Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Council Discussion on Proposed Development Code Update Project Commencing in FY18 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/6/2017 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Anette Spickard/DPW Greg Mott/DPW Staff Phone No: X3697/X3774 Estimated Time: 20 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE PROJECT COMMENCING IN FY18 ACTION REQUESTED: Continued Council discussion of the proposed update of the Springfield Development Code. At the conclusion of the initial discussion of this proposal in February 2017 the Council directed staff to bring this topic back for an additional work session prior to formal implementation of the project. This follow-up discussion is intended to reaffirm Council’s expectations for this project, highlight some of the legal mandates that will continue to shape code content, and begin framing the Council’s priorities for the update process. ISSUE STATEMENT: The Springfield Development Code was adopted in 1987 as the principle tool to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan. Other than a general “housekeeping” update (c. 1998-2005) interrupted by higher priority assignments, the Code has been revised only to comply with state or federal laws, or as directed by Council in response to a specific issue or objective. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum 2. Examples and Excerpts from the codes of other Oregon cities DISCUSSION FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Development Code is the principal document that enforces the implementation of state and federal land use, transportation and environmental laws applicable in the City of Springfield. This on-going mandate is the platform and context within which the Council creates and fosters the successful development, redevelopment and economic prosperity of the city. However, relying on increasingly broad interpretations of 30-year old code text as a substitute for new code text is becoming problematic and results in less than efficient implementation of Council policy. The Council recognized this potential for a dysfunctional development environment and directed staff to prepare a work session discussion on the consequences of this practice to date and options for solutions for the future. The attached Council Briefing Memorandum provides a summary of the organizational characteristics sought by Council for a code update, including content, process and final product. While these objectives are logical outcomes of a contemporary Council perspective and may gain some traction in a revised code, all revisions must maintain compliance with the State’s land use goals and planning program mandates, most of which are largely unchanged since enactment in 1973. The principal challenge for this code update will be the successful merging of contemporary political, economic and social trends with this iconic land use law. The next steps include hiring a limited duration project manager who will work with the Planning Commission and Council to create a citizen advisory committee; adopt a public involvement plan; and establish a project work plan. M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE: November 6, 2017 COUNCIL TO: Gino Grimaldi BRIEFING FROM: Anette Spickard, DPW Director Greg Mott, Current Development Manager MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Development Code Update ISSUE The Springfield Development Code was adopted in 1987 as the principle tool to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro Plan. Other than a general “housekeeping” update (c. 1998-2005) interrupted by higher priority assignments, the Code has been revised only to comply with state or federal laws, or as directed by Council in response to a specific issue or objective. BACKGROUND On February 6, 2017 the City Council discussed the general state of the Development Code, whether or not it was in need of an update and, if so, when and how that update project should proceed. The Council’s discussion was assisted with information on the history of zoning in Springfield; an FAQ marking commonly misunderstood code requirements that created difficulties for all involved; and three options to consider going forward: 1. A complete rewrite and update; 2. A limited revision creating a user-friendly format for the most commonly used sections; and 3. no formal update per se, but implement priority code revisions when and as directed by Council. In addition, the Council Briefing Memorandum included a set of “Guiding Principles” intended to “underpin direction to staff” going forward with this project to “form the framework and guidance for the Code update.” At the conclusion of that work session the Council unanimously endorsed Option 1, including the guiding principles, and also added a variety of instructions/expectations to be included where appropriate in the update work plan. The Council also directed staff to return this topic for an additional work session prior to formal implementation of the project. In October Council received a draft economic development strategic plan, The Springfield Look, which includes two strategies that the Development Code Update project will complement – “World Class Development Services” and “Minimum Development Standards”. This follow-up discussion is intended to reaffirm Council’s expectations for this project, highlight some of the legal mandates that will continue to shape code content, and begin framing the Council’s priorities for the update process. Attachment 1, Page 1 of 6 A standard approach for defining the elements of a project of this nature is confirmation that one or more key performance indicators are returning undesirable results. Some of the more compelling indicators include difficulties implementing standards, regulations and conditions; consistent feedback on poorly written or ambiguous Code text; and the absence of contemporary provisions and allowances to develop land consistent with recent Council initiatives or evolving community expectations. Based on the outcome of the first work session it’s fair to say all of these circumstances are present to one degree or another when the community seeks to develop land in Springfield. As a result, the Council identified a number of priority topics and outcomes related to the update they wanted included in the project work plan. These priority topics have been placed in one of three general category areas: text content; update process; and final product. Content – • Do not bring forward undesirable elements of the old code into the new, but do bring forward consistently successful elements; • Don’t overdo content or context; include state and federal mandates because they must be enforced; leave it at that minimalist approach; • Simple, spare prose; clarity is crucial; ambiguity and jargon enable multiple different interpretations which is not desirable; developers, lay persons, lenders and citizens should all come to the same conclusion after reading any section of our code; • Eliminate redundancies – identical development standards do not need to appear in every chapter when a universal citation achieves the same result; • Keep things flexible, but do so without ambiguity; provide options; simple, spare prose; • Allow “smart growth” innovation where desirable, but do so with simple, spare prose; no jargon, no ambiguity; • Make these standards and processes competitive with other cities; make it clear that Springfield is open for new business and new housing; Process - • Contact other cities who’ve recently updated their codes and find out what impacts have been created, mitigated, eliminated; • Retain Downtown Development Standards to preserve Council objectives for Downtown; this concept of “retention” applies in all circumstances where existing standards are desired for retention by Council; this strategy of carryover is to be observed at Council’s direction; Attachment 1, Page 2 of 6 • Establish a routine Council vetting of draft revisions to confirm the project is proceeding as intended; • Make sure proper stakeholder participation is built into the draft and review phase of new code text; • Open and transparent participation process; • Be mindful of cost alternatives; Product - • Design the new format to accept future changes seamlessly as necessary and desired by Council; • Include a search tool for ease of navigation; • New application submittal requirements need to be simplified; result in shorter review turnaround than current business practices; • The Code’s spare prose needs to be plainly understood and constructed in a way that effectively minimizes possibility of different interpretations; • The text of the Code must be supportive of development in all economic sectors; • The results of new development standards must be purposeful; they must effect change consistent with Council strategies and result in a more attractive community; they should always aim to support the importance of neighborhood livability, of a social and economic wellbeing that is pervasive and enduring and accessible to businesses, property owners and residents alike. Notwithstanding this thorough list of topics to be incorporated in this project, the Council instructed staff to return during a subsequent work session [before the project was officially implemented] to ensure their close direction of how to proceed with this project is followed meticulously, including stakeholder participation, order or sequence of subject topics updated, and the final product. The discussion below is intended to fulfill this instruction. DISCUSSION As a practical matter, this project will need to resolve some critical design, content, narrative style and organization structure before a detailed work program and citizen participation plan can be properly fitted to the project. The preliminary estimates for project duration and staffing is three years with a limited duration senior planner as project manager and a number of existing staff providing expertise in work group format. The project manager will be assisted by a core staff team providing advice, recommendations and evaluation at the most technical but also Attachment 1, Page 3 of 6 fundamental level. This core team will report to an oversight team of department managers and supervisors whose principal focus is to ensure the successful nexus of Council policy and state law with new code text and standards. Both of these staff groups support the work of citizen participants and stakeholders for such assignments as may be authorized by the City Council and by extension, the Committee for Citizen Involvement. It is anticipated that the project manager hired for this job will schedule at least 1-2 more Council work sessions to review and finalize the fundamental work program components. Staff is anticipating that any Council approvals on these various elements may include more precise expectations from Council regarding process feedback loops, more clarity on expected outcomes, or greater emphasis on strengthening the process. In order to provide the new project manager clear guidance from Council as to structure for the project, this work session seeks input from Council on the following questions. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION: Does Council have a preference for the structure of stakeholder participation during the code update process? For example, either the Council or the Committee for Citizen Involvement can create a special advisory committee and then directly interview and appoint members representing a range of interests to work with staff for the duration of the project on all aspects of the code update. Another option is to create shorter duration and more focused stakeholder committees for unique stages of the project to work with staff on specific code revisions. Depending on which part of the code is being updated there can be a different set of interested stakeholders which has the potential to give Council a more inclusive set of feedback than it would receive from just one group. It may be easier to attract volunteers to shorter duration commitments with a specific subject focus. On the other hand setting up one stakeholder committee for the three year duration of the project may provide efficiencies assuming that membership turnover is limited. SEQUENCING OF CODE UPDATE: Sequencing of work based on topic is also subject to Council preference rather than rules in the law. The law requires an open process that provides citizens with legitimate access to each step in the process, but if the Council identifies several specific topics of code regulation for revision, the Council also decides the sequence for performing this work. Does Council have a preference for how the project manager prioritizes which portion of the code update to work on first? For example the project can be structured from a subject matter perspective to address current policy initiatives of interest to the Council such as Housing and Transportation, etc. Or the project can be structured to address process concerns of the Council such as a. rules most frequently cited for difficulty in application; b. rules most frequently cited as deterrent to development; c. rules that do not allow modern applicability. In thinking through how best to resolve the preceding two questions it may be helpful to the Council to know that there are some aspects of the code update that are subject to certain mandates of the state land use planning program. The Council may revisit these topics throughout the course of the project, but an initial grounding on this matter is useful at this stage of project formation. Perhaps the most familiar constituent of a new or updated code is the following state law: Attachment 1, Page 4 of 6 ORS 197.175 - each city and county in this state shall: (a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the commission; (b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans; This mandate provides a clear and enduring relationship between the goals, the comprehensive plan and the development code. Cities must adopt policies that comply with the goals; cities must adopt codes that implement those policies; cities must achieve goal-plan-code consistency for the use and reuse of all land within its urban growth boundary. The state land use goals referred to in 197.175 and which apply to Springfield are: Goal 1 Citizen Involvement Goal 2 Land Use Planning Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources Quality Goal 7 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards Goal 8 Recreational Needs Goal 9 Economic Development Goal 10 Housing Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services Goal 12 Transportation Goal 13 Energy Conservation Goal 14 Urbanization Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway Each of these goals is addressed either in the Metro Plan or the new Springfield 2030 Plan; the current version of the Development Code is significantly consistent with (b) above. However, the effect that 10 or 15 years between plan policy interpretations has on practical code implementation can be striking, particularly with the emergence of new technologies, new market trends and changing demographics. For example, the current project to update the city’s Accessory Dwelling Unit standard (ADUs) is relying on the same Metro Plan policies in effect in 2002 when the ADU standard was first adopted. The difference today is the Council is expanding, adapting and modifying its 2002 ADU decision package to respond to the changing circumstances of housing access, supply and cost present today and of key interest to the Council’s position on affordable housing. The last mandate of significance that may influence perspective revisions is the requirement that land use inventories for the planning period must be preserved and protected through zoning. This means that zoning districts consistent with the planned use and development of the property shown on the plan map and described in the plan text will need to remain in the code. There may be opportunities to amend the list of permitted or prohibited uses, or in fact to create new zoning districts, but zoning as we all know it will remain a fixture of municipal development codes until the state law is revised to say otherwise. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 6 The work program for the new code will be developed to reflect the priorities of Council. The project may be interrupted, bifurcated, or substantially revised in mid-stream if necessary or directed by Council. This process format allows for immediate scalability at any stage or phase of work; however, depending on the actual nature of the desired “change” this option could require taking the changes back through a procedure (i.e., stakeholders, special interest groups, interested parties, etc.) or evaluation that has already been performed. But regardless of the unpredictability scaling may cause, this adaptability will be embedded in the final process which the Council can accept, reject or amend, and that decision will then be included for review by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI). One or two final thoughts on this project that may assist the Council during any subsequent deliberations they may have on code update expectations. Every aspect of land use or development or redevelopment that the Council wants to regulate or wants to limit or wants to allow, or that the state requires the Council to regulate or limit or allow, is found exclusively in the Springfield Development Code. It truly represents a one-stop, one size, and one source, for every citizen, developer, and investor; our partners and elected officials, for everything we do with our land and buildings, public or private, everywhere. The alternating source of all power, all authority and all grace that may be conferred by the Council to all of their constituents is a prodigious responsibility unlike any other single duty that resides with the Council. We all should be so lucky to have the honor of this experience. RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of this discussion is to confirm earlier issue identification and expectations for the code update project; to describe the estimated project timeframe, and to receive input from Council on preferences for stakeholder involvement and order of topics to be addressed in the update. Attachment 1, Page 6 of 6 Attachment 2 – Examples and Excerpts from the codes of other Oregon cities For the Council’s information and review, this attachment contains information from the codes of cities frequently used as comparators to Springfield (Albany, Beaverton, Corvallis, Salem and Wilsonville). The Council will note the similarity of each city’s purpose and intent statements; this is not for lack of imagination, but the result of required compliance with state law. It’s plain that the overriding purpose of these codes is to implement their respective comprehensive plans. However, it is also quite plain that these cities have placed a high priority on preserving natural assets, protecting livability, and reducing development processing costs by reducing city-caused obstacles and delays. This commitment to prosperity is a clear and consistent message carried out in the words and processes each city oversees through its’ codes. It’s also quite likely that the comprehensive plans of these cities include policies intended to achieve these outcomes by promoting the value added to the community from each of the attributes embodied in these goals so finding these amendments to be in compliance with the plan is probably more a formality than it is a complex investigation to justify these new code provisions. Springfield is not alone among Oregon cities contemplating or having recently completed code updates. Many cities and counties in Oregon developed and adopted their state-mandated comprehensive plans during the 1980’s. An element of this law (Senate Bill 100) required the adoption of “land use regulations” to implement comprehensive plans (See ORS 197.175). Cities have not remained dormant during these past thirty years, so in addition to regional or economic distinctions and mandated periodic review, most cities began rolling out code update work programs during the past 8-10 years or even more recently. To be sure, there are other reasons a city might update its code, but even when this important decision is made, cities frequently design the outcome to correct currently outdated, contested code text and while they are at it, introduce new concepts, new strategies and new outcomes identified by their elected officials and via community input. If cities weren’t prepared to address these changes at the macro level with a coordinated and deliberate “update process,” the most common default was to make these changes in an additive, incremental fashion: just do something to maintain compliance. Thirty-plus years of this practice resulted in unwieldy, jargon-rich text rife with redundancies and multiple citations linking one code section with another in an attempt to short cut the extent of change necessary to implement these new laws. This consequential accretion of code text in a typically random and non-connected way is the wellspring of today’s code format and subject emphasis. Summary of development codes in select Oregon cities. Albany – City of Albany Initially adopted in 1981, subsequently amended through 2017 Approximately 316 pages 14 Base zones, 9 Mixed use zones, 7 Overlay zones Attachment 2, Page 1 of 7 Overview. This Article establishes the framework for the review of land use applications. It explains the processes the City follows for different types of reviews and how hearings and appeals are conducted. The list below is a summary of the topics covered in this chapter. ■ General Administration (25 PAGES) Review Criteria (19 pages) ■ Zoning Districts (85 pages) Design Standards (20 pages) ■ Development and Environmental Design Standards (24 pages) ■ Land Divisions and PUDs (19 pages) ■ Public Improvements (21 pages) ■ Use Categories and Definitions (34 pages) These headings precede subtopics that can help the user locate information. The table of contents contains a complete listing of the material covered in this Article. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCTION 1.010 Official Name. The official name of this Title is “Title 20, Development Code and Zoning Map.” It may be referred to as “Development Code” or “Code.” 1.020 Purpose. The general purpose of this Code is to set forth and coordinate City regulations governing the development and use of land. The Code is more specifically intended to do the following: (1) Serve as the principal vehicle for implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in a manner that protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Albany. (2) Satisfy relevant requirements of federal law, state law, statewide goals, and administrative rules. (3) Facilitate prompt review of development proposals and the application of clear and specific standards. (4) Provide for public information, review, and comment on development proposals that may have a significant impact on the community. (5) Guide public and private planning policies and actions to ensure provision of adequate water, sewage, transportation, drainage, parks, open space and other public facilities and services for each development. (6) Establish procedures and standards requiring that the design of site improvements and building improvements consistent with applicable standards and design guidelines. (7) Provide for review and approval of the relationship between land uses and traffic circulation in order to minimize congestion, with particular emphasis on not exceeding the planned capacity of residential streets. (8) Require that permitted uses and development designs provide reasonable protection from fire, flood, landslide, erosion, or other natural hazards, as well as prevent the spread of blight, and help prevent crime. (9) Protect and enhance the city’s beauty and character. Attachment 2, Page 2 of 7 (10) Protect constitutional property rights, provide due process of law, and give consideration in all matters to affected property owner interests in making land use decisions. “Serve as the principal vehicle for implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in a manner that protects the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Albany. Satisfy relevant requirements of federal law, state law, statewide goals, and administrative rules. Facilitate prompt review of development proposals and the application of clear and specific standards.” Beaverton – City of Beaverton adopted in 1981, updated in 2002, updated again 2010-2014, approximately 730 pages with 12 base zones and 11 multi-use zones CHAPTER 10 - GENERAL PROVISIONS (23 pages) 10.10. Purpose. 1. This Code has been designed in accordance with the goals, policies, and statements of intent of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan, the officially enacted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Beaverton and its environs. It is the general purpose of this Code, therefore, to provide one of the principal means for the implementation of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan. 2. In adopting this Code, the City Council is responding to the development of the City of Beaverton and the issues concerning that development. The Council is anticipating that, as future growth and urbanization continues, control will be required to preserve and enhance the amenities necessary to the prosperity and appearance of the community. 3. This Code is designed to regulate the division of land and to classify, designate and regulate the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses in appropriate places, and for said purposes to divide the City of Beaverton into districts of such number, shape, and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement; to encourage the most appropriate use of lands; to conserve and preserve natural resources; to conserve and stabilize the value of property. 4. To further implement the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan, this Code is adopted for the following special purposes: A. To promote coordinated, sound development taking into consideration the City's natural environment, amenities, views, and the appearance of its buildings and open spaces. B. To achieve a balanced and efficient land use pattern, to protect and enhance real property values, to promote safe and uncongested traffic movement and to avoid uses and development which might be detrimental to the stability and livability of the City. C. To encourage innovations in residential development and renewal so that the demand for housing may be met by a greater variety in the type and design of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient and attractive use of open space. D. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City through advancement of effective land use, architectural design and site planning which reflect improvements in the technology of urban development. Attachment 2, Page 3 of 7 E. To provide an orderly, efficient and speedy process of reviewing applications for development activities and to avoid increased development costs borne by citizens and consumers as a result of unnecessary delay. CHAPTER 20 – LAND USES (63 pages) CHAPTER 30 - NONCONFORMING USES (7 pages) CHAPTER 40 - APPLICATIONS (196 pages) CHAPTER 50 - PROCEDURES (78 pages) CHAPTER 60 - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (303 pages) CHAPTER 90 – DEFINITIONS (59 pages) “This Code has been designed in accordance with the goals, policies, and intent of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan; the general purpose of this Code is to provide one of the principal means for the implementation of the Beaverton Comprehensive Plan. …promote coordinated, sound development taking into consideration the City's natural environment, amenities, views, and the appearance of its buildings; protect and enhance real property values; encourage innovations in residential development; safeguard and enhance the appearance of the City through effective land use, architectural design and site planning; provide an orderly, efficient and speedy process of reviewing applications and avoid increased development costs borne by citizens and consumers as a result of unnecessary delay.” Corvallis – City of Corvallis – Adopted in 2006 with subsequent amendments through 2017 Approximately 1016 pages 19 Base zones, 5 Overlay zones Section 1.0.10 – ADOPTION This document shall be known as the Land Development Code or this Code. This Code is adopted pursuant to the authority found in the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 4; Corvallis Charter Section 4; and Oregon Revised Statutes 227.215 et seq. Section 1.0.20 - STATEMENT OF PURPOSES a. The land development regulations contained in this Code are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to ensure that development is of the proper type, design, and location; serviced by a proper range of public facilities and services; and in all other respects consistent with the goals and policies of the Corvallis Comprehensive Plan; and b. The development approval process shall not result in the exclusion of needed housing at densities permitted by the underlying zoning designations or result in unreasonable cost or delay. Section 1.0.30 - ORGANIZATION OF THIS CODE This Code is organized as a reference document. Tables and graphics are used to summarize and illustrate information. a. This Code is divided into four articles: 1. Article I - General Provisions; Attachment 2, Page 4 of 7 2. Article II - Administrative Procedures; 3. Article III - Development Zones; and 4. Article IV - Development Standards. “The land development regulations contained in this Code are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to ensure that development is of the proper type, design, and location; serviced by a proper range of public facilities and services; and in all other respects consistent with the goals and policies of the Corvallis Comprehensive Plan; and the development approval process shall not result in the exclusion of needed housing at densities permitted by the underlying zoning designations or result in unreasonable cost or delay.” Salem – City of Salem – Adopted in 2014 Approximately 1,000 pages 13 Base zones, 6 Specialty zones, 3 Mixed use zones, 30 Overlay zones 110.001. Title. Chapters 110 through 900 of the Salem Revised Code shall be known as the “Unified Development Code" or "UDC." Unless the context otherwise specifically requires, references to “the code” in the Unified Development Code are references to other titles in the Salem Revised Code. (Ord No. 31-13) 110.005. Authority. The City of Salem Charter confers upon the City Council the authority to adopt all forms of regulations for the public health, safety and welfare, including those related to land use. Oregon Revised Statutes, including Chapters 92, 197, and 227, also provide authority for the adoption of regulations related to land use. (Ord No. 31-13) 110.010. Purpose. The purpose of the Unified Development Code is to implement the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan through a comprehensive land use and development code governing all land within the corporate limits of the City and establishing regulations to: (a) Promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; (b) Provide for the orderly growth and development of the City; (c) Ensure an appropriate mix of land uses to provide for the economic and social benefits which result from the orderly, planned use of land; (d) Ensure the provision of adequate public facilities and services; (e) Allow for adequate open space; (f) Protect property from risks and dangers; (g) Preserve and restore historic resources; and (h) Preserve and enhance environmental resources, the natural scenic beauty of the area, and aesthetic qualities of the community. (Ord No. 31-13) 110.015. Organization. The UDC is organized under the following major sections: (a) General Administration (Division 100) (42 pages). (b) Land Use and Development Review (Division 200) (186 pages). (c) Procedures (Division 300) (45 pages). (d) Use Classifications (Division 400) (30 pages). (e) Zones (Division 500) (276 pages). (f) Overlay Zones (Division 600) (223 pages). Attachment 2, Page 5 of 7 The “Overlay Zones” chapters establish the City’s different overlay zones. These chapters establish additional regulations beyond those of the base zone in order fulfill specific community objectives within identified areas of the City. Overlay zones are shown on the City’s official zoning map. Overlay zone standards apply in addition to the standards of the base zone, or, in some cases, may supersede them. (g) Special Requirements (Division 700) (55 pages). The “Special Requirements” chapters establish special standards that apply to specific uses in some or all zones where those uses are allowed. The standards in these chapters apply in addition to the standards of the zones, or, in some cases, may supersede them. (h) Development Standards (Division 800) (96 pages). The “Development Standards” chapters establish standards generally applicable to development throughout the City, including, but not limited to, standards for City utilities, streets, driveways and driveway approaches, off-street parking and loading, landscaping, tree preservation, and sensitive lands. These standards are used in preparing development plans and reviewing development applications. (i) Sign Code (Division 900) (55 pages). “The purpose of the Unified Development Code is to implement the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan through a comprehensive land use and development code governing all land within the corporate limits of the City and establishing regulations to Promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; Provide for the orderly growth and development of the City; Ensure an appropriate mix of land uses to provide for the economic and social benefits which result from the orderly, planned use of land; Protect property from risks and dangers; Preserve and enhance environmental resources, the natural scenic beauty of the area, and aesthetic qualities of the community.“ Wilsonville – City of Wilsonville UPDATED JANUARY 2015 Approximately 417 pages 14 Base zones; 3 Overlays Section 4.000. Administration - Purpose and Title. (.01) Chapter 4 of this Code is enacted for the purpose of promoting the general public welfare by ensuring procedural due process in the administration and enforcement of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Design Review, Land Division, and Development Standards. (.02) This ordinance shall be known as the Planning and Land Development Ordinance. It shall include those ordinances familiarly referred to as the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Development Code, etc. Section 4.100. Zoning - Purpose. Sections 4.100 to 4.199 of this Code are enacted for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, comfort and general welfare; to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to provide proper drainage; to facilitate adequate and economical provision of public Attachment 2, Page 6 of 7 improvements and services, and to conserve, stabilize, and protect property values; all in accordance with the Statewide Planning Goals and the City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose is further to provide a method of administration and to prescribe penalties for violations of provisions hereafter described - all as authorized by the provisions of Oregon Revised Statues. SECTIONS 4.000 – 4.035: ADMINISTRATION (64 pages) SECTION 4.118: ZONING (STANDARDS APPLYING TO ALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONES) (172 pages) SECTIONS 4.154 – 4.199: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (103 pages) SECTION 4.236: LAND DIVISIONS (GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-STREETS) (17 pages) SECTION 4.400 – 4.450; SITE DESIGN REVIEW (10 PAGES) “Sections 4.100 to 4.199 of this Code are enacted for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, comfort and general welfare; to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to provide proper drainage; to facilitate adequate and economical provision of public improvements and services, and to conserve, stabilize, and protect property values; all in accordance with the Statewide Planning Goals and the City's Comprehensive Plan.” Attachment 2, Page 7 of 7