Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1980 Meeting '" , M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 8, 1980 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Eric Haws was absent. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mayor Keller stated that Susan Watson and Patti Crawford are in the audience this evening to assist with administration of the Citizen Involvement Committee questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire is to help the committee learn more about citizens' experiences attending Eugene's land use planning public hearings to determine if changes are needed to make the public hearings more understandable and responsive to the needs of Eugene's citizens. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS . A. Rezoning 1. Properties located generally north of West 11th Avenue, south of West 1st Avenue, east of Terry Street, and south of Seneca Road: from a) M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Indus- trial District for Sector A (Terry Street to Beltline Road); b) from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-1 Light Industrial District for Sector A (Terry Street to Beltline Road); c) from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District for Sector B (Beltline Road to Bertelsen Road); and d) from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District for Sector C (Bertelsen Road to Seneca Road) (West Eugene Industrial Area, Phase II) (Z 80-2) (maps distributed) -_. Mr. Henry stated that this proposed rezoning includes a substantial amount of the industrial area in west Eugene. About 600 acres are affected. This proposed rezoning was initiated February 1980. September 22, 1980, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. The properties are located north of West i1th, south of West 1st, east of Terry, and west of Seneca Road. The rezoning will be from M-3 to M-2 for a portion of Sector A--Terry Street to Beltline Road, from M-3 to M-1 for a portion of Sector AuTerry Street to Beltline Road, from M-3 to M-2 for Sector B--Beltline Road to Bertelsen Road, and from M-3 to M-2 for Sector C--Bertelsen Road to Seneca Road. This zone change is part of the implementation of Phase II of the Bethel-Danebo Neighborhood Refinement Plan. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 1 . He introduced Pat Decker, Jerry Jacobson, and Kirk McKinley, Planning; and . Robert Barkman, Planning Commission, to provide additional information. Mr. Obie stated that he owns property adjacent to this area and will abstain from voting on the matter. Ms. Decker stated that a zone change was recommended by the Planning Commission after a lengthy review and is the result of the Phase II, Bethel/Danebo Refine- ment Plan. This request is based on policies of the community adopted in the refinement plan and would allow for light-medium industry. Because of the substantial size of the West Eugene Industrial Area, this request is separated into three sectors: A, B, and C. Sector A includes property north of West 11th between the city limits at Terry Street and Beltline Road. The bulk of this sector is recommended for rezoning from M-3 to M-2. Tax Lot 1002, Spectra- Physics, is recommended for rezoning from M-3 to M-1. There were two issues raised regarding this sector. The first was in regard to the northern boundary. Agreement was reached to use Atlantic Avenue as the north dividing line of M-3 and M-2 zoning incorporating portions of a new industrial subdivision but excluding the central manufacturing mill. The second concern was in regard to Tax Lot 600--Jack's Auto Salvage. It will become a nonconforming use under the M-2 Light-Industrial District. There is no enforcement for nonconforming uses unless expansion occurs. This rezoning will limit that business to its present site, but the owners indicate they do not plan to expand. Ms. Decker stated that Sector B includes the area between Beltline Road and Bertelsen Road north of West 11th. No issues have been raised in the present . rezoning request for this section and it is recommended to be rezoned from M-3 to M-2. Sector C includes an area between Bertelsen Road and Seneca Road north of West 11th. These parcels are recommended to be rezoned from M-3 to M-2. Three tax lots in this sector have un screened outside storage which will become a non- conforming use with the rezoning. Again, the nonconforming status would have no effect on existing firms unless expansion of the storage areas occurs. Expansion would require them to incorporate screening of their storage areas. When this item was before the Economic Development Committee, they requested that these property owners be notified of the proposed zone changes. They were notified and one owner is opposed, one requested additional information, and one will be expanding the firm's outdoor storage and will incorporate screening of outdoor storage. The Planning Commission has considered existing industry and community needs in the West Eugene Industrial Area and unanimously recommends the rezoning. Ms. Smith asked about the effect of the rezoning on Wyatt's Tire Store. Ms. Decker responded that that is not within the area proposed for zone change. Mr. Delay asked if damage were caused by fire, if there is an abatement require- ment. Ms. Decker stated that if the building or fences were more than 50 percent destroyed, the uses would have to be conforming if they were rebuilt. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 2 , . If at least 50 percent of the building or fence remains, reconstruction can occur. Mr. Delay asked if lot size had been considered. Ms. Decker stated that it had been and they have been working on ways to protect light industrial sites. They have the ability to deny partitions or subdivisions based on the Metro Plan. No further ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Delay stated that commendation is in order for staff and the Planning Commission. This has been well worked out and comes to the council with no dissent. CB 2218--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District for property located generally ,north of West 11th Avenue, south of 1st Avenue, between Terry Street and Beltline Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 22, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion . carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. Council Bill 2218 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 and Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18726. CB 2219--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-1 Light Industrial District for property located between Terry Street and Danebo Avenue north of the Amazon Creek. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 22, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. Council Bill 2219 was read the second time by council bill number only. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 3 I Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be -. approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- cilors present voting aye and Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18727. CB 2220--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District for property located generally north of West 11th Avenue, south of 1st Avenue between Beltline Road and Bertelsen. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 22, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. Council Bill 2220 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 and Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18728. CB 2221--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-3 Heavy Industrial . District to M-2 Light Industrial District for property located generally north of West 11th Avenue, south of 1st Avenue, between Bertelsen Road and Seneca Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of September 22, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. Council Bill 2221 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 and Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18729. B. Appeal of Hearings Official Action Granting Diagrammatic Approval for a Residential Planned Unit Development Located South of 30th Avenue Adjacent to the Present Terminus of Spring Boulevard and Dogwood Drive (Firland Heights) (PD 80-6) (memo distributed) . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 4 p . Mr. Henry stated that this is an appeal of the Hearings Official's action granting diagrammatic approval for a residential planned unit development south of 30th Avenue adjacent to Spring Boulevard and Dogwood Drive. The developers are not asking for a zoning change and this issue has been delayed for various reasons previously. The action at the council tonight will be to provide direction to staff to prepare findings in accordance with the council's desires. These findings will be brought back to the council December 22 for final action. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning, to provide additional information. Mr. Jacobson stated that this item has been before the council previously. The property was annexed in 1976, but due to procedural error it was not rezoned until June 1980. The surrounding property is zoned RA Suburban Residential District and RA/PD Suburban Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures. Access to this 13-acre site (Firland Heights) will be through Dogwood Drive and Spring Boulevard. The proposed 30th Avenue overpass is to the north and in Lane County construction plans for 1983-84. This request was approved by the Hearings Official and has been appealed to the council. City Code provides the following for council action on appeals from action of the Hearings Official: only those items specifically designated as in error by the appellant shall be considered by the appellant body; testimony offered shall be confined to comments on matters in the record made by the hearing authority pertaining to errors assigned in the written notice of appeal; the appellant body shall make findings that affirm, reverse, or modify the hearing authority's decision; if the hearing authority's decision is reversed or modified, the findings of the appellant body shall specifically state wherein the hearing . authority's decision was in error--Section 9.512, Eugene Code. Jim Spickerman, Hearings Official, and Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, are present to answer questions. The basis for the appeal is that the traffic impact evaluation report is not responsive to the' neighborhood's goal of "reasonable compatibility" with regard to the proposed access. The rules of the hearing, according to the appellant, precluded the introduction of written materials at the time of the hearing. The contents of the traffic impact evaluation are based on estimates by an engineer, not by accurate measurement of present traffic flow. The report is not responsive to the ordinance requirement that the proposed access is reas- onably compa~ible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Hearings Official, according to the appellant, apparently relied on what the City Traffic Engineer indicated to the Planning Department regarding street capacity in the area. There was no testimony from the City Traffic Engineer and no documents in the record reflect his views. Additionally, no test results or studies were pro- vided. However, the Hearings Official did find the access needs improvement. Vegetation removal was a concern. The Hearings Official stated that he deter- mined that the access will be reasonably compatible. The appellant cites no findings or evidence that public services and facilities are available. Staff and the Hearings Official indicate normal availability of normal City services. The appellant appeals granting the site modification request of the developer. This was granted subject to no tree removal except within public rights-of-way. The appellant also stated that LCDC goals were not conformed with. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 5 Jim Croteau stated that at the time of diagrammatic approval the evaluation did . not include a full LCDC goal review since this had been done earlier. He reviewed the goals with regard to this particular PUD. Regarding Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, notices were mailed to Oak Hills homeowners and those who have expressed interest. Regarding Goal 2, Land Use Planning, this does not apply. Regarding Goal 3, Agricultural Land~, the land contains soil type VI-E which is not recognized as agricultural land. Regarding Goal 4, Forest Land, soil types are poorly suited for forest. Regarding Goal 5, Open Space, this area has been identified as being important for open space and for scenic opportunities. For this reason the PUD suffix has been added so that the development will be sensitive to open space. He is unaware of any historic value. Regarding Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Quality, the property will be served by urban services and these items will not be adversely affected by the development. Regarding Goal 7, Natural Disaster, careful consideration was given to the potential for natural hazards and they will have to submit a geological report. Goal 8, Significant Open Space and Pedestrian Trails, will be incorporated in the development. Goal 9, Economy of State, is not applicable. Regarding Goal 10, Housing, this development will consist of mixed housing types. New annexations have occurred in the last quarter and there is now only a three- or four-year supply of developable vacant lots. The Metropolitan Plan recommends a six- to ten-year supply. Regarding Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, these are covered in the PUD findings and Section 9.512(7)(c) of the City Code. Goal 12 will be covered by staff evaluation. Goal 13, Energy Conservation, is not applicable. Regarding Goal 14, Urbanization, there are two issues: a) the- urban growth boundary was adopted in the Metropolitan Plan and it is the same as in the 1990 Plan; and b) converting from urbanizable to urban . land. In considering the plan, four factors must be taken into account. Regarding item 1, orderly provisions of services, he would refer back to Goal 11, item 2, variety of land availability, he would refer back to Goal 10, item 3 he would refer to the LCDC goals, and item 4, encourage urban area development. This land has been in the city for four years. Goals 15-19 are not applicable. In response to the statement in the appeal which says that the rules of the hearing precluded the introduction of written materials, Mr. Croteau stated that the material regarding the traffic study was submitted at the time of the public hearing and the public hearing allows _both verbal and written testimony. Mr. Delay stated that in the memo from the Planning staff to the council, it was noted that only items designated as being in error by the appellant shall be considered by the appellant body; but in the agenda information accompanying the appeal form, in the fifth paragraph, there is a mechanism to request submission of new evidence. He asked why this process would be included on the form if it would not be allowed. He felt staff may want to re-examine this process. He asked if general procedures were adequate or because of PUD's, there was a need to make traffic flow studies for each PUD. Mr. Croteau responded that material submitted at the time of the Hearing's Official hearing was acceptable. He said that traffic access has been a top concern for PUD's in the South Hills. Even though streets can handle the number of cars, this can reduce livability. The Planning Department relies on Public Works to determine adequacy and they require several access points. Mr. Delay stated that the appellant had said that an accurate measurement must be taken rather than relying on estimates. Mr. Croteau said that traffic counts are not done for PUD's. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 6 , . Mr. Hanks stated that that they do make traffic count estimates without taking actual traffic counts in some areas as in Firland Heights. The engineer's estimates were accurate as they later did traffic counts that substantiated the est imates. In regard to new evidence, Stan Long, City Attorney, stated that paragraph five of the appeal form sets out the process by which one can ask the council to accept new information, but no new evidence has been submitted by the appellant so the council is confined to the material that is on record. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing wa~ opened. Speaking in favor of the appeal: Richard Roseta, 1970 Dogwood, stated that confirmation of the estimates of traffic flow was introducing new information. In regard to Mr. Delay's ques- tion regarding the problem with submitting new evidence, the engineering study presented by John Matott was very lengthy and he received a copy the night of the hearing and was unable to respond to it on such short notice. The traffic reports are based on estimates. The Traffic Engineering staff made further studies, but Mr. Matott has not requested it be entered into public record; Mr. Hanks just did that. In regard to the Branch Engineering study, 75 percent of the traffic flow from the new development will flow down Dogwood Drive. The estimates were under that. The flows being projected are almost to the 1985 project ion. They have requested the following modification: that Dogwood not be-connected to Spring Boulevard until Phase 3 or else never connected, or . blocked off so no heavy traffic will go through until Phase 3 is completed, by which time the 30th Avenue overpass will be completed. Traffic flow counts are lower on Spring Boulevard and on Kimberly. They do not oppose this development; however, access is a problem. They are concerned that Dogwood will take the brunt of the traffic. They would like to wait for this development to occur until the 30th overpass is a probability, not a possibility. In regard to Eugene City Ordinance 9.512(7)(c), a comparison with other areas and services, there is no evidence in the record upon which a finding could be based that public services and facilities are available to the same degree as they were in other similar locations in the city where developments were approved since such comparative information is not in the record. He noted that this is a technical object ion. The concern is that this PUD would add 60 new homes with 75 percent of the traffic going down Dogwood. He also feels that the 30th and Agate inter- section now qualifies for a traffic light. This points to the fact that it is an access problem. Geoffrey Simmons, 1991 Dogwood, stated that he has addressed the council three times previously as have his neighbors and friends. . Danger has been the word in each instance. The number of cars going through is not as relevant as what happens in bad weather conditions. When it snowed, none of the cars cou~d get up Kimberly or Dogwood and now 60 more cars will be added. This would be very dangerous. He agrees with Mr. Roseta regarding placement of a barrier. They are facing the same situation as the Fairmount Neighbors with the Wang property. This is a comparable situation being handled differently. If Mr. Wang is prevented from developing, then Mr. Matott should be also. . Speaking in opposition to the appeal: MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 7 John Matott, 767 Willamette Street, No. 307, stated that he is the developer. . H1S letter was in the public record and the traffic report was submitted at the suggestion of Public Works. This study was submitted to various City departments two days prior to the Hearings Official hearing and was available at that time. One reason the engineer's report is based on estimates is because the traffic counter was tampered with. The engineer's estimates were found to be accurate. Mr. Spickerman did not state that the access needed improvement but rather that certain uses to which people put the streets needed to be improved, such as ,vegetation at intersections, and recreational vehicles and cars being parked in the street which is in violation of City law. The Traffic Division routinely receives these applications and the Traffic Engineer does not have to be present when traffic counts are taken. In regard to Mr. Roseta's comment of lack of documentation of PUD services, he showed a slide comparing his proposed sub- division with service levels of other developments. The slide showed present traffic loads and projected loads and indicated these amounts are lower than those of comparable areas. Regarding the site modification request, he has requested removal of some brush in order to survey the area. The F airmount Neighbors are not opposing this development as implied and the level of service is not comparable to the Wang property since it does not have paved streets. The request to block off Dogwood is unfair to those who endure greater traffic volumes and they are unfairly asking for the right to continue enjoyment of a dead-end street and continued seclusion. Harold Gillis, 275 Oak Street, stated that he is the attorney representing Mr. Matott. This proposal is a rather ordinary PUD in an ordinary South Hills neighborhood. The opposition wants the council to reconsider back to annexation . but this property has been zoned and annexed to become part of urban lands for residential use. The Hearings Official has made a ruling. This is a common finding of fact. There has been no evidence to support the notion that this should not be built. No new evidence was presented. Regarding information supplied in the traffic study, if new information was to be presented by the appellant, he has had three months to submit it, but no new information has been presented. The impartial observation by the Hearings Official is to weigh the evidence and to make a recommendation, which has been done. The council's job is to review the code and see if the Hearings Official did an appropriate job based upon the criteria. The development must be consistent with City standards, plans, policies, and ordinances; its general design and character including anticipated location of buildings, recreation space, parking, etc., must be reasonably compatible with appropriate development of the abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood; and public services and facilities must be at least as available as they are in other similar locations in the city where developments were approved. Mr. Spickerman found that these criteria were met. It was suggested that the Hearings Official considered information that should not have been considered, but it is part of his job to determine which infor- mation to consider. Mr. Roseta has attacked the traffic findings but has presented no facts to overturn Mr. Spickerman's findings. Mr. Matott submitted an eight-page letter to the Hearings Official which is part of the record comparing this area to other areas. In regard to the statement that no refer- ences to satisfying specific statutes were made, there is no need to do this unless substantial changes have been made. There is no indication that those changes have been made. The comprehensive plan applies unless changes are made. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 8 ~ . Due to lack of time, James Branch and Dennis Urso were unable to testify. In rebuttal: Mr. Roseta stated that if that letter had been part of the staff notes, he had not received it. There has been no comparison that he is aware of, just con- clusionary remarks. The slide shown was not in the record previously nor was it requested to have the record opened in order to substantiate it. He does not recall ever having seen the letter dated September 5, 1980, but stands corrected if it was a part of the staff notes. His real concern is access and he does not care if development occurs. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Long stated that the council should consider only the information that is in the record and not anything else. Mr. Obie stated that he is concerned about the number of cars that will be using this street and asked if the council is in a position to accept, review, or to modify the findings. Mr. Long stated that the council has complete authority to affirm, modify, or deny. Mr. Obie stated that some information states that Dogwood and Kimberly are each 28-foot-wide streets and Spring Boulevard is 36 feet wide. Other information . indicates that Kimberly is 32 feet wide. He asked for the correct information. Mr. Hanks stated that he did not know but would supply the information later. Ms. Smith asked what consideration has been given for modification of traffic patterns to tie into Kimberly during construction. Mr. Hanks stated that in Mr. Spickerman's findings, construction traffic would go on Spring Boulevard to Agate Street. Ms. Smith stated that this should alleviate the construction traffic. She asked what the projections are for a traffic light being placed at 30th and Agate. Mr. Hanks said that they could request that a light at 30th and Agate be placed on the County's priority list. Mr. Obie asked if a standard subdivision could develop at four units per acre. Mr. Croteau stated that they could go from 3.5 to 4.5 units per acre. Mr. Delay asked for clarification regarding council consideration of the infor- mation Jim Hanks provided on the estimtes of traffic volume. Mr. Long stated that one should consider what is in the record and it is fair to consider testimony regarding interpretation of the record. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to uphold the findings of the Hearings Official granting approval for the residential planned unit development and to direct the Hearings Official to work with the developer regarding access on Spring Boulevard, Kimberly, and Dogwood. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 9 Mr. Obie asked what consideration will be given in the PUD process to disperse . traffic evenly on Dogwood and Spring. With existing zoning, there is an obli- gation to allow PUD's. There are three streets leading in and Dogwood is the most direct. There are options, if the property is designed properly, to have traffic on other streets. Mr. Croteau stated that in regard to the appellant's concerns of site impact, the council can direct the Hearings Official to consider ingress and egress during other stages of the development process. Ms. Miller stated that the council has indicated as a City policy that this is the type of development they want to encourage for higher density in the city. Dispersing traffic out of the PUD is a good idea but will cause people to drive longer routes which they may not be willing to do. She would like to ask the traffic official to consider the problem. Viewing the 30th overpass as a solution is probably not going to work. She would suggest that no solutions be proposed that would include the 30th overpass as a solution. There is a safety problem and she can understand why they do not want more traffic on Dogwood. Mr. Delay indicated that this is dangerous and is a terrain problem. There are possible solutions, such as partial parking removal. These streets have always been dangerous. He has seen nothing that questions the facts as they have been presented by Mr. Spickerman, who does an excellent job in inter- preting the laws for development. In order to question his decision, there should be some facts to question, but that is not the case. This is just a general problem of increased development. Ms. Schue indicated agreement with Mr. Delay about this situation and stated that she cannot find a reason to overturn the findings. She does have sympathy with the residents on Dogwood. . Mr. Croteau stated,that he would come back with the findings from the Hearings Official regarding the three streets. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Appeal of Administrative Decision Denying Cheshire Street Diverter Proposal (memo and map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this item has been listed as an appeal of an administra- tive decision, but instead it will be a proposal. Because of a through-traffic problem and neighborhood nuisance, the neighborhood organization and staff have worked together on a study of how to alleviate this situation. The Public Works and Parks & Recreation departments have been involved. Cheshire Street is a park road, not an ordinary public street. Staff and the neighborhood organ- ization had developed a proposal for a diverter to hel~ stop through-traffic, but risk management indicated this creates more hazards t~an solutions. This proposal was submitted to the City Manager's Office where it was denied. The matter had been appealed to the council. Neighborhood groups and City staff agree this was not the best solution so various solutions will be discussed. The Whiteaker Community Council has prepared a proposal and, in addition, Traffic Engineering has prepared a report with alternatives which were discussed with the neighborhood groups. This was similar to the proposal of Whiteaker Community Council. He introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineering, to list the alternatives. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 10 ... - .-.- . Mr. Hanks stated that the recommended plan is an entrance-only diverter near the Parks Maintenance office. Three thousand, five hundred cars enter the park each day; most of this (65 percent) is through traffic. This will be an entrance- only diverter for westbound traffic; eastbound traffic will continue as before. Westbound traffic would be required to use the east side of Lincoln Street as an exit from the park. Other proposals included closure at the west end of the east parking lot which would be a hardship for Parks Maintenance and emergency vehicles. A toll -booth is another option that would allow anyone to get from one side of the park to the other but would require a fee which would help to regulate through traffic. An automatic gate with no toll could be implemented and this would be the same as the recommended plan except that no toll would be collected. Another possibility would be to have two toll booths, one at each end of the park. The recommended alternative is a partial diverter at the west end. Mr. Obie asked for a more, precise location. Mr. Hanks responded that it would be at the west sid/ of Lincoln Street. Mr. Obie asked if it were correct that if one entered from the west, they could exit on the east. Mr. Hanks responded that that was correct. Mr. Obie asked what would happen if one came in from the east. Mr. Hanks responded that exit would be possibly by going ba~k to the east or by using Lincoln Street. Mr. Obie asked how turning around would be accomplished. Mr. Hanks stated that traffic could go through the horseshoe parking lot or could park and turn around. Or, they could have a hammerhead parking lot. Signing will be required. Mr. Obie asked if this would cut down through-traffic in only one direction. Mr. Hanks responsed that that . is correct. Ms. Schue asked if one could still go up Lincoln Street. Mr. Hanks responded that that would still be possible, but if too much traffic were on the street, it could be made a one-way street or turns could be prohibited onto the street. Ms. Miller asked how these proposals tie into restricting traffic without causing a more awkward situation. She asked if it had been considered what the effect would be on the east side of Skinner Butte Park. Mr. Hanks responded that he did not feel there would be a major effect. The intersections on the east end might warrant four-way "STOP" signs, but they do not want to deal with that as a portion of this issue. Diverters are usually treated on a trial basis with a public hearing following. The trial diverter will be put in place and they will review the situation on the east end of the park to see if a four-way stop would be appropriate. Ms. Miller asked if consideration was given to exiting off the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Hanks responded that it was not because it provides access to businesses on High Street and to EWEB which would be a hardship to them. This must ultimately be addressed when the Ferry Street Bridge is rebuilt. \ Public hearing was opened. Mr. Henry noted that since the appeal has been withdrawn, this would be a time for public comment on the alternatives. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 11 Dennis Urso, 445 Clark, stated that in May 1978, a traffic study was conducted . which showed that 3,500 cars per day drive through Cheshire at an average speed of 30 miles per hour in an area with a posted speed of 20 miles per hour. Fifty percent of these people are not using the park as a destination. In March 1980, the Whiteaker Community Council began working with City staff toward a solution. In April 1980, John Etter, Parks Design, stated that a diverter would be erected by Memorial Day. In September 1980, Dave Whitlow turned down the proposal for the diverter. Speed bumps were no longer being considered because of a high liability factor. A great deal of misinformation and miscommunication has resulted from this entire process. All proposals contradict each other. Carol Brewster, 137 Lawrence, stated that she is a citizen in the West Butte neighborhood. The traffic situation should be examined and they are in favor of traffic restrictions. The traffic has created a negative effect for those who wish to enjoy the park. Residents are aware of this effect and the City has been in favor of re-establishing older neighborhoods and has adopted policies to enhance life quality in inner-city neighborhoods. One of the City policies is to redirect traffic to commercial and industrial streets. There have been narrow escapes with children trying to cross the street. Residents in the East Butte neighborhood and people attending Campbell Senior Center activities have told of being unable to cross the street because of traffic. The City has adopted community goals and policies and the Whiteaker Refinement Plan which includes the area of Cheshire and 3rd Avenue. The situation east of Skinner Butte might be eased by proper traffic management. Joseph Brown, 90 North Lawrence, stated that they have come to the council for a . solution to their problem. They do not want a toll booth, which would cause more problems. A one-way barricade on Cheshire is a solution which is Plan B in the packet they distributed to the council. Four-way "STOP" signs are needed at 3rd and High and at 3rd and Pearl. The "STOP" signs would make pedestrian travel safer for senior citizens. They feel the number and size of speed limit signs should be increased. They are asking either for a decision tonight or for a date when a decision will be made. They have been going through a shuffle and have received no solution. They would like the quality of their neighborhood to be enh anced. Petitions were distributed to the council bearing the signatures of senior citizens residing at 255 High Street requesting improvements in the situation. Glen Gibbons, 1050 West 5th, stated that he has sympathy for the request. He has lived two blocks from the 5th and Blair intersection for two and one-half years. They have experienced similar frustrations requesting traffic diverters in that area. There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 12 . .. . Mr. Hanks stated that he feels there are certain merits in the toll booth solution which was brought up in a meeting of the East and West Butte neigh- bors, which he and Joe Hessler attended. Four-way "STOP" signs are serious traffic matters. Putting "STOP"signs in where they are inappropriate can cause serious problems and accidents. However, with the change in traffic flow, one may be needed, but that will be treated as a separate issue. In regard to larger and greater quantity of speed limit signs, this can be done but he does not feel that will change drivers' behavior. Mr. Delay stated that the size and numbers of "STOP" siqns have little to do with traffic in comparison with changes in the physical nature of the street. He asked if something could be done with curbs to provide a more constricted feeling. Mr. Hanks stated that they are working on a project like this on Augusta Street. When it is finished, it can then be assessed. Some people who thought that project was good at first are now not sure. The Federal Highway Administration is conducting experiments with a special design of speed bumps. The special design would lower traffic speeds from five to seven miles per hour without negative effect. Typical speed bumps have a real 1 i abil ity factor. These speed bumps would have to have Federal sponsor- ship to reduce liability, but they might be the real solution to the problem. Mr: Lieuallen asked what relationship there is with speed bumps and the Agate and 14th streets intersection. Mr. Hanks stated that they are somewhat similar, but there is greater visibility there for the driver due to the gradual rise. Mr. Lieuallen stated that another idea was a wide raised walkway from Campbell Senior Center to High Street. Mr. Hanks stated that that particular type of . walkway qives pedestrians a false sense of security, but really does not affect drivers. Mr. Lieuallen asked him if he had facts to use as a basis for this opinion. Mr. Hanks stated that he would research this item and bring back the information. Additionally, however, painted crosswalks are six times more dangerous than those which are unpainted. Mr. Lieuallen stated that there is a real need for a solution so staff should be encouraged to continue looking at the problem. One issue which has not been dealt with is traffic on the south side of the butte on 4th Avenue. He asked if there was a likelihood that traffic on that street would increase. Mr. Hanks stated that it could. How- ever, no additional "STOP" sign would change that very much. There is no proposed solution. There is a lonq-ranqe, high-capital-cost solution for the 1st and 4th avenues connector. If that were built, it would bypass this neigh- borhood. The reason this street is used is because people do not have to cross the railroad tracks to get from 1st Street to River Road. Ms. Miller noted that any of these potential solutions could present more traffic on 5th Avenue which already has a problem. Traffic is only going to be shifted from one street to another. Artificial narrowing of streets does not necessarily work. She stated that traffic statistics from the University area are different from statistics in other areas. A diverter now may not be the answer to the problem, but it could be a start. She is somewhat skeptical about diverting people through parking lots, but is willing to give it a try. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 13 Mayor Keller noted that this sounds like the Dogwood Drive situation in another . part of town. People do not mind traffic unless it is in their part of town. He would like more information on where the diverted traffic would go and to him it sounds as though it is being encouraged to go on 6th and 7th. /lmazon Parkway seems to be compatible with Amazon Park and this seems like a similar situation. Stop lights do work and that might be an alternative. He would like more discussion on this item before anything is done on a permanent basis. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the recommendations of the plan in the December 8, 1980, meeting with installation of the trial diverter for January 15, 1980, and a report brought back for further consideration at a later date. Mr. Obie stated that he would vote for this motion since it is a trial project, but he would like a report back from the Parks & Recreation Department as to how this street might be used if it were to be permanently closed. He noted that Mr. Hamel had sent a memo to the other councilors regarding diverters and the City's reluctance in the use of arterial streets. Mr. Obie feels that a problem is occurring because traffic is not being moved as it should be on the arterials. Mr. Lieuallen stated that in regard to the diverter policy, it has been used in other places. If they choose to reverse this action, they would have to include Cheshire as an arterial street, which it was not designed for. Deve l- oping the arterial streets is a capital improvement problem. If arterials were used the way they were intended to be, this would be a better way to resolve the s ituat ion. Mr. Delay indicated agreement with Mr. Lieuallen. He encouraged . staff and council to look at the prediction of future traffic flows, but noted the City's traffic problems are nothing in comparison with what other cities are f ac i n g . Ms. Miller stated that it is not necessary that inner-city neighbor- hoods bear the brunt of traffic. They must develop a broader map for origins and destinations of drivers. Mr. Hamel stated that he is against the diverter program and has been against it since the beginning. He noted that Martha Filer had written him a letter and that he had sent her a copy of the memo he had distributed to council that was mentioned earlier tonight. He will not ,vote for the diverter, as he understands the problem to be with the use of arterial streets. This could have been solved in 1972, but expansion of arterial streets was turned down by the voters. He feels the entire problem should be faced. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Hamel voting no. D. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulations attached) Mr. Henry stated that the bids received were good ones and would cost about ten cents per square foot, which is about one-half of what the property owners had been told. He introduced Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide additional information. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 14 e Mr. Gilman stated that these three projects were bid December 2. There are for sanitary sewers to serve the 1978 island annexations. He would recommend that the low bids be awarded on each project. These bids are about 30 percent lower than the engineer's estimates and are comparable to bids of approximately five years ago. Public hearing was opened. Brenda Cluster, 1561 Balboa, stated that she was speaking in regard to Project 1. She moved into her house after annexation and did not understand the full scope of what they would be expected to pay. Their share will come to over $6,000, but with the reduction due to lower bids, it would be about $4,500. They moved from the River Road area to avoid sewers. Also, they will be charged for a systems development tax which goes for major projects for which the funding was ripped out from under them by the Federal government. She does not want and cannot afford sewers. She would like this decision postponed until Bancrofting rates go below ten percent or until a time when they can better afford to pay for sewers. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gilman stated that the systems development tax is for any existing struc- tures. The cost is four-tenths of one percent of the assessed building value on structures. The cost on a $50,000 home would be about $200. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to award the contracts to the low bidders as outlined by staff. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Res. No. 3451--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period November 26, 1980, through December 8, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to December 10, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~~- Mtchea.l Gl ea,son City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) e, CTH:LN:sba:pv/CM8alO MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 8, 1980 Page 15 --~-- . . , DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS '. Engineering Division e Bid No. 1 3 Opened; December 2, 1980 1 . SANITARY SEWER to serve Willakenzie Island Annexation Area #1, CA-Z, #78-11}, located generally adjacent to Tulip and Balboa Streets, Green Acres Road and Holly Avenue (Job #1815) Bidders; Contract Cost AWARD l. McBri de Excavating Inc. :-..--....-..-.....-........--.,...............$ 51,045.50 2. Cordel Corporation-..------....--------..----......-$ 53,296.50 3. Wildish Construction Co...------....-------......-..$ 54,950.18 4. Egge~s Sand & Gravel, Co...----..-----..----.....-$ 57,302.90 5. H & J Construction -------.......----------..--..--$ 57,370.20 6. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------------$ 62,086.91 7. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---..------..---..-$ 70,427.80 8. RussI Excavation Co.------..----..-------------$ 70,637.00 9. Emerald Excavating Inc.---------------------..$ 71,834.00 10. Kenneth R. Bostick Canst. Co.----------------$ 73,544.50 11. Shur-Way Constractors, Inc. -..-..---------..,---..$ 74,687.00 12. Stickle Construction-..-..--------------....---....$ 85,650.00 13. Dan D. Allup Contractor Inc.....---------------$ 83,000.30 14. Land Construction Company-....-----------..-....--$ 89,141.20 It 15. Stadel; Pump & Construction Inc,......----------$ 91,494,32 16. Drainmaster-..-------------..----------------....$ 92,094. 1 3 17, Forslund Construction, Inc.-------------..----$ 113,063.05 18. Cascade Ditching Co.-----------------~----..--$ 115,613.30 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City ($65,338) None San. Lateral $ a.10/SF San. Service $ 565.00jEach COMPLETION DATE; March 20, 1981 - Page 1 of 3 " , ' " . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bid No. 13 Opened: December 2, 1980 2. SANITARY SEWER to serve Willakenzie Island Annexation Area#7, (A-Z #78-11), located generally along Hickory Avenue, Sister View, Mahlon Avenue, Westward Ho Avenue, Oxbow Way, Garden Way, Conestoga Way, Honeysuckle, Van Duyn Street. (Job #1776/1814/1816) Bidders: Contract Cost AWARD 1. Cordel Corporation--------------------------$ 189,723.90 2. McBride Excavating Inc.---------------------$ 200,179.00 3. Wildish Construction Co.--------------------$ 202,015.50 4. H & J Construction--------------------------$ 202,595.35 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------------$ 229,956.65 6. RussI Excavation Co.-----------~------------$ 245,388.15 7. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc.-------------------$ 247,779.03 8. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------------$ 256,234.10 . 9. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.--------------$ 292,658.90 10. Stadeli Pump & Construction Inc.------------$ 313,160.96 11. Kurt Kimsey Construction Co.----------------$ 327,072.50 12. Kenneth R. Bostick Const. Co.---------------$ 357,533.50 13. Forslund Construction, Inc.-----------------$ 383,539.50 14. Land Construction Company-------------------$ 395,976.34 15. Cascade Ditching Co.------------------------$ 725,374.54 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City ($242,846) None San. Lateral 0.105/SF San. Service $ 400.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: July 1, 1981 . Page 2 of 3 ~ 1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS . Engineering Division Bid No. 1 3 Opened: December 4, 1980 3. SANITARY SEWER to Willakenzie Island Annexation Area #8, (A-Z #78-11), generally including Bar M Subdivision and property along Willakenzie Road, Best Lane, Van Avenue, Bogart Lane, Bailey Lane, Randal Street and Satre Street. (Job #1813) Bidders: Contract Cost A~JARD l. Bowers Excavating & Fencing-------------------$ 320,642.00 2. Cordel Corporation----------------------------$ 338,668.50 3. H & J Construction----------------------------$ 376,522.10 4. Wildish Construction Co.----------------------$ 378,894.17 5. Russ' Excavation Co.--------------------------$ 407,272.40 6. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------------$ ~20,392.81 7. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 422,300.30 . 8. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company-------$ 463,880.70 9. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.----------------$ 496,271.50 10. Land Construction Company---------------------$ 500,111.80 11. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.--------------------$ 519,205.90 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ($401,500) $7~800.00 $ 27,500.00 (531) San. Lateral $ O.lO/SF San. Service $ 450.00/Each COMPLETION DATE; July 15, 1981 . Page 3 of 3