04/28/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. 'PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Annexation e 1. Property located east of River Road north of Division Avenue to be annexed to the city of Eugene and Lane County Metro- politan Wastewater Service District (Aird/Mace/Miller/ Hutchinson) (AZ 79-11) (Map distributed) Manager explained this was only an annexation hearing and did not include rezoning. That rezoning would be considered May 6, 1980, before the Planning Commission. The request was for annexation to the City of Eugene and to the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Initially, the staff had recommended against the annexation. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 3 to 2, recommended approval of the annexation and requested staff to come back with positive findings. These new findings received a split vote of 2 to 2 by the commission. He said Mary Briggs and Jim Farah of the Planning Department would make the staff presentation on this issue. Mr. Farah referred to the supplemental staff notes and explained since the court's ruling on the Cone-Breeden issue, staff and the Planning Commission will be required to go through a rigorous evaluation of Statewide Goals in dealing with an annexation request. This supple- mental material will be provided for all upcoming annexations until there is a clarification of the Land Conservation and Development Commission goals or until a comprehensive plan for Eugene has received compliance. e Ms. Briggs explained the request is for 10.53 acres north of Division and east of Beltline for annexation to the city of Eugene and the Metropolitan Wastewater District. She said the matter is before council without the recommendation of the Planning Commission (2:2 vote). Staff recommendation is to deny the request based upon the availability of urban services. As a result of the court of appeals' decision in the Cone/Breeden case, supplemental staff notes have been prepared on Statewide Goal compliance. Should positive findings be made, those findings under Statewide Goals could be adopted. In response to Councilor Delay's comments, Ms. Briggs said that one must consider this annexation with regard to present adopted goals for the county, not future goals or policies to update the Metropolitan Plan that may be adopted in the update process. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by counc i1 ors . Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. e 4/28/80--2