CC MINUTES 03251986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-10- transferred the ownership of the street from the Park Board to St. Anthony in 1965 had assured that property owners on the Boulevard would never have to pay to fix . their street, the document author said "that's right" and proceeded to read the December 17, 1965 agreement which he said had been given to him by the Park Board Superintendent at that time, Henry Rosacker. Mr. Kausel disagreed with the Mayor that ownership of the parkway had been transferred with that document but said his understanding was that the Park Board had only given St. Anthony an "easement grant" which could be rescinded "if the City permitted truck traffic on the street". Under that easement, Mr. Kausel suggested, the Park Board might have to pay for the improvements. The Mayor told him the .City had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate that for the street past the golf course last year. Councilmember Ranallo asked Mr. Kausel if, as stated in his "Rebuttal", there had actually been "100% objection to the proposed construction" from all 44 property.t owners and whether he knew positively that all the people present for the hearing -that evening were opposed to the City doing anything to the street from Stinson Boulevard to Silver Lake Road. Mr. Kausel said he "had just thrown that percentage in" and had actually only contacted about 25% of the affected property owners. However, he said his group could go round with a petition which would reflect all the property owners' views. James Higgins said he was concerned about the traffic flow on the street from a standpoint of safety. He agreed with the conjecture that widening the street would only increase the existing problems by making the Boulevard more accessible to truck traffic. He said the reason he had bought a home at 2717 St. Anthony Boulevard was because that street was, he said he believed, "the only tree lined street in the Village on a parkway". Mr. Higgins said he perceived there couldn't help but be • some of the root systems damaged when the street is widened and trees are brought two feet closer to the roadway, in spite of the City's Fact Sheet statement that "no tree removals were anticipated". with the loss of some of those trees, Mr. Higgins said, he expected his own property values would be decreased, and he indicated he believed the City should be "trying to preserve the beauty of the Boulevard and to enhance that beauty so his son could remember that area the same way he had remembered it from the Ws when he was growing up there Mr. Kausel agreed with the assumption that some of the trees would have to be sacrificed because "there are only five and a half feet now between the trees in the Boulevard and the curb which would be lessened to three and a half feet if the street is widened". The group spokesman said there is also a danger that drivers would hit some of those trees if they are closer to the street, citing his own past experience with careless drivers. Mr. Kausel questioned whether the City had considered the potential problem they might have with the existing fire hydrants which are now located between the trees and the curb on the south side of the street. David Drews said by widening the street, the City would be increasing the traffic, which would make it impossible for his children to play in the front yard of his home at 260.9 St. Anthony Boulevard, He disputed the reports about heavy truck traffic on the street now by saying he had lived at that same location for the last seven years and the only trucks he had seen had been UPS trucks or semi 's moving people in or out. John B.redemus, 2709 St. Anthony Boulevard, asked whether the underlying purpose of the project was to install an 18 inch storm sewer line and was told the major reason the City was proposing the project was to upgrade the street surface and curb and gutters. He also questioned whether the City couldn't slow down the