10/31/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ball said he did not want to foreclose any options. He as ked the e council if deleting the language would still allow consideration of that option in the future. Ms. Wooten responded that the action could be recon- sidered if evidence supported the proposal. She explained that the motion meant that the consideration for any further reopening would not be performed in the immediate future. Ms. Schue agreed, stating that she did not want to put the energy into the consideration at this time. Mr. Ob i e stated tha t he was prepared to suggest alternative language to ask the Downtown Commission to consider further reopening in conjunction with an evaluation of the opening between 10th and 11th avenues and the major retail development in the downtown. Councilor Holmer said he was concerned with the implication of the motion in that it stated that council was not interested in any consideration of the further reopening of Willamette Street. He felt that deletion of the language would also delete any direction to evaluate the effects of the reopening between 10th and 11th avenues. Mr. Ball assumed that traffic patterns in the downtown would be studied when any major retail development occurred in that area. Mr. Gleason explained that the proposed footprint of the retail develop- ment center was designed to work either with or without the opening of Willamette Street. Mayor Ke 11 er sta ted tha t he supported the del eti on in order to clarify the plan language. Mr. Hansen commented that he opposed the motion because it stated that the council would not consider the reopening of Willamette Street between 8th and 10th avenues. Mr. Ball said he interpreted the motion differently and would support the motion. In response to a question by Mr. Hansen, Ms. Wooten stated that staff had indicated that a motion was necessary to affirm the deletion of the language from the plan because of the e separate consideration which took place at the time of the original motion. In response to a question by Mr. Obie, Mayor Keller stated that the motion to delete the language was responding to a request to consider the language separately from the balance of Option 2. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the language would also address the design section of the plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; Councilors Wooten, Ball, Bascom, Ehrman, and Schue voting aye; and Councilors Obie, Hansen, and Holmer voting nay. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to delete the following language from item e. of Implementation Strategy 5.1 in Option 2 of the Downtown Plan Draft: "and provide a turnout for traffic on the north side of 10th Avenue at Wi1lamette Street." Councilor Wooten felt that the turnout would consume too large a portion of the southern portion of the mall, would create further congestion of Willamette Street, and was unnecessary because of the dropoff points already existing at Oak and Olive streets. She also said she did not understand its visual or commercial impact on the adjacent properties. Mr. Obie responded that those concerns were related to the design element. He felt that the turnout may be valuable to the mall as a piCkUp or dropoff point in light of the con~estion considerations discussed. He said he was hesitant to support the motlon and imply that the council would not consider the turnout. Ms. Bascom said she - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 31, 1984 Page 7