11-24-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

purposes or for public use as parks, recreatioiial facilities, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipalitj' may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash fiom the applicant for part or all of the pcruon required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality \ised only for the piuposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities wiiich the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of the land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of the approval of the subdivision. As to such dedications and exacticns, Minnesota has followed the majority test which has been the “rational nexus” test where a reasonable connection must be shown by the government between the exaction or condition imposed and the need created by or benefits provided thereby to the subdivision, in order to be valid. The Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the rational nexus test in the context of analyzing park ^aication fees in a subdivision approval andnexus test m tne context ox anaxyziag parx^aic^ion tees m a suoaivision approval ana summarized the problems with e.xactions^Colii^. CiTvofRloomingtorL 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976): V A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of preportion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional serv ices on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become “grand theft.” 246N.W.29 19 at 26. See also Middlemist v. Citv of Pl-.Tp.outh . 3S7 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. App. 1986), Avres v. City Council. 207 P.2d 1 (Ca. 1949); Jordan v. ViTla^re of Menomonee Falls. 137 N.W.2d 442 (Wise. 1965). In the recent casC^Kottschade^ Citv nf Rochester . 537 N.W.2d 301 (Miniu .App. 1995), the Court stated thaTetiy-frartSe burden of proving required relationship between the property development and city ’s need for land dedication and, to meet that burden, the city must show that essential nexus exists between legitimate state interest and the condition exacted; if that nexus exists, the court must then decide whether city has demonstrated rough propordonalitv between planned development and municipality ’s requirement for a dedication of land. In that case the Court found there was sufficient nexus between need for roads and proposed shopping mall development to jusrify requirement of dedication of right-of-way as condition for approval of conveyance of portion of a platted lor to the developer, so that there was no taking. The Kottschade case rcCrcts how the Minnesota Court of Appeals has applied the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission , 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v.^Cirv of Tigard. 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). ^0/^0 *d / lS£98£8dl9 *0N XVd 301dd0 1191 NOiSNlM 9£:0l am 16-11-AON