Laserfiche WebLink
310 <br />COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1989 <br />ENGINEER'S REPORT - RON STAHLBERG <br />Consideration of Amending Assessment Policy Concerning Sewer <br />and Water Trunk Improvements - Mr. Stahlberg proposed adding <br />another paragraph to the Public Improvement Policy addressing <br />large lots adjacent to sewer and water mains that cannot be <br />subdivided. Mr. Stahlberg read his proposal and Mr. Bisel <br />asked Mr. Stahlberg why he had selected 100 feet as his <br />model. Mr. Bisel explained he felt this should not be based <br />on a specific footage but rather on the zoning of the area <br />the mains are to serve. For instance, if the mains were <br />going to serve a R -1 area, the lot sizes in this zone are 80 <br />feet. Then the lots adjacent to this area could be served <br />and their assessment would also be based upon 80 feet. <br />There was discussion on whether both sides of Sunrise Drive <br />should be offered this new proposal. Mr. Neal noted that it <br />was his understanding that Sunrise Drive is now out of the <br />MUSA area and could not be served by sewer or water. Mr. <br />Stahlberg explained that the map has not been finalized or <br />submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. The <br />Council still has an opportunity to serve any part of Sunrise <br />Drive. Mr. Stahlberg said he felt the critical question here <br />is whether or not the City will provide service for both <br />sides of the street. Mr. Bisel felt that the critical <br />question is that the main lines must run past many odd shaped <br />lots. He asked how can the Council accommodate these <br />residents and make it possible for them to tie into the sewer <br />and /or water mains. He felt the intent should be that as <br />long as the mains are going to a new subdivision why should <br />the adjacent lots pay more in assessments that in the new <br />subdivision. <br />Mr. Stahlberg explained why he picked 100 feet for his new <br />proposal. He explained that it is an average of the lots in <br />the new subdivisions. There was further discussion on this <br />matter and the consensus appeared to be that if the mains <br />were to serve a subdivision zoned R -1 with 80 feet front <br />lots, then the adjacent lots should also be assessed at the <br />80 foot rate. If the mains were to serve a R -1X subdivision <br />with 90 foot lots, then the adjacent lots would be assessed <br />at the 90 foot rate. <br />Mr. Tom Smith, 874 Oak Lane explained that his lot is 200 <br />feet wide and there is some talk of taking utilities up his <br />street to serve a 35 acre subdivision. He also explained <br />that part of his lot is low and not developable. He said he <br />would be very happy if the Council adopted this policy. Mr. <br />Reinert said that in Mr. Smith's case it may be possible to <br />subdivide his lot into additional lots. Mr. Reinert <br />explained that Mr. Smith's assessment would be based on how <br />many lots he was able to subdivide. There was discussion <br />regarding how valuable lots may become in the future. As in <br />the case at Turtle Lake, people are paying tremendous amounts <br />