CCMinutes - 04/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

which might be affected by the project. Ms. Bettman supported the motion to postpone the item. She thought the street could be designed in a way that provided mobility while maintaining livability. She thought the City needed to be clear with residents about what they would get before the ordinance was adopted. She wanted to know what the standards looked like and whether they would do what was needed. Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the motion brought the item back to the council too quickly. He suggested a two-part process involving a meeting between the council and residents with staff present; the concerns could be recorded, and then another meeting could be scheduled to bring about a feeling of trust. He said the roads in question were terrible, but the residents did not trust the council, and he wanted to address the trust issue before the road issue was addressed. While the council and residents might not eventually agree, at least the residents would feel heard. Ms. Taylor favored postponing the item until November, and commended the mayor's suggestion. She said the issue of who paid for the improvements was also an issue for some people. They were concerned both about the character of the neighborhood and cost. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ agreed to change the date in the motion to October 25, 2004. Ms. Solomon determined from staff that the change in classification was only that and the ordinance would not lead to a project. Mr. McNeel said that no money was available for modernization projects at this time. There was a process to initiate a project, but it was a long-term process. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Taylor that more neighborhood awareness was needed, and given how long it would take for the street to be improved, she thought a few months' more delay insignificant. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion. He said the classifications made sense given how traffic moved through the neighborhood, but the standards needed to be made clear to the public in a public process. He hoped that the City looked at context-friendly street design standards on a community-wide basis. Mr. McNeel said that was what was envisioned. Mr. Meisner said he had been contacted by citizens who hoped that %ontext-friendly" was not limited to natural resources, but to residents' front yards as well. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. McNeel said the City was building narrower streets. The street that would be built in this area would be narrow and would be designed in a way that communicated it was a residential street. In addition, traffic calming efforts were included in such projects to avoid future retrofits that might have unintended consequences. Open ditch areas could be retained with the use of slotted curbs, helping to retain the rural character. Sidewalks would be installed on one side of the roadway. Staff intended to keep all improvements within the existing right-of-way and the existing roadway prism. He said the City's standard was for set-back sidewalks, but it might be possible that the sidewalk would be a curbside sidewalk given geographic constraints. Mr. Pap~ requested a memorandum from staff within 30 days regarding what was planned in terms of communicating with the residents of the area. Ms. Nathanson noted that Warren Street in her own neighborhood faced similar issues. She said it was another good example of where context-sensitive standards would be used. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session