1999-09-01 Pilot Plan Approval Issues
PILOT
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
September 1, 1999
Mr. Mayor & Members of the City Council
C/o Ms. Linda Goeb
City Clerk\Administrator
5975 Main Avenue NE.
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: Plan approval issues south of Hi2hwav 118 for Albert Villas
Dear Mr. Mayor, Council Members and Staff:
This letter serves to confirm numerous telephone conversations with staff as it relates to
proposed work on lands south of 118. Please forward a full set ofthe plans which will be
shared with the Planning Commission. As an adjacent property owner we have the
following requests prior to preliminary plat approval, rezoning and quide plan amendment.
1. During our planning process we had to submit an EAW, receive its comments and
address a variety of issues such as ditch crossings and sewer flows prior to any
preliminary plat or guide plan amendment. We remind the City the EQB rules are the
same, which will require an EA W of the project as currently proposed due to the lack
of a various comprehensive plan elements such as a storm sewer master plan.
2. During the creation of sanitary sewer benefit areas, the City concluded there was little
likelihood of development in this area. So, a boundary was stopped at Highway 118,
which created a payback to Kenco for sewer under Highway 19 through Barthell's
land. This was a 12-year payback period of which 1.5 years are over. We again
request the City expand the benefited area prior to any final guide plan change and
preliminary plats with a rebate to Kenco under the terms of the Parkside 3rd agreement.
We do believe that a sewer flow capacity question should be addressed as it relates to
flows from these new sites through Cedar Creek, Center Oaks, Parkside 1,2,3,4,
Summerfield and across Highway 19.
3. During 1998, the farmers along ditch 9 believed they could not afford a ditch cleaning,
so Pilot land offered to do so. It was discussed with the attorney, the City
Administrator at the time, and the Engineer, that Pilot be eligible for a fair share rebate
of costs from trunk storm sewer utility fees, since the ditch cleaning benefited the City
for the next 20 years and served more than just new development that Pilot was
undertaking. Our work cost $23000 in excavation and $12,000 in engineering. We
believe that work done in the area South of Highway 118 should be under a substantial
rebate if development proceeds, since it clearly benefits their property both for
1 avtrnkfe.doc
13736 Johnson Street NE . Ham Lake, MN 55304 . 757-9816 . Fax: 757-4094
,
"l.. .
agriculture in the short term and development in the long term. At a minimum,
engineering study work done on these sites should be generated without any financial
contribution from lands that Pilot owns.
4. There has been no discussion ofa lift station study, which could impact our plans for
50 approved Townhomes. This must be completed prior to a preliminary plat
approval.
5. We have an engineering concern that without a guarantee that the first phases connect
to St. Michael for water looping, that additional water mains may be needed along
Highway 18. We would have zero use for any lines along 18 and could not participate
in any assessment, which would be proposed as part of that scenario.
6. Last, with development concepts pending, we wish to hear what the City has
discovered regarding joint trail construction with Wright County Highways and the
school district as they upgrade the road. They should be involved now if any new
intersections, accel or decellanes are required, especially as they may affect a lift
station siting.
These are the most significant planning and financial issues, which we dealt with during
our approvals, and we would expect similar consideration and results from this project.
We will be at the Planning Commission meeting.
S~elY'
Donald Jen
Land Development Director
Cc: Kent Roessler
\\ServerO 1 \don\LANDDEV\LETIERS\PROJECTS\ALBRTVLE\OPERATIOlharstedques.doc