Item 4 - PH on River Ave.LID - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

utility charges that were listed among the project costs, and determined that these charges were for new utility meters for the street lights, and did not involve the relocation of the power lines. Mr. Lloyd Henson raised concerns about the design of the street, especially the proposed curbs and gutters. He felt that a more appropriate design would be the elimination of the curbs and gutters, to be replaced by swales and "dry wells" to deal with stormwater runoff. Mr. Henson sited the example of the development of Highway 99 as an indication of the value of alternative stormwater systems. Eugene Principal Civil Engineer Cahill discussed the Highway 99 improvements, acknowledging their use of swales, and discussed some of the other methods besides curbs and gutters for useful stormwater management. Ms. Cahill explained how the City must follow state regulations, which have changed recently with regard to storm drainage. Mr. Hensen went on to question the reasonableness of the project. He doubted the need for pedestrian and bicycle amenities, stating that there are few pedestrians and that bicycles would only be encouraged to use the sidewalks and thus endanger pedestrians. Mr. Hensen also questioned the need to put in a street developed to the highest City standards. Property owner Theresa Slocum asked why the City has already started the project when it was unsure of the funding for the project. She pointed to the engineering and predesign work that had gone on even though the local improvement district had not been formed. Ms. Cahill explained that the project had been approved and the City did know how it was going to be paid for. Ms. Cahill explained that the Council allowed the design work to be done in advance of the question of formation of an LID so that the project could be appropriately designed, and so that public input could be taken on the project scope before the bids were let and the local improvement district formed. Ms. Slocum indicated that she felt that it was inappropriate to move forward with the project until questions were resolved about what ODOT would do concerning the Beltline, River Avenue interchange. Ms. Slocum felt that changes by ODOT could affect the status of River Avenue and could result in it being down-graded from a major collector to something less. Principal Engineer Cahill acknowledged the concern, and reiterated the City's conclusions that the project was appropriate even if ODOT made changes to Beltline four or five years from now. Ms. Slocum also suggested that sidewalks were only necessary along one side of River Avenue. She indicated that, in her opinion, the businesses along the north side of the Avenue are not pedestrian oriented and it is unlikely that this would change even in the long term. Ms. Slocum acknowledged that the portion of River Avenue closer to River Road needed sidewalks for pedestrians, but felt that the eastern portion did not need sidewalks. Finally, Ms. Slocum indicated that she agreed with other requests to postpone further consideration of the proposed local improvement district. Ms. Slocum felt that the notice had not explained in enough detail what property owner's rights of remonstrance were, so that she had not come prepared to file a remonstrance.