05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Ms. Schue asked how this street was designated in the T-2000 Transportation Plan. Mr. Teitzel said that the interpretation of this varied--the street is designated for a two-lane facility, but the center turn lane has been added as a safety measure so that left-turning cars do not hold up traffic and force cars into the bike lanes. Ms. Schue asked if Crescent had always been con- sidered as an arterial in the City.s long-term transportation planning. Mr. Teitzel responded that this was the case. Mr. Lindberg asked what direction had been given to staff on both the issue of double-frontage and the issue of providing some assistance or payment plan to low-income 'persons assessed for street improvements. Mr. Gleason responded that the council had directed staff both to look into deferred assessment or low- income financing and to return to the council with a written statement regarding assessment proceedings. Mr. Lindberg recalled that the council had been told that if it decided to open discussion of assessment policies, there would be a six-month delay in all assessed projects. He asked whether if assessment policies were revised in the future, the revision could be made retroactive to cover this project. e Leslie Swanson, City Attorney, responded that Section 37 of the City Charter requires that the City must levy assessments in accordance with City Code and ordinances. Under Section 39 of the charter, if any of the ordinances are to be changed, this must be done six months in advance. Therefore, if the council were to decide this evening that it wished to change the procedure for assessing double-frontage lots, then the change could not go into effect for six months. In the meantime, this project could not go forward. Mr. Swanson noted that this feature had been included in the charter because assessments are a continuing problem for the council and because there is a very strong tendency for the council to want to treat each case on an individual basis. He said that hearing assessments on a judicial, case-by-case basis would be unworkable and would also probably result in inequitable decisions. He said that this did not mean that the council should not continue to examine and refine the assessment procedure when the council perceives that there are inequities and feels that changes in the law will in the long run help people. He noted, however, that these changes must be made six months in advance and cannot be made retroactively. Ms. Wooten noted that the portion of property that runs from Norkenzie to Gilham on Crescent, directly west of the portion under consideration, was recently reconstructed. She asked if the road section of this portion would match up with the section now being proposed. Mr. Teitzel responded that the sections will match up, but that the striping will need to be redrawn to add the left turn lane. Ms. Wooten asked ,if Holly Street took any of the traffic off of Crescent. Mr. Teitzel said he did not think that this was the case, since Holly is not a through street. Ms. Miller asked for a description of the current surfacing on Crescent. Mr. Teitzel responded that the street is about 20 feet wide, with an asphalt mat and no road shoulder in many places. Ms. Miller asked about the condition of the road. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is fair to poor, with at least some of the deterioration caused by adjustment of utilities in preparation for construction of the new street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 8