CCMinutes - 12/06/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

with it given that it could not be developed residentially due to the power lines on the property. She supported the proposal so the property owners could do something with the property. Ms. Solomon said she would like to see the City take another look at the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan while the development proposal moved forward. Mayor Torrey noted Ms. Bettman's concern about adult bookstores, and asked if defeat of the proposal opened the City up to a legal challenge based on freedom of speech. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said no. Mayor Torrey thought the neighborhood leaders were making a mistake in saying refinement plans could not be challenged. If that was so, refinement plans should state so. They do not. There was nothing wrong with the proposal or the property owner bringing it forward. He believed the council's decision should be based on the findings. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back to the City Council a resolution to deny the applications to amend the Laurel Hill Refine- ment Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of the subject site, Assessor's Map 18- 03-03-23, Tax Lots 199, 200, and 300, from Low-Density Residential to Commercial, and to deny the application to change the subject site on the Eugene Zoning Map from R-1 Low- Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman maintained that a portion of the property could be developed with residential if it was done carefully. She was aware of a similarly constrained property that had been developed residentially. Ms. Bettman said it was not the City Council's job to ensure that residents make a profit or could maximize the value of their investment. If the property was remote or marginal, it was that way when it was bought. She did not want to set a precedent by approving a request to amend a refinement plan when it did not fill a public need only to provide a financial windfall for a property owner. The proposal did not fill a public need, it was not justified, and it would negatively impact the neighbors. Ms. Bettman said that neighbor- hoods should be able to have the predictability created by refinement plans. Mr. Kelly noted the staff statement that the City had processed site-specific refinement plan amendments over the years, but he maintained they were different from this one. In the case of the Arlie Crescent Village development, the developer worked closely with the neighborhood, and residents had subsequently supported his proposal. He did not think the comparison was good. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly agreed any study should look beyond the area in question. He believed that residents were not opposed to commercial uses but were concerned about how they were laid out. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Kelly said the action the council might take if the City approved the development could be legal but it would not necessarily be right or doing the best thing for the citizens. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Mr. Kelly acknowledged the parcel's orientation, but the decision must be made on the criteria, and one among many was Laurel Hill Valley Policy 5. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Solomon, Mr. Kelly did not think the examination of the refinement plan could occur in parallel with the development. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 6, 2004 Page 8 Work Session