Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/1979 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 12, 1979 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m., Council Chamber, March 12, 1979, with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, Eric , Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilori' D. W. Hamel was absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. Concurrent annexation/rezoning property located east of Sweetbriar Street and south of 43rd Avenue from County RA to City R-1 (Stimac/Folker/ Jemp1eman) (AI 78-13) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission January 2, 1979 - Jim Saul, Planner, said that the annexation/rezoning involves approxi- mately three acres that is vacant at the present time. If the annexa- tion/ rezoning is approved, the owners intend to develop the property as a continuation of the Sweetbriar Subdivision. The first phases of the development have been plotted, and are in the first stages of development on property immediately west of this site. He noted the written findings for annexation include the City's normal standards for evaluation of annexation, namely, that the property is within the urban service boundary, and that annexation would be consistent with current City policy. A full range of urban services can be provided to the property, and the annexation would be a logical expansion to the city. The Planning Commission findings review the proposed annexation under the standards of the LCDC Administrative Rule, as well as suitable Statewide Goals and Guidelines. Mr. Saul noted one aspect of the annexation; it is important in order to provide an adequate street pattern, not only for this property, but for properties located to the south and to the east. The south properties are already in the city. The other properties are not within the city at this time, but are within the urban service boundary. A street through this property is the most feasible way to provide access to some of those properties. It is particularly important. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by the Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. - 3/12/79--1 135 I Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, was speaking with other comments, on her own behalf, and on behalf of other property owners directly south of the annexation/rezoning area. She noted that she and her husband bought Tax Lot 4600 in 1962. At that time and ever since that ~ time the description has indicated that there was a 40-foot road ~ easement, and they had dep.ended upon it. I n January, she noted in City Council Minutes which she received, but the other property owners did not, that the street had been vacated on December 20 without notifying the property owners of the proposal to vacate. That was not proper procedure, she said, but that is in the past. Their request now was for some assurance of notification to them when the property under consideration is submitted for subdivision. There is no such requirement in the Code for subdivisions. They requested assurance of notification when there is a tentative plan for a major partition submitted for Tax Lot 4300 so that they may inspect the plan, and be prepared to make appeals provided for in the Code should that be necessary. Mrs. Niven requested the City Council make as part of its record that they notify owners of Tax Lots 4500, 4600, and 4700 when the plan comes before the Planning Director. Mr. Saul noted that the Planning Department had been working with the owners in this area, and had provided them with tentative street layouts in the areas of their concern. Res. No. 3086--Recommending the Boundary Commission annexation of property located east of Sweetbriar Street and south of 43rd Avenue was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the findings suppor- ting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff . ~ notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, be adopted by reference thereto and the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1840--Rezoning from County RA to City R-1 property located east of Sweetbriar Street and south of 43rd Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, 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. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18348. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the adjoining property owners on Tax Lots 4500, 4600, and 4700 be officially notified when a plot is submitted for subdivision for this newly annexed property, and that the Planning Director be so instructed. 3/12/79--2 ~ '3~ Mr. Delay asked the Council to look into the notification procedure at another meeting. He said he did not like the piecemeal approach. ~ The motion carried unanimously. B. Concurrent annexation/rezoning property located north of Jessen Drive, west of U.S. Highway 99 North from County M-2 to City R-l and M-2 SR (Maher) (AZ 78-l8) Recommended by Planning Commission January 2, 1979, with 4:1 vote. Mr. Saul said this proposed annexation involves 5.56 acres of land located in a triangular area bounded by Highway 99, Beltline Road, and Jessen Drive. In the last year, two adjacent parcels of land have been annexed to the city that involved property south of this site, and property along Arnold Street and Elizabeth, located west of the site. A portion (3.7 acres) of the property has been developed primarily for warehousing and storage while it was in the county. The west portion of the site (approximately 1.8 acres) is vacant. The recommended zoning of the property maintains industrial zoning for that area, and the Planning Commission recommends the application of the R-l district to the vacant portion to allow residential develop- ment of that portion in a manner similar to the development to the south and to the west. Mr. Saul noted the written findings for the annexation include the Cityls normal standards, pertinent portions of the LCDC Administrative Rule, and the applicable Statewide Goals. e Mr. Saul, in answering the question, "Is the commercial zoning de facto zoning"?, said it was a recognition of what had occurred on the property. Behind it was a history of work between the Lane County Planning Commission and the property owners in that general area primarily to the north and the east. There was more or less committed industrial development in that area. The recommended zoning in the future would allow for changes in the type of use and other forms of industrial development on that 3.7 acres. The Planning Commission asked for site review on that industrial portion. In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Brian Obie noted he had property nearly adjacent to this property that had not been annexed, and would abstain from voting. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Res. No. 3087--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located north of Jessen Drive, west of U.S. Highway 99 North was read by number and title. e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the findings suppor- ting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. The motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie abstaining. 3/12/79--3 /31 C.B. 1841--Rezoning from County M-2 to City R-1 property located north of Jessen Drive, west of U.S. Highway 99 North was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present ... requesting it be read in full. ,., Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith that the findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, 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. The motion passed unanimously with Brian Obie abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18349. C.R. 1842--Rezoning from County M-2 to City M-2SR property located north of Jessen Drive, west of U.S. Highway 99 North was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith that the findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, 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. The motion passed unanimously with Brian Obie abstaining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18350. C. Concurrent annexation/rezoning property located west of Gilham Road, north of Crescent Avenue from County AGT to City R-1 (Robbins) (AZ 78-19) , Unani mously recommended by Pl anni ng Commi ss i on January 2, 1979 Mr. Saul said the parcel involved is approximately five acres, and is developed with one single-family residence and a wholesale nursery. If annexed, the owners propose to develop the property as a single-family subdivision in the same manner as the property immediately to the south and west is being developed at this time. He noted the written findings for annexation included the City's normal standards, pertinent portions of the LCDC Administrative Rule, and Statewide Goals, which would be applicable. He noted that if the annexation is approved, it would encircle four parcels of land . 3/12/79--4 13& e that are not included in the petition. These parcels are presently developed as single-family residences, and the owners have indicated that they oppose the annexation. The City could initiate the annexa- tion for those four properties at this time. The Planning Commission's motion indicates that if this area is annexed, they wish to have the City initiate the annexation of those four parcels. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by the Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was ,held with no testimony presented. Res. No. 3088--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located west of Gilham Road, north of Crescent Avenue, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. The motion passed unanimously. C.B. 1843--Rezoning from County AGT to City R-1 property located west of Gilham Road, north of Crescent Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present reques- ting it be read in full. - Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 2, 1979, 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. The motion passed unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18351. D. West 18th Avenue Bike/Traffic Plan (memo and map distributed) Manager noted this hearing results from a written appeal of the Manager's administrative act approving a proposed bikeway plan for 18th Avenue. He said the proposed plan has been well advertised, and that notices have been sent to the concerned property owners and tenants. He complimented the Register-Guard on the fine article about the proposed bike path and the discussion of the issues. He said this proposal has been approved by the Bicycle Committee and by the Traffic Safety Commission. He asked for Council action to approve, modify, or reject the plan. e 3/12/79--5 13~ Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, said the 1990 Plan had a bikeway on 18th from Bertelson Road to Agate Street. The one essential goal of the T-2000 Plan is the need to divert automobile trips to bicycle ... trips and transit trips. He said 18th Avenue was essential to the ,., bikeway plan. Last year they had striped 18th Avenue for bike lanes, but there was not enough room on 18th and the striped lanes did not work well. Council asked the Bicycle Committee to study the situation and report back. The plan that the Committee came up with would include removal of parking on 18th, and installing left-hand turn lanes. Mr. Hanks explained the alternatives to the original proposed 18th Avenue bike lane. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the 18th Avenue bike traffic plan were as follows. Ruth Bascom, 2114 University Street; Jim Winquist, 29461 Gimpl Hill Road; Al Bumstead, 3530 West Amazon; Ray Gilden, 170 East 37th Avenue; Trip Allen, 2815 Elinor Street, Jim Atchley, 1145 West 14th; Mark Bondurant, 511 East 12th; Cliff Lind, 28773 Gimpl Hill Road; and Allen Johnson, 1991 Madison. The people who spoke for the bike lanes on 18th realized that it was a difficult decision for the Bicycle Committee. 18th Avenue was the most direct route to two high schools, the University, and parts of downtown. It could be traveled without frequent stops. Bicyclists would use 18th Avenue for those reasons whether it was striped or ~ not. Bicylists should be encouraged to use their alternative trans- portation, thereby making less car traffic, pollution, and parking problems. Amazon Parkway and 17th Street were alternatives to be encouraged. They were, however, slower although more pleasant to ride. Ms. Bascom noted that the Bicycle Committee could find no good alternatives to the 18th Avenue bikeway. She did thank Jim Hanks, Brian Obie, and Allen Johnson for supplemental suggestions for ways of encouraging bicyclists to take alternative routes to 18th Avenue. Those speaking against the 18th Avenue bicycle/traffic plan were as follows: Elaine Roccio, 2483 Blackburn; Terry Burgess, 171 West 18th, Forrest F. Andreason, 446 East 13th; Dennis Spitze, 113 West 18th; Pearl Gaines, 1990 West 18th; Nancy Pottker, 1790 Washington Street, E. J. McGoran, 1806 Washington; Pat Grant, 90 West 18th. The people speaking against the 18th Avenue bike/traffic plan were not opposed to bicycles, but they did feel that bicycles and cars should not mix. It was felt to be dangerous to have bicycles on 18th Avenue. They suggested cyclists were better served by using 17th or the Amazon bike path. One person said that since the Amazon bike path would soon be lit (she had heard a lighting contract had been given), it would be excellent for bikes. Another suggested that 17th Avenue e 3/1'1-179--6 I If 0 e striped for bicycles and stop signs installed. Other people opposed to the 18th Avenue bike/traffic plan cited the need for parking in front of their homes, the difficulty of getting out of their driveways, and the shortage of parking in the Wi11amette/18th Avenue area. Mr. Andreason said that his funeral home must have parking in order to stay in business. A short recess was taken. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Jim Hanks answered Mr. Andreason, saying that the bike/traffic plan had no parking removal between Pearl and High. The suggestion of parking removal between the hours of 4 and 6 p.m. was explored by the Bicycle Committee. They found that (1) bicyclists use the street at all times during the day, (2) that it is extremely difficult to enforce parking removals, and (3) that it is difficult to tow cars away in enough time to be of any use to lane users. Mr. Hanks con- tinued, the 19th Avenue route suggestion is a discontinuance route. The Amazon Channel route at Bailey Hill is closer to 11th Avenue than 18th Avenue. It will not feed Churchill Hill School. The Amazon Channel lighting contract has not been let, but has been budgeted. He answered the question about overflow parking, saying it will cause parking on side streets and in driveways. It could cause people to do with fewer cars. Answering the question about the City compensating people for the loss of parking, Mr. Hanks said, it has not been the City's practice in the past. There is no evidence that parking removal reduces property value. In answer to a complaint that bicycles are not licensed, Mr. Hanks said the City does not have an ongoing bicycle licensing program at this time. Mr. Obie cited the petition that had signatures of 1,350 concerned people. He read a letter from Mrs. A. L. Barton, 2010 West 18th Avenue, that told of a survey that resulted in noting an average of 66 bicyclists per day on 18th Avenue between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. Mr. Obie said people on West 18th felt that they had cause to consider a class action suit. They had paid for street widening in the 60ls and now were wondering where the mid-block residents and their visitors would park. Ms. Smith asked how much consideration had been given to allow parking on one side of 18th Avenue, as they had done on Agate Street. Mr. Hanks said between Sunrise and City View on 18th Avenue there was parking on one side of the street. There was parking on both sides of 18th Avenue between Polk and Friendly. Between Brittany and Bailey Hill, there could be one side parking. This was not included in the plan because of the serpentine traffic flow. Ms. Smith asked if it could be done on other parts of 18th Avenue. Mr. Hanks replied that it could not because the street is only 42 feet wide east of City View. e 3/12/79--7 I Lf I Mr. Lieuallen believed curb cuts were not for cyclists as one person who had testified suggested, but for the use of handicapped (Mr. Hanks agreed). Mr. Lieuallen submitterl a list of people in favor of the bike/traffic plan that did not get to testify. ~ Mr. Haws said he supported the City Managerls decision. He said that parking on a city street is a privilege, not a right. The street is a transportation route, and the bicycle is a means of transportation. It has to have a higher priority than parking. Parking is the biggest hazard between motorists and bicylists, he said. Mr. Obie failed to see the "compromise." He was concerned about the City's liability when the bike lanes are installed because they are encouraging the use of the street when there are better alternatives. Parking is not a consideration. It would need to be taken off the street. Sixty-six riders a day does not warrant the bicycle lanes. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Alternative C, bicycle lanes from Bailey Hill to Polk on 18th Avenue, and then down Polk for one block and a half to the Amazon bike path, then to the Jefferson Pool bypass that would extend to Jefferson and use 16th and 17th avenues. Mr. Haws opposed the motion. Ms. Schue pointed out that these streets are start and stop streets. Ms. Miller noted that 17th and Amazon are more pleasant to ride for a person not in a hurry. For a bicyclist in a hurry, in bad weather, at night, that rider needs the same conditions as a motorist, she ~ said. It suggests 18th. The other alternatives are supplemental. ,., She would vote no on the motion. Mayor Keller asked the destination of the riders. He felt that the City should present more information to the Council about the destination of the riders. Rollcall vote was taken, and the motion was defeated, with Smith and Obie voting aye. Mr. Delay moverl, seconderl by r~s. Smith to deny the appeal of the City Managerls action, and to confirm and endorse the placement of the bike and auto turn lanes on West 18th Avenue as proposed. Mr. Delay felt that the destination was not important; what was important was that the City provide a facility that is easy for people to use. This is a far less costly lane than the alternatives given. Ms. Smith asked that the Council continue to monitor the bicycle lane on 18th Avenue. She was in favor of the motion. 3/12/79--8 e \42. e Mr. Lieuallen said the bicycle lanes legitimize the bicyclist. He said it is safer, and if the Council refused to do something for the people they know are going to be there, then the Council might be held responsible. Ms. Miller said that parking was a private responsibility, not the Cityls responsibility. Mayor Keller said that the bicycle lanes are safer. If the City has a policy of encouraging bicycles, it must try to see if it will work. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed six to one, with Obie voting no. E. Appeal of Planning Director's denial of minor partition, property located between Sunrise and Oak patch Road on south side of West 18th Avenue (Petersen) (M 77-179) e Appeal unanimously denied by the Planning Commission January 8, 1979. Mr. Saul explained that the parcel consists of 12,500 square feet, one single-family residence, and it would allow another lot on the property. The request for partition was first denied in 1976, and it was appealed to the Planning Commission who affirmed the denial in May 1976. An application was subsequently resubmitted, and fol- lowing a review process was again denied at the Planning Department and appealed to the Planning Commission. On January 8 the Planning Commission denied the appeal. The present appeal comes to Council because the applicant failed to attend the Planning Commission meeting, and therefore, seeks appeal to the Council. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Mike Farthing, 975 Oak Street, spoke on behalf of Stan Potter, owner of the property west of the parcel, and supported staff's recommendation. Mr. Farthing said Stan Potter had lived in the old farmhouse on the side of the hill for quite awhile and was familiar with the problems of building on the hillside. Mr. Potter supported the staff recommendation of denial of this minor partition. Elaine Roccio, 2483 Blackburn, spoke for the Churchill Neighbors Assoc. At the last meeting of the neighborhood association, there was a unanimous vote in support of the staff recommendation. She said the building would be unsightly. Lee Plants, professional engineer, testifying for Carl Petersen, reported that on the portion of land that would be built upon there were no springs, only surface drainage. e 3/12/79--9 I~ Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the appeal be denied, incorporating the staff notes and findings. e Mr. Haws asked that the records show that Mr. Petersen had attended the City Council meeting, but had left early. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously. F. Appeal of zone change request denied by Planning Commission, property located on south side of West 10th Avenue between Grant and Hayes streets from RA to C-2 (Brewer) (Z 78-35) Appeal was unanimously denied by Planning Commission December 12, 1978. Mr. Saul said the property in question, owned by Mr. Brewer, is a 10,OOO-square foot parcel located on the south side of 10th Avenue. A 9,OOO-square foot commercial structure, known as "West End Auction Martll is on the parcel. This area was annexed to the city in 1944; RA zoning was established in 1948. The commercial zoning antedates the annexation to the city of Eugene. When the present zoning ordi- nance was adopted in 1968, the West End Auction Mart was classified as a non-conforming use, and a notice that stated that status was provided to the owners of the property. In 1969, the Planning Com- mission conducted a hearing for the purpose of establishing an amor- tization period on this nonconforming use. It tabled action at that time, pending a more detailed review of the neighborhood. The Plan- ~ ning Commission has not yet taken that off the table. The present ~ request was for allowing conversion of the West End Auction Mart to a furniture store. The Planning Commission denied the zone change because: 1) lack of need of commercial zoning in this area; 2) effort of the City to establish residential neighborhoods in this area; and 3) location of the park directly across from the property. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by the Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Mike Farthing, 975 Oak Street, attorney representing Mr. Brewer, noted that the applicant owns 1900 West 11th, making the frontage a little bit larger than noted on the Planning Commission map. Mr. Farthing said the property was already an existing commercial use; that it had a commercial building on it; and that no residential buildings would be removed. Medium-density residential would require destruction of the building; therefore, it would not be economical. It would not be compatible with the commercial property surrounding this property. There is little available commercial property in 3/12/79--10 . I~~ e the west side area. West 11th is strip commercial and is consis- tent, Mr. Farthing noted, with the 1990 Plan. Mr. Ben Smith, who sells commercial real estate)feels. that there is a shortage of commercial property in this area. It would provide goods and services to the west part of Eugene. Mr. Farthing noted that it was a diffi- cult request because of the long time that "the location had been commercial. It would not set a precedent, he said, because it was already commercial. A conditional use permit or site review would be possible to monitor the commercial use on this property. Mr. Farthing noted that Mr. Brewer and Mr. Love were in the audience and would answer questions. Those speaking against the appeal were Hank Murrow, 1215 Arthur Street, Sharon Nunn, 1200 Arthur Street, and Mrs. Adrienne Lannom, 310 East 14th Avenue. Mr. Murrow felt there was a difference between a store across from a park and a neighbor across from the park. He cited the kinds of traffic and the burden on the park. He noted that there was a 40-year amortization and that that amortization would run out in two years. The Far West Neighbors hoped to have a good inten- sive plan within those two years, he said. They would pay a heavy price if this property was zoned C-2. He felt the neighborhood would lose confidence in the City and would be discouraged in their attempt to go residential if this property was zoned commercial. All citizens who spoke against the appeal did not object to the auction center staying in its present place, but they did not want the property to be zoned commercial. e Mr. Saul noted there was no amortization on the property at present; that if it were scheduled on this property, it would be from five to forty years. Mr. Farthing, in his rebuttal, felt there would not be as much traffic at an upholstery store as there is now at the auction center. He noted that all access would be on West 11th, and there would be no use of West 10th by the property owner. He said there, was a clear distinc- tion between this application and other applications that would apply for commercial zoning. It had a history of being commercially zoned. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the findings as outlined in the staff notes and minutes of the December 12, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto, and that the appeal be denied. Mr. Lieuallen noted that in the vote for the Council, dealing with an application of zoning under the law. commercial has a range of uses: a furniture store, a or other ranges of use. the Council was He noted that hamburger stand, Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. ~ 3/12/79--11 1~5 II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING--None III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING - C.B. 1844--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Emerald Street and Nixon Street from 24th Avenue to 25th Avenue (1491)(77-62) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.R. 1845--Levying assessments for paving Corydon Lane from between Forrester Way and Tandy Turn to Tandy Turn (1040)(78-03) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by r~s. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.B. 1846--Levying assessments for storm sewer within Coraly Park First Addition (78-14) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in ~. full. ~ Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consi~eration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.R. 1847--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 18-03-16-30-2900 and 3000 on Skyline Park Loop (1586)(7831) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Oe1ay moved, seconded by r~s. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.R. 1848--Levying assessments for paving Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to 800 feet west (1490)(78-15) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present reques- ting it be read in full. - 3/12/79--12 \4b . Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.R. 1849--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way to serve Dore1la Park Subdivision (1420)(78-18) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by r~s. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. C.B. 1850--Levying assessments for paving Western Drive from Calvin Street to 70 feet west and paving Calvin Street from Western Drive to Harlow Road; and paving and sanitary sewer on Calvin Street from Harlow Road to 200 feet north of Dulles (982 & 1564) (77-48)(78-25) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing March 19, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration on March 26, 1979. The motion passed unanimously. e IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3089--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period February 26 through March 12, 19/9 was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by r~s. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3090--Authorizing initiating process for sidewalk construction on east and west sides of City View Street from Corinthian Court north to 22nd Avenue, excluding areas of existing sidewalks (1680) was ready by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3091--Authorizng initiating process for sidewalk construction on the west side of Garfield Street from 28th Avenue to 100 feet north (1680) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by r~s. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. e 3/12/79--13 147 V. ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT A. Hearings Panel Report February 19, 1979, re Zoning Board of Appeals-- Distributed .' Mr. Delay moved; seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Hearings Panel report February 19, 1979, re Zoning Board of Appeals. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. C. Adopt Findings of Fact (distributed) Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Findings of Fact re Zoning Board of Appeals from February 19, 1979. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes February 26, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to r~arch 14, 1979. ~ ') ;/~ Charles T. Henr~ ~ City Manager e CTH:BC:ml/CM12a18 e 3/12/79--14 ltt8