Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MCKINNEY L~/dia S <br /> <br />From: Rich Hazel [rhazelr@yahoo.com] <br />Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:26 PM <br />To: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or, us <br />Subject: Testimony regarding RA 04-1 and Z 04-4 <br /> <br />Regarding RA 04-1 and Z 04-4: <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and Councilers: <br /> <br />It should be noted that Staff's Finding echoing the Applicant's argument regarding a lack <br />of access to property that is currently zoned commercial is not valid. <br /> <br />Finding 2 for Policy 5 of the Laurel Hill Plan for compliance with EC <br />9.8424(1) (c) states that other land in the designated commerical land is "less desirable" <br />in part because it "may be developed only in conjunction with or subsequent to the <br />construction of Brackenfern Road." What is ignored, however, is that the Applicant's own <br />Traffic Impact Study shows that traffic from any commercial development on the subject <br />parcel would ALSO have to wait for the construction of Brackenfern Road. {See Study and <br />associated map showing egress traffic over private road crossing tax lot 400, connecting <br />with currently unconstructed public street, and eventually routing to Brackenfern.) <br /> <br />The Finding ignores that the alleged access issue that makes the other properties "less <br />desirable" also applies to the subject property. This Finding is not based on sound <br />argument and should be given no weight in the decision process. The argument does not meet <br />the standards of proof required of the Applicant. <br /> <br />Respectfully Submitted, <br /> <br />Rich Hazel <br />Co-Chair of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br /> <br />Do you Yahoo!? <br />Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. <br />http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo <br /> <br /> <br />