Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.8090(8)( c) Approval criteria for various <br />9.8215(1)(b) land use applications regarding <br />9 . 8220(2)(b ) ~ street connectivity standards <br />9.8320(5)(a)\!.9 <br />9.8325(6)(a} <br />9. 8440(3)(a) <br />9.8515(1)(b) <br />9.8520(3)(b) <br />9.8130(2) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8335 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.841~ <br />C!3 <br /> <br />9.8410(2) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8580 <br /> <br />6JJ <br /> <br />9.8710 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8710(6) <br />(jj) <br />9.8710(7) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8720 <br /> <br />@) <br /> <br />PUD Design Team must <br />include a member of the <br />American Institute of Certified <br />Planners (AICP), unless waived <br />by Planning Director <br /> <br />Modification to Approved <br />Tentative POO's <br /> <br />Property Line Adjustment: <br />Surveyor Stamp required <br /> <br />Property Line Adjustments: <br />Title report required <br /> <br />Final Subdivision requirements <br /> <br />ROW vacation process <br /> <br />ROW vacation: Consent <br />requirements <br /> <br />Required consent for public <br />utility easement vacations <br /> <br />Unimproved ROW vacation: <br />Payment of assessed value <br /> <br />Approval criteria require <br />compliance with street <br />connectivity standards (EC <br />9.6800-9.6870), but <br />inadvertently excluded <br />reference to pri vate street <br />design standards (EC 9.6875). <br /> <br />Unnecessary requirement <br />without benefit <br /> <br />Code does not allow a <br />modification to Tentative <br />PUD's. Any minor changes <br />require an entirely new PUD <br />Code does not reflect ORS <br />requirement for surveyor stamp <br />on parallel adjustments for <br />unplatted lots <br />Staff have, at times, had <br />difficulty obtaining title reports <br />from applicants that are current, <br />~iven lack of clarity in the code <br />EC 9.7025 requires <br />performance agreements related <br />to subdivisions. No means <br />available to consider <br />modifications to agreements <br />Code requires Type IV review <br />but does not clarify that PC <br />review is not included in this <br />particular case, pursuant to <br />ORS <br />Code only references a portion <br />of ORS requirements which <br />apply to vacations of ROW <br />Language conflicts with intent <br />to require consent from any <br />owners adjacent to the portion <br />of easement to be vacated. <br />Implies consent also required <br />from unaffected neighbors <br />Code does not specify how and <br />when applicant shall pay for <br />vacated unimproved ROW <br />(Type II process) <br /> <br />Amend various code references <br />to ensure approval criteria <br />require compliance with private <br />street standards (EC 9.6875) <br /> <br />Eliminate the AICP <br />requirement <br /> <br />Establish a provision to allow <br />Modifications to Tentative <br />PUD's similar to Final POO <br />process (Type II review) <br />Add language consistent with <br />ORS requirement to require <br />surveyor stamp in these <br />situations <br />Add language to require a <br />current preliminary title report <br /> <br />Establish Type II modification <br />process similar to other <br />performance agreements (I.e. <br />Site Reviews, CUP's, PUD's) <br /> <br />Clarify that Type IV vacations <br />goes directly to City Council <br />(public hearing) <br /> <br />Include reference to applicable <br />ORS requirements <br /> <br />Revise language to clarify <br />consent is only required of <br />owners of property adjacent to <br />the easement in question <br /> <br />Provide language similar to <br />Type IV ROW vacations <br /> <br />Last revised 9/30/05 <br />