07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, felt the petitioners were not getting fair treatment. I-B-k He read portions of the Livingston & Blayney commercial study and said it should be considered an interim report, that the petitioners should not be made to await the - Council's action on that report, especially since a decision on their request had been delayed first by a moratorium. Councilman Williams commented (speaking as one who had supported the moratorium) that things had gone beyond all reason or rationale. He felt the request to make a decision was legitimate and proper and that specific treatment should be accorded. N.Bailey Lane Right-of-way Acquisition - Sidewalk from Coburg Road east 355.3~ feet Ethel Gustafson, 30 Bailey Lane - Originally authorized by the Council on August 28, 1974 but filed because bids on construction of the walk were con- sidered too high. Comm There were no objections to placing a resolution for negotiation and 7/9/75 condemnation for acquisition of the right-of-way on the consent Approve calendar for approval. o. Status Report, Eugene Commercial Study - Copies of memo from planning Department giving status report on the Livingston & Blayney commercial study were distributed to Council members with the agenda. The memo listed study recommendations together with planning commission recommendations and they were reviewed by Jim Saul, planner: L&B Recommendation No. 1 - During the annual General Plan review, several potential regional shopping center sites should be identified and pro- tected from piecemeal development. Planning Commission Recommendation - Request review of the recommendation. e by the Co-ordinating Committee (representatives from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County planning commissions), identify potential sites, and recommend appropriate action to the respective commissions. Mr. Saul said the Commission in discussing this recommendation made clear its con- cerns about identifying potential regional sites but at the same time felt the L&B report provided enough information to indicate the possibility of the private sector's developing a regional center. Recognizing the "metropolitan nature" of this recommendation the Commission thought the co-ordinating committee was the appropriate place for discussion, and that if the committee agreed actual identifi- cation of sites should occur, only then would it take place. The Commission also emphasized Eugene's concern about maintaining the vitality of its downtown area and the existing regional center.at Valley River, and in considering the possibility of a third such center thought the overall public good and community goals should be taken into account. He referred to February 24, 1975 Commission minutes for clari- fication of this particular recommendation which had already been referred to the Council. Although the Council had previously considered the recommendation and met jointly with the Planning Commission at which both consultants (LeBlanc and Livingston & Blayney) were present, no fo~mal action has yet been taken. Councilman Keller wondered about the political issue between the three governing bodies, whether it would be possible to control regional sites in view of changes now occurring [private development north of Springfield]. Mr. Saul said in recog- nition of that concern planning staff and the Commission felt there should be an attempt at the co-ordinating level to achieve agreement between the three juris- e dictions. He said one of the problems may have been relative limited co-ordination. Assistant Manager added that questions of location of facilities within corporate limits of one jurisdiction and its impact upon the other jurisdiction would be worthy of discussion between the agencies. The first question in this instance is whether the Counci~ accepts the concept of designating potential sites. If it 7/16/75 - 14 3?~,,7