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 city to implement one of several means of protecting open space, including adopting planned <br />2 unit development ordinances, and does not contain any language that suggests that it is <br />3 intended to apply on a case-by-case basis to individual applications for planned unit <br />4 development approval that are processed under the city's adopted planned unit development <br />5 ordinances. <br />6 B. Policy E-4 <br />7 Policy E-4 of the Metro Plan's Environmental Design Element of the plan provides: <br />8 "Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that <br />9 preserves and enhances desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and <br />10 promotes their sense of identity." <br />11 The hearings officer found that Policy E-4 is not an "applicable" approval criterion, but <br />12 rather provides broad direction to the city and is implemented by approval criteria in the <br />13 EC's sections providing standards for PUD and CUP applications: <br />14 "In a prior decision * * * the hearings officer concluded `[t]his policy is broad <br />15 direction to the city. As applied to a PUD, this policy is implemented by <br />16 numerous criteria, including EC 9.8320(3), (4), (8), (12), and (13). * * * Two <br />17 CUP criteria also implement this policy: EC 9.8090(2) and (3). <br />18 * * Even though the hearings official believes this policy provides broad <br />19 direction to the city, the hearings official notes that this decision addresses the <br />20 criteria that implement this policy below; it is not necessary to conduct an <br />21 independent review of the proposed development for consistency with this <br />22 policy." Record 219. <br />23 As noted above, the planning commission agreed with the hearings officer. <br />24 Petitioner argues that the text of Policy E-4 demonstrates that it is an "applicable" <br />25 provision of the Metro Plan and is intended to apply to individual permit decisions on public <br />26 facilities. Petitioner first points out that Policy E-4 is phrased in mandatory terms with the <br />27 use of the word "shall" providing direction for designing and locating public facilities. <br />28 Petitioner also points to context provided in the preamble to the Environmental Design <br />29 Element that provides in relevant part that "[i]f we are to maintain a livable urban <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.