Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Minutes <br />September 6, 1994 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Discussion was held regarding the criteria that would be used to determine the <br />future need for sewer and water in the Sandpiper area. The Council indicated <br />that this issue will be decided by a future council. <br /> <br />Council member Dietz indicated that the City is not installing a trunk line to benefit <br />the "business park." He stated that the City does not even own the land for the <br />proposed business park. <br /> <br />Mr. LaPointe, 18294 Naples St. - questioned whether the trunk line fee and lateral <br />storm sewer assessment would be forgiven in ten years, or when the development <br />is served in the future. Mayor Duitsman indicated that there was no guarantee <br />that these fees would be forgiven in the future. Mr. LaPointe indicated that he is <br />in favor of Option 1. <br /> <br />-Becky Burley, 183rd Ave. - suggested that an environmental need or petition be <br />the only reason that will bring utilities to the area. She further requested that the <br />Council get the cost down to $10,000. <br /> <br />Mayor Duitsman stated that he favored Option #2. He further stated that he did <br />not feel the Council could lower the cost in Option 1. <br /> <br />Council member Dietz concurred with Mayor Duitsman. He stated that the <br />Council must be careful so as to not set a precedent that would be difficult for <br />future Councils to follow. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Barb Guidarelli, 18137 Ogden st. - indicated that she and her husband are in <br />favor of Option #2 due to the fact that the Council cannot lower the cost for <br />Option # 1 . <br /> <br />Council member Holmgren stated that due to the surplus of water and sewer lots, <br />lot prices are decreasing. He indicated that he does not feel the lots would <br />increase in value by the amount of the assessment and because of this it is not in <br />the best interest of the residents of Sandpiper or the City of Elk River to extend <br />utilities to the area at this time. He further indicated that by voting for Option 1, <br />the Council would be setting a precedent that would be very difficult to follow. <br />Council member Holmgren stated that he is in favor of Option 2. He thanked <br />Council member Dietz for his work in this matter. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO AUTHORIZE A MORATORIUM ON LOT SPLITS IN <br />THE SANDPIPER SUBDIVISION OF LESS THAN ONE ACRE UNTIL A ZONE CHANGE TO <br />Rl B IS ACCOMPLISHED AND TO EXTEND THE TRUNK LINE THROUGH THE SANDPIPER <br />DEVELOPMENT ALONG 183RD AVENUE WITH NO ASSESSMENTS TO THE PROPERTY <br />OWNERS OF SANDPIPER ESTATES. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE <br />MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Discussion was held regarding the Council suggesting to future Councils that <br />Sandpiper not be forced to hook up to utilities in the future unless there is an <br />environmental need or it is petitioned by at least 70% of the residents. City <br />A ttorney Peter Beck suggested that a resolution be drafted to fully explain the <br />motion as stated in Option 2 and that the suggestions regarding future hook-ups <br />also be included in the resolution. It was the consensus that this resolution would <br />