Dolan v. City of Tigard

Facts

Oregon required its cities to adopt comprehensive land use plans, and Tigard adopted one through its Community Development Code. The city also adopted a plan for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to encourage alternatives to driving, and a Master Drainage Plan that noted flooding along Fanno Creek. Florence Dolan owned a plumbing and electric supply store on a 1.67-acre parcel in Tigard's Central Business District. Fanno Creek ran through the southwestern corner of the lot and along its western boundary. She applied for a permit to redevelop the site. Her plans called for nearly doubling the store from about 9,700 square feet to 17,600 square feet and paving a 39-space parking lot. The city's planning commission granted the permit on conditions. Dolan had to dedicate (deed to the city) the part of her land in the creek's 100-year floodplain for a storm drainage system, plus an additional 15-foot strip next to the floodplain for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The dedication covered about 7,000 square feet, roughly 10% of the property. She could count it toward the city's 15% open space requirement. Dolan asked for variances but offered no alternative measures to offset her project's impacts, and the commission denied them. It found that the larger store would increase storm water runoff and traffic, and that a pathway could offset some of the traffic demand.

Issues

1. When a city conditions a building permit on the owner's dedication of land for public use, what degree of connection must exist between the dedication and the projected impact of the proposed development?
2. Did Tigard's findings justify requiring Dolan to dedicate floodplain land for a public greenway and a strip of land for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway?

Holding

Tigard's findings did not satisfy the rough proportionality requirement. The city did not explain why a public greenway, rather than private open space, was needed for flood control, and it did not quantify how far a pathway would offset the added traffic. The Oregon Supreme Court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded.