CC Minutes - 06/29/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

formed for each of those projects. He said if the City fronted costs for the design process on Crest Drive and the other streets in that neighborhood, the costs could be rolled forward into an LID if the council decided to form one. If there was no LID the City would have to find another funding source for those costs. He said the cost estimate of $240,000 for the Crest Drive design process was determined by looking at approximately 1.25 miles of streets on Crest Drive, Friendly Street, and Storey Boulevard, the neighbor- hood's desire for very detailed information on impacts on individual properties and trees and the need to design an entire street that included surveying, engineering and design work and extensive public outreach. 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 proper- ties" 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 LIDs, which allowed assessment of benefiting properties, not abutting properties. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 29, 2005 Page 8 Work Session