HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/1978 Meeting
, ..
--
--
-
"
MINUTES
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
May 8, 1978
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called
to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller on May 8, 1978, at 7:30. p.m., in the
Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray
Bradley, Tom Williams, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty
Smith. Councilor Eric Haws was absent.
I. Breakfast With President Carter
Mayor Keller expressed delight to have been part of a small group to
have had breakfast with President Jimmy Carter Friday, May 5, in
Portland. He found it to be a very exciting and exhilarating experience.
President Carter had indicated to Mayor Keller he had heard many fine
things about the City of Eugene, and that he should be very proud to
be Mayor of such a fine city. Mayor Keller said he was indeed honored
to represent this city and its citizens.
II. Introduction of Boyscout Troop No. 22
Mayor Keller recognized Scout Troop No. 22 from Bethesda lutheran, accom-
panied by Scout Masters Bruce Lassen and David Dover. The group stood
for recognition.
III. Public Hearings'
A.Whiteaker Refinement Plan
Recommended by Planning Commission February 28, 1978, with a 5:2
vote. Dr. John MacKinnon, Jr., Vice Pre.sident of the Planning
Commission, presented the Commission's recommendation for adoption
of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. He noted the refinement plan
had come as a result of the city's commitment to revitalize the
central area and to promote maintenance of housing close to the
city center, and the need to obtain financing for rehabilitation
of housing in the area. The refinement plan is the product of nearly
two and one-half years of study, beginning in January 1976. The
land-use characteristics in the Whiteaker community are among the
most complex in the city. The complexity is illustrated by the
identifi.cation of four subareas within Whiteaker: Blair, Sladden,
5/8/78--1
3Z0
West Butte, and East Butte. Regarding the Blair subsection, he noted
east of Blair on about 3rd, the neighborhood would be rezoned fro~
industrial back to residential, representing the existing use in the
area. The same would be true for the Sladden area, rezoning from
industrial to residential to conform to present use. The West Butte
neighborhood includes a deteriorated residential area which has been
designated for medium- and high-density residential use, as well as
some mixed-use, light industrial, and commercial designations. The
East Butte area contains substantial open space and recreational
resources, and was the major area of disagreement over appropriate
land-use designation. This area is considered to be a very attrac-
tive area and would lend itself to livability close to the downtown
area. The present zoning in the area is R-3, which would limit the
density to 30 units per acre. The Planning Commission had attached
site review procedures to accommodate a conflict regarding the histor-
ical importance of the area.
He noted the T-2000 Plan was still under consideration by the City,
with one facet being the possible Roosevelt Freeway which would bisect
the Sladden neighborhood more. He.said one of the policies in the
refinement plan was that any major arterial would be located on tbe
periphery of the area. Regarding implementation of the plan, the
list of priorities were set forth. He said this implementation would
involve a lengthy time frame, noting the various rezoning issues
involved. In summary, the Planning Commission feels the Whiteaker
Refinement Plan Draft, as recommended, represents a major step for-
ward in addressing the complex issues of the Whiteaker community.
Mr. Obie wondered, regarding the major arterial being placed on
the periphery, whether or not this was a political or planning
decision. Dr. MacKinnon was not aware of how those decisions were
reached, but noted if the plan were approved it would close the
option for the Roosevelt Freeway, unless the plan were revised.
Pat Decker, Planning Department, reviewed three areas: 1) Citi-
zen participation; 2) organization of the plan; and 3) follow-up.
Regarding citizen participation, she noted the concept of the plan
began January 1976, with a planning team from each of the four
neighborhoods and business community represented. Interviews were
conducted with a resulting slide show produced which was presented at
11 various meetings throughout May and June 1976. Community response
was then requested to identify issues of concern. Mass mailings
were also used for issue identification. She noted the ongoing role
of the planning ,team in participating and developing the goals and
policies in the plan, with Planning staff providing liaison. The
plan review process consisted of a copy of the plan, in 1977, being
sent to all residents, business people, and nonresident property
owners. There were a series of meetings held which culminated in
a meeting November 9, at which time a recommendation was made to
the Planning Commission on the refinement plan. Subsequently, the
5/8/78--2
~~
> ,
, ,
-
-
-
,
,<
~
.
Planning Commission held work sessions, study sessions, and public
hearings through January and February 1978. February 28, the Planning
Commission took action recommending the plan. She noted there had
been increasing efforts to get as much participation from citizens as
possible.
e
Regarding organization of the plan, she reviewed the various sections:
I} Goals; 2) land-use and housing element; 3) transportation element;
4) public services and facilities element; 5) neighborhood design
element; and 6) implementation.
Regarding the goals, Ms. Decker said those were broad statements
indicating what the people in Whiteaker want for their community.
She said the proposals were not to be adopted as City policies but
IIpossibilities". Regarding the land-use and housing element, she
'said it was an attempt to define the 1990 land-use plan for this
neighborhood. The land-use diagram developed recognized the Whiteaker
area has a great deal of diversity. It also recognized the importance
of providing a variety of housing opportunities. The transportation
element recognized that no major arterials would go through the area,
but only on the periphery. There is also a stress on alternative
forms of transportation. The public services and facilities element
stresses the importance of the Whiteaker Community School and the
neighborhood design facilities. Regarding implementation, Ms. Decker
said the plan touches on a range of techniques, i.e., use of Community
Development Block Grant programs. Also, the Planning Commission has
recommended zone changes to correct unsuitable zonings in the area.
There also had been an emphasis on other techniques, i.e., innovative
grant applications. In summary, as Council considers the implementa-
tion section, it is really looking at the major effort in carrying out
thi s pl an.
In a precedural question, Mr. Delay noted there was one m~jor area
of potential concern, the East Skinner's Butte area. He asked if the
options open to Council were to choose between the two alternatives
presented. Mr. Porter said if Council passed the resolution before
. it thi.s evening, it would be taking the same position as recommended
by the Planning Commission. If changes were to be made by Council,
it could amend that resolution.
Regarding the implementation and use of rezoning, Mr. Lieuallen
wondered if the pl an were adopted, how soon changes woul d come about.
Mr. Porter responded with the present Planning staff and its work
load, it would not be very soon. He noted the Planning Department
was still trying to implement the Downtown Westside Refinement Plan.
Other factors hindering the immediate implementation were lack of
funding and consideration of a traffic program. He said staff was
concerned that it could not implement these refinement plans more
quickly.
e
5/8/78--3
32.2
,~
V'/
I
f,
> .
Mr. Lieual1en then wondered if staff could foresee any residential .
or industrial development that might make it difficult to implement
the plan as presented, if it were to take considerable time for
. implementation. Mr. Porter thought the area was being rediscovered
as one of the finer places to live and in which to locate businesses.
He said one'of the major issues of concern was the present zoning of
industrial in some areas which were being used as residential. In
order to receive funds to rehabilitate some of the residences, it will
be necessary to rezone those areas to residential. Pat Decker noted
when the .p1an is adopted~ or a commitment to the Plan made by the City,
those areas to be rezoned residential will be eligible for CD fun.ds.
Public hearing was opened.
James McCoy, 1190 West 5th, President, Whiteaker Community Council,
requested City'Counci1 adopt the refinement plan in the form that has
been adopted by the Whi teaker Communi ty Council. Heal so requested a
time for response after the pUblic hearing was closed. The purpqse
of the plan is to improve the quality of life and provide for a better
city. He said the major themes in the plan were: To correct and
repair certain problem areas (i.e., housing, transportation); to pre-
serve unique character of the neighborhood; to recognize the need
to revitalize the inner city; to recognize its role as an inner-city
neighborhood; to recognize high-density use of the area. The group
felt the Plan was meeting its obligation as part of the inner city
regarding the high-density use. However,he felt there was a need
for more dialogue on the.amount and kind of high-density.
-
David Filer, 235 East 3rd, entered into the record a letter from the
National Trust for Hi storicPreservati on, written by Hi sashi Bill
Sugaya, Assistant Director. The letter was supportive of preser-
vation of the East Butte neighborhood as an hi storie area. It noted
the neighborhood is unique in the city and requires consideration of
additional factors beyond what is normally examined in the land-use
planning process. Mr. Filer noted the area in question is very small,
but what is most important is the historical merit of the area and the
structures in it. He referred Council to a letter from the State
Historic 'Preservation Office in Salem, written by Elizabeth Potter, in
support of preserving the East Skinner's Butte area and 10wer-1ev~1
density. He felt there should be strong commitment to preserve the
historic nature of this area. He said neither Alternative 1 nor
Alternative 2 will maintain the existing density. He noted the two
. visible high-density developments in the area already. He cited LCDC
Goal 5 to protect historic areas for future generations. He fe1t,the
historic importance overruled the Planning staff's recommendation that
this was an excellent area for high-density. He noted Council's,
. action in diluting the mixed-use zoning in the downtown area in saying
that general suitability for high-density use can be overridden for
specific situations. The Whiteaker Community Council was requesting
City Council to respect the East Skinner's Butte area's historical
value as one of the City's goals. He requested Council be sensitive
to the area as it has played an important role in the City's history,
and it was hoped Council would adopt the plan with Alternative 1.
e
5/8/78--4
3~3
e
Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey, referred to Planning Department's recom-
mendation of two conceptual schemes involving historical quality
and increased housing densities in the East Butte residential area.
He said they were not drawn up as part of the Urban Refinement Plan
used in the East Skinner's Butte area and were never discussed by
Whiteaker Community Council before being presented to the Planning
Commission. He felt they were not consistent with the refinement
plan goals. He said they were not achievable and, for that reason,
could be very misleading. They would require the kind of control
the city is not used to and would be very difficult to implement.
He said if the property were to be developed to 30 units per acre,
a developer probably would not consider the historical value. He
felt the East Skinner's Butte area to be a vital neighborhood and
wished to have it maintained as an historical area which would show
the manner in which the city had developed over a period of time.
He was not in favor of high-density new structures, and noted he was
afraid that would happen if the residential development were to occur
quickly. The Whiteaker neighborhood felt the area should be limited
to 20 units per acre and should be developed slowly to preserve the
fragile quality of the historical value.
Denyse McGriff, 1087 East 19th, represented South University Neighbor-
hood Association. Her group believed another neighborhood association
in the city should be supported when it is being pressed to have a
plan put upon it by the Planning staff. Her group had a great stake
in the area. People pass through the area on the way to the park and
they feel very strongly about the historical preservation of the area.
A letter from the South University Neighborhood Association was read
into the record. It supported Whiteaker Alternative 1 with a density
of no more than 20 units per acre in the three-block East Skinner's
Butte area. It noted the Whiteaker Community Council had compromised
by increasing high-density in other areas of its neighborhood; it
recognized site review process would not protect the unique quali-
ties and complexities of historical areas; and it recognized the
East Skinner's Butte area as a unique area of Eugene and part of
its historical heritage which is an irreplaceable resource and should
not be altered or destroyed.
Edward Hostick, 660 Hughes Street, represented Active Bethel Citi-
zens, which was concerned that the Planning Commission and Planning
Department staffs might be insensitive to growth and concerns of
the citizens. They expressed the concern that both the 1990 Plan
and the 1974 Community Goals statements were being whittled away
by attempts to plan for housing in Eugene for citizens who have
not yet arrived. They were concerned regarding the lack of a work-
able plan to deal with growth. They noted the refinement plan was a
long-term effort and included a vast number of volunteers. The plan
addressed high density and it was felt the East Skinner's Butte area
should not be included in that high density. ABC said Eugene does
not have historical landmarks and the City policy should, and must,
reflect the needs of the citizens. ABC asked that City Council accept
the refinement plan to increase the density to 20 units per acre to
the East Skinner's Butte area, as that is what the people desire.
e
e
5/8/78--5
32~
Otto Poticha, 1820 Kona Street, was in favor of the Planning
Commission's recommendation to City Council, in particular to ~
the East Skinner's Butte area regarding Alternative 2. He said ,..,
the issue that had been presented was that it was an historical area,
and he agreed. However, he said 20 units per acre would be no mor.e
protection than 30 units per acre and noted there were mechanisms that
exist to adopt an historic district for the area. The historic issue
has nothing to do with 20 or 30 units per acre. Mr. Poticha said high
density is not 30 units per acre; the R-4 zoning for high density is
(108.9 units per acre). He noted the present RG zoning for the area
allowed 31 units per acre, with the purpose to allow open spaces and
protect private outdoor spaces. He said that is not high density. He
said, again, historical value was not the issue but whether or not 30
units or 20 units per acre would be better. Neither would be protec-
tion for historical preservation of the neighborhood.
Dan Goldrich, 2262 Birch Lane, conducts research on urban government
and politics at the University of Oregon. He noted the people in this
community had planned for housing density that seems to be needed;
they are not refusing to accept their share of high density as a
city-wide goal. However, he noted there were other values of conGern
in the neighborhood. ~He raised the question if planning were simply
to increase density in every possible place, then what was planning
for? The Whiteaker Refinement Plan had made allowances for high
density in other areas, but the neighborhood wants to preserve the
historical value of the East Skinner's Butte area as something that
can be viewed with pride. He noted this area meant a lot to the
people in the neighborhood. Eugene stands for something different ~
in its concern for the environment and quality of life. The East
Skinner's Butte area requires some protection.
. Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, represented the Westside Neighborhood
Quality Group, which supported the Whiteaker Refinement Plan with
Alternative 1. The East Skinner's Butte area is unique, special, and
very limited. This may be the only chance to preserve its historical
quality. He noted his group was not taking a position in opposition
to increased density or development in some neighborhoods. It was
felt to be important, as the city strives for compact urban growth,
that the policy be applied with sensitivity. In making exceptions
to the policy, Mr. Murray felt it important that exceptions be limited
in degree and size, that they be justified, and that they be well
documented. He felt the exception requested for the East Skinner's
Butte area by the Whiteaker Refinement Plan satisfied those criteria.
Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd, said the Histpric Review Board is making
an effort to present this neighborhood for an historic designation
(the area as well as individual structures). The ordinance which
would allow such designation was recently adopted by Council. How-
ever, the Historic Review Board has been working on past priorities.
Subsequently, members of the Board will research the separate structures
.
5/8/78--6
~5
.
, ,
e
and present that information to the Board, then to the Planning
Commission, and ultimately be presented to Council. She felt it
absurd to be engaging in all this work if, in effect, the high density
was going to be given to that neighborhood area; she felt also, after
the fact, it would be hard to convince land owners there is a concern
for hi storical val ue.
John Hogan, 1685 East 24th, objected to the East Skinner's Butte area
along High Street being zoned high density. As a resident of Eugene,
he felt it was a primary link between city center and the park and
river. The cultural, educational, and historical quality were unique
and special for the city. He felt an historical designation would be
best; however, if that were not possible, he would prefer the 20 units
per acre over 30 units per acre. He said the difference would be
noticeable and, therefore, he supported Alternative 1.
Ann Ramp, 918 Lorane Highway, represented the Crest Drive Neighborhood
Association, which had unanimously agreed that the East Skinner's
Butte area should be saved. It was only a small three-block area and
the group felt it should be saved as an historical value.
David Hammer, 70 Fairway Loop, was a property owner on 2nd and High.
He agreed with increasing the density in the area. The vicinity is
close to the downtown area, parks, and other services, and high
density would be the best use.
e
Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, owned two adjoining lots on
West 3rd Avenue, between Taylor and Almaden. The present zoning is
M-2. Two small houses are being planned for development of a small
commercial garage and office space. She felt this entirely appro-
priate use for these two houses in the area as the surrounding area
has many commercial uses. The trend toward residential use of the
area is not appropriate for this block. She requested a change in
zone back to to M-2 to allow her to proceed with the planned business.
James Witzig, 335 Mill Street, owned several pieces of property near
345 Mill. He supported Alternative 2 for higher density in the area
for the reasons stated by staff and Planning Commission. He said,
hi storically, that area was zoned R-4 because it was wi thi n easy
walking distance of the downtown and could support high-rise develop-
ment. He objected to the historical status of East Skinner's Butte
area, saying there was nothing that resembled eras of Eugene history,
but was much more recent development. It was his feeling that histor-
ical designation could be applied to any part of town, depending on
the phase anyone was looking for. Regarding site review proposals, he
felt they were unduly burdensome to any developer in the area.
,
-
Phillip Dole, 930 East 21st Avenue, stated although he was a member
of the State Advisory Committee of Historic Preservation, he was not
speaking for that committee. He was against any increased density
as presented in either Alternative 1 or 2. He felt the historical
designation should be the first consideration, that it should be
5/8/78--7
3~'
. .
considered by the Historic Review Board. He said there are buildings
dating to 1850 in the area and he personally had inspected six of 4IJ
these and was quite impressed. The area has a good number of primary
buildings (nine) and some secondary structures. He felt several of
the issues about historic preservation had not been examined, i.e.,
the environment around and between the buildings. He felt the Planning
Department memo, dated February 27, to be a biased report, lacking
research on the historical criteria and guidelines. He favored
Alternative 1 over Alternative 2 only because less density would be
possible. However, he recommended the area is so important it should
be considered by the Historic Review Board first, and not be acted
upon with this proposal.
Mayor Keller requested those in the audience who supported the refine-
ment plan to indicate by standing; about 20 persons so indicated.
Pu~lic hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
In response to Mr. McCoy's request to rebut, Mayor Keller said that
was not the normal process and would not be followed at this time
unless Council directed otherwise. It did not.
In response to a question from Ms. Smith, John Porter, Director,
Planning Department, said the recent ordinance passed by Council to
allow historic designation is a very broad statement of review. Staff
is researching background information for the Historic Review Board on ~
the use of the ordinance. Staff was reluctant to suggest to the ,.,
Planning Commission delays in action on the planning process until
that is reviewed, because staff could not give any time frame. Again,
he noted a shortage of funds and staff for the Historic Review Board
hampers the work being completed any more quickly. Also, staff wishes
to properly designate historic areas which takes considerable time.
He said it.would be June or July before the matter reaches Council.
Mr. Obie requested clarification regarding the rezoning on 5th near
Adams Street from residential to commercial. He said there were some
fairly substantial commercial buildings adjacent to the area on the
south side of 5th, and wondered if it were possible to plan for
medium- and high-density residential zoning there. Ms. Decker replied
there is commercial property across the street but, in general,
staff's position would be supportive of medium- and high-residential
use in that area and not to continue expansion of commercial Uses.
She noted prior or existing uses would not be affected by the plan as
it is schematic and there are exceptions in these areas. Mr. Porter
added the plan would not make a list of existing uses nonconforming in
the area as it so full of mixed uses and that action would be very
detrimental to established businesses.
Mr. Obie referred to the 1990 document as evolving into a legal
document rather than a guideline. He wondered if this refinement plan
would be honed into specifics in the same way. Mr. Porter said tnat
would be difficult to answer. This is the most complex neighborhood ~
5/8/78--8
I .
321
e
e
e
. '
plan to come before staff and Council, and he noted there was no way
the plan could be developed without some inconsistencies. Implemen-
tation of the plan is going to require rezoning or density limitations,
and at that time changes will have to occur. However, he noted it was
felt very important to push the major emphasis forward, but processes
may have to be adjusted in the future.
A short recess was taken.
Mr. Delay requested staff address the concerns raised by Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Decker said light industrial areas are designated. The plan
speaks to the'kinds of uses allowed in the area now. The intent of
that designation is not to rezone the area to exclude industrial and
encourage residential, but to allow joint industrial and residential
uses of existing structures. Presently, M-2 zoning does not allow
residential use as an outright use. This reference simply said there
are places where people can live and work in the same structure and
specifically says it will not allow increase in residential use in the
area because it is not a particularly desirable residential environment.
Mayor Keller thought the issue was not 20 versus 30 units per acre.
He wondered if that particular issue could be set aside, and reviewed
for historical designation. In that light, he wondered what the pro-
cess for Council would be. Mr. Porter said he could, not address the
process issue as there had never been historical area designation
before. The ordinance says the Historic Review Board can consider
that, and have asked that that area be considered. Staff is pro-
ceeding with background information to allow the Board to do so. The
area designation would then go to Planning Commission before coming
before Council. Mr. Porter said the problem with making that total
area historical would be what impact would that have on the City's
operating budget and how would that area be subsidized to maintain
that H designation. Council could ask that that area be deleted
and be acted on after the Historic Review Board brings the recommen-
dation to Council. However, Mr. Porter did not know the time frame
before the issue would come back before Council. Regarding whether
20 or 30 units per acre made any difference, Mr. Porter said ifit
were reduced to 20 units per acre, there would be rezoning for each
of.the properties; the present zoning of RG allows 30 units per acre.
Mr. Obie felt the controversy was historic versus high density and
he wanted to see the historic issue fully resolved before the issue
of density was determined. Mr. Porter noted the area had had no
drammatic changes for some time and did not see any major changes
occurring. If Council was concerned about the historic designation
issue, it could delay action on that particular area. The Planning
Commission had spent considerable time debating the issue, but was
uncertain as to what woul d resul t wi th that process.
Mr. Obie felt if the historical issue could be resolved, he would be
in favor of as much density as the area could stand because of its
location to shopping, parks, and downtown area. He felt it did
provide a unique opportunity for high-density living that could be
5/8/78--9
32.8
'.
. '
managed in an environment in which people wish to live in. However,
he was empathetic to the hi storical aspect of the area, and thi s coul d .
be the only opportunity that people would have to place value on a
very historical area in Eugene. He would like to proceed with cau-
tion. Secondly, he wanted to encourage Council to delete the portion
of the transportation policy on page 15, item 1 under major arterials.
He said because the city had a transportation plan upon which it
had yet to make a decision, he wished to maintain a posture of flex-
ibility. He was not taking issue with the plan as proposed, but did
want to maintain the ability to take issue with it in the future, if
necessary. He was concerned that each neighborhood refinement plan
might make such a limitation on the proposed T-2000 projects. He did
not feel it healthy to address those transportation issues in neigh-
borhood refinement plans, as they are city issues. . When the T-2000
Plan is considered, the Council will have to do what is best for the
enti re ci ty.
Ms. Smith supported the overall plan and commended the neighborhood,
community, and staff for their fine work. She wanted Council to give
some consideration to delaying the East Skinner's Butte area until
further information was available regarding the historic designation.
She requested further discussions between staff and the neighborhood
groups in dealing with the historic designation. She questioned
if it were historically designated, what effect that would have on.
the density recommendation. Mr. Porter said .the area designation
has not been detennined and density was not known. The base density of
zoning or any suffix would be used as a guideline. He said if the ~
houses and yards were maintained, there probably would not be any ..,
increased density to preserve open space. However, that has not been
determi ned yet.
Mr. Lieuallen said the two extreme positions seemed to be the debate
over whether or not there should be historic designation or whether or
not the area should be allowed to develop. He felt the neighborhood
people were concerned that if the densi.ty of RG zoning were maintained,
. there woul d be no way to ensure the hi storic nature of the area woul d
be preserved. They are saying the historical nature of the area is
more important than what would be gained by increased density. The
neighborhood people want to be sure to preserve the historical area,
and he agreed that ensuring that preservation was more important than
IIhopi ng" for it to be preserved.
Regarding the transportation issue raised by Mr. Obie, Mr. Lieuallen
felt arterials degrade the neighborhoods and he preferred to maintain
the integrity of this neighborhood. Regarding the timing, he favored
the neighborhood's position on the density limitation because it could
be changed later on to historical designation. However, if it were
highly developed, that could not be undone later. He favored adopting
the plan with Alternative 1 and dealing with the historical designa-
tion of the area later.
e
5/8/78--10
3%'
-.'
e
Mr. Delay was encouraged that Council was concerned about the his-
torical merit of the area, and encouraged them to visit the area in
question themselves. He said the real issue was competing goals of
potential historical designation versus increased density, but Council
would have to wait for the Historic Review Board's recommendation. He
did not understand the impetus for adopting the plan with Alternative
1 this evening. Staff had indicated it was years away from making
any of the zone changes. Also, there are months ahead before the
Historic Review Board recommendation would come back to Council. He
suggested the Historic Review Board and Planning Commission make the
historical designation report and then Council could adopt the entire
plan.
Mr. Porter reiterated the importance of adopting the plan and making a
commitment to the zone changes in order for some areas to be eligible
for Community Development funds for rehabilitation. He noted the
community had waited for four years, and these were dire needs. The
East Skinner's Butte area is a very small area, and the suggested plan
would not change its present status.
Mr. Delay wondered if the East Skinner's Butte area were deleted, it
might accomplish the Planning Commission goals and give City Council
the flexibility to consider the historical merits. Mr. Porter said it
was difficult to delay recommendation on density until the historical
designation had been discussed. He said Planning Commission was
concerned with the historical issue.
-
Mr. Hamel complimented the Whiteaker neighborhood group for their
long, hard work. He was sympathetic regarding the 20 uoit-s per acre
and the historical designation for the East Skinner's Butte area. He
disagreed with Mr. Obie regarding the high density for that East
Skinner's Butte area. He felt that would create more problems than
the city could deal with. He also felt Council should listen to what
the neighborhood was recommending and what they wanted.
Dr. MacKinnon responded to Mr. Delay's question regarding delaying
action on the East Skinner's Butte area of the plan. He said the
Planning Commission had recommended attaching site review suffix on
existing zoning and at a later time it could proceed with the historic
designation. However, Mr. Delay noted the site review would not
accomplish anything until after a zone change. Mr. Porter said the
site review requires a process similar to zone changes, but it would
be an easier process than rezoning, and would require two public
hearings, taking about three to six months' process.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the Whiteaker
Refinement Plan with Alternative 1 regarding the East Skinner's
Butte area.
Manager noted that would mean change of wording in Section 3 of
the resolution as it's prepared.
e
5/8/78--11
330
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion
to delete the wording regarding major transportation corridors ~
(page 15, No.1). ..,
Manager said that would be amending Section 1 of the resolution,
and could read lIexcept for item 1 relating to major now arterial
developmentll.
Vote was taken on the motion to amend, which was defeated with Williams,
Hamel, and Obie voting aye; Delay, Bradley, Lieuallen, and Smith
voting no.
Mr. Porter said a review of the refinement plan by the City Attorney's
office suggested a possible problem with a statement on the Land-Use
Diagram requiring application of site review procedures to properties
within certain specified areas. Since the Land-Use Diagram will be
adopted as a refinement of the 1990 General Plan Diagram, the present
wording would commit the Planning Commission and City Council to
applying the SR suffix to all effected properties before holding
hearings on the actual zone change. The situation would either render
the required hearing a mere procedural formality or would require an
amendment to the refinement plan if the Council wished to make excep-
tions as a result of the hearing process. It was suggested retaining
the reference to SR on the diagram by adding the wording as follows:
IIAreas where SR procedures wi 11 be considered for new development at
densities exceeding the medium-density range,1I and lIareas where SR
procedures will be considered for all new developmentll. He also
suggested that Council place as first priority the establishment pf ~
SR on the East Skinner's Butte area above other priorities.
In response to a procedural question from Mr. Delay, Mayor Keller
said the Council would adopt the Whiteaker Refinement Plan as amended
this evening and would consider a refined resolution at a later
meeti ng.
Mr. Obie said he would regretfully have to vote against the motion
because it does not deal with the historical issue as presented by
testimony this evening, but merely deals with the density issue which
mayor may not resolve the issue of historical buildings (relating to
the East Skinner's Butte area). Furthermore, he was concerned abput
the time frame for Historic Review Board consideration of the area.
Mr. Delay wondered if Council should include the words lithe plan will
be subject to further refinement based on considerations taken by
Historic Review Board". He wondered if Council should note the plan
would be subject to further review of the historical designation. Mr.
Porter felt that would be a good record of intent of Council. He
also noted Council could order the change of priorities of Planning
staff and so indicate which it prefers Planning staff to deal with as
its highest priority.
-
5/8/78--12
331
-
Mayor Keller wondered if it might not be better to just table the
resolution and wait until it was completely ready for adoption.
Mr. Porter said adoption of the plan was crucial for getting CD
funding for certain residential areas. He said the issue of the East
Skinner's Butte area between historical and density is not as crucial
as the land-use determination. The historical designation would not
take place for 60 to 90 days.
Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion to
clarify language on Alternative 1 that the East Skinner's Butte
area will be subject to further review by Council upon consider-
ation of the historic merits of the area. The motion carried
unanimously.
e
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend Section 1
relating to transportation (page 15, item 1) that any new streets
which function as arterials be located only on edges of the
Whiteaker community, if at all possible.
Mr. Obie felt it paramount to maintain that flexibility to allow the
community, in the years ahead, the opportunity to speak to issues such
as livability and transportation.
Ms. Smith wondered whether or not the T-2000 Plan would be the primary
guideline for streets and arterials. Manager replied it would. Mr.
Obie then pointed out that refinement plans would have to be amended
if they were not compatible with the T-2000 Plan adopted by the city.
He felt the addition of these words would allow that flexibility so
the plans would not have to be amended.
Mr. Porter noted if the T-2000 Plan were changed and a new major
arterial were placed in the Whiteaker area, the refinement plan would
have to be revised because it would have major affects of the land
uses adjacent to it. Readjustment of neighborhood plans would be
faced when dealing with the overall city improvements. The overall
plan will, in the future, require adjustments to be made in the future
to refinement plans. Stan Long, City Attorney, said Council should
recognize that a refinement plan is a form of a part of the substance
of the general plan. There would be some extreme risks, when a policy
is worded in absolute terms, in the event a contested court case later
claimed Council violated a policy in the general plan. A clarification
of the policy to include the notion of some exceptions is generally a
worthwhile approach.
Mr. Delay said he would vote no as he felt it unneccessary and that it
would tend to imply Council may wish to place arterials in that
neighborhood.
Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Obie, Hamel,
Williams, and Bradley voting aye; Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith
voti ng no.
e
5/8/78--13
33%
Mayor Keller again clarified process in that Council was approving the ~
Whiteaker Refinement Plan, with amendments as noted, and would adopt 'II'
the resolution of the refined Plan at a later meeting. Mr. Porter
then reminded Council of accepting the recommendation for correction
relating to site review (specifically itemized on page 12 of minutes),
and to change implementation priorities that would make site review on
the East Skinner's Butte area the first area of concern. Mr. Hamel
and Mr. Bradley concurred those two items be included in the main
motion.
Vote was taken on the main motion which carried with all Councilors
present voting aye, except Mr. Obie voting no.
B. Foreclosure On Assessments
Manager said the ordinance established as a procedure for holding
foreclosure sales. The present Charter does not provide for such
in prescribed detail. Provisions provide that statutory procedure
is intended as a means of selling property for delinquent liens and
assessments. The ordinance provides for the finance officer to
establish a minimum price for which property would be sold~ which
differs from State statutes which limit price to amount of delinquent
lien or assessment in associated costs. Assessments often do not
equal the market value and would, therefore, provide a windfall for
the developer who buys the property. It was felt the City should
benefit from the rise in prices. The ordinance also provides more
assurance that anyone who purchases property is aware of any other ~
City liens existing on property which may not be included in the
. foreclosure. The owner has two years to redeem it.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B. 1667--Concerni,ng foreclosures; adding Sections 2.540, 2.541, 2.542,
2.543, 2~544, 2.545, 2.546, and 2.547; and declaring an emer-
gency 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.
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 18179.
C. Public Works Bid Awards (Attached)
Bids opened May 2, 1978. Don Allen, Director of Public Works, reviewed
the bids for Council.
e
5/8178--14
333
e
e
-
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to accept low bids and
award contracts as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
IV.
Ordinances For Second Reading--None
V.
Ordinances For First Reading
C. B. l66~-Levyi ng assessments for pavi ng, sani tary sewer, and stonn
sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision; and sanitary sewer
in area between Minnesota Street and West Irwin Way and
between Barger Drive and Jessen Drive (1307) (77-03) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1669--Levying assessments for sidewalk 28th Avenue-Friendly Street
to Chambers Street (1089) (77-05) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1670--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within
Briarwood Subdivision; 1st Addition to Briarwood and 2nd
Addition to' Briarwood, and sanitary sewer to serve the area
160 feet south and west of Briarwood 2nd Addition (1188,
1377, & 1378) (77-09) 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 first time and referred to'Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1671--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and stonn
sewer within 1st Addition to Velkommen Park (1369) (77-13)
was read by council bill number and title only, there being
no Councilor present requesting it be read in full.
5/8/78--15
331f
'.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read
the first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15, ~
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi- ..,
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1672--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewers,
and pedestrian way within Souza Park 2nd Addition (1352)
(77-14) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1673--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer within Gillespie Butte Subdivision; and sanitary sewer
within Lots 121 and 122, 1st Addition to Oakway Subdivision
(1386) (77-22) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1674--Levying assessments for paving, storm sewer, and sidewalk
on Concord Street from Hughes Street to Berntzen Street (1428) ~
(77-24) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C. B. 1675--Levyi ng assessments for pavi ng, sani tary sewer, and storm
sewer within Panorama View III Subdivision, paving Shields
Avenue from east boundary of Panorama View III to 60 feet
east; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet west of Panorama
View III (1387) (77-46) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1676--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm
sewer within Candlelight Park 3rd Addition (1353) (77-50)
was read by council bill number and title only, there being
no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. .
.
5/8/78--16
335
C.B.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read
the first time and referred to hearings panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
1677--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer; Norkenzie Road from
Green Acres Road to Holly Avenue (1492) (77-54) 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 first time and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15,
1978, and Panel recommendation be brought back for Council consi-
deration May 22, 1978. Motion carried unanimously.
e
VI. Resolutions
Manager said regarding Resolution No. 2871, a statement had been entered
into the record from the attorney of Ms. Graff, owner of the property.
Staff recommends passing the resolution and not implementing it immedi-
ately. In the event plans for reconstruction of the property were not
completed, the resolution could be effected. Manager suggested 30
days' grace peri od before the Ci ty woul d ask for bi ds for demo 1 i ti on.
e
Mr. Obie wondered if there had been any accidents or injuries on the
property. There was a negative response. Mr. Obie said he was not sure
he saw the crisis. He felt it to be paramount to confiscation of property.
He said if there was not an immediate danger to life or limb, he felt
Counc.i 1 had a moral responsi bi 1 i ty to provi de time for the property owner
to reconstruct the property.
Res. No. 2871--Authorizing abatement of house located at 2043 Ohio (with
30 days' grace period) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously, except Mr. Obie voting no.
Res. No. 2900--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments
for period April 24 through May 8, 1978, was read by number
and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
VII.
Parks Bid Award For Police, Personnel, and Planning Remodel
Memo from Parks Department, dated May 5, 1978, distributed. Manager
noted this would be for extensive remodeling as outlined in the memo for
the three departments. Although the bid was higher than amount budgeted,
the remodeling will have to be done sooner or later. Staff felt the bids
e
5/8/78--17
3B'
to be fair and was recommending awarding to low bidder, Morris Kielty
Construction. Manager said additional money would have to be used frqrn
present operations, but that would be a separate resolution for consider- ~
ation at another meeting.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to award contract tQ low
bidder as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
VIII. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council
minutes April 24, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried
unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to May
10, 1978.
J(~)~
Charl es T. Henry
Ci ty Manager
DT:so/CM7bI4
e
--
5/8/78--18
3~1
1
.
...
,
-
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
1. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER within
Janisse Subdivision and storm sewer within 160
feet of the east boundary of Janisse Subdivision
extended North to the Amazon Channel
(Job No. 1457)
Bidders:
Contract Cost:
1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------~$ 56,768.05~'
2. H & J Construction-------------------______~
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------$ 62,098.20
4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------__$ 62,253.15
5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------$ 63,537.67
6. Wildish Construction CO.-------------------__$ 72,050.80
Cost to Abutting Property:
-
44' Pav.
San.Lat.
San.Serv.
Stm.Swr.
$30.00/FF or $3,000.00/Lot
$825.00/Lot
$210.00/Lot
$175.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: July 7, 1978
Cas t to City
None
.~.
Bid No.
Opened:
4
May 2, 1978
Amount Budgeted
None
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER to
serve Plum Tree Subdivision. .
(Job No. 1453)
Bidders:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------_$
Wildish Construction CO.-------------------$
Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$
Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.--------$
Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-------------$
H & J Construction--------------------_____$
Cost to Abutting Property .
e
28' Pave
San.Lat.
San.Serv.
Stm.Swr.
$21.80/FF or $1,625.00/Lot $325.00
$590.00/Lot - $1600.00 to outside Sub.
$220.00/Lot $4,200.00
$370.00/Lot - $22,500.00 to outside Sub.
COMPLETION rrATE: August 4, 1978
338
Contract Cost
Basic Alternate
o
139,.889.28
146,544.89
o
153,872.85
o
Cost to City
"..._~-........
(_$ 130,078.16
f'l39, 852.54
$ 145,128.95
$ 149,967.91
$ 155,725.40
$ 155,086.22
./.'
Amount Budgeted
o
$ 8,800.00
{\
Page 1 of 2
,
3. SANITARY SEWER on Bertelsen Road from lSth
Avenue to 400 feet South (Job No. 1507)
Bidders:
Contract Cost:
--,- .-------
1. H & J Construction----------,---~-----------~-"
2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 13,275.00
3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.--------$ 16,185.00
4. Eugene Sand & Gr~vel, Inc.-----------------$ 17,348.00
Cost To Abutting Property:
Cost to City
San.Lat.
Eastside
Westside
San.Serv.
$0.65/Sq.Ft.
$4,550.00
$33S.00/Lot
$4550.00 Deferred
$3150.00 Trunk
COMPLETION DATE: June 16, 1978
4. SANITARY SEWER in Jessen Drive from
Melrose Loop to 99 North (Job No. 1138)
Bidders:
Contract Cost:
1.
2.
3.
4.
---- -----
H & J Cons truc tion-------------------------$.I. ~3,5. 668.0..0.- '
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------$ 297,553.00
Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 317,080.75
Wi1dish Construction Co.-------------------$ 591,278.90
Cost to Abutting Property:
Cost to City
San.Lat. $0.23/Sq.Ft.
San.Serv. $480.00/Ea.
$71,500.00 Deferred
$74,000.00 Trunk
COMPLETION DATE: August 1, 1978
5. STORM SEWER within Coraly Park First
Addition (Job No. 1434)
Bidders:
Contract Cost:
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.
_.~_., -. ..-;:--...
H & J Cons truc tion-------------------------$ 1.)_2, l~_~QP_~,
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------$ 15,347.00
Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 15,364.00
Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.--------$ 16,123.00
L. D. VanOver Construction, Inc.-----------$ 26,182.80
Cost to Abutting Property:
Cost to City
Storm Sewer $870.00/Lot
$5,900.00
COMPLETION DATE: July 1, 1978
33'
'-
.
...
--
Amount Budgeted
$4,150.00
$2,300.00
e
Amount Budgeted
$71,500,00
$74,000.00
Amount Budgeted
-
$1,300.00
]0
'P'!2no ? nF ..,