10-06-94 Parks Commission Agenda

Home Browse Search

found that preventing flooding and reducing traffic congestion are legiti- mate purposes. The essential nexus existed between preventing flooding and limiting development within the creek's floodplain. The essential nexus also existed between traffic congestion reduction and providing alternate means of transportation such as bicycle paths. In Minnesota, cities should be able [o meet the essential nexus requirement by enforcing their present subdivision regulations as they have in the past. In general, the essential nexus test would be met if the city has a legitimate public purpose in reducing the negative effects of development and the regulations are geared to merely reducing these negative effects. However, the second question may be the more difficult one to answer in determining whether the required condition bears the proper relationship to the projected impact of the pro• posed development. The city must have findings sufficient tojustify the conditions imposed through the subdivision regulations. There must be a "rough proportionality" between the city's conditions as they relate to the impact of the development. No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some type of individual determination that the required dedication is related to the proposed development's impact. This determination must consider both the nature and extent that the condition will impact the proposed development. The United States Supreme Court views this test as "a reasonable relation- ship" test. This is the same standard that the Minnesota Supreme Court has applied in approving subdivision regulation and exaction. In theory, the regulations Minnesota cities impose meet the U.S. Supreme Court standard, because they have met the reasonable relationship test used by the Minnesota Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court requires findings by the city to show the reasonable relationship between the cityimposed condition and the proposed development. Minnesota courts have no[ previously required cities to have written findingsjustifying the conditions imposed or to articulate the specific reasons the conditions are required. Cities must now be able to specifi- cally articulate their reasons for imposing conditions on any particular development. Certainly, standards stated in the subdivision regulation will give guidance for the need of requiring public dedication for necessary public improvements and open space. But cities will be required to articulate and justify the particular street, park land, sewer, and water conditions proposed on particular developments. Minnesota courts have also been requiring cities to make clear [heir findings in zoning matters, so the U.S. Supreme Court's requirement for findings should not he that onerous to cities. Proving the need for specific development dedication requirements also should not be very difficult for cities. This new zoning requirement is somewhat analogous [o cities having to prove special assessments for individual lots, and show that the burden imposed on the property owner does not exceed the benefit granted by [he city's action. Arguably, the same standard will be applied in determining that the burden of the subdivision requirement does not exceed the benefit to the develop- ment by the subdivision requirements. In the Oregon case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the city did not attempt to make any individualized determination to support the require- ment that the landowner leave 15 percent of her property as open space, and dedicate a public greenway in the flood plain when a private greenway could also have been an effective flood control measure. The city also failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicles and bicycle trips generated by the develop- mentwas reasonably related to the city's requirement for the dedication of a pathway easement. The Court stated the city must quantify its findings beyond a conclusory statement that the pathway dedication could offset some of the traffic demand generated by the development. (See also Legal notes, page 26.) Under these guidelines, Minnesota cities must be able [o state with some particular specificity, the reasons for requiring subdivision dedications and regulations to particular development proposals in order for their actions to be constitutional. Carla Heyl is senior staff attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities. A PREVENTIVE APPROACH TO PUBLIC LAW. Anticipating proGlemt it a aitiral aspen of our government practice. Our attorneys arsist clients in applying nrategiet to minimize risk and avoid liability. We serve public clientr with sensitivity toward rortr and with a derire to help govennnentt function more effectively. CaU Suesan Lea Pace for more information. 61 2 333 4800 222 BOUTN NINTH STREET, SUITE 3300 MIN NEAPO LI B, MN 95902 Page 6