Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kloos said the applicants' rationale for rezoning the property was not based on the need for a motel or the demise of a motel in the area. It was based on the desire that some practical use be made of the property. It could not be developed residentially due to the encumbrances created by the power lines. He reiterated that by policy, the comprehensive land use plan recognized the site was not a good place to put houses. If it was not good for houses, what should be done with it? He did not think it fair to ask the property owner to live with a blighted property indefinitely. Mr. Kloos said that one then needed to look for another use, and another use required a different zone; in this case the commercial zone made sense. He acknowledged the property owners received inquiries from motel developers, but that interest did not drive the request. The need to make use of the property drove the request. Mr. Kloos said that Laurel Hill Plan Policy 5 discusses need and four needs were identified, the most fundamental of which was for the property owner to be able to make some use of the property. He said the references to the balance of the existing commercial property in the node were well-taken, but that node, which was also largely owned by his client, was not being developed because it could not be developed yet. Brackenfern Road needed to be improved before development could take place. In addition, east of Brackenfem Road the topography falls off dramatically, creating service delivery issues. Mr. Kloos believed that development of that property was sometime off in the future. Mayor Torrey closed the public heating. He called on the council for questions and comments. Councilor Pap6 asked if there were Ballot Measure 37 implications to the applications, as asserted in testimony. City Attorney Glenn Klein said no. He indicated he would give the question more thought before the council took action, but could think of no implications now. Councilor Pap6 asked if there were Dolan implications to the issue if the property had no practical economic use. Mr. Klein did not think there was a Dolan takings claim. Nothing had changed since the time the property owners purchased the property, so that implied they were aware of the property's limitations, including the current zoning. He would discuss the issue with Planning staff and let the council know if his opinion changed. Councilor Pap6 asked if development could occur under the power lines on the property or in the power line right-of-way or easement. Ms. Thomas said building construction could occur outside the easement; parking could occur within the easement. Councilor Pap6 asked about the location of other commercial land in the area. Ms. Thomas referred him to a map on page 235 of the meeting packet and used the aerial photograph provided by Mr. Kloos to point out the property in question. Councilor Pap6 determined from Ms. Thomas there were letters from the neighborhood association in opposition to the application in the meeting packet. Councilor Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that in the absence of a request from the public, the record did not need to be left open. Councilor Bettman indicated she wanted to leave the record open as she wished the public to have the benefit of the staff responses. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to leave the record open for two weeks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting