Item 5 - Metro Plan/Land Swap - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning and Design Process: Next Steps If a Metro Plan Amendment is initiated, there are two critical next steps. One will be to begin the public involvement process aimed at developing a good conceptual plan for the 197-acre parcel, including the park and the surrounding neighborhood. On a parallel process, findings will be developed as part of the Metro Plan Amendment application. This work will require the applicants to thoroughly address the issues of agricultural values, transportation, natural resources, and parks and recreation needs. Numerous public involvement opportunities will be provided. In addition to design workshops to develop the site plan, a minimum of two public hearings will be held to provide input on the Metro Plan Amendment findings. These correlate to the two planning commission hearings (City of Eugene Planning Commission, Lane County Planning Commission) and the two elected official board hearings (City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners). Public information about the project has been ongoing with stakeholders, including Santa Clara and Laurel Hill Valley neighbors, primarily through the advisory committee process. a) The draft agreement calls for a Preliminary Plan to be agreed on before the Metro Plan amendment is adopted. Is it correct to assume that Council would see this plan before we needed to vote on the MP amendment? Response: Yes. The agreement was drafted with that provision so that the Council and the public would have a better sense as to what the development would look like before the Council was required to vote on the UGB amendment. b) What input would Council have regarding the plan (before it's agreed to)? I'd think the councilors in that area would be particularly interested. Response: The preliminary plan is a development plan, and as such, should not come before the council as whole. However, individual councilors would be encouraged to attend community meetings and other opportunities to learn about the proposal and offer suggestions, criticisms, etc. In doing so, the councilor would need to be careful that he or she does not say something that could be interpreted as bias on the UGB amendment and therefore disqualify the councilor from participating in the decision on the amendment. How could it legally guarantee any specific outcome (e.g., constraints that would minimize the conflict with the horse arena) before any commission or council deliberation and votes? Response: The City, through Parks, has contract rights as a joint applicant, and as a future long-term property owner, will have a vested interest in making sure that conflicts with surrounding uses are minimized. However, for the reasons contained in the question, i.e., no land use approval of specific development plan, there could not be a guarantee as to the precise development. The property owner could guarantee to the city, in a way that would be enforceable as a contractual matter, that certain constraints are included to minimize conflict with the horse arena. If such constraints cannot be developed, then the Council could always deny the UGB amendment. d) One of the short-term "next steps" shown in the PowerPoint presentation on this topic at our 11/03 meeting was to do public meetings to further discuss the swap proposal over the "next few months". Yet I'm unaware of any meeting with the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens, for example. Why hasn't this been a topic for the affected neighborhood associations ? Response: Staff have previously presented the proposal at a meeting of the Santa Clara neighborhood group, and included the Neighborhood Leader in the Community Advisory Committee, but has not met with the Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood group as of yet. While staff desired public meetings prior to the request to Council to initiate the Metro Plan Amendment, it was determined that meaningful public involvement should occur within the context of a site planning phase. In this way we will be able to communicate more effectively with the public, L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC