02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(1601) e Robert Bennett, 6280 Willamette Street, commented on the cost factor of contour- ing sewer lines and the thrust of the 1990 Plan and recommendations of advisory committees to minimize the expenditure of public funds to service new develop- ments. He said there should be no contouring unless it made economic sense, and there had been no analysis to show the amount of public funds necessary to provide sewer service for the 47 units in the proposed Phase 2. He suggested tabling the issue until a study of the cost was made. His impression was that pre-preliminary approval of this project had been contingent upon the then pending South Hills study and that the urban service area was a part of the consideration of not only the Southridge development but any other proposal which had a bearing on the ridge line. (1657) e Manager said he would have preferred commenting on the issue to the Planning Com- mission but was advised that might jeopardize the hearing process because of the Fasano ruling. He called attention to the fact that the Commission had based its rejection on four findings: (1) a major portion of the units would be located south of the ridge line as identified in the South Hills study; (2) the only access would be from 52nd Avenue, south of the ridge line; (3) development south of the ridge line would violate the intent of both the parks section and urban service section of the study; and (4) the study officially adopted was a refine- ment of the General Plan and therefore must be considered under the Code. The findings, he said, preclude the affirmative findings under the Code. He read those from the official report, and said the purpose of his comments was to ex- press concern about the credibility of the governmental process previously stated in a memo to the Council. He read that memo. He said the trail system could be accommodated by the project, and services were available to the property. Also, that the policy with regard to contouring sewer lines applied to properties not within the city when the policy was adopted to determine whether annexation should occur. He said the developers had proceeded in good faith with a plan they felt complied with public policies with regard to the urban service boundary and the ridge line park. To deny it on the basis of changing the "ground rules" after the project was committed and with no overriding public purpose could not be justified. (1708) Jim Saul, planner, pomnted out inconsistencies between statements made by Mr. Bond and Mr. Gleaves and staff interpretation with regard to elevation of the project and interpretation of Commission action. Also, inconsistency between testimony at this hearing and previous statements of the Sierra Club with regard to traffic impact. He noted Mr. Bennett's testimony raising the question of a study to de- termine public costs involved and said there were no city costs involved in this development for sewers, that was entirely the responsibility of the developer. (1748) e Don Allen, public works director, noted past legal opinions that all properties within the city are entitled to use the city's sewer system. He said that records in his department substantiated that years prior to annexation of the subject property the sewer system in this area was designed to handle discharge from this property, and that the trunk sewer charge would be settled when laterals for the property were constructed. He said the property would not be relieved of assess- ment for the trunk line when it was constructed should a private line be con- structed prior to the city system. The city, he said, in considering annexation of the Mazany property to the west was specific in saying that the system would in no way serve that property. The city reserved the right to evaluate any private system which might be developed to determine whether it would become a part of the city system in which all the public could have access, any contractual agreement with regard to a private system would have to be based on the willingness of the developer to submit the design to the city and recognize that the city would not maintain a private system. In addition, he said that the Council and Commission were aware that the priority of the 29th and WiUamette intersection became an 2/24/75 - 9 77