Mr. Haws wondered about the time frame of the report from the <br />Committee, that perhaps six months might be possible, what <br />would happen in that interim period, and if Council could afford <br />to wait that long. Assistant Manager noted the last time Council <br />addressed this issue was in response to a crisis situation and it <br />took four months. In expanding the existing tree ordinance, he <br />said there would be a need for very sound legal basis and the neces- <br />sity to take in diverse interests and felt Council was looking at <br />least six months' time. It was the consensus of Council that six <br />months was not an unreasonable amount of time. <br />Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. <br />II-A-S <br />C. Concurrent Annexation and Rezoning: Property located between I-105 <br />and Willamette River, west of Country Club Road (Zellner)(Z 71-34) <br />and A 71-N) from County PR to City C-2 PD <br />ecommenaea unanimously by Planning Commission August 8, <br />Mr. Saul reported the Council in 1971 had recommended annexation <br />of the property to the Boundary Commission with the condition that <br />such annexation be completed after development of the property. <br />Since 1973 the City has not been following that policy, for two <br />reasons: 1) Financial work done in 1973 and 1974 indicated the <br />presumed advantage to the City was illusory unless it was a multi- <br />million dollar project; and 2) the confusion created not only for the <br />City and Lane County, but for the applicant seeking approval. Council <br />had also approved C-2 PD zoning of property with condition that final <br />approval of zoning be withheld pending final approval of planned unit <br />development. The recommendation for the Council is to delete both <br />prior conditions and complete the annexation and zoning at this time. <br />Mr. Saul noted this action is consistent with policies followed by the <br />City in recent years. <br />Mr. Delay noted that this property is in the Greenway and wondered <br />to what extent the City has any criteria to apply to the development <br />plans. Mr. Saul said under ordinances adopted by the City, and under <br />the Statewide Goal No. 15, any development on the property would be <br />subject to review under PUD regulations. In the course of that <br />review, Goal 15.criteria would have to be met. The only other re- <br />quirement would be that any time a development proposal is submitted, <br />the State Department of Parks and Transportation be notified by <br />certified mail. <br />In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Ms. <br />Smith noted she would abstain from discussion in voting as she had <br />a conflict of interest. No other conflicts were expressed by <br />Councilors. <br />Staff Notes and minutes of the Planning Commission, August 8, 1977, <br />were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. <br />Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. <br />9/26/77--13 <br />136 <br />