2005_0214_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

January 31,2005 Page 2 Based on our review of the pre-redevelopment plat of the area, the pre-existing Target site consists of six separate parcels of record. Five of the six parcels are included within Registered Land Survey No. 86. The sixth parcel is identified as Lot 2, Block 3, Zimme�an Office Park Plat. The pre-existing uses of the "Target site" consist of the Target store, a Perkins, and the State Fa� office building. Under the redevelopment plan, the existing Target store will be demolished and a Super Target will be constructed. Perkins will move to the southeast comer of the site, the State Farm building will remain, and a new commerci�l lot .89 acres in size will bc located adjacent to the new Perkir�s location. City Code Section 1103.07 governs dedication of land. Section 1103.07 applies when land is proposed to be subdivided. Since Target is proposing a re-platting of lands, Section 1103.07 generally applies. Section 1103.07 provides that it applies to subdivisions ". ..whei� a new building site is created in excess of one acre, by either platting or n}inor subdivision, and including redevelopment and approval of planned unit development.. ," The question presented by the Target redevelopment plan is whether the redevelopment and re-platting of the site constitutes creation of at least one "new building site" in excess of one acre. On the one hand a literal interpretation of Section 1103.07 would suggest that all the new lots in the Target redevelopment plan are "new building sites" because i��1ey did not exist prior to re- platting. On the other hand, one could argue use of the phrase "new building sites" rather than, for example, "new lots of record" was a conscious decision by a prior Council to apply dedication requirements to redevelo�ments only if they result in the addition of a new cornincrcial enterprise, thereby increasing demand on public facilities. In Target's case, the redevelopment largely results in a rearrangement of existing business o�� the site. On the other hand, we understand the Target building footprint is proposed to increase in size, and a new .89 acre commercial lot is being added to the overall site. Having reviewed and arla;yze� Section 1103.07, we do not believe that the park dedication requirements in the City Code should apply to the Target site as if it was being initially developed. However, we do believe that the language is broad enough to allow the City to consider whether the redevelopment proposed would result in additional demands on the City's public facilities above and beyond that presented by the pre-redevelopment use of the land. If the City so concludes, then it is our opinion park dedication requirements may be applied to the redevelopment of the site as discussed herein, but only to the extent the redevelopment increases the demand on public facilities. The above conclusion is consistent with Minn, Stat. ,•'- 462.358, the statutory basis for dedication requirements. Subdivision 2b of Section 462.358 provided that dedication can be required for demands that "result from approval" of the subdivision request. We believe this language, in the redevelopment context does not allow the City to reach back and collect park dedication fees for the pre-redevelopment use of the site.