Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1977 Meeting , M I NUT E S . EUGENE CITY COUNCIL December 12, 1977 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on December 12,1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, and Betty Smith. Council ors Ray Bradley and Brian Obie were absent. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal of Minor Partition, located west of Shasta Loop on west side of Barber Drive (Clark) (M 77-117) Denied by Planning Commission October 10,1977, with 3:1 vote. Manager said the item had been appealed twice, once in regard to staff action and once before the Planning Commission. In both instances, the Planning Commission upheld the staff and the appeal now was to City Council for consideration. Jim Saul, Planner, reviewed the location of the minor partition, which involves the creation of three lots from an original parcel containing approxi- mately one and one-third acres. Parcel 1 will be a corner lot and e contain approximately 12,800 square feet; Parcel 2 will contain approximately 10,500 square feet; and Parcel 3 will contain appro- ximately 37,250 square feet. He noted Parcel 3 would be suitable for further division into three lots, thus the total number of lots which could be created from the original 60,500 square feet could be five. All property is presently vacant. The minor partition was submitted to the Planning Commission in July and approved in August of 1977. Action of the staff was appealed to the Planning Commission for consideration September 26 and October 10,1977, at which time the Planning Commission upheld staff position and denied the appeal. Several issues had been raised in the appeal. Mr. Saul identified two critical issues raised by the appellants: 1) Deed restrictions limiting a lot to one single-family residence. He said the City has a policy of not enforcing private deed restrictions of this nature, noting it could be contrary to adopted City policies, and could involve some legal complications. 2) The appellants contend the property should have been divided through a major, as opposed to a minor partition. Mr. Saul continued with other salient points. There is no difference in notification procedures between a major and minor partition. There is no difference in opportunity for appeal of a major or minor partition with the single exception of 30 days ap- peal for a major partition and ten days appeal for a minor. The -- 12/12/77 - 1 qao , major difference between procedures of a major and minor partition . is the type of information required by State statutes and City Code. In this instance, the type of information specified for major partition was submitted even though it was a minor partition. He said the point Council should consider is that a major partition process would not have afforded greater notification nor resulted in a different opinion. Mr. Haws said, in reference to Staff Notes and the appellant's petition, he did not understand what the issue was between a major and minor partition, and issue of streets involved. Mr. S au 1 replied the street issue was significant as under State statutes that is the major point of distinction between a major and minor parti ti on. A partition is defined as creation of three or fewer lots in a calendar year, and a minor partition does not involve creation of streets whereas a major partition does. The argument raised by the appellants was whether the street was created prior to this minor partition and should it have been required to go through major partition procedures. In this particular appeal, he said the signi- ficance of a major or minor partition is difficult to understand. City Code does not provide for different standards of judgment or different notification, and it would have been approved. Staff takes position the argument over major or minor partition process is completely misleading, noting the issue is whether or not this land should be divided in the first place. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by e Cou ncil members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 10, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Will i am Cadbury, 1500 Sky1 i ne Park Loop, opened hi s remarks by saying Mr. Saul had misrepresented his group as the record would show the group had never asked the City to enforce covenants on land. He represented an ad hoc association of more than 30 of the 58 property-owning families in Skyline Park Estates. His major points presented for denial of the appeal included the following. The form provided by the City for partition application specifies that it be signed by "owner" of the land affected. He cited precedent established in the Bienz vs. Dayton case which his group felt had merit, but which the City Attorney claimed did not apply to thi sease. He felt covenants established property rights and Fasano requirements entitled the group to notice when property rights may be affected. He continued there was no giving or taking of land in the Zdroy minor partition, and therefore no street was created by the Counci 1. He contended either no street was created, and hence Clark's cannot be a dedication of a street to an already created street, and therefore his application must be for a major partition, , or if a street were created, it was done without sufficient notifi- cation to the affected property owners. He claimed this was depriva- e tion of due process for those property owners. Also, public policy 12/12/77 - 2 '101 requires the preservation of worthwhile distinctive qualities in e the neighborhood and it was felt the neighborhood now has those. With the Clark partition, the norm of lot sizes in the neighborhood would be changed and threaten those qualities and therefore was contrary to public policy. He said the City contends it does not enforce covenants, but the Planning Department required Clark to enter into covenants in the deed of the partitioned land. He felt this was testimony that the City at least enforces the existence of covenants. He requested City Council to deny the minor partition and asked the Planning Commission to provide adequate notice, not just to neighborhood organizations but to all owners of land affected when future applications come in for land use. Marilyn Papich, 1309 West Fourth, is a property owner and building a home in the Skyline Loop area. She used a map to describe to Council the street areas affected. She said the proposed plan would cut up twenty acres of land. She said in the Zdroy 1974 case, the owner wished to build a house and was denied that wish until he agreed to donate land to a system of roads. She felt the Planning Commission was saying the road system had already been created and Clark was not in violation because the road system had already been created. She noted notification of property owners in the area was very poor, as only three property owners close to Zdroy had received notification and the others had not. Lloyd Brown, 1210 Barber Drive, represented the Southeast Firs Neigh- e borhood Association. He noted the organization had been formed in the Spring of 1976. Prior to that time, there was no organization in the area. Therefore, property owners had little notification of any processes by the City affecting their property. He noted the Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association was trying to follow through and notify people within the neighborhood of City actions. He said Planning Department had been very cooperative in giving him access to records. However, he expressed the desire that the Planning Department send letters to notify the neighbors in the area of what was occurring. He felt esp'ecially after annexation there should have been some process used by the City to notify property owners of what was occurring in the neighborhood. He felt some promises had been made prior to the annexation, but were not written down and could not be proven. He said now the area was facing an entire change by the minor partition. He said Mr. Zdroy was forced to create a street, and he felt the Planning Department was determining the law of the City without public hearings, and he felt that was wrong. He read a motion from the Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association in which they unanimously approved going on record in support of and endorsement of the Skyline Park opposition to the proposed Clark subdivision, and support of the position that covenants to deeds should be enforced. 12/12/77 - 3 e ~~ Dan Kovtynovich, 1595 Skyline Loop Drive, represented himself as e an engineering contractor. He had lived in the area for 30 years, and noted prior to annexation there had been a local organization which dealt with the maintenance of roads, the water system, which since annexation, EWEB is still using. Also, the organization donated five acres of land to the City as a park. He said the City Attorney was asked at that time to strike out the restrictive covenants attached to that particular piece of land, but the re- strictive covenants were not struck from other pieces of property. He felt the City should honor the deeds and covenants. Maxine Skates, 1500 Skyline Park Loop; spoke regarding the proce- dure of notification in general. She sai d noti ces in the 1974 Zdroy partition were sent only to landowners abutting the proper- ty owner, but she felt the criteria of the ordinances required by a minor partition that the contiguous property owners be also notified. The affected property owners were not notified, and she felt using the minor partition notification was a loophole used by the Planning Department. She said citizen input is requested by the City and questioned how that input could be received unless the property owners were notified. She also noted the Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association had not existed in 1974, but with the Clark minor partition they were still not notified through the organiza- tion. In fact, she said some people in the area were not aware they were members of a neighborhood organization. She said it seemed once the Planning Department had notified the neighborhood organi- zation it felt they had done their job. She said that process con- - stitutes telling the president of a neighborhood organization, who then has to find someone in the area being affected to pass on the i nformati on. She felt the City should come up with some better notification procedures. Peter Lorenz, 1185 Barber Drive, distributed a map to Council indi- cating the street system with the Clark and Zdroy partitions. He sai din 1974 the Zdroy project was accepted for partiti on by vi rtue of what was creation of streets. The street portion cuts through his own property twice, yet he had not been notified of the existing street system until 1977. He contended no street creation took place up to and through 1977. The City should not create streets without public input and without documentation. He questioned when the street was created and by what process and why property owners were not notified or asked for input. Jerry Stafek, of Iverson and Hughes, Inc., represented the seller and buyer of the property. He felt the opposition was basing its appeal on maintaining a certain character of this particular neigh- borhood. He said the dividing of large parcels in this small por- tion of the City would make little difference in its total character. The size of lots would be substantially larger than the average i n th e City. He felt the Planning staff had lived up to the South Hills Study in requiring that certain vegetation clearing restrictions be upheld and a covenant to this effect was insured by Mr. Clark. e 12/12/77 - 4 Q03 . He said the testimony of the opponents smacked of a selfish atti- tude in that good land use should occur in someone else's neighborhood but not theirs. They wanted City services, but did not want the responsibility that went along with those services. He noted covenants do exist; however, he said basic violations already were occurring, and cited examples of an office in a house, people living in a garage while building a house, and a detached residence which were all violations of the covenants. He felt the appellants were choosing to take exception to one which they felt was a violation, noting he felt this was some petty jealousy on their part, as Mr. Clark was dividing for a profit, and he felt some of them would do the same. He noted it was interesting that one opponent was a party who had also attempted a subdivision in the area. He felt sincerity was certainly lacking in the opponent's appeal and urged Council to deny. Dennis Clark, 1014 Lincoln, noted the opponents were speaking in terms of being forced into the City against their will, and yet in fact, the annexation had been forced by the State Health Depart- ment regarding a health hazard. He said their concern with the environment was ironic now in view of the lack of concern of open sewage in the area before it was annexed. Also, he said the group was not forced to annex into the City, noting all but five of the present property owners signed or wanted into the City. He felt the City's growth should go into the marginal hills. He also noted that Mr. Lorenz had also been interested in subdivisions. He felt the issue of e covenants and restrictions on deeds was a court matter. He stated he had complied with the Planning staff's requirements and probably would ask for a pUblic hearing if the street plan were denied. He also noted the misrepresentation of the number of property owners dis- favoring the minor partition, saying he represented over 30 property owners in the area who were in favor of the minor partition. He also did not feel it was his fault that the neighborhood organization had a communications problem. Hillary Dix, 1300 Skyline Park Loop, was in favor of denying the minor partition. She requested a show of hands of those in opposi- tion to the minor partition, with about 30 to 40 people indicating such. Richard Marrocco, 1015 Barber Drive, said one of the underlying philosophies of subdivisions was that more homes were better. He argued in opposition to that philosophy. He felt the present land in the neighborhood offers a benefit to the City in that people look for diversity, wanting perhaps smaller or larger lots when searching for homes. He said the rural nature of the Skyline Park area was attractive to some individuals, and felt because of this unique environment, it is a very valuable asset and should be available to people. He urged Council to uphold the appeal. e 12/12/77 - 5 qO~ John Dubin, 1405 Skyline Park Loop, testified in favor of the . appea 1 . He noted the use of slander by the proponents and said the opposition had not done that. He asked a rhetorical question as to who is the City of Eugene, answering it was the people who live in the neighborhoods who pay taxes and own homes. He felt these people should be able to make decisions on how the land in their area is used. In his opinion, the City was going downhill very fast in how its decisions were made. Lloyd Lovell, 4477 Dillard Road, urged Council to implement the policies of preserving the character and distinctiveness of various neighborhoods. He noted there were some kinds of deve- lopment in neighborhoods that would be impossible to undo, noting again the unique character and attractiveness of this particular a rea. He said residents of Eugene were encouraged to use options, citing the example of the many options in the school system. He urged Council to consider such options available for property owners. Mr. Saul responded the statement that a major partition procedure should have been followed implied in that notion that a different decision would have been reached or a different procedure would have been followed. He stated there was no difference, and that City Code does not prpvide for public hearing or notification to abutting property owners except in cases of modification (there is considered to be no modification if classified as a major partition). Notice of the Clark minor partition was sent to the Southeast Firs . Neighborhood Organization July 5,1977, and no response was received until the Planning Commission meeting October 10,1977. In regard to the reference to the prior Zdroy minor partition, he said that was a matter which had been appealed to the City Council two times in that Mr. Zdroy did not wish to dedicate a portion of the proper- ty as required. City Council upheld that dedication. Ms. Smith wondered which portion of the streets were dedicated. Jim Saul said the portions of the Zdroy minor partition and Clark minor partition were dedicated, but the street was unimproved. Ms. Smith then wondered if the neighborhood property owners were noti- fied of the street dedication. Mr. Saul replied that the abutting property owners were notified because the original application in- volved a modification to the Code. In rebuttal, Mr. Cadbury said it was not the sincerity of the group that was the question but due process and what the Code provided. He said the major point to be made was that Mr. Saul argued there was no different process to be followed between a major and minor partition. He continued a major partition involves creation of streets. When the property owners affected by the street system became aware of what was happening, they were told the streets were already created. The group he represented felt the City owed it a chance to talk about those streets. In regard to Fasano e 12/12/77 - 6 Q05 e procedures, he said they were designed to protect property rights and the group was asking for recognition of existing covenants, and asking to recognize certain Fasano procedures which say the property owners should get notice if their property is affected. The group was asking the City to instruct the Planning Department to notify when the property was being affected. Peter Lorenz, in rebuttal, asked two questions of Council: 1) When were these streets created, noting if they were created in 1974, he asked why he was only made aware of that fact in 1977? 2) If they were not created in 1974, Clark did so by minor parti- tion. He said this was not according to City procedures and it should have been a major partition. He noted the matter of streets was an important point in the appeal. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws questioned exactly what was the status of the streets and if Council approved this partition what difference it would make in the street system. Mr. Saul replied the criteria under which any division of land must be evaluated stipulates that one of the factors that has to be evaluated is whether or not the precise property impedes future access to any other abutting property. This particular area is characterized by large parcels of land with a large bulk along Dillard Road of over an acre in size. The e first land division in the area occurred in 1975, which was the Zdroy partition. He said it was common practice on the part of the Planning Department, when a land division is submitted, to look at the overall area and what access pattern is necessary. In this instance, the staff reviewed the plan, seeing the parcels were large enough and it was apparent that, being in the City and granted City policies, that future division was going to occur in this area. Therefore, a general street pattern was developed to provide access to the properties. On this basis dedication was required of Zdroy. He said on the map the dashed lines do not represent dedicated streets. He said the street pattern was a general configuration which would be used to try to work out access as development occurred. Zdroy and Clark would be dedicated streets at this time. In regard to the difference if the partition were approved or denied, the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or City Council ultimately will have to face the access problem as future division of land occurs in this area. Mr. Haws wondered if the applicant requested a panhandle lot, how many lots would be included. Mr. Saul said it would be possible to stack up panhandle lots off of Barber Drive. That would be a much less desirable mode of access to this property, and would also confound the division of the rest of the property in the area. Ms. Smith questioned whether the street pattern was originally set up e in 1974 and whether or not some type of street system would still be needed. She also wondered if the original design in 1974 had included notification given to property owners. Mr. Saul replied yes, the gOb 12/12/77 - 7 street pattern was established in 1974 as a result of the Zdroy e minor partition. It is common that property is developed as owners elect to develop, and sometimes it is not in an orderly fashion. He said there is no provision for notification in the Code. Mr. Lieuallen directed a question to City Attorney to respond to the concern raised by the neighborhood that the City is operating under the wrong procedures in a major versus a minor partition. Stan Long responded the Code describes the difference between the two in terms of whether or not a street is created. He said this was a question of fact which City Council had to decide. He said in a strict legal sense, the definition was Council's definition. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision and adopt findings of fact. Mayor Keller requested City Attorney to clarify any reference made to the court case in staff notes and the appeal. Mr. Long said in that particular case, the city involved did not have a zoning ordi- nance and controlled 'land development through subdivision procedures. He said that case did not speak to a city like Eugene which has delegated power to a particular officer to make partition decisions. Mr. Lieuallen said it was not clear to him which course would be best to take in this particular case. He said it seemed there were e two major issues, one where property owners have certain size lots and the appellants who do not want more people and more traffic in their part of town. He said they were speaking to other technical deficiencies in the procedures to make their case: If the zoning were approved and whether the application had followed the procedures, or if there were errors in those procedures. He noted the City's policy to disperse intensity throughout the entire city. Mr. Delay said that he found the situation to be relatively clear. There would have to be a street network available if the land is to be developed, noting if it were developed it was up to the owners of the property. He found no reason to deny the appeal. Mayor Keller concurred. He said it was not certain that the pro- cesses were appropriate to serve all people, but following of procedures and processes was consistent. These issues have been raised many times, but it does appear there will have to be some type of road system developed in that area. Mr. Lieuallen said the situation could be looked at in terms of procedure, and also the general issue of growth and what it does to a particular neighborhood. The testimony indicated the people want to control what happens in their own neighborhoods. He said, however, City policies are determined by all citizens of the community and not necessarily what goes on in one particular neighborhood. e 12/12/77 - 8 ~Ol e Vote was taken on the motion which passed unanimously. B. Zone/Sign District Change, located in 2200 block on east side of Augusta Avenue (English) (Z 77-39) from C-1 to RA Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission October 11,1977. Manager noted neighborhood support for the change in zone. Mr. Saul said the property is approximately 1.6 acres and at the present time has one house. It was annexed in 1953 and zoned C-1. There has been no commercial development since that time. The property immediately west of Augusta Street is zoned RA. He said the Planning Commission would be considering the status of the remaining C-1 zoning in that area sometime in January. The rezoning would be consistent with the General Plan and the Laurel Hill Neighbors plan. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 11, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Sam Knudsen, Jean Tate Real Estate Agency, said residential zoning would be the highest and best use of the land in the area. He said the development would be for a subdivision. e Gretchen Miller, 1628 East 19th, said the neighborhood group did support the zone change from C-1 to RA. However, she questioned the quality of the land for residential development, noting it was covered with water and more like a swamp for much of the year. She also commented on the hastiness of submitting plat plans when the rezoning had not been completed. She expressed concern from the neighborhood group in terms of destroying the natural benefits of the area, noting the swamp, trees, stream, and blackberry bushes. She said the neighborhood group would like to get involved at an early phase to help design the proposed development in order to preserve these natural resources. There was a desire on the part of the neighborhood group to have input into the process at an early stage. Mr. Lieuallen asked for clarification about the process and whether it was normal to deal with plat plans before the rezoning. Mr. Saul replied the decision to submit a plat is within the discretion of the developer and not the Planning Department. However, once it has been submitted, there are statutory time limits and the plat plan has to be forwarded to the neighborhood group. He was not aware that this plat had been submitted. However, he noted it would have received no approval until the Council had acted on the rezoning. Mr. Lieuallen wondered what particular reason there was for preferring RA to R-1 zoning. Ms. Miller replied the RA zoning would provide more flexibility of activities for the people living in the area. She said e the entire neighborhood is zoned RA and that would be compatible. 12/12/77 - 9 C](J8' Mr. Knudsen said the plat had been submitted for the sUbdivision and it would be provided to the neighborhood group to receive their e i npu t. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Council Bill 1576--Authorizing change in zoning from C-1 to RA and Sign District Change from Outlying Commercial District to Residential District for property located in 2200 block on east side of Augusta Avenue (Tax Lot 200) was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 11, 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 and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18088. A short recess was taken. e C. Appeal of Hearings Official Action, property located south of Westleigh Street, north of Kevington Avenue, and east of Bailey Hill Road (Westwood Planned Unit Development) (PO 77-10) Denied by Hearings Official November 8,1977. Manager said under the new ordinance this matter was appealed to City Council. The request was approved with conditions for di agrammati c approval. Mr. Saul said this PUD was a portion of the Valley West PUD. That particular PUD was one of the first considered by the City even before the City had formally adopted PUD procedures. He reviewed the first phase with approval given in January, 1968, for 32 single-family units on nine acres. The single phase was approved in January, 1969. The commercial deve- lopment received final planned unit development approval July, 1969. The final phase of Valley West PUD (site of the present request) received preliminary approval from the Planning Commis- sion September, 1970. The time limit for that development expired and in June, 1975, a new development proposal was submitted for thi s property. That proposal consisted of 115 townhouse units on 9.5 acres. The preliminary submittal for that development was sent back to the design team, pending resolution of staff con- cerns. There had been no further acti on on that proposal since 1975. This application was submitted several months ago, and e 12/12/77 - 10 qOq - the Hearings Official did approve, with the appeal now before Council. Mr. Saul reviewed the density statistics which included the existing Valley West development on 21 acres and the proposed development on 9.5 acres with a total of 30.5; the existing deve- lopment of dwelling units of 73, and the proposed development of 120 with a total of 193; the density points per acre on the existing development 97.3, with the proposed development of 294.7, for a total of 158.8. The submitted plan indicates the unit mix would be a combination of two and three bedrooms, with two to five units per building. Access to the site would be off Westleigh Street. The plan indicates open spaces and pedestrian paths between units, with two tennis courts adjacent to the existing Valley West swimming pool and recreation center. Open space would also be shared with single- family residences. He noted Mr. James Spickerman, Hearings Official, was present to answer questions. Mr. Saul said since this was the first appeal of the Hearings Official to come before Council under the new ordinance, he had distributed copies of the pertinent section which deals with appeals for City Council review. He said several aspects would be important to note: The appeal provisions of the Code specify the appeal is to be based on the record, and testimony in the appeal period is to be limited to items specified on the appeal statement; no new information is to be entered without a written request prior to the meeting and no such written request had been submitted; if City Council reverses the e He~rings Official.s opinion, it must specify the reasons for doing so. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Hearings Official staff notes and minutes of November 8,1977, were entered into the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Robert Bruce, 3737 Kevington, said under Section 9.512(7)(b) the City Council has addressed itself to concern for reasonable compatible development within the City. He felt this addition to Valley West was not a reasonable compatible development. His concern was with , the density in single versus multiple dwelling units. He felt the density points used did not take into consideration things which City Council should consider such as open space ratio, living space ratio, total car ratio, occupant/car ratio, floor area ratio, and recreation space ratio. He also stated the proposed development would cover approximately three acres of floor area alone on nine acres of available land, whereas the existing development occupies three acres of floor area on 21 acres, and again said that was not reasonably compatible. His second point in arguing the development was not reasonably compatible was with regard to streets. The pro- posed developer wishes to establish a private road system and separate maintenance, which would be entirely different than the currently existing development. He felt the reason the developer e wanted private streets was to build narrower streets that would 12/12/77 - 11 910 allow more open land to be used for the development. The developer e proposes to have a separate tax account for maintenance and upkeep, and he submitted that unless City Councilor the developer guarantee that that maintenance system will be reserved in perpetuity, the responsibility will eventually go to the total membership of Valley West. He said even if the private roadway system were privately maintained, he did not believe it would be reasonably compatible with the existing development. Gerald Kelly, 3775 Kevington, was concerned with the high-density s ituati on. He said the neighbors were not opposed to the develop- ment, but are opposed only to the high density being allowed. Peter Thompson, 2440 Oak Grove, architect for the project, said the developer was in total concurrence with the Hearings Official recom- mendations and would comply with them. He felt there were a number of issues that should be addressed regarding the processes established by the Code for PUDs. He said there have been other projects proposed for this phase, noting one was for 115 units. He said the proposed 120 units may be modified as the process and design phase develops. He noted the proposed development would be encouraging a variety of living spaces for the community. He said the density was well within the allowable established by City Code. Elaine Roccio, 2483 Blackburn, president of Churchill Neighborhood Association, said their main concern was with the public versus private streets. She said this issue would come before the group -- in February, and she wanted to be informed in order to inform the neighborhood association. Mr. Saul replied he would like to deal with several issues in the appea 1. He said the statement was made that due process was denied. The Hearings Official followed the specific procedures for quasi- judicial hearings as set forth in the Code. It was announced at the beginning and the Hearings Official took care to emphasize the proce- dures were followed correctly. In regard to whether further density is reasonable compared to the adjacent development, he read for City Council Section 9.512(7)(b), saying these standards were met. He sai d the buildings, as far as height was concerned, would be two stories and broken up in a series of small units to avoid a bulky appearance. The distribution and location of recreation spaces would be in two areas, with additional private open space areas for each individual unit. Parking would be governed by City Code and access would be off Westleigh Street directly to Bailey Hill Road. On the basis of these factors specified in City Code, the Hearings Official decided the PUD satisfied the criteria. He said there was some agreement in the concept for PUDs whereby PUD evaluation was based on the density points correlated with bedrooms correlated with the number of residen- tial dwelling units. He said this particular phase would bring the overall density level to a total of 158.8 per acre. He noted for e 12/12/77 - 12 "" e Council that combining lower and higher density rates within a single development is a common one that has occurred in other areas of the City. Regarding the question of private versus public streets within the development and questions regarding maintenance, he said the PUD does allow the developer the option of private or publ ic streets. He again cited a variety of examples of that type i n th e City. He said in this particular case, the Valley West Home Association expressed concern to the staff that if no conditions were imposed to regulate maintenance, that responsibility would fall on the single-family homeowners. Therefore, certain conditions were established in response to that concern, as outlined on page 1 of the Hearings Official's report. Ms. Smith wondered, in regard to conditions 1 and 2 as set forth by the Hearings Official, whether or not that would affect the density. Mr. Saul said in remedying those conditions, it would not necessarily imply a decrease in density. Mr. Thompson explained to Council that density had changed from 120 units to 115, but not because of those conditions for a playground. It had decreased because of the func- tion of the design. Mr. Saul said it was frequent in PUDs that a decrease in density occurred between the diagrammatic and prelimi- nary stages. He said there would be a public hearing at the pre- liminary stage also. He said one distinction that should be made was that under the Code, and in following normal practice, a decrease is normally accepted because it does not imply a reversal of a previous decision. However, if the density is increased, then the e requirements would be to go back through the diagrammatic process. Mr. Lieuallen asked for clarification regarding the density being compatible with the existing development. He noted the total floor area cited by Mr. Bruce indicated there would be little available open space. Mr. Saul said, as he understood Mr. Bruce's written statement and his testimony tonight, he referred to Land Use Inten- sity System of the Land Use Institute and that it should be used for density impact of this project. He said that system was fairly close in similarity to the standards used by the City Code. He again reiterated there would be common open space with the existing Valley West, as well as playground and tennis court area, and private indi- vidual open spaces for each unit. He said one item might be erroneous in Mr. Bruce's calculating of square footage of units as it would be two-story and therefore could be cut in half; rather than three acres of floor space, it would be one-and-a-half acres. In rebuttal, Mr. Bruce said he did not infer that the City should use the land use intensity ratio system. He was simp ly say i ng that was another source which could be used to address the density problem. He felt the proposed development would be so dense it would not provide an adequate amount of open living space and recreation space. In regard to the due process, he said he had no quarrel with the manner in which the Hearings Official conducted the hearing. However, his quarrel was with the established procedures because e they do not provide due process as it allows the petitioner the 12/ 12/77 - 13 q/2 right of rebuttal not allowed to others. He said because of that e procedure, an error was written into the record that might other- wise have been corrected. He continued the City Council has pro- vided an opportunity to control the City's destiny by specifically defining what is reasonable compatible development. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and uphold the findings of the Hearings Official. Motion carried unanimously. D. Liquor License: New Outlet Pizza Pete's Italian Kitchen, 2673 Willamette Street, (RMB), Peter and Donna Goodale Manager noted this was an existing establishment requesting an RMB license. OLCC had interviewed ten businesses in the area with two objectors and eight non-objectors. He noted parking was tight in the area, and the building inspector indicated the busi- ness could not expand because there is not sufficient parking. Otherwise all papers were found in order and staff recommended approval. Public hearing was opened. e Peter Goodale, owner of the establishment, was available to answer questions. Ron Garner, 346 Ventura Avenue, distributed a map showing parking in the area. He owned property adjacent to Pizza Pete's. He reviewed for Council on the map there were twenty parking spaces available for five businesses. As a result of this, the overflow parking from these businesses take spaces which are on his proper- ty and which should be available to his tenants, thereby placing a burden on him and making problems for his tenants. He felt there was no possible way this liquor license should be issued, as it would increase the burden on the already limited parking in the area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith requested a response in terms of the parking, and whether or not there was adequate parking for that type of business. Manager replied there was not adequate parking for the existing businesses in that area. Mr. Goodale said he opened the business four years ago and there was a parking problem at that time. Originally it was a takeout business, but recently he had made access to the back entrance and was allowed seating within the business. He said his business hours did not conflict with other e businesses in the area, and this alleviates a bit of the parking ~13 12/12/77 - 14 e problem. He felt the basic problem was with the patrons of the Black Forest Tavern. He felt the liquor license would not affect parking as his business was doing well at the present time without a license. He also noted a restaurant was being planned for Mr. Garner's building and a liquor license request would come from that. He felt this would only add to the parking problem. He noted he had permission for parking in a back area (which held 30 to 40 cars) although it was unimproved. He had attempted to get owners of the various businesses to put up towaway signs and have cars towed away but had not had any cooperation. Mr. Lieuallen said it seemed the issue of a liquor license recom- mendation was not directly related to the parking problem. He said apparently this was an ongoing problem in that area. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward with appro- val to OLCC the requested liquor license. Ms. Smith reiterated her previous comments in feeling that City Council should not be placed in a position of choosing one business over another and would fairly evaluate each liquor license applica- tion as it came before Council. Manager noted Public Works would look at the parking arrangement in that area and would attempt to secure improvements. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. e E. Parks Department Bid Awards (tabulation attached) Manager noted the request was for a pedestrian bridge in Washington- Jefferson Park east of the multi-purpose court and was a continuation of a presently constructed path now deadended at this crossing. Funds would be received one-half from BOR and one-half by the City. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept low bid from Wildish Construction Company as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. F. Public Works Bid Awards (opened December 6, 1977) (tabulation attached) Job No. 1319--Bike Path 12th Avenue between Willamette Street and Oak Street. Mr. Allen said this would be a concrete paving of the path, paid by the City. Staff recommended awarding to low bidder Merlin R. Stamm. \ Job No. 1469--Sanitary sewer on Orr Lane was originated by 32 percent of the property owners to be assessed. Recommended low bidder-- H. and J. Construction Company, with the condition that the construc- tion company settle a City bill which is in arrears prior to awarding e of this contract. 12/12/77 - 15 q/t Job No. 1491--Sanitary sewer between Emerald Street and Nixon Street--This is a reconstruction of a private sewer system with e 14 property owners affected. The bids were higher than the origi- nal estimate, and Public Works is conducting a poll of the 14 property owners to see if they want to accept the assessment. Staff recommended Council could award this contact at the next meeting, pending results of the poll. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to award contracts as recommended with conditions, and hold Job No. 1491 for Council meeting December 21. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING Council Bill 1577--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewalk; Timberline Drive from Wilshire Lane to 2450 feet south; sanitary and storm sewers within Somerset Hills III; within area bounded by Somerset Hills Addition, Somerset Hills II, and Somerset Hills III, and within 160 feet of boundaries of Somerset Hills III 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. Hamel, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing December 19,1977, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council e consideration for final reading December 21,1977. Mot i on ca rri ed unanimously. Council Bill 1578--Adopting the Supplemental Budget; making appropriations for City of Eugene for fiscal year beginning July 1,1977, and ending June 30, 1978; and declaring an emergency was read by number and title only, there bei ngno Council member present requesti ng it be read in fu ll. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll ca 11 vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18089. III. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING--None. 12/12/77 - 16 e ql5 e IV. RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 2797--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period November 28 through December 12,1977, was read by number and title only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2798--Concerning construction of dog control facility in cooperation with Springfield and Lane County; authorizing intergovern- mental agreement re: spay/neuter program. Ms. Smith expressed her concern that staff and the Budget Committee monitor very closely the appropriations for the spay/neuter clinic and keep Council apprised of the cost of the program. In response to a question from Mr. Hamel, Assistant Manager said $14,800 had been appropriated in this year's budget for the spay/neuter clinic. In the future, appropriations would have to be approved by the Budget Committee. Mr. Hamel wondered if Springfield's lack of contribution would increase the City's amount. Assistant Manager said the agreement is that Lane County will bear the basic responsibility with the City contributing as the Budget Committee allows. This resolution ;s authorizing entering into an agreement. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. e V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council minutes November 28, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to December 14, 1977. c~/~ City Manager DT:CTH:ng/CM26a9 e 12/12/77 - 17 qJb Memo To: Charles Henry, City Manager e From: Ed Smith, Director of Parks Date: December 7, 1977 Subject: Bids for Washington/Jefferson Pedestrian Bridge Bids were opened on December 7, 1977 at 11:00 a.m. for the construction of a wood and concrete pedestrian bridge at Washington/Jefferson Park. The results were as follows: Wildish Construction $25,500 Morris P. Kielty 27,358 Garland Pacific 28,860 Patzer Construction 29,950 J.E. Beck 36,971 Stam Construction 43,222 Office Estimate $31 ,000 This project is 50% funded by a grant from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation e and 50% from City appropriations. I recommend the low bid by Wildish Construction be accepted. c' e qn I~ < _. . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ., Engineering Division Bid No. 15 Opened: December 6. 1977 1. BIKE PATH - 12th Avenue between Wi11amette Street and Oak Street (1319) Bidders: Contract Cost 1. Merlin R. Starn..................................................$ 3,903.68 2. Concrete Unlimited,' Inc.........................................$ 4,529.00 3. H & J Construction..............................................$ 4,599.00 4. Shllr-Way Contractors............................................$ 5,168.90 e Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted None $ 3,903.68 $ 17.300.00 Cm-1PlETION DATE: February 6, 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e 9/8 \'1 fI DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bid No. 16 Opened: December 6, 1977 1. SANITARY SEWER on Orr Lane from 19th Avenue to 1,000 feet South. Job No. 1467. Bidders: Contract Cost l. H & J Construction --------------------------- $ 17,945.00 2. J. A. Hill ----------------------------------- $ 18,416.15 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- $ 18,954.15 4. Wi1dish Construction Co.---------------------- $ 19,504.25 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------- $ 24,175.40 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City: Amount Budgeted: San.Lot. $0.13/Sq.Ft. None None San.Serv.$240.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: February 3, 1978 e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '. . . 2. SANITARY SEWER between Emerald Street and Nixon Street from 24th Avnue to 25th Avenue Job No. 1491. Bidders: Contract Cost: 1. J. A. Hill ----------------------------------- $ 14,225.02 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- $ 15,707.00 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------- $ 21,419.50 Cost to Abutting Property~ Cost to City Amount Budgeted: San.Lot. $0.22/Sq.Ft. None None San.Serv. $145.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: February 3, 1978 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -e ql'~ ~()