Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/1977 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 27, 1977 Adjourned meeting from March 15, 1978, 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 March 27, 1978, in the Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS e A. Moratorium on Panhandle Lots Manager said the public hearing on a moratorium should focus on whether or not there is to be such; if so, for how long. Stan Long, City Attorney, said courts have generally required that a moratorium be for a reasonable period of time. He continued that where there is an existing ordinance, law, or policy guaranteeing the right, privilege, or opportunity, to grant a moratorium the Council must do so because it has identified significant problems for doing so and have a specific plan underway or study to correct that problem. The period of study for the problem must be reasonable and of short duration. The difficulty was in determining what is considered to be "reasonable time." He said that in the past, it had been concluded that six months was reasonable. Mr. Obie wondered if it were possible to have a moratorium that is based only upon when the property might be acquired. Mr. Long said a moratorium should be established on a uniform basis, treating similar property similarly. Public hearing was opened. Arden t~unkres, 2104 Dewey Street, referred to the Bethel Refi nement Plan and the 1990 Plan in regard to certain statements for panhandle lots. He stated there were people who do want large lots on which to live and these should not be destroyed. Also, he felt that by the use of panhandle lots, the City would not be providing a large variety of housing options for its citizens. He felt until there was some definite statement regarding options of housing development, there should be a definite moratorium because the present panhandle policy is deteriorating. Warren Neer, 1336 Taft, described the old established neighborhood in which he lives. However, he noted it had been changing because of panhandle lots being developed. He noted many of the long-time residents are moving out, or considerinQ doing so. He felt the use of panhandle lots was changing the livability and type of area that he would like to have in his own neighborhood, and thus favored a moratorium. e 3/27/78--1 '1" - Ed Hostick, 660 Hughes Street, Chairman, ABC, expressed concern with the present panhandle lot policy in terms of traffic and screening of lots. He said the present policy has serious defects and panhandling was creating discontent throughout the city. Richard Dvorak, Sr., 2156 Ohio, said there had been seven panhandle lots developed on his street. He noted that because of the depth of the panhandle lot, most people were parking on the streets. With the increase in traffic, he cited a hazard to the children in the neighborhood. Donald Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, said he lived on a street where there were many nice homes. However, panhandle lots had been deve- loped on the street behind his property, and he noted the invasion of privacy with homes so close to his backyard. Also, he felt the greatest majority of those developing panhandle lots were doing so for rental properties, which downgraded the other properties in the area. He noted also some larger houses were removing garages in order to establish panhandle lots. He thought there were panhandle lots being developed in some large subdivisions and questioned whether this was legal. Elaine Roccio, 2483 Blackburn, represented the Churchill Neighborhood Association. The group had voted that the panhandle concept can serve as a beneficial housing need, but the present policy in effect should be studied further and revised. e Ann Ramp, 918 Lorane Highway, spoke as co-chairman of the Crest Drive Citizens Association. Their concern was that panhandling of lots has not worked out as it had been hoped and they favored a moratorium to reassess the entire problem. Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey Avenue, spoke as Vice President of the Whiteaker Community Council. His group appreciated the need for the city to become more dense. However, they realized that the City must protect the distinctive qualities in the neighborhoods. They felt there was need for a study of the effect of the use of panhandle lots on various neighborhoods. M. Hite, 1361 Bond Lane, represented the Willakenzie Neighborhood Association, which had voted in favor of the moratorium. Those speaking against the panhandle lots were as follows: Betty Niven, Chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, listed some implications of a moratorium on panhandle lot policies. She noted most of the lots are, in general, 14-26,000 square feet, with most being 18-20,000 square feet. She said the density ranged from 1.7 to three units per acre, with the current single-family density in the Bethel area being 4.33 and in the Willakenzie area being 4.08. She said the City is rapidly using its supply of land available for housing and a moratorium would increase pressure on an already tight - 3/27/78--2 l~ -- housing market. She said the lots in question are capable of creating a two-year supply of single-family homes. A moratorium that would prevent division will further diminish the supply of land and the result will be higher prices. She said if it was felt that the Council wanted a moratorium, then she proposed that Council restrict that moratorium to the 2,000 lots that already have a single-family house on them. This would at least allow for some further construction and availability of land. The options should be available to those homeowners and landowners who wish to divide their property. The concern over property values she felt had been misplaced, and she cited a study of the Bureau of Research regarding duplexes mixed with single-family houses, in which the values did not diminish. JHC supports the idea of a committee that will look at the potential of different kinds of standards and JHC offered its cooperation in working with that group. However, Mrs. Niven said she hoped Council would decide not to take the risk of a moratorium that would increase the presssure on existing supply of land. Richard Atwood, 520 Antelope Way, said he had plans for a panhandle lot and asked that the moratorium not be approved so that he could proceed with his plans without any further higher cost. Don Tull, 2580 Highland Oaks, felt that if a moratorium were to be placed on panhandling, that it not be done abruptly. He was in the process of buying three lots with the condition that a panhandle take place. He has $1,000 invested and felt that the moratorium would pose an undue hardship on him. He requested Council not insti- tute such a moratorium for 30 days. e Mr. Hamel questioned Mrs. Niven as to how many of the 2,000 lots were empty lots; she replied that all had houses, but there were 650 additional lots that do not have houses on them. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith questioned how many panhandle-lot applications are pending. Jim Saul, planner, said there were 31 as of 5 p.m. today pending; 23 applications had come in since March 8. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, r~ayor Keller said he had hoped to have the committee appointed by Wednesday and would have it operating in the realm of six months. City Attorney confirmed that six months appeared to be a reasonable time period. Mr. Saul said that establishing a moratorium raises some questions that should be addressed as to whether the problem could be solved within a six-month time period. He noted that Council was talking i. 3/27/78--3 III about a fundamental change to an existing policy that both the Plan- ning Commission and City Council reviewed at some length. Once the committee has recommendations, those would have to be referred to the neighborhood groups for review; then to the Planning Commission ~ for review; and then back to Council for acceptance. He felt that ~ amount of review would take three of the six months once the subcom- mittee had made recommendations. He continued, when the committee is in the process of making recom- mendations, it will be facing a problem the City has faced for ten years. He wondered if it might not be unfair to expect a committee to resolve those problems in a few weeks. Also, he said Council would have to be more specific as to the issues it wishes the committee to address. He felt the six-month time period was probably most unre- alistic for a definitive resolution on the problem, and felt a year would be more realistic. Also, he cautioned Council that when it was contemplating that sort of study, other currently committed projects will have to be reassigned and he questioned on which of those would Council be willing to delay action. Mr. Haws was not sure what the Committee was supposed to do, as he had not heard Council make specific suggestions as to what is unsatis- factory in the panhandle policy. Mr. Haws moved to direct staff to prepare documents to eliminate the Panhandle Policy. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Obie clarified in his motion made March 8 to set up a committee, ~ he directed it to review the panhandle lot standards. He noted on ~ the recent tour Council had taken, there had been good and bad examples of panhandle lots. He hoped that some standard could be set up using the good panhandle lot examples to establish a better system. He felt that to ensure property values was more important than to ensure the availability. He felt Council was not talking about eliminating the panhandl e pol icy, but rather how to improve the envi ronment they are creating. He felt there should be some consideratlon in delaying the implementation of the moratorium for 30 days, as many people had relied on the City's policy and were making long-range plans. Those people should have the opportunity to carry out the plans. . Mayor Keller said Council's action tonight should be either to reject outright the moratorium or to instruct staff to prepare an ordinance exercising a moratorium. Mr. Long said Council should also set up a specific time and effective date. Hr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to instruct staff wi thi n 30 days to prep'are an ordi nance for a moratori urn on panhandle lots for six months; with that date to be extended another six months if needed. 3/27/78--4 tit IB1. - Ms. Smith wondered if 30 days extension would allow the present pending applications to go through the process. Mr. Saul said that depended upon how the ordinance was written and what the intent of the Council was. He said the 31 applications do not represent all the minor partitions or subdivisions that have been submitted. The applications submitted within the last week quite likely would not have approval if the ordinance were passed this coming Wednesday. However, he said if the ordinance establishing a moratorium were worded in such a way that applications would not be accepted after a certain date, then that would allow processing of those already submitted. Mr. Long said that in the past, Council had provided an effective date after which applications would not be accepted. Ms. Smith then asked if the motion would allow those now in process to be completed. Mr. Hamel said the intent of his motion was that those already approved would be allowed, but all others would be null and void. r~r. Bradley felt that it would be fair to allow those applications that had been submitted to be considered and the moratorium should not effect those. However, those which have not been submitted by an effective date will be subject to the moratorium. He felt there should be an ordinance on the moratorium with an emergency clause or Council should decide on a grace period which would allow those that have already been submitted to be processed. e Mr. Lieuallen said he was more interested in a moratorium on growth in the city, in general. He wanted Council to deal more aggresively with the whole issue of growth. He felt neighborhoods were trying to exempt themselves from the burden of growth of the whole city. The only alternative would be annexation of farm land or putting a mora- torium on growth. He felt this moratorium implied that some neighbor- hoods would not have to face up to the responsibilities and problems of density and growth occuring in the city. Mr. Delay said the broad perspective, which Council should be address- ing, was a question of the rapid growth of the entire city. He felt people did not want to face change and did not not want growth and density within their own particular neighborhoods. He felt the question was whether or not there could be some way to make panhandl- ing more acceptable in neighborhoods. He also felt it not appropriate to single out this one vehicle for accommodating growth in the city for increasing density. He felt it was appropriate to set up a committee to see how this density vehicle could be made more viable, but that to single out the panhandle policy was too drastic an action without Council establishing a need. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Delay and Mr. Lieuallen, saying there had not been a case made where a moratorium ought to be established. He said perhaps a study could suggest alternate ways to make the panhandle policy more acceptable. However, the growth pressures e 3/27/78--5 ll3 were great in Eugene. He did not feel the answer to the growth pressures would be found through a moratorium, but hoped that a committee would find some solutions for the panhandle policy standards. -- Mr. Obie moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to set May 1st as an effective date for the moratorium on panhandle lots. ~1r. Haws said he would vote against the amendment to the motion because he felt the extension of a date to ~Iay 1 would create a deluge of applications for panhandle lots. He felt the moratorium should start this evening. tvlr. Obie said he did not find any difficulty with having more applica- tions, as many people had made decisions effecting their lives. Mr. Haws felt the Council was responsible to protect the general public and not just a few property owners. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which failed with Delay and Obie voting aye; Hamel, Bradley, Williams, Haws, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the motion to make the moratorium effective March 27. In clarifying his motion, Mr. Haws said those applications which had been applied for to this date would be accepted and processed. Mr. Bradley said he felt uncomfortable setting a date prior to the ~ passage of the ordinance. ~ Vote was taken on the motion to amend, which failed, with Haws and Hamel voting aye; Bradley, Williams, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded, by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion to establish a one-year moratorium on panhandle lots. Mr. Haws said staff was recommending a one-year time period as being more realistic. Ms. Smith said she shared the concern for use of land in the city, but felt if a moratorium were going to be established the Committee should work more quickly. Vote was taken on the motion to amend, which failed with Haws and Hamel voting aye; Bradley, Williams, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting no. Mr. Delay moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to apply the panhandle lot moratorium only to those lots which already have a residence existing on them. 3/27/78--6 e Illt - Mr. Obie pointed out that the adjacent property owners are just as affected by panhandle lots and are just as concerned. Qualifying this motion, Ivlr. Delay said that it was intended that if a lot which is available for this division by this mechanism has a residence on it, it would be included in the moratorium. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Haws, Obie, and Lieuallen, voting no; Hamel, Bradley, Williams, Delay, and Smith, voting aye. Mr. Bradley requested staff indicate how quickly it could prepare an ordinance. The City Attorney said it could be prepared for Wednesday, March 29 meeting. Mr. Bradley moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Haws, that staff submit an ordinance Wednesday, March 29, that would include an emergency clause. Answering a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Bradley said the present applications would follow the normal procedure until Wednesday noon. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Haws, Delay, Hamel, and Bradley voting aye; Williams, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. e Mr. Delay reiterated that he had not seen a specific need for a moratorium on this particular land division vehicle. He said he had yet to hear anything that establishes a need for such a moratorium. Yet, he felt that Council needed to discuss the broader issue of growth and density. He felt there was no need to establish a mora- torium to consider a change in the policy, noting the Council does not ordinarily do so. Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried with Hamel, Bradley, Haws, Obie, and Smith voting aye; Delay, Williams, and Lieuallen voting no. A short recess was taken. B. Concurrent Annexations and Rezonings 1. Property located south of Old Dillard Road and along Dillard Road (Hunter)(A/Z 77-7) Recommended by Planning Commission February 14, 1978, with a 4:2 vote. Manager noted that before the five concurrent annexation rezonings were considered by Council, he would like Mr. Saul to explain the new rules under which Council would be operating because of recent state legislation and LCDC estab- lished goals. He referred Council to the Planning Department memo of March 16, 1978. - 3/27/78--7 Irs Mr. Saul said these were first of many annexations that will come before the Council; all had been held for approximately nine months to allow clarification of the change in law which would effect Council's 4It consideration of annexations. He noted that most annexation requests will involve consideration of three sets of standards. The only exceptions would be island annexations and health hazard annexations, which do not have to be reviewed for compliance with statewide goals and which are not subject to the administrative rules adopted by LCDC. The three sets of standards are as follows: 1) City Standards--Certain defined standards which have been used over five years that include such things as evaluation of relationship to urban service boundary, the 1990 Plan, service availability, etc. 2) Administrative Rules Standards--Because Eugene does not have an urban growth boundary approved by LCDC, annexation requests which do not involve an island or health hazard situation must be reviewed for compliance with the standards included in the Administrative Rule adopted by LCDC. Those standards include: a) that adequate public facilities and services can reasonably be made available; and b) either-the lands are physically developed for urban uses or are within an area physically developed for urban uses; or that the lands are clearly and demonstrably needed for an-Urban use and circumstances exist which make it clear that the lands in question will be within an urban service boundary when one is adopted in accordance with the goals. 3) Statewide Goals--Relate to Senate Bill 570, which does not provide clear direction as to which goal is appropriate or applicable. He said Council would have to make that determina- tion. The Staff Notes will include a statement of what goals are considered applicable and why those goals are specified. e Mr. Saul continued that the Boundary Commission had informed the staff that it wishes Council to carry out the basic review of the determining consistency with statewide goals. Also, one issue that must be considered under the Administrative Rules standards is the question of need for an annexation. He said the material presented contained a report supplement to the Staff Notes that was considered by the Planning Commission, which deals specifically with the question of need for annexation from a city-wide viewpoint. He said there was not a magic formula for determining what constitutes a need. However, staff has tried to be as conservative as possible in stating the need for an annexation. He noted also that the Planning Commission in its recommendation to the Council for approval included a condition that the applicants agree to file for annexation to the County Service District. This condition was required because the County Service tit 3/27/78--8 19b - District had not been formed when the applications had been filed. He noted also the annexations before Council this evening had all been referred to Lane County and the City had received no formal response that indicated any objections, but rather approval. Mr. Delay thought Council was to be advisory to the Boundary Commis- sion and this request from the Boundary Commission seemed to put the Council in a review position. He wondered if that would change the procedures. Mr. Saul said it would not, as the Council was still advisory and the Boundary Commission made the final decision. The intent of the request was that the city would be a primary party in looking at the question of the statewide goals. Mr. Saul said the Hunter application had originally been filed July 1977, which included 17 acres. December 1977, Mr. Hunter added a remainder of 100 acres. He said there was a staff error in that the Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association was not notified of the amendment to add the additional property. The Planning Commission determined that it was not a sufficient cause to delay recommendation to Council, as there would be subsequent opportunities for public hearing before the Planning Commission and Council through the PUD process. The Planning Commission felt that Goals 5, 7, 10, 11, and 14 were applicable. It rejected the idea that Goals 4 and 12 were applicable. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. e Public hearing was opened. Mike Farthing, 975 Oak Street, represented Mr. Hunter. He agreed with the findings and recommendations in the staff report. He felt the annexation does address and satisfy the criteria and standards. He circulated to Council a recent article from the Register-Guard dated March 21, 1978, indicating the tight housing market and that prices will continue to go up. He discussed the vacancy rate as being very low in Eugene. He felt if Eugene requires only infilling of the existing city boundaries, then there will be pressure on citizens to move to outside communities such as Veneta, Creswell, and Junction City. He noted the development of this property would be phased over a period of years and will be subject to closer scrutiny for the proper design. This will give the City an opportunity to make long- range planning in its housing market. He felt there was a public need for housing and this would not be taking much-needed agricultural land. Don Hunter, 2608 Central Blvd., applicant, noted the property had been in the family for 50 years and he was intending that the develop- ment be a very creative and attractive one and he wished to continue the present level of livability in Eugene. e 3/27/78--9 '81 Dayrl Nieliwocki, 259 East 5th Street, partner in New Outlook Design Construction Company, felt Council should consider the timing of the annexation as well as control that could be exhibited over the annexa- 4IJ tion. He noted the total process of planning for the development of 17 acres will have taken five years before it's finished. In regard to the costs of annexation to the city, he noted there is an existing sewer and water service to the north which would be available to that particular piece of property. He noted also the increase in building would generate extra taxes to the City which would minimize the costs of annexation. Also, he said this particular annexation will give the City some controls through the PUD process. He noted this was a chance for Council to plan a large area and to assure livability and aesthetics in the area. Those speaking against the annexation were as follows: Bill Muir, 1475 Russet Drive, representing People to Preserve Agri- cultural Land, Inc., disagreed with the procedure of annexation and concurrent rezoning. He said an LCDC hearing's officer had raised serious questions about the procedure. He also felt the urbanization section of Goal 14 should be addressed as the property is not urban in character. He noted there were 4,200 acres of undeveloped land within the city boundaries. Also, he felt the update of the 1990 Plan in process should be completed to determine the level of growth and what type of growth the City wants before annexati on of more 1 and. He cited this annexation would bring that particular area up to the 1990 level and did not feel this was appropriate. He also did not feel a need had been shown for this annexation. The development would impair ~ the natural and favorable wildlife activity and be detrimental to the .., growth of trees. He reiterated that he did not see a compelling need to annex the property at this time. Lyndon Anderson, 4975 Nectar Way, represented Southeast Firs Neighbor- hood Associ ation. He read a statement di rected to the Council regard- ing the annexation. The feasibility and cost effectiveness of the development was unknown. He said because it was part of the Amazon watershed, site specific data are needed. He cited concern over the Amazon runoff with an overburden of its capacities; the quality of water as there are septic tanks which might contaminate; quality of the air with the additional autos and traffic; and concern over the urban services boundary as it relates to the wildlife; and a request that a buffer zone be established between urban and rural areas to maintain the livability. Dan Scharbach, 4895 Garnet, called the Council's attention to the ridgeline of the wooded hills around Eugene which makes it a beauti- ful area. He felt that distinguishing characteristics should be maintained. - 3/27/78--10 ISf -- Elaine Roccio, 2483 Blackburn, spoke as an individual supporting the annexation. She knew Mr. Hunter personally and had full faith in the manner in which he would develop property, citing deed restric- tions would probably be included to preserve the livability of the area. Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission had discussed this annexat.on at great lengths and it did determine the annexation was consistent with the City and Administrative Standards and Statewide Goals. Regarding the proceeding of concurrent annexation rezonings, he $aid that is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable procedure. Regarding Administrative Rule No. 14, he said it is the act of annexation that makes that a distinguishing point. He referred Council to Planning Commission minutes, pages I-A-7 and -8. Regarding the need for land, he referred to the Staff Notes. Regarding the testimony from the Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association, he said those concerns would be reviewed through the PUD process rather than at the time of annexation. James Bernhard, Planning Commissioner, was available to answer questions. - Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern for this type of annexation. In recent reports to Council, Ed Whitelaw had stated the city will need a development of multi-family units closer to the city. He questioned whether the housing needs or the city needed this type of development rather than higher density closer to the central area. Mr. Saul replied he had reviewed the specific written material on all these annexations with Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Whitelaw had seen no contradic- tions between them and the forecasted supply and demand of housing. Housing needs will not be totally solved only by annexation, but both in-filling of the core area and annexation will have to be considered. He said with the PUD suffix, there is potential for multi- as well as single-family dwellings to be developed in this land. In rebuttal ,Mr. Farthi ng sai d regardi ng the vi sual impact, the property at the south end of the development would be right at the gOO-foot level and this would be the only portion visible from other parts of Eugene. He said the development of the other parts would not be visible. He reiterated that the City will be able to control the development through the PUD process and also that Mr. Hunter would be willing to sell some of the property to the City for park land. Regarding a buffer zone, he said the South Hills Study had established that at the 900-foot level. Regarding the critical areas of develop- ment, he said Public Works has a map of the South Hills area whi~h shows those critical areas and only a small portion of this develop- ment would be identified. Public Hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e 3/27/78--11 ,BCf Res. No. 2848--Forwarding to the Boundary Commission recommendation for annexation of property located south of Old Dillard Road and along Dillard Road was read by title and number. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting ~ the annexation as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto, and that the resolution be adopted. Mr. Delay felt it was a complex question as the City was functioning under a situation where the urban service boundary had not yet been accepted by LCDC. The assessment of need for the annexation had to be looked at carefully. He said the adequate supply of land and the high prices of land and housing was a concern, yet the actual inventory now is not clear and what is needed has not yet been clearly defined. He said Council should be aware that it has to demonstrably show a need for this annexation. He felt the clear and demonstrable need had not been established for the urban use of this land prior to the update of the 1990 Plan. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Hamel, Williams, Obie, and Smith voting aye; Haws, Delay, Bradley, and Lieuallen voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mayor Keller felt the Council had an obligation to the citizens to do the best possible job it can to supply housing and availability of land for housing. He felt the record indicated there was a substantial need for this annexation. C.B. 1637--Authorizing rezoning from County RA and County AGT to City ~ R-1 PD with PUD procedures of property located south of Old Dillard Road and along Dillard Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried with Hamel, Bradley, Williams, Obie, and Smith, voting aye; Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no. Lacking unani- mous consent the council bill will be read for the second time on April 10, 1978. Mr. Haws and Mr. Williams left the meeting. 3/27/78--12 e 190 2. Property located south of Beltline, north of Ironwood and Wildwood Streets (A-4 Investment)(A/Z 77-13) Unanimously recommended by the Planning Commlssion-February 14, 1978. e Mr. Saul said this was an island annexation consisting of approxima- tely 6.68 acres. Because it is an island annexation, it need only be reviewed under the standards of the City. Review by the Planning Commission indicated that all services can be extended. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Roland Arbogast, 341 Ransom Court, represented the A-4 Investment Corporation and was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Res. No. 2849--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for annexati on of property located south of Beltl i ne, north of Ironwood and Wildwood streets was read by number and title. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the annexation as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto, and that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1638--Authorizing rezoning from County RA to City R-1 of property located south of Beltline, north of Ironwood and Wildwood streets was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, 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. ~1otion 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 Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18142. - 3/27/78--13 , 'I , 3. Property located north and south of Holly Avenue, west of Gilham Road (CharlesjProciw)(A/Z 77-14) . . Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on February 14, 1978. ~ Mr. Saul said this was also an island annexation. He noted Tax Lots .., 1000 and 200 were not included in the original application for annexa- tion. Staff had written to ask if the owners wished to be included in the annexation and received no response. Planning Commission recom- mended they be included. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were received as part of the record by reference thereto. A public hearing was opened. John Charles, 4076 Deerhorn, Springfield, said he owned Tax Lot 900 and was in agreement with the Staff Notes. The owner of Tax Lot 1000 was contacted but had not stated either approval or disapproval. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Res. No. 2850--Forwarding to Bondary Commission recommendation for annexa- tion of property located north and south of Holly Avenue, west of Gilham Road was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto, and ~ that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. .., C.B. 163Q--Authorizing rezoning from County RA to City R-1 of property located north and south of Holly Avenue, west of Gilham Road h';"S ~ni'rJ b" co~!ncil hill Y]llmhnr ;:Inri titlp nnlv_ tJ,prp beinq no Counc.ilor present requesting it bc rcad in full. r~r. Hamel moved, seconded by r~r. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18143. .e 3/27/78--14 IQ1. e 4. Property located north of Jessen Drive, west of Highway 99N (Blackstone)(A/Z 77-10) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission February 14, 1978. The property involves approximately 5.5 acres in the Bethel-Danebo area. Mr. Saul said the annexation was consistent with the city and administrative rules standards and consistent with statewide goals. Under the administrative rule in Section 4B, the Planning Commission followed the recommendation of staff in that it determined that this area was within an area physically developed. Statewide goals which were applicable were No. 10, 11, and 14 (particularly the second section). He said in this area of the city, the urban service boundary was initially established in the 1990 Plan, but was much more specifi- cally defined in the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan. Mr. Delay noted the property was immediately adjacent to the M-1 and M-2 land, saying the Planning Commission and Council had been looking at buffer zones. He wondered if there was any reason why this did not appear to be applicable. Mr. Saul replied that in this instance, the existing character of the land in the south was primarily storage of plywood and that could be effectively screened by fencing. Also in this particular instance, the applicant was seeking residen- tial development. He noted also that the people in that area are quite strongly committed to residential use. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were received as part of the record as reference thereto. e Public hearing was opened. Gary Hughes, 637 West 7th Avenue, represented Stan Blackstone who was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Res. No. 2851--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for annexation of property located north of Jessen Drive, west of Hi ghway 99N was read by number and titl e. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and Minutes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto, and the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. - 3/27/78--15 ICf3 C.B. 1640--Authorizing rezoning from County RA to City R-1 of property located north of Jessen Drive, west of Highway 99N was read by council bill number and titlp nnlv, +hopo being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of February 14, 1978, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18144. 5. Property located between Fox Hollow Road and Willamette Street (Brolin)(A/Z 77-9) Considered by the Planning Commission on February 14, 1978, with a 3:3 vote. Manager said that if Council acted favorably on the annexation, the matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the rezoning. Mr. lieuallen expressed concern about the lateness of the hour and felt the Council should adjourn at its appointed time of 10:30 p.m. It was his understanding that a motion was necessary to extend the meeting beyond that time. Mayor Keller said this had been a public ... hearing called and he felt the Council should be responsive to those .., persons waiting to give testimony. He would try to adjourn at 11 'p.m. Mr. Obie felt the established policy had been set and the Council should operate under that unless the time limit was extended by a vote. He was in favor of automatic adjournment at 10:30 p.m. Manager noted there were some routine items which needed to be acted upon this evening. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to extend the meeting to 11 p.m. and complete the agenda. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to amend the motion to delete Item I-B-5 and complete the remainder of the agenda. Vote was taken on the amendment, which failed with Lieuallen and Delay voting aye; Hamel, Bradley, Smith, and Obie voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which passed with Delay and lieuallen voting no; Hamel, Bradley, Smith, and Obie voting aye. - 3/27/78--16 , q .... - . Mr. Saul said the proposed annexation involved 20 acres and is immediately west of an existing development which consists of a small number of town houses and a 108-unit apartment development. If the annexation and rezoning were approved, the property would be developed as adjacent to the existing development at Fox Hollow Road and Donald Street. The property under consideration is located entirely within the area covered by the South Hills Study. The request is consistent with the City, Administrative Rules, and State- wide Goals. Mr. Bernhard was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were entered into the record by reference thereto. Public Hearing was opened. e Larry Thomson, 260 East 11th Avenue, represented the Brolin Company. Mr. Thomson said they concurred with the recommendations made by staff and the procedures that had been taken. He said thjs was the logical extension of the existing development. The roads in the development are private roads and up to City standards. Access to the proposed development would be through these private roads. He cited the low rate of vacancies and a waiting list for occupancy in the adjacent development, particularly apartments, which indicates a need for this project. He noted it would be consistent with the South Hills Study. Some concern had been expressed that the LCDC No.4 goal should be applied; however, he was submitting that the staff goals were correct and reasonable, but Goal No.4 was not appropriate. Regarding the trees on the property, he said it was very heavily populated with Douglas fir and oak. He also cited that it was neces- sary for developers to have a reliance on the planning process in order to make long-range plans. He did not feel it was necessary to wait for the 1990 Update before annexing and developing this property. He said it was impossible to speculate or anticipate what that update will contain. It is necessary to use the goals and plans the City has now adopted as standards. Speaking against the annexation were the following: Bill Ivtuir, 1475 Russet Drive, who felt if the Council had any commit:.. ment to the update process, it should take a very strong, serious look at any compelling need to annex to the 1990 level prior to public hearing and Council decision on the 1990 Update. He also noted Planning Commission did not recommend this annexation. He questioned the timeliness and need for this annexation at this point and again reiterated that there were 4,200 acres of undeveloped property within the City of Eugene. He felt the burden of proof was on the petitioner. He said it was necessary to find the compelling need, one that would clearly and demonstrably show a need for this annexation. He did not feel that compelling need had been demonstrated. Regarding the forest land Goal No.4, he thought the obligation under state law and the state land-use planning goals showed an exception to that goal e 3/27 /78--17 I ~5 should be taken. He noted also the land was within a few hundred yards of Spencer Butte Park and would extend into the visible area of that park. He asked Council to not take action on the annexation. . David Cole, 31801 Owl Road, felt the property being considered was the least likely piece of land which should be annexed in the area. He felt in order for its proper utilization, this piece should be the last to be annexed because it depends upon the surrounding land for access. He questioned the need to annex and why anyone would want to build in this particular area. He felt the density should be increased in areas that are already developed. He cited the two-year battle to prevent the existing development and asked Council to look at those proceedings. He also said what was actually proposed at that time was not actually developed. He also questioned access to the property over Owl Road. Mr. Saul said in response to the question of Goal No.4 being applied, it is directed to protect forest lands for the production of forest products, i. e, 1 oggi ng. Rega rdi ng acces s to the property, Owl Road is an unimproved road in the County and of uncertain dedication status. If the annexation is approved, one of the conditions would be that no access of any kind to the development would be allowed through Owl Road. Access to the proposed annexation would be available through the existing development. Regarding the increased density and leaving open space, he said that would be totally consistent with the South Hills Study and policies of the City. He noted that if Council wished to look at the project now, he said the existing Bal-sm Develop- ment is one of the finest projects in the entire South Hills area and is invisible. The proposed annexation is consistent with all the standards and is supported by the findings-of-fact. e Mr. Bradley thought perhaps there should be some criteria which would allow annexations if that annexation was for the purpose of allowing increased density on adjacent property already develop~d. He wondered if there were any mechanism for allowing annexation with that condition. ik. Saul said there were a variety of existing policies that would come to bear on this development such as the statewide goals, the height limitations, and the South Hills Study. He believed the composit of those policies would have a major and far-reaching influ- ence on this development and those 'policies should be relied upon~ In rebuttal, Mr. Thompson said there could be further development of increased density on part of the land already in the city and he appreciated that flexibility. Regarding Mr. Muir's failure to see public need, he felt Mr. Muir was talking about the site-specific urban service boundary, which is the ridgeline, and is not sure that that is the issue. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. 3/27/78--18 - l'\b e Res. No. 2852--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for annexation of property located between Fox Hollow Road and Willamette Street was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the annexation as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes of February 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto and the resolution be adopted. Mr. Delay expressed appreciation for the density transfer and the flexi- bility allowing open space. However, he again felt that there was a failure to demonstrate the need for annexation of this land at this time. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Smith, Obie, and Hamel voting aye; Bradley, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. The council bill authorizing rezoning was returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration. II. Ordinances for Second Reading The fol,lowing council bills, read the first time March 13, 1978, and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 20, 1978, were brought back for second reading with Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: e C.B. 1623--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Rivertree Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east and west boundaries (1290)(76-68) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. tvlr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18145. C.B. 1624--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Deodar Subdivision (1339) (77-08) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18146. C.B. 1625--Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Elizabeth Street from Royal Avenue to 300 feet south (1427)(77-11) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18147. - 3/28/78--19 191 C.B. 1626--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and pedestrian way within Third Addition to Meadowbrook (1357) (77-12) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. ~ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18148. C.B. 1627--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Kodiak Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the south boundary of Kodiak Park Subdivision (1380) (77-15) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. 1\1r. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradl ey, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18149. C.B. 1628--Levying assessments for paving Holly Street from Tabor Street to Norkenzie Road (1416)(77-37) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in fu 11. C.B. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18150. 1629--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Shiloh Subdivision; paving within Brewer Park Subdivision, and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the south boundary of Shiloh Subdivision (1345)(77-51) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. - Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18151. C.B~ 1630--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer Foch Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to 400 feet south (1439)(77-53) was read by council bill number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18152. III. Adopt Findings-of-Fact Re: Denial of appeal from Sign Code Board of Appeals on sign located at 1940 Franklin (Red, Yellow, and Green Machine) Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt findings-of-fact. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye except l"Ir. Bradley voting no and Mr. Obie abstaining. - 3/28/78--20 ,C\s . - - IV. Resolutions Res. No. 2853--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period of March 13 to March 27, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2854--Calling public hearing for April 10, 1978, re: Abatement at 2043 Ohio was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. V. Approval of Minutes Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council minutes of March 13, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to March 29, 1978 ~Jn~ City Manager CTH:DT:jm/CM23alO 3/27/78--21 I Cfct