03/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

should be taken. He noted also the land was within a few hundred yards of Spencer Butte Park and would extend into the visible area of that park. He asked Council to not take action on the annexation. . David Cole, 31801 Owl Road, felt the property being considered was the least likely piece of land which should be annexed in the area. He felt in order for its proper utilization, this piece should be the last to be annexed because it depends upon the surrounding land for access. He questioned the need to annex and why anyone would want to build in this particular area. He felt the density should be increased in areas that are already developed. He cited the two-year battle to prevent the existing development and asked Council to look at those proceedings. He also said what was actually proposed at that time was not actually developed. He also questioned access to the property over Owl Road. Mr. Saul said in response to the question of Goal No.4 being applied, it is directed to protect forest lands for the production of forest products, i. e, 1 oggi ng. Rega rdi ng acces s to the property, Owl Road is an unimproved road in the County and of uncertain dedication status. If the annexation is approved, one of the conditions would be that no access of any kind to the development would be allowed through Owl Road. Access to the proposed annexation would be available through the existing development. Regarding the increased density and leaving open space, he said that would be totally consistent with the South Hills Study and policies of the City. He noted that if Council wished to look at the project now, he said the existing Bal-sm Develop- ment is one of the finest projects in the entire South Hills area and is invisible. The proposed annexation is consistent with all the standards and is supported by the findings-of-fact. e Mr. Bradley thought perhaps there should be some criteria which would allow annexations if that annexation was for the purpose of allowing increased density on adjacent property already develop~d. He wondered if there were any mechanism for allowing annexation with that condition. ik. Saul said there were a variety of existing policies that would come to bear on this development such as the statewide goals, the height limitations, and the South Hills Study. He believed the composit of those policies would have a major and far-reaching influ- ence on this development and those 'policies should be relied upon~ In rebuttal, Mr. Thompson said there could be further development of increased density on part of the land already in the city and he appreciated that flexibility. Regarding Mr. Muir's failure to see public need, he felt Mr. Muir was talking about the site-specific urban service boundary, which is the ridgeline, and is not sure that that is the issue. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. 3/27/78--18 - l'\b