Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/20/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall September 20, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – City Hall Complex City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Jonah Cohen of Thomas Hacker Architects and Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell to lead the discussion of narrowing site options for a City Hall complex as a result of the feedback from community forums. Mr. Cohen thanked the council for the opportunity to work with it over the past year. He noted that the council decided in a previous work session that the City Hall complex should be consolidated to the greatest practical extent but had not yet decided if the police patrol functions would be combined with other City Hall functions or in a separate facility. He said the council also decided to eliminate the renovation and hybrid options and move the project forward based on new construction. He said the focus of the current work session was to narrow the list of 25 site options to two or three sites that would be carried forward to the conceptual design step, which would occur over the next two or three months. Mr. Cohen explained that conceptual design was an architectural term that referred to a process of laying out the different divisions of a building to determine how they fit together on a specific site or sites, taking into account sustainable design opportunities, planning for open space, public and services access, expansion potential, security issues and implications of the integration or separation of police patrol functions. He said the process would also begin to explore how the spaces might translate into a physical form or massing models. He emphasized that the council was not being asked to make a decision regarding police consolidation and stated that the design team agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to narrow the sites to Site 8 (Rock N Rodeo/Butterfly Lot) and Site 9 (existing City Hall) because both sites were very compelling. He said the fact that one site was a full block and the other a smaller block would stimulate good dialogue about density issues in Eugene. Mr. Penwell provided an update on the following sites: ? The former Sears site – A majority of participants at the last community forum indicated a desire to consider it for City Hall but three responses had been received to the recent request for proposals (RFP) for private development. The proposals appeared to be good quality and responsive and that was why the site was not being recommended for further exploration. MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 1 Work Session ? The existing City Hall site – Over 300 nonprofit agencies were contacted regarding interest in the site and one statement of interest had been received. That statement expressed an interest in receiv- ing monetary assistance from the City. There was long-term potential for market rate development but short-term prospects were not promising. ? Butterfly Lot/Rock N Rodeo site – Discussions with Lane County did not rule out the possibility of acquiring the Butterfly Lot, but if that action was pursued, it was agreed that the action should be mutually beneficial to both agencies and to the community as a whole. There had been no contact with private owners, including the owner of Rock N Rodeo property, but contact would be made if the site moved to the next phase. Mr. Papé asked if there were reasons other than the RFP for eliminating the Sears site and the potential of buying the entire block for a civic center. Mr. Penwell said because of the existing public development at that location, the site was seen as a prime opportunity for private development. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Penwell said there were three private owners of the Rock N Rodeo and adjacent parcels. Mr. Poling commented that the information obtained from the public forums was very interesting and he appreciated the work involved in reaching out to the community. He thanked those who had participated in the forums. He expressed concern with limiting the number of sites before there had been some contact with the private property owners to determine if they were interested. He hoped there would be some minimal outreach to those owners before a decision was made. Ms. Bettman questioned the extent to which the public understood the benefits of a higher intensity development instead of a lower scale building. Mr. Cohen said there was considerable discussion of that by small groups during the forums. He said a number of graphic exhibits of the density implications of different sites—half block v. whole block—were provided and the participants indicated preference for a larger site because there seemed to be greater comfort with less density and more potential for onsite expansion and open space. Ms. Bettman remarked that a larger site with dedicated open space would require the rest of the site to be denser. She wondered if the values, cost savings, and implications for sustainability of a more intensely dense development were discussed. Mr. Cohen said there was not a detailed discussion of that. Ms. Bettman asked for elaboration on the term “mutually beneficial” regarding discussions with the County about the Butterfly Lot. Mr. Penwell said there was recognition that the parking spaces in the lot were heavily used and would need to be replaced in some manner and that the County anticipated future facility needs as did the City and both entities owned property. He cautioned that the discussions were in very general terms. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to ensure there was no implication of co-location with the County. Mr. Penwell replied there was no suggestion of co-location or combined facilities. Ms. Bettman was pleased with the outreach to nonprofit organizations but concerned with marketability of the current City Hall if another site was chosen. She asked why staff had limited their inquiries about marketability to six local developers, the preponderance of whom had vested interests in downtown, instead of including developers from other areas in the state such as Portland and Salem who could have been more MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 2 Work Session objective. She said ruling the existing City Hall out in terms of its marketability for sale on those six opinions seemed limiting and asked for staff’s rationale. Mr. Penwell replied that Ms. Bettman’s question underscored the difficulty of trying to discuss development ideas and property in an arena that was very competitive and secretive. He said that staff contacted other developers, including ones in Portland, and one that specialized in reuse of existing facilities, but only six were willing to speak on the record. He said even those six developers were reticent about the short-term prospects for redevelopment. Ms. Bettman asked if redevelopment meant actually changing the structure as opposed to someone purchasing the property and using it for another purpose until it became financially viable to redevelop it. Mr. Penwell said the overriding sentiment was that developers could extract some income from the existing facility, especially the parking, for some period of time until the market was such that development opportunities made it cost effective to demolish the structure and build something with greater density and mix of uses. Mr. Pryor said he also was reluctant to start narrowing site choices but recognized the value of beginning to have some certainty. He was willing to move forward because he believed the current site was the best choice; the City owned the property and it comprised a full block. He did not think that City government should be “shoe-horned” into a smaller space. He said that Site 8 was next to an historic building—the Smeede Hotel—and he would be reluctant to demolish if more space was required. He said that half blocks had problems with access, public space and other issues that would not exist with a full block site. He said the City was wise to own a full block when the current facility was built and would be wise to retain that full block in its possession for future needs, including the City Hall. Ms. Taylor reiterated her position that the current building should be renovated, but if there was going to be a new building the Sears site should not be eliminated because it was already owned by the City and close to public transit and the library. Regarding the Sears site, Mayor Piercy said if the three RFP responses were as good as anticipated that would fulfill the council’s desire for mixed-use development in downtown. For that reason she was reluctant to use it for the City Hall when it could provide an opportunity for mixed-use development and stimulate other desirable activities in the area. She was open to the sites recommended by the City Manager. She stressed her interest in a component of City Hall that connected it to the community, perhaps through a cultural center that would help educate about the history of various groups and the roles they have played in the community. Mr. Kelly declared he was comfortable narrowing the site options as it was necessary to further any design concepts. He said if neither of the two recommended sites proved viable, the council could always reconsider other sites at a later date. He was not opposed to a full block site but pointed out that most small cities did not hesitate at half or quarter block higher rise development. He agreed with Mayor Piercy’s remarks about the Sears site and the importance of a publicly interesting space such as a cultural center in a new city hall. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to narrow the options, but was concerned that if none of the current proposals for the former Sears site were successful, the City would be left with a big hole in the ground. She wanted to see the motion include language that the Sears site would be included pending successful outcome of the RFP process to avoid removing it entirely from consideration. Regarding the current site, she preferred to spend money on amenities and square footage rather than on rent and related expenses to MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 3 Work Session move out and back in. She said the Butterfly Lot was a good site but was concerned about impacts on the Farmers Market during construction. Ms. Bettman observed that some forum participants viewed the City Hall as a mixed-use development and re-emphasized that mixed-use did not have to happen all in the same building or even all in the same block; it just needed to be in proximity. She did not believe the City as a public entity should be creating an unfair competitive field for the businesses that were in downtown and would likely benefit by the public investment by creating more competition that was publicly subsidized. She was opposed to commercial space within City Hall. Mr. Papé commended the design team for its work. He hoped that media representatives at the work session would digest the agenda materials and get word out to the community that there was objective documented evidence to support pursuing specific options. He was not ready to eliminate the Sears site and asked whether the current City Hall site or the Sears site was more ready for development. Mr. Penwell said that site preparation was a very small percentage of the overall project cost and not a significant factor. Mr. Papé asserted his interest in continuing to consider the Sears site as an option because of its location. Mr. Hacker commented that work of the design team suggested that private mixed-use development was easier and more attractive on sites that were very close to central public transportation. He said the library also made the Sears site more attractive for housing than the current City Hall site. He said keeping the Sears site as an active option could potentially scare away private developers, which the City wanted to avoid, but he favored retaining it as a possibility if the proposed development did not happen. The design team believed the Sears site was better as a private development than as a public development because it would provide a mix of urban activities in off-hours and weekends that a public facility would not. He felt the City would benefit more from private development of the Sears site. Mr. Papé asked if any public entity had entered into an “air space” arrangement where a block was developed with mixed-use on the ground floor and public offices such as City Hall above that. Mr. Hacker replied that public entities had done that but he was not aware of any projects that included a city hall. City Manager Taylor and Mr. Cohen offered examples of that type of development with a library as the public function. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Hacker said that the Sears site could be added for consideration at a later date if the council wished to move the two recommended sites to the conceptual design phase. He explained that conceptual design was a vehicle to identify the various issues and understand their implications for both full block and half block sites. He said that would not prevent the council from choosing an entirely different site either for study or for the city hall. He said a full schematic design process would follow the conceptual design. Ms. Taylor asked if conceptual designs for full and half blocks could be done without specific sites. Mr. Hacker replied that conceptual design was not completely abstract and it was necessary to understand street direction and capacities, public access and other factors as related to a particular site. He said an entirely abstract process would not teach the kinds of things the design team and council needed to know. He said the assumption was that Site 8 or Site 9, or possibly the Sears site if private development did not occur, would be the eventual site of the new City Hall and the conceptual design would assist the council in making the final site selection. MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz inquired about the status of the Whole Foods project and related land swap with The Shedd. City Manager Taylor said he was optimistic that the project would continue to move forward as originally conceived with a parking structure, then the land swap would occur; however, if only the grocery store project went forward there would be no land swap and the City would still own a half block across from the current City Hall. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that discussing the Sears site would send mixed messages to the community. She agreed the site should be considered if none of the three proposals was successful but until that happened it should not be an option for the City Hall. She appreciated Mayor Piercy’s comments about including a cultural component to connect the building to the community. She encouraged City staff to have conversations with any private owners whose sites might be considered to inform them of the City’s interest. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Hacker’s comments on the value of the Sears site for private development and Ms. Ortiz’s comments on sending mixed messages. He was not opposed to keeping the site in mind and would support amending the suggested motion to include language that would make it clear the preference was for private development. He offered the following language: Consider Site 19 if the current RFP process did not result in a project. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for a thorough outreach on redevelopment of the current site and acknowledged the letter of interest from DIVA (Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts) and those in support of a visual arts center. He agreed that a visual arts center in downtown should be a civic priority but was not certain the current City Hall building was the best choice. He asked for the consultants’ views on Site 17 and Site 14. Mr. Cohen clarified that there was a definite recommendation at the public forum for a combination of sites 17 and 19. Mr. Hacker said that Site 17 on Broadway was not a good location for City Hall functions because Broadway should be all retail for the sake of commerce and the type of urban activity the City wished to encourage. He said Site 17 would only work in combination with Site 19. He said that Site 14 should be considered as a half block and a quarter block; being next to the park blocks was a plus, but the negative factor for the site was its north/south orientation, which would not allow for the most sustainable design principles. He said the Butterfly Lot was significantly better because it had the park blocks and an east/west orientation. He reminded the council that there was a proposal to restore the full park block on the north th side of 8 Avenue and the design team strongly supported that as it would provide more space for the Saturday and Farmers markets and make a good public forecourt for the City Hall if it was located on the Butterfly Lot site. Ms. Bettman said the council’s interest in the Sears site if the RFP process was not successful should be articulated to the public. She said that going through the schematic process on that site could determine it was not the best site but it should move forward in that process with the caveat that the council hoped one of the three proposals would be successful. She was concerned about Mr. Kelly’s suggested language as it seemed to preclude doing the schemata until perhaps there was a development there, which would take it out of the process in the meantime. She thought it more likely there would be development on the Sears site than on the half block site across from the existing City Hall. She wondered if that site should be considered as well since the City already owned it, it was a half block and in an advantageous location that would not MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 5 Work Session preclude other development. She suggested including the half block site in the schematic process in case the Whole Foods projects did not occur. Mr. Cohen clarified that Ms. Bettman was referring to the conceptual design process; the schematic process would occur after that phase. He reminded the council that the design team would complete two variations for each site: one with the police patrol function and one without. He wanted the council to be aware there would be twice as many concepts as sites in order to understand all of the implications and the potential for four sites meant a significant amount of work. Ms. Bettman noted that there was already a significant amount of information available on the existing City th Hall site and the half block across 8 Avenue so it would be incrementally more work but not twice as much work. She stated her preference to sell the current building or convert it to another use such as an arts venue or permanent structure for a year-round market. Mr. Penwell asked if there was a compromise that could take forward to the conceptual design process sites th 8 and 9, plus a generic half block site that could represent either the site across 8 Avenue from the current th City Hall or the Sears site. Mr. Hacker said the difference in orientation and location of the Sears and 8 Avenue sites would fundamentally change how each site was dealt with. He felt both sites were unique although there were some shared generic factors among all sites. He said the limited amount of calendar time and budgeted consultant time could result in less depth if more sites were included in the conceptual design process. Mr. Papé said the deliberations convinced him that the Butterfly Lot was a good choice. He asked if West Park Street could be vacated. Mr. Penwell replied that it would require a land use action but could be done. Mr. Kelly said he would prefer to see an indepth study of two sites in the conceptual design process rather th than a less comprehensive study of four sites and would not favor moving either the Sears or 8 Avenue sites to conceptual design at this point. Mayor Piercy suggested not using the phrase “eliminate all sites” in the motion and simply moving sites 8 and 9 forward to conceptual design. There were no objections to the suggestion. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the consultants to move for- ward with Site 8 and Site 9 for developing concept designs for a new City Hall. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion but did not favor the existing City Hall site for demolition and rebuilding. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 6 Work Session City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—City Council September 20, 2006 Page 7 Work Session