12/10/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In addition, Ms. Bascom said diversity is welcomed in many parts of the e city. It is welcome in her neighborhood. But the people are homogeneous in the neighborhood around Tax Lot 700. Stepping Stone Lodge might not be appropriate there. She suggested the council deny the request and ask the staff to develop findings for denial. Annexation would lead Looking Glass to costly litigation which it might not win, money would be spent for a poor location for the lodge, and the annexation would delay a search for a more suitable site. Mr. Obie was concerned about land uses. He said nearly all the Planning Commissioners were concerned about legal access. City services could not be provided to Tax Lot 700 under present conditions. Annexation would be pre- mature because access cannot be provided. If access were a reality, Mr. Obie probably would recommend annexation. Mr. Obie pointed out the City owns properties in the south hills on which Bancroft loans were obtained. The properties were not developed. There- fore, the advisability of annexing additional property should be carefully considered. He preferred to uphold the appeal, but he would consider send- ing the recommendation back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the access condition. Counselor Schue emphasized that the use of Tax Lot 700 was not an issue. City services were the issue. Access existed. Fire protection could be provided to the existing structure. The property owner wanted the property to be annexed and would hook up to the sewers and pay taxes. She would vote e to deny the appeal. Problems would have to be resolved if the use of Tax Lot 700 is expanded. Ms. Wooten agreed with Ms. Schue. She said it was not the council's job to decide whether there was property better suited to the applicant's use. The Planning Commission had not erred on that basis. The record indicated City services could be provided. She favored remanding the appeal to the Plan- ning Commission for clarification of the access issue. Mr. Holmer agreed with Ms. Schue and Ms. Wooten. Councilor Hansen initiated a discussion of processes. He favored denial of the appeal. Ms. Brody reviewed the options available to the Planning Com- mission if the council remanded the request. Mr. Sercombe pointed out a State law required all land use issues to be decided within 120 days at each level. Ms. Erhman said she had visited Tax Lot 700 via Dillard and North Shasta Loop roads. The lot is adjacent to the city boundary and she thought annex- ation is appropriate. It was unfortunate that a future use had become the issue. Mr. Keller said the issue of accessibility was valid and the Planning Com- mission's condition was unusual. He encouraged the council to resolve the access issue. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1984 Page 9