Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mr. Kelly thanked the council for considering his amendments, and expressed frustration he was unable to get <br />assistance from staff two weeks ago to improve them. He said that the council had been unwilling to codify a <br />reduction in the number of lanes on Broadway as speculative, even though it had no problem codifying that 6th <br />Avenue would be two lanes. He was appalled that the council was not willing to guarantee that people could <br />walk along the length of the Millrace. Mr. Kelly could not support the plan as a result. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that to be truly democratic, the City should allow for more time to let those without a vested <br />interest provide input into the concept plan. She called for a broad public process. She was opposed to the <br />extension of 6th Avenue and said it will serve as another barrier to the river. She said that concerns about the <br />Millrace and historic preservation were also relevant to her opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated opposition to the concept plan because of the 6th Avenue extension. The City would <br />decrease the value of its own property by enveloping it with two State highways. She questioned how <br />residential development could be accomplished successfully next to a State highway. Ms. Bettman said that it <br />was possible the City could see an extension of both 6th and 7th avenues or a wider 6th Avenue in light of the <br />lack of a firm commitment from ODOT. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He noted that the Planning Commission + 3 voted not to consider an arena <br />in the courthouse area. However, he did not object to the language being added because it allowed for <br />exploration of the option with the acknowledgment that other sites were being considered. He hoped that the <br />University of Oregon considered building a new arena downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commended the work done by staff, in particular Ms. Laurence. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also supported the motion, saying the planning process included a wide variety of individuals <br />with a broad range of expertise. She supported the concept plan because of its support for promoting new <br />connections between downtown, the river, and the university, increased access to the river, the incorporation of <br />the Millrace, and a new entrance to downtown. The plan created a new neighborhood with one very exciting <br />building already proposed. She hoped there was more to come, and that the plan made such development <br />feasible. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commended staff for developing text that kept the arena concept alive without locking it in. He <br />wished the council would avoid leveling criticism at staff at the council meeting table. He apologized to staff. <br />Mr. Farr reminded Ms. Taylor that the United States was a republic, not a democracy. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the plan. He said that the key to the plan was the road design, which he thought <br />facilitated traffic movement through the area. Mr. Rayor said he did not think the site appropriate for an <br />arena. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd also supported the plan. Speaking to Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Papd said part of <br />democracy was compromise, and noted that two of Mr. Kelly's amendments had been adopted by the council. <br />He suggested that the other two could be informally incorporated into the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Papd said that the area in question was a very difficult area to plan for. He determined from Mr. Carlson <br />that the recommended action regarding the arena was consistent with what the University of Oregon was <br />asking the council to do. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 31, 2002 Page 14 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />