1995-05-03 Proposed Golf Course
William S. Radzwill
RADZWIIL LAW OFFICE
Attorneys at Law
705 Central A. venue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Andrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
May 3, 1995
Mr. Kent Roessler
Kenco Construction, Inc.
13736 N.E. Johnson street
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Re: Albertville "Parltside Additions" and l8-Hole Golf Course
Proposal.
Dear Kent:
As a follow-up to your meeting with Mr. Hale and City staff
last Wednesday, April 26th, and in light of the time schedule you
would like to proceed under, I thought it might be helpful to
identify some of the major issues that. you may want to address
should you choose to submit a concept plan to the City similar to
that presented on April 25th. While this is not intended to be a
definitive list of the issues related to the proposal, it should
help to focus the major issues that need to be dealt with.
As you can see from the list of issues identified below, the
POD as proposed will likely be difficult to process and will
require answers to several long-term issues that the Council has
just begun to explore (e.g. comprehensive planning process, trunk
sewer issues, etc.). While some of the issues may be able to be
dealt with quickly, others may not be resolved until sometime next
year.
The major issues identified to date are as follows:
1. comprehensive planning issues--the City has recently begun a
major revision of its comp plan. It is unknown at this time
how the POD proposal would fit into the comprehensive planning
process. Related to this issue is the status of the current
B-3 zoning on the east side of the proposed POD.
2. Current city policy regarding Multiple units--the city has
adopted ..' a policy. placing a temporary freeze on the
constrUbtion of new multiple-unit housing of four or more
Mr. Kent Roessler
May 3, 1995
Page 2
units until a single family housing to multiple family housing
ratio of two-thirds to one-third respectively has been
achieved. The City has also passed a temporary moratorium on
two-family housing units in R-3 districts. While the
temporary moratorium technically would not affect a POO, the
policy issues behind the City's decision may be applicable.
The proposed PUD should to address these issues.
3. Trunk sewer access--the trunk sewer line to the high school
was designed to allow for a westward lateral to be extended
across Highway 19 into the proposed PUD. However, that
extension would require a sewer easement from by the land
owner on the east side of Highway 19, or a condemnation action
by the city to obtain the easement. If neither of these
events occur, the development of the proposed PUD may be
premature for lack of sewer access. Similarly, sewer
easements to the northern-most parcel of land must be
obtained.
4. Trunk sewer charges and assessments--the City is currently
developing a comprehensive "urban service area" sanitary sewer
plan with related chargesjassessmentspolicies for trunk and
lift station service, all of which will affect the proposed
Poo. .
5. EAW issues--it is my understanding that some of the ground
work for an EAW has been performed, but that the EAW has not
been submitted as of yet. The City Engineer estimates that
the EAW process may take six months to complete.
6. Annexation issues--the city Administrator has begun
discussions with Frankfort Township regarding the proposed
Poo. As was discussed at the April 26th meeting,
jurisdictional issues with Frankfort Township will need to be
worked out prior to PUD concept approval. This process will
likely take several months at a minimum. While a decision is
expected from the Municipal Board by July, a denial of the
annexation request would seriously complicate the PUD
proposal.
7. Wetland issues--prior to concept approval, you will need to
present a plan detailing how wetland issues are to be dealt
with.
8 . Radler j\venue--Some arrangement must be worked out with otsego
and possibly Frankfort Township regarding the proposed upgrade
and maintenance of Kadler Avenue and the access to the same by
the proposed housing units.
Mr. Kent Roessler
May 3, 1995
Page 3
9. Municipal Water issues--the potential addition of 350 homes to
the city of Albertville will have a significant impact upon
the Joint Powers Water Board's ability to adequately serve
this level of development. Joint Powers should be informed of
the proposal and should provide a preliminary indication of
its ability to serve the proposed PUD.
10. security for completion of golf course--As discussed at the
planning commission meeting, I would recommend a security be
established as part of a PUD proposal in which higher density
housing would be constructed before the golf course is
constructed.
11. Park dedication--Park dedication/trails issues should be
initially addressed in the proposed PUD.
12. storm water--the proposed PUD should address the downstream
storm-water impacts of the development (e.g ditch cleaning,
etc.).
The major issues identified above must be dealt with as part
of the City's concept approval process. While City staff believes
all of these issues can be resolved, the consensus of the staff is
that these issues are not likely to be resolved in a time frame
which would allow PUD concept approval and the first phase of
construction this building season. The City Council and staff have
already initiated action on some of the issues above (comp plan
revision, .discussions with Frankfort Township, comprehensive "urban
service area" sanitary sewer plan).
It is my understanding that representatives from Meyer-Rohlin
met with the City Administrator late last week to discuss potential
modifications to the proposed development. city staff will
continue to work with you to resolve the issues identified above
should you choose to pursue the PUD, either as proposed or in a
modified form, or should you choose to develop a portion of the
land as discussed with Meyer-Rohlin last week. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions you may have.
~c~
Michael C. Couri
RADZWILL LAW OFFICE
cc: AlbertVille City Council
Mr. Garrison Hale
Mr. Pete Carlson
Mr. David Licht