04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that debris from the city flushers woul'd \vind up in yards 'rather than in ,the drain. He said the ciity would work with the county in an attempt to gain more adequate pedestrian and bike routes to the west. Mr. Allen said state law now mandates curb cuts to acco~modate bikes. . Councilman Bradley thought it basically unfair to accommodate development in this area at the expense of property owners farther down the street. He wondered if there was some method by which the developer could absorb part of the cost. Assistant Manager explai~ed charter provisions for assessment of costs for improvements against abutting properties. He said that even though it appeared unfair in some instances, there was the benefit to the entire community in that o"TIers of property on this street made use of streets in other areas for which they had not paid. He noted that a substantial portion of the cost of this Particular proposal - improving the east side of Agate from Cameo south - would be borne by abutting city and EWEB property. Hr. Allen said that of the 1000 feet to be improved south of Cameo 265 feet abutted property in EWEB ownership. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the Counci 1 authorize initiation of improvement of the east side of Agate Street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk from Cameo south 1100 feet to th0 existing curb and with on-street parking provided adjacent to residential lots. In making the motion, ~lr. rilurray said this improvement would seem in keeping \.;i th community goals statements and recognize long-standing public policy. Also, increased deve lopment in that area and corresponding increase in use of Agate \vould seem to call for the improvementwllich would at least improve the safety without sacrificing aesthetic concerns of those living in the area. Assistant ~.l<mager \,'as concerned about inclusion of on-street parking abutting rcsi- _ dential properties. He doubted that safe tr3vel lanes could be provided given the ~ terrain and the restriction on width. Mr. r-lUl:r:lY with consent of ~lr. Keller withc.lrclv that portion of the motion relating to on-steeet parking. Councilman lIa\\'s asked \\'h)' the i,!!1prOvernent. l\'Ould go only from Cameo south rat.her than from 30th. Mr. Allen explained that improvement for the entire length l'ioulJ require a great deal of fill on the west side of the street and cause undue hazard to properties on that sid6. Also, the cost of that type of project he was sure would be prohibitive. He thought the recommendation to improve south of Cameo only at tllis time would give the desired improvement without undu~ economic burden to the property owners. Councilman Bradley said he could not support the motion because he thought it was the traditional approach and that the' city should get away from curbs, gutters, and sidewalk. Also, it was not fair to ol'mers of abutting properties, the cost should be borne DY the developer creating the need for the improvement. Mr. Keller also thought a different approach should perhaps be sought. Although he had no strong feelings one \vay or the other, he said, he couldn't justify this method of construction as the best way to apprpach problems in this specific area. Councilman Haws asked again why the project was being limited to Cameo rather than going to 30th. Assistant Manager answered that the terrain, existing driveways, current asphalt street, disruptions in the area would result in a higher cost. Also, the re- sistance from property owners. Councilwoman Shirey asked about the area north of Cameo, where bike riders would go if not in the street where the sidewalk ended. She also asked about the drainage ditch, whether it would be covered by a bike or pedestrian path. Assistant Manager answered - 4/14/75 - 8 1<"0