Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/1981 Meeting (2) . M I NUT E S -- Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 9, 1981 11 : 30 a. m . COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Brian Obie. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. 1. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Mall Kiosks/Pushcarts Ms. Wooten presented copies of a petition with signatures regarding the issue of kiosks and pushcarts on the mall which had been presented to her by Larry Rakestraw. She requested an informational report be brought back about this item. e B. National League of Cities Conference Reports Ms. Schue stated that the Mayor, Councilor Hamel, Councilor Lindberg, and she had attended the National League of Cities Conference. The meeting was very interesting and valuable, but the information was not cheerful. A different kind of relationship with the federal government was discussed. Funding pro- posals do not seem to address city and state needs. The convention endorsed calling for a summit meeting on the new federalism. Mr. Lindberg added that various themes emerged. There is criticism of the current federal position as well as a pervasive re-emergence of racism and lack of tolerance by some individuals. He came back with ideas which he will present later. Ms. Schue added that Oregon now had Jack Nelson, Beaverton Mayor, as a representative to the NLC board. Mr. Hamel added that on Saturday, cable television was discussed. Eugene is fortunate not to be in litigation over cable television, as many cities are now. Most cable companies have said they will provide certain services, and they do not live up to their agreements. Our cable system started in 1954, and Teleprompter took over the existing company and has been expanding since. He also felt minorities and the poor were well represented at this very productive meeting. Ms. Miller thanked the four of them for representing Eugene and Oregon and its problems. Mr. Lindberg stated that with the help of Steve Bauer and League of Oregon Cities staff, they introduced an amendment to CETA policy regarding liability problems with subcontractors. Now the National League of Cities position is the same as the City's position. Mayor Keller added that he had sat in on Resolutions e Committee meetings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 1 C. Councilor Request e Councilor Haws requested postponement of the five-minute presentation he had planned to make until December 16. D. Metro Cable TV Audit Councilor Hamel noted that he is a representative to the Metro Cable TV/Trans- lator Commission. They are asking for an audit of Teleprompter in order to make a proper decision on the rate increase request. Eugene's cost would be $6,380. The audit must be completed by the last of January. Springfield and Lane County will each pay their own share. Action needs to be taken today. Mayor Keller asked who would conduct the audit. Keith Martin, City Attorney, stated that either the Cable Television Information Center Systems or Touche Ross & Co. is prepared to do the audit. Mayor Keller stated that some time ago, information was requested from Teleprompter. He asked if this finished product would be what they are looking for. Mr. Martin stated that there will have to be a limitation on how thorough this audit will be. Teleprompter will provide information and they are willing to fly the auditor to New York for an original document audit. A local evaluation is also being conducted. Ms. Miller asked if the City's share of the revenues from the franchise goes into the general fund. Mr. Martin responded that it does, and that is where the money will come from to conduct the audit. Ms. Miller asked if the same auditors will be used for this as were used for MSI and the ambulance review. Mr. Martin stated that staff will be using auditors from all three agencies. This is very complicated because decisions must be made regarding Teleprompter's rate of return. e Mr. Haws asked if the franchise would be open for bidding so that local com- panies could have a chance to participate. He would prefer a local firm, if that were possible. Mr. Martin stated that this is considered to be profes- sional services so it would not be put out to bid, but inquiries were made locally. Touche Ross is the only Oregon firm capable of conducting such an audit. Mr. Lindberg stated that Section III of the proposed resolution recommends development of a non-profit corporation to include public access into the franchise agreement. Mr. Martin stated that the franchise agreement requires four channels for government and public access. Most public access channels around the country that are successful have a non-profit corporation to link the public with the access. He is working on a description of this non-profit corporation now. Mr. Lindberg added that he would be especially interested in the board of directors and how they would be selected. Mr. Martin responded that usually this is a commission, and that the seven-member board would be first appointed by the Cable Commission, based on nominations from the advisory committee, and later turned over to the public. Ms. Smith stated that there appear to be two issues: the audit and access. She asked if action could be taken on Section III of the resolution later. Mr. Martin responded that this section only directs the commission to develop a proposal which would then have to be approved by the council. This does not bind approval. He would feel better if the council would authorize this, because this goes beyond the commission's general tasks. Mr. Haws asked if e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 2 the City of Eugene would have 55 percent of the representatives since it is paying 55 percent of the costs. Mr. Martin stated that the costs are based upon e the number of subscribers. Until financing is determined, it will be difficult to say how the representation will occur. Res. No. 3611--A resolution concerning the Metropolitan Cable TV/ Translator Commission; authorizing contracts for audits; and authorizing creation of a non-profit corporation and a contract therewith. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Dinner Meeting of Council/Legislative Delegation Ms. Smith stated that the Legislative Subcommittee met this morning due to the Special Session to be held by the Legislature in January. There will be a dinner meeting on Thursday, December 17, at 6:30 p.m. with the Lane County Legislative Delegation. F. Legislative Issues Ms. Smith stated that a public hearing will be held January 4, 1982, at 8:30 a.m. in Harris Hall on issues to be considered by the Legislature in Special Session. Paget Engen, Staff Services, has prepared a State of Oregon budget status report to be reviewed prior to the meeting. e G. Meeting Schedule Cathy Freedman, City Manager's Office, stated that a work session on CIP will be held in the McNutt Room at 1 p.m. today, and interviews for the Planning Commis- sion will be held at 2 p.m. On December 16, there will be a work session on CIP from 1:30 to 2:30. There will be two evening City Council meetings held in. January: January 11 and January 25. The meeting on the 11th should be a short meeting beginning at 8 p.m., and it will include the CIP public hearing. Ms. Schue asked if the January 11th meeting could begin at 7:30. Ms. Freedman stated that invitations to retiring City employees had been sent out for 7:30 p.m. Ms. Smith asked if the council will be requested to take final action on the CIP that night. Jim Farah, Planning, stated that the council may wish to defer action, although they will have the Planning Commission recommendation at that time. Mr. Gleason stated it is not necessary for the council to take final action, but that the council could choose to do so. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of October 12, 1981, and October 28, 1981 (distributed) Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the City Council minutes of October 12, 1981, and October 28, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 3 B. Payment of Bills and Claims (distributed) e Res. No. 3609--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period November 25~ 1981~ through December 9, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Finance Resolution (memo distributed) ~es. No. 3610--A resolution authorizing the transfer of contingency appropriations within a given fund to official budget categories. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Easement vacation of a blanket public utility easement located over an area designated as non-buildable as shown on the plat of Deer Trail II (Otto Grossman) (EV 81-7) (map and background information distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e CB 2398--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a blanket public utility easement over an area designated as non-buildable as shown on the plat Deer Trail II. . Ms. Miller 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2398 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller 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 18898. B. Supplemental Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82 (memo, ordinance, explanation distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this supplemental budget has been approved previously by the Budget Committee. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 4 CB 2399--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year e beginning July 1, 1981, and ending June 30, 1982; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Miller 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. Wooten asked what the warrant redemption fund is for. Warren Wong, Manage- ment Services, stated that this is for petition projects from property owners requesting action since last January. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2399 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller 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 and numbered 18899. C. New Liquor License Outlets: Mr. Gleason stated that all of these liquor license applications had been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. 1. Eugene Hilton Hotel (dispenser class A); located at 6th Avenue e and Oak; applicant: Sixth Avenue Hotel Associates, LTD, and Lee David International Corporation Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. 7-Eleven Food Store (package store); located at the northeast corner of Bailey Hill Road and Westleigh; applicant: Southland Corporation Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Joe Shafer, 2601 Windsor Circle West, stated that he represents the 7-Eleven store and would encourage approval of this application. There being no further testimony, public'hearing was closed. Ms. Miller asked what the phrase "subject to conditions" means. Mr. Gleason stated that OLCC can place conditions upon owners and outlets. Ms. Freedman stated that when a staffing department reviews the application, they sometimes have conditions, such as if remodeling is being done, which must be met, and those conditions are forwarded to OLCC. Ms. Wooten stated the council has - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 5 . previously requested that this be dealt with administratively, and asked for the status of that request. Mr. Gleason responded that staff will be placing an e ordinance to handle liquor license applications administratively on an upcoming agenda, probably in January. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OlCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3. Eugene Theater Company (retail malt beverage); located at 22 East Broadway; applicant: Oregon Repertory Theatre Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OlCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PUBLIC MEETINGS lAW PROVISIONS (memo and ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this is to bring the City Code into conformance with State law. Ms. Miller stated that she is uneasy about proceeding with this ordinance unless . there is council action taken on Section 23 of the Charter at the same time. e Keith Martin, City Attorney, stated that Ms. Miller's concern was appropriate if the meeting designation is to be changed. The ground rules for the council must be clear. This ordinance is an effort for simplification. The section regarding regular meetings could be removed by the council and brought back at a later time. Ms. Schue stated that she is confused. She understands the need for conforming with state law, but she is confused why the council would be changing its meeting designation. Mr. Martin responded that staff is trying to simplify the minutes-taking process. The confusion is in how the Charter designates regular meetings and other meetings. Ms. Schue asked if this would require a change in the Charter. Mr. Martin responded that the Charter states that the council designates its meetings and there must be one regular meeting each month. Ms. Miller stated that she would rather proceed with the open meetings law section now, and with the regular meeting designation later to determine the process of council absences from regular meetings. Les Swanson, City Attorney, suggested bringing back the ordinance with only the changes required to comply with the open meeting law. Staff would only pursue the issue of meeting desig- nation if requested by council at some future date. Council consensus was to follow his suggestion. V. BERTELSEN ROAD SPEED ZONES (memo distributed) ~ Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Hanks, Public Works. Mr. Hanks stated that in 1975, the council directed staff to bring back State .- Speed Control Board recommendations for raising speed limits. There are two MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 6 . blocks from Cross to First which run through the center of Lane Plywood Mill. During the time the mill is open, there is a need for a reduced speed limit e because it is used for loading wood. There is no need for lower speeds most of the time, and so the staff is proposing that this be approved except for when the mill is in operation. This could be accomplished by flashing lights or ~hangeable speed limit signs. Mr. Hamel stated, that it could be very dangerous if the speed limit were not lower. That plant runs 8-16 hours per day when the mill is operating. Mr. Hanks stated that the Speed Control Board will make the decision, and if they do not go with the City recommendation, then warning signs will be put in place. Mr. Lindberg asked how hard it would be to change the speed limit signs. Mr. Hanks responded that it could be on a timer. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward comments to the State Speed Control Board with the changes noted in the staff report of December 4, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unani- mously. VI. EUGENE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND HEARINGS PANEL PROCESSES (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Katherine Murdoch, Chairperson of the Citizen Involvement Committee. Ms. Murdoch stated that in February 1981, eIe began looking at the City's current process for granting variance requests and appeals from decisions of the building officials on matters of code interpretation. Currently these e are heard by a five-member Zoning Board of Appeals and can be appealed to the City Council Hearings Panel. Decisions of the Hearings Panel are confirmed by the full council, though no public hearing is held without consent of two-thirds of the council. CIe received a letter from Adrienne Lannom, who felt that this process does not allow for full debate, giving the appearance of a very closed and unfair system. In one case, the Hearings Panel had granted a variance that had been denied by the Zoning Board. Since the Hearings Panel was created in 1972, 22 appeals from the Zoning Board have been heard. None of the Hearings Panel decisions have been re-opened by the council. Larry Re.ed and Bernard Gilkison, Public Works, worked with eIC to provide information on the process. The decision of the Hearings Panel must be based on findings of fact. Concur- rently, CIC was distributing its questionnaire to those attending Zoning Board hearings. The results from the questionnaire showed that the majority of those attending were applicants or representatives of applicants. The public is not really involved at this level. James Pearson, chair of the Planning Commission, had distributed a memo in June outlining alternatives to the variance request appeal system. eIC moved to forward their memo of November 9 to the council, to indicate that the current process is not working. They are recommending that the duties of the Zoning Board be transferred to a hearings official, and suggested that the council decide whether appeals from the hearings official should be heard by the Planning Commission or by the council as a whole. The current process may be "backwards and bottom-heavy." The initial request for variance could be heard by a hearings official and then reviewed by the full Planning Commission or the full council. eIe is merely flagging a process which may need improvement and offering suggestions for change. They are asking the e MINUTES--Eugene eity Council December 9, 1981 Page 7 council to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for review and they hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals will contribute and provide observations and e suggestions. Ms. Smith asked if it is correct that CIC is not asking the council to take a position but just to refer this to the Planning Commission. Ms. Murdoch re- sponded that that is correct. Ms. Smith stated that CIC has identified problems and the council could recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a review. Mr. Lindberg agreed and noted that he is delighted that the CIC survey efforts are producing recommendations for change. Ms. Wooten stated that, as council representative to CIC, she would support the recommendation. Ms. Miller stated that whatever the council does, they should request that the -Zoning Board and CIC have joint discussions since they might be able to work out some concerns at that level. She would then request that the Planning Commis- sion deal with the matter. She is pleased to see that problems have been identified. The Hearings Board appeal route should be considered as well since it does not work well for all things. She hoped this would receive serious attention. Ms. Schue agreed that the process should be looked at. She is glad CIC is working on perceived problems. She agrees with Ms. Miller regarding the hearing panel. She felt that it was never very workable. Variances should be examined from beginning to end. John Ohm, 3276 Strathmore Place, stated that he is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and has been asked by the other four members to come before the council and note some of the concerns they have with the CIC findings. None of them are desirous of another non-paying job and do not want to continue an e unworkable process, but they do have some concerns with the CIC findings. CIC has not yet come to the Zoning Board of Appeals members for input yet they are trying to make recommendations on the concerns of the citizens who appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Some people come to the Zoning Board of Appeals before the fact and some people come after the fact. People may be trying to obtain a building permit and in that process find out what the Zoning Board of Appeals really addresses. The board addresses a very limited area within the Zoning Code. Its concerns have to do with setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking requirements, and fence heights. In most cases, the situa- tions considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals do not cause concern for the public at large. Some areas such as setbacks for fire protection, aesthetics, public health, safety, and welfare are of concern to the public at large. Where strict findings of fact based on code criteria are the only basis for a deci- sion, they must address all items except for off-street parking by five specific criteria. Those criteria include: 1) where the strict or literal interpre- tation enforcement of the specific regulation will result in a practical diffi- culty or unncessary physical hardship, 2) that there are exceptional or extra- ordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or 3) where the strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant. In some cases, the Zoning Board of Appeals must go beyond the strict findings of fact and come up with a very subjective decision as to whether or not to grant a variance. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals feel that this might best be handled most quickly and most equitably by a broader base than just a paid Hearings Official who has one perception and who has, as a part of the job, the necessity of speeding up the process. When a subjective evaluation is being made, the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 8 -- -- -------- . broader consensus of a more diverse group. perhaps on peer level. will perhaps arrive at a more equitable and quicker conclusion. The board's members also e have a concern about CIC's comments on how costly and cumbersome the process is to have five Zoning Board of Appeals members reviewing a matter. The Zoning Board of Appeals is a volunteer group. By going to a Hearings Official. there would be additional costs. If CIC's concerns are directed at the cost of delay to developers. then the board would agree with CIC. If the delays could be cut down. it would save the developers money. If a person is developing property and follows the procedures to get a building permit. these measures will come up upon application. It will show whether property is being developed according to code. When an item comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals after the fact, the person already has the project completed and failed to get a building permit for the project. Now the builder may be faced with a requirement of having to tear the project down. These things are frightening and upsetting to people. An equitable decision must be reached. The Zoning Code requirements are in the public interest. The Zoning Board of Appeals agrees with CIC that the hearings panel process is less equitable than hearing by the full council. Few appeals are received and they are quickly resolved. Staff usually handles about 50 percent of them and recommends granting of variances for the applicants. Seventy-five to 80 percent of all the appli- cations are granted and seldom is there an appeal from a denial. The broader base of the entire council makes more sense. They do have some of CIC's work and are concerned as to whether or not applicants are confusing what the Zoning Board of Appeals does with what is done with respect to the entire Building Division and the delays and confusion experienced there. The process should be continually improved, and if it can be speeded up it would be helpful. He is e afraid that the Zoning Board of Appeals' experiences as voiced by the members do not support GIG's findings, except with respect to the time delay to the appli- cant in getting the issue resolved. That delay is usually a maximum of 54 days. Mr. Hamel noted appreciation for hearing from both GIC and the Zoning Board of Appeals. He asked if CIC should address itself more to the City Code, particu- larly the Sign Code. He thinks there are areas for improvement. Mayor Keller indicated that the joint meeting between the Zoning Board and CIC might still be a good first step. Mr. Ohm responded that this could be done. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to refer this item to the Planning Commission and requested that CIC and the Zoning Board have a joint meeting to see if they can resolve any concerns prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. Ms. Miller stated that if the Planning Commission reviews this issue, she would also like to hear about conditional use permits and what differences there are with that process. She would like for them to take a look at the current situation and see if there is a perception that when parallel situations occur that parallel results could also occur. This is similar to what has been done with conditional use permits. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 9 -.--- ii' " Ms. Schue stated that she is concerned whether people would be as well served by an administrative process. An appeal procedure could still occur, although a e full hearing could not. She would like the Planning Commission to review that alternative as well. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VIr. COUNCILOR ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS. Ms. Wooten stated that she would not be able to attend either the 1 p.m. or the 2 p.m. meetings today. Mr. Haws indicated that he would not be there either. The Mayor indicated he would be leaving at 1:30. Ms. Wooten requested that another work session on CIP be set up in the morning at a later date. Mr. Gleason responded that this would occur. The council meeting was adjourned. The council moved to the McNutt Room for a work session on the Capital Improve- ment Program. Respectfully submitted, ~_L;~9j Micheal D. Gleason, City Manager e (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:pm/CM23b25 - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 10