Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lawless called for rebuttal from the applicant. Mr. Terrell commented on the concerns about the cascading effect of an offer for commercial develop- ment. He said the applications were not dependent on an offer for commercial development; it was something that had occurred. He said the application was prompted by the fact that the site could not be developed under its current plan and zone designation. He said he was not aware of any other site in the area that was subject to the same types of constraints and could make a similar argument. He said there was a topographic map of the site included in one of the applications and the site sloped to the northeast toward Interstate 5; the properties to the west of Laurel Hill Drive sloped in the opposite direction. He noted that Eugene Code parking and landscape standards were quite rigorous with respect to buffering. Planning Division Manager Susan Muir thanked participants for their willingness to work together and resolve issues and said that staff would propose timelines. Mr. Duncan urged staff, the neighborhood, and the applicants to work together toward an agreeable solution. Other members of the commission agreed with Mr. Duncan's comments. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom, following a discussion with those present, outlined the following timeline: · Leave the record open for new testimony until September 21, 2004 · Accept testimony from the neighborhood until September 28, 2004 · Accept rebuttal or response from the applicant to neighborhood testimony until October 5, MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission September 14, 2004 Page 11 Public Hearing IV-lO1