06/11/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 2003 Page 7 City was proposing to expand sanitary sewer and water main to currently unserviced portions of the project and to provide services to properties were utility mains were currently located. Staff noted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was required to allow services to be provided to several of the properties located adjacent to the improvements. Staff presented its analysis and recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow changing the Land Use designation of 26 properties from Low Density, Unsewered Residential to Low Density, Sewered Residential and change the growth area designation of five properties to a Stage 1 growth area and expansion of the MUSA by 7.04 acres. Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Mr. Lyden asked if Elm Street was a State Aid Road. Mr. Grochala replied it was. He noted it had been turned back to the City approximately in 1996. He indicated it was on the state aid system. John Landers, 7181 Sunrise Drive, asked the Board to vote this proposal down. He stated he had originally been informed by staff that this would be a temporary easement on his property. He found out a couple of weeks ago from the City Attorney, that this would instead be a permanent easement on his property. He indicated a trail system on the south side of Elm Street would be a "big waste of money ". He noted people did not use the north trail, so why put in a south trail. He indicated he would have a difficult time plowing his snow in the winter because he had nowhere to put the snow. He stated he had no objection to the street, but he did not want to have the trail. He expressed concern that they were being double assessed on their property. He stated there were many unanswered questions with this project and no straight answers pertaining to it. He stated this proposal would create a hardship on a number of these properties. Mr. Grochala stated they had been working on this for the past year and four neighborhood meetings had been held. He stated Elm Street was in need of reconstruction regardless of the sewer and water. He indicated this was a Municipal State Aid street and a majority of the funding was coming out of the State Aid account and as a part of that, the street needed to meet minimum design standards. He noted 32 feet was the minimum they could do for a State Aid Street. With respect to the trail issues, there had been a discussion about extending the trail along the south side of Elm Street. He noted the trail plan was to complete the trail segment to complete the trail. He stated they had received concerns from the residents regarding the trail. He stated they were still evaluating this trail system. With respect to the special assessments, that was something that they continued to evaluate. He stated he believed some of the confusion was regarding the sewer and water service and the Board was not considering that tonight. Mr. Corson asked if they would have a future problem with access in this area. Mr. Grochala replied they would not. He noted there was some intent originally that some properties could split. Mr. Tralle inquired about the assessments on the corner lots. Mr. Grochala replied they were not assessing on a lineal foot charge. They were doing a unit assessment across the board. DRAFT MINUTES