2001-06-01 Roden Property-Darkenwald DevelopmentSdC�)
Real Estate Ltd.
June 1, 2001
Ms. Linda Goeb
City Administrator
City of Albertville
5975 Main Avenue Northeast
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
RE: Roden Property — Darkenwald Development
Albertville, Minnesota
Dear Ms. Goeb:
This is to confirm the substantial commitment of Darkenwald Real Estate (DRE) for the
Roden Property project in Albertville, Minnesota. We are providing the following
summary of work that DRE has committed to and is in the process of completing for the
project:
1. DRE has retained an attorney for the development of three purchase agreements for
prospective users that are anticipated to be drafted in the next few weeks, for
execution upon agreement of schedule and contingencies.
2. RLK-Kuusisto has been retained for survey, conceptual design and site planning
services for a contract totaling approximately $90,000. To date, almost $30,000 in
fees have been expended toward the concept design of the 25-acre project and
associated coordination with agencies and prospective users to include:
• On -going coordination with the City Engineer, Pete Carlson, regarding alignment
and location of proposed water and sanitary sewer utilities through the parcel.
• Completion of a boundary verification and topographic survey update for the
parcel.
• Conceptual layout of the roadway, parcels, storm ponds and wetland mitigation.
• Discussions with MnDOT regarding amounts and locations of off -site flows from
I-94 that flow onto the property that will have to be addressed.
• Development of a concept roadway connection plan for the retail mall road on the
south. DRE contacted mall representatives for agreement. The mall has not
responded to date to the road plan.
• Coordination with architects retained by the prospective users to provide concept
lot layout and grading information.
• Preparation of initial cost estimates for roadway and associated utilities.
Industrial & Commercial Real Estate
7535 NE River Road - Elk River, MN 55330.763/441-3700 - fax 763/441-3751 • darkenwald@worldnet.att.net - www.darkenwaldrealestate.com
113.
Ms. Linda Goeb
City of Albertville
June 1, 2001
Page 2
3. Kjolhaug Environmental has been contracted to provide wetland design and
permitting services for the parcel. To date, Kjolhaug has reviewed the project and
provided preliminary design information for wetland impacts and mitigation
alternatives.
4. Geotechnical firms have been contacted regarding the completion of soil borings and
a geotechnical report for roadway and individual lots' pad design. A firm will be
contracted shortly; the soil borings are expected to be completed in a few weeks.
RLK-Kuusisto has been requested to continue with the development process for the
project, and will continue with the following tasks:
• Clarify anticipated costs for the infrastructure within the project with soils
information.
• Prepare a concept plan for review at Planning and Zoning Meeting on June 13`h
and the subsequent City Council meeting.
• Begin work on the preliminary platting for the property and concurrent site
planning, anticipating a submittal to the city by July 51h, and subsequent approval
by early or mid -September 2001.
Please consider this extensive level of work by DRE as a serious commitment toward the
development of the project. If you have questions or require additional information,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
Darke ea Estate Ltd
Darkenwald
President
Enclosures:
• Copy RLK-Kuusisto letter to Braun requesting soil boring and geotechnical report
• Concept of preliminary plat
• Copy of preliminary plat in relation to entire 110 acres as laid out in Pete
Carlson's feasibility study
Cc: Michele Caron, PE, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
John Dietrich, ASLA, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
ST. CLOUD
1715
Ay10No-
u1x
�O ti
0
* -11 S ACRES OF COMMERCIAL. AND
INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE.
U
a�
co
ELK RIVER
ROGERS
1
MAPLE GROVE I.94
N
T
MINNEAPOLIS
Memorandum
From: John R. Darkenwald
To: City of Albertville
Re: Requested review of park fees
Factual Background: Darkenwald has entered into a contract with Bernard and Judith Roden
whereby he is purchasing their remaining land in Section 35—121-24 lying west of outlet
mall and consisting of approximately 11 l+ acres. The contract provides for an escalating
schedule of monthly payments and per acre purchase prices.
The subject properly contains substantial areas of wetlands and watercourses as shown on
the attached Exhibit A. These areas will present substantial challenges in the
development process because of the need to mitigate and/or preserve these areas.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is an engineering summary of the site area showing a net
developable area of 82.72 acres. This represents a reduction of almost 26% of the land
available for sale when fully developed.
A portion of the statutory authorization for park fees is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Also attached hereto as Exhibit D is a short memorandum with respect to our
understanding of how our Minnesota Supreme Court interprets the statue with respect to
commercial lands.
Our Primarx Concerns:
1. Size of Fees- We have been advised that the city has set the park fee for commercial
lands at $ 7385 per acre. This is a "one size fits all" approach that appears to ignore
the basic question of the impact of the particular subdivision on park needs. ( The
current fee is almost 42% of our land purchase price)
2. Fees Required on Wetlands, Watercourses and Storm Ponds- These areas total almost
24 acres and can have no effect on park needs, yet would require payment of park
fees in excess of $176,000 on lands that are unusable and unsaleable.
3. Timing of Required Payment- Current practice requires that park fees be paid prior to
the release of final plat for filing purposes " or as specified by the applicable
development contract." [ A600.15(q) of subdivision ordinance] Upfront payment is
particularly onerous for developers because substantial development expenditures
must be incurred and / or paid before the amount and timing of development cash
flow can be determined.
We respectfully request that payment of park fees be deferred until issuance of
building permits when the impact on park needs caused by a specific commercial use
can be measured.
4. Timing of Project- We believe that " time is of the essence" for the City and for the
developers so that both can move quickly this spring to install necessary
infrastructure to provide for optimum development of both City and developer lands.
Summary
We understand the need for park fees. We do not object to the payment of park fees so
long as they are reasonable in amount and determined in accordance with the law as
interpreted by the Court.
�y< <+ . � r i �-
Summary of Site Area
Total Area (Gross)
111.58
Acres
Dedicated Road Right -of -Way (ROW)
8.32
Acres
Outlot A (Wetland)
5.32
Acres
Outlot B (Storm Pond)
1.22
Acres
Outlot C (Wetland)
14.00
Acres
Total Parcel Area ( Net Developable Area) 82.72 Acres
84�g HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT, PLANNING, ZONING "2.358
8408
an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the municipality that
or special use .:
the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the
cility, provided
specifications of the municipality. The regulations may permit the municipality to
restrictive than
condition its approval on compliance with other requirements reasonably related to
property in the
the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts embodying
e health and
a
the
the terms and conditions of approval. The municipality may enforce such agree -
d
all construed
d
ments and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
zones
Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion
of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as
1973 c 379 s 4;
streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and
5; Ex1979 c 2 s
holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements.
�84 c 617 s 6-8
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks,
IVISION REG-
playgrounds, trails, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to
accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion
required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market
:alth, safety, and .
value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments
;lopment of land,
received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the
>ing affordable to ,•
purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable
.ate provision for
portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park,
playgrounds, and
recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve
-.ce adopt subdivi
for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need
res for the review
to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of
ay contain varied
approval of the subdivision.
;asses or kinds of.
Subd. 3. [Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35]
ind of subdivision:
its subdivisiod.
Subd. 3a. Platting. The regulations may require that any subdivision creating
of
_)f its limits in an
parcels, tracts, or lots, shall be platted. The regulations shall require that all
subdivisions which create five or more lots or parcels which are 2-1/2 acres or less in
provided
ons; p
less than fO
size shall be platted. The regulations shall not conflict with the provisions of
les
chapter 505 but may address subjects similar and additional to those in that chapter.
-qual distance
Subd. 3b. Review procedures. The regulations shall include provisions re-
garding the content of applications for proposed subdivisions, the preliminary and
final review and approval or disapproval of applications, and the coordination of
�quirements in
such reviews with affected political subdivisions and state agencies. The regulations
ading, and imps
may provide for the consolidation of the preliminary and final review and approval
alkways, curbs
or disapproval of subdivisions. Preliminary or final approval may be granted or
dity, gas, and o
denied for parts of subdivision applications. The regulations may delegate the
and the Prot ec
authority to review proposals to the planning commission, but final approval or
;etation, energy,
t, disapproval shall be the decision of the governing body of the municipality unless
shall require
if one exists and
otherwise provided by law or charter. The regulations shall require that a public
hearing shall be held on all subdivision applications prior to preliminary approval,
ial controls and.
unless otherwise provided by law or charter. The hearing shall be held following
classes or kinds
Publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least
comprehensive
tea days before the day of the hearing. At the hearing, all persons interested shall
of agricultural
be given an opportunity to make presentations. A subdivision application shall be
t for the p
P'eliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following delivery of an
nergy systems.
Opplication completed in compliance with the municipal ordinance by the applicant
r any tracts, 10.
'peen
tO the municipality, unless an extension of the review period has been agreed to by
the applicant. the
obtained-
oval on the co
When a division or subdivision to which the regulations of
lity do not apply is presented to the city, the clerk of the municipality shall
and water
n days certify that the subdivision regulations of the municipality do not
n the receipt
�b
Epp to the particular division.
�r of credit, or
E K 4 t 1 7--
Park Fees on Commercial Subdivisions
Minnesota law with respect to the imposition of park fees'on commercial land is quite
clear. The statutory authorization is contained in M.S. 462.385 Subd. 2b and the
controlling interpretation of the statute is the case of Collis vs. City of Bloomington, 246
NW 2°d 19, which was decided in 1976. In that case, the Minnesota Court held that the
imposition of park fees authorized by M.S. 462.385 Subd. 2b was not an unconstitutional
taking but rather a valid exercise of the police powers because the statute specifically
required that only a "reasonable portion" of land could be taken for the purpose stated.
In that case the court stated, at p. 26:
"While in general subdivision regulations are a valid exercise of the police
powers...... the possibility of arbitrariness and unfairness in their application is
nonetheless substantial: a municipality could use dedication regulations to exact
land or fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs created by his
subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional
services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would be to allow an
otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become grand theft."
The court then went on to hold:
"But the enabling statute here prevents this from occurring by authorizing
dedication of only a "reasonable portion" of land for the purposes stated.... a
"reasonable portion" is construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence
reasonably establishes the municipality will need to acquire for the purposes
stated as a result of the approval of the subdivision. This is, of necessity, a fact
and circumstances test, but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad
of factors which bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of facilities and
the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs."
Following the Collis case the legislature in 1980 made some changes in M.S. 462.358,
Subd. 2b to reflect the Collis holding and specifically added the following language as a
requirement that the city must satisfy:
"....provided that........(d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will
need to acquire that portion of the land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as
a result of approval of the subdivision." IF
In 1986, in the case of Middlemist vs. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W. 2nd 190, the
Minnesota Court specifically followed the Collis case and stated at p. 193:
"Since Collis requires an examination of the subdivider's contribution to the need
for the public use of dedicated land, the test of reasonableness cannot be limited to the
percentage of land which a subdivider is asked to dedicate."
And the court then quoted and applied the Collis case in the following language:
"This is, of necessity, a facts and circumstances test, but it is the only kind of test
that will consider the myriad of factors which bear on a municipality's needs for
certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to those
needs."
��t
Additional Language from Collis Case
Under City ordinance providing that it is reasonable to require, as a condition for subdivision
approval, dedication of " an amount of land equal in value to 10% of the undeveloped land
proposed to be subdivided", City cannot foreclose review of question of undeveloped land value
by making it's assessor's decision final; such division is only prima facie evidence of
undeveloped land value which may be attacked in judicial review proceedings.
Collis v. City of Bloomington, (1976), 310 Minn.5, 246, NW 2'd 19.
��c �. ,L3. � /01 o�