Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/1986 Meeting . . . M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 28, 1986 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Richard Hansen. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten. The adjourned meeting from May 27, 1986, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. ITEMS FROM THE MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Obie welcomed Downtown Commission Chair Michael Schwartz and Councilor-elect Rob Bennett. Mr. Obie invited Mr. Bennett to attend subsequent council meetings as part of the orientation process. A. Historic Review Board Mr. Holmer said he had been perplexed at the Historic Review Board's decision last week to grant landmark status to the Kennell-Ellis Studio Building. He noted that the Florence Apartments had existed prior to the "ugly building next door." Mr. Holmer said he had again been perplexed by the Historic Review Board's decision yesterday to deny the proposed demolition of the "ugly and middle-aged" grain storage building that stood in the path of the Eugene Water and Electric Board Master Plan, which already had been approved by the Downtown Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Mr. Holmer said the "useless ugliness" of the building did not deserve preservation. He said he ranked December 12, 1984 as a "Day of Infamy," because that was the day the council had re- established the Historic Review Board, with Ms. Bascom casting the only opposing vote. He said the action had been taken as part of an effort to reduce the number of appeals to the council from decisions by citizen boards. Mr. Holmer said he thought more opportunities for appeals to the council were needed, particularly with regard to the Historic Review Board. He said the basic composition of the board did not represent a general body of citizens. Mr. Holmer read code qualifications for the board, including the Director of the Lane County Museum or a designee; one with knowledge of historic preservation; one with knowledge of Lane County history; one with an interest in preservation activities; one with an interest in landscape architecture; one with an interest in historic preservation; and one with an interest in public relations. Mr. Holmer said the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 1 . . . qualifications seemed to him and to at least one member of the board to be a recipe for an advocacy group, rather than for a policy-making body. He said he thought review also was needed because the criteria for historic landmark designation included specifics that could be applied to any building in the city. He said he hoped others shared his concern about the recent actions of the Historic Review Board and the City Councills exclusion from the process. He said he hoped to redefine the role of the board and the council's relationship to it. He also said strong advocacy of truly historic preservation was needed, but should be tempered by an adequate consideration of other aspects of specific needs of the City. Responding to Mr. Obie's question, Mr. Holmer said he thought at least a mechanism was needed to allow appeals of HRB decisions to the council. Mr. Rutan said he had served on the subcommittee that had drafted and approved the HRB process. He said if process were goi ng to be re- examined, he thought other issues like land use would have greater impact in the community. Mr. Holmer said he was concerned more explicitly with process, but he said he also was concerned with an advocacy group having the power to block projects. Mr. Rutan said he thought the issue warranted discussion, adding that he favored discussing more than just the Historic Review Board. Responding to Ms. Schue's question, Mr. Rutan said appeals of HRB decisions now could be made to the Planning Commission. City Manager Mike Gleason said some difficulty had been experienced in trying to coordinate the workplan of the HRB with adopted policies of the Planning Commission and City Council. He said he thought re-examination was warranted and also had been discussed as part of the Planning Commission workplan. Mr. Gleason also said he thought the council should look at ways to include general, comprehensive policies in appeal processes, rather than dealing with each problem as a precedent-setting event. He added that results generally were acceptable at present. Mr. Holmer said he also was concerned about the proliferation of appeals, addi ng that he favored the "Supreme Court approach" that had been suggested to allow a council decision on whether to hear appeals. Mr. Hansen said the subcommittee on boards and commissions had recommended bringing to the council the issue of the Historic Review Board's authority. He said he favored a discussion. Mr. Mi 11 er said ordi nances mi ght need refi nement, and he noted that interpretation of ordinances also might be a problem. He said boards that dealt with issues based on ordinances did not, and should not have, the latitude that could be taken within reason by the City Council. He said he thought things seemed to work well for the most part, but exceptions might require changes to ordinances or some other action. Councilors agreed to hold a further discussion of the councills role in general appeal process, including that of the Historic Review Board. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 2 . . . B. Local Officials' Fallout Shelter Mr. Miller noted that the Federal Government had requested the construction of fallout shelters for local officials. He said he wondered whether Eugene could build its shelter in the form of an airport, so it could be used in the meantime. He said he did not want to be included in the fallout shelter, addi ng that the construction request was "the dumbest thing I've ever heard." Mr. Miller also noted that the request would involve expenditures, and he asked whether a response should be made. Mr. Obie said he would like to know more about the rationale for the request. Mr. Gleason said the Federal Emergency Management Agency had been created in 1953 to deal with civil defense and nuclear involvement. He said the agency's first plan had been to evacuate residents of major cities to smaller cities, and that had nearly reached the adoption stage before cities pointed out practical objections like providing sufficient food, water and sanitation. Mr. Gleason said he thought it would be appropriate to ask FEMA to provide a written report on the proposal. Mayor Obie directed staff to request a report. C. Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority Ms. Schue announced that the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority board was meeting this afternoon to discuss financing for continued operation. She said Lane County had contributed some funds, but they might not be sufficient. She also said the authority could not be a Eugene-Springfield operation because of the resulting loss of Federal funds. Mr. Gleason said if LRAPA was not continued, the State Department of Environmental Quality would become the air pollution permit and appeal agency. He added that he thought local control was a significant business issue. Mr. Hansen noted that Ms. Schue was serving as second-term chair of the board. D. Airport Task Force Mayor Obie said the Airport Task Force soon would be meeting to develop a recommendation for the council. He requested that, if a recommendation were made to submit a proposal for public funding, at least one alternate proposal using already anticipated funding sources also be included. Ms. Schue and Mr. Rutan expressed their agreement. II. ABATEMENT OF UNSAFE STRUCTURE AT 2800 CITY VIEW City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Marsha Miller of the Public Works Department presented a resolution authorizing abatement of an unsafe structure at 2800 City View. She said the resolution had been revised after last night's council meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 3 . . . Ms. Miller read changes to Section 2, which ordered named parties to apply for a permit to construct an enclosure around the structure at 2800 City View. The enclosure was to consist of a securely erected fence, at least seven feet tall, and of a type acceptable to building officials, with no gaps larger than four inches (excepting gates or doors), and should discourage climbing or crawling under, Ms. Miller said. She added that construction should be completed within 20 days of issuing the permit. Ms. Miller said if the enclosure was constructed as required, parties of interest were ordered within 40 days hereof (on or before July 7) to correct unsafe conditions and to apply for a permit for demolition or reconstruction. She said parties were ordered to proceed in a workerlike manner in accordance with permits, and if the permit was for demolition, to complete demol ition within 30 days. No time 1 imit was set for reconstruction. Ms. Miller said she thought the revisions would address immediate concerns about public safety and would allow the 40 days requested by the parties to work out legal issues. Responding to questions, staff said the fence could be ordered constructed and would be sufficient to secure the swimming pool on the premises. Mr. Miller suggested recommending that the pool be kept drained. Mr. Gleason said some pools could not be drained, so staff would have to check on that possibility. Mr. Rutan said the pool was not the biggest hazard at the site. Gary Patterson, an officer with Lane Escrow and Title Company, said title companies were only trustees, and he asked why they were named as parties and whether they then would have any legal responsibility. Ms. Miller said the Eugene Code stated that owners and parties of interest were responsible for maintaining the property. Mr. Patterson said the trustee had no legal right to enter the property. Mr. Gleason said that issue would need to be discussed with the City Attorney and the Building Division. He said it was City practice to list all parties of interest in orders, but whether one of those parties could act unilaterally was an issue among the parties. He added that the issue before the council was the public safety interest. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution as modified. The motion carried 5:0. Mr. Gleason said staff would have the City Attorney review the responsibilities of parties of interest. III. BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Development Director Abe Farkas presented the staff report. He said the City Council on June 18 was scheduled to receive a recommendation from the Downtown Commission on improvements to the Broadway Corridor. He said he would outline the project's relation to the Downtown Plan and other project elements; review MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 4 . the action plan for the project; discuss functions of the City Council, the City Council as Eugene Renewal Agency, and the Downtown Commission; and present the scope of the project. Mr. Farkas said the Downtown Plan comprised a "kaleidoscopic" vision of goals and implementation strategies for achieving those varied goals. He said the Broadway Improvement Project was a key element in marketability and design enhancements. Mr. Farkas descri bed the deci si on-maki ng process. He said the Downtown Commission had recommended a draft Downtown Plan, which had been adopted by the City Council and which provided the policy directive for further action. He said the Downtown Commission also proposed a capital improvements program for City Council adoption on an annual basis. The Downtown Commission then developed a public process for projects, and the city council had an opportunity to review the processes. The Downtown Commission outlined the scope of possibilities (clarifying and delineating options for each project), and the City Council reviewed options and directed further proceedings. Finally, the Downtown Commission made a recommendation on specific projects and budgets, and the City Council acted as Urban Renewal Agency in approving projects and budgets. . Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Mr. Farkas said the awning project was part of the implementation strategy to provide weatherized protection. He added that budget allocations for projects needed to be made more accurate. Mr. Gleason said installation of the awnings was part of the Broadway project. Mr. Farkas said the program had been approved by the Downtown Commission, and was financed by tax allocation funds appropriated in this round of the budget process. He added that merchants now could apply to receive awnings. Mayor Obie said the City Council had approved the Downtown Plan, which had authorized implementation of the awning program. He said if that action was not wanted, changes should be made now. Mr. Hansen said he thought approval of the plan had been unclear. Mr. Farkas said the plan had been approved with strategies for weather protection, and the awning program was one strategy. Mr. Hansen said he did not favor reviewing each item, but he did want involvement in funding decisions. Mr. Gleason said programs generally were the prerogative of the Downtown Commission as long as budget authority existed. He suggested that if councilors had concerns, they request that the Council Committee on Economic Diversification review concerns, with a possible policy review later. Mr. Holmer asked about the number of projects in the Downtown Plan. Elaine Stewart of the Development Department said about 20 priorities had been identified for implementation. She said the the Downtown Commission and the counci 1 had intended that the capital improvement program annually would identify which priorities would be implemented. She said elements of the Broadway project already were approved in the capital budget. She added that the Downtown Commission, after holding a public hearing, could . MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 5 . return to the council with a request for additional funds to implement the project. Mr. Holmer said the generalized language in the Downtown Plan and in the capital improvement program provided for a wide variety of implementation strategies that did not come before the council. Downtown Commission Chair Michael Schwartz said the commission again had sought approval for the plan and budget because of communication concerns. Mr. Gleason suggested using CCED to discuss any concerns the council had. Ms. Schue said the council always would take the blame for projects that were not liked, so it should be informed ahead of time. Mr. Farkas said the Broadway project currently was in the second to the last step of process, with a recommended budget to be presented to the counci 1 on June 18. Ms. Stewart described the project scope. She said improvements would be made from Charnel ton to the west side of Willamette Street and did not include any of Willamette Street or the plaza. She said the project would include a merchant zone against store fronts; an activity zone for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, displays, and activities; and an area between the two zones for trees, benches, and water fountains. Ms. Stewart said the zones were intended to create an "urban streetscape," which research had shown to strengthen and support retail activity. She said the merchant zone would include unobstructed walkways, removal of physical barriers, improved storefronts, and awnings. . Responding to Mr. Rutanls question, Ms. Stewart said research had been done by the Project for Public Space and by the International Downtown Associ at ion. She added that many pedestri an ma 11 s now were bei ng redesigned to make them more suited for retail activity. Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Ms. Stewart said property lines were at storefronts. Ms. Stewart said the central activity zone would include improved sight lines, which would involve removal of some barriers and structures, possibly including the rest rooms. She said the Downtown Commission and staff still were working on the issues of the rest rooms and the play area, and she added that public input on those issues would be taken at a public hearing. Ms. Stewart said the central activity zone also would include movable chairs and tables, and the delineation lines would consist of lights, trees, benches, and trash receptacles. She said staff had made a recommendation to the commission on lighting fixtures, and the commission was reviewing that budget. She also said when the project came to the council, it would be complete with a budget for approval. She said movable seating would be a part of the project, and an agreement would exist with merchants to have them move the seating on or off the mall. She . MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 6 . . . said one goal of the project was to allow merchandising along storefronts. Ms. Stewart said obstructions were not caused by merchandising, but usually occurred near rest rooms and barricades. Mr. Hansen asked about the width of the merchandising zone and about City liability for merchandising on public property. Staff said the space was about 20 feet wide, with 10 feet available for merchandising and 10 feet for pedestrians. Jan Bohman of the Development Department said current mall regulations allowed use of space adjacent to buildings for merchandising. She said use of the central space would require a lease. She also said the City Attorney had reviewed the proposal. Ms. Stewart said the project would be funded by tax allocation money, with business participation also proposed and being discussed by the Downtown Commission. Downtown Commission President Michael Schwartz described the need for modernizing the downtown mall, which had operated for 17 years. He said lighting would constitute about 50 percent of the cost, with pruning of trees and opening up the space also to enhance security and the shopping atmosphere. Mr. Schwartz said a parallel project being pursued was a centra 1 i zed retail management plan, in whi ch marketing and expanded operating hours would become more unified for the downtown area. Mr. Farkas said participation in the centralized retail management program would not be required, but should be beneficial to the entire area. Mr. Rutan asked whether the projects had been discussed with all property owners in the area. Ms. Stewart said all merchants on Broadway had been contacted about the centralized retail management program, and she added that property owners who were out-of-town now were being contacted about possible reinvestment. Mr. Gleason said at least one property owner had stated that further investment would only be made if the City also made some investment. Mr. Hansen asked whether stipulations or requirements existed for merchandising on City property. Mr. Schwartz said he thought a good foundation existed to protect public property and interests. He also said he did not think the purchase of awnings could be required. Mr. Hansen said he thought the use of public space could be traded for the requirement that merchants install common awnings. Mr. Holmer said he was concerned about costs of enforcing the public walkways and about giving away the use of public space. Ms. Stewart said merchant zones now were not enforced. She a 1 so sa i d the management program being considered could include fees for use of space. Mr. Miller asked how the success of the program would be measured. Mr. Schwartz said gross sales receipts could be compared in six months or in one year. He said another gauge might be the more comfortable atmosphere with better lighting and security. Mr. Farkas said indicators also could include the amount of site development, and he added that updates could be provided. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 7 . . . Mr. Hansen asked whether the Downtown Commission had considered opening up Broadway to traffic. Mr. Schwartz said the general feeling on the commission was that the area should remain a merchant zone, with Wil'amette Street to act as an entrance and exit. Mr. Farkas said the sense was that Broadway was working fairly well, unlike Willamette from 8th to 10th, which he said was being treated as a separate area. Mr. Miller asked about plans for Olive Street near the Atrium. Ms. Bohman said the first phase of the project would extend about half way down Olive toward the Atrium, with further extension planned for later. Responding to a question about the play area, Mr. Farkas said it would be reconstructed as less of an obstruction. Mr. Holmer said he found most of the project desirable but was concerned about obstructions to walkways. He said his vote on the project would depend on the type of enforcement planned, adding that he preferred no obstructions like portable signs or commercial displays. Mr. Rutan said he thought the project was a good general plan and headed in the right direction. Mr. Miller and Ms. Schue agreed. Mr. Farkas said the center fountain would remain. Mayor Obie said he appreciated the direction being pursued for the Broadway area. He also suggested that bolder efforts might be worth considering to enhance the street scene. Mr. Hansen said he thought rules and regulations should be included to make sure the area was developed appropriately. Mr. Schwartz thanked councilors for their input and said he would return with answers to questions. Mr. Gleason said the detailed design and budget woul d be brought back to the council, and elements woul d be considered in public hearings. He also said access, egress, and regulations would be considered. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m. (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc0528 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1986 Page 8