My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution No. 5259
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Resolutions
>
2019 No. 5258-5283
>
Resolution No. 5259
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2019 2:20:21 PM
Creation date
3/14/2019 2:19:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Recorder
CMO_Document_Type
Resolutions
Document_Date
2/11/2019
Document_Number
Resolution No. 5259
CMO_Effective_Date
2/11/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Exhibit C <br />Planning Directors Findings and Recommendation <br />Annexation Request for Kempf, Rodney and Gloria <br />(City File: A38-10) <br />Application Submitted: November 14, 2018 <br />Applicant: Kempf, Rodney& Gloria <br />Property Included in Annexation Request: Tax Lot 2700 of Assessors Map 1]-04-12-20 <br />Zoning: AG Agricultural with /W R Water Resources Conservation Overlay and /UL Urbanlzable land <br />Overlay <br />Location: 301 Dlbblee Lane <br />Representative: Jason Goshert, SSW Engineers, Inc <br />Lead City Staff: Nicholas Gloello, Ory of Eugene Planning Division, 541£82-5453 <br />EVALUTATION: <br />Based on the Information provided by the applicant, the Oty has determined that this request complies <br />with Eugene Code LEG) Semon 9.7805 Annexation Applicability. As such, It is subject to review and <br />approval In accordance with the requirements, application criteria and procedures of EC 9.7800 through <br />9.7835. The applicable approval olterla are presented below In bald typeface with findings and <br />condusionsfollowmg each. <br />EC 9.7825(1) The land proposedto beannexed iswithinthe city's urban growth boundary and is: <br />(a) Contiguous to the aty limits; or <br />(b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a aspect, bay, lake or other <br />body ofwater. <br />Complies <br />Findings: The annexation area lswlthln the City's urban growth boundary(UGB), and is <br />cntiguouato the City llmrsalong the west and south property lines, consistent with <br />7NO <br />YES <br />anbsemon (a). <br />EC 9.7825(2) The proposed annexation is consiasentwith applicable polices in the Metro Plan and in <br />aapplicable refinement lane. <br />Complies <br />Findings: Several policies from the Metro Plan provide support for this annexation by <br />encouraging compact urban growth toachieve efficient use of and urban service <br />E] NO <br />YES <br />provisions within the URGE, Inducing the following polities from the Growth <br />Management section (In ltzllctext): <br />Policy B. Land with In the UGB may be convertedfrom urbanlzable to urban only <br />through annexation to a city ween It isfou no that <br />a. A minim um level of key urban facilities an dservlcec can be provided to the <br />area in an orderly andefficient manner. <br />b. There will be a logical area and him e within which to deliver urban servicer <br />andfacillhiar. Conversion of urbanlzable land to urban shall also be <br />consistent with the Metro Plan. (page 11 CA) <br />Po11cy10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the <br />highest priority. (pay ell C 5). <br />vempg Rodney a Gloria (A 18-10) ban tax ml5 PY,I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.