12/11/1996 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Brixius stated that the utility corridor is Lilac Street to Laurie Avenue, then north along the front of the properties. However, it is not cost effective to extend the sewer for five Tots. The cost of the sewer extension would be the responsibility of the developer or homeowner. He would recommend that the properties be required to hook up to City utilities when the extension is completed, so that there will be no replacement of on -site systems. Mr. Dunn expressed his empathy for the homeowners, but he believes there should be conformance with the rules of the City, which is that unsewered lots have to be a minimum of 10 acres. It is possible that the area will be rezoned, but that is an unknown. He is hesitant to subdivide lots in an unsewered area. When the lots are deeded to new owners, those land owners will have no legal rights to do anything on the property. In studies he has read, approximately 70 percent of the septic systems are not being used properly, and they push bacteria and disease to the ground surface. New land owners will be strapped, and the City will be strapped which is a difficult position to be in. He would like to see the MUSA issue resolved. Then if there is a need to hook up because of septic system failure, it can be done quickly. His preference would be to continue this public hearing to give the developer the opportunity to resolve more of the issues because he cannot approve the application in the current format. Chair Schaps noted that with the initial approval for development in 1994, there was resistance on the part of neighbors to this project. He asked if there is further resistance to this project. Mr. Gary Uhde, stated that he has held neighborhood meetings to involve residents, and now he has their support for this project. Timing is critical, as it is almost impossible to get five property owners to agree at one time. He believes there will be an opportunity for a land exchange regarding MUSA. He noted that although the utility extension will serve five homeowners, the trunk system will also be extended south and serve hundreds of homeowners who may have failing systems. Mr. Wessel stated that staff is not recommending this plan at this time. The developer has pursued this plan on his own, and staff is responding to the application. Mr. John Johnson, Project Engineer, stated that the application has been submitted to try to help property owners effect their desire to subdivide their property. The MUSA issue can be addressed in one of two ways: 1) evaluate other properties for a land swap; 2) include this property in the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The MUSA resolution is contingent upon the traffic impact to the I -35W interchange at Highway 49 for Metropolitan Council approval. There is work being done to analyze the impact to the interchange that will be presented to the Metropolitan Council to request an interim amendment. He stated that