CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PERSONAL APPEARANCE, S. & J. MILLER REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALK AT 322 CHESTNUT STREET. Mr. Miller stated that he had received a sidewalk notice to have the sidewalk fixed within 10 days. He stated that some years ago he had contacted the City and asked to be allowed to take a tree down that was beginning to raise the sidewalk. He was told at that time that the tree could not be taken down. A few weeks ago the City took this tree down, after the City had been sued by someone who fell on the sidewalk. Mr. Miller stated that he will fix the sidewalk but he wants to know just how much sidewalk the city wants to be fixed !60 and what specifications should be used. Senior Engineer Moen stated that he would check into this matter with Mr. Miller. He stated that he had checked this sidewalk and stated that there is a large piece of sidewalk that is lower than the curb and there is quite a bit of -sidewalk that should be fixed. Mr. Inex Caroller stated that she had pictures of the area showing that they had cement driveways before the street was repaired. The Mayor asked if the people would object to having him appoint a couple of Councilmen to make a study and check with property owners. Mrs. Carolla stated that she represented her mother, Mrs. Dolly Jamieson, and were objecting to ,repairing the sidewalk. The Mayor appointed Councilmen Weiss and Stout to act as a committee to check into the records on this matter. Councilman Granger stated that Mr. Miller should be given the necessary information to fix his sidewalk. City Attorney Currie stated that Mr. Miller and Mrs. Jamieson's appearance should be treated as an appeal. Councilman Spillers moved to continua the hearing for thirty days, and set the first of September for the hearing, seconded by Councilman Granger. Councilman Weiss wanted to know if this committee was limited to just these two pieces of property. The Mayor stated they were to check the whole block. The motion carried. PERSONAL APPEARANCE, MR. JAMES MILLER, 2132 HARDING AVENUE, regarding standing water in front of his property. He stated that there was a low spot in front of his property and all the water settled there. When the people wash their cars, all the water runs down the hill and settles in front of his property. Senior Engineer Moen stated that the City could grade the street, however, the condition was cased by Mr. Miller's drveway blocking the flow of water. Councilman Granger was of the opinion that the Engineering Department should take a look at this and try to help and give some relief to this man. Councilman Granger so moved, seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT REGARDING AGREEMENT COVERING TRANSFER Cr WATER METER FROM 4152 TO 43.60 JEFFERSON AVENUE POSSIBILITY OF RECORDING SUCH AGREEMENT. City Attorney stated that it was his opinion that the recording of such an agreement was useless on this type of agreement because you couldn't put conditions on this type to transfer. They could draw up sane sort of agreement. The r600rding of such an agreement would do no harm but would call attention to a condition of the agreement on record for the benefit of a prospective borer. Councilman Granger stated that they should protect the future property owners in case of any future sale of the property. Councilman Spillers was of the opinion that the condition is good only for the time row being because if the well runs dry the City will propbably have to grant a water meter to the original residence. CITY ENGINEER REPORT ON REQUEST TO ABANDON UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 122 BLOCK 169 WOODSIDE TERRACE NO. 4 (G. E. HARRISON, 2054 Washington). In his report, City Engineer Jain stated that the easement requested to be abandoned is only a small portion of a public utility easement, 10 feet in width, extending approximately 900 feet through the Woodside Terrace Subdivisions. Although this easement is not now being used, they are Lo relunctant to recommend abandonment of any easement which might have an ultimate use with further development of the City. It was his recommendations rather thanabandon a small portion of this easement, that Mr. & Mrs. Harrison be given permission to construct a car port extending to within two feet of the side property line and five feet from the rear property line of the lot in question. Any such approval should be subject to the property owners obtaining a wri.tten statement from the P. G. & E. and P. T. & T., advising that they have no objection to the construction of a car port over a portion of this easement. At such time as