Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2021-12 03/15/2021 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 2021-12 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING A FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN TERMS AND PHRASES IN SECTION 4.3-115 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (CASE 811-20-000248-TYP2) WHEREAS, Chapter 5, "Interpretations,"of the City of Springfield Development Code vests the authority and responsibility to interpret the appropriateness of new uses and the meaning of all terms and phrases with the Planning Director; WHEREAS, as provided in SDC 5.11-115, the Director may determine that the application should be reviewed as a Type III decision by the Planning Commission due to the complexity of the application or the need for discretionary review; WHEREAS, on December 23, 2020, the Springfield Utility Board (Electric) submitted a request for formal interpretation of the terms and phrases"riparian area,""watercourse,"and "Water Quality Limited Watercourse"as they relate to provisions in SDC 4.3-115 (Case 811-20-000248-TYP2); WHEREAS, the Director elevated the review of the interpretation request to a Type III decision by the Planning Commission due to the complexity of the application and the need for discretionary review; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the interpretation on January 20, 2021 and adopted a final order on February 2, 2021; WHEREAS, the interpretation by the Planning Commission has been forwarded to the City Council as provided in SDC 5.11-130.C.1, which provides for consideration by the City Council on the Planning Commission record and without a further public hearing; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Planning Commission record in Case 811-20-000248-TYP2, the City Council finds that the formal interpretation issued by the Planning Commission in Exhibit A is consistent with the criteria in SDC 5.11-125B, as supported by the findings and conclusions in Exhibit B, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD: Section 1: The meanings of the terms and phrases described in the Planning Commission Order attached as Exhibit A and the findings and conclusions in Exhibit B are affirmed. Section 2: The meanings of the terms and phrases described herein are severable. If one or more of the terms are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of the remaining term or terms. Every other term or phrase of the Springfield Development Code as approved, irrespective of the enactment or validity of the term or phrase declared unconstitutional or invalid, is valid. Section 3: This Resolution will take effect upon adoption by the Council. ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 15 day of March, 2021, by a vote of 6 for and 0 against. ATTEST: REVIP&D&APPROVED s AS TO FORM DATE: -14's42021 SPRINGFIELD OITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE City Recorder EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 1 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON FINAL ORDER FOR: SUB ELECTRIC FORMAL INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES \] 811-20-000248-TYP2 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION This is a Formal Interpretation of terms and phrases under Springfield Development Code (SDC) 5.11-125, which the Director has elevated for Type III review by the Springfield Planning Commission as provided in SDC 5.11-130.A., to interpret - Quality Limited Watercourse map are subject to riparian area restrictions of SDC 4.3-115.A & B; and to clarify which watercourses and riparian areas are regulated by the provisions of SDC 4.3-115.C. This formal interpretation pertains -03-03-13, Tax Lot 101). On January 20, 2021, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing and conducted deliberations on the Formal Interpretation. The staff report, written comments, and any testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing were entered into the record. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to SDC 5.2- 115. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the Springfield Planning Commission adopts the following interpretation of the following terms and phrases, consistent with the criteria in SDC 5.11-125.B: 1.As used in SDC 4.3- -115.A, which Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) W-115 means only the fea a callout on the map. 2.The wetland -03-03-13, Tax Lot 101), as identified in the application, does not non- Wetland Inventory and has not been adopted as a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its tributary. Therefore, the wetland is not subject to the requirements or standards in SDC 4.3-115.A, B, or C, but is subject to applicable requirements for locally non-significant wetlands in SDC 4.3-117. This interpretation is supported by the findings and conclusions in the Staff Report and Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A. ORDER/RECOMMENDATION It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that this Formal Interpretation in Case Number 811-20-000248- TYP2, be adopted. This matter should be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration on this record, as provided in SDC 5.11-130.C.1. Sophia McGinley February 4, 2021 Planning Commission Chairperson Date ATTEST AYES: 6 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 open position ABSTAIN: 0 EXHIBIT B, Page 1 of 8 Type III FORMAL INTERPRETATION staff report & FINDINGS Project Name: SUB ElectricFormal Interpretation Project Proposal: Interpret the terms ,,quality quality rules in SDC 4.3-115; toclarify which watercourses and riparian areas WaterQuality Limited Watercourse(WQLW)map are subject to riparian arearestrictions of SDC 4.3-115.A & B; and to clarify which watercoursesand riparian areas are regulated by the provisionsof SDC 4.3-115.C. Case Number: 811-20-000248-TYP2 Project Location:Vacant parcel on nd nd East 22Avenue, Glenwood E 22Ave (Map 18-03-03-13, Tax Lot 101) Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI) SITE Application Submitted Date: Dec. 23, 2020 Public HearingDate:Jan. 20, 2021 th E 24Ave Applicant:: Jeff NelsonMichael Gelardi Springfield Utility BoardGelardi Law PC 1001 Main StreetP.O. Box 8529 Springfield OR 97477Coburg OR 97408 Background: In 2019, the City of Springfield approved a tentative Site Plan, Hillside Development Permit,and Tree Felling Permit for the SUB Electric substation and transmission line projectextending southeastward from the nd Avenue in Glenwood(Cases 811-19-000016-TYP2;811-19-000084-TYP2; and 811-19-000085-TYP2). The land use decisions were subsequently appealed to the Springfield Planning Commission and Hearings Official, and laterappealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On November 12, 2020, LUBA issued a final order and opinion on the appeals as LUBA Nos. 2019-092/094/095/134. LUBA remanded thesite plan approval for the City toapply additional SDC 4.3- proposed development of the wetland.LUBA reasoned that the wetland is subject to these rules because it is a wetland is shownon the Ccouldbe read to impose a riparian setback around the wetland. andRoyalSUB has requested this formal interpretation to provide clarity on the code terms described in the application, in the event that the Oregon Court of Appeals declines to resolve thewetland issue. EXHIBIT B, Page 2 of 8 Requested Interpretation: The ato clarifythe meaning ofthe termswatercourse, Quality Limited Watercourse,asthese terms relate to the water quality provisions of SDC 4.3- 115.As part of this request, the applicant specifically requestsclarification onwhich watercoursesand riparian areasare subject to riparian area restrictions under SDC 4.3-115.A&B. Finally,the applicant also seeks clarification on which watercoursesand riparian areasare regulated bySDC 4.3-115.C and how these r-110 stormwater regulationsthat arereferenced in SDC 4.3-115.C. REVIEW PROCESS:This application is reviewed under the formal interpretationcriteria of approval SDC 5.11- 125.B.The subject application has been elevated to a Type III review before the Springfield Planning Commission in accordance with SDC 5.11-130.A. Interpretative Finding: In accordance with SDC 5.11-110, the Director has the authority to interpret the appropriateness of new uses and the meaning of all terms and phrases in the Code. The Director haselevatedthe interpretation to a Type III quasi-judicial review before the Springfield Planning Commission because of the City- wide application of this interpretation request and also because of its relationship to the LUBA remandfor the . NOTIFICATION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS: Procedural Finding: Notification of the January 20, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing was mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on December 30,2020 and published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on January 13, 2021. Staff also posted noticesat the subject property nd frontage on East 22Avenue, on One written comment was received prior to the public hearing and it is included herein as Attachment 3. Procedural Finding: On June 30, 2020, Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 4212, which waives requirements under the Oregon Public Meetings Law and other statutes to facilitate public meetings online or by phone. Under HB 4212, the governing body must make available a method by which the public can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs. HB 4212 allows governing bodies to accept public testimony by telephone or video conferencing technology, or to provide a means to submit written testimony (including email or other electronic methods) that the governing body can consider in a timely manner. HB 4212 overrides conflicting requirements for quasi-judicial public hearings in state law or in the Springfield Development Code or Metro Plan. Procedural Finding: TheJanuary 20, 2021Planning Commission public hearing wasconducted as an online meeting via video conferencing technology that allowedmembers of the public to listen to the meeting online or by calling in to the meeting. Details regarding how to join the online meeting were provided in the notification letter mailed to nearby residents and property owners, in the posted public hearing notices, in the Planning Commission meeting Response to Public Comment: One written comment was received from Michelle and Dawn Saxton. The comment expressed concern with the impacts of development on the wetlands on the SUB property and discussed the physical conditions of the wetland. The current physical conditions on the subject property are not directly relevant to the formal interpretation of the Springfield Development Code terms and phrases in SDC 4.3-115. In addition, this application does not specifically permit any development; rather, it interprets which existing provisions of the Springfield Development Code in SDC 4.3-115 would apply to the property in a future development application or on remand of the previously approved applications. This application also does not change the designation of the property as a locally non-significant wetland under SDC 4.3-117. EXHIBIT B, Page 3 of 8 CRITERIA OF APPROVAL: SDC 5.11-125.B,Interpretation of TermsandPhrases -Criteriastates that the meaning of any term or phrase: 1.Shall beconsistent with the purpose and intent of this Code, including any Chapter or Section to which the term or phrase is related; Finding 1: The requirement in SDC 5.11-125. with the is a mandatory criteria of approval for formal interpretations of terms or phrases under SDC 5.11-125. Interpretation of the tas used in SDC 4.3-115 Finding 2: Criterion E in SDC 5.12-125 (partition and subdivision criteria) and SDC 5.17-125 imposes the watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in SDC 4.3- - Finding 3: SDC 4.3-ections 5.12-125 and 5.17-125) to protect riparian areas along watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map, the following riparian area boundaries \[listed in SDC 4.3-115. establishe watercourses shown on the WQLW Map with average stream Finding 4: SDC 4.3-115. ociated with watercourses on the WQLW Map, or all -117. Context of the .3-115.B are only planning jurisdiction. SDC 4.3- explicitly exempts those shown on WQLW Map in SDC 4.3-115 from the setbacks in SDC 4.3-117. This supports the interpretation that SDC 4.3- on the WQLW Map, and SDC 4.3- Conclusion: The context and intent of the development code shows that, as used in SDC 4.3-115, the term -115.A that are Finding5:By the terms of SDC 4.3-115.A (quoted in the findings above), the development setbacks in that -115.A do not not could apply to any feature appearing on the WQLW Map, the criteria for formal interpretations in SDC 5.1-125.B look to dictionary definitions only if intent, context, and legislative history cannot be applied. For the following -115has a more limited meaning in that context that the common dictionary - Finding6:The text of Ordinance 6021 andthefindings inthe staff report supporting that ordinance both confirm that the purpose of the water quality rules in SDC 4.3-110 and 4.3- EXHIBIT B, Page 4 of 8 Clean Water Act(CWA), Safe Water Drinking Act(SWDA), and Endangered Species Act(ESA), specifically as they relate to water quality in the Willamette and McKenzie rivers and their tributaries. Nothing in the ordinance shows that the purpose of the regulations in SDC 4.3-115 was to treat wetlands disconnected from the Willamette and McKenzie River as Water Quality Limited Watercourses. Because the State of Oregon's wetland permitting process requires Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) to certify that any proposed wetland development is consistent with state water quality standards, the City had no need to impose additional water quality standards on wetlands that are not part of a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its identified tributaries to comply with the ESA, CWA, and SWDA. Finding7: SDC 6.1-110 pr listed below (emphasis added). Watercourse.Rivers, streams, sloughs, drainages including intermittent stream and seeps, ponds, lakes, aquifers, wetlands and other waters of the State. This definition also includes any channel in which a flow of water occurs, either continuously or intermittently, and if the latter with some degree of regularity. Watercourses may be either natural or artificial. Specific watercourses that are protected by this Code are those shown on the water quality Limited Watercourse Map. Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW).Those watercourses within the City and its urbanizing area that are specified on the WQLW Map. Finding8: The currently-adopted WQLW Map is the version dated August 2002 that was adopted by the City Council via Ordinance 6021, attached to this staff report. Amendments to the WQLW Map must be adopted by the City Council as an amendment to the Springfield Development Code, per SDC 4.3-110.F.No subsequent reformatted to update new base layer information, but also includes changes to the legends and labels onthe WQLW Map. The formatting changes on the republished versions of the WQLW Map have not been adopted by the City Council and therefore do not amend the WQLW Map nor change its meaning. Finding9:ject of this interpretation is not shown at all on the August 2002 WQLW Map, neither as part of the Local Wetland Inventory nor as a Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its tributary. The wetland was added to the Local Wetland Inventory as a locally non-significant wetland by Ordinance 6265 (adopted February 22, 2011), which updated the Local Wetland Inventory to add wetlands in the Glenwood area. Nothing in that Ordinance 6265 or any other ordinance incorporated the amendments to the Local Wetland Inventory into the WQLW Map. Therefore, the wetland on SUB property cannot be subject to the setback requirements in SDC 4.3-115.A or the use restrictions in SDC 4.3-115.B. Finding10: The adopted WQLW Map includes the following legend that describes the Water Quality Limited Watercourses and tributaries to Water Quality Limited Watercourses and their associated riparian area boundary setbacks. No riparian area boundary setbacks are listed or noted under the Local Wetland Inventory label. EXHIBIT B, Page 5 of 8 Finding11:SDC 4.3-110.F defines the specific criteria for identifying Water Quality Limited Watercourses on the WQLW map. as a WQLW based on City monitoring and sampling showing significant water quality impairment; and (3) and direct tributaries of the first two categories of watercourses. These three definitions correspond to the categories under SDC 4.3-110F shown as Water Quality Limited Watercourses on the WQLW Map according to their flow rates, and tributaries shown as its own category. Finding12: The adopted WQLW Map also includes callouts identifying specific watercourses on the map by -adopted versions of the WQLW Map). All the map features identified by a callout are shown Water Quality Limited Watercourses and their tributaries in blue, green, or orange corresponding to the right column of the map legend. Finding13: Some of the Water Quality Limited Watercourses on the WQLW Map (shown in blue, green, or orange) overlap with the features identified as part of the Local Wetland Inventory (shown in dark teal). However, no features that are identified only as part of the Local Wetland Inventory on the WQLW Map are labelled with a specific callout naming the watercourse. Read together in context, the WQLW Map legend and an only those watercourses that are specifically identified on the map by name with a callout, and that the Local Wetland Inventory layer on the map is shown n the map are Watercourse and identified with a callout. ter Quality -115 means only the features that are specifically shown on efore are not subject to the riparian area boundaries in SDC 4.3-115.A. -115C and how these -110 stormwater regulations that are referenced in SDC 4.3-115C. Finding14:SDC 4.3-115C provides standards that apply \[f\]or protection of water quality and protection of riparian area functions as specified in Section 4.3-110." SDC 4.3-115.C.7 specifically states theareas that are subject to the standards in subsections C.1-C.6 (emphasis added): 7.In applying Subsections 4.3-115.C.1. through 6., riparian area protection, preservation, restoration and enhancement measures shall be applied as follows: a.For new development and redevelopment, existing riparian area functions shall be protected and preserved. Degraded functions shall be restored or enhanced through the full riparian area width, as specified in Subsections 4.3-115.A.1. and 2.,and extending through the full frontage of the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse (WQLW) Map. b.For additions and expansions on any portion of a lot/parcel, existing riparian area functions shall be protected and preserved through the full riparian area width specified in Subsections 4.3-115.A.1. and 2., and extending through the full frontage of the lot/parcel along the watercourse on the WQLW Map. EXHIBIT B, Page 6 of 8 c.For additions and expansions within 100 feet of a watercourse on the WQLW Map on a lot/parcel that has degraded riparian functions, the area for restoration or enhancement shall be based upon the ratio of the impervious area of the addition or expansion to the existing building or impervious area on the lot/parcel. The restoration or enhancement shall start at the top of bank of the watercourse and work landward. - - -2, within the specific lot/parcel boundary limits described in subsection C.7.a-c. 2.The meaning of the term or phrase may be determined by legislative history, including staff reports and public hearing tapes and minutes. Finding15: The standard in SDC 5.11-125. by legisla option to rely on legislative history to support a formal interpretation. However, the City is not obligated to adopt findings in support of a formal interpretation that discuss the legislative history of a term or phrase if the meaning can be determined based on the criteria in SDC 5.11-125.B.1 immediately above. Since all terms can be determined by the purpose and intent of the Code, the legislative history findings in this section provide additional support for the formal interpretation but are not mandatory findings for this decision. -115 Finding16: Ordinance 6265 adopted the changes to the Local Wetland Inventory that added the wetland on non-significant wetland. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments in Ordinance 6265 at their meeting on January 19, 2011. The minutes to that meeting include the following explanation of the relationship between the riparian area setbacks adopted in Ordinance 6265 and the stormwater management/water quality regulations adopted under Ordinance 6021: ... Commissioner Brew With the addition of sites S27 and S28 which are proposed for 25-foot setbacks, is the council going to see changes to the stormwater plan\[?\] Staff explained that the stormwater management program that was adopted in 2002, identified the larger, more important drainageways and riparian corridors. S27 and S28 are smaller resource features that were not included in the stormwater Finding17: S27 and S28 are locally-significant riparian resource areas in Glenwood identified in Ordinance 6265.-foot setbacks should be understood as a reference to the setbacks in SDC 4.3-117 for locally- and current SDC 4.3-110 and SDC 4.3-115), becausethat was the only ordinance that adopted stormwater management regulations that year. Thus, the staff explanation to Commissioner Brew shows that the amendments in Ordinance 6265 were not intended to change the application of the stormwater management regulations in SDC 4.3-115. The minutes for the January 19, 2011 Planning Commission meeting were provided to the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, so it is reasonable to conclude those bodies would have been aware of this intended scope of Ordinance 6265. Finding18: Ordinance 6265 was considered at ajoint public hearing of the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on February 7, 2011. The minutes of that meeting include the following recommendation from City staff: Staff was recommending that \[the Council and Board of Commissioners\] keep the 50 foot setbacks as noted in the existing stormwater management program, and a 25-foot development setback EXHIBIT B, Page 7 of 8 -117 separately from those subject to SDC 4.3-115. -115 does not refer to -117. This supports the - - Finding19: that are subject to development setbacks in SDC 4.3-115A do not to the Springfield Planning Commission at the public hearing on April 2,2002. Following public comments related to this specific feature, the Planning Commission recommendation removed the callout on the WQLW Inventory. Finding20: During the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting and public hearing on the ordinance, (former) Councilor Simmons objected to removing the Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch, as documented in the minutes of that meeting. The minutes of the meeting on July 15, 2002 show that Councilor Simmons was the only Councilor to vote not to adopt Ordinance 6021, during which he noted his same objections expressed on July 1. This indicates that the remaining members of the City Council who voted to adopt Ordinance 6021 understood that features not -115.A. Finding21:The minutes from the June 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting include the following explanation from Ken Vogeney, City Engineer, explaining the intended scope of the proposed code amendments in response of other open waterways \[in addition to the Irving Slough/Pierce Ditch\] that were not being included in the SDC amendments for protection. The waterways that were included were those that were known water quality limited waters and the direct tributaries Water Quality Limited Waterways regulations was not intended to extend to every feature that could be defined -110, but Limited Watercourses and their direct tributaries. The June 4 minutes were provided to the City Council in the agenda packet for the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting, so the City Council would have also understood this intent in the code amendment. Finding22: The Staff Report provided to the City Council for the July 1, 2002 meeting and public hearing entory. The findings conclude that there are only 31 tax lots affected by the proposed development setbacks and use restrictions in (current) SDC 4.3-115A and B. This shows that the that the development setbacks and use restrictions were intendedto applyonly Watercourse or a Tributary to a Water Quality Limited Water. The August 2002 WQLW Map shows tax lot boundaries and it is apparent that a much larger number of properties would have been affected if the development restrictions were intended to apply to the Local Wetland Inventory as shown on that map. Finding23: The legislative history of Ordinance 6265 also shows that ordinance was not intended to subject wetlands identified as not locally significant to increased setbacks under the Springfield Development Code. At the February 2, 2011 joint City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting, City staff gave the following example: EXHIBIT B, Page 8 of 8 the industrial use property owners, was concerned about a wetland identified by 1 the inventory that didn't, by State criteria, rise to the level of being called a locally significant wetland.That term was defined by the State. There was a wetland on their property that was not significant, so they were given the option of working with the State. Often in cases where a wetland was not locally significant, the This example shows that wetlands in Glenwood that are not locally significant were intended to be subject to state permits, and that the regulations in the Springfield Development Code were not intended to be more equirements. Conclusion: The legislative histories of Ordinance 6021 and Ordinance 6265 support the interpretation that the 4.3-115.A or use restrictions in SDC 4.3-115.B. 3.The meaning of a term or phrase shall beconsistent with any dictionary of common usage, if criteria 1. and/or 2., above cannot be applied. Finding24:The criteria in SDC 5.11-125. cannot be determined by applying the standards in subsections B.1 and B.2. Because the meaning of terms and phrases discussed in this decision are supported by findings under SDC 5.11-125.B.1 regarding intent and purpose of the Code, and SDC 5.11-125.B.2 regarding legislative history, there is no need to apply the common dictionary meanings. Conclusion: This criterionis not applicable, because the meaning of the terms and phrases in this decision can be determined solely from the intent and purpose of the Code, and from legislative history. CONCLUSION: As used in SDC 4.3- -115. -115 means r Quality Limited The wetland on the SUB property identified in this application does not appear on the August 2002 WQLW Map. It non- Water Quality Limited Watercourse or its tributary. Therefore, the SUB wetland is not subject to any of requirements or standards in SDC 4.3-115.A, B, or C, but is subject to applicable requirements for locally non-significant wetlands in SDC 4.3-117. PREPARED BY Andy Limbird Andy Limbird Senior Planner 1 It is reasonable to conclude that the SUB property wetland was the specific subject of the concerns expressed by the Pape family. SUB purchased the subject property from Pape Properties, Inc, in 2015. (Lane Co. Deeds and Records Document No. 2015-14356.)