1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1958 - 1974
12/24/2013 8:08:56 AM
12/23/2013 11:46:52 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
5.4 I <br />4/17/67 <br />not have a higher count at this time of year. I&. Boyd stated that his group's <br />disapproval of the sewer and water is based on the coat, inasmuch as some homes <br />in the area which are in the middle $20,000 class'would be liable for an assessment <br />of $8,500 to $9,000. <br />shallow wells and could be dug to a deeper strata. <br />owners do not want streets resurfaced, not only because of the additional cost, <br />but because it is felt that volume and speed of traffic would be increased and <br />become a safety hazard, and because many property owners think that curbs would <br />detract from the aesthetic appearance of the area. It was suggested that if it <br />is necessary to install sanitary sewer, that it be installed in the boulevard so <br />as not to disturb the streets. <br />Coursolle, 5909 Lee Valley Road and Mr. Reichow all expressed agreement with Mr. Boyd. <br />Village Engineer Ray Drake pointed out that it would more than double the estimated <br />cost of the sanitary Sewer to put it in the boulevard and that the heavy construction <br />equipment would undoubtedly destroy the present street Surface. He further stated <br />that streets in this area are an accumulation of oil material built up over the <br />years and while it takes hi1 treatment well, problems would develop if the surface <br />is disturbed. Hr. William Hull, 7017 Dublin Road, stated that he does not know <br />of &yone who favors curb and gutter. <br />stated that he had been advised that construction of watermain would not reduce <br />fire insurance premiums. Mr. Hite advised that according to the fire insurance <br />underwriter, Class 6 fire insurance rate is available only to properties served <br />by lateral watermain. MY?. Hite reviewed the reasons the Engineering Department <br />has recommended curb and gutter; <br />Council give serious consideration to a petition which had been signed opposing <br />the project. <br />shortcuts to Braemar Park in the event that streets.are improved. <br />out that the streets would be used whether or not they are improved, and that they <br />would be much safer if recommended improvements were made. In response to Trustee <br />Johnson's question as to whether property owners would want water installed in <br />the event the sanitary sewer is approved, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Robert Lillestrand, 7104 <br />Down Road, concurred that they would favor installation of both improvements. <br />In reply to a question from the audience, Mr. Dalen explained the inclusion of <br />engineering and clerical cost in the total estimated cost as presented. <br />Ferris, 7024 Wexford Road, questioned the method of the proposed assessment for <br />street improvements, in view of the inequitable lot frontages. 'Mr. Hite also <br />advised Council that Mr. Lillestrand had requested to hook into sewer and water on <br />Gleason Road, and that this would be possible and could be worked out. Mayor <br />Bredesen pointed out that the Village is not interested in promoting improvements <br />except when they are important to the health and safety of the community. <br />Trustee Johnson stated that since it appears to him that sanitaqf sewer in the <br />area is necessary, he believes that water should be put in at the same time in the <br />interest of economy and convenience to property owners. <br />sewer and watermain be installed, but that the proposed street improvements be <br />abandoned. Motion was seconded by Trustee Courtney and carried. <br />advised property owners that the Village cannot continue to grade and patch gravel <br />roads at the expense of the general property taxpayer's who are or have been <br />assessed for permanent street surfacing, but will oil the streets once or twice <br />at the expense of adjacent property ohers. <br />later in Minutes. 1 <br />D. CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />Mr. Boyd suggested that the wells which are contaminated are <br />He further advised that property <br />I Messrs. Howard Tucker, 7019 Kerry Road, Mr. Ralph <br />Mr. Robert'Burns, 5820 Dewey Hill Road, * <br />He. ~ Eiiul- Wej?hec$er; ,7012 DnbIin' Road, urged that <br />Discussion ensued relative to high speed traffic in this area as <br />It was pointed <br />Mr. Donald <br />-I <br />He then moved that sanitary <br />Mayor Bredesen <br />(Sge Resolution Ordering Improvement <br />Lincoln Drive from north line of Interlachen Hills Addition to 843 feet + south <br />On an easement line 25 feet South of the south link of Interlachen Hills-Addition <br />from 245-5 feet west of the'center line of Lincoln Drive to Lincoln Drive <br />Advising$kq:%his project has Ween brought to Hearing. as a result of 100% petition, <br />Mr. Hite'presented total construction cost at $21,476.95, proposed to be assessed <br />against' ot 1, Block 1, Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition. <br />protest the improvement; ( SGe Resolution Ordering Improvement later in Minutbs . 1 <br />No persons appeared to <br />E. CON3TRUCTION / OF WATERMAIN AND APPURTENANCES IN THE FOLLOWING: <br />Lincpln Drive from north line of Interlachen Hills Addition to 843 feet + south <br />On an" easement line 15 feet south of the south* line of Interlachen Hills-Addition I from 270 feet west of the center line of Lincoln Drive to Lincoln Drive <br />Mr. Hite advised that this project has been brought'to public hearing on 100% petition <br />and presented total construction cost at $20,639.57, proposed to be:assessed against <br />Lot 1, Block 1, Interlachen Hills 2nd Addition. <br />the floor and none had been received prior thereto, whereupon Trustee VanValkenburg <br />offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />No objections were presented from
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.