Laserfiche WebLink
arterials where conditional uses permitted nonresidential uses. The council concurred with Mr. <br />Kelly's request. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson described her experience in attempting to walk from Bailey Hill Road to Hawkins <br />Lane, and said she found it could not be done. The development she had attempted to cross <br />was very recent, and she questioned how it was allowed to occur without any provisions for <br />street connectivity. Ms. Nathanson said that development should always occur in context of the <br />larger area around it. Ms. Bishow observed that the City currently had street connectivity <br />standards only for subdivisions and, if land was not subdivided, lacked good standards to ensure <br />that all new development provided pedestrian and bicycle linkages. She said that the pedestrian <br />circulation provisions on page 247 of the code addressed new development of all types. Ms. <br />Nathanson asked what occurred if there was no street. Ms. Bishow clarified that the standards <br />were triggered by new development. In some cases, there might be still be lack of connection <br />until development occurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart observed that street connectivity was a problem for many pads of the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that the council needed to prepare citizens for the cost impact of the new code on <br />housing prices. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor endorsed the provisions eliminating fences on arterials and called for elimination of <br />double frontage lots. He suggested that fences should be constructed with gaps to allow people <br />to pass through them. Mr. Rayor opposed fenced and gated residential enclaves, saying they <br />were not useful to society. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported street connectivity but feared what he considered the "absolutism" provided <br />by the draft code. He suggested that staff revisit the second of the two suggestions related to <br />street connectivity considered and rejected by the Planning Commission and listed in the packet <br />on page 389 (the street to be connected to new development exceeds 1,500 feet in length from <br />an existing intersection), noting that few exceptions to street connectivity now existed. Mr. Kelly <br />was also interested in an exception for dead-end unimproved streets intended to be connected <br />because of development. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly about the absolutism of the City's street connectivity policy, and <br />noted the irony that several streets in her neighborhood had been closed for traffic calming <br />purposes. She thought connectivity for pedestrians was more important than connectivity for <br />automobiles, which often encouraged faster automobile travel to the detriment of neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that a good code update would provide community predictability. He said that <br />the code should take into account streets that had been in place for some time. If a street was a <br />dead-end street and it had been such a street for a long time and people bought houses on that <br />basis, there should be a standard applicable to such situations. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about providing a blanket exception for dead-end unimproved <br />streets. She had sympathy for the residents involved, but likened the situation to one where <br />residents lived adjacent to an undeveloped park parcel and considered that land an extension of <br />their own property. In this case, she was concerned that the burden of travel and transportation <br />would be unfairly distributed among residents. She was worried about misplaced community <br />expectations. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />