12/10/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e In response to Ms. Bascom's Question, Mr. Sercombe explained that to support the appeal would be to deny the annexation and reasons/findings should be stated. Mr. Hansen asked if the County zoning was the same as the City zoning and he was told it was. Mr. Croteau explained that in the past all annexation zone changes went to the City Council. Under the new rules, the City Council is an appellant body. Mr. Croteau said that there were three options open to the councilors: 1) a "tentative" decision with reasons; 2) deny the appeal and approve the request (annexation/zone change) and forward it to the Boundary Commission; they could allow the appeal and deny the application with reasons; 3) they could send it to the Planning Commission stating that there was not sufficient i nformati on. Mr. Sercombe stated that the appellant had raised procedural Questions about the appropriate findings and criteria. If the City Council concludes that the Planning Commission did not consider all aspects, they could remand it back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Ehrman was told that the City Council could deny the appeal and have its own findings. The City Council has 15 days from the public hearing to act on the appeal, Mr. Sercombe said. e Mr. Croteau stated that there had been controversy about the proposed future use of the property by Looking Glass. The use is allowed in an RA zone through a conditional use permit process (review by a Hearings Official and appeal to the Planning Commission). Issues relating to Looking Glass and the conditional use permit process are not germane to the issues before the council tonight (annexation and zone change). Group care houses are allowed in all residential areas of the city. Mr. Croteau told members that they must make their decision on the body of information before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sercombe said it was the job of the City Council to review the information presented to the Planning Commission and decide if they made an error. They can accept no new evidence and the City Council cannot look at new issues as an appellant body. Ms. Brody reminded members to state any ex parte contacts. II. RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA ANNEXATION SLIDE SHOW UDPATE--TOM HAYES Mr. Hayes reviewed what members had discussed at the September work session. He said there had been a public hearing in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Over 100 people attended. The citizens advisory team met two times to resolve some issues that were brought up in testimony. They passed a recommendation on to the policy committee, modified it slightly, and sent it - to the jurisdictions. A joint Planning Commission public hearing was held November 27 at Harris Hall. Ten to 12 people testified. The Eugene Planning Commission recommended 7:0 to send the plan on to the City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session December 10, 1984 Page 2