Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1978 Meeting : . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 27,1978 Adjourned meeting from February 22, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller February 27, 1978, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Councilor Tom Williams was absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Community Development Block Grant Application For 1978-79 . Manager said this was the final in three public hearings on recom- mendations for Community Development funding for 1978-79. Deadline for the application is March 1, 1978. Input from neighborhood groups had been reviewed by staff and the Community Development Committee with the resulting proposal. Action requested by Council is to approve the CDC grant application as presented. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Obie requested explanation on Item 13, solar greenhouse demonstration project for $10,000; and Item 14, Community Development corporation research project for $12,000. Also, Mayor Keller requested information on neighborhood recreation program (Item 9) for $5,000. Mr. Obie wondered what the solar greenhouse was going to do for the neighborhood, and wondered the reason for funding that project. Charles Kupper, Director, HCC, replied the item was eligible for funding under federal regulations and would be an economic development element, noting the strong feeling of the Whiteaker NIP for the project, feeling that valuable information could be obtained. Mr. Obie was still concerned as to the value for that particular neighborhood. Mr. Delay, chairman of CDC, said the neighborhood believed it could be a valuable asset. They are looking at the possibility of urban/agricultural projects for their community. . Mr. Obie then questioned the Community Development Corporation and what it would achieve. Mr. Delay said it was another contingency funded project with the major focus toward actual market feasibility and analysis of the kind of economic ventures available for commu- nities. This would be an experimental program and would be targeted to one specific neighborhood area. The Whiteaker people felt there was a need in that community and CDC found no reason to deny that kind of proposal. Mr. Obie wondered if that would conflict with economic 2/27/78--1 125 I studies and development plans in the City. Mr. Delay replied it was not known, but this would be a viable economic plan for that specific . community. Mr. Lieual1en said the economic development type project ' was a product of many ideas from various cities across the country. He said it was a tool of looking ahead to the possibility in the future when energy costs might result in economic endeavors being located within individual communities in place of large corporations supporting the economic base of the cities. He said it could be associated with energy, appropriate technology, and making a neigh- borhood more self-sufficient. This study will allow the neighborhood to experiment and see if it could prove to be profitable. This is what the community indicated it wanted, and, he felt it would lead to positive economic benefits for that community. Ms. Smith's major concern in the Community Development Corporation was how closely it was relating to what Lane County is doing in that area, and whether there was coordination or any duplicating of efforts. Mr. Kupper replied there was no danger of duplicating as this is on a very small neighborhood scale involving $10,000 to $20,000; whereas Lane County would be dealing with millions of dollars, and would be looking at a county-wide organization. Mr. Haws requested an explanation as to why the Active Bethel Citizens request was not being funded. Ms. Ross replied staff had recommended not funding the proposal in January, and there had been no disagree- ment from ABC as to that decision. A number of factors were involved: the location of Peterson Park was no longer eligible; approximatelY.. $55,000 from last year's allocation remained unexpended; and there might be some problems with HUD because of that amount not being spent. Mr. Haws thought by holding over the funds it would allow the group to receive more money next year for a major project, and he was concerned now they were receiving nothing. Ms. Ross explained it was allowable to hold the money over, ,and she understood the Parks Department will be spending about $55,000 and would be doing some development in Peterson Park by September. She said there had been indications from HUD that cities will be questioned as to how fast they are spending allocated funds. Mr. Haws then questioned when that area became ineligible. Ms. Ross replied April 15, 1977, there was a memo which required all block grant applications to justify allocations and that included Peterson Park. After that time, the Planning Department did an in-depth study with information available to CDC for its 1978-79 application. The bulk of the Bethel district was determined ineligible. Mr. Haws wondered if ABC had been told of the ineligible areas. Mr. Delay said that raised the question of priority areas 'which ,were devel- oped by geographic distribution and certain criteria, and directed Council to pages 31 and 32. He said pages 34 through 43 of the application indicated all the other data from the Planning Department which was used to determine the priority list. This was accomplished in August, 1977. He noted that the CDC had denied the request very . 2/27/78--2 12.' - early in the process, and yet no ABC person came to the meeting to question that decision. Mr. Haws then said he needed some tangible programs for the Bethel area, noting the lack of support for the City budgets. He felt some portion of the federal money should be spent in the Bethel area, and expressed concern that his area was not included in funding. Regarding home repairs, Mr. Obie questioned funds avallable in the Whiteaker and Westside areas. Mr. Kupper replied that program was being extended to the Whiteaker area for the first time under this funding. The program for the Westside area is being extended. Mr. Obie also questioned the individually funded activities and expressed concern regarding the proportion allocated to certain areas. He wondered how those allocation decisions were reached. Mr. Kupper replied the Westside area had been held as a high priority 1975 through 1978, Whiteaker was the next high priority area from 1977 through 1980, and the Westside area was the next high priority area from 1979 to 1982. Mr. Hamel said when the project started three to four years ago, the oldest neighborhoods were designated as high priorities first. e Mr. Obie said he was impressed with the individual housing rehabili- tations in the Westside area and hoped that same kind of program would continue in the Whiteaker area. Mr. Kupper said the same programs will be extended to Whiteaker and the people in that area are inter- ested in making the program work so he was optimistic that Whiteaker will experience the same improved housing rehabilitation. Mr. Bradley requested information regarding administrative costs. Paula Ross, HCC, said the administrative costs were built into programs such as traffic management and the cooperative housing feasibility study. She said in the latter case, consultants on a professional contract basis would be hired by the City. Ms. Smith spoke in favor of the recommendations saying she felt the Committee and staff had researched the proposed projects, and had had enough input from the neighborhood groups. . Regarding a question from Mr. Bradley, Ms. Ross said an evaluation component regarding achieving goals is built into the program. Each project is evaluated by the neighborhood group ~nd staff, and each year staff is required to submit to HUD a performance report. Mr. Bradley wondered what response staff had to make regarding a criticism that this was a "shopping list" instead of a comprehensive organized attempt to resolve some of the most immediate problems facing the City. Mr. Kupper said that simply there were not enough dollars to attack all problems in a very comprehensive manner. Also federal regulations stipulate certain programs to be included. He said under these circumstances with the amount of money available, . it was felt CDC and staff were doing the best they could with the money available. 2/27/78--3 111 Mayor Keller said he could understand the frustration of Council in justifying how the money is spent, noting there were simply not enough dollars available. He noted the federal tax dollars coming from Washington, D.C. to this City and the necessity for such things as more housing for the citizens. He said that even though some of the items seemed small in amounts, if some of those small amounts were used to rehabilitate homes, he would feel more comfortable with the program. He felt the City had an obligation also, to spend the dollars in the best possible way. In response, Mr. Delay said CDC had targeted money to rehabilitate housing to the maximum extent it was capable of administering. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the Community Development Block Grant application for 1978-79 as presented. Motion carried with all councilors present voting aye except Mr. Haws voting no. B. Appeal by Hearings Official Re: Preliminary Approval of Tree House PUD located in area east of Blanton Road, south of 38th Avenue, south of 35th Avenue and southwest of Monroe Street (PO 77-9) Approved by Hearings Official January 19, 1978. Manager noted loca- tion of the proposed Treehouse PUD, which would comprise 122 units located on approximately 40 acres. The matter was being appealed by the Crest Drive Neighborhood Association. Jim Saul said this was the preliminary approval, the second stage ~ . of the PUD process. Diagrammatic approval had been given by the ~ Planning Commission October 4, 1977. He noted the differences of the two stages in the PUD process. The purpose of the first stage was to evaluate off-site impact of the development, with particular attention paid to the impact of the development on a wide variety of services. The purpose of the second stage was oriented to on-site considerations as to how the development relates to the site. The only off-site question in the second stage would be a question of building design and its effect on adjacent property. This development was considered by the Hearings Official January 19. On January 29, it was granted preliminary approval, subject to a number of conditions. The appeal was submitted February 9. Mr. Saul said the testimony council would be hearing this evening must be limited to specific items in the appeal and only those items heard at the Hearings Official level, and how the Hearings Official may have erred. He said there were three major issues in the appeal: (1) On-site geology conditions; (2) how any conditions that might be established by an expert might be enforced in building permit stage; and (3) the Amazon drainage adequacy. He said in regard to the latter, it is not a legitimate consideration, as it was evaluated at the first stage and would not pertain to the preliminary approval. If that matter were ~o be addressed, it should have been appealed at the first stage. He noted again the second stage, preliminary approval, was for on-site considerations. The Hearings Official had granted preliminary approval subject to conditions, and if those conditions . were not fulfilled or were voided, then the approval would be voided. ~ 2/27/78--4 128 e James Spickerman, Hearings Official, said his approval was made on the basis that those conditions would be fulfilled, particularly in the case of the geological report. The rest of the conditions were necessary to get additional data for the PUD. He noted if the project could not be safely and adequately sited, the project would not go forward. He said there was nothing which indicated the site could not be built upon, and the problems had been pointed out in his hearings and findings. He said it was not an unusual situation to receive more information after the fact. Mr. Bradley wondered if there were any remedy in the Code for Council to be allowed to address significant off-site considerations that might appear as a result of the second stage preliminary approval report. He was speaking with respect directly to the Amazon drainage problem. Mayor Keller noted staff could research that 'and answer the question after the public hearing. 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. e Those speaking in favor of the appeal were the following: Daniel Knapp, 639 West 29th Place, referred to a resolution adopted in June 1974, in which PUD reviews should be based on public and private interest, with public interest given more weight. He noted there were many environmental restraints in the area, and it was felt all or most of the site was unbui1dable. He cited various geological studies which were made, showing the land was unbuildable. He noted the moving of land by underground water, steep slopes, slumps in the area; he.said there is evidence of road washouts, driveways breaking up, and crumbling foundations extending for a quarter of a mile down the road past his property. He felt the degree of risk in building on this property was quite high. He noted the same conclu- sions had been reached by the various studies using different methods. He also felt the Treehouse PUD would violate the Uniform Building Code. In addressing the Amazon drainage problem, he said that by building the PUD, it would add to the impervious area and the storm runoffs into the Amazon drainage. He felt that there might be flooding from Oak Street to the fairgrounds if this PUD were approved. e William Orr, 3465 Ferry Street, was a geological professor at the University of Oregon with professional training in the field for ten years. He had spent considerable time looking over the property and felt it to be unbuildable. He said the geological report (Williamson) was admittedly unsatisfactory, yet the Hearings Official had approved this preliminary stage. His criticism of the Williamson report was that it applied only to the northeast section of the property. He said the Williamson report was also open-ended, and he felt it was necesary to have a very detailed geological workup of the condition of 2/27/78--5 I,~ A short recess was taken. - 2/27/78--6 130 -- Elizabeth Butler, 340 Delwood Drive, indicated she had not been notified of the public hearing before the Hearings Official January 19. She said there had been changes made by the Hearings Official that had not been in keeping with the decision made by the Planning Commission. She felt there would have been others at the Hearings Official public hearing had they known. She cited the drainage problems in the area, noting her house was settling, the basement was split, and the driveway had been broken. She also noted the evidence of underground springs under her house. Gary House, 325 West 38th, knew of no one on West 38th or Dell wood who received notice of the January 19 public hearing before the Hearings Offici al even though those persons had testified at the two previous hearings before the Planning Commission. He felt there might be some violation involved. He noted of four houses on the north side of 38th, three had cracking foundation problems. He also expressed difficulty in understanding the logic of the request for Council to approve this item when it had been approved only on a contingency basis. He felt it should have been disapproved by the Hearings Officical and the developer should have been the one to make the appeal. Walther Hahn, 601 West 35th Place, started to address the traffic considerations. Mayor Keller reminded him to confine testimony as instructed by staff. Mr. Hahn just indicated he was concerned about the impact on traffic and felt it had not been sufficiently considered by the Hearings Official. e Mr. Saul, addressing the jurisdictional question dealing with suffi- cient notification, quoted Section 9.514 of the code. It indicated notification be provided to the abutting property owners.not more than 15 or less than five days prior to the hearing; notice had been mailed to all abutting property owners January 4 of the January 19 public hearing. Also, the code states the officially recognized neighborhood organization be notified; Crest Drive Citizens Group was notified November 22 with revised plan notification on December 20, 1977. Further, the code requires notification be posted in at least three different locations in the surrounding area; notices were posted in seven areas. He said the principle question was whether or not the parties who appeared at earlier hearings did or did not receive notification and whether there was an implied promise that notifica- tion would be provided. Parties of interest requesting information would receive notification, but no written requests had been received. He said in light of the issue of implied promise of notification, staff would recommend the Council not take action this evening, but postpone the matter for two weeks to allow those interested to submit written testimony for Council consideration. He said further it was staff's feeling that the legal requirements had been met. - Mr. Bradley returned to his question regarding how Council could remedy any subsequent information that surfaced after a certain stage had been already approved, i nformati on that mi ght be detr;- mental to such a development. Mr. Saul replied the process for 2/27/78--7 131 I, Council would not be to attempt to achieve through denial of a subse- quent phase of the development. He said that would not preclude City ~ Council from dealing with legitimate questions or problems that might arise. Council could still have the power to invoke other provisions such as a moratorium. Mr. Bradley was unsatisfied with the answer, saying he felt Council should have some way to deal with any problems that might occur in Phase II which had not been adequately dealt with in Phase 1. Mr. Saul felt the issue was somewhat broader than this particular appeal, in that Council was dealing with very explicit provisions of the code in terms of an appeal and the scope allowed. He reminded Council when it considered the ordinance, the appeal section was looked at very carefully by both staff and Council. The appeal section is written in such a manner that it attempts to focus the appeal on the scope of the considerations that are designed for that particular phase or stage. He said it was done in part to protect Council to keep the scope of discussion on a legitimate basis; howevert it does limit the scope of Council's own inquiry. Ms. Smith questioned whether the testimony regarding drainage and crumbling foundations was within the proper jurisdiction of discus- sion. Mr. Saul said he had not dealt with the major points raised in testimony, noting one of the main ones was the soil and geological conditi ons on the property. He sai d no one had suggested thi s site did not have problems, and these issues would have to be examined. He said the question involved how that is approached and what the impli-. ~ cations of it are. When the South Hills Study was done, the purpose .., was not to say that a particular site could not be developed. The function of the information was to flag danger signals that require special consideration in development of the property. In this parti- cular PUD application, there may be dangers and he said there are indicators that require special engineering conditions. However, there is nothing in the policy framework of the City that says the site could not be developed, but rather how it can be rendered safe. He said the next question involved whether the Hearings Official conditions imposed in the PUD development address those problems. He said there were a number of ways the City could ensure the safe development of the property. The specifications for design standards are required by contract; the Building Department maintains a file and would check when a building permit comes in to see if the engineering geological report has been included in the design and if the recommen- dations have been carried out. He said the conditions imposed guarantee submission of design and assurance of incorporating those conditions in the building of the structures. Regarding the question of Amazon drainage, he said this was an off- site impact considered at the first stage approval. He noted for Council the AmaZOn drainage facility is a Corps of Engineer facility which the City maintains by contract. It was designed and created - 2/27/78--8 132. ~ e by human beings, he said, and there is every possibility that it might be exceeded under extreme weather conditions. However, he noted the Corps is in process of evaluating the capacity of the Amazon drainage. In response to a question regarding cracked foundations, Mr. Saul said the Building Department has done no surveys. However, there had been indications in the past of problems as shown in the South Hills Study. However, he had no knowledge of the design considera- tions of the houses referred to in tonight's testimony. Mr. Obie questioned Mr. Pierce's request for the returning of a portion of a street dedication. Mr. Saul said this had involved a dedication of that street, was contiguous with but not a part of this property. He said the process available for Mr. Pierce would be to petition for vacation. In response to a question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Saul said the Williamson Study was an earlier report by an engineering geologist for a portion of this site considered under another PUD application. No geology report had been submitted to the Hearings Official as that was a requirement as a condition for approval. Mr. Spickerman noted he had read the Williamson Study. ' e Ms. Smith expressed major concern regarding the testimony surrounding the geological conditions of the site. She wondered if Council could withhold its decision until it received a revised geological report. Mr. Saul replied Council had a number of options: It could affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Officical's findings, or modify conditions established by the Hearings Official. He said this request amounted to more than modification as it would be voiding two preliminary approvals by saying those should not have been granted until a geological report is received. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the testimony of the geolo- gical conditions. He felt if Council had to make a decision at this meeting it had no other choice than to accept the appeal. He felt the decision for this PUD required special consideration and to what extent this PUD request creates a dangerous situation. He felt, based on the testimony presented tonight, the Council should reverse the Hearings Official approval. Mr. Delay concurred with Mr. Obie. He noted four points for Council: 1) Danger signals exist that require serious consideration; 2) this is an on-site impact and geological conditions seem to be the primary concern; (3) without a geological report, the Hearings Official decision would be hard to accept; and 4) if Council is not considering off-site considerations then it should not be getting staff presen- tations of such. e 2/27/78--9 133 Mr. Bradl ey questi oned whether the drai nage patterns on the property could be an off-site consideration, as those on-site patterns affected ~ other property. Mr. Saul said consideration of on-site drainage ~ is legitimate at this time. Whatever number of units are proposed will have implications for the size of the stream drainage faCility to be installed on that property. However, he did not feel Council could consider the off-site impact of drainage back down to Amazon or where it drains into Fern Ridge. He did not feel Council could sustain a position that this development would result in an overload of the Amazon Channel. He said that problem transcends this parti- cular development as it effects the whole southeastern area of Eugene. Assistant Manager said staff and Council certainly shared the concern with the testimony as to the geological conditions which mayor may not exist on the site. However, he cautioned Council may be compounding the problem, noting whether or not Council was qualified to pick between geological experts. In the past, Council has requested response on technical issues from staff. He said if Council delays action on this matter because it wants more evidence from geologists, he wondered how Council could decide between expert testimony as there would be many diverse expert opinions. The Hearings Official had recognized this and had set as a condition there must be satisfactory geological information presented before the final approval and construction can occ u r. Mr. Lieuallen felt the Hearings Official should have had a geolog- ical report in front of him to suggest problems and how they could be dealt with. The Hearings Official has required a report from ~ the developers and that report could conclude that the site is not buildable. The approval by the Hearings Official says that the only purpose of the report is to show how to locate the structures, not whether they should be built at all. He said it could be the conclusion of the geological report that the site could not be built upon. Assistant Manager said this evidence must be presented and the project would not go ahead without the evidence that the condi- tions set forth by the Hearings Official could be met. In his rebuttal, Mr. Knapp noted Ms. Butler and Mr. House would prefer Council make a decision tonight and were not in favor of a delay. In response to Mr. Saul's statement that the City can ensure adequate inspection, Mr. Knapp wondered how. He said one of the Hearings Official's conditions was the application of Chapter 70 of the UBC which he felt had already been violated. Also, he commented on the Hearings Official rejection of testimony because he was not a qualified geologist. He questioned whether or not an ordinary citizen, through study, could not understand technical matters. Regarding overloading Amazon, he said this site is one of many in this particular area and has to be evaluated as such. He had questioned the City Engineering staff as to how many houses had already been approved for that area and not yet been built. The City staff had no number to give. He questioned how much run-off would accrue in the next few years as a result of this building. He - 2/27/78--10 t 3't e said the Amazon capacity was diminishing while the run-off was increasing. Also, he said if Council approves this stage, he is not sure what his position could be and whether or not he could appeal again. He does not want to see Council go beyond this stage until a fundamental geological problem has been addressed. He felt this would not be changed by a geological report. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Haws said he felt the Council's process was simple and clear, noting a person owns property, has a right to develop that property. Thi s developer has gone through the procedures set forth by the City; the Hearings Official has set conditions; if those conditions are met then he can develop his property. He felt Council would be making a major error to approve the appeal and he would be more comfortable to allow the developer, if he complies to conditions, to let the staff experts decide about the buildable sites. He felt Council would be in error to uphold the appeal, and would do injus- tice to take on the technical decision that it is not capable of handl i ng. Mr. ,Obie felt the testimony presented indicated there were many technical geological conditions in this development that are paramount to any other consideration. tit Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to return the prelimi- nary approval to the Hearings Official and ask him to receive a geological report and make a decision/recommendation accor- dingly based on that report. Mr. Saul said he assumed Mr. Obie would include the other matters to be considered, including the other conditions. Mr. Obie affirmed that. Mayor Keller expressed dismay at Council's action. He said the Hearings Official had already studied the Williamson Study and the process Council was taking was considered under Item 5 in the Hearings Official's findings. He said Council was now demanding something that will already be taken care of. Mr. Obie disagreed with Mayor Keller, saying he felt the importance of the geological conditions needed further study. Mr. Delay indicated he felt uncomfortable as there was not sufficient evidence on the on-site impact for geological conditions to make any decision. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye except Haws and Hamel voting no. Mr. Haws and Mr. Lieuallen left the meeting. - 2/27/78--11 135 C. Appeal from Sign Code Board af Appeals re: Red, Yellow & Green Machine for Sign Located 1940 Franklin Boulevard Denied by Sign Code Board of Appeals January 16, 1978. Manager said the appeal came from Tom Mayer, Red, Yellow & Green Machine, 745 Polk. The proposed mural is for the surplus and outdoor sales store located at 1940 Franklin Boulevard. The Sign Code Board of Appeals unanimously upheld staff in stating that the design was a sign in that it clearly intended to draw attention to the outdoor store. Appellant contends that it is a mural in that it did not emphasize clothes. Staff contends murals should not relate to busi- ness or store and should depict ideas not related to the business. - Mick Nolte, Building Department, reviewed the meeting held January 16 of the Sign Code Board of Appeals. He said the unanimous decision was based on the interpretation and definition of a sign under City Code. The mural contains subjects that are related to the business in the building and activities depicted those within the store. He noted the Planning Department staff has been studying amendments for the Sign Code Ordinance in the hopes of more clearly defining what is a sign and what is a mural. He noted the Toy Shoppe mural represents the threshold between advertising and decoratin~, and it becomes a subjective decision as to what is and what is not a sign. A picture was then displayed for Council and audience which indi- cated the proposed mural. e In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, only Councilor Obie abstained from discussion and voting. Staff notes and minutes were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Tom Mayer, 745 Polk, referred to other cities in which mural art work was used to make buildings more attractive. He felt the use of murals in Eugene woul d also accompli sh thi s. The city di d not have a definitive ordinance for signs and noted there were about ten businesses in Eugene who had murals that could be defined as signs by depicting businesses within the store, such as Hawkeye's, La Posada, Captain John's, and the Homegrown Shop. He said these could be denied also for the same reasons he had been denied. He felt the proposed drawing is a mural as it does not contain words or products and does not depict a service or logo. He felt it should be determined to be a mural and not a sign. He proposed Council approve the mural on its pictoral content only. e 2/27/78--12 '3~ e Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, represented Fairmount Neighbors. The group was in agreement with the staff and Sign Code Board of Appeals position. She said the neighborhood organization values that area as an asset and noted there were many signs in the area because it is on a highway. The group is not in opposition to murals in general, but they did feel the need to consider this particular one as a sign. She said if it were allowed to be used, it should be done so at the expense of removing some of the other signs in the area. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Manager noted Council would have to adopt findings of fact so its action tonight would not be final. e Mr. Bradley wondered if the Code would allow Council to suggest changes in the composition. Mayor Keller and Assistant Manager noted for Council it should focus on the issue of whether or not the composition is a sign or a mural. The appellant could resub- mit another composition if Council decides to deny the appeal. Ms. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, said one problem involved in this issue was facing the first amendment constitutional problems. She read from the City Code the definition of a sign. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to deny the appeal on the basis that the picture is a sign and asked staff to prepare findings of fact for adoption. Mr. Delay said he had reviewed the record and found the City Code definitely did not have anything to say about murals. He had a question as to whether or not to regard this composition as a sign. He said in his judgment it appeared to be a very gray area between being decorative and descriptive. However, he felt he had to support the motion until Council had some more definitive way of dealing with some of these questions. However, he did feel this composition did draw attention to the particular store business. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with Delay, Hamel, and Smith voting aye; Bradley voting no; and Obie abstaining. II. ORDINANCES HELD FOR READING--None. III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING C.B. 1611--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within 11th Addition to Nob Hill (1260) (76-69) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. - 2/27/78--13 131 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. . Motion carried unanimously. e C.B. 1612--Levying assessements for paving 19th Avenue from 18th Avenue to Sunrise Blvd. (1198) (77-02) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1613--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer, alley between 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue from Blair Boulevard to Van Buren Street (1294 (77-18) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. e C.B. 1614--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer. and storm sewer 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 (1346) (77-19) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1615--Levying assessments for paving Robin Avenue ahjacent to Tax Lot 17-04-22-21-00700 (1362) (77-25) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. - 2/27/78--14 138 e C.B. 1616--Levying assessements for sanitary sewer to serve Cherry's Addition (77-26) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for heari ng March 6 , 1978, and Panel recommendati on be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1617--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lot 18-03-16-30-02100 adjacent to Skyline Drive (1474) (77-32) was read by council bi 11 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. tit .C.B. 1618--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Ironwood Subdivision (1368) (77-45) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1619--Levying assessments for sidewalk, east side of Four Oaks Grange Road between 18th Avenue and Bailey Hill Road (77-57) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. - C.B. 1620--Levying assessments for River Road-Beltline Road Sanitary District (526) (77-1003) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. 2/27/18--15 '3'1 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 6, 1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consideration for final reading March 13, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. -- IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 2838--Authorizing transfer of funds from General Fund Contingency Account for salaries, benefits, fur- niture, and materials for Council Aide positions was read by number and title only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradly, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2839--Authorizing transfer of Non-Contingency Appro- priations within a given fund between programs and/or object groups was read by number and title only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradly, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2840--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period February 13 through February 27, 1978 was read by number and title only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradly, 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 February 13, 1978. Roll call vote. . Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to March 1, 1978. c~n::~ City Manager DT:so/CM25b13 - 2/27/78--16 I~O