Laserfiche WebLink
Yeiter said yes, to some degree; the street treatment helped define the level of adjacent development and <br />pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Papé asked if the City had a process to reach other decisions about the project. <br />Mr. Yeiter said yes, during the second phase of the project, when all interests would again be brought <br />together. Staff wanted to ensure that people understood the ramifications of their preferences. He added <br />that it was likely staff would return at key points for further direction from the Planning Commission and the <br />council. <br /> <br />Ms. Ban asked how the project affected bicycle traffic. Mr. Yeiter noted the bicycle connection near Agate <br />Street, where many bicycles cross Franklin Boulevard. He said that the City had not yet heard from <br />residents to the north. He hoped to engage the bicycle commute community as that could affect the design of <br />the street. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman recalled that in May 2003, the City Council adopted a modified boundary for the node that <br />th <br />removed a section of the neighborhood south of 17 Avenue in response to residents’ concerns. The <br />boundary had been at Moss Street, but the boundary shown on the map in the Agenda Item Summary went <br />beyond that. She asked if the council adopted a new boundary. Mr. Yeiter clarified that the boundary <br />shown was the study area boundary. The node boundaries remained the same until further City Council <br />action. Ms. Bettman recalled that the definition of a node called for its center to be a quarter-mile from the <br />edge, which was why the boundary was moved to Moss Street. She was concerned about the study <br />boundary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman appreciated the expertise brought into the community and regretted she had conflicts <br />preventing her from attending the presentations. She hoped staff did more such education to overcome <br />business community objections to boulevard treatments. She said that Alan Jacobs made a presentation at <br />the Oregon League of Cities regarding boulevards that demonstrated such treatments reinvigorated <br />commercial activity. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman called for design standards for the high-density development to make such development more <br />palatable to neighbors. She suggested the City consider bringing in additional outside expertise to discuss <br />design standards that would help such areas to accommodate higher densities without destroying property <br />values. She maintained that for residents, the issue was “not really density, it was design,” and suggested <br />that higher density housing could serve as a transition area between lower density residential and commercial <br />areas. Ms. Bettman said the City could utilize the expertise of entitles like Calthorpe Associates or <br />Congress for the New Urbanism to assist in those efforts. <br /> <br />Selection of Third EMX Route <br /> <br />LTD’s Director of Development Services Stefano Viggiano said the goal of the meeting was to discuss the <br />selection of a third EmX corridor. He noted the upcoming completion of the first corridor, the Franklin <br />EmX corridor, which would connect downtown Eugene and Springfield. Mr. Viggiano reported that the <br />board decided on ten-minute headways in the corridor and LTD purchased additional buses to ensure that <br />occurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Viggiano said the second corridor, which would be a continuous route between downtown Springfield <br />and Gateway, was under consideration and he anticipated the board would make a final decision on the route <br />in September 2006. Funding for the project was coming together and, if everything went well, it should be <br />under construction in 2009 and open for service later that year or in 2010. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 12, 2006 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />