Application Completeness Review - Laserfiche WebLink

application. In this case, the proposal appears to trigger the requirement for a concurrent refinement plan application. Staff interpret EC 9.7730(5)(b) as not requiring a separate ordinance. Staff do not interpret EC 9.7730(5)(b) as a procedural pass on the refinement plan amendment. Please submit the required refinement plan amendment or otherwise provide additional findings to support waiving a concurrent or subsequent refinement plan amendment. Written Statement Required for a Proposed Text Change Submiitted Missing Incompiete N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 3. Submitted a written example of the proposed text change. This should be specific page(s) the change applies to should be cited. Information Required for a Proposed Diagram Change Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Submitted a map indicating the property included in the request and adjacent streets and alleys. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Submitted a vicinity map indicating the general area of the amendment that allows easy identification of the property. ® ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Submitted a map indicating the existing plan diagram boundaries and the proposed plan diagram boundaries. Comments Required Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting per EC 9.7007 & 9.7010 Submitted Missing Incomplete ® ❑ ❑ 7. Submitted the list of persons who were mailed notice pursuant to EC 9.7007(5) & a signed statement that notice was posted & mailed to those on the list. ® ❑ ❑ 8. Submitted a copy of the notice(see EC 9.7007(5)) ® ❑ ❑ 9. Submitted a copy of the meeting notes and sign-in sheet described at EC 9.7007(9); ® ❑ ❑ 10. Submitted copy of the site plan presented at the meeting. ® ❑ ❑ 11. Verify if site plan submitted with application substantially conforms to site plan presented at neighborhood/applicant meeting (see EC 9.7007(12)). If not, new meeting is required. Comments: It appears that the application is consistent with the neighborhood meeting proposal. Referral Information Yes No ❑ ® 12. Is the right-of-way county maintained? ❑ ® 13. Does Parks Planning require a referral for this application? ZONE CHANGE Written Statement Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A 14. Provided a written statement demonstrating how the requested change ❑ ❑ ® ❑ satisfies the criteria in Eugene Code Section 9.8865. 15. Provided a written statement and other evidence, if necessary, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ demonstrating how the requested change satisfies the applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0060 (the Transportation Planning Rule). Comments: 1. The written statement confuses base zones, overlay zones, and plan designations. For example, there is no such "Whiteaker Special Area" overlay zone. 2. The response at EC 9.8855 is incorrect. The concurrent zone change will be processed as a Type I Metro Plan Amendment, not a Type IV application. Staff are also confused with the conclusory statement that the proposal will "comply with the criteria in EC 9.8855(3) and (4). These are not approval criteria, but application process requirements. 3. The response at EC 9.8865(2) contains multiple inaccuracies. An approved MA will not revise the Envision Refinement Plan Amendment Completeness Review Form Page 2 of 3