My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03/06/1995 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1995 Park Board Packets
>
03/06/1995 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2021 1:22:58 PM
Creation date
8/6/2021 10:07:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
03/06/1995
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
Park Bd Publication Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TKDA TOLTZ,KING,DUVALL,ANDERSON <br /> AND ASSOCIATES,INCORPORATED <br /> ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS• PLANNERS 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA <br /> 4"CEDAR STREET <br /> SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA55101-2140 <br /> PHONE:612292-4400 FAX'612292-0083 <br /> MEMORANDUM <br /> Marty Asleson <br /> To: Parks Superintendent Reference: Park Dedication Requirements <br /> Randy Schumacher, <br /> Copies To: City Administrator, _ Lino Lakes,Minnesota <br /> Bill Hawkins, <br /> City Attorney <br /> From: John Powell <br /> i <br /> Date: March 6, 1995 Commission No. 10414-950 <br /> Recently, I attended a seminar on Land Development specifically relating to the impact of a recent US <br /> Supreme Court decision regarding land dedication requirements. Attached are copies of the presentation <br /> notes from the panelist specifically discussing the impact on park dedication. My general comments are <br /> as follows: <br /> 1. Minnesota State Statutes allow cities to promulgate rules for land subdivision including requiring <br /> subdivisions to dedicate land for public uses such as streets,utilities, drainage,or parks. <br /> 2. The land dedicated must be a "reasonable portion" having a "reasonable relationship" to the <br /> proposed subdivision. <br /> 3. "A dedication requirement is reasonable if the requirement is no more than what is borne by other <br /> developers. If it is unreasonable, the dedication requirement is a taking." <br /> 4. It appears Minnesota may not be as affected by the Dolan decision as some other states because <br /> the "reasonable relationship" standard already used in Minnesota is similar to the"rough <br /> proportionality" standard indicated in the Dolan case. <br /> 5. The City may want to consider refining its Comprehensive Park Plan to determine specific service <br /> areas for each park and the total cost of the proposed park system. This has likely been done <br /> informally as part of the plan preparation; formal documentation of this information may be useful <br /> in the future. <br /> 6. The recent court decision appears to be more applicable to cities who overstep their bounds in <br /> dedication requirements and has less impact on cities requesting reasonable dedications. <br /> I have provided my comments on this topic strictly from a layman's point of view. You must consult the <br /> n City Attorney for a formal opinion on what impact, if any, the recent Supreme Court decision has on the <br /> City. You may also want to clarify what statute authority the City has when requiring park dedication <br /> from commercial-industrial developments. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.