06/12/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A:,' (;33 e 7/12/71 "'I - .. _ _ H ___ ~_ - -- - - - i I~ I Lottie Streisinger, Rt 4 Box 311, explained that this area is the foothills of Spencer Butte and that a most valuable asset of our environment could be destroyed unless controls were imposed. Councilman Mohr pointed out that at the present time the city has no control, since the property is not wi thin the city limits. " i ~ ;, Mr. Gribskov asked if the Council had toured this area. He said it was a timbered hillside 11 wi th no roads through it. He would be very interested in seeing the property before ruling tl on it. i: " :, I, Loraine Hodge, 557 East 39th Place, opposed the annexation until a further study could be made j: 1\ so that the area would benefit all the people of Eugene. I! I: Mr. Mulder stated that several people had expressed fears that an apartment would be built here. Ii That was not his intention, and he explained that there are many controls over a planned unit I development. It was his intent to preserve every tree on the property. There was the problem I " of time, which was very important. " !, In answer to Mr. Williams, Mr. Mulder explained that the site was a Sbping hillside and could e I; not be developed densely. He could not make a well-founded commitment at this time. I ,i Ii I' Mrs. Campbell was concerned that this might not be in agreement with the proposed urban service " " boundary. She asked when this boundary would become fact. Many decisions skirt this issue. Planning Director explained the status of the general plan and said it would be two months before it would be before Council. He assured Mrs. Campbell this site was within the urban I service boundary. Councilman Mohr suggested that it would be some time before the Boundary Commission reviewed this proposal, and that in the meantime the Council could view the property. 'I There was discussion concerning the role of the Boundary Commission and the significance of " the Council referral. , Councilman McDonald did not feel a recommendation should be made to the Boundary Board with the feeling that it could later be rescinded. It was his suggestion the matter be tabled " until the Council was prepared to make a firm recommendation. I, I Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that Res. 1948Abe held for 60 days for further consider- Ii Mr. I' ation and to give the Council an opportunity to view the site. He amended his motion to a II 1 maximum of 60 days, with the agreement of his second. ! I: Mayor Anderson pointed out that the wheels of government gi:ind slowly, and by delaying, the 'I I.. " Council would merely postpone an inevitable decision. From the testimony heard, he felt the ii I' resolution could be passed and the matter put on the Boundary Commission agenda. In the mean- I, 'I time, a staff report could be made to Council, and if it was the Coun9il's desire, the matter I ,I , could be removed from the Boundary Commission agenda. :; Ii Mr. Teague agreed and suggested staff schedule a Council tour of the area. He withdrew his II motion, with Mr. Mohr's agreement. 1- ,t i: i' I: Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Teague that Res. 1948Abe adopted. (See Pg. I~ of these minutes for formal action on Resolution. ! In answer to Mr. Hershner's concern about direction to Boundary Commission, City Manager explained the function of the Boundary Commission, and that they have asked that annexations f be City Council initiated. The wording of the resolution simply states that the property is proposed to be annexed to the boundaries of the City. e Vote taken on motion as restated. Campbell and Mr. McDonald were opposed. Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Mr. Teague, Mr. Mohr, Mr. Gribskov and Mr. Williams were in favor. Motion carried. " d 1: A short break was taken. ': Ii C. Continuation of hearing, Planning Commission Conditional Use (Child Care Center, lS~3 II 'I Moss Street). Continued from meeting of June 28, 19,71. Ii ,I II This was a continuation of a hearing from the meeting of June 28, 1971 on an appeal from I; Ii a Planning Commission decision. The Council requested further questioning of the ;, " appellant and that interested parties be notified of the hearing so that they could be 11 , I: present. Staff has submitted a report to Council regarding specific questions and the Ii owner is prese~t. II I' I II City Manager read the report which outlined normal operating procedure planned by the I ,I I' owner for the child care center. Staff had contacted the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Walter d H. Ruppel to determine if there were any conditions which might be established which " 'I i: would allow operation of the day nursery. Mrs. Ruppel reiterated the request that the I :' conditionaluse permit be denied. " 'i " Mrs. Kathy Balk, representative of the child care center, explained reasons for planning to accommodate a smaller number of children at one time than allowed under the permit and that this had always been their policy. She commented that the house in question had housed seven children when occupied previoulsy and that neighbors next to their present e operation had not complained about noise. The distance between the two houses is only ~ 7/12/71 - 3