08/22/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. When staff made its recommendation to Planning Commission, it felt Alternative 3 appeared to be the best solution to land use, drainage, and access problems. However, staff now feels that Alternative 2 would present a somewhat better engineering solution and it would not have the impact on Cross Street Alternative 3 would have. However, staff could support either alternative. Mr. Haws questioned the preliminary co~t estimate sheet, noting it appeared Alternative 3 would be easier on citizens as there was twice as much to be deducted on assessable roadway costs. Dave Reinhard, Transportation Planning, said the 1I1ess assessable roadway costsll were estimated assessment costs at the time of construction. He said the IIbottom linell showed the net ultimate City costs. He assumed the roadway construction would conform to past City policies whereby adjacent property owners would not be assessed unless they took access at that time. The net ultimate City costs under Alternative 2 were $1,181,000, and under Alter- native 3, $1,133,000. Mr. Haws said it appeared Alternative 2 was'more costly to the City, but Alternative 3 was more costly to the owners. Mr. Reinhard replied under Alternative 2, assess- ments would be only those on the south side; under Alternative 3, both sides of Cross Street and some on Bertelsen would be assessed. Mr. lieuallen wondered if staff would be requesting an increase in zoning of industrial land in that area. Ms. Decker replied the only rezoning that would occur would be for the small three- e acre parcel referred to earlier, and would not be creating un- needed industrial land. Mr. lieuallen wondered if the issue were one of right-of-way and engineering, and whether that was what staff was looking at. Ms. Decker replied with Alternative 2, the alignment represented a better engineering solution. It had a definite less immediate impact on property owners on Cross Street also. Mr. l i eua 11 en then wondered if the proposed arterial was going to be built as what might be described as freeway standards. Dave Reinhard replied no. Mr. Lieual1en then wondered if the arterial would become a portion of the Roosevelt freeway, to which Mr. Reinhard replied it might become a portion of an east-west arterial, but would not become a freeway facility. A short recess was taken. Public hearing was opened. Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, said at the time the Planning Commission heard this issue, it did not have the additional cost estimates. At that time, Planning Commission felt Alternative 2 was the most desirable for traffic, development, and activities, but wanted to leave the alternative open for a cost differential. - b39 8/22/77--9