Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1974 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 22, 'I974 - Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held July 15, 1974 - was called to order by Council President Tom Williams in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on July 22, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following other Council members present: James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray. Councilman Wood was absent. (0001) A prepared statement was read by Councilwoman Beal eulogizing Wayne Morse, former member of . the United States Senate from Oregon, whose death occurred earlier in the day. On motion byM,i'. Hershner seconded by Mrs. Campbell and carried unanimously the statement was to be forwarded to Mrs. Morse on behalf of the Council in recognition of Senator Morse's great contribution to society. (0036) ~ I - Proclamation - Canvassing votes was read showing results of July 9, '1974 election to exceed the 6% limitation by $2,755,634 - Yes 6,748 No 7,288 , Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Motion Mr. Campbell to accept the proclamation. carried unanimously. - ~I - Public Hearings A. Appeal from Planning Commission denial, of rezoning area north of Green Acres Road east of Delta Highway - From RA to RG-SR (June 4, 1974) (2 '74-7) ,- M&M-Safley Staff. notes and minutes of June 4, 1974 Planning Commission meeting were previously forwarded to Council members. Manager read appeal submitted by Mike Safley from the Planning Commission denial of rezoning to RG-SR on the basis that the decision was not supported by evidence on the record, that the Commission erred in its decision that there was no public need and that the need would not be best served by the subject property. He described the location of the project, lying east of Delta Highway between an industrial area and a mobile home park. Jim S'l-ul, planner, said the rezoning involved 6.63 acres, now vacant, lying in the midst of other vacant properties. He noted documentation distributed to Council members by staff and by Mr. Safley and said that there were no~detailed plans on proposed d~velopment of the property. Public hearing was opened, the Chair stating the manner as required under the Fasano ruling in which the hearing would be conducted. Council members declared no ex parte contact or other reason for abstaining from discussion or vote. .12) Mike Safley, petitioner for the rezoning, felt the Council should give its approval of the requested RG-SR zone to provide the opportunity to develop more low-cost housing. He referred to the 1990 General Plan and its suggestion for consideration of social problems in its implementation through creation of public and private partnerships to provide a choice of housing units at a range of costs. Slides of the proposed development were shown demonstrating the potential of the location for living environment through construction of sound barriers against industrial uses to the west. Mr. Safley felt this particular property best suited for the type housing proposed to provide living units for younger people employed in nearby commercial activities. He called attention to the County's abandonment of the adjacent Ayres property since defeat of a,ballot measure concerning a close-in land- fill site. He felt that if Planning Commission had considered his rezoning petition after that election they would not have denied it because removal of a potential sani tary landfill in the' area made the proposed development more at,tracti ve. Mr. Safley said analysis of a feasibility study indicated a demand from younger people for the type housing proposed here, and he felt construction at today's costs would be of benefit. He asked for positive findings on a social perspective to provide the moderate-cost housing now lacking in the city. (0512) Councilman McDonald asked whether a minimum average income would be necessary for rental of one of the proposed units. Mr. Safley replied: that the suggested rent schedule was the most competitive that could be put together. He said he was not - suggesting the proposed development was a cure-all for low-income rental problems, but that anyone conducting themselves in a socially, acceptable manner would be' welcomed as 'tenants. His objective, he said, was to provide the best housing at the lowest possible cost. On further questioning from Mr. McDonald, Mr. Safley said that anyone regardless of income could become a tenant of the proposed develop- ment so long as the rent was paid. , . .. .L,. ~ . . '~~.,,:-:"_ ;~~".~1_~~~'~~~'T-':; ~ -- ----:- (0565) , , - =, i/22/7tr:'-1" . = ---. , 2.5(, - Councilman Hershner asked the size of the units for which the suggested $134 monthly rental (0565) would be charged. Mr. Safley replied that four floor plans were to be used from 600 to 850 square feet, depending upon whether they were one- or two-bedroom units. He said that square-foot cost was one of the factors in providing less costly housing. By designing" e smaller units he would be able to charge less rent. He said the $134 charge would be the average monthly rental. He went on to describe the additional cost involved in designing the sound barriers in the project which he said would.probably make the rentals average a little more. than $134. Councilwoman Campbell remarked about the impossibility of ever getting those who could pay (0607) high rents to live in the area proposed for this development, and she wondered why Mr. Safley thought it an appropriate place for low-income people considering the existing industrial uses and proposed County public works uses nearby. Mr. Safley appreciated that concern and .said that an effort was made to create a living environment through design and noise control. Other projects he said proposed for low-income' housing ended up as high-income housing because of design changes to provide a better living environment. He noted that in this case the General Plan indicating medium density housing for that area was adapted after the indus- trial uses were in operation an~'property rezoned for the County shops. He felt the proposed development would take care of the problems for this particular piece of property. Bruce Taylor, living on Ayres Road, ,felt the development was too far from the main employment C0665) center and without mass transit service, that the area was pretty well over-developed already. He felt some consideration should be given to the location of a housing development next to a sand and gravel operation in terms of dangerous truck traffic to children and pets. Also the noise and air pollution for tenants of the housing. He said it would make a major conflict e between land uses of the housing was allowed and that the low-density designation should re- ma1n. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, supported the project and said she was speaking on her own (0704) initiative and not as a representative of the Joint Housing Committee since that committee had not discussed the development. She disagreed with the findings of the Planning Commission that the subject property would not best serve the public need. She felt this development would be a way of increasing housing within a wide range of rentals and that the applicant went further than normal in establishing the demand and type of tenants. She cited the need for low-cost housing anywhere in the city and called attention. to the factors making it possible to provide such units in this development - smaller in size, less valuabl~ ~and, developed under site review rather than_planl).ed unitdeve~opmen..t~,:e-!c. ,She'sqgg'e~te4_,thatif ~~~t.hiiY~dj,ifefe_ntia'!tdisappear~d ,the :rentals 'wduld 'be' a5:hlgh >15' tn~"anY'bih~r::-area..~-: Mr~'; Niven continued that detefmin~ti'on-ofwhether' a propeny chuld be corisldered the "best~~=fle,f wOl.l~d have to be made on an individual basis, that properties considered best for housing were c:: those located in areas long used for residential purposes and so commanding the highest rentals. This property, she felt ,', was one of those with inherent flaws which could be over- come. And if the proposed sound barriers proved successful, the project could be invaluable in showing the' way to protect other properties - both residential and commercial - lying along heavily traveled noisy thoroughfares. . She noted the age of potential tenants in their early twenties and said that age group, growing up in. a rock and roll age, probably wouldn't . hear the noise ,generated by the sand and,gravel eompanyanyway. But she said the reduction in no~se through construction of the sound carriers would b~ considerable and called attention to the existing single-family dwellings in that area now which weren't stopped from going in there because, of the noise. She didn't feel it was appropriate. that the sand and gravel operations should control use of adjacent land it neither owned nor developed. She concluded by saying that she thought there was a well defined need of a fine group of tenants which would be well served by the proposed development, and use of the project for a testing of sound control would be of public benefit. Susan Franqin, 890 West 3rd Avenue, member of ,the 'Planning Commission, highlighted the (0842) Commission's reasons for denying the rezoning. She said development to moderate-cost housing would not be consistent with existing uses in the area, and rezoning this isolated parcel would make comprehensive overall planning for that area 'very difficult. In addition, she said, the property was isolated, large and vacant, separating two RA tracts, and the public need would not be served by rezoning. James Kovack, a representative of, Eugene Sand & Gravel, said he was neither for nor against the rezoning. However, he hoped that whatever decision was made would not "price them out" because he felt the~e was a need for the firm's products in the community. He said they would be glad to co-operate whatever the zone was to work out mutual problems. Trygve Vik, 1675 Firland Boulevard, was in favor of the requested rezoning. He said'ij,e e owned the property immediately to the west of Mr. Safley's property and that there were many areas in the city where there was housing of equal density to that proposed by this develop- ment on streets as heavily traveled as the North Delta. And he felt there were regulations to take care of the possible air and noise pollution 'problems. Councilman, McDonald agreed with Mrs. Niven to some extent that the noise might not bother (0931) younger people who might live in the propqsed housing. However, he wondered how the noise 7/22/74 - 2 1.~' " would affect young children who might be subjected to it. And in the event young married families rented units there, he wondered about school facilities. Mrs. Niven answered that it didn't appear everything had to be built to aceommodate all types of families. She - thought if the sound barriers proved successful ,at this location, they could be used in development with noise problems closer to schools to accommodate larger families. She said only 150 units were planned in this project and it wasn't proposed to solve everyone's housing problems at one time. She called attention to older school children living in the adj acent mobile park and in single-family homes, apparently without problems. (0980) Councilwoman Campbell asked Ms. Franklin if the Planning Commission would be willing to discuss modification of the 1990 Plan to correct designations that apparently were not in line with uses actually in existence in this 'area. Ms. Franklin answered that the Commission would discuss amendment to the Plan in this regard, but she thought it would be difficult to make any changes if this rezoning took place. She thought proper planning could be better accomplished if evaluations were made of the entire North Delta area in line with the Plan to determinewhether1there should be modification. (1007) Jim Saul, planner, said the statement ih the appeal that th~rezoning request was in con~ formance with the General Plan was erroneous in terms of its being automatically in confor- mance as a result of the Planning Commission's not making negative findings. He said the discussion in the Planning Commissionb~cause of the bulk, of material presented by the applicant dealt with providing low-cost housing. But he said that terminology was incorrect - the housing proposed would be moderate-income housing, a highly specialized segment of the total housing'market of the city. With regard to public need, the Commission's basic e difficulty with finding that the proposed rezoning was really in the public interest was consideration of relationship of this property to adjacent properties and' the activities in the general area - the whole range of characteristics associated with the gravel operation, County shops, and possible public service buildings. He said it would be wrong to say the Commission's decision would have been different had the County's decision with regard to a site for its landfill been known at the time this rezoning was under discussion. The Commission felt if this property was rezoned for residential uses it would basically commit that area to that type of development. And even though barriers were proposed for sound control, the same type of control, around other properties having potential for residential development would result in a dense perimeter of barriers around all the properties in that area. Further, he said, if the Blayney report was accepted, there was the possibility for residential units west of Delta Highway significantly separated from the industrial area which would make a healthier element of medium-density housing. , - ,.,,-- (1110) Councilman Murray wondered if it would be the Planning Commission and staff recommendation for 1990 Plan revision 'with regard to the overall area, to which Mr. Saul responded that a more appropriate recommendation would be that the Plan be considered for revision. In response to Mr. Murray's query as to what oppurtunit~e~ there were for further industrial kinds of activities east of the Delta Highway, Mr. S~uT described the existing uses on properties in the vicinity of the' subject' property and said there would be no limitation on industrial development on thoseproper,ties, zoned fori that. use'. He noted recent contacts e wi th County personnel indicated a public safety, building, was' contemplated for that area. The question of what would develop'wa~ "wide open", he said, depending upon the County's interpretation of the General Plan for that area. (1145) In response to Councilwoman Beal, Mr. Saul said that if the rezoning was approved the Connnission felt it would determine the use of that entire area because with the exception of the mobile home park east of Delta Highway all of the ar~a zoned RA was still vacant. (Ll 72) Councilman Hershner asked for staff c~mment on whether the estimated monthly rental of $134 plus the additional 'cost because of including sound barriers would consti tute lo~-income housing without government subsidy. (,Also wh~t de~ree of control the city would have to ensure the buffering and noise control p~oposed. Mr. Saul had no figures available on the average rental for low-income housing ~nits. He said that site review procedures would provide inadequate control for the development proposed, both for sound buffering and other factors. He said that if) it was, decided to change the zoning on this property, planning would reconnnend a density no higher than that allowed under R-2, and that PUD procedures would be absolutely necessary for design control and for review of relationship to adjacent properties. He added that site review designation provided only for review of those items specifically of concern to the Commission and the Council such as compatibility wit,h surrounding area, relationship among buildings in a development to protect open space, preservation of natural features, structural design, illumination, etc.' It was felt site -, review procedures would be "stretched" in trying to, control or meet all of the concerns with regard to this, specific development. (1226) Mr. Safley noted the 4ecision to deny the rezoning in the Commission was on a 3/2 vote and that the ~wo Commissioners strongly in favor of the change were not represented at this hearing. He called attention to the roads in that area.designed"to carry more traffic than actual count showed they were carrying, and noted this particular project would have two access points. He said he didn't mean to create the impression that this type project would solve the low-cost housing problem in Eugene, what he did mean was that the proposed 25& 7/22/74 - 3 I units would provide housing qt lowe+ rentals than now available in the city. With regard to, site review procedvres, ~e sa~d he felt that procedure would be more appropriate in order to k.el?P "the cost of the proj ect down. ' PlanI)ed unit development procedures, he said, would be more costly and more time 'consuming., He said the roads', sewers, schools, mass ,,' ~ transit were all 'available; the project would be filling in vacant land as indicated by ~ the General Plan; and the housing units would meet a need in the city. . Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented; (1310) Councilman McDonald wondered if the basis on which Mr. Safley's appeal had been filed were presented to the Planning Commission. Manager answered that he could not say whether items had been presented to the Planning Commission in,the form stated in the appeal document, but there were none of them that would have been new to the Commission and which had not in some manner been discussed by the Commission. I Councilman Murray asked what was known of the County's plans for installations in the area under discussion and, with regard to timing, what was expected to happen in that area if this rezoning was denied at this ,time. Manager answered ,that,he understooq'designing was now in process for County shops to the north. Also, there had been serious consideration by the County administration of a sheriff's facility north of'that but he didn't know whether a firm agreement had been reached; With regard to timing, he said that the Commission saw I this as an opportunity area and thought there should be exploration ,of ways to resolve the conflict between land uses west of the Delta and those east of the Delta. That could best be accomplished through a comprehensive effort at developing a total specific land use pattern that would assure that this particular project would fit and would not hinder what ~ might otherwise be suitable land use; it was considered desirable to achieyean overall land ,., use pattern prior to proceeding ~i th a small segment of the, area. ~ Councilwoman Campbell felt t,he proposed proj ect would not be a proper use of ,that land and (1368) thought staff recommendations made sense. She expressed concern with the apparent emphasis on putting housing "just anyplace" in order to relieve the need. Councilwoman Beal echoed that opinion, saying the Planning Commission and staff instead of looking at the total housing needs were looking at the total- land use situation. She, suggested a probably need for determining where future housing should or should not be located, what areas should be saved for housing, single- and multiple-family, and'other types of development. In response to Councilman Hershner, Mr. 'Saul said there were two major parcels of land lying between Delta and the mobile qome park to the east, one under option to Mr. Safley; ~our parcels total, including the subject property and the mobile home site. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to refer the appeal to a joint meeting (1398) of the City Council and Planning Commission. In making the motion Mr. Hershner said he believed from the, testimony pre~ented, at this - " , hearing and in the record that the proposed development would ,serve a public ~eed and that this, property probably was best suited for that particular need.' He expressed concern that _ if the request was denied there seemed to be a feeling that the entire area should,be ~ restudied. And then if commercial and/or industrial uses were extended to the east ,of Delta Highway they would in time extend so as to be adjacent to~,the m9bile home park. He expressed concern too with the seemingly recurrent occasions on which the Council was confronted with requests to make more comprehensive studies of areas, referring to the recent ,ones in the South Hills and Goodpasture Island. He said he didn't want to imply he was opposed to comprehensive planning but he did want the oPP9rtunity to meet with the Commission and pursue designation of this area as it appeared in the General Plan. Councilman McDonald said h~ would vote against the motion,. He said the issue was an appeal (1424) from a Planning Commission denial ofre;wning and if a motion was carried not to uphold, that recommendation then it would automatically go back to a joint Council/Commission meeting. f Councilman Williams saw nothing wrong with a motion calling for a joint meeting when it appeared Council consensus was not in agreement with the Comm~ssion's recommendation. But Mr. McDonald thought the motion should be either to deny or uphold the appeal so that the issue would be either decided or as a matter of course go back to the Planning Commission for joint discussion wi th the Council. Councilman Hershner said his motion was made on the supposition. that it was proper as an alternative to a motion upholding the appeal. Manager thought it, was the Chair's prerogative to rule whether the motion was appropriate. 'He added that in the past it had been understood that Council action adverse to, Planning Commission_ recommendation would automatically refer the question to a joint meeting. He thought this ~ motion appropriate although it did not indicate the attitude of the Council on this parti- cular issue. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, pointed out Code provisions calling for, Council request for further Commission report when there was a.motion contrary to,the Commission's recommendation, so in that sense it would seem the motion was going directly to the ultimate action which would indicate contemplation of some action contrary to the recommendation. 7/22/74 - 4 2.~~ The Chair ruled the motion appropriate, that it constituted tentative indication on not agreeing with the Commission, that discussion with the Commission was recommended prior to final Council decision. In making the ruling, Mr. Williams said he felt it the more appropriate motion, stating the purpose of the action clearly, rather than having a - motion to approve something than having to vote against it with some question with regard to what would happen next. In response to Mr. McDonald, he said that a vote in favor of the motion would indicate a preliminary decision that,enough questions were raised to warrant further discussion with the Commission and that it was not formal final action requiring findings. (1493) Councilman Murray said he would vote against the motion. ~He said he did not challenge the ,sincerity or the intent of the proposal but it seemed to him that to allow this rezoning would encourage, some uses which in the long run would be incompatible and which would be something less than quality living. He thought there was a responsibility to consider it in a broader sense and to rethink the General Plan recommendations with regard to that area. And he sensed, he said, interest and commitment on the part of the Commission and staff to do that. , Councilwoman Campbell said she would also vote against'the motion, and added that she thought it should have stated direct denial or acceptance of the appeal rather than referral. Councilman Williams recognized the dilemma but commented that it was the type of issue which would'continue to be faced by every governmental entity dealing with housing questions in the future. He noted a review of mobile home use recently completed by - the Joint Housing Committee in which it was found that mobile homes would supply a su~stantial portion of housing in the city in the near future. And although it wasn't the best type of housing that could be produced, when Qetter housing was not provided there was little choice but to let other types of housing occur. He thought this proposed development fit that category and that to deny it was not saying there' would be better hous~g but was saying there, would be no housing. Assistant City Attorney Long noted that under the Fasano ruling a, hearing body was entitled to take official notice of all public records and that was the case in noting records of the Joint Housing Committee. Councilman Keller said he would ,vote against the motion on the basis that it would do nothing more than to repeat the same testimony heard already in several hearings. Also, he had a difficult time seeing this as a proper place for 'housing which, if approved, in time would be "raising havoc" with the existing gravel operation. ( 15 36 ) Vote was taken on the motion to refer the appeal to a joint mee.ting of "the-' Council and Planning Commission. Motion defeated, Council members Williams, Hershner, and Beal voting aye; McDonald, Ca~pbell, Keller, and Murray voting no. Mrs . Campbell mov.ed ,s.econded by Mr. McDonald! to uphold the Planning Commission f. and deny the 'appeal and direct the staff to prepare findings for adoption at a later meeting supporting the genial. Motion carri,ed, Council members McDonald, Campbell , Keller, and Murray voting aye; Williams, Hershner, and Beal voting no. Short recess was taken. (1562) B. Nelson Plat ,Assessment (73-30) Council Bill No. 543 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Nelson Plat, and sanitary sewer in area between 450 feet west and 1000 feet west of Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 1000 feet south, was read the first time on May 6, 1974 and referred,to Assessment Panel for hearing on May 13, 1974; brought back on May 20,1974 for consideration of Panel recommen- dation to levy assessments as proposed and held pending reopening of hearing at 'request of property owner; hearing was reopened on July 8, 1974, the bill was read the second time, and held until this meeting - now brought back for consideration. " . Don Allen, Public Works Director, explained that.discussion with Mr. Nelson and his attorney, Herman Hendershott, r~vol ved around the affidavit submitted by the attorney claiming errors in the assessment., Public Works Department maintained the posi~ion that errors were not made and appellant'accepted that position on thre,y of four point's ,contested. With-regard to .' the fourth, he ,said, Mr. Hendershott was to have c~ntacted Public Works by July 19 if he still disagreed. However, there was no contact although he did agree that the item could be entered on the agenda for this meeting. Public Works still recommended approval of the assessment as originally levied: Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that 'the ,q~11>:?!i' apP"ro\ied:a.!ld~ giv~n.fiual passage. 7/22/74 - 5 . 2.~o r _,_ I .. ~ .. . . Councilman Williams asked if there was comment from Mr. Hendershott. There was none. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17144. III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. ~ Previously discussed in committee on July 10, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Williams, Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and on July 17, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson,' Council members Williams Hershner Beal , ,. , Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings are printed D.elow,in italics. . A. . Interim Appoint'ment~- -Library Board ' ',.' --- iMrs. Charles Larson, 182 Sunset Drive, was recommended for appointment as ; an interim member of the Library Board for the next nine to ten months, re-! Corum placing Mrs. Frank Lacy on sabbatical leave. 7/10/74 Approve Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the interim ' appointment. Motion carried unanimously. B. Purchase, Goodpastilre"isi'an'-d FerrySif-e Property" (Parks)''' .' '-..._.. ,~,' "- Authorization was requested to exercise options for purchase of Goodpasture ,Island ferry site property recently toured by Council members: . Louis and Helen Bell, and Kendrick and Jeannine Mercer $ 21,770.00 "" Roy J. and Marion Copping 18,375.00 Corum 4IIt 7/10/74 I Mrs. Be~l moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the purchases. Approve "----Motio~ carried, unanimously. --.-, , C. Sewer Replacemen'i::'-Policy/Tree Removal' ...."" . ' " --- , !Staff felt general discussion of problems caused by the rebuilding of deterior- ated sewer lines between the curb and sidewalk on 16th Avenue between Hilyard and Alder and attendant removal of street trees seemed desirable, with possible referral back to staff for development of alternatives upon which action could Ibe taken a t a later: time. Manaqer explained tha t sewer _t:;I';?,l';?vee, and smoke t~$t .. ' , vrogram indicated many 'sewer lines Tying between -tEen ciirb and sidewalk in older-' \... \ fparts of the city were in need of major repair or replacement. Their original j ;placement between the curb and sidewalk was to make them accessible without I tearing up street paving or the sidewalk itself. Many?f the parking strips ' \now have large, mature trees of value to the community and the neighborhood , land there is possibility of losing them even though there is no history of ' I having lost any in this type of work. This particular project may be typical 'of future sewer replacement where alternate bids may be taken on replacing : the line in place or forcing a "liner" into the old pipe. Either method, which would result in new house connections or freeing hangups in forcing _ ,I a liner, through the pipes, would involve digging around the trees. On the _' ,16th Avenue project the extra cost for saving the trees using liner, would be -' about $4,000; the alternative of going into the street, about $8rOOO. The work has been held up, and the contract has been cancelled, pending a decision. Manager continued that alternatives could be to wait until favorable fall : weather and have park crews trim the trees to make them better able to with- 'stand the risk of replacement of the sewer line in place. Or a requirement could be added that if a tree died as the result of the sewer work it would be replac~d with a similar one. That would be practical in some instances but not in others, depending upon the type of trees involved. Certain types of mature trees could be planted for about $600 each. Cost of replacing exceedingly' large trees would be prohibit~ve. Another choice would be to replace present , trees with more desirable types which in the long run, because of root structure ; and growth form, would make more suitable parking strip plantings. Therewas , also the alternative of moving the sewer into the street, abandoning the exist- , ing line, and making new house connections~ Funding alternatives include the I city's or property owners' paying for replacement trees, or sharing the cost, J or the pqssibility of assessing it as an additional cost for moving the line into the street. Normally, sewer line replacement is ent~,at city expense. If assessed, Manager said, there would be the question of whether there should I be one assessment for sewer service to a property forever; should certain :.- ~~ improvements have lifetime assessment and new assessment made when replaced; - y or reassessment, deducting the amount of the first assessment, and the first and second from the third replacement ad infinitum. 7/22/74 - 6 l L~ I . _ ~....... r .. b;;' . , .. ri.~~.; ....,; . 0- _ ""Publ~c Works Director expJ.ained that, t,he "liner" insertion ;into sewer lines iwas a process used primarily in larger pipes - 18 to 24" - and was recomme~ded \ . :for this project (8" pipe) more or less as an experiment. He said the sewer <TV inspection was an observation program in existence for about eight years to ~ provide information with regard to possible use of the liner. Monitoring and pictures of the 16th Avenue line have occurred on three occasions and revealed ino doubt about its deterioration and need for replacement. Having that infor- i !mation, he said, the city has a legal liability if the line is not replaced. ' 'He expressed concern about the revenues picture; the work was being financed by \ ,the 1962 bond issue which was rapidly being depleted. Public Wbrks was in the ilast ph?se of a program involving millions of dollars on separation of storm 'and sanitary sewers, he said, after which it was understood reconstruction and lrehabilitation of sewer lines would take place. Trees become involved in lreconstruction programs and in some newly annexed areas where sewers are ;installed, but Public Works had a good "batting average" where sewers had been !laid adjacent to trees. He commented on the problem of antagonizing people ' jwhen trees are removed for lines behind the curb, and from others for tearing ~ \ :up the pavement when lines are installed in the street. And on this particular project (16th Avenue), he said, if it is decided to replace the line in tbe street, it would be one of the better concrete" streets in the city to be torn up and impossible to replace in "like new" condition. i Parks Director commented on the general street plan which calls for saving r the trees if possible; if they can't be saved, then the'general rule is to replace with something equal or better. However, because of differing types __ of trees; streets, neighborhoods, etc., it is better to determine the best course of action on an individual basis. In cases of large, mature trees - ' maples, for instance - going into the street with a sew~r line might be , justified because of the cost of replacing the trees. But, he said, in ; making a determination it should be remembered that any tree at some time is igOing to have to be replaced because of age, disease, hazard to general 'public, I etc. If the trees are hawthornes, waiting for fall weather and carefully I , pruning would lessen the risk of loss. However, with the replacement program t ~ of planting something similar that is equal to or better than those taken out, ;'; the same effect would be created within a couple of years. He thougJrt;that if the;' overall situation was considered, problems involved ~th both placement of jsewers ,and trees COU1..d.. b..e .c.orr.e..cted as the. pr..og.ram progressed, recognizing that / some r~sk would ,have to be taken. He added that some of the street trees "..,~.J ihave"been undesirable and""therepJacement policy"woula-in2V 'years or so pr~ imore beneficial to the community. I ' I ~!Councilman Williams asked whether the concrete tile used in recent years would thave the same life span as the clay tile (estimated about 50 years) used in ;older installations, and how many miles 'of clay tile there were to be replaced. , !public Works Director estimated the life span for concrete tile at 50/75 years. I ,He added that the 50-year life span for the clay tile used in Eugene might be i ~ ~an overstatement because a great deal of it was ~eject material and th~ life \ .., ,expectancy would vary in some cases because of d~fferent types of clean~ng \ 'processes used over the years. He had no mileage figures on the amount of clay , :tile sewer installations. The inspection program had done nothing more, he said, \ than to give priority to those lines in advanced stages of deterioration. He \ ,added that the 16th Avenue project was determined the number one priority in 1962 and,because its use was continued with minor adjustments, its condition at \ this time was horrendous. He agreed with Mr. Williams' statement that regardless I of what was done with the clay tile there would probably have.to be eventual i replacement of the concrete tile on a 50 to 75-year cycle. In answer to : 'Councilman Murray, Public Works Director said the city switched to concrete pipe I :installations in the early' 30s. I iIn answer to Councilman Murray's request for clarification of statement with I I regard to lessening the risk of damage to trees if they were pruned in the i :fall, Parks Director said by so doing there would be a 75% chance they would I live through the sewer replacement project. He added, however, that if it was Ii 'decided to replace the sewer in the street there would be the same risk because . ~of new laterals and house connections. Regardless of where lines are located I lin almost every situation in town there would be some disturbance to the street ! trees. That was complicated by the fact that sewer lines must be constructed to / ~ !grade, different from water or gas pressure lines which could be placed wherever. ., IlSo each situation would have to be analyzed, depending upon the type of tree. I !jStill in answer to Mr. Murray, Parks Director said there had been no analysis I i.jof replacement trees on the 16th Avenue project if one were to die - it would , '4epend on what would be desirable for the ~treet when considered with what was i across the street, in the neighborhood, adpining block, etc. However, the ' J;,~pl~celTlent.s within !,~ve y?,a!,f?. "~C?.l.1:J._c1_ be"of t~e same size and ,shape, giving the 7/22/74 - 7 1bL ?iame' efrecf. ..- He"sa.-J,d they' COtild repTace' thepresent~frees' wi th' t:tees'of-Eh-e"" ,same size - about 20" diameter - if it was desired to go to the expense of about [$500 or $600 per tree. He felt it would be more practical to plant smaller !trees that would develop a better root system and better establish itself at ;a cost of about $100 per tree. i _ (Councilman Wood asked the life expectancy of the "liner" and whether replacement ;of the same kind of trees would be made if only one was lost on the 16th Avenue work. Parks Director answered the replacement of only one tree would not be 'with the same kind, but with one equal to or better creating the same effect. ;public Works Director said from what is known of the liner it could be expected i :to last longer than concrete tile. But there still was a gamble too that problems! ;might be encountered in its installation, having to dig near trees to free hangups :or clearing original house connections. i , i 'Councilwoman Beal stated her intent to abstain from the discussion because the I ,trees involved were in front of her home and she felt the value of her property i would be depressed if the trees were lost or removed. ! I Councilman McDonald asked what was considered the older part of town in which r isewer replacement would be taking place. He was thinking of the large trees on . 7th, 8th and other streets west of the downtown area, wondering if the property :oo/ners would be charged any portion of the cost for their replacement. Public ,Works Director answered that development of the city in a sequential plat system iresulted in clay tile installations spreading out from the downtown area to the :east and south plus a section immediately to the west. He thought the reconstruc- _ 'tion work would occur probably between Agate and Washington/Jefferson and in the tit 1st Avenue old industrial section, 24th Avenue probably being the southern! ,- boundary. Director said the city assumes the entire cost of reconstruction work ; ,under present policy. However, if costs become excessive, funding will become : more of a problem. Present financing is through a bond issue. A portion of water user charges is used, he said, but they are extremely low and may have to be increased. He said that whether the city assesses a portion of reconstruction;! directly to the property owner or whether the cost is paid from general tax monies was a policy decision that would have to be made. Councilman Williams ask(;w whether a Charter amenaineii't would be required or if the Council had the prerogative to assess all or part of the cost to property owners. Manager replied that, without legal research, he thougI the Council could assess :;the cost by ordinance. Mr. Williams asked the cost of replacement trees under the 'parks present program of planting equal to or better to give the same effect in ,about five years. Parks Director answered that it would depend upon the size of the replacement tree, but estimated about $100. Mr. Williams then asked if there would be an increase in the sewer reconstruction contract cost if the Council decided to have the trees trimmed in the fall in an attempt to save them with work to continue then on the sewe~'reconstruction. Public Works Director answered that the contract w~uld'probably have to be renegotiated.. He thought.t~e contractor .. could be held ~f.that was the route taken for the cost of the or~g~nal contract ~ plus about $800 for the present interruption. He added that construction in the fall would greatly affect the cost of the project. I ,Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the cost of moving the line into the street iand whether decision at this time would focus on the 16th Avenue project only or :on overall policy. Public Works Director answered that the project involved about eight trees and that replacing the line in the street would add about $8.000 to the cost. Manager felt any decision now would be on the one-block under discussion with the idea that after an understanding of the problems involved staff could develop a set of alternative criteria or guidelines on which to base decisions on :future projects. In answer to Councilman Hershner, Manager said staff also could i 'bring back recommendation with regard to assessment versus use of tax monies if !that was desired. : I I Councilmen Keller and McDonald thought a basic decision would have to be made since .future projects would doubtless involve property values because of the trees and iother factors. They favored having something on which to base decisions. iIn answer to Mayor Anderson's question with regard to time element, Manager said :there was none at this time so far as the contract was concerned - there were no ~.- 'complaints, since the current contract was cancelled. So it would be a matter of " , jhow long the sewer line would last. It could be postponed indefinitely, he sai.d, !recognizing that the sewer was going to break down at some time. He called attention to the nEQ requirement for separation of storm water from the sanitary Isewers which was one of the reasons prompting the reconstruction of deteriorating lines. . i 7/22/74 - 8 '1.~:\ . . -........... ,-. Mayor Anderson suggested creation of a Council subcommittee to work with the staff to develop alternatives and bring recommendations back to the Council. He hesitated, ~ to proceed with the 16th Avenue project without some assurance that what was done ~wou1d conform to any policy eventually developed. l'n answer to Council woman Beal' s comment that a number of people were present who might want to be heard, the Mayor said if it was decided to develop a policy before moving ahead on this project there would be a public hearing at which time there would be opportunity for comment from interested citizens. Councilman williams moved that the 16th Avenue sewer reconstruction project be delayed until the fall with the idea that at that time the sewer line would be replaced with concrete pipe, assuming 75% tree survival and acknowledging responsi- bility for replacing any that do not s~rvive with trees that would give the same effect in about five years. There was no second. j :Councilman Wood said he would favor the subcommittee approach which could bring more information on the economics of use of the "liner" over a period of time. j Furthermore, he thought some of those people present' at this meeting might be i involved in determining the direction taken. I o Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Hershner for the Mayor to I appoint a Council subcommittee to develop alternatives and bring recommendations to the Council as suggested. ~ Councilman Murray favored that approach, feeling it would be better to handle the 16th Avenue projec.t issue on the basis of a policy with broader application. He hoped any policy developed would be flexible because of different situations C! , omm in different parts of the city. 7/l0V74 'I ' , .' d 11 '1 b Apprpve' vote was taken on the mot~on as stated. Mot~on carr~e , a Counc~ mem elS 'i pr~!3ent voting, aye, except Councilwoman B~al abstail}ing. " ' .. " . . . . - D. ! Room Tax Allocation Committee Recommendations - Ju,ly 1, 1974 ! ,Copies of transmittal from Room Tax Allocation Committee Chairman and o~ July.1 ~ ;Commi ttee minutes were previous1 y distributed to Council members recommending \i ia11ocations to: , 1 ,:1: Chamber Music Concert Series $ 2,000 \ Conun I . ,~ I , ;2. Eugene Junior Symphony Association 3,500 (requested $5,000) 7,/10/74 :,$,,;; CORBAN 1,575 Approve > 4. Eugene G1eemen 1,000 (requested $1,340) ! !In addition, wil1amette Design Center request for $3,000 was held in' Committee _ jpending receipt of additional information. (Committee report also noted agre~- ~ l~ent with the Council's $1,000 addition on June 24 to the Eugene ,Symphony's : allocation.) , I I ) Mr. wood moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the al1ocatjon 1 as recommended. I !Councilman Keller requested more information with regard tp CORBAN. He wondered t 'if the proposed publication would be of benefit to the entire community. Mrs. t Lauris, chairman of the Allocation Committee, said the publication, a literary ! journal, would offer the opportuni ty for creative wri ters to publish their J wor.ks. This allocation was requested to start the publication with anticipation: I that sales keep the project going. John Thomas, production manager of CORBAN, ; !said the publication would provide a literary outlet for the entire community, , that it was in no way connected with the University, and that it would provide I a central forum for the public at large. " Vote was, t..,aken on th,~ ~o~i~n as stated. Motion ~ar:ried unanimously. E. ; Livingston & Blayney Report, Eugene Commercial'Study - 'Copies of 'the full rePort : were previously furnished to Council members. Manager noted that because the ....' lrecommendation~ woul~ a~fect areas ,outside Eugene, representatives from Springfield ~ land the County were ~nv~ted to attend this meeting. I ' , ; J6hn Blayney reviewed the summary of the rePort presentea~'t~~, wee~s previ@uslyj:'j,'n- . i cluding recommendations (see committee minutes of July 3, 1974). iI'e called a,tt~ntion to listed contents of the report and explained the coverage of individual seotions. ' , "',,.. ,-' " "'- ,,," ,,," .. ,'" ........, '- " ..~___..-.-J 7/22/74 - 9 2..b+ '...... Lloyd LeBlanc of LeBlanc and Company, economists working on the study with Livings.ton & : Blayney, was introduced, and he explained commercial development projections covered ; in;t.he third section of the report. He pointed out the difficulty, of discerni'ng i clearly a pattern of commercial development because of rise in incomes, entry of ~ : more people into the labor force, increased household earning power, gain in living, ~ standard. The commercial investment sector, he said, reacted to a series of ' interrelated factors with an eye to profit and ways to make money and in anticipa- tion of future possibilities, so that any attempt to pin down commercial potential was more often than notvieWsd'from the investors' standpoint rather than from that of the planners and_persons outside retailing activities. He said that ,the economic decisions in this report were made - rather quickly because of the time factor - on the basis o,f figures available. Mr. LeBlanc-'-went"on to explain_the-reason~~f.or using the figures they did in making their calculations of retail development potential, starting with'LCOG population growth projections and estimating average household generated income to 1990 based on estimated 1972 income levels. Two calculations were made using the five-count~market area and reasonable expectations in view of the inflationary trend to give high and low points on which to base translation from gross wages to retail purchasing, and they were.done_in a manner which would allow new projections over a period of time. Assigning a 55/60% portion of the five-county market area to the Eugene/Springfield area and defining clearcut cate- gories of retail trade -takinginto account variable conversion factors -~resulted in a sales volume figure of $70 per square foot of floor space to determine the commercial potential to 1990. That potential, he said, would .in.J3ffect amount to doubling the amount of present retail space, if projections used hold true and the inflationary trend moderated slightly, which in turn would anticipate a third shop- ~ ping center in a l5-year period. He noted the possible anticipation that this ~ :market area could support two additional centers, but he felt investors would not ~ be inclined to~_specul-ate to that extent, looking instead to about half the potential. So hetelt/it reasonable that the community consider that there would be a period of""Bme when pressure was exerted for one additional outlying shopping center plus possibility of additional space to induce location of other commercial interests to the area. with regard to the "scenarios" (maximum development downtown, maximum development on Goodpasture Island, or assuming development of a third regional shop- ping center at some other location), Mr. LeBlanc sa~d the existing full-fledged shopping center and its remaining residential, department store, and support services potential really posed a question with regard to the downtown area. However, they ,- felt that even if another regional center was proposed there was potential commercial use for up to an additional 500,000 square feet of retail space. That space could be provided, he said, by either rebuilding existing stores or adding at least one or two major stores to attract investors to the downtown area. All in all, he felt, the report pointed out the=possible commercial pressures-and gave enough informat!on to gd ahead on the./xeeommenaations "presen.ted. ~- ~~ ~,~. In response to Mr. Blayney's request to comment on the 'feasibility of c;:mcentrating commercial activity in the downtown and Valley River where it was already committed if a third center was not wanted, Mr. LeBlanc stated that one way of looking at it, was simply not to accept a third center which immediately raised the question of ~~ whether existing retail capacity would absorb the anticipated extra dollars; he thought it would be difficult for the investment community to resist creation of new retail opportunities. Also, it was not just a matter of land use changes, it r altj!o, involved emplol.lment changes L.--J::E:?vem1.~ cl1ang~!?.l...J.Q9_a).g8Yf;!1;nr.nent.' s ou'!=lqok be.__ I cause of added money on the tax roles (through new developll!e!1tL. He sa~d there was no easy answer because it wasn't simply a matter of committing cpmmercial potential, ,other factors had to be considered such as spendable income and needs of the people to be satisfied without upsetting the economy. It would not be realistic; he said to locate all commercial activities at one site; pressures from the crunmunity, local government, and investors would be severe should develop~ ment of commercial activities at other sites not be permitted. Alan Maxwell, Planning Commission member, noted that projections were.,made=on_ the ~. bases of 101" inflation and moderate inflation. He wondered about the effect of a high inflation rate. Mr. LeBlanc answered that a high inflationary trend was in existence at this time, and that he thought that another year or 18 months would " / ' 'see a wage demand cycle resul ting in a good percentage of real dollars consumed ;by inflation. But it must be remembered, he said, that even with zero income :growth there would still be additional households coming into the market area ;which added at present dollar volume would still mean growth of purchasing power. Councilman Murray referred to tables in the study reflecting projected increases of .~ 73.5% in educational employment and 34.4% in manufacturing employment and questioned ,i the validity of those figures in view of the University of Oregon's being the ,largest educational institution in the area'and having student enrollment ceiling; and the general decline in school-age population. Mr. LeBlanc answered that they asked the same questions. They used available LCOG figures and were not sure that 7/22/74 - 10 2.~~ . .' recent fluctuations in employment were reflected, but there was no time to modify or manipulate the projections in trying to complete the study by the designated time. Councilman Murray referred to the $70 figure for retail sales per square foot of i I space and asked if that was in line with present sales volumes in this area. I - Mr. LeBlanc answered that retail sales ratio to retail space in Eugene led to an $80 figure, but ,:they fel t in preparing the report that that was close enough to the $70 ,average used for the market area. Because of the dffficulty in getting actual figures with regard tO,sales and ~nventories it was impossible to arrive at an accura te figure. I !Mr. Murray then asked whether the study made any attempt to analyze how efficiently :existing retail space was used. And he said he was bothered to some degree that ,the report underscored the inevitability of a third shopping center not so much that 'it might or might not be true but because on the one hand it was recommending re- !vitalization of the downtown area and on the other side saying to the investor who might be considering a downtown location that there would sooner or later be.:an,: lopportunity for a third location. Mr. LeBlanc answered that there was no way of ;pinning down the efficiency of operations because the only way would be to review Itax reports and necause of usual uncooperative attitude of businessmen in that respect exact figures could not be obtained. with regard to the downtown area versus another outlying center, he said it should be recognized that suitable com- merqial space in the downtown was running out, but the space that was there could be accommodated even with the addition of another center. There was also the problem of dealing with large department stores or commercial investors - there , I was always a financial problem involved. So the report was not saying to let the ! .- downtown slide, but to recognize the pressures that would build up for an outlying I ,site. It was not inevitable, a third center; another outlying shopping center could I I ,be stopped, but that did not necessarily mean the focus would then be downtown. I Mr. Bl~!Jn{~y pointed out that the report indicated it would be six years or more be- I , ~fore the third center arrived. The report was quite supportive of giving downtown I , :every opportunity, he said, but that wquld only serve if the community realized ! I that everything could not be contained in downtown and Valley River. There was , that grace period to further develop the downtown but the community could not close I I its eyes to other possibilities. f Councilman Murray still thought the ,report was encouraging development downtown while "ho1ding out a plum" by saying a third center would develop. , Mr. LeBlanc answered that there was an excellent basis in Eugene for further developing the I : down town area and through land use policies not permit a third center. However, I I 'he said he knew of only about half a dozen companies nationwide capable of executing i la project of that size in the downtown area. 1 , I I , :Councilman Williams asked for a broader explanation of the recommended all-day parking~ 'tax, whether it was to include placing a tax on outlying industrial parking within ;1 the urban area as well as around the downtown area. Mr. Blayney replied that they I thought it should be considered for any area served by good transit facilities if e there was to be serious consideration of determining the auto',s role in this metro- politan area. He recognized the necessity for a public relations campaign if it was to be successful and suggested ways the general public could be convinced that use of transit facilities was for the public benefit. If a parking tax was instituted just in the downtown area, he said, it would be inviting investments in outlying : ,areas. In anl.l case, it would be i:!mi!t.ter,of det~rmining whether tha t,kindgf, po.1iq:yi ',was wanted to get 'people out or the~r cars. He confirmed Mr. Williams' assumpt~on ' ' ,that if such a parking tax was to be successful it would haye to involve all three 'governmental agencies - Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. with regard to inquiry :regarding con~titutionality of the tax, Mr. Blayney said he could foresee no problems !but it had not been tested in the courts. Recent Supreme Court decision upheld a I 'parking tax in the East but it was not precisely the same as the one proposed here. I :In answer to Mr. Hansen, manager of Valley River Center, Mr. Blayney said'the tax jwould be considered as applying to use of parking stalls. He added that regulations proposing hourly parking were unpopular and resulted in considerable expense to the 'store owners. He said the critical transportation probl~s were caused by the store :employes, not the shoppers. Councilwoman Campbell wondered who would pay for the recommended widening of Belt ;Line Bridge or construction of a new one if and when anew shopping center did materialize. Mr. Blayney suggested exploration of creation of an assessment dis- e trict that would pass some of the costs of additional traffic capacities to Good- :pasture Island property owners. He said those property owners had been f6rtunate ;in receiving a generous share of windfalls - regional h:fghway, flood control - making 'a substantial inc[ease in property values so it seemed only fair they should pay a ,port;ion of cost; for access to it. ..- --.-.-.,. .... - u ~ ,.. ''''', -....- ~ ..' ~_ ,......-..'h _.___ 7/22/74 - 11 ,~~ - .--- -".- --..- ~ -.. -," -" Councilwoman Beal wondered if there had been consideration of the possibility of a recession or depression which might limit severely or stop growth in this area. Mr. LeBlanc said his personal opinion was that the present economic situation was more serious than most thought; he thought there was danger soon of a drastic slow- down if there were no changes. However, if such was the case, other questions would ! ,arise which would test the validity of projections in the study. If they were not l e : valid, he said, the study could easily be modified perhaps resulting in no potential i for a new center. If jobs disappeared, population growth would cease, and in that \sj~~a~~~;Q discussion of whether commercial development would come in a third center or downtown would be academic. Mrs. Beal k~ndered what kind of planning could occur when there was no alternative 'in the report to the projections for increases. Mr. LeBlanc explained that because alternatives were difficult to assess it would be better to deal with expectations. If they didn'~ take place, there would be no decisions necessary. Discussion continued between Councilman Murray, Mr. Blayney, ,and Mr. LeBlanc with Mr. Murray questioning the validity of employment projections in educational and ,manufacturing sectors. Mr. LeBlanc agreed the projections could be modified but :said that the figures available from LCOG on which the projections were based were ; difficul t to challenge given-:.'the;.time frame they had to complete the study.. Dave Hunt, ,ERA director, pointed out that recent ERA calculations tended to bear out projections on the high side made about eight years ago. Manager added that all of LCQG's cal- !culations in other areas of study were based on their population projections, some !even from the,early '60s, and they seemed to hold up. Mayor Anderson called the discussion to a conclusion, saying the consultants would , e ;be available after the meeting for additional questions. ,Councilman Murray commented on the importance of the material presented and wondered ,if there would be opportunity for further discussion. Manager called attention to 'copies of staff suggestions distributed to Council members which called for referral ,to the Plarming Commission where there would be opportunity for public meetings be- , ; ,fore coming to the Council for any action. ,Mayor Anderson concurred in that procedure. :However, Mr. Murray felt the recommendations would lead to the most:important deci- sions since adoption of the 1990 Plan and wondered whether there were other.Council , members preferring further discussion before referral to the Commission. Councilman Wood questioned whether the Council should be doing anything other than trying to understand the study at this time, deciding later whether to accept the validity of "-'-.1 the report and follow its recommendations. ,Consensus was that referral to the Commission was appropriate. Dave Hoffman, Plan- 'ning Commission chairman, suggested evening meetings for discussion of the report , to give the opportunity for attendance of those people unable to attend daytime i sessions. He said if it was referred the Commission would accept the responsibility : of notifying Council members when those meetings would occur. . Councilman Williams / ;noted the importance of input from Springfield and Lane County since many of the recom-; -' mendations, if accepted and if they were to function, could occur only through total / : governmental commi tment across the urban area. / Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the Eugene Commercial ~ Study to the Planning Commission and ask the Commission to invite Council Comm members and other governmental jurisdictions in this area to the meetings, /17/74 specifically requesting that Lane County, Springfield, and the Eugene Re- Approve newal Agency express their opinions at every step of the way. Motion carried unanimously. F. EWEB Transactions l. Vacation of easement at Coburg and Ca1 Young in exchange for another more appropriate - Northland Properties 2. Grantirtg easement to city of Eugene for sewer constructi~n on southerly extension of Buck Street between 20th and 25th Approve ." ',. -,- ; G. Appointment, Social Services Advisory Committee ~ ; .:r. Mayor Anderson announced the appointment of Councilman McDonald to serve Comm as Eugene's representative on Lane County's Social Services Advisory 7/10/74 Committee. -~ ,'Af~i~rin, _~ ~ ___ " ...........__ '.'~"____ .,n. '__"" , _ _ _ _." . - .-_.. -' ... ...... . H. :HumaIi'}hght"s"Ci::iinmissionvacaiiCies " 'HH'"_,,~,,_..__.._ . , ; Mayor 'Anderson asked for suggestions for appointments to the Human Rights! Comm I Commission to fill vacancies created by the resignation of Pat Johnstone i 7/10/74 , I " ,Pile and William Wolfe. .-1.___ 7/22/74 - 12 7..bi I. 'Logging Trucks on Jefferson Street- ~ouncilman Murray called 'attention to continued use of Jefferson Street by logging trucks delivering to mills to the west and asked that something Connn be done to encourage use ,of the designated truck route. 7/10/74 - File J. Breakfast Invitation, Emerald' Empire Roundup 1 . Council and Mayor were invited to Buckaroo Breakfast by Emerald Empire Gornm Roundup Association, July 13 or 14, 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. 7/10/74 Ifile K. Budget I Manager reviewed outcome of July 9 election in which levy:,outside the 6% limitation was defeated by about 500 votes in a 25% voter turnout. He noted two choices for future voter consideration assuming presentation , of another levy outside the 6% was desired - August 6, the next scheduled County operated election date, or September 17, when School District 4J , , . would reschedule their election. He suggested calling the B~dget :Committee together immediately fOllowing the already scheduled special ,Council meeting on Monday, July 15, to decide what should be submitted and when, giving an opportupity for the Council at that time to call an election on August 6 if that is the decision. Comm 7/10/74 Councilman Williams noted uncertainty of length of hearing (Covenant Park File ~PUD preliminary approval) at the Monday meeting and wondered if the Council I , :could set the election date tha~ night, holding amounts open until deliber- ations of the Budget Committee were completed at a 'l'uesday evening meeting.. - ,Manager said that in conversation with the Budget Committee chairman she 'indicated Budget Committee members would be willing to arrive about 8:30 p.m. I 'on Monday eveUng thereby avoiding having to call Council members to another meeting on Tuesday. A,show of hands indicated six Council members would be present at the special Monday evening meeting giving the needed quorum for emergency action necessary to call an August 6 election. It was agreed the Budget Committee meeting would be scheduled at 8:30 p.m. on that \evening or immediately following the scheduled Covenant Park hearing. <-_.,-_.-~--_.-.~...~ .---....--.. - - "_.'- -..- - -. - - ----__.~ n._ ~ /' L. iSign Code Amendments, ObieOutdoor Advertising I Copies of letter from York Haines, representing Obie, together with suggested ;amendments to the Sign Code, were previously furnished to Council members with ,the explanation that the request was substantially less than amendments presented before. Recognizing a good number of Obie's structures were noncon- forming under regulations of the Sign Code as it now exists in relation to ;billboards and because of temporary suspe~sion of enforcement because of I legal action, staff decided it would be worthwhile to determine whether I ,amendments could be made which would not circumvent the purpose of the Code that would'be acceptable to the general public as represented by the Council ;and Planning Commission, and still remove some of the hardship Obie felt they e :would be subjected to. After discussion~. of effect of amendments on billboards overall in the community and enforcement policies, staff and Obie people disagreed on what ! ,would be acceptable. Obie was requested to bring to the Council what they i :felt would be the minimum acceptable proposal to solve some of their prOblems 1 ,for determination whether the Sign Code should be amended. . Staff thinking :was that if the Council felt change to the Code should be considered it would , . 'be appropriate to request recommendations from the Planning Commission, ! placing some limitations on what kinds of amendments should be considered in referring the matter to them to avoid opening the entire billboard section I , of the Sign Code to lengthy and difficult study. I York Haines, representing Obie Outdoor Advertising, agreed there had been little agreement with regard to their suggested amendments. He felt they i iwere the minimum considerations which would allow them to operate in the ! 'city efficiently. One major amendment if not made, he said, could con- I I ceivably take them out of business in city locations and possible future sites. He reviewed the number of their signs before and after adoption of ;the Sign Code and said full compliance without the amendments would reduce ~the number to 49 (97 now). He added that they did not want to open the entire e billboard section for review, only for consideration of the requested , amendments through referral to the Planning Commission to give the opportunity ,for explanation in workshop sessions. Manager asked whether Obie would have 49 structures or 49 signs if there was full compliance with the Code. Also with regard to existing billboards which were nonconforming by virtue of minor variations from the Code so far as height and ,setback were concerned and considered for possible referral to 'the Board of Appeals for relaxation of those minor variations to sa ve the expense of relocation - whether they would be in addition to the 49. Mr. Haines repliea tha t all 49 left were nonconforming and no more than 15 could go to the ~E.QCJr9_pf AP~~!:..~.2.-.!.9tal ~Q.t.~ 61. now standing. _Z/22/74 =-13_______ 2b& , In-resPonse to repeated questioning by Mayor Anderson, ,Mr. Haines saidtheie would be 97 signs left if the amendments were accepted; that Obie under company policy had removed none of the nonconforming signs since adoption of the Sign i ,Code. Instead they had brought a formal proposal for am~ndment to be heard , , ,by the Council. Councilman Wood said he would nOt favor any action which would circumvent ! e intent of the Code or extend the compliance deadline. He wondered whether i i ,referral to the planning commlss~on for consideration of any type of change would jeopardize legality of the sign ordinance. Manager answered that referral, 'for a reasonable length of time for Commi-ssion consideration limi ted to specificr portions would 1cDld cff compliance since it would seem unfai! to remove signs during the process of cons iiierj, ng--compa tibili ty wi th the ordinance. Whet:her legal problems would'farise because of that referral _would seem no more probable .~ha~_at the present time, but he said it could be checked. - Councilman McDonald expressed surprise that Obie had taken down none of the nonconforming signs. Manager said th~ t_ Mr. Haines' statement was that none ,were removed as the result of ~o~pany polipy.~_He explained that the sign ordinance_created-some nonconforming signs where there was,conflict between : existing billboards and identity signs for businesses on newly developed I property. That was the major reason for removal of Obie signs since adoption ; :of the 'Sign Code. Councilman McDonald commented that referral to the --j 'Planning Commission might open the entire billboard section to lengthy 'debate and he didn't care to go through th<!t c:ga~_,But on the other hand, he wasn't in favor of regulations that would force a business out of the city. Be fel t if the referral was limi ted to specific portions of/the Code it i - :probably should go back to the Commission. :Councilman Keller saw no harm in referring it to the Comm~ssion. , He thought :perhaps it should be looked at as an updating program. ! Councilman Hershner wondered whether in limiting consideration to certain items it was suggested that the amendments be considered item by item. Manager: said he assumed there would be opportunity on each item for Mr. Haines to :present information. Staff would not find any fault with requesting consider- ation of a change in billboard size from 650 square feet to 672 square feet, al though this was discussed previously and rejected. There was staff concern 'about request for variations from that for cutouts. Neither did staff have any quarrel with possible improvement of the ordinance in the area of allowing identity signs and billboards on the same property-whergl1ew development ~_. -_.- -~. --- "" "--- :was ocCZ!:!-rrin[, recogni~zi!lg~pa6ing requirements might be restdcted, and havipg no' information with regard to potential of new locations which might be created. Staff ~~uld strongly resist writing into the ordinance a grandfather clause (permitting present nonconforming signs constructed prior to adoption ,of the Code so long as they were not altered, relocated or replaced) because it would be unfair to the many owners of signs who had complied with the Code. ,TO make an exception for billboards, he said, would be very inappropriate. e ,The question of cutouts, Manager continued, would be one the Council could ;decide whether to refer. Staff would prefer to refer those issues which : would be covere(J"by-the grandfather clause to, the Sign Code Board of Appeals 'for consideration of each individualsitlIation. Staff saw no problem with - ,relaxation of the Code for insignificant variations so long as the~ structures were maintained in good condition. Mayor Anderson was opposed to Planning Commission referral. He felt it would be unfair to those businesses which had complied with the Code, many with some 'hardship'. Also, t!1atthe billboard industry had the opportunity to comply during tha~-same-time, yet nothing had been done. These amendments, he said, :could have been considered during that time. Besides, the city was threatened ,with court action. He thought a good code haQJbeen developed, one of benefit i to the community, and the industry should live by it. ! Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr..Keller to refer the suggested am,endments, limited. to those specific items re- ferred to by Manager/ to the Planning Commission for : recommendation. Councilman Keller asked' for clarification - whether the motion would re'fer the '. matter to staff or to the commission. Mayor Anderson said he thought it would be referred to the Commission with limitations on the scope of review to those . items mentioned by Manager - size, conflict between identity signs and bill- ,boards, and cutouts. Manager explained, that staff felt the amendment with regard to cutouts was not acceptable so it seemed useless to refer that item since it had been discussed at length without agreement. , 7/22/74 - 14 Lb~ - . , Councilman Hershner said he would oppose referral not especially because he thought there had been ample time to comply, but he thought the size issue, for i 'instance, had been before the Commission already and they had rejected any :amendment. Manager said that to be completely fair it should be pointed out . 'that the many times suggested amendments had been before the Planning Commiss~on during the five-year compliance period the Commission judgment was based to some extent on the feeling that nothing should be done to alter the Code during that period. Onff'of the factors in referring to the Commission would be their consideration of whether to open the question of amendment. Councilman Wood, although he agreed with staff's position with regard to limitations of what should be considered by the Commission, was undecided about a general referral of the issue. He thought he could be more sure of his position by the time of consideration at formal Counc,i1 meeting with more I specific information. II ( I Councilwoman Beal asked if her understanding was correct that there had been no :review of the Sign Code since its adoption. Manager replied there had been no :organized total review. However, the Sign Code Board of Appeals had worked 'with it many times when applying specific requests for variances of relief. Mick Nolte, superintendnet of building inspection, said his impression from Board action was that they supported the Code and felt it had no major flaws. :There had been referrals to the Planning Commissi'on relative to minor clarifi- cation but no push for change of overall effect of the Code. e Councilwoman Beal remarked about the length of time spent in developing the Sign Code, the numbers of public hearings, the amount of thought and analysis, and said since it sxmed to be working there would be no justification for opening it unless there was some indication that the entire Code needed review. She felt it would be unfair to amend the Code for a specific industry, tha tit might create hardship for those who did comply. ;Councilwoman Campbell agreed, saying she would oppose the motion to refer. She 'said that al though Mr. Haines had explained the suggested amendments in detail ,to her, she felt he should realize the history of the S~gn Code indicating_it :was the one thing the Council had held firm on. Councilman Keller agreed that'the community was better for having the Code. :However, he felt that just because other businesses complied didn't necessarily indicate the regulations were entirely right. He felt discussion of referral ,to the Board of Appeals was invalid because they were charged with enforcing the Code as written, not in making any changes. And he felt the addition of a " grandfather clause should not be discussed. He didn't see any harm in opening I the matter of billboard size, especially since it was understood that by re- ferring the item to the Commission, the Council was not saying anything was going to be changed. . Councilman Williams stated his intent to abstain from any discussion or votes on the issue. " Councilman Wood thought he would oppose referral, saying he might have a more specific motion to present at the formal Council meeting when the item t-/as considered. He said he would not be opposed to minor adjustments in specific ,areas. He asked for staff comment on its reasons for not opposing a change in !billboard size. Manager replied that it was his understanding there had been i ,a change in the standard billboard size, industry-wide. Panels formerly prepared: t 650-foot limit were changed to 672 feet and would not fit existing bill- ,on a :boards. He felt the difference in size would not make a significant change in appea::a.nce. .. ..,,-,., '-_.'--",-- ........-,. -,--_._--_..-~-- -,-~' --.---..... ."-- The motion was further clarified by Councilman McDonald and Mayor Anderson ~ to refer to the Commission, but that the scope of review and possible re- ~ ,'commendation concern only size of billboards and their conflict with : :identity signs. \ , Comm , I Vote was taken. , Motion defeated, Councilmen McDonald, Keller, and Wood' 7/17/74 Itl voting aye; Councilmen Hershner, Beal, Campbell, and Murray voting no; I Councilman williams abstaining. - ' - See Action . ..-. " Below '>- ':'/0 . 7/22/74 - 15 2..70 I_I York Haines, Obie Outdoor Advertising, asked consideration of two amendments to the Sign (1610) Code - increase in billboard size from 650 to 672 square feet, and provision for billboard and identity signs without conflict. He said those two amendments would not circumvent the int~mt of the Code and staff had agreed to those two items. He described efforts of . Obie "to' adJust to terms of the Code and said that they were not asking to reopen any portion other than the two items which they hoped would be referred to the Planning Commission for discussion. He said the increase in billboard size would allow conformance with billboards throughout the Nation, and removal of conflict between identity signs and billboards would substantially reduce the number of billboards which would have to be removed only because of that conflict and which affected the billboard industry more than any other segment of the industry. Mr. :fershner moved seconded by Mr. Keller to refer to the Planning Commission for recommendation request for Sign Code amendment to allow billboards 672 square feet in size and the question of coexistence of identity signs with billboards. In making the motion, Councilman Hershner said that since the informal action taken in committee it had occurred to him that the request to increase' billboard size involved only 22 square feet and that standard size of billboards - 672 s'quare feet-' was Nationwide and not something promulgated by Obie. He said he was not too familiar with ramifications of separation of billboard and identity signs, but gathered from staff comments that the request might merit additional exploration. Councilman Murray stated his intent to vote in favor of the motion because it seemed on (1687) the basis of staff comments that the two amendments might not be objectionable concerns, e 'and if that was the case then they warranted Planning Commission consideration. He said he hoped the motion would in no way obligate the Commission to make those changes, only that they were reasonable enough to be discussed. Manager requested clarification of the motion with regard to billboard size, and Mr. Hershner said that his motion spoke only to the increase from 650 to 672 square feet and did not indicate that the Commission should reconsider the additional allowance for cutouts that was in Obie's original request. Manager said then that he thought the two amendments were reasonable, and he commented on the operation of the Sign Code and staff's work with Obie trying to analyze the, impact of their request for various amendments. Staff position, he said, was that,Obie should have the opportunity to present to the Commission an analysis of their problem to see whether there was some way of curing it that would be acceptable to the public as well as to the applicant. Councilman McDonald said he would support the staff position. Councilwoman Campbell said (1712) she could not support it because she felt there had been ample time for Obie to comply. She noted the number of signs that had been removed at some hardship to the owners and she thought the city would be "getting into a bind" by considering these amendments. Councilman Williams said he would abstain from the vote but that he would continue in the chair, if there was no objection from other"Council members, since he felt he could without e involving himself in the issue. There was no objection. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present,voting aye, except Mrs. Campbell, voting no. ~ ...... . M. J r YiiviEaE1.'on ~ 'Thii'fEij"tJrug 'open-ing' a t(:6burg~ iincrC;UYoiinc;r1?oads, '[3':45 ':ei. m ~,; .' l Comm'-, I I Thursday, July 18. 7/117/74 \1' I File, N.f Weyerhaeuser Tree Farm Tour tentatively sch~duled~or Augus~ 2. . ~ouncil members i ~were requested to notify Manager's office w~th regard to su~tab~l~ty of that date'i Comm 7/17/74 File I Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that Items A through K, M and N be approved, affirmed, and filed as noted, noting separat~ action on Item L. P,ollcall vote. Motion tarried, all Council members present vot1ng aye. IV - Items Not Previously Discussed A. Package Store Liquor Liicense - Tom's Market, 1490 East 19th Avenue Change to corporation - Carl and Ethel Williams B. Bids, Public Works Department . ~aving and Sewer, Central Eugene,Project /.. 7/22/74 - 16 2.1' . ~'f B' ld d P , , ' .. , Cos to to Amolln t ,.:c. 0 H er an rOJect Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budgetcd , Paving, Sanitary Se~er & Storm Sewer , within boundaries of the Centrp1 Eugene Project No, 83-5 - ERA ' .. \ ~ r 1, Devereaux & Pratt, Inc.".,..., .,......, .....$352.503,20......'... ....'. '. ...... ..... ..0......., ..... ... ..... ... ,. .$73,930,00,.,."", .$47,30C,OO ~ 2, Wildish Construction Company, ,'............ ,.$412.563.95 ' 3, Eugene Sand S Gravel. Inc......,......,......$445,082,75 COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1974 ........ -... - -- - -. .... -- -.. - _.- --.-----------.-------... _._._-_...._----_._---....-....------_.__......~ "'. .... .... --- - -- -- -- -- ---.-_.. ---.-.... -....- -- ---- -............ ---.. --..-.. --........ -........ ~'":'.............- ~.-.. -,- (1720) Staff recommended award of contracts by Eugene Renewal Agency. Manager explained that the city was under contract with ERA to participate. A list of the projects was read. In response to questions from Councilman McDonald with regard to source of funds for the projects, it was explained they would not come from property tax revenues. In the event a reduction in the budget was necessary'because of voter r~ection, funds could be trans- ferred, but that was not anticipated. J 2. Paving and sewers within "Somerset Hills II wi th waiver ~. r. Cost to Amount j iNam~ oc Bidder and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budgeted I Ii Paving) sanitary sewers & storm sewers (- within Somerset Hills 11 subdivision (west half) I I '. I J ' 1. Kllnneth R. Bostick Construction Co.......... ..$148,267.75...............;... ..$4040.00 per lot....................... .0.................0 J _ ,,-," -~ - - - - --,- -,'.- - - - ',' ~~-,-.-- -. - -,- - u,n,.,n_ ___,un____.-.,___" '.'0____.'___ _.__... __ ________ _ .._.- __,_ _"..--,-,- __,- ____ __.----.u _ .__ _,_._ __ _ __,.-,- _,_ _ _ _ _ __"_~ · Staff recommended award of contract to Bostick Construction on bid waiver procedure under ..' which ci,'ty~~ould perform the work with entire cost of assessment charged to the property owner. ,,' ,;, ., Mr. Hershner moved seconded by ~~rs. Campbell to recommend approval of PS application of Tom's Market, authorize ERA award of contract to low bidder on Central Eugene Project paving and sewers, and award contract to Bostick Construction on Somerset (1815) Hills II paving and sewers under bid waiver procedure. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried. V - Ordinances Council Bill No. 617 -,Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area from projected 38th A Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue and from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive to the east 2800 feet (73-01), read the first time by council bill,number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by ~. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on August 5, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of recommendations on August 12, 1974. Motion carried, all Council membe~s present voting aye. ~. Council Bill No. 618 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Bailey Hill Road from 18th Avenue to 700 feet south of Warren Avenue; and Warren Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to 1600 feet south of Baily Hill Road (73-17), read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hershner moved seconded.'6y Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on August 5, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of recommendations on August 12, 1974. Motion carried, all Council members present voting .aye. Council Bill No. 619 - Levying assessments for paving West Amazon Drive from Snell Street to Martin Stre~t (73-22), read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read ,in full. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on August 5, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of recommendations on August 12, 1974. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Council Bill No. 620 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on Honeysuckle Lane from Harlow Road to 230 feet south; sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet west and 160 feet east of Honeysuckle Lane from Harlow Road to 400 feet south (73-34), read the . fir~ time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on August 5, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of recommendations on August 12, 1974. Motion carried, 'all Council members present voting aye. 7/22/74 - 17 2/2. " VI -:: Resolutions Resolution 2314 - Adopting Eugene Community Goals and Policies - 1974 was read the first time. . Rollcall vote. ,Motion Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2311 - Authorizing Quitclaim Deed on easement at Coburg and Cal Young ~Roads Northland Properties (EWEB) was read the first time. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2312 - Authorizing deed conveying easement to city of Eugene for sewer con- struction on southerly extension of Buck Street between 20th and 25th (EWEB) was read the first time. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to. adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2313 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period July 8 through 22, 1974 was read the first time. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion . carried, all Council membe~s,present voting aye. VII - Adoption of findings in upholding Planning Commission preliminary approval of Covenant Park PUD (PO 73-17) (June 18, 1974) Action .-'on appeal at July 15, 1974 Council meeting. ~ 1 - - - Copies of findings were distributed to Council members. Councilman Williams stated the findings as prepared conformed to the general tenor of the motion made on July 15, 1974 upholding the Plan~ing Commission's preliminary approval of the planned unit developM ment, and he had no objection to adoption of the findings as a supplement to that motion. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the findings as submitted supporting preliminary approval of the Covenant Park PUD. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. . H % McKinley City Manager . 7/22/74 - 18 2.13