HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/1974 Meeting
MINUTES
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
November 12, 1974
- Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - carried over from
November 11, 1974, Veterans Day - was called to order by Council President Torn Williams in the
absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 12, 1974 in the Council Chamber with other
Council members present: H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, Neil Murray, and Robert
Wood. Council members absent were James Hershner and Gus Keller.
(Side 1) I - Public Hearings
(1480) A. Appeal, Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of six-foot high wooden fence at
2605 Friendly Street - V./ W. Blowers (September 26, 1974)
Council members present declared no ex parte contacts or other reasons for abstaining
from discussion or voting on the appeal. Staff notes and Zoning Code Board of Appeals
minutes were previously distributed to Council members and by reference there to made
a part of this record.
Manager explained that Mr. Blowers requested permission to keep an existing six-foot
wooden fence along the 26th Avenue side of his corner property at Friendly Street.
The fence was located on the property line in violation of front yard setback. The
area enclosed would be considered technically a front yard although Mr. Blowers main-
tained it as a back yard because of the corner lot location. The Board of Appeals
-- decision was to require a setback of not less than seven feet from the property line
on that portion of the fence east of an existing concrete slab, the outside to be land-
scaped with plant material to partially obscure the fence. Council members viewed
the site on tour.
(1525) Public hearing was opened.
Mr. Blowers presented pictures of the fence and a petition containing signatures of
seven residents on the street who would prefer a curb sidewalk rather than one set
back five feet. He said strict adherence to the regulations would prevent his- enjoying
the same privileges of others in that neighborhood.
Public hearing was closed, there being no fUJrther testimony.
U?70) In response to Manager's inquiry about staff's recommendation on location of a walk on
26th Avenue at Friendly, Don Allen, director of public works, said that although
Friendly Street did have a curb sidewalk, topography would not require it on the 26th
Avenue side. That side of the property, he said, would have a flat parking strip and
a standard setback walk.
In response to Councilman Murray, Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection,
said that both street frontages on a, corner lot were considered front yards, therefore
-- a IS-foot front'yard setback was required on any structure more than 30 inches high.
There had been no indication in the Board minutes of complaints from neighbors.
Councilman McDonald noted the existence of a six-foot fence at 12th and Alder that was
permitted and asked what the difference was between that situation and this, whether
site clearance for traffic was the problem. Manager answered that the Board's reasoning
supported Code provisions cited by the superintendent of building inspection. There
was additional concern for site clearance for vehicles entering the street from the alley
which was probably the reason for the seven-:-foot setback recommendation. He added that
the 12th and Alder fence was probably not a single-family residential area, so probably
no front-yard requirements.
Councilman Wood noted that pictures presented by Mr. Blowers indicated other fences in
the area higher tha~ 30 inches. He wondered how one could achieve privacy or have suit-
able garden areas iri situations such as this. Councilman Williams said it was his under-
standing th~t the Board of Appeals had not recommended elimination of the six-foot fence
entirely. That was verified by Manager - the six-foot portion of the fence adjacent to
an existing concrete slab in the back yard could remain, that portion east of the slab
would have to be set back seven feet from the property line (IS feet required by
ordin,ance) and the outside landscaped with some 'type of plant material.
~- Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. 'McDonald to approve the appeal and grant
a variance for the fence.
In answer to Councilman Williams, Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that findings
supporting: the variance would have to be stated and the Council would be required to
make a decision on the appeal. If no decision was reached the matter would have tobe
held over.
/':':
~7Ca 11/12/74 - 1
,.
Councilwoman Campbell asked if Mr. Blowers would be permitted to construct a six-foot fence
ar~urtd the balance of his property. She wanted to make sure he knew ordinance requirements
and what to expect in the future. Manager explained that the height limitation applied only
to front yards, and he presumed that if the Council did allow a six-foot fence as now -'
existed it would also include that portion to the property line and along the alley to the
south at the same height.
There was some discussiQn of setback requirements in multiple-family residential, commercial,
and industrial zones between Councilwoman Beal and Manager, after which Mrs. Bea1 said she
thought the Council should hold to Code provisions unless there was some overriding reason
to grant a:variance. She thought it the wrong approach to override a Zoning Board of Appeals
recommendation, rather she thought that it would be better to write a new law. She sug-
gested taking no action until some recommendations were received from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Wood agreed and suggested delaying action on this appeal until there was an op-
portunity to review Code provisions on setback requirements.
, ~ Councilman Murray a'ho agreed and wi thdrew his motion, saying he would substi-
tut~ one to "suspend action untll further word on the requirements.
Manager noted that the Planning Commission did have reconsideration of Code pTovisions on its
agenda, however it appeared to be a long way in the future because of importance of other
things to be done. But he thought it should probably be reviewed 'because of :the number of
appeals corning to the Board.
Councilman McDonald agreed on wi thdraw1 of the motion., He thought the reyiew of Code require- -
ments should have a high priority on Planning Commission agenda so that the Council would
have some basis for making decisions.
Discussion continued on carrying the deliberations over to a specified time - asking the
planning staff to give the matter first priority, questioning the status of Council Presi-
dent's vote in the absence of the Mayor, etc., concluding with suggestion by Councilman
Wood that a temporary one-year variance be granted during which time the Planning Commission
would have time to consider Code provisions.
Mr. Murray accepted that suggestion and moved, seconded by Mr. McDonald, to
grant a one-year variance for the six-foot wooden fence at 2605 Friendly Street.
Mrs. Campbell explained that she had consistently voted against variances of this kind and
said she would vote to comply with the ordinance.
'Councii President Williams stated his ,interpretation' of ,the motion, was that if
the ordinance was,net-amenued witnin-the one~year period, the'variance would be
terminated. Mr. Murray agreed and assumed that the matter would corne back then
for further discussion.
Vote was taken on the motion to grant a one-year variance. Motion carried, all .
council members voting aye, except Mrs.Campbell voting no.
B. Lane County request for mobile home for temporary office, Bethel-Danebo Landfill (856)
north of 11th, west of Bertelsen
Staff had no objections to the request~
Public hearing was opened.
.
Bruce Bailey, director of Lane County Solid Waste Division, said the mobile home
was formerly in use at the Day Island landfill and would be required at the new
location.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Resolution No. 2349 - Authorizing mobile home for temporary office at Bethel-
Danebo sanitary landfill (Lane County) was submitted and
read by number and title.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously. O.
C. Rezoning from R-l to RP-SR property at northeast corner of 40th and Donald (Sletten)
-,,/ Recommended' by" the 'pi anni-ng--Co!nrrii ssion on October',[i;' 1974. 'Maps 'oTthe' area
~ad-Deen-distributed to Council members.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded ~y Mr. Wood to set public hearing on the zone change recom-i
,
mendation for'the November 12, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm
1+f6/7 4
Pub Hrng
377 11/12/74 - 2
.
~/. '. ". ., -...... '.-. . >-:.'::...~'~.':. - .. .~,'; \. ,- ...,........- ",- .....:.;,::.~~.,:_;':.~~~~~/,/~......
At 'th~"coifclusion of other business, .Councilwoman Campbell "expressed some concern"abo'ut i
:scheduling the hearing on the requested zone change for the November 12 meeting. She f Comm
,wondered if that would give time for the neighborhood council now organizing in that 11/6/74
area opportunity to express opinions~ She said some of the people involved in the ,
-- ,
,; Covenant Park PUll issue had complained about not having suffici,ent notice in that in-
:stance and that some of the same people were interested in this rezoning. Manager said
,that the normal procedure for scheduling rezoning issues was followed, and that a month
:had elapsed since the Planning Commission hearing. He said there was nothing to prevent
:people from being heard, however there definitely would be no opportunity for the neigh-
'borhood group to be formed and recognized as such before the hearing. John Porter, plan-
:ning director, upon request from Councilwoman Campbell for his opinion, said that interested
:people were well informed on the issue and that two hours had been spent in discussion of
!the request before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Campbell commented that if the record
,showed that they were informed and that sufficient time had been given she was willing to
l€~.it as it was. " - ._-.-- . - _._-
:- . -.. .- .~+ ~.
No,ex parte contacts or other reason for abstention from discussion or voting on this i
rezoning issue were stated by Council members. Mrs. Campbell referred to her comments
,at committee meeting with regard to contacts from people in the neighborhood about having
;sufficient noti~e of the hearing. She said the issue itself was not discussed and that
:she felt she would not have to abstain. The Chair ruled she did not have to abstain.
.,
'Copies of Planning Commission October 8) 1974 staff notes and minutes were previously
- idistributed to Council members and are made a part of this record by reference thereto.
i
iManager reviewed application submitted by James Sletten for rezoning the property.
: Planning Commission on October 8, 1974 recommended approval qf RP zoning with site review
to take into consideration the development's compatibility with surroundings, particularly
, residential; design, size, and shape to be in scale and harmony with intended uses;
sign and illumination to be in scale and harmony with the site and area; and safe and I
I
efficient ingress, egress, arid on-site traffic circulation to be provided. Letters were
; received and made a part of the record opposing the rezoning from Doris E. Patton,
~ 3875 Patterson Court; Alice Dugan, 600 East 39th Place, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Gastman,
630 Spencer Court; J. Keith and Margaret Byrne, 552 East 39th Place; George M. and
i Lorraine E. Hodge, 557 East 39th Place; George and Frances Will, 537 East 39th Place;
, Mr. and Mrs. Elwin Shorey, 3965 Donald Street; Ronald J. Chase, 5325 Saratoga Street;
: Mrs. Richard A. Bennison, 155 East 49th Avenue; Alice Olmstead, 3950 Donald Street;
Nan M. Rendall, 3955 Donald Street.
n._. ,_._ .h." .', -~.' ~... .
Jim Saul, planner, noted that copies of the petition initially submitted by the applicant
;had been sent to Council members along with a summary, correspondence, and minutes
of Planning Commission previously distributed.
(1936) I Public hearing was opened.
!
'e ,Mark Sletten, co-owner of the property, reviewed briefly the presentation made to the
; Planning Commission (recorded in Commission minutes of October 8, 197.4).
Donald Driscoll, architect for the project, also, summarized~' the presentation, saying
the applicants thought they had presented overwhelming evidence to demonstrate the pro-
: posal conformed with the General Plan and intent of the zoning ordinance as well as need
for professional services and transitional buffer zone in the area~ He noted copies of
petition from citizens and professional people in the area supporting the rezoning, which
were a part of the Planning Commission record. Also, the support of the neighborhood
: organization in its formative stages. Mr. Driscoll said the applicant was willing to
take the final design for the proposed medical/dental center back to the neighborhood I
group for approval. Also, that the applicant was willing to stipulate that the zone
: revert to single-family residential if the project was not constructed. I
(1961) i Pat Simpson, 3990 Donald Street; Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill Street; Mrs. Ricahrd Bennison,
: 155 East 49th Avenue (South Eugene Residents League); Barbara Newton, 515 East 40th Avenue;
: Ken and Jean Poull, 675 East 40th Avenue spoke in opposition to the zone change.
Ms. Simpson was concerned about decrease in property values, increased traffic; further
commercial zoning along 40th, and no guarantee that the medical/dental center would be
'built if the zone was changed to commercial. Mrs. Earley felt the petition circulated
I
.83) I for the medical/dental center had not been presented in the proper light, that rezoning
. was not mentioned when residents were asked whether they favored having the center in
(2040) : the area. Mrs. Bennison objected to statements in the Planning Commission's minutes I
attributed to a member of the South Eugene Resident's League, saying there was no one
'authorized to speak for that group, that the group was just now in the formative stages.
She thought if statements so made had any persuasion in recommending the rezoning they
,should not be considered by the Council. Ms. Newton presented letters opposing the
,rezoning. and said it would r~sult..}n,_a.,.g~9.:~~~Le:r:?-sl:!?g~J2,Lt.J2'~,""f~_~~A~~!i9) ~har(lc.t~r___~,;___,______,_
318 11/12/74 - 3
"
: the neighborhood and a breach of Tci'l1:11 with people 'who liacrbotight'Tiomes" there .Mr':-'-andu~, ':'
Mrs. Poull thought the rezoning would change the character of the entire area between
,Willamette and Hilyard. Also, that there was no need for doctors' services, that there
'were several already located in the vicinity. ) -
!Manager noted letter from Shirley Faatz, 615 East 39th Avenue, asking that her name be
removed from the petition in favor of the medical/dental center on the basis that rezon-
iing was not mentioned when she was asked to sign it.
I
: Councilman McDonald said he was aware of homeowners in the area who had been advised of
'hearing in connection with the rezoning. He felt a medical/dental clinic would be no
worse than a duplex at that location. Mrs. Earley answered that she was referring to
the rezoning requirements calling for notification to owners of the next four properties
adjacent to that on which rezoning was requested. She said they were absentee property
,owners and her statement about the petition on the medical/dental clinic was made in
light of the Sletten's making that the issue, rather than the rezoning. Mr. Sletten
noted that there was no requirement calling for letters from tenants of adjacent prop-
erties, that the applicant's intent was to offer this type of facility for residents
~of the neighborhood.
;In response to Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Saul noted vacant properties in the area zoned for (2156)
:the type use proposed for 40th and Donald - at the corner of Larch and Amazon, east side
:of East Amazon north of Larch. There also could be adjustments in the Edgewood Shopping
\Center, he said, to accommodate any overwhelming need for doctors or dentists services. i
" .- .-. '.'_. ..__.-.--' .... . -
:He added that although a plan had been approved at one time for aclinic d~iopment ' ' -~ e
,
:at Amazon and Larch, it had never materialized. In further response to Mrs. Campbell ,
Mr. Saul said property was zoned for this use along Willamette Street from between
<29th and 30th to about 24th, and immediately south of the Civic Stadium.
Mr; Sletten said that the four owners of the property in question were also residents of
the area. They were trying to develop a facility which would accommodate easy ingress
and egress for traffic, unlike duplex traffic which would have to back into the traffic
flow of a major arterial. With regard to other properties already zoned for medical/
dental uses, he said, they were not easily available to this particular Edgewood area.
He maintained that if the property was now zoned to its highest and best use, it would
be in use rather than remaining vacant. Developing it before developing outlying areas
would/conform with the General Plan and he felt the proposed use would be the highest
and best for that specific property. Mr. Sletten described the property and surrounding
uses, stating there were two major conflicting land uses, that the proposed RP zone
: was not commercial zong, rather as defined by zoning ordinances, it was a desirable
mixing of major land uses. He said that although other commercial uses would be per-
, mitted under the RP zoning, the project proposed was residential in scale and medical/
'dental facilities under site review procedures were what was proposed. He named:doctors
: contacted who were interested in occupying the building and said it was hoped doctors
,new to the area could be contacted when the project was finally started. ,
-
: Mr. Driscoll noted the time spent in presenting testimony before the Planning Commission.
(He sa~d the only opposition was from Mrs. Earley who had brought other people in and
put the applicant in the light of a "quicky" developer. He thought if the Council really
: studied the record of the Planning Commission hearing it would be clear that a great
:deal of time was spent contacting people in the Edgewood neighborhood to show the specific
'proposal. That proposal, he said, would be fulfilled through site review procedures.
,He was disturbed that the rezoning was defined as commercial when the applicant had
,spent an enormous amount of time getting letters, evidence, etc. , from residents of the
,neighborhood to develop residential-professional uses.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Manager recollected that Mr. Fair at the Planning
Commission hearing identified himself as president of the South Eugene Resident's League,
,not necessarily that he represented them. He added that the group had not yet been
chartered or recognized by the city as representing that neighborhood.
Mrs. Campbell was concerned about traffic which might be generated, noting the amount now (2279)
'generated by the Safeway Store and other facilities in that area. Mr.' Saul answered that
i the cl inic probably would generate more traffic than any -RA use, however the facility wa,s
idesigned to adequately handle it. With regard to expansion of this type zoning along ,.
: the north side of 40th, he said that was one of the basic concerns of the planning staff,
but' it was their position that equal consideration could apply to any other property on I
'the north side.
In answer to Counciman McDonald's inquiry about provision for parking, Mr. Saul said (2291 )
the parking proposed was based on Code requirements. Parking would be provided for about
11 cars. ,"'~ .. .---
....,,- ~ '"
319 11/12/74 - 4
t;',
Councilwoman Beal wondered what other uses would be allowed in the RP zone. Mr. Saul
jread the outright permitted uses listed in the Code - clinics, day nurseries, homes for
; the aged, multiple-family dwellings, etc. Conditional uses were hospitals, mortuaries,
- . churches, general office not having retail uses, etc. In answer to Mr. Williams, Mr. Saul
,said that site review procedures could not be used to control uses, there was no provision
.in the Code either under SR or PUD procedures whereby specifically permitted uses could
be denied.
I
(2323.) Mrs. Beal commented then that if this zone change was approved the city would be unable
to control the use of the property. Manager answered that the site review provision
would still apply but only to the compatibility of the development with the surroundings
'so far as, physical features were concerned. If some other use permitted in RP zones met
. ;the criteria set out for design and traffic, then the city couldn't stop that kind of use.
Council Bill No. 673 - Rezoning to RP-SR property at northeast corner of
40th Avenue and Donald Street was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that
it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second
time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; that
, findings supporting-the~ezoning ~~ set out in Planning Commission staff notes
and minutes of October 8, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, and that
eriactment be considered at thistim~.
e 'Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against second reading of the bill because it seemed
!to her that testimony had demonstrated there was sufficient land already zoned for the
,uses proposed for this property, also because other permitted uses in the RP zone did not
!appear to be compatible with the abutting residential area. Councilmen Murray and Wood I
agreed. J
J
Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Lacking unanimous consent - i
Council members Williams and McDonald voting aye; Council members Beal, Campbell ,
Murray, and Wood voting no - the bill was held over for second reading.
iMr. I
Sletten asked the Council to corne up with some way of assuring medical/dental
;facilities on the property at 40th and Donald if site review procedures couldn't actually 1
icontrol what went on that property. Council President Williams explained that the issue
'would go to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council as the result of the ;
!
Council's negative action on the rezoning, and that Mr. Sletten's question could be
raised at that time. ~ _.__ 'T".'''' __._._ ....-.'" ,-
,," ,! ' ,
.,
"'\Sh~'rt recess was taken.
'" '
(SI II) , "". \
II - Items 'a,cted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
(0 ) Previou.sly discussed in committee on October 30 (Present: Council President Williams
(presiding), and council members Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, and
Murray) and November 6, 1974 (Present: Council President Williams (presiding) and
council members Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of
those meetings appear below printed in italics.
A. Fundin; Social Service Agencies, Joint Social Service Revenue ~har~ng Fund - Copies of
jreport of joint subcommittee of budget committees (Eugen~, Spnnghe1d, La~e c~unty)
:were previously distributed to Council members recommend~ng process and cr~ter~a for
:funding social service agencies from the joint revenue sharin~ fund. Also ~nc1uded
were lists of names of people on the mental health ,and commun~ ty' he1ath adv~sory com-
mittees, and a memo from Lee Penny, chairman of the Eugene budget committee, raising
questions about the proposed guidelines.
:Mary Hudzikiewicz, member of the joint subcommittee, was in favor of adoption of the
:proposed guidelines with minor revisions. She suggested inclusion of a provision .
; designating responsibility in the local participating governmental agenc~ for appp~nt-
,ment of members of the joint subcommittee. And she felt careful discuss~on should
!be given, to the question of whether there would be funding of new governmental pro-
I grams only or whether expansion of existing programs would be included.
W\ I
,
:'Manager in response to 'concern expressed by Ms. Penny about the makeup of advisory
icommittees didn't disagree that the city of Eugene should have a voice in selection of !
I '. h
:committee members. He noted, however, the number of present members who were e~t er
. , iEugenecitizens or from nearby communities. Ms. Penny thought there was no disagr~e-
Iment on procedure for selecting commLttee members. She felt though that the number
lof members to represent each jurisdiction should be decided and formally set out in
ithe guidelines as well as the manne~,in which the city's representatives were to be J
I
L!!~leC!.te~!-.,_, ___,"m _~u_.... ,----",
.-~.- ------- .. ._- .-.-.-.. .__..._.,..:..~-.~.-_._-___.___ __.._~_.,.>.._>-_~~___ _ ~.<.,.-..~,~._ ;._...r.__._...,,_.__ '." .__~_ ..._
3eo 11/12/74 - 5
---_... .__. .- ..--.--,. -- .--.. "j
i
Anita .Larsen, Eugene staff, said a process could be worked out whereby each juris-
diction would suggest names to the County Commissioners for appointment to the joint
advisory committees. She referred to Ms. Penny's inquiry with regard to the appro- e
priateness of setting some maximum dollar amount or percentage of the total joint
social services fund that could be devoted to in-house programs in any given year.
She felt clarification of language in the guideline under A.l] would answer Ms.Penny's
,concern since it provided.that no single application would be accepted if it exce~ded
15% of the previous year's joint fund, nor ~ould several applications from the same
:agency for different programs be accepted if the total exceeded 25% of the previous
:year's joint fund. Ms. Penny said she thought it was possible under the guidelines
'as written that each of the three governmental units could apply for the maximum of
25%, thereby taking 75% of the total fund. She felt more definite protection should
be spelled out if it was intended to have adequate funds for private social service
'agenci es .
Councilman Williams asked whether it was ever established that the joint funds were
itO be reserved for private agencie~ or if they were to be allocated for any social,
iservice, private or public. MS:'penny ,said it was never clearly ~punciated when the
;joiht fund was created, and that the several agencies ~~e~t~Y1nsr to reach, agreement
:on that... point now.
--------.---.~-= - /- ~ ~--
-~-" ..----
;Sally Smith, member of the budget committee, ~wondered whether public programs funded
:in one year could be included in the social services budget for the ensuiEg year.
:She fel t there might be a hassle between agencies for funds (referr ing to A-:4 perm..i t- : e
!ting continuation of funding for public programs through th-;;-J~I1Jt fund if a publi~' I
'agency presented a plan for assuming the cost). Ms. Larsen said any agency, private
;or public, must deliver a high priority service if it was to continue receiving funds. i
:Manager thought a public body could face budgeting problems if programs were budgeted
:on a one-year basis unless it was recognized another budgeting source would have to be
provided for continuing services funded in that manner. Ms. Larsen said there might
......__._------_.~.__....--..--.....'- ..... "-.....- ._..__.~- '."..---... .".. .._... ,:....:...-.~.-----..:..~<. - ....... .
be some programs 'that should be jointly funded by all three agencies. She felt
priorities with regard to funding new programs or expansion of existing programs
: might need further discussion. Ms. Penny said it was her understanding that the
subcommittee specified only new in-house programs were to be funded by social serv- i
; ices funds, but the requirements as written did not make that clear. She wasn't
,opposed to joint governmental funding of some projects, she said, but she questioned
_ whether that type of funding should come from the joint revenue sharing fund in com-
petition with private agencies. She felt it could invite public relations problems \
with the private agencies. I
i
i
Assistant Manager emphasized that public agencies applying for joint revenue sharing \
funds were required to present a plan for assumption of the cost over a period of \
years. That requirement was not made of other applicants, he said, but neither were !
they guaranteed funding in succeeding years. I
. ,_
Councilman Murray too expressed concern about competition between private and public I
agencies for joint social services revenue sharing funds. He was also concerned
'that; ->fhe 25% limi tation for any ~ingle program might allow allocation of an amount
, in excess of the contribution to the joint fund by the agency making the applicat~on.
Councilman Williams said he would be uncomfortable setting guidelines which would ~
:dictate which type of agency could or could, not apply for funds, and he didn't think
-the budget committee would necessarily favor its own programs over those services
,which could be supplied by private agencies. Councilman Murray replied that it
:wasn't that he didn't believe both private and public agencies could deliver social
'services. The question in his mind was whether governmental agencies, if they wished
ito deliver social services, should be_p~oviding funds through regular budget; rather
; than throu!!~ ~!:i-: )ointEevemie-sh~rihg fund. ---~~
- - ~
Councilwoman Beal agreed with Mr. Murray's concern. In addition, she expressed con-
!'cern about procedures which relied heavily on staff heads. She felt those people
fresponsible for delivering services would naturally act to re-enforce their programs
Ito make them more effective. She felt voluntary services should not be ignored' and
(should probably receive higher priority for funding than oth~r programs. She felt
',the makeup of the advisory commi ttees listed would b-f!---int:lined to give priori ty tp
: i[l-~ouse .progra.rr:s aaministered by the Co~nty as oppos~d ,to ~ding. so~ial servicei;"" -
del~vered by pr~vate grouPE. '.Manager sa~d that exper~ence so rar ~nd~cated no recom,,~
I:mendations weighted toward special interests of people on the committees. He said
the present selection of advisory 'committee membership followed a process very similar
,to that suggested for formalization. He added his thought that specific regulations
,and'.stringent limitations on use of funds by governmental agencies' could encourage
_ the setting of higher priority for a governmental function and searching for funds
:to perform that function which could l~ad to consideration of cutting back funding
~of other public services to provide monies for social services.
. .... "
3SJ 11/12/74 - 6
.
-,
Councilman Williams wondered whether a Eugene amendment to the proposed requirements
_ and criteria would have to go back to the joint subcommittee for review and comment.
,., Manager thought not, that it would only have to go back to the governing bodies since
, they had already approved the proposals. Councilwoman Beal recalled former misunder-
, standing on the part of the County of what kinds of new social services were to be
. funded through the joint fund. She felt the Council had an obligation to Eugene
citizens to protect city programs and voluntary social services in view of the city's
major contribution to the joint fund. She was in favor of a review of the proposals
,to see whether questions raised could be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. :
Assistant Manager advised that questions raised at this time were also raised and dis-
cussed at length at subcommittee meetings. Complete accord was not achieved, he 'said,
with regard to not accepting proposals from governmental agencies for funding. However,;
the subcommittee did strongly recommend submittal of the governmental agencies' plans
'for assuming costs of proposals presented. He added that the:z;e 'had been problems in
achjevingcitizen participation on the advisory committees, and the County was look-
ing forward to' receiving help from the other two agencies on gaining more citizen
,participation. Mrs. Beal thought, however, that the proposals presented should be
more specific in protecting Eugene's interests and that they should be reviewed again
because of tne uncertainty of political commitments in the next year.
\
Councilman Keller suggested separating priority lists for governmental and private
agency proposals in view of the expressed concern about whether social services de-
... livered by governmental agencies should be funded through revenue sharing monies.
,., Councilman McDonald wondered about the outcome if revenue sharing funds were discon-
tinued. Councilwoman Campbell felt both governmental and private programs had to be
funded. She commented that this question had never come up when discussing allocation
of room tax funds - both types of agencies were funded from that money. She did think
the 25% limit (of the total fund for'any single agency) was too high.
Ms. Smith said another concern of hers was that it appeared the budgeting procedure
was being passed on to the social services management team and advisory committees
,insofar as it concerned th.e. p. ri..o. ri ties of Eugene's social service needs. .. ~9!:. wO!!E.ere,cj
what would happen to applications if they were denied :.. would the h-(Jdget, commi ttee' I
add t~em as a part of the regular budget or abide by decision of the social services i
advisory committees that they were not needed. ...'
Councilman Williams noted the budget committee's authority for allocation of funds. i
He thought the proposal as presented should be approved, recognizing that changes
:could be made if problems arose.- He noted other actions which could be taken - the
proposals could be amended, or they could be referred back to the social services
subcommittee of the budget committee for revision or changes they might feel appro-
priate. Consensus was that working out the requirements and criteria at this time
'would be better than going into the budgeting process with questions unanswered or i
ewithout a decisive attitude with regard to which of the various types of social serv~'
ices would be funded.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Council take no final
i action on the report and temporarily refer it back to the joint subcom- Comm
mittee for consideration or comments made at this meeting and revision 10/30/74
if thought necessary after reconsideration, one of the concerns being, i See action
in addition to funding of governmental versus private social service ,pro- ~ below
grams, the 25% limit to any single agency when an agency initially could i
have contributed less than that to the joint fund. Motion carried
unanimously. _ _ _ ___,__.,
The Chair ruled that since this item had already been considered by the joing subcommittee
on use of revenue sharing funds for social services and the Council's concerns app~rent1~
answered, the matter woufd be brought back to committee-of-the-whole for further dlScusslon
and action. There were no objections.
B. Proposed Charter, West University, Neighbors/Neighborhood Organization Policy Guidelines,
Copies of staff memo and the proposed charter were previously distributed to Council j
,members. Staff questioned whether the charter met criteria in excluding from member- I'
ship absentee property owners and/or tenants and limiting voting to residents of the
.. 'neighborhood. Manager noted the wide variety of ,land uses in this neighborhood and !
,., ;wondered whether restricting voting rights to residents only would meet the purpose f
of neighborhood organizations for participation in the planning process. !
! Tom Chambliss', member of the West University Neighbors, said the question of member- I
: ship was 'addressed in meetings of the organi~ation. The major concern, he said, was I
,
,that the organization should speak primarily for the residential interests in the i"
:neighborhood and provide a forum to promote the res.idential environment. He said ab-, 'j
~s,eEt:.ee9wl}_e_rs or c:.the.rs .i.r:.t.er.e_st~d ~n. the ar~~ would not be ,::.xc.1,l:l_<!.'!.d_,~!9.m participat:__-.,
, . - ~ T . - - - .. --. --, - - .
382 11/12/74 - 7
,ing in the meetings, they would be ex-eluded -only'froiri-voBng-'c;n-'specific-lssi.](2~'.-'-' ,
The organization felt it important that any recommendations coming to the Planning ,
Commission or the Council from that neighborhood should come as an expression of
~the residents there. He added that the final draft of the proposed charter was ap- ~
:proved with only two dissenting votes. .,
, J
,Councilman Murray thought it would be better to extend voting privileges to all people,
in the neighborhood, including absentee property owners, saying it would probably be
; more profitable in the end to the neighborhood itself. However, he recalled that
in considering recognition of another neighborhood organization charter this issue
'was brought up and the Council did not insist on voting requirements for other than
;residents. He felt it inappropriate to require it in this charter and not in others.
:'Councilman Williams agreed that exclusion of commercial enterprises could invite un-
:necessary polarization. He noted, however, that the charter was not in conflict with!
. the guidelines for recogni tion of neighborhood groups. He wondered if it would be i
appropriate to modify the voting requirements in the overall guidelines. Mr. Murray
;felt that might be a good subject for discussion between the city and those involved' ;
:in neighborhood groups. I
:Councilman Keller thought that the exclusion of nonresidents trom voting totally dis-
)regarded the people attending the University. Robert Rice, provisionsal chairman of
'WUN, said that restricting voting requirements did not constitute total exclusion. ~
,Those directly involved in the neighborhood, either absentee property owners or in- 1
stitutional organizations, had been invited and would continue to be invited to par- .1'
[ticipate in the meetings. There was no, intent to polarize interests in the area, he 1 e
said; rather, to express the feelings of the residents of the neighborhood. He added
'that it was somewhat a "procedure matter" - it would be difficult to determine how
;many members should represent a business or organization and it was felt better that '.
:they act on an advisory basis.
,Councilman Keller appreciated the problems involved in percentages of representation I, '.
,but he wondered what kind of atmosphere would be created say if Sacred Heart Hospi tal ~(:"
:required half a city block for additional parking and the neighborhood organization
made a decision against it without any representation from the Hospital. Dr. Rice
:answered that it was understood the neighborhood organizations acted in an advisory
icapacity only and any such action would be letting the Council know that the residents,
:of the neighborhood were 'opposed. But to assume the neighborhood would oppose a '
, /
:proposal from any given organization, he said, would be to assume a polarization ~/
that might not exist.
~ > .. - .
Manager re-emphasized staff concern about whether limitation on voting privileges
really provided the type of representation the Council anticipated when deciding
neighborhood organizations should have recognized spokesmen for a geographical area.
He said if a neighborhood was to be represented only by residents of an "area, that
should be recognized by the Council as being an association which only partly repre- \ ~
sented neighborhood interests. Its advice would have to be taken in that context in \ .,
the process of developing neighborhood plans containing items having a profound ef-
,fect on not only the residents of the neighborhood but also upon institutional and ~
business facilities. He felt that process would begin to dilute the original intent
;of the n~ighborhood policy of having neighborhood spokesmen as distinguished from
: other pressure groups.
;An unidentified member of WUN said that one issue leading to the organization's de-
I cision to exclude certain people from voting was the consU tuional right of "one person"
: one vote." He said a land owner could own more than 'one piece 'of property in the area,
or could own property in more than one association, which would give that person the
iright to more votes.
~Councilwoman Beal felt any issue would be more strongly influenced if absentee property
'owners as well as residents of an area were included, considering the transient popula-
, tion in apartment houses, etc. However, she felt no major planning decision would
,be made without consulting with Sacred Heart, the university, Northwest Chiistian
iCollege, etc., and the representation of residents through WUN would give input just
[as important as that from the land owners.
I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the West University 'Comm ~
i Neighbors charter as presented. Motion carried, all Council members 10/30/74"
i present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. Approve
) Councilman Williams wondered about amending the organization policy guidelines. He
: agreed with Manager's position that organizations or businesses which clearly were
:part of an area should have the same opportunity as residents of the area to vote
in neighborhood organizations. Councilman Murray said when the neighborhood policy
'383 11/12/74 - 8
iwas drafted this issue was discussed fully at every point. The wording of that section,
:he said, 'was carefully drawn up to make clear that voting criteria was at the dis-
'cretion of the organization but that participation ,by everyone in the neighborhood
~ ;had 'to be guaranteed. He was no~ prepared to ma~e ~ny recommendation ~ut thought ,the
~ planning staff should convene ne~ghborhood assoc~at,lon leaders for rev~ew of that
particular provision.
I
,
:Manager suggested that Council representation in any deliberations on possible amend- ,
;ment of the guidelines would be helpful since in the final analysis the Council would J
:be the jUdge of the validity of the neighborhood organizations. i
,Dr. Rice expressed appreciation for acceptance of theWUN charter and asked for sug- /
gestions on how it might be amended to meet criteria for full neighborhood participa- J
tion. Mr.Williams answered that he thought every property owner or resident should I
have the opportunity for one vote. Councilman Murray suggested specific wording in !
!the Westside Quality Project charter as an example. J
; 1
it was understood planning staff would meet with leaders of neighborhood '
! associations and representation from the Counci:l wi th regard to possible !
: amendment of neighborhood o!ganization POlicYV,!idelines. ,_" __. _ '_" ,.'
';'--,. .~..__. .- .- .
-,
C. i Peti tion, Sani tary sewer on 41st Avenue east to serve Tax' Lot 0600 _ Peti,tioned by
iowners of 47.8% of property to be assessed. i Comm
a Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve the petition. 101(30/74
-APprove
Councilman McDonald asked if any of those not represented on the petition objected. 'i
^ Manager answered that the petition had not been the subject of public hearing yet.Hel
added that the County owned some of the abutting property which would bring the per- I
centage to over 50%. I
Vote was taken on the moti~n as stated. Motion carried unanimously. !
4 . .. ~ ,. ~ ..~. _ . "...d . __..
~O D. Historic Preservation Committee Report and Recommendation -'Copies of the report were
\ distributed by Councilman Murray, chairman of the committee. The report included at-
tachments explaining the need for an historic preservation ordinance, copy of which
'was also included. Glenn Mason~ director of the Lane County Pioneer Museum and member
of the committee, demonstrated with slides the tYPe of buildings and architecture
existing in Eugene from the time of its incorporation to the early 1900's. He noted
that many of those buildings had been lost and said he felt the proposed ordinance I
would increase the prospects of saving some of the finer remaining structures from :
that period.
Councilman Murray explained the procedure followed by the-committee in developing the
ordinance presented at this time. The major ele~ents of the ordinance, he said, would
'~ be the establishment of an historic review board; the provision of a public process
,., for identific~tion and designation of historic landmarks; the creation of a new zoning
district'(H-Historic District); the provision 'of procedures and criteria for exterior
alteration, moving, or demolition of historic landmarks; the opportunity for increasing
!the range 'of allowable uses of historic landmarks; and the provision of incentives for
exterior maintenance and renovation of historic landmarks.
:Mr. Murray suggested that the proposed ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission
'for consideration and recommendation. He said the Preservation Committee was firmly
, committed to the policy provisions of th~ ordinance but not necessarily to the administra-,
' . I
tive provisions. He hoped that staff input would provide any revisions felt necessary
with regard to the administrative procedures. He cautioned the Council that in no way
was the ordinance to be considered an answer to problems facing older neighborhoods in
the community, and he referred to specific and precise, wording in the ordinance stating
the intent that the new zoning district would be selectively used and only after extensive
demonstration that a building, structur~, or other physical object merited special con-
) sideration.
Comm
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the proposed ordinance be 11/6/74
referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and staff suggestions Approve
to maximize administrative workability, and after such consideration that it as amended
~ ,be returned to the Council for final consideration. See below
I ,
:, Councilwoman Campbell, also a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, commented
: on the work of the committee and hearings at which there was good response from the com-
;munity and citizen participation in preparation of the ordinance. She commended Council-
: man Murray for his chairmanship and gave him credit for continuing the work of the com-
:mittee in the face of many "snags."
I
Vote was taken on the motion as stat~d~, Motion carri_e~n~naI1lmous_~Jl,~_ ,_
------ ---~-.-.,..---~-~-._- -~- - -----------------..---.--------.--. .- ,.f
38+ 11/12/74 - 9
Councilman Murray thought clarification of the motion made in committee was necessary so
that it would be understood the Planning Commission'was expected to schedule public hear-
ing on the historic preservation ordinance. The Chair ruled that the action would be _
so amended. There were no objections.
.. ~ ,>.-_._...~" ," (August 1;'
E .ri16'forspor't--Park -a't' Airpor"t-:;'CoI;le's' oi' exc~rpt "fro[;'Airport Commission minutes
!1974) were previously distributed to Council members. The Commission recommended Council
'Iconsideration of use-of a portion of city-owned property lying east of the Airport, not
!us~d at the present time for airport purposes, for a proposed facility for recreational
land training activities of motorcycle riders in the community.
'Ed Smith, director of parks and recreation, showed on a map the location chosen as a
!temporary site for the activity. He said his department had been working with Lane County
, I
;parks department trying to find a place for motorcyclists at the urging of some riders
iwho had organized and incorporated themselves as a group - Eguene Cycle Activities Organiza
, ,
Ition. They had requested the donation of a site by some public body in order to prove
jto tpe community the need and that they could organize, construct, and supervise such a
:facility. Design of the proposed facility was shown. Mr. Smith said the parks department
twas interested in co-operating on what appeared to be a worthwhile p~oject for a group
;heretofore more or less ignored so far as recreational facilities were concerned. Parks
idepartment was especially interested in view of the citizen~ themselves wanting to promote
and build the facility. ECAO hoped to have instructional programs at ~ faciJity,that
~,wQy.Jd b~open only during cei"tain hours, supervision to ensure use of proper riding equip-
ment, noise control, etc. He asked Council authority for filing an application with the e
Lane County Planning Commission for a temporary permit to allow use of the designated
:property in the manner requested. Once the permit was issued, Mr. Smith said, there
:would be annual review of the use and then the Airport Commission and parks department
could establish an agreement with the ECAO to ensure control of the facility and that -<
,the desired requirements would be met.
!Councilman Williams wondered about the city's liability if underage children were per- l
!mitted to use the facility. Mr. Smith said there were many children who were not licensed:
, I
ito ride on public roads and this would provide a place for them. He said the liability i
ifactor was being investigated; one requirement of ECAO would be that their organization j
!also provide liability insurance. Tn further answer to Councilman Williams, Mr. Smith
Idescribed the types of activities planned for the area --motorcross type races, free
I
iriding, high school competition, trail bike riding etc. Competitive activities would be
held primarily on weekends, he said. [
I
Councilwoman Beal asked about lJoise~ control. She said even though the proposed location I
was not in an area as thickly populated as others, people who did live there might object I
I
to the noise. Mr. Smith felt the airport location was such that the motorcycle noise [
would be less of a problem considering planes coming and going. He fel t i.t was far enough
from residential areas so as not to interfere. He said proper mufflers, spark arrestors,
i would be required and riders not using the proper noise control equipment would
,etc. , -
not be permitted to use the facility. He added that many of the cycles which would be
'used on this facility were not the kind that would be licensed for roadways, and that the
group itself was very interested in strong controls and policing of the facility.
Councilman Murray inquired about hours of operation. That hadn't been decided yet,
Mr. Smith replied, although activity would primarily occur on weekends. During summer
[the operating hours would probably be no later than 9:00 p.m., perhaps 10:00 p.m. on
'Saturdays.
Councilwoman Campbell thought the idea appealing. She hoped it would be pursued, es-
ipecially since motorcyclists seemed to have been "left out" of a lot of the planning for
the community.
J
iCouncilwoman Beal was still concerned about the noise factor. She didn't want the Council
'to be faced with the same situation created by the auto racing facility on West 11th.
. ,
She wondered if a poll had been taken of people living in that area. Mr. Smith didn't
;think there would be a problem ,similar to that on West' 11th because location of this
:facility was in an area already zoned for that activity and, except for one house, at
: least a mile and half distant from residences. He said no poll had been taken but there
would be ample opportunity for those people to be heard when the application for the
requested use was subject of hearings before the County Planning Commission. Manager -
added that a significant factor in comparison to the West 11th problem was that the city
owned this property and would have authority to terminate the activity should it become
a nuisance because of the noise created or otherwise.
Corom
I Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to authorize filing for a use 11/6/74
i permit from the Lane County Planning Commission as requested. See action
l , below
\In making the motion Mr. Wood said he thought the facility was a good idea and would help
to build professionalism and responsibility in the operation of motorcycles. J
385 11/12/74 - 10
-
Councilman Murray wondered if it could be assumed that use of the proposed facility would
- lessen the pressures for motorcycle riding on other open areas and park area, and if it
did what would make it so attractive to remove those pressures from other areas. Mr. Smith
,thought it would relieve pa.rk areas. He said Eugene was a~out the only municipality
in the State that had not provided some fac,ili ty for motorcycle activities, a place "close
in" and available for outright use of cycles. He added that motorcycle riding was growing
more popular and because of the group involved in developing the design of this facility
,there was reason to believe it was the right kind of facility for that activity.
i,
Councilman Williams wondered if there was any information from other cities having thLs
type facility with regard to problems encountered because of youths riding motorcycles
and the potential for injuries. Mr. Smith said injuries had been fewer. Cities par-
:ticipating in this kind of activity had control so that safety could more or less be
'assured. He said the motorcycle group itself was not abusive of facilities. He added
! that fewer accidents did not necessarily result from having the facility, rather that it
was a by-product of teaching the proper use of equipment.
Councilman McDonald thought the proposal was good, that it would create no more noise
than planes at the airport. Councilwoman Campbell thought the facility/in using safety
. regula tions and educa tio!lal program~/_ would tend to, :_U!=_H~;?~~_ ~he._!!,?mI:_ez: __?,f ~ ~c:.,?~.q~n_,~?:. _ _,.." _ _,
:Councilwoman Beal inquired about che size of the property, whether the city would derive any
e 'income' from the facility, and whether the city would be responsible for any maintenance or
,construction ih connection with the facility. Mr. Smith answered that the parcel was about
20 to 25 acres. The only income ,would be the investment of the motorcyclists ,in developing
, the facility. There would be no cost to the city.
Lee Rogers, 4663 Scenic Drive, said that tests in Salem indicated that motorcycles measured
from the same distance as aircraft proved to be less noisy. So far as safety~ was concerned,
he said, it helped a great deal to have cycle riding nearer communities where help was avail-
able in the event of accidents than if it was occurring 30 or 40 miles away and no help nearby.
vot~" ~~,s." t,~!?e!!.fqrL.!he,~9ti~~"a~, s5.ate,d. ",l'!otion :r;.~rried unanimously.
.. ,... ~ - .-:.~;j .'.,~ '--. '~l~:'\.,....\.~j~_':,~'--..---""~'~~',~_,:~-=::"I-::--'. .... ~ -.. ~,-
(0085) Dr. Kenneth Singer, 750 East 11th Avenue, id~ntified himself as an orthQpedic surgeon
and 'cited statistics on motorcycle accidents involving young people and resulting in
perman~nt injuries or death. He said the fault didn't lie necessarily with the cyclists
themselves but mainly because of new and young riders, riders who were not informed on
safety in operation of vehicles, and pedestriaris and others not adequately aware of
hazards involved. He recognized the efforts of those requesting the motorcycle facility
were directed toward activities that would foster driver training, safe operating ,tech-
niques and equipment, etc., but he opposed the encouragement of use of motorcycles by ,
all age groups and for competitive purposes. He thought it would be an error for the
e city to sponsor or approve use of land for an activity that would encourage underage
children to ride, particularly in a cDmpetitive arena, until safety records were improved.
He noted the popularity .of the sport and bombardment by various media encouraging par-
ticipation by young people. He thought a controlled facility teaching safety standards
would be appropriate for young people 16 or 18 years .old, but that it whould be sponsored
by the private sect.or.
(0264) Julian Falk, Route 1, Box 686 (Airport Road), expressed concern with creation .of dust
and n.oise fr.omthe proposed park. He felt incorrect inf.ormation had been given with re-
gard t.o distance of residences from the proposed facility, and said that people in that
(0311) area were opposed to it. Dick Savage, Route I, Box 688 (Airport Road), also objected to
location of the park near his home ~ecause of the noise.
Del Butts, 126 Prairie Road, Junction City, was in favor of the facility if it was properly
supervised. He didn't deny statistics quoted by Dr. Singer, but he said they were road
accidents and the majority happened because of inexperienced riders. He saw a need for
a training facility where younger children w.ould have a place to learn proper use of the
vehicles before they reached an age where they could qual'ify for riding on highways. He
thought existnece of such a :liacility would greatly help ~he city itself.
(0347) Ray Bond, Route 1, Box 706 (Airport Road), was opposed, primarily because of the manner
- in which the project was presented. He said the area was n.ot unused land, that it was in
use and had been since 1853; homes were not a mile and a half distant, they, were directly
north and across from the proposed track, within a half mile~ ' He could see no reason
why the Goshen track couldn't be used since it was set up for competitive racing. Loca-
tion of the trac~ as proposed, he said, would kill 30 acres of prime agricultural land.
Also, he said, dollar valuation of rezoning should be a consideration.
11/12/74 - 11
36~
I
Dennis Collis, orthopedic surgeoni 750,East,Hth Avenue, underscored' statistics anu COfU-
ments presented by Dr. Singer~ He thought it would be dangerous to sanction the use of
any motorized vehicle by children under 16 years old.
Darrel Marsh, 2467 Quince Street, president of the Territorial Racing Association, said ~
he was neither "pro nor con" on the question under discussion. However, he did agree
with statistics quoted by the doctors. He thought there was nothing wrong about having
facilities where children could be taught to ride properly, but thought the city should
stay out of it. He said no one had contacted their group, adding that they were experts
and would like to have been contacted because they wanted to promote safe motorcycle riding.
Alice Grover, 4780 Barnett Street, wanted to see the city prombte the facility because
she thought the young people would find someplace to ride anyway. The Chair ruled her
discussion of city operation versus private operation out of order.
.
Councilman Murray expressed interest in the whole land use issue in terms of where people
lived, zoning, use of land, etc., in relation to the proposed motorsport site. Also, he
wasinterested in knowing what was being done in other areas with regard to similar type
activities; especially where young people were concerned. He wondered too about the two
different motorcycle organizations represented which seemed to have different concepts
of motorcycle activities. Manager said the issue of land use would,not be decided by
this Council, permission ,to proceed with this activity would require a permit from the
Lane County Planning Commission which would require public hearing. A temporary permit
was contemplated since the land ultimately was intended for airport uses under the
Airport Master Plan. With regard to zoning, Mr. Smith said the land was'now zoned AGT5 (O~
and that the County Planning Commission had indicated that the motorcycle activity could '..,
be permitted on a temporary basis with annual review. With regard to noise, :_he said that
decibel readings would be prepared in time for public hearings before the County: Planning
Commission. He recognized liability involved in trying to provide the younger people
instruction but indicated that would be investigated thoroughly if the Commission granted
the temporary permit. Then a joint program with ECAO would be worked out and brought
back to the Council for final action. He added that the ECAO was a newly formed or-
ganization and there was no intent to "get caught" between the two cycle groups, so
there would be contact with the Territorial Racing Associaton to get their input. In
response to further ~uestioning from Mr. Murray, Mr. Smith said he had no record of (0590)
similar activities in other cities as it had to do with young people but that informa-
tion would be. included in the presentation to the County Planning Commission. He said
there was no definitely set program with regard to age limits but he thought the ECAO
aimed at including all age groups in their program.
Councilwoman Beal suggested postponing action until more information was available on the (0607)
raised. She was concerned about the noise problem and the question of where it could be
located when airport uses would require the site. She supported the doctors' point of
view with regard to danger involved in encouraging younger children to participate.
Councilman Wood was not opposed to delaying action on the request if answers would satisfy e
the questions raised. He noted his own experience with motorcycle riding and said he
thought an organized and supervised facility would help promote use of proper equipment
and safe riding techniques. With proper equipment, he said, off-street riding was very
safe.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the question back to staff for (0657)
response to the various questions raised at this meeting.
Councilwoman Campbell asked Dr. Singer if there were statistics available with regard to
bicycle riding for young children. He answered that there was no factual data, but that
the incidence of serious injuries in connection with bike riding was much less than motor-
cycles, ther~ was more damage because of the difference in sp'eed.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members
present voting aye, except Councilman Wood voting no.
..._-_...~.... .-~_._._.._~._.~,.._..__..._.__._--~-._--~'-_.~" -"~>- ... .- ~.~ . --.... .----.-
F.;Vacation lO-foot overhead public utility easement on McLean Boulevard near Douglas Drive
:and Lindsay Loop (Griswold) - Recommended by the Planning Commission October 7, 1974. Maps,
of the easement location had been distributed to Council members. Corom
11/6/7,4
, Mrs. Beal moveq. seconded by Mr. Wood to call public, hearing on the requested, Approvie ....
_ vacation for the December 23, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ..,
.. . ~.. + ,~. _0' _.. . v _"',~. _ <__. . _ . '_'.' . .-_ ,_", u.. '.. _ _ , . , ." . ,.' .._...'. ,." .... _ .... ' .. . _.". . _
G~C~~~~l1ation of Abatement, 362-364 East 13th Avenue":' Report was' 1jfCf;'itred,irom building
, " . .
department that the building on this property had been removed to the c~ty s sat~sfact~on
. and abatem~nt was not required. Cornn
, . h' th 11/6/74
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to cancel the publ~c ear~ng on e A
. ..", d pprove
abatement'schedu1ed for the November 12, ~974 Counc~l meet~ng. Mot~on carr~e
unanimously.
387 11/12/74 - 12
.
H'/~ssessment Panel Hearing Report - November 4, 1974
I Councilmen McDonald and Keller; City Engineer Bert Teitzel
,Present:
.
e 'Council bills levying assessments to be considered by the Council on November 12, 1974:
I
'C.B.670 - Sanitary sewer in area between a line 400 feet north of I-105 and a line
850 feet south of Centennial Boulevard (extended) fLom east line of 1st Addi - :
tion to Ayres Subdivision to 1200 feet w'est of Fairway Loop (extended) (7 3-W 11
Ini bated by peti tion of owners of 53% of property to be assesEif'c7. Total contract c:osl i
$143;820.50, awarded February 26, 1973 after public hearing. ApPI.~aring at the huaring 'I
, ,
\ but not speaking were Lewis B. Bartel .''1<1 Add,ie R. Parmenter. Don Furtick, George
Zellner,. and R. D. Hannum had given not,ice of intent to be heard but were not present.
\
Ed Pape' through his attorney, Don Gallagher, aske'd for reduction of $1,243.30 in
assessment against property at 20 Coburg,Road. Mr. Gallagher explained that when the I
building was qonstructed on that property in 1966 a service line was constructed to a ,)
point near Country Club Road in anticipation of future installation of city sewers. i
When the city lateral was installed in 1973 and the service line extended tO,connect,
about 38 feet, it was found the lateral was a foot higher than the service line. In
order to make the connt?ction the extension was rel,,;o.L'ked to allow gravity flow into the
l lateral at an expense to Pape' of $1,243.30. Mr. Gallagher said copy of plans were
, available showing elevation of the service line and a letter from the contractor (Vos)
~ I
I stating the lateral was located at-an elevation too high to permit connection.
~i
.' :i Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that when the lateral was installed,an inspector
,",i
"1 from the public works ilepartment, contacted Pape' and the lateral was installed at a
!
six and a half foot depth, one and a half feet deeper than normal, to accommodate
Pap€}'s...service line. Mr. Gallilgh,er asked if the e,Zevatioll, not depth, of the lateral
- -- - ~~-~~.'. _ _ ______~......__.,.,_.._r_. r;~. ".,...--..--'J-<".... "'...:-_ .':7:-._~---;;.~_-:".-;--._- -. ~ '. ..' . _ -- --
was known. Mr. Tei tzel said he did not have that informa tion wi th him. He said, it
was assumed it was installed in accordance with inFormation supplied by Pape'. He
: thought that it would be difficult at this time to determine which line was off the
lone foot without digging it up again.
I
Further discussion brQught out that the property in question was in the County at the I
I
time of service line install~tion /al though it was fel t that had no bearing on the
discrepancy, that the public works department did install the latera.Z in accordance
with prints of the building provided by Pape', and that there was no knowledge of any
ground disturbance in the area which could have caused the mismatch.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed but delay action until after
, return of information from staff with regard to elevation .
of the city lateral in relation to the Pape' service line.
;C.B.671 - Paving, sidewalks, sani tary and storm seV.rers on Echo Hollow Road from
e Royal Avenue to Barger Avenue (73-12)
Initiated by Council action as result of bond issue for public improvements. Total
contract cost $297,013.92, awarded March 12, 1973 after public hearing. Bert Teitzel
city engineer, explained that this project was assessed under the new pOlicy whereby
existing residential properties paid for the equivalent of a 28-foot width rather than
a 36-foot width as in previous policy.
G. B. Hol verstott objected to assessment for the bi,cycle path included in the 44-foot
width abutting his commercial property at 1245 Echo Hollow Road. He felt he was paying I
more than once for the bicycle portion since State funds were supposedly used for that !
;
purpose in addition to the assessment. Mr. Teitzel acknowledged that the property was I
assessed the full 44-foot width according to city policy for improvements abutting com-
, mercial zones, and that a bicycle path was included within that standard 44-foot width.
Councilman McDonald explained the city's policy with regard to assessing 44-foot width .j
J
streets abutting commercial properties. He noted too the lengthy discussion in public (1
hearings when contract for this project was awarded after which the decision was made
to construct' the project according'to the design chosen. He felt it was quite clear
at that time how the assessments would be levied.
I
Mr. Holverstott was still concerned about his.money paid to the State that was supposed I
e to be used for bike paths. ~nd he wondered why he should pay for the bike portion when I
residential properties were paying for only a 28-foot width. Mr. Teitzel further ex- e
plained the br~akdown of monies and how they were allocated to various segm~nts qf a 1
project in the bookkeeping process. Mr. Keller felt that Council response to Mr. Holver-
stott's objection would be the same as that of the panel - it was established as city
policy to assess commercial properties for the equi,valent of 44-foot width streets. I
Mr. McDonald agreed and mentioned that the improvement would add to the value of the
property. Mr. Holverstott further explained his opinion, upon questioning from Mr. Keller,
------- ---~-. ..~- _a-~~ .- -.-_.--_..__._.__._-._-------~----- - - ----
386 11/12/74 - 13
-~._~ ,-.....-----.
that he was p~yi~~Jmore-'-tJl~jlJ'-o;jce i;;:--th;-b'ike p;th"portion- oY-t-h;; -;;;-t;'~~;;t;----that State
funds supposedly were used for that purpose (to which he contr i lluted through State taxes)
in addition to the assessment and in addition to city taxes. He suggested that the :
'Council consider t~king some 'action to avoid that type of assessment. . '4It
John D. Peacher sa~d he had bought the property at 4462 Hawthorne Drive about four months
ago and didn't think that the street improvement was all that great. He described it :
as a drag strip and said one child already had been hit. He asked if it was true; if the ;
bikepath was declared a hazard, that the on-street parking could be removed. And he
'wondered why the bike path had been installed on the traffic sidecf the parking initially
'if it was thought a hazard might be created. Mr. Tei tzel answered that the ci ty had the
option of removing parking from any street in the city. He said design of the street was
discussed at length in public~hearing resulting in a decision that a path adjacent to the
: traffic would be less hazardous than would he the possi bi,Ii ty 'Of bikes darting from behind
'parked cars into the traffic flow. He said that without doubt there would be adequate
public hearing if any action was ever contemplated for removal of on-street parking from '
. Echo Hollow Road.:
!
, ' I
'Mr. Peacher continued that it appeared ~here was considerable traffic on Echo Hollow that
,didn't originate there, the general public traveling from outside areas to swimming meets,
,school functions, church functions, etc. And he inquired whether it was correct that con-
'sideration ,was being given to blocking Royal Avenue at Belt Line Road. Counci.Iman McDonald
: referred to other arterials in the ci ty assessed to abutting p'roperties which were used by
;people other than'those living there. Mr. Teitzel explained that it was not intended to
;"block" Royal Avenue. When Belt Line was constructed, he said, it was intended to close j a
!the intersection at Royal Avenue onto Belt Line and use an overpass for crossing. There I 11'
;has been no decision yet in that regard.
I .
I
\~r. Peacher then asked if Bancrofting was available to everyone and remarked that the 7%
~nterest on $1000 for ten years would add another $700 to the assessment. He said he had' !
ijust received his notice of assessment and wondered whether other neighbors, if they
hadn't received their notices yet, ,woulA,have,~,c:hance to be heard. He added that in the
four month;--h~-had lived on this property he had called :s~v;ral Limes for;'ore poTice----\
,patrol on Friday evenings and Saturdays when school functions were in 'progress but had \
no response. Councilman McDonald explained that Bancrofting was available but that the \
:interest was paid on the principal balance only and would decrease over the ten-year period. \
(Mr. Keller told Mr. Peacher that when the contract was awarded for this project the '.
:estimate of the anticipated assessment/was fairly accurate. He added, in view of Mr.Peacher'::;;
: short residency on the street, that the improvement should really be considered in light
of what was there initially - a country type gravel road which was really dangerous for
children riding bikes. He suggested that Mr. Peacher continue to call the police and to
encourage his neighbors to do the same when speed laws were violated. He said the council
bill would be before the Council at the November 12 meeting for second reading and final
action. .
Mr. Teitzel in response to Mr. Peacher's co~ments on ,use of the street by school and church I 4It
patrons said that church and school propert~es abutt~ng the street were assessed on the . '-
basis of a 36-foot equivalent. Church properties, he said, were not considered a commercial \
land use and were not zoned commercially, and assessments were based on land use zoning. !
Bassell Montgomery objected to assessment against 100-foot frontage of his property at
1120 Echo Hollow Road on which a BPA easement was located. He said that restrictions pre-
'vented any type of improvement on that easement which might provide income for meeting
the assessment. And because of the situation of the easement in relation to the balance
,'of his property there was no possibility of future subdivision to make use of, that land.
'-"He said it involved almost one-half of his property and that the'city recognized the lack
of benefit when sewer on Echo Hollow Road was not installed abutting that piece of land.
Mr. Montgomery continued that a 40-foot easement was granted for a drainage channel which
destroyed his blueberry patch. He said he was reimbursed for that easement and for the
blueberry bushes although not to the extent he felt was their potential value. He felt '
~the assessment against the lOO-foot frontage abutting the easement was unfair and unjust I
and asked for consideration of some adjustment. He said he understood the policy on assess- I
'ments but never understood a policy to which there could be no exceptions for hardship cases./
,
;
~ouncilmen McDonald and Keller were shown a map of the area on which the Montgomery property:
'~as pointed out. Mr. Teitzel acknowledged that the property under discussion did contain' -
i~ BPA transmission line and a drainage channel (subsequently tiled by the city). However, '~
che pointed out, city policy was to assess street frontage to easements and that had been
[done on several occasions in s,imilar circumstances. He noted that a smaller property
[lying behind Mr. Montgomery's had been charged for frontage abutting the BPA easement
;running through it.
4'"
~~~ 11/12/74 - 14
"
Councilman McDonald wondered if there was precedent ,for granting some type of adjustment
~n this case. Mr. Teitzel knew of none. The only comparable instance, he said, was in
,another area where the 1/29 per square foot levy for sewer service was waived on the ::
. portion of a BPAeasement beyond the l60-foot depth. 'The sewer mentioned by 1
~ Mr. Montgomery in this instance that was not installed abutting the easemEnt was
i actually not installed because that was the point of natural break, in drainage - those I
: north of Montgomery's property were served to the north, those to the south were served
i to the south. Mr. Montgomery recognized that a street couldn't be cut to skip the
I portion abutting the easement,' but he wondered if> the Council would c~nsider the assess-
I
I ment fair and just.
I Mr. McDonald commented on the formula for assessing costs of public improvements and
said the assessment would have to be considered fair under the present policy. Mr.Keller
agreed and noted that Mr. Montgomery did own the property and that the street would hav,~'
! to be considered of some benefit, either now or at some future time. He said he would
have to assume the property was purchased with the BPA easement already on it or that it I
, was put through with Mr. Montgomery's a~! -oval. There was no way to-control the influx
: of people into an area which resul ted in need for improvements, and the improvements
! did have to be paid for. Mr. Keller said he felt the alternatives were limited, and in
trying to make assessments as fair as possible he would have to say this one was fair.
He added that sometime before the November 12 Council meeting he would take a look at
I the property' in question.
!
Bill DeZeeuw quotedifigures invested .in his property (south of Mr. Holverstot't's) to
~ ooint out to the Council, he~said, what residents of that area were experiencing. He
~ said he had purchased the property In 1959 as commerc~al property, ~t had been rezoned
to residential about a year ago. He figured he had about $8600 invested, counting this
: assessment plus the sewer assessment and property taxes. He said he was advised by the
i-,lanners that the property would be assessed (for property taxes) on the ba'sis of two.~
lots because of the street frontage on Echo Hollow, however deed restrictions prevente~
mere than one residence on that property. He said he was "sending out a flyer tonight";:,~
,that he would like some relief in the form of a variance or other consideration to be ',~
dole to make use of the property for which it was assessed. He said he understood the J
: street assessment would' have been hi,gher had the property st.i 11 been commercially zoned, .,
,but he, would have been satisfied to have paid the additional cost if the property were
l__ . .' '. _ ','," ...... __d_. _. __,._ '. .... '. ~ ," ..... . _.. _ ..._.__ _..~------,--_.,
returned to a commercia'l zom~.' Mr. Teitzel explained that the city had no control over \
assessed values, that protest should be made to th'e Countyi f Mr. DeZeeuw was tax(~d for \
two building sites and deed restrictions prevented its use in that fashion. Other than \
that, he said, the street improvement assessment was based on the standard 28-foot I
residential width. '
"
, i
'Mr. Holverstott inquired about the length of time allowed for payment under Bancrofting.
He had understood there was a possibility it could be extended to 20 years making it
possible for some of the residents On fixed incomes to meet the payments. George Wilson,
~. .1425 Echo Hollow Road, also inquired about a 20-year program for meeting the assessment.
,., He said he understood something on that order might be worked out, with the option of
, paying off sooner if desired. Councilman Keller explained the standard lO-year Bancroft-
ing procedure and noted the recently adopted hardship deferral program. It was under-
! stood that Mr. Teitzel would investigate the "20-year program" mentioned and get in
' touch with both Mr. Holverstott ahd Mr. Wilson in that regard.
Mr. Holverstott quoted assessment against his commercial property compared 'to the resi-
! dential property next to it and requested a $2.67 per front foot reduction on his assess-
· ment to compensate for the cost of the bicycle path for which the residential properties
were not charged. '
j
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
f;C.B.672 - Paving, sanitary and storm sewers( and bridge on Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue
to 18th Avenuei sanitary sewer within area between 160 feet west and 160 feet
east of Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenueipaving and s~orm sewer
on 15th Avenue from Oak Patch Road to 370 feet west (73-31 and 73-33)
Initiated by petition of owners of 37% of the properties ,to be assessed. Total contract
cost $145,974.45, awarded on May 29, 1973 after public hearing.
- Howard Elder, 1491 Oak Patch Road, questioned the "majority rule" process in making im-
4It. lprovements on a petition representing a minority of the property owners. He said he and
Ineighbors had already paid for sewer previously installed and wondered why they were
,being assessed at this time for sewer service. Mr. Teitzel explained that the assessment
included cost of the 28~foot paving and the 1/29 per square foot trunk levy which was not
assessed when the previous sewer was installed. The trunk levy, he said in reply to
Mr. Elder's questions, applied to all properties annexed to the city after 1948 and was
---- -.._.._--,._~ .....- ..- .--- ..-. -_.~.._~..._-_.__... . --_. --- - --..--.-......--.... ,:::.r..~-...~.._.,---_...~,.._---_._--'-~.."----'
390 11/12/74 - lp
"." ,"
,l. /!-
..:',.:.,~,-'''. ',-'>~ ll' ~.r--o~-' - ,-..-_.,. '" --:,. -'~"".Il"- --..---.-----.--- -,
usu;;Ji'y assessed 'at the time the property was serviced. That levy was assessed against .'"
prop~rty even if undeveloped at the time sewer service was made available. He said the
back;20 feet along Mr. Elders's property belonging to the city was not included in the "
i '
.ftsses'smen t. ,,' ,I e
.r.'..... ~:-.
1'""" ~',f
i Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. ,: '
~-- --.--..---- ------------. "---'---'-~--- ---...}}
End of Assessment fanel Report. ~.>
Manager, in view of questions raised at the Panel hearing and desire of some of those ob-
jecting to the Echo Hollow assessment to be heard by the entire Council, asked'for Council,
position with regard to receiving further testimony at the November 12 meeting. He said
that if the Echo Hollow people were not to be heard they should be so advised. Also that
one question raised was the possibility of a 20-year Bancrofting provision. That was al-i
. lowed by law, he said, but had not been used except for the Overpark. One problem in mak- -j
! ing that payment period available on only one project was the probabili ty of having un- '~
imarketable or expensive bonds because of the smail quantity. ~o the question of changing
: the entire Bancrofting program to a 20-year basis might be considered. Further informa-
~tion in that regard, he said, would be available at the November 12 Council meeting.
,Councilman McDonald reviewed questions.raised at the Panel hearing as set out in the re-
port.Don Allen, public works director, explained the city's position with regard to the
,mismatch in Pape's service line and the city lateral (C.B.670). The recommendation was
,to "stand fast" on the proposed assessment to that property because public works department
:did have data available to substantiate that the lateral was located according to informa-
:tion SUP.Plied by Pape'. He continued that the stub was installed at a depth to accommodate ~
ithe service line, but since the improvement was not satisfactory to Pape' they did not ..,
wish the city to charge them for it. Mr. Allen said he thought Council action to pick up .
the cost would he inappropriate.
,Councilman McDonald accordingly recommended second reading and approval of C.B.670'for the
Centennial Boulevard improvement as well as C.B.672 for the Oak Patch improvement. He re-
'ferred to C.B.67l covering assessments for Echo Hollow Road improvements and reviewed
'questions raised on that project as set out in the Panel report. Mr. McDonald said he
I
and Mr. Keller were in agreement that nothing could be done but to ass~ss the'cost as pro-
:posed in the council bill. However, the protestors had been told at the Panel hearing that:
: they could bring their protests to the November 12 Council meeting. Manager said that
:assistant city attorney, Stan Long, advised that testimony at the Council meeting could be}
, limi ted because public hearing had been provided before the Assessment Panel. However, ",' "
: there was nothing that would p;event anyone from being heard since it was an open public
: meeting. i
I ." -, -.-- ..... -, ,... ~ C
. The Chair ruled that testimony would be accepted from the public in discussion , / o/mm
., ~l 6 74
of the council bills levying assessments at the November 12 Counc~l meet~ng. ;'
, Approve
The Chair ruled that this item would be segregated and discussed later when
ordinances levying the assessments were brought on for consideration. (See ~
council bill numbers under ordinance section.) ~
I. Council Minutes October .7, 1974 as circulated Approve
i' ....,.'.. ,-., ,..... - .'..'.....;-...'.-----..'... ....--,,,,, .-- --- , -. ", , "'" ,
J.;Vacancy, Metropol~tan Area Plann~ng Adv~sory Committee - Copies of letter of resigna- !
; bon received from Lewis Manhart were previously distributed to Council members to- ,I
~ gether with list of suggested names submitted for last Planning Commission vacancy !
. and names suggested by LCOG to fill the MAPAC vacancy. CouncIl President Williams :
,scheduled executive session of the Council for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 6, ,
to select a replacement for the balance of the term ending June 30, 1977. Council Cornrn
members were. }t1.1(!S/;,<!"tr:...yresent suggestions for the replacement at that time. IP/30/74
" '....,. -" , " ',' , Affirm
K.:A~pointment, 'MAPile' - Coi.indi 'pre'sident Wiliiams ani-lounced that the Council in execu- /
ft~ve ses~ion recommended appointment of Lee Penny, 2355 Birch Lane, to the LCOG }' Cornrn
~Yetropo1~tan Area Planning Advisory Committee, replacing Lewis Manhart, resigned, . 11/6/74
l!~r the bal~nce of the term ending June 30, 1977. i Affirm
. . .. v ',' .,. '.' I
L .;-Boy 'Scout Food Drive '--coliilCilman McDonald asked i;;r support of the Boy Scout~ in
h. , . . . , Comm
;t e~~ collect~on of canned. food on Saturday, November 2, for distribution by '10/30/74
, char~ table agencies in the communi ty. ' Fi Ie
M.;Ordinances, Social Gambling - Councilman Murray asked when there would be further : 4It
;'Council consideration of ordinances with regard to social gambiing. Councilwoman ;
iCampbell noted that some of those interested were left with the impression that ! C
ithe ordinances would be return~d to the Council in about two weeks. Manager re- iO/30~~
rSPCJn,ded th~t conta ct was made w~th Portland but not much information gained because I File
Ithe~r ord~nance had been in effect only six weeks. He hoped for further contacts i
!dur~ng t~e League meet~ng in November with other cities which had adopted simi1ar/ .
1eg~slat~on. He expla~ned that 'a two-week estimate was given before contact with
Portland and before knowing how little information was available. " j
39 J 11/12/74 - 16
-
~
<,
N.Congratulations to Commissioner Wood were extended by other Council members upon Comm
'his election to the Lane County Board of Commissioners in the November 5 election. 11/6/74
File
~ O~Court Action, Covenant Park PUD - Council President Williams announced that the city's Comm
,., ~~ction in gr~ntingapproval for the Covenant, Park PUD at 38th and Hilyard was upheld 11/6/74
; ~n court act~on brought by_~~side_nts_ ~~ the area. , " _. _ ... u ,_. ..~ File
' u "_
P.IProposed Parking Structure and Transjt Terminal, 8th and Willamette - Frank Shearer"
'chairman of the Eugene Renewal Agency, said the project was being pursued a little
I ,
~ differently than originally proposed and for that reason the Agency wanted to bring the
: Council up to date on present plans. Copies of preliminary design for the proposed /
'parking structure to be. located north of 8th at Willamette and the transit terminal i
and parking structure south of 8th at Willamette were distributed. Don Lutes, architect
for the project, displayed sketches and explained the layout designed to provide parking
for 675 cars in both structures and space for 14 to 16 buses in the south structure, plus
retail space on the ground floors. He described the design elements which would recog-
,nize the scale of buildings on the Willamette, Street side and provide for convertibility,
for shows or exhibitions and long-term if it should be decided to use the structures
,for other purposes. He, explained that the inclusion of "pipe" ventilat~on.. to ~a]{ec.are
of exhaust fumes was provided when cost factor for mechanical ventilation of the fumes ,
,was considered. He added that the design also included space for U. S. National Bank's :
jdrive-up banking which would be discontinued at its present location east of Willamette.
,
~ Councilman McDonald inquired how autos traveling to the structures from the east would
,., be accommodated, how a bottleneck would be avoided at 8th and Oak and along 8th Avenue
,just east of Willamette. Mr. Lutes answered that Willamette would be returned to two-
way movement in that location to provide proper traffic circulation. He added that
traffic counts indicated a considerable amount of unused capacity on 8th Avenue, enough
,
: to allow any additional traffic to be absorbed. Al Williams, traffic engineer, said
that about 150 to 200 of the parking spaces planned for the structures would be all-day
,parking. He didn't anticipate any problems considering the double left-turn lane from
rOak onto 8th and present traffic on that street which most of the time was not too heavy.
i Dave Hunt, executive director of ERA, added that with the closure of the U. S. Bank
I drive-up facility traffic would no long~r be entering that area from 7th, also some of
the congestion on 8th would be relieved.
Councilman Wood asked whether provision for bicycle storage was considered. Mr. Lutes
replied that it was included in the program but location had not yet been resolved.
There would be storage space out of the weather, secured, but no enclosure, and the only
problem was in estimating the amount of space to provide to avoid an adverse effect upon
the retail operations.
Councilman Hershner asked whether the present parking provided beneath the U. S. Bank
building would remain. He also asked for further clarification with regard to the third-
~ level parking in the structure north of 8th Avenue. Mr. Lutes answered that the parking
~ beneath the U. S. Bank building would be retained but entrance would be from Park Street
,with no entrance from Willamette or the mall area. He eXplained that the pa~king struc-
,ture north of 8th would have three levels of parking on the western portion. The portion
:aiong Willamette would have two levels, that design intended to complement the scale of
[buildings ,across Willamette Street. He went on to explain that the two-level section I
:was designed for convertibility to future office space or could be closed off to provide,
- I
;space for boat shows, exhibitions, etc. The spa~~ above the transit structure could be II
:converted entirely to office space or some other kind of use. However, he thought that
;with the'deficit of parking in the downtown area that 'possibility was a long time in I
the future. Mr. Hunt added that the space beneath theU. S. Bank building would be used i
. jfor bank parking only and would not be open to the. general public. i
IMr. Hunt called attention to a model showing the structures in relation to surrounding I !i
: buildings. He said the Agency wanted to start construction of the facilities as soon as
:,possible. Financing would depend upon development of the hotel to the north. The Agency I
'would be borrowing enough money to carry the project until ,development of the hotel _ I
and accompanying tax flow from increased property values - would provide enough revenues ,
to amortize the debt. Charts showing proposed phasing of the project were distributed
indicating temporary parking spaces to be available during construction of both facilities.
~ jcouncilman McDonald inquired about the finanCing, whether the city was invoived, and wh~t
.., ! the city's responsibility would be for, any bond obligation. Mr. Hunt explained Oregon
'statutes that gave the renewal agency authority as an entity separate from the city.
iRe said the city would be under no obligation, that rested entirely with ERA. Also that
!the Agency's attorney had advi~ed that the city and the Agency legally were two separate !
~corporate bodies even th6ugh the Agency members were appointed by the Council. :
,
-, "'...... ~ " ...~:~. .-.-. .... .-. --=---- '-~. ..,~..,----~---'
11/12/74 - 17
392
- .. Corom
In response to Council President Williams, Mr. Hunt said the Agency desi.red no Council 11/6/74
action as this time. However, they would be looking in the future to building over the File
sidewalk area and also to building a bridge over 8th Avenue connecting the two structu~es.
Councilman Williams said it could be assumed t~e Council supported the desig~ as pre~~: ~
sented and encouraged the Agency to proceed "w~th all duehast:e." _ ~ .,
Q. Community Development TqskForce - Representatives appointed from Neighborhood Added
Organizations - Gary Spivak (Whiteaker) and George McGuinness (Laurelhili); since
Planning Commission - Susan Franklin and James Bernhard; Lane County Housing Comm
Authority - Emily Schue; and Joint Housing Committee - Betty Niven. ' File
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve, affirm, and file as
noted Items B through D, Items F and G, and Items I through Q; that Item A
be returned to committee-of~the~whole; that Item E be referred back to staff;
and that Item H be discussed under the ordinance section. Motion carried
unanimously. . '
III - Ordinances (0700)
Council Bill No. 663 - Amending Section 8.700(e) of the City Code re: Maximum surface
area of billboards, read the first time on October 29, 1974
and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought back and read the
second :ime by c~uncil bill.number and title,.there being no council member present ~
requestlng that lt be read ln full....
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be approved and given final pass-
age. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members McDonald, Murray, and Wood voting
aye; Councilwomen Beal and Campbell voting no; Concilman Williams abstaining; and the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17197.
(0720)
Council Bill No. 670 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between a line
400 feet north of 1-105 and a line 850 feet south of Centennial
Boulevard (extended) from east line of 1st Addition to Ayres Subdivision to 1200 feet
west of Fairway Loop (extended) (73-06), read the first time on October 29, 1974 and
c:.'referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 4, 1974, was brought back for
consideration of Panel recommendations and read the second t~me by council bill number
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be approved and
given. final passage.
Don Allen, public works; director, reiterated the staff's position for recommending assess-
ment of the levy as proposed. He said data given the public works department by Pape'
was used to establish the elevation of the connection and the lateral was designed to ~
permit connection of the private allowing twice the minimum.'f1ow required. ,.
Don Furtick, 1705 Fairmount Boulevard, objected to paying for lateral cost assessed against (0761)
property at the northwest corner of Centennial Boulevard and Centennial Loop in which he
had an interest. It was his understanding that the people from whom he had bought the
property had refused to participate in the cost of the sewer installed to serve the McKay
subdivison. That line could also be used by the Furtick property. He contended that the
,line was installed at the private developer's cost, that its cost had been paid for quite
some time, and that there was no reason at this time for the cost to be charged to him.
If it was charged to his property, he said, the same criteria should be used in assessing
the cost to all the other abutting properties.
Mr. Allen displayed a sketch showing the sewer lines constructed by the city and the private (0809)
line installed by McKay to city specifications. He explained the assessment proposed
and said the private line was constructed so that any property annexing later could use
that system. There was agreement at that time that no future assessment would be waived
for any property within 160 feet of the line. The Furtick property, he said, gained con-
nection and the city had no choice but to assess accordingly. In response to Manager,
Mr. Allen said the Furtick property had never been assessed for sewer service and probably
never would be unless for this particular project.
In response to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Allen explained the McKay ownership on Centennial and said (O~
that in staff's opinion there were no double assessments involved. . -
In resonse to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Allen pointed out on the sketch where the Furtick (0884)
property was connected to the sewer line and explained the charges on the cost of a private
line versus the lateral.
Rollcall vote ,was taken on the motion to approve and pa?s the bill. Motion
carried, all council members present voting aye, and the bill was declared
passed and numbered 17198.
:3~~ 11/12/74 - 18
(0911) Council Bill No. 671 - Levying asses~ments for paving, sidew~lks, and sanit~ry ,
and storm sewers on Echo Hollow Road from Royal Avenue to
. Barger Avenue (73-12), read the first time on October 29,1974
~ and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 4, 1974, was brought back
~ for consideration of 'Panel recommendations and read the second time by council bill
number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be
read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the,bill b~ approved
and given final passage.
George H. Wilson, 1425 Echo Hollow Road, said that all property owners on Echo Hollow Road
except four not contacted and three others who intended to pay the assessment off had
indicated they would like to bond their assessments over a twenty-year period. Most were
on social security or pensions, he said, and would probably be the first to be dropped
if the recession now anticipateq occurred. Manager explained the difficulty of having
marketable bond? if one project was bonded at a time. Accumulation of several projects
for a 20-year period to at least $2.5 million would be desirable to gain a favorable
interest rate. In reviewing the possibility of putting all Bancrofting on a 20-year
schedule allowing people to select payment schedule of either 10 or 20 years, the number
of projects over the past few years, and other factors, it was found that administrative
cos'ts wOuld increase about 2%. Also, additional 'interest cost over a 20-year period on
a typical assessment would be about twice that on a 10-year schedule. So it was felt
preferable to expand the recently adopted hardship deferral program to help people under
~ this project or others who did not qualify under existing hardship qualifications.
.~ Manager recommended, if the Council was seriously interested in going to a 20-year bond-
ing program, that action on this assessment be delayed until there was opportunity to
discuss the question in detail and get an, understanding of the problems involved. Or
if the Council felt it appropriate, a liberalized hardship deferral process could be
recommended in which case the assessment could be levied as proposed with assurance
to the hardship cases on this project that action would be taken to make changes in the
hardship deferral program that would make payments equal to what they_would be if a
20-year bonding program were in effect. All in all, he said, staff preferred not going
to a 20-year Bancroft bonding program because of the creation of more costs to the prop-
erty owner as well as -to' the city and 'might involve getting the statute changed raising
the 7% interest rate limitation.
(1018) G. B. Holverstott, 1470 Jay Street, read a letter received from the city with his assess-
ment stating that assessment for abutting residential properties was based on 28-foot
width, commercial property on 44-foot width. He asked that his assessment be changed
to compensate for the bike path included in the project. He thought State money should
be used to pay for that cost. Manager explained change in assessment policy in April 1974
to provide that residential properties on existing streets would be assessed on a 28-foot
basis; in new subdivisions, on a 36-foot basis; and commercial properties as before, on a
44-foot basis. He said Mr. Holverstott's property was assessed-according to that policy.
~ Mr. Allen added that n~ State fu~ds were us~d for this project, t~at the entir~ cost other
~ than that assessed agalnst abuttlng propertles was from the bond lssue. He sald the last
evaluation showed the formula for assessing streets fronting on commercial and industrial
properties held true, and that regardless of the surface portion used, they were bene-
fited more than residential properties, hence the full 44-foot width basis. He said the
bike path was inside that 44 feet, not like Bailey Hill Road where the bike path was in
addition to the 44 feet. The original design for Echo Hollow, he'$aid, would have been
for a 40-foot street had the bike path not been included at the time of public hearing
on bid award. However, city policy was to assess up to and including 44 feet for com-
mercial and industrial properties because it was determined that arterials adjacent to
those type properties should be 44 feet wide.
(1131) Mr. Williams noted that regardless of inclusion of the bike path the surfaced area still
could be used for access to Mr. Holverstott's property by either bikes or 'autos.
In response to Councilwoman Beal, Manager explained that the portion of the street used
for 'bike path was included in the assessment because it carne wi thin the 44-foot width .~;
assessed to commercial properties. Residential properties were assessed only for 28~foot
equivalent. Mr. Allen in further response to Councilwoman Beal explained the design of
the street at various locations to accommodate parking, bikes, etc.
(~5) John Peacher, 1050 Echo Hollow Road, asked for consideration of a 2Q-year Bancroft bonding
~ program or some other form of relief for hardship cases because of the people on fixed
incomes faced with this assessment. He wondered if a portion of the assessment would
be refunded if the bike path use was determined a hazard and discontinued. Manager said
once the assessment was made it would stand regardless of any change in bike lanes.
Mr. Peacher asked about anticipated change in Royal and Belt Line intersection which would
change traffic patterns and make Echo Hollow more of a commercial street, to which
Mr. Williams answered that it was considered a commercial street at this time, still resi-
dential properties were assessed only for the 28-foot width. Mr. Williams added that
there would be consideration of hardship cases on this project.
39+ 11/12/74 - 19
Councilwoman Beal wondered if it was necessary to adopt the assessment ordinance at
this time. She felt it should be delayed until some of the problems of people on fixed
incomes were answered. Manager saw no immediate need for adopting the ordinance, but
it would probably only be delayed for a' couple of weeks ;and that amount of time would -
not be enough to develop a policy on liberalization of hardship deferral. He noted that
if the assessment was levied the first payment under Bancrofting would not be due for
six months which would give time to work something out. It would not be desirable, he
said, to delay assessments that long because'of the need to accumulate amounts suffi-
cient for a bond sale. Mr. Allen indica1:,~~iEr problems in his department with ,delay-
ing the assessment other than that these"'We!e -long outstanding, the project had been
finished last summer and assessments were overdue. Interest was being paid on short
term borrowing until bonds were sold. Sherm Flogstad, finance director, said prepara-
tion of a bond sale would start in about 30 days, actually sold in about 90 days.
Councilman Murray was in favor of proceeding with assessments then altering the hard-
ship deferral program so that assessments for this project would qualify. He could see
no advantage to a two-week delay. t
Mr. Wilson said he 'would like to see the assessments delayed so that the amount of (1311)
monthly payments would be known before the lien was filed against his property. He
said he could take care of the payments on the amount assessed if it had been spread
over a 20-year period. Manager recognized that Mr. Wilson had been encouraged in think-
ing the assessment could be p&id under a 20-yearBancrofting program. However, after a
careful look at bond markets, statutory interest rates, etc. , staff felt that another way
to solve the problem should be sought. He told Mr. Wilson that the hard$hip deferral .~
proposal aimed at would be equivalent to the kind of relief that would have been avail-
able under 20-year Bancrofting.
Councilwoman Campbell expressed surprise that the hardship deferral program was not ex-
plained to these people. Mr. Wilson said that it was explained. The problem was that
their income was a little more than allowed them to qualify under that program, he said,
and they would have to get the Council to make an exception.
B. H. Montgomery, 1120 Echo Hollow Road, asked if the Council had received information (1365)
supplied at the Panel hearing. He asked for special consideratioR because of the situa-
tion of his property as explained in the Panel hearing. Manager replied that the
hearing minutes were included in committee minutes before the Council.
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass the council bill.
All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17199.
Council Bill No. 672 - Levying,assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers, and
bridge on Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue;
sanitary sewer within area between 160 feet west and 160 feet east of Oak Patch Road
from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue; paving and storm sewer on ISth Avenue from Oak Patch e
Road to 370 feet west (73-31 and 73-33), read the first time on October 29, 1974 and
referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 4, 1974, was brought back for
consideration of Panel recommendations and read the second time by council bill number
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered
17200.-
Council Bill No. 674 - Calling hearing December 23, 1974 re: Vacation of 10-foot
overhead utility easement on McLean Boulevard near Douglas
Drive and Lindsay Loop was read the first time by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member present requesting that ~t be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Cotlncil, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and e
numbered 17201.
Council Bill No. 675 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between 160 feet west of
Sunshine Acres Road and 110 feet east of VanDuyn Street and from 120 feet south of Bendix
Avenue to 160 feet north of Mahlon Avenue (74-05) was read the first time by council bill
number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it b e read in
full.
J
395 11/12/74 - 20
\
\
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council, consideration of Panel reco~m.end~~ions
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously, ;,
. Council Bill No. 676 - Levying assessments for pavii1g~~al1ey"between 13th Avenue and 14th
Avenue from Pearl Street to north/south alley between Pearl Street and High Street (74-10) was
read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 677 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Mill Street and Ferry
Street from 3rd Avenue to one-half block north (74-11) was submitted and read the first time by
council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that ~t be
read ln full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 678 - Levying assessments for paving hammerhead turn-around at south end
of University Street 300 feet south of 39th Place (74-15) was read the first time by council bill
-. number and title ~~ly, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray:that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on Novembe~, 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 679 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within
Meadowbrook 1st Addition (74-17) was read the first time by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenations
on November 25, 1974. ' Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 680 - Levying assessments for paving streets within Churchill Heights Sub-
division and 25th Avenue" from 220 feet east of Chaucer Way to east 415 feet; sanitary sewer and
storm sewer within Churchill Heights Subdivision and sanitary sewer along east boundary of
Churchill Highlands 2nd Addition from between Strathmore Place and Kevington Avenue to north
boundary of Churchill Heights (74-18) was read the first time by council bill number and title
only, there being no council 'member present requesting that it be read in full.
- Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Ass~ssment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 681 - Levying assessment for paving alleys between Jefferson Street and
Madison Street from 24th Avenue to 24th Place (74-24) was read the first time by council bill
number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
t?- Council Bill No. 682 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Lots 5 through 10 of
'Point Thomas Addition (74-37) was read the first time by council bill number and title only,
there being no council membe.r present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 683 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy within Boyd Subdivision
(. (74-1005) was read the first time by council ,bill number and title only, there being no council
member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 684 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy on Tax Lot 17-03-30-20-
01003 (Valley River Inn) and Tax Lot 18-03-09-30-02400 (Firland Boulevard) (74-1008) was read
the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present
requesting that it be read in full. 3~b
-. , .
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 18, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendations
on November 25, 1974; Motion carried unanimously.
IV -'Resolutions .
Resolution No. 2350 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for
period October 29 through November 12, 1974.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote.
All council members present voting aye, the resolution was adopted.
Manager reminded Council that committee-of-the-whole meeting for tomorrow, ,November 13, was
cance lIed. Also that agendas for the November 20 committee meeting would be prepared and
distribute~ to Council members on Monday, November 18, at the League meeting, the main:topic
of discussiOn to be the Willarnette Greenway Plan.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting wasadjouTned to Monday, (1450)
November 25, 1974.
--:i10/?<C .~ .
H. gh'McKinley
City Manager
-
.
'.
397