05/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- (I - B- I) -- (I-B-2) - (1- B- 3) surr,ounded by areas that are a part of the city and exclusion of these parcels would result in an illogical city boundary, with ensuing confusing and uneconomical public service delivery. No ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by counci I members. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the Council go on record as recommending the annexation of the property located north of Beltline Road and West of Delta Highway North and incorporate the findings of fact as contained in the May 6 Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Murray felt that putting all of that area under one jurisdiction may avoid incompatability and would also create a logical boundary. Mr. Williams raised a question regarding whether Fasano guidelines apply in this annexation case. He wondered if Fasano applies to an annexation when the property owner is not in favor of it. City Attorney felt that Fasano does not apply to annexations. Mr. Bradley wondered if this annexation has been referred to the Lane County Planning Commission or the County Commissioners for any input they might have. Staff's feeling was that, since the request came from the County, they would be aware of the entire proceeding. In answer to a question regarding what benefits could be seen from this particular annexation, Assistant City Manager said it would provide a full range of city services including planning services, fire protection, police and public works services. Mr. Bradley wondered what affect the annexation would have on the existing zoning ordinances. Would it be necessary for a sand and gravel ordinance to be adopted by the City before annexation, would the land come into the city as unzoned land with a non-conforming use attached to it, or will the existing county sand and gravel ordinance cover the annexed property. Mr. Saul explained that the existing county zoning would remain in effect and the city would use that until it initiates a change. Assistant Manager add~d that, if the property is annexed, it comes in with the burden of all conditions imposed on it by the county and remains such until acted on it by the city. In other words, the present zoning stays Ll effect and there would be no need for the sand and gravel operation to request a conditional use permit unless the city subsequently seeks to zone it otherwise. Vote was taken on the motion which carried, Council members Murray, Haws, Beal and Shirey voting aye, Council members Hamel, Bradley, Keller and Williams voting no, and the chair voting aye. Resolution 2401 - Recommending to Boundary Commission annexation of area north of Beltline Road and west of Delta Highway North. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution and findings of fact in Planning Commission minutes of May 6. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Haws, Beal and Shirey voting aye, Council members Hamel, Bradley, Keller and Williams voting no, and the chair voting aye. .2..~o 5/27/75 3