Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT Mr. Lawless asked for an estimate of how much time would be involved for alternate path deliberations to develop recommendations. Ms. Muir responded that the subject could be added to two more agendas before the end of the year, and the commission could have one or two additional informal meetings if necessary. Mr. Lawless asked staff to bring the subject back for further discussion. Ms. McMillan mentioned that interest in a more flexible approach had been expressed during a recent American Institute of Architects meeting she had attended. Ms. Colbath emphasized the need for the City Council to have a better understanding of the issue and suggested that councilors be invited to participate in discussions. Mr. Coyle said that the current process too often allowed planners to lose sight of the intent of the code and instead focus on the process. He used a left brain/right brain analogy to compare the standard approach and an alternative path. V. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION: LAUREL HILL REFINEMENT PLAN - FURTICK/LARSON ZONE CHANGE Associate Planner Patricia summarized the request for a site specific amendment to the Laurel Valley Refinement Plan and zone change for the subject property from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. She said that meetings between the applicant and Laurel Hill Valley neighbor- hood representatives had not produced a mutually agreed upon outcome; however, staff had determined that the applicant had submitted sufficient additional materials to support appropriate findings and recommendations to approve the requests. She noted that the site was compromised and had approxi- mately 9,000 square feet of developable land. Mr. Belcher disclosed that the conversation he had with an interested party concerned housekeeping amendments and was not about the issue before the commission. He asked if there were any concerns regarding his ability to be impartial. Commissioners did not raise any concerns. In response to a. question from Mr. Lawless, Transportation Analyst Gary McNeel illustrated on an aerial photograph the extent to which new access control limitations extended further down Brackenfern Road. Mr. Lawless asked if the 90-foot setback requirement for the commercial node included any provisions other than distance for the buffer. Ms. Thomas said she was not aware of any other specific require- ments. Mr. Lawless observed that commercial development standards required landscape screening as part of the buffer and expressed concern with the lack of buffer requirements beyond distance. Mr. Rusch remarked that he was struggling with the issue of public need as expressed in statements from the applicant, staff, and neighbors. He said there were two commercial needs, tourist and neighborhood, and the tourist commercial need should not reduce neighborhood need. He said it should not be necessary to wait until the land supply was exhausted to demonstrate need, although it was difficult to MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 4