Item # 198 <br />Planning Commission April 25, 1999 <br />c/o Teresa Bishow <br />99 W. 10th Ave <br />Eugene Or 97401 <br />Dear Commissioners: <br />My comments concern the Draft Land Use Code, Section 9.5000s, regarding Land use <br />application procedures. There are two areas that need revision. These suggestions are <br />based on our neighborhood's past involvement in the PUD process (Son Blaze/Moon <br />Mt. <br />The first item concerns 9.5070, Quasi-Judicial Hearings-Order of Procedure for Type III <br />applications. Letter "L" deals with Continuance of Hearing. A continuance should not be <br />allowed as a tool to significantly alter an application. There needs to be some provision <br />added that gives the hearings official the authority to deny this use of the continuance. <br />The continuance is provided to "present additional evidence, arguments, or testimony <br />regarding the application". Unfortunately, the applicant often tries to misuse the <br />continuance to significantly modify the submitted application in an attempt to win <br />approval. The language says that the hearings official "shall" grant a continuance request. <br />Change the wording to "may" or add language that gives the hearings official the authority <br />to decide if the result of the continuance is being used to modify the application. If it is, <br />the hearings official should be able to rule that the applicant needs to file a new <br />application. The goal is to get the applicant to address the plan as submitted rather than <br />design last minute on the run. <br />The second point concerns 9.5025 "Limitations on Refiling of Denied Applications". The <br />text reads: <br />"The ci may waive the one year waiting period if the city concludes, based on a <br />written statement from the applicant, that the earlier proposal was sufficiently <br />modified, or that conditions changed sufficiently, to evereemeaddress the reasons <br />for denial." (emphasis added) <br />The language has been changed from "overcome" to "address". This softening of the <br />language is not acceptable. The term "address" is extremely vague. I have asked Teresa <br />Bishow to clarify the legal meaning of the term "address" with the City attorney. The <br />intent of this provision is for the applicant to overcome the reasons for denial. Also, the <br />language should state that the Planning Director, not just "the city" should make the <br />waiver decision. <br />Sincerely, <br />Gail "Jake" Bradshaw <br />Co-chair Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br />APR 2 9 <br />0ooo <br />I-3 <br />