The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication APPLICANT 10/23/2008 q city of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Phone: (541) 726-3759 Fax: (541) 726-3689 SPRINGFIELD App~als Application, Type III A Appeal of the D~_"v;' Decision Appeal of an Expedited Land Division Appeal of the Historical Commission Decision Name, J oumal Number and Date of the Decision Being Appealed s,\ r, UIOi -eml1 i Date of Filing the Appeal , I 0 - 7.--2- -'D'i( (fhis date must he within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision.) Please list below, in summary fonn, the specific issues being raised in the appeaL These should be the specific points where you fuel the Approval Authority erred in making the decision, ie., what approval criterion or criteria you allege to have been inappropriate~ applied. Issue #1 c...~ . , oJrl-Ll.vkcL ~ I'"' - t- c,......i\II=ld: LJfi:;i W' r.;;r~ Issue #2 OCT 2 3 lOUIS Issue #3 . l~u'a-'lu,,1 ungull' tou ro., Issue #4 (List any additional issues being appe!lled on an attached sheet.) The undersigned acknowledges the above appeal form and its attachments have been read, the requirements for filing 3n appeal of a land use decision is understood ~nd states the information supplied is correct and accurate. Appe IIant's Name ~ul ~,~ '\ r vW\- Phone ':::(-LC=!. - ~ll D Address 1:S<i:. 1- 'N. \ V\ II-\.- S"\ Sf A:::. Ok q-:tYlr- Statement of Interest ~ f\,{I {) \ "c..~ f...- Signature'~II{A t6{,t,Q{)(,) !In\N~"\ ~ A-ffV\ UW.r For Office Use Only: JoumalNo. ZON::J..oofl-QO03& Received By ~MA_' Assessor's Map No. 17~O':r2.4-DO Tax Lot No, 600 Date Accepted as Complete . PRS''ZLXi7-fibo<t4 10-22-0 8P02: 11 RCVD 225 Fifth Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 541-726-3759 Phone afRI!,g.,..~. jj '. ....';.... tli. -- . - . . . " ", ..-,,'--".-. .. -,- .-.' ." ". C of Springfield Official Receipt Development Services Department Public Works Department . RECEIPT #: 2200800000000001545 Date: 10/23/2008 9:04:26AM Paid By LA W OFFICE BILL KLOOS Item Total: Check Number Authorization Received By Batch Number Number How Received Amount Due 250.00 $250.00 Job/Journal Number Description ZON2008-00038 CTY Appeal Type II Decision Payments: Type of Payment Check Amount Paid kal 6815 In Person' Payment Total: $250.00 $250.00 , Date Received: OCT 2 3 2008 Original Submittal cRcceil1tl Page 1 of I 10/23/2008 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD VICINITY MAP ZON2008-00038 2833 20tb Street SITE Map 17-03-24-00 Tax Lot 500 " " " " ... " " " tn II b; ; --------_ Nortb "-00 .1 I L; _~ HAYDEN -BRIDGE-Rd + H . I II =B, =t-tt+- I Date Received: OCT 2 3 2008 Original SubmittP1 LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS, PC OREGON LAND USE LAW 375 W. 4'" STREET, SUITE 204 EUGENE. OR 97401 TEL (541) 343-8596 FAX (541) 343-8702 E.MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM October 22, 2008 Director Springfield Development Services 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Date Received: OCT 2 3 2008 Re: Appeal of Partition Approval Conditions File: SUB2008-00039; Helfrich Family Trust Original Submittal Dear City of Springfield: ; . ...~.'; r-' ,!9 _ Please accept this letter and the enclosed check for the filing fee (5250.00) as an appeal of the Director's approval in the matter above. This appeal is filed on behalf of the owner and applicant. My client agrees that the pm1ition should be approved, but objects to some of the conditions imposed as not being supported by the applicable standards for approval. This appeal is filed under SDC 5.3-115. Standing to Appeal: My client has standing to appeal as the owner and applicant. Timely Filing: This appeal is timely as it is filed within the time allowed by the decision. Appeal Issues: The applicant objects to making compliance with conditions 1 and 2 a condition of the Final Plat. Thc conditions relate to: (1) an Improvement Agreement for sidewalk, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting; and (2) street improvements for the 20th Street cul- de-sac. The conditions are not related to any standards for approval, and they are not necessary to demonstrate compliance with the standards of approval. If there is a basis in the code for requiring an Improvement Agreement, the tell11S of that agreement need to be determined in this proceeding, in order to ensure that the terms comply with the standards in the code and exactions law. The stated standard from the code, SDC 5.12-125.C, focuses on "capacity reqllireinents ofpllblic improvements." This is a proposal to divide property, not to develop a use that will impact 10-22~08P02:11 RCVD Springfield Development Services October 22, 2008 Page 2 of3 Date Received: OCT 2 3 2008 ~ Original submittal capacity of the improvements. The code standard at SDC 5.12-125.C says that "[l]he Public Works Director or utility provider shall detem1ine capacity issues." If the City wishes to condition the approval to boost capacity of public improvements, then the capacity detennination needs to be made in the context of this decision, and that has not been done. The conditions requiring capacity improvements in connection with a bare partition of the land have not been justified as an exaction under the Dolan standard and do not comply with that standard. The applicant objects to conditions .7, 8 and 10 related to stormwater. These conditions relate to: (7) exaction of a 14-foot easement for an existing public stormwater pipe; (8) requiring the location of the new private stormwater line outside the 14-foot easement for the existing public pipe; and (10) requiring installation oqhe private storm pipe on each lot prior to final platting, unrelated to whether and when residential construction is approved. To the extent these conditions are based on standards in the EDSP Manual, they Illay not be applied because the Manual is notan acknowledged land use regulation, and, furthe11110re, it has not been adopted by ordinance, as is required of all land use regulations. The requirement for the public easement dedication for the existing public storm water pipe is not related to or required by any standard in the city code. Furthermore, the dedication has not been justified as an exaction under the Dolan standard and does not comply with that standard. The requirement to install private st01111 water facilities on site is not based on any applicable code standard for this partition. It has some qualities of puttiilg the cart before the horse, or requiring the building of the roof before the foundation. The applicant objects to condition 12, which requires installation of a fire hydrant to serve these two parcels. The findings recite that the closest fire hydrant is at 2 I" and Hayden Bridge, which is more than GOO feet distant. The findings do not reference the location for the GOO-foot maximum distance. Assuming there is such a standard, the applicant would pointout that there is an existing hydrant due east of the subject property, on the next cul-de-sac, and well within the GOO-foot limit. The applicant objects to Condition 26, which requires an access easement to the tax lot to the north. The land to the north is outside the UGB. It is not land over which the city has land use jurisdiction. The code lar)guage relied upon in the decision for this condition applies to land inside the UGB only.. This condition should be drojJped. , Springfield Development Services October 22, 2008 Page 3 of3 My client looks forward to working with staff to get these issues resolved before, during, or as a result of the public hearing on this matter. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Cc: Client Jim McLaughlin Date Received: OCT 2 3 2008 Original Submittal