Laserfiche WebLink
148 <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes pointed out that the property owners in the <br /> Sycamore area may have different viewpoints, but all have equal <br /> property rights. He stated that property development in the area <br /> will always be controversial but that it is possible to have <br /> development and protect the lifestyle in the area. He added that <br /> he supported the annexation to Amber Lane because it would be the <br /> logical line for the City~s limit, considering the other <br /> developments to the south. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver indicated that he is opposed to the annexation. <br /> He stated that he would prefer to wait for the completion of the <br /> NSSP and look at the area as a whole. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that Option i would be the reasonable <br /> course to follow because it would acknowledge the request of <br /> property owners to come into the City, allow some time for the <br /> completion of the NSSP so the impact of these few lots on the rest <br /> of the area could be weighed, and give Mr. Macari and Mr. Robert <br /> sufficient time to evaluate their positions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes indicated that he preferred Option 2, but that he <br /> would support Option 1 because it would start the annexation <br /> process and give property owners the opportunity to express their <br /> concerns as the process goes along. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr pointed out that it has been the Council's policy <br /> not to force anyone into annexing. She stated that the issue here <br /> is timing and that waiting for the NSSP to be completed before <br /> annexing is reasonable. She recommended that the Gudaitis and <br /> Thompson properties be considered separately because these are set <br /> apart from the four parcels by the Marshall property. The General <br /> Plan calls for Medium Density, and approving the Marshall project <br /> brought it into conformance with the General Plan. She mentioned <br /> that looking at the NSSP and the last Council meeting, to include <br /> this area in the NSSP will give Council the opportunity to review <br /> the General Plan designation as well. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes agreed that the two parcels could be treated as a <br /> separate case and that these need not be subject to the completion <br /> of the NSSP and EIR. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler concurred. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the Council has been depicted as <br /> overdeveloping the Happy Valley area and doing away with the rural <br /> atmosphere, when in fact it has spent an inordinate amount of time <br /> with the people living in the County to insure that their <br /> lifestyle is not changed. City staff has put in a lot of time and <br /> effort to determine the impact of development north of Sycamore <br /> Road. He stated that while he is in favor of annexing properties <br /> to Amber Lane, it is appropriate to wait for the NSSP to be <br /> completed before doing that. He agreed that the Gudaitis and <br /> Thompson properties be treated separately. <br /> <br /> - 8 - <br /> 3 -6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />