Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/16/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall January 16, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Courthouse Area Concept Plan Nan Laurence of the Eugene Planning and Development Department joined the council for the item. She introduced John Bland and Ron Webber from the General Services Administrative (GSA); Libby Barber from the United States District Court; Tom Boyatt from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT); and Deborah Brewer from the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). Ms. Laurence said that those present represented the partnership and coordination occurring around the development of a concept plan for the area around the new federal courthouse. She identified three major project goals: 1) to connect the area to the core of downtown; 2) to create a special place, a new neighborhood, around the new courthouse; and 3) to connect downtown to the river in a memorable and accessible way. Ms. Laurence said that transportation was the most significant element affecting the concept plan. The plan must give access to the courthouse area allowing for traffic to pass through the area. She introduced Troy Russ of Glatting Jackson of Orlando, Florida, a transportation consultant hired by the City, who was present to explain the circulation and access analysis and describe some options that have been prepared to this point. She emphasized that the area was not a blank slate and there were no perfect solutions. All the options had both benefits and costs. Mr. Russ provided a PowerPoint presentation on transportation options for the federal courthouse area. He reviewed the following three options, using schematics: 1) a Iow-build option; 2) an option that connected 5th Avenue; and 3) realignment of 6th and 7th avenues. He described how each option did or did not contribute to improved traffic conditions both locally and regionally. Mr. Russ concluded that options 2 and 3 should be further evaluated because of their potential to improve traffic conditions. Ms. Laurence invited questions and council feedback, emphasizing that no decisions had been made. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly requested a paper copy of Mr. Russ' presentation. He also expressed frustration over the lack of time allocated to the topic, because he did not think the council would be able to provide the direction that staff needed. Mr. Kelly endorsed both goals A and C in the packet, and his interest in the pedestrian and bicycle connections serving the area. He determined from Ms. Laurence that the renderings did not indicate the internal circulation road in the Iow-build option, and noted it would provide better circulation and traffic distribution inside the area than currently existed. He had counted the number of lanes that must be crossed by a bicyclist or pedestrian to reach the river with each option. According to his calculations, the first, or Iow-build, alternative meant there would be no lanes to cross because of the new pedestrian bridge; the second alternative would require a pedestrian or bicyclist to cross nine lanes of traffic, and the third alternative would require passage over eight lanes. He suggested from the standpoint of connectivity, the experience was easiest with the Iow-build option. Mr. Kelly emphasized the need to integrate all design elements. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Laurence for information on how frequently pedestrian overpasses were used. It was her observation that people often did not use them and crossed at street-level anyway. She cited the manner in which the overpass at Westmoreland Park was used. Ms. Laurence termed it a "low-level compromise"; one must make the pedestrian bridge accessible and it did not provide good bicycle access and it limited use. She said the approach was much less than ideal. Ms. Nathanson would have liked to have seen a project goal that was related to the improvement of downtown. She was concerned about the potential unanticipated negative consequences of the project on the downtown. If that was included as a goal, Ms. Nathanson questioned the th th relative importance of the options in achieving the goal. For example, the 6 and 7 option only provided one lane going downtown, and it was her hope that people traveling from the east to downtown would be invited to come downtown rather than through or past downtown. She asked if there was something about the street design and the proposed amenities around it that would th attract people to downtown. Ms. Laurence said the 6th and 7 option split local and through traffic. Staff had considered narrowing Broadway to four lanes and installing a t-intersection to ensure the dominant traffic movement went to downtown. She appreciated the goal mentioned by Ms. Nathanson and said staff needed to look how to connect the river to downtown as well as vice versa. Ms. Bettman also questioned how the options affected downtown and how much traffic went downtown. She said the 6th and 7th option would bypass downtown and 6th and 7th avenues were already a barrier that existed right now between downtown and the river and the 5th Street Historic District. She agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about crossing the added lanes in options 2 and 3. Ms. Bettman thought the options had some good points, but the City did not have needed buy-off from ODOT on the mitigating elements that would make the option a worthwhile tradeoff. She feared that without the mitigating elements, the result would be a State highway directly along the river and the creation of more pedestrian conflicts, more asphalt, and more of a barrier. Ms. Bettman said if the council was going to evaluate that option further, she wanted to see another option that applied a boulevard treatment with medians to the existing configuration of Franklin, Broadway, and Mill streets, and which included a pedestrian crossing, which she thought would MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 2 Work Session better address the project goals and objectives than the addition of more lanes. She said it would be even better if the concept was extended toward 6th and 7th avenues to the edge of downtown. Mr. Pap~ said the council should reconsider the project goals. He wanted to do more than merely provide access to the courthouse; he wanted to create a situation that invited people to the area and got people to the river. He asked what had happened to earlier consideration of a pedestrian underpass crossing Franklin Boulevard, and suggested a water feature that might enhance the option and help open up the area. Mr. Pap~ suggested a design option that allowed the courthouse to cross Mill Street in a plaza treatment, acknowledging the security concerns such an approach raised. Mr. Pap~ asked about coordination between agencies. Ms. Laurence assured him that the agencies were working together and moving forward. In response to his comments, she said that a pedestrian underpass would require ramps that were as long as those that would be required for the ramp associated with the Iow-build option, creating the loss of frontage. There were also security issues related both to the courthouse and to pedestrian safety. Mr. Pap~ suggested that one option was to bridge the river north of Hilyard Street and connect to Centennial Boulevard, diverting traffic away from the area. He acknowledged the additional expense. Mr. Meisner found Mr. Papa's suggestion interesting. He said that the use of the term "connect" had different meanings, which were reflected in the options. He said that the courthouse could remain an island and be connected with a bridge or underpass, and it could be connected by integrating it better with downtown by eliminating barriers. He was interested in the latter approach. Mr. Meisner said that the site was surrounded on all sides now by various busy transportation corridors and by the river, which served as impenetrable barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Meisner thought some refinement of the 6th and 7th option was the best approach. He appreciated that the staff appeared to be considering the area as though there were nothing there now. Mr. Rayor commended the presentation. He said he did not understand why the 5th Avenue connection would allow an at-grade pedestrian intersection at 8th Avenue but the Iow-build option did not. Ms. Laurence said that such a connection would require the addition of lanes for stacking, at least one and potentially two. Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the impact of running a road parallel to the train tracks, as he perceived it would put the courthouse site inside the downtown street grid but actually cut off the University of Oregon and the courthouse from the river. Ms. Laurence responded that the options were designed to "toggle" between two issues: how much traffic the City wants on Mill Street, and where else the traffic would go. Mr. Russ added that the connection was included because the "devil was in the details" and staff did not yet know all the details of the quality of the connection and whether the traffic volumes anticipated would be too much. He said that staff needed to do more work with ©D©T to determine whether it would work. Mr. Rayor suggested it might be possible to put a pedestrian crossing across both th the railroad and 6th and 7 extension so that one of the ramps was in the courthouse site and the other was at grade. Mr. Rayor said he wanted further development of the options and advocated for a working group process similar to the Beltline Decisions group. He said the council and staff needed to keep in mind the policy work done by the downtown visioning group. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor favored the Iow-build option at this point. She liked the pedestrian overpass idea and said that perhaps the ones that were not used were not properly located. She did not think anyone would walk across the area in question any other way. She confirmed from Ms. Laurence that the Iow-build option would improve access to the area in question. Ms. Taylor believed the more the City encouraged commercial development in other places, the less would occur downtown. She asked if the streets in the area would be one-way or two-way. Ms. Laurence said that staff had discussed the issue and agreed that one-way streets lessened the improvements to access downtown. Staff wanted the improvements in the courthouse area to fit with the work done by the downtown visioning group to ensure they did not preclude the conversion of existing one-way streets to two-way streets. Ms. Taylor asked if staff could ask ODOT to narrow 6th and 7th avenues and make them two-way. She thought the streets represented a major barrier for pedestrians traveling back and forth. Mr. Farr was most interested in the 6th and 7th realignment option because it brought the courthouse into downtown much better than the other two options. He also thought the option did the best job of eliminating the barriers that currently existed between downtown and the river. Mr. Farr asked what options the City had for pedestrians to cross the road and train tracks, suggesting something closer to the Ferry Street Bridge. Ms. Laurence said that locating the crossing at Patterson Street rather than at 8th Avenue and Mill Street was problematic as it had major implications for both EWEB and the Riverfront Research Park. It would help from a transportation point of view. She said that staff was trying to balance transportation and land use issues, and attempting to avoid having the four lanes and railroad tracks as a barrier. Mayor Torrey hoped that representatives of the federal courthouse and GSA would contact the staff and council with any input they had about the council's discussion. He emphasized the City's interest in partnership. He did not want to limit the City's options at this point, saying the council needed to do the best job possible because it would not have a second chance to improve the transportation infrastructure needed for the area. He called for a big, bold vision that would complement the new federal courthouse. Mayor Torrey was strongly supportive of enhancing both downtown and access to the courthouse and thought both could be done. He wanted to ensure that the transportation system served all modes. Mayor Torrey said he was not interested in the Iow-build option, saying that "anybody could do that," and the City was better than that. Mayor Torrey asked ODOT representatives not to wait until the council made a decision to tell the City the option selected would not work. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of questions and comments. Ms. Bettman was concerned about committing to a vision that the council did not have the money or political will to fully accomplish, fearing the result would be four of five more traffic lanes separating the downtown from the river. She reiterated her interest in having an opportunity to review a boulevard-type option and suggested a motion to that effect was unnecessary given the discussion. City Manager Jim Johnson concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Bettman's concerns. He said he would not be comfortable approving any road project unless the council had an idea of the development scenarios north of the tracks and had discussed the Millrace opening concept. He agreed with Mayor Torrey that the City should think big. Mr. Kelly said that staff should not focus too much on transportation improvements that improved the Level of Service (LOS) condition at intersections as that was a condition that existed only one half-hour on weekdays. Ms. Nathanson disagreed with Mr. Kelly's last statement, saying that problems related to LOS in the Franklin Boulevard area were not just one-half hour at 5 p.m. anymore. Ms. Nathanson said she took the concept that the project was responsive to other goals very seriously. If the project did not contribute to the improvement of downtown, the economics of other City projects and goals would not work. She noted the lack of a goal regarding the need for better connections between the University of Oregon and downtown, and wanted more discussion of how that would be done. Mr. Pap8 said the GSA was investigating a large amount of money in a building that was designed for the long-term. The City needed to take a long-term view of the issue, and he did not want to make a mistake. He called for a broader vision of what would be in the area in 50 years. B.Work Session: Broadway Street Reopening Public Works Department Director Kurt Corey joined the council for the item. He introduced new City Engineer Mark Schoening. He noted that Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department and Chris Henry of the Public Works Department were present to answer questions about the project details. Russ Brink of Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEl), was present to answer questions about the private property owner contributions. Mr. Corey provided background on the project, noting the voters' support for the reopening and briefly describing the conceptual design process. He noted that the conceptual design was approved by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2001. The public involvement process was consistent with the approved work plan. Mr. Corey overviewed the funding proposal for the reopening of Broadway between Oak and Charnelton streets: 1) $1.6 million from the Lane County Capital Projects Partnership Program; 2) $634,000 from the City of Eugene; and 3) $200,000 from downtown property owners. Mr. Corey thanked the Lane County Public Works staff for its assistance and the Board of County Commissioners and Roads Advisory Committee for supporting the City's funding request. Regarding the private contributions, Mr. Corey acknowledged that the figure was lower than the one the council had previously seen, but emphasized the figure was generated by staff and not based on any commitment from the property owners. Mr. Corey responded to council questions from a previous work session. He reported that the funding on hand was sufficient to open the road and fund streetscaping improvements and amenities; that systems development charges could not be used to pay for the street reopening because the street was classified as a local street and the City was legally bound to expend those funds on the collector and arterial street system, although the revenues could be used for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 5 Work Session improvement of the intersection at Oak Street and Broadway because of Oak Street's status as a minor arterial; and confirmed that staff was on track to have the downtown street design standards available for adoption concurrent with the opening of Broadway. He anticipated that with council approval, construction could be completed by the 2002 Eugene Celebration. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council questions and comments. Mr. Rayor asked if areas of the project would be raised, and how much; he advocated that because of the narrowness of the street and presence of the median, staff did not need a lot of vertical intersection tables. Mr. Henry confirmed there would be raised areas in the project and identified them. Mr. Rayor asked that staff ensure that there were good transitions between the raised areas and the street. He also asked the minimum lane width. Mr. Henry said they were ten feet. Mr. Rayor suggested slightly wider streets to accommodate both bicycle and auto traffic. Ms. Bettman asked for the details of what would be paid for by the City's contribution. Mr. Henry reported that the City's contribution would pay for additional landscaping, the median treatment, surface treatments at the mid-block crossing of the intersections, opportunities for art and planting areas, telephone booths, drinking fountains, benches, and bicycle racks. Ms. Bettman questioned the classification of Broadway as a local street. She did not think the street had been classified because it was not yet a street. The April 1999 draft Arterial and Collector Street Plan included all the streets around it as minor arterials or neighborhood collectors; that was changed in the November 1999 version. That did not mean the function or average daily trips on the streets had changed, just the street classifications, which changed the way improvements were financed. She suggested that the City was "having it both ways"; for the purposes of assessments, the street was called a local street, and the City was subsidizing the assessment of six property owners on the street, and for the purposes of systems development charges, the City was arguing the citizens should contribute because the street was a community street and part of everybody's neighborhood. The result was that the City used money it could be directing toward redevelopment to pay the assessments. Ms. Bettman did not support an increase in the lane width as suggested by Mr. Rayor, saying the street should encourage slow traffic and facilitate the redevelopment of the properties adjacent to it. The narrower the design, the more likely the road would be pedestrian-friendly. Mr. Fart liked the idea of narrower street widths to slow traffic and because he envisioned the area would become a place where people lingered. He asked about the width of the sidewalks. Mr. Henry responded they would range from 12 feet in some locations to 18 to 20 feet in other locations to facilitate the use of the sidewalk in front of commercial establishments, such as Adams Place. Mr. Fart wanted to see more such uses up and down the street as he thought they added character and brought people downtown. Mr. Fart thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its funding contribution. He asked that his thanks be passed along to the board. He asked if any storm water facilities were planned. Mr. Corey said that staff planned for the perpetuation of the existing system. Mr. Henry described the proposed drainage system, which would probably include valley gutters in the parking areas. Those costs would also be paid from the Road Fund. Mr. Fart asked if it was possible to use storm water funds for that purpose. Mr. Corey said if staff found maintenance or upgrade items that it would normally address through the Storm water Program, the funding was already available for such minor improvements; however, the Storm water Fund would not be a major MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 6 Work Session source of funding. Mr. Henry added that staff did not anticipate increasing the capacity of the existing storm water system. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Henry anticipated that the City could be adding more pervious surface to the project than currently existed. Mr. Farr commended the staff work. He noted his first conversation with former Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer concerned the street reopening. He thought the project would result in a wonderful addition to downtown. Mr. Meisner indicated he was prepared to support the financing plan. He commended staff for its work on the reopening and for doing it so promptly. He believed that the project would be ready in time for the next Eugene Celebration. Regarding the October 1999 draft Arterial and Collector Street Classification, Mr. Meisner recalled that his objections to the plan were that every street in the downtown grid was a collector and there were no local streets for collectors to collect from. He was prepared to defend that classification, although he acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns about what systems development charges could be used for. Mr. Meisner also was not enthusiastic about widening the lanes beyond ten feet. He thought narrower lanes could accommodate traffic safely. Mr. Meisner noted he had a video on narrower streets and invited councilors to call him if they wished to view it. Mr. Kelly encouraged councilors to borrow the tape. Mr. Kelly commended the collaborative process used to arrive at the design, saying it balanced several competing interests quite well. Regarding lane width, he reminded the council that it delegated approval of the design to the Planning Commission, and suggested it respect that recommendation. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the downtown property owners' contribution and the proposed promissory note. Regarding the systems development charge question, he was unable to reach a personal resolution on the topic at this time and deferred to staff on the issue. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its progress on the design standards. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Corey that staff believed the project could be done with the funding in place. Mr. Pap8 asked if Mr. Corey believed the design proposed was a good start to making Broadway a "Great Street." Mr. Corey said yes. Ms. Nathanson asked what lessons the City learned from past street projects in terms of bettering the project at hand. She noted that the goal of the street reopening was to revitalize the downtown, and asked how the street design supported that goal. For example, what would change about street vending and the way the plaza was used? Mr. Corey reminded the council this was his first City project. However, he believed that the staff had been informed by past street projects about things such as scheduling, and had done outreach to local contractors about past projects. In addition, the process of developing the conceptual design brought in many interest groups and no single entity owned the design. He said that the design would accommodate both street vendors as well as connect to the plaza. He noted the public input the staff had received on the topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Yeiter said that staff would work cooperatively with the Parks staff and Saturday Market staff to relocate the playground equipment and artwork now on Broadway to the Parks Blocks. Ms. Taylor asked if public restrooms would be provided. Mr. Johnson said restrooms were available now, and he described their locations. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve the proposed County, City, and private funding sources for the Broadway street reopening project, and to direct the City Manager to include the County Road Fund and private contribution portions of the project budget in a future supplemental budget, and to initiate a competitive bid process for the street reopening construction based on the approved design and, if necessary, to add or delete quantities in order to stay within the proposed budget. Ms. Bettman expressed support for the proposed design. She disagreed with the funding mechanism, but she was so supportive of the project that she would support the motion. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 16, 2002 Page 8 Work Session