COM 1077.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Now, we've submitted and, for the Director's consideration, what we call the master plan. I think Christian had shown what we have done, you know. We had Michael Riehm prepare what is called, you know, this transect map and also this master plan, kind of revised master plan, basically showing, you know, where your connectivity is, you know, connection orientations, so on and so forth, they are there. The Director had summarily rejected that; he said like, no, you know, I'm sorry, it doesn't pass the master, so you've got to go back to the drawing board. So, ultimately, what happens is that the Director's position was that we plan to have like a master plan before we can even come before this Planning Commission. Now, I ask yourself this, you know, like I think that's - - - for the applicant is that it gives the Planning Director an enormous amount of discretionary - - -. We can submit a new plan, and he can reject it. We can resubmit:again, and they can reject it. When will it end? That's the question, you know. When will it end? And how long is it going to take? So, such that, you know, what we are fearful of is that it,may come to a point where this Commission may never see this application - - -, if we, hIad agreed to that condition, Now, the developer, or the applicant, is concerned like, you know; wewanted to have it processed and met two criteria: One was it's got to be transparent; and, two, it's--got-to be fair, it's got to be - -. So we had thus proposed—and it's shown in Condition X in Suffolk's and Condition Z in Puaa, you know, which was transmitted in my October [sic] 3rd�letter—What we had proposed was that we are not dismissing the idea for need for master plan. We recognize; -we know what the Planning Director's saying. We are not, we are not saying it's riot. important. We are saying it's important. But consider this: We are saying that wet are ,having a master plan prepared, this is going to include both properties. Now, this condition, you- kn6w,: two, ordinances; .okay, you have a master plan that includes both properties and addresses all. of the e'l'ements that you are calling for—mix-uses, walkable community, housing, phasing, whatever have you: So we .need to still develop the master plan that incorporates both plats;. then to also ,.consider that this .is,_,a Neighborhood TOD, Transit Oriented Development;�Jhat's the master plan.Now, we are also proposing as a condition that there is a three-day review period by the" Design Center; and not like an interminable period; you'll never know once you submit, when you come out., You"know, there's got to be that kind of--- in terms of decision=making. And then; thirdly, then once younhave this master plan reviewed, vetted, and that would 1'serve as a basis for Plan Approval: 'Ain .let me tell you why you want to have it tied into Plan Approval. Plan Approval is a `process that basically enables the Planning Director to look at the plan and make -sure that it conforms with the General Plan, Community Development Plan, make sure it conforms with the Zonirig. Code in terms of the setback, the height, the parking, so on and so forth. And if there -are any - - - conditions of rezoning approval, then they all have to be addressed. That's your Plan Approval. So-the'Planning Director has to review that and then make a decision. You know the beauty behind that -Process? Two things: One is that it gives transparent and equitable—first of all, there is 4 -`45 -day time limit from the time the application is filed and the decision-making --- ; two is that if the decision is adverse to the applicant, you know what happens, at least the applicant can appeal the Planning Director's decision to say like it's arbitrary, capricious, it's an abuse of discretion, so on and so forth. If you were to assume the Director's original position of saying we want to have an approved master plan before we can appear before you guys, where is the equity? Where is the, where is the liberty to say, no, we want to come back and see - - - with you, Planning? But we don't have that opportunity. So what we are proposing here is a process that address to see your master plan requirement, but at the same time, provides for transparency, provides for minimal of abuse by the Planning Director. This is absolutely not at all to suggest that 20 DRAFT