Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3, letter from LHVC re: RA 40-1 and Z 04-4 dated September 28, 2004 <br /> <br />available in the commercial node due to reduced right of way widths. However <br />if a more precise calculation shows a reduction over what was anticipated in <br />1982, a comparable addition could be made without violating the Laurel Hill <br />Plan. <br /> <br />The letter then addresses the topographicai nature of parcels currently in the <br />commercial node, stating that there are hurdles to immediate development that <br />must be overcome on those parcels. While there undoubtedly are topographic <br />challenges, these are no different than those presented .in 1982. The parcels <br />are certainly no less available than they were at the time of the creation of the <br />commercial node. The same would apply to the availability of public services. <br />These services are always a precondition to any type of development, now as <br />they were in 1982. If anything, public services to these parcels are more <br />available due to the infrastructure extensions built to accommodate the East <br />Ridge Village PUD. <br /> <br />Finally, Mr. Terrell states that more commercial land is needed to satisfy the <br />needs of the residential development now occurring in East Ridge Village. <br />However, in other testimony from the applicant it is clearly stated that the <br />anticipated commercial development would not be neighborhood commercial <br />but directed at travelers on I-5, most likely a motel. This type of development <br />has absolutely no connection with the needs of new residents in East Ridge <br />Village. <br /> <br />Thus it remains the neighborhood's position that absent any convincing <br />demonstration of a public need for additional commercial land in the East <br />Laurel Hill Development Node, Policy 5 of the Laurel Hill Plan is violated by the <br />subject application and therefore EC 9.8424(1) is not met. <br /> <br /> EC 9.8424{2}{c} and <br /> <br /> (2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following: <br /> <br /> (c) New or amended community policy. <br /> <br /> (e) A change in circumstances in a substantial manner that was not <br /> anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted. <br /> <br /> It is the neighborhood position that neither of the two changes in circumstance <br /> set forth in Mr. Terrelrs letter of September 21, 2004 can be characterized as <br /> substantial. As demonstrated above, the housing density of the only approved <br /> development in the East Laurel Hill area is below what was anticipated in <br /> <br /> IV-81 <br /> <br /> <br />