Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/08/2004

Home

File 2001004 little new residential subdivision activity, compared to their C/I development at the time and wanted to make sure that development pays its "fair share". They set'tied upon the 10% share as reasonable and defensible, k should be noted that Plymouth expects relatively small numbers of CA subdivisions in the future, as most land remaining ro be developed in the city is planned for residential tae. Finding that schools place a burden on the City's park system to the extent that the school serves students who do not live within the City of Plymouth. .. Whether or not institutional uses, such as churches and schools, should pay park dedication fees is debatable. On one hand, such uses serve people who already live or work in. the community' and who have already paid for the/r share of the park system through residential and/or CI park dedication. On the other hand, many of our institutions also serve people who do not live in Pl,vmouth. Schools are a particular case in point, where the demands on the park system are high but many of the students may come from outside of the community. The draft ordinance would require park dedication for new Schools, based on the number of students projected to come from outside the City. Park dedication would not be required for other institutions. The proportionate share to be paid by new development is based on the expected number of residents and/or employees in the new development, calculated using data in the Comprehensive Plan or more recent data from the Metropolitan Council, when available. The definition section of the draft code language contains the specific data used to calculate the proportionate share. Since the numbers used in the calculation are based on the level of service in 2000, most will not change unless the City updates the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we've included the numbers in the definitions to avoid any confusion about the calculation. Calculating the proportionate share, for cash in lieu of land dedication, is based on the actual value of the land. The statute permits cities to require land dedication, so any cash dedication requirement in lieu of land should be tied to the value of the land. Instead of setting a land value annually, the new ordinance would use the value of the specific piece of land being subdivided. This will help us keep up with rapidly increasing land values. If cash dedication is required in lieu of land, the amount would be capped at a maximum per-unit fee (for residential use) or per acre fee for other uses, similar to the rate now adopted annually by resolution of the City Council. Attached to this memo are examples of actual developments and a calculation of the lar~.d and cash in lieu dedications that would be required under the current and proposed ordinances. For most developments, the new method of calculating a proportionate share would result in a much larger park dedication requirement; perhaps more than the market may bear. The 200'1 cash in lieu of land park dedication fee is $2,000 per unit. The proportionate shares in the examples range from about $3,000 per unit (in the lowest density, lowest land value projects) to as much as