HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 19977ORDINANCE NO. 7
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING T~ EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM IN
THE wHITEAKER PLANNING AREA; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A. The City of Eugene has initiated a set of amendments to the Eu ene-
. g
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Metro Plan} pertaining to areas within the
whiteaker planning area.
B. After public hearings thereon, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended
approval of these amendments to ensure consistency between the whiteaker .Neighborhood
Plan and the Metro Plan. Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission
and City Council has been given as required by Section 9.130 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
C. As reflected in the findings attached as Exhibit A hereto, notice of the
proposed amendments was also provided to Lane County and the City of Springfield, and
both jurisdictions found the amendments to be minor plan amendments that did not
substantively affect their jurisdictions and declined to participate.
D. The proposed amendments to the Metra Plan Diagram are consistent with
applicable Statewide Planning Goals and meet other criteria for approval of Metro Plan
amendments as required by Section 9.128 of the Eugene Code, 1971, as shown in the
findings attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOw, THEREFORE,
THE CITY 4F EUGENE DOES ORDAIN A5 FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The findings set forth above, and the findings contained in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are hereby adopted. The general
areas of the proposed changes and a list of the affected tax lots and acres are attached by
reference to Exhibit A, and are included and adopted as part of the findings.
Section Z. The Metro Plan Diagram on page II-E-17 is amended in the whiteaker
planning area, as graphically depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
Grdinance -1
Section 3. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held invalid ar unconstitutional by a court of com etent
p
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining partians hereof.
Section 4. That the matters contained herein concern the public welfare an safety
and therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Ordinance shall become
effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor,
retention by the Mayor for mare than ten days, or readoption over a Mayoral veto by two
thirds of all members of the City Council.
Passed by the City Council this
2~ day of ~cNs7 , 1994
~~
City Rec der
Approved by the Mayor this
day of1994
Mayor
Ordinance - 2
EXHIBIT A. -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments
Findings and Conclusions
Section 9.128 of the Eugene Code contains the following criteria that shall be a lied b the
pP y
Gity Council in approving, modifying and approving, or denying an amendment to the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ~Metrv Plan}:
~a} The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Plarmin. Goals
g
adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission;
fib} Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan Plan internall
y
inconsistent; and
~c} The amendment is not a plan update amendment...
This report contains findings and conclusions concerning the whiteaker Plan related Metro
Plan Diagram amendments according tv Eugene Code Section 9.125.
Section 9.1ZS~Z}(a}: The amendment must be consistent with the relevant
Statewide Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Develo meat
p
Comm.~ss~on.
Statewide Planning Goals that are relevant to one or more of the proposed amendments
include; Goal 1- Citizen Involvement; Goal 2- Land Use Planning; Goa15- en S aces
~ p
Scenic and Hlstorlc Area, and Natural Resources; Goal S- Recreational Needs; Goal 9-
Economic Development; Goal 10- Housing; Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12-
Transportation; Goal 13- Energy Conservation; Goal 15- Willamette River Greenway. Each
amendment is evaluating below according to the relevant Statewide Planning Goals.
Goal l- Citizen Involvement
Goal 1 is intended tv ensure that citizens have the opportunity to be involved in all sta es of
. g
the planning process. The following findings summarize the major citizen involvement
opportunities in the prepara~.on of the draft whiteaker Plan and the initiation and review of
the related amendments to the Metro Plan.
findings:
1. Goal 1 is relevant to all of the proposed amendments. All of the amendments
were City-initiated based on the draft update to the 1978 Whiteaker Plan.
2. In the Spring of 1992 the Eugene City Council authorized the ini~.ation of the
update of the 1978 whiteaker Plan. In June 1992, the Eugene Planning
Commission approved the whiteaker Plan Update work program. In July,
1992, the Eugene Citizen Involvement Committee approved the citizen
participation component.
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page 1
3. On August 26, 1992, based on a recommendation from the Ma or the Eu ene
. .. y ~ g
City Councrl appointed nuie citizens to serve on the whiteaker Plannin Team.
g
The wluteaker Plannna.g Team prepared and mailed a citizen serve to
. y
wluteaker residents, busrnesses, and property owners to solicit in ut re ardin
p g g
key plan update issues. The mailing ln.cluded notice of the o oituni to be
pp t3'
involved with the whiteaker Plan Update and information about two
community workshops.
4. In September, 1992 a special whiteaker neighborhood meetin was held to
g
introduce members of the whiteaker Planning Team and to provide a broad
overview of the work program. Additional status reports were provided to the
whiteaker Community Council throughout the project. Information about the
plan update process was regularly included in the neighborhood newsletter.
5. The whiteaker Planning Team sponsored two community worksho s in
. .. p
October 1992 to revolve citizens rn the identif capon of issues and the lan
P
update process. By early December 1992, the whiteaker Planning Team
completed the identification of key update issues based on input from the
citizen survey, community workshops, .and discussions with the Eu ene
• ~ g
Plan.n~ng Commission, Eugene Historic Review Board, and project staff.
d. The whiteaker Planning Team reviewed an evaluation of the 1975 whiteaker
Plan prepared by City staff. The team continued its critique durin re oration
gp P
of the draft whiteaker Plan. The planning team reviewed land use data, zonin
. g
information and special written reports on ma~ar topic areas such as whiteaker
demographics, housing and land use patterns, and public safety. The tannin
.. .p g
team also reviewed adopted City pohcies and plans affecting the whiteaker
neighborhood including the Metro Plan, TransPlan, and the Eugene Parks and
Recreation Plan. All meetings of the planning team were announced in the
Eugene Register Guard civic calendar and were open to the public. Anyone
requesting to receive advance written notice of planning team meetings were
included on an "interested parties" list maintained by the Eugene Plannin.
... g
Division.
7. The Planning Commission, Historic Review Board and whiteaker Plannin
.. g
Team conducted a point tour of the whiteaker Neighborhood rn January 1993.
The tour resulted in a better understanding about problems and oppoi~,unities in
the area.
S. The Alarming team spent several meetings discussing key Plan Update issues
and crafting new goals for the neighborhood. Based on a vision for
whiteaker's future, the Alarming team developed policies to guide public and
private decisions affecting the neighborhood and refining the Metro Plan. The
planning team also identified strategies to help implement the policies in the
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page 2
whiteaker Plan,
9. The Whiteaker Community Council and whiteaker Planning Team j ointly
sponsored a special public forum on the draft whiteaker Plan in June 1993.
Notice of the public forum included a summary of the plan that was mailed to
over 5,000 whiteaker residents, businesses, and property owners, with full
copies of the June 1993 Draft whiteaker Plan also available for review. A
display ad regarding the June 1993 public forum was placed in the UG
Emerald and Register Guard. A special news release was provided to local
media along with a public service announcement.
10. The planning team held three meetings following the June public forum to
review public comments on the draft plan. After making changes to the June
draft, the planning team forwarded a revised September 1993 Draft whiteaker
Plan to the Eugene Planning Commission.
11, Notices were mailed to over 5,000 whiteaker residents, businesses, and
property owners concerning the opportunity to comment on the Draft
September. 1993 Whiteaker Plan and related implementation items being
processed concurrently.
12. In the fall of 1993, in response to the high degree of public interest in the
project, the Planning Commission held three public hearings on the draft plan
and related implementation items being processed concurrently. Public
testimony included about 8 112 hours of oral testimony and 37d pages of
written tesstimmony. Ten petitions were submitted on various issues with a total
of 257 signatures.
13. 4n March 14, 1994, after 23 work sessions that focused on the wbiteaker Plan
and related implementation items, the Planning Commission completed its
initial review of the entire draft plan and related implementation items. The
Planning Commission agreed to solicit public testimony on the packet of
tentative recommendations, Based on the Draft Plan, the Commission also
initiated the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram.
14, an April. 1, 1994 a referral notice was mailed to the Lane County and
Springfield Planning Directors concerning the proposed amendments to the
Metro Plan Diagram. Both jurisdictions agreed that the amendments were
minor plan amendments and did not substantively affect their jurisdictions.
15, At least twenty days prior to the Planning Commission May 3, 1994 public
hearing, no~.ce was mailed to all property owners and occupants of propert~r
subject to the proposed Metro Plan. Diagram amendments and within 300 feet
of the subject property. The notice included information about a special public
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page 3
information session held on April Z6, 1994 and the May 3, 1994 ublic
. p
hear~n.g. The notice included the criteria far evaluating the Metro Plan
amendments and ways to provide public testimony.
16. The Planning Division staff report regarding the proposed amendments to the
Metro Plan Diagram were made available to the public seven days prior to the
May 3, 1994 public hearing.
17. do May 3, 1994 the planning commission held public hearings an the tentative
recommendations concerning the draft plan and related implementation items
including the Metro Plan Land Use Diagram amendments. After reviewin the
g
pubhc testimony, an May 17, 1994, the commission forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council. The commission also directed staff to
prepare a revised version of the draft whiteaker Plan to incorporate the
commission's recommended changes referred to as the May 1994 Draft
whiteaker Plan.
18. (}n June 29, .1994 notice concerning the Eugene City Council public hearing
regarding tb.e proposed Metro Plan Diagram amendments was mailed to all
interested parties including all those who had requested notice at the Planning
Commission public hearing.
19. Dn June Z9, 1994 the Eugene City Council conducted a work session on the
draft whiteaker Plan and related implementa~.on Items being processed
concurrently including the Metro Plan Diagram amendments.
Z0. Dn July 11, 1994 the Eugene City Council conducted public hearings on the
May 1994 Draft whiteaker Plan and related implementa~on items being
processed concurrently including the Metro Plan Diagram amendments.
21. Dn August 1, 1994 the Eugene City Council deliberated on the May 1994 Draft
Whiteaker Plan and related implementation items being processed concurrently
including the Metro Plan Diagram amendments. The council took preliminary
action to approve the Metro Plan Diagram amendments except far the
redesignation of d.84 acres from medium density residential land to high
density residential in the west Butte area.
Goa12- Land Use Planning
Goa12 requires local governments to establish a land use planning process and policy
framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an
adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. The goal allows local governments to
adopt an exception to a statewide goal when certain conditions are met.
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page 4
Findings:
1. Goa12 is relevant to all of the praposed amendments; none of the proposed
amendments require a Goa12 Exception.
Z. During preparation of the whiteaker Plan, inventories were conducted
concerning zoning and land use patterns, existing and planned public facilities,
building condition, natural and historic resources, and public policy affecting
growth and development in the area. Based on the available information,
specific land use designations and policies were determined and graphically
shown on the whiteaker Plan Land Use Diagram.
3. The Draft May 1994 whiteaker Plan identif ed specific areas where changes in
the Metro Plan Diagram were needed to ensure consistency between the
refinement plan and the Metro Plan. The proposed Metro Plan amendments
were based on the factual information obtained from special inventories that
were conducted and are consistent with the land use planning process and
policy framework established in the Metro Plan.
Goal 5- Dpen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
The purpose of Goa15 is to conserve and protect open space, scenic and historic areas and
natural resources. The Goa15 Administrative Rule allows local governments to design a
program that: a} fully protects the resources, b} allows conflicting uses and the loss of the
resource, or c} provides a mechanism for mitigating negative impacts associated with the
conflicting use (partial protection}.
findings:
1, Goal 5 is relevant to all of the proposed amendments. Some of the proposed
amendments have open spaces and scenic resources while others include
historic resources.
2. Two amendments contain prop ertSr within the Willamette River Greenway
boundary. Area # 1 AMA 94-1 }, located in the far northwest section of the
neighborhood will amend the Metro Plan to designate as Parks and Gpen Space
land within the Greenway that is owned by the City of Eugene and is part of
the Willamette River park and open space system. The Metro Plan designation
for the remaining area in the amendment will be changed to reflect the existing
low-density residential development and will not result in an actual loss of
open space or scenic resources. Area #d AMA 94-6} affects land within the
Greenway that has been committed to urban development as the former City of
Eugene park maintenance facility. The proposed amendment to designate the
EXH~Tr A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page 5
area as Mixed Use with an emphasis on High-Density Residential will not
result in the loss of needed open space or a scenic resource. The mixed use
designation will allow a range of uses on the property while local zonin
. g
regulations will st~11 preserve the scenic views up towards and away from the
base of Skinner Butte.
3. During prepara~on of the Draft whiteaker Plan, the City of Eugene, in
collabora~on with the University of Oregon, initiated an inventory of historic
resources in the whiteaker neighborhood. Informa~on about the potential
location and general age of historic resources was included in the Draft May
I994 whiteaker Plan. Based on this data, Area #1 AMA 94-1}, Area #3 X94-3},
and Area #6 AMA 94-6} do not appear to contain a significant concentration or
type of historic resources. Area #3 does have a few remaining
industriallcommercial structures that are historic resources, the proposed Metro
Plan designation is consistent with the existing zoning and will allow a range
of uses that can be compa~ble with the historic character of the building.
4. Area #2 AMA 94-2} contains au. older industrial area with historic resources
related to timber manufacturing, kilns and other industrial activities, The
amendment will change the Metro Plan designation from heavy to light-
medium industrial use making the plan designation consistent with the current
zoning in the area of I-2 Light-Medium Iudustrial. The plan designation
change should nat adversely affect opportunities to preserve significant historic
resources and might actually improve the likelihood of preservation, Area #5
AMA 94-5} contains an assorted mix of older residential structures and
industrial-related buildings such as those associated with the Eugene Planing
Mill that started operations in 1902. The proposed amendment to add a mixed
use asterisk will not cvn#lict with e#forts to preserve significant historic
resources since the mixed use concept will encourage adaptive reuse of the
various structures and may stimulate economically viable alternatives to
demolition.
5. The Draft whiteaker Plan discusses historic preservation issues in the area and
provides policies and implementation strategies to ensure that the inventory of
historic resources is completed including an evaluation of the significance of
the historic resources. The Draft whiteaker Plan also provides direction
concerning further protection of siguificant historic resources.
Goal H- Recreational Needs
The purpose of ~oa18 is to satisfy the recreational needs of citizens of the state and visitors
and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including
destination resorts.
Windings:
1. Goal S is relevant to the proposed amendments referred to as Area #1 AMA
ExHIBiT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion page ~
94-1} and Area #d AMA 94-d}. The cumulative result from these two
amendments is the additzvn of 4.1d acres designated as Parks and Gpen Space.
A significant portion of the community's park and open space is located with
the boundaries of the wbiteaker neighbarhood. The amendments v~ill clarify
land intended for long-term park and open space use versus land committed for
other urban development needs.
Goal 9- Economic Development
The purpose of Goal 9 is to provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a vane
... t3'
of econonasc actxv~tles vital to the health, wealth, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Findings:
1. Areas #2 AMA 94-Z} and #3 AMA 94-3} wild. create consistency between light-
medium industrial designation on the Metro Plan and local zoning. in b oth
cases, the land is currently zoned and developed for industrial use. The Metro
Plan amendment will clarify the boundary between light-medium industrial uses
and other planned land uses in the neighborhood. These areas are appropriate
for light-medium industrial development and employment.
2. Areas #5 AMA 94-5} and #d AMA 94-6} will allow new employment in areas to
b e designated as mixed use on the Metro Plan. Both areas contain land that is
suitable for redevelopment to a more intense use. Mixed land use patterns can
provide a range of employment opportunities including those associated with
manufacturing, trade and services.
Goal lU- Housing
The purpose of Goal 10 is to provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Findings:
1. Except for Area #3 AMA 94-3}, all of the proposed amendments are relevant to
Goal 1~ and will encourage conservation of existing residential dwellings
andlor stimulate new development that will increase the overall housing
quantity and in the neighborhood. Areas #1 AMA 94-1} and #2 AMA 94-Z} will
amend the Metro Plan Diagram to reflect existing development patterns, while
it may appear there is a loss in land available for medium- and low-density
residential development, the subject property in these two amendments are fu11y
developed and committed to other urban uses. The change in the Metro Plan
designa~.on wall not result in a significant or substantive impact on the overall
quantity of land available for low- and medium-density residential use,
Z. Areas #5 AMA 94-5} and #6 AMA 94-6} will amend the Metro Plan Diagram to
identify the two areas as appropriate for mixed use. The refrnement plan will
further describe the mixed use areas as ones that encourage new medium- and
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion page ~
high-density residential developments. The mixed use designafion will. allow a
variety of types of housing units in areas or within structures that captain non-
residential development. Encouraging housing in these areas will improve the
housing quantity and variety and provide needed options for whiteaker
residents.
Goal 15- Willamette River Greenway
The purpose of Goal 15 is to protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic,
historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the V~illamette
River known as the Willamette River Greenway.
Findings:
1. The cumulative result from all of the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan
is the addition of 4.1d acres for parks and open space along the Willamette
River Greenway. The whiteaker Plan contains policies and implementation
strategies to improve protection of the V~illamette River Greenway and to
continue to foster public enjoyment and use of the scenic and recreational
waterway frontage.
Section ~.128(Z}fib} Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metropolitan
Plan internally inconsistent.
The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan do not affect the Plan text and are ' 'ted to
changes to the Land Use Diagram. Proposed changes to the Land Use Diagram do not create
internal inconsistencies.
Section 9.1Z8~~}(c} The amendment is not a plan update amendment, unless the
amendment has been initiated by the City of Eugene, City of Springfield and
Lane County under Section 9.1Z0~1}(c} of this code.
The proposed amendments do not change the urban growth boundary or the jurisdictional
boundary of the Metro Plan nor require a goal exception to be taken under Statewide Planning
Goa12. The proposed amendments also do not amend a fundamental principal, metropolitan
goal or policy set out in Chapter II of the Metro Plan. Consideration of the proposed
amendments was accomplished concurrently with the review of the draft Whiteaker Plan and
did not require a substantial diversion of budgeted planning resources. The proposed
amendments are not considered plan update amendments as defined in Section 9.015 of the
Eugene Code.
c:luserljimlmet~roexh.dac
EXHIBIT A. - -Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Findings and Conclusion Page S
D ~+"
•,~ .rr
~V
~A1
~ 1111
aA
4 ~
~w
~&
c
A
0
0
a
0
c~
ti
W
W
W
h
ti
h C
,~ ~
.~
p M
a ~ a A~
~ ~ Q
~ ~
x
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
'~
~ ~ ~r ~
~ ~ ~U
v
# p ~" ~
~-+ ~`
H 'r}'
A
3 ~ ~ ~
o a ~ ~
A~
i"~±y b
~
A •~ ~
b
~ b ~
a
~ ~ •~
~4
°~~
¢
~ a ~ ~
y ~
h ~]
~
~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~
a~ ~ ~
~4
A ~
~ o~
~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~~
~~3
W y~N .~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
G ~ w w o
H ~ ~
w~
'" N t"1 ,~y +D
~~
4
~
~~
~
4
..
r
7 ~
0
N
a
4
H
N
I I
r"1
~ ~ ~~
a~ ~ G o~
~~ ~ ~
~~o,~
•~ ~~~~~
v G:~ o
,~.o~~
~b~ ~ a~~"
~ ~b ~~ ~
~ v
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~bG~~~
~ N q} ~.~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ o o a~ a
~ a u ~ ~ a~
N
~ r-I 4~ N ~ ~.J ~
bA •rf ~ ~ ~
,~• b~0 N ~ 4a ~
U
.~ ~
\\~\
\\\\
,~\~~
.~\\\\\ ,
\~\\\~
\\R\
~t\
~\ ~\
\\ \
~o
N~
~~~
~
a ~
~ rt ~
~ ~
• f'i (~
~ ~ ~ N ~G
~ ro~~
o ~~
v~rtK~rt
[I3 N~ N b
W
ro V
mooro
rt~
~n ~~~'
~ N~ rt ~a m ~
rt ~ ~~ a~
CD N iD R+ ~
~ ~~ awrr
rt ~~~a~
~
~
~ rt
o r ~
r
n
~ ~,~n~~~
ov~
~~
~
~
~
~da
Ep ~ f-` @
~n ~~
~ f
~~~ ~
o ;
~~
~~ s.
~~ -_ 0
,,
r ~~
~~
~r
a
7
~~L7 l -
r
~~
~a
~o
.~
0
0
b
~~
\\~
~\\
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~' ~' ~ ~' a
$ ~a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ro ~ ~ ~
~ ~ p ~ ~ b
~ ~,' ~
a ~
~.. .. b ~
:.. ~ ,., ~
.. .. ~ ~
...
• .•. . .
... . ~ a
~b ~~ `~ ~~ o ~Q p
F C~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~
~ s. •
~a ~d ~ ~ ~ o
7~ 0 ~ ~ p
~.~ ~~. a
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
Q. ~ y~ ~:
~.~ ~~. ~
~. a
Whiteaker Plan Related Metro Plan Diagram Changes- Net Changes in Acres
Area #1. (MA 94-1)
MDR Medium-Density Residential -13.45
LDR Low-Density Residential + 6.89
POS Parks and Open Space + 6.56
Total Acres: 13.45
Area #2. (MA 94-2)
HI Heavy Industrial -15.73
LDR Low Density Residential -10.46
LMI Light-Medium Industrial + 26.19
Total Acres: 26.19
Area #3. AMA 94-3}
MU Mixed Use -7.13
LMI Light-Medium Industrial + 7.13
Total Acres: 7.13
Ar 94-4}
MDR Medium- ~dential -6.84
HDR nsity Residents 4
cress 6.84
Area #5. (MA 94-5)
Qn August 3, I994 the City
Council approved findings deny-
ing the reca~nended Metro Plan
amendment for the west Skinner
Butte Residential Area AMA 94~-4}.
Refer to separate set of
-~f ~indings .
MDR Medium-Density Residential -5.86
LN1I Light-Medium Industrial -6.11
MU Mixed Use + 4.36
Total Acres: 11.97
Area #6. (MA 94-6)
POS Parks and Open Space -2.40
MDR Medium-Density Residential -3.46
HDR High-Density Residential + 1.50
MU Mixed Use + 4,36
Total Acres: 5.86
Cumulative Result From All Proposed Amendments to Plan Designations
LDR Low-Density Residential
MDR Medium-Density Residential
HDR High-Density Residential
LMI Light-Medium Industrial
HI Heavy Industrial
POS Parks and Open Space
MU Mixed Use
- 3.57
- -z~.77
+ t j,~
+27.21
-15.73
+ 4.16
+ 9.2
TB ~ a:lmetro.acr
~..
s ~[~~
i
Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Change
Area #1 AMA 94-1~
Assessor's Tax Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
Map # Lot # Designation Designation Zoning Zoning
17-04-25-12 1201 MDR LDR RA same 0.28
17-04-25-12 i 701 MDR LDR RA same 0.31
17-04-25-12 1702 MDR LDR RA same ~ 0,14
17-04-25-12 2900 MDR LDR RA same 0.35
17-04-25-12 3040 MDR LDR RA same 0.21
17-04-25-12 3001 MDR PDS RA PL 0.01
17-04-25-12 3 I00 MDR POS RA PL 2.4
i 7-04-25-12 3 I D 1 NIDR LDR RA same 0.03
I7-04-25-I2 3300 MDR POS RA PL 1.03
17-04-25-12 3301 MDR POS RA PL 0.05
17-04-25-12 3302 MDR PQS RA PL 2.92
17-04-25-12 3440 MDR POS RA PL O, I S
17-04-25-12 35D0 MDR LDR RA same 0.19
17-04-25-12 3604 MDR LDR RA same 0,25
I7-04-25-I2 3700 MDR LDR R.A same 0.25
17-04-25-I2 3804 MDR LDR RA same 0.26
17-04-25~ 12 3900 MDR LDR RA same 0,26
17-04-25-12 4000 MDR LDR RA same 0.25
17-04-25- 12 41 DO MDR LDR RA same 0.2 I
17-04-25-12 4204 MDR LDR RA same 0,23
17-04-25-12 4300 MDR LDR RA same 0.22
17-04-25- 12 4400 MDR LDR RA same 0.22
17-04-25-12 4500 MDR LDR RA same 0.22
17-04-25-12 4500 MDR LDR RA same 0,26
17-04-25-13 SOI MDR LDR RA same 0.18 ~ ~~
17-04-25-13 502 MDR LDR RA same 0.12
17-04-25-13 503 NIDR LDR RA same 0.19
17-04-25-13 504 MDR LDR RA same 0,15
17-04-25-13 505 MDR LDR RA same O.Z5
17-04-25-13 505 MDR LDR RA same 0.2
17-04-25-13 507 MDR LDR RA same 0,16
17-04-25-13 508 MDR LDR RA same 0.18
17-04-25-13 601 MDR LDR RA same 0,22
17.04-25-13 602 MDR LDR RA same 0.2
17-04-25-13 503 MDR LDR RA same 0.2
17-04-25-13 604 MDR LDR RA same 0.25
17-04-25-13 60S MDR LDR RA same 0.13
17-04-25-13 606 MDR LDR RA same 0.18
17-04-25-13 607 NIDR LDR RA same 0.13
Total Acreage: 13.45
n
c
Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Change
Area #2 (MA g4-2}
Assessor's Tax Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
Map# Lot# Designation Designation Zoning Zoning
17-04-25-4 3 100 HI LMI I-2 same 0.54
17-04-25-4 3 200 Hi LMI I-2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 300 HI LMI I-2 same 0.12
17-04-25-4 3 400 HI LMI i-2 same 0.24
17-04-25-4 3 500 HI LMI I-2 same ~ 0.36
17-04-25-4 3 600 HI LMI I-2 same 0,18
17-04-25-4 3 700 HI LMI I-2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 800 HI LMI i-2 same 0,1$
17-04-25-4 3 900 HI LMI i-2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 1000 HI LMI I-2 same 0.37
17-04-25-4 3 1100 HI LMI I-2 same O.IB
17-04-25-4 3 1200 HI LMI I-2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 1300 HI LMI i-2 same 0.36
17-04-25-4 3 2400 HI LMI i-2 same 0.09
17-04-25-4 3 1504 Hi LMI - i-2 same 0.09
17-04-25-4 3 1600 HI LMI i-2 same 0, I8
17-04-25-4 3 1700 Hi LMI I-2 same 0.15
17-04-25-4 3 1800 ~ HI LMi I-2 same 0.14
17-04-25-4 3 1900 HI LMI i-2 same 0.12
17w04-25-4 3 2000 Hi LMI I-2 same 0.15
17-04-25-4 3 2100 HI LMI I-2 same 0.27
17-04-25-4 3 2200 HI LMI i-2 same 0.34
17-04-25-4 3 2900 HI LMI i-2 same 1.14
17-04-25-4 3 3300 HI LMI i-2 same 0.92
17-04-25-4 3 3400 LDR LMI I-2 same 0,28
17-04-25-4 3 3500 LDR LMI i-2 same 0,34
17-04-25-4 3 3700 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.2I
17-04-25-4 3 3801 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.25
17-04-25-4 3 3900 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.26
17-04-25-4 3 4000 LDR LMI I-2 same 0,42
17-04-25-4 3 4100 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.45
17-04-25-4 3 4200 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.22
17-04-25-4 3 4300 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.23
17-04-25-4 3 4500 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 4600 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.53
17-04-25-4 3 4700 LDR LMi I-2 same 0.13
17-04-25-4 3 4800 LDR LMI Iw2 same 0.18
17-04-25-4 3 5200 LDR LMI i-2 same 0.45
17-04-25-4 3 5400 LDR LMI I-2 same 0,28
17-04-25-4 3 5500 LDR LMI i-2 same 0.36
17w04-25-4 3 5600 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.2
I7-04.25-4 3 5700 LDR LMI i-2 ~ same 0.22
17-04-25-4 3 5800 LDR LMI I-2 I-21SR - ~ 0.21
17-04-25-4 3 5900 LDR LMI i-2 I.2~SR O.I2
17-04-25-4 3 6100 LDR LMI I.2 I-2ISR 0.13
y
~ C
Proposed Metro Pian Diagram Change
Area #2 AMA. 94~2~ continued
Assessor's Tax Existing ~ Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
1VIap# Lot# Designation Designation Zoning Zoning
17-04-25-4 3 6900 LDR LMI I-2 I-215R 0.14
17-44-25-4 3 7100 LDR LMI I-2 I-21SR 0.18
17.04-25-4 3 7200 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.29
17-04-25-4 3 7300 LDR LMI I-2 same. 0.09
17-04-25«4 3 7400 LDR LMI I.2 I-21SR~ 0.1
17-44-25-4 3 7500 LDR LMI I-2 I-21SR 0.2
17-04-25-4 3 7600 LDR LMI I-2 I-2/SR 0.8
17-04-25-4 3 8000 LDR LMI I-2 same 1.17
17-04-25-4 3 8600 HI LMI I-2 same 0.51
17-04-25-4 3 8700 HI LMI I-2 same 0.79
17-04-25-4 3 9040 LDR LMI I-2 same 1.2
17-04-25-4 3 12500 HI LMI I-2 I-21SR 0.91
17-04-25-4 3 13000 HI LMI I-2 same 1.04
17-04-25-4 3 13300 LDR LMI I-2 same 0.07
17-04-25-4 4 5500 HI LMI I-2 same 1.17
17-04-25-4 4 5900 HI LMI I-2 same 0.14
17-04-25-4 4 6000 HI LMI I-2 same 0,06
17-04-25-4 4 6100 HI LMI I-2 same 0.21
I7-04-25-4 4 6700 LDR LMI i-2 same 0.23
17-04-25-4 4 6soo LDR LMI I-2 same 0.2
17-04-25-4 4 7000 LDR LMI I-2 I-2ISR 0.14
17-04-36-12 1700 HI LMI IwZ I-21SR 0.95
17-04-36-12 2000 HI LMI I-2 same 0.2i
17-04.36-12 2100 HI LMI I-2 same 0.21
17-04-36-12 2200 HI LMI I-2 same 0.19
17-04-3 b-12 2400 HI LMI I-2 same O. b l
17-04-36.12 2500 HI LMI I-2 same 0.4
17-04-36-12 2900 HI LMI I-2 same 0,81
17-04-3 b-12 3 704 HI LMI I-2 I-21SR 0.18
17-04-36-12 3800 HI LMI I-2 I-2ISR 0,27
17-04M36-12 4004 HI LMI I-2 same 0.23
Total Acreage: 26.19
~
Proposed Mefiro Plan Diagram Change ~
Area #3 AMA. 94w3~
Assessor's Tax Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
Map# Lot# Desrgnafi~on Des~gnat~on Zoning Zoning
17-03-30-3 3 3700 MU LMI I-2 same 0.13
17-03-30-3 3 3$00 MU LMI I-2 same 0.12
17-03-30-3 3 4000 MU LMI I-2 same 2,00
17-03-30-3 3 4400 MU LMI I-2 same 1,90
17-03-30-3 3 4600 MU LMI I-2 same ~ 0.13
17-03-30-3 3 4700 MU LMI I-2 same 0,15
17-03-30-3 3 4800 MU LMI I-2 same 0.89
17-03-30-3 3 4801 MU LMI I-2 same 0.19
17-04-25-41 1700 MU LMI I-2 same 0.40
17-04-25-41 1800 MU LMI I-2 same 0,26
17-04-25-41 1900 MU LMI I-2 same 0.51
17-04»ZS-41 2000 MU LMI I-2 same 0.45
TataI Acreage: 7.13
Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Change
Area #4 (MA 94-4)
Qn August 3, I994 the City "~
Council approved f iAndings, deny-
ing.the recommended Metro Plan
amendment for the west Skinner
Butte Residential Area AMA 94--4}.
Assessor's Tax Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
r Map# Lot# Designation Designation Zoning Zoning
17-03- 0-31 960D MDR HDR R-2 same 0.
17-03-3 1 970D MDR HDR R-2 same .I9
17-03-30-3 9500 MDR HDR R 2 same O.1S
17-03-30-31 9900 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.10
17-03-30-31 10040 MDR HDR R-2 same ~ D.OS
17.03-30-31 14144 MDR HDR R 2 same 0.19
17-03-30-31 1 DO MDR HDR R-2 sam 0.19
17-03-30-31 103 0 MDR HDR R-2 s e 0.19
17-03-30-31 1040 MDR HDR R-2 ame 0.06
17-03-30-31 10504 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.05
17-03-30-3 1 10600 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.07
17-03-30-31 10700 MDR HDR R 2 same 0.13
17-03-34-31 14800 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.06
17-03-30-31 10900 R HDR R- same 0.19
17-03-30-31 11000 HDR -2 same 0.19
17-03-30-31 i 1100 MDR HDR R-2 same D.I9
17-D3-30-3 1 11200 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.12
17-03-30-31 11300 MDR HDR R 2 same 0.13
17-03-30-3 1 11400 MDR HDR R-2 same 4.13
17-03-30-3 1 11500 MDR R-2 same 0,12
17-03-30-31 11600 MDR R 2 same 0.12
17-03-30-3 1 11700 MDR R-2 same 0.13
17-03-30-31 11 S44 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.10
17-03-30-3 I 12040 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.04
17-03-30-31 12140 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.12
17-03-30-31 12200 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.11
17-03-30-31 12300 MD HDR R-2 same U.1 S
I7-03-30-31 12400 R HDR R- SR same 0.01
17-03-30-31 12500 R HDR R-31 same O.OS
17-03-30-31 12604 MDR HDR R-31SR same 0.0$
17-03-30-31 12700 . MDR HDR R-31SR same 0.24
17-03-30-31 13000 MDR HDR R 31PD same 0.12
I7-03-30-3 1 13 I O MDR HDR R-31PD same 0.12
17-03-30-31 13 0 MDR HDR R-31PD one 4.23
17-03-30-31 1300 MDR HDR R-31SR s e 0.23
17-03-30-31 13400 MDR HDR R-31SR sam 0.24
17-43-30-31 13700 MDR HDR R-21201SR same 0.17
17-03-30-3 13840 MDR HDR R-2 same 0.14
17-03-30- 1 13900 MDR HDR R-21241SR same O.1 S
17-03-3 -3 1 14000 MDR HDR R-31SR same 0.24
17-0 0-31 14300 MDR HDR R 2 same ,1 S
17- 3-30-31 14404 MDR HDR R-2 same 0. 5
-03-30-31 14500 MDR HDR R 2 same ~~ - 0.1
17-03-30.31 14604 MDR HDR R 31SR same 0.25
17-03-30-31 1474D MDR HDR R•31SR same 0.45
Total Acreage: 6,84
~ Y
S
Proposed Metro Phan Diagram Change
Area #5 AMA 945}
Assessor's Tax Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Acres
Map# Lot# Designation Des~gnat~on Zoning Zoning
1?-03-30-31 12800 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.12
I7-03-30-31 12900 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.12
17-03-30-3 I 13500 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.10
17-03-30-31 13600 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.14
17-03-30-31 14100 MDR add MU* I~2 MU-W 0.48
17-03-30w3 4 100 MDR add MU* R-31SR ~_W 0,07
17-03-30-3 4 200 MDR add MU* R-31SR MU_W O,p6
17-03-30M3 4 300 MDR add MU* R•31SR MU_W 0,12
17-03-30-3 4 400 MDR add MU* R-31SR same 0.50
17-03-30-3 4 401 MDR add MU* R 31SR same 0,49
17-03-30-3 4 501 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.14
17-03-30-3 4 600 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.24
17-03w30»3 4 700 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.11
17-03-30-3 4 800 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.24
17-03-30-3 4 900 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.24
17-03-30-3 4 1000 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.24
17-03-30-3 4 1100 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 1.24
I7-03-30-3 4 1800 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.91
17-03-30-3 4 2300 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.07
17-03-30-3 4 2400 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-''~' 0.07
17-03-30-3 4 2500 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.07
17-03-30-3 4 2600 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.07
I7-03-30-3 4 2700 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.14
17-03-30-3 4 2800 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.08
17-03-30-3 4 2900 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.27
17-03-30-3 4 3000 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.54
17-03-30-3 4 3300 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.09
17-03-30-3 4 3400 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.07
17-03-30-3 4 3500 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0,23
17-03-30-3 4 3600 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-W 0.24
I7-03-30-3 4 3700 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.36
17-03-30.3 4 3900 LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.12
17-03-30-3 4 4000 ~ LMI add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.25
17-03-30-3 4 4100 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.49
17-03-30-3 4 4400 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.25
17-03-30-3 4 4500 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.24
17-03-30-3 4 4600 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.25
17.03w30.3 4 4700 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.10
17-03-30-3 4 4800 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.14
17-03-30-3 4 4900 MDR add MU* I.2 MU-W 0.24
17-03.30.3 4 5000 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.25
17-03-30-3 4 5100 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W µ' - 0.24
17-03-30-3 4 5200 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W O.Ob
17-03-30-3 4 5300 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-W 0.08
Proposed iVletro Plan Diagram Change
Area #5 AMA 94-5}continued
Assessor's
Map# Tax
Lot# Existing
Designation Proposed
Designation Existing
Zoning Proposed
Zan~ng Acres
17-03-30-3 4 5400 MDR add MU* I-2 MU-~ 0.11
17-03-30-3 4 10000 LMI add MU* MU-IC NIU-W 0.37
17-03-30-3 4 10200 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-VLF 0.40
17-03-34-3 4 10300 LMI add MU* MU-IC MU-~ 0,52
Total Acreage: 11,97
Proposed Metro Phan Diagram Change
Area #G AMA 94-6}
Assessor's
Map# Tax
Lot# Existing
Deslgaation Proposed
Des~gnat~on Existing
Zoning Proposed
Zoning Acres
17-03-3D-0 0 100 portion} POS MU PL MU-V~ 2.40
17-03.30-4 3 200 MDR HDR R 3 same 1.50
17-03.3D-4 3 300 MDR MU~ R-3 ~ MU-VLj 0.05
17-03-3D-4 3 400 MDR MU R-3 MU-'W 1,56
17-03-30-4 3 b00 MDR MU 1-2 MU-W 0.35
Total Acreage: 5.86