05/09/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He noted the City Council representative, Mr. Haws, could flag any issue and bring it before Council before a decision was made by the LCOG board. Also, staff, when it saw items that needed to be consi- dered by Council, contacted Mr. Haws. Mr. Bradley noted feeling uncomfortable with the process, saying that the Council should be tied in a much tighter process than it now provides. . .Mr. Obie questioned how the membership related in terms of the LCOG funding to the Eugene vote on the Board. He said he noted the City had one out of five votes and wondered if the City was paying 20 per cent of the costs involved. Assistant Manager replied the local share is split according to population and that when the LCOG Board vot~d the City had the option to call for a vote on the basis of population, although the City had never taken that option. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the concept as presented. Motion carried with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. Com 5/4/77 File VII. Review of Annexation Criteria--Memo Distributed to Council. Assis- tant Manager noted this was an informational item only that had been requested by Mr. Bradley and other members of Council. He said no action was required unless Council wished to change the policy. Mr. Bradley requested th~t the item be delayed to the Committee-of- the-Whole meeting May 11. Com 5/4/77 Affirm IX. Skinner Butte Petition--Mr. Delay noted a concern on the part of the people who lived in the Skinner Butte area for the development which was being proposed on the south face of the Skinner Butte area. A petition with 375 signatures had been received requesting City purchase of property in the area. He said the concern was in regard to retaining the S~inner Butte area as a park area for the City, to retain the historic value of the Shelton-McMurphy house, to retain the view of the home and the Skinner Butte itself, and to with protect the integrity of the area. - Assistant Manager noted this was a difficult problem to deal with as has been outlined in Mr. Saul's memo. He said the height limitation for development around the Butte was unclear in the memos, but that it could not exceed 40 feet on the site in question. He felt the Skinner Butte view would be protected. He noted with the exception of two parcels of land, the City owned the other parcels. Also, two years ago, the plans for the development had been made known to the public. He said the problem existed in terms of how to deal with the property owners who are proposing the development as they had already obtained variance permits. Mr. Haws said his general impression would be to retain the area as it now is and to discourage any d~velopment in the area. He asked what the City could do. Assistant Manager responded that it could condemn and purchase the property if the funds were available. Mr. Obie noted he felt much the same in that an indi- ~ vidual should have the right to develop property as he wants, but if the opportunity were available to the City to acquire the property, then he would support that. 385 5/9/77 --,30