Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 12/23/2020City of Springfield Development & Public Works 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 SPRINGFIELD W 0#/ Interpretation Interpretation of new uses, terms or phrases will be reviewed under Type II procedure, unless the Director determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision by the Planning Commission or Hearings Official due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review. Planning Policy issues that include, but are not limited to the Springfield Development Code, ado ted refinement nlans or the Metro Plan shall be reviewed under T e IV rocedure. Application Type licant. check one) ,T New Use: Type II T e III ClarifyPlanningPolicy: a IV Term or Phrase: T e II T e III Required Project Information (Applicant., complete this Applicant Name: Springfield Utilit Board Phone: (541)689-3094 Company: Springfield Utilit Board Fax: Address: 1001 Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477 Applicant's Rep.: MichaelGelardi Phone: (541) 689-3094 Company: Gelardi Law P.C. Fax: Address: P.O. Box 8529, Coburg, OR 97408 Property Owner: Springfield Utilit Board Phone: Company: Springfield Utilit Board Fax: Address: 1001 Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477 ASSESSOR'S MAP NO: 18-03-03-13 TAX LOT NOS : 101 Property Address: N/A Size of Property: 6,48 Acres 9 square Feet ❑ Description of If you are filling in this form by hand, please attach your proposal description to this application. Proposal: See attached application narrative. Existing Use: See attached application narrative. Signatures: Please si n and print your name and date in the appropriate Required Project Information (City Intake Staff. Associated Applications: box on the next caae. complete this section) Signs: Case No.: Date: Reviewed by: Application Fee: $ Technical Fee: $ 1 Postage Fee: $ TOTAL FEES: $ PROJECT NUMBER: Revised 1/9/09 ddk 1 of 6 Signatures The undersigned acknowledges that the Information In this application is correct and accurate, (,�/� Date: 1 �� Signatfifilb Jeff Nelson If the applicant is not the owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act in his/her behalf, Owner: Date: Signature Print Revised 1/9/09 ddk 2 of 6 Section 5.11-100 Interpretations (Springfield Development Code) 5.11-105 Purpose The purpose of an Interpretation is to: A. Consider the applicability of new uses within each zoning district that are not specifically identified in this Code; B. Clarify the meaning of terms or phrases found in this Code; or C. Clarify planning policy contained in this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Metro Plan, or other policy documents. 5.11-110 Authority The Director shall have the initial authority and responsibility to interpret the appropriateness of new uses and the meaning of all terns and phrases in this Code. The City Council shall have the authority to interpret planning policy contained in this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Mehra Plan, or other policy documents. 5.11-115 Review A request for an Interpretation of this Code concerning new uses and terms and phrases is reviewed under Type II procedure, unless the Director determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision by the Planning Commission or Hearings Official due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review. Planning policy issues that include, but are not limited to this Code, adopted refinement plans or the Metro Plan is reviewed under Type IV procedure. 5.11-120 Interpretation of New Uses A. Application Submittal. The request shall include information on the following characteristics of the new use 1. A description of proposed structures and the operational characteristics of the new use. 2. Where commercial and industrial uses are involved, the following topics are considered: a. Emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases; b. Use, storage and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials; C. Glare; d. Use of hazardous materials that may impact groundwater quality; e. Noise; f. The potential for ground vibration; and g. The amount and type of traffic to be generated, parking required and hours of operation. 3. Where residential uses are involved, the following topics are considered: a. Density; and b. The amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required. Revised 1/9/09 ddk B. Criteria. A new use may be considered to be a permitted use when, after consultation with the City Attorney or other City staff, the Director determines that the new use: 1. Has the characteristics of one or more use categories currently listed in the applicable zoning district; 2. Is similar to other permitted uses in operational characteristics, including but not limited to, traffic generation, parking or density; and 3. Is consistent with all land use policies in this Code which are applicable to the particular zoning district. 5.11-125 Interpretation of Terms or Phrases A. Application Submittal. The request shall include: 1. The particular term or phrase requiring Interpretation; and 2. The applicant's statement describing what the particular term or phrase means. B. Criteria. The Director shall interpret a tens or phrase, after consultation with the City Attorney and City staff. The meaning of any tens or phrase: 1. Shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Code, including any Chapter or Section to which the tens or phrase is related; 2. May be determined by legislative history, including staff reports and public hearing tapes and minutes; and 3. Shall be consistent with any dictionary of common usage, if criteria 1. and/or 2., above cannot be applied. 5.11-130 Interpretations Reviewed Under Type III and Type IV Procedure A. Interpretations that the Director may elevate from a Type II to a Type III review shall follow the approval criteria specified in either Section 5.11-120 or 5.11-125 depending upon the nature of the interpretation requested. In addition, the Planning Commission or Hearings Official shall consider the Metro Plan and any refinement plans or other policy documents of the City, where applicable. B. The Planning Commission or Hearings Official, upon a finding in support of a particular Interpretation, shall make a decision and may impose reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the approval criteria. C. Where there is an Interpretation of planning policy, the matter is forwarded to the City Council: 1. For consideration on the record; 2. To consider appropriate revisions to this Code to resolve the question; or 3. To revise or supplement a policy issue. 5.11-135 Effect of a Decision An approved Interpretation is effective on the date of approval, unless appealed. An approved Interpretation may be superseded by a subsequent Interpretation or a Code amendment. Revised 1/9/09 ddk Interpretation Application Process 1. Applicant Submits an Interpretation Application to the Development & Public Works Department The application must conform to the Interpretation Submittal Requirements Checklist on page 6 of this application packet. Planning Division staff screen the submittal at the front counter to determine whether all required items listed in the Interpretation Submittal Requirements Checklist have been submitted. Applications missing required items will not be accepted for submittal. 2. City Staff Conduct Detailed Completeness Check • Planning Division staff conducts a detailed completeness check within 30 days of submittal. • The assigned Planner notifies the applicant in writing regarding the completeness of the application. • An application is not be deemed technically complete until all information necessary to evaluate the proposed development, its impacts, and its compliance with the provisions of the Springfield Development Code and other applicable codes and statutes have been provided. • Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or unclear data, will delay the application review process and may result in denial. 3. City Staff Review the Application and Issue a Decision A Type II decision, made after public notice, but without a public hearing, unless appealed, is issued within 120 days of submittal of a complete application. • Mailed notice is provided to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property being reviewed and to any applicable neighborhood association. In addition, the applicant must post one sign, provided by the City, on the subject property. • There is a 14 -day public comment period, starting on the date notice is mailed. • Applications are distributed to the Development Review Committee, and their comments are incorporated into a decision that addresses all applicable approval criteria and/or development standards, as well as any written comments from those given notice. • Applications may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied. • The City mails the applicant and any party of standing a copy of the decision, which is effective on the day it is mailed. • The decision issued is the final decision of the City but may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the Planning Commission or Hearings Official. Revised 1/9/09 ddk 5 of 6 Interpretation Submittal Requirements Checklist NOTE: If you feel an item does not apply, please state the reason why and attach the explanation to this form. ❑ Submitted Concurrently with Site Plan Review or Minimum Development Standards, where applicable Application Fee - refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee calculation formula. A copy of the fee schedule is available at the Development & Public Works Department. The applicable application, technology, and postage fees are collected at the time of complete application submittal. V1 Interpretation Application Form ❑ Interpretation of New Uses Narrative - explaining the proposal and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating compliance with the Criteria described in SDC 5.11-120 B and information on the following characteristics of the new use: ❑ Description of proposed structures and operational characteristics of the new use ❑ Commercial/Industrial Uses ❑ Emission of smoke, dust, fumes, vapors, odors, and gases ❑ Use, storage, and/or disposal of flammable or explosive materials ❑ Glare ❑ Use of hazardous materials that may impact groundwater quality ❑ Noise ❑ Potential for ground vibration ❑ Amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required ❑ Hours of operation ❑ Residential Uses ❑ Density ❑ Amount and type of traffic to be generated and parking required V1 Interpretation of Terms or Phrases Narrative - explaining the proposal and any additional information that may have a bearing in determining the action to be taken, including findings demonstrating compliance with the Criteria described in SDC 5.11-125 B, as well as the following information: Particular term or phrase requiring interpretation Applicant's statement describing what the particular term or phrase means NOTE: Before the Director or Planning Commission can make an Interpretation, information submitted by the applicant must adequately support the request. All of the Interpretation Criteria must be addressed by the applicant. Incomplete applications, as well as insufficient or unclear data, will delay the application review process and may result in denial. Revised 1/9/09 ddk 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A APPLICATION NARRATIVE I. Terms Requiring Interpretation Applicant Springfield Utility Board (" SUB'D seeks interpretation of the terms `watercourse," ..riparian area" and `water quality limited watercourse" (which are defined respectively in SDC 6.1-100), as these terms relate to the city's water quality rules at SDC 4.3- 115. SUB requests clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas depicted on the city's Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map adopted pursuant to SDC 4.3-100 are subject to riparian area restrictions under SDC 4.3-115A and B. SUB also seeks clarification on which watercourses and riparian areas are regulated by SDC 4.3-115C and how these regulations relate to the city's SDC 4.3-110 stormwater regulations that are referenced in SDC 4.3-115C. II. Applicant's Statement Describing Meaning of Terms A. Context of Request This request relates to the Land Use Board of Appeals' recent decision in Royal Blue Organics v. City of Springfield, LUBA Nos. 2019-092/94/95/134. The Royal Blue case concerns SUB's planned Glenwood substation and transmission line 17A, which are defined and approved in a 2015 amendment to the Eugene -Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan Public Facilities and Services Plan (the "Project'D. Before LUBA, Royal Blue Organics challenged, among other things, the site plan review approval issued by the city for the Project as it relates to development of a wetland on the proposed substation site (the "Wetiand'D. Inits 2010 inventory of wetlands in Glenwood, the citydetermined that the Wetland is "non-significant" under Statewide Planning Goal 5 and therefore the city declined to adopt a program to preserve the Welland. The city's 2010 inventory of the Wefland determined that it is primarily fed by rainwater, is more than one quarter mile from any water quality limited watercourse (' WQLW ') and is not directly connected to any WQLW. The city's Goal 5 rules at SDC 4.3-117 allow non-significant wetlands to be developed if approved through the applicable federal and state environmental permits: "Inventoried wetlands which are not deemed to be locally significant shall not be subject to the development setbacks and other protections described in this Subsection, but shall continue to be protected under permitting authority of applicable Federal and State agencies." SDC 4.3-117(b)(1)(B). SUB has obtained all required federal and state environmental approvals for SUB's planned fill of a portion of the Welland to facilitate construction of the substation. These approvals include a Clean Water Act section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, certification of compliance with state water quality standards from the Oregon Department of Page 1 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001 Environmental Quality ("DEQ'D, and a removal -fill permit from the Oregon Department of State Lands. Despite all this, LUBA remanded the city's site plan approval for the Project for the city to apply additional SDC 4.3-115 water quality rules to SUB's proposed development of the Welland. LUBA reasoned that the Welland is subject to these rules because it is a `watercourse" and the Welland is shown on the city's WQLW map. LUBA's direction to the city for the remand is unclearl and LUBA's opinion canbe read to impose a riparian setback around the Welland. SUB has appealed LUBA's wetland decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals, and Royal Blue Organics has appealed other aspects of LUBA's decision to the court. Although SUB hopes that the court will reverse LUBA's interpretation of the city's water quality rules, the court frequently declines to issue opinions in land use cases. If the court declines to provide direction to the city on the wetland issue, then the Project and other needed infrastructure throughout the city could be in jeopardy. It is therefore important for the city to take action now to clarify the code terms described above. B. Meaning of Terms The watercourses that are subject to riparian area setbacks and use restrictions under SDC 4.3-115A and B are the three categories of water quality limited streams depicted on the WQLW map. Wetlands depicted on the map that are not within the riparian areas of these streams are not subjectto SDC 4.3-115A and B. These wetlands, as well as floodways and floodplains are included on the map solely for reference. This interpretation is required by SDC 4.3-110, which establishes the WQLW map and the criteria for designation of WQLWs in the city. As described in 4.3-11017 and the legend of the WQLW map, the city's WQLWs are streams that do not meet state water quality standards established under the framework of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, as well as tributaries of these streams. Wetlands outside of the riparian areas of these streams are not regulated by Section 303(d) and are instead regulated by the Army Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps' 404 permitting process and associated water quality certification by DEQ ensure that any wetland development does not impact the city's ability to meet water quality standards. The regulations in SDC 4.3-115C, by contrast, are not limited to WQLWs, but are for the purpose of regulating the discharge of stormwater from development to watercourses and riparian areas. SDC 4.3-115C sets forth development standards to protect water quality "as specified in SDC 4.3-110." SDC 4.3-110 provides detailed technical requirements for managing stormwater drainage. The SDC 4.3-115C rules therefore apply more broadly than the rules in 115A and B, but regulate stormwater discharge to watercourses and riparian areas rather than development of these areas themselves. 1 For example, LUBA states at one point that the Welland is "subject to protection under SDC 4.3- 115," but at another point LUBA states that " [i]t may be that compliance with state and federal standards could provide a basis for the city to conclude that SDC 4.3-115 will be satisfied." Page 2 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001 III. Procedural Request Although SUB's request for an interpretation of terms in the SDC is a Type II application, the Planning Director has authority to elevate this application to a Type III proceeding before the Planning Commission. See SDC 5.11-130. The Planning Commission in turn must forward the interpretation for City Council review to the extent that the interpretation raises policy issues. See 5.11-130C. If the City Council issues the interpretation, then LUBA and the courts must defer to this interpretation as long as the interpretation is a plausible reading of the SDC. This deference standard has been established by the Oregon Supreme Court. See Siporen v. City ofMedford, 349 Or 247 (2010). Given the important practical and policyissues created by LUBA's mistaken understanding of the city's water quality rules, SUB requests that the Planning Director elevate this application to the Type III process and urge the Planning Commission to forward the interpretation to the City Council for consideration. IV. Conclusion SUB requests formal interpretation of certain city code terms used in the city's water quality land use rules. SUB requests that the Planning Commission and the City Council participate in this interpretation in order to protect the city's authority to manage its own regulations and planning policy in light of the potential impact of LUBA's misunderstanding of city rules. Thank you for your attention to this application. Page 3 -EXHIBIT A 324\00031171.001 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tax Lot 18-03-03-13-00101 Parcel 2 of Land Partition Plan No. 93-P0340, Lane County Official Records, in Lane County, Oregon. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C TAX MAP S W 1/4 N E.1 /4 SEC. 3 T l8S. R 3W. W M. Lane County f EXHIBIT C 1 18030313 SPRINGFIELD £ SPRINGFIELD „�„ 18030313 004-80 _ 5 8, t 004-46 EXHIBIT C 1 I r 18030313 SPRINGFIELD £ SPRINGFIELD „�„ 18030313 I r SPRINGFIELD „�„ 18030313