Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/1980 Meeting .. MINUTES Eugene City Council -~ Jul y 14, 1980 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller in the City Council Chamber, July 14, 1980, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, and Gretchen Miller. Councilors Jack Delay and Emily Schue were absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezonings--Mr. Henry noted that there were two minor agenda changes in regard to the public hearings. Item LA.2.uFirland Heightsuis being allotted 15 minutes pro and 15 minutes con rather than the time stated on the agenda. Item I.D.--Public Works Bid Awards--had no time listed and time for that publ ic hearing is five minutes pro and five minutes con. 1. Property located between Polk Street and Madison Street, north of 1st Avenue from R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District to R-2/10A Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a e maximum density of ten units per acre and for property located east of Monroe Street, north of 1st Avenue from M-2 Light Indus- trial District to R-2/10A Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a maximum density of ten units per acre, including a sign district change from Industrial District to Residential Di strict (City of Eugene: Sl adden Area) (Z 80-10) (map di strib-. , uted) Recommended approval by Planning Commission June 3, 1980, by a vote of 6:0--Mr. Henry stated that this area is part of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan and affects several properties. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department, to provide back- ground information. Mr. Jacobson stated that this City-initiated zone change affects 178 tax lots in the Sladden Area of the Whiteaker Neighborhood. The zone change is in response to the Whiteaker Refinement Plan which was adopted in 1978. The refinement plan calls for low- density residential and this area was originally zoned R-2 in 1948. R-2 zoning previously allowed single-family and duplex residences on individual lots, but the uses were changed in 1968 allowing 16 units per acre or one residence per 2,650 square feet. The single-family and duplex character of the area has not been changed since the increased density allowances were approved in e 7/14/80--1 i 1968. R-2/10A zoning would allow a continuance of single-family residences and duplexes, with multiple-family dwellings allowed, up to ten units per acre on larger lots. The rezoning will -_ provide some development flexibility in the area, yet maintain low density. Property owners and occupants have been notified twice and staff has attended two Whiteaker Community Council meetings to discuss this proposed rezoning. Two lots on Monroe Street north of 1st Avenue are included at the request of the i property owners. Mr. Jacobson distributed a memo to the coun- cilors he had just received. No ex parte contacts or confl icts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking against the rezoning: JoLu Roberts, 2775 Friendly Street, stated that the Whiteaker Refinement Plan is a plan put together by members of a non-profit . corporation, the Whiteaker Community Council, Inc., and was adopted ty a vote of any person 12 years or older with no check of residency. The Oregon courts upheld that children cannot be allowed to vote in regard to property rights of others, so the Planning staff has no jurisdiction to submit to the council this down-zone proposal without all property owners participating. She stated that the City has sponsored the budget of the WCC for the past four years. She stated that in the last four years, the City e has given $2,557,000, another $3 million has been put into rehab- ilitated housing, and NCAT has donated another $150,000, for a total of almost $6 million going into the Whiteaker area through a so-called IIneighborhood" committee. She asked where the money , has gone as she does not feel there has been $6 million worth of . act ion. She thinks that after four years with the $6 million, subtracting $3 million that went into rehabilitating housing, they are entitled to more than down-zones, condemnations, urban farms, and the highest crime rate in the state of Oregon. They are requesting that the council drop the WCC, Inc., as a neighborhood organization on the grounds that they do not represent anyone but City staff, they are incompetent, and they do not deserve the honor the council has bestowed so unlawfully upon them. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, stated that there is a conflict of interest regarding the Whiteaker Neighborhood with the City Attorney's office and this has been brought to the attention of HUD. This neighborhood has received millions of dollars. She does not understand why land is zoned in one manner, then rezoned, and then other land is zoned for the prior use. . 7/14/80--2 The characteristics of the neighborhood are being changed. She is not from that neighborhood, but she wonders if that neighborhood is represented. The Whiteaker Community Council is incorporated e and it is a business. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Jim Farah, Planning Department, stated that in the memorandum just received from Thomas Martin, JoLu Roberts, and Dale Scobert, dated July 14, 1980, and distributed to council, two items need to be clarified. The Whiteaker Community Council, in working with City staff, did not adopt the plan as a City policy docu- ment; the Planning Commission adopted the plan and, ultimately, the Mayor and City Council adopted it in accordance with the processes established both locally and through the Statewide Goals and Guidelines. Also, in regard to zone>changes, Exhibit B of the Whiteaker Refinment Plan, specifically page 55, item 7, dealing with actions for rezoning the Sladden Area of the Whiteaker Refine- ment Plan, lists priorities for implementation. It was with this direction that the City staff took this item to the Planning Commission for rezoning. In regard to efforts of the Community Development Block Grant, that is reviewed every year. The pro- cesses that have been followed have gone well above requirements of the City and State Goals and Guidelines. The dollar figures mentioned in the memo are in error. Mr. Henry noted that total loans are about $380,000; the block grant figures total approxi- mately $900,000, much of which has not been spent to date. e CB 2169--Authorizing rezoning from R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District to R-2/10A Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a maximum density of ten units per acre for property located between Polk Street and Madison Street, north of 1st Avenue. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua1len, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of June 3, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Council Bill 2169 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 18677. e 7/14/80--3 CB 2170--Authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial District to R-2/ lOA Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a maximum density of ten units per acre, including a sign district change from Industrial District to Residential District for property e located east of Monroe Street, north of 1st Avenue. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of June 3, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at thi s time. Council Bill 2170 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18678. 2. Property located south of 30th Avenue, east of Spring Boulevard at Dogwood Drive and Kimberly Drive from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, Timber-Raising District to City RA Suburban Residential District and from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, Timber-Raising District to City RA/PD Suburban Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures (City of Eugene: Fir1and Heights) (Z 80-12) (map distributed)--Mr. Henry noted this matter went before the Planning Commission on June 3, 1980, and was approved - 6:0. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department, to provide background information. Mr. Jacobson noted that the property consists of approximately 13 , acres annexed in 1976. During a proposal review, it was discovered that a City zoning district was never applied when this area was annexed. Seven tax lots are involved. Two City zones, RA and RA/PO, are being recommended. The PD suffix is recommended for . the undeveloped areas to take into consideration elevation, slopes, etc. This zone change is City-initiated. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the zone change: Harold Gillis, 975 Oak Street, Suite 920, stated that he is an attorney representing the applicants for the zone change. If this property is left in the current zoning designation, it will defeat the purpose of the annexation of this property. The City had reasons for annexation--continuation of the development pattern e 7/14/80--4 and extension of two streets, and avoiding any type of development that would be inconsistent with adjoining subdivisions. The . Boundary Commission minutes indicate that the homeowners' associ- ation is in favor of the proposal. It had been assumed that this property was zoned for low-density residential use, and the error was not discovered until the applicant was in the middle of the PUD process, so the applicant is requesting that the zoning be changed. The applicant also requests that the Boundary Commission minutes and staff notes be included and made a part of the record, as well as the May 23 letter to the commission and exhibits pro- vided by the app1 ic ant. The 1976 annexation proceedings went before the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the Boundary Commission. Those in opposition will talk about everything but the criteria for zone changes. The annexation and the proposed rezoning are logical extensions of what already existed. John Matott, 767 Wi1lamette Street, #307, stated he is the devel- oper of this property. There are three criteria for the zone change: 1) that it be consistent with the General Plan of the area; 2) there is public need; and 3) there be an availability of other property in the area for similar uses. He noted that traffic is not an issue, although opponents may bring it up as one as the question is one of appropriate zoning. He has ret a i ned an independent traffic engineer whose results will be made available. Speaking against the rezoning: e Richard Roseta, 1970 Dogwood Drive, stated that he lives close to the property. The street there is winding and hilly. In 1976, the homeowners did not- complain about the proposed rezoning or development because they had the 30th Avenue access held as a carrot in front of their noses. He feels that what the council meant to do at that time is not a real ity and will not be until 1987, when the overpass project is complete. He feels the council made a decision based upon potential access. He feels the third , criteria, public need, would be best met by changing the classi- fication by comparing it with other property. He feels the need would not be best met by allowing a change of zoning. There have been substantial changes of circumstance. He'noted there are only a few people at this meeting, but that many had attended previous meetings. They have filed a petition against this. They are not opposed to development; they are opposed to the boot-strap method of this rezoning. He thinks the overpass should be finished first and the development should occur second. The Planning Commission added the PD suffix, but he feels it should be stopped at this po i nt . - e 7/14/80--5 Geoffrey Simons, 1991 Dogwood, stated that there is considerable oppositlon in the neighborhood for possible dangers to children who play in the streets. Homeowners in the area who were favoring . a zone change in 1976 are not necessarily the same owners now. In looking at public need, he feels the council should also look at public safety. He feels this neighborhood is being made to pay for the crimes of others and, due to the land swap problem, the overpass is still waiting. He is concerned about the traffic that would be caused by development. On Dogwood Street, there are no yards and children play in the street; there also is no traffic light. Their concerns are about the lack of access, not about the development. There also is not enough available parking. He feels this item should be held up until the 30th Avenue overpass is completed. Terry Kellea, 2050 Dogwood, stated that in the winter, conditions are very ba. In the summer, children play in the streets. The council should not wait for a tragedy to happen. He is concerned that those who do not live in the area, such as construction workers, might not be as careful as drivers who live in the area. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacobson stated that in order to get the 30th Avenue interchange, the subject property would have to dedicate the right-of-way. Ms. Smith asked whether, if the dedication were given, there is any indication of timing on when the 30th Avenue interchange might be completed in relation to the development. Mr. Jacobson responded ~ that the Planning staff is not certain of the timing, but they think it will be about five years. He indicated that Commissioner Rust's staff had been in contact with their office. Ms. Smith asked if it is still tied up in court. Mr. Gilman responded that this is still a County project and part. of the T-2000 Plan. He does know if it is involved in the court proceedings. Ms. . Smith asked if there had been discussion to time the project with the overpass construction. Mr. Jacobson responded that there had been and the development would occur in three phases. Ms. Smith asked if during construction there would be a need to use Dogwood. She was told that Dogwood would be used. Ms. Miller asked if there is a requirement that the City zone this area. Stan Long, City Attorney.s office, stated that there is no requirement with the exception of the obligation of sound planning procedures. Although its zoning is presently County AGT, it is City zoned. Mr. Lieuallen noted that in reading the minutes and record of the proceedings, the traffic seems to be a very important issue. Apparently, it will take time to create access to 30th Avenue and, in the meantime, construction traffic will have to go up that narrow street past Laurelwood. He felt there could be a real traffic problem created by the construction. Ms. Smith stated that approximately 60 additional residences would be constructed. - 7/14/80--6 Mr. Lieuallen stated that he would assume that development would take some time. Mr. Obie noted he would like to tour the area to determine how much of a problem the traffic would be and wait to --_ take act ion on the item. One criterion is that City services be av a i1 ab 1 e . They could approve this item contingent upon what the County does, but he would speak in favor of the delay. Mayor Keller noted that he had been in error earlier and had not given the applicant the opportunity to rebut. In rebuttal, Mr. Gillis stated that the Statewide Goals may be applicable here, but the property is within the urban service boundary acknowledged by LCDC in 1977. He stated that at the time of the annexation, there was no guarantee of the overpass. He added that there is no lawsuit involving the 30th, Avenue property. I Ms. Smith noted she would like to follow up on Councilor Obie1s request to get more definitive answers from the County. Th i s item could be carried over two weeks. Mr. Haws noted that he does not understand why all these issues are being raised as the question is one of appropriate zoning. He assumes the property will be developed and does not know why the council should wait to make a decision. Ms. Miller stated she would be willing to wait two weeks in order to check with the County but once the property is annexed, the Citj has made a commitment that the property will be developed at urban density levels for approximately six units per acre. The alternative--leaving this property with the AGT e zoning--is not appropriate. Ms. Smith would like to formally request that the County help clarify this situation. Councilor Obie moved to table the items for two weeks. Mayor Keller noted that two weeks mi ght not be adequate time for the County staff to present an in-depth response and he would . suggest one month. CB 2171--Authorizing rezoning from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, Timber-Raising District to City RA Suburban Residential District for property located south of 30th Avenue, east of Spring Boule- vard at Dogwood Drive and Kimberly Drive. CB 2172--Authorizing rezoning from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, Timber-Raising District to City RA/PD Suburban Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located south of 30th Avenue, east of Spring Boulevard at Dogwood Drive and Kimberly Drive. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to table action on these items for one month. Roll call vote. Motion passed 5:1, with Mr. Lieuallen voting nay. -- 7/14/80--7 Mayor Keller recommended that the residents not allow their children to play in the streets since the streets were not designed as a playground. e B. Code Amendments 1. Cluster Subdivision--Amendment to cluster subdivision regulations of the Eugene City Code, 1971, to permit higher densities in cluster subdivisions and to el iminate the requirement for estab- lishment of a site review subdistrict (CA 80-1) (memo distributed)-- Mr. Henry indicated this goes along with the guidelines of increasing density 50 percent to six units per acre. He introduced Greg Byrne, Planning Department, to provide background information. Mr. Byrne stated that a substantial part of this amendment would be to set processing times and to increase density. A memorandum was distributed to the neighborhood organizations, homebui1ders. association, etc. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the amendment: Boyd Iverson, 2399 West 22nd Avenue, stated he was speaking on behalf of the Eugene Board of Realtors and feels this property with improvements should not have to go through site review procedures. He does not understand why improved property is being exempted. All available land in the city needs to be in e conformance with State goals and guidelines and there should be procedures where existing property with improvements can be rev i ewed . He thinks the amendment is needed, but thinks site review procedures should be applied to improved property. Speaking against the amendment: LaVerne Edwards withdrew her request to speak. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2173--An ordinance concerning cluster subdivision and site review; amending Sections 9.550, 9.686, .9.688, 9.690, and 9.692 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. e 7/14/80--8 Council Bill 2173 was read the second time by council bill number on 1 y. e 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 18679. Mr. Obie noted that he would like to refer Mr. Iverson's comments to the Planning Commission for consideration on this item. Mayor Keller noted he would like an informal reply. Recess was called. 2. Mobile Home Code Amenqment--Amendment to Section 9.806 (Mobile Homes Permitted Locations) of the Eugene Code, 1971; to permit changes in occupancy of mobile homes sited on individual lots, but not located in mobile home subdivisions or mobile home parks (CA 80-2) (memo distributed)--Mr. Henry noted that this particular amendment was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1980, by a vote of 4:2 and is in response to a request by Councilor Obie. It would permit changes in occupancy of mobile homes on individual lots in areas newly annexed. He introduced Mr. Farah to provide background information. Mr. Farah distributed copies of the ordinance to the councilors. He noted that this is in response to a request made two months ago e by Councilor Obie. Staff reviewed that part of the code dealing with mobile home occupancy and recommended the changes. Mr. Farah noted that the modified ordinance would allow change of residents in mobile homes and individual lots, but not repl acement by other mobile homes. , Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2174--An ordinance concerning mobile homes; amending Section 9.806 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. L i eua 11 en, that the b i 11 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 noted that this change is to allow people to move out of their mobile homes which are on individual lots and to either rent or sell those homes. Mobile homes are the only really low-cost housing available. . 7/14/80--9 Council Bill 2174 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18680. C. Eu ene Sidewalk Pro ram Draft Report memo, resolution distributed)-- Mr. Henry lndlcate that the sidewalk program is to be implemented as a portion of the T-2000 Plan. He introduced Kirk McKinley, Planning Department, to provide background information. Mr. McKinley stated that the sidewalk program is for a systematic plan of sidewalks to be implemented, especially near schools, commer- cial areas, parks, and other areas which attract pedestrians. A 1990 Plan goal is to provide a balanced transportation system. The goals of the sidewalk program are to provide a complete pedestrian system, promote pedestrian safety, and to provide a link to transit. Joe Hessler, Public Works, stated that the Planning Commission recom- mended that the preamble to the recommendations be changed so that landscaping be left intact wherever possible. Recommendations further included that sidewalks be installed at all locations indicated on Map C to eliminate gaps between existing \ , sidewalks; that the City Code be rewritten to require sidewalks --- in industrially zoned areas; that parkway strips be paved at LTD bus stops indicated as a priority by LTD; that recommendations found e in the District 4-J Student Safety Task Force Final Report (MarCh 1979) pertaining to sidewalks be implemented; that means for,safe access across physical barriers be investigated; that street lighting be installed, especially in high-density areas, to encourage walking , trips at night9 as the need is recognized; that increased emphasis be placed on maintenance and repair of deteriorating concrete sidewalks; . and that sidewalk construction shall be considered as part of the paving project for all future projects in existing developed areas. Mr. Haws asked what the process is for implementation if a particular street is on the list for a sidewalk. Mr. Gilman stated that it would need to be brought to the council for consideration; then property owners would be notified, allowing the owners the opportunity to construct the sidewalks. If this was not done, then the Public Works Department would construct the sidewalks and assess the owner. The process could take two to three years. Mr. Haws asked if there was a deadline as to when all sidewalks would be installed. Mr. Gilman responded that there was not a deadline, but one to two years would be the minimum. Mr. Haws asked how long it would be until the projects were started. Mr. Gilman responded one to two years. Mr. Haws asked how the citizens would pay for the sidewalks if the City put them in. Mr~ Gilman responded that they coulc use the Bancrofting option~ 7/14/80--1~ Public hearing was opened. Those speaking against: Audrey Lunceford, 788 Fairfield Street, stated that she did not hear e Royal Avenue mentioned in particular, but assumed that it will be inc 1 uded. No one has asked for sidewalks and pedestrians are using the bike paths and creating no problems. She is glad they are leaving the trees when possib1e- Ten dollars per frontage foot would be the minimum charge, which is expensive, particularly to the elderly. She does not see the need for sidewalks in that area. Fred Palmer, 3347 Royal Avenue, stated agreement with Ms. Lunceford. He said that side streets have bike paths and nice trees. People with single driveways will have no place for their visitors to park nearby. Edward Haynes, 3627 Royal Avenue, stated that he had worked for EWEB since 1952 and wondered why they did not put sidewalks in then. People are not thinking about children's safety, only LTO economics. It is too expensive now. Al Peake, 3369 Richard Lane, stated that a petition had been sent to the council that had been signed by almost 100 percent of the residents on Richard Street, Richard Lane, and Jerry Street. They are all against having sidewalks. They are all retired, near retirement age, or on a limited budget and cannot afford sidewalks. They have spent time and energy on their landscaping. In this time of economic prob- lems, they are opposed to spending that much money for sidewalks--$800 to $900 per lot. He stated there are not two people per day who walk down that street. He feels the 1,000-foot circle from the schools and e shopping centers is unrealistic since people will not walk, they will drive. He thinks the sidewalks should not be constructed at this time and some consideration should be given to what the residents want. He stated that the City annexed them and put in the sewer, which ruined the street, which has not been repaired. If the City ;s concerned . about safety, they should make Richard Street a dead-end at Fairfield. There are only two children in the entire block and they would go down . the middle of the street anyway, even if sidewalks were on both sides. Bruce Pa1anuk, 3507 Royal Avenue, stated that he owns a substantial amount of property and the cost would be outlandish at $10 to $12 per foot. He was dismayed at the Planning Commission1s decision to go ahead with the sidewalks. Royal Avenue has bike paths and there are fewer than 20 or 30 people per day on bikes or on foot using that street. When children get out of school for the day, they are on the street 30-45 minutes and then are gone. Toni Marquez-Aguilera, 3260 Royal Avenue, stated that Royal Avenue is very wlde with blke paths on both sides. Perhaps as many as five people per day walk down that street. She feels it is LTD's interest that is represented at the council meeting. Bus traffic on Royal Avenue is minimal; few people ride. She feels the expenses for the sidewalk at this time are not a priority and is against the sidewalk progr am . e 7/14/80--11 Kathryn Bjurling, 823 Jerry Street, stated there are only five houses on Jerry Street, one of which is vacant. She does not see a point in installing sidewalks at this time. e Marie Webb, 3255 Royal Avenue, stated that the bike path is sufficient for pedestrian/bicycle use. They have a large yard for children to play in and she feels that_children will continue to walk on lawns, even if sidewalks are available. There is a bus every half hour going each way, but only two people are on the bus at anyone time. She does not think sidewalks are needed. Debbie Johnson, 3337 Royal Avenue, stated that sidewalks are a waste of money and time as they are not needed and will not be used. They have put a good deal of money into landscaping and their driveway. Most people in that area are elderly and she questions whether they will be able to afford $2,000+ for financing sidewalks. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Joe Hessler stated that sidewalks are recommended in that area because Fairfield School is on Royal Avenue. This would be going along with the School District 4-J recommendation. In most cases, the trees seem to be far enough back that they will not be eliminated because of the sidewalks. They do not feel it is acceptable to have people walking in the street. This is the first phase of the program' and the intent is to have sidewalks in most city areas. Kirk McKinley noted that Richard Street, Richard Lane, and Jerry Street are not recommended by the Planning Commission to have sidewalks. ' Ms. Miller asked if the bike path on Royal Avenue is striped and e whether there is financing assistance for the elderly. Mr. Hessler responded that it is striped and some assistance is available such as deferral or extension of payments. Mr. Hamel asked for the time1ine , for sidewalks to be constructed on Royal; Mr. Hessler responded that it would be next construction season~ Mr. Lieua11en asked if this . would be financed solely by the property owners or if it would be a shared cost with the City. Mr. Hessler responded it would be at the property owners' expense. Mr. Haws asked what the determination was for deciding which areas would have sidewalks constructed first. ~. Hessler responded those deemed most important would be done first and they would work their way down to those that are of lesser importance. ~. Haws asked if every street would have a sidewalk or just those around schools and shopping centers. ~. Hessler responded that all streets would have sidewalks, with the exception of limited-access arterials. In response to Councilor Obie's question regarding LTD's justification for requesting sidewalks, George Montoya, LTD, stated that there were no references in their study about sidewalks increasing ridership. They do, however, have an ongoing program of putting in sidewalk extensions. ~. Hessler noted that LTD use is only a part of the reason for sidewalks; another part is student safety and constructing sidewalks in commercial areas to aid people getting to and from work. Mr. Farah noted that sidewalk use in industrial areas is needed to encourage various 'alternative transportation modes, not just by LTD. e 7/14/80--12 Ms. Smith asked whether in regard to the Planning Commission's recom- mendation about Richard Lane, Richard Street, and Jerry Street, there was any consideration given to eliminating Royal Avenue as well. e She also wanted to know if there was consideration given to people opposing the sidewalks. Mr. McKinley noted that the Planning Commis- sion toured the area and chose Royal Avenue rather than Richard Street. Res. No. 3396--A resolution adopting the recommendations contained in the Eugene Sidewalk Program Draft Report (December 1979). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Obie stated that he was in favor of sidewalks and thinks they can add to neiqhborhoods, but is concerned about thi s being a "neat package" and does not think the answers to the questions are that simple. The sidewalks should be put in one at a time. In regard to industrial areas, there should be language like, "where appropriate." He feels there should be hearings on the specific streets. With costs today, by adopting the package, costs are being imposed on people and he would like for them to have recourse. He would like to see the sidewalks move ahead, but cautiously. Mr. Haws noted that he agrees generally with the policies of the plan. He asked if they would be adopting the policies and then looking at each project as it comes up. This would give them the ability to look at each individual project. Mr. McKinley responded that there would be two hearings for each sidewalk. Mr. Haws noted that if the tit process is not begun, it will never go anywhere. " Ms. Miller noted that good pedestrian access is important, but not necessarily a strip five feet back from the curb line. These projects will be council-initiated improvement projects. High priorities are being focused on first, and if Royal residents do not think it is high priority, that is acceptable; but it may cost them more later than if it were done at this time. She is concerned about people on fixed incomes. Mr. Obie asked if there is reason to believe that there will be block grant money available. Mr. Farah responded that there would not be NIP funds, but perhaps there might be individually funded improvement projects. Mr. Obie noted that a final decision was not being made on Royal Avenue tonight. Mayor Keller responded that it would come back to the council later. Mr. Obie asked if the indus- trial section is yet to be written. Mayor Keller responded that it was. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Obie asked if a response could be brought back to the council regarding grant avail abil ity. Mr. Farah responded that it could. e 7/14/80--13 - I D. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulation attached)--Mr. Henry introduced Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr. Gilman stated that these bid awards cons i st of 11 separate projects, tit one of which has five subprojects. Six projects are subdivisions with 100-percent petition--projects 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; two projects, 4 and 9, are by majority petition; project 8 is council-initiated; and project 10 is a diverter project to be constructed with Community Development funds. The recommendation is that projects 10 and 11 (3) not be awarded. . Recommendations based on the bid tabul ations for the others would be to award to the low bidders. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to award the low bids for all of the Public Works projects, with the exception of items 10 and 11 (3). Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON AN APPEAL FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARD BY THE HEARINGS PANEL ON JUNE 16, 1980 (findings distributed; additional information under separate cover) Findings from the Hearings Panel to uphold the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny a request for variances to allow an existing five-foot fence to remain entirely on the front property line and to allow the same fence within the special setbacks of City View Street and West 18th Avenue, and to allow an existing fence 42 inches high to remain within the tit vision clearance triangle of City View and West 18th. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve Hearings Panel minutes and adopt as their own the findings of fact as set forth in those minutes of June 16, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION (map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that with this authorization, EWEB would acquire right- of-way for certain transmission lines. This ordinance will be starting the process. es 2175--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interest along a route known as the Pierce-Jefferson 115kV transmission line for transmission and distribution of electricity; 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. - 7/14/80--14 Mr. Haws noted it would be cheaper to put this on 18th Avenue. e Council Bill 2175 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 18681. IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) Mr. Henry noted that these bills, claims, and progress payments are through June 30, the end of the fiscal year, not through July 14. The $15,000 item on page 2 for the right-of-way at 1472 Cal Young Road should be removed from the list. Res. No. 3397--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period June 23, 1980, through June 30, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to July 16, 1980. Respectfully submitted, tit ~ )~ Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:so/CM8b1 e 7/14/80--15 " , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION e Bid No. S Opened: July 8 & 10, 1980 1. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Central Manufacturing Industrial Park. (Job NQ. 1~57) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Wi1dish Construction Co.---------------------- $ 336,748.10 $ -0- 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- 358,532.65 -0- 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------- 401,399.95 437,047.70 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- 404,991. 65 -0- 5. Babb Const. Co./De1ta Const. Co.-------------- 412,028.85 -0- 6. H & J Construction---------------------------- 431,971.00 -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 329,200.00 44' Pav. $ 46.30/FF Storm $ 87,200.00 ------ $ 89,600.00 (531) San.Lat $ 0.08/Sq.Ft. San. Serv. $ 410.00/Each Stm. Swr. $ 2,160.00/Lot e COMPLETION DATE: November I, 1980 .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve F1atbush 2nd Addition; and paving Terry Street from Roosevelt Avenue to 300 feet south; and bridge over A-3 Channel at Terry Street. (Job No. 1708) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. H & J Construction---------------------------- $ 222,259.07 -0- 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- 240,033.38 -0- 3. Wi1dish Construction Co.---------------------- 241,466.84 -0- 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------~-------- 253,984.65 -0- 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------- 259,655.84 $ 285,250.36 6. Babb Canst. Co./De1ta Const.Co.--------------- 290,002.35 -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 218,900.00 28' Pav. $ 31. 30/FF Paving $ 16,800.00 San.Lat. $ 0.14/Sq.Ft. $ 55,800.00 (332) San.Serv. $ 210.00/Each Storm $ 22t900.00 e S tm . Swr . $ 490.00/Lot / ( COMPLETION DATE: December 1, 1980 .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 of 6 , " 3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Royalwood Subdivision. (Job No. 1796) e Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- $ 46.324.90 $ -0- 2. Wild ish Construction Co.----------------------. 49,860.30 49,778.66 3. H & J Construction --------------------------- 53,104.90 -0- 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------- 53,507.05 -O- S. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- -0- 55,276.00 6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.--------------- 63,777.64 64,511.50 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 59,150.00 28' Pave $. 28.85/FF. -0- -0- San. Lat. $ 770. OO/Lot San.Serv. $ 260.00/Lot Conc. Drive $ 2.35/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ---~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Judson Subdivision. (Job No. ,1505) \ Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Wildish Construction Co.---------------------- $ 53,189.50 $ 54,268.05 2. H & J Construction ------------------------~- 56,798.90 -0- 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- 57,617.30 -0- 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- .60,962.75 - -o- S. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------- 62,087.25 62,500.05 6. Egge Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------------- 63,513.85 -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 65,600.00 28' Pave $ 36.00/FF Storm $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 (531) San.Lat. $ 0.35/Sq.Ft. San.Serv. $ 14S.00/Each Stm.Swr . $2,lSO.00/Lot Cone.Drive $ 2.75/Sq.Ft. e COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 4__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 - . ,. . 5. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Kiska 1st Addition (Job No. 1770) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate ~_._-_. -~- .--+-. .. +- . e AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- $ -0- $ 62,866.80 2. Wild ish Construction Co.---------------------- -0- 67,611.30 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- 69,006.19 68,624.05 4. H & J Construction --------------------------- 69,332.30 -0-. - 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------- 77,537.85 73,334.10 6. Egge Sand & Gravel, Inc.- - ------- 78,222.63 -0- - -- .-- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 79,900.00 28' Pave $ 31.80/FF -0- -0- San. Lat. $ O.lO/Sq.Ft. San. Serv. $ 320.00/Each Stm.Swr . $ 300.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----------------- e 6. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve Luella Subdivision (Job No. 1634) . Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------- $ 79,014.80 -0- 2. Wild ish Construction Co.---------------------- 81,740.99 $ 82,104.53 . -- 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.------------ 86,925.18 89,428.52 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- -0- 87,186.15 5. H & J Construction ,-~---------------------- 94,383.25 -0- - . , Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 100,700.00 28' Pav. $ 30.00/FF -0- -0- San.Lat. $ 660.00/Lot San.Serv. $ 190.00/Lot StIn. Swr. $ 950.00/Lot . COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 3 of 6 I ;: 7. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Shasta Gardens e 3rd Addition. (Job No. 1718) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate \WARD 1. Wi1dish Construction Co.---------------------- $ 29,468~85 $ 19,983.01 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel; Inc.-------------------- -0- 21,212.93 3. Egge Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------....- 21,713.36 -0- 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------- -0- 22,652.15 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- -0- 23,246.80 6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc~--------------- 24,590.77 23,769.01 7. H & J Construction -------------------------- 23,792.79 -0- 8. Tarhee1 Asphalt ,& Paving---------------- 24,544.33 25,071. 50 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 25,300.00 28' Pav. $ 34.75/FF -0- -0- San. Lat. $ 0.13/Sq.Ft. San. Serv. $ 220.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ---4Il------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-------- 8. PAVING AND SIDEWALK on Martin Street from West Ama~on to Center Way. (Job No. 884) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Wi1dish Construction Co.----------------------- $ 89,062.09 $ 89,458.71 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------------- -0- 103,572.53 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------- -0- 104,359.68 4. H & J Construction-------------------------- -0- 104,804.95 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------- 112,315.85 -0- 6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------- 116,887.65 116,081.80 Cost to Abuttin~ Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $.61,300.00 28' Pav. $ 23.60/FF Paving $ .. - 800 . 00 ----- $ 8,400.00 (332) 4" Conc. $ 1. 71/Sq. Ft. Storm $ 44,000.00 ----- $ 56,500.00 (531) 5" Conc. $ 1. 89 /Sq. Ft. San. Serv. $ 650.00/Each 4' COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 4 of 6 I . 9. ALLEY PAVING between Friendly Street and " Monroe Street from 27th Avenue to 28th Avenue. (Job No. 1853) , Bidders: Contract Cost ~_.~__. ._. n_ , AIoTARD 1. Tarhee1 Asphalt & Paving------------------------ $ 15,897.80 . 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------------- 16,785.10 3. Wild ish Construction Co. ---------------- 17,839.65 4. Walt's Concrete Co.---------------- 18,207.75 - - .------ Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 20,065.00 711 Cone. $ 1. 37/WFF -0- -0- Alley $ O.Oll/WSF A.C. Drive $ 2.30/Sq.Ft. San. Serv. $ 145.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 ------------------------------------------------- ~-.-_. --. . - 10. TRAFFIC DIVERTERS on 12th Avenue at inter- section of Polk Street and Monroe Street (Job No's. 1881 & 1882) . Bidders: Contract Cost ~OT AWARD 1. Tarheel Asphalt & Paving------------------- $ 8,323.00 2. Egge Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------------- 8,742.40 3. Wildish Construction Co.---------------------- 9,324.20 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. -...----------- 12,812.50 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------------- 24,140.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 . - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5- of 6 -.----.-. --. --.----.--- - -- - -.. - .' i - 11. 1980 PAVING OVERLAYS - Five Various Locations. (Job No. 1872) . PROPOSAL NO. 1 -- Coburg Road, Oakway Rd. to North Bidders: Contract Cost AWARD 1. Wild ish Construction Co.------------------- $ 15,663.90 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------- 17,970.00 3. Morse Bros. Contractors. Inc.-------------- 24,021. 00 PROPOSAL NO. 2 -- 15th Avenue, Wi11amette to Oak Streets Bidders: AWARD 1. Wildish Construction Co.------------------ $ 7,918.47 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------- 8,733.75 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------- 10,039.14 l'ROPOSAL NO. 3 -- Lawrence Street from 11th to 13th Ave. Bidders: NOT AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------- $ 8,. 45.9~. 00 2. Wildish Construction Co.------------------ 9,777.20 e 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------- 11,758.00 PROPOSAL NO. 4 -- Lawrence Street from 5th to 7th Ave. Bidders: AWARD 1. Wild ish Construction Co.------------------- $ 12,312.40 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------- 13,763.00 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------- 14,373.00 PROPOSAL NO. 5 -- Wilson Street from 7th Place to South 200 feet Bidders: AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------- $ 10.029.38 2. Wildish Construction Co.----~------------ 11,549.25 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------- 23,180.63 Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 48,220.00 $ 50,200.00 . COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 .~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 6 of 6