My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment - received during open record period (closed 11-12-15)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment - received during open record period (closed 11-12-15)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 4:08:08 PM
Creation date
11/12/2015 4:11:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE TRAILS
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/12/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
B. Current site review process allows for the establishment of site-specific <br />criteria for a given parcel. Proposed text would simplify site review <br />evaluation by standardizing criteria for all site review applications, <br />including those sites previously rezoned with individualized criteria. Do <br />the benefits of a simplified system outweigh the benefits of having <br />"tailored" criteria? <br />C. Should.site reviews limit the range of modifications which can be made to <br />the development standards, as the existing code currently does, or should a <br />broader list of standards be eligible for modification? <br />Items Enclosed: <br />Index Item #197: Letter from Thomas Hannah, Arcadia Neighbors, urging use of "a set <br />of guidelines where connectivity may be required, and a set of parameters defining <br />circumstances where connectivity is inadvisable." Letter contains a list of 6 proposed <br />exceptions to the connectivity rule. <br />Index Item #198: Letter from Gail "Jake" Bradshaw, Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley <br />Citizens, indicating concerns about the potential misuse of the ability to request a <br />continuance of a public hearing on a land use application. Suggests changing EC <br />% 9.5070(L) to state that the Hearings Official "may" grant a continuance request instead of <br />"shall" grant the request. The Hearings Official could determine whether there was a <br />basis for granting the continuance or whether it was being used inappropriately to <br />actually modify the application. Letter also raises concern about EC 9.5025 Limitations <br />on Refiling of Denied Applications being changed from the need to "overcome" the <br />reasons for denial if trying to submit within a year, to the use of the word "address" the <br />reasons for denial. <br />9.6000s Application Requirements and Criteria for Planned Unit Developments and <br />Site Reviews <br />Summary of Public Testimony Regarding Selected Sections of 9.6000s Application <br />Requirements and Criteria <br />For More Information: Contact Teresa Bishow, Land Use Code Update Project Manager, at <br />(541) 682-5452. <br />E-mail: teresa.a.bishow@ci.eugene.or.us <br />TB C:\User\LUCU\Ping Comm\pc05lO99.wpd <br />Land Use Code Update 1-2 <br />0000'78'70 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.