Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Comments submitted to the City of Eugene Planning I~!°~0~-, :i!;OE~/E regarding the Zone Change Application for the parcel identified' on the County Assessor's Map 18-03-03-2-3 as Tax Lots 199, Submitted by the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens neighborh~l~~V ~ D August 5, 2004. Since this application has been submitted concurrently with a refmement plan application, I may repeat some of the arguments which have already been submitted to you by the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens in opposition of the Refinement Plan Change Application. The two applications are linked because the same arguments have b¢on submitted in support of both plan change and zone change. Criteria #2 The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan the Metro Plan controls. The map included in the Laurel Hill Valley Refinement Plan, clearly shows that the subject property is not within the area designated for commercial development. The Applicant's argument that the subject property is adjacent to the commercial node does not change the fact that the subject property is not included in that node. We refer you to Exhibit E in the application, "Findings of Hearing Official", page 3, Paragraph 4 where it is the finding of the Hearings Official that: "The subject property is not with this commercial area of the development node. This specific map [referred to above] should prevail over the more general Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Land Use Map above referenced". The Applicant argues that "this proposal will allow development that will provide for the future neighborhood commercial needs of Laurel Hill residents". We refer you to again to Exhibit E of the application, "Zone Change Staff Report", page 4, last paragraph where the Staff evaluation states that: "Since no portion of the development node has been developed to date, there appears to be no public need to designate additional land as commercial". Nothing substantive has changed since these Staff findings, there has been no further development since that date, other than the realignment of Moon Mountain Drive, and we argue that Staff's reasoning remains correct. Further more, in Policy 5 of the East Laurel Hill Plan, as noted by the Applicant (P.8), states that: "no additional sector of East Laurel Hill shall be designated for commercial purposes until a public need has been demonstrated". The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any such need at this time, referring instead to "a public need for effective land use planning". Clearly, this amounts to a conflation of needs because a need for more commercial development in the Laurel Hill development is not the same thing as the general need for intelligent land use planning, a need that will always exist even if all of Laurel Hill Valley was developed as commercial property. I-A-1