CC Minutes - 01/23/08 WS and Mtg of URA

Home Browse Search

B. WORK SESSION: Crest Drive Community Team Recommended Design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street and Street Design Standards Minimum Sidewalk Width for Crest Drive Area City Engineer Mark Schoening recognized members of the Crest Drive Community Team and their contributions to the project. He provided an overview of the “context-sensitive” process that resulted in a recommended design for Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. He stated that a consensus model was used for decision-making and members indicated levels of support. He said three individuals did not concur with the recommended design at the final meeting based on concerns about the location of the sidewalk on Friendly Street, particularly that they were not always on the uphill side of the street. Mr. Schoening highlighted the design concept, which included 18-foot street widths with two 9-foot travel lanes and a sidewalk on one side alternating between uphill and downhill sides. He said there were numerous traffic calming devices throughout the area and all streets included stormwater facilities for their entire lengths. He said a budget appropriation in fiscal year (FY) 2009 would be necessary to move forward with design and construction in the summer of 2009. He estimated the total project cost at $5.75 million, of which $2.6 million was assessable to abutting property owners. He reviewed a number of options for funding the project as set forth in the agenda packet materials. Mr. Schoening asked the council to hold separate public hearings on February 19, 2008, with one hearing on the recommended design and the other on amending the design standards to allow a narrower sidewalk width in the Crest Drive area. Mr. Pryor solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked if the street designation could be changed to arterial or collector to make it eligible for funding with system development charges (SDC). Mr. Schoening said that could be done, but there were several projects in development that were relying on transportation SDCs and construction would be pushed out several years. Ms. Bettman commented that the project was a City priority and not initiated by the neighborhood and asked why it would not be eligible for SDC reimbursement. Mr. Schoening said the language establishing reimbursement fees dedicated those funds to pavement rehabilitation and restoration projects. He said all of those funds were currently being used on the existing improved street system with a focus on arterials and collectors. Ms. Bettman pointed out that redesignating the streets as arterials or collectors would make the project eligible for those funds and it would be a matter of shifting priorities from other projects to the Crest Drive project. She said that the capital improvement program (CIP) had $11 million reserved for upgrades and capacity enhancements and some of those funds could be redirected to the Crest Drive project if it was a priority. She asked for clarification of how the sidewalk exception from five to four feet would be applied. Mr. Schoening explained that the exception would be an amendment to the design standards applicable to all classified and unclassified streets, but it was specific to the Crest Drive area. Mr. Clark supported moving the items to public hearings. He noted that the purpose of the project was to make Crest Drive a narrow street to decrease the amount of traffic and that would seem to conflict with designation as an arterial or collector. Mr. Schoening said that traffic volume was one of five criteria for designating streets with the idea that the streets would form a network with collectors equally spaced MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2008 Page 3 Work Session