Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1986 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall September 10, 1986 noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Cynthia Wooten, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller, Ruth Bascom. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer. The adjourned meeting from September 8, 1986, was called to order by Council Vice President Debra Ehrman. 1. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER , No unscheduled items were discussed. II. DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (URBAN RENEWAL PLAN UPDATE) e City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Bob Hibschman, Greg Byrne, and Kirk McKinley of the Development and Planning Departments presented staff reports. Mr. Hibschman said staff had been working on the renewal plan update since the first of the year, and the plan had been presented to community groups. He also said staff had been working with the Downtown Commission to refine goals, using the Downtown Plan as an overall guide, and had been initiating studies to provide information for making decisions. He added that the Planning Commission had received two updates and had a role in making a recommendation to the Council on the update. Mr. Hibschman said the State Legislature in 1979 had made changes to the statute, specifying plan content and limitations on renewal districts. Since those changes, staff had been working on bringing the plan into conformance with the new Downtown Plan and with State format, he said. He added that the Downtown Plan adopted in 1984 had provided impetus for the Renewal Plan Update, which was considered an implementation plan for the Downtown Plan for that portion of downtown in the renewal district. Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question, Mr. Hibschman said the original plan had specified no time limit to the district. He added that State law required a termination date to be specified for retirement of debt service. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 1 Mr. Hibschman said the existing renewal plan had focused on land acquisition and on redevelopment of buildings. Since implementation of that plan, he said e a number of buildings had been constructed on renewal agency land, including the Hult Center and the Conference Center. He said seven of eight objectives in the old plan had been achieved, wi th deve 1 opment of the commercial component still incomplete. He said completed objectives included consolidation of parking, creating a pedestrian mall, reconstructing utilities underground, better traffic circulation patterns (creating the one- way gri d), and providing a setting for the Conference Center and a major hotel. He said completing the commercial component, implementing the Downtown Plan, and returning tax-exempt property to tax rolls were the three major goals of the update. Mr. Byrne said the renewal plan was a smaller part of the Downtown Plan and provided tools for implementation as well as a financing vehicle. He noted that the City had a heavy investment in assets, but no current bondi ng capacity. He said about 42 percent of the area within renewal boundaries was public right-of-way, and the rest was private or tax-exempt property. Mr. Byrne said the goal now was to return sites tD private owners, so that taxes could be collected. He said tools for accomplishing that included parking, the ability to negotiate land price accordi ng to the type of development desired, and financing programs. He said the Downtown Plan called for intensive development in the downtown core in order to increase improvement values on the land. Mr. Byrne said other issues in the Development Strategy included the siting of e the Lane Transit District station and improvements to public right-of-ways along Willamette and BrDadway Streets. Mr. Hibschman reviewed a chart outlining the Development Strategy process. He said a finance plan would be ready in about three weeks and would describe envisioned projects, timing, and funding for the projects. He said the finance plan also would include analysis of the impact of the renewal district on the tax rate of all affected taxing districts, current and future. He sa i d any needed amendments to the Downtown Plan would happen concurrently with hearings on the draft plan. He added that information from the Central Area Transportation Study would be included. Mr. Miller asked whether the need for the tax increment district would end as part of the strategy. Mr. Hibschman said the district could end when debt service was paid off, in about the years 2002-2005. He said the finance plan would identify when a bond could be issued, and the inclination was not to extend past those target dates. He added that the debt service on the Conference Center would be the last to expire. Ms. Ehrman asked about the relation between the Urban Renewal Plan and the Downtown Plan. Mr. Hibschman said the DDwntown Plan had been started in 1982. It had been adopted and used as a guide for implementing the intent of the Renewal District. He said the Urban Renewal Plan Update was an implementation plan for the Downtown Plan. Mr. Hibschman said parts of the Urban Renewal Plan were obsolete because they had been completed or because of changes in e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 2 direction. Elaine Stewart, of the Development Department, said the Downtown Plan contained policy direction for the Urban Renewal Plan, which contained e more specifics about land use and funding priorities. Responding to Mr. Rutan1s question, Mr. Hibschman said an eventual termination of the Urban Renewal District was a goal. Mr. Rutan asked whether a tax increment district was the most desirable alternative. Mr. Gleason said because of the 6 percent Oregon property tax limitation, a tax increment district was required to receive income from an increase in assessed value. Mr. Rutan asked how tax increment financing affected the average citizen. Mr. Gleason said any increase in assessed value resulting from tax increment district development would be returned to the assessed tax value of the community, and total taxes theoretically would be lowered. He added that a fundamental requirement of the Urban Renewal law was that core district value must be decreasing relative to values of other areas. Mr. Gleason said decreasing district values theoretically would increase rates in other districts. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the'debt service of $2.2 million could be paid off and ended. Mr. Gleason said it probably could not. Mr. Rutan asked how the core district differed from other commercial areas. Mr. Gleason said zoning requirements in other commerci a 1 areas included provision of private parking, rather than public facilities. He said less dense development required more infrastructure support, and land reassembly also occurred in newer areas. Ms. Bascom noted that if the tax increment district ended and tax rates were lowered, voters might override the 6 percent limitation on the tax base. Mr. e Gleason said he did not think any impact would be significant in an election. He said staff would attempt to meet the timeline for termination of the district. Mr. Rutan suggested changing the name of the plan to the Urban Development Plan. Mr. Gleason noted the need for some intervention, such as improvements to right-of-ways, to ensure the continued vitality of downtown, which he said provided about 11,000 jobs. Mr. McKinley showed a map illustrating boundaries of the Tax Increment or Urban Renewal District, of the Downtown Plan, and of the proposed expansion of the Urban Renewal District. A. Proposed Redesign of Willamette Street Mr. McKinley noted that the proposed redesign of Willamette Street was part of the Urban Renewal Plan Update. He said five options had been developed and would be presented for public comment. He said the Urban Renewal Plan would include one option, and actual design of any improvements would occur once the project was funded. He added that the earliest possible implementation could occur in 1987. Mr. McKinley said all redesign options were based on the mall design concept that had been recommended by the Eugene Downtown Public Spaces Study and which included merchant and central activity zones. He said the study had not been - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 3 approved by the City Council but had been accepted by the Downtown Commission in Apri 1 . Ms. Stewart said the design concept had been adopted by the e Downtown Commission and had been presented to the counci 1 . Ms. Ehrman requested that the council receive copies of the study. Mr. McKinley said any introduction of traffic flow into the mall would affect the central plaza. He distributed information packets, which included a summary of process, a timeline, objectives, and drawings of the five options. He said a public information session held on August 28 had attracted about 140 people and had gathered about 45 written comments. He reviewed presentations being made to community groups and organizations. Mr. McKinley said the Eugene Downtown Public Spaces Study contained four recommendations that influenced the Willamette Street project. Those recommendations included the mall design concept; introduction of limited two-way traffic with pedestrian features, such as textured paving and benches, on Willamette Street; and maintaining the Broadway-Willamette central plaza as a major public open space. Mr. McKinley reviewed the five design options: 1) keeping the status quo; 2) a pedestrian streetscape similar to the scheduled redesign of Broadway and with no traffic; 3) access for limited traffic or a special shuttle, which Mr. Gleason noted could provide linkages to other shopping centers and special events; 4) two-way traffic with textured paving, non-traditional curbs, and drop-off bays; and 5) a full street like that between 10th and 11th, with alternating parking bays and regular curbs. Ms. Ehrman suggested contacting the "Gut" Task Force for comments. e Ms. Wooten asked whether merchants favored increased parking access along the street. Mr. McKinley said several merchants had expressed that interest. Ms. Ehrman asked about the safety of curbs and traffic. Mr. McKinley said options would be presented to the Commission on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and staff also would work with the Public Works Department. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about children darting into traffic and suggested a speed limit of perhaps 5 m.p.h. Mr. Miller asked how traffic on Willamette would connect to Broadway. Mr. McKinley said the connection had not been discussed in detail but would result in major impacts on the central plaza. Mr. Rutan noted that a decision about design would require objectives. Mr. Reinhard said objectives that had been deve loped by the task team were described on page 3. Mr. Reinhard said the maximum number of on-street parking spaces possible was about 17 or 18 per block, or 35 to 40 spaces along Willamette Street. Mr. Gleason said installing high-turnover parking broadened the types of retail businesses that would succeed. He cited examples of quick-service print ShDPS and drug stores. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 4 Mr. McKinley said design options were open to modification. He rev i ewed comments that had been received. He said no consensus had been reached, with e a range of comments submitted. Mr. McKinley said most comments submitted had opposed traffic on Willamette Street. He said suggestions that had been offered instead of traffic included a better tenant mix and enhanced security. Those in favor of traffic had cited needs for better access and visibility. Mr. McKinley said additional comments had indicated that rest rooms were needed, while others had indicated both support for theater on the mall and feelings that other theater locations were available. He said suggestions had included opening Olive Street, providing space for bicycles, using flexible design like options three and four, and recognizing the impact of two-way traffic on the "Gut." Mr. McKinley said he had met with owners and managers of businesses between 8th and 10th Avenues, but no clear consensus had emerged there. He sa i d comments in favor of traffic had concerned improved access, on-street parking, and better visibility. Those opposed again had suggested improving tenant mix or making improvements similar to option two. He said most business representatives had stated that customers included largely downtown employees. He also noted that many comments had suggested attempting to minimize disruption during construction. Mr. McKinley reported that he had met with representatives of the group that provided theater on the mall, and they had suggested reorienting the stage, removing the fountain, and placing bleachers in the center of the plaza, with rest rooms at corners. Mr. McKinley added that he had not heard much support for the central fountain. e Staff said the Downtown Commission and Lane Transit District would hold a meeting on September 23. B. Proposed Expansion of Urban Renewal District Mr. Byrne reviewed the proposed expansion of the Urban Renewal District. He said State law allowed expansion of a district by 20 percent of original area. He said staff had analyzed all property surrounding the existing district, and he showed a map illustrating the ratio of the value of land to the value of improvements on the land. He said the ratio in the central area was about five times that in the outer area. Mr. Byrne said the area proposed for inclusion in the district was characterized by vacant and underdeveloped property with building conditions assessed as "poor." He said thirty-two owners were involved, fi ve of whom were non-local. He said notices had been sent to every property owner and business in the area, in addition to individual contacts by staff and public meetings held with the Downtown Commission. Mr. Byrne said the prDposed area would expand the district by 16 percent, with the rema i nder to be he 1 d for future deve 1 opment. He said expansion was concentrated around previous heavy public investments. Ms. Ehrman asked about inclusion of a new building in the area, and Mr. Byrne responded that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 5 inclusion had no financial impact on the City. He added that the lot could be removed, but it would make boundaries more complex and no objections had been , expressed. C. Lane Transit District Station Mr. Hibschman said a study had been jointly sponsored by Lane Transit District and City staff to evaluate operation of the current transit station and other potential sites. He said the consultant had concl uded that the current station was spread too far and should be made more compact, within two blocks. He said time-lapse photography had shown pedestrian and auto problems in the alley between Olive and Willamette and in Olive Street. He said no problems had been observed at Willamette Street, but the consultant had indicated that the open street contributed to a lack of cohesiveness of the site. Mr. Hibschman said recommendations for improving the site had included developing blocks along Olive, filling vacancies, improvements to the Overpark (which now had occurred), improving signing, improving traffic flow through the all ey, and connecting Olive Street with the mall to avo; d jaywalking. He said the recommendations were made regardless of whether Willamette Street was opened to traffic. Mr. Hibschman said a 4 percent increase in LTD ridership had occurred since the spring, when Wi 11 amette Street was reopened, and he noted that the increase had doubled from a 2 percent increase the previous year. He added that LTD and City staffs had agreed that compensation for the reopening of Willamette was not an issue. f9 Mr. Hibschman reviewed proposals for the LTD station, including making improvements to the existing site; using the parking lots along Olive Street for buses; removing the bingo building and using that lot; and using the County "butterfly" lot. He said both staffs currently favored the butterfly lot, which the study noted had met most of the criteria. He said the Downtown Commission and the LTD board would discuss the proposals. Ms. Bascom said she had reservations about proceeding on the butterfly lot now. She said she favored keeping other options open. Ms. Ehrman asked whether the City Council would have any authority over the butterfly lot. Ms. Stewart said the City would give approval only if LTD decided to locate on City-owned land. She said the only relationship the council would have if the butterfly lot was chosen would be if the council were asked to participate in funding, which historically had occurred. Ms. Stewart said once a site was identified, the City would begin discussions with LTD about funding participation. She added that the station would affect streets in the area and said tax allocation funding had been used in the past for 10th Avenue improvements. Ms. Bascom said the site chosen could affect the cultural center and downtown IIflavor." Ms. Stewart said staff understood the need to maintain cooperation. Mr. Byrne noted that assets of the Urban Renewal Agency were heavily in real estate and parking. He said if a City-owned lot were chosen, that leverage should be released only after strong consideration. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 6 At 1:23 p.m., Ms. Ehrman adjourned the meeting to September 15, 1986. e :' Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ", Mi ...l..9"t~'?!". r City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales) mncc0910 , e ~ e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1986 Page 7 -