06/08/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e lot. The parking and transportation study was referred to the Civic Center Commission on April 4, 1979, and it was approved. This same recommendation was approved by the City Council on April 9, 1979', after extensive public hearings. However, it was decided to delay closure of the street until later, in case minor adjustments were necessary. At this point, everything became pedestrian- oriented. Staff also was faced with subterranean problems which caused diffi- culties in locating the rehearsal hall underneath. They had been considering joint uses of the lower level. Before these decisions were made, the community decided to build the two-block site with the inclusion of the Conference Center and hotel. He showed a map indicating the various types of uses available in that two-block section. These uses included commercial, retail, and public meeting areas. They tried not to duplicate functions in both the Conference Center and the Performing Arts Center. This is more than a street vacation. It became the nucleus of the center. If the street were not vacated, there would be many consequences. $150,000 has been spent on the Master Site Plan, and if the street were not vacated, additional studies would have to be done for designs to include the street. Access to the lower level would be severely impaired, if not impossible. There would be no easy pedestrian access between the facilities. There would be no public open space or outdoor activities area. Retail space in the arcade area would not exist. The continuation concept of the mall would be eliminated and landscaping amenities would be minimal. The art that has been acquired could not be displayed. It seems more important to cater to the Conference Center and hotel than to those who drive automobiles. Ms. Miller asked to what extent design alternatives would be determined by the street closure. Mr. Gleason stated that if the street were not closed, they would have to redesign both facilities since they were designed around the closed street. If that were the case, Ms. Smith asked, who would be responsible for the arcade design and how would it be financed? Mr. Smith stated that Pfeiffer has the contract for design and is responsible for seeing that the integrity of the plan is met. However, they could hire someone to design that space if they chose not to do it themselves. They are almost finished with the design process now and the parameters have been defined. He stated that it is a $1.5 million construction project and he did not know where the money would come from. Mr. Gleason said the current contracts for the Conference Center and the Performing Arts Center include vacation of Willamette Street for use of the common space. If that were not done, redesign of some parts of both would have to occur, and that could be done in phases. He does not know what the cost would be. Ms. Wooten asked what public amenities are in the common area now and what provisions there are for bike transportation and handicapped access. Mr. Smith stated that the total area is accessible at all levels by the handicapped. Bicyclists and pedestrians have access through and about the open space and access is available for emergency vehicles. They have retaining walls in place and a base for forming the arcade. Also, a major piece of art work has been acquired for that area. Mr. Lindberg asked if there are ways in which the open space would be used as an activity and mobility center. He asked if this would be a link between the downtown mall and the 5th Street Market district. Mr. Smith stated that this project will be a major pedestrian generator in itself. The access to 5th Street Public Market is a possibility. The hotel and the Conference Center want access to the north. The continuation is important. Pedestrian traffic will be heavy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 2