Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1972 Meeting Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon June 12, 1972 . Regular meeting of ,the Common Councii of the city of Eugene ,:, -Or-egoi1 was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on 'June 12, 1972 'l~' the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Me's'srs. McDonald, Teague, Hershner ~ Mrs. Campbell, and Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Williams was absent. I - University Group Promoting City Interest in Eugene's Heritage Copies of a prOspectus of Eugene Skinner Ship Restoration Committee, Inc:, were distributed to Council members together with stock certificates, and an offer to sell at $5 per share. The company was formed for the purpose of moving to Eugene via the Willamette River the Eugene Skinner Liberty Ship, la~ched on July 14, 1942. However~'the 'ship was scrapped while discussion of plans were going on, and only the nameplate was saved. This was dis- played by the officers of the Company - Jack Seubert, president; David T. Young, vice president in charge of marketing; Rodney Brown, executive secretary and treasurer; David Springgs, chairman of the board; Leslie L. D.Shaffer, general office boy; and Alfred Lomax, historian. The ,public offering of comPany stock is proposed to underwrite the cost of re- turning the nameplate to Eugene. Mayor Anderson assured the officers of the individual support of Council members and ex- pressed relief that the plank displayed was not for waiking. He reminded the Company officers of the rule forbidding solicitation in the Council Chamber. . II - PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Exceeding 6% Limitation, 1972-73 Budget Time element in advertising the 1972-73 budget prevents legal hearing'prior to the scheduled election on exceeding the 6% limitation on JUne 20, 1972. ,Hence, this specia~ hearing with official budget hearing set for the June 26, 1972 Council meeting. I Lee Penny, vice chairman of the Budget Committee, reviewed highlights of' the' proposed budget. It calls for exceeding the 6% limitation by $2,775,494. If approved, the tax rate per $1000 o~ true' cash value would be $9.72, compared to $8.68 for the current year. Don Petty, 1337 Hilyard Street, representing the Lane Political Action Committee, sug- gestedthe eight lay members of the Budget Comrni ttee resign on the basis that they are not representative of the people 'of Eugene. Mayor Anderson rUled the discussion out of order, saying the hearing is concerned with the budget, not composition of, the Budget Committee. Charles Potterf, 2685 Floral Hill Drive, questioned the increase in the budget and the 'expense of holding elections to authorize exceeding the 6% lirni tation. , . , Dorothy McLaren, 1920 Taylor Street, asked verification of the date of the'official hearing on the budget (June 26, 1972) and expressed the opinion that then would be the e time to discuss budget items. Irvin Wainer, 3334 West 14th Avenue, objected to the method of advertising the budget hearing and the increase in the'budget: He' said it is the Council's responsibility to gain publi'c participation in preparing the budget. Don Gall, Route 6, Box 1177; Michael Schull, 95 East 34th; and Michael Sprague, 231 East 12th Avenue commended'the CotlDcil on funds for social services included in the budget:. Mr.' Sprague said' that more than the appropriated $140,000 is needed' for these types of services, and that the budget hearing should have had more radio and, television publicity. , Gerald WI l'liamson , 2778 Friendly: Street,. (;j,uesti6ned the amount of taxes'paid' by the young people speaking' in support of the budget.. ,', C', B. Appeals, Conditional Use Permits 1. Shelter House, 2308 Wi11amette (R-G Zone) -' Neighbors in the vicinity of 2308 Willamette Street, the prop-qsed'locatioir~{jf a' 'fami,;Ly shelter house to be operated by Eugene Emer- gency Housing, appealed the deC'lsioil of the Pl'anning'Commission to grant a conditional use permit. The appeal was made on the grounds of incompatibility with 9lld harmful effect on the quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Memorandum from the Planning . CommissiQn indicates that the factors considered in the Commission's decision were that the Shelter HoUse will be located in an area zoned for multiple family use, thereby prese'rving similarity with surrounding de~elopment; suffiCient off-street - parking will be provided; the operation will be supervised by a resident ~amily; , maximum, niimber of guests wil;L be '25 (36 'coul'd be alloW"ed in this 'zone); and there 'have 'been no' problems from the standpoint'of neighborho?d, compatibility with this operation in its,present location. , , /j-8 6/12/72 - 1 r \,William'Eatan, 2311 Willamette, speaking far a number af neighbars to. the pra- pased lacatian; Carney Phelps, 2352 Willamette; Bertram Crum, 30 West 23rd Avenue; Carla Shiman, 47 West 23rd Avenue; Peter Hendersan, 90 East 23rd Avenue abjected to. issuance af the canditianal use ,permit an the basis that the multiple residency wauld nat be. in keeping with the single-family neighbarhaod, it would be comparable . to lacatinga hotel in a residential neighborhoad, there will nat be enough park- ing, existence of a "hat line "will t~stify to. undesirability of this type housing 'C in residential area, devaluation af praperty, and its pr.oper, location would be in a high-density zone. Speaking in favar af th~ Sh,elter House proposed location and the"Cauncil's denial of the appeal were Dan Gall,. Raute 6, fBox 1177, president of the Emergency Housing Carparatian; Jay West" 2028 University Street, member of Shelter Hous,e BO,ard; , Michael Schull, 895 East 34th Avenue; Diane Pyle, 2185 Raland,Way; Caral'VanHouten, 75 Grandview; William Emery, 2885 .Monroe Street; ~rank Wilkes, 1850 Emerald Street; Mark Miller, 2.774 Sorrel Way; Kay Higgins, 70 West 24th Avenue;,Theadore Palmer, 259 East 23rd Avenue. They contended the Shelter House has been agpadneighbar in its present location, that it fulfills a need of the community, economic discrimina- tion should no.t enter the decision on location of an emergency shelter of this type, there is ample parking, the structure proposed is excellent .for,~his,type housing, diversity af types of residents in a neighborhood would tend to. destray animasities between peaples from different backgrounds, and the proposed six-manth review.wauld I show the operation's compatibility with the neighborhaad. " ' Councilman McDonald expressed concern on lacatian of this type facility in a single- family residential type neighborhaod and the parking situation. He asked if the . City's budget includes funds far the Shelter House and whether.the staff members are volunteers. Manager said there is, included inth~ budget $750,0 ,far the Shelter House and that the question of parking was cansidered, based on experience at the present location on East 11th, when the,Planning Cammiss~an granted the permit. Mr. Gall said the present staff member is a valunteer, but that negatiatians are I underway an 'a program which will enable them to hire a full-tiIl)e staff member. I Cauncilman Teague too. expressed concern about the.Shelter House's locatian in this type neighbarhaod. He said he was particularly concerned in view af the number af abjectians presented from residents af the area which he feels, ar? valid. He feels thepr9posed location would prave to. be detrimental to. the happiness af those resi- dents as well as to. property values, and said he had been making an effort to. find another locatian, far the aperation. On inquiry fram Councilman Hershner, the zaning background af the neighbarhaod and conditians under which the permit was granted, as listed in the Commissian's memo, were discussed. Mr. Saul of the Planning ,affice said the maximum number,of units under the present R-G zone is 10, averaging abaut 2~ people per unit; permission far this facility is requ~red because it is a special type group care hame, which is allawable in an R-G zane as a canditianal use. Mr.. ,Gall sa:i,d there is a ques- tian of time since the house has been held vacant for two months pending a decisian . on whether the Shelter Hause aperatian wauld be allaweda~~that locatian. It was braught out in response to Councilman Mohr's question that other zoning in the immediate area consists of R-G on the north and an the south for a block and a half, then C-2, R-G acrass the street and diagonally, and R-l to the west. Mrs. Campbell expressed the opinion that, the hause under cansideration will not lend itself to. single-family use, and either it ,will ,be used far multiple housing ar will be torn down to. make way far apartments. Cauncilman McDanald asked whether the Shelter Hause will be in pasitian to. rent this house should the $7500 included in the City budget nat be available. ' Mayor Anderson answered that the City budget supports the program regardless of its lacatian, the Cauncil is cammitted to. the value of this pragram. Sa far as the condi tional use, that is a matter af zaning, he said, and the ,Council is to. judge whether this location is suitable for that type facility. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal.to deny the appeal. Motian carried, Souncilmen McDonald and Teague voting no. 2. McKrala Nursery, 2720 Potter (R-l Zone) - Appeal was receive,d from Doris'C:rater, 2714 Potter Street, to reverse. the decision af the PlanningCammission in grant- . ' ~ ,/ ing a conditional use permit to Mr~ and Mrs. Dale McKrola for a nursery 9chool at 2720 Potter Street. The appeal was requested for the fQllowing reasons: (1) physical deterioration af the neighborhood; (2) property valuatian adversely .affected; (3) the nu,rsery school :would be a business: (4) creation af parking prablems; (5) candi tions of appraval will not, b.e' adhered to; (6) allowance af sign is not appropriate; (7) inadequate notice of public hearing. J5~ " l 6(12(72 - 2 Manager said the Planning Commiss.ion in its consideration of the appeal tOok . '.., . .' '. ',I into consideration all items 'ofthe appeal except the inadequate notice of public hearing. Notice was in accordance with the zoning ordinance.: The permit was. granted, subject ,to the following 'conditions: (1) Signing limited to wa~l-mounted sign l~ square feet in area; (2).existing buffering will be main- . tained; (3) attendance limited to. ten.stu9-ents at anyone time; (4) Planning Commission review in the event of complaints concerning parking or other opera- . tional problems; (5) driveway will not be used for outdoor play area; (6) the p~~mit is lim~ted to the McKrolas only; and (7) the children wili be confined to the yard. In ~swer m Councilman Teague's quest~on as to whe~h~r the building ,will be Used for' any. purpose other than the nursery, Manager said the McKrolas will continue using i~ for a residence. Mrs. Crater stated her objections to the nursery at this location, saying it is a business and will lead to est;ablishment of further business in the ,~eighborhood. She feels 'int~oduction of this type facility will be a detriment to the area, so far as single-family living is concerned. She inquired whether it .would be a year-round or seasonal activity. ,'. .;, '. . . I. .J .; Dale McKrola,2720 Potter .Street, asked the COuncil to uphold the .Planning Com- I ,missi'on's decis~on.' In answer to questions from Council members'and the Mayor, Mr. McKrola said the operation would have to be called a business and that it is undecided whether it will be a seasonal venture, although it will probably be operated concurrently with the school year. Manager said it is the type of . business speCifically provided .for under conditional uses in 'R-l zones to per- mit a type of operation compatible' with sUrrounding 'area. Councilmen McDonald and Teague questioned the desirability of locating a facility of .this type in a single-family ~eighborhood, since it is a bus.iness in the sense that it is being operated for a profit. Councilman Mohr noted that it would not set precedent since there are other child care centers in the City in single-family zones. \ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to deny the appeal. < < Discussion among Council members revolved around whether the day nurseries now in existence in residential areas are operated by occupants of a home or by employes of the' owner, hours of op~ration, compatibility with the neighborhood, etc. Mr. McKrola said the nursery would be in a building s~parate from his I residence and it would be operated by his wife. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Mr. McDonald I and Mr. Teague voting no. C. Revocable Permits, Mobile Homes . 1. Civic Stadium, Emerald Baseball Office - Requested for use as ticket office for the Emeralds. There is no objection to the request, assuming buiidingcodes will' be met. I 2. ,Munn ,Motors, 1267 Railroad Boulevard - Requested for nightwatchman quarters in an induStrial zone,' a permissible' use if codes are met and' if there is evidence of need. This is a'used car facility and varidalism and pilferage have been eXperadmced.' Staff' has no objection. Frank Munn, owner, stated 10sseE? experienced and efforts made to stop the thefts. He commended the P~lice Department' for help given, but feels presence of a watchman is the only solution. Resolution No. 2061 - Authorizing revocable permit for mobile home at Civic Stadium (Emerald Baseball Office), was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. f 2062 - Authorizing rev0c~ie pe~mit, for mobile home at 1267 Railroad Boulevard for nightwatchman quarters (Munn Motors), was submitted. . Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs: Beal to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. ' D. Vacations 1. Spring Boulevard, 450 feet soutl:1 of Agate Street (Day Bayly) 2'~ West 15th Avenue between Oak Patch Road and Acorn Park Street' (C. W. Anderson) 3. Warren Street between:'Bailey Hill Road and Kevington' Avenue (City) 4. Util:Lty easement between Whitbeck Boulevard and Lemery Lane, east, of Powell (Lemery) /loo 6(12(72 - 3 Councilman Teague asked what the city isrecei ving in return for the vacated . properties; ',Manager. ~xplained . that 'property' 'is being t'rad~d fo~ ~the:dedrcate-d ' portion of Spring Boulevard ;e~change of pr0perty to :pernrl.t cul-de'-sac' on ~est-15th; property exchange on Warren Street is to allow construction of a right-angle inter- section with Bailey Hill Road; and the easement near Whitbeck Boulevard is not needed - to serve' the property and prevents :'"i ~s~_ de;,e,lop~e_nt. ' . , ,., ' _ . Council Bill No. 97()6 - Vacating Spring Boulevard 450 feet south of Agate Street, submitted arid read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved secQnded by .Mrs. Beal that the billbe're~d; the second t~'l!!e';by 'councilbill number oiUy, with unanimous 'consent of the' Counci'l, :and that' enclctmeilt be considered at , . . 1"- - . this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill. was read the second time by council hill number only. . , , " '. . . . I. I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs: ,BeaL, ,thaLthehill be,approved'and given' final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen Iiresent lvoting aye, the bill wa~' declared passed and ' nuIDbered 1650l. . . --, 1 . ,- , Counci,lBill No., 97,07 -Vacating West 15th Avenue bet'ieen . Oak Patch Road and Acorn Park Street (in Acorn 'Park) , :sUJ)mitted' C!-nd re'ad'the first 'time 'by' cOUnci~ "bill number and title .only" there being no councilman present requesting tha:t' it be: ~ea4 in full. . .. . Mr. Mohrmovedseconqed byMr's! ~Bealtllat the billbe read the ~,econd..tiIi1e.,by~council bill number only, 'w,ith unanimoUs' consent of' the Co uri cil , "and that enactment :be "considered at thls. time: 'Motion carried un~nimously. a~d .the ,bil+. was read, the sec~nd, time by council . bill number only." Mr. Mohr moved se'conded by Mrs. Beal'that the bill:,'be appr~ved';~d gi";~n "fi~ai passage. Rollcall vote. All'councilmen.present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16502. Council Bill No. 9708 - Vacating portion of Warren Street bet~~en Bailey:~ill Road and Kevington Avenue (City, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Moh~ moved seconded 'by Mrs'. 'Beai'thatthe' bill' be read the secon~ time ,by: 'council bill number, only , with Unanimous consent of the' 'CounCil, and that enactment he ~onsidered at this. time. Motion, carriedunariimously aild the bill was recici the second time by council bill number only:: ' Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and give!). final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen 'present voting aye, the bill was . declared passed and numbered 16603. ' - .' ... Council Bill No. 9709 - Vacating utili ty, easement between Whitbeck .Boulevard ..arid Lemery Lar:i.e east of 'Powe:ibl Street (Fred Lemery), Was ?Ubmitteq. ,and read the first time by ~ council bill' number and ii tIe only, there being no councilman-present requ.esting it be ::. read in full. .'- - ---- Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs.,Be~l,that the bill ,be read the second time~by..council bill . . , ". . .. - . "__ _1._ . number only, with unanimous consent of, the Council, and that enactment' be consldered at I '" . . . this time. 'Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and' given final passage. Rollcall 'vote. Allcounciimen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16504. E. Withdrawing from Oakway Water DiStrict - Firestone Store Property east of Valley River Council Bill No. 9710 ~ Withdrawing from Oakway Water District that property annexed to the City May 4, 1972 by Final Order #132 - Firestone Store property east of Valley River, was""submitted and read the first time bYCOUIfc-tl bill number and title .only, there being no' 'councilman present requesting that it be read ii).' full. Mr. Mohr moved. s~conde~ by Brs. Beal that. t~e bi71 be re~d t~e second ~i~e"by ~ouncil bill'>.-' number only, Wl th unar'umous' consent' of the Councll, and that enactment be consldered at '\-. ~ this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council / bill number only. , . Mr. Mohr moved seconded'by', Mrs,.' Beal :that :the bi;Ll be approved an.d, given final, passage. Rollcall vote. ,: All councilmen present, voting ay~, the bill was declared pass~d and numbered 16505. ) {q J 6/12/72 - 4 \ F. Bid Opening, Public Works Department. - June 12, 1972 Contract Cost Cost to Cost to Amount Project and Bidder Basic Alternate Abutting Property City Budgeted Opened 5/16/72 (Held from 5/22/72) Streets within 11th Addn - - . .; Edgewood Estates (807) Eugene Sand & Gravel $25,986.64 $22,970.12 28'Pvg$996.00/1ot - Devereaux & Pratt 26,315.75 ,24,.493.65 Wildish Construction 26 . 0 80 . 92, 24,882.32 Completion Da~e: September i5, 1972 Streets within L9ma Vista Park (797) Devereaux .& Pratt 21~,826 ..79 19 ,166.,93 Pvg $905.00/1ot(24) - Eugene Sand & Gravel 21,334..30 19,794.80 36 'Pvg 10..86/,fr.ft.(not in subdiv.) Wildish Construction 21,79'4.44 21,653.64 Benge Paving, Inc~_ 21,443.45 No Bid ,Completion Date: September 15, 1972 Opened 6/12/72 SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS Within EdgewoodEstates 11th Addition (807) Shur-Way Contractors 30,701. 25 Lat $825.00/1ot(28) - Wildish Construction 25 ,851. 45l'd~ Serv 129,00 /lot( 29 ) Levy 46.00/1ot(28) ** Qualified Bid - Wil+ not. ac~ept Stm - 331. 00 /lot (280 .. unless awarded, paving contract. Lat Area Not, in Subdi v-$2 ,268) .'. , ,', Completion Dq.te:' August 4,. 19,72 Within LomaVista Park (797) S~ur-~ay Contractors .2,5,9,7,5.82 Lat $588.00/~ot(~4) $10,960.00 $6,780.00 WildishConstruction 22,955.42lh'~ Serv 163.00/1ot(24) (Stm Swr) (72-73 . --. -- Levy 61. 00 /lot( 24) budget) ** Qualified Bid - Will not accept Stm 56.00/1ot(24) unless awarded paving contract. Completion Date: July 28, 1972 WAIVER PAVING, SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS Within Brewer Park SubdivisIDon Devereaux & Pratt $ 2 ;913. 77 Completion Date: September 15, 1972 I PAVING, SANITARY AND STORM SEWERS I Monroe Street from 28th to 550 feet south (798) Wildish Construction 21,131.50 20,870.70 28'Pvg$ 14.23/fr.ft. 9,218.00 9,050.00 Eugene, Sand &.:Gravel, ._. No Bid 24,154.. 46 SanServ 481. 00 (Stm Swr) (72-73 .' Devereaux & Pratt Incomplete Bid SanDiI' 501.00 Budget) . , Completion Date: August 18, 1972 Public Works Director reviewed the bids. Qualified bids were received on sewers within 11th I Addition Edgewood Estates and Lorna Vista Park from the low bidder, Wildish Construction - contract will not be accepted unless also awarded contract for paving in those subdivisions (third lowest bid on each). Le~ters protesting the projects were noted from Real Estate Developers-, Inc..(Hill & Schultz, attorneys, Suite 26, Valley River, Eugene), and Hugh W. GobleI', 1111 Elizabeth Street. Award was recommended on Brewer Park - a request for waiver of bid pr,ocedure will be presented. Two letters noted protesting the_M~m:r>qe Street P9-ving from,28tp. south -, one, frC?m D,ougl9-;S. O.Bacheller, di;st,rict treasurer of' the Wesley.an Church, the other from Carl T. Sandell, 7~0 West 28th. Public Wor)<s . Dire.ctor disp).ayed a map to Council members and pointed out the 'properties involved. . Mr. and Mrs. Carl Sandell, 790 West 28th, objected to the petitioning method for the project and its cost, and claimed it would serve only the Steinmetz property, not the general public. William Emery, 2885 Monroe Street, said he realized the most expensive part of the project would not abut properties whose owners are objecting and that it would be satisfactory to him if the assessment is split to put more of the cost on the steeper section. Public Works Director explained that the standard assessment policy would have to be followed, any other .. sharing of costs would have to be done between the parties involved. L. J. Smalley, pastor of the College Cres~Church, felt because of the slight, majority of ..... -'r front footage petitioning the paving and the higher than average cost, it would be better to reject the bid and postpone the project. William Petty, 2899 Friendly Street, questioned the cost of the storm sewer cutting across his property. He favored the paving because of the inclusion of the sto~m sewer and its effect on his propertr facing Friendly. Public Works Director said the storm sewer would /<aa 6/12/72- 5 be a City cost, about $9000, and w;~ it :~ot for thepav.:l."ng, 'the' dr-ain'age would not be a high prior:ity project.' " : Michael Schull, 2895 East 24th Avenue, suggested the proj~'ct 'be dropped l.V1tii fUrther in- _ vestigation of the problems involved. Public Works Directorpoirited out to' Council members on all)ap the loc"ation of the project ~. and explained the drainage situation as w,ell as front footage of abutting properties" etc. Conside~aole discussionens~ed with pubiic Works Director and Manager -answering questions from the Council with regard to Sandells', being prevented from con~tructing another building on their property, assessment procedures, petitioning procedures; cost of the proj~ct, per- centage of, front footagE? favoring the project" etc. Postponement was suggested 'to give the Council opportunity to see the area. 'Public Works Director said any longE?r than a week would not allow its inclusion in this construction s~ason. ", DiscUssion changed to the Lorna Vista project and questions on the engineers' estimates. Public Works Director explained how the project was planned to avoid service to unusable property because of the Bonneville easement running through the area. Also"th~ street pav- ing to give access to the development and its creation of assessment against 'properties which will not be benefitted. Manager reviewed the problem created when sewer assessments were levied against properties on which the Bonneville easement lies, and said 'these projects were put to bid with ~h~ assumption property owners in the area are aware of 'the normal City assessment proeedure. Councilman HeFshner que$tioned the reason for bidding the paving and sewers separately re- sulting in qualified bids. Public 'Works Director said 'this 'wa.s 'an 'attempt to allow smaller contrac,tor:s the "oppo~~~i.:ty','ofbidding. He said 11th Addition 'to Edgewood pro'ject 'can be _. rebid as one projeCt and brought back, but there is no assurance the bids will be as low as ..., they now stand. Mr. ~oh~Il)ove,dsec~rided by Mrs., Beal to award contracts to the bidder with the lowest unqualified bid"on ,Items I, '3, aIld5. (paving and sewers in 11th Addition Edgewood Es- '~" tates, and"""sew.ers~'E;~n~I\~F~~r' Park)~~ ~~RpJ,J.Gj:ill vote. All councilmen present voting '. ~ "." .~....' <:;,.........,~~ - '? -, - ~- - ~ -. . . .. - - aye, motion carried. -,"-' '" ~',= -- -~~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to postpone Items 2 and 4 to the June 26,1972 Council meeting (paving and sewers in Lorna Vista Park). Rollcall vote. All council- men present voting aye, motion carried. i :1: . Mr. Mohe moved. seconded ,by Mrs. Beal to award contract to the low bidder on paving Monroe Street (Item 6) pending inspection of the property. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, McDonald, Hershner, and Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Teague, and Campbell voting no. I III - Planning Assistance Grant Resolut"i6n No. 2063 - Authorizing Application 'for Planning Assistance Grant through HUD ~~. the amount of $50,000, was's'ubmitted. _". Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. B~al tO,adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all 'councilmen present voting aye. I ( .' . ~' .- - . ... ... . IV - Int'erim Density Plan - -~ecaus~,of 'the lEmgth me'eting and afte~ a Il)ajority of the Council indicated a desire to consider Planning 'Commission recommendations on the'south'hills interim density plan, Mayor"Anderson said the balance of the agenda, .other than that item, would be conside'r>ed at an 'cidj ourned'meeting ,on jtirle 15;' 19'":72.' He said the dis cussion on the Interim Deh~ity Plan would b~ ~imited to Council membe~s, with 'questions directed to them if desired, but no further; testimony would 'be taken. . . . .' f ." ." - I . .. ~, Councilman Hershner noted ,that he would not participate in the ~iscussion nor would he vote because 'of rep'resentation by ,a 'Illerriber of his Taw firm of a deyeloper in the south hills 'area; " ;,,' ..' ,'I' "',' " Recomme'ndati"ons of \he Planning Commission (see Council minutes May '22, 1972) we're taken individually: .'",. . . ' A. Special Study Area" / . ~~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that an area within 2000 feet of the ridgeline '.' (shown on 'meW attached to Planning COIl)l1lission 'report May 8, 1972 ).~n the southern \.; "':. p '" portion of the City will be designated as an 'area for sp'ecial study: . Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, and Mr. Hershner abstaini:pg. J ~. 3 6/12/72 - 6 ----- '--""; \ B. PUD Procedures Mr" .Mohr, moved ,seconded by Mrs. Beal to. instruct the staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance requiring all developments within the area in question to be made under planned unit development procedures, except minor subdivision, until completion of the study. ./ ' , ' Manager, in answer to Councilman McDonald,. explained that the recommendations apply to an area within 2000 feet of the ridgeline on the south portion of the City, and for only the period of time necessary to develop this study and make a decision wh~ther ~ny permanept changes, ~ould.be recommended. I Vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner abstaining. C. Density Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that wi thin the designated study area, the maximum density permitted will be limited to six (6) dwelling units per acre. Assistant City Attorney Korth, in answer to Councilman Teague, said, the Council can change the density at any time, regardless of the recommendation coming from the study. Councilman Bradshaw expressed the opinion that a density .+imi tation in this area would tend to ,force population int.o etherar.e.as which have even greater problems. Mr. Bradshaw moved, seconded by Mr. McDonald, to amend the motion to make the density limitation eight (8) dwelling units per acre. .- Mr'~ . M,~Pon?,+d inquired whether the' limitation covers the entire City, and :was told the recommendation applied only to the study area. Councilman }~ohr noted that the present zoning requirements allow eight units per acre. With the consent of Mr. McDonald, Councilman Bradshaw withdrew his motion. Mrs. Campbell urged other Council members to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, saying it is necessary to maintain a balance between land development and municipal services. She said the planners in making these recommendations are follow- ing,a,policy set by the Council itself. " , . Mr. Teague expressed concern about the amount of time consumed in making the study and the costs incurred by those people having investments in the area. He favored limit- ing the density to allow the study to proceed as quickly as possible. I Mr. McDonald did not feel one area should be designated, and that the requirements should be applied uniformly to the entire City. I Vote was taken on the motion to limit the density to six (6) units per acre. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Bradshaw voting no, and Mr. Hershner abstaining. . D. Annexation Moratorium Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Planning Commission withhold favorable recommendation for further annexation in the designated study area, during the period I of the study, except for those areas considered a public health hazard. Mayor Anderson was concerned about a general moratorium on annexations. He said it would appear better for each annexation to be considered by itself rather than apply- ing a blanket policy to the entire area. Mrs. Beal said she feels this is the most important part of the entire Plan, to set a firm and careful outline of City limits and urban service boundary, and that it should be included. Discussion continued on this point between Mayor Anderson and Mrs. Beal. Upon questioning from Mr. Mohr it was determined the effect of the motion would be to indicate that the Council does not want to give favorable consideration to any annexation request in that area. Mrs. Campbell said the moratorium is in keeping with Community Goals and the 1990 Plan, it will permit a real study of the area with respect to municipal sarvices expected upon annexsation and costs of those services to the City. Mrs. Beal concurred and called attention in particular to large areas within the City where services are . already available. - Councilman Mohr suggested if the Council declares a moratorium on annexations in the area the motion should be changed to say that as public policy the Council will not consider, any annexation petition from this area until completion of the study. Dis- cussion continued on net effect of the motion and whether the Council should uphold the Planning Commission's recommendatiop. / fp.lf 6/12(72 - 7 The TllC'tion was restatedpy Mr. Mohr, seconded by Mrs. Campbell, tha:t the" Council policy will be to deny al~ petitions for annexation in the designated study area during the period of final preparation of a report on that area, except for those areas which are" considered to be health hazards. - There was still further discussion centering on whether the Council is locking itself -. in witp respect to annexations, or whether e?ch annexatton should be considered as it is pe~i,~ioned~', ..., .... ' , Vote was taken on the motion as restated. Motion' defeated, Councllinen Mohr, Beal, Campbell voting :aye; Councilmen McDonald, Teague, Bradshaw, and Mayor Anderson voting no; Councilman Hershner abstaining. ' Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Planning Commission withhold favor- able recommendation for further ann~xation in the designated study area, except,for those areas considered a public. health hazard, until completion of this study',. Mr. Braashaw expressed the opinion that each annexation issue must be judged on its merits; a moratorium woUld be setting precedent resulting in other groups coming to the Planning Commission to ask for a moratorium in other areas. Vote was taken on' the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Mrs.,Beal and Mrs.Campbell voting yes; Councilmen Mohr, McDonald, Teague, and Bradshaw voting no; "Mr. Hepshner abstaining. E. Park Access ~. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal th?t a resolution be prepared dir~cting that the Planning Commissi,on require ,ii ving units in planned uni t 9.evelopm~nts in the study area be clustered so as, to provide for a, corridor of, public acc~ss for any ridgeline park proposal that may come out ,of, the study. Motion carried, all council- men present voting aye, except Mr. Hepshner abstaining. F. Reports '"of 8itudy Mr. Mohr mpved seconded by,Mrs., Beal that the Planning staff report on study of the area' be subrriitted within six months after date of this meeting' and a report'be'sub- mitted thereafter every three months with the entire study period not to exceed a year and a half. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye?, except Mr. Hershner abstaining'. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carr~ed, the meeting was adjourned to Thursday, June 15, 1972. ~~ . Hugh McKinley City Manager I " . ~~:-- "" -. . --. /1.05 6(12/72 60 8