My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments Received at Hearing
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2002
>
CU 02-4
>
Public Comments Received at Hearing
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2017 2:41:35 PM
Creation date
8/26/2016 9:30:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
2
File Sequence Number
4
Application Name
CATHEDRAL PARK
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
8/26/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
I the approved final plans shall be governed by the following procedures ."4 In the cry's view, <br />2 the ClR-CUP application clearly proposes development that requires modification to the <br />3 1995 CUP final plans. The city argues that its code implicitly prohibits a CUP holder from <br />4 circumventing the required CUP modification process by requesting city approval of an <br />5 application to establish a different use on the CUP site. Therefore, the city argues, its code <br />6 implicitly authorizes rejection of an application that seeks to modify a CUP by means other <br />7 than the CUP modification process. <br />8 With respect to Douniani, the city argues that careful consideration of that case <br />supports the city's action. According to the city, Doumani stands for the proposition that the <br />10 city may reject an application for reasons authorized by its code. The city argues that <br />11 because EC 9.772 implicitly prohibits applications that in effect seek to circumvent the <br />12 prescribed CUP modification process, the city's rejection is authorized by its code. <br />13 With respect to ORS 227.178(2), the city agrees wit], petitioners that that statute does <br />14 not authorize the city to reject a permit application. However, the city argues, it relied not on <br />4 EC 9.722(2) provides in relevant part: <br />"a. By Planning Director. Applications for modifications shall be submitted by the <br />property owner or applicant. * * * If a modification is minor, Le. it results in <br />insignificant changes in the outward appearance of the development and impact on <br />surrounding properties, it may be considered by the planning director. These <br />modifications * * may be approved by the planning director upon a finding that the <br />changes: <br />"1. Are consistent with the conditions of the original approval, and <br />"2. Result in insignificant changes in the outward appearance of the <br />development and impact on the surrounding properties, and <br />"3. Remain consistent with applicant permit criteria. * * <br />"b. By Hearings Official. Modifications that are major in nature and do not meet the <br />standards for a minor modification shall require approval of the hearings official. <br />* * * The hearings official may deny, modify, or approve the modification request. <br />Approval of a major modification shall require a finding by the hearings official that <br />the proposal and modification meet the applicable criteria -[for conditional use <br />permits] set out in [EC] 9.702 of this code. * * <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.