Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/21/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 21, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Metro Urban Reserve Study Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department joined the council for a presentation on the Metropolitan Urban Reserve Study. He introduced Clare VanBIoem of Lane Council of Governments, who was present to assist with the presentation. Mr. Croteau provided the council with the history of the concept of urban reserves and said the study was initiated due to State changes in the rules regarding urban reserves. He called the council's attention to the State criteria for urban reserves, included in the meeting packet, and emphasized that urban reserves were not required by the State or the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan. Mr. Croteau noted the location of urban reserves established in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area on a wall map. He noted that the need for urban reserve land must first be met by nonresource areas, then by marginal lands, and finally, if the community could not meet its needs for urban reserves, resource areas. He pointed out that most of the urban area in Eugene- Springfield was surrounded by resource lands. Mr. Croteau said the Eugene Planning Commission discussed the information contained in the study and recommended to the council that the urban reserves be eliminated. He noted that motions reflecting several options were included in the meeting packet. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the options if the three jurisdictions did not agree on the subject of whether there should be urban reserves, Mr. Croteau referred her to the dispute resolution process overseen by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Croteau clarified that the process for bringing land into the boundary was the same as establishing urban reserves; the City must still go through an evaluation to determine which lands have the most resource value. He said the Metro Urban Reserve Study was valuable because it provided the needed analysis if the community later decided to add back urban reserves. Mr. Croteau noted that State law also stipulates that the City must provide a 20-year land supply when it expands its urban growth boundary. Mr. Fart confirmed with staff that land in the urban reserve probably had a higher value than land outside the urban reserve, although Mr. Croteau believed it would take an appraiser to make that determination. Mr. Fart asked if Measure 7 affected the study. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the answer was probably no, because Measure 7 applied where a regulation was in place MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 1 Work Session restricting the use of a property. It depended on what action the council took. If the council proposed to downzone property, that could trigger a Measure 7 claim. Mr. Fart suggested that the vagueness of Mr. Klein's answer meant the City could expect some sort of challenge if it changed the future use of the land in question. He observed, however, that the urban reserve areas were the first in line to be included in the city and hence, the first to have any zoning changes that might increase the value of the land. Mr. Kelly noted that the staff notes indicated that it was not clear that the land already designated as urban reserves still qualified under State administrative rules. Mr. Croteau agreed. If the community was to do a new study, the areas now designated as urban reserve would likely not meet the new rules and, in the event of a new study of appropriate locations for urban reserves, would not be at the top of the list because of their designation and zoning as resource lands. Mr. Kelly said it appeared that whatever the City did, the State had changed the roles of those properties. Mr. Croteau concurred. Mr. Kelly confirmed the City could expand the urban growth boundary without having urban reserves. He asked if Eugene was freer to expand in the absence of urban reserves. Mr. Croteau said somewhat, but the process for evaluating what was taken into the boundary had to take into account the location of resource lands. If the City decided to establish reserve areas and later expanded the boundary, the State law stipulated that nonresource areas were the first the community must move into. Mr. Kelly said it was significant to him that the planning directors of the three jurisdictions agreed the correct approach was to drop the urban reserve. Mr. Meisner asked if it was easier to bring urban reserves into the boundary as opposed to newly identified land. Mr. Croteau said yes, because the analysis was already done. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City invited speculation by creating urban reserves, because there was the expectation those lands would be brought into the city. He supported the recommendation of the planning directors. Mr. Pap~ asked if the urban reserves helped address the 20-year land supply requirement. Mr. Croteau clarified that the requirement was only triggered if the boundary was expanded. Mr. Pap~ asked if Springfield could have urban reserves if it wished. Mr. Croteau said Springfield could not make a unilateral decision about changes to the Metropolitan Plan without Eugene and Lane County's concurrence. He said that it was possible the two cities could agree one would have urban reserves and one would not. Ms. Nathanson concurred with the recommendation of the planning directors and the Planning Commission. She found the requirement for a 20-year supply to be problematic. She noted her previously discomfort with parcelization and planning for large-scale development rather than small-scale development. She thought Eugene was more supportive of planning for small-scale development, with fine-tuning of how neighborhoods should develop. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for the format of the staff memorandum, saying after reviewing the disadvantages of the reserves and balancing those against her own sentiments and new development patterns, she did not support urban reserves. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Kelly that the agreement of the planning directors was significant. He asked if Springfield would support the recommendation. Mr. Croteau said the Springfield council would hold a similar work session. He added that the urban reserves in Springfield were difficult MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 2 Work Session to serve, and if Springfield was to establish a new urban reserve area it was unlikely to be the one that existed now. Mr. Rayor asked what cities in Oregon had urban reserves. Mr. Croteau said that Portland attempted to establish one but it had been appealed. Now, Newberg, Oregon was the only city with urban reserves. Ms. Bettman also concurred with the planning directors' recommendation. She said that it was her understanding that the expansions of the boundary that had occurred had not occurred in the designated reserves. Mr. Croteau agreed. He said that there had been only one large and two very small boundary expanses in Eugene, and none were in the reserves. Mr. Meisner asked if the elimination of the reserves would lead to resource savings. Mr. Croteau said yes, those resources were to be reallocated to other metropolitan studies. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly moved to direct staff to remove urban reserve designations from the Metro Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. The Downtown/Willamette River/Franklin Boulevard Visioning Project Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer introduced the item. He reported on the three-hour work session held at The Atrium on February 13, characterizing it as very successful, noting it had attracted people who had not previously attended a session on the subject. Those who came stayed for the entire event. Mr. Farmer explained that staff planned to take the council's comments regarding the project themes and package them for incorporation into the next phase of the project. He said that in terms of the next phase, staff was discussing, among other things, working further on the concept of a fish-friendly waterfront; the development of the neighborhood around the federal courthouse; working with the arts community on an arts neighborhood concept, overlaid with the theme of great streets; and boundary issues. Staff would like to use the New Urbanism movement as a new template, and test some things in downtown using the principles of that movement. Mr. Farmer reported on staff's intent to map activities in the downtown by time of day, season of the year, and day of the week to determine how to use that information to leverage more and longer visits to downtown. Mr. Farmer called the council's attention to three key elements of the visioning project that staff was requesting further discussion on today: 1) Connect Downtown to the River, 2) strengthen downtown as a Regional Center, and 3) transform Franklin Boulevard into a Gateway. Connect River to Downtown Strengthen Downtown as a Regional Center Transform Franklin Boulevard into a Gateway MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 3 Work Session The council offered comments on themes. Mr. Fart referred to the Arts Neighborhood concept and said he was intrigued by the concept. Eugene had many talented artists in the community and there was an opportunity to establish a cultural center in downtown to take advantage of the many performing venues in the core. Mr. Kelly offered advice to staff on packaging the council's comments, suggesting it would be "neat" if staff synthesized the comments into proposed modifications to the document so the council could approve a modified document. Regarding the summary of the first work session prepared by staff, Mr. Kelly did not want the council's discussion regarding the opening of Willamette Street at the Hult Center to be misconstrued as support for a full standard street. He suggested that perhaps it could be sized to allow passage of a shuttle bus. Regarding the summary statement that the council expressed concern about the compatibility of private uses adjacent to Broadway, he asked if that was related to the design standards or overlay zones suggested in the key next steps. Mr. Farmer said yes, adding that the council indicated that opening the street was not a panacea, but it was important that if it was opened there be good store fronts, mixed uses, and attention given to private development responding to the street scape. Mr. Kelly noted the reference in the summary to the council's concern that the opening of the Millrace include a connection of the existing section of the Millrace to the east, suggesting it implied a pedestrian/bicycle path. Referring to the theme Connect Downtown to the River, Ms. Bettman said she was glad to hear staff was looking at the riverfront in a fish-friendly manner. She wanted to ensure that the City had adequate buffers and setbacks for development before it moved forward. Regarding the last key next step, Update Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan, she asked what the committee was thinking of when it made that recommendation and how staff interpreted it. Mr. Farmer said committee members felt that since the district was a tool already in place it would be a good way to state a strong public policy direction for the area in question when developing a new plan to implement the federal courthouse neighborhood concept. Ms. Nathanson added that the specifics of the plan were what would happen in Phase 2, when staff would analyze the plan and make recommendations to the council for areas to modify. She thought a district plan should be reviewed and updated periodically to ensure it reflected the uses the council felt were important for the community. Because there was a more comprehensive vision in place now, she thought it was appropriate to update the plan in the same way a refinement plan would be updated. Absent such direction, development would happen solely at the wishes of the developer. Mr. Meisner added that though there were members of the committee who wanted to renew the district, the committee agreed that the district should be matched to the purposes of the study and it should be used effectively while the district existed, which was for five more years. Mr. Rayor said he had a series of amendments related to bicycle facilities and bicycle access he would like to include in the report. He wondered when it would be appropriate to offer amendments to the document. Mr. Farmer suggested the council consider amendments at a fourth work session. He said that amendments could be clarifying direction for the next phase of implementing the vision. He invited councilors to submit any amendments they wished to suggest to the staff. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Rayor said that the plan did not stress the preservation of the riverfront bicycle path system and he thought it was obvious that emphasis should be stressed. He suggested there was a relationship between that emphasis and the fish-friendly waterfront mentioned by Mr. Farmer. Ms. Nathanson did not think there was anything in the report that precluded Mr. Rayor's vision regarding preservation of the riverfront from being implemented. She thought the report as submitted by the ad hoc committee was complete, and that the council's work sessions were intended to provide specific direction on the implementation of the recommendations to the staff in subsequent phases. Mr. Farmer said that was the process he would recommend. He said staff was seeking the council's direction on the types of things staff would be working on over the next year, rather than direction on recrafting the report so that every councilor felt they could support every word in it. Mr. Pap8 thanked the council members of the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning. He said that he hoped to have both a fish-friendly and fisherman-friendly river. Mr. Pap8 was glad no boundaries had been established yet as he thought it premature. Mr. Pap8 said that the bicycle and pedestrian path on the riverfront was a big community attraction, would continue to be so, and should be enhanced. Regarding the proposal to bring the federal courthouse to the Chiquita site, he noted that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had sent a letter critical of the committee's vision for Franklin Boulevard. He asked if Mr. Farmer perceived any problems with realizing that vision. Mr. Farmer said no. He said that the City had no chance yet to sit down with ODOT, which had no opportunity to review the traffic analysis done by Eugene. Mr. Johnson noted that the ODOT letter referred to by Mr. Pap8 contained several inaccuracies; for example, the automobile/pedestrian accident cited by the agency did not happen at the location, the pedestrian involved was extremely intoxicated, and the driver of the involved automobile was not cited for an infraction. Mr. Pap8 observed that one could get to the river now but few do. He asked if the City could link the Lawrence and High streets to foster the connection to the bicycle paths. Mr. Farmer responded by referring Mr. Pap8 to the diagram on page 12 of the plan, which suggested use of both 5th and 8th avenues as a connector. He said that many use 4th Avenue to reach the river. Ms. Taylor liked the idea of mapping activities. She wanted to retain the assets now in downtown, such as the Farmers Market. She was concerned about building on the riverfront and wanted an adequate setback to be established. She thought access should mostly be by foot and bicycles rather than by car; she did not want parking lots too near the river. Ms. Taylor also liked the idea of establishing downtown boundaries. She expressed concern that encouraging development in the vacant areas near Franklin Boulevard could contribute to a loss of businesses downtown. Ms. Taylor referred to media reports of major retail developments proposed for location near Beltline and West 11th Avenue, and said the more the City approved such developments, the less likely it was downtown would thrive. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor hoped new zoning districts for downtown would be established. She asked why new office buildings were to be encouraged, suggesting they took away from opportunities for more evening life. Ms. Taylor said that stakeholders for the process were all the citizens. She did not want to adopt the document until all public comment had been gathered. Mr. Meisner emphasized that the document was a vision and not a plan. He thought Ms. Nathanson's remarks on that point were well-taken. He thought nothing had been mentioned to this point that required an amendment to the plan. Speaking to Mr. Rayor's comments, Mr. Meisner pointed out that the plan identified the need to maintain and enhance the bicycle path as a key next step, so he thought Mr. Rayor's concerns were addressed both there and in other parts of the vision. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for Ms. Nathanson's remarks, saying he agreed. He thought Mr. Farmer's suggestion to distill the council's concepts in a direction document that could be adopted by the council was a good one. Mr. Kelly supported the concept of connection to river as outlined in the vision. He did not necessarily object to buildings near the river, but wanted good science behind the buffers and setbacks that were established for development near the river. Mr. Kelly suggested that the task of revising the district urban renewal plan be raised in priority. Mr. Farr said that people needed to be given more reasons to go to the river. He agreed that buildings should not be built directly on the river but the City should foster development that could take advantage of views of the river. Ms. Nathanson underscored what Mr. Meisner said regarding the vision. She thought it could stand as it is. She thought it ironic that often it was suggested that Eugene should be more European, and in cities in Europe were often developed with a hard edge to the rivers passing through them. She said Eugene had an opportunity to do development on the river in the Eugene way. Ms. Nathanson said that the size of buffers might also be flexible, and be based on the type of the building, the materials used, or the native vegetation in place. She did not think that there was always a one-size-fits-all solution appropriate for every situation. Ms. Nathanson added that the more people who have access to the river, the more people will enjoy it and appreciate it for what it ought to be. Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Ms. Taylor said she perceived the vision to ultimately lead to a plan, as a vision did not just exist in one's mind. Regarding the theme of connecting to the river, she thought that was connected to the concept of strengthening downtown and it was hard to talk about one without the other. She did not agree that the downtown was cut off from the river, given that one could walk three blocks from City Hall and reach the river. Mr. Pap8 thought the City could do something in the short-term to make travel up High Street more inviting, taking advantage of the natural corridor that already existed. He welcomed new ideas. Mr. Meisner thought the element related to the connection to the river adequate as written. He stressed the conceptual nature of the element. He cautioned the council to be careful in the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 6 Work Session terms it used in discussing the "riverfront" and "waterfront." Perhaps the council could state the riverfront was be the natural area between any development and the high water mark. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Taylor that it was relatively easy to get to the river but if one stood at 5th Street Market one might not know there even was a river nearby because EWEB had created walls to conceal surface parking lots. He wanted to see a new connection to the river as the current connection at EWEB was not ideal. He envisioned a pedestrian and sight corridor between 5th Street Market and the river. Speaking to the theme of downtown as a regional center, Mr. Farr likened the situation to the riverfront. The City needed to do more to bring people to the core, and could do so by taking advantage of the arts in the community to get people downtown after 5 p.m. Ms. Nathanson encouraged staff to do some thinking about whether fairgrounds convention activities competed with or was complementary to downtown. She asked if there were activities the council should be less enthusiastic about encouraging at the fairgrounds. She suggested the City could be inadvertently undermining its own goals. Mr. Kelly supported the broad concepts in the section but had concerns about the key next steps. He said those steps needed to be put in a citywide concept. For example, if systems development charges were decreased downtown they should be increased on the periphery. Regarding the recommendation to promote additional office development in downtown, he suggested a complementary step was to discuss how to discourage such development at the periphery. Regarding the next steps for parking, Mr. Kelly agreed with the bullet as stated but noted his belief that structured parking was the private sector's ultimate responsibility. He believed the public sector could make that process easier by allowing the formation of local improvement districts and by providing loans. Ms. Bettman said she had always had a problem with the idea of downtown as a regional center. She thought the City would do best if it made downtown work for Eugene, and worked to foster it as a cultural center, government center, and urban neighborhood. She did not see major commercial uses as compatible with her vision. The places she had seen that worked well started out working well for the neighborhood, then for the city, and then it began to attract others from outside the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman said it was unrealistic to think that the City could stimulate major commercial development downtown. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the issues needed be looked at in a larger context. Regarding the concept of reducing or waiving SDCs, Ms. Bettman said that those costs did not go away, and the taxpayer ended up paying for the difference. She said that there were perhaps ways to offset that, such as through a geographic component in SDCs, but she questioned whether it would make up the difference. Ms. Bettman referred to the key step, "Develop appropriate zoning to promote downtown development," and suggested that appropriate zoning was needed to promote downtown development both inside and outside of downtown; in other words, there needed to be incentives and disincentives for development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Meisner noted that the only time major commercial in downtown was mentioned in the vision was in a subtitle, and suggested its inclusion was a mistake as the text referred to community serving commercial activity downtown. Responding to Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding parking, Mr. Meisner said that he advocated for and succeeded in including a change in the key next steps that did not put all responsibility for parking on the public sector. Mr. Meisner noted his concurrence with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding convention activities, Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding parking, and Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding zoning and downtown and nondowntown development. Mr. Rayor said the City was strengthening downtown by constructing a new library and attempting to locate the courthouse in Eugene. He was not comfortable with incentives. He said the downtown should represent a planting bed the City seeded with infrastructure, and the private sector must step up to make it work. He pointed out that major commercial uses could include office development as well as department stores. Regarding the Franklin Boulevard theme, Ms. Nathanson said that it focused on Franklin as a corridor, the adjacent uses, and site design. She said staff should not be so concerned with Bus Rapid Transit that it forgot about the remainder of the corridor. She advocated for an approach that took advantage of opportunities to affect site and building design as applications come in, and encouraged staff to think creatively in the absence of design standards. Ms. Nathanson said it was also important to underground utilities where possible along the roadway, and asked staff to think of ways to share those costs with EWEB and other providers. Mr. Kelly said that the section regarding Franklin Boulevard contained many good things but he wanted more detail about what it meant. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson's point regarding improvement of adjacent uses and emphasized the importance of improving pedestrian and bicycle connections, particularly the missing segment of riverfront bicycle path near Garden Avenue. Mr. Kelly agreed that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) should be consistent with the vision, but first the community should ensure it should be a first-class transit system. That might have an impact on the aesthetics of the boulevard. Mr. Rayor did not believe BRT could be the vehicle to totally transform Franklin Boulevard. He believed it was reasonable to require Lane Transit District to mitigate the impact of the system. Responding to Mr. Kelly's concerns, Mr. Meisner said he was not troubled by the general nature of the text regarding the Franklin element, particularly when he looked at the specificity in the key next steps. However, he wanted to ensure that whatever was proposed by LTD was consistent with what it built. Ms. Bettman wanted to know why the City was not looking at the entrance to downtown from the south and west as well. She wanted to see more emphasis on enhancing pedestrian amenities and pedestrian safety. She said that if the City opened Broadway, it could become an east-west corridor through the neighborhoods to the west and that needed to be addressed. Ms. Bettman called for access management on Franklin Boulevard. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Pap~ said that the City needed to work carefully with LTD and ©D©T on any work done on Franklin Boulevard. Ms. Taylor called for pedestrian sky bridges across Franklin Boulevard Mr. Rayor called for improved bicycle signing on Franklin Boulevard. C.Process Issue Mr. Kelly raised a process issue related to the council's ground rules, which stipulated that the agenda topic "Items from the Council, Mayor, and Manager" would only happen on Wednesdays. He asked for a motion that would allow that agenda item be scheduled on Monday, February 26, and then when the council adopted its ground rules it could modify them by switching "Items" to Monday. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to schedule items from the council, major, and manager on February 26, 2001. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 21, 2000 Page 9 Work Session