Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 05-05-2009MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION May 5th, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners Present: Rod Dragster_, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgaf±, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison Present: Tom Perrault Staff: Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Chairman Dragsten noted the full quorum of the Commission and the presence of Council member Perrault as the Council member liaison, filling in for Council liaison Wojchouski. minutes of March I O'h Gabler noted that she did not both make the original motion and second the minutes in March. Voight indicated that he believed he made the motion. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 10`h AND APRIL 7th, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. NONE. 5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to Chapter 6 of the Monticello Subdivision Code as related to Parks, Open Space and Public Use.Applicant: City of Monticello Grittman provided the staff report for the continued item. He indicated that the amendment involves changing the park dedication requirement for the City of Monticello Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 as related to new development. The substantive change is the adjustment for the requirement of land dedication when new development occurs. Right now, there is a flat 10% requirement within the Monticello subdivision ordinance. Grittman explained that standard was adopted by many Minnesota communities years ago. However, over the past few years, there have been court decisions and statutory changes that make the exaction of dedication more clear. Essentially, the City is allowed to take land for park dedication equal to the demand that the new development places on the park system. The calculation ratio is intended to provide proportionality between the dedication and demand, Grittman stated. Grittman reported that staff had provided an illustration of how the proposed amount of dedication requirement would be calculated. The illustration provides an analysis of parkland currently in the system, the amount of development or population existing and then projecting those two items under the long -term full development of the annexation area. Using that ratio, the City is able to calculate the amount of park land needed to meet that new development demand, including the Bertram Chain of Lakes. Based on the numbers for existing and projected population and park demand, the new dedication requirement is 11.4 %. The change in the subdivision language will also built on the assumption that the same percentage would be carried forward into new development areas as the annexation area is built out. That amount is 9 %, then as Bertram Lakes is factored in, it moves to 11.4 %. The report also includes a calculation for converting the requirement from land to cash, due to the fact that not all development will include a land dedication. The City actually has the statutory authority to choose between land or cash for new development. Grittman noted that the City does not have an updated Park and Trail Plan. Grittman also reported that the changes to the statute now require that the City has to calculate the cash fee based on the value of the land no later than at the time of final platting. So, the City starts the dedication for new developments with the land requirement, and then converts that requirement to cash. That is done on an acreage basis, but then is further broken down to a per unit number, which the City Council then adopts as part of its fee schedule, which is adopted each year as an ordinance. This fee is then adjusted annually based on land values in the real world. Currently, land values are lower, so logically that dedication requirement would then be lower. Grittman noted that there is some also language that was incorrectly included in the City dedication ordinance when an amendment was adopted a couple of years ago. Essentially, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the language change allowing for the 11.4% land dedication requirement. There is also language in the amendment that allows developers to challenge that number if they choose and provides the process for that challenge. Commissioner Hilgart confirmed that the City gets to choose whether dedication will be land or cash. Grittman confirmed that to be true, and also indicated that the City can choose where that land will be within a development. That is obviously a negotiation with the developer. Hilgart stated that this calculation actually is an increase in percentage, although the cash number may have gone down. Grittman replied that is true, but indicated that the cash value went down substantially, because land is worth less N Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 at this point, but also went down more dramatically because until a few years ago, the dedication fee could include both the cost of acquisition and development. The recent change in the statute now allows for the dedication fee based only on the value of the land. Grittman said that the City can still spend the dedication funds on development, but cannot calculate the fee including those costs. Hilgart inquired what the current dedication per unit fee is. Grittman stated that it is about $3500 per unit. Hilgart asked if the City would just be taking cash from this point forward. Grittman stated that while recent park dedication strategy has been a preference for dedication fees in order to fund the Bertram Lakes acquisition, the City also has other local or neighborhood park needs. So, depending on the location of the development, the City may still choose land. He also noted that the City can also split cash and land requirements within a development arrangement. Dragsten inquired whether the fee will be based on the purchase price of a particular piece of land. Grittman responded that the Council will adopt a park dedication fee in January based on whatever evidence the City has of lard value at the time of fee schedule adoption. However, it is possible that if there is evidence that land values have changed mid -year, then that fee has can be adjusted. However, it must be done by ordinance. Schumann explained that this subdivision amendment information will be sent forward to the City Council. Along with the subdivision ordinance amendment, the Council will also hold a hearing on the amendment on the fee schedule for park dedication. Staff will be proposing the same scenario that is presented in this report. Schumann stated that for the City Council, another review of land values will be completed to make certain that the park dedication fee Council reviews is based on a recent per acre value. She noted that it is difficult to find a good cost per acre number due to the lack of comparables for land values. Dragsten stated that he likes the idea of adjusting the fee based on the values in the marketplace. Hopefully that aids Monticello, as it may help keep Monticello competitive in fee ranges. Dragsten stated that he is not sure he agrees on the 11.4% requirement. It may be too high. He indicated that it seems like a large amount of land to be dedicated to park. Dragsten inquired if the City knows how much is in the dedication fund. Schumann confirmed that the Finance Director has an understanding of that fund balance, and that a certain amount has been used for the first acquisition at Bertram Lakes. However, she noted that the City also has other additional funding mechanism for the Bertram Chain of Lakes outside of park dedication. These include State grants, sale of City properties, etc. Schumann indicated that what is critical is a good determination on the proper dedication percentage. She explained that the 2008 Comprehensive Plan does call out the Bertram Chain as part of the City's park plan and that is the reason for including it in the percentage requirement. Perrault inquired where the base 9% came from. Grittman stated that amount came from totaling the current system parkland and then the population is serves. Grittman stated that 9% of the City is occupied by park and open space. Grittman indicated that at the same ratio of park to population, the City would need to continue to develop 9% of land as park. Schumann added that part of the rationale for purchasing Bertram is that a portion of that park will be used as an active City recreation area. Schumann noted that through public input, it has been determined that there is a deficit in active play field 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 space in the City. So, the 9% currently occupied by City parks is not meeting the current population demand and that is the reason behind including the Bertram Chain of Lakes in the calculation. Additionally, the Bertram number includes only the City's share of Bertram, not the full acreage. Perrault asked if the current park and trail acreage includes Montissippi Park. Schumann indicated that is does because if Montissippi park weren't there, the City would have an unmet demand, or the City would have purchased land somewhere else to have an equivalent facility. Although the County owns and operates that facility, it serves the local population. Perrault agreed that 11.4% seems like a lot of land. Grittman stated that the standard in the industry is still 10 %. Nine percent is what the City is operating at currently, with the additional 2.4% of the 11.4% attributable to Bertram Lakes. Schumann stated that a park plan analysis for determining dedication could be a very detailed study of current facilities, location, and unmet need. The simple calculations prepared for this amendment provides a basic analysis that provide needed background for setting the dedication requirements. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Spartz stated that the staff report makes the point that the analysis and resulting dedication provides a reasonable method for dedication requirements. Spartz stated his opinion that the dedication requirements put forth are accurate and necessary to include Bertram, which is part of this process. Although this may be a higher number, Spartz suggested that it seems that Bertram is needed to serve the population. Dragsten noted that the dedication requirements can always be reviewed as the comp plan is reviewed. Depending on development, it can be also be adjusted. Schumann stated that even if the Bertram Chain of Lakes wasn't in the comp plan, the dedication is geared toward meeting that unmet demand somewhere else. Dragsten stated that is the reason for his question for where dedication funds are currently being used. For example, perhaps those funds could be used to purchase property to meet that need. If there are funds available, then the City wouldn't need to raise the percentage, because the City should be able to use funding to meet that need. Grittman stated that he assumed that the existing dedication funds would also have been able to use to develop parks, as well. Grittman reaffirmed the new restriction that the City can't use development of parks to calculate the requirement number for dedication, but the funds can be used to build play areas and trails. Hilgart commented that he believes that neighborhoods need to have play areas. Not everyone is going to want to load up in the car and go to the YMCA (Bertram). He noted that his daughter plays soccer and there is not enough field space. Even though Bertram will be nice, it may not be convenient. Schumann did note that the Comp Plan stated that although the Council wants to consolidate regional facilities, the City should provide neighborhood facilities, or provide reasonable access to other neighborhood parks through trail connections. Hilgart suggested the size of a development should perhaps determine the presence of a neighborhood park. Dragsten referenced the costs for 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 05/05/09 maintaining and operating neighborhood parks, which was the reason for regionalizing. Grittman commented that as the City grows, the need for an updated park plan with those policies set forth becomes more important. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION CODE AS RELATED TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE, BASED ON A FINDING THE AMENDMENT REPRESENTS A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE NEED FOR PARKLAND AS ILLUSTRATED BY PAST AND FUTURE PARK PLANNING EFFORTS. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 6. Community Development Director's Update. Gabler inquired if Schumann can clarify what is included in the "other" category for Citizen Service Desk inquiry type. Schumann stated that the City is currently averaging about one inquiry a day. Primarily, staff see a lot of questions about utilities and blight. "Other" includes everything from MCC, Chamber requests, spring tree, plant etc. Dragsten inquired who monitors this service. Schumann stated that depending on the type of inquiries, it is fiunieled to the appropriate department. However, she and the City Administrator monitor the desk to provide some level of accountability. Dragsten inquired whether the Planning Commission needed to be involved with any changes to the ordinance as related to the level of blight inquiries. Schumann responded that the City Council had recently adopted changes to the City Code for public nuisance. She stated that Building will be doing a 6 -month report on how those changes are working. She stated that the changes streamline the way the City responds to blight. Dragsten inquired whether blight is localized or is all over. Schumann confirmed that is scattered throughout the community. Schumann stated that one of things the City is working on with GIS is linking this type of information with GIS mapping, so that the City can provide a visual image on the activity. In terms of type of blight, it is varied. 7. Adjourn. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED, 5 -0. 5