Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/1973 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER NOVEMBER 5, 197' . Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held October 23, 1973 - was called to order by his Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 5, 1973, in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood. I - Public Hearings A. Zone Change Denial Appeal, Property N. of Kins Rowand S. of 1-105 (Earl Green) Requested R-2PD Council received as evidence a map of the area, staff notes and minutes of October 2, applicant's statement, staff notes and minutes of August 7, 1973, 11 documents' with a cover index entitled, "Documents Requested by Staff for the record", and a sheaf of "Additional Historical Documents" submitted by applicant. Involved in the proposed zone change are 13 acres of property located south of Interstate 105, north of Kins Rowand east of Centennial Boulevard. The property was annexed on April 6, 1972, and zoned County AGT. It remained in effect to April, 1973, when the applicant requested rezoning of the 13 acres . eight acres to R2 and 5 acres to RP. The Planning. Commission recommended denial and recommended rezoning to RA. Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation and the prop~rty was rezoned to RA in April, 1973. A request was subsequently submitted for rezoning from RA to R2 or R2PD. The Planning Commission considered it on August 7, 1973, . and postponed a decision to allow time for evaluation. "O-n-""October 2, the Planning Commission recommended denial for rezoning to R2PD. Public hearing was opened. Applicant Earl Green, 365 W. 27th Place, said that certain guidelines are followed by developers in selecting property, including location of property in the community, availability of utilities, size, COS4 economic factors and feasibility for development. The property in question was purchased in 1969 to develop a home for the aged. This idea was subsequently dropped because of notice of freeway construction, lack of bus service and lack of personnel for the home. Mr. Green then presented slides showing businesses in the area, terrain, and traffic flow. Homes in the area have not been selling and have been converted to rental-type units. His proposed apa~tment house development is in two steps. Requested now are 145 units with another. 90 to be contemplated at a later time. The development is designed for young, active living, with no school-aged children allowed. Mr. Green advised that all requirements have been met for not less than the R2PD zoning. He quoted figures from both Pacific Northwest Bell and EWEB, showing substantial growth in the number of customers served. He feels that, with the present rate of growth, there is a desperate need for more housing of this type. . Jim Redden, Architect, 700 Country Club Road, said he was retained to assist in a preliminary study by Mr. Green. He showed slides of the layout of the proposed development, stating that 145 units would fall well below the maximum density allowable under R2. Additionally, he felt there should be more housing closer to the downtown area to help in .its revitalization. He also stated that facilities are in (utilities, police, fire, etc.) and that the development would be economically wise for the City. Gary Draper, 335 Arcadia, submitted a letter stating his views as a lender. The R2PD (145 units) would allow for space and adequate savings on improvements and land costs to construct and deve19p a_project attractive to the lender, the tenant and the City. At a total/oT~$25"5.,QOO,the~' 145 units would be $1,760 per living unit. John Fair, 5335 Saratoga, stated that the property under consideration is located in an opportunity area, which he does not consider essentially industrial or commercial but suited to residential in some form other than single-family dwellings. Ralph Fulbright, 1600 Adkins, advised he supports the rezoning because he feels it is the right' thing to put on that particular piece of property. He stated he served -- on the Lane County Planning Commission for four years, as well as the Oregon Council of Planners and Citizens Advisory Natural Resources Committee. As a result, he has good knowledge about the 1990 Plan which he feels the community should support as comprehensive and worthwhile. He believes the proposed rezoning action is in keeping with the goals of the 1990 Plan and further suggested the land could even be used at a higher density than R2. 11/5/73 - 1 32.f> - I' Rick Cleveland, Attorney, 260 E. 11th, submitted a letter from another attorney, Robert H. Fraser, 777 High Street, which stated that, as former Vice-Chairman of the initial Citizens Advisory Committee to the 1990 Plan, he agreed with Mr. Green's plan as being in line wIth the original concept of the Committee to reduce scatterization outside ~ the city of Eugene and increase the dens'ity within the City. .' Mr. Cleveland stated that the first request for rezoning the property in question was for R2 zoning, not R2PD. It was changed on the record at the request of Mr. Pearson. The request is then to approve R2PD zoning on 13 acres with the development of 145 units. The architect on the project would be charged with planning a design which would be compatible with up to 90 additional future units. The .;Limitation of 14'5 units is based on the present sewer capacity. He further mentioned that suggestions in the 1990 Plan indicate a specialized housing need should be met in this area and that the zoning as a concept would be compatible with more kinds of uses in the remainder of the opportunity area. Mr. Cleveland feels the area is right for development now. and that R2PD is clearly appropriate. Jim Saul, Planning Department, pointed out that, under R2PD, a maximum of 235 units could be constructed as opposed to 104 units under RA. The limitation of 145 units is temporary, based upon the temporary sewer system proposed to allow development of the property. It is the Planning Commission's feeling the property is not suitable for R2 since basic services are not present at this point in time for the maximum I allowable. The Planning Commission was also concerned about making a decision for R2 zoning in isolation from consideration of other properties in the area. It was felt a refinement study was necessary to determine the. nature of this particular ~ opportunity area, and the Planning Commission could not justify such a study at this ,., point in time. Mr. Saul stated that another criteria was the question of whether or ' not there was a public need to rezone for this type of development and mentioned other available property areas that might be similarly developed. In ~a~~r to questions from Jim Korth, City Attorney's office, regarding the $255,000 .f~gure, Mr. Draper said $255,000 was the price. Mr. Green paid for the property. Mr. Green does have it on the market at the present time for $280,000 but will retain ownership and develop it if rezoning is approved. Mr. Korth said it's not th~ position of the attorney's office that a cost analysis of the property is relevant. However, applicant would seek to introduce testimony to show rezoning was justified on the basis of that analysis. Manager stated. that, if economics of the ~e0elopment are submitted as evidence for an application for rezoning, it would seem the Council has a right to know the basis for the economics. Mr. Murray wondered if the applicant would need to come before the Council to request the addition of the other 90 units. Manager advised that, if the property is rezoned to R2PD, the maximum number of units 4It. allowable would be permitted if developed as a PD. Applicant could submit for PD . approval in stages of development, the first being 145 units and the second being the additional 90 units; or he could present the entire 235 units as a plan and only proceed with 145, approval being that of the Planning Commission, not Council, unless there was an appeal from a Planning Commission decision. A question was raised as to whether Council could permanently limit the number of units to 145, which the Planning,Commission could then designate as the maximum number, and, if the Planning Commission approved more than 145 units, the City Council itself could appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Korth expressed awkwardness with imposing that type of limitation because, legally, if a zone plan is approved, the applicant is entitled to the maximum number of units allowable. ~ I Mr.~Woodwondered if the property could revert to the previous zoning if not I devJioped within a.particularperiod of time. Manager said that, once the zoning is completed, automatic reversion could not be effected. It would have to go through the same Planning Commission - Council hearing process. Mrs. Campbell wondered what had happened to the applicant's 0riginal plans for a home for the aged on the property. Mr. Saul answered that, at that time, the concept of a ~ home for the aged was not favorably accepted due to isolation of the site from many ~~ facili ties. In answer to questions raised regarding approving rezoning with the - Y stipulation that the sewer system is adequate, Mr. Korth advised that, if a certain number of units are approved depending on the current status of the sewer system, it becomes then not a rezoning matter but one of relating land use directly to services and that is not always appropriate at this time of rezoning land. 11/5/73- 2 ~1.~ Mr. Cleveland felt Council's main concern was whether the applicant might come back at a later time to request the remaining 90 units. He indicated applicant was willing to sign a contractual agreement to limit development to 145 units, if Council so desired. He mentioned their plans for a home for the aged had been -- dropped primarily because' of highway noise. The question now, as he sees it, is what is the most compatible with the future. This proposed development would appeal to young, mobile people whose needs are not sufficiently met in the City. Mr. Korth advised the City could accept an offer to limit development to 145 units but that they could not impose such a restriction. Mrs. Beal thought that, since " 145 units was predicated only on the sewer, as soon as the sewer capacity was increased, the l4S-unit limitation would no longer be a concern. Mr. Keller said he didn't understand why limiting the ultimate number of units to less than 235 would be favored. Mr. Wood said that, if a limitation is placed, it could later be removed by Council if it were reasonable to do so. Mr. Saul said that, in addition to the sewer aspect, other problems mentioned were school facilities, since excluding school-aged children could not be a permanent restriction on development. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Council approve the zone change with the stipulation that a contract between the applicant and the City be drawn limiting the development to 14S'units. . Mayor Anderson pointed out the matter would automatically go' back for a joint hearing. ..,' Mr. Williams said he arrived at only a $6.00 difference in cost' of living between allowing 145 units under R2PD and 104 units under RA. He said, "We are looking at massive traffic jams now". Mr. Murray said the difference between 104 and 145 units is not substantial and that passing on the'motion would seem justified. Vote was taken on the motion, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Williams and Mrs. Campbell voting no and Mr. Hershner absta'ining. Before commencing the sign code issues, Mr. Williams made a statement to the effect that he would not vote on any other sign issues. He stated he did not have any connection with the applicants nor any conflict he was aware of regarding previous sign discussions. However, some husinessmen, he added, believe the proper approach is economic punishment of councilmen as a result of their vote on certain sign issues. He therefore wished to decline to vote on/any future sign questions. Mr. McDonald expressed surprise and said he would also have to take the same position '. "as regards tonight's matters". ""' B. Staff Appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decisions - September 17, 1973 City Manager expressed staff's' appreciation of assistance received from the Sign Code Board of Appeals and hoped' that the appeals by staff are not interpreted as being lack of appreciation or the launching of new policies. In these particular instances, it seemed that the granting of variances would have the potential for setting a precedent that could. result in amending the intent of the sign code' itself; and staff thought it appropriate that Council have the opportunity to do that directly if desired rather than through the use of the variance procedure. l. Boon's Red Carpet Motel The motel is located several blocks west of Jefferson, with an off-premise directional sign in the 300 block of Jefferson Street, just south of the railroad tracks, directing people coming across the bridge. The owner is in the process of providing a sign which would conform to the size requirements of the code. The sign is located in an industrial sign district and, according to the code, off premise directional signs shall be located in a highway oriented district. On September 17, the Sign Code Board of Appeals granted a variance. The question-raised was whether to allow the sign to remain in an . industrial sign district, the argument being that it is similar to many signs in a highway-oriented district. During the tour of the area, the question was raised whether it would be more appropriate to consider changing the zone from industrial to highway-oriented. Staff has indicated the belief ~t would be inappropriate for a highway-oriented' district to be extended along Jefferson and Washington in order to permit signs along the overpass. Public hearing was opened. 11/5/73 - 3 3~O Helen Daugherty, owner of Boon's Red Carpet Motel, expressed extreme irritation with the handling of the appeal. She did not understand the reasoning'behind appealing a board of appeals decision. She stated she has a prepaid lease for the ground, which was purchased in 1968, before the sign code was put into effect and . had obtained a permit from the highway department for the sign. She also mentioned that, although the present sign is non-conforming, she is planning to replace it with a conforming one. Al Whetstine, 1735 McLean, brought up the point that the Sign Board has stated this variance would not set a precedent. On that basis, he felt this particular one should be granted. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr'. Murray that Council uphold the staff appeal and overrule the Sign Code Board of Appeals. Vote was taken on the motion, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner voting no and Mr. Williams and Mr. McDonald abstaining. 2. Pape Bros., Inc. The request for variance on this sign was to leave the sign at a heighth greater than permitted under the sign code. The purpose was to insure visibility since Pape Cat is below the grade of the highway and therefore the sign is lower. The Sign Code Board granted a variance' on September 17, 1973; the reason for the staff appeal of I that decision was that the question of dealing with grades above or below the surface of the street should be defined in the Code. It should be clarified whether allowing this type of sign variance should, in fact, be a granting of a variance or a . legislative decision. ~ Public hearing was opened. Roy Adkins, attorney for Pape Bros., 825 E. Park, Eugene, submitted a photo copy of a sketch showing the sign and its heighth. The 46-foot high sign is presently 27 feet above freeway grade, and the ground level is 16.5 feet below the road grade level. It, in effect, is sitting in a hole and is no higher above the road grade than identity signs of businesses directly across the freeway. Betty Niven, Eugene, mentioned that signs are basically and primarily for the purpose of identifying the business and that Papers sign would have to be regarded as advertising, not identity. At the time the sign code was adopted, there was considerable discussion regarding the question of grade. The problem frequently is that, in order to make a sign visible above the grade of the highway, it is also high enough that it becomes an intrusion on residential property. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Wood to uphold the staff appeal and overrule the Sign Code Board of Appeals. In making the motion, she stated that perhaps council would want to take a look at the sign code and possibly make some changes but that, until done, exceptions should not be made. . .. , Mr. Hershner raised a question regarding the.'possibili ty of granting a variance for a certain length of time, until Council can look at the whole problem. Manager stated that granting a variance would be an indication of Council's desire for review and reconsideration but that it would be some time before this could be done. Vote was taken on .the motion, all council members present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner voting no and Mr. Williams and Mr. McDonald abstaining. C. Abatement, 1075 West 6th Avenue (Betterton/Olsen) Staff advises the property constitutes a fire hazard, as well as a health and structural hazard. Council has viewed the property on tour. Mr. Roe Betterton, a school teacher at Chemeteka in Salem, stated the property in question is owned by him but has been leased to a fellow who then got Mr. Olsen in as a lessee. Internal Revenue subsequently has locked him up, and therefore Mr. Betterton can do nothing at this time but indicated he would as soon as possible. Manager said it was his understanding the building is not locked up but rather standing wide open. Mr. Betterton , said the house is open but that the store next to it is locked up. Manager indicated it is the house that is being suggested for abatement, not the store. Mrs. Campbell added . that, if a fire occurred, it would be a terrible situation as it is located close to a motel. Resolution No. 2233 - Authorizing abatement at 1075 West 6th was submitted and read by number and title. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize abatement. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. ~~I 11/5/73 - 4 D. Planning Commission Recommendations - October 2, 1973 1- Rezoning AG to RA, area located west of Belt Line, east of Danebo and north of Laurelhurst (Cone) r_ Submitted in evidence were applicant's statement, staff notes and minutes of October 2. Public hearing was opened. Dave Peterson, Planning Consultant, 460 Second Avenue E., said they would stand on the record submitted to the Commission that demonstrated the burden of proof had been satisfied. Council Bill No. 399 - Rezoning to RA area west of Belt Line east of Danebo and north of Laurelhurst was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved "and given. . final passage. Included in the motion, as requested by Jim Saul, Planning, were 3 criteria outlined in staff notes of October 2: 1- Demonstration of conformity with the adopted General Plan; Demonstration of public need; 3. Demonstration that the need will be best served by changing the classification of this property as compared with other available property. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16934.' 2. Sign Zone Change on area on west. side of Empire Park Drive north of Dove Lane - From Outlying Commercial District to Highway Oriented District (Abbott) At the time the sign zone was adopted, the area in question was not included. However, the apparent use is identical as that to the south. Council Bill No. 400 - Changing sign zone to Highway Oriented District on west side of Empire Park Drive north of Dove Lane was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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., ;yote 'wastal<en_on the:.motion, a:lt . councilmen p-re_s,ellt voj::ing ',aye ,-~'apd,_ thE?_-"bill:-.wa's':r~~~.t?E;.~;second---tJme- by _council bill numb'er only"::" - . '.' . -.:w,. -. -- :."..:;/- ::_ -'- . .: "" .-'.."'-'.- . ." .~. - Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage and that reference be made to Planning staff notes of October 2. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye except Mr. Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and number 16935. E. Bids - ";;'::!! -I: ~;~-:',,~~~~;,- t'" ==~~~.~=~~-=~==;~~~l:~:~ (~O~~~~_~~~-=:.:.~:~=~.~~~ti.!~~t;;~~'.~'~~'~_~.:~~_~'~_'~-'.:~~~.~~__~ ;~~: :',. . __. ~:!~;;~;:4 j I 5fORtr15E~ !1- Ua ',~ulJ~J(~ MUoiO !rol:'\ Sh;!t'ol1 W~~y co I ! 1>\: L L l.1.n( [~ond ('J)j) i !~I~.(21:0~;A!:.)~l~t t.\lf!).:!2.~_I) t.,r:!2..J. , J. i.)\~'....:: r t.:.1'~X b I' (~I:: t. illr:-.................. 0 20(. , 'J., 2. ]0. . . . . . . ~ I oj I \ ~O 1 . (jr). . . . . . . . . t . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 197 . ~~) 1 . OU. . . . . . . . . ~~ ISJ .200.00 t. ;'::.;n:ltCil K.. l~(J;lrll;k (;on"trl1ctlorl (;0..... .$761.'d)!J.60...... .$245.]')].~O '" 31.t1:"- W;J i' COni: r II:: tu r n, ~ nc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~~/, . ~: ~l. I);,. . . . . . . ~: :;1:' f? I ~L 2: . . ~Ji 1.,1 j t.il Cont~ l. ((I -; t l,on Cvr,j~i.H~Y,'"""""" J ZO t t,l 7-, .0,). . . . . . t \~ J~.t I Ill. UO . O('~:4~:(1 COli!'! r.uer!oo Co.. In~'.... t... '" .~.11/'I:~~.H}.:Lj...... .~)(J(J.10l..15 ,. . Cu~tllt.:':T IllS j\..'\TE: .J II:H' 1, J I~!,.~ : - ...--- -----.'.-------...---- ---------------- --------- -...-...-- -----~._--------_....------------ ----....------------,- - - . ~.. ...,-- ..__.---- -...- ..-.... _... -..,'.. - .~._'. - ..__.~ -..... ..... ..'- I all.f[)~,,: " ~......,~,~) tt";l'l"!J~h.'U lWHJ ~, '.-3 ClLlljllHd ~]/5) -,~~i\:~.rr;. .,yI::I)':I:N:\I.:E e ! I. ~h,:(~t.JH:; (:{.)l1lr;l,.t"r,,_ (lie........ .0' ....No II{,I,. .... .......G ll,I)/19.70.. ... ..... It_ .0..... ...........,.... ....... ..~~ 32,649.70..".... .~.. 41.'>~ 00 :/. 11::tlILi lOll C(lfllIC('JcrloI1 C\.Jmp.lny...........~ 52,65').20.......$ 32,7!IJ.UU Cll~'ll'l.l''I'I()N nAIF.: JIll}' I. 1')'],'1 "-.., -~_._-----_.--_._-~--_.._----------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------_._--------------------~----------_.- ~. ~O~ Cul/crt Cru~l~!n~ on Dnrl,:l,o AV':OIJC Q~ A-] C~arl:lcl (1~7) 1. <,hell--II,:! C'"HrO"_,""', lll~...............$ J9,~lC..21,............................... .ll...,...,..................... .':' 39. 8/6. 2t:: .:....,.$ 6O.17{" 00' , . ll.nt".l!tcn Con..,crJct!n(o (;nT~~'~r;y.......,...$ 46,9::'0.00 _........ / Cu:1!'I.ETION DATE: H.,',' 1, )q7/j ~ I --.--------,-...-.-.---'--.---- ---- --.- -'-- ~-. -------.-.,.---.- __...n.._'__._____..n._._.... ....,...__~._._...___.___~__.._'___~___._._..._______..~.=~~~____...~.:.:O-.~.,._::O'-...._...._____"' 11/5/73 - 5 3"32 > , ~ ...._:...;;:::::.__..::-..._.. ,,;'~.__'__-~-:::_ "_" ___,.._____.....;.....~..__....-.._.._____________u_________________.. 'H._..._.________________ p..________.u ______._ . F!.N ITAtct Sf \...'~ R: 'Z:--.,...il:--:..-;~~~L:-rl:0t:1 projc..:u:d 3a,h ^vunll~l to H..a (to ~!)Ulh of '.)('u A'/:J.. .un..! fro::1 1uO it. ,...p.l of Ihr.c Anu:J:(,n DrJv(: ro thu Lo'.t. :L'Jt. (4.'1,:', ,ad llha!j~ (7~2) I !;hc:-:/a'j C()nt(i:.(:turti~ 1nc...............$ 52.1tlj.HO...........................L~lt.....$ 0.01/<;4. ft...................O 2.. f;11tlit;;t C:l:~~,t.ru..~tlo() Ct;rnflhnio...... I....~ 68,065.00 :h.n, , .. .$27. 7.~ ",Ich. J.<:vy....~ 0.0'-15/"'1.11. COHl'LETION DATE: A';1"~II~t! J 1'.~i:t ~.. '" C..mtr:tct Cost CI)~t t.; C~:y .. .,~:'~_.~,~..~~!~~:_.~~!r?!:.~.~._____~___. _____._.______~~.._._.__ __._.__. ~ _ .j+.:.r.::;lit~l.:;n & .itci.' Clcncnnce: 2:.filJ Ch..~ll;t..(:ru 5t:t'cct 1. :: G. '.4 ~;.Jlt.i;'n, Hruckcrti........ ...... ... ........ ,$ )66.00..,.... .................. ..... ... ........................ .$](){,.OO 2. Joh(&f:nn a,.ol).........................~...........~ ~SO.O~ 'j. J,~y r. 01.11h4S!lS.............,......................., v4U.O(J . I,. tU6~n<< BuLldLng ~frQck"r..,.......................$1,250.00 CUMl'LETIO:: DATE: Ih~\-:t.~mlH'r 151 19}] Bids were reviewed by Public Works and the following recommendations made: 1. Devereaux and Pratt, Proposal No. 2 2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc., Alternate 3. Shur- Way Contractors', Inc.' 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc., subject to agreement between Hirons and City that he will pay for that portion of his property located outside the City. 5. M & W Building Wreckers Manager stated No. 4 and 5' are formal public hearings because of assessment costs. Public hearing was held with no t,estimony presented. I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award as recommended, with the stipulation .~ on No. 4 that agreement be made between Hirons and. the City rather than asking for a ~ deferred assessment. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. II '-Consent Calendar Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed at committee-of-the-whole meetings on October 24 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council persons Beal, Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood) and October 31 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes-of those meetings appear below printed in italics. __ _ ~ _ _c . __ ____ ___ A. Hiring Pro Tem Judges - Council was asked for authorization to hire pro tem judges to conduct night courts because of the backlog of cases to be tried. Funds to cover the expense are included in the budget. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to authorize the hiring of protem ,cofnm judges as requested. Motion carried unanimously. 10/24/73 ~. :.. APP~CJ3e -- --. -', ~.- '="c___ -_.._____ _.____.__ B. Study of Zoning in Goodpasture Island Area - A two-pafle resolution, which was prepared for Council review, was distributed with the idea that it could be .' i given possible consideration at the next regular Council meeting. Councilwoman' . ' ! Beal felt it was a fine, complete definition of items pertinent to the ~tudy. I She particularly favored the stipulations that no further rezoning applications be considered in the Goodpasture Island area until completion of the study. Mrs. Beal moved .seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the resolution. Corom . 10/31/73 I , j Councilman Murray then suggested some additions to the proposed resolution. Appro~e ; To the statement reading, "That the study establish criteria for determining (See eouinc.l what constitutes large-scale regional use," he suggested adding, "and how actio'n i extensive are the needs for such development". He suggested adding a new below') I provision immediately after that which would read,."That the study consider the . . !. possibility of using other opportunity areas for part all of any needed , large-scale regional development". Mayor Anderson pointed out his desire to keep the focus of the study confined to the Goodpasture Island and downtown areas. Councilman Murray pointed out that determining there are large-scale needs does not necessarily answer the question as to where those needs would best be met. He felt it, essential to know if there are other opportunity areas. Mayor Anderson felt this would be pointed out in the study. Councilwoman Beal stated I that one of the essential ingredients of a study is the inclusion of alternatives. Councilman Murray suggested another additional point be made after the existing , ... I No.5, which would read, "That, if the study reaffirms the existence of excessive . commercial zoning, it recommend means to reduce the amount and intensity of such zoning". Mayor AndE!rson reiterated his concern with taking the study I outside the project area. Councilman Murray felt that an evaluation of needs in 11/,5/73 - 6 '. .~-_. .. 333 . "----..t, ._~ .c , a given area could best be made through comparison to a broader area. Mayor Anderson felt that premise was satisfactory as long as there would not be too much branching out into the complete 1990 Plan area. Manager said that Mr. ,. ~urray's recommendations could come as a fOllow-up to the study asked for in the : propOsed resolution and that they would not have to affect the moratorium. - . Councilman Murray suggested a statement after the existing No. 8 that would read, i : "That. the study evaluate possible residential use of the Goodpasture Island Area ~". Manager stated that Item 3 would tend to indicate that provision. Mayor Anderson suggested' that examples could be given of various concepts and . opportuni ties. . Counqilman Williams voiced a concern with the potential impact of the moratorium on other areas. Will a'moratorium simply encourage development elsewhere, risking the possibility of a regional. center in another area of the City? I As to the time element involved in the completion of such a study, Manager ; advised' an effort is being made to define the scope of the study and the elements that' go into it. He noted it would probably not get underway un1;.il after the. first of the year - after the completion of the South Hills Deris~ty Study - ~nd that it could take about 18 months to complete. Councilman Hershner mentioneq , having reservations with requ~sting property owners to"do nothing" while a . i :. '. _ __.____~_______ __~~____ ~--- r~tudy is being conducted. Planning Director pointed out that, if many involved ;additions are made to the proposed ordinance, that will increase the time span. : Mayor Anderson suggested wording the motion to place the matter on the consent < < ,calendar for the November 5 Council meeting, staff to draft Mr. Murray's suggested e amendments for consideration also at that time. Vote was taken on the motion :which carried unanimously. "-. -- .--.-,-..--.- "~._~ ,----..-----..- ,,- . .....- -.-'.- . - -.-' .. - - -~ ~ Manager stated that, since the Committee meeting, there have been minor revisions made to the resolution. Robert Moulton, representing Emerald Delta Corporation, introduced Mr. Ben Doerksen, president of Emerald Delta. Mr. Doerksen, 1209 S. W. 6th Avenue, Portland, stated he was not even aware of the existence of the resolution lIuntil todayll. He stated their actions have been in accordance with the 1990 Plan and that they have been fortunate in interesting a variety of enterprises to locate in the area. The plans ~nclude 'partial retail development and partial entertainment and sports. In the major portion of their consideration, no relocation of major businesses in town is contemplated. Darrell L. Smith, Balzhiser, Longwood, Smith, Paul and Anderson, Architects, 725 Country Club Road, mentioned being ready to take a proposal to the Planning Commission in the next two weeks. Mr. Moulton stated that adoption of the resolution would preclude their being able to submit their proposal to the Planning Department which, they feel, would be unfortunate. . It was his feeling that there are some apparent conflicts with the 1990 Plan as to what should be downtown or elsewhere in town. He added too that proposals should be reviewed with great care but that a decision to simply not accept any proposals should not be made. Any moratorium at all should be for a very short period of time. He suggested deferrment of the adoption of the resolution until such time as there is a determination of the time factor, personnel and funds. Mr. Jim Hosey, Architect, 2895 Oak, stated opposition to adoption of the resolution. He felt it was an unfair, unrealistic approach to planning. Vernon Gleaves, Attorney, 858 Pearl, stated that many of the clauses in the proposed resolution rail to include items about which council members had been concerned. The last clause would infer that the 1990 Plan is ihadequate and that council found to the 'contrary. He felt too the language of paragraph 6 was broad enough to include re-examination of present commercial zoning in the--J?re:3ent~;odpastU:re isia~d area. including items council has had occasion to review. He added Paragraph 12 is contrary to the code at the present time. He feels more time should be given discussion of this proposed resolution. Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe, wished for more time to look over the resolution and hopefully provide input to the council. e Councilman Wood could see no reason for delay. Mr. Hershner raised the matter of time element with regard to the study. It was brought out that it would be approximately an 18-month effort which could possibly be started at the first of the year. . Mr. Williams wondered if the moratorium might not prove counter productive. It was pointed out that the extent of risk could not be known at this point but that there could be some risk involved in the undertaking of the moratorium and study. 11(5(73 - 7 , .t~ 33.q Mayor Anderson stated he did not view this necessarily as Goodpasture Island vs. downtown. He felt it an important factor that should be a part of the total comprehensive study of It regional commercial facilities in the entire area. He further said Eugene should play a part along with Springfield, West Eugene and other areas and thinks commercial areas run the risk of being picked out unless there is some plan. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve Resolution No. 2230. Mr. Williams expressed agreement in terms of planning, regional consideration of development, etc. He could not come to terms with the idea of singling out one area and doing nothing in that area while a study is conducted. Mayor Anderson adyised that Springfield is in the process of proposing an area-wide study by LCOG, under the guidance of the Urban Natural Resources Committee, to study the regional commercial facilities throughout the Central Lane area. Mr. McDonald favored postponing passing on the resolution until the next Council meeting. In answer to a question as to whether the proposed Central Lane area study would include any consideration of residential property, Mayor Anderson commented that it would seem it would I open up an opportunity. for many uses, that it should be left as open as possible and that certainly residential would be a part of the study. Mr. Murray favored a moratorium at this point, stating it is a critical issue with a . monumental impact and that it should be undertaken now rather than postponing it any longer. Mr. Hershner voiced concern with acting so quickly on it. Mayor Anderson advised it was not his intent to encourage passage without a good outline and one that conforms to legalities. It was his suggestion that, before the next Council meeting, a time schedule could be developed, as well as funding figures. Mr. Wood expressed the hope the resolution could be acted on tonight. To rezone as requests come up is tragic. Mrs. Campbell said that, since Council is charged with making decisions that benefit the City, this is an attempt to protect the land so the right decisions will be made. Mr. Williams said there is a definite difference between a moratorium and a study. He criticized ad hoc kinds of decisions on planning and looking at each one one at a time. It would seem to him that that whole thesis is in error. Mrs. Beal views two problems - one, the problem of a IImoratoriumll, and twp, the time frame. To at.least have a definite date for inception of the study seems a more favorable situation. . Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to table the resolution to the next Council meeting on the grounds of additional requests for testimony. Vote was taken on the motion, all councilmen present voting aye except Mr. Wood, Mr. Murray and Mrs. Beal voting no. ..__= '_ . _ .A_ . _ _, _ ._ . ~.. . --~ ~.~ -.-- _.~ - -- . ~ . -- -"-- .'--~~-- --- ,_.-.....~- .........., _. .. -,- --- . C_ Postponement of Me1tebeke Appeal - Manager advised that Mr. Me1tebeke of Paradise CODlm Hgmes wished to postpone his appeal to the November 26 meeting, as he would be 10/31173 out of town on November 5. No objections were voiced to the postponement. -ApJJrove ..._..-0 __' - -- . - "._ ~ _' ~ 0.. _.~ - - -. ~- r - '-- . .... , D.,RMBC License, Papa's Pizza, 2511 Oakmont - Manager advised that, because the owner 'of Papa's Pizza was not informed of the October 23 public hearing and therefore did I not attend, he was invited to this meeting to provide supportive material on the proposed RMBC1icense. OWner Wayne Weber stated that, at his present establishment, :he has incurred no problems with people living in the area. Manager pointed out that, at the public hearing, the objection seemed to be that the existence ef a pizza parlor with the beer license would create a traffic and noise problem, as well as a lighting problem, and was not compatible with single-family residential development. Mr. Weber pointed out that the majority of the people living in the - : area immediately adjoining the site in question seemed pleased with the prospect of :an establishment of this particular type. He further stated he had submittedoa : proposal to Parks Director Ed Smith regarding the developing of the area around a I pond located on the property. Councilwoman Bea1 asked if he would be permitting food : and drinks around the pond area. It was Mr. Weber's idea to perhaps provide picnic I. , tables outside for summertime use. 11/5/73 - 8 33~ Manager stated that, since the concern is whether or not it is appropriate for a ',beer license to be issued, two questions need to be answered. If the beer license is not granted, would plans be continued for a pizza parlor; and if arrangements cannot be worked out with the City for development of the pond area, would Mr. Weber proceed with construction. Mr. Weber stated that, without a beer license, it would be difficult to have a successful pizza establishment. He advised he would proceed e with the establishment, however, if the City did not grant permission to develop the City property. He further stated that his' present operation is half the size of the planned one. At the present establishment, 30 people are employed; all but five of them are under 21. The payroll has been $30,000 so far this year which indicates it is of great benefit to the young people working there. He added that the hours of operation on Sunday are 1:00 p.m. to midnight; Monday through Thursday they are 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.,- and Friday and Saturday they are 11:00 a.m. to 2:00, a.m. The bulk of business .is over with by 10:00, so noise does diminish late in the evening. 'Hr. Don Taylor, 2498 Sorrel WaYJ one of the affected property owners in the area, voiced total support of the proposed operation, stating it would make an attractive area out' of a now vacant lot which attracts motor cyclists ~nd other nuisances. Weber's good but with reluctance, stating it is immediatel ad acent to r s tied property. e un ortunate zon~ng arrangement. it would be an attractive establishment but that it would not be compatible with the surrounding area. Councilwoman Campbell pointed out that lights, noise and traffic will occur with any kind of commercial activity.an~ hopes that ~arks e can co-operate. Mr. Wood stated that denial would be restr~ct~ng use that lS compatible with the present zoning in that area. Comm It was 'moved and seconded to recommend approval of the license. M~ti~n carri~d, 10/31/73 all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Murray and Mr. W~ll~ams vot~ng App~ove (See Councll no. ._.'- -. -~~ -.. -~. - .'- - - ,~ -- ----~_. - -, ~._~ - --- - --'- --- -- - -.-----.- . ...~---AcTion belowL Harold Berg, 2532 Sorrel Way, expressed objection to establishment of the pizza parlor Rnd the' serving of wine and be'er and that, of the homes contacted in. the area, 25 are now 'opposed. Burt Burt Arnold, 2500 Sorrell Way, also .spoke in opposition. Owner Wayne Weber said beer and wine did not make up that large a percent of sales. He stated he had a map and petitions which he felt indicated that many people in the immediate vicinity were not opposed. Mr. Hershner stated he had originally been in favor of the establishment on that site but would have to reconsider, not because of beer and wine, but because of the late-night factor. Mayor Anderson explained that the motion called for approval so that, if any reverse action was to be taken, ~it would have to be a motion to rescind. Mr. Murray concurred with Mr. Hershner, stating it .was an unfortunate zoning error. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to rescind the action taken at the Committee meeting. . Mr. Wood stated he felt it was extremely unfortunate to allow someone to proceed this far and then deny approval of a liquor license on the basis of being incompatible withcthe business zone. He also disapproved of scare tactics used by inferring young people would be particularly noisy late at night. Vote was taken on the motion, all council members present voting aye except Mr. Wood and Mrs. Campbell voting no. E. iJolnt Housing Committee Recommendation to Expand Eligibility for Accommodation in I City Subsidized Housing - It was stated that the Joint Housing Committee is asking i the Council to consider expansion of the Senior Home Repair Program to include I !single persons of 50 years of age with incomes of less than $3,000 annually and also !disab1ed persons of any age on a case by case basis. \councilman Williams stated this program is exp~rimental in nature. ~ It would be his i ifeeling it should become well established before any expansion is considered. : IMr. Wood moved seconded-by Mr. Williams to adopt the recommendations. Mr. Murray ; jpointed out that SOS hasn't discussed this as yet and it would seem inappropriate ifor the City to add extra requirements in which SOS mayor may not be interested. I !TO begin to dilute a program with already inadequate funding really concerns him. I e~ I :Mr. Williams voiced agreement. After discussion on the merits of adopting one ior both of the suggestions, Mr. Williams stated he would favor holding off on the proposals to allow input from SOS and from Mrs. Niven. Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to table. Motion carried, all members 1:0/31/73 present voting aye. The matter will be placed on the consent calendar. .t,' -i" :Approve ;\-' ---=------ (See Council Ac-i:i~n below) 11/5/73 - 9 "!"!Co Mrs. Niven suggested. that, if bothgr>oups.are included, they both should be included on a case-by-case basis. As it reads now, only the disabled group is suggested for inclusion on that basis. Mr. Williams did not conceive of elderly as being anyone over 50. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt Item 1 but not include the elderly at this point in time. - Mrs. Niven commented that there would be only about 130 in the elderly group and they seem to be far worse off; they are hanging on by their teeth. . Mrs. Campbell amended seconded by Mrs. Beal to include single people oyep 50 ltving ih homes valued at $20,000, and with less than $3,000 income, Vote was taken on the amendment, all council.members presentvoting'aye except Mr, Williams, Kel~~r and W.?o.~'hY'O!~12.~ ~~ ~ _..::\T:9_!e . ~.Cl..S -' .:t.a~.eJl.":~on:-.t.he._jn~tion.~nic~ _carried unanimously. -- . - ."_. --_.'..-." F. Resolution from Revenue Study Committee Requesting Study of Fee Schedules, Capital Comm Improvement Financing, and a General Business Tax - Councilman Williams stated I lO/31/73 that, on this study, he would like to add, "and potential impact" to the No. 3 AprJ.rove "To investigate as a new source of revenue, the feasibility I statement which reads, I I of a general business license tax". No objections to this addition were voiced. G. PUll Approval-Hert1ewoOdon Hawkins Heivhts Blvd.-Call hearing'NOv. 26 Comm H . Appeal SigIi BOardPerJiJl tDeIiia1' to GerJiJanSJiJokedMea ts toretainideIiti tysigIi":'Call . hear iIig . ' .' -10/31/73 I I. Master Airport Plan Amendments as Agreed betweenCountyCommiss.&Airpt.Comm. J~ Package Store License, Corner Cupboard; 4690 Royal Avenue Approve K. Filing Application with LCOG for S.Bank Wi11amette-Pedes.Bike Trail App. Comm . 10/31/73 .- -. .... - '~-"---' ... _..,~.. .-- Affirm L.I ReSOlution on Fee'Sche'dules'~~ capital-:i:mprovement Fina.ncing, General Business Tax _ Councilwoman Campbell at the request of Lee Penny, Budget Committee chairman, Comm , asked postponement of discussion on this resolution. Mrs. Penny felt the Budget 10/24/73 : subcommittee on revenues should review the resolution prior to Council discussion. , Affirm ! It was agreed the matter would be b+ought back ano.ther time. -~-~~~~ . '~- - -,-._~- --- .. - ~.. . _. ~ . - M.~Planning Study on_Commercial Zones - Mayor Anderson repeated his thinking that consideration.-:of ~,the Valley River/Montgomery Ward rezoning issue was based on a General Plan contiti'ning ambiguities and contradictions which made judgments diffi- cult and often led to subjective rather than Objective evaluation. As a resul t of Comm concerns with regard to development of .the total area - downtown and the Good- 10/24/73 pasture Island area - the Council did call for a study of commercial uses in the Affirm (area north of Valley River Center. The Mayor felt broader implications and broader City responsibilities were involved and that any study undertaken on that area should be related to the entire region. He suggested that instructions to the Planning Commission for enlargement upon the study request, or at least an ex- planation of what would be a desirable result of that study, should include (1) a definitive statement on the relationship of Valley River to the downtown area, I recognizing the definite interrelationship between the two areaSI (2) statement. of timing of development in the two areas; and (3) a request that both the Com- . mission and Lane County make no further major zoning decision in the Goodpasture Island area until the study is completed. Mayor Anderson emphasized the areawide significance of zoning decisions, that it is not a "Eugene only" concern. He also emphasized that his suggestions were not to b'e interpreted as "...after the horse'is out..." concern, since it was his fee1-' ing the Commission's decision on the Moran property and the COU~9i~-decision on Montgomery~'~rezoning were based on the 1990 Plan and perfectly in order. He asked that his suggestion be-given thought with the idea of discussion at the next CouncLl meeting. / , councJl:m;;;;' Williams said it came to his a ttention after the Ward:' s rezoning was I completed that there was substantial effort on the part of Springfield in the hope they would gain the Ward 's development if Eugene did not feel the Goodpas,tu~ Island area was an appropriate location. He wondered whether the community's ~ interest was best served if it is decided there should be no more development in ~. . the Goodpasture I~land area until' the Plan is revised and then that development I occurs at some other location. Mayor Ander90n replied that his suggestion was brought at this time only to give Council members an opportunity to givelt-somEl- thought before the next Council meeting at which time further refinements could , be made. ~. -5 ~ , Oouncilwoman Baal noted that the Plan itself is for the metropolitan area so the Council may want to'consider having planning staffs of Springfield and Lane County as well as Eugene work together on the study. Councilmen Murray and Campbell ex- pressed their support of the Mayor's suggestion. . It was understood an outline of such study, time frame for completion, etc., would be put together for discussion at the October 31 committee meeting. 11/5/73 - 10 . '?>3'1 - N Procedure for Planning Commission Appointments - Discussion continued from October 17 . committee on procedure for selection of Planning Commission,members. Manager in answer to Mayor Anderson explained that the municipal judge is selected by receiving r~oommendations from the Lane County Bar Association, screened by a Council subcom- /mittee, with final selection by the Council as a whole. ERA members are chosen by the .4It Council as,a whole after a nomination and screening process by a Council subcommittee. Councilwoman Beal suggested Planning Commission members be chosen in the manner used : to fill vacancies on the Council - taking application to be reviewed by all Council 'members after which selection is made. Councilman ,Williams thought the subcommittee 'review of applications was better. He felt more appointments would become the re- Isponsibility of the Council in the future and that a Council subcommittee would be : better able to review applications and deal with the interview process. ; Councilman Murray felt it extremely important that all Council members be involved t in the selection process because of the vitally important decisions made by the Plan- ' ning Commission. He said when he suggested taking applications he did not mean to : imply there should be no criteria established for selection or balance in makeup of I the Commission. He favored taking self-initiated applications from the public at large with all Council members involved in their review. Councilwoman Beal said the Council should have a list of present Commission members, lengths of terms, etc., to give an idea of the qualifications to be looked for in making appointments. Mayor An~erson suggested there should be a uniform procedure I for making appointments, otherwise the amount of time consumed could become more than ' most would want to undert~ke. Betty Niven thought the Council might want to have . recommenpations from the Planning Commission itself, much as in selection of the ) municipai jUdge where there is reliance upon recommendations from the Bar Associ~tion. She saidl the Commission itself also has a great deal at stake in the kinds of appoint- \ ments. Councilman Murray didn't think interviewing applicants would take more than a ; 'short session on one evening and felt the entire Council would be able to spare that 'amount of time. Councilmen Bea1, Hershner, and Campbell agreed. r Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to follow the procedure for appointment of , Council members in selecting members of the Planning Commission. Comm 1 . 10/24/73 Councilman Williams explained that his Objection to this procedure was not so much Affirm 'the time .element as it was the method. He recalled the substantial effort on the part of the Council to agree on criteria for the selection of the last Council member . to fill a vacancy. FOllowing that, there WaS effort to decide whether the applicants ' interviewed met the criteria thought to be meaningful. There was no interchange of , ideas and no agreement, and the final selection was made by voting. He felt a sub- committee at least could better reach'conclusions. , Councilman Wood said he had no objections to use of a subcommittee if the entire . Council gives approval to the criteria prior to taking applications. Councilnlan McDonald favored Planning Commission appointments in the same manner used for filling ; Council vacancies. ". .. Vote. was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present : voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no. ? /" / ~ 'It was understood that staff would develop an application form based on the one used for Council appointment to include also a description of the duties, time involved, re- strictions in State law, etc., to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and' then pre- sented to the Council for approval before being issued. A list of present Planning Commission members in line with Councilwoman Beal's request would also .be made avail- ab1 to the. 'Counci1. .~eI)Ort on Sk~nners Butte project - Ro1lie Glass of the Eugene Jaycees gave an u ate ; on the Pfogress being made on the Skinners Butte landscaping. He stated the City ; has agreed to give $5,000 to start the project,. the Jaycees to match that in . materials, manpower or money. Subsequent to that, the City has given another I I $5,000. He distributed an October l8, 1973, recap showing total expenditures to ' I ,. . J date of $8,000. Chuck Heauser showed some "before and after" slides of the progress made, inq1uding the removal of the old reservoir, cleanup of the new one, repair of existing railings, landscaping and irrigation. The City crews have provided b1acktop,around the west end with better access to viewpoints. Jim Cisler gave an overview of future plans, showing a map of the area and demonstrating how each area wi11,100k when completed. Councilwoman Campbell complimented the Jaycees on their 1 ~ . ~fforts; she also mentioned the need for repaving the access road. Mr. Glass po.inted '~~ out that it would be best to hold off on repaving until their work is finished. Mrs. Beal moved, seconded by Mr. Wood, that the City Council go on record as expressing ,deep gratitude for the interest shown by the Jaycees in the project and the work done. Mayor Anaerson added his appreciation, saying it was refreshing to see a gr~up take Comm action rather than simply voicing their concerns. 10/31~73 A1:fii-m Vote was taken on the motion as stated, which carried" unanimously. . ~......,.....,.,--.-..~-,-----_'-- __~....... L 1>3~ 11/5/73 - 11 ___ ._ ... ___.. Comm P. Recomm~nda. ti on -re : !,c:~r?!r7!ur:aI?~west~~orr"riicewel,rE:X-tert:rir::m:[J3J:ke'COIIlIU71:0.-.26...73), - _ IO /31/7 3 Q. Leaf P~ckup - Counc~lman McDOnald ~nqu~redabout the Ci ty" s policy on leaf pickup. \ File Public Works Director explained the program, saying the City does pick up leaves primarily to keep gutters free to allow proper drainage. The pickup is on im-, . . proved streets only and will continue to about January 1. It is not on a 1)1ock- . Co.mm to-block basis, ratller the City is divided into sections with areas having a high 10/24/073 concentration of foliage cleared first. F~le j'Jt was understood that publicity will be given the program so that the general ~: ,pUblic will be aware of its operation. Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, l~sugge.sted the press releases advise placing the leaves far enough from the curbs .; i;o ~110w drainage wi thout carrl/inq debris into ca tchbasins _ . R; Laure1wood Facilities - Councilman Wood asked if there will be consideration of i allowing keg beer, later hours, etc., at the Laurelwood gOlf course. Parks Di- rector said an opinion has.been received from the City Attorney and recommenda- COLW tions will be brought to the Council soon. 10/24/73 .... _ _...__. .' _H _" P'i1e ,.. I SIOSPIRG Request for Rehearing Valley River Center Rezoning (Montgomery Ward) -. Council "members were previouslg furnished with copies of letter from Oregon Student PUblic I~kv~~f Research Group requesting rehearing of the Valley River Center request to rezone to . C-2 PD an area west of the Center to permit Montgomery Ward outlet at ,that location COn?m :(Ordinance l6923 - October 8, 1973). Major issues raised bg OSPIRG were whether the10/24/7 rezoning decision was compatible with the City's goals and. Objectives as set forth Fil in the 1990 General Plan, and whether failure bg the Environmental Quality Commission to approve expanded parking to accommodate the proposed development would merit re- . cons.~~eration of Council acti~~. . . . _ . ,. . . I I Manager said recent news releases indicate the EQC has approved the proposed park- ing, leaving the question of whether the proof of necessity under the Fasano decision was adequate. City Attorney has reported that it would be necessary, if the Council 4It. decides to revise its decision, to go through the process of rezoning the property ~ . again; i.e., public hearings before the Planning Commission, recommendation to the ! Council, and adoption of a new ordinance Changing the present C-2 PD zone. Bob Stacey, law student at the University of Oregon representing OSPIRG, said it was their desire to speak only to the question of adequacy and desirability of the decision under the Fasano ruling, not the question of the rezoning process. Their concern is primarily that the 1990 Plan calls for preservation of the downtown as the commercial heart of the City and the feeling that there was not complete com- pliance with the Fasano decision on findings of fact. They are convinced that the City would not be able to carry the burden of proof in a court test of the decision. Specifically, they felt there was not sufficient proof shown that the rezoning and expansion of Valley River Center was necessary nor that maintaining Ward's in the urban area was a public need. They feel that Ward'~relocating in Valley River area was an expression of private interest which under the Fasano decision was the type of criteria to be avoided. The contention that the rezoning would prevent "scatteriza- :tion" was questionable because Ward's moving to the Goodpasture Island area did scatter enterprise from the heart of the downtown. Neither did Ward's demonstrate that the Valley River site was the only available location, they said. In answer to Councilwoman. Bea1 with regard to the EQC hearing, Mr. Stacey saia- .) , there were apparently only four votes on the Commission at this time - one member . has resigned and has not been replaced, and one who voted against the parking facili ty was not pres~t. He said OSPIRG is looking into the question now of whether to peti- tion for rehearing of that decision. Councilman McIXmald noted that the OSPIRG request for rehearing seated that regard- less of the EQC decision on the parking facility they would pursue a rehearing on the rezoning decision. Therefore, the question of whether it would be reconsidered was the issue at this time. Councilman Williams said in view of the City Attorney's advice that a rehearing was not appropriate and the fact that the Cou1Jci1 was dealing in a judicial type format, it would seem more appropriate to seek-action at a higher level, or initiate rezoning through the Planning Commission. Mr. Stacey replied that he could.not answer with regard to the legal question involved, but did feel that OSPIRG could present a case which the Council should hear. He said there was precedent for rehearing in a judi- cial type format as part of a normal procedure when there is new evidence or sub- stantial error has been found. It was his understanding that the Eugene Renewal Agency after the hearings were concluded expressed a desire to present evidence. He suggested following an abbreviated rezoning procedure if that was the only way of gaining reconsideration of the matter. Don Hulburt, information officer for ERA, . said there was information forwarded to the Council at the direction of the ERA. Heer, emphasized that lie was not speaking for the ERA, nor indicating the form of Council - consideration of that information. He didn't know whether the ERA information re- .; 1ated to the question at hand but offered to relay any message back to the Agency. 11(5(73' ~ 12 339 .... Councilwoman Beal said she was reluctant to subject Montgomery Ward and the petitioners to going through another rezoning procedure, but she did stress the relationship of this rezoning to the Goodpasture Island area study and said she thought the Council's decision to rezone would prejudice the study. Mayor Anderson felt it a mistake to zone in an attempt to influence a future land use plan. He thought rather an exist- . ing plan should be used. He said that at some point a decision must be made because of the interplay between planning and zoning; a land use plan has to be the foundation for zoning decisions. He said that if the Council feels its decision was faulty, then perhaps a rehearing would be in order. He called attention to the hearings on I this issue and complete discussion of findings of fact and said if there is new evi- dence, either from ERA or some other group, they have the privilege of bringing it : to the Council. i I \ Vern Gleaves, attorney for Valley River, noted that OSPIRG stated their request for ; rehearing was made after careful study of evidence in the record. He called attention to the fact that there was no transoript of the record as such. For that reason people attempting to use only staff notes should know there is substantial evidence of which ~: . they may not be aware. Mr. Gleaves. explained the procedure leading to EQC approval , of the parking facility and noted that the DEQ staff recommendation concurred that there would be no air pollution problem in connectio~ witb the facility. He thought the OSPIRG statement was wrong wi th respect to DE() twice refusing to recommend ap- proval of the Valley River expansion because of air pollution problems. Their con- cern, he said, was what was going to be required so far as efforts to further the use' of mass transi t . All of these concerns, IIr. Gleaves said, were made known to the l_- Council in hearings on 'the rezoning ~ssue.' He expla~nedtheactlon of the EQC finally culminating in approval of 872 parking spaces for the proposed development. . He reviewed the sequence of hearings at which the rezoning itself was discussed and said there appears to be no evidence presented by OSPIRG nor issues with re- gard to the Fasano decision which haven't been heard at least once, and some many times, before both the Planning Commission and the Council. He agreed wi th the Ci ty Attorney's opinion that the rezoning cannot properly be reconsidered, only that , the rezoning process would have to be initiated again. And in that instance, he i said, the burden of proof would be with the petitioner that the Council was'wrong , in its decision. ~ Councilman Williams quoted from the findings of fact with regard to meeting public need having to db with provision of employment by retaining Montgomery Ward's in i , this area. He said if the Council erred in finding that employment was a public need, tha t instead it is a pr i va te need, then it erred in a way tha t no rehearing would change his mind. Mr. Stacey agreed that employment was a public need, but he . contended that in moving Ward's to the Valley River area there would be no appreciable ; change in the employment situation for. the metropolitan area. They question whether the move constitutes a legal public need. Councilman Murray noted Mayor Anderson's comment that Council members should vote in favor of rehearing on.ly if they consider the findings of fact wrong and inaccurate. He said he does believe that, but he hesitated to go through another round of hear- , ings. He noted rehearing could only be on motion by someone who voted in favor of i -- the rezoning, or if nekl evidence was found. He said he agreed with OSPIRG's view- point but could see nothing new in their presentation. He hadn't yet had an oppor- tunity to review the information received from ERA, but felt if ERA had new evidence, that might merit consideration and further discussion. Mr. Murray added that he now regrets having abstained from voting on second reading of the council bill rezoning the Valley River property, and that he would not do it again in similar circumstances, especially when presented with a lengthy motion on the spot listing alleged findings, many in error or unsubstantiated claims, without the opportunity for review. He stated his feeling that the listed findings were riddled with error to the point where it was polit.ically embarrassing and legally precarious, and that the general procedure followed was faulty. Councilman Hershner said if the procedure for reversing a rezoning decision is to start a new rezoning process, Council members should have a clear understanding of the procedure. There is the possibility that every time some person or some agency feels there is information which should be heard, an endless procession of hearings could be init#ated. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of his position with regard to voting on this issue if it is reconsidered in view of his having to abstain before. City Attorney advised that he would be qulaified to vote on a new application filed for (. rezoning the Valley River property. Mr. Stacey expressed the opinion that Mr. Murray's comments justified rehearing - arguments that there was substantial error in findings of fact. He added that there is precedence in the courts for rehearing by public bodies acting in a quasi- judicial capacity. At Manager's request for comment on adequacy of the Council'S findings, City Attorney said that although it is difficult at this time to pinpoint the evidence supporting each specific finding, it was his opinion that there is ade- quate evidence to support the findings and that they are legal and sufficient. He said that evidence supporting findings of fact doesn't mean that. any particular member 340 11(5(73 - 13 of the CounciL wasrJ'-ght or wrong; cOnsideration of issues of fact 'could result' in different conclusions. But the record establishes evidence of the truth of eertain facts, and they (City Attorney's office) think they are legally sufficient and that the action taken by the Council is valid. Mayor Anderson thanked OSPIRG for their interest and said Council inaction would not necessarily indicate disapproval of the procedure they followed or the argument . presented. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council consider adopting an ordinance ;rezoning the Valley River area. . ; Mrs. Beal said the motion was presented to give Councilwoman Campbell and CouncilmatN- McDonald an opportuni ty to vote, since they were advised to abstain from voting on - the original rezoning. . City Attorney asked Mrs. Beal if it was the intent of her motion to initiate an en- , tirely new rezoning process through the Planning Commission. Mrs. Beal responded tha tit was. " . . .' .. .. In response to question from Councilman Hershner, Manager explained that the motion .if approved would come to the Council on November 5 for formal approval. It was - his understanding that the intent then was to initiate rezoning to the original zone (County AGT) by referring the matter to the Planning Commission for public hearing, recommendation to the Council, and Council pUblic hearing. I Councilman McDonald did not favor the proposed action, saying it was setting prece- I dent. Councilman Williams said he was violently opposed, saying the Council had made a decision wholly consistent with the Fasano decision and on other bases. He noted that the full Council was present and voted on that decision, whereas Mr.Keller . was absent now and it became a case of serving the community on the basis of woo was and who was not present at meetings. Councilman Hershner agreed, not only in view of Mr. Keller's absence from this meeting but also because of the possibility of others being absent from the November 5 meeting at which formal action would be taken. Mr. Gleaves raised a point of order - that a motio~ to reconsider called for a two- thirds majority and had to be made at the same meeting or the next day. He added that the motion here was not made by one voting with the majority on the original issue. ~Stacey in clarification said that Mrs. Bea1's motion was not the request presented by OSPIRG. Their intent was to have approval of rehearing on the issue and scheduling of that rehearing at the next formal Council meeting, at which tlme they would be in favor of this type motion. City Attorney advised that reconsideration requires only a majority vote. However, the motion presented is that the Council, on its own, initiate a new rezoning pro- ceeding at the Planning Commission level, presumably to the original County designa- tion. He couldn't see where any evidence could be heard short of that procedure. Mrs. Niven-noted the original zoning on this property was County AGT and that ifre- zoning to that designation were initiated by the Council they would have the burden of proof to show tha t AGT was needed. She added that there was precedent set in pur- suing this course and said there were reasons why Planning studies were requested in ~. various areas of concern. Much too much time is consumed, she said, in hearings now on zoning issues. Mayor Anderson urged consideration of the serious consequences of approval of the motion. And Councilman Murray said he would not vote in favor of it even though his opinion on the rezoning would not change. Only if new evidence is presented, he said, would he vote for a rehearing. Mrs. Bea1 said again that her reason for making the motion was to give thO~~ not able to participate in the previous decision an opportunity to vote. Also,. the ~e1ay caused by a rehearing might give the benefit of having results of the proposed. study. ! She said since the Valley River rezoning was an integral part of the study area, re- scinding the previous action, however accomplished, would give the opportunity to look at the entire area, and under those circumstances s~e didn't think the Council would be forced to bear the burden of proof because a revised Plan ~uld be the basis. Mayor Anderson said that the Council has to recognize that it has to make decisions, and this procedure would really be prolonging the decision making' process. Elected officials refusing to make decisions is the one thing that can set back proper plan- ning and zoning procedures in any type of community. He added that this issue had been studied, reviewed, and examined, all on the basis of the existing Plan, and the decision made. .' Jeffrey Kleinman, OSPIRG, said that under the Fasano ruling inexpediency was justified. . . " --<. .-" He added that in the event the motion carried, the rezoning would not necessarily have to be AGT, it could be any desirable type of zone. Mrs. Beal, noting that she had not realized Mr. Keller's absence, withdrew her motion with consent of the second, Councilman Murray. She added that she would like to have the option of renewing it at the next formal Council meeting. 31-. 11(5(73 .~ 14 -- - -. ,~- - - - - - - _.- - . --- - - - - _ _ .J- _'_' _ ____ _ __ __._ __ __ -- -... T~ Distribution -of Mi~utes- from -lif-29:73 Meeting;'1.th EWEB - Mayor Anderson advised that minutes had, been distributed to the Council from the joint meeting held wit.h Comm : EWEB on October 29, 1973, at the Eugene Public Library. Council was advised to 10/3.1/73 . L look them 9.ver. . .__ File ~'War~BOUndary Realignment Question- Mayor Anderson advised he had appointed. '- i' Councilmen Williams, Wood and Murray to serve with him on a committee to discuss i Comm . ; the ward boundary matter. Preliminary discussion will be held and a reportmade~ 1;O/31~73 back to the Council. F~le V.Truck Route Problems'" Councilman Murray mentioned hearing of a problem with thf7 Comm State in terms of getting a truck route earlier passed on by the Council. Manager 10/31/73 ' will' check on.it and provide more information. F'l r . .". _ .y ., -, -,_....._.' ~ e W.Distribution of Materials on Earl Green Appeal - Manager distributed materia~s .' Comm , from,Earl Green's attorney, Rick Cleveland, asking that they be scanned before 1?/31~73 the November 5 Council meeting. '. , C~ .F!le X.Invitaticm .to '''Ybuth'fa.r 'Ene.r11lC6hservatian"'Shawinij '" ..' " . '.' .,- -.. . C?mm , " 10(}.1173 File Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through X, except ItemsB, D and E on which separate action was taken as shown above. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. III - Ordinances N 0 N'E IV - Resolutions .. R~solution~'No. 2231 - Authorizing study by Finance Department to determine adequacy of current service fees, outline capital improvement programs which could be fina~cedthrough serial levies or bond issues, and investigate a new source of revenue. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2232 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims and progress payments for period October 23 through November 5, 1973. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. ~ Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, November 26, 1973. .. ?;/p?/z~ ~ . Hugh McKinley City Manager . e 11/5/73 - 15 '342.