Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman opined that the project would be a model process for the community and <br />congratulated the neighbors and staff for their participation. In response to a question from Ms. <br />Bettman, Ms. Gardner replied that all of the neighbors who attended the May 4 meeting signed or <br />would sign the Group Agreement. She stressed there had been no expression of dissent as the <br />Crest Drive Community Team (CDCT) was a consensus model. Ms. Bettman observed that the <br />CDCT product was transportation-oriented and did not address neighborhood character, property <br />values, and other issues in which financially impacted residents would be interested. Ms. <br />Gardner stated that those considerations would be addressed as part of the Context Sensitive <br />Design Solutions (CSS) process and the product itself would be a recommended design and <br />reflective of the components Ms. Bettman put forth. Ms. Gardner noted that development of <br />criteria would ensue. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated she believes in the primacy of the people who would be financially impacted <br />and concurred there would be improvements which fulfill transportation needs of other people in <br />the community; however, she stressed the product must be done in a way that did not negatively <br />impact the neighborhood and the property values. Ms. Gardner clarified that “McLean” was not <br />one of the affected streets as noted in the council packet. She turned to the property owner input <br />and said that input was part of the design of the Crest Drive Neighborhood Group Subcommittee, <br />primarily made up of property owners on the affected streets. Ms. Bettman stated she would <br />support the motion as a good portion of the costs could be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé? applauded the process and recognized that while this project would take more time and <br />energy, it would be a better product due to its consensus nature. City Manager Taylor <br />commented that the work of the neighborhood reinforced by the recommendation of the City <br />Manager captured everyone’s attention. Mr. Papé? expressed a desire to hear from the <br />neighborhood members. Ms. Gardner said that opportunity would present itself as the process <br />moves forward. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, Ms. Gardner responded that <br />classification was not now a focus; rather, the focus was on the street design which was more <br />significant in terms of how the street would function. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly echoed previous comments and complimented those involved in the process. He <br />concurred that this process could be a model for other projects throughout the City. Mr. Kelly <br />opined that some projects could sometimes take longer due to contentiousness between the City <br />and its constituents, whereas this project begins on a positive note. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly <br />spoke to standards and guidelines and noted that standards must follow the law. However, he <br />urged the members of the CDCT to bring any issues around standards (which could be amended <br />if deemed appropriate) to the City Council, in order to preserve the integrity and intent of the <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor offered his compliments to all individuals involved in this project thus far. He stated <br />that the intent to “do it right” while being cost-effective may make the process more lengthy but <br />would result in an exemplary product. Mr. Pryor spoke to the collaborative process and pointed <br />out there must be a balance between a “context-sensitive design” and the assurance that a <br />boutique system was not created. He opined that the process would ensure an appropriate <br />balance. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments and questions. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 8, 2006 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />