Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/28/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session Board of County Commissioners Conference Room--Public Service Building February 28, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Downtown Visioning Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer led the work session, asking the council to complete its direction to staff on the two remaining themes from the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning: 1) Expanding housing, recreation, and cultural opportunities; and 2) Capitalizing on development opportunities. Mr. Farmer asked the council to send suggestions for next steps or informational needs to Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department. Expanding Housing, Recreation, and Cultural Opportunities Mr. Farmer briefly noted the committee's recommendations in this area. He highlighted the committee's recommendations regarding neighborhood preservation for neighborhoods adjacent to downtown in light of its interest in expanding the downtown to the east and north. That would require examination of current and potential tools to ensure housing conversion did not occur, as was encouraged now by zoning in certain locations. Ms. Nathanson, as co-chair of the ad hoc committee, underscored Mr. Farmer's remarks about the committee's interest in protecting residential neighborhoods near downtown. She thought that neighborhoods suffered from the conversion of residential housing to commercial uses, which often occurred incrementally so people did not notice until it was too late. She said the City should be clear such neighborhoods were intended to be residential, not transitional. Regarding the lack of text in the report specific to mid-town, Ms. Nathanson said as the City developed implementing text, it should be clear the mid-town area was represented by a separate organization and should be considered outside the scope of downtown. She said mid-town should be encouraged to begin to work toward a unified character, which would help distinguish between the two areas. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed support for this theme and emphasized the importance of having a range of housing types, income level targets, and increased ownership opportunities in downtown. He liked the emphasis on mixed-use and a diversity of activities and events. Mr. Kelly said it was critical to reach out to the local arts community for input on a new cultural events center in downtown. He said that it was important to focus on activities, not building for the sake of building. Mr. Kelly noted that the bullet regarding retention of residential use did not make it into the priority list of key next steps, included in the report as an errata sheet. He thought it should be made a significant priority and that there was council support for that. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments. She liked the theme. She questioned the concept of a year-round market, noting the lack of support expressed previously for the concept by market vendors. She asked about the origin of the concept. Ms. Bettman noted housing conversion occurring north of downtown, depending on where the City instituted the boundary. She favored 5th Avenue as a boundary, and wanted to ensure redevelopment of the AgricPac site included housing. Ms. Bettman referred to a key next step calling for research into the market potential for a major new cultural venue downtown, and suggested an opportunity existed in the McDonald Theater, which had historic and cultural attributes that would make it an asset to downtown if it could remain open as a venue for events. Ms. Bettman suggested the key next steps calling for the retention of residential uses in neighborhoods abutting downtown and for encouragement of commercial development to concentrate in the downtown core could be misconstrued to suggest housing should be around downtown, not in downtown. Mr. Farmer assured Ms. Bettman that was not the intent of the next step. The committee thought preserving residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown was a priority, and wanted to encourage housing downtown as well. He said that staff would make that clear in Phase 2 of the project. Regarding Ms. Bettman's question about a year-round market, Mr. Farmer said the suggestion for further investigation came from vendors associated with the market. The committee did not anticipate a year-round market of the same size, but thought there could be some year-round support in the downtown area that solidified the market in downtown and avoided the market from leaving downtown to relocate to a permanent year-round facility. Ms. Bettman did not think that mid-town was solely a commercial center and that it was important to plan for infill housing in that area through another planning process. Mr. Meisner concurred with the comments of other councilors. Noting his membership on the committee, he said the committee had disagreed on the subject of downtown housing and why one would want to preclude the conversion of housing west of downtown. It was not an easy issue. He agreed with Mr. Farmer the committee wanted housing downtown but also wanted to establish a boundary between the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The committee was interested in an intensely developed downtown. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Regarding the northern boundary of downtown, Mr. Meisner said that over his objections, the committee refused to consider the srd/4th connector as the north boundary. He thought it a mistake because the area was largely zoned mixed-use and was almost all in single ownership. Mr. Meisner feared that in the absence of direction to the contrary, the area could develop in a manner that could block access to Skinner Butte. Mr. Pap~ acknowledged the departure of Symantec from downtown and called for a focus on that area. Mr. Pap~ expressed disappointment with the appearance of the Broadway Plaza and said the City needed to look at how to design nice plazas that brought people out and together. He asked what was being done in this area. Mr. Farmer responded that the vision discussed the downtown "outdoor room" as being the Parks Blocks, as it had been historically, and antipated events would be concentrated in that area. He said that Phase 2 should include a discussion of what use the community envisioned for the Broadway Plaza, and what approach that involved. Mr. Farmer noted interest in discussion of what was appropriate for gathering places along the river. In response to a comment from Mr. Pap~ that he did not see much of what Mr. Farmer described in the vision, Mr. Farmer said that element would be strengthened in the next phase. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks on the north boundary. He thought Skinner Butte represented a natural downtown boundary. Mr. Farmer noted the interest of merchants near Symantec in seeing the building the company planned to vacate reoccupied soon. Ms. Taylor thought preserving the housing west of downtown was very important, and called for the establishment of zoning districts that would encourage what the City wanted to see encouraged and discourage unwanted development. She called for the provision of shelter for the Farmers Market, at a minimum, so that produce could be sold year-round. Ms. Taylor did not find Broadway Plaza attractive. She thought the area had been attractive when the fountain was in place and working and events such as plays were scheduled on the mall. She did not want to open Broadway as a first step, saying the money that would require could be used on other more important things. Ms. Taylor said she had suggested to Downtown Eugene, Inc., that it honor a school each week and schedule young people's activities on the mall. Arts displays could be set up and school musical groups could perform. Such events would draw both young people and their parents. Ms. Taylor said she favored things that did not cost a lot of money. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the impact on the river of the possible expansion of downtown uses toward the river. She was also concerned that the development of other areas away from downtown, including the river, could detract from downtown. Ms. Taylor advocated for the return of free parking to downtown. She said that people would be more likely to come downtown if they did not have to worry about a parking meter. Regarding the opening of Broadway, Ms. Taylor said that Willamette Street had been reopened and she found it still to be drab and vacant of tenants. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Farmer said that it was important to get people used to coming downtown. While people do come downtown, they do not come early or stay late, or generally do multiple functions. He discussed the Choirs of Pittsburgh, an event sponsored by the City of Pittsburgh that highlighted each night, for a two-month period, a different choir from the region singing downtown. It attracted parents and grandparents downtown. He indicated interest in pursuing the concept with DEl. Regarding the subject of parking, Mr. Farmer said that all parking had a cost, whether it was paid by the patron of a business, the business itself, or government. He said that staff would keep working to resolve the tension between making parking too accessible and making it unaccessible by not having enough or making it too expensive. He emphasized the need for parking turnover, and said that free parking tended to be dominated by employees. Mayor Torrey acknowledged the City did not own the McDonald Theater building, but thought the City could use the tools it already had in place to facilitate the conversion of the McDonald Theater to a more desired use. He hoped that staff pursued the opening of Broadway, noting he did not previously support the reopening but now did support it because of the public perception that the area was unsafe. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Farmer that parking was not free, but outside the downtown parking was provided by the developer and the City had no role in that. In the downtown, developers had no responsibility for parking, which was provided by the City. There was one private parking garage downtown. He did not think that was good. He said that developers outside the downtown recover the costs of the parking over time; in downtown, the City and to some degree, merchants absorbed the cost of parking. He called for a broader discussion of the implications of the City's parking policies inside and outside downtown. Mr. Meisner emphasized the need for something more than events to bring residents downtown. He said that there must be housing, and commercial and retail opportunities. Many people come downtown to the Eugene Celebration, but for no other reason. Mr. Pap8 said the City Council should keep in mind new development opportunities for City Hall as it considered the vision. He suggested the City Council form a committee to look at what would be done with spaces in City Hall. He indicated agreement with Mayor Torrey about the opening of Broadway. Mr. Rayor asked for more information about the Bureau of Land Management redevelopment in Salem. He said that if the City were to develop the similarly sized Sears building in Eugene with offices, it would have something to show both staff and those responding to a Request for Proposals. Mr. Rayor, also a committee member, indicated concurrence with Mr. Meisner's remarks about parking. He was very interested in a better definition of the City's mission in downtown. Mr. Kelly thought the comments from the participants in the open houses and focus groups were very good and wanted to ensure they would be integrated into the recommendations that came back to the council. He noted a comment that "downtown housing needs open space." He thought there might be a need for some spaces comparable in size to Broadway Plaza in other places in downtown if housing developed as he hoped. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly reiterated a long-time concern of his, that downtown parking was not easy to find if one was not a veteran of downtown. He called for an approach modeled on Portland's Smart Park Program. Ms. Nathanson recollected that she advocated for a pocket park in downtown in an earlier planning process. She thought it worth keeping the concept in mind and being active so that opportunities were not lost. Ms. Nathanson requested information on why the downtown had the types of private parking that it did, and why some was under grounded and some under buildings. She asked if more under ground parking could be encouraged. Mr. Farmer said that surface parking was the cheapest to construct, leading to more surface lots; a structure on stilts was the next least expensive, and was sometimes done because otherwise the building could not be tenanted. Structured parking above ground was the next most expensive type to build, followed by structured parking underground. Mr. Farmer termed structures on stilts one of the worst building types imaginable because of the impact on the street. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to consider how the City could encourage the more desirable parking developments. Ms. Taylor observed that some people had a fear of parking structures. She noted that some cities had automatic parking elevators that could be accessed by punch card, and more cars could be accommodated in such structures. Ms. Taylor said that if the City had enough downtown events, there would be people who wanted to sell things to those who came downtown. If that could be combined with Iow-cost rents, it might get used to people coming downtown to shop. Ms. Taylor advocated for a youth center downtown. She said it would bring people downtown and help to overcome people's perception of downtown as unsafe. She said that the youth on downtown would go somewhere; if they were driven off Broadway, where would they go next? They had to go somewhere, and in her discussions with students she learned they would go to a youth center if one was available, and they were not disturbed by the appearance of the people downtown or the presence of youth from other schools. Capitalizing on Development Opportunities Mr. Farmer shared a graph with the council regarding the impact of downtown development on automobile, transit, and alternative modes use. The graph indicated that downtown development fostered the use of alternative modes and transit. Mr. Farmer noted some pending development opportunities in downtown. Mr. Kelly found this theme to be much more vague and general than the other themes. He questioned the use of the word "encourage" without further definition of what that meant. Regarding the potential use of incentives, he wanted any downtown incentives to be developed in a citywide context. He noted citizen comments regarding the risk that simultaneous developments could depopulate the core and thought those points well-taken. He also endorsed a citizen comment recommending the City focus its great streets efforts on one small area at a time with the cooperation of property owners, and cited a loan program in an eastern community that funded the installation of awnings as a connecting theme in downtown. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the need to consider downtown incentives in a citywide context. He said the same was true of many of the other recommendations in the plan, including parking. Mr. Meisner said that the committee discussed the issue of parking and the notion of "leveling the playing field" between downtown parking and parking outside downtown did not appeal to a majority of members, so doing so would be "up to us." He said the council needed to remember that each development site needed to be considered as an opportunity in the context of the entire vision; the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Sears site could be very different than the RFP for the remainder of the Chiquita site. Mr. Farmer agreed that each development site was unique and must be considered in a larger context. He said that City focused on the Chiquita neighborhood, rather than just the site itself. He thought the committee expected the council to discuss the issue of "leveling the playing field" as it had a more limited charge. Mr. Meisner did not think the issue had much support among committee members. Regarding Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the awning program, Mr. Farmer noted that many of the awnings in Eugene's downtown were underwritten by a program funded through the Urban Renewal District. Those moneys were now longer available. Ms. Nathanson questioned the potential of creating a local improvement district downtown to fund things like awnings. She questioned if such a district was more appropriate and cost-effective than an urban renewal district in the shod-term. Regarding the issue of "leveling the playing field," Ms. Nathanson said that it was not as simple as saying, "downtown is good and anything outside of downtown is bad." People would not go downtown for all uses. In addition, she said, nodal development opportunities needed to be encouraged, so the council needed to distinguish between certain activities, uses, and locations. Ms. Bettman hoped key next steps would include an option for creating a revenue stream for downtown while "leveling the playing field." She wanted to look at options like local improvement districts. Ms. Bettman did not favor forgiving systems development charges but thought the geographic element in the SDC being considered by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee might address that concern. Ms. Bettman noted her request for staff research into the issue of housing conversions. City Manager Jim Johnson anticipated the requested information would be available in April. Mr. Rayor supported the formation of a local district or variant on an urban renewal district to underwrite the costs of facade improvements and awnings. He wanted to look to the New Urbanism for models Eugene should have used in the past, but did not. Mayor Torrey said he had visited three cities with striking statutes as downtown elements. They were Annapolis, Maryland; Joseph, Oregon; and Savannah, Georgia. He said that such statutes became landmarks and helped people to identify where they were in a community. He thought that the inclusion of statues on a great street would be an incentive for people to visit downtown. Mr. Meisner observed that the City did not need to establish a district to underwrite a loan program for facade improvements and awnings. He said many cities employ such programs quite effectively. Mr. Kelly emphasized the need for staff to operate such programs. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said she was very interested in collaborating with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)on its site redevelopment. It was in the interest of both the City and the utility to work together on a cohesive plan. She asked if the City was at the point of that collaboration yet, or was the utility doing its planning unilaterally? Mr. Farmer responded that there was good, continuing contact at the staff level and he anticipated collaboration. He said at this point, the issue was one of timing. Mr. Johnson added that EWEB's General Manager Randy Berggren requested information about the timeline for the Chiquita site plan development; he was unable to provide Mr. Berggren with that information. EWEB staff indicated that the utility could consolidate and move things around on the site and was willing to discuss that, as well as consider some public use of the EWEB property. Mr. Farmer provided a brief status report on the department's efforts regarding implementation of the vision to this point. B.Request for Reconsideration Mr. Meisner explained that he would like to change a vote he had cast at the meeting of February 26, 2001, and wished to offer a motion to reconsider. He said that in the absence of Pat Farr, he would then move to table the motion. He wished to change his vote because the motion, as stated, did not give the City the flexibility to look at other routing and access options. The motion was: Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to recommend to the TransPlan adopting officials that West Eugene Parkway Units IA and lB be included in the financially constrained project list of TransPlan, and that West Eugene Parkway Units 2A and 2B be removed from the future projects list in TransPlan, and that the City pursue the construction of Units IA and lB in conjunction with ODO T. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to reconsider the motion. Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap8 left the meeting. The motion to reconsider passed unanimously, 5:0, and the original motion was on the table. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to table the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously, 5:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 7 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 28, 2001 Page 8 Work Session