Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/1979 Meeting . , M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 26, 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., November 26, 1979, Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Scott Lieua11en, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Mayor welcomed Scout Troup #6 to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezonings 1. Property located north of Bailey Lane, east of the eastern terminus of Ca1 Young Road from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (A1 Moore) (Z 79-25) (map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission October 2, 1979. Vote 6:0 e Mr. Saul, Planner, said that the area involved is little more than one-half acre in size. The property is currently developed with two single-family units. If approved, a maximum of ten living units could be constructed on the property. The rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and policies adopted in the T-2000 Plan which encourage concentration of multi-family development along major corridors. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were expressed by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2031--Authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District for property located north of Bailey Lane, east of the eastern terminus of Cal Young Road was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting that 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 October 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. 11/26/79--1 bZ2. . . Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present e voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18533. 2. Property located on the south side of Centennial Boulevard directly across the west end of Centennial Loop from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District and PL Public Land to C-2 Community Commercial District and a change of sign district from Residential to Outlying Commercial Sign District. (Eugene Planning Commission) (Z 79-26) (map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission October 2, 1979. Vote 5:0 Mr. Saul, Planner, said that this property is the only remaining property in the area which has not been rezoned for commercial use. The Planning Commission initiated the rezoning on its own motion. The R-3 portion is presently developed with a contractor's business. He noted that the recommended change does include a change in the sign district designation to Outlying Commercial Sign District since the requests is for Commercial zoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were indicated by Council members. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2032--Authorizing reoning from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District e and PL Public Land to C-2 Community Commercial District and change of sign district from Residential to Outlying Commercial Sign District for property located on the south side of Centennial Boulevard directly across from the west end of Centennial Loop was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting that 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 October 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. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18534. e 11/26/79--2 ,~ . B. Appeal of Planning Commission Action to Uphold Planning Director's e Approval for Tentative Subdivision for Property Located on the West Slope of Laurel Hill Valley Having Frontage Along Riverview Drive and Bristol Avenue (East Slope Subdivision) (S 79-15) (map distributed) Denied by Planning Commission October 22, 1979. Vote 7:0 Mr. Saul, Planner, said that the two tax lots are some 650 feet in depth. Approval of the subdivision would result in the creation of 13 lots of this three-plus acre site. The appeal before the Planning Commission alleged that the subdivision should be denied because it was not appropriate in laurel Hill Valley. There was particular emphasis on the requirement for additional dedication and an improve- ment petition on Bristol Avenue. The Planning Commission did unani- mously deny the appeal and both the original findings and the minutes were distributed to the Council. The present appeal requests that Bristol Avenue be maintained at the present 30-foot right-of-way. Mr. Saul indicated that Bristol Avenue is designated as a residential street with a 50-foot right-of-way. That designation was adopted by City Council in 1968 by ordinance. Ms. Miller wanted to know the implications of the extra right-of-way and the improvement petition, whether it will immediately lead to further paving. Mr. Saul responded that the Bristol Avenue right-of- way of 30 feet was established a number of years ago when the property was in the County. The City, if development occurs, would require dedication of the additional right-of-way to bring it to a total right-of-way width of 50 feet. It would be a gradual process as e properties develop and the City would not initiate any action until there were petitions for at least 50 percent of the affected frontage. In those instances where right-of-way had been acquired through dedi- cation, there would be no purchase by the City. In other instances, and assuming the City wished to acquire additional right-of-way, it would have to enter into negotiations and actually purchase from the other owners. Before the City can approve a subdivision or minor partition, it is required to make a written finding either that the street providing certain access is already improved to standards, or that a petition has been submitted. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were expressed by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Bartell, 2265 Floral Hill Drive, said his property is adjacent to and abuts Bristol Avenue. He said there seems to be a unanimity among residents that Bristol should be kept at 30 feet wide. The majority of people have property fronting on Bristol. The feeling is that Bristol is more of an alley and the residents see Floral Hill as the primary usage street. e 11/26/79--3 6ZQ . Mr. Don Sproed, 2105 Bristol, is opposed to the widening because e if development occurs there will be three residences with no yard left at all. Harold Hoy, 2011 Bristol, said that his house would be very close to the road if it were widened. He feels this type of change is unfair for residents whose houses that were built when the Code was different. It would also be unsafe for children. Clyde Raven, 1840 Augusta, representative of the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, said that Bristol Avenue will never be a major street. There is no need for Bristol Avenue to have 28-foot paving, plus setback, plus sidewalks. He said in a general sense, however, the neighborhood is not opposed to development. Rick Kelso, 3193 West 14th, representing the developers of the subdivision, said that their plans conform with City Code. The maximum amount of housing lots per acre are designed, which is five in the south hills subdivision. Mr. Saul said the situation is unusual in that the appeal involves the width of Bristol Avenue. He noted that Mr. Raven had indicated there had been discussion of Bristol Avenue as a major thoroughfare. Mr. Saul has no knowledge of development of that street as a major thoroughfare. The properties to the north on Bristol Avenue have not submitted development applications. They could be submitted in the future, but that has not occurred. Until it does, the street will not ~ be improved. The decision is whether to pursue the necessary dedication now or in the future. He believes the proper course of action is leaving future options open by ensuring the necessary dedication now. Ms. Miller was concerned with the fact that Bristol is a gravel alleyway which dead-ends at some undetermined point. It appears to her that this is a case where the City is being hamstrung by its own standards, and she would like to go over some changes at some point which would provide more options in cases such as these. She also mentioned that the map shows a ten-foot pedestrian right-of-way going from Bristol Avenue to the land the City owns and wonders whether the right-of-way should go down to Sylvan. Mr. Saul said his understanding was that the pedestrian right-of-way was reviewed by Public Works. What was designated as Tax Lot 1001 is owned by the City for right-of-way purposes. What was required was a right-of-way to get from Bristol to the existing right-of-way. Ms. Schue wondered if there was a plan to improve the pedestrian walkway, and Mr. Saul said that the improvement would be required as an overall improvement in the subdivision. Mr. Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, said there have been some attempts to develop a connection between Laurel Hill and Riverview. It seems logical that, if part is to be developed as a subdivision, the City could consider carrying it on down between e hl5 11/26/79--4 , e Bristol and Sylvan. Council could consider that option at the next budget period. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to deny the appeal and adopt findings of fact. Motion carried unanimously. C. Condominium Conversion Moratorium Ordinance Manager presented background on why the ordinance was being considered for action and described briefly its contents. He mentioned that action approving the ordinance would stop all condominium conversions until June 1, 1980. Public hearing was opened. Wickes Beal, 712 East 16th, member of Aging Commission, would like. the ordinance to contain some measure of protection for tenants of the buildings being considered for conversion. She wishes to insure that there would not be any harrassment for those tenants, such as rent increases. She said that the State Commission on Aging just passed a resolution requesting the City Council to approve the morator- ium and protect the tenants. She requests that any testimony previously given be made a part of the record of this meeting and the ordinance, and that all documents filed become a part of that record. She is e expressing the wishes of the Aging Commission and also the position of United Seniors, the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Area Agency on Aging, and others. Steve Skipton, 1185 McLean, employed with the Senior Law Service, said he had earlier submitted written material. He requests those materials be made a part of the record as well. He urges passage of the moratorium since it would allow further time for study and to draft a permanent regulation, if found necessary, and prevent immediate conversion of the Willamette and Patterson towers. During the study time it will be possible for those concerned to more clearly frame the issues involved and deal with them in a more consistent manner. The Council and staff can benefit from experiences and research from other cities across the country. Mr. Skipton said that with the moratorium there will be no further erosion of the housing supply and no displacement of those at a time when there are few, if any, realistic housing options. He prefers the present form of the ordinance and would further recommend that Council direct staff to amend the ordinance to include protections against harassment for certain groups if the need should arise in the future. The Council should not let its attention thus far be in vain and should not allow any future action to become meaningless because of failure to act now. Ruth Shepherd, 1765 East 26th, commended the Council for dealing with the issue. Several Patterson Tower residents were concerned e at the last meeting about statements made regarding a need for further 11/26/79--5 ~2~ . condominium development to keep a balance. Ms. Shepherd related e statistics showing the number of condominiums planned in the area and in summary said that there is a possible 2,000+ units being contemplated. Wesley Nicholson, 1040 Ferry, resident of the Eugene Manor, said he came to Eugene in 1943 and valued the public attitude here as one which recognizes human values. He alluded what he considers to be a most important part of the ordinance which states that the negative effects of condominium conversions are serious and particularly acute in areas such as this with low rental vacancy rates. The negative 'effects include forced displacement of those renters unable or unwill- ling to purchase condominium units from the owner, a disporportionate burden on older, handicapped, or low-income renters, exacerbation of rental unit shortages, and a short-term and possible long-term increase in housing costs and rents. The scale on which the dis- placement occurs is more significant in large structures than in small ones. He would be greatly disappointed if the tradition of emphasis on human values was not carried forward at this time. Eve Horn, Patterson Towers, referred to the classified section of the Sunday Register-Guard which showed that most of the available rental units were located in neighboring towns. Whether those that are available in the city of Eugene would be suitable is another question. She therefore urges a moratorium for an intensive study toward protecting Eugene from the power of international investors. Carl Johnson, Patterson Towers resident, came to Eugene in 1935. e He is surprised that no one has mentioned the close relationship between the U of 0 and Patterson Towers. Presumably, the University provides one-seventh of the wealth and the University and Patterson Towers students and faculty are one-seventh of the population. He said that many retirees enjoy the activities of the University and would ask Council to consider the relationship to the University and to them all. Mr. John Simonet, 587 Blair, property owner on Shore Lane, favors assistance to seniors, but he said they have enjoyed freedoms in the past and now they want to restrict someone else's freedoms. He feels that, if the government wants to help, they should not make an individual land owner personally suffer a loss. If the moratorium should pass, rental management companies would be reluctant to rent to people over 62. A suggested solution to the moratorium problem is to let the government, through taxation, buy apartments and make them into low-cost housing, or have the City buy the condominiums and do the same thing, or relax the zoning laws and let free enterprise work it out. Wayne Johnson, 731 Foothill Drive, said he has built many apartment units in Eugene. He feels there have been 16 years of blunders in the housing market in Eugene. He also feels the moratorium will last more than six months. He definitely feels that it is the wrong direction to go. e 0D 11/26/79--6 , e Steve Janik, Portland attorney, representing the people converting the Willamette and Patterson Towers, said the conversion is complete on the Willamette Towers and nearing completion on the Patterson Towers. It will impose a considerable financial burden on the owners. He submitted that, under statewide land use goal number two, this process will lead to an ordinance that cannot sustain review. Under that goal a city is required to give affected persons understandable notice by mail sufficiently in advance of a hearing to allow a person time to review. The goal also provides that the plan is required to cover the issues. Nowhere are those things articulated in this ordinance. He also said that necessary inventories are contained. Also, necessary alternatives are not evaluated. He would submit that materials cannot be submitted that have not been brought before the public. He feels Council should be concerned because their authority is derived from the Charter, State statutes, and the general delegation of police powers. Nowhere does the ordinance have the authority to regulate the form by which properties may be owned. Nowhere in the state statutes or under police power delegation does council have that authority. He said that every court that has faced the issue on regulating the form of ownership has concluded that it is not possible to do so. While the use can be regulated, there is no authority to regulate forms of ownership. He said Council is requesting a freeze, not because there is a problem now, but because there might be one in the future. He does not fault anyone for concern for the seniors, saying that his clients have engaged in relocation assistance to deal with the matter. He noted there has been a nine-percent increase in e the housing stock in the Eugene-Springfield area in the last year. With this moratorium, not one single low-income unit will be built in the cityw Some people will perhaps be deprived of using their GI bill which will run out at the end of the year; plus home ownership will be prohibited to those wanting to live in a condominium. He also added that condominium conversion of the two buildings will mean an upgrading of the facilities. If conversion does not take place, they will have to be upgraded anyway and the rents may ultimately be increased. He pointed out that there are very few places where someone may own a home for as little as $30,000-plus. The average single-family dwelling is selling for between $70,000 and $75,000 on the open market. He said that, of 92 tenants at Willamette Towers, 43 have indicated an interest in buying, 33 others have relocated on their own, without requesting assistance, 3 have taken up the owner's offer for relocation assistance, and 13 have moved out for other reasons. In summary, therefore, there does not seem to be a need for a moratorium. He mentioned that serious lega' consequences could follow if the Council passes such a moratorium. He submitted for the record the basis for data on the housing market, the memo of law, and the price list for the Willamette Towers. e 11/26/79--7 b2.8 , Robert Linz, 1321 Paige Avenue, said that, if the ordinance passes, e the City would probably be sued for financial damages. Units wi 11 be removed from the marketplace that people could purchase, and the housing stock will not be supplemental either. He feels the most unfortunate part is the moral issue; the question of affordable housing for seniors, handicapped, etc., cannot be addressed successfully with a moratorium. The only thing that will address this problem is Joint Housing Committee action to increase the number of low-cost housing units. He indicated that no developer will build additional units with this moratorium in effect. His objection is not the intent, but rather the way it is written. The owners will raise the rents immediately to compensate for the fact that they are losing money every day that they are unable to convert. Mr. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th, hqs constructed units over the years that rent to approximately 90 percent elderly. He said he has no intention of converting his units, but he can also see that any time a profit is limited, the demand for that product will increase two to three times over. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, felt that probably a complete moratorium is the only way to go, but she submitted amendments to the Council for consideration. She further commented that in Beaverton, a moratorium was thrown out. She called to find out the basis for refusal and she was told that the ordinance was so vague it was not possible to tell to whom it applied. City Manager said that any legal questions regarding Ms. Niven's e proposals would need to be addressed. Ms. Smith said that, if Council takes action on the moratorium tonight, she would suggest that Ms. Niven's amendments be considered by the Joint Housing Committee later and incorporated into the ordinance if so desired. Mr. Haws agreed, saying he would like the staff to look at them later. Mr. Obie wondered about limiting the time of the moratorium to April 1, 1980. City Manager responded that the Attorney's office feels that three months is not enough time to research and review. At the end of Section 2(a) he also wanted to change the word "and" to "or." In Section 3, which states that "condominium conversions for which written consent of 80 percent of all tenants . . . II he wanted to change the 80 percent to a smaller percentage. Manager said the reason for that figure is to ensure that there is a minimum amount of displacement. Mr. Lieuallen responded that, if the 80 percent figure were used in a permanent ordinance, it would be a different matter requiring more scrutiny. He felt a need to have a high percentage during the period of the moratorium to insure the status quo as much a s po s sib 1 e. Mr. Lieuallen also said he assumed that the Joint Housing Committee will move quickly to study the issue thoroughly. If it takes less than six months, he would assume that the moratorium would e 11/26/79--8 102.9 - .. e be lifted sooner. He feels staff should be given enough time, however, to adequately address the issues. Mrs. Smith said her inclination would be to lower the percentage somewhat from 80 percent. Ms. Schue agreed with Mr. Lieuallen to leave the time period at six months and wondered if there would really be a way to finish up in less than six months. CB 2030--An ordinance relating to the conversion of apartment buildings to condominiums; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Mr. Lieuallen felt that the ordinance should pass as presented. He thought that Ms. Niven's suggested amendments could be considered later. He also has strong feelings about the possibility of rent control and feels that needs to be watched closely. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion to change all dates of June 1, 1980, on page 10 of the ordinance, e to April 1, 1980. Mr. Obie said that he wants to take the posture that the City is creating an uncomfortable position for many and action should move quickly. Mr. Delay said he supports a three-month period, and Mr. Lieuallen thinks that the process should not be hastened too much. The City is already overburdened by pressing issues. Shortening the time is really political compromise, he said. Mayor Keller pointed to an earlier instance several years ago where Council rushed headlong into a six-month moratorium on the Goodpasture Island matter and, because of the complexity, the moratorium lasted a year or longer. City Attorney Stan Long said the six-month period would be the maximum recommended period. If the deadline is shortened, Council must recognize that it will be displacing some other work. Vote was taken on the motion which failed, Ms. Smith, Mr. Haws, and Mr. Obie voting aye, and Mr. Haws, Mr. Delay, Mr. Lieuallen, Ms. Schue, and Ms. Miller voting no. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to change the word lIandll to lIorll at the end of Section 2(a) on page 12. e 11/26/79--9 ~30 ~ .. Ms. Miller felt uneasy about that suggested change~ saying that - there would be dangerous possibilities if people are only required to demonstrate one hardship requirement. Mr. lieuallen does not think it relaxes the hardship requirements but rather creates more opportunities to appeal. He wants to give the Council more discretion. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, Mr. Obie, Mr. Hamel, Ms. Smith, Mr. Haws, Mr. Delay, and Mr. lieuallen voting aye, and Ms. Miller and Ms. Schue voting nay. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to change 1180 percentll to 1166 percent 11 in Section 3(a) on page 12. Mr. Obie felt that two-thirds seems an adequate amount. Ms. Miller was not sure what written consent would consist of. City Attorney said that the purpose of that section was that there may be situations where individuals do not wish to purchase the unit but favor conversion. He noted the second sentence said that consent must be filed with the City Manager and accompanied by a sworn st9tement. Mr. lieuallen said he would vote against that amendment, though not in principle. The section seems to be another safety valve and he also does not know what the effect would be of reducing the percentage to 66 percent. Vote was taken on the motion which failed, Mr. Hamel, Ms. Smith, Mr. Haws, and Mr. Obie voting aye, Ms. Miller, Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Delay, and Ms. Schue voting no, and Mr. Keller breaking the tie by voting no. e On the main motion, Mr. Haws suggested not passing the ordinance because it deals with an economic issue and Council should not interfere with the situation. He feels Council should look at social kinds of things it might do to alleviate the situation. Ms. Schue felt the Council does many things already that have economic implica- tions. She feels this is the best tool to use right now. Ms. Miller does not view passage as anti-condominium conversion, but rather an attempt to see if there is a way to provide more adequate housing and alleviate displacement. She also cautioned that people should not feel their problems have been solved by action taken. Mr. Keller noted that Council has an obligation to do the best it can. Mr. lieuallen said that he knows the community can find many creative approaches to the problem. He feels there is an infusion needed of human and social values. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. - 11/26/79--10 fo31 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved e and given final passage. All Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18535. II. MOTION TO NOT AWARD PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR SANITARY SEWER CONTRUCTION IN AREA FROM HENDERSON AVENUE TO GLENWOOD BOULEVARD, AND BETWEEN JUDKINS ROAD AND GLENWOOD DRIVE AND TO DEFEAT COUNCIL BILL 2018 (memo distributed) City Manager said there will be time for new hearings and other time to testify. Mayor Keller told those present that, if they have grave concerns at this time, they should discuss them with the Public Works Department. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith to not award public works contract for a sanitary sewer to serve area from 160 feet east of Henderson Avenue and between Judkins Road and 160 feet south of Glenwood Drive (Job No. 960) and to defeat Council bill 2018 authorizing acquisition of easements. Motion carried unanimously. I I I. RESOLUTION A. Payment of bills and claims e Res. No. 3275--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period November 14, 1979, through November 26, 1979, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to November 28, 1979. Ch~) ~~ City Manager CTH:DP:sp/CM8b15 e 11/26/79--11 b32..