HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C - Laurel Hill Plan Diag.EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Action: An Ordinance Amending the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram to Redesignate
Property Identified as Tax Lots 199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23 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
Meeting Date: December 6, 2004 Agenda Item Number: C
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Patricia Thomas
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5561
ISSUE STATEMENT
On December 6, 2004, the Eugene City Council will consider action on an ordinance to amend the
Laurel Hill Plan to change the land use designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial; and
to change the zone of the Furtick/Larson property from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Community
Commercial, adopt a severability clause and provide an effective date.
BACKGROUND
The proposed amendment and zone change requests were submitted by Charles Larson on January 20,
2004. The City Council held a public hearing on these requests on November 15, 2004. At the public
hearing, the public record was left open until November 29, 2004, at the request of the City Council to
allow for additional testimony to be submitted. Attached are eight letters of public testimony submitted
in opposition to the requests, as well as additional testimony submitted by the applicant's representative
that were received during this time period. The oversized materials referenced in the applicant's
testimony are available for review in the Council Office. The record was left open an additional two
days for the applicant to submit rebuttal testimony. Any rebuttal testimony received will be attached.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
These refinement plan amendment and zone change requests rely upon conformance to policies within
the Metro Plan and The Laurel Hill Plan. Discussion of the relevant policies and consistency of the
proposal with these policies is included in staff evaluations for the Planning Commission in Attachments
A, C, and D, which were provided with the November 8, 2004, agenda item summary.
The proposal relates to the Council Goal regarding Sustainable Community Development, which states:
A community that retains a high quality of life anda healthy economy effectively links land use and
transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment.
The proposed ordinance addresses linkages between transportation planning and appropriate land uses.
Provision of commercial lands in appropriate locations promotes a healthy economy.
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041206\S041206C.doc
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council has the option to:
1. Adopt the ordinance; or
2. Direct the City Manager to bring back a resolution to deny the requests.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has provided adequate findings to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of approval
for both the requested refinement plan amendment and the zone change. The City Manager
recommends approval of the ordinance.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
1. Move to adopt the ordinance to amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Land Use Map to change the
designation of the subject site (Assessors Map 18-03-03-23, TL 199, 200, 300) from Low Density
Residential to Commercial; and to change the subject site on the Eugene Zoning Map from R-1 Low
Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial.
2. Move to direct the City Manger to bring back to the City Council a resolution to deny the
applications to amend the Laurel Hill Refinement Plan Land Use Map to change the designation of
the subject site (Assessors Map 18-03-03-23, TL 199, 200, 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.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance
B. Response memo from staff
C. Response memo from City Attorney's Office
D. Public testimony received since November 15, 2004, public hearing
E. Testimony received from applicant since November 15, 2004, public hearing
PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHMENTS PROFIDED FOR THE NOFEMBER 8, 2004, PUBLIC
HEARING PA CKE T.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Patricia Thomas
Telephone: (541) 682-5561
Staff email: patricia.thomas~ci, eugene, or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041206\S041206C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAUREL HILL PLAN LAND USE
DIAGRAM TO REDESIGNATE PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS TAX LOTS
199, 200, 300, ASSESSOR'S MAP 18-03-03-23 FROM LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY
FROM R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C-2 COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. On January 20, 2004 Charles Larson and Don Furtick (the "Applicant") submitted
applications for a diagram amendment to the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram and a
concurrent zone change to redesignate property totaling 1.38 acres of land identified as Tax Lots
199, 200, 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23 from Low-Density Residential to Commercial, and
to rezone the property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to C-2 Community Commercial.
B. This proposal came to the City for action pursuant to procedures for refinement
plan amendments and concurrent zone change in Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on September
14, 2004, and the record was left open for additional submittals from the applicant and the
neighborhood until October 5, 2004. On October 25, 2004 the Planning Commission considered
the additional submittals and voted to recommend approval of the proposed refinement plan
amendment and zone change.
D. The Eugene City Council held a public hearing on the request on November 8,
2004, and is now ready to take action on the requested refinement plan amendment and zone
change.
E. Evidence exists within the record and the findings attached hereto that the
proposal meets the requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, and the requirements of
applicable state and local law.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The above findings, and the findings set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference are adopted.
Section 2. The request to change the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use diagram designation
for Tax Lots 199, 200, and 300, Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23, as depicted on Exhibit B hereto,
from Low-Density Residential to Commercial is approved.
Ordinance- 1
Section 3. The request to change the zoning for Tax Lots 199, 200, and 300,
Assessor's Map 18-03-03-23, as depicted on Exhibit B hereto, from R-1 Low-Density
Residential to C-2 Commercial is approved.
Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and that
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
8th day of November, 2004 __ day of November, 2004
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 2
Planning & Development
Planning
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
MEMORANDUM
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www. ci.eugene.or, us
Date: November 22, 2004
To: Mayor Torrey and City Council
From: Patricia Thomas, 682-5561
Associate Planner
Subject: Staff Response to Council Questions at November 8~ 2004~ Public Hearing
City Councilors posed numerous questions in response to testimony during the public hearing on
the Laurel Hill Plan amendment and Furtick/Larson zone change. Below are staffs responses to
those questions. For continuity, response to similar questions is combined.
I4Zhen was the subject property purchased by the current owner? I4Zhy was it not included in the
commercial node ?
The three tax lots subject to the refinement plan amendment and zone change were purchased in
November of 2001 and July of 2002. The new land use code was adopted in August of 2001. The
Laurel Hill Plan does not provide background as to why the property was not included in the
development node. Although it is possible that extensive archive research could provide the
answer to the question regarding exclusion of this site from the node area of East Laurel Hill,
staff is unaware of the reason at this time.
I4Zhy was C-2 proposed as opposed to I-1, C-1 or other zoning? I4Zhat are the possible uses of
the property if the application is denied? I4Zhat are the possible uses if the application is
approved? I4Zhat is the usefulness ora motel to a neighborhood?
Though finding a viable use for the site is not a criterion of approval, the amendment and zone
change processes are intended to allow the careful determination of whether a proposed range of
uses is consistent with the Metro Plan and with the policy basis in the refinement plan. In this
case the Metro Plan diagram indicates both Commercial and Low Density Residential as
appropriate land use designations in the vicinity of the subject property. In order to maintain
consistency with the Metro Plan, a commercial designation was the only other designation
possible. Keeping in mind that the applicant has requested C-2 rather than any other commercial
zone, and noting the limitations of the siting requirements for commercial zones, it is
questionable that the site can successfully meet the requirements for any other zone.
The range of allowed uses on the property with its current R-1, Low Density Residential zoning
includes subdivision of the property for single family dwellings, a manufactured home park,
Controlled Income and Rent Housing with densities between 14 and 21 units per acre, assisted
care and day care, and certain utility uses. C-2, Community Commercial zoning would permit
the full range of commercial uses including adult bookstores, which are protected as any other
retailers under the state constitution. C-2 would also allow the full range of neighborhood
commercial uses. These uses would be the same as those allowed on the C-2 zoned property
within the node.
In regard to the question about how a neighborhood would need a motel, in consideration of
"public need" under Policy #5 of the Laurel Hill Plan, the findings look both internally to the
needs of the neighborhood and outwardly to needs of others who might be able to access the site
from the interstate highway or other areas outside the neighborhood.
Has analysis been conducted on the future of this interchange in light of proposals for new
interchanges at Interstate 5? Contrast the access control circumstances to other areas along (1-
5, such as at Wilsonville. 14/hen is Brackenfern scheduled to be improved?
The extent of access control which ODOT has expanded at the Judkins Point (Glenwood)
interchange is very similar to that at other interchanges with recent new development such as at
Wilsonville or Hood River. However, the significant difference between those interchanges and
this one is that the businesses subject to the new access limitations or relocations were already in
existence and not able to select another site. The commercial land at the Judkins Point
interchange is vacant. The 1999 Oregon Highway Plan requires control of access at or near
interchange ramp terminals. Through the development of East Ridge, ODOT has re-defined the
southbound ramp terminal to now be the intersection of Glenwood Blvd./Glenwood Drive/Moon
Mountain Road/Brackenfern.
The City has not yet performed any official analysis of the future of this interchange in
relationship to other interchanges on I-5. However, given the recent initiation of a study for a
full interchange at Franklin Blvd., and comparing with interchange spacing in the Oregon
Highway Plan, a possible outcome of constructing new ramps at Franklin Blvd. might be the
requirement for the removal of all ramps at Glenwood with Glenwood Blvd. becoming an
overpass only over I-5.
The City anticipates the improvement of Brackenfern Drive to be initiated as early as summer
2005 or as late as spring/summer of 2006.
Provide background on the use of the refinement plan amendment provisions in the code. What
is the procedure to amend the Laurel Hill Plan, taking into account all the property?
A process has been established within the land use code for amending refinement plans and that
process provides for changes to specific sites on refinement plan land use maps. Based on the
discussion at the public hearing, it was also suggested that refinement plan amendment requests
are an aberration. Over the last 10 years, the City has processed 11 site-specific refinement plan
amendments. The applications have included relatively small sites such as the Whiteaker Fire
Station and the former library site, as well as larger parcels such as Arlie's Crescent Village.
Regarding the question of how to update the refinement plan holistically, the procedure would
include the same steps as the current refinement plan amendment process, including public
notice, Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation followed by City Council
public hearings and decision-making. Assuming the City initiated the amendment, the process
itself would take at least 6 months to move through these steps plus time for additional public
outreach and participation. As an example, the current amendment request was first submitted
11 months ago. The scope of the task would need to be defined, including a determination of
which portions of the plan are to be subject to the amendment. The geographical area to be
included (a few particular sites, the nodal area, East Laurel Hill or the entire Laurel Hill Valley
neighborhood boundary) would dramatically affect the scope and timeline. Similarly the range
of possible neighborhood involvement processes and level of participation would influence the
project program. And finally, the plan amendment would require the Council to revisit the
Planning Division Work Program and funding for this particular project.
Please contact me at 682-5561 or via e-mail (patricia.thomas~ci.eugene.or.us) if you have
questions or need additional information.
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF EUGENE
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY - CIVIL DEPARTMENT
To: Mayor and City Council Date: November 24, 2004
Subject: Furtick/I,arson Refinement Plan Amendment and Zone Change Request
In response to issues raised at the November 15, 2004, public hearing regarding a request to
mnend the Laurel Hill Plan Land Use Diagram that would redesignate property owned by Charles
Larson and Don Furtick from low-density residential to currently commercial and a corresponding
request to rezone the property from R-1 (low-density residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial),
you asked that our office provide answers to the following two questions:
1) If the Council denies the requested refinement plan amendment and zone change will
the property owner have a Measure 37 claim?
Based on staff's memo to you dated November 22, it is our understanding that Larson and
Furtick acquired the subject property after October 2001. LUCU was adopted in August 2001.
Thus, the Land Use Code 'Update (LUCU) was in effect al the time Larson and Furtick purchased
the property. Further, the subject property was zoned residential manyyears prior to 2001. Because
Larson and Furtick purchased the subject property after LUCU's adoption and long after the property
was zoned residential, we do not believe that Larson and Furtick would have a Measure 37 claim
based on a LUCU regulation or the current zoning of the property.
2) If Council denies the requested refinement plan amendment and zone change could the
owners assert a takings claim on the grounds that the City has deprived them of all
economically viable use of the property?
If Council denies the requested refinement plan amendment and zone change Larson and
Furtick will not be deprived of all economically viable use of the property. While it may not be the
most lucrative use of the property, with its current R-1 zoning, Larson and Furtick can develop the
subject property with houses. The properly owners' application materials concede that "one could
build housing and locate it between two sets of power lines." (1/13/04 Refinement Plan Amendment
Written Statement, p. 3) Larson and Furtick, however, assert that no one would want to buy the
houses. Whether or not Larson and Furtick can sell the houses for a profit is irrelevant; the fact that
the property can be used t'or residential use would defeat any potential regulatory takings claim.
Additionally, as noted above, when Larson and Furtick purchased the subject property it was
designated residential and LUCU was in place. Thus, the property owners' inability to developed
their property commercially is not a result ora regulation that the City has placed on their property
after it was purchased. As such, even if the property has no economically viable use zoned R-1
Mayor and City Council November 24, 2004 Page 2
(which it does), we do :not helieve that the property owners would have a valid regulatory takings
claim.
HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C.-
CITY ATTORNEYS
GK:abm
ATTACHMENT D
RECEIVED
November 29, 2004
NOV 2 9 2O04
R : RA 04-1 (Laurel Hill Plan Amendment)
CITY' OF EUGENE
PL,A Nf,~l!qG DE!;ArVi'~ENT
Eugene Mayor and City Councilors:
We have received a copy of the memorandum from Patricia Thomas dated
November 22, 2004 and have the following comment. In the event that Council
directs Planning staff to initiate an amendment process to the Laurel Hill Plan
in lieu of granting RA 04-1, we recommend that the scope of the task be defined
as re-examining the geographic area included in the commercial node in the
East Laurel Hill area in light of changed circumstances since the creation of the
node. We believe that the public process should include a dialog among
affected property owners in East Laurel Hill, the leadership of the neighborhood
association and Planning staff, as well as a comment opportunity for members
of the public.
We have received a copy of the memorandum from the City Attorney dated
November 24, 2004 and have no comments on his answers to questions from
Council.
At last inquiry, there were no additional materials from the applicant for us to
comment on.
Our position remains that RA 04-1 should be denied because it does not meet
EC 9.8424( 1)(c} which requires consistency with the remaining portions of the
refinement plan. The portion of the Laurel Hill Plan with which the application
is not consistent is Policy 5 for the East Laurel Hill area that states
No additional sector of East Laurel Hill shall be designated for commercial
purposes until a public need can be demonstrated.
(Laurel Hill Plan, p 15}
It is our position that none of the three proposed findings on the matter of
public need rise to the level of an authentic public need. Rather than restate
the reasons for this position, I refer you to previous oral and written testimony
from Laurel Hill Valley Citizens.
It remains our believe that the overriding public need in this case is the
preservation of the integrity of our neighborhOod refinement plan, and the
certainty that this brings to property owners who have abided by its policies
and goals as they seek to develop their properties.
Sincerely,
Wostmann
Chair, Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
HANSEN Alissa H
From: MCKINNEY Lydia S
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:32 PM
To: HANSEN Alissa H; THOMAS Patricia S
Subject: FW: (Fwd) Comments on Proposed Changes to Laurel Hill Refinement P
..... Original Message .....
From: David G. Hinkley [mailto:dhinkley@efn.org]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:26 PM
To: mayorandcc@ci.eugene.or.us
Cc: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us; Dennis.M.Taylor@ci.eugune.or.us
Subject: (Fwd) Comments on Proposed Changes to Laurel Hill Refinement P
Mayor and Councilors
As a leader in a Eugene Neighborhood with a refinement plan, I
am extremely concerned with the cavalier manner in which the
provisions of a properly adopted refinement plan, are being
changed by this action. Refinement plans are the result of
months of work on the part of city staff, local residents, property
and business owners with large amount of public involvement.
The result of this work is a common vision of how the
neighborhood should develop.
There is no argument that Laurel Hill Valley's plan is dated and
that it would benefit from a full update. But a lot by lot revision
of small portions of the plan is not the way to revise a refinement
plan. The correct way is a comprehensive review and revision of
the whole plan, with full public involvement. Until then the
existing plan should be followed and not discarded because it
contains an inconvenient restriction.
It is unfortunate that the applicant did not do due diligence
before he acquired his property. But his lack of diligence on his
part is no reason to change a part of a properly adopted plan
regardless of its age.
I respectfully request that the City Council reject this
unnecessary change in a local refinement plan and make it clear
to the Planning and Development Department that piecemeal
changes to local refinement plans are not acceptable.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this most
important of issues.
Sincerely
David Hinkley
Message Page 1 of 1
HANSEN Alissa H
From: MCKINNEY Lydia S
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:40 PM
To: HANSEN Alissa H; THOMAS Patricia S
Subject: FW: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4
..... Original Message .....
From: Terry Froemming [mailto:Terry.froemming@paktech-opi.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:38 PM
To: lydia .s. mckinney@ci.eugene.or.us
Cc: nlc@eugeneneighbors.org
Subject: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4
Lydia McKinney
City of Eugene
Re: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4
The seriousness of rezoning a property designated in an existing neighborhood refinement plan is a serious
matter. Any such action to do so should be heavily weighted towards the consideration by affected neighborhood
associations and residents. Laurel Hill neighborhood refinement plan and its opposing neighborhood association
are being summarily over-ruled by a process that is not in the best interest of future land use development. As
the chair of the Harlow Neighbors Association I would strongly oppose this type of process. I would instead, be in
strong favor of a process where the City, Neighborhood Associations, residents and developers come to
agreements cooperatively. The process of a specific land owner, bypassing and negating
neighborhood refinement plans against the will of the effected neighborhood associations
and residents, would not only be disastrous and tragic, it is one that should only be considered only as a rare last
step.
If landowners and/or developers feel there is strong underlying public need for rezoning, refinement plans and
neighborhood associations, should still measure strongly into the equation. To do otherwise, is a process of
great travesty. While I would acknowledge that many of our City's refinement plans are dated, they once
were, and need to remain, an important visionary document guiding City and neighborhood development. If our
refinement plans are outdated, let's update them, but let us not take this dangerous, backdoor, approach
to negating them.
Sincerely,
Terry Froemming
Harlow Neighbors Association - Chair
11/29/2004
Page 1 of 1
MCKINNEY Lydia S
From: Carlos Barrera [bcarlos@qwest.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:16 PM
To: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: Proposed changes to Laurel Hill Refinement Plan
To whom it concerns:
The proposed amendment to Laurel Hill Valley's adopted refinement plan has
recently been discussed among the Neighborhood Leaders Council members.
urge Council Members to not approve this significant alteration of a
standing refinement plan,
If City staff can forward such developer-initiated proposals to change
refinement plans and successfully assist in getting them passed, despite
valid objections from the neighborhood involved, all of Eugene's refinement
plans are potentially in danger of failing to serve as the bulwark they are
in part designed to be--to protect our communities from just this kind of
unwarranted land use intrusion.
It is especially trying that as citizens we so often have to scramble to
oppose what appears to be city staff pro-development bias, in order to
protect residents' rights to manage the growth of their own neighborhoods
according to long-accepted public regulatory documents.
Jeanne-Marie Moore and Carlos Barrera
Board Members, Friendly Area Neighbors
11/29/2004
MCKINNEY L~/dia S
From: Majeska Seese-Green [majeska@efn.org]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:47 PM
To: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or, us
Cc: NLC
Subject: Re: Proposed changes to Laurel Hill Refinement Plan
To whom it may concern:
On behalf of the Executive Committee (the board) of Whiteaker Community Council, I am
writing in opposition to the request by developers Furtick and Larson for a change in
zoning for their property in Laurel Hill neighborhood, and in support of Laurel Hill
Valley Citizens as this neighborhood association seeks to defend its City-adopted
Neighborhood Refinement Plan.
We urge the City Council to reject this attempt by Furtick and Larson to get the zoning
change they have applied for (with such flimsy arguments about the "public need"). We
also find it very disturbing that City staff and the Planning Commission recommend this
change.
Approval of this application would not only violate the long-standing Laurel Hill Plan,
but also it would set a precedent for undermining and quickly modifying any and all of the
City's Neighborhood Refinement Plans. This is not in the best interests of our City.
Such approval and precedent would go against the values of our City and City Council,
which -- if I am not mistaken -- support land use decisions that are much more careful and
community-based than this one would be. We don't want this to happen in Laurel Hill or
any other neighborhood in Eugene.
Sincerely,
Majeska Seese-Green
President, Whiteaker Community Council
MCKINNEY Lydia S
From: Wil Schwall [wilshwal@efn.org]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:52 PM
To: Lydia. S.McKinney@Ci. Eugene.or. us
Subject: Regarding RA 04-1 and Z 04-4
To: Members of the Eugene City Council and Staff
Re: This is regarding RA 04-1 and Z0 4-4
Dear Members of the City council and Staff,
It has come to my attention that a request has been made to make changes in the Laurel
Hill Neighborhood Refinement Plan. As a member of the committee that worked on the plan
and a property owner in the Laurel Hill neighborhood, this is of interest to me.
A request has been made to alter the Plan in order to rezone land for commercial use.
The Plan states that no additional commercial zoning should be created until a public need
has been demonstrated. A need for what? For additional commercially zoned land. As a
member of the committee that wrote the Refinement Plan I would state that this is clearly
what was meant. The language seems clear to me and I would hope it would be to others.
Also in the Refinement Plan was the creation of a large Commercial Node right next to the
land parcel in question. This node has not been developed yet, so how could there be a
need for additional commercially zoned land? The Plan anticipated growth and developement
in this area by including the option to rezone land for commercial purposes when more is
needed. This has clearly not happened yet.
Whether the land parcel in question is appropriate for a particular kind of
developement is really secondary because the primary criterion, the need for additional
commercial land, has not been demonstrated. There is no need to alter the Refinement Plan
at this point.
Thank you very much for your attention in this matter.
Respectfully,
William Schwall
MCKINNEY L~/dia S
From: Linda J. Swisher [Iswisher@efn.org]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 12:33 PM
To: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or, us
Cc: NLC
Subject: Proposed changes to Laurel Hill Refinement Plan
To whom it concerns:
The proposed amendment to Laurel Hill Valley's adopted refinement plan has recently been
discussed among the Neighborhood Leaders Council members. I urge Council Members to not
approve this significant alteration of a standing refinement plan,
If City staff can forward such developer-initiated proposals to change refinement plans
and successfuly assist in getting them passed, despite valid objections from the
neighborhood involved, all of Eugene's refinement plans are potentially in danger of
failing to serve as the bulwark they are in part designed to be--to protect our
communities from just this kind of unwarranted land use intrusion.
It is especially trying that as citizens we so often have to scramble to oppose what
appears to be city staff pro-development bias, in order to protect residents' rights to
manage the growth of their own neighborhoods according to long-accepted public regulatory
documents.
Linda Swisher
Bethel Team member
MCKINNEY L~/dia S
From: Rich Hazel [rhazelr@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 10:26 PM
To: lydia.s.mckinney@ci.eugene.or, us
Subject: Testimony regarding RA 04-1 and Z 04-4
Regarding RA 04-1 and Z 04-4:
Honorable Mayor and Councilers:
It should be noted that Staff's Finding echoing the Applicant's argument regarding a lack
of access to property that is currently zoned commercial is not valid.
Finding 2 for Policy 5 of the Laurel Hill Plan for compliance with EC
9.8424(1) (c) states that other land in the designated commerical land is "less desirable"
in part because it "may be developed only in conjunction with or subsequent to the
construction of Brackenfern Road." What is ignored, however, is that the Applicant's own
Traffic Impact Study shows that traffic from any commercial development on the subject
parcel would ALSO have to wait for the construction of Brackenfern Road. {See Study and
associated map showing egress traffic over private road crossing tax lot 400, connecting
with currently unconstructed public street, and eventually routing to Brackenfern.)
The Finding ignores that the alleged access issue that makes the other properties "less
desirable" also applies to the subject property. This Finding is not based on sound
argument and should be given no weight in the decision process. The argument does not meet
the standards of proof required of the Applicant.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rich Hazel
Co-Chair of Laurel Hill Valley Citizens
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
LAW
OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW 576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
EUGENE, OR 97401
PO BOX 11906
EUGENE, OR 97440
TEL (541) 343-2674
FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
November 29, 2004
FiECEIVED
NOV 2 9 2004
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
City of Eugene C!T,¢ OF EUO',~NE
777 Pearl Street p[,.~.h'?,:~J(3 DF!i¥~ ':i¥¢'~ENT
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4 - Laurel Hill Plan Amendment and Furtick/Larson Zone Change
Dear Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council Members:
This letter supplements the materials, dated today, submitted in response to comments and
inquiries made at the November 15, 2004, City Council Hearing to consider RA 04-1 and Z 04-4.
This letter corrects an error contained in Exhibit A, Residential Development Plans, submitted
with those materials.
Apparently the preliminary layout plans do not reflect the fact that the Pacific Corps power lines
change direction at the tower located on the subject property and run northward along Laurel Hill
Drive. Consequently, those power lines mn along the southern and western edges of the
property. They cross the EWEB power lines, which run along the northern edge of the property.
The preliminary layout plans included in Exhibit A do not reflect the fact that no physical
structures can be built on the subject property within approximately 50 to 60 feet of Laurel Hill
Drive. Consequently, fewer residences than are shown on the preliminary layout plans could
actually be built on the subject property.
I apologize for any confusion caused by Exhibit A.
Sincerely,
Dan Terrell
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC
576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
OREGON LAND USE LAW EUGENE, OR 97401
PO BOX 11906
EUGENE, OR 97440
TEL (541) 343-2674
FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON,COM
November 29,2004
NO /
2
2004
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
City of Eugene ~~---.._.j
777 Pearl Street - ' P
DIVt~ON
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4 - Laurel Hill Plan Amendment and Furtick/Larson Zone Change
Dear Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council Members:
This letter and the attached exhibits have been prepared and submitted in response to comments
and inquiries made at the November 15, 2004, City Council Hearing to consider RA 04-1 and Z
04-4, two land use applications submitted by our clients Charles Larson and Don Furtick
(applicants). The Applicants hope that these materials will help the City Council understand the
subject property and the surrounding area, and to appreciate how uniquely unsuited the subject
property is for residential uses. The Applicants urge the City Council to follow the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve the two applications.
Residential Uses
Attached as Exhibit A are two preliminary layout site plans prepared in response to City Council
inquiries about whether the site is suitable for residential development. While that line of inquiry
is unrelated to any specific approval cdtefion, the Applicants have prepared some plans showing
potential residential use on the site to give Council Members an understanding of how
constrained the site is by the power line easements that cover the majority of the property.
Exhibit A consists of two drawings. One drawing shows how 9 single-wide mobile homes can
be placed in the buildable area of the subject property. The second drawing shows how 6 double-
wide mobile homes can be situated in that area. Both drawings also provide additional detailed
views about how individual lots could be designed. In both layouts, the residential units are
located in the narrow, unencumbered, strip that runs diagonally through the property. Traffic
flow and yard areas are located as much as possible under the power line areas.
The use shown (residential) is an outfight permitted use for the subject property. That means that
a proposal to develop this use would require the applicants to obtain only a building permit that
would be subject to zoning review for conformance with the development standards contained in
the Eugene Zoning Code. The proposed development would not be required to undergo any
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
November 29, 2004
Page 2 of 4
separate land use application process that would provide for public participation in the review of
that use.
The fact that the proposal would represent low-cost housing is no accident. The Applicants have
been advised that the subject property is not suitable for residential development. In short, this is
not a "if you build it they will come" situation. No one wants their children to live and grow up
immediately beneath high-voltage power lines. It remains sheer speculation whether or not even
low-cost housing, as proposed in Exhibit A, would be occupied due to the immediate presence of
the power lines. However, if the site were to be developed with residential uses, that use would
likely resemble the development layouts shown in Exhibit A.
Surrounding Land Uses
During the public hearing, the City Council inquired about how the proposal and the subject
property fit into the surrounding commercially zoned area. Attached as Exhibit B, is a plan that
shows portions of the commercial areas to the south of the property. Included are both a reduced
copy and an oversized copy of the same general plan (there are minor differences indicating the
subject property between the two. This plan was prepared for the Applicants as part of other
work relating to the commercially zoned property they own to the south of Moon Mountain Road
and modified slightly for use with this application.
The plan depicts the subject property and the commercial property to the immediate south of
Moon Mountain Drive. The commercial areas, part of the commercial node, are highlighted in
bold and show the C-2/SR zoning designation. The Applicants also own the large C-2/SR parcel
to the immediate south of the subject property (TL 400). The properties to the west of the
commercial node parcels, along Laurel Hill Drive, are zoned for residential use. Several are
occupied with existing residences. Although not indicated as such on the plan, the property to
the east of Glenwood Boulevard (currently designated to be named Brackenfem Drive) is also
part of the commercial node.
The Applicants note that the property owner to the immediate south of the subject property,
David Hemenway, is the person who submitted the letter that the Applicants included in the
materials submitted at the public hearing. Mr. Hemenway explains that he supports the proposed
use and that he believes that the proposed use would be an improvement to the area. A copy of
Mr. Hemenway's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Ballot Measure 37 Issues
During the public heating, the City Council inquired whether, if the proposed plan amendment
and zone change applications are approved, the Applicants would waive any Ballot Measure 37
claims they may have related to that change and to the subject property in general.
I have consulted with Mr. Larson and he has instructed me to inform the City Council that if it
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
November 29, 2004
Page 3 of 4
approves the two applications before it, he agrees, on behalf of the joint owners of the property,
to waive any rights they may have to any Ballot Measure 37 claims for the subject property and
to the property to the immediate south of the subject property (TL 400) under their joint
ownership.
Proposed Development
The proposed plan and zone change is an effort by the Applicants to put their property into
productive use. They have been informed that the property is not suitable for residential use and
that development for such use could result in the property remaining vacant. This is the reason
the Applicants have submitted these land use applications, which will allow commercial use of
the site.
The Applicants have been paying taxes on the property. At some point, the Applicants will have
to find some economically viable use for the property. Right now, the Applicants envision the
property becoming a functioning component of the commercial property they own to the
immediate south. This is the only exit on the Eugene side of Interstate 5 where gas, food and
lodging are available without the need to travel for several miles off 1-5 into Eugene. As noted
throughout the review process for these applications, the visibility and accessibility of this site
from 1-5 makes it particularly attractive to developers that cater to highway travelers, such as
hotels.
A commercial plan and zone designation for the subject property will provide the Applicants
with some flexibility to more readily incorporate neighborhood-oriented commercial uses on the
commercial property under their direct control and would increase the tax base for the area. For
example, development of this site with a hotel or office use would provide additional customers
for neighborhood-oriented commercial uses that could locate on the Applicants' commercial
property to the immediate south across Moon Mountain Drive. In addition, the transition to a
commercial designation that results in actual development of the site would also increase the
City's tax base.
If the applications are denied, this comprehensive vision will be set aside and the Applicants will
be forced to seek other, alternative uses for the property. Under the current residential plan and
zone designations, and that means housing--priced so that it can attract users to the site. As
noted above, that is an economically risky and a socially unattractive option. The one option that
is not viable for the long term is to leave the property vacant and continue paying property taxes
on an undeveloped site.
The real question before the City Council is how will this property be developed in the future? Is
the site appropriate for residential or for commercial development? Given the physical
constraints of this property, there is no scenario where the property can be developed in a manner
that will afford the Applicants an economic windfall. That is not what these applications are
about. Even if the property can be used for commercial purposes, the site constraints impose
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
November 29, 2004
Page 4 of 4
significant development limitations and greatly diminish the commercial value of the property.
Those same constraints impose even more troubling problems for residential use of the subject
property.
The Applicants urge the City Council to conclude that the subject property is more appropriate
for commercial uses than for residential uses for the reasons provided by the Applicants, the
Planning Staff and the Planning Commission, and to approve the Laurel Hill Plan Amendment
(RA 04-1) and the Furtick/Larson Zone Change (Z 04-4) applications.
Sincerely,
Dan Terrell
Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Residential Development Plans
Exhibit B: Map Showing Commercial Designated Properties in Subject Property Area
Exhibit C: David Hemenway letter
RECEIVED
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC BY CITY MANAGER
OREGON LAND USE LAW DEC ~) ~' 200~ 576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300
EUGENE, OR 97401
PO BOX 11906
EUGENE, OR 97440
TEL (541) 343-2674
FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL DANTERRELL@LANDUSEOREGON.COM
December 1, 2004
Mayor Torrcy and Eugene City Council
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: RA 04-1 and Z 04-4 - Laurel Hill Plan Amendment and Furtick/Larson Zone Change
Dear Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council Members:
This letter constitutes the final rebuttal arguments for the Applicants to RA 04-1 and Z 04-4, the
Laurel Hill Plan Amendment and the Furtick/Larson Zone Change.
Over one year ago, during the joint Planning Commissions' review of the Metro Plan Diagram
update, our client approached the Planning Commission to inquire why this site was not plan
designated commercial. During those proceedings, Eugene Planning Staff explained to the
Planning Commissioners and to our client that the Metro Plan Diagram update process was not
the correct process by which to evaluate such a request. Staff noted that there are procedures
provided for in the Eugene Code by which to amend the Metro Plan and area refinement plans.
Staff explained that our client would more than likely have to seek a refinement plan amendment
and a zone change. Now, having followed that recommendation, my client is before you with
two applications that are authorized by the provisions of the Eugene Code.
Having reviewed the public comments submitted to the City Council since the public hearing on
these applications, it is surprising that the majority of the comments represent public displeasure
over the provisions of the Eugene Code. They are, for lack of a better word, upset about the fact
that an individual can submit an application to change the plan and/or zone designation for one's
property. The language used by those opposed to these applications is striking: claiming we are
summarily over-ruling refinement plans; by passing and negating planning documents;
proceeding in a cavalier manner; acting in an unacceptable manner; and failing to protect
residents' rights. Note, however, that the Eugene Code expressly permits refinement plan
amendments and zone changes. Whatever displeasure members of the public have about the
provisions of the Eugene Code, this is not a proceeding that provides for legislatively changing
the code.
Most of the submitted comments make no reference to the proposal or to the actual site. This is
due, I believe, to the fact that the site is so inhospitable to residential uses. No one wants to
admit the fact that the property was improperly plan designated from the get-go. No one wants to
advocate that it is ok to have children live and grow up beneath high voltage power lines. That is
not what Eugene stands for. Even the one comment directed towards the actual proposal, which
Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council
December 1, 2004
Page 2 of 2
criticized a particular finding, does not show an understanding of this project and how it fits with
the complex transportation cooperative agreement for the Glenwood Interchange. Commercial
use of the property can occur before Brackenfern Road is constructed. The application materials
explain the complex dance of what must occur before and when east bound traffic on Moon
Mountain Drive is halted.
Many of the public comments come from active members of neighborhood organizations, fearful
that a decision here would lead to similar changes in their own neighborhoods. The reality is that
an approval of the applications here will not have nearly the dramatic impact that they fear.
Why? Because the standards in the Eugene Code for a plan designation change--whether
through amending the Metro Plan or through amending a refinement plan--are very strict. It is
not easy to amend a refinement plan, even if it is only to change what that plan has to say about a
single parcel. Recall that staff has just informed you that a lot specific refinement plan
amendment has been approved only 11 times in the past 10 years. That is not a flood. The fact
is, and will remain, that most applications to amend the Metro Plan and/or area refinement plans
to make a parcel specific change will be denied. Plan amendments are a rigorous process and
will remain so for every neighborhood in Eugene.
The fact that the standards are so rigorous and that the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of these applications testifies to just how unique this property and its surrounding
context is. Through much hard work, a willingness to compromise and seek creative solutions,
and the sacrifice of development potential on an adjoining property, the Applicants have
demonstrated to both the Planning Staff and to the Planning Commission that the proposal
satisfies all of the demanding approval criteria.
This property is uniquely unsuited for residential use. It is crisscrossed by high voltage power
lines. It slopes towards the largest highway in Oregon, where one can see and hear car and truck
traffic every minute of every day. It is located in an area where there are no sidewalks to connect
the property to the other residential properties in the Laurel Hill Valley area. In short, it is unlike
any other property in the Laurel Hill neighborhood and, I suspect, anywhere else in Eugene.
What the applications before you do is seek to designate the property for potential uses that
common sense says it should be used for.
It is now your obligation to apply the same approval criteria that the Planning Commission
applied to these applications. We believe that if you carefully review all of the application
material and understand what is really being proposed here, you too will conclude that the
proposal must be approved.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dan Terrell