Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 1961-11-07 PM • November 7, 1961 The regular Council meeting of the City of Lake Oswego convened at 7:32 p.m. - Present were Hexmsen, Lawrence, Ross and Mayor Stidd. Coan and Thomas excused, and Stewart excused on account of illness. Moved by Hermsen, seconded by Roes that the minutes of the previous meeting, as mailed, be approved. So, ordered. REQUESTS FROM AUDIENCE: None Report of the Traffic Committee - Tom Brooks, Chairman. Present were Tom Brooks, Bob Bradley, Jack Schiffer and Robert Huntington. Chairman Brooks introduced Consulting Traffic Engineer Mr. Nordlander who presented and explained his report. The main recommendations were that "A" Street should be parallel parking because the accident record was high on account of angle parking; that the first two stalls on the north side of "A" Avenue should be limited to 15-minute parking and the remaining three on the north side of "A" between State and First should be 30-minute parking; and that the stalls should be 22 feet. His conclusion was that this would allow 3B% increase in parking. At the end of the presentation Councilman Lawrence inquired as to his recommenda- tions on First Street. His reply was that no study was made as to the parking on First. ® Mrs. Kenneth Hall, property owner on "A" Street, asked the Council to defer actions. until a study of the report could be made by the property owners oh "A" Street. She also suggested that the study should be expanded to include First Street. The Mayor replied that this is not something new that suddenly confronts the property owners. It has been under study and has had great newspaper publicity for the past several months. Mr. Mitchell requested that the Council's action be held over to a later date be- cause of the absence of three councilmen and his attorney. The Mayor inquired if they had any new information. Mt. Mitchell feels that they will. have. Mr. Bill Rogers called to the attention of the Council the-protest of the business men and thinks that their objections should be taken into consideration by the • Council. Question then arose whether the Traffic Committee had accepted the traffic consulting engineer's report. Mr. Bob Bradley informed the Council that the Traffic Committee had received the report but thought it was the Council's responsibility to accept or reject. Mr. • Schiffer reiterated the original Traffic Committee report and stated that the original report is the recommendation upon.which the Committee ere standing. It was then moved by Lawrence, seconded by Ross that the traffic engineer's report be accepted-with..additional changes, i.e., that all diagonal parking'in the-City be removed. Councilman Ross moved to amend Councilman Lawrence's motion, in the following: that the traffic engineer's report be accepted in its entirety. This amendment failed for lack of a second. 411 Councilman Hermsen then commented stating that, by including First Avenue in this problem, we are throwing something new before the Council and therefore, action should be postponed to a later date. The question being called for on the original motion, upon a voice vote it foiled, ■ • • . .i there being one yes;, two nos, and one abstaining. It was then moved by Lawrence, 0 . seconded by Ross that the traffic enginoor's report be accepted in its entirety. Upon the question being called for, the motion carried, Councilman Hermsen voting no. Mayor Stidd stated that he wished the record to show that he was in favor of 1 the motion. Resolution then was presented implementing the report. It was then moved by Law- rence, seconded by Ross that said resolution be adopted. Upon question being ' called for, it was carried unanimously. At 8:25 p.m. a 5-minute recess was called. At 8t33 p.m., Council reconvened for a the purpose of continuing the public hearing on the proposed new 'zoning ordinance 081. A delegation of people were present from the west end of the Lake, who were particularly interested in the suggestion of the industrial park as proposed. • Mr. Charles Gardner, 18175 .S. W. Pilkington, owner of a 6-pi,ex, inquired if such zoning would make it impossible for him to obtain a loan upon his property, and 'i what type of an industry could go into the industrial park. After discussion, he informed the Council the designated uses were not objectionable to him. Mr. T. T. Wilson, 5650 S. W. Rosewood, raised the question whether he could build a house in this area. The answer was that the present existing homes would be a permissive use, but no new home would be allowed to be built in the future. He also inquired if his house was destroyed by fire, could`it be rebuilt. The answer was yes. Mr. Tom Adams, a former resident of the City, informed the audience that such industrial zoning would be to the benefit of the area. Miss Myers, owner of two acres affected, wanted to know when the ordinance will be adopted. The Mayor replied perhaps with n-a month, and not later than two months. A resident of 5968 S. W. Seville, owner of five acres of property, stated that he was very much in favor of an industrial park. Mr. William Nelson, 6150 Carney Road, member of the Rivergrove Zoning Commission, thought that the zone as shown in the newspapers encroached upon their zoning dis- trict. ' Upon being informed that we can only zone that area within our municipality, he stated that our zoning could not affect him. It was explained by the City Engineer that what bothered the members of the Rivergrove Zoning Commission was a survey that had been made in conjunction with the schools and that these studies must be made without consideration of City lines. Mr. Hanson then asked why the survey if they didn't intend to take over their area. The answer was that there was no intention of taking over their area because it was impossible to do so. A Mr. James C. Evans, a resident of the Rivergrove Zoning District, explained his concern over the County interfering with their zoning of his four acres. Mr. Crumpet, 5640 Willow Lane, stated that under the proposed zoning, he 'couldn't build homes on his property and that he couldn't answer the question whether said zoning would de-value or increase the value of his property, but it is his belief that there would be a de-valuation. Mr. Tom Adams inquired in regards to R479 zoning, stating that his property is only 50 feet wide and that he has three lots of this nature. The answer was that there was provision for relief for property of not less than 5,000 square feet and . that he could not bo hurt. He accepted this explanation as satisfactory. • • Mr. Carl Low, representative of the 011 Company Trade Association, complained of the proposed zoning of the Lake Grove area as C.C. and asked that it be changed to • ® G.C. The Mayor informed him that this change was allowed last week. • (See attached for Fred Grimm discussion). Mr. Parelius complained about the zoning of his garage and apartments, stating • that he can't sell, build or do anything with his property and requests the Council to give consideration to the service station problem, suggesting that they should have the same zoning as granted to the Lake Grove area. He begged for relief for apartments and service stations so they would be conforming. Mr. Reisner, member of the Planning Commission, thought there should be some more publicity as to what is meant by an industrial park and to the type of industry that would be allowed. Mr. Toni Parvis complimented the Council on their sincerity and stated that possibly he might be wrong in his request, but he wished the Council to state the reasons why they won't grant his request. The Mayor's reaction was that he personally -� thought it should be granted, but he was in the minority. Mr. Parvis stated that, under the circumstances, he will drop his request for the present. Mrs. Hall inquired if the L.C. zone has been eliminated on "A" Street. She was assured that it had' and is now proposed to be zoned C.C. There being no further inquiries from the audience, public hearing on the proppsed zone change ordinance was continued to November 21st. At 9;46 p.m. Council recessed; reconvened at 10010 p.m. CITY ATTORNEY - L, Eugene Crampton Opening-of bids for 3-wheel vehicles for Water Department. The only bid received was that from Ray E. Garner for the two vehicles, one for $1087 (1961), the other for $1188.90 (1962). This was referred to Superintendent of Public Works Mr. Hughes for study to see if it complied with the bid specifications. After study, he informed the Council they did. Therefore moved by Lawrence, seconded by Ross that the bid be accepted. So ordered. . Public Hearing held on L.I.D. No. 57. There were no written remonstrances on file with the Recorder and no oral ones from the floor. • ORDINANCE NO. 783 - AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 6-INCH CAST IRON WATER MAIN ON WEST VIEW CIRCLE, WITHIN THE CITY OP LAKE 0SWEGO, DESCRIBED AS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 57, AND DIRECTING THAT SUCH ASSESSMENTS BE ENTERED IN THE DOCKET OF CITY LIENS - read first time in its entirety. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Ross that same be read second time by title only. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 783 read second time by title only. Upon roll call vote, it was unanimously approved. Resolution on completion of work on L.I.D. #25 and setting a date for public hearing on December 5, 1961.. Moved by Hermsen, seconded by Lawrence that said resolution be adopted. ' Carried unanimously. 410 Resolution on completion of work on L.I.D. #51 and setting a date for public hearing on December 5, 1961. Moved by Hermon, seconded by Lawrence that same be • adopted. Carried unanimously. Resolution regarding the formation of L.I.D. #63 for the installation of water -3„ - • 4 mains and curbs and pave streets in the Greentree Subdivision. Moved by Lawrence,' ® seconded by Ross that said resolution be adopted. Carried unanimously. Resolution regarding the formation of La.!). #64 for the installati<in of sanitary sewers, a sewage lift and force main in Greentree Subdivision and adjacent lots - in that drainage area. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Harmsen said resolution be adopted. Carried unanimously. Presented applications for renewal of liquor permits for the Safeway, two Piggly Wiggly stores, Palisades Market, Carl's Grocery and Pepi's Mixer House. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Harmsen that such permits be authorized. So ordered. Public hearing on withdrawal. There were no written remonstrances on file with the Recorder and no oral ones from the floor. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 782 - AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN LANDS HEREIN DESCRIBED FROM I LAKE GROVE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT H57, LAKE GROVE WATER DISTRICT #15, LAKE OSWEGO ZONING DISTRICT #6, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY - read first time in its entirety. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Ross that same be read second time by title only. Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 782 read second time by ,,, title only. Upon roll call vote, unanimously approved. ORDINANCE NO. 778 - AN ORDINANCE DISPENSING WITH AN ELECTION ON AN ANNEXATION, AND SETTING A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - read first time in its entirety. Moved by , °'► Ross, seconded by Hermsen that same be read second time by title only, Carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 778 read second time by title only. Upon roll call vote, passed unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - G. D. Gleason Communication from Boy Scout Troop 127 for waiver of business license to sell Christmas trees in George Rogers Park December 9th to 26th. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Ross said permission be granted. So ordered, • . • Request from Chief of Police for authorization to call for bids for two police oars. Moved by Hermsen, seconded by Rose that such authorization be granted. Carried. 4 Letter of commendation from Mrs. Hathaway commending Officer Deuber for conducting ' children safely across Country Club Road during school hours. Chief of Police'. to acknowledge letter. Communication from Mr. Richard B. Deckers complaining of the drainage problem at 236 Pine Valley Road and also requesting a light at the intersection of Troon and Pine Valley Roads. Upon recommendation of the City Engineer and the Administrative . : Assistant, the drainage problem will be take:, care of by the City. The light re • - quest is to be rejected. Moved by Hermsen, seconded by Lawrence that. said recom- mendation be accepted. Carried. Request from George S. Clefton, President of the Muscular Dystrophy Associations of America for waiver of business license for solicitation of funds. Moved by Harmsen, seconded by Ross that this request be granted. Carried. CITY ENGINEER - R. N. Cruden 411 Progress is being made on Foothills report. PERSONNEL - James E. Lawrence a. Jack Ellis, Meter Reader, Step A to Step B, $350.00 effective 10-1-61 b. Robert Lee House, Equipment Operator Step B to Meter Reader Step B, 'effective November 1, 1961 to replace James Burke - no change in pay. Moved by Lawrence, seconded by Hermsen that the above changes be approved. Carried. a. James Burke resignation effective November 7, 1961. .• . Moved by Lawrence, secondod by Ross that the above resignation be accepted. Carried. • Councilman Lawrence stated that it is now becoming necessary to evaluate the pay scale of Public Works employees., He has requested the accounting office to deter- mine the condition of the budget to see whet can be done. FINANCE - George Thomas The auditor's report to be 'presented by John Morgenthaler at an informal Council ' meeting at 4130 p.m. Friday the 10th. PARKS - Frank Harmsen None WATER - Ralph G. Coan • None SEWER - Councilman Thomas Councilman Thomas will present his recommendations fora reply to the City of Port- land in regards to their sewage treatment offer at an informal Council meeting at 4130 p.m. Friday, November 10th. PUBLIC SAFETY - Mayor Stidd ' Presented police and fire reports, copies of which are made a part hereof. Moved by 110 Lawrence, seconded by Ross that the reports be accepted. Carried. • COMMUNITY PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT - Donald T. Ross • Called to the attention of the Council the benefits of being a participating member of the International Building Association. Being a member costs $O.00 yearly. Ross moved, Hermsen seconded that said sum be authorized. Carried unanimously. • There being no further business, it was moved by Ross that the meeting adjourn at 10150. p.m. So ordered. • "Vt0Ad : - Recorder • • O WEGO CITY FIRE DWART14E.NT FIRE CHIhFS ttr1'01T TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR Tilt; Moroi OF Oot obor 1961 • Number of alarms answereQ 16 (15 with-in the City) Remarks Fire loss approximate $3000.00 • Injuries Dutlding inspections 4 Fire prevention code violations ® Total number of first aid calls 23__ (18 with in the City) �.._.�.��._ .�._._._..._.. , Total number of drills 3 Total hour& of training 100 plus daily dri l la Fire prevention program carried out at all grade schools and fire • Remarks drills held at all schools. Signed contract on 0otober 30 with the. Seagrove Corporation for the purchase of one 1000 GPM fire engine. Delivery time approximate November 2, 1961 6 months. .�,. . `ire Mil Hayden O'Brien • - • ® • 411 CITY OF LAKE (XiWEGO DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SUBJECT: (Monthly Report) OC7'.^t3EI�- -19 61 Criminal: ri Larceny. 5_ Criainal Arrests: 1 • Petit .._._ _ C Drunks.._..................... 6 AssaultC._�._...�._._.._ 0 B. & F...... ._ 6_ Felonies _ :.,_._... " ........,....� Miscellaneous ego-I:PI/1144f 412 Minors in Possession Accidents, ,__,__„�„_ . 1s . Miscellaneous 1 Service of Warrant _• i. 4 Vandalism oleait 0 Prowl Activities TsafYic Arrests House cheeks . . 215 Basic Rule...-.-.__....� ,._....... .. !42 - Car checks_,___ ,, ... ..._.._.�. .119 - Stop Sign...,..,,..,,.. ,...,,... 1'1 Personal Oheoka ..__ 02 2 " Illegal Turn......._._... 7_. Open Doors,_ _,,,,,,,�_._,_______• . 21 Reckless Driving,, __ e0 Open Windows Negligent Driving _0 Prowler callel., . �, ,_; ,�. 1 School Bus Violation _,. 0 Lodged in jai].. 5 Hit & Ruh.,_.. _......_._..._...., .. Traffic warnings . 32 Traffic fines_ , , ,, DWI0.4_ _./,„ Bail forfeitures. Other fine& . 108.0� . Fail to Yield R/W ___..__........._...._...._sL. Total„ ....._ .�._..». s..__......_._.�....~....._�. _ Gallons • Parking Violations Oil Quarts Mileago 805- on "cars 117 cycre --- Following too •�1os©-Tr"` Auto 1iq noo .. ,..o.. ._ Warned..-._ _ y....r....._......,., malt. Muffler ). ......_.�.......�._..... ..__ • Cam! TM„ i Do you mean the use of that property now is non-conforming? (Yes; that is, in certain instances - not in every instance.) Now would you :say that the ,, plumbing shop and wiring shop - - - I was wondering if they would be classified ` under building supply outlets. leRENcE: . Am I looking at the right section (3) non-conforming, isn't it - on page 12, I think it is. You mean because it: doesn't state that in here, it would be non-conforming. Under conditional uses permitted under Item 3, Building Supply Outlets, I was wondering if it would fall in this category - I mean the particular operation you are referring to. • CtI,Mpi: We want to continue what we have done and serve the people with what the neighborhood wants. Our object in 30 years has been to serve the people with what they want. The way I get it, the problem isn't what you add there now be- cause it is existing and would comply. In the future what would happen if some- thing else moved in with this type of operation? You haven't seen some of these hard times when things get pretty tough and things close up for a couple of years - _ ':; you'd be in a picklement. . SM: You should get in the insurance business - they're allowed in every area. I I think this is one of the things we have got to ba sure we are clear on before we dive into this ordinance. , There are one or two other areas involved like • this. CRUM: For the benefit of the Council, the present Neighborhood Business zone does allow a plumbing shop, hardware store and radio-electric appliance shop. They are conforming uses and it does allow a public garage at present. All are now conforming. But the new ordinance omits them. LAWRFNCE: The new one says hardware store - but you don't have a hardware store. . e: I think, Mr. Mayor, in thinking about this question a little, we - 7 - classify this type of service not as being ,a retail outlet for' service for foot traffic which we consider necessary or wanted in the Neighborhood zone. You can recall some of the plumbing houses we have had downtown were anything but a service to the public from a neighborhood or pedestrian standpoint. They ere in contractual business and some quite commercial. I presume if it were elec- trical, fine, but electrical contractor is different. I presume Mark would give us that answer. • )VESTL1 * Lee, we will have to take this under advisement. : I have a problem in the old zoning, about in 1947, VI- was zoned in there es a plumbing shop, electrical shop and automotive repa,ir:at that time. You have taken me off the list on that. I am wondering why you are degrading me? UM: You mean down-grading you. -That'now becomes non-conforming, is that Iright, Ray? C1UDftts Correct. ip gm: In a non-conforming category, what is Mr. Grime going to be permitted to do with regard to maintaining his premises - I assume he can refurbish them. Is there a percentage limitation? Yea. Have you talked this over with Ray, Fred? 0 - III stam: No. You have a pack of problems downtown and then they are run down, and '� it makes it look that much worse. r, • SUt9: Well, I think you are granted certain privileges in this ordinance that permit you to maintain those premises. 17 • C3U tjs The first statement of the non-conforming uses reads as fellows: "A non- ® conforming use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repair but shall not be altered or extended. • ,QQs How about ch,9nging of tenants. Let's assume that one of his tenants de- cides to move elsewhere, may he replace that tenant with another of a similar • kind? cjWDEN: A non-conforming use is discontinued from use for a period of one year and the further use of the property shall be for a conforming use except that, - for the keeping of livestock for a period of forty-eight hours, it shall be per- - manently terminated. • [ ! s You aren't confronted with livestock, are you? (I guess not.) You have a year in which, to replace a tenant, eh? Are you concerned with the possibility of enlarging a facility that is non-conforming? Is that.your main concern? : Yes. We haven't quite enough room on some of it and when we get business up, we will be wanting more room. sr Ds Ars there any permissive uses for your property - that is, Fred, axe any acceptable? GRIM* I can't find anything else that building would be good for. • =RR: Well, what is the wish of the Council on this thing. Is this one of the things we will want to take under advisement? Ray, on page 41, section 117, authorization to grant or deny variances. The Building Board of Appeals estab- • lished by the City Building Code may authorize variances from the requirements of this ordinance where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circum- stances related to a certain piece of property, the literal interpretation of this ordinance would cause en undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no variance' shall be granted to allow the arse ofproperty for purposes not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located. In granting a variance, the City may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the business inter- ests of the surrounding property or neighborhood and to otherwise achieve the purposes of this ordinance. Would this offer Mr. Grime any relief? CRUDBys Yes. The Planning Commission spent a good deal of time toward providing a method of considering requests like Mr. Grimm's and providing a way of solving them. Before, the ordinance wes pretty.much ironbound - not much chance for relief from the actual' printed word. But this variance procedure does provide a-method of pre- senting tote request and handling it in an orderly manner. The results of their de- liberations when the request is presented would be reviewed by the Council. • Elms Let's take a specific example. Let's say Mr. Grimm wants to enlarge the premises that he occupies - say the garage portion of it would be non-conforming. Now, Gene, I am not going to rely on Ray - what would your interpreti'tion be? • Magas Just the opposite, Mr. Mayor. You read this sentence "except that no ` variance shall be granted to allow the use of property not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located." To me, that means that you could grant a variance on a non-conforming use. STIDD: Well, that was my conclusion, but I was afraid maybe I was right. ;; rimmiximm.immiminsimimminimmemmismi . • . • . _ : • • clog{a The first statement of the non-conforming uses reads as £011owss "A non- conforming-use may be continued and maintained in reasonable repa.:lr but shall not be altered or extended. SxIT, How about changing of tenants. Let's assume that one of his tenants de- aides to move elsewhere, may he replace that tenant with another of a similar kind? CR!JUFKs A non-conforming use is disconti►ued from use for a period of one year and the further use of the property shall be for a conforming use except that, for the keeping of livestock for a period of forty-eight hours, it shall be per- manently terminated. $:";QQs You aren't confronted with livestock, are you? (I guess not.) You have a year in which to replace a tenant, eh? Are you concerned with the possibility of enlarging a facility that is non-conforming? Is that your main concern? giumR$ Yes. We haven't quite enough room on some of it and when we get business up, we will be wanting more room. amp: Are there any permissive uses for your property - that is, Fred, are any acceptable? °KIs I can't find anything else that building would be good for. • EIRO Well, what is the wish of the Council on this thing. Is this one of the,. things we will want to take under advisement? Ray, on page 41, section 117, authorization to grant or deny variances. The Building Board of Appeals estab- lished by the City Building Code may authorize variances from the requirements-of this ordinance where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circum- stances related to a certain piece of property, the literal interpretation of this ordinance would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship, except that no variance shall be granted to allow the use of property for purposes not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located. In granting a variance, the City may attach conditions which it finds necessary to protect the business inter- ests of the surrounding property or neighborhood and to otheawise achieve tho purposes of this ordinance. Would this offer Mr. Grimm any relief? 9Ql3s Yes. The Planning Commission spent a good deal of time toward providing a method of considering requests like Mr. Grimm's and providing a way of solving them. Before, the' ordinance was pretty much iron bound - not much chance for relief from the actual printed word. But this variance procedure does provide a methbdFof pre- senting the request and handling it in an orderly manner. The results of their de- liberations when the request is presented would be reviewed by the Council. SRQgs Let's take a specific example. Let's say Mr. Grimm wants to enlarge the premises that he occupies - say the garage portion of it would be non-conforming. Now, Gene, I am not going to rely on Ray -,what would your interpretation be? plgo Just the opposite, Mr. Mayor. You read this sentence "except that no variance shall be granted to allow the use of property not authorized within the 411 zone in which the proposed use would be located." To me, that means that you„ ! could grant a variance on a non-conforming use. [Is Well, that was my conclusion, but I was afraid maybe I was right.' . . 111111A l . . lMPT9R: I think what we are talking about here are some of the setback provisions for the Neighborhood Commercial zones. Though there is a variety of 'different 110 conditions that this variance would apply to, I don't think you can authorize the usage as a nonconforming use. It wouldn't mean anything if you say that the non- conforming use can't be extended, if you turn around in the next breath and say that it can be extended. ST DD: Walt, when the Planning Ccmnission was considering this particular area, .. . were these - - - was the Planning Corrmission' aware of this situation? ,, mums Well, ae a matter of fact, I am a little bit hazy about that. Mr. Grimm mentioned it to me a week or two ago, and I was going to discuss it, but I failed to do so. That's bad. The specific question that he asked was why was it taken off. I presume it is applicable not so much to this zone, but to other neighbor- hood zones.