Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1974 Meeting a Tape Meter Reading M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER MARCH 11, 1974 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 March 11, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Mr. Williams, Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Beal, . Mr's.Campbell, Mr. Keller, Mr. Murray, and Mr. Wood. Councilman McDonald was absent. 0001 I - Public Hearings A. Vacation - Windsor Circle Pedestrian/Bike Easement (EV 73-7) Recommended by Planning Commission December 17, 1973. The easement w~s replaced by another dedicated easement which more appropriately fit the needs of the subdivision. ---" Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 459 - Vacating pedestrian/bike easement on west side of Windsor Circle West (off Brittany Drive) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing 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 enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. .) Mr. Williams ~oved 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 16992. 0043 . 0155 e B. Use of Mobile Homes for Offices - Cascade Steel Fabricators, 1381 Bailey Hill Road Council at its committee-of-the-whole meeting on February 13, 1974 approved granting of two-year revocable permit for placement of two mobile homes at 1381 Bailey Hill Road for office use. Public hearing was opened. J. A. Newell, Route 6, Box 1141, explained the need for extra space prompted the re- quest for use of mobile home structures. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Resolution No. 2262 - Granting two-year revocable permit to Cascade Steel Fabricators, 1381 Bailey Hill Road, for use of mobile homes for offices was submitted and read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Councilwoman Canpbell expressed concern about the crowded appearance of the property to people living in the adjacent development. She wondered whether there were plans to move out any of the equipment upon installation of the mobile buildings. Mr.Newell explained that the nature of the business required storage capacity for construction equipment which was moved in and out as the need arose. He called attention to plant- ings installe4 along the property lines to help the situation and said some of the equipment would be moved out when the construction season started. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. C. Withdrawals from Oak way Water District 1. Area between Goodpasture Island Road and Fir Acres Drive east of Russet Drive (annexed by Boun~rY~Q@Ris~j~n FiQ~l_Oxd~~-1~~ - Council Resolution 2112 10/9/72 - Pioneer Investment) - Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 460 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District area annexed to City between Goodpasture Island Road and Fir Acres Drive east of Russet Drive was read 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. be 3/11/74 - 1 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 16993. .. 2. Area at Bonnie View and Sarah Lane (annexed by Boundary Commission Final Order 183- Council Resolution 2179 5/14/73 - Allender) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 461 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District area annexed to City at Bonnie View and Sarah Lane was read 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 16994. D. Laurel Hill Neighborhood Growth Plan ~~~e1 Hill Neighborhood-Growth" Plan - Planning Commission on'F~bruarY'5, 1974 recom- mended adoption of Laurel Hill Neighborhood Growth Plan, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members. Manager pointed out that adoption of the Plan would apply only to statements in the Plan labeled "Adopted Ci ty Policies." Portions desig- nated as "Position," "Goals," "Proposals," and "Diagrams" represented neighborhood desires and concerns which mayor may not be realized as the neighborhood developed. He said that if the Commission recommendation to adopt was approved, there would be a \' letter of transmittal to accompany the published copy of the Plan to avoid confusion. Manager noted public hearing on the Plan at the March 11, 1974 Council meeting. However, he said, members of the Laurel Hill Citizens Association were present at this meeting to answer questions: George McGuinness, chairman, 2680 Floral Hill Drive; Al Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street; and Alan Kimball, 2706 Floral Hill Drive. 0198. Councilman Williams expressed concern about the policy statement on density under Section I - Land Use and Future Urban Design (C-l~a). He wondered whether the provi- sion not 'to exceed an average gross density of four dwelling units per acre for the entire Laur?l Hill valley would fundamentally obligate the Council to. that density in other neighborhoods in the community. He wondered-too ;"'hether'there would be any... conflict between the provision for up to eight uni ts per acre under PUD procedures. and the controlled income rent density bonus in the City Code. He said that in terms of density the Laurel Hill area was one sector of the city in need of addi- tional subsidiz~d housing, and the density bonus was one of the tools by which that type housing could be provided. Planning Director explained that because of the steep terrain in a large portion of the Laurel Hill area four units per acre would mean development to a greater density than any other portion of the city with the exception perhaps of the central portion. The General Plan, he said, aimed at one to ten units per acre. An average of four units would allow a variety of dwell- ing types in this valley, taking into account the steep slopes. He didn't know whether the question of density in relation to income/rent provisions of the Code had been brought up before. However, he noted that the Plan stated it was the de~ _ sire of the Citizens group to work with the city to provide low- and moderate-income housing. Manager suggested an opinion from the City Attorney could be requested and available at the March 11 hearing. ~e Mr. McGuinness added that the question really put into focus the whole idea of neighborhood planning - tailoring the General Plan to specific neighborhoods. He said their request for an average of four units was based on the terrain, on problems of access to and from the valley, and on sewer capacity.- all peculiar to this par- ticular area. Mr. Tussing commented on sewer capacities and additional costs in- volved with higher densities. He felt ,allowing a higher density for low-income housing would only lower density in some other area of the city. He thought housing now in the Laurel Hill valley was largely low- and moderat~-income type, and he felt there should be alternatives to construction of "rabbit hut~hes." He said that feeling in the neighborhood led to the proposal in the Plan that attention be given to factory built homes to avoid concentrations of income groups. -- In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager explained that the density in the Laurel Hill area now is .no different than the rest of the city. Zoning of property governs the densit~. Single-family building on a 6000 square foot lot results in about seven to, 3/11/74 - 2 units per acre, he said, but in actuality one acre cannot accommodate that many. Mr. Tussing said that that information would be available for the March 11 hearing. H~ noted considerably higher density in this area be~ause of lack of cross streets as in normal subdivisions, and construction of houses on land which normally would be dedicated streets. . Councilman Hershner questioned the policy statement disallowing access into the valley from either Spring Boulevard or 30th Avenue, thereby preventing through traffic (Section II - Transportation, C-3). He wondered if more information would be avail- able on that policy statement as well as on Items 1 and 2 in the same section. He mentioned difficulty he had experienced in finding an exit from the valley. Mr. McGuin- ness explained that.the three items under Subsection C were a compromise on develop- ment of traffic routes to be adopted on an iterim basis. He said they would be in effect until a comprehensive plan was adopted; also until a more detailed transporta- tion plan was developed. He said anticipated densities had to be determined before specific routes could be designated. With regard to disallowing a through route, Mr. McGuinness said they did not want an arterial or limited access route cutting through the valley. They felt motorists could use the interchange at Lane Community College on 30th Avenue for access to the freeway. He noted that the freeway (I-5) bordering the valley now contributed considerable noise because of the-grades and amount of traffic. Adding another arterial to connect Spring Boulevard to the free- way would be asking too much of that one neighborhood just for the sake of convenience. . Councilman Hershner questioned adoption of that policy when it seemed there was a need for traffic movement in the area. Manager noted that this question was discussed extensively at staff level and the statement referred to was arrived at as somewhat of a compromise. He called attention to the general statement at the beginning of Section II indicating the transportation section of the Plan was designed to provide sound goals, policies, and proposals until a systematic transportation and traffic plan could be completed for the entire valley, city, and region~ He explained that disallowing a through route in the valley would be valid only until a systematic transportation plan for the valley could be completed. If that indicated there should not be an arterial through that area, then the policy on access from 30th or Spring Boulevard could be finalized. Or, the policy could be changed. He added that the Council always has the prerogative of changing policy if it was found no longer valid. Councilman Murray commented on the process by which any plan or policy changes could be effected. With regard to arterials, Mr. Murray reminded the Council that the neighborhood plans are refinement of the General Plan which does list as one of its general Objectives that major arterials should not bisect and divide neighborhOOds. In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Tussing said there was no bus service to I( Laurel Hill valley now. Work is continuing with the mass transit district, he said, , toward working out some interim solution - shuttle busses or the like - until antici- pated bus service to the valley in 1975. . Mayor Anderson wondered why the statement was included with regard to separation and dispersal of planned unit developments (Section I~C-1-c). Mr. Tussing recounted the neighborhood group's objection to a project developed in the valley to a density higher than eight units. After inspecting planned unit developments in other parts of the city they decided to adopt what was essentially the city's density policy for RA zones - four or five units to the acre. .He said figures would be available at the March 11 hearing on actual density of the area now. Mr. Kimball added that separation and dispersal of PUDs would lessen the impact of additional development on the over- all character of the valley. He thought in some cases one block separation bet~een PUDs might be sufficient. In others, perhaps two or three blocks would be more de- sirable. He felt that the provision should be left in the Plan. Mr. Anderson thought the statement seemed vague and could result in considerable variation. He hoped a more specific statement on the real meaning of "separation and dispersal" could be provided so that the Council would have something more concrete on ~hich to base its decisions. Mr. McGuinness felt options should be kept open to allow negotiation. He thought for instance a four-acre development might require different treatment than a 20-acre development. However, he said they would try to work out something more defini te. Manager added approval of PUDs was not an outright. zoning right. 'External impact of a PUD was a primary consideration. The first step required by the Planning Commission on any PUD approval was whether a particular piece of land was appropriate for a proposed PUD. The Plan under discussion, he said, was not a set of standards for everyone, and from the standpoint of developers misleading the public vagueness would not cause the concern it would if it were in a building code or zoning ordinance. It Mayor Anderson referred to Section III - Urban Service, Item C-l. which stated the city should maintain a flexible and open-minded attitude toward alternative methods of pro- viding urban services. He questioned the need for inclusion of that statement, saying I; he thought that would go without saying. He hoped the City would always maintain f ~ha~_~!tiE.'!!!~~_.!!!"~_!!EGu!:..l}!l~S._~hC:>I:!.H__h__~.__t~ statement proper~y epitomized the Ci tizens 70 3/11/74 - 3 Associa bon reasons for presenting the Plan. They were "asking for a flexible a Ed tu&; toward citizen involvement in planning. He said,a look would.be taken at that state- ment also to see whether something more definite could be worked out. Councilman williams wondered if the city would be required to refuse building per- mits on properties when a density of four units had been reached. Mr. Tussing ex- plained the goals was an average of four units for the entire valley. He said that average on some of the slopes would be unbearable., so it was considered a tradeoff between the slopes and those areas where a higher than four-to-the-acre density could be accommodated. Councilman Keller said statements in the Plan with regard to street construction led him to believe the neighborhood W04ld rather be isolated, and he was not in favor of that. He wondered whether the proposals with regard to sidewalk construction and off-street parking were to permit children to play in the streets. Mr. McGuinness explained that the proposal for sidewalks pertained directly to the hillside develop- ments. He said normal conditions for street rights-of-way would not apply in those areas, requiring retaining walls, plantings, etc. They favored encouraging alter- nates to the traditional approach to sidewalk construction. Mr. Keller felt serving the public in the best way possible should take priority over any neighborhood's wishes for. an ideal situation. He felt if all of the pro- posals in the Plan were carried out and became city policy for the entire community it would result in neighborhoods living as individual cities, and he felt that would be an impossible situation. Mr. McGuinness said"any neighborhood would have physical characteristics which would call for different treatment. He noted the uniqueness of the Laurel Hill valley surrounded on three sides by hills and said the proposals in the Plan did not appear' to be an island approach for that particular area. Very few neighborhoods in the rest of the .city, he said, had physical characteristics similar to that valley. He noted the uphill battle of the Citizens Association over the past four years attempting to get governmental recognition of that peculiar- ity rather than applying precise limitations placed on the city as a'whole. Manager noted that the proposals under discussion (Section II - C-l/3) would not be adopted as city.policy. They were neighborhood proposals only and would be desirable goals; not something the Council would be committed to at this time. It was understood the entire Plan would be a subject of public hearing at the March 11, 1974 Council meeting. Conn 2/28/74 Pub Hrng Manager explained preparation of a resolution (No. 2263) for adoption of the Laurel Hill Plan, should that be the Council's desire, to eliminate any conflict or ambiguity with regard to. controlled income rent density provisions in the City Code. He again pointed out the Plan- ning Connission's understanding that recommendation for adoption of the Plan would apply only to statements in the Plan labeled "Adopted City Policies." Portions designated as "position," "Goals," "Proposals," and "Diagrams" represented neighborhood desires and concerns which may or may not be in accordance with City policy, and were to be considered in decisions on specific projects as they occurred in development of the Laurel Hill area. Public hearing was opened. . David Hoffman, chairman of'the Eugene Planning Commission, read the Commission's letter trans- mitting its recommendation for adoption of the Laurel Hill Plan, saying it was the first of several neighborhood plans anticipated. The letter also pointed out that the recommendation was for adoption of only those sections labeled "Adopted City Policies." However, recognition of specific statements on neighborhood position, goals, proposals, and diagrams as part of the PaIn was requested. George McGuinness, 2680 Floral Hill Drive, chairman of the L~~rel Hill Citizens Association, introduced members of the Association speaking for adoption of the Plan: Al Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street; Alan Kimball, .2706 Floral Hill Drive; and Charlotte Minor, 2250 Riverview Street. Mr. McGuinness recounted the history of formation of the Laurel Hill neighborhood group, also reasons for and method of development of the Plan to preserve the character of the Laurel Hill valley. He cited contacts with governmental agencies at different levels gathering informa- tion with regard to air and noise pollution, housing, river pollution, etc. The Plan, he said, .supported the 1990 General Plan and City policy on neighborhood organizations. It met the re- quirements of the City and had the approval of the Planning Connission. Also, the Plan had been approved conditionally by Lane County Commissioners (a portion of the valley lying out- side City limits). Mr. McGuinness connented specifically on housing dispersal policy, Laurel Hill's community school, bike and foot paths, soil, ~ topography, current public rights- 7' 3/11/74 - 4 . . 0198 ~ ~ 0300 -- . 0522 0558 e . 0980 1030 ,e 1050 1148 - ~ of way, sewer system peculiar to the Laurel Hill valley.. He stressed that the neighborhood group did not construct a plan contrary to the City's wishes nor develop it in a way that would result in a questionable program, and he hoped it would be considered in that spirit. He asked that members of the Association be allowed to answer questions during the Council's deliberations after public hearing was closed. Mr. Tussing remarked on the relationship of the Laurel Hill valley to the City and the limitation on growth in the area to the capacity of the sewer system. He felt permitting a density in the valley up to ten-units-per~acre as set out in the General Plan would re- sult in costly expansion of sewer services. Adoption of the proposed plan, he said, would seta definite policy and give a basis for proper planning. Mr. Kimball read a prepared statement and said the plan reflected years of work with various City departments. He said the recommendations in the Laurel Hill plan for the most part were also in the 1990 General Plan, one exception being the provision for resident home ownership in the valley, but that that was a neighborhood goal rather than policy. Neigh- borhood proposals with regard to traffic design and sidewalk construction, he said, although not specifically covered by the 1990 Plan, the group would likt to discuss further. He called attention to the need to protect the "weekend farmer," this provision of the Laurel Hill plan being in direct contradiction to the General Plan which specifically limited certain farming activities to areas some distance from the urban service boundary. Speaking specifically of policies recommended for adoption, Mr. Kimball stated the Associa- tion'sstrong feelings that the statements with regard to density.and transportation in the valley be adopted. He urged the density provisions be adopted to guide development in the valley until the South Hills study was finally accepted as City policy. And he pointed out the provisional nature of the policy with regard to traffic routes (Section II - Items C-l,2,3). They could be amended or replaced once a Citywide policy was established. This portion, he said, to the Laurel Hill citizens was the most important statement in the Plan. He noted the existing traffic routes bordering the valley, I-Sand 30th Avenue. He referred to specific provisions in the General Plan and statements in Community Goals adopted by the City saying traffic thoroughfares should bound a neighborhood rather than divide. The Association felt no special privilege was being requested nor that the valley was seeking isolation, only that there be specific application of widely accepted principles until there was an areawide transportation plan established. With regard to density and land use, Mr. Kimball called attention to the topography of the valley and its location in the urban service area. The recommended average density of four to the acre the Association felt would prevent overtaxing the sewer system and at the same time preserve the distinct character of the neighborhood. He added that this policy recom- mendation would call for judgmental decisions as would be required in any significant plan- ning decision. Mr. Kimball concluded by saying that he thought the Plan would show all neighborhoods the way to work the the City and County in developing specific areas, and planning would be based op recognition of those neighborhoods. Mrs. Minor read a prepared statement of results of her study on the extent and type of noise pollution in the Laurel Hill valley. She recommended construction of embankments higher than freeways and railroads with plantings to deflect sound currents and noise. She fel t it would also diminish air pollution and the problem of solid waste disposal if organic wastes were used for such construction. Also speaking in favor of the Laurel Hill Plan were Francis Reithel, 2600 Floral Hill Drive; Edna Shirey, 3217 Whitten Drive, representing the Crest Drive Citizens Association; Tom Krumm, 2712 Floral Hill Drive; and Nila Fisher, 3637 Avalon Avenue, representing the Active Bethel Citizens. Mr. Reithel read a prepared statement urging use of planning as delineated ln the Laurel Hill plan as a tool in solution to present-day urban crises. Mrs. Shirey also read a prepared statement supporting adoption of the Plan, indicating it would improve communica- tion between the City and citizens and should be considered valuable input to the develop- ment process. Mr. Krumm presented a Petition signed by six residents on Floral Hill Drive opposing any traffic c.ormector between Floral Hi 11 Drive and Spring Boul evard. Mrs. Fisher stated the. ABC's support of the Plan. Manager brought to the Council's attention a number of endorsements of the Plan submitted by residents ~f the L~urel Hill area. Also a letter of endorsement from the Executive Board of the Oak Hills Homeowners Association. Marjorie English, 1190 East 36th Avenue, objected to any land use changes in the valley which would preclude apartment construction. She noted the proximity of the valley to the University campus and said high density housing in that area would be appropriate. She also felt density requi!ements in the Laurel Hill area 'should be consi?tent with that in other neighborh~ods of the city. Warren Wyseth, Route 6, Box 1218, expressed concern about limitation on access to areas out- side the city having no access now but with the potential for future development. ,2. 3/11/74 - S Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony, and a short recess was taken. Councilman Murray asked, referring to Item C-4 under land use policies, whether changes in commercial zones were contemplated. It was explained that the intent was only to study land currently zoned for commercial use. 11 76.' , -~ Councilwoman Campbell asked about access to Mr. Reithel's property. Planning Director ex- plained that his property was outside the urban service boundary and that there was access via Bloomberg Road. Decision on an extension of the interchange from LCC campus to the north probably would not be made until it was decided whether to include the LCC drainage basin within the urban service boundary, and a recent recommendation of the 1990 Plan review com- mittee was to not include it. So that area, he said, would not be affected by the Laurel Hill plan at this time. In answer to Mrs. Campbell's question about County involvement since' part of the valley was outside the City, Planning Director answered that there had been con- tact with the County throughout the process of developing the plan. It had been adopted by the County' with two exceptions relating to urban development in County areas as designated in the 1990 General Plan. He commented on the difficulty of the planning for transportation in the valley, also in answer to Mrs. Campbell, because of lack of a general transportation plan and the need for determination on arterials to be made in the ltghtof total transporta- tion situation for the entire region. The policies suggested in the Laurel Hill plan seemed appropriate on an interim basis until a total transportation plan was adopted. Councilwoman Beal commented on the implications and effect adopted city policies for the Laurel Hill area could have on other neighborhoods and on the growth of the entire city. She felt careful and detailed discussion was necessary before adoption, and suggested rev~ewing the policies one by one, separating those which Council might wish to discuss at greater length. 1253 - At Councilman Keller's request, Manager explained the resolution prepared by the Attorney's office' for adoption of the Laurel Hill plan if that action was taken. The resolution clarified that any adopted plan would have no effect on City policy on controlled income/rent housing if the resolution was adopted. Mayor Anderson asked the Planning Commission's intent in asking "recognition" of proposals, goals, etc., in the Plan. Mr. Hoffman replied that it was realized certain neighborhood proposals and goals could not be adopted as city policy, but they were important and could be influencing factors on any decision the city would make. He added that the Commission recom- mendation was for adoption as city policy only those policy statements in the plan, but the Council should recognize the balance of the plan was also an important part of neighborhood recognition. Mayor Anderson and Councilman Williams referred to Section I - Lane Use and Future Urban Design, Item C-3, and wondered if it was proper to deny construction on the basis of lack of adequate public facilities. Planning Director answered that the city probably could not deny building permit because of the lack of one public service, but lack of a combination of services could restrict development. Betty Niven added that the concern in this regard was that an apartment complex might pre-empt the share of available services to the point where none would be left for other types of development. . Mayor Anderson called attention to need for grammatical clarification in Item C-5, Section I. Suggestion was to place a period after the word "housing," delete the words "and further sug- gest that," and start a ne~ sentence reading "Developers should be.. .." 1395 Councilman Hershner asked for a definition of "arterial" as it was referred to in Section II- Transportation, Item C-l,2,3. It was described as any through street serving other than just the abutting properties or those in the immediate vicinity. Councilman Williams asked whether in the staff's judgment existing transportation routes in the Laurel Hill area were adequate to serve the potential number of people in that and the surrounding area; that is, if the Council adopted Items C-l,2,and 3 as written would it be likely a future Council would have to revoke that action. Manager explained that staff would have preferred the items referred to included as proposals rather than as statements to be adopted as city policy. During hearings before the Planning Commission the question was raised that development of an overalf transportation plan could result in a proposal con- trary to those three statements. To qualify the statements and protect against that type of conflict the statement at the beginning of Section II - Transportation was included to provide that the section was designed to provide a sound set of goals, policies, and pro- posals until a systematic transportation and traffic plan for the whole valley, city and region could be completed. Manager said he personally didn't see that inclusion of those three policy statements would create a problem since eventually there would be a transporta- tion plan developed and adopted before any major project 'in the Laurel Hill valley would be proposed. Manager said the Commission felt inclusion of the. qualifying statement would adequately condition the three items in question so that they could be left in the policy section. He said, in answer to Mr. Williams, that if an overall trnasportation plan was . -'3 3/ll/74 - 6 .478 1495 . - 1609 1642 - adopted it would supersede the three policy s~atements.in this plan. He suggested however moving the qualifying statement from the beginning of Section II to the "Adopted City Policies" portion of the section to avoid confusion. Councilman Murray asked if his assumption would be correct that part of the process in adoption of any transportation plan would be careful analysis of the General Plan as well as the statement on Community Goals. Manager answered~in the affirmative. Councilwoman Campbell noted her concern that long-range transportation planning might not consider the effort. in this Plan and the opinions of the Laurel Hill people. Mayor Anderson wondered whether Items C-l and 3 (no 'arterial connection between Glenwood interchange to 30th, and no direct access from Spring Boulevard or 30th) were the result of ItemC-2 (no arterial to run through the valley floor). Mr. McGuinness answered that each item dealt with a different aspect. The first dealt with the hillside area, the second with the valley floor, and the third was intended to deal with an unnecessary con- nection which they' felt, if allowed would eventually link 30th with Spring Boulevard and perhaps take heavy traffic through the valley as a matter of convenience. The Mayor wondered whether Item C-4(street design should reflect designation of streets and mandatory street design standard should be avoided) would conflict with general city policy. Manager explained that standard street designs were patterned after development along streets with variations according to topographic circumstances. The subdivision ordinance governed street widths and sidewalks and was the basis for making variations. . Planning Director said street patterns were set as a' normal course of subdivision approval. In the case of hillside subdivision, the Commission waived requirements. where they could not apply. In that respect, he said, completion of the South Hills study would aid in providing better standards for hillside development. He added that Public Works saw no problem with in- clusion of that statement. Councilwoman Beal wondered then whether this item was necessary if there was no mandatory street design for hillsides. Manager suggested the intent of the wording was to indicate that the exception should be' the rule - compliance with design standards was accepted un- less there was a reason for variation. He thought the Laurel Hill people wanted to emphasize the possibility that variations in street design in certain instances might be more ad- vantageous .than followin~ set standards. Mrs. Beal asked the intent of Items C-5,6,7 (provision for adequate off-street parking, consideration of east-west traffic' movements, and careful attention to traffic movement to areas outside the valley). Planning Director said a very large portion of.the southern part of the valley was undeveloped. As it did develop it would result in people living farther away from main traffic collectors. So it was important that traffic routes es- tablished create t~e least damage to existing reside?tial development. Councilman Hershner asked about improved traffic routes out of Laurel. Hill area other than Franklin Boulevard. Manager pointed out the diagrams included in the Plan showing streets in the valley and their connections to other areas. Mayor Anderson referred to Section V - Relationship to City, ItemC-3 '(provision for "bi-annual" review) and asked whether it would be encumbent upon the City to inhiate biennial review. Manager answered that the Plan did not so indicate but it would be assumed that every other year it would be an item for discussion in budget preparation, or staff time could be provided to assist with review without budgeted funds. Planning Director noted the wording provided that the City would "assist" the neighborhood group in review. He added that this group had utilized the least amount of City funds of any other neighborhood group in its work, raising all of the funds for preparation of the Plan itself. The Mayor however wanted to know if the City would be ..legally obligated to go through a biennial review. He felt if that were the case and a review in two years was not made then the City would be liable. Planning Director thought if that policy statement was adopted, the City would be obligated. He felt the review essential because the Plan would be the first of several and would give a better understanding of how to work with neighborhood planning. . . . Councilman Murray pointed out that neighborhood organization policy did charge the groups with resonsibility for reviewing their own plans and planning processes, and further obligated the planning staff to assist within budgetary limitations. Councilwoman Campbell wondered if the Association felt it should be informed of all social welfare programs in the city, or just those in the Laurel Hill valley (Section V, Item C-2). Also, if they were thinking in terms of conditional use for such operations as Halfway House, etc. Mr. McGuinness answered that that policy directed itself to close co~ordination between the City and the Association on things considered sensitive, that is, general social services, evolving situations, etc. Manager. said ,his understanding was that any proposed program that would affect land use in the valley would be referred to the Association prior to public hearing to give those people an opportunity for input both to the staff and at ,the hearing. He did not think the intention was to refer every social program in the City to the Laurel Hill Association. Mrs. Campbell suggested then the addition of the wo'rds "within the valley" after the word "project" in the second line of Section V, Item C-2. 74 3/11/74 - 7 Mr. McGuinness explained. the reason for this conc~rn was that the peopl~ of the valley felt .they were' always inv9lvedwith the size' of projects in the valley but never with who would use them. He suggested-different wording would be appropriate to limit the policy to only those things occurring in the valley. Mrs. Beal suggested addition of the words "or other projects which affect land use in the Laurel Hill valley" after the words "social welfare programs" in the third line of Section V, Item C-2. Betty Niven suggested the following, substitution for that item: "The City should communicate to the Laurel Hill Citizens Associa- tion any proposals by developers or sponsors of social welfare programs involving land use changes in the valley, so that the Association can contribute to their implementation." Mayor Anderson noted the significance of the Plan and said he supported most of its elements. However, he felt in adoption of City policy, because of its importance to deliberations of future City Councils and to the Laurel Hill people themselves, there should be a very clear understanding of the intent and meaning of the policy. He questioned several items wpich might call for further discussion between the Councilor a Council subcommittee and members of the Association. First, because the Laurel Hill Citizens Association itself may some day be superseded by anpther group or there is reorganization effecting change, he suggested that the group be referred to in the Plan as the "recognized neighborhood organization." With regard to Item II, Items C-l,2,3 (arterial routes), Mr. Anderson felt at this point they could be left out of the policy statements with the idea that there should more appropriately be individual public hearings and judgments made on each project separately. Item C-~ in the same section (street design) he felt could be reworded more effectively to better describe the intention. With regard to Section III, Item C-l (urban services), Mr. Anderson questioned what was m.eant by "alternative methods of providing urban services." He felt that statement could be made more explicit. He referred to Section V, Item C-2 and said he thought the statement should better describe what the city's responsibilities would be so far as com- munications with the neighborhood association. Item C-3,. he said, should indicate the exact procedure to be followed in any review of the Plan. Finally, Mr. Anderson said, he thought all of the policy statements in the Plan should be separated into a single document for adoption through formal resolution of the Council, with the statements of basic position, neighborhood goals, and proposals to comprise supplementary material so that future councils and future organizations would not misconstrue the intent of this Council - that the policy statements were adopted as policy, and that the positipn statements, goals, and proposals were to be considered separate from policy'. Councilman Murray suggested that action could be taken at this meeting if only changes in wording were to be considered. Mayor Anderson thought Council members might like to reflect on points brought out in the discussion and after discussion with representatives' of the Association bring the Plan back for a subsequent Council meeting. Councilman Williliams agreed, suggesting referral of the Plan to a Council subcpmmittee appointed by the Mayor to review language of the document, making changes to more precisely state its intent.. Councilman Murray returned to Section II, Items C-I, 2,3, and asked clarification of the Mayor's viewpoint. Mr. Anderson said he questioned how "locked in" the Council or the Association would want to be on specific projects in developing an overall transportation plan. He referred to Item C-7 which stated the importance of traffic patterns in the southern portion of the valley. And he wondered whether leaving Items 1 and 3 open now (no arterial through the valley and no direct access from 30th or Spring Boulevard) would provide options and would not necessitate overriding policy at a later time. Councilwoman Campbell said she thought that was clarified by the statement at the beginning of the. section which stated that the section was to provide sound guidelines until a systematic transporta- tion and traffic plan was developed. She saw no reason for having individual hearings on those items and added that. those were the most intensely felt and important to the people of the Laurel Hill valley. Councilman Keller found it difficult to accept the portion having to do with preventing an arterial through the valley or traffic connectors from 30th and Spring Boulevard because of the effect the policy might have on future planning in tbat area. He' suggested if. Items ::,.. C-l,2,3 were to be tied in with the modifying statement with regard to ad9ption of an over- all transportation plan, then that statement should be the first one under Item C.Mr.Keller commented on the potential growth in the valley if the present average is estimated at one unit per acre and the proposed density was four units per acre. He felt access for future residents of the area should be considered. Councilman Murray said he did not understand the reservations expressed since the Plan pre- cisely spelled out that policy statements on traffic were applicable only until a city-wide .transportation plan ruled them out. Furthermore, he said, the provision for biennial review of the Plan would take care of any future concerns. He felt any policy could be changed if it was so desired. He added that various comments in the Plan were within the General Plan .and the Coqmunity Goals statement and it seemed to be a particular application of general city policy. Councilman Hershner expressed his hesitancy on adoption of the Plan because of the statements on arterials and traffic connectors (Section II, Items C-l,2,3). He recognized those items were subject to adoption of a general transportation plan but thought it would be more .,~ 3/11/74- 8 .. 1741 . 1813 - -- . appropriate if the statement in that regard appeared as a part of Item G itself. He felt, however, that adoption of those three items might have.a substantial effect on overall trans- portation studies in the area. He said he had no facts on which t~ base a decision with regard to access to the valley from ~Spring Boulevard. Councilwoman Beal said it seemed unlikely access from Spring Boulevard could be effected unless it was a part of an overall transportation plan. . She called attention too to the vote required by Charter amendment on any limited 'access route which she said would seem to provide adequate safeguards. Mrs. Beal expressed her feeling that it seemed an im- portant function of'city government to enable people who had bought property under certain conditions to pr~serve so far as possible those conditions and to make it a place where they wanted to'live. She agreed that certain portions of the Plan'needed rewriting and thought members of the Association after this discusslonshould be convinced'of the Council's good will and 'desire to do what the Laurel Hill people wanted. 1909 Councilman Wood said he thought the Plan was a very responsible dQcument but he favored de- lay in its adoption, saying perhaps a Council subcommittee could work out with representa- tives of t~e Association amendments to cover those items discussed. Councilman Murray didn't disagree but he thought it might be w~ll to speak to major concerns with'the Plan while so many of the'Laurel Hill people were present. He .thought'it important that in separating policy statements from other'statements in the Plan the Council should recog- nize the other statements were not insignificant - they were part and parcel of context from which policies would grow. Also, he said, the Laurel Hill people did not really de- sign the format of this Plan itself; it was suggested by the Planning Commission, one of. the main reasons being to keep it consistent with other planning documents, such as the Generai Plan and Community Goals, and allowed for statement of items which were not specifically policy but more all-encompassing, long-range plans or desirable goals. While it might be confusing to some, he said, it was compatible ~ith what had already been done and explained why the Plan included those statements as part of ~hat would be adopted. , Councilwoman Campbell asked that other Council members keep in mind that a lot of the policy statements set out in the Plan were also being incorporated into the South Hills study. She hoped the Council would not be put in the position of not being able to accept the larger study because of not knowing clearly what was being accep~ed with this Plan. 1940 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the Plan to.a Council subcommittee to be appointed by the Mayor for consideration of testimony presented at this meeting, comments made re~ative to language modification~ to make a more desirable or acceptable plan from all points of view, and bring the document back to the Council for final consideration. . Councilman Murray said in previous instances when Council was faced with language modifica- tions the staff was asked to make changes and bring back recommendations. He wondered if that would be a better process than having a Council subcommittee work it out. . Councilman Wood asked the opinion of representatives of the Laurel Hill Association on the procedure under discussion. Mr. McGuinness answered that the Association's committee it- self could not make any changes; every word in every revision of the Plan had been voted ,upon by the entire group. So what was suggested would be time-consuming and he would pre- fer Councilman Murray's suggestion - that staff bring back to the Council suggested changes. He felt subcommittee consideration would be putting a side force into action. Councilman Williams said there was no intent to bring a side force into action, rather he felt action taken now at the late hour and in so large a group would not lend itself to productiveness. Whereas, cutting~it down to representatives of " both bodies would give an opportunity to be genuinely productive. Mayor Anderson suggested the planning staff could take the' record of this meeting and work out language that would be satisfactory to both the Association and the subcommittee and probably a half-hour's review would produce recommendations for the Council to consider. Councilman Hershner said he would rather see any substantive changes in the Plan dealth with by a Council subcommittee than staff. Manager added there were at least two items which would require Council policy decisions, but the staff could possibly suggest alterna- tive wordings from which the Council could select what was desired. .. It' ., , Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Beal, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Campbell and Murray voting no. 1988 E. .Sign District Change -,From Residential to Outlying Commercial on area west of Delta Highway and north of relocated Goodpasture Island Road (Planning Commission 5DBC74-1) Planning Commission recommended on February 5, 1974. Scheduled for public hearing at March 11, 1974 Council meeting. Comm 2/27/74 Pub Hrng 7b 3/11/74 - 9 Commission minutes were previQ~sly. ~dis:t:r,ib.u.:te~tJ:,o .Counci 1 members. noted his abstention from discussion and voting on the issue. Mr. Williams Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 462 - Changing Sign District west of Delta Highway and north of relocated Goodpasture ISland Road to Outlying Commercial was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood that findings supporting the sign district change as set forth in Planning Commission minutes and staff notes dated February 5,1974 and on file in the City Recorder's office be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilman present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered l6995.~' F. Bids - Parks Department (Opened February 20, 1974) For remainder of tree planting and irrigation installation on Coburg Road Median. Lane County Nursery Fairway Irrigation Co. Ramsey-Waite Co. $ 5,882.55 4,698.00 3,401.80 Estimate 3,500.00 Manager reviewed bids and said staff recommended award to Ramsey-Waite on their bid price of $3,401.80. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contract as recommended. 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 in committee on February 27, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilman Williams, Hershner, McDonald. Campbell, Keller, Murray. and Wood). Minutes .' of tJ10~e_meetings app'ear belowprinied in italics.' , A. "!k:iiiptor-'a.nd '5i teSelec'tTon'-;' InEernatTo~al"Sculpture Syrri'[JOsl. lim' :'Coi.incil"woman'-'" \ Campbell, chairman of the committee appointed to select a sculptor and site in \ the city for permanent location of his work, distributed copies of m~nutes of the selection committee. Council confirmation was requested for th~ choice of ,~ sculptor - Bruce Beasley; and site - Skinners Butte Park, between Celeste Campbell ,Center and the Ferry Street. Bridge. At the 'conclusion of other business, Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray 'to approve the selection commi ttee' s choice. Motion carried unanimously (Wood absent)'. Councilwoman Campbell explained that the Skinners Butte site was selected in ,the hope that it would becQ.me.ifJ....landmark identified as gateway to the ci ty. , , . -,-, J!:omm 2127/74 ,~pprove B. ~south- Will~;;~tte Wa'lkway so;th";;i'3i;'d=- 'Ma~~ger explained that'the walkwalj' In', 'question was created by installing a precast concrete curb in the street right- \ :of-way along the west side of Willamette south of 33rd Avenue to provide a safer \ avenue of travel for students havi,ng to cross Willamette to Dunn School. He said" ,a number of petitions objecting to the walkway had been received, as well as the ; anonymous letter recently received by Councilman Keller. In reviewing ~he situa- tion, Manager said, it was found the walkway was being used and that Dunn School i o~ficials encourag~d its us~ so that students would cross the street where sight , d~stance for oncom~ng t~aff~c was greater rather than using the crossing at the' : crest of the hill. Manager noted the lack of traffic hazard or accidents be- : cause of the walkway, although its appearance could cause the feeling of its being: ; a hazard~ Also, the difficulty with keeping it clean because of inability of f ! sweepers to work between the raised harriers and the curb. He suggested investi-: ( gating the possibility of permanent sidewalk installation at that location, not- I ing the cost w.ould probably be excessive because of the ste~pembankment and " 3/11/74 - 10 .' "!:-,F-' 2019, 2027 .\ _I _.~ .' I . " necessi ty for acquisi tion of right-of-way. And .if present policy was adhered to, , the cost would not be assessed to owners of abutting properties. Manager added '.that the present installation seemed justifiable but a permanent solution would appear more satisfactory from the standpoint of appearance and cleanliness if :not from the standpoint of safety. I 'Councilwoman Campbell favored investigation of permanent sidewalk installation, : noting the effort put farth to obtain the present: temporary sidewalk. She ob- i served that. the present instgllation may be a nuisance for auto traffic but at i the same time it had the effect of slowing i t do~m. Councilman Keller concurred I land suggested possibility of permanent sidewalk i:nstallation now at those loca- btions where there was no embankment. I ! i . ! Mrs. Campbell moved seconded :specifications for permanent [Street south of 33rd Avenue. I Comm 2/27/74 by Mr. Keller that staff proceed with plans and APprove sidewalk installation on the west side of Will-amette , ; I I : :councilman McDonald supported the motion but wondered if the installation at city/ Icost would set precedent for the same arrangement in other parts of the city. I. !Manager noted that the motion did not include any decision on financing; staff I ! would report back to the Council cost estimates of the proposed installation. I I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. I . Vacations C. J.':;' Utili ty easement near intersection of LaurelhuL'st Street and Primrose Street (Al Colburn) - Recommended by Planning Commission on February 11, 1974. Maps were previously distributed to Council members. It was understood public hearing would be called for April 22, 1974. --'). ~. University of Oregon Streets 1. University, 13th to 18th 2. 13th, University to Agate 3. 15th, University to Agate Recommended by Planning Commission on February 11, 197~. Maps were previously distributed to Council members. Vacations in accordance with agreement between the city.and the university at the time 13th was vacated from Kincaid to university. It w~s ,!1}_<!~!~tood P,:!b~j.? hearing would be ca11~<!.. ~()_~ Apr!L.?~~...~~~4_. ___.____._.__...._ COll1m 2/27/7;4 Appro~e D. RMB Application, The Side Pocket, 846 West 6th Avenue - Change of ownership :quested by Steven C. Ross, Terry Schultz, Lawrence W.' Ross, Jr., as Denali ,ment Co. Staff had no objections. Release ~as requested prior to March 11 ,meeting to meet OLCC meeting deadline. re- Invest- ; Council i. ,Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to recommend approval and release the 'application as requested. Motion carried unanimoUSly. i Comm 2/t27/74 A~prove E. EWEB Transactions - Authorization requested for: '1.,' Sale of property to Thurston-Walte'rville Rural Fire Protection District on Camp Creek Road east of Chase Road - 1 acret (Councilman Wood left.) /2. . Dedication to ci ty of Springfield for street right-of-way, Laura Street i north of Q Street - 40 feet j COIrml ,2/27/74 Approve Both items to be entered on consent calendar for March 11 Council meeting. : -- ._- -'~""_._'-"-".' - ,_._, ,. - - ----..-A_ "._ _ _,._ . .. ... . _.._._._..~_.;_.''''''' ~~.-----.-._,_..._-_... ~ F. Council Minutes - January 28 and 31; February 11 a.nd 25 as circulated Approve t- - .;- G. 'Appointment, 'Mechanical Board - Mayor Anderson announced the appointment of ; Don Smith, architect, as a member of the Mechanical Board for the term ending [January 1, 1979, replacing Kenneth Wollenweber. I H. I/Report, Historical Preservation Committee - Councilman Murray reported on work of , the Historical Preservation Committee to this time - examination of ordinances ifrom other cities, receipt of written and oral testimony from interested people . in the community, conferences with bank officers and others regarding financing preservation of historical buildings and sites. Also, one member of the com- mittee was sent toa conference on historical preservation. The Historical Committee has developed a set of policy recommenqations which have been forwarded to the City Attorney for translation into ordinance form for presentation to the ..9.qyncil in 'the near !...l!....~ure. _...__ ___.._.__.__.._...____............... _........_........:.___~ .. T '...... I. Proposed County Library System - Councilwoman Campbell reported that she .had i lattended meetings at 'which the proposed Countywide library system was discussed I iand would report to the Council when recommendations were received from the I Eugene Library Board. . .....--J i I Comm 2/'27/74 , . i File I . Comm 2/27/74 liffirm Comm 2/27/74 File 1& 3/11/74 - 11 J. ,Closing Hours, - Eugf{ne--Raceway, 11 th ~~ci Dan~bo- Req~est for extension of c1os1.ng --..... ! time for automobile races a t Eugene Raceway was recei ved from Rod Ormsby, Oregon iRaCeWay Parks, Inc. Present ordinances require that this activity be stopped at '10:QO p.m. because of the excessive noise created. Mr. Ormsby is requesting ex- I tension of the closing hours to accommodate racing activities for six nights dur- ing the 1974 season. Manager explained that in order to grant the request an amend- ment to the Code would be required. He suggested if that should be the Council's desire it probably would be advisable that the amendment allow an exception pro- I cedure by Council motion rather than amending for specific events. I , iMr. Ormsby noted the entertainment value and demand for the racing events and said i they had been working with DEQ on the noise problem, hoping to work out something I ; which would lower noise levels. He explained that the request was for an extension , t() 11 :00 p.m. for absolute closure, with more noisy carti being finished by 10:30 p.m., . for the six nights (April 20, May 4 and 25, June 15, July 6 and 20, August 10). ;An extra date was requested to provide an alternate in the event of rain on any other. !Councilwoman Campbell recalled the lengthy hearings with regard to noise problems iat the Raceway and management's promise to install an acoustical barrier. She I wondered why another hour was being requested. Mr. Ormsby said walls ,were constructed; iin 1971 on the Danebo Avenue side of the track. He said the extra time was being re- 'quested so that races wouldn't have to be stopped before they were finished if the ,10:00 p.m. closing time occurred during an event. He noted that all of the dates ; requested were Saturdays, two, of them on holiday weekends. . -- Councilman Keller wondered why the events couldn't start earlier rather than extend- ing the closing time. Mr. Ormsby answered that the 8:00 p.m. starting time wa$ · fairly standard, some events being started at 7:00, but if problems were encountered, 'spectator animosity arose when an event was cut off befo~~_jt o/as finished. ........,.:_.; '-l', :~ . ,~. ,",~,,-- ~.-::-.....~' ~-~.~: '-- Speaking against any extension of closing time were Mrs. Louis Schneider, living off Oak Hill Drive; Mrs. Vernon Whitwer, 1280 Willow Creek Road; Monica Matson, 751 South Danebo Avenue; and Mrs. Russell Wheeler, 1310 Willow Creek Road. Their opposition was based on noise pollution, unnecessary gas consumption, traff~c disturbance be- ;yond the ,present closing hour, inadequacy of the acoustical barrier constructed, and !general detraction from the livability of the area surrounding the Raceway. ,Mrs. Matson quoted decibel readings taken at her ~ome far in excess of the allowable level for motorcycles not only from the racing cars but also from the public address ,system. She noted that trial races pr~ceding the evening events sometimes resulted :in continuous noise on race days from afternoon until closing time. In response to iMr. Ormsby's statement that the DEQ through the manufacturers was attempting to de- .velop a method of lowering noise levels of the racing cars, Mrs. Matson'referred ,to icorrespondence with the DEQ dating from 1971 relating to noise standards. However, 'I nothing had been done. She felt also the problem of public address system should ,have, been solved, and that the gas consumption of the racing cars would be better . , ~used for necessary purposes. 'Mr. Ormsby noted that directional speakers for the fpublic address system would be installed in April. Also, that gas supply for racing ! [had been cut back by 25%. .Comm I 2/27/74 !Mayor Anderson brought the discussion back, to the question of extension of closing : File : hours. Consensus of the Council was against any extension of the present closing ; hours because of the many complaints received about the noise, even from people : living some distance from the track. Mrs. Campbell expressed the hope that owners :of the Raceway would consider the location of property away from the dense population, 1 area to accommodate the racing acti"vities.' ....... . No action was taken. ,. __ Comm K. :-Ali'1)uality' Maintenaric-;;-l{;:~~q Hearing - Copies of notice of Publi"c-heari.n:g'were----:-2i27/74 : previously distributed to Council members. It is scheduled for March 18, 1974 at \-,' File : 10: 00 a.m. in the Lane Regional Air ,Pollution Authori ty conference room at 16 Oakway , ,Mall before. thc;D~pa.!:~f'lfnt;-:~t Environrn.ental Quali ty hearings officer. ,', ,.=..,~ . ,'~", ,. -' ... ,. . - .' . . '.- . . ~ L. Committee Meeting, March 6 - Canceled. Councilwoman Campbell and Councilman Wood, Comm City Manager and Assistant Manager to be absent from the City. 2/27/74 File Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr~ Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through L.Rollcall vote. Motion carried,' all councilmen present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining on Item J - Closing Hours, Danebo Raceway. .H III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 463 - Calling hearing April 22, 1974 re: Vacation of utility easement nea~ intersection of Laurelhurst Street and Primrose Street was read by c9uncil bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read ~n fulL 19 3/11/74 - 12 a' . l\.. .t;.' - - ' ~ ~ .' '-~.':> - 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 ,'Rumber 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 16996. Council Bill No. 464 - Calling hearing April 22, 1974 re: Vacation of University Street from 13th to 18th; 13th Avenue from University to Agate; and 15th Avenue from University to Agate wa~ read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing 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 16997. . Council Bill No. 465 - Levying assessments for storm sewer between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue (72-65) was read 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 referred to assessment hearing panel for hearing March 18, 1974 and recommendations brought back for Council consideration on March 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 466 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer within Bedford Plat (73-05) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to assessment hearing panel for hearing March 18, 1974 and recommendations brought back for Council consideration on March 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 467 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within 1st Addition to Evergreen Park, and paving Rutledge Street from Bell Avenue to 300 feet south; sanitary sewer and storm sewer in area between Bell ,Avenue and Wood Avenue from Bertelsen Road to 500 feet west (73-36) was read 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 referred to assessment hearing panel for hearing March 18, 1974 and recommendations brought back for Council consideration on March 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimo~sly. Council Bill No. 468 - Levying a~sessments for sanitary sewer to serve Prospect Park PUD described as Lots 37 and 38,. Prospect Park Subdivision (73-54) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman prese,!lt requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to assessment hearing panel for hearing March 18, 1974 and recommendations brought back for Council consideration on March 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 469 - Rezoning to R-2-3.9-PDarea south of I~105, north of Kins Row, and east of Centennial Boulevard (Z 73-37) was read by council bill number and title' only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Manager explained that the findings supporting the rezoning had been prepared and incorporated into the ordinance itself. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr: Keller 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. Lacking unanimous consent (Williams, Keller, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Beal and Campbell voting no; Hershner abstaining) the bill would have been held over for second reading. However, Councilwomen Beal and Campbell changed their votes to "aye" giving unanimous consent to second reading. The bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. , ,- ~ BO Councilman Williams stated his conviction that rezoning this property in opposition to staff and Planning Commission recommendation established before the people of ORegon the impossi- bility of the concept of a legislative body operating as a judicial body. He noted the Council's instruction at the last Council meeting for staff to prepare a list of rea~pns to support rezoning the property counteractive to staff's own recommendations, a list which the Council itself had not even asked to hear. Councilman Murray sympathized with Mr. Williams' feeling. However, he said, Council discus- sion on the issue did set forth reasons for allowing the zone change,. He reminded other Council members that part of the Fasano regulation placed the "burden of proof" with the 'applicant. He felt the "burden of change" in this'instance was not significant, and he thought the majority of the Council voting to rezone the property also 'felt it'was not a significant change. Vote was taken on the motion for, approval and final passage of C.B.469. Motion defeated, Councilmen Keller, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Beal~: and Campbell, and Mayor Anderson'voting no; Councilman Hershner abstaining. In casting a "no" vote, Mayor Anderson said his opinion was that expressed by Councilman Williams. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2264 - Authorizing conveyance to Thurston-Walterville Rural Fire Protection District of one acre more or less on Camp Creek Road east of Chase Road (EWEB) was read by number ,and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present ,voting aye. Resolution No. 2265 - Authorizing dedication to city of Springfield for street right-of-way Laura Street north of Q Street -,40 feet (EWEB) was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2266 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress ,payments for period February 25 through March 11, 1974 was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Manager reminded Counc~l of Budget Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, -:,March lLJ.~_<Z.:30 ,p.m., in the McNutt Room. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, March 25, 1974. ?p:~ Hugh McKinley City Manager 8\ 3/ll/74 - 14 2078 -- 'J : ~- " 2105 _./::;i -t'o ~. ''1 - ~- ~.o ~ 2114 .,<.~ ~. ' <:J '\ r~ '- '.~