Laserfiche WebLink
approached by the developer to see if ERMU would consider paying for some of the <br /> installation costs to complete the loop. John Dietz asked what the past practice has been <br /> for this. Eric Volk explained that in the past ERMU has not paid for any installation of new <br /> water main in a development. He went over the policies that were in place requiring the <br /> installation of loops and who should pay for them. Eric gave some examples of the most <br /> recent cases where developers have paid 100% of the water main installation cost. <br /> Alex Bodnar was at the meeting to request a petition for water main looping and extension <br /> variance; Mike Bodnar was also present. Alex explained that they purchased the property <br /> with the anticipation of splitting it up into 4 lots under the simple plat procedure with the <br /> City of Elk River. Because the property had been waived from platting when the Heritage <br /> Park was developed, they needed to name it as a subdivision. Since then, it has morphed <br /> from a lot split into a development. Alex Bodnar referred to section 8.2.4 recommended <br /> standards from the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi Board and section 3400 of the City of <br /> Elk River's watermain design standards,noting that the City of Elk River holds a higher <br /> standard for dead-end water main looping than the adopted standards of the Great Lakes <br /> Upper Mississippi Board, and based on what the city requirements are, it makes it <br /> impractical to do so. <br /> Alex Bodnar requested the commission consider three options. The first option would be <br /> for the utilities to run the mains under the justification to reduce head loss, and the <br /> developer would pay for the hookups. He explained that it wouldn't be setting precedence <br /> with other developers because this is a simple plat subdivision, or lot split,not a <br /> development. The second option would be that the developer would handle the contracting <br /> of the project and would be waived from hookup fees for doing so. The third option would <br /> be supporting a variance for a zoning change for well and septic for the three proposed lots. <br /> There was further discussion. <br /> Peter Beck added that the subdivision ordinance does require that the sub divider bring the <br /> utilities to the property if it's in the urban services area. There would need to be some <br /> extraordinary hardship factors to vary from that ordinance requirement; if we even could. <br /> Based on prior practices, one option the council and commission may wish to consider <br /> would be allowing the utility costs to be assessed; potentially including the hookup fees. <br /> Alex Bodnar inquired as to if and when the utilities would be looking to connect and <br /> eliminate that dead-end loop.Staff responded. Discussion followed on the size <br /> requirements of the water main for this project. <br /> The commission stressed the importance of not setting a precedent, and recommended the <br /> developer meet with Troy Adams, EricVolk, and Peter Beck to discuss some options, and <br /> that staff come back with a recommendation for the commission. <br /> 6.0 OTHER BUSINESS <br /> Page 4 <br /> Regular meeting of the Elk River Municipal Utilities Commission <br /> August 11,2015 <br /> 24 <br />