METRO PLAN - SPECIFIC ELEMENTS: (K) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ELEMENT <br />(Goal) Continue to develop, maintain, and refine programs and procedures <br />that maximize the opportunity for meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in <br />the community's planning and planning implementation processes consistent <br />with mandatory statewide planning standards. <br />(Policy K.3) Improve and maintain local mechanisms that provide the <br />opportunity for residents and property owners in existing residential areas to <br />participate in the implementation of policies in the Metro Plan that may <br />affect the character of those areas. <br />Additionally, the City's PUD application also has more detailed policies that support the intent of the <br />Metro Plan policy. The applicant is supposed to perform an initial public meeting early in the process in <br />order to address concerns from the neighborhood surrounding the proposed development and to provide <br />the opportunity for residents and property owners,...to participate in the implementation of policies in the <br />Metro Plan that affect the character of those areas. The more detailed intent of the meeting and follow-up <br />outreach prior to the 30-day public comment period is to see what the neighborhood's concerns are and to <br />address them appropriately. The terms "meaningful involvement" and "participate in the implementation" <br />would be defined as interactive participation. <br />The simplest way to look at this is that if the PUD provides flexibility to the prescriptive R-1 standards <br />then the applicant should be asking what the neighbors think about it. Also the applicant should make a <br />solid attempt to provide some modifications to satisfy the neighbors. This doesn't mean that the <br />neighbors should be able to stop infill or dramatically alter the designs for development on private <br />property. It does mean though that the proposal may need to be modified to some degree to satisfy or <br />partly satisfy the surrounding neighborhood, which would generally support compatibility with the <br />surrounding neighborhood. The applicant did not conduct interactive participation or meaningful <br />involvement, because there have been no modifications to the proposal based on the neighborhood's <br />concerns. <br />A summary of outreach events that occurred since February 2013 which also includes a summary of <br />mediation between OMC and the neighborhood, is presented as testimony by Sandy Thoms (135 <br />Oakleigh) in Appendix E. Also in the Appendix is the original outreach notice to the neighbors for the <br />February "public meeting". The color figure of the site plan shows much more green in the area of <br />Building 1 with a greater setback from Oakleigh lane. It also shows text that offers the public the <br />opportunity to help shape the proposed development. Each of the misleading pieces of that document are <br />circled in red in the appendix material. The applicant modified the site plan for the application by <br />actually pushing Building closer to Oakleigh Lane and by increasing the density from the original <br />outreach site plan. The applicant was misleading and misrepresented to the public the true application. <br />The goals of public participation as presented in the Metro plan and as part of the PUD application <br />policies were not reached and actually they fell far short of meaningful involvement with no participation <br />in the implementation. The PUD application should be denied and the applicant should have to begin <br />again with proper and meaningful outreach with real concessions for the neighborhood. <br />Page 12 of 20 <br />