Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 14, 1975 e Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson in the Council Chamber at 7:30 p.m. on July 14, 1975 with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Wi 11 iams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Introductions A. Karl Hans Kern of Schweinigen, Germany, a member of the Bundestag, was presented with a city of Eugene paperweight as a memento of his visit to Eugene. B. Charles T. Henry, new city manager for the city of Eugene, was welcomed at this his first Eugene City Council meeting. II - Announcement of aedication of the new Federal building at 8th aud Pearl - 3:30 p:ffi., July 21, 1975. III - Public Hearings A. Request for nightwatchman trailer, 75 Waite Street - Harold A. VanSickle Staff had no objections, subject to installation of the trailer meeting re- quirements of the building code. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2419 - Authorizing nightwatchman trailer at 75 Waite Street was read by number and title. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Councilman Bradley inquired about the criteria on which staff review was based. Assistant Manager Martin explained that house trailers were allowed conditionally only in certain zones. He read the conditions: Submission of site plan showing locations of both the permanent structure and trailer, time period for temporary trailer, etc. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. B. Changing traffic on Olive-between 11th and 13th from one-way northbound to two-way Changing 7'raffic Flow_ on Olive between 11th and 13th - Planning Commission recom- mended approval on June 9, 1975 of staff recommendation to ch.:lnCfC? one-way north- bound traffic on Olive Street betwt:.en 11 th and 13th to tt%-way. Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hear.ing 7/2/75 on the proposed change at the July 14 Council meet.ing. Notion Pub Hrng carried unanimously. Assistant Manager explained that closure of Olive Street north of 11th Avenue ap- peared to negate any reason for retaining one-way traffic movement south of 11th to 13th. - Public hearing was opened. Wayne Musgrove, 2840 Miramonti Drive, said he owned property abutting Olive and that he had no objection to the change. However, he did express concern about '3Co~ 7/14/75 - 1 future plans along that street that might call for removal of the trees which he did not want to lose. Assistant Manager said there were no plans to change street alignment, curbs, etc. The change under consideration would call only . for new signs and painting directional arrows. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Resolution No. 2420 - Designating two-way traffic on Olive Street between 11th and 13th Avenues was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. C. Code Amendments 1. Limiting construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Assistant Manager noted that public testimony had been requested by the Counci~ I-A-l that a draft of the proposed amendment had been previously distributed, and that corresondence with regard to the amendment had been received from Oak Hills Homeowners and Crest Drive Associations. The amendment, he said, would provide for limiting construction and repair of buildings and streets to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (now permitted until 10:00 p.m.). It also provides for extension beyond those hours under certain conditions, revocable upon complaint of disturbance, and for alternation or repair be- tween 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. in single- and two-family structures if no dis- turbance is created. The latter was felt necessary to accommodate basically indoor type housing rehabilitation by homeowners. Public hearing was opened. Thorn Chambliss, 1510 Mill Street, representing West University Neighbors, e asked that the hour be limited to 7:00 p.m. as originally requested by that I-A-2 group. He said that research indicated deadlines on construction activities in most cities was 6:00 p.m. The group was also requesting amendment to ex- clude developers of new single-family housing from working under permit be- tween 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. They agreed that occupants should be allowed to work on their own dwellings between those hours, but that development of new housing was the source of many noise problems at that time of day. In this request, he said, they had the support of the Oak Hills Homeowners Associa- tion and South Hills Neighborhood Association. In addition, they supported amendment that would strike the words "excluding excavation" in Section 4.084(2). Jean Reeder, 1645 Fairmount Boulvard, chairman of the Fairmount Neighborhood Association, said an overwhelming majority of the executive committee of that group supported the WUN proposal to restrict the hours to 7:00 p.m. Also, the provision that would exempt homeowners working on their own residences after that time limit. James Britton, 1295 West 22nd Avenue, read a prepared statement objecting to the proposed ordinance in its present form. He presented a draft of the ordinance with changes written in which he said would make a better ordinance for the community as a whole. He cited short construction seasons, unseason- able weather, equipment breakdown, etc.! as factors that would make it diffi- cult to work under the proposed regulations. He felt compliance with Federal - regulations should be sufficient for city requirements. Also, that some in- dustrial and commercial activities should be exempted from the proposed amend- ment. Mr. Britton questioned the ability to define noise without decibel readings. He thought the ordinance would better be enforced by the public works engineering people rather than the building division because inspectors 7/14/75 - 2 3(09 from the engineering division were on the job site and better able to monitor the performance. He noted that permits could not be issued after noraml working e hours. He asked that the entire ordinance be rewritten in a more realistic and reasonable fashion to protect city residents from unnecessary noise and at the same time make the terms fully enforceable and not something based on judg- mental factor. Eldon Shields, representing Associated General Contractors, cited Federal and State regulations currently controlling the industry. He noted the nature of heavy construction which called for public works activities in locations con- trolled by public bodies. Also, work time beyond the control of contractors to avoid conflict with peak traffic hours or activities during standard working hours. He cited mill closures as an example where construction could proceed over a 24-hour period for a week-long period to avoid conflict with operations over an extended period of time. Emergency situations - broken water lines, etc. - also called for work at odd hours. He asked exemption for contract con- struction from the proposed amendment, saying that would be consistent with State and Federal regulations and that the industry would work closely with the city to solve any problems. John Alltucker, Eugene Sand & Gravel, also noted State and Federal regulations governing noise levels and cited required decibel levels compared with other sound levels. He said the proposed city regulations were preempted by DEQ regulations. He referred also to around-the-clock operations necessary in some instances to accomplish work in a required period of time, particularly opera- tions to sand icy streets in hills around the city. e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager pointed out that the proposed amendment did not change the existing code with regard to emergency operations, permits could be issued be- yond normal hours when noise from vehicles to and from a construction site did not unduly interfere with the peace and quiet of a neighborhood through which vehicles were routed. He said that staff assumed there would be occasions when permits would be issued beyond the hours specified. He added, however, that there was provision to determine at the staff level a return to normal hours should activities violate the peace, quiet, sleep, etc. I-B-l Council Bill No. 891 - Amending Section 4.083 and adding Section 4.084 to the City Code re: Loud or raucous noise was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second 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. Mr. Murray favored the proposed amendment, saying it was a minor adjustment to the existing ordinance. With regard to request for exemption for heavy con- struction, he assumed there was provision for exemptions in cases of emergency or urgent public necessity when permits would be granted for construction beyond the allowed hours so that provision for a specific exemption would not have to be made in the code itself. e Councilwoman Beal referred to information from the West University Neighbors indicating that the majority of cities in Oregon did not permit construction noise after.7:00 p.m. 7/14/75 - 3 370 Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray to amend the ordinance by substituting 7:00 p.m. as the deadline for construction in place of 8:00 p.m. - Councilman Keller said he was opposed to the main motion - second reading of the council bill - because the Council was again in the position of making an important decision without input from the people most affected by that decision. He said he was concerned not only about the construction industry but also about other activities. For instance, summer programs in the parks, fall foot- ball games in the evenings - would a permit have to be granted for those activities? He wondered how noises created by animals would be defined. And how staff would go about determining violations of the ordinance as presented. He felt the rest of the community was being penalized for what was occurring in some areas. Councilman Williams questioned some of the terms in the proposed amendment, and Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that it was patterned after several ordinances that had been developed and on the books in other cities for a long time. He said this particular ordinance had been in effect in Eugene since 1971. Also, that at that time this approach was chosen rather than going to a decibel standard because of practical problems. He added that he believed this ordinance would stand constitutional muster although there was nothing along that line that he was aware of that had been taken to the Supreme Court. Assistant Manager said that use of decibel standards had been discussed at length on various occasions and at the present time studies in other communi- ties are being watched by PTr to determine how stlccessful they are. Until the outcome of those studies are available, he said. staff was reluctant to discuss that approach on a philosophical basis. Councilman Bradley said he did not object to limiting the hours of construction to 7:00 or 8:00 p.m., - but he did think there was insufficient criteria or guidelines on which to base determinations that violations were occurring. Councilman Murray brought the discussion back to the issue of hours limitation, saying he was not aware of any difficulty in dealing with the language as the ordinance was now written. Assistant City Attorney Long said there had been some noise cases prosecuted in municipal court without any successful challenges to his knowledge. He pointed out that the main operative provision when deal- ing with enforcement of the ordinance was deciding whether noises were un- reasonable, loud, or raucous. To this point in time, he said, that ordinance had been upheld. . Vote was taken on the motion to amend the ordinance, changing the hour from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray to amend the ordinance by striking the words "construction excluding excavation." Assistant Manager expressed concern, wondering if that action would preclude addition of a room to a home as more than merely alternation or repair. Assistant City Attorney thought deletion of that phrase might limit alteranion or repair since addition of a room might exceed what was intended by "altera- tions." He suggested rewroding of any substantial change desired to avoid vague - language. Councilmen Murray and Williams and Mayor Anderson questioned the propriety of changing the wording in a Council session as well as the possible effect deletion of the phrase might have on rehabilitation of housing about to be undertaken by the city. With consent of the second, Mrs. Beal withdrew the motion. 7/14/75 - 4 ':3ryr.- Vote was taken on the main motion to read the council bill as amended the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Lacking unanimous consent - e Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no - the bill was held over for second reading. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Williams to refer the ordinance to staff for drafting of a coherent ordinance based on decibel standards for enforcement criteria. Councilman Murray thought it would be more appropriate to discuss that issue in committee session to give the opportunity for review of past attempts to deal with decibel standards. Assistant Manager noted data being developed in other communities which staff would like to compile in order to bring up-to-date information to the Council. It was a major program involving technical enforce- ment, he said, which would involve enforcement costs. Mr. Murray was not in favor of such an ordinance, and Mr. Bradley wondered then if discussion could be scheduled onthe fundamental issue of an ordinance based on decibel criteria as opposed to loud and raucous noise standards. Councilman Williams supported the intent of Mr. Bradley's motion although he didn't feel it particularly necessary in dealing with change in limitation of hours from 10:00 to 7:00 p.m. However, he wondered how loud or raucous noise would be defined, whether for instance a lawn mower operated after 7:00 p.m. would be illegal. He thought there should be fairly precise standards by which to evaluate loud or ~ucous noise. Vote was taken on the motion to refer the ordinance to staff. e Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Beal and Hamel voting no. 2. Amusement Devices Licensing Fees Code Amendment, Amusement Devices License Fees - Copies of memo from the finance director together with copies of proposed ordinance that would amend the code with regard to amusement devices licensing fees were distributed to Council members with the agenda. Recommendation was to lower license fee for amusenent levies from $60.00 to $25.00, and to add the requirement for an "arcade license" c:op/cr.inq t,ho...:..;e J.)~15'i./.e3!JCS ()f?-::.',ratin~.! :;:__'JC'ra] d_ifferGnt tYPe_'S of arr.US2r.:-=,nt de',.-i :.:~s and pool and billiard tables in one .Zocation. 7'he proposed fee for that type 6f license was $25.00 plus'$l5.00 for each device or game table other than gambling, deleting the requirement for separate fees for individual devices for businesses operating under this type of license. Cheryl McCown who petitioned consideration of reduction in the amusement device licensing fees said that even with the proposed lower fees and change to arcade licensing they would be paying about $1200 per year plus the application fees. She said that was still considerably more than other business license in Eugene. She proposed a $5.00 fee rather than a $15:00 fee on the devices to bring their costs more in line with other businesses. Also that the fees be prorated on a quarter- or half-year basis. She asked that these requests for changes be evaluated before Council consideration of the amendment. Maurice Mitchell, e assistant finance director, said the license fees were now prorated on a half- year basis. Assistant Manager explained that it would be difficult to adjust the rates to accommodate the McCown's business without taking into account other businesses have similar devices. He said the arcade fees were based on the costs incurred in dealing with amusement devices in other operations and that the staff ~1z.. 7/14/75 - 5 recommended tham as a basically equitable adjustment. He noted,ther: was a dif- ference between those operations renting machines and an operatlon llke the McCown's who owned the amusement devices. . d d if there would be any administrative problems with fees -- Counc~ lman Haws won ere , .' . d I 'd'ng scale such as the gambling tables. Ass~stant Manager expla~ned base on a s ~ ~ . ' . that the number of machines vary in the business.operat~on ~tself. Each t~me a new machine was added an inspection would have to ~e made: The c~rrent method, is to issue a sticker for the machines under the l~cense ~ssued w~th followup ~n- spection on an annual basis. Mrs. McCown said that was the reason a flat,fee was requested, it saved both the operator and the city the hassle everY,t~me a new machine was added every two weeks or so. She added that another th~ng to, remember was that other vendors were splitting the $25.00 fee between the dev~ce and the license resulting in an actual fee per device of $12.50 as oppo~ed to the d f f $15 00 Also most other amusement devices were located ~n tavern arca e ee 0 .. , .' d type operations, higher income locations, whereas the~r estab1~shment att~acte mostly young people without that much money to spend. Councilman Haws asked what justified the reduction in license fee from $60.00 to $25.00. Shirley Swenson, finance department, said it ~as based on a survey of costs in administering the licensing procedure and pol~ce department expenses. She said they were regulatory costs and this adjustment they felt would adequately cover those costs. Comm Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to schedule public hearing on 7/9/75 Mrs. Pub Hrng the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously. . 1-B-2 Assistant Manager reviewed provisions of the proposed code amendment (see committee minutes above). . Public hearing was opened. Cheryl McCown, 2645 Willamette Street, said she had initiated the proposed amendment 1-B-3 primarily because her establishment had so many amusement machines in one location. The resulting license fees were too high, she thought, and she proposed a flat fee of $200 per location. She quoted figures indicating the proposed arcade licensing fee, although a reduction from the present code provisions, would still be quite high for a business where the amusement devices were the primary source of income. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. . Assistant Manager said the amendment presented was an attempt to address the concerns expressed by the McCown's, that the reason their fees would be high in relation to other establishments where coin operated machines were located was because they had a substantially larger number of machines. Mrs. McCown reiterated her position that the fee should be charged on a per-location basis rather than the number of machines. Assistant Manager answered that staff was trying to avoid becoming involved in the financial arrangement between the owners of the devices and the persons operating them. The arcade license with the "one shot" application fee would facilitate super- vision of machines and reduce the cost of machines in an arcade establishment. How- ever, that particular requirement would have to be balanced against the single coin operated machines located throughout the community. He felt the amendment as pro- posed was more consistent, would strike a better balance, and minimize the city's administrative costs. -- Counci 1 Bill No. 892 - Amending Sections 3.005 and 3.010 of the City Code re: Arcade and amusement device licensing and fees was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full, 7/14/75 - 6 "313 Mr. Murray moved second 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. e Councilman Haws said the $1,000 fee the McCown's would be paying under the arcade licensing provisions was not reasonable. He said he would like to have staff bring back some proposal perhaps later in the year along the lines pro- posed by Mrs. McCown whereby the fee would be less than would apply under this amendment. Vote was taken on motion for second reading. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second 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 17412. D. Appeal, Parking Removal/Bike Lane on Pearl from 11th and 16th to 19th Submitted by Farrell's, 1313 Pearl Street Appeal, Parking Removal/Bike Lane Pearl from 11th/16th to 19th - Farrell's, 131] Pearl Street - Council members viewed on tour the stretch of Pearl Street from which on-street parking is proposed to be removed to accommodate bike lanes (further carrying out the master bikew~y plan). In response to Councilman Haws, Assistant Manager explained the mid-block start- ing point between 11th and 12th was because existing right-of-way at the 11th Avenue end of the b.lock was wide enough to accommodate the bike lanes. It tit narrows, so the parking removal is necessary to accommoddt:e the bike lanes. C6mm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Nrs. Beill to schedule [>ubl.ic hCiJ.ring 7/2/75 on the appeal at the July 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried, Pub Hrng all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley abstaining. I-B-4 Al Williams, traffic engineer, noted adoption of the Eugene Master Bikeway Plan which included this very important link in the major north/south, east/west bike path system. Implementation of this portion would require removal of parking from the east side of Pearl between 11th and 19th, from the west side of Pearl between 16th and 19th, and from the west side of High between 11th and 19th, he said, and notices were given owners of properties having frontage directly affected by the parking removal. He show~d slides of both Pearl and High and of overall bike plan showing proposed routes served by this couplet, an example of the on-street bike system, and the separator facility through Amazon Park terminating at the south end of South Eugene high school property. He cited traffic counts and alternates considered by staff and the West University Neighbros. Traffic move- ments, he said, determined from which side of the street parking would be removed to better accommodate both auto and bike traffic. Numerous alternatives were con- sidered in detail by staff to best serve the overall needs of the corridor to and from the central city. Assistant Manager noted letters in support of the proposed design previously dis- tri buted to Cound 1 members. e Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of installation of the bike lanes as proposed were Richard Gale, 3615 Glen Oak Drive; Les Childress-Ullman, 1845-1/2 University; Dan Herbert, II -A-l 4450 Hilyard Street; Clayton Brant, 2695 Jefferson Street; Dan Childress. ~14 7/14/75 - 7 1845-1/2 University; Bennett Pascal, 55 Prall Lane. They felt it was a critical link in the bike path system, that any resulting parking space shortage would be be- cause businesses were established prior to current parking requirements; the bike lanes as proposed would be safer and would encourage bike riding to the down- e town area; loss of parking for some of the businesses in that area would not be substantially detrimnetal for them; the route was the most direct between the downtown and the southern part of the city; use of the public right-of-way for public purposes (bike traffic) would be more appropriate than for parking space for private interests; the route was necessary for safe bike use and for a smooth flow of auto traffic around the central business district and to connect with the already established lanes on the Amazon Parkway; possibility that new less hazardous traffic patterns would be more beneficial than detrimental to those businesses objecting to the loss of on-street parking. Roy Dwyer, 1501 Pearl Street, was neither opposed nor in favor of the"proposal. He questioned however, the reasons for confining the issue to problems of parking on these two streets. He suggested the whole issue of parking in the entire com- munity should be considered, more than just this one area. Speaking against the removal of parking to accommodate bike lanes on Pearl and High were Richard Miller, 195 West 35th Place, attorney representing Jack Malone; Manager of Farrell's, 1313 Pearl Street; Bob Smith, manager of Koford-Chapman- Malone, 286 East 18th Avenue; Paula Vohrs, 1832 High Street; Henry Baitis, 1930 Buck Street; John Barber, 1280 Pearl Street. They based their objections on II-A-2 economic hardship resulting from loss of tenants if on-street parking was re- moved; use of Mill and Ferry Streets for the bike couplet would be safer than using Pearl and High; hazardous route for bike riding. especially with left-turn auto movements; sidewalks could be converted to use by bikes; any hazards pre- sented by driveways, landscaping, etc. , for bikes using sidewalks would seem also e to present a hazard for pedestrians; question of advisability of having a series of disconnected bike routes; these partiqllar streets too hERvi ly loaded with auto traffic for installation of bike lanes; property owners' opinions should be given consideration since they were paying for the street assessments; sufficient park- ing not available now; other routes to and from the central area should be planned. Public hearing was closed. there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager noted that poll of property owners indicated 27.5% having front footage abutting Pearl Street opposed the plan; on High street, less than 20%. He stressed that although this proposal for parking removal applied only to Pearl and High south of 11th, the striping for bike lanes would run from 6th through to 19th. Al Williams ~dded that the lanes would be striped from 6th Avenue south; they would be signed from that point north to the south bank route (along the River). Councilman Murray inquired about the 1990 Plan designation for this area. whether II-B-l 13th was considered the boundary of the downtown area, and what procedures were necessary to provide parking should a new business decide to become established in the area of Pearl and High between 11th and 19th. Assistant Manager Keith Martin and Planning Director John Porter answered that the area under consideration for the most part was commercial, some goes into medium-density housing. Parking requirements are based on a square footage area, depending upon the nature of a development. The downtown boundary on Oak was at 13th, it was not definitely known with regard to Pearl. To provide parking space, a new business would have to acquire other property, if locating in an established building, or attempt to e convert existing space. In commercial zones, it is possible to install parking spac~ in front yards with appropriate screening. Portions of older buildings do not have to meet present parking requirements, but new additions to older building would,. 7/14/75 - 8 3'5 Councilman Murray then asked whether statistics were available with regard to bike accidents on arterial streets with or without bike lanes. Al Williams said there was no definitive case-by-case study. For comparative purposes, he noted the e worst area now is the Coburg Road sidewalk route - bike accidents vs vehicle accidents - taking into consideration that many were not reported. He was not aware of any bike accidents on the Amazon Parkway where bike lanes were striped. He said Pearl and High were being used by bikes now, and he felt if the bike riders considered Mill Street more acceptable they would be using that route. He had no concerns about installing bike lanes on Pearl and High from a safety standpoint; he did express concern about using sidewalks for bikes, considering the experience with the Coburg Road bike route. Councilman Keller asked what the traffic count was on Mill Street, noting about 13,000 cars were traveling on Pearl. He also asked how many parking spaces would be eliminated in this proposal. Al Williams answered that there was no 24-hour count on Mill Street; he would guess from 200 to 1000 a day. He pointed out that Mill intersects two other east/west rOutes (12th and 15th) and there would be a difference of opinion about changing the right-of-way at those intersections. He said there was no total of the spaces that would be taken because in most in- stances they were not marked. Site distance zones had also to be taken into con- sideration, but he thought on the average it would amount to about 10 spaces per block. II-B-2 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal with regard to parking removal and installation of bike lanes as proposed on Pearl and High from 11th and 16th to 19th. Mr. Murray said the proposal was in compliance with the Master Bikeway Plan which tit had widespread public support. Present provisions for bikes on these two streets were inadequate, and he felt it was one more way to encourage an alternate method of transportation. Neither was he persuaded that the streets should be used to provide parking space for businesses, although he recognized that some businesses would suffer considerably. He expressed disappointment at the lack of provisions for landscaping and screening in this area, saying it appeared what little vegeta- tion was there would probably be lost in providing adequate parking. He hoped that issue would be more seriously considered at some later date. Councilman Williams noted that in the slides shown he saw no bicycles. Neither had he observed any cars parked on those streets today, he said, and he wondered whether there was more parking space being eliminated to provide more bike space than was really used. He thought it became a matter of tradeoffs and he hesitated to inflict further damage.' Councilman Keller thought it was not the best judgment to put heavy bike traffic and heavy auto traffic on the same street. Also, he thought the parking removal would punish some of the older establishments on Pearl and High. And he didn't like the idea of providing parking at the expense of "tearing up the grass." Councilwoman Shirey recognized the concerns faced by business establishments on the two streets, but she felt the study had not developed any alternative route for the bikes. Alternative methods of transportation carried a high priority with citizens, she said, and this was one instance where implementation of those goals could be initiated. e Mayor Anderson noted conflict of interest because of owning property abutting the route, in the event of a tie vote requiring his vote. Councilmen Bradley and Haws also said they would abstain from voting because of conflict of interest. 7/14/75 - 9 37<0 Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated on tie vote - Council members Murray, Beal, and Shirey voting aye; Council members eller, Williams, and Hamel voting no; Coancilmen Bradley and Haws and Mayor Anderson abstaining. e As~&ant Manager Martin said the Master Bikeway Plan would have to come back to theCouncil for discussion since a major revamping would be necessary if parking removal could not be achieved to add bike needs in the community. Councilman Williams raised a procedural question - what the situation was on this specific issue. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said there appeared to be two inconsistent concepts - this was an administrative action by the city manager which was final unless appealed. The code provides for appeal and directs the Council to hear and modify. or repeal the action. So unless there was mandatory direction from the Council to dispose of the matter, the administrative action would stand. He said it would appear better to rule that the action OT the city manager was unchanged because of the tie vote. E. General Plan Refinement - Whiteaker area between 1st Avenue and Willamette River between Skinner Butte Park and Washin~ton/Jefferson Park 1990 Plan Refinement on area between 1st Avenue and Willamette River and between Skinners Butte Park and Washinton/Jefferson Park Planning Commission on June 10, 1975 recommended modification of the 1990 Plan diagram to include potential high-density residential use instead of the present medium-density, and that MAPAC (Metropo_Zitan Area Plan Advisory Committee) be ad- vised of the modification. Jim Saul, planner, said that standards recommended for zone changes to high-density use (also to be incorporated into the Whiteaker Community Plan when completed) were (1) maximum density not to exceed 24 units per acre; (2) maximum building height not to exceed three stories, except that four stories would be allowed if parking space is provided on the first level; e - .- (3) minimum area would be one-quarter block of contiguous prop,~rties; (4) con- sideration would be given to eith~r site review or planned unit dev~lopment pro- cedures, depending upon location of property, type~ of uses imIllediatL'ly surround- ing it, or size of a specific proposal. He said the Planning commission also recommended a look at through traffic in the fvbiteakcr neighborhood when giving consideration to the overall refinement plan for the larger neighborhood area in an effort to resolve the increased use of .the route through Skinners Butte : Park since closure of the 1st Avenue ramps onto Interstate 105. The official report, in addition, indicated the Commission's desire to encourage OIvner-occupants of single-family dwellings in that area to seek R-l zoning or its equivalent. Councilman Bradley asked for an opinion in wri ting from the c.i ty attorney's office, previously given orally to the Planning Commission, that this proposed action was a legislative function and did not come under Fasano regulations. Councilman Murray wondered why Chicago had declared a moratorium on use of buildings having ground-floor parking. He asked for staff exploration of the reason. Counci.lman Williams wondered about permittirig four-story buildings only if parking space was provided on the first leve1- whether the idea was to lessen visual im- pact or because of the additional distance getting to the top floor. Mr. Saul answered that staff originally recommended a limit of three stories because of visual: impact against Skinners Butte, the "invasion of privacy" factor when higher building were mixed with lower structures, and the Whiteaker neighborhood's desire for a three-story limit. The Commission in its deliberation, he said, considered the greater parking requirements that would ~tem from the proposed high-density use. To avoid having asphaltic expanses surrounding buildings, parking space underneath - the buildings was recommended. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on Comm the recommended refinement at the July 14 Council meeting. Motion 7/2/75 carried unanimously. Pub Hrng 7/14/75 - 10 ~1td Recommended by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1975 that this area is suitable for high-density residential use and that policies for implementation of that use be adopted. ~ Assistant Manager noted that opinion from Stan Long, assistant city attorney, was previously distributed to Council members indicating that in his judgment this was a legislative ~ssue and that the Council could conduct the hearing outside the Fasano regulations. He suggested that rather than dopting a resolution at this meeting implementing the action, the better action would be to direct staff after hearing public discussion to prepare the appropriate resolution for later consideration. Jim Saul, planner, said the question involved amendment to the General Plan with regard to about a five-block area in the Whiteaker neighborhood and adoption of a refinement study for that area. He noted present medium-densith residential zoning in the area and the Commission's thinking in considering past requests to rezone to high-density that the existing sewer system would not be adequate. Other requests for changing to high-density were delayed pending a study of the north central area which was never adopted. Finally, the 1990 General Plan was adopted in which this area was designated medium-density based on existing R-2 zoning. Since then, he said, the sewer system in the area has been upgraded and development of the Washington/Jefferson Park formed a western boundary of the area under consideration. Mr. Saul continued that objectives considered in determining whether high-density use would be suitable for the Whiteaker area were (1) that it would provde a com- pact urban growth form; (2) a high-residential area would be provided adjacent to the metropolitan area; (3) the exi~t:ing neighborhood would be protected; (4) public services and facilities are available; (5) the central location of the area next e to downtGlTl would minimize traffic impact. He added that to provide a. more defini- tive text in the General Plan with regard to high-density use, the Commission reco-mended adoption of a refinement study to include (1) limitation on the maximum number of units to 24 per acre; (2) maximum building height of three stories un- less parking is provided underneath a building, in which case the maximum would be four stories; (3) maximum area to be considered for high-density rezoning would be one-quarter block of contiguous properties to eliminate potential high- density use on single lots between existing single-family properties; (4) requests for high-density rezoning would be conisdered on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Saul said it was also recommended that owners and occupants of single-family residences be encouraged to request rezoning to R-l. However, when t~at re~ommendat~on was included state legislation had not been adopted that provIded SIngle-famIly prop- erties i~ commercial or high-density areas would be assessed as single-family rather than commercial or high-density potential use. The Commission, he said, also sug- gested that the refinement study review the traffic system, paying particular at- tention to the problem of through traffic in Skinner Butte Park. ~e referred the Council to Planning Commission minutes of June 10 for further detaIls. Public hearing was opened. TT-B-3 Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey Ave~ue, presi~ent of the ~hiteaker Neighborh~od Council, said that group supported and felt deSIrable a POlICY that would provl~e low- income housing for the elderly. However, the neighborhood gen~rally.dld not want to see apartment development in the area. He a~ked for reco~slderatlon ~f the recommendation to extend buildings to four storIes when parkIng was provIded on 4It the ground floor. Doris Johnson, 309 Clark Avenue, felt the proposed change would be unfair ~o other than property owners in the area; that it would benefit for the most part Inv:stors who wanted to developed properties there. She thought the quarter~block reqUIre- ment to effect rezoning to high density would penalize owners of SIngle lots. Also, that the height requirement~27~ have to be modified. 7/14/75 _ 11 Bruce Anderson, attorney, 777 High Street, supported staff's original proposal for II-B-4 the Whiteaker .area rather than the modified proposal presented. He was opposed to the four-story height proposed in certain conditions. He said it had been clear for years that the current designation for that area was not working out, but he -- felt that although residential use needed impetus, it should be the type of resi- dential use that was more consistent with what could be supported. He maintained that residential development in the area had not occurred because of economics and that there was no guarantee multiple~family rezoning would occur immediately upon its designation. Mr. Anderson continued that the city could protect the area through other actions such as limiting auto use. He thought the major objective should be what the majority of people in that area wanted, and that was not apart- men t s . He noted too that the new state legislation would help single-family hold- ings retain their identities. Alan Mayer, 425 Clark Avenue; Wendi Brannen, 121 North Washington; and Chris Moses, III-A-l 465 Clark Street expressed opposition to the proposed change. They were satisfied with the area as it ~xists, saying it was changing but not the way it would if the properties were sold. They were opposed to any apartment development that would change the character of the neighborhood. General repair and upgrading of homes in the area was going on, they said, and the vacant areas should be retained as open space for those people living there. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Councilman Bradley asked if this Plan amendment was precipitated by an earlier zone III-A-2 change request to accommodate a low-income housing development for the elderly. If so, whether consideration of the amendment then would be governed by criteria and rules of the Fasano case. Mr. Saul and Assistant Manager answered that the amendment was the result of recognizing over a number of years the Whiteaker area e as a problem area, that a series of inquiries about the area caused the study. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that even if the earlier zone change re- quest had been the precipitating cause for the study - and he understood it was not because it involved about a half-block and was tabled with the applicant's concurrence - his opinion would still be that this was not a quasijudicial matter coming under Fasano rules. He added that in those cases where the court had held a plan amendment was a quasijudicial issue they had involved single ownerships or single parcles; that was not true in this instance. Councilman Bradley then asked if in staff's opinion there was or was not a public need for this Plan amendment. Mr. Saul said that "public need" was not one of the formalized criteria on which plan ame~dments were based. However, if considera- :tion were given to all former comments concerning correlation of this plan amend- ment and achievement of the overall General, Plan, one could say this amendment did constitute a case for public need. Assistant Manager added that a number of policies in the community goals documents are being dealt with in this particular amendment - compact urban growth form, demand on auto dependency, preservation of existing housing, etc. General Plan amendments, he said, are an attempt at making application of broad policy statements. Councilman Murray asked about the timing of this refinement plan in relation to the broader Whiteaker area, whether this refinement study could be incorporated into the overall Whiteaker Plan. Mr. Saul said the Whiteaker plan was now scheduled for consideration in January 1976 unless the Commission's present work load af- fected that schedule. He said the original staff notes on this proposed change could be incorporated as additional elements in the overall Whiteaker Plan, es- - pecially the traffic situation, and perhaps further refinement. Councilman Keller asked for further explwnation of the recommendation to allow four stories with parking on the ground floor. Mr. Saul said that recommendation 7/14/75 - 12 '3',<1 / was intended to minimize the amount of asphalt parking areas, it was felt that some parking under buildings four stories high would be better than the addition of asphalt ground coverage. ~ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to direct staff to prepare the ~ appropriate resolution to implement the proposed refinement of the III-A-3 1" h Wh' k . hb h d . dd" General P an ~n relat~on to t e ltea er nelg or 00 , ln a ltlon recommending a limitation on building height to three stories, also recommending that any future application of this refinement recognize needs as defined in any future Whiteaker neighborhood refinement plan. In making the motion, Mr. Murray said he felt there was need for this refinement in that neighborhood, that it was better than any past proposal for protection of these in single-family residences in that area. Councilman Bradley wondered if the term "amendment" should be included as well as the term "refinement." Mr. Saul answered that the recommendation was to authorize amendment to the Plan with the understanding that refinement plan would follow. Councilman Williams questioned whether this amendment was a suitable approach in that it would change the density only from 20 to 24 units per acre. He thought a more substantive change, perhaps to 36 units per acre, would be more appropriate. Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Bradley to amend the motion so as to delete the 24 units per acre recommended by the Planning Commission and return to the 36-unit-per-acre limitation recommended by staff. In making the motion, Mr. Williams said he had no way of knowing whether 24 units ~ or 36 units would be a more appropriate limitation in the Whiteaker area. However, ~ he said he did know how many could be constructed using a three-story limit and other factors present in the area. And he was reluctant to go through the plan amendment process to achieve a density limitation that seemed extremely low in the context of what was classed as high-density without a better understanding of the reason for the two different recommendations from staff and the Commission. Vote was taken on the amendment, changing the density limitation to 36 units per acre. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council member Murray, Haws, and Shirey voting no. C?unci~man Bradley th?ugh~ there should be response from staff with regard to the dlfferl~g reco~mendatlons on number of units. Mr. Williams was satisfied with the a~t~on as ~t now stood, and Mr. Murray explained that it had the effect of changlng the denstiy limit from 24 units per acre to 36. Vote was ~aken on the main motion as amended. Motion carried, all Councllmembers present voting aye. Adjournment was considered at this time because of the hour. Item R on the consent calenda: (Cross Case, Skinner Butte) was brought up by Mr. Brad~ey. He felt lt should be acted upon at this meeting because of. the tlme element. Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in thlS matter, reported that according to the Lane County Sheriff the 4It . Cross would be removed from Skinner Butte on Thursday, July 17, unless an ~p~eal fr?m the court order was filed. Filing of an appeal was awaltlng actlon of the Council. He added that Eugene Sand & Gravel may have filed an appeal today, but if it had been filed he was not aware of it. Also, costs estimated at $2400 would be assessed against the city, he said, if.the Cross was taken down as ordered. 7/14/75 - 13 3&0 I Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to take action on this I one issue if it could be settled in a half hour. Motion carried unanimously. Time limits were set - 15 minutes for testimony, 15 minutes for e Council discussion. IV - Cross Case, Skinner Butte Cross Case, Skinner Butte - Copies of memo from Assistant Manager were distributed to Council with agenda concerning the question of appealing the Circuit Court order to remove the Cross from Skinner Butte. The memo explained basis for an appeal III-B-l would be protection of the public vote declaring the Cross a war memorial and authorizing its presence on the Butte - 17,185 "Yes;" 6,009 "No." Estimated cost was $25_0 if the Council pursued an appeal independently, joining with otb,er litigants would probably reduce that cost. Three alternatives were offered: (1) Independently and actively appeal the decision; (2) joint with other litigants and.appea1; or (3) accept the decision and remove the Cross - unless the order was held because of appeal by others. Assistant Manager said there was some indication the "traditiona1".litigants were interested in appealing the decision although he was not aware of the availability of any private financing. Councilman Keller said the cost of $2500 did not appeal exorbitant in relation to the number of people voting in favor of the Charter amendment designating the Cross a war memorial. He thought the Council was obligated to those voters. Councilwoman Shirey asked how much money had already been spent by the ci ty in litigation on this case and what was to keep it continuing ad infinitum. Assistant Manager answered that no really definitive costs were avi1ab1e other than the . estimated $3,000 spent in the last appeal. The only alternatives were to accept the decision to remove the Cross or appeal. Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the. third option - accept.the decision and remove the Cross. In making the motion, Councilwoman Bea1 said she was opposed to spending any more public funds in this manner. She felt if the 17,000 voters had substantial interest in the case they should appeal the decision. Assistant Manager said the motion would preclude financing of an appeal by other parties. He said if the Council didn't wish to spend any more money, it might want to allow the city's name to be used in an appeal if private funds were available. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to substitute for the motion that the Council might consider appealing the court order if other parties petition use of the city's name and if no city funds are involved. Councilman Keller was opposed to the motion. He noted the $19+ million budget recently approved by city voters and said he had a difficult time rationalizing re- jection of a request for $2500 to support the opinion of 17,000 of those voters. He said it was obvious the Cross meant something, was of some value, to those 17,000 voters and to ignore them seemed unfair. Mayor Anderson expressed the same opinion. He felt there was an obligation to the voters who -supported the Charter amendment and that some form of litigation e should be continued even to the point of the city's financing it. 7/14/75 - 14 3f>t Councilm~n Murray recalled nothing in the Charter amendment about the expenciture of city funds. Just IJecause 17,000 people voted in favor of the Charter anandriicnt didn't necessarily mean they wanted expenditure of public funds to carry onlitiga- e tion for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Keller noted the expenditure of city funds to help citizens of the com~unity, deferment of assessment payments, for in:=;tance, which :iC1S not clU thoLi zed b'J a vote, so h0 didn't think that ~~s .r.ert:n.ent .. Act1.:a.Lly a lot [,:ore [,IOIlO'-] ii..':!3 S;h~.Jt ,'11 tilout uskiIl~7 l::c t ,.. aXp3.Y(~.rs tt26tn h'r_2!'~ .2.:: -:";dS voted upon. In fact, he said, if a vote was taken every time an expendicure was made there probably would be no money spent. He felt an obligation to those people who were interested enough to vote on the Charter amendment. Councilwoman Shirey said she would concur with the vote of the people although she disliked the entire issue and disliked spending the money. She hoped if the issue was continued, if an appeal was filed, the people would be presented with another ballot measure that tvould include the question of whether the citi.zens intended to SPend public funds for this purpose. Councilman Haws' said he would like to see the city drop the issue and get on with more important things. lie felt that if 17,000 people were interested they could raise the funds for an appeal and come tu the Council wi th a l:equest to use the city's name. Councilwoman Beal commented that she didn't think the 17,000 voters would vote favorably on spending the money for further court costs. Councilman Bradley asked whether the city could give away the property on which the Cross was located with the idea the issue could be rendered moot. Assistant Manager answered that past legal opinions have stated the Butte by Charter amend~ ment was dedicated for public park purposes so that the city has no authority to divest itself of ownership. (e Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in past court actions on the Cross case, noted the urgent need for a decision at this time because of the lO-day period from June 23 (date of the court order) in which to file court action or the Cross would have to be taken down. Councilman Keller 'said he didn'~ agree at all with the idea that expenditure of funds for appealing this decision had to be justified with a vote. fle felt to tell those people who voted favorably on the Charter ameI.dment to "go raise your own funds" was practically unconstitutional. Mayor Anderson added that he thought if city funds were used to build some sort of beautiful landmark, something aesthet- ically pleasing, and the court ordered it removed, the city would go to any ends to preserve that particular f!ffort if it had been authorized by the voters. He said that while he didn't sha~'e the opinions of the Cross "preservationists" he did think the city was obligated to carry the "brunt of the battle" even to the extent of financing an ap?eal. Councilman Bradley said the issue was not so much whether the Cross should be taken down, it was probably I..hether a higher legal opinion should be sought. Vote was taken on the motion to consider appealing the court deci- Comrn sian if other parties seek use of the city's name and no ci ty fllnds are involved. Motion defeated, Council members Murray, Beal, and 7/9/75 Haws voting aye; Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey Approve voting no. \ . Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to independently and actively appeal the decision, or to join wi th other li tigallts and appeal, whichever is "in the best interests of city funds." Motion carried, Council members Keller, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council m~~bers Murray, Beal, and Haws voting no. ~e,L 7/14/75 _ 15 Speaking against the Council's committee action to file an appe~l and urging recision of that action were Madge Lorwin, 550 East 15th Avenue; Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fair- mount Boulevard; Fred Mohr, 2662 Alder St.reet; and Wesley G. Nivholson, 2370 Mission Avenue! Their statements were' that the Cross was installed on the Butte in an illegal manner, granting of a building permit for its installation was illegal, its continued presence there was causing dissension among Eugene citizens, public money should not be - spent to defend its presence on the ~utte, the city has no authority to file an appeal or take any part in court actions involved with a private party, Council action in this instance was "cutting across Constitutional provisions." Councilman Bradley asked whether staff knew why the city did not appeal a previous court decision when Eugene Sand & Gravel did. Mr. Gardner answered that the issue in the first trial was the validity of issuance of a building permit for erection of the Cross, the issue in this instance was the validity of a Charter amendment. Councilman Bradley felt the Council should know whether an appeal had been filed by Eugene Sand & Gravel before further Council action was taken. Council~oman Beal was not in favor of joining in the appeal, either in name or by ,"backing up with funds.'I Councilman Murray agreed, saying the court decision was that :the Cross should not be on public property; to defend its presence on the Butte was a waste of time and money. Councilman Williams called attention to designation of the Cross as a war memorial by voters through Charter amendment, and that Charter amendment brought about through initiative petition. He fel t the Council had the resonsibility to carry out the \..i11 of the people, and although it could not be said the citizens intended an appeal of a . caUl t decision, they did very strongly say they wanted the Cross on the Butte. Council- man Keller agreed. Councilman Bradley asked for statistics with regard to previous appeals on Charter amendments, how many there had been, how many successful, what types, etc. He said he would like to have some standards on which to base a decision in this instance. There .. was no information available. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to approve action taken in committee - that the city independently and actively appeal the de- cision to remove the Cross, or to join with other litigants and appeal, whichever is "in the best interests _ c?'(, city funds: ~I .' _____ ,_ .' .~. - . Councilman Bradley suggested amendment to condition the action upon whether Eugene Sand & Gravel has perfected an appeal. He thought if an appeal had been filed, then the city would want to withdraw. Councilman Keller said the intent of his motion was that the city should take the lead. - He said he had the impression from committee (' , discussion that some Council members wanted to join in an appeal if one was filed by a participant other than the city. He added that in the event no appeal had been filed today, then the city would proceed. Assistant Manager suggested that action should be either to authorize an appeal, or to withdraw if one is filed by someone else. Councilman Haws said he would favor the motion if it was keeping the issue open for someone else. He would oppose it if it was to 'keep it open for city action. He wondered what would happen - if this motion passed - if no one else filed and the city did. Mr. Keller assumed that the case would be followed through to the Supreme . Court. Vote .was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council . -,- members Keller, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, and Shir~y voting no. _~\r - Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, July 16, 1975, to consideT the balance Of~ .~. ) ~ 7/14/75 - 16 '383 Charles T. Henry City Manager