04/09/1990 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Barry Davis, 1725 East 43rd Avenue, was concerned that the proposed annexation may not be consistent with the Metro Plan. He observed that a natural resource was lost while the council was on its spring recess. e - Carl Chief to, 4491 Spring Boulevard, spoke of the difficulty of separating the tree-cutting and annexation issues. He claimed that logging was being undertaken for commercial purposes with disregard for its consequences on the environment, neighbors, and roads in the area. He requested a moratorium on logging and on annexation until issues relating to urban services (notably sewers and fire protection) are resolved. Mike Sobol, 3962 Spring Boulevard, considered annexation a privilege that brings financial benefits and he urged approval of the proposed annexation only if appropriate site review restrictions accompany the action. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Planning Commissioner Jerry Gaydos reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed annexation carefully and voted unanimously that it was consistent with adopted plans and policies. Referring to alignment and condition of roads in the area, Ms. Czerniak said the County currently considers them to be local access roads which do not receive County maintenance. As part of the development process, the City would work with developers to determine the appropriate route for streets, access points, and what types of improvements are required. She emphasized that approval of the annexation and rezoning request would not give approval to any specific development plan. The South Hills Study requires the Planning Director to review any development plans to determine whether standard subdivision procedures or planned unit development procedures would be appropriate. In its review, the Planning Commission indicated that planned unit development procedures would probably be applied to development in this area. Ms. Czerniak also pointed out annexation must occur before the City becomes responsible for sewers and fire protection in the area. Pat Decker, Planning and Development Department, commented on the proposed annexation's consistency with adopted policies. She noted that the City is unable to control timber harvest outside the city limits but can control the design of urban developments within the city limits. Saying he usually favored annexation of areas scheduled for development, Mr. Holmer wondered about the feasibility of annexing already-developed properties that would add to the tax base. Mr. Gleason responded that there are still questions to be answered relative to urban transition issues. Responding to questions from Mr. Boles, Mr. Torrence said the proposed development's uniqueness was based on the size of the lots and the generous buffering spaces. Logging of the property was not a business venture to provide revenue to be used for development. Mr. Torrence indicated that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 9, 1990 Page 5