Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />July 8, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />to bring the information to us. Benke stated further that staff <br />and Casserly monitor events on a day-to-day basis so they can <br />respond with recommendations. <br /> <br />Gunderman was very impressed and feels the city should take <br />advantage of the recommendation; Casserly stated he and city <br />staff receive and review the current variable rate on a weekly <br />basis. <br /> <br />Proper reviewed the staff report, which had previously been given <br />to the residents concerned, regarding a petition the city had <br />received regarding a street light for Highview Drive and Robin <br />Lane, and explained the policy and the importance of placing <br />street lights on corners. Proper also reviewed the history of <br />street lights in that area and why the light on Robin Lane had <br />been relocated to a midblock location on Highview Drive. Proper <br />recommended that the petitioned light replacement on Robin Lane <br />be denied because it would be a violation of the city's policy <br />and that a light be located at the intersection of Robin Lane and <br />Highview Drive, if so ordered by council. Proper explained that <br />street lights are very expensive for the city ($80,000 for 1986), <br />and that intersections are the optimum location for both streets <br />(vehicles, pedestrians, etc.) and indicated that 1062 would be <br />the best location for the light, leaving the light in the cul de <br />sac. <br /> <br />Benke recalled that previously none of the corner property owners <br />were willing to accept the pole and light on their property and <br />asked if there had been any change of opinion by those particular <br />residents and if that would be a criteria the council would need <br />to live with; Proper indicated he had received no indication from <br />the residents. <br /> <br />Regarding the line-of-sight only, Brandt asked if it would be <br />preferable to have a light near that intersection to be located <br />between 1031-43; Benke indicated that option had been considered <br />previously but there is a question of access to the power lines; <br />Proper explained there is no pole at the back at that location, <br />and that the proposed pole would be over the intersection on a <br />mast arm. <br /> <br />Brandt asked if access to utility lines would rule out 1032 as <br />well; Proper stated he was not sure what was behind 1032. <br /> <br />Richard Zwieg, 1061 Robin Lane, stated the light by 1062 has been <br />there for 20 years and that no one was notifed when the light was <br />removed; noted there is a Crime Watch sign at 1033 and it is dark. <br />Zwieg had nothing against a light at 1084, but it was removed <br />from 1062. <br /> <br />Benke stated the light was against the policy; the issue is the <br />question of being consistent with policy or because it has been <br />there for a long time. <br /> <br />Page Four <br /> <br />Petition: Street <br />Light/Highview <br />Drive & Robin Lane <br />Report 86-156 <br />