Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

r- ( C. Z.B. July 25, 2006 - Page 3 Inverse Condemnation - City refuses to amend comprehensive plan to allow development of golf course Developer claims city's denial amounts to taking Citation: Wensmann R~alty Inc. v. City of Eagan, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A05-1074 (2006) NIINNESOTA (05/23/06) - The Carriage Hill Golf Course was located on a 120- acre tract of land in the city of Eagan. The property had been used as an 18-hole golf course since 1967. At some point, the property was sold by the original developer to the Rahn Family Limited Partnership. On Sept. 5, 2003, Rahn entered into an agreement to sell the property to Wensmann Realty Inc. Wensmann phmned to develop the property into resi- dential house lots. The agreement betweenRahn and Wensmann was cootin- gent upon the reclassification and rezoning of the subject property as a resi- dential mixed-use development. In May 2004, Wensmann requested that the city amend its comprehensive plan to allow the golf course to be developed as residential property. After a public hearing, the planning commission issued a recommendation that the city deny Wensmann's request. The city council, acting on the planning commission's opinion, denied the request unanimously. Wensmann appealed the city council's decision to court. The court found in Wensmann's favor and ordered the city to amend the plan to allow the development of the golf course. The court further stated that it would begin eminent domain proceedings if the city did not comply with the order within 30 days. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Generally, a court would uphold a city's land-use decision unless the deci- sion had no rational basis in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The decision would be upheld when at least one of the reasons for the decision had a rational basis and was not arbitrary. The city presented evidence that, through a hearing process and its elected officials, the public valued the protection of open and recreational space consis- tent with the historic use of the property. The court concluded that this interest was a rational basis for denying the request to amend the comprehensive plan. The city also presented evidence indicating that the development of the property for residential use would increase traffic and would add to existing overcrowding problems in the public schools. Wensmann contended that the denial of its request amounted to a t~g of the property. The trial court agreed that inverse condemnation had oc- curred. However, the appeals court ruled that there were three factors to consider in an inverse-condemnation claim: 1) the economic impact of the regulation; 2) interference with the investment expectations of the owner; @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048_ 95