7.1.-7.3. PRSR 04-30-1990 -\(
•Cityof TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Elk River FROM: PAT KLAERS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 26, 1990
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION 7 . 1 , 7 . 2 & 7 .3
7 .1 Parks Master Plan Presentation by Bill Sanders
The Draft #3 of the Parks Master Plan has been distributed
to the Park and Recreation Commission, the City Council
and the Planning Commission. This Draft has been reviewed
in the preliminary fashion by the Park and Recreation
Commission at its April, 1990, meeting. There are some
changes that are already known that have to take place in
this plan. For example, the comprehensive park system
plan map has a number of errors in it and changes that the
Commission would like to see take place. Additionally,
this map will have to be coordinated with the BRW land use
studies that are being reviewed.
• Attached for your information are the 4/4/90 Park and
Recreation Commission minutes . Previous Park and
Recreation Commission minutes, when the Park Master Plan
has been discussed, have been distributed to the City
Council through the monthly informational memos.
In review of the Master Plan, everyone should pay special
attention to the implementation section and the appendix
section. The implementation section talks about
priorities and finances for implementing the plan. The
appendix includes the draft plan for the focus area
studies at Hillside Park and Woodland Trails Park.
Additionally, the appendix section includes a number of
ordinances and policies that should be established and
implemented. These ordinances and policies require a
great deal of staff time and full implementation of the
plan may lead the City to the addition of a park and
recreation staff person.
Two additional issues that will need to be addressed
during this discussion include how the City will want to
inform the public about the contents of this Master Plan.
In this regard, the City may want to have a public hearing
on the proposal, or the City may simply want to provide
updates in future City newsletters. The point that the
City would like to get across to the public is that a
• community survey was conducted which advised the City of
the desire of the citizens for park and recreation
activities and that a plan has been put together which
responds to the needs of the citizens.
720 Dodge Ave. N.W. Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420
Another issue that will have to be addressed relates to •
the status of the comprehensive ark plan map. The City
P P P Y
has a number of official maps, but the final authority
rests within the zoning map. Attorney Tim Keane will be at
this meeting and will be able to discuss the status of
this park map.
I look forward to an interesting discussion with the City
Council, Park and Recreation Commission and Mr. Sanders
regarding the Master Plan and how it can be implemented.
Final approval of the plan is expected this summer
following approval of the BRW land use studies. Both
studies or reports should be incorporated into the Growth
Management Plan.
7 . 2 1990 Park Dedication Fund
Past practice in Elk River has been to use approximately
$25,000 a year of Park Dedication Funds on smaller park
improvements or parkland purchases. Attached for your
information is the recommendation from the Park and
Recreation Commission on what activities should take place
in 1990 that would be financed from the Park Dedication
Fund. It should be noted that in the Parks Master Plan,
Mr. Sanders is suggesting that these funds in the future
be held in reserve for parkland purchase and that
expenditures of this type be included within the City's
Capital Improvement Program. Such an arrangement is good
in theory but may not be able to be accomplished in Elk
River.
It should be noted that the Park Dedication Fund has a
balance of approximately $60,000. Additional revenues are
expected in 1990 . The attached list calls for
expenditures in the amount of approximately $25,000.
During the City CIP process, capital project funds were
designated for improvements to the Barrington Park and the
railroad trail . Also, funds have previously been
committed for the improvement of the Handke Pit warming
house ($7 ,000 ) , and part of the ongoing payment for the
purchase of the Woodland Trails Park ( $5,000) . Both of
these expenditures are planned for the Park Dedication
Fund.
7. 3 Apartment Park Dedication Fees
Since the 51 unit apartment complex is going up at the
School Street and Proctor Avenue intersection, there has •
been a great deal of discussion regarding obtaining park
dedication fees for apartment complexes. This discussion
is a continuation of a debate on the issue which took
place last year. Attached for your information is some
1
• background material regarding obtaining park dedication
fees for apartments, commercial development and industrial
development . Action has been taken to obtain these funds
for newly created commercial and industrial lots and when
more than one apartment building is developed on an
existing parcel of record. It has been indicated to all
groups that these funds cannot be obtained for development
on existing lots that are zoned correctly. Currently, a
park dedication fee can only be obtained if a parcel of
property is subdivided or the parcel has multiple
principal buildings on one lot. Additionally, fees can
only be obtained for the additional lot that is created or
the additional buildings that are constructed. The last
part of the motion from the 8/2/89 Park and Recreation
Commission minutes refers to the frustration the
Commission is experiencing regarding already subdivided
parcels. It will be important to clear up this issue
before any additional rezoning is done in relationship to
the BRW land use studies. If something can be done in
order to ensure future developments will pay park
dedication fees, then ordinances or resolutions will have
to be developed and adopted by the Council in order to
implement this fee collection process.
•
•
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1990
Orono Park
1 . Street lights 11 ea @ $300 $3000
2. Picnic Tables 20 ea @ $50 1000
3. Concrete pads for picnic tables 25 ea @ $75 1875
4. Retaining wall south of the beach 1500
11 . Lights at horseshoe pits 2 ea @ $300 600
Ridgewood East Park
17 . 1/2 Basketball Court (Asphalt Surface) $1250
Anda Park
19 . Access and entrance $1250
20. Fencing 4800
Depot Site
22 . Irrigation System $1500
23 . Planters 500
Woodland Trails
35. Additional Ski Trails (eqpmt . rntl . ) $ 900
36 . Culverts for Hiking/Ski Trails 500
Ballfield Complex
48. Limerock service area $2000
50 . Irrigation pump and valves 2400
51 . Bleacher safety improvements 500
Deerfield IV Park
55 . Grading and Seeding $1000
Total $24575
� r
Page 2
Elk River City Council Minutes
April 8, 1989
_
3. Rudehaven Video Tape
Tim Keane stated that the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, & Lindgren, LTD. Law
Firm had worked with Channel 23 and put together a humorous review of a
zoning and redevelopment issue. The video tape shows all parties of the
( development, the City staff, concerned neighbor, developer, engineer for
the developer, etc., as extreme examples of one point of view in the
zoning and redevelopment issue. The serious side of the video tape was
the fact that, in every development issue the City of Elk River works on,
there can be a little bit of the extremeness shown in each of the
Rudehaven characters.
4a. Apartments
The general issue of apartments within Elk River was discussed. Concern
was expressed about the rapid increase in the number of apartments as
compared to the total housing stock. It was noted that in 1984,
apartments comprised 12% of the total housing stock and in 1988 this
number had increased to 22%. The group discussed the appropriate
locations for apartments, the need to control the density of apartments,
the need to obtain park fees for all new living units constructed within
the community and appropriate design standards for apartments in order to
help manage the quality of units constructed. It was noted by the •
Attorney that the location and density of apartments is greatly
controlled by the City zoning ordinance and map.
The group discussed the need to do a "focus area" study of the two large
PUD areas as shown in the City Growth Management Plan. These two areas
are along west Highway #10 and Highway #169. The group also discussed
the need for the City to put together some design standards in order to
have more control over the quality of future developments.
COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH
THE CITY STAFF IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN STANDARDS,
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE APARTMENT DENSITY CONSIDERATIONS, FOR THE INDUSTRIAL,
COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITHIN ELK RIVER.
COUNCILMEMBER KROPUENSKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Page 3
Elk River City Council Minutes
April 8, 1989
Councilmember Dobel left at this time.
COUNCILMEMBER KROPUENSKE MOVED TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH •
THE CITY STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY
TO OBTAIN PARK DEDICATION FEES FOR NEW COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND ALL
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
4b. Growth Management Plan Mission Statement
-\(
TO: PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
of `
l kFROM: STEPHEN ROHLF, B & Z ADMINISTRATOR
River DATE: JUNE 27 , 1989 .5 6
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES
FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT
The Elk River Code of Ordinances has a provision for collecting
park dedication fees for commercial and industrial development,
as well as residential development . Currently, the City is only
collecting park dedication fees for residential developments .
At this time, the residential fee is $350.00 per dwelling unit .
A single-family house would be considered one unit; a 24 unit
apartment building would be considered 24 units.
At a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City
Council, both groups agreed that park dedication fees should be
collected for commercial and industrial development as well .
Attached to this memo are some examples of what other communities
charge for park dedication fees.
This fee needs only to be established by resolution of the City
Council . However, staff has been asked to get a recommendation
( • from both the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation
Commission . The Planning Commission has reviewed this subject
and their recommendation is as follows:
1 . That park dedication fees for commercial and industrial
development should be charged on a per unit basis.
2 . A unit is considered one acre.
3 . Commercial and industrial lots will be considered to be a
minimum of one unit (a one-half acre commercial or
industrial lot would still be charged one unit for park
dedication fees) .
4 . The charge per unit should be $2 ,000.
5 . Commercial and industrial lots over one acre in size would
be charged proportionately (a 11 acre commercial or
industrial lot would be charged 12 units equaling $3 ,000 in
this example) .
It is important that the City collect these fees to acquire and
develop an • adequate park system. However, it is also important
that we do not over charge with these fees and discourage
720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420
1
Page 2
Park and Recreation Commission
Park Dedication Fees
(7 411
development, especially industrial development which aids the
City's tax base. What has been proven reasonable to charge in
court is 10% of the raw land value of the parcel. With the
Planning Commission' s recommendation, commercial and industrial
property in Elk River would be worth $20,000 per acre of raw
land. This is certainly true for commercial property but
possibly not for industrial.
After the Park and Recreation Commission gives their
recommendation, staff will pass both the Planning Commission 's
and your recommendation on to the Council for approval of a
resolution establishing the fee.
•
i
•
• O N
O k
do O O O 0
O O > O O •
e-1 O O • do > • �" •O .\1
• orVi i O o H O o
44 44
O O d *1-1 O O N O O a r-1 N > O oo O •
N I ON0 0 H H 0 U) ceiLn 44 VH44 • • 0 aRI0 0 CO
0 i O o In 00 0 O > 0 4-14-1 a) V r-1
H O N e-O
H 0 44 • -.-t •-1 i4 a 4 4 iR o O 4� a U w Q \4404-1
•0 > c 00 3.4 W ('4 .0 a0i in 44 0 0) . m •
0 0 ••-) bt g 01
3U S~ 00 \ o O0 co N w 0
�
Ea : v-1 UH v' O 0 V 0
O a a
U M
Z Q e--11 r 4 a `''' � CO
m 44
H •0
H 4 > a > NC 14 •C O OC a
Q E•C C U) C s �U �4J E \
0
r•1 W W 0 Rs 4-3 R! 44 O S 1 Q N 0 O ro 44 N
z • b e-1•.i r 1 W 11) 0 • to O > ••-1 •-1 .44
0
WAoo A taN 44 N MTfH O g 0
• \ W V 44 ••-t in H in. 0) 1J 4► O
410 z
N .1.1 N ZR 4 C N O to CO
in
O i•4 oW e-1 ow ••-t RI CO *OP V 1 e 7 0 pe
H a •a• 1 v0 (-104 m in C g N m a
u a 0 r-1 c, r-4 44 a 0 4 44N---10 44 a4
id U •
i H x " .0 44
Q A E4 C •d •C •C
a X \ \4 o
•� C•
HO O «0
a A iR 44 4ii. 44
•
44 44
N e-1 `a' O O
401. n co O O
44 44. 44 44 44
tp it
a0i * m a O
a o ri a -I a
a• * a e o •o g
.SC N H 1.4
• in 0
al 4
RJ • p 30i ed 0 C
W U PI W = AOFOi
• -.
CD
Ui
C)
Rf
0 .
0 .
0
H
0
k
O
r-1 a
w
•
c -1 4 AIw 0
H 0 4-14-1 dA
to b 0 a) 0 W do do
•-4 \ c-i 0 •-1 0 0 34
U o n7 r-1 to H 0
0 ° •0> > r>1 > 0 ASro
0
r1 ttt N b • N O 0 N •
- 4,5 U 4-4). U 44 U H -424 •
Z
0
t
•
Q 0 0
U
•
\ N in N '0 '0
Z o . 1 1 I In b o o b
O WI to 0 N a o a ,-a
H rh N Cr) a in
H +•4 N ch N 44 4-1 444 44 tN
H • 0) a)
W
H 4-) H o o
IN A el tan re) N x a o 0 .t
44 b4 i4 64 4, 3a N N
� 44 � �
I'd -r1
`S
• ••-1 •rl ••-1 •-1 es-4 4-1 •r1 •.-1 44
Vl \ or \ \ do
0 0 o to to 0 0 0 0
In O O N N 1--1 o in 1--1
,1' e!' In en in N N
V} 44 44. 44 44 44 44 -
•
V
Ct) 4c 4c 4c 4c
'3 •ri V r�1 •ri 3 0 64 CO
a) .c b b > 0 0 3'4 x at 4 •
a u 3 0 0 Z a a 0 ca u
,
1
+
It
•
• 0
0 $4
34 34 U
0 0 0 O•al 0� 0
O •� 00 0
Rf N 000 0n to 10 .0 M
t Nan 0 M .
. • .N In H
b M I •d' N t0• •• I-I r-i r-1 ■
U 44 44 H r-I r") i4 44 49-
44 44 44
34
0 14 $4 O34
0 O O O
id O Ri O
O 0 In
eC) N 'c' N u1O .0 N
. Nu1 00 .
Or In 0 10 •(4 tf) to co
b r-I r-I lO • r--1 r-I N
Z 44 4,9- 44 r-I M 46 4R 44
4fJ•49-
0.1.) 0 14 34 O 34 0
V o o In O 0 O U
0 0 0 N 0 \ 0 0 \ IN
N t7• O o •0
PI • • oo M O 0 0 01
Z r-I tT co N •N I-- N e3'
o a r-I 44- M .. N N t0
In 4,5- a+ H N .14 44 4R
H 44 4i>•
o a) • 34 3344 . 0 30.1
O 0fil
0
>~ Z R, a) 0 0 0 0' 0 to
4) 0 a N 00 CO 0 00 0 0 0 0 '.0
0 0 .O V o Q C 10 N 0 r4 t• N N V'
•ft/ 0 0 3d H N r1 N N 43 M
4) 1-1 ►I a tick 4i} 44 4f!•44 4!! 4/I•
''s a g 0 a -,., 'v
O U) Cb OU
W C) N q' 0 C) N 0\ c
a H N In 0et, 00 N
. 0 .
b N er M �•. •
H N �O H Ol H •V'
it
W 44 44 44. 4f}44 r'1 44 4f! •
44
0
00 030.1 0
•0 0 o N \ O (0 CO
0 0 o Ntn 0 N. .
0 N CO to H N 0 0 N
a) co) • • .t0 •r-I r-I
A Off 'C' N 00 •
0 4+ H 4+H M 4+
fd 49- r-1 44
.0 a)
� b ro
•'-i E
wr 34 •••. in _
• 4.) g
0 •+•) a) 0 In S-I
0 to •r,41 OE 'C334 (0 H3xi (0`r 4VS0
C Ul J-�
M
E x4 c 0 � E r-4x Ha0 0040c 4) 14�
0,4) O •r1 o f-.-1 4 IT 0 )4 0 0 •r4 0 0
H 0 04 V a .0 V A •= r-4 30., 0 `f: U 0 o C rd 0
7 a)•n C 0 t!)•.-1 0•r! N Q•Ovs c �N 0
> 0 ICI VD I 3NN E < 4-i rn 044 riln M r-1
a) 31 ri 0Mv 0 40 , w14 044 44ftl 1-•1 CH
CI 0+ co co H s In`G4 in 0 .-• r-.1 0 '-.4 ri 0 44
Page 2
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
August 2, 1989
•
MARILYN VANPATTEN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE HIRING OF
MR. WILLIAM SANDERS OF SANDERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF
AN ELK RIVER PARKS MASTER PLAN, PARK AND RECREATION SURVEY, AND TWO FOCUS
AREA PARK STUDIES. BYRON HOUGHTELIN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 6-0.
6. ,Park Dedication Fees Review
The Commission reviewed a 6/27/89 memo from the Building and Zoning
Administrator, Stephen Rohlf, regarding Planning Commission discussion on
park dedication fees for commercial and industrial development. The memo
from Stephen included park dedication comparisons from other communities
where park dedication fees are obtained for commercial and industrial
development. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was that
these fees should be obtained on a per unit bases with one acre being
designated as a unit and that the charge should be $2,000 per unit. The
Park and Recreation Commission concurred with the need to collect this
fee based on the spin-off demands in the Park and Recreation area that is
caused by commercial and industrial development.
BYRON HOUGHTELIN MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE
$2,000 PER UNIT (1 ACRE) PARK DEDICATION FEE FOR NEW COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND FURTHER THAT THE CITY COUNCIL BE ADVISED OF
THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CONCERNS OF ABOUT OBTAINING FEES ON
PROPERTIES ALREADY SUBDIVIDED WHICH TO NOT YET HAVE DEVELOPMENT. MARILYN
•
VANPATTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
7. Staff Updates
The City Administrator provided the Commission with a brief review of the
proposed 1990 Parks Budget and Recreation Budget. In general terms, both
budgets are proposed to increase. The most significant increase in the
Recreation Budget relates to the fee for the Park Master Plan Consultant
and for the Senior Citizen Coordinator within the Community Education
budget. The most significant increase in the Parks Budget was the
allocation of $10,000 for Capital improvements which have not been
identified at this time. The Administrator indicated that funds are
planned to be placed in this category, as there are typically projects
that are desired which are not even known when the budget is approved.
Street/Park Superintendent, Philip Hals, reviewed with the Commission the
current expenditures that have taken place at the softball complex
including staff time and operating expenses.
8. Other Business
Chairman O'Brien questioned whether or not there was a need for a dock at
the Lion's Park pond considering the new publicity regarding fish being
caught in the pond. It was the general consensus of the staff and
Commission that such a dock was not needed.
•
*1k of
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
River FROM: STEPHEN ROHLF, B & Z ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JUNE 27 , 1989 9
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF PARK DEDICATION FEES
FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRAIL
DEVELOPMENT
At the latest joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City
Council, staff was directed to initiate Park Dedication Fees for
Commercial and Industrial Development. Section 1008 .18 titled,
"Dedication of Land or Contribution of Cash for Public Purposes"
found on page 297 of the Elk River Code of Ordinances, already
enables the City to collect park dedication for commercial and
industrial development . Therefore, an ordinance amendment is
not required for us to collect this fee, only an resolution
establishing the fee.
There are basically two ways for the City to collect this fee.
First , is a flat fee per unit or lot . This is how we currently
collect residential park dedication . This fee would be
established by resolution by the City Council and when it needs
to be changed a new resolution would have to be passed.
(40 The second way to collect this fee is a percentage of the raw
land value. To stay consistent in estimating the raw land value,
if this approach is used, staff would recommend that the assessed
value set by the County Assessor 's Office be used.
I 've talked to Dick Fursman, Economic Development Coordinator for
the City and we are both in agreement that the amount of Park
Dedication that is charged for Commercial and Industrial
development must not be so excessive as to hinder these types of
development . If the percentage method is used , 10% has been
found reasonable by the courts . I am not recommending that we
charge 10% , but I 'm certainly recommending that we do not charge
more than 10 percent . My personal preference is the pre unit
charge , which enables staff to tell a potential developer up
front what this fee will be. The attachments to this memo show
park dedication fees from various cities to give the Planning
Commission a feel for what should be charged.
This is a discussion item for the Planning Commission . Staff
felt is was appropriate that the Planning Commission give the
Council recommendation on how the fee is charged and how much
that fee is . Staff will take the Planning Commission 's
recommendation and put it into resolution form and present it to
the Council on July 17 , 1989 .
720 Dodge Avenue N.W., Elk River, Minnesota 55330 (612) 441-7420
r
Page 10
Planning Commission Minutes
7/25/89 •
Commissioner Fuchs felt they were in excess of 84 sq. ft. with what
would be allowed for the C-3 standards. He indicated that he would like
to see the signage cut down to 25% from what is requested. This would
give Mr. Santwire a total of 168 sq. ft.
Steve Rohlf indicated that staff would like to see them stay with the C-3
standards. However, since this building is in a PUD, signage require-
ments can be altered.
COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO APPROVE 200 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE FOR MR.
SANTWIRE'S BUILDING LOCATED IN BARRINGTON PLACE PUD FOR BUILDING C ONLY.
COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
The next topic discussed was the directional signage requested by Gary
Santwire. 9
Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that the
boulevard sign is not on the property owned by the petitioners.
Therefore, it is not the City's problem but up to the petitioner to get
the owner's permission. Mr. Rohlf suggested this type of sign should be
called a "Permanent Area Identification Sign" for a development not an
advertising sign as there is a moratorium currently on any advertising
structures.
COMMISSIONER SCHROEDER MOVED TO APPROVE 50 SQ. FT. PERMANENT AREA •
IDENTIFICATION SIGN REQUESTED BY GARY SANTWIRE AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
10. Park Dedication Fees for Commerical and Industrial Development
COMMISSIONER FUCHS MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PARK DEDICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BE CHARGED $2,000 PER UNIT. A UNIT
WILL BE CONSIDERED ONE ACRE. A MINIMUM OF ONE UNIT WILL BE CHARGED.
ANYTHING OVER AN ACRE WILL BE CHARGED PROPORTIONAL TO WHAT THEY ARE OVER
AN ACRE. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-
0.
9. Discussion of the National APA Convention by Mary Eberley
Commissioner Eberley expressed her thanks and appreciation to the
Planning Commission and Council for allowing her to attend the Atlanta
seminar. At this time, Commissioner Eberley gave a brief update on the
seminar scenario which included:
1) Planning Rural Urban Fringe Planning Concept, 2) Rapid Growth
Syndrome, 3) Cluster Development.
11. Discussion of Planning Commission Budget
It was agreed after discussing this issue, Commission Johnson would
•
submit the budget to Pat Klaers, City Adminisrator.