Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/1982 Meeting i: M I NUT E S Eugene City Council e Eugene City Hall City Council Chamber July 26, 1982 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten, and Brian Obie. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Brian Obie. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Laurel Hill Plan Update (memo, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bill Sloat, Planning Department. Mr. Sloat said the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Update had been unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on June 14, 1982. The Laurel Hill Neighborhood Plan was the first neighborhood plan adopted by Eugene in 1974. Since that time the South Hills Study, which much of the Laurel Hill Plan is within, was adop- ted. More recently, the Metropolitan Area General Plan was adopted. Also, e there were housekeeping revisions and changes that were necessary to the plan. For these reasons, an update of the 1974 plan was necessary. In January 1982 the Planning Commission initiated an update of the Laurel Hill Plan. A letter was sent to all residents and property owners within the plan area. From that, 13 interested persons volunteered to serve on a planning team, develop a draft, and work on the update of the plan. Those 13 residents and property owners met at least monthly. Three tasks were identified. The first task undertaken by the planning team was locating the Glenwood Collec- tor which is a major access road to much of the plan area in the area east of Laurel Hill Drive. The Glenwood Collector would extend Glenwood Boulevard from Franklin Boulevard, cross Interstate 5 and fall down into the valley east of Laurel Hill Drive, eventually serving the residential area to the south. There would not be a connection to 30th Avenue. The second task was the location of the commercial/residential floating node designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan. All areas and sections of the plan area were examined for the best location. The location chosen was the area east of Laurel Hill Drive and south of Interstate 5. That 1 ocat i on appeared to provide good access from Interstate 5. It would provide neighbor- hood services for the Laurel Hill Valley, which is the developed part of the pl an area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 1 , , It would also serve the Glenwood area. The third task task was making overall housekeeping changes to the original e plan. The neighborhood association forwarded the plan draft to the Planning Commission which reviewd the draft, made several wording changes that are outlined in the memorandum of July 19. Those changes are attachement A to the adopting resolution. Council President Obie called for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Councilor Miller said she owned property in the Laurel Hill area. Mr. Sercombe said there was no conflict of interest unless the draft plan treated her prop- erty in a peculiar manner. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Max Ansola, 2166 Laurel Hill Drive, said he owned some property in the area and had been on the refinement team since the original zoning request was initiated. The process has taken two years. The refinement plan team and staff have spent much time on the recommendation that is before the council. There has been much argument both for and against, on size, density, and the different zoning. The team feels the update is a real compromise and something the community should be proud of. It is close to the college. It is one of the few exits off 1-5 that is not overcrowded. It would be conducive to traffic from the south or even from the north, to stop and visit Eugene. It is a good plan. Alfred Tussing, 2437 Riverview, said density is a problem for those managing e the City. The area is designated by the general plan for one to ten units per acre. A figure has been pegged for planning sewers and streets. There is another option. If councilors do not like the figure, they could set a figure of their own and plan accordingly. The rules in the ball game change. For example, at the time this plan was formed, PUDs were eight to an acre. Lot size was 6,000 square feet. The City dropped it to 5,000 square feet. All these have impact and will affect the planning for growth. This plan will have to updated and reviewed. Density may have to be changed, but it always should be changed with forethought and planning. He urged approval of this as a planni~g document, as policy, because it allows the Public Works Department to plan. If it is not adopted, City Council should find something comparable that pins down figures and growth and allows for planning for the future. Willam Schwall, 2260 Riverview, current secretary of the Laurel Hill Neighbor- hood Association, said there were few Laurel Hill residents attending because the plan does not make much difference. Neighborhood residents and property owners worked in trying to find a plan everyone could live with. Some of the statements in the plan were weakened by the Planning Commission1s language change. He urged serious consideration. Budgets are passed more easily when voters feel like someone is listening. He said he was speaking because someone was listening, and he urged approval. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 2 Councilor Schue requested staff comment on density requirements. Mr. Sloat said the document states that the neighborhood goal is to attain four units per acre e as an overall density. Neighborhood goals are not adopted as city policy. The Metropolitan Area General Plan policy of one unit per acre is the policy that is stated in this plan. The neighborhood goal and desire by the planning team and neighborhood association was to have a neighborhood goal of four units per acre. That goal is based on their feeling for the special character of the area as well as slope, vegetation, drainage, and topographic issues taken into consider- ation by the South Hills Study. The South Hills Study would limit almost all the development in the plan area to five units per acre. In reality, the maximum density will be short of five units per acre. The neighborhood goal is intended to recognize the development constraints and the character of the area, and recognize the necessity to make the plan ~onsistent with the Metro Plan. The statement recognizing one to ten units per acre is a policy statement which would be adopted as City policy. Councilor Miller commented that this plan is different from most plans consid- ered. One of those important points is the difference between neighborhood goals and policies. There are a number of statements that are statements of what the neighborhood and Planning Commission want to have happen that do not necessarily fit in with City goals of lower density. There are some other constraints on the density of the area. One of those is the unusual layout of the lots that have been platted, many of which are 66 or 76 feet wide and 300 or 400 feet long. The density will be low unless someone buys a number of lots and replats them. The actual redevelopment potential is lower than it appears. That as well as the slope constraints in the undeveloped part of the valley, tend to make lower density more realistic than it might look like otherwise. Land prices will have to increase considerably to make it worth e someone's while to replat lots. The Metro Plan is still the controlling City policy for the area. As the City Council discussed the Metro Plan, this was one of the areas where it was clear there would be disagreement between the overall public good of increasing urban density, and the wishes of the people in the immediate area not to significantly change the density. The City can work with this as a planning system because the City can anticipate that capital improve- ments and public improvements will be planned for an overall density of five units to the acre. Some developers will develop intensely and some people will continue to live on 1-1/2 acres. Res. No. 3700--A resolution adopting the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Update. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Councilor Miller thanked those volunteers who worked on the plan. Councilor Hamel said those who spent much time should not feel it is the end, but the beginning. Input will need to be given to staff and councilors of the area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 3 , ; B. Public Works Contracts (memo distributed, tabulations attached) e 1. Paving on Fir Acres Road from Bond Lane to Willagillespie Road (1864). 2. Paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Summeroaks Industrial Park (1473). Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said the Fir Acres Road paving project was intially originated by a petition from the property owners and a poll of property owners was conducted because it is a gravel road. Numerous complaints have been made about dust in the area. As of this after- noon, there was a 52-percent petition in favor, by combining current petitions and poll responses with previously filed petitions. At this time, there is a 39.8-percent petition in favor of the project with a remonstrance of 56.6 percent of the property owners. This is a residential street, and it has been the past practice of the Council to only consider paving residential streets with a 50-percent petition. Therefore, the staff recommendation is to drop the project and not award the contract. Councilor Schue said that elimination of road dust is part of the air pollution plan for this area. She asked for staff comment on the dust. Mr. Teitzel said this project is in the category that would be cost-effective to pave the road. There is no mandate from Department of Environmental Quality for the City to proceed to pave the project. The last response to DEQ was that it is a project that may be supported by the property owners, but there are some right-of-way problems with it. e Councilor Hamel asked if certain mileage had been okayed by DEQ and LRAPA and would have to be paved within a certain period of time. Mr. Teitzel said any requirement is in the form of the amount of dust, not the mileage. To date, the Public Works Department has given DEQ reports on what is being done and has no mandate that more should be done. Mr. Gleason said the accumulative effect of the unpaved road is a substantial amount of particulate, which has been the concern of LRAPA and DEQ. The Council has, on these types of roads, because of the air pollution and the overall street network, agreed to pave those streets with at least 50-percent support for the project. Council can override the remonstrance. Councilor Miller asked how this fits in with the latest round of field burning agreements and negotiations. Mr. Sercombe replied that there was no quid pro quo in the field burning arrangements that were considered two years ago. Councilor Obie asked if the petition was valid for the council to consider. Mr. Sercombe said at least 50 percent of frontage property owners have remonstrated, and it is a valid remonstrance that would require a two-thirds vote of the council to proceed further to award the bid. Public hearing was opened on both projects. , The following citizens spoke on the proposed paving of Fir Acres Road: e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 4 e Ken Clark, 1155 Fir Acres Road, said Fir Acres Road is a unique road in that it contains two gO-degree bends that block proper vision. Kids enjoy speeding down the road and doing fish-tail spins on the corners. Mr. Clark lives on one of the corners and runs the risk of getting broadsided as he goes to and from work. Having lived there for seven years, he has seen many cars that have skidded into yards. He used to call the police, but they could never arrive in time, so he stopped calling. The dust problem is severe. Regarding the cost of maintaining the road, the frequency of grading is less each year, and potholes reoccur. The cost of the project will never be less than now. Mr. Clark said he can hardly afford it, but he wants the road paved. Not everyone will agree on the particu- lars of paving. City staff has tried to compromise with residents on the plan. He urged Council not to construe testimony as opposing the paving. Represen- tatives who do not favor paving just do not want the project done as it is currently designed. He strongly urged City Council to have the road paved. Steve Kilgore, 1161 Fir Acres, said the two factors are safety on the road as it is now and the dust. He has three children and he wants the road paved. He would also like to be able to wash his house off and see what color it was originally. Randall DeBoard, 1114 Fir Acres, said an independent survey of a majority of occupants who live on the street indicates everyone wants the road paved. People are not in agreement with the curb proposed or the loss of property. It is important that City Engineers work with the people who hold the majority of the property frontage. It is cost-effective to be done now. The City will e not maintain the road. The dust and chuckholes are bad. There will be a bad accident someday. Paving would increase property values. Special considera- tion is needed on this street because of economic times. Many people living on the street are out of work but they have conceded to have the road paved. The traffic patterns are established in the area. There is not a need for a road as proposed in this plan. The curves on the plan allow for more speed and uses more property than necessary. Residents would like to retain the quiet atmosphere and size of the road. Edward Thompson, 230 North Bank, 66 Club Road, said he represented the Cag1es and Pierces who live on the west end of the road. The road is oiled regularly so that the dust problem occurs primarily in the spring. The City staff have gone out of their way to assist persons in the area. He pointed out one thing, had not the remonstrances come through, that would have caused the project to become a problem to the City. The proposal is to pave all of the road except for the westerly 60 or 70 feet. The owners of that strip that was cut off, were both against paving. To create the 52 percent majority, that strip was cut off, which would have left a short strip of unpaved road, had this project gone through. If this project is resurrected, that road should be paved as part of the project and the votes of the adjoining owners counted in. Michael Robert, 1152 Fir Acres, said that he lives on an inside corner cf the road. The part of Fir Acres being discussed is only part of a larger road. At the corner, at the end of the project, it continues into Bond Lane. At the other side of the street it goes into Willagillespie. On Happy Lane there is a new development and cul-de-sac which has brought a lot of extra traffic to Fir e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 5 e Acres Drive. That development on Russet Lane off of Happy Lane has another access out on Russet Drive to Willagillespie which gives them a full loop in both directions. From the point of Fir Acres on the corner, traffic could be limited to one direction to the point on Willagillespie, which means 50 percent less traffic on the street. Since the traffic is coming from other streets, it would be good to put 50 percent back on those other streets and keep Fir Acres what it is. He agrees with others that there is a major problem on this road. Some people cannot open windows or grow fruit because of dust. The road cannot be oiled to correct it. Oil is a pollutant also. Another problem is the amount of traffic on the road. The amount of traffic that raises the dust is not the traffic from the residences of the street. He said the neighbors do not want to lose this project, but that the plan as submitted, is not acceptable. Ninety percent of the neighbors would be in favor of an asphalt-paved road with no curbs, of a minimum width, with restricted traffic use. Fir Acres has a special quality in the neighborhood and in the City; it is rural, quiet, and lined with gardens and fruit trees. The neighbors like the rural quality. The road, initially proposed as 50 feet wide, belongs nowhere in that area. A narrower road of 28 feet is closer to being acceptable, but the ideal solution would be a narrower road 18 to 20 feet wide, without curbs that would allow natural water drainage. It would keep the road small and in scale with the rest of the neighborhood. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason said council options are to vote in the affirmative and award the e contract or, barring a two-thirds vote, the project dies until someone re- petitions the project. Mr. Teitzel said the road would not be graded anymore under the present budget situation. The City no longer owns a grader. The design presented with the 28-foot street with curbs is the minimum design and staff will not recommend anything less than that. The City's practice and policy has not been to con- struct just an asphalt mat without curbs and gutters. People have been allowed to do that on a very limited basis at their own expense. The problem with this street is that it would be plagued with drainage problems because it is up and down. The City should not have to bear maintenance costs. Recognizing that the original design had been bid, and that if any modifications were suggested it would have to be rebid, Councilor Smith asked if staff saw any merit in pursuing discussion on modifications with the concerned people. Mr. Teitzel said he saw no merit in pursuing the topic. Staff would be happy to meet with owners, but he anticipated that no compromise could be reached. Ms. Wooten said it would be important to meet with residents to try to come to an agreement or compromise on the proposal they have made. ~t may be infeasible, but in the interest of providing some harmony, she said council could at least postpone awarding of the bid and develop some consensus within the neighbors. Councilor Miller asked who had been oiling the road. Mr. Teitzel said property owners had been. Councilor Schue asked if the project included sidewalks. Mr. e Teitzel said sidewalks were not petitioned for and were not included in the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 6 Councilor Lindberg agreed with Councilor Wooten's conclusion. Perhaps some information had come forward at this meeting which had not been considered by e all parties. It would not be beneficial to reject the project and start from scratch. Councilor Hamel said his opinon is that all streets within the City limits should be paved. He is in favor of paving the project. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that based on testimony, to delay awarding of the bid to pave Fir Acres Road and that the Public Works Department staff be directed to meet with the involved and concerned property owners to see if any modification can be developed and to bring back a report to the Council. Councilor Miller asked to hear what staff feels about delaying the project. Mr. Teitzel said the contract can be delayed 30 days from the bid opening, which was July 20. Staff would not recommend amending the contract to the point that property owners are suggesting because it is a major change and would need to be rebid. Mr. Gleason said that State law prohibits less than a 30-foot right-of-way, but does permit a 28-foot deck. The City can be charged with the maintenance of the road for over 100 years. Water, which is the major maintenance problem for any road bed, is controlled by the curb lines. Without that curb line water runs underneath the base, cars pound over it, collapsing the gravel and making potholes. Construction of the road bed without curb lines is not recommended. Roads less than 28 feet do not permit service vehicles passage. An oil mat has to be redone every four or five years which is costly. e Councilor Miller said that going back to talk to affected property owners is always a good idea. However, it may not develop any consensus. Paving might or might not increase the traffic. The issue is taking over a County street built to County standards. That problem is perpetuated when streets are allowed to be built to County standards. The older streets in Eugene are better than County streets. The Council has an obligation to the future to design to minimum street standards. Wide streets do have an effect on the neighborhood, but councilors have to take a stand. Councilor Lindberg said councilors are faced with two conflicting policies. The staff reecommendation was not to approve the project because remonstrances were over 50 percent. It has been a policy to bring all City streets to City standards. A way out of the box is to vote in favor of the delay with the understanding that the Council supports the staff recommendation that there are no choices. New information has come forward from staff and citizens that may result in a changed opinion of a majority of residents. A petition for the project with a 50 percent plus approval rate might result. The citizens have the right to one final round of discussions with their neighbors and City staff for the understanding that a sub-minimum street that puts the City at great liability and does not do service to the citizens at large is an impossibility. Ms. Schue summarized the options. The City will stand on its street design of 28 feet. A few trees may be saved. Paving is not initiated until more than 50 percent of the owners of the front footage request it. Council has seldom changed that policy. If citizens do not want a 28-foot street, they already have the alternative. Bancrofting is an option for payment. e MINUTES-Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 7 ~ . ' . Councilor Obie said he would vote for a delay and would not vote for substandard streets. e Roll call vote; motion carried 6:2 with Councilors Miller, Schue, Smith and Wooten voting in favor, Councilors Hamel and Ball voting in opposition. The item will be on the City Council agenda for August 9. There will not be another public hearing. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award the contract for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Summeroaks Indus- trial Park to the low bidder. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING: Levying Assessments CB 2493--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer to replace ditch running through Ellis Parker Elementary School property at approximately 39th Avenue and Potter Street (81-01) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19002. CB 2494--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Adams Street from 3rd Avenue to railroad tracks (81-03) e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19003. CB 2496--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer on Terry Street within Maywood Subdivision (81-18) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19004. CB 2497--An ordinance levying assessments for paving on 5th Avenue from Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road (81-20) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19005. CB 2498--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer to serve Capitol Manor Subdivision (500 feet north of Cal Young Road from 300 feet east to 100 feet west of Willakenzie Road, thence north approximately 60 to the drainage ditch) (81-31) e MINUTES-Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 8 . ' . Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present e voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19006. CB 2499--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Mill Street at 18th Avenue to serve Tax Lot 17-03-32-3 3--19600 (81-43) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19007. CB 2495--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer and storm sewer to serve Thornebrook Subdivision and the area within 160 feet of the north and east boundaries of Thornebrook Sub- division (81-05) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be held over for consideration at the next assessment hearing panel scheduled for September 20, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to July 28, 1982. Respectfully submitted, e ~~~ . City Manager (Recorded by Lois Enman) LE:pm/CMb24 - MINUTES-Eugene City Council July 26, 1982 Page 9 . ~ ~/:;. ,- ENGINEERING DIVISION e BID NO.: 6 Opened: Ju ly 20 t 1982 1. PAVING on Fir Acres Road from Bond Lane to Willagillespie Road (Job No. 1864) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Bid Alternate Bid AWARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc.-------------- $ -0- $ 79 t 943.70 2. Morse Bros. Constractorst Inc. -------- $ -0- $ 81 t991.60 3. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. ---------------- $ 83,496.52 $ -0- 4. Wildish Construction Co.--------------- $ -0- $ 84,066.53 5. Benge Paving Inc. ----------------------- $ 88,294.13 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28-Foot Paving $ 31.25/FF -0- -O- S-Inch Cone. Dr. $ 2 .20 I SF San. Service $1,400.00/Each e COMPLETION DATE: October 30, 1982 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within Summeroaks Industrial Park (Job No. 1473) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Bid A lternate Bid AWARD l. Eurene Sand & Gravel Inc -------------- $296,424.65 $ -0- 2. Wl dlSh Constructlon Co.--------------- $327, 189.81 $ -0- 3. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. ---------------- $363,757.10 $ -0- 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $380,030.00 $ -0- 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractors, Inc. ------- $387,252.86 $ -0- 6. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company $417,144.35 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 44-Foot Paving $ 46.90/FF $ 59,600.00 $130,000.00 (332) San. Lat. ~ 0.081 SF San. Service $ 680.00/Each e Stm. Sewer $ o .035/ SF COMPLETI ON DATE: November 12, 1982