Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1984 Meeting 1 M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Eugene Planning Commission Eugene Downtown Commission North Columbia Room, Valley River Inn October 15, 1984 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Debra Ehrman (until 7:20), Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Roger Rutan, Dorothy Anderson, Robert Barkman, Randy Thwi ng DOWNTOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Schwartz, Anne Bennett, Donald Genasci, Roger Neustadter, A. Dean Owens, Stephanie Pearl Joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Downtown Commission of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Councilor Obie in the absence of His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. e 1. EUGENE DOWNTOWN PLAN DRAFT (memo, back~round information distributed) Councilor Obie commented that it was important to have the three bodies meeting together to discuss the Downtown Plan draft, stating that the two commissions had an advantage over the council in the amount of time in which they had worked on that draft. He said it was now up to the council to decide which recommendations to accept or to revise. He said the purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the council on which to base those decisions. Mr. Obie explained that the chairs of the two commissions will present an overview of the respective processes and recommendations to the counci 1. He reported that the City Council public hearing on the Downtown Plan will be held on October 22, 1984. Michael Schwartz, President of the Downtown Commission, briefly reviewed the history of the Downtown Plan, stating that the process began in December 1982, followed by meetings in 1983 to identify issues, with the plan draft being developed in early 1984. He stated tha t the pl an was then condensed into the May 1984 version. Mr. Schwartz stated that the Downtown Commission met with approximately 35 groups to receive input on the plan, that input being the basis for further revisions prior to the June 19, 1984, public hearing. Work sessions were held to review the testimony received and make further revisions. In August 1984, the plan was forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review and'recommendations. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 1 Mr. Schwartz then reviewed the four major plan sections, highlighting the differences in the recommendations of the Downtown Commission and the Planning e Commission. Mr. Schwartz distributed and reviewed the October 12, 1984, Planning Department memorandum which summarized the revised recommenda- tions the Downtown Commission made at its October 11 work session. Mr. Schwartz felt that there were no substantive changes to the Planning Commission recommendations by the Downtown Commission. He said the commission wished to develop a consensus on the recommendations with the other bodies, adding that the Downtown Commission had attempted to maintain a general outlook in the development of the plan in order to accommodate the majority of interested and involved groups. He commented that the commission wished to reduce the physical dimensions of the plan document to facilitate its distribution and handling. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman, Pat Decker of the Planning Department stated that either commissioners or staff would respond to the issues on the plan previously raised by the City Council. Roger Rutan, President of the Planning Commission, explained that the Planning Commission had not been involved in the draft plan process prior to its presentation to the Planning Commission. He stated that he commended the work of the Downtown Commission. Mr. Rutan said the Planning Commission had studied in detail the draft and response to the public testimony by the Downtown Commission. He stressed that the City Council must realize that a different audience presently existed for the plan than those who reviewed the initial draft. He said the Planning Commission focused more on City policy in studying the plan, and the City Council will have to deal with an action- e oriented plan. Mr. Rutan stated that the Planning Commission had reached a consensus that downtown health and economic well-being will return to that area as businesses return. This was the basis for the commission's focus on the downtown as a central business district and the accompanying recommendation for a change in the title of the first section of the plan. He briefly reviewed the key items on which the commission took action. He said the commission did not feel that sufficient information was available on which to base a decision regarding the proposed reopening of Willamette Street. He said the reopening would be only one of many projects to be judged by the City Council in regard to capital projects. Regarding the issue of downtown parking, he said the commission felt that the issue was central to the downtown district. Additional emphasis was placed by the commission on the recommendations for a regional retail development and the position of the Downtown Manager and the related marketing activities. In addition, the commission made recommendations for street changes which would require a mimimum of capital outlay. Regarding the Downtown Design section, he said the commission viewed the proposed projects as conceptual ideas to possibly be carried out over time rather than specific suggestions. Mr. Rutan said that the commission spent little time on the Implementation Priorities, stating that the commission's recommendations were not substantially different from those of the Downtown Commission. He said the main focus of the commission was to emphasize the business element of the downtown. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 2 - Ms. Decker stated that the Downtown Commission had met on October 11 to review e the Planning Commission recommendations and had added some comments at that time. She said the comments will be incorporated into the material distributed to the City Council in preparation for the October 22 pUblic hearing. Respond- ing to several issues raised by the City Council at a previous meeting, Ms. Decker reviewed the items and presented brief comments, adding that staff will more fully address those issues at the public hearing. In response to a question by Councilor Schue regarding the proposed two-way traffic on Willamette Street between 10th and 11th avenues and eventually down to 20th Avenue, Mr. Neustadter said the suggestion was tied into an earlier recommendation. He said that two-way traffic on Willamette Street will improve access to the downtown and will recreate the importance of Willamette Street. Referring to Mr. Rutan's comments that more facts were necessary before making any decision on reopening Willamette Street between 10th ~nd 11th avenues, Councilor Holmer asked Mr. Rutan to elaborate. Mr. Rutan stated that considera- tions regarding Lane Transit District were raised in the public testimony recei ved. He said that the concerns were presented by LTO in an open fashion, adding that concerns by Lane Community College also existed. He sa i d the issue of the benefits of the reopening balanced against the money spent must be considered. Mr. Thwing said the design element also addressed the timing of the implementation, stating that a great deal of money would be spent to change the location of LTD and the entrance to LCC. He said the commission felt that these institutions should be given adequate time to save their money e for the projects. Councilor Wooten, in an attempt to clarify the respective positions of the two commissions on the proposed reopening, said that the Planning Commission had not given a high priority or directive for the reopening but had described a process different from that of the Downtown Commission. Ms. Decker clari- fied, saying the two processes were identical, explaining that the Planning Commission's process recommended that design alternatives which do not involve reopening Willamette Street should also be considered while the Downtown Commission recommended that only the design alternatives for reopening the street would be considered. Referring to Item 11 on page 2 of the Revisions and Errata, Councilor Ehrman said the council felt that City staff was doing a good job in maintaining the ma 11 . She asked if the proposed strategy addressed public or private measures. Ms. Anderson said the proposed strategy was in response to testimony compli- menting the cleanliness of the downtown and the need to maintain that image. Mr. Rutan said the two commissions attempted to develop a plan in response to public testimony. He said the council may want to refer this issue for staff action. Mr. Schwartz explained that Items 10 and lIon page 2 of the Revisions and Errata would be strategies added to the plan. Councilor Schue said she perceived that City staff was performing a good job but that private owners could be more concerned with enhancing the image of the downtown. Mr. Rutan stated that the language could be clarified. Councilor Wooten stated that the council had considered removing several minor items in the draft because they were viewed as not being appropriate to the long-term plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 3 e In response to a question by Councilor Wooten regarding Item F on page 2 of . the Downtown Commission's revised recommendations, Mr. Rutan explained that Mr. Thwing had suggested wording to emphasize that the projects in the Downtown Design section of the plan were merely suggestions and that some may never be realized. Ms. Wooten felt that "suggested" was inappropriate, stating that as an adopted plan it would be the desire of the City to accomplish those projects. Mr. Thwing said he viewed that section of the plan as ideas. He said the wording of the section introduction had been changed from project which IIcouldll be implemented to IIshouldll be implemented. He stressed that the language must be clarified whether the projects were ideas or part of a house plan to be implemented. Mr. Thwing said his language was an attempt to clarify that the projects were suggestive in nature rather than goals. Ms. Wooten disagreed with this view. Mr. Thwing said the Downtown Commission language had changed the emphasis on the projects away from their original conceptual basis. Ms. Wooten said she did not want to imply any further weakening of the City's de'sire to accomplish those projets. Mr. Obie asked staff to present alternatives for the projects at the public hearing. Referring to Item 12 on page 3 of the Revisions and Errata, Councilor Ehrman said that several issues had addressed the issue of safety. She asked if any specific suggestions had been discussed on this issue. Ms. Bennett said the Downtown Commission felt that security and cleanup measures were important because they signaled the importance of those issues to developers. She stressed that security in the downtown was important and that the City must take an active approach to that issue. Councilor Obie stated that a Neighbor- e hood Watch program for the downtown area was being investigated. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman regarding Item 1 on page 5 of the Revisions and Errata, Mr. Neustadter said the proposed amendment to Policy 2.0 was addressing changing streets to two-way traffic to improve circulation. He said the Downtown Commission had not addressed the issue of mass transit other than the suggestion of a shuttle bus. Councilor Ehrman said both commissions apparently had strong feelings regarding the overhang on 10th Avenue at Willamette. She asked if the turnout as proposed would be needed if the overhang were removed. Mr. Neustadter said the suggested turnout resulted from the discussion of the athletic club. He said the Downtown Commission felt that the access was needed for the athletic club to be successful. Councilor Ehrman left the meeting at this time. Mr. Schwartz said the Downtown Commission concurred with the majority of the recommended changes made by the Planning Commission. He said it was the desire of the commission to come to the City Council with a spirit of consensus in order to facilitate the plan. Referring to the Implementation Priorities, Councilor Wooten said she realized that the council will later decide on the projects to be implemented, but she asked that some sense of cost or scheduling be presented. Ms. Decker responded that staff will present that information at the public hearing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 4 Councilor Obie thanked the commissioners for their efforts in the development e and revision of the Downtown Plan. Councilor Wooten said she appreciated the plan's vision, stating that it contained numerous new concepts. Mr. Thwing commented that he agreed that the ideas were great; he said he only questioned how realistic those ideas were. Mr. Obie responded that with the greater risk may also come a greater reward. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Schwartz said the design of the Downtown Plan will be reviewed by the Downtown Commission on October 24. Susan Brody of the Planning Department stated that the design will probably be presented to the City Council in early November. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully SUbm~ o/~ · Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) e MDG:TS:pv/CM7a1 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Planning Commission, Downtown Commission October 15, 1984 Page 5