My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 01/11/06 WS
>
Item A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:04:52 PM
Creation date
1/6/2006 2:37:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/11/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
future; upon adoption; outcomes such as a new community vision or <br />neighborhood refinement plan for River Road and/or Santa Clara could <br />potentially be part of amendments to the outdated 1987 Urban Facilities Plan. <br />Challenges: Would not have the policy status given to a City ADOPTED plan or policy, may <br />not be as comprehensive or enforceable as a neighborhood or city-wide <br />comprehensive plan; may be perceived as a City effort and not one impacted <br />special district service providers necessarily have a stake or commitment in <br /> <br />? <br />Option No2: Develop Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan(s) – <br /> . These could be <br />independent, or a component, of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which is currently undergoing <br />Periodic Review. <br /> <br />Advantages: Deals with a broad range of heritage and planning issues in a comprehensive <br />manner; allows for the practical and strategic selection of the most effective and <br />feasible heritage options; establishes a vehicle for the entire community to <br />participate in planning their future; upon adoption, provides for a benchmark of <br />community agreement and consensus <br />Challenges: Cost of and commitment to such a process may prove prohibitive; timing, <br />financial feasibility, and prior policy decisions may favor simply proceeding with <br />incorporation first (or selecting a couple of heritage programs in isolation); other <br />planning issues may legitimately have priority within the City; such a planning <br />processes may reveal more divisions within the neighborhoods than are <br />presently perceived; issues of equity may arise with other neighborhoods wanting <br />their “own” plan; integrating AND administering a series of neighborhood plans <br />with a required overall City plan will be a challenge. <br /> <br />? <br />Option No. 3: Neighborhood Centers – <br /> Both neighborhoods have been considered forvarious <br />planning options to create neighborhood centers or “nodes” based around commercial services. <br />The presence of historic (or even contemporary) town centers is a vital element in any heritage <br />and community building strategy. As noted under the “Recreation” section of this White Paper, <br />the River Road Parks and Recreation facility at Emerald Park seems to perform many <br />neighborhood center functions, albeit not commercial ones. The City of Eugene has also <br />established a small Lower River Road Nodal Development Area (also referred to as the Rasor <br />Park Mixed Use Area, named after a local parks space within the river greenway) to encourage <br />community oriented redevelopment. <br /> <br />Experience elsewhere suggests that revitalized neighborhood center nodes have common <br />characteristics such as relatively narrow primary commercial streets, some mix of nearby public <br />or quasi-public services and facilities (parks, libraries, theatres, restaurants), and a viable stock of <br />architecturally interesting commercial structures built close to the street (and more or less <br />contiguous with each other -- often for several blocks). Neither River Road nor Beltline Road <br />generally fit this profile. Beltline is dominated by contemporary “inward-looking” commercial <br />development interspersed with transitional older commercial development. River Road is <br />characterized by scattered older commercial structures set back from the street. In both cases, <br />the roadways are wide and very busy, thus functionally dividing potential node(s) in half. Given <br />this lack of “natural” attributes of successful neighborhood nodes, it will be a challenging and <br />probably a capital intensive effort to create such nodes in along River Road and Beltline Road <br />(note: the City currently has no plans for node creation along Beltline Road. Plans for River Road <br />are highlighted below). <br /> <br />Creation of functioning neighborhood centers might be accomplished by establishing a series of <br />smaller neighborhood nodes folded into existing commercial or mixed use developments, but <br />serving areas defined by, rather than subdivided by, major roadways (e.g.: you simply don’t try to <br />get people across a busy roadway in the course of strolling around “their” neighborhood center). <br />More capital intensive neighborhood node creation (at least with respect to traditional City and <br />property owner obligations) could be facilitated by diverting thru-traffic to other arterials and fully <br />26 <br />River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper <br />DRAFT <br />11-24-05 <br /> <br />Service provider Review <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.