Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/1977 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 18, 1977 Adjourned meeting from January 11, 1978, of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller January 18, 1978, at 11:30 a.m., King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Jack Delay was absent. I. Items from Mayor and Council A. Systems Development Charge--Mr. Haws questioned the need for allotting 60 minutes per side for the public hearing on this issue. Mayor Keller responded he had received many calls from both sides requesting time. Ms. Smith, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Obie favored either 30 minutes or 45 minutes. e Betty Niven, Joint Housing Committee, asked Council to consider how it wished to handle reports from the various boards and com- missions it appoints. She felt the development charge to be an important issue on which the Joint Housing Committee had spent considerable time and wished to present their view to Council. She questioned whether Council should consider dealing with comments from the boards and commissions in a different manner other than the public hearing for citizens. Mr. Haws saw benefit in limiting the amount of time for public hearings as persons would have to be more concise in their remarks. As far as reports from the boards and commissions, he felt it would be of more benefit to the Council to have those reports sub- mitted in writing prior to the public hearing on the particular issue. Mr. Lieuallen felt Council needed to review the reports from various study groups in essentially the same manner as staff reports and give the study groups time to report before Council. He felt 45 minutes for the systems development charge, rather than 30 minutes was more adequate, as it was a very complex issue. B. Mayor Keller said he would allot 45 minutes time to each side and allow the study groups to give their testimony outside that time period. Women's Commission Holding Public Hearings--Mr. Obie said it had been brought to his attention by an individual in the community that the Women's Commission is to hold public hearings when it e 1/18/78--1 28 takes a position on individual issues. The person contacting Mr. . Obie stated he did not think this was happening. He requested staff to look into the matter to see if proper procedures were being followed and make the Commission aware of this responsibility. City Manager said staff was very careful about public meeting notices, and it would be helpful to have more specifics regarding this request. Mr. Obie said he would provide staff with the specific information. C. Mr. Bradley announced he would not seek another term for City Council. His reasons given were a feeling that diversity and citizen involve- ment are important. He has decided to encourage other individuals to participate by letting them know in advance that he was not running. D. Residency Requirements for Membership on Commissions and Boards-- Mr. Lieuallen asked that the request from Sue Riemer and Laverne Edwards regarding residency requirements for membership on the . Commissions and Boards be placed on a future meeting agenda. E. Governor1s Request re: Consumer Protection--Mr. Lieuallen said the Governor had recently released an item regarding home insula- tion, noting there are people in this business who are taking advan- tage of the general public by charging too much. He felt home insulation probably was not the only area where people were being cha'rged high prices, noting the closed system regarding financing. He requested staff look into the Governor's proposal as well as look into all parts of the transaction process as a necessary ~ protection for citizens in the community. City Manager affirmed staff ~ would do so. F. Council Assistants--Manager introduced Sheila Arthur and Patrick Lynch, new Council Assistants. Ms. Arthur has already started her job, and Mr. Lynch will begin February 6. It was consensus of Council that Ms. Arthur could contact each Councilor individually to collect items of interest whereby Council Assistants could begin their work. G. Various Meeting Dates--Manager announced the following meeting dates: January 18, 7:30 p.m., Harris Hall, Planning Commissions of City and County on the T-2000 Plan. January 18, 7:30 p.m., Tree Preservation Committee meeting in the Parks Department. January 18, Open House all afternoon,with Data Processing in their new quarters at the Parcade. Manager noted the Civic Center and Personnel offices are also located in that building. January 19, 7:30 p.m., public hearing in the Council Chamber on CD Block Grant proposals. . 1/18/78--2 2' January 26, 7:30 p.m., Budget Committee meeting, McNutt Room. e I. Downtown Development Board--Manager announced Mayor's appointment for three-year terms ending 1-1-81: Otis Holland, Mike Feig, Harry Ritchie, and Neil Sande. J. Hearings Panel Assignments for 1978--Manager announced the assign- ments were as follows: January to March, Williams and Delay; April to June, Bradley and Lieual1en; July to September, Hamel and Obie; October to December, Haws and Smith. II. Public Hearing re: Alley Vacation Located between Lincoln Street and Lawrence Street from West 2nd to West 3rd Avenue (Eugene Planing Mill) (AV 76-5) Map and materials distributed to Council. Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission November 7, 1977. Jim Saul, Planner, said the Planing Mill owns all the property adjacent. The alley has never been improved and is not needed for access. The City will retain a public utility easement through the area. The property adjacent is industrially zoned and $3,040.00 compensation to the City for the vacation is acceptable to the Planing Mill. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e C. B. 1589--Vacating alley located between Lincoln Street and Lawrence Street from West 2nd Avenue to West 3rd Avenue and retaining public utility easement was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Mr. Bradley questioned whether the Eugene Planing Mill owned all the property. Mr. Saul replied it owned all except Tax Lots 2500 and 2600. Mr. Bradley questioned a 1900-vintage house on the property. A representative from the Eugene Planing Mill explained the house had been removed. Mr. Obie asked about the price, to which Mr. Saul replied it was $3,040, or 65 cents per square foot. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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 18104. 1/18/78--3 30 III. Liquor License: Change of Ownership Amber Inn, 1466 West 7th Street (RMB), from Richard Becker to Garry ~ and Sue Valenzuela. Manager noted all papers were in order and staff 111' recommended approval. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward with approval to OLCC. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Application for Tax Exemption: Diversified Development (Landress), located between 8th and Broadway, Lawrence and Washington Memo of January 13 and staff notes distributed. Manager said the matter had been reviewed and recommended by the Joint Housing Committee and the Planning Department in terms of processing. Frank Young, HCC, said the development would be construction of 107 units, 24 of which will be two-bedroom, 12 will be efficiency apart- ments, and the remaining to be one-bedroom apartments. There is a proposal for removal and rehabilitation of four structures located on the block. The structures will be new construction and contain at least 24 or more dwelling units which will include a design element benefitting the general pUblic. Diversified Development submits the following public benefits under conditions specified by the Joint Housing Committee at their meeting January 10, 1978: 1. Five units especially designed for the handicapped to be built to FHA specifications for handicapped units. 2. Three pocket-park spaces, two to be built on the site of the project facing Washington Street and one on the side facing Broadway. 3. The developer agrees to rehabilitate four houses located on the property and will donate two structures which will be moved by a third party for relocation and refurbishment. e 4. The developer will allow use of a coin-operated laundry on the site by persons other than the tenants. Based on this information, the HCC staff and Joint Housing Committee recommend that the project be approved for the multiple tax unit exemption program subject to the following conditions: 1. That the project be completed on or before January 1, 1980, and contain no less than 24 units; 2. That the applicant agrees to include public benefits as described; 3. That the public benefits are to be maintained in a condition suitable for use for a period of at least ten years beyond the period of the property tax exemption; and 1/18/78--4 - ~ e 4. That the rehabilitation of suitable units proceed as indicated in the submitted plan titled "Broadway Center--A Multiple-Unit Residential Restoration Project", and cited in the public benefits mentioned above. e Joel Schwartz, 1312 Mill Street, questioned the pUblic benefit issue. He felt it should not be confused with the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the downtown area. He questioned what was an appropriate public benefit for housing. He felt it should be under- stood to be rel ated to the qual i ty of the housi ng development. He felt there was more to increasing population density in the central city than merely providing space for persons to find shelter. The only way the development of additional downtown housing can add to the / vitality of both the city and downtown would be if that downtown housing is attractive and desirabl~ enough that people will choose to live there. He felt the greatest public benefit that could accrue is the creation of living situations in the heart of the city that are desirable in them- selves as places to live, places that live, not mere waystations on the way to the South Hills. He noted housing was a finite resource of the city and that housing will not be created in sufficient amounts without private enterprise. He said the tax exemption program represents a step in making the housing a real resource for the city and diminishes the need for housing on the periphery. However, he emphasized the need for quality of housing, noting the city would receive no public benefit unless the housing was desirable and a place where people would want to stay. He described the proposed design for the apartments and said he felt they would not be desirable places to live. He suggested row houses which would have exposure on both sides, with interior park space designed and underground parking space. He continued the design of the proposed development is wrong and would not be comfortable nor desirable. He felt, also, the city deserved more than a laundromat as a public benefit. Betty Niven spoke to the public benefit issue. She said the pUblic benefit that is not mentioned is the one of providing this housing for the community. One of the reasons the ordinance had been drafted was a result of economic study that showed this area should be deve- loped as a high-density area, but no one would develop it unless they could make the housing marketable. The tax exemption was created for that purpose. She said Mr. Schwartz had described a very nice design, but noted underground parking was very costly because of the high water table. Also, she said with a different design, higher rents would result. Council should look at the project in light of what is financially feasible, the rent that has to be charged given the prices of land development. Secondly, she noted the project is including 24 two-bedroom units which will encourage family living in the area. Third, she said the very fact of the project being located in a mixed- use zone requires some design constraints. For instance, parking must not be visible from the street, and the planting strip must be landscaped. She felt that this project and development provided several public benefits. She noted the Joint Housing Committee had been instrumental e 1/18/78--5 32.. in developing sheltered spaces as a visual improvement as well as ensuring the four older homes would be rehabilitated structures rather than being ~ destroyed. She continued that in light of the intent of the original State legislation, there was no question this project would be in compliance. Mr. Williams asked for an estimate of actual dollars to be forgiven by the tax exemption in this project. Russ Landress, P. O. Box 239, said he had no estimate, but was aware it would be fairly substantial. He said the developers were equating the tax exemption with the high price to be paid for the land and the amenities going into the project. The value of the average unit would be between $16-17,000 with an estimate of $1.7 million for the total project cost. Mr. Young said there was a necessity for a definition of what public benefits were to be. He said in view of the remarks made by Mr. Schwartz, the staff was not in opposition to including some design review element in the pre-application stage. However, he felt it would not be appli- cable for this particular project. He said the public benefits of this project would be in excess of $30,000 according to the cost estimates. However, the public benefits seemed to be appropriate to the area. He reiterated staff would be willing to require site review and design review. Mr. Lieuallen spoke in favor of the possibility of design review for interiors and exteriors, noting involvement of the architectural community as well as neighborhood groups who might be concerned. He expressed his feeling for the importance of the goal of providing housing in the down- town area, and said if it were made too difficult to build in that area then the housing would not materialize. However, he continued, the neigh- bors have to live with how the particular development looks and how it will function and how long it will last. He said it was not enough to simply provide housing, but Council should know what the particular development is going to look like. He commented the present developers for the project have projects at the Butte and at 15th and Olive, and he felt they were not attractive, and he questioned how long they would last. He was concerned that the particular neighborhood would have to watch the deterioration of the development over the years. He expressed a strong concern that the development has to be a place that is worth living in, if it is going to be compatible with the neighborhood over a long period of time. He fel tal aundromat was not enough of a public benefit, especially if the development is not attractive and may not last. e Mr. Williams agreed with much of what Mr. Lieual1en said. He felt when the city was spending $500,000, it was necessary to clearly know what it was buying, what the city is getting, and what it will cost. He said he did not know the value of the handicapped units or providing use of the laundromat as being real contributions to the public benefit. He said with the present pressure to develop land within the city limits, he felt development would be taking place without Council making a major contribution in making that happen. - 1/18/78--6 35 ~ e Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding design review and the additional cost to construction which would be passed on to the renters. In regard to Mr. Lieuallen's comments of the life of the structure, he said the City has a uniform building code, and if that code is not strong enough, then Council should change the code. He did not feel a design review committee would answer that question. Also, he did not feel it necessary to put any more red tape into the building process in Eugene, noting there were very capable architects and planners avaiable. Regarding the tax break, he said the City would get a tax break as beyond the ten-year exemption period, the development would be appraised at a higher value than it would have been otherwise. However, he expressed a concern regarding the $500,000 cost to the City and felt it important not to give up any more money than is necessary in order to attract this needed housing in this area. e In response to a question by Mr. Haws, Mr. Young said a problem exists in the lack of a definitive statement of exactly what constitutes public benefit. He said staff was hesitant to fix a dollar amount on a public benefit, but there will be a net gain for the City over a 20-year period. He said fixing a dollar amount to the public benefit may not be appro- priate because of this gain to the City. Mr. Haws said as he understood what was happening, the City has set up certain criteria for development, and this developer had met those criteria. If the criteria are not clear, the burden should not be placed on the developer. The builder has complied by providing facilities for the handicapped and he saw no reason to not approve this application. Mr. Landress reviewed for Council their commitment through the 1990 Plan to high-density housing in the downtown core area. He said the original design had been changed from single apartments to a traditional mix to encourage more family living. He appreciated Mr. Lieuallen's comments, although he felt the existing developments were attractive and noted everyone does not view them in the same light. He reviewed for Council the requirements for public benefit, noting open spaces will be provided, handicapped facilities will be provided, and a laundromat open to the general public. He also reviewed for Council the complicating factor of getting financial support of over a million dollars for this development. He said it has been designed by a reputable architect, and he does have financial backing, and has a commitment to build the project. He also noted the financial lender was aware of the regulations, but would not give any additional monetary consideration to any kind of tax relief. He said the main point he wanted to make for Council was that he has honestly and sincerely tried to comply with the law and with the City's require- ments, that he does have financing to proceed with the development; there is a need for high-density housing, and he requested City Council to act favorably. In his estimate of the cost of public benefits, he outlined the following: Five units for the handicapped for $10,000; three pocket- park spaces for $21,000, rehabilitation of four houses for $50,000; removal of houses for $10,000, coming to a conservative total of $91,000. . 1/18/78--7 3~ Mr. Young said the development had been referred to the Westside neigh- borhood group and that group felt the design was adequate and there was ~ a need for this housing in the area. However, the group did indicate it .., would like to see design review occur at the pre-application stage. Mr. Lieuallen said the central factor involved was subsidizing a project with public money which gives the Council the obligation to understand the development and to impose restrictions and controls. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Kupper said there was a design review process for urban renewal and there had been no difficulty with it. However, he said he would not like to see a lengthy process instituted. In response to Mr. Obie's statement about the building codes, Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether the building codes speak to the issue of how long a project would last. Don Allen, Public Works Director, said that is the purpose of the code, if the code is followed there is an assurance the project will go through the normal life cycle. However, he said the maintenance factor does enter into the length of life of any building. He cautioned Council that this is not a City code, but a State code. Mr. Lieuallen said he was very concerned that Council develop some better controls for future applications. Mr. Williams agreed, noting the Council passed the enabling legislation without much discussion. He expressed sympathy for the present applicant, but wondered if Council should not set its rules now rather than simply slide over this one. 4It Betty Niven said she saw no problem with pre-application review if real criteria were set up. However, she did see problems with people's various conceptions of what is meant by attractive. She cautioned Council of the time consumed which adds to the cost of the structure which is passed on in the rent. She also mentioned in previous experience with architects, they do not want to review each other' s work in public. She said if it is impossible to get agreement among this professional group, then it would be even more difficult to get agreement among the public. In response to a question by Mr. abie, Ms. Niven replied the deadline for requests was the January 1, 1980 completion date. Mr. abie then wondered if there were substantial applications coming in. Ms. Niven and Mr. Kupper replied they knew of no others. Mr. abie continued, as much as he would like to work out a better program, it seemed unfair to the present applicant in view of the number of dollars he has invested based on his perception from the staff and City Council in meeting the criteria set forth. He believed the applicant has come to this point in good faith based on the ordinance the Council had passed and he would vote for this proposal. However, he wanted to go on record as requesting that the public benefit portion be definitively worked out prior to consideration of any future applications. 1/18/78--8 . 35 . Mr. Bradley said the public benefit is not limited to the tenants of a project, yet one as represented by the applicant is limited to the tenants--the handicapped. The only argument he saw for public benefit in the present application was the open pocket spaces. He wondered if it might be feasible for Council to delay action on this application for Joint Parks consideration of the public benefit and whether it could be expanded in this area. He also felt there should be some control procedures as to what constitutes public benefit. Mr. Hamel noted one public benefit which has not been mentioned was the fact that the tenants will be close enough to downtown that they will not be driving their automobiles to and from, therefore relieving the parking and traffic congestion. Mayor Keller noted it was Council's 1990 Plan and Council has been working to make the Westside area a more livable part of the City. He said if Council has failed, it is only because they have never had a fine definition of what is in the best interests of the public. He said this particular development does meet a need in the City and it would appear in the best interests of Council to approve the project. C. B. 1590--Granting multiple unit property tax exemption for Diversified Development Company for property located between 8th and Broadway and Lawrence and Washington Streets was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. ~ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Williams noted they would vote reluctantly in favor of the first motion but would vote no on the second motion. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by,council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. Motion carried with Hamel, Haws, Smith, and Obie voting aye; Bradley, Lieuallen, and Williams voting no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18015. It was consensus of Council that the public benefit definition would be brought back for further discussion. Mr. Bradley felt it important to have input from the other taxing districts in the area. Mr. Haws noted that it should be included if there are units for the handicapped they in fact be rented to handicapped people. . 1/18/78--9 36 Mr. Kupper asked for clarification from Council as to a better defi- . nition of public benefits, noting whether Council wanted to pursue a fixed percentage of tax abatement or a more clear definition of what will constitute public benefits. Mr. Obie said he felt a developer deserved a return on his investment but did not want that developer to receive a windfall return from public benefits. Mr. Lieuallen said he felt staff should prepare a variety of possibilities. Mr. Williams wanted to know what the City was really getting for the money it was paying, noting he saw in this project that the City was receiving only $91,000 for $500,000. A short recess was taken. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Manager noted Item VII would be postponed to another meeting. V. Improvement Petition Res. No. 2818--Authorizing initiating process for sanitary sewer construction within Oakway Green PUD (Spy Glass Street) (1443) was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. e VI. Approval of Minutes Manager noted Mr. Delay had requested minutes be amended to include on Item I-B-Air Quality Maintenance Advisory Committee--"Membership also includes three persons from forest products industry". Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council minutes as amended January 11, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Metro Wastewater Management Commission Appointment--Mayor Keller reappointed Betty Smith as Council's representative for a three-year term ending 2-1-81. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to affirm the appoint- ment. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Initial Discussion of Proposed Election Ordinance City Attorney's memo of January 11, 1978, and proposed ordinance distributed. Manager said it was necessary for Council to take action on this at least by next Wednesday to allow those interested persons in the community to make appropriate plans for running for office. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Assistant Manager said the filing deadline date was 5:00 p.m., March 13. . 1/18/78--10 37 - Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the State statutes required that the election. be in May. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, replied yes. She noted the Oregon State Constitution, Article II, Section 14A and the City Charter, Chapter 6, Section 19 provide for this new election ordinance. Nominations have to be made in May with the election by a maj ori ty in November. ' Assistant Manager explained to Council the issue of requiring a majority vote for a successful candidate was discussed at the time of charter revision. He said if Council did not want to follow that procedure, then it would have to amend the charter again. However, staff cautioned Council that under the present charter, the Council would have to pass a code amendment and then go to court to have the majority vote winner of the May primary confirmed as having been duly elected, if it was the intent of Council to avoid having the majority vote winner placed on the November ballot. In the general assessment of State law, it was felt that the City probably would not prevail in such a case, and therefore, staff was reluctant to recommend this code amendment. Ms. Smith said she would like to have City Council discuss a. possible charter revision and requested that this item be placed on a future agenda. e Mayor Keller recalled the intent of the charter revision resulted in the feeling that it was important to have a majority vote for ward representa- tives and this was felt to be the best approach. Also it was recognized that some would not want to incur the cost of running two campaigns. If elected in May, also there would be an interim period for indoctrination for Council. Ms. Smith said, however, if no one received a 50 percent majority in May, they would have to run again and she saw that as a dis- advantage. Mr. Williams said he did not think persons should be elected to City Council with only 15 percent of the vote. It was consensus that whoever represented a ward should have some kind of numerical consensus to repre- sent that ward. Mr. Bradley noted it was difficult to get a majority as there was usually an undervote in ward races. Assistant Manager clarified for Council the primary election would be held in May and the names of either the candidate who receives the majority of votes or the two highest candidates will appear on the November ballot. If only one person has the majority, then there would be only one name on the ballot in November. However, that might subject that candidate to a.write-in campaign, so he may have to incur a second campaign. Mr. Williams commented he did not think there was much hazard of a write-in campaign. C. B. 1591--Concerning elections; adding new provisions to the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Sections 1.010, 2.175, 2.180, 2.960, 2.962, 2.970, 2.985, 2.990, and 2.1990 of that Code; repealing Sections 2.965, 2.975, and 2.980 of that Code; 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. e 1/18/78--11 38 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read ~ the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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 18106. IX. . Mid-Fiscal Year Status Report on Goals, Priority Projects, and Work Plans Held over to another meeting. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to January 23, 1978. ~)'//A Charles T. Henry'~ Ci ty Manager - DT:ng/CM25b1 " 1/18/78--12 31