TIA review, staff suggested that the time to require a TIA would be during the initial development <br />stage. In the present situation, staff suggested that the subdivision that created Pennington Acres <br />in 2004 would have been the time to require a TIA because that application involved a land division <br />and the likely development that would occur on the current subject property should have been <br />included. I tend to agree with staff that if an application seeks to subdivide a larger parcel, gain <br />approval of development on a portion of the property, and leave some of the property for future <br />development that the portion left for future development should also be included in determining <br />whether the 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips trigger is reached. Even if that is correct, however, <br />that does not mean that the City may impose TIA requirements in the present case where it is not <br />9 <br />applicable to make up for an earlier mistake. <br /> Therefore, I agree with the Planning Direct <br />10 <br />the proposed development. <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />AFFIRMS <br />For all the reasons set forth above, the Hearings Official the Planning <br />decision in SR 17-2 to approve the site review application, with the following conditions of <br />approval. <br />CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL <br /> <br />1.Prior to final site plan approval, the portion of the Public Strom Drainage Easement <br />platted with Pennington Acres Subdivision shall be vacated through the appropriate <br />Easement Vacation process and rededicated as necessary. <br /> <br />2.All existing and proposed easements on the site shall be noted on the final site plan and <br />obstruction shall be placed or located on or in a P <br /> <br />3.Prior to final site plan approval, a PEPI permit shall be issued for the construction of <br />public improvements. In lieu of a PEPI permit, a bond or other financial instrument <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />Belcher also argues that a developer could avoid the TIA requirements even under this scenario by merely <br />subdividing the property without proposing any actual development at the time. According to Belcher, the definition <br /> While I need not address that issue, I note that the definition of <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />The potential need for a TIA was the only basis for appeal. I have reviewed the other findings in the Planning <br />incorporate those findings in this decision. <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (SR 17-2) 9 <br /> <br />