HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/1976 Meeting
-'
,
,
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
e September 13, 1976
Regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called
to order by His I~nor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber
on September 13, 1976, with the following Council members present: Gus Keller,
Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel and Edna Shirey.
Tom Williams was absent.
1. PUBLIC I1EARINGS
T-A-l A. LIquor License - New. Godtz Garden Restaurant, 390 East 40th Avenue,
+R- Restaurant) there were found to be two objectors and
n IntervJcwing neighbors,
13 non-objectors. One objection was late night traffic and one said
"inappropriate for area". Staff feels all qualifications have been
met and has no objections.
Public hearing was opened.
Leigh Iverson, 2869 Taylor, representative of the Edgewood Shopping
Center, said that of the 14 businesses in the center, 12 are in favor
and one is concerned and one is absent from the City.
e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Mr. Kcller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to recommend
approval of the license. Motion carried unanimously.
T-A-2 B. Youth Commi6sion . .
rlleI e hd.v C cett--'d consIderable number of meet1.ngs of the Youth Task
orce, along witl. staff and citizens. The resulting proposal was to
create a 9-member commission, appointed by the Council. The proposed
gOal of the Commission would be to ascertain the status and treatment
of youth, identify with the problems, disseminate information to youth
pertaining to rights and responsibility and encourage their participation,
Two youth representatives would serve on the Human Rights Council.
Public hearing was opened.
Jim Forbes, SSO River Road, member of the committee, expressed
appreciation for all efforts as did Wendy Edwards, 143S Olive.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further
testimony presented.
.
Lf3b Minutes - 9/13/76 -- 1
!
,
.'
C. B. 1230--Creating Youth Commission was read by number and e
title only, there being no Council member present
requ'esting it be read in full.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously,
and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Keller moved, secondedby 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 17748.
Res. No. 2557--Authorizing transfer of $15,100 from General
Operating Contingencies Fund for staffing Youth
Commission balance of year 1976-77 was read by
number and title.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt the
resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously.
I
l-A-3 C. tPpe~lifrom Planni~g Commissio~ den~al of,rezoning requests
. e ween Del fa lhghway and Wlllaglllesple Road, north of Delt;a .
Interchange', from City and County RA to C-2 (Wild ish) (2 75-5)
Oenieu by thH Planning Commission on July 6. An appe:al ha<dl lb<ee1Ill
schedul ed for August 9, but the appellant requested resdl~li.4.iiiiJ1l.g,.
Mr, Saul, Planner, said the Planning Commission's basis for :d1€ttllii.al1
involved two criteria: (1) Question of conformance .with. fGe'l1ler;all
Plan; (2) Comparison of other available property in the area.
Nc> exparte cc>ntacts or conflicts of interest were
declared by Council members, Planning Commission
staff notes and minutes of July 6, 1976 were
received as part of the record.
Public hearing was opened.
Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak, distributed materials and asked that the
entire Planning COIl1JTlission file be incorporated in and made ~a.1rt
()f the prQceedings, including the application and exhibits lp:!1iUls
the 1990 Plan. The appeal involves 3.4 acres of land. Tax ~oit 2[~0
is in the City, Vacant and zoned RA; Tax Lot 2000 contains 't'WOa.:ct"c:s"
recently annexed to the City, is vacant, and has not b~en ~~~~ ~y
Eugene since annexation. ~lr. Gleaves offered an aerial ph~t~ ;as ~n
exhibit ,
,
Lt31 Mi nutes 19.n~s1';16 ~~ :2
\
Mr. Gleaves felt the two parcels must be considered together.
e Access would be to Tax I~t 2100; Lot 2000 would have no access
from public streets. Sewers cannot be provided to Lot 2000
without pumping. He said a full range of public services
are available if considered as one parcel. Mr. Gleaves submits
that the City has a duty to properly zone property afer
annexation. He said a Planning Commission majority acknowledged
that low density residential was not proper for the property.
He submits the plan does not dictate a particular use. He
acknowledged the plan diagram would indicate low density
residential. but there is not a detailed plan covering small
parcels such as this.
The strategically located property falls within an area which
should be considered for C-2 under the code, and unless rezoning
is granted, Lot 2000 cannot be used for any useful purpose.
Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission took a position that a zone
Change would not be in accordance with the 1990 Plan, that low
density residential is recommended for this section. A second
element of the Planning Commission's decision i nvo I ved pubh c
need. Mr. Saul said the Council has completed rezoning of 55 acres
on the south portion of Good Pasture Island. Some of that is
vacant and available for the type contemplated in the proposed
zone change.
~1r . Gleaves rebutted that a C-2 commercial district should be
e near a major intersection or a major thoroughfare. When property
cannot be utilized as is, there is no basis to say this particular
quadrant is not appropriate for commercial development; and the
Planning Commission has said close residential development should
have facilities to go along with it.
Mr. Saul thought it correct that the Planning Commission did question
whether or not, considered in abstract, RA would be right on Lot 2000.
But a variety of factors were not discussed in the hearing since
it dealt with 3 specific request for a specific zone. The range
of consideration the Planning Commission considered did not figure
in the recommendation were whether or not it would he feasihle
to consider Lot 2000 as adjunct to Lot 2100 at low density level,
and also explicit mention by a Planning Commission memher on
Whether it may be necessary to consider something in the medium
density area. The third consideration was whether RP would be
appropriate. Those all were not explored because of the presence
of a Specific request.
As to other alternatives, Mr. Saul said one possibility is RP.
Again it is misleading to talk about one parcel in isolation
frOm the rest, he said.
Mr. Ke 11 er moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to uphold denial,
including findings of Commission as entered into the record.
e
4.38 Minute 9/13/76 -- 3
,
Mr. Hamel felt the property would act as a fine buffer for e
traffic with light residential.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried, with all
Council members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel
voting no.
1-B-2 2. South of Eastwood Lane, east of Fairway Loop, from R-l to RP
(Hayes)(Z 76-19)
Denied by the Planning Commission July 13, 1976. Mr. Saul said
seven acres have been zoned R-l for a number of years. It is
not the first time the request has been heard. Planning
Commission in 1974 denied a request and it was not appealed.
The Planning Commission did not believe there was a public
need.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were
declared by Council members. Staff notes and minutes
of July 13, 1976 were entered into the record by
reference thereto.
Public hearing was opened.
Doug McKay, 450 Stonyridge,McKay Investment, acting on behalf e
of Wayne Hayes, said he felt the changes in the neighborhood
justify rehearing. One problem in the neighborhood is the
traffic on Eastwood coming from Delta Highway across Fairway
Loop. In this proposal, he said they propose to add an additional
cross street to take most of the traffic out of the residential
area. In regard to conformance to plan, he said the plan shows
commercial area at Oakway and Coburg Roads. Regarding need for
change, staff has not denied the need for medical zoning, but
they are concerned it is not the proper location. Mr. McKay
said a major portion of the Oakway/Coburg area is regional in
nature, not serving just the local area. He feels that the need
has increasing emphasis since the Planning Commission is considering
taking clinic use out of R-3 which would deny some existing locations
for similar types of facilities.
Miles McKay, 1584 River Loop #1, feels the zoning request has been
denied on a failure to demonstrate public need. Rezoning probably
hinges on three considerations: traffic, effect on adjacent owners,
demonstration of public need. Regarding traffic, he said any
additional traffic would be from 9 to 4:30, not on weekends or
holidays. Regarding the effect on property owners, it would
increase property values. On public need, this is an acceptable
area for doctors themselves and has been very acceptable to their
patients. There are now 27 doctors and dentists at the Oak way Mall.
Feedback has been very good and the area is close to the hospitals. e
Minutes 9/13/76 -- 4
'13"
Don Fisher, 585 Fair Oaks Drive, speaking on his own behalf,
said he circulated a petition. Within two or three blocks,
e virtually every home opposed the request. He is certain
almost any doctor in town would want to locate on the property,
being bordered on two sides by residential plus the golf course.
He felt that, with space downtown, it would be a shame to allow
introduction of more commercial interests. Regarding traffic, he
felt that would have to be addressed sooner or later regardless
of the proposed development. He noted the traffic now is not a
9 to 4 p.m. problem. Rather, it starts about 7:30 a.m. and ends
about 6 p.m. He suggested the traffic problem was severe.
Chris lJhrbrand, 2181 Eastwood Lane, supported Mr. Fisher's comments.
Traffic is really bad Monday through Sunday, he said, and Eastwood
is llsed as a shortcut.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further
testimony presented.
Mr. Saul said staff notes submitted do contain a lengthy analysis
and Planning Commission minutes contain an analysis on the public
need issue. lIe noted that the issue of eliminating clinics from
R-3 districts is not being pursued.
~Ir . Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to uphold
Planning Commission's denial and incorporate findings
of July 13 Planning Commission minutes. Jl10tion carried
e unanimously.
D. Rezoning
I-B-3 ~-Northwest corner of Gilham Road and Brewer Lane, from R^ to R^-SR
(Sprad I in) (Z 76-22)
Recommended by Planning Commission July 13, 1976. The applicant,
accordi ng to Mr. Saul, had indicated intent to develop property
with four units. The Planning Commission recommendation includes
a provision that development be limited to four units.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest
were declared by Council members. Staff notes
and minutes of July 13, 1976 were received as
part of the record by reference thereto.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B. 1231 - Rezoning to RA-SR area at northwest corner of
Gilham Road and Brewer Lane was read by number
and title only, there bcin~ no Council member
prescnt requesting it be read in full.
,- Haws that findings
Mr. Keller moved, seconded hy Mr.
supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission
staff notes and minutes of July 13, 1976 he adopted hy
e reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time
by counc i I hi 11 number only, with unanimous consent of the
Council, Jnd that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried unanimously and the bi 11 was read the
second time by council bill number only.
L[Lio Minutes c,:J/13/7{" -- 5
.-
------
Mr. Keller moved, seconded hy Mr. Haws, that the
hill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall
vote. All Council members present voting aye, the .
bill was declared passed and numbered 17749.
1-B-4 2. North side of Broadway between Grant and Chambers, from R-3
to M-2 (Dutch/Girl Ice Cream Company)(Z 76-23)
Recommended by Planning Commission July 13, 1976. Mr. Saul gave
background and said the Planning Commission did include site review
procedures: (1 ) insure compatability with surroundings; (2) review
particularly the open space and land; (3) ingress and egress of
traffic.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest
were declared by Council members. Staff notes
and minutes of July 13, 1976 were received as
part of the record by reference thereto.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C. B. 1232 - Rezoning to M-2 area on north side of Broadway
between Grant Street and Chambers Street was
read by number and title only, there being no
Council member present requesting it be read
in full.
--- -
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that findings
supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission --
staff notes and minutes of July 13, 1976 be adopted by
reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time
by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the
Council; and that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the
second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded 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 17750.
1-B-5 3. South side of 3rd Avenue between Adams and Jackson, from M-2 to
R-2 (Funke/Henderson)(Z 76-28)
Recommended by Planning Commission July 13, 1976.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest
Were declared by Council members. Staff notes
and minutes of July 13, 1976 were received as
part of the record by reference thereto.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that findings
supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission
staff notes and minutes of July 13, 1976 be adopted by
reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time .
by council hill number only, with unanimous consent of the
Council; and that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the
second time by council bill number only.
Y~l Minutes 9/13/76 -- 6
tvlr. Ke 1 ] er moved, sel:onded hy tvlr. Haws, that the hill he
approved and given final pa~sage. Rollcall vote. All
Council members present votJng aye, the bill was declared
e passed and numhered .!.?751.
l-R-I; 4. Southeast corner of 29th Avenue and Willamette, Street, from RG to
C-2 SR (A&W Root Beer)(Z 76-20)
-,
Recommended by Planning Commission July 26, 1976. The application
was suhmitted for the purpose of providing additional area for
remodeling of A & W.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were
declared by Council members. Staff notes and minutes
of July 26, 1976 were received as part of the record
by reference thereto.
PubUc hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Haws didn't understand why the Planning Commission approved, as
it wOuld extend commercial property south of the cutoff. Mr. Saul
said the original recommendation was for denial and was predicated
on the consideration that the Planning Commission and Council had
drawn definitive boundary lines on further commercial zoning to the
south. After listening to testimony on the matter, the Planning
Commission felt it would maintain a division between residential
e and commercial and would not lead to an erosion process. A & W
remains a problem because of curb cuts and its proximity to the
interchange itself. It was felt that by allowing expansion south-
,/ ward, curb cuts could be eliminated and moved farther to the south.
It was felt the layout would be done in a better fashion that way.
The Planning Commission felt it was satisfactory to meet the criteria
of public need.
r.lr. Bradley expressed concern that there would be major expansion.
Mrs. Shirey felt it would not be adding new commercial development,
but rather making something there better.
Mr. I1a\oJs said there would be 110 control once it is rezoned. Manager
said the traffic problem should be eased with the rezoning.
Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by nrs. Beal, to table.
Mr. Bradley said he would want staff to present more facts and
figures at the next Committec-of-the-Whole meeting.
City Attorney said that, in a quasi-judicial matter, a motion to
table is troublesome. Technically, the Council would still be
in deliberation. tvlr. Keller was frustrated by the lack of intent
of the motiOIl, being opposed to procrastinating. Twenty-ninth and
Willamette had been a problem for years, he said.
e Mayor Anderson noted that, rather than tabling, if there is one vote
in opposition on first reading, the matter would be automatically
postponed for two weeks. There would be nothing to prohibit anyone
to request staff to come back with additional information to help
Lf42.. Minutes 9/13/76 -- 7
reach a decision. Also at that time, there would be opportunity
to request a further postponement. Mr. Bradley said his intent e
1S that he does not think Council has enough information.
Vote was taken on the motion to table, which failed,
with Beal Haws, and Bradley voting aye; Hamel, Murray,
Ke 11 er and Shirey voting no.
C.B. 1234 - Rezoning to C-2 SR area at southeast corner of
29th and Willamette Street was read by council
bill number and title only, there being no Counci 1
member present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that findings
supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission
staff notes and minutes of July 26, 1976 be adopted by
reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time
by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the
Council; and that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried with Hamel, Murray, Keller, and Shirey
Voting aye; Beal, Haws and Bradley voting no.
Lacking unanimous consent, the bill was held for second
reading September 20, 1976.
-- ~ -' .
II -A-2 E. Bids - Public Works Department - Various improvement projects (opened 9/8/76)
-
Cost to ^=-C<...'1t e
Na:::. of !H.d~n and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost te City Budgeted
f!.~
I. Pav~n& Counny Club Road from Vlllley River
Way to Delta HiShlollJY (In 7)
Altet'"nat~ Bid B.uic 1Hd
I. E:uger.c Sand 6 Cravel. Inc............$1J.J20.97......d ----0- ............28' Paving....' 19.20/................ .0........",.... .0..,...........
, !:cnge Paving. Inc,................. .$14.466.10 $14,629.57
3. .,;:tC.lS:~ Cor.struction Com~<1ny.........$14.900.45 $14.068.55
4, S~~f'-\.'~Y Contractors I rnc........... .$15.460.40 $14,365.40
Cct'1PLETION nATE; October 22, 1976 .
l'A\'t'tG, ~A';XV,9.'{ SF.I~ER & STORl,' S::'wF.R
2. Wlt:.l:l Alex.-A Subdivision and u,nttary s~ver on -
aO~~:1 Avenue extended from Alex-A Subdivision ....
lw"es:' :0 RU!lkin Street and on Dove Uno adjAcent
to A!ex-.... Subdivision. (1293) "".,
Alternate Bid h!:ic Bid
1. :>.a!\ Allsup C~ntrllctor, 1ne............$20.142..30.......-o- .......~.....28' P.ving..n$ 22.40/FP
, S:-.cr-'.Jay Contractors. Inc.............$21.269.10 $21,632.65 ;:~: ;:~~::~~:J8~~:~~~q.Ft '_.:,
3. ~c&ene Send & Graval, loc.:...........9:21/140.15 0
4. ;.;. 6 J Construction Co.................S22.021.70 $22,446.50 Stortn Sewer.. .$612.00/l.oc.. .... ........ .$2.400.00.... :...0 ... .............
5. ~en ~ostick Construction Co...........$23.461.00 0
6. ....t.!di.h Corutruction Co...............$24.696.40 $25,064.90
7. _'.::!lIlIS A. Hil1.........................$ 0 $26.145.86
CO~lPlE1"10~ DATE: October 1S. 1976
SANlTA.l{Y SF:'.,'E~
.. Dcltil Hlgi':loI'ay from Goodpsuuro Island Road ,
to 600 feet south (1267)
1. ~;-.~t~W~~~~;~~:~~~r~~. ~~~..'.:: :'. ....::.. ...... .... ....::..:.. :...J~;:~~~:~g"'.".."'."'.' .$27 .OOO.~D by ~&r4t~t.. ......... ..0 ..................0 ...........
1.
3. EU~e.:H! Sand & Gravel, Inc. ......P................ $27.640.20
4. i(en BC'stick Construction Co.................~...... $27.810.00
5. JatN!!I A. 11111............................ ...... ... $JO,425.00
6. Da.n Allsup C~ntract:o[". Inc~............', ......... $J2tJG9.\iG
7. 1oI1ldl.h Constr\.lccion Company...................... $JJ,lJj.OO
CmiPLtTlON DATE: October 29, 1976
4. Cr~s! Place from Cross Street to 400 feet north
(1279) '~
I. J.J:-.es A. Hill ..............~.......................$6.291.61................5.10. Lat..... $ O.aES/Sq. Ft...........$3.000.00 defer .....0............
2, 1-16. J Con!ltt'uction Co. ............................. $6,420.00 San. Serv.... .$386.00/Ea asse.sment
3, Ken Bostick Constructlon Co. ...................... $7,591.40 tit
4. h'Udtsh CotuJtruction COlllpany..n.................. $7,748.00
5. Eugene.Sand 6. Gravel, tnc. ........................ $8.026.60
6. Shur~""'ay Contractors. Inc. ........................ $8,340.00
7. Oa:"l Allsup Contractor, Ine......................... $6,632.40
8. u:cr.ald Excavation 60 Construction................. $8.979.00
CCMPUnON DATE: November 1,. 1976
'iLf3 Minutes 9/13/76 -- 8
-'
n::VCt': ?.. :!l
~. Cob\:rS lto.d h<rn Fe.rry Street Brldse to Be 1 t 1 ine
load (1165)
tit 1. Eu,.ne Send Era Crovel, rnc........ ................. ,$18,201.05. ..... ..0...0...... .0....... .... ....... ............. ..$28.201.05...... .517,500.00.....
2. t:tldi.h Conatrllction Co............................$33.462.00
). S~ur.w.)' Contractors. Inc..........................$J7,6t8.45
C(Y,iPu:rlO~1 DATE: Nove~or 15, 1976 ,
At.LEY p....:r'.7,
-
6. ~t~en 5th AVl!cuo 6. 6th Avenue trOGl HiSh StreU ,
~o ~.arl Street (1261) '""'
1. S~ur-Va)' Contraetors, Ine..........................$13,214.50.......~.....U 1/2 - $ 0.943/,"P ...e 1/1 - $O.94J.n:P7.....StOnl .2..'0.0::J....0.......
2. "'11dl.h Construction Co......................~... ..$15,995.50 ~ O.OOl/''SW $O.OO6/VSW , :~
3. !(ell ~o,t1ck Conetruction Co........................$16,261.00
4. J31:.eS A. Hill.... ..0........ .0... ..0...0.... ..... ..$17,680.65
CctiFInIO.'l DATE: October 22, 1976
Don G i 1 man, assistant public works director, reviewed the bids as tabulated.
Contract award was recommended to the low bidder on each of tha projects.
Public hearing was opened.
Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak, appearing on behalf of Valley River Inn, said that
the Inn is opposed to the paving of Country Club Road from Valley River Way
to Delta Highway. He questioned staff's contention that 55 percent of the
property owners were in favor of the improvement. He also mentioned that the
street in front of one of the property owners will not be improved to
speci fi cat ions. Additionally, curb cuts being proposed would deprive the Inn
of valuable parking facilities.
e A representative of the property owners on the north side of the street
spoke in support of the repaving.
Public hearing was closed.
Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, explained that the curb cuts have been discussed
with the Valley River Inn manager who indicated he had also had a discussion
with the Inn owner on the matter. If the project is approved, it is assumed
that staff will discuss the curb cuts with the owners as well. Mr. Teitzel
added too that the property which is not being improved to specification is
outside the city limits. Regarding the percentage of property owners in
favor of the improvement, he explained that the percentage was considered on
a straight-line basis and not around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Teitzel finally
commented that there is a right-of-way problen with the Valley River property.
Staff can design around that property if the Inn is not willing to dedicate
it.
Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to send the project
back to the engineering staff for the purpose of working
out details with Valley River Inn. Motion failed, Council
members Harne I , Beal and Keller voting aye and Council
members Haws, Murray, Bradley and Shirey voting no.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to award the contract
to the low bidder as proposed. Motion carried, all counci 1
members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel and Mr. Keller voting
e no.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to award contracts to the
low bidder on Projects 2 through 6. Motion carried unanimously.
'f'-fLf Minutes 9/13/76 -- 9
II. Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as e
requested. Previously discussed in Committee-of-Whole August 25 (Present:
Mayor Anderson; Council members Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley,
Hamel, and Shirey) and September 8 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Counci I
members Keller, Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, Hame I , and Shirey). Minutes
of those meetings appear below printed in italics.
I - Items from Mayor and Council-
Com 8/25/76 A. City Representation, Plan Policy Committee - Councilman Bradley announced that
File neither he nor Councilwoman Beal would be able to attend the August 26,
7:00 a.m., Plan Policy Conmdttee meeting. Councilman Murray volunteered with
the understanding that staff would provide transportation for him.
B. Complaints
Com 8/25/76 1. Parking Fee - Councilwoman Beal asked for a review of fees charged for in-
File correct parking in spaces near doctors' offices. She had received a com-
Plaint from a person who received a $5.00 ticket for parking beyond the
space provided when hurriedly trying to get her husband to a doctor.
Com 8/25/76 2. Access for Handicapped - Councilwoman Shirey said a gentleman in her area
File confined to a wheelchair had been unable to vote at the last two elections
because there was no wheelchair access to his polling place. She wondered
if contact could be made with the proper jurisdiction to remedy the situa-
tion. Assistant Manager noted similar complaints had been received with
regard to city facilities used for polling places. He explained that polling
places are established by the county elections office, and because it. is a 4i'
one-day use, the county cannot mandate major physical changes. However,
the city was investigating its own facilities in that regard. He suggested
also that the Commission on Rights of the Handicapped could pursue the
'-. ~. issue with the county and with different agencies owning structures where
elections were held.
It was understood particulars of both complaints would be given
to Dale Harkey of the city manager's office for exploration and
correction if possible.
Com 8/25/76 C. Resignation, Commission on Rights of Minorities - Note was taken of resigna-
Affirm tion of Mike Phillips from the Commission on Rights of Minorities. Assistant
Manager advised that alternate Man Wai Lau was not interested in appointment
since he would soon be leaving the community. Alternate Whitty Bass was
interested in the appointment, but requested a brief delay before making his
commi tment .
It was understood appointment to fill the vacancy would be
delayed for a month.
Com 8/25/76 D. High Accident Locations - Summary report prepared by the police department
File and public works department was previously distributed to Council members.
Assistant Manager noted it was an informational report unless the Council
wished to schedule it for discussion at some later time. He noted the inter-
section of 29th and Willamette was "off the top of the list" and hoped it e
would be even lower on the next list because this report covered only the
partial year since improvement of the intersection.
Com 8/25/76 E. Community Development Block Grant - Assistant Manager announced receipt of
Fire- word from Senator Packwood's office of a $337,000 Community Development
Block Grant to the city. 1.:145
Minutes 9/13/76 -- 10
....--
Com F. ERA Vacancies - Copies of memo from the Eugene Renewal Agency were previously
8/J.76 distributed to Council members setting out recommendations for filling two
A m vacancies on the Agency. Because of the absence of another member of the
Agency during the month of September, Council was asked to set a date at this ~
time for consideration of applications that would be received until August 31.
It was understood that copies of applications would be dis-
tributed to the Council on September 1, discussion of the
applicants to be at a special Council meeting at 11:00 a.m.
on September 8.
Com G. Improvement Peti tions
8/25/76 1. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in Seychelles West Subdivision (1307)
Approve 2. Paving and sani tary sewer within Frosland Subdivision (1295)
3. Sanitary sewer between Agate and Emerald, 26th to 27th (1190)
Assistant Manager noted that all three projects were petitioned by owners of
more than 90% of properties which would be assessed on each project.
Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to approve the peti tions.
Motion carried unanimously.
Com H. Improvement of Highway 99N from Roosevelt Boulevard to the north city limits -
8/25/76 Memo from public works department was previously distributed to Council members
Approve setting out the hearing process for this project to be undertaken jointly with
the State Highway Department. Don Allen, public works director, noted Council
~ authorization for initiation of the project through citizen planning meetings
.., and presentation of design criteria. He said that had been done, and staff,
with State Highway staff, is ready to hold a hearing on August 30. Council ~
was requested to schedule its hearing on September 20. Mr. Allen said the ~
project would involve improvement of drainage, add curbs and sidewalks, but
no additional lane construction except for bikes. He said there would be some
provision for bus stops. One major consideration would be a divider down the
center, he said, with tree plantings similar to Franklin Boulevard, and with
tree plantings behind the sidewalks. He added that a short presentation would be
made at the Council hearing.
Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing
on the Highway 99N improvement project at the September 20
Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
II - Segregation of assessments - Southwest corner of Bailey Hill Road and West 11th -
Requested by Pioneer Title Company for Miles-Hiatt Investments. Staff recommended
Com approval, noting $2,031.80 had been paid for that part segregated, leaving a
8/25/7~alance of $11,485.43.
Approve
Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to approve the segregation as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
III - Liquor License - Godtz Garden Restaurant, 390 East 40th Avenue - R (Restaurant)
C Applicants, Timothy and Janine Owens. Assistant Manager reviewed OLeC report
8~~7~hiCh indicated two of those interviewed in the area objected to the license,
PL'" ~J did not object. Staff had no objections.
Hrg Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing --/
on the application for the September 13 Council meeting. Motion
carried unanimously.
LfLf6 Hinlltes 9/13/76 -- 11
-,-
--.
IV - AIA Community Design Workshop - Copy of memo from the Southwest Chapter of AIA
Com 'fl./25/76 was previously distributed to Council members outlining a community design work-
File shop to study large and small urban and community problems. Bob Mention, AIA, .
''"-- explained the proposal would be undertaken by the Southwest Chapter of AIA with
the help of University students and the willamette Community Design Center.
The purpose of the workshop was to identify problems having to do with the
physical environment of the community that could be met with an integrated de-
sign team approach. The AIA hoped the proposal would involve interested lay-
men - nonarchitects - in an intensive "charette" session. A public presentation
was planned about the first week in November to show the kinds of information
gathered in some kind of exhibit to display throughout the community. He said
the proposal was not intended to provide free service or absolute solutions
to problems identified, rather it was an attempt to expand understanding of
problems and how to look at them.
Councilman Bradley wondered if "dragging the gut" (heavy traffic at 29th and
Willamette) would be considered the type of problem to be considered. Mr.Mention
answered that one problem identified already was that of Willamette between 24th
and 29th, so it was possible the "gut" would be considered a part of that problem.
He added that there already had been presented 15 to 20 problems, and AIA was
reasonably sure only about six to eight perhaps could be tackled. Whether
Willamette Street was one was unknown at this time.
Mayor Anderson asked for examples of others that had been presented. Mr.Mention
cited a footbridge across Amazon Slough, neighborhood community centers, 19th
and Agate intersection - all coming from neighborhood groups. In addi tion,
proposals had been submitted from Florence and Oakridge on a countywide level.
Councilman Murray asked if the AIA would pursue any of the problems that were e
~. presented, or would the project cease at the end of the design period. Mr.
Mention answered that a brochure would ,be prepared covering the projects
selected. He couldn't say the AIA would actually pursue them, but they would
be interested. All they were trying to do at this time, he said, was to make
people in all parts of the city aware of problems, getting the dialogue started.
Mr. Murray suggested contact be made with the city's department of housing and
community conservation to avoid duplication of effort, since it appeared some
of the projects might be similar to those on which the HCDC was now seeking
community input.
V - Proposed Ordinance, Youth COmaQssion - Copies of proposed ordinance together
Com 8/25/76 with letter from Jim Forbes, chairman of the ad hoc youth committee, were
Pub Hrg previously distrbuted to Council members. Mr. Forbes said the ad hoc committee
fully supported the proposed ordinance which would create a youth commission.
He recognized problems the city would have in supplying staff for such a com-
mission. However, the commission would be willing to "survive" at a minimal
level until that could be worked out through the budget process.
Councilman Haws, one of the ad hoc committee members, said the committee tried
to structure a commission similar to the other human rights commissions and one
which would give the youth commission status equal to the other commissions.
He felt too that staffing could be worked out in the budgetary process.
Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said the proposed ordinance was prepared in
line with Council direction - it addressed the group between ages 13 and 17. e
'--- Also, it would create a commission outside the human rights structure, although "
~ relationship would be maintained through representation on the Human Rights
Council. This was an important aspect, he said, because it would give the
LfLf1 Minutes 9/13/76 -- 12
opportunity to share information and also regularize the budget process - a
single budget proposal could be prepared covering all of the commissions.
e Mr. Long continued that the selection process for members of the youth com-
mission was the same as that for all the human rights commissions, recogniz- ..-
ing practical difficulties had been encountered in that process. However, it
was felt when and if the process was changed, it should be changed for all
commissions, including the youth commission, at the same time and on the same
basis. The one provision essentially different from the other commissions,
he said, was probably in the youth commission's duties and powers. This com-
mission would bear a somewhat closer relationship to the Council - that is,
it would be gathering information with regard to what the Council could do to-
ward solving problems facing youth of the community as well as making recommenda-
tions with regard to solutions. There would also be the responsibility ,to provide
information to youth of the community pertinent to their rights and responsibili-
ties and telling them what was available to them. The ordinance, he said, also
encouraged participation of qualified youth on city boards and commissions.
In response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Long said the youth commission representa-
tives would be voting members of the Human Rights Council, that the Human Rights
Council would have no adjudication or appeal function wi th regard to youth.
He didn't think there would be any Human Rights Council decisions that would be
Unique to enforcement which is not within the purview of the youth commission.
Mayor Anderson referred to section 2(4) stating".. . youth commission shall be
representative of the youth and other groups...." He thought that meant
practically anyone could be a member. Mr. Long responded that the provision
was left purposely vague. It didn't seem to make sense that one could repre-
e sent youth without also representing racial or religious nrinorities, etc. ,-
It would also seem a reasonable prerogative, he said, for the Council to -
appoint a senior citizen, a religious or racial nrinority person, etc., to the
youth commission. Assistant Manager added that the membership provision for
experience in active participation in rights of women, minorities, etc.,
couldn't very well apply to youth.
Mayor Anderson referred to Section 3(l) (d) and (e) stating "It shall be the
duty. . . to disseminate information to youth..." and ".. . encourage participation...
on ci ty boards and commission." He thought that should be expanded to provide
the opportunity for a more active role in the community, recognizing the low
turnover in commission memberships that to a certain extent would preclude avail-
ability of appointments of youth to boards and commissions. Mr. Forbes agreed
with that suggestion. Councilman Haws wasn't against expanding that provision
ei ther . He pointed out, however, the possibility of a higher turnover on the
youth commission. For example, he said, a junior in high school could be
appointed to the commission and be unable to complete a full three-year term.
It was understood language in Section 3(1) (d) and/or (e) would be
changed to reflect encouragement for service in other community
effort such as neighborhood organizations, civic projects, etc.
Assistant Manager turned to staffing problems of a new youth commission. He noted
that the four existing human rights commissions are relying now on 2-1/4 posi-
tions for staff support. He referred to a memo given the Council in June indicat-
ing each commission has a workload of between lfr and l2-person-days per month.
e The same staff people are charged with enforcement and investigation of viola-
tions and, more importantly, with contract compliance provisions of the code -'
which workload in particular has not yet really started. In addition, the
handling of individual problems and complaints leads to a 50/60 hour work week.
If't8 Minutes 9/13/76 -- 13
----
Assistant Manager continued that arrangement for staffing the commdssion on e
Aging with a parks department person has not worked out as well as hoped -
it!has developed into a two- to five-days-per-month function whereas it was
expected originally to take from two to five hours a week. As a result, the
commission on Aging is experiencing frustration in getting its program to function
as smoothly as desired.
Assistant Manager thought the initial time spent with a commission was critical -
defining roles and objectives, setting goals, etc., a high staff demand time.
He suggested these options: Use of existing human rights staff, which would
dilute their work with existingcommissionsi providing no staff, which could
probably create problems with the open-meeting law; or add another full-time
human rights staff person, which would cost between $20,000 and $23,000 per year.
Cost for the balance of the current fiscal year would amount to about $15,100,
he said, if the position was filled beginning in October.
A~sistant Manager continued that the only funds available - giving no considera-
tion to overall budget priorities - were in the operating contingencies fund
($220,000 balance). He urged strong staff support if the commission was created,
saying it would be less frustrating for the new commission and for existing staff
and other commissions, as well as being more effective for both the Council and
the youth. He noted the hard decision in budget priorities because of the
cqrrent rollback in personnel with no data to indicate other than dropping
another 60 to 80 positions in the next fiscal year.
At Mayor Anderson's request, it was understood staff would prepare in writing a e
proposal for staffing the entire human rights program. This, he felt, would
give a better overall picture rather than allocating a certain amount of,money
'_.~ for one comrndssion without at the same time considering allocations to the other
- commissions.
Councilman Murray asked whether the parks department person now working with the
Commission on Aging would continue to handle that assignment should a new human
rights person be hired. He hoped to avoid hiring a staff person for each com-
mission. Assistant Manager noted that there were now two human rights special-
ists, both expected to have a working knowledge of all the commissions. Another
person would be added as a third human rights specialist, probably with the idea
of having a lead position in that area.
Jim williams, member of the ad hoc youth committee, said that those working with
the comrndttee, recognizing there would be staffing problems, had a sort of in-
formal agreement with various youth agencies in the community for them to provide
general orientation for the youth commission and even some intermittent staff
assistance, especially with agendas, etc. He felt that if the city could handle
the clerical work, the commission could function ~ntil the staffing was worked out.
It was understood that staff would prepare in writing alternative
proposals for staffing the human rights program, this to be dis-
tributed to Council members at the next oommittee-of-the-whole meeting.
Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Williams to give tentative approval to the
proposed ordinance creating a youth commission, incorporating the changes tit
agreed to in this discussion, and to set a public hearing for the
September 13 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
LfLftt Hinutes 9/13/76 -- 14
Committee-of-the-Whole September 8, 1976
e I - Items from Mayor and Council
Com 9/8/76 A. Elected Officials Campaign Expenses - Mrs. Beal reiterated her interest in
File the appointment of a subcomrndttee to study the campaign expense issue,
possibly soliciting representation on the committee from other interested
groups.
Com 9/8/76 B. ERA and Planning Commission Applications - Manager announced extension of
Affirm deadline for applications to September 17, due to the fact that many
interested persons may have missed the announcement because of vacation
schedules.
Com 9/8/76 C. Assessment Panel Report - August 30, 1976
Approve
Present: Councilmembers D. W. Hamel and Edna Shirey
Staff, Gene Haxton, Zoning Administrator,. Charles Duncan,
City Attorney's Office; and Donna Roth, Recorder
Councilmember Hamel opened the hearing by stating thilt the purpose of the
hearing is on the appeal from the Zoning Board of Appeal's decision of
May 27, 1976 regarding an allowance of duplex lot designation at 3888 Robin
Street. Councilmember Hamel asked if there were any abstentions. There
were none. He then asked for staff comment from Mr. Haxton.
e Mr. Haxton explained that by way of background, the street known as Robin
Street rvhich intersects with Taney Street just south of Barger Drive dJ:d
not pass the subject parcel (Tax Lot 1501 on Map Page 17 04 22 21) tvhen the
lot was created. Mr. Haxton pointed this out on a vicinity map. Rob,in
Street has since been dedicated east of Taney and goes past the subject
parcel. Mr. Peterson and Mr. McAlexander applied for a permit to convert
the ex,isting single-family dwelling to a ttlo-family dt.wlling, which is
perm.issible in certain corner lots in single-family zoncd areas, if the
lots have sufficient area. The perm.it for a duplex ",'as denied because the
lot does not have 10,000 square feet. That section (9.3l0,D) of the City
COde,requires that a corner lot, in order to be a duplex lot, must have
10,000 square feet when the lot was created as a corner lot after !.!arch 14,
1968. This lot became a corner lot in 1975 or sometime sliglltly earlier
when Robin Street was dedicated. The lot has an existing single-f~mily
dwelling, and the permit request was to convert to a duplex. The building
official's determination that it (the lot) ~;as not qualified as a duplex
lot was appealed to the Zoning Board by Mr. McAlexander for Mr. Peterson.
The Zoning Board of Appeals found that they do not have the author.ity to
make land-use determinations and do not have the authority to gr2nt land-ll~e
variances and denied the request, tvhieh brought the matter to tho Ci ty Council.
It was noted by Nr. Haxton that the pallel had been provided t'lith copies of
the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 27, 1976, wherein Item
No. 4 explains the appeal and the Zoning Board of Appeal's action on the
issue. The panel had also been provided with a copy of Nr. McAlexander's
letter to the Council appealing the action.
e
450 Minutes 9/13/76 -- IS
Mr. McAlexander presented the argument on behalf of Mr. Peterson, stating that
they made the contention that the ordinance under question is suhject by the
city staff's own action to two interpretations (1) strict and (2) literaI.
He read from the ordinance as follows: "Duplexes on corner lots tvhich have
been created on or prior to March 15, 1968 that meet area requirements of .
5,000 square feet; corm-?r lots tvhich have been created after March 15, 1968
subject to area requirement of 10,000 square feet, or corner lots of land
annexed ~fter March 15, 1968; or duplexes existing on corner ,Zots or where
corner lots meet area requirements of 10,000 square feet..." Mr. McAlexander
stated that this lot was created prior to March 15, 1968, however, the street
which made it a corner lot did not go through until 1975. Mr. McAlexander
further stated that at the time the street t'las proposed Mr. Peterson
consulted and was told by the Planning Department that his lot would be
a duplex lot. Consequently, he made no Objection to the street going
along side of or adjacent to his property. llfter the street \"01S installed
he then applied for a building permit and was denied one on a strict
interpretation of the City Code, "9.734(1) The Zoning Board of Appeals
may grant variances with respect to fences and walls, s,i te areas, r"idth,
frontage, dept.h, etc... " Specifically, 111'. l1cAlexander stated that the
si te area val',; ance was his concern. He further quoted from Section 9.732
of the Code, "The power to grant variances does not extend to use regulations
because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the
objectives of the zoning ordinance is provided by the conditional use
provisions of this ord.inance". Nr. McAlexander stated that therefore,
duplexes are not listed as conditional uses in R-A zoning because .it is
listed as a use of the property. Consequently, Mr. Peterson is not
asking for a use change since it is an approved use with certain site area
requirements. Mr. McAlexanrJer related the following changes to Mr. Peterson's
property because the street was placed in the location it is in. The requ.ired e
setback,is nOw 15 feet by city ordinance and Mr. Peterson has sustained a
loss of. 2,202 square feet of land use and there is created a situation where '-
his garage is now sitting within that l5-foot setback, creating an illegal
structure, and representing 25 percent. of the land involved. Further, he
stated that the lot has 8,760 square feet, which is close to the 10,000 (
only short 1,240 square feet.
Mr. Hamel at this point asked Mr. McAlexander the OIVIlership of Dot No. 1500.
Mr. McAlexander replied that Nr. Peterson did not ol\'n the property and that the
road that tvas p!1 t in there was not for the benefi t of Nr. Peterson's property.
(Ownership of Ta.x Lot 1500 vlilS not determined.)
Mr. TO~ Evans spoke on behalf of Mr. Peterson in regard to the legal reasons
for the variance. lIe stated that a val' Lance was something to correct a
maladjustment or an inequity and to render justice in individual cases, \\'hich
he stated is essentially what happe!1ed here. lIe stated that they t'lere not
asking for a use variance, but asking for a site area variance, and it should
be easier to make this type of change. Nr. Evans further related that Mr.
Peterson had received a notice in the mail that they vlanted to put a street
in beside his house. He therefore went dOlvn and talked to Bill Franch of the
planning Department and asked the effect on his property, knowing that if
the street went in and his lot remained a single-family lot. that it would cost
him money. Mr. Evans further stated that Mr. Peterson had asked Mr. French
specifically,"When the street goes in will my house then become a corner lot
so that I can built a duplex on it? If that is true, then it will be to my
advantage to have this street go ,through". Mr. Evans stated that Nr. French e
then said "Yes, if this street goes in your lot will become a dup1.ex lot". --
Mr. Evans referred the panel to Mr. French's letter of April 1.6, 1976 to
M;r, l'!cAlexander. Mr. Evans tIlen stated that vlith this informatjon Mr. Peterson
45\
Minu~e5 9/13/76 -- 16
'-~
relied on the stat~nent of a city employee and it has cost him money. Nr. ,-
Evans stated that if he were dealing with a private company that Mr. Peterson
would have a cause of action. Nr. Evans further stated thdt he believed that
what the panel had to decide was whether there was an unnecessary hardship as
e deFined in 82 Am Jur 2d under Zoning and Planning, Section 272 "A hardship
imposed by an act of the public authorities may under certain circumstances
justify the granting of a variance to permit a non-conforming use of the
premises. In this respect, good faith expenditures and reliance on an
invalid permit may be considered." Mr. Evans stated that he felt this was
exactly that situation. Mr. Evans further stated that Mr. Peterson's planned
use of this lot was not inconsistent ~l'ith the use of the land around it.
Mr. l' 'lCan stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals decided th.is issue on
the tact that it did not have jurisdictio~ to say whether or not to extend
a use variance to this lot. Mr. Duncan stated that he felt thai:: this Ivas
the proper interpretation given to the pOl-Iers of the Zoning Board of Appeals
and also to the pane.l sitting in review of their decision. This op,inion is
based on the provisions of City Code 9.732 because it states the purpose
of the Zoning Board of Appeals and its power to grant variances and that
section (9.732) clearly states that the pot';er of the board docs not extend
to use variances. Nr. Duncan further stated that in (Sect,ion) 9.734 regarding
site areas, that there is no vla~' that the boa1.'d can make a determinatioIl
which regulates a use variance. 1'11'. Duncan further stated on beha}f of the
city that if in fact there had been a mistake by a city staff person that even
if there had been a permit issued that such a decision h'ould be vo.id and
subject to revocution because the people, l'lhen they have enacted a 1 al,' to
impose various zoning requirements on the city, have the right to rely on
the actual law as it is and everyone is presumed to know the law. Mr. Duncan
stated that if the appellants have a complaint Id th the fact that the zoning
Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction, then the remedy ['lould be to go
- back to the City Council to try to amend the Code so variances of that type
would be a110lved.
Mrs. Shirey asked if Mr. Duncan considered that the actions of a city staff
member I"ould be in the category where it is in the letter of the law OI' the
code book and not by what someone said. Nr. Duncan replied that ,i t had been
held that the law itself governs and not the misrepresentation made by the
public employee.
Mr. Hamel asked for comments from the audience. Speaking from the audience
~vas Carl M. Cha pmc:m, 3958 Robin Street and Nilon r'lhi tt,ier, 3915 Robin Street,
generally in Objection to the care of the Peterson property and asking that
a variance not be granted because it vlOu1d generally be detr.imental to the
area. Mr. McAlexander replied that Mr. Peterson was taking steps to remedy
the poorly kept landscaping by investing in some landsc.lp,ing equipment, and
will be notifying h.is tenilnts that if they do not keep the yards in good
order tha t he ~dll do so and charge the tenants.
Nr. McAlexander further stated in reply to lIr. Duncan's rebuttal regarding
Section 9.732, that he was correct up to I"here he stopped reading from the
Code, "The pOl.,er to grant variances does not extend to llse regu,Zations
because the flexibility necessary to avo.id rosu1 ts inconsistent tvith the
objectives of the zoning ordinance is provided by the conditional use
provisions of the o,rdinance."
e Mr. Duncan stated that the definit,ion of a "use" is provided in Sect:i.on 9.254
which states that "the purpose for vlhich land is intended or may be occupied
or maintained".
'+52-
Minutes 9/13/76 -- 17
-- ---_.- -, - --.
Mrs. Shirey stated that it was her interpretation that according to the letter
of the law, this is a lot which does not have 10,000 square feet and it was
created as a corner lot after 1968, therefore, there is no other way of
working it. Mr. Hamel stated that though the lot tvas there in 1968, it was
not a corner lot until after 1975. Mr. Hamel therefore called for a motion e
to uphold the decision made by the Appeals Board. Mrs. Shirey so moved
and Mr. Hamel seconded. The motion carried.
There being no further business before the Panel, the meeting
adjourned.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the recoImlendations
of the assessment panel. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Charter Revision Election Postponement Request - Council has received copies of
Com 9/8/76 a letter from the "Friends of a Liveable Eugene" requesting postponement of the
Affirm September 21 charter revision election to allow more time to complete
deliberations on specific issues and clear up some serious questions in the
public's mind. Staff has drafted a September 7 response from Council to the
"Friends" group as well as an addendum to that response dated September 8.
Manager stressed two points as outlined in that addendum: Once agreement on
both charter revision and the implementing ordinance had been reached with
representatives of the three unions that represent city employees in collective
bargaining, both groups also agreed on the necessity to apply these legal
instruments in the collective bargaining processes starting October 15. A November
election would not meet this important deadline and the potential financial
implications could have very serious consequences for the city, since personnel
costs are the major factor in determining the city budget and the level of
municipal services the city can provide. Secondly, the city has just concluded
difficult and costly litigation on a water service extension issue. The charter
provisions proposed in the section on the authority and function of the EWEB e
greatly strengthen the city's authority to control water extensions and thus
to determine in large measure when and how urban growth will occur. Scarcely
any issue is more timely or vital to planning and providing a livable urban
environment for our citizens.
Mr. Keller felt that the staff response was most appropriate and answered most
of the questions raised. He said the "Friends" group had not been aware that in
fact staff had widely puhlicized the issues and changes.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to convey the proposed response
to the "Friends of a Liveable Eugene".
Mr. Murray expressed exception to the inference that pervades the "Friends"
document that the freeway amendment has been subverted. It is important to
note, he said, that the majority of the Council is dedicated to the freeway
amendment and would not favor the public's voting on a measure that would damage
the purpose of that amendment. He said the revised charter keeps the amendment
intact.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
Mr. Bradley arrived.
A "Friends" representative said their group never intended to state that the
entire charter should be publicized widely but that at least a legislative e-
draft should be presented so that the public might have more opportunity for
comparison. Another representative wondered if the concept of the proposed
Lincoln Bl vd . and Amazon Parkway would require a vote under the present charter
I.iS3 Minutes 9/13/76 -- 18
-.
and under the revised charter. Assistant City Attorney Stan Long said that
a response would be difficult since he is not familiar with the specific
e project details. Mayor Anderson also expressed the difficulty of replying
to that question. Mr. Murray felt that, if LincOln Blvd. would have required
an election under the present charter, it would require one under the revised
charter as well. Another "Friends" representative said he was pleased with
the City's response to their group. He did not see, however, why the collective
bargaining portion of the charter could not be presented September 21 with
delay of election on the remainder of the charter to a later time. He added
that their grop will do their best to inform the public of their interpretation
of the revisions and would hope to work cooperatively with the city.
Manager noted that copies of the legislative format are available in the
Manager's office for anyone wishing a copy. A "Friends" representative
suggested placing a few in the library as well for those who are not able to
get to the Manager's office between 8 and 5. Also, that later corrections proposed
by Attorney Etter be inserted.
II - Improvement Petition
Com 9/8/76 Sanitary sewer to serve Sophie's Slopes Subdivision (North Shasta Loop) (1314) - 100%
Approve Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the petition.
Motion carried unanimously.
III - Lincoln Community Center Improvements - Ratification of change orders is
Com 9/8/76 requested for installation of concrete work, sand play area, irrigation system
Approve and turf. The original contract was $34,290.20, and the change orders total
e $12,005. Funds from Community Development Block Grant money to cover the changes
have been approved by HCDC.
Since that request for ratification, there has been another change order of
greater magnitude in a different contract. Items were previously deleted from
the contract as bid due to lack of funds and lack of review by HCDC. HCDC
has now recommended the items be re-inserted.
Assistant Manager added that the basic contracts and change orders are within the
revised budget for the project.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the change orders.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Murray expressed hope that Council could tour the site, as it was not toured
before "today' s"meeting.
IV - Proposed Dunn Neighborhod Association Charter - Copy of memo from Planning and
Com 9/8/76 proposed charter have been distributed to Council. The proposed area runs from
Approve Wlllamette to Hilyard, 29th to 37th. The cha~ter is fairly standard except that
voting is restricted to residents of the area.
Paul Harrison, spokesman for the group, said that the original meeting of interested
persons drew 15 people. The proposed charter has been circulated to all residents
of the neighborhood, he said, and it is hoped that there will be more active
participation by residents after the summer months.
- Mr. Keller expressed concern that there should be a good cross section of people
to have input to Council, which he feels should include non-resident property
holders.
Lf5lf Minutes 9/13/76 -- 19
-
Mrs. Shirey moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the proposed Dunn e
neighborhood charter. Motion carried unanimously, with the exception
that Mr. Keller opposes Article IV, section 1, limiting voting to
only resident property owners.
Mr. Bradley felt that, if any membeys were present from the Dunn
Neighhorhood Association, it would give more solemnarity to act on
approval of their charter separately.
Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mrs. Beal, to approve
the neighborhood charter for Dunn. Motion carried
unanimously.
\
V - state Ballot Measure No. 12 - The proposed measure repeals intergovernmental
Com 9/8/76 cooperation and planning districts statutes. A September 1 memo from the
Approve City Manager has been distributed to Council members, giving examples, and
demonstrating the interdependence, of governmental agencies 'in Lane County
upon one another.
Assistant Manager said there is a possibility for destroying all sorts of
intergovernmental agreements if Measure No. 12 should pass. He said there is
an age-old question of whether home rule powers are being violated by this
kind of repealer. He said staff feels that a statement about the benefits of
cooperative contracts is important to give voters a basis on which to pass
judgment.
Mayor Anderson feels the measure is a bad piece of legislation. He thinks it e
would result in a disaster if it passes.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray to instruct staff to draft
a statement opposing the repeal for Council consideration. Motion
carried unanimously.
VI _ proposed Sidewalks - willamette from S. of 34th to 40th - Memos of August 19,
Com 9/8/76 1976, and September 16, 1975, from Public Works have been distributed to Council.
Approve Public Works Director explained that polls have been taken of the residents.
Staff proposes construction of a portion of sidewalk out into the street along
the west side of willamette in front of six properties, from 34th to 36th,
and a curb sidewalk on the remainder, excluding the property in front of the
cemetery. Only 29% of the residents are in favor, 44% are opposed. If
Council directs staff to proceed, improvement ordinances will be passed and
then property owners will be contacted to ask them to construct their own
sidewalk. If they choose not to do so, the City will hold a public hearlng
and let a contract to proceed and assessment will be made upon completion.
In answer to a question from Mr. Haws, public works director said that pedestrian
traffic in front of the cemetery does not warrant sidewalk construction at this
time. Mr. Haws also raised a question about construction of a sidewalk around
the trees of a certain property rather than removal of the trees. Public Works
Director said that that offer was made to the owner but that there is an e
aesthetic problem in that regard.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to initiate sidewalk installation
as proposed. Motion carried unanimously.
455
Minutes 9/13/76 -- 20
.
.
o 0 art on staffing alternatives have been distributed
VII - Proposed Youth CommJss~on - Rep d th tions as recommended by staff:
o 't t City Manager note e op , h
Com 9/8/76 to Counc~l. Ass~s an " th newly created commission, requJre t e
A4It Add a new full-time posJtJon to serve e, ts create the new comrndssion
ove orkload requ~remen ,
existing staff to absorb the w 'l th 1977-78 budget year, or provide funds
but provide no staff support unt~ e oded it would still result
, If rt-time staff were provJ ,
for part-t~me staff. pa f t'on 2 were implemented, then
in an annual cost of around $l5,000. dItoO~~eliminated to reduce the workload.
various areas now addressed would nee 'h h to be referred to state or federal
. f r example m~g t ave
Discrimination compla~nts, ,0 , ' h t the city affords a much speedier
__ _ authorities. The problem w~th that ~s t a
process. Staff gave brief attention to the possiblity of using volunteer
staff, but that option proved very limited.
Assistant Manager also referred to a chart distributed to Council showing the
present breakdown of staff time and the desired breakdown should another
staff person be added. He reiterated too that, when creating another commission,
to have it successful would take more staff support than is presently available
or would require reduction of the current program to free up staff resources.
Mrs. Beal wondered if any thought had been given to using a senior to work with
the Aging Commission or pursuing job sharing as an alternative. Assistant
Manager said there are no part-time funds available for job sharing and he
added too that the City is restricted somewhat in hiring because of its
participation in PERS. He said the goal would be to hire a qualified person,
and he added that city applications do not require an applicant to indicate
his/her age.
e Mayor Anderson felt the Council has pretty much committed itself to properly
staffing the human rights program. He feels the City Manager should be allowed
to add a new full-time position. He does feel the lines of responsibility should
be made very clear, however.
Mr. Keller commented that, if the Youth Commission is to get off the ground,
they should have adequate assistance.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize preparation of a
resolution drawing $15,100 from operating contingencies to fund a
new full-time position. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII- Street Vending Regulations - Council has received information gathered by staff
Com 9/8/76 in answer to a request from Mr. Murray. Staff requests direction from Council
Approve on whether any changes in the regulations are desired. Regulations now require
a stationary location for vending or else going door-to-door without a vehicle.
Mr. Murray would favor some type of regulation that would allow to some degree
the type of street vending conducted some time back by the "good humor - ice
cream vendor type. Regulations would need to be strict, limiting commodities
to be sold and making certain restrictions on such things as noise. The
intent would be to allow neighborhood soliciting from a vehicle.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to instruct staff to prepare an
ordinance that is fairly well restricted in terms of what is allowed
but which does allow some opportunity for street vending.
-
LfSb Minutes 9/13/76 -- 21
'-
Parks Director assumed that any ordinance could include the downtown mall as
well. e
Mr. Hamel feels this type of vending would be "opening a can of worms". He
has heard no commodity mentioned that would not be available in a grocery store
or fast-service market.
Mr. Bradley left the meeting.
Mr. Keller raised the point that the business community should be protected
to some extent. Mrs. Shirey said she would look at a draft when brought back
but does not at the outset favor the concept, expressing the desire to preserve
her.tranquility. In LA, she had problems with itinerant ice cream vendors for
two years and did not like it.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried, Council members
Murray, Beal, Shirey, Haws and Keller voting aye, and Mr. Hamel
voting no.
IX - Quasi-Judicial Hearings - September 13, 1976 (maps and official reports have been
distributed to Council)
Planning Commission recommended July 26:
A. Rezoning area located southeast of the corner of 29th Avenue and Willamette
Street - From RG to C-2SR (A & W Root Beer) (Z 76-20)
Planning Commission recommended July l3: --
B. Rezoning area located on the northwest corner of Gilham Road and Brewer Lane
from RA to RA-SR (Thomas G. Spradlin) (Z76-22)
C. 'Rezoning area located on the north side of Broadway, between Grant and
Chambers Streets - from R-3 to M-2SR (Dutch Girl Ice Cream) (Z76-23)
D. Rezoning area located on the south side of West Third Avenue, between Adams
and Jackson Streets - From M-2 to R-2 - and Change of Sign District from
Industrial to Residential (Erik Funke - Donald Henderson) (Z76-28)
E. Appeal from Planning Commission Denial of Rezoning area located east of
Fairway Loop and south of Eastwood Lane - From R-l to RP (Wayne Hayes) (Z76-l9)
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to approve, affirm and file as noted
items A through E and G through S. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously.
II
'151 Minutes 9/13/76 - 22
c
III. ORDINANCES
.-B-2 C. B. 1235 - Paving streets within Seychelles West Subdivision 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, seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously,
and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given
finai passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the
bill was declared passed and numbered 17752.
C.B. 1236 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within
SeYchelles West Subdivision was read by council bill number
and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be
read in full.
Mr. Ke 11 er moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be read the second
time by counci 1 bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council,
and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously,
and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
~1r . Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given
final passage, Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the
e bill was declared passed and numbered 17753.
C.B. l23? - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision
and sanitary sewer in area between Minnesota Street and West
Irwin Way and between Barger Drive and Jessen Drive was read by number and
title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in
fUll.
Mr. Kell er moved, seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously,
and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Ke ller moved, seconded 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 17754.
C.B. 1238 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision and sanitary sewer in
area between Minnesota Street and West Irwin Way and between Barger Drive
and Jessen Drive was read by number and title only, there being no Council
member present requesti ng it be read in full.
Mr. Ke 11 er moved, seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously,
- and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
~1r . Keller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given
final p<lssage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the
hill was declared passed and numbered 17755.
lfS8
Minllt"p<:: Q/1<./7(... _ ')'Z
'>
.
Council Bill No. 1239 - Sanitary sewer to serve area between Agate Street
and Emerald Street from 26th Avenue to 27th Avenue (1190) was read by council e
bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting
"- that it be read in full.
Mr.' Keller moved seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17756.
Council Bill No. 1240 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary
sewer to serve area between Agate Street and Emerald Street from 26th Avenue
to 27th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no
Council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr.. Ke ller moved seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17757.
Council Bill No. 1241 - Sanitary sewer to serve Sophie's Subdivision (1314) ".
........ 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 seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17758.
Council Bill No. 1242 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer
to serve Sophie's Subdivision 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 seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final
passage. RoUcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was
declared passed and numbered 17759. .
"- Council Bill No. 1243 - Sidewalk on Willamette Street from 34th Avenue to
40th Avenue (1053) was read by council bill number and title only, there being
no, Council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Lf59 Minutes 9/13/76 -- 24
.
e Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill "-""
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17760. \
Council Bill No. 1244 - Storm sewer along the northeast boundary of 6th
Addition to Bar M. Ranch (1309) 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 seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17761.
Council Bill No. 1245 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer
along the northeast boundary of 6th addit~on to Bar M. Ranch was read by council
bill number and ti tIe only, there being no Council member present requesting that
e. it be read in full.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Keller moved seconded 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 17762.
IV - RESOLUTIONS
Resolution No. 2558 - Authorizing charter for Dunn Neighborhood Association
was read by number and tile.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 call
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 2559 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress
payments for period August 23 through September 13, 1976 was read by number
and title.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall
vote. Motion carried unanimously.
e
Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned to ,J
se~1976.
Charles T. Henry)~ '-fro 0
City Manager Minutes 9/13/76 --25