05/14/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- Mayor Anderson expressed concern about choice of Plan 2Hset forth in the State Highway re- port because it is the least desirable of any mentioned and because contract between the State and City will have to be renegotiated. He said this decision borders o~ violation of the contract which was accepted as part of a transportation plan to allbw traffic con~ nection to the west. Now there is no alternative offered for a permanent solution to the need for transportation service to the west, pointed out previously, and leaves only the admission that the City is not willing to face the situation squarely and in so doing is passing the decision on to ~he Secretary of Transportation. Mayor continu~d that at no time was 1st Avenue considered a part of the. transportation plan upon which design of the 1-105 extension was based; nothing has changed in that respect. Keeping the ramps open violates acceptable standards of highway construction, 'and is the type of installation which should not knowingly be accepted as adequate for the citizens of the community. Its acceptance also violates land use objectives for regional planning as covered in discus- sions on community goals and the General Plan since it is paramount -that land use planning must relate to a transportation system. In not ~llowing for better transportation facilities to the area to the north and northwest when considering the adopted land use plan, the City is not facing its responsibilities for regional planning. There is still land in that area available for residential development which 'does not' have suitable access to the City, and the 1990 Plan does not indicate stopping, controllling, or even reducing planned growth in that area. - . e With regard to the ESATS plan, Mayor said it hasheen in existence for some time, only re- vision is being considered at this time. So consideration of the revision should not be used as an excuse for inaction and delay to prevent moving forward and developing a transportation system for tpe north and western areas of the community. Mayor ,continued that no updating or revision of ESATS is necessary to make a decision on extending trans- portation' facilities to the north and west. Arguments presented at the several hearings with regard to the ramps have been highly questionable. Concern' has been expressed for maintaining the residential character of the Whiteaker neighborhood, yet a basic knowledge of planning points up the fact that residential development is not acceptable with commercial development, and that more / traffic promotes commercial development. Protests were heard that closing access to 1st Avenue would isolate the Whiteaker area from the rest of the City,_ but isolation does not affect the residential' character of a neighborhood; in fact a few. residential areas desire access to a high~sp~ed facility. He questioped the effect 1st Avenue's use as an arterial would have on the proposed park under the I~105 structure, and whether an impact study so far as use of the ramps had been considered. He mention.ed testimony on a previous rezon- ing issue at this meeting ihdicatiI).gWhiteaker School was losing. pupils .It appears to be a transitional area needing very careful consideration if it is to be :preserved with its present characteristics. The Mayor also noted the expense of some $350,000 for a temporary structure which would give it a degree of permanence. e Mayor Anderson said if the Roosevelt Freeway concept is rejected then a look should be taken at alternat.ives for 6th and 7th and even keeping 1st Avenue open , since.' there is no other good transportation basis for expand~ng. land use planning to the northwest area. This particular corridor is vital and is already affecting development in that area. From a sound planning standpoint it would seem the best way to proceed would be to close the ramps and begin immediately on developing a transportation system in that area. He recog- nized it would be an unpopular decision but unless p;r>ogress is made on a good transporta- tion system in 'that area there will be muchmo;r>e discussion in the future. 'He said it was not: his inten'ttocontinue debate since the Council- has heard all sides of the. question, but he wanted to state his opinion, feeling he would not be diligent were it not entered in the record. . Counciiman'Williams reported he recently returned from a business trip to Washington, D.C. While there he had occasion to visit with a friend on the immediate p8rsonal staff of the Secretary of Transportation and presented to him the problem facing this community with re- gard to the 1st Avenue ramps and the Roosevelt Freeway. The general response was that the Secretary of Transportation at this' time would probaPly not be able to authorize any varia- tion in the State Highway plan. However, if amendments to the Federal Highway Act now be- ing considered are adopted the Secretary would be, permitted to give such authorization, and-it'is felt he might look favorably upon' granting Option 2G. Implementing that alter- nate would give the 'Cityan opportunity tostudy~he process and reach a proper solution. He said even' if the' Secretary had authority to allow deviation from the State Highway.. plan at this time, it is extremely doubtful that he would approve implement ion of Plan 2H. Adoption of Plan 28 at a minimal cost would give' time to establish 'an overall plan, and Mr. Williams felt that considering all trade offs that would be the decision to make. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that staff request the Secretary of Transportation for approval of Plan 28,..through the State Highway .Depart- ment, telling them the City wishes adequate time' to review, update, and adopt a transportation plan for this community that would finally resolve this matter on a permanent basis , and that it is the . City's belief this interim solution would be the most workable at the least cost. \ '5"3 5/14/73 - 13