Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />SPECIAL ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 6, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />    Page 8 of 27   <br />(1. #13-3638 and #13-3639 SOURCE LAND CAPITAL, LLC (PAT HILLER) O/B/O GRANT <br /> WENKSTERN (LAKEVIEW GOLF), 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE – COMPREHENSIVE <br /> PLAN AMENDMENT AND SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, Continued) <br /> <br />Thieroff stated the first misconception contained in the documents is the idea that the potential for a <br />takings claim turns on whether the current owner of the property can operate the golf course profitably. <br />Thieroff indicated that is not the test and noted the current owner is not the measure of whether this <br />property can be used in an economically beneficial way. Thieroff noted in the Wenzman case, there was <br />evidence before the MN Supreme Court that there was another golf course operator who was willing to <br />buy the property and operate it in an economically profitable way. The fact that a current owner may be <br />facing economic difficulties is not the test of whether this property has value as a golf course. Thieroff <br />indicated there are other factors, such as marketing factors and experience in the industry, where someone <br />would be able to operate the course in a profitable manner. Thieroff noted they did include in their <br />affidavit that the owner of this property did receive an offer from some members of the course who were <br />interested in taking it over and running it as a golf course, which establishes that there is value to this <br />property as a golf course. <br /> <br />Thieroff stated the second misconception is that there are no other possible alternative uses under the <br />current guiding and that it is either a golf course or it must be re-guided, which is not the case. Going <br />back to the Wenzman case, the Supreme Court has suggested that if someone is interested in purchasing <br />the property simply to hold it in the hopes that one day the guiding might change to allow development, it <br />would be an alternative economically viable use of the property to sell it to such a person. Thieroff stated <br />there is a vision in the community for putting this property to a different use but yet maintain the current <br />guiding on the property. <br /> <br />Thieroff stated the third misconception is a combination of the idea that the owner is entitled to a return <br />on his investment and the other is that the owner is entitled to the zoning that would make the land most <br />profitable. Thieroff commented there are lots of people who would like to have different zoning on their <br />property to make it more valuable, which is not the legal test. It has been established for over 100 years <br />that cities can constitutionally zone property even if it reduces the value of that property. Thieroff stated <br />he would like to point out, however, that return on investment is relevant, but in looking at a regulatory <br />taking claim, how much a person paid for the property is also relevant and is considered in whether an <br />alternative use or value would be reasonable. <br /> <br />Thieroff stated the last main misconception is the idea that all the landowner has to do is to tell the City <br />there is no economically viable use for the property and therefore the City must grant the application. In <br />the cases mentioned before, there is extensive information that is considered when considering a <br />regulatory taking claim. The owner has to show all the financials of the business and demonstrate that <br />everything has been done to run the business in an economically viable way. Those cases have involved <br />market studies and extensive appraisals. They have also involved expert opinions from golf course <br />management experts as to whether this golf course might be run differently and generate a profit. <br /> <br />Thieroff noted none of that evidence is before the City Council tonight and that there is literally nothing <br />before the City other than a suggestion that the current owner cannot do it anymore. Thieroff stated that <br />does not provide the basis for a regulatory taking claim and that the City Council should consider that in <br />discussing the application tonight. Thieroff stated based on the record before the City Council, there is <br />relatively little risk of a regulatory taking claim. <br />