07/26/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Acres Drive. That development on Russet Lane off of Happy Lane has another access out on Russet Drive to Willagillespie which gives them a full loop in both directions. From the point of Fir Acres on the corner, traffic could be limited to one direction to the point on Willagillespie, which means 50 percent less traffic on the street. Since the traffic is coming from other streets, it would be good to put 50 percent back on those other streets and keep Fir Acres what it is. He agrees with others that there is a major problem on this road. Some people cannot open windows or grow fruit because of dust. The road cannot be oiled to correct it. Oil is a pollutant also. Another problem is the amount of traffic on the road. The amount of traffic that raises the dust is not the traffic from the residences of the street. He said the neighbors do not want to lose this project, but that the plan as submitted, is not acceptable. Ninety percent of the neighbors would be in favor of an asphalt-paved road with no curbs, of a minimum width, with restricted traffic use. Fir Acres has a special quality in the neighborhood and in the City; it is rural, quiet, and lined with gardens and fruit trees. The neighbors like the rural quality. The road, initially proposed as 50 feet wide, belongs nowhere in that area. A narrower road of 28 feet is closer to being acceptable, but the ideal solution would be a narrower road 18 to 20 feet wide, without curbs that would allow natural water drainage. It would keep the road small and in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason said council options are to vote in the affirmative and award the e contract or, barring a two-thirds vote, the project dies until someone re- petitions the project. Mr. Teitzel said the road would not be graded anymore under the present budget situation. The City no longer owns a grader. The design presented with the 28-foot street with curbs is the minimum design and staff will not recommend anything less than that. The City's practice and policy has not been to con- struct just an asphalt mat without curbs and gutters. People have been allowed to do that on a very limited basis at their own expense. The problem with this street is that it would be plagued with drainage problems because it is up and down. The City should not have to bear maintenance costs. Recognizing that the original design had been bid, and that if any modifications were suggested it would have to be rebid, Councilor Smith asked if staff saw any merit in pursuing discussion on modifications with the concerned people. Mr. Teitzel said he saw no merit in pursuing the topic. Staff would be happy to meet with owners, but he anticipated that no compromise could be reached. Ms. Wooten said it would be important to meet with residents to try to come to an agreement or compromise on the proposal they have made. ~t may be infeasible, but in the interest of providing some harmony, she said council could at least postpone awarding of the bid and develop some consensus within the neighbors. Councilor Miller asked who had been oiling the road. Mr. Teitzel said property owners had been. Councilor Schue asked if the project included sidewalks. Mr. e Teitzel said sidewalks were not petitioned for and were not included in the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 6