My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 5 - Metro Plan/Land Swap
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-07/12/04Mtg
>
Item 5 - Metro Plan/Land Swap
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:47:42 PM
Creation date
7/8/2004 10:54:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/12/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
respond to issues such as transportation and neighborhood impacts, and to illustrate the parks and recreation uses <br />proposed. <br /> <br />e) Are there specific Metro amendments or code provisions that can constrain the development on the <br /> "OWNERS"property that would protect the rural character of Mr. Defoe's (not sure of spelling) property? <br /> My understanding is that once it is annexed and zoned the "owners" can do basically whatever is legal, and <br /> it will be sub-urban development as that is the proposal. Can we honestly promise that the proposal will not <br /> negatively impact his use of his now rural property? <br /> and <br /> Several people talked about trying to minimize conflicts between Major Defoe's horse facility and the <br /> residential and commercial development that would take place. I realize no detailed plan has been done, but <br /> please suggest in general terms how one could avoid conflicts between the Oregon Horse Center and the <br /> almost 1000 estimated housing units planned (not to mention the commercial). I'm struggling to imagine how <br /> this could be done. <br /> <br />Response: Creating a development that is compatible with existing uses will be a primary goal of the overall <br />master plan for the 197-acre site. Several of the proposed park uses are compatible and even complimentary with <br />the horse facility activities, and thus could be used as an effective buffer between residential properties. The <br />effective placement of adjacent uses, such as housing and parks, parks and farmland, housing and commercial <br />areas, will all be critical components of the overall site master plan that will form the basis of the Metro Plan <br />Amendment package. The public, planning commission, Lane County Board of Commissioners and Council will <br />be able to evaluate the success of this plan at the time of reviewing the metro plan amendment for approval. <br /> <br />g) Speaking of costs: Has there been any estimate on the increased traffic load from the 1000 residential units <br /> plus commercial on the SURROUNDING streets outside the parcel itself? Could the magnitude be great <br /> enough to require offsite transportation improvements? <br /> <br />Response: Transportation impacts will be evaluated during the next phase of the project, and will need to be <br />successfully addressed in the Metro Plan Amendment findings in order for project approval. Preliminary review <br />of the project by City staff in Transportation Planning indicates that offsite transportation improvements will not <br />be required. <br /> <br />Project Complexity <br />The acquisition of a community park for Santa Clara has always been complex. The significant difference in the <br />level of complexity perceived by Council has been the development of legal agreements to outline the next steps, <br />which include public involvement, design, permitting, planning, and acquisition. These agreements are in place <br />to protect the City of Eugene and taxpayers as well as the private property owners, and to provide clarity as the <br />project moves forward. <br /> <br />Responses to Councilor Questions <br />a) Page 105 section 2. 3 addresses "Wetland Mitigation. "Am I correct that it means that the "owners" will be <br /> allowed to use the balance or some portion of the balance of the 77 acres not needed for the park as <br /> mitigation for developing wetlands on their newly annexed site? I4Zhy did you include the value of the <br /> property in the park acquisition if we don't need it for the park, and then provide the additional benefit to the <br /> "owners "for mitigation? I4Zhy wouldn't we land bank it for low- income housing given the intensity of the <br /> proposed surrounding uses and the proximity to the park? <br /> <br />Response: The desired community park for Santa Clara would have both active recreation space and natural open <br />space for habitat protection and passive recreation. Allowing the private property owner to do wetland mitigation <br />on the park property provides a way to do enhancement of farmed, marginal wetland areas to provide a higher <br />habitat, aesthetic, and water quality value to the community. In regards to the land bank option, the development <br /> <br /> L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407125.DOC <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.