Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1981 Meeting . e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber May 26, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, and Cynthia Wooten. ABSENT: Councilor Eric Haws and Mayor Gus Keller. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoning--Property Located West of Riverview Street and South of 20th Avenue from C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District to RA Suburban Residential District (Baughman/Smith) (Z 81-2) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Department. Mr. Croteau noted that the area of the proposed zone change was in the Laurel Hill Valley. The change had been requested by the owners of the property. Mr. Croteau said that several lots in this vicinity had been rezoned from C-1 to RA in the late 1970s at the request of the Laurel Hill Neighborhood Association, but that this parcel had not been rezoned at that time. He noted that the location in question is not the best location for Neighborhood Commercial uses to serve the Laurel Hill area, and that the Metropolitan Area General Plan recommended that a neighbor- hood commercial center be designated in a more logical location. Mr. Croteau said that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this, request to the council and that Randy Thwing, Vice President of the Planning Commission, was present to answer any questions on the item. / Ms. Miller noted that she had had extensive previous ex parte contact on the matter when the commercial zoning in the Laurel Hill Valley was being considered in the late 1970s. She had been very involved with the neighborhood associa- tion. She did not recall specific contacts with specific people on the issue, but she knew a great deal about the background of the request. She did not feel that this in any way affected her impartiality, and she. intended to proceed with consideration of the request. No other ex parte conflicts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. .. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 1 . CB 2286--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from C-l Neighborhood Commercial District to RA Suburban Residential District for property located west of Riverview Street and south of 20th Avenue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 10, 1981, 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. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2286 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18799. B. Open Space Designation--Property Located South of 25th Avenue in the Vicinity of Windsor Circle and Wilshire Lane (OS 81-1) e Mr. Gleason said Jim Croteau, Planning Department, would make the staff presen- tation. Mr. Croteau said that the Somerset Hills Homeowners. Association, through the Lane County Tax Assessor; had requested that this land be desig- nated as open space for tax assessment purposes. Mr. Croteau noted that this type of request is governed entirely by State statute which requires that the local jurisdiction make a recommendation to the Tax Assessor as to whether the request meets the definition of open space. Mr. Croteau explained that the property in question is the open space designated in phases I and II of the Somerset Hills Planned Unit Development. He indicated that a portion of the property is heavily wooded and that the rest is open, with a bike path running through it. Mr. Croteau said it appears that this property meets the definition of open space as defined in the State statute. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended that the council approve the request with the inclusion of a statement that the highest and best use of this property would be as open space. It is also recommended that the council include a provision that requires the Somerset Hills Homeowners' Association to continue responsibility for and maintenance of this area. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Croteau for an estimate of the difference in property tax valuation between the open space designation for the property and its current designation. Mr. Croteau responded that at present there are three tax lots, each assessed as open space and valued at $120. It was Mr. Croteau's under- standing that the reason the Homeowners' Association was requesting that this designation be given to the property was so that if the assessment statutes change in the future, they will be protected from any increase. He noted that under the planned unit development agreement with the City this property must remain as open space. He said that the change in designation would therefore have no benefit to the Homeowners' Association as far as their current tax bill is concerned. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 2 . e . Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Croteau for an estimate of the fair market value of the land. Mr. Croteau said he could not answer this question, but he did note that the designation of this property as common area probably raised the property values of adjacent residential properties. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3504--A resolution designating certain property within the City of Eugene as "open space 1 and." Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution with the provisions recommended by staff. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Code Amendments to the Land Division and Zoning Regulations to Permit Reduced Parking Geometrics for Compact Cars (CA 80-9) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Farah, Planning Department. Mr. Farah explained that this item was a part of the overall zone code amendment process. The ordinance in question would allow reduction in parking space geometrics for parking lots. He said that this reduction would apply to a maximum of 30 percent of the parking spaces in a given lot. Mr. Farah noted that this proposal is supported by many policies in the adopted T-2000 Transportation Plan. He reported that the Planning Commission had voted 5:1 to recommend adoption of this code amend- ment to the City Council. He said that Mr. Thwing was present to answer any questions on the Planning Commission's discussion. Mr. Obie asked how this ordinance would be applied. Mr. Farah responded that the current code provides only one set of standard widths and lengths for use in parking area design. The proposal was to amend the code to maintain those standards for standard-sized cars and to provide an alternate set of standards for smaller cars. The designer of the lot could then include up to 30 percent of the required spaces under the smaller configuration. The amendment also provides that the City Traffic Engineer will recommend how those smaller spaces will be sited. Responding to further questions from Mr. Obie, Mr. Farah said that this proposal would only affect the size of parking spaces, not the number of spaces required. Mr. Farah added that the amount of land actually saved in this way will depend on the configuration and design chosen for the lots. Mr. Obie said that he had observed the cars parked at Valley River Center on the previous Saturday and that 54 percent of those were compact cars. He therefore asked why staff only suggested allowing 30 percent of the spaces in a lot for compact cars. Mr. Farah responded first by clarifying that the ordi- nance defined compact cars by their turning radius, not by their size. He said that staff feels that it is best to proceed with this new method on an incre- mental basis, beginning with what may be a low figure in relation to actual numbers of compact cars in the area, with the understanding that if in the future it is found that the system works well, the percentage can be increased for new lots and also for existing lots, in which restriping can be done MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 3 . to accommodate a larger percentage of compact cars. He explained that the system must be self-policing. There is no mechanism for enforcing the ordi- nance, so if the percentage was too high and standard cars were forced to use the smaller spaces, there would be no way to deal with the situation. Mr. Obie asked if there is any provision for automatic review of the change after a specified period of time. Mr. Farah responded that the Planning Commis- sion had discussed this and had recommended that review take place within two years. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Farah whether staff had done a survey of the percentage of compact cars in use in the area. Mr. Farah responded that a survey was done on January 4, 1981, in downtown parking lots administered by the City, and that the survey found that 53 percent of the occupied spaces were occupied by compact cars. Ms. Wooten noted that the Chamber of Commerce had requested that the percentage for compact cars be set at 50 percent and that the Planning Commis- sion had had a lengthy discussion of this issue. Mr. Farah said that the Planning Commission had voted 3:3 on a motion to adopt a percentage of 40 percent, and that the final motion to adopt the 3D-percent figure had been opposed by one commissioner. e Ms. Wooten said she was pleased with this proposal, both because of the oppor- tunity to encourage people to use smaller cars, thereby conserving gas and resources, and the opportunity to fit more cars into a lot. She asked Mr. Farah how many more cars could be accommodated in a given lot under the 40-percent ratio than under the 30-percent ratio. Mr. Farah responded that this really has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, because the configuration makes a great difference. He could only say that the ordinance would have the end result of saving land. Mr. Lindberg asked why the business people who had participated in the Chamber of Commerce discussion on this issue had wanted 50 rather than 30 percent. Mr. Farah responded that he did not know, but that he personally felt that the policy just makes good development sense. Mr. Lindberg suggested that the code could be flexible and give opportunities for 30- or 40- or 50-percent ratios, with decision being made on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Farah responded that staff and the City Attorney's Office had felt that it would be best to set a maximum figure and leave decisions on implemen- tation up to the individual developer rather than setting up confusing or varying regulations. Mr. Lindberg felt that the number of compact cars will increase and that the proposed figure of 30 percent thus seemed very conserva- tive. Mr. Farah said that it is easier to increase the percentage of compact spaces in the future than to decrease the percentage if the projections did not occur. One would need more land in that case. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. CB 2287--An ordinance concerning off-street parking requirements; amending Sections 9.254, 9.584, and 9.594 of the Eugene Code, 1971. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 4 . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Ms. Miller asked Mr. Thwing to comment on the Planning Commission's discussion. Mr. Thwing explained that the Planning Commission vote had been in favor of the staff proposal by 5:1, with Mr. Pearson voting no. There had been considerable discussion on the 30-percent figure and on whether that figure should be increased. A vote had been taken to increase that figure to 40 percent, but the motion had failed in a 3:3 tie. Mr. Thwing personally had opposed the motion, because he saw no evidence to support increasing the figure above that suggested as a good starting point by staff. Mr. Lindberg suggested that the ordinance could specify that the lot size be planned as if 30 percent of the cars would be compact, but that the developer be allowed to stripe the lot for up to 50 percent compact cars. This would mean the land was available to regress to more of the larger spaces if that proved necessary, but that meanwhile more spaces could be allotted for compact cars. Mr. Farah said that staff's aim has been to keep the program as simple as possible. The program will be reviewed in a couple of years. e Ms. Smith suggested that Mr. Thwing ask the Planning Commission to accelerate the review time for the program from two years to one year. Mr. Thwing agreed to suggest this to the commission if all goes well this first year. Ms. Smith asked if in its discussion the Planning Commission had addressed the question of reducing the number of required parking spaces in addition to the size of the spaces. Mr. Obie responded that this issue would be addressed in the zone code update which is currently in progress. Mr. Farah agreed. Rolf call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2287 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage; with an automatic call for a two-year review. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18800. D. Annual Review of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Charles Nordgaard, Public Works. Mr. Nordgaard listed the 14 proposed changes to the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan as: 1. Addition of a general policy statement regarding new arterials. 2. Addition of a route on Terry Street from the north city limits to Barger Avenue. 3. Addition of a route on Danebo Street from Royal to West 11th Avenue. - 4. Addition of a route on 1st Avenue from Bertelsen to Seneca. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 5 -- e e 5. Addition of a route on the proposed 6th-7th Avenue Extension. 6. Extension of the Bailey Hill Road route to the north. 7. Addition of a route connecting River Road and the West Bank Trail near the extension of Hansen Lane. 8. Addition of a route along the proposed Chambers Connector. 9. Change of the North Polk Street route to G~and Street. 10. Addition of a route on 2nd Avenue from Garfield to Polk Street. 11. Addition of a route on Olive Street from 10th Avenue to 15th Avenue. 12. Addition of a route between 27th Avenue to Amazon Parkway to 29th Place at Willamette Street. 13. Change of a route from along 1-105 to a somewhat parallel route on Oakmont. 14. Clarification of a route along the Willamette River from the Willie Knickerbocker Bridge to Glenwood. He indicated that the items had been recommended by the Eugene Bicycle Committee and had been approved by the Eugene Planning Commission. Mr. Nordgaard indicated that the proposal contained additions to the Master Plan of 13 specific routings and of one policy statement, requiring that bicycle facilities be provided where applicable on all new or reconstructed arterials. Ms. Smith asked about the timing of implementation of the proposed new routings. She asked if funding were available for all the proposed projects. Mr. Nordgaard said that the signed routes will be implemented immediately and that some Federal and State funds were available for other routes. He indicated that there are still some proposals for which funding has not yet been obtained, and that these would therefore not be implemented in the immediate future. He noted specifically that the Chambers Connector routing is still undetermined, and that funding was being sought for the Glenwood Connector. Ms. Smith felt that it was important for citizens to understand that the council's approval of these routings does not mean that the routings will be implemented in the near future, but rather that the council had approved pro- ceeding with them as funding becomes available. Mr. Lindberg asked for definition of the margin of safety of various routes. He wondered how safety compares on routes with signing, with no signing, or with striped bike lanes. Mr. Nordgaard responded that the off-street bike path is the safest route, and that the striped bike lane is the second safest. He noted that signed routes are only provided on residential streets with limited traffic flow. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 6 e Mr. Obie referred to the advisability of locating bike paths off-grade and separate from automobile traffic. He asked what is being done in this respect on new arterials. Mr. Nordgaard said that off-grade routes are more expensive to construct and maintain and that current practice is to construct an asphalt street and install five-foot-wide concrete gutters on each side, placing the bike routes on this five feet of concrete. He said that the statistics used by his office indicated that striped lanes are very safe. Ms. Miller referred to the Glenwood Connector routing. She did not understand the routing proposed or the rationale for building a path in this area. Mr. Nordgaard explained that this is a route designed to serve people who live in Glenwood and that there is currently no convenient street route for these people. He indicated that the specific route has not yet been determined. Ms. Miller asked if this was intended to replace the proposed South Riverbank Bike Path to Springfield. Mr. Nordgaard said that this was not the case, and that the Riverbank Path was still planned. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the 1980 annual review of the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Council-Initiated Improvement Resolution Regarding Street Paving and Sidewalk Construction on Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to Coburg Road (memo, map distributed) 4It Mr. Gleason asked Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, to give the staff report. Mr. Teitzel explained that this is a council-initiated improvement. He indicated that there had been a staff hearing with property owners in the area on April 15, 1981, and that there would be a third hearing at the contract award stage. The project calls for a 46-foot-wide street with curbs and sidewalks. The pavement striping is for two bicycle lanes, two automobile lanes, and a center turn lane. Mr. Teitzel indicated that the issues raised at the staff hearing had included concern that on-street parking would be removed. In response to this, staff had adjusted the plans by eliminating the center turn lane in portions of the street to allow for some on-street parking. Mr. Teitzel indicated that property owners were also concerned about double-frontage assessments. He noted that the council had discussed the double-frontage issue at some length at the May 11, 1981, council meeting. There was concern that the project would create an increase in traffic and an increase in speed, because improvements would basically create a shortcut from Co burg Road to Delta Highway. Mr. Teitzel said that staff's response to that concern was that traffic will probably increase anyway, regardless of the improvements. Ms. Wooten asked how many individual property owners were involved in the 1,100 linear feet of double-frontage lots. Mr. Teitzel responded that this was about nine or ten lots. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 7 - Ms. Schue asked how this street was designated in the T-2000 Transportation Plan. Mr. Teitzel said that the interpretation of this varied--the street is designated for a two-lane facility, but the center turn lane has been added as a safety measure so that left-turning cars do not hold up traffic and force cars into the bike lanes. Ms. Schue asked if Crescent had always been con- sidered as an arterial in the City.s long-term transportation planning. Mr. Teitzel responded that this was the case. Mr. Lindberg asked what direction had been given to staff on both the issue of double-frontage and the issue of providing some assistance or payment plan to low-income 'persons assessed for street improvements. Mr. Gleason responded that the council had directed staff both to look into deferred assessment or low- income financing and to return to the council with a written statement regarding assessment proceedings. Mr. Lindberg recalled that the council had been told that if it decided to open discussion of assessment policies, there would be a six-month delay in all assessed projects. He asked whether if assessment policies were revised in the future, the revision could be made retroactive to cover this project. e Leslie Swanson, City Attorney, responded that Section 37 of the City Charter requires that the City must levy assessments in accordance with City Code and ordinances. Under Section 39 of the charter, if any of the ordinances are to be changed, this must be done six months in advance. Therefore, if the council were to decide this evening that it wished to change the procedure for assessing double-frontage lots, then the change could not go into effect for six months. In the meantime, this project could not go forward. Mr. Swanson noted that this feature had been included in the charter because assessments are a continuing problem for the council and because there is a very strong tendency for the council to want to treat each case on an individual basis. He said that hearing assessments on a judicial, case-by-case basis would be unworkable and would also probably result in inequitable decisions. He said that this did not mean that the council should not continue to examine and refine the assessment procedure when the council perceives that there are inequities and feels that changes in the law will in the long run help people. He noted, however, that these changes must be made six months in advance and cannot be made retroactively. Ms. Wooten noted that the portion of property that runs from Norkenzie to Gilham on Crescent, directly west of the portion under consideration, was recently reconstructed. She asked if the road section of this portion would match up with the section now being proposed. Mr. Teitzel responded that the sections will match up, but that the striping will need to be redrawn to add the left turn lane. Ms. Wooten asked ,if Holly Street took any of the traffic off of Crescent. Mr. Teitzel said he did not think that this was the case, since Holly is not a through street. Ms. Miller asked for a description of the current surfacing on Crescent. Mr. Teitzel responded that the street is about 20 feet wide, with an asphalt mat and no road shoulder in many places. Ms. Miller asked about the condition of the road. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is fair to poor, with at least some of the deterioration caused by adjustment of utilities in preparation for construction of the new street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 8 The public hearing was opened. e Speaking under the category of "Other Comments:" Allen E. Gardner, 2230 Crescent Avenue, noted that he lives in a corner house. He noted that many of the side streets in the area have insufficient on-street parking and that residents and guests of residents on these streets will not 'have any place to park. He felt it would be more pleasing aesthetically to have no turn lane and to have parking on both sides of the street. He said that bike lanes were needed. Concerns about truck traffic had been mentioned at the staff hearing but were not mentioned in the staff summary. He felt that through truck traffic should be barred from using the street. He noted that Beltline is only two blocks away and parallel to Crescent and that there is a danger of Crescent becoming a shortcut from Delta Highway to Coburg Road. He felt that this truck traffic was dangerous to children and to all who use the street. Richard E. Baker, 2480 Crescent Avenue, felt that the street improvements are necessary. He was concerned about the cost of the project to elderly people who live on the street. He agreed with Mr. Gardner's concern about truck traffic and ask~d that staff check into this. He said he understood that for the City to take over a street from the County, the street had to meet certain standards. He asked what the standards are and whether the additional five feet on each side of the street for bike lanes was a part of the standard. He felt that the cost of the concrete bike lanes was excessive and unnecessary for the slight weight of bicycles. ' 4It Speaking in opposition to the improvements: Cecil Phillips, 2144 Musket, explained that his property backs up onto Crescent. He agreed with the comments made by the two previous speakers. He wondered why the City wants Crescent to be a major arterial when Beltline is only two blocks away and parallels Crescent. He had concerns about increased traffic on Crescent. He said that the City had previously taken out a row of arbor vitae along his back fence and ruined the looks of his back yard. He opposed the project. Rod Ruhoff, 2531 Lily Avenue, said that he owns five lots affected by the widening. He was conc~rned about imposing this cost on property owners at a time when the economy was already tight. He said that 54 percent of the cost would be assessed to the property owners, and yet the City department which initiated the project will only have to pay seven and one-half percent. He wondered what formula was used to arrive at this breakdown. Mr. Ruhoff was concerned with the design of the street. He felt that traffic in the area, particularly that which would be generated by development of the Cone-Breeden property, should be encouraged to use Beltline, but that traffic would instead be drawn to the arterial being proposed for Crescent, as a shortcut to downtown, Valley River Center, etc. He felt that Gilham Grade School traffic would use the street. He said that Crescent should remain as a street serving mainly the residents who live three or four blocks on each side of the street. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 9 e Mr. Ruhoff expressed concern for bicycle safety in the proposed street design. He referred to the council's earlier discussion of bicycle safety and urged that an off-street, separate path be developed. Mr. Ruhoff was upset with the process. The proposal was made by a City depart- ment and designed by a City department. Affected residents had no chance for input until the design was all completed, bids were about to be let, and the utilities were all installed. Mr. Ruhoff said the costs were especially high for churches on the street who own large parcels but do not even have the funds to pave their parking lots, let alone to pay street assessments. He noted that the 4-J School District will be assessed for Cal Young School frontage and that taxpayers will therefore pay for this as well. Mr. Ruhoff concluded by observing that a petition had been submitted to the council with signatures of over 51 percent of the property owners requesting that the project not be built as it is currently designed. e Jim Sutton, 2686 Erin Way, noted that his property fronts on Erin Way and that his back yard is on Crescent Avenue. He was upset and confused by the criteria used in reconstructing the street and in deciding what portion of costs will be paid by the City, the County, and the taxpayer. He noted that the City had initiated the project but would only pay seven and one-half percent of the cost. Mr. Sutton felt that traffic would increase if the improvements are made. He said that at the staff hearings, staff had told property owners that Crescent was considered a residential street, but now it is being called an arterial. He felt that to avoid congestion, the City should install another east/west through street north of Crescent. He said that the speed of traffic will increase if Crescent becomes a three-lane highway. He asked the council not to construct this project which would tax 43 people to pay for a street to serve the whole city. Barry Sterett, 2087 Law Lane, represented the Eugene Swim and Tennis Club which owns 300 feet of frontage on Crescent. He said that many residents in the area had called the club to ask them to join in opposition to the street widening. He said that his organization could not even afford to pave its own parking lot, let alone to pay assessments totaling $30,000. He said that his group would like to see Crescent improved, but did not feel that the scope of the project or the expense was justified. There being no additional requests to testify, Ms. Miller closed the public hearing. Mr. Teitzel noted that there were several letters and a petition on this project included in the council packets. He said that staff had not had time to check the frontage involved in the petition, but that 28 of 43 or 44 lots had signed in opposition. Regarding concerns for on-street parking, Mr. Teitzel said that staff would review the design and try to provide for as much on-street parking as possible. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 10 e e - Regarding concerns for truck traffic, Mr. Teitzel noted that staff did not believe that the proposed improvements would increase either the tendency to use the road as a shortcut or the amount of truck traffic. He noted, however, that if this is the case and truck traffic is increased, then the council would have the option of putting a restriction on through truck traffic on that street. Regarding the breakdown of the assessments, Mr. Teitzel said that the City and County have an agreement that the street will be brought up to the City standard before it is brought into the City system and that the County will participate in the cost. The City then agrees to maintain the street once it is improved. As a part of the agreement, the City agrees to levy the normal City assess- ment to property owners on that street. Mr. Teitzel noted that the assessment to property owners is for a standard street and that the cost of the wide concrete bike path/gutter and the turning lane would not be assessed to property owners. Regarding development of the Cone-Breeden property, Mr. Teitzel said that it is true that an intersection is proposed for Coburg and Crescent, but that staff did not feel that this would greatly increase traffic on Crescent. He said that staff is currently examining the possibility of constructing an east/west through arterial a mile or so north of Crescent, but that construction of that route would not reduce the need for the widening of Crescent. Mr. Hamel referred to the discussion of through truck traffic on Crescent and underscored the point that the council can prohibit through truck traffic on the street in the future if this does prove to be a problem. He noted that the council has been faced with the double-frontage issue on other lots throughout the city. He felt that, in the future, the council should discuss the double- frontage issue. Ms. Schue said that it is City policy that every homeowner or property owner pay once for the street in front of his or her house to be improved at a standard residential street width. When streets are developed as arterials, the City, or in this case the County and the City, pay for the additional width. Therefore, the fact that this is an arterial is not costing the property owners on Crescent any more money. Mr. Lindberg asked what discretion the council has on this issue. Mr. Gleason responded that the choice is either to initiate or not to initiate the construction. If the council finds that the municipality needs the arterial street or will need it in the future, then the decision should be to proceed. If this is not the case, the council may vote to not proceed. Mr. Gleason noted that the issue of assessment proceedings is a separate issue from consideration of this project. Mr. Gleason reminded councilors that staff is looking at the issue of low-income deferred assessments. He noted that under Bancroft requirements, the cost of construction is secured by the value of the home assessed, and that as long as there are people living in the dwelling units, the Bancroft note is not in jeopardy. As a consequence, foreclosure on a note for an occupied dwelling is extremely rare. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 11 e e e Mr. Lindberg listed criteria he felt could be used to make the decision: 1) the council's obligation to provide adequate urban services, 2) inclusion of the project in the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan, and 3) the design issue. Mr. Lindberg asked if the council had any flexibility in dealing with the proposed street design. Mr. Teitzel responded that the design standards are adopted by resolution of the council on each project. The specific design of the street is done by the Engineering staff to provide for traffic anticipated for the next 20 years. Mr. Lindberg referred to Section 7.175 of the code regarding assessments which states that the council may have some latitude where "special conditions exisL" He asked staff to explain this. Mr. Swanson replied that the code does not define "special conditions" but that he interpreted this to mean extraordinary circumstances. He explained that assessments are made on the basis of assump- tion of benefit to the property in question, not to the owner of the property or his conditions. Mr. Gleason said that the term "special conditions" refers to installation of a major sewer line or storm drain which requires a special levy on a different kind of basis than construction of a street, and does not apply to a special provision for an individual property owner. Mr. Obie agreed with remarks previously made by Ms. Schue. He felt that it is important to remember that people on existing streets such as Coburg or Oakway at one time were similarly assessed for improvement of those streets which are used by all citizens today. The larger issue is the movement and flow of traffic in the community and that is the burden on all citizens. He did wonder if the turn lane was really necessary on Crescent. He suggested that staff be asked to return to the council at a future time to explain the need for the turn lane, its effect on on-street parking, and possible adjustments that could be made to the design. Ms. Wooten suggested wait ing a week or so unt il staff returns with suggest ions for options on financing for low-income persons and a general explanation of the assessment procedures. Mr. Gleason responded that he did not know when the Finance Department would return with suggestions for low-income deferrals, but that staff would be returning in a week or so with the explanation of assessment procedures. He noted, however, that staff would not be recommending any changes to those procedures. Ms. Smith raised the issue of possible redesign of the center turn lanes to permit more on-street parking on Crescent. Mr. Teitzel explained that staff's current proposal would provide parking in front of the majority of residences facing onto Crescent. Mr. Gleason recommended that if the council did choose to consider the design of the project, a complete design hearing be held and that a detailed presentation be made at that time on the engineering questions involved. Ms. Miller pointed out that if the street improvements are considered,necessary for implementation some time in the next five years, then it seemed advisable to proceed with the project this year, as each year's delaY,will make the project more expensive. She was prepared to vote on the issue. She suggested that the council approve the improvement resolution and ask staff to reconsider the need for the turn lane and report back to the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 12 e e (' e Mr. Obie agreed with much of what Ms. Miller had said; however, he felt that staff should be asked to meet with the neighbors again to discuss these issues. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, that the council post- pone consideration of the proposed improvements on Crescent Avenue for 30 days to allow staff to meet with the affected property owners to see if a broader consensus could be achieved relative to the design of the project. Ms. Schue did not see any advantage in postponing a decision on this item. She felt that the council agreed with the total width and general design of the street, and that staff could be directed to address the issue of the turn lane and parking without postponing action. Ms. Smith asked what effect a decision to postpone consideration for 30 days would have on the project. Mr. Teitzel responded that a 30-day delay could create a problem with constructing the project during this construction year. He added that if the bids were made to do the work this year, the bids might well be higher to compensate for the short amount of time within which to complete the project. He noted that changes in street design could be made and brought back to the council at the time that the council considers the bid award. Mr. Lindberg said that although he had seconded the motion, he would vote against it, because he felt that it was unfair to raise the expectations of property owners by delaying the project when it seemed pretty clear that the council would ultimately give approval. Ms. Wooten said that she would vote against the motion. She indicated that she had mixed feelings about both the cost and equity of assessments, but that she felt more comfortable knowing that a proposal will soon come before the council to allow low-income deferrals and that the improvements will ultimately add to the value of the properties in question. Roll call vote. Motion failed 1:6, with Councilor Obie voting aye, and Councilors Hamel, Lindberg, Miller, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting no. Mr. Swanson noted that a petition on the matter had been filed by 28 of the 43 lot owners whose property fronts on Crescent. He said that in the case where more than 50 percent of the property owners remonstrate against an improvement, Section 9 of the City Charter states that no contract for the improvement or repairs may be let until the City Council reconsiders the necessity of that improvement and passes it by a two-thirds vote. He indicated that there would be an additional council hearing on the matter when the bids are awarded and at that time the two-thirds vote will be necessary to let the contract. Mr. Hamel said that he lived in this neighborhood and that he firmly believed that the improvements were necessary to provide for the safety of cyclists, joggers, and pedestrians on Crescent. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 13 e Res. No. 3520--A resolution authorizing street paving and sidewalk con- struction on Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to Coburg Road (1835). e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Ms. Smith asked that staff discuss possible changes in street design at the time of the contract award hearing. Ms. Miller asked that staff at that time also address the issue of the necessity for the project in terms of public benefit, with particular reference to the evidence of need that was presented when the item was made a part of the Transportation Improvement Plan. Roll call vote. Motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Hamel, Lindberg, Miller, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting aye, and Councilor Obie voting no. F. Council-Initiated Improvement Resolution Regarding Street Paving of Bailey Hill Road from Warren Street to Bertelsen Road Mr. Gleason asked Mr. Teitzel to give the staff report on this item. Mr. Teitzel explained that this project was similar to the previous item. The project is located from Warren Street to Bertelsen Road on Bailey Hill Road. He noted that the staff hearing in the area was held on April 8, 1981, and that a second council hearing will be held at the time of the award of the contract. He said that the project was recommended because of the need to provide pedes- trian and bicycle safety in the form of sidewalks and bike lanes in this area near the Bailey Hill Elementary School. This project will provide for the ultimate construction of two travel lanes, a center turn lane, two bike lanes, and sidewalks. Because only one side of the road is presently located in the city, the full section will only be installed on that side of the road. Mr. Teitzel said that the main issue raised at the staff hearing had been the double-frontage assessment, which applies to about 750 feet of the property involved. He noted that the project was originally laid out in the Transpor- tation Improvement Plan to go from Warren Avenue to Four Oaks Grange Road, but that the project had been extended to Bertelsen, because the property between Four Oaks Grange and Bertelsen roads was recently annexed to the City; because the County is proposing to construct Bertelsen Road farther south; and because the City therefore wanted to connect the two projects rather than leaving a short block unimproved. Ms. Miller opened the public hearing and indicated that she had one request to testify from Richard Lunney, 2315 Harvard Drive. Mr. Lunney was not present. There being no public testimony, Ms. Miller closed the public hearing. Res. No. 3521--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk construction on Bailey Hill Road from Warren Street to Bertelsen Road and sanitary sewer construction in Four Oaks Grange Road from Bailey Hill Road to approximately 500 feet north (1576). e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 14 II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING--LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS e Mr. Gleason introduced Mr. Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel indicated that the assessment of Stewart Road was delayed by the assessment panel and that staff was directed to go back and discuss the matter with a couple of property owners who had concerns on the proposal. Mr. Teitzel indicated that this had been done and that while the two property owners involved did not really agree with the final resolution, they had accepted that resolution and did not wish to appeal it any further. The improvements had therefore been returned for council consideration. The following council bill was read the first time April 13, 1981, referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing April 20, 1981, held over, referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing May 18, 1981, and is being brought back for council consideration to levy assessments as proposed. Council Bill 2269 was read by council bill number only. CB 2269--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Stewart Road from Bertelsen Road to approximately 2400 feet east (79-50). e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18801. The following council bills were read the first time May 11, 1981, referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing May 18, 1981, and are being brought back for council consideration to levy assessments as proposed. Council Bill 2288 was read by council bill number only. CB 2288--An ordinance levying assessments for paving on Jefferson Street from Clark Avenue to 300 feet north of River Street (79-43). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18802. Council Bill 2289 was read by council bill number only. CB 2289--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Fuller Street from Echo Hollow Road to Jay Street (80-13). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18803. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 26, 1981 Page 15 -. e e ~ Council Bill 2290 was read by council bill number only. CB 2290--An ordinance levying assessments for sidewalks on the east and west sides of City View Street from Corinthian Court north to the existing sidewalk of the west side of Garfield Street, 29th Avenue to 100 feet north (80-18). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 18804. Council Bill 2291 was read by council bill number only. CB 2291--An ordinance levying assessments for a sanitary sewer and storm sewer 60 feet north of Vernon Way from Calvin Street to Arcadia Street and sidewalk on the west side of Calvin Street from Dulles Street to 400 feet south, and paving and sanitary sewer in Calvin Street from 60 feet north of Vernon Way to 50 feet north of Dulles Street (80-35). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 18805. Council Bill 2292 was read by council bill number only. CB 2292--An ordinance levying assessments for a paving and storm sewer in Hickory Lane from Sweetgum to Garden Way (80-45). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 18806. Council Bill 2293 was read by council bill number only. CB 2293--An ordinance levying assessments for a sanitary sewer in Kincaid Street from 19th Avenue to 300 feet south (80-61). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 18807. III. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS Res. No. 3522--A resolution authorizing the payments of bills and claims for the period of May 11,1981, through May 26, 1981. Mr. Obie Moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimsouly. ~~toMaY _ City Manager (recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DM:dbjCM7al 27, 1981. May 26, 1 981 Paqe 16