HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1978 Meeting
.
.
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
- June 12, 1978
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called
to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, June 12, 1978, 7:30 p.m., in the
Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Tom
Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith
(arrived late). Councilor Ray Bradley was absent.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Treehouse PUD Appeal from Hearings Official Approval
Approved by Hearings Official April 18, 1978. Manager said the
PUD was granted preliminary approval by Hearings Official January
1978. Subsequently, it was appealed to the Council who remanded the
proposed development back to the Hearings Official for further
consideration of detailed geological reports. The prope rty i s
located in the area east of Blanton Road, south of 38th Avenue, south
of 35th Avenue, and southwest of Monroe Street. The request is for
preliminary approval of a residential planned unit development
consisting of 122 dwellings on approximately 40 acres in an RA
Suburban Residential District. The applicant is Michael Safley.
e Jim Saul, Planner, said the prinCipal concern at the time the Council
heard the first appeal in February was absence of a complete geolog-
ical report submitted in conjunction with the preliminary approval.
City Council decided at its February meeting that preliminary
approval should not be granted until a detailed geological report on
the site had been conducted. That information has been submitted and
reviewed by the City staff. Based on the new geological report, the
Hearings Official did grant preliminary approval at the April 18
hearing.
The geological report has been reviewed by the City Engineers and the
Superintendent of Building Inspection. Mr. Saul noted the report did
cover the entire site; it did affirm the information indicating the
site was developable as proposed; it provided satisfactory informa-
tion to allow detailed information for engineering on the site, i.e.,
storm sewers; and it included detailed design recommendations
adequate for final engineering design. However, he noted it was
subject to three conditions as outlined under Nos. 7,8, and 9 in the
Hearings Official decision. He directed Council's attention to the
Hearings Official's lengthy and detailed recommendations on Pages 4-6
on the written decision.
- 6/12/78--1
lflfl
- ~
1
Mr. Saul noted for Council there were limiting factors regarding the
scope of this appeal: The original Council decision in which it
remanded the appeal back to the Hearings Official; and City Code
stipulates only those items designated in error shall be --
considered by the appellant body. In other words, Council is to
consider only those items in the written appeal.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by
Council ors.
Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record.
Betty Smith arrived at the meeting.
Public hearing was opened.
Dan Knapp, 639 West 29th Place, spoke in favor of the appeal.
A main concern was the many marshes and standing water which consti-
tute a hazard on large portions of the site. He said there are
active portions of the site which are in the process of moving down
the hi 11 . He felt the geologist's report was ambiguous regarding the
bearing strength, and noted one geologist called the bedrock material
sandstone, while the other called it shale. He presented to Council
samples of soil from the outcropping and demonstrated how it crumples,
noting it is not suitable for construction. He also questioned the
footing design, in that there is considerable loose topsoil and it
would be difficult to go down to the bedrock. However, he said
the developers want to fill with gravel and he did not think that
would provide stable conditions for building. He cited the potential e
for large-scale soil movement, and noted there were six conditions
out of the eight identified in the South Hills Study that are present
on thi s site. These would all contribute to large-scale soil movement.
He said the effects of a dewatering system are unknown, and he felt
dewatering would subject the structures to unknown stresses. He was
also concerned that building in this area would increase the runoff
on the Amazon Drainage System. He introduced a letter from Connie
Holvey and submitted a picture showing the Amazon in a full stage.
He was concerned that high water runoff would result in destruction
to the bridges across the Amazon Channel. He felt there was a major
potential for flood with increased drainage into the channel. He
also felt there were some problems with legal liability, i.e.,
continuity of the design team, flood liability responsibility, and
bonding for the houses. He felt the design needed to address the
question of flood control regarding the Amazon Drainage System.
Gary House, 325 West 38th, described'some of the conditions existing
in the block in which he lives: An attempt to build a house which
was subsequently withdrawn because of foundation problems; water
accumulation; cracks in foundation. He noted these are not cheap
houses, but in the $60,000-$90,000 range. He felt these conditions
needed to be considered.
6/12178--2 -
If 2.0
,~
~ -
Those speaking against the appeal were as follows: Peter Thompson,
2440 Oak Grove Drive, spoke on behalf of the applicant as the Design
-- Team Coordinator. He noted this was a preliminary approval, and
his applicant was in agreement with the Hearings Officia1's recommen-
dations regarding the problems and how they should be addressed. He
said his team had worked with City staff to ensure this would
be a safe development. The water problems on the site had been
reviewed. It was felt this project could be built and the design
team had the expertise to do so.
Jack Tompkins, 4630 Larkwood Street, was the engineering geologist
for the design team of the PUD. Regarding soil movement and Mr.
Knapp.s comments of the six conditions from the South Hills Study, he
noted that study does identify a number of general conditions, any
one of which could increase the potential for large soil movement.
He said there was soil depth to 40 inches, with a general 20-percent
slope which may cause the soil movement. However, he felt a number
of the existing and natural man-made slopes would be stable. He felt
if any of the hillside were going to have given way, it would have
done so by now. Regarding the bedrock classification, the discrep-
ancy was a nomenclature. He and Mr. Williamson both agreed the
bearing strength would equate to 10,000 pounds per square foot, which
was considerably higher than 1,000 required by the architect. This
was felt to be more than adequate for development. Regarding Mr.
Knapp's demonstration of the crumbling of shale, he said that would
occur when the material was taken out of its natural state. However,
he noted that had nothing to do with the inherent strength of the
material in place on the site in its natural surrounding. In the
-- testing he had done, he said there were no indications of instability,
and no indications of deleterious material beneath the existing fill.
Regarding the dewatering, the plan is to take out only the excess
water. Regarding runoff, an underground storm system will be designed
to carry off the excess drainage. In preparing the footing, he said
it was planned to excavate through the clay and fill with crushed
rock, which would allow greater strength. He noted in Eugene, the
moisture content in depths of three to four feet were pretty constant
throughout the year. He concluded by saying this is a buildable site
and the expertise was available to make it safe.
Tom Poage, 4325 Catalina, Project Engineer, said storm sewers would
be located immediately downstream from the site. He felt the drainage
issue could be answered by the teChnOlogical equations and knowledge
of the hill. The effect of Treehouse PUD is small in terms of
studying the entire basin that affects the Amazon Channel. The
present design of storm sewers for runoff is 47.6 cfs; with Treehouse
added, it would be increased to 53.2 cfs. He said adequate drainage
would have to be provided for only one-half inch of higher water.
Storm sewers have been designed for the entire development and can be
provided to each and every house. He said if the PUD were developed,
there would be about 1/40th of the foot change in elevation of the
Amazon Drainage System.
e
6/12/78--3
'12.,
-
1
Dean Morris said if there was some concern regarding the anchoring
of structures, a structural engineer could be added to the team
to verify each situation and submit a recommenation and certification e
for each building.
Ann Ramp, 918 Lorane Highway, co-chairman Crest Drive Citizens Associ-
ation, said the group was interested in hillside development in that area.
She noted a great deal of information had come from working with the
Treehouse people. She thanked Dr. Orr, Dan Knapp, the development
team, Bert Teitzel, and the City staff for their assistance in consi-
dering the various problems and taking into account the concerns of
the Citizens Association. She felt the Treehouse officials wanted to
do a good job; and commended them for their approach to this develop-
ment project. However, she noted there was a general concern for all
development on the hillside, not just Treehouse PUD. The geological
problems raised in this particular PUD are very real. She noted
there would be problems with water drainage in the Amazon with the
amount of building that is to be considered for the South Hills area.
She hoped Council would addresss this problem very soon.
Mr. Saul said the purpose of the conditions listed in the South
Hills Study was to flag them as an early-warning system that special
concerns were to be accounted for and special procedures used as
applications were reviewed. Those statements were not to be construed
that development was not possible in that area. He noted also the
Amazon Channel was a Corps of Engineer facility. The Corps is now
conducting a study regarding improvement of the channel. He noted
that channel services the entire southeast and central area of -
Eugene, and the effects cannot be limited just to the Treehouse PUD
itself. Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, and Mick Nolte, Building
Inspector, were available to answer questions.
Mr. Delay wondered if staff had any perception as to how the standards
used (ORS Procedures) for footing drainage compared to those used,
for instance, in California where major slippage and destruction of
homes occurred. Mr. Saul said the standards used as set forth in the
geological report are not state statute mandated standards. These
standards recommended are the best known within the state of the art
of engineering design. He did not know if those were similar to
standards used in other parts of the country, such as in California.
He said one of the chief problems in such areas where major slippage
occurred was that no standards were imposed.
In answering a question from Ms. Smith, Mr. Saul said whether or not
a structural engineer was added to the design team was within the
discretion of City Council. He noted recommendations that special
engineering footings be required were outlined in Condition No.7.
He also noted conditions outlined already required a landscape
engineer for each building site.
e
6/12/78--4
~1~
I
Mr. Obie wondered if staff could give assurance that once homes
were built, they would not slide down the hill. Don Allen, Director
e of Public Works, said that with the data available and with the
engineer using sound practices, the odds are that the site is buildable.
City staff will be a party to checking plans prior to issuance of
a building permit, as to whether or not the structures are properly
designed and if they have used the data properly.
Mr. Lieuallen wondered who would be liable for houses that might
slip, for roads and utilities breaking up. Mr. Allen said the City
would be liable for any damage in the public right-of-way and the
public utilities. If damage occurs on private property, the courts
would have to make any determination on a lawsuit. He said there was
no clear-cut liability regarding private property.
In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Bert Teitzel, City
Engineer, said it was his understanding there is a mixture of sand,
siltstone, and shale, all of which would react similarly under a load
in their natural state. Mick Nolte, Building Inspector, said that
the deeper the footings, the more stable conditions there will be.
In rebuttal, Mr. Knapp felt there was a relationship between the
six items in the South Hills Study present on this site and the
resultant soil movement. Regarding the 19-20 percent slopage, he had
drawings showing up to 40 percent. He argued there was evidence
available that the basic hillside is not stable as there appears to
be extensive movements on the hillside. Regarding the bearing value
e and the agreement by the two geologists, he said he did not know how
they came to that agreement. He raised the question regarding
impervious structures and how many houses had already been approved
for the South Hills area within the Amazon drainage. He assumed that
there had been several ~undred, all of which would affect the drain-
age. He felt there should not be approval of any more buildings in
that area until it is determined what effect it would have on the
Amazon drainage. He felt the shrinking and swelling of the land as a
result of moisture content was a very serious problem. He noted he
himself had to water his foundation in the summertime to keep it from
cracking. Regarding the question raised by Mr. Delay of general
standards being used, he felt probably California was governed by the
same standards that were used in Oregon. Further, he felt this
should be looked into as he assumed that the same thing happened
there: Houses were built based on technical knowledge, but the soil
moved and the houses thus slipped down the hill. He rei terated he
felt the dewatering would subject the sites to stress and would
affect the bUildings. He noted the area is buildable, but wondered
how the buildings could be kept there. The technology used to put
buildings on hillsides was questionable. He suggested that some
other kind of foundation than concrete be used to avoid cracking and
movement.
Greg House took exception to the shrinking and swelling with the
presence or absence of water. He said that was the specific nature
of one lawsuit for a house on his block. He said the City had
e
6/12/78--5
1f2.3
- ,-~..., ---.....-.-..-- -~-~_._-_._- - -
approved the houses which are located on his block, with the oldest
being built about 1970, yet these problems were in evidence. He felt
there were some serious problems and some serious determination e
should be made regarding liability.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to deny the appeal
and uphold the Hearings Official approval, and adopt findings of
fact.
With concurrence of Mr. Hamel and Ms. Smith, Mr. Obie added to
the motion a requirement that a structural engineer be added to
the design team.
Regarding the time frame, Mr. Saul responded to Mr. Delay that it was
speculative, but would usually be one to two months between this
approval and submittal of the final plans. Mr. Delay then expressed
some serious doubts about the general state of knowledge and tech-
nology in terms of dealing with these problems, i.e., the actual
building and drainage. He noted these were public concerns that are
not particularly related to this one site. Regarding this specific
site, he felt the design team was doing about as much as could be
expected at this time. By the same token, the general question of
requirements in terms of continuing development in the hills around
the city is one Council should address. He hoped Council would
support pursuing a preliminary report on these general issues.
Regarding the drainage, Mr. Lieuallen felt the question was whether e
or not it should be tied specifically to this PUD, noting it was
a larger issue. He did not know what other properties were being
developed and what effect that would have on the drainage capacity.
However, he was not convinced that Council should uphold this appeal
because of that problem.
Mayor Keller said it appeared there had been an extensive planning
process addressing many of the problems. He recognized Council was
not a body of engineering experts and would have to rely on expertise
presented to deal with these problems.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
Mr. Obie was excused from the meeting.
B. Rezoning from M-2 and M-3 to C-2 PD property located at
northeast corner of West 11th Avenue and Beltline Road (Obie Communi-
cations Corp.) (Z 78-10)
Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission April 11, 1978.
Mr. Saul said the southern portion of the property was annexed to
the city in the 1950's; the majority was annexed in 1964 as a part of
the Bethel-Danebo Annexation. The present zoning was subsequently
e
6/12/78--6
~*
established. He said the central issues include relationship to the
1990 General Plan, as the area is designated an opportunity area
suitable for commercial and light industrial planned unit develop-
e ments. He directed Council to the staff notes and minutes wherein
a detailed review of the application was presented. The zone change
is consistent with the 1990 General Plan and 1974 Community Goals and
Policies. The 15.5 acres, subject of this request, would not exhaust
the ownership in control of Obie Communications Corporation, noting
the eastern portion is being currently developed as an industrial
subdivision. He said also in material distributed to Council there
was extensive background information regarding public need. Two
particular features of the rezoning to be noted were the addition of
a PO suffix; and a particular area of concern singled out by the
Planning Commission regarding the treatment of the Amazon Corridor to
the north.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by
Councilors.
Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record.
Public hearing was opened.
Speaking in favor of the rezoning were as follows:
Bruce Anderson, 101 East Broadway, Attorney, represented the appli-
cant. He noted exhibits on the record as presented to the Planning
Commission, and distributed further exhibits 3, 4, and 5. Exhibit
e 1 showed existing and proposed zoning; Exhibit 2 outlined how
the community center shops could be set on the property, and noted a
pedestrian/bike bridge across the Amazon Channel. Exhibit 3 was
an artist's rendering of suggested use of land. Exhibits 4 and 5
showed examples of the warehousing buildings, and proposed KUGN
office and translator on the adjacent industrial site. He also wished
to enter into the record the 1990 General Plan, 1974 Community Goals
and Policies, and Chapter 9 of the City Code. All of the property had
been part of Eugene since 1954 and 1964. The community shopping
center will have buildings in it that are presented in the 1990 Plan
as being the type expected to be found in a community shopping center.
He agreed with the staff recommendations regarding public need. The
plan is consistent with opportunity area. The applicant recognizes
development of the Amazon Channel as offering a potential for development
oriented and consistent with the present use and possible projected
uses. A bicycle/pedestrian path will be served by this development.
He noted the additional PUD process will give the City the right to
review development as it occurs.
Regarding Mr. Lieuallen's concern for the potential of this becoming
a regional center, Mr. Saul said people are usually drawn to a shop-
ping center as a function of a particular tenant, as opposed to it
being a regional center. However, more critical as to whether or not
e 6/12/78--7
~5
I
it would serve a regional function would be the total amount of
acreage. The general plan indicates 40 to 50 acres as minimum size e
for a regional center, with two anchor tenants with minimum square
footage of 100,000 feet, plus 200,000 square feet of smaller shops
equalling 400,000 square feet of floor area. He noted Valley River
Center is over 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable space. He
said there was no possibility a center of that size could be devel-
oped on a 15-acre site. However, he did note one of staff's concerns
was whether or not rezoning of these 15 acres would preempt a regional
center at that location at some future date.
Mr. Delay wondered if such a development would create additional
traffic pressures in that area. Mr. Allen noted there was a major
signal light intersection at Beltline and Bertelsen Road. He said
there may eventually be a demand for another signal light in that
area; however, there is no public dedication and it could be State,
County, City, or private responsibility.
Mr. Delay felt the project made a lot of sense. However, he had
questions about phasing of the development, wondering if the staff
had any sense of timing as to whether this development would be
appropriate. He was concerned that such a development might attract
further development. Mr. Saul responded the Planning staff approached
the application from the standpoint of whether or not approval at
this time would frustrate any further development and concluded it
would not. It was judged that this site would not preempt or close
other options. He also noted in looking at the potential areas in
the city, this was believed the best suited to serve the southwest e
and western areas than any other site.
In rebuttal, Mr. Anderson said the community shopping center is not
proposed to be a regional shopping center, as it would not be econom-
ically feasible. The design of the center was based on projections
of residential growth in that area. The projected build-up time for
the project is five years. Traffic access can be phased in the PO
process. Regarding the size, he said the final size would actually
be 16.21 acres, not 15.5 acres.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
C.B. 1696--Rezoning from M-2 and M-3 to C-2 PO property located at
northeast corner of West 11th Avenue and Beltline Road was
read by number and title only, there being no Councilor
present requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and
minutes of April 11, 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.
e
6/12/78--8
~"
I
In responding to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said the closest
commercial development was approximately two miles (West 11th and City
View). Mr. Haws wondered if 400,000 square feet could be located in the
- proposed center. Mr. Saul said not with the parking requirements. Mr.
Haws then wondered how this would affect the property along the southeast
corner of Barger and Beltline. Mr. Saul said that property is zoned C-2
Neighborhood Commercial, so the range of uses is much more limited. He
said the possibility of a grocery store or supermarket in this community
center could delay such a project on the property at Barger and Beltline.
However, he noted that was purely speculative. Mr. Haws stated he
opposed the project as he did not want any more shopping centers in that
area.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors
present voting aye except Mr. Haws voting no. Lacking unanimous
consent, the council bill will be held to June 26 for second
reading.
A short recess was taken.
Mr. Haws and Mr. Williams left the meeting.
A short recess was taken to obtain quorum, with Mr. Obie returning to the
meeting.
c. Concurrent Annexations/Rezonings
1. Annexation and Rezoning from County AGT to City R-l property
- located south of Willakenzie Road, east of Bogart Street (Grove)
(A/Z 78-2)
Unanimously denied by Planning Commission April 11, 1978. Manager
said Council would direct its attention at this time to the annexation
of the property, not the rezoning. Mr. Saul said the annexation
request involved 19.92 acres located south of Willakenzie Road.
The Planning Commission recommended denial primarily because certain
services (sanitary and storm sewers) would have to be extended through
1100 feet of unincorporated property from the north. Also, the
property involved represented only a portion of total ownership and
represented certain development problems. The annexation would also
result in an illogical city boundary. The Planning Commission did
take note of the fact that the area is clearly within the area of the
urban service boundary and annexation would be appropriate if other
factors could be resolved. He noted this was within an island area of
Willakenzie, and the Planning Commission was reviewing those areas
with a report to be submitted to Council at its June 28 meeting.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared
by Councilors.
Staff notes were entered as part of the record.
e 6/12/78--9
~21
Public hearing was opened.
Robert Hauke, 45 Bogart, spoke in favor of the denial. Many neighbors
were opposed to the annexation for the reasons the Planning Commission -
indicated.
Peter Thompson, 2440 Oak Grove Drive, spoke in behalf of the appli-
cants. He noted the property was within the 1990 Plan boundary
area, and with the lack of availability of land, it should be consi-
dered for future annexation. The Groves wish to develop the land
for ultimate housing use, which is in critical supply. He noted
the unique problem needed to be addressed. He felt there had been
no direction to the Commission to study the Willakenzie area.
Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission did initiate a review of all
the island areas in the Willakenzie area, with the completed report
coming to Council June 28.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve the Planning
Commission denial of annexation. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Annexation and Rezoning from County AGT to City RA propety loated
south of Martin Street, west of Canyon Drive (Harter)(A/Z 78-3)
Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission April 11, 1978. Mr.
Saul said the request involved a one-acre parcel located south of -
Martin Street and west of Canyon Drive. The existing city limits
line bisects a house on the property. If the rezoning were approved,
some further partition of the parcel would be possible. The Planning
Commission included findings of the City, applicable state-wide
goals, and admnistrative LCDC goals, as noted in the staff' notes and
minutes. They recommended also that RA zoning be applied as that is
the zoning applied to adjacent ownership.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by
Councilors.
Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Res. No. 2932--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property
located south of Martin Street, west of Canyon Drive, was
read by number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting
the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes
and minutes of April 11, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto;
and that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously.
6/12/78--10 e
~~
I
.
C.B. 1698--Rezoning from County AGT to City RA property located
south of Martin Street, west of Canyon Drive, was read by
- number and title only, there being no Councilor present
requesting it be read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes
and minutes of April 11, 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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18198.
D. Request for Historic (H) Designation for Elmer Harlow House
Unanimously recommended by Historic Review Board on January 26,
1978. Manager said the application was initiated by the owners and
had first been heard by the Historic Review Board October 1976, with
unanimous recommendation to the Planning Commission for historic
zoning based on representative character of bungalow style and unique
use of two-tone brick. The Planning Commission in December 1976
denied the request, based on the concern that the same findings could
be made about hundreds of homes in Eugene. The owners appealed to
Council, and in February 1977, Council upheld the Commission denial.
- Owners are now requesting H designation under the new historic preser-
vation ordinance adopted by Council January 1978. Historic Review
Board reheard the request and is recommending designation based on
their previous findings.
Judy Rees noted under the old ordinance, the landmark designation
would have been affected by a zone change. Under the new ordinance,
it is merely an ordinance procedure. It will not expand the R-l uses
or affect the zoning or sign regulations.
Public hearing was opened.
Philip Grant, 2991 Harlow Road, said in addition to the recommenda-
tions made by the Historic Review Board, this house is associated
with an historic family, the Harlow family. He noted it was the
only house of its type and construction on the north side of town.
It forms a continuum of architectural style and provides a good
example of early 1920's construction. He noted he had lived in
the house for ten years and had enjoyed it very much. He wished
to preserve it for others to enjoy.
Jan Muller, 1670 Fairmount, member of Historic Review Board, said
this was a particularly fine example of a bungalow-style house with
the unique use of two-tone brick. He said coupled with the historic
e
6/12/78--11
~2'
I
family, the Harlows, the Board would like to see it designated as
an historic landmark.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. -
C.B. 1699--Designating an historic landmark within the City of Eugene,
the Elmer Harlow' House located northwest corner of Ascot Drive
and Harlow Road, was read by coucil bill number and title
only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read
in full.
Mr. Delay noted this was the second time that the issue had come
before Council with unanimous recommendation of the Historic Review
Board and denial by the Planning Commission. He wondered if the key
problem was perhaps perceiving the broadening definition of what is
historic, or ,if it were a difference in opinion of what is historic.
Mr. Saul said the Planning Commission did not review this recommen-
dation under the new ordinance. However, when it first reviewed it in
1976, the major concern was, although it acknowledged the home to be
very nice, that would not equate it with an historic structure as
there were many fine/homes in the city. Therefore, Mr. Saul said it
could be a major broadening of that concept.
Judy Rees said under the new submittal, the Planning Commission
concerns were presented to the Historic Review Board. The Board did
take those concerns into deliberation. However, the Board feels this
particular house is, in fact, a unique example of this particular style
and that it did have distinguishing features from other styles in
Eugene. e
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously and the
bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll ca 11 vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, except Mr. Hamel voting no, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 18204.
E. liquor license New Outlet Applications
1. The Old Crystal Ice Company, 777 East Broadway (DA)
Manager reviewed the OlCC report which indicated one objector,
la Posada Restaurant, who felt the license may hurt its chances to
obtain same (he intends to apply in five or six years' time). Sta ff
found all papers in order and recommended Council approval subject to
the Building Division's request that it be subject to the issuance of
certificate of occupancy.
Public hearing was opened.
6/12/78--12 -
'1-30
I
George Heacock, 915 Saint Andrews Drive, presented to Council a
sketch of the building. He said they would retain the old flavor and
. keep the outside of the building as near its original features.
However, the entire building inside would have to be gutted.
He said it would have a $300,000 payroll, employing 50+ persons, with
a $1 million to $1-1/4 million business. He said the building
had been structurally inspected, and his staff was working with the
City building department.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
In response to a question from Ms. Smith" Assistant Manager said
Council would express whether or not it would recommend approval for
the business license. The operation of the business in any event
would be subject to applicable city codes.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delfty, to (orward wJth approval
to OLCC, subject to conditions. Motlon carrled unanlmously.
2. Court Sports I, 2510 Oakmont Way (RMB)
Manager reviewed the OLCC report which indicated five non-objectors
and five objectors (homeowners in the area). He said applicant
plans to sell bottled or canned beer on the premises. Staff
found all papers in order and recommended approval, subject
to the Building DivisionIs concern that a greater emphasis on
. food and drink use may cause a deficiency of off-street parking,
although food-service operation in this building was originally
considered accessory. If approved by Council, City will peri-
odically monitor parking to ascertain whether or not a problem
will occur.
Public hearing was opened.
Reed Fitkin, 2372 Rockwood, said the basic intent was to sell beer
only in a designated lounge area. He noted there was a central
control desk which could control the movement of people. Minors would
be completely separate from the lounge area. Beer consumption would
be for participants of the club only, and there was no intent of
altering club hours. He felt there would not be any impact on exis-
ting traffic, as it would only be consumed by the participants. No
beer would be allowed off the premises, and he noted the surrounding
area grounds would be maintained for cleanliness. This would be a
consistent request and use with other clubs throughout the United
States. He noted receipt of a letter from Don Mason, Eugene Chamber
of Commerce, supporting the concept.
Robert Kline, 390 Walnut Lane, a neighbor and member of the organi-
zati on spoke to how well managed the organi zati on was. He said if the
4' 6/12/78--13
,.,.31
liquor license were granted, it would be entirely unnoticed from the
outside.
Bill Dwyer, 2828 Washington, was a member of the Court Sports. He .
doubted granting of the liquor license would alter the present rela-
tionship between the neighbors and the Court Sports as it exists
now.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony pre-
sented.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to forward with approval
to OLCC, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously,
with Mr. Obie abstaining.
F. Public Works Bid Awards (attached)
Don Allen, Director Public Works, reviewed the bids and recommended
awards to the low bidders. Tabulation was considered by Council.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to award to low bidders
as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING
A. Hearings Panel Report, June 5, 1978 (attached) -
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept panel report.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Ordinances for Second Reading Levying Assessments
The following ordinances, read the first time May 22, 1978, and refer-
red to Hearings Panel for hearing June 5, 1978, were brought back for
second and final reading, with Hearings Panel recommendation to
levy assessments as proposed.
C.B. 1685--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Universal Industrial Park 2nd Addition; and
sanitary sewer to serve the areas within 160 feet of the
Subdivision boundaries; and paving 5th Avenue from east boun-
dary of Universal Industrial Park 2nd Addition to 450 feet east
(1350)(77-16), 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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18205.
6/12/78--14 .
1.f32.
.
C.B. 1686--Levying assessments for sidewalk--Willamette Street from
34th to 40th (1053)(77-21), was read by council bill number and
e title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be
read in full.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18206.
C.B. 1687--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Parkwood Subdivision (1356)(77-23), 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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18207.
C.B. 1688--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within Oak Crest Subdivision and sanitary sewer within
160 feet of the north boundary of Oak Crest Subdivision (1392)
(77-27), 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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present
- voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18208.
C.B. 1689--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer within and adjacent to Leo & Betty Davis Subdivision and
sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north, south, and east
boundaries of Leo & Betty Davis Subdivision (1396)(77-36),
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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18209.
C.B. 1690--Levying assessments for storm sewer within Sailor Flats Sub-
division (1480)(77-38), 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. Delay, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll ca 11 vote. All Councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18210.
e
6/12/78--15
J.f33
.
.
I I 1. RESOLUTIONS
Res. No. 2933--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments e
for period May 22 through June 12, 1978, was read by
number and title.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve Council minutes
May 22, 1978. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to June
14, 1978.
~)~
Charles T. Henry
Ci ty Manager
CTH:DT:pm/CM23bl
e
-
1I3lf
lb
.
.
e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
Bid No. 5
Opened: June 6, 1978
1. PAVING AND SANITARY SnJER in BO\'lmont Street from 400
feet South of Highland Oaks Drive to 900 feet South
of Highland Oaks Drive and, PAVING, SANITARY SEWER,
STORM SEWER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY within Horizon West
Subdivision. (Job Nos. 1599 and 1600)
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Alternate
--
.(0 Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------$ 98,981.75 $ 96,863.80
t.. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------$ 0 $ 103,988.55
3. Wi1dish Construction Co.--------------$ 0 $ 107,221.11
4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------$ 114,666.95 $ 111 ,663.65
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Pave $27.00/FF $10,200.00 $11 ,700. 00
361 Pav. $33.00/ FF (Park Land)
Ped . ~lay $375.00/Lot
San.Lat. $0.095/SF
e San.Serv. $270.00/Lot
Stm.Swr. $435.00/Lot
Cm~PLETION DATE: September 15, 1978
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve
Lincoln Crest Subdivision; and paving on Lincoln
Street from 31st Avenue to Crest Drive.
(Job No. 1421)
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Altern~
('
I, 1 Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------$ 0 $ 70,650.95
~~ Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------$ 77,316.40 $ 77 ,542.60
3. Wildish Construction Co.-------------$ 80,913.52 $ 77,782.78
4. Shur-Way Contractors,Inc.------------$ 79,953.70 $ 78,791. 1 0
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Pav. $26.00/FF $12,000.00 $15,800.00
San.Lat. $0.19/SF (Park Land)
San.Serv. $150.00/Lot
Stnl. S\'Jr. $550.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1978
~--------------------_._-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jf35 ..-(
1 ,
P;lno 1 n.f: ?
.
3. PAVING, SAr'IITARY SEWER, STORi~ SD-IER Arm PEDESTRIAN WAY e
to serve Souza Park Fourth Addition; and to serve
Candlelight Park Fourth Addition. (Job No. 1515 & 1516)
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Al ternate
-...
'(11 Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------$ 0 $ 198,043.13
2. Wi1dish Construction Co.--------------$ 210,863.50 $ 212,923.14
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------$ 232,168.42 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Pav. $22.50/FF None None
Ped.Hay $165.00/Lot
San.Lat. $590.00/Lot
San.Serv. $220.00/Lot
Stm.Swr. $160.00jLot
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1978
-------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------
4. PAVING Happy Lane within Great Heron Subdivision
(Job No. 1533)
Contract Cost e
Bidders: Basic Al ternate
--
flU Benge Paving, Inc.--------------------$ 12,161.30 $ 13,068.60
2. Wildish Construction Co.--------------$ 14~477 .60 $ 14,180.31
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------$ 14,741.50 $ 0
4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------$ 15,026.40 $ 15,312.30
5. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------$ 0 $ 12,276.02
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
361 Pave $33.90/FF None None
San.Serv. $465.00/Lot
,.
COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1978
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
..,g~ ,3
Page 2 of 2
- -.-- ---
.
_.
mNUTES
e COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL
--
Monday, June 5, 1978
Members Present: Staff Present:
Councilor Eric Haws Bernard Gilkison,
Councilor Scott, Lieuallen Zoning Administrator
Bert Teitzel
City Engineer
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Councilor Haws.
l. Appeal by Bruce M. Halvorsen from the March 30, 1978 decision of the Zoning Board
of Appeals regarding a request for relief from Section 9.536(2) to allow a
60-foot amateur radio tower at 1710 West 34th Place. This matter being held over
from the Council Hearings Panel meeting of May 15, 1978 for findings and recommenda-
tions. Mr. Haws opened the hearing by asking if the staff had any comments for
panel consideration. Mr. Gilkison stated that he had none. Mr. Haws stated that
the original hearing was heard by Councilors Bradley and Lieuallen, but that Mr.
Bradley had had a conflict of time and could not be present. Mr. Haws further
stated that he had reviewed all materials ;n the record on this matter and had
e listened to the tape-recorded testimony presented at the hearing of May 15, 1978
and felt he was familiar with the matter. He further stated he had no ex-parte
---- communications or contacts in this matter.
It was moved by tlr. Lieuallen, seconded by Mr. Haws that the request for variance
be denied and the findings of the May 15, 1978 staff memorandum to the City
Council Hearings Panel be incorporated in support of the denial. The five
findings, based on Section 9.752 of the Code are:
A. There is no physical hardship related to the use of the property.
Hardship is a personal one related to the applicant's degree of
involvement in his hobby of amateur radio. Further, it appears
that the applicant ;s not precluded from indulging in his hobby by
meeting the Code requirements for auxiliary structures.
B. There are no exceptional condition<', applicable to this property
that do not apply to surrounding properties. The physical character
of the property and the development thereon is similar to other
properties in the immediate vicinity.
C. Strict interpretation of the regulations governing building height
exceptions does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by surrounding property owners. The radio tower is unique in the
neighborhood.
- D. Granting a further exception to already permitted building height
- exceptions provided for in the Code would constitute a grant of
special privilege not extended to neighboring properties.
\[/
~37
--. -~--'-~-_.'- - - --- -~-
. .
MINUTES
COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL
JUNE 5, 1978 .
Page 2
E. Though it does not appear that the radio tower represents a threat
to public health, safety, and \'Ielfare in terms of structural adequacy,
it does appear that the appearance of the tower is substantially out
of character with existing development on neighboring properties, and
may be considered materially injurious to the enjoyment to those
properties.
2. Levying assessments for public improvement projects.
C.B. 1685 -- levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
within Universal Industrial Park 2nd Addition; and sanitary sewer
to serve the areas within 160 feet of the Subdivision boundaries;
and paving 5th Avenue from east boundary of Universal Industrial
Park 2nd Addition to 450 feet east (1350)(77-16)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
C.B. 1686 -- Levying assessments for sidewalk - Wi11amette Street from
34th to 40th Avenues (1053)(77-21)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
C.B. 1687 -- levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer -
within Parkwood Subdivision (1356)(77-23)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
C.B. 1688 -- levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
within Oak Crest Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet
of the north boundary of Oak Crest Subdivision (1392)(77-27)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
C.B. 1689 -- levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
within and adjacent to Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision and
sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north, south and east
boundaries of leo & Betty Davis Subdivision (1396)(77-36)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
C.B. 1690 -- Levying assessments for storm sewer within Sailor Flats
Subdivision (1480)(77-38)
No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received.
It was moved by Mr. Lieuallen and seconded by Mr. Haws to recommend that
the assessments of C.B. 1685 through 1690 be levied as proposed. -
'..-
,) t>
~38
I