02/08/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- future planning. As far as the hotel development was concerned, he said the whole issue speaks to compactness. He hesitated to bring in the hotel issue at this time as there is no insurance a hotel will even be developed there. However, in good planning, provisions should be made for such a development. Mr. Williams questioned the issue of Willamette Street being opened or closed. Mr. Luckman had said he would like a traffic study first. Mr. Williams wondered if Council should make a decision prior to that traffic study. Mr. Lieuallen said if Council assumed and wanted W;llamette Street to be visually opened, the architects can then go ahead on that basis. The matter of traffic circulation can be addressed after receiving a report from the traffic study. Mr. Luckman agreed that that would be workable. Mr. Hamel expressed concern in the development of the auditorium facili- ties, noting first it was for a civic auditorium and then a theatre was added. He hoped the architects would not reach the point of trying to save space that would wreck the whole concept, noting the reduction in footage. Mr. Luckman replied that the footage had been reduced because of the exhibit hall space. which would be provided at Lane County Fairgrounds. The other reduction came in reexamining the excessive amount of square footage allotted for lobbies. He said both facilities had space alloca- tion and equipment to allow them to be deluxe facilities. e Ms. Smith questioned a process regardinl) the public hearing scheduled February 13. There was some concurrenc(~ on the part of Counci 1 members as to whether a public hearing was really needed at this point in time. Mayor Kell er sai d it woul d afford Council the opportuni ty to openly declare that it has every intent of keeping Willamette Street open; also it could be noted the Council has not included the hotel complex in the same' packet. Council ors sti 11 wondered what deci si ons woul d be made and why a public hearing was necessary at the Monday meeting. Mr. Anderson explained that this was the point at which the public should be brought into the picture, noting the only other time the public had had input was on the site selection. The process being followed is: the Commission first screens suggestions, the Council then screens sugges- tions, and then a public hearing is held for public input. He said it was an attempt to try to avoid any surprises among the community as the project progresses. The Commission felt the public should be involved in every step of the process. He said this was one more step in the educa- tional process of the public and it was important that the public be aware that this is not a final plan. He felt the Council should go ahead with the public hearing. Mr. Delay suggested that perhaps a presentation would be better than holding a pUblic hearing. Mr. Anderson said that perhaps a public presentation or public report would be more appropriate. Public hearing connotates adversarial roles that might be adopted by Councilor the . 2/8/78--5 "