Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1980 Meeting . " M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL September 8, 1980 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m., September 8, 1980, in the City Council Chamber with the following councilors present: Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, D. W, Hamel, and Emily Schue. Counc i lors Jack Delay and Gretchen Miller were absent. Mayor Keller requested a councilor volunteer to appear on KVAL-TV Tuesday to discuss the City budget, Ms, Smith volunteered, 1. PUBLI C HEAR I NGS A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning 1. Properties located at the southern city limits, east and west of Fox Hollow Road, including property along Owl Road, west Amazon e Drive, Canyon Drive, and Vivia~ Drive from County AGT-5 to City RA Suburban Residential District (Higgins/Dallas) (A/Z 80-2) (map distributed)--Mr. Henry stated that this annexation/rezoning request involves about 165 acres of private lands in the South Hills between Spencer Butte Park and the city limits. Because of previous land division approvals in the county, the property has been broken down into 44 parcels with 38 different ownerships and the area is developed with 23 dwellings. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval at their July 1, 1980, meeting. As directed by the Planning Commission, the applicants had the exact location of the South Hills Ridgeline surveyed and an amended legal description was prepared, excluding parts of two parcels and two dwellings which are located over the ridge. He introduced Greg Byrne, Planning, to provide background information. Mr. Byrne stated that the applicants had been required to survey the exact location of the South Hills Ridgeline across Tax Lots 601 and 603. When the Planning Commission review occurred, it had been thought that both dwellings on those tax lots were located at the top of the ridge and could be served by a full range of urban services, but both of these homes are over the ridge. The Planning Commission has amended its recommendation by deleting portions of those two lots, including the dwellings, from the recommended annexation. The area is receiving fire services e 9/8/80--1 under contract from the Eugene Fire Department, limited water services from EWEB, and school services from District 4J. A portion of this property abuts Spencer Butte, An amended legal . description was provided to the councilors. 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: Doug DuPriest, 101 East Broadway, represented the applicants. He stated that this proposal received a favorable staff report and Planning Commission recom- mendation. He said this offers an opportunity to protect the southern boundary of the city and to complete its extension, He stated there has been much concern about this area and that has resulted in the South Hills Study, which restrains development and protects the public when development occurs, The original request had contained 173 acres, but six acres have been acquired by the City for a park. This request is for 165 acres, 59 of which are west of Fox Hollow Road and 106 of which are east of Fox Hollow Roadr The 43 tax lots range in size from two-tenths of an acre to 15-1/2 acres, with the average size less th an four acres. There are about 23 residences on the properties in the proposal. This annexation was a triple majority application--more than half the land owners supported the annexation request and those land owners owned more than half the land and represented more than half the assessed value of the land. The Planning Commission suggested RA zoning and the applicant agreed. The applicant also agreed to the Planning Commission.s proposal of the - western boundary. The proposed annexation is within the urban service boundary and consistent with the 1990 Plan, the Metropolitan Plan Update, and the South Hills Study, which designate the area for low-density residential development. This area is also within the urban growth boundary. There is no prime agri- cultural land in the proposed annexation and rnost of the soils are Class VI, There is no commercial timber land within the property. Mr. DuPriest said this 'annexation should be approved because land is needed to maintain the City's inventory of undeveloped land. He feels most of the people opposed to the annexation are concerned about the livability of the area, The South Hill s Study contains stringent guidelines for development in the area and those constraints should meet the neighbors. concerns. He feels this would be a good opportunity for the City to make the southern boundary rational and gain control of development in the area, There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed, Ms, Schue asked if people with those two split tax lots would have problems in the future. Mr. Byrne stated that they do, not foresee any problems and would like to leave partition judgments to the property owners, e 9/8/80--2 Res. No. 3415--A resolution recommending to the Boundary Commission annexation of properties located at the southern city e limits, east and west of Fox Hollow Road, including property along Owl Street, West Amazon Drive, Canyon Drive, and Vivian Drive, to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District, Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 1, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Ms. Smith asked if this resolution is as was amended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Byrne responded that that is his understandi ng, Roll call vo~e; motion carried u~animously. CB 2187--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County AGT-5 to City RA Suburban Residential District for properties located at the southern city limits, east and west of Fox Hollow Road, including property along Owl Road, west Amazon Drive, Canyon Drive, and Vivian Drive. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 1, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; e 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2187 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, All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18694. Mr. Henry stated that this ordinance would not contain an emergency clause because only five council members were in the chamber at the time of the vote. B, Mural Ordinance--An amendment to Section 8.620 (sign code definitions) of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding new Sections 8.671 and 8,672; to provide for regulation of murals (SCA 80-1) (memo and ordinance distributed)--Mr. Henry stated that this item has been before the Planning Commission on several occasions. The need is to distinguish between signs and murals prior to their placement on building walls, Background information will be given by Jerry Jacobson, with Pat Decker, Larry Reed, and Barbara McDonald also available for questions, e 9/8/80--3 On July 7, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Planning Commission President Robert Barkman is also available to answer questions. e Jerry Jacobson, Planning, distributed photographs of murals. He stated that the purpose is to establish City policy for wall murals. Those determined to be used for advertising purposes will be subject to the sign codes, Judgmental decisions have been made in the past for when a mural becomes a sign. The objectives are to assist the public, the mural owners, and the painters by providing definite guidelines before the signs go up and to establish maintenance procedures. Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, provided an alternative defini- tion of a mural, which was forwarded to the City Attorney's Office. The City Attorney's Office found Ms. Lannom's definition unacceptable and changed it somewhat so as to more clearly define a mural yet retain her intent. Her definition is a more lenient one than the staff definition, Ms. Lannom's definition would state that a mural would only be considered a sign if it intended to achieve the purpose of advertising by the use of lettering or script drawing attention or directing the observer to a particular business or location, drawing attention to specific products, goods, or services by the use of a name brand, trademark, copyright, or any device which restricts free use or reproduction by others without permission or remuneration of the owner. Mr. Hamel noted that in the pictures that had been distributed, he did not see any advertising. Mr. Jacobson responded that there is nothing wrong with these being considered murals. Mr. Hamel asked if the e proposed ordinance is to prevent signs masquerading as murals. Mr. Jacobson responded that that was correct. Mr. Obie asked where the problems were and what has happened to require consideration of this ordinance. Mr. Reed stated that one example would be a business that places a graphic representation on the side of its building which indicates what the activity business within the building,is. Th~ Sign Code states that a sign is something that draws attention to the service or product within the building and the staff must determine if the mural meets that definition, Staff would prefer to deal with the public prior to placement, rather than after the fact, which is what they have to do under the current Sign Code. This ordinance would clarify that situation prior to placement. Mr. Obie asked for specific instances. Ms. McDonald stated that there have been a couple of murals placed which were determined to be signs. These were appealed to the Sign Code Board of Appeals and finally to the council. Staff currently cannot require people to submit drawings of proposed murals prior to placement. Mr. Obie asked if the graphic on the side of the Toy Shoppe is a mural or a sign. Ms, McDonald responded that it is a mural, Staff forwarded this situation to the Attorney's Office for a determination and it was . 9/8/80--4 , determined to be a mural since it does not specify onlt one kind of toy. Mr. Obie asked if the graphic on the side of Haw eye's depicting e people skiing is a mural or a sign. Ms. McDonald responded that it, too, was determined by the attorney's office to be a mural. Mr. Obie asked if it is a mural even though skis are one of the products which they sell. Ms. McDonald stated that not just products are involved in this graphic but scenery is also depicted. Mr. Haws stated that he had served on the Sign Code Board of Appeals and this has been a recurring problem. They would prefer to have guidelines rather than make arbitrary decisions. This is an attempt to refine the rules. He asked if staff's decision could be appealed. Mr. Jacobson said that it could be appealed to the Sign Board and then to the council. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2188--An ordinance concerning murals; amending Section 8.620 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding new Sections 8.671 and 8.672 thereto; and declaring an emergency. Ms, Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Lieuallen asked where in the draft ordinance the staff definition e can be found. Mr. Jacobson responded that it is in Section 8.620 and that Ms. Lannom's definition is more lenient. Ms. Schue stated that she is also concerned but is having trouble with the distinction between signs and murals. She asked how the line is being drawn. Mr. Reed said he was not certain he could answer her definitively. Each application will have to be considered on the total represent at i on. Ms. Schue stated that the staff was not supportive of Ms. Lannom's definition, although it does clearly state when a mur a 1 is not a sign, Mr, Reed stated that the staff was neither sup- portive nor unsupportive. Ms. Schue asked if it would be possible to include Ms. Lannom's definition. Mr, Jacobson responded that it would be possible but that the attorneys changed Ms. Lannom's definition slightly. Mr, Obie noted agreement with Ms. Schue's concerns and stated that he does not see being more lenient as a problem. He feels that Ms. Lannom's definition, although more lenient, is also more specific and leaves less room for judgment. He feels that graphics such as those located on the buildings of Hawkeye's and the Toy Shoppe are assets to the community. He does not want the staff in a position of making arbitrary decisions. e 9/8/80--5 Mr. lieuallen noted agreement with Mr, Obie. There should be as little legislation as possible regarding judgments of artistic works. If a more specific but more lenient definition were adopted, signs would be treated . differently from murals. He feels staff would be in a stronger position in dealing with what is not a mural. Ms. Smith asked if the ordinance could be redrafted to include what would be unacceptable as part of a mural. Mr. Haws noted that with the staff definition it is not clear as to what a mural is, and Ms. lannom's definition does not restrict a mural unless it meets specific criteria. The council must decide if it wants to allow almost anything or be more restrictive. Mr. lieuallen stated that people should be given the greatest latitude at this time. This item could be brought back to the council later if it did not work, Ms. Decker stated that the definition in the proposed ordinance indicates that objects could not be used in murals that draw attention to the business. The attorney.s definition is not as restrictive. Mayor Keller asked how many'graphics were a problem during this last year, Ms. McDonald st~ted that some graphics have gone up as murals and have later been determined to be signs. Five or six may go up within a year but at present there is only one that is non-conforming. In cases of non- conformance, the graphic would have to be removed, altered, or reduced to conform to the Sign Code requirements. Ms. Schue asked if the present non-conforming graphic would be considered a sign under Ms. lannom's definition. Ms. McDonald responded that it is definitely a sign. Ms. Schue asked if it contai ns a trademark. Ms. McDonald responded that it is a graphic of the service. Ms. Schue asked what would make it a sign e under Ms. lannom.s definition. Ms. McDonald responded that it would not be a sign under Ms. lannon's definition but would be under the staff's definition since it draws attention to a service or product. Ms. Smith stated that she would suggest defeating the motion and asked the staff to redraft the ordinance including statements as to when a mural is not a sign. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney.s Office, stated that the alternative definition could be used by amending the ordinance rather than redrafting the ordinance. Ms, Smith asked if the amended definition would be the one contained in the memo from John Franklin. Mr. Sercombe stated that it was and that the word 1I0rll should be inserted between clause (a) and clause (b). Mr. Haws stated that he does not like the revised version of Ms. lannom's definition, The only restriction with this definition pertains to trademarks, etc. He would prefer the original staff proposal. Ms. Schue stated that under Ms. Lannom.s definition, a body shop could put up a picture of a car and under the staff definition, they could not. Ms. Obie suggested passing the ordinance with he wording in the attorney's memo. e 9/8/80--6 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to amend Council Bill 2188 substituting the definition as outlined in the August 27 memo - from John Franklin. This would including inserting the word "orll after clause (a) and before clause (b). ' Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Henry stated that staff would prefer to delete the emergency clause from this bill and council concurred. Roll call vote on amended Council Bill 2188; motion carried unaminously. Amended CB 2188 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. Motion carried 5:1, with Councilor Haws voting no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18695. C. A peal of Park in Removal for the Au usta Street Beautification/Speed Control Project memo, map distributed --Mr, Henry stated that staff has developed a series of three street narrowings which will beautify the street and detract from the openness of the street in order to discourage speeding. The street will be narrowed to 12 feet. Thi s action has been appealed by two property owners in regard to parking removal. The financing will occur through the CD Block Grant program. e He introduced Irv Berman, Traffic Engineering Division, to provide background information. Mr, Berman stated that the Community Development Block Grant was awarded to the laurel Hill Valley in 1977 to combine beautification and to reduce speeding. Augusta Street has no intersections and is 36 feet wide, so some people use it as a boulevard. This project is an attempt to to slow speeds by having drivers perceive the street as being narrower. They have worked with the neighborhood group and this is a compromise proposal. Tl:le project would consist of three instal- lations and the contract would be awarded on Wednesday if the council denies the ap~eal. Laurel Hill School is at the south end of Augusta Stree . Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the appeal: Laura Henning, 34621 Highway 58, Lot 81, Eugene, stated that she owns land at 1920 Augusta. She owns an acre of land and lived there from 1946 until recently. She is familiar with the neighborhood, and objects to having parking removed since it is convenient having parking available in front of the houses. The choice of housing design would be limited if this project were allowed since the locations of driveways would be restricted, She feels this would discrimi- nate against her by decreasing her lot's value. She stated that statistics e 9/8/80-.,.7 received by the City show there has not been one injury in the last four years. If traffic is funneled into a narrower corridor, children, joggers, bicyclists, etc., will have to funnel into a narrower area also, and this could be more of a safety hazard. She is concerned about maintenance of the - area. She feels that the laurel Hill Valley Neighbors are "well-wishers," but if they move, others might not be so likely to maintain this area, She does not feel this is a sound project. She feels the money could be better spent on Riverview Street, which has shown statistics of injuries, Speaking in favor of the project: Clyde Raven, representing the laurel Hill Valley Neighbors, stated that the project has been in the works for three years. Augusta Street is a perennial concern. On the north end there are houses on both sides with parking on both sides and traffic speeds are lower. On the south end of the street, there are houses only on the west side. The area is largely unparked and higher auto speeds are evident. There was a serious injury on Augusta Street a few years ago. They have considered four or five different designs trying to be aware of design and neighborhood needs, and how this project could best benefit the neighborhood. The project is primarily for beautification and secondarily for safety. The lane width would be reduced to 12 feet. The design leaves the maximum accessibility to the various portions of property while receiving the maximum benefits from the design. This will be a visual barrier but it will not be blocking 200 to 300 feet in front of people's homes. Riverview Street is unimproved, but residents do not want to see it improved. They urge the council to deny the appeal on behalf of t~e laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association. The public hearing was closed. In rebuttal, Mrs, Henning stated that the accident figures had been obtained e from the City. She stated that she does not feel the question of maintenance has been satisfactorily answered. She would like written assurance that these areas will be maintained. Mr. Berman stated that he had received a letter from the laurel Hill Valley ,Citizens which stated that they will provide maintenance, The plantings will be low ground covers and trees in each of the six spots and are designed for minimum maintenance. laurel Hill School and EWEB have given permission for their water to be used for the care of the plantings. In regard to parking, staff has done a survey and it was determined that there is a maximum of 14 cars parking on the street, which uses only six percent of the total area. Regarding safety, the street width would be 36 feet from curb to curb, which is as safe as many residential streets. These beauty spots will not be as obstructive as cars would be and would not be creating a liability hazard. Mr. Haws asked if the concept is to make the area look nice, but who will maintain the beauty spots if the neighborhood groups move away or do not maintain them. He asked if the property owners would be responsible. Mr. Berman responded that they would, but stressed that minimal maintenance will e 9/8/80--8 be required and that they have a written commitment from the neighborhood group, Mr. Haws asked what would happen if neither the property owner nor the neigh- borhood groups maintain the area, Mr. Berman stated that they do not anticipate e a problem as the shrubs are low-maintenance ground cover. Mr. Haws asked whether the trees would block drivers' views. Mr, Berman responded that they would not. Nathan Duke, Public Works, stated that the City Code calls for certain visual specifications and the trees would be no lower than seven feet when mature, Mr. Haws asked if the area would still look better ten years from now if no one took care of it. Mr. Berman responded that it would. Mr, Haws asked if it was correct that the City would not have to provide maintenance. Mr, Berman res- ponded that that was correct. Mr, Haws cautioned that it could be a problem. Mr. Berman stated that this is an innovation and an attempt to work with the neighborhood group. The issue could be readdressed if it became a problem, Mr. Hamel asked why this particular 125-foot stretch of the street was going to be used. Mr, Berman responded that a transition area is necessary for drivers to see that there is a narrowing of the street, and the site cannot be shifted to another location without additional cost because of the slope of the street and drainage problems. Mr, Hamel asked if this area was chosen to slow down traffic because it is in front of the vacant lots. Mr, Berman responded that it was not. Mr. Hamel stated that he agreed with Mr. Haws regarding maintenance, The average homeowner moves after seven years. He hesitates to close a street because of a few people's desires. Mr, Berman noted that it would not be closing the street. Mr. Hamel corrected his statement to indicate that it would be narrowing the street, but said he still has reservations. e Ms. Schue asked where the people would walk. Mr, Berman stated that it would be within the project area and there would be more area to walk with the narrowing project. Ms. Schue stated that there would be no sidewalk installed so this does not change the situation from what it is now. Mr. Berman indicated agreement and stated that sidewalks could later be installed. Ms, Schue asked if the landscaping will be left when sidewalks are installed. Mr. Berman responded that it would be. Mr. Haws asked if this would impose a danger for bicyclists. Mr. Berman stated that it would not and that bicyclists would have more room with the project than if cars were parked there. Mayor Keller asked if half of these spots would be on one person's property and half on another. Mr. Berman responded that that was not the case, but that there would be parking across the street from Mrs. Henning's property. Ms, Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to deny the appeal. , Mr. Lieuallen noted that removal of parking is only a minimal detriment and traffic will become an increasing problem in this neighborhood. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1, with Mr. Hamel voting no. e 9/8/80--9 --- D. Annual Review and Adoption of the Eugene-Springfield Area Transpor- tation Improvement Pro ram FY 1980-81 throu h 1984-85 (memo dis- trlbuted --Mr, Henry stated that the Transportatlon Improvement e Program is a planning document with all three jurisdictions agreeing on various projects to be accomplished within the next five year~ and how the funding will be shared. The TIP contains projects in all three jurisdictions. He introduced Mr. Berman, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr. Berman stated that the TIP is a five-year short-range plan and inclusion of a project does not necessarily mean that the project will be implemented. The FHA and UMA require that for a project to be Federally-funded, it must be included in the TIP, There are some changes from the last TIP: 1) This is a five-year plan rather than a three-year plan and all agencies have agreed that projects in the later years are more tentative; 2) TSM projects are designated--they are less costly to correct deficiencies as well as to deal with alternative modes; and 3) phasing is possible to stretch available Federal dollars. Mr. Berman stated that the action requested of the council is to approve the TIP with the changes from the eratta sheet and to recommend adoption to MATC which will meet in October, Pat Decker, Planning Department, stated that Commissioner Barkman had been unable to stay for this portion of the meeting and asked that staff underscore the following: It should be noted that the downtown transit station and contraflow proposal are being supported in concept e by the Planning Commission, but the Planning Commissioners feel there should be further public input on the locations of the stations. Public hearing was opened. Clark Cox, 1085 Patterson, Apartment 9, stated that although he is on the planning team for the West University Neighbors, he is speaking as a private , c it i zen. There seems to be no opposition to the contraflow system. There is some reference to what was formerly called the Pearl-High Connector in this document since they are now looking at changing the one-way patterns. He welcomes the fact that the City is interested in pursuing the ideas. He not ed that this document includes an item for the Beltline Bridge at Willamette. He stated that if they are talking about additional lanes for autos, he would prefer not to see this and would rather see staggered work hours to ease the situation. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Berman stated that regarding the Amazon Parkway analysis, the council has requested that this be studied at the same time as the 30th Avenue interchange which is under consideration in the Traffic Division. e 9/8/80--10 Mr. Obie stated that in regard to the TIP bicycle projects, the City.s portion - in west Eugene appears to be completed later than the other two portions which are further out. He asked for clarification. Mr. Berman stated that there was a problem with the Federal funds involved with this particular project so they took that portion of funding for the Roosevelt Boulevard phase and used it to complete the Beltline-to-Bertelsen section. The County will be paying for extension from Beltline to Greenhill and then from Greenhill to Fernridge. Mr. Obie asked when Proposal B2b would happen--the Seneca-to-Bertelsen section along the Amazon Channel. Mr, Berman responded that this would occur probably in 1982-83 since there are funding and right-of-way problems. He stated that on page 27, Table 6, there is a breakdown of the FAU funds. They have tentatively scheduled this project in that fiscal year and may have to purchase right-of-way. Mr. Obie asked if it was correct that portions further west would occur sooner. Mr. Berman responded that the County would build from Beltline to Greenhill with County funds. Mr, Obie stated that this would create a bike path with no connectors. Mr. Berman responded that that was correct, but since both Churchill and Bethel area residents can use this path it is the most usable section and there is not enough money to fund the portion from Bertelsen to Quaker. Mr, Obie asked if there were alternatives regarding right-of-way acquisitions, Mr, Berman responded that there were none that they are aware of. Mr, Obie asked if this portion could be built on the banks of the Amazon Channel. Mr. Berman responded that that would be very difficult, but that they could parallel the channel. Mr, Obie stated that on each side of the channel there is a 20-foot- wide berm and asked if they could build bike paths there. Mr, Berman responded that there would have to be an easement; in some cases the City does not have an easement for pedestrians or bicycle access and that these would have to be e bought separately. Mr. Obie stated that one amendment is the Goodpasture Island Study. He asked if there is any way that the cost for this study could be avoided, Mr. Berman stated that although this is a County road right now, the City wants to ensure that it meets City standards since the City will acquire it in the future, ,Mr. lieuallen asked about the Beltline widening project. Ms. Decker responded that the council will see this item again when the T-2000 Plan is reviewed. The widening of the Beltline Bridge is to address capacity problems. The T-2000 Plan will extend Beltline to Delta Drive. There are concerns about those extensions. The County is looking at widening Beltline rather than extending Delta Highway north. Mr. lieuallen asked if this will be a T-2000 amendment, Ms, Decker responded that it would. Mr. lieuallen asked about the Northwest Expressway-to-Chambers project, Mr, Berman responded that this is a County program for engineering and will be paid for by County funds this fiscal year. Analysis will occur this year and con- struction will occur within the last two years of this TIP. Mr. lieuallen asked if the County is completing the Northwest Expressway to connect it to Railroad Boulevard. Mr. Berman responded that is correct. Mr. lieuallen asked if that will make things more difficult on Van Buren. Mr. Berman responded that it e 9/8/80--11 --- will not make things worse and that it will unload a portion of the traffic going to the west side of the River Road area, Mr. Lieuallen asked if that road will become an attractor for more traffic. Mr. Berman responded that it would not but it would reduce some traffic from River Road, . Mr, Lieuallen asked about the easements on the BLM property, Mr. Berman stated that is east of Danebo. They have talked with BLM staff and they will grant an easement. Engineering staff is working on acquiring this property, Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the council recommend to the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee adoption of the Eugene element of the Transportation Improvement Program FY 1980-81 through 1984-85. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulations attached) Mr. Henry stated that all of these items are recommended to be approved, with the exception of the last item. He introduced Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr, Gilman stated that Bid 10, project 1, street paving on Acorn Park, will tie in with the bridge and this is a council-initiated project. On project 2, there are two options--schedule A which would pave Orr Lane from 19th to 22nd; and Schedule B which would include paving 19th Avenue from Cleveland Street to Orr Lane. The property owners on 19th unanimously were against schedule B and staff is recommending schedule A. Regarding project 3, storm sewer north of Cal Young Road, this is a new subdivision and part of the expenses will be assessed with the other portion paid for by the City. Project 4, storm sewer north of Royal e from Terry Street, will be a jointly shared project. Bid 11, project 1, is in conjunction with EWEB power transmission lines and EWEB will pay the costs. Project 2, the box culvert at Polk Street pump station, is a modification for an old storm sewer; the recommendation is that this item be held over in order to re-evaluate the design. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Gilman stated that on item 2, staff recommendation is to accept schedule A only. Mrs. Willie stated that she has a lot that is 41.85 feet by 261 feet which has a small house on it that is used as a rental, Her hope is to be able to split the lot and put two dwellings on it. The City has requested that she dedicate 28 feet of her property, but even without dedicating that 28 feet she is still short of enough land to split her lot, She stated that since developers have come in she has been assessed for sewers which she objected to. She now will have to pay for a street which she cannot,use. She now has a lot with a garden and a rental rather than two lots with two houses, She stated that the Engineer- ing staff had told her that if she would dedicate a ten-foot easement the City e 9/8/80--12 would pay the cost. She will only dedicate her property if she can get a building permit to build a second dwelling. She feels the City took over from e the real estate firm and builders who saw to it that the street is put in although they do not own the property. She feels that she was lied to by the developers. She is going to make a trip to Salem with the evidence. She feels this should have been straightened out before development was allowed. She stated that Councilor Obie had at first told her not to pay the assessment and has since changed his mind. Speaking in favor: Mr, Willard Robinson stated that he supports the recommendation not to resurface 19th Avenue and that his neighbors agree with him. Speaking in regard to bid 3: Kathy Stallings stated that she owns a lot in the Craviotto-Stratton Subdivision and that their property is being assessed for a storm sewer which is of no direct benefit to them. She disagrees with the method the City uses for levying assessments in subdivisions. The costs are divided equally regardless of the improvement. Her lot does not border the improvement and the improvement will not enhance the value of her lot. Those lots outside the subdivision were not assessed. She feels this causes a subdivider to jockey the selling prices. She would recommend that the City review this procedure. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. e Bert Teitzel, Engineering Division, stated that in regard to Orr lane, right-of- way was not obtained from the lot in question; therefore the full street could not be bui 1t, They have asked for an easement for a 20-foot-wide street. Two property owners gave the easement but the third would not. The street is being paved in the areas that can be done. This street gets muddy in the winter. They are not putting in a street where they do not have right-of-way. Ms. Willie does not have enough property to subdivide under the present City Code. Minimum lot standards would have to be lowered for her to be able to do this, In regard to the storm sewer, the City has standard procedures where, as a condition of the subdivision, the subdivider is required to provide for certain improvements. This can be done by equal lot assessment or per-square-footage assessment if the lots are not equal. He does not feel this procedure should be changed. Mr, lieuallen asked if these people who do not border the sewer will have runoffs that will drain into the storm sewer. Mr. Teitzel responded that they wou 1 d . He noted that there are lots that will benefit more directly but that this one will also benefit. Mr. Henry commented that they perhaps do not benefit as directly as some but that they will benefit. Mr. lieuallen asked if the storm sewer is a requirement for the lot, Mr. Teitzel stated that that was a requirement of the subdivision as certain public improvements must be met in order for the property to be subdivided. Mr, lieuallen asked if this system should be re-evaluated. Mr. Teitzel stated that it should not. He corrected an earlier statement by saying that the lot outside the subdivision will be assessed. e 9/8/80--13 Mr. Lieuallen asked if these people will have runoffs that will drain into the storm sewer, Mr. Teitzel responded that it would. He noted that there are lots that will benefit more directly but that this one will also benefit. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the storm sewer must be provided for the lot. Mr. Teitze 1 e stated that that was a requirement of the subdivision, Mr, Lieuallen asked where the runoff goes. Mr, Teitzel said that it goes into the ditch where the storm sewer will be put. Mr. Henry commented that they perhaps do not benefit as directly as some but that they will benefit, Mr. Lieuallen asked if this was required of the subdivider. Mr. Teitzel responded that it was; certain public improvements must be met in order for the property to be subdivided. Mr, Lieuallen asked if this system is inequitable. Mr, Teitzel stated that it is not. Ms, Schue asked if each lot owner pays an equal amount or if they pay by square footage. Mr. Teitzel stated that it is normally on a per-lot basis but the code indicates that, if all owners agree, it can be assessed by square footage of each lot, This would probably be to the benefit of these particular individuals. This would occur when the assessment is made, not at the time the land is sub- divided. Ms. Schue asked if this could be solved later. Mr. Teitzel said it could, Mr. Obie noted that all of this would come back at the time of assessment. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to award the contracts as outlined, excluding schedule B of bid 10, project 2, and holding over project 2 of bid 11. Roll call vote; motion carried un an i mo u sly. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING e Levying of Assessments and Referral to Hearings Panel to be Held September 15, 1980--Mr. Henry stated that the following council bill was read the first time May 27, 1980, referred to the June 2, 1980, hearings panel and held over. It should have first reading again and be referred to the hearings panel to be held September 15, 1980. CB 2132--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Seneca Road from 1st Avenue to 11th Avenue (78-29) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to a hearings panel for hearing September 15, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration on September 22, 1980, Ro 11 ca 11 vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Henry stated that the following council bill, read the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the June 16, 1980, hearings panel, was held over. It should have first reading again and be referred to the hearings panel to be held September 15, 1980. e 9/8/80--14 CB 2147--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, storm sewer, and e sidewalk in 25th Avenue, from 450 feet east of Cleveland Street to 800 feet east of Cleveland Street (79-38) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to a hearings panel for hearing September 15, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration on September 22, 1980. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to September 10, 1980. Respectfully submitted, C~yJ~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:pm/CM7b22 tit e 9/8/80~~15 ~- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS e Engineering Division Bid No. 10 Opened: August 28, 1980 1. STREET PAVING on Acorn Park Street from West 11th Avenue to Amazon Channel (Job #1862) Bidders: Contract Cost: AWARD 1- Tarheel Asphalt & Paving ----------------- $ 16,740.20 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------- $ 18,580. 15 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------- $ 18,727.10 4. Wildish Construction Co. ----------------- $ 22,062.70 -Cost to Abutting Property .Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($ 17,850.00) 361 Paving $ 45.00/FF None None Conc. Drive West $ 2,100.00 East $ 1,570.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1980 .--e-------------------------~-----------~-~-~~--------------~:----------------------------------- 2. STREET PAVING on Orr Lane from 19th Avenue to 22nd Avenue and paving 19th Avenue from Cleveland Street to Orr Lane (Job #1905) Schedule "A" Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate , AWARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 55,205.65 $ 54,489.95 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------$ -0- $ 55,175.09 3. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------$ 61,717.13 $ 58,855.20 4. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-----------------$ 61,503.40 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($ 69,500.00) 28' Paving $ 35.10/FF None None San.Service $ 610.00/Lot Cone. Drive $ 2.00/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1980 - *Orr Lane Continued on Page 2 Page 1 of 3 2'. . STREET PAVING on Orr Lane - Continued from Page 1 Schedule "B" e Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate NOT 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 66,452.25 $ 64,927.50 AWARD 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------$ -O- S 67,146.64 3. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------$ 73,503.10 S 70,015.00 4. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-----------------$ 74,494.05 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($ 82,200.00) 28' Paving $ 34.00jFF None None San.Service $ 610.00/Lot Gonc.-Drive $ 2.00ISq.Ft. A.C. Drive $ 1.10/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1980 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. STORM SEWER north of Cal Young Road from Fir Acres Road to 450 feet northwest (within and adjacent to proposed Craviotto-Stratton Subdivision) (Job #1780) e - ~ -- --.. Bidders: Contract Cost AWARD 1 . Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.----------------$ 22,230.50 2. H & J Construction -----------------------$ 25,116.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-u--uu-u------$ 31,049.00 4. Wi1dish Construction Co.------------------$ 33,152.49 5. Kenneth R. Bostick Const. Co.-------------$ 35,857.60 6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.------------$ 41,761.00 7. B & R Backhoe Service---------------------$ 42,225.50 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($ 12,600.00) Storm Sewer = $ 13,600.00 $ 26,000.00 (332) $ 2,200.00jLot - Subdivision $ 3,950.00jTax Lot #1002 COMPLETION DATE: November 1, 1980 -----------------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------------- e Page 2 of 3 .~ t ~ Bid No. 10 Opened: September 4, 1980 e 4. STORM SEWER 1650 feet north of Royal Avenue from Terry Street to 900 feet east. (Job #1767) Bidders: Contract" Cost AWARD 1. Hamilton Construction Co.--------------~$ 128,392.40 2. Powell Industrial Builders, Inc,.,.-...-----$ 137,063.52 3. Wildish Construction Co.-...------------~-$ 143)968.95 4. H & J Construction---------------_-~-...--$ 147,164,00 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-...-----...-......-~-$ 154 077.15 - ~~. ~ . , :~. "" Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($ 83,200.00) $ 69,750,00 $ 66,500.00 C332} COMPLETION DATE: December 1, 1980 - ~- _.~ e , - Page 3 of 3 ; . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division e Bid No. 11 Opened: September 4, 1980 1. SANITARY SEWER RELOCATIONS on 13th Avenue (Job #1889) Bidders: Contract Cost AWARD 1. L. D. Van Over Construction, 1nc.-----------$ 15,674.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------$ 20,067.85 3. H & J Construction--------------------------$ 23,226.50 4. Shur-Way Contractors, 1nc.------------------$ 24,314.50 5. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.---------$ 31,230.00 6. Wildish ConstructionCo.----------------~---$33,698.00 Cost to Abutting Propert~ Cost to City None EWEB $ 17,250.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 17, 1980 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e - - - ~- -~" 2. BOX CULVERT at Polk Street Pump Station at Wi11amette River (1888) Bidders: Contract Cost HOLD 1 . Wi1dish Construction Co.--------------------$ 32,360.00 2. B & R Back-Hoe CO.--------------------------$ 34,625.00 3. H & J Construction--------------------------$ 38,050.00 4. Morris P. Kielty General Contractor, Inc.---$ 38,155.00 5. Powell Industrial Builders, Inc.------------$ 41,599.85 Cost to Abutting Property; Cost to City Amount Budgeted None -~~ $ 35~600.00 S 20,000.00 C531 ) COMPLETION DATE: November 1, 1980 e