04/11/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and sharing in the construction costs. He said the total cost would be $649,200, with $349,000 assessed to abutting property owners, $49,500 city costs, and $250,700 Lane County costs. He said the action requested by Council was for authorization to proceed with the final design so that plan preparation and right- of-way acquisition could begin. . Mr. Obie questioned whether the concerns expressed by those mosty directly affected would be addressed before final design. Mr. Allen said yes, the project would not begin before late fall or early next spring although no more public hearings were scheduled. Ms. Smith said she understood there woiuld be no parking on the streets and asked if parking was currently available. Mr. Allen replied that that was one of the problems with the affected property owners, noting that there would be no parking allowed along the street, although there are a few gravel parking strips in the area to date. Public hearing was opened. O.W. Russell, 1525 Cal Young Road, noted that the County had indi- cated to him that they could provide a better plan for the improve- ment of the street than the City. He expressed a concern for parking in front of the houses, noting that it would be impossible with the City's proposed improvement. He also cited that the people in the area had been assessed for sewers in 1975 and the road im- provement would increase their costs a great deal. He said 100 ... percent of the property owners are opposed to the proposed improve- ., ment and again cited the County could give them a better improvement than the City. He said the property owners would like to have a meeting with the Lane County Commissioners to work ~ut a plan by the County and to have the project federally funded. A petition and letter was presented to the Council on behalf of the property owners requesting the County handle road improvements. John Gilhott, 1376 Cal Young, asked when the improvement had first been proposed. Mr. Allen replied, October 27, 1975. Mr. Gilhott then replied he should have been informed of the proposed change at the time. He said the area is a raceway even though the road is very narrow and widening it would increase the speed of auto- mobiles in the area. He felt it would be better to have only one bike path and one sidewalk on one side of the street and leave a wider road. He also requested the Council look into license fees rill 101, Y' Ie:: :'Inri :'I ro'p'o:::t HI:'It td, I' II:::t::: 'n"t, it.IIle In H.e ',.::1 '111'1 Ill/V""!' "r lhe. t,i' I' Ie (,'lH,:: .lll11l",..\r.hl)r'), ifIll '.,,\ ("Illl'j 11".,.1, ::nl,1 Ioe hnol,nlleoll ffll.~ 1". regard to additional improvements ilnd was told there would be none for the n(~x t tNI YN~ Y'~,. IIc-"\/1 I d ~.llIu:: VolI c,y R I VI'Y hliel be~t' Ud- veloppd. the traffic had increased greatly on Cal Young Road, it WitS hnrd to ql'l. In ""HI out of drlvewny"" nnd UIf' floisp was trf'lntendou!'i. lie agreed. soml' improvement nCf'Cll'd to he' mnol' on ttll' road, hut fol t that the improvement would only benefit Valley River Center. He . concurred that the plan should be turned over to the County for road improvement. 4/11177--6 ~K5