Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/1981 Meeting e - - : M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 26, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNClLORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLlC HEARINGS Mayor Keller stated the Citizen Involvement Committee once again has their public input questionnaire available for those interested in the land use por- tion of tonight's council meeting. A. Rezoning: Properties located north of Railroad Boulevard and west of Grand Street from C-2/SR Community Commercial Residential District with Site Review procedures to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (Tax Lot 6100), and from M-2 Light Industrial District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (Tax Lots 3700, 3800, 4001) (City of Eugene: Grand Street) (Z 80-17) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this is a City-initiated zone change within the Whiteaker neighborhood. He introduced Susan Smernoff, Planning. Ms. Smernoff stated that she had distributed a Land Use Diagram, which is part of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. This zone change is one of a series to imple- ment the Whiteaker Plan. The Planning Commission considered this item on November 4, 1980, and passed it with a 5:1 vote; Commissioner Bernhard voted against this zone change. She noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Gallenbeck, the attorney for the property owners of Tax Lot 6100. She also stated that Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission President, is present. Public hearing was opened. Cheryle Hawkins, 1350 Bailey Avenue, stated that this item had been brought before Whiteaker Community Council last September. In consideration of neigh- borhood type and zoning type, they will go along with the recommendation since it is compatible with the plan and intent of the neighborhood to create more residential use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 1 / - e e Scott Gallenbeck, 644 North A, Springfield, stated that he is an attorney representing Sharon and Terry Carlson, owners of Tax Lot 6100. Lot 6100 is a vacant lot adjoined by a bike path on the north, existing buildings on the south, on the east by back yards and residential development, and single-family dwellings on the west. It is an interior lot with no practical access. His clients also own Tax Lots 5900, 6000, 6200, 6300, and 6400. The problem with this zoning is that it makes the parcel difficult to develop. It is unusual to see property owned by one person split into two different zones. Under the Metro Plan, it looks as though all of this property should be zoned light industrial. There seems to be a conflict between the neighborhood refinement plan and the Metro Plan. They feel this property should be zoned for light- or medium-industrial use. If it is to be multiple-family residential use, it would be a very small lot. They do not feel it is desirable for residential use. It would represent a major loss of value for the owners since it could not be developed in conjunction with the rest of their property, although it is contig- uous. They would like to know why zoning is being done on a piecemeal basis. The property to the south should be zoned MU, but this has not been done. There seems to be no pattern to what is being done. He indicated that he would be available to answer questions. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Ms. Smernoff gave a history of the zoning for Tax Lot 6100. In 1971, the Planning Commission considered rezoning Tax Lots 5900 and 6100 from R-2 to M-2. Tax Lot 5900 was deleted from that consideration, and C-2/SR rather than M-2 zoning was recommended for Tax Lot 6100. Following the rezoning, the property was leased to a towing service. The Building Division initiated enforcement action since a towing service is only permitted in an M-2 or M-3 district. In 1973, another rezoning request was heard, with staff emphasizing the need for a buffer strip between the residential district and the railroad. Staff felt the C-2/SR zoning was a compromise since they recommended residential use. Tax Lot 6100 has never been used for retail use, is currently vacant, and is not an interior lot. Access is available through a 12-foot public right-of- way onto Polk Street. The rezoning is not in conflict with the Metro Plan. On page 1-4, the Metro Plan states that the plan is a framework plan to be aug- mented by more detailed refinement plans. The Metro Plan and the Land Use Diagram are not to be used as zoning maps. The statement that the staff did not refer to the Metro Plan in the staff notes is incorrect. The Whiteaker rezonings are not being done in a piecemeal fashion. Staff has rezoned areas where conflict occurs between usage and designation. Other areas have come before the Planning Commission this year. Up to 11 units would be permitted but not required on Tax Lot 6100. Ms. Wooten asked if refinement plans are advisory documents rather than zoning maps. Ms. Smernoff assured her that that is correct and they are based on detailed studies and citizen input. MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 2 e CB 2243--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures to R-2 Limited Multiple- Family Residential District (Tax Lot 6100) and from M-2 Light lndustrial District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (Tax Lots 3700, 3800, 4001) for properties located north of Railroad Boulevard and west of Grand Street. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of November 4, 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 con- sidered at this time. Ms. Miller stated that the Whiteaker Refinement Plan was developed in the past with public input and the council has a commitment to implement it. Mr. Lindberg indicated agreement with Ms. Miller. He also stated that having children nearby with a school across the street would be inappropriate if this were industrially zoned. Mr. Obie indicated agreement. He stated that the property owners will probably feel frustrated, but it is difficult for the council to now change the direction of implementation. This should have been done earlier, in the refinement plan process. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 4It Council Bill 2243 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting lIaye,1I the bill was declared passed and numbered 18752. B. Proposed Acquisition of EWEB Property (Gillespie Butte) for City Park Use (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks and Recreation. Mr. Drapela stated that the 1976 serial levy and 1979 park acquisition bond provide $150,000 for park land acquisition in the Cal Young area. This area has no public park at this time. On May 27, 1980, the Joint Parks Committee unanimously recommended acquisition of Gillespie Butte from EWEB at the acquired price which was $6,500 in 1952. Staff is recommending that council hear the citizens' testimony, refer the matter to EWEB for consideration, and express to EWEB an interest in having the park bond fund acquire the parcel so long as it does not exceed the $150,000 allocated for park land in the Willagillespie area. EWEB has authority to acquire, develop, and maintain parks. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 3 e Mr. Haws asked about the purpose of the public hearing. Mr. Gleason responded that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive input from citizens. The EWEB Board has not determined yet what the property should be used for. Staff does not know if EWEB is in a financial bind. The property might be pledged as security on revenue bonds sold by EWEB. Council has not received any formal request from EWEB regarding this property. The land use decision rests with the EWEB Board. Council can listen to the public and make a recommendation to EWEB after the hearing. The City does not have finances above and beyond the $150,000 for park land in this area. Mr. Haws asked if this item might come back to the council later. Mr. Gleason responded that that is a possibility. However, EWEB could develop the park themselves, or if it is surplus, it should be discussed with the council. They are interested in selling, but they have not asked the council to sign off on the property. Mr. Haws asked if this hearing is premature because of the circumstances. Mr. Gleason responded that it may be of benefit in the future. Mr. Gleason said that staff needs direction from the council as to how to proceed with the EWEB Board. Ms. Smith asked if the purchase price has changed. Mr. Drapela stated that the EWEB staff states it would be offered for $475,000 or the price could be raised if the City does not take advantage of this offer. Ms. Smith asked if purchase is necessary at this time. Mr. Drapela responded that it would need to be within this calendar year. Mr. Gleason stated that City staff had been working on this with both the EWEB Board and staff although it has not been discussed in a formal EWEB Board session. e Ms. Smith asked if staff is recommending that this be referred back to the EWEB Board. Mr. Gleason indicated that EWEB's policy direction needs to be made known so that the council can consider their direction. Ms. Wooten asked what formal communication had been received from EWEB and if this is a reduction in price from $600,000. Mr. Drapela stated that the only formal discussion centered around the $475,000 figure. Ms. Wooten stated that she had spoken with Keith Parks, General Manager of EWEB, and they wished to get direction from the council. Her understanding is that EWES thinks there may be room for negotiation. Public hearing was opened. Tim Bloch, 1236 Willagillespie, stated that this area is more than just a mere park, because people must take a long walk just to get there. It gives more experiences than just going to a small, neighborhood-type park. There is a variety of wildlife present and it is open space within the city with a view. It gives people a chance to go there and to collect their thoughts. It is hard to justify the monetary value because uses of this area could be open- ended as Eugene grows. The need will increase in the future for open space e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 4 e and uses could be expanded. He is not, however, recommending that the City pay the asking price. Areas like this are a gift and this is why people live in Eugene. He would hope this area can be saved as open space before it is developed and gone. Catherine Barnes, 1378 Hammock, stated that she lives at the north foot of Gillespie Butte. The names in the adjoining cemetery are names of streets now and are the names of those people who worked farms in the area in the past. The residents in the area protect the cemetery from vandalism, but the City could police it. e Ken Tollenaar, 1522 Russett Drive, stated that he agreed with the previous two speakers. He showed a slide presentation. Mr. Tollenaar stated that as Mr. Drapela had indicated, the Cal Young Neighborhood Association went on record in April 1980 in favor of transfer of Gillespie Butte from EWEB, which they consider part of the City of Eugene organization, to the Parks and Recreation Department. They oppose development of this property for any other use than that of a park. They have heard opposition only recently and it seems to center on vandalism. This is a concern, but there is no data to indicate that vandalism would increase if the jurisdiction were changed from EWEB to the City. Giving it park status could in fact reduce the current vandalism rate. Trail bikes, littering, and other forms of undesirable behav- ior have occurred in that area. This is vacant property and does not produce tax revenue according to those against the acquisition, but this is not entirely true because EWEB pays money in lieu of taxes to the City. A long-range perspec- tive is needed to make this decision. This property could be developed to a very high density rate soon if action is not taken. Jack Desmond, 1253 Ferry Street, #6, stated that he is chairperson of the Many Rivers Sierra Club, which has 450 members in Lane County. They had a hike to Gillespie Butte last Sunday and people came so they could see it. On January 7, 1981, their executive committee met and discussed this situation and passed a resolution to support acquisition of Gillespie Butte as a city park. There is an increasing need for urban parks as gasoline resources decrease. Some parks help define local communities and Gillespie Butte does this as does Skinner Butte. The addition of this park would add to the inventory of city parks and open space. Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, stated that she has lived here since 1950. Glen Mason provided histor1C 1nformation to her and she thinks this area is worthy of historic designation. The Gillespie family is intertwined with other Lane County pioneers such as the Gilhams, the Goodpastures, the Corums, and Cal Young. She has been involved in neighborhood associations and thinks they are great. She thinks, however, the council has discriminated, through no fault of its own, against some neighborhoods because of the block grant pref- erences being given to low-income areas. A major portion of the $1.3 million has gone to the W~iteaker and West University neighborhoods. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 5 e e e One thing that has happened in the West University neighborhood is development of a park. The City has not looked at those who live in other areas. Many low-income residents live at the foot of the walkway to Gillespie Butte and they could benefit from this acquisition. It is also accessible by bus. It could be developed for foot traffic, it is easily accessible, and it is a special kind of place. She quoted Mr. Drapela as having stated, IIThis is an area which cannot be duplicated.1I Cheryle Hawkins, 1350 Bailey Avenue, said that she lives in the Whiteaker neighborhood now, but she grew up in the Cal Young and Willagillespie Road area. She was about ten years old when she left the Cal Young area. At that time, Valley River was a bean yard and Delta Highway was a non-polluted swimming pond. Her favorite place was Gillespie Butte. It is different from Corum Hill which is now developed, different from Kelly Butte in Springfield which is now developed, but similar to Skinner and Spencer buttes which are left also. They are very nice but she could not imagine developing those any more than she could imagine developing Gillespie Butte. She feels that taking this issue to EWEB is a good idea and feels that EWEB should hold a public hearing to decide what to do with this piece of puolic land. She also agrees with the proposed historic designation. She feels the cemetery is beautiful. Twenty years ago in Eugene, there was a large quantity of open space and she is curious as to what kinds of open space will be available 20 years from now. She is concerned that if this is not acquired as a park, it will be developed. Kenneth Jones, 530 Rome Drive, stated that he had submitted a letter to each councilor which summarizes the arguments he has made. He feels there should be no jurisdictional dispute between EWEB and the City of Eugene and suggested a joint meeting between the City and EWEB to address this question and reach a resolution that is equally fair. He feels the argument in favor of private development regarding park vandalism should not be considered because vandalism occurs when there is an absence of proper control. He compared this to the Hendricks Park area. He also feels that if EWEB purchased the property as an investment with Water Department revenues, then it is entitled to a fair return on the investment, but consideration should be given to the fact that the Water Department receives many City services at reduced or no cost because it is exempt from property tax payment. EWEB projects a $695,000 carry-over balance for their Water Department on September 30, 1981. This is a much larger amount than previously projected and establishment of this reserve could be staged over a number of years with proceeds from the installment sale of Gillespie Butte going to the City if it were sold in this fashion. Water sales are projected to be 2.5 percent above last year's consumption levels, but that was a very mild year. Water revenues from an average year would generate between $150,000 and $200,000 in additional revenue. Also, the Water Department has budgeted $1.5 million in 1980-81 for constructing feeder lines to new subdivisions and commercial developments. He feels the estimated need for these funds should be re-evaluated because of interest-rate constraints on construction, MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 6 e and he feels it is improper to use existing users' revenue to construct feeder lines into new developments. He noted that many communities cover these costs by levying the fees directly on the project. He feels that EWEB should examine their public responsibility to keep this type of land as a park. Speaking in opposition to the acquisition: Ron Stevens, 820 Spy Glass, stated that a Doll was conducted about two months ago, and the results were given to the council. Ninety-five percent of those polled who live near Gillespie Butte said they would not like to see this acquired as a park and he is representing them. There is limited and poor access from a narrowt unimproved gravel road, and to get there, users must go through a quiet neighborhood. A park would generate noise for the residents, which would be detrimental to their privac,y. Sometimes the gate is left open, and illegal acts have been known to occur there. Last year, the gate was taken down and disruptive activity occurred on top of the butte. To provide privacy, Mr. Drapela had suggested a barrier which would eliminate the view. If this were a park, there would be increased potential for vandalism and he feels this can be substantiated. He knows that 36 grave markers have been destroyed. e An unidentified woman spoke from the audience and stated that she also was opposed to the acquisition and she takes care of the graveyard. She feels the cost of maintaining the park with no police or extra funds for patrol or maintenance of the park would be detrimental. Taxes would have to be raised in order to maintain another park. She would recommend that this $150,000 could be used to enhance existing parks that are popular such as the ones at Bond Lane or Oakmont, which have excellent access. Another alternative would be to expand Willagillespie Community School and add to the existing 12 or 13 acres. Acquisition of this land would not be a prudent use of the land or the money. This land should be generating income if it cannot be maintained. Commenting on the proposed acquisition was Lori Loehr, 1312 Piper Lane, who stated that parks are needed in the area. She has spoken to the Cal Young Neighborhood Association and people have told her that they would have to walk a mile to get to a park. The school grounds are busy all year with structured programs. Mothers like to take their children for walks. The Bond Lane park is partially undeveloped and people enjoy it. The park by Oakway is enjoyed and it too is undeveloped as is the Brewer Avenue Park. People take pride in their parks. She would hope that an equitable arrange- ment could be worked out between EWEB and the City to preserve this land. There being no further testimonYt public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindberg told Mr. Stevens that he felt the proposal to gain more public input for EWEB and the council was a good idea. Both are municipal bodies - MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26t 1981 Page 7 e of the City of Eugene. He indicated that he was not aware of the poll and asked who administered the survey. Mr. Stevens responded it was done by residents of the Gillespie Butte area. Mr. Lindberg asked if they were in favor of acquisition or against it. Mr. Stevens said that he did not take part in administering the poll, but copies were distributed to the councilors. He listed the items on the petition. Mr. Lindberg noted that it did sound more like a petition than a survey and he was intrigued by the 95 percent of the people who signed the petition being against the acquisition. He asked if the other five percent simply did not sign. Mr. Stevens responded that that was correct.' Mr. Lindberg asked how many names were on the petition. Mr. Stevens stated that there were over 100. Mr. Lindberg asked if he thought they had contacted 100-125 people. Mr. Stevens said he thought that was correct. An unidentified woman in the audience stated that 106 people were contacted and 100 people signed. Ms. Wooten stated that Mr. Stevens said he was representing the residents of the area and asked if he was part of the Spyglass develop- ment. Mr. Stevens stated that he was representing those who signed the peti- tion. He was asked by several people to voice their shared opinion. Ms. Wooten asked if he was active in the Spyglass pun Association. Mr. Stevens stated that he was not but other people are. e Mr. Lindberg noted that one person had mentioned historic designation as as possibility for this area. He asked if that could be a potential funding source. Mr. Drapela stated that Judith Rees, HCC, should reply to that, but they are probably just as desperate for funds as the Parks Department is. Mr. Haws stated that if this issue comes back to the City Council again, he would like to see what options are available to the council, such as rezoning or historic designation, and he would also like to know the City's legal position. Ms. Wooten stated that she appreciates the staff suggestion to refer this back to the EWEB Board. They should be aware of the full sentiments that the council received tonight. She urged people to contact EWEB Board members and ask for a public hearing as soon as possible. She supports continued use of this area as park land open space. She is distressed over EWEB's position. She does not oppose selling land for a reasonable profit from one public agency to another, but a $6,000 purchase price and a $475,000 asking price is too much. It is ironic that EWEB supports public preference when buying power from another public agency, but not in this situation with the City of Eugene. She would hope for a quick settlement to preserve this land. Mr. Obie stated that $150,000 is allocated out of the former serial levy money to be used in the Willakenzie area for park purchase or acquisition of park land. He would like to see the residents poll in a fair and equitable manner e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 8 e e e the people in the area to give the council an indication of how the people in the Willakenzie area would like for that money to be spent. The money is only available once and Gillespie Butte is only available once. However, Gillespie Butte could be a very high-priced piece of property and there may be other property that would be better used for park purposes for recreation. That is the kind of input that is desired by the council from the residents. This is going to be a difficult choice to make. He is rather frustrated regarding this piece of property with EWEB having a $6,000 investment in it. At some point, EWEB has to face up to what their responsibility is, and neither the residents nor the councilors know what that responsibility is now or how EWEB perceives its role in this community regarding parks. They do have a valuable piece of property relative to the public's equity and certainly the considera- tion relative to selling that property should be given. It definitely is a municipal investment. It is not one that the City controls directly or one that the City Council has the opportunity to deal with other than with the limited funding that it has available. He noted that he has a bias--if the council and the City are going to spend $450,000, if that is even a possibility, they should look further regarding park needs in the Willakenzie area. This community is facing an energy crisis, and parks are going to have to fill the bill for recreation. He feels the council must look long and hard at the roles the parks will play in our community in the years ahead. He appreciates the staff recom- mendation and is supportive of it. He feels it is time that EWEB decides what role they are going to play regarding this particular park and other parcels of property in the community as well. Ms. Miller stated that the City has $150,000 to spend on parks in this area from the serial levy and the bond issue. No statement has been received from the residents saying what the best use of that money would be. She feels that most people would want a park three or four blocks away from their house but not next door or across town. She has been to Gillispie Butte twice lately and it is a beautiful place. The City does not have the money to buy, improve, or maintain it so the EWEB Board will have to make a policy decision. The council represents essentially the same people that the EWEB Board does and a joint decision should be reached to best serve the City residents. Ms. Smith indicated agreement with the staff recommendation. The council is committed to parks and open space and this is a frustrating situation. The financial obligation is more than the City can or should undertake. She agrees with Councilor Obie's suggestions regarding alternatives for parks in that neighborhood. People should be aware of the possibility of working with the school district. She hoped that Mr. Drapela would continue exploring the alternatives. Ms. Schue stated that she is a new member of the Joint Parks Committee. Every- one likes parks, but opinions differ on the kinds and locations. Money is MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 9 ,- limited. The staff recommendation is the best. She hopes the property can be saved for public enjoyment. She hopes the problems can be worked out, but this is not the council IS decision to make tonight. Mr. Lindberg noted that this may be a chance to get into a dialogue with EWEB. He welcomes an open door to negotiations and communication. There is a simi- larity between the buttes and the views in Eugene and the cost line as to who has the right to own all the views. In Eugene, the hillsides and the views should be part of the public trust, not something reserved just for those wealthy enough to afford $150,000 homes. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the council not take any action tonight on this proposal until the EWEB Board officially has declared the property surplus for utility pur- poses and made its customary request to the council should the EWEB Board wish to dispose of the property; that the council, through the Mayor, request that the board hear the concerned citizens on their proposal, and consider retaining the Gillespie Butte property until it can assure the council it will not be needed for long-range utility facilities to serve projected growth in the area; and that the Mayor also advise EWEB that should EWEB look to the general resources of the City to acquire the property, there is $150,000 allocated for park acquisition in the Willagillespie area. e Roll call vote; moti~n carried unanimously. Ms. Wooten asked how many people in the audience prefer acquisition of Gillespie Butte as a park and how many were against. Approximately 30 people stood in favor, and approximately 15 people stood in opposition. Mr. Haws left the meeting. C. Council-initiated Improvement Project--Country Club Road Paving (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this is a council-initiated improvement project for Country Club Road paving and calling for bids. He introduced Bert Teitzel, Public Works. Mr. Teitzel stated that this is a council-initiated arterial project. A staff hearing has been held with the affected property owners. They are asking the council for authorization to proceed with right-of-way purchase, preparation of final plans, and to call for bids. One more public hearing will be held when bids are received if council approves the project at this point. This project e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 10 e was in the Transportation Improvement Program for 1982-83 construction, but in order to coordinate construction with the East Bank lnterceptor, staff has advanced the paving project to 1981-82. This will authorize street paving, sanitary sewer construction, and storm sewer construction on Country Club Road from 1-105 to Willagillespie Road and on Willagillespie Road from Country Club Road to 300 feet south of Clinton Avenue, and storm sewer construction in the area between Country Club Road and l-105. The project calls for a 46-foot-wide street with curbs and sidewalks in most locations, no parking, and on-street striped bicycle lanes. This project will be done in two phases. ln 1981, the eastern portion of the project will be built and the remainder of the project including completion of Willagillespie Road and improvements to the intersection near Valley River will be done in 1982. A portion of the road near Delta Highway will be realigned to remove three existing right angle bends and to improve safety for motorists and residents. This will also result in substantial cost savings in the construction of the East Bank lnterceptor. The realignment will require right-of-way acquisition of several parcels. The cost will be assessed to the adjacent property according to the City Code. They estimate the County portion will be around $960,000 and the City's share will be approximately $288,000, which will be included in the proposed 1981-82 budget. Mr. Hamel asked if the obligation of the property owners is for a 46-foot paved street or if their obligation is only for 26 feet or for 28 feet. Mr. Teitzel responded that the obligation is 20 feet for a single-family dwelling and 36 feet for a multi-family dwelling. 4It Mr. Lindberg asked if during the public testimony the affected parties approved the improvements. Mr. Teitzel assured him that information had been given to them and that they were told they could come before the council with any con- cerns. Ms. Wooten asked about the amount of the right-of-way purchase cost for those four lots. Mr. Teitzel responded that four residences and four lots are involved as well as some miscellaneous frontage and the City has budgeted $500,000 for acquisition. Ms. Wooten asked if this is in addition to the cost of the project. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is. Ms. Wooten asked if this is a $2.2 million project. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is. Ms. Wooten asked if the County has agreed to pay the $960,000 portion of the project. Mr. Teitzel stated that the County would act in February. Ms. Wooten asked if the $816,000 assessment to the property owners would change much. Mr. Teitzel responded that it would not. Ms. Wooten asked how many property owners were affected. Mr. Teitzel re~ponded that he did not know. Ms. Wooten asked why the full develop- ment of this project would be. Mr. Teitzel stated that it would be as listed in the Metro Plan for full utilization. Ms. Wooten asked why this project was pushed up. Mr. Teitzel responded that it was because of the construction of the East Bank Interceptor which will tear up part of the road and it will save money to do this paving project now. Ms. Wooten indicated that she would like infor- mation on the individual assessment costs. She said that her concern was for the individual owners. Mr. Teitzel indicated he did not have that information readily available. e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 11 e e e Ms. Miller asked who projected funding to acquire the right-of-way. Mr. Teitzel responded that the County did. Ms. Miller asked for details of sidewalk con- struction. Mr. Teitzel stated that sidewalks would be along the entire route except adjacent to the freeway off-ramp and on the south side of Country Club Road which is undeveloped. They would not install sidewalks there until the property is developed. Public hearing was opened. Speaking against: Joyce Wilson~ 1000 Willagillespie Road, stated that she owns property and a professional building between the Delta Highway and Willagillespie Road. At the public hearing, they asked what the County plans were regarding traffic and they were told that the traffic problems would be taken care of. She feels it is being handled on a piecemeal basis. She does not object to the road being widened, but the overall plan needs to be better. The traffic flow pattern needs to be worked out. If bike lanes are put in, it could create a problem. If sidewalks are on the west side, it would encourage children to cross the road when there is much traffic. She feels that sidewalks should be on the east side. Along Chase Street will be the first area for the sewers with others to follow. She feels it would be better to extend existing sewers. With additional comments, Lori Loehr, 1312 Piper Lane, stated that in conversa- tions with residents, they seem anxious to have Country Club Road improved and made safer for cars and bikes. Speaking in favor: Bjarne Abrahamson, 995 Willagillespie, asked if sidewalks were placed on only one side of the street, who would pay for them. Kelly Nobles, 620 Elmwood Drive, stated that this improvement project is neces- sary for safety. Without it, accidents will occur and this project will elimi- nate three serious curves and one dangerous dip. There being no further testimony, pUblic hearing was closed. In regard to the traffic interchange of Delta, Willagillespie, and Abbie Lane, Mr. Teitzel stated that the majority of the traffic is aimed to go onto Good- pasture and on to Valley River Center. This is what the interchange is being redesigned for and the City is working with the County. Bike paths are part of the adopted Master Bike Plan. Regarding having sidewalks on only the west side, staff will look into that and will talk to the schools to see if the proposed plan is adequate. For assessments of sidewalks, residents on both sides of the street would pay rather than just one, even if it is just a sidewalk on one side. Sewers will be put in prior to street construction. MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 12 e e e Mr. Gleason noted that the final front foot assessment will be determined when the bids and change orders are done. These are estimates at this time and they could change. Mr. Obie stated that it is City policy to have sidewalks on both sides of a street. He does not want to encourage residents to think they would be placed only on one side. He is pleased to see this project moving ahead of schedule because of the safety problems and urged the council to approve it. Mr. Lindberg asked if that was being decided tonight. Mr. Teitzel stated that approval for staff to proceed with letting the bids is being requested. lf there is a specific direction on sidewalks which the council would like staff to pursue, they will look at that. Otherwise, they will not come back until bids are to be awarded. Mr. Gleason said that this decision is important because after they have gone through the bid award process, it is difficult to change the project. Mr. Lindberg stated that he felt that after the hearing, staff would look at modi- fying the sidewalks. Mr. Teitzel stated that that small bid of sidewalks could be decided at the time of the bid awards. Ms. Wooten asked about the status of Bancrofting and asked if bonds could be sold at ten percent and still have the City come out all right. Keith Martin, City Attorney, responded that the project is scheduled for next year with assessments being levied six to eight months later. The time to determine whether to proceed is at the time of the bid award and to look at the bond market then. They could also sit on the project by using short-term warrants for two to three years if Bancrofting is not advantageous at the time of bid awards. Bill McGuire, Finance Director, stated that the last short-term war- rants went for 9-3/8 percent, but the last time the council was alerted to a possible ten-percent interest they were sold for 5-1/2 percent. Ms. Wooten asked whether there are other ways to finance if this is determined not advan- tageous. Mr. McGuire responded that the construction period is covered for two years and then bonds are sold. Ms. Wooten asked what happens if the bond market is bad. Mr. Martin stated that this item should be before the legislature this year. In six months, more data will be available. Mr. Gleason stated that a large portion of this project will not be by Bancrofting but at that time individual assessments could be held. They could hold short-term notes over. Staff will not allow the council to get into a Bancrofting problem. Ms. Miller stated that this project is badly needed. lt is very dangerous. The City can't guarantee a rate on Bancrofting of less than 10 percent even though this has been done historically. Res. No. 3643--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction on Country Club Road from 1-105 to Willagillespie Road, and on Willagillespie Road from Country Club Road to 300 feet south of Clinton Avenue, and storm sewer construction in the area between Country Club Road and 1-105 (1697). MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 13 e Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2244--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests in the vicinity of Country Club Road for the purposes of street widening and relocation, and the construction of side- walks, storm sewers, and sanitary sewers; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Council Bill 2244 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting lIaye,1I the bill was declared passed and numbered 18753. D. Appeal of an Administrative Decision Allowing Lane Transit District to Relocate a Bus Stop to a Mid-block Site on the East Side of Oak Street South of 19th Avenue (memo, map distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Hanks, Public Works Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hanks stated that an appeal has been filed by William Skillern to appeal the bus stop to be placed in front of his residence. This relocation was requested by LTD and this is the preferential site for a bus stop for the Civic Stadium, South Eugene High, and the School District 4-J bus barn. He noted that George Montoya, from LTD, is also present to answer questions. Public hearing was opened. William Skillern, 1955 Oak, stated that in October of 1980, he was notified that a bus stop would be placed in front of his house. He lives mid-block between 19th and 20th streets on Oak. He gave them feedback stating that he did not want this to happen and they proceeded to place the stop there anyway. He again called LTD and noted there have been communication problems with LTD. He told LTD that he is opposed to having the stop there because of the safety factor. At 20th Street, Oak and Willamette spill off. They had two cherry trees in front of their house which have been destroyed by vehicles running into them. Because of this incidence, he feels that a bus stop should not be there. The 25 mph speed limit sign was taken down. Other cars which have been parked next to the curb have been sideswiped which is another safety factor. Passengers stand in front of his house waiting for the bus. e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 14 e e e They have had litter and other problems already. They have suggested other stops to LTD and he distributed pictures of those proposals to the council. The alternatives include the southeast corner of 20th and Willamette in front of Steichen Realty which is within one-half block of the existing bus stop. This would still allow parking and be in a commercial tax lot and might also help their business. The second alternative would be the parking lot of the 4-J bus barn which he feels would be good because there is no through traffic permitted. The existing bus stop at 18th and Oak is another alternative, and the fourth alternative would be in front of Lowrey Realty which is also in a commercially zoned area. He was told that LTD buses need more room, but 10,000 cars a day go down Oak Street in front of his house, and this would only cause more congestion. He feels they are being discriminated against. They asked if their neighbors were informed and they were told that they had not been. The owner of the property at 1977 Oak, Bud Walker, who lives in Myrtle Creek, stated that he was not informed. On October 27, a letter from Dave Whitlow rejected the alternatives on the opinions of the Traffic stpff, property owners, and LTD. He would like to know who will pay for the loss of property value if a bus stop is placed in front of their house. The parking strip is five feet wide. If a bus stop goes in and he would ever decide to sell his house, who would want to buy it with a bus stop in front of it? Will it be LTD and the City who will make up the difference in the decreased value? He would hope so but the court would have to decide. That is an option that they would pursue. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks stated that in regard to payment of lawsuits, the streets belong to the public. One of the council's priorities is to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. The owner of the property next to the Skillern home was sent a letter but it was returned since he is apparently an absentee owner. However, the resident in that house was opposed. There are several alternatives: the existing bus stop on 18th between Oak and Willamette, which requires South Eugene High School students to walk several more blocks; the 4-J bus parking lot which is not within the public right-of-way for a bus stop, and LTD would have to use it at all hours; and the 20th and Willamette stop although there already is a stop south of 20th. There is a problem with running-off-the-road accidents which is why several sites were not chosen. This location is mid-block. Now that 19th and Oak are signalized, buses must get back into an entire stream of cars after loading their passengers. Mr. Hamel asked if buses are going from 19th to 18th and turning left and why considera- tion was not given for a stop across 19th on the right side. Mr. Hanks respond. ed that that is the route buses will take and the same problem would exist but to a higher degree. Mr. Lindberg noted that of the three options presented by the resident, two were eliminated. They were eliminated for being too far away or for being outside City jurisdiction, but 20th and Willamette is an option, although ther~ is a stop nearby. He asked if that could be adjusted to serve both areas. Mr. Hanks responded that there is a stop on Willamette south of MlNUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 15 e e e 20th which is already as close as it can be without getting into a problem with the intersection. Mr. Lindberg asked if this site would be eliminated for safety reasons. Mr. Hanks responded that it would. Mr. Obie noted that the stop could be left where it is. It is LTD's responsibility to convince the council this is where it should be and that it would be better than the existing stop with the problems. He is not sure enough consideration has been given to this item and he feels staff should do more work. Ms. Smith indicated agree- ment. She asked how important it is to have another bus stop so close. George Montoya, planner for LTD, stated that this stop serves both the residents and high school students. This is one way, as is Willamette, so the route must be split. They must be able to accommodate both in and outbound passengers. The residence is at the desired spot, since they try to have stops at every two blocks so they can accommodate schedule times. Ms. Smith asked where the next bus stop is after the one at Willamette south of 20th. Mr. Montoya stated that it is left onto Oak off 18th. Ms. Smith asked if this is three to three and a half blocks. Mr. Montoya responded that it is. Ms. Miller stated that the 20th and Willamette stop should be adequate for the civic center patrons. The other stop would create lane change problems. Many people drive their vehicles and walk more than three and a half blocks. She asked what more staff should study. Ms. Schue stated that she rides that bus to get to council meetings. She can get off at 20th and Willamette or go three and a half blocks to get off at 18th. In the middle would be access to South Eugene High School. Another stop is needed. If there is inadequate room to shift lanes, then it should be placed where LTD feels it is best. However, if the stop could be kept where it is and bus drivers could be trained to make the necessary maneuvers, that would be ideal. She asked why it cannot be left as is on Oak and 19th. Mr. Montoya responded that there is no stop there now because of the signal that was installed there and there are no gaps for drivers to break into the traffic flow and get into the left turn lane. Ms. Schue asked if they could wait for a break in the traffic. Mr. Montoya responded that they cannot do it during rush hour and they must be able to in order to keep on time with the schedules. Ms. Schue asked if that suggestion is impractical. Mr. Montoya responded that it is not a reliable alternative. Mr. Lindberg stated that he understands the need under ordinary circumstances, but with the school situation, there is no evidence that students would stop going to school if they had to walk another block. He asked if there is addi- tional information about this. Mr. Montoya stated that he does not know and does not have the information. Mr. Lindberg stated that he understood that the use of this stop was for Civic Stadium for which there is an alternative stop and the second use was for the school. Mr. Hanks stated that this is part of the comprehensive plan of working toward 30 percent of the people using alterna- tive modes. When transit becomes as convenient as possible, it will change the mode. Mr. Lindberg indicated 110 percent agreement with that goal, but thinks MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 16 -- e e this may be an extenuating circumstance. It sounds like an unusual bus stop in a less-than-ideal location. Mr. Hanks noted that the residents' trees were knocked down by people driving; not by buses. Mr. Lindberg stated that more research seems to be in order. Mr. Obie suggested that staff review this and present alternatives to the council. To say that the bus yard is not viable because it is not a public right-of-way seems like a hurdle'that could be overcome since people are dropped off on private property at Valley River Center. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to postpone any decision on this matter for 90 days and to ask staff to check out the alternatives. Mayor Keller stated he feels it is best for the school traffic at the original location. Mr. Hanks stated that is no doubt true except the bus cannot make it across the lines of traffic. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:2, with Councilors Schue and Miller voting "no." II. FINDINGS AND ,RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPEAL FROM A DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARD BY THE HEARINGS PANEL ON DECEMBER 1, 1980 (findings, minutes, and additional information distributed) Findings from the Hearings Panel reversing the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to deny a request for a variance to allow construction of an additional drive-up service window with a front-yard setback of eight feet and that the appeal be approved. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the Hearings Panel minutes and adopt as the council's own the findings of fact set forth in those minutes of December 1, 1980. Ms. Smith stated that she would abstain since Mr. Saul is a partner with her husband and represents the client. Ms. Wooten stated that she had received Adrienne Lannom's letter and would like it discussed at a later time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Ms. Smith abstaining. III. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 17 - e e Res. No. 3464--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period of January 12, 1981, through January 26, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to January 28, 1981. Respectfully submitted, Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:sba/CM7a1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 26, 1981 Page 18