Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />July 8, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />Resident asked if the policy took into consideration that this is <br />a curved street, not a straight road. <br /> <br />Gunderman understood why light was not installed at Robin Court <br />in order to protect the beauty of the property and believed that <br />is also true for 1062; suggested moving the light from the cul de <br />sac to Robin Lane. <br /> <br />Mrs. Zwieg, 1061 Robin Lane, stated there would be three lights <br />within a very small area; Benke stated no matter how it is done, <br />it will not satisfy both the policy and the neighbors. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked the distance between the intersection of Highview <br />Drive and Robin Lane to the existing pole with no light; Proper <br />indicated it was a little over 100 feet from the center of the <br />intersection to the pole. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated the light was removed from the pole and moved <br />to a location that provided no light to the Highview Drive/Robin <br />Lake intersection. <br /> <br />Williams noted the staff report indicates some neighbors had gone <br />together to buy a security light at there own cost and asked (1) <br />if that yielded as much light as a city street light; (2) if it <br />could that be mounted on the pole at their expense; (3) and what <br />the cost of that light would be. Proper responded they did pur- <br />chase a light which is almost identical to a street light which <br />could be mounted on the pole for $100 per year, perhaps more. <br /> <br />Williams asked if there would be an additional assessment for <br />power; Proper responded it would be all inclusive. <br /> <br />Brandt questioned the feasibility of moving the cul de sac light <br />to the intersection where it would light all three directions and <br />asked if it would remain consistent with the pOlicy of lighting <br />intersections; Proper responded it might be the optimum location <br />and would pose no safety hazard, but noted that every time the <br />city moves a light it upsets another group of people. <br /> <br />Schmidt understood beauty and aesthetics, and asked the purpose <br />for having a policy that says there ought to be a light at the <br />intersection; Proper ressponded it is primarily for public <br />safety. <br /> <br />Benke stated the purpose of the lights is for safety, then the <br />question is "is the intersection consistent with our policy", <br />whether or not the lighting from a combination of lights at Pike <br />Lake Drive and Highview Drive and the property line behind <br />Highview Drive at 1062 would provide adequate lighting for <br />Highview Drive and Robin Lane; Proper didn't believe that would <br />provide any help for that intersection. <br /> <br />Page Five <br />