04/28/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Briggs summarized the position of the majority of the Planning Commission members on February 5, 1980. The extension of sanitary ~ sewer system by the applicant did meet the criteria of minimum level of urban services and, therefore, was a logical extension of the city limits. They noted that the city limits had been exteDded with Fred Meyer's. The question was whether this was the appropriate time for annexation. The illogic of the boundary, over the years, would become more logical. The Planning Commission vote was 2 to 2. According to the City Engineer, the 1,100-foot extension would require a holding tank and pumping system. The City is not interested in maintaining such .a system. Fred Meyer's sewer system cannot be extended by agreement with the City. Staff did have questions about the zone change which will be considered later. Jim Hinman rebutted the previous testimony. He said on February 5 the Planning Commission did determine that sewer service could be pro- vided to this site. The problem of low flow and holding tanks had been addressed. The benefit of this annexation to the city would be a bet- ter pattern of commercial ,usage on River Road and tax revenues for the City. The County (Stan Slles County Administrator) has said that the County could not bring service to the area; therefore, the City is the only logical provider. The annexation east of the property was sup- ported by the River Road-Santa Clara residents. They supported having commercial zoning on Division Avenue. The traffic problem will be solved with the widening of River Road. The need for development is now. Public hearing was closed. e Mr. Haws asked if private sewers were a good idea and if property to the north would be able to hook up to such a system. Mr. Gilman replied this would be similar to the Fred Meyer system. It is an interim solution and would serve only one property. Mr. Haws asked how many private systems there were. Mr. Gilman said Fred Meyer's was privately built, owned, and maintained. Valley River Center is City-owned and serves more than one property. The area of the Laurel Hill interchange is also private. Mr. Gilman said these property owners would need to agree to participate in a new system were it to be built. Mr. Haws commented the River Road problem was one the County had created for the City. He would help anyone who wanted to annex to the city. If piecemeal annexation was the only solution available, and a private sewer seemed to be acceptable, he would vote for it. Ms. Miller saw the problem as one of channeling urban development. She felt ~nnexation made a lot of sense in the context of compact urban growth. Mr. Delay was concerned that this was a grant of special privilege. It was an illogical extension of sewer service. He wondered why the land was so special that the council would create a precedent. Mr. Farah replied the request focuses on a particular solution to one problem and ignores the other problems, such as traffic. It is not the only property in the area with a unique problem. e 4/28/80--4