Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9.8090(8)(c) <br />9.8215(1)(b) <br />9. 8220(2){b) <br />9.8320(5)(a) 'i? <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 />9.8410(1) <br /> <br />(ij) <br /> <br />9.8410(2) <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />9.8580 <br /> <br />@) <br /> <br />9.8710 <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />Approval criteria for various <br />land UBe applications regarding <br />street connectivity standards <br /> <br />PUD Design Team must <br />include a member of the <br />American Institute of Certified <br />Planners (Alep), 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 />Vacations of improved right-of- <br />way (ROW) <br /> <br />Approval criteria require <br />compliance with street <br />connectivity standards (BC <br />9.6800-9.6870), but <br />inadvertently excluded <br />reference to private street <br />design standards (BC 9.6875). <br /> <br />Requirement for AICP planner <br />does not necessarily correlate to <br />better prepared projects. AICP <br />is a voluntary certification~ and <br />does not serve an accurate <br />measure of effectiveness. <br />PUD's have 2 approval steps. <br />Code does not allow requests <br />for minor modifications to the <br />first step (Tentative PUD's), but <br />does for the second step (Final <br />PUD). Applicants are either <br />required to start the process <br />over, or process the final POO <br />for a project they have no desire <br />to build, simply to avail <br />themselves of the modification <br />process. <br />Code does not reflect ORS <br />requirement for surveyor stamp <br />on parallel adjustments for <br />unplatted lots (lots not created <br />through a land division). <br />Staff have, at times, had <br />difficulty obtaining title reports <br />from applicants that are current, <br />given 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 as <br />is allowed for many other <br />similar applications. <br />State law only requires Council <br />approval of ROW vacations, <br />which until LUCU, is how such <br />requests were handled. LUCU <br />standardized all application <br />procedures (Type I through V), <br />which did not account for this <br />unique vacation process. <br /> <br />Amend various code references <br />to ensure approval criteria <br />require compliance with private <br />street standards (Ee 9.6875). <br /> <br />Eliminate the AICP <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Establish a provision to allow <br />requests for modifications to <br />tentative POO's similar to Final <br />POO process (Type II review). <br />This will enable public notice <br />as is required tor all other <br />modifications requests. <br /> <br />Add language consistent with <br />ORS requirement to require <br />surveyor stamp in these <br />situations. <br /> <br />Add language to require a <br />current preliminary title report <br />(within one year). <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 vacations of <br />improved right-of-way go <br />directly to City Council <br />(including public hearing). <br />