Loading...
1998-10-12 Park Dedication Fee .. -Ala> 1icmstlll in Illinois COURl & MACARTHUR Attorneys at Law 705 Central Avenue East PO Box 369 St. Michael. MN 55376-0369 (612) 497-1930 (612) 497-2599 (FAX) couriandnwcarthur@pobox.com Michael C. Couri. Andrew J. MacArlhur Marcus W. Miller October 12, 1998 Mr. David J. Meyers :Rinke Noonan Suite 700, Norwest Center P.O. Box 1497 St. Cloud, MN 56302-1497 Re: City of Albertville; Mike Savitski park dedication. Dear Mr. Meyers: I have receiv~dyoUl"letter of October 2, 1998 regarding the above-referenced matter; The City of Albertville disagrees with Mr. Savitski's position that the park dedication fee was somehow waived in relation to his property. The requirement of payment of a park dedication fee by Mr. Savitski was brought up to Mr. Savitski on several occasions throughout his most recent development process. I have enclosed a copy of the April 20, 1998 City Council minutes where Mr. Savitski sought site plan approval. At this time, one of the conditions of site plan review was that Mr. Savitski pay a park dedication fee. At that meeting, Mr. Savitski represented to the City that his father had paid $1,500 in park dedication fees in 1985. Upon checking its records some weeks later, the City discovered that representation was not correct. The property in question was not platted until 1989, and the City has no record of a park dedication payment from Mr. Savitski when this property was platted (the City does have records of other park dedication payments received during that same time period). Further, Mr. Savitski is not able to produce any evidence of such a payment. Lacking evidence of paymen~ the City believes that park dedication is in fact due on this property. Because the City's park dedication ordinance was enacted in December of 1988,.it is clear.that the ordinance applies to theSavitski property. . . Mr. David 1. Meyers October 12, 1998 Page 2 of3 Faced with the choice of tabling the site plan review until the City could verify the park dedication payments which Mr. Savitski represented were made in 1985 or having the City approve the site plan with the condition that park dedication need be paid, Mr. Savitski chose to have the City Council approve the site plan with the condition that the park dedication fees be paid by Mr. Savitski (see page 5 of8 of the April 20, 1998 minutes). The City approved the site plan with the park dedication condition, and further specified as a condition of its approval that no certificate of occupancy was to be issued until the park dedication issue was resolved. The City believes that Mr. Savitski's actions on this date are sufficient to estop Mr. Savitski from now claiming that he does not owe park dedication fees. The City reaffirmed its position on park dedication fees when Mr. Savitski applied to the City for a variance related to Mr. Savitski's paving his rear driveway along the back property line. At the August 19, 1998 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the variance, contingent upon Mr. Savitski paying the requisite park dedication fee and again stipulated that no occupancy permit would be issued until said fee had been paid. This brings us to the issue of the amount of park dedication fees due. I have attached a calculation of the park dedication due on this property. This calculation was made using the same per square foot value the City paid when it acquired highway easement from Andy Savitski. This method of valuation has recently been upheld in Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. App. 1995). I have estimated the square feet of the property in question-I expect that the exact number of square feet will be slightly different than the number I have used. Assuming that a 2-foot wide trail dedication along the south right of way of Highway 37 (370 linear feet-although it is possible the City may not need all 370 feet of the trial) accounts for 1.1% of the park dedication, the remaining 8.9% of park dedication in the form of cash would equal $10,076.58. The Dolan v. City of Tigard case cited in your letter appears to stand for the proposition that the City must establish a nexus between the development and the park dedication sought by the City. The case gives little guidance as to how that nexus is to be determined, and Minnesota case law is equally sparse in providing such guidance (See Kottschade ). However, it is clear that the development oiMr. Savitski's land into retail uses will increase the pedestrian traffic to his property, as well as to the other properties in the area as patrons of the Savitski building can be expected to walk to nearby buildings such '. ~ 4' Mr. David 1. Meyers October 12, 1998 Page 3 of3 as the bank next door to conduct business while in the area. Providing a trail is a reasonable means of addressing these impacts. In addition to the land the City needs for the trail (two feet adjoining the south right of way line of County Highway 37), the City estimates that trail construction costs approximately $16 per linear foot. With an estimated 370" feet of trail on the Savitski property, an additional $5,920 would be needed to develop and pave this portion of the trail. Further, the City believes that the retail uses provided by the Savitski building will be patronized by non-Albertville residents, some of whom will inevitably use Albertville's parks. This is particularly true of uses such as the laundromat, which require people to remain in the area for a specific period of time but do not necessarily require that they remain in the Savitski building itself. Such park usage by these patrons contributes to the need for park facilities, including parking lots, picnic tables, playground equipment, etc., all of which will cost several hundred thousand dollars to develop. The remaining $4,156.58 park dedication due will offset some of these costs. In summary, the City believes that Mr. Savitski does in fact owe park dedication fees to the City. While the City believes it has the right to withhold an occupancy permit for this property in light of Mr. Savitski's representations to the City and the conditional approvals granted to Mr. Savitski by the City, the City would prefer not to have to resort to such an action. As we discussed earlier, the neighboring Security State Bank of Maple Lake has paid the park dedication fee required by the development of the land owned by the bank. As you could imagine, it would be very hard for the City to waive park dedication on neighboring property owned by Mr. Savitski. I would hope that this issue could be worked out between the City and Mr. Savitski without delaying the issuance of an occupancy permit. Please discuss this matter with your client and contact myself or 11arcus Miller of our office. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ {(>~ Cc: k. Dave Lund Michael C. Couri Couri & MacArthur