Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. G. Austin asked how much the project could be scaled back. Mr. Hoobyar suggested this discussion <br />be deferred to the next meeting, should this be the tack the group wished to take. <br /> <br />Mr. Howard reiterated his desire to ask the council for clarification on its direction. <br /> <br />Mr. Spain pointed to information on the existing road that indicated the roadbed was only three to five <br />inches deep. He did not believe this to be adequate to hold an overlay. <br /> <br />Mr. Howard offered this proposal to bring before the City Council: <br />"Was it the City Council's intent that River Avenue be redesigned specifically to urban design <br />standards or is some lower level of improvement that is supported by the stakeholders acceptable?" <br /> <br />Mr. Hoobyar noted that the group had not determined a decision.making process. <br /> <br />Ms. Damron observed that many people wished to talk about design options that would come close to or <br />meet the definition but some people still held the idea of an overlay. She did not want to argue this <br />without getting council direction. She said if the group was going to take a maintenance overlay off the <br />table, she wanted it off the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill said the maintenance overlay was already off the table because it was impractical. He com- <br />mented that an understanding of road engineering would lend one to believe that an overlay could not be <br />considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoobyar asked for a show of hands to indicate support for Mr. Howard's proposal. <br /> <br />The proposal was voted down, 8:3. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill averred that what was needed from staff was affirmation that what the group was setting forth <br />was what was being asked for. He said though it seemed there was no way to get around the State's rules <br />regarding the road project, he thought it possible to contest a portion of those rules through an action <br />before the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) if the group so chose. He wanted to move ahead with the <br />design process. <br /> <br />6. Scheduling the Next Meeting <br /> <br />Mr. Hoobyar determined from the group that the second meeting would be held on August 30 and the <br />third meeting was scheduled for October 5. Both meetings would begin at 7 p.m., end at 9 p.m., and <br />would be convened at the Wastewater Facility. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. <br /> <br />(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) <br />M'\2005\Public Worh Department\River Avenue Stakeholder Groupirasg050824.doc <br /> <br />MINUTES-River Avenue Stakeholder Group- <br />Public Works Department <br /> <br />August 24,2005 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br />