06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

living on the south side of the street were losing their front yards because of the proposed curve in the alignment. He showed pictures of Mrs. Coleman's home where the street right-of-way would take the entire front yard. All landscaping would be - taken from other yards. Mr. Melevin said tte reason for the curve given by city engineers was that it would be more expensive to construct the street in a straight line because of the damage to businesses across the street and the amount of com- pensation required. He felt it inappropriate to penalize the home owners on the south side of the street when a straight alignment was possible without removing any build- ings on the north side. It was his understanding that a portion of the petition presented to the Council asked for. construction of the street in a straight line. Construction as designed, he said, would be contrary to stated city policy referred to by Councilman Murray of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods. He didn't feel that tax dollars should be saved at the expense of the small property owners. And he said if the reasoning of the engineers was that the street would cost more because of the expense of commercial properties on the north, that might not be valid because he had learned that one of the property owners on the north might be willing to take less than anticipated by the city. Later in the meeting, Mr.Melevin said that the street was moved another nine feet to the south after the original de- sign, so although the people would be compensated, they would not be compensated enough to make up for entire loss of their yards in most instances. John Munn, 5100 Barger Drive, did not object to the improvement because he felt bike II-A-2 lanes, left turn lanes, etc., were needed on that street. However, he felt the prop- erty owners on the south side were being asked to give more than a fair share for the improvement. If more was taken from their property then from properties on the north, he thought there should be added compensation. He also asked for a different method of assessing arterial improvement because he didn't feel properties abutting arterials received the same benefit of properties abutting residential streets where there was very little traffic and where more use could be made of the public right- e of-way by people living there. They still had the benefit of arterials because of easy access but did not have the noise or heavy traffic. Mr. Munn said that if nothing else the city should consider rezoning property abutting this street so that the property owners could receive something back on their investment in the improvement. Howard Warner, 1510 Olive Street, said he was speaking for his wif~ the owner of store property on the north side of the street,who would be willing to take the minimum offered by the city in compensation for damages rather than have the street moved and thereby penalizing property owners on the south side. Mrs. W. G. Coleman, 4950 Barger Drive, was unhappy with the project as designed. She approved the widening, giving easier access to the main highway, she said, but she was not pleased with the proposed "jog" and hoped the Council would reconsider. Donald Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, co-chairman of ABC, said the proposed design had not been discussed too much in that group, that people opposed to the curve had not expressed their opinions to ABC, otherwise the association could have taken a stand at an earlier point on behalf of those who would suffer the hardship. He thought it would probably be better to straighten the alignment, given the new development with regard to compensation for the Barger Drive Market expressed by Mr. Warner. Mr.Hatfield thought on-street parking would be somewhat dangerous if bike lanes were included in the project. And he thought if there was any possibility of widening Barger Drive to accommodate four lanes at any time in the future, parking should be provided for at this time so when the future widening took place the bike lanes would not have to be removed. He hoped the present staff projection that three lanes would be sufficient e to handle the load was correct; he didn't want to see the bike lanes taken for another lane of traffic later on. Public hearing was. closed, there being no further testimony presented. 6/23/75 - 10 '54'0