5a. Moratorium, Hwy 5 1 s
I
CITYOF
, p, t f -
11 CHANHASSEN
.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
II (612) 937 -1900 • FAX(612)937-5739
I MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: January 27, 1992
1 SUBJ: Moratorium, Highway 5 Corridor
1 Councilman Wing asked that this item be placed on to this City
Council agenda. It is my belief that Councilman Wing's primary
concern is that premature development may occur along the corridor
prior to our having in place ordinances /overlay .zones to control
1 that development. t-
,
The City Attorney, Roger Knutson, is recommending that the city not
I use a "moratorium" as a means to control premature development. As
can be seen from the attached Court ; decision, Woodbury will pay a
very high price as a result of making that same decision
approximately 4 years ago. Xn essence, the court ruled that the
1 city's moratorium was in fact a "taking" for which the owners
should be compensated. This decision does not include the city's
legal expenses, which probably totaled $10,000 to $20,000, nor does
1 it include costs of an - appeal. By contrast, Roger noted that
virtually all of the properties along Highway 5 between Lake Ann
and the Arboretum will require:
II - Replatting,
Extension of municipal sewer and water,
- Approval of interior streets, and
II - Subdivision /site plan approval. - t :
Although some of the approvals noted above would:be'difficult to
1 deny if the other approvals had been received, i.e. site plan
approval, generally each of the' approvals, if given, are a
"privilege" rather than a "God -given right." Accordingly, the city
I has significant discretion in terms of whether it wishes to see
phased extensions of sewer and water, phased rezoning of properties
to ensure orderly growth in conjunction with the Land Use Plan,
etc. The best advice from the City Attorney is to use these tools
I as a means to ensure that premature development does not occur
within the corridor.
1
II PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11 Mayor and City Council
January 27, 1992
Page 2
[Note: For those not able to attend the Highway 5 Task Force
' meeting in December, I would strongly recommend that you attend the
Planning Commission meeting on February 5. Bill Morrish and Lance
Neckar of the University of Minnesota have nearly completed the
initial concept plans for the Highway 5 Corridor. The concept plan
' developed has considered input from the Task Force during the
series of meetings held during 1991. To state that I am excited
about the concepts presented in that plan would be an
' understatement. I truly believe that this document will mature
into a vision for Chanhassen's future, and lay the foundation for
specific ordinances and overlay zones to be developed by the
' Planning Commission, which will ensure that future development
meets our long range goals.]
t
�`` .4 =cam ,.. t
II
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Jan 22,92 12:10 No.007 P.02
STATE OF MINNES ' TA DISTRICT COURT
coon . or WASRI GTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
1
Woodbury Place 'artnere, a Minnesota
general partner .hip , .JUDGMENT '
Plaintiff,
mix. CO- 88-3249
Ve.
•
City of Woodbu ‘, Minnesota, a
municipal carpo atian, CFC 1 5, 1991 tJ
Defendant.
iv
The above - ntitled matter came on for trial before the Honorable II
J.E. Carer, Jude of District Court,'on September 27, 1991, at the
Washington Coun y Government Center, Stillwater, Minnesota.
Anthony J. Gleekel, Esq. and Christopher Penwell. Esq., appeared
on behalf of th. Plaintiff. Pierre N. 1iegnier, Esq., and James G.
Golembeck, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Defendant. . '
Sawed upon the files, records, the arguments of Counsel And the
memoranda submi and the proceedings herein, the Court made its '
' Findings Of Pao., Conclusions Of Law, Order and Order For-Judgment.
Now,.There'aro, Pursuant to said Findings Of Fact, Conclusions
' Of LAW and Orde For Judgments
XT IS ERRE T ,ADJUDGED; DETERMINED AND DECREED s .
1. That a peremptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue directing
Defendant Cie o Woodbury to commence r '
Y y ondeair+ation proceedings
alainst PlaintL-fli fliplij mail
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Jan 22,92 12:11 No.007 P.03
1
• 2, That plaintiff is awarded coats and disbursements in the
' amount of , to be hereafter taxed, allowed and
insetted, making a total judgment amount of,
DATED: Decemb 18, 1991
1.
BY TRE COURT
•
Marie Sunhitta
• Court Ad
• i?
Aeputy
1
I
•
1
1
I
I 1
1 . i .
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Jan 22,92 12:11 No.007 P.04
1
II
I STATE OF )(ZM 8 Orl1 DISTRICT COURT
' COMITY d1 WASH GTON TENTS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Woodbury Place artaers, a ?IM MO off' jACT
Minnesota gene al partnership, p4NCLgooN$ OF _JAW
II
QR,DER I►ND •
Plaintiff, gmR TOR OODGMZ
vs. lils eta. 00.40 4x4! ,
1
• City of Woodbu , Minnesota, .
* municipal oo oration, •
L DEC ,. II
8 1991 .
Defendant. r
a. 4, . _.,: g: .:
The above entitled matter came on for triad, before the II
• undersigned, t 1e Honorable a. E. Cass, Judge of the above -named
• Court, at the aahington County Government center, Stillwater, II
• • Minnesota, en B ptember 27, 1991.
Anthony 0'. Gleekel and Christopher Penwell appeared on behalf
II
of Plaintiff. Lo rre N. Regnier and wanes G. Golembeck appeared on
behalf of Defen -ant.
II
The Court, after considering the arguments of counsel and the
memoranda eubmi tad, and based upon all of the tilts, mords, and 1
proceedings her in, wakes the followings
ZZNDIW1c1 1
3. The p sties submitted the matter to the Court upon two
sets of stipule ad facts. Each party agreed as to the accuracy of . II
*soh *et of fats, but objected to the opposing party's set on
1
f grounds of ref• ancy.
II 9. Plaintiff's' Bret of stipulated !acts LOCUS on the tiCt that
•
f Plaint' . P 41111 I ['I I . ] , .fr.. -- II
air* M M 1 plkson %I
:
1
II I
from March 23, 988 to March 23, 1990, as the romult of the City of
Woodbury's one tment of a moratorium.
3. Defe dent's set of stipulated facts ,rocua on the
reasonableness of the moratorium enacted by the City of
1 The Court tin a the reasonableness of the moratorium to be
irrelevant.
i 4. Albin iff's version of the Stipulated Findings of Fact,
attached, is'incorporated herein by reference.
II 5. Plaintiff has not , unreasonably delayed asserting a known
right to the prejudice of others.
I based on e foregoing, the Court makes the following:
2iCLb�IQ�� br � �
1. Plaint fre'olaim is not barred by the doctrine of laohes.
1 2. The mo atarium affected a oompensabls temporary taking of
Plaintiff's Ian- from March 23, 1988 to March 33, 1990.
1 Dated on t e foregoing, the Court makes tha following:
II • 1. A p remptory Writ of Mandamus shall issue directing
Defendant city of Woodbury to commence condemnation proceedings
against Plaints f's property involved herein.
' 2. Plaint tt is awarded its costs and disbureemente.
t
3. Robert 8eedle,eD.J. Kabis, and Timothy J. McKenzie, with
James L. Currel and Robert Lafayette as alternates in that order,
each of whom is a disinterested person and president of Washington
' county, .Mints ta, are hereby appointed as Commissioners
y pP tp
ascertain and riport the amount of damages that ware suataihed by
Plaintiff as s result ot• the temporary taking dbsvribQQ herein,
II The first mooting of said Commissioners shell bs Mild in the
2
1
1
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Jan 22,92 12:12 No.007 P.05
1
If.dMM171J iJ11
•
Re; !oodburY 4rtn0 LY. _ City ,9f Woodbury
Court rile No, C0-88 -3848
Plaintiff wns property located within the city of Woodbury 1
(the City). P1 Lntiff submitted an application for a Special Use .
Permit, approve of preliminary plat, and site plan review to the
City on Yebrua y l6, 1988. The application complied with all
applicable rani g and subdivision ordinances, but was inconsistent
with proposed r savoy improvement's. The application was revised to 1
1
be consistent ith the improvements and submitted to the City
prior to Maroh 3, 1988. The City council, pursuant to Minn. Stat. 1
J462.355, aubd 4, on March 23, 1988 adopted a moratorium
restricting d ve3.opment within a certain area, including 1
Plaintiff's property. Although the moratorium provided for
variances, Pia ntift was twice denied a variance from the
moratorium. Th moratorium expired on March 23, 1990. Plaintiff 1
commenced this - otion on August 1, 1988. The only remaining claim
is that the moratorium effected'a temporary taking of Plaintiff's 1
property, requi -ing compensation. The partise have stipulated that -
1 1 Plaintiff vas d :nisd all economically viable use of the property
from March :3, 1908 to March 23, 1990, as a result of the
moratorium. Th- parties have also stipulated that the moratorium
wee rmaaonable rd necessary to protect the planning process and
the health, safety, and welfare of the City's citizens.
The united States Constitution, hmendment S, and Minn. Coast.
1 ,
Art. 1, f 3, eta�te that private property shall no be taken for
public ties vit ' vt lust compensation. n government regulation 1
which works a to porary taking upon property is treated the same as
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Jan 22,92 12:13 No.007 P.06
if it had been a permanent tacking; the landowner it entitled to
compensation "far his loss: of use during-the temporary P 1'Y takg .
' _
!! - •1!_ • -- f . •_ R U.S. M
. /•' • f , 482
304, 918 (1981) . First EnglIgn involved a situation where a
building motet rium was imposed due to flooding. The court held
that, assuating the moratorium worked a talking upon the land,
II plaintiff was ntitled to compensation for that temporary taking.
lid,. at 922.
The facts f First E stn fish ere very similar to those p resented
here, and Plai tiff is entitled to compensation if the moratorium
constitutes q king. There are two situations in which a general
k '
I zoning law oan effect a taking: 1) it the ordinance does not
} substantially dvance legitimate state interests; or 2) if
' application of the ordinance denies the owner economically viable
use bf his lard. haini v, ..,2, , II. 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1990) ;
parres
I A u._vv. city, at ew ,lerIShton, 425 N.W.2d585, 590 (Minn.
dt• App. 1988) The parties have stipulated that the moratorium'
' denied plaintiff all economically viable
yte of the land.
Therefore, and !wins and s E
1 fir t "nglS.a,b„ the moratorium worked a
temporary taki of the land for which compensation P lion is owed.
Defendant argues that there can be no taking since the
'
moratorium was
implemented under the City's police power and was
reasonable in urpose, duration, and scope. � It is true that tIe
Mteraise of a ity's police power can =
p opsriy limit the uses tp
which property, an b put, but it is also true that the exercise of
such police pow r constitutes a Coma ensable taking if 1 �' S it deprives
the' property of all reasonable Use.
202 $.W.2d 203, 257 (Min 19$0), jtiD7 141id v. AMblr.lteelty
1 a
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.R Jan 22,92 12:13 No.007 P.O7
II
• , '
i
272 U.B. 3 5 (19260 , 455 N.W.2d
312, 516 (Minn . Ct. App. 1990). Constitutional prote0tions ware . II
designed to com ensate landowners for otherwise proper interference
• with their land which amounted to a taking. Zinta =Ulm at 315. 1
The moratorium ere, although reasonable, daprived Plaintiff of the f
use of its lam-, for which - -int - eon. • ionally required
to be compensa =d. • 1
• I
' Dated; . ' . -f/ MONK f+ 4
. E. Cass
1 Judge of District eouxt
1
. _ 1
1
.
1
L + r
1
•
1
1
•
1
•
1
3
1
1