Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT Mr. Lawless commented that new Oregon Department of Transportation access control guidelines impacted the commercial node and the Metro Plan prohibition on placing residences beneath high voltage power lines encumbered residential uses. Mr. Rusch agreed with Ms. McMillan's remarks and would support the staff recommendations. Mr. Rusch moved, seconded by Ms. McMillan, to recommend that the council amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Land Use map to change the designation of the subject site from Low Density Residential to Commercial. Ms. Colbath expressed concerns regarding the nuances of the refinement plan policy relating to demonstration of public need and its application to future situations. She questioned how the concept of public need could be defined and applied to decisions and whether factors such as the extent to which the commercial node was developed should be considered. Mr. Belcher remarked that the refinement plan had anticipated commercial needs by establishing a cormnercial node. He questioned the appropriateness of ignoring the node and providing no mitigation because the subject property could not now be used for its original purpose. Ms. Levis said she did not like the idea of a hotel on the site, but given the constraints placed on the property since its designation in 1982 she did not see an alternative to the staff recommendation. Mr. Belcher said the issue for him was that the request must meet both the developer's and the commu- nity's needs and it did not. He said that the neighbors should be involved in a process to amend the refinement plan. Ms. McMillan pointed out the difficulty in amending refinement plans, using the South Hills refinement plan, the amendment of which had been the topic of discussion for 12 years, as an example. She said it was not practical to amend a refinement plan each time a similar situation arose and the commission should use the process that was before it. Mr. Belcher said he was reluctant to send the message that refinement plans did not matter. Ms. McMillan said the commission had taken similar actions in the past and based their decisions on the criteria set forth in a refinement plan. Mr. Belcher pointed out that there were no conditions of approval related to providing a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. Ms. Levis said that the buffer requirements in the refinement plan only applied to the commercial node and the subject property was not located in the node. Mr. Rusch said the developer was willing to work with the neighbors to resolve the buffer issue. Ms. McMillan noted that the code contained standards for buffers and landscaping for commercial development. Mr. Nystrom concurred, although the standards were not as stringent as the buffer created MINUTES - Eugene Planning Commission October 25, 2004 Page 6