08/13/2003 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board July 9, 2003 Page 7 developer he was not interested in selling his property and he was not happy with those numbers. He stated he would like to subdivide his land at some point. Mr. Grochala replied they have had discussions with Mr. Cavegn and some of this would not get done until they had approval, but since it was public sewer and water being run down the street, that those lines would need to be stubbed to his property. He stated the properties would share in the cost of running the sewer and water with a credit being given to the developer. He stated once Mr. Cavegn's property was subdivided and he hooked up, Mr. Cavegn would be charged a hook up charge. Tim Anderson, 547 Lois Lane, stated he was confused on this issue. He asked how they could make an exception to the rule for Mr. Cavigen while there were different rules for the remainder of the residents. He stated he had been told he needed to submit a petition to the City for hook up, which he did. He noted he had five people on his petition. He stated he was against this development because it would lower his property value. He asked when would the final numbers be established for Mr. Cavigen. Mr. Grochala replied Mr. Cavigen would still be responsible for platting and subdividing the property in the same manner that this request was being made. He indicated Mr. Cavigen's property would be assessed at the time the property was platted and subdivided. Vice Chair Rafferty noted they did not have all of the answers at this time and he did not believe it was appropriate they estimate costs. Mr. Anderson asked how did the cost get distributed fairly to everyone that benefited from the features. Mr. Grochala summarized how the City calculated the cost. Mr. Anderson stated he had met with the developer previously and he felt it would be to his benefit to assess his property at the time he chose to subdivide. He stated the majority of the residents west of the project were in favor of connecting to water and sewer. Mr. Grochala stated this petition did not have anything to do with this development and if the residents wanted to connect in the future, they would have a replat their land and request a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated this was not dictated by this development and it would be up to the City Council if they wanted to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Anderson replied he believed it would be more efficient to have this done at one time, instead of twice. Vice Chair Rafferty stated the process they were doing tonight would have to be followed for all residents in the area interested in connecting to sewer and water. He asked how long would it take for the City to get their information forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Smyser replied this process had already taken 3 -4 months and the Metropolitan Council had 120 days in which to respond once it was submitted. He noted there was a lot more to this than the residents wanting to simply connect to the sewer and water. Vice Chair Rafferty noted just because they recommended approval and the Council approved it, did not mean the Metropolitan Council would approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct.