Item 5 - PH on Laurel Hill Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

designation will NOT create a significant impact on state transportation facilities and as such, does not create the need to analyze the timing of the signal. These findings remain unchanged from the September 14, 2004, staff report. Commissioner Belcher asked for information on the City's position regarding the development of 25th Avenue. Public Works staff respond that a Cooperative Improvement Agreement (CIA) affecting the Glenwood interchange requires the conversion of Moon Mountain Drive to one way westbound operation in conjunction with the future opening of Brackenfem Road (Glenwood extension) to general traffic. To replace the lost eastbound circulation, the CIA contains the additional condition to construct a functional roadway in the 25th Avenue right-of-way, clearly noting that the City may determine whether it is constructed to full city standards. The City is committed to fulfill its obligations and commitments in the agreement. However, staff would stress that this agreement has no relationship to the proposed refinement plan amendment. (b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. In regard to map consistency, no new evidence was provided by the applicant or the LHVC neighborhood regarding interpretation of the current Metro Plan Diagram. However, Commissioner Belcher requested that staff clarify the "process related to Metro Plan housekeeping measures." This request was in response to the statements by the applicant and the neighborhood representatives that the Metro Plan Diagram update, which was adOpted but is not in effect, was intended to designate the subject property as low density residential. Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff have confirmed that a cartographer's error caused the property to be shown as commercial, and should in fact be designated low density residential. According to LCOG, "if...these parcels display(s) a different designation on a map produced by LCOG, that map is in error and the correct designation is Low Density Residential because this is the designation that is documented in the legal record of the adoption proceedings." It is noted that, as this plan is not in effect, this issue has no bearing on this refinement plan amendment request. (c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan. The original request and public testimony left unresolved whether the request to amend the plan was consistent with Policy #5, East Laurel Hill Area Land Use and Future Urban Design section of The Laurel Hill Plan. Policy # 5: "No additional sector of East Laurel Hill shall be designated for commercial purposes until a public need can be demonstrated" Testimony presented at the hearing by Dan Terrell and Richard Larson, land use and business attorneys for the applicants, and subsequently during the open record and rebuttal periods, outlined the following 5 issues (in italics) which they believe demonstrate public need for commercial designation of the subject site. As noted in the following evaluation, staff concurs that 4 of these issues are sufficient evidence to determine compliance with this policy. IV-5