08/13/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I were i nit i ated' by more than 50 percent of the adjacent property owners, except Property No.4 which was initiated by the City Council under e the dust program. There had been one public hearing by the staff, and there was no objection to that project. Public hearing was opened. Bill Temple, 2974 Ingalls Way, speaking on Item 3, asked why the sanitary sewers were in the bid since the residents were all hooked up to sewers. He also explained how difficult it was to get the street graded. He was for the paving so that he could get rid of the dust, even though he would lose trees. He asked the width of the paving. Mr. Allen replied that the street would be 28 feet wide. The City was required to grade a street once a year, and that was all. The sanitary sewer had been dropped from the bid and was not included in the bid amount. D. R. Rife, 142 North Grand, spoke on Project 5, paving of North Grand. He felt this was railroaded through because he received a letter on August 9, dated August 3, for a hearing August 13. Some people like paved streets, he said, but he preferred potholes. He noted the close 48 to 52 percentage vote and wondered about the new neighbors' input into this vote. Two people testified against Project 6, paving of Laurel Hill. They were Erick McLaughlin, 2480 Laurel Hill Drive, and Jim Potterf, 2420 Laurel Hill Drive. They indicated the paving would remove 18 to 20 - trees on the McLaughlin property. It would increase traffic flow. It would be a large expense on eight property owners. They quest i oned the petition since six property owners are in the city and two are in the county. The city residents signed the petition oPPosing the paving. It was initiated by one individual in order that that indivi- dual might develop his property into a PUD for 100+ homes. There will not be sewers on that street. There is no benefit to any of the residents except the person who desires to develop the property. The person wishing to develop has acreage and could develop his own streets and sewers as well. John T. Dickenson, 4310 Shasta Loop, complimented Mr. Teitzel on Project 2. He felt he had been sensitive to the needs of the neigh- borhood. He pointed out that the areas south of 30th and east of Hilyard have no satisfactory southern or eastern outlet and it will be needed for future traffic flow. Joy McLaughlin, 200 Edgewood Road, said three out of the eight property owners along Laurel Hill were present at the Council meeting. They do not stand to benefit from the paving. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Allen explained the petition process. He told the Council they do not need to have a majority in order to pave a street. It was determined that the petition percentages were made with regard to the percentage of - 448 8/13/79--20