res_7078 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 The proposed road is similar to the last improvement hearing, namely to construct a typical 7-ton roadway. By typical, I mean it's 32 feet wide, in the center of the roadway, and has a 7-ton design. One thing that we do not propose in this particular case, however, due to a somewhat unusual set of circumstances, is that we do not propose to tear out the old roadway as we normally have to do when we reconstruct a road. The reason for that is because since both sides of the road are higher than the existing roadway, we're able to merely build on the old road and utilize that as the base for the new so-called up to standard pavement. We would then be putting curb and gutter on each side and providing the roadway in that manner. As part of this, there may be impact on one tree, but I think we can pretty well eliminate the tree problem that potentially could occur. We will have to go back into all the driveways a slight amount because as part of this construction we would be putting a leveling course of two inches or so and a wearing course of an inch and a half. In most cases I would say that would be a benefit because it would improve the grades on the steep driveways and better match the front yards, and from my observation almost all of the concrete and driveways have cracks, and it would result in a new entryway into your driveways to get rid of the cracks. No storm facilities are proposed with this, and none are really anticipated to be needed in the future. MR. POPOVICH: The total cost of this improvement is published at $56,222.00, and as the engineer said, it was instituted by petition. The number of assessable feet involved is 1,145 feet. If it were 100% assessed it would be $49.08 a 'front foot. Itls recommended it be done at the 25% rate which would come to $12.27 a front foot. If this project were merged with some of the others that, of course, would vary those costs. The same things I said on the other improvement would apply here - a periOd not to exceed 15 years and a carrying charge to be determined at the time we did our financing for the City. MR. ANDRE: We have received one letter from 2949 Manson Street in opposition to the project. MAYOR DEMOS: At this time I will open the hearing to Uhe public and ask that each person give his or her name and address and the address of the property to which youlre referring. KATHLEEN LA MERE, 2533 Millwood: Ilm on the corner lot and itls mistaken on the map. It should be corrected. It's not 93 - it should be 33. I realize I'm in the minority and as far as I'm concerned this was a closed case before I walked in the door tonight. Just for the records, I strongly disapprove the curb and gutter proposed on