1989-06-28 CC SpecialMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE ALBERTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
L J
A special of the meeting of the Albertville City Council was called to
order by Mayor Gary Schwenzfeier. Members present included .Jim Krystosek,
Donates Vetsch, Don Cornelius and Bob Braun. Others present included Maureen
Andrews, David Licht, Thore Meyer, and Bob Sullentrop.
Additionally, a special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to
order by Acting Chairman Donatus Vetsch. Members present included Mark
Daleiden and Kevin Mealhouse. The meeting was then turned back to Mayor
Schwenzfeier.
The first item on the agenda was a public hearing on a Conditional Use
Permit to allow two principal buildings on one building site for the Pheasant
Ridge Apartments.
Mayor Caary Schwenzfeier called the hearing to order and read the notice
of hearing.
Mr. David Wulff of Barthel Construction and Mr. Dick Nelson of Johnson,
Sheldon & Sorenson Architects, Inc. introduced themselves and then Mr. Nelson
briefly reviewed the site plan for the Pheasant Ridge Aparttnerits.
The minutes should note that during this presentation Mr. Nelson noted
that the heavily wooden area locate at the south property line would be left
in its natural state as much as possible and only in the case of the area
located at the southeast corner of the property Would any trees and brush be
remXjved. It was noted that this vegetation would need to be remove so that -the
building could be located there.
David Licht next responses to the plans from a planning standpoint,
highlighting the plan review reports presented to the Council and Planning
Commission for their review. Some of the issues noted included that the
property was currently zoned R-8 which would allow for multiple housing of
this type. He also noted that this property has been zoned for multiple
hot,icing since the original plat was approved by the City some 8 to 10 year
prior.
David noted the the issue of the evenings meeting was to discuss and
decide on a Conditional Use Permit - Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow
for the placement of two principal building on one property site. He note
that this type of conditional use permit is required to assure that the two
buildings are properly located on the building site or when two separate
owners are involved. The minutes should note that the latter reason does not
pertain to this particular case.
David pointed out to the Planning Commission and to the City ('-Amcil that
the issues raised in the first plan review had been addressed by the
architects in several revisions of the plan. The issues that had been
addressed included the need for loading spaces for each building, the need for
additional landscaping and adequate size of vegetation.
Additionally there was a technical change that was required which platted
the property instead of allowing it to remairi an outlot. It was noted that the
City`s subdivision ordinance requires that no building be built on an outlot,
requiring that the property conform with the lot and block description.
David noted that these issues had been address and the zoning and the
Proposed Conditional Use Permit -- PUD were in order and found to be -
acceptable.
Thore Meyer addressed the issue of site drainage. He noted that there had
been some concerns regarding the sites drainage, but that concerns had been
address in one of the revisions. He noted that the plans had been amended to
provide adequate storage for the "5 year storm", which is standard design,
criteria. With the provisions discussed, Thore stated that from an engineering
standpoint the project was in conformance with the ordinances.
The CcAincil and the Planning Commission were also informed that the Fire
Department had an opportunity to review the plans were provided with a copy of
the their concerns. The two points raised by the Fire Department were with
regards to the size line leading into the property may not provide adequate
pressure in the case of a fire and that the line would be dead -ended instead
of. l(X)ped. It should be noted that the line being installed will be a 6 inch
water line. The second issue raised was with regards to the location of the
fire hydrant and its utilization in case of high wir►ds.
Thore Meyer responded to the issue regarding to the size of the
watermain. He noted that the 6 inch main would be adequate for pressure
because the line is rather short and therefore should riot have an impact on
pressure. 'I7,ore also noted that the spacing of the fire hydrant meets the-
-Joint Power's standards but agreed with the Fire Department that an additional
hydrant would be of some value.
The representatives for the project indicated that they would install the -
second hydrant in a location approved by the Fire Department.
The residents (see public hearing sign up sheet) present at the hearing
next made cr wy--nt on the project.
The first resident to comment on the project was Mr. Robert Wacker, who
raised the following issues:
IVA
1. With the amount of open land at the rear of the property, why did the
project get pushed to the southeast property line. He felt that there
was a better location for the buildings and wanted to see that
addressed. The architect noted that in order to relocate the building
would require a great deal a fill which would be very expensive.
2. He felt that the City was not using ocAwron sense to allow the
construction of apartment buildings behind the existing single-family
homes. He noted that the single-family homes were there first and
that Council should require that some type of twin home concept be
implemented into the site.
Mrs. Sue Wacker rented that if she had been aware that there were
going to an apartment located behind her home that she would not have built on
the site. She stated that she did not want the apartments to be built because
it might interfere with her business located in her home.
At this point, David reminded the Council and Planning Commission that
the issue before them use to allow for two buildings on the site instead of
one and not the issue of zoning. Noting however that flee property had been
adequately zoned for at least 8 years.
Addressing some of the other issues raised, David noted that the
apartment plan provides for 24 units which is less that the maximum density
requirement provided for in the ordinance. Secondly, the topography of the
site does not lend itself to the relocation of the apartments and finally, the
building have been located within the setback requirements provided for in the
R-8 Zoning District.
Mr. Greg Kasper, who also lives near the site raised his concern
regarding the removal of the trees and brush on the soi th property line. He
noted that when he bought his property he paid a premium cost for a wrX.)ded lot
and with the possible removal of the trees he feared that there will not be -
any trees left. He also noted that he did not feel that it made any sense to
remove any trees that were riot effected by the buildings.
It was noted by the City that no unnecessary trees will be removed. When
questioned how the City could guarantee this, it was noted that be -Cause of the
Conditional. Use Permit that the City would require the implementation of a
Developer's Agreement. The Developer's Agreement would deal with issues such
as landscaping, preservation of vegetation and site conditions. When asked
what guarantees this Developer's Agreement would provide, it was noted the the
Developer's Agreement require a financial surety and that violation of the
agreement would activate the surety.
It was also noted that the Developer's Agreement provides that a
gi.iarantee be provided for all new planting's so that the project does not end
up with dead trees.
-3-
The Council assured that the trees and brush would not be removed in the
areas that are not impacted by the location of the buildings. The minutes
shaald note that the only exception to this assurance would be in the area of
the southeast corner where the building will cut into the area.
David rioted to the residents present that the Developer had been taken
off guard by the changes the City was implementing because of the fact that
new zoning and subdivision regulations had been adopted by the (2,ouncil within
the past 6 months and that the Developer was now working with completely
different requirements. Noting that the City now has made these changes there
are far more controls over this project than there would have been if the
Project would have before the City at an earlier date.
The next point of discussion was in regard to the quality of the
buildings and the rents that were being proposed.
It was pointed out that the buildings would be built in accordance with
the Minnesota State Building Codes as are all buildings constructed in the
City. The issue of rents were clarified by the developer`s representative.
They noted that rents would range from approximately $280.00 to $350.00 per
unit, depending on size.
Maureen was questioned about what the rents at WESTWIND where running.
She noted that, the issue being discussed did riot have to do with what rents
would be because the each site has been financed differently, that is
conventional vs Farmer Home Administration construction money. Again is was
pointed out that the issue before the Planning Commission and the (xincil had
to do with allowing, two buildings on the site instead of one and not financing
of the project.
David cautioned the group that an atterr�pt to legislate the value of
housing is not appropriate because we have no authority to predetermine
anyone's rent or house payment. David pointed out that the only real
,jurisdiction that the City has is over the health, safety, fire standards and
quality of construction.
There was also some discussion regarding the advantages over having 2
smaller buildings than one larger building because of the issue of height of
one building would likely be higher than two smaller buildings.
Another resident brought up the issue of fencing. They noted that fencing
would separate the single-family heaps from the apartment btiilding site. The
developers stated that they would look into fencing since it would be cheaper
to fence the south property line than it would be to relocate the building.
There was a question regarding the drainage and potential pry blems with
heavy rain storms. It was rioted that the direction of drainage on the property
will. not be changed. It was pointed out that the property has drained to the
west and will continue to do so, the only difference is that it will now be
-4-
collected into a catch basin and not over land. Thore reminded the the
residents that the storm sewer has been designed for the 5 year storm so for
those storms that classify as a 50 to 100 year will temporarily pond low area
until the storm sewer can take the water.
Someone questioned how many units are proposed to be built and how big
the play area will be. They were informed that the plans are for 24 units of
apartments and the defined play area has been designed to be 30' by 30`,
rioting that there is a great deal of open area that children will be able 'to
play in.
Maureen Andrews next read a letter from Bill and Jo Carrell at their
request, who were unable to be at the meeting. The letter again raised issues
regarding the trees and brush. This letter has been included as part of the
official minutes of the meeting.
A question was raised about who will be managing the building. The
Developers informed those present that at this time Buckeye Realty of St.
Michael have been contracted to manage the building.
A question regarding the possibility of rezoning the property was brought
up by Sue Wacker. David Licht rioted that this is riot the time to request a
rezoning of the property because the plans meeting the requirements of the
zoning diF;triot and rezoning is not the issue of the hearing. It was also
noted that if the Council and Planning Commission initiated a rezoning
proceeding that the City would likely be looking legal action against the City
for inappropriate action against the property.
Someone requested that the Developers look at the site to see if there is
a better way to position the buildings so that they will riot impact any of the
wooded area.
Bob Wacker stated that in his opinion that he did not feel that these
apartment do not blend into the development around it and that the City should
consider relocating them to another site. He stated that he cares about the
way the corrurnunity looks and feels that there would be better use of the land.
At this time, the points of the hearing were summarized prior to the
close of the hearing. These points include:
1. The request to shift the buildings so riot to impact the wooden land
on the south side of the property. (,an it be dorie?
2. Fencing would also serve a barrier between the single-family homes
and the multiple family housing. Could a fence be installed along the
south property line?
3. There was a request to rezone the property or to have the City only
allow some type of twin home construction.
-5-
David reminded the Council, the Planning Commission and those present at,
the hearing that the matter before them had only to do with the issue of
_ allowing 2 buildings on one site and not the other issues raised during the
hearing.
Hearing no other comments or questions a motion to close the hearing was
made by Donatus Vetsch and seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and
the motion carried.
At this time the Planning Commission were requested to make their
reccajmendation to the Council.
A motion was made by Mark Daleiden to recommend denial of the proposal
until the issues of fencing, trees, possible relocation of buildings and tot
lot could be addressed. The motion was then seconded by Kevin Mealhouse. All
were in favor and the motion carried.
F.Aue Wacker requested to be recognized at this tide, but was informed that
the public hearing had been closed.
The Planning Commission meeting was then closed on a motion by Kevin
Mealhouse and a second by Mark Daleiden. All were in favor and the meeting was
adjourned.
David pointed out to the City Council that they had several options on
which to act. They included:
1. The Council could approve the plan pending the stipulation that the
issues noted by the Planning Commission be reviewed and responded to.
2. That the Council could deny the action, but any changes to the plan
would require an additional hearing.
3. The Council could table the matter back to the Planning Ccxranissior► so
that the issues raised could be discussed. David pointed out that by
doing this no additional hearing would have to be held and it would
keep the project moving.
After a brief discussion Bob Braun made a motion to table the issue of
the Conditional Use Permit -- PUD and return it back to the Planning
Co[runission for discussion. The motion was seconded by Jim Krystosek. All were
in favor and the motion carried.
The minutes should note the next meeting of the Planning Commission will
be July 13th at 8:00 p.m.
The next matter taken up by the Council was the adoption of the City of
Albertville`s Comprehensive Plan.
-6-
David reviewed with the Council the change to the plan recorrimended by the
Planning Co mission regarding District 9's proposed land use. It was the
Planning C,omission's opinion that this area should re limited to cYxnmercial
development in the future, therefore the plan was amended not to include the
provision for multiple housing in this area.
David reminded the Council that the Comprehensive Plan is a policy
statement and not an ordinance allowing the Council to change the plan when
necessary.
A motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to
accept the City of Albertville's Comprehensive Plan was made by Donatus Vetsch
and seconded by Don Cornelius. All were in favor and the motion carried.
The next items on the evening's agenda were the public hearing hearings
on the 429 street improvements.
A motion was made by Bob Braun to open the hearing on the 1989-1 Street
Improvement project for Psyk's 4th Addition. The motion was secorid- by Jim
Krystosek. All were in favor and the motion carried. Pk tice of the hearing
was read by Maureen Andrews.
Thore Meyer gave a brief overview of the project, explaining that it was
intention to place down the remaining portion of the Class 5, install a 3 inch
mat of blacktop and surmountable curb in the area known as Psyk`s 4th Addition
and that :area of Lander Avenue that lies between 54 1/2 Street and 55th
Street. The prop7)sed estimate for the project is $110,0W.00, which includes
construction, engineering, local legal, local administration, bonding ar►d
fiscal costs.
There was a question regarding the drainage on the west end of the
project re.,garding which way the water flowed. Thore explained that most of
water will drain to the north into the catch basins that were installed on the
utility contract. There was a request to check the area on 54th Street (west
end) rewarding an area that the water tends to be trapped after heavy rains.
It was noted that the gravel would need to be reshaped prior to the
blar_ktopping. It is expected that the project will be completed about
September 1st.
There was a question regarding how the project cost will be spread
against the property, It was explained that usually the costs are divided on a
per lot basis, with side lots receiving a half of an assessment. The
assessments are than normally spread over a 12 year period. It was noted that
this issue will be discussed in much more detail at the time of the assessment
hearing once the project has been or-apleted.
Mr. Dewayne Altman questioned what would be done with the area in front
of his home, because part of it already has blacktop in place. He stated that
-7-
if he is going to be assessed for an entire lot he would like the old blacktop
replaced. It was noted that the City would check to see if a prior assessment
has been charged to the property prior to the assessment hearing and the
engineers will check the condition of existing of the blacktop and curb all
ready in place.
Hearing no other comments or questions a motion was made to close the
hearing. The motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Bob Braun. All
were in favor and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Jim Krystosek to approve the RESOLUTION ORDERING
(X)NSTR(X,'I'ION OF STREET IMPROVIIMENT NO. 1989-1 AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF
FINAL PLANS AMID SPECIFICATIONS. The motion was seconded by Don Cornelius. All
were in favor and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Donatus Vetsch to open the hearing on the 1989-2
Street Improvement Project. The motion was seconded by Bob Braun. All were
in favor and the motion carried. Notice of the hearing was read by Maureen
Andrews.
Thore briefly reviewed the City plan to undertake sealcoating and point
repairs on a variety of streets located throughout the City of Albertville. He
explained that this work will put the City back on schedule with reoilar
street maintenance, allowing the City to return to an annual maintenance
program. The expected cost of the work is estimated at $70,0000.00.
Several residents present questioned why the City would be doing this
type of work on fairly new streets. It was pointed out that streets shoilld be
sealed on a regular basis so not t(.) have major weather damage done to them
over a period of years.
There was a question regarding what the expected cast would be to each of
the residents effected by this work. Maureen explained that it was the City"s
intent not to assess any of the test back to the individual. adjacent to the
work but will levy the necessary costs as part of the budgeting process.
Hearing no other comments or questions a motion was made tX-) close the
hearing. The motion was made by Donatus Vetsch and secv.,nded by Bob Braun. All
were in favor and the motiori carried.
A motion was made by Don Cornelius to approve the RESC)LUTI()N ORDERING
CONSTRC>t PION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. 1989-2 AND DIRECTING, PREPARATION OF
FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. The motion was seconded by Donatus Vetsch.
All were iri favor and the motion carried.
A motion was then made by Don Cornelius to approve the RES(l)LUTION
(X-NSOLIDATING STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. 1989-1 AND STREET IMPROVEMENT Irk). 1989-2
INTO STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. 1989-1A. The mc-)tion. was seconded by Donatus
Vetsch. All were in favor and the motion carried.
Thore asked for permission to go ahead with the advertising of bids prior
to the approval of the plans and specifications to assist in meeting the time
restrictions. The (council gave Meyer-Rohlin a verbal approval to go ahead tc,
getting notices to the necessary publications.
The Council was next informed that there had been a change in the State s
requirements for the operation of On -Sale and Off -Sale establishments. The new
change allows these establishments to be open on days that there previously
riot allowed. Bob Miller informed the Council that there would need to be An
amendment to the City"s Ordinance so that none of our businesses would be in
violation of their dram shop coverage.
Hearing no other comment or questions, a motion was made by Don Cornelius
and seconded by Jim Krystosek to approve Ordinance No. 1989-11, AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR (ON -SALE AND
OFF -SALE) AND PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. All were in favor and
the motion carried.
There was a brief discussion regarding the hiring of the new maintenance
employee. The members of the Council who had not been able to attend the
interviews were briefly updated as to the candidates presentation. It was
point out that there had been A unanimous discussion of those present that
Raymond Varner was the best candidate for the position.
A motion was made by Don Cornelius and seconded by Jim Krystosek to
approve Ray Varner for the position of Maintenance Helper effective July 1,
1989, pending Bob Millers background investigation. All were in favor and the
motion carried.
A motion was made by Bob Braun and seconded by Donatus Vetsch to adjourn
the meeting. All were in favor and the motion carried.
a� 4--h ms -41-�, <5
C 1 i`y l�u� tuC-C-, ✓
d �
.��8 4 ��, r N e ,•✓
Lr.L,Jle (f
II �10 11 �.rcl
Bill & Jo Correll 6-28-89
5265 Lannon Ave. N.E.
Albertville, Mn 55-01,
To whom it may concern,
Being a resident of Albertville, we have been pleased
with the growth, and the fresh outlook_ of the community. The
small town "rural" flavor still exists, having the advantages
of the nearby metro area.
The properties along Lannon Avenue were purchased at
premium "wooded" lot prices. The price of these lots in
turn, brought in higher priced homes, raising the overall
value of the area. Very few of the people that purchased
property on Lannon Avenue, bought this property with the sole
Purpose of turn -over, or making large profits by selling
their homes. But it does stand to reason that NONE purchased
this property, expecting to LOSE anything on their
investment. The Pheasant Run project is a profit venture.
If it wasn't going to be profitable, it would not be built.
We feel that this project should come into the
community, and blend in, rather than change completely the
area surrounding it. The cutting down and removal of the
trees and bushes, located along the south side of the project
will do jest that. Suddenly, those that have purchased these
properties on Lannon Avenue, are faced with an apartment
complex; in their backyard, the view to go with it, the lack_
of division between single family and multi -family zoning,
and the drop in the property value. 'We did not purchase our
property on Lannon with the knowledge that this would be
happening. We would not have purchased this property if we
would have had this knowledge. And We would not have spent
the money beautifying our property.
We realize that the property in question is zoned multi-
family, and we also realize that the trees and bushes on that
property are not ours. But I think we should be concerned
with the cutting of trees, and removal of bushes, when there
is NO obvious reason to do so. It is my understanding, that
save for a couple of big oak trees, all the trees, small
saplings, and bushes are going to be removed. "New" trees
will be planted, but what guarantee is there that they will
grow, and be cared for7' How many years will it be, before
they are actually doing their part in the eco-system,
supplying oxygen, cleaning our air of pollutants, and trying
to keep the "greenhouse effect in check: With entire
continents and nations under fire for depleting their
forests, at what time do we start doing our part
The trees and bushes located on the south side of the
Pheasant Run project MUST stay. It does not appear that the
trees and bushes will hamper constructions and will certainly
not "detract" from the apartment complex loot::. The trees and
bushes that currently exist, make a "natural" fence and
division that we can tolerate.
The people of Albertville, whether we like it or not,
will soon be part of the "greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area",
and St. Cloud will be considered a suburb by the year 2000 if
the current projections hold true. Do we want the "pavement"
to stretch from Minneapolis to St. Cloud? The problem with
"absentee landlord's" has become headline news in the metro
area. If Pheasant Run does not maintain profitability, will
the owners and planners be there to keep "OUR" neighborhood
from looking like the ones on the six o'clock news?
The trees and bushes located on the south side of the
Pheasant Run project MUST stay. We can not let the
"almighty" dollar take away the simplest things we have.
Thant:: you for your time and attention.
Bill & Jo Correll