06/06/2002 EDAC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 Hodgson, but at the original county standards. Conversations since indicate the county may not even be willing to do the compromise design, but would spend the money elsewhere. Mr. Jensen asked who wouldn’t want this road. Mr. Grochala said north of Birch it is mainly the speed limit issue, south of Birch some houses would become closer to the ROW, and a business on J may have a building removed. If the full median goes in, there are a lot of driveway access issues. Mr. Jensen stated this road had to be done. Ms. Schwartz stated it was free money that was being passed up. Mr. Grochala stated this project won’t come back until the city requests it from the county, and then the city will have to share in the cost. Ms. Carlson said in some areas the proposed road didn’t meet the city’s comprehensive plan. Mr. Chase stated that political bodies and residents should not be designing roads, it should be left to the experts. Mr. Vacha stated the county has policy for that reason. Mr. Grochala noted that is the county engineer’s position, he has to sign off on the plan. Ms. Carlson said the county’s plan would cost the city an access onto the Miller farm property. Mr. Grochala said that will be an issue with or without the road project. What clouds the issue with residents is that each county has different standards, speed limits, and methods for paying for the improvements, and the residents wonder why one county can have it one way, and another can’t. Ms. Carlson said there are economic issues for people along the road, because their wells and septics are near the ROW. Mr. Grochala stated if the wells or septic are in the ROW, they get new ones at county expense. He added that we need to extend utilities in the southwest corner, and this could be done at the county’s expense if this project was done. This is an opportunity that shouldn’t be missed. Ms. Schwartz stated that if you live on a major road, you run the risk of being acquired, and you will be compensated. The city has an excellent commercial redevelopment opportunity at Hodgson and J. Ms. Carlson said her position is if they don’t reach an agreement they will lose the opportunity to get the compromise. The council hasn’t seen what the county has been willing to accept. Mr. Grochala stated it would be going back to a council work session. Ms. Schwartz moved to recommend the city give strong consideration to approving the county’s compromise plan of 100 feet ROW. Ms. Hansmann seconded the motion. Mr. Jensen asked how many buildings would be removed with the original county plan. Mr. Grochala stated six; in the compromise plan one building is removed. Mr. Jensen said that Hodgson and J needed redeveloping and it was an opportunity to remove those buildings. Mr. Grochala stated there are property owners interested, and the county obtaining ROW would facilitate redevelopment. Mr. Juni stated the message EDAC wants to send is “don’t be shortsighted, don’t lose this “ Motion passed with Mr. Jensen voting no. Mr. Jensen explained his vote by stating he is in favor of the road being built to the original county standards, not to the compromised standards.