Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/1981 Meeting e e . M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 8, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, and Cynthia Wooten, Gretchen Miller. ABSENT: Councilor Emily Schue and Mayor Gus Keller. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. AGENDA ADJUSTMENT Mr. Gleason stated that Item I-C--Parade Permit Ordinance and Administrative Rules Revision--would be set over to a Monday evening agenda in July. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Vacation for City of Eugene--Performing Arts Center/Conference Center (SV 81-1) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson stated that this is a City-initiated street vacation request for Willamette Street between 6th and 7th avenues. This follows the Master Site Plan for the development of the Eugene Performing Arts Center, Hilton Hotel, and Conference Center. The Master Site Plan was approved by the City Council on April 9, 1979, and included the vacation of Willamette Street to provide part of the public area and to add to the overall design of the Performing Arts Center. The Planning Commission unanimously ~oted to recommend approval of this vacation request. He indicated that Ed Smith, Development Director of the Civic Center; Randy Thwing, Planning Commission; and Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, were present to provide further information. Mr. Smith stated that a series of decisions had led to this public hearing. The Master Site Plan concept includes closure of Willamette Street to vehicular traffic. This is the final implementation of the plan based upon the eventual closure of that street. On January 9, 1979, the Civic Center Commission reviewed the Master Site Plan concept and it was approved in total. On January 17, 1979, the City Counci 1 approved the Master Site Pl an and it was assumed that the vacation of Willamette Street was a part of that approval. Traffic patterns were researched at that time due to construction of the parking MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 P ag e 1 e e e lot. The parking and transportation study was referred to the Civic Center Commission on April 4, 1979, and it was approved. This same recommendation was approved by the City Council on April 9, 1979', after extensive public hearings. However, it was decided to delay closure of the street until later, in case minor adjustments were necessary. At this point, everything became pedestrian- oriented. Staff also was faced with subterranean problems which caused diffi- culties in locating the rehearsal hall underneath. They had been considering joint uses of the lower level. Before these decisions were made, the community decided to build the two-block site with the inclusion of the Conference Center and hotel. He showed a map indicating the various types of uses available in that two-block section. These uses included commercial, retail, and public meeting areas. They tried not to duplicate functions in both the Conference Center and the Performing Arts Center. This is more than a street vacation. It became the nucleus of the center. If the street were not vacated, there would be many consequences. $150,000 has been spent on the Master Site Plan, and if the street were not vacated, additional studies would have to be done for designs to include the street. Access to the lower level would be severely impaired, if not impossible. There would be no easy pedestrian access between the facilities. There would be no public open space or outdoor activities area. Retail space in the arcade area would not exist. The continuation concept of the mall would be eliminated and landscaping amenities would be minimal. The art that has been acquired could not be displayed. It seems more important to cater to the Conference Center and hotel than to those who drive automobiles. Ms. Miller asked to what extent design alternatives would be determined by the street closure. Mr. Gleason stated that if the street were not closed, they would have to redesign both facilities since they were designed around the closed street. If that were the case, Ms. Smith asked, who would be responsible for the arcade design and how would it be financed? Mr. Smith stated that Pfeiffer has the contract for design and is responsible for seeing that the integrity of the plan is met. However, they could hire someone to design that space if they chose not to do it themselves. They are almost finished with the design process now and the parameters have been defined. He stated that it is a $1.5 million construction project and he did not know where the money would come from. Mr. Gleason said the current contracts for the Conference Center and the Performing Arts Center include vacation of Willamette Street for use of the common space. If that were not done, redesign of some parts of both would have to occur, and that could be done in phases. He does not know what the cost would be. Ms. Wooten asked what public amenities are in the common area now and what provisions there are for bike transportation and handicapped access. Mr. Smith stated that the total area is accessible at all levels by the handicapped. Bicyclists and pedestrians have access through and about the open space and access is available for emergency vehicles. They have retaining walls in place and a base for forming the arcade. Also, a major piece of art work has been acquired for that area. Mr. Lindberg asked if there are ways in which the open space would be used as an activity and mobility center. He asked if this would be a link between the downtown mall and the 5th Street Market district. Mr. Smith stated that this project will be a major pedestrian generator in itself. The access to 5th Street Public Market is a possibility. The hotel and the Conference Center want access to the north. The continuation is important. Pedestrian traffic will be heavy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 2 Ms. Miller distributed information from the Eugene Firefighters Association and from downtown merchants regarding this vacation. ~ Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Chuck Heauser, 1906 Lemming, stated that he is in favor of the vacation. The primary purpose of this project was to help stimulate the economy and to protect the investment. This should not be redesigned; rather, implementation should occur. Traffic patterns have been considered and without this street vacation, the danger could be increased. He has spoken to merchants on the perimeter of the mall and most feel that it would not necessarily be in the best interest of merchants on the mall to leave the street open. He submitted some petitions. He feels the vacation would benefit all citizens and merchants. e Roger Wood, 65 Monroe, stated that he is speaking for the Whiteaker Land Use and Site Review Committee. He indicated that he had distributed a letter to the council earlier. They support the concept of the vacation conditionally. The conditions of their support are: 1) an easement for pedestrian through traffic should be retained; 2) design details should allow convenient two-way flow of pedestrians (including people walking bicycles, people in wheelchairs, and other mobility-handicapped persons) between 6th and 7th avenues; 3) amenities such as landscaping, drinking fountains, lighting, and benches should be oriented for north-south pedestrian through traffic as well as for east-west traffic and crowds lingering in front of the Performing Arts Center itself; and 4) careful attention should be paid to connecting this block of Willamette to other blocks to the north and south as well as to vehicular traffic moving east and west on 6th and 7th avenues. Pedestrians approaching the Performing Arts Center along Willamette Street from the north or south should feel there is no impediment to cross 6th or 7th avenues and proceed through and past this block. Eye-level sight lines running north and south through this block should not be obstructed by landscaping or building projections. If the conditions he listed can be met, the Whiteaker Land Use and Site Review Committee recommends that the City of Eugene vacate the right-of-way in the block of Willamette Street between 6th and 7th avenues. However, if those conditions, particularly retention of a pedestrian easement, cannot be met, they strongly recommend against vacation at this time. Les Anderson, 2110 Hubbard Lane, stated that he is chairperson of the Civic Center Commission and the Performing Arts Commission. This street vacation request is based on the Master Site Plan, which included consideration of structure placement, design, traffic flow, aesthetic conditions, and making this area a destination area. The street has had relatively light use since creation of the urban renewal district. Some of the opposition is well-meaning, but it is based on economic conditions from post-World War II. Access is important, but streets do not have to be laid in a grid system for good transportation. Parking is important. The City has done a good job on this project. This vacation will not adversely affect business; rather, it will enhance business. Willamette Street has been closed for two years. He wondered what advantage e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 3 e there would be to reopening it. The council will need to base their decision upon the considerations dealing with aesthetic standards versus hindrance of free-flow of traffic in the downtown area. They also need to consider pedes- trian safety and the economic advantages or disadvantages that are involved. e Speaking against: George Boehenke, 2040 Willamette, submitted petitions containing approximately 300 signatures. He began his testimony by recalling when the community passed the ballot measure to start the Performing Arts Center. A group of people got together and put their money on the line. They thought that Willamette Street would remain completely open. They wanted it left open to generate downtown business with a new hotel and auditorium. The majority of major retailers downtown want service organizations downtown but most have moved out because traffic has been cut off. Most people coming in to Eugene from 1-5 cross the Ferry Street Bridge and go down 6th. That is the major connector to downtown. He had gone to the Eugene Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, and the City Manager and asked that the sign directing people to the downtown area be changed to direct people to use 8th Avenue temporarily. No one would do that because they wanted the Hilton to locate here. Traffic linkage is needed for the downtown area. Many peop 1 e go down 6th Avenue and on out and take the Washington/Jefferson Bridge to Valley River Center. The survey Les Anderson took which alluded to a small amount of traffic was done between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., not between 7 and 10 a.m. when people are there in the downtown area for other business such as going to the post office. The post office antici- pates 5,000 post office box holders by 1985 or 1990, which would be a lot of people to shove out of the downtown area, who would be potential shoppers. Surveys taken in Fresno and other cities have shown that business does come back to the downtown area once streets have been reopened. Ada Lee, owner of Asia Garden, could tell the council of the hardship this closure has placed on her business, as could the owners of Original Joe's. He feels that temporary barricades could be used during performances such as those that are used in Portland. There is a need for the movement of traffic. Keith Rodman, 2004 East 26th Avenue, stated that State statutes allow the council to initiate street vacations and this is what was done in this case. State statutes define affected areas as those geographic areas closest to the street being proposed for closure. This is the first opportunity there has been for property owners from the "affected area" to testify. All the private property owners on Willamette Street from 5th Avenue to 8th Avenue on both sides have been contacted. Unanimously, they signed a petition to keep Willamette Street open. He has al so tal ked to tenants and lessees of the II affected area" and most of them feel it is vital to their economic welfare that the street be open. They feel an important north-south traffic artery is severed with this closure. With the closure, traffic movement is not convenient as it takes eight to ten blocks, rather than two and one-half to three blocks, to go from the post office to the downtown core area which is wasteful of fuel. He has questions concerning the legal implications of this proposed street vacation. As he understands it, by vacating this public street, one-half of the street would be owned by the Hilton and they can do with it as they please. He does not know if the City has utilities running under the street, but if they do, the City will no longer have that easement if the vacation occurs. ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 4 e e e If this vacation is granted, 4,240 square feet are being deeded over to the Hilton which is a $63,222 give-away to the Hilton. Although this is the first opportunity for him to be heard, he would like to know why action on this street vacation was not taken before it became so costly. The original vacation request was prepared by Mr. Coleman, acting for the City of Eugene, on May 20, 1980, but for some reason, it was not presented at that time. People who make their living in the "affected area" feel this will be detrimental to their economic welfare. He asked if some reasonable arrangement could be made such as temporary closures during events. Serious consideration should be given to their objections. Once the street is vacated, nothing further can be done. Otto Poticha, 1820 Kona, stated that Ed Smith had summarized the original plans very well, but that every single thing relating to the Conference Center, the Hilton, and the Performing Arts Center has changed since the original Master Site Plan was done in 1979. The galleria concept was very exciting at that time. Originally, all parking was to be underground and both sides of Willa- mette Street were to have shops. Then, the central arcade was an integral part of the concept. Now it has become just another paved open space. Parking cannot be underground because of the level of the water table. The hotel has been turned 90 degrees since the original Master Site Plan and it no longer fits the connection as it did. Also, the Conference Center does not relate in the same way that was originally proposed. There was no reason to cover it because in the original plan, it was a galleria in the Milan fashion. Now it is just a paved area. He feels it important that buildings be a part of the city and not "islands unto themselves." He asked if there would be a guarantee of a free- flow for pedestrians and a visual connection between these facilities with the rest of the city. He feels the area now designated as retail is only large enough for small flower stalls. The plaza is four feet above grade level. It is not open as the map indicates. He pointed out potential traffic flow on the maps and explained the problems with the proposal. He suggested having two pull-off drop-off lanes with a shelter. He also suggested railroad-type cross- arms that would prohibit traffic temporarily. He feels that some streets can be closed temporarily on a satisfactory basis. He feels the largest cost in reopening this street would be to provide more light for the green room. He volunteered the services of the AlA local chapter for design work, if that is necessary. Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount, stated that he had presented 53 signed letters to the council as well as 20 new signatures on petitions showing the concern there is for linkage between the core area and downtown. He indicated agreement with Mr. Poticha. He encouraged the council to take another look at possible alternatives. He stated that there are planning efforts throughout the city with one group doing something and another group wanting something else, yet with no one taking a look at the overall picture. The 5th Avenue district should not be set aside from the mall or vice versa. They are interrelated. There is an extensive free parking program, but the bureaucracy is frustrating those who wish to participate in the program. The automobile is still the major form of transportation. Structures have been built and now people are frustra- ted because they are not able to use them easily. In regard to the cost of the kiosks, perhaps the rest of the downtown merchants could supply the retail space and the cost savings would allow the $1.5 million for the street. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 5 e There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2308--An ordinance authorizing vacation of Willamette Street, a 66- foot-wide right-of-way, between 6th and 7th avenues. Ms. Wooten expressed concern and asked for clarification regarding the statement made that at no time prior to this evening had the merchants been given the opportunity to testify in regard to the Master Site Plan. Mr. Smith stated that over the past one-and-one-half years, hearing after hearing has been held. The Willamette Street closure was not specifically addressed, but there were oppor- tunities to testify. Ms. Wooten asked if there were objections regarding this proposed closure prior to the time the matter came before the Planning Commis- sion. Mr. Smith responded that there had not been objections regarding either a permanent or temporary closure. Ms. Wooten asked if there is an objective way to determine how much business loss will occur because of the street closure. Mr. Smith stated that there was no way as far as he knew. He feels that eco- nomic benefits will occur as this area becomes a destination area. Ms. Wooten asked if consideration had been given to alternatives such as those suggested by Mr. Poticha or to making this a two-way street. Mr. Smith stated that many alternatives had been considered. Originally, parking was to be underground with everything else on top. However, when it became apparent that the con- struction and parking would need to be above ground, it began squeezing the ground level area that was available. The Willamette Street area was to be retained as the nucleus of the three structures. e Mr. Obie asked if the comments made regarding a four-foot elevation on both sides of Willamette were correct. Mr. Smith said they were correct, but that was only part of the story. Mr. Obie asked if what used to be Willamette Street would be above street grade if he were standing and looking at it. Mr. Smith showed on the model how it would look and explained that there are variations in the grade. He explained which area is to be 18 feet wide. Mr. Obie asked if he was seeing things on the model that he had not seen before. Mr. Smith said that he was not. Mr. Obie asked if there were changes in the Conference Center design. Mr. Smith said there were not. Mr. Obie asked if the galleri~ was in the plan when the Civic Center Commission approved this. Mr. Smith said that it was not, at least not with a covering over the whole street. Mr. Obie stated that he remembered that that had been the case. Ms. Smith stated that she had some concerns regarding the testimony. Specific- ally, she is concerned about the comments that this was the first opportunity for testimony. She is concerned about the traffic flow and if the traffic flow could be changed to a regular traffic pattern. She asked if there is an oppor- tunity for modification of the design. She had received a letter from the Eugene Firefighters Association regarding safety concerns. Mr. Smith stated that life safety concerns were reviewed by the Fire Chief and he was satisfied. Mr. Smith stated that there could be two lanes of traffic through that area, but then the covered connection could not be there. Ms. Smith asked if one lane could be installed. Mr. Smith stated that there would not be enough clearance. Also, other changes would be required for the rehearsal hall and the green room. It would be necessary to move a wall. Ms. Smith asked where two lanes of traffic would go if they were allowed. I~r. Smith demonstrated that on the model. Ms. Smith asked if there is a way to raise the walkway. Mr. Smith stated that there is not. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 6 e e . Ms. Miller asked how fire trucks get access if traffic cannot go underneath the covered area. Mr. Smith stated that fire trucks could not get through but an ambulance could. Mr. Smith said that the vertical clearance is ten feet. Mr. Gleason indicated that cars could drive through on one lane, but if two lanes are desired, some significant design decisions would need to be made. He feels that design questions would be best handled in a format other than at a City Council meeting. Mr. Obie indicated agreement but feels Mr. Smith has overstated the permanency of what is going to happen. As a member of the Civic Center Commission, he has not seen the overpass concept prior to tonight, although he has seen many models in the past three years. There are areas where pedestrians and vehicles can co-exist, such as by the First Interstate Bank. He granted that the area would be more aesthetically pleasing without cars, but he is concerned for the downtown retailers. He would like to see alternatives before making a decision. He is concerned about closing off that end of town and wonders what would happen to that area. He does not want to see empty storefronts such as now exist between 10th and 11th. He feels the post office is a traffic generator. Convenient access is important. He is concerned that a barricade is being placed to the downtown area. He feels Mr. Poticha presented an excellent case. Mr. Haws stated that the issue is whether the street should be vacated. If it is not vacated, design features would need to be changed. The greater good would be to vacate the street. He will vote in favor of the vacation. Mr. Lindberg stated that the range of problems has been well identified. He asked about people who would be using the origination point of the arcade and the open space and whether people need encouragement to go to the 5th Street district or to downtown. He would like to see a number of alternatives exam- ined, including the cost of a walkway over 6th and 7th avenues, shuttle service around the mall, and the cost and benefit of promotional activities to change people's habits in order to keep the same design. He asked what the conse- quences would be of delaying to explore other options. Mr. Smith stated that the rehearsal hall has already been excavated and they had to go out on to Willamette Street for that purpose. They would have to back off from some foundation wall construction. He said that the discussion now centers on a street through the area. If that is what was wanted originally, then concep- tually many things should have been done differently. This may mean some drastic and expensive design changes. Temporary closures were examined, but staff was unable to determine the times when the area would need to be closed. The major delay will be in finishing the rehearsal hall. Ms. Wooten asked about the street closure at the time of the council adoption of the Master Site Plan. Mr. Haws noted that he had not envisioned cars in the middle of this project. Mr. Hamel stated that Willamette Street was blocked off at the time due to the construction and he does not recall any discussion of permanent closure of Willamette Street. He appreciated Mr. Poticha's remarks and liked the idea of a similar treatment as in front of First Interstate Bank. Another option would be similar to that used on 6th Avenue in Portland. He would like to see something that would help business and be culturally pleasing as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 7 e e e Ms. Miller asked if the downtown mall streets had been vacated. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, stated that they were not. Ms. Miller suggested that perhaps Willamette Street could remain City property. Present discussion demonstrates that there may have been inadequate amounts of information and discussion previously regarding the present configuration. Also, there had not been significant testimony against the closure in the earlier stages. She asked about the possibility of holding this item over to a later date for further review. Mr. Gleason stated that we have completed over two years of a three- year project. All the decisions have been made based on the street being vacated and planned for pedestrians. It is possible, however, to redesign the facility. One needs to look at a detailed perspective to understand the concept before making a determination. Council could delegate the review to a subcom- mittee of the council which could bring back a recommendation. A report could include alternatives and the costs. He disagrees entirely with the comments regarding fire access/egress and does not feel this should be part of the considerations. He suggested that council instruct staff to come back with a procedure for review, including outside help if necessary because of the long-range effect of this project. Ms. Smith stated she feels there is a need to delay on this item. In the Civic Center Commission minutes, staff was told not to take action on the street vacation until it was known what would happen with the Hilton. She feels the Civic Center Commission should discuss this further and consider alternatives. Mr. Obie noted that when the Master Site Plan was considered, he thought the consideration was whether the galleria would exist or not. He felt staff should come back with a recommended process to review the alternatives. Mr. Lindberg indicated that he recommends a delay to allow more time for review of the information and time to assimilate it. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to postpone action and request that staff come back with a recommended process to look at the alternatives and give those who are affected by the decision a chance to participate in the process. Mr. Lindberg asked if Mr. Obie's motion included bringing back cost figures for redesign. Mr. Obie stated that it did not. Ms. Miller stated staff must look at whether north-south access, through access, or the present plan is best. She does not feel it is appropriate to turn half the street over for the hotel right-of-way. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Haws voting no. The meeting was recessed briefly. B. Rezoning--Property Located West of Pearl Street, North of the 3rd- 4th Connector from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to R-4/SR/ 89.3A High-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District with Site Review procedures, and a density limitation of 89.3 units per acre (Evergreen Union Retirement Association) (Z 81-1) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced .Jim Croteau, Planning Department. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 8 e e . Mr. Croteau stated that this request for a zone change is made by the Evergreen Union Retirement Association. The zone change would be from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to R-4/SR/89.3A High-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District with Site Review procedures, and a density limitation of 89.3 units per acre. This was considered by the Planning Commission on March 10, 1981, and it was recommended for approval with a 4:2 vote. The applicant owns 3.36 acres currently developed with 224 units. It is known as Ya-Po-Ah Terrace. This is an amended application from the previously submitted request. The applicant would like to construct an additional 75 units. The density limitation of 89.3 units per acre and inclusion of the site review process relieve many of the concerns that had been raised. This property is within the Whiteaker Neighbor- hood and the neighborhood organization has received notice of this request. Mr. Haws asked a specific question about the proposed additional development. Mr. Croteau stated that the applicant could address that question in the public testimony portion. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Ms. Wooten stated that she had no ex parte contacts with the zoning request; she has had contact with the applicant but does not believe that that is a problem since that was during the course of her regular job. Mr. Lindberg stated that he also had discussed this with the applicant but did not feel he had any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mr. Haws asked if the area is built to maximum density now. Mr. Croteau responded that when the project was first built, part of it was zoned RG and part was zoned M-2. In the mid-1970s, the M-2 portion was rezoned to RG to permit construction of 25 to 30 additional units for elderly housing. However, it is not feasible now to construct only 25 units. The applicant will provide additional information to indicate that that is the case. Liberal variances were granted for parking and for the height of the structures. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Richard Danielson, 1 East Broadway Mall Walk, stated that he represents the Evergreen Union Retirement Association. HUD has encouraged the applicant to develop to higher density in order to provide additional housing for the elderly. They would like to make maximum use of this well-known senior facility. Present zoning would allow construction of an additional 29 units, but they would like to add 75 units. Higher density for this site is consistent with the general application of the Metropolitan Plan diagram regarding downtown housing and higher density housing.' In 1977, the rezoning to RG was in compli- ance with the goals. The impact of 75 new units would not be really different from the 29 units allowed now through the current zoning. He indicated that he had slides available to show the general design concept. It is anticipated that the new portion would be raised, and would be located in front of the building MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 9 e e - where the parking lot now exists. This concept would add four stories in front of the current Ya-Po-Ah Terrace. Another concept is to have parking partially underneath or to move the parking lot to the west. They would have access from Pearl Street between the existing structures and out onto 4th Street. There is good access and good safety control. This facility would comply with the zone restrictions. They have no problem accepting the site review criteria. He feels the proposed zoning would be justifiable to assist senior citizens in their search for housing. John Humbert, 350 Pearl, stated that he is the administrator of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace. He distributed a handout and noted that he is the appointed repre- sentative for the Evergreen Union Retirement Association. He feels that need is the primary concern. The waiting period for additional development may be as long as ten years, and prospective tenants are in need of additional housing as the senior citizen population grows. As Eugene expands, the need for senior housing will increase. HUD 202(8) funding is difficult to acquire now, but since they have an existing application, changes are very good. They received a letter recently from the Eugene Commission on the Rights of Aging which was in unanimous support of this proposal. The Board of Directors realizes the current economic situation and they are looking at this as a construction project which would create additional senior housing and put some people back to work. Sid Thoresen, 350 Pearl, Apt. 1202, stated that he has lived at Ya-Po-Ah Terrace for five years and lS in favor of the zone change request. On March 3, 1981, a meeting was held and the residents were told of this proposal. They feel this project entails "people helping people" and unanimously voted in favor of the proposal. Housing needs are not currently being met. There is a need for more long-term housing for the elderly and disabled. He quoted Senator Mark Hatfield regarding elderly housing needs. Mr. Thoresen also feels this expansion will add to the City's cash flow. Robert C. Thompson, stated that he is a member of the Advisory Board of the Lane County Commissioners for Housing and Social Services. He feels there is no better location for an addition to the housing stock for the elderly than Ya-Po-Ah Terrace. It is close in and has access to transportation modes. Ya-Po-Ah Terrace has a good social program as well as food service for shut-ins. It is also near good restaurants. He feels this is the best location in the city to have 75 more housing units for senior citizens. At the Mayor's request, support for this proposal was shown by raised hands. Over 30 people indicated support for this zone change proposal. Speaking in opposition: Olivia Clark, 65 Monroe, stated that she works as a low-income housing advo- cate. The City has made a commitment to affordable housing as well as citizen invo lvement in the pl anni ng process. The Whiteaker Neighborhood has affordab le housing and they have also developed a housing cooperative. While they are housing advocates, they are also interested in neighborhood planning. They are working with mixed-use zoning for the city and have worked for two-and-one-half MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 10 .--. e e e years on their refinement plan. The refinement plan calls for 20 to 40 units per acre in the area, but the proposed development would be 89.3 units per acre. She asked what the council is really saying to neighborhood groups if they do not adhere to the refinement plan. She also would like to know what the council was saying if the refinement plan is acknowledged but the council does not act accordingly. Perhaps, if the input of the neighborhood residents will not be incorporated, the neighborhood planning process should be stopped before more energy is spent. Residents feel that this kind of housing should be dispersed. They would rather see this as a mixed-use area. They feel housing should be affordable but that the refinement plan should be taken into consider- ation. They do not want to see Skinner Butte denuded nor obscured further than it has been. They have worked with other developers on site review plans. Roger Wood, 65 Monroe, indicated that he is a member of the Whiteaker Community Council Land Use and Site Review Committee and that he is in agreement with Ms. Clark. Senior housing is important, but a sound and reasonable planning process should not be side-stepped. The Whiteaker Refinement Plan is the planning document for the neighborhood. This plan has involved many residents, City staff, and others. The proposed new development is inconsistent with the refinement plan densities. This project would incorporate more than double the amount of recommended housing for that area. The City Council should overrule the Planning Commission. There are many opportunities for senior housing as well as a sincere desire to work with developers and planners and to help the development process. Changes should be approached with citizen involvement. Balancing needs to be done between the need for affordable housing and the integrity of the planning documents. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2309--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to R-4/SR/89.3A High-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District with Site Review procedures, and a density limitation of 89.3 units per acre for property located west of Pearl Street, north of the 3rd-4th Connector. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 13, 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. Ms. Wooten asked if there are any documents indicating projected future needs for subsidized housing for seniors. Mr. Croteau stated that there is no empirical data, but at the Planning Commission hearing, there was a good deal of testimony regarding the need for low-income and elderly housing. There is currently a long waiting period for this type of housing. Ya-Po-Ah Terrace has a considerable waiting list. Ms. Wooten asked how long the waiting period would be for funds to subsidize these units. Mr. Humbert stated that the HUD subsidy 202 program, as well as the Section 8 program, are at present in poor shape, but it is necessary to receive the rezoning so that when funding is available, they MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 11 ~ e e e can be one of the first to be considered. Ms. Wooten asked him if they had worked with the neighborhood association. Mr. Humbert stated that they had tried to set up an appointment with the Whiteaker Land Use and Site Review Committee, but at the time of the meeting, all the committee members were ill except for one person. Also, the association wrote the neighborhood group a letter and asked for design input, but to date they have not received any response. Ms. Wooten asked about further projections for subsidized senior units in the City and how many units will be available in what was formerly the Eugene Hotel. Mr. Croteau responded that he did not know. Mr. Lindberg stated that a number of people had mentioned balancing what may be conflicting policies. He asked if there is some reason that this is coming to the council as a zone change request rather than as a variance request. Mr. Croteau stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow this "use" as a vari- ance. The use of variances is not available to the Planning Commission or to the council in this instance. Therefore, it can only be considered as a zone change. Mr. Lindberg indicated concern over what appears to be a conflict between the Whiteaker Refinement Plan and the Metropolitan Plan. Mr. Croteau stated that the Metropolitan Plan is the general planning document and the Whiteaker Refinement Plan is a refinement of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan states medium- to high-density residential as the use for this area. In the plan, specific instructions are given as to how to use the diagram although it is not a zoning map. In view of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan and the Metro- politan Plan, the Planning Commission felt this proposal is an exception. This should not be viewed as a compromising plan. Ya-Po-Ah Terrace is an exceptional case which should be given special consideration. It was also an exceptional case at the time the Whiteaker Plan was being developed. Mr. Lindberg stated that it seems the precedent has already been established, but the Whiteaker Community Council is saying that is not true. Mr. Croteau indicated that one cannot make a determination by just looking at the diagram. The Planning Commission felt this request was in strong conformance to the text of both plans. Ms. Miller indicated that part of the problem is trying to interpret two different planning documents. Mr. Gleason indicated that the refinement plan would allow this development, but even if it did not, the General Plan has overriding authority. Mr. Obie asked what would assure the council that the proposed units would be built in front of the existing development rather than beside it. Mr. Croteau stated that staff had looked at the height limitations and the addition would be allowed to be built up to a height of 500 feet. The only possible area for additional development would be in front of the existing development. In light of the strong concerns of the Planning Commission, the site review process would consider the request that the addition occur in front. Ms. Miller asked if there will be special variances for parking. Mr. Croteau responded that there are. Ms. Miller asked about parking requirements for the addition. Mr. Croteau stated they would need to seek a variance for a reduction in the number of parking spaces. It would be nice if the parking could be underneath the struc- ture, still leaving an open area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 12 e Mr. Lindberg stated that this is a difficult decision. His feelings are consis- tent with the Planning Commission recommendation, and rather than overthrowing the refinement plan, the council is simply interpreting that document in con- junction with the General Plan. He indicated that he would vote yes. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2309 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 18812. C. Parade Permit Ordinance and Administrative Rules Revision (memo, ordinance, administrative rules distributed) This item was held over to a future council meeting as noted earlier. D. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulations attached) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, Public Works. e Mr. Teitzel stated that these bid awards as proposed are for six different projects. Staff is recommending that all bids be awarded to the low bidder. Project 1 is for paving and sidewalks on Goodpasture Island Road, which was included in the TIP for 1980-81, and was also included as a recommendation from the School Safety Committee. They have received complaints from owners of four lots dealing with double- or multi-frontage assessments. The code allows for equal-odd assessment if all property owners that are affected agree. Projects 2, 3, and 4 are all 100 percent petitions from property owners and Projects 5 and 6 are storm sewers that are part of the Capital Improvement Program with no assessments. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in opposition: Donald Husband, 72 West Broadway, distributed information to the council. He indicated that he lS the attorney representing Joe Romania, Milan Raykovich, Carl Raynor, and Berri, Inc., owners of Tax Lots 1900, 2000, 2100, and 2200, respectively. He is filing a protest by reason of the proposed assessment which the City Council is contemplating making in connection with Goodpasture Island Road for Tax Lots 9, 8, 7, and 6 of the third addition to Flintridge Subdivi- sion. This protest is being filed on the basis that there is no benefit and can be no benefit to those four tax lots. All of those properties have sewers, water supply, and paved streets either fronting or abutting the properties. They do not feel that construction of any paving, sidewalks, or storm sewers would benefit any of those lots nor would such improvements increase the market value. He feels that the council should visit that area if they have not already done so. It is impossible for any of those four lots to get any benefit because immediately joining this road and at the rear of those four lots, there e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 P ag e 13 . e e is an embankment of approximately 35 to 50 feet; therefore, they are asking that these four lots be eliminated from the proposed assessment district. They feel that these four lots should not be assessed and if the council does make an assessment, it would not stand up against judicial determination. He noted that he only found out about this hearing seven or eight days ago. Carl Raynor, 2169 Stonecrest, stated that he had filed a remonstrance letter to the council regarding this improvement project. He indicated that he had received a letter from the Public Works Department stating that all owners of property within the proposed assessment district were being notified for the award of the contract and that the cost of the improvement would be paid by an assessment of the property owners benefited within the assessment district. He feels that any legal assessments from the Goodpasture Island Road improvements that might be made against those accumulative back line lot distances of those four properties should be prorated between the total 25 lots that are commonly influenced, not benefited by said assessments. Stonecrest Drive development has its own paving, storm sewer, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks where it is developed and it was paid for by the developer and the property owners. He indicated that he had distributed a letter to the council previously. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie asked for a legal response to the comments. Mr. Sercombe stated that there would be some benefits such as improved access, dust control, etc., which could be seen as special benefit. Mr. Obie stated the decision on the assess- ment would be made by the assessment panel. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award the bids as outlined by staff to the low bidders. Ms. Wooten asked if these would be unretractable at a later date. Mr. Gleason responded that the assessments can be considered at the time the assessments are being levied. If, however, there was to be a change in the code, they would need to wait six months before these projects could be reconsidered. Mr. Sercombe stated that Section 37 of the City Charter states that changes in the assessment procedures would not become effective for six months and after that time, the new process would begin. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING First reading of ordinances levying assessments and referral to Hearings Panel to be held June 15, 1981. CB 2311--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve properties on Jefferson Street between Cheshire Avenue and River Street (80-19). MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 14 ./~ , . e e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2312--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Royalwood Subdivision (80-22). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2313--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewers to serve Luella Subdivision (80-25). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2314--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Shasta Gardens Third Addition (80-26) . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2315--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Nolen Industrial Park First Addition (80-34). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2316--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Isabelle Plat (80-40). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 15 . CB 2317--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer north of Cal Young Road from Fir Acres Road to 450 feet northwest (within and adj acent to proposed Craviotto-Stratton Subdivi sion) (80-57). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. ' CB 2318--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer 1650 feet north of Royal Avenue from Terry Street to 900 feet east (80-58). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read for the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 15, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 22, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) Res. No. 3525--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills and claims for the period May 26, 1981, through June 8, 1981. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e The meeting was adjourned to June 10, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~- - Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:db/CM8aI8 . MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 16 e AWARD e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division BID NO.: 3 Opened: June 2, 1981 1. PAVING, SIDEWALKS AND STORM SEWER on Goodpasture Island Road from Delta Highway to Tabor Street (1710) Bidders Contract Cost 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ~-------- 2. H & J Constrcrction ~------------------- 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. ------------- 4. Wildish Construction Co. ~------------- $187,868.90 198,231.00 203,589.70 205,658.10 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City $ 95,450.00 Amount Budgeted. $83,500 County $ 8,300 (331) 20-Foot Paving 36-Foot Paving 4-Inch Concrete Sidewalk 5-Inch Concrete A.C. Drive $24.25/FF $37.l0/FF $ 1. 70/Sq. Ft. Drive $ 1.95/Sq.Ft. $ 0.4l/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: October 1,1981 -------------------~---,----,---~--,-------------------------------------------------------------------- AWARD , 2. PAVING AND STORM SEWER on Market Street from 5th Avenue to 7th Avenue (1892) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. -----~--- 2. H & J Construction -------------------- 3. Eugene Sand & Grayel Inc.u-u--uu--- 4. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- 5. Egge IS Sand & Gravel _u_u__uu_uu_ $ 70,363.86 72,279.75 74,391.43 76,306.50 76,939.38 $ 0 o o o o Cost to Abutting Property 44-Foot Paving Storm Sewer 7-Inch Concrete Cost to City Amt. Budgeted $50.70/FF $ 0.06/Sq.Ft. $ 2. 15/ Sq. Ft . -0- -0- COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1981 Page 1 of 3 . AWARD - AWARD ;.. Bid No.: 3 3. PAVING AND SANITARY SEWER in Royalwood First Addition and within 160 feet of the south and west boundaries of Roya1wood First Addition (1921) Bidders 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ---------- 2. H & J Construction --------------------- 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. -------------- 4. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co. --------------- 5. Wi1dish Construction Co. --------------- Cost to Abutting Property 28-Foot Paving Sanitary Lateral Sanitary Servi ce Storm Sewer $ 31. 70/ FF $ O.13/Sq.Ft. $190.00/Each $595.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1981 4. SANITARY SEWER within Havenwood PUD (1934) Bidders 1. Emerald Excavating Inc. ---------------- 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. -------------- 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ---- 4. Wildish Construction Co. --------------- 5. N. W. Excavating ----------------------- 6. Bowers Excavating & Fencing Inc. ------- 7. H & J Construction --------------------- 8. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. --------- 9. Egge's Sand & Gravel ------------------- Cost to Abutting Property Sanitary Lateral $0.06/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: August 1,1981 Contract Cost Basic Alternate $42,633.69 - 4'3,633-.80 45,326.38 47,461.75 52,338.80 $42,457.61 o o o o Cost to City Amount Budgeted -0- -0- Contract Cost $ 5,389.83 5,609.25 5,751.00 6,921.45 6,971.10 7,512.75 7,963.50 8,178.60 15,894.00. Cost to City Amount Budgeted -0- -0- Page 2 of 3 . AWARD Bi d No.: 3 5. STORM SEWER between 25th Avenue and 26th Avenue from Onyx Street to Emerald Street (1939) Bidders 1. N. W. Excavating ~.--------------------. 2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. .--- 3. Bowers Excavating & Pencing Inc. .,._u__. 4. L. D. Van Over Consruction, Inc. .,.----..,. 5: Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. .,.-----------.- 6. H & J Construction ----------.---------- 7. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. --------- 8. Wildish Construction Co. --------------_ Cost to Abutting Property None COMPLETION DATE: September 1,1981 Contract Cost $ 7,015,00 7,225.60 7,281.50 7,369,46 8,721.50 9,361.00 11 ,731.41 12,484.05 Cost to City $7,700.00 Amount Budgeted $7,200 (531) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e AWARD , OPENED: June 4, 1981 6. STORM SEWER between Vahalla and Elysium Avenue from Elysium Avenue to Azure Street (1948) Bidders 1. Bowers Excavating & Fencing, Inc. ----- 2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. --- 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. ------------ 4. Northwest Excavating ------------------ 5. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- 6. H & J Construction -------------------- 7. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. ------------- 8. Dan D. Allsup Contractor Inc. --------- Cost to Abutting Property None COMPLETION DATE; September 1,1981 Contract Cost $21,121.40 21,161.10 22,255.25 23,391.40 23,566.10 24,598.70 35,794.80 36,440.70 Cost to City $23,300.00 Amount Budgeted $30,500 (531) . , . , Page 3 of 3 /