Hanning Subdivision Possibilities

Home Browse Search

6 au Ft l>e+v" ! 't,- F& C- 4' .c4 it/ ' c m To: Mayor and Council From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: October 20, 1999 Subject: Update on Co. Rd. 6 Right-of-Way Acquisition: Hanning Property zo„,,fie> ►s,-Aur- 40e.-/A 5,�6,,,i rfit--1 121.-44t gos eb4047-,* S Background Council may recall that a portion of the Hanning property at 4220 Co. Rd. 6 was acquired for the reconstruction of County Road 6 west of Highway 12. The Hanning's appealed the County's ! compensation offer of$24,300 to the Condemnation Commission. The Commission awarded an amount of$37,158. The Hanning's appealed this award, claiming the taking resulted in damages totaling $154,850. The County similarly appealed,claiming the damages are no more than$24,300. The appeals court judge concluded that the Commissioner's award of$37,158 is appropriate,but also concluded that the Hanning's will be awarded an additional $125,000 if the subdivision of their property is denied. The judge's position is that the City is forcing the Hanning's to subdivide their property now in order to protect their future property rights, and that the City should be paying all of their subdivision costs. The Hanning's recently applied for a subdivision,but staff concluded their application was incomplete and requires that wetland delineation and septic testing information be provided to make the application complete. The application is on hold indefinitely waiting for the additional information, and the 60/120 day clock has not started. Area Credit Proposal Hennepin County, represented by Attorney Lisa Berg (who is also representing the City's 50% financial interest in the outcome) is pursuing an appeal through the courts. At a pre-trial conference on October 18, Berg determined that the City's risk may be decreased substantially(i.e. by$125,000 presumably)by agreeing to giving the Hanning's permanent area credit for the land that was taken. Berg indicates that the judge stated he would look at this matter quite differently if the City commits to granting dry buildable area credit for the portion of property taken for road, which would mean there is no substantial difference between the "before" and "after" status of the property in terms of subdividability. Berg has requested that Council consider whether such a permanent credit might be granted by the City. This option might be reasonable, given that the Hanning's had approximately 11.2 acres dry buildable before the taking and about 10.8 dry acres after. The property most likely could have been divided into 2 lots before the taking, and probably stil can, but the dividing line will be more gerrymandered under the "after" scenario. Giving credit or the 0.4 acre dry buildable taking would allow a less gerrymandered lot to be created, while still essulltting in just two lots on 11 acres. 4--b/ .5rCII-1 ._..)- -4-0-e-A-A4 / r OK tisr Z Are , ..