1999-10-12 Project Update and Draft Find of Fact
. .
.
~
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albertville Planning Commission
Deb Garross
12 October 1999
RE:
Albertville - Albert Villas Project Update and Draft Findings of Fact
FILE:
163.06 - 99.08
Pursuant to the request of the applicant, the Planning Commission will review the
application(s) for the Albert Villas this evening. As you are aware, this matter was
pulled from the September 14, 1999 agenda (by 'request of the applicant) and therefore
not formally considered. Following the meeting, Staff sent a letter to the applicant
advising him that the City would extend the 60-day review deadline to December 9,
1999. (The initial 60-day review ended on October 9th). In that same letter, the
applicant was requested to notify the City, in writing, of their intentions to either formally
withdraw the application or pursue processing through the City. The applicant
contacted City Staff and requested that the matter be placed back on the agenda to
receive direction from the Planning Commission.
The action requested by the applicant is for the Planning Commission to forward a
recommendation to the City Council to approve the comprehensive plan amendment,
rezoning, CUP/PUD and preliminary plat for the Albert Villas project. The Planning
Commission may choose to recommend approval, denial or conditional approval of the
various applications.
In the event that the Planning Commission chooses to recommend denial following its
deliberations, the attached draft Findings of Fact may be of assistance in formulating
the recommendation. Please note, in the event that the applications are ultimately
denied, the rezoning and CUPIPUD applications may not be re-filed for a period of one
year, unless specifically authorized by the City Council.
Also please see the attached memorandum from City Engineer, Pete Carlson, which
outline his review comments on the preliminary plat. Mr. Carlson's indicated that he will
not conduct an in depth review of the preliminary plat until such a time as the planning
matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the City.
Attachments:
1. Draft Findings of Fact for Denial
2. Preliminary review comments from City Engineer, Peter Carlson
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 612-595-9636 FAX 612-595-9837
10-12-99
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
DRAFT
Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
& Recommendation
Applicant's Name:
K.C. Land Company. Keith Harstad
Request: K.C. Land Company has submitted plans for development of 338 single-family lots
as part of the Albert Villas project. The subject site contains 235..17 acres of land which is
bounded on the east by Swamp Lake, the north by CSAH 18, the south and west by the City of St.
Michael. The PUD concept plan covers the entire land holdings of the applicant. The developer
desires to preliminary plat the part of the site (approximately 136.75 acres located north of County
Ditch #9) into 182 single-family lots.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be necessary to allow the low density residential proposal
in an area guided for agriculture and rural development. The property is currently zoned A-1 ,
Agricultural/Rural. Rezoning to R-1 A, Low Density Single Family, will be necessary to
accommodate the proposal. A Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development will be
necessary to allow flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to setbacks,
lot area, and width. A preliminary plat for development of the north 136.75 acres of the site will
be necessary to allow development of single family lots as proposed.
Planning Commission Meeting Dates: 14 September 1999 (the application was withdrawn from
the agenda pursuant to a request by the applicant) and 12 October 1999.
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Planning
Commission now makes the following findings of fact and recommendation:
1. The legal description of the subject property is attached as Exhibit A.
2. The Planning Report, dated 8 September 1999, prepared by NAC, Inc., is incorporated
herein.
3. The requirements of Sections 300, 400 and 2700 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have
been reviewed in relation to proposed plans.
Recommendation: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning
Commission recommends DENIAL of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, conditional
use permit/planned unit development and preliminary plat based on the most current plan and
information received to date. The project was denied for the following reasons:
1. The Comprehensive Plan guides the subject site for agricultural/rural land uses which are
reflective of the development constraints associated with this property. The proposed
project does not conform to City environmental ordinances, the Comprehensive Park and
Trail System Plan, and does not adequately address the need for lift stations to serve the
area with sanitary sewer facilities. The proposed project is therefore inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
DRAFT
2. Due to the fact that the proposed project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
subdivision is deemed premature pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance A-400.2(e).
3. The rezoning application requests R-1 A zoning, however, the proposal contains lot
dimensions, areas and required buildable lot areas are substantially less than those
required in an R-1A district. The proposed development plan is inconsistent with the
requested R-1 A Zoning District standards and is therefore inconsistent with the Zoning
Ordinance.
4. The applicant requests CUP/PUD approval to obtain relief from the standards of the Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance, in order to develop a site that contains several natural and
man-made constraints. The Zoning Ordinance [Section 2700.1, (g)] expressly states: "The
PUD is not intended as a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles." The
proposed PUD is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The degree of flexibility requested to accommodate the proposal far exceeds that granted
by the City to other projects and circumvents the purpose and intent of the PUD standards
of the Zoning Ordinance and is therefore inconsistent.
6. The applicant has stated that he is unwilling to commit to a PUD development concept for
the land areas south of County Ditch #9. As such, it is not possible to plan for the nor
secure the rights of the public with respect to public lands, provide for the health and safety
of residents by requiring properly designed streets and adequate sewer and water service;
nor protect the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Based
upon these considerations, the proposal is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
7. The proposed preliminary plat shows the future dedication of sixty (60) feet of right-of-way
for CSAH 18 which is not consistent with the requirement of Wright County for sixty-five
(65) feet of right-of-way dedication.
Adopted by the Albertville Planning Commission this 12th day of October 1999.
City of Albertville
By:
Jim Brown, Chair
Attest:
Linda Goeb, City Clerk
pc: Linda Goeb, Mike Couri, Pete Carlson
2
12-14-99
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
Planning Commission
Findings of Fact
& Recommendation
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Rezoning
CUP/PUC
Applicant Name: K.C. Land Company, Keith Harstad - Albert Villas
Request: K.C. Land Company has submitted plans for development of 336 single-family lots as
part of the Albert Villas project. The subject site contains 235.17 acres of land which is bounded
on the east by Swamp Lake, the north by CSAH 18, the south and west by the City of St.
Michael. The PUD concept plan covers the entire land holdings of the applicant. The developer
desires to preliminary plat the part of the site (approximately 136.75 acres located north of
County Ditch #9) into 177 single-family lots.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be necessary to allow the low density residential
proposal in an area guided for agriculture and rural development. The property is currently zoned
A-1, Agricultural/Rural. Rezoning to R-1A, Low Density Single Family, will be necessary to
accommodate the proposal. A Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development will be
necessary to allow flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to
setbacks, lot area, and width.
Planning Commission Meeting Dates: 14 September 1999, 12 October 1999, 9 November
1999 and 14 December 1999.
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Planning
Commission now makes the following findings of fact and recommendation:
1. The legal description of the subject property is attached as Exhibit A.
2. The Planning Report, dated 8 September 1999, Memorandum, dated 2 November 1999,
and Planning Report, dated 7 December 1999 prepared by NAC Inc., are incorporated
herein.
3. The Planning Commission finds the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to
change the land use designation of the subject site from Agricultural/Rural to Low Density
Residential acceptable.
4. The Planning Commission finds the requested rezoning from A, Agricultural/Rural to R-
1A Low Density Single Family acceptable and in conformance with the rezoning criteria
contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Planning Commission finds the requested CUP/PUD to allow flexibility of lot width,
area, and setback requirements acceptable and in conformance with the PUD criteria
contained in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
6. The proposed lot area, setback, height and coverage requirements identified on Exhibit B
are acceptable as part of the overall PUD.
7. The proposed actions have been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and have been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
8. The proposed development will be compatible with present and future land uses of the
area.
9. The proposed use conforms with all applicable Zoning Ordinance performance standards.
10. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
11. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity.
12. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
13. The requirements of Sections 300, 400 and 2700 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have
been reviewed in relation to proposed plans.
Recommendation: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the Planning
Commission recommends APPROVAL of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and
conditional use permit/planned unit development based on the most current plans and
information received to date subject to the following conditions.
1. The EAW process shall be completed prior to City Council approval of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment, rezoning, CUP/PUD.
2. The Albertville Comprehensive Land Use Plan is amended to change the land use from
agricultural/rural to low density residential. Said amendment shall not be placed into effect
until such a time as the final plat is approved by the City.
3. The property is rezoned from A-1 Agricultural to R-1A Low Density Single Family. Said
rezoning shall not be placed into effect until such a time as the final plat is approved by the
City.
4. A Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development is approved to allow flexibility for lot
width, area, and setbacks as outlined on attached Exhibits B.
5. A Planned Unit Development agreement is prepared which includes all development plans
and specifications, shall set forth specific land use and performance standards which must
be adhered to throughout the life of the PUD, and shall be approved by the City Attorney.
6. The PUD is amended to delete the trail shown along the north side of 52nd Street and along
the rear lot lines of Lots 1 - 10, Block 4.
7. The PUD is amended to include an asphalt trail along the south side of CSAH 18.
8. A complete set of revised PUD plans (1" - 1 00' scale and one copy reduced to 11" x 17")
shall be submitted to the City of Albertville, City Planner (NAC Inc,) and the City Engineer
(S.E.H.), within 30 days of City Council approval, incorporating all conditions of approval.
The PUD will serve as the guide for all future final plat applications for this project.
9. Any other conditions as set forth by other City Staff the Planning Commission or City
Council.
Adopted by the Albertville Planning Commission this 14th day of December 1999.
City of Albertville
By:
Jim Brown, Chair
Attest:
By:
Linda Goeb, City Administrator
pc: Linda Goeb
Mike Couri
Pete Carlson
Kevin Mealhouse
Matt Davitch
Chuck Plowe,
Keith Harsted
Ron Rotelle
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ALBERT VILLAS
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
and Lot One, all in Section Eleven; and the South 10 rods of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section Two, all in Township 120, Range 24: also the South 10 Rods of
that part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township
120, Range 24, lying East of County Ditch, according to the recorded plat.
And
The Northeast 1,14 of the Southeast 1,14 in Section 3 and the West }'2 of the Southwest 1,14 in Section
2, all in Township 120, Range 24.
And
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter except that part lying Northeasterly of County road
118. Also Except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of County Ditch No.9, Section 2,
Township 120, Range 24.
Also:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying South of
County Road 118 and West of County ditch No.9, Section 2, Township 120, Range 24.
r . '
;
EXHIBIT B
Lot Area, Setback, Height and Coverage Requirements.
R1-A District Required Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Density (Units per Acre) 2.9 1.34 1.30
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sf 80 lots (44%) 12,524 sq. ft.
Range of Lot Sizes 15,000 sf 12,505 - 35,647 sf 12,524 - 36,671 sq. ft.
Required Minimum Useable 12,000 sf 30 lots (16% < 12,000
Upland lot area above O-H- 12,000)
W (80% of required lot area
must be above O-H-W)
Lot Width 1 00 feet 80 - 150 feet (143 or 85 feet minimum
79% of the lots are 95.04 feet average
less than 100' wide)
Lot Width Corner Lot 120 feet 90 - 130 feet 100 feet minimum
2 Lots (10%) conform (except 2 lots are 95 feet"
to requirement
Average Lot Width Corner 101 feet 105.1
Lot
Buffer Yard Lot Depth (lots 170 feet 165 feet* 170 feet except Block 9 which
adjacent to arterial or major has 155 foot lots
collector streets)
: Buffer Yard (lot width 25 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet
I requirements for side yards) ,
Setback (PUD Periphery) 35 feet Unknown 35 feet
Setbacks (front) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
( side-interior) 15 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet
( side-corner) 30 feet (side 20 feet 20 feet
yard abutting
a public
street)
(rear) 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Wetland setback from O-H- 20 feet Unknown 20 feet
W
Building Height Maximum 35 feet Unknown 35 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage for 25 percent of Unknown 25 percent of lot area
Structures lot area
Minimum Floor Area per 2 BR 960 sq. Unknown 2 BR 960 sq. ft. above ground
Dwelling Unit ft. above 3 BR 1,040 sq. ft. above
ground ground
3 BR 1,040
sq. ft. above
ground
1-18-00
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
City Council Findings
of Fact & Decision
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Rezoning
CUP/PUD
Preliminary Plat
Applicant Name: K.C. Land Company, Keith Harstad - Albert Villas
Request: K.C. Land Company has submitted plans for development of 336 single-family lots as
part of the Albert Villas project. The subject site contains 235.17 acres of land which is bounded
on the east by Swamp Lake, the north by CSAH 18, the south and west by the City of St.
Michael. The PUD concept plan covers the entire land holdings of the applicant. The developer
desires to preliminary plat the part of the site (approximately 136.75 acres located north of
County Ditch #9) into 177 single-family lots.
A Comprehensive Plan amendment will be necessary to allow the low density residential
proposal in an area guided for agriculture and rural development. The property is currently zoned
A-1, Agricultural/Rural. Rezoning to R-1A, Low Density Single Family, will be necessary to
accommodate the proposal. A Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development will be
necessary to allow flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to
setbacks, lot area, and width. A preliminary plat for development of the north 136.75 acres of the
site will be necessary to allow development of single family lots as proposed.
Planning Commission Meeting Dates: 14 September 1999, 12 October 1999, 9 November
1999 and 14 December 1999. (The City Council remanded consideration of park issues back to
the Planning Commission for consideration at 11 January 2000 meeting).
City Council Meeting Dates: 3 January 2000, 18 January 2000.
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and decision:
a. The legal description of the subject property is attached as Exhibit A.
b. The Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation for the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, Rezoning, CUP/PUD (Concept PUD and Development PUD) are
incorporated herein.
c. The Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation for the preliminary plat is
incorporated herein.
d. The Planning Report, dated 8 September 1999, Memorandum, dated 2 November 1999,
and Planning Report, dated 7 December 1999 prepared by NAC Inc., are incorporated
herein.
e. The memorandum from Pete Carlson dated October 8, 1999 is incorporated herein.
f. The letter from BP Amoco Pipeline dated November 18, 1999 is incorporated herein.
g. The City Council finds the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land
use designation of the subject site from Agricultural/Rural to Low Density Residential
acceptable.
h. The City Council finds the requested rezoning from A, Agricultural/Rural to R-1A Low
Density Single Family acceptable and in conformance with the rezoning criteria contained
in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
I. The City Council finds the requested CUP/PUD to allow flexibility of lot width, area, and
setback requirements acceptable and in conformance with the PUD criteria contained in the
City's Zoning Ordinance.
J. The proposed lot area, setback, height and coverage requirements identified on Exhibit B
are acceptable as part of the overall PUD.
k. The City Council finds the preliminary plat acceptable. (170 single family lots with park
proposal per attached Exhibit C).
I. The proposed actions have been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and have been found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
m. The proposed development will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area.
n. The proposed use conforms with all applicable Zoning Ordinance performance standards.
o. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
p. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity.
q. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
r. The requirements of Sections 300, 400 and 2700 of the Albertville Zoning Ordinance have
been reviewed in relation to proposed plans.
s. The City has adopted a negative declaration for the EAW concerning this project.
~-,
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the City Council
APPROVES the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit/planned unit
development and preliminary plat based on the most current plans and information received to
date subject to the following conditions.
1. The Albertville Comprehensive Land Use Plan is amended to change the land use from
agricultural/rural to low density residential. Said amendment shall not be placed into
effect until such a time as the final plat is approved by the City.
2. The property is rezoned from A-1 Agricultural to R-1A Low Density Single Family. Said
rezoning shall not be placed into effect until such a time as the final plat is approved by
the City.
3. A Conditional Use Permit Planned Unit Development is approved to allow flexibility for lot
width, area, and setbacks as outlined on attached Exhibits B and park areas as set forth
on Exhibit C.
4. A Planned Unit Development agreement is prepared which includes all development
plans and specifications, shall set forth specific land use and performance standards
which must be adhered to throughout the life of the PUD, and shall be approved by the
City Attorney.
5. The preliminary plat of Albert Villas is approved for the development of 170 lots and a ~
6.9-acre park, subject to the conditions outlined herein.
6. The number of building permits that will be issued to the project shall be limited to 50 until
such a time as the entire length of Kahl Avenue/4yth Street/Kallard Avenue is installed to
provide a secondary access to the development.
7. The City's park and trail dedication requirements are satisfied as discussed herein.
a. Based upon the City's Subdivision Ordinance a 10% park land and/or cash
dedication is required "for the total subdivision area." Said dedication is equal to
approximately 19.5 acres for the entire project, (both the areas north and south of
County Ditch #9) cash or combination of land and cash as determined by the City
Council.
b. The park land dedication shall consist of approximately ~ 6.9 acres of land (as
shown on Exhibit C) located southeast of the intersection of Kahl and Kaiser
Avenue. The land comprises approximately ~ 71% of the required dedication for
the preliminary plat. A cash contribution of approximately $111,1 00 ~64.090
dollars will also be required. (The specific land and cash amounts will be
determined at the time of final plat with land calculations and/or land value
information to be provided by the applicant). The area south of County Ditch #9
will require an additional park dedication of 9.8 acres at the time later phases of
the project are platted.
\ .
c. A trail and sidewalk system shall be constructed as shown on the preliminary plat
and the cost for installation of these systems shall be counted as credit toward the
above mentioned park dedication requirement.
d. The preliminary plat is amended to delete the trail shown along the north side of
52nd Street and along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 - 10, Block 4.
e. The preliminary plat is amended to include an asphalt trail along the south side of
CSAH 18 as opposed to the sidewalk that is shown.
f. The preliminary plat is amended to delete park A and either extend the lot lines of
adjacent lots 1-10, Block 12 or plat the area as an outlot for storm water
management purposes. Park dedication credit should not be given for this area as
it is not usable for recreation purposes, with the exception of the trail corridor
which shall be credited pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance.
9. All grading, drainage, utility, wetland mitigation and transportation issues shall be subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
10. A complete set of revised preliminary plat and PUD plans (1" - 1 00' scale and one copy
reduced to 11" x 17") shall be submitted to the City of Albertville, City Planner (NAC Inc,)
and the City Engineer (S.E.H.), within 30 days of City Council approval, incorporating all
conditions of approval. The preliminary plat and PUD will serve as the guide for all future
final plat applications for this project.
11. The applicant shall file deed restrictions with the Wright County Recorder of Deeds for all
lots adjacent to or containing NSP and/or Amoco pipeline easements indicating that no
structures can be built within the easement areas.
12. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the lot sales literature that will be
distributed to future homeowners, identifying NSP and Amoco easement building
restrictions, the 20' required wetland setback area building restrictions and the means to
disclose the location of all parks to future lot owners.
13. A property maintenance agreement and property owners association covenants are
prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval
subject to the requirements of Sections 1100 and 2700 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The
agreements, covenants, and restrictions are to be filed with the Wright County Recorder's
office as a deed restriction against the title of each lot, at the time of final plat.
14. The applicant submits documentation from NSP and Amoco identifying that each entity
has reviewed the preliminary plat and that the proposed improvements are acceptable to
each entity.
15. The developer indicates the timing and method for removing and/or relocating the
existing buildings located on the subject site consistent with Sections 1400-1 and 900 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
~
I .
16. The developer indicates the proposed use of model homes consistent with Section 2200
of the Zoning Ordinance.
17. The applicant provides proof of title in the form of an abstract of title or registered
property abstract currently certified and showing the petitioners have legal ownership of
the property.
18. Any other conditions as set forth by other City Staff the Planning Commission or City
Council.
NOTE: The Subdivision Ordinance specifies that final plats must be submitted within 100 days
of preliminary plat approval or the preliminary plat will become null and void.
Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 18th day of January 2000.
City of Albertville
By:
John A. Olson, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Linda Goeb, City Administrator
~
10/08/99 08:10 FAX 320 253 1002
SEH.RCM ST CLOUD
14]001
..
....:;SeJ=lClll
FAX TRANSMITTAL
605 FRANKLIN A VENUE NE. P. O. BOX 51, ST. CLOUD, MN 56302-0051
320253-1000 800346-6138 320253-1002 FAX
o FIELD
SEH FILE NO:
DATE: 10/8 I~ a..
FROM: ~.e-r G[I~ov-...
TOTAL PAGES: 0
(including cover sheet)
D URGENT
ATTENTION: ub ~;::.,(/(} ~
CO/ORGANIZA TION: N.f+::c::...,
FAX NO: &It- 61~ - qe,~1
SUBJECT A / krlvrl Ie /;1/ k
,1,,--
TELEPHONE:
REMARKS:
&rc./..,."J IS ",.".- ?'~!t""I".1 Mwa.' r. ~",Ir,"r. ~ ,4., 10 k..
R.k'lft1A-d 1k"1 t.<kt (.5 k bn f:,t. p/~ fWf""j /:;'f -vI"""" ElV,iMUi'W.
I / I I I'll"
-Ii \~ c" +rlJIf>.l tNJ'4./l/;"\tI~^ Wl II ~'V$_ fo be.... lttlllle.) 4/1117 d.StV; It to c54/1It? ~
ot;JeA"' ~ p-'2;)/I~ loaftj ~
:!: VvAVL ~o~ wrA1... .0r"'I. j I t{,;.wkl/IJ f!t#er)'''i ~ .frRI/ d~1 e;4Jf I~.
-r1 \ -\ [ ~ il .. J,.,,jI 1_ ~ dl . /'i.l' J\ ) t J
r l\l) wl, t Iee- 1;,'\t.,c'(fbtt',-1''fd Wt1"1A. I 1f\.t~1 iJa']'-fI\ dLS11i'\" l...;v..d-f J8 (~.t;lIl$1Y!Je::jl~
Vv'\ II f~b~bil f)CU.lt' I~I\ 1.,r"rO l .
We are
o Sending original by mail
o Sending by FAX only
o Sending as requested
For your
o Information/Recoros
o Review and comment
o Approval
If transmission was not received properly, please contact the sender at the phone number above.
An Affirmalive Action,
Equal Opponunily Employer
WE REQUEST A RESPONSE FROM YOU BY:
2/99
EXHIBIT B
L tA
S tb k H . ht d C
R
0 rea, e ac , elgl an overa ~e eaUlrements.
R1-A District Required Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Density (Units per Acre) 2.9 1.34 1.30
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sf 80 lots (44%) 12,524 sq. ft.
Range of Lot Sizes 15,000 sf 12,505 - 35,647 sf 12,524 - 36,671 sq. ft.
Required Minimum Useable 12,000 sf 30 lots (16% < 12,000
Upland lot area above O-H- 12,000)
W (80% of required lot area
must be above O-H-W)
Lot Width 100 feet 80 - 150 feet (143 or 85 feet minimum
79% of the lots are 95.04 feet average
less than 100' wide)
Lot Width Corner Lot 120 feet 90 - 130 feet 100 feet minimum
2 Lots (10%) conform (except 2 lots are 95 feet"
to requirement
Average Lot Width Corner 101 feet 105.1
Lot
Buffer Yard Lot Depth (lots 170 feet 165 feet* 170 feet except Block 9 which
adjacent to arterial or major has 155 foot lots
collector streets)
i Buffer Yard (lot width I 25 feet i 1 0 feet 1 0 feet I
I requirements for side yards) I I I
Setback (PUD Periphery) 35 feet Unknown 35 feet
Setbacks (front) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet
( side-interior) 15 feet 1 0 feet 1 0 feet
( side-corner) 30 feet (side 20 feet 20 feet
yard abutting
a public
street)
( rear) 25 feet 30 feet 30 feet
Wetland setback from O-H- 20 feet Unknown 20 feet
W
Building Height Maximum 35 feet Unknown 35 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage for 25 percent of Unknown 25 percent of lot area
Structures lot area
Minimum Floor Area per 2 BR 960 sq. Unknown 2 BR 960 sq. ft. above ground
Dwelling Unit ft. above 3 BR 1,040 sq. ft. above
ground ground
3 BR 1,040
sq. ft. above
ground
* The lot depth calculations are based upon the Wright County Highway Department
requirement to dedicate 65' of R-O-W for CSAH 18.
~
: t .
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ALBERT VILLAS
The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
and Lot One, all in Section Eleven; and the South 10 rods of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section Two, all in Township 120, Range 24: also the South 10 Rods of
that part of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township
120, Range 24, lying East of County Ditch, according to the recorded plat.
And
The Northeast ~ of the Southeast ~ in Section 3 and the West % of the Southwest ~ in Section
2, all in Township 120, Range 24.
And
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter except that part lying Northeasterly of County road
118. Also Except that part lying Easterly and Southerly of County Ditch No.9, Section 2,
Township 120, Range 24.
Also:
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter lying South of
County Road 118 and West of County ditch No.9, Section 2, Township 120, Range 24.
10/08/99 08:10 FAX 320 253 1002
SEH.RCM ST CLOUD
141002
MEMORANDUM
605 Franklin Avenue NE, P.o. Box 51,S\. Cloud, MN 56302-0051
320.253.1000
BOO.346.613B
320.253.1002 FAX
TO:
Linda Goeb
City Administrator
Albertville, Minnesota
FROM:
Peter J. Carlson, P.E,
City Engineer
DATE:
October 8, 1999
RE:
Preliminary Utility and Grading Plan Review
Albert Villas
Albertville, Minnesota
SEH No. A-ALBEV0002.0
I reviewed the referenced plans and have the following comments:
GRADING PLAN:
1. Block llLots 6 - 10: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2%. These
lots should be raised to increase drainage.
2. Block 3: There are a number of lots labeled "LO" with varying differences in elevation between the
garage floor and the grade at the rear of the house.
3. Block 4: The rear property line shared with Block 5 (west of pond 2) is very flat. The storm sewer
should be extended up the swale or the "LO" lots should be changed to "s" lots.
4. Block 6/Lots 8 - 10: The rear yards are relatively flat; raise the homes or change lot types.
5. Block 6/Lots 13 - 19: The rear yards are less than 2% and the NSP easement area to the west is less
than I %; install drain tile or storm sewer in rear yards.
6. Block 7!Lot 34: Drainage is poor; raise house.
7. Block 7 !Lots 35 - 38: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage at less than 2%. In
addition, the rear yard berm/knoll complicates the drainage. Raise lots to increase drainage,
8. Block 7/Lot 56: Floor elevations do not match one another.
9. Block 71L0ts 62 - 64: Rear yards are relatively flat and swale will likely be wet. Raise lots to increase
drainage.
10. Block 8/Lots 1 - 4: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2%. Raise
lots to increase drainage.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest
We help YOIl plan, design, and achieve
Equal Opportunity Employer
10/08/99 08:11 FAX 320 253 1002
SEH.RCM ST CLOUD
I4J 003
."
Linda Goeb
October 8, 1999
Page 2
11. Block 91L0ts 1 - 5: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2%. Raise
lots to increase drainage.
12. Block 101L0ts 1 - 3: House drainage is directed onto proposed park property which have very flat
grades. Park property is likely to be wet.
13. Block 10: The plan shows the drainage ditch draining into Pond 5. Should the pipe direction be
reversed?
14. A means to remove sump discharge needs to be shown on the plans. Lots draining to a pond or
wetland should have a 4" draintile installed from the back of the house and daylighted near the pond.
Lots with rear to front drainage or long rear drainage swales need to have a network of 4" draintile under
the swales to accept the discharge; the network would be connected to a catchbasin or daylighted to a
pond.
SANITARY SEWER
15. The proposed plan to serve the site with long, flat runs of 10" PVC sewer is unacceptable per the
MPCA and the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten State Standards) requirement
that discharges be at least 2.0 fps. We are recommending a primary lift station be installed along CSAH
18 with the initial phase which will accept discharge from all phases of the proposed site, as well as the
discharge from the Cedar Creek South townhome development to the east.
A second lift station would be required near the intersection of 47th Street and Kagan Avenue. This lift
station would accept the majority of Phase 3 and the southwestern portion of Phase 2. The secondary lift
station would force the discharge north into a gravity system draining to the primary lift station.
W ATERMAIN
16. A 12" trunk watermain will need to be extended west from CSAH 19 under CSAH 18. The trunk
would be installed with the reconstruction of CSAH 18, currently planned in the year 2001. Until that
time, the site can be served by extending the 10" trunk watermain south from the Cedar Creek South
development to the north.
17. The two 8" DIP watermain connections at CSAH 18 will need to be oversized to 10" DIP and
extended to serve the parcel to the west and to serve the southern portions of this plat. The developer
shall bear all costs associated with oversizing the watermain within the development.
rg
c:
W:\ALBEV\0002REVW,WPD
10/08/99 08:10 FAX 320 253 1002
SEH.RCM ST CLOUD
l4J 002
.:sa'=tClll
MEMORANDUM
605 Franklin Avenue NE, P.O. Box 51, Sl. Cloud, MN 56302-0051
320.253.1000
800.346.6138
320.253.1002 FAX
TO:
Linda Goeb
City Administrator
Albertville, Minnesota
FROM:
Peter J. Carlson, P.E,
City Engineer
DATE:
October 8, 1999
RE:
Preliminary Utility and Grading Plan Review
Albert Villas
Albertville, Minnesota
SEH No. A-ALBEV0002.0
I reviewed the referenced plans and have the following comments:
GRADING PLAN:
1. Block l/Lots 6 - 10: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2%. These
lots should be raised to increase drainage.
2. Block 3: There are a number of lots labeled "LO" with varying differences in elevation between the
garage floor and the grade at the rear of the house.
3. Block 4: The rear property line shared with Block 5 (west of pond 2) is very flat. The storm sewer
should be extended up the swale or the "LO" lots should be changed to "s" lots.
4. Block 6/Lots 8 - 10: The rear yards are relatively flat; raise the homes or change lot types.
5. Block 6/Lots 13 - 19: The rear yards are less than 2% and the NSP easement area to the west is less
than 1 %; install drain tile or storm sewer in rear yards.
6. Block 7/Lot 34: Drainage is poor; raise house.
J. Block 7/Lots 35 - 38: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage at less than 2%. In
addition, the rear yard berm/knoll complicates the drainage. Raise lots to increase drainage.
8. Block 7/Lot 56: Floor elevations do not match one another.
9. Block 7/Lots 62 - 64: Rear yards are relatively flat and swale will likely be wet. Raise lots to increase
drainage.
10. Block 8fLots 1 - 4: These lots have 6% driveways with rear to front drainage of less than 2%. Raise
lots to increase drainage.
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest
We help YOI/ plan. design, and achieve
Equal Opportunity Employer
, ,
,
~S81
1200 25th Avenue South, PO. Box 1717, St. Cloud, MN 56302-1717 320.229.4300
320.229.4301 FAX
architecture
engineering
environmental
transportation
July 12,2001
RE: Albertville, Minnesota
Albert Villas
SEH No. A-ALBEV0002.00 14
Kerry Saxton
District Engineer
Wright Soil and Water Conservation District
306C Brighton Avenue
Buffwo,~ 55313
Dear Kerry:
To control the water elevation within the large wetland in the Albert Villas Development, a culvert
has been added at the upstream end of the discharge ditch. The culvert is a 24" RCP with an
upstream invert elevation of945.61. The wetland, culvert, and discharge ditch are within an outlot
and drainage easement that has been dedicated to the City. By this dedication the City is also
agreeing to maintain the culvert and the ditch. To pay for the ongoing maintenance of the City's
drainage system, the City has inplace a storm water utility charge that is applied to all land owners
within the City limits.
~fly, ~
// ;1/1
It !\ U1d~LK)
Peter J. Carlson, P.E.
City Engineer
c: Linda Goeb, City Administrator
Mike Couri, City Attorney
Todd Udvig, SEH
w:\a1bev\OOO2\corr\jI\2aO \-I-wetland.doc
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Offices located throughout the Upper Midwest
J11e help you plan, design, and achieve.
Equal Opportunity Employer