02/08/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Chapman noted a policy in the RR/SC Urban Facilities Plan environmental element, stating that in the event of annexation or incorporation, agricultural zoning "shall be maintained on land to which it is currently applied until the property is needed for urban levels of development." He said a "comedy of errors" had resulted in a 5:2 vote by the Planning Commission on this issue. Mr. Chapman referred to a 1985 Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision, Spalding v. Josephine County, in which LUBA had stated that "where the local jurisdication chooses to adopt a public need criteria in its land use regulatory scheme, it may not ignore the requirement thereafter." He said the ruling was from an Oregon Court of Appeals case in 1980, when the City of Salem had been sued. Mr. Chapman said the Eugene area was awash in lots ready for development. He referred councilors to the last page of his handout, describing the situation in Springfield, which was similar. He said ample evidence proved no public need, and the Planning Commission had been wrong to discuss the developer's need, because courts had ruled that a developer's wishes or desires were not need. He said the Planning Commission also had been wrong to think that market choice was not available in Santa Clara. Mike Hennessey, 375 Carthage, said he was a member of the board of the Santa Clara community organization and was a member of the citizen's advisory team to L-COG for the Santa Clara area Metro Plan update. He read from a letter in council packets, from the SC Community Organization, dated January 29, 1988. He said the organization found the request premature and urged its rejection. Mr. Hennessey also said SCCO President Jerry Finnegan had stated in the minutes of a previous meeting that areas with the following characteristics would be given the highest priority for non-contiguous annexation: 1) close proximity to existing City limits; 2) contiguous to previously annexed, non-contiguous areas; 3) adjacent or relatively close to an existing sanitary sewer line; 4) on or relatively close to a major route currently traveled by police patrol cars to and from areas of existing service; 5) of a relatively large size, especially parcels containing an easily identifiable service area, such as a complete subdivision, and 6) with identified current or historic septic tank failures, which are in need of sanitary service. He said that, as Mr. Finigan pointed out, this annexation did not meet guidelines 1, 2, 4, or 6, and he recommended that the council vote against the request. Dale Olmstead, 324 Lynnbrook Drive, had submitted a request to speak but was no longer present. Wanda Simmons, 1183 Skipper Avenue, spoke against the request. She said she agreed with the comments made by Mr. Hennessey and Mr. Chapman. She said she would Keep her comments brief because of the time, but she wanted to remind the council of its Resolution 4002, #2 on the first MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 8, 1988 Page 27