Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/18/06 Workshop M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Bascom-Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library th 100 West 10 Avenue October 18, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Andrea Ortiz, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the City Council Workshop meeting. A. WORKSHOP: City Council Priority Issues – City Hall Complex City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Jonah Cohen, member of the design team from Thomas Hacker Architects, Incorporated. Mr. Cohen stated that the main objective of the workshop was to finally begin the design process for the City Hall Complex. He sought to introduce the council to conceptual design, which was the process of laying out and testing how the different departments and divisions of the building fit together on a specific site. He said the design team would take into account sustainable design opportunities, planning for open space, public and service access, expansion potential, security issues, and the implication of the police patrol being integral with a city hall or in a separate facility. He explained that the team had used computer- generated massing programs to delineate design ideas for the City Hall complex on either the existing City Hall site or the “Butterfly/Rock N’ Rodeo” site. He noted that the council was still open to another site, should one become viable. Mr. Cohen said the design team would be convening the fourth community forum at the United Methodist Church on November 2. He stated that the council would then meet on November 22 to narrow its focus to one site and possibly one design. He suggested that the council give feedback as to what kind of input was desired from the next forum. Mr. Cohen noted that the architects held three focus groups, meeting with a group on accessibility, representatives of the communities of color, and youth groups. He said the design team would be distribut- ing summaries of what the design team had learned from those focus groups. Design team member, Thomas Hacker, using a PowerPoint presentation, discussed the stylistic elements of th public architecture both past and present. He said at the beginning of the 20 century, there was a common architectural language for civic buildings that moved into more of a plain design toward the middle of the century. MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 1 Workshop Doug Macy, also on the design team, said there was an opportunity in this project to add to the “richness” of the open space in Eugene. He commented that the open space would have to be thoughtfully done as the building would not be a “24-hour building.” He related that the Park Blocks master plan committee suggested that there be an active “programmable” space for all of the events and activities of the community and that this might possibly be associated with City Hall. Mr. Hacker showed conceptual design sketches of the building footprint and mass. He commented that the circular structure of the Council Chamber appealed to the design team as a symbolic element that denoted a sense of the importance of democracy in the City. Design team member Ellen Teninty facilitated the discussion. Mr. Papé asked if the drawings incorporated the concepts that the team brought up before. Mr. Hacker affirmed that the team had done so, including the sun and wind angles that were discussed. He said the design team was seeking the council’s feedback on the relationship of the buildings. Mr. Hacker reviewed the options for whole block and half-block designs and designs that included or excluded the police patrol. He noted that the ground floor square footage needs for the Eugene Police Department (EPD) for a combined design would be 30,000 and without the patrol it was 10,000 square feet. Mr. Hacker said one assumption was that one of the main drivers for the designs was sustainability. He explained that the designs attempted to increase the amount of façade that faced north or south and to decrease the façade that faced west or east. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hacker stated that the overall volume for the half-block and full-block designs was essentially the same. Suggesting the potential that police/essential services portions were sandwiched together with the rest of the building, Mr. Pape asked whether more of the building must be designed to a different seismic requirement than if police was side-by-side with the other functions. Mr. Hacker said that design team found it was essentially impossible to stack police in a separate block and still meet the goals of efficiency, public access, and sustainability. Mr. Papé liked the Park Blocks option the design team discussed previously because it provided access to that park and because of its proximity to the open area by the Hult Center for the Performing Arts (HCPA) and the convention center. He asked if there was a scheme that would have an open area running diagonally through the site to the open area by the HCPA. Mr. Hacker said it was possible. He noted that he had just visited a new public library in Minneapolis that featured this design element. Ms. Taylor thought the Police Department should be separate from the rest of the City Hall function. She wondered, if there was a separate station, why the court could not be with it. Principle Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell replied that it was possible, but the process on which the council and design team embarked led to this point in the design work. Regarding the half-block option that included patrol, Ms. Taylor felt it would seem more like one was going into a “police station” rather than a city hall. MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 2 Workshop Mr. Kelly said he thought one of the main goals of the project was to combine all of the downtown City services with the possible exception of the patrol function of the EPD. He wanted to receive something in writing about why the police patrol would need to be on the ground floor if it did share the City Hall complex. He recommended discussing with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) whether the police patrol function should be consolidated or not. Mr. Pryor preferred one of the whole-block designs because it gave more flexibility in design. He also thought a symmetrical design would have a longer-lasting appeal. He expressed a preference for the Whole Block 2 designs. If he had to choose a half-block option, he would pick Half Block 2. Mayor Piercy liked the idea of the Park Blocks feeding into the building as well as the design element of having light going through the space. She related that she had reviewed the feedback from the focus groups and one thing that had come up was that having the police “front and center” was a problem. She said the focus groups wanted the building to be inviting and for it to be “not just another building.” Mayor Piercy also noted that the Rock N’ Rodeo site had allegedly been the former site of the Ku Klux Klan headquarters. She felt it would be good to “reclaim it.” Ms. Bettman asserted that one key issue was the site to locate the facility on. She agreed that some people did not feel comfortable with a police presence. However, she did not think the answer to that was to relegate the police to another location; rather, she wanted to integrate the police into the City Hall. She liked the idea of symmetry because it would help people easily understand where to go to access services they needed. The issue of whether it was a half-block or whole block was not paramount to her. She was more concerned with the proposal to utilize the current City Hall site because of the added expense of demolition. She supported using any of the half-block designs as long as patrol was included. Mr. Penwell said one of the problems lay in finding the balance between the police presence with police functionality. He agreed that one solution would be to place patrol on the third floor, but with the cars on a lower level, it would require moving back and forth with equipment which could require a separate elevator. He acknowledged that having too much police presence could be an issue. Mr. Hacker said the designs the design team presented looked at the future building from the “pure functionality aspects.” He indicated there would be some compromises. Mr. Cohen added that the compromises would go in both directions because compromising efficiency could compromise accessibility, as an example. Mr. Poling indicated his preference for the Whole Block 2 and 3 designs. He believed that the police patrol should be in the same location. He predicted that the same people who would complain about the police in the City Hall would complain about the police having “their own little kingdom” in a different area. He said the current police station location was “just another office entrance” and did not have a huge impact on the City Hall. He liked the Whole Block 3B because of the open space around the facility. Ms. Ortiz preferred the whole block designs. Her first choice was Whole Block 3C/D. She wanted some continued police presence, but she did not think the patrol arm of the EPD needed to be there. She questioned why the bulk of patrol should be downtown when it could have a facility that would meet its needs elsewhere. She did not like the half-block designs because she felt the buildings were too imposing. She commented that she liked the idea of a building that was connected to the future and to the past. MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 3 Workshop Mr. Kelly remarked that he liked all five designs. The asymmetry of the Whole Block 1 appealed to him. He thought it would be interesting to consider the cost of moving twice and razing the existing City Hall. As for the location of the police patrol, he thought having dedicated elevators could facilitate a shift change and other movement needs. Ms. Taylor preferred the half-block design. She thought the least inviting aspect of the present City Hall was the Municipal Court and the people who sat outside of it. She also did not understand why the police were different from the fire personnel. She felt that having stations located in the different areas of the City would facilitate EPD’s ability to meet public safety needs. Mr. Papé was undecided about the police issue, but he thought there should be some police presence downtown. Regarding the verticality of the building, he said while it might increase costs it would also help people to easily find the services in the building. He added that he was uncertain that the Permit Information Center (PIC) needed a whole floor. Mr. Hacker remarked that the design team considered the dilemma regarding the Municipal Court. He related that one idea was to provide a separate entrance for “them.” Mr. Papé said a lot of the traffic into the court area was due to people paying fines. Mr. Pryor was disturbed by comments about the courts that referred to the people waiting for municipal court as “them.” He reminded everyone that “them” is really us. Mr. Pryor averred that form must follow function. He was dependent on the input from the experts, such as Police Chief Robert Lehner and others, for the recommendation about the best configuration. He added that it was conceivable that the building will ultimately need more space. He recommended considering which building design could most easily be added to. Mr. Hacker responded that the half-block site would be more difficult to add on to. He said there was always the option that the expansion would happen on another site. Mr. Poling said the Council Chamber should be the main focus, architecturally. He commented that one of the reasons he liked the Whole Block 3 design was that there was some area to expand into. Regarding the issue of a police presence at city hall, Mr. Poling favored having it. He noted that the Chief had spoken of changing to a precinct concept of public safety. He echoed Mr. Pryor’s suggestion that the Chief be consulted on the design. Mr. Poling noted that the half-block site under consideration was under private and County ownership. He asked if the private owners had been contacted. Mr. Penwell replied that he had contacted two out of the three; one said to let him know when the City was interested in talking to him and the other merely said it was an interesting idea. He said the County indicated that whatever the City and County did had to be mutually beneficial. MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 4 Workshop Ms. Bettman favored the half-block designs because of the density and the implications for sustainability. She bemoaned the fact that fire administration could not be included in a central city hall. In terms of the patrol issue, she wished to point out that three ballot measures for a separate police station had failed. Ms. Bettman felt the public entrance should be the central focal point of the structure. She thought the Council Chamber should be visible and accessible. Additionally, she believed that all of the floors could be designed to be accessible. Mr. Hacker stated that the Half Block B had the public entrance as the focal point, possibly with escalators. Mayor Piercy was amenable to a police presence in the City Hall. She was not opposed to placing the patrol arm of the EPD elsewhere, but acknowledged that this would make two buildings instead of one. She noted that the City’s desire to build a green building might preclude being able to afford to build two structures. She also did not have a preference of one site over the other. She did like having the Council Chamber “up.” She said she would like a cultural space. She hoped there could be a conversation about using space in that way. Mr. Kelly asked that costs for a potential second building for police patrol be included in cost estimates. Mr. Kelly agreed that the public entrance should be a focal point, but thought the Council Chamber should be made architecturally distinctive. He suggested the team bring back a design “not unlike” the Half Block B with the police patrol on the second floor. Ms. Taylor wanted the Council Chamber to be central and inviting. She felt that people who wanted to speak were intimidated by the idea, so it should be easy to find. She did not believe that planning for expansion worked. She also was not certain that there was a need to expand because she thought “more and more people were working at home.” Ms. Ortiz also liked the design that featured an elevated Council Chamber. Mr. Papé indicated his preference for the half-block design utilizing the Butterfly Lot. He said it just felt right for the community. He agreed that the Council Chamber should be architecturally distinctive. He observed that the current Council Chamber was the least-used space in the City. He noted that he had recently visited Boise, Idaho and the council chamber there included sound walls that could be pulled in front of the dais so that it could be utilized for other functions. Councilor Solomon preferred the Whole Block 3 C/D design, but said she could be persuaded to keep the patrol arm of the EPD “in the mix.” She liked how the Council Chamber had been treated in that design. Ms. Teninty summarized the input from the council. Mr. Penwell commented that one of the most difficult costs to capture for the half-block site would be the purchase price. Mr. Papé suggested getting the property appraised. Mr. Kelly remarked that it might be reasonable to replace the parking elsewhere for the County. MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 5 Workshop Mayor Piercy said one option would be to utilize the half-block design with the existing city hall location. She recommended asking the public what would excite it about this building and what it would take to make it a symbol of local democracy. Ms. Teninty asked how the council would want to ascertain from the public which site should be chosen. Ms. Taylor recommended providing information on the financial implications of moving and demolishing the existing building. She added that when discussing how the Chief envisioned the police facilities in the new building people should remember that “he is not Chief of Police for life” and what he wanted in it was “not a crucial thing.” Mr. Papé wanted to hear from the public about which site it would choose and whether the patrol division should be located there. Ms. Teninty reiterated that the next public forum would be held on November 2 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the First United Methodist Church. The Web site for information was www.eugenecityhall.com, or people could call 682-5222 (TTY 984-3135). She said the design team was also offering tours of the existing City Hall in order to show people why the council was moving forward with the process. Mayor Piercy conveyed her appreciation for the work of the design team. The meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—City Council October 18, 2006 Page 6 Workshop