I Nick <br />From: <br />GIOELLO Nick R <br />Sent: <br />Tuesday, January 16, 2018 10:43 AM <br />To: <br />'Susan Hoffman` <br />Subject: <br />RE: Capital Hill PUD Hearing Date Timing <br />Hello Susan, <br />This is in response to an older question I've not answered. <br />I'm not sure I can provide an adequate response to the questions below. What I can say is the applicant provided a <br />revised plan showing the additional lot in response to the City's inquiry into the existing triplex. I think this was an <br />attempt to limit the eviction of all the tenants in the structure, which as you know was started by your group's request <br />to look into the issue with how this building was allowed to be used in the way it has been over the past few years. <br />Planning sees the addition of one lot and the option of another lot having up to three units as a minor change in the <br />plans since it does not trigger, for example a traffic impact analysis nor did it propose a new building site in an area <br />previously shown as a conservation area. <br />Also, the revised plan was submitted before the 30 day notice, so there was ample time for all to see the change and <br />provide comment on it. I also believe there will be no additional changes to this plan, so with the hearing delay, there <br />should be ample time for all to review this change. <br />I do not understand the question about how does forced completion protect the citizens against the applicant's PUD? I <br />do think it is not unusual for minor plan changes to occur on other projects I have worked on. Also, staff will suggest <br />conditions of approval and the Hearings Official's decision can impose their own conditions of approval, which can cause <br />minor changes in a site plan. Things like additional landscaping, preservation of additional trees, a different storm <br />drainage facility, changes to driveway locations, etc. are just some of the things that can change in this process. I do not <br />think the request by the applicant to deem a project complete means there are no changes whatsoever to a plan set <br />after that. <br />Yes, It is correct there are 75 additional days remaining for a possible extension. I have no idea if those days will be used <br />by the applicant. If used, they would start after the last extension request expires which is March 1, 2018. At that point <br />the 120 day clock starts again, which is currently at 15 days. Between March 1 and the hearing date the applicant could <br />choose to request another time extension and we would count it from that date forward. Assuming they do not ask for <br />another extension, on the hearing date of March 7 there will be 22 days used of the 120 day clock (the total days used <br />since being deemed complete and no time extension invoked). <br />I believe at this point that the applicant does intend to keep the new hearing date, with no additional time extensions, <br />but of course I cannot guarantee that. <br />Thanks, <br />Nick <br />From: Susan Hoffman [maiito:shortgamesue@yahoo.com] <br />Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 10:45 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Cc: Tom Bruno <brunoassoc@aol.com>; Sheryl Kelly<sherylkell@comcast.net>; Jason Brown <br /><brownjll@uoregon.edu>; Brent Lorscheider <lorsch2728@pacbell.net>; Becky Dorsey <rdorsey@uoregon.edu>; <br />1 <br />