Laserfiche WebLink
resolution to initiate a local improvement district (LID). <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening briefly described the context-sensitive design process, which would account for such <br />things as the rural feel of the neighborhood and the values of residents. He referred the council to <br />Attachment A in the agenda item summary, and reviewed the six principles outlined: <br /> <br /> 1. Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals in the project. <br /> 2. Involve the public and affected parties early and continuously. <br /> 3. Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to each projects needs. <br /> 4. Address all modes of travel~ transportation. <br /> 5. Apply flexibility inherent in design standards. <br /> 6. Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening said that staff solicited issues about the design from neighbors at the last public meeting, <br />and heard a request that the path be bark-mulched. That required staff to consider the ramifications of <br />other requirements, such as from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for example, which required <br />hard surfaces for paths to allow the disabled to use them. The City Code also required the adjacent <br />property to maintain sidewalks or pathways, and there was a question of what burden would be placed on <br />the property owner from a bark-mulched path. He anticipated more such dialogue on design issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening said that the unimproved streets in the community were not in the City's preservation and <br />maintenance backlog; they were above and beyond that. It took considerable staff resources to maintain <br />those roads. The LID process had been used successfully in the past, and based on the City's funding <br />outlook, he did not anticipate another viable funding mechanism for street improvements in this area. He <br />said the neighbors were focused and had a lot of energy around the topic, and he thought the City had an <br />opportunity to take advantage of that energy to do something good for the neighborhood and address the <br />safety and maintenance issues caused by the condition of the streets in the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening acknowledged Mr. McNeel's work on the topic, saying he had been involved in the <br />process from the beginning and had done much of the "heavy lifting" needed. <br /> <br /> Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor said that many people in the Crest Drive area did not know of the staff recommendation that a <br /> LID be formed until the last few days. She pointed out that generally, LIDs on non-collector streets were <br /> formed with the support of more than 50 percent of the residents. There had been no request to form a <br /> district. She thought the recommendation violated the trust of the residents who wanted to be involved <br /> and were told that context-sensitive design standards would be in place before anything happened. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor asked if there were exceptions to the ADA requirements in the case of steep terrain, for <br /> example. Mr. Schoening said yes, as long as access was available to every one. However, he did not <br /> think any of the streets in question could not accommodate a hard surface path. Ms. Taylor asked if the <br /> ADA entered into the situation if just a pavement overlay and a few stop signs were added. Mr. <br /> Schoening said no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor expressed dismay that the City was not considering another method of financing outside of <br /> those methods already in place. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2005 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />