Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

respond to Mr. Larson's statements that interested buyers did demonstrate a need. Mr. Wostmann said offers from purchasers who were not interested in any of the other commercial properties was a relevant fact that was not known to the neighborhood before the hearing. He said he was reluctant to take a position on that without the opportunity to consult with the neighborhood's executive committee. He asked that the record remain open in order for the new information to be considered. Mr. Rusch said it appeared that it was a planning process and all of the land should not have to be sold to demonstrate need; the Sun Blaze residential development demonstrated some commercial need emerging. Mr. Wostmann said the concept of a commercial node arose because of the limited amount of acreage in the East Laurel Hill Valley, which was being amended to the neighborhood plan, and there was a discussion around the issue of what was an appropriate mix between residential and commercial. He said those drafting the plan amendment decided on a certain acreage for the commercial node and identified the properties that should be designated for commercial use. He said that while the acreage for residential and commercial uses was an approximation at the time of the plan amendment, it seemed that until one of the categories was exhausted it was not appropriate to adjust the ratio, particularly as there had yet been no commercial development. Ms. Colbath asked if a swap of properties between commercial and residential uses would include the swap of the 90-foot buffer between the neighborhood and commercial uses. Mr. Wostmann replied that some type of buffer between commercial and residential uses was important, but the subject property was not an effective buffer because it was between the freeway and the commercial node and did not serve that purpose. He said the neighborhood was not unsympathetic to the fact that residential was not the MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 9 Public Hearing IV-99