03/19/2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 19, 2003 APPROVED • CSAH 14/8 (MAIN STREET) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) COMMENT PROCESS, MICHAEL GROCHALA • Community Development Director Grochala advised the City has received an EA/EAW prepared by Washington County for CSAH 14/8 project. No formal action is required on this but the City will respond to Washington County. The City can respond in letter form or a formal resolution. The comment period ends April 16. There is an information meeting scheduled next Tuesday at Hugo City Hall. There will be a public hearing immediately after the information meeting. Copies of the EAW will be distributed to the Council and Councilmembers will have the opportunity to comment. 62ND / ELM STREET DISCUSSION, MICHAEL GROCHALA Community Development Director Grochala distributed and reviewed a memo that outlined the options for 62' Street/Elm Street projects. He noted the two general issues that need to be resolved prior to moving forward include an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the petition against assessments for street/sewer that was received from the residents. Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the options including the pros and cons of each option for 62" Street and Elm Street. He noted additional analysis will need to be done to address financial impacts that some options may create. Staff is recommending that 62' Street is reconstructed. Mayor Bergeson stated he believes the question is to what extent sewer goes in and answering the land use issues. He stated he believes the Council also agrees that the street should go through. City Administrator Wait Smith stated Ms. Rosemary Williams has requested a lot of information in relation to this issue. Some of that information is readily available and some would take a lot of staff time. She advised she spoke to the City Attorney and he suggested the City can provide the past meeting minutes for Ms. Williams to review or the City can bill her for the staff time to gather the information. Ms. Williams referred to option 1 and inquired about the two properties on 62' Street. Community Development Director Grochala advised none of the residents there have MUSA. Ms. Williams stated the Council voted to reconstruct the road despite the fact 89% of the residents petitioned against it. Once the road is approved development should be allowed on both sides of the street. Both sewer and water should be put in when the road is done. The Comprehensive Plan was done without approval of 62nd Street being improved. The problem is the City is giving the area heavy traffic to deal with without the ability to develop until 2010. She noted she may decide to seek legal counsel regarding this issue. Community Development Director Grochala stated there is still the issue of assessments • and how the City should proceed.