Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman wanted to know where the lane reduction proposed for 6th Avenue appeared in the <br />plan. She assumed that access to the State highway would be limited, and asked how that would <br />help the redevelopment of the area. Ms. Laurence said that page 28 addressed the phasing of <br />the street improvements. The first phase included the local street improvements needed to serve <br />the courthouse immediately, and the second phase included the placement of 6th Avenue along <br />the railroad tracks. The third phase would be improvements to Mill Street and Broadway. Mr. <br />Reinhard added that the alternatives analyzed for the different transportation schemes had not <br />been approved yet by ODOT. He said staff anticipated that redirecting some of the traffic along <br /> th <br />the new 6 Avenue alternative would reduce the amount of traffic going north through the Mill <br />Street and 8th Avenue intersection, which would reduce the number of lanes that must be crossed. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman's question regarding access to the State highway, Mr. Reinhard <br />indicated that ODOT had not yet reviewed the access management proposal. Staff was assuming <br />that there would be more access restrictions along a State highway, such as 6th Avenue. He <br />anticipated there could be access to 6th Avenue at Ferry Street and 8th Avenue, but not necessarily <br />between those two points. There might be an access point between street intersections to serve <br />the courthouse, but those details had not been worked out. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked about the amount of traffic carried by the two roads traveling around the <br />courthouse area. M r. Reinhard estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles would be carried by 6th <br />Avenue, and that 8th Avenue traffic would be more local in nature, with about 5,000 to 10,000 <br />vehicles each day. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked about the ODOT position on the design and the procedure for getting ODOT <br />approval for the design. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT was waiting to see what the City did before <br />doing more extensive analysis of the proposed design. He said that ODOT had been involved in <br />the planning process to this point and recognized the design that was ultimately chosen would <br />require a considerable amount of analysis. He added that from a State highway perspective, <br />traffic was moving well, so ODOT was not actively promoting a 6th Avenue alternative. However, <br />ODOT recognized the importance of the concept plan and wanted to participate as a partner. <br />ODOT would attempt to blend its different objectives, some established by statute, with the <br />concept plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Laurence noted that Attachment C-2 in the meeting packet contained a memorandum from <br />Mr. Reinhard with more information on the various transportation options. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the location of the Millrace alignment, Ms. <br />Laurence said staff had provided some diagrams showing the alignment of the Millrace. She <br />traced the existing alignment on the wall map. She did not know where the new Millrace would be <br />located because it had yet to be designed. That design depended on the direction of the council. <br />Mr. Rayor wanted to see the future alignment in the form of a drainage easement across the site <br />so that development could not occur across the alignment. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments regarding the Millrace, Mr. Rayor said he did not understand <br />why the planned open space for the site could not be linear and protected by a drainage <br />easement so that in the future a daylighted Millrace could be considered a s part of the open <br />space, which would not take away from developable space. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />