10/08/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ehrman pointed out 32 percent of the people who objected to the project e had sidewalks. She also had not heard the Sidewalk Plan fully discussed, but she would support the project because a public hearing had been held and the findings recommended it. Mr. Hansen reiterated his concern about the process. Apparently a neighbor- hood group could request sidewalks in the whole neighborhood and, if property owners did not construct them, the City would construct them. He wanted to review priority areas and what triggers City construction of sidewalks. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Ball, to table consideration of sidewalk construction on Sorrel Way for a month until the City Council has a clear understanding of what triggers the construction of pedestrian walkways. Ms. Schue pointed out the City must have requests from 50 percent of the property ownership before street paving projects are initiated unless there is a special need. Answering her request for information, Mr. Teitzel said sidewalks are required in the City when new construction is valued at $5,000 or more. However, the Sorrel Way area was developed before annexation and sidewalks were not required. The code provides for City Council consideration of sidewalk requests in such areas. Another code provision requires that . the City Engineer ask the City Council to initiate sidewalk construction if there are sidewalks on more than 50 percent of the block. Because Sorrel Way is a collector street that feeds into Coburg Road, Ms. Bascom thought it is important to have sidewalks along it. She said the e City policy is to have sidewalks and the necessary process had been followed. She would support the request. Restating his motion, Mr. Hansen moved to table consideration of sidewalk construction on Sorrel Way until November 14 so that a committee could be formed to make a recommendation concerning the triggering of sidewalk con- struction in the community on a demand basis. Mr. Ball accepted the restated motion. The motion failed, 2:5, with Councilors Hansen and Holmer voting aye; Councilors Wooten, Bascom, Ehrman, Schue, and Ball voting nay. Ms. Schue said she had voted against the motion because it came tied to a specific request. She suggested the City Council schedule consideration of the City's sidewalk policies. Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason said consideration of the sidewalk policies would be scheduled for November 14. CB 2779--An ordinance concerning the Sorrel Way sidewalk project; adopting findings; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Ball, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the City Council, and that enactment be considered at this e time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1984 Page 7