My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-11/08/04Mtg
>
Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:47:57 PM
Creation date
11/4/2004 8:59:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/8/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
474
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Z 04-4 Amend the Eugene Zoning Map by rezoning the subject property from R-I, Low- <br /> Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial <br /> <br />The Sub.iect Property <br /> <br />The property affected by these proposed actions is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of <br />moon Mountain Drive and Laurel Hill Drive and bounded by Interstate 5 right-of-way to the north. The <br />property may be further identified by the Pacific Power and Light high voltage electric lines which <br />traverse the site with a support standard near the intersection. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawless opened the public hearing and welcomed students from the University of Oregon School of <br />Law who were in attendance as part of a land use law course. He explained the purpose of the hearing <br />and asked commissioners to declare any conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, and biases or challenges <br />to impartiality. None were declared. <br /> <br />At Mr. Lawless' request, commissioners and staff introduced themselves. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Patricia Thomas provided a brief overview of the two concurrent applications that <br />were the subject of the public hearing. She referred to the Written staff report provided to the commis- <br />sion and stated that generally staff believed the applicant's request was reasonable, based on the <br />particular characteristics and location of the site; however, there were gaps in the evidence in support of <br />the proposal that the applicant would need to fill before staff could recommend approval. She said that <br /> <br />MINUTES -Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 2 <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br /> IV-92 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.