09/26/1977 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Mr. Haws wondered about the time frame of the report from the e Committee, that perhaps six months might be possible, what would happen in that interim period, and if Council could afford to wait that long. Assistant Manager noted the last time Council addressed this issue was in response to a crisis situation and it took four months. In expanding the existing tree ordinance, he said there would be a need for very sound legal basis and the neces- sity to take in diverse interests and felt Council was looking at least six months' time. It was the consensus of Council that six months was not an unreasonable amount of time. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. II -A-S C. Concurrent Annexation and Rezoning: Property located between I-I05 and Willamette River, west of Country Club Road (Zellner)(Z 71-34) and A 71-N) from County PR to City C-2 PD Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission August 8, 1977. Mr. Saul reported the Council in 1971 had recommended annexation of the property to the Boundary Commission with the condition that such annexation be completed after development of the property. Since 1973 the City has not been following that policy, for two reasons: 1) Financial work done in 1973 and 1974 indicated the presumed advantage to the City was illusory unless it was a multi- million dollar project; and 2) the confusion created not only for the City and Lane County, but for the applicant seeking approval. Council had also approved C-2 PO zoni ng of property wi th condi t i on that fi na 1 e approval of zoning be withheld pending final approval of planned unit deve 1 opment. The recommendation for the Council is to delete both prior conditions and complete the annexation and zoning at this time. Mr. Saul noted this action is consistent with policies followed by the City in recent years. Mr. Delay noted that this property is in the Greenway and wondered to what extent the City has any criteria to apply to the development plans. Mr. Saul said under ordinances adopted by the City, and under the Statewide Goal No. 15, any development on the property would be subject to review under PUD regulations. In the course of that review, Goal 15, criteria would have to be met. The only other re- quirement would be that any time a development proposal is submitted, the State Department of Parks and Transportation be notified by certified mail. In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms. Smith noted she would abstain from discussion in voting as she had a conflict of interest. No other conflicts were expressed by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes of the Planning Commission, August 8, 1977, were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e 9/26/77--13 i3b