Loading...
1999-12-28 Plan Approval Issues ~ PILOT LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY December 28, 1999 Mr Mayor & Members of the CIty CouncIl C/o Ms Lmda Goeb CIty C1erk\Admtmstrator 5975 Mam Avenue NE AlbertvIlle, MN 55301 RE Plan approval issues south of Hu!hwav 118 for Albert Villas Dear Mr Mayor CouncIl Members and St:'lff Thts letter serves to confirm numerous telephone conversatIons WIth staff as It relates to proposed work and plan approvals on lands south of HIghway 118 We have revtewed a copy of the reVIsed plans last dated 12-2-99 and staff reports We understand that the PC passed a motIon for demal, whtch reqmres 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 modtficatIon or densIty transfer, slDular to how Cedar Creek was treated, tfthe CouncIl feels that adequate publIc amemtIes are created We agree WIth the Planmng CommISSIon that not enough was created 10 the phase two deSIgn to warrant theu approval We dId not receIve any benefit from the PC for haVIng large wetland areas to deSIgn around 10 any of our plats of Parks Ide, Center Oaks or Cedar Creek We were able to mcorporate them, as has tlus plat mto larger lot areas, whtle stIli proVIdIng usable front and rear yards Our tradeoff came from a golf course, whtch proVIded an amemty to the CIty and the surroundIng lots We support the project under the follOWIng condItIons 1 It appears that phase one stands alone qmte well We do not understand why staff would encourage a berm to screen vIews to the golf course from the double fronted lots, smce It IS due to the golf course that tlus land has some demand to develop 10 the first place We agree WIth the Planmng COmmIssion that any approval for phase two be WIthheld untIl a smtable plan IS created Perhaps you can approve phase one and WIthhold phase two to a futltre tIme It does not appear that NAC has suggested enhancements as recommended tradeoffs for the R-Ilot SIZes For Example lfthe R-110t WIdths were approved, than each smaller lot should have 4 trees, WIth two as boulevard types 10 a larger caliper mstalled before the home bmldIng Regular lots would have the standard 2 trees Tills IS an added value helpmg to make the neIghborhood somethmg dIfferent 2 That saId, we can not support an approval whtch requires PIlot to cause any of our TH dwellIng unItS to graVIty dram to a 11ft statIon on the other Side ofHwy 118 unless we are not charged any of the additIonal costs of added depth and capaClty for the 11ft statIon, addItIonal overhead power, UpSIZed pumps and panels and transformers or road Jackmg whtch 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 11ft statIon along With any reqmred Waiver of assessments to allow for the constructton pnor to causmg PIlot to change from our approved deSIgn Our approved deSign would stand untIl the easement or land IS dedIcated to AlbertvIlle 3 Dunng our constructIon process we had to bnng 3-phase power to our work site from HIghway 19 at a cost of over $30,000 Thts Improvement also proVIded power and a transformer for our platlDed 11ft statton We previously requested Council to add 3 phase power costs to an area charge for the new land and rebate Pdot 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 .. have not paId for the lIDprovement So long as Pilot does not need to pay any addIbonal costs for power to a new 11ft stabon locabon 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 seIVe Parkslde and all the lands west ofHwy 19 At the bme the map was created by SEH, a chOice to not mclude the Albert Villas lands was made due to the unlIkely development potenbal Wlthm the comprehenSive guide plans 10 to 20 year penod So, the map boundaty was stopped at Highway 118 There was a 12-year payback penod of whIch 2 5 years are over In addIbon, the City granted rezomng to the Leander Heunng parcel, causmg theIr recoDSlderabon to sell and develop m the short term smce they could get more for theIr land m the future ThIs may have removed 40 acres from the lIkely rebate area to Kenco dunng the 12-year payback penod Smce thts proposal for 250 acres IS on the table, It seems appropnate to amend the boundaty, and allow Kenco to be rebated m the SpInt of the ongtnal document We agam request the CIl} expand the benefited area pnor to any final guide plan change and prelImmary plats With a rebate to Kenco under the tenus of the Parkslde 3rd agreement We do belIeve that a sewer flow capaCIty queSbon should be addressed as It relates to flows from these new Sites through Cedar Creek, Center Oaks, Parkslde 1,2,3,4, Summerfield and across Highway 19 5 Dunng 1998, the farmers along dItch 9 belIeved they could not afford to partiCIpate m the dItch cleamng, so Pilot land offered to do so It was dISCllSsed With the attorney, the City Adtmmstrator at the bme, and the Engtneer, that Pilot be elIgtble for a faIr share rebate of costs from trunk storm sewer ublIty fees, smce the dItch cleamng benefited the City for the next 20 years and seIVed more than Just new development that Pilot was undertakmg Our work cost $25,000 m excavabon and $12,000 m engtneenng We belIeve that work done m the area South of Highway 118 should be under a substanbal rebate IT development proceeds, smce It clearly benefits theIr property both for agnculture m the short term and development m the long term, and they have receiVed more than faIr compensabon for theIr land 6 Any engtneenng costs to dCSlgn the 11ft stabon, site It or bid It should not be Pilot costs smce ours would have been bUllt pnvately ThIs should be outlIned m an approval condIbon 7 We have an engtneenng concern that Without a guarantee that the second phase connect to St Michael for water loopmg, that addIbonal water matns may be needed along Highway 18 We would have zero use for any lInes along 18 and could not paruclpate m any assessment, whIch would be proposed as part of that need 8 Last, With development approval pendmg, we Wish to hear what the City has dIscovered regardIng Jomt traIl constructmn \'lthIn Wnght County Highways ROWand the school dtstnct as they upgrade the road These are the most Slgmficant platlmng and financial ISSUes, whIch we dealt With dunng our approvals, and we would expect slDular coDSlderabon and reSIdts from thts project 8111<""'Iy, ~ ~ Land Development Director Cc Kent Roessler \\ServerO 1 \don\LANDDEV\LEITERSIPROJECTS\ALBRTVLE\OPERA TIO\harstedques doc