Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1979 Meeting - 4t-- 4t' . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 14, 1979 Adjourned meeting from February 12, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Jack Delay February 14, 1979, 11:30 a.m., King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Mayor Gus Keller and Councilor D. W. Hamel were absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL A. Status Report on Tree Ordinance--Mr. Obie requested Parks Department, staff prepare a report within 30 days on the implementation of the tree ordinance, how it is working, and whether there are any problems. B. Community Development Tour--Scheduled Wednesday, February 21 for Council, 10:30 a.m. Ms. Schue felt the tour would be an opportunity for Council to see some positive things done with City money. C. Minorities Commission--Resignation received from Elizabeth Yasuda. Manager noted the commission was down to six members. D. March 7, 1979, Council Meeting CANCELLED--Manager noted many Coun- cilors and Manager would be returning from the NLC meeting in Washi ngton, DC., E. Hearings Panel--Scheduled Monday, February 19, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Councilors Lieuallen and Haws to attend. F. Civic Center Commission--Meeting scheduled Wednesday, February 14, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers, with a presentation by the architects regarding the interior of the two major room facilities. G. Legislative Subcommittee--Meeting scheduled Thursday, February 15, 11:30 a.m., McNutt Room. H. Governor Atiyeh--To be in town Thursday, February 15. Councilors are invited to a box luncheon 11:30 a.m., Armory on Centennial Boulevard, weather permitting. II. ROUTINE ITEMS A. Council Minutes, February 7, 1979 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve Council minutes as noted. Motion carried unanimously. 2/14179--1 83 B. Legislative Subcommittee Minutes Mr. Obie reported on a meeting with the Governor Tuesday regarding boundary commissions. The Governor will not fight against retaining~ the commissions, but neither will he support them. Mr. Haws said ~ this was a very high priority for the Subcommittee Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve Subcommittee minutes of February 8, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C. Improvement Petition Res. No. 3082--Authorizing initiating process for street paving and sanitary sewer construction on Ingalls Way from the end of existing pavement to 860 feet south (1704) was read by number and title. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. D. Calling Public Hearings Re: Street/Easement Vacations CB 1827--Calling public hearing March 28, 1979, re: Easement vacation located west of Chambers, north of 34th Avenue (Wheeler/Barnes) (EV 78-16) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of ~ the Counci 1, and that enactment be consi dered at thi s time. ,-- ~ Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18335. CB 1828--Calling public hearing March 28, 1979, re: Easement vacation located on west side of Lot 53 in Shasta Park First Addition (Speer) (EV 78-17) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full . Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18336. 2/14/79--2 'e SLf e CB 1829--Calling public hearing March 28, 1979, re: Easement vacation located between Centennial Loop and Interstate Highway 105 (City of Eugene) (EV 78-18) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18337. CB 1830--Calling public hearing March 28, 1979, re: Street vacation located north of Cody Avenue, between Wisconsin and Dakota streets and retaining public utility easement over entire area (McClary) (SV 78-5) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18338. CB 1831--Calling public hearing March 28, 1979, re: Street vacation located on south end of Kenmore Street and retaining 140-foot public utility easement over west portion (Henke) (SV 78-6) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18339. e 2/14/79--3 85 III. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ISSUANCE IN VICINITY OF AIRPORT--Memo and Map Distributed. Manager noted because of the number of persons in the audience interested ~ in this matter, the agenda would be reordered. The matter is brought before Council because of a growing concern of the developments occurring in the airport vicinity, and what relationship that has to the future development of the Eugene Airport. Staff was asking Council to consider requesting the Lane County Commissioners to reconsider at their next meeting their position on a recent request for an office building for the engineering firm of Bonrey, Bennett, & Peters. Staff felt the original intent of the airport vicinity zoning was to protect the integrity of Mahlon Sweet Airport and the agricultural uses around the airport. If that is not possible, Manager noted the City should be authorized to seek recourse such as action before LCOC or the courts. Council IS consideration is essential because legal actions in the court must proceed by February 28. John Porter, Planning Director, said the memo distributed outlines some of the major land-use concerns of the City regarding airport development. He said some dealt with direct aviation uses, i.e., runways; others were indirect such as growth around the airport and its impact on the airport. In the past several years, certain developments had been occurring along the airport road which have concerned City planners. The recent request for this office building might set a precedent that would allow many industrial and office uses in that area around the airport. Bob Shelby, Airport Manager, recalled the massive effort that took place to develop the current existing zoning around the airport today. At the conclusion of that effort, it was felt that many compromises had been made by both sides. ~ He noted at this time it seems there may be some loopholes that need to be ~ addressed. Mr. Haws asked for a clarification of the issue before Council today: Whether this particular application was at issue, or whether City policy was to be directed regarding the airport area. He was most interested in the long-range approach and did not necessarily want to have to consider each application as it came up. Manager replied the major issue may be that there is a conflict in the interpretation of what the long-range plans and purposes are for the existing zoning. Currently, the Master Airport Plan is being updated, and it seemed the action on this particular conditional use seemed contrary to the City's interpretation of the types of development that should be occurring. Mr. Delay further clarified the Council was simply being asked to request the County Commissioners to reconsider its issuance of a conditional use permit for the engineering firm, and to present the City's concerns. If the issue were not resolved, the Council would allow staff to pursue whatever actions are necessary to clarify the issue. Mr. Porter reiterated the staff is concerned that the issuance of this parti- cular conditional use permit would set a precedent. He directed Councilors to Item C of the memorandum distributed as the major concern, which may violate the intent of the existing zoning. e 2/14/79--4 &b e Bob Bolton, 811 Lariat Drive, expressed curiosity as to the City's findings that this particular application could be precedent-setting action. He noted approval had been given to a privately-owned baseball park which included construction of bleachers in closer proximity to the airport. He felt the real issue is the wording of the AV zoning and what types of industry qualify along the airport road. Secondly, he noted the Airport Commission, to his knowledge, had never considered what property is involved in the airport expansion. Harold Rutherford spoke as a private citizen and not a Lane County Commissioner. He asked if the city airport were City owned and within the city limits. Stan Long, City Attorney's office, said because of State law and Charter provisions, the airport is treated as an area over which extraterritorial powers were exerted by the city. Mr. Rutherford continued that the Council should be addressing these problems through the Constitution. The City has policies, and if it wants to control this piece of property, then it should pay for that property and compensate the property owner. He felt the City was taking away the right of the individual regarding this particular property, and that policy could extend to others in the area. If the City wants to control it, then the City should take over the property, maintain it, and pay taxes on it. Mr. Delay reiterated the City's position was to try to clarify the existing plans, policies, and zoning now in place, and not to encourage any new policies. Mr. Rutherford suggested the City's approach was a subterfuge by using a zoning policy as a way to accomplish means other than under due processes of the con- stitution. e Ray Bond, Rt. 1, Box 706, spoke for ,E. O. Drake, who owns the particular property in question. If the City wishes to control the property, then it should buy the property from Mr. Drake and compensate him for it. Mr. Bond felt the first impr'ession of persons arriving at Eugene through the airport is important, and described the first half-mile as he perceived peoples' first impressions. He felt this office building would be a definite asset. He noted the valuable agricultural land in the area. Richard Stokes, Jr., 2947 Tomahawk Lane, did not believe the Council had an adequate definition of the long-range plans for land in the airport vicinity, nor how a conditional use permit is in conflict with those plans. Gerald Attig, 2101 West 10th, noted his clients who owned 150 acres in the area were very concerned about this issue. Ray Fechtel, 72 West Broadway, represen- ted owners of 92 acres in the area. They oppose any policy change in the present zoning that might limit uses that could be made of their property. Dave Van Fossen, 2300 Oakmont Way, represented Bonney, Bennett, & Peters. He felt adequate notice had not been given to the public or property owners of this meeting regarding a possible zone change and said these are requirements neces- sitated for zoning meetings. He questioned the Council about how much time they had spent reading the Airport Master Plan, the 1990 Plan Update in its relation- ship to the airport, and studying the 1990 Plan Appendix A detailing uses in AV zoning. He distributed to Council page 35 of the 19~0 Plan as it exists today with Appendix A and definition of the AV Zoning District. He said the total e 2/14179--5 87 facts were not presented in the memorandum distributed and read into the record the findings of facts that the County Commissioners had used December 28 to base their decision to allow the conditional use permit. e Ralph Fulbright, 1551 Oak, had been a Lane County Planning Commissioner at the time the AV zoning was adopted. He felt the most important issue was that the City owns a regional airport and it has elected to preserve ownership of that airport. He felt there were responsibilities that went along with the ownership of this regional airport. He noted the current zoning of the airport was a result of the study done in 1973. The intent of the airport zoning he identi- fied was: AO zoning for property used for the airport operations; and AV zoning for other property in the immediate vicinity for office space or agricultural and industrial airport-related uses. He reiterated the regional responsibility for the regional airport and felt the airport should not be made an island. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to direct staff to request the Lane County Commissioners to reconsider their action regarding the conditional use permit; and to take any further action that may be necessary to protect the City interests on this and any other matters that may come up in the future. Commissioner Archie Weinstein felt the Commissioners had acted within the Airport Plan, within the law, and within planning and zoning uses for that area. He said under the Airport Master Plan, office spaces are permitted. He noted this would be a nicely landscaped office building and a beautiful asset to the area. He felt the Council.s action, if it adopted the motion, would be contrary to free enterprise, due process, and just compensation. He felt this was a permitted use within the current zoning. He felt it would be a travesty to tie this issue up in courts in the next several years and ~ deprive the owner of the right to develop his property. Mr. Obie said he had been on the Lane County Planning Commission when the AV zoning was adopted. He did not find any legal problems with what the County Commissioners had done, although noted if he had more information he may be philosophically opposed. He felt a more prudent direction for Council would be to sit down with the Commissioners and land owners and try to resolve long- range plans for that area. He felt it to be truly an opportunity area. He felt the Council did not have enough information as to whether or not this develop- ment qualified under the present AV zoning. Ms. Smith supported Mr. Obie. She felt insufficient information had been given to the Council and she wanted to give it further study. She favored delaying action at this time. Mr. Delay felt the staff was asking Council simply to try to clarify the issue, and noted the time deadlines necessitating resolution today. Mr. Haws did not oppose the suggestion that the Council and Commissioners discuss future long-range plans for the area. However, he felt the City needed to protect its interests. To do that, it needed to take action within certain time limits today, and the City had to negotiate from a position of strength. He compared the area development to what has happened on River Road, and said he did not want the same thing to happen at the airport. e 2/14179--6 ~% e Ms. Miller agreed there was a need for clearer planning around the airport. A request for better communications with the Commissioners would not freeze the status quo. In her reading of the 1990 Update and Airport Plan, she felt the area around the airport should be reserved for clearly airport-related dependent uses. She noted the limited amount of land in that area. She understood the staffs of both governmental units had reached agreement but it was the elected officials who were disagreeing. She said it seemed necessary to take steps to freeze the situation while trying to develop better communications. Vote was taken on the motion, with carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Obie and Smith voting no. IV. WEST 18TH BIKE/TRAFFIC REPORT--Memo distributed. Manager said the Council had asked the Bicycle Committee and staff to report back with a plan regarding the traffic and bicycle problems on West 18th. The report has been presented to Council. It is not intended for Council to act on the plan today, but rather to set a public hearing, possibly March 12. In order to be in compliance with the City Code, the Manager will take administrative action regarding the proposed plan by writing a memo accepting the plan. This action automatically would result in calling for a public hearing. The plan is being appealed by written petition, therefore, a pUblic hearing can be scheduled for those appealing adoption of the plan. .e Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Bicycle Committee plan which includes the following striping plan: Bike lanes striped the entire length from Bailey Hill Road to Pearl Street; a center left-turn lane striped from Bailey Hill Road to Greiner Street, Sunrise Boulevard to Polk Street, and Friendly Street to Pearl Street. To accomplish the plan, parking must be removed along 18th Avenue. On the north side of 18th from Sunrise Boulevard to City View Street, and on both sides of 18th from Polk Street to Friendly parking would remain. The Bicycle Committee believes this plan would facilitate both bicycle and automobile traffic on West 18th. Mr. Hanks used a map to describe the plan as outlined by the Bicycle Committee and staff. He said the plan would accomplish eliminating left-turn conflicts now present, and would eliminate transitions going through the left-turn lanes. Several alternatives had been proposed and discussed, as outlined in the memo and he briefly reviewed those, indicating the difficulties of each. Mr. Hanks said 18th Avenue is a bike route because it is a transportation spine for the city, both bicycles and automobiles, and it is the longest continuous east-west route in the city. Regarding accidents, he noted the four years prior to the instal- lation of the bike paths, the 18th Avenue corridor had the highest incidence of accidents of any other corridor in the city. Since the bicycle lanes have been installed, those accidents were reduced to two. The Eugene Traffic Safety Commission has endorsed the plan. Mr. Obie wanted clarification regarding the public hearing. He wanted Council to make that decision and not have it forced on them. City Manager noted the reason for his suggestion was to avoid two public hearings. Under the existing code, the Council adopts a master plan which then is implemented by the Public e 2/14/79--7 ~~ Works staff. If people object after implementation, the petition to the City Manager requires a public hearing. He noted there were objections to the plan at this time. Thus, the City Manager administra- ~ tive~y accepts the plan as proposed, and a public hearing is set based on those ,., petitions opposing the plan. It was consensus of Council a public hearing would be held March 12, 1979, on the proposed bikeway traffic plan for West 18th Avenue. Mr. Obie proposed an alternative for consideration at the public hearing. He requested staff develop a proposed bike lane as suggested from Bailey Hill to Westmoreland Park, then connect to the Amazon bikeway, continuing east. He felt it would be much safer and equally as easy to navigate. He also noted during the count taken, there were about 100 bicycles a day compared to 17,000 cars on 18th Avenue. He felt there was a need for Council and the public to consider alternatives to the proposed plan. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to present for considera- tion his alternate proposal for the bike/traffic plan on West 18th Avenue at the March 12, 1979, Council meeting. Mr. Lieuallen opposed the motion because he said Mr. Obie had noted only two components of bike riders: University of Oregon students and high school students from Churchill. He felt there were many more components, noting many people who ride bikes throughout the day along those routes. He said the traffic count was done in the middle of winter when the University of Oregon was not in session and he did not feel it to be realistic. He said bicycle traffic is increasing every day, as evidenced by the work in his business. ~ Ms. Smith felt whether or not Mr. Lieuallen agreed, it would be best for Council to be supportive of looking at alternatives. Mr. Lieuallen said his opposition was that Mr. Obie was proposing a hard and fast alternative. He would be more supportive of a motion directing staff to develop other alternatives, but did not want to be in a position of having to choose between one of two alternatives. Mary Hawkins, 1125 West 18th Avenue, submitted to the Council 1,200 petitions against the bike path on 18th Avenue. Manager said staff would present the alternative proposal as described by Mr. Obie. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws abstaining. Mr. Obie suggested the Councilors consider taking a bike ride down 18th on the present bike pathway during commuter rush hour, either 8:00 a.m. or 5:00 p.m. He suggested this would allow Councilors a first-hand view of the problems. A short recess was taken. - 2/14/79--8 90 V. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT--Recommendation distributed. . Ms. Schue, Chairman of the Council Subcommittee on Citizen Involvement, reviewed the actions of the subcommittee. It had held three meetings, with the first meeting being devoted to citizen input. The second and third meetings were development of a plan and recommendation for Council. That recommendation included setting up a new citizen involvement committee consisting of two City Councilors, two Planning Commissioners, and three citizens at large. Mr. Haws said the Council should decide whether or not this committee should be a working or steering committee, which he felt would make a difference in the membership of the committee. He favored one Councilor and one Planning Commis- sioner with the citizens' membership being either three or five. Ms. Miller envisioned the committee as a steering committee that woulo involve task force ad hoc committees to work on specific tasks and projects. She favored the two Planning Commissioners and two Councilors, as this would allow a broader representation with ultimate decisions more acceptable to both groups. She noted citizen input during subcommittee meetings indicated that there should be five citizens to counter-balance the four elected officials and to allow more representation of the diversity of the City. Denise McGriff, 1087 East 19th Avenue, expressed concern regarding membership on the committee. She requested Council seriously consider more than three citizens and suggested four to five. This would allow representation of a diversity of citizens in the community. She viewed the committee as a working committee, not a steering committee, thus it would involve more citizens. e Adrienne Lannom agreed with Ms. McGriff. She also wondered if this would avoid the exceptions process. She was concerned also that the work of the CIAC would go unrecognized. Ms. Schue said the subcommittee was aware the CIAC has a report almost completed and ready to submit. It is expected that report will become an integral part of the material to be considered by the new committee. Regarding having two Councilors and two Planning Commissioners, Mr. Obie said that is the current situation on the Joint Parks Committee and there is diffi- culty in coordinating meeting times. He was concerned about the time commitment. He agreed with Mr. Haws to have one Councilor and one Planning Commissioner, but further stated he would prefer none. Mr. Delay had a generally favorable impression of the report. He liked the idea of escalating the importance of the committee and the idea of using task forces. He was concerned with the committee getting started on its work. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, that Council approve the report of the Council subcommittee, including the primary recom- mendation regarding membership. Mr. Lieuallen questioned the exceptions process, whether the committee could perform both evaluating and citizen involvement functions, whether the committee had the power to form ad hoc committees, and questioned the appointment process. - 2/14/79--9 ~I '. Jim Saul, Planner, replied the proposed recommendation was in compliance with the LCDC goal. The only requirement under Goal 1 is that the City have a citizen involvement committee. If the Council designates itself as the citizen . involvement committee, or assigns that to the Planning Commission, then there must be a separate evaluation mechanism. In the past, the CIAC was to perform the evaluation function. Mr. Saul continued that since this new committee would have representatives of the Council, Planning Commission, and citizens at large, it would be legitimate under the goal to have the citizen involvement committee within the evaluation mechanism specified. He said the proposed recommendation had been reviewed by LCDC and was acceptable. Regarding the exceptions, he said those only apply to specific actions such as agricultural land, etc. He noted this was a process question. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to amend the motion to designate one City Councilor, one Planning Commissioners, and five citizens, two of whom would be selected by the Mayor/Council process and three selected by the Neighborhood Leaders Association. Mr. Lieuallen felt strongly about the number of citizens in relation to the number of elected officials. Regarding the number of Councilors and Planning Commissioners, Ms. Schue said the current system had resulted in problems. One Planning Commissioner did not provide enough communication between the CIAC and the Planning Commission. She felt more representation between both the Council and Planning Commission would ensure working out compromises and, thus, problems such as the recent one, would not continually be coming to Council. Mr. Lieuallen felt one of the problems regarded the level of staff involvement with the committee. It felt it to be less a dispute between the Planning Commission and CIAC than between the CIAC and staff. He felt it important, if ~ it were going to be a citizen involvement committee, that enough citizens be .~ represented. Also, he felt it important that the committee not rely heavily on staff involvement. Mr. Delay said he would oppose the amendment because he felt it very important to have a high level of consensus between the Council, Planning Commission, and the community. He noted a need for better rapport between the Planning Commis- sion and Council, and more involvement by the Planning Commission and Council in this area. He felt the committee could use neighborhood leaders and other interested citizens for the task forces to deal with specific issues and, thus, get more citizens involved. Ms. Smith said perhaps Mr. Lieuallen's suggestion could be incorporated next year, but her maj or concern now is to see the commi ttee be formed and start working. Ms. Miller said she envisioned a small steering committee with a larger number of citizens being involved through task forces. If that did not work, more citizens could be involved later. Vote was taken on the motion, which failed with Smith, Delay, Miller, and Schue voting no; Lieuallen, Obie, and Haws voting aye. 2/14179--10 . qz. e Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Ms. Miller, to include five citizens on the committee with the same selection process as outlined in his previous motion. Motion failed with Obie, Smith, Schue, and Delay voting no; Haws, Lieuallen, and Miller voting aye. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried with all Coun- cilors present voting aye, except Mr. Lieuallen voting no. VI. COUNCIL MEETING LOCATION--Memo d"j stri buted. Manager noted the memo indicated possibilities of future locations. It was necessary for Council to relocate for its February 28 meeting. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the Council meet February 28 in the Council Chambers, with further discussion for future meeting place at the February 21 meeting. Motion carried with all Councilors voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. VII. CODE AMENDMENT RE: AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SET FEES FOR SPECIAL SERVICES--Ordinance distributed. Manager said the ordinance would allow the City Manager to establish fees for special services provided by the City over and beyond the normal scope of services. Examples given were charges for Public Works erecting barricades for parades, or sweeping streets after parades, police protection requested for visiting celebrities, etc. e CB 1832--Concerning fees; amending Section 2.020 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18340. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to February 21, 1979. Ch~Y)~ City Manager (Recorded by Dee Tipping.) ~ DT:pm/CM7al '13 2/14/79--11