1999-12-28 Pilot Plan Approval Issues
.J.. ,.,.
, -'-",
PILOT
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
December 2S, 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
and plan approvals on lands south of Highway 11 S. We have reviewed a copy of the revised plans last
dated 12-2-99 and staff reports. We understand that the PC passed a motion for denial, which requires a
4/5 vote to overturn and approve as a PUD. We believe that the issues of cui de sacs, usable park land and
density can be solved on the phase two parcel by plan modification or density transfer, similar to how
Cedar Creek was treated, if the Council feels that adequate public amenities are created. We agree with
the Planning Commission that not enough was created in the phase two design to warrant their approval.
We did not receive any benefit from the PC for having large wetland areas to . design around in any of our
plats of Parks ide, Center Oaks or Cedar Creek. We were able to incorporate them, as has this plat into
larger lot areas, while. still providing usable front and rear yards. . Our tradeoff came from a golf course,
which provided an amenity to the City and the surrounding lots. We support the project under the
following conditions.
1. It appears that phase one stands alone quite well. We do not understand why staff would encourage a
berm to screen views to the golf course from the double fronted lots, since it is due to the golf course
that this land has some demand to develop in the first place. We agree with the Planning Commission
that any approval for phase two be withheld until a suitable plan is created. Perhaps you can approve
phase one and withhold phase two to a future time. It does not appear that NAC has suggested
enhancements as recommended tradeoffs for the R-l10t sizes. For Example: If the R-l10t widths
were approved, than each smaller lot should have 4 trees, with two as boulevard types in a larger
caliper installed before the home building. Regular lots would have the standard 2 trees. This is an
added value helping to make the neighborhood something different.
2. That said, we can not support an approval which requires Pilot to cause any of our TH dwelling units
to gravity drain to a lift station on the other side of Hwy lIS unless we are not charged any of the
additional costs of added depth and capacity for the lift station, additional overhead power, upsized
pumps and panels and transformers or road jacking which are over and above those necessary to serve
the Cedar Creek design approved with our master plan. A condition to approve must carry the
language to dedicate the land for a lift station along with any required waiver of assessments to allow
for the construction prior to causing Pilot to change from our approved design. Our approved design
would stand until the easement or land is dedicated to Albertville.
3. During our construction process we had to bring 3-phase power to our work site from Highway 19 at
a cost of over $30,000. This improvement also provided power and a transformer for our planned lift
. station. We previously requested Council to add 3 phase power costs to an area charge for the new
land arid rebate Pilot some percentage. A vote to approve would cause a subsidy to new lands that
1
13736 Johnson Street NE . Ham Lake, MN 55304 . 757-9816 . Fax: 757-4094
.. ....^
l.
have not paid for the improvement So long as Pilot does not need to pay any additional costs for
power to a new lift station location off of our site, we would not object.
4. We have previously asked Council to amend the benefited sewer area map for rebate to Kenco for the
trunk sewer constructed under Hwy 19 and through Barthells land to serve Parkside and all the lands
west ofHwy 19. At the time the map was created by SEH, a choice to not include the Albert Villas
lands was made due to the unlikely development potential within the comprehensive guide plans 10 to
20 year period. So, the map boundary was stopped at Highway lIS. There was a 12-year payback
period ofwhich 2.5 years are over. In addition, the City granted rezoning to the Leander Heuring
parcel, causing their reconsideration to sell and develop in the short term since they could get more
for their land in the future. This may have removed 40 acres from the likely rebate area to Kenco
during the 12-year payback period. Since this proposal for 250 acres is on the table, it seems
appropriate to amend the boundary, and allow Kenco to be rebated in the spirit of the original
document. 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.
5. During 1995, the farmers along ditch 9 believed they could not afford to participate in the 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 $25,000 in excavation and
$12,000 in engineering. We believe that work done in the area South of Highway liS should be
under a substantial rebate if development proceeds, since it clearly benefits their property both for
agriculture in the short term and development in the long term, and they have received more than fair
compensation for their land.
6. Any engineering costs to design the lift station, site it or bid it should not be Pilot costs since ours
would have been built privately. This should be outlined in an approval condition.
7. We have an engineering concern that without a guarantee that the second phase connect to S1.
Michael for water looping, that additional water mains may be needed along Highway IS. We would
have zero use for any lines along IS and could not participate in any assessment, which would be
proposed as part of that need.
S. Last, with development approval pending, we wish to hear what the City has discovered regarding
joint trail construction within Wright County Highways ROWand the school district as they upgrade
the road.
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.
~. ~
~
Land Development Director
Cc: Kent Roessler
\\ServerO 1 \don\LANDDEV\LEITERS\PROJECTS\ALBRTVLE\OPERATlO\harstedques.dpc