Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC 576 OLIVE STREET, SUl'l'E 300 OREGON LAND USE LAW EUGENE, OR 07401 PO BOX 11906 EUGENE, OR 97440 TEL (541) 343-2674 FAX (541) 343-8702 E-MAIL DANTERRELL@LAN DUSEOREGON.COM October 5, 2004 RECEIVED Eugene Planning Commission I ~ City of Eugene 0C'[ - 5 2004 777 Pearl Street Eugene, OR 97401 CITY OF~-~-~¢~NE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4 - Applicants' Final Rebuttal Arguments Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter constitutes the applicants' final rebuttal arguments for the Laurel Hill Plan Amendment (RA 04-1) and the Furtick/Larson Zone Change (Z 04-4). As the application materials, supplemental application materials, public testimony, and submitted proposed findings demonstrate, the proposals satisfy all of the applicable approval criteria. The applicants request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the two applications. The subject property is disturbingly unsuited for residential use. It is sandwiched in between Moon Mountain Drive, Laurel Hill Drive, Interstate 5 and the Glenwood Interchange. Topographically, it slopes towards 1-5 and the persistent sound of highway traffic, and away from the residential zoned lands to the west. The site is also severely restricted by two significant power line easements that not only constrain where development can be located on the property but also strangle the marketability of the property for residential uses. This property is unique because, with its apparent low-density residential plan designation and the R- 1 zone designation, the property is undevelopable under the land use designations assigned to it. Review of these two applications amounts to an exercise in common sense. The subject property is not suitable for residential use and should be given a land use designation that allows for reasonable development of the property. Approving these applications will not establish a disturbing precedent for additional commercial development in the Laurel Hill neighborhood because of the singularity of the characteristics of this particular site. This is not a situation where the land owners are seeking to maximize the development potential of their property; this is a situation where the property has n_9_o development potential as a consequence of improper plan and zone designations and the property owners cannot put it to its planned use. The discussions at the Planning Commission public hearing and in written testimony entered into the record have narrowed the range of disputed issues to a select few from the approval criteria. These include: the public need requirement of Policy//5 of the Laurel Hill Plan; the EC 9.8424(2) requirements for reasons that justify a refinement plan amendment; and buffeting issues on the subject property. Each is addressed below. 1¥-86