Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

noted that the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) stated that sites under power lines were unsuitable for residential use. Mr. Kloos said that both the ODOT and City transporta- tion staff agreed that the access to the site can be worked out. He said that ODOT was very concerned about mixing commercial and residential traffic, but the applicant had shown the agency a conceptual way that could occur and ODOT was satisfied. He emphasized that a transportation impact analysis (TIA) would be completed before development occurred. Mr. Kloos said he was sensitive to Mr. Belcher's argument that the refinement plan should be amended, and while he thought that was appropriate, he did not think that process should hold up the application. He pointed out that the applicant had been working with staff for a year on the issue, and the applicant followed staff's direction in filing the application. Staff and the commission supported the application. He asked for the council's support. Mayor Torrey called on those in opposition to the application. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, acknowledged he was unfamiliar with the application in question but was concerned about neighborhood plans. He said revising a refinement plan was serious because neighbors relied on the plans. If a plan was changed in a significant way, he believed that there was reason to deny the application. In regard to the power lines on the property, Mr. Biggs pointed out the Quail Run development was built under power lines. He opposed the application and supported revising the refinement plan. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, said the primary issue in dispute regarding the requested amendment to the Laurel Hill Plan was the need for additional commercial land in the area. He said a public need must exist for the application before the criteria in the refinement plan amendment were satisfied (Eugene Code 9.8424(1)(c). He said the application was not consistent with Policy 5 of the Laurel Hill Plan, which stipulated that no additional property in the East Laurel Hill area would be designated for commercial use until a public need was demonstrated. Mr. Wostmann recalled an earlier 1998 rezoning application, which was denied because there was no need for additional commercial zoning at that time since no portion of the development node had been developed. Now new owners were seeking rezoning to allow commercial development, claiming a public need, but the commercial node still had not been developed. Mr. Wostmann noted the three claims for public need identified in the staff notes, suggesting the council evaluate those claims against the "commonsense precedent" set in 1998 and consider how much of the available land supply had been used. He believed the reasons offered were speculative at best. He submitted written testimony. Thomas Gossart, 3055 Floral Hill Drive, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, discussed the public need for commercially zoned land and distinguished local commercial need from the needs of tourists traveling on the freeway. He said it was clear the property owner sought the rezoning in order to sell the land to a developer to develop as a motel. That did not meet the needs of residential development. He believed there was sufficient commercial land available to meet the needs of residents. He disagreed that the ODOT access limits meant the existing commercial node was less desirable as it could still easily be reached by residents. He said that the applicants argued there was a need for immediately developable commercial land. However, he quoted from the September 2 ! testimony of Richard Larson, who suggested that neighborhood commercial development would not occur until the residential development was substantially completed. The need would be met as the need arises. He agreed. Mr. Gossart submitted written testimony. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting