Pending Decision

Work Session & Public Hearing- Springfield Development Code

Case: 811-18-000224-TYP4
This will be a work session and public hearing on the Springfield Development Code Update Project. This work session will be to provide a high level overview of the process leading up to the public hearing on the proposed code amendments that will take place after the work session. The purpose of the Development Code Update Project is to change the Springfield Development Code to support efficient, timely, and clear development review. The updated Development Code will support Springfield’s economic development priorities and will honor Springfield’s hometown feel now and in the future. Phase 1 of the Development Code Update Project is focused on housing and includes the Middle Housing Code Updates required by legislation passed in 2019 (House Bill 2001). Phase 2 focuses on Employment Lands and includes development standards and procedural changes.
Webinar ID: 895 9844 1091    Passcode: 075656
Dial in at 1 253 215 8782  or 1 206 337 9723 

Files

Agenda Item Summary for Code Update WS 1_4_22 ( 0.09 MB )
ATT1 Council Briefing Memoorandum_1_4_22_PC_Public Hearing ( 0.77 MB )
ATT2 PC Order and Recommendation ( 0.69 MB )
ATT2 Exhibit A - Phase 1 Code Sections - Housing ( 3.44 MB )
ATT2 Exhibit B - Phase 2 Code Sections - Employment Lands ( 7.17 MB )
ATT2 Exhibit C-Other Code Sections with minor changes ( 7.67 MB )
ATT2 Exhibit D-Staff Report ( 1.86 MB )
ATT3 Community Engagement Plan ( 1.56 MB )
ATT4 Housing Code Audit ( 9.71 MB )
ATT5 Public Outreach Report ( 1.85 MB )
ATT6 Fact Sheets and FAQs combined ( 2.82 MB )
ATT7 Significant Code Change Table ( 0.71 MB )
ATT8 Development Review Process Flow Charts ( 0.64 MB )
ATT9 Maps of MDR HDR Properties combined ( 2.19 MB )

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Dear Commissioners, I thank you and the City of Springfield staff for your efforts to ease our housing crisis, and I further encourage you to support housing code amendments which remove unnecessary code barriers to more housing options for our community. I write as architect-developer of the C Street Co-op completed in Springfield last September which was perhaps the most affordable homeownership opportunity seen statewide last year ($20,000 purchase price for a one-bedroom suite, of which $10,000 was covered by down-payment assistance from the City of Springfield CDBG funding). I have attached a flyer on the C Street Co-op for reference. I see it as a social-equity imperative to expand affordable homeownership opportunities like this, and the Springfield development code will be the arbiter of that access for tens of thousands of people over the coming decades. I hope you will consider the following recommendations to this end, all of which would cost the City nothing, but rather build the tax base and contribute to the development of more socially-diverse, walkable neighborhoods. 1. Maximum density requirements penalize small houses—exactly the affordable housing the majority of Oregon households of 1-2 people need. Remove max density limits for Townhomes with footprints less than 900 sq ft, similar to the Cottage Cluster standard. Trust setbacks, building coverage limits, and solar setbacks to protect livability. 2. The rapid escalation of real estate values is driving purchases by national real estate investment trusts which threatens to convert even more of our formerly owner-occupied housing to rental housing. This trend will surely continue with middle housing development, given how much cheaper and less risky it is to build a rental fourplex rather than a condo fourplex. We must protect, and expand middle-class homeownership access by strongly encouraging owner-occupied middle housing development. Provide a 100% density bonus for 100% owner-occupied housing affordable to 100% AMI households. The owner-occupancy requirement can be incorporated as a deed restriction, or through delivery of the articles of incorporation of a condominium association or housing cooperative. Note, unlike the controversial ADU owner-occupancy requirement, this strategy provides an incentive for owner-occupancy, not a requirement. 3. Offstreet parking requirements compete with land area for housing and landscaping, and hinder a natural transition to housing densities supporting more walkable, sustainable neighborhoods. Let developers provide the amount of parking the market demands. Reduce off-street parking requirements to 0.5 per dwelling unit citywide, and remove all off-street parking requirements within a quarter mile of transit stops, or anywhere a secured electric bike parking space is provided for each unit. 4. Encourage more socially diverse neighborhoods by helping subsidized affordable middle housing development. Offer a “deeper affordability” housing density bonus providing a 100% density bonus for housing affordable to 60% AMI households. The City of Portland recently implemented a code path that supports the inclusion of Affordable Housing with new middle housing supply, and it would be a useful reference in this policy’s development. 5. Middle Housing oriented toward both the front and the side of a lot has many historic precedents. Avoid being overly restrictive with entry orientation or courtyard design requirements, especially considering the R-1 context of relatively small, previously-developed residential lots. a. Remove the requirement in 4.7.330.A.2.b.iii that the open space in front of townhomes have housing on at least two sides. b. Remove the requirement that the common courtyard of a Cottage Cluster development have housing on at least two sides of the courtyard. These changes would allow for better design options on many properties with existing homes, trees, slopes, and other opportunities such as solar access that merit consideration. Thank you for your efforts, Dylan Lamar Architect-Developer Owner, Cultivate, Inc.
January 3, 2022, 9:18 PM
Dylan Lamar
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
The following comments are in reference to the proposed changes to Section 3.2-420_Permitted Uses I support the refreshment of this code section, the existing code appears to utilize a collection of antiquated terms. The proposed new code appears to update the list of current, modern uses. I am concerned that during the refinement process a gap has been created by omission. The existing use list (3.2-410) specifically included categories with a medical,dental,orthopedic,Medicinal chemical and pharmaceutical products flavor. I would recommend a use category associated with community health/safety, first aid and EMS service.
January 1, 2022, 5:45 PM
Jim McLaughlin
4 / 7 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.