CC 03-30-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . along the south side and to the north, I mean easterly and to the north, and then from this point westerly. There are sufficient water facilities in Grey FOX Road so no further mainline con- struction will be necessary. It may be ~ecessary, however, to install a stub, a 12 inch stub to the north to serve potential development on this property. Even though there is a stub in this location, it may be necessary to make another stub. MAN FROM AUDIENCE: Will you repeat the description of the water on Grey Fox Road running easterly to Lexington. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Grey Fox Road (inaudible) from under- neath the spur line over to Lexington Avenue. MAN FROM AUDIENCE: What is the necessity for that? MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: It's already in, sir. The only thing that we're proposing under this is a small stub to serve the property in this location. The reason I'm showing it is to show what potential development (inaudible). MAN FROM AUDIENCE: I was just a little confused because we have an eight inch service coming in. MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's correct. The estimated traffic on the easterly portion of the road at Lexington Avenue is 3500, this is on ultimate development, 3500 average daily traffic. The central portion, in the spur line, is 1500, and in the westerly portion it's 700. 700 at this location, 1500 at this location, and 3500 at this location. It is our recommendation to the Council that the roadway be constructed 36 feet in width rather than the proposed 46 feet. If it was constructed 36 feet in width, there would be restricted parking on one side. The side most logical to restrict parking would be on the south side, primarily because of the existing driveways and site dis- tances at the spur line railroad tracks and also for turning movements at Lexington Avenue. I believe that concludes my portion of the presentation. MAYOR CRICHTON: I would like to ask now that our bond consultant, Mr. Popovich, briefly explain the financing that will be involved. . MR. POPOVICH: Mayor and members of the Council, we pub- lished a total cost of $543,900.00 on the project, assuming a 46 foot wide street. If the alternate is determined to be 36 feet, the total cost would be $482,900.00. There are 4,400 . feet of frontage. If the property is assessed at 100% for the improvement, the 46 foot street improvement would be $124.00 per front foot and if the 36 foot street improvement it would be $110.00 per foot. At this particular point in time, as you know, the Council has not determined what the length of the assessments would be, whether it would 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. My recommendation, for purposes of tonight's meeting, would be that we consider at least, and no more than 15 years. 3