Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/1981 Meeting . e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber Apr il 27, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, cric Haws, D. W. (Bill) Hamel, Betty Smith, Bri an Obi e, and Cynthl a Wooten. Councllors Emily Schue, Mark Lindb.erg, and Mayor Keller were absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Proposed Sign Code Amendment Regarding Prohibited Signs on Motor Vehicles (memo, ordinance distributed) Manager introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson explained that the issue of advertising on motor vehicles arose late last year when Lane Transit District announced its plans to place signs on the exterior of buses to create extra revenue. The Planning Commission directed staff to investigate the applicability of LTD1s advertising proposal with the City's Sign Code. The City Attorney's Office determined that the existing Sign Code under Section 8.690 Prohibited Signs does not clearly allow or disallow exterior bus advertising. The Planning Commission subsequently directed staff to draft two amendments to the Sign Code for consideration. One amendment to Section 8.690 would clarify the types of prohibited signs, specifically pro- hibiting advertising on vehicles. The other amendment would add a new subsec- tion to Section 8.670, "Exempt Signs," adding bus signs as being exempt from the Sign Code provisions, thus allowing exterior bus advertising and regulating the surface area of signing. At the April 7, 1981, Planning Commission hearing, the commission voted to recommend to the council approval of the amendment to Section 8.690 in order to clarify the language relating to the subsection prohibiting vehicular adver- tising. A motion to forward approval of the second amendment, to exempt bus signs from the Sign Code provisions, failed. Mr. Obie asked the City Attorney if he might have a conflict of interest. He wished to clarify his position to the council and the public. In the past, because of his association with the Outdoor Advertising Industry, he had not voted on the sign ordinance issues. He explained he may change that position this evening because he has been outside that industry for the past two years. However, when advertising was being sold for mounting on the buses prior to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 1 e awareness that there might be an ordinance problem, one of his divisions bid for advertising on one of the buses. Mr. Obie explained that it was not inconceivable that in the future his company may bid to handle the adver- tising on the buses. He asked Mr. Long if he had a conflict in that regard. Mr. Long said that based upon the prior reasons that caused Mr. Obie to abstain because of involvement in the billboard industry, it would be his judgment that he did not have a present conflict on those grounds. With respect to potential future conflicts of interest, because of business, should certain legislation pass, his disclosure of that potential conflict would comply with the provisions of the State law. So, if in Mr. Obie's judgment, he feels able to participate, he can do so having made that disclosure. Mr. Obie said that he would proceed accordingly. Public hearing was opened. Those testifying were: Adrienne Lannom, 460 East 15th, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, wished to clarlfy an lmpression that might have been given in the press about the ridership of certain Planning Commission members. She stated that at least three commissioners who voted in favor of not allowing advertising on buses were regular bus riders. She said $50,000 is the annual projected income from this advertising. The current budget of LTD is $8 million, or .6 percent of their annual budget. Those testifying in favor of advertising on buses were: tit Ken Kohnen, PO Box 2710, President of the Board of Directors of LTD, asked the council to adopt the amendment allowing exterior signing on LTD buses. He stressed that this non-tax revenue source of $50,000 annually would aid LTD in a time of shrinking resources and withdrawal of federal funding. In an LTD survey, 90 percent of the respondents approved of signing on buses. The LTD board has established standards for the sign program with prohibitions against tobacco, alcohol, and religious advertising, and guidelines for content and design. e Jay Goldstein, 1210 West 13th Avenue, said that this is a non-tax revenue source for LTD. It is cost-effective advertising for local businesses. The present language of the code neither allows or disallows such advertising. It is evident that LTD needs the funding. LTD has indicated that they will employ good taste standards in the selection of advertising. Dan Herbert, 1913 Potter, member of the LTD board, favors exterior advertising on buses. He noted those who are concerned about the visual environment and said that the signs will be generally small. He does not feel that it is serious compromise to allow exterior signing on buses. There is the added consideration of this revenue being needed. Bob Loomis, 3540 Pearl, member of the LTD board, agreed that the advertising will be in good taste. He felt that LTD and the City should not be arguing over this issue. He requested that the council vote for approval of exterior signs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 2 e e e Steve T. Earley, 1471 Mill, felt that since this is a non-taxing revenue, it should be supported. Frank G. Eckert, 1712 Adkins Street, is a rider on LTD. He felt that there was a need for these revenues. Special events and performances could be advertised to tourists and the general public. He complimented LTD on attempting to look at this source of income. He approves of exterior advertising and feels that it is needed by the transit system. Huibert Paul, 4390 Pearl, said that although visual pollution can be a problem, there are a number of reasons to approve exterior signing. LTD needs the funds and the employers would be unhappy paying increased taxes with this being an option for revenue. LTD provides the City with a useful service. There would be minimal visual pollution and LTD would be watching the types of advertising very closely. He said that exterior signing is world-wide and that many people need the bus for transportation. Paul Bonney, 587 Antelope Way, is in favor of exterior advertising. Many people depend on the bus for transportation. Advertising would be good for business and for the buses. W. E. "Bill" Bradshaw, 2288 Fairmount, saw this as a non-taxing revenue source. LTD may soon lose the $800,000 they currently receive from the Federal govern- ment. They are in the process of instituting line routing. Florence Gibson, 2606 Winsor Circle, said she was in favor of exterior sign advertising. Bill Lioio, 2678 Sharon Way, said he was in favor of advertising. The Planning Commlssion should not be allowed to determine what is acceptable for the entire community. He encouraged the council to allow LTD to have advertising. John Hazen, 1790 West 11th Avenue, agreed that the Planning Commission should not be allowed to decide what is displayed or not. This would increase revenues. Kathy Leighton, 133 West 37th Avenue, representing the 5th Street Market Association, supported the exterior signing. Guy Di Torrice, 146 Calumet, said that the public dictates the advertising. The public will dictate the controls. Advertising, as seen on hats and T-shirts, can be in good taste. The public will demand that it be so. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie asked if it was possible for the council to pass the first amendment (modification to Section 8.670) tonight. Mr. Long explained that the council had only one ordinance (modification to Section 8.690) presented by the Planning Commission and that one clarifies the code and would prohibit signs on buses. The other ordinance that would allow signs on buses by adding a new section of the code entitled Bus Signs was not being recommended to the council. If the council proposes to take an action contrary to the Planning Commission's action, the City Code requires that a joint hearing be held, as in land use ordinances. The Sign Code has a similar provision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 P ag e 3 e Ms. Wooten asked Ms. Lannom to elaborate on Mr. Pearson's objections as stated in the Planning Commission minutes. Ms. Lannom noted that he was concerned that the commission would be able to logically prohibit people in the private sector of the economy from doing something that the commission and council had permitted LTD to do. This would be an encroachment into the sign ordinance and leave it open for other amendments. He did not know how far that would even- tually go. Ms. Lannom felt that Mr. Pearson's arguments were the most cogent ones. Ms. Mulder questioned how far the City should go to help LTD get addi- tional revenue. Ms. Wooten was concerned about the long-range financing of LTD. She asked Mr. Kohnen if the loss of $800,000 in Federal funding is correct and whether LTD has plans to compensate for that larger amount of money, or whether they will be trying to figure out how to keep the buses going. Mr. Kohnen said $800,000 was correct in that that is the amount that they are currently receiving from the government. It is his understanding that it will be phased out. They do not have plans at the present time for replacement of that money. They are seeking additional revenue sources. Nothing is in sight. They have had to cut service. Ms. Wooten asked about the relationship of ridership to the increase in fares. Mr. Kohnen said that ridership has declined, in part because gasoline is plenti- ful, not solely because of the increase in fares. The fare revenue is up over the previous year. Ridership is down. Ms. Wooten said she would support Mr. Obie's suggestion of a joint meeting. e Ms. Smith felt the $50,000 in advertising revenue would help the buses. She supported the LTD advertising guidelines. She noted there would have to be a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. She asked how soon that could take place and was told May 27, 1981. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to reject the amendment suggested by the Planning Commission and that the council adver- tise for a joint public meeting with the Planning Commission to be held on May 27, 1981, to consider the proposed amendment as prepared for the Planning Commission to Section 8.670 of the Sign Code. . Ms. Miller stated that while $50,000 is not a lot of money compared to the overall budget, it still is a large amount of money. She shared some of Commissioner Pearson's concerns that while it may be anomalous to single out one entity because it is the bus service, there may be reasons for singling out that entity. The issue has not been explored carefully. She hoped that it would be considered at the joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Obie asked that the council place on the agenda soon the question of the requirement that the council hold a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on these issues. Ms. Smith suggested re-evaluating these instances. Mr. Gleason said that they would bring the item back to the council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 4 e e e B. Consideration of Spyglass-Greenview Bike Connector (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, who explained this bike path was considered by the Bicycle Committee originally in 1977. It was added to the master plan in 1979. It was considered for budget inclusion by the Bicycle Committee in 1980. In September 1980, they received a petition for construction of the path with 36 signatures. The City has since received several petitions in opposition which total 450 signatures. Of these 300 signatures were on a petition circulated at the golf course. The main objection was to the bicycles mixing with the golfers. Mr. Teitzel showed maps of the area. He explained several alternative routes that staff and the Bicycle Committee studied. He showed the location of the signatures of the people on the petition. Mr. Obie asked if the improvement of the bicycle path would ultimately result in striping a bike lane on Greenview and Fair Oaks. Mr. Teitzel said no, that it was considered a connection between the two streets. Mr. Hamel asked why there would be no striping. Under normal conditions, there is striping all the way through. He asked if the whole area would not be striped. Mr. Teitzel said the intent of the Bicycle Committee's action was to provide a connector in the Spyglass area so that those south of Cal Young would have a shorter distance to travel. It was more of a neighborhood connector. Mr. Hamel said the path would be open to the public allover Eugene. Ms. Smith asked to hear more about the alternative routes that were considered. Mr. Teitzel said they considered a path between the golf course and the lots along Greenview. It would be dangerous to bicyclists because of the golf course activity. They considered going north but that at each entrance there was a tee or green. Public hearing was opened. Testifying in favor of the connector: John R. Jarrett, 727 Spyglass, explained in 1973 he purchased five acres that is now Spyglass cul-de-sac. They had the Planning Commission's approval for a PUD without a pedestrian way. Later in a closed meeting of the Planning Commission, they elected to put in a ten-foot-wide bicycle path. He received a bill for its construction. He was not notified of the condemnation of the property. He asked the City to complete the task that was started. The path has been used for two to three years. All users pass by his front door. He encourages it. He would like to have it. Ruth Bascom, 2114 University, reminded the council of the City's mandate to the Bicycle Committee to encourage bicycling, jogging, and walking. The Bicycle Committee became involved in 1977 when workers at Reed & Cross could not reach their work destination easily. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 5 e Doris J. Hansen, 232 Spyglass, representing the Cal Young Neighborhood Associa- tion, referred to their October letter encouraging the construction of the connector. This bicycle path takes two to three miles off their trips and would save gasoline, car use, and lessen pollution. Children can travel safely on the path while they would have to take a longer route on busy streets without the path. The path has had a history of heavy usage. Don Kernutt, 733 Spyglass, said that the bike travel is very important to his family. He said that he had met last November with the property owner regarding this bike access. Don Monte, 753 Spyglass, said that a path was created across Mr. Ward's lot before his home was built. The path across this empty lot has been used by many people in the neighborhood. Emilie York, 721 Spyglass, said that this route provides access to Oakway Road. They have been accustomed to using the path and would like to continue this route. Paul Goodman, 287 Spyglass, said that this route is very convenient for jogging. It is also used for access to shopping areas. e R. D. Blickenstaff, 1232 Spyglass, asked if access becomes an easement--a perpetual right-of-way--when it is used without protest for a number of years. A. Dean Owens, 2160 Oakmont Way, supported the connector. Frank Elsener, 755 Spyglass, testifed he jogged to the river path on the pro- posed bicycle path. It was a logical extension of an already completed bicycle path. Nanca Fischer, 585 Fair Oaks Drive, said she wants a safe access for her chil ren. She supported the connector bike path. Roe Hatlen, 782 Krister Court, was in favor of the connector. It makes the route safer for children. It is also good for carpooling. There must be a way to meet both the needs of the homeowners and the children. Don Tykeson, 750 Fair Oaks Drive, stated that there is a need to accommodate population growth in new areas. This is for the greater good. Don D. Diment, 2887 Tandt Turn, Chairman of , the Bicycle Committee, noted ~hat there was a fear that ou siders would come lnto the area. Based on the hlstory of the path, he rejected that fear and said it was a path that was needed to make it easy for people to bicycle and there would not be a significant number of people outside the neighborhood using the path. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 6 e e e Testifying against the bicycle connector: Jack Ward, 2125 Greenview, passed out another petition of signatures opposing the bicycle path. He explained he lives on the property under contention. He purchased the lot in 1976. It was a nice lot on a quiet street. The master plan for bicycle plan had been fixed and none were planned in this area, although they had been considered by the Planning Commission. The bicycle path was rejected because it would interfere with golf course activity. The realtor gave him a list of covenants approved by the Eugene Building Division. He believed he could rely on enforcement of those covenants, such as no high fences and placement of fences--no offensive activity. These covenants were in force until 1992. Mr. Ward had an architect build the home and moved in September 1980. He said they would not have done that if they had known that a bicycle path would be eight feet from their family room window. Before construction began, not one person contacted him about the bicycle path through his yard. He explained the petition signatures. He had hired an appraiser to determine the cost the City would incur if they built the bicycle path. It would take $35,000 to acquire the land, build the path, etc. He feels his property is damaged because of the loss of privacy. The loss in value would be not less than $50,000. Mr. Ward explained the map showed the people in favor (12) and those opposed (93). Including golfers, 520 were opposed. Nita Whealy; 2115 Greenview, testifed she had a home next to the proposed path. She lived a one. She wanted an area for protection and security, a cul-de-sac. If the bicycle path were allowed, people will be aware that she lives alone. It would be within feet of her garage. There is a stairway to her bedroom within feet of the proposed bicycle path. Part of the driveway would have to be removed. She passed out pictures. She showed a sign of the Rose Garden bicycle path saying high risk rape area, along with newspaper stories. She asked the City Council to think of her position. Lewis Hoffman, 275 Sunset, attorney for Mr. Ward, said the City does not have the money to fund this small connector. In order to get this done, Mr. Kernutt and Dr. Jarrett sent a letter to the City in which they said that they would personally pay $20,000 if the City would give them what they wanted in this instance. These private individuals that do not have the power to condemn their neighbor's yards and should not be allowed to pay the City to do that for them. It would be their position that any such arrangement would be illegal and void as against public policy. Condemnation proceedings would be very expensive. The area is highly restricted. It is not designed for traffic. Overwhelming opinion is against the bicycle path. Judi Huntington, 985 St. Andrews Drive, said this country is based on the right to own private property. This is an action of condemning private property. It undermines one's basic right. Acting Mayor noted the opposition had had the same time to testify. Council agreed to hear items that had not been heard previously. Otis Holland, 619 Spyglass, spoke about the increased number of people and the traffic hazard. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 7 e e e Ron Burke, 2145 Greenview Street, felt this was unfair for Mr. Ward. When he constructed his house, he did not know about this bike path. Other people who wished to speak in opposition but were unable due to time limitations were: Alan Babb, 695 Fair Oaks Drive; Suzanne L. Phillips, 1788 Cal Young Road; John Davis, 2165 Greenview; Alice Shirey, 504 Spyglass; Alan Struthers, 702 Spyglass; Theodore Larson, 3910 North Shasta Loop. Those speaking with other comments were: Arthur Altstatt, 2130 Greenview, and Ruby Brockett, 1131 Spyglass. Mr. Allstatt was not opposed to the bicycle path but he was opposed to the City seizing a private residence because of an apparent oversight on the City's part (not notifying Mr. Ward of the presence of a bicycle path on the master plan). Ms. Brockett was also concerned with the way the property was being acquired. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel noted Mr. Ward had said the Bicycle Committee chose the cheapest alternative. The price was not the main consideration in selecting the alter- native they did. In Mr. Hoffman's testimony, the path Greenview north was platted as a public pedestrian way. It was, in fact, for access to the golf course. The path off Spyglass was dedicated as a pedestrian-bicycle easement. Ms. Smith asked if those easements were in the final PUD approval. Mr. Teitzel said when the original PUD was discussed by the Planning Commission, there was discussion in the minutes about creating a bicycle path through the area. When the first development came up for final approval, the Greenview cul-de-sac, there was no requirement for a bicycle way. In later phases of the PUD, which created the Spyglass side of it, the requirement was put on for a bicycle path. Mr. Teitzel did not know why it was dropped. Ms. Smith noted that when Mr. Ward purchased his lot in 1976, he was not informed about the possibility of a bicycle path going through the property. Mr. Teitzel said that Mr. Ward did not know. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Ward would have had formal notification that this would be part of the Bicycle Master Plan in 1979. Mr. Teitzel said it was 'part of the public record. In November 1979, they called Mr. Ward and asked if they could have a survey crew do some preliminary surveying for the bike path. It was not a legal notification nor was he legally notified that the City would put a path there. Ms. Smith asked about the negotiations that had occurred. Mr. Teitzel noted the Bicycle Committee had heard the issue at least three times since the petitions. Ms. Smith noted that the Spyglass bikeway is in the City's 1981-82 capital projects budget. She asked if they had considered including this bike path in the 1980-81 proposal for the budget but it was not the highest priority. The highest priority was to build the bridge at that time. Now the bicycle path is the number one priority. Mr. Obie asked if the bike path had to be ten feet. Mr. Teitzel said five feet was too small; eight feet would be minimum. Mr. Obie asked if the proposed path would cross Mr. Ward's property or Ms. Whealy's. Mr. Teitzel said both. He understood there had been a property exchange that they had no record of. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 8 . Mr. Obie asked about the contribution of $20,000 and whether it was a staff recommendation that it should be accepted. Mr. Gleason said the City Council can accept gifts. It is the only body that can accept gifts on behalf of the City. However, the question is whether it is in the public interest to construct the project. The determination should be considered without the benefit of the contribution. Mr. Obie asked if the Spyglass "stub" was in place at the time Mr. Ward con- structed his house. Mr. Teitzel said that it was and that it was platted as a pedestrian-bicycle way. Mr. Obie asked about the alternative of going along the golf course. Mr. Ward said that the alternative was not satisfactory because of flying golf balls perhaps requiring a protective cage, and for privacy reasons. Mr. Hamel asked if Dr. Jarrett had been told it would be a private path and he had paid for it. He wondered if it is really a private path. Mr. Teitzel said the path was a requirement of the subdivision and was paid for by the property owners in the subdivision. It was intended as a bicycle path. Mr. Haws assumed that there was no easement recorded at this time. Mr. Teitzel said there was no easement on Mr. Ward's property. Council discussed a delay of two weeks in order for City staff and the property owners to discuss alternatives and compromises. When the subject comes back to council, there will not be a public hearing. e Ms. Miller indicated she thought this bikeway was an important link in the bicycle system. It cut distance and would encourage people to use alternate transportation. Ms. Wooten was also favorable to the bike path, although she did not like the condemnation of property. The City's goal of reducing auto- mobile trips by 30 percent was a factor. She favored waiting two weeks. Mr. Obie stated the basic issues of energy conservation, children's safety, reduction of pollution, encouraging bicycling, jogging, and walking. On the other hand, there was the question of privacy and taking of privacy, security, litter, use of eminent domain, and cost. This bicycle path could mean legal fees and four years to achieve. Mr. Obie did not believe that the path would attract outsiders. He did not know what he would decide and suggested a two- week delay in which staff would work on landscaping plans that could address the problems of privacy and security. He did not think Mr. Ward should pay solely for a mistake the City probably made. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to delay action for two weeks or a little longer if necessary and direct staff to work with the involved parties to reconcile differences, and to have staff work on possible landscaping suggestions. Ms. Smith said that she strongly supports bicycle paths, but the council needs to take the whole idea of condemnation very seriously. She hoped the problem could be resolved in two weeks. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 9 e e e Mr. Gleason interpreted the motion to say that the City staff should review all the alternatives open to them, discuss them with the appropriate parties, and come up with a workable solution if at all possible. If it was not possible, then staff should make a recommendation on landscaping that would minimize the problem and the impact on the property. Motion carried 5:1, Mr. Hamel voting no. Because of a lack of time, the rest of the agenda was postponed to Monday, May 11, 1981. II. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Res. No. 3502--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period April 13, 1981, through April 27, 1981. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote, motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to April 29, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ?)#. /,~i " 'i Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Beth Conant) MDG:BC:db/CM7a13 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 27, 1981 Page 10