My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2014
>
CU 14-3
>
ATT New Evidence Submitted During First Open Record Period
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2015 4:11:17 PM
Creation date
6/18/2015 10:30:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
14
File Sequence Number
3
Application Name
ATT AT CROSSFIRE
Document Type
Public Comments submitted after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
6/17/2015
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
259
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
I zoned R-1/PD and is designated Parks and Open Space in the Metro Plan and the <br />2 Willakenzie Area Plan. The Metro Plan is the comprehensive plan that governs the <br />3 metropolitan area of the city, and the Willakenzie Area Plan is the applicable refinement plan <br />4 for the area of the city in which the subject property is located. Petitioner's 222-unit <br />5 apartment building is located to the north of the golf course property, approximately 100 feet <br />6 from the proposed cell tower. The golf course is surrounded by single family residential <br />7 development on all sides. <br />8 The hearings officer held a hearing on the applications and approved the planned unit <br />9 development and conditional use permit applications, but denied the variance application to <br />10 locate the ancillary facilities above ground. Petitioner and intervenor each appealed the <br />11 hearings officer's decision to the planning commission, which upheld the hearings officer's <br />12 decisions. This appeal followed. <br />13 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />14 EC 9.8320(1) requires the city to find that "[t]he PUD is consistent with applicable <br />15 adopted policies of the Metro Plan." EC 9.8090(1) similarly requires the city to find that the <br />16 conditional use permit application "is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan <br />17 and applicable refinement plans." The city concluded that there were no "applicable" Metro <br />18 Plan policies or provisions that applied to the applications. In its first assignment of error, <br />19 petitioner argues that Metro Plan Environmental Resources Element Policy C-21 and <br />20 Environmental Design Element Policy E-4 are applicable Metro Plan policies and that the <br />21 city erred in failing to determine whether the applications are consistent with those policies. <br />22 Petitioner also argues that to the extent the planning commission concluded that the <br />23 applications are consistent with those policies, the planning commission's findings are <br />24 inadequate to explain the basis for that conclusion. <br />25 A. Policy C-21 <br />26 Metro Plan Policy C-21 provides: <br />Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.