Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1982 Meeting (2) ., . e - .-.; M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 8, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Cynthia Wooten. Meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mr. Gleason indicated that Item 1-0, Public Works Bids Awards, will be removed from the agenda to allow staff time to review the tabulation. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Council-Initiated Improvement Project: Paving Norkenzie Road, from Beltline to North of Balboa (memo, map distributed) Micheal Gleason, City Manager, introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that the council was being asked to conduct a public hearing and to authorize staff to proceed with designing the project, calling for bids, and acquiring the right-of-way. He noted that the project had been initiated for safety reasons, due to unsafe street alignments and a hazardous intersection at Crescent Avenue. He said that the project included installation of sidewalks, bike lanes, curbs, and gutters, as well as left-turn lanes in the area of the congested intersection. Public hearing was opened. ~, Orix Rixmann, 1605 Holly, said that he and his family owned an old farm house at the corner of Holly and Norkenzie Road. He read a brief history of the farm and noted that five large maple trees on the land had originally been transplanted from Goodpasture Island. He said that thanks to the efforts of Mr. Teitzel and his staff, these trees would be spared when Norkenzie Road is widened. Mr. Rixmann thanked Mr. Teitzel and the other staff members who had worked to save the trees. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 1 : ~ - CB 2419--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests and temporary and permanent easements for the purposes of street widening, sidewalk construc- tion, and construction of drainage and sewer systems on Norkenzie Road, from Beltline Road to 1201 north of Crescent Avenue; and declaring an emergency Ms. Schue thanked Mr. Rixmann for taking the time to come and express his apprec i at i on. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2419 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present vot ing aye, the bi 11 was decl ared passed and numbered 18922. Res. No. 3625--A resolution authorizing street paving and sidewalk construct ion on Norkenzie Road from Beltl ine Road to 1251 north of Balboa Street (1827) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to oclopt the resolution. ~ Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Code Amendments 1. Amendments to R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts and Definitions for Public and Private Parking areas and Garages (CA 80-5) (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Keller said that the council would hold a hearing on this item, but that councilors had agreed to postpone a decision until they have reviewed the West University Refinement Plan. Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau said that the intent of the amendments to the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts was to reduce the allowance of non-residential uses in these hiqh-density districts. He said that this was being done in response to Metropolitan Plan compliance requirements of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and as a part of the implementa- tion process for the West University Refinement Plan. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commission had begun work on these amendments in the spring of 1981 and had held public hearings on the amendments on July 7, 1981, and August 11, 1981. He said that in response to testimony at these hearings from residents of the West University area and from members of the medical community, staff had revised the amendments and proposed changes to them. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commission had held a hearing on these - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 2 - ~ e . :; revisions in November 1981. He said that on December 7, 1981, and January 4, 1982, the Planning Commission had developed its final recommendations to the City Council and these recommendations were summarized in the schematic diagrams that had been distributed to councilors. Mr. Croteau went through these recom- mendations, which called for deleting a number of non-residential uses in the R-3 and R-4 zones; eliminating clinics as a use in both districts in the West University neighborhood area south of 13th Avenue; and allowing existing clinics located in that area to expand under the conditional use permit process. Mr. Croteau said that this expansion would be restricted to areas under development control by the existing clinic as of December 1,1981. Mr. Croteau said that Planning Commission chairperson Randy Thwing was present to answer Questions on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindberg asked how the Planning Commission and staff had determined what uses were incompatible with residential uses in these zones. Mr. Croteau responded that the needs of the residential community had been balanced with the needs of the medical community and that the listing of uses had resulted from this balance and compromise. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Adrienne Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, referred to the R-3 amendments. She said that she had no objection to recommendations I-a through 1-d as they appeared in the corrected notice of public hearing. She did, however, suggest the following changes to the recommendations regarding clinic use: substitute for l-e--elimin- ation of new clinics as a conditional use except: 1) when new residential units are developed on 50 percent of the development site; or 2) when an existing house is converted to clinic use and remains the residence of one of the clinic practitioners. Substitute for 1-f--allowing existing clinics to expand as conditional uses under any of the following circumstances: 1) expansion is limited to up to 50 percent of the floor area on their current development site; or 2) expansion is onto vacant land under their development control as of December 1, 1981, provided that the expansion allows for residential units on not less than 50 percent of the total floor area of the development; or 3) expansion is onto developed land under development control as of December 1, 1981, provided that any existing residential units on the development site shall be replaced. Regarding the R-4 amendments, Ms. Lannom said that she had no objections to recommendations a, b, c, or e, but she objected strongly to recommendation 2-d. She said that her objection was based on policy statements in the Residen- tial Land Use and Housing element of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, to which LCDC had referred in its Acknowledgment of Compliance Report of MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 3 - ~ e . .~ June 12, 1981. She noted that the reason for this hearing was to amend the code to comply with that order. Ms. Lannom read from pages 86 and 87 of the compliance report, which called for preservation of R-3 and R-4 land for residential develop- ment and for disallowing non-residential uses in these areas unless it could be demonstrated that permitting those uses would not prevent housing from being built on the land. Ms. Lannom stated that clinics do not need to locate on high-density residential land in the West University area because there is sufficient vacant and available commercial land. Ms. Lannom therefore recom- mended that Item 2-d be deleted and that instead clinic use in R-4 be made conditional city-wide. Ms. Lannom said that about a year ago, the Hearings Official had denied a condi- tional use permit application for expansion of Serenity Lane on the basis of Metropolitan Plan considerations. She said that since then, the Planning Commis- sion had allowed some expansion of Serenity Lane. She concluded by stating that if the council adopts the amendments as proposed, it would be allowing Serenity Lane to do the very thing that the Hearings Offici al denied only a year ago on the basis of conflict with the Metropolitan Plan. Ed Mahn, 375 East 46th, Director of Planning, Sacred Heart General Hospital, spoke in support of the code amendments. He was pleased that the council had decided to postpone act ion on the amendments unti 1 it had had time to study the West University Refinement Plan. He gave some background on the figures that had been used to project the expansion needs of hospitals and clinics, and offered to provide more information if the council requested it. Mr. Mahn supported the concept of using site review procedures rather than the conditional use process for clinics on R-4 lots in the hospital area, since he felt that the issue was one of compatibility with the surrounding area. He said that the amendments before the council represented what Sacred Heart General Hospital considered to be a reasonable compromise. Clark Cox, 1085 Patterson, #9, spoke in his own behalf. He said that he was mostly in favor of the proposed amendments. He felt that more work needed to be done on the definition of "under development control." He explained a situation involving a church that wished to locate in the West University area and requested that churches be made outright uses in as many zoning districts as possible. Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount Boulevard, said that the amendments before the councll represented a reasonable compromise. He noted that while the exclusion of new clinics in the West University neighborhood south of 13th Street would prevent such clinics, it would not prevent the R-3 property in that area from becoming R-4 property. He said that this R-4 property should allow adequate provision of housing in the area. He urged the council to accept both the code amendments and the West University Refinement Plan as submitted by the Planning Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 4 e e e ~ ~; Neil McNaughton, 88154 Tiki Lane, Executive Director of Serenity Lane, addressed allegations that the Planning Commission1s amendments to the West University Refinement Plan were not made in a democratic fashion. He said this was not true and that it was the original draft, developed by the neighborhood planning team, that was one-sided. He said that only six percent of the land owners in the plan area had been eligible to vote on the plan at the neighborhood level and that, therefore, commercial and clinic interests had had to withhold their comments until the plan was before the Planning Commission. Mr. McNaughton said that the six clinics in the West University area were not big businesses, and less than six percent of the 99 acres in the West University area was being used for clinics. He urged the City Council to accept the compromises offered by the Planning Commission. Speaking in opposition: Harold Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, said that he agreed with amendments I-a, b, c, and d, and with 2-a, b, and e. He objected to all the other sections of the amendments on the grounds that 1) the stated exceptions will predetermine the outcome of the West University Refinement Plan; 2) these exceptions are not substantiated by need; 3) the exceptions are tantamount to rezoning without following the rezoning process; 4) the amendments and exceptions establish a protected class for a protected area, eliminating market competition; 5) the amendments are not consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan; and 6) the amendments do not meet the requirements of the compliance order from LCDC, which required exclusion rather than reduction of uses which compete with residential uses. Mr. Lannom said that establishing a city-wide code for R-3 and R-4 1 and and then exempt ing the area of the city that has the 1 argest aJrount of such land was the same as "making the exception the rule." Mr. Lannom said that there was a strong need to redefine the word "clinic" as it is used in the code, so that clinics can be distinguished from group-care homes and hospitals. Mr. Lannom gave the example of Serenity Lane which began as a group-care facility, as defined under City Code, and had then received a conditional use for part of the facility to be used as a clinic. Thomas H. Andersen, 790 West Broadway, represented the Westside Neighborhood Ouality Project. He said there is a large amount of R-3 land in the eastern portion of the Westside neighborhood and this land is already under pressure for construction of additional clinics. He said that the problem of clinics in the R-3 zone had been addressed in a roundabout way in the amendments before the council, and suggested that instead of allowing clinics in the R-3 zone except in the West University neighborhood area south of 13th Avenue, the amendments be written to say that clinics are ~ allowed in the R-3 zone in the West Univer- sity area north of 13th Avenue and west of Hilyard. He said that this would deal with the concern expressed by Mr. Lannom that, under the current proposal, MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 5 , ;; \ . e the exception would swallow the rule. Mr. Andersen said that current code also allows clinics as a conditional use in the R-2 zones and asked that the council and Planning Commission address this issue as well. Speaking with other comments: LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, said that she served on the Western Oregon Health Systems Agency (WOHSA) advisory group but that she was not speaking as a representative of that group. She suggested that City staff get in touch with WOSHA staff who could provide information on the cost of clinics and equipment and projections for demand and expansion needs of clinics. She felt that the City may be overplanning for clinics and that many more clinics may not be needed. Bill Lioio, 2678 Sharon Way, asked the council to consider the impact of increas- ingly restrictive zoning on the property rights of owners and the effect of such zoning on reduction of demand for land in the West University area as a result of eliminating the uses identified in the amendments. e Allen Johnson, 1991 Madison, represented a clinic located at 1461 Hilyard Street. He asked that staff look into a "housekeeping" matter involving conflicting information contained in two separate communications from the City, regarding expansion of clinics in the R-3 and R-4 zones. He referred to a letter dated January 29, 1982, from Jody Miller of the Planning Department, which indicated that the six existing clinics in the West University area south of 13th Avenue would be protected, and to the corrected hearing notice which failed to give the same assurances as Ms. Miller's letter. He asked that the information in the notices be corrected. Mr. Johnson said that the compromise presented in the amendments represents a rational effort to deal with two valid but competing needs and urged the council to adopt the amendments. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau said that existing clinics in the R-3 and R-4 zones had been surveyed to determine what land they own that would fit under the definition of development control. He distributed copies of a map showing the additional parcels that had been identified. He said that staff would check the amended hearing notice to see if there was an error. He offered to meet with Mr. Cox to discuss the problems of the church wishing to locate in the West University neighborhood. Mr. Croteau addressed the issue raised by Mr. Andersen and said that current codes do not allow clinics or doctors 1 offices as outright or conditional uses in the R-2 zone, but that hospitals are allowed in R-2. Mr. Lindberg asked what definitions are currently used for clinics and group- care homes, and how these would apply to the situation of Serenity Lane. Mr. Croteau responded that Serenity Lane is located in the R-3 zone and would therefore be allowed to expand as a hospital. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 6 ~ . e I. B. 2. I-I Special Light Industrial District (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Farah, Planning. Mr. Farah said that at the time of adoption of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, all three governmental jurisdic- tions had agreed on the concept of the speci~ light industri~ site as a means of providing for diversification of the local economy. Mr. Farah explained that the land allocated in the plan for the special light industrial district does not include the projections for industrial activity that are made for the metropolitan labor force for the future. He said that the Planning Commission had begun work on the ordinance in the spring of 1981 and had further developed its recommendation as a result of discussion at the December 14, 1981, joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Farah said that the draft before the council was the seventh draft of the document. He corrected the following errors in the draft ordinance: page 10, Item 5 represents a list of possible service businesses, not a list of businesses to which services might be provided; page 12, Item 2 should be corrected, on the recommendation of the City Attorney, to provide for a waiver by the City, rather than by the utility or the Public Utilities Commission. Mr. Farah noted that the ordinance proposed for Eugene is similar to that under consideration in Springfield and that this would provide for good consistency. Mr. Farah said that after the ordinance is adopted, the district will be applied to the sites designated in the plan and that this might result in boundary configurations slightly different from those shown in the Metropolitan Plan diagram. Mr. Farah said that Mr. Thwing was present to answer questions on the e Planning Commission recommendation. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. There was no testimony in favor of the ordinance and no testimony offered as other comments. Speaking in opposition: Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, Eugene, represented the owners of the Cone-Breeden, Spectra-Physics, and West Terry Street sites. Addressing the issue of the minimum site area requirements contained in Section 9.546-1-d on page 4 of the draft ordinance, Mr. Saul requested modification to permit outright indus- trial uses on sites of five acres or greater, while maintaining requirements of 10 acres for industrial parks and three acres for office use. To support his request, Mr. Saul cited employment figures for a number of the SIC groups that would be permitted as outright uses under the ordinance and noted that the majority of targeted firms traditionally have fewer than 100, and in many cases fewer than 50 employees. He felt that given these figures, the 10-acre minimum was unnecessary and perhaps even prohibitive. Mr. Saul then cited site size figures for a number of jurisdictions surveyed as part of development of - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 7 e e e the original draft of the ordinance and noted that of the 12 jurisdictions surveyed, five had no minimum site size requirements, one had a minimum of two acres, and six had minimums of one acre or less. Mr. Saul referred specifically to the Stanford Industrial Park in Palo Alto and noted that of the two zoning districts used in that park, one had a minimum site size of one acre and the other a minimum of five acres. Mr. Saul also asked councilors to consider the effect on existing local firms of the site size requirements proposed in the ordinance. He noted that the eight firms in Eugene which would be eligible to locate as outright uses in the proposed I-I zone employed a total of 43 people. He felt that given these figures, even the five-acre minimum he proposed might be too restrictive. Mr. Saul then addressed the issue of types of uses permitted and referred to Sections 9.443 and 9.544 on pages 7-11 of the draft ordinance. He urged that this range be expanded and questioned why such uses as printing, publishing, and resort-related industries had been excluded. Mr. Saul referred to the proposed limitation on office space contained in Section 9.443-q on page 8 of the draft ordinance. He said that limiting office space to no more than 10 percent of the land area of a site would provide difficulties in practical application. He referred specifically to the Cone- Breeden property and noted that the street configurations on that property separate 15 acres of the industrial land from the remaining 90 acres. He said that the location of this 15-acre parcel in proximity to a commercial area made it an exce 11 ent 1 ocat ion for offices but that under the 10-percent 1 imitat ion of the proposed ordinance, only 11.5 of the 15 acres could be so used. Mr. Saul also felt that from the point of view of job creation it did not matter whether the land was used for offices or for production. He therefore urged that the limitation on office space be eliminated or that the percentage be raised to a minimum of 20 percent. Mr. Saul then addressed the treatment of industrial parks in Section 9.544-b on page 9 of the proposed ordinance. He requested that the percent of a site which could be developed as an industrial park be raised from 20 to 40 percent. He said that the types of uses permitted in industrial parks fall into three broad categories: outright uses on sites of fewer than 10 acres; certain service functions such as management or public relations; and food processing and banking functions. He urged the council to expand these uses to include whole- saling and distribution functions in order to allow industrial park development similar to that in the Koll industrial parks in Portland and Seattle. David Williams, 975 Oak Street, Suite 600, said he wished to note for the record that no people had testified orally in support of the proposed ordinance at (Xly of the hearings held to date. He said that he did not believe there was a demand for the type of use that would go in this zone. He had attempted to telephone MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 8 ~ ' - the eight existing local firms which could locate in this zone and had found that four had disconnected phones. He felt that the suggestions made by Mr. Saul were good and responded well to the basic premise that the job growth in the Eugene-Springfield area will come from new, small firms and expanding local firms. Michael Farthing, 975 Oak Street, represented William Stringfield, owner of the special industrial-designated site at the southwest corner of the intersec- tion of 11th Avenue and Willow Creek Road. Mr. Farthing distributed a map of the site. He said that Mr. Stringfield had put together this parcel of land by purch as i ng property from a number of owners and needed to have all obs t ac 1 es to development removed so that the land could be used. Mr. Farthing said that Mr. Stringfield had applied for annexation of the parcel to the City of Eugene but had deferred the application at the request of the Planning Department until the acknowledgment of the Metropolitan Plan was more certain. Mr. Farthing felt that the proposed zone would cause more problems than it would solve. He said that the owners of the special light industrial sites were the only people really interested in the proposed zone and suggested that the council appoint a task force of these owners and their representatives to meet with staff and iron out differences. ~ Mr. Farthing said that the proposed ordinance was too restrictive and inflexible. He felt that under the definition of "site" in the ordinance, the entire west 11th area would be considered as one site since the properties are contiguous. He said that there must have been a typographical error in Section 9.544-b of the ordinance and felt that "of 25 acres" should be changed to "or 25 acres." Mr. Farthing said that the site review procedures as outlined inthe ordinance did not allow conceptual approval for an entire area. He wondered if the uses in Section 9.544-b could only be located in industrial parks or whether they would be permitted as free-standing uses. He urged that the maximum area for office use be expanded beyond 10 percent. He also urged that the ordinance be written to allow staff to waive certain criteria as needed, with appeals of staff rulings going to the City Manager. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Farah responded to the concerns which had been raised. He said that the Planning Commission had considered the idea of creating a task force but had felt that the decisions to be made were policy decisions and had therefore rejected the idea. He noted that the Mayor's Economic Development Committee had spent a month or more reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Farah said that the limitation of office use to 10 percent of a site was based on City policies for development of the downtown core area. He said that conceptual approval for industrial parks was possible through the site review process. He said that both City staff and the City Attorney had felt that the definition of "site" in the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 9 ~ ' e ordinance was adequate. Responding to Mr. Williams' concern about the ability of existing businesses to locate on the special light industrial site, Mr. Farah said that there was sufficient land in the three industrial districts and the three commercial districts in the City to accommodate office and manufacturing firms. Mr. Farah said that the City needed to proceed carefully with development of the I-I zone, because the land to which the zone would be applied is outside the demand projections used in development of the Metropolitan Area General Plan. The City must, therefore, make certain that the I-I zone does not duplicate existing zones. If LCDC felt that such duplication existed, it could return the whole plan. Mr. Farah said that the Planning Commission had spent a good deal of time in considering the minimum site area and had felt that the 10-acre figure provided a good balance, while at the same time protecting the substantial public invest- ments involved. He said that the draft ordinance would allow specific types of wholesaling but that the Planning Commission had felt that general wholesaling should be accommodated in existing industrial districts. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Thwing to respond to the issues raised. Mr. Thwing said that the time constraints involved for all three of the code amendments before the council had been very frustrating for the Planning Commission. He said that the commission had agreed to the compromises now before the council, but that there had been differences of opinion on a number of issues. Mr. Thwing asked councilors to review the document and testimony and said that if the council wished to recommend modifications to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission would, of course, consider those recommendations. ~ Ms. Schue said that the City has been told for years that it was not providing properly zoned land in large enough parcels for campus-type industries. She said that the City had made an honest effort to provide this and was now being told there was no demand for such land. Mr. Obie felt that most of the testimony presented had been logical and convinc- ing and said that the council should not proceed until the issues raised had been addressed. He agreed that office space was a good use of these properties. Ms. Miller said that the City had responded to requests for provision of large, develoment-ready, campus-like sites under few ownerships and to pressure to reduce the reliance of the community on service and timber industries by allowing introduction of manufacturing. She opposed increasing the minimum figures for office use in the new zone and opposed allocation of more industrial land, since the Metropolitan Area General Plan already contained an over-allocation in these areas. She felt that whenever possible, compatible development should be encour- aged on land that is already serviced and that this was good reason not to allow such uses in the new zone. She suggested that if the special light industrial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 10 e ~ \ '. district was not needed, those sites should be excluded from the current plan1s urban service boundary and should be reconsidered in 10 years. Mr. Lindberg speculated that the former demand for protecting large parcels of land for industrial parks might have been tempered by the realization of the owners of those properties that the development might not take place for a long time. He felt that it was important to protect City policies on preservation of the downtown core area. He suggested as an interim solution that two types of special light industrial districts be created--one to meet the immediate market demands, and one to protect land for future demand. Mr. Lindberg asked for assurances from staff that sufficient land was available for the uses which were excluded from the proposed zone. Mr. Gleason said that he could not predict what the future would bring and, therefore, could not make such assurances. He stressed the imporance of evaluating demands for office space in the proposed zone in light of policies for preservation and development of the downtown core area. Mr. Lindberg questioned the effect on capital improvements planning of alterations to ordinances governing the special light industrial sites. Mr. Gleason responded that the capital improvements program was not fine-tuned enough for this to be of serious consideration. Ms. Miller said that she would like more information on the Koll business park-type of uses and possibilities for such development in the I-I zone or in other zones in the City. She felt there may be a need to provide for more flexibility in the ordinance. She said that before any decision could be made, the council needed to address the major policy issue of whether it wishes to preserve large-scale sites to attract outside industry and to provide diver- sification from timber-related industries. Mr. Obie said that the objective of the proposed zone is the creation of jobs. He felt that there needed to be some way to allow regional office headquarters to locate in the I-I zone without eroding the location of other offices in the downtown area. Mayor Keller said that he would appoint a task team of council members to discuss the issues that had been raised and to report back to the full council. Mr. Obie and Ms. Miller agreed to serve on the task team. Mr. Keller said that they would try to have a report by the end of February. Mr. Hamel asked if those who had testified would be involved in the work of the task team. Mr. Keller responded that they would be asked to provide information as necessary. Mr. Obie suggested that those who had testified submit one-page summaries of the points they had made. I. B. 3. Willamette River Greenway Provision (CA 81-8) (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning. Mr. Chenkin said that he would respond to questions from councilors. e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 11 February 8, 1982 ~ .. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. ~ Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2422--An ordinance concerning land development and the Willamette Greenway; amending Section 9.259 of the EUgene Code, 1971; adding a new section 9.260 to that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2422 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18923. CB 2423--An ordinance concerning the Willamette Greenway; amending the zoning map of the City of Eugene; and declaring an emergency. ~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2423 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18924. I. B. 4. Public Need Zone Change Findings (CA 81-9) (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning. Mr. Chenkin said that the proposal would clarify the meaning of public need as applied to zone change requests. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were enteren into the record. Public hearing was opened. Richard E. Miller, 2460 Malabar Drive, cited an experience he had had as an example of the need for a redefinition of "public need." He agreed that the phrase was too vague. He felt, however, that the wording proposed was still unclear, due to the vagueness of the term "available." ~ There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 12 ~ ., e Mr. Chenkin said that the Planning Commission and staff recognized that the proposed language might not be perfect, but that it was at least a step in the right direction. He said that the language could be revised again if needed. He noted that, taken in context, the term "available" was further defined. CB 2424--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Section 9.676 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2424 was read the second time by council bill number only. ~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18925. I. C. Proposed Amendments to Historic Preservation Ordinance (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Judith Rees, HCC. Ms. Rees said that the Historic Review Board had conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments on January 28, 1982, and unanimously recommended their adoption to the council. She said that the first amendment would allow historic landmark area designation to be requested only by public bodies. The second amendment would simplify the review procedure for exterior alterations to historic landmarks by allowing staff to make decisions on those requests, with appeals of staff decisions heard by the Historic Review Board. She noted that the current procedure called for the Historic Review Board to hear requests and for appeals to be heard by the City Council. She said that in the six years of the ordinance, no appeals had been brought before the council. Public hearing was opened. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 Pres ident, suggested that instead of the proposed amendment, the Clty ordlnance be brought into agreement with the national ordinance which allows anyone to submit a request for landmark designation. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Rees noted that the National Historic Register program requires the consent of the owner for designation. She offered to answer any questions from councilors on the national program. CB 2425--An ordinance concerning historic landmarks; amending Sections 2.402, 2.403, 2.407. 2.408, and 2.409 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 13 1 ... , ..... e Council Bill 2425 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18926. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING A. Levying of Assessments: Referral to Assessments Hearing Panel CB 2426--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 20th Avenue (County Road #426); and paving and sidewalk on 18th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Four Oaks Grange Road (79-61). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 15, 1982, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 22, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e CB 2427--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Willakenzie Island annexation area #7, (A-Z 78-11), located generally along Hickory Avenue, Sisters View, Mahlon Avenue, Westward Ho Avenue, Oxbow Way, Garden Way, Conestoga Way, Honeysuckle, Van Duyn Street, and Arcadia Street (80-65). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 15, 1982, with panel recommendations to be brouqht back for council consideration February 22, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2391--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and construct- ing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Hawkins Lane from Glen Mar to south city limits (80-11). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that CB 2391, read the first time November 9, 1981, be referred to the Assessments Hearing Panel for hearing February 15, 1982, with panel recommenda- tions to be brought back for council consideration February 22, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Teleprompter Franchise: Call for Public Hearing Ms. Miller asked why this item appeared on the agenda. Mr. Gleason responded that there was a legal requirement that the ordinance be read at two separate meetings of the council. Ms. Miller asked what would happen if the council made e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1982 Page 14 , .' . . - e e , <- amendments to the draft ordinance at the second meeting. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, responded that some amendments could be made without requiring another reading, but that this would depend on how technical the changes were. Mr. Lindberg said that he would vote "no" to register disapproval and lack of understanding of this procedure. Ms. Smith said that Councilor Wooten had asked her to share similar concerns about the procedure. Mr. Gleason said he would bring the matter back before the council at its February 10, 1982, meeting, when staff could respond to the concerns raised. III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON AN APPEAL FROM A DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARD BY THE HEARING PANEL ON JANUARY 18, 1982 (memo and minutes/findings distributed) Findings from the Hearing Panel reversing the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny a variance, allowing the reduction of off-street parking for a four-unit residential project from six spaces to two spaces. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, Panel minutes and adopt as our own the in those minutes of January 18, 1982. carried unanimously. to approve the Heari ngs findings of fact set forth Roll call vote; motion IV. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE REVISED EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (memo and background information distributed) CB 2429--An ordinance adopting the revised Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2429 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18927. was adjourned to February 10, 1982. (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DM:ss/CM26b15 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 15 February 8, 1982