Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 12, 1992 <br />VACATION OF The City Administrator noted that the the adjacent <br />PORTION OF property owners have petitioned for vacation of the <br />ORIGINAL spherical sections of the original Sunrise Drive <br />5UNRISE DR. cul-de-sac. The Development Agreement the City has <br />CUL-DE-SAC with the Frederickshaven developer calls for the <br />developer to pay the cost of this vacation in the event <br />that the affected property owners request it. <br />Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 92-8-264 - CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON <br />SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 AT 7:30 P.M. TO CONSIDER THE VACATION <br />OF A PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL SUNRISE DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Collova. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, Hanson, Blesener, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />LABORE The City Engineer reported that he has completed plans <br />ROAD and specifications for the improvement of LaBore Road <br />between DeSoto Street and Edgerton Street. It is <br />proposed that the road be reconstructed to MSA <br />standards for a 32-foot wide road. The Engineer <br />reported that MSA requirements are for no parking on <br />both sides of the street for a 32-foot road width. <br />Therefore, it is necessary that the Council adopt a <br />resolution calling for no parking on both sides of the <br />road. <br />Mr. Collova introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 92-8-265 - CALLING FOR NO PARKING ON <br />BOTH SIDES OF LABORE ROAD BETWEEN DESOTO STREET AND <br />EDGERTON STREET IN CONJUNCTION WITH MSA REGULATIONS <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Collova, LaValle, Hanson, Blesener, Scalze. <br />Nays (O). Resolution declared adopted. <br />The City Engineer requested approval of plans and <br />specifications for the LaBore Road improvement. The <br />Engineer reported that his revised estimates for the <br />project are $30,000 higher than his original estimate. <br />The increase is due to the soil conditions that were <br />found when soil borings were taken. Soils in the area <br />are an R-5, which is one step above peat. Therefore, <br />the project will require an extra foot of granular <br />material, plus fabric and drain tile. Street costs are <br />estimated at $50,000 higher than the original estimate, <br />however, storm sewer estimates are now $20,000 lower. <br />Page 7 <br />