Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/1977 Meeting . , M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL August 22, 1977 Regular meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. August 22, 1977, in the Council Chambers, with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, Tom Williams Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. D.W. Hamel was absent. 1. Public Hearings I-A-l A. Human Rights Ordinance, amending Section 4.990(2), raising penalty to $1,000 Manager reported this recommendation came from the Human Rights Council in thei~ annual report. The previous fine of $100 had little enforcement effect. Public hearing was opened. George Russell, 3435 Chambers Street, said the main thing to empha- size was the value of the increase is not for punitive effect. More importantly, it hopefully would act as a deterrent to employers, e thus being a preventative measure. It would emphasize the City's seriousness in trying to eliminate the vestages of discrimination in Eugene, and would encourage the use of the prehearing mediation process and encourage emphasis to resolve discrimination complaints at the earliest point possible. Eric Larsen, 2635 Jackson, Attorney and Chairman of the Oregon State Bar Labor Committee, spoke against the proposed ordinance change. He felt that in Paragraph 2(a) of the proposed ordinance, innocent mistake and willful violation would be dealt with in the same way and some distinction should be made between the willful and non- willful violation and between civil and criminal penalty. He cited EEOC and Federal Civil Service agencies were trying to set up guidelines regarding discrimination and as yet had not been able to agree. He questioned if these agencies could not agree on what constitutes discrimination, then how would employers be able to? He also thought a $1,000 fine was too much. He felt there needed to be a civil penalty, but a distinction should be made between the willful and unwillful violation. Also, he wondered if the complainant would be encouraged to go to court with hopes of re- ceiving $1,000 and thereby not be encouraged to settle the suit in the prehearing process. The proposed ordinance would also place an undue burden on the employer, if he were involved in city, state, and federal litigation. e 8/22/77--1 Co3/ i I Under Paragraph 2(b), Mr. Larsen's concern was the inclusion of a . second or additional violation. His concern was that if an employer were found to be in violation of discrimination with one employee, that other employees would then file a class action suit upon the same employer, before allowing him time to correct his practice. He felt this section could be corrected by taking out the words, "willfully violating a second time." Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Obie asked Mr. Russell, based on the testimony by Mr. Larsen regarding terminology, whether any discussion regarding willful and innocent violation of discrimination had taken place with employers who might have had difficulty. Mr. Russell replied no. However, he explained Council should understand the ordinance sets only a maximum $1,000 fine and the judge could award up to that amount, based on the evidence presented. Mr. Obie then wondered if Mr. Russell agreed with Mr. Larsen's testimony that there could be possibility of class action suits. He wondered if one employee became aware of a discrimination suit in which a fine was assessed, that others might automatically also file such a discrimination suit. Mr. Russell did not feel that would occur, although he did not respond in a legal sense, since he is not an attorney. Assistant Manager noted to Council it was important to keep in perspective what had transpired prior to appearance in court. He e noted that the parties had come together at least twice with a professional arbitrator who attempted to settle differences. He said it was not a problem of employees holding out to get a claim, that the problem was generally the reverse--there has not been anything that has had any effect on employers' behavior. He empha- sized that an employer who allegedly discriminates would have a great deal of time to correct that practice through this mediation. Council should keep in total perspective that before the court appearance, the participating parties have every effort to recon- cile the discrimination disagreement. Andy Clement, Human Rights Specialist, reiterated Assistant Manager's remarks about attempts to reconcile any complaint before going to court. He said only one case to date had gone to a Hearings Official, and all other cases had been mediated informally. Mr. Williams had two questions: 1) What evidence was there to document the claim that the $100 fine was inadequate? and 2) Why is the City involved in this issue at all? He said persons had recourse through both state and federal agencies for discrimination suits and wondered if there was a need for a third level of govern- ment (city) to be involved. Mr. Russell reiterated his earlier concerns. He said employers were not encouraged not to discrimiate because the ordinance was not tough enough. The Human Rights - ~3~ 8/22/77--2 -- Council felt a concern, and that a strong ordinance would encourage e complainants to go through the City rather than being tied up in state or federal processes, which sometimes take two or three years. Also, it was felt necessary that the City establish its seriousness about addressing the discrimination issue in the city. He said the issue is not that the system is not being used, noting there were about five complaints a month. He said people who are personally aggrieveddo not have any kind of vindication or equitable ) relief and the Human Rights rationale was that the employers were merely getting their hands slapped. With a stiffer fine, it was felt persons would be encouraged to use the system and employers would be more careful about their discrimination practices. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, responded to Mr. Williams' question regarding why the City was involved. This would allow a swifter remedy for discrimination than going through the state and federal processes. In preparing the new ordinance, there was discussion of including attorneys' fees, but it was found impossible under the City Code. Increasing the fine to encourage use of the mediation process seemed the best way to go. Mr. Obie did not see any urgency in passing this ordinance. He was in favor of the Human Rights people and Mr. Larsen working together to develop better terminology in the ordinance. Mr. Bradley wondered if any thought had been given to establishing two separate fines, one for innocent violation and one for willful e violation. Ms. Benjamin replied the original fine of $100 under Paragraph (a) and $500 under Paragraph (b) had both been raised to a maximum possible fine of $1,000. It was felt a judge hearing a case would use discretion in determining what the fine in each case should be. Mr. Bradley wondered if a $500 maximum fine for innocent violation and a $1,000 fine for willful violation might be in order. Andy Clement reminded Council it had instructed the Human Rights staff to increase the fine from $100 to $1,000 for both. C.B. 1526--Concerning penalties; amending Section 4.990(2) of Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that C.B. 1526 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 8/22/77--3 lo33 Mr. Williams expressed concern with the growing number of charges of discrimination and legal hassles involved; yet there was no clear e understanding of what constitutes discrimination. He felt what was needed was not increased penalties, but a more definitive statement of discrimination. He felt the answer was not more penalties by a third branch, as the two existing governmental agencies obviously were having difficulty. Mr. Delay felt this ordinance provided a faster recourse of action and would encourage parties to get together to discuss resolution of discrimination practices. He said the issue at hand for Council was whether to amend the ordinance. He felt if Council wished to debate whether the City should be addressing the discrimination problem) that was another order of business. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to table the council bill, with suggestion that staff involved work with Mr. Larsen or an outside community resource person to further clarify terminology in the proposed amendment. Vote was taken on the motion which failed, with Councilors Obie and Williams voting aye; Haws, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. Mr. Bradley moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adjust the fine to $500 maximum for innocent violation and $1,000 maximum for willful violation. Mr. Delay said he was going to vote against that amendment because e the intent of the ordinance amendment was to encourage persons to negotiate resolution of problems. He felt $1,000 was a nominal fee and it was up to the judicial system to assess the amount of fine. Vote was taken on the motion to amend which failed, with Coun- cilors Obie, Bradley, and Williams voting aye; Haws, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. Mr. Bradley moved to amend the motion, changing wording in Section 2(b) to read "second or additional time not involving the same class of persons discriminated against." He noted his reason was to avoid a class action situation. Ms. Benjamin replied, as she read Section 2(b), she did not agree with Mr. Larsen1s interpretation that it would involve a class action suit. Mr. Bradley withdrew his motion. Vote was taken on the main motion as stated, with Councilors Obie and Williams voting no; Haws, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting aye. Lacking unanimous consent, the council bill will be held for second reading September 12. e 8/22/77--4 ~~ _-B-2 B. Rezonings 1. Property located on northeast corner of Bailey Hill Road and Westleigh Street (Valley West Center) (Z 77-24) from RA to RP-SR Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission July 5, 1977. The request was for a change of zone from RA Suburban Resi- dential District to RP-SR Residential Professional District with Site Review Procedures. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the property consisted of approximately 1.3 acres and had been annexed to the city in 1966. The rezoning request was for the purpose of building professional offices in the area. The Planning Commission had considered the amount of residential development in the area as extensive and future development was expected. The request was consistent with the General Plan; and a public need was shown. Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Staff Notes and minutes were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1528--Rezoning from RA to RP-SR property located on northeast corner Bailey Hill Road and Westleigh Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and m1 nutes of July 5, 1977 be adopted by ref~rence thereto; that the bi llbe read the second time by council bi 11 number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Haws questioned staff what would stop the applicants from asking for a commercial rezoning in the future. Mr. Saul replied nothing would prevent that request. However, he sai d had that request been submitted to the staff and Planning Com- mission, it would have been supported at this time. Mr. Haws asked if staff felt there was a need for C-1 zoning in the area. Mr. Saul replied a reasonable case could be made, noting the number of recent subdivisions immediately adjacent to the prop- erty, the retirement centers being developed in the area, and various PUD's. Mr. Lieua11en felt this kind of development was conducive to reducing vehicular traffic around town. Vote was taken on the motion as stated and carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e (,35 8/22/77--5 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bi 11 be approved e and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18041. 2. Property located south of 20th Avenue between Riverview Avenue 1-B-3 and Augusta Avenue (Smith) (Z 77-30) from C-1 to RA Recommended by Planning Commission July 5, 1977 with a 6:1 vote. Mr. Saul said the parcel consisted of approximately 1.5 acres and the request was for a change of zone from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District to R-1 Single-Family Residential District. The property had been annexed to the city in 1953 and following that annexation, the City had approved neighborhood commercial zoning on the property. The property had never been developed for commercial use and, there are two residences on the property. The present zone request change is sought by the present owner to subdivide for residential development. The Planning Commis- sion had noted the Laurel Hill Plan had contained a recommendation that commercial zoning be reviewed and considered for elimination. If Council approves this request, the additional small segments of commercial zoning north, south, and east, across Riverview from the subject property would be recommended for rezoning also. He noted Planning Commission had left intact a three-acre parcel on the east side of Augusta Street to accommodate commercial zoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Staff Notes and minutes of July 5, 1977 e were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Stanley Smith, 834 South 34th Street, Springfield, identified himself as the applicant and was available to answer questions. He felt the best use of the property was for residential rather than for commercial use. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1529--Rezoning from C-1 to RA property located south of 20th Avenue between Riverview and Augusta Avenues was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes July 5, 1977 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with - Ca3(P 8/22/77--6 . 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. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill wad declared passed and numbered 18042. 3. Property located between Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road; 1-B-4 north of the Delta Interchange (Wildish/lane County) (Z 77-33) from City and County RA to RP-SR Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission July 5, 1977. Change of zone request was from City and County RA Suburban Residential District to RP-SR Residential Professional District with Site Review Procedures. Mr. Saul reviewed the history of the annexation and zoning of this property. He also reviewed past Commission actions concerning it. In 1976, during public hearings before the Planning Commission and Council, major reservations were expressed concerning the appropriateness of the existing RA zoning and an indication that C-2 zoning was inappropriate. At this time, the Planning Commission has con- cluded because of the location in regard to the Delta Interchange that RP zoning would be most consistent and would provide a transition between the interchange and residential area. e In calling for ex parte contacts of conflicts of interest, Councilor Smith noted she would abstain from discussion and voting. There were no conflicts of interest expressed by other Council members. Staff Notes and minutes of July 5, 1977 were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Thomas Moreland, 460 Second Avenue East, said he agreed with staff that the area was not appropriate either for industrial, retail, or residential zoning, but RP-SR. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1530--Rezoning from City and County RA to RP-SR property located between Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road; north of Delta Interchange was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by -Mr. Delay that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and ~ I ~31 8/22/77--7 minutes of July 5, 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 unanimously, with Councilor Smith abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Councilor Smith abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18043. C. Bethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan. 1-B-5 Recommended by'Planning Commission June 7,1977, that Council con- sider second and third alternatives. Manager noted this item related to the drainage, land use, and access south of Elmira Road between Beltline and Roosevelt Boulevard. Pat Decker said staff was asking City Council for tentative approval for policy and selection of an alternative, with staff to come back to Council for resolution to that effect. She reveiwed Alternatives 2 and 3 for Council. She said the proposals were for a drainage channel and industrial arterial to serve the area south of Elmira Road, defined by Elmira Road on the north, Highway 99 on the east, the Coos-Bay, branch of Southern Pacific Railroad on the south, and Beltline Road on the west. She said most of the drainage problems in the Bethel-Danebo area had been resolved, with this being the one e remaining. At the present time, there are four major subdivisions awaiting resolution of the project. The area has three major planning problems: 1) the need. for separation and delineation of industrial and residential land-use areas; 2) the need for a major drainage facility; and 3) the need for improved access to the industrial portions of the area to better serve existing industry and provide alternatives to industrial traffic using residential streets. She said of the two alternatives being proposed to Council, both would separate the residential area to the north from the industrial area to the south. With Alternative 2, both facilities would fall into the same alignment following existing zoning. The drainage facility would be located north of the roadway to separate residential areas from the roadway and the industrial development to the south. This alternative would leave an estimated three acres of undeveloped residentially-zoned land south of the proposed facilities and unsepar- ated from adjacent heavy industrial development. Alternative 3 is very similar in its proposal except the arterial splits from the drainage ditch to use the right-of-way in Cross Street. It would require some additional acquisition of right-of-way. A cost estimate sheet was distributed to Council comparing the esti- mated costs for Alternatives 2'and 3. She noted there would be more cost assessment with Alternative 3 because property on Cross Street would have to be assessed. , I . 8/22/77--8 ~38 . When staff made its recommendation to Planning Commission, it felt Alternative 3 appeared to be the best solution to land use, drainage, and access problems. However, staff now feels that Alternative 2 would present a somewhat better engineering solution and it would not have the impact on Cross Street Alternative 3 would have. However, staff could support either alternative. Mr. Haws questioned the preliminary co~t estimate sheet, noting it appeared Alternative 3 would be easier on citizens as there was twice as much to be deducted on assessable roadway costs. Dave Reinhard, Transportation Planning, said the 1I1ess assessable roadway costsll were estimated assessment costs at the time of construction. He said the IIbottom linell showed the net ultimate City costs. He assumed the roadway construction would conform to past City policies whereby adjacent property owners would not be assessed unless they took access at that time. The net ultimate City costs under Alternative 2 were $1,181,000, and under Alter- native 3, $1,133,000. Mr. Haws said it appeared Alternative 2 was'more costly to the City, but Alternative 3 was more costly to the owners. Mr. Reinhard replied under Alternative 2, assess- ments would be only those on the south side; under Alternative 3, both sides of Cross Street and some on Bertelsen would be assessed. Mr. lieuallen wondered if staff would be requesting an increase in zoning of industrial land in that area. Ms. Decker replied the only rezoning that would occur would be for the small three- e acre parcel referred to earlier, and would not be creating un- needed industrial land. Mr. lieuallen wondered if the issue were one of right-of-way and engineering, and whether that was what staff was looking at. Ms. Decker replied with Alternative 2, the alignment represented a better engineering solution. It had a definite less immediate impact on property owners on Cross Street also. Mr. l i eua 11 en then wondered if the proposed arterial was going to be built as what might be described as freeway standards. Dave Reinhard replied no. Mr. Lieual1en then wondered if the arterial would become a portion of the Roosevelt freeway, to which Mr. Reinhard replied it might become a portion of an east-west arterial, but would not become a freeway facility. A short recess was taken. Public hearing was opened. Jim Bernhard, Planning Commission, said at the time the Planning Commission heard this issue, it did not have the additional cost estimates. At that time, Planning Commission felt Alternative 2 was the most desirable for traffic, development, and activities, but wanted to leave the alternative open for a cost differential. - b39 8/22/77--9 Warren Neer, 1336 Taft Street, owner or property at 3970 Cross Street was concerned with Alternative 3 re: how the properties other than . those on Cross Street would be assessed. He was in favor of Alter- native 2, as there are 19 residences on Cross Street in a trans- itional period, and it would work a hardship on the property. He also noted people who are objecting to truck traffic in the area would not be contributing to getting the truck traffic off the street, whereas people on Cross Street would be paying a high price to eliminate that truck traffic. Robert Flaherty, 123 Alva Park Drive, said when he moved to the area, he had no idea of this plan, and was ready to make improve- ments on his property. He requested Council make a quick and expedient decision so that property owners would know whether they were going to have to relocate. Roger Mike Van, 2435 Lily Avenue, represented property owners from Waite Street and said they were in favor of either Alternative 2 or 3. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen said he had talked to some interested parties questioning whether it was necessary to put the arterial in its proposed location of either Alternative 2 or 3 when there is access from 1st Avenue. Ms. Decker replied 1st Avenue did not connect to Beltline, and the e purpose was to have industrial access to Beltline other than 11th Avenue or residential streets such as Royal and Bertelsen. Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, responded to Mr. Neer's question regarding assessments, noting assessments would be made according to City policy whereby only abutting property owners and those taking access would be assessed. On Cross Street, the property owners would be assessed for a normal industrial-type street, estimated at $40 per square foot. Mr. Haws wondered if the arterial could be located from Beltline to Bertelsen and not go into the interior. Ms. Decker replied the arterial would be developed in stages and the first development would be from Beltline to Bertelsen. However, she said, those north of the railroad tracks who wanted to go north could do so only through this arterial as proposed, or otherwise would have to go out to 11th. The proposed arterial was to avoid truck traffic use of Royal, Elmira, and Bertelsen. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the policies as set forth by staff, and direct staff to prepare a resolution to adopt Alternative 2. Motion carried unanimously. e 8/22/77--10 ~40 0: Appeal from decisions of Planning Commission and Zoning Board of tit II-A-2 Appeals re: property located 3970 Marshall Avenue (Jack Gilbert) Unanimously denied by Planning Commission October 25, 1976. Mr. Saul indicated Council had received the background information giving the history of the subject property. He said the property consisted of approximately 17,975 square feet, and at the present time there is a single-family residence on the property. There also is an unattached building which under the building permit for accessory structures was to serve only as a shop for the owners and not as a residential unit. The owners have requested a minor partition to create a second lot and convert the shop to a second residence. The Planning Commission denied the request on the grounds that to comply with the Code and panhandle policies, would require 20 feet: five feet side yard for existing house, and 15 feet for access to the proposed back lot. Applicant, after denial of request for minor land partition by Planning Staff, appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. After Planning Commission's denial, he sought a variance on side yard requirements from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Having been denied by both Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals, the joint denials are now being heard by Counci 1 . No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff Notes and minutes of October 25, 1976 were received as part of the record by reference thereto. tit Public hearing was opened. Bruce Anderson, 101 East Broadway, attorney for the applicant, entered applicant's five exhibits (on file in Manager's office). He gave a history of the applicant's request, starting with a build- ing permit in 1974 for the construction of a shop at the rear of the lot. A slide presentation was given showing the property and adjacent properties with panhandle lots. The applicant was asking to maintain a realistic use of his property which would not be out of character with the neighborhood, that Council either allow a variance for the side yard requirements or a variance for the 15-foot driveway. He said there is a recognized need for more residential housing in the city, and the waiver for variances would then make the front lot - meet the necessary legal status. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen asked what standards had to be met to grant variances. Mr. Saul read from City Code, Section 9.752, which required Council find affirmatively on all five points. Mr. Obie questioned the applicant as to the estimated number of trips made daily when the building was used as a shop for the busi- ne s s . Applicant replied between 20 and 24 per day. Mr. Obie then questioned staff as to the reason for the five-foot side yard setback, e 8/22/77--11 bLfl to which Mr. Saul replied there were a number of reasons, inclu~ing fi re protection /access and air circulation. Mr. Obie then . asked applicant if he would be willing to build a screen or fence between the adjacent properties, as a condition for approval. Mr. Anderson replied for the applicant that he would if the City would approve it. In addition, the applicant was willing to put a one-hour fire-protective wall on the house at the front of the property. Mr. Delay asked staff to explain why access had been approved for a shop but was now being denied for a residential area, and whether there had been a change in the Code. Mr. Saul responded Council was dealing with two totally different situations. The drive ex- isting provided access to the front house. Council is now being asked to create'two distinct pieces of property that could be in separate ownership where a driveway would belong to the rear property, not the front property. Mr. Williams expressed concern regarding response from the neighbors, noting Mr. Haws' comment that he was a neighbor and had not been in- formed of this hearing. Mr. Williams questioned staff whether the neighbors had been aware of this hearing "tonight." Mr. Saul replied none of the property owners had been notified of this special hearing, but all had been notified of the original request for the minor parti tion. At that time, no response had been received from any adjacent property owners and there was no legal requirement for notification of this hearing. Mr. Williams wondered if it was pos- sible for Council to ask that the neighborhood be polled before e making a final decision, to which Mr. Saul responded if Council so wished. Mr. Lieuallen perceived there had been an existing use which was not in violation of City policies, but then a change in policy creating the special panhandle lots occurred. He said Mr. Anderson was arguing on the basis of a grandfather clause that this variance should be allowed. However, in order to allow the variance, the five criteria in the Code would have to be satisfied, and he won- dered if Council should discuss those criteria. He said the one he had most difficulty with was the exceptional or extraordinary conditions. He assumed the other panhandle lots in the adjacent . properties satisfied the Code, and he did not see any exceptional circumstances in this particular request. Mr. Anderson, in his rebuttal, said he was not aware of any objections from neighbors. He said access to the rear lot could be granted by easement access and the property owners did not plan to sell. They will use the building, if approved, as a rental property. He said as far as the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, this building has existed for some time, and looks like a house from the outside. . 8/22/77--12 ~41. He felt there were unusual and extraordinary circumstances, as e it is suitable for a residence, the City needs additional housing, it is not out of conformity with the area, and if not granted, the building would go unused and deteriorate. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the panhandle lot request be approved, and that variance to the five-foot side- yard be allowed, subject to building a sight-obscuring fence to the front dwelling unit and subject to a one-hour firewall on the front property if needed. Mr. Obie continued he had a great deal of concern regarding the City's Panhandle Lot Policy. However, it appeared here was a situ- ation where the building does exist, and many trips in and out of the driveway had taken place prior to this request. He had to agree there were exceptional and ordinary circumsances existing because the neighborhood had allowed three other panhandle lots adjacent to th is prope rty . He felt if the variance was in order, then a request for a panhandle lot was in order. He felt the housing needs and policy of the City at least demand the Council IS attention, that Council had to take some responsibility for allowing creation of a lot that was 204 feet deep and some responsibility for resolving that issue. He felt if there were no objections from the neighborhood, this would be the best solution. Mr. Williams agreed with most of Mr. Obie's comments but not his conclusion. He felt the other aspect that Council should consider e was if the Panhandle Policy was incorrect on the width of roadway and side yard setback, then that Panhandle Policy should be changed. His concern was establishing a variance policy that might encourage others to bypass the process. He felt it might invite abuse of the City's po 1 i cy . Vote was taken on the motion which failed, with Obie voting aye; Lieuallen, Smith, and Williams voting no; Haws, Delay, and Bradley abstaining. There was question about Mr. Delay abstaining after seconding the motion. Mr. Delay said he was abstaining because he could come to no adequate decision. Legal counsel advised this created no problem ._ Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the appeal be denied; staff be directed to prepare findings of fact based on the Planning Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, and testimony presented at "tonightls" meeting that the hardship required by the zoning ordinance had not been established satisfactory to Council's wishes. e 8/22/77--13 lolf3 Vote was taken on the motion which passed, with Obie voting no; Haws and Bradley abstaining; and Williams, Delay, Smith, . and lieuallen voting aye. E. liquor license Applications II-B-S 1. Nikolai's, 46 East 11th Avenue (RMB), new outlet; Aldyne Enterprises, Applicant Manager noted there were two objectors and nine nonobjectors. Staff found all papers in order and had no objections. Public hearing was opened. Paul McCartney, 4413 Ryan, represented Nikolai's and was avail- able to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to forward with approval_ to OlCC. Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Italian Place, 2710 Willamette Street (RMB), new outlet; Roscoe and Floy Caldwell, Applicants Manager said there were no objectors and ten nonobjectors, staff had no objections, and found the papers in order. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. " Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to forward with approval e to OlCC. Motion carried unanimously. F. Public Works Bid Openings and Contract Awards--Various Improvement II-B-6 Projects (tabulation attached). Don Allen, Director Public Works, reviewed Bid No.1, sidewalk on east side Four Oaks Grange Road, between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (1308). He noted this had been held over from the July 11 Council meeting in order to allow the persons involved to install their own sidewalks. One of three had done so, but one lot had been subdivided so there were still three parcels to be paved, of which two wished to do their own paving. Staff was requesting City Council award the contract to be installed if owners haq not installed their own within two weeks from this date. If the owners do install their own sidewalk, then negotiation with the bidders of the contract for the one lot remaining would have to occur. If that negotiation fails, the project would have to be rebid. He noted the price was exhorbitant. Public Hearing was opened. Mel Hahn, 3088 West 15th Avenue, No. 31, was owner of two lots in the area. He requested he be allowed to pour his own sidewalk and e 8/22/77--14 6Lt4 . driveway as one unit, and felt the two weeks' time would . allow him to do so. Mr. Allen reiterated the need to have the project completed within two weeks from this date as the sidewalks needed to be completed by the start of school. Mr. Allen reviewed the remaining bid c0ntract awards, recommending awarding contracts to low bidders in each case. For the storm sewer within Annamidaz Subdivision (Job 1390), Mr. Allen reviewed for Council that a petition had been filed March 29 for a subdivision with 100 percent of the property owned by the subdivider. July 1, notices were sent out for the hearing and the owner of all the property was still shown as the subdivider. On July 27, one property was sold twice, the latter buyer being the party who had come to the August 17 Council hearing requesting a delay in the award of this bi d. August 3, three other properties in the subdivision had been sold and all present property owners had been given notice of this hearing "tonight." For that job, Mr. Allen corrected the cost to abutting property owner for the storm sewer to be $4,100 per lot and cost to the City would be $4,900. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept low bids as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously, with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Williams ab- staining on Job 1445, storm sewer Tomahawk Lane, from Coburg e Road to east 400 feet; and Mr. Obie abstaining on Job 601, paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewers Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to Royal Avenue. G. Contract Award for Skinner's Butte Park Improvements Manager noted bids had been received August 17 for projects which involved replacing old asphalt paths, a sidewalk along the side of Cheshire Street, three reductions in road width within the park for speed-inhibiting purposes, a new playground site, and minor adjustments relating to the above work. It was necessary for Council action at this meeting in order for the work to be com- pleted before winter. Two bids had been received, one from Morris K i e lty , f95,973.85; one from Wildish Construction Co., $89,506.76. Staff recommended awarding low bid to Wildish Construction Co. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to award low bid as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. II. Ordinances Held for Second Reading--None III. Ordinances Held for First Reading--None e 8/22/77--15 lo1fS . IV. Resolutions . II-B-7 Res. No. 2738--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period August 8 through August 22, 1977 was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2739--Authorizing initiating process for street paving, sani- tary sewer and storm sewer construction to serve Third Addi tion to Candel i ght Park was read by number and ti tl e. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2740--Authorizing initiating process for street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way construction within Horizon West Subdivision; along Hawkins Lane adjacent to Horizon West Subdivision; and along Beaumont Street adjacent to Horizon West Subdivision and 250 feet north (1415) was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. v. Approval of Minutes - II-B-IO Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve Council Minutes of July 25, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to August 31, 1977. Ch~en~~ City Manager CTH:DT:ml/CM7b12 , e Vlb 8/22/77--16 , . e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division " Bid No.6 Opened: July 7, 1977 rr>>1" 1. SIDEWALK on East Side Four Oaks Grange Road ffi~ between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (1308) Bidders Contract Cost 1. Concrete Unlimited, Inc. --------------------------------------$3,375.8o~ 2. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc. -----------------------~$3,450.60 3. Wildish Construction Company ----------------------------------$3,636.05 4. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc. -------------------------------------$4,110.63 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted 411 Sidewalk $2.88/Sq.Ft. -0- -0- 511 Sidewalk & Driveway $3. OO/Sq,. Ft. COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1977 ~-----:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bid No. 7 Opened: August 2, 1977 1. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north, south and east boundaries of Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision. (13~6) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---------_____________$ $ 42,648.14 ~ 2. Wi1dish Construction Company --------------------$ 45,961.00 43,708.50 3. Morse Bros., Inc. ---------_____________~________ 43,099.90 4. Dan D~ Allsup, Contractor, Inc:~-----------_---__ 46,325.95 5. Benge Paving, Inc. ------------------------------$ 46,674.40 46,916.43 6. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc. ---------______________ 50,444.50 48,516.35 Cost to Abutting Property Cos t to Ci t)' Budgeted : 28' Paving $ 28.70/FF None None San. Lateral $ 700.00/Lot San. Service $ 235.00/Lot e San. levy $ 40.00 Lot Storm Sewer $ 380.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 (oLtl . 2. PAVING Holly Street from Tabor Street .. to Norkenzie Road (Job No. 1416) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate l. Wildish Construction Company ---------------------$ 11,889.00 $ 10,892.00V- 2. Morse Bros., Inc.~-------------------------------- 12,016.00 3. Benge Paving, Inc. ------------___________________ 14,576.09 12,777.99 4. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc. --------________________ 13,544.75 13,225.00 5. Eugene Sand & Gravel; Inc. -------________________ 14,347.40 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Budgeted Paving $ 16.00/FF None None COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. STORM SEWER within Sailor Flats Subdivision (Job No. 1480) Bi dders Contract Cost l. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-----------------___________ $ 39,202.5~ e 2. Wildish Construction Co. ---------________________________ 39,650.00 3. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc. --------_________________.,.______ 45,205.50 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel; Inc. -------________________________ 45,366.25 5. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ______~---~-----______ 50,958.75 Cost to Abutting Property Cos t to C i ty Budgeted - Storm Sewer $ 1,060.00/Lot $ 21,200.00 $ 18,500.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 ----------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------- 4. STORM SEWER within Annamidaz Subdivision (Job No.'1390) Bidders: Contract Cost 'l. Wi1dish Construction Company-----------------____________ $ '17,717:70V 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---------_____________________ 20,829.75 3. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc. --------_______________________ 21,361.78 4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.------------------_________ 22,694.60 5. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.-~~------------------- 23,119.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City BUdgeted e 4-, , DC> ' sf "1 DC Storm Sewer $ &=;feO.OO/Lot ~.OO $ 3,120.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1977 ~Lt& ( - 0 ! _- Bid No. 7 Opened: August 4s 1977 (~t - . 5. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWERS & SIDEWALKS; Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue .JtJ to Royal Avenue (Job No. 601) P' Bidders: Contract Cost 1. H & J Construction -------------------------------_______ $ 700,966.87~ 2. Morse Bros., Inc. ------_________________________________ 751,364.10 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------_______________ 787,666.23 4. Wildish Construction Company -__________~---------_______ 790,380.75 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Budgeted 44' Paving $ 36.39/FF --- Paving ------- $ ~4,lOO.OO ------ $ 70,000.00 v28' Paving $ 19.54/FF Storm Sewer----- $212,100.00 ------ $126,000.00 411 Sidewalk $ 1.26/SF 511 Sidewalk $ 1.34/SF 7" Sidewalk . $ 1.6l/SF 2" A.C.Drives $ 0.44/SF 311 A.C.Drives $ 0.60/SF San. Services $ 2,OOO.00/Each -_ COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1978 -------------------------~-------------------------------------------------------------- e ~lf9 \ . I . e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bid No". 8 Opened: August 16, 1977 1- PAVING & STORM SEWER; Chase Street from Royal Avenue to Bell Avenue (JOb No. 1365) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------------$ $ '37,836.01/ 2. Wildi sh Construction Company---------------------$ 43t 631.80 $ 40,390.80 3. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.------------------------$ 43,243.55 $ 40,557.55 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to Ci ty Budgeted 281 Paving $22.50/FF Stonm Sewer $ 10,000.00 ---------- $ 8,500.00 511 Cone.. Driveway $ 1.30/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. PAVING 17th Avenue from 300 feet East of -_ Quaker Street to 600 feet East of Quaker Street (Job No. 1459) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic A lte rna te 1. Wi1dish Construction Company-~------------------ $ , $ 11 ,684.25/ 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------------$ 13,126.50 $ 11,933.97 3. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.------------------------$ 13,120.55 $ 12,001.31 4. James A. Hi11------------------------------------$ 22,111.90 $ 17,213.20 Cost to Abutting Propert~ Cost to City Budgeted 281 Paving $26.30/FF None None Driveways $ 2.16/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1977 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. SLURRY SEALS - 21 various locations Bidders Contract Cas t 1- Interstate Slurry Seal Company------------------------- $ 23,926.50~ - Cos t. to Abutti ng Property Cost to City Budgettd. None $ 23,926.50 $ 20,311.00 COl~PLETION DATE: September 16, 1977 to5o ~ . 4. STORM SEWER Tomahawk Lane, from Coburg Road to East 400 feet (Job No. 1445 ) Bidders Contract Cost 1- Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.----------________________$ 6,849.00~ 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------_____________$ 6,930.00 3. l. D. VanOver Construction-----____________________$ 7,449.75 4. James A. Hill--------------________________________$ 8,933.25 5. Wildish Construction CO.--------------_____________$ 9,300.00 6. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction CO.--------------__$ 11,070.00 'Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Budgeted None $ 6,849.00 $ 6,000.00 COMPLETION DATE: November 4, 1977 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . -- ~Sl