06/11/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Suess stated he was concerned that evidence written in letter form was not read unti~ after the public hearing portion, and he therefore'posed a question as to prC;;j,-er htiaring procedure. ' Mayor Anderson advised that a public hearing is for the information of the Council, that they then evaluate the testimony presented and go back to the individuals if necessary. The Council has taj{en this posi tion with regard to the sequence of events at a public hearing. . Mr. Suess then went on to comment that annexation is the most natural type of situa- tion for the area in questiun since the necessary water and sewer facilities are already in. He then referred to the Crest Drive Citizens Group which is in opposi- tion to the annexation, mentioning their comment that there is "more need for study to define the precise limits to which sewer service is to be extended in this area." He then stated that the City Engineer has advised it would not be a hardship to annex that particular area. It would be a simple matter of maximum utilization of services already there. Mr. Suess further alluded to the Crest Drive Group's con- tention that annexation would intensify overcrowding in the Crest Drive School and that there is inadequate provision for the probable increase in vehicular traffic. With regard to the schools, Mr. Suess commented that perhaps there is an imbalance in distribution of students at the three schools in the general area. As to the road situation, he feels that the improvement of Friendly where it intersects Storey and the Lorane Highway would provide an excellent route to Jeffer- son and the freeway. Because of the points he mentioned, Mr. Suess indicated that in bis opinion the proposed ~nnaxation should be taken off the table as soon as possible in order to hold a public hearing and allow rebuttals in the proper manner. . Councilman Murray felt it was not fair to reconsider the matter now since only one side was present to comment. Mrs. Bea1 agreed, stating the matter should not have to be re-opened unless there was a real fault in the procedure that was followed. In recounting the steps taken when an application for annexation is filed, Manager said that if the application is filed with the City it goes to Planning and the Council, then to the Boundary Commission if a favorable recommendation is given. If application is made to the Boundary Commission, it goes through the City pro- cesses, and a negative or positive response is then sent back to the Boundary Com- ~'mission . Planning Director advised that the Council's previous action had been to table pending the completion of the South Hills Density Study and Ridge1ine Study, therefore no report has been transmitted back to the Boundary Commission as yet. Councilman Murray said that his recollection of the Council's comments and discus- sion was that the Council members felt it important to proceed with the Ridge1ine and South Hills Density Studies before considering annexation. He felt that plan should be adhered to. .' Mayor Anderson stated that unless a motion for reconsideration was made the matter would be closed for now. Dean Morris of Morris and Redden, Architects, commented to the Council that he has been involved with this property for some time and won- dered how much more time might be required before a decision could be made as to annexation. Manager answered that it would be tabled pending completion of thei:: studies unless a motion was made to reconsider. Councilman Wood said in the in- terest or a>just decision he would like more time to look at the matter critically. CounciLman Hershner expressed the feeling that the Council should act affirmatively or negatively now so the interested parties can go on to the Boundary Commission and have the matter resolved. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Keller to reconsider the annexation and that appropriate notice of the hearing be sent to parties involved. Councilman Wood said he would not support the motion if the hearing was held too soon, feeling that it should wait until at least the second meeting in June. Councilmen Hershner and Keller stated they had no objection to waiting that long. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Bea1, Campbell, and Hurray voting no. Manager said the Matter could be heard at the June 25 Council meeting. Comm 5/30/73 . Jim Spickerman, 3484 Storey, representing the Crest Drive Citizens Group, commented that there is no new information available which would warrant taking the proposed annexation off the table. He feels the South Hills Density Study and Ridgeline Study are crucial to that area and that it is necessary to have that information before proceeding with consideration. Councilman Hershner advised it was not the intent of the Council to necessarily vote in favor but to remove it from the table so that the developer could proceed to the Boundary Commission. Councilman Murray expressed the opinion that it should be tabled ~ 1~2 ' 6/11/73 - 5