Public Comment (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

JANISCH Amy C Subject: FW: Testimony Submitted on Request for Zone Change for Tax Lot 18-03-09-20-00500 -----Original Message----- From: Pat Holleran [mailto:holleran@shannontech.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 6:15 PM To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc: Patrick Holleran <patholleran@mac.com> Subject: Testimony Submitted on Request for Zone Change for Tax Lot 18-03-09-20-00500 I am writing in response to the request for a zone change on Tax Lot 18-03-09-20-00500. My property lies adjacent to and north of the parcel in question. Based on the nature of the parcel itself, existing classifications of surrounding properties, and the effects such a change would have on my property and neighboring residences at large, I oppose any change in the zoning classification at this time. The purpose of zoning classifications is to provide information to prospective residents in an area about allowable uses of property and to protect existing residents and property owners against inappropriate, dangerous, annoying, or other adverse uses of the land. This purpose is only realized if land use classifications are well thought out and persistent. In this case, my wife and I as well as other residents selected this particular area in which to live and invest because of its low population density, natural setting, and the restrictions on development. The proposed alteration would change the allowed number of residences on the property adjacent to my own from a single house to 6 or more. In the absence of any demonstrated need for such a significant change in the use of the land, this would seriously compromise the protections which are supposedly afforded by the existing zoning classification. Additionally, since the neighboring properties--my land and that owned by the Obsidians organization--would remain zoned as they are now, this action would create an undesirable patchwork of incompatibly zoned parcels. Such a major reclassification might be justifiable in a couple of circumstances, but these conditions do not apply in this situation. The first condition would be the existence of widespread desire for and approval of such an action by area residents. However, had the city made an effort to determine local area residents' attitude toward a rezoning (which they have not done) they would find almost universal opposition to such a move. Second, should there exist a serious need for land on which to build in the area that might be considered a supportive factor. However, in this case the applicant owns land only 35 feet away across the EWEB Trail which is already zoned for low density residential development. Development of this land would involve few of the other issues involving impact on current residents and recreational resources. It seems as if the applicant is going out of his way to create issues for the neighborhood when this is absolutely unnecessary. The most important argument against rezoning this parcel is its unusual nature and location which would make construction of 6 or more homes on it difficult or impossible. This parcel is "land-locked" or isolated from a source of city services. That is, the parcel is completely surrounded, by the private Obsidians property on the east, by city-owned recreational land on the south and west, and by our property on the north. Delivery of services such as electricity, water, and sewer would be problematic and would like present issues to current residents of the area which they may currently not even be aware of. Traffic access would be a major question. For this reason there is a easement across the eastern 20 feet of my property to provide driveway-style access to the currently permitted single residence. However, this easement, as well as the single lane, unpaved roads--Central and Spring Blvds.--to which it would connect, would not be suitable for access to a multi-residence development, nor would it be practical to permit something equivalent to a city