Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1982 Meeting ~ e e e ~ M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber April 26, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Eric Haws. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Community Development Block Grant Program 1. Approval of FY 1982-83 Application (memo, background information distributed) Micheal Gleason, City Manager, introduced Christina Hofmann, Department of Housing and Community Conservation (HCC). Ms. Hofmann said that, as an entitle- ment city, the City of Eugene would receive an allocation of $1.181 million in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in fiscal year 1982-83. She referred to a flip chart displaying projects already approved by the council in development of a three-year plan for use of CDBG funds. This included $75,000 in contingency funds; $269,450 in funds for economic development; administrative costs of 20 percent of the total allocation, or $236,200; $359,450 in funds for housing rehabilitation; and funds for two Neighborhood Improvement Programs (NIP's)--$75,000 for West University Neighbors, and $165,900 for Jefferson/Far West. Ms. Hofmann noted that $194,833.84 in urban renewal surplus funds was also included in the City's request. She said that these funds had been held for the City by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a number of years. Ms. Hofmann said that discussion of the use of the economic development funds appeared later on the council's agenda. Ms. Hofmann then outlined the individual projects included within the two NIP areas. She said that this was the last year in which West University Neighbors (WUN) would be receiving NIP funding and that the funds would primarily be used to complete projects already started. The projects to be funded include one public service program--a crime prevention program--and funds for several physical improvements in the neighborhood--street improvements, a housing project, some energy conservation measures on a housing project, low-level lighting for pedestrians and bicycles, and nodal improvements. Ms. Hofmann explained that these nodal improvements included small, community parks and such things as benches and plantings at bus stops. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 1 e Ms. Hofmann said that the Jefferson/Far West Neighborhood was recelvlng the first of three years' NIP funds. She said that most of this year's funds would be devoted to open space development, concentrating on the area near Ida Patterson School and the Grant Street Park in the Far West area. She said the funds would also provide a mobile unit to house a preschool at Ida Patterson, some bike path lighting along the Amazon Bike Path, and housing rehabilitation in the form of an exterior paint program and a minor home maintenance program for senior citizens. Ms. Hofmann briefly referred to the goals and criteria that had been developed for use of the economic development funds and said she would explain these in greater detail under agenda item I-A-2. She said that the Community Development Committee (CDC) had held a public hearing on the neighborhood improvement proposals and that a subcommittee of the CDC and the Economic Diversification Task Team (EDTT) had held a public hearing on the economic development program. She said staff recommended that the council hold a publiC hearing and approve the proposed objectives and use of the CDBG funds for the coming year. Councilor Wooten asked for clarification of the urban renewal fund request. Ms. Hofmann responded that these funds remained from the City.s urban renewal project and were being reauested for completion of that project. e Ms. Wooten questioned the 20 percent level of administrative costs for the CDBG proqram and asked how HUD had responded to this cost level. Ms. Hofmann said that HUD had recently monitored the City.s program and would submit forffial comment on the program in May 1982. She said that the type of CDBG program offered by the City of Eugene involves a great deal of citizen participation and therefore a great deal of staff time and coordination. Ms. Wooten asked whether the reduction in social and community service programs included in NIP funding and the move toward more physical improvements would decrease the amount of staff time involved in the program. Ms. Hofmann responded that the physical improvement programs would take considerable staff time, since citizens would be heavily involved in the design of the improvements. Councilor Wooten asked in what manner and in what proportion contingency funds are spent. Ms. Hofmann responded that $20,000 remains from last year's contin- gency appropriation and that there has traditionally been a carry-over of contingency funds from one year to the next. Councilor Obie asked for more information on the proposal for installing a mobile classroom at Ida Patterson School. He asked whether School District 4-J had been approached and whether the district had agreed to the proposal. Ms. Hofmann said that the proposal was to move an existing preschool, currently housed in the armory, into the mobile unit. She said that the costs of running the preschool were paid by parents of participants. She said that the school district had been contacted and that this concern would be addressed in public testimony. Mr. Obie suggested that the use of existing and potential vacant buildings be considered as alternative sites for the preschool. Public hearing was opened. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 2 e e - Ellen Miller-Wolfe, 985 Lewis, said she serves as staff to the Jefferson/Far West Neighborhood Advisory Group. She said that a member of that group had researched a number of options before developing the proposal to locate the preschool in a mobile unit at Ida Patterson School. She said one of the reasons that this proposal had been selected was that the school district would donate the land on which the mobile unit would be located. She said that the mobile unit could be obtained for under $10,000, excluding plumbing connections. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason addressed the issue of the costs of administering the CDSG program. He said that the definition of administration used by HUD differed from a more traditional definition of administration and included a number of items, such as program development and implementation, in addition to the more traditional definition of staff overhead. Councilor Lindberg said that he had discussed the issue of administrative costs with the regional HUD staff and had been told that the City is on the right track and is addressing the concerns raised by HUD. He said that due to the uncertain future of the block grant program, this may be the City's last opportunity to use block grant funds for alleviating blight in the core area. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the Community Development Slack Grant Application for FY 1982-83. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Programs, Goals, and Criteria for Economic Development (memo, background material distributed) Ms. Hofmann said that the Council Subcommittee on Economic Development and the Joint COC/EDTT Subcommittee had both met earlier in the day to develop a recommendation on the COBG-funded economic development program. She distributed a memorandum summarizing the recommendations of the two subcommittees. Ms. Hofmann reviewed the HUO criteria for use of CDBG funds and said that these would be treated as basic requirements to be met by any proposals for use of the economic development funds. She then reviewed nine criteria developed by the subcommittees for use in ranking specific proposals. She said that the subcom- mittee hoped proposals would meet as many of these criteria as possible, but recognized that no proposal would be likely to meet all nine criteria. The nine criteria are: 1) clarity of proposal; 2) leveraging jobs; 3) leveraging dollars; 4) maximum use of local resources; 5) coordination with existing guidelines, programs, and services; 6) quick results; 7) long-range benefits; 8) quality of life enhancement; and 9) payback of COBG funds. Ms. Hofmann then reviewed a proposal developed by staff for a three-phase program of assistance to small businesses. She said the staff proposed that phases I and II be implemented this year and that phase III be considered for future COBG funding. Ms. Hofmann reviewed the proposed process and time line for requestinq and evaluating proposals for use of the COBG economic development funds. This time line called for proposals to be submitted by July 1, 1982; MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 3 e e - reviewed by the subcommittees by July 9; presented for a public hearing on July 10; and brought to the council for approval by July 31. Ms. Hofmann said that the two requests being made of the council were to hold a public hearing on the proposed three-phase business assistance program and to consider and approve recommended proposals at the end of July. Councilor Lindberg said he was not certain that the staff summary and the memorandum distributed at the meeting accurately represented the decision of the subcommittees. He felt that the consensus reached by the subcommittees was to place the three-phase business assistance proposal into competition with pro- posals submitted in response to the public requests for proposals (RFP's) and to evaluate the business assistance proposal along with all other proposals received. He said that the three-phase program might be the only program funded~ might receive a portion of the funding~ or might receive no funding at all~ dependent on the evaluation of the other proposals submitted. Councilor Obie said that his perception of the decision reached by the subcom- mittees was similar to that outlined by Councilor Lindberg. After further discussion of the points outlined by Councilor Lindberg, coun- cilors discussed whether a public hearing was needed at this time. Mayor Keller felt that it was important to hear from the public before a motion was made or a vote was taken on this item. Public hearing was opened. Jim Williams, 88677 Ermi Bee, Springfield, said that he had testified to the CDC and the EDTT on the economic development proposals and had submitted written testimony. He supported the idea of blending the CDBG economic development and small business assistance programs. He was especially supportive of the alloca- tion of economic development funds for cultural and destination point activi- ties. He made the following specific recommendations: 1) coordinate the marketing of local tourist attractions; 2) increase investment in those attrac- tions; 3) address the problem of lack of signing on freeways and in the City; and 4) blend economic diversification and small business assistance programs and stimulate private investment in them. Stephen Robinson~ 1400 High Street, No. B, said he is a member of the CDC and of the subcommittee that developed the recommendations before the council. He concurred with Councilor Lindberg's interpretation of the decision of the subcommittee and felt that the subcommittee had wanted the council to be aware of the business assistance proposal but had not anticipated the council's taking action on the proposal until the public has had time to study and comment on it. Mr. Robinson felt that a prime advantage of the three-phase development program was that it would concentrate resources in a given area and thereby stimulate economic activities. He was concerned with the process and felt it was impor- tant to make the public aware that implementation of the three-phase program would reduce the amount of CDBG funds available to private, non-profit organi- zations and others who might want to apply. He felt that special attention needed to be paid to ways of ensuring that the program will fulfill the HUD requirement of focusing benefits on low- and moderate-income people. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 4 e Mr. Robinson urged that means be sought to use the funds to assist businesses in the early stages of development and to tie in with existing funding mechanisms, such as the Small Business Administration or the State venture capital program. He hoped that the program could make venture capital available to cottage industries. He felt that with good marketing assistance, local businesses could develop markets throughout the Northwest, the US, and possibly in Pacific Rim nations. He felt that a loan guarantee or repayment insurance program would be especially helpful to new businesses. Susan Sowards, 1843 Moss Street, said that she is a partner in a small business development firm. She was pleased with the proposal developed by the subcommit- tees for use of CDBG funds for economic development. She said that since the funds are limited, special effort must be made to focus the program for most efficient use of the funds and for the greatest impact. She was pleased that phase I of the assistance program could be accomplished without hiring addi- tional staff. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the council formally adopt the goals and criteria for the CDBG-funded economic develop- ment program as presented in the staff memorandum of April 16, 1982, (Attachment "A" of the April 26, 1982, memo) and as outlined by Ms. Hofmann; that the council approve in concept the RFP process presented in the memorandum of April 26, 1982, from the Council Subcommittee on Economic Development and the Joint CDcl EDTT Subcommittee, as outlined by Ms. Hofmann, which includes consideration of the business assistance proposal and solicits other project ideas. Mr. Lindberg urged support for Mr. Obie's motion and said he felt that the process outlined provides good opportunity for citizen input, while maximizing impact on economic development. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Rezonings 1. Property located between Portland and Willamette streets, south of 29th Avenue from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District (Tax Lots 7900 and 8100) and R-2/10A Limited Multiple-Family District with a density limitation of ten units per acre (Tax Lot 8200) to c-2/sR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures (Wiper Investments) (Z 82-1) (map, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau said that the prop- erty which was the subject of this request is located southwest of the corner of 29th Avenue and Willamette Street. He said that property to the north of the subject site is zoned commercial and developed with a bank, a repair garage, and a service station. He said that the subject site has for some time been used by those businesses as a parking area. Mr. Croteau said that the property to the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 5 e south is zoned and used residentially. He said that the use of the R-2 and R-3 lots for parking was established through a land use variance, granted a number of years ago, that limits the use of that property for parking areas. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this change. 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 being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2452--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from R-3 Multiple- Family Residential District (Tax Lots 7900 and 8100) and R-2/10A Limited Multiple-Family District with a density limitation of ten units per acre (Tax Lot 8200) to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures for property located between Portland and Willamette streets, south of 29th Avenue; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 9, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill 2452 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 18956 2. Property located east of Hiqhway 99, northwest of Edison Street, from M-2 Light Industrial District to RA Suburban Residential District (City of Eugene: Trainsong-Edison Park) (Z 82-2) (map, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau said that the subject property is located in the Bethel Triangle area, adjacent to the Oregon Electric Railroad and Edison Street. He said that the property is owned by the City of Eugene and is proposed as a part of the Trainsong Neighborhood Park. He stated that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of this change. Mr. Croteau said that Randy Thwing, Planning Commission president, was present to respond to any questions from councilors. 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. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 6 Paul Edgecomb, 210 Cheshire Street, said that the requested RA zoning would allow development of the site as a park and that this development could not ~ occur under the existing M-2 zone. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2453--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Indus- trial District to RA Suburban Residential District for property located east of Highway 99, northwest of Edison Street. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 2, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2453 was read the second time by council bill number only. e 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 18957 3. Property located west of Chambers, on the north side of West Broadway, from RG/SR Garden Apartment Residential District with Site Review procedures to M-2/SR Light Industrial District with Site Review procedures (Dutch Girl Ice Cream Company) (Z 82-3) (map, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau said that the subject property is located northwest of the corner of Broadway and Chambers Street. He said that the request was submitted on behalf of the Dutch Girl Ice Cream Company, which owns the M-2-zoned property to the west and north of the subject site. Mr. Croteau said that the requested change would allow expansion of that business. He said that the properties to the south and east of the site were zoned and developed residentially. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commis- sion unanimously voted to recommend approval of the request. 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 being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2454--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RG/SR Garden Apartment Residential District with Site Review pro- cedures to M-2/SR Light Industrial District with Site Review procedures for property located west of Chambers, on the north side of West Broadway. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 7 e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 9, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2454 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 18958 C. Code Amendment to City Sign Code to Create a New Sign District for Professional Office Complexes (ordinance attached; background informa- tion distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Mr. Croteau. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commis- sion had voted unanimously to recommend to the council that a new sign district be established to be available to large office complexes located in the RP zone adjacent to residential areas. He said that such complexes are currently allowed one overall identity sign and that this sign must be 32 square feet or less and must be wall-mounted. He said that the new district would allow one overall identity sign, which could be freestanding or wall-mounted, as well as wall-mounted identity signs located adjacent to each business within the com- plex. These smaller signs would be limited to 12 square feet each. e Councilor Wooten asked whether there is a demonstrated need for this new dis- trict. Mr. Croteau responded that there has been such a need, particularly in the rountry Club Road area and in the area of Delta Highway and Valley River Way. He said that currently a variance would be needed to permit signing for individual businesses in these and similar areas. He said that the Planning Commission had felt that it was better to deal with this on a legislative basis rather than through repeated variances. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2455--An ordinance concerning the Professional Office Sign District Code; adding Section 8.656 to 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 2455 was read the second time by council bill number only. e 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 18959 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 8 e D. Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Zone Change Request for Property Located on the Southwest Side of 7th Avenue (Highway 99 North) between 5th Avenue and 7th Place (Luther Steinhauer) (Z 82-4) (map, background information distributed) - Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning. Mr. Jacobson said that the request was for a change from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial District. He said that the request involved two tax lots, containing approximately 4 acres of land. He said that a restaurant was currently being constructed on the more northerly of the two tax lots. He noted that the building permit for this restaurant had been issued before recent amendments to the M-3 zone which eliminate restaurants as an outright use in that zone. Mr. Jacobson said that the tax lot to the south of the subject site is developed with Huling Chrysler-Plymouth car sales and service. He said that the property across the street to the east is zoned M-2 Light Industrial District and devel- oped with Carrows Restaurant, a fashion center, and a truck terminal. Mr. Jacobson said that property to the south is zoned M-3 Heavy Industrial and developed with Huling Buick car sales and service and body shop. He said that property to the west is zoned M-3 and developed with a meat company, tool sales, farm and equipment sales. Mr. Jacobson said that property to the north is also zoned M-3 and is developed with Roberts Motors truck sales and service. Mr. Jacobson said that the Planning Commission had failed, on a 3:3 vote, to approve the request. He said that the commission's discussion had centered on conformance with the general plan. He said that the staff had indicated in its report that it considered this an edge between industrial uses and commercial strip development along 7th Avenue to the east. Mr. Jacobson said that the predominant use in the subject area is industrial, with strip commercial extending to the east. He noted that the area is within the boundaries of the West Eugene Industrial Study and that that study indicated the property should be designated industrial. Councilor Hamel asked whether the Planning Commission and council would have to meet in joint session to discuss this request if the council voted to uphold the appeal. Mr. Jacobson responded that this would be the case. Mayor Keller asked councilors to declare any ex parte interest. Ms. Smith said that she would abstain from the matter, due to a potential conflict of interest. were entered into the record. contacts or conflicts of discussion or voting on Staff notes and Ini nutes Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, Eugene 97440, represented the applicant, Luther Steinhauer. Mr. Saul asked that the following items be entered into the record: the Metropolitan Area General Plan, as adopted by the council in August 1980; the 1982 amendments to the August 1980 Metropolitan Area General Plan, adopted by the council in February 1982; the Metropolitan Area General Plan Technical Supplement, dated August 1980; and the Metropolitan Plan Update Economy Adden- dum, published in October 1981. Mr. Saul noted that the latter two documents contain the summary of all the forecast land use needs and allocations for the planning period. Mr. Saul said that the applicant is seeking the zone change for the following reasons: 1) the existing use of the property is commercial--a e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 9 e restaurant and an automobile dealership, both uses no longer permitted as outright uses in the industrial zones; 2) the owner wishes to reuse the former Barker Chrysler automobile dealership, which contains over 4,000 square feet of existing office space but which, under the current zoning, can only be used for industrial uses; and 3) development of the restaurant on the northern portion of the property and of the dealership on the southern portion leaves the center two acres available for further development, and development of this area for industrial use would not be compatible with the existing commercial uses. Mr. Saul then addressed the discussion of the Planning Commission on conformance of the request with the Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram. He said that he recognized the warnings previously made by the council regarding attempts to draw site-specific conclusions from the diagram. He said that nonetheless, it was important to determine whether the property in question was designated for commercial use in the diagram. He said that the position of the applicant was that the preponderance of the evidence before the council indicates that the property is designated for commercial use in the August 1980 version of the plan diagram. To support this position, Mr. Saul submitted a copy of a computer simulation of that diagram which had been included in the 1982 amendments to the Metropolitan Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission's discussion had also addressed the question of the consistency of the requested rezoning with the policies and objectives stated in the text of the plan. He cited pages 5 and 6 of section II-E of the plan, which refers to acknowledged commercial strip development along existing arterials, and said that this section affirmed the applicant's contention that the text of the plan also supports the requested rezoning. He said that the plan explicitly permits and allows continuation of commercial uses in "areas characterized by existing commercial uses." e Mr. Saul said he wished to correct a statement that appeared in the applicant's statement and in the appeal statement. He said that the statement had been made in those documents that the subject property was included in the inventory of land allocated for commercial use. Mr. Saul said that this statement was incorrect and that the statement should be corrected to indicate that the property was included in the inventory of existing commercial uses. Mr. Saul also urged the council to consider the treatment of heavy industrial use in the plan. He referred to page 6 of section II-E of the plan and said that the plan makes it clear that there is no forecasted demand for additional heavy industrial land. He added that the only situation in which the plan allocates further heavy industrial land is for expansion of an existing, con- tiguous heavy industry. Mr. Saul referred to Policy 6 in the economic element of the plan and said that this policy urges that the amount of property zoned for heavy industrial use be reduced. Mr. Saul stated that the totality of the text of the plan supports the application. Mr. Saul cited reference which had been made to the statement in the West Eugene Industrial Study that "existing areas zoned for industrial use should remain" so zoned. He referred to page 1-5 of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, which was adopted subsequent to the West Eugene study, and noted that the metro plan included the statement that it takes precedence and prevails over previously adopted refinement plans. Mr. Saul noted that the council had acknowledged precedence of the metro plan over the West Eugene .plan in its decision regarding the Fred Meyer and Cowboy Country rezoning requests. He summarized his remarks - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 10 e by stating that the requested zone change conforms fully with the text of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, is consistent with the plan diagram designation for the area, and warrants approval by the council, particularly in the light of recent amendments to the industrial zones, eliminating commercial uses from those districts. Mr. Saul said that he had been contacted by the owner of the Big Y Shopping Center, who had expressed his support for the request. Joe Ponder, 2164 West 7th Avenue, said he owns the property between the Huling Buick and U-Haul businesses which houses a book store, motorcycle shop, and spa and sauna stores. He said he was in favor of the request due to the large proportion of existing commercial development between 6th and 7th avenues from Carrows Restaurant to Garfield Street. He said he favored a mass rezoning of this entire area for commercial use. He said that if any of the buildings on his property became vacant, new commercial uses could not be installed due to the code amendments made to the industrial zones. He noted that closure of the businesses located on his property would result in layoffs which would only add to the City's unemployment problems. RoV Johnson, 1806 Hemlock, represented the owner of the property to the north of the subject site, which is occupied by Roberts Motors, a heavy-duty truck dealership. He said that Roberts was concerned about the possible effects of being located adjacent to commercially-zoned property. He was concerned that a decision to grant the requested rezoning might lead to future restrictions on adjacent industrial enterprises, thereby forcing such enterprises to locate outside the City. e Mr. Saul provided rebuttal testimony. He referred to the concern expressed by Mr. Johnson and noted that a restaurant was in the process of being constructed on land which separates Roberts Motors from the subject site. Public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Councilor Schue, Mr. Croteau said that the per- mitted uses in the M-3 zone include all the uses permitted in the M-2 zone plus such things as lumber mills and chemical plants. He said that uses permitted in M-2 include wholesaling, warehousing, printing, manufacturing, and equipment sa 1 es . Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Jacobson said that it was important to remember that the metro plan diagram is a graphic depiction of the plan policies and that the responsiblity for making decisions on implementation of those policies lies with the Planning Commission and council. Responding further, he said that it was the recommendation of the Planning staff that the request be denied due to statements contained in the text of the plan and the preponderance of industrial development in the area. e Responding to a question from Councilor Hamel, Mr. Thwing said that the question of the "edge" issue had been raised in the Planning Commission's discussion of the interpretation of the plan diagram. He said that as a part of that discus- sion the commission had asked staff where they believed commercial zoning in this area should be ended. He said that staff had responded that Garfield Street was the cutoff point. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 11 - Mr. Lindberg asked the implications of the request for industrial development proposed in the City's economic diversification plan for the Four Corners area. Mr. Croteau responded that an earlier proposed study of the Highway 99 indus- trial area had not been funded, but that the prime location for industrial development in this area had been loosely identified as bounded by Roosevelt Boulevard, 7th Avenue, Garfield and Seneca streets. Mr. Gleason added that the issue was the setting of a boundary between commercial and industrial uses in this area. He noted that staff had said that the boundary should be drawn at the parcels in question and that the Planning Commission's vote on the matter had been tied 3:3. Mr. Obie added that an underlying issue was the confining nature of the revised industrial zones. He said that the council needed to consider the effects of these revisions on the investment in parcels in a similar situation to those under consideration in this request. He noted that the council would soon be meeting in joint session with the Planning Commission to discuss a similar issue and urged that the council uphold this appeal so that it too could be discussed at that time. . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to incorporate into this motion the applicant's statement, the Planning Commission minutes, the staff notes and written testimony presented to the council by the Planning Commission, the applicant's oral testimony, and to approve the request of Luther Steinhauer for a change of zone from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial Dis- trict, for Tax Lots 2300 and 2307, Assessor's Map 17-03-36-2 2, and to direct the staff to present affirmative findings to support the zone change to the council at another time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Councilor Smith abstaining. E. Public Works Contract Awards (tabulations attached) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that five projects were being presented to the council. He said that the first four projects had been initiated by property owners and that the fifth project was a street liqht conversion, costs of which would be reimbursed by the Bonneville Power Administration. He said staff recommended that contracts be awarded to the lowest bidders and noted that the concurrence of affected property owners would be required for project 4. Public hearing was opened. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to award the contracts as presented. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING--LEVYING ASSESSMENTS Mr. Gleason said that Mr. Teitzel was available to respond to questions from councilors. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 12 e e e CB 2437--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and con- structing storm sewer on Dillard Road from East Amazon Drive to East 43rd Avenue and paving and storm sewer on 43rd Avenue and North Shasta Loop from Dillard Road to existing paving on North Shasta Loop (79-41). 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 18960 Meeting was adjourned to April 28, 1982. Respectfully submitted, Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:db/CM7a18 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 13 Engineering Division BID NO.: 2 Opened: Apri 1 15 t 1982 PAVING on 2nd Avenue from Monroe Street to Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and paving Adams Street from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue (Job No. 1996) e 1. Bi dders Contract Cost AWARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors Inc.--------------- $ 87,205.65 2. H & J Construction Co.--------------------- $ 96t947.68 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel----~------------------ $ 101t286.35 4. Wildish Construction Co. ------------------. $ 109t803.25 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City $20,000 36-Foot Paving 24-Foot Alley 5-Inch Conc. Drive 7-Inch Conc. Drive Storm Sewer Service $ 49.00/FF $ 38.00/FF $ 2.25/SF $ 2.70/SF $437.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: August 13, 1982 e Amount Budgeted $18,000 (332) 2. PAVING AND SIDEWALK on Woodside Drive from approximately 280 west of Longfellow Way to approximately 400 feet west of Longfellow Way (Job No. 2020) Bidders Contract Cost Basic Alternate AvJARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors Inc. ------------- 2. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co. ----------------- 3. Benge Paving ----------------------------- 4. Wildish Construction Co. ----------------- 5. Staton Construction, Inc ---------------- 6. Eugene Sand & Gravel---------------------- Cost to Abutting Property $ -0- $ 9,152.22 $ 9,940.40 $ -0- $ 10,096.20 $ -0- 28-Foot Paving 4-Inch Sidewalk 5-Inch Conc. Drive $ 44.70/FF $ 2.50/SF $ 3.30/SF Cost to Ci ty -0- e COMPLETION DATE: July 16, 1982 $ 8,584.45 -0- $ 9,589.00 $ 9,839.00 $ 10,064.59 $ 12t488.98 Amount Budgeted -0- Page 1 of 3 BID NO.: 2 CJpened; Apri.l 15~ 1982 3. PAVING AND STORM SEWER on Sycamore Avenue from Adams Street to 65 feet east of Ash Street (Job No. 2029) e AWARD e Bi dders 1. Dannemiller ---------------------------- 2. H & J Construction Co.------------------ 3. Morse Bros. Contractors Inc. ----------- 4. Benge Paving --------------------------- 5. Eugene Sand & Gravel-.:.----,-------------- 6. Staton Construction ..,'"'-";'..---------------. 7. Wildish Construction Co. --------------- 8. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co. --------------- Cost to Abutting Property 28-Foot Paving 5-Inch Cone. Drive 4-Inch Sidewalk 2-Inch A.C. Drive $ 40.00/FF $ 4.30/SF $ 2.70/SF $ 0.90/SF Contract Basic $ 11,597.65 $ -0- $ -0- $ 12,935.85 f i4~569.78 $ 15~b~2,03 $ 17,044.15 Cost to City Cost Alternate $ 1 2 ,836. 12 $ 12,495.20 $ 12,743.45 $ 13,166.98 $ -0- $ 14,577.79 $ 16,239.55 $ -0- $ 8,400 (Parks Dept) -0- Amount Budgeted, -----------------------------------------------------~-----~-----.----------------------- COMPLETION DATE: July 16, 1982 4. PAVING, STORM SEWER AND SANITARY SEWER within Cogswell Plat and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the boundaries of Cogswell Plat (Job No. 1461) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate AWARD - 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel ----------------..-- 2. SCCI, Inc ------------------------------ 3. H & J Construction Co...----------------- 4. Dan All sup Contractor, Inc. --------..---- 5. Morse Bros. Contractor, Inc. ----------- 6 Wildish Contruction Co. ----------------'. Cost to Abutting Property 28-Foot Paving San. Lat. San. 'Serv:' - - $ 69.20/FF $ 0.16/SF $413.40/Each COMPETION DATE: August 13, 1982 $ -0- $ 92,148.35 $ 94,311.55 $103,603.45 $ -0- $ -0- Cost to City -0- $ 82,145,35 $ 97,565.95 $ -0- $101,474.85 $106,962.30 $115,877 . 90 Amount Budgeted -0- Page 2 of 3 BID NO.: 2 ., . v.pened: Apr; 1 15, 1982 5. STREET LIGHT CONVERSION at various locations throughout the City (Job No. 2031) e Bidders Contract Cost AWARD 1. Utility Contractors, Inc.~---------------~- 2. Hamilton Electric, Inc -------------------- 3. L. H. Morris Electric, Inc. --------------- 4. C1 arke El ectri c, Inc. ---------------------- 5. Brownell Electric, Inc.-------------------- 6. Deery Construction Company ---------------- 7. Hertz Electric, Inc.----------------------- $ 333,143.52 $ 336,159.22 $ 348,816.30 $ 371 ,888.15 $ 392,777.11 $ 443,098.55 $ 555,284.00 -0- Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 366,500 $ 450,000 (311) (Cost to BPA by Agreement) Cost to Abutting Property COMPLETION DATE: September 30, 1982 e e Page 3 of 3