04/28/1986 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Ms. Wooten asked about staff expectations for subsequent annexation requests in the area. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department said annexation requests were filed by private applicants, so timing was up to them. He added that an attempt had been made to avoid creating an island out of Tax Lot 1402 by annexing only a portion of Tax Lot 1400. Mr. Croteau said the developer1s plans for the property included about 24 sub- divided lots, which would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to the south. He also said the applicant planned to extend Sarah Lane to the north and then to the west along the northern boundary of annexation. He said that road was intended to connect with Gilham Road when Tax Lot 1402 was annexed. Mr. Croteau said that subsequent to annexation, the proposed street design for the property would be reviewed by a two-step subdivision process requiring City approval. Mr. Miller asked whether Tax lot 1402 and the remainder of Tax Lot 1400 could be annexed and the road put in now. Mr. Croteau said the other two owners of Tax Lot 1400 did not favor annexation. Mr. Miller asked about plans for the road. Mr. Croteau said the City attempted to layout a tentative road plan for the whole area when the first parcel was annexed, but final plans for individual lots could not be approved until the surrounding properties are annexed. Responding to Mr. Hansen's question, Mr. Croteau said about 24 standard resi- dential lots could be included in the area proposed for annexation. He said Public Works' representatives had indicated that Sarah Lane could handle that additional traffic. He also said the proposal was not part of the sewer and annexation project in the River Road area. Mr. Holmer asked whether the Planning Department made a practice of consulting adjacent neighborhood organizations when an annexation was proposed. Mr. Croteau said all applications automatically were referred to the neighbor- hood organization for review. He said this application had been referred to the Cal Young Neighbors, but no response had been received from that group. Ms. Ehrman asked about access to the property. Mr. Croteau said that Sarah Lane would be extended into the property. He added that the applicant also was seeking a construction easement for crossing Tax Lot 1403, which was owned by the City, to try and minimize construction traffic on Sarah Lane. Mr. Hansen said he appreciated the concerns of residents on Sarah Lane, but he added that he thought the development was logical and within the framework of the community. He said he would support the motion. Ms. Wooten said she would oppose the motion because the City of Eugene had close to a ten-year inventory of residential land available, because need had not been demonstrated, because a street design was not available, and because resolution did not exist among residents and the neighborhood association about the type of expansion wanted. Mr. Rutan asked whether the ruling should not be made strictly on the applica- bility of annexation criteria. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the council decision should be based on the criteria for annexation set out in the code, MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 1986 Page 3