Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/1972 Meeting Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon July 24-, 1972 djourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the - eeting held July 10, 1972 - was called to order by Council President Fred J. Mohr (Mayor Ander- e' on arrived later) at 7:30 p.m. on July 24-, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following other ouncilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, and Bradshaw (arrived later). ouncilmen Hershner and Campbell were absent. - Public Hearings A. Vacation Center Wa~south of Martin Street (Brant Enterprises) Planning Commission May 22/23, 1972 recommended approval. Manager explained the vacation will permit re-subdivison of adjacent property and development under planned unit pro- cedures. The street was originally dedicated for subdivision under standard procedures. Council Bill No. 32 - Vacating Center Way 4-93 feet more or less south of Martin Street was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16576. . B. Appeal, Fence Height, 2080 Churchill Street (Schaaf) Manager explained that the appeal was submitted by Richard L. Schaaf, 2080 Churchill Street, who wishes to retain a five-foot high fence on the property line at his residence in violation of the zoning ordinance governing setback requirements in front yards. The request was denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Minutes of the-Board were read as was the letter of appeal from Mr. Schaaf. Mr. Schaaf said the fence in question is the same as existed when he moved to this house, except that he has moved it 20 feet closer to the street to allow additional yard space. Building Superintendent noted that the Code allows a maximum of 30-inch height for fences within the first 15 feet of yard space. Beyond that, a 6-foot high fence is permitted. Councilman McDonald questioned the difference between this situation and that at 12th and Garfield where there is the same type fence. Building Superintendent explained that fence was constructed prior to adoption of the present zoning ordinance. He went on to give the reasons for the setbacks in the present ordinance, saying the general idea of the Planning I Commission was; to preclude a wa'lled-street effect. ' In answer to Councilman Teague, Build- ing Superintendent said that to comply with the ordinance Mr. Schaaf would have to set the existing fence back 16 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. McDonald questioned the reasons for not allowing the fence at its present location . inasmuch as Mr. Schaaf purchased the property in order to take advantage of the yard space for his children and dog. . . . ~ . In answer to Councilman Mohr, Building.Superintendent said the violation 'dates back to August 1971. After extensive enforcement efforts by the Building Department, actual sign- ing of a complaint and conviction in Municipal Court, Mr. Schaaf came before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schaaf called attention to houses in the same. general area,located within the setback area and said that there are no houses facing the street on which his fence is located. Dennis Miller, 3853 'Langton Street;, objected to"present location of the- fence', saying restrictions should have been noted prior to assumption of responsibility for the property. ~ Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to uphold the Z0ning Board of Appeals and deny the appeal. Motion carried unanimously. ---._-" C. Reconsideration, RMBC Liquor License - Riviera Tavern, 99 River Avenue (Beckley) Manager noted that the Council recommended denial of this application previoUSly, then at the July 10 meeting voted to reconsider its action. He said the OLCC had been asked to withhold its action until Council reconsideration. . John Bartels, part owner of Riviera Village Apartments at 130 River Avenue, read a peti- tion signed by residents of the area, opposing the tavern's location at 99 River Avenue. He also noted other taverns in the area and pizza parlors where beer is available :"in re- buttal to the applicant's previous testimony as to need for a tavern in this location. , He reiterated his obj ections presented to the Council at its previous consideration of ":_ d IS 7/24-(72 - 1 the application. Mrs. Bartels said location of a tavern here would not be in keeping with the residential neighborhood. Mayor Anderson arrived at the meeting. ~ Jeff Lynn, area supervisor for McDonalds' restaurants, objected to the tavern's location . in a residential and family-type business area. He also felt owners of a tavern would not observe landscaping and aesthetic values. John Langan, applicant, said he did not feel proximity to schools a problem since their customers were limited to 21 and over. He also stated his belief that there is not an oversupply of taverns in the River Road area. In answer to Councilman Mohr, Manager said the proposed location is in a C-2 SR zone, under which the Planning Commission can require staff approval of plans for buffering, landscaping, access, drainage, etc. Mr. McDonald said it was his understanding the zone was residential and wanted it made clear to those objecting to the tavern that it is a commercial zone. Manager said there is considerable residential use still in the area though it was zoned commercial shortly after its annexation to the City: At the request of Councilman Teague a show of hands was reqasted of those opposed to the tavern's location. Some of those responding also remarked on the length of time they have maintained homes in the area and felt a tavern in the neighborhood undesirable. Jan Turk, reisdent in the Riviera Village apartments, commented on the traffic situation ~ as it exists and opposed the tavern's location on the basis it would tend to increase ~ traffic congestion. Councilman Williams said it is his feeling the question is one of equity - City zoning ordinances prescribe the type of uses allowed in different areas and in this instance the zone is proper for this use. In no other instance is the Council requested to pass on whether a business should be allowed in a certain zone when it meets the criteria of that zone. He cited the areas of concern of the OLCC and said the applicant has met those requirements. So, he questioned whether it is proper for the Council to con- duct a "popularity poll"~ in its consideration of liquor license applications when there is no other business subject to the same consideration. Mr. Williams added that with respect to this location's proximity to residential areas it would seem of social benefit for customers to be close enough to walk to and from a tavern rather than having to drive. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the applica- tion for the Riviera Tavern. I Councilman Teague expressed the opinion that it is quite evident the people in that area I do not want a tavern there, and for that reason he would not vote in favor of it. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Mr. Teague voting no. i~ Manager said OLCC has indicated they would make staff available to work with City staff , in developing criteria for use in consideration of future liquor license applications. Mayor Anderson assumed the Chair. I D. Bid Openings - Public Works 1. Paving and sanitary sewer alley l;letween Oak and High from 27th to 270 feet north (Opened June 20, 1972) - Considered at Council meetings on June 26 and July 10,1972 < '.-and'" heid:for~-c;o-lli1cil to view and to consider possibility of vacation (see tabula- tion iri -Juries"26' ;. 1972 Council minutes). Albert Cheevers, 135 East 27th Avenue, gave his reasons for opposing the paving as stated as previous Council meetings. Mrs. Beal reiterated her belief that Mr. Cheevers is in the position of other owners of small properties having to pay for alley and street improvements for the major benefit to apartment complexes. ,Manager explained in answer to Councilman Williams the process for vacating alleys should property owners consent, and the assessment pro rated to the abutting prop- :,erties should the alley in question be paved. ~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award contract to the low Bidder . for paving the alley (Wildish Construction for $7,343.10). ! Mr. Williams said he could see no clear public purpose for alley paving as com- I pared to street improvement at the expense of abutting residential properties. I ,He suggested stating a policy that City will not use power of assessment to force I ,residential property owners to share cost of alley paving when it is of major : .benefit to other properties. Manager said such a policy would result in fewer! , ~ ~ -- - ------,.- .-:-~ _ ---.-,--....-.-. ;;.~,..... -:r!._ -~_~".._____' ~ ~..~__.__'" .__. ".......--..-~___~_r-- '_'_" ---,~__....J 02 , lD 7/24/72 - 2 ---- paved alleys -and Increase'Cf -maintenance-costs to -the City, plus the--annoyance of badly maintained alleys to owners of abutting properties, especially in high- I density areas. Mrs. Beal said she believed apartment house owners petitioning 'paving should pay for that improvement since they are the ones who will be using the improved alley. - Mr. McDonald suggested appointment of a committee to make some concrete recommenda- . tions with regard to the recurring problem of assessments and benefits. ,Mayor Anderson, in answer to Mr. Cheevers' statement that his paying for part of ,'this improvement is unfair, said the Council in its deliberation would consider the problem of inequity. I Bradshaw arrived at the meeting. I Mr. I :Discussion followed on other situations which might be comparable to the one being considered, valuation of abutting property after alley improvement, deferred 'assessments, percentage of front footage represented on the improvement petition, possibility of apartment owners' paying for paving, etc. -- +~ - - - ~ __ ____ __ L Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mrs. Beal voting no, and Mr. Bradshaw abstaining. ! 2. Bids Opened July 18, 1972 i Contract Cost Cost to Cost to Amount !Project and Name of Bidder Basic Alternate Ablitting Property City Budgeted . ; Paving Norwood Street from Carmel ,Avenue to Marlow Lane (850) IWildish Construction $24,943.31 $23,934.72 34'Pvg-$15.70/fr.ft. $15,106.00 - ;Eugene Sand & Gravel No Bid 30,252.47 Direct to Dist.#4 Strm Swr ~Devereaux & Pratt 34,245.39 33,027.45 $1,319.00 Completion Date: October 1, 1972 i Sanitary Sewer > In area between 1-105 and '850 ' south of Centennial !Boulevard from east line of 1st Addn Ayres Subdivision ito 1200' west of Fairway L~(786) Alt . #1 Alt.#2 Alt . # 3 Shur-Way Contractors 135,596.00 No Bid $143,581.00 No Bid - Wildish Construction No Bid NO Bid 147,280.00 $147,597.50 Lat o . 30 sq. ft . I Serv 233.00 each Levy 0.005 sq.ft. Direct to Ayres Subdiv $19,713.00 . Completion Date: December 1, 1972 IPublic Works recommended award of contract to low bidder on paving Norwood Street. Rejection of bids on sanitary sewer between 1-105 and Centennial Boulevard in Fairway Loop area was recommended because bids submitted were higher than anticipated and ! it was felt a better design of the facility would result in better bids. Test holes indicate shallower lines and use of another pump station would result in lower bids. Roger Hannum, 2060 Centennial Boulevard; Ed Pape', 20 Coburg Road; and Benny Bartel, :2170 Centennial Boulevard protested the project because of the estimated high cost I ,based on the bids submitted. :In answer to questions from the Council, Assistant Public Works Director said the sewer construction cost this year has been about l5~ per square foot for average Idesign and soil conditions compared to 30~ on bids submitted for this project. And that the cost of the pump station would be assessed to the benefitted area under i another project, allowing this area to be served before the East Bank Trunk is constructed. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award contract to the low oidder . on paving Norwood Street, and reject bids on the Centennial~ Boulevard sewer. r--r--- - -.......... . - -....---,-----. -. - -~ .- Rollcall vote. ~Motion carpied, all counciffimenlpresent voting aye. d\l 7/24/72 - 3 E. Bid Opening - Chu~chill Tennis Courts (Parks Department) Lighting Asphalt Cou~t Total Wildish (Hamilton) $4,736.00 $32,806.28 $37,542.28 . Deve~eaux & P~att - - - City Estimate 5,240.00 25,100.00 30,340.00 Staff ~ecommended ~ejection of the bid, with ~ebid in 45 days. In ~ecommending ~ejection, Manage~ said it was felt mo~e bids would be ~ecei ved afte~ the busy const~uction season, and ~ebidding might b~ing mo~e ~easonable bids. M~. Moh~ moved seconded by M~s. Beal to ~eject the bids as ~ecommended. M~. McDonald moved seconded by M~. Teague to amend the motion to p~ovide that the p~oject be ~ebid in 45 days. Manage~ said the Pa~ks ~epa~tment would call fo~ bids as soon as it was felt timely. Mayo~ Ande~son noted that any Council mernbe~ could ask fo~ ~ebidding at any time. M~. McDonald withd~ew the motion with the consent of M~. Teague. Vote was taken on the o~iginal motion as stated. Motion ca~~ied unanimously. II - Items Conside~ed With One Motion P~eviously discussed at committee meetings held July 12, 1972 (P~esent: Mayo~ Ande~son; . Councilmen Moh~, Beal, Teague, Williams, He~shne~, Campbell, and B~adshaw) and July 19, 1972 (P~esent: Councilmen Moh~, Beal, Williams, He~shne~, Campbell, and B~adshaw). Minutes of those meetings appea~ below p~inted in italics. A. Reconsideration, Grogg Shop Liquor License (1677 Coburg Road) (RMBC) - Mrs. Campbell suggested reconsideration of the Council's action in recommending denial of Robert C. Beckley's application for RMBC license for proposed tavern at 1677 Co- burg Road. She said the situation was not too different from that of the , Riviera Tavern which the Council did vote to reconsider. 'Councilman Williams wondered whether the action should be to reconsider the application or to follow through with developing criteria on which to base recommendations. i Dean Owens, representing the applicant, said he contacted the OLCC and they are .\ I holding the application until the Council decides whether it will reconsider its action. He said Mr. Beckley's understanding of the procedure at the time of hearing was that if there was no objection from City staff, there would be I no problem in gaining favorable recommendation from the Council. So he did not feel he was properly prepared to present his position. e : Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to place the item on the consent calendar for reconsideration. ,Question arose as to whether it could be reconsidered at the same meeting. I i Manager pointed up the problem of notification to those people interested in : the location of the Grogg Shop should the Council vote affirmatively and re- 'consider the application at the same meeting. Mr. OWens said there is no time element involved. It was understood if the vote on reconsideration is Comm favorable, a public hearing would be held August 14, 1972. 7/19/72 'Approve Vot/? wao? t~~/?_n_on ,th~ ,I1IOt~~;m__as_?t_ated. __,MC?tion ca!iied ~'E}i:moll~l~__ --~'-------'--- Councilman Moh~ in o~de~ to cla~ify Council action in its conside~ation of the G~ogg Shop liquo~ license application, said it was placed on the consent cal~nda~ for vote only on whether to reconsider the application. It was the Council '.8 intention that no public testimony would be taken at this meeting but that two weeks' notice of rehearing would be given those people interested in the location of the tave~n at 1667 Coburg Road. The Chair ruled that no public testimony would be taken on this item~until the parties involved have been notified. Manager noted that' if the vote on ~econsideration is affirmative, the hear- ing would be scheduled for the August 14, 1972 Council meeting. B. Liquor License - 7-11 Store, 2777 Friendly Street - Southland Corporation is . requesting renewal of PB license and addition of partner, Ronald W. and Loretta C. Rhoten. OLCC and staff reports indicate no reason they should not be approved. permission is ,requested to release the endorsement prior to the July 24, 1972 Council meeting. Comm 1 f h l' t' 7/19/72 Mrs. Beal IOC>ved seconded py Mr.Williams to recommend approva 0 t e app ~ca ~on. '. . d . 1 Approve Mot~on carr~e unan~mous y. - ---.------ ,- ~~- .---,-----......-..;. - ." -~-~----:---.... ~,<i 7/24/72 - 4 c. Public Retiring Procedure - 'Councilman Mohr reviewed the issue-' of pUbilchearings before'the pouncil as set out in the Public Hearings Subcommittee report of ,July 12, 1974, (members-Mohr ,Hershner ,Bradshaw) . The thrust of the subcommi ttee' s ,', investigation was to avoid the time consuming hearings on matters having no bear- ing on the Council's functions as a legislati ve body. Mr. Mohr stressed the - futility of the Council's hearing appeals from citizens desiring relief from . assessments which are levied as required by ordinance, the Charter, and State law. It is his feeling the Council should hear appeals only on the laws themselves. The present method of hearing appeals is not set by law, rather by practi ce of previous Councils. It was the subcommittee's feeling that appeals to the full Council do not allow for good discussion, a hearing panel of two Council members would provide a better one-to-one rapport. They maintain the City has become too large and its business too complicated to continue with the "town hall" type dis- cussions, thus this initial recommendation to break away from full Council hearing of every individual who appeals his case from adndnistrative or Appeals Boards' decisions. The subcommittee requested Council adoption of its recommendations (see committee minutes July 5, 1972) as a part of the Council's bylaws. Councilman Williams questioned the responsibility of the hearing panel in pre- senting to the full Council issues and recommendations. Mr. Mohr said the hear- ing panel would have to present a structured case without recommendation in those instances when there is disagreement between the two panel members. Assistant Manager said it was the subcommittee's intent that matters before the hearing panel would be presented to the full Council at commi ttee sessions, gi ving an opportunity for the Council to review the issue and decide where it should appear on the Council agenda and whether any Council member desires additional oral testimony at the formal Council session. Mr. Hershner noted that this-procedure also will enable the Council to receive written report on the panel hearing with . the committee agenda, thereby providing time for review before a final decision is made. Mrs. Beal commented on the time element in considering bid awards on improvement ,projects which are presented to the Council for decision. She said the Council does not have the opportunity to review those bids prior to the time they are presented, and said it would seem the suggested hearing procedure will remove that pressure. Mr. Mohr noted that bid openings have not been included in the suggested hearing procedure, only the assessments. There was general discussion on the difference between the two hearings, and an explanation of the procedure followed from the time a petition for an improvement is presented through the assessment for that improvement. It was brought out that the decision by the Council to award a contract for a public improvement is a policy decision, determin- ing whether a project will be authorized. The Council can make no decision on assess- ment. appeals other than to levy the assessment according to law. An assessment may be levied in a different manner; that is, pro rated in a different manner, yet the I entire amount must be levied. Ed Kenyon, Register-Guard, asked why the Council does not drop the assessment ap- peal hearings if nothing can be done about the appeals. Mr. Mohr said that was . suggested in subcommittee, but it was decided too drastic a change in view of ci ti zens ' desires to be heard, hence the hearing panel recommendation. Mrs. Beal suggested a change in the assessment law to more fairly distribute costs of public improvements in those instances where residents owning property along an access road to a l.arge development have to pay for improvement of that road but are 'not benefitted in the same ratio. Or in those instances where single-family' resi- 'dences abut a street or alley improvement on one side, and commercial or high- density development abuts on the other side. She fel t a recommendation in this regard might be the most important function of the subcommittee. I Mr. Hershner noted that the assignment of this subcommittee was to investigate ways of avoiding lengthy hearings before the Council, not to make recommendations on assessment policy. The hearing panel was suggested as a first step on a trial . basis. Manager said the assessment hearings are required by'State law, and in some-Tris-tances they do serve a purpose. There have been errors -'in--cal cuI a tlons n ,-- ,brought out at these hearings. They may eventually have been found in some other " manner, but the hearings do provide an opportunity for things of that nature to be corrected. Councilman Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council bylaws be . amended by adding a new section incorporating the subcommittee's recommendations with regard to public hearings. In making the motion Mr. Williams said the overriding concern was to save Council time and this action would be a worthwhile experiment which could readily be re- moved if it is found to be unworkable. a\,\ 7/24/72 - 5 Mrs. Campbell asked for a recent example of lengthy discussion before the Council on assessments. Public Works Director said the heart of the problem is in award of contracts. He said the Department hears a great many of the complaints on assessments which are settled at that level. He suggested staff hearing on bid . awards would more aptly serve to cut time of Council hearings. Mr. Hershner com- mented on other types of appeals, such as height of fences, taking Council time which would be served by the hearing panel. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. It was understood a resolution would be drafted for Council consideration. I Comm Mrs. Beal said she had no intention of miniInizing the subcommittee work or report, 7/19/72 but was trying for clarification of the hearing process. Af'prove D. Metro Planning Advisory Committee, 1990 General Plan - Copies of proposed framework of advisory comndttee for on-going administration of the 1990 General Plan and Planning Commission recommendations for JTr:)difications were previously distributed to Council members. Fi ve voting members are to be selected each by Lane County, , Eugene, and Springfield; two voting members by each of the three planning com- missions, with the recommendation that each of the agencies co-ordinate their initial appointments to achieve broad representation of the metropolitan area. Appointments, except the planning commissions' members, will be ratified by LCOG and will be for three-year tenns. Planning Directors of the three agencies and LCOG will be ex officio, the LCOG Planning Director to act as secretary. Bylaws, procedures, and staffing were set out in the framework. Modifications recommended - were ,that reappointments and vacancies will follow the procedure for initial ap- pointment, wi th Planning Commissions retaining the option to deci de whet.her to appoint: one or two members, and LCOG to ratify only those people already selected by each jurisdiction. In answer to Mrs. Campbell, it was brought out that no elected offi ci a1s will be appointed to the committee, and the appointments will be made by the Eugene and Springfield councils, and the Lane County Commission. Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to accept the framework for the Advisory Committee with the changes recommended by the Planning Comndssion. , 'Manager suggested that if the Planning Conmrission elects to be represented by i i only one of its members, a procedure should be worked out to provide two votes I Ifor the one member or that another person replace the second member to assure the j i two votes, since Eugene is enti tled to seven votes on the advisory commi ttee. Comm : Answering Mrs. Campbell, he said there is no deadline for the appointments. 7/19/72 I Approve Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion ca_z:ried unanJ,mous1y., -,.- --._- ---- - -~--" ~ -, ------.---- . E. Skyline Loop Annexation - Planning Commission June 26, 1972 reco11U1lended annexation of this area, located between old Dillard Road and East 43rd Avenue east of East Amazon Dri ve, under heal th hazard proceedings. Roy Burns of the County Health and ,Bani tation Department reviewed history of the area and experience wi th failing I 'septic tanks and polluted water supply. Previous annexation by the Boundary Com- mission was forestalled through appeal and subsequent defeat in an election by residents of the area. Mr. Burns said the referral to the City for annexation under the heal th hazard law is based on inadequate potable water supply, deficiencies within the Skyline water system itself, inadequate sewer service, and inadequate drainage from the area~ He said if the annexation is approved, the Skyline Loop I Wat:e.r system will be removed and replaced by service from EWEB. _ '. _ . H ". .",._..~. ., '". . .. .. --------- ---, In answer to Mrs. Campbell, it was determined the area is within the 1990 urban service boundary and there are about 90 acres involved. I ;Question arose regarding public hearing and notification to those people in the ; area. Manager explained procedure in this type of annexation, saying the request I :is forwarded to the State Board of Health rather than to the Boundary Commission : for public hearing. Discussion followed on whether to hold a public hearing be- l : fore the Council with the idea that it could provide an opportunity for residents I I i of the area to come forth with a sanitation plan on their own. Mr. Bradshaw \ . (wondered what would happen if some technicality prevents annexation through this . , procedure. Manager answered that the Boundary Commission may then have authority to annex, or the County Sanitation Department might have people moved out of the ; area. , l Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 that the item be placed on the consent Comm calendar for preparation of a resolution forwarding the request for annexation of 7/19/72 ~thfE!_2~Y:Line L90p _a~2"~t'2_~he~tii.!=e _BC?C1.rd of Health.~ Motion, c!!rri,ed unanimously. Approve Old. 0 7 /?A /..,~ ~ I -,- I -- ~ -':' -- ~ _n . ---- --'~' -- ------. - ~-. ---"-- - -_. ----- ,-- F.' EWEB Land Trans action Requests A. Transfer to Lane County .02 acre at Belt Line and West 11th. , ~ B. Quitclaim a utility easement on Lot 9, Block 3, Kelsay's Addition, between .., 15th and 16th, Mill and Ferry, to relocate the easement along the south lot line.: " - jC. Quitclaim an EWEB easement on a lot in Top Deck Subdivision in Santa Clara Comm . l D. Granting a sanitary sewer easement to the City on property along the east side 7'/19/72 of the Westmoreland substation. Approve G. Improvement Petitions A. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer on Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road 1000 feet north in Knutson Bros. planned unit development - 100% B. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer wi thin First Addition to Mark "J" Park, and paving Buck Street from Marl< "J" Park to north boundary of Last Addition to Acorn Park - 85% . -- ~.--------~-----.~ C. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer within 6th Addition to Oak Hills - 87% D. Paving, curb and gutter east half of Best Lane and north half of Willakenzie Road adjacent to Tax Lot 1100; and storm sewer to serve Tax Lot 1100 - 100% Comm It was understood the EWEB transactions and the improvement petitions would be 7/19/72 : placed on the consent calendar for approval. l.ipprove H. Council Minutes as circulated-May.-31',June12 andIS, 1972 Approve I. Eugene Sign Code - The Sign Code provides a year's advance notification to owners of non-conforming signs which will have to be removed. The deadline for removal is September 1, 1973, and it is anticipated notices of non-conformance will be sent be- . ginning in September 1972 to give some understanding of corrective action necessary. Superintendent of Building Inspection reviewed the Sign Code, adopted in 1968, and I described it as a restrictive ordinance. Certain types of signs - lighting, flashing" flags - were required to comply within six months of the Code's adoption. Those types of signs are now in compliance. The very definitive regulations of the Code resulted in effective enforcement, and that enforcement, with resulting appeals and amendments, added more strength to the Code. At the present time, a survey is in progress on non-conforming signs to which the September 1973 deadline applies. It is expected a number of appeals will be sub- mi tted at the expiration date under the standard appeal procedure and on the basis of .hardship. Another provision for appeal is submission of proof that a sign should be. amortized over a longer period of time because of the cost of improvement on a property. Criteria will have to be established for this. It is anticipated, too, ,the billboard section will generate a major challenge by the billboard industry with respect to non-conforming signs. I I Building Superintendent said, in answer to questions from Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Niven, I that the sign industry had taken the percentage of non-conformity into account and ; ; that there has been no tabulation of those non-conforming signs which have been re- , placed by new signs. -- In answer to Councilman Mohr, Building Superi12tendent reviewed the appeal procedure ,,,. 0: to the Sign Board and to the Council, as set out in the Sign Code. Answering i Mrs. Campbell, he said support of the Code's requirements and the Sign Board's de- cisions would be one way of preventing continuous appeals to the Council. ,Mr. Cross wondered what steps will be taken to prevent sign owners' wai ting until the deadline to make an appeal, since there will be no violation until that time. Building Superintendent suggested setting a time after notice of non-conformance within which appeals must be made to get them started prior to the deadline and I :spread over a longer period of time. :1 I iA1an Maxwell asked if there had been any discussion wi th the County wi th regard to ., sign regulations within its jurisdiction. Mayo,r Anderson said an effort had been made in this direction but nothing definite accomplished. , I 'Mrs. Campbell asked about removal of campaign signs. Building Superintendent re- 'plied that the city removes them when they are located on public property. Other than contact made wi th candidates, there is no sure method of gaining removal from pri vate property. Builcfing Superintendent ci. ted - majo.r types of non-conforming signs which will come . under the deadline enforcement. They are identity signs (premise of the sign orC1i-nance is that they identify, not advertise), highway oriented signs, and those in the downtown area. , , d~'\ 7(24/72 - 7 . '.. \ Mrs. C.ampbell 'asked what effect inclusion of a deadline in the sign ordinance would have on the non-conforming notices to be sent out. Building Superintendent felt the Ci ty could assume responsibili ty of second notices. This would gi ve information as to whether the proper people were notified and some followup on attempts to '. :rectify non-conforming signs. ; Mrs. Campbell moved to instruct the staff to prepare an ordinance to include a dead- line date for an appeal within the next year. There was no second. Manager suggested rather than instructing preparation of an ordinance that the I staff be asked to review the problem to see if an ordinance is needed or what kind of procedure could be developed. I t Mrs. Beal asked about the penalties in the event of non-compliance with the Code. Building Superintendent said the ordinance, in addition to providing for a penalty, ;provides for removal of signs by the City. Mr. Reeder asked whether the front footage referred to in the Code applies to property or building lineal footage. Building Superintendent answered it is bof;h, depending on the different categories or sign districts. I \ In answer to Ed KenY9n, Register-Guard, Building Superintendent estimated 1000 to : ,j 1500 non-conforming notices will be sent and that the greatest impact will probably, be wi th regard to identity signs and highway oriented signs. _..!',-<-i( Comm !: 7./12/72 ~ It was understood the staff will bring back a recommendation on timing for appeal~~!fvm e' pz:oc~d~re. _ .' w -, - .' ,-- - ~-- J. Oakway Annexation - Traffic - Councilman Williams raised tffiquestion of estimated time necessary to bring the LCOG Transportation Planning Comndttee study to the level of ESATS, saying it would appear risky to wai t fi ve years for a transporta- tion plan in view of traffic pressures at the present time. He suggested a meet- ing between the Council and the Transportation Planning group with the idea of modifying the time frame, adopting an interim plan, or at least gaining some un- derstanding of what is needed to deal with traffic problems. Planning Director said in making the statement that it would take about five :years for the TPC study to be at the ESATS level, he WaS not saying ESATS is ; the total answer. But with the level of funding available and the length of time to accomplish ESATS, he felt it would take that long before a study as , I competent as ESATS could be developed. ' I Public Works Director said a recommendation for funds was made to the LCOG Di- rector but they were not included in the LCOG budget for this work. Manager suggested preliminary discussion between the Mayor (the Council's re- .. presentative on LCOG) and the Chairman and Director of LCOG to determine alterna- Comm -, ,tives, whether a portion of the study could be segregated, or what could be 7/19/72 gained from a general meeting of members of the two agencies. It was under- Affirm s!C?O(;'(MCi.y_o~_~I!~er?g,n, wQ..~J_d b~ r~gu~s!r:;_c!_t_o. contact ther-C.OG people in _ thi,s _::egard., I K. Public Hearings Procedure, Committee Report - Councilman Mohr, chairman of the sub- committee appointed to make recommendations with regard to Council public hearings procedure, distributed to Council members report of that subcommittee. The sub- ,committee recommends limiting public hearings to assessments,and appeals from Zoning. Board decisions, these to be heard by a panel of two Council members serving on a three-month rotating basis. Written report of the hearings will be entered on the Council's consent calendar for consideration by the entire Council. Further oral testimony before the entire Council will require a majori ty vote of the Council quorum. The subcomrncrttee recommended adoption of a resolution instituting this Comm 'system of public hearing. It was understood the subject would be discussed at 7/12/72 the July 19, 1972 comrncrttee meeting. File L. Joint Housing Committee Meeting, Report from Britain - Betty Niven, recently re- ,turned from a stay in Great Britain, announced she will give in-depth reports to the Joint Housing Comndttee, from which it is hoped recommendations will COJpe to the Council, with regard to public housing in Britain and its effect on the balance Comm .--=-. 'of the housing market, how it works, etc. The meetings at which the reports will ~/12/72 , be given are July 18, August 15, and September 19, 12 :00 noon, at the Eugene Hotel. File M.Banitation/Hea1th Care, City-County Jail - Manager reported the City is working ,with the County Health Department with regard to changing procedures at the jail Comm ,to correct a sanitation/health problem. Council members were requested to refer 7/12/72 :tQ t.~~__staff any calls whigl:l1l'lay_result fro.1!' an.t.~_~ip'i!1._tei1_E.l!.blicf.ty. _._ ~ ___ File ;;)~ :;L 7/24/72 - 8 N. Annexation - Oakway, Willagillespie Areas - Annexation and - recogni tion of higher density from planned unit developments in the Oakway/Willagillespie areas brought concern with regard to transportation facilities. Councilman Williams asked what plans there are for transportation across the Ferry - Stre~t Bridge in light of the Oakway annexation request and other anticipated - mUltiple-family development in the Willakenzie area. He said the traffic system is overloaded now and he would question further annexation until there is some basis for understanding how people will be moved in and out of that area. Mr. Hoffman said that upon completion of the Washington/Jefferson Bridge better evaluation of the traffic situation on Ferry Street Bridge can be made. He feels there is more congestion in that area now because of the construction of the Washington/Jefferson ramps. Councilman Mohr asked whether a moratorium on annexation in the Willakenzie area could be declared for the same reasons as recommended in the South Hills area. Mr. Hoffman said the South Hills area presented a different situation in that they have the park proposal, terrain consideration, and other things besides transporta- tion. Any moratorium holding down annexation would create a serious political problem. He said he does not feel the situation in the Willakenzie area is that serious at this point. Mrs. Niven said one difference is that the area north of the Ferry Street Bridge ,', ,- is already practically surrounded by the City. She asked how traffi c counts at peak hours on the Ferry Street Bridge compare to those on South Willamette, Hilyard, 11th, 13th. If there is the same problem everywhere, she asked, what are the cri- . teria for traffic to stop development or annexation. Also, to what extent was the traffic pattern maintained on the Washington/Jefferson Bridge when forced to that crossing by blockage of the Ferry Street Bridge. Public Works Director said no figures are available other than normal growth pattern on each facility, but that there is no dpubt there was automatic readjustment to full capacity on the Ferry Street Bridge when it was cleared. Mrs. Beal wpndered whether there are large tracts of land within the City with full I City services available which could be devel9ped, or properties on which there could be higher density housing, and where people would locate in the event of a moratori um on annexation and development. . Manager read a portion of a report to be made by staff to the Planning Commission in its consideration of the Oakway annexation as it applies to traffic. The report anticipates further problems from traffic congestion generated by development. It reported traffic counts in the Oakway Road/Coburg Road area. I Darrell Slruth, architect -working on the design of the planned unit development proposed for the Oakway annexation area, said that at this time there are under consideration 45 single-family units only and redevelopment of the front nine of 'the existing golf course. The Ii ving uni ts will be developed over as much as a ~,~-. 'ten-year period, depending upon extension of Norkenzie Road and availability of : sewers to the southwest corner of the property. He showed a schematic design of the development and said a moratorium on annexation for units planned over a ten- , year period seems unfair. Also, that he doesn't think it will generate traffic on the Ferry Street Bridge, that when the Washington/Jefferson Bridge is completed that facility will be used. James Pearson said that through annexation the City will have better control of the development and there will be better planning for the area surrounding the I development. Annexation moratorium would be a less effective way of solving the problem and, if. adopted, he said, development pressures will increase in the County for its own sewer facilities, which would not be desirable. Councilman Hershner said it would appear inconsistent to say no subdivision de- velopment will be considered beyond the urban service boundary of the 1990 Plan, then deny annexation of properties within the urban service boundary. Mrs. Niven commented on the difficult position of making findings with respect to transportation facilities and the fact there is no money to make improvements. Councilman Williams said his concern is that there is no plan. If there is no relief for the Ferry Street Bridge traffic after the Washington/Jefferson Bridge " ,is completed, he asked, what changes are planned. Mr. Pearson said the LCOG Citizens Advisory Transportation Committee is currently meeting. Report from ~, . that committee with regard to transportation problems as one facet of the 1990 ; Plan will come to the joint committee of the three agencies (County, Springfield, : Eugene) and ultimately to the three jurisdictions for adoption. d~3 7/24/72 - 9 , './ "4 Mr. Williams said so far as he knows no one has given any idea of what is going to be done. Mr. Pearson referred to ESATS (Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Study) and said that is one way to resolve traffic problemsr but that public hear- ings on the 1990 Plan, of which ESATS was a part, raised questions as to whether it was the proper answer. But if it were accepted, he said, that would be one way - . whether it is the correct way woul d be open to debate. Public Works Director said ESATS is nothing more than a ten-year moratorium on road construction, it will not solve the problem with regard to densities now being considered. He said one solution would be an alternative to the mode of transportation, but there has been no progress made on plans in that direction. He does not think the Washington/Jefferson Bridge will provide a solution to the Ferry Street Bridge congestion, because to give relief there something will have to be done to 6th and 7th Avenues. It is, he said, a matter of degree when talk- ing of traffic congestion. He said ESATS was a viable study but nothing has been allowed in the way of road construction, and there are problems with every arterial in the area. Councilman Bradshaw recalled adoption of the Civic Center Plan and discussion with respect to traffic, saying if the argument presented at that time - if the problem becomes extreme, solutions will be found - is valid if applied to downtown, it could be applied to other areas of the City. He agreed on the notion of inconsistency in declaring moratorium on annexations within the urban service boundary put forth by Mr. Hershner. Howard Bonnett corrunented with respect to the 1990 Plan that it outlines an area . within which it is thought a certain amount of land could be annexed and served i for development to 1990. There still needs to be logical consideration of annexa- tion requests as they are submitted; just because an area is within the Plan boundary, doesn't mean it has to be annexed at this time. , , Mrs. Campbell expressed concern as to whether the Boundary Comndssion members take these questions into consideration, since that agency makes the final decisions on annexations" Manager said the Boundary comndssion has been very diligent in re- questing recommendations from both the planning and administrative staffs prior to making decisions, and has a very good understanding of Planning Comndssion and Council actions with:regard to annex,a.tions. He noted that the entire WilJ,agillespie . area is now surrounded by the city of Eugene and therefore decision on annexation. of any portion of it lies with Eugene. . Larry Campbell, president of Countryman Realty., developer of theOakway project, recognized that there is a traffic problem but thinks it is an overall City problem and not appli cabl'e ,to the Oakway development only. He stressed that the Oakway I development will occur on a long-term basis, beginning with single-family units, . !'Ii th start of mul tiple-family dwellings at least two years in the future. He said . ..- - . --- - - .- ---- - -'. -- -~---,--,---_.--. ~ . his firm is anxious for a decision on the annexation since they are trying to Ipreserve the golf course, and the construction season presents a time element . ,~ to be considered. , I :.' Councilman Teague concurre,d in the thought that there would be better control over the Oakway development were it to occur within the City. He commented that ' f I continuing growth and traffic congestion are inevitable. Councilman Williams asked if it is known when 'specific recommendations which can be adopted will be forthcoming from the LCOG Transportation Committee. Planning Director said he doesn't believe there is a time schedule. There are three or four processes before LCOG and, in his estimation, it will be at least fi ve years before their study will be up to the level of ESATS. He said transportation prob- lems are not unique to Eugene, and that solutions evolve with compromise. Mayor Anderson said that because of limitations on resources and, somewhat, because , of public attitude, this community will face much ,greater congestion in the future. He is concerned with the possibility of not being able to move safety vehicles when needed - fire trucks, ambulances, etc. He said compromises and balances will be necessary for solution. Mr. Bonnett invited participation in use of alternate transportation facility , recently opened - the bicycle path under the Southern Pacific tracks from Franklin Comm . Boulevard to Alton Baker Park. And Mrs. Ni ven reported that traffi c congestion in 7/12/72 Britain is absolutely incredible, even with only half the people owning automobiles. File ----..--".--- _ .---. . --- '-,' --........ - n -.. ----- - ... '_A-' _ _ . O. Comm 7/19/72 .~. ", File de';) q 7124/72 - 10 I P. Bud~jet ProrotIon - Mrs. Campbel[ reminded Council membe.rs that work will Corom :oontinue on budget promotion between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the McNutt 7/19/72 Room on Thursday, July 20, 1972. File Q. 'S~uth Kincaid Ball Field - Mrs. Campbell reported Mr. Weiss is very pleased - Corom w~th the Parks Department's rescheduling of baseball games on the South Kincaid 7/19/72 . f~eld, thereby alleviating the problem of high fly balls. File ,.--- R. Mall Regulations - Mrs. Campbell asked about the schedule for preparation of _ the regulations governing the downtown mall. Manager said staff is pUlling-'"Comm t~gether t~oughts expre:ssed ~t the Administrative hearing, then in co-operation 7/19~72 w~th the C~ty Attorney s off~ce the proposed ordinance will be reworded He F~le @s.tiJDa~ed two or three ftleekE;.. be;J;o;r:e . .:!-.t--wDula llt; .I.t;a.a~ .l.V.L . \..VUllc.,;.L.L . '-'VJJ.,.Lj,-~... (.....:""::.;.~ R. Gl~sgOw':"Phoenl.i SCotland ~ Choir' cC;n~ert ~Asa part of the exchange program in w~~ch Eugene bands traveled to Europe, the Glasgow-Phoenix Scotland Choir will .-{ ~. ,g~ve a concert at noon on Monday, July 24, 1972, in the dOwC.own mall. In view ~."", _ ~ lof the roya~ t~eatment. the Eugene bands recei ved in Europe, a reception is schedul.::;;i . ~_~~. . f~r the ~h~~r ~n the C~ty Hall courtyard at 3:00 p.m. to give an opportunity for c~ C~ty off~c~als to welcome this outstanding group . 7/19/72 File Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Items A through Sp"e'approved, affirmed and filed as noted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present votirig "aye, motion carried. . " - I I - Items Not Previously Discussed A. Liquor License - Change of Ownership, Ye Old Wine Shop, Valley River Center (PB) -. Paul and Marguerite Hoven (formerly Anderson, Foght, Penny, Shields, and Silke) Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously B. Mall Permit - Eric Heschong, 448 West 12th, Apt. 4 ._.~ _ "'~ ~ Mr. Heschong requests permission for charcoal portrait staD~~~~th~:d~wni0~ -m~rf~obe in operation from 10 :00 a.m. to 9 :00 p.m. from July 25 to' S'e:pte;;])er~'J?'-'-1:9ti. - ~ Manager noted that under the mall regulations the Council has authority to consider and grant temporary commercial activities on the downtown mall. Staff has no objection to this permit. Mr. Teague asked whether there has been precedent to this type of activity on the mall. Manager read that part of the mall regulations applying to th:is type activity and said the request does rot conflict with goals of the administration, nor is there any food problem involved. It appears to fit' within the general purposes of the mall. The per- I ~it re~uest is for about five weeks. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to grant the permit. Motion carried unanimously. . . C. United Nations Community Attitude Survey,.: Copies of letter transmitting to Congressional delegates results of recent International Co-operation Committee community attitude survey on the United Nations were distributed to Council members. It was understood these were to be sent to the President of the United States, Congressional delegates, and United Nations off;i-"'eials. --,.... Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the letter as presented. Motion carried unanimously7~ I D. Auto Wreckers License Application of Jack's Auto Salvage, 380 South Danebo. Staff has no reason to recommend deni al. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the license. Motion carried unanimously. - Ordinances Council Bill No. 33 - Paving Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road to 1000 feet north in Knutson Bros. planned unit development, 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be consideredat this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. --- ~- ~ . -- .......-'-#!.. ;):J5 7/24/72 - 11 \ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16577. Council Bill No. 34 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road to 1000 feet north in Knutson Bros. planned unit development was sub- . mitted and read the fi:rst time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the b~ll be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be a::msidered 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 bill be approved and given final passage Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16578 . Council Bill No. 35 - Construction of sanitary sewer and storm sewer on Ridgeway. Drive from Goodpasture Island Road to 1000 feet north in Knutson Bros. planned unit development was sub- mitted and read the fi:r.st time by council bill number and title only, there beiIlg no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. I 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. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16579. . Coutlcil Bill No. 36'- Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer and storm sewer on Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road to 1000 feet north in Knutson. Bros. planned unit development 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16580. Council Bill No. 37 - Paving streets wi thin First Addition to Mark "J" Park Subdivision, (Buck Street from the north line of Mark "J" Park to north boundary Last Addition to Acorn Park I Subdivision; and Quaker Street from 13th Avenue to 300 feet south, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting I that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactmenTI be considered at this time. e Motion carried unanimously and the biB. 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. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 1658ib... I Council Bill No. 38 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within First Addi tion to Mark "J" Park Subdivision, Buck Street from the north line of Mark "J" Park to north boundary. Last Addition tbAcorn Park Subdivision; and Quaker Street from 13th Avenue to 300 feet south, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requestin g that it be read in 'full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 th~t the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro~lcall vote. All. councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16582. Council Bill No. 39 - Construction of sanitary and storm sewers within First Addition to Mark "J"Park Subdivision, and sanitary 'sewer within 200 feet of plat boundaries of First Addi'" tion to Mark "J"Park Subdivision, was submitt'ed 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consen t of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All counc~men present voting aye, the bill was declared passed aDd numbered 16583. d~\P Council Bill No. 40 - Adopting plans and specifications for const~uction of sanitary and storm sew:er~ within First Addition to Mark "J" Park Subdivision, and sanitary sewer wi thin 200 feet of plat boundaries of First Addition to Mark "J" Park Subdivision, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only~ tAere being no co~ncilman present requesting - that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number - only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill .be approved and givenffinal passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16584. Council Bill No. 41 - Paving east half of Best Lane and north half of Willakenzie Road adjacent to Tax Lot 17-03-21-2-1100, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and tit'le only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time-by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that e.nactment be considered at this time. Councilman Bradshaw questioned the paving of "half a street" Manager replied that the street separates two subdivisions, and the west half was paved some time'ago. Mr. Bradshaw expressed- relief. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by Gouncil bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall . vote. All councilmen present. voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16585. ,Council ~ill No. 42 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving east half of Best Lane and north half of Willakenzie Road adj acent to Tax Lot 17-03-21-2-1100,- was- submitted and read.. the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second tImeby counCi~ bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered-at-<thls 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. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16586. Council Bill No. 43 - Construction of sanitary and storm sewers on east half of Best Lane .. and north half cr Willakenzie Road adjacent to Tax Lot 17-03-21-2-1100 and storm sewer to serve said tax lot was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, -there I being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the @ouncil, and that enactment be consideredaa~ this time. e Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. ,3 Mr. Mohr moved seconded- by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage.. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16587. Council Bill No. 44 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary and storm sewers on east half of Best Lane and north half of Willakenzie Road adjacent to Tax Lot 17-03-21-2-1100 and storm sewer to serve said tax lot was submitted and read the -first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be I read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16588. Council Bill No. 45 - Paving streets within 6th Addition to Oak Hills and Stoney Ridge Road from Craigmont Avenue to 400 feet north was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesti~g that it be read in full. . Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that -the bil.l be read the second time by council bill. number Mr. only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time bycouncil bill number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage..' Rol,lcall vote. All. councilmen present votin~ a~e, the bill was declared passed and numbered 165'89. 0)~1 \ Council Bill No. 46 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 6th Addi- tion to Oak Hills and Stoney Ridge Road from Craigmont Avenue to 400 feet north 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16590. Council Bill No. 47 - Construction of sanitary and storm sewers wi thin 6th Addition to Oak Hills was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilmen present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16591. Council Bill No. 48 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary arid storm sewers within 6th Addition to Oak Hills 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered 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 bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16592. V - .Resolutions Resolution No. 2067 - Transmitting request to Boundary Commission for annexation of Oakway Golf Course area (Hope), held from June 26, 1972 for joint meeting with Planning Commission, now brought back for consideration. I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Councilman Williams said he brought out the subject of this annexation because of wanting con- I sideration of the question of how to move people to and from the Willakenzie area across the Ferry Street Bridge. Since that time, he has become more concerned about movements from Coburg Road to Oakway Road. Discussion with the Planning Commission, he said, did not indicate the . City has any satis-factory plan, method, scheme';, device, _alternative, or any other system for moving people and goods between downtown Eugene and the Willakenzie area. He said he realized the inconsistency of opposing this annexation after adoption of the 1990 General Plan, but at the same timehhe feels it is necessary, if favorable recommendation on this annexation is to be I made, that there should be public fa6~lities available or someplan for providing those facilities. Councilman Teague wondered whether the City could be able to deny construction until facilities are available after the property is annexed if it is rezoned to come under PUD regulations. Manager answered that if the Planning Commission gave pre-preliminary approval for a PUD it , would be giving commitment to the property owner and at some time they would have to be allowed to go ahead. Such approval could include a phasing program. He doubted whether development could be denied once they were annexed - they could build under standard subdivision regulations. Planning Director noted that-developer at the present time indica~es development will proceed over a six-to ten-year period, the first phase to consist of about 30 units. He said the property would be developed on a contractual basis. Councilman Teague asked whether the City could be forced to annex the 'property, since it is within the City boundaries now, and whether the land could be developed now under County regula- tions. Manager said the Boundary Commission could annex the area to the City. Planning Director said it is his understanding a separate treatment system would ,have to be used and that he doesn't believe the County <r State would authorize it. A septic tank system could not be used for the . type of development proposed. Further discussion followed on pros and cons of traffic movement, sewer facilities, annexation of the area as it relates to the 1990 Plan, problems in this area in comparison to those in other parts of the City,etc. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to adopt the~resolution. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, Beal, Teague, and Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen McDonald and Williams voting no. dd~ Resolut~on No. 2079 - Transmitting to State Board of Health. request for annexation of Sky- line Loop area (health hazard) was submitted. - Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, . all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2080 - Authorizing deed to Lane County for .02 acre West 11th and Belt Line (EWEB), was submit:ted..' . . ""-0-__ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2081 - Authorizing quitclaim 'of easement Lot 9, Block 3, Kelsay's Addition (between 15th and 16th, Mill and Ferry), relocate along south lot line (EWEB) was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried,: all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution 'No.' -2082- Authorizing, quitclaim easement in Top Deck Subdivisiotl, (EWEB) was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Mot-ion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2083 - Authorizing sanitary sewer easement to City on property along east . side of Westmoreland Substation (EWEB,) was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs.. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye~,. Resolution No. 2084 - Transmitting to Planning Commission for hearing August 1, 1972 re- zoning request 18th and Chambers (Planning Commission) was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2085' - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period July 10 and 24, 1972 was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No..- 2086 - Accepting bid for General Obligation Construction Warrants -'of-The I ";; ~Ore?gonBari1:sf_at 3.7% interest rate, was submitted. '.;;:.-:;.;:~....-:- --.<-"-' Manager commented that in the last two or three years bids have been called for short-term . borrowing-of funds to pay-contractors prior to collection of assessment from property owners or sale of Bancroft bonds., The bid from Oregon Bank of 3.7% interest, he said, is the lowest ever received for this tyP€ of borrowing. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2087 - Supporting Renewal, Agency Amendatory Application, ORE-R-18, Central Eugene Project, was submitted. I Manager said the Mayor in discussing the Central Eugene Project with members of the Congressional delegation on a recent trip to Washington was told a statement by the Council supporting the ERA application would be helpful in negotiating with HUD for praid consideration of the application. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Southridge Appeal - Some discussion took place with regard to when a quorum of the Council could be present to hear this, appeal. In answer to Councilman Mohr, Manager said the appeal is on whether. the Planning Commission is correct in its assessment of findings of what is needed . to grant PUDs, based, on the zoning ordinance. No firm date was Chosen for hearing the appeal. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was 'adjourned. ~< 7)/ . ~O)q ugh McKlnley Ci ty Manager