Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1975 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 10, 1975 Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 10, 1975 in the Council Chamber. The following Council members were present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Raymond Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Wickes Beal and Tom Williams were absent. Side II (0001) I - Public Hearings A. Rezoning Greenacres Road/Delta Highway property - From RA and C-2 to various neighborhood and community commercial, limited multiple family, and residential professional, with Sign District designation of Integrated Neighborhood Shopping on ortion of neighborhood commercial. Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 17, 197. Council at its meeting on January 27, 1975 held council bills which would affect the rezoning, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, because of testimony that people in the neighborhood had not been aware of the rezoning. It was decided at that time the public hearing would be continued to this date. -- (0107) ( 0183,) - Public hearing was reopened. Speaking in opposition to the rezoning were Walt Sands, 1121 Balboa; Thomas Winbigler, 1140 Balboa; Noel Corliss, 1425 Acacia; Julie Vierling, 1570 Holly; Bruce Taylor, 507 Ayres Road; Fred Haase, 1435 Holly; and Chuck Hale, 1995 Terressa Avenue. Mr. Sands said the Willakenzie neighborhood organization, after presentation of the issue by Jim Saul, planner, supported denial of the rezoning. He said the Eugene Sand & Gravel under the 1990 General Plan was considered a temporary operation, however it was now being recognized as permanent. He and Mr. Winbigler both felt the 1990 Plan was no longer relevant to the way that area was developing. They thought the Plan should be restudied and revised to make it more in harmony with the surrounding area, and a petition to that effect was submitted. Mr. Corliss also supported that position. Ms. Vierling noted that all property owners in the area had signed the petition requesting plan revision. She added that the streets would not be capable of handling the traffic that would be generated by the type of development proposed. Mr. Taylor felt the proposal would be injurious to sound planning and thought the text of the General Plan rather than the plan map should be the basis for evaluation of the zoning for that area. He cited noise problems, traffic, economic conditions, existing residential development as reasons for making the proposed rezoning undesirable here as compared to other available properties. He didn't think residential development should occur so close to industrial uses, and he said there was no assurance commercial development as a buffer would occur simultaneously with residential development. He thought there should be reconsideration of creating a commercial center the size of the Oakway Mall in a remote corner of the urban service area. 2/10/75 - 1 4-3 Mayor Anderson, in order to avoid duplication, pointed out that testimony had also been received at the January 27, 1975 meeting. Mr. Haase felt there was no need for more commercial zoning in the area and said there was no assurance traffic would not increase on Holly Street and Green- acres Road. He felt the proposed density for the residential zoning was entirely too high. H~ asked rejection of the rezoning, to avoid more commercial or industrial uses in the are~. If it was approved he wanted assurance in writing that access to the commercial development would be along Belt Line rather than from Holly Street and that there would pe a reduction in the housing density. Mr. Hale felt aesthetics of the proppsal was the lowest priority. He preferred to see the properties under consideration remain as open undeveloped land and no necessarily as planned park areas. He was also disturbed that the wishes of a single deve:loper could take precedence over an entire neighborhood. Trygve Vik, 1675 Firland Boulevard, referred to the question of development timing and said there was no way to determine when and which development would occur until the rezoning was acted upon. Considering current economic conditions, he said, it could be a while before any development occurred. He pointed out the existing high density housing adjacent to Belt Line and noted that although there had been no study with regard to' truck traffic there serving industries to the west, it was relatively heavy compared to that occurring, generated by the gravel company trucky, on Delta Highway. He said it had been a long, hard process trying to get these properties to a point where some comprehensive could be accomplished. He felt the proposal a good one and definitely in line with the 199~ Plan. With r~gard to leaving it as open space, Mr. Vik said that would promote scatteration. And the General Plan advocated prevention of that by filling in and developing open spaces within the urban service area. Mike Safley, Route 5, Box 1421, developer of abour 43 acres of the area under consideration, noted that services were available for the property and develop- ment as proposed would be in line with the 1990 Plan concept of containing growth within the urban service boundary. He said there would be no problem so far as traffic was concerned, either at the Belt Line interchange or on Greenacres Road, because the number of trips per day at this time were far from the designed capacity. The area would serve medium density housing, he said, without routing traffic through residential streets. It was close to employment centers, and mass ~ransit was available. He pointed out that the noise control recommended from a study conducted by a private consulting firm had been confirmed by the Department of Environmental Quality. With regard to public need, Mr. Safley said petitions had been submitted signed by employes in Valley River Center stating their need for low-cost housing near their work. He said One of the stated primary community goals .encouraged development of low- and medium- income housing and this area was very suitable for that type. Also, present economic trends tend to escalate adversity for low- and medium-income people, thereby presenting further need for this type housing. And it seemed to him that this area because of its location, topography, available transportation was without question the best suited for the particular type of housing most needed. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Manager read a letter dated February 3, 1975, received from John Alltucker, Owner of EugeRe Sand & Gravel, concerned with residential development near that operation. He favored the proposed commercial uses as outlined. Manager also read a petition submitted by residents of the area living both inside and outside ~4- 2/10/75 - ? (0319 ) e :(0367) ! (0405) e ,( 0465 ) 1(0569) . It the city requesting denial of the rezoning and asking that the General Plan be amended to provide for development more in harmony with the character of the ,surrounding neighborhood. He,noted that zoning of the Eugene Sand & Gravel property was not a city responsibility, that the property was in the county, and amendment of the 1990 Plan, he said, required concurrence of Springfield and Lane County as well as Eugene. (0625) e Mr. Saul said that at the time the General Plan was adopted the existence of the sand and gravel operation was recognized. He said that between the time the original rezoning request from Mr. Safley was submitted and the development of the present proposal, staff research with regard to possible reconsideration of the 1990 Plan led to the conclusibn that such re-evaluation and possible amendment would not be appropriate because the Eugene Sand & Gravel and other industrial operations in that area were permanent. Because of that, options were relatively limited for either residential or commercial development. And extension of the industrial uses would create the same types of conflicts alleged to exist. With regard to noise, Mr. Saul said that sound studies indicated that leaving the area an open space would do little to reduce the impact, whereas construction of buildings would lower the sound. For that reason it was felt the commercial uses proposed between the sand and gravel operation and residential development would result in acceptable noise levels in the housing units. Planned unit development procedures were recommended to assure installation of proper sound barriers. He called attention to 12 specific findings in staff notes showing where objectives of the General Plan were met by this proposal over and above simply conforming to the Plan Diagram. He said there was only one medium-density housing project in the area at this time, others fall within the low-density range. Also, he noted that at no time during hearings before the Commission and Council with regard to the rezoning request originally presented by Mr. Safley was the need for medium-density housing in this area contested. (0755) Manager added that in order to give access control to residential streets it was proposed to add site review procedures to the property now zoned for' commercial use, and planned unit development procedures to the property proposed for commercial use across from the sand and gravel operation, thereby making development subject to review by the planning Commission. (0794) Councilman Murray noted ex parte contact with Bruce Taylor consisting of limited discussion with regard to limited procedural questions which Mr. Murray felt did not prejudice his ability to participate in the issue. No other ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by council members. (0806) e- Councilman Keller wondered what kinds of problems could be anticipated if the land was not developed in the manner proposed. He was not convinced it should be left vacant, but he was concerned about leaving some open space. He asked for further information with regard to the sound study. Mr. Saul explained the sound readings taken at seven locations in the area by the acoustical engineers and. the study based on accepted standards for measuring noise impact, the standards used in determining the sound level at a distance across open space as compared to the same distance with interposition of buildings. In areas not already buffered by buildings, the sound study recommended erection of special masonry walls as a barrier which would result in a marked attenuation of outdoor noises. The study also recommended a number of ways that residential noises could be masked. '- (0874) Councilman Murray referred to the statement that there was no need for commercial d~velopment in that area which he felt .normally would merit consideration. However, he called attention to commercial zones already in that area. He 45 2/10/75 - 3 rec?gnizedthe existence of the sand and gravel operation by virtue of county zoning and said that could not be ignored in making a decision on this propo- sal; Also, problems would be encounter~d with designating the area as open ~ spaqe - lack of funds for acquisition and development as park lands, and weigh- ~ ing ,the need for parks in this area as opposed to other areas of the city. Mr. Murray had reservations about the proposed commercial zoning if it was to be large enough to accommodate a regional shopping center because he was against further development of that kind in that area. He said that letting residen- tial development occur as now zoned wouldn't seem to be any better than at a slightly higher density given the concerns expressed about existing conditions. With 'regard to amendment of the General Plan, Mr. Murray felt the outcome of a Plan review would result in the same proposal for multiple and varied uses presented at this time. He said it appeared there was demonstration of public need in that corner of the city for some very mixed transitional uses, and the package presented seemed to solve it in the most comprehensive way. He was not completely comfortable with the proposed rezoning but given the need for addition- al housing that this proposal speaks to, he said, he would be in favor of the change recommended. Councilman Haws said he didn't want to see the area developed entirely in commercial uses, nor did he think all residential use would be proper. He thought a compromise between the two was correct but he didn't know what that would be and for that reason he would take the position against the rezoning as proposed. Councilwoman Shirey expressed concern for people living in such an area unsuited for residential use because of the noise situation. She did favor the commercial use proposed, but doubted that a "sense of community" feeling would exist for people living in that environment. That feeling was not being increased now, she said, because of the existing housing in an undesirable place. Councilman Bradley felt the proposed rezoning was premature - the commercial study which might give indication whether more commercial uses were desirable had not yet been adopted, the 1990 Plan did not designate this area for commercial use based on the Willakenzie Plan which considered the Eugene Sand & Gravel a temporary use. He thought phasing the proposed changes over the next 10 to 15 years might be more appropriate. He moved that this request be tabled and a General Plan review made for amendment as it would apply to this area. There was no second. Council Bill No. 712 - Rezoning to C-1 PD Tax Lots'1002, 1200, and. 1204 north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway, read for the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill nuffib~r only, there being no council m~mber present requesting that it be read in full. ,Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; pouncH members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17242. 2/10/75 - 4 4eo (0947) (0959) .' (0970 ) (0772 ) . - Council Bill No. 713 - Changing Sign District on Lots 1002, 1200, and 1204 north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway to Integrated Neighborhood Shopping, read the first time on January 27,1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17243. Council Bill No. 714 - Rezoning to R-2-2.1 PD Limited Multiple Family Residential (minimum lot 2100 square feet) Tax Lot 1300 north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17244. e Council Bill No. 715 - Rezoning to R-2 PD Tax Lots 1400 and 1500 n9rth of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway, read the first time on January 27,1975 and held. lacking unanimous cosent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Plan- ning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17245. Council Bill No. 716 - Rezoning To R-2-3.6 PD Limited Multiple Family Resi- dential (minimum lot 3600 square feet) Tax Lot 1600 north of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage Rollcall vote. Motion car- ried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17246. 41 2/10/75 - 5 Council Bill No. 717 - Rezoning to C-2 SR Tax Lots 1202, 2000, and portion 2900 (17-03-18) and Tax Lots 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 (17-03-18-41) ndrth of Belt Line Road east of Delta Highway and south of Greenacres Road, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Plan- ning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17247. Council Bill No. 718 - Rezoning to RP-SR Tax Lot 1800 south of Greenacres Road east of Delta Highway and north o:~ Eelt Line Road, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. "ii Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion car- ried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was declared ... passed and numbered 17248. ~ Council Bill No. 719 - Rezoning to RP-SR Tax Lot 1007 no~th of Belt Line Road east of Delta Highway and south of Greenacres Road, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council members present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt findings as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 17, 1974, and that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion car- ried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting no, and the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17249. In voting to break the tie on the above council bills, Mayor Anderson said the plan as developed by staff was one that would provide for development to a density which would conform to the General Plan, and the area was within the urban service boundary. B. Code Amendments 1. Driveway and curb cut dimensions, locations, number per ownership Recommended by the Planning Commission on Decmeber 16, 1974. Public.hearingwas held with no testimony presented. (1000) e " ~. Council Bill No. 726 - Amending City Code Sections 7.400, 7.405, 7.410, 7.420, and 7.430 regarding driveway and curb cuts 4-6 2/10/75 - 6 - was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. (1022) Councilman Keller asked whether this amendment would apply only to new construction or whether it would create any hardship on established driveways. Don Allen, public works director, answered that the major effect would apply to new construction. However, the amendments would permit the traffic engineer to close or change existing driveways presenting safety problems, working with property owners in the process. He noted appeal procedure to the City Manager and City Council was provided in the ordinance. Councilman Murray expressed some reservations about the effect on residential streets in established neighborhoods where the city would be in a position to "tell an established homeowner he must do something new and different to his driveway at his expense." Mr. Allen answered that the regulation was an attempt to control commercial curb cuts, not those of private residences. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17250. (1.) 2. Historic Preservation - Establishing H Historic District. Manager reviewed process for developing the ordinance and its provisions. Historic Preservation Ordinance - Copies of Planning ComnUssion January 7, 1975 official report and nUnutes having to do with recommendation for adoption of an ordinance provid- ing for preservation of historic buildings were previously distributed to Council members. Draft of the ordinance itself was not yet available but was to be distributed prior to consideration at the February 10 Council meeting. Councilman Hurray explained that the Historic Preservation Committee had brought a pro- posed ordinance to the Council after working with city staff, local citizens, and gaining information from other cities having a similar ordinance. The Council referred the ordinance to the Planning Commdssion where it was expected administrative and procedural revisions could take place. Substantial revision of that nature did take place, he said. However, the document to be presented nOl1l was basically the same as that referred by the Council. Hr. Murray further explained the major effect of the ordinance would be to create a new zoning district - H Historic District - wherein there would be some restraints with regard to exterior alterations of structures deternUned to have historic value. There would also be a public process for determining whether an owner should remove a building. An historic review board would be created to provide assistance in terms of how sturctures could be maintained. There would also be additional incentive for retaining older struc- tures through allowing broader use than would normally be allOl1led under current zoning. The ordinance would also provide that limited funds be made available for assisting in exterior maintenance and repair. e In response to Councilman Haws inquiry about Planning Commissioner Maxwell's concern about financial assistance in the form of subsidization to property owners, Mr.Murray said the commdttee felt that without some financial assi~tance the ordinance would be ineffective. He said the only financial assistance anticipated would be for repairs and exterior maintenance. Since the city attorney had given the opinion that general tax funds could not ,be used ~or that purpose, the committee proposed that the historic 49 2/10/75 - 7 review board created under the ordinance would have as one of its responsibilities the provision of such funds. He suggested funding of this sort fell properly within the provisions for allocation of room tax m::mies. There was also the possibility that COlllllluni ty Development funds would be available. In addi tion, he said, there were many different existing Federal grant programs available for assistance in his- toric preservation besides the recent announcement that money accrued from lease of Federal lands for energy development should be used for historic preservation. . Mr. Murray pointed out that financial assistance was important because statistics showed that more than a third of the buildings listed as having historic value in national survey 40 years ago have been razed. He also noted that other cities had recognized the need for financial assistance and that Congress had adopted legisla- tion to .'protect buildings and sites of historic value. It was also felt important to counterbalance the pressures making it financially beneficial to neglect or destroy older buildings such as inappropriate zoning and related assessments, excessive Federal depreciation allowances, expense of keeping older buildings true to their history, etc. He urgea that the Council look at the ordinance as a whole and not as a "gift horse" because" of limited funds available. The city was in the position of being the pur- chaser of a product, he said, and of: making an appropriate and valid investment in its past. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on the ordinance at the February 10 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 1/29/75 Pub Hrng Public hearing was opened. Alice Sachse, chairman of LCOG Arts Advisory Committee, commended the efforts of Co~ncilman Murray and his committee in drafting the proposed ordinance. She said it was long needed legislation, and that the Arts Advisory Committee supported it. (1079) . Joan Rich, 2050 Madison Street, asked whether the ground upon which a building designated as an historic landmark was situated would also be subject to the restrictions of the legislation. Mr. Saul eXplained that restrictions on a site having an historic building would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, he said, a site would be an integral part of the historic value of a structure. Provisions of the ordinance were worded to give flexibil- ity in making determinations in that regard. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. (1113 ) Council Bill No. 727 - Amending City Code adding Sections 2.405 through 2.412 and 9.488 through 9.491 and amending amending Sections 2.1990 and 9.254 estab- lishing historic preservation policy and creating H Historic District was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full~ Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Councilman Bradley raised several question~. He suggested omitting that part of the penalty section which would make violation of the ordinance a misde- meanor in view of the trend toward decriminalization. He wondered if allowing different uses for ~roperties within a district might be applying the law unyqually. Allowing the owner of a property certain uses not allowed others, -- 2/10/75 - 8 SO - (1189) e (1260 ) e he said", could give an economic benefit. Financial assistance for renovation would be available to owners of historic buildings where it would not be avail- able to owners of commercial properties. Mr. Bradley thought the word "majority" should be deleted where the ordinance provided that retention of a historic landmark would have to be determined in the best interests of a majority of the citizens. He felt that terminology would require an election to determine what the majority desired. With regard to creation of a review board, Mr. Bradley thought it would be better if the director of the Pioneer Museum was designated as an ex officio member the same as the public works and parks directors, rather than a permanent voting member. Councilman Murray explained that the Historical Preservation Committee considered the position of Museum director a position identifiable with and requiring someone with knowledge of historic preservation,and that writing permanent membership into the ordinance. would guarantee that kind of expertise a vote on the board. He had no real objection to the concern about striking the term "majority", but he felt striking it might infer all citizens rather than just a majority. With regard to financial support, Mr. Murray noted that the ordin- ance did not require giving funds automatically to owners of historic property. It does provide for an application process to be weighed carefully in public hearing to help preserve those properties which might otherwise be lost. The question of whether the historic district would give advantage, that it was unequal, or constituted spot zoning, he said, had been referred to the city attorney who had given the opinion that that was not the case. Mr. Murray continued that the process defined in the ordinance was drawn from the community goals supplementing the comprehensive plan and mitigate unequal treatment or spot zoning factors - historical landmarks by their very nature are exceptional and should be treated as such; spot zoning or allowing different uses within a certain area, is legal if it is determined of public benefit, and historic preservation would fill that criteria; if broadening of possible uses in existing districts was considered, the decision would have to be made as to compatability with surrounding area, so within a historic district buildings would not be out of character with the immediate neighborhood. With regard to the penalty clause, Mr. Murray said his understanding was that it was necessary to administer the ordinance, that it would become economically desirable to an owner to demolish a structure if there was no penalty to work against him. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, added that the penalty question was primarily a philosophical argument. It is one effective means the city does have to gain compliance. The amount ($100), he said, was a policy judgment and could be changed if desired. Councilman Bradley asked if the Council under the terms of the ordinance if adopted would be obligated to appropriate funds for renovation if the city had budgeted money for that purpose. Manager answered that it would not be mandatory, that the Council would have authority to make individual judgments on individual applications for budgeted funds. Mr. Long referred to the clause in the ordinance following that in which the word "majority" was used with regard to designation of a historic landmark and said that language removed any question of the need for a plebescite on any particular issue. Vote was taken on the second reading of the bill. The motion carried unanimously, all council members present voting aye. and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Councilman Murray expressed appreciation to members of the Preservation Committee, of which he was chairman, for their work in drafting the ordinance under consideration - Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, D. Norval Unthank, Tom Slocum, and Glenn Mason. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17251. 5\ and voting 2/10/75 - 9 C. Liquor License - Mocny's Barbecue, 1976 Garden Avenue (R) - New Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing on the application at the February 10 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/5/57 Pub Hrng - Liquor License - Mocny's Barbecue, 1976 Garden Avenue (R) - New - OLeC report indi- cated two objectors in the neighborhood, three nonobjectors, and one noncommittal. Staff had n0 objections other than requiring compliance with building cbdes.~rior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Letters received objecting to the license were noted: . Mr. and Mrs. William Landrum, 1990 Garden Avenue and Howard' A. Hall, Co~s Bay; also petition was read from residents of Garden Avenue objecting to the license. (1292) Public hearing was opened. Joseph Mocny, 649 East 16th Avenue, described the type of restaurant proposed for the location. He said the request was for beer and wine sales only that would play an important part in the operation of the restaurant. It would not be a tavern type establishment, it would be an asset to the neighborhood, off-street parking would be provided, etc. He said he had assured residents of the area that the license was not for the purpose of selling "hard liquor". Greg Ivy, t953 Garden Avenue, thought the establishment would be detrimental to the (1401) residential character of the neighborhood. He recognized the commercial zoning but thought perhaps that was premature because of the older, quiet nature of the area which he would like to see presepved for a while longer. ~ Mayor Anderson cautioned those speaking that the issue was not a matter of zoning, only application for beer and wine license. Merrill Phillips, 1760 Skyline Boulevard. owner of apartment units at 1894 Garden Avepue, and John Pennington, attorney representing owners of apartments in the block next to those owned by Mr. Phillips, also objected to issuance of the license. They cited additional traffic and detraction from the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Pennington called attention to lack of parking space in that area now because of multiple-family use and said that although the area was zoned commercial, this was the first establishment to locate there. He hoped Council members informed themselves personally of the parking and traffic hazards that would result from granting this type of license in that neighborhood. Charles Tabasko, 1547 Lexington, said that parking requirements for the establishment with or without the requested license would be the same because a restaurant was proposed. .~e said that neighborhood faced a change. He was not sure of the rationale of arguments against the license, he said, because owners of some single-family properties ~anted to sell for apartment uses which generated traffic. He expressed concern about refusing a license on that basis. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Manager commented that parking requirements rewe reviewed by the building department and certificate of occupancy would hot be issued unless code requirements were met ~.. in that regard. The traffic engineer after review had reported no unusual problems. ,., And the zohing was appropriate for the proposed activity, he said. (1491) 2/19/75 -;to 52 (1499) e 0564 ) e - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of the license. In making the motion, Mr. Murray noted that no zone change was involved nor was the license granted by the Council, the only action here being to make recommendations to the OLCC. He couldn't see how the proposed restaurant would aggravate what was already allowed in that area, calling attention to nearby establishments which in terms of serving alcoholic beverages went far beyond what was requested by this applicant. In response to Councilman Bradley for criteria on which to base the Council's decision, Manager explained the procedure of asking staff recommendation on such questions as policing problems, traffic, code compliance, etc., before an application is brought for Council consideration. In addition, criteria on which the OLCC bases its decisions is available to the Council - acceptable bonding, financial backing to avoid any connection with liquor distributors, personal record, etc. Local criteria takes into account character of surrounding land development, whether disturbing at night to residential uses; proximity to public schools, churches, parks; compatability with commercial uses; density of population; etc. Councilman Hamel said he had viewed the property and noted parking requirements were met. He felt the Council should not judge what had already been investigated, and in view of the evidence he felt the application should be recommended for approval. Councilwoman Shirey agreed, although she thought it unfortunate that the zoning would allow this type of situation. Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. The motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley abstaining. Manager referred to a statement made about some city employe trying to arouse opposition to the license. He explained probable confusion about investigation made by OLCC; the city would not be calling on neighbors. Manager said several people in the manager's office had talked recently with Mrs. Hall, an elderly property owner in the area who was understandably upset about this license. But he didn't want the Council to think staff was either supporting or opposing these applications as they came up. II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on January 29 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and February 5, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). A'Appointments, various Boards and Commission announced by the Mayor: Human Rights Commission - New - Rebecca Leone for balance of term ending January 1, 1976 Mary Ann Kingsley " " January 1, 1977 John Perry for term ending January 1, 1978 Amelia Aguilar" " " " Reappointment - Stephen Mayer " " David Jordan " " " Mike Phillips " " ,,' Zoning Code Board of Appeals - New - A.J.Giustina for term ending January 1, 1980 Room Tax Allocation Committee- New - Don David for term ending January 1, 1978 Ralph Robinson " Masonry Board - Reappointment - David Carmiencke for term ending January 1, 1978 Mechanical Board - Reappointment - James Ba1zhiser for term ending January 1, 1980 Recommended by the Mayor for Council confirmation: Charitable SOlicitations - New - Winfield Atkinson for term ending January 1, 1979 Reappointment - Terry Devereaux " " Library Board - New - Dr. Charles S. Williams for balance of term ending January 1, 1978 53 ?/lO/7~ - " Airport commission- Reappointment - Dr.Robert Furrer for term ending January 1, 1979 Electrical Board - Reappointment - Carrol Colvin for term ending January 1, 1978 Plumbing Board' - Reappointment - Warner Dallas for term ending January 1, 1976 R.K.Livingston " Malcolm Manley " " Joel Goss "" " Robert Fegles """ Recommended by Downtown Development Board and confirmed by Mayor for reappointment to the Board for the term ending January 1, 1978: Harry Ritchie Ed Wilson Gus Keller Gene Bates Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to confirm the appointments and reappointments as named. Councilwoman Beal asked about qualifications of Dr. Williams that would suit him to service on the Library Board. Mayor Anderson said that Dr. Williams had lived in the community about ten years. He named various cultural activities in the community in which Dr. Williams had participated, including service as chairman of the Museum of Art Board of Directors and president of the Eugene Symphony Association. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. B. Eugene Airport Limousine Service Rate Increase - Manager explained that the city auditor in reviewing books of the Limousine Service found that the return on their investment did not justify continuation of the business without an increase in,rates. An increase of 509 seemed justified, making the rate $2.50 per passenger, each way, and was recommended. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to present a resolution effecting the increase for approval. Councilman .Bradley asked if there would be public hearing on the request. Manager replied that it would not be a legally advertised public hearing but would be o~ the agenda as a resolution subject to discussion. Vote was taken on the motion as state. Motion carried unanimously. C. Legislative Subcommittee Report (February 3, 1975) was distributed to Council members covering: Field Burning report from Maradel Gale, lobbyist, stating little input to legisla- tors from noneconomic side of the issue compared to a saturation, campaign by the seed industry. The subcommittee supported in principle S.B.86 calling for finan- cial support to those seed growers using alternatives to open field burning. S.B.3ll, the seed growers bill, was not discussed in detail. Wayne Morse Ranch Purchase - Copies of a bill scheduled for consideration of the LegiSlature were distributed together with a su~gested resolution for adoption by the: Council in support of the measure. Mrs. Shirey moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. At the request of Councilman Bradley, the resolution was amended to provide for its distribution to all members of the Legislature rather than to just the Lane Couhty delegation. Councilman Keller wondered if the $250,000 appropriation from the State Highway Fund provided for in the bill was a reasonab~e amount. Mrs. Shirey expected the purchase price to be less, but the maximum amount of $250,000 was used to provide for interest costs over.a ten-year ~riod should they accrue. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 54 2/10/75 - 12 e Comm 1/29/7 5 Approve Comm 1/29/75 Approve e Comm 2/5/75 Approve . - Mobile Homes - The subcommittee opposed legislation which would (a) make manda- tory mobile home placement in residential zones unless such placement injuriously affected public health, safety, and welfare; (b) removes from local control mobile home installation and places it under 'the jurisdiction of the Department of Com- merce; (c) does not permit city responsibility for health and sanitation require- ments of mobile homes; (d) removes requirement for display of model year on trailer homes; (e) removes local control over standards for mobile home acces- sory structures. Library - The subcommittee supported legislation which would (a) give State aid to libraries; (b) pertains to membership in Pacific Northwest Bibliographic Cen- ter: (c) updates Oregon library law. Subdivison Requirements - The subcommittee recommended guarded approval of legislation providing for local enforcement of subdivisbnregu1ations without validation of Real Estate Commission if local subdivision requirements are adequate. Labor Bills dealing with unemployment compensation, decreasing employe contribu- tion and increasing benefits, and payment of unemployment compensation in cases of lockouts and refusal to cross picket lines were referred to staff for comment with regard to cost to the city before recommendation. Councilman Haws noted additional legislation which the subcommittee recommended for referral to staff for comments (a) deleting as an unfair labor practice ability of unions to discuss labor matters with city council members, and (b) probhibiting public bodies from lObbying. e Parks - The subcommittee had no recommendation on one bill (H.B.2044) which would provide for State grants to local governments for purchase of park lands but would require a constitutional amendment permitting State bond sales for this purpose, the money raised by sale of bonds to be repaid from the State general fund. Another bill (H.B.2035) would permit bicycle racing on streets and highways with city approval and was recommended for referral to staff for comment. Councilmen Murray and Keller felt further discussion of H.B.2044 was warranted because of the lack of information on how the funds would be disbursed or _how it would affect cities, especially with regard to the South Hills area in Eugene. Mr. Murray mentioned introduction of HJR 9 also authorizing bonds for purchase of parks land. It was agreed that Councilwoman Bea1 would work out with Manager what was necessary to present for hearings scheduled Monday, February 10. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the subcommittee recommendations as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/5/7 5 Approve D. Liquor License - Change of ownership application for Andy's Market, 304 East 13th Avenue (Package B) was submitted by John Whitson. Staff had no objections. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Comm 2/5/7 5 Approve E. Amazon Neighbors and Wi11akenzie Neighborhood Association Charters were submitted for consideration after staff review for conformance to neighborhood association policy. Copies of the charters were previously distributed to Council members. Manager noted the unique approach to organizational structure provided in the Amazon charter for rotation of steering committee members. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to approve the charters as presented. Comm 2/5/75 Approve 2/10/75 - 13 55 Councilman Haws expressed concern about allowing nonresident property owners voting rights in neighborhood organizations. He compared that provision to allowing voting rights in Oregon elections to out-of-state residents owning property in Oregon. Also, a person could have voting rights in several different neighborhood organizations. He felt that the policy should be reviewed in, that regard. He was also concerned _ ~bout the listing of a person's name on a membership role in order for that person ~ to vote in the organization. He had no objection to maintaining the list but felt it should be controlled so as not to exclude neighborhood residents from participation. Councilman Murray noted the thorough discussion of neighborhood policy upon its adoption, the considerable disagreement, and the resolution that the voting criteria could be determin'ed by the group itself. He suggested that it might be helpful, in view of the experience gained in operation of the policy, for a Council subcommittee in co-operation with people from neighborhood groups and appropriate staff to review the neighborhood pOlicy to determine whether it did need refining. Randi Reinhard, planning staff, explained that anyone indicating an interest or aSking to be inciuded on the mailing list of an organization was entitled to vote, there were no voting restrictions so far as one's name being on the membership list. The reason for maintaining that list, she said, was to give the Council some idea of representa- tion in a neighborhood on issues coming to the Council. Manager said that since the primary function of the neighborhood groups was in an advisory capacity to the Council on the planning process in development of an area and city services provided to the area, the general approach was that each group should decide its own membership and voting process. If the groups were involved with making decisions on committing services. and funds or making legislative decisions, he said, then there would be reason for concern about the flexibility in requirements for participation. He expressed some concern about the provision for membership on the Amazon steering committee which could result in a complete turnover in a relatively short period of time breaking into the continuity of anyon-going planning process in that area. Councilman Bradley noted the difference between the two charters with regard to age requirements for voting - the Amazon charter calling for 18 years and older, the Wi11a- kenzie, 16 years and older. He wondered if there should be consistency in the various charters in view of recent legislation covering legal age limits. Elizabeth Heath, president of the Wi11akenzie group, explained that their group felt anyone at the age of 16 interested enough to become involved in neighborhood activities should be per- mitted to vote. Also, that they had high school students involved who at the age of 18 usually were out of school and away from the neighborhood. Councilwoman Shirey wondered if c~nditiona1 approval should be given the Amazon charter in the event the method of Choosing steering committee members didn't work out. She didn't ~ee it as a particular problem, saying that normally people willing to work on a steer~~g committee usually continued in that capacity. Manager said he wasn't recom- mending against approval. His comments were made because of his interest in seeing whether the method would work. Vote was taken on the motion to approve the charters. Motion carried unanimously. f. 701 Planning Funds - Council was requested to consider whether to contact the congres- sional delegation and ask reconsideration of President Ford's action deferr~ng half of the 1975 planning funds and proposing no 701 ~unds for 1976. Manager explained that these funds were a possible source of money for a growth study and that in the past these funds had been used extensively for special planning projects and staffing of long-range planning functions. Failure to receive 701 funds could curtail planning that should be done. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize the Mayor on behalf of the eounci1 to contact the congressional delegation with regard to reconsidera- tion,of the action taken on 701 funds. Councilman Bradley suggested contact with the entire Oregon delegation rather than just those from Lane County, to which the Mayor replied that contacts an the Federal level are usually made with both senators and all four congressmen from Oregon. . Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 2/10/75 - 14 5b e Comrn 2/5/75 Approve . G. Code Amendment, Gambling Fees - Copies of ordinance setting out license and game table fees and wager limits were distributed to Council members. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to place the ordinance on the February 10 consent calendar for apprr;>val and segregation for discussion at that time if desired. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/5/75 A~prove H. Property Acquisi tion 1. Fire Station Site for Substation 9 on east side of Goodpasture Island Road between Kingsley and James - 1.313 acres for $47,500 - Northwest Natural Gas property. Council members viewed the property on tour at which time some concerns were ex- pressed about value of the property. Manager said staff was reasonably comfortable with the proposed purchase price in view of the investigation made. However, if the Council was not, an outside independent appraisal of this site and alternate sites would be appropriate. He said one reason the price appeared high was because of the property's zoning, also the potential for commercial zoning of surrounding properties. He doubted that other properties in the area zoned for residential use and also considered for location of the substation would be less costly con- sidering subdivision costs and assessments which would accrue. Manager said staff was anxious to proceed but not unless Council was satisfied there was sufficient investigation to determine the price was appropriate. e Councilman Murray wondered if the cost factor as well as the perception for need of a substation in that area would be influenced by the Goodpasture Island commercial study. Manager replied that high commercial values in the area both south and northwest of the proposed site constituted a hazard at the present time that was not being met. Also, there was a good deal of potential for life hazard because of the residential area which should be served now by this substation. Any future development in the area, regardless of whether it was commercial of residential, would simply increase the existing risk. He added that even in view of financial difficulties faced by the city, the best approach to serving the fire protection need in that area would be to provide a fire station in the immediate vicinity. The existing transportation system could be used giving protection to the entire city even if it meant dilution of protection elsewhere. He said it was proposed to man this substation initially from other stations in the city rather than hire new personnel. Manager acknowledged staff concern about whether the price would be affected by the Goodpsture study. However, considering the fair price of other land would be figured according to its potential for subdivision or commercial use the judgment was made that it would be close to the price of the proposed site. Councilman Bradley asked for an estimate of cost of an independent appraisal. Manager thought it would he from $500 to $1000, saying that two or three other sites should be looked at if an appraisal was to be made. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Keller to authorize purchase of the 1.313-acre site as proposed for $47,500. Comm 2/5/7 5 action below See Councilwoman Beal was opposed to the purchase at a time when the city was consider- ing cutting down on personnel. She thought the proposal should be taken to the budget committee for consideration in line with other priorities. She inquired about funding for the purchase. Manager answered that $50,000 was budgeted in the current general fund budget for this purpose. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, and Bradley voting no. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Bradley to hire an appraiser to evaluate the proposed site and other properties both in the city and in the county in this particular area. . In making the motion, Mr. Haws noted receipt of many letters from people.in th: business community suggesting appraisal of properties other than the subJect slte, then if the price still was high to refer the item to the budget committee. 2il0/7 5 - 15 57 Councilman Bradley wondered if Mr. Haws would want to restrict the appraisal to just that area, to which Mr. Haws replied he was referring to the Goodpasture Island area, an area judged sufficient for proper fire equipment response. Mayor Anderson suggested that after an independent appraisal was made if there was no change in value, the Council should be allowed to make the decision oni~he ba~is of the appraisal. He felt "shopping" around for properties would only complicate matters. Manager thought a proper appraisal of the subject site would involve analysis of other property values in the area for comparison basis. He reminded the Council that this 'issue was already before the budget committee, that $50,000 was appropriated for purchase of a site, so he questioned the desirability of sending i~ back. Manager added that he did know that the owners of this property had bought it about two and a half years ago for a price not greatly at variance with the present asking price, and that was one of the values upon which statf based its appraisal. For that reason, he didn't think an independent appraisal would show any very great discrepancies. Councilman Bradley asked whether the staff had investigated property nearby in the county zoned for agricultural uses and whether any tentative value had been determined. Manager replied that some of those properties had been looked at 9i~ectlv across from the K-Mart property - and in negotiation some had been ofrer:d in return for commer~i~l zoning. However, he said there' w~s no deal. The Clty had always taken the position that zoning could not be used as trading stock for acquir~ng city.pr?perty, rezoning could Occur only through the normal process of Plannlng Commlsslon and Council review. Vote .was taken on the motion to hire an independent appraiser. The motion carri:d, Council members Murray, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Coun~ll members Hamel and Keller voting no. 2. Bethel Park, property between West and East Irwin Way to complete park land acquisi- tion - Florence L. and Arcelia Trowbridge - $5,520. In response to Councilwoman Beal, Manager said the funding would come from parks bonds. ,Mr. Hurray moved secondt:;d by Mrs. Beal to authorize purchase of the land as proposed. . Motion carried unapimously. 1. Room Tax Allocation - Festival of Arts, University of Oregon - Copies of findings recommending allocation of $1,000 in room tax revenues to the Festival of Arts for a seris of concerts, theatrical and dance productions, art exhibits, and lectures were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the recommended alloca- tion. Motion carried unanimously. J. peti tion, paving, sani tary and storm sewer, Center Way from Hartin Street to 500 feet south - Petitioned by owners of 78.6% of property to be served by sewers, and 83.3% ofprope~ty to be served by paving. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the petition. Motion carried unanimously. K. Appeal, Planning Commission denial of preliminary plan for Southridge Properties PUD, Phase 2 (January 13, 1975) Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to set public hearing on the appeal for February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Haws noted that he had not viewed the property on tour with other Council members and was told it would be appropriate for him to view the site alone. S6 2/10/75 - 16 e e Comm 2/5/75 Approve Corom 2/5/75 Approve .~, Comm 2/5/75 Approve L. Vacation of West 2nd Avenue between Jefferson and Madison, retaining l4-foot alley (Jongeward-Howard)(SV 74-7) - Recommended by the Planning Commission on January 13,1975. Manager noted staff review with regard to whether there should be assessment against abutting properties for value of the land should the alley be vacated. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to call public hearing on the vacation request (March 24, 1975). Motion carried unanimously. In response' to Councilman Haws, John porter, planning director, said notice of the vacation request had been referred to the neighborhood organization in that area. M. Resolution amenCing procedure establishing Council panel for hearing appeals on street, sidewalk., and ,sewer assessments, and on decisions of the Zoning Code Board of Appeals. It was understood the resolution would be placed on the February 10 consent calendar for approval. N. O. Council Minutes December 9, 1974 as circulated Appointment Pro Tem,Legislative Subcommittee - Mayor Anderson appointed Councilman Keller to the Council legislative subcommittee, temporarily replacing Councilman Williams while out of town over the next few weeks. P. Appointment, Joint Parks Committee - A shift in assignments was announced by the Mayor. Councilwoman Shirey was appointed to the Joint Parks Committee, replacing Councilman Bradley. " Q. Proposal, Local Arts Commission - Copies of proposal for creation City Local Arts Commission were previously distributed to Council mitted by Alice Sachse, chairman of LCOG Arts Advisory Committee. Murray's request the proposal was to be placed on the February 12 for discussion, Mrs. Sachse to be invited to be present. of a Lane Countyl members as sub- At Councilman committee agenda e R. Community Development Task Force Report - Councilman Murray distributed copies of interim report, asking Council members to review it for later discussion. He said decisions were about to be made and now would be the time for Council input. It was understood the report would be scheduled at the February 12 committee meeting. S. JOb-sharing Proposal was presen'ted by Counci+woman Beal. Copies of the proposal were distributed as submitted by New Ways to Work, Eugene, which would provide for split-time or double staffing city positions rather than layoff of full-time employes. Mrs. Beal felt the proposal would be helpful for people with young children in the home and others who would prefer to work on a part-time basis. She thought it better to give two people part-time work instead of laying off one and: keeping one. Councilwoman Shirey supported the plan as submitted. At Mrs. Beal's request, the Mayor directed that the proposal be referred to staff for recommendation and consideration at a future meeting. T. Growth Study - Discussion was continued from the January 29 committee meeting. Councilwoman Shirey considered the study important and thought every possibility for accomplishing it should be explored. She wondered if HUD funding had been lost. e Councilman Bradley asked whether the 1990 Plan had been updated since its adoption and how that updating would fit into a growth study, what priority would be placed on the two. John porter, planning director, answered t~at the 1990 Plan had not, been updated, that it 'ridS scheduleci on a five-year basis, and the growth study would augment that work. He did not recommend updating the Plan without a growth study but could not say whether the two should be done simultaneously or if a priority should be placed. Bob Chave, LCOG staff, added that the updating of the Plan ob- viously would be accomplished on the five-year basis. Some growth analysis would have to be included in that updating but not to the extent a growth study woul~ provide. 59 2/10/75 - 17 Comm 2/5/75 Approve Comm 2/5/75 Approve Approve Comm 1/29/75 Affirm Comm 1/29/75 Affirm Comm 2/5/75 Affirm Comm 2/5/75 Affirm Comm 2/5/57 Affirm Councilmqn Murray wondered how much discussion had occurred in the Task Force on proposed "makeup of the steering commi ttee, whether nonmetropoli tan jurisdictions having representation on the committee would contribute to a study. He recognized the complications involved in growth but wondered about the relative advantages and disadvantages of limiting a study to a smaller area, not just to the city of Eugene, but to just the urbanized area. Douglas Hallpy, LCOG director, pointed out the difficulty of determining interest of other communities which would determine the amount of their financial support. He said the outline presenting the scope and conduct qf the study and direction the study would take were still open, one al- ternative being for Eugene to undertake it alone. He felt that would preclude other factors outside the metropolitan area which would ha,ve a bearing. In the strictest sense, he said, the metropolitan area is the entire county. Mr. Halley continued that a co-operative approach was the best way to effect the greatest con- trol over problems that would be created for the governing body - problems having to do with air and water quality, etc., that are not limited by political boundaries. Other factors including policies being set by the LCDC would have an impact which would encnuraae tnlO! more comprehensive type of study. Councilman Murray expressed concern that a steering committee compr~s~ng various public officials would change the nature of the study as initially proposed, that originally a citizens committee was proposed. He wondered how much time public offi- cials could give to what was sure to be an extensive process. Mr. Halley noted in- volvement of the citizens advisory committee (MAPAC) and the need for blending its responsibilities with those of elected officials in addressing the problem. Also, the involvement of local staff which he considered important. He couldn't see the work turned over completely to a citizens group. He had no quarrel with Mr. Murray's sug- gestion that it be done on a "more 50/50 basis." Councilwoman Beal recognized the factors outside the urbanized area affecting any growth study but she said the initial proposal was to base the study on the area covered by the 1990 Plan, the metropolitan sewer study, ESATS, etc. She said the major concern was to give citizens information about costs related to growth on which to base decisions about extending sewer services, transportation, and other services to areas outside the urban area. Mr. Halley said cost factors were considered in the attempt to analyze what the study should cover. Manager added that the outline presented centered for the most part on the area with which Mrs. Beal was concerned, recognizing some considera- tion would have to be given to the effect that factors outside that area would have on the growth pattern. With regard to the cost factor, he said that the outline pre- sented definitely covered an effort to determine alternatives of costs as growth oc- curred or: did not occur. Mayor Anderson suggested referral of the growth study outline to Lane County and Springfield for their consideration. Mrs. Beal said she would like to confer with Councilman Murray on some suggestions for clarification of the study outline. She asked postponement until that could occur. Manager explained that probably any amendments the Council might suggest would be attached to the outline and then the document referred to Lane County and Springfield for review and at the same time to the various budget committees for consideration of funding. Councilma~ Bradley asked where the Planning Commission would fit into that routine. Manager said the outline could be referred to the Commission for recommendation, but parallel referral to the. budget committee would probably be desirable because of im- pending budget work. He added that the Planning Commission was represented on the TaskForc~ in preparing the study outline. Councilman Keller expressed concern at the assumption that the study was going to be undertaken. He said he would be opposed because what was proposed was not what was originally intended and because there was considerable information already available. In light of the economic situation faced by the city, he said, budgetary questions should be answered before taking on an expenditure of this magnitude. Also, it should be known whether support would be forthcoming from Lane County and Springfield and other jurisdictions which would be affected. Mayor Anderson directed that.final action be postponed until the February 12 committee meeting, pending further review of the study outline items by Mrs. Beal and Mr. Murra.y. 2/10/75 - 18 '=>0 e e Comm 2/5/75 Affirm . e U . Agenda Items, Council Orientation Session - Mayor Anderson requested C '1 be b 't' ". ounc~ mem rs to su m~ ~n wr~t~ng any agenda ~tems they wished discussed at the orientation session scheduled for Thursday, February 6. He asked that they bear' 'd th . ' 1 ". ~n m~n e meet~ng would ~nvo ve d~scuss~on of Counc~l procedures and operating pol 'c 1 ' , ,h' h ' ~ yon y, not ~ssues w~th WH~C the Counc~l was confronted. V. Ordinance, Transferring Additional Duties to Hearings Official - Councilman Haws in- quired about the status of the ordinance which would transfer certain items now heard by the Planning Commission to the hearings official. He said the issue had not been fully explored by the Council and he wondered whether staff time should be wasted in preparing the document if there was some chance it was not wanted by the majority of the Council. He had concerns with the entire procedure which he said he would like to bring up. The Mayor suggested discussion at the end of the meeting if time was available after discussion of regular agenda items. John Porter, planning director, did review briefly the history of the hearings official position and recent Council approval of concept of expanding the duties of that position to include hearing of zone changes. Mr. Porter said his understanding of Council action was for staff to draft an ordinance which would effect the change, present it to the Commission IUl: l<ecommendation to and ultimate action by the Council. The draft was prepared and public hearing was scheduled before the Commission at its February 4 meeting. He added that copies would be available for Council prior to that time, e At the conclusion of other business, Councilman Haws named concerns that had been brought to him as complaints (not necessarily in his position as councilman, he said) which he would like other Council members to consider and discuss at some later time. They were (1) taking testimony in public hearing on appeal from de- cision of the hearings official after testimony had been presented once in public hearing before the hearings official; (2) length of time from developers' viewpoint for processing permit requests; (3) fee schedule for permit applications wherein costs of processing were not covered by the fees charged to developers; (4) notifi- cation procedure; and (5) placement of mobile home parks through the conditional use permit procedure. Mayor Anderson noted that the permit fee schedule had recently been reviewed and he questioned whether the Council would want to go over it again at this time. Mr. Haws was <aware of that, but he thought other Council members in discussion of the concerns named might suggest what could be done. W.Lobbyist, Field Burning LegiSlation - Councilman Hamel asked if the person hired as lobbyist at the State LegisJature in the field burning issue would be needed in view of the statements from legiSlators that they were more or less in favor of permitting burning. And if the lobbyist was not needed whether the $5000 fee would have to be paid anyway. He called attention to Representative Fadeley's statement that letters should be written to all legislators, not just to her alone, with re- gard to field burning. Mayor Anderson answered that Ms.Gale, the lobbyist, was in close touch with the issue in Salem and keeping the city abreast of the situation. He noted that the ban was in effect at this time. There was no urgency until either legislation was introduced in the LegiSlature or the Governor's office submitted legislation. Then the city's strategy could be devised. e Councilman Haws asked if the city had a written contract with Ms.Gale, whether the city would be obligated to pay her if the issue was resolved at the end of this month. Manager answered that the arrangement with Ms.Gale had not yet been put into contract form but that a letter of understanding had been prepared obligating the city to a monthly payment on the basis of one-quarter of her time. The ar- rangement could be cancelled wi th two weeks notice and the ci ty was not commi tted to the $5000. It was his Judgment that the maximum amount, if MS.Gale's services ~re used until the end of the session, would be about $3500. 2/10/75 - 19 ~I Camm 1/29/75 File Camm 1/29/75 File Camm 1/29/7 5 File X. Commercial Study, Goodpasture Island - Councilman Keller inquired about the status of the Goodpasture Island commercial study. He noted that it was to have been brought back in six months but it had now been more than a year. He hoped that staff would consider scheduling it for consideration soon. Mayor Anderson agreed, noting that it had been made clear it was to have been a six-month process. John Porter, planning director, explained that it had been an agenda item for the PlanningCommdssion's last two meetings but it had not yet been discussed. Manager said the study itself had been completed in six months. However, evaluation dragged on becau~e of other agenda items before the Commission with deadline priority - items th~t would automatically be approved if action was not taken. Y. Report, Council LegiSlative Subcommittee - Councilwoman Beal reported that legisla- tive items recommended by the subcommittee were acted upon at the January 27 Council meeting,' hence no written report at this time. At the request of Councilman Bradley, she said, there would be written reports in the future unless presentation at the Legislature was needed immediately. Mrs. Beal said the subcommdttee had decided that Eugene would take no position on bills of no immediate concern to the city. There would be no position stated on matters of general principle - annexation, collective bargaining, etc. - unless or until they became applicable to the city of Eugene itself. Z. Newly-elected Officials Workshop, League of Oregon Cities - To be held Friday, February 14, 1975, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Thunderbird Motor Inn. Council members wishing to attend were asked to notify the city manager's office so that reservations could be made. AA. Comm 1/29/75 File e Comm 1/29/75 File Comm 1/29/7 5 File Negotiated Wage Settlements, 1975-76 - Copies of memos from the manager were dis- tributed together with copies of news release with regard to negotiated settlement reached with Fire Fighters Local 851. Manager said the same settlement could occur with AFSCME. He explained that although the negotiation process was his responsi- bili ty, since the "numbers" this year were larger, he was making Council members C e '. amID aware of the settlement in order for them to be prepared to answer questions should diey 1/29/75 arise. He said there was a 13.3% increase in cost of living compared to a 5% wage in- . crease for Fire Fighters in the second year of their two-year contract, and 6% for Fl1e Police, so goin~ into negotiations in October the city found itself behind both in cost-of-living increase and in what comparable employers were paying comparable em- ployes. Further, because the collective bargaining ordinance requires binding arbitra~ tion unless a negotiated settlement was reached prior to February 1, and because the same settlement was expected with AFSCME in order to keep trained personnel, the judgment was made that this settl~ment was good and was preferable to going into bind- ing arbitration. BB. Transfer Covenant Park Housing Funds to Landsby Site - Copies of memo from Joint Housing Commdttee were distributed previously to Council members reporting on the transfer of $63,000 revenue sharing funds from the elderly housing project at 38th and Hilyard (Covenant Park) to a site adjacent to the Gilbert Shopping Center. (Highway 99N - Landsby property). The memo was read explaining the transfer was approved by the Housing Commi ttee because a lawsui t was delaying construction of the 24 units of elderly housing at 38th and Hilyard, unfairly depriving elderly'people of potential housing assistance. Councilman Murray referred to the housing dispersal policy as adopted by the Council providing for disallowing location of subsidized housing in the central and east palnning disricts of the city. He said that although that did not apply to the planning district 26 (in which the Landsby property was located) he thought that people working with the proposal should look at the concerns expressed in the housing dispersal policy and try to accommodate this proposal to them. Although the policy had no requirement for not placing subsidized housing in planning district 26, he said, placing the project there was' not in keeping with the intent. ~2 2/10/75 - 20 Comm 1/29/75 File e e e e Councilman Haws asked if the proposed project was for elderly people only and whether fund~ under "Section VIII" would be committeed for it. Manager a~swered t~at,the project was for elderly people only, and that subsidy was from the c~ty s general revenue sharing money. "Section VIII" fund h 'd . h d " s, e sa~ , m~g t be ~se some t~me ~n the future on the 38th and Hilyard site. He acknowledged ~n further response to Mr. Haws that the location of the project on the Landsby p~operty would be through public hearing process and conditional use permit. J~m Saul, planner, added that the property was subject to planned unit develop- ment procedures and as.such would be the subject of public hearing. It would be referred to the Act~ve Bethel Citizens group, he said, as a part of that process. Councilman Williams commented that it was his understanding the housing dis- persal policy exempted elderly housing because it was felt that type of housing should be located where services for the elderly were provided and easily ac- cessible. If the proposed project was for family housing, he said, concerns should be raised about locating it in a district already having a substantial amount of subsidized housing. CC.Growth Study - Copies of report were previously distributed to Council members from LCOG Growth Task Force comprising representatives of Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene appointed to develop an outline of what would be involved _ time frame and costs - in undertaking a growth study. Manager expressed con- cern with what he felt was a conservative estimate of cost of a projected two- year study - $183,000. He suggested referral not only to the Eugene budget comndttee but also to the Lane County and Springfield budget committees if the Council wished to pursue the study. In response to Mayor Anderson, Manager said the Planning Commission had not reviewed the Task Froce report at this time. Councilwoman Beal who with Councilman Murray had initially requested the growth study asked why the boundaries of the study had been enlarged to encompass all of Lane County. She said the initial request was for a study of costs of growth in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area to tie in with the 1990 General Plan boundaries. Douglas Halley, LCOG director, replied that the study focused on the urbanized area covered in the 1990 Plan but that contributing factors from outside the boundary which would have an impact on growth in the urban area could not be ignored. He added that the entire Willamette basin as it relates to water quality control and management and other factors would have a bearing on growth in Eugene, and although the study could start from the urbanized area it would soon become involved with factors beyond that boundary. Mrs. Beal wondered whether the Council could meet with the Task Force members where questions ~oth she and Mr. Murray had could be raised. Councilman Williams, member of the Task Force, said the effort was made to direct the study to specifically implement Eugene's community goals statements on the basis that they were made after broad public input and reflected atti- tudes of the city. However, the committee decided that the entire area would have to be\considered if intelligent planning and implementation was to take place, that only in this way would urban sprawl be avoided. Councilman Keller pointed to the Goodpasture Island commercial study as an example of difficulty encountered without co-operation of neighboring juriSdic- tions. He was concerned too about the estimated cost which he fel t was a staggering amount considering the current funding situation. Councilman Bradley called attention to the estimated figure of $161,000 for local matching funds if Federal funds were available. Galen Howard of the LCOG staff corrected that to $61,000. He also corrected the membership of the steering comrndttee suggested to 15 - 5 elected officials, 5 appointed officials, and 5 citizens. Councilman Murray asked why there was no reference to social cost of growth in the outline. Ken Battaile, LCOG staff, said the comndttee envisioned the social costs would included in housing element, services, legal aspects shown '=:,3 2/10/75 - 21 in the outline because it was difficult to state specifics with regard to social problems. Councilman Williams added that t~ere was no ,question about inclusion of social implications of growth. He sa~d the outl~ne was not in- tended to be inflexible, that the steering committee would have to guide the study a~ it progressed. Mr. Mur~ay then asked whether estimates of study costs took into account data that might be available through the University. Mr. Battai1e answered that that would be one source in addition to other consulting sources, there would be no limit on sources'of information. With regard to suggested makeup of the steering committee Mr. Murray expressed concern'about the representation from Eugene in comparison to representation from other areas when he felt Eugene probably would be paying the major part of the cost if the study was implemented. He expressed disappointment also with the minor role indicated by the ratio of citizen representation. He wondered why MAPAC couldn't do the study. That seemed the logical group to him since it had equal representation from Eugene, Springfield, and the County. Mr. Halley said the report was to be considered a starting point, that adjust- ment could be made to satisfy the concerns expressed. He added that the study if pursued would continue over a long priod of time and would be carried on by many people, it could be tailored to fit the financing available. Mr. Howard said that MAPAC would have an integral part in the study, especially as it would be. concerned with the 1990 Plan and citizen involvement. With MAPAC's limited staff that would be about as much as it could handle in view of addi- tional work resulting from proposed LCDC goals and guidelines for citizen in- volvement in the planning process. Councilman Keller asked about the availability of BUD funds and how long before the study was expected to be finsihed after it was started. Mr. Halley answered that unless Congress acted on the President's deferment of half of the "701" funds the situation was not good. Even then, he said, he was not convinced that money would be available for this type project. He said the study was scheduled on a two-year basis assuming the steering committee would take it along the lines outlined in the report, and that it would start when Eugene and Springfield councils and County Commissioners so determined and when money was avai.lable. Mayor Anderson suggested that further questions be held and the discussion con- tinued at another meeting. Councilman Williams thought distribution of a list of the Task Force committee members showing MAPAC representation would be help- ful, and it was understood that pne wauli be (/lade avai lable. At the conclusion of other business, C~unci1woman Bea1 said it was understood very clearly that the study request was for an outline of cost of growth in terms of services and facilities. She saw nothing in the outline presented that touched on that and she felt it a very important consideration in the budgeting process. She felt it was something that could be clone on the basis of the sewer study, an update of the transportation study, EWEB's participation with regard to el9r:tric and water costs. She hoped the Task Force would recog- nize the: concern in that area and make some response. . -. "--.' -- - . DD. Rezoning, February 10 Council Meeting - Councilman Bradley asked other Council members to review prior to the February 10 Council meeting the Planning Commis- sion.staff notes and minutes relevant to rezoning of property in the Goodpasture Island/Delta area and 'related sign district change (Planning Commission), rezon- ing Roosevelt Boulevard property (Olsen), and sign district change in the 400 and 500 blocks between Jefferson and Lawrence Streets (city). EE. Council Meetings in various wards was requested by Councilman Bradley. He sug- gested one council meeting once a month or every other month in one of the various wards, starting with his, Ward 1. Mayor Anderson suggested that as an item for discussion at the Council orientation session scheduled for February 6. At the conClusion of other business, Manager noted that official council meetings are required by Charter to be held in City Hall. 2/10/75 - 22 G:,4- . e Cemm 1/29/7 5 File Cemm 2/5/75 File Camm 2/5/7 5 File e e (1659) e (1730) - FF'Letter from C. W. Broughton, Scenic Signs of Oregon, protesting recent increase in fees for sign district changes. Comm 2/5/75 File Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that Items A through FF, except (see separate action above) be approved, affirmed, and filed as noted. vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Item H Rollcall III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 711 - Rezoning property north of Roosevelt Boulevard between Lassen Street and Foch Street to RG-SR, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 28, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, and the bill approved and given final passage. Councilman Bradley explained his vote against second reading was because of inconsistency of the proposed zone with the 1990 Plan. He suggested a refine- ment study and revision of the Plan for this particular area rather than rezoning at this time. He felt if the Plan was in error it should be amended. Or if the Council felt the area should be rezoned, he suggested adoption of findings justifying a zone inconsistent with the plan because of the inability to complete Highway 126, one of staff's bases for recommending the zone change. Councilman Murray noted the substantial change in conditions in that area since adoption of the General Plan. And Jim Saul, planner, said that findings attached to this area in the 1990 Plan included its designation as an opportunity area based upon the extension of the Roosevelt Freeway, so that the Plan recognized the changes. Councilman Bradley however thought the Council would be in an embarrassing position should Highway 126 be extended, bisecting this property and iSOlating it. Mr. Saul said the originally projected route of Route 126 would affect the most northerly portion of this property. However, if 126 was constructed it would bisect a larger area, if Mr. Bradley was thinking in those terms. Manager referred to memo distributed by LCOG about two weeks previously which he said would have no effect on the merits of this rezoning. That memo referred only to timing of the planning process, whether funds should be requested for an environmental impact statement on Highway 126 at this time. Mr. Murray agreed that the LCOG note had no intent to influence future rezoning in that area. Mr. Bradley repeated his opinion that the Council would be faced with the issue that when zoning is incon- sistent with the Plan, the Plan should be amended - and a policy to that effect adopted. Rollcall vote was taken on approval and final passage. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Keller, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Councilman Bradley voting no; Councilman Haws abstaining. The bill was declared passed and numbered 17252. Council Bill No. 720 - Changing Sign District to Industrial on property in the 400 and 500 blocks between Washington Street and Lawrence Street, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, 65 2/10/75 - 23 there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. ~urray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the sign district change as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 3, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto; and that the bill be approved and given final passage. -- Councilman Bradley noted the State Highway Department letter opposing the sign district change on the basis that it would have an adverse effect onthe Washington/ Jefferson park. He also noted his earlier concurrence in the change to Industrial Sign District on the Scarlett property adjacent to that covered by this issue. He thought t9at change to Industrial Sign District was the result of an error on the part of the city years back and he didn't see that as applicable at this time. He felt this change would expand the Industrial Sign District too close to the freeway area and he was opposed to that. Councilmaq Murray agreed, saying he was reversing his previous posltlon. There seemed to be substantial investment in that park area, he said, and although he was no~ sure the sign code had much effect he thought it desirable' to accommodate the park areas as much as possible. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion for final approval. Motion was defeated, Council members Keller and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Bradley, Haws and Shirey voting no. It was understood the issue would be taken to the next joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Bill No. 723 - Adding to City Code Sections 7.270 and 7.275 re: Alley assessments, read the first time on January 27, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number only, there being no council member. present requesting that it be read in full. - (1750) Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. I' Manager explained that the city attorney had given the oplnlon that there would be' no legal problem because of assessing alley improvements on the basis of zoning, this in response to questions raised at the time this bill was introduced. Rollcall vote was taken on approval and final passage.. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17253. Council Bill No. 728 Amending City Code Sections 3.005, 3.010, 3~233, and 4.316 and repealing Section 3.237 re: Gambling license and table fees and wager limits was read the first time number and title only, there being no council member present it be read in full. by council bill requesting that Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. It Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17254. Co eo 2/10/75 - 24 - Council Bill No. 729 - Calling hearing March 24, 1975 re: Vacation of West 2nd Avenue between Jefferson Street and Madison Street was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present re- questing that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17255. Council Bill No. 730 - Levying assessments for paving, sidewalks, and storm sewer on Norkenzie Road from Cal Young Road to Belt Line Road (73-18) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 731 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Royal Avenue from 600 feet west of Candlelight Drive to 160 feet west of Terry Street (74-06) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 732 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Happy Lane from Goodpasture Island Road to 450 feet south/ and streets within Delta View Subdivi- sion (74-13) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by'Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on Feburary 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 733 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on 18th Avenue from 100 feet northeast of Harvard Drive to 1056 feet west of Bailey Hill Road (74-22) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 734 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Calvin Street from Dulles Avenue to 300 feet north (74-26) was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. - Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendation on February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimOUSly. ~7 2/10/75 - 25 Council Bill No. 735 - Levying assessment for sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard, east of Friendly Street, and west of View Lane (74-51), was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that i tl be read in full. . Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on February 17, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendat.ion on February 24, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Resolutions. Resolution No. 2367 - Authorizing rate increase for airport limousine service to $2.50 per passenger each way was read by number and title. (1796) Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. ',. Resolution No. 2368 - Supporting State legislation re: Acquisition of Wayne Morse ranch property in Eugene for state park was read by nubmer and title. Mr. Murray ~oved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2369 - Amending Resolution No. 1761 re: Establishing Council hearing panel was read by number and title. In response to Councilman Haws, Manager explained that the resolution was effecting a change in bylaws which has been in practice but for some reason was not put into written form. He read the resolution in full. - Mr. Murray,moved seconded :by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. ,Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2370 - Authorizing Manager's certification of signatures on vouchers re: Community Development block grant funds was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No~ 2371 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress pay- ments for period January 27 through February 10, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmerllbers present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, February 24, 1975. /11~ A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager e 2/10/75 - 26 lo8