02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Gleaves was the nature of the staff recommendation to the Joint Parks Committee, the Commission, and the Council with regard to the urban service area. He said that one principal directive the staff had was to define the urban service area and in so doing looked to the basic definition set out in the 1990 Plan _ the actual geographic portion of the metropolitan area having a minimum level of services available. The projected urban service area was defined as the geo- graphical area to which a full range of urban services would have to be extended. It was attempted, he said, to make a distinction between property already within the city and within the urban service area and that yet to be annexed to the city, and it was felt that distinction was critical. He continued that at no time dur- ing discussions of recommendations was it ever stated or suggested that the urban service boundary should be modified to delete any portion of property now within the city but on the south side of the slope. He noted two areas where this situa- tion occurs - the Southridge properties and the Chambers/Lorane part of the Crest Drive health hazard annexation - and said that during hearings before the Commission on the preliminary draft of the South Hills study the recommendations concerning annexation were the most heatedly debated. As a result, the section of the Study having to do with annexation was the most substantially changed - but never was there any understanding that property already within the city was to be excluded from the definition of urban service area. e Upon questioning by Mr. Gleaves, Mr. Saul answered affirmatively that the subject property was annexed in 1964 and was within the urban service boundary prior to June 1974 (date Southridge application was filed), that he participated in draft- ing proposed statements and recommendations attached to Resoution 2295, that there was no indication by any council member at the time of Council adoption of Resolution 2295 that it was intended to apply to any property then within the city or intended to exclude any such property then within the city limits from development. (1210) Mayor Anderson at this point declared a recess and excused himself from the meeting. Council President Murray assumed the Chair when the Council reconvened. Stu Burge, Route 10, Box 2S0-C, partner in Southridge properties and General Development Corporation, read statistics indicating a need for housing in the Eugene area. He entered the housing market analysis into the record as Exhibit 9. e Mr. Gleaves in summary pointed out that water service was available to the project, that School District 4J staff reports indicated the development would create no problems with the school population in that area, that police service could be provided without affecting current levels of service, and that one of the condi- tions of the development would be compliance with fire protection rules and regulations. He said there was no justifiable reason for denying the preliminary application on Southridge Phase 2 - it had been a part of the city since 1964, it was zoned RA in an area where the city intended for a full range of public services to be available. Also, that the property was clearly within the urban service area prior to adoption of Resolution 2295 and that the resolution did nothing to change that situation, that references to the ridge line and contouring applied only to property between the then city limits and ridge line in that area _ to property that might be seeking annexation to the city. He continued that the city policy permitted connection to sewers where they were available to the prop- erty and that the system could handle the discharge, that refusal to permit con- nection to the sewer would be arbitrary and capricious and would deny the applicant equal protection; in fact, would constitute the taking of property without just compensation. Mr. Gleaves said the Planning Commission failed to follow the proper procedure, and that enforcement of Resolution 2295 as constured by the Planning Commission would make that act by the Council unconstitutional. That resolution at most, he said, was intended as a statement of policy and could not be constured by eith the Commission or the Council contrary to ordinances. 75 2/24/75 - 7