Alexandria Township
Alexandria, Minnesota 56308
Minutes of the meeting of May 18, 2015
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Alexandria Township and a Board of Adjustment meeting was held on the 18th day of May, 2015 at the Alexandria Township Conference Room, 324 Broadway.
ROLL CALL: Supervisors present were Jul Feuling, Jeff Oberg, Joel Dahlheimer and Russell Niskanen. Also present were Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk, and Mona Billmark, Treasurer. As said members formed a quorum and the meeting was called to order by Chair Feuling at 6:00 p.m.
Niskanen requested the town board observe a moment of silence in memory of John Knowles, former planning commission chairman.
At 6:03 p.m. Chair Feuling recessed the regular meeting to convene the Board of Adjustment meeting and opened the public hearing on the variance requests for Lake Jessie Meadows Second Addition.
Zoning Administrator Oleson provided a summary of the variance requests, noting that a number of the requests are directly related to the road issue:
1) to allow for the dedication of a public road right of way of 50 feet (minimum of 66 feet required);
2) to allow for the dedication of an existing private road as a public road not meeting minimum width or other construction standards (currently 26 feet in width, normal requirement is 31 feet);
3) that the road be left with its current construction standards (a 6 inch gravel base; normal requirement is 8 inch)
4) to allow for the dedication of existing stormwater facilities not meeting current standards;
5) for existing and proposed building “envelopes” within the planned unit development to be located less than 32 feet from the proposed road right of way;
6) to allow nine residential units within the first tier of the development (maximum of 8 allowed);
7) to allow certain portions of the property to count as open space despite not meeting current township standards.
Oleson also noted the following:
1) that the blacktop meets the township’s 3 inch requirement;
2) there is no proposed increase in the number of residential units from 2005;
3) there is no change to the number of docking or mooring sites; and
4) there is no significant change to the layout.
Oleson reported that the owner had applied last month for a conditional use to convert the existing community center to a residential dwelling and for a rearrangement of its preliminary plat to change the shape of the “envelopes” to allow more flexibility with respect to design. Since this does not require a variance, the requests were heard by the planning commission. Oleson stipulated that all aspects of the development had been previously approved in 2005 by Douglas County, consistent with their ordinances at the time.
Chair Feuling asked if the owner of the development, Joe Riley of Riley Bros. or his representatives, Brad Nyberg of Nyberg Surveying and Tom Klemenhagen of LandTeam, wished to make a statement. Mr. Nyberg wanted to clarify that the road, back to back, is actually 27 feet.
Chair Feuling asked for clarification on what specifically required a variance with regard to the rearrangement of the layout of the homes. Oleson responded that the setback would require a variance if the town were to take ownership of the road.
Chair Feuling opened the meeting to the public for comment.
Bonnie Brooks, 2000 E. Lake Jessie Road, stated her concerns as follows: 1) are the township standards in place now the same as the township standards that were in place in 2005; 2) if the town were to take over the road, thus maintaining a public road in a private development, would the township be setting a precedent for other PUDs; 3) if the town were to take over maintenance of the stormwater facilities, would that include just the utilities under the road within the development or would it extend further up E. Lake Victoria Road to County Road 82; 4) that extra cost could be incurred by township residents regarding adequate snow removal; 5) if the homeowners are allowed larger homes, how would that not change the amount of impervious calculation; and 6) she was not in favor of adding another home along the shoreline in Tier 1. Ms. Brooks also stated that at the time the development was initially approved, she understood the township had voiced their concerns to the county on many of these same issues.
Supervisor Dahlheimer stipulated that in 2005, the township expressed its preference that the development be constructed in a lot/block configuration rather than as a PUD. Chair Feuling added that not only was the township concerned about the development meeting our standards, but density was another issue.
Engineer Kuhn stated that some definite concerns are density, township standards regarding road widths, and stormwater controls; i.e. access and cleaning out of the ponds. He noted that township road standards have remained consistent, for the most part, from 2005 until present.
In reference to the proposed layout reconfiguration, Oleson stated that the intent is to not add to the impervious coverage but rather to take the same square footage and just change the shape so as to allow greater flexibility of the home design for the owner and the builder. The building, driveway and any sidewalks would be accounted for within those calculations.
Oleson said if the town were to take over the stormwater ponds, some underground infrastructure would go with it. The township would not, however, be taking over the sewer or the water. That would remain private.
Oleson reported we had received two letters from township residents in opposition.
Greg Westgaard, 4604 N. Lake Jessie Road, stated that as a homeowner with approximately 900 feet adjacent to the eastern property line of Lake Jessie Meadows, he is against the township’s expending resources beyond its reasonable municipal responsibilities. He urged the township to table the matter for further consideration. He acknowledged that at the time of original approval, the township had no say in how the project transpired and progressed.
Jeff Cross, 4609 N. Lake Jessie Road, expressed his concerns regarding the township’s taking over ownership of the existing private road and accepting an associated right of way. He feels if the township moves to take on ownership of the existing roadway, it would be moving from a public regulatory function into a private sector function and that he does not believe the township’s function is to take on private sector risks.
Mr. Riley commented that in Tier 1, by converting the community center to a dwelling, you still end up with the same number of buildings; i.e. nine residences versus eight residences plus the community center.
Seeing no further comment, Chair Feuling closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Oleson reported that the planning commission had no issues with the layout changes nor with the conversion of the community center to a private dwelling.
Supervisor Oberg asked Mr. Nyberg for clarification of the lake front calculations and the impact of density on those calculations.
Mr. Nyberg inquired would the town consider assuming ownership of the road if, for example, in a specified number of years the road were still in serviceable condition or if, in a specified number of years, a pre-determined number of units were sold and built upon. Chair Feuling stipulated that this could become part of an informal discussion if the town chose to not take over the road, but would not be discussed as part of the variance process.
Vice-chair Dahlheimer asked how much is actual tar when they speak of 27 feet of road width “back to back”? Mr. Klemenhagen stated about 22 feet, maybe 23. Mr. Riley explained that you can also drive on the cement, called “driveable curb.” Dahlheimer asked Engineer Kuhn the width of a normal curb and gutter road, to which Kuhn responded generally a minimum of 24 feet of driving surface for 2-way traffic. Dahlheimer observed that the existing tar surface is about one foot short of the minimum.
Mr. Klemenhagen asked if the town were to deny the variance regarding the increase in the number of residential units within Tier 1, would the eight residences and one community center (in Tier 1) be approved under re-plat or would one unit still need to be removed regardless. Dahlheimer inquired as to the possibility of removing unit no. 5 and thus negating the need for a variance entirely. Mr. Nyberg explained that services have already been extended to each residence in Tier 1.
Chair Feuling queried if a re-plat was required for changes in Tier 1, and if the town approved the community center as a dwelling (necessitating another lot to be given up in a tier further back), would this also dictate a re-plat.
Oleson responded that re-platting is required if the boundaries of the residential lots are changed. Even if the owner left everything the way it was, where the community center remained a community center and there were eight other residential lots in the first tier, the fact that they want to change the “boxes”, or layout, means they would need to re-plat.
Mr. Klemenhagen asked if a variance would be required to have nine “boxes” including the community center. Oleson responded yes. If the community center remained as is, no variance would be required. Mr. Riley indicated that if the variance is denied, they may choose to leave it as is with the eight residential lots and the community center. Supervisor Oberg expressed concern that even if the variance is denied, there would still need to be access to the lake. Mr. Nyberg said that if everything remains as is, there would be access to the lake since the area around the community center is common ground. Mr. Riley concurred that there would be access since everything outside of the “boxes” is common area, so access would be provided even without changing anything.
Oberg, seconded by Niskanen, made a motion to deny the variance request allowing for nine residential units in Tier 1. Roll: Niskanen – yes, Oberg – yes, Dahlheimer – yes, Feuling – yes. Opposed: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Dahlheimer, seconded by Oberg, made a motion to approve the variance request allowing for open space to be configured as approved by Douglas County in 2005. Roll: Niskanen – yes, Oberg – yes, Dahlheimer – yes, Feuling – yes. Motion carried unanimously.
With regard to the road being changed from private to public, Supervisor Oberg noted that the letters the township has received from residents and overall public comment is for the road to remain private.
Mr. Riley reiterated that the purpose in requesting the town to assume responsibility for the road is to aid in sales of the lots, i.e. making the lots more attractive to potential buyers.
Oberg, seconded by Feuling, made a motion to retain the road as private, and not public, based upon the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report on page 4(a) – 8, nos. 1 and 3. Roll: Niskanen – no, Oberg – yes, Dahlheimer – yes, Feuling – yes. Motion carried.
Chair Feuling acknowledged that the rest of the variances need not be considered in light of the motion concerning the road.
Chair Feuling closed the Board of Adjustment meeting and reconvened the regular town meeting.
Dahlheimer, seconded by Niskanen, made a motion to adopt the agenda with the addition of gravel roads under Citizen Concerns and water runoff on the north portion of E. Lake Geneva Road under Engineers Report. Motion carried unanimously.
Niskanen, seconded by Dahlheimer, made a motion to approve the minutes of the 5/4/2015 regular board meeting as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Dahlheimer, seconded by Niskanen, made a motion to authorize payment of claims 15098 – 15102 in the amount of $5,348.55, EFTPS $1,176.11, totaling $6,524.66 with no transfer of funds from savings. Motion carried unanimously.
CITIZEN’S CONCERNS: Vice-chair Dahlheimer reported he had received a complaint concerning individuals using ATVs on Hope Road, damaging the road by creating ruts, etc. Consensus of the board is to have Supervisors Dahlheimer and Niskanen speak with the ATV owner(s).
PLANNING AND ZONING: Zoning Administrator Oleson reported that the planning commission is forwarding two recommendations regarding their public hearing on Lake Jessie Meadows 2nd Addition: 1) the rearrangement of the preliminary plat and, 2) the conversion of the community center to a private dwelling. Their recommendations are as follows: 1) to approve the rearrangement of the box configuration as brought forth by the owner (Oleson noted that no setbacks were needed since the road would remain private); and 2) to approve the conversion of the community center to a dwelling, which would include a condition to provide external access to the wells only. Dahlheimer, seconded by Niskanen, made a motion to approve the change to the shape and layout of the residential lots, ensuring the impervious coverage remains in compliance and to allow the conversion of the community center to a private dwelling with two conditions: 1) that access to the well infrastructure be sealed from the interior with the creation of a new exterior access, and 2) that an alternative route be provided to the mooring sites. Roll: Niskanen – yes, Oberg – yes, Dahlheimer – yes, Feuling – yes. Opposed: none. Motion carried unanimously.
Oleson reported he had received a complaint regarding a homeowner in the Homestead Road area allowing livestock to roam free-range with no fencing. Reports have been received that the livestock are causing a hazard on township roads. Consensus of the town board is to have Oleson confer with the township attorney.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Ron Lyman, 1806 E. Lake Geneva Road, expressed his concern regarding stormwater runoff from a field into E. Lake Geneva Road. He reported that runoff conditions have deteriorated since last fall. Mr. Lyman stated he had spoken with Steve Henry of Douglas County Soil & Water about the problem. One possible option would be to get the lakes association involved. Engineer Kuhn stated he will speak with Jerry Haggenmiller of the Douglas County Soil & Water Conservation District and report back to the board. Consensus of the town board is to have Niskanen and Dahlheimer meet with the town road maintainer and the farm property owner to discuss a temporary solution for the right of way.
OLD BUSINESS: none
NEW BUSINESS: Dahlheimer, seconded by Feuling, made a motion to table the supervisor appointment until the next meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Being no further business, Niskanen, seconded by Dahlheimer, made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted….
______________________________________
Bonnie Fulghum, Deputy Clerk
Approved this ____ day of ________, 2015
_______________________________________
Jul Feuling, Chair