03/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- . Mr. Saul said the proposed annexation involved 20 acres and is immediately west of an existing development which consists of a small number of town houses and a 108-unit apartment development. If the annexation and rezoning were approved, the property would be developed as adjacent to the existing development at Fox Hollow Road and Donald Street. The property under consideration is located entirely within the area covered by the South Hills Study. The request is consistent with the City, Administrative Rules, and State- wide Goals. Mr. Bernhard was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff Notes and minutes were entered into the record by reference thereto. Public Hearing was opened. e Larry Thomson, 260 East 11th Avenue, represented the Brolin Company. Mr. Thomson said they concurred with the recommendations made by staff and the procedures that had been taken. He said thjs was the logical extension of the existing development. The roads in the development are private roads and up to City standards. Access to the proposed development would be through these private roads. He cited the low rate of vacancies and a waiting list for occupancy in the adjacent development, particularly apartments, which indicates a need for this project. He noted it would be consistent with the South Hills Study. Some concern had been expressed that the LCDC No.4 goal should be applied; however, he was submitting that the staff goals were correct and reasonable, but Goal No.4 was not appropriate. Regarding the trees on the property, he said it was very heavily populated with Douglas fir and oak. He also cited that it was neces- sary for developers to have a reliance on the planning process in order to make long-range plans. He did not feel it was necessary to wait for the 1990 Update before annexing and developing this property. He said it was impossible to speculate or anticipate what that update will contain. It is necessary to use the goals and plans the City has now adopted as standards. Speaking against the annexation were the following: Bill Ivtuir, 1475 Russet Drive, who felt if the Council had any commit:.. ment to the update process, it should take a very strong, serious look at any compelling need to annex to the 1990 level prior to public hearing and Council decision on the 1990 Update. He also noted Planning Commission did not recommend this annexation. He questioned the timeliness and need for this annexation at this point and again reiterated that there were 4,200 acres of undeveloped property within the City of Eugene. He felt the burden of proof was on the petitioner. He said it was necessary to find the compelling need, one that would clearly and demonstrably show a need for this annexation. He did not feel that compelling need had been demonstrated. Regarding the forest land Goal No.4, he thought the obligation under state law and the state land-use planning goals showed an exception to that goal e 3/27 /78--17 I ~5