Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses amending Resolution 035‑2021 to avoid immediate street paving on Curley Farm parcel; decision deferred
Summary
Landowner Kevin Gurley asked the PMD to amend a prior resolution so a 66‑ft easement would remain but the city would not require immediate paving; staff and commissioners discussed sewer/water routing, easement widths and future plats and asked for utility staff review before returning the request to the commission.
At the March 1 PMD meeting, landowner Kevin Gurley requested that the commission modify a provision of Resolution 035‑2021 so he would not be required to construct and pay for a paved street across a 66‑foot easement on a roughly 1.6‑acre parcel he intends to sell.
"I Kevin Gurley and we've got some family farm ground west of Manchester ... we just ask you consider just keeping the easement and foregoing the payment of that street," Gurley said, explaining he and the owners would prefer to farm the land and not expend the estimated $300,000–$350,000 to build the street now.
Staff and commissioners described the historical master‑plan context for the easement and utility infrastructure. Staff said sanitary sewer currently runs in a 30‑ft easement down the center of the 66‑ft corridor between two developed lots and that a future water main would require a separate easement or additional width. Options discussed included keeping the 66‑ft easement but not requiring construction now, reducing the easement to 30 ft, adding a water‑main easement, or allowing future service via a cul‑de‑sac or an L‑shaped connector. The commission emphasized the city must be able to maintain utilities and that decisions should consider future development west of 14th Street.
Commissioners asked staff to consult with utility staff (Chad) about whether to extend water to the end of the existing easement and whether a 30‑ft easement plus additional dedicated water‑main easement would meet future needs. Members also discussed preparing a preliminary plat to create a buildable lot and adding necessary easements at that time.
Outcome: The commission did not adopt a formal amendment during the meeting. Members indicated the request will return for follow‑up after staff confers with utility personnel and if a preliminary plat is generated. Staff said a recommendation will likely come back to the commission and, if appropriate, to city council.
Why it matters: The change would shift when the city or a developer must fund street construction and could affect whether utility infrastructure is placed now or deferred. Commissioners identified implications for future lot buildability, stormwater detention sizing and long‑term maintenance of water and sewer facilities.
Next steps: Staff to consult with utilities staff (named contact: Chad) and prepare a preliminary plat or recommendation; the commission will revisit the request when staff returns with technical guidance.
