08/19/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Beal felt it would be to everyone's advantage to have more informat1.on and further study of the request prior to action. She moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to deny the request to afford an opportunity for discussion with the Planning Com- mission. . Councilman Williams asked location of the subject property in relation to the ridge line, urban service boundary, etc. Planning Director answered that it lies within the Amazon drainage basin and sewers are available which can be extended to serve the property. Under normal circumstances, it is an area which fits criteria for annexation to the City. However, not knowing how this annexation might affect prop- erty farther west accounted for reluctance to annex prior to completion of the study. Further discussion centered on distance of the Subject property to the highest point of elevation on the ridge line, whether the annexation would be appropriate after completion of the study, cost to the developers if delayed, timing of presentation of the application. Manager explained annexation procedure when petitions are filed with the Boundary commission and when filed with the city. In this instance the petition was filed with the Boundary Commission in an effort to more rapidly effect' the annexation. Councilman Williams asked whether there were citLzens heard at the Planning CoI11I1lission meeting. Manager said there were two who opposed the annexation. They were notified of this meeting. Mrs. Beal reiterated her belief that there should be more time and information before making a decision which might be of some importance. Jean Smith, 5290 Saratoga Street, expressed concern with total lack of public . notification.' She noted owners of property immediately adjacent to the Breeden prop- erty were not aware annexation was under consideration. She also expressed concern about building in the area Until after completion of the South Hills study because of potential problems with drainage, slope, etc. Mr.Unruh explained that the property has just been assembled and annexation was de- sired this fall to give an opportunity to build model units in the $15,000 to $20,000 range for display over the winter months. Construction could then start in the spring. He felt the market unique, one needing to be filled, for people desir- ing a home without maintenance responsibility, people whose incomes are more or less fixed. Proceeding this fall, he felt, would also give opportunity to avoid rising interest costs. Mr. Unruh noted that the annexation if considered on its own merits would be appropriate. He could see no substantial harm in annexing before completion of the South Hills study. He said contact was made with owners of neighboring prop- erties to explain the planned development. John Fair, 5335 Saratoga Street, president pro tem of the South Eugene League, expressed concern about resulting density and doubted that units in the price range proposed were suitable for the slopes in that area. He also doubted whether, from a legal standpoint, there could be restrictions on sale of the units to a certain < category of people. He also favored completion of the South Hills study prior to action 'on this request. I Councilwoman Beal urged denial until further discussion and opportunity for public hearing with ample notification. Councilman Williams was concerned about the motion to deny and refer to the Planning Commission, suggesting rather a motion to hold over to give an opportunity to study the Commission's minutes so as not to give the Boundary Commission the Council's position as being either against or in favor of annexing the property at this time. There was some discussion on proper motion in order to convey to the Boundary Commission the Council's desire that no action be taken at this time, thereby giving an opportunity for further consideration. At Mayor Anderson's suggestion, Mrs. Beal substituted for the motion, seconded by Mrs. Campbell, that the Boundary Commission be asked to take no action at this time because the Council wants to make further study of the request. Councilwoman Campbell asked why people in the area were not notified the annexation was being considered. Planning Director explained that the request was filed with the Boundary Commission and their notification procedure is not known. If it had been filed with the Planning Commission, the regular notification procedure would have Camm been followed. 8/1/73 ~- :Pul:> Hrng ',-~ Vote was taken on the substitute motion as stated. Motion carried, all voting aye except Mr. Hershner abstaining. --- -~--_._-_.-.-- -. --- . -----~.- ~ ~- - --- ~~"- --"_. --.-" ---.--- .-._------ u____. ~-------- Tabled by the Boundary Commission at its August 2, 1973 meeting. It was understood the hearing on this annexation would be postponed to the August 27, 1973 COlli~cil meeting. " >!'.. 2.4' 8/13/73::: 6 I