Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />July 9, 2003 <br />Page 7 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Mr. Cavegn noted they did not opt out of the ut ilities, just out of the development. He <br />stated they were not selling their property. He noted he was not opposed to being platted, <br />but his opposition was the numbers he was given was different once he informed the <br />developer he was not interested in selling his property and he was not happy with those <br />numbers. He stated he would like to s ubdivide his land at some point. Mr. Grochala <br />replied they have had discussions with Mr . Cavegn and some of this would not get done <br />until they had approval, but since it was public sewer and water being run down the <br />street, that those lines would ne ed to be stubbed to his propert y. He stated the properties <br />would share in the cost of running the sewer and water with a credit being given to the <br />developer. He stated once Mr. Cavegn’s property was subdivided and he hooked up, Mr. <br />Cavegn would be charged a hook up charge. <br />Tim Anderson, 547 Lois Lane, stated he was c onfused on this issue. He asked how they <br />could make an exception to the rule for Mr. Cavigen while there were different rules for <br />the remainder of the residents. He stated he had been told he needed to submit a petition <br />to the City for hook up, which he did. He no ted he had five people on his petition. He <br />stated he was against this development b ecause it would lower hi s property value. He <br />asked when would the final numbers be es tablished for Mr. Cavigen. Mr. Grochala <br />replied Mr. Cavigen would still be responsib le for platting and subdividing the property <br />in the same manner that this request was being made. He indicated Mr. Cavigen’s <br />property would be assessed at the time th e property was platted and subdivided. <br />Vice Chair Rafferty noted they did not have al l of the answers at this time and he did not <br />believe it was appropriate they estimate costs. <br />Mr. Anderson asked how did the cost get dist ributed fairly to ev eryone that benefited <br />from the features. Mr. Grochala summarized how the City calculated the cost. <br />Mr. Anderson stated he had met with the deve loper previously and he felt it would be to <br />his benefit to assess his property at the time he chose to subdivide. He stated the majority <br />of the residents west of the project were in favor of connecting to water and sewer. Mr. <br />Grochala stated this petition did not have an ything to do with this development and if the <br />residents wanted to connect in the future, th ey would have a replat their land and request <br />a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated this was not dictated by this development <br />and it would be up to the City Council if they wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan. <br />Mr. Anderson replied he believed it would be more efficient to have this done at one <br />time, instead of twice. <br />Vice Chair Rafferty stated the process they we re doing tonight would have to be followed <br />for all residents in the area interested in co nnecting to sewer and water. He asked how <br />long would it take for the City to get thei r information forwarde d to the Metropolitan <br />Council. Mr. Smyser replied this proce ss had already taken 3-4 months and the <br />Metropolitan Council had 120 days in which to respond once it was submitted. He noted <br />there was a lot more to this than the resident s wanting to simply connect to the sewer and <br />water.