07/14/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public hearing was opened. Those speaking against: Audrey Lunceford, 788 Fairfield Street, stated that she did not hear e Royal Avenue mentioned in particular, but assumed that it will be inc 1 uded. No one has asked for sidewalks and pedestrians are using the bike paths and creating no problems. She is glad they are leaving the trees when possib1e- Ten dollars per frontage foot would be the minimum charge, which is expensive, particularly to the elderly. She does not see the need for sidewalks in that area. Fred Palmer, 3347 Royal Avenue, stated agreement with Ms. Lunceford. He said that side streets have bike paths and nice trees. People with single driveways will have no place for their visitors to park nearby. Edward Haynes, 3627 Royal Avenue, stated that he had worked for EWEB since 1952 and wondered why they did not put sidewalks in then. People are not thinking about children's safety, only LTO economics. It is too expensive now. Al Peake, 3369 Richard Lane, stated that a petition had been sent to the council that had been signed by almost 100 percent of the residents on Richard Street, Richard Lane, and Jerry Street. They are all against having sidewalks. They are all retired, near retirement age, or on a limited budget and cannot afford sidewalks. They have spent time and energy on their landscaping. In this time of economic prob- lems, they are opposed to spending that much money for sidewalks--$800 to $900 per lot. He stated there are not two people per day who walk down that street. He feels the 1,000-foot circle from the schools and e shopping centers is unrealistic since people will not walk, they will drive. He thinks the sidewalks should not be constructed at this time and some consideration should be given to what the residents want. He stated that the City annexed them and put in the sewer, which ruined the street, which has not been repaired. If the City ;s concerned . about safety, they should make Richard Street a dead-end at Fairfield. There are only two children in the entire block and they would go down . the middle of the street anyway, even if sidewalks were on both sides. Bruce Pa1anuk, 3507 Royal Avenue, stated that he owns a substantial amount of property and the cost would be outlandish at $10 to $12 per foot. He was dismayed at the Planning Commission1s decision to go ahead with the sidewalks. Royal Avenue has bike paths and there are fewer than 20 or 30 people per day on bikes or on foot using that street. When children get out of school for the day, they are on the street 30-45 minutes and then are gone. Toni Marquez-Aguilera, 3260 Royal Avenue, stated that Royal Avenue is very wlde with blke paths on both sides. Perhaps as many as five people per day walk down that street. She feels it is LTD's interest that is represented at the council meeting. Bus traffic on Royal Avenue is minimal; few people ride. She feels the expenses for the sidewalk at this time are not a priority and is against the sidewalk progr am . e 7/14/80--11