Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL WORK SESSION - DECEMBER 11, 1989 <br />51% of the landowners signatures for the project. Mr. <br />Schumacher explained that if a petition is received with at <br />least 25% of the landowners signatures on it, the Council <br />must consider the petition. However, if the Council <br />proceeds, and another petition is received from the same <br />area with 51% of the signatures against the improvement, the <br />matter is then dead. In the meantime, the Council may have <br />expended some money in determining if the original request <br />was a feasible project. This same thing could happen in <br />several different areas and cost a great deal of money that <br />cannot be recovered in an improvement project. <br />The Council addressed the issue of landowners who own one <br />acre lots who wish to connect their current residence to the <br />trunk lines but do not want to subdivide their lots. Mr. <br />Reinert noted that the Maple Grove representatives who <br />addressed the Council a month or so ago allowed such <br />connection requests. However at the time of development <br />(splitting of the lot) all assessments were then levied. Mr. <br />Reinert said he was not so sure that the City should not be <br />forcing these lot owners to split their property and sell the <br />new lots. This would force the payment of connection charges <br />for the new lots and improve the bond fund for that <br />improvement. He noted that as more trunk lines are extended <br />throughout the City there will be more and more of these <br />cases and he asked how much revenue is the City missing by <br />not forcing development of the smaller lots. Mr. Reinert <br />also asked if there were any advantages to the City in <br />deferring the assessment for the potential lot splits. Mr. <br />Schumacher explained that if there are too many smaller lots <br />left unsubdivided in any one project, the improvement is not <br />feasible. He also noted that if the Council did allow the <br />smaller lots to be connected without being subdivided, it <br />would be easier to get trunk lines extended through some <br />established neighborhoods. This would be softening the blow <br />to the one acre lot owners and allows the property owner to <br />develop at his own pace. <br />Mr. Stahlberg said that he felt it was important that before <br />the second phase of the West Central Trunk lines is started <br />that a policy on this matter be set. Then there will be no <br />question or argument with the landowner. <br />Mr. Bisel asked if it would be worth while to pursue the <br />Charter Amendment one more time. It was noted that the <br />amendment could be modified to satisfy some of the opponents. <br />The amendment would allow landowners to opt out of an <br />improvement making the amendment more acceptable. Mr. <br />Schumacher recommended that the Council not approve any <br />policy that would allow the landowner to opt out of an <br />improvement until the Charter Amendment is passed and in <br />place. <br />Mr. Schumacher reminded the Council that when Mr. Marier was <br />PAGE 2 <br />