HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 11 08 AIS SDC Amendments ADUAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/8/2017
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-7436-7135
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes S P R I N G F I E L D PLANNING COMMISSION Council Goals: Encourage Economic
Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, JOURNAL # 811-17-000057-TYP4
ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider written testimony along with the staff report prior to forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of language amending the
Springfield development code.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council has been developing an affordable housing strategy with the goal of
increasing the supply and accessibility of housing in Springfield throughout the housing continuum. One of the strategies is to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. One way to encourage accessory dwelling units is by revising the development code
to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add an accessory dwelling unit. The proposal is to encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by simplifying the development code requirements and allowing accessory dwelling units not just in the Low
Density Residential zoning district but also in the Medium and High Density Residential zoning districts and the Washburne Historic District.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Briefing Memo
2. Order and Recommendation Exhibit A – Staff Report and Findings
Exhibit B – Amendments to the Springfield Development Code
Exhibit C – Public Comments C1 – Letter from Tim Hilton, Chair of the Springfield Historic Commission, dated
Oct. 3, 2017 C2 – Open House Comments C3 – Email from Shantal Buss dated Oct. 15
C4 – Email from Craig Patterson dated Oct. 17 C5 – Letter and email from Fair Housing Council dated Oct. 17 C6 – Email from Monica Witzig, Lane County Transportation Planning dated Oct. 17
C7 – Email from Tiny Space 4 U/Carrol Crawford dated Oct. 18 C8 – Emails from Chad Anderson dated Oct. 18 and Oct. 23 C9 – Email from Kim Buckmaster dated Oct. 26
C10 – Email from Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance dated Oct. 27
DISCUSSION:
The attached code amendments (Exhibit B) were developed based on Council direction,
Planning Commission input and public comments. The Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on Oct. 17, 2017 and left the record open until 5 pm on Oct. 27, 2017. The Planning Commission will consider the information in the staff report and testimony
received and deliberate toward a recommendation to the Springfield City Council. The Commission may adopt the code amendments and attached Order as written, recommend limited revisions and forward them to City Council, or direct staff to modify the proposal
in response to public comment.
1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: November 8, 2017
To: Planning Commission
From: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Subject: Request for Amendments of the Springfield Development Code for Accessory Dwelling Units, Journal #811-17-000057-TYP4
ISSUE The City Council has been developing an affordable housing strategy with the goal of increasing the supply and accessibility of housing in Springfield throughout the housing continuum. One of the
strategies is to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. One way to encourage accessory dwelling units is by revising the development code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add
an accessory dwelling unit. The proposal is to encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by
simplifying the development code requirements and allowing accessory dwelling units not just in the Low Density Residential zoning district but also in the Medium and High Density Residential zoning districts
and the Washburne Historic District.
DIRECTION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Oct. 17 to take testimony on the proposed code
amendments. The Commission gave direction as follows:
Staff Report and Findings
1. Add a finding regarding the Buildable Land Inventory. As requested by the Fair Housing Council, added findings showing compliance with Statewide
Planning Goal 10 (criteria of approval #3). Code Amendments
1. Clarify minimum setbacks for ADUs. Add “Accessory Dwelling Units” to the table showing setbacks in 3.2-215. Staff went further and added a code provision to allow the setback from the alley for ADUs to be the same as for
alley access garages.
2. Allow for the situation of an existing house with two entrances in the Washburne District. Language provided in “Proposed Code Changes for Planning Commission – October 17, 2107” 3. Include a requirement for a foundation for manufactured homes and towable structures. Instead of the code language options presented in the handout during the public hearing, staff recommends using the language for foundations from Section 3.2-235 G.2.b. of the Development
Code which describes the foundation required for manufactured homes.
4. Allow concrete siding and stucco as allowable siding materials. This comment raised more questions about siding materials and what should be allowed. For example, Springfield probably wants to allow stone and brick even though those are not all that common in Springfield. There are other styles such as shakes, board and batten, or even split
logs. If Springfield desires to be flexible and allow these options, it seems like the best approach is to include language stating that “only non-reflective siding and roofing materials are allowed”.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
2
This simple requirement would prohibit materials that could cause a nuisance to neighbors. The
definitions for manufactured homes have been changed accordingly.
5. Change wording in Finding under Policy A.17, 3rd sentence (“facilitate” replaces “desire”). As suggested in comments submitted by Commissioner Koivula.
6. Add submittal requirements. As suggested in comments submitted by Commissioner Koivula. 7. Consider improvements required for alley access. The Development Code Section 4.2-105 A.2. states that “All streets and alleys shall be dedicated and improved as specified in this Code.” Furthermore, 4.2-105 G.2. states that “Whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system and the
development site has unimproved street frontage, that street frontage shall be fully improved to City specifications in accordance with the following criteria: c. Where property has frontage on unpaved street right-of-way, or where unpaved street right-of-
way extends to a side property boundary, the minimum level of street improvements necessary to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians from/to the proposed
development shall be constructed.”
City practice is to require that the alley be brought up to current city standard when adding
development that would take access from the alley. Only the portion of the alley from the street
to the further edge of the property would need to be improved. In other words, the alley would not need to be paved from one street to the other. If the developer bears the full cost of
constructing street improvements, the developer may retain a reserve strip that requires
benefitting properties to purchase access rights across the reserve strip by paying to the developer a prorated share of the developer’s costs of the improvements (Code Section 4.2-105 G.5.) The
City is not in the practice of using irrevocable petitions for public improvements as these improvements generally do not end up being constructed.
Construction costs for alley improvements vary considerably by location and condition of the existing alley from something simple and easy to a major regrade and subgrade stabilization. Current Public Works policies are to accomplish this work with an encroachment
permit using standard details and already approved materials readily available in an effort to control the developer’s cost and time as much as possible. Requiring that alleys be paved helps
the City to incrementally improve city infrastructure to a level desired by the Council and the
public. The paving will reduce dust (as required by the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority). Paving also reduces stormwater contamination (as required by our municipal separate storm
sewer system permit from the Environmental Protection Agency) by reducing silt/dirt in the
runoff from alleys and the tracking of mud from the alley into the street that then will run off into our stormwater system. Paving alleys also helps keep mud and gravel from being tracked onto
the sidewalk where it can present a very real hazard to the public. (A fairly recent case involving this resulted in a $750,000 payment to a woman injured from tripping on debris tracked onto the sidewalk in Eugene).
8. Consider impacts of proposed language on street parking. The City has a variety of situations when it comes to paving width and the allowance for on-street
parking. If the Commission is concerned about potential impacts of ADUs on the available on-street parking, it could consider waiving the on-site parking space requirement only if there is paved parking on both sides of the street. If the Commission makes this recommendation, then
homes taking access from streets in the Kelly Butte area (and other areas with streets that do not
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
3
have parking on both sides) would be required to provide an on-site parking space for the ADU in
addition to the parking required for the single-family home. The Commission could also use a
combination approach, requiring the adjacent street to have parking on both sides of the street and that there be a parking space on the street directly abutting the property.
Making explicit that on-street parking must be paved takes into account a situation where the road has gravel shoulders. Since the code requires that a parking space be paved, the following
language explains that a parking space could be available (i.e. there is sufficient right-of-way to accommodate a parked car), but that to be used as parking it must be paved.
The Commission could consider which of the following language it wants to include for parking (new language highlighted in turquoise). Staff would then further adjust the finding in response to Policy 2.6 from the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan regarding on-street parking.
One paved, off-street parking space 9 feet by 18 feet in size, in addition to that which is required
by Section 4.6-100 is required unless there is on-street parking available directly abutting the
property, the abutting street includes parking on both sides of the street, and there are no
adopted plans to remove the on-street parking. The abutting on-street parking space must be
paved. The on-site parking space for the ADU must be paved, except when there is a paved
driveway at least 18 feet long measured from the property line that serves the parking space for
the ADU.
9. Consider different options to address design requirements.
The Commission asked that staff provide some different options for design requirements, both in terms of what is regulated and how it is regulated. As such, staff has prepared the following
options for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission can decide which combination of
regulations and approaches best responds to the Springfield community.
Option A – ADU to match the primary dwelling.
The existing design standards would remain largely in place, rewritten only to ensure that they are clear and objective. The Commission could require that any ADU match the primary dwelling.
Or it could require only attached ADUs to match the primary dwelling. Review of the ADU would be a Type I – Ministerial Land Use decision.
a) Exterior finish materials shall be the same as or visually match those of the primary dwelling
in terms of type, size, and placement.
b) Roof pitch shall be the same as the predominate roof pitch of the primary dwelling.
c) The trim around the doors and windows shall be the same type 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.
e) Eaves shall project from the accessory dwelling unit addition the same distance as the eaves
on the primary dwelling.
Option B – ADU to meet clear and objective design standards
The Commission could require an attached ADU to match the primary dwelling but allow a detached ADU to meet clear and objective standards. Or any ADU could be required to meet a
set of clear and objective standards. Either way, the ADU would be processed as a Type I
decision. Examples of clear and objective design standards the Commission could consider that address privacy and/or design compatibility:
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
4
a) A dwelling brought to the site (a Type 2 manufactured home or a towable structure that is
permitted, inspected and approved by the local authority having jurisdiction) shall be placed
on an excavated and back-filled foundation, enclosed at the perimeter with stone, brick or
other concrete or masonry materials approved by the Building Official and with no more
than 24 inches of the enclosing material exposed above grade. Where the building site has
a sloped grade, no more than 24 inches of the enclosing material shall be exposed on the
uphill side of the home (if the dwelling is placed on a basement, the 24 inch limitation will
not apply).
b) Only non-reflective siding and roofing materials are allowed.
c) Minimum roof pitch is 2 to 12.
d) Eaves shall project from the accessory dwelling unit at least one foot on all elevations.
e) The primary entry must have a covered or roofed entrance with a minimum depth and
width of 3 feet.
f) The entrance to the unit shall face the interior of the lot unless the accessory dwelling unit is
directly accessible from an alley or public street.
g) Second-story windows facing the nearest side or rear yard shall use opaque or sight-
obscuring glass or, if clear glass, the bottom of the window shall be five feet or more above
floor elevation. This provision does not apply when the windows face an alley or street, an
abutting garage, or a building wall where no windows exist.
h) Balconies on the second floor or higher are not permitted within ten feet of a property line
unless the balcony faces an abutting garage, a street, or an alley.
i) If the accessory dwelling is detached from the primary dwelling, it may not exceed the
height of the primary dwelling. Adding an accessory dwelling within the primary dwelling or
attached to the primary dwelling can result in additional height of the primary dwelling as
long as it continues to comply with overall height requirements.
j) The exterior wall shall provide an offset every 25 feet by providing a recess or extension, a
minimum depth of 2 feet and a minimum width of 5 feet for the full height of the wall.
k) Outdoor storage and garbage areas shall be screened from view from adjacent properties
and those across the street or alley with a minimum 42-inch tall 100-percent site obscuring
fence or enclosure on at least three sides.
Option C – ADU to be comparable to dwellings in the neighborhood If an applicant wanted to add an ADU that did not match the primary dwelling or that did not meet a set of clear and objective design standards, the applicant could go through a Type II –
Administrative Land Use decision to show compliance with somewhat discretionary standards. This approach would allow neighbors to comment on neighborhood compatibility.
a) Siding and roofing materials shall be similar to the materials predominately used on
residential dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood.
b) Entrances, windows and balconies shall be located with consideration of the privacy of
residential neighbors.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY Four emails have come in since the public hearing.
Carrol Crawford of Tiny Space 4 U dated October 18. Ms. Crawford’s comments about construction methods and materials are more appropriate for
consideration by the State Building Codes Division in terms of the Small Homes Code that they are
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
5
currently drafting. The City can impose design standards, but construction is regulated by the Building
Codes.
In terms of placement of a towable structure, there are a variety of acceptable methods for manufactured
homes/towable structures from a minimum of supporting the frame on wood blocks sitting directly on dirt
all the way up to poured concrete slabs with electrical grounding components incorporated for connection to the home it supports. Given the Planning Commission’s direction to require a permanent foundation,
staff has copied the requirements for a foundation of a manufactured home as a design standard for accessory dwelling units. If in response to Ms. Crawford’s testimony the Commission would like a different standard, we could change it or remove it.
Chad Anderson of Anderson Janitorial dated Oct. 18 and 23 Supports removing the requirement that the property owner live on site. Requests that if an existing
structure is being converted to an ADU, that the trim and siding not be required to match the main structure.
Kim Buckmaster dated Oct. 26 Supports barriers to ADUs being removed and provided other comments regarding the city’s affordable
housing strategy.
Michael Carrigan & Kris McAlister of Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance dated Oct. 27
Support being able to rehabilitate a property, removing requirement that owner live on property, and
expanded options for parking.
OTHER CHANGES TO CODE AMENDMENTS 1. In Code Section 5.5-115, added that ADUs are a Type II procedure in the Historic Overlay District.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR:
AMENDMENT TO THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ]
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ] 811-17-000057-TYP4
NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL
Request that the Springfield Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City
Council regarding amendments to the following sections of the Springfield Development Code as shown in Exhibit
B:
Chapter 3 Land Use Districts:
Section 3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories
Section 3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards
Section 3.3-900 Historic Overlay District
Chapter 5 The Development Review Process and Applications
Section 5.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
Chapter 6 Definitions
Section 6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
Notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on September 8, 2017, not less than
35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing in compliance with OAR 660-018-0020.
Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing has been provided, pursuant to Springfield Development Code
Section 5.2-115.
On October 17, 2017, the Springfield Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed
text amendments. The Commission left the record open until 5pm on October 27. The public hearing was
conducted in accordance with Springfield Development Code Sections 5.2-120 through 5.2-145. After review of
the staff report, evidence in the record, written comments (Exhibit C), and testimony of those who spoke at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that the code amendments meet the approval criteria.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) and evidence in the record, the proposed code amendments
(Exhibit B) meet the approval criteria of Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115.
ORDER/RECOMMENDATION
It is ORDERED by the Springfield Planning Commission that a RECOMMENDATION for approval of 811-17-000057-
TYP4 be forwarded to the Springfield City Council for consideration at an upcoming public hearing.
____________________________ ____________________
Planning Commission Chairperson Date
ATTEST
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 1
EXHIBIT A Changes made to the Findings since the Planning Commission hearing on Oct. 17 are highlighted in turquoise. DRAFT STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION CODE AMENDMENTS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) Public Hearing Date: October 17, 2017 Date of Draft Report: October 30, 2017
Journal #: 811-17-000057-TYP4 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Proposal: Encourage accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by simplifying the development code requirements and allowing accessory dwelling units not just in the Low Density
Residential zone but also in the Medium and High Density Residential zoning districts and the Washburne Historic District
Applicant: City of Springfield
Location: Applies to all residential zoning districts (Low Density Residential – LDR, Medium
Density Residential – MDR, and High Density Residential – HDR) within the city limits
BACKGROUND
The City Council has been developing an affordable housing strategy with the goal of increasing the
supply and accessibility of housing in Springfield throughout the housing continuum. One of the strategies is to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. One way to encourage accessory dwelling units is by revising the development code to make it easier and potentially less expensive to add
an accessory dwelling unit. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Proposed amendments are shown in legislative format in Exhibit B. The proposed amendments expand
options for accessory dwelling units in the following ways:
Allow an existing small dwelling to become an ADU (if it is less than 750 square feet), and build a primary dwelling unit.
Allow ADUs on properties zoned medium and high density residential.
Allow ADUs in the Washburne Historic District, subject to the requirements of Springfield
Development Code Section 3.3-900 (Historic Overlay District).
Remove the minimum size requirement of 300 square feet for an ADU.
Remove the ratio requirement (currently an ADU cannot exceed 40 percent of the size of the
primary dwelling), while maintaining the maximum ADU size requirement of 750 square feet.
Allow more flexibility in the location of the entrance to the ADU.
Waive the on-site parking requirement if there is on-street parking available (and there are no
adopted plans to remove the on-street parking).
Allow an unpaved parking space on-site, if there is a paved driveway (at least 18 feet long
measured from the property line) that serves the parking space for the ADU.
Remove requirement for the property owner to live on site.
Exhibit A 1 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 2
Allow more options for meeting design standards, including removing requirements that exterior
finish materials, trim, roof pitch, windows, and eaves be essentially the same as the primary dwelling.
Allow manufactured homes (Type 2) and approved towable structures as ADUs so long as they
are permitted, inspected, and approved by the local authority.
NOTIFICATION AND WRITTEN COMMENTS
In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was transmitted to the DLCD on September 8,
2017, which is 39 days prior to the Springfield Planning Commission’s public hearing on the matter.
Notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing was mailed to the Washburne Neighborhood
Association Board on October 3, 2017 as required by Springfield Development Code 5.2-115 A;
published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on October 6, 2017 as required by Springfield Development Code 5.2-115 B; and emailed and mailed to the interested parties list on October
5, 2017.
APPROVAL CRITERIA
Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115 lists the approval criteria for an amendment to the code.
A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the
City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following:
1. The Metro Plan;
2. Applicable State statutes; and
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Consistency with the Metro Plan The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the prevailing Comprehensive Plan. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element was adopted in 2011 through Springfield Ordinance 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA. 1274 as a refinement to the Metro Plan. Amendments to the development code must be
considered within the context of Springfield’s adopted policies. Thus any proposed amendments
must be consistent with the Metro Plan Residential Land Use Element and the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element. The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
adopted in 2014 by Springfield Ordinance 6314 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1303 is a
functional plan of the Metro Plan. Applicable policies and findings of fact showing compliance with those policies are presented below.
The following Metro Plan policy from the “Citizen Involvement Element” is an applicable approval criterion for the development code amendments.
K.3 Improve and maintain local mechanisms that provide the opportunity for residents and property owners in existing residential areas to participate in the implementation of
policies in the Metro Plan that may affect the character of those areas.
Exhibit A 2 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 3
Finding: The code amendments implement the housing policies of the Metro Plan. Residents
and property owners have had the opportunity to participate in the preparation and
adoption of the amendments to the Springfield Development Code as per the Citizen Involvement Plan approved by the Committee for Citizen Involvement on October 3,
2017.
The primary ways for residents and property owners to participate in the development of
the code amendments was through an Open House on September 28, 2017 and the
Planning Commission’s public hearing on October 17, 2017. The Commission left the record open until 5:00 pm on October 27, 2017 to allow for additional written comments.
There is one active neighborhood organization in the City, the Washburne Neighborhood Association. Staff had verbal communications with the Board in August and invited
them to the Open House on September 19, 2017 and sent them formal notice of the public hearing as per Springfield Development Code 5.2-115.A on October 3, 2017. People who signed up on the city’s interested parties list for Affordable Housing or the
Department of Development and Public Works were sent an invitation to the Open House on September 19, 2017, and a notice of the public hearing on October 5, 2107. An article
in the city’s newsletter, “Springfield Connection” advertised the Open House. The
Eugene Weekly included the Open House on the Community Calendar in the Sept. 21 and 28 issues. The City provided notice of the Open House via Twitter on Sept. 13, 26,
and 28 and via Facebook on Sept. 13 and 26. The City’s News Release on Sept. 14 and
25 that featured the Open House and mentioned the public hearing resulted in the KVAL/KMTR piece that ran on Sept. 28. Notice of the public hearing was published in
the legal notices section of The Register Guard on October 6, 2017 as required by
Springfield Development Code 5.2-115B. The general public and community groups were informed throughout the process by media coverage and the internet, including
social media and the city’s website. All City Council and Planning Commission meetings are advertised and open to the
public, including the work sessions during which the elected and appointed officials discussed the code amendments.
Thirty-six people signed in at the Open House, the comments of which are included as Exhibit C2.
The Historic Commission met on September 26, 2017 to provide a recommendation regarding allowing ADUs in the Washburne Historic District. A letter from the Chair is
included as Exhibit C1.
The following Metro Plan policies from the “Metropolitan Residential Land Use and Housing
Element” are applicable approval criteria for the development code amendments. Residential Density
A.10 Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB.
Finding: In the LDR zone, adding an ADU doubles the number of dwelling units on the lot and therefore increases the residential density. In the MDR and HDR zones, either one or
two ADUs will be permitted bringing the density of the lot up to the minimum density
Exhibit A 3 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 4
allowed in the zone. The ADUs will tap into the utility lines in place to serve the primary
dwelling. Transportation access to the ADUs will be from rights-of-way which in most
cases will already be developed. In some cases where the primary dwelling takes access from a street and the access to the ADU is from an unimproved alley, the alley would
need to be improved. Public services and facilities already in place to serve the residents
in the primary dwellings would also be available to serve the residents in the ADUs. Thus, promoting ADUs promotes higher residential density inside the UGB while
utilizing existing infrastructure, improving the efficiency of public services and facilities, and conserving rural resource lands outside the UGB.
A.13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoods. Finding: ADUs add dwelling units in areas that are already developed with existing homes.
Thus, these new units are designed as in-fill projects, either within existing structures or as new structures on developed residential lots. All the development standards such as
lot coverage, setbacks, and solar access will continue to apply to all buildings on the lot.
These standards thus will continue to address potential impacts of development on adjacent neighbors. ADUs in the Washburne Historic District will be processed as a
Type II land use application that must comply with the Alternation Standards in 3.3-945
of the Development Code to protect the historic character of the Historic Landmark District. Thus, the proposed amendments increase overall residential density in the
metropolitan area by creating more opportunities for effectively designed in-fill while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future neighborhoods.
A.14 Review local zoning and development regulations periodically to remove barriers to
higher density housing and to make provision for a full range of housing options.
Finding: Given that there have only been two ADUs permitted in the City in the past ten years, Council initiated these code amendments to make it easier and potentially less expensive
to add an ADU. Removing the on-site parking requirement in situations where parking is available allows development of ADUs in situations that would not be possible if on-site
parking was required. Allowing for unpaved parking in certain situations also reduces
the cost of development which could be a barrier to development. Removing the owner-occupancy requirement allows property owners who do not live in the property more
options for developing their property. Removing the owner-occupancy requirement also
allows homeowners to sell their property without a restrictive covenant that binds potential buyers to a residency requirement. The code amendments provide more options
for designing an ADU by allowing an existing dwelling to become an ADU, removing the minimum size requirement for the ADU, removing the ratio requirement for the size of the ADU, allowing more flexibility in the location of the entrance to the ADU,
allowing more options for meeting design standards, and allowing manufactured homes and approved towable structures as ADUs. The code amendments remove barriers to
higher density housing and increase the feasibility of an ADU as a housing option.
A.16 Allow for the development of zoning districts which allow overlap of the established Metro Plan density ranges to promote housing choice and result in either maintaining or
Exhibit A 4 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 5
increasing housing density in those districts. Under no circumstances, shall housing
densities be allowed below existing Metro Plan density ranges. Finding: Per Policy A.9, the Metro Plan density ranges for low density is up to 14.28 dwelling
units per net acre, 14.28 through 28.56 units per net acre for medium density, and over
28.56 units per net acre for high density. ADUs are allowed in the MDR and HDR zones only if the lot sizes are small enough such that the resulting number of dwellings on the
lot meets the minimum density requirement for the zoning district (14 units per net acre for MDR and 28 units per net acre for HDR). Thus, housing densities will be within the existing Metro Plan density range.
Housing Type and Tenure A.17 Provide opportunities for a full range of choice of housing type, density, size, cost, and
location. Finding: ADUs offer a small size home (750 square feet or less) option in neighborhoods that
will often be developed with single-family homes. This housing type provides an alternative to apartment complexes for renters that are generally available in medium and
high density residential areas. ADUs also provide an option for housing family members
or on-site caregivers that facilitate independence and proximity. Due to their smaller size and the fact that they do not need additional land, ADUs are more affordable than single-
family homes. Thus ADUs add to the range of choice of housing types, density, size,
cost and location.
A.18 Encourage a mix of structure types and densities within residential designations by reviewing and, if necessary, amending local zoning and development regulations.
Finding: Eight-four percent of the units added to the housing stock in Springfield from 2008 to 2016 were single-family homes. Two were ADUs. The code amendments remove regulatory barriers (on-site parking, owner occupancy, prohibition against manufactured
homes and towable structures, prohibition in the MDR and HDR zones and the Washburne Historic District) and allow more flexibility (size requirements and design options). These amendments to development regulations encourage ADUs to be a part of
the mix of structure types available within residential designations. Affordable, Special Need, and Fair Housing
A.33 Consider local zoning and development regulations impact on the cost of housing.
Finding: Providing a paved parking space on-site adds cost to the development of an ADU. The
proposed amendments offer two opportunities to reduce the cost of providing parking for the ADU: 1) removing the requirement for on-site parking if on-street parking is and will
continue to be available; and (2) allowing for on-site parking to be unpaved in certain
circumstances. Thus, the impact of development regulations on the cost of housing is considered in the code amendments.
The following policies from the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element are applicable approval criteria for the development code amendments.
Plan for Growth and Needed Housing
Exhibit A 5 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 6
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).
Finding: ADUs add housing units to land that is already developed. Thus, they help make
efficient use of the residential land supply inside the UGB. Regulatory requirements can be an impediment to development if they add cost or do not allow the location, size, type,
or design of a house desired by the property owner. The code amendments increase the area where ADUs are allowed (MDR and HDR zones, Washburne Historic District), remove the minimum size and ratio requirements, allow for manufactured homes and
towable structures as ADUs, and allow more flexibility in the design standards. Thus, the amendments reduce development impediments to more efficient utilization of the residential land supply inside the UGB.
Foster Housing Choice and Affordability 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].
Finding: 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 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. Thus, code amendments that make it
easier to add an ADU provide the opportunity for a broader range of affordable housing options for very low, low and moderate income residents.
Encourage Housing Diversity & Quality Neighborhoods 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. Finding: 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, especially 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 and provide an alternative housing option for people wanting to remain in their neighborhood even if their life circumstances
change. The code amendments that encourage ADUs update the development standards
to encourage ADUs as an option in both existing neighborhoods and new residential areas that match the changing demographics and lifestyles of Springfield residents.
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. Finding: ADUs are a type of infill development. Removing on-site parking requirements if on-
street parking is and will continue to be available, and allowing for unpaved parking in
Exhibit A 6 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 7
certain circumstances reduce the cost of developing an ADU and allows for more design
options on the lot. Other code amendments addressing size and design allow for more
flexibility while continuing to ensure quality. Thus, these amendments update residential development standards to enhance the affordability of ADUs as neighborhood infill
development.
The following policy from the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan is an applicable
approval criterion for the development code amendments. 2.6 Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and turnover for
surrounding land uses. Finding: Department of Environmental Quality research from 2014 shows that “because ADUs
are extremely rare (Portland, the nation’s ADU ‘leader’ has then on less than 1% of eligible lots), and because ADU households have fewer cars than other households, ADUs should have virtually no effect on parking conditions on a citywide basis.”1
Likewise in Springfield, it is anticipated that there will be minimal impacts to on-street parking on a citywide basis. The amendments require one on-site parking space for the
ADU (in addition to that required for the primary dwelling) if there is no on-street
parking abutting the property or if there are adopted plans to remove the on-street parking. Thus, the code amendments help manage the on-street parking system to
preserve adequate capacity and turnover for surrounding land uses.
Finding: The code amendments comply with applicable policies from the Metro Plan including
the Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
and the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan, and therefore meet Criterion A.1. 2. Consistency with State statues. Earlier this year, the legislature passed Senate Bill 1051 which resulted in changes to ORS 197.
Applicable statutes are listed below as approval criteria. ORS 197.312 (5)(a) A city with a population greater than 2,500 or a county with a population greater than 15,000 shall allow in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.
(b) As used in this subsection, “accessory dwelling unit” means an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a
single-family dwelling. Finding: Springfield’s estimated population for 2016 is 61,893 making this statute applicable to
the city. The LDR, MDR, and HDR zones allow detached single-family dwellings and
therefore are required to allow at least one ADU for each detached single-family dwelling. The city’s definition of accessory dwelling states that it “may be located
within, attached to or detached from the primary single-family dwelling” which complies with subsection (b). The code amendments allow one or two ADUs in the MDR and HDR zones (depending on lot size) where they were not previously allowed. ADUs were
1 Martin Brown, “Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland, OR: Evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU owners” (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, June 2014, http://accessorydwllings.org/2014/07/09/are-
adus-green-housing/).
Exhibit A 7 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 8
already allowed in the LDR zone. As shown through the findings above, the siting and
design standards comply with Springfield’s adopted policies and are reasonable. Thus,
the code amendments comply with this statute.
ORS 197.307 (4)(b)(A) A city may not deny an application for a housing development located within the urban growth boundary if the development complies with clear and objective standards, including but not limited to clear and objective design standards contained in
the city comprehensive plan or land use regulations. (B) This paragraph does not apply to: (i) Applications or permits for residential development in areas described in ORS
197.307 (5); or (ii) Applications or permits reviewed under an alternative approval process adopted under ORS 197.307 (6).
Finding: Amendments to the design standards for ADUs require that the ADU either match the primary dwelling or meet clear and objective standards for exterior finish materials, roof
pitch, trim, windows, and eaves. The amended code also sets objective height limits. ORS 197.307 (5) (b) covers an application or permit for residential development in
historic areas designated for protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic
areas. Therefore, the design standards for ADUs in the Washburne Historic District are not required to be clear and objective and the alteration standards for the Historic District
remain in place. The definitions for manufactured dwellings are amended to identify the
specific materials that are allowed rather than somewhat discretionary requirement that the materials be similar to the materials used in residential dwellings in the community or
which are comparable to the predominant materials used on surround dwellings. Thus the amendments make the design standards for ADUs clear and objective in the land use regulations.
Finding: The code amendments comply with applicable statues and therefore meet Criterion A.2.
3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
The purpose of Statewide Planning Goal 10 is to ensure the opportunity for the provision of adequate numbers of needed housing units, the efficient use of buildable land within urban
growth boundaries, and to provide greater certainty in the development process so as to reduce housing costs.
The following OARs provide standards for compliance with Goal 10 “Housing” to implement ORS 197.303 through 197.307:
OAR 660-008-0010 Allocation of Buildable Land The mix and density of needed housing is determined in the housing needs projection.
Sufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection. The local buildable lands inventory must document the amount of buildable land in each
residential plan designation. Finding: The Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis was adopted as a
Technical Supplement to the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element in 2011. ADUs are not a dwelling unit type called out in this analysis. Given that by definition, ADUs are only permitted in conjunction with a single-family
Exhibit A 8 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 9
detached dwelling, they will not utilize vacant or partially vacant land (as defined in the
Analysis). They provide an infill opportunity that was not accounted for in the Buildable
Land Inventory. Therefore, allowing ADUs in the Medium Density and High Density Plan Designations will not have an effect of reducing the buildable land in those plan
designations. Making it easier to add an ADU in the Low Density Plan Designation will
not have an effect of reducing the buildable land in that plan designation. The code amendments have no detrimental impact on the Buildable Land Inventory and have the
potential to allow for more housing within the developed areas of the city, particularly the
smaller rental units that meet the projected need of smaller households who need affordable options. Therefore, the proposed code amendments comply with this
administrative rule. 660-008-0015 Clear and Objective Approval Standards Required
(1) Except as provided in section (2) of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply only clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of needed housing on buildable land. The standards, conditions and
procedures may not have the effect, either in themselves or cumulatively, of discouraging needed housing through unreasonable cost or delay.
(2) In addition to an approval process for needed housing based on clear and objective
standards, conditions and procedures as provided in section (1) of this rule, a local government may adopt and apply an optional alternative approval process for
applications and permits for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, appearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if:
(a) The applicant retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets the requirements of section (1); (b) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable
statewide land use planning goals and rules; and (c) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in
section (1) of this rule. (3) Subject to section (1), this rule does not infringe on a local government’s prerogative to:
(a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedures.
Finding: Amendments to the design standards for ADUs require that the ADU either match the
primary dwelling or meet clear and objective standards for exterior finish materials, roof
pitch, trim, windows, and eaves. The amended code also sets objective height limits. ORS 197.307 (5) (b) covers an application or permit for residential development in
historic areas designated for protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic
areas. Therefore, the design standards for ADUs in the Washburne Historic District are not required to be clear and objective and the alteration standards for the Historic District
may remain in place. The definitions for manufactured dwellings are amended to identify the specific materials that are allowed rather than the somewhat discretionary requirement that the materials be similar to the materials used in residential dwellings in
the community or which are comparable to the predominant materials used on surround
dwellings. Thus the amendments make the design standards for ADUs clear and objective in the land use regulations.
Exhibit A 9 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 40
811-17-000057-TYP4 ADU Code Amendments - Staff Report and Findings Page 10
Finding: The code amendments comply with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules and therefore meet Criterion A.3.
Exhibit A 10 of 10
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 40
1
Exhibit B
This version of the code amendments incorporates direction from the Planning Commission’s Oct. 17
public hearing and one staff-identified change (to clarify that an ADU in the Historic Overlay District is a
Type II land use decision). For ease of review, this new text and text changes which the Planning
Commission has not yet seen are highlighted in turquoise.
Amendments to the Springfield Development Code
to Encourage Accessory Dwelling Units
The amendments are shown in legislative format (deleted text with strike-thru red font and new text
with double underline red font). Commentary is shown in purple italics font.
Chapter 3 Land Use Districts
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts
Section 3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories
Commentary: Allow accessory dwelling units in all areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings as
required by Oregon Revised Statutes 197.312 (5) which was added by Senate Bill 1051.
Use Categories/Uses Zoning Districts
Residential Uses LDR SLR MDR HDR
Dwellings
Accessory dwelling unit (Section 5.5-100) P P NP NP
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards
Commentary: Clarify that minimum setbacks apply to primary structures and ADUs.
Minimum Setbacks for Primary Structures and Accessory Dwelling Units (4)(5)(7)(8)(9)(10)(19)
Residential Zoning District
Development
Standard
Low Density
Residential (LDR)
Small Lot
Residential (SLR)
Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
High Density
Residential (HDR)
Front Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Street Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Interior Yard
Setbacks Without
Zero Lot Line
5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Interior Yard
Setbacks with Zero
Lot Line
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Front Yard
Setback: Garages
and Carports (6)
18 feet measured along the driveway from:
1. The property line fronting the street or back of the sidewalk, whichever is
closest to the face of the garage or carport; or
Exhibit B 1 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 40
2
2. The property line fronting the street or the back of the sidewalk, whichever is
closest to the far wall of the garage or carport where the face of the structure is
perpendicular to the street.
3. Where a garage or carport faces a panhandle driveway, the 18 feet is measured
from the inner travel edge (pavement or gravel) within the panhandle to the face
of the structure.
Alley Access:
Garage
For new alleys the setback is 5 feet measure from the edge of the alley; for existing
alleys that are less than 20 feet wide, the setback is 3 feet.
Accessory
Structures
Accessory structures shall not be located between any front or street side yards of
a primary structure and shall be set back at least 3 feet from interior side and rear
lot/parcel lines.
Panhandle and
Duplex
Lots/Parcels
All setbacks for panhandle lots/parcels are based on the orientation of the front
and rear of the dwelling occupying the lot/parcel. All setbacks for duplexes on
corner lots/parcels are based upon the front yard of each unit established by the
street or streets for address purposes.
(19) Accessory dwelling units may be located up to five feet from an alley. If the accessory dwelling is
located above an alley access garage, the setback for the garage from the alley also applies to
the accessory dwelling unit, even if it is less than five feet.
Section 3.3-900 Historic Overlay District
Commentary: Allowing accessory dwelling units in the Washburne Historic Landmark District requires
that they be addressed in the Historic Overlay District.
3.3-915 Review
B. The following major alterations of Historic Landmark Sites or Structures shall be reviewed under
Type II procedures as specified in Section 3.3-945;
1. Additions, partial demolitions, or substantial alterations to a building façade;
2. A change to a more intensive use category as defined in the underlying zoning district;
3. Installation of 4 or more parking places;
4. Removal or radical trimming of large established trees or vegetation, except where
necessary for immediate public safety as determined by the City Engineer;
5. Specific Development Standards in the Washburne Historic Landmark District specified
in Section 3.3-935B;
6. New construction of 1,000 square feet or more within the Washburne Historic
Landmark District;
6.7. Addition of an accessory dwelling unit that complies with the Development Standards in
Section 3.3-940; or
7.8. Any other alteration or use that the Director determines may detract from the historic
character of a Historic Landmark Site or Structure.
Exhibit B 2 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 40
3
3.3-940 Development Standards
A. Garage Placement. In order tTo protect the historic character of anthe Washburne Historic
Landmark District or an individual Historic Landmark Structure, residential garages may be
permitted to abut an alley, provided that:
A1. Minimum fire separation as required by the Building Safety Codes is not exceeded; and
B2. Access is taken from the alley.
B. Accessory Dwelling Units. To protect the historic character of the Washburne Historic Landmark
District or an individual Historic Landmark Structure, the following standards apply to accessory
dwelling units in residential districts:
1. Accessory dwelling units must meet the requirements in Sections 5.5-105 through 5.5-
140 of this Code, except where they conflict with the standards of the Historic Overlay
District.
2. New or expanded curb cuts are not allowed unless there is no other alternative for
providing the required parking for the accessory dwelling unit. Alternatives that must
be considered include, but are not limited to, providing a parking space that is accessed
from the alley rather than the street, and using on-street parking abutting the property.
3. Alterations that add an entrance to an attached accessory dwelling unit on the same
side of the dwelling as the entrance of the primary dwelling are not permitted.
4. Type 2 manufactured homes shall not be used as an accessory dwelling unit.
Chapter 5 The Development Review Process and Applications
Section 5.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
5.5-105 Purpose
Commentary: Delete the first section of the Purpose which actually defines an accessory dwelling unit
and rely on the definition that is in Chapter 6.
A. A single-family accessory dwelling unit:
1. Is a secondary, self-contained dwelling that may be allowed only in conjunction with a
detached single-family dwelling;
2. Is subordinate in size, location, and appearance to the primary detached single-family
dwelling;
3. Generally has its own outside entrance and always has a separate kitchen, bathroom
and sleeping area; and
Exhibit B 3 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 40
4
4. May be located within, attached to or detached from the primary single-family dwelling.
Commentary: Match the purpose of accessory dwelling units to policy language in the Springfield 2030
Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element (Policies H.6, H.9, H.11, and H.15).
BA. An accessory dwelling unit is intended to:
1. Provide the opportunity to Aadd accessible and affordable units to existing housing
stock neighborhoods and new residential areas;
2. Provide flexibility to accommodate for changes in household size or composition over
the course of time, allowing for intergenerational living and on-site
caretakers/assistants;
3. Make efficient use of residential land; and
43. Fit into the Protect neighborhood while maintaining stability, property values, and in the
case of low-density residential zones, the single-family residential appearance of the
neighborhood by ensuring that Accessory Dwelling Units are constructed under the
provisions of this Section.
Commentary: Make grammatical structure consistent for each phrase.
CB. An accessory dwelling may be established by:
1. Convertingsion of an attic, basement or garage or any other portion of the primary
dwelling;
2. Adding floor area to the primary dwelling, including a second story; or
3. Constructingon of a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot/parcel with a primary
single-family dwelling.
Commentary: Allow existing small dwellings to become the accessory dwelling unit.
4. Converting an existing dwelling unit to the accessory dwelling unit (if it is less than 750
square feet) and building a primary dwelling unit.
5.5-110 Applicability
Commentary: Allow accessory dwelling units to be built first or at the same time as the primary dwelling
A. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on LDR properties with an existing primary dwelling,
within the city limits.
Commentary: Allow accessory dwelling units in all areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings as
required by ORS 197.312 (5) which was amended by SB 1051 as long as the new development would
meet the minimum density requirements in the MDR or HDR zoning district. If the lot or parcel
Exhibit B 4 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 40
5
developed with a single-family house is larger than those listed below, then the property owner would
need to consider other options such as land divisions or building multi-family dwellings in order to
achieve the minimum density requirements. Multi-unit design standards apply to three or more attached
units. Therefore, if there are two accessory dwelling units, one must be detached from the main
structure.
B. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on MDR properties with a primary dwelling, within the
city limits, according to the following standards:
1. On a lot or parcel with area 6650 square feet or less, one or two accessory dwelling
units are permitted.
2. On a lot or parcel with area greater than 6650 square feet but not greater than 10,000
square feet, two accessory dwelling units are permitted. A single accessory dwelling
unit on such lot or parcel is not permitted.
3. An accessory dwelling unit is not permitted on a lot or parcel with area greater than
10,000 square feet.
4. If two accessory dwellings are constructed, at least one must be detached from the
primary dwelling.
C. Accessory dwelling units are permitted on HDR properties with a primary dwelling, within the
city limits, according to the following standards:
1. On a lot or parcel with area 3200 square feet or less, one or two accessory dwelling
units are permitted.
2. On a lot or parcel with area greater than 3200 square feet but not greater than 4800
square feet, two accessory dwelling units are permitted. A single accessory dwelling
unit on such lot or parcel is not permitted.
3. An accessory dwelling is not permitted on a lot or parcel with area greater than 4800
square feet.
4. If two accessory dwellings are constructed, at least one must be detached from the
primary dwelling.
Commentary: Allow accessory dwelling units in the Washburne Historic District.
B.D. EXCEPTION: Accessory dwelling Uunits are prohibited permitted on lots/parcels within the
Washburne Historic Overlay District subject to the provisions of Section 3.3-910 through 3.3-
945.
5.5-115 Review
Commentary: Add that ADUs in the Washburne Historic District are reviewed under a Type II procedure.
Exhibit B 5 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 40
6
An accessory dwelling unit is reviewed under Type I procedure except in the Historic Overlay District
where it reviewed under a Type II procedure.
5.5-120 Submittal Requirements
Add to the submittal requirements to make enable a complete review of the application.
A plan drawn to scale and dimensioned showing the proposed accessory dwelling unit and its relation to
the property lines, the primary dwelling and other structures on the lot/parcel including fences and
walls; existing and proposed trees and landscaping;, lot/parcel area and dimensions, percent of
lot/parcel coverage, building height, entrance locations,; location of utilities and meters, curb cuts,
sidewalks (public and private) and off-street parking area; a detailed floor plan of the accessory dwelling
unit, drawn to scale with labels on rooms indicating uses or proposed uses; and a separate written
response demonstrating how the required development standards listed in Section 5.5-125 can be met.
5.5-125 Development Standards
Commentary: Make accessory dwelling unit “single” for style consistency.
An accessory dwelling units shall meet the following standards:
A. The accessory dwelling unit shall meet all applicable standards in this Code including, but not
limited to; setbacks, height, lot/parcel coverage, solar access and building codes in effect at the
time of construction.
Commentary: Rely on 5.5-140 to regulate the minimum lot/parcel size.
B. The minimum lot/parcel size to construct an accessory dwelling unit is as specified in Section
3.2-215.
CB. The accessory dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen, bathroom, living, and sleeping area that are
completely independent from the primary dwelling.
Commentary: Remove the ratio requirement for size of the accessory dwelling unit.
DC. The accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 750 square feet or Tthe square footage of the
accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 40 percent of the primary dwelling (exclusive of the
garage for the primary dwelling), whichever is less. Within this standard, the minimum area shall
not be less than 300 square feet. The maximum area shall not exceed 750 square feet.
EXCEPTION: The 40 percent requirement will not apply when the primary structure is less than
750 square feet in size, in order to ensure a 300 square foot minimum accessory dwelling unit.
The minimum and maximum square footage shall be 300 square feet when the existing primary
structure is less than 750 square feet in size.
Commentary: Incorporate building code requirement that an accessory dwelling unit must have its own
outside entrance and remove requirement that allows only one entrance.
Exhibit B 6 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 40
7
ED. The accessory dwelling unit shall have When separate an outside entrances to the accessory
dwelling unit are proposed:that is separate from the entrance to the primary dwelling.
Commentary: Allow more flexibility in the location of the entrance.
1. Only 1 entrance may be located on the front or street side of each residence.
2. A hard surface walkway, a minimum of 3 feet wide, shall be required from the primary
entrance of the accessory dwelling unit to the street or walkway serving the primary
dwelling.
FE. Each dwelling shall have its own address.
Commentary: Waive the on-site parking requirement in some situations where on-street parking is
available. Also, remove the requirement for the on-site parking space to be paved if there is a paved
driveway providing access to the parking space.
FG. One paved, off-street parking space 9 feet by 18 feet in size, in addition to that which is required
by Section 4.6-100 is required unless there is on-street parking available directly abutting the
property and there are no adopted plans to remove the on-street parking. The on-site parking
space for the ADU must be paved, except when there is a paved driveway at least 18 feet long
measured from the property line that serves the parking space for the ADU.
Commentary: Remove this requirement to allow existing small homes to become the accessory dwelling
unit.
H. The accessory dwelling unit may not be occupied prior to occupancy of the primary dwelling.
Commentary: Remove the requirement that the property owner live on site.
I. Before final occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit, the property owner shall record a deed
restriction that states the property owner shall reside on the property and the accessory
dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling, unless lawfully partitioned.
5.5-130 Design Standards
Commentary: Provide the property owner more flexibility in design of the new dwelling while also
including clear and objective design standards (as required by Oregon Revised Statutes 197.307 (4) which
was amended through Senate Bill 1051).
An accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards, where practicable the:
A. A. Exterior finish materials shall be either:
1. tThe same or essentially the same visually matching those of in terms of type, size,
placement and finish as the primary dwelling in terms of type, size, and placement, or
Exhibit B 7 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 40
8
1. Made from wood, composite boards, vinyl or aluminum products composed in a shingle
pattern, or in a horizontal clapboard or shiplap pattern with boards 7 inches or less in
width.
2.
B. Roof pitch shall match the roof pitch of the primary dwelling.Minimum roof pitch shall be 2 to
12.
C. The trim around all doors and windows shall be either the same in type, location and finish as
the primary dwelling or shall be at least 3 ½ inches wide.
D. Windows on all street facing facades shall either match those of the primary dwelling in terms of
proportion (height and width ratio) and orientation (vertical vs. horizontal) or no window shall
be wider than it is tall.
E. Eaves shall either project from the accessory dwelling unit addition the same distance as the
eaves on the primary dwelling or shall project from the building walls at least one foot on all
elevations.
Commentary: Require a permanent foundation for manufactured homes and towable structures that are
used as an accessory dwelling unit.
F. A dwelling brought to the site (a Type 2 manufactured home or a towable structure that is
permitted, inspected and approved by the local authority having jurisdiction) shall be placed on
an excavated and back-filled foundation, enclosed at the perimeter with stone, brick or other
concrete or masonry materials approved by the Building Official and with no more than 24
inches of the enclosing material exposed above grade. Where the building site has a sloped
grade, no more than 24 inches of the enclosing material shall be exposed on the uphill side of
the home (if the dwelling is placed on a basement, the 24 inch limitation will not apply).
Commentary: Address privacy concerns.
F. Second-story windows facing the nearest side or rear yard shall use opaque or sight-obscuring
glass or, if clear glass, the bottom of the window shall be five feet or more above floor elevation.
This provision does not apply when the windows face an abutting garage or building wall where
no windows exist.
G. Balconies on the second floor or higher are not permitted within the yard setback area, unless
the balcony faces an abutting garage.
Commentary: Add a height limit for a detached accessory dwelling to ensure that it is subordinate in size
and appearance.
H. If the accessory dwelling is detached from the primary dwelling, it may not exceed the height of
the primary dwelling. Adding an accessory dwelling within the primary dwelling or attached to
the primary dwelling can result in additional height of the primary dwelling as long as it
continues to comply with overall height requirements.
Commentary: Remove this subsection as it is no longer necessary.
Exhibit B 8 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 40
9
5.5-135 Prior Uses
The Director shall approve any accessory dwelling unit existing at the time of the adoption of this
amendment if the following conditions can be met:
A. The accessory dwelling unit complies with the provisions of Sections 5.5-105 through 5.5-130;
and
B. A building permit was issued when the accessory dwelling unit was constructed or remodeled.
The burden of proof is the responsibility on the property owner to show proof of building
permits.
5.5-140 Non-conforming Lot/Parcel Sizes
Commentary: Improve the wording.
Accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on lots/parcels that do not meet the applicable
minimum lot/parcel size stated in Section 3.2-215.
5.5-1435 Prohibited Use
Commentary: Allow Type 2 Manufactured Homes and approved towable structures as accessory
dwelling units.
Mobile homes, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, motor vehicles, and travel trailers and all
other forms of towable or manufactured structures shall not be used as an accessory dwelling unit.
Type 2 Manufactured Homes and towable structures that are permitted, inspected and approved by the
local authority having jurisdiction are allowed.
Chapter 6 Definitions
Section 6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms
Commentary: Remove redundant definition and replace with a cross reference.
Accessory Dwelling Unit A secondary, self-contained dwelling that may be allowed only in conjunction
with a detached single-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit is subordinate in size, location, and
appearance to the primary detached single-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit generally has its
own outside entrance and always has a separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. An accessory
dwelling may be located within, attached to or detached from the primary single-family dwelling. See
Dwelling Unit, Accessory
Commentary: Change definition to allow an existing house to become the accessory dwelling unit. Also,
require a separate outside entrance for the accessory dwelling unit as required by building codes.
Dwelling Unit, Accessory A secondary, self-contained dwelling that may be allowed only in conjunction
with a detached single-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit is subordinate in size, location, and
Exhibit B 9 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 40
10
appearance to the primary detached single-family dwelling. An accessory dwelling unit generally has its
own outside entrance and always has a separate kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. An accessory
dwelling may be located within, attached to or detached from the primary single-family dwelling.
Commentary: Change definition to recognize that accessory dwelling units could share a wall with the
single-family dwelling.
Dwelling, Detached Single-Family A single-family dwelling on its own lot/parcel that does not share a
wall with any other dwelling other than an accessory dwelling unit. ThisA detached single-family
dwelling may be either site built or a manufactured dwelling.
Dwelling, Manufactured.
A. Residential Trailer: a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has
sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, is being used
for residential purposes and was constructed before January 1, 1962.
B. Mobile Home: a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping,
cooking and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy that is being used for
residential purposes and was constructed between January 1, 1962 and June 15, 1976, and met
the construction requirements of Oregon Mobile Home Law in effect at the time of
construction.
C. Manufactured Home: a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has
sleeping, cooking and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy that is being
used for residential purposes and was constructed on or after June 15, 1976 in accordance with
Federal Safety Standards Regulations in effect at the time of construction. In addition,
manufactured homes sited within the jurisdictional boundaries of Springfield shall be of either
Type 1 or Type 2 classification and shall comply with the following standards:
1. Type 1 Manufactured Home:
a. Multi-sectional configuration enclosing a minimum floor area of 1,000 square
feet;
Commentary: Make the design standards clear and objective as required by Oregon Revised Statutes
197.307 (4) which was amended through Senate Bill 1051.
b. Siding and roofing materials shall be non-reflectivesimilar to the materials used
in residential dwellings in the community or which are comparable to the
predominant materials used on surrounding dwellings;
Commentary: Make the language for roof pitch consistent with other sections of the code.
c. Minimum roof pitch of 3 feet vertical in 12 feet of width;
Exhibit B 10 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 40
11
d. Thermal efficiency equivalent to the Oregon One- and Two-Family Dwelling
Specialty Code excluding units built prior to the effective date of this Ordinance
(5-1-94). These units shall meet or exceed the HUD energy standards that were
in effect at the time of construction.
2. Type 2 Manufactured Home:
Commentary: Allow manufactured homes larger than 500 square feet but smaller than 1000 square feet
to be included as a Type 2 Manufactured Home. Manufactured homes up to 750 square feet could be
used as an accessory dwelling unit.
a. Single-wide unit of not less than 12 feet wide enclosing less than a minimum
floor area of 500 1000 square feet;
Commentary: Make the design standards clear and objective as required by Oregon Revised Statutes
197.307 (4) which was amended through Senate Bill 1051.
b. Siding and roofing materials shall be non-reflectivesimilar to the materials used
in residential dwellings in the community or which are comparable to the
predominant materials used on surrounding dwellings;
Commentary: Make the language for roof pitch consistent with other sections of the code.
c. mMinimum roof pitch of 2 in feet vertical in 12 feet of width;
cd. Thermal efficiency equivalent to the Oregon One- and Two-Family Dwelling
Specialty Code excluding units built prior to May 1, 1994. These units shall meet
or exceed the HUD energy standards that were in effect at the time of
construction.
Commentary: Correct inconsistent labelling (Arabic numeral instead of Roman numeral).
Note: Multi-sectional units placed on lots/parcels eligible for Type 2 units shall comply with all
of the standards of a Type I1 manufactured home.
Exhibit B 11 of 11
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 40
Page 1 of 2
October 3, 2017
City of Springfield
Planning Commission
225 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477
The Historic Commission convened on Tuesday, September 26th for a regular bimonthly
meeting and discussed proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Code that pertain to accessory dwelling units. City staff presented an overview of the proposed
amendments and requested the Historic Commission to provide a recommendation to the
Planning Commission with regards to allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) within the
Washburne Historic District. The Commission actioned support for the proposed revisions
with the following notations:
1. The Historic Commission conveyed support for on-street parking to satisfy additional
parking requirements for ADUs while prohibiting any new curb-cuts to create
driveways.
2. The Commission noted that ADUs that are attached to the primary dwelling should not be designed to have the ingress/egress door on the same side as the front door of the
primary dwelling.
3. The Commission does not want to allow manufactured homes as ADUs but thought
that the existing alteration standards would prohibit this type of structure.
4. The Commission did not come to a conclusion on whether or not to require the property owner to occupy the primary dwelling or accessory dwelling unit by recording
a deed restriction against the property. The Commission rescheduled its next meeting
for the afternoon of November 16 to allow further discussion prior to the City Council’s
public hearing.
City staff asked the Commission to provide input on the type of procedure to evaluate ADUs
in the Washburne Historic District. The Commission’s recommendations are summarized
below:
Rely on existing development code Section 3.3-945 and Historic Design Guidelines These code regulations include standards for major and minor alterations that apply to any alterations, additions, and new construction. Every applicant is provided a copy of the
Springfield Historic Design Guidelines. Although not regulatory in nature, these Guidelines
address the exteriors of buildings that may undergo alteration, and include sections on
additions and new construction. There are also guidelines that apply to accessory structures that would pertain to a conversion of an accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
225 FIFTH STREET SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PHONE: 541.726.3753
FAX: 541.736.1021
www.springfield-or.gov
Exhibit C 1 - 1 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 23 of 40
Page 2 of 2
Create new guidelines for accessory dwelling units.
Modify or add to the suggestions listed in the Springfield Historic Design Guidelines. These would then help educate people about the best ways to add a dwelling unit on a property while retaining the integrity of the historic district. The regulatory requirements would remain
as written in Section 3.3-945 of the development code.
Allow accessory dwelling units as Major Alterations (Type II procedure) The decision would be made by the Planning Director unless s/he determines that it should be reviewed as a Type III decisions due to the complexity of the application or the need for
discretionary review. The Historic Commission determined that adding an accessory dwelling
unit is “a change to a more intensive use category as defined in the underlying zoning
district”, and therefore fits the category of a major alteration under Subsection 3.3-915 B.2. The Commission recommended adding accessory dwelling units to the list in subsection B of Section 3.3-915.
We look forward to future correspondence on this subject.
Best,
__________________
Tim Hilton, Chair
Springfield Historic Commission
Exhibit C 1 - 2 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 24 of 40
Open House Comments
On Proposed Amendments to the Springfield Development Code to Encourage ADUs
The Open House was held on September 28, 2017 from 4-7 pm in the Library Meeting Room at
City Hall. Thirty-six people signed in (excluding staff). The following comments are compiled
from sticky notes placed on a poster of proposed code amendments and from comment forms.
What positive opportunities do you see from the proposed code amendments?
1. The obvious - incentive to add more affordable housing without expanding into open land
and forests.
2. More interesting, creative homes NOT designed en masse by a developer.
3. Increased housing
4. More affordable housing
5. Housing that requires/uses fewer resources, including less drain on the grid
6. Potential for seniors to live in their homes longer
7. The young being housed without going into debt
8. Potential to shift from a life focused on accumulation of stuff to a life focused on
community (less space = less stuff)
9. Affordable housing for owner
10. Affordable housing for renters
11. Muy buena idea para ayudar a familias de pocos recursos. Translation: Very good idea to
help low income families.
12. Yes to all proposed changes. All are barriers to entry.
13. Yes to allowing an existing smaller dwelling to become an ADU. Wonderful.
14. Yes, allow ADUs in the Washburne Historic District.
15. Same opportunity for historic district
16. I love removing min. size requirement.
17. Yes, remove the minimum size requirement. Yes, Definitely! Absolutely! Wonderful!
18. Yes, remove the ratio requirement while keeping the max size of 750 sq. ft.
19. I love entrance flexibility.
20. Yes, allow more flexibility in the location of the entry door.
21. I love allowing unpaved or on-street parking.
22. Yes, yes, waive the on-site parking requirement if on-street parking available.
23. Yes, allow an unpaved parking space.
24. Yes, remove the requirement for the property owner to live on site. It’s important to me to
be able to leave my property to travel . . . and at the same time know that someone is there
to keep an eye on things. I don’t want to be restricted just because of a 2nd unit.
25. I love increasing options for design standards.
26. Yes, yes! Allow more options for meeting design standards.
27. Allowing more options for meeting design standards is especially important for steeply
sloped lots (>8% diagonal) and riverside lots, where the best building style for one section of
the lot may not be the best for another section.
28. Yes! (and again yes!) for allowing manufactured homes and approved towable structures.
Exhibit C 2 - 1 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 25 of 40
What concerns do you have about the proposed code amendments?
29. None
30. I do not agree with accepting mobile homes (cheap construction, always ugly, doesn’t
promote local business & construction)
31. ? on manufactured homes and approved towable structures
32. I do not agree with non-owner occupied (promotes people flipping houses, focused on
money not quality, encourages wealthy to buy up available good family homes and charge
more than necessary)
33. I think it best to keep the requirement to live on site.
34. Make the max. size 750 sq. ft. or 10% of lot size, whichever is greater.
35. I support the proposed amendments and applaud the city for taking these steps to allow
people to live in smaller, more affordable ways! My concern has to do with the process of
hearing everyone’s ideas – my hope is that all concerns will be heard/considered, rather
than the loudest voice or the voice with the most money being valued over others.
What else would you like the City to know regarding ADUs?
36. Thank you! Great idea & incentive to do something I was already considering.
37. Please consider tiny house villages (similar to mobile home park with multiple units, but
different in layout where units are circled around a common space and resources are
shared.)
38. It seems people are afraid of their neighborhood changing; I think that it’s important to
keep in mind that given the current housing shortage, things WILL have to change.
39. Way to go!
U:\Community Development\Affordable Housing\ADU Program\Comms & Outreach Materials\Open House 9-28-
17\Public Comments.docx
Exhibit C 2 - 2 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 26 of 40
Exhibit C 3 - 1 of 1
Attachment 2, Page 27 of 40
Exhibit C 4 -1 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 28 of 40
Exhibit C 4 -2 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 29 of 40
Exhibit C 5 - 1 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 30 of 40
Exhibit C 5 - 2 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 31 of 40
Re:
FAIR
HOUSING
COUNCIL
OF OREGON
October 17,2017
City Springfi eld Planning Commission
225 Fifrh Street
Springfield OF.97477
811-17-000057-TYP4 encouraging accessory dwelling units through amendments to
the Development Code
Dear Commissioners
This letter is submitted jointly by Housing Land Advocates (HLA) and the Fair Housing Council
of Oregon (FHCO). Both HLA and FHCO are non-profrt organizations that advocate for land
use policies and practices that ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of affordable housing
for all Oregonians. FHCO's interests relate to a jurisdiction's obligation to affirmatively further
fair housing. Please include these comments in the record for the above-referenced proposed
amendment.
As you may know, all amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Map andZoningMap must
comply with the Statewide Planning Goals. ORS 1 97. 17 5(2)(a). However, the staff report for the
proposed amendment does not make Goal l0 findings.
When a decision is made affecting the residential land supply, the City must refer to its Housing
Needs Analysis and Buildable Land Inventory (BLD to show that an adequate number of needed
housing units (both housing type and affordability level) will be supported by the residential land
supply after enactment of the proposed change-that analysis was not included in the staff
report.
Even when a proposal increases the residential land supply, the City must show that it is adding
needed residential zones. The City must demonstrate that its actions do not leave it with less than
adequate residential land supplies in the types, locations, and affordability ranges affected. See
Mulford v. Town of Lakeview,36 Or LUBA 715,731 (1999) (rezoning residential land for
industrial uses); Greshamv. Fairview, 3 Or LUBA 219 (same); see also, Home Builders Assn. of
t
Exhibit C 5 - 3 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 32 of 40
FAIR
HOUSING
COUNCIL
OF OREGON
Lane County v. City of Eugene,4l Or LUBA 370,422 (2002) (subjecting Goal 10 inventories to
tree and waterway protection zones of indefinite quantities and locations). Only with a complete
analysis showing any gain in needed housing as compared to the BLI can housing advocates and
planners understand whether the City is achieving its goals through piecemeal zone changes.
HLA and FHCO urge the Commission to defer adoption of the proposed amendment until Goal
10 findings can be made. Thank you for your consideration. Please provide written notice of
your decision to, FHCO, c/o Louise Dix, at 1221 SW Yamhill Street, #305, Portland, OR 97205
and HLA, c/o JenniferBragar, at 121 SW Monison Street, Suite 1850, Portland, OR 97204.
Please feel free to email Louise Dix at ldix@flrco.org or reach her by phone at (541) 951-0667.
Thank you for your consideration.
6r-tt *&v"
Louise Dix
AFFH Specialist
Fair Housing Council of Oregon
cc : Gordon Howard (gordon.howard@state.or.us)
Jennifer Bragar
President
Housing Land Advocates
2
Exhibit C 5 - 4 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 33 of 40
Exhibit C 6 - 1 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 34 of 40
Exhibit C 6 - 2 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 35 of 40
Exhibit C 7 - 1 of 1
Attachment 2, Page 36 of 40
Exhibit C 8 - 1 of 1
Attachment 2, Page 37 of 40
Exhibit C 9 - 1 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 38 of 40
Exhibit C 9 - 2 of 2
Attachment 2, Page 39 of 40
Exhibit C 10 - 1 of 1
Attachment 2, Page 40 of 40