Laserfiche WebLink
Under Secfion 2.B. it should be noted that in present MN Statutes <br />park land dedication is allowed for passive recreational purposes. <br />The Statute after the 1989 law change includes wetlands and open <br />space. There is nothing to prohibit a developer from designating <br />wetlands and more passive recreational areas of the property as open <br />space and therefore could be used in lieu of a park dedication fee. <br />Therefore the land dedicated by tbe developer does not have to be <br />maintained for active residentia: ase. The factors listed in proposed <br />Section 2.B. tend to indicate only land suitable for active <br />recreational purposes would be accepted as dedicated lands. <br />Regarding Section 2, caution was given by the Supreme Court in <br />Collis V. city of Bloomington that no specific*fee amounts should be <br />indicated because the amount of land and or fees collected should be <br />based solely on the particular sites resulting need for recreational <br />uses. There has to be a relationship between the recreational need <br />generated by the development and the amount of money or land <br />dedicated. It should be especially noted the problem of including <br />existing lots of record in both the residential and commercial area. <br />In Section 2.D. cash collected in lieu of land should be specified as <br />for it's specific purpose. The ordinance should specifically <br />indicate that the funds will be used to purchase land and that the <br />purchase should be part of a CIP program that has already been <br />adopted by the City of Orono. The fee should be equivalent to the <br />fair market value of undeveloped land, and not based on preliminary <br />plat value. The preliminary plat indicates the potential for <br />development and potential for a revised fair market value based on <br />finished lot. The fair market value should not be based on <br />preliminary plat but on raw land prior to platting, not on future <br />value. <br />Under Section 2.E. entitled Fair Market Value of Lands, the <br />subdivider should prepare in accordance to accepted practice the <br />appraised value of land. However, if the city disputes that <br />appraised value, the city, at it*s expense should find a appraisal to <br />refute the findings of the developer. <br />Section 2.E.,(3) further expresses the city's desire that the "fair <br />market value” should be determined at preliminary plat rather than <br />using raw land values. Once again, the standard established under <br />Minnesota Statutes is the fair market value be based on raw land