05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - Regarding concerns for truck traffic, Mr. Teitzel noted that staff did not believe that the proposed improvements would increase either the tendency to use the road as a shortcut or the amount of truck traffic. He noted, however, that if this is the case and truck traffic is increased, then the council would have the option of putting a restriction on through truck traffic on that street. Regarding the breakdown of the assessments, Mr. Teitzel said that the City and County have an agreement that the street will be brought up to the City standard before it is brought into the City system and that the County will participate in the cost. The City then agrees to maintain the street once it is improved. As a part of the agreement, the City agrees to levy the normal City assess- ment to property owners on that street. Mr. Teitzel noted that the assessment to property owners is for a standard street and that the cost of the wide concrete bike path/gutter and the turning lane would not be assessed to property owners. Regarding development of the Cone-Breeden property, Mr. Teitzel said that it is true that an intersection is proposed for Coburg and Crescent, but that staff did not feel that this would greatly increase traffic on Crescent. He said that staff is currently examining the possibility of constructing an east/west through arterial a mile or so north of Crescent, but that construction of that route would not reduce the need for the widening of Crescent. Mr. Hamel referred to the discussion of through truck traffic on Crescent and underscored the point that the council can prohibit through truck traffic on the street in the future if this does prove to be a problem. He noted that the council has been faced with the double-frontage issue on other lots throughout the city. He felt that, in the future, the council should discuss the double- frontage issue. Ms. Schue said that it is City policy that every homeowner or property owner pay once for the street in front of his or her house to be improved at a standard residential street width. When streets are developed as arterials, the City, or in this case the County and the City, pay for the additional width. Therefore, the fact that this is an arterial is not costing the property owners on Crescent any more money. Mr. Lindberg asked what discretion the council has on this issue. Mr. Gleason responded that the choice is either to initiate or not to initiate the construction. If the council finds that the municipality needs the arterial street or will need it in the future, then the decision should be to proceed. If this is not the case, the council may vote to not proceed. Mr. Gleason noted that the issue of assessment proceedings is a separate issue from consideration of this project. Mr. Gleason reminded councilors that staff is looking at the issue of low-income deferred assessments. He noted that under Bancroft requirements, the cost of construction is secured by the value of the home assessed, and that as long as there are people living in the dwelling units, the Bancroft note is not in jeopardy. As a consequence, foreclosure on a note for an occupied dwelling is extremely rare. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 11