Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Carolyn Cox, 2720 Riverview Street, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, said no public evidence had been presented of the need for more commercially designated land, such as motel vacancy rates. The applicants assert the lack as a fact. All the assertions presented could be interpreted ambign- osly, such as the applicants' reference to the "public." Planning staff defined the public in this case as the traveling public. The applicants assert that the recent removal of a motel in the vicinity argued for the need for more motels along I-5, although it could mean there were too many motels and the motel was removed to make better use of the property. She suggested that the applicants' assertion that two developers expressed interest in the property at a below-market cost indicated such a motel was only profitable if land costs were low. Ms. Cox said that a principle was a stake. If the City's refinement plans were amended every time a developer wanted a change, they would be worthless. She asked the council to honor the plan and its policies. Rich Ilazel, 2603 Moon Mountain Drive, representing the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, did not want the applicants' attorney to suggest what all were in agreement on. He questioned what evidence of public need existed. He thought the applicant was misinterpreting the plan and his arguments did not speak to the policies. He said that Policy 5 was not complex and was not related to changes in economic patterns, land speculation, or the needs of tourists. It addressed the future needs of the area. Since its adoption, development had happened exactly as expected. He said Policy 5 was valid and should be upheld. Mr. Hazel questioned if there was a need for more commercial land when none of the commercially designated land had been developed. He said the need would arise some day, but it was not present now. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, speaking as President of Friends of Eugene and Southeast Neighbors, believed there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the application. He termed the application a case of speculation against the plan. He preferred to see the plan amended through a "normal" process. That might or might not lead to a development opportunity, but it would be fair. He noted his neighborhood organization's 5:1 vote to support the Laurel Hill Neighbors position and the Planning Commission's minority position. Mr. Matthews suggested that the application to "up-zone" the property from residential to commercial had Ballot Measure 37 implications and said the council should proceed slowly. Betty Itelnlningson, no address given, representing the Laurel Hill Neighbors, also addressed the issue of public need. Exhibit A, the findings for the application, stated that land should be developable under the designation given it. She said the property in question was encumbered with power line easements well before the adoption of the refinement plan. She said the current zoning and the power line easements were in place when the applicant purchased the property. She termed him a land speculator who acquired a marginal property and then tried to increase its value by seeking to rezone. Ms. Hemmingsen said the needs of two individuals did not constitute a public need. She did not think that individual property owners should be allowed to seek refinement plan amendments. Ms. Hemmingsen said that did not mean the neighborhood association was opposed to adjusting the commercial node, but the needs of all landowners should be considered in that process. Mayor Torrey called on staff for its response. There was no staff response. Mayor Torrey called on the applicants' representative for rebuttal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting