Laserfiche WebLink
development was not likely to be isolated and would generally occur adjacent to other development, so street <br />connectivity affected both old and new development. Ms. Childs said that she heard more concerns regarding <br />the likelihood that street connectivity would lead to increased traffic volume than any other concern, and she <br />believed that the list of exemptions could be expanded to address that concern. For example, she thought it <br />appropriate to have an exemption if connectivity meant a local street became an arterial or collector street. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he was somewhat interested in the topic of traffic volumes on local streets, but believed that <br />it would require some expertise and fine tuning to develop the appropriate exemption. In response to Ms. <br />Taylor's comments, Mr. Meisner did not think the City could look at new development without considering <br />redevelopment and the existing areas where there was considerable disconnection because of development <br />patterns and topography. He said that disconnection made it difficult for emergency response to occur <br />smoothly and for the City to achieve its goals in the areas of transportation and land use. Mr. Meisner <br />understood that neighbors had fears about street connectivity and said that they often seemed unfounded. He <br />asked if requirements for street connectivity were triggered by new development. Ms. Childs said yes. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to add <br /> exemptions to the street connectivity standards where projected new traffic volumes <br /> would exceed the range associated with the existing street classification, or when the <br /> existing street is unimproved and does not meet City street standards. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. McNeel clarified that systems development charge <br />revenues were only available for funding improvements on streets that were arterial or collector streets. He <br />suggested that the distinction for the council to consider was not whether roads were brought up to standard, <br />but the condition of the roadway at the time of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not want the proposed exemption to be used to prevent connectivity. Mr. Kelly responded <br />that he was attempting to address street condition and the challenge was how to state that objectively. He <br />hoped that staff could develop some text for the council to review. Mr. Kelly also did not want to see the <br />exemption used to prevent street connectivity, but did not want to insist on connectivity in spite of the <br />condition of the road. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey left the meeting, and Council President Lee assumed the chair. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not support the motion, saying that when the council talked about limiting volume on local <br />streets, it was also limiting bicycles and pedestrians when connectivity did not occur. Mr. Meisner concurred. <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that he would later offer a motion mandating bicycle and pedestrian connections where <br />they otherwise might not occur, so he thought the two issues could be addressed separately. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to direct the City Manager to change the <br /> code to require cull-de-sacs that are 150 feet in length or longer to provide emergency <br /> vehicle/bike/pedestrian connections extending from the bulb to the closest street. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 6, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />