Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening agreed with Mr. McNeel that public input did not result in a change to the scoring on the City's street classification matrix. He said the design workshop was the first step in the context-sensitive design process. Staff would use that work when it began to work on any street design. Mr. Schoening said that those residents who provided input to the City generally wanted the streets classified as local streets. He called the council's attention to a summary of the common ground reached between the City and residents, which was included in the agenda packet. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor said for many residents, cost was not their major concern about the classification of the streets. She asked about the difference in the cost to abutting properties between making the same improvements to a local street as to a collector street. Mr. Schoening said the entire cost of a local street was assessed to the adjoining properties; in the case of a neighborhood collector, the first ten feet of pavement width was assessed to adjoining properties. In the case ora 20-foot street, the amount would be the same. Ms. Taylor suggested residents would not save any money by having the streets designated as a collector. Mr. Schoening said not necessarily. Ms. Taylor noted residents' interest in more stop signs, which she supported. She asked if the streets' designation as collector streets would preclude the potential of a path rather than a sidewalk, and ditches rather than gutters. Mr. Schoening said no. Ms. Taylor asked what the City gained by designating the streets as collector streets. Mr: Schoening said there were more viable funding sources for collector streets, such as federal funding. Ms. Taylor asked what good the other funding did if the property owners paid for the pavement. Mr. Schoening said the funding could pay for the City's share of the cost of the project, including the cost of intersections and street improvements along corner lots and undeveloped frontages greater than 100 feet. Ms. Taylor asked if stop signs placed every three blocks would discourage drivers who lived outside the neighborhood from using the streets. Mr. Schoening said that was not what was found in actual practice. When stop signs were not warranted, drivers simply roll through them and they have no effect. Mr. Meisner said residents appeared to be less concerned about assessments and more about the design and classification of the street and what the future holds in terms of the consequences of the classification. He said the City spent considerable money improving 6th and 7th avenues and the Chambers Connectors so that residents will use those roads to reach the River Road/Santa Clara area, and installed stop signs at various locations in his neighborhood to discourage through traffic. That had not stopped traffic from going through the neighborhood. He averred that 1 st Avenue was not accessible to neighbors "at all" during early morning and evening hours. Mr. Meisner said he had talked about the problem with the Public Works Department but it had not been interested in slowing methods such as traffic calming, stop signs, or signals because 1st Avenue was a major collector. The classification did make a difference over time. Mr. Meisner understood the concerns of the neighborhood. He indicated he was not satisfied with any of the three options before the council. He did not think any of the options satisfied the needs of either the City or the neighborhood. In response to the questions of Ms. Taylor, Mr. McNeel said that the City had spent a lot of money on traffic calming, and much of that was retrofitted to an existing situation. The retrofits were expensive and difficult to do. He said that traffic calming was eligible for systems development charge revenues, but MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 4 Work Session