CCP 03-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Association meets all of the City's criteria for exemption, and, thus, should he exempt from the City's Assessment Roll. . }> As to the City's first criteria that the land cannot be developed, effective January 14,2002, the City adopted its Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Ordinance identifies specific requirements that must be met in order to develop lakefront property. · There must be a minimum of75' '''later frontage; Although the Association's property abuts Lake Josephine, the Association does not have 75' feet of shoreline frontage. . There must be a minimum 40' set back from the street; · There must be a minimmn 50' structure setback from the ordinary high water mark; · There must be a minimum width of75' at the building line. The Fernwood Channel, which is protected by the Shoreland Ordinance as well as DNR and Rice Creek Watershed Ordinances, and thus would be subject to stringent requirements, travels through the Association's property. Even ifthere were enough developable area between Ingerson Court and the .Fernwood Channel to meet all of the set back requirements of the City's zoning ordinance, the Association property clearly cannot be developed because of the requirements of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. . Thus, IUIder the City's Ordinance requirements, the property owned by the Association cannot be developed now or in the future and therefore, should be deleted from the City's Assessment Roll. ). As to the City's second criteria that the improvement does not provide a benefit, Minnesota Courts have long held that in order to assess property, the property must receive a special benefit from the improvement and that the assessment may not exceed the special benefit The premise of this holding is that an assessment that exceeds the special benefits to the property would be the taking or confiscating of property without fair compensation which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution. [NOTE: Carlson-Lang, 240 NW2d at 520 (1976) citing In Ie Improvement of Superior Street, 216 NW 2d at 320 (1927); DeSutter 489 NW2d at 239 (1992).} The Minnesota Courts have also held that the value of a special benefit is determined by what increase, if any, there has been to the market value of the property. The Minnesota Court of Appeal and Minnesota Supreme Comt continue to hold that "[t]he.difference in market value should be calculated by determining 'what a willing buyer would pay a wming seller for the property before, and then after, the improvement has been constructed.''' [NOTE: EHW, 503 NW 2d at 139 (1993); Joint lndep. School District, 256 NW 2d at 5]6 (1977).] We would like to advise the COlUlci] that the Association's property is subject to an easement of use by the heirs of Carl Ingerson. The Association does not have the legal power to remove this easement from its property. . " k