1q. Park fees, commercial & industrial 0 CITY OF lta
14--
I
i- ' _ CHANHASSEN
1 , ,. , ,,..„-4.
u 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
�, llii'
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
IFROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: June 25, 1990
ISUBJ: Park Fees, Commercial and Industrial
I This item was not published as I did not realize that an
administrative oversight had occurred as a part of our last
amendment to the Park Dedication Ordinance. Specifically, the
I ordinance was amended to ensure that in residential areas where the
land acquisition was more than $12,500 per acre, that the City had
a means by which to collect a higher fee within that neighborhood.
I The idea of all this being that if we did collect that higher fee,
we would then have enough money in the bank to pay the higher
acreage acquisition cost associated with that neighborhood.
Somehow this same formula approach was carried into the
I commercial/industrial park charge sections (fees are established by
resolution) . A number of points need to be considered, i.e:
I - Park Needs Do Not Correlate With Prices of Land: Park
needs as generated by commercial or industrial property
do not have a direct correlation to the amount of money
I paid for that land. The needs are generated by the
employees, i.e. a commercial business and an industry
with the same number of employees should generally create
equal burdenstion our park systems. However, under the
I new formula, the commercial property pays approximately
6-8 times more than the industrial property; and
I - Park Acquisition Funding: The original goal of the
Council in establishing a higher charge within
residential areas which had higher than average
acquisition costs has justification. If ten 2-4 acre
Isubdivisions were approved, we would want to have the
money to purchase a five acre parcel within that
neighborhood area. The same principle does not apply
I within commercial areas. It is not reasonable to assume
that the City needs to collect a park charge based on an
average acquisition cost of $3.00, $4.00 or $5.00 per
Isquare foot ($120,000 to $200,000 per acre) so that we
I
Mayor and City Council
June 25, 1990
Page 2
could buy a five acre park in the middle of the
commercial area; and
- No One Recognized the Magnitude of the Modification for
Commercial Properties: The City Council recently
approved a new plat for McDonalds. It has to be
remembered that McDonalds has sufficient parking to
expand their dining area without considering the purchase
' of additional lands. If McDonalds would have solely
rearranged parking and sought that expansion, the City
would have no Oasis to ask for a park charge. However,
they did replat and purchase additional land to
' accommodate truck parking and better utilize the overall
site. Of the 40,000 sq. ft. purchased, 8,000 of such was
rededicated to the City for Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive
' widening and an additional 10,000 sq. ft. reserved as
unbuildable under the Wetland Ordinance. The park charge
under the ordinance would establish the park fee for this
plat (truck parking area only) of $21,300. The fee,
prior to the ordinance amendment, would be approximately
$1,500. The fee for PMT, prior to amendment, was
approximately $3,600 with the fee after amendment being
$16,200. If the fee would stay in effect, the park
charge for the new retail center would be $235,000.
' I have discussed this item with the City Attorney. It is his
position and my own that the City could not sustain this type of a
charging system. However, it really appears as though an
administrative error was made in including the scale system in the
commercial/industrial sections and it was clearly the intent of the
Council to make changes to the ordinance where deficiencies appear
to exist for residential subdivisions. This office would recommend
' that the Council waive its rules of procedure regarding advertising
an item prior to taking action and modify the existing resolution
to delete the scaling system for commercial/industrial properties,
i.e. modifying such to re-establish the flat $1,200 per acre park
' charge for commercial/industrial properties. If the Council wishes
to have the Park Commission review this item and potentially
consider an increase for commercial/industrial properties, such
could be added to the motion. However, recognizing the significant
number of building permits which are being issued each day and the
devastating effect that the resolution modification had to those
' businesses, this office strongly believes that re-establishing the
$1,200 per acre charge is essential.
' Approval of re-establishing the $1,200/acre park charge for
commercial is recommended.
TO.
* CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 23, 1989 RESOLUTION NO: 89-27 I/
MOTION BY: Johnson SECONDED BY: Boyt
I
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARK DEDICATION FEES AND TRAIL
DEDICATION FEES • I
WHEREAS, the City determines park dedication fees based on
land values, density, and a park acreage standard of 1 acre per
75 people. I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chanhassen that park dedication fees collected with I
building permit fees be established as follows:
Developments Whose Land Costs are $12,500/Acre or Less: I
Single family & duplex $500/unit
Multi family $350/unit
Commercial/Industrial $1,200/acre
I
Residential Developments Whose Land Costs Are Higher Than $12,500:
Density I
Units/Acre Percent of Land Value
( 0-2 9% '
2-4 11%
•
4-6 13%
6-8 15% I
8-10 17%
10+ 17% to 20%
Commercial Developments Whose Land Costs Are Higher Than $12,500:
I
10% of cost per acre
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that trail fees are established as 1/3 I
of the park dedication fee.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 1
27th day of February , 1989.
ATTEST:
I
411112 (l3L)T211) . ',,,: . _„, if '-' ----.■,•,_:,,',--.''S.- •-...-.
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donal•) el, Ma or
YES NO ABSENT
I
r Chmiel None Dimler
t Boyt
Johnson
Workman
II