Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Belcher observed that land should be developed to the highest and best use for the developer and the surrounding community. He acknowledged that the zoning for the Subject property was not appropriate and the commercial node as originally platted was probably not suitable for commercial use because of the Slope; however, he argued that the more acceptable approach to fixing the problem was to open the refinement plan for amendment instead of a lot-by-lot fix that resulted in a de facto change to the commercial node without amending the plan. Mr. Lawless pointed out that two physical changes that affected the property had occurred since the plan was adopted in 1982: a Metro Plan prohibition against placing residential structures beneath high voltage power lines and changes to access controls that pushed access to commercial property back into the residential neighborhood. He stated his concern with the impact of the changes to access control on tourist commercial development and how a hotel on the property would be adequately screened from the residential neighborhood. He suggested that ways to mitigate the impact of tourist commercial development on the site could be explored and included in the commission's recommendation. Ms. Colbath questioned whether that would create a precedent for property owners who wanted to move beyond the restriction of a refinement plan. Ms. McMillan said that the question before the commission was whether the request for a site specific amendment to the refinement plan and a zone change met the criteria in the plan. She said that with the new information provided by the applicant the request did meet the criteria and she was prepared to recommend approval. Mr. Nystrom clarified that the City had established a process for addressing refinement plans and applicants could make a site specific request for a map change. He said that staff had concluded that the request was consistent with refinement plan policies. Referring to Mr. Lawless suggestion, he said that mitigation recommendations would require a basis for imposing such conditions and there was no policy basis in the plan for mitigation. He said that imposition of any conditions must connect findings to applicable policies in order to defend that decision. Mr. Belcher commented that the node was intended to serve both tourist and neighborhood commercial needs. He said that the applicant's argument that a population increase justified additional commercial property was not applicable as the proposed hotel on the site would provide service external to the neighborhood. He related his observations during a site visit to the property and emphasized the need to apply the buffer requirements to any commercial development on the site, as well as the need to reduce commercial property acreage elsewhere in the node proportionate to the increase that would occur with the requested zone change. Mr. Nystrom pointed out that testimony indicated that the 90-foot buffer requirement would affect nearly half of the developable portion of the site. Mr. Rusch noted that circumstances had changed since 1982 and a new need had arisen along Interstate 5; the argument could be made that commercial property was being added to address the external need. Mr. Belcher reiterated that a refinement plan amendment was more appropriate than site-by-site zoning changes. MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 5