HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/10/2017
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson, DPW Staff Phone No: 541-736-7135
Estimated Time: 45 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel
while Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality ITEM TITLE: DEVELOPING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide direction on further development of Springfield’s Affordable Housing
Strategy
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the community
and is working to address this problem. The findings point to a shortage of housing and the expense of housing relative to household incomes. The supply of housing
is limited at all levels: emergency shelter, transitional housing, subsidized rental
housing, market rate rental housing, space in manufactured home parks, and homes for sale. Rental vacancy rates are very low. It is a seller’s market with a low
inventory of homes for sale. Housing costs are increasing faster than incomes.
Female-headed households, children, those on fixed incomes, and people with special needs are disproportionately affected.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The financial impact of implementation will depend on what Council ultimately
includes in the affordable housing strategy. Based on decisions of what Council
wants to achieve and the financial tools involved, staff can further analyze what resources could be utilized to foster housing choice and affordability in the short
and long term, thereby achieving the desired outcomes. By setting priorities, the
City can be focused in its efforts to improve housing affordability in the community.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 2/13/2017
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the community and
is working to address this problem. The findings point to a shortage of housing and the expense
of housing relative to household incomes. The supply of housing is limited at all levels: emergency shelter, transitional housing, subsidized rental housing, market rate rental housing,
space in manufactured home parks, and homes for sale. Rental vacancy rates are very low. It is a
seller’s market with a low inventory of homes for sale. Housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. Female-headed households, children, those on fixed incomes, and people with special
needs are disproportionately affected.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel While Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality
BACKGROUND: At its work session on February 13, Council began discussing what it wanted
to include in its affordable housing strategy, including thoughts regarding a preliminary draft
strategy. In response to a question from Council, staff has provided construction costs for tiny homes. The February Council Briefing Memo included a discussion of developer incentives
including property tax exemptions and system development charge (SDC) waivers/discounts. At Council’s request, staff has compared the multi-unit property tax exemption with the vertical housing program and presented more information about potential SDC waivers/discounts for
accessory dwelling units.
Continuing to move forward with two areas of a potential housing strategy, staff has prepared the
next steps for Council’s consideration of: (1) simplifying the regulations in the Springfield Development Code for accessory dwelling units and (2) expanding the overnight parking program.
TINY HOME CONSTRUCTION COSTS: This section responds to questions from Council
about the construction costs of the types of structures presented under different models of the Tiny Home Pilot Project in the February 13 Council Briefing Memorandum. What follows is a
range of “tiny” homes and relative costs, excluding permitting costs and land development costs.
The homes on the first page do not include interior plumbing. The homes on the second page include a bathroom and a kitchen.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 16
Consetoga Huts The Conestoga Huts built by Community Supported
Shelter currently cost about $2000. Standard huts are 6’ x 13.5’. Huts to accommodate wheelchairs are 7’ x 16’ plus a ramp.
Eugene Rest Stop Program
Opportunity Village Structures built for Opportunity Village range in
size from 8’ x 8’ to 8’ x 10’. Cost of materials is around $1500. Labor, with a lot of volunteer help, has cost about $1500 for a total of $3000 each.
Opportunity Village November Work Party
https://www.facebook.com/OpportunityVillageEugene/photos
Sleeping Pods
The sleeping pods have footprints of between 6’ x
8’ and 8’ x 12’. The cost of materials ranged from $1600 to $7000 with an average of $4500.
Sleeping pods built by architects & students in Portland
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/slideshows/2017/1/26/these-sleeping-pods-provide-safety-and-warmth-for-portland-s-
homeless
Shelter on Wheels
This 8’ x 12’ structure includes electrical wiring
per the recreational vehicle code and therefore includes lighting and heat. The trailer cost $2500,
materials were $5200, labor $4800, and wiring
$1600 for a total of $14,100.
Built by Alexander Daniell of Backyard Bungalows for
Episcopal Church of the Resurrection
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 16
Micro Home This single-wide manufactured home built with
HUD approvals has one bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen in 373 square feet (32’ x 12’). It costs $19,900 excluding delivery and placement.
https://factoryexpo.net/floorplan/micro/
Emerald Village in Eugene Permanent homes meeting building codes that
include sleeping areas, a kitchenette and a bathroom planned for Emerald Village range in size from 160 to 288 square feet. The cost for
materials for the one designed by Emerald Valley is $15,000. The tiny homes in general are anticipated to cost about $25,000 each.
Park Model This top of the line park model of 832 square feet
has one bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen and a loft.
It costs $55,000, excluding freight. The Building Codes Division is changing how these are regulated
through a rulemaking process.
Cavco Park Model
http://parkmodels.com/northwest/
Small House/ADU Example A small site built home costs between $125 to
$175 per square feet for materials and labor. The difference depends on the quality of materials, and whether or not a loft and built-in features are
included. A 384 square foot house like the one shown below may range from $48,000 to $67,000.
http://smallhomeoregon.net/wp-content/
uploads/2013/10/SmallHome-1-e13344806018561.jpg
COMPARISON OF THE VERTICAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION: Included below is an analysis of the Vertical Housing Development Program (VHDP) and the Multi Unit Property Exemption (MUPTE) as tools for
incentivizing development of multi-unit housing. Both programs attempt to focus development within the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 16
urban core and within close proximity to transit, but differ in their program structure, the type of
developments incentivized and the rate of exemption. Outlined on the next page is a comparison of these
two programs and how they incentivize development. If the Council has interest in considering these options further staff can bring back more detailed case studies.
Since our last Council work session on this topic staff discovered that the City already has language in Chapter 3.5 of the municipal code implementing state statute providing a property tax exemption for low
income housing projects that could be used for projects which are near the end of their affordability period. If Council wishes to use this existing code section to allow exemptions for new construction of low-income rental housing, Council would first need to update the municipal code to reflect current
statutes. Summary Table Key Components VHDP (Vertical Housing Development Program) MUPTE (Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption)
Zone creation process
City applies to Oregon Housing
and Community Services
(OHCS)
City adopts resolution or
ordinance
Criteria for zone creation
Must be Downtown or a mixed use area (Riverbend, Mohawk,
Marcola Meadows, or
Glenwood).
Must be core area of urban center or transit oriented area; or could
be entire City for low-income
housing projects
Development guidelines
Managed by OHCS City develops and administers based on minimum criteria set forth by State. City requires
public benefits and may set design standards.
Building and/or property exempted
Only the equalized* floors in the building unless rents are set
below market rate - then land is
included
Entire building including parking and commercial space. If
addition or expansion then only
the additional value is exempted.
Commercial space required Commercial ground floor is required May include commercial space
Primarily meant to incent
Mixed used commercial-residential (either market rate or
low income)
Multi-unit housing (either market rate or low income) that may
include commercial
Applicable taxing districts
Includes all taxing districts but
all are given the option of opting out
Includes all taxing districts only if
51% opt in
Jurisdiction responsible for administration
Oregon Housing and Community Services
(currently)
City of Springfield
Tax exemption amount
20% per equalized* floor up to
80%
Only City tax levy on
improvements unless 51% or more other districts opt in, then
100%
Term of exemption 10 years 10 years
*Equalized floor refers to the quotient that results from the division of total sq ft of a project by the number of actual floors of the project that are at least 500 sq ft
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 16
Program Summary:
Vertical Housing Development Program The Vertical Housing Development Program (VHDP) is administered by the Oregon Housing and
Community Services agency (OHCS). The program encourages mixed-use developments that contain
both commercial and residential uses in areas designated by local jurisdictions. The rents for the residential portion may be set at market rates or be set below market for lower income households.
Qualifying projects receive a partial property tax exemption up to a maximum of 80% over a 10 year term.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Local jurisdictions are enabled to establish a Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to promote private investment in multi-unit and affordable housing located in core areas, light rail station areas and
transit oriented areas. The program shall be established and administered by the local jurisdiction who, within the parameters of applicable legislation, can tailor the program to their needs. The exemption applies only to the tax levy of the originating city or county, but through concurrence of other taxing
districts can apply to the ad valorem taxes of all taxing districts. The tax exemption is provided over a 10 year term.
Zone creation and project eligibility:
Vertical Housing Development Program
Cities and counties apply to OHCS to establish a zone (targeted area) where mixed use developments can be built and receive the partial property tax exemption. The zone must meet certain criteria including
“contains property for which land use comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances allow ’mixed
use’ with residential.”
Once the zone is established, the authority to decide what projects are eligible to receive the partial property tax exemption resides solely with OHCS. It should be noted that there is state legislation being considered that would shift some administrative authority to the local jurisdiction. Any private or public
developer can apply to the OHCS for project certification and once approved OHCS notifies the county assessor to apply the exemption.
The City of Springfield has one Vertical Housing Zone in downtown and one certified project receiving the partial property tax exemption – the Royal Building.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program Through resolution or ordinance cities and counties may specify an area within which to exempt property
taxes on eligible housing projects. The City may designate core areas, light rail station areas and transit
oriented corridors, or the entire City for projects that are subject to a low income housing assistance contract with a public agency.
Once the area is designated, the local jurisdiction is responsible for accepting applications, evaluating proposals, and either approving or denying the exemption based on locally established standards and
criteria set forth in statute. The local standards must include information sufficient to evaluate the conformance of the application
with the intent of the program. At the minimum, applicants will include information about the existing site and uses, design elements, rental rates or sales prices, extension of public benefits, minimum number of units and, if applicable, information related to low income housing assistance contracts. It is at the
discretion of local jurisdictions to add additional standards/guidelines.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 16
Projects must also include one or more design or public benefit elements such as commercial use of a
portion of the structure, open space, parks and recreational facilities, common meeting rooms, child care
facilities, or transit/pedestrian amenities. Projects must also be in conformance with local plans and planning regulation.
Amount of property tax exemption:
Vertical Housing Development Program
Certified projects can receive a tax exemption equal to 20% of each “equalized floor” up to 80% maximum (equivalent of 4 floors). Projects are required to have ground floor commercial in an amount
determined by the number of public streets that front the property (specific details are found in the Oregon Administrative Rules governing the program). If rents are set at market rates, the owner can only receive the property tax exemption based on the “equalized floors” in the building. However, if the rents
are set below market and meet OHCS’s criteria, the land may also receive a partial property tax exemption up to 80%.
Before the City can submit its application for the zone designation, certain special taxing districts must be notified and given the opportunity to “opt out” of the program so that their levies are not impacted by the
property tax exemption.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program The tax exemption under this program applies only to the tax levy of the city or county that has adopted
the appropriate statutory provisions. However, with resolution of concurrence from governing bodies of at least 51% or more of the total combined rate of taxation on the property, all taxing districts projects will
be exempted from all applicable ad valorem taxes for a term of 10 years.
The exemption cannot include the land on which the development is built but may include parking
constructed as part of the project and the value of commercial property that is a required design element or public benefit component of the housing development.
If the development involves the improvement or conversion of an existing structure either to add dwelling units or to convert from a non-housing to a housing use than only the increased value associated with the addition or conversion may be exempted.
Conclusion:
The two programs share a common intention of attempting to promote the development of transit-served multi-unit housing located in the urban core or mixed use areas. There are sufficient differences between
the programs to affect the type and volume of development resulting from their use.
MUPTE would seem to have an advantage in that it empowers local jurisdictions with the ability to
develop a program that can be adjusted, within statutory constraints, to meet local needs and incent
development based on local interests. Under MUPTE, local jurisdictions are required to develop program guidelines and evaluation criteria that focus the type of development and applications that are approved.
Approval/denial authority under MUPTE would be held by the local jurisdiction while under VHDP that authority would be held by the State.
The two programs may produce developments with different physical characteristic and uses. The VHDP
could incent taller structures since the rate of exemption increases as the height of the building increases and VHDP requires a commercial use on the ground floor which cannot be included in the exemption
while MUPTE allows but does not require a commercial use.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 16
With MUPTE, the rate of exemption and potentially its ability to incent development relies on other
jurisdictions opting in to the program. Thus the city’s ability to partner with other taxing jurisdictions
should be taken into account.
The ability of each program to incent below market rate development could differ depending on the
circumstances surrounding the project. In some cases VHDP could have additional leverage to incent below market rate housing as the value of land is exempted for low income housing projects while
MUPTE cannot exempt land value in any case. MUPTE could have an advantage in that the entire City may be designated as the area eligible for exemption for housing that is or becomes subject to a low income housing assistance contract with a public agency.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE WAIVERS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS:
System development charge (SDC) waivers and discounts (hereafter referred to generally as waivers) are part of a larger strategy to promote infill and stimulate the development of additional, affordable housing units in Springfield. Given the examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) already permitted in the
City presented in the February Council Briefing Memo, the construction value-to-SDC ratio is typically higher than the ratio for single family dwellings or multifamily apartments. The cost per square foot to
build an ADU is typically higher than a standard single family dwelling. Minimizing fixtures and limiting
the square footage of a dwelling are some methods to reducing SDC costs, but they are not enough to bring the construction value-to-SDC ratio close to the ratio a single family dwelling. To limit the
percentage of development costs for ADUs, SDC waivers or discounts may be an option to bring down a
potential cost burden and encourage new units.
SDC waivers may appeal to homeowners looking for cost effective ways to build fully permitted ADUs. SDC waivers would promote the development of legally permitted ADUs in the City, and would involve inspections to the benefit of the homeowner, residents, and public safety.
Homeowners looking to convert spare rooms to an ADU may also be encouraged by an SDC waiver. Converting to an ADU increases the supply of dwellings. Additionally, adding an ADU increases the
property value of the home through a conversion of a spare room to a rentable unit. An SDC waiver in combination with other efforts may stimulate construction of these small and relatively
affordable housing options in Springfield.
SDC Waiver options for a pilot program:
If the City Council chooses an SDC waiver to stimulate ADU development and promote these housing
units in Springfield, a targeted waiver effort will be required. As part of a pilot program, the City may
decide to determine a dollar amount cap and/or a limited time period for waivers based on the waiver strategy the City Council chooses. Each SDC waiver option below would result in some level of reduced
SDC revenue, assuming that the units would have been constructed anyway. It may be that by
discounting the SDCs, there will still be more SDC revenue collected overall. All options assume a construction value of $67,000 for a new ADU (see example of a Small House/ADU example on page 3 of
this memo) and SDCs of $9,200, a construction value-to-SDC ratio of 14%. The expected SDC revenue for FY 17 is shown below to help gauge the impact of SDC waivers or
discounts. Transportation = $795,000
Sanitary sewer = $920.000 Storm drainage = $300,000
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 16
Options for Reducing the SDCs for a Typical ADU
No
Waivers CITY Discounts or Waivers ALL Jurisdictions
Provide Discounts or Waivers
Option 1:
Option 2:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount city sewer
Option 3:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount transpo&
city sewer
Option 4:
Waive all city SDCs
except transpo
Option 5:
Waive all city SDCs
Option 6:
10% ratio with
discount applied to ALL
SDCs
Option 7:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount ALL other
SDCs
Option 8:
Waive ALL
SDCs
Construction value $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000
SDCs normally charged $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200
Actual Paid with Discount $9,200 $8057 $7,610 $5,849 $3,462 $6,700 $6,917 $0
# ADUs helped with $100,000 of city subsidy 0 87 63 30 18 63 63 17
Ratio construction value to SDCs paid 14% 12% 11% 9% 5% 10% 10% 0%
Revenue loss per ADU
City admin - $273 $273 $273 $273 $174 $273 $273
City transportation - - $477 - $2,387 $648 $477 $2,387
City sanitary sewer - $552 $522 $2,760 $2,760 $750 $522 $2,760
City storm - $318 $318 $318 $318 $86 $318 $318
MWMC - - - - - $479 $353 $1,764
Willamalane - - - - - $461 $340 $1,698
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 16
Option 1 This option assumes no waivers or discounts. It serves as a comparison for the other options.
Option 2 This option limits impact to the city capital funds by limiting the waiver to the administration and
stormwater SDCs and providing a 20% discount on the city’s sanitary sewer SDC.
Option 3 This option uses a combination of a waiver of the administrative and stormwater SDCs and a 20% discount of the city’s sanitary sewer and transportation SDCs.
Option 4 This option waives all the city’s SDCs except those for transportation given the need for street
improvements. This option reduces the SDC cost to just under 10% of the construction value of the ADU.
Option 5 This option involves the city waiving all its SDCs. In a typical case, the cost of SDCs would be about 5%
of the construction value of the ADU.
Option 6 With this option, a homeowner would pay a maximum of 10% of the construction value of the ADU. In
the example presented, the construction value of the ADU is $67,000 so the SDCs would be $6,700. If the construction value of the ADU is $40,000, then the SDCs would be $4,000. The City would reduce
amount collected for each SDC on a proportional basis. This option would require participation of our regional partners, MWMC and Willamalane.
Option 7 This option is similar to Option 3 except MWMC and Willamalane both agree to discount the SDCs by
20%. In a typical case, the SDCs would be about 20% of the construction value of the ADU. Option 8
This option provides a waiver of all SDCs.
ENCOURAGING ADUS BY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE: One aspect of Council’s emerging affordable housing strategy is the encouragement of accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). ADUs:
Increase the number and type of affordable housing units without consuming land in the city’s
limited inventory of developable land. In particular, they increase the supply of small rental units
which is where the rental market is currently the tightest.
Increase density in existing neighborhoods, taking advantage of existing infrastructure
Create opportunities for intergenerational living, on-site caretakers, and students
Diversify the demographics of an existing neighborhood
Provide financial benefit to the property owner
Trigger economic development at a local scale through local builders/contractors There are several ways in which Council can encourage construction of ADUs. One is by simplifying the
regulations in the Springfield Development Code. Another is by discounting the System Development
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 16
Charges (SDCs). This portion of the Council Briefing Memo presents potential code amendments based
on previous Council comments along with staff commentary. Council members have questioned:
1. Why the city doesn’t allow ADUs in medium density zoning areas such as the area of the Q Street Refinement Plan
2. The need for requiring additional parking on the site if parking is available
3. The need for a minimum ADU size of 300 square feet 4. The need to require that trim on an ADU match the trim of the main house
5. If the city could allow an RV with axels removed as an ADU In addition to those topics, staff has also identified potential amendments that may also help to encourage ADUs.
6. Allow a small house to become the ADU 7. Allow larger ADUs in proportion to the primary dwelling 8. Allow unpaved parking in some cases
9. No longer require that the owner live in one of the dwellings A review of relevant policies sets the stage for discussion of ADUs. Then a series of questions focus the
discussion. Based on Council’s direction, staff will prepare a set of code amendments for Council to initiate at a future meeting. Initiating the amendments starts the process to solicit public comments and
hold public hearings to find out how Springfield citizens view ADUs.
City Policies Relevant to ADUs:
The following policies from the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element set the context and legal framework for any potential development code amendments
related to ADUs in general.
Policy H.6 - Continue to seek ways to reduce development impediments to more efficient utilization of
the residential land supply inside the UGB, especially in the City’s sloped areas (southeast Springfield and Willamette Heights).
Policy Analysis
This policy supports making code amendments that reduce impediments to the construction of ADUs since ADUs add dwelling units on property that has already been developed. This
efficiency in land use and infrastructure has the potential to provide more housing without needing to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB).
Policy H.9- Provide a broad range of quality accessible and affordable housing options for very low, low and moderate income residents. Affordable housing is defined as housing for which persons or families
pay 30 percent or less of their gross income for housing, including necessary and essential utilities
[Oregon Revised Statute 456.055].
Policy Analysis
The data analysis completed as part of developing an affordable housing strategy indicated that vacancy rates for rentals are very low and that the waiting lists are longest for the one-bedroom
and studio units. Based on the American Community Survey, in 2013, 53% of Springfield renters paid more than 30% of their gross income for housing, including necessary and essential utilities. Accessory dwelling units have the potential to provide additional housing options for these
smaller units which by size tend to be more affordable to those with low and moderate incomes.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 16
Policy H.11 - Continue to seek ways to update development standards to introduce a variety of housing
options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas that match the
changing demographics and lifestyles of Springfield residents.
Policy Analysis
ADUs add another rental housing option to those with low to moderate incomes in existing neighborhoods. These ADUs create opportunities for income generation that may be particularly
useful for retirees, particularly as Springfield’s population continues to age. They also provide opportunities for seniors to age in place by allowing for on-site caretakers. ADUs allow for intergenerational living, students, and provide an alternative housing option for people wanting to
remain in their neighborhood even if their life circumstances change. Policy H.15 - Update residential development standards to enhance the quality and affordability of
neighborhood infill development (e.g. partitions, duplex developments, transitional neighborhoods, rehab housing, accessory dwelling units) and multi-family development.
Policy Analysis ADUs are a type of infill development. Council will make decisions on code amendments as it
balances the need to enhance the quality of the neighborhood while also providing affordability.
Questions for Council:
Question 1: Should Springfield allow accessory dwelling units in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zones?
A. Continue to limit ADUs to the LDR zones. Preserve the MDR for higher density developments. B. Allow ADUs in the MDR zones. Adding ADUs to existing single-family dwellings increases
densities. C. Allow ADUs in the MDR zones on lots of 6250 square feet or less. Two dwellings on a lot of 6250 square feet or less meets the minimum density requirement for the MDR zone.
Currently, ADUs are only allowed in low density residential zones with the exclusion of the Washburne Historic District. Council asked about allowing ADUs in MDR zones. According to Section 3.2-205 of
the Development Code, the Medium Density Residential District establishes sites for residential development where primarily multifamily dwellings are permitted and the density range is 14 to 28 dwelling units per net acre.
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policy H.1 - Based on the findings in the Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis and to
accommodate projected growth between 2010 and 2030, Springfield has designated sufficient buildable residential land
(a) for at least 5,920 new dwelling units at an estimated density of at least 7.9 units per net
buildable acre; and (b) to accommodate a new dwelling mix of approximately 52 percent detached single family
dwellings (including manufactured dwellings on individual lots), seven percent attached single-family dwellings, one percent manufactured dwellings in parks, and 40 percent multifamily dwellings.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Policy G.7-Services providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal development.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 16
Policy Analysis
As stated in Policy H.1, the assumption of the Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was that 40% of Springfield’s new dwelling units would be multi-family. The Needs Analysis
assumed that those would be constructed on land designated Medium Density Residential and
High Density Residential. It also assumed that all new single-family homes would be constructed on land designated Low Density Residential, although single-family homes (both detached and
attached) are allowed within the MDR zone. The Needs Analysis assumed that 5% of developed lots would develop further or redevelop to include additional dwellings. Between 1999 and 2008, 70% of the new dwellings that were added to already developed lots were added to lots
designated MDR.1If there is an existing single family house on a larger lot, it is anticipated that someday that property may redevelop into more dense housing. Allowing the property owner to improve the value of the property by constructing one ADU may delay that ultimate conversion
to medium density; thereby increasing pressure on the city’s remaining supply of buildable land. However, allowing ADUs in those situations would provide more dwelling units and somewhat increase density in the short term.
Another consideration is that the public facilities and services plan and resulting capital
improvement plans are based on the densities allowed by the plan designations. Policy G.7
(among others) requires that service providers coordinate the provision of facilities and services to match the densities allowed by the plan designations. It is important that the densities achieved
match the level of investment made in the infrastructure constructed to serve those facilities.
Undersizing infrastructure limits the ability of the land to develop to planned densities. Oversizing infrastructure means the public has paid more than necessary to serve the
development. Question 2: Should Springfield require on-site parking for the ADU? A. Require one on-site parking space for the ADU. B. Require an on-site parking space only if there is no on-street parking available adjacent to the property.
C. Require no on-site parking for the ADU. Currently, the code requires one on-site parking space in addition to the two parking spaces required for
the primary dwelling. Council discussed making it easier to fit an ADU on the lot and reducing the cost to construct an ADU by eliminating the parking requirements.
Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan Policy 2.6 Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and turnover for
surrounding land uses.
Policy Analysis
The question becomes, how much on-site parking is enough?
Requiring on-site parking for the ADU makes sure there is space on-site to accommodate
residents’ cars (based on two cars per standard single-family dwelling and one car for an ADU). Any on-street parking would be available for those households with additional vehicles, for delivery vehicles, and visitors. Not requiring on-site parking for the ADU means that residents
and visitors with cars must park on the street if the parking spaces for the primary dwelling are
unavailable.
1 Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, April 2011, page 19
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 16
While on-street parking is in theory available to anyone, residents tend to get possessive of on-
street parking and become upset if they are unable to find an available parking space near their home. In some cases, people will park illegally, blocking the sidewalk or a fire lane rather than
park down the street or on another street. The city could help to prevent this type of problem by
requiring on-site parking rather than relying on parking enforcement efforts.
However, as we’re making efforts to make our city pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly and with Lane Transit District providing bus service, not every household will necessarily choose to have a car. Requiring a parking space on-site then becomes an unnecessary burden on the
property owner. The other factor to consider is that not all streets have on-street parking. Collectors and arterial
streets as well as some narrow local streets do not provide on-street parking at all or limit it to one side of the street. In these cases, the provision of parking is shifted almost exclusively to the property owners as the public street is not accommodating the parking.
Question 3: Should the Council eliminate the minimum size for an ADU? A. Yes, eliminate the minimum size for an ADU.
B. No, keep the minimum size at 300 square feet.
With the growing popularity of “tiny homes”, some people may want to construct an ADU smaller than
300 square feet. Question 4: Should ADUs be required to meet any design standards?
A. No, eliminate design standards for ADUs. B. Yes, leave the design standards intact.
C. Yes, but there should be some changes to the design standards. The following design standards are currently required for ADUs.
An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards, where practicable:
A. Exterior finish materials shall be the same or essentially the same in terms of type, size,
placement and finish as the primary dwelling.
B. Roof pitch shall match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.
C. Trim shall be the same in type, location and finish as the primary dwelling.
D. Windows shall match those of the primary dwelling in terms of proportion (height and
width ratio) and orientation (vertical vs. horizontal).
E. Eaves shall project from the accessory dwelling unit addition the same distance as the
eaves on the primary dwelling.
Eliminating these design standards would reduce regulation and simplify the approval process.
Question 5: Should the city allow structures other than those that are site-built or modular? A. No, only allow site-built or modular buildings as ADUs.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 16
B. Yes, allow small manufactured homes
C. Yes, allow any temporary dwelling that arrives on wheels to be sited as an ADU.
Staff has concerns with allowing any temporary dwelling as an ADU since the city receives a number of
complaints of people living in RVs parked on lots in neighborhoods. Past efforts in Springfield have
focused on improving the look and feel of neighborhood areas. While allowing people to live in RVs would help address the affordable housing problem, it may be perceived as having a negative impact on
the gains made in the quality of development. The “tiny home” movement has prompted changes to rules at the state level in the Building Codes
Division. The Division passed temporary rules in January and is in a permanent rule-making process to redefine recreational vehicles and to determine how best to regulate “tiny homes”. Given these changes to building codes and on-going discussions in the building codes community about “temporary” versus
“permanent”, staff recommends waiting to make related changes to the Springfield Development Code until after the permanent rulemaking has been completed.
It is possible to allow small manufactured homes as ADUs without getting into questions about “temporary versus permanent”. The Development Code defines as Type 2 Manufactured Home as having
less than 1000 square feet and enclosing a minimum floor area of 500 square feet. (A Type 1
Manufactured Home encloses a minimum floor area of 1000 square feet.) The City could reduce the minimum size allowed only for ADUs to allow homes even smaller than 500 square feet.
Question 6: Should Springfield allow a small house to become the ADU and then build a second dwelling on the property as the primary dwelling? A. Yes, allow conversion of an existing dwelling as an ADU.
B. No, do not allow conversion of an existing dwelling as an ADU.
There are a few small houses on relatively large lots in Springfield’s older neighborhoods. This change allows those small houses to become the “ADU” and to construct a larger house on the property to serve as the primary dwelling.
Question 7: How big can the accessory dwelling be in comparison with the primary dwelling? A. Keep the proportion to a maximum of 40% of the primary dwelling (excluding garages).
B. The accessory dwelling should just be smaller than the primary dwelling (excluding garages). C. The accessory dwelling should be ____% smaller than the primary dwelling.
The current code limits the size of the ADU to 40% of the primary dwelling or 750 square feet, whichever is smaller. Given the small size of some houses in the older neighborhoods, limiting the size of the ADU
to 40% of the primary dwelling may be unnecessarily restrictive. But if it is built at the same size, it
could become like a duplex.
Question 8: Is it OK to allow an unpaved (e.g. gravel) parking space if the driveway serving the
parking space is at least 18 feet long measured from the property line? A. Yes, parking spaces do not have to be paved if they are at the end of a paved driveway at least 18 feet
long B. No, all parking spaces must be paved.
The code currently requires one paved, off-street parking space for the ADU, in addition to the spaces
required for the primary house. One way that the city could reduce on-site parking costs is by allowing gravel or other types of unpaved parking. If on-site parking is constructed toward the interior of the lot
(with a paved driveway at least 18’ long), then the parking space itself would not need to be paved. The
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 16
main concern about requiring pavement is so that the cars are not bringing gravel across a sidewalk or
onto the street. Gravel becomes a hazard to pedestrian and bicyclists in the public right-of-way. Gravel
also causes damage to the street surface, shortening the life of the pavement. Having an 18 foot long paved surface before a gravel parking space greatly reduces the “drag” of gravel into the public right-of-
way.
Question 9: Should one of the dwelling units be owner-occupied? A. Yes, the property owner shall reside on the property and a deed restriction shall state all future owners shall also reside on the property. B. Yes, at the time of construction of the ADU, the property owner must reside on the property.
However, the city will not require that the owner continue to reside on the property so no deed restriction would be required. C. No, the property owner does not need to reside on the property.
This code provision addresses potential neighborhood concerns about maintaining home ownership in the neighborhood. This current code provision requiring the owner to live on the property is difficult to
enforce after the ADU has been constructed. In cases where both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit become rentals, if there is a complaint from the neighbor, code enforcement is in the
position of requiring both households to move off the property unless the owner returns to live in the
property. Or, the owner would have to remove the ADU. OVERNIGHT PARKING PROGRAM: The City allows up to three vehicles to be used as outdoor overnight shelter at an approved site (church parking lot or industrial site) per Chapter 8 of the Municipal
Code. At this time, there are six churches participating in this program providing a total of 12 spaces.
Three churches (6 spaces) serve families with children who are currently participating in the G Street OASIS program.
Partners:
St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) For three years, the City has contracted with SVDP to operate the overnight parking program, including identifying, screening and working with individuals for placement, coordinating trash and port-o-potty
services at each site, and addressing site and/or personnel issues. Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA)
The SSRA would like to see the overnight parking program expand and aims to conduct outreach to churches and industrial property owners to identify additional sites.
G Street OASIS OASIS has started to help place participating families in current church sites, and has connected with
additional churches that are supportive of hosting families in need. While this would be an expanded role
for the OASIS program, OASIS staff view the overnight parking program as a stabilizing resource for their clients. SVDP and OASIS staff plan to work together to address any concerns or issues with sites
where families are placed. City role:
The City authorizes the overnight parking program, provides base funding and contracts with SVDP to supervise the program, and serves as a resource to SVDP, churches, SSRA and others with questions
about the objectives and requirements of the program.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 16
Current costs:
The City has allocated $5,000 annually from the general fund to reimburse SVDP for costs to operate the program within the City of Springfield, specifically:
background checks
urine analysis for drug testing
port-o-potty rentals; and
garbage pickup costs.
The City has not reimbursed SVDP for staff time and SVDP has absorbed any reimbursable costs exceeding the $5000 cap.
As shown in the table below, the direct costs are approximately $1,200 per site. With six sites, it is estimated that those costs will exceed what is currently allocated:
Estimated Costs for Outdoor Overnight Shelter Program Type of Expenses Annual Cost per Site Annual cost for six (6) sites
Background checks, urine analysis,
port-o-potty costs, and garbage pickup
$1,200 $7,200
Costs to manage the program
(including staff time, gas)
N/A $2,100
TOTAL costs $9,300
Costs to exceed $5,000 allocation $4,300
Per the current contract, SVDP’s staff time is NOT an eligible category of reimbursement. Staff with
SVDP cite this is a reason they are not able to conduct outreach with other church and industrial sites, and are currently limited in how much they can engage with current clients. Given the numbers of homeless
people living in Springfield, SVDP staff support the expansion of the car camping program in Springfield,
but would like future contracts to include sufficient resources to cover all direct costs and include an allowance for staff time.
Fiscal options for car camping program Allocation Impact
Maintain $5,000 annual
allocation Pays for the hard costs of four (4) sites
Does not pay for SVDP staff time to manage the program
Partners and churches will need to pick up difference in costs
Increase to $10,000
annually Pays for the hard costs of six (6) sites
Pays for SVDP staff time to manage the program
Partners and churches will need to pick up costs for any additional
sites
Increase to $20,000
annually Pays for the hard costs of up to fourteen (14) sites
Pays for staff time to manage the program
Could help purchase Conestoga Huts for clients without vehicles
Partners and churches will need to pick up costs for any additional
sites or Huts
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction on the topics presented to assist in further development of Springfield’s Affordable Housing Strategy.
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 16
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 2/13/2017
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Anette Spickard, DPW Director
Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: Developing an Affordable Housing Strategy MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City recognizes that there is an affordable housing issue within the community and
is working to address this problem. The findings point to a shortage of housing and the expense
of housing relative to household incomes. The supply of housing is limited at all levels: emergency shelter, transitional housing, subsidized rental housing, market rate rental housing,
space in manufactured home parks, and homes for sale. Rental vacancy rates are very low. It is a
seller’s market with a low inventory of homes for sale. Housing costs are increasing faster than incomes. Female-headed households, children, those on fixed incomes, and people with special
needs are disproportionately affected.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel While Focusing on Livability and Environmental Quality
BACKGROUND: At its work session on February 13, Council began discussing what it wanted
to include in its affordable housing strategy, including thoughts regarding a preliminary draft
strategy. In response to a question from Council, staff has provided construction costs for tiny homes. The February Council Briefing Memo included a discussion of developer incentives
including property tax exemptions and system development charge (SDC) waivers/discounts. At Council’s request, staff has compared the multi-unit property tax exemption with the vertical housing program and presented more information about potential SDC waivers/discounts for
accessory dwelling units.
Continuing to move forward with two areas of a potential housing strategy, staff has prepared the
next steps for Council’s consideration of: (1) simplifying the regulations in the Springfield Development Code for accessory dwelling units and (2) expanding the overnight parking program.
TINY HOME CONSTRUCTION COSTS: This section responds to questions from Council
about the construction costs of the types of structures presented under different models of the Tiny Home Pilot Project in the February 13 Council Briefing Memorandum. What follows is a
range of “tiny” homes and relative costs, excluding permitting costs and land development costs.
The homes on the first page do not include interior plumbing. The homes on the second page include a bathroom and a kitchen.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 16
Consetoga Huts The Conestoga Huts built by Community Supported
Shelter currently cost about $2000. Standard huts are 6’ x 13.5’. Huts to accommodate wheelchairs are 7’ x 16’ plus a ramp.
Eugene Rest Stop Program
Opportunity Village Structures built for Opportunity Village range in
size from 8’ x 8’ to 8’ x 10’. Cost of materials is around $1500. Labor, with a lot of volunteer help, has cost about $1500 for a total of $3000 each.
Opportunity Village November Work Party
https://www.facebook.com/OpportunityVillageEugene/photos
Sleeping Pods
The sleeping pods have footprints of between 6’ x
8’ and 8’ x 12’. The cost of materials ranged from $1600 to $7000 with an average of $4500.
Sleeping pods built by architects & students in Portland
https://www.pdxmonthly.com/slideshows/2017/1/26/these-sleeping-pods-provide-safety-and-warmth-for-portland-s-
homeless
Shelter on Wheels
This 8’ x 12’ structure includes electrical wiring
per the recreational vehicle code and therefore includes lighting and heat. The trailer cost $2500,
materials were $5200, labor $4800, and wiring
$1600 for a total of $14,100.
Built by Alexander Daniell of Backyard Bungalows for
Episcopal Church of the Resurrection
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 16
Micro Home This single-wide manufactured home built with
HUD approvals has one bedroom, a bathroom, and a kitchen in 373 square feet (32’ x 12’). It costs $19,900 excluding delivery and placement.
https://factoryexpo.net/floorplan/micro/
Emerald Village in Eugene Permanent homes meeting building codes that
include sleeping areas, a kitchenette and a bathroom planned for Emerald Village range in size from 160 to 288 square feet. The cost for
materials for the one designed by Emerald Valley is $15,000. The tiny homes in general are anticipated to cost about $25,000 each.
Park Model This top of the line park model of 832 square feet
has one bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen and a loft.
It costs $55,000, excluding freight. The Building Codes Division is changing how these are regulated
through a rulemaking process.
Cavco Park Model
http://parkmodels.com/northwest/
Small House/ADU Example A small site built home costs between $125 to
$175 per square feet for materials and labor. The difference depends on the quality of materials, and whether or not a loft and built-in features are
included. A 384 square foot house like the one shown below may range from $48,000 to $67,000.
http://smallhomeoregon.net/wp-content/
uploads/2013/10/SmallHome-1-e13344806018561.jpg
COMPARISON OF THE VERTICAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION: Included below is an analysis of the Vertical Housing Development Program (VHDP) and the Multi Unit Property Exemption (MUPTE) as tools for
incentivizing development of multi-unit housing. Both programs attempt to focus development within the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 16
urban core and within close proximity to transit, but differ in their program structure, the type of
developments incentivized and the rate of exemption. Outlined on the next page is a comparison of these
two programs and how they incentivize development. If the Council has interest in considering these options further staff can bring back more detailed case studies.
Since our last Council work session on this topic staff discovered that the City already has language in Chapter 3.5 of the municipal code implementing state statute providing a property tax exemption for low
income housing projects that could be used for projects which are near the end of their affordability period. If Council wishes to use this existing code section to allow exemptions for new construction of low-income rental housing, Council would first need to update the municipal code to reflect current
statutes. Summary Table Key Components VHDP (Vertical Housing Development Program) MUPTE (Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption)
Zone creation process
City applies to Oregon Housing
and Community Services
(OHCS)
City adopts resolution or
ordinance
Criteria for zone creation
Must be Downtown or a mixed use area (Riverbend, Mohawk,
Marcola Meadows, or
Glenwood).
Must be core area of urban center or transit oriented area; or could
be entire City for low-income
housing projects
Development guidelines
Managed by OHCS City develops and administers based on minimum criteria set forth by State. City requires
public benefits and may set design standards.
Building and/or property exempted
Only the equalized* floors in the building unless rents are set
below market rate - then land is
included
Entire building including parking and commercial space. If
addition or expansion then only
the additional value is exempted.
Commercial space required Commercial ground floor is required May include commercial space
Primarily meant to incent
Mixed used commercial-residential (either market rate or
low income)
Multi-unit housing (either market rate or low income) that may
include commercial
Applicable taxing districts
Includes all taxing districts but
all are given the option of opting out
Includes all taxing districts only if
51% opt in
Jurisdiction responsible for administration
Oregon Housing and Community Services
(currently)
City of Springfield
Tax exemption amount
20% per equalized* floor up to
80%
Only City tax levy on
improvements unless 51% or more other districts opt in, then
100%
Term of exemption 10 years 10 years
*Equalized floor refers to the quotient that results from the division of total sq ft of a project by the number of actual floors of the project that are at least 500 sq ft
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 16
Program Summary:
Vertical Housing Development Program The Vertical Housing Development Program (VHDP) is administered by the Oregon Housing and
Community Services agency (OHCS). The program encourages mixed-use developments that contain
both commercial and residential uses in areas designated by local jurisdictions. The rents for the residential portion may be set at market rates or be set below market for lower income households.
Qualifying projects receive a partial property tax exemption up to a maximum of 80% over a 10 year term.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Local jurisdictions are enabled to establish a Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) to promote private investment in multi-unit and affordable housing located in core areas, light rail station areas and
transit oriented areas. The program shall be established and administered by the local jurisdiction who, within the parameters of applicable legislation, can tailor the program to their needs. The exemption applies only to the tax levy of the originating city or county, but through concurrence of other taxing
districts can apply to the ad valorem taxes of all taxing districts. The tax exemption is provided over a 10 year term.
Zone creation and project eligibility:
Vertical Housing Development Program
Cities and counties apply to OHCS to establish a zone (targeted area) where mixed use developments can be built and receive the partial property tax exemption. The zone must meet certain criteria including
“contains property for which land use comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances allow ’mixed
use’ with residential.”
Once the zone is established, the authority to decide what projects are eligible to receive the partial property tax exemption resides solely with OHCS. It should be noted that there is state legislation being considered that would shift some administrative authority to the local jurisdiction. Any private or public
developer can apply to the OHCS for project certification and once approved OHCS notifies the county assessor to apply the exemption.
The City of Springfield has one Vertical Housing Zone in downtown and one certified project receiving the partial property tax exemption – the Royal Building.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program Through resolution or ordinance cities and counties may specify an area within which to exempt property
taxes on eligible housing projects. The City may designate core areas, light rail station areas and transit
oriented corridors, or the entire City for projects that are subject to a low income housing assistance contract with a public agency.
Once the area is designated, the local jurisdiction is responsible for accepting applications, evaluating proposals, and either approving or denying the exemption based on locally established standards and
criteria set forth in statute. The local standards must include information sufficient to evaluate the conformance of the application
with the intent of the program. At the minimum, applicants will include information about the existing site and uses, design elements, rental rates or sales prices, extension of public benefits, minimum number of units and, if applicable, information related to low income housing assistance contracts. It is at the
discretion of local jurisdictions to add additional standards/guidelines.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 16
Projects must also include one or more design or public benefit elements such as commercial use of a
portion of the structure, open space, parks and recreational facilities, common meeting rooms, child care
facilities, or transit/pedestrian amenities. Projects must also be in conformance with local plans and planning regulation.
Amount of property tax exemption:
Vertical Housing Development Program
Certified projects can receive a tax exemption equal to 20% of each “equalized floor” up to 80% maximum (equivalent of 4 floors). Projects are required to have ground floor commercial in an amount
determined by the number of public streets that front the property (specific details are found in the Oregon Administrative Rules governing the program). If rents are set at market rates, the owner can only receive the property tax exemption based on the “equalized floors” in the building. However, if the rents
are set below market and meet OHCS’s criteria, the land may also receive a partial property tax exemption up to 80%.
Before the City can submit its application for the zone designation, certain special taxing districts must be notified and given the opportunity to “opt out” of the program so that their levies are not impacted by the
property tax exemption.
Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption Program The tax exemption under this program applies only to the tax levy of the city or county that has adopted
the appropriate statutory provisions. However, with resolution of concurrence from governing bodies of at least 51% or more of the total combined rate of taxation on the property, all taxing districts projects will
be exempted from all applicable ad valorem taxes for a term of 10 years.
The exemption cannot include the land on which the development is built but may include parking
constructed as part of the project and the value of commercial property that is a required design element or public benefit component of the housing development.
If the development involves the improvement or conversion of an existing structure either to add dwelling units or to convert from a non-housing to a housing use than only the increased value associated with the addition or conversion may be exempted.
Conclusion:
The two programs share a common intention of attempting to promote the development of transit-served multi-unit housing located in the urban core or mixed use areas. There are sufficient differences between
the programs to affect the type and volume of development resulting from their use.
MUPTE would seem to have an advantage in that it empowers local jurisdictions with the ability to
develop a program that can be adjusted, within statutory constraints, to meet local needs and incent
development based on local interests. Under MUPTE, local jurisdictions are required to develop program guidelines and evaluation criteria that focus the type of development and applications that are approved.
Approval/denial authority under MUPTE would be held by the local jurisdiction while under VHDP that authority would be held by the State.
The two programs may produce developments with different physical characteristic and uses. The VHDP
could incent taller structures since the rate of exemption increases as the height of the building increases and VHDP requires a commercial use on the ground floor which cannot be included in the exemption
while MUPTE allows but does not require a commercial use.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 16
With MUPTE, the rate of exemption and potentially its ability to incent development relies on other
jurisdictions opting in to the program. Thus the city’s ability to partner with other taxing jurisdictions
should be taken into account.
The ability of each program to incent below market rate development could differ depending on the
circumstances surrounding the project. In some cases VHDP could have additional leverage to incent below market rate housing as the value of land is exempted for low income housing projects while
MUPTE cannot exempt land value in any case. MUPTE could have an advantage in that the entire City may be designated as the area eligible for exemption for housing that is or becomes subject to a low income housing assistance contract with a public agency.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE WAIVERS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS:
System development charge (SDC) waivers and discounts (hereafter referred to generally as waivers) are part of a larger strategy to promote infill and stimulate the development of additional, affordable housing units in Springfield. Given the examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) already permitted in the
City presented in the February Council Briefing Memo, the construction value-to-SDC ratio is typically higher than the ratio for single family dwellings or multifamily apartments. The cost per square foot to
build an ADU is typically higher than a standard single family dwelling. Minimizing fixtures and limiting
the square footage of a dwelling are some methods to reducing SDC costs, but they are not enough to bring the construction value-to-SDC ratio close to the ratio a single family dwelling. To limit the
percentage of development costs for ADUs, SDC waivers or discounts may be an option to bring down a
potential cost burden and encourage new units.
SDC waivers may appeal to homeowners looking for cost effective ways to build fully permitted ADUs. SDC waivers would promote the development of legally permitted ADUs in the City, and would involve inspections to the benefit of the homeowner, residents, and public safety.
Homeowners looking to convert spare rooms to an ADU may also be encouraged by an SDC waiver. Converting to an ADU increases the supply of dwellings. Additionally, adding an ADU increases the
property value of the home through a conversion of a spare room to a rentable unit. An SDC waiver in combination with other efforts may stimulate construction of these small and relatively
affordable housing options in Springfield.
SDC Waiver options for a pilot program:
If the City Council chooses an SDC waiver to stimulate ADU development and promote these housing
units in Springfield, a targeted waiver effort will be required. As part of a pilot program, the City may
decide to determine a dollar amount cap and/or a limited time period for waivers based on the waiver strategy the City Council chooses. Each SDC waiver option below would result in some level of reduced
SDC revenue, assuming that the units would have been constructed anyway. It may be that by
discounting the SDCs, there will still be more SDC revenue collected overall. All options assume a construction value of $67,000 for a new ADU (see example of a Small House/ADU example on page 3 of
this memo) and SDCs of $9,200, a construction value-to-SDC ratio of 14%. The expected SDC revenue for FY 17 is shown below to help gauge the impact of SDC waivers or
discounts. Transportation = $795,000
Sanitary sewer = $920.000 Storm drainage = $300,000
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 16
Options for Reducing the SDCs for a Typical ADU
No
Waivers CITY Discounts or Waivers ALL Jurisdictions
Provide Discounts or Waivers
Option 1:
Option 2:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount city sewer
Option 3:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount transpo&
city sewer
Option 4:
Waive all city SDCs
except transpo
Option 5:
Waive all city SDCs
Option 6:
10% ratio with
discount applied to ALL
SDCs
Option 7:
Waive city admin,
storm drainage + 20%
discount ALL other
SDCs
Option 8:
Waive ALL
SDCs
Construction value $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000
SDCs normally charged $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200
Actual Paid with Discount $9,200 $8057 $7,610 $5,849 $3,462 $6,700 $6,917 $0
# ADUs helped with $100,000 of city subsidy 0 87 63 30 18 63 63 17
Ratio construction value to SDCs paid 14% 12% 11% 9% 5% 10% 10% 0%
Revenue loss per ADU
City admin - $273 $273 $273 $273 $174 $273 $273
City transportation - - $477 - $2,387 $648 $477 $2,387
City sanitary sewer - $552 $522 $2,760 $2,760 $750 $522 $2,760
City storm - $318 $318 $318 $318 $86 $318 $318
MWMC - - - - - $479 $353 $1,764
Willamalane - - - - - $461 $340 $1,698
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 16
Option 1 This option assumes no waivers or discounts. It serves as a comparison for the other options.
Option 2 This option limits impact to the city capital funds by limiting the waiver to the administration and
stormwater SDCs and providing a 20% discount on the city’s sanitary sewer SDC.
Option 3 This option uses a combination of a waiver of the administrative and stormwater SDCs and a 20% discount of the city’s sanitary sewer and transportation SDCs.
Option 4 This option waives all the city’s SDCs except those for transportation given the need for street
improvements. This option reduces the SDC cost to just under 10% of the construction value of the ADU.
Option 5 This option involves the city waiving all its SDCs. In a typical case, the cost of SDCs would be about 5%
of the construction value of the ADU.
Option 6 With this option, a homeowner would pay a maximum of 10% of the construction value of the ADU. In
the example presented, the construction value of the ADU is $67,000 so the SDCs would be $6,700. If the construction value of the ADU is $40,000, then the SDCs would be $4,000. The City would reduce
amount collected for each SDC on a proportional basis. This option would require participation of our regional partners, MWMC and Willamalane.
Option 7 This option is similar to Option 3 except MWMC and Willamalane both agree to discount the SDCs by
20%. In a typical case, the SDCs would be about 20% of the construction value of the ADU. Option 8
This option provides a waiver of all SDCs.
ENCOURAGING ADUS BY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE: One aspect of Council’s emerging affordable housing strategy is the encouragement of accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). ADUs:
Increase the number and type of affordable housing units without consuming land in the city’s
limited inventory of developable land. In particular, they increase the supply of small rental units
which is where the rental market is currently the tightest.
Increase density in existing neighborhoods, taking advantage of existing infrastructure
Create opportunities for intergenerational living, on-site caretakers, and students
Diversify the demographics of an existing neighborhood
Provide financial benefit to the property owner
Trigger economic development at a local scale through local builders/contractors There are several ways in which Council can encourage construction of ADUs. One is by simplifying the
regulations in the Springfield Development Code. Another is by discounting the System Development
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 16
Charges (SDCs). This portion of the Council Briefing Memo presents potential code amendments based
on previous Council comments along with staff commentary. Council members have questioned:
1. Why the city doesn’t allow ADUs in medium density zoning areas such as the area of the Q Street Refinement Plan
2. The need for requiring additional parking on the site if parking is available
3. The need for a minimum ADU size of 300 square feet 4. The need to require that trim on an ADU match the trim of the main house
5. If the city could allow an RV with axels removed as an ADU In addition to those topics, staff has also identified potential amendments that may also help to encourage ADUs.
6. Allow a small house to become the ADU 7. Allow larger ADUs in proportion to the primary dwelling 8. Allow unpaved parking in some cases
9. No longer require that the owner live in one of the dwellings A review of relevant policies sets the stage for discussion of ADUs. Then a series of questions focus the
discussion. Based on Council’s direction, staff will prepare a set of code amendments for Council to initiate at a future meeting. Initiating the amendments starts the process to solicit public comments and
hold public hearings to find out how Springfield citizens view ADUs.
City Policies Relevant to ADUs:
The following policies from the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element set the context and legal framework for any potential development code amendments
related to ADUs in general.
Policy H.6 - Continue to seek ways to reduce development impediments to more efficient utilization of
the residential land supply inside the UGB, especially in the City’s sloped areas (southeast Springfield and Willamette Heights).
Policy Analysis
This policy supports making code amendments that reduce impediments to the construction of ADUs since ADUs add dwelling units on property that has already been developed. This
efficiency in land use and infrastructure has the potential to provide more housing without needing to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB).
Policy H.9- Provide a broad range of quality accessible and affordable housing options for very low, low and moderate income residents. Affordable housing is defined as housing for which persons or families
pay 30 percent or less of their gross income for housing, including necessary and essential utilities
[Oregon Revised Statute 456.055].
Policy Analysis
The data analysis completed as part of developing an affordable housing strategy indicated that vacancy rates for rentals are very low and that the waiting lists are longest for the one-bedroom
and studio units. Based on the American Community Survey, in 2013, 53% of Springfield renters paid more than 30% of their gross income for housing, including necessary and essential utilities. Accessory dwelling units have the potential to provide additional housing options for these
smaller units which by size tend to be more affordable to those with low and moderate incomes.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 16
Policy H.11 - Continue to seek ways to update development standards to introduce a variety of housing
options for all income levels in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas that match the
changing demographics and lifestyles of Springfield residents.
Policy Analysis
ADUs add another rental housing option to those with low to moderate incomes in existing neighborhoods. These ADUs create opportunities for income generation that may be particularly
useful for retirees, particularly as Springfield’s population continues to age. They also provide opportunities for seniors to age in place by allowing for on-site caretakers. ADUs allow for intergenerational living, students, and provide an alternative housing option for people wanting to
remain in their neighborhood even if their life circumstances change. Policy H.15 - Update residential development standards to enhance the quality and affordability of
neighborhood infill development (e.g. partitions, duplex developments, transitional neighborhoods, rehab housing, accessory dwelling units) and multi-family development.
Policy Analysis ADUs are a type of infill development. Council will make decisions on code amendments as it
balances the need to enhance the quality of the neighborhood while also providing affordability.
Questions for Council:
Question 1: Should Springfield allow accessory dwelling units in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zones?
A. Continue to limit ADUs to the LDR zones. Preserve the MDR for higher density developments. B. Allow ADUs in the MDR zones. Adding ADUs to existing single-family dwellings increases
densities. C. Allow ADUs in the MDR zones on lots of 6250 square feet or less. Two dwellings on a lot of 6250 square feet or less meets the minimum density requirement for the MDR zone.
Currently, ADUs are only allowed in low density residential zones with the exclusion of the Washburne Historic District. Council asked about allowing ADUs in MDR zones. According to Section 3.2-205 of
the Development Code, the Medium Density Residential District establishes sites for residential development where primarily multifamily dwellings are permitted and the density range is 14 to 28 dwelling units per net acre.
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element Policy H.1 - Based on the findings in the Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis and to
accommodate projected growth between 2010 and 2030, Springfield has designated sufficient buildable residential land
(a) for at least 5,920 new dwelling units at an estimated density of at least 7.9 units per net
buildable acre; and (b) to accommodate a new dwelling mix of approximately 52 percent detached single family
dwellings (including manufactured dwellings on individual lots), seven percent attached single-family dwellings, one percent manufactured dwellings in parks, and 40 percent multifamily dwellings.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Policy G.7-Services providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal development.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 16
Policy Analysis
As stated in Policy H.1, the assumption of the Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was that 40% of Springfield’s new dwelling units would be multi-family. The Needs Analysis
assumed that those would be constructed on land designated Medium Density Residential and
High Density Residential. It also assumed that all new single-family homes would be constructed on land designated Low Density Residential, although single-family homes (both detached and
attached) are allowed within the MDR zone. The Needs Analysis assumed that 5% of developed lots would develop further or redevelop to include additional dwellings. Between 1999 and 2008, 70% of the new dwellings that were added to already developed lots were added to lots
designated MDR.1If there is an existing single family house on a larger lot, it is anticipated that someday that property may redevelop into more dense housing. Allowing the property owner to improve the value of the property by constructing one ADU may delay that ultimate conversion
to medium density; thereby increasing pressure on the city’s remaining supply of buildable land. However, allowing ADUs in those situations would provide more dwelling units and somewhat increase density in the short term.
Another consideration is that the public facilities and services plan and resulting capital
improvement plans are based on the densities allowed by the plan designations. Policy G.7
(among others) requires that service providers coordinate the provision of facilities and services to match the densities allowed by the plan designations. It is important that the densities achieved
match the level of investment made in the infrastructure constructed to serve those facilities.
Undersizing infrastructure limits the ability of the land to develop to planned densities. Oversizing infrastructure means the public has paid more than necessary to serve the
development. Question 2: Should Springfield require on-site parking for the ADU? A. Require one on-site parking space for the ADU. B. Require an on-site parking space only if there is no on-street parking available adjacent to the property.
C. Require no on-site parking for the ADU. Currently, the code requires one on-site parking space in addition to the two parking spaces required for
the primary dwelling. Council discussed making it easier to fit an ADU on the lot and reducing the cost to construct an ADU by eliminating the parking requirements.
Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan Policy 2.6 Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and turnover for
surrounding land uses.
Policy Analysis
The question becomes, how much on-site parking is enough?
Requiring on-site parking for the ADU makes sure there is space on-site to accommodate
residents’ cars (based on two cars per standard single-family dwelling and one car for an ADU). Any on-street parking would be available for those households with additional vehicles, for delivery vehicles, and visitors. Not requiring on-site parking for the ADU means that residents
and visitors with cars must park on the street if the parking spaces for the primary dwelling are
unavailable.
1 Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis, April 2011, page 19
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 16
While on-street parking is in theory available to anyone, residents tend to get possessive of on-
street parking and become upset if they are unable to find an available parking space near their home. In some cases, people will park illegally, blocking the sidewalk or a fire lane rather than
park down the street or on another street. The city could help to prevent this type of problem by
requiring on-site parking rather than relying on parking enforcement efforts.
However, as we’re making efforts to make our city pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly and with Lane Transit District providing bus service, not every household will necessarily choose to have a car. Requiring a parking space on-site then becomes an unnecessary burden on the
property owner. The other factor to consider is that not all streets have on-street parking. Collectors and arterial
streets as well as some narrow local streets do not provide on-street parking at all or limit it to one side of the street. In these cases, the provision of parking is shifted almost exclusively to the property owners as the public street is not accommodating the parking.
Question 3: Should the Council eliminate the minimum size for an ADU? A. Yes, eliminate the minimum size for an ADU.
B. No, keep the minimum size at 300 square feet.
With the growing popularity of “tiny homes”, some people may want to construct an ADU smaller than
300 square feet. Question 4: Should ADUs be required to meet any design standards?
A. No, eliminate design standards for ADUs. B. Yes, leave the design standards intact.
C. Yes, but there should be some changes to the design standards. The following design standards are currently required for ADUs.
An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards, where practicable:
A. Exterior finish materials shall be the same or essentially the same in terms of type, size,
placement and finish as the primary dwelling.
B. Roof pitch shall match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.
C. Trim shall be the same in type, location and finish as the primary dwelling.
D. Windows shall match those of the primary dwelling in terms of proportion (height and
width ratio) and orientation (vertical vs. horizontal).
E. Eaves shall project from the accessory dwelling unit addition the same distance as the
eaves on the primary dwelling.
Eliminating these design standards would reduce regulation and simplify the approval process.
Question 5: Should the city allow structures other than those that are site-built or modular? A. No, only allow site-built or modular buildings as ADUs.
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 16
B. Yes, allow small manufactured homes
C. Yes, allow any temporary dwelling that arrives on wheels to be sited as an ADU.
Staff has concerns with allowing any temporary dwelling as an ADU since the city receives a number of
complaints of people living in RVs parked on lots in neighborhoods. Past efforts in Springfield have
focused on improving the look and feel of neighborhood areas. While allowing people to live in RVs would help address the affordable housing problem, it may be perceived as having a negative impact on
the gains made in the quality of development. The “tiny home” movement has prompted changes to rules at the state level in the Building Codes
Division. The Division passed temporary rules in January and is in a permanent rule-making process to redefine recreational vehicles and to determine how best to regulate “tiny homes”. Given these changes to building codes and on-going discussions in the building codes community about “temporary” versus
“permanent”, staff recommends waiting to make related changes to the Springfield Development Code until after the permanent rulemaking has been completed.
It is possible to allow small manufactured homes as ADUs without getting into questions about “temporary versus permanent”. The Development Code defines as Type 2 Manufactured Home as having
less than 1000 square feet and enclosing a minimum floor area of 500 square feet. (A Type 1
Manufactured Home encloses a minimum floor area of 1000 square feet.) The City could reduce the minimum size allowed only for ADUs to allow homes even smaller than 500 square feet.
Question 6: Should Springfield allow a small house to become the ADU and then build a second dwelling on the property as the primary dwelling? A. Yes, allow conversion of an existing dwelling as an ADU.
B. No, do not allow conversion of an existing dwelling as an ADU.
There are a few small houses on relatively large lots in Springfield’s older neighborhoods. This change allows those small houses to become the “ADU” and to construct a larger house on the property to serve as the primary dwelling.
Question 7: How big can the accessory dwelling be in comparison with the primary dwelling? A. Keep the proportion to a maximum of 40% of the primary dwelling (excluding garages).
B. The accessory dwelling should just be smaller than the primary dwelling (excluding garages). C. The accessory dwelling should be ____% smaller than the primary dwelling.
The current code limits the size of the ADU to 40% of the primary dwelling or 750 square feet, whichever is smaller. Given the small size of some houses in the older neighborhoods, limiting the size of the ADU
to 40% of the primary dwelling may be unnecessarily restrictive. But if it is built at the same size, it
could become like a duplex.
Question 8: Is it OK to allow an unpaved (e.g. gravel) parking space if the driveway serving the
parking space is at least 18 feet long measured from the property line? A. Yes, parking spaces do not have to be paved if they are at the end of a paved driveway at least 18 feet
long B. No, all parking spaces must be paved.
The code currently requires one paved, off-street parking space for the ADU, in addition to the spaces
required for the primary house. One way that the city could reduce on-site parking costs is by allowing gravel or other types of unpaved parking. If on-site parking is constructed toward the interior of the lot
(with a paved driveway at least 18’ long), then the parking space itself would not need to be paved. The
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 16
main concern about requiring pavement is so that the cars are not bringing gravel across a sidewalk or
onto the street. Gravel becomes a hazard to pedestrian and bicyclists in the public right-of-way. Gravel
also causes damage to the street surface, shortening the life of the pavement. Having an 18 foot long paved surface before a gravel parking space greatly reduces the “drag” of gravel into the public right-of-
way.
Question 9: Should one of the dwelling units be owner-occupied? A. Yes, the property owner shall reside on the property and a deed restriction shall state all future owners shall also reside on the property. B. Yes, at the time of construction of the ADU, the property owner must reside on the property.
However, the city will not require that the owner continue to reside on the property so no deed restriction would be required. C. No, the property owner does not need to reside on the property.
This code provision addresses potential neighborhood concerns about maintaining home ownership in the neighborhood. This current code provision requiring the owner to live on the property is difficult to
enforce after the ADU has been constructed. In cases where both the primary dwelling and the accessory dwelling unit become rentals, if there is a complaint from the neighbor, code enforcement is in the
position of requiring both households to move off the property unless the owner returns to live in the
property. Or, the owner would have to remove the ADU. OVERNIGHT PARKING PROGRAM: The City allows up to three vehicles to be used as outdoor overnight shelter at an approved site (church parking lot or industrial site) per Chapter 8 of the Municipal
Code. At this time, there are six churches participating in this program providing a total of 12 spaces.
Three churches (6 spaces) serve families with children who are currently participating in the G Street OASIS program.
Partners:
St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) For three years, the City has contracted with SVDP to operate the overnight parking program, including identifying, screening and working with individuals for placement, coordinating trash and port-o-potty
services at each site, and addressing site and/or personnel issues. Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA)
The SSRA would like to see the overnight parking program expand and aims to conduct outreach to churches and industrial property owners to identify additional sites.
G Street OASIS OASIS has started to help place participating families in current church sites, and has connected with
additional churches that are supportive of hosting families in need. While this would be an expanded role
for the OASIS program, OASIS staff view the overnight parking program as a stabilizing resource for their clients. SVDP and OASIS staff plan to work together to address any concerns or issues with sites
where families are placed. City role:
The City authorizes the overnight parking program, provides base funding and contracts with SVDP to supervise the program, and serves as a resource to SVDP, churches, SSRA and others with questions
about the objectives and requirements of the program.
Attachment 1, Page 15 of 16
Current costs:
The City has allocated $5,000 annually from the general fund to reimburse SVDP for costs to operate the program within the City of Springfield, specifically:
background checks
urine analysis for drug testing
port-o-potty rentals; and
garbage pickup costs.
The City has not reimbursed SVDP for staff time and SVDP has absorbed any reimbursable costs exceeding the $5000 cap.
As shown in the table below, the direct costs are approximately $1,200 per site. With six sites, it is estimated that those costs will exceed what is currently allocated:
Estimated Costs for Outdoor Overnight Shelter Program Type of Expenses Annual Cost per Site Annual cost for six (6) sites
Background checks, urine analysis,
port-o-potty costs, and garbage pickup
$1,200 $7,200
Costs to manage the program
(including staff time, gas)
N/A $2,100
TOTAL costs $9,300
Costs to exceed $5,000 allocation $4,300
Per the current contract, SVDP’s staff time is NOT an eligible category of reimbursement. Staff with
SVDP cite this is a reason they are not able to conduct outreach with other church and industrial sites, and are currently limited in how much they can engage with current clients. Given the numbers of homeless
people living in Springfield, SVDP staff support the expansion of the car camping program in Springfield,
but would like future contracts to include sufficient resources to cover all direct costs and include an allowance for staff time.
Fiscal options for car camping program Allocation Impact
Maintain $5,000 annual
allocation Pays for the hard costs of four (4) sites
Does not pay for SVDP staff time to manage the program
Partners and churches will need to pick up difference in costs
Increase to $10,000
annually Pays for the hard costs of six (6) sites
Pays for SVDP staff time to manage the program
Partners and churches will need to pick up costs for any additional
sites
Increase to $20,000
annually Pays for the hard costs of up to fourteen (14) sites
Pays for staff time to manage the program
Could help purchase Conestoga Huts for clients without vehicles
Partners and churches will need to pick up costs for any additional
sites or Huts
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction on the topics presented to assist in further development of Springfield’s Affordable Housing Strategy.
Attachment 1, Page 16 of 16