02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

issue at the time of the South Hills study and consideration of this specific development. In fact, approval of the traffic facility portion of the study was based on the proposed improvement of that intersection and that was now being pursued in the public works department. Councilman Williams referred to the January 13 staff notes wherein language indicated amendment to the 1990 Plan with regard to South Hills study and urban:service boundary had been adopted. He wondered if that amendment could be properly adopted since it appeared not to be purely an internal Eugene matter, rather it was a boundary matter significant to both the county and the ci ty ,thereby calling for adoption by all agencies - Eugene, Springfield, and the County. Mr. Saul answered that it was not considered an amendment to the Plan, but that it was the consistent understanding of staff that adoption of the South Hills study constituted a refinement of the Plan. It was not seen as a change in the outline or criteria of the urban service area, rather as making it more precise and giving better guidelines for application in specific situations. In this context, he said, the South Hills study had been referred to Lane County, reviewed by that agency with indication that there were no problems with it. Councilman Williams remarked that it appeared the South Hi lls study was a refine- ment of the 1990 Plan, it did not change nor contradict it. Any change would have to be accomplished through the formal process to be considered an accepted amendment. He said there was nothing in testimony presented at this time to show anything in the 1990 Plan that urban service would not be provided to in- corporated areas within this general area. He didn't understand the dispute with regard to whether the Planning Commission properly continued the December 17 hearing to its following meeting at which time findings of fact would be considered since his reading of the minutes indicated the hearing was continued. He asked for clarification of the motion to continue the hearing in relation to appli- cant's contention that the decision was made at the December 17 meeting - was or was not the hearing continued? Mr. Gleaves said he had not had an oppor- tunity to review the minutes of that meeting, he had referred to a typed transcript of the meeting taken from tape recording. It was his position that the motion to approve the development was defeated, that action to disapprove the project was not actually taken but was held until negative findings could be prepared. Mr. Williams then asked Stan Long, assistant city attorney, whether in his opinion the action or motion to continue the matter with instructions to staff to prepare findings of fact did in fact constitute an extension. Mr. Long thought the minutes substantially reflected the transcript and it appeared a definite time for later consideration was set. Also there was no basis for saying that if a motion failed the reverse action prevailed. He thought the matter was properly continued to the next meeting of the Commission. Councilman Bradley asked if either the 1990 Plan or the South Hills study de- fined the urban service area in relation to the corporate city limits; whether the city was obligated to provide urban services to areas within the corporate limits or could they be phased in; and where the corporate limits were at the time of annexation of this property. Mr. Saul answered that the 1990 Plan did not exclude properties already within the corporate limits from urban services, and since the South Hills study was considered a refinement to the 1990 Plan, it could not be construed to exclude city properties either. Manager said it was permissible to phase in services to areas within the city. And Mr. Allen explained that sewer studies in his office showed this area could be served and was included within the service boundary for sanitary sewers. He said records could be reviewed with regard to the corporate limits at the time the property was annexed, but he thought the limits in 1964 extended about to 40th Avenue. 2/24/75 - 10 78 e (1792) (1825) e (1928) --