Ordinance No. 20162 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would necessitate a change in the plan. 1.9 In addition, the applicant argues that the irregular shape and lack of public street frontage far tax lot 3500 and the need to redevelop the existing C-2 along the east side of Coburg Road, in the vicinity of the subject property were not adequately evaluated in the development of the plan. Neither of these elements, however, represents a change of circumstances in a substantial manner which would necessitate a change in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}(2}. 1.10 No additional materials have been incorporated into the willakenzie Plan. This Plan is considered a current document and is used when evaluating other land use applications throughout the willakenzie area. 1,11 The applicant also states that the requirement for a traffic impact analysis addressing Oregon Administration Rules pertaining to Goal 12, Transportation, represents new circumstances enough to warrant reexamination of the elements of the willakenzie plan which address the subject property, namely the plan diagram and Dakway subarea Policy #2. However, the purpose of this requirement is to see if the proposed amendment significantly affects a transportation facility; it does not represent new inventory material which is to be incorporated into the plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}~3}. 1,12 There has been no change in public policy concerning the subject area. Zn the 4akway subarea, commercial and office development has been limited to existing areas zoned for those uses; zone change requests in 1973 and 1979 to increase commercial development were denied. when the willakenzie Plan was adopted in 1992, the city maintained this position. Unly those existing areas zoned for commercial development were designated commercial in the ~akway subarea of the Plan.ln its deliberation last fall, the Planning Commission determined that redesignating tax lot 3500 for commercial use would represent a major plan amendment, since it would amend a key policy in the plan. 1n its discussion, the Planning Commission upheld the validity and currency of the policies in the ~akway Subarea. 1.13 The Planning Commission's f ndings on this application concluded that the Council's adoption of the Crrowth Management Study ~GMS}policies constitutes a "change in public policy" for purposes of this criterion. The Council disagrees. The GMS policies were consistent with prior City policies. Moreover, the Resolution adopting the GMS policies expressly noted that the policies were not to be used for individual land use applications. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not comply with EC 9.1452}~c}~4}. Section 2. The request for Metro Plan Diagram land use designation far the property identified as the western 0.7 acres of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03-29-11, from Medium Density Residential to Commercial is denied. The request for redesignation of the remainder of tax lot 3500, Map 17-03-29-11 and tax lots 2000, 4004, 4100 and 4200, Map 17-03-29-11 from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential is denied. Ordinance - 4