Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1977 Meeting . l-^-l - I-^-l . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 25, 1977 Adjourned meeting from April 11, 1977 of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on April 25, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: D. W. Hamel, Torn Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Eric Haws was absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Liquor License: Hatch Cover Restaurant, Inc., of Eugene (DA, new outlet); SE corner Tax Lot 1901 on Country Club road; John A. Costello Manager reviewed OLCC report. The owner of the property for this liquor license outlet owns all surrounding area property, thus no interviews were conducted and no objectors were recorded. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was opened. Bob Cochran, 1908 Carmel, represented the owners of the Hatch Cover Restaurant, and was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to approve and forward to the OLCC the liquor license application. Motion carried unanimously. B. Gilham Road Paving Project, Beltline to Crescent Recomended by Public Works Department, maps distributed to Council. Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, explained the proposed paving of Gilham Road to Beltline to Crescent would be to provide a 46-foot roadway with sidewalks, curbs, bicycle lanes, two travel lanes, and a two-way center left-turn lane. The major need was for safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities over Beltline and north to Cal Young Junior High School. Increasing development to the north was resulting in higher volumes of traffic which make the existing situation worse in terms of auto-bicycle-pedestrian conflicts. The proposed on-street striped bicycle lanes would provide a safe bike route all the way from Cal Young Road to Crescent Street, as called for in the Bikeway Master Plan. Total cost was estimated at $160,000, with the assessed value of $91,000 to property owners and the City.s assessed cost $69,000. Mr. Teitzel noted a staff hearing was held March 17, 1977 with property owners to describe the property and to answer questions. The main concerns were as follows: 1) property assessment; 2) bikeways and lack of parking; and 3) traffic volumes and speeds. Staff recom- mended authorization to proceed. 4/25/77--1 318 .' Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. . Res. No. 2658--Authorizing Gilham Road paving and sidewalk construction, Beltline to Crescent was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-2 C. Easement Vacations 1. Located between Happy Lane and Russet Drive (Ellison & Platz)(EV 76-6) Manager noted the Planning Commission at its meeting February 7, 1977, unanimously recommended this easement vacation. The request came from the property owner. It had been reviewed by the Public Works Department, and the other utility companies which had no problems with the easement vacation. Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented. C.B. 1456--Vacating easement located between Happy Lane and Russet Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being. no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that C.B. 1456 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that C.B. 1456 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17965. I-A-2 2. Located between Harlow Road and Roan Drive (EWEB) (EV 76-8) Manager noted the Planning Commission at its February 7, 1977 meeting had unanimously recommended this easement vacation. The request was being made by EWEB because a house had been built on the easement. EWEB had another easement closer to the lot line and had relocated the water main and therefore the easement was not needed. Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented. C.B. 1457--Vacating easement located between Harlow Road and Roan Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that C.B. 1457 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that C.B. 1457 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17966. 13/q 4/25/77 --2 Ie D. Rezonings 1. Located on the east side of Bertelsen Road North of 18th Avenue (Safley) (Z 77-1) from M-2 to RA Manager noted this recommendation had come from the Planning Commission's meeting of March 1, 1977. Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, said that the general plan for the area indicated there was a surplus of industrial property and that surplus should be reduced, that the property had since been developed at low density. He noted the property owner had requested a zone change from M-2 to R-2. The Planning Commission had recommended a zone change from M-2 to RA. He said this in- cluded 6.63 acres of vacant land. He noted James Bernhard, Planning Commission, was present to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commisison Staff Notes and minutes of March 1. 1977 were received as part of the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1458--Rezoning from M-2 to RA property located on the east side of Bertelsen Road, north of 18th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in the Planning Commission's Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977 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. e Mr. Obie questioned staff as to how many units would be allowed to develop under the RA zoning. Mr. Chenkin replied 42 to 50 units, with most following the PUD procedures. Mr. Obie then questioned what controls staff would have in regard to the single-family dwellings adjacent to the area. Mr. Chenkin replied the construction would have to be consistent and compatible with the adjacent area. Mr. Bradley said the Planning Commission had recommended a modification of the sign district but it had not been included in the motion. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the motion to incorporate the sign district change from industrial district to residential district. Mr. Obie noted he wished to abstain from voting on the portion of the motion regarding the sign district, declaring a conflict of interest. e Mr. Bradley wondered if site review procedures should have been in- cluded. Mr. Chenkin and Mr. Bernhard replied there were sufficient controls. Mr. Bradley noted that on page 2 of the Planning Commission minutes Mr. Saul had stated that if site review had been included, it would carry a four units per acre classification, but would allow eight 3~o 4/25/77--3 units per acre. If the site review were added, he questioned whether that would limit the density greater than a normal subdivision. Mr. Chenkin replied that four units per acre in a cluster subdivision would be the limit, that under PUD procedures, 7.26 units per acre were allowed. He noted that under either condition, review plans would have to be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Bradley . noted a concern with the density, saying that with an RA zone, there could be up to ten units per acre, but with the SR zoning, it would be limited to four units per acre. Mr. Chenkin replied that the 7.26 per acre limit was a theoretical one, when in reality it would most likely be four units per acre. e Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which carried unanimously, with all Council members present voting aye. Mr. Bradley moved to amend the motion to include SR Site Review to make the subdivision more compatible with the area and impose a four-acre per unit limit. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote was taken on the main motion which passed with all members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. Lacking unanimous consent, the bill was held over for second reading to May 9, 1977. I-A-4 2~ Located north of Willakenzie Road and west of Coburg Road (Knutson/Olson) (Z 77-3) from RA to RP-SR. Manager noted Planning Commission at its March 1, 1977 meeting recommended approval of the zone change. Jim Croteau, Planning Department, said the location had been part of an overall de- velopment considered by the City Council since 1969, with PUD procedures and multiple-family residences in the area. He noted the request for deletion of the PUD procedures and substitute SR as a proper procedure. The surrounding land use included apartments, a radio station, a Dairy Queen restaurant, and a shopping center. e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977 were received as part of the record. Public hearing was held with no public testimony presented. C.B. 1459--Rezoning from RA to RP-SR with Site Review Procedures, property located north of Willakenzie Road and west of Coburg Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977 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 unani- mously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e 4/25/77 --4 3l,{ . Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17967. T-A-S 3. Located west of Pearl Street and north of 4th Avenue East. from M-2 to RG (Evergreen Union Retirement Association (Z 77-6) Manager noted the Planning Commission had recommended this zone change at its March 1, 1977 meeting. Gary Chenkin said the entire area with a present building occupying .88 acre and 2.48 acres zoned M-2. The land was presently vacant. He said it would be used specifically for housing for the elderly. The request for rezoning to R-4 was for a high-density multi-family unit. At the Planning Commission's hearing, the recommendation was made to zone to RG. He noted this zoning would require a conditional use permit approval. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977 were received as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. e Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, had attended the Planning Com- mission hearing at which time there had been a request by residents of the area for site review with this zone change. The residents would very much like to see some insurance that the changes would be compatible to the neighborhood. The residents were not against the number of units requested. but would like assurance that the number would be about what the developer said they would be and the development would be placed where the developer indicated. She requested site review be attached to this zone change. Dick Danielson, architect and representative for Evergreen. said the owners had no objection to site review procedures being attached to the zone change. They anticipated building a 20-25 unit low-level structure. He said he was available for answering questions by Council. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1460--Rezoning from M-2 to RG property located west of Pearl Street and north of 4th Avenue East was read by counci 1 bi 11 number and title only, there being no Council member present re- questing that it be read in full. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1. 1977 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. 4/25/77 --5 3:J.,.!J.. I-A-6 ~ Mr. Chenkin noted this type of facility would require a con- ditional use permit which would be almost identical to site review regulations, in some ways being more strenuous as it would require a public hearing before a Hearings Official. Nothing would be added by adding site review procedures to the zone change. He said Council should be aware if anything were added or changed to the Planning Commission1s recommendation, it would re- quire a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Council. . Mr. Delay was concerned as to whether the development was going to be one that would detract from the surrounding area. Mr. Chenkin replied no, the controls required through site review would be no greater than the controls under the RG zoning. Mr. Bradley oved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Delay, to add site review procedures to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Mayor Keller questioned if the controls were already in the existing zone change as presented, what benefit there would be to hold another hearing and send the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr.Chenkin replied the only benefit would be if the developer decided to proceed with normal apartment development, he would have to comply with the RG district, but there would be no specific site review plan through administrative procedures. If the site review were developed as proposed, it would require a conditional use permit and nothing would be gained by adding site review. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Chenkin were saying that without site review the developer could alter his plans and be more flexible in the type of structure. Mr. Chenkin replied that under RG zoning, the developer would be able to build an additional 20 to 25 units without site review for compati- bility. He said under the conditional use permit, it would take care of the compatibility to the area. Mr. Bradley expressed a concern to there being no binding contract, and he felt there was a need for control of this development. -- Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which carried, with Delay, Obie, Hamel, Lieuallen, and Bradley voting aye; and Williams and Smith voting no. Stan Long, City Attorney, noted the Council had just taken action contrary to the Planning Commission's action and that under City Code Section 9.682(4), it would be necessary to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the differences. Mr. Chenkin noted that Planning Department would discuss with Plan- ning Commission as to a possible meeting date for the joint session. Further action on this council bill will be held pending results of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Located on East Amazon Parkway, south of 41st Avenue, from RA to RA-SR (Ponderosa Investment Company) (Z 77-8) Manager noted this had been recommended by the Planning Commission at its March 8, 1977 meeting. Gary Chenkin said this parcel included 1.75 acres, and would be eligible for a cluster subdivision, with the surrounding area zoned in 1975 for a cluster subdivision. e' 4/25/77 --6 3;/.3 e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council'members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 8, 1977 were received as part of the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1461--Rezoning from RA to RA-SR with site review procedures property located on East Amazon Parkway, south of 41st Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 8, 1977 be adopted by ref- erence 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. e Mr. Obie questioned whether staff had considered what a cluster subdivision would look like on such a small piece of property. Mr. Chenkin replied that staff felt it would be better to have a cluster subdivision than having it strung out. He noted the development would occur only on the lower portion of the property, and that was one reason why the cluster subdivision could be developed there. Mr. Obie questioned how many units would be developed, to which Mr. Chenkin replied the maximum could be seven, but in reality, four to five. Mr. Obie questioned the appropriateness of the cluster division on this kind of prop- erty, asking whether the citizens of the community would really want to see this kind of cluster subdivision in that part of Eugene. Mr. Bradley replied that it seemed to be consistent with the compact urban growth policy, and there was no other choice than to use this land as a cluster subdivision. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. The bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbe red 17968. 1-/\-7 - E. Annexation: Located east of Coburg Road directly south of Belt- line Road (Breeden Bros.) (A 77-2) Manager noted the recommendation had come from the Planning Com- mission's meeting of February 21, 1977, with a 4:2 vote to rec- comend the annexation. Jim Croteau, Planning Department, said the area to be annexed consisted of two parcels of approximately 16 acres. The surrounding land uses included a school, vacant land in the county, a nursing home, and one single-family resi- dence. He explained the only access to the property would be the extension of Best Lane. Three criteria for annexation had been met: 4/25/77 --7 .3~Lf 1) it was in the urban service boundary and conformed to the 1990 plan; 2) a full range of urban services could be provided; and 3) it was a logical expansion of city boundaries. e Public hearing was opened. Leigh Iverson, 2869 Taylor, identified himself as the applicant's representative. He concurred with staff findings, 'and sai d he was present to answer questions of Council. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Res. No. 2659--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for annexation of property located east of Coburg Road directly south of Beltline Road was read by number and titl e. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Bradley questioned the Staff Notes regarding a concern of creating a county island in regard to Tax Lot 900. Mr. Croteau said if this property were annexed, it would create an island of county property within the city. In the past, the City had attempted to annex in a logical manner to preclude such is- lands, but that such an annexation had been done in the past where owners were unwilling to annex. He said the owners of this par- ticular property had attended some of the past meetings, and were aware of the fact that they may have to be annexed to the city at some time in the future. - Mr. Bradley expressed a concern regarding the indication of this property as agricultural land as zoned by the County. He asked whether it was prime agricultural land and if LCDC would be willing to have it rezoned. Mr. Long said the LCDC had never taken the position on exception procedure, but that the City's position had been that the urban service boundary was valid and was irrevocably committed to that urban service boundary. Mr. Bradley questioned whether this annexation should be tabled for LCDC recommendation or action. Mayor Keller noted the LCDC had indicated it might take action at its next meeting to develop policy, but had not done so at this time. He said he was not sure it would serve any useful purpose to postpone action on this annexation, that the Council had an obligation to take a stand, based on the facts that had been presented. He felt as long as the annexation was compatible with past action and conformed to the City's past policies, that the Council should not wait for another government agency to dictate to the City Council what it should do. Mr. Bradley then asked if there was any indication as to the prox- imity of this property in regard to the recent Cone/Breeden annexation in that area. Mr. Croteau said the location was directly across the road to the north. Mr. Bradley then asked whether there were any indications regarding the property costs, capital outlay, and e 4/25/77 --8 ,3;;t5 . other city costs that would be involved in such an annexation. Mr. Croteau said that the annexation had been referred to various agencies, and city services were available and could be extended to service this particular piece of property. He noted there were always general improvements when any area was annexed by the City. No dollar figures for a cost breakdown were available by staff. Mr. Bradley then expressed a concern regarding the access to the property and how the property was going to be developed. Mr. Croteau noted the development would be a standard subdivision with access from the south off of Best Lane. The overall street layout was being worked out for future property development in the area. Mr. Bradley then urged the Council to vote against this annexation for the reasons stated above, including the LCDC question of agri- cultural land within the urban service boundary, no available cost estimate, limited access to the property, and lack of controls over the annexation policies by the City. He felt there were enough problems in filling within the corporate area of the city limits. e Mr. Hamel said if Mr. Bradley were concerned over the annexation policies, then perhaps he should initiate a process for reviewing the annexation policy, but he felt this was the wrong time to take a position against it. Mr. Delay agreed with Mr. Bradley, noting a concern over energy consumption and increased transportation to the annexed area, and he felt continued development should be occurring within the city limits. Vote was taken on the motion which passed, with Hamel, Williams, Obie, Smith, and Lieuallen voting yes; and Bradley and Delay voting no. [-B-2 F. Zone Change Denials by Planning Commission--Appeals 1. Located south of West 11th Avenue between City View Street and Arthur Street (Nickels (Z 77-4) Denial at March 1, 1977 Planning Commission meetingwManager noted this request had been for a zone change from RP Residential Professional District with Site Review to C-2 Community Commercial District. The request was denied by the Commission March 1, 1977 and an appeal had subsequently been made to Council. Gary Chenkin reviewed the background for previous rezoning requests for this property. He noted in July 1976, a request for a zone change had resulted in the Planning Commission extending the C-2 zone change for an additional 150 feet into the property. He said that meant that the first 350 feet of Tax Lot 1900, south of 11th Avenue, was zoned C-2, the remainder was zoned RP. At that time, the Planning Commission noted if a specific use were found for Tax Lot 1900, the owner could file a request for a zone change in less than a normal one-year time period. He said this request for a zone change had been filed because a specific development for Tax Lot 1900 had been proposed. This recent request for a zone change had been denied by the Planning Commission because of its compatibility for use with the adjoining property in the area. e 4/25/77--9 3~~ No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977 were received as part of the record. . Public hearing was opened. Pierre Van Rysselberghe, 2880 Alta Vista Court, identified him- self as the applicant's representative. His client was a fourth generation owner of the property and had first requested the zone change for the property in the summer of 1976 because of changes taking place on West 11th. Since that hearing before the Planning ;Commission, Ms. Nickels was granted an easement along the Amazon Channel for use as a bike path. He said the present zone change request was because the McKay Investment Corporation had developed a comprehensive usable plan for the property. His client had no opposition to a site review suffix if the Commission thought it advisable. He noted the presence of opponents to this request of zone change who live in the area and who were questioning the pro- priety of the rezoning. He said the 12th Avenue access was of major concern to the neighbors, and Ms. Nickels had no desire to have a development which would cause concern in the neighborhood. He said the McKay Investment Corporation would agree to exclude traf- fic on 12th Avenue, and the traffic from the proposed development would leave 11th onto City View. Douglas McKay, 450 Stonegate, represented McKay Investment Corpor- ation. He had a commitment from BiMart to locate on the property to serve the south and west portions of the city. He said they had explored possibilities of large acreage in that western area of the city and had found no other available property zoned C-2 of sufficient size to handle a BiMart store. They had agreed to eliminate access on 12th Avenue and the developers feel they had met the requirements to meet a C-2 zone. e Beverly Murrow, 1215 Arthur, spoke against the zone change, citing reasons as there bei ng no adequate buffer between the residential area and this commercial establishment, the view would be dreadful, noise and traffic would increase, and lighting from the vapor lamps in the parking area would consume considerable energy. The neighbors did not feel that big is better and the neighborhood did not want this commercial establishment in its area. She asked the people who were asking for the zone change--the developer, the lawyer, or the pwner--if they would be willing to live near a BiMart. Hank Murrow, 1215 Arthur, noted that the residential area is com- patible with the Amazon Canal, and that the neighborhood is not in decline as a neighborhood area. He said there would be no con- formity between the BiMart and the bike path and he did not feel this piece of property was the only large tract remaining in that part of the city. He felt that by this establishment coming into the area, it would precipitate a lot-by-lot rezoning on a large- scale basis. He said if 12th Avenue were closed, traffic would pile up even more on Garfield than presently occurs, necissitating - 4/25/77--10 3~1 e people to turn down Arthur to leave 13th. Therefore, the residents would have a traffic problem in either event. He also noted concern in regard to the time of notification prior to the meeting, stating that the residents of the area opposed to this zone change had been given only four days, while the developer had had six weeks to prepare his case. He requested that the Council ask for a show of hands of those in the audience who were opposed to this zone change. Sharron Nunn, 1200 Arthur Street, said that many improvements had been made in the neighborhood during the two years in which she had lived there, and she felt that the neighborhood should remain the way it is at present. Sara Moriguchi, 1760 West Broadway, spoke as a member of the Far West Neighbors, noting that most of the people in the neighborhood were against a BiMart store coming in. - Jeanine Lindeland, 1228 Arthur, had lived on the west side for 27 years and had seen many people moving in and out of the area because industrial businesses were becoming more frequent. She characterized the neigborhood as being a low-cost neighborhood, quiet, friendly, with young and old alike living there. She said most persons in the area cannot afford to move out and want to fix up their homes and stay in the neigbhorhood. She said the City Council should help the neighbors in the area to keep it the way it is by eliminating a BiMart coming in, noting that it would bring traffic and noise which would be unbearable. Mayor Keller asked for those in the audience who were opposed to the rezoning to stand; approximately 25 people stood, showing their opposition. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Chenkin referred Council to the Staff Notes and exhibits to explain the Planning Commission's actions in regard to this matter. Mr. Bradley questioned whether the neighborhood was zoned neighborhood- commercial or community-commercial, to which Mr. Chenkin replied it was general commercial zoned C-2. Mr. Bradley said he was not con- vinced there was a public need to rezone the area to C-2. Mr. Chenkin referred Council to the March 1, 1977 Staff Notes included in the application, saying that the Planning Commission did not feel there was a compelling demonstration of the public need either. Mr. Obie noted that he would have to vote against either approving or rejecting this denial for a zone change. He said if Council were to approve the zone change, it would be contrary to the Planning Commission actions, but as an individual, he could not approve any access on City View and would have to be convinced proper screening and buffering would be provided. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept the Plan- ning Commission's denial of rezoning. Motion carried, with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Obie voting no. 4/25/77--11 3~ A short recess was taken. 1I-A-2 G. Minor Partition Appeal of Denial: Located southeast of Horizon Road (Endicott) (M 76-123) Manager noted the Planning Commission had denied this request for minor partition at its meeting of March 7, 1977. Gary Chenkin said the property in question was a one acre parcel which was to be divided into two lots. The portion of land is presently vacant and the only access would be on Horizon Road. The Planning Staff denied the request for a minor partition because there was not adequate public access to the property at the present time. Parts of Horizon Road were in private ownership and it was only a nine-foot wide lane. The City Code required adequate provision be made in a partition for the safe access by fire and other emergency vehicles; the Staff felt that the present access to the property was not sufficient for partition. e Public hearing was opened. ,A letter from Stan Long, owner of property at 708 Horizon Road, was entered into the record opposing the minor partition. Charles Endicott identified himself as the applicant. He referred Council to a statement on record in the Planning Department. He said the proposed partition would preserve the character of the neighborhood and in his opinion the narrow road was a small price to pay for the amenities of the area and its widening would tend to destroy the conditions that make the neighborhood desirable. He said approval of the partition would be orderly development of the land for its optimum use as intended by the City Code. He was planning to have only two single-family dwellings on the one acre which would preclude any future requests for subdivisions to smaller lots and would therefore retain the unique characteristics of the residential area. e Those speaking in opposition to the minor partition included the following: Gerald E. Olson, 488 Full Vue; Fred and Patti Bennion, 600 Horizon Road; Jim Johnston, 179 West 37th Avenue; Ralph Cutler, 480 Horizon; Derrick McGavic, 620 West 35th Place; and Ernest Carbajal, 626 Horizon. Some of their concerns expressed were the desire of keeping the area safe for children, not increasing traffic on Horizon Road, preventing future growth in the area, retaining the unique quality of the neighborhood, the narrowness of the road and the concern for traffic and safety, and the consideration of increased use of the road for emergency vehicles if two more houses were added. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. . Mr. Bradley questioned whether staff was in any position to con- sider improvement of Horizon Road. Don Gilman, Public Works Depa rtment sai d there was a very na rrow ri ght-of-way and it woul d be physically impossible to widen the road. - 4/25/77 --12 .3;(, 'l e Ms. Smith questioned the development of the Park Hills PUD and whether this would provide an opportunity for Mr. Endicott to de- velop his property. Gary Chenkin said the Park Hills PUD would come before the Council in June and was located south of the requested minor partition property. He said Mr. Endicott could tie into that development at that time and there would be no problem. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to deny the appeal. Mr. Obie mentioned he was in favor of the motion and that he had had experience as an individual in using this street and he felt it was a major problem. Mr. Bradley requested that the Endicott matter be considered with the Park Hills PUD. Mr. Chenkin replied it might cloud the Park Hills PUD issue, but would suggest that in the Planning Commission's consideration of that development, access to Mr. Endicott's property be considered at that time. He said that the minor partition would be Mr. Endicott's responsibility and the staff would rather not have it tied into the Park Hills PUD. Mr. Bradley questioned whether providing access through the Park Hills PUD would still retain the unique character- istics of the neighborhood, to which Mr. Chenkin replied yes. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously with all Council members present voting aye. ~A-'3 H. Room Tax Ordinance and Resolution Manager reviewed the Room Tax Ordinance, noting that it had already been considered by City Council at its recent Committee-of-the-Whole meeting and that a hearing had been held April 6 with public testi- mony taken. The resolution and ordinance were before Council tonight as a result of the efforts of the Room Tax Subcommittee. The ordinance would determine the overall purpose of the Committee, would create a subcommittee of the City's Budget Committee to allocate future room tax funds, and perform the functions for allocations for the 1977-78 budget. The resolution dealt with the long-range goals and that had been well publicized. He said it would allocate 50 percent of room tax funds for facilities, 25 percent for tourism, and 25 percent for recreational and cultural services. Public hearing was opened. James W. Kays, 2085 Sunrise Boulevard, spoke as a representative of the Lane County Auditorium Association. The group had been con- cerned about the development of some type of facility for cultural and artistic presentations in the area, and had wanted to discuss the matter with Council. He felt the emergency clause should be included so that funds would be immediately available, and asked Council to give serious consideration for its immediate implementation. e Ron Kirtland, 252 Valley River Center, spoke as a representative of the Emerald Empire Convention Association. He said his group solicitated conventions for the City of Eugene under the Chamber of Commerce's Tourism and Convention Bureau and he felt that the 25 percent allocated in the resolution for convention and tourism 4/25/77--13 330 snould be maintained, as it would allow this group to be in a position to continue the operation of the Tourism and Convention ,Bureau. He noted this source of money would help the Tourist and Convention Bureau to keep the rooms filled, which in effect would keep the money flowing into the Room Tax Fund. - Don r'1cNei 1, Chamber of Commerce Touri stand Conventi on Bureau, noted that the 25 percent woul d be a bare mi nimum to do the jOb of keeping the Tourist and Convention Bureau of the Chamber of Commerce in business. He said encouraging conventions into Eugene was a very competitive business. Penny D. Carpenter, 1242 East 19th Avenue, spoke as a member of the management and staff of the Valley River Inn, indicating the support of the Chamber of Commerce Tourist and Convention Bureau. She reiterated the nature of competitiveness in the convention business, and felt an auditorium would bring more business to the Eugene community. She said Eugene had poor airport facilities for connections for people coming into conventions and that the Tourist and Convention Bureau needed all the support it could get to lure conventions to the Eugene area. The Bureau had been work- ing very closely with the various motel and hotel industries in the area to help bring groups to town. She noted the past performance of the group had been tremendous and its value had been in generating more and more business, which in turn generated more room tax funds, and she endorsed the 25 percent allocation for tourism. e Glenn Mason, 1980 West 24th Avenue, spoke as a representative of the Historic Review Board. He noted it was hard to review the long-range goals and distinguishing between the split of 25 percent for recreational and cultural and 25 percent for tourism as the Historic Review Board felt it was tied to both. The group's major concern was its individual needs and that it might not be funded in the future. He noted that within the long- range goals as proposed, the Historic Review Board wondered where it fit into those goals. He stressed that financial assistance for the group was very important and without any assistance it could adversely affect the Historic Review Board. He referred to a document and letters that had been received supporting the Room Tax Allocation funding for the Historic Review Board. Jim Williams, 1438 West 4th Avenue, said he was very much in favor of the development of an auditorium for the Eugene area. He noted that much of the funding from the Room Tax Allocations had come to help the local theater and arts program groups in the area and had brought broad recognition to the community through those groups. If the present funding were not continued, it might reduce the money available to the local theater and arts groups, while a building was being developed for such groups to perform in. He said the theater and arts groups needed to be kept alive during this interim period with allocation from the Room Tax funds, and asked Council to give some serious consideration for keeping the theater and arts groups alive. He noted that by having these groups in the area, it added quality to the use of the auditorium and asked the City Council to require the Budget Committee to look for options for alternative funding. e 331 4/25/77 --14 . Pete Peterson, 92 West 19th Avenue, spoke as a member of the Lane County Historic Society. He noted the group was in favor of di- versity for allocation of funds, but the problem existed that if the ordinance were passed tonight, the funds would be permanently departmentalized and perhaps the open system of funding would be lost. He felt no one organization should have dominance over any others and noted that last year seven homes were revitalized with the $30,000 allocation, adding to the culture of the community. He urged Council to consider the need for diversity in allocating the funds. Arnie Martin, 817 Lariat Drive, spoke as a representative of the Eugene Wind Ensemble. He said the group consisted of a 50-piece music organization and would like to go on record its appreciation for being considered for some 1977-78 funds within the 25 percent cultural application. Spencer W. Alpert, 2450 South Louis Lane, spoke as a part owner of property which had been revitalized through the Historic Review Board1s allocation funds. He gave a brief review of how the re- structured property had been accomplished for preservation and added cultural impact to the community, noting that he felt these funds were necessary for the future benefit of Eugene. e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Manager noted that only the resolution specified the long-range goals and made the 50 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent allocation for room tax funds. He noted the two ordinances included: 1) the original ordinance; and 2) an alternate ordinance which would continue the present subcommitte until July 1, noting the differences of opinion within the Council with regard to the appointment procedure for the committee. Perhaps the alternate ordinance could be passed this evening to continue the work that was being done by the Room Tax Subcommittee, and in the meantime, Council could get some consensus of opinion for its appointment procedure. He noted the tight time schedule involved in regard to figuring the budget for 1977-78 and the problem of making interim allocations. He said by the middle of May, the Budget Committee should be done with its work and the Subcommittee would have to have its interim allocations and projected allocations done by that time. Mr. Lieuallen asked how much money the allocations generally generated. Mr. Mitchell, Finance Department, estimated there would be $180,000 for this year. Manager noted that some funds had not been allocated for the 1976-77 year and, therefore, there was a balance of approximately $265,000. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the Subcommittee had made firm committments to any group or ex- cluded any group, to which Mayor Keller answered no, that several had been interviewed but none had been excluded. . Mr. Obie questioned the Historic Review Board1s legitimate point of trying to resolve whether they are indeed cultural or tourism and what category they should fit into. Stan Long, City Attorney, 4/25/77--15 ~l replied it was a question of degree. In the final analysis, it would be what the Council says it was. He said the broad terms were defined in specific instances, but it was mostly a question of degree. Mr. Obie then asked whether the Subcommittee would make that decision. Mr. Long replied that the Subcommittee would identify facilities or services for which it feels the City should spend its money, but the specific processes did not include writing any definitions down. . Mr. Bradley asked for an explanation of how the split in percentages had been arrived at. Mayor Keller noted that historically the type of allocation with that percentage breakdown had been done with the exception of a couple of years when there was an increase in allocations to the performing arts. He said as the Subcommittee reviewed the second quarter requests, it found that a breakdown in percentage had been fairly constant. Mr. Bradley felt there should be some flexibility and did not want to lock the City into a split, that perhaps a 50-50 split would be better so that within that 50 percent there would be more flexibility in providing for tourism, recreational, and cultural services. He encouraged the City Council to amend for more flexibility. Mayor Keller replied that that was one reason the resolution was being passed with those percentages, was that it could be changed at any time the Council so wished. Mr. Bradley expressed a concern regarding the City appropriation of City money for a facility and whether any thought had been given to establishing restrictions regarding that facility, and whether its use might be too expensive for smaller groups. He felt the Council should assure in some manner that the facility would be available to such groups even if it would require more subsidy for them. Mr. Long replied that the facility for Eugene was still in its planning stages and the resolutlon Section 1, he quoted, "No specific plan or property has been accepted or approved." He said it was simply a representative statement on the part of the City Council, that it is willing to earmark 50 percent of its funds and look at proposals as they come along. . He noted the specifics would rest with the Budget Committee and the City Council. Mayor Keller noted that by providing funds for such a facility, it would be helping some of these arts and theater groups in the area. e Mr. Obie found fault in regard to the wording of "city civic center complex," to which Mayor Keller replied that 50 percent was earmarked for a facility but that no description of that facility was included. That decision would come later. Mr. Obie then asked for clarification regarding the civic center complex, whether there was any specific geographical location picked out yet. Mayor Keller said no. Mr. Obie then expressed a concern regarding the recreational, cultural, and conventional center complex concept, saying he was concerned whether there would be too much money studying and planning, that he did not want the plans to go on for the next five years. He was in favor of limiting the expenditure regarding the spending for planning. . ./ 333 4/25/77 --16 .' Another concern was that the issue had gone on long enough, and he felt that he did not want to support a delay. He said he would consider an appropriation split of 75 percent for facilities, 12.5 percent for recreational and cultural services, and 12.5 percent for tourism. C.B. 1462--Relating to the transient room tax, creating a Subcommittee of the City Budget Committee, and providing for procedures; adding Sections 2.070,2.071,2.072, and 2.073 and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that C.B. 1462 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unani- mous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Smith noted she was in favor of both the ordinance and the reso- lution, stating that the members of the Subcommittee felt it was a very appropriate way to expend the funds and the power of the Subcommittee would be structured so that public hearings would be held in regard to determining who would receive future room tax allocations. She noted there was a built-in continued review by the Council. - Mr. Delay said he was against adopting the ordinance as he was very concerned with the appointment process and felt it unfair that the mayor shoul d make the appoi ntment to all subcommi ttees of the Council. He noted that this Subcommittee was too important, one which would be dealing with the distribution of public funds and therefore was opposed to the ordinance. Mr. Lieuallen said he would feel more comfortable if the Budget Committee made the appointments to its Subcommittee. He did not have as much a problem with mayor appointing some of the boards and commissions, but he did not like to see the mayor appoint members of Budget Committee to a subcommittee of the same group. Mr. Bradley concurred with Mr. Delay and Mr. Lieuallen. Mr. Hamel noted that he could live with the mayor choosin9 the members of the Subcommittee, noting that the mayor had been elected by the entire city, while the City Council members were only elected by certain wards, and there- fore he felt that the mayor had a broader appointment power. Ms. Smith noted that this issue of appointment by mayor was an agenda item scheduled for the work session and perhaps could be resolved at that time, saying she felt it more important at this particular point to pass the ordinance so that the Subcommittee could continue with its work. Ms. Smith moved to amend the motion to initiate the proposed al ternate ordi nance whi ch woul d read "a room tax subcommitee to remain in existence to July I". . Mayor Keller noted that the work session probably would not solve the problem of a very devisive Council. He noted that historically 33l(- 4/25/77 --17 the mayor had the appointment for numerous committees and subcommittees. . and felt the problem seemed to be that some members of the City Council felt that the mayor had too much power. Ms. Smith withdrew her amendment, noting that her main concern was to adopt the ordinance and resolution and concurred with the appoint- ment power of the mayor. Mr. Lieuallen reiterated his concern with the mayor's prerogative of appointments over the Budget Committee. He said that the appoint- ment power was a legitimate issue and that it needed to be discussed. He felt by the mayor's appointment power there would be a very clear drift of excluding certain elements of the community and said that would relate to the appointment process by the mayor and he was not going to be railroaded; therefore, he was going to vote against the ordinance. Mr. Obie supported the appointment power by the mayor. Mr. Williams noted the Council had three choices before it: 1) the mayor could appoint the members of the subcommittee; he felt this was the best choice as the mayor was the only city-wide elected official and would make the appointments far more legitimate; 2) chairman of the Budget Committee could appoint, but that appointment would be by a single individual and he asked if that would provide any greater legitimacy; 3) appointment could be done by the Council; it had been clearly demonstrated in the past that that becomes a coin-flipping exercise because of the existing power blocks on the ~ Council. He said it was very clearly his understanding that the ~ mayor would be the one to do the appointing as he was the only city- wide elected official representing the community. Mr. Lieuallen said perhaps a better solution would be to break down the membership of the committee and have the Budget Committee members be appointed by the chairman of the Budget Committee; have the members- at-large appointed by the mayor; and the City Council appoint its membership. Mr. Delay noted that with the mayor being the only city-wide elected official, that would not make him in any way unique. He felt there were compromises to be made and the diversity of the ward elections for the City Council members would provide a broader diversity for the membership on this committee. Vote was taken on the motion, with Delay, Lieuallen and voting no; Obie, Williams, Hamel, and Smith voting aye. unanimous consent, C.B. 1462 was held over to May 9 for reading. Bradley Lacking second Res. No. 2660--Relating to expenditure of transient room funds; 50 percent for facilities; 25 percent for tourism; 25 percent for recreational and cultural services; providing for Room Tax Subcommittee actions and policies revisions was read by number and title. /~ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to adopt the resolution. 4/25/77--18 ~5 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to adopt the resolution. e Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion to include a 50 percent split for facilities and 50 percent for tourism, recreational, and cultural services. Mr. Delay spoke in favor of the amendment to the motion, saying he felt there would be necessary funds for a facilities project in the area and that it recognized that the room tax funds would have to allow for the growth of performing arts and cultural events in the city. He said it would generate more flexibility for the performing arts. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which failed, with Delay, Bradley, and Lieuallen voting aye; Obie, Williams, Hamel, and Smith voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which passed, with Obie, Williams, Hamel, and Smith voting aye; Delay, Bradley, and Lieuallen votin~ no. IIl-^-2 I. Contract Awards 1. West University Community Center (opened March 28, 1977) attached Memo and background information had been distributed to Council along with the bid opening. Manager noted that the bid was for the remodeling of a house at 1458 Ferry Street. He said the property was purchased with monies from the Community De- velopment Block Grant and was to be used as a community center by the West University neighborhood. He said staff recommended the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Morris Kielty, general contractor, for $13,843. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to award the bid to the low bidder, Morris Kielty. Motion carried unanimously, with all Council members present voting aye. 2. Parks and Recreation--Irrigation System Around Amazon Pool (Opened April 20, 1977) Tabulation attached. Manager noted the project was for the installation of an auto- matic irrigation system around the Amazon pool, to replace a deteriorating system, requiring about 20 repairs last summer and would save on both man hours and water consumption. Staff recom mended awardinq bid to low bidder, Fairway Irrigation. e Public hearinq was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to award the con- tract to the low bidder, Fairway Irrigation, for $15,352. Motion carried unanimously, with all Council members present voting aye. 4/25/77--19 33~ II. Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in Committee-of-the-Whole on April 13. (Present: Mayor Gus Keller; Council members Haws, Hamel, Williams, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith) and on April 20 (Present: Mayor Gus Keller; Council members Haws, Hamel, Smith, Williams, Delay, Lieuallen, Bradley, and Obie). Minutes of those minutes appear below in different type. . April 13, 1977 I. Items from Mayor and Council Com 4/13/77 File A. Energy Conservation--Mayor Keller noted the City of Eugene had accepted an invitation from the City of McMinnville in a challenge regarding energy conservation. More information will be forthcoming. Com 4/13/77 File B. Field Burning--Mayor Keller noted this morning the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee requested that a field burning bill be developed which, if passed and signed into law, will essentially set the City back to the late 1960's with no hope of finding a solution. It will set a precedent of increasing pollution in the entire valley to serve the economic goals of a special interest group--the grass seed industry. The committee bill will include the following con- cepts: (1) Allow 235,000 acres to be burned this year, which is approximately 70,000 acres more than could have been burned legally last year. (2) Reduce the fees necessary for funding an adequate .. research development program, from $5.50 per acre to $3.00 per acre~ (3) Allow twelve days of burning in the south valley which would be more than allowed in 1973-74 or 1975. (4) Adopt meaningless goals which are not mandatory. (5) Restructure the Field Sanitation Com- mittee into an advisory board which would essentially dilute the progress made to date. Mayor Keller indicated that it seemed the seed growers industry and some legislators did not intend to contribute their fair share in providing a solution to the field-burning problem. He said the message to the citizens and the Legislature is that the course being pursued is not acceptable to our community, and that the Council would keep the community up-to-date. Com 4/13/77 File C. Growth Management Study, Phase I--Mr. Delay expressed concern in regard to Conclusion No. 13 in the Management Study, saying that he felt there was insufficient data to support that conclusion. He felt it was contrary to common sense to say that population growth had not been a major factor in contributing pollutants in the air in recent years. He said the statement was unfair, and that it did not address the question of geographical growth pattern in regard to pollutants in the area. Manager replied that the study would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and his comments would be transmitted to them. He reminded Council that it would have final review of the Growth Management Stud Y . - :337 4/25/77 - 20 Com 4/13/77 .C Com 4/13/77 File l:om 4/13/77 F i] e Com 4/13/77 Approve e e D. Ethics Commission Reports--Manager reminded Council members the Ethics forms were to be postmarked no later than April 15. E. Council Work Session--Manager reported the Council Work Session was scheduled for Friday, May 13, at the Country Squire starting at 9:00 a.m. He said the Agenda items were being worked on and would be discussed at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting April 20. F. League of Oregon Cities Legislative Meeting--Manager reported Council members to take note of a letter received regarding the Legislative meeting in Salem April 24. He noted Mayor and Manager would be attending and encouraged all Council members who could to attend. G. Legislative Subcommittee--Minutes distributed to Council. Manager noted there was a split vote on Senate Bill 714 in regard to pro- hibiting sex discrimination in employment due to pregnancy, and that the Women's Commission was seeking Council authorization to testify in favor of the bill. He noted the two votes in opposition to the bill on the Legislative Subcommittee were a result of feelings that it was up to the employer to decide whether or not to provide such benefits, but these benefits should not be required. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, reviewed the recent Supreme Court ruling which led to this legislation. He said legislation attempts, on a State level were to require employers to cover preg- nancy benefits in their medical insurance programs. Andy Clement, Human Rights Specialist, said there had not been any work done to determine what the fiscal impact of the legislation would be, but that the Women's ComQission feels that it is a very important piece of legislation and would like to have authorization to testify fo r the bill. Mr. Williams noted his reason for voting no was in regard to our society which very seriously needs to limit its population, and he was opposed to any subsidizing of an increase in the population. Mr. Obie said it had COme to his attention since the Legislative Suhcommittee Qeeting that if the law were passed, there might be the possibility of employers dropping that type of benefit altogether, and that should be a consideration. Mr. Haws noted that he felt this was one time when it was necessary for Council to take a stand 1n favor of women over business, and to give pregnancy the same status as hair transplants. Ms. Smith noted her support for the bill. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to authorize the Women's Commission to testify in support of Senate Bill 714. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion 4/25/77 - 21 338 Com 4/13/77 Approve Com 4/13/77 Approve Com 4/13/77 Approve to make support of Senate Bill 714 the City's position. The mo.." to amend carried with Delay, Lieuallen, Bradley, Smith and Haws voting aye; Williams, abie and Hamel voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried with Delay, Lieuallen, Bradley, Smith and Haws voting aye; Williams, abie and Hamel voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the Legislative Subcommittee's report. Motion carried unanimously. II. Liquor Licenses A. Hatch Cover Restaurant, Inc. (DA, new outlet); SE corner of Tax Lot 1901 on Country Club Road; John A. Costello. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to schedule a public hearing April 25, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. . B. Hilyard Street Market (PS, change of ownership); Jerry Lloyd Swartz from Donald and Jeanette Brooke; 1692-1698 Hilyard Street. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the application. Motion carried unanimously with Mr. Delay abstaining. III. Improvement Petitions (Routine) e A. Sanitary sewer on Foch Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to 220 feet south; 28 per cent of assessable property on petition; no city costs. B. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer within Shiloh Subdivision; 33 per cent paving, and 7 per cent sanitary sewer outside subdivision; no city costs. C. Paving, sidewalks, sanitary and storm sewer within Sailor Flats Subdivision; all assessable within subdivision; city costs $18,500 on storm sewer. D. Paving, sanitary and storm sewer within Thorne Estates Subdivision; all assessable within subdivision; no city costs. E. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Kodiak Park; 2 per cent paving and 4 per cent sanitary sewer outside subdivision; no city costs. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the improvement petitions. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Improvement Petitions (Non-routine) Paving Holly from Norkenzie to 150 feet east of Tabor Street. Memo distributed to Council. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the improvement petition, Motion carried unanimously. - 33q 4/25/77 - 22 Com 4/13/77 v. .'rove e e Proposed Concept for Construction of Eugene Sports Program Facility on Park Land (Letters distributed to Council) Manager noted this item was a recommendation to ask Council approval for the concept of building a public facility on public park land, with the facility later to be deeded to the City. Ed Smith, Parks and Recreation Department, said that research had been going on for quite some time regarding providing a facility for the Eugene Sports Program as the ESP had been moved from one facility to another over the last few years. He said a practical location had been determined, adjacentto GriJlwm Field in Westmoreland Park, and reviewed the location on a map with Council members. He noted the new concept and new idea of using public ground for this type of operation had never been discussed before. The ESP is a private, non-profit corporation with a $250,000 budget, and he felt it had provided a great service for the community. He noted if the program were provided by the Parks and Recreation Department, it would cost considerably more, and that the City had jointly partici- pated in the program for the past 15 years. Mr. Smith said the request before the Council now was for approval of the concept of using public land for a public facility. He said that details of the negotiations have yet to be worked out such as making sure what type of building was built, its appearance, making sure that durable material was used. He again reiterated that the building would then be deeded back to the City and leased to the ESP on a long-term basis. Mr. Ralph Myers, ESP, reported that the program had been in operation since 1954, with great expansion occurring over that time. He said there was a great need for a facility for the progrmn, as it had been dependent on the use of public facilities (i.e. schools), and that it had never owned real estate and did not want to do so at this time. He said the ESP wanted to build a facility and deed it back to the City with a long-tenn type of lease. Mr. Haws expressed his concern that equal attention would be given to both girls and boys in the program and that the budget would allocate equal portions for both. Mr. Myers responded that the ESP had probably been one of the forerunners in providing progrmns for both boys and girls, that they did not discriminate in any area, but considered all the participants simply as youngsters. Mr. Haws then requested a copy of the budget to which Mr. Myers replied it would be provided. Support for the general program that the ESP had been prov id ing for the community was expressed by most Council members. However, some concerns were expressed as to the involvement of the City in this new concept. One major concern expressed by Mr. Haws was in regard to other groups coming before the City Counc il to ask for the same type of facility to be provided for them. He ;]150 expressed a concern in what would happen to the building ..3 i./- 0 4/25/77 - 23 over the long-term, what criteria would be used in regard to establish1.'~' a policy for such a concept, and what it might cost. He requested tha replies to these conc~rns be provided him in writing. Mr. Smith said such information could be provided to Council. Mr. Obie also noted his support of the general idea and the program of the ESP, and expressed appreciation to Ed Smith and the Parks and Recreation Department participating in such a program. Mr. Lieuallen expressed the same concern as Mr. Haws regarding a pplicy set by Council in determining what criteria would be used in approving such a concept. It was reiterated that the concept which was before the Council at this time was a question of placing a public facility on public land, and. not particularly giving support just to this one program. Mr. Smith said that the ESP and the City wanted to explore this idea of a concept of using public ground for public purposes, and that they would be bringing back to Council its recommendation in regard to criteria and use. Mr. Delay shared the concern of the necessity for Council to adopt a policy regarding the use of public land before it addresses the issue of this specific program. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to conceptually approve the location of the proposed site for the ESP program and asked staff to pursue the ramifications and return with a formal proposal in regard to this particular program and a proposed policy statement regarding pub lic1y owned land used for pub lic fac il i ties. Mr. Llewellyn expressed concern over a commitment to this particular ... program. and Mr. Ob ie explained he asked only for" conceptually" . approving, with no obligation to this program. Mr. Bradley said he was uncomfortable with stating a specific site in the motion. Mayor Keller noted his delight with the proposal and the basic concept of the City being involved in the ESP program. Vote was taken on the motion which passed with all members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley voting no. Quasi-judicial hearing scheduled Apr il 25, 1977. Recommended approval for rezoning, Ponderosa Investment Company, located on East Amazon Parkway, south of 41st, from RA to RA-SR (map and report distributed to Council). DT:ng/CM26a16 e 3'+1 4/25/77 - 24 . l:OIll -1/ 2U/77 Affirm Com 4/20/77 l\ Hi rm Corn 4/20/77 Approve e e ..\p~! 1_~~...!-_~_~_77 1. l~e_~~_fr?~_M_~r~~_.9~cI._~ou~c i 1 A. Structuring of Housing and Community Development Committee-- Mr. Delay requested the item be held over to Committee-of- the-Whole meeting April 27, as notice was not received by some members of the Committee who might be available next week to respond. B. Downtown Plan Review--Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City Council would have an opportunity to see the proposal fairly soon. Charles Kupper, Director HCC, replied that the group would very much like the City Council to have an opportunity to see what has been accomplished to date. He questioned what the appropriate means and the best form would be to accomplish informing Council. Mr. Lieuallen replied he would like to see the item placed on the Committee-of-the-Whole agenda for April 27, as an informational item only, with no debate, and later reschedule for a full discussion. C. Assessment Panel Report-- ASSESSMENT PANEL HEARING April 18, 1977 Present: Council members Bradley and Lieuallen, City Engineer Bert Teitzel, and Zoning Administrator Haxton. A. C.B. 1440--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Century Maples Subdivision (76-20--1248) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. B. C.B. 1441--Levying assessment for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and pedestrian way within Coraly Park Subdivision and sanitary and storm sewer to serve property within 160 feet of the east boundary of Cora1y Park Subdivision (76-28--1238) Request to be heard was received from Richard C. and Martha A. Smith of 1322 Waite Street, Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Teitzel explained that the project was initiated by a petition in order to provide improvements in Coraly Park Subdivision. He further explained by way of background that the Smith property was located adjacent to the subdivision and in order to serve the sub- division it was necessary to construct a sewer line adjacent to property which had not previously been assessed and will benefit from the sanitary sewer. 3LfZ 1'./25/77 - 25 Mr. Richard Smith spoke, questioning who had initiated the petition and how his property could benefit by the sewer when he didn't feel he had enough property to develop. . Mr. Teitzel explained that the developer of Coraly Park Subdivision had petitioned for the improvements and that Mr. Smith's property benefits by virtue of having a sewer and a future street to serve the back portion of his property. Larry Keener, 3760 Pattison Street; Don Berg, 1290 Wait Street, and William Baldwin spoke from the audience, questioning whether their properties would be assessed for this improvement. Mr. Teitzel stated that this assessment would not affect their property. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. C. C.B. 1442--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Burnside Subdivision (76-33--904) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. D. C.B. 1443--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm within Nordian Park Subdivision and sanitary sewer to serve the area between Nordian Park and Chambers Street (76-37--1281) Request to be heard was received from Harold R. Daughters for Mr. and Mrs. James P. Johnson of 2550-1/2 Chambers Street, Eugene. - Mr. Teitzel explained that this assessment was initiated by the developer of Nordian Park Subdivision and the Johnson's property was affected by way of it being within 160 feet of the sewer line. Harold Daughters spoke questioning the City policy which states in effect that because property has not been assessed previously, it can now be assessed. He stated that the mere availability of sewers to this property is not an enhancement to the property and that, in fact, there has been no benefit. Mr. Daughters offered a statement from the Planning Commission that the property occupied . and owned by Mr. Johnson is ineligible for subdivision and that there is no potential benefit to the property from this sewer line. Mr. Daughters further stated that the Eugene Municipal Code 7.185 requires that the property be benefited by the improvement, and he felt the Council should consider some of the available authority, such as Gilbert vs. City of Eugene 255 OR 289 and Western Amusement Company vs. City of Springfield, Standley vs. City of Eugene 247 OR 60, and Wayne vs. City of Eugene 249 OR 367, which indicate that the best or highest use of the property can be . considered for the purposes of benefit. Mr. Teitzel explained that the Johnson property sits back from Chambers Street 500 feet more or less and it is presently hooked into the Chambers Street sewer, which was assessed to property within 160 feet of Chambers Street. Policy, Code, and ordinances e < 3Lf-J 4/25/77 - 26 . have said that the sewer on Chambers Street does not benefit the Johnson property, but by virtue of the Nordian Park improvement ordinance the Johnson property is now benefited by this sewer. It is the contention of the staff that the property is benefited and should be assessed for the sewer. Mr. Lieuallen questioned Mr. Daughters asking him if it was his contention that there was no potential benefit to the property and that there would never be any use for the sewers on this property. Mr. Daughters stated that the letter from the Planning Commission states that under present zoning ordinances in the city the property is not available for partition. He stated there is sufficient space to partition it into two lots, but is is a panhandle lot with a 10-foot access and for a partition there must be an access of 15 feet.' Mr. Bradley asked Mr. Teitzel for the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Teitzel stated that he would recommend levying it as it is on the basis that previous action of the Council on other assessments and previous appeals regarding benefit have been passed by the Council and upheld by the courts. e Mr. Bradley stated that it was the findings of the panel that because Eugene City Council policy and ordinances, that are pre- sumed to be valid, presume that a sewer line abutting a property benefits the property even though the property is not using that sewer line, and the fact that it does have access is a benefit to that property. He further stated it was the panel's finding that there is a potential and future benefit to the property in that a change in the subdivision ordinance or access require- ment, allowing a partition of the property in the future, would have a potential benefit in that the City may decide to modify its criteria and allow a partition in the future where such partition would not be allowed at the present time, and there- fore, the sewer line would benefit the property at that time. It is, therefore, the panel's recommendation that the property presently is benefited by the sewer line's mere presence; that the property is benefited in the future by the fact that require- ments may change, which would then enable the property owner to do more with the property and, therefore, use the sewer and that the property owner does have access to the sewer line if he chooses to use it although he has another avenue for sewage disposal at present. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. E. C.B. 1444--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer within 4th Addition to Paradise Park (76-38--1280) No written protests or request to be heard were received. e Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3~~ 4/25/77 - 27 F. C.B. l445--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer--between 38th Avenue and 39th Avenue (if extended east) from Onyx Street to North Shasta Loop (76-46--1250) . No written protests or request to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. G. Appeal from February 24, 1977 Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the matter of the variance request of Jack and Anna Gilbert for property located at 3869 Marshall Avenue Request to be heard was received from Bruce H. Anderson for Mr. and Mrs. Jack Gilbert. Mr. Anderson did not appear at the meeting. Mr. Haxton stated that due to a personnel change in the Building Division it was possible that Mr. Anderson had not been notified of the meeting date. Recommendation: That this matter be checked through the records of the Building Division and if Mr. Anderson had received noti- fication of the meeting that the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals be upheld, but that if notice had not been sent, then the matter should be rescheduled for hearing at a later time. H. Appeal from February 24, 1977 Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the matter of the variance request of Mr. Thomas Connick for property located at 1999 Kimberly Drive Request to be heard was received from Mr. Thomas Connick of 1966 Kimberly Drive. . Mr. Connick did not appear at the,meeting. Mr. Haxton stated that due to a personnel change in the Building Division it was possible that Mr. Connick had not been notified of the meeting date. Recommendation: That this matter be checked through the records of the Building Division and if Mr. Connick had received notification of the meeting that the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals should be rescheduled for hearing at a later date. Manager reviewed the Assessment Panel Report. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to accept the report. Motion carried unanimously. Don Allen, Director of Public Works, noted that there was an error in notifying the two appeal items and the appeals would have to be rescheduled for another meeting. In regard to the request from Harold Daughters for Mr. and Mrs. James P. Johnson, Mr. Allen said this was the second time the issue had come before the City Council. Staff recommended the City Council to pass the assessment as recommended by the Assessment Panel. The only other recourse would be a civil lawsuit to rehear the assessment. Manager noted it would require a two-thirds vote of a Council at the meeting April 25 for the particular parties involved to be heard. . 3~ 4/25/77 - 28 - Com 4/20/77 File . 4/20/77 rove - A r:quest for a segregation for Item AA-3, Assessment Panel report Aprll 18, under April 20, 1977 Committee-of-the-Whole was made by Harold R. Daughters, 1147 High Street. Stan Long, City Attorney, noted there had already been a public hearing on this assessment an? in order for Council to grant hearing, it would require a tw~- thlrds vote. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to open this item for public hearing. M~. Obie n?ted he w~s not in favor of a public hearing at this ~lme, statlng that lf the public hearing were going to be held, lt should be advertised properly. Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated with all Council members present voting no, except Mr. Bradley voting aye. D. League of Ore on Cities Le islative Meetin --Manager reminded Counc~l 0 the meet~ng Sunday, Apr~l 24, ~n Salem and asked if there would be any Council representation. There was no response as to any Council members planning to attend, although City Manager and Mayor would be in attendance. E. Legislative Subcommittee Report--Manager reviewed the Subcommittee minutes with regard to House Bill 3106 regarding tort liability. He requested that City Council support other provisions of the Bill even though it felt it could not support Section 6. Mr. Williams noted that the Subcommittee had not been requested to review certain portions of the Bill in detail at its meeting. He said if there were firm recommendations from staff regarding other portions than Section 6, perhaps at the next Legislative Subcommittee committee meeting those portions could be dealt with. Mr. Haws noted he felt the original position taken by the City was the best position and if there were other important issues in the bill, they could be taken up at the next meeting. Mr. Bradley arrived. Mr. Williams reviewed reasons for Subcommittee taking its pos~t~on: 1) The public and private sectors should be treated similarly in regard to tort liability; and 2) if a person were injured the City should be expected to pay their fair share of costs and to not be treated any differently than other portions of society in regard to its liabilities. Manager noted this Bill is of critical concern to the League and would probably be discussed at the meeting Sunday in Salem. He asked Council if it might change the wording to "other sections would be supported" rather than "other sections might be support- ed". Mr. Haws noted he was prepared to stand on the position the Subcommittee had taken or go through the Bill item by item. Mr. Williams said he would be willing to take no position if there were going to be some conflict for the Mayor and Manager in meeting with the League Sunday. -3'f' 4/25/77 - 29 Com 4/20/77 Affirm Com 4/20/77 Affirm and Approve Com 4/20/7711. Pub Hrg Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the Legislative Subcommittee Report as written. Mr. Obie arrived at the meeting. e Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. F. Council Workshop Agenda--Manager asked Council for any additional information for the agenda to be submitted in writing to him. Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether there should be an item regard- ing establishing goals; Mayor Keller responded that would be a very lengthy item and the agenda looked rather long, perhaps if time allowed that item could be taken up at the end of the meeting. Mr. Bradley requested that the action by Council about 1-1/2 years ago in regard to Council procedures and actions be included with the agenda, and reviewed to see if those understandings had indeed been implemented. Manager agreed and said they would be relevant to item two on the proposed agenda. Mr. Obie noted that he felt that the establishment of goals would be an extremely important and perhaps should be placed as first item on the agenda. He also requested that the Council meet without staff being present, and explore the evaluation process and procedures for department heads and City Manager's Office; and the respon- sibility of the City Councilor Mayor to evaluate the City Manager. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, indicated that he would have to provide City Council with written instructions in regard to the review of department heads, as under the City Charter there are definite written implications for review. He noted the City Council could review the evaluation procedures for City Manager and Assistant City Manager. - G. Appointments: 1. Masonry Board (no Council approval needed): Ray Parmelee, Masonry Contractor, 3-year term ending 1/1/80 2. Boxing Commission (no Council approval needed): Hugh Luby, W. W. Porter, Donald R. Barker, Dr. Luis Bianchini, and Dr. Robert Glass, one-year term ending 1/1/78 3. Electrical Board: Ermal Phillips, Journeyman Electrician, 3-year term ending 1/1/80 4. Plumbing Board: Malcolm Manley, Robert Fegles, R. K. Livingston, Warner Dallas, and Joel Goss; appointment for one-year term ending 1/1/78 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Harne 1, to approve the appointments in item three and four. Motion carried unanimously. Requests for alley and easement vacations Maps distributed to Council. A. Lane County Alley, NS and EW alleys located on block Charnelton west and 5th on South (Lane County) (AV 76-7) B. Savage Easement--east of Norkenzie and the terminus of Curtis Avenue north of Brewer Avenue (Savage) (EV 77-3) Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to schedule public hearings for items A and B, June 13, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. e 3ttl 4/25/77 - 30 Com 4/20/ III. 77 AP.Ve Com 4/20/77 Pub Hrg -- . Appeal by G. A. McGregor of Zoning Board of Appeals denial of zon1ng variance. Appeal distributed to Council. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by the appeals hearing for the Panel Hearing, May 2, 1977. Mr. Hamel, to schedule hearing for the Assessment Motion carried unanimously. IV. Room Tax Ordinance Ord1nance and resolution distributed to Council. Manager noted that the ordinance and resolution followed the report of the Room Tax Allocation Subcommittee's suggestions. He noted that it was necessary to pass the ordinance and resolution in order to handle the interim problems of allocating the room tax funds. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, reviewed the proposed ordinance. He noted the ordinance earmarks or commits transient room tax funds to the acquisition and maintenance of recreational, cultural, convention, and tourist-related facilities and services; creates a Subcommittee of the Budget Committee; provides for the composition of a Subcommittee and sets forth the Subcommittee's powers; and continues by ordinance the present Council Subcommittee until July 1, 1977. In reviewing the resolution, Mr. Long noted that it represented the Council's instructions to the Subcommittee in the form of broad guidelines. He said the Subcommittee would formulate specific expenditures within the guidelines as recommendations to the Budget Committee. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern over the appointment by the Mayor of the members of the Committee. He suggested that wording be inserted to say "appointment by Mayor with approval by the Council". Mr. Bradley felt that the appointments should be by Council members only, as the Council members appoint the Budget Committee and he felt the Subcommittee of the Budget Committee should thus be appointed by the Council members. Mr. Haws noted he supported the overall goals of both the ordinance and the resolution. In particular, the sections he did not support included: 1) The allocation of funds for certain functions which he believes are wasting tax dollars; and 2) opposition to Mayor appoint- ment. He felt it should be Council appointments to eliminate catering to any special interest group in the community. Mr. Delay concurred that he supported the general direction of the proposal. The difficulties he felt included: 1) A need for a broad base of appointment for the Subcommittee, as they would be dealing with allocating room tax funds; 2) a concern regarding the requirements for public members when there were no express requirements for expertise in the arts; and 3) dissatisfaction with technical details, saying he could not support the ordinance in its present form. Mr. Lieuallen said he was bothered by the appointment by the Mayor and felt that he would not be prepared to make a decision on such an important item by Monday, April 25, although he supported the general thrust of the proposal. He noted another concern regarding makeup of the Committee in terms of lay members, people who will be getting a large portion of the money have no say at all in the makeup of the Committee. He asked for more time to think about the proposal. 4/25/77 - 31 3tf-8 Com 4/20/77V. Approve Mr. Long clarified the statement in the ordinance regarding public members. He said it does not confine choices to people in regard to facilities, but also specifies choices could be in respect to people involved with cultural services, arts, theatre, or wha tever . fI Mayor Keller noted that a public hearing had been held April 6, at which time 13 organizations expressed support of the concept proposed in the ordinance and only two organizations expressed dissatisfaction in regard to the facilities portion. He felt the Subcommittee had done an outstanding job, and said he recognized the problem of appointment as being long-standing, but the real issue involved how the tax money should be spent. Ms. Smith noted agreement in support of the concepts in the ordi- nance and resolution, saying that she felt that the City Council had an obligation to the community, and that to delay would be most unfortunate. She noted the public hearing April 6 had received good news media coverage and that most people testifying were in support of the allocation as recommended. She felt it was necessary to act upon it immediately. Mr. Lieual1en explained his request for more time was for himself and not for more community input, stating that he wanted more time for himself to study the issue. Mr. Bradley asked what the time frame was regarding the passage of the ordinance and resolu- tion. He suggested the current Subcommittee could function between now and then. Mr. Long replied that there was now currently a freeze on expenditures of the room tax money and a need for some process for consideration of expenditures to be started before the next fiscal year, so that the budget process could be completed by departments by the end of June. Manager said it was important to act on the resolution Monday night and to authorize the Committee to proceed, possibly with a revised ordinance. e Mr. Haws noted he wanted to go on record in regard to his concerns as being: 1) The appointment to the Committee; and 2) who would be receiving the money. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to schedule a public hearing on April 25, for the room tax ordinance and resolution. Motion carried with all members voting aye, except Mr. Dela~ and Mr. Haws voting no. Proposed leasing of pioneer Title Company Building space (3200 square feet) and releasing of Data Processing space-for Police use. Memo and report distributed to Council. Manager reviewed the report distributed to Council indicating that the analysis for future space for the City included: 1) Developing a solution that will provide better working conditions for Data Processing; 2) providing a solution to reactivate the firing range for the Police Department; 3) providing other space . " 3LfCf 4/25/77 - 32 e to improve working conditions for the Police Department; and 4) initiating reevaluation of needs for 1980 and beyond. He noted that the pioneer Title Company building is currently on the market, and that it is ideally located for City operations. He asked Council to take action for support of the proposal. Mr. Hamel asked whether the staff had looked into renting space from the County, and felt that leasing more space might a stop- gap measure and perhaps it was time for addition of a second story to City Hall. Mr. Martin replied the options with the County had been explored and they did not have 3000 to 4000 square feet that could be used by the City. Manager noted that staff had looked into the possibility of many buildings around town for sale, but most were too distant and were too expensive. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to authorize the City Manager to execute a lease with the Pioneer Title Company. Mr. Bradley noted that he felt this was an administrative decision, there being no major policy decision involved. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all members present voting aye, except Mr. abie voting no. e Mr. Obie requested segregation of item EE, proposed leasing of Pioneer Title Company property, under April 20, 1977 minutes. He cited a recent Register-Guard article saying he was opposed to the leasing of the property because it was going beyond the boundaries of City Hall, and he wanted to state that that was not the case. He had visited the Data Processing work area in City Hall and found the working conditions to be very poor. However, he felt no emergency existed. He felt there was a situation where a building had come up for lease, the City saw the opportunity for a lease and the staff felt that was a good idea at the time. He felt the decision to lease such property should not be made just because the vacant building was available. He stated a concern that in the period 1973 to 1977 the staff had grown by 126 persons, which indicated a 35 percent increase in City staff while the city.s population growth had been only 15 percent. He noted that therein lies the space problem. He felt it impossible to question the staff increase on a position to position basis, but that there had been many more staff added to occur than there evidently was room for, and he was concerned with that issue. He felt the solution to the space problem was the number of employees in the City. He noted it would take the property tax of 100 homes in the city to support this lease of the building. He felt it was important to question the priority of expenditures, and that money could be used for remodeling within the existing City structure. His major concern was the spending of taxpayers' money for the leasing of property, for which he was ques- tioning the need. 41 350 4/25/77 - 33 Com 4/20/77 Pub Hrg VI. Amendments to Zoning Code; Sections 9.509-9.514 (Planned Unit Development Regulations) Summary of proposed changes distributed to Council. . Manager indicated that these proposed amendments would provide for consideration of diagrammatic and preliminary applications by a Hearings Official, modifying the criteria for diagrammatic and preliminary approval, and making certain other minor modifications. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the changes were not totally new, are that the present ordinance had been originally adopted in 1968. He said in 1974 the City Council had expressed some concern about the PUD process, with the Planning Commission reviewing the process over a two-year period. That review resulted in a ordi- nance passed in July 1976. Extensive discussion was held regarding the PUD consideration by a Hearings Official as opposed to Planning Commission reviews, In April 1976, the Planning Commission decided it would take a period of time to review and assess the effective- ness of the new procedures to see if there were any problems. He noted that over the nine month period of time, the Planning Commis- sion had ample experience in the new process. Its major opinion resulted in the fact that the new regulations were effective and did not have any major problems; that it would be appropriate and necessary to transfer the review to a Hearings Official at this time. He noted that the proposed changes contained two major elements: 1) delegate authority to a Hearings Official; and 2) a series of minor changes which do not change the substance, but ~. clean up a few items. ~ Mr. Bradley asked if there would be an appeal from the Planning Commission to the City Council to which Mr. Saul replied no, it would stop at the Planning Commission level and the next level would be in the courts. Mr. Delay questioned the split vote, wondering how much discussion on issues and how much discussion on the work load of the Planning Commission were in- volved. Mr. Saul reported that the central point of division was not procedural but philosophical, regarding whether it was an appropriate role of the Planning Commission to be the initial hearing body or for that to be the Hearings Official. Mr. Obie noted he would have a difficult time supporting the changes in the ordinance, saying he felt the public should have an ultimate recourse to an elected body. He also felt there was a judgmental decision involved in granting the PUDs and he would like time to study the process. He said he felt the public deserved to be judged by its peers, and they deserved the right of ultimate appeal to an elected official. He noted appreciation for Section 9.510 in regard to the off-site impact. Mr. Bradley wondered if one way to bring both philosophies into play would be to place the hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals with appeal to the City Council, or have a similar lay citizen group as the review body for PUDs. Mr. Saul expressed the opinion that the Zoning Board of Appeals idea was an extrem1y poor one. He said one critical area of concern becomes a question of who con- siders the appeal from its decision. He said if the City Council wanted to designate itself as an appeal body that it certainly had the right to do so. He noted the Planning Commission had far . 35/ 4/25/77 - 34 - greater background on these issues and was more familiar with the work involved. The staff is concerned with the three-tiered approach to the process of having a Hearings Official to the Planning Commission and then to the Council, being costly in time and waste of money. Mr. Williams noted his feeling that the general function of appro- val of PUDs is an administrative decision, and if so it should not be a judgmental decision. He said there are standards set up for PUD approval, and the decision of approving or not approving should be made by those standards and should not be a judgmental one. Manager noted that was the staff's position. Mr. Obie questioned whether the laws were definitive enough to not make a judgmental decision on offsite impact. e Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, noted that the use of a Hearings Official in the conditional use permit system had been very success- ful. He said the criteria are set forth very clearly, the Hearings Official documents his findings very articulately, and there is an appeal process. Mr. Saul noted there are several reasons why the Hearings Official process has responded with greater information to the public in regard to a particular decision made. He said the Hearings Official allows a greater degree of interchange between the opponents, which would be difficult on the City Council level; and the Hearings Official is able to enter into a dialogue with direct questions easier than the City Council. Most important, the Hearings Official is required to articulate his reasons why a particular decision was reached. Response from the public in regard to using a Hearings Official had been very acceptable because the public knows why a particular decision was made. Mr. Obie expressed his concern, again, that the public should have the right to appeal to an elected official. Mr. Bradley noted that he supported Mr. Obie in regard to the decision perhaps being a judgmental one. He said perhaps the Council could articulate its reasons for making decisions, and felt the government should be more open with more citizen participation and he could not support the change just for expediency. Mr. Delay noted he preferred to carry the discussion over to another meeting and receive a more complete packet of information from the Planning Department. Ms. Smith noted that it might be helpful to have Mr. Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, to answer questions. . It was the consensus of the Council that the Planning Commission should be represented at the May 4 meeting to answer questions regarding this matter. . Mr. Obie suggested that perhaps a questionnaire could be sent to those who had gone through the Hearings Official processes, what their response was to that process. Mr. Williams indicated that, having just gone through the process with very strong feelings, he would be reluctant to fill out such a questionnaire in the event that he would have to appear before the Hearings Official again in the future. 352 4/25/77 - 35 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to schedule public hearing on May 9, 1977, for the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code with more discussion to be held at the May 4, Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. Motion carried with all Council members present voting aye except Bradley and Delay voting no. . Com 4/20/77 Affirm VII. Proposed restructuring of Housing and Community Development Committee arrangements. Memos distributed to Council. Held over to April 27 meeting. Com 4/20/77 VIII. Review of Annexation Criteria--Memo distributed to Council. Affirm Held over to May 4 meeting. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Wi 11 i ams, to approve, affi rm, and file as noted Items IIA through HH. Rollcall vote. Motion passed unanimously, with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Obie, voting no on Item EE, under April 20 minutes. III-A-S III. Ordinances - The following council bill, read the first time April 11, 1977 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought back for second reading by council bill number and title only, if no Council member present reqeusted it be read in full. C.B. 1455--0rdering special election June 28, 1977 re: prohibiting fluoride in public water; repealing Ordinance No. 17594; adopting polling places and declaring an emergency was read by number and title only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no, the the bill was declared passed and numbered 17969. The following council bills read for the first time April 11, 1977 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing April 18, 1977 were brought back for second reading with Panel recommendtion to levy assessments as proposed: C.B. 1440--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Century Maples Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member tit present requesting that it be read in full. ' Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 1797 O. 353- 4/25/77 - 36 tit C.B. 1441--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Coraly Park Subdivision and sani- tary and storm sewer to serve property within 160 feet of the east boundary of Coraly Park Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council mempers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17971. C.B. 1442--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Burnside Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17972. C.B. 1443--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Nordian Park Subdivision and sanitary sewer to serve the area between Nordian Park and Chambers Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e t.1l . Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Wi 11 ; ams, that the bi 11 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17973. III-A-6 C.B. 1444--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer within 4th Addition to Paradise Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17974. C.B. 1445--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between 38th Avenue and 39th Avenue (if extended east) from Onyx Street to North Shasta Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17975. e C.B. 1463--Calling hearing June 13, 1977 re: alley vacation located on block Charnel ton west and 5th on south (Lane County) (AV 76-7) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 35/f 4/25/77 - 37 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17976. I II -A-8 C.B. 1464--Calling hearing June 13, 1977 re: easement vacation located east of Norkenzie and the terminus of Curtis Avenue, north of Brewer Avenue (Savage) (EV 77-3) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present reques ti ng 'that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17977. III-A-9 IV. Resol uti ons Res. No. 2661--Authorizing payment of bills and claims April 11 through April 25, 1977 was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to adopt the reso- lution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. e Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned. c~n~~ Ci ty Manager CTH:DT:ml/CM21bl0 - . 355 4/25/77 - 38