06/12/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"""III e W8 7/12/71 i ,i I: " I 'I Ii ii , " Ii two reasons against such a large development in the neighborhood. i' Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Planning Commission decision be upheld " and the appeal denied. " Manager clarified for Council that, while denying the proposal, the Planning Commission felt the design was excellent, and recognized the need for hous ing to fit the needs of people on aml income levels and that housing should be conglomerate. However, in th is particular location, the question of available sewers now, or in the future, was a signigicant factor~ but that the decision had been made on the basis of lack of adequate " public services. " Vote taken on motion as stated. Motion carried. B. Recommended by Planning Commission, Annexation 33 acres west of Fox Hollow Road, e south of Donald (Allen & Braezeal) Minuces of ComnUccee reporc of June 30, 1971 - Councilman Williams commenced chac che Planning Commission nUnuces show that the scaff had recommended denial of this annexation, and requested that they presenc their arguments at the Council meeting. Mr. Wayne Wickelgren said he lived in this area and objected to planning for -I increased population. Those living in the vicini cy of Spencer Butte had hoped to keep the density to two units per acre, and a project which planned eight units to the acre was proposed for this site. City Manager explained that this was a request for annexation, and that if a proposal for a development was made, it would have to go to the Planning Commission for approval of each stage and be under close scrutiny. Approval of such a proposal could be appealed to the City Council. Mr. WilliJ.ams moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov that a publi c hearing be scheduled on the request for annexation outlined above. , I Mrs. Leong felt the area should be preserved, and that this was piec~meal annexation. i Mr. Mohr explained that the Council was only establishing July 12 for the public hearing, and this matter could be discussed then. Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. Mr. John Mulder, 1147 High Street, said he was an owner and representative of other people involved in development of this parcel of land. They have met with Planning Commission several times and feel adequate presentation has been made. He pointed out on a wall map that this annexation would make for a logical boundary, and on another map that sewer drainage would be into a natural channel from the hill. There are existing sewer lines which the develop- I memm could join and they have agreed to an assessment for this line. He felt annexation of this property would enhance the city. , " Manager read letters of protest from Mr. Arthur Benson, 4722 Fox Hollow Road, and from Mr. and Mrs. JOl1n A. Sullivan, 5430 Donald Street, which object to the annexation because of over-density, traffic problems and school needs. Messrs. Williams and McDonald requested an explanation of the staff recommendation, which had been against annexation of this area. Planning Director explained that the planning staff e had been concerned about drainage with regard to sanitary sewers, and the problems with providing adequate services. The staff had not been in disagreement with annexation, but felt it should be postponed until a complete report with regard to density of the entire area could be made. The staff would discourage development by conventional subdivision. Mr. Hershner asked if annexation would not permit the city to have control through planned; unit development'. -p-ranning Director said they do not now have positive controls for hillside " development, but hope they will have in the near future. I i , :' Charles Dallas, Route 4 Box 308, read a portion of the community goals and policies adopted by the Council in 1967 and said he felt they were a mandate to preserve the remaining trees in this area. He felt if annexation were approved, conditions should be imposed " restraining developers from removing any trees from the site. He said the residents of the area felt this annexation was untimely and proposed that the Council entertain a motion ~ : to delay annexation for a period of six months to allow a professional planning staff to I " develop adequate policies for annexing and developing this area. David Cole, Rt. 4 Box 389, was concerned that after annexation the developer could develop the area in any way he wished. Council~an Mohr explained the Planned Unit Development and Planning Cmmmission and Council controls over this type development. " C. W. Clancy, Rt 4 Box 310.l-agreed with what previous opponents had said and reiterated that the area should be ann~xed at some time, but that it should be delayed until a study could be made of the entire area. e 7/12/71 - 2 ....