1997-08-06 Review of Concept Master Plan
.'
08-07-1997 0'3: 10AM FROt1 R.3.dzlJ.j 1 11 8. Cour 1 Law Off 1 TO
!
4'3732100 P. 02
:MEMORANDUM
TO: GARY HALE ZONING ADMlNISTRATOR, PLANNING & ZONING
COI\1MlSSION, CITY COUNCIL MErv.rBERS
MIKE COURI, CITY A TIORNEY
FR01f
!
,
SUBJfCT:, PlLOT LAND GOLF COURSE CONCEPT
I
I
I
AUGUST 6, 1997
I
DATE:
: I have revi~wed Pilot's concept master plan and concept phasing plan (7-25-97)
for th~ ptoposed~lf courselhousing development I have the fonoWing comments:
I , '
i I ;
1. IPhasing~mt.ot proposes that construction of its resid~np.al developments be
I phased in qonjunction with the completion of various pbas~s of the golf course in
I lieu of putting up a letter of credit for completion of the goIfcourse.' I believe that
! this conce~ is workable, if properly managed. Pilot has proposed that no 'letter' of
i credit be required for the golf course, in exchange foX; a guarantee (to be
; incorporateP in the pun agreement) that phases 3, 4, 5 and! 6 remain unbuildable
I open space! until the golf course is "grown in" (meaning that the course has been
fully. grad~d and seeded). This restriction would cover approximately 190
dwelling umts, which I believe will be ample security for the construction of the
golf course~ If the golf course is never built, the 190 dwe~ling units would also
never be built, and would remain vacant "forever," if nece~sary. Since many of
these lots in the later phases front on the golf course, '. tb.~ delayed lots would
include mo~t of the highest value lots, thus providing a greater incentive for the
developer tp complete the golf course. I encourage the Plmmmg Commissioners
and City Cbuncil members to examine the proposed phasing carefully. Since the
City must ~pprove the phasing schedule as part of the PUD~ the City can require
that certain! areas be phased at a different time than the developer suggests. For
example. the City can require that twin home developments' be in later phases if it
feels that this additional "security" for the establishment of the golf course is
necessaty.
2. St. Michael Moratorium-the green keeper's house, the driving range and all or
part of 4 holes are to be sited on land lying within the City of St. Michael. This
land consists of one part of a fann lying in St. Michael, meaning that a subdivision
i of the fann must occur in order for the development to proceed. St. Michael
1
\.
08-07-1'397 09: llAt"l
FROM Radzwlll & Courl Law Offl
TO
49'732100 P.03
I
I
i currently has a moratorium on new subdivisions in the old Frankfort Township
! area (including this portion of the golf course). In order for the golf course
, proposal to work, St. Michael must ultimately give its appr~val. I have requested
! that the developer apply in writing to the City of St. Michael for a subdivision of
: the land, either as an exception to the ordinance or for c~ncept approval of the
'! pQrtion of the golf course which exists in St. Michael. lithe Albertville Planning
: Commission recommends approval of the Concept plan, it believe it should do so
cantingent'upon St Michael approving the golf course condept (and the lot split).
If,necessary, this contingency can be modified in the furore to allow grading or
otp.er work ,to begin. provided it appears that St. Michael wiJl1 approve the concept.
3.: Kadler A vCnue- The concept plan requires the elimination pf Kadler Avenue as it
i exists in St~ Michael. Approval of the concept plan should be contingent upon the
vacation of Kadler by both Albertville and St Michael. Vacation proceedings in
both Cities could begin immediately after the approval of the I concept plan.
4., \ PUD Agreement~I anticipate that if the concept is approved, the City and
! Deve10per will enter into a master PUD concept agreement,: which will address, at
1 a 1)11nlmumthe following matters:
! a. Phasing schedule, including restrictions on development of phases 30n up;
~b. Zoning standards (lot sizes, widths, etc.);
: c. : Stan~d developer's obligations (indemnify the City" etc.)
ld. : Development density to be allowed in each phase (teJ ;single Of twin homes,
i etc.) such that the master concept agreement details exactly what densities
will be allowed in various locations; ,
e. ' Pennanent status of the golf course, meaning that the: igolf course could not
be redeveloped into housing in the future, but wo~d fOfever be allowed
only as a golf course use unless a change of use was authorized by the City.
iAs: each phase is developed, an abbreviated developer's. agreement would be
;prepared to cover the development specific items (amount of letter of credit,
itinllng of installation of streets and utilities, park dedicatio~ fees, tnmk line fees,
;etc.)
I : I will be preparing a draft of the master PUD concept agreement with the
~dea that the City Council can examine the provisions of th~ draft agreement and
~ake that agreement the basis of their final approval, if they so choose.
I '
!
5. !Park Dedication Fees-the developer has asked th,at park dedication fees be
:'frozen" once the concept plan is approved. I do not recommend that this request
~eapproved. The current park dedication ordinance requires that park dedication
2
,08-0'(-1'397 0'3: 12AM FROM RacbJJlll 8. COIJr 1 Law Dff i TO
4'3732100 P. 04
I
j fees be determined and paid at the time of fmal platting. In~ a PUD, the equivalent
i of afmal plat is the "fmal plan" stage, which in this case is projected by the
! developer to occur in phases over the next five years or so. By requiring the park
i dedication fees to be detennined at the time of final pl~ the City will be better
I able to match the required park dedication to the needs of !he City at the time of
I the approval of the final plan, rather than locking the: City into a set park
I dedication amooot the next five years. :
! i ,Also, because the City's parks are going to be built ~ver time, inflation will
i inevitably increase the cost of these parks. However, if the City sets the park
i dedication :fees now for the entire concept pl~ it will receive 2002' spark
I dedication fees in 1997 dollars, which may be substantiall)'i less than is needed in
i 2002. The' inflation effect will be even more exaggerated if the developer delays
I any of the phases due to market conditions, etc. · '
I ; , Pilot has suggested that in exchange for freezing ~k dedication fees, it
I will constIUct trails along the collector streets. The issue o~ trail construction may
i be, better left to determination as part of the comprehensive: park plan rather than
I deali:hg with it ad hoc here. Finally" Pilot requests that the iopen space of the golf
I c<>:~e be .~ ~al co~ideration for f1:ee~g the park dedica~on fees.' Although the
I gdlf course.will remam open space, It will only be usable to those who pay a fee to
! use i~ and is generally not considered a park substitute. While open space in and
'I' of itself may be' desirable. the Planning Commission/City Council must determine
I whether open space is sufficient to forego future park dedication fees by freezing
i park fees at their current level.
i The . City is, of course, free to deviate from tie existing ordinance
i requirements as one of the terms of the PUD.
! i
6. I Fteeze Code and Ordinance Criteria-The developer has r~quested that code and
I oroiqance ~teria be "held" in their clUTent state once the pjuD' is approved. This
I request makes sense in regard to future ordinance changes ~hich would otherwise
I re~der the ~onceptually approved lots unbuildable or diffipult to develop (ie. a
i change in side setbacks, lot area, etc.), particularly after the! developer has already
! co~tted . to the installation of a set infrastnlcture ($#eets, sewers, etc.).
i Setbacks. lot sizes and items of this nature can be included in the development
! standards section of the PUD agreement, which woUld then govern the
I de:velopment of the PUD regardless of future ordinanqe changes applicable
: el~ewhere in the City. Other ordinance issues. such as building code requirements.
I would not impact the ability of the developer to develop the! properties as planned,
I, ' '
I and any futiIre changes should apply to the development the same as they would to
any other development. I anticipate that the areas to be frozen can be identified by
i the developer and staff and incorporated into the draft PUn: agreement for council
I
3
, .
0S-0'f-199709:13AM FROM Radzwill & Couri Law Offi TO
..
49732100 P.05
Cc:
I
! consideration.
I .
I :
i Pete (:arlson
1 LiZ Stockman
I '
I Don Jensen
I
1
I
I
,
!
i
I
!
I
i
I
:
I
I
I
j
i
I
I
I
I
i
j
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
j
4
I
, 08-07-1997 0'3: 10HM FROM R.3.d::l,IJ i 11 3. Cour i Law Off 1 TtJ
!
4'3732100 P. 02
TO:
l\'lEMORANDUM
GARY HALE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, PLANNlNG & ZONING
COI\1MISSION, CITY COUNCIL 1ffiMBERS
MIKE COURL CITY ATTORNEY
FROf
!
SUBJECT:
DAm:
,
PIT.,OT LAND GOLF COURSE CONCEPT
i
AUGUST 6, 1997
!
: I have revi~wed Pilot's concept master plan and concept phasing plan (7-25-97)
for th~ propOsed~lf courselhousing development. I have the folloWing comments:
, , ,
i ' '
1. ! Phasing~$.ot proposes that construction of its resid~n#al developments be
! phased in qonjunction with the completion of various phas~s of the golf course in
i lieu of putting up a letter of credit for completion of the golf; course.' I believe that
! this ~onc~ is workable; if properly managed. Pilot has proposed that no'letter of
i credit be required for the golf course, in exchange fOT; a guarantee (to be
: incorporatep in the PUD agreement) that phases 3, 4, 5 8J1d16 remain unbuildable
i open space! until the golf course is "grown in" (meaning that the course has been
fully, grad~d and seeded). This restriction would caver approximately 190
dwelling miits, which I believe will be ample security for $e construction of the
golf course~ If the golf course is never built, the 190 dwe~ling units would also
never be built, and would remain vacant "forever," if necessary. Since many of
these lots in the later phases front on the golf course, · tb.~ delayed lots would
include mo~t of the highest value lots, thus providing a ~ater incentive for the
developer tp complete the golf course. I encourage the PHmning Commissioners
and City Council members to examine the proposed phasing carefully. Since the
City must 4pprove the phasing schedule as part of the PUD~ the City can require
that certain: areas be phased at a different time than the developer suggests. For
example, the City can require that twin home developments: be in later phases if it
feels that this additional "security" for the establishment of the golf course is
necessary.
2. St. Michael Moratorium-the green keeper's house, the driving range and all or
part of 4 holes are to be sited on land lying within the City of St. Michael. This
land consists of one part of a farm lying in St. Michael, meaning that a subdivision
i of the fann must occur in order for the development to proceed. St. Michael
1
08-07-1 '397 09: 11 Ht" FROt1 Rad z IJJ 1 1 1 :1 C:J I.J r i Law Off 1 TO
49732100 P.03
,
I
i currently bas a moratorium on new subdivisions in the old Frankfort Township
! area (including this portion of the golf course). In order for the golf course
: proposal to work, St. Michael must ultimately give its app~<?val. I have requested
: that the developer apply in writing to the City of St. Michael for a subdivision of
: the land, either as an exception to the ordinance or for c'!'ncept approval of the
! portion of the golf course which exists in St. Michael. If $e Albertville Planning
: Commission recommends approval of the Concept plan, it believe it should do so
I contingent' upon St Michael approving the golf course conciept (and the lot split).
i If.necessary, this contingency can be modified in the fu~e to allow grading or
i o$.er work ,to be~ provided it appears that St. Michael wilj1 approve the concept
3.: Kadlet Avenue-The concept plan requires the elimination pfKadler Avenue as it
i exists in St~ Michael. Approval of the concept plan should be contingent upon the
i vacation of Kadler by both Albertville and St Michael. Vacation proceedings in
! both Cities could begin immediately after the approval of the' concept plan.
I
,
4., (PUID Agreement--:-I anticipate that if the concept is approved, the City and
! Developer will enter into a master PUD concept agreement,: which will address, at
1a 1)11nlmumthe following matters:
!a. ' Phasing schedule, including restrictions on development of phases 30n up;
',b. Zoning standards (lot sizes, widths, etc.);
: c. : Stan~d developer's obligations (indemnify the City" etc.)
!d. : Development density to be allowed in each phase (LeJsingle or twin homes,
i etc.) such that the master concept agreement details ~xactly what densities
will be allowed in various locations; .
. e. " Pennanent status of the golf course, meaning that, the; ~olf course could not
i ' be redeveloped into housing in the future, but wo~d forever be allowed
i only as a golf course use unless a change of use was authorized by the City.
iAs: each phase is developed, an abbreviated developer's. agreement would be
prepared to cover the development specific items (amount of letter of credit,
itin1ing of installation of streets and utilities, park dedicatio~'fees, tnmk line fees,
:.etc.)
I . 1 will be preparing a draft of the master PUD concept agreement with the
~dea that the City Council can examine the provisions of th~ draft agreement and
~ake that agreement the basis of their final approval, if they so choose.
I .
!
5. !Park Dedication Fees-the developer has asked th.at park dedication fees be
I'fr~zen" once the concept plan is approved. I do not recom:mend that this request
"eapproved. The current park dedication ordinance requires that park dedication
2
, 08-0'?-1'397 0'3: 12HM FROM RacbJJ I 11 3. COIJr 1 Law Off i TO
49732100 P.04
I
! fees be determined and paid at the time of fmal platting. Inl a PUD, the equivalent
i of a 'fmal plat is the "fmal plan" stage, which in this caSe is projected by the
! developer to occur in phases over the next :five years or SO,' By requiring the park
i dOOication fees to be detennined at the time of final plan, the City will be better
I able to match the required park dedication to the needs of the City at the time' of
I th~ approval of the final plan, rather than locking the! City into a set park
1 dedication amount the next :five years. :
! ! ,Also, because the City's parks are going to be built ~ver time, inflation will
i inevitably increase the cost of these parks. However, if the City sets the park
i dedication fees now for the entire concept pl~ it will receive 2002's park
i dedication fees in 1997 dollars, which may be substantiallyj less than is needed in
'12l102, The: inflation effect will be even more exaggerated lfthe developer delays
anY of the phases due to market conditions, etc. . ' '
II i , Pilot has suggested that in exchange for freezing i$rk dedication fees, it
, ~ll construct trails along the collector streets. The issue o~ trail construction may
I be, better left to determination as part of the comprehensive' park plan rather than
! dealii1g with it ad hoc here. Finally" Pilot requests that the iopen space of the golf
I coU!&e be a: final consideration for freezing the park dedicati,on fees.' Although the
I g~f course:will remain open space, it will only be usable to those who pay a fee to
I us~ i~ and is generally not considered a park substitute. Wlille open space in and
Ii of itself may be' desirable. the Planning Commission/City Oouncil must determine
I whether open space is sufficient to forego future park dedication fees by freezing
! park fees at their current level. ' ,
! The City is, of course, free to deviate from the existing ordinance
: requirements as one of the terms of the PUD.
I , '
, I
6. I Frbeze Code and Ordinance Criteria-The developer has rtquested that code and
I ordi$nce ~teria be "held" in their clUTent state once the ploD is approved. This
I request makes sense in regard to future ordinance changes ~bich would otherwise
I re~der the ~nceptua1ly approved lots unbuildable or diffipult to develop (i.e. a
I change in side setbacks, lot area, etc.), particularly after the! developer has already
! co~tted : to the installation of a set infrastnlcture (s#eets, sewers, etc.).
I Setbacks. lot sizes and items of this nature can be included in the development
! standards section of the PUD agreement, which wol11d then govern the
i de;velopment of the PUD regardless of future ordinan~e changes applicable
: el~ewhere fu the City. Other ordinance issues. such as buildWg code requirements,
I would not impact the ability of the developer to develop the; properties as planned,
II and any futilre changes should apply to the development the same as they would to
any other development. I anticipate that the areas to be frozen can be identified by
i the developer and staff and incorporated into the draft PUD: agreement for council
I
;
3