MINUTES

Dunes City Council Regular Meeting - May 10, 2007 - 7:00 P.M.  

Printable file

City Hall - 82877 Spruce St. Westlake, OR 97439

COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mayor Sheldon Meyer, David Bellemore, Peter Howison, Richard Koehler, Susie Navetta, Bob Petersdorf, John Scott

COUNCILORS ABSENT: None.

STAFF PRESENT: Joanne Hickey, Gary Darnielle, Terry Tinker; George Burke, Planning Commission Chair

1.    CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Sheldon Meyer called the meeting of the Dunes City City Council to order at 7:00 p.m.

City Recorder Joanne Hickey called the roll and stated that a quorum was present. Councilors joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Meyer noted that the Consent Agenda included:

A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 15, 2007, and April 12, 2007, Council meetings.

B. Approval of the Bills of the Session

C. Application for Appointive Office - Susie Navetta and Ralph Farnsworth to the Comprehensive Plan/Ordinance Committee

D. Adoption of Resolution OS-10-07(A)

Councilor Bob Petersdorf requested that Item C be removed for separate consideration. Councilor John Scott requested that Item D be removed for separate consideration. Councilor Peter Howison requested that Item B be removed for separate consideration. Councilor Richard Koehler requested that Item A be removed for separate consideration. Mayor Meyer suggested that Item D be removed for separate consideration. 

Mayor Meyer ruled that each Item on the Consent Agenda would be considered seriatim.

Councilor Koehler requested that Paragraph 8 on Page 4 of the Minutes of the March 15 meeting be changed, as follows:

Councilor Petersdorf moved, seconded by Councilor K=@~ Scott, that the City Council authorize a stipulated agreement with owners of the Little Woahink Drive property that included imposing a fine of $2,500 for not reseeding excavated areas within one year

Mayor Meyer determined that there was no objection to the request and the Minutes were amended.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor David Bellemore, to accept the Min­utes of the March 15, 2007, Council meeting, as amended. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

Councilor Koehler requested that Sentence 2 of Paragraph 2 on Page 9 of the Minutes of the April 12 meeting be changed, as follows:

He presented copies of data disks containing the surveys to the Planning Commission and City Recorder to use as a tool to inform citizens.

Mayor Meyer determined that there was no objection to the request and the Minutes were amended.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor David Bellemore, to accept the Min­utes of the April 12, 2007, Council meeting, as amended. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

Mayor Meyer referred to the Bills of the Session for April 13 through May 10, 2007, pre­sented for approval.

Councilors discussed a bill for $1,096 submitted by David and Kim Esrig as reimbursement for expenses incurred in re-vegetating property on Cloud Nine Road in September 2006. Ms. Hickey explained that the bill was the second submitted because an earlier one had in­cluded charges for plants that were not included in the vegetation plan approved by the Planning Commission. She said the current bill included charges for a bark pathway and la­bor to install it that were not vegetation or included as a requirement of the plan.

Mayor Meyer determined there was agreement to direct staff to secure an accurate bill for the re-vegetation of the property, without expenses for bark or labor; and to seek informal consensus to pay it from Councilors before the next meeting.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor Navetta, to pay Bills of the Session: April 13, 2007, through May 10, 2007, except the bill submitted by David and Kim Esrig as reimbursement for re-vegetation expenses The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

Mayor Meyers referred to Item C of the Consent Agenda, Application for Appointive Of­fice, Ralph Farnsworth and Susie Navetta to the Comprehensive Plan/Ordinance Committee.

Councilor Petersdorf said he had asked that the matter be removed from the Consent Agenda to ask whether forming a new committee was appropriate when the work of other committees remained incomplete. Councilor Navetta replied that it was her intention to postpone starting to work on updating City ordinances to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan until work of the stormwater ordinance committee was complete. She said making the initial appointments at this time would facilitate recruitment of four additional members.

City Attorney Gary Darnielle suggested that the purpose of the proposed committee would be to identify elements of the Comprehensive Plan that needed to be included in updated City ordinances that would be submitted to the City Council for approval. He said ordi­nance revision proposals would be developed from policy decisions made by the Council.

Councilors discussed the proposed appointments and formation of a new committee.

Councilor Petersdorf moved, seconded by Councilor Howison to appoint Ralph Farns­worth and Susie Navetta to a newly formed Ordinance Committee of six members to be advised by City Attorney Gary Darnielle. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

Mayor Meyer referred to Consent Agenda Item D - Resolution OS-10-07(A), A Resolution Extending Dunes City's Workers' Compensation Coverage to Volunteers of Dunes City.

Councilor Scott suggested that the Resolution identify that the coverage to be provided was limited to non-hazardous volunteer work because of the likelihood that the cost for coverage of workers engaged in hazardous endeavors would be expensive. Councilor Petersdorf re­plied that such a limitation could overly restrict the duties of volunteers serving on the Road Commission who regularly use potentially dangerous power equipment.

Mr. Darnielle explained that rates for Workers' Compensation Insurance were set at differ­ent levels based on the level of risk involved.

Ms. Hickey reported that the only volunteers currently provided Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage were those engaged in administrative work. She said the intent of the Resolution was to provide coverage for volunteers serving on committees and commissions.

Ms. Hickey explained that she had learned that providing insurance coverage for volunteers using equipment would require that they be rated separately and that the coverage could be expensive. She said if volunteers used equipment, safety training and ongoing monitoring by a formal Safety Committee would be required. She said providing insurance for volun­teers using power equipment would require close adherence to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, with the possibility that workplace inspections would result. She said fines could be levied for unsafe working conditions or lack of proper training in the use of equipment.

Councilors discussed issues involved with City volunteers, their use of equipment, and the cost and coverage of insurance.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor Scott, to adopt Resolution No. OS-10­07, A Resolution Extending Dunes City's Workers' Compensation Coverage to Volun­teers of Dunes City, for administrative purposes only. The motion was adopted unani­mously, 6:0.

Mayor Meyer requested that Ms. Hickey provide specific information to the Council regard­ing insurance coverage for volunteers using equipment or doing manual labor.

3.       RECEIPTS OF THE SESSION

Mayor Meyers referred to a report of revenue received between April 13 and May 10, total­ing $17,659.21. He reviewed receipts larger than $1,000.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Mayor Meyers reviewed announcements:

Applications for appointment to Committee Vacancies were being solicited for one member of the Site Review Committee

The art displayed in City Hall during May and June was provided by Ursula Dittl.

The annual Festival of the Lakes celebration is scheduled for August 18.

Fire fighters and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers are needed

5.          UNFINISHED/OLD BUSINESS

A. Lot Line Adjustment - George and Laura Burke

George Burke, 4838 Lake Boulevard, explained that a survey for improvement of Lake Boulevard had revealed that the street and a City stormwater catch basin system were partially on his property and that it had been suggested that a lot line adjustment be car­ried out to prevent any future issues related to the property. He said he was willing to transfer ownership of the portion of the northeast corner of tax lot 1200 that included the roadway, stormwater system, and newly constructed retaining wall to the City at no cost. He said the City would be responsible for any costs associated with the transfer.

Mr. Darnielle reported that the lot size created by the adjustment proposed by Mr. Burke did not meet minimum standards and would not be possible through the lot-line adjust­ment procedure. He said the desired outcome could be accomplished through a mutual agreement between Mr. Burke and the City simply to transfer ownership of the property to the City.

Mayor Meyer determined there was consensus to take no action on the proposed lot line adjustment until consideration of the Fish Mill Lodge/Fish Mill Way Agenda item.

B. Fish Mill Lodge/Fish Mill Way

Mayor Meyer referred to discussions held at the February 8 and March 8 Council Meet­ings regarding a request from Judy Bedsole to revoke a Temporary Right-of-Way Permit awarded to George and Laura Burke in 2004. He said the permit was for the construc­tion of a fence and retaining wall at the intersection of Lake Boulevard and Fish Mill Way. He said it was the contention of Ms. Bedsole that construction of the retaining way had created access difficulties for her Fish Mill Lodge and Recreation Vehicle es­tablishment.

Mayor Meyer also referred to a recommendation from the Road Commission that the Council approve the design and budget for improvement of Fish Mill Boulevard.

Mayor Meyer noted that Ms. Bedsole was present and appeared prepared to make a presentation regarding her request.

Mr. Darnielle referred to his memorandum to the Council dated March 8, 2007 regard­ing his investigation of the contentions of Ms. Bedsole. He said it appeared that Ms. Bedsole was not willing to hold the City blameless for damage that might be done to vegetation on her property during reconstruction of Fish Mill Boulevard. He suggested that the stalemate led to the conclusion that funds for the proposed road improvement project be spent elsewhere.

Councilors, Mr. Darnielle, Mr. Burke, and Ms. Bedsole engaged in disjointed discussion of the issues involved. The main matters of contention were unclear and various reme­dies were suggested. There appeared to be agreement that taking the action noted below was an appropriate way for the Council to finalize its consideration of the matter. Ms. Bedsole suggested she would seek remediation through an appeal process.

Councilor Scott moved, seconded by Councilor Petersdorf, to accept the offer of George Burke to transfer ownership a portion of the northeast corner of his Tax Lot 1200 that included the roadway, stormwater system, and retaining wall to the City at no cost The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

6.      NEW BUSINESS

A. Resolution 05-10-07

Mayor Meyer read Resolution OS-10-07 by title, A RESOLUTION REQUIRING ALL DUNES CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TO ELECTRONICALLY RECORD AND PREPARE WRITTEN MINUTES FOR ALL BUSINESS MEETINGS.

Councilor Navetta requested that the resolution be amended, as follows:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Dunes City requires all meetings shall be electronically recorded and have written minutes signed by their author turned over to the City within forty (40) days of the meeting.

Councilor Petersdorf reported that bylaws guiding the Road Commission required that minutes of meetings be presented at the next regular meeting of the City Council, rather than within 40-days.

Councilor Petersdorf read from Dunes City Ordinance 171 that stated the City Council and Road Commission were to establish their own operating rules. He said his experi­ence on the Road Commission led him to be opposed to the requirement in the Resolu­tion that all meetings needed to be electronically recorded.

Councilor Bellemore said he believed requiring that minutes be recorded electronically would enable them to be made easily available to committee members and the public.

Councilor Koehler determined that the requirement of the Resolution to record electronically all meetings meant that audio recordings were to be made, not that an electronic version of written minutes were to be prepared. He said he believed doing so was positive in that it made government activities publicly available and encouraged partici­pation of the public.

Councilor Petersdorf said he did not believe recordings of meetings should be consid­ered part of their minutes.

Mr. Darnielle suggested that the Resolution did not consider retention of minutes and other practicalities of the preservation of digital records.

Mr. Burke said the City Council operating manual required that minutes be preserved for one-year. Councilor Navetta replied that recent experience had shown that one-year was not long enough for actions of the Council to be preserved.

Councilor Bellemore said digital recordings placed on disks were more versatile and oc­cupied less space. He suggested that their use be investigated.

Councilor Koehler said he preferred providing for permanent storage of all meeting re­cords electronically.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor Koehler, to adopt Resolution No. OS-10-07, A RESOLUTION REQUIRING ALL DUNES CITY COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES TO ELECTRONICALLY RECORD AND PREPARE WRITTEN MINUTES FOR ALL BUSINESS MEETINGS.

Councilor Petersdorf noted that several existing committees and commissions were not listed in the first Whereas of the resolution. Councilor Scott replied that any omissions were covered in the Resolution title phrase "all business meetings."

Councilor Scott asked who was liable if the requirements of the Resolution were not met and were there penalties that would be invoked. Mr. Darnielle replied that it would be possible for the City Council to issue a sanction that could include any appropriate pen­alty.

Mr. Burke asked if the Resolution required that meetings be video recorded. Mayor Meyers replied that it was his assumption that the budget for video recording and broad­cast expenses was intended to be used only for meetings of the City Council, which was, in the end, responsible for all City government decisions.

The motion was adopted, 5:1, with Councilor Petersdorf voting no.

Mr. Burke asked if it was the intention of the City Council to permit citizens independ­ently to record meetings of the Council, committees, and commissions. Mr. Darnielle replied that the Oregon Public Meeting Law required that such activities be permitted, as long as it was not disruptive to the meeting.

Ms. Hickey said she would seek guidance from the Council regarding funds to be used for the purchase of electronic recording equipment to implement the Resolution.

B. Mills Building Violation

Mayor Meyer stated that the Council would consider issues related to various Code vio­lations and a Stop Work Order regarding property located at 83449 Parkway Drive.

Mr: Burke reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed information regarding the violations and Stop Work Order on April 26. He noted that Councilors had received the entire packet of relevant information provided to members of the Planning Commis­sion.

Mr. Burke referred to a May 1,2007, memorandum from the Planning Commission con­veying its recommendation to allow continuance of building and inspections of con­struction on the property up to, but not including the final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that the memorandum also reported the recommen­dation of the Planning Commission that the property owners seek a Conditional Use Permit for locating the residence and retaining wall within the 50-foot lakeshore riparian area contingent on six listed conditions. He reviewed the proposed conditions for ap­proval.

Mr. Burke explained that issues and violations on the property initially resulted from miscalculation of the riparian area based on an out-of-date identification of the high wa­ter level of Siltcoos Lake by the US Army of Engineers. He said construction of the buildings had been done according to code requirements and that siting of the house within the riparian area had been a mistake when the plans were initially approved.

Mr. Burke stated that if the Council determined to levy fines for the violations, to whom they were to be directed should first be determined. He said two different contractors, an engineering firm, a surveying firm, and the owners might be liable.

Planning Secretary Terry Tinker explained that violations in the development project had been discovered when an inspection was conducted of the retaining wall.

Councilor Petersdorf said he believed the high water mark for Siltcoos Lake had been at its current level since 1960. He said he was concerned that the property owners had not yet applied for a Conditional Use Permit, even though it had been determined that it would be needed at the April 26 meeting of the Planning Commission. He said he be­lieved riparian setbacks and other Code matters should be strictly enforced and fines for violations appropriately levied.

Mr. Burke replied that the property owners had not been required to apply for a Condi­tional Use Permit until the City Council acted on the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Darnielle said erroneous siting of a building would normally be dealt with through adoption of a variance, not a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Burke replied that the Dunes City Code provided for issues related to lakeside riparian setback areas to be dealt with through Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Darnielle suggested it would be important for the property owners not to be rushed into applying for a Conditional Use Permit until the difference of opinion was resolved.

Councilors discussed the culpability of those involved in the project for the alleged vio­lations. Mr. Burke said such determinations could be made after the recommendationsof the Planning Commission were acted upon. He suggested that getting the project re­started should be a prime goal at this time.

Mr. Darnielle said it would be important for the Council to keep separated the land use and enforcement process issues of the situation.

Councilors and Mr. Burke discussed various elements of the Planning Commission rec­ommendation.

Jamie Mills, P.O. Box 2556, Fallon, Nevada, stated that she and her husband Robin were owners of the property in question. She asked permission to place information in the re­cord:

1) An offer was made to purchase the property in question on June 20, 2000, contingent on the approval of the footprint of the house to be built. At that time, there were no riparian setback requirements. The septic provisions were also pre-approved.

2) Building permits were applied for by the construction contractor on June 25, 2003, and they were approved, after revisions, on September 29, 2003. Permits to construct a retaining wall were issued on November 4, 2005,

and a Stop Work Order was issued November 21, 2006.

3) Contact has been made with the adjacent owner of the property in the lakeshore riparian area, but the purchase price that they set is set far be­yond its worth because of a previously received assurance that it was a site on which a residence could not be constructed.

4) A relocated retaining wall can and will be built without encroaching on the adjoining property. Construction of the house is near completion based on full approval of plans by the City and in compliance with all permitting regulations. The Stop Work Order on the entire project should be re­moved.

Councilor Petersdorf responded saying someone needs to be accountable for what the property owners have had to endure in order for justice to be done.

Mike Cochrane, 83379 Parkway Drive, Florence, stated that he represented ANB Con­struction Company. He said he had applied for and received a permit for construction of the retaining wall, met with representatives of City committees, and was prepared to ful­fill all legitimate requirements to allow completion of the project and occupancy of the house.

Ms. Tinker reported that building inspectors had placed the Stop Work Order on the pro­ject until the retaining wall had been completed to provide stability for a corner of the building.

Councilor Bellemore asked if approving the recommendations of the Planning Commis­sion could set legal precedent for ensuing incursion into the lakeshore riparian area vio­lations. Mr. Darnielle replied that each situation would be treated separately. He rec­ommended that the current situation be considered an enforcement issue and "move on." He said he questioned the accuracy of the suggestion made by of the Planning Commission that a Conditional Use Permit process could correct errors made in siting of the house. He said he also questioned whether a variance to allow construction of a resi­dence in the riparian area would be possible.

Councilor Howison asked if the City would incur liability if the owners were permitted to occupy the residence. Mr. Burke replied that the house had been inspected in January and approved for occupancy, if corrections were made to deficiencies in lighting of its address numbering. He said the issue had since been remedied.

Mr. Darnielle said an Occupancy Permit could be issued for the residence, subject to relevant enforcement actions to be decided upon later.       .

Councilor Howison asked if it would be appropriate to require a bond deposit to ensure fulfillment of any enforcement requirements. Mr. Darnielle said he believed such a re­quirement could unduly complicate the issue.

Councilor Bellemore moved, seconded by Councilor Howison, to authorize the issu­ance of an Occupancy Permit for a residence located at 83449 Parkway Drive, delay­ing approval of its final inspection until satisfaction is made of enforcement issue requirements to be determined no later than 90-days from the issuance of the Occu­pancy Permit that will include prohibition of additional clearing of any brush east of the property line. The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

7. REPORTS

A. City Attorney

City Attorney updated the status of the Sassi-Sinclair property lien. (The history is that for years the City tried to get the owners to clean up the property and to stop living in an illegal mobile home. Eventually, they were taken through the enforcement process, fined and a lien was placed against the property. Subsequently the property went through foreclosure for nonpayment of mortgage and taxes. The new purchasers bought the property through foreclosure as an investment, but did not purchase title insurance and the title company did not pick up the City lien.)

City Attorney referred to a May 8, 2007 letter from Gloria Smith and Ira Schubert re­garding their purchase of property at 5279 Hilltop. He said it contained an offer of a $5,000 payment to the City if it removes its lien of $49,500 against the property. He said it was unlikely that the property would ever be sold or developed with the lien upon it. He said processing the lien had cost the City approximately $5,000. He recom­mended that the Council approve removal of the lien and accept the offer, including the following conditions:

1) The foundation of the structure that has been removed from the property be fenced.

2) Tires on the property be removed.

3) Any cost incurred by the City in removing its lien be added to the $5,000 to be paid.

Councilor Bellemore moved, seconded by Councilor Petersdorf, follow the advice of the City Attorney regarding the offer of Gloria Smith and Ira Schubert to pay com­pensation to the City for removing its lien on property at 5279 Hilltop.

Councilor Petersdorf said he was concerned about the proposal because the property in question was made up of two tax lots and the garage structure on one was illegal because accessory units were not permitted to stand-alone. He suggested that an additional con­dition for removal of the lien be that the two lots be combined. He said removal of the lien in consideration of the offer of $5,000 compensation did not appear equitable.

Ms. Tinker reported that she had been contacted by a potential buyer of the lot on which the garage was currently located who had said his intention was convert the structure to a living unit. Councilor Petersdorf replied that he did not believe such a reconstruction would be allowed because the foundation of the garage did not meet building code re­quirements.

Councilor Petersdorf also said he did not believe the tax lot that did not have the garage could be provided driveway access to the street without impinging on the other lot.

Councilors and Mr. Darnielle discussed alternative additional conditions for property liens and whether the value of doing so was outweighed by the advantage of getting the property cleaned up and developed:

Councilors Bellemore and Petersdorf said they wished to amend their motion to in­clude requiring that $5,000 be paid to the City for removal of the lien on each of the properties involved.

The motion, as amended, was adopted, 5:1, with Councilor Navetta voting no.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Ordinance #193

Mayor Meyer opened a Public Hearing on Ordinance #193, AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 141 "EROSION CONTROL" TO TITLE XIV OF THE DUNES CITY CODE AND REPEALING SECTION 154.05 OF THE DUNES CITY CODE.

Mayor Meyer asked Councilors to declare any potential conflict of interest regarding proposed Ordinance #193.

Councilor Bellemore stated that he had participated with the subcommittee that had drafted the proposed ordinance. He said he did not believe it prevented him from par­ticipating in deliberations regarding its adoption.

Councilor Howison moved, seconded by Councilor Bellemore, to read proposed Ordi­nance #l93 by title only.

Councilors discussed whether suggestions to amend the proposed Ordinance made by the Planning Commission and the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) should be considered, or the Ordinance as originally prepared by the City Attorney.  Councilor Petersdorf said he did not believe any version of the proposed Ordinance made significant changes to the erosion control provisions already in place. Councilor Bellemore replied that he considered the current Ordinance to be "reactive" that could be invoked only after erosion had taken place and the proposed Ordinance was designed to prevent erosion from occurring.

There did not appear to be agreement on which version of the proposed Ordinance was to be considered and a vote was not taken on the motion to read the Ordinance by title only.

Mayor Meyer invited members of the public to provide testimony.

Marvin Beckman, 82150 Booth Island, distributed copies of correspondence dated May 10, 2007. He read the letter that asserted that the process used to develop the proposed ordinance was illegal and put the City at risk of needing to conduct a costly defense in an appeal of its adoption before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). He also read concerns expressed in the letter about which version of the proposed Ordi­nance was being considered for adoption and a series of eight suggestions for additional research needed to be considered.

Darlene Beckman, 82150 Booth Island, asked if the Planning Commission had received a response from the City Attorney regarding questions about the processes used to de­velop the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Burke replied that an official response had not been received. Mr. Darnielle added that the proposed ordinance and related questions had been submitted to State authorities for review and that one recommendation for a change had been received that would eliminate the possibility of it being considered a land use matter and eligible for review by LUBA. He said it was his judgment that LUBA could not be convinced that the matter had been improperly prepared because of the extraordi­nary amount of public consideration it had received.

Councilor Petersdorf requested that opinions such as expressed by Mr. Darnielle be pre­sented in writing to facilitate its study by Councilors.

Mark Chandler, 4934 Lakeshore Drive, distributed copies of an undated letter from Gus Gates, Watershed Conservationist for the Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District supporting adoption of proposed Ordinance #193. He described his experience partici­pating in its preparation. He said he believed ample opportunities for public involve­ment had been provided and that the process used was sound. He suggested that the Or­dinance be changed to allow existing vegetable gardens to be exempted from its provi­sions.

Gordon Robertson, 83623 Jensen Lane, distributed copies of a memorandum regarding the proposed Ordinance prepared for the Public Hearing that contained a series of com­ments and suggestions for changes. He read its final paragraph, expressing concern about exemption of cultivated areas from the Ordinance.

Darlene Beckman, 82150 Booth Island, stated that she believed the proposed Ordinance needed to provide additional consideration to matters of slope that invoked requirements for advanced planning documentation.  An unidentified man commented that the definition of significant erosion in the Ordi­nance as one cubic foot of material was unreasonably small:

Mayor Meyer determined that there were no additional persons wishing to comment on proposed Ordinance #193 and closed the Public Hearing. He invited Councilors to de­liberate.

Councilor Scott said he was inclined to agree with the opinion that the proposed Ordi­nance was an over-reaction to a problem that was not significant. He also said he was impressed with some testimony and suggested that specific suggestions be prepared as substitutions or additions in the Ordinance and considered at a later meeting of the Council.

Councilor Petersdorf asked for clarification of the role of the Erosion Control Inspector mentioned in various versions of the proposed Ordinance. He asked how funding for the position would be provided. Councilor Scott and Councilor Bellemore discussed op­tions for having the responsibilities of the Erosion Control Inspector given to already as­signed building inspectors, the cost being added to others passed on to home buyers by the developer.

Councilor Howison suggested that additional discussion and compromise would be re­quired to resolve differences of opinion about including or exempting gardens from the provisions of the proposed Ordinance.

Mr. Burke suggested that a joint City Council-Planning Commission workshop be scheduled to develop proposals for resolving contentious elements of the Ordinance. Councilor Howison said he believed there were so few unresolved issues in the Ordi­nance that the Council should devise consensus compromises for them alone.

Councilor Bellemore said historic photographs of Woahink Lake provided evidence of its gradual filling with sediment caused by erosion. He said the difference between the major soil disturbance created by a construction project and the tilling of a garden should be taken into account when determining how the Ordinance should be applied.

Councilor Petersdorf said historic sedimentation of area lakes had resulted from timber harvests controlled by the State of Oregon, not contractors developing Dunes City area properties. Councilor Bellemore said he disputed the contention without supporting fac­tual evidence.

Councilor Scott suggested that interpersonal imbroglios discussing specifics of the pro­posed Ordinance distracted from Council deliberations.

Mayor Meyer suggested that a compilation of proposed Ordinance provisions and sug­gested revisions by the Planning Commission, CCI, and individual citizens be prepared for consideration in the Public Hearing scheduled as part of its Second Reading.

Mr. Burke cautioned that the proposed Ordinance was part of an already overly elabo­rate set of land use regulations that were so complicated that an average homeowner would have difficulty finding any relevance to home gardening.

Councilor Scott moved, seconded by Councilor Howison, to incorporate suggestions made for amendments to proposed Ordinance #193 by the Planning Commission,

Committee for Citizen Involvement, and Gordon Robertson for detailed consideration at the next meeting of the Council:

Councilor Koehler suggested that the Council meet in a special work session on May 17 to consider the suggestions.

Councilor Scott said he believed the proposed conflation should be given to the Planning Commission to consider and make recommendations about to the Council.

Councilor Howison said he believed the Council should work on development of the Ordinance alone.

The motion was adopted unanimously, 6:0.

Mayor Meyer asked Mr. Darnielle to work with Councilor Howison to prepare the document containing various alternatives to provisions of the Ordinance to be consid­ered. He said they could draft others of their own choosing to be of assistance.

B. Little Woahink Lane Planned Unit Development

Mayor Meyer opened a Public Hearing on the Little Woahink Lake Planned Unit Devel­opment (PUD/ZON 0106), a 23 lot residential development, owner Darren Kronberger, applicant Michael Farthing. He described the process to be followed. He determined that no Councilors had a real or potential conflict of interest in the matter and that none had ex parte contacts regarding it in the last month.

Mr. Darnielle stated that there was no staff report to be added to what had been pre­sented in previous meetings.

Michael Farthin~, 767 Willamette Street, Eugene, stated that he represented the owners of the property on which the proposed PUD would be developed. He stated that he would assume the Council was familiar with background issues related to the applica­tion. He reviewed new material submitted since its consideration at March meetings of the Council - a revised stormwater control plan; new calculations related to the water system of the development; changes to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) to be required of residents; and a proposal for Conditions of Approval of the application, including suggestions made by City and applicant consultants and specific development plans.

Mr. Farthing introduced various consultants involved in preparation of plans for the de­velopment and its application. He said they would be available to answer specific ques­tions during the hearing.

Mr. Farthing stated that he believed that the application responded to questions raised by the Council, Planning Commission, and citizens; that all substantive criteria had been met; and that the development would have minimal impact on the environment of the area. He said he was prepared to draft findings regarding the application.

Peter Mohr, One SW Columbia Street, Suite 1110, Portland, referred his May 3 letter providing comments in response to a March 15 letter of John Stead that alleged that the application for Little Woahink should be denied for lack of an adequate water supply.

He said Mr. Stead misconstrued the legal status of the Dunes City domestic water use permit, misinterprets language in the City's form water permit application, and does not reveal that he had been advised by the Oregon Water Resources Department (ORWD) to seek a water supply from the City in the same manner as the Little Woahink Lake PUD applicant. He explained that his letter showed there was an adequate water supply to met the needs of the development through existing City water permits. He requested that his letter be recorded as a supplement to other documents prepared by the applicant.

Mayor Meyers determined there was no one present who wished to testify in support of the application. He invited testimony from persons wishing to testify in opposition to the application, reminding that presentations should be limited to five minutes.

Jerry Wasserburg, 84606 Lake Drive, distributed copies of his curriculum vitae that he said identified his experience as a professor of geography and registered geologist, and showed he was qualified to provide expert testimony on the application. His presenta­tion included projected pictures that showed the effects of erosion and sedimentation on Little Woahink Lake. He concluded that the lake would be completely destroyed within ten years unless sediment infill resulting from development and tree harvesting were controlled or eliminated.

In response to a question from Councilor Howison, Mr. Wasserburg stated that problems created by sedimentation were a threat to the vitality of the Lake, a health and safety threat to area residents, and an economic threat to property owners.

Mark Chandler, 4934 Lakeshore Drive, submitted photographs of sedimentation in Little Woahink Lake that he said were the result of a nearby housing development. He also submitted a copy of a document entitled "Dunes City Temporary Development Morato­rium - Findings of Fact" that he said identified causes and problems of erosion in Little Woahink Lake. He recommended that the Council deny the application because it por­tended dangerous liabilities for the City.

Christine May, 5445 Little Woahink Drive, stated that she believed troubled times re­cently experienced by Dunes City were making its residents more knowledgeable and committed to preserving the fragile environment of Little Woahink Lake. She described the growth of weeds in the lake resulting from erosion sediment from development and unfinished road construction. She said the applicant was using mind-numbing testimony from high paid experts and threats of dire alternatives to convince the Council to ap­prove inappropriate development in a delicate environmental area. She urged the Coun­cil to deny the application.

Carol Retzer, 5445 Little Woahink Drive, said the property on which the Little Woahink PUD was to be developed was too steep to be built upon and that the developers could not be trusted to do what they promise. She urged Councilors to save the lake and deny the application.

John Stead, 835 South Cove Way, distributed copies of a May lO letter regarding the application for the Little Woahink Lake PUD and read its content about soils informa­tion provided by a large volume entitled "Soil Survey of Lane County Area, Oregon," which he requested by included in the record of the Public Hearing. He said the applica­tion did not identify soil types or the depth of the water table in the area to be developedand requested that analysis of their impact on construction be provided for each building site before the application was acted upon. He said approving the application would bring much trouble to the City.

Mayor Meyer determined there were no other persons present wishing to present testi­mony in opposition to the application. He invited the applicant to present its final argu­ment.

Mr. Farthing stated that no testimony opposed to the application referred to criteria for approval of the application. He said the applicant would need time to prepare replies to allegations and new evidence presented. He said a site visit by representatives of the City, Council and applicant confirmed earlier investigations of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that no sediment into the lake originated from the site on which the PUD would be placed. He said problems on Canary Road would be cor­rected. He requested that additional time be provided to allow responses to testimony to be prepared.

Gunner Sthliedi, Post Office Box 2238, Eugene, stated that he was an Oregon certified engineering geologist, president of GeoScience. He described his experience as a geo­logic consultant. He said Little Woahink Lake had been created by construction of a dam, the land it occupied having previously been a barren marshland. He suggested that sedimentation was evidence of a natural return to that state, not of an environmental ca­tastrophe described by application opponents. He said he had provided soil survey in­formation in his report regarding the proposed PUD site submitted with the application. He said the site was a stabilized dune and described its influence on slope, road, and construction planning.

Mr. Mohr pointed out elements of his May 3 letter that related to testimony of persons opposed to the application.

Mr. Farthing repeated his earlier request for time to prepare responses to submissions in testimony opposed to the applicant.

Mr. Darnielle said Council was obligated to permit the responses and could delimit what would be permitted to specific responses to issues raised by testimony and responses by the applicant. He said testimony at the next Public Hearing could be limited to com­ments on the responses and final arguments by the applicant.

Councilor Petersdorf asked that he be given permission to provide suggestions for edito­rial changes to the CC&R document.

Mayor Meyer determined there was consensus to allow the applicant two-weeks to re­spond to issues raised by testimony and that a final Hearing be held at the Regular Council meeting scheduled for June.

Councilor Navetta moved, seconded by Councilor Howison, that the adjournment of the meeting be postponed to after Il: 00 p. m. to allow her to raise an important issue. The motion appeared to have been adopted.  Councilor Navetta referred to the report of the Site Review Committee regarding the failure of the septic system at 5583 Woahink Drive. She described events that led to the unhealthy condition of an open septic tank on the property. She said she had been un­able to engage Lane County authorities or the absentee property owner to correct the situation.

Mr. Darnielle described the process for prosecution of abatement of public nuisance is­sues.

Mayor Meyer determined there was agreement to request that Mr. Darnielle and City staff follow the process that would lead to correction of the problem.

Councilor Petersdorf stated that based on information received from the League of Ore­gon Cities he would raise objections to the presence of City Councilors at meetings of the Planning Commission without prior notification.

Councilor Petersdorf referred to a newspaper article he had distributed with the Agenda regarding wastewater treatment plant difficulties.

The meeting adjourned at 11:O5 p.m.

(Recorded by Dan Lindstrom)