08/14/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 28 APPROVED MINUTES enforces the Ordinances and regulations al ready in placed, I have no objection to the development in question. Thank you for your consideration.” Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, requested the road not go through Carl Street. He stated when he bought his lot he was informed that the road would not go through. He was assured that the street was going to be dead-end. He expressed concern regarding additional traffic and the impact this proposal would have on his property value. He stated he had purchased his property in 1991. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he had lived in his home since 1996. “I respectfully request that you allow me to document my concerns over the proposed Comprehensive Plan initiative to extend Carl Street to allow for neighborhood connections and emergency vehicle access. My home is the last home on the Carl Street cul-de-sac on Lino Air Park North. The plat shows my lo t as lot number 14. The historical background is relevant to the case at hand. Let me f ill you in on the details. You may check the facts with any of the City’s records: In 1996, lots 15 through 21 behind me were considered wetlands by Ultieg Engineers and The Rice Cr eek Watershed District. The Developer was not granted permission to develop the rema ining lots and thus, Carl St. was designed as a fully finished curbed cul-de-sac with my lot as the last developable property. However, current plans are in process for a new development off of Sunset which will reach east to my property line. Lots 15 t hough 21 were originally platted to be accessed by Carl Street only and that is why there is an easement for that access. Due to the fact that those lots were consider ed wetland and undevelopable, the city planners, engineers and developer ended Carl Str eet as a cul-de-sac. But ne ver bothered to negate the easement. Obviously, a missed technicalit y. I would like to pose the most obvious question: Why can the wetland now be developed when it could not a mere six-years ago? My lot (14) also has wetlands delineated. As a re sult, my home was placed on the lot nearest to the cul-de-sac as the final hom e in the plat with access from Carl Street. Because of the wetlands on my lot, I was fo rced to place my home nearest the ditch, with the hanger pad to the South. If Carl St reet were extended, it would cause me considerable hardship for the following reason s: 1. The proximity of my home to the proposed street is far too close for safety or comfort. I have small children and this poses a very real hazard. If the stre et were to continue straight, it would run within 18 feet of my home. 2. My property will be decreas ed drastically. It is common knowledge that homes in cul-de-sacs are more desirable and have higher resale values. 3. There is not enough room to allow for a curbed street of any size, let alone an easement for the ditch and for my home. To consider making the ro ad smaller or moving it closer to my home as a solution is not realistic. It would be intrusive to me a nd in violation of the intent of the original development. The distance betw een the ditch bank and my home is 88 feet. The original plat establishe d a 66-foot easement along the ditch as access to lots 15-21. As mentioned earlier, these were never developed because they were delineated as wetlands, and the plat was never adjusted to negate the proposed easement. Therefore, Carl Street ended where the 1992 Federal and St ate Wetland Acts forced it to end. 4. In 1995 when the final plat was approved, Carl St reet was purposely curved 45 feet further to the south in order to stay a safe distance from the ditch and allow for appropriate storm water drainage. This design was required a nd approved at the time by the Rice Creek Watershed District and by the City of Lino La kes. The developer met this requirement. If the City currently changes its position to fit their proposed needs, it violates Federal,