Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />