Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

his knowledge, no other party had done so. He further pointed out that interest rates were beginning to rise, which had the effect of depressing land prices. In the absence of another buyer willing to pay more, he believed EWEB should proceed with the sale. Mayor Torrey believed that EWEB was fulfilling its fiduciary obligations to the community by taking due diligence. Mayor Torrey commended the City Manager for his work on the issue. C. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate Property Identified as Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-2 3 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial and to Rezone the Property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date The council was joined for the item by Planner Patricia Thomas of the Planning Division. Councilors declared no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Mayor Torrey opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Kelly asked the council to focus on the approval criteria and findings for the redesignation and rezoning. In his opinion, the issue was not about the best and highest use for a particular parcel, but about whether neighborhood refinement plans would be respected or changed when there was inconvenience to a single developer. He quoted testimony from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens co-chair Jan Wostmann, who asked that the proposal be denied because it was inconsistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan. Mr. Wostmann cited Policy 5 for the East Laurel Hill area, which stated no additional sector of the area should be designated for commercial purposes until a public need can be demonstrated. Mr. Wostmann did not believe the findings indicated a public need. Mr. Kelly said the neighborhood association was not arguing for the entire refinement plan to be reopened, but for a specific amendment to the plan related to this area (East Laurel Hill area) in light of changed circumstances. He pointed out that the majority of the commercially designated property in the area was in the same ownership as the property in question, and he believed that the property owners would appreciate a comprehensive look at all their holdings through that amendment process. He thought a solution that met all needs could be reached in a short time. Ms. Bettman did not see any public benefit or public need met by the proposal. The property owners knew the zoning of the property when they purchased it and what it could be used for. She maintained that the proposal was about one property owner maximizing a property's profit potential. However, the area residents had made a decision to invest in their homes based on what was in place in the refinement plan. She thought approval of the proposal would negatively impact those residents. Ms. Bettman suggested that a change of zoning to C-2 would allow a wide range of uses that included pornographic retail uses. If the property owner was contemplating developing the property with a motel serving travelers on the interstate highway, it was likely that, as in other locations along 1-5, it would spur development of an adult bookstore adjacent to the motel, creating a further negative impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Bettman noted staff's comment that the City had no resources to process a refinement plan amend- ment, and if that was the case, she questioned why the City had invested money on the refinement plan to begin with. If the City did not have the resources to change the plan, she questioned why it would MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 6 Work Session