05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Lindberg listed criteria he felt could be used to make the decision: 1) the council's obligation to provide adequate urban services, 2) inclusion of the project in the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan, and 3) the design issue. Mr. Lindberg asked if the council had any flexibility in dealing with the proposed street design. Mr. Teitzel responded that the design standards are adopted by resolution of the council on each project. The specific design of the street is done by the Engineering staff to provide for traffic anticipated for the next 20 years. Mr. Lindberg referred to Section 7.175 of the code regarding assessments which states that the council may have some latitude where "special conditions exisL" He asked staff to explain this. Mr. Swanson replied that the code does not define "special conditions" but that he interpreted this to mean extraordinary circumstances. He explained that assessments are made on the basis of assump- tion of benefit to the property in question, not to the owner of the property or his conditions. Mr. Gleason said that the term "special conditions" refers to installation of a major sewer line or storm drain which requires a special levy on a different kind of basis than construction of a street, and does not apply to a special provision for an individual property owner. Mr. Obie agreed with remarks previously made by Ms. Schue. He felt that it is important to remember that people on existing streets such as Coburg or Oakway at one time were similarly assessed for improvement of those streets which are used by all citizens today. The larger issue is the movement and flow of traffic in the community and that is the burden on all citizens. He did wonder if the turn lane was really necessary on Crescent. He suggested that staff be asked to return to the council at a future time to explain the need for the turn lane, its effect on on-street parking, and possible adjustments that could be made to the design. Ms. Wooten suggested wait ing a week or so unt il staff returns with suggest ions for options on financing for low-income persons and a general explanation of the assessment procedures. Mr. Gleason responded that he did not know when the Finance Department would return with suggestions for low-income deferrals, but that staff would be returning in a week or so with the explanation of assessment procedures. He noted, however, that staff would not be recommending any changes to those procedures. Ms. Smith raised the issue of possible redesign of the center turn lanes to permit more on-street parking on Crescent. Mr. Teitzel explained that staff's current proposal would provide parking in front of the majority of residences facing onto Crescent. Mr. Gleason recommended that if the council did choose to consider the design of the project, a complete design hearing be held and that a detailed presentation be made at that time on the engineering questions involved. Ms. Miller pointed out that if the street improvements are considered,necessary for implementation some time in the next five years, then it seemed advisable to proceed with the project this year, as each year's delaY,will make the project more expensive. She was prepared to vote on the issue. She suggested that the council approve the improvement resolution and ask staff to reconsider the need for the turn lane and report back to the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 12