Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1980 Meeting e e e .. M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL January 28, 1980 Adjourned meeting from January 23, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, January 28, 1980, at 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Jack Delay was absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezonings 1. Property located east of Bailey Hill Road between West 11th Avenue and West 18th Avenue from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2/SR Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with Site Review Procedures (L.C. Jarna in) (Z 79-31) Map distributed. Recommen e approva by P annlng ommlSSlon Decem er 4, 979. Vote 6:0 Manager referred to material distributed and noted that this matter had received a hearing before the Planning Commission on December 4, 1979, and was unanimously approved (6:0). He intro- duced Bill French of the Planning staff and Adrienne Lannom of the Planning Commission. Mr. French described the parcel located on the east side of Bailey Hill Road. He said that since this rezoning is in conformance with the 1990 Plan and the Eugene Goals and Policies, the staff supports the rezoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2059--Authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2/SR Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with Site Review Procedures for property located east of Bailey Hill Road between West 11th Avenue and West 18th Avenue. 1/28/80--1 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the findings supporting the rezonings as set forth in the Planning Commission ~ staff notes and minutes of December 4, 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 carried unani- mously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18557. 2. Property located on the west side of Oak Street between 5th and 6th avenues from M-2 Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial District, and a change in sign district from Industrial to Pedestrian- Auto (Slocum-Smith Rents) (Z 79-32) (Map distributed) Manager referred to the materials distributed and noted that this matter received a hearing before the Planning Commission on December 4, 1979, and was unanimously approved (6:0). He intro- duced Greg Byrne of the Planning staff. Mr. Byrne described the parcel and said in consideration of existing services, this rezoning is in conformance with the 1990 Plan and the Eugene Goals and Policies. The staff therefore supports the rezoning. e 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. CB 2060--Authorizing rezoning from M-2 Industrial District to C-2 Community Commercial District, and a change in sign district from Industrial to Pedestrian-Auto for property located on the west side of Oak Street between 5th and 6th avenues. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 4, 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 carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18558. e 1/28/80--2 e e e B. *(Mr. Lieuallen apologized for being asleep at the switch. He asked about the rezoning at 5th and 6th (Slocum Request). He said Whiteaker Council through their land use committee has raised some questions. Their concern as stated in a letter the entire Council received, is that whatever development occurs there it be consistent with the special district and with the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. The C-2 zoning allows quite a wide variety and they do not want incompatible uses to occur. When a specific use is proposed for the property, Mr. Lieuallen asked, will there .be reviews by the Historic Review Board, will the staff apply the special district notions, and will the refinement plan be the special matrix that is set down? Mr. Byrne said the change to C-2 would not require a review by the Historic Review Board or review by property owners within the special district, or with regard to the Whiteaker Refinement Plan as that plan calls for a mixed-use area with an emphasis on the special district. Special district zoning was considered by staff and by the Planning Commission for the area and it was decided that it was not appropriate for a variety of reasons. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the full range of uses was available to the developer and Mr. Byrne replied yes. It would be impractical to apply the special district standards to th i s property.) Code Amendments 1. Amendment to Section 9.308-9.310 (RA Suburban Residential District) and Section 9.322-9.324 (R-l Single-Family Residential District) of the Eugene Code, 1971, to permit duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes as outright uses in those zoning districts, subject to certain conditions and related amendments (CA 79-1) (Ordinance distributed) Manager noted this item concerning duplex, triplex, and four-plex uses had been before the Council previously. Originally, it applied to old as well as new subdivisions. The current proposal is for new subdivisions of ten or more lots approved after passage of this amendment. The amendment has been considered in depth by the Planning Commission at various times and is a part of the City's growth management program to achieve more compact urban growth. The most recent action by the Planning Commission was taken December 4, 1979, with a unanimous vote of approval (6:0). Manager introduced Bill Sloat and Jim Farah of the Planning Department. Mr. Sloat said the duplex, triplex, four-plex amendment, also known as the RA/R-l amendment, would this time apply to only new subdivi- sions with lots of 10,000 square feet or more. It would allow duplexes on 10,000-square-foot lots, triplexes on 15,000-square- foot lots, and four-plexes on 20,000-square-foot lots. The . amendment requires two parking spaces per unit with parking spaces separated by landscaping. It requires height limitations in the first 20 feet next to adjacent development, a height limitation of 1/28/80--3 one-and-one-half stories. The amendment has received high priority status in the growth management study and was recommended for ... approval by the Joint Housing Committee and the Planning Commission. .., Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2061--an ordinance concerning duplex, triplex, and four-plex regulations; amending section 9.310, 9.322, 9.324, 9.534, 9.550, 9.586, and 9.592 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Obie asked for the reasons behind the particular lot sizes. Mr. Sloat replied that originally the required lot sizes were greater. With the goal of compact urban growth, it was discovered that over the past few years, 10,000-square-foot lots for duplexes are satisfactory. Mr. Obie said in Springfield, a duplex can be built on a 6,000-square-foot lot. He would like to see Eugene consider using smaller lot sizes than 10,000 square feet, possibly 6,000 or 8,000 square feet. He asked how livable a 6,000-square- foot lot would be. Mr. Farah replied that the questions Mr. Obie was asking could be part of the Code update and could be handled by Code modifications at a later date. Staff would like to move ahead in small increments ~ as these changes can be handled within the existing Code. Mr. Obie feared they would not get back to addressing this problem. He urged a two-week study with return to the Council of the amendment. Ms. Schue felt staff came to this meeting with the feeling this was the most they could attain at this time. The Joint Housing Committee expected opposition. She said she would support the smaller lot size, assuming citizen support and adequate research. Ms. Smith pointed out that a change in lot size would send the amendment back to Joint Housing and the Planning Commission. She recommended voting on this amendment with Council recommendation to Joint Housing and the Planning Commission that they consider smaller lot sizes. Ms. Miller felt it was appropriate to vote on the present amendment and ask staff to return with some additional information on lot sizes, answering such questions as--what sorts of development can be put on the lot size and how a house looks when it is on a lot. She urged passage of the amendment before the upcoming construction season. e 1/28/80--4 e Mr. Obie agreed with Ms. Millerls suggestion. Mayor said the Council would proceed with the amendment and ask for an update at the last meeting in March. The motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18559. Mr. Lieuallen asked questions concerning I-A-2. See I-A-2* in the minutes. 2. Amendment to Sections 9.694 and 9.722 of the Eugene Code, 1971, providing for performance contracts in conjunction with approved conditional use permit and site review applications (CA 79-3) (Ordinance and Resolution distributed) Manager explained that in the past the conditional use permit has involved the use of contracts. This was not written into the Code. Site Review had no contract. The City's enforcement of these matters was difficult. He introduced Mr. Sloat and Mr. Farah. e , Mr. Sloat said thi s was a fmi nor housekeepi ng amendment. It woul d provide clear language in the Code in conditional use contracts, site review, and aid in enforcement. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 2074--an ordinance concerning performance contracts; amending sections 9.694 and 9.722 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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 was passed unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18560. Res. No. 3302--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute ' performance contracts governing development occurring under planned unit development, conditional use permit, and site review procedures; and repealing Resolutions No. 1656 and 1862. e 1/28/80--5 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e C. Request for Historic Landmark Designation for the Masonic Cemetery and Hope Abbey Mausoleum, located at 25th Avenue and University Street (H 79-3) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by Hlstoric Revlew Board November 15, 1979. Manager said this request for Historic Designation for the Masonic Cemetery and Hope Abbey Mausoleum had been reviewed and approved unanimously by the Historic Review Board in November. He introduced Ms. Judith Rees. Ms. Rees said the Historic Review Board is recommending Landmark Designation on the basis of five criteria, based on Section 2.407 of the City Code. These criteria are its antiquity, its relation to cultural history, its identification with significant persons in the community, its style of architecture (Mausoleum), and the inclusions in the statewide register of significant sites and building. Both the Cemetery and the Mausoleum have been recommended by the State Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation for inclusion in the National Register. There is also a basalt column marking the first Eugene school at the northwest corner of the Cemetery. The designation will not affect the uses under current zoning designation or sign code, for that property. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by the ~ Councilors. ~ Staff notes and minutes were entered into the records. Public hearing was opened. Murray Adams, Masonic Lodge 11, was in favor of the designation. He said the first Governor of Oregon and the first President of the University of Oregon were buried there. There are no permanent funds to provide for the upkeep of the Cemetery. He is in favor of the Historic Designation. There being no further testimony presented, public hearing was closed. CB 2062--An ordinance designating the Masonic Cemetery and Hope Abbey Mausoleum as historic landmarks within the city of Eugene, Oregon. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the findings supporting the historic designation as set forth in Historic Review Board staff notes and minutes of November 15, 1979, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second e 1/28/80--6 e 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. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18561. D. Appeal of Zone Change Request Denied by Planning Commission for Property Located at the Northeast Corner of Arthur Street and 12th Avenue from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to RP/SR Residential Professional District with Site Review Procedures (Mohler-Farris) (Z 79-33) (Map distributed) Denied by Planning Comm~ssion December 4, 1979. Manager explained that this application was denied by the Planning Commission at its meeting December 4, 1979, by a vote of 3:3, which is no action. If Council approves the appeal it wi 11 go back to the Planning Commission. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commis- sion, no further action is needed. He introduced Mary Briggs. e Ms. Briggs explained the property is at the northeast corner of Arthur Street and contains three tax lots which total 25,600 square feet. The development on the property includes two single-family residences and one duplex. Property to the north is C-2. Property to the east is RP/SR. Property to the west is parking and office use and property to the south is residential development. She referred to the staff notes of December 4 and pointed out that a previous zone change request for part of this property had been denied. 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 open. Testifying in favor of the zone change: Jim McAlexander, 310 Garfield, representing the applicant, presented exhibits on what is proposed for the property and said they were asking for a tie-breaking vote not a reversal of a Planning Commission decision. The property is surrounded by commercial development. The auto body shop and the ambulance service are not conducive to neighbor- hoods. RP development requires the same amount of open space as R-1. All parking is off the alleys. He presented an aerial photograph showing those neighbors in favor of the zone change. He explained. that they had been unsuccessful in working with the neighborhood e 1/28/80--7 I, association. Mr. Mohler and Mr. Farris are long-time residents of the neighborhood not just developers that have come into the area. He ... feels that this change would be a positive factor for the neighborhood. ,., He feels the change complies with the 1990 Plan of medium density and would serve as a buffer zone. He pointed out the need for low-cost office space. He said the ambulance and body shop would endorse the zone change. Joyce Fessenbecker, 90159 Baker, Elmira, explained that within the last year an apartment complex has been constructed to the west of the property. That change has affected this property. She said the area cannot stay the same. She noted the poor rental history and the transient nature of the tenants. She pointed out its isolation from most of the neighborhood and the traffic between them. She felt that the zone change to RP would be an asset to the community. Testifying against the zone change: Delia Jones, 2080 West 12th, said she can see the duplex front window. She would like to see it as a residence. are few cars in front of her house and she would like to with people on the property, not business offices. John Wesley, 1625 Garfield Place, conducted a poll of the neighborhood and found most neighbors were opposed to the zone change. They feel the property is part of the neighborhood. 12th Avenue is residential. Any need for office space has been taken care of by Center West complex on 11th Avenue which is 70 percent office space. 4It from her She said there see a house Bev Murrow, 1215 Arthur, wanted to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhood. She felt that there was more need for residential housing than for office space. She questioned the poor rental history of the houses. She said a survey of the residents near the property indicated they did not want business. She commented that Mr. Leonard of the ambulance service, in the past, told the neighborhood he did not want other businesses. She explained that Mr. Mohler also owns property opposite this parcel on 12th Avenue. She felt that the neighborhood integrity is the question. Hank Murrow, 1215 Arthur, told the Council their decision was more a political question than one of technical merit, as illustrated by the 3:3 tie of the Planning Commission. It is a policy question that the Council must deal with. He said the choice was between owners and neighbors. He noted that there was less cynicism in the neighborhood, the "why bother" attitude. He urged that the Council find against the appeal. Cynthia Kokas, 2425 Jefferson Street, liked the residential tone of the neighborhood. She noted that there were more and more people working in their yards. There are more low-income residents. She thought it was important to note that these people took an evening to come to the City Council meeting to testify. e 1/28/80--8 . e e , Mr. McAlexander, in his rebuttal statement, asked to read a statement that was signed by the neighbors into the record. "We are aware of the impending request to change zoning of the property identified on the Assessor's Map 17-04-36-3 2, Tax Lot 700-800-801. The request is to change these three Tax Lots from R-1 to RP. A copy of the Eugene Code RP zoning has been shown to me. If the change were approved, we understand that a site review would be required to assure the property would be developed in a way beneficial to the neighborhood and not distract from it. And the neighborhood association could have an input in the review. We have indicated with our signatures below whether we favor or oppose or- hold no opinion in this action:" Mr. McAlexander noted that 11 had signed in favor and four opposed and no person held no opinion. Mr. McAlexander regretted that they were unable to work with the neighborhood association. He said Center West was an expensive office space and this would provide inexpensive office space. He said they would submit to site review. Public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to deny the appeal. Mr. Lieuallen said he would support the motion because he was persuaded by both the housing issues and by the staff position that this is an unplanned for and unreasonable intrusion in the neighborhood. Ms. Miller stated that the general principles need to be applied. She thanked all for coming and stating such a clear presentation. She explained that as a city, a lot of public money and effort have gone into encouraging people to live in these areas and we should continue to support housing in the area and therefore, she supports the motion. Mr. Obie felt the zoning to RP at 12th Avenue and Garfield Street was an asset to the community. He sees more traffic in the years ahead. This rezoning will provide a good buffer for the residential area. He would vote against the motion. Ms. Smith would support her motion because she has not seen a demons- trated need for this type of zone change where there is a demonstrated need for continued housing. Motion to deny the appeal, carried 5:2, with Councilors Hamel and Obie voting no. Councilor Haws left at the break. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that Council adopt the staff findings in denying the appeal. Motion carried 4:2. Mr. Obie and Mr. Hamel voted no. 1/28/80--9 c . E. Annual Update of Eugene Bike Plan (Memo distributed) Manager explained this was an update to the Bicycle Plan adopted in 4It 1975 on which there was a review each year. He had reviewed it and found it in good shape. He introduced Mr. Jim Hanks. Mr. Hanks said during the past year, the Eugene Bicycle Committee has conducted an extensive review of the Bicycle Master Plan. The Federal Highway Commission under the Oregon Traffic Safety Commission financed a comprehensive evaluation of the Eugene Bicycle System (copies distributed). The evaluation said Eugene had done a good job and made no changes in the Master Plan. It pointed out the dangers of bicycle routes on sidewalks (three times more dangerous). Other recommendations were in the area of maintenance and evaluation of accidents. He reviewed the 15 recommendations explained in the distributed material. Two routes, over Delta and the NS route on Monroe, would have major impact. The recommendations were endorsed by the Bicycle Committee and the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Lieuallen noted that the consultant had recommended that a better way be found to get accident reports. Mr. Hanks explained a low percentage of bicycle accidents are reported to the Police Department. They are now asking hospitals to fill out forms regarding bicycle accidents when they treat such cases. Most of the recommendations are currently being done by the City. Mr. Lieuallen felt the method of accident reporting was woefully inadequate. He urged the City to expand bicycle acddent reporting. Mr. Hanks agreed completely. Mr. Lieuallen suggested more publicity so that people would be encouraged ~ to report accidents. The City could then use this information to ,., improve the bicycle system to make it safer. Manager asked Mr. Lieuallen if accident forms could be distributed to the bicycle shops. Mr. Lieuallen said it was a possibility. Mr. Hamel said it was necessary to make the police aware of the problem and the need for collecting this information. Often, bicycle accidents are not taken seriously. Ms. Miller asked about a bicycle telephone listing suggested in the consultantls report. Mr. Hanks said they were planning to implement that suggestion currently. She said she was glad to see in the January 8 minutes it was indicated that someone will be working with the County on the Glenwood extension of the south bank bicycle path. She asked about the south bank connector along the river. Mr. Hanks said they are working on it, but that it was a long-range project. The connection between the Knickerbocker Bridge and Franklin Boulevard will be funded hopefully in the next year. The Bicycle Master Plan calls for a modified bicycle way along franklin Boulevard. It will have to be looked at more closely to stay within the consultant's recommendations. Mr. Lieuallen pointed out the need for education of motorists as well as bicyclists. , v' 1/28/80--10 e Mayor said that he was pleased at how well the Plan is working. He lauded the work of the Bicycle Committee. He was proud of their progress and would be looking forward to its being the best in the United States. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the 1979 Annual Review of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING CB 2051--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to CJH Estates Subdivision and Alban-Tate Subdivision (78-43). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18562. e CB 2052--Levying assessments for street paving on Jessen Drive from Highway 99 North to 180 feet west of Elizabeth Street (78-47). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18563. CB 2053--Levying assessments for street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction to serve Panorama View IV Subdivision (78-50). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18564. CB 2055--Levying assessments for street paving on Adams Street between Sycamore Avenue and Lewis Avenue (78-54). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18565. e CB 2056--Levying assessments for paving 13th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to approximately 300 feet of Ocean Street (79-04). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18566. 1/28/80--11 e e e CB 2057--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Coast Hills Vista Subdivision (79-15). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18567. CB 2058--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Court Royale Subdivison (79-19). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18568. III. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve Council minutes of January 9, 1980, January 14, 1980, and January 16, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS Manager indicated that the $5,000 under Eugene Arts Foundation is out of room tax funds and pays for Benson Snyder and his secretarial help. Res. No. 3303--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period of January 9, 1980, through January 28, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned to January 30, 1980. ~y~ Ci ty Manager Beth Conant, Minutes Recorder BC:al/CM26b16 1/28/80-12