<br />~
<br />'f0
<br />
<br />l'
<br />
<br />II
<br />,:
<br />
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />r
<br />r
<br />I
<br />I,
<br />1:
<br />r
<br />
<br />for, that eventuality. Mr. Stadler concurred saying there is considerable opposition
<br />to it, and said he is highly in favor of the proposed amendment.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/16/72
<br />Pub Rrng
<br />
<br />It was understood the item would be placed on the public hearing agenda.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to endorse the proposed amendment allowing use of highway
<br />funds for mass transportation
<br />
<br />Stanton Cook, 1832 Longview Street, spoke in favor of the amendment. He said it would make no
<br />change other than to enable the Legislature to devote a portman of gas tax revenues for ac-
<br />quisition of public transportation systems and facilities.
<br />
<br />John Spangler, 1670 Alder -Street, favored the amendment to enable transportation facilities
<br />paralleling the present highway system of par~s.
<br />
<br />A vote was taken on the motion'as stated, and motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />I,
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />r
<br />1:
<br />l-
<br />i:
<br />I,
<br />I:
<br />':
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />I,
<br />,
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />i
<br />,I
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />
<br />!:
<br />,
<br />I
<br />\,
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />II
<br />I'
<br />j;
<br />
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />i
<br />I
<br />i:
<br />,:
<br />I,
<br />I
<br />I,
<br />,
<br />I
<br />"
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />1
<br />,
<br />r
<br />I'
<br />"
<br />I'
<br />I
<br />j:
<br />.'
<br />~ :
<br />
<br />D:..~_Annexation Earl Green Property, east of Centennial north of Kins Row"J13.5 acres) (P1an-
<br />-~ning COrrmllssionFebruary 1, 1972) - The Planning COnmllssion recommended denial of peti-
<br />tion to annex this area east of Centennial Boulevard and north of Kins Row. Council
<br />members toured the area. Manager said the discussion before the Planning COrrmllssion
<br />combined the question of annexation with proposed use for home for aged which would require
<br />a condi tiona1 use permit. The actual legal request to be considered is for annexation
<br />only, but it is understood that request for a conditional use permit would immediately
<br />follow in event the annexation is approved and that to be fair to the petitioner he
<br />should know whether the home would be allowed if the property is annexed. The Planning
<br />COrrmllssion hinged its decision for denial on proposed use of the land with discussion
<br />revolving around whether this is a suitable location because of isolation as well as
<br />lack of City services. Manager said a temporary arrangement is available for sewer
<br />service to the home but not for the entire site.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams said discussion during the tour by Council members revolved around
<br />whether it is an i deal location for a group Bare home, and he wonders what the Ci ty , s
<br />responsibilities are with regard to property owners so far as annexation and develop-
<br />ment are concerned. Planning Director sai d iss uance of a condi tiona1 use permi twas
<br />taken into consideration by the Planning Commission because the County had granted one,
<br />and that the major issue in recommending denial of the annexation was that sanitary
<br />sewers are not available for the entire site and it is not known when they will be
<br />available.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams said the policy in the past has been that if an area fits into the urban
<br />service area' and is adjacent to the' Ci ty, then it should belong to the City. Now, he
<br />continued, there seems to be a fairly significant change in that development or annexa-
<br />tion depends on already existing services. Planning Director replied that it is a
<br />case of priorities, other areas have already existing health hazards and should be
<br />served wi th sewers before new areas without services are taken- into the City. It is
<br />a matter of timing from the standpoint of ability of the City to finance.
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson said it would appear some concrete statement of policy should be de-
<br />veloped and would be helpful since people can do a lot of planning and go to a great
<br />deal of expense toward development of property only to find the City will not annex.
<br />Councilman Mohr said types of public services other than sanitary sewers should be
<br />discussed. Manager said in this instance there is no problem of the developer's being
<br />unaware of the problems involved since this development has been under discussion for
<br />some time.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/23/72
<br />Pub Hrng
<br />
<br />PUblic hearing is scheduled for February 28, 1972.
<br />
<br />Richard Cleveland, attorney for Earl Green, showed slides of the area under consideration and re-
<br />viewed the history of the planning for the home for the aged which Mr. Green is proposing for the
<br />area. He distributed to Council members copies of analysis of the project and statement of facts
<br />concerning aging people in the United States. He described the type of facility planned and said
<br />the level of medical care required is less than that needed for a nursing home. With regard to
<br />the Planning Commission's reference to isolation, Mr. Cleveland claimed centrality of location to
<br />be suitable. He compared distances from this area to medical centers, principal churches, shop-
<br />ping centers, parks to those from nursing homes in the community. He introduced Mrs. Eleanor
<br />Fitzgerald, supervisor Lane Public Health Service, and Mr. Kenneth Davis, 1135 West 19thAvenue,
<br />social worker, both of whom cited statistics favoring location of the home at this site.
<br />
<br />I
<br />I,t
<br />t:
<br />
<br />Mrs. Fitzgerald said because there are few homes 'for the aged in Lane County which will accept
<br />welfare people there is a great need in this community; nursing homes are crowded now and the
<br />difference in type of care necessitates a different type of facility. Mr. Davis said such a
<br />home would offer a very necessary service to Lane County and one which they could utilize in re-
<br />lieving the pressure trying to place disabled veterans ai.ter hospital discharge. With reference
<br />to its location in relation to the freeway he said he doubted the freeway noise would bother most 0
<br />of the occupants. With regard to transportation he said people in this situation would not be
<br />inclined to walk too much; they need some supervis~on of their whereabouts and personal appear-
<br />ance, and about 80% would not be involved in any social activity unless encouraged to go and
<br />were transported. He said too another factor in the facility's desirability is that it would
<br />be self-contained unit having its own canteen, beauty shop, etc.
<br />
<br />I'
<br />I;
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />\\
<br />r
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />2/28/72 - 4
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />d
<br />if
<br />:!
<br />'I
<br />:1
<br />I
<br />:i
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />;i
<br />I,
<br />"
<br />:1
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />"
<br />i
<br />:1
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />Ii
<br />,:
<br />"
<br />I:
<br />~ :
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I'
<br />.f
<br />
<br />e
<br />
|