Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1976 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 12,1976 . 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 January 12, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Tom Williams, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey. Councilwoman Wickes Beal-was absent. I - Council Officers for 1976 Councilman Murray announced the election in a previous special session - Councilman Gus .Keller as president, and Councilman Eric Haws as vice pr~sident for the coming year. Mayor Anderson offered congratulations to the new officers ~nd expressed apprecia- tion to Mr. Murray for his service as president during the past year. Recognition was given by the Mayor to the importance of the Council president's role and to the fine leadership given by Mr. Murray. II - Annual'Message was read by Mayor Anderson, and a copy was received to be placed on fil III - Public Hearings A. Vacation of utility easement between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard (City)(EV 75-5) Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 13, 1975. Manager explained that other arrangements had been made for public facilities and said that staff had no ob- jection to the proposed vacation. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 989 - Vacating utility easement between Central Boulevard and Spring Boulevard was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passagE Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17501. IV - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on December 23, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey) and January 7, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Williams, Keller, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A.Proposed Bi-Mar~ in Edgewood Shopping Cen~er, 40th and Donald - Council received a letter from Therese Engelmann, attorney, 296 West 8th Avenue, requesting that zoning of the area at 40th and Donald be changed from C-2 to C-1 to conform with requirement of the 1990 Plan that the area contain only neighborhood shopping centers. She further requested that no building permits be issued which were not in confo~ce with the C-l zoning indicated by the 1990 Plan. Manager noted . 3 1/12/76 - 1 ... that letters also"l1ave been received from interested neighborhood residents. Further, Council has received copy of the planning department response to Ms. Engelmann dated December 17, 1975, which states that the staff is not recom- m"eng,i,ng review of the zoning of the 40th and Donald area at ~is point. M:;;:;; &:ngelmann explained that she represents ci ti zens of the south hills area 'wli'o a.te objecting to location of the proposed Bi-Mart store in the Edgewood Shop- pirigCenter on the grounds that the shopping center should be C-l and not C-2. A Bi~Mart store would not be permitted in a C-l district. In addition, the code indicates neighborhood centers should have only neighborhood type retail stores, not; ,a Bi-Mart type that would bring customers from a large area. George Dawson, 190 East 47th Avenue, client of Ms. Engelmann, referred to his letter dated Dece~r 19 distributed to the Council outlining the arguments of the residents of the area, stating their position on rezoning, and calling for interim suspension of building pertnits. It is their belief, he said, that the center clearly is a neighborhood commercial center, that its size and character indicate it is not intended for ot:~er use though Mr. Saul of the planning depart- ment indicates it is the city's feeling that a Bi-Mart could b-e located there. Mr. Dawson added that a Bi-Mart store quite likley would increase traffic and pollution and, in addition, may decrease use of that area by south Eugene residents. From a safety standpoint, he said, it seemes unwise because of schools in the immediate area. Furthermore, Mr. Dawson felt amendment to the 1990 Plan should be considered rather than amendment on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, he suggested the matter be set for public hearing and building permit issuance suspended pending a decision. Linda Finlay, area resident, stated that the impact of the Bi-Mart store on the Edgewood neighborhood would be substantial. She raised questions about whether local people would be hired and also whether convenient parking would be provided. . She added th?,it about 1000 sig1?atures had been obtained from area. residents who 'were opposed to location of the store in the Center. Mr. Saul, planner, explained the issue is whether the Bi-Mart store or a similar store conforms to the 1990 Plan and the Plan's treatment of the Edgewood area as neighborhood commercial. The 1990 Plan was' adopted in 1972, he said, and the basic zoning ordinance provisions, still relied upon, were adopted in 1968 before the various commercial categories were adopted. He said it is difficult to look at the land use element of the General Plan and translate it into a particular type~of zoning, calling for one particular type of store. The other question being raised, Mr. Saul added, is whether the city wishes to wtihhold building permits and whether it wishes to initiate rezoning of the center in question. He said staff advice:"would be to retain present zoning for now and not to withhold building per- mits for this particular location. Planning feels there are remedies available' ahd that the appropriate position would be to rezone only if ordered by the court. Jim Spickerman, city prosecutor, explained that the question is whether the Council should give direction on building permits and zone changes, or whether t~ Council should let the Edgewood residents file a law suit. He added that t~e interpretations given by Ms. Engelmann and Mr. Saul would not be clear issues. Ma'i:Jager said that if the Council directs the city to withheld building permits in the area it would be subject to suit because, on the face, Bi-Mart location in the Center meets code requirements. Too, it would take the Planning Commission several months to work its way through the rezoning process. Councilman Murray wondered if one issue, then, is that the 1990 Plan does not clarify whether C-2 is or is not neighborhood commercial. Mr. Saul said he could hot really respond to that because the Plan does not talk about a specific zone but rather cites general divisions of commercial areas. The point being made by staff, he said, is that there,is a very arguable case as to whether a type of store SUCh as Bi-Mart can be cons~dered for neighborhood commercial use or com- 1/12/76- 2 4- .. . . . '. e. munity or regional type use. a neighborhood type store. Mr. f.lurray called for other examples of neighborhood use. Mr. Saul replied th.ft, \~'" to his knowledge, this is the first location of a Bi-Mart or similar store in a" ..'.~~. neighborhood commercial area, subject to one clarification - that being the, problem., of assessing what type of store Bi-11art really is. There are any number Of stap'da.~as that can be used to assess. For instanc.g, he said, there is less square footag~,j.,~, the proposed Bi-Mart than in the Safewar} store in the same Center. " _.:. Staff evaluation is that Bi-Mart could be considered Hr. Murray wondered about otJ-.er instanct:'s of C-2 zoning that would allow a Bi-' ~ :,~:":' Mart used as neighborhood commercial. f./r. Saul noted one instance - 11 th and ", -' City view - where zoning was changed frem M-2 to C-2. Another area of debate, '-;. ~-) ~~ ' he added, would be the Coburg Plaza whioh is classified as C-2. It would be community commercial in the Plan. He nated that the River Road Bi-Mart and the 18th and Chambers Bi-Mart are both in areas zoned C-2. Whether 'those areas con- flict with the Plan is a debatable issue, according to Mr. Saul. .'7t: As to possible courses of action, Manager noted it would be expensive no ~atter what is done. As he understands it, a decision should be made whether to take an active role and ferret out the conflicts with the General Plan, which are a great many. Mr. Murray said there are parts of the city where zoning seems clearly in violation of the Plan. There has been much controversy for years, and he felt a need to get it all in perspective. John Porter, planning director, commented on the impossibility of accomplishing refinement plans as quickly as desired. For instance, he said, there is a major conflict on the west side of the central business district which is now being addressed. It is staff's feeling that deficiencies need to be addressed in as comprehensive a manner as possible. Councilman Bradley wondered if the zoning issues were debatable, who was re- sponsible for resolving that debate, and if it wouldn't be better for the Council to do it instead of a court of law. Mr. Saul explained that an allegation was being made that the case of Baker vs. the city of Milwaukie (zoning should be i:1 accordance with a general plan) applied to the Edgewood case. Planning is saying it is merely an allegation, better determined in a court of law. Mr. Bradley asked where the appropriate response should come from if there is an ~ 9 inconsistency between zoning and a plan. Mr. Saul answered that the obvious pla~e;.~',!~ would be at the Ci ty Council level. l\fr. Bradley thought perhaps then the Council should hear the issue to decide if there was an inconsistency so that, once re-,~ : solved, decisions could be made on the proper course of action. He wondered, too; if the decision in the Baker vs. Milwaukie case said a city is forced to down- zone or did it address only the issue of upzoning to comply. Mr. Spickerman said that, assuming a conflict was found and the court did order Council to re- zone the 40th and Donald area, it would be downzoning. When talking ~bout a Council decision on whether a conflict exists, his reaction was that a decision would have to be made by the court since it was a legal question. The court, he said, is not compelled to adopt a council's opinion. .;~.." .. ~. ~ "J :-: .. ~F..:.1 Mr. Bradley wondered what criteria is used by a city council to decide to ini- ,'[':,':':'! tiate rezoning when a property owner does not request it. ..::s .,'. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to schedule a hearing to decide if there is an inconsistency between the 40th and Donald zoning and the General Plan, with no moratorium on issuance of building permits in the interim. Mr. Saul noted that there is no written criteria governing Council initiation of, _ _ zone changes in the absence of the property owner's consent. Council initiation ~ normally occurs, he said, when the:=-e is a perception either of a problem or em ,5 1/12/76 - 3 ~, ,~~.5 inconsisrency; iniriation of rezoning more often comes from the Planning Cor.r.tis- sion than from the Council itself. Mr. Porter noted that initiation of rezoning usually takes place through the refinement process and, of course, property owners are not necessarily for or against. Councilman Murray was reluctant to turn all matters over to the courts for dis- position; yet he did not feel the Council well prepared or analytical on the issue at this point. He felt, tod, it would be inappropriate to use the Edge~/ood example to change priorities on other issues. Also, he wondered if the Council would be doing the residents of the area any service by taking action, recognizing it would be a fairly involved process with the outcome uncertain. Mr. Saul commented that the amount of involvement in the process depends on time, research, etc. Mayor Anderson shared Mr. Murray's concerns, wondering how long the matter would go on once started and what impact it t'/ould have on the planning function. He also tyondered which side of a law sui t tJ'Je ci ty would want to be on. However, in the interest of quick action, he thought it would seem advisable to allow the matter to go to court rather than prolonging it by hearings. He strongly recommended that Council table the issue until the next committee meeting. Councilman Bradley thought the Council should decide on the inconsistency issue and wondered where that would.fit in on the priority schedule. If Council makes a decision, he said, the parties could subsequently go to court any tolay. ~' Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Shirey to table the matter for one week. Mot~on carried, all council members present voting aye, excepr Councilman Bradley voting no. Councilman Haws requested staff comment on whether the city code is too restricrive t.,i th regard to zone changes. Also, w.hether the ci ty has any. recourse should a petition be destroyed by someone not in fa-vor of it before its: presentation. B. Bi-Mart, 40th and Donald - A motion was tabled to this meeting to hold a factual hearing on the Bi-Mart proposed location at 40th and Donald Streets to decide if there is an inconsistency with the 1990 Plan and current zoning, with no moratorium on the issuance of building permits during the interim. Manager explained there has been great interest in the matter (letters from residents, phone calls, etc). Mr. Saul, Planner, noted there have been many assertions made not only on what the 1990 Plan says but also that, based on the General Plan and the Baker vs. the City of Milwaulcie decision, the City of Eugene is required to take certain forms of action. In assessing the 1990 General Plan, Mr. Saul continued, it is important to go back to the formulation of that plan which was adopted in 1972. The consistent feeling at that time was that the plan was intended to provide broad guidelines for decisions and not a blueprint. '1'00, the general plan consistently talks about the need for area refinemenr studies, recognizing those studies take place over a long period of time. It was never intended that the 1990 Plan would reverse previous zoning decisions that had been based on plans in effect in 1972. The piece of property at 40th and Donald, which is now the subject of debate, was zoned C-2 in 1955 and that zoning has remained in. effect since that time. That zoning was in accord with the plan for that area at that time. If the 1990 Plan is considered as a broad guideline, problems then arise when placing it in the context of Baker vs. Milwaulcie. The 1990 Plan was adopted three years prior ro Baker vs. Milwaukie. Had it been in effecr at the time the City was considering the 1990 Plan, said Mr. Saul, it might have taken a far different form. Baker vs. Milwaulcie refers to, the Milwaukie General Plan, which is a far more detailed plan than anything Eugene has, noted Mr. Saul. Therefore, staff feels Council should be 1/12/76 - 4 ~ . Cornm 12/23/75 Approve - -- - ,e . cautious in judging whether Eugene is dealing with a Baker vs. Milwaukie type of situation. Too, staff feels the general plan does not necessarily imply that the location of a Bi-Mart store at 40th and Donald conflicts with the characterization of a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Bradley referred to staff's earlier comments that it was a debatable issue, feeling they now seemed to be taking a definite stand: Planning Director said Council is faced with a whole series of judgments; since reasonable people can reach different judgment decisions, the issue therefore becomes somewhat debatable. Staff, however, feels the zoning is appropriate and that Council should not take steps to rezone or withhold issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bradley voiced concern that, though the case of Baker vs. Milwaukie provided the law, staff is now saying they do not like that law. He suggested looking at it in terms of inconsistency and letting the courts decide it once again. If the court says it is the law, it should be accepted and a factual determination should then be made whether there is an inconsistency at 40th and Donald and, if so, take the next step which would be to hold a rezoning hearing. Mr. Spickerman, City Prosecutor, responded to Mr. Bradley that he is not contending Baker vs. Milwaukie is the law in this case and that the staff is avoiding it. It is simply not that clear-cut an issue, he added. Mr. Williams thought legislative history should play some part, and he is not sure that Baker vs. Milwaukie overrules the history of the plan. To say that background is meaningless surely would not be the intent of the Supreme Court of the State of Orego. If it is, then it would seem there are two choices - scrap the Plan and start,_w~_tl1_,o.ll~. ~~_f.~_e:_c:!~ng reali ty, or go to court. It appears to Mr. WilliamS that the -situation has to follow the historical plan of following the guidelines. Fredric R. Merrill, Attorney, 3940 Mill Street, expressed confusion with the staff's position and suggested that a decision must be made. Council should not let a decision on the application of the 1990 Plan to a zoning matter go by the boards without a full hearing and consideration of the issues involved, he added. Since a building permit is pending Eor the Bi-Mart store, no decision by Council is really a decision to proceed with construction. Mr. Merrill said the issue is not an isolated one but one that will affect the entire community. Letting people sue by doing nothing is a bad position for staff to take. The issue must be decided by rreans of a public hearing, he said, with suspension of the building permit in tpe interim. Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill, stated that the developer of the shopping center, in 1956, outlined the kinds of stores that should be a part of the Edgewood Shopping Center. The current developer reiterated the sarre thing in 1964. Listed were such types of outlets as a drug store, bank, beauty parlor, etc. but no mention was ever made of a large store such as a Bi-Mart. Also, she said, when the area was zoned C-2 in 1955, it was a 7-acre plot. Half of the 7 acres has been turned into apartments. That original' concept of C-2 zoning r has now been reduced to a little over 2Js acres. The developers have changed the concept of this plot of commercial zoning; their actions state they are not willing to conform to the original concept for the area. Mary Simpson, 3990 Donald, felt it necessary to deal with the 1990 Plan now so that, in 1990, the city will look as was intended in that plan. She feels the residents of the Edgewood area are offering what they believe to be a precedent setting case, that they are doing their ci vic duty, and tha t they should be afforded the opportunity to speak at a public hearing. She added they respect the abilities of the planners but feel the merits of the case should be dealt with, not simply the issue of whether the case should be heard at all. 7 1/12/76 - 5 Rick Cleveland, Attorney, 975 Oak, speaking on behalf of his client, Breeden Brothers, submitted that no public hearing is warranted. They feel the installation of the Bi-Mart is permissible under the present zoning classificationk that the paranount considerations of reduced traffic, reduced air pollution, reduced energy consumption and pronotion of mass transi t all indicate installation would be appropriate. 'J:.raffic flow would be reduced, added Mr. Cleveland, since residents would not have to travel as far - for instance to 29th and Willamette - to purchase staples other than food. Too, since there is a Safeway store in the Edgewood center, it would be of great convenience to have both lines of goods in the same area. Mr. Cleveland concluded by saying that public hearings should be held only when there is a denonstrated requirement for action. To do so when there is not a requirement just increases the burden on staff and council alike. He suggests that concerns for clarifying the 1990 Plan be referred to those involved in the process of recommending amendments to the 1990 Plan. - James Mooney, Attorney, expressed desire for a public hearing on the question. : The wisdom of having a Bi-Mart in the Edgewood area should be discussed, he said. Mr. Bradley noved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to hold a public hearing to deterndne if the zoning at 40th and Donald is consistent with the 1990 Plan and, if inconsistent, initiate a rezoning hearing or a plan amendment hear~ng.to correct the inconsistency. Comm , 1:./7/76 Approye Mr. Keller wondered if this avenue is appropriate - what kind of precedent would be set. Mr. Bradley responded that it is up to the Ci ty Council, as the governing body of the City, to give the residents of the Edgewood area a hearing. He does not feel that decision should be transferred to a judge. Mr. Spickerman noted that, ,if there were a determination by the Council, after . a. hearing~ that there was a conflict' and zone cJ?,ange wa,s desired~, i't: would then be up to the Planning ComnLission to consider it. - Mr. Saul noted, in answer to a question by Mr. Keller, that the two basic options are to hold a public hearing or go to court. Mr. Williams expressed reluctance to vote .on the matter at this time. He would like to see an analysis by staff of possible ramifications - one being what the implications would be if the City said zoning in effect for 20 years on an existing developed piece of property was wrong. \ Mr. Murray wondered if the notion by Mr. Bradley included the option that Council, at the end of the hearing, might take no action, to which Mr. Bradley responded affirmatively. Mr. Bradley mentioned another possibility - going to court with the developer and the residents of the area and asking for an advisory type of opinion. Vote was taken on the notion to hold public hearing,which carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Bradley raised a question on the legality of imposing a moratorium on the building permi t issuance pending outcome of the hearing. Mr. Spickerman answered it would be legal but the question then becomes whether the property owner would start a law suit in the meantime. Obviously, the next consideration after imposing a rroratorium is whether the building permit has been rightfully Ai withheld. Manager noted it would be necessary to pass an ordinance to W' establish a moratorium. In answer to a question from Mr. Murray, Public Works Director noted that to his knowledge this procedure had never taken place before. 1/12/76 ~ 6 8 Mr. Bradley roved that a public hearing be scheduled to pass an ordinance instituting a moratori~m pending outcome of public hearing. Motion died for lack of a second. e As there were no objections, the Chair o:ridered that the public hearing be held in the City Council Chamber Tuesday, January 13, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. Comm , 1/7/76 Approve C. Room Tax Allocation Committee Recommendations - December 16 and 22, 1975 _ Copies of reports rrom the Room Tax Commi tt:ee and minutes of the meetings were previously furnished to Council members. 1. Eugene Community Chorus - Requested $700. Allocation Committee recom~ended $700. 2. Eugene ArchaeOlogical Society - Requested $860. Allocation Committee recor-mended $860. 3. Summer Festival of Music - Requested $5000. Allocation Comro,ittee recom~ended $5000. Comm 12/23/75 Approve 4. Co-operative Science Museum Commission - Requested $15,000. Allocation Committee recommended $15,000. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to approve Items 1, 2, and 3 as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Question was raised with regard to whether room tax monies could be allocated if the proposed site for the museum is not in the city limits. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws to approve Item 4 as recommended pending resolution of legal questions with regard to granting monies for fadli ties outside the ci tl} limits. Russell Donnelly, representing the Museum Commission, explained that the purpose is to build a planetarium/museum building in Alton Baker Park to house the planetarium and SWOMSI, possibly the Pioneer Museum now located at the county fairgrounds, and the Museum of Natural History now at the University of Oregon. Three different planetariums had originally been planned, he said - one by Lane Communi ty College, one by SWOMSI, and one by the Intermediate Education District. The Commission was created to co-ordinate the efforts of all three groups and build one planetarium for the use of the entire community. IED has committed $150,000, Mr. Donnelly said, plus funding of one permanent posi tion; SWOMSI will contribute the proceeds from the sale of its present building; and Lane County is being asked for $72,000. Other local funding in the amount or $75,000 is being sought, $15,000 of which would be represented by the request for room tax monies. Mr. Donnelly said that if matching funds are not secured the project would have to be redeveloped on a smaller level. He added tha t the Museum Commission is appearing in Seattle on January 8 to present its applica- tion for matching funds from the Department of Commerce. If that is approved, then about another $360,000 would be supplied through an EDA grant. He also referred to a pre-engineering study mentioned in the application and said the federal government will match funds for pre-engineering studies but not for planning studies. Councilmen Bradley and Murray left the meeting. - Nr. Donnelly wondered if the propel"ty could be annexed to the ci ty. It had been indicated that the Commission needs to know the city's position by January 8 and Mr. Donnelly thought the federal government would understand the city cannot commit funds beyond the present fiscal year. If the $15,000 is approved, he said, tllat would b~ sufficient commitment since it would be a first step in the three-year seque~ce. It was noted that any commi~~ent would be tentative until official action at the January 12 Council meeting. 9 , /,,,/'71:. '7 Councilman Haws raised a question about an earlier decision not to accept any more room tax applications. Assistant Manager said applicaticnsare being ac- cepted for the next fiscal year. Funding for these current projects would be coming,out of money that does not fall within the'decision of allocating money.. annually. Art Fairchild, chairman of the Room Tax Allocation Committee, said he didn't think matters could be handled satisfactorily in one meeting a year. He said that meetings are now held onaquarterly basis. He pointed out too that tj~.e Commi tt~e. had ac!vised.,the Muse!zm Cbm mission that the $15,000 allocation tv'ould be a commitment lor tl1at C1mount only, ;.;1::.11 no assurance of furti:er funds ~t a later time. Vote was taken on the motion to allocate $15,000 pending resolution of legal questions raised. Motion carried unanim~usly. Comm 12/23/75 Approv.e Manager called attention to written opinion given by the city attorney to the effect that funds legally can be appropriated for this facility. Even though it is located outside the city, it is jointly administered by the city with the county., 5. Cultural Forum - $350q requested, $2500 recommended December 16 minutes of the Room Tax Committee as well as the Committee report of Decemper 17 bavepreviousll} been distributed to Council members. Finance Director noted that $2500 was recommended by the Committee as it was felt that amount would be sufficient to cover part of the expenses for their proposed project - bringing the Theatre of the Open El}e to Eugene for one week - Februarl} 4-10, 1976. Mr. Frank GeItner, representing the Cultural Forum, stated that the recommended allOunt would' be satisfactory to ,them~ Mr. Murray llOvedseconded by Mr. Keller to approve $2500 as recommended. Motion. carried unanillOUSll}. . Comm .1/7/76 Approve D. Code Amendment, Business License Fees re: Alarm Eouipment Supolier - Copies of xemo from the finance department (December 12, 1975) and proposed amend~ent were pr.twiously furnished to the Council. The amendment t,.ould loto/er the license fee for alarm equipment suppliers from $100 to $25. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Haws to place the proposed amendment on the January 12 consent calendar for consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Manager requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda, to be brought back at a later time after more study. Comm 12/23/75 Wi thdralffl E., Segregation of Assessments Southeast corner of Benson Lane and willona Drive, Eldred L. Smith (Gradl} Brown) Tax Lot 05200 (SE 75-9) Southwest corner of Oakway Road and Cal Young Road, Oakway Development Company (Lee C. Plants) - Tax Lot 00201 (SE 75-8) Finance department reports indicated the segregations were in order and the proper amounts for portions segregated had been paid. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Haws to place the requests for segre- gations on the January 12 consent calendar for consideration. Notion carried unanimously. Conun 12/23/75 Approve e F. peti tion, Storm sewer between Delta Highway and Norkenzie Road from Green Acres Road to Holly Avenue - 100% 1/t2"17fl - Mrs. Shirey moved second by Nr. Halo/s to place the peti tion on the January 12 consent calendar for consideration. Hotlon carried ~animOUSlY. 10 Comm 12/Zi/75 Approve - G.Appointments - Downtown Development Board - Mayor Anderson has recommended reappointment of the following members to the Downtown Development Board for 3-year terms commencing 1/1/76: Jack Boettcher, Harry Farrell, Dr. Robert Loomis / M~.urie Jacobs. All four have consented to reappointment. Mr. Murray moved seconded by HI. Keller to approve DDB members, .:I. recommended. Motion carried unanillOusly. Comm ,1/7/76 Approve H. Assessment Panel Report - January 5, 1976 Present: Council members Williams and Bradley; City En9ineer Bert Teiezel 1. C.B.981 - Levying assessments for sanitary and storm sewer within Mahalo Hills 1st Addition (75-6) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 2. C.B.982 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Sleepy Hollow Addition; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow A1:ldition; and storm sewer within Dapple Way Subdivision (75-8) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. 'Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. e 3. C.B.983 - Levying assessments for paving and pedestrian wag within Dap.ple Way Subdivision (75-16) No written protests or requests' to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed~, 4. C.B.984 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Sprin9IJoulevard .from North Shasta Loop to 500 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop; sanitary sewer to serve area between' North Shasta Loop and 50Q feet south of North Shasta Loop and between Spring Boulevard and 160 feet east of Spring'Boulevard (75-17) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. s. C.B.985 - Levyin9 assessments for sanitary sewer along the south boundary of Senger Park between Norwood Street and Gilham Road (75-19) There were no requests ta be heard. Letters protesting the assessment were re- ceived from Boyd Lynn, 1422 Oakway Road, and Claude and Alta Hebert, 2153 Cal Young Road. Hr. Lynn requested "total abatement'. of the assessment on the basis that the sewer was of no benefi t to his property. He wrote tha t the property was already served and had been assessed for a sewer line on Cal Young Road. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, explained that assessment for the subject sewer would apply to property not previously assessed, the area at the rear of a deep lot that was within 160 feet of the line. The front end of the Lynn property to a 160-foot depth, he said, did have service and'had been assessed for a sewer line previously installed. He explained that the property could be developed, that it had not been assessed before for sewer service, and that there was no criteria on which to base a deferment. e The Heberts requested deferment of assessment against their land until it was de- veloped. Hr. Teitzel explained that they appeared to be eli9ible for deferment because of their age. He said an appHcation had been sent: to them along with information with regard to filing it for d~ferment of payments. Recomnienda ti on: Levy assessments as proposed wi th the understandin9 that assessment against the Hebert: propert~could be deferred upon application if eligibility was established. 1/1:2/76 -' 9 II !' ~ ~ 6. C.B.986 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street , from 4th Avenue to alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue (75-2') lio written protests or requests to be heard were received. e Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 7.C.B.987 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Oak Street and Pearl Street from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and between 14th Avenue and 15th Avenue from Oak Street to north/south alley (75-22) There were no written protests other than a request to be heard received from Isalene Crow, 295 Sunnyside Drive, owner of property at 1430 Pearl Street. Bert Teit:el, city engineer, explained that the improvement was petitioned by prop- ,erty owners who would pay 51% of the cost of the improvement (based on weighted formula; 50% front footage). Hs. Crow presented panel members with pictures showing the improvement and said it ~as of no benefit to her property, that it was solely for the benefit of property ~n the <?u~drant bou~ded by Oak, 14th, and the alley paving. ,She said only one person had pet~t~oned the ~mprovement. /1r. Teitzel explained that the project: had been petitioned by one property owner. However, before the petition was brought to the Council a poll had been taken of other affected property owners. There had been no further response in favor of the paving as a resul t of that poll. SOale had responded negatively, and there had been no response from others. The petition had been presented to the Council, he said, as 51~ petition in favor of the project with calculations based on the recently adopted assessment formula. ' . Max Liebreich, 2483 Mission Stree't, representing Archie Weinstein, owner of property abutting the alley, and Ms. Crow, said that because the project was initiated at the request of one property owner, other property owners involved had no choice in the matter ~ e Discussion brought out that Hs. Crow's property had recently been sold under con- tract stipulating a sale price which di~ not include the assessment cost. Also, that all of the properties involved were zoned C-2 although some of them were being used for residential purposes. Further discussion touched on ownership in the area, access to Hs. Crow's property, potential future use of the C-2 zoned land. " Hr. Liebreich thought notices of the project were inadequate, as did Hs. Crow who said she had received no notice other than that advising that the contract had been awarded. Hr. Teitzel explained that notices of public hearing at time of contract award were sent to all affected property owners, including Ms. Crow, but that notices never were sent after the award. Hr. Liebreich noted that because the assess- ments were not of record, property sellers woul.d be liable for the assessment cost. Councilman Williams wondered whether owners of property now being used for residential purposes would support a panel recommendad.on should the Council be approached wi th the idea of rezoning the commercial properties to residential district with the idea that the assessment then would be based on residential zoning. 'Hs. Crow said she had protested the commercial zoning when it was changed from residential ,some years back. Hr. Liebreich said his client probably wou1d support the change if the other property owners also supported it. He said there w.1s no intent at this time to use the property for other than residential purposes. Hr. :!Jradley pointed out that the property could be sold and the new owner could develop it commercially. Councilman Bradley wondered if the assessment could be deferred until the property was developed to commercial use. Hr. Teizel answered that the only basis for defer- ment was if the property was an owner-occupied single-family residence. The proper- ties are now rentals. Some question arose as to whether occupancy by a son of the property owner would constitutelOowner occupied." Mr. Williams pointed out that the question was whether the properties were properly assessed as C-2. He felt they were and noted the many, many other properties in e 1/12/76 - 10 /2 e the city zoned commercially but still in residential use which would create enumerable lien deferments should they all be delayed until developed in accordance with zoning. He saw three options (1) levy the assessments as proposed, (2) develop some plan whereby the property could be assessed as residential, deferring the difference be- tween the amount of assessment on a residential basis and that on a commercial basis until the property is developed for commercial use, and (3) assess as resi- dential with the proviso that the property owner ,would seele residential zonina and agree not to request commercial zoning for a period of 25 years. - There was further discussion with regard to potential use for the properties and use intended by present owners, what constitutesan owner-occupied dwelling, criteria for deferment until developed as commercial property, liability for interest costs should there be any type of deferment, properties in residential use penalized for cost of assessment at same rate as properties in commercial use, process by which weighted formula for assessment was developed. Mr. Williams noted Council policy of accepting petitions presented by owners of any- thing over 50' of fron t footage of property involved. He was not aware that peti- tions were based on the new assessment formula instead of front footage only. He asked how the intersection was assessed and was told that the city, in accordance with ordinance provisions, pays for all intersection paving. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. . 8. C.B.988 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers in Willona Parle Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Willona Drive from Benson Lane to 212 feet west of Benson Lane (75-16) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. . HI. Murral} moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept the report. unanimously. Motion 'Co.mm carried 12/23/75 Approve I. Liquor License - Change of Ownership - Dari Mart - 1390 Fir Acres Road - Package Store (formerly Fir Acres Maz'ket) Staff finds the application by Dad-Mart in order. Mr. Murray moved seconded-by Mr. Keller to place the above matter on the consent calendar for the January 12 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm l/7/76 Approve J. ESATS Alternatives - Mayor Anderson referred to Council's December 22 decision on transportation alternatives, saying staff has provided no comment on that de- cision. He felt it would be advisable to have some input from staff before pro- ceeding. The county, as he understands it, will not be meeting on the matter until some time in January, after the Planning Commission meets. Mr. Murray concurred with Mayor Anderson's desire for staff comment but was con- cerned with the statement "before proceeding." Hayor Anderson said he was not countermanding the action taken by the Council but felt there was nothing to prevent Council from making any amendments and suggestions warranted by staff input. It was understood that staff would comment at a subsequent commdttee meeting on the Council's action taken on the ESATS al terna ti ves . Conun 12/23/75 Approve e K:Staff Report on Council Action on Transportation Alternatives ,Report (Dec~mber 22,1975) January 2, 1976, meIrrJ from Planning and Public Works, respond~ng to Counc~l request for staff comment on Council action on the transportation alternatives, has been - distributed to Council members. That report seeks permission from the Council 13 1/12/76 - 11 to use the following percentages, for modes of travel other than the private auto, in arriving at the 30% reliance on alternatives to the auto recommended by Council: Transit-1St; Bicycle-S%; Pedestrian-S%; Paratransit-S%. Mr. Williams wondered if this type of breakd,own would still imply that a system would be developed to handle the same number as if it were 30% mass transit, the difference being that only half of the 30% would be ~ transit. e Planning Director could not answer precisely but said the attempt in giving percentages is to cevelop plans which will capture trips between zones in all modes. 30% of the trips between zones, other than truck trips, will be llDdeled in the master plan. Mr. Keller asked how percentages were arrived at for modes of travel other than mass transit. Planning Director said experimental work is being done on all the figures, the master plan to be prepared keeping the percentages in mind. Mr. Bradley wondered what it would take to have a 30% increase in mass transit could that be a realistic goal. Plartning Director responded staff~hnically does not have expertise to assess that possibility; 15% mass transit does give staff experts-something to work with. Mr. Murray expressed pleasure with staff's response, feeling it is compatible with earlier actions. He said Council's original I1Otion was adopted to place emphasis not on the number of people getting into busses but, rather, out of cars. It seems a nost important feature. He understands staff needs a finer percentage breakdown to develop a plan so it seems a good starting poit has been reached. Mr. Murray raised two points, however: 1) that the percentage breakdowns are only a starting point that could need revision at some' futUre point, -and 2) that the additional _5% breakdowns will 'require a program approach in the master pian.. - ,e Planning Director noted the percentages probably won't be uniform through all areas of the city. Councilman williams wondered if there are current figures on interzonal trips handled by bikes, pedestrians and paratransit. Traffic Engineer answered the plan development requires that each area have a portion of the plan devoted to methods of accomplishing goals so some figures on the magnitude of the various modes of travel will need to be obtained. Mr. Keller stated that, in developing a model tc;> reach goals - looking at other cities, etc. - input should be used which is most pertinent to Eugene. Mr. Bradley referred to the ESATS update, saying it spoke of mass transit and trip reduction - other alternatives such as carpooling were not mentioned. It seems that by accepting the refinement, the decision would really be to support a 15% increase in mass transit. Somehow the 30% decision Council made seems to have become lost. Mr. Murray felt that thinking to be a gross misinterpretation. He feels it essential to achieve 30% reliance on alternatives other than the private auto. For that reason, the 5% elements must be taken seriously with the plan reflecting definite programs to attempt to achieve those goals. Alternat:ives to the auto is the major goal - not simply a case of bus vs. auto. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept as a refinement to Council's earlier decision on transportation alternatives the percentage breakdowns as outlined in staff's January 2 memo; that is, 15% transit, S% bicycle, S% pedestrian and 5% paratransit. e ,1/12/i6 - 12 14 . Councilman williams noted that, with a 30' alternative figure, 70t would be auto trips. Included in that 70', however, are trucks. By knocking out the 12% figure for trucks, it would leave 58' reliance on autos which would then raise al terna ti ve methods to 42%. He would seriously question that tha t percentage could be achieved, particularly because of the way this community is laid out. Mr. Murray felt Mr. williams' posi tion to be understandable but, at the same tine, feels "we are at the end of a pattern that relied on the auto - it may well be a luxury on its way out." Mr. Murray added the goals that are being set may not be perfect; but an attempt is being made to be practical and "do somewhat better". Mr. Keller made the point that Council is "setting goals" - not establishing exact resul ts which must be reached. Efforts will be made to reach those goals but, if they cannot be reached, "then they cannot be reached". . Mr. Bradley maved seconded by Mr. the January 14 Committee meeting. present voting aye except Council no. Williams to table the motion until Motion carried, all council members members Shirey, Murray and Haws voting Comm 1/7/76 Approve L. Appeal from Planning Comrndssion Denial of Zone Change Request (Z 75-6) by Jess Hayden for Tax Lot 100 (Assessor's Map 17-04-36-4-2) SoutlT..-est Corner Lot of 11th and Polk Avenues - From R-2 to RP Copy of appeal dated December 12, 1975, has been distributed to Council members. e Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. ~illiams to set a public hearing on the above appeal for January 26. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Murray abstaining. ' Comm 1/7/76 Approve M. Planning Commission Recommendations - December 2, 1975 1. Cal Young House (Bierly) (Z 75-15) - Located at Intersection of Cal Young Road and Norkenzie Road - from RA to H Historic District Mr. Murray mved seconded by Mr. Keller to set a hearing on the above zone change for January 26. MOtion carried unanillOusly. Comm 1/7 /76 Approve 2. Christian House (City) (Z 75-16) - Located on the south side of 12th Avenue, between Oak and Pearl Streets - From C-2 to H Historic District Mr. Murray maved seconded by Mr. Keller to set: a hearing on the above zone change for January 26. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye except HI. Bradley and Mr. Haws abstaining. Conun 1/7 /76 Approve 3. John Nelson (Z 75-17) - Located off the East End of E. 41st Avenue, East of E. Amazon Drive - From RA to RA-SR Mr. Murrag moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set a hearing on the above zone change for January 26. Motion carried unanimausly. Corom 1/7 /76 Approve e N. Code Amendment - Section 9.587 - Bicycle Storaqe Recommended bg the Planning Commission November 24, 1975 Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set a public hearing on the above code amendment for January 26. Motion carried unanimausly. Comm 1/7/76 Approve /s 1/12/76 - 13 - O. Council minufes October 13, 1975 as circulated Approve P. Springfield Legal Opinion on 1990 Plan - Mr. Bradley requested staff response to an opinion by Springfield's City Attorney, as 'reported in the Register- Guard, on the 1990 Plan and how that city might be resolving any existing 'zoning inconsistencies. Comm . 1/7/76 Affirm Q. Election of Council President and Vice-President - It was announced that an Comm Execut;ive Session would be held at; 7:00 p.m. on January 12 i'n Council Chambers 1/7/76 Office #1 to elect a new Council President and Vice-President for the coming year. Affirm R. West University Neighbors - Chambliss Report - October 6 letter from Mr. Chambliss and December 23 Planning Department memo have been distributed to Council members. Mr. Chambliss is requesting a meet;ing with Council and Planning comrndssion members on zoning and other developmental matt;ers in his neighborhood. It was suggested that perhaps a Commission member and a Council member could meet with the neighborhood group and staff to discuss what interim proposals might be undertaken before a thoroug~ refinement plan can be adopted. Mr. Haws wondered if there is any reason for restricting the proposed procedure to this one are of town. Planning Direct;or responded it is an area in dire need of a refinement plan and one that is not receiving priority becuase other critical problems are being addressed. Possibly by airing concerns in the manner proposed, some interim results could be obtained. Mr. Murray spoke in favor of the suggested approach. The area in question is one of critical concern, he said, and it can suffer since any attempt to address ,the problems could be three or more years down the road.', Mr~ Haws' wonde'red ,if o-ther areas could request the same kind,,!f ~ction, to which Manager replied thai: it would be' possible, pending the outcome of this first; attempt. e, It was understood that a Council member and a Planning Comrndssion member would be asked to meet wit;h the neighborhood g-roup as suggested. , . Comm 1/7 /76 Affirm s. Appointment, Court Administrator - Manager announced appointment of Sandra Adams, a ten-year court employe, as municipal court administrator, effective January 1, 1976. The new department head position was created to facilitate co-ordina~ion of court functions wi th other ci ty departments. Comm 1-2/23/75 File T. Eugene Housing Information Survey - Manager referred t;o a survey which is cur- rently being sent out to occupants of a 10% sample of Eugene dwelling unit~ in co-operation with efforts already underway by Lane County and Springfield. Mr. Murray noted that the Housing and Community Development; Co~ssion has re- viewed the survey and made comments that have been incorporat;ed into the survey itself. Comm 12/23/75 File u. Valley Iron and Steel Strike - Copies of lett;er from Ray L.-Edwards of the strike committee of Valley Iron and Steel were previously distributed to Council members. The strike committee urg-ed the city to take a position with regard to purchasing from Valley Iron and Steel during the strike. Mr. Edwards said he is one of 30 people on strike and that the company has been convicted of 13 violations of the Labor Relations Act. If the City Council does not participate in a boycott of the company, he said, it would in fact be supporting the type of management he described. .~ Councilwoman Shirey wondered what normal ci ty policy is. Manager answered that: the city traditionally does not take a position. 1/12/76 - 14 1ft:, e . . Eileen Smith, member, 'of the strike committee, said the ci.ty is taking a position by buying goods from the company. Don Allen, public works director, said that the ci ty buys from the compa.ny only for maintenance purposes, and the goods are bought by a contractor over which the city has no control. Mr. Edwards wondered if the city could preclude purchases by the contractors. Mayor Anderson explained that, while the private sector can do this, the city has to live with precedent. Once the city established a boy- cott, it loIOuld be subject to tremendous pressures involving labor/management relations. He said it would be impossible for the ci ty to enforce or continue any kind of boycott. Also, he felt that many statutes provide for adequate remedies on labor/management disputes. For the city to inject a new element which in- volved public opinion in the private sector would not be wise. Mr. Edwards asked 'what legal problems loIOuld be involved in precluding purchases by contractors. .'-tanager answered that the ci ty charter does not alloC1 the Council to make deci- sions with regard to purchases except under certain circumstances. The Manager is the chief purchasing agent:, he said, and there are state laws on bidding, etc., Also, there is no city ordinance outlining purchasing requirements. It was understood that any further discussion on the matter should be directed to the city manager's office. v. L~tter to Management from Coopers & Lybrand, auditors, dated December 15, 1975 iias distributed to Council members with committee agenda. The letter reported on continuing efforts to improve the city's operations and controls. 1'/. Joint Revenue Sharing Committee Vacancy - Mr. Keller mentioned that a vacancy exists on the Joint Revenue Sharing subco~ttee, since Dr. Hugh Johnston is no, longer a Budget Commi ttee member. It was understood tha t it is 'the responsibility of the Budget,Co~ttee chairnan to appoint someone to fill the vacancy. x. Introduction of Intern in City Manager's Office - Manager introduced Hargaret Hallet, U of 0 student, who will serve as an intem in the Ci ty. Manager's office for Winter Term. Y. Westside Neighborhood Improvement Program Under COmt:1unity Development Crant: Status Report - Murray A draft dated December 22, 19.75, has been distributed to Council, outlining various proposals for the Westside lIeighborhood Improvement Program, as developed by the neighborhood advilfOZ'!/ group. Included in the draft is a chronological synopsis of the events leading to the development of the Program. Mr. Murray explained the proposals. wi1.1 go to the Westside NeighborhOOd Quality Project for review January 13, then on to the Joint Community Development Committee on January 15. All of the proposals, continued ."fr. Hurray, are based largely on understood goals emerging from early Comnnmity Development Task Force work and the Westside NeighborhOOd Refinement Plan. The major thrust is the incl usion of programs to stimulate and supplement use of other rehabilitation funds. Included is an insulation program which ,should result in reduetion of heating costs to more than compensate for program costs. Additionally, a plan has been developed for the area between Washington and Chamelton Streets, as well as projects related to Lincoln School and various other endeavors. If Council has questions after reviewing the draft, both Mr. Murray and Planner Jim Farah will be glad to respond. z Portland Meadows Eugene Day - Mayor Anderson announced a request from Portland Headows, Portland, to have a Eugene representative present on Saturday, January 17. Any Council member wishing to represent the Ci ty should let Mayor Anderson know. 17 1/12/76 - 15 . Comm 12/23/75 File Comm 12{23{75 File Co rom 1/7/76 File Comm 1/7/76 File Cor.un 1/7/76 File Comm 1/7/76 File AA. Procedures for Appointments to Boards and Commissions - it~egard to appoint- ment procedures, materials will be sent to Council membeFs on January 9. If time permits after election of Council officers on Janua~y 12, discussion will be held on those procedures. Mr. Murray noted Mr. Maxwell's term on the Plann1ng Commission expires 1/1/76 and Mr. Maxwell is interested in reappointment. Comm 1/7/76 File e Mr. Keller moved seco~d by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm and file as noted Items A through AA. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye. v - Ordinances Council Bill No. 981 - Levying assessments for sanitary and storm sewers within Mahalo Hills 1st Addition (75-6), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in:€ull. Mr. Keller moved seiond by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. AllicQuncitimembetspvosent voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17502. Council Bill No. 982 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Sleepy Hollow Addition; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet north and south of Sleepy Hollow Addition; and storm sewer within Dapple Way Subdivision (75-8), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller movea_,second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17503. e Council Bill No. 983 - Levying assessments for paving and ped~strian way within Dapple Way Subdivision (75-16), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17504. Council Bill No. 984 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Spring Boulevard from North Shasta Loop to 500 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop;-sanitary sewer to serve area between North Shasta Loop and 500 feet south of North Shasta Loop and between Spring Boulevard and 160 feet east of Spring Boulevard (75-17), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assessment, panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill nwnber and title only, there being no~.'etouncil member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approve~ and giVen final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and ~ numbered 17505. ~ -., .... 1/12/76 - 16 Ie . e Council Bill No. 985 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer along the south boundary of Senger Park between Norwood Street and Gilham Road (75-19) read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred toassessment panel for hearing on January 5,1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17506. Council Bill No. 986 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street from 4th Avenue to alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue (75-20), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assess- ment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17507. e Council Bill No. 987 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Oak Street and Pearl Street from 14th Avenue to east/west alley; and between 14th Avenue and 15th Avenue from Oak Street to north/south alley (75-22), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to, assessment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haw? that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17508. Council Bill No. 988 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer in Willona Park Subdivision, and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Willona Drive from Benson Lane to 212 feet west of Benson Lane (75-36), read the first time on December 22, 1975 and referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 5, 1976, was brought back and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17509. Council Bill No. 990 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 15th Avenue and 16th Avenue from Hilyard Street to Alder Street (75-11) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recommenda- tions on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill No. 991 - Levying assessments for paving alley between Pearl Street and High Street from 14th Avenue to 15th Avenue (75-12) was read by council bill number and ,title only, there being no council member present request7 ing that it be read in full. /9 1/12/76 - 11 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 992 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-13) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hmring on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 993 - Levying assessments for paving Balfour Street from Montreal Avenue to 150 feet north and 100 feet south (75-15) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present re- requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 994 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue from Ferry Street to Patterson Street (75-21) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- ~ mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 995 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Woodhaven Subdivision; paving Garfield Street from 26th Place to 27th Avenue, and 26th Place from 27th Avenue to Garfield Street; sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Garfield Street from 360 feet north of 26th Place to 27th Avenue, and within 160 feet of 26th Place from 27th Avenue to Garfield Street (75-27) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 996 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Hazel Park Subdivision (75-30) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimosuly. Council Bill No. 997 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers in K&R Subdivision, and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of Dove Lane from 700 feet west of Taney Street to 100 feet west of Taney Street (75-32) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. e 1/12/76 - 18 20 e e e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel, for hearing on January 19, 1976 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 998 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on McLean Boulevard from 28th Avenue to south (75-1003) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on January 19, 1975 and brought back for council consideration of panel recom- mendations on January 26, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. VI - Resolutions Resolution No. 2472 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period December 22, 1975 through January 12, 1976 was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Mayor Anderson noted hearing scheduled January 13 on the 40th and Donald Bi-Mart request. He said testimony would be limited to one hour for each side, after which the Council mayor may not make a decision in the matter. There were no objections. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, January 13, 1976, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber. /')/ ') /I. a u'-<~ {~ Charles T. Henry City Manager 21 1/12/76 - ,19