07/08/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 8, 2002 Community Development Director Grochala indicated this property was shown on the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan as a commercial property and he did not anticipate a lot split request for that property. Mike Christensen, 565 Marshan Lane, stated he was opposed to this project. He acknowledged that the project cost could be spread over more than 10 lots, however, he indicated that those additional lots were likely worth approximately $150,000. Therefore, he felt that those property owners would easily be able to pay for the proposed assessments and still profit, while other residents would be in debt because of the project. He noted he currently gets water in his septic tank and had been informed that his septic system is too high due to the saturation zone. He indicated he must replace his septic system within the next two years, therefore, he was in a lose -lose situation. Joanne Haubrick, 590 Marshan Lane, stated she had not been a she opposed this project. She indicated she is a single parent livi not afford these improvements. She expressed concern that she order for water and sewer to be run down the street. ached with the second petition and a low income and she could ve to give up her home in Mayor Bergeson requested clarification from City staff continue or to close the public hearing. City Engineer Studenski recommended that the p day comment period to run its course. He indi owners subsequent to this evening's meeting point forward. Mayor Bergeson noted, if the public those comments should be forward Council. eir recommendation was to g be closed this evening and for the 60 - ow -up letter would be sent to the property rming them of the process to be followed from this osed, and the residents have additional comments, who would ensure they are submitted to the City Councilmember Reinert mov c e th- public hearing for the Marshan Lane Utility Improvements at 7:27 p.m. Ma or Bergeson seconded the motion. Councilmember Carlson stated she did not make the motion or second the motion because she was not hearing much support for this project. She noted it would only take four residents to put a stop to this process and the City Council has heard from three residents this evening who are opposed to the project. She felt it likely that there is at least one other resident opposed as well. She was also concerned about the cost of this project to the residents, but noted they are protected by the requirement that an assessment not be greater than the market value increase the project would have on the property. Councilmember Carlson noted during the last City Council work session an individual had asked for Council support of a proposal to run sewer and water under a road to his property. She indicated the original cost of that project had been $95,000 but was reduced to $40,000. She stated this individual