Laserfiche WebLink
FROM FAEGRE k BEN30N (MON) 4. IQ’09 12:33/ST. 12:31/NO. 4362053343 E 4 <br />Memorandum to Mi]» GaHron <br />April 19, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br />Tigard. 512 U.S. 374,114 S.Ct 2309 (1994), a case since cited approvingly and followed by <br />Minnesota courts in three separate published decisions. The controversy in I^ojan , <br />coincidentally, involved a city requiring a landowner as a condition of obtaining a building <br />permit to dedicate a portion of her property for use as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The <br />Court required the city to demonstrate a “rough proportion^ ity” between the condiUons and <br />the contemplated development project - f.e., that the conditions imposed by the city must be <br />related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. If, for instance. <br />Spring Hill were seeking a permit for a densely populated residential development, a <br />bikeway might indeed bear a reasonable relationship to the proposed use. Under the <br />circumstances, however, a golf club is unlikely to have a significant impact, if any, on the <br />volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic along County Road 6. While the burden on Spring <br />hill of making substantial modifications to the landscaping already constructed on its <br />property would be significant, the benefit of the bikeway right-of-way bears no r^nable <br />relationship to the project, and thus runs afoul of the “rough proportionality ” analysis <br />adopted by the Supreme Court in polan . <br />In summary, the request of the County is significant 1 do not want to make <br />more of it thain is necessary but do believe it will cause problems for Spring Hill. <br />cc:Tim Johnson <br />Andrew Hunter <br />TMC/nlj <br />Ml:4tt207.01