2005-05-16 Property within 250 Feet of EntranceLarkin
Ho,~fman
arroewev~
May 16, 2005
Mr. Larry Kruse
City Administrator
City of Albertville
5975 Main Avenue N.E.
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd
1500 Wells Fargo Plaza
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194
ceNeaA~: 952-835-3800
rnx: 952-896-3333
was: www.larkmric
Re: Phil Morris Property-Ordinance No. 2005-02 Interim Ordinance on the
Platting of Property and the Issuance of a Planned Unit Development/Conditional
Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development Rezoning on Property within 250 Feet
of Entrance and Exit Ramps from Wright County Highways Abutting Interstate 94
within the City of Albertville
Dear Mr. Kruse:
~~~5
We represent Phil Morris, owner of approximately 11.89 acres of land ("Property") located at the
corner of Interstate 94 and County Road 37 in the City of Albertville ("City") in connection with
his proposed development of the Property for commercial use consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the existing B-3 Highway Commercial District zoning. We have reviewed the record of
the City Council's adoption, on May 2, 2005, of Ordinance No. 2005-02, an interim ordinance
establishing a moratorium on the platting of property and the issuance of planned unit
development/conditional use permit, or a planned unit development rezoning on property within
250 feet of the entrance and exit ramps from Wright County highways abutting Interstate 94
within the City of Albertville ("Ordinance No. 2005-02"). Our review indicates that there is
reason to believe that Ordinance No. 2005-02 was enacted in an arbitrary manner to delay or
limit Mr. Morris' proposed commercial development. At the May 2, 200 City Council meeting,
the City attorney singled out Mr. Morris' proposed development, stating that "...a representative
of the Phil Morns property has been before City staff a number of times with a variety of
plans... [which] demonstrate[d] an off ramp, which was not located in the same location that is
currently being considered by Council." (Unapproved May 2, 2005 City Council minutes). The
minutes further indicate that the Council was concerned about the restrictiveness of Ordinance
No. 2005-02 and, as a result, provided in its motion to approve the interim moratorium ordinance
"the ability to exempt the properties on a case-by-case basis."
Mr. Morris' objection to Ordinance No. 2005-02 is rooted in his long-standing, good faith efforts
to work with City staff on a commercial development that would address the City's
transportation and land use planning objectives, as well as the property owner's reasonable
investment-backed development expectations. The interim moratorium ordinance flies in the
face of this heretofore cooperative process.
Mr. Larry Kruse
May 16, 2005
Page 2
Mr. Morris and his representatives, Boulder Properties and Weber Architects, initiated
discussions with City staff in 2003 regarding a PUD commercial development of the Property.
On August 18, 2003, the City Council approved Boulder Properties' proposed PUD concept
plan. In 2004, Mr. Morris and Christian Commercial brought a revised PUD concept plan to the
City for consideration. In June 2004, the revised PUD concept plan was reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council, but no action was taken. In August 2004, SEH
performed a traffic study of Christian Commercial's revised PUD concept plan and further input
was received from Wright County. In November 2004, representatives of Mr. Morns and
Christian Commercial met with the City and were advised that the proposed interchange at I-94
and County Road 37 would likely require additional land dedication from the City (about .80
acre as compared to the .65 acre land dedication referred to in the August 2003 Planning
Department Staff Report for Boulder Properties' original PUD concept plan).
In December 2004, we met with the City Development Review Committee ("DRC") to discuss
Mr. Morris' concerns about the questionable legal basis for dedication of land for a regional
roadway improvement and the effect of the proposed .80 acre dedication on Christian
Commercial's revised PUD concept plan. After the December 2004 DRC meeting, Mr. Morris
and Christian Commercial decided to work on a revised PUD proposal that would balance the
goals and objectives of both parties. Mr. Morris and Christian Commercial retained an architect,
a land use planner, surveyor and traffic engineer, and a wetland consultant to address physical
development constraints and the applicable regulatory framework.
In early April 2005, Mr. Morris' representatives contacted the City to request placement on the
May 3 DRC agenda for the purposes of reviewing a modified PUD concept plan. We contacted
City staff several times in Apri12005 regarding application schedules, requirements, and
procedures. At no time was Mr. Morris or any of his representatives advised of the placement of
an interim moratorium ordinance on the May 2, 2005 City Council agenda. Mr. Morris,
representatives of Christian Commercial and their respective consultants appeared at the
previously scheduled May 3 DRC meeting with the expectation of obtaining constructive
comments on a revised development proposal that largely accommodated previous direction
from the City regarding the proposed interchange needs. Instead, Mr. Morris was informed that
the Council had adopted the previous evening aone-year moratorium on platting and PUD
development of the Property. This shocked and dismayed Mr. Morris, because he believed that
he and his development team had made significant progress in balancing the goals and objectives
of both parties.
In conclusion, Mr. Morris strongly objects to the applicability of Ordinance No. 2005-02 to his
Property. Regardless of whether the interim ordinance does or does not apply to other properties
in the City, we believe that the moratorium was adopted to prevent or delay Mr. Morris and
Christian Commercial from applying for a subdivision and PUD conditional use permit that
comply with all applicable City ordinances. Despite Mr. Morris' dissatisfaction with the City's
action, he has instructed his consultants to meet with the City's traffic consultant to analyze the
planning considerations related to the City's currently preferred interchange alternative. To
facilitate this planning effort, Mr. Morns requests that his Property be exempt from Ordinance
Mr. Larry Kruse
May 16, 2005
Page 3
No. 2005-02 so that he and Christian Commercial may continue their good faith efforts to work
with the City on a mutually acceptable development proposal.
Sincerely,
~.~ ~ .
Linda H. Fisher, for
Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd.
Direct Dial: 952-896-3210
Direct Fax: 952-842-1724
Email: Ifisher(a~larkinhoffinan. com
cc: Mayor Donald Peterson
City Councilmember John Vetsch
City Councilmember Leroy Berning
City Councilmember Tom Fay
City Councilmember Ron Klecker
City Attorney Michael Couri
Phil Morris