HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 09 07 AIS RS DPW for SDC Text AmendmentAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/7/2016 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3784 Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
ITEM TITLE: ADD PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN SPACE (PLO) TO THE LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE STEALTH, LOW VISIBILITY, AND MODERATE VISIBILITY WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FACILITIES ARE ALLOWABLE (SECTION 4.3-145,
TABLE 4.3-1); AND ADD A FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 4.3-1 SPECIFYING THAT MODERATE VISIBILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FACILITIES WITHIN THE
PLO ZONING DISTRICT ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD CITY
LIMITS, CASE TYP416-00001
ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is requested to: 1) conduct a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed SDC text amendment; and 2) forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding
modified provisions for WTS facilities in the PLO District.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted a request for a Development Code text amendment to expand the type of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District. The requested text amendment proposes to
add the Public Land and Open Space District to the list of zoning districts where stealth, low
visibility, and moderate visibility WTS facilities are allowable.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report
2. Proposed SDC Text Amendment 3. Citywide Map of PLO Zoned Properties
4. Application and Exhibits
5. Order and Recommendation
DISCUSSION:
The proposed Development Code text amendment would expand the provisions for WTS facilities
within the PLO District. Currently, only stealth and low visibility WTS facilities are allowable
within PLO zoned properties. The requested amendment affects Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the SDC and would move the PLO District from the third (bottom) row to the second (middle) row of zoning districts listed in Table 4.3-1 (see Attachment 2). A footnote also would be added to
Table 4.3-1 specifying that the provisions for moderate visibility WTS facilities within the PLO District is limited to properties within the City limits only.
The applicant is requesting the expanded list of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District because these properties are usually adjacent to residentially-zoned land and are well-distributed
throughout the city. A map showing the location of PLO zoned properties within the city has been
provided for context (Attachment 3). Increasingly, cellular and wireless service providers are improving the coverage and capacity of their networks to meet modern demands. As a result of
these infrastructure upgrades, WTS facilities are sited within the developed fabric of urban areas with the intent to minimize their visibility and potential conflicts with other land uses. If the Development Code text amendment is adopted, any moderate visibility WTS facilities proposed
within the PLO District would be subject to the Type III Discretionary Use and Site Plan Review proceedings of SDC 5.9-100 and 5.17-100.
Staff observes that at least three PLO sites have existing, non-conforming WTS facilities already operating: Springfield High School, Thurston High School, and Springfield Memorial Gardens
Cemetery. The four existing towers within these three sites are classified as high-visibility WTS
facilities because they are standard monopole design with one or more antenna arrays. If the proposed Development Code text amendment is adopted, only stealth, low visibility, and moderate
visibility designs (such as a monopine tower) would be allowable within the PLO District.
Staff Report and Findings Springfield Planning Commission Type IV Amendment to the Springfield Development Code
Hearing Date: September 7, 2016
Case Number: TYP416-00001 Applicant: Kelly Lea, Verizon Wireless
Project Location: City-wide legislative action
Request The City has received a request for a Development Code text amendment from a private party on behalf
of Verizon Wireless. The proposed text amendment to the Wireless Telecommunications System
Facilities section would apply to all properties that are zoned Public Land and Open Space (PLO) within the City limits (Attachment 3). In accordance with SDC 5.6-105.B & C, an amendment to the City’s
Development Code can be initiated by a citizen, and such amendments are only allowed twice each
calendar year: on or before January 5th and July 5th. The application was submitted on July 1, 2016 and is
the only citizen-initiated application to amend the City’s development filed since January 5, 2016. The
Planning Commission public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) is scheduled for September 7, 2016. Overview of Proposed Text Amendment
The applicant is proposing to amend Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 of the SDC to move Public Land and
Open Space from the list of zoning districts where stealth and low visibility wireless telecommunications system (WTS) facilities are allowable to the list of zoning districts where stealth, low visibility, and moderate visibility WTS facilities are allowable. The proposed text amendment would move Public Land
and Open Space from the third (bottom) row of Table 4.3-1 to the second (middle) row of the table
(Attachment 2). A footnote to Table 4.3-1 also would be added to specify that moderate visibility WTS
facilities within the PLO District would be allowable only inside the City limits. In accordance with SDC 5.6-110, amendment of the Development Code text is reviewed under Type IV
procedure as a legislative action.
Notification and Written Comments In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first
evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was mailed to the DLCD on July 26, 2016, which is
more than 35 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on the matter.
In accordance with SDC 5.2-110.B, Type IV legislative land use decisions require notice in a newspaper of
general circulation. Notification of the September 7, 2016 public hearing was published in the legal notices
section of The Register Guard on August 31, 2016.
Background The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and OARs provide minimal direction and oversight on how
communities can or should regulate the location and appearance of WTS facilities. The Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognizes the right of local governments to regulate the siting of WTS
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10
facilities to minimize the impact on residential neighborhoods and other potentially incompatible land uses. In carrying out their mandate of promoting competition and reducing regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for consumers, and encouraging the rapid deployment of new
technologies, the 1996 Telecommunications Act sets out three key principles:
The siting of wireless telecommunications system facilities must comply with local zoning and land use regulations;
Local jurisdictions must not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services, but may distinguish applications based upon differing visual, aesthetic and safety concerns; and
The local regulations must not result in the actual or effective prohibition of the provision of
personal wireless services.
Consistent with the direction provided by the Telecommunications Act, and also in response to increasing demand from the marketplace, the City adopted new Development Code language pertaining to the
review and siting of WTS facilities in June, 2013. The WTS facility provisions are codified in Section
4.3-145 of the SDC. In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.C, WTS facilities that existed prior to adoption of
the updated Development Code provisions are considered legally non-conforming uses that can remain
as-is and be maintained or replaced as necessary. Since adoption of the updated Development Code provisions, the City has issued permits for modifications to existing WTS facilities and approved several
new WTS facilities.
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.6-115 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review of Development Code text amendments. The Criteria of Development Code text amendment approval are:
SDC 5.6-115 CRITERIA
A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance with the following:
1. The Metro Plan;
2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
A.1 Conformance with the Metro Plan
Finding 1: The adopted Metro Plan does not specifically address wireless telecommunications
system facilities in the same manner as it addresses water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and
transportation facilities; however, communication facilities are included as an element of “the
minimum level of key urban services” identified in the text of the Metro Plan. Improving and/or
increasing siting opportunities for communication facilities is consistent with this Metro Plan text and the policies cited under this criteria (A.1).
Finding 2: In accordance with Metro Plan Policy G.1, the minimum level and full range of key
urban facilities and services are to be extended in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the
growth management policies of Chapter II-C and other relevant policies.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10
Finding 3: The Metro Plan – and, perhaps more importantly, a key tenet of the City of Springfield’s governing philosophy – obligates the developer to pay the cost of extending facilities and services. In accordance with Metro Plan Policy G.36, development is required to pay the cost of extending
services and facilities as determined by the local jurisdiction.
Finding 4: A fundamental objective of the Metro Plan is designing and locating public and private facilities such that adverse impacts on neighborhoods are avoided or minimized. Public and private facilities are to be designed and located “in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features
of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity”. This amendment provides
for a wider distribution of potential cell tower sites, but only as stealth or low-moderate visibility
facilities. This broader site access may result in fewer towers given the overall uniform distribution of this zoning district across the city likely to eliminate “dark” areas.
Finding 5: The Metro Plan requires cities to address environmental design considerations in their
development regulations, including aesthetics. In accordance with Metro Plan Policy E.6, local
jurisdictions are to carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure they address environmental design considerations such as safety, crime prevention, aesthetics, and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent land uses. The design standards for cell towers are specified
in Section 4.3-145, and in particular, visual impact is an important underpinning of the regulation of
cell towers: “All WTS facilities shall be designed to minimize the visual impact to the greatest
extent practicable by means of placement, screening, landscaping, and camouflage. All facilities shall also be designed to be compatible with existing architectural elements, building materials, and other site characteristics. The applicant shall use the least visible antennas reasonably available to
accomplish the coverage objectives. All high visibility and moderate visibility facilities shall be
sited in a manner to cause the least detriment to the viewshed of abutting properties, neighboring
properties, and distant properties.” SDC 4.3-145F.13. Finding 6: The Metro Plan intends that planning standards will evolve over time to allow for
flexibility and creative solutions to design problems. In accordance with Metro Plan Policy E.8, site
planning standards developed by local jurisdictions are to allow for flexibility in design that will
achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems. See finding immediately preceding.
Finding 7: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals and
policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposed
amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 modifies the provisions for certain WTS facilities within the PLO District. The Metro Plan does not specifically address the siting of WTS facilities, but it does list “Communication Facilities” as a key urban service. Staff finds that the proposed text
amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan goals and policies related to communication facilities,
and does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2
requirements. Finding 8: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.A, key elements of the City’s WTS facilities section
include: providing a uniform set of standards and requirements for the placement, operation,
alteration and removal of WTS facilities; encouraging the siting of new WTS facilities in preferred
locations; minimizing the impact of WTS facilities on surrounding residential areas; and minimizing visual impacts of WTS facilities through careful design, configuration, screening or camouflaging
techniques. The proposed amendment does not amend, modify or diminish any of the preceding
standards and requirements.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10
Finding 9: The focus of the proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 is to address WTS siting issues by allowing for an expanded range of facilities within the PLO District. Because “moderate visibility” WTS facilities are subject to a Type III Discretionary Use process, the burden
would remain on the applicant to demonstrate that potential visual and aesthetic impacts to
neighborhoods are appropriately mitigated. Low visibility and stealth requirements exceed the
visual mitigation standards for all other cell tower types. Finding 10: In accordance with SDC 3.2-705.A, the PLO District applies primarily to government
uses (including public offices and facilities); educational uses (including high schools and colleges);
and parks and open space uses (including public parks and publicly or privately owned golf courses
and cemeteries). Finding 11: The applicant has expressed an interest in siting new WTS facilities in strategic
locations within the City, but has encountered conflicts between the provisions of the City’s
Development Code, the location and distribution of suitable zoning districts within the City, current
technology and facility design, and physical site constraints such as topography and tree cover. Based on the uniform distribution of PLO zoning across the City the applicant has proposed an amendment to the text of the Development Code that would allow an expanded range of WTS
facilities to be considered in the PLO district.
Finding 12: The proposed text amendment would allow for moderate visibility WTS facilities to be considered on PLO properties, subject to Discretionary Use proceedings. The effect of the proposed text amendment would make the provisions of SDC 4.3-145 somewhat more permissive than the
current Code provisions. Staff is of the view that the proposed text amendment would result in an
expansion – as opposed to a reduction – in the affected properties’ development potential.
Therefore, a Measure 56 notification to property owners is not warranted with this application. Conclusion: Communication facilities are an element of the Metro Plan, although wireless
telecommunications system facilities are not specifically addressed – possibly because the Metro
Plan pre-dates modern wireless systems providing voice, data, and internet services. However, the Metro Plan does contemplate locational and design considerations for minimizing the impact of facilities on residential neighborhoods and other potentially incompatible land uses. Therefore, as proposed, the Development Code text amendment is consistent with provisions and applicable
policies of the Metro Plan as noted in the preceding findings under Criteria A.1.
A.2 Conformance with Applicable State Statutes Finding 13: ORS Chapter 759 covers the regulation of telecommunication utilities within the State
of Oregon. However, ORS 759 pertains to regulatory oversight of utility providers and how they
conduct business within Oregon. This Chapter does not provide guidance or limitations for local
jurisdictions responsible for reviewing and approving WTS facilities in accordance with adopted zoning and Development Code standards.
Finding 14: In accordance with ORS 759.015, it is the goal of the State of Oregon to “secure and
maintain high-quality universal telecommunications service at just and reasonable rates for all
classes of customers and to encourage innovation within the industry by a balanced program of regulation and competition”. The state Public Utility Commission is responsible for administering
the statutes with respect to telecommunications rates and services.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10
Finding 15: In accordance with ORS 759.016, it is the goal of the state of Oregon to promote access to broadband services in order to improve the economy, improve the quality of life in communities throughout the state, and to reduce the economic gap between communities that have access to
broadband digital services and those that do not. This goal is to be achieved by:
Expanding broadband and other telecommunications services;
Creating incentives to establish and expand broadband and other telecommunications
services;
Undertaking telecommunications planning at the local, regional and state levels that includes
participants from both the public and the private sectors;
Removing barriers to the full deployment of broadband digital applications and services and providing incentives for the removal of those barriers; and
Removing barriers to public-private partnerships in areas where the private sector cannot
justify investments.
Finding 16: The proposed text amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 does not conflict with the stated goals in ORS 759.015 and 759.016. Furthermore, the proposed text amendment is requested to remove a potential barrier to the provision of wireless telecommunications services.
Finding 17: Criterion 2 addresses the conformity of proposed Development Code amendments with
state laws, which do not limit local governments from establishing review and siting standards for WTS facilities. However, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes some limitations on siting standards for local jurisdictions: [The Act] does not “limit or affect the authority of a State
or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service facilities”, except for the following limitations:
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof--
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. (ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for
authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a
reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request. (iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and
supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an
expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or
local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may
petition the Commission for relief.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10
Finding 18: Section 4.3-145 of the SDC was amended in 2013 to be consistent with the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act, including a set of standards and review procedures for the placement, operation, modification, and removal of WTS facilities.
Finding 19: In accordance with SDC 4.3-145.F, the Federal Telecommunications Act establishes
limitations on the siting standards that local governments can place on WTS facilities. Section 704 of the Act states that local siting standards shall not:
1) “unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services;
2) “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.”
All applications for WTS facilities are subject to the standards in [Section 4.3-145] to the extent that they do not violate Federal limitations on local siting standards. Where application of the standards
found in [Section 4.3-145] constitutes a violation, the least intrusive alternative for providing
coverage shall be allowed as an exception to the standards.
Conclusion: ORS Chapter 759 regulates telecommunications utilities and their business operations within Oregon. However, the adopted statutes do not govern the review and siting of WTS facilities
by local jurisdictions. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable
sections of ORS Chapter 759. In addition to applicable state statutes, the proposed text amendment
defers to the regulatory limitations placed on local jurisdictions for the siting standards found in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. In furtherance of ORS 759 as well as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the proposed amendment to the SDC providing for the siting of
certain WTS in the PLO zone: (1) Complies with the requirements of ORS 227.178 with respect to
final action on permits and limited land use decisions occurring with 120 days; (2) Requires notice
and adoption of final action in writing, whether for an approval, an approval with conditions, or a denial; and (3) Does not establish radio frequency emissions as a basis for a denial if all other standards applicable to such a decision have been satisfied.
A.3 Conformance with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules
Finding 20: OAR 860, Division 60 contains administrative rules that govern telecommunications as regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission. This division implements ORS 759, but does
not provide oversight for local jurisdictions responsible for reviewing and siting WTS facilities.
Therefore, the proposed text amendment does not conflict with OAR 860, Division 60.
Finding 21: Of the 19 statewide goals, staff has determined that only four have direct or indirect applicability to the proposed Development Code text amendment: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement;
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning; Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural
Resources; and Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services. The list of statewide goals and their
applicability to the requested text amendment are outlined below. Finding 22: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process”. The proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 are the
subject of a legislative decision-making process with multiple public hearings before the City’s
Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment on September 7, 2016. The Planning Commission
public hearing was advertised in the legal notices section of the Register-Guard on August 31, 2016.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Springfield City Council
for consideration at a public hearing meeting scheduled for October 3, 2016. Notification of the
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10
City Council public hearing also will be published in the Register-Guard newspaper at least one week prior to the meeting date. Staff finds that the proposed text amendment is consistent with Goal 1 requirements.
Finding 23: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide
planning program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the plan’s policies into force and effect.
Finding 24: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (“Metro Plan”) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has adopted other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such as Refinement Plans) that provide more detailed direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The findings under
Criteria A.1 demonstrate compliance with the Metro Plan; a land use regulation (development code)
is by state law a part of the acknowledged comprehensive plan of the city (ORS 197.015
Definitions) and therefore subject to the same public hearing process used for amendment of the Metro Plan; the process for such amendments and to which this amendment complies, is specified in Chapter IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements.
Finding 25: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals
and policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 modifies the provisions for certain WTS facilities within the PLO District. The Metro Plan does not specifically address the siting of WTS facilities, but it
does list “Communication Facilities” as a key urban service. Staff finds that the proposed text
amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan goals and policies related to communication facilities,
and does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2 requirements.
Finding 26: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land applies to areas subject to farm zoning that are outside
acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs): “Agricultural land does not include land within
acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4.” (Text of Goal 3). The City has an acknowledged UGB and therefore consistent with the express language of the Goal, does not have farm land zoning within its jurisdictional boundary.
Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 3 is not applicable.
Finding 27: Goal 4 – Forest Land applies to timber lands zoned for that use that are outside acknowledged UGBs with the intent to conserve forest lands for forest uses: “Oregon Administrative Rule 660-006-0020: Plan Designation Within an Urban Growth Boundary. Goal 4
does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the designation of forest lands is not
required.” The City has an acknowledged UGB and does not have forest zoning within its
incorporated area. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 4 is not applicable. Finding 28: Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources applies to
more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and
establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated. The proposed Development
Code text amendment would expand the types of WTS facilities allowable within the PLO District. However, the proposed amendment would not circumvent the requirement for all WTS facilities in
the PLO District to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and, for moderate visibility facilities, in a
public hearing forum for Discretionary Use and Site Plan approval. Additionally, the city does not
have a specific zoning district which it applies to inventoried Goal 5 natural resources; the presence
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10
of these resources is completely independent of the process used to zone land. Protective measures for all of the city’s inventoried Goal 5 resources are applicable to the resource and not unique, circumscribed or altered based on zoning classification. The proposed amendment to SDC 4.3-145,
Table 4.3-1 does not modify existing Development Code or Metro Plan policies relating to
identified natural resources. The proposed text amendment does not make any changes to adopted
Goal 5 natural resources development standards or protective measures adopted to comply with Goal 5 requirements. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 5.
Finding 29: Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality applies to local comprehensive plans
and the implementation of measures consistently with state and Federal regulations on matters such as clean air, clean water, and preventing groundwater pollution. The proposed text amendment does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 6 requirements
Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 6.
Finding 30: Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards applies to development in areas subject to natural hazards such as floodplains and potential landslide areas. Local jurisdictions are required to apply “appropriate safeguards” when planning for development in
hazard areas. The City has inventoried areas subject to natural hazards such as the McKenzie and
Willamette River flood plains and potential landslide areas on steeply sloping hillsides. The
proposed text amendment has no effect on City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 7 requirements; siting standards for WTS facilities are not exempted from conformance in these hazard areas therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged
compliance with Goal 7.
Finding 31: Goal 8 – Recreational Needs requires communities to evaluate their recreation areas and facilities and to develop plans to address current and projected demand. The provision of recreation services within Springfield is the responsibility of Willamalane Park & Recreation
District. Willamalane has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for the provision of park, open
space and recreation services for Springfield. The proposed text amendment would not affect
Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or other ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Willamalane owns several properties zoned PLO therefore these proposed amendments would allow Willamalane the option to offer areas on these
properties for the siting of WTS facilities; however, such an offer is at the discretion of Willamalane
and subject to the standards contained in these amendments. Therefore, this action has no effect on
the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8. Finding 32: Goal 9 – Economic Development addresses diversification and improvement of the
economy. It requires local jurisdictions to conduct an inventory of commercial and industrial lands,
anticipate future needs for such lands, and provide enough appropriately-zoned land to meet the
projected demand. The proposed text amendment would not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies – such as the Commercial-Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) Survey – adopted to comply with Goal 9 requirements. All of the city’s economic development policies related to zoning
classifications rely on commercial, industrial and mixed use land inventories. This proposed
amendment applies only to PLO zones; therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s
acknowledged compliance with Goal 9.
Finding 33: Goal 10 – Housing applies to the planning for – and provision of – needed housing
types, including multi-family and manufactured housing. The proposed text amendment would not
affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 10 requirements,
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10
nor are any of the City’s residential zoning districts impacted by this proposed amendment. Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 10.
Finding 34: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision
of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. In accordance with
OAR 660-011-0005(5), public facilities include water, sewer and transportation facilities, but do not include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the operation of those facilities. Communications services are identified in Goal 11, but within the definition of urban facilities and
services that are provided at the appropriate type and level to support planned development.
Wireless telecommunications systems are not listed among the public facilities that must be
included in local public facilities plans. However, the proposed amendment will, at the property owner’s discretion, provide opportunities for enhanced reception and broadcast coverage by WTS providers and in so doing ensure the City’s continued acknowledged compliance with Goal 11 as a
result of this proposed amendment.
Finding 35: The proposed text amendment does not change the obligation of the WTS provider to comply with the City’s existing standards as outlined in the Springfield Development Code. Proposed moderate and high visibility WTS facilities continue to be subject to the standards found
in Section 4.3-145, including but not limited to the requirement for Discretionary Use proceedings
before the Springfield Planning Commission or Hearings Official, as appropriate.
Finding 36: Goal 12 – Transportation applies to the provision of a “safe, convenient and economic transportation system”. OAR 660-012-0060 requires that proposed amendments to a comprehensive
plan or land use regulation shall consider potential impacts to existing or planned transportation
facilities. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies, plans, or
studies adopted to comply with Goal 12 requirements, therefore this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 12.
Finding 37: Goal 13 – Energy Conservation states that “land and uses developed on the land shall
be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles”. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. While increasing the distribution of eligible sites for moderate-visibility WTS facilities arguably results in no measurable
energy conservation, increasing the distribution of available sites does not demonstrate an increase
in energy consumption. Therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance
with Goal 13. Finding 38: Goal 14 – Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and
to incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The proposed
amendment does not affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to
comply with Goal 14 requirements. Finding 39: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300
miles of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City
limits and UGB. The provisions of the City’s Willamette River Greenway Overlay District (SDC
3.3-300) and SDC 4.3-145 allow for the placement of WTS facilities within the Willamette Greenway if measures are implemented to minimize the visual impact of such facilities (ie. “stealth”
or “low visibility” facilities). The proposed text amendment does not change or nullify the
requirement for development proposals to comply with the City’s existing Willamette River
Greenway regulations regardless of the underlying zoning, and to demonstrate compliance with
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10
Goal 15 requirements. Staff notes that this proposed amendment applies only to PLO zoned land inside the Springfield City limits. Any new tower facilities proposed on PLO zoned land within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District would be subject to a separate Type III land use approval
process requiring a public hearing before the Springfield Planning Commission, therefore this action
has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 15.
Finding 40: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and Ocean Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including
Springfield. Therefore, in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16-19
do not apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: Staff has determined and concluded that the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 is consistent with the Metro Plan, Oregon Administrative Rules and the Statewide
Planning Goals.
Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the findings above and the criteria of SDC 5.6-115 for approving amendments to the Springfield
Development Code, staff finds the proposed text amendment to SDC 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 is consistent
with these criteria, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission support the proposal.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10
TYP416-00001 – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.3-145, TABLE 4.3-1
OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Proposed amendment to Table 4.3-1 would move Public Land and Open Space from the list of zoning
districts where Stealth and Low Visibility Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facilities are
allowable to the list where Stealth, Low Visibility, and Moderate Visibility WTS facilities are allowable.
A footnote would be added to Table 4.3-1 specifying that Moderate Visibility WTS facilities within the
PLO District are only allowable within the City limits.
The proposed amendment to Table 4.3-1 is depicted on the following page.
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
PROPOSED TABLE 4.3-1 AS AMENDED
Table 4.3-1
Zoning Districts Types Allowed
Special Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Light-Medium Industrial
Quarry Mining Operations
High visibility
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Community Commercial
Campus Industrial
Booth Kelly Mixed Use
Major Retail Commercial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Commercial
Medical Service
Public Land and Open Space (1)
Moderate visibility
Low visibility
Stealth
Neighborhood Commercial
General Office
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use Residential
Low visibility
Stealth
(1) Moderate visibility WTS facilities in the Public Land and Open Space District are allowable only within the
City limits.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
Geogra
phic Informa ti o n ServicesInformatio n Technology De
ptAug2016
McKenzie R .W il lamette R.
Springfield, OR
Public Lands and Open Space Zoning
5
126
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Users assume all responsibility forany loss or damage arising from any error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
0 0.5 10.25 Mile
Public Lands & Open SpaceOutside City Limits
Public Lands & Open Space
Inside City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Springfield City LimitsAttachment 3, Page 1 of 1
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 5 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 6 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 7 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 8 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 9 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 10 of 11
Attachment 4, Page 11 of 11
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR:
AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO: ADD PUBLIC LAND AND OPEN ] TYP416-00001
SPACE (PLO) TO THE LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE STEALTH, LOW VISIBILITY, AND ]
MODERATE VISIBILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FACILITIES ARE ALLOWABLE ]
(SECTION 4.3-145, TABLE 4.3-1); AND ADD A FOOTNOTE TO TABLE 4.3-1 SPECIFYING THAT ]
MODERATE VISIBILITY WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FACILITIES WITHIN THE PLO ]
ZONING DISTRICT ARE ALLOWABLE ONLY WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD CITY LIMITS ]
NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
Staff is requesting that the Springfield Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the
Springfield City Council regarding the following proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code
(SDC):
A text amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 moves Public Land and Open Space upward from the third
row to the second row thereby placing it with the list of zoning districts where Stealth, Low Visibility, and
Moderate Visibility Wireless Telecommunications System (WTS) facilities are allowable.
A text amendment to Section 4.3-145, Table 4.3-1 adds a footnote specifying that moderate visibility WTS
facilities within the PLO District are allowable only within the Springfield City limits.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.2-115.
On September 7, 2016, the Springfield Planning Commission held a work session and a public hearing on the
proposed SDC amendments. The staff report, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public
hearing were entered into the record.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of SDC 5.6-115.A – C. This
general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings and the
additional information submitted for the September 7, 2016 public hearing.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that approval of Case Number TYP416-00001 be GRANTED
and a RECOMMENDATION for approval be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for their consideration at an
upcoming public hearing meeting.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 1