02/11/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2002 improved until development occurs and the northerly extension. He stated there seems to be contradictions regarding those two issues. Community Development Director Grochala referred to item #3 in the memo from the Planning and Zoning Board minutes from 1997. The comment was taken in the context that the plat was going to be submitted. The intent at that time was to acquire the right-of-way along the whole property. The City's transportation plan does call for the extension to the north. That extension is much more likely if the land is developed. However, with the acquired right-of-way, the City can extend the road if the City determines it should be developed. The question is the method of paying for that street. The 429 process could be used and the Church would have the right to petition against the improvements. City Engineer Powell noted the petition would be against the assessments for the improvements. The City currently has no plans to extend the road to the north, but h the right-of-way would keep the City's options open. Mayor Bergeson stated it is typically not the City's practice to orhood streets where the property owners do not want it. This roadway is a neighborh o' str t. City Engineer Powell stated the road is shown as a min and the City probably will not construct the road until property owner is needed for the funding. The pro property owners and assessing them for the impr ector. The issue is the funding source dequate funding and the support of the fun • ing includes identifying the benefiting Mayor Bergeson stated that under the City C mer the property owner does have the right to petition against the improvements. Mr. Steve Mattson, representative for e United Methodist Church, stated that maybe at some point the Church will want t •; ep n roperty and construct the road. He indicated the Church would want to work withat. Councilmember Reinert s it. The Church is the only the assessments unless there y the road is going to go in if the Church does not want rty er"that would be assessed and the Church can petition out of an amendment to the Charter. City Engineer Powell noted the last Charter amendment was approved in 1993. Councilmember Reinert stated that as far as the Church being concerned about the road being developed and the Church having to pay for it, that scenario does not apply in this case. Councilmember Carlson inquired as to what would happen if the property to the north develops and sewer and water is needed and they were willing to pay for the road. City Engineer Powell advised the City would then have a funding source and the road could be built at no cost to the Church.