Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ Ms. Czerniak reported that the owner of six of the tax lots initiated the <br />annexation proposal as a response to failing septic systems. Sewers are <br />currently in place on Mayfair Street and Knoop Lane and Ms. Czerniak said <br />property owners have indicated a preference to invest in connecting to the <br />sewer system rather than to continue attempting to correct the septic system <br />problems. As a result of staff inquiries, two adjacent property owners <br />consented and were included in the proposal. <br /> <br />Ms. Czerniak stated that the annexation is consistent with existing policies, <br />and the proposal area is within the urban growth boundary, and urban services <br />can be provided. For example, fire protection is currently provided by the <br />City of Eugene under contract with the River Road Water District, and police <br />currently provide service to properties along River Road approximately 750 <br />feet to the east of the proposal. Included in the request is a request for <br />concurrent rezoning of the property from low-density residential County <br />zoning, to City low-density residential zoning. <br /> <br />Ms. Czerniak noted that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended <br />approval of the annexation and rezoning request. She added that approval <br />would be accompanied by the application of the five-year tax differential <br />plan to the properties. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Referring to a petition opposing the annexation, Ms. Ehrman inquired about <br />opposition from nonproperty owners. Ms. Czerniak responded that only <br />registered electors included in the annexation proposal have the right to <br />remonstrate. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue asked about an objection to the inclusion of Knoop Lane in the <br />annexation and Ms. Czerniak said the Planning Commission had discussed the <br />inclusion of the intervening portion of Knoop Lane, east of the proposal. <br />While its inclusion would clarify maintenance responsibility, Ms. Czerniak <br />noted that the commission had not included a 7S0-foot portion of Knoop Lane <br />in the proposal because it was not essential and was the subject of <br />objections. She added that the Boundary Commission would have an opportunity <br />to include additional right-of-way when it considers the annexation. <br /> <br />No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller entered the staff notes and minutes into the record. <br /> <br />Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ed Kashin, 150 Knoop Lane, said he would be affected by a portion of the <br />annexation being proposed. Mr. Kashin opposed the proposal because of <br />staff's recommendation to include the rest of the Knoop Lane right-of-way <br />which he said would change it from an island to a cherry stem annexation. <br />Mr. Kashin claimed that complete and correct information was not included in <br />the announcement of the evening's public hearing. He considered Knoop Lane's <br />inclusion in the annexation as unnecessary and recommended it not be <br />included. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />January 23, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />