Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/1979 Meeting ~. M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 9, 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., April 9, 1979, in the Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. Mayor Keller recognized a request from representatives of VOICE, a group support- ing the community's vote against allowing sexual orientation to be included under the non-discrimination clause in the Human Rights ordinance. He said 10 to 15 minutes would be allotted for their presentation at Wednesday Council Meeting, April 11, 1979. I. Emerald Canal Slide Presentation Charles Porter represented the Emerald Waterways Association, Inc. He noted Lane County had enacted a resolution and the group was asking for cooperation from the City of Eugene in support of the project. e Dr. Jerome Diethelm, University of Oregon, said the proposal was to link the Amazon with the Millrace. Lane County and the Chamber of Commerce have endorsed the study. The Corps of Engineers recently appropriated a $60,000 grant to study some of the questions raised. He noted the 1990 General Update, Section 0, will include the Willamette River and other river corridors in the section under Inland Waterway Corridors. He said there seemed to be a high level of interest in the area for such a project. Several issues were identified regarding this project: urban design in Eugene, development of open park and other development around the waterway, potential to give additional structure to the city, the water runoff system, additional irrigation to farmland west of Eugene, and allowing continued development of the downtown area. The slide presentation was then given, indicating the possible location of the corridor through Eugene and its attendant benefit to the city. Manager said Council would be reenacting a prior resolution in which Council had indicated its tentative support of the project. The intent of the resolution this evening would be that some staff member would work with Lane County and this association to study the issue. Res. No. 3119--Supporting the Amazon Corridor Project was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. - 4/9/79--1 J92. II. Public Hearings A. Civic Center Project: Schematics, Budget--Materials Distributed. Manager said the presentation would deal with the schematics and cost of the project. The Council has the recommendations of the Civic Center Commission before it. Also for Council IS consideration is a recommendation from the Downtown Development Board to spend funds for foundation of the parking structure. In reviewing the history of Council action to date, he noted the Council had only acted on requesting an $18.5 million bond issue to be voted on by the voters, and authorized appointment of the architect. He said there will be several other action points for Council which were described in materials submitted. Those would come as recommendations from the Civic Center Commission. .-) Norman Pfeiffer, Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, said Council's actions on the recommendations being made this evening will have a great impact on the Performing Arts Center, which hopefully will be opened three years from now. Regarding the design process, he said the primary issue is the preservation of a two-hall concept. The plan as presently designed consists of two rooms: one large hall primarily oriented for professional/musical performances, and a small room designed primarily for speech/theater, which would be used more often by the community. The complex would consist of approximately 120,000 square feet. He said this represents a reduction from the original design of 20,000 square feet. This reduction was necessary to bring the project within the $18.5 million budget. He did not believe it possible to reduce the facility in area or activity space any further without compromising the notion of a two-hall facility. - The goals are extremely high, but the rewards to the community will be great. To achieve the goal of a two-hall facility would require some dollars in excess of the $18.5 million. There were a number of reasons cited by Mr. Pfeiffer for this outcome. The original numbers were lower than realistic to achieve these goals. The time schedule now is not the original one which resulted in increased costs because of inflation. There have been some line items for administrative costs that have to come out of the $18.5 million that were not originally anticipated. He said the choices for Council were simple: add the additional funds from the bond interest, or make major cuts in the program. He did not recommend the entire facility be reduced in size or quality. He said that Council was facing a very specific issue: obtaining additional costs to accomplish the goals it has set to obtain this facility. Other issues at stake mentioned by Mr. Pfeiffer were that the facility will be tailored both to professional and community performers. All are integral to bring vitality to Eugene that cannot be done with just one single facility. The community/professional performers' use of the facilities will complement one another. He felt this to be 4/9/79--2 .- \'\3 -, a beginning for Eugene of a very comprehensive arts/education program. He felt also this to be a catalyst for development of the downtown area, including a major hotel development. He encouraged Council to consider the recommendations before it and to accept them. - Doug Winn, Construction Manager, said this is the third step in a 16-step journey to complete the Civic Center Project. The first two steps were development of a master site plan and conceptual designs. This third step is a request for approval of the final schematic design. His construction company had worked very hard with the architects, staff, Civic Center Commission, and performing groups in the community to consolidate the program into its most functional and economical form. The program presented to the Civic Center Commission met the primary artistic requirements of the project, with the contin- gency it was not within the $18.5 million project budget. He noted they had been working steadily to try to meet that requirement. However, it was found the arts facility could not be procured for $18.5 million to incorporate everything that everyone wanted in the project. Subsequently, the Commission requested a review regarding the impact on the program if it were to stay within the $18.5 million budget. Reports made back to the Commission presented various ideas of deletions to the project, items that could be deferred, and a reduced program" to stay within the $18.5 million budget. However, the impact on the program would reduce the size of the facility and the seating capacity. The overall program would have to shrink substantially. The magnitude of the deletions were in the materials that had been distributed to Council. He noted cost verification had been completed, and referred Council to the material showing hall cost comparisons with other facilities around the country. He reiterated this is a performing arts center, not just an assembly hall. Also presented was a priority list of items to be added to the $18.5 million to make the project functional. Mr. Winn said his company had worked closely with the architects and staff to verify and to research the costs, which were based on the designs developed by the architects. . Dory McGillvary, Vice Chairperson, Civic Center Commission, said she did agree with the Eugene Register-Guard regarding objections to the price of the Civic Center project. However, she noted when the $18.5 million bond issue was placed on the ballot, the City was not working with Todd Construction or Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates. The Commission had objected to higher costs, and had worked very hard to figure out how the project could be built for $18.5 million. She was present at this evening's meeting to tell the Council that there is absolutely no way it could be done. There had been many design reviews and public hearings on the project. The Civic Center Commis- sion has worked extremely hard and has met numerous times. She reviewed the recommendations as set forth by the Civic Center Commis- sion, and requested the Council adopt those recommendations: - 4/9/79--3 1'14- Recommendation 1 Recommend to the City Council that the conceptual approval of the perform- ing arts center be reaffirmed, that final schematics be accepted and that ~ HHPA be directed to begin design development using the following criteria: 1. The large hall shall have a minimum of 2200 seats. 2. The small hall shall have special attention to assure it will work for the local users by using the following guidelines: A minimum of 500 seats Primarily frontal Mainly for speech End stage/non proscenium Audience in the same room with performer Flexibility means; quick and easy turnover and a variety of performance types a. b. c. d. e. f. 3. The parking structure is to accommodate a minimum of 225 cars. 4. That the Master Site Plan be adopted for the west block and that staff be directed to initiate the vacation of Willamette Street. 5. That concerns relating to functional and operational details be resolved thru design. And further, that these recommendations are contingent upon the City Council authorizing additional funds to accomplish these goals. Recommendation 2 - Recommend to the City Council that additional funds are necessary to: - Ensure that the high quality of materials and technique in construc- tion are maintained. - Ensure that the facilities are functionally complete and that they meet the original program concepts. Provide basic construction for spaces which require future funding from other sources. And further, that the funds required to accomplish these goals be priori- tized as follows: 1. Allocate $1,814,200 to complete the program as based upon the original concepts. 2. Allocate $115,000 for the installation of an orchestra lift in the 1 arge ha 11 . 3. Allocate $169,600 for the construction of a "shell only" rehearsal hall and circulation space. - 4/9/79--4 \<15 4. Allocate $135,700 for the construction of a "shell only" public green room space. e 5. Allocate $28,000 for the construction of a "shell only" kitchen space. 6. Allocate $91,200 for the construction of a "shell only" future retail space. She said if the facility is going to be built in the manner the City has asked, it is going to be necessary to use some of the interest money from the bonds. She urged Council's approval so the project could proceed. e Dr. Robert Loomis, Chairman, Downtown Development Board, spoke for the retailers and people who shop, trade, and work in the downtown area. He noted these people had worked hard for passage of the bond issue. It was felt the Civic Center Project in the downtown area would help increase trade in the retail area. Also, the additional parking which would be provided by this facility was an added attraction. It was assumed at the time the bond issue was presented that there would be adequate parking built for use by employees during the day, and thus many wholeheartedly endorsed the project. He ~oted the downtown area was about 1,000 parking spaces short even before the Civic Center Project started. The bond issue was endorsed by these people because they were assured that 450 parking spaces would be included in that program. Since it has become obvious that everything wished for cannot be provided by the $18.5 million, parking was one of the first items to be cut back. It is now down to 225 spaces. They did not like that, but said they could live with it. Regarding the total parking situation, the Downtown Development Board did go on record as supporting the concept of 225 spaces. The Board has budgeted $156,000 for reinforcement footings below the structure in order to add two to three more floors for parking with the provision that the facility could be leased for employee parking during the day. In addition, he said the Board had budgeted $100,000 to find more ways to provide parking spaces, to find better enforcement solutions for the present parking system, and to encourage alternative modes of transpor- tation to the downtown area. He expressed concern to the Council that it not delete the parking structure as proposed in Recommendation 1 (3). Public hearing was opened. David Sherman, 3810 Watkins Lane, spoke in favor of the additional financial support by use of the interest from the bonds. He believed it to be in the best interest of the community and professional artists. Janet Johnston, 2555 Central Boulevard, represented the Eugene Symphony Association. The Association has supported the project and the bond issue. They felt an obligation to the community to keep the costs down, but they were unwilling to compromise the quality of the facility. They see this as an opportunity to build a very fine facility. Three recommendations were given: 1) that the investment interest from the . 4/9/79--5 1'16 1(4) regarding bond issue sale be used to cover additional costs over the $18.5 million; 2) at the very least, the rehearsal hall be "shelled in" as it is a very real need; 3) if a choice has to be made between theater and parking, the Association-recommends the theater complex take 4IIJ priority over parking. She expressed appreciation to the Civic Center Commission for its time and efforts, and urged the Council to act with dispatch this evening to make the facility a reality. Ann Hicks, 2635 Chuckanut, spoke as a downtown employee. She said the City has accomplished a great deal to bring many people downtown. However, employee parking is an extremely difficult situation. Parking provided by the project during the day would alleviate some of the prob- lem, and she felt it to be a marvelous idea. She thus supported the parking recommendation, and requested it not be cut. Carol Wood, 2585 Olive, was concerned that a short-sighted approach might be taken regarding use of the additional interest money for the project. She saw use of the interest money as a good investment. She spoke in favor of development of the cultural resources as a way to make the area economically viable, ecologically and environmentally sound. She favored use of the interest money to promote the major cultural attractions. Gil Fuchs, 4395 Pinecrest, President of the Eugene Downtown Associa- tion, said his group had worked hard to get the bond issue passed because 450 parking spaces were promised. He said parking was a vital interest to all who worked downtown, and to those who supported the bond issue. They could compromise and support use of the interest money to finance the project. However, the group would not compromise on not having at least 225 parking spaces. Otto Poticha, 1820 Kona Street, had been an active supporter of the Civic Center Project, and supported moving ahead with the Project at this time. He said the community has done a great deal to get it to this point by voting for the bond issue in support of the project. He sees this as a vital and important facility for the community. As far as the parking in the downtown area was concerned, he said he could not remember any time that Eugene has had enough parking, and he felt there probably never would be a time when Eugene would have enough parking in the downtown area. He suggested the Council go on record as being committed to the 250 spaces for parking. He suggested the parking structure could be built at a late stage in the project. He felt uncomfortable with Recommendation vacation of Willamette Street. He argued against accepting this particular recommendation because he felt it had not been adequately discussed under the new schematics and noted that it had been changed from the original master plan. e Frank Geltner, 5205 Nectar Way, supported the project and noted the 15 years of work in the past on the part of the Lane County Auditorium Association. He believed the core of the project is the large hall, and expressed concern that the number of seats was reduced. He was not as concerned that the price was rising. He 4/9/79--6 . \ql . did not think the hall should be built with less than 2,500 seats, as he noted artists are not willing to book into an area for less than that number. He said the parking structure as designed is aesthetically displeasing, as there would be very little green space left and too much concrete. He did not feel parking to be a major item in the project. He felt the east side could be developed later to provide parking. Dan Childress, 767 Willamette, a member of the Downtown Develop- ment Board, felt that if the City had proposed even a $24 million bond issue, the voters probably would have approved it. However, he did feel it was unfortunate that the City found itself in the present position regarding the project. He was in favor of finding extra funds to produce the project as presented. Regarding parking, he shared the concern that there be adequate parking on the site and noted that parking is a very difficult situation in that part of town. He would like to see a parking garage designed properly and favored one that would look more like the Parcade. - Ted Hurd, 2720 Filmore, said he was for the Civic Center:Project. However, he addressed many concerns in the manner the project has developed. He spoke of honesty, integrity, commitment, professional ethics, credibility, or lack of any/all of the above. He submitted that the design has not yet been approved as reported in the Register- Guard, but that the Eugene voters approved only the cost of a civic center auditorium to cost no more than $18.5 million. He felt the voters of Eugene, by their approval of the bond issue, said they wanted a project for $18.5 million, and that was the limit. He submitted that the estimates came before the design, so he questioned that perhaps the design is inadequate. The $18.5 million was and remains an important part of the goal approved and authorized by the Eugene voters. He felt that amount of money was a pretty definite number to the voters. He said the architects were still unsure and uncertain about the details of what this money will buy. He felt the use of interest on the bond sales to be unethical, unfair, and dishonest. Any increase over the $18.5 million approved by the voters will probably be challenged in the courts, which could affect the total program. He questioned the wisdom of people who have shown to date their lack of understanding of the voters of Eugene, who said by their vote, the) wanted the project for no more than $18.5 million. He said the Council should not, and could not, in good conscience, proceed under these circumstances. He felt the City was obligated to follow the program as approved by the voters, as that was the only honest way to proceed. / Philip Berg, 2900 Harris Street, felt the project was supported by a minority of the population in Eugene. Any minority group could, with hard work, get a bond issue passed for their favorite projects. He said the voters were told the bond issue would be ample and $18.5 million would be the limit of expenditures. He did not feel the increased cost of the project could be blamed on inflation, and felt it unfair for the City to ask the taxpayers to pay for mistakes. He said the City, if it did increase the cost of the project, would be breaking faith with the taxpayers and would cause a deterioration in the credibility of the City government. _. 4/9/79--7 1~8 David Lunney, Oregon Repertory Theater, supported the Civic Center ~omm'ss'on's proposal and requested that the City proceed with the project. He felt this will be a building of international stature. However, he requested that the number of seats remain ~ at an optimum level. He said if it were necessary for the interest bond money to be used to make the best facility possible, then he felt that should be done. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith asked for clarification regarding the vacation of Willamette Street. She wondered if it were appropriate for that to be addressed now or later. Mr. Pfeiffer replied there is a contract with the City to investigate the two-block site. He said it might be best for consideration to be given to the street vacation after consideration of a possible hotel/convention complex on the other block. The Traffic Department has reviewed the two-block plan and has made their recommendations to the Civic Center Commission. He said there may be need for futher development of Willamette: 1) Whether the easterly black remains vacant, and 2) whether it is developed. Further direc- tion from the Council will be requested at a later time. Ms. Schue expressed concern that perhaps this request for $20.3 million may not be enough either to develop the project, and ques- tioned then what would the Councilor City do. Ed Smith, Civic Center Project Director, said he could give no guarantees that it would be less or more than that amount. However, he did feel very confident with the Todd Construction estimates. He said the figures are pretty firm and felt that that construction company would do the job within the estimated range. He said there were hopes for donations and had some indications from people in the community who will be willing to contribute to the project; however, he reiterated he could give no positive guarantees. . Ms. McGillvary noted for Council that Todd Construction Co. is one of the best in the state of Oregon. Manager noted for Ms. Schue that it is possible some of the interest money could be held back. He noted that under Recommendation 2 (1, 2) probably should be acted upon and authorized up to that point, which would amount to $1,930,000. It is estimated there will be approximately $2.5 million interest money available. To that extent, he said approximately $600,000 could be held back. Items 3, 4, 5, and 6 under Recommendation 2 could be dealt with in six months' time. Mr. Winn reminded Council it was proceeding under a construction management approach. Cooperation already has been ongoing with the architects to develop the estimates through the schematic designs. Each element of the design will be scrutinized closely to make sure it will come within the alloted amount of money. :~~ ~~ 4/9/79--8 rFj" ~~ ;:-.:~ ~~~it. \9'1 . Ms. Smith requested information regarding private contributions in the community, and wondered if the contributions would be used for construction under the present situation, or would be for added costs. Mr. Smith said there would be a list of the types of things for which the contributions could be used: furniture, sound equip- ment, art work, furnishing dressing rooms, sponsoring cultural/ education programs. He said the money might even be used for com- pleting some of the areas into better quality than is provided for in the budget; thus, he said, there were a variety of uses for this money. There is an organized group, the Eugene Community Foundation, which is specifically working on getting donations for the project. Mr. Delay wondered if the Council adopted Recommendation 1 (4), whether that would lock the City into that blocking with site plan. Mr. Smith said he did not think so. He said it would not be a public thoroughfare, but still would be used as a public space. He said there ware continued circulation studies that have to be completed in conjunction with the hotel development in the area. However, he noted that space would be a joint public open space between the east and west blocks. e Answering a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Pfeiffer said, under the present design, there would be a minimum of 2,200 seats in the large room. He said every attempt would be made to achieve as many seats as possible. In other projects, there have been as many as 400 more seats made available. The small hall will contain 500 seats. However, he said there would be no fewer than 2,200 seats, and it was hoped there would be more. Mayor Keller said Mr. Hurd had suggested five ingredients as to why he had high support for the project. Council has read and discussed in great detail the hard costs of the project. The result of the planning done to date suggests that the City has reached the stage where it cannot erect the facility it wants for $18.5 million. Regarding the time delays, the City made a strong commitment that citizens in the community would have an opportunity to participate in the planning. The public process resulted in the Civic Center Commission allowing for that input from the community, and perhaps that is a reason why the project is behind schedule, as well as part of the reason for the escalated cost. He was not pleased with the high cost for the project, but it has been agreed that that is what the project will cost as of today. He is convinced that, if a facility were built with 800 seats in one performing hall and 350 seats in ~ theater, ~uch a facility would incur a great debt for City of Eugene, from the operational standpoint. The City promised its citizens a quality facility, and he felt the architects had worked very hard to make sure of that quality. Further delays at this point would be ironic in view of inflation and escalating costs. He said parking is a necessity. He noted the shortage of 1,000 . 4/9/79--9 ~o parking spaces in the downtown area, and the project would provide 250 additional parking spaces. He said the City would not be building a palace, but would be providing a quality facility in the realm of what . was promised the voters. He hoped the Council would support the Civic Center's recommendation as presented tonight. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Recommen- dations 1 and 2 as presented by the Civic Center Commission, with the exceptions that Items 3, 4, 5, 6 under Recommendation 2 remain as contingency items at a later date; and authorize the design, but not authorize construction funds. Mr. Delay said he would like the project to cost only $18.5 million, but felt the bond issue has been well managed, and the interest money will pay for contingencies. Thus, he supported proceeding with the project at this time. Ms. Miller felt it was not good planning to build less than a quality facility. If less than a quality facility were built, the City might be faced with having a IIwhite elephantll that would end up not being economically feasible and might require ongoing subsidies because it would not be used nor generate revenues. She did not like people driving downtown, but they would be doing so anyway, so she felt it wise to provide parking. She also felt the project was too far along not to proceed with completion. She did express some concern about leasing out daytime parking. She noted there were more parking spaces available during the night and perhaps there would be adequate parking. Overall, she said she did not think the City had any choice but to build the project for $20.3 million, or not to build it at all. However, she said she would not have much sympathy for the next series of overruns. e Mr. Haws said he did support the project which is going to improve the arts for the community. However, he could not support putting more money into the project at this point. Mr. Haws moved to amend the motion to delete, under Recommendation 1 Item (3) which is the parking structure. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the Downtown Development Board's recommendation to appropriate $156,000 of their funds for the parking structure. 4/9/79--10 . 201 - Mr. Lieuallen hoped that through the remainder of the process the Downtown Development Board, the City, and other groups would attempt to promote alternative modes of transportation to the downtown area. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. A short recess was taken. B. Recommended Adoption of Guidelines Developed by Westside Neighborhood Quality Project (materials distributed) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission February 12, 1979 e Jim Croteau, Planner, said the City Council adopted the Westside Neighborhood Refinement Plan in September 1977. The goals and policies set forth in that plan were adopted as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan. The Plan contained recommendations which were recognized as a potential means of reaching or implementing adopted goals and policies, but were not adopted by the Council. He reviewed progress on implementation since adoption of a plan. He said among the recommendations included in the plan was one which called for monitoring the number and location of group care homes and institutional uses in the neigh- borhood. The recommendation before Council is intended to address the issue of the concentration of institutional uses in that neigh- borhood. A set of guidelines was developed by the neighborhood organization to respond to their concern regarding saturation of institutional uses in their neighborhood. The Planning Commission considered the proposed guidelines and discussion centered on several issues. The chief concern of the Planning Commission related to the problem of over-concentration or saturation of institutional uses in this area. The secondary concern voiced by the Commission concerned the effect of these institutional use guidelines would have on other neighborhoods or on a city-wide basis. Finally, the Commission recognized the proposed guidelines for institutional uses in the neighborhood as a temporary measure to be only applicable to the Westside Neighborhood. The policy recommended by the Com- mission to the Council was the following: liThe following guidelines shall be considered as a policy for the area of the Westside Neigh- borhood Quality Project Neighborhood Organization. For the purposes of these guidelines, institutional uses include churches, day nurseries, group care homes, homes for the aged, hospitals, ambulance service facilities, and nursing homes. For the purposes of these guidelines, significant site modification is defined as removal of trees and shrubery, or creation of additional on-site parking to meet parking requirements. The Commission outlined two categories: 1) uses that are consistent with the direction established for the WNQP area and can be accommodated by the neighborhood; and 2) uses that could be approved only after close scrutiny. - 4/9/79--11 zoz. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Croteau said Dr. John MacKinnon, President of the Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. David Fidanque, 952 West 10th, Vice Chairperson of the WNQP, urged ~ Council to adopt the guidelines as approved by the Planning Commis- sion. He said the major issue is the balance to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to accept its fair share of institutional uses for the city. The neighborhood feels their balance has already tilted heavily toward insititutional uses in its neighborhood. He reviewed the three basic categories as outlined by the neighborhood group, which included those two listed above, recommended by the Planning Commission. Also included was a third category: uses which cannot be accommodated within the neighborhood. He requested that the Council add the third category, which included uses that require removal of sound, rehabilitable residential structures, and uses which serve a regional function, and whose clientele are primarily drawn from throughout the city, the metropolitan area, or Lane County, to the recommendations that the Planning Commission has forwarded to Council. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison, said the guidelines were designed expressly for the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project. The guide- lines would apply only to those institutional-type uses that would require conditional use permits. These are intended as an interim guideline until the overall update of the zoning code is completed. The neighborhood does recognize the need to accommodate institutional uses in its area. Bill Uhlhorn 2625 Hilyard, Director of Eugene Emergency Housing, ~ expressed to Council the need for adequate housing for those who ~ need to live in group care facilities. He was in favor of the guidelines as presented. He felt they reflected the need for those who need group care homes and reflected the needs of the neighborhood. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Res. No. 3120--Establi~hing a policy for institutional uses in the Westside Neighborhood was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Lieuallen wondered how the Hearings Official would deal with a proposal which would require removal of a house (as outlined in Category 3, which was not being recommended for adoption). Mr. Croteau said the guidelines would be used only in consideration of institutional uses which require conditional use permits. He said such a request would be considered in conjunction with those guidelines listed in 2. In any case, he said it would be a value judgment, and the Hearings Official would take into consideration the policy objectives and goals of the Westside Neighborhood Plan. 4/9/79--12 e 203 e Mr. Lieuallen said one of the most important issues for that neigh- borhood is the maintenance of existing sound housing stock. He felt it would be important to include consideration of that issue within .the guidelines for the Hearings Official. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Uhlhorn said, under 3-B regarding regional function and whose clientele are drawn from throughout the city, the issue was a concern with hospitals and clinics. Their concern was not with social service providers. Mr. Fidanque said there is a doctor's office in the neighborhood now that is primarily for neighborhood residents. He sai'd the Organization saw a very clear distinction between that and those uses which draw a clientele from the entire metro area. Mr. Lieuallen noted the neighborhood had worked hard to maintain the zoning in the area and there had been zoning requests for uses other than just neighborhood use. He expressed the concern of the neighbors regarding increased traffic and the erosion of the character of the neighborhood. He felt those important to be addressed. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion to include under Guideline 2: Uses that require removal of sound, rehabilitable residential structures; and uses which serve a regional function and whose clientele are primarily drawn from throughout the city, the metropolitan area, or Lane County. e Mr. Lieuallen felt that retaining housing stock in the community was the most important issue. The second use to be included would give the neighborhood some protection in that institutional uses would be of a nature that are local attractors, rather than regional in nature. Ms. Miller supported including 3-A and 3-B as noted in Mr. Lieuallen's motion under Category 2 in the guidelines. This would allow sub- jecting those categories to more strict scrutiny. However, she felt it might be appropriate to separate the two for Council discussion. Ms. Schue was against inclusion of 3-B, noting the guidelines were addressed not to doctors' and dentists' offices, but group care facilities. In clarification of further discussion, Mr. Croteau said dental clinics are not permitted as an outright conditional use. Ms. Schue then said she had some concern about limiting the users of facilities if they have to leave a neighborhood. Mr. Lieuallen said he understood that was a concern of the neigh- borhood. He noted there are different levels and types of uses, i.e., alcoholic treatment centers. Those people would not neces- sarily come from the neighborhood. However, the neighborhood organization is more concerned about people who come to the neigh- borhood on a daily basis, i.e., for counseling. - 4/9/79--13 20~ Mr. Obie felt the amendment was too parochial. He noted the rest of the City has to have its share of these types of uses, too. With consent of the second, Mr. Lieuallen withdrew his motion. e. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to create a third category in the guidelines which would prevent removal or destruction of sound residential structures. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the amendment to the motion to replace Requirement 3-A under Category 2, involving destruction of homes. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Lieuallen voting no. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which passed with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Lieuallen voting no. In response to a question from Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Croteau said the primary zoning in that neighborhood is R-2, and those uses are not permitted as conditional use or outright uses. He said there was some R~3 zoning where medical clinics are permitted. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that in Guideline 2-C the word "and" be deleted and the word "or" be inserted at the end of the statement. Motion carried unanimously. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried unanimously. Because of the length of the meeting, Manager, in concurrence with the City ~ Council, postponed Items II-D--Paving Projects: Fox Hollow Road, 18th and Chambers, and Bertelsen Road; and Item II-E--Public Works Bid Awards--to the Monday, April 23 Council meeting. Item IV--Consideration of East Butte Historic Landmark Area--will be scheduled for the Wednesday, April 11 meeting. C. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning, property located east of River Road, at north end of Lombard Lane, from County RA to City R-1 (Parks/ Carlton) (A/l 78-10) Recommended by Planning Commission February 12, 1979 Annexation Vote: 4:3 Rezoning Vote: 6:1 Jim Saul, Planner, said the annexation request involved 2.58 acres. He said the principal issued raised concerning the annexation involved timing and provision of sanitary sewer service: should annexation of the property occur as part of the overall program in the River Road area when a permanent system designed to serve this and other properties would be available, or should annexation occur now under 4/9/79--14 . 2.05 e an interim system. He said the Planning Commission accepted the latter alternative. The Commission also recommended application of the R-1 district to the property instead of the R-2 zoning as requested by the applicant. Dr. MacKinnon was present to answer questions. 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. e Dr. MacKinnon noted the split vote regarding the annexation of this property. He said when annexation changes come before the Commission, certain criteria are used to determine whether or not annexation is appropriate, i.e., logical extension of city boundaries and city services available, etc. He said this partic- ular annexation met with all the criteria except whether sewers could be provided. The Planning Commission felt it would be inconsis- tent to deny this annexation request, based on the fact that no permanent sewer system plan is available because other annexations had been approved where sewers could not be provided immediately. He noted the applicant would be responsible for additional sewer costs. Gary Parks, 2348 Willona Park, applicant, was willing to pay for sewers that needed to be put in at the present time and any future sewers. He was available to answer questions. Arthur Erickson, 1470 East Briarcliff Lane, and Howard Ditlock, Briarcliff Lane, spoke in favor of the annexation. Mr. Erickson noted a concern regarding access to the property across Briarcliff Lane, as he said it is completely unimproved. Both men spoke in favor of the R-1 zoning. Res. No. 3121--Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of property located east of River Road, at north end of Lombard Lane 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 February 12, 1979, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. . 4/9/79--15 2~ C.R. 1864--Rezoning from County RA to City R-1 property located east of River Road, at north end of Lombard Lane was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present request i ng 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 February 12, 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. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18370. F. New Liquor license Outlet: Court Sports Too, 4242 Commerce (R~B) Manager noted all papers were in order for the new liquor license outlet. The conditions outlined for the proposed liquor license outlet were that the new building, which is under construction, meet Fire Code and Building Certificate of Occupancy. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. I Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OlCC recommendation for approval, subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie abstaining. - III. Ordinances for Second Reading--None IV. Ordinances for First Reading A. levying assessments and referring to Hearings Panel April 16, 1979 C.B. 1865--levying assessments for paving alley between 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue from Lawrence Street to Lincoln Street; and between Lawrence Street and Lincoln Street from 10th Avenue to between 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue (1438)(78-08) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. 4/9/79--16 . 2.01 e C.B. 1866--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Seychelles West II Subdivision (1359)(78-17) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1867--Levying assessments for paving Hapy Lane within Great Heron Subdivision (1533)(78-23) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1868--Levying assessments for paving south side of 5th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to 320 feet west (1613)(78-35). 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1869--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Doveri's Plat (1336)(78-37) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1870--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in 13th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to approximately 700 feet east (1686)(78-67) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. . 4/9/79--17 208 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. - C.B. 1871--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in Jessen Drive from Melrose Loop to 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 bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1872--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Hickory Avenue from Sweet Gum Lane to Garden Way (448)(78-19) 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 fi rst time and be referred to Heari ngs Panel for heari ng April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1873--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within and adjacent to Keeston Terrace Subdivision (1435)(78-42) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. - C.B. 1874--Levying assessments for sidewalk on Lindley Lane adjacent to Tax Lots 804, 851, and 839, Map No. 17-03-33-12 (1521)(78-70) 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 April 16, 1979, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration April 23, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. 4/9/79--18 . z.o~ V. Resolutions - Res. No. 3124--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period March 26 through April 9, 1979, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adopt Findings of Fact No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. However, Mr. Delay noted he had been contacted by the Dahls, but had declined discussing the issue. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's Office, said it would require a two-thirds vote of the entire Council to open the matter for public hearing. She said the Council had previously acted on the item February 12, 1979; however, some interested parties had not been notified of that meeting. Subsequently, all interested parties had been notified and the item had been rescheduled for this evening's action. Manager noted Council's receipt of the Hearings Panel minutes from January 15, 1979, regarding the issue, as well as the findings of fact attached to the agenda. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to open the item for public hearing. Motion carried, with all Councilors voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. e Mayor Keller indicated he would allot five minutes to each side for presentation. Public hearing was opened. Judith Tegger, 101 East Broadway, spoke for A & X, Inc. She entered pictures into the record regarding the property. She said the pro- posed development was for a two-story duplex. The Hearings Panel had granted the variance in January. This granting of the variance would not create a special privilege for the property owner. The proposed structure would address the infilling housing goal for the city and would provide needed housing stock. The structure would be compatible with the neighborhood. She did not go into greater detail, as she said lengthy presentation had been made before the Hearings Panel and the Council did have those minutes. Marcia Petersen, 1075 Sharon Way, said if the variance were granted, a duplex would be built. It would create a hindrance for the Dahls and the Carrolls, who would suffer loss of property value, loss of parking, trees, and privacy. If it were granted, Mr. McGregor, who owns the property, would gain very much at the expense of the Dahls. - 4/9/79--19 210 Mary Donato, 1870 Washington, was a concerned taxpayer. She felt the applicant.was requesting special privilege and was concerned that if 18th were widened, she, as a taxpayer, would have to pay for the expense of having the house removed. - Harold Gillis, 975 Oak, attorney representing the Dahls and Carrolls, objected to the short time allotted by the Council for presentation of the case. He would prefer deferring the issue to a later time. The matter is on appeal at the State level and he felt it would be best to defer any action by the Council until that appeal has been decided. He noted A & X had been denied the variance several times before. The Zoning Board had denied the request, and he felt the Council should defer to its own created board and wait until the courts have made a decision on the pending appeal. He contended that Mr. McGregor knew he could not build on the lot when he bought it, as it is a very small lot. He spoke to bike and traffic problems and a visual problem. He did not feel the applicant should be given special consideration by granting the variance. Ms. Tegger, in her rebuttal, said if the Council were going to consider overturning the Hearings Panel decision, she requested Council not do so tonight, but rather grant an opportunity for the parties involved to make a full presentation at a later date. She felt the Council should defer to the Hearings Panel decision and adopt the findings of fact. Mr. Delay noted for the parties involved that this was a courtesy extended by the Council that is not normally extended. He said the full record had been received by the Council. Mr. Haws was opposed to granting the variance. He referred to page 2 of 4It the January 15 Hearings Panel's minutes, in which it was stated that Mr. McGregor knew when he bought the lot of the physical hardship presented. He felt granting a variance would give the applicant a special privilege. He also supported having a single residence on the lot. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Hearings Panel minutes January 15, 1979. Motion carried, with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Obie voting no. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt Findings of Fact from Hearings Panel meeting January 15, 1979. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Haws and Obie voting no. VII. Approval of Minutes Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes March 26, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to April 11, 1979. ~Helr~ City Manager e CTH:DT:jm/CM8a9 2../1 4/9/79-2,0