Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1981 Meeting - e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 23, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, and Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Eric Haws. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning 1. Property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive from County RR Rural Residential District to City R-1/PD Low-Density Residential Dtstrict with Planned Unit Development procedures (Rexius Investment) (A/Z 80-6) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson explained that this annexation request consists of 16 acres of undeveloped property located off Brookside Drive in the South Hills area of Eugene. The property has moderate slopes and a dense vegetation cover. The property adjacent to the south and the east is developed as low-density residential development and was annexed in 1976 and zoned RA/SR. North and west of the property is property that is in the County and zoned Rural Residential. Access to the site is provided from Brookside Drive by public right-of-way, which is currently unimproved. That right-of-way reached the subject prop- erty when Edgewood Mountain III PUD was reviewed and approved by the City in the 1960's. The City Council heard this annexation request last year and unanimously recommended to the Boundary Commission that it be approved. However, the Boundary Commission, at a public hearing on June 5, 1980, denied the application on the basis that traffic issues had not sufficiently been resolved. During the review and hearing process of the previous application, there was considerable discussion and concern regarding the lack of other means of access to the site. The possibility of gaining additional access from the north from 40th Avenue was believed to be improbable due to problems of steep slopes, and there was inadequate information at that time to make a determina- tion. The present application meets the City's annexation criteria and LCDC goals as outlined in the staff notes. The site is within the urban growth MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 1 e e e boundary; it is contiguous with the city on the east and south. The Metro- politan Area General Plan designates the area as appropriate for low-density residential development and the property can be served by sanitary sewers, water, electricity, fire and police protection, and schools in the area. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, was available to discuss the traffic aspects relating to the proposed development. This application includes a tentative street layout for access from the Rexius property to 40th Avenue, which is to the north. That proposal indicates that a road could be constructed to 40th Avenue without exceeding the maximum street grade criteria. Such a street is desirable to provide dual vehicular and emergency access to the site in existing and future development at Edgewood Mountain PUD which is immediately to the south. The Planning Department received annexation proposals today for property to the north of the Rexius property extending to 40th Avenue. However, this proposal should be reviewed on its own merits. The Planning Commission considered this annexation request at a public hearing November 4, 1980, and voted to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. Included in the motion was direc- tion to the staff that it submit minutes of the commission hearing to the Hearings Official, along with letters from neighbors when PUD plans are reviewed for the site, and to suggest to the Hearings Official that development be limited until dual access is obtained. Randy Thwing of the Planning Commission is available to answer questions. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, stated that existing traffic on Brookside at the intersection with Brae Burn is about 400 trips per day. The annexation, fully developed, would add about another 800 trips per day to the volume on Brookside, for a total of 1,200 trips per day. The proposed development from Edgewood Mountain would add another 500 to 600 trips per day, for a total of 1,700 to 1,800 trips per day. The capacity is about 6,000 trips per day, and this development would bring existing volume up to about one-third of the practical capacity. There is a 22-percent grade going from Brookside into Brae Burn, which is higher than existing City standards, and is about the maximum grade that City fire trucks will climb. They can climb that slope, but it is very difficult for them to do so. There are no recorded accidents at this intersec- tion, although minor accidents may have occurred and not been reported. Traffic volume of 1,700 trips per day means that during peak hours there would be about 170 to 180 vehicles going through the intersection per hour. This is not a substantial traffic volume from a capacity point of view. Neighborhood resi- dents usually begin complaining about volume when traffic volumes reach approx- imately 700 cars per day and there is more noise. However, when traffic volumes are substantially higher, people usually do not complain. Ms. Schue asked how long a "day" is. Mr. Hanks responded that it is 24 hours and that the readings are done on Thursdays when school is in session. Mr. Lindberg asked what the possibility of the proposed street would be in terms of improving fire access. Mr. Hanks responded that it probably could be made better, and this would provide an additional route. Mr. Lindberg asked if the sharpness of corners and the slope are factored in when determining street capacity. Mr. Hanks responded that these are taken into account. Mr. Lindberg asked if parking on the side of the street is taken into account. Mr. Hanks MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 2 e e e responded that the capacity is higher if parking is not allowed. Mr. Lindberg asked if much parking occurs on this street. Mr. Hanks stated that the parking is sporadic. Ms. Miller asked what is different in this application from when the application made previously to the Boundary Commission which was turned down. Mr. Jacobson stated that on page II-A-ll of the staff notes of November 4, 1980, a map shows that alternative dual access could be engineered from Brookside to 40th Avenue. The staff notes on the previous application indi- cated that there was no data as to whether a street could be engineered to 40th Avenue. This map, which was reviewed by Public Works, indicates that a street could be engineered through this adjacent property with a maximum street grade of 15 percent. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the proposal: Peter Thompson, 840 Lawrence, stated that he is a professional land planner, landscape architect, and urban planner. He stated that this proposal has been before the council previously. One major reason this application was denied by the Boundary Commission is that they did not feel there was any possible access to the north from this project through either the Breeden, Youngquist, or Smith properties, which are the properties to the north. They also felt that the topography and the soils would completely inhibit a road to the north. Since that time, extensive studies have been conducted in that area. Walter Young- quist, a property owner to the north, is also a registered geologist and has declared that the soils would support a road to the north. Both the Smith and Breeden properties are being proposed for annexation at this time. In the interim, since Mr. Youngquist does not wish annexation at this time, he has discussed whether a road would be feasible through either the Smith or Breeden properties. Mr. Youngquist stated that it would. He had other commitments and was unable to be present for this hearing tonight. Slopes and the soils in this area will accept a future road which connects Brookside and 40th Avenue, so this project is sequential in nature and annexable at this time. Mr. Rexius is a small builder, and if this project is annexed, it would be phased over time. Brookside was built to City standards, and at full development for Rexius and Edgewood Mountain, only 1,800 additional trips per day would be generated by vehicles. This would be if the project were to be built immediately, but they are talking about phasing development over a period of time. Fire and police records show no accidents. There have been other streets in the city which have been before the council in the past with similar problems, such as in Firland Heights, in which Dogwood, 30th Avenue, and Spring Boulevard were involved, and in order to complete that project the PUD process was required so that the road could be dedicated to the City. That was a similar situation to this proposed project. Annexation of this project and a road being extended through it to the northern boundary line of the project working in conjunction with the northern property owners, Smith and Breeden, would ensure and perpetuate the additional MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 3 e e e road being connected to 40th Avenue. Construction would not start for about 18 months; they will work with the Parks and Recreation Department for a two- to three-acre park. In summary they feel the soils and topography are adequate and that traffic problems will be solved in the future. Raymond L. Rexius, 750 Chambers, stated that he is a local builder and is concerned about keeping Eugene livable. This property was purchased after determining that it could be annexed. They have local interests in mind and have checked with geologists and the Planning Department. This property was purchased from Harold Edmonds and he also is concerned about this property. He had had 100+ acres and most of it was sold to Breeden. On January 17, 1963, the original contract called for access to be provided to the property. later, there was a misunderstanding regarding access, and an easement was provided on November 12, 1975, to Brookside Drive. Even before Brookside and Brae Burn were built, access was to have been provided. Some people say that Brookside is too busy and dangerous. This concerned him, so he drove around in the area during peak traffic times. He showed a film of the Brae Burn/Brookside intersection during peak times and noted the apparent lack of traffic. This is a nice neighborhood, and he does not blame people for not wanting traffic. Even if traffic increased substantially, however, he does not feel that it would be a problem. He expressed his desire to work with local residents and is willing to give property for a park, keep the maximum number of trees undisturbed, and would welcome the Edgewood West Neighbors to work with him on suggestions. Speaking in opposition: John C. Sihler, 4235 Brae Burn, stated that he lives at the foot of Brookside Drive. He indicated that he was speaking for the neighborhood association. Linda Row, the association president, has asked to see an agreement for addi- tional access, but this has not been provided by Mr. Rexius. The neighbors object to this annexation from a safety standpoint, since construction will occur prior to the street being built that will serve as the alternate route. Inclement weather is also a concern with a higher traffic volume, since the question is how safe the intersection of Brae Burn and Brookside really is. They would request that the council not allow the hazard to increase and to ask Mr. Rexius to wait until Breeden guarantees access to 40th. They feel all the annexations should proceed together. This was originally submitted with Brookside noted as the only access. He requested that the council not approve this annexation until the alternate route is provided. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Jim Croteau, Planning, stated that the criteria for annexation are: 1) rela- tionship to the urban growth boundary; 2) availability of services; 3) that it be a logical extension; and 4) that it be contiguous to the city limits. Tonight's testimony has focused on service delivery, particularly streets. The evaluation shows that it is possible to provide access. During colder MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 4 e e e days, all steep streets have frost on them and this is something that those who choose to live on those streets have to face. Staff would like to see problems caused by topography kept to a minumum. Street grades around Brook- side have been adjusted; 20 percent is the current standard. The evaluation was previously done with Brookside as the only access, but now there is a possibility of access from the north. The evaluation also shows that the proposed development responds to the Boundary Commission's concerns and that this property should be annexed. The evaluation had been reviewed by the planning Commission and criteria for annexation and concurrent rezoning have been fulfilled. In rebuttal, Mr. Rexius stated that Mr. Sihler's house is in a difficult loca- tion at the foot of Brookside at the bottom of the hill, so it is easy to understand his concern. If traffic is a problem, barriers could be installed to keep traffic from going into his yard. There is a potential problem for traffic that is out of control; if provisions were made for all vehicles that are out of control in the hillside areas, it would be very difficult. One possible solution would be to reduce the speed limit. He feels they have done everything possible to alleviate problems. He said Mr. Sihler had stated that they have not contacted him, but his son, Rick Rexius, has contacted some of the property owners, although he is not a spokesperson for the company. They have not been in a great deal of contact with the residents in the area, but have tried to alleviate their concerns. One thing they have done is arranged with Breeden and Smith for the annexation request they have submitted. They have paid their fees for the annexation request and they are working with them regarding the alternate street to 40th. They can explain the need and encourage the other property owners to cooperate, but they cannot force them to, so all they can do is put the street in to their property and when the City considers the other requests, the City can require the street as a part of the annexation. They do not want to wait to begin development; it is costly to them. They are submitting to the pun process and would like to begin develop- ment. A decision should be made on the facts. They will develop slowly and it will take several years for them to build many houses. Ms. Smith stated concern regarding the problem with access to 40th. She would not recommend delay of the project, but would like to know when other property will be annexed and access to 40th will be provided. Mr. Croteau stated that the annexation requests were received today and it looks as if there is a good chance for a recommendation for approval. The zoning of this property is recommended as R-1/pn, which means that it would be subject to the pun process, and this is likely the recommendation they would make for the property to the north. They should look to see how joint access can be achieved so the PUD process will include that concern. Ms. Schue asked if there is any way to insist that that road could go through to 40th. Mr. Croteau stated that the Planning Commission made a strong statement to provide additional access also. If that concern were included from the council, it would give clout to the Hearings Official to ensure that the road is put in. Ms. Wooten asked for clarification of the letter received from Breeden MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 5 e e e Brothers. Mr. Croteau indicated that the pu~ procedures indicate exactly where the alignment will be. Ms. Wooten stated that Mr. Rexius had indicated that this housing would be in the moderate price range and asked what that would be for that area. Mr. Croteau stated that in hillside sites which are heavily wooded with adverse topography, the Hearings Official has required mixed housing which can be built at less cost than single-family standard dwelling units. Ms. Wooten indicated that she and Mr. Gleason had discussed the cost of service extension, and that she understands it costs about 25 percent of the cost of the unit. Mr. Gleason stated that that is a close estimate. Ms. Wooten asked what portion the City bears the cost for and how it would compare with development in a level area. Mr. Gleason stated that in a standard subdivision, most develop- ment costs are borne by the developer in the cost of the house and future maintenance costs are borne by the City. Mr. Lindberg asked what monitoring provisions there are for ensuring that LCDC Goal 10 is met (adequate inventory of land supply) and how mixed affordable housing is ensured. Mr. Croteau stated that they have not been able to quantify the inventory of land nor its affordability, but they do a quarterly inventory of land supply. Mr. Lindberg asked if there have been studies done as to whether land should be used for certain income levels. Mr. Croteau stated that they have this covered in the PUD process and that, to some extent, costs can be monitored by location. Mr. Lindberg indicated that alternative access should be handled in the PUD process. Mr. Croteau stated that there are concerns from staff and the Planning Commission for the size of development and that the development needs to be phased over a number of years. One of the first phases in this project should provide this street so that it is immediately available to the property to the north. Mayor Keller stated that this could be prejudging two other annexations which the council may feel differently about in the future. Mr. Lindberg stated that the adverse testimony focuses not on normal traffic, but on truck traffic such as would appear with construction of the development. He asked if the new road would help with truck traffic and with safety concerns. Mr. Hanks stated that the new road would have a lesser grade, probably 15 percent, and that would reduce the concern about truck brake failure. Ms. Miller stated that her main concern was that the Boundary Commission unani- mously rejected this application previously. Much work has been done, but the Boundary Commission's concerns should be taken seriously. She would not want the same application sent back to them that they had previously rejected. Mr. Obie said that the Boundary Commission may have "overstepped its boundaries" by being concerned with municipal traffic. Mr. Gleason stated that this is a municipal issue. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, stated that the Boundary Commis- sion can determine the adequacy of public services. Mr. Obie asked what would happen if the council decided to allow 5,000 cars per day on certain streets. Mr. Gleason said that the Boundary Commission must accept the council's deci- sion. Mr. Obie noted discomfort with the Boundary Commission's findings. He said that traffic from construction is nothing new and he does not feel that that is a rational argument to delay a project. Mr. Lindberg stated that the Boundary Commission's main objection has been remedied to some extent since dual access has been determined to be feasible. Ms. Schue noted that this would be difficult to deny on the basis of traffic; she would recommend that, as part of the package, the street to the north be included and she would support annexa- tion under those terms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 6 e Res. No. 3477--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive to the city of Eugene and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of November 4, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Miller voting no. CB 2252--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RR Rural Residential District to City R-l/PD Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive. 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 considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill 2252 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 aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18759. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT--INFORMATIONAL (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ed Smith, Development Director, Eugene Performing Arts Center. Mr. Smith stated that much speculation has occurred regarding the economic benefits of the Civic Center Project and that is why this report has been prepared. He provided a summary which gives details by individual project for the four portions of the Civic Center Project. The research for this report became easier after the Phase 5 bids for the Performing Arts Center were opened, and that now places almost everything under contract. The Conference Center parking is under contract, the Conference Center is nearing design completion, and the Hilton Hotel cost projections are fairly accurate so that some projections can now be made that are meaningful. Of all the projects totaling $46,337,000, approximately 75 percent of that amount of money is remaining in Lane County and being rolled over three or four times. Based upon average annual wages and fringes of $40,000, the number of jobs created in Lane County amounts to 353 person-years. Considering only the Civic Center Project--the Performing Arts Center and the Conference Center--the percentage remaining in Lane County increases to approximately 85 percent or about $25 million total. Approximately $10 million of this is in payroll, with the balance in locally supplied materials and supplies. II. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 7 e e e Mayor Keller stated that he is pleased to see the percentages as high as they are. Many questions have been raised about whether this project is doing what was hoped and it is good to see that it is. Mr. Smith noted that out of the four projects, there are 34 contracts that are Lane County contracts. Mr. Lindberg stated that he is impressed with the figures, but asked for clarifica- tion on Table I-A regarding the 44 percent of the jobs that were created. Mr. Smith stated that this relates to the dollar figure, not to people. There are 194 jobs, which is 44 percent of the money. Ms. Wooten stated that she also is impressed with this report, and asked when an analysis will be done for how many permanent jobs will be created. Mr. Smith responded that Dick Reynolds is working on this report now. III. CITY SPACE NEEDS (continued discussion from previous meeting) (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this issue has been brought back for further discussion. Before proceeding, staff needs the answers to three questions: 1) Can the council accept the projections of square footage and cost; 2) if those projec- tions are accepted, does council want staff to commit energy to find solutions; and 3) if both of the above are met, will council accept the staff recommenda- tion that this be dealt with outside the General Fund? Ms. Smith asked if the figures provided are adequate without additional consult- ing work being done. Mr. Gleason responded that after the last council meeting, he had met with others who had provided data that had been done in conjunction with a previous study by architects who dealt with City space needs. He has also re-examined the data and specifics three times and some of the figures have been reduced. Using those predictions, there is a decreasing square footage on a per-capita basis. Additional studies would show nothing different. Some or all of the councilors could review this material in depth, should they choose. Efficiency is reduced when there is inadequate space, and that is the current situation. Ms. Smith stated that if the council wanted to form an ad hoc committee now, that would be fine; but with the City leasing space around town there is an obvious need for additional space. She concurs with Mr. Gleason that the square footage and cost projections are acceptable, and that staff energy should be committed to find a solution. She would like the council to provide direction to staff. Mr. Obie stated that he would like to know how the space situation would be financed if it were not done within the General Fund. He agrees with all three propositions which Mr. Gleason mentioned and feels that the council should move in that direction. He stated that the City Manager's Office is in need of a solution. He requested that Mr. Gleason see if something can be done about this situation in the short run before solving the rest of the problem. Mr. Gleason stated that the space needs in the City Manager's Office are also frustrating for him to deal with. However, it is not just that department. Traffic flow is a logistical problem. There are only three meeting spaces available in City Hall now, and that is inadequate. Design features are bad, but construction of a new facility would take four years. He would hope that something can be done as an interim solution, but he is not certain what it will be. Ed Smith noted agreement. With present minimal opportunities for remodeling, additional space MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 8 e e e would have to be leased outside City Hall. Mr. Obie restated that he would like to see something done in the Manager's Office. It is not necessary for that department to do without just because other departments are doing without. He feels that there are some organization and discipline situations that need to be dealt with. Ms. Schue said that she would agree with all three concepts which Mr. Gleason presented, but she feels that leasing is expensive compared to owning. She is ready to start discussion on owning additional facilities. Ms. Wooten expressed concern about staff proceeding until the Capital Improve- ments Program is reviewed. By proceeding with this problem, it would be out of sequence and there may be greater needs than those that have been mentioned. Mr. Lindberg asked for clarification and if they were only approving staff to explore alternatives. Mr. Gleason stated that that would be what would occur if the council agrees with the three questions. Specifics and alternatives could be brought back after that, along with methods for implementation. However, he does not want to even explore alternatives if the council is unwilling. Mr. Lindberg said there is a problem and alternatives should be explored, but it should not be committed to the budgetary scheme at this point. It should be passed with the rest of the budget. Mr. Gleason asked if council agreed with the square footage dimensions as reported. The next step would be to contact any potential owners but they do not wish to create expectations that they cannot meet. Mr. Lindberg agreed that limited steps should be taken. He asked how direction can be given to staff. Mr. Gleason stated that there is not enough information available now and that reports will be brought back, but he wants council's support before he even gets to that point. Options can then be focused on. Ms. Smith asked what the time line would be for bringing back proposals if the council agrees with these three considerations. Mr. Gleason responded that it would be two to three months. Ms. Smith asked if he anticipates that the council will discuss poten- tial solutions along with the other capital projects. Mr. Gleason stated that the first draft of capital projects would be available in June or July, but discussion will not occur until September. They will attempt to merge these, but the decision should be coterminous. If a decision were made in July, they would have a basic idea. Ms. Smith stated that it would be helpful to have information presented to the council regarding capital improvement costs when it is considered, but if space needs must be taken care of before capital improvements, then that may be the way it has to be. Mr. Gleason noted that they would separate fundable projects. Funding issues can be different and they must determine the priority of projects and look at the availability of funding. Ms. Wooten stated that she is looking at CIP and Public Works projects that are now under way, such as financing of the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant and the deficit of the Performing Arts Center. Financing must be discussed. She cannot authorize proceeding until more information is given. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 9 e e - Ms. Miller stated that she feels the square footage needs look appropriate and agrees that the problem needs to be solved, but she feels it should be looked at with all the capital improvement projects. The expansion of City Hall has been discussed for a long time, but nothing is ever done. There is no place for people to work. It is very inefficient and difficult to work properly. She agrees with the three points as outlined. However, she feels that funding will be a problem. Obvious problems cannot be ignored. Ms. Schue stated that Ms. Wooten had raised some important questions regarding long-term planning, but she is not as concerned about doing background work before finding funding mechanisms. It is a high priority, as the space problem needs to be solved, but the total picture must be viewed as much as possible. She would like to have a desk available to use at City Hall, since the council offices which were intended for the councilors are never available. Mayor Keller volunteered the use of his office and noted that he frequently has problems getting to use it himself. Mr. Lindberg stated that he agrees that comprehensive capital improvement planning must be done, but that the space problem is of great magnitude. He feels the option should be explored but that a commitment should not yet be made for any particular direction. He affirmed the problem and feels staff should be directed to look at options. Mayor Keller noted that both issues go hand in hand. Staff will continue to grow as the community grows. The need for more space is obvious. He is not willing to spend $4 million to $5 million at this time for anything, but would like to work through the options. He noted agreement with the three recommen- dat ions. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the three proposals as outlined by staff. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1, with Councilor Wooten voting no. IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS Mr. Gleason noted that the Eugene Arts Foundation's payment of $10,300.83 should be deleted since the contract has not been executed. Res. No. 3478--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period February 9, 1981, through February ~3, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution as amended. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to February 25, 1981. Respectfully submitted, n~. .,' i1~~~!~g~a (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:db/CM7b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 1981 Page 10