Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/17/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 17, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Kelly called the meeting to order. A.WORK SESSION: Courthouse District Concept Plan The council was joined by Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department for the item. David Reinhard and Tom Larson of the Transportation Division and Tom Boyatt of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) were also present for the item. Ms. Laurence noted the origin of the project in the Downtown Visioning effort, and spoke to the work done on the project by the Planning Commission in conjunction with councilors Meisner, Nathanson, and Bettman, the "Planning Commission Plus Three." The commission's changes were included in the draft plan included with the council packet. Ms. Laurence identified the goals guiding the project: 1) to create a special place around the new courthouse; 2) to connect the courthouse area to downtown; 3) to contribute to the vitality of the core of downtown; and 4) to connect downtown to the river. The concept plan addressed the four goals. Ms. Laurence reviewed the four sections of the concept plan, which included an overall urban design concept and three elements: 1) land use; 2) landscape and water; and 3) transportation. The agenda item summary included details on the contents of the four sections. Ms. Laurence reviewed the urban design concept with the aid of a wall map, characterizing it as a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly district that could be easily reached from downtown with all modes of transportation. Ms. Laurence asked the council to review the elements of the plan, suggest revisions, and provide direction to staff for key next steps. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Fart asked how a potential basketball arena would fit into the plan, and if conversations had occurred with the University of Oregon. Ms. Laurence said that an arena had been contemplated originally in the area between Ferry and Hilyard and 8th Avenue and Broadway. However, space MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 1 Work Session for an arena was not reserved in the plan at the direction of the Planning Commission Plus Three, although one was not precluded. Mr. Fart thought a arena would be a great addition to the courthouse area as it would bring people there for events held at the arena. He expressed interest in pursuing the possibility of an arena. Ms. Nathanson was pleased with the plan and concerned about the financial feasibility of accomplishing it. She did not want to close off any options and wanted to have flexibility in implementation. She suggested that some options might be best explored with regard to their implementation as opposed to that implementation being dictated by the City. For example, some of what might be accomplished might happen on land owned by someone else. She cited the property owned by the Eugene Water & Electric Board and the University of Oregon as examples. Ms. Nathanson offered a statement of some thoughts she had on the plan: Character will be influenced by early developments. Achieving the vision of a vibrant downtown neighborhood that is connected to downtown and neither drains downtown nor withers in isolation will depend on financial feasibility as well as community and private sector interest. That zoning and design decisions should strike a balance between amenities and development potential, and other competing objectives that are stated in the plan. We should explore partnerships with the federal government, other local agencies, and private parties, to achieve the vision, to achieve high- quality development, and to provide special features. Ms. Nathanson said she did not think the City needed to accomplish the plan on its own. She circulated her statement. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and the Planning Commission Plus Three. He said there was much to like in the plan. He was very pleased with the courthouse design, which would bring distinctiveness to the area. He was pleased that the daylighted Millrace was integral to the plan and hoped it remained in the plan. Mr. Kelly said there were many opportunities for redevelopment of the privately owned land south of 8th Avenue. He pointed out, however, that the area in question was quite small, and the public needed to keep the scope of the project in perspective: it was not going to transform the city. Mr. Kelly suggested that before the council adopted the final plan, the colored concept maps provided by Ms. Laurence be incorporated into it. Mr. Kelly said through plan implementation, he wanted to ensure that the opening of the Millrace was pursued on an aggressive time line. He hoped the new overlay zone also went forward in a timely fashion to guide future development. Ms. Taylor said she continued to be concerned about maximum riverfront protection. She wanted to minimize pavement in the area, facilitate easy pedestrian and bicycle access, and protect the existing downtown merchants. She did not think the council should rush to develop the area and did not want to make the project a roadway project. Ms. Taylor wanted to open the Millrace. Although she acknowledged the public input that had occurred, Ms. Taylor called for more time for public comment and publicity of the plan. She believed that people needed a chance to comment when projects were nearly done because it took so long to get the broader public aware of what was going on. She cited Broadway Place as an example of her concern. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she did not want to see 6th Avenue rerouted along the railroad tracks. Mr. Meisner thanked staff and the consultants for their work. He said he had employed the design goals established in the planning process as the criteria to evaluate the plan components against. Speaking to Mr. Farr's remarks, Mr. Meisner said that the Planning Commission Plus Three decided not to recommend an arena because of questions whether such a part-time use was compatible with a relatively small neighborhood. There was no provision for parking for the use, and it had no relationship to the neighborhood. In addition, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the proposal would remove a large amount of commercial land from the inventory and took it off the tax rolls. He also questioned whether the University could afford such an arena at this time. Mr. Meisner urged the council to move forward soon, noting that Congress had recently approved funding for the courthouse and it would be built soon. That would create impetus for development, and he thought it essential to put the overlay zone in place, or risk seeing undesirable development in the area. Mr. Meisner was enthusiastic about connecting the river to downtown. He cautioned the council about the Millrace and the indirect expense of lost development opportunities. He said that daylighting the entire Millrace and incorporating water in the plan were two very different matters. He wanted opportunities for the Millrace to be taken advantage of, but did not want to reserve a third of the site for that purpose alone. Mr. Pap8 also thanked staff and the Planning Commission Plus Three. He said that the draft plan was well-done. He asked how the City was doing in keeping the project in a parallel track with the courthouse work. Ms. Laurence said that staff met with the General Service Administration officials and the courthouse architect on Friday, and learned the federal government was on a very different schedule than the City. Staff was working to determine which elements of the plan to proceed more quickly with. For example, the City may need to complete work on the design of Cannery Square because it would affect the courthouse property. Mr. Pap8 hoped staff focused on the needs of the federal government so the City did not prejudice what was happening with the courthouse project, which he considered the cornerstone of the concept plan. Mr. Pap8 expressed concern about historic preservation efforts for small less significant structures that prejudiced the development that occurred in the area. He suggested the Millrace was the most important historic feature in the area. He wanted the City to determine soon which historic features to retain. Ms. Bettman believed that the council would be making a big mistake if it decided to place 6th Avenue next to the railroad tracks. Referring to Ms. Nathanson's statement, Ms. Bettman agreed with the values represented in the statement and said they would be a positive addition to the plan. However, she perceived a disconnect between the values represented in the statement and the plan because of the transportation proposal. Ms. Bettman requested information about the status of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) guidelines associated with the plan. She thought them crucial to the plan and thought they needed to be reviewed prior to plan adoption. Ms. Laurence said that the ESA guidelines were not yet completed but she anticipated they would be available soon. The plan discussed riverfront planning principles, and stated specifically that as the plan moved forward, the City would have to incorporate environmental criteria as well as other open space goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman wanted to know where the lane reduction proposed for 6th Avenue appeared in the plan. She assumed that access to the State highway would be limited, and asked how that would help the redevelopment of the area. Ms. Laurence said that page 28 addressed the phasing of the street improvements. The first phase included the local street improvements needed to serve the courthouse immediately, and the second phase included the placement of 6th Avenue along the railroad tracks. The third phase would be improvements to Mill Street and Broadway. Mr. Reinhard added that the alternatives analyzed for the different transportation schemes had not been approved yet by ODOT. He said staff anticipated that redirecting some of the traffic along th the new 6 Avenue alternative would reduce the amount of traffic going north through the Mill Street and 8th Avenue intersection, which would reduce the number of lanes that must be crossed. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's question regarding access to the State highway, Mr. Reinhard indicated that ODOT had not yet reviewed the access management proposal. Staff was assuming that there would be more access restrictions along a State highway, such as 6th Avenue. He anticipated there could be access to 6th Avenue at Ferry Street and 8th Avenue, but not necessarily between those two points. There might be an access point between street intersections to serve the courthouse, but those details had not been worked out. Mr. Rayor asked about the amount of traffic carried by the two roads traveling around the courthouse area. M r. Reinhard estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 vehicles would be carried by 6th Avenue, and that 8th Avenue traffic would be more local in nature, with about 5,000 to 10,000 vehicles each day. Mr. Rayor asked about the ODOT position on the design and the procedure for getting ODOT approval for the design. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT was waiting to see what the City did before doing more extensive analysis of the proposed design. He said that ODOT had been involved in the planning process to this point and recognized the design that was ultimately chosen would require a considerable amount of analysis. He added that from a State highway perspective, traffic was moving well, so ODOT was not actively promoting a 6th Avenue alternative. However, ODOT recognized the importance of the concept plan and wanted to participate as a partner. ODOT would attempt to blend its different objectives, some established by statute, with the concept plan. Ms. Laurence noted that Attachment C-2 in the meeting packet contained a memorandum from Mr. Reinhard with more information on the various transportation options. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the location of the Millrace alignment, Ms. Laurence said staff had provided some diagrams showing the alignment of the Millrace. She traced the existing alignment on the wall map. She did not know where the new Millrace would be located because it had yet to be designed. That design depended on the direction of the council. Mr. Rayor wanted to see the future alignment in the form of a drainage easement across the site so that development could not occur across the alignment. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments regarding the Millrace, Mr. Rayor said he did not understand why the planned open space for the site could not be linear and protected by a drainage easement so that in the future a daylighted Millrace could be considered a s part of the open space, which would not take away from developable space. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Torrey wanted to be sure pedestrians, bicyclists, and people in vehicles could cross 8th Avenue west-to-east easily. Mayor Torrey hoped the council would not preclude the opportunity for an arena in the courthouse area. He believed that if the University wanted such an arena to be built, it needed to answer many questions about that use. Mayor Torrey said if the University was able to do the needed analysis, he would like to see it. Mayor Torrey said he would like to see the water-related features constructed on the site. He asked what would happen if the council sought funding and the voters denied that request? What then would the City do with the land? Responding to Mayor Torrey's questions, Ms. Laurence said that staff analyzed all transportation alternatives and believed that the 6th/7th avenue realignment can get people across the road using all modes. That road had not been designed yet, however. Regarding the Millrace, Ms. Laurence confirmed that land could be reserved for the Millrace inside an easement and that could be counted as part of open space. She noted that the commission and staff had not discussed open space requirements for the zone yet. In terms of the Millrace design, Ms. Laurence said that there were many ways to treat that feature. For example, there could be a series of water features as opposed to actually daylighting the Millrace, or bringing the piped water to the surface. She suggested that the City work with a developer to determine how to accommodate the Millrace on the City-owned property while allowing the balance to be developed. Mayor Torrey thanked staff and the Planning Commission Plus Three for the work they did in the time allowed. He solicited another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the proximity of the planned development to the riverfront. He wanted development near the river and a pedestrian green area alongside the river. He said for the plan to gain his support, the street north of the tracks from roughly south of existing 6th Avenue to the Riverfront Research Park must be eliminated. Mr. Kelly did not want to see any development north of the railroad tracks other than the steam plant. Mr. Meisner disagreed with Mr. Kelly. He said that the City had already preserved a great deal of the riverfront and to say there could be no development near the river was not acceptable to him. Speaking to Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner pointed out that if the Millrace was fully daylighted, there would be less than 1-1/2 acres of developable City-owned property. That would make it impossible for the City to recover its investment, much less build a neighborhood. He was not seeking to establish a destination point, but rather a neighborhood where people lived and worked. In terms of the 6th Avenue street realignment, Mr. Meisner believed that the railroad tracks alone were a significant barrier, and putting two lanes of highway next to the railroad tracks made sense to him. Mr. Farr said that the courthouse area could be a jewel for Eugene. One of the community's least attractive places in the community could be turned into a magnet for residents. He believed that because of the courthouse location the area would be an attractor. He supported daylighting the Millrace and did not want to preclude the possible development of a multi-use arena in the area. He agreed with the mayor that the University must work in partnership with the City, federal government, and private developers to make such an arena happen. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap8 said that Eugene had a lot of undeveloped riverfront and he thought it possible to develop attractively along the river as Portland had done in many places. Regarding the Millrace, he said that an easement could be established and removed later if necessary. He also favored trying to preserve the potential for an arena in the courthouse area. Ms. Bettman said that the transportation component was predicated on a safe pedestrian crossing at 8th Avenue and Mill Street. She said, according to numbers provided, the estimated traffic count for the local streets at the pivotal intersection was now 46,000 cars daily and, with the extension of 6th Avenue in place, the traffic volume would be only neglibly reduced to 38,000 cars. Ms. Bettman said that staff indicated realigning 6th Avenue would still result in high traffic volumes that were comparable to I-5 and 1-105 and the most congested parts of Coburg Road. She contended that the council would be creating a huge costly project without solving the problems it set out to solve. Instead, it would be multiplying the problems by enveloping the area with two limited access State highways. Ms. Bettman thought crossing 8th Avenue and Mill Street would be very dangerous. Ms. Nathanson said that with regard to a water feature, the City could work with a developer to find something in the middle of the desires expressed by different individuals. With regard to transportation planning, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the planning effort could be a good project for Governor John Kitzhaber's Community Solutions Team. The project was not just a street or road project, but a downtown development project. She hoped that ODOT would work toward helping Eugene accomplish its community objectives, and not be concerned only with the effectiveness of the street design. Ms. Taylor said that the concept plan included mention of extending urban renewal, and she opposed such an extension without a vote of the people. She hoped that the reference in the plan to riverside landscaping did not mean the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Ms. Taylor was also concerned about going out for a Request for Proposals for the linear triangle in the near-future; she thought more time was needed. Regarding the needed right-of-way the Millrace, she suggested that if it was not used it could be retained until the City had the money to daylight the Millrace. Ms. Taylor opposed a sports arena because it would bring a lot of people into the neighborhood for brief periods and could contribute to deadening the area around it because it would be empty so much of the time. Mr. Rayor was not supportive of approving the plan as it related to the area north of the tracks. For one thing, it was owned by EWEB and there was disagreement about how it should be developed in terms of impacts to the river. He preferred that the motion adopting the plan be modified to strike that area from the plan. Mayor Torrey called for further council comments. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council use the date that had been reserved to complete discussion of the item on July 31. He wanted to support the concept plan, but he had a couple of issues that he wanted the council to work through. Ms. Bettman said she perceived a pattern emerging where the council was pressured to make decisions under artificial time constraints. She wanted to have another work session and was not MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 6 Work Session prepared to vote on the plan, particularly when the council was ignorant of significant design components. With regard to development near the river, Ms. Nathanson said that the City already had preserved a large amount of open space near the river. She said the committee discussed the small space in question as being appropriate for urban use as opposed to open space use. She agreed with that conclusion. Ms. Nathanson said that in terms of the area south of the tracks, the entire redevelopment plan was predicated on the need to connect downtown to the river and to provide for pedestrian access. Much of the plan works because of the enhanced access to the river. Mr. Pap8 determined from Ms. Laurence that delaying a decision to July 31 would not impact the courthouse project time lines. Mr. Farr agreed the council needed more discussion about the plan. He expressed appreciation to staff for the work it had done. Mr. Farr recommended that the council take a tour of the courthouse area as a body. He continued to support a daylighted Millrace, saying flowing water was an asset to any community, but it was not an asset when flowing underground. Mr. Meisner said he lived near the river and used it daily. The most heavily used area along the river on a daily basis was the EWEB Plaza. It was the one downtown urban river use that existed. Mr. Meisner said that no one was suggesting that the river edge be paved. He hoped that the council could create an area in the city where someone could live next to the river. He recommended the council read its correspondence from EWEB, where it indicated it was seeking the highest value for its riverfront land. Mr. Pap8 left the meeting at 1 p.m. Mayor Torrey said that there appeared to be four key issues needing resolution: 1) daylighting the Millrace; 2) the nature of the development that occurred north of tracks; 3) the potential of an arena in the area; and 4) the location of 6th Avenue. He hoped that the council would be in a position to resolve those issues on July 31. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the time for the item by ten minutes. The motion failed, 3:4; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. B.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Acts Prohibited at Night and Amending Section 4.680 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Jim Carlson indicated that the work session regarded giving the manager authority to allow individuals in the parks after specified park hours. Johnny Medlin of the Public Works Department was present for the item. Mr. Medlin said that the issue came to staff's attention because the City Attorney's code interpertation was inconsistent with the City's actual past practices. In the past, the manager or designated staff has authorized people to be in the parks after hours for activities associated with allowed uses in the park during open hours. The attorney interpreted the code to mean that only staff could be in the parks after hours, unless specifically authorized by the council. Mr. Medlin recommended that the council hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. He invited questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Mr. Kelly said the ordinance seemed largely a housekeeping item. He confirmed with Mr. Medlin that the section of the code that called for council approval of events that went past park hours was unchanged. Ms. Bettman determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that the ordinance did not amend the subsection mentioned by Mr. Kelly. Ms. Bettman asked for an example of a situation where application of the revised ordinance could create controversy. Mr. Medlin could think of none as the City did not authorize many after-hour uses. The uses mentioned in the agenda item summary were incidentally related to allowed day- time events, such as clean-up or take-down. Mr. Carlson noted that the council approved homeless camping at Alton Baker Park, and that could potentially be affected by the ordinance. Ms. Bettman also asked if the ordinance would increase City costs in terms of monitoring and policing such activities in the parks after dark. Mr. Medlin responded that the Police Department was consulted about the ordinance and he did not believe there would be additional costs from the ordinance. Mr. Carlson added that staff was not seeking a way to get more people into the parks at night, but rather to rectify an existing situation and make it legal. He said that the police patrol the City's parks already at night. Mr. Meisner suggested that the reference in the ordinance to driving through the parks should be struck; he pointed out that it was lawful to bicycle or jog through the parks on the bicycle paths that go through the parks after park hours. Many people use the bicycle paths to commute to and from work in the early morning and late evening hours. Mr. Fart concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks. Ms. Taylor asked why the parks could not be open all the time instead of closing. She thought that midnight to 5 a.m. might be good hours of closure if the parks had to be closed at all. Mr. Carlson said that one of the reasons was the prohibition on camping; if the parks were open all hours one could have a difficult time proving that someone was camping. He said that public safety issues were different in the parks after dark. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support the proposed ordinances granting the City Manager authority to authorize a person to be in a city park after hours and direct the City Manager to proceed with the scheduled public hearing regarding the ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Carlson said that staff would follow-up on the issue he raised for possible further changes to the ordinance. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Fart said that Irwin Park would have its grand reopening the next day at 6:30 p.m., and he invited the councilors to the event. Mayor Torrey noted that the council had been unable to agree on any further dates for the charter review amendment recommendations forwarded to it by the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC). After discussion, the council agreed to postpone its discussion of parking in the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 8 Work Session downtown area to discuss the proposed charter review amendments on July 26, and further agreed to postpone discussion of a downtown hospital site, originally scheduled for July 31. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to consider the CCRC recommendations first and other items suggested by others second. The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 17, 2002 Page 9 Work Session