01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'-' o. . Consideration of John Blayney Associates Proposal for study of Downtown Development West of Central Business District Proposed contract between John Blayney Associates and the City, plus January 12 memo from the Planning Director, have been distributed to Council. Planning . Director explained that action is being taken in this westside area because of a recommendation in the Commercial Needs Study'noting a plan should be prepared for the area. It was also identified in the Neighborhood In~rovement Program as an area needing special study in order to resol ve conflicts between the 1990 Plan and present zoning. A consulting firm is being used because of their . economic analysis ability and skill in regional kinds of matters. The firm is the same one that.did the commercial study and they are familiar with Eugene issues. There is a ceiling on the amount of money that will be spent and . compensation will be made only for work performed. Mr. Saul will be the project director from the staff. Mr, Murray referred to Council motion of July 16 which provided that the development plan for the downtown westside area must provide a means of preserving standa.rd.housing within the area, protect nearby residential streets from . excessive traffic, and guard against speculative zoning pressures on adjacent : neighborhoods. He wondered how these items were dealt with specifically in the agreement. '- . Mr. Saul said that staff was aware of that motion and that the contract took those conditions into consideration. The contract provides, as one of the development strategies to be studied, that~ll new development be residential or rehabilitation of existing structures with standards to be specified. Too, the contract states that there will be an impact analysis of the identified development strategies to evaluate and compare the impact on various interest groups (including residents of the area west of the . IVC1sh ington-Jefferson corridor). This provision speaks to the 'traffic problem. Finally, in response to 'thZ.~'thlnl c',5rj;jTtlon-outTir',;,-; :.Ii f,il" f!Io)t.:',ii, ,~:r. Sau} s,;,i-:1 severed Ul.i:lgS should lJ/.e loo.!:ed at. One is rh...'. rh... ! ri!lld''? [Ju!';:.cse of proct:edinq t-lith a .refinemellt stud!} dnd the purpos,-' .:. .In improvement :;:::ogram i tse! f is all attempt to stabilize expectations about use:: in th,~ [JarEi.:.;:ular area and, to that extent, re.move sl!eculative pressure. The tfli1'.:J. c-or;,::.::tion deals sol.ely wi tll the drea wost oE Jefferson .Strc":ct. To a ,~:t:rtc1i:J excS!nt, that h.ill have to be adchessed by the Westside Neighborhood Quali ty Project itself. There ~'lill have to be a t.io-in bettveen both of these projects. Mr. Hurray suggested including that the scope of the study ought to be dealing with the question of whether or not the plan would increase speculative zoning pressures in these areas. Planning Director responded the purpose of the study is to eliminate speculative kinds of things. Input to the consultants on the discussion of today should be helpful. Mr. Murray said the existing Downtown Westside Association has had considerable amount of speculation going on in that area. He feels this plan will resolve it one way or another, but he thought there might be a chance for speculation to be bumped to some other place. Mr. Saul responded he was referring to that when talking about a tie-in being necessary between the proI~sed contract and the Westside NeighborhOOd Quality Project plan. Also, he said, the study being proposed is part of the neighborhood improverrent program, which covers the larger area.. '- It was understood further discussion would be postponed until the January 21 Committee meeting. 1/26/76 - 24 50 . , .' ". e camm- 1/14/76 Affirm