Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/1984 Meeting (2) - e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber May 14, 1984 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Joyce Nichols, and Betty Smith COUNCILORS ABSENT: John Ball Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Brian Obie in the absence of His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Removal of Cheshire Street Diverter (memo, maps distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. City Traffic Engineer Jim Hanks presented the staff report, stating that the issue before the council was the approval of the City Manager's administrative order to remove the Cheshire Street Diverter and to install four specially designed, raised crosswalks in the Skinner Butte Park. He said the issue symbolized the maturation of the relationship between the City and the neighborhood group process. Mr. Hanks stated that the council passed the Whiteaker Refinement Plan in 1978 which directed staff to explore traffic control measures in Skinner Butte Park and on Chesire Street in particular. In 1980 the City Council approved a trial diverter on Cheshire Street; in 1981 the council directed staff to continue the trial and to explore other options. He said that staff has worked with the neighborhood group to develop a plan which would meet the desires of those concerned. He said the proposed project was the result of those meetings, a collective measure that worked to the best of those concerned. Mr. Hanks displayed a cross section of the raised crosswalk which would include a nine-foot asphalt ramp on both sides of a raised con- crete crosswalk. He said the cross walk was similar to that constructed on Agate Street at the University of Oregon and had been the object of study in California and Great Britain. He said the crosswalks have resulted in reduced traffic speeds on low-volume streets and should enhance the pedestrian envi- ronment in the park. While it was an experimental design, Mr. Hanks felt that it would prove effective. Mr. Hanks said the crosswalks would be constructed prior to the end of the schoolyear by City crews using Community Development Block Grant funds if the project were approved. In response to a question, Mr. Hanks stated that this type of crosswalk could possibly be used in limited numbers to contr.ol traffic in some neighborhood streets. He clarified that the crosswalks could not be used on high-volume streets. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 1 The public hearing was opened. ~ ~hen Adey, 1375 Bailey Avenue, President of the Whiteaker Community Council, ~ stated that the development of the project had been a difficult process with much disagreement by the residents. He stated that agreement was reached after several months at a meeting attended by 35 members, approximately 25 of which were voting members. Mr. Adey said he believed that the proposal presented by Mr. Hanks reflected the majority of the Whiteaker area residents. Michael Leeds, 366 Clark, stated that he lived approximately one block from the present diverter, having resided in the neighborhood for eight years. He stated that traffic on Lawrence Street prior to the construction of the diverter sometimes moved faster than the traffic on the Washington/Jefferson Street overpass during certain periods of the day. While he said he learned of the diverter only after the fact, Mr. Leeds said he began to support the diverter when he saw the reduced traffic flow through the neighborhood. He felt that the raised crosswalks will allow people to drive through the park and should reduce traffic speed. However, Mr. Leeds suggested that the council consider four-way stop signs on Lawrence to further discourage com- muter traffic if the raised crosswalks prove ineffective. e Elizabeth Fox, 350 North Adams, stated that she has lived in her present location for 10 years. She stated that she would have become active sooner if she had realized that the diverter would actually be constructed. She said the diverter has been a great inconvenience, causing residents to take more dangerous routes to travel to and from their homes. In a partial poll of the neighborhood, Ms. Fox said she had found 150 residents who supported removal of the diverter and that a great number of those residents in the immediate area of the diverter had contacted her to voice their support of the proposal. She hoped the proposed project will work and satisfy everyone concerned. She hoped that it will slow the traffic, thereby possibly eliminating some of the traffic through the neighborhood. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Wooten recognized that it had been a painful process for her and the Whiteaker residents. She thanked Mr. Hanks for his work in developing the proposal. Regarding the diverter program initiated in 1980, she said four diverters were installed on a trial basis. Ms. Wooten said that only one proved ineffective, one now being replaced by the raised crosswalk and the other two having become permanent features. Councilor Schue, stating that she had originally voted for the diverter, said she was happy that a solution had been developed by the involved individuals. She congratulated those individuals for their work and involvement. She said she will vote for removal of the diverter and to install the alternate system. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the Admini- strative Order of the City Manager, dated May 1, 1984, regarding the removal of the Cheshire Street diverter. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 2 - e e In response to a question on the installation of the raised crosswalk, City Attorney Tim Sercombe stated that the administrative order only covered the removal of the diverter. Mr. Hanks explained that no action by the council was required on the crosswalks because that power had been delegated to the City Manager. For the record, Ms. Wooten said she assumed that the City would proceed with the implementation of the alternative plan even though it was not included in the motion. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Hansen suggested that a memorandum be forwarded to Bill Hamel. For the benefit of the public, Councilor Smith explained that Mr. Hamel had opposed the diverters for a number of years. B. Outdoor Cafe Ordinance (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. William Sloat of the Business Assistance Team presented the staff report, reviewing the May 14, 1984, BAT staff memorandum to the City Council. In addition to a $30 application fee, Mr. Sloat stated that the ordinance would require the applicant to meet certain conditions, including permission from the property owner for the cafe and submission of a diagram for the proposed cafe. He added that the revocable permit would be granted for a one-year period. Mr. Sloat said the proposed ordinance was a "Shaping Up '84" action to assist the City's tourism activities. Councilor Hansen said he supported the program, but he questioned how the concerns of the adjoining neighbors would be addressed. Mr. Sloat said the diagram to be submitted by the applicant would be reviewed by the City. He explained that any problems identified with the cafe could be addressed when the cafe operator applied for renewal of the one-year permit. He added that there were existing City ordinances for complaints to be filed if there were problems with a cafe's operation. In response to another question, Mr. Sloat stated that the permit application did not require permission from the adjoining property owners. Councilor Holmer questioned the proposal to rent public property to adjacent property owners in return for a permament application fee. He asked if consideration had been given to an annual fee for the permit or if some fee calculation based on the cafe's square footage could be used. Mr. Sloat responded that staff had discussed the issue but had decided that the issue be deferred to a more comprehensive review of the use of public right-of-ways. He said the proposed ordinance included the requirement of a $30 per year revocable fee. In response to another question, Mr. Sloat said he did not know of any time frame for the comprehensive review. Councilor Wooten said she was concerned that the proposed ordinance limited the number of individuals to be seated to 20. Mr. Sloat said the number was arbitrary and was based on maintaining a five-foot wide public right of way. Seating for more than 20 people could be allowed but would require additional parking spaces for the restaurant. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 3 - e e Councilor Hansen questioned if the application process would require the posting of a notice in order to inform the adjoining neighbors that an appli- cation for the sidewalk cafe permit was being made. Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection Larry Reed responded that the revocable permit process did not require a notification requirement. Mr. Hansen said he wanted to encourage the cafe but he also wanted to have a posting so that concerns of adjacent businesses were addressed. Councilor Schue said she understood Mr. Hansen's concerns; however, she said that the City had other ordinances to control any nuisances. She questioned what measures the neighboring business owners could take even if made aware of the cafe permit application in light of the lack of appropriate language in the ordinance. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Nichols said she will support the ordinance as written, stating that the ordinance would enhance the City's efforts to increase tourism. Councilor Wooten said she will also support the ordinance, but she asked that staff study the issue of an annual fee as mentioned by Mr. Holmer. She questioned whether additional parking was necessary for table seating in excess of 20; she said parking in the downtown was a continual problem and that the requirement might only add to that problem. She agreed with Ms. Schue that notification of the adjacent property owners would be a courtesy but not necessarily a practical requirement because the ordinance did not provide any measures for action by those property owners. Councilor Hansen said the proposed ordinance was similar to the previous agenda item in that the sidewalk cafe could possibly divert people from the storefront of an existing business. He said the sidewalk cafe could affect the business of adjacent property owners. He suggested that the adjoining neighbors be provided an opportunity to express their concerns with the cafe prior to the issuance of a permit. Councilor Nichols said the council should proceed with the issue. She said the council would still be dealing with the issue in August if it waited for the "perfect" ordinance. She suggested that staff monitor the issues raised by council and that the ordinance be approved on a trial basis. Councilor Schue, in regard to Mr. Hansen's suggestion, said that some modification of the ordinance would be required if notification was desired. She said that the ordinance should then include some measures to address the concerns of the adjoining property owners. Councilor Obie suggested that a review could be performed after six months to address the issues of the fee, notification of adjoining property owners and the need for additional parking. Mr. Hansen agreed with a review of the notification requirement but felt that the one-time application fee was adequate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 4 e e e CB 2744--An ordinance concerning outdoor cafes; adding Sections 7.450 and 7.455 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2744 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. approved and given final passage. lors present voting aye, the bill became Ordinance No. 19248). Smith, that the bill be Roll call vote; all counci- was declared passed (and C. Abatement of Nuisance and Unsafe Buildings at 5300 Fox Hollow Road: a) Former Roller Skating Rink; b) Single-Family House (memo distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection, presented the staff report. Mr. Reed reviewed his May 9, 1984, memorandum to the City Manager which provided the background of the issue. He said the timetable in the resolution will corres- pond approximately with that of the contractor and that the resolution will be a backup in case the owners fail to carry out their responsibility. The public hearing was opened. Russell Herbison, 26991 Briggs Hill Road, said he was the contractor hired by the property owner to demolish the buildings. He said he had informed Mr. Reed that demolition would require four months, the length of the contract term. Mr. Herbison said the building walls and the garbage have been removed, the work being performed during the off time of the two individuals involved. While the building was condemned five years ago, he said the buildings were half-demolished even though he only obtained the contract two months ago. He said he took over the project from the original contractor who was injured on his farm. Mr. Herbison said his contract with the property owner was good for 120 days from March 3, 1984. He said he has been cleaning up the property as demolition occurred and that the demolition was approximately half-completed. He said he was attempting to complete demolition by July 1, 1984, as defined in the contract. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question on the time frame stipulated in the contract, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the resolution gave the owner until May 29, 1984, to abate the nuisances, at which time the City could proceed with its own demolition. For the resolution to be consistent with the contract date, he said the dates in the two resolutions would have to be changed. In response to another question, Mr. Reed said staff felt that the demolition would be completed as outlined by Mr. Herbison. He said his main concern was that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 5 e e - situation was dangerous and that the failure of the City to follow up and take action would leave the City with some degree of risk if someone were injured on the property. He said he had no concerns if the council were willing to accept that responsibility. Councilor Smith said she had observed that progress was being made in the demolition. She said she was also aware of the concerns of the area residents. She asked what result would occur if the City was forced to complete the demo- lition. Mr. Gleason said that it was not mandatory for the City to complete the demolition if the contractor was making good progress. He explained that the issues were replete with the numerous presentations to the council. He said action usually occurred most effectively and consistently when the council made its wishes known publicly. Councilor Hansen said the council must address the issues of the present contract and the length of time the City would tolerate the eyesore. He felt the council and the residents in the area had been very tolerant in regard to the situation. He did not believe that the four-month contract signed by the property owner met the criteria previously set by the council. He said he was prepared to move forward with the process; he did not feel any further delay was appropriate. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe said the May 29 date for completion of the demolition was calculated using the minimum amount of time as stipulated by the corresponding sections of the Eugene Code. He said the date for abatement of the nuisance was changed according to a different time provision of that ordinance. He said the minimum times were traditionally used in such resolutions and that 10 to 15 days were usually allowed before the City proceeded with its own action. Mr. Sercombe said the City had made findings that a dangerous building and nuisance existed and that the issue was to develop a timeframe in which these conditions would be corrected. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe said the resolution would give the City the authority to go in on either of the two dates specified to abate the nuisance or correct the dangerous building. The charges incurred by the City would then become a lien on the property. He said the council could change the dates on the resolutions to provide the owner additional time in which to abate the nuisance. He explained that the City in the past has not held strictly with the dates set down in the resolution; therefore, the City could mandate the flexibility or do it administratively. Councilor Wooten said she would be supportive of providing an additional two weeks for the contractor to complete the demolition. She felt that the May 29 date was an unnecessary threat since the demolition was proceeding. Councilor Nichols asked if staff would have to come back to the council for permission to abate the nuisance if the demolition were not completed even with an extended deadline. Mr. Sercombe said that staff could act under the Nuisance Abatement Resolution. In response to a question, Mr. Reed said it was possible to complete the demo- lition by June 15. He explained that the contract was being completed over four months in order to salvage building materials and because work was being performed only on weekends. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 6 e e e Res. No. 3855--A resolution concerning abatement of a building at 5300 Fox Hollow Road (former roller skating rink). Res. No. 3856--A resolution concerning abatement of a building at 5300 Fox Hollow Road (single-family house). Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the reso- lutions with the dates in the resolution to be amended to June 12 and June 16. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. II. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON COUNCILOR APPOINTMENTS (memo distributed) Councilor Obie, referring to the proposed ordinance on councilor appointments distributed to the council, said that staff was requesting that any comments be forwarded to them by May 23 so that a revised ordinance could be presented to the council for action on May 29. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, z~. City Manager (Recorded by Thom Strunk) TS:ded/CM32a13 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 7