Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/1983 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 24, lY~3 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Emily Schue. I. PUBLIC HEARlNGS A. Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of a Zone Change Request for Property Located at the Northeast Corner of Cal Young Road and Gilham Road from RA Low Density Residential District to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District (Bill McCabe) (Z 82-20) (memo, map, background information distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau said that the appeal involved property owned by Bill McCabe and located at the northeast corner of Cal Young Road and Gilham Road in the Willakenzie area. He said that the request for rezoning from RA to C-1 had been heard by the Planning Commission on October 19, 1983. He said that the commission had voted 3:3 on a motion to approve the rezoning, which, according to Planning Commission bylaws, resulted in denial of the request. Mr. Croteau said that the appeal had been scheduled for a council hearing in November 1982, but that the hearing had been postponed at the request of the applicant. Mr. Croteau noted that the appeals statement, the staff notes, the Planning Commission minutes, and all written testimony submitted on the item had been made a part of the record and had been distributed to councilors. He said that the area surrounding the McCabe property was zoned RA and, with the exception of a church, was developed with low-density residential use. 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. Speaking in support of the appeal: e Robert E. Moulton, 260 East 11th Avenue, said he was an attorney representing the appellant, 61'1 McCabe. Mr. Moulton submitted a petition signed by 116 residents of the area of the request who favored the rezoning. He also submitted a tentative plot plan for the McCabe property and noted that changes had been made to the plan as a result of discussions with the Cal Young Neighborhood Organization. Mr. Moulton said that traffic concerns raised by neighbors of the MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 1 e e - site had been discussed with City traffic engineering staff and that staff had made some proposals for addressing those concerns. Mr. Moulton said that Mr. McCabe agreed to the application of some elements of City site review criteria to the property. Mr. Moulton said that the neighborhood would benefit from rezoning of the site. Bill McCabe, 1510 Highway 99 North, said that Grocery Cart Markets had 14 locations in the Eugene area. He said that the subject site was an ideal location for a market, since it had a customer support population of 2,000-- 1,000 more than the number required to support a convenience store. He said that efforts would be made to buffer neighboring residences from lighting on the property. He noted that Grocery Cart signs are traditionally made from 70 percent wood and 30 percent plastic. He said that litter was not a problem at other Grocery Cart locations. Mr. McCabe said that the cost of opening a convenience store was $300,000 and that the store would employ eight people. He said that he had worked with the City Planning and Traffic departments on his request. He said that this was the first time Grocery Cart had had to request a rezoning for one of its stores and that he did not wish to antagonize the neighborhood. Robert E. Moulton resumed his testimony. He referred to the October 19, 1982, staff report on this request and the City staff's review of the legal require- ments to be addressed in consideration of the rezoning. Mr. Moulton cited sections on pages I-C-11, l-C-9, and l-C-12 of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, which recognized the vital role of neighborhood facilities in serving a particular neighborhood and provided standards for location, such as convenient walking and biking distances, adequate provision of off-street parking, safe and efficient ingress and egress, and provision of landscaping. He referred to a January 13, 1983, letter from Michael Weishar, Assistant Traffic Engineer, to Mr. McCabe and asked that the letter be entered into the record. He stated that in the letter Mr. Weishar said that the Traffic Divison had studied the poten- tial for traffic congestion as a result of location of a convenience store in this area and had said that, with modifications to the plot plan, there was only a two percent probability of congestion. He referred to the summary in the Planning staff notes for this item and noted that staff found the request met all standards for neighborhood commerical facilities, including adequate support population, need, and compatability. He said that the request was for neighbor- hood commerical zoning, which should not be confused with community commercial or with a regional shopping center. Speaking in opposition to the appeal: Dan Sellard, 2176 Cal Young Road, said he lives within sight and hearing of the subJect slte. He noted that several of those present had appeared on November 24, 1982, for a previously scheduled hearing on this item, and he thanked staff for placing the item first on the agenda for this hearing. Mr. Sellard said he did not believe there was any need for another grocery store in the area, since Safeway and Albertson's stores are located nearby, and since there is a Grocery Cart store .9 miles away, a 7-Eleven Store. 8 miles away, and a Dari Mart Store .7 miles away. Mr. Sellard said that a petition in opposition to the rezoning MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 2 . was distributed at the Planning Commission hearing and noted that the petition included signatures of 100 percent of the residents of Roland Way. He said that the main concern of neighbors was with traffic. He said there were already problems with traffic backing up at the intersection of Gilham Road and Cal Young Road. He stated the solution to traffic problems that Mr. Moulton had referred to would include removing parking. He was upset that City staff was making proposals for dealing with traffic problems caused by the Grocery Cart before the rezoning was granted. He felt that parking removal would create additional traffic safety problems in the area. Mr. Sellard said that convenience stores were frequently targets of crime and would bring crime to the neighbor- hood. He said lighting and signing would harm the aesthetics of the neighbor- hood. He urged the council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. e Robert F. Shelle~, 2122 Roland Way, concurred with Mr. Sellard's remarks. He sa1d that durlng a discussion of the request at a meeting of the Cal Young Neighborhood Association Mr. McCabe had said he would drop the rezoning request if there were strong oppostion to the request from the neighborhood. Mr. Shelley felt there was good evidence of such opposition. He was afraid that this rezoning could be the beginning of commercial strip development in the area. He was concerned with increased traffic and crime, littering, and intrusion of lighting. He felt there was no need for the rezoning and urged the council to deny the request. George Grainger, 2114 Cal Young Road, said that he lived directly across from the proposed market. He said that he had submitted comments on the matter to the council in a letter dated November 12, 1982. He agreed with previous testimony in opposition to the request. He asked councilors to vote on the matter as they would if the proposed rezoning were located across the street from their homes. John M. Gogal, 2132 Cal Young Road, said he lived directly across from the subject site. He concurred with remarks by previous speakers in opposition to the request. He was afraid that approval of the request would be the beginning of a spread of commercial development in the area. Gordon W. Swan, 2160 Roland Way, concurred with previous speakers in opposition to the request. He said Mr. McCabe had testified that there was a support population of 2,000 for the proposed store, but he questioned whether this was accurate if only 116 people had signed petitions in favor of the request. Mr. Swan said that he had discussed his concerns about the spread of commercial development in the area with a member of the Planning staff and that the staff member had agreed that this could be a problem. He made a comparison with commercial development along Coburg Road and said the Planning staff member advised him that Coburg Road was not a planned commercial area but was zoned with the same RA zoning as the subject area. Dick Beers, 2185 Carmel, concurred with previous speakers in opposition to the request. He was concerned with traffic problems that could result from the requested zone change. He was also concerned that the property directly east of the subject site might also seek and receive commercial zoning. e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 3 e e - Bruce Dean, 2092 Roland Way, concurred with the remarks of previous speakers in opposition to the rezoning. He said that residents of Roland Way had been successful in having the street made a dead end at Cal Young Road so that it would not be used as a short cut for people trying to avoid traffic signals. He said that there was already a problem with debris and litter in the area and that he feared the problem would increase if a convenience store was developed. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau said that Planning Commission President Eleanor Mulder was available to answer questions from councilors. He noted that the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing had been distributed to councilors. He said that if the council decision does not agree with the decision made by the Planning Commission, City Code requires that the two groups meet jointly to discuss the matter before the council makes a final decision. Mr. Croteau noted that the Cal Young Neighborhood had telephoned a response to a referral from the Planning Department on the item and that the response was not definitive, with several neighbors expressing opposition to the request, several expressing concerns, and a few favoring the request with restrictions. Mr. Croteau said that the subject site is designated in the Metropolitan Area General Plan for low-density residential development and that the plan text provided a definition of suitability for location of neighborhood commercial development in residential areas. Robert E. Moulton presented rebuttal testimony. He referred to Mr. Weishar's letter, which he had mentioned earlier, and said it addressed the question of removal of on-street parking on Cal Young Road that had been raised during testimony. He said Mr. Weishar had written that a center turn lane would not be required at this time and that there was therefore no proposal to remove parking. Mr. Moulton referred to paragraph 3 of page lI-C-2 of the Metropolitan Plan, in which the question of need for services such as neighborhood convenience stores was addressed. He said that the Traffic Division had reviewed the proposed plot plan for the site and had suggested that there be two exits on Gilham Road and one on Cal Young. He said that the store would serve residents of the portion of Cal Young Road that extends north of Gilham Road and that most of those who had signed a petition in support of the request lived in this area. He noted, however, that residents of the property immediately to the east of the site had also signed the petition, as well as 30 residents on Cal Young Road. Mr. Moulton said that concerns with illumination from the site could be addressed in the site review criteria and reiterated that Mr. McCabe was in agreement with application of the site review suffix. Councilor Holmer referred to subparagraph 1 on page I-C-3 of the Metropolitan Plan, which defined the adequate support population for neighborhood commercial uses as 4,000 people within one-half mile. He asked if the population in the area of the request was adequate to suuport the proposed convenience store. Mr. Croteau responded that the support figure cited from the Metropolitan Plan by Mr. Holmer was for a full-service neighborhood commercial center on a site of about five acres. He said that, given the 1.19 acre site of the proposed Grocery Cart, it would seem there was an adequate support population. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 4 e Councilor Holmer referred to the statement made in the appeal that this was the only site within a one-half mile area that was available for development of a convenience store. He asked if one-half mile were a reasonable figure to use in judging location of neighborhood commercial centers. Mr. Croteau responded that the one-half mile figure had been used in the past but said that it was hoped the Metropolitan Area General Plan could be used in the future. He said he did not know if this was the only vacant, available property of approximately one acre in the area. Mr. Holmer asked who had circulated the petition in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Moulton responded that the paper had been circulated by the owners of the subject property and, he believed, by the residents of the property immediately to the east of the subject property. e Councilor Wooten asked how far the subject site was from specific existing grocery stores in the area. Mr. Croteau responded that it was from .7 to .8 miles from the store at Fir Acres, .7 miles or less from the Safeway store at Coburg Road and Cal Young Road, and about one mile from the Albertson's store at the Oakway Mall. Councilor Obie complimented Mr. McCabe on the high quality of Grocery Cart stores in the City. He said that the fact that the vote of the Planning Commission was so sharply divided in this issue indicated that the council should give close scrutiny to the matter and examine the question of true need for the rezoning. He said that the questions raised by neighbors in the area who had expressed fear of the spread of commercial development and of increased traffic congestion deserved the attention of the council. Mr. Obie believed that there was a need for the council to proceed cautiously in making its decision. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the appeal be denied. Councilor Holmer expressed concern with the suggestion made during public testimony that councilors make their decision as if the subject property were located across from their own homes. He felt that if the council always based its decisions on such criteria, real problems would result. He said that concern for traffic problems caused him to favor the motion. Councilor Lindberg said he would oppose the motion, because he felt that a joint meeting with the Planning Commission with further discussion of this request would be useful. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:2, with Councilors Ball, Hansen, Holmer, Obie, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilors Lindberg and Schue voting in opposition. I . B. Ordinance Levying Assessment for Paving, Sidewalks, and Storm Sewer on Goodpasture lsland Road from Delta Highway to Tabor Street (Contract #81-09) (memo, background information distributed) e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 5 e e e Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel used visual materials to explain the assessments. He said that the council had previously voted to take additional public testimony before the final reading of this ordinance. He reviewed the history of the improvements, noting that the council had voted on May 11, 1981, to authorize construction of the project and that the council had held a public hearing at the time of the contract award on June 8, 1981. Mr. Teitzel said at that hearing the council had discussed the lack of benefit to some lots from the improvements. The council did determine at that time that all lots were to be included in the assessment district. He stated that the Council Hearing Panel had held a hearing on the assessments on October 18, 1982; had discussed the lack of benefit to several lots; and had referred the matter to the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Teitzel said that on October 25, 1982, the City Attorney's Office had recommended that four lots on the top of a rock cliff above the improved roadway be deleted from the assessment, due to lack of benefit. He noted that the City Attorney's opinion stated that the rest of the parcels included in the assessment did benefit from the assessment. Mr. Teitzel said that action had been delayed on the assessments for the Flintridge Village portion of the project, until the November 18, 1982, Hearings Panel hearing, since residents of Flintridge Village had received inadequate notice of the hearing. Mr. Teitzel listed the benefits generally provided by street improvements: access to a paved street, pedestrian and bicycle safety, drainage control, noise abatement, and dust control. He noted that the matter before the council included assessments for double-frontage lots and noted that the City histor- ically has assessed these lots and recent assessments approved by the council for improvements on Bailey Hill Road and Crescent Avenue had also included double-frontage assessments. Mr. Teitzel said that the cost of the improvements was $196,712.82, of which the cost to the City was $93,538.97 and the cost to be assessed was $103,173.85. Councilors Ball and Hansen disqualified themselves from discussion or voting on this matter due to possible conflicts of interest. Both councilors temporarily left the meeting. Public hearing was opened. There was no testimony in favor of levying the assessments. The following testified in opposition to the levy. Harold Greer, 2250 Tabor Street, represented property he owned at 1260 Good- pasture lsland Road. He referred to a letter he had submitted to the City Council on January 21, 1983, and noted that councilors should have received copies of the letter. He said that he was willing to pay his fair share of improvements but that he felt the proposed assessment was more than a fair share. He said there had not been dust or drainage problems before the improve- ments. He noted that the City had not provided a wide enough apron for his driveway, so that he did not have proper access to pavement. He said that noise levels had not dropped as a result of the improvements and that, if anything, cars went faster. He said that the fill for sidewalks that had been installed was already eroding. He noted that a large fir tree had been cut. He said that a bus turnout had been installed as part of the improvements but that the bus no longer ran on Goodpasture Island Road. Mr. Greer said he was charged the full commerical rate for improvements, despite the fact that he could not sell the property as commercial. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 6 e e e Lawrence A. Balderson, 1875 Happy Lane, said that his property did not benefit from the improvements. He noted that. of the properties on Happy Lane, his had the largest frontage on Goodpasture lsland Road. He said that he could not get access to the improved street, because his house is located 40' below the roadway and because there is a guardrail between his property and the roadway. He said that drainage had not been improved by the construction and that there was standing water around some houses. He opposed unfair taxation and reiterated that he received no benefit from the improvements. Carl W. Raynor, 2169 Stone Crest Drive, referred to a statement he and his wife had prev10usly submitted. He said that his lot was one of the four lots mentioned as having special circumstances in the City Attorney's opinion. Arthur A. Mehas, 1220 Goodpasture lsland Road, deferred to Donald Husband. Donald R. Husband. 72 West Broadway, represented owners of several lots affected by the assessments. including the Raynor, Rickovich. and Romania lots. He said that he would limit his remarks to effects of the assessments on property owned by Arthur and Kay Mehas and Jack Simmons. which had been assessed $20,374.50. He submitted a written statement and then read the statement. He said that his clients remonstrated against the levy. due to its lack of benefit to their property. He noted that approximately 150' of the Mehas-Simmons property is located below the surface of the roadway and said that before it can be devel- oped a separate. new street would need to be built and sewers installed. Mr. Husband said that his clients would have to pay this assessment as well. He quoted a number of legal treatises and some cases as indicators that the amount of assessments should not exceed the amount of special benefits. that demonstra- tion of benefits needs to be made. and that special or local assessments cannot be made for improvements of benefit to the public at large. Mr. Husband con- cluded by requesting that the Mehas-Simmons property be removed from the pro- posed assessment. Thomas S. Morgan. 3795 Donald Street, distributed written materials and photo- graphs of the Mehas property. He said that he was a real estate appraiser with the firm of Duncan. Cox and Associates. He said that Mr. Mehas had asked him to assess the benefits of the improvements to the Mehas property. Mr. Morgan said he found there was no benefit to the property. He said that the road and access were adequate before the improvement, and the work done by the City was an overimprovement, which did not increase development potential or value for the property. He agreed that a new road along the southeast boundary of the property would be needed to develop the property. Referring to the photographs. he pointed out that the Mehas-Simmons property was separated from the improved roadway by a berm. Robert E. Moulton. 260 East 11th Avenue, represented 61 of the 63 owners of lots in Flintridge Village. He distributed a written statement of appeal of the assessment, including photographs of the improved roadway adjoining Flintridge Village and a topographic map of the area. He said that since Flintridge Village is a condominium development with property jointly owned, all owners were affected by the assessments. He noted that residents of the condominium had already directly or indirectly paid the costs of privately owned streets within the development as well as the costs of development of the public streets Stone Crest Drive and Ridge Way Drive. Mr. Moulton submitted a written statement MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 7 e e - statement from Frank C. Price of Assessment Evaluators. Mr. Moulton said that Mr. Price had examined the Flintridge property and had found no enhancement to the value of the property as a result of the improvements. Mr. Moulton asked the council to make a decision completely or at least partially in favor of his clients. He said that the council could decide to treat the entire Flintridge Village Condominium as one lot for the purposes of the assessment, since the common area property is owned by all the property owners in the condominium. Mr. Moulton noted that the City had found that the four lots to the east of Flintridge do not derive benefit from the improvements due to the height of those lots above the roadway. He referred to the photographs and map that he had submitted to demonstrate that 260' of the frontage of the Flintridge property should be determined to have no benefit for similar reasons. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Teitzel said that Goodpasture Island Road was paved before the City improvements were made but that the City would not have been able to maintain the road to the same degree that standard City streets are maintained. He said it was probably correct that the improvements had resulted in little change in dust control, but ne noted that the smoother, more durable surface should have reduced noise. Mr. Teitzel said that speed studies done in January 1981 and again in December 1981 showed that the speed of cars throughout the project had been reduced three to four miles per hour. He said that the storm sewers included in the improvements would help control drainage problems by carrying surface water away from neighboring properties. Councilor Holmer asked Keith Martin, City Attorney's Office, to respond to Mr. Husband's citations regarding need to demonstrate benefits. Mr. Martin responded that Mr. Husband had cited general principle law and Oregon case law. Mr. Martin referred to his previous memorandum to Mr. Teitzel regarding this assessment and noted that it was up to the council to make a determination of long-term special benefit. He said he believed that if there is substantive evidence of benefit, the courts would uphold the assessment. He noted that the benefits identified by Mr. Teitzel from this project were long-term improvements of benefit to the property assessed. Councilor Smith noted that this item had appeared on three Hearing Panel agendas. She said that the staff recommendations were based on the City's present assessment policy. She felt that under this policy the council had few alternatives to levying the assessments as recommended by staff. Responding to a question from Councilor Obie, Mr. Teitzel said that the Mehas property takes access from Goodpasture Island Road at two points and that the Greer property has one access point. Councilor Lindberg said that if the City agreed to bear the cost of the improve- ments to remonstrating properties, it would set a precedent that would place an unfair tax burden on all City taxpayers. He said that the long-term benefit of the improvements needed to be considered. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 8 . . . Councilor Holmer said that this was his first opportunity to hear testimony on this issue. He felt that it would take time to review the written evidence that had been presented to the council. He suggested that the council postpone a decision on the matter until the next council meeting. Mr. Martin responded that this decision was the prerogative of the council, but he noted that the options open to the council were limited by City Charter and ordinance provisions as well as longstanding practices and policies. t'ilr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to postpone the item to Wednesday, January 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion failed 2:4, with Councilors Holmer and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilors Obie, Schue. Smith, and Lindberg voting in opposition. t'ilr. Gleason recommended that the council first adopt the the findings recommended in the November 15 memorandum from the Public Works staff and in the November 22 memorandum from Mr. Martin to Mr. Teitzel; that the council then vote to amend Council Bill 2532 to reflect the adopted findings; and that the council then vote to adopt the amended council bill. Mr. Gleason noted that the findings addressed the remonstrances before the council, exempted the four lots in the Third Addition to Flintridge mentioned above, and determined how the assessment was to be distributed among Flintridge Village condominium owners. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the findings contained in the November 15, 1982. memorandum from the Public Works staff and the November 22. 1982, memorandum from the City Attorney's Office. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1. with Councilors Lindberg, Obie, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Holmer voting in opposition. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council Bill 2532 as amended by the findings and to give the bill final passage. Councilor Obie said that the four parcels on Stone Crest that had been removed from the assessment did receive benefit from the improvements as a result of improved access to the subdivision. He said, however, that the council did not have expertise in analyzing degree of benefit. Councilor Holmer said that he shared Mr. Obie's concern in a broader context and would therefore oppose the motion. Mr. Gleason said that the council needed to amend the bill to reflect the adopted findings before taking further action. He noted that the amended bill would then have to be given first and second reading. Ms. Schue declared the previous motion invalid. Mr. Obie moved. seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend Council Bill 2532 to include the findings outlined in the previous motion. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1. with Councilors Lindberg, Obie, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Holmer voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24. 1983 Page 9 . CB 2532--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sidewalks and storm sewer on Goodpasture Island Road from Delta Highway to Tabor Street as amended. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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 2532 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill De approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1, with Councilors Lindberg, Obie, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Holmer voting in opposition. The bill was declared passed and numbered 19088. Councilor Obie noted that this had been a council-initiated project and urged the council to think more carefully in the future before initiating similar projects. Councilors Ball and Hansen returned to the meeting. . C. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located South of West 18th Avenue and West of Bertelsen Road from County AGT-5 and RA Districts to City AG Agricultural District and Application of City Residential Sign District (Young/Bertelsen Associates/Bailey Hill Land Company) (A/Z 82-4) (map, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission December 14, 1982 Vote--6:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Bill French, Planning. Mr. French said that the request involved 239 acres in the Willow Creek drainage basin within the boundaries of the Willow Creek Special Area Study. He said that the property involved was south of Gimpl Hill Road and west of Bertelsen Road. Mr. French said that the impetus behind the request was to protect flora and fauna in a critical wetlands area. He referred to page 1-30 of the Planning Commission staff notes of December 14, 1982, and noted that at least a part of each of the lots in question was wetland. He said the AG Agricultural District was proposed as an interim zone for the property until the appropriate need can be demonstrated to zone the property for low-density residential use. He said that the Nature Conservancy would be responsible for protection of the wetlands area and that density transfer would be used when the property surrounding the wetland area is developed, so that residences could be built in the dry areas and the wetland can be left undeveloped. Mr. French said that Planning Commission President Eleanor Mulder was present to respond to questions from councilors, as was Ken Margolis of the Nature Conservancy. 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. . MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 10 e Ken Margolis, representing the Nature Conservancy, said that everyone involved would benef1t from approval of the request before the council. He said that the 100-acre wetland area contained three rare plants. He showed slides of the area and of the plants. He said that the density transfer would allow the wetland area, valued at approximately $800,000, to be protected without cost to the taxpayers. He commended the work of Jim Farah, Acting Planning Director, and Steve Gordon, Lane Council of Governments, on this request. He urged the council to approve the request. David Pedersen, 540 Oak Street, said he was a planning consultant representing the Bailey Hill Land Company, one of the three applicants for this annexation and rezoning. He supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission and said he was available to respond to questions from councilors. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. e Res. No. 3744--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located south of West 18th Avenue and west of Bertelsen Road to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 14, 1982, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2590--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County AGT-5 and RA Districts to City AG Agricultural District and application of City Residential Sign District for property located south of West 18th Avenue and west of Bertelsen Road. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 14, 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 2590 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie 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 19089. Ms. Schue expressed the thanks of the council to those who had worked to develop the proposal. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 11 e D. Rezoning Requests 1. Property located south of Cal Young Road, east of Willagillespie on Crenshaw Lane from RA Suburban District to RA/SR Suburban District with Site Review Procedures (City of Eugene: Gillespie Butte) (Z 82-15) (ma , back round information distributed) Recommen e approva y P ann1ng Comm1ss1on December , Vote--6:0 Mr. Gleason said that this was a routine rezoning request. He noted that Jim Croteau, Planning, was present to respond to 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. There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. e CB 2591--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban District to RA/SR Suburban District with Site Review Procedures for property located south of Cal Young Road, east of Willagillespie on Crenshaw Lane. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 14, 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. Councilor Lindberg said that he welcomed the opportunity to support Gillespie Butte. Councilor Wooten said she knew that the Joint Parks Committee was reviewing the possibility of including five acres at the peak of Gillespie Butte in the Parks Master Plan. She requested that staff, however, prepare information on the possibil- ity of rezoning the top of the butte to Public Lands (PL). Mr. Gleason said staff would report back to the council on this proposal. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2591 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie 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 19090. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 12 - 2. Property located on the east side of Bertelsen Road, south of 1st Avenue from 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to I-2/SR Light- Medium lndustrial District with Site Review Procedures for Tax Lots 201, 202 and 3201 and from 1-1 Special lndustrial District to I-1/SR Special lndustrial District with Site Review Procedures for a portion of Tax Lots 200 and 3200 (City of Eugene: Bertelsen Slough) (Z 82-16) (map, background information distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission December 14, 1982 Vote--6:0 Mr. Gleason said that this was a routine rezoning request. He noted that Planning staff was present to respond to 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. e There being no public testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2592--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to I-2/SR Light-Medium lndustrial District with Site Review Procedures for Tax Lots 201, 202 and 3201 and from l-1 Special lndustrial District to I-1/SR Special Industrial District with Site Review Procedures for a portion of Tax Lots 200 and 3200 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 14, 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 2592 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie 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 19091. 1983. e (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:dcm/CM7b1 MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 1983 Page 13