HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 12/3/2008
;'1'
,
'.~
Supplemental Findings - Appeal of Director's Decision
Journal Numbers:
Partition Tentative Approval with Conditions:
Appeal of Director's Decision:
SUB2008-00039
ZON2008-00038
Dates:
Decision Date:
Appeal Date:
Initial Hearing Date:
Document Date
Continuance Date:
Aooellant:
I
Attornev for the Aooellant:
Action Souaht: The appellants are requesting that the Springfield Hearings Official
remove several conditions of Partition Tentative Approval. The Director submits the
attached findings supplementing the decision and requests that the Hearings Official
sustain the Director's Conditions of Approval as issued.
Discussion: The appellant's Tentative Partition Approval was appealed on and
scheduled for public hearing before the Hearings Official on November 24, 2008. By
agreement of the parties, the record was held open for additional written submittals and
the hearing was continued until December 10, 2008. This submittal to the Hearings
Official supplements and incorporates the findings and conditions contained in the
original decision dated anq the Appeal Staff Report dated , further addressing
the allegations of error contained in the Appeal Application.
Recommendation and Action Reauested:
This staff report contains additional findings and conclusions supporting the Director's
Decision of Tentative Approval with Conditions. Staff requests the Hearings Official
affirm that the Conditons of Approval are consistent with local code, supported with
adequate findings and consistent with case law, including but not limited to the "Dolan
Nexus and Proportionality Test".
(Import a simple, scaled back tax map diagram of the cul-de-sac here for reference.)
Date I~eceived. /((.:>0"1'"'
Planner: AL
~
(
I. Appellant'sAssignment of Errors
Procedural Finding: The following documents are part of the record and incorporated
here by reference: City of Springfield DevelopmentServices Partition Tentative Approval
With Conditions, October 7,2008 (hereafter "Decision), Kloos Appeal Letter, October
22, 2008 (hereafter "Appeal Letter"), and City"of Springfield Appeal Staff Report,
November 24,2008 (hereafter "Appeal Staff Report").
ADDellant's Alleaation of Error #1:
o Summary of the appellant's allegation of error: Conditions 1 and 2 are not,
related to any standards of approval and are not supported by Dolan findings;
"capacity improvements" are not relevant to a partition of bare land.
Staff Response: As noted in the Appeal Staff Report at page 1-2 and the Director's
October 7,2008 'Partition Tentative Approval With Conditions at pages 3-4, Conditions 1
and 2 are directly related to the application of the Partition Criteria of Approval and
applicable code standards. The following findings and conditions further clarify the basis
for the exactions:
Finding: ( 10 code criteria and street standards of SDC, they do apply to proposal to
divide land because the construction of residential structures logically flow from the
approval. ) .
Finding: (Exaction is incremental improvement to serve and protect the residence that
logically and directly flows.from the partition.)
Finding: (Nexus) The City has a vested public interest in coordinating urban and sub-
urban public improvements within the Urban Fringe area for safe and efficient extension
of public infrastructure by multiple jurisdictions and maintained in the future by citizens of
Springfield. In this case the specific public interest is in the extension of improved public
street access and water systems necessary to serve and protect new residential
development and citizens. The partition approval criteria and street standards place the
responsibility to improve public rights of way on the developer at the time of lot creation.
Finding: Set up proportionality with background on County local access road standards,
requirement is less than full urban standard but appropriate in UF-10, in effect requiring
o"nly improvements to current sub-urban standard in county jurisdiction, and only along
frontage, CDS paving is access issue for fire and life safety, maintenance issue for
surface and utilities and required by code at edge.
Finding: Establish capacity improvement clause of C is not being invoked, extension and
availability of ser:vices necessary to serve and protect is being invoked.
,
IA is allowed to defer until area is annexed and a project to urban standards is initiated,
Equation is set today, applied at time of development on a proportionate share as
adopted by Council.
2
Date r~eceived: /-/0'/"""
Planner: AL
~
Finding: Mathematical relationships for proportionality: Cui de sac bulb improvements %
to number of trips on bulb .66 =.66? and do IA separately for 21st -or- do all with 7 lots
share of bulb plus street? Do math both ways.
Conclusion:
Date Heceived: /11.JMcf
Planner: AL
3'
'::.
Alleaation of Error #2: The Director failed to recognize the site specific location of
the UGB. (page 5)
II. Recommendation and Action Requested
Staff recommends affirmation of the decision of the Director. The attached
findings and conclusions demonstrate that the land use decision was made in
accordance with the SDC Criteria of Approval and the policies of the Metro Plan.
The appellant's concerns were addressed in the Director's report, no errors were
committed in reaching the decision.
III. Additional Information
The original Planning Journal File 1997-06-147 is attached by reference. Staff
will present additional written and oral testimony at the appeal hearing.
Date Heceived:4IY.J<DOd
Planner: AL
4