Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MAY 9, 1978 <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Extension project now under construction) to a point at or near Market Street, with <br /> <br />intermediate connections from Bridge Street, be assigned a first priority; (that) the <br /> <br />extending of Commonwealth Boulevard, from Fairy Street Extension (across Chatham Heights) <br /> <br />to Route 58 East (at a point near the City's east corporate limits) be assigned Priority <br /> <br />No.2; and (that) certain access street improvements and/or connectors for the recommended <br /> <br />Mulberry Road project (at or near its terminus at Market Street) be held for review. <br /> <br />Appearing before Council in support of giving a "number-one" priority to the Commonwealth <br /> <br />Boulevard extension project and contending that factors of convenience, access, safety, <br /> <br />alleviation of traffic congestion, and cost effectiveness would over-ride those of the <br /> <br />Mulberry Road project, were Mr. George W. Lester, II (of American Standard Homes), <br /> <br />Mr. Joseph W. Howell (of Mitchell-Howell Ford), Mr. William C. Cole, III (of the Tultex <br /> <br />Corporation), Mr. Estes B. Gibson (of The Kroger Company), and Mr. Roy C. Stone (of the <br /> <br />Roy Stone Transfer Corporation and several allied trucking firms), whose businesses or <br /> <br />firms are located on or near Commonwealth Boulevard. After further discussion, including <br /> <br />an inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Womack (of 200 Fourth Street) as to whether the construction <br /> <br />proposals and/or the City's Thoroughfare Plan encompass (i.e., take into consideration) the <br /> <br />need for access from the West Fayette Street area, a motion by Councilman Greene, to accept <br /> <br />the City Administration's proposal, failed for lack of a second; and, a motion by Councilman <br /> <br />Oakes (duly seconded), to assign Priority No.1 to the Commonwealth Boulevard project and <br /> <br />Priority No.2 to the Mulberry Road project, ended in a tie vote (Messrs. Oakes and Cole <br /> <br />voting in the affirmative, and Messrs. Hobson and Greene voting in the negative). A third <br /> <br />motion, to assign parallel priorities to the two proposed projects (for planning and review <br /> <br />purposes and State Highway Department study), pending a presentation of findings by the <br /> <br />State Highway Department, with Council to select first and second priorities thereafter, <br /> <br />carried by a vote of three-to-one (Councilman Greene voting "No"). The motion included the <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />- <br />