Ordinance No. 19868 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V. ADDIT~Q~TAL F~11~DI~~GS ~l~ RE11zA.~VTD Qn appeal of the subject plan amendment, the Cre on Land Use Board of A eal g pp s rejected three assignments of error and sustained only one, which asserted that "The governing bodies erred in adopting the plan amendment which did not ro erI address an P P y d demonstrate compliance with Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, and did not satin h . . fy t e coordrnation requirement of Coal 2, Land Use Planning," LUBA determined that the record failed to show that the proposed development would have minimal im act u on S rin ~ P P p g eld's public schools. Specifically, LUBA ruled that "In view of the apparently limited existing school facilities in the area respondent is required to impose sufficient limitations to assure com fiance . P with Gaal ~ 1 now, or to require as part of the challen ed decision that such . g Iimitat~ons be rmposed as part of the Mid-S rin field Refinement Plan P g amendments before development proceeds." LUBA Q inion at a e ~?. P Pg LUBA states that the problem may be remedied upon remand by a varlet of "a ro ri „ • ~ y PP Pate means, ~nclud~ng the follaw~ng: a. The "challenged decision [could require that such conditions be im osed riot t . P p o development, as part of required Mid-Spr~ngfleld Refinement Plan amendments rezoning, site review or other appropriate means." G inion at a e 16. P Pg b. "'other appropriate means' could include a ro riate nonre iota measur PPP gu ry es, such as recorded covenants, conditions and restrictions, to provide there aired assurances q that the property will not be developed in a way that violates Goal 11 school facilit availabilit re air m ' ' y y q e ents. Op~n~on at page ~~, footnote 14. Upon remand, the City Council conducted a su Iementa ublic hearin limit . PP ~' P g ed to the scope of the issue defined by LUBA. Based upon the record as su lemented the C ' . PP ~ ounc~l fends that the record now supports a findin that both "a ro riate means" id ' ' g Pp P ent~f~ed by LUBA have been fully satisfied and that the pro osed ro'ect will have one minim ` . P P ~ y al impact upon school capacity. Accordingly, the Council finds that there uirement of statewide Goal . q 11 rn issue an remand has been satlsf~ed accordin to the terms of the remand. g Specificall ,the Council finds that y a. Gn March 2, 199, while the subject Metro Plan Amendment was under review b y the Land Use Board of Appeals, and prior to the Board's March 19 1992 decision in that appeal, the City Council of the City of S rin field, u on notice and ublic P g P P hearing and consistent with the recommendation of the S rin field Plannin . P g g Camm~ss~on, adopted Qrd~nance No. 5616, amendin the S rin field Refinement g P g Plan to provide with respect to the subject ro ert that P P y Supplemental Findings an Remand - 1 f~ ~X~E~6Tn., _ -- --~------ ~A~E ~ DF~