HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09 Amendments of the Springfield Development Code Allow ADU'sAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/4/2018
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-7436-7135
Estimated Time: 20 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: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE OVERLAY ZONE, JOURNAL # 811-18-000065-TYP4
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a first reading and public hearing on:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE
OVERLAY ZONE BY AMENDING PROVISIONS IN SECTIONS 3.3-200, 3.3-800,
AND SECTION 5.5; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
ISSUE STATEMENT: The legislature passed Senate Bill 1051 in 2017 and House Bill 4031 in 2018 which is codified as ORS 197.312(5). Those bills require that the City of Springfield and Lane
County amend Springfield’s Development Code to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
outside the city, within the urban growth boundary.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memo Attachment 2: Planning Commission Order and Recommendation
Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings
Exhibit B – Amendments to the Springfield Development Code Attachment 3: Ordinance (refer to Attachment 2 for Exhibits A and B)
Attachment 4: Draft Minutes of Joint Planning Commission Meeting on May 8, 2018 Attachment 5: Letter from Cynthia Pappas dated May 7, 2018
DISCUSSION:
One of the Council’s affordable housing strategies is to encourage the construction of
ADUs. On March 5, 2018, the Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the Springfield Development Code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an ADU within the city limits. Those amendments were acknowledged by the Department of
Land Conservation and Development and become effective on April 4, 2018.
Now, in compliance with Senate Bill 1051 (passed in 2017) and House Bill 4031 (passed
in 2018) which is codified as ORS 197.312(5), the City and Lane County are amending the code to allow accessory dwelling units outside the city, within the urban growth boundary.
Benefitting from some experience applying the newly adopted code language for ADUs, city staff also identified a few minor edits to help clarify alley setbacks, unpaved parking,
and foundations for manufactured homes and towable structures. The public hearing is an opportunity for members of the public to express support,
objections, questions, and concerns regarding the recommended amendments. The Council will then decide if there is a need to accept additional testimony or for staff to provide additional information for the record. If not, the Council can close the hearing and
the record and deliberate toward a decision to adopt the code amendments as written, recommend specific revisions, or direct staff to make modifications in response to public
comment. A second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for June 18.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/4/2018
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Tom Boyatt, DPW Interim Director
Sandy Belson, Community Development Division Interim Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: AMEND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE
OVERLAY ZONE, JOURNAL # 811-18-000065-
TYP4
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
The legislature passed Senate Bill 1051 in 2017 and House Bill 4031 in 2018 which is codified as ORS 197.312(5). Those bills require that the City of Springfield and Lane County amending
Springfield’s Development Code to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) outside the city,
within the urban growth boundary.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Council Goals: Mandate
BACKGROUND: On March 5, 2018, the Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the Springfield Development Code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an ADU within the
city limits. Those amendments were acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development and become effective on April 4, 2018.
Now, in compliance with Senate Bill 1051 (passed in 2017) and House Bill 4031 (passed in 2018) which is codified as ORS 197.312(5), the City and Lane County are amending the code to allow accessory dwelling units outside the city, within the urban growth boundary. Through an
intergovernmental agreement with Lane County, Lane County has granted the City of Springfield administers the Springfield Development Code to properties within the urban fringe
(the area within the urban growth boundary outside the city limits), but both jurisdictions are
required to adopt the code provisions that apply in the urban fringe.
Benefitting from some experience applying the newly adopted code language for ADUs, city
staff also identified a few minor edits to help clarify alley setbacks, unpaved parking, and foundations for manufactured homes and towable structures.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission’s Order and Recommendation is included as Attachment 2. The
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission recommended that the Development Code be further amended to allow one or two accessory dwelling units to be built on medium and high density zoned parcels that, irrespective of the parcel size, could meet the necessary densities in
the future as shown on a future development plan. Staff has identified Section 3.3-825D as the
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
location for that language to be added as shown below:
3.3-825 Additional Provisions
D. Siting of Residential Uses. Detached single-family dwellings and accessory
dwelling units shall be sited to allow the future division and/or more intensive use of
the property. The applicable on-site sewage disposal facility shall be conditional, and
made a part of any permit necessary to achieve the standards of this Overlay District.
The following standards apply:
1. In order to achieve ultimate densities provided in the Metro Plan, the
siting of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units on any lot/parcel
designated MDR or HDR, or any lot/parcel 5 acres or more in size and
designated LDR, shall require approval of a Future Development Plan as
specified in Section 5.12-120E.
2. Additional development restrictions that limit the location of buildings
and on-site sewage disposal facilities shall be applied where necessary to
reserve land for future urban development.
3. One or two accessory dwelling units may be built on medium and high
density zoned parcels that, irrespective of the parcel size, could meet the
necessary densities in the future as shown on a future development plan.
If Council agrees, this language will be incorporated into Exhibit B of the Ordinance for the 2nd reading.
UNPAVED PARKING: In implementing the new code for ADUs, staff determined that the code should require that unpaved parking spaces be rocked and suggested the following language that was included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation:
If unpaved, the parking space must be rocked and maintained according to the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and Standard
Construction Specifications. Rather than adding a standard to the EDSPM, staff
proposes the following language.
Staff now propose a simpler approach which would amend Subsection 5.5-125F as follows:
F. There shall be one parking space 9 feet by 18 feet in size for the accessory
dwelling unit, in addition to the parking spaces required by Section 4.6-100 for the
primary dwelling. Off-street parking spaces may be paved or unpaved as described
below. If unpaved, the parking space must be rocked and maintained with ¾ minus
compacted crushed rock. The parking space for the accessory dwelling may be
provided either on-street or off-street as described below:
If Council agrees, this language will be incorporated into Exhibit B of the Ordinance for the
2nd reading.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
All testimony thus far has been in support of allowing ADUs in the urbanizable fringe. Three
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
people testified at the public hearing. See Attachment 4 for draft minutes of the joint Planning
Commission public hearing. The following issues were raised in the written and verbal
testimony at the Planning Commissions’ public hearing:
Siting ADUs to allow for future development
Cynthia Pappas submitted a letter on May 7, 2018 (Attachment 5) in support of allowing ADUs in the urbanizable area but had a concern that placement of an ADU on low-density residential
land does not present a future conflict with either anticipated infrastructure or street layout, and so that the parcel may be reconfigured for maximum permitted urban density.
Staff Response: As proposed, subsection 3.3-825D would require that ADUs be sited to allow for future division and/or more intensive use of the property. Furthermore, any LDR lot/parcel 5
acres or more in size would require approval of a Future Development Plan. Staff provided this
explanation to Ms. Pappas and she responded favorably.
System Development Charge (SDC) waivers
Jenna Fribley asked if the SDC waiver would apply to sites outside the city. Kris McAllister and Laurie Hauber expressed the need to keep costs down to make ADUs affordable.
Staff Response: Discussion of SDC waivers is not relevant to the Development Code amendments, but will be presented to Council as part of the Affordable Housing Strategy update
on June 11.
Design Standard Requiring Off-Set Wall
Jenna Fribley questioned the applicability of what was Design Standard 7 but would become Design Standard 6 with the amendments.
Staff Response: This existing provision is one of the clear and objective standards that address aesthetics of a detached ADU and no change is being proposed. The offset of an exterior wall
that is longer than 25 feet helps add visual interest to the new structure.
Amnesty
Laurie Hauber asked if there is some kind of amnesty for people who already have ADUs with
permits.
Staff Response: As with any construction that was built without permits, the city has a process for buildings to bring those into compliance if they meet or can be made to meet development code and building code requirements. No development code amendment is necessary to allow
for these after-the-fact permits. Owners of ADUs built without permits would be eligible for the SDC waiver.
Conclusion In response to these comments, staff suggests adding the following finding to the Staff Report
and Findings.
Finding: Public testimony included comments not directly related to the development code
amendments including system development charge (SDC) waivers for ADUs
constructed in the urbanizable fringe and amnesty for un-permitted ADUs. The SDC
waiver for ADUs was put in place through Council resolution and not the
Development Code. The city already has a process in place to allow after-the-fact
permits and no code amendment is needed. One person suggested that one of the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
Design Standards in Section 5.5-130 be removed, but that standard was adopted and
acknowledged through the previous amendment process and is not part of this
amendment package. None of the people testifying on these topics cited a criterion
of approval in support of their requests. Thus none of these comments are relevant
to the development code amendments. If Council agrees, this finding will be incorporated into Exhibit A of the Ordinance for the 2nd
reading.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the procedural requirements to amend the
Development Code, staff requires the Council conduct a first reading and public hearing on the Ordinance. Council will then decide if there is a need to accept additional testimony or for staff to provide
additional information for the record. If not, the Council can close the hearing and the record and
deliberate toward a decision to adopt the code amendments as written, recommend specific revisions, or direct staff to make modifications in response to public comment. A second reading of the ordinance is
scheduled for June 18.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. __________________ (GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE OVERLAY ZONE BY AMENDING PROVISIONS IN SECTIONS 3.3-200, 3.3-800, AND SECTION 5.5; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the
Springfield Development Code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an accessory dwelling unit within the city limits;
WHEREAS, ORS 197.312(5) requires that as of July 1, 2018, accessory dwelling units be
allowed in areas of the urban growth boundary zoned for detached single-family dwellings; WHEREAS, notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
on April 26, 2018, less than the 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing required by OAR 660-018-0020, but that the untimely submission of notice to DCLD has been cured by
scheduling the public hearing of the City Council at least 23 days after the Planning
Commission’s initial public hearing;
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Springfield Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed text amendments which was conducted in accordance with Springfield
Development Code Sections 5.2-120 through 5.2-145;
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written
comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of text amendments based on the findings of fact set forth in the Commission’s Order and Recommendation;
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Springfield City Council conducted a first reading and held a
duly noticed public hearing on the recommended text amendments; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written
comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Springfield City Council approved the text amendments in Exhibit B based on the findings of fact set forth in Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING RECITALS, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Staff Report and Findings attached as Exhibit A are incorporated
herein by reference and adopted.
Section 2. The Springfield Development Code is amended as shown in Exhibit B.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
Section 3. Savings Clause. Except as specifically amended herein, sections 3.3-215,
3.3-815, 3.3-820, 3.3-825, 5.5-110, 5.5-125, and 5.5-130 of the Springfield Development Code
shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 4. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.
Section 5. Effective date of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ___ day of _________,
____, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of __________,
____.
_______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting DRAFT MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR SESSION
MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD Tuesday, May 8, 2018
The City of Springfield Planning Commission and the Lane County Planning Commission met in a joint special session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner Greg James
presiding for Springfield and Commissioner Gary Rose presiding for Lane County Planning Commission.
ATTENDANCE Springfield: Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners Bergen, Landen, Vohs, Dunn, and Sherwood. Also present were, Community Development Interim Manager Sandy Belson, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Administrative Specialist Shannon Morris.
Lane County: Present were Chair Rose, Vice Chair Weeks, Commissioners Coon, Kaylor, Thorp, and Dignam. Also present were: Lane County Planning Supervisor Kier Miller and Planning Director Lydia Kaye.
ABSENT FOR SPRINGFIELD
None
ABSENT FOR LANE COUNTY
Ryan Sisson
Randy Hledik
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair James.
Chair James opens Public Hearing for Springfield Planning Commission: This evening we will be conducting a Legislative Public
Hearing dealing with amendment to Springfield Development Code in relation to accessory dwelling units in between the city limits and the urban fringe.
Chair Rose opens the meeting for Lane County Planning Commission.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Amendment of the Springfield Development Code Accessory Dwelling Units, Journal No. 811-18-000065-TYP4
Sandy Belson gives Staff Report: Good evening Planning Commissioners, thank you to the Lane County Planning Commission for agreeing to come join us for a special meeting tonight. I was able to provide a brief overview at your previous work session
and the Springfield Planning Commission has been familiar with the changes to the accessory dwelling units that we have put in place to make it easier and less expensive to develop accessory dwelling units within the city limits. Those amendments were
adopted by the City Council in March and went into effect in April. What is before both of your commissions this evening is amendments to allow accessory dwelling units in the urbanizable fringe, that urbanizable area between the city limits and the
urban growth boundary. This is in response to legislation which was modified into statute that requires all cities and counties of certain sizes to allow accessory dwelling units in areas where single family dwellings are allowed. In order to accomplish
requirements of the legislature, we are proposing amendments to two sections of the Springfield Development Code. Because these code provisions apply outside the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary, they are subject to both jurisdictions’
approvals, Springfield and Lane County. You will be making your recommendations to your respective elected officials and they will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on the amendments.
The Springfield Planning Commission will need to make this decision based on findings in conformance with the Metro Plan which is the Eugene-Springfield Comprehensive Plan, applicable State Statutes and applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules.
In your packet, as exhibit A, is the staff report and findings. There you can see the findings for the Metro Plan, which include
citizen involvement elements, growth management, and the residential land use and housing element. In addition, in Springfield we are starting to develop our own Comprehensive Plan that is specific to Springfield. From that, there are also policies that come
out of Springfield Residential Land and Housing Study that supplement the policies in the Metro Plan.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 2
The state statutes that I referenced that were changed by Senate Bill 1051 are ORS 197.312-5(a). There are findings for that and ORS 197.307(4)(b)(A). Also the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules are listed there: OAR 660-008-0010 for which, we have findings that show there will be no impact on the land supply; as well as the Clear and Objective
Standards that are required under OAR 660-008-0015.
The two sections that are being proposed to change in the code are Section 3, the zoning district for the urbanizable fringe; Section 3.3-800, Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District. You can see the proposed changes in Exhibit B, allowing accessory
dwelling units within that zone. We have made corresponding changes to section 5.5 which is specific to accessory dwelling
units, deleting the requirement that they be within the city limits. Since we went through these changes, and we have had recent experience trying to explain the recent code provisions that the City already adopted to make it easier to allow accessory dwelling
units, we have made a few minor tweaks to improve the language.
The first one is at the top of page 1, Exhibit B in terms of accessory dwelling units being located near an alley; that they can meet the same setback requirements for a garage. I don’t think that will apply to anything outside the city limits.
The second minor change is to make it clear that all manufactured homes or towable units brought in would be on a permanent
foundation. We have listed that as a design standard for the clear and objective path. By moving it from the design standards into the development standards it will apply across the board. Anyone bringing in a manufactured home or towable home will have to
meet those standards.
With that, I’ll be available for questions. Kier Miller is the staff planner for Lane County. He is also available if you have questions with regard to the County’s role.
We did get one letter of testimony from Cynthia Pappas, writing in support of the amendments. She requests that we consider
some restrictions in placement of an accessory dwelling unit to limit future conflict with replatting of a parcel so that it does not reduce the future density of a parcel. I think we have that covered with code requirements in the urbanizable fringe that would apply to having to have a future development plan in certain situations. So I am not thinking that there is need for additional code
but that is something you may want to consider.
Greg James: It is time for public testimony.
Jenna Fribley, 1360 Tamarack St: Local architect in Springfield, in Ward 2. Speaking in favor, I want to applaud Springfield for
being proactive with the initial round of code amendments; I would love to see this move into the UGB as well. I have a question about how SDCs will be calculated in the UGB for sites with or without on-site sanitation. Will SDC waivers apply to them? I am curious about the code language for design standards of former item 7, now item 6: language about the exterior wall. This doesn’t
seem applicable to something the size of an ADU and I would request you look at it, or explain the rationale for it.
Kris McAllister, 1909 12th Street: Ward 3. Kris comments about ADUs being cost prohibitive. Is hopeful ADU can be used in the
UGB to help people in Glenwood parks that may be displaced in the future. Has fear that there will not be enough low income access with the current up-front cost of building ADUs, but talks about how he can reach out for grants or other opportunities to help the homeless.
Laurie Hauber, 376 E 11th Ave Eugene: Lives in Eugene but works in legal aide, with focus on affordable housing across Lane
County. It has been a breath of fresh air to see how Springfield has progressed so rapidly with ADUs. Laurie asks that there is consideration of some kind of amnesty for people who already have an ADU without permits. That is something Eugene is talking
about. She also states affordability is an issue. Finding strategies to make development of ADUs affordable is an important part of this. She’s done research that shows the cost of around 70-90 thousand dollars to add an ADU to property. That does make it cost prohibitive for a lot of households. As you deliberate on this, keep cost in consideration to make it affordable housing for low income people. Thank you.
Greg James: No more testimony from audience. We will move into questions from the Commissions. He asks about the communication from Cynthia Pappas in regard to ADU placed on LDR property in urban fringe.
Sandy Belson: Replies with data from the Code section 3.3-8.25 and 3.3-8.20 and section 5.12: If lots are more than twice the size of minimum size allowed in that district, a future development plan is required. If there is potential to divide that property, you would need to show how that property would be partitioned and that your ADU is not being placed in a way that would prohibit future development.
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 3
Gary Rose: Asks how intensive are the plot plan requirements; what is required for a plot plan?
Stephen Dignam: Question regarding the testimony from Laurie Hauber about amnesty. How can something like that be implemented?
Sandy Belson: There are two aspects to this response. One is unrelated to the code: City of Springfield has an SDC waiver in place for City SDCs, which applies to any ADU to be permitted, whether constructed or not. In terms of building code requirements, that is up to the Building Official. There are fees involved in building permits, standard for any type of structure.
Mike Koivula: If a parcel is potentially partitionable, there will be sewage evaluation. If it is too small and not partitionable, is there a way to make sure the ADU will not overload the drain field or other private sewer facilities?
Sandy Belson: Yes, in the Code, there is a requirement that the sanitarian provide any permits necessary.
Larry Thorp: Has concerns about the future development plans. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate ADUs as simply and easily as possible. How binding is the future development plan if someone turns one in and wants to change it later?
Sandy Belson: It is not binding. The point is to think about how you can develop in the future.
Mike Koivula: I have a question regarding findings on residential density. It says the ADU will tap into utility lines in place. I have a problem with wording of the finding. There is some discussion around this.
Sandy Belson: Let’s delete that sentence to avoid confusion. There were two other typing errors to be corrected, brought up by
Mike Koivula.
Larry Thorpe: Questions the maximum size lot where you cannot add an ADU. Asks about staff’s thinking for putting that in there, it seems counterintuitive. Sandy replies that is this to preserve Medium and High Density property in order to meet density
requirements. Gary Rose, Troy Sherwood, Mike Koivula and Greg James all discuss this with concern about property sizes, the possibility of subdividing, partitioning, and/or rezoning criteria in order to allow the ADUs. Suggestion by Mike Koivula to allow ADU on any size property, if able to show plans that meet density at future development. Sandy advises this be made part of the recommendation to be written into the amendment.
Sandy Belson: One person from the public asked if we will be charging System Development Charges. If you are not connecting to the Sanity Sewer we would not charge System Development Charge for Sanity Sewer. Our Municipal Code does require
charging System Development Charges in conjunction with building permits outside city limits for stormwater and streets. It will
be up to City Council whether that waiver would apply outside city limits. I will bring that to their attention. We won’t be charging sanitary sewer SDCs until they hook up.
In terms of the design standards question that was questioned, the impetus for that was to address some design elements as some
clear and objective design standards.
In terms of the amnesty, I think we have already addressed that.
Sandy recalls that she wanted to bring up another item included in the proposed amendments: in regards to parking, the change is
that we would like to specify that unpaved parking spaces need to be rocked. We would have a standard that would go into Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual that would be adopted in conjunction with these code amendments by the City Council.
Greg James: Any other questions? Greg talks about affordability of ADUs to help with the housing crisis in the city. There is discussion between Sandy and Greg to discuss how the recommendation can include the requirement of having a future
development plan to place ADU on higher density properties. More comments and questions are brought up regarding size and
dividing properties. Sandy Belson, Greg James and Larry Thorpe discuss how to phrase this recommendation to Council.
Mary Bridget Smith and Sandy Belson identify the three changes to findings to be made and discuss recommendation changes. We can say “add one or two ADUs on a parcel zoned medium or high density with a future development plan, irrespective of the
size of the parcel, that will meet density requirements in the future.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 4
Greg James: So we have the three changes to the findings plus that revision. This being a legislative hearing, there is no opportunity for the public to request a continuation. At this time, I would entertain a motion from Springfield Planning Commission to close or continue the public hearing and close or continue the written record.
Troy Sherwood makes a motion to close the Public Hearing and written record; Mike Koivula second. Motion carries unanimous. 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Gary Rose asks for motion from Lane County Planning Commission.
Robert Weeks makes motion for Lane County Planning Commission to close Public Hearing and written record; Dignam seconds. Motion carries unanimous: 6 ayes; 0 noes; 2 absent
Mary Bridget Smith reads motion: Amendments to Springfield Development Code for accessory dwelling units: The motion is to
move forward a recommendation to City Council to approve Journal No. #811-18-000065-TYP4 Amendments to the Springfield Development Code regarding accessory dwelling units within the Springfield city limits and urbanizable fringe as proposed in Exhibit B to this Agenda Item with additional provisions that allow 1-2 accessory dwelling units to be built on medium and high
density parcels that can meet the necessary densities in the future, irrespective of the size of the parcels, through a future
development plan; and to include the revisions to the findings noted by Commissioner Koivula.
Greg James: I move, as stated by our legal counsel for the Springfield Planning Commission to push forward to City Council;
Andrew Landen seconds. Motion carries 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Gary Rose: Who would like to make a motion?
Robert Weeks; I would like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the
proposed amendment to Lane Code 10 to co-adopt the accessory dwelling unit standards within the City of Springfield’s
urbanizable area, with changes recommended by legal counsel. Larry Thorpe seconds. Motion carries unanimous: 6 ayes; 0 noes; 2 absent.
Greg James: I move that Springfield Planning Commission forward a recommendation to Springfield City Council that based on
the reasoning behind ADUs and the need for low income housing within the city that they consider waiver of SDCs for ADUs being developed within UGB.
Landen brings discussion about time limits for SDC waiver. Greg James says that is for Council to decide. Sean Dunn seconds
motion. Vote 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Greg James: Thank you Lane County Commissioners for taking part in this process. Any other business? Hearing none, we are adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Shannon Morris
______________________
Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest:
____________________
Shannon Morris
Administrative Specialist
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 4
1342 ½ 66th Street
Springfield, OR 97478
May 7, 2018
Ms. Sandy Belson
City of Springfield Comprehensive Planning Manager
Springfield City Hall
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Transmitted Electronically to sbelson@springfield-or.gov
Please include this testimony in the record for the Joint Planning Commission Meeting on May 8, 2018
Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for considering allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on urbanizable lands within the
City’s UGB. Expanding Springfield’s ADU option to urbanizable lands with the UGB makes sense. I would
like to encourage you to embrace and enthusiastically support this alternative.
As a former Planning and Development Director and Assistant City Manager for Springfield, I understand
both the need and the constraints for expanded residential alternatives for the City. This is one option
that should be fully supported and readily adopted, especially in this tight housing market.
I would ask you to consider one amendment to Staff’s proposal. Under 5.5-110, Section A, the proposed
language for LDR land is: “Accessory dwelling units are permitted on LDR properties with a primary
dwelling..”.
As is the case in my neighborhood, many of the lots within the urbanizable fringe that would be LDR
under the current designation are larger than a typical single city lot and will need to be replatted for
residential development. It is important that an ADU placed on such LDR land does not present a future
conflict with either anticipated infrastructure or street layout, so that the parcel may be reconfigured for
maximum permitted urban density.
I would ask you to request Staff to consider including some restrictions in this section on the placement
of an ADU to limit future conflict with replatting of the parcel so that it does not reduce the future
residential density of the parcel.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cynthia Pappas
cpappas@efn.org
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 3
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 3
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 3
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/4/2018
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Tom Boyatt, DPW Interim Director
Sandy Belson, Community Development Division Interim Manager
BRIEFING
Subject: AMEND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE
OVERLAY ZONE, JOURNAL # 811-18-000065-
TYP4
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
The legislature passed Senate Bill 1051 in 2017 and House Bill 4031 in 2018 which is codified as ORS 197.312(5). Those bills require that the City of Springfield and Lane County amending
Springfield’s Development Code to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) outside the city,
within the urban growth boundary.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE: Council Goals: Mandate
BACKGROUND: On March 5, 2018, the Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the Springfield Development Code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an ADU within the
city limits. Those amendments were acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development and become effective on April 4, 2018.
Now, in compliance with Senate Bill 1051 (passed in 2017) and House Bill 4031 (passed in 2018) which is codified as ORS 197.312(5), the City and Lane County are amending the code to allow accessory dwelling units outside the city, within the urban growth boundary. Through an
intergovernmental agreement with Lane County, Lane County has granted the City of Springfield administers the Springfield Development Code to properties within the urban fringe
(the area within the urban growth boundary outside the city limits), but both jurisdictions are
required to adopt the code provisions that apply in the urban fringe.
Benefitting from some experience applying the newly adopted code language for ADUs, city
staff also identified a few minor edits to help clarify alley setbacks, unpaved parking, and foundations for manufactured homes and towable structures.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission’s Order and Recommendation is included as Attachment 2. The
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commission recommended that the Development Code be further amended to allow one or two accessory dwelling units to be built on medium and high density zoned parcels that, irrespective of the parcel size, could meet the necessary densities in
the future as shown on a future development plan. Staff has identified Section 3.3-825D as the
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
location for that language to be added as shown below:
3.3-825 Additional Provisions
D. Siting of Residential Uses. Detached single-family dwellings and accessory
dwelling units shall be sited to allow the future division and/or more intensive use of
the property. The applicable on-site sewage disposal facility shall be conditional, and
made a part of any permit necessary to achieve the standards of this Overlay District.
The following standards apply:
1. In order to achieve ultimate densities provided in the Metro Plan, the
siting of single-family homes and accessory dwelling units on any lot/parcel
designated MDR or HDR, or any lot/parcel 5 acres or more in size and
designated LDR, shall require approval of a Future Development Plan as
specified in Section 5.12-120E.
2. Additional development restrictions that limit the location of buildings
and on-site sewage disposal facilities shall be applied where necessary to
reserve land for future urban development.
3. One or two accessory dwelling units may be built on medium and high
density zoned parcels that, irrespective of the parcel size, could meet the
necessary densities in the future as shown on a future development plan.
If Council agrees, this language will be incorporated into Exhibit B of the Ordinance for the 2nd reading.
UNPAVED PARKING: In implementing the new code for ADUs, staff determined that the code should require that unpaved parking spaces be rocked and suggested the following language that was included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation:
If unpaved, the parking space must be rocked and maintained according to the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) and Standard
Construction Specifications. Rather than adding a standard to the EDSPM, staff
proposes the following language.
Staff now propose a simpler approach which would amend Subsection 5.5-125F as follows:
F. There shall be one parking space 9 feet by 18 feet in size for the accessory
dwelling unit, in addition to the parking spaces required by Section 4.6-100 for the
primary dwelling. Off-street parking spaces may be paved or unpaved as described
below. If unpaved, the parking space must be rocked and maintained with ¾ minus
compacted crushed rock. The parking space for the accessory dwelling may be
provided either on-street or off-street as described below:
If Council agrees, this language will be incorporated into Exhibit B of the Ordinance for the
2nd reading.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
All testimony thus far has been in support of allowing ADUs in the urbanizable fringe. Three
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
people testified at the public hearing. See Attachment 4 for draft minutes of the joint Planning
Commission public hearing. The following issues were raised in the written and verbal
testimony at the Planning Commissions’ public hearing:
Siting ADUs to allow for future development
Cynthia Pappas submitted a letter on May 7, 2018 (Attachment 5) in support of allowing ADUs in the urbanizable area but had a concern that placement of an ADU on low-density residential
land does not present a future conflict with either anticipated infrastructure or street layout, and so that the parcel may be reconfigured for maximum permitted urban density.
Staff Response: As proposed, subsection 3.3-825D would require that ADUs be sited to allow for future division and/or more intensive use of the property. Furthermore, any LDR lot/parcel 5
acres or more in size would require approval of a Future Development Plan. Staff provided this
explanation to Ms. Pappas and she responded favorably.
System Development Charge (SDC) waivers
Jenna Fribley asked if the SDC waiver would apply to sites outside the city. Kris McAllister and Laurie Hauber expressed the need to keep costs down to make ADUs affordable.
Staff Response: Discussion of SDC waivers is not relevant to the Development Code amendments, but will be presented to Council as part of the Affordable Housing Strategy update
on June 11.
Design Standard Requiring Off-Set Wall
Jenna Fribley questioned the applicability of what was Design Standard 7 but would become Design Standard 6 with the amendments.
Staff Response: This existing provision is one of the clear and objective standards that address aesthetics of a detached ADU and no change is being proposed. The offset of an exterior wall
that is longer than 25 feet helps add visual interest to the new structure.
Amnesty
Laurie Hauber asked if there is some kind of amnesty for people who already have ADUs with
permits.
Staff Response: As with any construction that was built without permits, the city has a process for buildings to bring those into compliance if they meet or can be made to meet development code and building code requirements. No development code amendment is necessary to allow
for these after-the-fact permits. Owners of ADUs built without permits would be eligible for the SDC waiver.
Conclusion In response to these comments, staff suggests adding the following finding to the Staff Report
and Findings.
Finding: Public testimony included comments not directly related to the development code
amendments including system development charge (SDC) waivers for ADUs
constructed in the urbanizable fringe and amnesty for un-permitted ADUs. The SDC
waiver for ADUs was put in place through Council resolution and not the
Development Code. The city already has a process in place to allow after-the-fact
permits and no code amendment is needed. One person suggested that one of the
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
Design Standards in Section 5.5-130 be removed, but that standard was adopted and
acknowledged through the previous amendment process and is not part of this
amendment package. None of the people testifying on these topics cited a criterion
of approval in support of their requests. Thus none of these comments are relevant
to the development code amendments. If Council agrees, this finding will be incorporated into Exhibit A of the Ordinance for the 2nd
reading.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the procedural requirements to amend the
Development Code, staff requires the Council conduct a first reading and public hearing on the Ordinance. Council will then decide if there is a need to accept additional testimony or for staff to provide
additional information for the record. If not, the Council can close the hearing and the record and
deliberate toward a decision to adopt the code amendments as written, recommend specific revisions, or direct staff to make modifications in response to public comment. A second reading of the ordinance is
scheduled for June 18.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 12
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 12
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. __________________ (GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE URBANIZABLE FRINGE OVERLAY ZONE BY AMENDING PROVISIONS IN SECTIONS 3.3-200, 3.3-800, AND SECTION 5.5; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance 6376 which amended the
Springfield Development Code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an accessory dwelling unit within the city limits;
WHEREAS, ORS 197.312(5) requires that as of July 1, 2018, accessory dwelling units be
allowed in areas of the urban growth boundary zoned for detached single-family dwellings; WHEREAS, notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
on April 26, 2018, less than the 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing required by OAR 660-018-0020, but that the untimely submission of notice to DCLD has been cured by
scheduling the public hearing of the City Council at least 23 days after the Planning
Commission’s initial public hearing;
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, the Springfield Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed text amendments which was conducted in accordance with Springfield
Development Code Sections 5.2-120 through 5.2-145;
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2018, after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written
comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of text amendments based on the findings of fact set forth in the Commission’s Order and Recommendation;
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Springfield City Council conducted a first reading and held a
duly noticed public hearing on the recommended text amendments; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2018, after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written
comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Springfield City Council approved the text amendments in Exhibit B based on the findings of fact set forth in Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING RECITALS, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Staff Report and Findings attached as Exhibit A are incorporated
herein by reference and adopted.
Section 2. The Springfield Development Code is amended as shown in Exhibit B.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 2
Section 3. Savings Clause. Except as specifically amended herein, sections 3.3-215,
3.3-815, 3.3-820, 3.3-825, 5.5-110, 5.5-125, and 5.5-130 of the Springfield Development Code
shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 4. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.
Section 5. Effective date of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ___ day of _________,
____, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of __________,
____.
_______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 2
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting DRAFT MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR SESSION
MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HELD Tuesday, May 8, 2018
The City of Springfield Planning Commission and the Lane County Planning Commission met in a joint special session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner Greg James
presiding for Springfield and Commissioner Gary Rose presiding for Lane County Planning Commission.
ATTENDANCE Springfield: Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners Bergen, Landen, Vohs, Dunn, and Sherwood. Also present were, Community Development Interim Manager Sandy Belson, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Administrative Specialist Shannon Morris.
Lane County: Present were Chair Rose, Vice Chair Weeks, Commissioners Coon, Kaylor, Thorp, and Dignam. Also present were: Lane County Planning Supervisor Kier Miller and Planning Director Lydia Kaye.
ABSENT FOR SPRINGFIELD
None
ABSENT FOR LANE COUNTY
Ryan Sisson
Randy Hledik
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair James.
Chair James opens Public Hearing for Springfield Planning Commission: This evening we will be conducting a Legislative Public
Hearing dealing with amendment to Springfield Development Code in relation to accessory dwelling units in between the city limits and the urban fringe.
Chair Rose opens the meeting for Lane County Planning Commission.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Amendment of the Springfield Development Code Accessory Dwelling Units, Journal No. 811-18-000065-TYP4
Sandy Belson gives Staff Report: Good evening Planning Commissioners, thank you to the Lane County Planning Commission for agreeing to come join us for a special meeting tonight. I was able to provide a brief overview at your previous work session
and the Springfield Planning Commission has been familiar with the changes to the accessory dwelling units that we have put in place to make it easier and less expensive to develop accessory dwelling units within the city limits. Those amendments were
adopted by the City Council in March and went into effect in April. What is before both of your commissions this evening is amendments to allow accessory dwelling units in the urbanizable fringe, that urbanizable area between the city limits and the
urban growth boundary. This is in response to legislation which was modified into statute that requires all cities and counties of certain sizes to allow accessory dwelling units in areas where single family dwellings are allowed. In order to accomplish
requirements of the legislature, we are proposing amendments to two sections of the Springfield Development Code. Because these code provisions apply outside the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary, they are subject to both jurisdictions’
approvals, Springfield and Lane County. You will be making your recommendations to your respective elected officials and they will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on the amendments.
The Springfield Planning Commission will need to make this decision based on findings in conformance with the Metro Plan which is the Eugene-Springfield Comprehensive Plan, applicable State Statutes and applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules.
In your packet, as exhibit A, is the staff report and findings. There you can see the findings for the Metro Plan, which include
citizen involvement elements, growth management, and the residential land use and housing element. In addition, in Springfield we are starting to develop our own Comprehensive Plan that is specific to Springfield. From that, there are also policies that come
out of Springfield Residential Land and Housing Study that supplement the policies in the Metro Plan.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 2
The state statutes that I referenced that were changed by Senate Bill 1051 are ORS 197.312-5(a). There are findings for that and ORS 197.307(4)(b)(A). Also the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules are listed there: OAR 660-008-0010 for which, we have findings that show there will be no impact on the land supply; as well as the Clear and Objective
Standards that are required under OAR 660-008-0015.
The two sections that are being proposed to change in the code are Section 3, the zoning district for the urbanizable fringe; Section 3.3-800, Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District. You can see the proposed changes in Exhibit B, allowing accessory
dwelling units within that zone. We have made corresponding changes to section 5.5 which is specific to accessory dwelling
units, deleting the requirement that they be within the city limits. Since we went through these changes, and we have had recent experience trying to explain the recent code provisions that the City already adopted to make it easier to allow accessory dwelling
units, we have made a few minor tweaks to improve the language.
The first one is at the top of page 1, Exhibit B in terms of accessory dwelling units being located near an alley; that they can meet the same setback requirements for a garage. I don’t think that will apply to anything outside the city limits.
The second minor change is to make it clear that all manufactured homes or towable units brought in would be on a permanent
foundation. We have listed that as a design standard for the clear and objective path. By moving it from the design standards into the development standards it will apply across the board. Anyone bringing in a manufactured home or towable home will have to
meet those standards.
With that, I’ll be available for questions. Kier Miller is the staff planner for Lane County. He is also available if you have questions with regard to the County’s role.
We did get one letter of testimony from Cynthia Pappas, writing in support of the amendments. She requests that we consider
some restrictions in placement of an accessory dwelling unit to limit future conflict with replatting of a parcel so that it does not reduce the future density of a parcel. I think we have that covered with code requirements in the urbanizable fringe that would apply to having to have a future development plan in certain situations. So I am not thinking that there is need for additional code
but that is something you may want to consider.
Greg James: It is time for public testimony.
Jenna Fribley, 1360 Tamarack St: Local architect in Springfield, in Ward 2. Speaking in favor, I want to applaud Springfield for
being proactive with the initial round of code amendments; I would love to see this move into the UGB as well. I have a question about how SDCs will be calculated in the UGB for sites with or without on-site sanitation. Will SDC waivers apply to them? I am curious about the code language for design standards of former item 7, now item 6: language about the exterior wall. This doesn’t
seem applicable to something the size of an ADU and I would request you look at it, or explain the rationale for it.
Kris McAllister, 1909 12th Street: Ward 3. Kris comments about ADUs being cost prohibitive. Is hopeful ADU can be used in the
UGB to help people in Glenwood parks that may be displaced in the future. Has fear that there will not be enough low income access with the current up-front cost of building ADUs, but talks about how he can reach out for grants or other opportunities to help the homeless.
Laurie Hauber, 376 E 11th Ave Eugene: Lives in Eugene but works in legal aide, with focus on affordable housing across Lane
County. It has been a breath of fresh air to see how Springfield has progressed so rapidly with ADUs. Laurie asks that there is consideration of some kind of amnesty for people who already have an ADU without permits. That is something Eugene is talking
about. She also states affordability is an issue. Finding strategies to make development of ADUs affordable is an important part of this. She’s done research that shows the cost of around 70-90 thousand dollars to add an ADU to property. That does make it cost prohibitive for a lot of households. As you deliberate on this, keep cost in consideration to make it affordable housing for low income people. Thank you.
Greg James: No more testimony from audience. We will move into questions from the Commissions. He asks about the communication from Cynthia Pappas in regard to ADU placed on LDR property in urban fringe.
Sandy Belson: Replies with data from the Code section 3.3-8.25 and 3.3-8.20 and section 5.12: If lots are more than twice the size of minimum size allowed in that district, a future development plan is required. If there is potential to divide that property, you would need to show how that property would be partitioned and that your ADU is not being placed in a way that would prohibit future development.
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 3
Gary Rose: Asks how intensive are the plot plan requirements; what is required for a plot plan?
Stephen Dignam: Question regarding the testimony from Laurie Hauber about amnesty. How can something like that be implemented?
Sandy Belson: There are two aspects to this response. One is unrelated to the code: City of Springfield has an SDC waiver in place for City SDCs, which applies to any ADU to be permitted, whether constructed or not. In terms of building code requirements, that is up to the Building Official. There are fees involved in building permits, standard for any type of structure.
Mike Koivula: If a parcel is potentially partitionable, there will be sewage evaluation. If it is too small and not partitionable, is there a way to make sure the ADU will not overload the drain field or other private sewer facilities?
Sandy Belson: Yes, in the Code, there is a requirement that the sanitarian provide any permits necessary.
Larry Thorp: Has concerns about the future development plans. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate ADUs as simply and easily as possible. How binding is the future development plan if someone turns one in and wants to change it later?
Sandy Belson: It is not binding. The point is to think about how you can develop in the future.
Mike Koivula: I have a question regarding findings on residential density. It says the ADU will tap into utility lines in place. I have a problem with wording of the finding. There is some discussion around this.
Sandy Belson: Let’s delete that sentence to avoid confusion. There were two other typing errors to be corrected, brought up by
Mike Koivula.
Larry Thorpe: Questions the maximum size lot where you cannot add an ADU. Asks about staff’s thinking for putting that in there, it seems counterintuitive. Sandy replies that is this to preserve Medium and High Density property in order to meet density
requirements. Gary Rose, Troy Sherwood, Mike Koivula and Greg James all discuss this with concern about property sizes, the possibility of subdividing, partitioning, and/or rezoning criteria in order to allow the ADUs. Suggestion by Mike Koivula to allow ADU on any size property, if able to show plans that meet density at future development. Sandy advises this be made part of the recommendation to be written into the amendment.
Sandy Belson: One person from the public asked if we will be charging System Development Charges. If you are not connecting to the Sanity Sewer we would not charge System Development Charge for Sanity Sewer. Our Municipal Code does require
charging System Development Charges in conjunction with building permits outside city limits for stormwater and streets. It will
be up to City Council whether that waiver would apply outside city limits. I will bring that to their attention. We won’t be charging sanitary sewer SDCs until they hook up.
In terms of the design standards question that was questioned, the impetus for that was to address some design elements as some
clear and objective design standards.
In terms of the amnesty, I think we have already addressed that.
Sandy recalls that she wanted to bring up another item included in the proposed amendments: in regards to parking, the change is
that we would like to specify that unpaved parking spaces need to be rocked. We would have a standard that would go into Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual that would be adopted in conjunction with these code amendments by the City Council.
Greg James: Any other questions? Greg talks about affordability of ADUs to help with the housing crisis in the city. There is discussion between Sandy and Greg to discuss how the recommendation can include the requirement of having a future
development plan to place ADU on higher density properties. More comments and questions are brought up regarding size and
dividing properties. Sandy Belson, Greg James and Larry Thorpe discuss how to phrase this recommendation to Council.
Mary Bridget Smith and Sandy Belson identify the three changes to findings to be made and discuss recommendation changes. We can say “add one or two ADUs on a parcel zoned medium or high density with a future development plan, irrespective of the
size of the parcel, that will meet density requirements in the future.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 4
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Draft Minutes
May 8, 2018 Page 4
Greg James: So we have the three changes to the findings plus that revision. This being a legislative hearing, there is no opportunity for the public to request a continuation. At this time, I would entertain a motion from Springfield Planning Commission to close or continue the public hearing and close or continue the written record.
Troy Sherwood makes a motion to close the Public Hearing and written record; Mike Koivula second. Motion carries unanimous. 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Gary Rose asks for motion from Lane County Planning Commission.
Robert Weeks makes motion for Lane County Planning Commission to close Public Hearing and written record; Dignam seconds. Motion carries unanimous: 6 ayes; 0 noes; 2 absent
Mary Bridget Smith reads motion: Amendments to Springfield Development Code for accessory dwelling units: The motion is to
move forward a recommendation to City Council to approve Journal No. #811-18-000065-TYP4 Amendments to the Springfield Development Code regarding accessory dwelling units within the Springfield city limits and urbanizable fringe as proposed in Exhibit B to this Agenda Item with additional provisions that allow 1-2 accessory dwelling units to be built on medium and high
density parcels that can meet the necessary densities in the future, irrespective of the size of the parcels, through a future
development plan; and to include the revisions to the findings noted by Commissioner Koivula.
Greg James: I move, as stated by our legal counsel for the Springfield Planning Commission to push forward to City Council;
Andrew Landen seconds. Motion carries 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Gary Rose: Who would like to make a motion?
Robert Weeks; I would like to make a motion to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the
proposed amendment to Lane Code 10 to co-adopt the accessory dwelling unit standards within the City of Springfield’s
urbanizable area, with changes recommended by legal counsel. Larry Thorpe seconds. Motion carries unanimous: 6 ayes; 0 noes; 2 absent.
Greg James: I move that Springfield Planning Commission forward a recommendation to Springfield City Council that based on
the reasoning behind ADUs and the need for low income housing within the city that they consider waiver of SDCs for ADUs being developed within UGB.
Landen brings discussion about time limits for SDC waiver. Greg James says that is for Council to decide. Sean Dunn seconds
motion. Vote 7 ayes; 0 noes; 0 absent.
Greg James: Thank you Lane County Commissioners for taking part in this process. Any other business? Hearing none, we are adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Shannon Morris
______________________
Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest:
____________________
Shannon Morris
Administrative Specialist
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 4
1342 ½ 66th Street
Springfield, OR 97478
May 7, 2018
Ms. Sandy Belson
City of Springfield Comprehensive Planning Manager
Springfield City Hall
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Transmitted Electronically to sbelson@springfield-or.gov
Please include this testimony in the record for the Joint Planning Commission Meeting on May 8, 2018
Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for considering allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on urbanizable lands within the
City’s UGB. Expanding Springfield’s ADU option to urbanizable lands with the UGB makes sense. I would
like to encourage you to embrace and enthusiastically support this alternative.
As a former Planning and Development Director and Assistant City Manager for Springfield, I understand
both the need and the constraints for expanded residential alternatives for the City. This is one option
that should be fully supported and readily adopted, especially in this tight housing market.
I would ask you to consider one amendment to Staff’s proposal. Under 5.5-110, Section A, the proposed
language for LDR land is: “Accessory dwelling units are permitted on LDR properties with a primary
dwelling..”.
As is the case in my neighborhood, many of the lots within the urbanizable fringe that would be LDR
under the current designation are larger than a typical single city lot and will need to be replatted for
residential development. It is important that an ADU placed on such LDR land does not present a future
conflict with either anticipated infrastructure or street layout, so that the parcel may be reconfigured for
maximum permitted urban density.
I would ask you to request Staff to consider including some restrictions in this section on the placement
of an ADU to limit future conflict with replatting of the parcel so that it does not reduce the future
residential density of the parcel.
Thank you for your consideration,
Cynthia Pappas
cpappas@efn.org
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 3
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 3
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 3