Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening said staff took the approach in January 2005 to package all elements together and request funding to move the project forward; elements included developing a context-sensitive design process and initiating the surveying, engineering and design, and public outreach. He said that neighborhood feedback was to take smaller steps and begin with development of a context-sensitive design process and reach agreement with the neighborhood. He related that the neighborhood association board passed a motion to that effect last week. He said when agreement was reached on the context-sensitive design process, the City would move forward with implementing the process.. Continuing, Mr. Schoening said elements of a context-sensitive design process included: · Establishing the goals and objectives of the process · Identifying the boundaries of the process (minimum design standards for a street in the neighbor- hood) · Establishing a decision-making model with the recognition that the council would make the final decision on whatever project or design was proposed · Developing a public involvement strategy · Establishing a schedule and budget for the process Mr. Schoening said that minimum design standards were a "sticking point" and he used a schematic to illustrate three street design alternatives, noting that those alternatives could be modified depending on the interests and values of stakeholders. He reviewed each of the alternatives and noted that the sidewalk standard was to some extent outside of the City's purview, as the State Transportation Planning Rule required a sidewalk on either reconstructed or new streets and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) established parameters for sidewalks in terms of minimum width, surface and physical separation from the street. He said a major issue for the neighborhood association was the minimum pavement design width of ten feet. He said the association preferred a narrower width but was told that the two ten-foot travel lanes or twenty feet of pavement would remain the minimum. Mayor Piercy called for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor observed that the process would take time and while she was pleased that public involvement included the entire neighborhood, she reminded staff that those with abutting properties were the most concerned. She asked staff to stop referring to "benefiting properties" and use the term "abutting properties" instead, as she felt properties were sometimes hurt rather than helped and the use of the word "abutting" would be clearer. Mr. Schoening referred to State law governing LDs, which allowed assessment of benefiting properties, not abutting properties. Ms. Taylor said that she attended the neighborhood meetings and felt the last one was productive. She questioned whether everyone in the neighborhood understood that if the council paid for the context- sensitive design process it would be included in the LID and added to the assessments. She asked how many properties were involved and what the per person cost of the $240,000 process would be. Mr. Schoening said he could provide that information and pointed out that the normal cost of a capital project included engineering and design costs, which could vary depending on how extensive the process was. Ms. Taylor asked if there were exceptions to ADA requirements for sidewalks if the terrain was very steep. Mr. Schoening replied that if a car was able to climb a grade, a motorized wheelchair also could MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 29, 2005 Page 8 Work Session