Laserfiche WebLink
May 29, 1979 Page 4 <br />Councilmember Forslund questioned where the utility pipes would run. Mr. Boxrud replied <br />the pipes would be 22 feet from center line, as close as possible to the gutter. <br />Alternate 2 would run close to property lines. <br />Jim Tobiason, 7601 Groveland, owner of lot #5, questioned what would be required if he <br />planned to build a house with a basement. Mr. Boxrud indicated he would have to do <br />site work to make the lot buildable and the building would be restricted. Site plans <br />would have to be reviewed carefully. Mr. Tobiason indicated, in view of these facts, <br />he objected to the installation of sewer and water; he doesn't want to pay for some- <br />thing he can't use. <br />Kay Gilman, 7565 Groveland, owner of lot #7, objected to utility installation for the <br />same reasons as Mr. Tobiason. <br />Charles Heath, 2801 Bronson Drive, owner of lot #10, questioned whether his maximum <br />assessment was 104 feet under either plan. Mr. Boxrud replied it was. Mr. Heath <br />indicated he was "middle of the road" regarding the installation. <br />Margaret Kremer, 7663 Groveland, owner of lots 1 and 2, indicated she would like to <br />have sewer and water on her lots. <br />Howard Thorson, owner of lots 8 and 9, indicated he felt the cost was prohibitive. <br />He is neither for nor against, "middle of the road." <br />Mr. Karlen, owner of lots north of County Road I, indicated he was for the utility <br />installation. He also indicated Mr. Dahlberg wanted the service of his two lots. <br />Mr. Budzynski, Realty Man Properties, east of Silver Lake Raod, questioned whether <br />a 6" water main would be adequate for an industrial complex. Mr. Boxrud indicated <br />it was. Realty Man Properties were "middle of the road" regarding utility installation. <br />Mr. Winiecki asked if it mattered if an owner didn't want the services. Attorney Meyers <br />explained that legally, the Court was only concerned with the value added to the <br />property resulting from the addition of services. <br />Two letters indicating protest of the installation were received from Dale Cremer <br />and Terry Martinson in their absence. <br />Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing and reopened the regular meeting. <br />Mayor McCarty stated that when the installation was previously proposed, the utility <br />lines were proposed to run through the yards. From a maintenance standpoint, it is <br />much more serviceable and less costly to run the service through the street. <br />Councilmember Hodges indicated his agreement with the Mayor and that he favored <br />Alternate 2. <br />Councilmember Forslund indicated agreement with the Mayor. She stated her concern <br />for the depth of the pipes, as well as the inadvisability of "piecemealing" the <br />services which might prevent connecting at some time in the future. <br />Councilmember Rowley also expressed agreement and favored Alternate 2. <br />Councilmember Ziebarth stated he had originally been opposed because of the maintenance <br />problems, and the "piecemealing" was a mess. He indicated his concern that some owners <br />were not willing to accept the installation but indicated the cost, although considerable, <br />is better now than it will be in the future. He indicated he favors Alternate 2. <br />