AM <br />WPIanning <br />Vacation Completeness Review Form <br />Planning Department <br />Application File Name <br />Neighborly Ventures Inc (VRU 20-2) <br />Date: <br />March 3, 2021 <br />Applicant's Name: <br />Crowne Point <br />Zoning: <br />R-4 <br />Representative's Name: <br />Elliott Pelfrey, Neighborly Ventures, Inc <br />Reviewed by: <br />Jeff Gepper, Senior Planner <br />Phone: <br />(541) 682-5282 <br />E-mail: <br />JGepper@eugene-OR.gov <br />General <br />Comments: I have copied the old completeness review comment below. Strikethrough are those that are <br />completed. I have highlighted the sections that remain incomplete and provided additional notes <br />underneath. I will try to be clearer, as it appears there is still misunderstanding around what is <br />being required. There still is an issue with general understanding and reading through the <br />requirements on the application form itself. Please see comments below which re-iterate the <br />requirements listed on the signed application forms. <br />Also, very important is the Assessment value of the proposed vacation that was provided by our <br />Public Works Engineering team. Please review this document and let us know if you have <br />questions. <br />ef Way. HeweveF, as dise-assed- the St_41f. aRd Applir=aRt, this is iR far=t a Fight ef way <br />C. It is noted that the request includes the vacation of Slocum Drive and Songbird Loop. <br />However, the maps also show the removal of a 7-foot Public Utility easement. If this is also <br />being vacated, please include this in your request. <br />a. The public utility easement is not discussed within your revised findings, nor is it <br />mentioned on your application forms. Please at a minimum include a description of <br />the vacation of the PUE within your revised findings documentation. <br />D. You submitted two identical applications. Did you intend to submit two applications from <br />different property owners? We don't need everyone to sign an application, but the remaining <br />parties must sign a consent to annex form. Discussed in further detail below. Also, the <br />property listed as the applicant is signed by Crown Point, the owners of the property to the <br />north. Does Crown Point have authority to sign on behalf of Asgar R Sadri L.T. Also, the <br />application is not entirely filled out, which I believe may be leading to missed information that <br />is supposed to be submitted with an application. <br />Written Statement <br />Submitted <br />Missing <br />Incomplete <br />N/A <br />❑ <br />❑ <br />® <br />❑ <br />1. Documentation that the proposal complies with the applicable <br />approval criteria (Section 9.8715, 9.8720, or 9.8725 of the Eugene <br />Code) submitted. <br />Comments: <br />" 1 <br />EC 9 <br />8710(3) states "(3) <br />. <br />. <br />eF <br />aFts <br />-eved <br />ublir <br />Fi <br />ht ef wa <br />and <br />vaeatien ef undevele <br />ed nd <br />lats <br />aFtitien <br />- <br />p <br />p <br />= <br />g <br />y, <br />p <br />, <br />p <br />p <br />+h F . gI J , 6,1 ...L,+ F and J <br />easements I ,r + J t h shall 6, <br />ublir <br />p <br />= <br />n <br />9 7441; thrA- h 9 <br />Feval in EC 9 <br />7455 and the a <br />. <br />pp <br />- <br />e, - h;ogin addressed EC 9 87 _01 <br />a <br />Please addFess the a <br />Feval eFiteFia at EC 9 <br />8725 (at this time <br />. <br />pp <br />. <br />y <br />b The "T"ress yVill i..el-Ae a quasi u iegal heaFing held by the City <br />Site Plan Requirements <br />Submitted Missing Incomplete N/A <br />Vacation Completeness Review Form Pagel of 3 <br />