Laserfiche WebLink
13190.( y|C 'P ■'TfPO0-^ea.TnMS - STUBBS BAY SEWER MEETI.RY OF QUESTIONS ---------------dated 1/30/90' "e:a:n%’r„=i:.rea.c.uaea . .e a„a a.e. .eaa... . ...e are ce.»U - -:,r;roa:m « <br />Tn the project tLae in the Stubbs Bay <br />ilty tor sewer. Spe aecislons as to <br />ea This U In part aue to ae „„ <br />“’ea .aae several yeara aBo Other <br />lea will not he <br />= where the aemarcation is maae. <br />::a"=ouia he lneln^-^^"*““=:of the oxford area <br />^ enrtToe"sU to eight residents are oppoae <br />the present time s» <br />' . „ of 2 houses to the east of heat <br />t about inclusion of <br />a he a orlvate dr-veway <br />are two houses that are e^/ .„tiy exploring <br />reast on Leaf Street; ^ septic <br />,r they should be mciu <br />hi require service <br />r Place - presently Cygnet '10 “ " ‘ ^ ..rreoted. <br />pflill^s in any septic systa»s “ <br />"ii:iry iL:r :;e «:roV -iier^uin; <br />ro£ the%apacity on -nxa-^an^^ -rplaoa - <br />1„ effect It tay not^ an expensive pla <br />• ''^1sV°of the existing topography. <br />' d-nq the specific design and <br />e were comments regar <br />specific property concerns.A. Fred Blanch property/Bayside - This property owner was concerned that the service to the property would require the taking down of a number of trees that presently provide a substantial screening to his property. Staff indicated that they would work to develop a solution that would not necessitate removal of that significant screen.B. Saving Trees/Minkema property - At the corner of Leaf and Bayside there was concern because of the depth of the line that the individual's trees may be destroyed. This may be accomplished by an alternate routing either diagonally across his property or an alternative would be to the south side of <br />Oxford. <br />« ■ <br />C. Alternate design that would be cheaper - The people in the <br />Bederwood area thought an alternate design for routing of the <br />trunk together with the laterals may provide a cheaper <br />design. <br />D. Splitting the Bederwood area by lateral service area - <br />This would be done in hopes of reducing the lateral cost for <br />some people. Persons in the Bederwood area have asked if <br />that lateral could be reduced or some other option looked at. <br />If by splitting the area it may reduce one area's but would <br />probably increase another but this will be looked at. <br />3. Does the process that is being proposed only skirt the law <br />and becomes a way of "cheating the residents" out of their <br />market value increase. <br />A. Such an interptetation can be put on it, because the <br />process being proposed does limit the City's risk. On the <br />other hand it can be constructed differently. Since the City <br />has taken the position that the area should pay its own way, <br />if the project goes ahead it provides a means by which the <br />project can go ahead. If the City had to have the <br />substantial risk that it had in the Crystal Bay project, the <br />project may not go ahead at all. (As to benefit, the process <br />allows the individual owner to decide what the benefit is to <br />their property rather than having a court arbitrarily decide <br />that.) It should be remembered that any addition to the <br />properties is not going to fully be reflected in the sale