Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ suggested that what was historic was a matter of perception. He was concerned that the <br />development of the district not be held up by concern about structures that might or might not be <br />historic. He preferred to identify a historic area and focus on and preserve that area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, called for the question. The motion to <br /> cease debate passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. <br /> Farr, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. <br /> Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the amendment on <br /> the condition it did not affect the demolition contract, and the amendment <br /> passed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend Millrace principle #2 <br /> on page 20 to state that part of the principle is to provide that pedestrians can <br /> walk along the edge of a water feature from Broadway and Mill Street to the <br /> river. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was careful to use the phrase "a water feature" in order not to presuppose the <br />nature of the Millrace. He was merely attempting to codify as a principle what was shown in the <br />diagram; that was, whatever form the Millrace took, a person would be able to walk along it from <br />Broadway and Mill Street to the river. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated support for the amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the amendment as truth in advertising. She said the Millrace was key to the project <br />and to completely minimize the feature was a mistake. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment because of its mandate for absolute continuity. He said that the Planning <br />Commission + 3 had discussed the need for flexibility in the Millrace's width and character, and in terms of the <br />fact it could at some point flow through a building. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he liked the idea in concept but shared Mr. Meisner's concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said he resented the council attempting to remove the detail of the plans away from those better <br />suited than the council to develop those details. He concurred with Mr. Meisner for the reasons stated, and <br />suggested that safety could also be an issue dependent on the details of the design. <br /> <br /> The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. <br /> Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. <br /> Rayor voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the amendment, <br /> and the amendment failed on a final vote of 5:4. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />