A three-judge panel with the Minnesota Court of Appeals has found that a claim against Brainerd by the owners of the Colonywood Apartment complex concerning the validity of the city’s College Drive project is without merit.
The owners of the apartments, Roger and Betty Anda and Kathleen and James Martin, claimed in a lawsuit filed Dec. 14, 2010, in Crow Wing County District Court that a petition received by the city from Central Lakes College in favor of the project was invalid because the college wasn’t an actual landowner according to Minnesota law. Because the petition was from a property owner of at least 35-percent of abutting property, it meant the project could be approved with a simple majority rather than a super majority vote by the Brainerd City Council.
District Court Judge Erik Askegaard ruled in favor of the city and dismissed the lawsuit. The appellate court affirmed Askegaard’s decision Monday.
In rejecting the Andas’ and Martins’ claim, the appeals court stated, “we conclude that the district court properly determined that CLC’s petition was valid” and “under the common definition of the word, ‘owner,’ CLC is the owner of at least 35 percent of the real property frontage abutting College Drive for purposes of (Minnesota Statute) was valid.”
A site of controversy for nearly three years, the case surrounded Brainerd’s pursuit of a project to reconstruct a one-mile portion of College Drive into a four-lane road with roundabouts at intersections.
As the city explored options for the project, it became evident that city taxes or special assessments would be necessary to cover a portion of the costs to fund the project. Properties that were adjacent to the project and that would benefit from the project would be assessed to help cover the cost of the project. Some of these properties that would be assessed were the apartment complex owners.
In 2011 the council, by a narrow margin, approved increasing the project from $6.9 million to about $9.4 million. More than $4.335 million in federal finding has been received for the project. The majority of the remaining costs will be funded with the city’s state aid money.
The project will include four lanes from Crow Wing County Road 48 to South Fourth Street; reconstruction of College Drive and Crow Wing County Road 48 intersection; roundabouts at Mississippi River Parkway, Southwest Fourth Street and South Fourth Street; a stop light at Quince and South Fifth streets; repaving Quince Street to South Sixth Street; trails; sidewalks; bridge improvements; pedestrian crosswalks, flashers and deterrents; lighting improvements; and a backage road to accommodate the apartment buildings.
Comments (8)
Add commentCollege Drive Project to suit CLC and NOT residents
This is gainfull and land rape by the city of Brainerd. The residents and definately owners of Colonywood Apts just got robbed and slapped in the face by the city of Brainerd for objecting to the city's plan because the city..'could'. To tell the owners that they will be losing what little was left of the front lawn (which will include having to cut down a handicap ramp to a building) because the curb will be sooo close to the front door now, and to strip the minimal parking (there's not even room for guest parking) for residents is an outrage! One of the driveways is soo small it's only a one way! Now there wont even be an entrance which means 6 tenants minimum lose parking AND also by putting in a 'back road' the city took the rear land as well for the new road. These tenants will have NO WHERE TO PARK addition to fighting the rest of the city's traffic which will be using the back road as well. The city just takes land 'front AND rear' while CLC's lush green front can continue landscaping. SHAME on those elected people to just TAKE from the citizen to accomodate a STATE facility. But they won't lose sleep over it... Not as long as their lawns and parking aren't being stolen and them being charged. why should they care?
where will the city put a parking lot for these residents?
Where will the city put a parking lot for these residents and will the city pay for it?! Word by wind is that they are taking the land from the rear to the point if a parking lot DOES need to be built that it will be charged to the apartments owners/management. So they steal land from people and then make them PAY for what was already theirs?! I might (emphasis on might) be wrong but if this TRULY is the case as I have heard it..... then it's time for some fresh people in our elected positions in the local sector. Brainerd Officials.... MAKE THIS RIGHT without political hustle!
But sometimes experience is worth a lot.
in my opinion Fresh people is best in politics. it seems that people just keeping putting the same old in all areas of politics. Sometimes
In my opinion Fresh people is best in politics, but
In my opinion Fresh people is best in politics. it seems that people just keeping putting the same old in all areas of politics. Sometimes
But sometimes experience is worth a lot.
Scary decision! Needs to go to Supremes
Been watching this one and fear it's ripple effects. There is now clear reason for every residential homeowner, apartment owner, condo or duplex owner etc. to resist plans for sticking any school or other public facility into their neighborhood. That facility has the legal blessing to ramrod through a major development project in their favor--over the strong objections of the vast majority of neighbors whose concerns can be ignored!
Hoping someone will come along and help them take this one all the way to the top. There must be a fair process or the result will be a extreme reaction against any proposed development by a government entity near a residential neighborhood. People may even be OK with such development--but this decision makes it clear their best interests will be served by fighting against it as strongly as they can.
Devasting cost ?
I wonder just how much this will eventually cost those private land owners ??? I would think the assessments the city will levy on them will be very high. How do the private land owners pay for that ??? Paying government to take your land makes no sense to me.
@ProudRINO
See Kelo v City of New London; the Supreme Court ruled that any municipality can take any private citizen's land for any reason so long as they declare it is in the public's interest.
Think your confused, JohnBrown
I admit it is confusing, but this is not a "takings" issue as you claim. It's a process issue. If they city had decided they needed the apartment property they could have condemned and taken it over--which might have caused some hard feelings but might have made more sense from the standpoint of the construction project. Were I the apartment owner I might have asked why they couldn't slide over and take more of the CLC parking lot out though--there is so much parking at that college I have never seen it all filled up!
But back to the main issue--the city uses a policy to decide such matters that involves taking input from the assessed landowners in the project's path.
Lawyers made a solid argument--citing Minnesota A.General Opinion, as I recall--that CLC is not considered a landowner for such purposes, as it is not and can not be assessed taxes.
CLC did submit a petition to the city as if they were a fully assessed landowner--asking that the construction option that has minimal impact on the college be chosen.
Per state law, the city is obligated to acknowledge and consider such petitions in their decision on projects.
The kicker is that they need a supermajority vote to approve an option--UNLESS one or more assessed landowners owning 35% or more the land along a project's path petition the city regarding the project. Then a simple majority vote is all that is needed.
So what we have is a petitioner who had not standing was heard--and had a major impact on the decision. There were councilors who agreed the severe impact on the apartment complexes--and students who live there--was too onerous.
If process was followed, a supermajority vote in favor of the option they are proceeding with--the one that greatly limits any impact to CLC but guts the apartment complexes and their residents--would have had to have been 5 to 2, 6 to 1, or 7 to 0 in favor.
The actual vote was 4 to 3--and the city gets to take a good chunk of the apartments tiny front lawn and parking/access out--and also assess them for the improvements to be made!