Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />Mr. Obie asked if Mr. Berman is in favor of Mr. Anderson's request to design for <br />the entire area. Mr. Berman indicated that he is in favor of that. Mr. Obie . <br />asked if the design phase could be completed by 1982. Mr. Teitzel stated that <br />the design for the whole area was to be done in 1982, but they have one section <br />slated for construction then also. Mr. Gleason said there seemed to be no major <br />problems from staff's point of view. Mr. Obie asked about a vehicle for citizen <br />input. Mr. Gleason noted that in the normal design process, hearings are held <br />to allow for citizen input. He questioned setting up an entirely separate <br />design process as that being suggested. Mr..Obie noted that these people are <br />asking for a citizen input committee for this project and if the neighborhood is <br />involved, there c6uld be fewer problems later on. Mr. Gleason stated that this <br />would be an appointed citizen committee. He said that there is no need to <br />design the entire area as some of this has already been done in the T-2000. <br />There could be duplication for design where the couplets, etc., would be placed. <br />Ms. Smith asked if the design aspect of Chambers will be in the TIP. Mr. <br />Gleason stated the Planning Commission recommendation is that the project go <br />through the design phase and then into the construction phase by next year. The <br />citizens would like design only to be developed for the entire couplet in 1982. <br />Mr. Berman stated this recommendation could be amended to show fiscal year <br />1982-83 as only the design of the total project with no implementation at that <br />time. Mr. Gleason stated that construction could occur later. It cou 1 d be done <br />faster that way. Mr. Lindberg stated he could go with the recommendation from <br />the citizens but his concern is that the citizen group wants to stop the project. <br />It is a City policy that the City will provide services to everyone within the <br />boundaries of the City. It is highly unlikely that this proposed process would <br />prevent any improvements from taking place in the Lorane area. <br />Ms. Schue stated that citizen input is desirable but there are some parameters . <br />which the council will set. The street will be improved and assessments will be <br />made. Also, there may be some desion parameters that the City will impose. <br />Some compromise will have to come from the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated <br />that the people in the area believe major differences lie in the treatments that <br />are needed. The bike study of the council will say they must have sidewalks, <br />paved streets, bike paths, etc. These may not all be necessary in some parts of <br />the area. <br />Ms. Wooten stated that it has been made clear that citizens are willing to work <br />on this project. The reasons for constructing bike lanes no longer exist. She <br />thinks the council should remain open. The people in the area may be aware of a <br />better way. <br />Mr. Berman stated that one of the policies in the T-2000 plan is to encourage <br />alternative modes of transportation. Council has adopted a sidewalk policy and <br />staff will request them. <br />Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Anderson's comments and intent are clear. Some areas <br />are lIimproved to death.1I Staff is after provision of an adequate level of <br />services through an area with provisions for alternative modes of transportation. <br />Some trees may have to be removed, the street may have to be wider, and some <br />grades may have to change. There are many other options. <br /> . <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 14 <br />