Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4, letter from LHVC re: RA 40-1 and Z 04-4 dated September 28, 2004 1982. And it is very likely that the McDougal property will be placed outside the UGB, further reducing residential development in the area. Nor can the reduction in the land available in the commercial node due to road realignments, if indeed there is any reduction, be considered substantial, particularly in light of the fact that no commercial development of any kind has yet occurred in the node. Thus EC 9.8424(2)(e) is not met. We have stated our position with regard to EC 9.8424(2)(c) in a previous letter (August 5, 2004). While we recognize there is confusion about whether the Metro Plan policy raised by the applicant in support of EC 9.8424(2)(c) is in effect or not, the remaining argument against this proposed plan amandment being an appropriate remedy still stands. 90 ft. Non-Commercial Buffer The case in favor of requiring a 90-ft non-commercial buffer was laid out in submitted testimony from LHVC dated August 5, 2004. The applicant seems to agree in principle, but to date has made no specific commitment to the implement anything beyond what the Eugene Code would require in a commercial zone. We hope a specific commitment to honor a 90-ft (or something quite close to 90 ft.) non-commercial buffer will be forthcoming from the applicants. Mr. Richard Larson in testimony submitted on September 14, 2000 states: "...a two-story building would be barely visible, if at all from residences in the neighborhood. The towers are at least twice as high." One of our Executive Committee members responds: "This is clearly not true. The transmission towers can be seen through, are not lit at night, involve no signage with attendant illumination, produce no traffic or noise. In fact, a two-story building surrounded by asphalt parking areas would completely dominate the site. This impact could be considerably lessened by a buffer zone along Laurel Hill Drive, as intended by the refinement plan." Metro Plan Designation Finally, we wish to address a point raised by Mr. Terrell in a letter dated August 30, 2004 concerning the Metro Plan designation of the parcels in the application. If the Metro Plan Diagram that is currently under appeal show these parcels as commercial it can only be due to a cartographer's error, which should be amended immediately. Mr. Terrell states, "Throughout the adoption process for the proposed Metro Plan Diagram, the City Council has taken the IV-82