Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> G R A Y 3400 CITY CENTER CONSULTING OFFICE,BEIJING CHINA <br /> 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET <br /> PLANT MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55402-3796 <br /> M O O T Y 612 343-2800 <br /> Fax:612 333-0066 <br /> WEB SITE:www.gpmlaw.com <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: Michele McPherson <br /> FROM: Peter K. Beck, Charles D. Wilson <br /> RE: Park Dedication Requirements for the Park Point Subdivision <br /> DATE: December 13, 2001 <br /> This memorandum is in response to your request for our opinion regarding the <br /> appropriateness of including the lake surface area when calculating the total area of the <br /> • Park Point Subdivision for park dedication purposes. <br /> The reasonableness of a municipal requirement for the dedication of land is <br /> analyzed in light of the need created for the land required to be dedicated. The city must <br /> show a relationship between the development and the city's need for land dedication. To <br /> meet this burden the city must show an essential nexus between a legitimate state interest <br /> and the condition exacted. (see Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. <br /> Ct. App. 1995; citing Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, (1994)) Once the city has <br /> demonstrated that a nexus exists, the city must then demonstrate a rough proportionality <br /> between the development and the dedication requirement. Kottschade at 308. <br /> It is clear that there is an essential nexus between residential development and the <br /> need for park land, so park dedication requirements are lawful. The Minnesota Supreme <br /> Court has found that a 10%park dedication requirement is reasonable (see Collis V. City <br /> of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976), and this is the standard which Elk river <br /> has adopted. This standard is based on the finding that a certain amount of development <br /> will cause a corresponding need for park resources, as a percentage of the land <br /> developed. <br /> Including the publicly owned lake surface within the "undeveloped land to be <br /> subdivided" for the purposes of calculating the park dedication requirement raises a <br /> number of concerns. First, we are not sure it is consistent with the subdivision ordinance, <br /> which speaks of the "undeveloped land". More importantly, we are not sure that <br />