Laserfiche WebLink
DOHERTY <br />RUMBLE <br />& BUTLER <br /> <br />April 16, 1998 <br /> <br />340-5571 <br /> <br />Selled~drblaw. eom <br /> <br />Mr. Steve Ach <br />City afEik River <br />P.O, Box 490 <br />Elk River, MN 55330-0490 <br /> <br />Required Road Improvements Associated with Proposed Plat by Royal Oaks Realty -- Your <br />'Memorandum of March 23, 1998 <br /> <br />Dear Steve: <br /> <br />You have asked aborn the extent to which the City may require the developer of Riverplaee to pay for necessary <br />improvements to 185~ Avenue. <br /> <br />First, i do not believe its current designation as a coumy mad is relevant, AS [ understand it, 185'~ Avenue soon <br />will be a city road, Moreover, even if iz remained a county roM, it is not unusual for the county to require the <br />city to share ha road improvement easts. Assuming that jurisdictional transfer to the city is imminent, I believe <br />this is a non-issue. <br /> <br />Any required exa~0~on associated with development, be it land or cash, must comply with ~ 114 <br />S.Ct. 2309 (1994). The proposed development must be creating a burden on the City to which the exaction is <br />related. For Riverplace and the mad improvement, this means that the homes to be constructed within the plat <br />must create a traffic burden which, at least partially, is connected to the required improvement m the road. <br />Your memorandum referenced a requested deposit in escrow of"a fair share" or,he road improvements. Under <br />the Dolan case, the fair share amount must be the result of an "individualized determination" that establishes <br />at least a "rough proportionality" between the amount of the cost being imposed and the "nature and extent of <br />the impact of the proposed development". My quoted language all comes from the U.S. Supreme Court <br />decision. <br /> <br />I also believe there must be some nexus in time between the impacts of this development and expenditure of' <br />the funds required to offset its impacts. [ do not believe it lawful for the Cist to hold funds indefinitely for <br />improvements required because of a development's impact. <br /> <br />'l"herefore, if the City makes an individualized determination that the costs are reasonably related both in nature <br />and extent to the impact of the proposed development, and the funds are to be escrowed for a reasonable <br />amount of time and, if not expended, then returned, I believe that the condition can pass legal examination. <br /> <br />Sinc/~y yours, <br /> <br />David C. Sellergren <br />DCS/eka (ss~o43) <br /> <br /> <br />