My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08/22/1977 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1977
>
08/22/1977 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2007 12:27:11 AM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:24:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/22/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> . When staff made its recommendation to Planning Commission, it <br /> felt Alternative 3 appeared to be the best solution to land use, <br /> drainage, and access problems. However, staff now feels that <br /> Alternative 2 would present a somewhat better engineering solution <br /> and it would not have the impact on Cross Street Alternative 3 <br /> would have. However, staff could support either alternative. <br /> Mr. Haws questioned the preliminary co~t estimate sheet, noting <br /> it appeared Alternative 3 would be easier on citizens as there <br /> was twice as much to be deducted on assessable roadway costs. <br /> Dave Reinhard, Transportation Planning, said the 1I1ess assessable <br /> roadway costsll were estimated assessment costs at the time of <br /> construction. He said the IIbottom linell showed the net ultimate <br /> City costs. He assumed the roadway construction would conform <br /> to past City policies whereby adjacent property owners would not <br /> be assessed unless they took access at that time. The net ultimate <br /> City costs under Alternative 2 were $1,181,000, and under Alter- <br /> native 3, $1,133,000. Mr. Haws said it appeared Alternative 2 <br /> was'more costly to the City, but Alternative 3 was more costly <br /> to the owners. Mr. Reinhard replied under Alternative 2, assess- <br /> ments would be only those on the south side; under Alternative 3, <br /> both sides of Cross Street and some on Bertelsen would be assessed. <br /> Mr. lieuallen wondered if staff would be requesting an increase <br /> in zoning of industrial land in that area. Ms. Decker replied <br /> the only rezoning that would occur would be for the small three- <br /> e acre parcel referred to earlier, and would not be creating un- <br /> needed industrial land. <br /> Mr. lieuallen wondered if the issue were one of right-of-way and <br /> engineering, and whether that was what staff was looking at. Ms. <br /> Decker replied with Alternative 2, the alignment represented a <br /> better engineering solution. It had a definite less immediate <br /> impact on property owners on Cross Street also. Mr. l i eua 11 en <br /> then wondered if the proposed arterial was going to be built as <br /> what might be described as freeway standards. Dave Reinhard <br /> replied no. Mr. Lieual1en then wondered if the arterial would <br /> become a portion of the Roosevelt freeway, to which Mr. Reinhard <br /> replied it might become a portion of an east-west arterial, but <br /> would not become a freeway facility. <br /> A short recess was taken. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, said at the time the Planning <br /> Commission heard this issue, it did not have the additional cost <br /> estimates. At that time, Planning Commission felt Alternative 2 <br /> was the most desirable for traffic, development, and activities, <br /> but wanted to leave the alternative open for a cost differential. <br /> - <br /> b39 8/22/77--9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.