Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and there was no basis for an exception in that neighborhood. Ms. Taylor asked staffto look into the matter. Ms. Taylor asked how it would be determined which side of a street would have a sidewalk if there was to be only one sidewalk along the street. Mr. Schoening replied that would be part of the design discussion and one of the goals was to limit the number of times pedestrians would have to cross the street when walking from one point to another. Ms. Taylor hoped that stop signs could be added to the list of traffic calming strategies. Mr. Schoening said that traffic calming tools were included in the Arterial/Collector Street Plan and stop signs were a regulatory device to assign right-of-way rather than a traffic calming tool. Ms. Bettman commented that the City's position was that stop signs that were not warranted could open it to legal liability, which is why they were not used as a traffic calming device. Ms. Bettman stated that she had attended the neighborhood meeting and her impression was that the neighborhood's main concern over ten-foot lanes was off the table for discussion before the process began. She asked if the ten-foot standard could be flexible when there were extenuating circumstances, such as preserving heritage trees or a front yard, and the travel lane be narrower at that point. She pointed out that the ten-foot minimum lane width was the standard in the Arterial/Collector Street Plan for a collector street and the basis of the neighborhood's objection was that it did not want the street to be a collector. She said the City should be willing to make an exception to the ten-foot lane width where it was appropriate and reasonable and pointed out that there were many streets throughout the City that were very narrow and included parking on both sides. She thought it was unlikely that two fire trucks would be passing each other on a street, thus requiring a 20-foot width. Mr. Poling noted Mr. Schoening's remarks about ADA requirements for sidewalk surfaces and com- mented that during recent discussions of alley improvements the issue of a new technique with a pervious surface was raised. He asked if that type of surface would qualify under ADA requirements for a hard surface. Mr. Schoening said he thought it would, but one of the issues with pervious pavement was that underlying soils needed to be pervious. He said the soils in the Crest Drive neighborhood were clay soils and not very pervious. Mr. Kelly said he was pleased the last neighborhood meeting went well and the idea of designing a process made sense. He hoped that the process would be designed so that both the process and paying for the process would be broken into several phases with check-in points for the council and neighbors at the end of each. He indicated he was not opposed to eventual classification of the streets and what emerged from the design process would help with that discussion. Referring to the ten-foot lane width, Mr. Kelly said that requirement was also in the Local Street Plan and applied to streets in general. He was unaware of any improved streets that were less than 20 feet in width although there were some old substandard streets that might have less than 20 feet of pavement left. He was comfortable with the ten-foot lane width standard, which was very narrow by national standards, but agreed with Ms. Bettman's comments about the need for flexibility in some situations. He said if flexibility was allowed it should be reflected in both street plans. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 29, 2005 Page 9 Work Session