Laserfiche WebLink
3400 CITY cENTER <br />33 SOUTH SIXTH STKEET <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3796 <br /> <br />612 343-2800 <br />FAX: 612 333-0066 <br />WEB SITE: www.gprnl aw.corn <br /> <br />CONSULTING OFFICE, BEIJING CIillNA <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Michele McPherson <br /> <br />Peter K. Beck, Charles D. Wilson <br /> <br />Park Dedication Requirements for the Park Point Subdivision <br />December 13, 2001 <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 Bloomin~on, 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 lm~d <br />developed. <br /> <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 /> <br /> <br />