a ~:F tv--- <br />BEFORE THE EUGENE PLANNING COIvfl\ESSION <br />HEARING MEMORANDUM OF I\2ARII=,YN COHEN <br />Cathedral Park, CU 02-4 01 , qaCl <br />Hearing: August 23 2016 <br />Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The following statement relates to 1) the <br />applicant's statements to LUBA, in the case resulting in this remand, regarding the three <br />options available to him to resolve the conflict between the 1995 CUP and the CIR-CUP <br />application, 2) LUBA's subsequent rulings on the first two options, and 3) the errors the <br />hearings official committed in approving the application. <br />Following the city's rejection of the application in this case, LUBA remanded the case to <br />give the applicant the opportunity to argue different options to resolve the conflict between <br />the 1995 CUP and the CIR application. 'Tiper v. City, of Eugene, LUBA Nos. 2002-131 and <br />2002-132 March 3 2003 (hereafter LLBA I) (a copy of which is attached). LUBA noted <br />that the applicant had identified that his options would potentially include: <br />"(1) demonstrating that there is no conflict and thus no need to amend the 1995 <br />CUP, or (2) amending the 1995 CUP to allow the proposed housing, either by <br />shrinking the footprint of the CUP mastetplan or by changing the text and plans to <br />allow housing. Petitioner argues that the second option might be done as a separate <br />application to amend the 1995 CUP, or by combining it with the CIR-CUP <br />application. A third option, petitioner argues, is the one apparently preferred by the <br />planning director: to abandon the CIR-CUP application and start over with a new <br />combined application to amend the 1995 CUP and to approve the requested CIR <br />housing". (Slip opinion, p.6). (Emphasis added). <br />Following the remand, the applicant requested that the city suspend consideration of the <br />CIR-CUP application and filed an application to modify the 1995 CUP to excise the Zone 6 <br />area from the footprint of the CUP masterplan. Wiper v. City of Eugene, LUBA No. 2004- <br />016, Final Opinion and Order, May 10, 2004 (hereafter LUBA 1) (slip opinion, p.5) (a copy <br />of the opinion was attached to my appeal). <br />LUBA, in this second case, rejected the first two options presented by the applicant. Furst, <br />LUBA upheld the hearings official's finding that the site was restricted under the 1995 CUP <br />to cemetery use, that it could not be developed for residential uses, and that a modification <br />of the 1995 CUP was necessary, for such development to take place. Second, LUBA upheld <br />the hearings official's denial of the modification to excise the site from the 1995 CUP. <br />(LUBA also upheld the hearings official's denial of an additional request to allow <br />development in Zone 6 to use roads and install utilities within the remaining CUP area). <br />In sum, LUBA rejected the first option listed by the applicant (i.e. that no modification was <br />needed), and rejected the second option listed by the applicant (i.e. to amend the 1995 CUP). <br />That left the third option - "to abandon the CIR-CUP application and start over with a new <br />combined aoiDlication to amend the 1995 CUP and to aoDrove the requested CIR housing". <br />LUBA I, pp.6-7 (Emphasis added). <br />