My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-14-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 04-14-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:20 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:35:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, , <br /> <br />I ) <br /> <br />(~) <br /> <br />the Association meets all of the City's criteria for exemption, and, thus, should be <br />exempt from the City's Assessment Roll. <br /> <br />,. As to the City's first criteria that the land cannot be developed, effective January <br />14, 2002, the City adopted its Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Ordinance <br />identifies specific requirements that must be met in order to develop lakefront property. <br /> <br />· There must be a minimum of75' water frontage; <br />Although the Association's property abuts Lake Josephine, the Association does not have <br />75' feet of shoreline frontage. <br /> <br />· There must be a minimum 40' set back from the street; <br />. There must be a minimum 50' structure setback from the ordinary high water <br />mark; <br />. There must be a minimum width of75' at the building line. <br />The Fernwood Channel, which is protected by the Shoreland Ordinance as well as DNR <br />and Rice Creek Watershed Ordinances, and thus would be subject to stringent <br />requirements, travels through the Association's property. Even if there were enough <br />developable area between Ingerson Court and the Femwood Channel to meet all of the <br />set back requirements of the City's zoning ordinance, the Association property clearly <br />cannot be developed because of the requirements of the Shoreland Management <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />Thus, under the City's Ordinance requirements, the property owned by the Association <br />cannot be developed now or in tbe future and therefore, should be deleted from the City's <br />Assessment Roll. <br /> <br />:;.. As to the City's second criteria that the improvement does not provide a benefit, <br />Minnesota Courts have long held that in order to assess property, the property must <br />receive a special benefit from the improvement and that the assessment may not exceed <br />the special benefit. The premise of this holding is that an assessment that exceeds the <br />special benefits to the property would be the taking or confiscating of property without <br />fair compensation which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal <br />constitution. [NOTE: Carlson-Lang, 240 NW2d at 520 (] 976) citing In re Improvement <br />of Superior Street, 216 NW 2d at 320 (1927); DeSutter 489 NW2d at 239 (1992).J The <br />Minnesota Courts have also held that the value of a special benefit is determined by what <br />increase, if any, there has been to the market value of the property. The Minnesota Court <br />of Appeal and Milmesota Supreme Court continue to hold that "[t]he.difference in <br />market value should be calculated by determining 'what a willing buyer would pay a <br />willing seller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been <br />constructed m [NOTE: EHW, 503 NW 2d at 139 (1993); Joint Indep. School District, <br />256 NW 2d at 516 (1977).] <br /> <br />We would like to advise the Council that the Association's property is subject to an <br />easement of use by the heirs of Carl Ingerson. The Association does not have the legal <br />power to remove this easement from its property. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.