Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6151 01/17/2006 . . . - \' ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. -&+5-26151 (General) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.090 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT: WHEREAS, the Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City Council on May 5, 1986, and amendments thereto were subsequently adopted by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Article 7 of the SDC sets forth procedures for the amendment of this document; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2005, the Springfield City Council held a public hearing and adopted the SDC 'housekeeping" amendments Ordinance 6133 (Case Number LRP 2005- 00012); and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Springfield and Lane County requires the Lane County Board of Commissioners to adopt amendments to the SDC that are effective within the City's urbanizable area; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2005, the Lane County Planning Commission held a work session on this SDC "housekeeping" amendment application and raised a question concerning SDC Section 5.090; and WHEREAS, City staff determined that a minor amendment of Section 5.090 was necessary in order to resolve any uncertainties concerning consistency among Lane Code, the Springfield Municipal Code and the SDC; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing on this SDC amendment application (Case Number LRP 2005-00036) and unanimously recommended City Council adoption of the attached Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2006, the Springfield City Council held a public hearing and is now ready to take action on this matter based upon the above recommendation and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing held in the matter of adopting this ordinance amending the SDC. " . . . ., NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 5.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and regulations ofthis Article, any waivers to the standards of this Code granted by the City Council in response to a Demand for compensation, as may be permitted in accordance with the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, shall supersede the provisions and regulations of this Article and shall be transferable to a future purchaser of the property only to the extent required by Ballot Measure 37." Section 2: Declaration of Emergency. It is hereby found and declared that matters pertaining to the amendment of, and additions to the Springfield Development Code affect the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Springfield and that this Ordinance shall, therefore, take effect immediately upon its passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of ~ for and ~ against, this 17thdayof January ,2006. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield, this17th day of January 2006. ATTEST: CitY~ - :~, ':~'^'C:f') 8, ApoqO\lED "''''0~''''',GM ~~~"~\.....~\--' ~l ~~ ~~.-" \ \. \\ \ \:) ~ ,.~,~\ OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO.-&~~~ 6151 . . . .} ATTACHMENT 1 BACKGROUND A. SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS. In November 2004, the Springfield Municipal Code (SMC) was amended to adopt procedures for processing Ballot Measure (BM) 37 claims. Ordinance 6102 contained the following language in SMC Section 2.953(2) pertaining to situations when the City Council granted a waiver of Code provisions instead of paying compensation: "... any action taken under this Article to remove, modify or not apply application of an identified land use regulation runs with the property and is transferred with ownership of the property." This language stated that a waiver of Code provisions applied to both the property owner making the claim and any future property owners. This language was prepared consistent with the City Council's direction to staffon this issue. In February 2005, the Oregon Attorney General's office issued an interpretation on the transferability of BM 37 relief under a waiver of Code provisions. That interpretation stated: "... it only provides authority for a public entity to waive a law to the extent necessary to allow an otherwise prohibited use by the 'present' owner, i.e., the owner at the time the exemption is granted. In other words, this language authorizes a public entity to make exemption personal to the owner making the claim. " The interpretation found no evidence to allow a waiver of Code provisions to be applied to any future property owners. In March 2005, Ordinance 6126 was adopted containing several amendments to the SMC BM 37 procedural regulations including SMC Section 2.953(2) which now reads: "... any action taken to remove, modify or not apply application of an identified land use application shall be transferable to a future purchaser of the property to the extent required by Ballot Measure 37." The intent of the amendment ofSMC Section 2.953(2) was consistency with the Attorney General's interpretation the City of Eugene and Lane Code (see the discussion under topic C). B. SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE "HOUSEKEEPING" AMENDMENTS. In July, 2005, the City Council approved the SDC "housekeeping" amendments by adopting Ordinance 6133. This package of amendments included Article 5, Noh-Conforming Uses, Section 5.090 which added language that was interided to be consistent with the March 2005 SMC BM 37 amendment cited above. In October 2005, during the work session and public hearing before the Lane County Planning Commission, a question was raised regarding whether there may be a conflict between Lane County's BM 37 ordinance in Lane Code, the City's BM 37 ordinance in the SMC and the City's "housekeeping" amendment to SDC Section 5.090. . . . . ~ C. ATTORNEY DISCUSSIONS - CONSISTENCY BETWEEN LANE COUNTY AND CITY REGULATIONS. In November 2005, Springfield's City Attorney, Joe Leahy, discussed the consistency issue with Assistant Lane County Counsel, Steve Vorhes. Mr. Vorhes stated that Lane Code grants certain rights to the owner of property only as long as that owner owns the property. Mr. Leahy stated that the SMC also grants certain rights to the property owner and is transferable only as permitted by Ballot Measure 37, which mayor may not allow transfer. Mr. V orhes indicated that for all intents and purposes, there is no difference in the interpretation of how Lane Code and the SMCoperate on the transferability issue. The language in SDC 5.090 is based upon the revision to the SMC in March. Therefore, the language in SDC 5.090 is also consistent with the intent of Lane Code on this topic. D. RESOLUTION OF UNCERTAINTIES Although SDC Section 5.090 is based upon the language in SMC 2.953(2), which is consistent with Lane Code, in order to resolve any uncertainties, staff is proposing to amend SDC 5.090 as proposed below: Proposed Text Amendments to SDC Section 5.090: Underline denotes new text; strikcthrough denotes deleted text. Commentary: The word .' is addedfhr emplwsis'. The rc;!r.?rence to B 37 is addedfur consistency with SAfe 2.953(2). The re(erel1ce to ORS 197 was ()rigil1al~v used because Ballot Measure 37 amended ORS197. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions and regulations of this Article, any waivers to the standards of this Code granted by the City Council in response to a Demand for compensation, as may be permitted in accordance with the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, shall supersede the provisions and regulations of this Article and shall be transferable to a future purchaser of the property only to the extent required by [ORS 197] Ballot Measure 37.