06/25/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

would n.ot be an improvement since it w.o~ld provide no more traveL lanes than are now in existence. Also, that if it is considered an arterial then those peopleusil1g it t.o cross'C,.~'::-.- from one area to another should bear'the expense of the pr.oject rather than abuttIng prop- erties. . Everett Hall, 1175 Oakway R.o~d, and Al Cassidy, owner of property abutting the street, objected to assessment ~gainst abutting propertiesf.or the cost of even 36 feet of the paving in view of the street's being a major traffic carrying facJLity and in a residential z.one. - Mr. ~all asked for reconsideration of placing bike lanes in the 'str'e.et, saying it would constitute a safety hazard because of conflict between the bicycles 'and heavy, fast- moving traffic. P'lblic hearing was closed. Traffic Engineer said in comparison t.o national standards the 10-foot turn lane was deemed adequate and there was no justificati.on for a wider one. Manager said the proposed design provides for sidewalk behind the curb for use of small children or 'slower bikes. But the bike lane in the street allows c.ommuter-type bike riders traveling at higher ~peeds to move with traffic without int.erference of curb cuts. With :regard to assessment for 36-foot width, he said that" poli~y has been followed formany.years without v~riat~on 'and seemed fair since that' is the accepted width which it is felt could be absorbed by ~.ingle-. or two- family properties. Multiple-family or commercial properties can absorb the cost of'40- or I 44-fo.ot paving. Manager said there seemed to be no real justification for reconsideration of that policy other than for those living on arterials and th.ose with corner lots. Corner lot assessment has been discussed many times and it is felt generally that they have the .~ right to be devel.oped in a manner to have the benefit of paving on both sides. He rec.og- nized that-any policy cannot provide for assessment on an equally justifiable basis to all, ~ but the present meth.od seems the best overall. Councilman Murray asked why the locati.on of bike lanes WqS not where the property .owners wanted them. Manag~r said staff people and Bicycl!= ~ommittee advised ~.ocati~n of the lanes I in the street. Their advice was taken frbm a technical standpoint because of a great deal .of study and research of alternatives to accommodate bikes and autos.9n the same right-of- way. The question of whether their rec.ommendation or desires of the .property owners would be accepted would be a Council decision. Traffic Engipeer c.ommented.on the need f.or provid- ing for the commuter-type bike rider wh.o would probably ride in the street" even with. a side- walk available. And the sidewalk, although satisfactory for tots and young children, would not be desirable for fast bikes because of c.onflict with pedestrian traffic, site distance at intersections, and speeds. Councilman Hershner inquired about rem~val .of existing trees, provision for existing power poles, etc., if a 49-foot paving wereauth.orized.He recognized the safety factor in locat- ing bike lanes in the street right2-of;;::way and did not question the need f.or a center turn lane. Neither did he think assessment on a 36-foot basis improper after consideration of the c.onditions for narrower paving widths in residential areas in relati.on to the length , of the street. , . C.ouncilman McD.onald felt the widening project was to improve conditi.ons for traffic traveling I from one area t.o another and th.ought owners of abutting pr.operties sh.ould n.ot bear the entire cost for that accomm.odation. He wondered whether some relief could be extended .on something less than a 36-foot ~quiv.alent assessment basis. Mayor Anderson commented bn the impo~tance of certain pr.ojects to future deveiliopment of the City and said these impr.ovements will have to continue regardless of the effect on people in all income brackets. He said every effort has been made to accommodate pe.ople where undue financial hardship has been encountered because of improvements. C.ouncilman Murray called attenti.on to $100,000 of revenue sharing funds tentatively set aside for the benefit of genuine hardship cases, allowing deferment of assessments. Dis- cussi.on continued .on the alternative designs, allowance of 4-foot pedestrian walk on each side, offset. of paving to all.ow for as many existing.trees as possible ih the. right-of-way, grade factor in location of the sidewalk, very few sections for on-street parking because of the number of. intersecti.ons f.or which turhlanes. should be provided ,eta.:: ~ . ,. '.,- Mr. Hershner m.oved sec.onded by Mr. Williams to approve alternate f.or 49-foot paving design as presented for Oakway Road. ."- " Councilw.oman Beal thought a review of .assessment pr.ocedure was in .order where res~dential areas carry the costs for thr.ough traffic facilities. Councilman McDonald supported her stand, saying the widening of Oakway was to accomm.odate .only through traffic, that the pre- sent blacktop 'adequately serves the abutting properties. Councilman Williams" called at- tenti.on to the'many-proj~cts"in residential'areas"which have carried a higher assessment than this, and noted" the fact that the CitY is still bearing the cost for the width. in excess of 36 feet. Councilman Hershner thought this improvement was similar to that on Echo Hollow and Norkenzie and thought perhaps the" policy should be examined. . ;,- 2.0" 6/25/73 - 6