11-20-1991 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MfNWT9§ OF THE STUBBS BAY SEWER HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1991 Gaffron indicated that if the lot were approved to be split in half now, he would be assessed for 2 units. He reviewed that Mr. Crane is suggesting that anyone with the ability to subdivide should get assessed for those possible future lots. He noted that Mr. Burger is the only owner with property that has the ability to subdivide under current zoning. Dean Moline, 248 Cygnet Place, stressed that there are 2 lots on Cygnet with 2 acres and therefore should be assessed 2 units each. Gaffron noted that in both cases, one lot is vacant and used by the principal residence and therefore only assessed one unit. Moline felt that the project was bad timing as the Highway 12 corridor has not yet been determined, which may run right through his lof" if the southern corridor is picked. Behrman noted that they do not even have an opportunity to sell their property because the highway issue has buyers scared off. Doug Merz, 3195 Watertown Road, stated that he had a failing system and just recently put in a mound system at the cost of $10,000. He noted he is for for the sewer but not at that cost. He asked about the status of the subdivision of the Panuska property. Gaffron stated that the subdivider, Mr. Carlson had a problem with the Army Corp of Engineers, which is still being worked out. The preliminary plat approval is about to expire and Carlson will either have to apply for an extension or refile a new plat. Crane stated he was surprised to see his property was included as the original study did not include property north of the Luce Line. He felt that because residents asked the dollar amount to be reduced, the City included this area. He stated that according to the handout, laterals to his property will not even be installed immediately, but those properties will be assessed immediately for the project. Gaffron noted that only areas with laterals installed immediately would be assessed for those laterals. Crane reviewed that his property does not need the sewer, but was included to reduce the trunk portion of the cost for other. He felt there was no way his property would benefit $19,000 for the installation of sewer. He felt that the total cost of the project should be divided equally which would put the cost at about $14,500 for everyone. He thought it interesting that areas that need the sewer the most have the lowest cost for the project. Rowlette explained that is not why the cost of others went down. 14