PUBLIC HEARING: Adopt Resolution #21-042 Granting a Variance to Platting Requirements to Facilitate a Metes and Bounds Subdivision of PID #23-32-25-21-0002 (Project No. 21-100); Case of Shade Tree Communities LLC

The City has received an application from Shade Tree Communities LLC (the "Applicant") for a variance to platting requirements and for a Minor Plat to facilitate a lot split of the property identified by PID #23-32-25-21-0002 (the "Subject Property").  In 2005, the Applicant acquired approximately twenty-eight (28) acres of land lying east/north of Nowthen Boulevard NW.  However, in the late 1970s or early 1980s, Anoka County realigned Nowthen Boulevard (to its current alignment).  This new alignment actually bisected the Subject Property, leaving a small, remnant portion south/west of Nowthen Boulevard.

When the land sale occurred in 2005, the original legal description was utilized, which described the land as lying entirely east of Nowthen Boulevard.  Both the seller and buyer (the Applicant) at that time were of the belief that the transaction was only for the roughly twenty-eight (28) acres east of Nowthen Boulevard.  But, there was never an official subdivision legally separating the two parcels.  Thus, Anoka County records show the Applicant as the single owner of the land now bisected by Nowthen Boulevard.

The City attempted to notify Property Owners, as reflected in the Anoka County Property Records, within 700 feet of the Subject Property of the request. The Public Hearing Notice was also properly posted in the Anoka County UnionHerald, the City's Official Newsletter. 

The Applicant is attempting to transfer the roughly twenty-eight (28) acres to another LLC.  As part of the title review for this transaction, it was discovered that the Subject Property was never legally subdivided.  Both the Applicant and the previous owner assumed that the bisected parcel had been legally subdivided and the land transaction clearly intended to only transfer the 28 acres north/ease of Nowthen Boulevard. Since the City never approved this lot split, it is not obligated to do so today. 

This case has been discussed with the City Attorney due to its uniqueness.  For all intents and purposes, this property has been subdivided; it just didn't go through the proper process to be acknowledged and approved by the City and the County and does not obligate the City to allow development of this parcel.  The original legal description called out the easterly boundary of right-of-way for County State Aid Highway No. 5 (aka Nowthen Boulevard).  However, when Nowthen Boulevard was realigned, legal descriptions were not updated; it still referred to only the land east of Nowthen Boulevard. Thus, the Applicant is seeking a variance to the platting requirements to complete a metes and bounds subdivision to clear the title and lawfully separate the two parcels.

Any future subdivision of either parcel would be subject to the platting requirements as well as whatever zoning standards are in effect at that time.

When considering a Variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors:

1. Will the variance allow the property owner to use the property in a reasonable manner?
2. Is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner?
3. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?

This request is not intended to facilitate any proposed development at this time.  Rather, it is intended to clear up title issues.  The realignment of Nowthen Boulevard was not initiated or completed by the Applicant and said realignment resulted in a bisection of the Subject Property and subsequently, both seller and buyer (the Applicant) thought the land transaction was only for that portion east/north of Nowthen Boulevard.  Nowthen Boulevard already separates the Subject Property and to the general public, it would assuredly be assumed to be separate parcels.  So, the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.

Please note that there is a likelihood that the remnant parcel may not be buildable due to current standards. However, there is no legal liability to the City in this case as it never signed off on the lot split to begin with. The City is under no obligation to allow development of this remnant parcel, but is simply working to clean up title issues. The discussion of development abilities of this remnant parcel is a discussion for another day. 

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Motion to adopt Resolution #21-042 approving a variance to platting requirements to facilitate a metes and bounds subdivision to legally separate the Subject Property into two (2) parcels.  As previously noted, both parties assumed that the 2005 land transaction only included the area east/north of Nowthen Boulevard.  This action would assist in cleaning up title for the Applicant.  Any future subdivision of the either parcel would be subject to platting and zoning standards in effect at that time.  

Alternative 2: Motion to deny the variance.  If this action is taken, the Applicant would need to follow the current platting requirements to lawful separate the Subject Property along Nowthen Boulevard.  As previously noted, in practicality, the Subject Property was subdivided in 2005 (albeit without consent or acknowledgement of the City or County) was the land transaction occurred.  The Applicant is not claiming ownership of the land south/west of Nowthen Boulevard but rather is simply attempting to clean up the title so that the portion he acquired in 2005 can be transferred to another LLC.  

All costs associated with this request are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Staff recommends adopting Resolution #21-042 granting a variance to the platting requirements to facilitate a metes and bounds subdivision.

Motion to adopt Resolution #21-042 granting a variance to the platting requirements to facilitate a metes and bounds subdivision.