The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/09/1973 Meeting .t ,r, Council Chamber . Eugene, Oregon July 9,1973 . Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7 :30 p.m. on July 9, 1973 in the COl:mcil Chamber with the following councilmen present: Messrs. Williams, MeDonald, Hershrier,Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Keller~ 'Murray, and Wood.' Councilwoman Beal was absent. I. Finance Officers Award John Buol on behalf of the Municipal Finance Officers Association presented to Mayor Anderson a special award for the city of Eugene for excellence in Annual Financial Accounting. In making the presentation, Mr. Buol noted that Eugene is the first city in Oregon to receive the qward; the third public agency in the State to receive it. The award is made on an annual basis for conformance to principles and standards set by the Finance Officers Association in reporting finances in governmental accounting. Mayor Anderson responded and extended congratulations to Sherman Flogstad; Eugene's finance director. II. Public Hearings A. Annexation - South of Crest Drive, west of Blanton Road Previously approved and forwarded to the Boundary Commission but not completed .' because of proqedural error. Planning Commission recommended resubmittal to the Boundary Commission. However, the Council at its April 23, 1973 meeting after public hearing tabled the recommendation pending completion of the South Hills density studies. At the request of Bob Suess the Council on June'll, 1973 voted to recons.ider its action for the benefit of interes ted parties who felt the previous hearing was inadequate. Public Hearing was reopened. Bob Suess, president of the Eugene/Spripgfield Homebuilders Association, presented copies of a published article with regard to "No Growth vs Know Growth" and quoted from it items concerning reduction in low-cost housing. He reviewed history of attempts to provide sewer service to the Crest Drive area and noted availibility of .sewer to the area under discussion, as well as water, power, streets, and schools. He felt annexation of the Crest/Blanton area would give maximun utilization to services now available and urged favorable recommendation from the Council. Neil Jongeward, 2863 Lydick Way also favored annexation. He felt it should be approved because it is contiguous to present City limits, it was already approved by both the Planning Commission and Council, services are available, and the property lies about three-fourths mile inside the urban service boundary. He said . the original annexation application was filed in February 1971 with many delays encountered since that time, primarily centering around the possibility of developing a Ridgeline Park, the latest version of which would lie south of the proposed annexation and therefore not affected by it. Dave L:J:ywelyn, 1010 Crest Drive supported Mr. Jongeward's stand. James Spickerman, 3484 Storey Boulevard, representing Crest Drive Citizens Association, submitted a petition with letter attached stating the groups's reasons for objecting to annexation at this time. In petitioning rejection of the annexation the Crest Drive group realizes that a number of factors are unknown at this time. Hopefully the South Hills studies will provide answers, to questions not brought up at the time of the first,Planning Commission recommendation for annexation. Mr. Spickerman noted objections of the Crest Drive gruup: lack of knowledge with regard to an exact llri:<ige line" to define the urban service boundary, annexation should not be on availability of services but on timeliness ~ lack of information with regard to': availability and cost of police and fire protection and power, traffic problems, inadequacy of roads, expansion of'fringe areas in view of many undeveloped properties within the City, population increase in outlying areas where schools are overcrowded rather than shifting populations to areas where school enrollment is dropping, anticipated knowledge with regard to soil and ~eg~tation to come from the planning -.- - ~ studies. He said the Crest Drive Citizens Association is interested in ,developing . .-- I '. plans for the area and feel they may, be jeopardized by annexation prior to completion of the studies in progress. They urged the Council to wait in order to be able to I make a knowledgeable recommendation on the annexation of this property. Mr. Spickerman I - had the Crest Drive people stand to indicate the opposition to the annexation, saying there were about 300 signatures on the petition submitted. - 2.\' 7/9/73 - 1 Ann Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, representing the Central Lane County League of Women Voters, stated the League's position that annexation at this time would be premature. She noted possible new demands on sewer and other services beyond . this property and impact on a ridgeline park, and urged rejection of the request at tnis time, Charles Dalls, Route 4, Box 308, representing the Spencer Butte Improvement ,Association, supported the position of the Crest Drive citizens and recommended d~nial or defe~men!unt~l completion of the South Hills studies. At ,the request of Bob Suess, there was a show of hands of those opposing the annexation living inside and outside the City, the majority indicating they live within the City limits. Rehearing was closed. Councilman Williams asked if it was so that the latest yersion of the proposed Ridgeline Park would not involve the subject property, and whether the property does lie three-fourths mile within the urban service boundary. He also questioned the matter of moratorium on annexation in the South Hills area. Planning Director said there could be no determination of whether a proposed park would involve this property until the studies in progress are completed. Ne~ther will the urban service boundary be determined in that area because there are several ridges, and I studies will provide a basis for a decision in that regard. He added measuring from some points this property could well be thr~fourths mile within the boundary. With regard to moratorium on annexations, Planning Director said the Planning Commission . recommended a moratorium at~th~;jro~ ~o~th Hills studies were authorized, however, that was deleted with the Council's decid;tng'each 'annexation request would be considered individually diring -hhe study period. . Councilman Hershner inquired about the power situation for the property. Planning Director answered that EWEB had indicated no concern with regard to power. It is 1 within their service area, and water is available. I Councilman Wood ashed Mr. Llywelyn why he how is in favor 'of the~property's being annexed when he stated opposition at the Planning Commission hearing'. Mr. Llywelyn said availability of sewers was the main reason. He felt too that annexation would increase the value of the property and that it would follow that the intersection at Crest and Blanton would be i~proved. Mr. Wood inquired about the location of a proposed park in the- area in relation to the property requested to be annexed, and about sewer service from the Crest ~ive School line. Planning Director responded that detailed studies were not completed with regard to location of a ridgeline park. Public Works Director explained that the":sewer system was designed to include the subject area; whether it could be extended beyond that is a question of economics. Property owners to the south desiring sewer connection to the system would have2to acquire necessary easements . through this property. Councilman Hershner asked what type of development would be possible on the property. Planning Director answered that at this time it would be restricted to rural use because it is doubtful the County would issue building permits for any average subdivision. It is his understanding that much of the area is not suitable for septic tanks and probably restricted to 5-acre parcels. Councilman McDonald inquired about the contract with the University of Oregon on the South Hills study. He stated he does not approve of annexing small parcels~ and'that: ~it.:-w.Q..uld ,l)e,better to take the entire area covered by the studies into consideration. Councilwoman Campbell felt annexation in the area before studies are completed would jeopardize proper development. She asked Jim Saul, planner, to review the contract with the University with regard to the South Hills study. Mr. Saul said the contract is with the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, with arrangements for consultation with other departments to give an inventory analysis of'existing natural conditions, identify unique areas, provide some criteria to determine relationship of the South Hills area to the entire City from a visual and physical viewpoint. He said the the basic work is completed and arrangements are'being macle for its presentation to various civic groups in the community. . Councilman Murray said the Joint Parks Committee has. researched questi0ns-:with regard to a ridgeline park and no decisions have yet been made on its location. He felt this proposed annexation would be a potential threat to decisions yet to be made on develop- ment in the South Hills. ...I@> 7/9/73 - 2 I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Boundary Commission be asked not to annex the Crest/Blanton property, pending completion of the South Hills studies. . Councilman Keller mentioned the obligation of the Council to make a decision on the annexation as soon as the South Hills rerort is available. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. B. Revocable Permit - Watchman Trailer at Curleyts Autp Repair, 3762 West 11th Requested by Wesley Zumwalt. Staff recommends approval. . Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2200 - Granting revocable permit for nightwatchman trailer at 3762 West 11th was submitted. " Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. C. Annexati'ons l. 12.32 acres south of I~5 east of Henderson (General Properties) . Planning Commission recommended denial on May 29, 1973. Council previously viewed on tour. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to deny the annexation, Motion carried unanimously. 2. 39.0 acres north of Harlow Road between Arcadia Drive and I-5 (Barnes/Bond) Planning Commission recommended denial on May 29, 1973. Council previously viewed on tour Public hearing was opened. Clay Barnes, 65 West 30th Avenue, described location of the property, access and soil I conditions! He urged annexation, saying the propertyts location within the Cityts service boundary is ideal for subdivision. He suggested location of a road along the east side of lots facing Arcadia Street to provide them access should development of the back portions of their properties be desired. .- Dan Leahy, realtor, said he suggested a meeting with owners of properties on Arcadia Drive with the idea of overcoming their opposition to being included. He thought if they - - were presented with a plan for overall development of the area, including their properties, they would probably be in favor of annexation. He presented a letter from the Lane County Sanitarian recommending annexation on the basis of the propertyts being a marginal area so " far as use of septic tanks is concerned. Mr. and Mrs. Billy Sears, 481 Arcadia; Dorothy Pearl, 478 Arcadia; A. A. York, 339 Arcadia Drive opposed the annexation. Their opposition was hased on the arguments that the developers were interested only in financial gain, traffic congestion would increase, schools would be further overcrowded, sewers are not needed at this time, multiple-family dwellings are not wanted, etc. Manager noted petitions received signed by owners of properties on Arcadia Drive stating they did not favor annexation erE their properties atl-"this time. He said the Planning Commission felt the requested annexation would not be logical unless it included the:, properties on Arcadia Drive. Without inclusion of those properties a County area surrounded on three sides by the City would result. Manager noted the arguments with regard to access and traffic ppoblems and said in all fairness it should be said that a good street system built into the area proposed for annexation could relieve the traffic congestion problems there as well as accommodate the new development. e; Public hearing was closed, no further testimony being presented. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to deny the annexation. Motion carried unanimously. Short recess was taken. 7/9/73 - 3 2..1~ D. Zone Changes l. Areas on both sides of Echo Hollow Road between Concord Street and Knopp, Avenue '.- From C-l to RA (Planning Commission) Planning Commission recommended rezoning on June 5, 1973. Manager noted receipt of letter from David James, attorney representing William DeZeeuw. Mr. DeZeeuw received notice of hearing on the rezoning only this morning and has not had time to prepare opposition based on commercial needs in the area. He asked postponement to give him an opportunity to be heard. Manager said that during recess he had talked with several people present to be heard on the issue, and they agreed to a two-week postponement. It was understood the hearing would be carried over to the July 23, 1973 Council meeting. 2. Area west of Hi h Street between 3rd and 4th - From M-2 to RP. SR (Planning Commission) Planning Commission recommended rezoning on June 5, 1973. Manager explained that the subject property lies immediately adjacent to other RP zoning. Public hearing was held with no:, testimony presented. . Council_Bill No. 342 - Rezoning to .RP SR area west side of High Street between 3rd and 4th Avenues was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it ~e read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that ,enactment be cc;:msidered . at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill,was read the second time by council bill number only. -- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared 'passed' and numbered 16877. 3. Area west of Mill Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues - From M-2 to RG (Planning Commission) Planning Commission recommended rezoning on June 5, 1973. I Manager explained that when the low-cost housing was built in that area zoning on . this property was not readjusted to accommodate its use. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 343 - Rezoning to RG area on west side of Mill Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second timeby council bill number only, with unanimousl~onsent 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 e:n'1 only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16878. E. Zoning Newly-annexed Areas l. East of Chuckanut between Wingate and Crescent - RA 2. West of Four Oaks Grange Road south of 18th - RA 3. East of Calvin north of Western Drive extended - RA . 4. Both sides of Sarah north of Bonnie Biew Drive - RA Planning Commission recommended zoning to RA all four properties at its June 5, 1973 meeting. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. 7/9/73 - 4 2."2...0 Council Bill No. 344 - Zoning RA area east of Chuckanut Street between Wingate and Crescent Avenue was submitted and cread the first time by council bill number and title - only, there beiDg no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. \, Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen,present votinga~e, the bill was declared passed and'numbered 16879. Council Bill No. 345 - Zoning RA area west of Four Oaks Road south of 18th Avenue was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being I no councilman, present requesting that it be read in- full. Mr. Williams moved s~conded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final . passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16880. Council Bill No. 346 - Zoning RA area east of Calvin Street north of Western Drive extended 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. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16881. ~ --:- . ~ C~unSil-Bill No. 347 - Zoning RA area on both sides of Sarah Lane north of Bonnie View Drive 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16882. F. Code Amendment, Sections 9.676-9.682 re: Procedure and Bases for Zone Changes ~'o': See 7/3/73 committee discussion pa~e 13 these minutes. Planning Commission recommended adoptlon on June 5, 1973. The proposed amendment provides that the Council makes certain findings prior to action on zone changes. A change of zone should be consistent with and promote ~ ~ . . the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, and should meet a public need wh~eh would be best served by changing classification of a property in question as compared with other available property. The amendment also provides that Planning Commission decision on rezoning is final unless appealed to the Council within a ten- day period of that decision. Public hearing was held with no ~estimony presented. -. Councilman Williams asked whether the amendment was prompted by the Fasano decision with regard to zoning decisions and whether findings of the Commission would be - presented in written form. He sugge~ted chang~ng the woroing with respect to an appeal-to tl1e Cqupcil which states!\":.,,~::;wh:i,chsta<te -wgerein it, is, granted th1=re was error.' by the Planning Commission.,. '.,1' Manager ~aid the amendment was started before the Fasano decision, and there may be further changes pending legal analysis of that . . . ..' .. ~ decision. This proposed amendment brings requirements closer to those of the Supreme Court as set out in the Fasano decision. ~e said the City Attorney has asked for '2.2..1 7/9/73 - 5 I further legal interpretation from the Attorn~y Gener.al's office. In the meantime, City Attorney will review the decision for the Council at ifs next committee meeting. Manager continued that method of presenting findings has not been worked out, although the~' are now included in the Planning Commission minutes they have not been transmitted ~ to they Council as part of their recommendations. It was understood that woraing in the ,..,,- ordinance would be changed to "... wherein it is claimed. there-.!was error..." - ..' Councilman McDonald said he would rather delay adoption of the amendment for two weeks to give the opportunity to receive the~< City Attorney's report. It was understood there was no emergency and no problems are anticipated in such delay. Council Bill No. 348-- Amending Sections 9.676-9.6~2 of City Code re: Procedures and Bases for Zone Changes 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimo~ consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered ~t this (ime. All' C9'4nei.imen present voting - aye, except Mr-. :M.qDonald voting no theceuncii:. - ----. - " - - - - . ~ - ~ ~......-'--"- :-- - ~- ,. -. -- . bill was l1E?ld for second- reading at Jirly 23, -1973 Council meeting. - ' .c -, ~ . -- . - G-,'~~d~ar~ou~~ ~~~;o~:.m.~~t ,proj_~_;;S --Opened JUlY-~3a~-(C6~~-~7S E~~Ubiic~' Work~+----~ .-.- - - I DE:?AR~"! OF P:1lLIC wens Bid No. 8 Engineering ;ivlsl~ _. July 3. 1973 . Cost to ;.oo~t : :.. . v~ Biddi!r and Project Contrac: C01t Ab,ttlng Prop. (.'Ost to City !udgttcd P"',,'U;, SASlTM., S;:',,'ER !~:D STO;l'l SE\o;:R: I. ~::hin O,sc:o Lake Subdivision and paving :v:y Avenue frc~ Golden Gardens Street to )50 feet W.st (227) 1. W11dish Co:stru:tion Company............... .$57.2(:.85................:3. ?vg. in Sub.. .$1,145.00 per lot (24).. .S:1II. $12,360.00..... .$:1,550.00 : I ' Eugene Sand 60 Gravel Coml'any................$5;.87~.05 :3' ?vg...........$ 13.72 frlft , 3. Devereaux and rratt........................ .$6'-,OH.8. Lat...............$ 568.00 per lot (17) :erv..............$ 270.00 per lot (19) COMPLETlO:; DATE: October 15. 1913 .-- --------------------------------------------------------- - P",,,,,,,f;.. PEDESTtIAN ',,'AYo. , SAlUTARY SE'oJER A.>;D 5101<.'1 SEWE1: i'--';"'1..thin 2:1d Additio:: to ~hast:a Gardens. and o,~itary Se~er in the area within 160 feet east ~: the eas: boundary of 2nd Addition to Shasta ~ardens (134) BASIC .U,TEllNAIE 1. \;11dis:, Construction Company...............$ 95,6S0.4:..$ 95.602.15...'vg...............$1.381.00 per lot (35)...Stm. $24.298.00.......$23.331.(0 ., Eugene Sar.~ 60 Gravel Coc?sny................No Bio......$ 96.654.05 Lat...............S 556.00 per lot (8) J. Deveteaux ~ Pratt..........................$103.4f5.~..$101,836.31 :erv..............S 290.00 per lot (33) ::m...............5 682.CO.per lot (35) I :ed. Way..........$ 23.00 per lot (35) COMPLETIOS DA!Z: October 15. 1913 ---...----------- ----------- ---------------------- ~~ALK: j. ;;uth side of 15th Avenue from Washington .~ ':re~t to Jeffetsou Street (917) . ." " ~ _ 1. W11d1s:, Construction Com;>any...............$ 1.1,0.&5................. Conc...........$ 1.42 sq. ft....l Co_c...$ 286.00 -- 2. Devereaux ~ Pratt..........................$ 2.2;8.27 5" Cono...........$ 1.41 sq. ft. COMPLETIO~ DATE: October 15. 1913 ------------- - -- ---- -- --&;."c:-P:\Tll: -.-.- '-- - -, - ~.~ !tabbon Schco1 to Wllhi Street (990) i. Senge Paving, Inc....... ............. .......$ 2.186.82.. .... ........... .... ..........0............ .... ...... .... .$2.156.82......... ..$2.50J.OO 2. ,wsc"e .sand .i.Cravel. CO::p4:lY. ... ... ... .."..... $ 2.860.100 3. Wi1dish Cons:ructlon Cocpany................$ 3.198.80 COMI'L.."'TIO~ UTE: Septe::lber 1. 1913 ----- - ---------- 5. from Meadow Lark School to North of ;heldoQ High Sch~l (99QA) 1. Benge Paving. Inc.................... .......$ 6,262.61....... ..................... ...0............ .... ....... ... .$6,262.61......... .$1.000.00 2. Eugene Sand ~ Gravel Cocpany................$ 1.858.00 J. Wi1disb Construction Cocpany................$ 8,345.90 OOMPLETIOS C\TE: Septe:ber 1. 1973 ---~------------------------ ----- --------------------------------------------------------- ~'l SE"'ER: 6. un 25tb Av~nue if extended West from .50 feet West of lii1yard Street to 100 ft. .' :lest (366) 1. Wildish Construction Co:pany................$12.495.00 $5,241.50 $6.241.50 $5.750.00 2. Shut-~sy Contractors. 1nc...................$13.716.00 (SC3001 Dist. 04J) 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Cocpany... ...$11.040.00 ---.---------------- ------------------~~:~-~:~-~:::~:~:~~~~---------- .- . . =-~ P~blic Works Director reviewed the bids. Contract award was recommended to the low bidder on eachproj,ect, except Item 3 on which the recommendation was to reject because of the excessively high bids received, and with the award on Item 2 to'be subject .to ~e~iew of financial condition of the developer. 4L~~ 7/9/73 - 6 .~.. . ;..J.~. , DEPAlnmlT OF PtJIlLIC WORXS lid lio. In! 0 rm.s1 ~, "Engineering Division ; July 6, 1973 . - +--- Cost to .-..t.:.:":'..lut ::,__. .If lliJder and Project Contract Coat Ab<lttl:>8 Prop. Cost to Cit). Budb.tc~ -- i 1,"j Slurry Se~1 Projects (979) I l32 streets) I -~~':Q Paving.................................. .......$ 30.452.66........................... .0. ...... ...................$ 30.482.66..........$ 30.JOO.00 ---------- - ------------------------ 20 0,"r1ay Projects (97.) _ubene Sand and Gravel. Inc... ......... .'. ... .... ...$132.778.25.... .............o.o... .....0............... ........ ...$132.778.25........ ..$125.000.00 ~ ildish Coutrl>ctic:l COlllpany...o.......o......o.... .$148. 754.25 ------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------- ~_.~.~ Overlay - Garfield Street if__ oth A~e. :0 7th Ave. (979) ~ildisb Construction Company........................$ 2.310.00.... .............. ........ .:0................ ... ........$ 2,310.00......... .$ 2.300. 'JO :::usene Sand and Gravel, lnc.........................$ 2,930.00 --------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------- .- .... . A___.___.__ _ - ,._.-..._~-_.__.- -._- - ._---.-~ -_. 'C._ ___________ _ 'M...._.._.._______,.._._~__...,.._. _ __ _ _.____.w._...._ Public Works Director reviewed the bids. ~ontract award was recommended to the bidder on the slurry seal proj eels, 'and' to the low bidder on each of the over lay proj ects . . Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Councilman McDonald wondered why a paving overlay was being applied to Garfield. His thinking was that the street was in good shape compared to?the~s needing repair. " Public Works Director explained various 'projects were being undertaken on a four-year program under the recently- approved bond issue. He noted that Garfield car~ies a heavy tr.affic l?ad pet~een 6th and 7th and some breaking up has been noted. Mciyor AnderElon felt 'judgment 011 project priority would have to be left to the 'engineering department, . . . ".,., In response to questions from Councilman Murray, Public Works Director explained the distinction between jobs done by the City crews and those contracted. He said the nature of the work, rather than size, determines whether City cr~ws d~'the' work~ An effort ~~ made to keep them on small patch jobs which cannot be contracted. The Director referred to the recommendation to reject bids received on the 15th Avenue sidewalk and said it may be n~Qessa~yto investigate possibility of construction by City crews since it had not been possible to get the property owner to install the walk, and on this attempt to initiate by petition, bid prices were un- reasonable. On questioning from Councilman Hershner with regard to bike paths on school property, Public Works Director said they were part of the program approved by the Bicycle Committee, these two built entirely on school' properties jointly used with the Parks Department a~d ~aintained by tf' the City. Manager explained 'construction in this case is on priority recommended by the Bicycle Committee.' The City had funds budgeted, the School District did not, and since the facilities serve the same people bids were received on that basis. Joint Parks/School develop- ment has been a negotiated type program. Public Works Director added on further questioning from Councllman Her.shner that funds for the construction would be carried over to the 1973-74 budget from 1972-73 in a supplemental budget. I Councilman McDonald expressed concern about the City's being responsible for future maintenance of the bike paths. Manager said staff could discuss that with the School District if Council desires. Councilman Hershner asked for an explanation of "slurry seal." Public Works Director said it is a patented process wherein aggregate and asphalt are mixed and spread, sealing and restoring the paving surface. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contracts to the low bidder on each project, except that the award on paving, walks and sewers in 2nd Addition Shasta Gardens would be subject to review of financial condition of the developer, qnd the bids rejected on 15th Avenue sidewalk between Washington and Jefferson. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. "-=-l'.. 2. Irrigation and Landscaping, Amazon Village - Opened June 27, 1973 (Parks) '. Includes area south of playground, east of slough, north of 24th Avenue, and west of Hilyard Street, and completes the area around the new Center. Subcon:tractors are shown in parentheses. Reed and Cross (Ramsey-Waite, Otto Jensen) $ 53,827.00 Lane County Nursery 57,378.00 Fairway Irrigation (Olympic Landscape) 59,827.00 Turf Irrigation (Marvin's Landscaping) 67,250.00 Cascadian Landscapers, Inc. 69,0110.00 Allen's Landscaping 78,578.00 Landscape Services, Inc. 2--&.3 85,880.00 7/9/73 - 7 Parks Department estimate - $54,838.00. Award to Reed and Cross on the low bid price was recommended. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to award the contract to Reed and ~'- Cross as recommended. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present ~ voting aye. I 3. City Hall Basement Remodeling, Electrical and Mechanical Systems - Opened June 19,,1973 l Bid Alternate Hamilton Electric $ 9,835.00 $ 9,835.00 - 117.00 water cooling $ 9,718.00 Mulheim Electric 10,500.00 $10,500.00 - 129.00 water cooling $10,371. 00 Chase Company 18,245.00 $18,245.00 " -,. ,,:.-6,359.00,water. cooling '., '- $11,886.00, . . -. Manager reviewed bids and recommended award to I:Iamilton Electric and Ch~se Company on . the basis of consultation with Marquess and; Marqu'ess who assisted in 'deveio"ping 'specifica.-. ,6.' tions for the mechanical system. .., .. . " Mr.' Williams mov~d se'conded by Mr. Herhsner to award contrC).cts as recomm~nded,. .. .' , .". . ,-' , " - --' " . (.... - . "'( On quest ion fr'om Coun'cilman McDonald, MaIlagyr 'explained that the. remodeling is to provide office space in the basement below the parking a~ea wh~ch .is n9w used,f~r.a pOlice train- ing room. It will not interfere with any future building bf a'tower on the north side of the building. . - .. .,- " . , .. , I _' _' _ Council~an Williams' questioned the. one-t'htrd,d;iffere,ntia,t f~r w~t,er,c,ool,ing and wo};tciered whether there wCl.~ anyanalysiswitp~egCl.rd.tp that ,$ystem versu9,C).ir cooling." Assistant Manager answ~r th~~ ~here wa~ no investigation of an air cooling.system since the installa- tion 'is an a~dition t<;>' the ex~sting sY;3tel1l. " :. 'J , . ,-. ..... ' , .. , -- - Rollcail'vote 'was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council- men present voting aye. III - Cor;tsent Calendar ",' , . '" J', ... a Items acted upon with one motion. Discussed previously in ,c.ommittee,meetings on June 27, 1973 (Preseilt: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and ,i'food) and em JuJ"y 3, 1973,'CPresen;t: ,Mayor AndersoI'J.; CQuncilmen B,eal', McDonald, . Hersh~~r, Campbel;L" ,t1uy>ray" and Wood).:. " , " ' . "...., '" A. Day Island' RdadLOcatIo-n;i;]t~~"B~ker"p~rk -'pTannTngO Commission 'June 12--;1973 recom":, mended modification of conditional use contract between the City and County to accommodate relocation of Day Island Road to the south so as to pass under the I-5 bridge over the Willamette River, thereby allowing waterway construction in the present underpass. The Commission stressed that this recommendation in no way con- stitutes its approval of the overall plan for Alton Baker Park nor of intrusion of parking areas into the natural area east of I-5. Further consideration of the re- lationship between the roadway and pedestrian/bike trail at the new underpass loca- tion was also recommended. planning Commission minutes were noted, indicating an estimated cost of $38,000 for relocation of the road as recommended compared to $265,000 to expand the present underpass to accommodate both the ,roadway and water- way. It was understood the current need for the roadway is primarily to serve the sanitary land fill in that area, and that there is no commitment in moving the road that would require its being a permanent installation, although it is recognized access to the Park should be available from the east for autos as well as pedestrians land bikes. 'Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize staff to modify conditional ;u~e permit ~o allow relocatio~ ~f Day Is~an~ Road next t~ the River with adjacent iii 'b~ke path w~th the clear prov~s~on that ~t ~s not a comm~tment to permanent'" existence of the road in that location. In answer to Councilman Murray, Mr. Williams said the motion would include also the stipulation that approval of relocation would not constitute approval of the over- all plan for the Park and that further consideration would be given relationship [between the road and pedestrian/bike trai~ at the new ~ocation. ..~... 7/9/73 - 8 ~^.~ ..' Al Driver Public Works director for Lane County, said it was agreed on a field trip with the ~lanning Commission that plantings would be used to protect the bike path . C()mm . 'rather than a guardrail. 6/.27/73 Vote was taken on the motion with additional stipulations as stated. Motion car- A~prove : ried unanimously. B. [Code Amendment, Sale of Used Merchandise - George Stathakis requested amendments to Sections 3.425, 3.430, and 3.435 of City Code, requirements of which he feels now would inhibit his proposal to accept used merchandise on consignment and sell it . for the owners. He asked deletion of the requirement that used merchandise be held ; for seven days before resale and of the prohibition against accepting merchandise ; from persons under 21 years of age. Copies of memo were previously distributed to : Council members giving staff analysis of problems in attempting to control sale of stolen merchandise should the requested amendments be made. ~ .._- -->.~..._._,-' ,,-.- . -,' .-...-.......... ._....:.--._-._----.-..-._~-.~,.-._..-..~+ .... -~... _. - _. _r__> _'_'_^ ____________._.____ .-. Mr. Stathakis described the business operation he is proposing to establish, a ,garage sale at a permanent location. He felt that the seven-day holding require- ~ment would require more storage space and correspondingly increase his overhead . expense. Under his present proposal of charging a 10-15% consignment fee he thought :it would be difficult to pay storage rental and make a suitable profit. Mr.Stathakis :reviewed considerations taken into account in trying to operate this type business :and staying within the Code as now written, but felt it would be too restrictive . ito permit a successful operation. He had expected a major portion of his business .. to involve college students, but that would be prohibited by the restriction on accepting used merchandise from anyone under 21. In addition, Mr. Stathakis related :his experience in establishing the business at 341 VanBuren Street, subsequently I :discovered to be 350 VanBuren Street in a zone in which the proposed operation 'would not be permitted. :Upon questioning from Council members, Mr. Stathakis further explained the proposed. , :operation and his idea that it would to a certain extent aid in the recovery of I .stolen goods. Police Chief agreed there was no regulation of private garage sales other than present manpower permits. But the present Code requirement for the seven-day holding period does aid in allowing identification of stolen property. He noted the significant number of young people involved in stealing and disposal of stolen goods and felt the present requirements should be kept. Consignment of .;-merchandise through the Thrift and Gift Shop was mentioned but it was not- kn~Wn , ; whether consignors were advised of the seven-day holding per lod. \Manager said he would have to support the Police Department's thinking that the requested amendments would weaken their position with regard to recovery of stolen ~ goods. Police Chief, in answer to Councilwoman Beal, said lowering the age limit -- !might be appropriate in view of Mr. Stathakis' point that legislative action has ilowered the voting age. Manager said the fact remains that there are many young ; thieves in the community who may be discouraged from the activity by the present . Code prohibition. ;Councilman Williams wondered whether permitting younger people to sell used mer- :chandise would tend to encourage their taking it to a business operation where 'it could be found by police rather than throwing it away or selling to buddies. :Mr. Stathakis felt it could; he recognized that stolen merchanidse will be dis- [posed of in some manner regardless of the regulations. He was primarily interested tin getting a business started and at the same time helping to recover stolen property. I 'Councilman Wood indicated support of staff's position. Mayor Anderson noted public !hearing would be necessary which would provide an opportunity for further discussion :of the requested amendment. City Attorney noted that although the State has lowered ]the voting age to 18, the age of majority has not been lowered with regard to other ,legal rights. He said a report could be prepared for the Council, if desired, to jgive detail of problems which might be faced if the requirements are deleted. ,Councilwoman Beal commented on a meeting of antique dealers at which she was made aware of their disapproval of the indiscriminate use of garage sales. She felt '. 'this was a source of disposal of stolen merchandise. The antique dealers are trying to work out a provision either for a licensing procedure for private garage sales or for a restriction on the number of unregulated sales being held. She suggested pbtaining a report on their progress before the public hearing, and at the same time considering further information with regard to whether it would be possible to lower .the age 1 imi t restriction. l Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to request further examination of the 2l-year age limit. ._--~- -~--- ---- -----~- ------- --..----.--- -- --~- .-~--- ------...J ~"2..S 7/9/73 - 9 - "'-. .':.:".....'';l( There was some discussion on whether Mr. Stathakis could carryon a series of sales ~n order to provide him with income while awaiting public hearing on the amendment and gathering of further information. Consensus was that such sales would be in violation of the Code, and that research and information would be available at the Comm .~ next regular Council meeting. . . ", . ".' - .--. .-- . - - -~. '-'-'- -v-.....,~_.:,.-- ,..:..::---~. -,.- --.----.: ------;;--~. -:- G/27/73 Vote was taken on motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Approve ~ :' _'":>'-':''~-~~'_~i::'::';~''' C. : Histor1.cal Preservation Criterion in Planning Processes -.Council members were :previously furnished with copies of AIA report and request for committee to make ~recommendations on preservation of historic buildings and sites submitted in 1972. The report was to give further background material in the Council's consideration of the recommendation of Council members Campbell and Murray for appointment of ,such a committee. Several people were present to support the recommendation and offer help should a committee be appointed to study whether historical criterion should be included in planning processes. Those speaking were Alice Sachse, chair- man of the Arts Advisory Committee of LCOG; De Unthank, president of the Southwest Oregon Chapter, AIA; Hallie Huntington, president of the Lane County Historical ;Society; Glenn Mason, director of~hePioneer Museum; Philip_ Dole, professor of . Architecture at the University of Oregon; and Otto Poticha, architect and member ,of AIA working with planning staff on developing special zoning districts. Men- ;tioned in their presentations were the possibility of tax exemption for owners .of historical buildings to provide incentive for preservation; identification of special districts by ordinance; short-term moratorium to give an opportunity for .c consideration of procedure to aid in preserving buildings, sites, districts of special historic significance, this without encouraging a system of inhibiting changes or growth in the community. All offered help of their organizations toward imple- menting a program to support goals set forth in the 1990 Plan to enhance the character of the City. Councilman Murray recognized the unsolicited support of those speaking. He noted ,that the recommendation before the Council does provide for the inclusion of historic sites and districts as well as buildings. Answering Mr. Williams, Mr. Murray said ;the charge at this time is to explore ways of dealing with inclusion of historical criterion rather than bringing to the Council a list of specific buildings, land- , marks, etc. i Councilwoman Beal asked that charges to the committee include consideration of buildings of architectural value, regardless of age. She spoke specifically of a structure on the Millrace at 11th and Hilyard which she felt worthy of preservation. Councilmen Murray and Campbell thought the committee should be concerned only with \ historical preservation per see They didn't Object to concern for architectural !qUality but felt it was a different issue. Councilman Williams thought it should be : :clearly established that the committee is to consider concept only, specific buildings! and sites to be studied when criteria have been established on which to base his- - 'torical value. i ~. <~... -- Councilwoman Campbell asked whether the County would co-operate in an endeavor of this type, and whether there is any type of State funding. Mrs. Sachse answered that County Commissioners by virtue of their expressed interest in the tax exemption proposal would no doubt co-operate in any preservation effort. She added that the State has no funds available, although the Highway Commission does maintain a list- ing of historic buildings. Mayor Anderson felt a preservation program was long overdue but expressed concern ,about establishment of another layer in the planning process. He cautioned against icreation of another commission concerned with planning without careful examination :and specific procedures for its operation. He stressed the importance of specific .standards for designation of historical landmarks to avoid disagreements and lengthy delay of overall development of the community. Mrs. Beal suggested priorities might be established as to what will be considered by the committee. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to appoint a special committee to bring a ,recommendation to the Council for including historical criterion in land use and planning processes, the committee to be composed of three Council members, and .c three lay people with special knowledge and expertise in the fields of architecture, local history, and real estate. Further that this committee should consider (1) use of historical judgment by other cities; (2) definition of the term "historical" for use in land use and planning processes; (3) exploration of ways of exercising historical Judgment including but not limited to the addition of historical criterion : to the zoning ordinance, establishment of a list of historical buildings and landmarks; recommended for preservation,. and designation of one or more historical neighborhoods 22Co 7/9/73 - 10 ------. ~ ... . <._' . ~ .-.. in which only badly deteriorated buildings could be destroyed and in which new build- ing or remodeling must be compatible with prevailing architecture of the area; and Comm (4) exploration of possibility for State and Federal assistance. Motion carried 6/27/73 . ,unanimously. Approve ,In response to suggestions that legal and planning expertise should be included in the committee membership, Manager said it is assumed staff people from the legal and planning departments would work with the committee. Assistant Manager suggested in- clusion of a Planning Commission member. D. Watchman Trailer Permit, 2nd and Lawrence - Requested by R. E. McGowan to provide living quarters for a nightwatchman for commercial garage auto lot. Staff recommends approval. Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. williams to call a public hearing. Motion carried Comm unanimously. 6/27/73 Approve E.'Variance Extension, 1247 Villard Street - Requested by G. C. York for small animal ! hospital should his present location be acquired by the University of Oregon. Comm 6/27/73 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to grant the extension for one year. Motion _carri:f!..c!'!E8.!1~~_u~l,,!:_ _ .u __ ___ .__.._ A~rJIT~ F. Liquor License Renewals _.^ 1C Dispensers (LeSS than 500 members) - Columbus Club, 1144 Charnel ton Street .. ':Retai1 Malt Beverage Class A - Pizza Hut, 35 Silver Lane IStaff has no objection and asks authorization to release prior to the July 9 Council' 'meeting. Affidavits of non-discrimination are on file. ! 1 Comm I :Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend approval and release as re- 6/27/73 quested. __Moti.o.n ~ar::~~~d _unar:imously.______.~___~rove Manager presented applications for renewal - Side Pocket Tavern, 864 West 6th, RMBC, and change of ownership - Miller's Grocery, 1065 East 20th, PB. Approve G. ,Irrigation Easement, North Belt Line East of Coburg Road - Condemnation filed 'against Herbert and Ani ta Summers foe drainage di tch and stonn sewer easement on 'property near North Belt Line east of Coburg Road did not allow for continuing 'an existing right to connect two properties in their ownership through Belt Line with irrigation pipe. Council authorization was requested for that right to ; allow further negotiation in the suit. Staff has no objection to the pipe on i the easement. ~ Comm ,Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize the irrigation pipe as 7/3/73 II ' re.qu~~~ed. _.~~~~O'1J_ca!".~ie.<!_!J1lanimously. ,_." ""..c.;.- ..__...__.. ..___._..,__ Approve H. 'Transfer Jail Operation to Lane County, Contract - Jail operation was unofficially 'transferred to Lane County on July 1,1973. Council approval of formal contract ,for transfer was requested. Manager reviewed terms of the contract which had Police' 'Department approval. :Counci1woman Bea1 asked about payment for improvements and repairs, and whether employes transferred, especially female employes, would receive a lower rate of pay. iManager replied that the County will make decisions with regard to any improvements : I ~or repairs, however City participation in costs of those repairs requires prior ,agreement between the two agencies. Assistant Manager explained that no employes transferred will receive lower pay; those City employes receiving a higher rate than: , now being paid by the County for a like position will receive their present rate of I lpay until the County pay plan reaches that salary level. I , , Councilwoman Campbell asked what recourse the City has should the present County i philosophy change with regard to the jail's being a correctional faCility. She re- ferred to possible future change in the Sheriff's posi tion. Manager noted provision I ',in the contract on intended philosophy for the operation of the jail, and statement ; ,that any change would be subject to consultation with the City. Provision is also made for the right of either party to buy the other's half. ( tilt In answer to Councilman McDonald, Assistant Manager said the present City cost is about 15% for housing prisoners. ._-".. _.._ ______ Comm - -. -.-- -, 7/3/73 :Mr. ~ershner moved seconded by Mrs. Bealto approve the contract. Motion carried I Approve unan~mously. -... ,--- -, '---------,-.- ~ --"--"',. ---_..~ - ~ .---,----.- .-._. -"'--'~..~..'-- -'-'----'., - ~ -" ----_._-.------------~ ._- _..---~.....- .- , 7/9/73 - 11 2,.."1: I. Abatement, 3815 Willamette Street - Recommended on the basis of structural fire ' . , , and heal th ha zards . I ,Comm . Mrs. ,Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing. Motion carried 7/3/73 _;- unan~mously. Approve Demolition, 4291 East Amazon Manager explained that the property owner failed to clean up the property on which proper notice of abatement was given. Authorization for demolition of Approve buildings at that location was requested. J. " - ,,- Parking District Implementation - Council was requested to call public hearing for July ~3 a~ this time so that the parking district can be started if the July 19 · elect~on ~s successful. It was understood the hearing would be cancelled if there _ , , I ~s a negat~ve vote on the pzoposal. 'Mrs: Beal ~ved seconded by Mr. Hershner to call public hearing for July 23, 1973. i Mot~on carr~ed unanimously. K. Petition, Stonn Sewer between Warren and Louis from 1000 feet south of Bailey Hill I Cornm Road to 2000 feet south - 100% - Mrs. Beal 1lr)ved seconded by Mr. Wood to accept '7/3/73 , the petition. Motion carried unanimously.jApprove L. Council Minutes - June 11 and 25, 1973 as circulated. Approve ~ M. Proposed Park Property, Willamette-bet~e~~ 37th and 38th - Councilwoman Campbell asked whether the Parks Department could investigate the possible acquisition of Lutheran Church property on Willamette between 37th and 38th for open space iand. I It was understood the matter would be checked. N. Street Widths - Councilman Mclx:mald tiio'ught a cOmmittee should be appointed 'to determine minimum width of residential streets. He felt the Council should not ,be faced with that determination at time of contract award on City projects. It was understood a copy of the subdivision ordinance would be distributed to Council! Cornm 'members and the question further considered after review if it is fel t necessary. 7/3/73 The ordinance contains specific cri ter ia for determining street widths at time of i Affirm plat filing. Plats are reviewed by both the Planning and Public Works Departments! rprior to acceptance. O. I-l05/lst Avenue Ramps - Request was received from Whiteaker neighborhood group 'for'-rec~2deration_o~e19sing the 1st Avenue ramps upon opening of the I-lOS ~tension~ -The~~7.lea to-e~~re-again the possibiJity of barricades on the -temporary,ramps while the City pursues the Highway Division's alternative pro- posal of remodeling the ramps (2H) for some $350,000 to provide access to the freeway. Manager repor~ed the group was advised resubmittal would probably not ~.' . be approved in view of rejection of previous Ci ty requests for temporary use of 'W' the ramps to allow time for ESATS updating or to pursue other alternatives to ' closing them. Counci.l was asked whether reconsideration was desired at the July 9 meeting. In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Manager reviewed previous requests to the State Highway Division and Federal Transportation Department which were rejected. His impression was that no temporary connection to I-l05 would be permissible; if there is to be access as a result of ESATS updating an entirely new design would be required. I 'Councilwoman Beal wondered whether the ramps could be used for pedestrian and bike traffic only in the event future modifications to the Washington/Jefferson bridge provided for that type use. Manager felt any change of that type would provide for pedestrian and bike travel immediately adjacent to the riverbank rather than on the structure farther south. Mayor Anderson felt any further request for temporary use of the ramps would be _ interpreted as stalling for time. He thought the present contract calling for removal of the ramps upon opening of I-l05 should be fulfilled. He called the 'discussion back to whether the matter should be reopened at the July 9 meeting. . Consensus was that previous public hearing had provided opportunity to hear all ~ considerations and another hearing W)uld serve no useful purpose. Mr. Murray suggested directing the Whiteaker group to the State or Federal authorities with- Comm 'out formal request from the City with regard to possibility of implementing 7/3/73 Alternative 2H. It was understood staff would investigate so far as possible I Affirm acceptance of the 2H al ternati ve for the Whi teaker group as well as for the Ci ty. 2.6.~ 7/9/73 - 12 '., ~ '. . . ". . - -. .. P. Picnic, International Co-operation Committee - Council was invited to a picnic on Camm ,July 31 at 6:00 p.m. at Skinners Butte Park in honor of 12 visiting Japanese stu- 6/27/73 ~- 'dents and their sponsor. (' File u' Q.Downtown Free Parking Program - Copies of memo were distributed giving estimated costs requested by Councilwoman Beal. Traffic Engineer reviewed the estimates of $58,400 net revenue for 1973-74 if there is no change in the downtown parking opera- tion; $128,400 net revenue for 1973-74 if the present parking rates are doubled ,(to coincide with Portland's rates); and $53,400 net loss for 1973-74 under the Camm free parking program. Mrs. Beal said her request for the costs was not to be 6/27/73 interpreted as an indication that she is against the free downtown parking. She File ;fel~. t,~e..cos~ t?,the ,~itll shou1c1be known ~fore__.starting ~he .pI.ogra,[II.. . ~_.--- . . ~: ,- . (;1:,.:. . " .'" ~ . ~~~.. :..:~:~!~:j, 'J> .S~. . ". . R. ,Alley Assessment Procedure - It was understood the City Attorney's office would be'~"0'~.)::>Comm asked about when their report would be brought to the Council wi th regard to new 7/3173 ;alley assessment procedure, after question from Councilwoman Beal as to its status. ..' F~le ~~,-....l. '~' . .. S. Noise, Chain Saws - Councilman McDonald reported a number of calls recei ved wi th Camm regard to noise from operation of chain saws on Sundays in the West Hills~ 7/3/73 File 1::.1: . ..... ',,- .-. T. Street Tree Program - Copies of status report on the Street Tree Program were pre- viously distributed to Council members. Discussion ranged from protection of trees . :from excessive trimming and removal of trees to meetings with regard to underground :wiring by WEB, provision in proposed special districts prohibiting removal of large I, shade trees, trees in planters on South Willamette, etc. It was understood an \ ,ordinance is being prepared which would cover points raised and that discussion of \ ' I 'specific suggestions could take place at that time. Public Works Director, comment- ling on the possibility of trees in planters along South Willamette, said more than i the present right-of-way width would be necessary to place planters at that location ,~. Camm ;unless agreement is reached with Owners to set them on private property. He felt '~7/3/73 providing space in the asphalt allowing trees to be planted in the ground would be File ~ore desirable from a maintenance_~~andp9int. --, , ":-\.........""". . ~ - (~~,n ". .--:".. '.""' . ~ - ._,,- ** See public.hearing, page 5 these minutes. :'~.;~ "v ICode Amendment, S~ctions 9.676-9.682 re: Procedures and Bases for Zone Changes \ Copies of proposed amendment were previously distributed to Council members as Iwel1 as copies of City Attorney's memo and brief on Fasano rezoning decision. \ I ! The amendment would make it the Council's responsibility to indicate for inclusion \ i in the record pub1i c benefi t from zone changes made. Also, negati ve recommenda- : tions by the Planning Commission on requested zone changes would be final unless i appealed for Council review. It was understood public hearing on the amendment , would be held at the July 9 Council meeting. .' Councilman Murray said he and Councilwoman Bea1 had discussed the possibility of , changing the Code to provide for mailing notices of proposed zone changes to all I residents of properties abutting that affected rather than just to property owners., ^ Manager asked for opportpni ty to mak.e staff analysis before Council action. He ~ , felt implications of such notification should be known, especially in instances I ' of large zone changes where it might be difficult to determine renters' names. . He suggested possibly addressing. notices to "occupants" of adjacent properties. I , ! Councilman Murray asked too whether specific answers to questions raised by the : Fasano decision could be given with regard to what is meant by ".. .no pre-hearing or ex-parte contacts concerning the question at issue..." since it would tend to contradict the nature of a legislative office. He wondered whether this would ,'include (1) discussion of general issues such as general neighborhoods or 10ng- ,range zoning as well as a specific proposed change, (2) hearings before the Plan- ning Commission~ and (3) application to conditional use permits, annexations, etc. ;Counci1woman Campbell was concerned about how to handle contacts while awaiting anoplnion on these questions since Council members do receive many calls with :regard to rezoning applications. Manager's personal opinion was that anything done to avoid b~ing lobbied would strengthen any ,Council action taken sjnce the Court decision. He said there is some indication neither applicants nor Commis- _. sion discussion should be listened to before Council consideration. Councilman 'Hershner wondered too whether the present Council tours of properties on which Camm zoning requests have been filed would come under the "no pre-hearing" factor. 7 /3/73 'It was understood these questions would be taken into consideration when the. 'Pub- . Hrng :City Attorney's opinion is brought to the Council. Discussion is tentatively ischeduled for the Julyll co~tteemeeting if the Attorney General's opinion I , !reque~~ed by the Ci ty Attorney has been recei ved . ": ' ..__'___. ' __no 2.~9 7/9/73 -:- 13 _.- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that Items A through T be approved, affirmed, and filed as noted above. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. IY,- Ordinances -- Council Bill No. 349 - Storm sewer between Warren Avenue and Louis Street from 1000 feet south of Bailey Hill Road to 2000 feet south 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16883. Council Bill No. 350 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer between Warren Avenue and Louis Street from 1000 feet south of Bailey Hill Road to 2000 feet south was sub- mitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council- man present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passgge. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16884. Council Bill No. 351 - Authorizing easement for irrigation pipe and amending complaint in condemnation suit, Herbert and Anita Summers, North Belt Line east of Coburg Road, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, ther.e being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16885. <<I V - Resolutions , Resolution No. 2201, - Calling hearing July 23, 1973 re: Nightwatchman Trailer at 2nd and Lawrence (McGowan) was submitted. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2202 - Authorizihgpayment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period June 25 through July 9, 1973, was submitted. ---- -- .,-- Councilman Hershner- inquirecLab6ut 'payment'of $14,300 to Lybrand, Ross Bros. & Montgomery for Library management consulting service, $2,000 to Art Morrow for housing condition survey, and for'definition of a "buddy bumper" for'which payment was made to Taylor's Manufacturing. Manager said the payment to Lybrand et al was for services contracted by the Library Board for a study of personnel practices and general progress of the Library as it has grown. A number of recommendations regarding changes were made which the Board plans to implement. Planning Director explained that the payment for housing condition survey was a part of the Neighborhood Analysis work funded under a 701 planning grant. It is a pre- requisite to obtaining certification for Federal funds for any urban renewal project. He -- explained the;process, of: the sUrvey .which is a continuing inventory of tiousing 'conditions .in,the.entire City. Manager described a "buddy bumper" as an oversize bumper guard in- stalled on police cars for protection when moving stalled cars out of traffic lanes. Councilman McDonald inquired about the $1,871.41 payment to Lane Construction Co. for Planni~g Department remodeling. Manage~ explained that the payment was for installation of a restroom for the Planning Department. He noted also the payment to Marquess and Mar- quess of $2,181.50 for design services of remodeling to gain additional office space in the upstairs area of City Hall. 2..'3 0 7/9/73 - 14 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously on rollcall vote. . Resolution No. 2203 - Calling hearing July 23, 1973 re: Abatement 3815 Willamette Street was submitted. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Manager inquired about attendance at the August 13 and 27, 1973 Council meetings. It appeared there would be a quorum present at both meetings. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, July 23, 1973. . . I . 211 7/9/73 - 15