Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eugene Planning Commission October 5, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Public Need Applicants have established several "public needs" that are invoked by this application. These include: the public need for land to be developable under the land use designations given to it; the public need to provide sufficient commercial services commensurate with the increase in residential housing densities reflected in the recently amended Eugene Code; the public need to replace commercial designated land that has been debited from the inventory due to the realignment of the Glenwood interchange as a result of the Cooperative Improvement Agreement (CIA); the public need to have immediately developable land available for commercial development as the residential areas of East Laurel Hill continue to develop; and the public need to have commercial sites with unique characteristics suited for tourist-oriented commercial development available in the Eugene area. Any one of these public needs is sufficient to trigger the public need requirement of Laurel Hill Plan Policy #5. The applicants have presented evidence and testimony concerning each of the public needs discussed above. The Laurel Hill Valley Citizens (LHVC) offer only arguments about why they believe that these public needs are not sufficient to satisfy Policy #5. They do not, however, offer any evidence to refute the public needs established by the applicants. The only evidence in the record is evidence that supports the applicants' arguments. For example, compare the diagrams from the Laurel Hill Plan (see Refinement Plan Application, Vicinity Map and Exhibit A), which show that the Laurel Hill Plan did not envision a realignment of the Glenwood interchange, with Exhibit C from the applicant's September 21, 2004, materials, which shows how significant the Glenwood Boulevard-Glenwood Drive-Brackenfem Road and Moon Mountain Drive intersection realignment is. Another example concerns the compelling public need for available tourist-oriented commercial property sites in the area. That public need was established by written testimony submitted by Richard Larson at the public hearing. There is no evidence to the contrary in the record. The Planning Commission should conclude that the applicants have demonstrated that there is a public need to designate the subject property for commercial purposes. EC 9.8424(2)(0 and (e) The applicants have demonstrated that they satisfy this approval criterion because the refinement plan amendment addresses a "new or amended community policy" and "a change in circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan was adopted." No one has disputed that the 1999 Metro Plan amendments enacted, in essence, a new policy of not locating residential development beneath high-voltage power lines, and that that amendment was significant. The LHVC question whether this proposed refinement plan amendment is "the appropriate remedy" for this policy of where not to locate homes. However, that is not the standard imposed by this approval criterion. Rather, the standard only requires that the IV-87