HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Proposed Amendments to Article 26 - Hillside Development Overlay District Extending the Allowed Use of Density Transfer From South-Facing Slopes Only to All-Facing Slopes
SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL
Meeting Date:
Meeting Type:
Department:
Staff Contact:
Staff Phone No:
Estimated Time:
June 25, 2007
Work Session
Development~ Srvic .
Mark Metzger.
726-3775
15 minutes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMP ACT:
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 26-IDLLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY DISTRICT EXTENDING THE ALLOWED USE OF DENSITY TRANSFER
FROM SOUTH-FACING SLOPES ONLY TO ALL-FACING SLOPES.
No action requested at this time. Staff will provide a briefing on proposed changes to
Article 26 that will come before the Council on July 2nd.
Development standards currently allow a "density transfer" from steep slopes to areas of
lesser slope on south-facing hillsides in exchange for the preservation,ofthe steep slopes.
At issue is whether to extend the density transfer provision to north, west and east facing
slopes.
Attachment 1: Staff Report
Attachment 2: Background Report
Attachment 3: Article 26 Amendments (Legislative Version)
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Order
Approximately 48% of Springfield's remaining inventory of residential land is affected by
steep slopes. The Springfield Development Code allows for a transfer of the calculated
number of homes that might be built on steep slopes to south-facing hillsides with slopes
between 15 and 25% through a "density transfer."
ITEM TITLE:
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Density transfer is proposed for use in the Heritage Park development (Gray-Jaqua property
in South Thurston Hills) on a north-facing hillside to allow an exchange of higher density
development on lower slopes and the preservation of the upper slopes for park land. The
pre-development agreement signed by the City with the developer of the Gray-Jaqua
property includes a provision allowing consideration of a density transfer on the north
facing slope of the property, provided that such density transfer is consistent'with the City's
development code and land use' regulations. Other developments are being considered in
the Thurston Hills that would benefit from an expanded application of density transfer to
north, east and west facing slopes.
Density transfer has been allowed since the Development Code was first adopted in 1986.
Attachment 2 provides background on the origins of Article 26. Public Works has indicated
that there is no known design or safety rationale for limiting density transfer to south-facing
slopes. Staff is proposing to extend the density transfer provision to north, west and east
facing slopes of 15 to 25%. All engineering and construction standards that have applied
historically to development on south facing slopes would apply to the broader application of
density transfer under the proposed revisions.
The proposed changes to Article 26 include: 1) various changes needed to implement an
extension of density transfer to all-facing hillsides with a slope of 15 to 25%; 2) allowing
"average slope" to be used when calculating the number of units eligible for density
transfer; and 3) the addition of a requirement in the Development Code that the developer
pay for "peer review" of the sophisticated geotechnical and engineering analysis by a
consultant of the City's choice for hillside development in order to ensure safe development
and stable slopes.
The Planning Commission met three times between February and April 2007, to evaluate
the safety and prudence of allowing the proposed expansion of density transfers. These
meetings spanned the time when the MountainGate slide was under scrutiny. Density
transfer issues are not related to the circumstances of that slide. The Commission then
voted unanimously to approve the changes to Article 26 found in Attachment 3 that will
come before the Council at a public hearing on July 2nd. "
City Of Springfield
Development Services Department
June 25, 2007
Staff Report
Applicant: Journal No.
City of Springfield LRP2006-00037
Request: ProcedureType:
To make text amendments to the Springfield Development Code, Type IV-- Legislative
Articles 26-Hillside Development Overlay District. Tbe purpose is
to extend the ability to locate cluster development on all qualified
hillsides with slopes of 15-25%. Article 26 currently allows cluster
development on slopes between 15-25% on south-facing slopes only.
Attachments:
Attachment 2: Summary of Proposed Changes to Articles 26 in Legislative Format.
Attachment 3: Background-Hillside Development Overlay District
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Order
I. Executive Summary
The proposed amendments to Article 26-Hillside Development Overlay District (HDOD) are
intended to: 1) extend the ability to locate cluster development to all-facing hillsides with slopes
of between 15 and 25%; 2) adjust the formula for computing the number of units for density
transfers; and 3) to require developers to pay for peer review of sophisticated geotechnical and
engineering studies required for hillside development.
. The practice of cluster development on slopes between 15 and 25% is already allowed by Article
26 on south-facing hillsides. The proposed amendments would allow that practice to be
extended to all-facing hillsides between 15 and 25%, where such a development is deemed to be
safe through a review process that includes a rigorous geo-technical analysis.
The proposed amendments to the HDOD relate to inquiries that have been made by area
developers and the larger issue of Springfield's remaining vacant buildable residential land.
Table I-Vacant and Buildable Lands by Slope was produced by Lane Council of Governments
for the Homebuilders Association of Lane County in 2005 as part of a larger report. The table
shows that about 48% of Springfield's remaining land zoned for low density residential
development is located on slopes of 15% or more.
ATTACHMENT
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007 1-1
1
Table 1. Vacant Buildable Land in Springfield by Slope
Total LDR
1145..5
446.9
615.3
2207.7
51.9%
20.2%
27.9%
With almost half of Springfield's remaining single-family residential inventory located on slopes
affected by the HDOD, a review of the standards is appropriate as new development is poised to
impact these lands. Cluster development is a tool which.. is designed to help communities to
protect natural resource areas from development while allowing property owners to "transfer"
some of the development density that they are losing to another, less ,sensitive site.
Article 26 allows development on steep slopes, but requires large lots. Generally, largerlot sizes
mean lower development density. Article 26 makes provisions for density transfers (cluster
development) in areas affected by slopes. The idea is to credit developers for not developing on
steep slopes by allowing them to increase the density of development on land with lesser slope.
The developer must agree to protect the steeper slopes from any future development to be
allowed the increased density (density transfer).
Clustering of residential density from preserved hillsides is illustrated above.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
2
1-2
Section 26.050 of Article 26 describes two options for development on slopes that affect density.
Option "A" requires increasingly larger lots for homes on increasingly steeper slopes. Option
"B" allows for a transfer of density from steep areas to lesser slopes to achieve higher
development density. Development density is capped at 8 dwelling units per acre, which is less
than the I 0 units per acre allowed within the LDR zone.
Under Option B density transfer can be made to land with slopes up to 15%. Density transfers
may be made to slopes up to 25% on south-facing slopes. No rationale is offered for allowing
density transfers on steeper south facing slopes and not on other slopes. A staff review of the
legislative history of Article 26 failed to reveal the reason for the limitation.
Through a series of meetings between public works engineering, environmental services, and
planning staff, no specific reason could be identified for limiting cluster development on 15,,25%
slopes to just south-facing hillsides. The critical issue that was identified was the need to
conduct a thorough geotechnical review of each site to determine if the area is stable enough
support increased development. The same concern for requiring a rigorous geotechnical review
was promoted by private practice engineers and a developer who were interviewed. The private
practice engineer further suggested that developers be required to fund a "peer review" of the
geotechnical report fora property (at the discretion ofthe City) to verify the accuracy of the
findings and recommendations of report.
The specific text of the amendments are scattered throughout Article 26. Please see Attachment
1 to examine the proposed changes in legislative format that show the existing text and highlight
changes.
U. Procedural Requirements
Procedural requirements for amending the Springfield Development Code (SDC) are described
in Article 8 and Article 14.
Article 8 indicates that the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council or a resident
of the City can initiate amendments to the SDC. Such amendments of are reviewed under a.
"Type IV" procedure and require public hearings before the Planning COnlmission and the City
Council. Type IV procedures are detailed in Article 3.100 of the SDC. The proposed revisions
to Articles 26 have b,een initiated by the Planning Direc~or.
Article 14.030 (2) requires that legislative land use decisions be advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation, providing information about the legislative action and the time, place and
location of the hearing.
Findings:
# I. The Planning Director has initiated these amendments to Article 26-Hillside
Development Overlay District. The amendments are not site specific and fall under the
definition of a legislative action. -
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
3
1-3
#2. A "DLCD Notice Proposed Amendment" was mailed to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on December 19, 2007, alerting the agency to the City's
intent to amend the Article 26. The notice was mailed more than 4;5 days i~ advance of
the first evidentiary hearing as required by ORS 197.610. No comment has been
received from the Department concerning the amendments.
#3. Notice ofthe public hearing concerning this matter was published on June 11,2007 in the
Eugene Register Guard, advertising the hearing before the Springfield City Council on
July 2, 2007. The content ofthe notice followed the direction given in Section 14.030 (2)
of the SDC for legislative actions.
Conclusion:
Procedural requirements described in Article 8 and Article 14 of the SDC have been followed.
Notice requirements established by DLCD for amending the Development Code have also been
followed.
IV. Decision Criteria and Findings
Article 8 describes the criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC. It states that
in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City Council must adopt findings
which demonstrate conformance with "1) the Metro Plan; 2) applicable State statutes; and to 3)
applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. "
Criterion #1 "Conformance with the Metro Plan"
Findings
#4. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the basic
guiding land use policy document for the City of Springfield. A text search related to
development on steep slopes and hillside development yielded little specific policy.
#5. Steep slopes are recognized as a development constraint for residential lands by findings
made in Section A-Residential Element (pg. III-A-2).
#6. Section E-Environmental Design Element, Polley E.8 states, "Site planning standards
developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in design that will achieve site
planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design problems" (pg. III-E-
3).
#7. The Springfield Development Code (SDC) implements the Metro Plan. It contains
various planning policies and standards including Article 26-Hillside Development
Overlay District which sets forth standards for development on hillsides with a slope of
15% and greater. When the Springfield Development Code was adopted in May 1986, it
was found by the City Council to be consistent with the Metro Plan. The Development
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
4
1-4
Code was subsequently acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission as being consistent with the Metro Plan and with Statewide Planning Goals.
#8. Section 26.010 of the Hillside Development Overlay District makes the following
purpose statement:
"The HD Overlay District ensures that development in hillside areas:
Minimizes the potential for earth movement and resultant hazards to life and
property;
Protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and siltation;
Retains and protects natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways,
scenic quality and open space by minimizing vegetation removal in sloped areas;
Assure compatibility with new development with surrounding areas;
Encourages site and building design that is consistent with the natural topography
in order to minimize the cost of public infrastructure;
Provides for adequate access for emergency services and protects the public
health and safety."
#9. The proposed amendments provides for cluster development on hillsides with a slope
between 15 and 25% with certain standards and prior analysis meant to ensure that such
d~velopment meets the purposes listed in Finding #8. Such cluster development is
currently allowed on south-facing as described in Section 26.050, "Option B." The
amendments would extend cluster development to all-facing hillsides with 15-25% slope.
The same standards for geotechnical reporting and other planning and engineering
analysis remain in place.
#10. Cluster development is a widely recognized tool for addressing site design problems
while achieving the objective of making the best use ofland of inventoried residential
land on constrained sites while protecting valuable natural areas. The amendments
clarify and facilitate the greater use of cluster development, consistent with the Metro
Plan policies cited in Findings #5 and #6.
Conclusion
The findings show that the proposed amendments facilitate Metro Plan policies and are
consistent with those few policies related to hillside development found in the Metro Plan.
The proposed amendments to Article 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with the Metro Plan. It is the conclusion of,staff that the proposed amendments comply with this
criterion.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
5
1-5
Criterion #2 "Conformance with Applicable State Statutes"
Finding
#11. A text search of the Oregon Revised Statutes yielded no references to hillside
development or development on steep slopes that prevent or limit their location as a land
use policy. The statutes authorized the establishment of Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals which include Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards.
Conclusion
The Oregon Revised Statutes appear to be silent on the specifics of hillside
development policy. The statutes do address hillside development issues through
Statewide Planning Goal 7 which is discussed below under Criterion #3.
For lack of a prohibition against it, hillside development and cluster development are
presumed to be allowable development forms. This action clarifies how cluster
development on hillsides may be accomplished in a safe manner that is sensitive to
multiple community purposes.
The proposed amendments to Articles 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with applicable state statutes. It is the conclusion of staffthat the proposed amendments comply
with this criterion.
Criterion #3 "Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules"
Findings
Compliance with Administrative Rules
#12. A text search of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) yielded no references to
specific policies related to hillside development or cluster development. OAR Division
15 describes Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural
Hazards is among the Goal listed.
#13. Statewide Planning Goal 7 states that "Local governments shall adopt comprehensive
plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and
property from natural hazards. Among these hazards are "landslides."
# 14. The standards 'found in Article 26 are intended to protect the community from
landslides and related hazards caused by improper development of slopes. The proposed
amendments embrace the existing standards while allowing the extension of cluster
development to all-facing slopes and not just south facing slopes.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
6
1-6
#15. The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and
water lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals
#16. Goal] - Citizen Involvement. Goall calls for "the opportunity for citizens to be
involved in all phases of the planning process."
The proposed amendments to Article 26 were the subject oflegislative public hearings
advertised in the Eugene Register Guard on January 26, 2007. The Planning Commission
is conducted a public hearing on February 6, 2007. The Commission continued the
hearing twice to include March 13 and April 17, 2007. The City Council is scheduled to
hold a public hearing on July 2, 2007.
# 17. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Goal 2 outlines the basic proc'edures of Oregon's
statewide planning program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance
with a comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the
plan's policies into effect must be adopted.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan that guides land use planning in Springfield. Various
adopted refinement plans and specific area plans provide more detailed direction for
planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The SDC implements the policies and
direction of the Metro Plan. The proposed amendments to Articles 26 will modify
existing standards for development that implement adopted policies found in the Metro
Plan as cited in Findings #8-#10 above.
#18. Goal 3 -Agricultural Land. Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires
counties to inventory such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm
zoning.
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These amendments do
not apply outside the urban growth boundary anq, because of limitations on commercial
and industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the
city limits. All land in the City's urban transition area carries City zoning. An exception
to this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged.
#19. Goal 4 - Forest Land. This goal defines forest rands and requires counties to inventory
them and adopt policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest uses."
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The
City of Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. These amendments do not
apply outside the urban growth boundary and, because of limitations on commercial and
. industrial development without full urban services, generally do not apply outside the city
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
7
1-7
limits. All land in the City's urban transition area carries City zoning. Ai1 exception to
this goal was taken in 1982 when the comprehensive plan was acknowledged.
#20. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. GoalS
covers more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and
wetlands. It establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated.
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to any identified natural resources. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with GoalS are
affected by these amendrrients.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires local
comprehensive plans and implementing measures to be consistent with state and federal
regulations on matters such as groundwater pollution. The amendments to Article 26 do
not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development Code regulations
with respect to any identified air, water or land resource issues. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 6 are affected
by these amendments.
#21. Goal 7 - Areas Subjectto Natural Disasters and Hazards. Goal 7 deals with
development in places subj ect to natural hazards such as floods or landslides. It requires
that jurisdictions apply "appropriate safeguards" (floodplain zoning, for example) when
planning for development there.
All sites within Springfield that are subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion,
landslides, earthquakes, weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of
sources. The proposed amendments do not remove or exempt compliance with other
Code staFldards that may apply to development.
The standards found in Article 26 are intended to protect the community from landslides
and related hazards caused by improper development of slopes. The proposed
amendments embrace the existing standards while allowing the extension of cluster
development to all-facing slopes and not just south facing slopes.
The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and water
lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
#22. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas
and facilities for recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for
them. Willamalane Park and Recr~ation District is the entity responsible for park
planning, development and maintenance in the urban transition area as well as the city
limits. The proposed amendments to do not alter policies encouraging the provision of
recreational facilities or the incorporation of community open space in development
design. Expanding the opportunity to apply density transfer holds the possibility of
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007
8
1-8
. preserving property in the hills that might be acquired by the Willamalane Park and
Recreation District.
#23. Goal 9 - Economic Development. Goal 9 calls for diversification and improvement of
the economy. It asks communities to inventory commercial and industrial lands, project
future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. The
amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or
Development Code regulations with respect to any economic development issues. No
changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 9 are
affected by these amendments. /
#24. Goal] 0 - Housing. This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate
needed housing types, such as multifamily and manufactured housing. The amendments
to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace ,or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development
Code regulations with respect to any housing issues. No changes to supporting
ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal, 10 are affected by these
amendments; .
The proposed amendments may encourage more efficient development of residential land
located on hillsides by facilitating cluster development as a means of increasing
development density while protecting sensitive natural areas.
#25. Goalll-Public Facilities and Services. Goal l1.calls for efficient planning ofpublic
services such as sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Services and Facilities Plan (PFSP) is a
refinement plan of the Metro Plan that guides the provision of public infrastructure,
including water, sewer, storm water management, and electricity. The amendments to
Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development
Code regulations with respect to any public facilities. No changes to supporting
ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal II are affected by these
amendments.
The proposed amendments include strengthen provisions for emergency access and water
lines in hillside areas and precludes the finalizing of plats or sale of lots before such
facilities have been tested and approved by the Fire Marshal.
#26. Goal]2 - Transportation. The goal aims toproyide "a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system."
Section 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rules requires evaluation ofa
comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendment to determine if an amendment to
the Springfield Development Code significantly affects a transportation facility. 'The
proposed amendments do not: change the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility; change standards implementing a functional classification
system; allow types of levels of use which would result in levels of travel or access which
are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or reduce the
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25,2007
9
1-9
. level of service of a facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the
Metropolitan Area Transportatio!l Plan (TransPlan).
#27. Goal]3 - Energy Conservation. Goal 13 deClares that "land and uses developed on the
land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of
energy, based upon sound economic principles."
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to energy conservation. No changes to
supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with Goal 13 are affected
~~~~~. .
#28. Goal]4 - Urbanization. This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs
for land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs.
The amendments to Articles 26 do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy
or Development Code regulations with respect to Springfield's inventory of buildable
lands. No changes to supporting ordinances or policy documents adopted to comply with
Goal 14 are affected by these amendments. .
The proposed amendments may increase the viable use oflands within the UGB that are
currently shown on the residential land inventory that are constrained by steep slopes.
Cluster development has been used effectively in some communities to safely develop
some hillside areas, without undue loss of property value for land owners, while
preserving steeper areas as community open space.
#29. Goal]5 - Willamette River Greenway. Goal 15 sets forth procedures for administering
the 300 miles of greenway that protects the Willamette River.
The proposed amendments to Articles 46 do not change the obligation to comply with the
City's existing standards for development with respect to the Willamette River
Greenway. The Greenway provisions allow development of permitted uses in the
underlying zone, provided that all other Greenway requirements are satisfied. The City's
adopted, acknowledged Greenway ordinance will not be changed.
#30. Goals 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and
Dunes, and Ocean Resources. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune
resources within the City's jurisdiction. These goals do not apply in Springfield.
Conclusion
The proposed amendments to Articles 26, based on the findings included above, are consistent
with Oregon Administrative Rules and Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. It is the conclusion
of staff that the proposed amendments comply with this criterion.
Staff Report: ProposedAmendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
10
1-10
V. Conclusion and Recommendation of Staff
. Based on the findings of staff with respect to the criteria defined in Article 8 for approving
amendments to the SDC, staff finds the proposed amendments to Articles 26 to be consistent
with these criteria and recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
Staff Report: Proposed Amendments to Article 26
June 25, 2007
1-11
11
I
BACKGROUND ARTICLE 26--HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
BACKGROUND AND ORIGINAL INTENT.
Article 26, the Hillside Development Overlay District (HDOD), was adopted as part of
the original Springfield Development Code on May 5, 1986. It was not a later addition
to the Code. As such, there is little discussion in the record that is specific to the purpose
or intent of the HDOD. The original text of the HDOD includes a "Commentary" page at
the beginning of the Article. The Commentary provides background about the derivation
of the HDOD. This commentary text is shown below in its entirety.
COMMENTARY
ARTICLE 26 HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT. Ref. Gresham
Development Code. This article establishes the HD Overlay District: Gresham's
,standards were used as the basis of this Article since that city's topographic conditions are
similar to Springfield's. This Article is less restrictive than Gresham's. The introductory
provisions of ~resham's Ordinance state:
"The Hillside Physical Constraint District includes all areas of the City where the slope of
the land is 15% or greater and shown on the Community Development Code map.
Contained in this section are the special requirements which apply to development within
these areas. .
The uses permitted in the Physical Constraint District are such uses which are consistent
with the Community Development Plan, such as, but not limited to, housing, open space,
parks, and any subsequent use which may be permitted by the City Council.
The maximum residential development shall be one dwelling unit per existing lot of record
on slopes greater than 35% prior to grading. Open space, greenways, and recreational
trails may be developed.
Two options have been created for the development of land within this constraint district.
The first option; Option A, id designed to tie the lot siz_es of a land division to the average
slope of the parcel. The second option, Option B, is to allow for a density transfer bonus to
stimulate development on those areas of the parcel where the slope of the land is les than
15%."
In-house has added: an additional area for the transfer bonus; south facing slopes
between 15 and percent, Section 26.030 (2).
Out-house has added: street grade standards, Section 26.040.
The commentary notes that Article 26 was derived from the City of Gresham's Hillside
Physical Constraint District. In the absence of a legislative history in the form of staff
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
1
A TT ACHMENT
-- 2- L _ _
presentation or discussion of Article 26 before the Planning Commission or Council, staff
has looked to the purpose statements contained in both the Gresham Hillside Physical
Constraint District and the HDOD to gain some understanding of what both cities were
attempting to achieve through the standards each adopted. Table 1 shows the similarities
between the Gresham and Springfield purpose statements found in their respective
hillside development policies.
Table 1. Comparison of Purpose Statements
(A) Minimize the potential for earth
movement and resultant hazards to life
and property;
(B) Minimize soil erosion and siltation;
(C) Protect water quality;
(D) Minimize vegetation removal in
sloped areas;
(E) Protect the aesthetic and scenic
qualities of hillside areas;
(F) Assure the compatibility of a new
development with surrounding areas;
(G) Encourage site and building design
which is consistent with the natural
topography; and;
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25. 2007
Minimizes the potential for earth
movement and resultant hazards to life
and property;
Protects water quality by minimizing
soil erosion and siltation;
Retains and protects natural vegetation,
natural water features and
drainageways, scenic quality and open
space by minimizing vegetation
remov_al in sloped areas;
Assure compatibility with new
development with surrounding areas;
Encourages-site and building design
that is consistent with the natural
topography in order to minimize the
cost of ublic infrastructure;
2
2-2
(H) Minimize the cost of public ,
infrastructure provision...
. . . and provide for adequate access for Provides for adequate access for
emergency services." emergency services and protects the
public health and safety"
The elements of Gresham and Springfield's purpose statements are virtually identical.
This is consistent with the statement in the "Commentary" to the original Article 26 that
"Gresham's standards were used as the basis of this Article since that city's topographic
conditions are similar to Springfield's." Clearly, the ordinance was intended to address
more than just the safety and infrastructure issues related to building on slopes.
Aesthetics, water quality and retention of vegetation were also important issues.
PROBLEM STATEMENT: CONTEXT
Robert Olshansky, writing in Planning for Hillside Development], raises the question,
"From a planning point of view, as opposed to engineering or landscape design, what is
the best form of hillside development? Is it better to have well-designed high-density
development that respects natural features? Such a system can meet housing needs,
provide for safety in intensely developed zones, and protect the natural qualities in open
space areas. Is it best to have well-engineered mass grading? This is the optimal way to
meet American demands for single-family homes and views in a manner that is safe and
relatively affordable to the middle class. Or is it best to simply reduce density on slopes,
thereby retaining their visual qualities for all of the people who look at them from the
valleys. Finally, is it possible to meet all of the goals-provide for safety, protect the
environment, maintain the aesthetic quality, and provide affordable dwellings?"
Conventional Development
Cluster Development
1 Planning for Hillside Development; Robert Olshansky, Planni;1g Advisory Servi~e Report Number 466,
American Planning Association, 1996.
Hillside Development Policy Review 3
June 25, 2007
2-3
Olshansky continues, "Planners often devise multipurpose "hillside ordinances," not
admitting the inherent contradictions of purpose that some of these represent." Are some
of the purposes in Section 26.010 inherently contradictory? Can we meet all of the
purposes and allow the development of housing that is affordable to Springfield
residents?
The importance of reviewing Springfield's HODO'at this time relates to both the
inquiries that have been made recently by area developers and the larger issue of
Springfield's remaining vacant buildable residential land. The Table 2 was produced by
L-COG for the Homebuilders Association of Lane County in 2005. It demonstrates how
much of Springfield's remaining residential inventory is affected by step slopes.
Table 2, below, shows that Springfield has about 2207.7 acres of vacant buildable acres
designated for Low Density Residential development. Of that total, 1062.2 acres are
located on slopes of 15% or more. That's about 48% of Springfield's remaining single-
family residential inventory.
The Medium and High Density Residential inventories are less affected. Of a total of 324
acres, only 16.8 (5%) are affected by slopes of 15% or more.
With half of Springfield's remaining residential inventory located on slopes affected by
the HDOD, a review of the standards is appropriate as new development is poised to
impact these lands.
Table 2. Vacant Buildable Land in Springfield by Slope
Low Densi Residenti3lotal of all Residential Districts
Slo e:
U to 15%
15 to 25
Greater than 25
Total LDR
1145.5
446.9
615.3
2207.7
Medium Densi Residential
Slo e:
U to 15%
15 to 25
Greater than 25
Total MDR
281.4
4.8
I 1.4
297.6
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
25.9
.4
.2
4
2-4
The HDOD reduces development densities on slopes that are 15% or greater and on lots
that have an elevation above 670 feet. Minimum lot sizes increase as the slope of the
land increases.
Generally, larger lot sizes mean lower development density. Some provisions are made
for density transfers in areas affected by slopes: Section 26.050 describes two options for
development on slopes that affect density. Option "A" requires increasingly larger lots
for homes on increasingly steeper slopes. Option "B" allows for a transfer of density
from steep areas to lesser slopes to achieve higher development density. This density
transfer is allowed on slopes up to 15% on most slopes. Density transfers may be made
to slopes up to 25% on south facing slopes (no rationale is offered for allowing density
transfers on steeper south facing slopes). Table 3 shows how minimum lot size increases
with in greater slope. The table also shows how slopes are treated under Option A and
Option B described in Section 28.050 of the HDOD.'
, .
Table 3. Section 26.050 Options "A" and "B"
Less than 1 0,000 sq. ft. 60 ft. 3 Up to 8
15% and
above 670 ft.
15%-25% 10,000 sq. ft. 90 ft. 3 Up to 8 on
south-facing
slo es
25%-35% 20,000 sq. ft. 150 ft. 2 N/A
Over 35% 40,000 sq. ft. 200 ft. <1 N/A
Standard 4500-5000 sq. ft. 45-60 ft. Typical density:
Lot 6000 sq. ft. for 35 ft. for 4 to 5 units
In LDR cul-de-sac cul-de-sac
Problem Statement:
Can the City allow development density on slopes greater than 15% to be increased
above current levels and continue to achieve the purposes detailed in Section
26.010? In particular, can the level of density achieved through density transfer on
south facing slopes (15-25%) be extended to other areas?
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
5
2-5
How DOES SPRINGFIELD'S HDOD COMPARE WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES?
Olshansky's report collected and analyzed more than 190 hillside development plans and
ordinances. In doing so, he summarized the characteristics of these ordinances in the
form of tables. .These tables are shown below.
Statements of Purpose
Aesthetics
Natural Phenomena
Geologic Hazards
Health, Safety, General
Welfare
Natural Resources
Access
75% X
71%
64% X
64% X
60% X
30% X (For Emergency
Vehicles)
Fire Protection
29%
Thresholds for Hillside Regulation
40% 5
35% 1
30% 10
25% 16
20% 16
17% 4
15% S rin field 31 Median avera e)*
12% 5
10% 54
5%" 8
* About 65% of reporting jurisdictions have thresholds that are triggered by slopes of
15% or less.
Implementing Strategies Used by Responding Jurisdictions
Land Use and Lot Size
Specifying maximum
densit
S eci in minimum 43
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
TreeN e etation Restrictions
Mandated replacement or
re lantin
Limited removal 57
6
2-6
lot size
Specifying permitted 36 Fire safety as basis 36
uses
Require no-build areas 10 Vegetation management 28
(% oflot) mandated
Site Design and 87 ** Road and Parking 61 **
Construction Restrictions
Grading 72 Road standards 42
Setbacks 56 Roads parallel to contours 38
Open Space 39 Parking restrictions 35
Clustering 32 Common access drives 14
Impervious surface 26 Other Design Regulations 28
Coverage
Buildim! Restrictions 72 ** Lighting 22
Type or design 53 Signage 12
Maximum height 45 Procedural and Policy 89 **
Strategies
Materials restricted 39 Require technical studies by 59
professionals
Fire safety as basis 26 Variances for special 42
exceptions
Orientation! siting 21 Grandparenting of existing 36
uses
Maximum footprint 12 Conditional uses permitted 29
Transfer development rights, 21
density bonuses
Homeowners Association 10
** Included in Springfield Ordinances
SUCCESS OR FAILURE TO ACHIEVE HDOD PURPOSES TO DATE?
Using GIS, staff identified 176 homes built since 1986 in areas of Springfield with a
sloge of 15% or more. Most of these homes were located in the Thurston Hills between
67 and 73rd Streets, south of Main. Some additional homes were 10cated in the Kelly
Butte area off of Prescott Street, and in the Ambleside subdivision, north of 31 st Street
and Marcola Rd near Moe Mt. New houses have be~n completed and others are under
construction in the Mountaingate subdivision. I have attached maps of these
neighborhoods showing the location of the new construction.
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT SINCE 1986
The following maps show homes that have been built on slopes since the adoption of the
HDOD in 1986. The maps were created using GIS to illuminate tax lots that have been
build upon since 1986 in areas that have a slope of 15% or more.
-Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25,2007
7
2-7
o Lots on Slopes >15%
Hillside Development Since 1986
Thurston Hills
(1)
200 0 200 400 Feet
1""""1I t..-......IIII
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
2-8
8
CD Lots on Slopes >15%
Hillside Development Since 1986
Mountaingate
Cl)
200 0 200 400 Feet
1"""""'1II
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25,2007
2-9
9
CJ lots on Slopes >15%
Hillside Development Since 1986
Kelly Butte
ClJ
200 0 200 400 Feet
l""""""lI
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
2-10
10
o Lots on Slopes >15%
Hillside Development Since 1986
Ambleside
(l)
,200 0 200 400 Fe<
I"""'""""l
Hillside Development Policy Review
June 25, 2007
2-11
11
Summary of Proposed Amendments to Article 26
Hillside Development Overlay District
tiF, i>ttJIf'iiftfil,",..5t\,",',', ':,',', '\1107'
ib\;UUeUcRliext
Dclctcd Text
ARTICLE 26
HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
26.010 PURPOSE
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE
26.030 APPLICABILITY
26.040 REVIEW
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OPTIONS
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
ATTACHMENT
3-1
ARTICLE 26
HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
26.010 PURPOSE.
The HD Overlay District ensures that development in hillside areas: Minimizes the potential for earth
movement and resultant hazards to life and property; protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and
siltation; retains and protects natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways, scenic quality and
open space by minimizing vegetation removal in sloped areas; assures the compatibility of new development
with surrounding areas; encourages site and building design that is consistent with the natural topography in
order to minimize the cost of providing public infrastructure; provides for adequate access for emergency
services; and otherwise protects the public health and safety.
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.
26.030 APPLICABILITY.
The HD Overlay District shall apply in residential zoning districts within the city limits and the City's
urbanizable areas above 670 feet elevation or .
26.040 REVIEW.
(1) Development within the HD Overlay District shall be reviewed under Type II procedure,
submitted concurrently with the applicable application for a: Site Plan Review, Property Line
Adjustment, or a Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan.
(2) A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the Director
prior to the review of the request as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY ~i\) OPTIONS.
~fitl'~t~IfWel~~
~lig~
3-2
~~~f~e!!im1i~~s]
'^-"-=="%^^'WV,%.~~W^^~-'
:;"":;''''''':'fli&f,,"0Vth'^^, ,,;"10:,
el1Qls:ess:, ,an
The developer has two options for the development of steeply sloped land. The first option, Option" A",
is designed to correlate minimum lot sizes to the average slope of the development area. The second
option, Option "B", is designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to stimulate d~velopment on those
portions of the development area where the slope of the land ~s less than 15 percent. A combination of
Options "A" and "B" may be used.
(2) OPTION' "A" - AVERAGE SLOPE - MINIMUM LOT SIZE. The site development
requirements of the LDR District shall apply, with the exception of the minimum lot size and
duplex standards. Determination ofminimUIll lot size where the slope is 15 percent or greater is
a 3 step process. -
(a) Step 'A-I' Determine the area ofthe parcel where the slope of the land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
2. From 15 percent to 35 percent.
3. ^ Greater than 35 percent.
Use the following formula to determine the % of slope:
Vertical distance between contours = V x 100 = % slope
Horizontal distance between contours = H
Indicate the portions of the development area that are less than 15 percent; from
- 0'\1
15 percent to 35 percent; and greater than 35 percent then use a planimeter OF
~tm;ted1fiblbgy~lT~tKf,'~&lrn~l@i~'lrffirgill~~ to determine the land area of
each category.
(b) Step 'A-2' Determine the average slope of the portion of the development area where the
slope of land is from IS percent to 35 percent by using the following formula:
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranges from 15 percent to 35
percent.
3-3
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = Summation oflength of the contour lines within the area where the slope is from 15
percent to 35 percent.
A = Area in acres of the portion ofthe parcel where the slope is from 15 percent to 35
percent.
(c) Step 'A-3' Determine the minimum lot size for the portion of the development area
where the slope of the land is greater than 15% by using the following Table:
TABLE 26-1
MINIMUM LOT SIZE PER
DWELLING UNIT
Less than 15% ~filw{i)'t)aeznfit)fS**
10,000 sq. ft.
60 ft.
15% - 25% 10,000 S . Ft. 90 ft.
25% - 35% 20,000s . ft. 150 ft.
Over 35% 40,000 s . ft. . 200 ft.
* Panhandles are permitted only when requirements of this Section pertaining to fire protection and lot size
are met and the lot cannot be served with a public street. Minimum frontage standards for all other lots may
be amended by the Director when it is found that the topography or location of natural features prevent
achieving the standard. CuI de sac frontages are as specified in Section 16.030.
E"'V
** 'floodcd lots only. ** '.'
~1'~~~tib"\':i::wm~li:(~6fitlr,
ma OPTION "B" DENSITY TRANSFER BONUS. In order to promote the preservation of natural
slopes greater than [~~~' perc~~t.~d~~~~~~?~~81~.~~~~~s, development density transfer is
encouraged when dividing land ~ItJi,tslOpe~;;:gt~~t~t~Itliai1g@S~~ The density transfer bonus is only
feasible where there are sizable portions of the development area which have slopes less than [+S
pcrcent, or which havc a south facing slopes oflcs3 than] 25 percent. Determination of the
density transfer bonus is a 4 step process:
(a) Step 'B-I ' Determine the area of the parcel where the average slope of the land is:
1. Less than IS percent.
2. From 15 percent to [35] ~~IWercent.
3. [Greater than 35 pcrccnt]
3-4
(b)
(c)
(d)
4.
p'?z>2;~WjY})Jf'~Tf;*7.4?F:Jt.ff"?~~W.w%"H%WprqX1?:
[South facing slopes 15 to 25 pereent ]G1.tel.lteF5th'a.rJ.ThS;~jIP~c1iIit;~
Step 'B-2' Determine the average slope of the area of the parcel where the average slope
8:':~?~~7F.'W,?:-:tlw~n[,"::1:-):''''7~m~~p-W'''~lwr;-::'::~7]jt':;T?~~;'~
of the land is [from 15 to 3 5 percent] greater;;than']5~ip~cent by using the formula
identified in Option A, Step 'A-2'.
Step 'B-3' Determine the number of potential lots for the total development area which
could have been permitted, for the portion of the parcel where the average slope is
greater than 15 percent, if the average slope option had been considered by using
Table 26-1 in Option "An, Step 'A-3'.
Step 'B-4' Multiply the number of potential lots by 1.2 to determine the density that may
be transferred to those sections of the development area where the slopes are less than [H
percent, or v/hcn the a';emge south facing slope is between 15 and] 25 percent. In no
. case shall the density of the developed portion of the site exceed 8 dwelling units per .
developable acre, (i.e., excluding streets and open space). Land of eater than l~"%" .
percent average [slope subject to density transfer provisions] "h~;~
\t\,:::,:'::"?:'1~'~':wyt:;.'~'.wm>::'::_~f/~X>:,'i;:::-'X'~"C\:<'\r,:-:\?
~~sitVfitraIlsIer::bon:us shall be maintained as permanent open space or dedicated for park
~~;f Modification of standards as stated in Section 26.(R.~0 of this Article may be
applied to the entire development area.
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS.
(1) Streets shall be contoured in hillside areas to minimize environmental and scenic disruption.
(2) Street grades may exceed the 12 percent local street standard specified in Section 32.020, Street
Standards - Public only where topographical conditions make it impractical to meet the 12
percent standard, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Except for lots created prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code, 1982,
no driveways or intersections shall be permitted where street grades exceed 12 percent.
(b) No street with a grade of 15 percent or greater shall be 'permitted for a distance of more
than 200 feet.
(c) In no case shall a street grade exceed 18 percent for any distance.
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED.
Where the buildable portion of the land to be developed exceeds 15 percent average slope, the following
reports shall be required and their conclusions applied in order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life
and rope and adverse impacts on the natural environment, consistent with the purpose of this Article.
~ ""'}W!!fiW:-j-~"~:~;;":?QW
ffilie he:iCli "j
(1) Geotechnical Report. This report shall include data regarding the geology of the site, the nature,
distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading
3-5
procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, and options and recommendations to
maintain soil and slope stability and minimize erosion of the site to be developed in a manner
imposing the minimum variance from the natural conditions. The investigation and report shall
be prepared by a civil engineer/geologist or a geotechnical engineer.
(2) Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information:
(a) Existing and proposed details and contours (five-foot intervals) of property;
(b) Details of terrain and area drainage;
(c) Location of any existing buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be
performed, the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners
which are within 10.o feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed
grading operations, and proposed or approximate locations of structures relative to
adjacent topography;
(d) The direction of drainage flow and the approximate grade of all streets with the final
determination to be made in accordance with Section 26.070(4) of this Article;
(e) Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finished contours to be achieved by the grading,
including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and related construction;
(f) Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed with,
or as a part ,of, the proposed work, together with a map showing drainage areas, the
complete drainage network, including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may
be affected by the proposed development, and the estimated run-off of the area served by
the drains;
(g) A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including the total
area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and
completion dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the shortest possible period
the time that soil is exposed and unprotected. In no event shall the existing "natural"
vegetative ground cover be destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to
grading or construction of required improvements. Within IS days of grading or other
pre-development activity that removes or significantly disturbs ground cover vegetation,
exposed soil shall either be built upon (i.e., covered with gravel, a slab foundation or
. other construction), landscaped (i.e., seeded or planted with ground cover) or otherwise
protected; and
(h) The Grading Plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer.
(3) Vegetation and Re-vegetation Report. . This report shall be in accordance with Section 38.030(2)
of this Code if tree felling is proposed.
3-6
(4) Verification of Slope and Grade Percentages. Prior to acceptance of the Final Plat, all streets
shall be cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the accuracy of
preliminary slope and grade percentages. If there are significant differences between preliminary
and final grade and slope determinations, i.e., density or street gradients exceed the limits set
forth in this Article, the Tentative Plan shall be modified to reflect the revised information and
resubmitted.
(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 applicant shall specify whether trees will be felled under one Tree Felling
Permit, in accordance with Article 38 of this Code, as part of the subdivision construction
process or by separate Tree Felling Permit for each individual lot prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit. 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.
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS.
The Director may modify the standards of this Code, as they apply to the entire development area, within
the following prescribed limits:
(1) Front, side and rear yard setbacks may be reduced to zero (when in conformance with the
Building Safety Codes); provided, however, where attached dwellings are proposed there shall
not be more than 5 dwelling units in any group.
(2) The reduction of public right of way, pavement width, and/or requirements for the installation
of sidewalks as specified in Table 32-1 of this Code, may be allowed if provisions are made to
provide off-street parking in addition to that required in Article 16, Residential Districts. The
Director may require combinations of collective private driveways, shared. parking areas and
on-street parallel parking bays where topography, special traffic, building, grading, or other
circumstances necessitate additional regulation to minimize land and soil disturbance and
minimize impervious surface areas.
(3) Height limitations may be removed, provided such additional height does not exceed 45 feet and
that solar access standards are met.
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
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 the driveway ~esigns for width, grade and
construction material in order to meet fire lane requirements). Installation of a residential fire
3-7
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 recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that a
wildfire defense plan for each lot, approved by the Fire Marshal, will be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
(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.
(Ord. 5764 11/06/94): Sections 26.030; 26.050; 26.070; 26.090.
(Ord. 5804 12/18/95): Section 26.050.
(Ord. 58493/17/97): Section 26.010.
(Ord. 6133 07/18/05): Sections 26.010, 26.020,26,040,26.070, and 26.080.
3-8
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE (
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (
(
Case Number: LRP2006-00037 (
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND ORDER (
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed amendments to Article 26-Hillside Development Overlay District
(HOOD): 1) extends the ability to locate cluster deve.lopment to all-facing hillsides with
slopes of between 15 and 25%; 2) adjusts the formula for computing the acreage for
density transfers to avoid double counting of eligible land; and 3) ~lIows the City to
require the payment of fee necessary to conduct a peer review of certain engineering and
geotechnical reports.
1. The application conforms to the provisions of Section 3.050 of the Springfield
Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pLirsuant
to Section 14.030 of the Springfield Development Code was provided.
2. On February 6,2007, a public hearing on the proposed text amendments to the
Springfield Development Code was held. The Development Services staff notes,
including criteria of approval, findings, and recommendations, together with the
testimony and submittals of those persons testifying at the hearing or in writing,
have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding.
3. The hearing was continued to the March 13, 2007 meeting at which time
additional staff information was presented and recommendations to further
amend Article 26 were made.
4. The March 13, 2007 hearing was held and additional testimony was received.
The hearing was continued to April 17, 2007 at which time additional staff
information was presented and recommendations to further amend Article 26
were made.
CONCLUSION
The proposed text amendments are presented for approval as amendments to the
Springfield Development Code, Article 26, Hillside Development Overlay District.
On the basis of this record, the requested text amendment to the Springfield
Development Code is consistent with the criteria of approval of Section 8.030 of the
Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and
conclusion in the Staff Report and attached hereto.
ATTACHMENT
4-1
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that Journal Number
LRP2006-0037, Amendment to the Springfield Development Code, (be approved) (be
approved with revisions) (be denied) (no action be taken at this time) by the Springfield
City Council.
This RECOMMENDATION was presented to and approve
on April 17, 2007.
nning Commission
ATTEST:
AYES: (
NOES: $-
ABSENT: -i-
ABSTAIN: ~
4-2
Summary of Proposed Amendments to Article 26
Hillside Development Overlay District
Added Text
Deleted Text
ARTICLE 26
HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
26.010 PURPOSE
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE
26.030 APPLICABILITY
26.040 REVIEW
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY OPTIONS
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
4-3
ARTICLE 26
HD HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICr
26.010 PURPOSE.
The HD Overlay District ensures that development in hillside areas: Minimizes the potential for earth
movement and resultant hazards to life and property; protects water quality by minimizing soil erosion and
siltation; retains and protects natural vegetation, natural water features and drainageways, scenic quality and
open space by minimizing vegetation removal in sloped areas; assures the compatibility of new development
with surrounding areas; encourages site and building design that is consistent with the natural topography in
order to minimize the cost of providing public infrastructure; provides for adequate access for emergency ,
services; and otherwise protects the public health and safety.
26.020 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.
26.030 APPLICABILITY.
The HD Overlay District shall apply in residential zoning districts within the city limits and the City's
ur~anizable [te] areas above670 feet elevation or to development areas below 670 feet in elevation
whereanv portion of the development area exceeds 15 % slope as detenllined using the slopecalc1ilatiorl
described in subsection 26.050 (l)(a) "Step A-I."
26.040 REVIEW.
(1) Development within the HD Overlay District shall be reviewed under Type II procedure,
submitted concurrently with the applicable application for a: Site Plan Review, Property Line
Adjustment, or a Partition or Subdivision Tentative Plan.
(2) A complete application together with all required materials shall be submitted to the Director
prior to the review of the request as specified in Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
26.050 DEVELOPMENT DENSITY AND OPTIONS.
(1) For the plirpo~e'ofcalclllating the allowednumber of gwellingllnits in a deve16prii\::ni'area below
670 feet in elevation. the "average slope" as defined below mav be used.
S = 0.00229TL
A
VYhere:
S:bAverage%of slope for the area.
I;';ContdtrinierVal.' (Not greaterthaU 10 feet).
4-4
L = Slllmnation oflength of the contour lines within the area.
A = Area in acres.
Wherethe average slope of the portion of the development area below 670 feet in elevation IS less than
15%, the number of dwelling units allowed shall be as provided in Article 16.
The developer has two options for the development of steeply sloped land. The first option, Option" A",
is designed to correlate minimum lot sizes to the average slope of the development area. The second
option, Option "B", is designed to allow for a density transfer bonus to stimulate development on those
portions of the development area where the slope of the land is less than 15 percent. A combination of
Options" A" and "B" may be used.
(2) OPTION "A" - AVERAGE SLOPE - MINIMU1y1 LOT SIZE. The site development
requirements of the LDR District shall apply, with the exception of the minimum lot size and
duplex standards. Determination of minimum lot size where the,slope is 15 percent or greater is
a 3 step process.
(a) Step 'A-I' Detennine the area of the parcel where the slope of the land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
2. From 15 percent to 35 percent.
3. Greater than 35 percent.
Use the following formula to detennine the % of slope:
Vertical distance between contours = V x 100 = % slope
Horizontal distance between contours == H
Indicate the portions of the development area that are less than 15 percent; from
.15 percent" to 35percent; and greater than 35 percent then use a planimeter or
othertechnologv acceptable to the City Engineer to determine the land area of
each category.
(b) Step 'A-2' Determine the average slope of the portion of the development area where the
slope of land is from 15 percent to 35 percent by using the following formula:
S = 0.00229 I L
A
Where:
S = Average % of slope for the area where the slope ranges from IS percent to 35
percent.
4-5
I = Contour interval. (Not greater than 10 feet).
L = SUlmnation oflength of the contour lines within the area where the slope is from 15
percent to 35 percent.
A = Area in acres of the portion of the parcel where the slope is from 15 percent to 35
percent.
(c) Step 'A-3' Detennine the minimum lot size for the portion of the development area
where the slope of the land is greater than 15% by using the following Table:
TABLE 26-1
AVERAGE SLOPE MINIMUM LOT SIZE PER MINIMUM PER LOT
FRONTACE DWELLING UNIT FRONTAGE
Less than 15% and below 670' See the applicable lot/parcel size and frontage requirements
in Article 16 of this Code.
Less than 15% on wooded lots** 10,000 sq. ft. 60 ft.
15% - 25% 10,000 Sq. Ft. 90 ft.
25% - 35% 20,000 sq. ft. 150 ft.
Over 35% 40,000 sq. ft. 200 ft.
* Panhandles are permitted only when requirements of this Section pertaining to fire protection and lot size
are met and the lot cannot be served with a public street. Minimum frontage standards for all other lots may
be amended by the Director when it is found that the topography or location of natural features prevent
achieving the standard. CuI de sac frontages are as specified in Section 16.030.
".. '; ,,'." "_':-:..':'~'::-' '__' ;'-~<-- :"J'.':!.'-:.:-" ......,--",~' :,.- ":,,,... ,': -' ',' - ".-:" ."" ,. ". .-' ,,^"
,** \Voodcd lots only. **Wooded lotis defined asa 16tor parcell 0,000 sq: ft. or larger, above 670feetin
elevation \vlllch cOI1tainsmore than 5 trees ei ht inches or eaterdbh. ' Section 2.010 of this - Code.
ill OPTION "B" DENSITY TRANSFER BONUS. In order to promote the preservation of natural
slopes greater than [+Sj 25 percent and encourage solar access, development density transfer is
encouraged when dividing land with slopes greater than 25%. The density transfer bonus is only
feasible where there are sizable portions of the development area which have slopes less than [B
percent, or which have a south faeing slopes oflcs; than] 25 percent. Determination of the
density transfer bonus is a 4 step process:
(a) Step 'B-1' Detennine the area of the parcel where the average slope ofthe land is:
1. Less than 15 percent.
2. From 15 percent to [3-5] 25 'percent.
3. [Greater than 35 percent] From 25percertt to 3.5D~rcent.
4-6
4. [South facing slopes 15 to 25 percent] Greater than 35 percent.
(b) Step 'B-2' Determine the average slope of the area of the parcel where the average slope
of the land is [from 15 to 35 percent] greater than 15 percent by using the formula
identified in Option A, Step 'A-2'.
(c) Step 'B_3' Determine the number of potential lots for the total development area which
could have been pennitted, for the portion of the parcel where the average slope is
greater than 15 percent, if the average slope option had been considered by using
Table 26-1 in Option "A", Step 'A-3'.
(d) Step 'B-4' Multiply the number of potential lots by 1.2 to determine the density that may
be transferred to those sections of the development area where the slopes are less than [B
perccnt, or 'vYhcn the fr'y'cragc south facingslopc is boovccn 15 and] 25 percent. In no
case shall the density of the developed portion of the site exceed'8 dwelling units per
developable acre, (i.e., excluding streets and open space), Land of greater than IS
percentaverage [slope subjcct todcnsity transfcr provisions] slope used to ca1cuIate;a
density-transfer bonus shall be maintained as pem1anent open space or dedicated for park
use. Modification of standards as stated in Section 26.070 of this Article may be applied
to the entire development area.
26.060 STREET GRADE STANDARDS.
(1) Streets shall be contoured in hillside areas to minimize environmental and scenic-disruption.
(2) Street grades may exceed the 12 percent local street standard specified in Section 32.020, Street
Standards _ Public only where topographical conditions make it impractical to meet the 12
percent standard, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Except for lots created prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Code, 1982,
no driveways or intersections shall be pennitted where street grades exceed 12 percent.
(b) No street with a grade of 15 percent or greater shall be pennitted for a distance of more
than 200 feet.
(c) In no case shall a street grade exceed 18 percent for any distance.
26.070 REPORTS REQUIRED.
Where the buildable portion of the land to be developed exceeds 15 percent average slope, the following
~ep()~sshallbe~equired and their conclusions applied to the satisfaction ofthc Director, the City Enginccr
and the Firc Marshall in order to prevent or mitigate possible hazards to life and property and adverse
impacts on the natural environment, consistent with the purpose of this Article. The applicant shall fund
peerFe\'iew()fthereportsa~ deemed necessarvbythe City.
4-7
(1) Geotechnical Report. This report shall include data regarding the geology ofthe site, the nature,
distribution, and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading
procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, and options and recommendations to
maintain soil and slope stability and minimize erosion of the site to be developed in a manner
imposing the minimum variance from the natural conditions. The investigation and report shall
be prepared by a civil engineer/geologist or a geotechnical engineer.
'(2) Grading Plan Report. This plan shall include the following information:
(a) Existing and proposed details and contours (fi ve- foot intervals) of prop,erty;
(b) Details of terrain and area drainage;
(c) Location of any existing buildings or structl,lres on the property where the work is to be
perfonned, the location of any existing buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners
which are within 100 feet of the property or which may b,e affected by the proposed
grading operations, and proposed or approximate locations of structures relative to
adjacent topography;
(d) The direction of drainage flow and the approximate grade of all streets with the final
detennination to be made in accordance with Section 26.070(4) of this Article;
(e) Limiting dimensions, elevations, or finished contours to be achieved by the grading,
including all cut and fill slopes, proposed drainage channels, and related construction;
(f) Detailed plans and locations ofall surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, dams,
sediment basins, storage reservoirs, and other protective devices to be constructed with,
or as a part of, the proposed work, together with a map showing drainage areas, the
complete drainage network, including outfall lines and natural drainageways which may
be affected by the proposed development, and the estimated run-off of the area served by
the drains;
(g) A schedule showing when each stage of the project will be completed, including the total
, area of soil surface which is to be disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and
completion dates; the schedule shall be drawn up to limit to the shortest possible period
the time that soil is exposed and unprotected. In no event shall the existing "natural"
vegetative ground cover be destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than 15 days prior to
grading or construction of required improvements. Within 15 days of grading or other
pre-development activity that removes or significantly disturbs ground cover vegetation,
exposed soil shall either be built upon (i.e., covered with gravel~ a slab foundation or
other construction), landscaped (i.e., seeded or planted with ground cover) or otherwise
protected; and
(h) The Grading Plan shall be prepared by a civil engineer.
4-8
(3) Vegetation and Re-vegetation Report. This report shall be in accordance with Section 38.030(2)
of this Code if tree felling is proposed.
(4) Verification of Slope and Grade Percentages. Prior to acceptance of the Final Plat, all streets
shall be cross-sectioned and their center-lines staked in the field, to determine the accuracy of
preliminary slope and grade percentages. If there are significant differences between preliminary
and final grade and slope determinations, i.e., density or street gradients exceed the limits set
forth in this Article, the Tentative Plan shall be modified to reflect the revised infonnation and
resubmitted.
(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 applicant shall specify whether trees will be felled under one Tree Felling
Permit, in accordance with Article 38 of this Code,.as part of the, subdivision construction
process or by separate Tree Felling Pennit for each individual lot prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit. 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.
26.080 MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS.
The Director may modify the standards of this Code, as they apply to the entire development area, within
the following prescribed limits: '
(1) Front, side and rear yard setbacks may be reduced to zero (when in conformance with the
Building Safety Codes); provided, however, where attached dwellings arepropo$ed there shall
not be more than 5 dwelling units in any group.
(2) The reduction of public right of way, pavement width, and/or requirements for the installation
of sidewalks as specified in Table 32-1 of this Code, may be allowed if provisions are made to
provide off-street parking in addition to that required in Article 16, Residential Districts. The
Director may require combinations of collective private d~veways, shared parking areas and
on-street parallel parking bays where topography, special traffic, building, grading, or other
circumstances necessitate additional regulation to minimize land and soil disturbance and
minimize impervious surface areas. .
(3) Height limitations may be removed, provided such additional height does not exceed 45 feet and
that solar access standards are met.
26.090 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
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
4-9
50 feet of the building (This may mean modifying the driveway designs for width, grade and
construction material in order to meet fire lane requirements). Installation ofa 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 recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that a
wildfire defense plan for each lot, approved by the Fire Marshal, will be required prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
(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.
(4) "
, Notv{ithstandingScction 35.1 bb(3)(b), Firo and Life Safcty c111crgcney acccssand "vater lines for
fue'tljl;e3SiO~ ,hull be ooRSlru~Ied~ te!ltcdffiid "l'pmved by the Fire Mar9hall BR<l Ihe SUB
Vlfrtcr cpartmcnt prior to Final Plat approval and/or the transfer oflots/oarecls.
(Ord. 5764 11/06/94): Sections 26.030; 26.050; 26.070; 26.090.
(Ord. 5804 12/18/95): Section 26.050.
(Ord. 5849 3/17/97): Section 26.010.
(Ord. 6133 07/18/05): Sections 26.010, 26.020, 26.040, 26.070, and 26.080.
4-10