HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1975 Meeting
-
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
May 19, 1975
Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order
by Council President Neil Murray at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, May 19, 1975, in the Council
Chamber. The following Council members were present: Wickes Beal, Raymond Bradley,
D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws and Edna Shirey. Mayor Lester E. Anderson and Council members
Gus Keller and Tom Williams were absent.
I - Public Hearings
Assistant Manager said there had been a request for postponement of item E, Hawkins Lane
Paving Project. Property owners felt they needed more time to prepare testimony in light
of short time frames. Staff would suggest it be heard May 27 at the end of the public
hearing section.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Hawkins Lane hearing be postponed
until Tuesday, May 27, at the end of the public hearings. Motion carried
unanimous ly.
e
A. General comments by staff reviewing conditions that affect all projects upon
which testimony will be taken.
The three paving projects to be considered have all been toured by the Council.
Staff has held hearings with residents on each project. Summaries of all 3
projects, summaries of the hearings with residents, as well as maps and other
data, are all a part of the record. Staff is asking for Council approval to
go to final design and call for bids. At that time there will be additional
public hearings and property owners will be notified in writing of those dates.
Royal Avenue is different from the other two projects in that it involves
entering into an agreement with the Oregon State Highway Department. All three
projects, however, are assessment projects.
$200,000 in County funds is provided for the Barger paving project. The Royal
Avenue paving cost includes approximately $190,000 of federal and state funds
but, in order to qualify, there are two provisions in the agreement - one
that no parking be allowed and the other is that the cross section from
Bertelsen to west of Candlelight be at least 46 feet in width. At hearings
between property owners and staff on each of the three projects, there was
disagreement on whether the projects should be initiated, the uses of the
roadways and the city's present method of assessment. The staff recommends
proceeding with all three, but Council should feel free to make their own
decision after hearing all the testimony.
Tape I
Side A
B. Royal Avenue Paving Project (40 minute limit on public testimony)
The project consists of 36-foot paving from Louis to Bertelsen, 46-foot paving
from Bertelsen to west of Candlelight, two auto travel lanes, two bikeways,
5-foot sidewalks, and no parking. Summary of project, maps, staff notes and
summaries of public hearings are all part of the record. A letter in opposition
to the Royal Avenue paving project was entered into the record.
-
Public hearing was opened.
Don Hatfield, 2189 Dewey, co-chairperson of the Active Bethel Citizens, was
in favor of the project saying the street is an arterial, with fairly heavy
traffic, that it is dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists as there are no
5/19/75 1
27/
e
road shoulders and deep ditches on one side. In thinking of the future,
he noted the Bethel area will be rapidly growing because of people
wanting to put in trailer courts, etc. There will also be many housing
developments.
LaVerne Whaley, 4682 Royal, expressed agreement with the need for the
widening project but does not feel just the abutting property owners
should have to pay for it since so many people will be using the street.
He also does not see the need for sidewalks though he thought a bike path
would be worthwhile. As he would be financially burdened, he does not
feel the assessment program used is fair. He added he would have to sell
part of his land and also cannot understand widening the street if Royal
will at some future point be cut off at Beltline.
Harry Wilson, 4241 Royal, said the street is dangerous and there is too
much traffic but is against paying for a street used by so many. It is
becoming more of a highway, he added, as he has observed countless large
trucks traveling on the street.
Ruth Sturdivant, 4450 Royal, also has observed many heavy trucks traveling
on Royal. She added phone lines have been torn down by some log trucks.
She expressed displeasure with no parking provisions for visitors.
H. Goertzen, 4469 Royal, felt widening of the street and providing bike
paths, though costly, would be advisable at the present time. However, he
feels sidewalks are unnecessary as there are no "shopping centers or other
places to walk to".
e
Ken Gilbert, 261 Hollyview, said he owns 600-650' of property west of Danebo
on the north side. Since there is little property developed from Danebo
west, it does not seem beneficial to improve Royal in that area at this time.
He also questioned how many people would use the sidewalks.
Linda Hatfield, 2189 Dewey, has had problems with bikeriding on Royal, Slnce
there are no shoulders. The need for sidewalks is debatable, however, ln
her opinion.
Lillie Rasmussen, 3920 Royal, said she believes in progress and thinks there
is a need for places for people to walk, but "perhaps the sidewalks and bike
paths could be combined". Thinking in aesthetic terms, she wondered how
close the road would come under her front window, particularly if Royal is a
major arterial with much truck traffic. She is worried about the cost and
feels at least parking should be provided if the abutting property owners
have to pay for it all.
Russell Stewart, 4190 Royal, does not feel the property owners want any
sidewalks. He felt the only way to have sidewalks would be to put a tax
on bikes to require that others share the cost.
A letter from Muriel Roberts was read into the record, in which she requested
that when Royal is improved the sidewalk be postponed as she is negotiating
the sale of her property.
-
Public hearing was closed.
from a staff standpoint, it was mentioned that, while the proposal before
the Council is a width that can accommodate a bikepath and that is staff's
recommendation, the question of how that width is used is a matter that
can be settled later by Council.
2..72
5/19/75
2
e
e
Tape I
Side B
e
The project is estimated to cost $452,900, the federal share being $166,374,
and the state share being $23,463. Single-family residents would pay for a
28-foot section, $15.75 per front foot, with $5.00 per front foot extra for
sidewalks. The federal and state share amounts to 50% of the total so that
the property owners would not stand the total cost. Federal criteria does
have to be met in using the money. The proposal did call for 4 lanes;
however, the state and federal people were willing to allow two lanes with
a center turn lane on the portion that has .the heaviest requirements. Bike
paths were added because they are in conformance with the master bike plan.
If a change is desired, renegotiations would be necessary with the state and
federal people.
In answer to a question from Mr. Haws regarding the possibility of using bike
lanes as sidewalks, Traffic Engineer said that is not considered safe because
bikes travel at a higher rate of speed, and also there is a site distance
problem with drivers backing out of private driveways.
In answer to Mr. Bradley, it was explained that it is the city's policy to
provide sidewalks on both sides to serve the residents of each side in all
cases except where topography makes it difficult.
In regards to having bike lanes on just one side, it would necessitate
dividing it into a two-way travel situation and the proper safety design
provides for having a bike lane on each side of the street. Since a bicycle
is a vehicle, it should not be riding contrary to the direction of the traffic.
Mrs. Beal wondered if all residents have been informed about the hardship
deferral program and she was told that those alternatives had been reviewed
with property owners at public hearings staff held on the project.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to initiate the project as
presented.
Mrs. Beal said she was willing to initiate as planned so as not to lose federal
and state money by deleting their requirements. She wondered about financing
without the federal money. Asst. Manager said the city would bear the cost
from the general tax dollars since it is the policy not to assess property
owners for more than 28 feet of improvements.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
Resolution 2400 - Authorizing Entering into Project Agreement for
Certain Street Construction under Federal Aid
Urban System Program, was read by number and title.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Barger Drive Paving Project
The project involves paving from Highway 99 to west city limits (Ohio Street),
approximately 2.2 miles. Summary of the project, maps, and summary of staff
hearings on the project are all a part of the record. The city is continuing
to negotiate for the right of way. Funding relies primarily on local
assessments, city costs and a $200,000 contribution from the county. The
total cost is $762,000 of which the city pays $230,000 and property owners
are assessed $332,600.
The preliminary design is 46-foot paving, curbs, two travel lanes, two-way
center left-turn lane and two on-street bikeways, with no parking. There is
273
5/19/75
3
Ie
also prov1s10n for 5-foot sidewalks adjacent to curb on both sides, but
with no sidewalk on the north side between Beltline and Highway 99.
From Terry Street to Ohio, there is provision for a sidewalk on the
north side, shoulder and drainage ditch on the south side, which is
county property.
Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Haws brought up questions asked him by some of the property owners.
In answer to one question on the proposed change in alignment west of
Beltline, it was pointed out that the change was mainly to avoid the
purchase of commercial property on the north side. The change, based
on appraisals, was estimated to be a savings to the city of about $60,000.
In answer to a question regarding no prov1s10ns for sidewalks and curbs
on the south side west of Terry, it was explained that that is outside
the city limits and the city would have to bear 100% of the cost.
Also, a question had been asked of Mr. Haws regarding the LTD buses.
Would they be stopping in the bike paths - or how would that be handled?
It was pointed out that this same case exists on many other streets and,
since the bus stopping is so brief, it should not cause undue problems.
Mr. Haws had also been asked about potential problems which could develop
in paving Royal and Barger at the same time.
e
Staff explained that, in the final design and preparation, an adequate
detouring system will be worked out and included in the specifications.
The preliminary appraisal is that detouring will not pose a significant
problem.
Bob Harrison, Rt. 6, Box 1283, is developing property on Barger and Laveta
Lane which would add about 100 families to the area. Since Barger is
a major arterial to the west, to the airport and Fern Ridge, he feels it
definitely needs improvements. He wondered when the project would start
and how long construction would run.
Mel Lemmon, 5580 Barger, felt the street should be improved but that the
property owners should not stand the entire cost. He does not agree with
putting in sidewalks as there are very few people in the area to walk on
them.
John Munn, 5100 Barger, agreed that the property owners should not have
to stand the full assessment. He referred also to the $60,000 the city
would save by taking the jog in alignment, saying that would take 12% of
his property. As he sees it, he should really consider suing the city
for the land plus the trees he will lose. He also added that increased
traffic will make backing out of his driveway more difficult, he will
lose some privacy and his taxes will be increased. He cannot afford it.
e
Ken Gilbert, 261 Hollyview, raised questions regarding compensating people
for trees and also felt something should be accomplished at the overpass
of Beltline and Barger.
Jim Jennings, 1996 LaVeta Lane, o"~s property on Barger. He is 100% for
improving the street. It is beyond repair, dangerous, and a hazard to
every child and pedestrian. He cannot see how anyone in good faith could
2~
5/19/75
4
e
Tape II
Side A
e
e
oppose the project strictly on a monetary basis, because of the availability
of hardship deferral provisions. He does oppose the idea of the jog but
feels the Council should move swiftly to approve the project before another
person is injured.
Howard Warner, 1510 Alder, formerly a member of the Active Bethel Citizens,
feels that, to get full benefit from the cost being assessed, the road should
be widened to four lanes.
Don Hatfield, 2189 Dewey, has gotten the impression that only those on Barger
are opposing the project. People living on other streets that have been
improved have had to pay those assessments so it seems fair to him that the
people on Barger pay that assessment, noting they are free to travel on other
improved streets for which they have not had to pay. He questioned the need
for sidewalks except in the areas by the schools. He also raised the issue
of people who live on corner lots having to pay assessments on two street
improvements. That policy should be looked at, he felt. He finally brought
up a point made by a gentleman not able to attend the hearing - that the speed
should be lowered on Barger after it is improved. Mr. Hatfield's opinion
is that it could be left at 40 miles per hour but definitely no higher.
Bob Moulton, attorney, 777 High, representing two property owners on Barger,
questioned the need for improving all three segments of Barger at this time.
1974 figures showed traffic on Barger east of Echo Hollow to be 3400, Echo
Hollow to Beltline 3900 and west of Beltline 5800 per day. He wondered if
Council could consider paving in two parts, doing that portion west of Beltline
at this time. With much vacant land north of Barger, there does not seem to
be such a need, based on the traffic count and the number of bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Ruth Grimes, 5000 Barger, opposed taking unequal portions of people's property.
Sandi Tomlinson, 915 Oak Street, represented a property owner on Barger.
She said the people losing are the people paying. She questioned what effect
taking the jog would have on safety. She also pointed out that having parking
would provide bicyclists with a way to get around buses.
A. J. Linskey, 1995 Regina, raised again the question of people who cannot
afford to pay the assessment.
Public hearing was closed.
In addressing some of the questions raised, staff explained that there is
compensation made for trees which have to be taken from property. The
contract for the project is anticipated to be awarded June 23 with a completion
date of October 1. A review will be made of the proposal to stage the
construction through two construction seasons. ,Regarding the Barger-Beltline
overpass, it is proposed that this be a full diamond interchange; however,
the county is responsible for the project and they have not been able to
indicate a time table as yet. As to Royal Avenue, it is a proposed overpass
of Beltline with no connection to it. On the issue of the speed limit, the
State Speed Control Board will be asked to advise what speed should be
established.
Traffic Engineer pointed out that there have been many serious accidents on
the street, that it is essential that the street be improved, and that the
preliminary design before Council now appears to be a good one which will
serve for 20 years with no problems.
275
5/19/75
5
e
e
Tape II
Side B
e
The point was also emphasized that there are assessment deferral programs
available for those persons with a financial hardship.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to request staff to initiate
the project as proposed.
Mr. Haws raised a question regarding the advisability of the jog - is it
better to spend $60,000 and put the road in straight or save the money.
Staff feels comfortable with the recommendation.
it was also pointed out that bicycle lanes could
simply by changing the striping, though it would
the master bike plan to do so.
In answer to a question,
be changed later to parking
not be in conformance with
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
D. Chambers Street Paving Project (20 minutes limit on public testimony)
This project is estimated to cost $103,600. It is 0.4 miles in length.
Of the total cost, the city would pay $16,500 and the property owners would
be assessed $87,100. The improvement provides for two travel lanes,
sidewalks, and parking only on the east side. Summary of the project,
maps, staff notes and summary of public hearings are all part of the
record.
Public hearing was opened.
Lewis Hoffman, 888 W. Park, representing Aaron Jones, said Mr. Jones has
seen extreme hazards develop on that street, particularly in snow and
ice conditions. He feels that the grade should be lowered to make it a
l2-month road. Otherwise it would be a waste of money because the job
would not be done completely and properly.
Aaron Jones, 1880 McLean, said he agrees with all the preliminary plans
of the Engineering Department except the issue of the grade. In the
area in question, if the road was moved over 35 feet, the grade could
be lowered without creating an unsightly bank to the west or without
creating a bad slipping problem. There is plenty of public land there,
he noted, which could be removed to facilitate that adjustment.
Public hearing was closed.
Staff pointed out the issue could be restudied between now and the awarding
of the contract. Addressing the issue of the grade would necessitate
some redesign, and there was some concern about any adverse effect on
the property to the west.
Mr. Haws raised a question about bike paths. Traffic Engineer said
the area is not on the bike plan. Too, the topography lends to walking
up and riding down.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the plan subject
to further consideration of the suggestions proposed by Mr. Jones.
Motion carried unanimously.
5/19/75 6
Z7~
.
II - Liquor License Renewals
Retail Halt Beverage (R.~B) - Duffy's, 801 East 13th Avenue
Lou~e's Village Restaurant, 947 Franklin Boulevard
Robinson's Tavern, 550 East 13th Avenue
).
Taylor's Coffee Shop, 894 East 13th Avenue ' .
Package Store (PS) - Bamboo Pavilion, 1275 Alder Street
E Z Shop Market, 2489 Willamette Street
; . German Smoked Meats, 2805 Oak Street
Jiffy Market, 3443 Hilyard Street
L & L Market, 1591 Willamette Street
Miller's Grocery, 1065 East 20th Avenue
~1init Market, 536 East 11 th Avenue
New Frontier Market, 1101 West 8th Avenue
Of Grape & Grain, 45 West 29th Avenue
Payless Drug Store, 57 West 29th Avenue
. Restaurant (R) - Mazzi's Italian Food, 3377 East Amazon
Moreno's Mexico, 433 East Broadway
Scott's Restaurant, 100 East Broadway
Terr & Sher's Restaurant, 1775 West 6th Avenue
.
,
A Dispensers (less than 500 members) - Town Club, 222 East Broadway
"
....:.,
Change of Ownership - The Corner Cupboard, 4690 Royal Avenue
George and Willa Metta Wilhelm - Package Store (~S)
Staff finds all applications ln order.
Mrs, Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to recommend approval for
the renewals and change of ownership. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to
Tuesday, May 27, 1975.
/t&W~tZ
A. K. Martin
Assistant City Manager
.
5/19/75 7
-:-
,~277