Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/1978 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 24, 1978 Adjourned meeting from April 19, 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. in the Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Torn Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieua11en, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoning from AG to R-1 property located at southwest corner of Danebo Avenue and Royal Avenue (Nielsen) (Z 78-3) Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission March 14, 1978. . Ji~ Saul, Planner, said the total area involved 38.48 acres, which had been annexed to the City in 1964 as a part of the Bethe1-0anebo annexation. Since that time, the property has been zoned AG. All surrounding property has been rezoned residential and developed with a variety of residential uses. The only issue raised during the Planning Commission's consideration was whether a small portion of the property (2.25 acres) should be classified RP, since it would be severed from the main parcel if and when Royal Avenue is relocated. The Planning Commission decided that RP zoning was premature, and that the issue should be re-examined once relocation of that street actually occurred. Applicant concurred with that position. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council ors. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council. Bill 1662--Authori zi ng rezoni nfl from AG to R-1 property located at southwest corner of Danebo Avenue and Royal Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findin~s supporting the rezoning as set forth in P1annino Commission staff notes and minutes of March 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. - 4/24/78 - 1 21~ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present votin9 aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18165. . B. Concurrent Annexations and Rezonings 1. Property located. both sides of Arcadia Drive, north of Harlow Road (Tronrud, O'Donnell et al) (A/Z 77-11) and property located between Calvin Street and Arcadia Orive north of Harlow Road (Nelson/Gent) (A/Z 78-1) from County RA to City R-l. Unanimously recommended by Planninq Commission March 14, 1978. Ivlr. Saul said his comments would pertain to both parcels as they are in the same area in Willakenzie and were contiquous properties. The Tronrud/O'Donnell property included 16 parcels of land, appro- ximately 9.95 acres, which was subdivided some years ago in the county and developed with single-family residences. The annexation had been petitioned by the owners of the property to obtain sanitary sewers. The Nelson/Gent property contained three parcels of land of approximately two acres. This was also zoned Sinqle-Family Residential. He said these parcels were located within an overall island, in that the city completely surrounds the area. The Planning Commission noted the full range of urban services can be provided and the annexations meet all criteria. Mr. Lieuallen requested information as to the nature of level of . development that exists in the area now, and whether the properties would have to be brought up to an acceptable level regarding City services. Mr. Saul said at this time the number of urban services in the area is somewhat limited. One of the first that would have to be provided would be sanitary sewers; storm sewers would have to be provided also. Arcadia Street would have to be developed, as it is not an arterial; the development probably would not occur until the City received a 50 percent petition. There are other services that the City ultimately would have to consider in this area, such as additional park land, which is needed in the entire Willakenzie area. Also there are no sidewalks and those would not be developed until the street improvement was established. He said regarding the street riqht-of-way alonq Arcadia, the City would have to acquire right-of-way to expand the street from 40 to 50 feet in some areas. Mr. Saul said if Mr. Lieuallen's concern ~as whether or not the area was a problem area in terms of overall quality structures existin~, then it is not a problem. There are well-kept and main- tained homes. It is, however, an area where an urban service level will . have to be installed after the annexation. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council ors. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. - 4/24/78 - 2 2..1' e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Res. No. 2885--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located both sides of Arcadia Drive, north of Harlow Road was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findinqs supportin9 the annexation as set out in P1annin9 Commission staff notes and minutes of March 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; and the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1663--Authorizing rezoning from ,County RA to City R-1 property located both sides of Arcadia Drive, north of Harlow Road was read by council bill number and title only, there bein9 no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findin9s supportinq the rezonin9 as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 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 18166. Res. No. 2886--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located between Calvin Street and Arcadia Drive, north of Harlow Road was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that finnin9s supporting the annexation as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; and the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1664--Authorizin9 rezonin9 from County RA to City R-1 property located between Calvin Street and Arcadia Drive, north of Harlow Road \'Jas read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findinqs supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 14, 1978, be adopted by - 4/24/78 - 3 2.18 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 bi 11 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 18167. 2. Property located west of Four.Oaks Grange Road, south of 18th Avenue (Moe) (A/Z 77-18) from County RA to City R-1 Unanimously recommended by PlanninQ Commission March 14, 1978. Mr. Saul said the property contained .91 acre, a small parcel west of Four Oaks Grange Road and south of 18th Avenue. The property is presently developed with a sin~le-farnily residence, and owners petitioned annexation to connect with city sewer which runs alon9 Four Oaks Grange Road. The annexation was considered under City standards, LCDC administrative rule, as well as the applicable State- wide Goals and Guidelines. It was determined Goals 10, 11, and 14 (particularly second portion of 14) were applicable. Mr. Saul noted one factor for Council in that the adjacent owners indicated they did not object to the annexation provided it is not expanded to include thei r property. - No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council ors. Staff notes and minutes were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Res. 2887--Recommending to the Boundary Commission annexation of property located west of Four Oaks Grange Road, south of 18th Avenue was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findinqs supporting the annexation as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 14, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto and that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1665--Authorizing rezonin9 from County RA to City R-1 property located west of Four Oaks Grange Road, south of 18th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present reQuestin9 it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill he approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18168. - 4/24/78 - 4 2.1'1 - C. Denial of reauest for concurrent annexation/rezonina from County RA to City R-1 property located alono Hickory Avenue and Sisters View, west of Garden Way (Ellison, Harris, Ream) (A/Z 77-8) Denial recommended by Planning Commission March 14, 1978 with a 4-2 vote. Mr. Saul referred Council to the map attached to the agenda, noting the annexation request in the Willakenzie area involves scattered, noncontiguous parcels. The annexation was initiated by various owners of the properties. He said staff had contacted approximately 50 owners of property along Hickory Street. The situation in this instance involves a series of considerations. He said the property is an island and already developed at an urban level with single- family residences. However, because annexation of only the parcels petitioned would have required extension of services through unin- corporated areas, and because of the substantial opposition to inclu- sion of additional properties to establish a logical boundary, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this specific request. However, the Planning Commission did recognize that annexation is inevitable and is only a question of time. The two dissenting votes on the denial for annexation were Planning Commission members who felt the City should proceed with annexation of the entire area at this time. e Mr. Delay requested a clarification from Mr. Saul regarding the development of the land. Mr. Saul said the bulk of the parcels are developed in one-family units of approximately 20,000 square feet. He said the only difference a person would notice in passino from city limits into this area would be an occasional vacant parcel, and the City lots would be somewhat smaller than those in this unin- corporated area. 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. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to uphold the Planninq Commission denial of the concurrent annexation/rezoning request. - Ms. Smith noted in the minutes and staff notes a concern expressed regarding the health standards and concern by the Planning Commission for further study. She wondered if the denial were upheld by Council at this time, what future plans would be for studying the area. Mr. Saul said the staff at this point does not plan to continue any fur- ther study of that area regardin9 whether or not a health hazard exists. However, the Planning Commission has requested staff to report back to the Commission with an overall report of various island areas that do exist in the Willakenzie area. This report 4/24/78 - 5 ~o would be delivered in about a month. He noted there were approx- imately eight different distinguishable island areas in the ~ Willakenzie neighborhood. Mr. Delay expressed appreciation for Mr. Saul's comments in that he felt this problem needed to be studied further. He had found the situation baffling in that people are essentially integrated into the community and are using the City services, but are not paying for those services. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. D. Liquor License: New Outlet--Wine Barrel Distributors, (WRMW), 1170 West Second Avenue; Angela Doveri and Debra Greene Manager noted staff reviewed all background material and is recommending approval. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward with approval to OLCC, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously. E. Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 1977, through June 30, 1978 Manager noted the supplemental budget was for $1,089,092; of this total, $799,969 is for capital projects and the remaining $289,123 is for oper- ating costs. The major purpose of the supplemental budget is to estab- lish the Eugene Renewal Agency fund resulting from the early closeout of the downtown urban renewal project grant as part of the 1977-78 Community Development Block Grant. The total amount would be $654,572 with these amounts approved by HUD in the CDSG application. The remainino $413,100 for capital projects represents Lane County.s participation in construc- tion on Gilham Road, Bertelsen Road, and Seneca Road. Fifteen thousand dollars of capital outl ay and the transfer of appropriations authorized is a procedure to comply with accepted accounting principles reouirin9 fixed assets to be purchased by a sinq1e fund. The last $6,420 is to authorize additional selfsupporting recreation activities. e Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C. B. 1666--Adopting supplemental budget for fiscal year July 1, 1977, through June 30, 1978, and declaring an emergency, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read . the second time by council bill number only. 4/24/78 - 6 181 e - - 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 18169. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Systems Development Tax Previously considered by Council January 23 and April 10 (amended April 10). Manager noted the ordinance before Council this evening was the amended version from the April 10 meeting relating to delet- ing a portion of the exemption section and including April 11 as the effective date. The emergency clause has also been deleted, with Manager noting if the bill were passed this evening, it would become effective in 30 days, retroactive at that time to April 11. At the request of Mr. Lieuallen, staff had prepared a memorandum regarding the matter of inclusion of exempted central area and reasons for the desirability of such exemptions. It is staff's feeling that the lack of the exemption would be contrary in many respects to existing City policies and programs that have been directed at the central and older parts of the City. Such actions enumerated were: 1) use of Community Development Block Grant funds in the central planning district to provide public services; 2) innovative grant proposal which has been submitted to HUD to provide additional funds for public improvements to encourage new residential development in the Whiteaker area; 3) tax exemption for multiple-family residential development immediately around the central business district; 4) the application of the mixed-use district section to the Westside area to encourage residential development; 5) growth management efforts,includ- in9 the systems development tax which has been aimed at counteracting tendencies for residential development to occur on the fringes. Manager said it should be noted that the ordinance itself, as origi- nally proposed did not state that there will be exemptions, but merely empowers the Council to determine at some later date whether or not it wishes to have exempted areas or reductions of the tax for certain areas under certain conditions. He noted a memo dated April 24, from the Planning Commission, asking Council reconsider its action on eli- minating this particular exemption. If the exemption matter is to be reconsidered, it would require a motion by a Councilor who voted on the prevailing side. Then the ordinance would be at its first stage for read i ng. Mr. Obie said he would prefer not to deal with the issue of the exemptions at this meeting. He noted his previous amendment to the ordinance and said he preferred to deal with all those issues at some later time. Mr. Haws agreed with Mr. Obie. He preferred to vote for the ordinance and consider amendments to it at a later time, and if the ordinance were not to pass, there would be no need to waste time discussing amendments. 4/24/78 - 7 1.21- Mr. Delay agreed with the above remarks, with one reservation. He said it may take more time to deal with some of the considerations. However, he was concerned about the potential of having for some extended period of time the question of how Council would deal with this area of the city. He felt the City had consistent policies that would give sufficient reason to adopt this policy now. e In speaking to the amendments to the ordinance, Mr. Lieuallen noted the range of support for the exempted area: The Planning Commission's state- ment of consistency in terms of present policy; a variety of support from neighborhood associations; and the whole range of past City actions and policies which suggest these amendments should be adopted. He felt Council was working at cross purposes.if the amendments were not included, and said he had not heard substantial arguments that the central area should not be exempt. Mr. Haws requested a point of procedure, noting the amendments should not be addressed as there was not a motion for reconsideration on the floor. He requested a motion to reconsider and the Chair ruled that as appropriate. Manager noted those on the prevailing side were Councilors Haws, Williams, Bradley, Obie, and Mayor Keller. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, to reconsider the ordinance. Mayor K~ller clarified at this point the discussion would be directed to the motion to reconsider, and not the merits of the amendments. - Mr. Lieuallen felt Council was setting prior censorship in not even allow- ing the Council an opportunity to debate the issue of exemptions. Mr. Bradley felt Council should reconsider as this would allow the city more flexibility to implement its policies. He noted it only allows Council by resolution to exempt certain areas at a later date. Mr. Williams suggested that building in a flexibility is meaningless as any future Council could determine to exempt any area in the city and should have the perogative to do so. He said the only thing would be accomplished would be to state this Council's position as beinq that this Council thought a future Council ought to exempt these areas. -He said it would be directing a future Council to do so and would be improper an&. unnecessary. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider which carried with Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting aye; Haws, Hamel, Williams, and Obie votinq no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Regarding the procedural question as to what point the Council was at at this time, Stan Long, City Attorney, said the Council was considering the ordinance as though it had not taken action. Mr. Obie said it was his understanding that once a motion to reconsider was passed, the issue was then returned to the floor and Council now has a motion in front of it. There was some question as to whether or not Council needed to make another 4It 4/24/78 - 8 ll3 . - motion. Mr. Long said the Mayor may be called on to make a ruling, which would be subject to vote by the Council. He said the majority's view probably is that the Council has before it a motion to delete exemptions and Council was ~oin9 to reconsider that motion. However, by another line of reasoning, Council could say it had the original bill before it. His suggestion would be that Council consider the motion to delete all exemp- tions to be before it. Ms. Smith said she would support reconsideration of the whole question of exemptions. She was not entirely in favor of the tax, but felt if it were going to be levied then Council should at least look at the exemptions. Mayor Keller said the Chair would recognize the motion to reconsider to mean that Council was discussing Mr. Haws'motion to delete exempted areas. e ~1r. Bradley wondered if there was a way to avoid reading the bill with amendments at this meeting; and if it were not passed, to avoid holding it another two weeks for further action. Mr. Long said he did not believe that could be done as his recollection was that Council had read the Council Bill as amended for the first time at the April 10 meeting. The motion to reconsider undoes the vote on that amendment. It follows that Council has before it the question of whether or not a bill as originally submitted is going to be amended. If the motion to delete the exemption language did fail, the Council would have to start over with first reading. Mr. Obie read Mr. Haws' motion made April 10 to delete the exemptions. Council has now before it that motion for consideration. Mr. lieuallen requested clarification as he felt Mr. Haws' motion was intended to delete Council's ability to exempt, and not to exempt areas. Manager and Mr. Haws affirmed the intent of the motion was to delete as stated in the minutes. In clarification, Mr. Long said the motion to reconsider was to reconsider the vote on the motion that Mr. Obie read (Mr. Haws' motion to delete exemptions). If Council votes on that motion and it passes, Council will be reading the bill as amended, the point at which Council began this evening. If the motion to exempt fails, Council will have before it a bill with exemptions in it. Mr.. Bradley suggested if there were a chance the Systems Development Tax could not be passed this evening because of the exemption problem, that Council table the motion regarding exemptionsand vote only on the Systems Development Tax ordinance. If it should pass, then a motion could be made to amend the ordinance with language to deal with the exemption flexibility, allowing reading on the amended ordinance this evening and the final reading in two weeks. Mr. Lon9 felt that might complicate matters. Council had now before it a proposed amendment to the bill as originally presented and he did not think Council could table a portion of that bill. e Mr. Haws felt Council should go ahead and vote on the motion; if it passed, then Council would be ready for second readinq and vote on the main ordinance. 4/24/78 - 9 ~~ .~ Mr. Delay said Council could do as it wished, the ordinance has an effec- tive date in it. Council could vote unanimously on the first motion and 4It each then vote his/her intent on the second reading. This was not the point, but rather whether or not Council wants the ability to have areas. of the city exempt from this tax to further the economic forces needed to assist the downtown area, to get more high-density housing, and to create an environment that will be consistent with the Plans and Policies already adopted by Council. He said the merits of such flexibility could then be discussed in the resolution allowing for exempted areas. Mr. Lieuallen felt Council should vote to defeat the motion and allow Council the ability to make those exemptions. Mr. Obie said he could understand the concern regarding housing, but he wondered why should the commercial interests in the downtown area receive any different treatment than othe"r commercial interests in the city. Mr. Lieuallen requested a point of order in that such discussion on merits of such exemptions would come after defeat of the present motion. Mr. Delay agreed that those issues should be debated when considering ex- emptions. However,he commented, in general that isolating commercial or residential areas when considering forces that come together to create revitalization of an area which is very difficult to do. He said it was a Question of whether or not improving residential areas would improve com- mercial development, or vice versa. He said it was very difficult to separate commercial or residential interests as a fine tool to deal with such issues is not available. ~ Question was called for vote on the amendment by Mr. Haws to delete exempted areas. Motion carried with Hamel, Williams, Haws, and Obie voting aye; Delay, Bradley, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no; Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mr. Lieuallen requested that at some future time the Council be allow&d to hear some arguments from those who oppose the exemption of areas. Mr. Obie questioned the effective date of April 11, as to whether Council was on sound legal grounds. Mr. Bradley noted the ordinance without an emergency clause would allow it to go into effect 30 days from the date it was passed. However, the effect would be that the bill would be retroac- tive to April 11. He wondered if that in itself would not create an emergency clause and requested an explanation. Manager said at the April 10 meeting it was reported at the first reading that April 11 date should be filled in. This was to avoid any confusion in the effective date in the ordinance and to discourage a situation as occurred with the deluge of applications regarding panhandle lots. Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak, asked for a point of order regarding whether or not the date of April 11, 1978, was inserted in each blank in the ordinance prior to the time it was read by the Council on April 10. Mayor Keller - 4/24/78 - 10 2.85 . . . ruled Mr. Gleaves out of order as the public hearing was not being held at this time. Mr. Gleaves said he was only questioning a point of order as he felt Council could not have a second reading of an ordinance if it were not complete at the time of the first reading. Mr. Long said the question appears to be a factual one. Durin9 the intro- duction of the topic at the April 10 meeting, the Manager indicated the effective date needed to be put in, and date of April 11 was suggested. Presumably that date was inserted in the copies Council had. If Council felt concerned that it did not affirmatively act to authorize that inser- tion in the ordinance, it could ratify at this time by a vote. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to affirm April 11, 1978, as effective date for the ordinance. Mr. Bradley wondered if voting for the April 11 date without an emergency clause was possible. Mr. Long said there was no question that an ordinance of this type can be retrospective. Whether or not an ordinance is retro- spective is one question. Whether it becomes a law now or in 30 days is another question. An emergency clause speaks to such issues as a referen- dum, but placing an effective date in the ordinance, as in this instance, is unrelated. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no. Manager noted that the Council now would be voting on the amended form of C.B. 1592 as resulted from the April 10 meeting. It does not include an emergency clause, it does include the April 11 effective date and some minor grammatical changes. Council Bill 1592--Regardinq charges for land development; adding Sections 7.275, 7.277, 7.279, 7.281, 7.283, and 7.285 to the Code 1971; and providing for an effective date was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it read in full. Mr. Obie said he had opposed this proposal a number of times, mainly re- garding the high housing costs that would result. However, he did feel that conceptually the bill had a great deal of merit, and based on the discussion and amendments, he was going to support the motion. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and be qiven final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Williams and Smith voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18170. Short recess was taken. Manager noted Council Bill 1649 had had the first reading April 10. The bill would in effect reduce assessments for residential property along arterial streets from 28 feet to 20 feet. 4/24/78 - 11 ~u .- Council Bill 1649--Re9ardinq special assessments for local improvement; amendinq Section 7.180 of Code, 1971, was read by council bill number and title 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 qiven final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18171. B. Levying assessments (Hearings Panel report attached) The following council bills, read the first time April 10, and re- ferred to Hearings Panel for hearing April 17, were brought back for second and final reading, with Panel recommendation to levy assess- ' ments as proposed except Council Bill 1655, which was withdrawn. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Bradley to accept the Hearings Panel report. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. CB 1652--Levying assessments for pavin9 Country Club Road from Valley River Way to Delta Highway was read by number and title 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. Rollcall vote. All ~ Councilors present votinq aye, the bill was declared passed . and numbered 18172. CB 1653--Levying assessments for 1/2-cent levy on various planned unit developments and property not previously assessed was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present re- questing it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18173. CB 1654--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Bonner Plat and sanitary and storm sewer to serve the area between Bonner Plat and Bertelsen Road was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present reQuestinn it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18174. CB 1656--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within Rig0s Subdivision was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present requestino it be read in full. .: 4/24/78 - 12 217 .. . Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and ~iven final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present votino aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18175. CB 1657--Levyin~ asseSS!'lents for pavino 17th Avenue from 300 feet east of Quaker Street to 600 feet east of Quaker Street was read by number and title only, there beinq no Councilor present re- questing it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved an~ given final passaqe. Rollcall vote. All Counci 1 ors present voti n0 aye, the bi 11 was decl ared passed and numbered 18176. CB 1658--levying assessments for pavino, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer wi thi n Willow Tree Subdi vi si on was read by number and title 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. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18177. III. RESOLUTIONS Jilt Res. No. 2888--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period April 10 through April 24, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council minutes April 10, 1978, and Special Meetino April 19, 1978. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passerl, the meetinq was arljourned to AP~.) ~_~ Charles T. Henry ~~r~ City Manaoer DT: er /Cf426b1 . 4/24/78 - 13 199 ~ ClT~ r-,cE' Assessment Panel Hearing i~i'- :, ~: iJ 4'- Ii April 17, 1978 ~.M.;" . 7'8,9,1"!11112'112J3,4,~:6 Present: Council members Bradley and lieua11en, City Engineer Teitzel jI. A. C.B. 1652--Levying assessments for paving Country Club Road from Valley River Way to Delta Highway (1327--76-62) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed B. C.B. 1653--Levying assessments for 1/2~ levy on Various Planned Unit Developments and property not previously assessed (76-1008) Requests to be heard were received from Robert Scholl, representing Joseph W. Green, and Wesley C. Dodge, representing First Free Methodist Church. Mr. Teitzel explained that this assessment was being levied by authority of Section 7.180 of the Code. He stated that this is an assessment of 1/2~ per square foot which is levied against property'annexed to the City after 1949. He further stated that generally this levy is assessed at the time lateral sewers are installed, however, since the advent of Planned Unit Developments some areas have been missed and have not been assessed for this cost. He. stated that this assessment is an attempt to catch up and that the city is presently trying to instigate a program to catch these areas at the time of hookup to the sewer system. ~ Robert Scholl, representing Joseph Green, spoke stating that Mr. Teitzel had answered some of the questions he had regarding this assessment, however, he felt it would have been more appropriate to assess the original owners of the property rather than using the arbitrary system he felt was used in assessing the present owner. He further stated that he wondered if this was not an encumbrance upon property that should be picked up by title insurance companies. Mr. Teitzel answered that the City has no way of assessing the original owners of the property, that the assessment can only be levied against the property, and since there was no lien, title companies would have no way to locate this encumbrance. Mr. Scholl stated that he felt there should be some statute of limitations on this type of charge. Wesley Dodge, representing the First Free Methodist Church, spoke stating that because of the length of time between the installation of the trunk sewers in the area and this assessment he felt the. responsibility for this cost should go to the City. He stated that the original owner of the property reaped the benefit of an increased valuation to the property because of the improvement without having to pay the levy and further reaped benefit when the property was sold. He stated that he was not questioning the ordinance but the fact that so much time has elapsed. He felt that due to the length of time from improvement to assessment that unless there was a concrete reason for the delay the City should bear the responsibility. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed, however, further recommendation that the opinion of the City Attorney be obtained with regard to any legal time limitations. . 1" \~ .. Assessment Panel Hearing ern 17, 1978 Page 2. C. C.B. 1654--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Bonner Plat and sanitary and storm sewer to serve the area between Bonner Plat and Bertelsen Road (1332--77-6) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. D. C.B. l655--levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Sunshine Acres Road from Harlow Road to 150 feet south of Westward Ho (1315--77-10) Request to be heard was received from Frederick luper, 250 Sunshine Acres Road. Mr. Teitzel explained that the project was initiated by petition in October of 1976. He reviewed the assessment costs. Mr. Teitzel stated that the petition was for paving and sidewalk. Mr. Teitze1 further stated that he understood the conflict regarding this assessment was that the property owners were under the impression that the sidewalks which were constructed only on the west side of the street would be assessed to both sides of the street. He further stated that he could find no record that indicated this had been presented to the Council in this manner. e Appearing before the panel were Frederick Luper, Ross Cowan of 270 Sunshine Acres Drive, W. \~. Chenoweth of 498 Sunshine Acres Drive, Richard Wood of P. O. Box 105617 Eugene, and Gerald F. Towne of 570 Sunshin~ Acres Drive. It was generally stated that before signing the petition for this project a meeting was held and a representative of the City agreed that sidewalks could be constructed on the west side of the street but assessed to both sides, due to the fact that owners on the east side would not support the paving project because too much of their frontage would have been taken. It was stated that property owners an the west side of the street would not have supported the project without an agreement that both sides would be charged equally for the sidewalk. Mr. Teitzel stated that according to Code it would be possible to assess both sides of the street for sidewalk that was constructed on one side. Recommendation: That the assessment be referred back to the Public Works Department to be redone in order to split the sidewalk costs between both sides of the street and that the assessment be brought back before the panel at a later date. E. C.B. 1656--levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within Riggs Subdivision (77-31--1375} No written protests or requests to be heard were received. tit Recommendation: levy assessments as proposed. 2/10 ,s Assessment Panel Hearing Apri 1 17, 1978 Page 3. F. C.B. 1657--levying assessments for paving 17th Avenue from 300 feet east of Quaker Street to 600 feet east of Quaker Street (1459--77-42 No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: levy assessment as proposed. G. C.B. 1658--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer . within Willow Tree Subdivision (1341--77-47) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. l" ! .' e -- \0