Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/1980 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 24, 1980 Adjourned 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., March 24, 1980, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Eric Haws, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, and Emily Schue. Councilors Jack Delay and D.W. Hamel were absent. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Keller noted that there is an election March 25, 1980, and encouraged everyone to participate. Mayor Keller stated that Census Day is April 1, 1980, and encouraged everyone to participate in this project. The Neighborhood Leaders Group is acting as lead on behalf of the City, and anyone who wishes to help can contact John Wesley, who is acting as leader for this project, by calling 687-5010 and leaving a message with Carol Baker. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Federal Aid Urban Agreement No. 4661--30th Avenue/Hilyard/Amazon Parkway Improvements (memo distributed) Don Allen, Acting City Manager, said that this proposal is to authorize execution of an a Federal Aid Urban systems construction project and to determine whether the City should enter into a contract with the State of Oregon Department of Transportation. Mr. Allen further stated he is also director of the Public Works Department and a member of the Amazon neighborhood as well. This is the final hearing on this project. We are at the point of either "go" or "no go" in our process. Public Works Department recommends approval. Mr. Allen introduced Irv Berman, Public Works. Mr. Bennan indicated the display of maps in the council chambers and said that Dave Reinhard would be pointing out various areas of the project as they were being discussed. The project consists of widening Hilyard Street between 28th and 34th avenues, and Amazon Parkway and 30th Avenue from 29th to Kincaid. Travel lanes and additional turning lanes will be provided. Various amenities are included in the project such as a new traffic signal at Alder and 30th, landscaped median islands throughout the project, and extensive landscaping.. To unify the park area, 29th Avenue will be closed. There will be bus pull-outs and transfer facilities on Amazon Parkway and 29th and on 30th at Alder, bicycle paths and a bike underpass at Amazon Parkway, bike racks at bus transfer points, and revamping of traffic signals. 3/24/80--1 The council is being asked to join with Federal and State governments in pro- viding funding for this construction project. There will be a net increase in A. parkland of approximately one-half acre. The need for widening the intersection .., was confirmed in the T-2000 Plan adopted by the City Council in 1978. Within the T-2000 Plan, the alternative modes goal was for 30 percent of all traffic to be modes o'ther than automobile. Ranoval of a left turn signal at 30th and Hilyard has decreased intersection congestion by approximately 15 percent. However, the accide~t potential for left-turning vehicles has become more of a problem and can probably be expected to increase, as well as increasing arterial traffic diversion to adjacent neighborhood streets. There has been a large amount of citizen involvement in this project. The final Environmental Impact Statanent (EIS) states that the net impact of this project will be positive. The Public Works staff requests City Council to join with the State and Federal governments in funding this project. The projected total cost of the project will be $1,544,000 and the City Council is being requested to authorize deposit of $89,000 for the project, about six percent of the total cos t. Mr. Berman introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, who stated that this is not just a street widening, but a mult i-modal transportat ion project. The 30th and Hilyard transportation project is an intergral part of a transportation system for managed growth as outlined in the Metro Plan. During the past three years, 750 dwelling permits have been issued within Eugene and this dictates the necessity for managed growth for transportation. Mr. Hanks said if the decision is not to fund this project, the city may face several serious consequences: arterial traffic will increase in neighborhoods adjacent to Hilyard: mass transit _ will be inhibited due to congestion and inadequate facilities: increased fuel use ~ and pollution will be the result of increased traffic. It is a necessary and vital part of the city transportation system. Public hearing was opened. Speaking against the resolution: Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th Avenue, thanked Public Works for notifying him of the project and for their cooperat ion through the ye ars. He and another man had suggested that the left-turn be removed and it has proved to be a workable plan. He feels the direction should be changed. The major complaint he has with this project is that it is a car project. The bridge over the Amazon Channel is very costly. This bridge will be a 60- to 70-foot tunnel for bicycles and it may be difficult to police. He said he had done an independent experiment as to whether or not the proposed changes would have an effect and found that only a one-second difference would be made at a cost of $1.5 million. This comparison was con- ducted on Hilyard and Willamette streets. He said that in the EIS data draft and final in 1973, 27,600 cars passed through the intersection and in 1978, 26,800 passed through. It looks as if the inter- section is handling traffic well except for ten minutes during the rush hour. Rather than building this project as proposed, he would prefer to see the mass transit and bicycle portions and some minor lane changes and signals, and then e 3/24/80--2 e try to agressively work with Lane Transit District for park-and-ride facilities. He noted some parking lots in the area possibly could become available for park-and-ride. He wished the project would be redirected to get the people out of their cars. Huibert Paul, 4380 Pearl Street, stated that he is still opposed to this pro- ject, as he was three years ago. Congestion is only during rush hour, not at any other time. Very few trucks go through this intersection so they are really not involved. He would rather see the money used to reduce the public debt. He is not sure the City can afford its 10-percent portion at this time. More must be done to discourage private automobile use. He feels there might be a domino effect and they would have to widen other sections of Hilyard as well~ He questioned the necessity for a traffic light at 30th and Alder, as he has no trouble crossing there. He said there might be more pedestrians using that intersection when the bus stop and turn-around were installed. Sandra Merrigan, 435 East 31st Avenue, lives within one-half mile of the pro- posed project. She feels the EIS has misrepresented the type of residents who would be affected by this street widening. She said low-income and senior citizens will be suffering from this. It will be more difficult for senior citizens and handicapped people to patronize local businesses when they have to cross a wider street. It is much more difficult to cross a four-lane than a three-lane street. e Debra McMillan, 115 East 31st Avenue, encouraged park development and the traffic light at 30th and Alder. She said that there would be a bottleneck between 25th and 28th avenues in the plan. She said she does not like this expensive plan which encourages automobile use rather than alternative modes. She thinks it1s good for people to have to wait a bit as that miqht cause them to think before they use their automobiles and use the bus or bicycles instead. There could be signs which say "Yield to the Bus." Susan Choppy, 400 East 32nd Avenue, said she is most concerned with the safety factor of the widening. She said she feels that auto traffic will be encouraged with this plan and the money could be better used. Paul Harrison, 400 East 32nd Avenue, said he was here to oppose this project three years ago when there were 80 people in opposition. There is no public support for this project, he said. He felt the plan was essentially the same except that 29th has been vacated and amenities added. He distributed an information sheet which he wished to have entered into the record. Patterns of traffic are going to change and plans should be made with this in mind. He referred to the sheet he distributed entitled "Isn1t There a Better Way?" which contained the following suggestions: improved bus service, pedestrian and bicycle facilitation; park. development; noise abatement; berms at least 20 feet high would need to be installed for exhaust from trucks; the development should be in phases; and development charges to recover the cost of the project should be passed along to the residential expansion that will be served by this project. e 3/24/80--3 I there being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Irv Berman responded to Mr. Bonnett by stating that there was no way that gaso- 4It line shortages could have been predicted. The project was based on a 70-percent automobile usage. He assumed that transit and paratransit would be used. This project is an attempt to work with the council for a mult i-modal transportat ion syste~. In regard to the transit portion, it is difficult for LTD to use this section of the street now. There are bicycle ramp provisions which the Public Works Department intends to cover. The bicycle bridge would be like the one at Westmoreland Housing on Arthur Street. In reference to the length of time it takes to travel Hilyard versus Willamette being about the same, prior to widening Willamette Street, there was a severe accident problem on that street. Traffic volumes have increased. As to the recommendation to build the bus and park-and-ride facilities and not to do the widening, mass transit depends upon the widening. The costs are going up year by year as the project is postponed. The project has included input by the public and council as well as Federal input. The goal is to discourage 30 percent of the trips by automobile by the year 2000. In regard to the signal on 30th and Alder, observations from others are that it is needed. There is very seldom a break in traffic and people take risks and increase the accident potential. There will be a median which can be used for bicycle and pedestrian crossing. The bottleneck which was referred to at 25th to 28th is really at the 30th and Hilyard intersection. Mr. Berman said that in regard to Ms. Choppy's statements, wider streets will be less dangerous for pedestrians as they will have a place to "store" on the median in the middle of the street. ~ Mr. Berman responded to Mr. Harrison's comments that the plan has not changed by saying that there is more bicycle storage, more bikeways, and more transit usage. The 29th Avenue vacation is also a substantial change from before. Mr. Hanks said that in regard to the traffic volume question, there may have been some traffic counts in 1973 that showed less cars than some counts in 1975, but there has been about a 60-percent increase to this date and the volume con- tinues to increase. LTD is researching all parking lots to encourage park-and- ride. The department is trying to encourage mass transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and automobiles in this multi-modal system. The 30th and Hilyard project is part .of the system and should be looked at as a part of the whole. Mr. Allen said that in regard to the financing, if the project is terminated at this point, the Federal and State funds go back to their respective agencies, perhaps not even remaining in this geographical area. Mr. Haws said testimony indicated both good and bad points of the plan. He asked how much leeway there is in making changes in this plan. Mr. Allen responded that the entire project must be approved, not just portions of it. Mr. Haws then asked whether, if the traffic light were omitted, the funding would be canceled. Mr. Allen responded that some minor adjustments could be made in the final design, but that consideration this evening has to address this specific preliminary design. e 3/24/80--4 e e e Ms. Smith said that the project had been altered and staff had been very respon- sive to input. Mr. Haws noted that he felt sure the staff had been very respon- sive, but wanted to know if action had to be taken at this time. Mr. Allen responded that one or two more weeks could be allowed, but that the State and Federal governments are not willing to wait much longer. This should be the final public hearing in the process. ' Mr. Obie said he was concerned that neighborhood groups were not there and Ms. Smith said she had six or seven groups in her ward but does not know of any strong opposition as there had been three years ago. Mr. Berman said that in talking with the neighborhood liaison and reading neighborhood newsletters, the neighborhoods are not opposed to the project any longer. They are concerned, but not opposed. Ms. Miller said that she felt that due to the length of this controversy the opponents may have simply "tired out." If, on a large project such as this, we provide enough money and staff to work on it, the project will not go away. Those residents to the south of the intersect ion are more in favor of the project, but those near it or further north are against it. She said staff has been responsive to public concerns with given limits. Mr. lieuallen said this item should be carried over. He requested the results of the traffic management experiment. Mr. Hanks said it was approximately IS-percent more capacity in the intersection. There was a 40-percent increase on the adjacent residential streets north of 30th and a I36-percent increase on those south of 30th. Mr. Berman said that a traffic diverter request has been made for Alder Street between 24th and 30th, but a response has been delayed until a decision is made on this project. Mr. lieuallen said he felt someone from LTD should .have been at this meeting and wished to know how the project was designed to be a part of the major nodal system. Mr. Hanks said the T-2000 Plan shows the transit transfer node for the north/south and lCC buses in this area. Mr. Hanks said the bus turn-outs would be on the north and south sides of 30th and indicated there would be space for about four buses and bike parking for park-and-ride. He said there would also be a bike parking facility and bus turn-around on 29th and Amazon Parkway. At the present time, buses cannot turn right from Amazon Parkway to Hilyard nor from 30th to Hilyard. The proposed plan would provide an increased turning radius for the buses. Mr. Haws asked why they were in the position of not being able to pick and choose. Mr. Berman responded that the justification for the need for lane width is to carry the traffic load. At present, the bus pull-outs will not work and the streets cannot carry the traffic. The FAU monies are to facilitate all modes of traffic, not just bicycles or transit. The City is tied to the EIS. The cost is continuing to escalate 40 to 50 percent per year. Mr. Hanks noted it has taken three years to get the EIS done and to get a new statement may take two ye ars . Ms. Miller asked if in the figures given for net parkland increase include the new parking lot. Mr. Hanks said the lot is part of the master plan but is not part of this particular project since parking is not eligible for these monies. 3/24/80--5 Mayor asked whether the money must be used for this project. Mr. Berman responded that the City's portion of this project would be available if it were ~ not approved. Mayor Keller asked if the City would be confronted with similar problems with leasing parking as confronted by the Library. Mr. Allen responded it would be similar as it could only be done with an agreement with the property owner ~ .Res. No. 3329--A resolution authorizing execution of Contract No. 4661 with the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, concern- ing an urban system construction project. Mr. Allen noted that the City Attorney has approved the legal language of the contract. Ms. Smith moved to adopt the resolution. Mr. Lieuallen asked about the process to hold this over if he seconded the motion. Mr. Long responded that he could either move to table which would be non-debatable, or move to postpone. The motion to table carries a certain time 1 imi t. Mr. Lieuallen seconded the motion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Lieuallen stated that he is uneasy about the project. He does not feel there have been substantial changes. A couple of racks for bicycles, with the intent to cover them, is not adequate for serious commuters with expensive bicycles. The facilities for bicycles are so limited as to be token gestures. Bicycle ~ paths are improved to some extent, but are not adequate. It might work if there ,., were covered facilities which are secure and large enough to accommodate many bicycles and there was someone to watch them. He said that areas east of Hilyard are not adaquate, though the area at 29th and Amazon Parkway might be large enough. In regard to the bus turn-outs, if the areas are not larqe enough and covered, people will not use them. Mr. Lieuallen said effort has gone into accommodating automobile users, not bicycle and bus users. He felt no serious creative effort for these regards has been put into this project. He further stated that he does not remember any council work sessions and feels that statements about public participation have been exaggerated. He said he sees no serious effort being made to convert this project to alternative modes. A great deal of money will be spent to solve potential problems which may never exist. He said he did not understand why no representive from LTD was present at this meeting, and he would like to know how involved they have been in encouraging that the intersection be made large enough for buses. Ms. Miller said the council might discuss if they are going to act on this at this time. She felt there could not be much more information developed. Even though the money is not all local, it is still our tax money and City money could be used for needed transit-related services. She said people who do not want to wait to go through the intersect ion of 30th and Hil yard at rush hour should not go during the rush hour. If more lanes are built and the streets are made. wider, they will be used. She said she would rather not see this happen, A but would prefer alternative modes of transportation. .., 3/24/80--6 e e e Ms.Miller said it is an auto-oriented project which might have been appropriate for the 1950's or 1960's, but not for the 1990's or beyond. She said the council could tell the FAU that if this is how they want their funds spent, there are other places where these funds could be spent. Mr. Obie asked Mr. Lieuallen why he wished to postpone the vote. Mr. Lieuallen responded that he has more to say and is concerned it would get so late at this meeting that he could not cover all the points. Ms. Schue asked when in the foreseeable future the 30th and Hilyard intersec- tion might be improved, if this opportunity were not taken. Mr. Hanks said that using FAU funds, it might take two to three years, and if only City funds were used, it would take a minimum of two years. He said he was not sure that just widening the street would be adequate. He said when buses stop, cars must be able to pass. Ms. Schue asked if LTD feels the whole street needs widening or just the bus stop areas. Mr. Hanks responded 30th and Hilyard and 29th and Amazon would need to be widened for buses. Mr. Haws said he felt he was prepared to make a decision tonight. He said he felt the decision should be made when the public hearing was held. Mr. Obie said he would very much like to hear from LTD and specifically request a meeting. He also would like to have neighborhood groups on both sides of 30th to talk with the council about this project. It seems to be a critical area for their end of town. He said he was surprised no neighborhood group representa- tives were at the meeting. He said he would like to hear from both groups at the next council meeting, or at a Wednesday meeting within the next weeks. Mr. Lieuallen said he would also like to hear more from LTD. He said he was less than pleased an LTD representative was not present at the meeting so he could ask questions. He would like to have heard from the Public Works staff during the past three years about this project so alterations to the project could have been made to get it on the right track. He wants to hear from staff on how much can be altered and still be approved. Ms. Schue said she too would like to hear from LTD as to what the requirements are for an efficient operation of their system in this particular area. Mayor Keller said that the T-2000 Plan, which has the approval of this council, is a comprehensive transportation plan. It deals with alternative modes at a rate of 30 percent--the balance of 70 percent is for automobiles. There were several alternatives that staff was asked to try. He thinks the project deals very specifically with some of those issues. The project has changed dras- tically. Some of the changes he sees are landscaping, a different treatment for the middle of the street, some bicycle facilities available, and turnouts for the bus system to deal with the mass transit program. The staff has done a good job incorporating the areas in which the councilors had expressed great concern. Mayor Keller said it might not be fair to indicate to the staff that they have not appropriately addressed concerns. He said he thinks the project is a far better one than the one brought to the council three years ago. Public Works 3/24/80--7 staff and the Department of Transportation were asked to look at alternatives and they have done so. . It woul d be in the council' s best interest as they look _ at the T-2000 Plan. He said he would have no problem in putting the decision .., off for two weeks. He said he thinks it is reasonable to accept LTD's testimony at that time, perhaps in the form of a report to staff. Public hearing has been held and Mayor Keller feels LTD can answer councilors' questions. The comprehensive transportation plan deals with the concerns of Mr. -L ieuallen, and the idea that traffic would be kept on arteri als designed to move traffic loads and be removed from residential streets. He said that some rather drastic improvements have been made in the interchange and he hopes those would be weighed seriously. Ms. Miller said if they do end up hearing more from LTD, she would like a state- ment as to whether they need to widen five and one-half blocks of the street in order to provide adequate bus turnouts and stopping space. If so, she would like to know if this is the functional equivalent of the curb lane of traffic, how often buses would be expected to stop, and if this stopping would turn into a bottleneck which would reduce two lanes of traffic to one lane with the intended lane change problems. She said she would like to see LTD address whether an additional widening for an extra lane of traffic or bus turnout points would be more appropriate. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to table this issue for two weeks and request a report from Lane Transit Di strict. Mr. Allen asked whether the LTD Board or staff should respond. Ms. Smith said e the staff. Mr. Lieuallen said a letter should be sent to the board requesting the LTD chief planner to respond. Ms. Smith said the letter could go to the board or staff. Roll call vote. Motion carried 4:2 with Councilors Obie, Smith, Lieuallen, and Schue voting aye: Councilors Haws and Miller voting no. Mayor Keller called a recess. Mr. L ieuallen said that he tends to agree that auto use is not reduced because it is made difficult for people; they will only work around it. Other modes must be made attract ive for them. B. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning 1. This is a request for property located south and west of Warren Street from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, and Timber-Raising District and RA Suburban District to City R-1/PD Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures (Goldington Associates) (AZ 79-9) (map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission February 18, 1980; vote: 4:1 on annexation; 5:0 on zoning. e 3/24/80--8 e e e Mr. Allen said this request was approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1980. Allen introduced Greg Byrne who would make the staff presentation. Mr. Byrne said the property is 73.7 acres which was recently partitioned from a larger tax lot which extends south into the county. The elevation varies from 700 to over 1,000 feet, and three prominent hills are on the property. The slopes vary from 10 to 50 percent. The site is currently undeveloped with the exception of BPA power lines. The site would be used for a planned unit development. Mr. Lieuallen said he had several questions regarding available services. He said the staff notes stated on page 4 that a minimum level of services could be made available. He said he assumed the justification for the project is a shortage of buildable lots and affordable housing. Mr. Lieuallen said that they are not talking about affordable housing but fairly expensive hillside lots. It stated that the service provision includes school capacity and that a task force has been formed earlier by the school district. Now the task force has been disbanded. He wanted to know the impact of the development on the schools. Mr. Lieuallen noted the County Sanitarian stated this is a critical area for water and individual sewage disposal. The annexation would be recommended only if city water and sanitation were available. EWEB has requested a reservoir site. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that was correct. Mr. Byrne said, as a part of the PUD process, the Hearings Official would determine that services were available before development would occur. EWEB has stated water services would be available if they had access to one acre for a reservoir. Mr. Lieuallen said it seemed as if a lot of hopes were being based upon the determination of the Hearings Official. Ms. Miller asked which staff notes, January 22 or February 18, should be accepted since there seems to be a contradiction. Mr. Byrne responded that the staff notes of Janaury 22 were the initial staff report to the Planning Commission, but the adopted findings were those being presented at the public hearing. Ms. Miller asked if the notes from Janaury 22 were from the Planning Department and the notes from February 18 were from' the Planning Commission, and Mr. Byrne responded that that was correct. Mr. Haws asked if adequate fire protection was available. Mr. Byrne said a second level of review would be given before any development could occur, and approval would probably hinge upon a satellite fire station. Mr. Haws asked if this development would be subject to PUD procedures. Mr. Byrne responded that this was correct if the PUD suffix is attached. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: David B. Williams, 975 Oak #600, representing Goldington Associates, stated this request is for a phased development. He said that a summary of the Planning 3/24/80--9 Commission findings indicated that the land is clearly within the urban qrowth boundary; there is a need; that R-1/PD zoning is appropriate, and that the ~ annexation request was timely. He said that the conclusions are well-supported ~ and that this request is not much different than most--that public services are often .not available at the time of request; the question is if they can be made available in the future. One concern is the satellite fire station. The area is presently served by the Eugene Fire Department. The planned unit development process will ensure the Planning Department control of the development so that services can be made available. Current plans, as well as the Metro Plan Update, recognize the need to annex land two to five yearspr ior to development. There will be a code requirement that services be reasonably available. The schools, with the exception of the junior high, are under capacity. There are a number of positive aspects: this area is within the urban growth boundary, and control of the timing for the development of the area would be established. If this annexation is denied, there might be a desire to develop this area under County jurisdiction. Speaking against: JoAnn Krane, 3573 Kevington, president of the Churchill neighborhood group, said that the neighborhood group has been concerned about this project. The concerns are based on contiguity with the ridge line and the availability of fire, sewer, and water services. She said she thinks that the sewer problem has been taken care of, but the water problem has not. EWES says they need access to a portion of the property, so Breeden Brothers would have to provide an easement through their development and there is no guarantee that they will do so. Another con- cern is parkland. The City has been purchasing acreage but not usable parkland. 4It She said that perhaps the schools could accommodate more students. Ms. Kranc said that fire protection is the prime concern since there is no Quar- antee with the condition of the current City budget that the fire substation will ever be built. State Goal 11 has not been met either. She said she thinks there are some things the Planning Commission has not looked at, but that the council shou 1 d. Ms. Schue asked if it is possible to provide services for all the area, and Mr. Byrne responded that the only property being annexed is that to which engineers have decided they could provide services. Mr. Williams said that the boundaries formed by the request were based on walklng the area with the City Engineer. He said he was surprised that there was opposition at this public hearing since there was none at the Planning Commission level. The 1990 Plan standard is for a reasonable level of services at the time the project is completed. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie asked if the Hearings Official would allow development at this time, based upon the fire protection services currently available. Mr. Byrne responded the Hearings Official must make findings that adequate fire protection would be avail ab 1 e . e 3/24/80--10 e Mr. Obie asked about erosion and slope slippage. Mr. Byrne responded that at the time of annexation a very cursory examination would be done, but at the time of development there would be a complete report. Mr. Haws said the staff notes from January 22 do not seem to be either for or against the annexation. Mr. Byrne said the site was reviewed as a resource for city housing stock under PUD procedures, but given referrals from other agencies and departments, the Planning Department did not feel the Planning Commission should deny the annexation, but that it should be postponed. The Planning Commission found that the PUD review was sufficient under these circumstances. Mr. Haws then asked if the City would be liable if this area were annexed. Mr. Byrne responded that this could have some effect on fire response times which now are quite good. Ms. Miller said this looks like a question of timing as there may not be money for the fire station. She wondered why one would request annexation since the fire station situation was so uncertain. Mr. Byrne responded that he could not answer for the intent of the applicant, but that the Fire Department has the land and they are asking again for money to develop the site. Mayor Keller asked how many months it takes to get a project on-line. Mr. Byrne said the average, from application to development, is over three years. Ms. Smith asked if construction and development could proceed without the fire station. Mr. Byrne said that some portions of the area might be served with existing services. e Ms. Miller asked how it would affect the fire response rating if the property were left vacant. Mr. Byrne said annexation of this property would not substan- tially affect the rating if the land were vacant. Ms. Miller asked what the goals were for providing services. Mr. Bryne responded that the City standard is that services be made available in a reasonable amount of time and that the LCDC Administrative Rule is another goal. Mr. Haws said he feels a problem with this. He wished to know whether the area should be annexed if services are not available. e Mayor Keller expressed frustration in making th~s request contingent upon build- ing a fire station. Mr. Haws said that this has been done with sewer services. City Attorney Stan Long stated that the Administrative Rule which has been used in determining the criteria was declared invalid by the Court of Appeals today. In view of that, he suggested this be held over until this decision can be reviewed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to hold this item over until there is an interpretation from the City Attorney's office for a period of one month or less. Mr. Obie asked that when this item is brought back, clarification be given as to the time when services would be available. Mr. Lieuallen said that other ques- tions, for example, schools and the reservoir should be considered. He said it is the overall fiscal question, not just the fire station. 3/24/80--11 Ms. Miller said that the questions of provision of electrical services. by what utility, and the question of the scenic importance of the slopes could ~ also be addressed. .., Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Keller asked for consensus from the council, as 10:30 p.m: was approach- ing, whether they would like to continue or adjourn. Mr. Lieuallen said he would like to hold over the matter of the duplexes. Mr. Long said the same criteria for any other annexations would also apply as they had to this last iten. Mr. Obi e said he woul d 1 ike to di scuss the Block Grants. Mr. Allen said that the Community Development Block Grants have a deadline so they should not be hel d over. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the following items be held over for 30 days or less. Res. No. 3331--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, west of Four Oaks Gr ange Road to the ci ty of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. CB 2102--Authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential District for property located ~ between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, west of Four Oaks .., Grange Road. Res. No. 3332--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive, to the city of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. CB 2103--Authorizing rezoning from County RR Rural Residential District to City R-1/PD Single-Family Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive. Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. C. Code Amendment (mem%rdinance distributed) 1. Amendment would allow division of the ownership of existing duplexes subject to certain conditions: change in Section 9.546(1)(b) to allow for smaller lot size; change in Section 9.548(d) specifying "duplex divisions" as a lot area exception: change in Chapter 9 (Land Division Ordinance), Platting and Mapping Standards, Sections 9.061(1)(a), "General Requirements," e 3/24/80--12 . and 9.061(1)(b), "Exceptions": change in Section 9.542(1)(a) regarding interior-yard setbacks to account for common-wall divisions (CA 79-2) Recommended approval by Planning Commission February 5, 1980; vote: 3:2. e Mr. Allen said that this proposed code amendment would allow certain duplex properties to be owned by more than one owner. Each lot and parcel other than the duplex division lots would have frontage of not less than 60 feet upon a street having a proposed right-of-way width of at least 50 feet and not less than the width called for in the Master Road Plan. Mr. Allen introduced Bill Sloat, Planning Department. Mr. Sloat said this is an outgrowth of the Growth Management Study. The Plan- ning Commission recommends that the code amendment be adopted. The Joint Housing Committee had recommended adoption in December 1979. The allowance for division of duplexes would expand opportunities for ownership. The Building Division has indicated that division of duplexes does not pose any particular problems from the standpoint of the building code. Assurance must be made that each lot has a reasonable amount of frontage. The amendment allows division of conforming duplex lots of 10,000 feet to 4,500 square feet each. The 1990 General Plan has objectives of a range and choice of housing types and encourages a variety of residential development types for all income and age groups. The 1974 Community Goals and Policies document also emphasizes concepts that allow maximum flexibility and design and provide for a variety of housing types. Mr. Long said that a minor technical change has been made in Section 9.060 of the City Code to require a joint maintenance agreement between the two owners. Mr. Obie asked how the lot division was determined. Mr. Sloat said that access would have to be available to each side of the building and there must be a common wall. Ms. Miller asked if this was similar to condominiums. Mr. Sloat said some condominiums have a common wall division while others are an over/under situation. Ms. Miller asked how the 10,000-square-foot figure was arrived at. Mr. Sloat said that would was the smallest lot size allowed for duplexes since 1968. Mr. Obie asked if there had been any consideration given to what this would do to the rental market. Mr. Sloat said it mayor may not have an effect. Mr. Lieuallen wondered what would happen if one half of the duplex was destroyed. Mr. Sloat responded that the side would have to be rebuilt as a duplex unless there was 6,000 square feet available as the code currently requires for a single-family structure. Mr. Lieuallen said that if a 10,OOO-square-foot lot were divided, each side would have to have at least 4,500 square feet of area; it would lower the structural size currently required. Mr. Sloat said that in regard to smaller lot size, the council could be expected to receive many more applications in this matter and that there would be information forthcoming in about one week. Public hearing was opened. - 3/24/80--13 Speaking in favor: Mary Sheriffs, 137 West 37th Avenue, stated that at the February 5 meeting of 4It the League of Women Voters, support was given for this amendment. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, Chair of the State Housing Council, said this would provide access for affordable housing. In general, duplex units cost 75 percent of what a single-family house would cost. Duplexes are easier to deal with than condominiums. Springfield calls divided duplex lots "tandem housing." She said that people are looking for a place to buy but the cost is prohibitive. She distributed a handout showing drawings of houses in Great Britain. She urged the council to pass this amendment. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2104--An ordinance concerning division of duplex regulations; amending sections 9.060, 9.254, 9.542, 9.546, and 9.548 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. Ms. Miller said she did not wish to pass this tonight. She thinks the lot size can be smaller. Mr. Obie said the opportunity for decreasing the size of the lots would be available later. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 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 voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18600. Mr. Lieuallen noted that the cost of these units would go up as soon as they are av a i lab 1 e . e D. Community Development Block Grant Application For FY 180-'81 (memo distributed) Mr. Allen introduced Christina Hofmann, HCC, who stated they are asking for the annual approval of application for Block Grant proposals to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. She said that the 1980-81 Development Block Grant application marks the sixth participation in this HUD program by the City of Eugene. The total grant anticipated for this next year is $1.376 million. The Community Development Committ~e held a public hearing on the grant package on February 14 and recommends approval of the package submitted to the council. Ms. Hofmann said that the Community Development Block Grant program has a dis- tinct neighborhood focus. Eight areas are eligible for individually funded activities and one area, West University Neighborhood, has been designated for . 3/24/80--14 e e e this year's Neighborhood Improvement Program, a three-year project which inten- sively works with residents to design and implement solutions to multiple problems in an identified area. The Urban Renewal Project, which has already been approved and funded with Block Grant funds, 'also requires council actlon at this time. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Jerry Gillespie, 914 East 18th Avenue, president of the South University Neigh- borhood Association, said he is in favor of the Block Grant Program and would like to thank them for funding West University Park. Other proposals from this area will be forthcoming. Alan Garten, 119 West Adams, stated he hopes that the recommendations will be followed and feels the proposals are worthwhile. Darcy Marentette, 1513 Fairmount, said the Fairmount Neighbors had not received adequate notice of this hearing. They had requested low-level lighting on Aqate Street between 17th and 19th, and the proposal was not recommended. Condon School staff and parents group are working on this project to try to deter and/or end violence in the area. She stated this request had the backing of the Public Works Department until problems with the budget arose. She referred to an article in the March 3 issue of the Register-Guard which stated that people had been assaulted at 17th and Agate the night before at 10 p.m. She said the cost for the installation would be about $18,000, but there would be a great impact on bike and pedestrian users. Mark Lindber~, 1750 Olive Street, representing Jefferson Neighbors, stated his support of t e proposals. He said one project being funded is a small jogging trail which would be attached to Patterson Community School. All of the labor would be done by the neighborhood and community school people. He said there were two other projects they had proposed which were not funded and felt the reason for this was because Jefferson would be a Neighborhood Improvement Pro- ject (NIP) area in one year, but he did not feel this was adequate justifica- tion for not funding these proposals. He said he felt the Block Grant Program is great. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that this item be held over until Wednesday, March 26, 1980. Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. III. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Approve Hearings Panel Minutes of March 17, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve Hearings Panel minutes of March 17, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3/24/80--15 ~. Levying Assessments Mr. Allen said the following council bills were read the first time March 10, e 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing March 17, 1980, and are being brought back for council consideration to levy assessments as proposed. Mr. Allen said that Council Bills 2090 and 2091 would be held over so the counc 11 wou 1 d be vot ing on bi 11 s 2089, 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2096, and 2097. ,.->.... "CB 2089--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way in Bowmont Street from 400 feet south of Highland Oaks Drive to 900 feet south of Highland Oaks Drive: and within Horizon West Subdivision: and sanitary sewer in Bowmont Street from Highland Oaks Drive to 400 feet southwest of Hiqhland Oaks Dr ive (78-60). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18601. CB 2092--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer in Bradley Street adjacent to Wilkes Plat from 450 feet north of Bond Lane to Bond Lane, and storm sewer construction within Wilkes Plat (79-12). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18602. 4It CB 2093--Levying assessments for paving Broadview Street from Hawkins Heights Boulevard to Sunrise Boulevard (79-16). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18603. CB 2094--Levying assessments for sidewalk on east side of Bailey Hill Road from West Leigh Street to Warren Avenue: and on Warren Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to Timberline Drive, and on Timberline Drive from Warren Street to Wilshire Lane (79-17). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18604. CB 2095--Levying assessments for paving on North Grand Street from Polk Court (extended) to Cheshire Street (extended) (79-47). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18605. e 3/24/80--16 e CB 2096--Levying assessments for storm sewer on Bonnie View Drive from Cheryl Street to 120 feet east of Sarah Lane (79-56). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18606. CB 2097--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Coburg Road from Crescent Avenue to Kinney Loop (79-62). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18607. III. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Res. No. 3333--Authorizing the payment of bills and claims for the period March 10, 1980, through March 24, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to March 26, 1980. Respectfully submitted, · ~--I4f dIL- Do"~~en Acting City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:er/CM7b14 e 3/24/80--17