value calculated using the table
above for residential land use dedication requirements.
B. The City Council shall review park dedication fee requirements
periodically, to ensure that the required fee remains consistent with park
and trail system development costs.
C. Commercial and industrial land uses: D edication requirement
is five percent (5%3%) of land or equivalent market value in
cash.
City of Corcoran Attachment D
County of Hennepin Report to City Council for April 28, 2016 Meeting
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-XXX
Page 2 of 3
C.D. Dedication requirements for mixed use development will be pro-
rated based on the acres of land devoted to each type of land use.
D.E. Developments that include memory care and assisted living units
shall apply the commercial rate to the percentage of memory care and/or
assisted living units that are in the project, multiplied by the project net
acres.
E.F. 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.
F.G. Determination of Fair Market Value. To determine the fair
market va lue of the undeveloped land, the Developer shall submit
a current appraisal at the time of preliminary plat application. The
City may then obtain a review appraisal as a validation of the
Developer's appraisal. If staff and the Developer are unable to
agre e on fair market value, the City Council will make the
determination of fair market value. The fair market value of the
undeveloped land shall be determined by the City annually based on
tax valuation or other relevant data. If the City’s calculation of
valuation is objected to by the applicant, then the value shall be as
negotiated between the City and the applicant, or based on the
market value as determined by the City based on an independent
appraisal of land in a same or similar land use category.
G.H. 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 part of the proposed public site shall be
designated as such and should be dedicated to the City, based on
the area of land dedication required by this ordinance.
H.I. Deviation from Required Dedication. The dedication requirements
based on the development's proportional share of the City park system
are presumptively appropriate.
City of Corcoran Attachment D
County of Hennepin Report to City Council for April 28, 2016 Meeting
State of Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2016-XXX
Page 3 of 3
I.J. Wetlands and Ponding Areas. Existing wetlands drainage ways
accepted by the City shall not be considered in the parkland and/or cash
contribution to the City.
(Ord. 291, passed 12-11-14)
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its publication and
passage.
VOTING AYE VOTING NAY
Guenthner, Ken Guenthner, Ken
Keefe, Mike Keefe, Mike
LaFave, Tonya LaFave, Tonya
Hank, Pat Hank, Pat
Thomas, Ron Thomas, Ron
Whereupon, said Ordinance is hereby declared adopted on this _______ day of June,
2016.
___________________________________
Kenneth Guenthner - Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Seal
Jessica Beise– City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator
Park Dedication Examples Attachment E
City of Corcoran, April 2016
Strehler Estates- Project Data Park Dedication Calculations
Land Only Existing Alternative
Land Use Category Rural Ag Residential % of Land to be Dedicated:10%4%
Gross Acres 80.09 Required Acres:4.76 1.90
Net Acres 63.4 Value Acres to be Dedicated:47,550$ 19,020$
Land Value/Acre 10,000$ (Assumed)Land Value Per Unit 15,850$ 6,340$
Total Lots Platted 4 Land Value Per Capita 5,661$ 2,264$
Existing Homes 1
Lots Subject to Dedication 3 75%Cash Only
Expected Population SFD 8.4 2.8 Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit 3,000$ 3,970$
Total Cash In Lieu 9,000$ 11,910$
Cash in Lieu per Capita 1,071$ 1,418$
Peachtree PUD- Project Data Park Dedication Calculations
Land Only Existing Alternative
Land Use Category Low Density Residential % of Land to be Dedicated:11%15%
Gross Acres 103.32 Required Acres:9.95 13.57
Net Acres 90.45 Value Acres to be Dedicated:318,225$ 433,943$
Land Value/Acre 31,984$ (Appraisal)Land Value Per Unit 1,294$ 1,764$
Total Lots Platted 246 Land Value Per Capita 474$ 647$
Single Family 226
Multi Family 20 Cash Only
Existing Homes 0 Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit SF 4,000$ 3,970$
Lots Subject to Dedication 246 100%Cash in Lieu Fee per Unit Multi 4,000$ 2,694$
Expected Population SFD 633 2.8 Total Cash In Lieu 984,000$ 951,100$
Expected Population Multi 38 1.9 Cash in Lieu per Capita 1,467$ 1,418$
Total Population 671
Combination (based on PUD Plan)
Required Acres 9.95 13.57
Acres Dedicated 2.88 2.88
% Land 29%21%
% Cash 71%79%
Cash contribution 699,170$ 749,208$
8b.
CITY OF CORCORAN
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763.420.2288 – Office 763.420.6056 – Fax
E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us
MEMO
Meeting Date: May 17, 2016
To: Parks and Trails Commission
From: Brad Martens, City Administrator
Re: Neighborhood Park Research
______________________________________________________________________
Zoe Kesselring, Seasonal Recreation Coordinator has completed a project of reviewing
2 - 5 acre parks in the metro area and compiling a document with an overview of each
park as well as trends in parks and recreation. Attached to this report is that information
which will be used as background information for planning the Ravinia neighborhood
park.
Attachments:
1. Ravinia Park Exploration
Ravinia Park Exploration
The City of Corcoran
May 2016
Proposed Park Amenities:
Play amenities for children of all ages
Seating for adults
Water for drinking
Toilet
Lighting (solar/timed)
Plantings (trees/native/prairie)
Shade structure (pergola or similar)
Community fire pit
Grills
Shelter
Community garden
Park Objectives:
Natural design
Low maintenance
Serve all ages
Connect trail system
Efficient use of space
Review of Local Neighborhood Parks
Sunnyview Park, Crystal
3.01 Acres
Amenities
Basketball Court
Soccer Field
Playground Equipment
Softball Diamond
Sunnyview Park is graded lower than the street which cuts down on sight lines into
the park and playground equipment. The park has a small softball diamond but it has
grown over. This shows that it was either under used or not cared for. The most
successful part of this park is the use of shade in the playground area. The trees are
well placed to shade the seating area and park during the heat of the day.
Hilltop Park, Hopkins
3.5 Acres
Amenities
BBQ Grill
Ice Skating Rink
Playground Equipment
Softball Diamond
Tables
Sledding Hill
Hilltop Park is aptly named. Located on a high point in the city, the park has a large
hill on one side that would be great for sledding in the winter and is shaded by large
oak trees for hillside picnics in the summer. This park is mostly open space with only
a small playground, grown over ball field, and single grill and picnic table offered as
amenities. The lack of programed spaces allows for multiple users but doesn’t make
the park a destination. Not allowing dogs may also make some users feel unwelcome.
Hackberry Park, Orno
4 Acres
Amenities
Playground Equipment
T-ball Diamond (2)
Soccer Field
Ice Rink
Portable Toilets May-September
Basketball Court
Hackberry Park is broken into two sections by a long ridge running lengthwise
through the park. On the lower level are two T-ball diamonds with plenty of bench
seating. There is also a small soccer field. On the top of the ridge are the picnic tables,
playground equipment, and basketball court. The upper level is littered with large
shade trees which provide a nice respite from the very sunny fields below. The ridge
helps separate users and makes the playground feel more private while also
providing a place to sled in the winter. Parking is an issue with narrow streets
surrounding the park and no designated parking area.
Green Oaks Park, Plymouth
5 Acres
Amenities
Picnic Tables
Basketball
Softball/Baseball
Trails
Portable Toilet
Hackberry Hill is surrounded by homes but it feels
natural and secluded because it is lined with
evergreen trees and shrubs which provide a natural
barrier. The playground is broken into two sections
by user age groups. The park is lined on one edge
by a drainage ditch which limits entrance to one
path on that side. There is a half basketball court
but room for a full had they wanted it. This park
also has a nice sledding hill and nicely shaded
seating.
Morningside Park, Medina
2.4 Acres
Amenities
Playground Equipment
Picnic Shelter
Small Baseball Diamond
Basketball Hoop
Open Play Area
Ice Skating Rink
Morningside Park has two covered picnic structures,
one small pavilion and one covered single table. This
offers a nice place for users to escape the elements.
They also offer a lot of shade in the picnic/playground
area while leaving the open spaces sunnier. The
baseball diamond is lined with a lot of seating for
players and spectators. The park also offers bags and
garbage for cleaning up after pets. This is a nice way to
help dog owners feel welcome while encouraging them
to follow city laws to clean up after pets.
Nottingham Park, Maple Grove
5.27 Acres
Amenities
Ballfield
Basketball Court
Parking
Playground Equipment
Skating Rink
Trail
Nottingham Park is very connected to the local trail
system. It has a wooded area with trails for mountain
biking. It also offers nice seating and some light
shade. More shade should be coming as the newly
planted trees grow. The park has a natural feel since it
is surrounded by trees. The park also has a nice
parking lot which makes it easier for people from
other neighborhoods to visit the park.
Fox Meadow Park, Edina
4 Acres
Amenities
Playground Equipment
Gazebo
Benches
Trails
Fox Meadow Park has a very natural feeling. A trail runs through the park
in a figure 8. There is a grove of trees in the center of one loop and a
prairie in the center of the other. There are also benches along the trail for
resting and enjoying the views. It is a good place to pass through or stop
and stay awhile.
Seeman Park, Golden Valley
4.6 Acres
Amenities
Playground Equipment
Basketball Court
Tennis Courts (2)
Baseball Field
Game Squares
Trails
Seeman Park packs a lot into a small space. It is a very flat
space which makes it great for all of the courts and fields it
houses. In 4.6 acres there’s a baseball diamond, soccer field,
basketball court, additional court space, two tennis courts,
and a playground. Not to mention the open multiuse space.
The park has something for everyone, though it does feel
crowded and not very natural, it shows just how much you
can do with less than 5 acres.
Cottageville Park
4.1 Acres
Amenities
Playground Equipment
Basketball Court
Tables and Benches
Creekside Trail
Drinking Fountain
Pavilion (in construction)
Of all the parks visited, Cottageville Park seemed to be the most in line with the goals of Ravinia Park. It
had a very natural feel. Even the playground equipment had a natural and unique look. The park has many
native plantings which are low maintenance and require less water. The park incorporated a community
garden which is one of the long term goals for Ravinia Park. They are currently building a beautiful pavilion
(rendering above) and the space could be used for weddings and family reunions in the future.
Successes:
Green Edges
Good sight lines to the playground
Spaces that serve multiple purposes
Clear, accurate signage
Connected via trails
Safe parking (cars and bikes)
Space for winter activities
Failures:
Lack of shade
Lack of trails
Ball fields going unused and uncared for
Large swaths of sod without any definition or interest
Things to Consider
How will users get to the park? Walk? Drive? Bike? Provide parking for cars/bikes if you wish to serve the greater community.
Shade is very important for picnic areas and playgrounds. Consider how the shade will change throughout the day.
If a community garden is a long term goal, be sure to consider water access for watering plants.
Winter use (ice skating rink, sledding hill)
Trends in Parks and Recreation
Natural Playgrounds
Splash Pads
http://recmanagement.com/feature/201604FE01/
Native Planting
Low Maintenance
Serve local wildlife
Deeper roots limit erosion and runoff
Storm Water Management
Outdoor Exercise Equipment
http://recmanagement.com/201205gc03.php
Landform®, SensiblyGreen® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.
1
MEMORANDUM
105 South Fifth Street,
Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Tel: 612-252-9070
Fax: 612-252-9077
www.landform.net
DATE April 20, 2016
TO Brad Martens
CC City Council, Planning Commission, Parks & Trails Commission
FROM Kendra Lindahl, City Planner
RE Active Corcoran Planning Applications
The following is a summary of project status for current, active projects:
1.Design Guidelines Update for Southeast District/Downtown (city file 15-021). The City received
funding from Hennepin County for this project. The Project Management Team (PMT) includes the
city administrator, city planner and Hennepin County staff. The final community open house was held
on March 14th. The Parks and Trails Commission recommended approval at their April 19th meeting
and the item is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission on May 5th and City Council
adoption on May 26th.
2.Park Place Storage request for Rezoning, Variance, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and
Preliminary Plat (City file 16-002). The City Council reviewed a sketch plan last year for expansion
of the existing mini-storage facility. The applicant has submitted the application, but is working to
provide additional information for completeness. The project is on hold while they work through
wetland issues.
3.Private Drive Ordinance Amendment (City file 16-003). The City Council approved an ordinance
amendment allowing private drives in the Rural Residential district, subject to certain conditions.
However, after adoption the City Council directed staff to revisit this issue and consider an ordinance
amendment to eliminate the requirement that private drives off paved roads must be paved. Staff has
tentatively scheduled this item for a public hearing at the Planning Commission on May 5th and City
Council adoption on May 26th.
4.Ravinia 4th Addition Final Plat, PUD Final Plan and Vacation (City file 16-004). Lennar has
submitted an application for 44 single family homes. This area was originally planned for detached
townhomes on 60-foot wide lots. The applicant is proposing to modify the plan to provide the new
Discovery series single family homes on 55-foot lots. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the final PUD plan at their April 7th meeting and City Council is expected to take action on
April 28th.
5.City-Initiated Park Dedication Ordinance Update (City File 14-007 and 16-006). Staff was directed
to bring back other potential amendments for consideration in 2015, including revisions to clarify
whether or not existing homes are subject to park dedication when part of a plat, how to ensure that
land dedication in the rural areas is fairly required and a review of our park dedication requirements.
The Council authorized this as a priority for 2016. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance for City
Council consideration at their April 28th meeting. The item would then be scheduled for Parks and
Trails Commission review in May, a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council
adoption in June.
Agenda Item 9b.
MEMORANDUM 2
6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Solar Gardens (city file 16-008). Staff received a written
request and escrow from Potentia Solar, Inc. to consider an amendment to allow solar gardens in the
City of Corcoran. They have specifically requested that they be allowed in the UR zoning district, but
staff prepared a number of issues for City Council for direction. We expect an initial draft to be
presented at the March 24th Council meeting. The item could then be scheduled for Parks and Trails
Commission review on April 19th, Public Hearing at the Planning Commission on May 5th and City
Council adoption on May 26th.
7. Randahl Construction Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Amendment at 7241 CR 116 (City
file 16-012). Randahl Construction has submitted an application for approval of a CUP and site plan
amendment for outside storage at the old Heidi’s property. The application was received on April 19th,
staff is reviewing the application for completeness, but expect this item to be scheduled for Planning
Commission and City Council in June.
Also, there are a number of projects that have been approved, but are still not filed and closed out:
1. Corcoran Business Park (City file 06-005). The City Council granted a one year extension to the
final plat approval, which expired on April 12, 2011. Staff has spoken to the applicant and is still
working to close out this project. Staff has spoken to the applicant and will schedule a meeting when
more information is available on the Loretto sewer project.
2. Hope Ministries Conditional Use Permit for Cemetery and Vacation of Drainage & Utility
Easement at 19951 Oswald Farm Road (City file 12-002). Hope Ministries submitted a request for a
conditional use permit to allow a cemetery west of the existing church. The application was approved
by the City Council on March 22nd and site work had begun. The letter of credit for site improvements
has been released but we are holding the escrow pending completion of the approved landscaping.
The applicant has indicated that they are considering a site plan amendment application to modify the
approved plans. Staff met again with Pastor Brian Lother in December to try to finalize this issue and
address some other questions or concerns from him. We hope to be able to wrap this up in the near
future.
3. Lano Equipment at 23580 Highway 55 Site Plan Modifications for Cold Storage Building. (31-
119-23-34-0007) (13-006). This item was approved by the City Council on July 11th. All required
improvements have been made. Staff has reduced the letter of credit and is keeping a very small
letter of credit in place to ensure the landscaping survives one year as required by the City Code.
4. Ess Brothers Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for an accessory
building at 9350 County Road (PID # 07-119-23-43-0004) (City File No. 13-031) The applicant
requested approval of a 5,500 square feet detached, accessory building with 20-foot sidewalls. The
City Council approved this item on January 23rd. The applicant must comply with all conditions of
approval (which require landscaping improvements) and then staff will inspect before refunding any
remaining escrow. The landowner recently contacted staff with an updated landscape plan and
indicated that the planting would occur this month.
5. Sawgrass Preliminary Plat, Preliminary PUD Development Plan and Rezoning for on Schendel
property at 20400 County Road 10 (City file 14-027). The City Council approved the request on
December 11, 2014 and granted the applicant 2 years to apply for the final plat and final PUD
development plan. Peachtree Partners did not buy the property, but a different developer could still
proceed with the approved plan. The next step would be for a developer to submit a final PUD plan
and plat prior to expiration of the approvals on December 11, 2016.
6. Corcoran Public Works Site Plan Amendment and Variance (city file 15-006). The site plan
amendment and variance are to grant after-the-fact approvals for changes to the approved site plan
that were made in the field and generally authorized by the subcommittee. The gravel drive and
storage area that was added on the south area of the fenced yard requires a variance. The item was
reviewed and approved in April 2015. Final landscaping and close out issues will occur this spring.
MEMORANDUM 3
7. Commercial Door Addition at 7670 Commerce Street (City file 15-010) The City received an
application for approval of a building addition, which required a conditional use permit, interim use
permit, variance and site plan approval. The project was reviewed at a public hearing at the June 4th
Planning Commission meeting and was approved by the City Council on June 25th. The required
landscaping will be finalized and constructed after the downtown infrastructure project is completed.
The City will release the remaining escrow when the planting is completed.
8. Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a new Verizon Monopole at 23605 Co Rd 50 (PID30-
119-23-21-0001) (City File 15-016). Verizon has requested a conditional use permit and site plan for
a new telecommunications tower on the Gleason property located at the southwest corner of County
Roads 19 & 50. The public hearing was held at the Planning Commission on July 7th and they voted
unanimously to recommend approval. The City Council approved this item on July 23rd. The
applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will apply for a building permit.
9. “Fehn Meadows” Preliminary Plat and Final Plat at 20909 County Road Number 117 (PID # 03-
119-23-12-0002 and PID 03-119-23-13-0001) (city file no. 15-018). The applicant is requesting
approval of a plat to readjust the lot lines between two parcels to create one lot and one outlot. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 3rd and voted unanimously to recommend
approval. The City Council approved the preliminary plat and final plat on October 8th. The next step
is for the applicant to address any conditions of approval, submit the mylars for City signature and
record the documents at the County.
8. “Strehler Estates” Final Plat (PID 17-119-23-32-0004) (city file no. 16-001). The applicant
submitted a request for approval of a preliminary plat to create 4 lots and an ordinance amendment to
allow a private drive for property at 22900 Strehler Road. The City Council approved both items on
October 8th. The final plat was approved by the City Council at the January 28th meeting. The
applicant is working to address the conditions of approval and then will record the final plat at
Hennepin County.
10a.
CITY OF CORCORAN
8200 County Road 116, Corcoran, MN 55340
763.420.2288 – Office 763.420.6056 – Fax
E-mail - general@ci.corcoran.mn.us / Web Site - www.ci.corcoran.mn.us
MEMO
Meeting Date: May 17, 2016
To: Parks and Trails Commission
From: Brad Martens, City Administrator
Re: City Council Report
______________________________________________________________________
The Parks and Trails Commission last met on April 19, 2016. The following is a recap of
a selection of items discussed at City Council meetings since that time. A full recap can
be found by reviewing the approved City Council minutes on the website
April 28, 2016
The following is a list of some of the items that are on the agenda for the April 28th
meeting. This report was completed prior to the meeting taking place:
• Annual Fire Department Reports – Hanover Fire Department, Loretto Fire
Department, Rogers Fire Department
o Heard updates from the Fire Chiefs of the Hanover Fire Department, Loretto
Fire Department, and Rogers Fire Department
• Elm Creek Watershed Commissioner Appointment – Jonathan Bottema
o Re-appointed Jonathan Bottema to the Elm Creek Watershed Commission
• Public Hearing – Ravinia 4th Addition Vacation (City file 16-004)
o Held the Public Hearing and approved the vacation of drainage and utility
easements necessary for Ravinia 4th Addition
• Ravinia 4th Addition PUD Final Plan and Plat (City file 16-004)
o Approved the final plat and development contract for Ravinia 4th Addition; this
includes the platting of 44 lots bringing the total number of approved lots to
145
• Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment – Draft for Council Review (City file 16-006)
o Council was presented a draft updated park dedication ordinance for review;
Council provided feedback on the draft ordinance which will next go to the
Parks and Trails Commission and Planning Commission
10a.
• Solar Ordinance Discussion (City file 16-008)
o Council showed support for moving forward with a solar ordinance; directed
staff to schedule a workshop for the city Council to include representatives
from solar companies and Xcel Energy
• 2015 Surplus Allocation
o Directed staff to use the 2015 surplus to eliminate an unfunded liability from a
previous development, allocate $150,000 towards reserves, and place the
remaining in a long range planning fund
• 2016 Road Stabilization Program
o Council directed staff on use of City funds to subsidize the program; called a
Public Hearing for May 26, 2016
May 12, 2016
The following is a list of some of the items that are on the agenda for the May 12th
meeting. This report was completed prior to the meeting taking place:
• Shaun Irwin – Anderson Insurance and Investment Agency, Inc
• 2015 Audit
• Compensation Study Survey Results
• Crew Leader Appointment – Brandon Heinz
Attachments:
N/A
10c.,
1 of 2
CITY OF CORCORAN
PARK CAPITAL FUND REPORT
May 10, 2016
Date Park
Dedication
Memorial
Park
Maintenance
01/16 2016 Beginning Balance 370,637.55 9,937.66
03/16 Garden Gate 300.00 (300.00)
03/16 Interest Earned 36.70 1.24
05/16 Garden Gate (180.00)
ENDING BALANCE 370,974.25 9,458.90 380,433.15
CASH FUNDS
CITY OF CORCORAN
FARMERS STATE SAVINGS
May 10, 2016
Savings
Date Expense Interest Revenue Balance
1/2016 2016 Beginning Balance 9,937.66
3/2016 Golden Gate (300.00) 9,637.66
5/2016 Golden Gate (180.00) 9,457.66
3/2016 Interest earned 1.24 9,458.90
9,458.90
(1,192.50)$ 6.45$ -$ 9,458.90$ TOTAL