HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000050_pg124May 29, 1979 Page 4
Councilmember Forslund questioned where the utility pipes would run. Mr. Boxrud replied
the pipes would be 22 feet from center line, as close as possible to the gutter.
Alternate 2 would run close to property lines.
Jim Tobiason, 7601 Groveland, owner of lot #5, questioned what would be required if he
planned to build a house with a basement. Mr. Boxrud indicated he would have to do
site work to make the lot buildable and the building would be restricted. Site plans
would have to be reviewed carefully. Mr. Tobiason indicated, in view of these facts,
he objected to the installation of sewer and water; he doesn't want to pay for some-
thing he can't use.
Kay Gilman, 7565 Groveland, owner of lot #7, objected to utility installation for the
same reasons as Mr. Tobiason.
Charles Heath, 2801 Bronson Drive, owner of lot #10, questioned whether his maximum
assessment was 104 feet under either plan. Mr. Boxrud replied it was. Mr. Heath
indicated he was "middle of the road" regarding the installation.
Margaret Kremer, 7663 Groveland, owner of lots 1 and 2, indicated she would like to
have sewer and water on her lots.
Howard Thorson, owner of lots 8 and 9, indicated he felt the cost was prohibitive.
He is neither for nor against, "middle of the road."
Mr. Karlen, owner of lots north of County Road I, indicated he was for the utility
installation. He also indicated Mr. Dahlberg wanted the service of his two lots.
Mr. Budzynski, Realty Man Properties, east of Silver Lake Raod, questioned whether
a 6" water main would be adequate for an industrial complex. Mr. Boxrud indicated
it was. Realty Man Properties were "middle of the road" regarding utility installation.
Mr. Winiecki asked if it mattered if an owner didn't want the services. Attorney Meyers
explained that legally, the Court was only concerned with the value added to the
property resulting from the addition of services.
Two letters indicating protest of the installation were received from Dale Cremer
and Terry Martinson in their absence.
Mayor McCarty closed the Public Hearing and reopened the regular meeting.
Mayor McCarty stated that when the installation was previously proposed, the utility
lines were proposed to run through the yards. From a maintenance standpoint, it is
much more serviceable and less costly to run the service through the street.
Councilmember Hodges indicated his agreement with the Mayor and that he favored
Alternate 2.
Councilmember Forslund indicated agreement with the Mayor. She stated her concern
for the depth of the pipes, as well as the inadvisability of "piecemealing" the
services which might prevent connecting at some time in the future.
Councilmember Rowley also expressed agreement and favored Alternate 2.
Councilmember Ziebarth stated he had originally been opposed because of the maintenance
problems, and the "piecemealing" was a mess. He indicated his concern that some owners
were not willing to accept the installation but indicated the cost, although considerable,
is better now than it will be in the future. He indicated he favors Alternate 2.