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
Mr. Belcher asked why the applicant was proceeding with the application when legislative action was <br />pending that would designate the property as commercial. Mr. Terrell responded that when the <br />application was submitted in January 2004 he was under the assumption that the Metro Plan diagram <br />would designate the property as residential and only recently discovered the adopted, but not in effect <br />diagram, designated the property as commercial. He said a refinement plan amendment if approved <br />could allow the applicant to proceed six months earlier and Metro Plan designation was contingent on the <br />refinement plan; therefore, an approved refinement plan amendment would change the Metro Plan <br />designation for the property and meet the applicant's needs. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher asked staffto respond to the difference between the two processes. <br /> <br />Richard Larson, 975 Oak Street, Suite 1050, Eugene, spoke to the Laurel Hill Plan Policy #5 regarding <br />the public need for commercial designation of the property. He stated that the owners had received two <br />unsolicited offers for the parcel for purposes of commercial development. He said both offers contem- <br />plated a two-story commercial facility with parking beneath the power lines and discussions with the <br />developers revealed they were not interested in other commercial property in the area because of factors <br />such as slope, surface water, lack of access roads and utilities, or owners not interested in developing <br />their property. He said the perception that there was other developable commercial property in the area <br />was not accurate and the demonstrated demand for commercial use justified the applications. He <br />submitted a letter summarizing his testimony. <br /> <br /> Mr. Belcher asked if the size of the "floating node" in which the applicant owned other property could be <br /> kept the same by changing other commercial property designation to residential if the application was <br /> <br /> MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 6 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br /> IV-96 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.