Loading...
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 - , , . .