HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5763 11/07/1994
~
~
~
ORDINANCE NO. 5763
(GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING
lit ARTICLE 26 HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 26.030 APPLICABILITY is hereby amended by adding
the following language:
The HD Overlay District shall apply to all areas of the City and its
urbanizable area above 670 feet elevation or where the average slope of
the land is 15 percent or greater in the residential development area.
Section 2: Section 26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OPTIONS is hereby
amended by adding the following language:
(l)(c) Table 26-1
Averaqe Slope of Lot
Minimum Lot Size
per Dwellinq Unit
Minimum Frontaqe
per Lot*
less than 15%**
15% - 24%
25% - 35%
over 35%
10,000 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
20,000 sq. ft.
40,000 sq. ft.
60 feet
90 feet
150 feet
200 feet
.
* Panhandles
pertaining to
be served with
other lots may
topography or
standard. CuI
are permitted only when requirements of this section
fire protection and lot size are met and the lot cannot
a public street. Minimum frontage standards for all
be amended by the Director when it is found that the
location of natural features prevent achieving the
de sac frontages are as specified in Section 16.030.
** Wooded lots only
Section 3: Section 26.070 REPORTS REOUIRED is hereby amended by adding
the following language:
(5) Development Plan Report. A proposed development plan shall be
submitted, depicting building envelopes for each lot including driveway
approaches and all other associated impervious surface areas. The plan
shall be based upon the findings of the required reports in this
section and the lot coverage standards of Section 16.040. Building
envelopes shall be specified in Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
recorded with the subdivision plat.
Section 4: Section 26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REOUIREMENTS is hereby added
to Article 26 as follows:
Ordinance No.~3
Page 1
.
~
Ordinance No. 5763
P.age Two
"".
r
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REOUIREMENTS
.
Additional fire protection requirements may be required in hillside
development areas which are considered vegetated areas subject to
wildfires as determined by the Fire Marshal.
(1) All buildings with a gross area in excess of 1,500 square feet
shall be constructed within 50 feet of an approved fire lane or
public street. Fire apparatus access shall be provided to within
50 feet of the building [This may mean modifying driveway designs
for width, grade and construction material in order to meet fire
lane requirements]. Installation of a residential fire sprinkler
system will be considered as an alternative to the requirement to
be within 50 feet of a fire lane or street.
(2 )
The developer shall specify in the
and Restrictions that a wildfire
approved by the City Fire Marshal,
issuance of a building permit.
recorded Covenants, Conditions
defense plan for each lot,
will be required prior to the
(3) All buildings located in or adjacent to vegetated areas subject
to wildfires shall have a Class A or B roofing in accordance with
the Oregon State structural Specialty Code.
Section 5: The recommendation of the Springfield Planning Commission,
Order No. 94-09-186, has been reviewed and is hereby adopted in support of the
adoption of these amendments as Exhibit A.
Section 6: While not just a part of this Ordinance, Findings in
attached Exhibit B are adopted in support of this decision.
.
Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 8: It is hereby found and declared that mattets pertaining to
the creation and development of steep or wooded residential lots are matters
affecting the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Springfield, and
that this Ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon its passage by
the Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day
of November ,1994 by a vote of 6 for and 0 against.
APPROVED by the Mayor this
~ November ,1994.
~ ~:2~
Mayor
ATTE~
~. ..~~~":.; r~ t'O:'"";~J~-:I: p.._,~u.-,
.
! ,: \';, ~:O~~t,,1 \ l
:--~ O?~':i~ ~~.1=-",
l .':.','. . \~~~,.~c~\_ \ ~ ~::\,-="<.,
C>[',~::: : ,> ~;rT~: ,p.;rrOn~E'Y
C.... . ;::'/ :~:~;:,) D
,
,
.
:.
ATTACHMENT C
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
JO. NO. 94-09-186
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
I..
APPU C.ANT .
. I
. ,
. .
The applicant is the City 'of Springfield.., "
II. REQUEST
The applicant requests approval of amendments to Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Article 26 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT that will specifically describe the
area affected by the overlay district. modify the lot sizes, require a development plan report.
and ,add provisions for fire protection. '
III. APPLICATION
For residentia.l developments processed under the Hillside Development Overlay District, the
amendments would' establish a minimum lot size for new lots created above 670 feet of
' I ' ,
elevation# modify the slope-lot size-frontage relationship, and require that all dwellings be
constructed with fire resistant roofing material and establish. fuel safe zones around
structures. A report depicting building envelopes and driveway apprbaches would be required.
670 feet of elevatio~ is used as a descriptor for the area affected by the hillside regulations
because it encompasses most of the land prone to wildfires and where forested slopes are
greater than 15%. If a development area below that elevation has an averageslope of 15%
then development would be governed by the overlay district.
IV.
BACKGROUND
,
,
I
I
I
After considering public testimony at the September 21 Planning C0mmission public hearing,
the Commission instructed staff to bring proposed amendments to . Article 26 HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENTOVERLA Y DISTRICT as soon as possible. Testimony at the hearing suggested
that the lot sizes in,the forested areas were too small, causing most of the trees on the lots
to be removed for home construction. Staff concurred with the tdstimony, confirming that
problems related to small lot sizes were often an issue when reviewing subdivisions in the
south hills. Related problems were fire protection, storm water, erosion, geologic stability and
hazards from remaining trees. I
~c
<) /, I" I? \
V. CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT APPROVAL
Pursuanrto Article 8.30 of the Springfield Development Code, in reaching a deGision on this
action, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings w~ich demonstrate
conformance to the following criteria:
(1 ) The Metro Plan;
(2) Appll<:;able ~tate Statutes; and ,
(3}App~icabLe State'-wide Planning Goals and Administr.a'tive.Hule.s.
(1) Conformance with the Metro Plan
PLAN PRINCIPLES, B.flGrowth Manaqenient and the Urban S'ervice Area, Policy 23, page 11-8-
7: To accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text
and on the diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but not
necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over
the planning period. fl
The existing overall density in Springfield is approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre. The
tendency over the last ,few years h?s been to develop single family detached subdivisions at
lower densities. A sample of recent single family detached developments in the City shows
a range of density from 2.18 to 7.69 with an average density of 4.25. A recent 11 lot
subdivision in the hillside area with lot sizes between 8,800 and 11,200 square feet had a
density of 3.55 while another subdivision with steeper slopes and lot sizes between 8,547
and 46.839 square feet had a density of 2.18.
B~sed on the already low density developments in the hillside areas, further lowering the
density by enlarging the' lot sizes would have a limited impact on the overall density in
Springfield. In 1989 the City had over 3,639 acres of buildable residential land in its urban
growth boundary of which 850 acres (23%) were within the hillside development overlay
district. Another.1 0% of the total buildable land was designated Medium Density Residential.
There was no high density residential buildable land.
Moderately enlarging the lot sizes in hillside areas to increase protection of forested lots and
decrease potential hazards may modestly lower density in those areas. The impact on overall
density in the City will be small. The option to transfer density from slopes greater than 15%
to slopes' less than 15%, and therefore increase density up to 8 dwelling units per acre,
remains intact in Article,26. In addition, the cluster development option in Article 16 allows
clustering of dwellings and reduction of standards pursuant to a public hearing and notice to
adjoining property owners.
Transportation issues in the south hills lllay be beneficially affected by lower density. State
Highway 126 (East Main Street) is the single arterial street serving the south hills. Recent
decisions by the Oregon Department of Transportation reveal that access onto the highway
will be restricted to a limited number of signalized intersections, Iiestricted highway access
~),A~~ C~
~
,
.
.
,
,
will concentrate traffic at certain interSectio~s. ~anyreSidents Jill be requir~d to travel
circuitous routes on local streets to arrive at the signals because the Istreet circulation pattern
in the south hills is not interconnected, with many deadend east-west streets ~nd rong sloping
north-south streets that do not connect to each other. lower densit,y may have the effect of
reducing J:h~ ultimate number of vehicle trips per day in the ~outh hills thereby alleviating
some future traffic problems.
PLAN ELEMENTS, A. "ResidentiClI Land Use. and Housing Element, Policy 5, .pa~e .1l1-A-5:.
Establish sp~cific density ranges within zoning ordinanc~s that are consistent wit~ the broad
., . densityca~.egor.ies ef this plan~. Tran.slation to an equivalent er persons per acre cwr€,spo~ding :
to. the <:f~nsltycatego.ries in this plan njay be substituted. for. dwelling units per acre .by local" . .
governm'ents. Eugerle and Springfield shall establish standards for allowing a waiver of the
specific density ranges in this plan to increase the supply of low- and moderately-priced
'housing.
,
, ,
a. lew density-Through ten dwelling units per gro~s aCl'e
b. Medium density-Over 1 0 ~hreugh 20 dwellings units per gross acre
c. High density--Over 20 dwelling units per acre"
The City o,f Springfield has minimum density requirements for Medium: Density Residential (10
dwelling units acre) and High Oensity Residential (20 dwelling units p~('acre). In the urbanizing
area the Springfield Develepment Code requires all future development plans for land divisions
in the low Density Residential ~istrict to depict a density of4 dwelling units per acre. The
proposed minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet translates.into a density of 3.25 dwelling
units per acre. However, in the hillside areas, the Metro Plan buildable lands inventory
assumes a density of 3 dwelling units per acre. When 10,000 square foot lots are mixed with
. I
larger lots in hillside developments the resulting density will be closer to. 3 dwelling units per
acre. i
I
I
"Residential land Use and Housinq Element, Policy 6, page 1I1-A-5: Review residential land
development regulations to ensure that they encourage a variety of housing densities and
types. ·
The Metre Plan is clear that its policies are not intended to create a uniform density
,
throughout the urban growth boundary but father to achieve an average density of 6 dwelling
units per acre. Therefore, density may be higher in some locations and lower in ethers.
Residential Policy 6 directs the local governments to provide a balanc~ in the housing market
via density and type allocations.
,
Rece.nt City Council policy has encouraged the development of lowe~ density higher valued
hOUSing to balance Springfield's housing supply. The table belo~ depicts the current
imbalance in that supply which is h~avily weighted toward low and moderately priced housing
units.
.
.
;y;~~ L
3
1990 Census value
,
Owner Oce [Mtetlings~ by Jurisdiction
70
------------------------------------
..
---------
6D
------------------------------------
~so
~.~
<i3
b'
.!-
_30
<::>
~20
<;)
a..
--------------------------------.----
--:---------
10
I.........
---- .,...
. .....
.:.:.:,:-:
:::::::::: ...:.;
."... ." ..
o
. . . . . ....."....
-.-;:-.------------------:-----..---.~.--. .::::::::: ---.----........-
-.....
----------- 'It~~ --------------~::f} ---------
~~~~~~~ !!iil!I!! ~~~~~~~I!III:, _____
}}~: ::}} - .-;:(.
I
,
Since housing construction cost is related to site development cost, areas that are easily
developed should have higher density and lower costs while areas that are more difficult to
develop would have lower density and higher costs. The hillside areas are inherently more
costly to develop. The construction of hillside foundations can be as much as 300% more
costly than a flatland foundation. Hillside development requires the expertise of engineers,
geologists, hydrologists and foresters in order to ensure' that the development is safe and
sound. Public improvements are more costly to construct in hillsides. These added costs
boost the price of housing in the south hills toward the upper end of the value range.
Hillside developments on larger lots provide a needed housing value and density in the City.
Hillside dwellings are highly desirable for their aesthetic appeal created by scenic views and
forested landscapes. The (ower density and higher housing value in hillside areas help
Springfield diversify the value of its housing stock. Larger lots are more likely to develop as
"estate lots" which can balance the loss of density with the increased value of each dwelling
unit.
C. "Environmental Resources Element, Policy L1, page 111-C-7: Local governments shall require
site-specific soil surveys and geologic studies where potential problems exist. When problems
are identified, local governments shall require spec~esign considerations and construction
A{!~~o . ,'.,'
.
.
'4
,
,
.
.
measures to be taken to off set the soil and geologic constraints present, to protect life and
property, and to protect environmentally-sensitive areas." I
The existing provisions of Article 26 require reports for soils and geology, grading, re-
vegetatioD-and verification of slope and grade percentages. These reports -are required
because of the physical problems associated with constructing dwellings in hillside areas. The
information in these reports helps the City evaluate the special design and construction
measures fJeeded to'prevent soil erosion, landslides and blJilding and street foundation failures.
. .
Higher,de.nsity, in the hillside areas only serves to increase the potential for problems resulting
from building,' driv~way and street excavation, tree'removal a.nd alteration of the natur?'
. draInage" s'ystem... .S,ta'ff finds that amending .,the ~DC. to establish,.a minimum lot,'size ".of
10,000 square teet will protect,mor~ trees and reduce potential erosion p.roblems for the C.ity
and property owners. .
"Policy 18, page III-C-9: local governments shalldevelop'p;ans and programs which carefully
manage development on hillsides and in water bodies and restrict development in wetlands
in order to protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values,
vegetation, and wildlife values of those areas."
This is one of the parent policies of Article 26 HILLSIDE DEVEl9PMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Section 26.020 of the SDC specifically calls for the retention of natural vegetation, natural
water features and drainageways, scenic quality and open space in hillside developments.
Based on the public testimony and Planning Commission directilon, staff examined the
potential harm to these values from small lots. The drawings below compare the site impacts
for a 8,000 square foot lot, 10,000 square foot lot and 20,000 square foot lot when building
a 2,000 square foot home. The depictions graphically show the potential for removal of 74%
of the trees on a 8,000 square foot lot. By comparison, 59% of the t'rees on a 10,000 square
foot lot are potentially lost. And development of a 20,000 square foot lot would remove 35%
of the trees.
Staff has had discussions with professional foresters related to specific developments in the
. south hills. They often tell us that the current development patterin is creating hazardous
conditions for property owners. The development on small lots result in only a few trees
remaining after construction. These few trees are usually scattel:ed along property lines
creating a windthrow hazard that in turn can create an erosion prob'lem. Foresters contend
that it is healthier for the forest and safer for residents if trees are retained in larger groupings
with fully leafed edge trees to protect against windthrow and wind Idamage.
Property owners and builders are usually unaware of these hazards. Even if they were, the
small size of the lots created by the land division process establish a situation where most of
the trees on the site must be removed or thinned in order to build Jven a moderately sized
house. A larger minimum lot size would allow more of the lot to (em~in intact and ultimately
provide greater protection to the private and public investment. The diagrams below illustrate
the relationship between lot size and the removal of trees.
~~C-
'.
5
t.
The following diagrams depict the development of a forested hillside lot with a slope less than
15%. The assumptions 'are that the lot is evenly covered with trees and developed VJith a'
2,000 square foot house. There is a fifteen foot construction inipact zone ar-ound the building
which serves as the fuel free fire protection zone. The shaded area depicts the forested' area
remainIng after construction.- ...
Doss Section
Ooss Section
~"B:/~1!~;S~~~,~g~,c;'!%~-e~t:is"~~~~~:':"~:;''' J ~~(*; "'~~~~ir....
~~~c~2,~~.~~~~'0'-!~~;~}~I-.~;~..;."tj~~~~.,~~~'t:,~tn.~~:..
"",...:~ "..J-JJ'.~~~~...;:t::r-~Vr~.l.~U~~.:;.l~ .~.~"~~,,,~<z..,ti"'l':";.~-:-~~:-::-s....:"'..:l.. ....
'i0t..~~~~ff\;:O'~~".~;,iJ"')~~;:s.0'~",,'j5.:~"'ii';>,- '& I)"~";.J ~M~),-i;::
,,~..;P" "'>':,-:;"'-7."""""'..';1t;1t#;;-;;;"'?"''1ij('''i'~
c.;;",":;,,:) .:f~
~~~~t~.~
~~("'ti<.~' :
.:i~ l!".~.~;.i'.-
->:.:.Js,;{'"_,
~li~
o;;'c-j1~~
:..~~..,.,Jo
t
:"'~/9.;--;.'::'C..~'..,'n;;:;':'--;:i-.~""',:<~S:.-){:;,-\@-;'~Wl~~i';:",?'3'1~ ~:~~~W~'
.~';r';";~f!':'.
, :Y:-~:;'>'''-:
:.1~f,;.;:;.;'~1
. ~""~~~:;5~ .
~Jt;~f
Y)V";'r-'"S:~'l'~
. Sl;$~~i
.,~,~i!.'
~"?!-:o~':~~"
fr;o.....~Q',')..
;~,~.~-;>,'-..,
.^';~'\~~-
",:;'i ':-'i;;I.<!
~~~~~,
~~,
t;:.~~";.~~
'.:&W~:.
!\.,...,.,;~
~...-'};"'''''
..,~=~-
_"). _<,:;W';.
~~~..
,- 'f),""
~~~~)~~i.;~:}~:{i~~i~~~t:~t.;i;1i~:~:4):~~:i!.)1;;~n:~fi['1
Plan VteW
Plan Vew
Scale 1:30
Scale 1 :30
.
.
Diagram 1 Oiagram 2
10.000 square ~?ot lot , . 8,000 square foot lot
59% Trees removed during constructIon. 74% Trees removed during construction.
The side and rear 'yards retain vegetation. Only the rcar yard ret3ins 'Jcget31ian.
~\M~-\- C___
(j
,
,
..-
..
J
" \
t
\
. ~ Sectioo
~...~~~~.~~ .r.~~JW,: . "',(::.. ';'~ t.-.;;-~--.,.-..-.....-'.i.-~""'-c~"""~-V-~~-"""~" ...."'-.. to.~ .:-.-.:::..;::-:--.-.-=::;....0..:---... "'~-.....;, --.=-:=='"1..=.~....4:.....~r;......-.-:.<.~
It~~~~~~' ~~~~~?~~f{~~~t~*J~~~~~~S{~~~\\~1t!~~~1f.~w~I;~~
~~~o~~ :~i.~_~6~z~f~~15t.m~i~~i%f&;~~~~~i~'i;?4~~~~S\~i~~k~~~~ ~~~ .~
_ ,"~JJ:.~J::. :..... ..--.-+-.k~..<.<;...~.J -......- ,.. J L\ - ,- .f"" ~ ". {,. ~..'-l.,;~'..~"''\i~~' t:--"<p...:-l....."L.."; :1:C.~..c.~"=,,..:.a..:::"" \tC-"'~
~...J:..~<.c;;,:. <0,..... ).,:-...'C.... _....;-..,.....,.~.q '_-~::/':;}""~V..{.;.-.......~~~.~'!\:.:.. '~f':~~4~~:<:~":t~n
.-~"K""'"-"'#:\~'" '<<G(;'(..'::~~""'J.:'\...~~'~~,?l.:~( .'::..;C'-~~ 't'?'-:"".V;"i~.,::.:.._?;e.:...;...! - I:~:~~""~.:""l ti.!:":.J.;
~1.''':iu:'-'-.;..:o;~ ~;.~.... .. .. .....-;~. :'''7~-' .... - ....'--;:.:.::j.v ~.. ~~ '- "'~<..... ...../. "'-=~ ~
~l..~r.<.~ 6.::&.;~~'<.:.f.~~;:-_4":.~\..R~ ffC-:;.i~-:;;'i~~..~'!\~~~fPv""-.::;.!i..:.!"[~7~~<-~}~~'r-{j;:;2P G"{'
'~.~,.c.t!'i..--......'\:;......, 41..""";" ~. ~.~...;:.J'~ ,::.'.-i '-:""~':."l.:~.~,-,,"'l'~'~-""'~<l:t~-i;"';" \ I' =-'-"f_~",:,;-"J.,*. .
&(~:)...~~'f::;C-::'t;:- ...- ~~\..~......~';"..~.t"i~( t!:;(...~""" :..~~....~,.t;;:--", . ..:"(~0.~~~C~.J"'~~'~~s~-:""
,",<",,~.- . - . -- --<---,., - '--"'-_._~.{f. - "~"'.t'.c:-~,.. -.~",.
~+:!$.~:;"C:Af--:- ~'~0;;,~~.)'>j fi' ~:\"~:""':""~:-~'-.t~~~('<:'':'''''.':-'':':'.;~-:''''<--,..,'i:;c.-.:rc,......S~
;tt-:l..~-cWt.~ -..:c\:;,~~.~Jt:;~l . ~ ~'t<'-;-~~\;.J""I'.,':",,-'\.;,.-V~'-';~....-~ .~":!!;.7,f;:~~
f..~Jr~~d'~"'. ,:''''.::'<<;:~-S:..~ .~~~~:':~~~~~"':~.i~?(~~~&~~);:.~";j
- ".~...-:;r:;r.- ...::~~..!~X"'" ~...~-.r.,,-",. ":'<.:...........' \;"'-E...~-..~ .v~ ,~_ .
).":,';:"~4~~~~ .,,-~. ::-~~~~.~ lli'-'::"''A..f;?~;.~:<.~C?.~~~~~~h'''-[~
~~~~..o/c;~~"~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~(~... 4.~' ';.e~~. ":
.... :.t.;:.: .~ - " ~<l:...::-r'" ~ y ~~....~.. .....(."\.. __~ '..~---=~T:.:... s.:~;~ .......~~..... '.... ... ...~
bJ<'...-~r<.~ . "K~c'':---~';''-' ~C':2*..:~~.<--'/~";,..""-St"'~",,,,,'(.,y'?=' . ~-C'
l' ,";:..;,:;~~..:..~.....~<. ....:~~ ,..~~~~:-:t:... ...'~.c~'[...Jr-.~ij~~,~~~t.:.-;:;"~;:~J:.Q1;~{.H. :<;-._" '"~
~:.t0~~~~~#~~~~ ~:0~~;s:.V;;VT::;;c,{')'-';c<;'~'i'-k6:.~":'~(jf,~1
~~~~~~ (,:~.~--,:-';"'....v.~"';"",3;<;1:-~k<'~~~<i~.h~.f;;::.it1.: ~~!
-- '-"::r......~t...;;-.'"':""~....~~"\l:o=.___:1 ....\..:..-~.-.r.,:".k....~~-=-f ..-- 'I.:.:.-....:...t.~-:"..........."<~~<<..~~.;t
. R~':~~~t~~~~r:~:~~~~~~~tr.~~. ~ ~,~
t';,,<,:.y<:. -;:,->:.<~(~"'(\jt'D't. .;~~.~ ":~< .-.';!'...lfJ
. '''::,:r~~~ ~)...:"..r~..-<,.,c..-<.~.;..,r.t-.~-,~"",=A.c"':..c .."\.~.":.<.
(~~;~:t:_c.:::--. ~-,:'~~r;.:,.'A~"'<-:;<O 't.e,%.~,,<r~-:
'(;.~. ~-"",::...:~:.,....,:...:.::~..:... C.....~:.::e-.."::':.~..J.:;.V:..~ t.V.{..~."\..t.::J
. . ..., .,' " .. :<~<:....-,,,,<-.,,-,.:,,,:,:<-_-,,-:-..~-c~'-'L...o..Jz.':
~........(....... ....-......'-.,;. . ,'-~::""'. .............. "'Jo,.~ - ~ .-/:-......
~'" -'-;_<~<C.~,Ic"..<.,;,~ '~~"d-:-,o"~"':':~~"'--""
-. ~-~'-H"" .--",";-,,-:~"'",,~~,...__~_'''''''---- ff~~t~.~~~~~;":,jr~~:~t.~~~~~;~~~
~-f~ (;.,:?~~~~Z;F::t< "~~~<;~...~~_<~~Cil~ ! !~:~ C'-:>~'.~ l.-:~=;J<;~cr.~ \~~~7-.:/.Q'f..,.iii~'t;;~~
.E...-}.-...;.;<(.,........-~ _~(" t:-ti (;.~.,(...... i .'to. '. . . .'\... -<<~......... t.:\..o . &(...1.:)..: ~,:..<.c.... C .~..l.::.. <.':\.....;"o"'.'-'.A:;.4-
:.G:~:--Q:~..k<c;~:;~.:i:....:;~~C'C:~\:.::f::"":=.;. (.:;.:... :t4::-~~~1..""~c...-,~-1-"....~~~ <i:C:~:(;:-;'.~.("Mo..'~-:'_
~~::~~~k~.cS<~~':~~:--~g:..(:~':G~ f&'~:~~\-: ~~~;i:~sZ..(. ...-~':~~~i9..q~""Q:t-'~~~A
1$.z..~'0z~'1:ie;:.,':'!';.~~~.:;.~ ,(~ \:~.7;:-" ,~..:..:;~.:: -.._(.~"-".~!t..s..~~\;o~<;:zL~i':t-;t..:cCl.
<~"Q~~~,.,~S~;:$"~"''-~~;" ,~~,!~..:t::::~~;-.s~,;-,-,,:'if:<-'-~~::"~L't0
:;x'~~O(""(~~~"~~""'i':-,~\~;z,,;~,~:,;~~c.<<:--~~~~~-'" ('--=:'H~~-.I"1.~~~~'-'-':.":<"';:~:: r'- ~.~" (~~:'9.~ ....C.....; ~~*~..~~~::~~'-~~~~?-~~
~' ~~f'~;.~~~:S::~:...;j'$,.~.~:,"X(1.& <~~;;i:J'.<r;:i<::-P.!j:,"';j~4P.'*.)l7.~ ~~:-:i?{:r~~~~~~-::'- .,.,?--~~~:-;;.~'.:::,~-;.~>~~~~~:3-.-~~&.("!'".i3
,,'~ < ;<.- -~~'.Fi:~,;<:--~--~_,=",:':<l,::. ., ..:~7.7~-;;C~"""",,~>6<-<-';<.~:<..,.,,,.,,"C- --_!,~,<<".;',A.-~\:.u':<::'::'-"':'-~?;,""'-:-;<~" .:\-;-'-"".fU""",.,.-:V'.,,,~~'i,q""~rl-'C
~"'. ,~-'.'.. '<:, .~. -t):-:Y'_~~ -""'C"':.=~<S:"cc:;:'f<:~.V.J"::';~ :c.......->',:<::".(; -(1.~'--".....'". - J-', "",,,.<."-""-...:.- c...$::".. ~'<:,>;lC' -~~~ --.,-<tj~
~~~~~~~~&~<:?~~t~~~G-~~X:.~~~~~'i"~~~~~o<C~.~~~~~~~t(%~t:~~~~~:~ ~~~~~o.~~('::::t~~$~
- "".. <...I;.'. C~~~~:-~...~, -~~c.".r~~-rj;. :,:: :..,~j..::;~~~ .' ;"'7<","<"'~~~~~ .,,~~~..~~i;~~~::..~':;.o;t~'t~~~....~~-i%(:J;\. .':;'~: >1"~'"
Plan Yew
Diagram 3
Scale 1:30
20,000 square foot lot
35 % of the trees removed during construction.
The large area not impacted by construction allows 65% of the natural
vegetation to remain on the lot. All yards will have trees retained after
construction.
~~
c.
7
- .
t.
"E. Environmental Desiqn Element, Policy 6, page IlI-E-3: Local jurisdictions sl:all carefully
evaluate tDeir development regulations to ensure that they address environmental design
considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime prevention, aesthetics, and
compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses (particularly considering high- and
medium-density development locating adjacent to low density residential}."
Fire safety in the south hills of Springfield has become a more pressing,issue as a result of
several terrible urban residential fires in c:alifornia in recent 'years. Large wood framed and
wood shingled h.omes on small .Iots in areas subject to .wildfi,res .are th~ ingredients for
cata,strophic fires resulting in great property daniag~ and even (oss of life. 'The Fir-e Ufe Safety
Department 'is very concerned with the limited access to the hillside areas due to the lack of
a connected street system and steep street and driveway grades. The Fire. Marshall
recommends that dwellings be roofed with fire resistant roofing material and be equipped with
home sprinkler systems when the dwelling is more than 50 feerfrom a street.
The Fire Marshall also recommends that a 30 foot area around each dwelling be made "fuel
safe". Trees and shrubs within 1 5 fe,et of the dwelling that could burn and cause the fire to
spread to the dwelling or vice versa should be removed. Trees and shrubs between 15 feet
and 30 feet of structures should be pruned and grasses mowed to 4 inches. Implementation
of the 1'5 foot fuel free zone may require the removal of all the significant vegetation on small
lots. larger lots having more land area would ensure that some significant vegetation would
remain on each lot.
,
Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the
Metro Plan.
(2) Apolicable State Statutes
Staff finds that there are no applicable state statutes.
(3) Applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines
"GOAl5. OPEN SPACES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL RESOURCES: To
conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. (2) protect scenic and historic
areas and natural resources for future generations.
GUIDELINES A. PLANNING 4. Plans providing for open space, scenic and historic areas fand
natural resources should be considered as a major determinant the carrying capacity of the
air, land and water resources of the planning atea. The land conservation and development
actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources.
B. IMPLErv1HJTATION 2, The conservation of both renewable and non.renewable resources
and physical limitations 01 the land should be used as the basis for deteflnining the quantity,
Qualit y, location, rate and t ypC of growth in the planning area."
!)J-r-4A~\tUAVr:- L-
.
.
n
~
,.
,
.
.
The citizens of Springfield have a long history of protecting the beauty of their community as
reflected in the provisions of this code. Subsection 26.020 of the Hillside Development
Overlay Oistrict requires the retention of natural vegetation, natural wat~r features and
drainageways, scenic quality and open spaces to the maximum extent possible in hillside
developmefits. The proposed amendments to Article 26 further the intent of t~s section of
Springfield's development regulations.
"GOAL 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS: To protect .life and
property from' natural disasters and hazards.
!....
Developments subject to damage or that could result in loss of life shall not be. planned nor
located in known areas of natural disasters and hazards without appropriate safe guards.
Plans shall be based on an inventory of known areas of natural disaster and hazards.
GUIDELINES A. PLANNING 1. Areas subject to natural hazards should be evaluated as to the
degree of hazard present. Proposed developments should be keyed to the degree of hazard
and to the limitations on use imposed by such hazard.
GUIDELINES B. IMPLEMENTATION 2. When locating developments in areas of know natural
hazards, th.e density or intensity of the development should be limited by the degree of the
natural hazard."
The degree of hazard in the hillside areas is constantly being re-evaluated as a result of new
knowledge and experience. The Public Works Oepartment has conducted a hillside pavement.
distress study for street construction and storm water drainage in the hillsides. This study is
predicated on street failures and erosion problems in earlier developments. The findings of
the study indicate that the soils and bedrock of the Springfield south hills contain a substantial
amount of subsurface water and some soils and rock are creeping slowly downhill. Soil and
water disturbance must be regulated to a greater degree than in the past. New regulations
will eventually be incorporated into the street construction standards and stormwater
conveyance requirements of the Public Works Department specifically for hillside
developments. Larger lots in the hillside areas will result in less total excavation and
impervious surface area.
, Wildfires in urbanized hillside areas are usually human-made disasters, often accidently, but
can be caused by natural lightening. Regardless of the cause, wildfires have a clear and
present danger ttJat can damage development or result in loss of life. Proposed developments
in Springfield's hillside areas should be keyed to the degree of hazard and to the limitations
on use imposed by such hazard. Forested hillside areas are high danger locat.ions for wildfires
and precautions against catastrophic loss of property or life should be adopted into the
development code. (Please see Environmental Desiqn Element. Policy 6 found on page 8 of
this report for additional findings.)
~~G
9
GOAL 10. HOUSING To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
GUIDELINES A. PLANNING 2. Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the
provision-of appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Such
land should be necessary and suitable for housing that meets housing needs of households
of all income levels.
Please see the, discussion above found on pages 3 and 4 under Residential Land Use and
HousinQ Element.
Staff finds that the proposed code amendments are consistent with the applicable statewide
goals and guidelines.
IX. DISCUSSION
The development issues in forested hillside areas are very complex involving density, housing
values, street circulation and transporation, scenic values, trees, fire protection, erosion,
hydrology, and geology. The proposed changes are intended to ensure the creation of higher
quality housing in Springfield's scenic forested hillside area which is unique in the Eugene-
Springfield metro area. The intent is to accomplish these goals within the context of the
public and private values associated with development in these sensitive areas.
The increased lot sizes and new fire protection requirements will reduce the potential of a
catastophic fire in Springfield's hillside areas. Excessive removal of trees and drainage
problems from excavation and surface water alterations would be "reduced by the proposed
code amendments.
RECOMMENOA TION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward this code amendment to the City
Council with a recommendation for approval.
~~M&A1- G
lC)
~.
,
.
.
~
,
.
.
ATTACHMENT [)
. .
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE 26 HD HILLSIDE
DEVELOPHENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
}
}
}
JO. NO. 94-09-186
FINDINGS,
CON C L U S ION S
AND RECOMMENDATION
NATURE OF THE REQUEST
The request is for recommrnendation by the Planning Commission to
the City Council for amendments to Article 26 to establish a
minimum lot size in wooded hillside lots and require certain fire
protection measures.
RELEVANT FACTS, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
1. The application was initiated and submitted in accordance with
Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and
sufficient notice of the Public Meeting, pursuant to Section
14.030 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided.
2. On October 19, 1994 a public hearing on the request was held
by the Springfield Planning Commission. The proposed
amendments, staff notes and recommendations together with
previous testimony and submittals have been considered and are
part of the record of this proceeding.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of this record, the request is consistent with the
applicable criteria set forth in Section 8.030 (1)-(3) of the
Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by
the specific findings of fact and conclusions set out in the
findings of fact adopted and attached hereto'as Exhibit A.
:~)
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED by the Planning commission of springfield that
Journal, Number 94-09-186 as amended be forwarded to the City
Councrl~or APPROVAL.
THIS RECOMHENDATION presented to and approved by the Planning
~ommis on 0 ctober 19, 1994.
Chairperson
ATTEST
AYES: 6
NOES: j?J
ABSENT,: ;;;L
ABSTAIN:Y
-
,
,
.
.