My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1984/04/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
Agenda Packets - 1984/04/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 2:22:35 PM
Creation date
3/17/2025 2:22:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/23/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
PDF
Print
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MEMO TO: Mayor and City Counci <br />FROM: Clerk -Administrator <br />DATE: April 23, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: PLEASANT VIEW DRIVE STREETLIGHT PETITION <br />Attached to this memorandum please find a petition we received from <br />residents along the northern end of Pleasant View Drive for a <br />streetlight: at eithor 8392 Pleasant View Drive or between 8412 <br />and 8422 Pleasant Vicw Drive. You will note that the petition for <br />a streetlight at 8392 Pleasant View Drive does not include signatures <br />by the owners of property at 8392, 8402, or 8391 Pleasant View Drive. <br />Therefore, it would be a requirement of the City Council per the <br />resolutions which apply to this matter that you determine that the <br />placement of the light is advisable in the interest of the health, <br />safety, and welfare of the residents of that area. Should it be <br />your decision to order the placement of a light at that location <br />the three items listed by the petitioners as reason for their desiring <br />the light would appear to be more than adequate reasons for determining <br />that the light is justified in the interest of health, safety, and <br />welfare. <br />Attached to the original petition requesting a streetlight at 8392 <br />Pleasant View Drive is an Addendum to the petition indicating a <br />willingness on the part of the petitioners to support an alternate <br />location for the light, such as, between 8412 and 8422 Pleasant View <br />Drive should there be no assessment against the property owners for <br />the installation of the light. As I have stated previously, NSP has <br />advised us that they will place a light between 8392 and 8402 Pleasant <br />View Drive at no charge to the City, however, as they would be <br />required to trench the length of two lots and under two driveways, <br />they would charge $500.00 for the placement of a light between 8412 <br />and 8422 Pleasant View Drive. As it has not been my experience in <br />the three years that I have been with the City that we have had to <br />pay additional charges for the installation of lights and since there <br />is no apparent precedent from past City actions on this matter it would <br />be a determination of the Council as to whether or not the residents <br />of the area would pay the additional charge of $500.00 for the installa- <br />tion of the light. <br />RECOMMENDATION: In view of the reasons stated by the petitioners for <br />their desiring a streetlight to be located at 8392 Pleasant View Drive <br />which would appear to satisfy the need for a determination to place <br />a light at a location over the objections of the abutting property <br />owners in the interests of health, safety, and welfare, the additional <br />costs that would be charged by NSP for the location of a light <br />between 8412 and 8422 Pleasant View and previous City Council action <br />where a light was located further south on Pleasant View Drive over <br />the objections of the property owner for basically the same reasons <br />as cited by these petitioners, staff would recommend Council determina- <br />tion that a light be placed between 8392 and 8402 Pleasant View Drive <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.