05/26/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The public hearing was opened. e Speaking under the category of "Other Comments:" Allen E. Gardner, 2230 Crescent Avenue, noted that he lives in a corner house. He noted that many of the side streets in the area have insufficient on-street parking and that residents and guests of residents on these streets will not 'have any place to park. He felt it would be more pleasing aesthetically to have no turn lane and to have parking on both sides of the street. He said that bike lanes were needed. Concerns about truck traffic had been mentioned at the staff hearing but were not mentioned in the staff summary. He felt that through truck traffic should be barred from using the street. He noted that Beltline is only two blocks away and parallel to Crescent and that there is a danger of Crescent becoming a shortcut from Delta Highway to Coburg Road. He felt that this truck traffic was dangerous to children and to all who use the street. Richard E. Baker, 2480 Crescent Avenue, felt that the street improvements are necessary. He was concerned about the cost of the project to elderly people who live on the street. He agreed with Mr. Gardner's concern about truck traffic and ask~d that staff check into this. He said he understood that for the City to take over a street from the County, the street had to meet certain standards. He asked what the standards are and whether the additional five feet on each side of the street for bike lanes was a part of the standard. He felt that the cost of the concrete bike lanes was excessive and unnecessary for the slight weight of bicycles. ' 4It Speaking in opposition to the improvements: Cecil Phillips, 2144 Musket, explained that his property backs up onto Crescent. He agreed with the comments made by the two previous speakers. He wondered why the City wants Crescent to be a major arterial when Beltline is only two blocks away and parallels Crescent. He had concerns about increased traffic on Crescent. He said that the City had previously taken out a row of arbor vitae along his back fence and ruined the looks of his back yard. He opposed the project. Rod Ruhoff, 2531 Lily Avenue, said that he owns five lots affected by the widening. He was conc~rned about imposing this cost on property owners at a time when the economy was already tight. He said that 54 percent of the cost would be assessed to the property owners, and yet the City department which initiated the project will only have to pay seven and one-half percent. He wondered what formula was used to arrive at this breakdown. Mr. Ruhoff was concerned with the design of the street. He felt that traffic in the area, particularly that which would be generated by development of the Cone-Breeden property, should be encouraged to use Beltline, but that traffic would instead be drawn to the arterial being proposed for Crescent, as a shortcut to downtown, Valley River Center, etc. He felt that Gilham Grade School traffic would use the street. He said that Crescent should remain as a street serving mainly the residents who live three or four blocks on each side of the street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 9