Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous PLANNER 7/30/2009 Quick Start for Applying Resource Protections The Local Wetland Inventory and Riparian Resource Sites that are shown on the Springfield Natural Resources Study Map show the approximate location of Springfield's locallv sirnificant wetland and riparian sites. The map also shows wetlands that are part of the Local Wetland Inventory but which do not meet the state criteria for classification as significant. There is a corresponding list of small drainage ways and ditches that are not shown on'the map that are riparian in character but which were not judged to be significant using criteria developed in conjunction with ODFW, the Audubon Society and , other environmental groups and governmental agencies. Statewide Planning 60al 5 places the focus oflocal planriing on locally significant resource lands. The protections adopted by the city and incorporated into the Springfield Development Code apply to locally significant wetlailds and riparian areas. Wetlands that are not considered sirnificant are not without nrotection. The Deoartment of State ~ Lands and the Corns of Engineers have the'fmal authority regarding develooment that impacts wetland and rioarian areas. The following steps are meant to give you a quick start to assessing and applying the adopted Goal 5 protections found in the Springfield Natural Resources Study. Step ,1. Upon receiving a development inquiry or in preparing for a DIM or pre- submittal meeting with a customer, check the Springfield Natural Resources Study Map (NR Study) and or the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQL W) Map for affected wetlands or riparian resources. If a site is shown on both the WOL Wand NR Studv Mans. the nrotections detailed for the WOL W sites described in SDC 4.3-110/115 should be aoolied to the site. If a site is affected that is not covered by WQL W protections, apply the protections found in SDC XXX.XX. It is Important to inform the customer of the additional protections and processes that will affect their development as early as possible. Step 2. Note the identification number of any affected or potentially affected site. Tables 1 and 2 in Chapter 2.0 of this manual show the required development setbacks for each of the sites by their Id number. SDC XXX.XX of the Development Code provides guidance covering permitted uses/activities within the resource land and within prescribed setbacks that may affect your staff report and conditions of approval for projects with resource impacts. ~tep 3) If a prop.osed .development affects.a mapped resource, file a Wetland Land Use NotIficatIOn Form (The form IS filed under Department of State Lands in the planning application file drawer) and continue to process the application. The state will use the local land use decision in their permit process as shown below. Springfield Natural Resources Study Implementation Manual February 19,2008 Date Received: ljso/>o'! I Planner: Al 3 Basic State Permit Process (Federal pennil process is similar) Arc 10000tion & boundaries of any \vctl:mds on p~ccl known: ck $ Oblain a wetland delineation report: submit report 10 DSL for r~,'iew and approval 'J ~ Can project be located or designed (0 avoid ",.et!ands'! 1 . No OSl. pcnnit nccd,,-d t ~ t Y S,ubmit Permit Application Interest Groups I f--. jj I Re"iew and Comment Period ./ I Pc.:nnit I:\sut:d with Conditions 1 I .. l\pplic<ltion Complete? If Yes Resource Ag!:ncie~ + ] .._-j C Local GoVCmmenl~ I~ -NeighboO; Pt.TIT1it Denied Step 4. As mentioned above, processing land use applications affecting wetlands or riparian areas requires the application of SDC 4.3-115 CWQL W) or SDC XXX.XX (NR Study). Once a land use decision has beenissued, it will be used to respond whenDSLlCorpsrequests a "land use compatibility statement" as they make their decision about a Fill/Removal Permit. Springfield PW will not issue an LDAP (generally the frrst step in construction) without an approved permit from the CorpslDSL. ~ - Springfield Natural Resources Study Implementation Manual February 19, 2008 4 Data Received:__1#~/.J..n>? Planner: Al // /" < / process requires an analysis of the ESEE consequences'of allowing development to 'impact natural resource sites and leads co=unities to make one of three decisions: 1) fully allow development; 2) prohibit any development; or 3) limit development, making decisions about the protection of resource sites based on the assessed consequences. Development in this instance means any land use that might conflict the healthy function of a resource site. 2.0 Program Decision to "Limit Conflicting Uses" OAR 660-23-010 requires the consideration of three basic options for Goal 5 protection programs to carry out the results of the ESEE analysis: (I) protect the resource site; (2) allow conflicting uses completely; or (3) allow conflicting uses on a limited basis. The ,City may choose to apply anyone of these options to anyone of the inventoried wetland and riparian sites. These options are briefly defmed below. 2.1 Protect the Resource Site - All Conflicting Uses Prohibited Where the ESEE consequences offully protecting have been determined to be acceptable to the governing body, there may,be a decision to preserve a resource site as an undisturbed natural area. Such a resource site would be completely off limits to any conflicting land use or activity - including passive recreational use. This report does not reco=end full protection for any locally significant wetland or riparian resource area. 2.2 Allow Conflicting Uses Completely - Regardless of Impacts' on Resource Site Fully allowing conflicting uses means that none of the locally significant wetlands or riparian areas would be preserved. In most cases, this extreme approach is unnecessary, because locally significant wetlands can be largely preserved while allowing conflicting uses on a given parcel. There may be a few instances where one or more of Springfield's wetland or riparian resources must be removed in order to allow a conflicting use. Such limited protection (see below) sacrifice is justified where the ESEE consequences of preserving even a portion of the resource site are 'so severe as to allow conflicting uses fully, which has the effect of removing the resource from the local wetland or natural resource i~ventories. In such cases, there would be no local protection, although the Division of State Lands and or the US ~y Corps of Engineers would retain jurisdiction. - - 2.3 Allow Conflicting Uses on Limited Basis - Partially Protect the Resource Site Allowing conflicting uses on a limited basis means some development would be allowed where the ESEE analysis warrants such development to balance the consequences of fully protecting a site. The goal would be to retain a majority of the resource site and its Springfield Natural Resources Study Implementation Manual February 19,2008 7 Date Received:~/5ol,;>n!...- Planner: Al / / / function, while allowing some conflicting development. The "limit" option may include partial, in extreme instances, full elimination of a resource area or its development setback where such action is justified by the ESEE. This report does not recornmend full elimination of any resource site. -* The Springfield Natural Resources Study implements. a program decision to "limit conflicting uses" that would impact wetland and riparian resources. Keep in mind that the study only addresses "locally sigillficant" wetlands and riparian corridors. There are several lower auality wetlands and watercourses which are not recommended for orotection bv this study. These sites not r..rotected by this study are still under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of State Lands and _or the., COlJ's of Engineers. These agencies will J,:ontinue to be the sole authority for issuing permits to impact wetlands and streams. 2.4 Policy Goals for Springfield's Natural Resources Program for Protection To implement a "liinited conflicting uses" protection program, the Natural Resources Study and adopting ordinances implemented the following policy goals: 1. Support of the existing protections implemented through Springfield's Stormwater Quality Management Program. The recommended Goal 5 limited protection program defers in part to existing Stormwater Management policies detailed in SDC 4.3- 110/115 and in particular those provisions which support the City's response to state and federal regulations concerning surface and subsurface discharging stormwater management systems. Sites nrotected bv the Stormwater Management Prmrram are not recornmended for additional orotection. 2. Establishment of 25-foot development setbacks from inventoried wetlands and riparian resource sites that are not already protected by stormwater policies. The 50 and 75 foot setbacks established by the Stormwater Quality Management Program would be retained. 3. Protection policies would apply to new development. Developed properties would not be required to retroactively comply with the new policies. The recently adopted 'provisions ofSDC 5.8-100-Non-Conforming Uses, provides "grandfather" protections to existing development. Expansion of existing development would be allowed where such expansion was outside of the resource area. 4. Site plan review would be required for all commercial, industrial andmulti-farnily residential development within 150-feet of resource sites. SDC XXX.XX describes the wetland and riparian protections that are applied in the site plan review process that help reduce the impact of development. This requirement coincides With the defined I 50-foot impact area recommended,by this study and the 150-foot site plan review area already required for many of Springfield's resource areas by the Springfield Natural Resources Study Implementation Manual February 19,.2008 8 Date ~eceived: ~/~o/i#"1 Planner: Al / / Stormwater Quality Management Program. Construction of a single-family home within an existing subdivision would not require site plan review. 5. Future adoption and implementation of a Low Impact Development Design Handbook to reduce the impact of development on nearby wetlands and riparian areas. As mentioned above, Articles 31 and 32 of the Springfield Development Code already provide some protection for resource areas. A Low Impact Development Design Handbook would supplement the existing protections, The Low Impact Design Handbook will be jointly developed by the planning and public works staff using resources that have been in use in other cornmunities as a starting point. 6. The Low Impact.Design Handbook will include a compilation of design standards that are practical, cost efficient and flexible to enough to meet a variety of development situations. The National Homebuilders Association generally supports low impact design techniques, citing the reduced cost of infrastructure that has been achieved as well as the increased value of home sites which have natural amenities. Low impact design standards would be applied through the site plan review process , mentioned above, where a proposed development or land division is within 150-feet of a resource site. 7. The protection program would primarily affect vacant land and future development. Existing uses and structures within the proposed 25-foot setbacks would be allowed to continue. Expansion of such uses would be permitted outside the setback. Development within 50 and 75-foot setbacks established under Springfield's Stormwater Quality Management Program would be subject to the policies of that program. 8. Where the proposed 25-foot setback renders a property unbuildable for the purposes for which it was zoned, a hardship variance may be requested to 'assist the owner to achieve a viable development design. Such a hardship variance is required under state administrative rules (OAR 660-023-0090 (8)(d) and 660-023-0100(4)(b)(d)). Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the protections for Springfield's significant wetlands and riparian areas and shows those sites which are already protected by stormwater policies. Table 1. Goal 5 Protection* for Wetlands I Site IDlName Program Setbacks Wetland Comments See Decision (feet)* Acres Map# M04--Cascade Limit 25 5.02 Specific provisions of the Drive In Conflicting approved site plan for 3 Uses Jenna Estates will be imolemerited. M05-Aster Limit 25 9.0' Street Wetland Conflicting 3,4 Uses Springfield Natural Resources Study 9 Implementation Manual "- Date; Received;~o~ r February 19, 2008 Plannpr' ,A.L I - .- . The wetland is vegetated with Oregon ash, baldhip rose, camas and bentgrass. The wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no indicators of hydrology. Site: M35 , Type: I Acres: OFW AM: PEM 4.91 Does Not Meet Significance Criteria Description: Wetland M35 is 4,91 acres and is classified as PEM. It is located at the foot of Potato Hill. Part of this wetland was'determined on-site and part was determined off-site because property , ' owner access' was not granted. The majority of this wetland is part of residential backyards. This dominant vegetatiqn includes Oregon ash, meadow foxtail, red fescue, creePing buttercup and field mint. Hydrology was directly observed and soils were a dark color with mottles. The wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no longer indicators of hydrology. . Site: M36 Type: PEM Acres: OFW AM: 0.75 Does Not Meet Significance Criteria Description: Wetland M36 is 0.75 acre and is classified as PEM, It is located at the foot of Potato Hill. The majority ofthis wetland is part of residential backyards. Hydrology was directly observed. The wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no longer indicators of hydrology. Site: M37 Type: PEM Acres: @ OFW AM: Does Not Meet Significance Criteria Description: Wetland M37 is O.Oacre and is classified as PEM. It is located on the east side of Potato Hill. This wetland is a drainage ditch in a pasture that empties into a culvert on the north end, Hydrology was directly observed. The wetland limits were determined where the vegetation changed and there were no longer indicators of hydrology. Site: M38 Type: PEM, PFO Acres: OFW AM: 0.08 Does Not Meet Significance Criteria Description: Wetland M38 is 0.08 acre and is classified as PEMlPFO. It is located at the foot of Potato Hill. This wetland is between a residential subdivision on the west and a driveway on the east. A ditch as been excavated parallel to the driveway to collect runoff from Potato Hill and the bordering subdivision. The ditch is vegetated with black cottonwood, Oregon ash, Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, red fescue and creeping buttercup. Hydrology was directly observed. The majority of this wetland is part of residential sideyards and the emergent areas Springfield Natural Resources Study 38 Implementation Manual February 19, 2008 Date Received: i~o/dtrUL Planner: AL '