2021-5-4_PR_Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

81Staffresearch –legal aspectsareyet to be sorted out 82 o Staff has connected with surrounding communities to understand how their 83ordinances are written and in what scenarios they collect Park Dedication 84 85Staff provided a brief overview of the history, purpose and land or cash options for Park Dedication. 86Roseville’s Park Dedication Ordinance (1103.07) was reviewed with the Commission. Staff noted 87that if pathways or right of ways are required as part of the development they would not qualify as 88Park Dedication. 89 90 Key Factors in Roseville that Activates “Triggers” Park Dedication: 91 o A “net increase” in development sites 92 o Can only capture for new lots being created 93 o Involves 1 acre or more 94 95Outreach was completed by staff to 9 communities (Andover, Arden Hills, Burnsville, Champlin, 96Cottage Grove, Mounds View, New Brighton, Shoreview and St. Louis Park) to understand their 97 Park Dedication requirements and triggers. Some of the key language differences appear to be: 98 Do not require a “net increase” in sites but rather focus on increased density 99 Some do capture Park Dedication on all units as long as they have not contributed Park 100Dedication in the past 101 Do not have a minimum acreage 102 103 Commissioner Baggenstoss relayed that he was happy to see this research on the agenda tonight as 104 population density is going to continue in Roseville and Park Dedication needs to address the 105 increases in order to offset the additionalpark usage. 106 107 Commissioner Dahlstrom questioned if there may be any unforeseen consequences to changing the 108 ordinance. Staff responded that they did not anticipate any consequences as Roseville is fortunate to 109have a great location and people come to Roseville for the park system. In addition, staff noted that 110the surrounding communities are currently utilizing similar ordinances. 111 112The Commission discussed how Park Dedication funds are used to acquire new park properties and 113how changing the ordinance language could have helped address the population density impacts to 114 the parks fordevelopment projects that did not qualify for Park Dedication. 115 116 Commissioner Arneson asked at what point the city would be willing to pay greater than the 117 assessed Fair Market Value (FMV) for parkland in southwest Roseville. Staff responded that the city 118 would be willing to pay a higher price. However, the exact amount over would be based on 119 reasonableness. 120 3