Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/1974 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNC I L November 25, 1974 -- Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held November 12, 1974 - was called to order by Council President Tom Williams in the absence of Mayor Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 25, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following other Council members present: H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Camp be 11 , Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. Absent was Councilman Hershner. (0001) I - Proclamation was presented canvassing votes cast in November 5, 1974 election showing the following results: Yes No Measure No. 51 - Amending city officers' compensation 11,458 17,666 Council Ward I - Louis F. Bonson 707 I <-- Raymond j. Bradley 1,920 Barry Hood 744 Denton O. Peterson 223 Clifford F. Shirley 398 Ward IV - Tom R. Williams 2,252 Ward V-D. W. Hamel 1,900 Mary L. Milhaupt 1,634 e Ward VI - Eric Haws 1,610 Tom F. Poage 1,239 Eugene Water & Electric Board - Director at Large - Marian B. Frank 14,012 Calvin L. Schmidt 14,014 Wards IV and V - George Adams 1,850 Taylor Ramsey 3,996 Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the proclamation. Motion carried unanimously. (0105) II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in .committee on Nov.ember 20, 1974, (Present: Councn Pres)dent Wi'lliams [pr:esiding]' and Counci>l'members McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, and Murray). Minutes of that meeting appear below printed in italics. A.~ssessment"P~nel Report, November 18, 1974 - No wr~ tten protests or requests to be Iheard at the November 18 hearing were received so the hearing panel ,was not convened, IAssistant Manager reported possibility of one property owner's want~ng to be heard / e 'at the November 25 Council meeting because notice of assessment was not received ;' luntil after the deadline for presenting objec~iC>._~S_u(f:;.B.675 through 684)... H.. ' t. ,T . _. '-."_", ._.... __._....._..... ..... ...._u_... ..,' '. ... .__...... _ . . . \~ ~ B. Rezoning to R-2 PD property north of Kins Row south of I-105 and east of Centenni~i"" ,Boulevard, Earl Green (2 73-37) - Copies of letter from Richard Miller, attorney for Earl Green, and petition from Mr. Green requesting Council action on the rezoning re- Iquest were previously distributed to council members. Included with the distribution jwas copy of Judge Spencer's opinion, remanding the issue back to the Council for action ,because of procedural errors in the Council's previous action on the rezoning. Also Idistributed previously were copies of city attorney's advice that appeal of the trial icourt's decision had been started,' therefore it would not seem appropriate for the ICouncil to act upon Mr. Green's petition for action upon the rezoning. Assistant IManager said staff would recommend following city attorney's advice in further defense ['of existing policy and because it was felt the Judge's opinion had very broad implica- !tions for municipalities in consideration of future zoning issues. Bob Moulton, representing Earl Green in the absence of Mr. Miller, said that if Council jmembers Williams, Murray, Wood, Beal, and Keller would not be present at the November 25 '[council meeting, his client would be willing to hold the matter over to the next session. \He said it was important that the issue be heard by at least those five people, acting ,in a judicial capacity. They were the five the Judge indicated would be eligible to - ,Imake a decipion. Mr. Moulton said filing of an appeal of the court's action would not ikeep the Council from acting. He added that action was taken over a year ago to re- Izone the property and the Judge had given the opinion that the petitioners had the I fright to have the request heard by the court (council) and the court (council) had I ]the right to hear the testimony - those hearing all of the testimony in a judicidal I I !capacity should make the decision. Mr. Moulton continued that aside from the pro- :c~!l.!l.Ei:!-.~..<J.~.If!.S!Lo.r:L_t.!:!!.q.I'.~ZO!!,~!!!I .hi!;d me! i_~~.__-=--,~,~-:!lOu!:..a..J)!?1TJc!~j!:?.'3.sing ~l_o.~r:.J!!" c:t ,",a ". __---' "'A'.,.,(::;;-. _' 3~& 11/25/74 - 1 t,ime when- 'the economy wa.ssagglng. 'I[ a'c6on was dela'yed u,ntil a decision was rendered on an appeal, new Council members would be in office and possibly one of those eligible ,to make a decision would no ,longer be involved., He asked the Council to act upon the rezoning request when it was knoMlthat the five Council members named would be present .a to vote. _ , ! Assistant Manager said staff recommendation to proceed with filing'of an appeal was ; ,with no desire other than to defend present policy because it appeared to be a pro- ,cedural matter rather than a question of the merits of zoning or lack of zoning. He I 'shared the concern of the property owner because of the length of time since there- zoning request had been filed, but he felt implications without an appeal would be ! :far-reaching as they would concern processes with which the Council was involved ~n :its quasi-judicial function when considering zone changes. i ;Stan Long, assistant city attorney, reminded the Council that the issue came to the ! Council on an appeal from a Planning Commission denial of the rezoning and that the : Council ultimately upheld that denial and declined to rezone the property. He also I 'pointed out that some delay was caused by the applicant himself. Also, that the Court i ,had not accepted the suggestion that at one point the rezoning had been granted. : ,Mr. Long said the Council could take action on the rezoning if it so desired, but if 'it did, that action would render the appeal of the trial court's opinion moot and the ' icity would then be bound and obligated by Judge Spencer's decision. The central !question, Mr. Long said, from staff's point of view was not the merits of the rezoning request itself, rather it was the process by which the issue would be decided. He ireviewed city ordinance requirements with respect to Fasano pr~cedures - that any ~ Council member missing a meeting would be required to review the record of that meet- .. ing to be eligible to vote on the issue under consideration. The Court found that a I review of the written record (minutes) was not sufficient and remanded the matter back , to the Council for further proceedings (Council meetings were not tape recorded at the j ,time of hearings on this rezoning request). Mr. Long cited ordinance provisions, based j ;on legal and constitutional provisions, for Council conduct under Fasano regulations, iand said the position was taken that true and accurate summary of testimony (written !minutes) was sufficient evidence. However, the Court' disagreed and Mr. Long said he " 'would like to raise that question in the appeal. Anqther point of more concern, he :said, was failure of the applicant to point out any defect in Council procedure at the ; :time of the hearings on the rezoning, raising questions with regard to council members rparticipation in a decision when there was no chance to make a correction. He felt that :was "trial by ambush" and was a fairly. significant point to be brought out. ):ss'TstanT-j,janiiger -noted-dis;Us;loiJ 'aE.'some '-ie;';gtllwl;;;;' th~ 'oi-di~'ai1ce was' developed ~ .. setting out procedures for Council members' participation or voting on zoning issues land said the staff position was that the Court in this matter was attacking those' pro- icedures. He strongly recommended going ahead with the appeal but not to attempt to do iboth - file the appeal and act on the rezoning matter too. I I ' ' 'Councilwoman Beal asked if she and Councilman Keller would be able to participate in \ ~ ,a decision if action was taken on the rezoning now in view of having missed one of the tIP ,:1 meetings. Mr. Long said his original opinion was that a Council member who missed a \: meeting could participate in a decision if minutes of the missed meeting had been re- i viewed. The appLicantd'isagreedand the Court upheld the applicant's position, and if i that opinion was correct it would appear they could not particpate now. In answer to \ further questioning, he explained that disqualified Council members would still consti- ' tU.te a quorum. However, there was the fundamental question of whether the CouncilJ-veuJd vote as membersor as a whole. Sorting out the p'rocess with individuals who didnc:t ~~ -~""'-",,--'""......,...-- . .( ,participate in the rezoning decisiopif~t~q~~question was'not appealed, he said, would I , take some-nIne; There_ could be addi tional full scale hearings, since there are no -verbatim records (Jf~the testimony and the Judge's opinion was that summary of the ,testimony contained in minutes was not sufficient. Mr. Moulton .said the Court did not....... ,~. 'rule on the issue of whether Mrs. Beal and Mr. Keller could vote. until a more defini- ~tive ruling on that question was made, he th9u~nt ~t important.that a decision on the ; rezoning be made by those people who heard the evidence. He continued that the Judge's ; decision in this case was binding on this case only and in no other matters that would 'come before the counciJ,--j-n-ft-he- future and that the ruling concerned.. wording in the ci ty' s 'ordinance onLY. There was no ruling'on any constitutional question. He again asked 'tha't'the five members (Williams, Murray, Wood~ Heal, and Keller) vote on the-is~ue at ~this time in view of the November 5, 1973 Council decision to effect the rezoning~""'~______ ICouncil President Williams said it appeared that the question of Council authorization i '_ rto go ahead with an appeal would be entirely separate from the question of whether the property should be rezoned, so that it would appear the entire Council could vote on ! ~the question of appealing the Court's decision. Mr. Moulton disagreed with that position. ! , , He thought the entire Council did not have the right to obstruct the judicial function i of those eligible to vote on the question of rezoning. The legislative body, he said, , 'could not obstruct the judicial pody from carrying out that function. 3q9 11/25/74 - 2 tl '~",:.- ....':..~r : '1''7:?.'~\ j , The Chair ruled that the entire Council could vote on the procedural question I e i of whether an appeal should be lodged, that the question of appealing the I Court's decision was not a judicial question, ,rather that it was one of policy ! an whether city ordinances were properly observed and whether it was desired : to protect them. I I Councilman McDonald asked if the action taken at this time then would be to table the t , matter. Assistant Manager said that staff recommendation wo.uld be to table the petitio.n , for action on the rezoning while appealing the Judge's decision in the matter, He said I J [legal remedies should be explored .before going ahead on the petition. If the Judge's , [deCiSion was overruled in an appeal~ he said, then the petitioners themselves wo.uld have : to ask the Co.uncil how to address the problem. Mr. Lang added that the action taken would depend upon the order in which it was taken. If proceeding with the appeal was 1,1 authorized there would be no obligation to do anything further. If some response to i the petition was decided upon, then he suggested that the response might be to table or in some other fashion suspend action. Councilwoman Campbell said she felt she was victimized by the procedures in this matter. She said she was never asked whether she had read the minutes of the one meeting she missed, and she was not allo.wed to' participate in the decision even though she had read the minutes. However, Council members Beal and Keller were asked that question about the: meeting they missed and so were allowed to vote. Mr. Long said the question was not so '. e much whether the minutes'were read as it was that they did not constitute sufficient , ' evidence in the Court's opinion. Mr. Moulton added that it was his understanding that the: meeting missed by Councilwoman Campbell - the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting - 'was considered a hearing where testimony was presented. The meeting not attended by Council members Beal and Keller was not considered a hearing, no testimony was presented. With reference to the Council vo.te on whether the appeal sho.uld proceed, Mr. Moulton said it was probably appropriate that the entire Council could make that decision as a legis- lative body, but that would not keep the members sitting as a court from going ahead and fulfilling their function as judges and making a decision on the rezoning issue. I , I Council President Williams speaking from the Chair was of the opinion that if the Council >'1 " ,decided to proceed with the appeal, for all practical purposes the, Judge's ruling would ,~.' I be held in abeyance until a decision on the appeal was rendered and that it would be im-".~: proper to make a multiple decision - appealing the decision and once again voting upon the rezoning issue. Mr. Lang said there was no reason the Council could not do both, but doing both would have the effect of rendering the appeal moot which meant there would': be no decision. He said he was certain that if the Council decided to act ,on the rezon- f ing, Mr. Green's attorneys would advise the Court of that fact and the appeal would then:",} be dismissed. ., "' ~.__._ ~.:.c:~~~;;:i~:::.;I____-<t.,;'o~....~L~~':=:'''_;'.~i.'<l:!r.,,;....~,.....:::>:.>.; ;:";:-"'" . ,--,-":-.--~,,",,,".,~.......-..--,~..._.,,~,,,,,, ti..~:1 e / Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller that staff proceed with the "- appeal of Judge Spencer's decision in the matter of rezoning the Cen- Comm ( tennial Boulevard property of Earl Green and that no further action on 11/20/74 the rezoning be taken until a decision was received from the Court on Approve the appeal. , \ lCouncilman Murray was in favor of the motion. He was bothered that what started as \ !quasi-judicial actions by a legislative body now appeared to be full court actions ~~ jpeople elected as councilmen were being referred to as judges, and dining rooms were\ ibeing referred to as courts. He said he was really concerned about the erosion of \ Ithe political process when piece by piece and step by step he found he was no. longer, jin a ~egislati~e or politica~ role. T~at was not the intent of the ,people in el~ct-' ling h~m as the~r representat~ve, he sa~d, and though there was noth~ng at stake ~n Iterms of his own vote on this issue, it did seem just one more step and he was ready \ ,to resist that. I I . I Mr.Long~ :Councilman Keller asked about the time element involved in making the appeal. , replied that it could probably take five to' six months befo.re a final decision was , mage __ Mr. Keller recognized the ~ppli~ant' s frustration b~t ag~eed with .Mr. Mur~ay' 51 'J.', comments. He said the term "quas~" ev~dently meant someth~ng d~fferent ~n some ~n- ~ , ,'I stances. To him, judicial was judicial, and he felt in same cases he was not qual~- ~ '.' fied for that po.sition. He thought the problems which would be created if the Court ~ found against the city would far exceed the personal problems of Mr. Green. He ex- ! j 0' pressed sympathy for the applicant's position but could see nO alternative to pro- ,.... j ceeding as recommended. I \ Councilwoman Campbell said she was in favor of going ahead with the appeal. She said she would like to think this CO'3,l!.~:JJJla..(LeI?~c:t,e.<! ,e.f!...ective Je.gi_~l.ation ~T1.9...._~hCl,~_~!Le._~ _ ~.. h, _.. 11/25/74 - 3 4cn ~ ~ '", fina.tte;-should be ciarifI'eci:-- She'asked what would happ~;--wTi::h-"reg~id .t~ ;past -rezoning ldecisions made on the basis of the same ordinance if the appeal was lost. Mr. Long , I . !said that any other judgments involving the same type of error would be final. This iaction would apply only to this case. ~ (Councilman McDonald said he would vote against suspending action on the petition, mainly because the Council had faced similar decisions before and had been upheld in the courts. He felt delaying action on the applicant's request would only mean that he had to be put off again for many months. , 1 Vote was taken on the motjon as stated. Motion carried, all Council i , members present voting aye, except Councilman McDonald voting no. -', .. -,."-- Richard Miller, attorney speaking for Earl Green, reiterated request of his cli~nt presented (0125) at committee (see committee minutes above) - that the Council vote on the questlon of adopt- ing findings and consider an ordinance rezoning the property. He said the type of opinion which could be expected from the appeal of Judge Spencer's decision would be that the Council did not follow its own ordinances. He felt in light of that the issue before the Council should be whether it was in favor of adopting findings and an ordinance effecting the rezoning. Council President Williams said the question before the Council then was whether it wished to approve action taken at committee - to continue with the appeal of Judge Spencer~s de- cision and delay any action on the rezoning until a decision on the appeal was recelved. 4It Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that committee act~o~ be approved and that staff proceed with the appeal of Judge Spencer's oplnlon and that no, further action be taken on the rezoning of the Earl Green property on Cen- tennial Boulevard until a decision was received on the appeal. At the request of Councilman Wood, Assistant City Attorney Stan Long reviewed his opinion stated in committee (see committee minutes above). Vote was taken on,the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members (0281) present voting ~ya except Councilman McDonald voting no. " ,__". '.,Q.~-+" h " ".-..." . .n___' .-._..,.. ...._.__ .<.. ,_ __". C. -:-Report~ s-o;;IaT servlcescoIrmiittee re: cou~cIl.'s- concern about proposed process - i Copies of report were previously distributed to Council members. r i Comm D. Option, Culp Property Purchas?, Willamette between 28th and 29th - $190.00 1~/20/74 Approve J:; Abatement, Garage Building at 1561 Ferry Street - Call hearing December 9, 1974. j I It was understood all three items would be placed on the November 25 Council agenda) ~ with staff recommendation for approval. ;... .--.-., ,"-' F. i -Traffic Light s;n~~r~nizatio;;'-Hi1yard and patters;~"':' Co~~c~i1woman Beal ~ durin g : discussion of traffic diverters later i,n the meeting, asked for a report on syn- ! ! " \ !chronization of traffic lights on Hilyard and Patterson Streets. She said con- fstituents had brought to her attention that while traveling north on Hilyard one could not avoid stopping three times for traffic lights, and that the same was true i Comm ion 'Patterson. The Chair ruled that the question was not germane to the traffic 11(20~74 idiverter subject and asked staff to bring the subject back for discussion at some Afflrm I ~ure time. .,........ ~.. _' _n __'.. '_"___.__.". G. ,rWillamette Greenway Report - Copies of the report we're prev)ously distributed to !Council members. Bob Ironside and Bob Senaof Royston, Hanamoto , Beck, and Abey, ;consulting firm conducting the study, reviewed the proposed plan for a greenway on : each side of the entire length of the Willamette River to its confluence with the I Columbia River. They described the process of public meetings and meetings with [local agency representatives to gain the highest degree of local participation in es- tablishing a policy framework for development of the plan. It was emphasized that the plan in the local areas would be consistent with State goals and guidelines under S~B.100 regulating land use, and that local planning as overseen by the ~and ~o~3e~ya- _._ t~on and Development Comm~ssion would be applicable. Mr. Ironside said the plan con- sisted of (1) general intrOduction, (2) the plan itself for adoption which contained maps identifying greenway boundary, definition of terms and uses linked to the green- way, and goals and guidelines; (3) methodology and data used in formulating the plan; ,(4) supplemental recommendations developed through input from citizens, agency staffs, 'elected officials, etc., during the public meeting process; and (5) appendices of more detailed data on the River itself from the Columbia to Dexter and Cottage Grove .-........... . 40 I 11/25/74 - 4 I 'reservoirs. ~e said critical greenway areas ~~re' iaentified by'riumb~;,loc~tion, left or right bank, acreage, characteristics, intensity of human uses which relate " ~ to soil problems, vegetation, fish or wildlife sensitivity, all with the idea that , ,., Ithat analysis would determine the suitability of varying degrees of human activity. : He said the greenway plan was primarily a State plan of State-wide significance in protecting the River in its present condition, continuing existing uses of urban , jareas but with regulation and control to avoid conversion to urban uses in the future. . . t".: Mr. Sena pointed out the greenway boundary on a map and described it as a strip 150 feet: on each side of the River from minimum low water level, not exceeding 320 acres per .. river mile. He said ownership would be both public and private but managed by the ;:, public and wi th the potential for public use. Local planning agencies would determine I" , the best areas for that public use, taking into account "river influence" area in : local zoning - that area beyond the gree~way boundary but influenced by the River. 1 Mr.' Ironside added that presentations of this preliminary report to local agencies as (indicated by LCDC would continue to about the middle of December after which any re- ,visions resulting from those presentations would be made. So any comments or sug- gestions! he said, could be presented in the next couple of months to Georg,~ Churchill, · director of the GreenwaY' Associa tion, or to the LCDC. Councilwoman Campbell asked for clarification of critical areas. She thought the en- :tire length of the River was to be considered a critical area. She asked if LCDC had ~authority in that regard and how the plan would be implemented, how it would be funded. .., Mr. Ironside explained that the entire River could be declared a critical area. , Mr.Sena '! added that probably a State management plan would be prepared but it would be up to local planning agencies to initiate and establish greenway areas or develop plans to see that access to the River is provided. He said State funds would be available. ,Councilman McDonald asked if city and county planning commissions would have authority to say what kind of development would or would not occur in the greenway areas. Mr. Ironside answered that local jurisdictions would have authority so long as develop- ments were consistent with the greenway plan. The concept, he said, was that private development could occur according to local plans ~_ ifi t had som~ rela tionto theRi~e..r ;and if maximum public access to the River was provided. He said there probably would !have to be a lot of dialogue in cases of clear cut violations and differences between , ,local planning agencies and LCDC, in interpretation of the plan. \ \: !Co~n~ilwoman Beal noted that l~nd use categories in ~he pland~signated ar~as of \ 'cr~tlcal concern yet also cons~dered them as areas w~th potent~al for publ~c use. She ~ wondered if the entire River should be designated a critical area by the LCDC and sub- ject to regul~tions under the land use legislation (S.B.lOO). She asked about the mechanism for accomplishing conservation and maintenance work to be done in the critical: ,areas. Mr. Sena and Mr. Ironside explained that the purpose of the plan was to point : 4It ,out sensitive areas critical in the senseof preserving the gre~nway, those areas need- ! ing careful and intensive management. The plan organizes and establishes a scale with \ regard to sensitivity,and potential public or private use would be graded according to \ that scale. The report itself stated that LCDC designation of the entire River as a critical area would help in implementation of the plan and greenway management. ' :In response to Assistant Manager, Mr. Sena pointed out the delta area at the confluence \ 'of the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers as one of the critical spots in the metropolitan ! Eugene/Springfield area. . I I , , [Councilwoman Campbell asked what agency could control the greenwayareas if there was an attempt at the local level to allow more development. Mr. Ironside said that S.B.lOO regulations would prevail through the local comprehensive plan and LCDC. ,John Porter, planning director, commented that the greenway plan as presented provided ,a good framework for more detailed planning, al though ,i t appeared the ci ty would be facing more problems and additional work to ensure preservation of the Willamette River. ! He said the direction was there, given by the State, and it was now up to the city to proceed. 'Assistant Manager suggested staff review and, if necessary, planning commission review .,J tIJ' : of the plan with report to be brought back to the Council within 60 days. ~ 1 ...'..... I Councilwoman Beal commended the consultants on the manner in which the plan was formulated~ ; She hoped the LCDC would be funded to the extent that this type of planning could be ex- \ , ten8ed to preserve and maintain what exists in the entire State. She reserved the right~~l : to comment on the plan in future discussion. Mr. Sena welcomed comments and offered ,.',' extra copies of the plan should they be needed. " ~-- . ............ n. _, ___.--.-___ . ..___~.._.._ -'~--.-~----...--.,.......:.:-..:..:.,:';O"~....;::"~-::..-:.'~.Jj"--~:...7,,~:. _..b ,.....__~,. ...;I~\',;;'::'" ..:' ___ ~()~ 11/25/74 - 5 --' - .. ----""'p, ' ' '-.',..-., ,..., ""--."'-'" ,..-,.. ,- - ,....---..-.'.......'' ,..,.-........--..~_...--, '---i , ;_c;:'Oul~ilman McDonald asked 'for ,a report, from, the public work s department wi th regard to 1 f:-pos!{i:bili ~y Of". f,u,rniS~ing s:we,I"::s}:?stems in ~hose areas designated as ~r~ t~cal in the ; 'p~~~c.c He thougJ}:k",thatangle should be cons~dered because of the poss~b~hty yet of a ' b(nti~rifaced with providing services for private development within the greenway boundary. _ Don Allen, public work s director, said the Council should recogni ze in the.. adoption of : any such program and consider carefully the possible acceleration of other water control ! projects on the River itself in which the city wouldb~ fjnancially involved. One of the i main uses of the River, he said, and a major economlc factor, was its use as a diluting body for the city's sewage treatment plant. - ... . - .-.'-..-.. It was under-stood that staff would review the document and present suggestions I deemed appropriate for Council consideration, the staff report to be brought / C?mm , back well within a 60-day period to giV:.~,..time for presentation of any comments, 11 f20f(74 , b f f' 1 d ' b h " A lrm or suggest~ons e ore ~na a opt~on y teState. ; H. Traffic Diverters - Copies of memo from A::;9LsJjl,ntManager were ,previously distributed to Council members with regard to request from neighborhood groups for ins~allation of traffic diverters. The memo suggested development of criteria on which tobas~...installa- don of traffic dj,verters and an overall policy rather than responding to..A.ndividual neighborhood requests .one"by-one. Assistant Manager noted receipt of r;port from West- side Neighborhood Quali ty Project on. tempor,!-r';l i..nstal1ation of diverters in that area. He said that if there were no objections from the Council the..staff would proceed with . development of recomm?~ation~(by March 1975). ~- ..--- C~mm There were no Objec:~ons an~ it was understood that response to th;;;;t~:~:~-jnI~~I~: e ---'.Neighborhood Quality Project report would be delayed~~nd staff would proceed as proposed. .. ~___ -._ ... __ ......... -'.. -~ , -"----.,--~ ----- -~...- -- .-- r- "- I I. Eugene's LCOG Representative - Councilman Wood's election as County Commissioner requir~s~ his replacement on the LCOG Board. Co~n~iI-~esident williams indicated he would at- tend the next Board meeting in Mr. Wood's absence (November 21) but suggested an execu- ! : tive session to choose a successor. Councilman Murray suggested inclusion of councilmen- , ;elect in the executive session. i Council President Williams called executive session for Wednesday, €omm November 27, 1974, at 11:00 or 11:30 a.m., whichever time would 11/2P/74 , h h ' h d Affirm i accommodate normal comm~ttee-of-t e-w ole meet~ng on t at ay. ' . :r...< ',- ;Councilwoman Beal asked if spe~ifi; i~ior~~tion could be provIded with r~ga;d-t; , : specific duties and functions of LCOG Board members, not only for herself but for new: ,..' ,council members taking office in January. Assistant Manager explained LCOG functions: ;=,;as a co-ordinated planning function of municipal ties and other local governmental ~ I :agencies in the Lane County area. He suggested that this type of information woulg-/-~ ,be offered to new Council members in the usual orientation session when they took: a "office. He noted tnatthe-;;;;W-LCOG director, Douglas Halley, would be assuming his \ _ iposition next month and suggested .wgiting until he had a chance to "get his feet on 'the ground" then an overview of. LCOG' ;-functlons would be a good introduction for him. 'Mrs. Beal said she would request a presentation at the orientation session and would -not request a delay in selection of Mr. Wood's replacement. She said there was some 'confusion because of recent changes and the original function of LCOG - applying for ;Fed~ralgrants and allocatin those funds to the various agencies. J. t TeJephones, for Council members''':', Assistant - Manager remi~d;d-C;;~n~i1 of Nove~ber 22: Comm [deadline for telephone directory listings and suggested those wishing telephones f 11/20(74 \to contact Charles Dallas, purchasing agent. FIle l . _.... '. r __ I ......... -,-..,...., , '.. , , " K. 'Announcements Comm 1. Eugene's 1974 population will probably be certified at 93,800. 1~/20/74 2:~ Eugene's "Workable Program" has been recertified by HUD until November 1976. File ~ - . Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to appr~ve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through K. ' Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. III - Public Hearings '. A. Appeal, Planning Commission denial of rezoning property between Grant and Chambers (03 and between 17th and 18th - From R-l to C-l (Hedin) Planning Commission recommended denial on October 8, 1974. Some Council members viewed the property on tour. Copies of Planning Commission October 8, 1974 staff notes and minutes were previously distributed to Council members and by reference thereto are made a part of this record. Council members declared no ex parte con- tacts or other reasons :Fo:,:" not ryp,:':"ticipatinp: in discussion of the rezoninp; or voting on it. CounGilman Wood said he-had discussed the procedure for rezoning property 403 11/25/74 - 6 some, months ago with Mr. Hedin but he (Councilman Wood) felt that discussion, in no way prejudiced his ability to make an objective decision. The Chair 'ruled that Mr. Wood would be qualified to vote since a discussion of the procedure , e without discussion of specifics of the property in question did not constitute an ,ex parte contact. (0355) John Porter, planning director, presented slides of the area including vicinity map of the property. Manager read the applicant~s appeal of the Planning Commis- sion recommendation to deny the C-l zone. Public hearing was opened. (0430) Frank Bonson, speaking for the petitioner, Carl Hedin, said the need for the re- zoning was demonstrated through the percentage ratio of vacant commercial prop- erty in the city to the percentage of this ownership on which commercial zoning was requested. Expansion of Mr. Hedin's business was necessary at this 10cat~6n, he said, to "streamline" its operation, and expanding in this same area would fit the objective of the General Plan for filling out properties within the urban boundary before going into outlying areas. Mr. Bonson said that although owners of all parcels participating in the rezoning application were in favor of com- mercial uses, and they were included to avoid "spot" zoning, there were no 'plans to expand commercial uses at this time beyond Mr. Hedin's needs. He took issue with staff statement that residential uses in this area were designated in the comprehensive plan, saying the area should'definitely be designated for commercial uses. Also, that urban facilities existed to the greatest degree. And he thought e the Livingston & Blayney report calling for provision for expansion of commercial uses should be applied in this instance. There was no intent to extend commercial zoning along 18th Avenue, Mr. Bonson continued, adding that each zoning issue should be considered on its own merits. This request would amount only to enlarg- ing an existing commercial area which was needed. He quoted the City Code having to do with preserving adequate commercial and industrial space to maintain a healthy economy and interpreted that as clearly specifying there should be space for commercial expansion. He felt the need for the commercial use had been shown and that the only question was the difference in interpretation of the general plan. Mr. Bonson again noted the 67% vacant land in the city zoned for commercial uses and compared that to the 3% available in this area which he said indicated a definite need for more commercial land in this neighborhood. He said he didn't feel that staff in suggesting expansion on the one available lot behind Mr.Hedin's pr.operty was in position to select property on which development would occur. And he thought development as proposed would be an improvement on the existing residential develoment, that new residential building on the vacant properties wa not likely to occur. He reminded the Council again of the Livingston & Blayney statement of need for space to allow commercial expansion, and the neighborhood need for added ~ervices in the 18th and Grant area. (0655) Carl Hedin, applicant, noted a group of businessmen recently organized (18th and e Chambers Association) who were in favor of the rezoning. Also, owners of the vacant properties who were party to the rezoning application. (0680) Roy Hicks, 1810 Chambers Street, was in favor of the rezoning. He said the need for growth in that area was evident and he thought rezoning this property would be an advantage since it would fill out the vacant block adjacent to commercial property without extending into adjacent~residential property. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony. (0703) Councilman Murray asked Mr. Bonson for clarification of the percen~age ratio re- ferred to in relation to vacant commercially zoned property in the city. Mr. Bonson explained that in this commercial area there was available only 3% compared to one~third of the commercial properties available in the entire city. ' That was why, he said, commercial zoning was needed here more than anyplace else in town. Mr. Murray questioned Mr. Bonson further with regard to statements about precedent and consideration of each zone change on its own merit. Also whether the Livingston & Blayney was interpreted as advocating more commercial property throughout the community or more commercial property in a particular place. Mr. Bonson explained that staff questioned the rezoning of seven lots when only two were needed for . Mr. Hedin's expansion. He said immediate development would occur on only the two lots, that development of the other five probabfY would not occur for two or three years. With regard to the Livingston & Blayney commercial report, Mr. Bonson noted that it called for more com~ercial expansion downtown which to him reflected the need for allowance for expansion of any commercial zone, and the 18th and Chambers area on the general plan map clearly showed the subject area as commercial. ~. --..:;. - -." - 40+ 11/25/74 - 7 - , Councilman McDonald referred to Mr. Bonson's comments about upgrading the existing (0755) residential area and said it seemed to him the homes in that area were in pretty good shape. He knew of some that were commanding fairly substantial rents and ,all appeared to be occupied at this time. Mr. Bonson didn't see that as the issue e although there were homes on some of the lots on which rezoning was requested. He felt because of the commercial area ,there would be no incentive to keep the homes up, that there was now some deterioration. John Porter, planning director, referred to Planning Commission minutes outlining (0798) major staff concerns. The Commission, he said, was quite concerned about westward expansion of the commercial uses in that area. Manager noted that summary of Com- mission minutes indicated the Commission felt a need was not shown for further com- mercial zoning in that area, that there was unused commercial zoning now in west Eugene. - Mr. Bonson felt the need had been shown that Mr. Hedin's business operation had out- (0819) grown its present facilities and if expansion was not allowed the operati0n would have to move out of the area. People Mr. Hedin was now serving would have to drive to gain those services, meaning increased traffic. Mr. Bonson felt it important to allow businesses to expand to serve their neighborhoods. Councilman Murray asked if staff felt existing commercial development in the 18th and (0840) Chambers area was sufficient to support the population there. Also staff's inter- pretation of the comprehensive plan and Livingston & Blayney commercial report. Mr. Porter described existing commercial developments in the west Eugene area and said staff felt there was already enough to support the people there. He said staff . and applicant did differ on interpretation of the comprehensive plan. Staff notes indicated that commercial development called for in the 1990 Plan already existed and was not to be expanded. Councilman Wood noted the traffic congestion at 18th and Chambers and assumed one (0895) reason for not expanding commercial uses was the type of facilities now available. , ,He asked if there was no intention of allowing any more commercial use of any type along 18th Avenue. Mr. Porter answered that that was the Commission's intent - to limit expansion to the west, evidenced by denial of previous rezoning requests in that area. Mr. Bonson replied that he thought if there was disagreement on inter- (0921) pretation of the comprehensive plan the staff should have the burden of proving that the request~d commercial rezoning did npt conform to the plan. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Planning Commission (0930) recommendation be upheld, that findings set out in October 8, 1974 Com- mission staff notes and minutes be adopted by reference thereto, and that the rezoning for commercial uses be denied. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Items Not Previously Heard A. Liquor License - The Overpass, 20 Highway 99N - Change of ownership. (0942) Myron and Clairene Krause - RMB. Staff had no objections e Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. V .- Ordinances Counei 1 Bi 11 No. 675 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between 160 feet west of Sun- 'shine Acres Road and 110 feet east of VanDuyn Street, ann from 120 feet south of Bendix Avenue to 160 feet north of Mahlon Avenue (74-05), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and re- ferred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the' second ,time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received.c" ~ 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 dec.lared passed and numbered 172 02. Council Bill No. 676 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue from Pearl Street to north/south alley between Pearl Street and High Street (74-10), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read ,the second time by council bill ,number and title only, there being . no Council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or request to be heard received. ' " 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 biH- was declared passed and., numbered 17203. ..:; " - - - 405 11/25/74 - 8 Council Bill No. 677 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Mill Street and Ferry Street from 3rd Avenue to one-half block north (n-l1), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred ,to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being ,no council member present requesting e that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard ~eceived. -~- 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 numbered p204. Council Bill No. 678 - Levying assessments for paving hammerhead turn-around at south end of University Street 300 feet south of 39th P1ace (74-15), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received. Contact from one property owner indicated notification ~f the assessment hearing was not re- ceived. However, investigation showed that the property had changed hands after the improve- ment, and the purcha~er was not made aware of the assessment. Notices of the assessment were properly recorded and should have been available to them. 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 numbered 17205. e Council Bill No. 679 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers with:[~ Meadowbrook 1st Addition (74-17), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received. 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 numbered 17206. Council Bill 'No. 680 - Levying assessments for paving streets within Churchill Heights Subdivision and 25th Avenue from,,220 feet east of Chaucer Way to east 415 feet; sanitary and storm sewers 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), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the second time by council bill number 'and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received. 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 c'e numbered 17207. -, Council Bill No. 681 - Levying assessments for paving alleys between Jefferson Street and Madison Street from 24th Avenue to 24th Place (74-24), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974~ was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received. 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 numbered 17208. , COHncil Bill No. 682 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Lots 5 through 10 of Point Thomas Addition (74-37), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, 1974, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requestin~ that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received 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 . numbered 172 09. '. Council Bill No. 683 - Levying assessments for special sewer within Boyd Subdivision (74-1005), read the first time on November 12, 1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hear- ing on .November 118,.lQ?4, ,was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member. present requesting that it be read in full and no written pro- tests or requests to be heard received. 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 numbered 17210. 40(0 - 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 (Fir land Boulevard) (74-l008D, read the first time on November 12, '1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on November 18, ~' was read the 'second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council . er present requesting that it be read in full and no written protests or requests to be heard received. ' 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 numbered 17211. VI - Resolutions Resolution No. 2351 - Calling hearing December 9, 1974 re: Abatement of garage building at 1561 Ferry Street (Odell) was read by number and title. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried. Resolution No. 2352 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period November 12 through November 25, 1974 was read by number and title. Councilman McDonald asked about the $3,635.28 payment to Pacific Hawaiian Wood Products. Manager explained that it was for treated posts for traffic and street signs. _'-campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All . council members present voting aye, motion carried. ' , VII - Distribution, 1973-74 Audit for review and discussion in committee session in the next couple of weeks. VIII - LCDC Hearing, Proposed Goals and Guidelines Manager noted hearing scheduled for November 13, 1974 at which John Porter, planning director, had been authorized by the Planning Commission to make suggestions for changes in the proposed goals and guidelines for land use plan developed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Manager said that he (Manager) had also prepared a presenta- tion raising some questions about wording in the proposal: 'He noted his suggestions for a League resolution directed to the LCDC were stated as a member of the League of Oregon Cities resolutions committee and not as a representative of the city of Eugene. Further- more, that his opposition to elements of the proposed goals and guidelines to be pre- sented by Mr. Porter were concerned about language in which they were couched which made many things mandatory as goals, in many instances requiring things to be done that would not suit local planning processes. Because the Council had not had the opportunity to ~ re~i~w and take an official position, the presentation would be stated as a personal ~ oplnlon. Council President Williams shared the concerns stated and said the general consensus in the League resolutions committee was that the LCDC plan would require a level of planning across the State between now and the end of 1975 substantially greater than Eugene now had, and that neither technical personnel nor funds to support the plan requirements were avail- able. He supported efforts to reach in a reasonable manner the high standards the plan was hoped to attain. Councilweman Campbell noted statements attributed to L. B. Day, director of the LCDC, who commented on legislatien creating the commission but no appropriation of funds to implement the plan. Manager said that unless an extension was granted, the, funds available would not be sufficient to accomplish what was required in the pian under its present worcding. He felt it was a matter of draftmanship, that it should be flexible rather than mandatory for all sections of the State, that it should apply depending on needs of each jurisdiction. However, under the present wording all cities and counties in the State would be required to do the planning set out by Jariuary 1976. There being no further business, upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, (1095) the meeting was adjourned. e . ~~ H - McKinley City Manager :t1 40~