2005_0214_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

January 31,2005 Page 3 The above conclusion is also consistent with 2004 changes to Section 462.358. Section 462.358 was amended in 2004 to now require a�l "essential nexus" b�tweei� the fees and the City purpose sought to be achieved The statute also requires that the fee imposed bear a"rough proportionality" to the need created by the specific subdivision request. The "rough proportionality" requirement finds its origin in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dolan v. Ti�ard, ll4 S.C. 2309 (1994). In ��1�_i, the Supreme Court indicated that "rough proportionality must be considered on an individualized basis, and must involve an assessment of the nature and impact of the proposed development or redevelopment. In the case of Target, and given our opinion as expressed above, we recommend that the City undertake an analysis comparing the pre-redevelopment and post-redevelopment uses of the entire site taking into consideration the number of commercial lots, size ofbuildings, permitted uses, expected sales volume, employee work forces and other pertinent factors deemed appropriate by the City. If the results of this analysis suggest and support a conclusion of increased demands on public facilities, then we believe the City may impose park dedication at least to the extent of the perceived increase in demand created by the redevelopment proposal. In conjunction with this analysis it seems apparent that Section ll 03.07 needs revision. This is particularly true in light of the 2004 statutory changes in Section 762.358. We intend to suggest a comprehensive new section in the City Code dealing with park dedication that will both clarify how it applies to redevelopment, and conform it to the new changes in law. Very truly yours, � � x — a �}' [ ' [� _ ,� - .FTSf��rh Rfi1�1: #?��